Old theories of the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain have largely been dismissed by historians, that is the original British were wiped out and the land settled by invaders from Germany and Denmark. There is no to little evidence of this. Other theories hold that the original tongue (well going back perhaps a 1000 years) was replaced by that of a new elite, but British kingdoms long survived the Anglo-Saxon invasion.
Give your thoughts.
The Norman conquerors spoke Old English, which was more like German. When they became the ruling class in England, the locals had to learn their language in order to commuicate with their rulers, but many people only learned Old english poorly.
So the imperfect speaking ability of the locals greatly simplified the Old English, and contributed many loaner words. Eventually the ruling class adopted the simplified usage and vocabulatry. It was almost a merger of languages, as opposed to a replacement.
Michael, do you mean Anglo-Saxon rather than Norman, who spoke French?
The Norman conquerors Michael mentions are the Angles, Saxons and Jutes, who came directly from Scandinavian countries and spoke Germanic languages. This happened after the Roman Empire crumbled (500 AD).A second wave of Normans (Norsemen) is generally referred to as the Vikings, who came over by 800 AD. Stanley refers to what is effectively the third Norman invasion which came from Normandy and Brittany in France (battle of Hastings 1066). These were acculturated Normans, they spoke French. Before the Roman time (43 AD -450 AD), the British Isles were invaded around 500 BC by the Celts, mainly the Goidelic Celts (Gaels or Gaelic ) and the Brythonic Celts (Britons or British) from Central Europe.
Actually John, I wasn't referring to the Normans of Hasting's fame except as a corrective. Its not correct to refer to the Angle-Saxons as Norman or Norsemen as many came from both Germany and directly across the channel from Lincoln and Norfolk, having only limited attachment to Norsemen. Nevertheless a large number did come from southern parts of Denmark.
Although Anglo-Saxon invaders came to Britain after the Romans left, there is plenty of evidence that many were here already, some as mercenaries.
I have an alternative theory to one provided by most history books on the era. Roman writing, Caesar, Tacitus, on Britain never really says what language the ancient Britain's spoke, although for the most part it must have been related to Gaullish given the vestiges in the Welsh language for example. But did all of Britain speak a similar, related language? We actually don't know. Most of Eastern Britain lies opposite present day Belgium, Netherland and Germany, therefore isn't it just possible they spoke a language related to these or were well acquainted with Germanic languages through trade. Over say several hundred years, perhaps in Eastern Britain, up to perhaps Yorkshire, Germanic languages were known and freely used.
Although Welsh, Cornish and Gaelic are considered to be or have been Celtic languages we don't actually know too much about that either and these may again have been languages perculiar to Britain, or, as they are located on the west of the island (commonly thought to have been pushed there by Anglo-Saxon forces) it is not impossible that that is where they were mainly located. Don't forget, we are not sure what language Picts spoke.
There is much debate about an 'Anglo- Saxon conquest' of the Britons after the Romans left. Professor Francis Pryor inclines to the theory that the Anglo-Saxons were gradually absorbed into the existing Romano-British society over many years. Certainly, the Germanic languages and dialects that came with the Continental immigrants came to dominate.
English is esentially a Germanic language, overlaid with learned Latin and Greek and imports from many other languages ('pyjama', 'shawl', 'tea', 'pork', 'mufti', 'pukka', 'chess', to name but a few words). There are a few Celtic survivals, probably the most common of which is the way in which you refer to your father as 'Dad', 'tad' being the Welsh word for 'father'.
It is possible that Old English became the lingua franca among the many tribes and nationalities and lost its case system as a means of simplifying the syntax to make understanding easier.
When talking about 'native languages', you really have to ask the question 'When?'
Still, as people like Pryor have largely discounted the invasion theory based on apparent lack of evidence, although there is enough for gradualism-the slow taking over of the country until about 700 AD. My theory Ian points out we do not actually know that much about the original languages spoken in Britain (by original I mean of course prior to the Anglo-Saxons and from before Stonehenge) and that cultural identification as German by Eastern inhabitants of Britain may have begun to occur within Roman rule. Some tribes in that area may even have spoken German, given their close vicinity to German speakers rather than Gualish speakers in France.
Why did the British forsake their own languages and begin to speak Anglo-Saxon? I traveled to the UK many times and visited various areas. I was surprised to see signs that says welcome to England as we drove around. I had difficulty understanding the dialect and the language some people spoke in some areas. So did the British really forsake their own language? I realize this may deviates the intellectual debate but why do we still have different language in the UK?
When visiting different parts I was very comfir speaking to colleagues in London, Oxford, Wolverhampton but not when visiting Wales! Some I understold and others spoke their own language. Also, coming back to London I saw signs welcoming drivers to England! This is just one example. This is not fitting if the intellectual discussion that I am enjoying but it does raises a question about generalization that all people in the UK speak English!
Apparently, Amir, it was worse a century ago. During the 1st World War Germans recorded British prisoners of war and found around 100 defined accents, more than any other country. I don't notice it, but although I have lived throughout the world, while in the UK I rarely travel outside London.
If you spoke mainly to academics, each would probably have used the received accent based on Oxbridge and the BBC.
In addition to the above given excellent answers, I would like to point out that the original inhabitants of what is now called England are used to be called the Britons. They were driven out by the Angles, Saxons and Jutes (Germanic tribes) from the center of England after the Romans left the island. The original inhabitant were called the Welsh by the Anglo-Saxon invaders. Ironically, the word Welsh means "the foreigner" in the language of the old Anglo-Saxons.
Source:
Carter, R., & McRae, J. (2016). The Penguin guide to literature in English: Britain and Ireland. Penguin books.
As I mentioned above, more recent archaeological excavations by Professor Francis Pryor have revealed little evidence of a 'driving out' of the Britons. There is little evidence of major battles or destruction. Rather there is assimilation of the two cultures. It is not apparent the the Welsh moved into Wales because of the Anglo-Saxons. Rather, they were there already and the Anglo-Saxons merely halted their own westward expansion, perhaps because of the terrain or the distance. Note that in Cornwall, the most extreme western part of Britain, Cornish, a Celtic language, was still spoken until the 18th century. It has now been revived. Perhaps the Anglo-Saxons saw little advantage in moving into bleak upland areas which did not suit their style of farming.
But there lies the contradiction, surely, Ian? If there is little evidence of warfare, was it truly an invasion? Why simply assimilation if it meant, which it didn't always do, British natives lost out. Would you assimilate if your land or kingdom was appropriated?
Top down elite change, usually involves warfare. This apparently didn't, although Pryor exaggerates his position somewhat. There is evidence, he simply rejects it. Isn't the modern interpretation that British groups did move and establish themselves in amalgamated states, including some into Brittany, which seems to have some historical basis?
Passive assimilation is no more an appropriate model here than the old invasion model.
Ian, Pryor is also a farmer and lives in an area of England that changes little. From such a standpoint, faced with a lack of evidence as a young academic for the invasion theory, he developed, alongside others, the idea of continuation. This view of the ancient world is a British phenomenon, not shared by many on the continent. I suggest that now this too has become a dogma, does not really fit the evidence either, and other ways of looking at the evidence are required.
An extreme view is that, see above, the British welcomed the Anglo Saxons, related to the tribes that invaded France and Italy, with open arms, gave up their land, as one does, and moved back to rougher climes or stayed where they were, enjoying all the delights of a materially inferior culture whose members lived in longhouses not towns or villas. Does this really wash?
Stanley,
Well, lets look at the USA, in 2040 the minority will become majority. The Egyptian welcomed the Hyksos means "ruler(s) of foreign countries" who ruled Egypt for about 100 years. The Sumerian of Iraq welcomed the Semite foreigners who became rulers! Am I missing something here?
Amir
Yes. Numbers. And the fact that there were British kingdoms until about the 7th century.
Although parts of Friesia and Denmark lost population the time from the end of Roman rule until the emergence of an Anglo-Saxon identity of some kind, mostly in the East, Essex, Sussex, etc, seems unlikely to meet the model of gradual immigration. The later chronicles talk of conflict, although this is difficult to confirm.
Amir, what you are looking at is the complete eradication of a language, including place-names. But even so, it really does surely meet the requirements of my theory of early language intrusion. Ian seems to want a model in which nothing happens, for no clear reason, simply a result.
Your models, Amir: While your model of the USA might fit, there is no evidence of complete language and cultural change.
Egypt is also out as conflict between Hyksos and Egyptians occurred even though there was infiltration from Canaan.
The Sumerian one is better, unless (see my theory) the Semitic population were there all along in same way or another. Akkad, in north Iraq, or north of Sumeria, was probably Semitic speaking from the outset.
I'm a linguist, not an historian. I simply don't know what the answer is. What I do know is that I live a country that has many pre-Germanic place-names, many rivers whose names have a combination of T and M/N (Thames, Tyne, Teign, Tone, Trent, etc.), and which may be pre-Celtic names, as well as a number of rivers called Avon ('afon' is Welsh for river). On top of this linguistic layer there are settlements whose names derive from Danish, Old English, Norman French, etc. (There's a village near where I live called Ashcombe (OE 'valley of the ash trees' and 'combe' is probably derived from the Welsh 'cym', meaning 'valley'. The valley is still full of ash trees.) Clearly tribes, peoples and settlements have come and gone and there has been absorption into the language from many sources.
It may well be that Pryor is wrong, but if there was an invasion that overwhelmed the Britons by military force, where are the battle-sites, the burnt buildings, the skeletons showing fatal wounds? We have semi-legendary references to battles in Gildas and the Annales Cambriensis, but little that is provable. We need more evidence. Until that time comes, I'm happy to sit on the linguistico-historical fence.
But Ian I don't favour the view of an invasion model like those on the continent, which too involved considerable infiltration before takeover. As far as I'm aware many tribes located within the Celtic cultural area in North-West France, present day Belgium, spoke a Germanic language. Many German-speaking peoples had already settled in France/Gaul.
In fact, our knowledge of many of these people remains limited. We tend still to take the Roman's word for languages spoken or at least ethnic connections.
If the evidence for large-scale battles is sought, then probably unlikely. I doubt the Saxon armies were that large. What about the rampages of the Welsh, Picts and Gaelic-Irish tribes, well recorded from the 2nd century onwards? Is there any archaeological evidence for these, although most historians are convinced they occurred? Of course, what about the black-earth which, may signify conflict, but only found from around St. Albans onwards? Yes, some names remain-such as Thames.
From the centre of England to present-day Wales, British states remained, some large, to slowly disappear. Or did they? Were states like Wessex and Mercia British states that had slowly accepted Germanic customs? The theory is that this was in response to large and successful Germanic states on the continent.
If you are sitting on the linguistico-historical fence, why not buy into my theory, which is a different form of gradualism constructed to meet known events?
As I say, I just don't know. If I were an historian or an archaeologist, I might come down on one side or the other, but I leave that to the experts. But we must remember that it was the experts who wrote the history books that we read as children, showing Vikings wearing winged helmets. Theories change with evidence. Let's just wait and see.
Thanks, Ian. I'll try and add a bit tomorrow in some attempt to clarify. But, if Pryor was right, why was there conflict between British and Saxon states in the following centuries? Also recent work on DNA does not back up the idea of limited conflict, if any. Recent DNA sampling does not back up the relationship, as Celts, of the Welsh and Scots.
If we use DNA as basis for determining facts, then what happened to the theory that we all came from Africa?
Still exists but connected to horizontal rather than vertical processes.
Ian has rightly put foreward Pryor's view that (wrongly I believe) the change from a British to German language was due to cultural supremacy, not necessarily large-scale migration. Ceratinly not warfare. As Britain after the Romans left coalesced into a number of small and large relatively strong states, I worry over how this was achieved. The coming together of such British states is considered due to competition over resources. Would they really have been overawed by the migrating (for there was a migration) of Germanic peoples?
Don Henson (2006)lists the densest areas of German settlement as Lindsey, Kesteven, Leicester, Rutland, norther Nothhampttonshire, eastern Nottinghamshire, Norfolk, Suffolk Cambridgeshire, Kent and around Dorsetshire. This places many Germanic groups close to the continent, by then overrun by larger Germanic groups. The German settlements apparently echo old Roman provinces, and can be accounted for by the migration of German mercenaries over perhaps two centuries, serving in the Roman army. Still, would there have been enough? Unlikely, but perhaps it was a part of England already speaking, in parts, Anglo-Saxon.
Re Celts: Surely there is no reason why there should be a DNA relationship between the Scots and the Welsh, as your new research seems to show. 'Celtic' was originally the word used to describe the Hallstatt and La Tène cultures, which were linked by common forms in art and artefacts. Sharing a common culture, these peoples moved westward. The Celtic nations (Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Cornwall, Man and Brittany) are also linked by their language family, the Welsh, Cornish and Bretons speaking P-Celtic and the Scots and Irish speaking Q-Celtic. Thus 'four' in Welsh is 'pedwar', whereas it's 'cathair' in Irish. While they share certain linguistic similarities, there is a great deal of difference between the various languages.
The Scots originally came from Ireland (the 'Scotti' were Irish pirates). Presumably they conquered or absorbed the native Picts (whose real name we don't know - 'Picti' means 'painted people').
Just because these peoples shared a similar language and a similar culture does not necessarily mean that there was any DNA relationship between them, though they doubtless intermarried. Not all English-speakers are related to each other, after all!
I must stress my amateur interest in these matters. I am neither a professional historian, archaeologist nor anthropologist. I have an interest in my own genealogy. My maternal grandfather came from Cornwall, but his family had ancestors in Norfolk, and if you trace that line back far enough you arrive in Normandy in 944. The Normans (Northmen) came from Scandinavia, so doubtless my ancestors, at one time or another, spoke most of the languages that we have discussed....but we shall never know!
Ian, please stop apologising, you are absolutely right. But there is far more DNA connection between the Welsh and the English. Of course, intermingling might therefore be the answer to that. The Scots in present day Scotland were probably tiny in number, gradually gaining supremacy as a royal group. The famous Duncan of MacBeth fame was king of Strathclyde, a British kingdom. The DNA problem lies within the supposed British connection, not the supposed Scottish one. (One fault there I suspect).
Of course we must be careful designating the Celts as it is considered cultural and may indeed provide a template for Anglo-Saxon cultural domination. While I'm fully aware of the language differences, its difficult to find how this occurred. You are of course correct in saying that a shared language does not mean shared DNA. Language is not ethnically (whatever that might mean) based. I'm looking for answers to what appear to me problems, not necessarily declaring an unequivocal position.
Did the so-called Celtic languages arrive in Europe and Britain (including Ireland) via the Beaker People, the last substantial occupation of these islands (there is DNA evidence that their domination was almost absolute here)? What do we know about the Celtic language in France, Switzerland and Northern Italy? Please, Ian, enlighten me. How much do we really know?
There are a few surviving Celtic words in French. Peter Rickard's A History of the French Language lists a few, but there's a good list on Wikipedia, including some I'd never heard of!
The French counting system mirrors the Celtic system of using both tens (fingers) and twenties (fingers and toes). Welsh retains this sytem in part. When the Romans conquered Gaul, the Gauls simply pasted Latin words onto the Gaulish words for 70, 80, 90 (and their attached digits) . Thus, the Gaulish-Latin 'quattuor-viginti' (4 x 20 = 80) becomes 'quatre-vingts' in French. Why the Swiss and Belgians use the simpler 'septante', 'octante/huitante' and 'nonante' I don't know.
I doubt that we really know much about the Celtic language in prehistory, as the Druids, their priests, did not have a writing system. There is, of course, the later Ogham alphabet (A.D.) and Robert Graves's fanciful Beth Luis Nion tree alphabet.
Unless some amazing artefact like the Rosetta Stone turns up, we are unlikely ever to know the truth about prehistoric Celtic languages, either in Britain or on the Continent. I think that we can only live in the realms of speculation.
Thanks Ian, but in my understanding of Caesar's Commentaries, those nations opposite Britain did not speak Celts:
All Gaul is divided into three parts, one of which the Belgae inhabit, the Aquitani another, those who in their own language are called Celts, in our Gauls, the third. All these differ from each other in language, customs and laws. The river Garonne separates the Gauls from the Aquitani; the Marne and the Seine separate them from the Belgae.
Isn't it thereby possible that parts of Britain did not either? The part that did was mainly in the West? By Caesar's testimony, if correct, the Atlantic tribes did not speak Celts.
Obviously some parts, modern day Brittany, did speak Celt according to Caesar, placing them opposite Cornwall and Southern British counties-where Celt survived until fairly recently. We know, or it is possible, that to invade Britain Caesar had ships built by locals in order to sail in the Atlantic, testifying perhaps to their seafaring and ship-building skills. Tacitus claims that German mercenaries were brought into Britain, within the 1st century AD.
Added: Pryor's understanding must be at fault as although it has enormous merit it too does not fit known facts.
Mutally antagonistic British states-is there any evidence of their conflict?
The growth of Anglo-Saxon states must have involved conflict
The idea of cultural transformation is only feasible through my model, surely?
The small British states only appear in the records in the 6th century, before that, based perhaps on the Church, continued integration of one sort or another-
according to Henson (2006) Kent became Saxon in 430, Sussex 470, London and Essex a century later. The only other possible model is the grabbing of power/kingship by German mercenaries and the re-assigning of British states into German ones. After, German migration. This still requires a level of conflict.
I'm not sure that Caesar was a linguist. You might mistake broad Geordie and broad Devon for two different languages, whereas they are both dialects of English. Perhaps this is what Caesar did with the Belgae and the Aquitani.
Re small British states in the 6th century - We must remember that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is somewhat one-sided. British accounts of the period are fragmentary, to say the least, and happily mix legend with fact, e.g. Arthur's total of kills at the Battle of Badon. In those days, history was what you wanted it to be, hence the later rise in Arthurian myth and legend. Also, writers such as Geoffrey of Monmouth (11th/12th century) had patrons to please, so when writing about the 6th century Geoffrey had to say what was 'politically correct' (which might save his head!)
At this point, I think I have exhausted my knowledge of this period. Thanks for the conversation. - Ian
Ian, my conclusions here do not reference the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, nor Arthur. Why should Caesar mistake a different language and culture in one part of the area, but not in another? The area to the north, around Calais and including modern day Belgium, areas closest to Britain, were known as Germania Inferior to indicate differences. The channel of course was known as the German Sea-although that may indicate nothing.
jacques, please add them. In order to make some kind of case, I've consulted recent academic books. Ian is clearly well versed in his field and has occasionally correctly pulled me to task. Where, please, have we gone wrong.
It is a shame that we have not had an answer from Jacques. Anybody can be an armchair critic, but when challenged, they should offer evidence for their critiques. I am quite happy to say that some of my statements may not be accurate (as stated, I am not an historian) but to level a critique at colleagues and then fail to support that critique does seem slightly below the standard that one might expect from fellow academics.
Its actually annoying, Ian. My position is purely speculative and I'd welcome valid contradiction. I then use my resources to research.
Ian, additional research on Celts: according to a recent book, the Britonnic languages were an older Celtic form, and Guallish came along later
Jean Manco-Blood of the Celts-the new ancestral story
I think he/she takes the cultural/ethnic business a bit too seriously. I'm not sure you'd agree with me but possibly it would have been more fluid. Has anyone done any work on tribal identity forming during this period? I've seen spiral art work identified as Germanic, but which seemed to me very similar to Celt art work.
My tuppence:
There has not been a pure invasion theory for at least 40 years: even in the 60s it was thought that the Anglo-Saxon move into East Anglia was a gradual migration into the Wash, secondary settlement sites etc. However, as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle makes clear, the South Saxons invaded. There also used to be a theory that a considerable proportion of the ASs were actually "Roman" military who had mutinied over not being paid. Certainly there have been Alemanni finds. So: at least 3 "flows" of different types.
Place name evidence, (clear line down the country) plus the almost absolute lack of any Welsh words in English or English words in Welsh, suggests a lack of positive contact plus fact that main DNA evidence of "Welsh" ancestry among "AS English” is mitrochrondial - through the female line, only. This points to deliberate exclusion of male "Welsh" from chances to procreate in the AS territory (Makes sense: take the women, use the men and male children as slaves: slaves get no women.
BUT first English law code (Ine: Kent I think -. but I studied it all a very long time ago) had weregeld (what you pay as compensation if you kill someone) for Welsh - including Welsh aristocrats in KENT – 7th century. That suggests the opposite: that they were not all wiped out/forced West/excluded from women.
(Beaker people, by the way arrived c4,500 years ago – we have over 90% their DNA – obviously the Indo-European move from the central steppe – Don basin ec – Pannonian plain (Hungary: where all invaders stop) – then across Europe. DNA picture in Europe very confusing – in UK clear: Beaker folk replace original population – not necessarily completely by violence – some climate change.)
As regards French having no Celtic words, Caesar more or less wiped out the Gallic population (Gallic/Celtic are interchangeable.) Survivors, as elsewhere in the Empire, lost their language and spoke language – even the Visigoths spoke Latin. Plus none of these groupings were ethnically homogeneous – Rome and then the fall of the West mixed everything up: Germanic tribes, Iranian tribes, Huns …
The problem with this whole discussion is (as Jacques is probably thinking) that it overlooks the issue of fashion in interpretations of our early past.
19th c: Bede, revolting mercenaries and invasion
Mid 2oth c: balanced view: part peaceful migration, part invasion
1980s-90s: really weird idea that this all happened like internal EU migration – misled by mitrochrondial DNA
Post 2005: clearer and clearer that the old argument- since the book “Language and Archaeology (Colin Renfrew?) that people move not pots may not be right for continental Europe (where things seem very mixed) but it is pretty much certainty correct for England n 4500BC. Later we can’t tell from DNA evidence – because of the Rome/Post-Roman melting pot.
So: Britons were:
- Defeated in the East, became the underdog (= language death), were excluded from breeding, etc. and/or absorbed into AS population
- Pushed back West (including the emigration to Brittany. Don’t forget Brittany – that is colonised by Britons fleeing from Anglo-Saxons
- Completely removed from at least Lincolnshire and ret of East coast (logical)
- Not fond of the ASs and didn’t mingle with them (place name line; no linguistic borrowing)
- Survived happily in Cumbria (Cymru) – and Strathclyde – all ethnically Welsh up there till the Viking overlay
“Britons” spoke P-Celtic as mentioned. Gaelic (Ireland and Dalriada – West Scotland - is Q-Celtic. Picts are still a mystery. The Britons in the South East conquered by Claudius had themselves moved over quite recently (including Belgae) around 500BC was what we learnt 40 years ago – though I think the Belgae, most recent arrivals, had moved over in the time since Cesar’s visit.
The intriguing question is: Are the Beaker people the Irish??? My guess – but it is only a guess - is ‘Yes’ because there are an awful lot of similarities between ancient Irish and early Indian kinship and kingship social structures. I nearly did a PhD on it back then – but then got into EFL.
H����
A good contribution. Salient facts. You've reminded me that Welsh meant 'slave' in or for Saxons. A term of disrespect and abuse.
Usually Historians dismiss Chronicle, but I think they are wrong as a southern invasion was possible. Most historians do not now accept genocide and there's a case for mixed political groups such as Mercia and probably Wessex too.
Brian, accepted view is that Beaker people overwhelmed original Brits (dark skinned/Beaker people light and maybe fair-even brought in Indo-European languages-such as Celt), but the Irish version simply older than later Celt-which after all is related to Latin.
DNA of Welsh and Scots not close.
My original point was as German tribes were not far from East England they may have communicated over time, and maybe some moved here long before the others. That we cannot be sure that Celtic was spoken over all of Britain.
We don't know, Peter. A group of British archaeologists about 30 years ago decided there were no signs of invasion, no battlefields, no clear population change, so they decided there wasn't one and something else had occurred. Its a reasonable assumption but equally fraught with problems.
https://www.nature.com/news/ancient-genome-study-finds-bronze-age-beaker-culture-invaded-britain-1.21996
Yes. I know about the beaker people, but surely they brought the Celtic language to Britain?
I believe we are very much in the dark about the language(s) of the people of Britannia prior to the 700 AD (both languages and peoples). This kind of reconstruction is awfully difficult, there is an obvious lack of evidence. If Celts were newcomers around 500BC, we don't know about the kind of contact that was established with pre-Celts and their languages.
In general, we have poor knowledge of the kind of (linguistic) contact that was established between Germanic (not Germans) invaders, if there was such a progressive invasion as from the Fall of the Roman Empire.
Thanks. First one to agree with me.
I came across another DNA assessment yesterday that said that although there is a clear distinction between East and West of the British Isles, West related more to Spanish, its not clear whether this occurred several thousand years ago or more recently. Given evidence on other groups prior to the Beaker People, who probably came via Spain, the intermingling of continental people and British/prior to Romans/people was possible. Do we really know that some did not already share the language of those nearest to them on the continent?
Well, the case of the Spanish connection, at that time it was certainly not Spanish or anything of the like. It was a time which we cannot even call it Hispania (A name given by the Romans). Amongst the earlier population, again not much idea. To our knowledge, some of the earliest groups were Celts (as in Britain), Northern Spain roughly, and Iberians (West), and also others. So we should not get the impression that if any influence came from "Spain" (geography) meant that it came from some kind of "unified nation", or people or language. Again, our knowledge is quite fragmentary.
I used Spain as a reference only-a geographic area not Spanish.
Common understanding now is that the Beaker People displaced original farmers, and that some came into Britain from Spain-probably after maybe 1000 years of settlement or in Spain the original population was not displaced. That is the theory. The Beaker People were probably what we call Celts, etc. This is now seen as a culture, not an ethnic group.
While genetics are clear that the Beaker People came through France etc to Britain, others came into Western Britain from the Spainish pennisula. Spain as you know is a modern concept, the result of events of 15th and 16th century at best.
I read an article recently that pointed at the number of languages spoken in Britain during the Anglo-Saxon period, perhaps 3 Celtic languages, each slightly different from the other. Also the Saxon language, the Jute language (close to Danish) and the Angles, who gave us English (the smallest of the German tribes that cane to Britain). Lastly, Pictish, which may have been an isolate. the article concerned Alfred and how much of the claims about the extent of his rule over Britain was true. Was it actually hype? Did his Chronicles (which he established) make some things up? Its probable that he ruled jointly with Mercia at best, and over part of the island.
To digress: I then considered the Two Kingdoms of Israel/Judah, which I've researched and how much of that seems to have been made up by considerably later priestly scribes to create a doctored impression of Israel/Judah's past. Judah that emerged only in the 9th century at best, extrapolated into the past as a world-rocking state. Both Israel and Judah lasted 2 centuries at the most. Israel was a royal group with royal armies based in Samaria, Jezeel, Megiddo, not a centralised state of the sort we are used to. Not dissimilar to Wessex and Mercia-just not as powerful.
A TV programme-BBC 2 I think came to the conclusion that there had been no Anglo-Saxon invasion only migration and that this affected only eastern and central England, fitting in with what is know. Tintagel in Cornwall was a rich port (known as well) from where sprung the legend of King Arthur developed in France and Germany. Again, the migration story fits better with my notion that some people in England were already speaking Germanic languages.
I fully expect that once the Saxons took the cultural initiative, either by possibly better farming methods, battle prowess or a more organised society etc, many of the old fashioned Brythonic speaking leadership , "did a runner" for what was to become Brittany. Thus that those who were left behind could have ended up as servants. The female servants in particular would have attracted the attention of the Saxon masters of the house, hence the myto. results.
However, in my study of this period, I have not seen much comment on the power of fashion. The current residents of both sexes in these isles are extremely vulnerable to its influence. As the DNA suggests that they are basically the same people, could not one imagine someone saying, "OMG, look at all the cool stuff and fancy way of speaking these guys have. I just gotta learn to new lingo and get one of those long knives, and that tunic is to die for".
It would not be the first time that an outside, deemed fashionable, influence has changed the language spoken in these Isles.
The fashion idea is fine as it tuned in with the prominence of German culture in Europe, but language change was a much bigger matter. The only clear case is the appropriation of Arabic and Arabic identity with the Islamic conquest of the Near East and North Africa. But Persia retained its language and some of its original identity. Nevertheless, the Islamic conquest was exactly that, a conquest not a peaceful takeover.
The evidence does suggest large British states continued and Mercia may have been originally British but took on Saxon identity. Don't forget Strathclyde continued until the 10th century, speaking Brittonic.
Anusuya, I don't fully understand what you are asking but nevertheless it seems to me likely to be an important statement.
English, for example, as it is now conceived, seems to be based on 14th century literature that employed a Middle English dialect commonly used in London. The ideal English of today is based on the dialect of educated people from Russell Universities, located in the south of the country.
Stanley, Thanks
Norman Davies comments that there may have been a purging of the perceived "celtic contaminants" in the language, probably by the clergy, in about the 8th century. If this is correct, they were able to do a much more thorough job than the Academie Francaise for modern french. Perhaps because of mass illiteracy at the time it would have an easier job to make it stick, although the staying power of slang/argot seems to be quite strong and usually beyond the power of authority.
Still that doesn't account for the survival of powerful Brittonic states in the West, that true may have identified as Romano-Brittonic. Nevertheless, I can see a process of state formation and ethnic change under Anglo-Saxon rulers.
What about Lowland Scots, which has a germanic origin (from the Angles).
Being so close to Strathcylde brittonic for a long time, did it acquire words from them?
Lowland Scots, although an English dialect, is an interesting point. As far as I know, it wasn't settled by Angles or Saxons. Why then did Pictish disappear? Was Pictish after all just another Brittonic language?
The use of an English dialect is likely to be a direct result of clambering for position by small states after the collapse in the East of Romano/Brittonic culture. But Scotland emerged later than other polity, as in the East places now English were part of polities that included lowland ScotlanD, reflecting perhaps Roman reach in the area. There was no border. Scotland emerged anyway in the West where the influence of English speaking polities was much weaker.
Is there any estimation of the population of inhabitants and the new comers?At least, an approximation of the percentage.
Without that, it is so hard to answer this question.Seemingly, this is one of the major factors.The generalized question is an interesting question across the globe!
Genetic surveys indicate that the Germanic tribes made up at most 10% of the population indicating at best elite groups arriving as with the later Vikings. Some historians believe the number of Germanic forces that invaded (migrated?) into France, Spain and Italy was not high either but the main difference was/is the Romano dialects continued. The French, Spanish and Italians speak a Romance not a Germanic language.
Very interesting comment.But for sure it is one of the major factor not all.
Possibly, we should add to other factors to have a better perspective:
1.Structure of Power
2.Cultural impacts
It might be so that in this example the first(Structure of Power) is much more important.Seemingly, German tribes firstly made a kingdom then they start to be absorbed in the population (Somehow one sided).
Anyhow, it is interesting to know why the process that happened in England didn't happen in France, possibly the second factor (Cultural impact) explains that.
Please consider the above as a question not an answer.
(By the way, 10 percent, not 30 percent?)
Present research strongly goes with 10%. This can be argued as I have certainly seen other research that says both a lower and higher percentage. One of my points has been given much of the British Isles face Holland and Germany, not France, German population movement might have occurred long before the Romans left. I certainly think archaeologists have been too quick to make the idea of limited contacts the agreed understanding.
The difference on the continent (France and Spain) is the much greater permeation of Roman culture than in Britain. The Gauls seem to have viewed themselves as Roman. The British did in parts of the country, perhaps only amongst the educated elite. So, the loss of language may simply be a matter of self-identification. There were after all no British just members of different tribes who shared an island.
So, you mean we should consider how and when the identity of British
has taken shape. It is convenient to compare it to the Norman eras.Why British do not speak french? Although English was heavily influenced by French language but it didn't loose its German structure. Probably, it goes to be somehow economized but it didn't turn to be a Latin language. By your explanation, we should say the identity has taken shape.But, it is near to the time of "Magna Carta". A start point for democracy. Could we say in that time normal people was considered much important, somehow?At least some layers of society. Consequently, the royal system finally accepted the language of ordinary people.Anyhow, these two explanations doesn't seem rival theories and probably they complete each other.
French was the language of nobles and defined their separation from the ordinary people (the Anglo-Saxons). There were strict rules until the 14th century and to some degree beyond on what clothes defined a noble and what a common person. Nevertheless, as the classes became fluid-certainly after the Black Death-there is evidence of both English and French as widely spoken. It was within Chaucer's lifetime that the English Sentence emerged defined by prepositions rather than verb endings as with French, for example. Kings gradually began talking about themselves as English -Henry 5th did-rather than Norman.
Right. But, why Henry 5-th prefers to be English rather than to be Norman or French?
Seemingly, the nation see themselves in the picture of the king. But king was not considered completely as "The shadow of God".Nobles not only in London but in different region had too much power.So the structure of power wasn't so centralized.In this atmosphere the language of people reinforced. Something has happened before one hundred years war in defining the identity of English(and French), then this war has fixed that.I guess...
The process was a lengthy and European based development. After the Norman invasion, with England effectively ruled by belligerent mercenaries, the elite had little in common with the people they ruled. Although Normans were related to Vikings, they now spoke French and their followers were from French speaking parts of Europe. English people became second class citizens/became serfs except in the cities. The ruling elite mixed with each other, and identified with each other across Europe not with the people they ruled. The English kings continued to rule Normandy and other parts of France. The appearance of the Angevin Empire (covering Wales, Western France, Nantes, parts of Scotland) was European not English. Henry II, the originator of the empire, had several sons the second eldest was Richard I, the Lionheart, who spoke only French and never set foot (or hardly) in England and included England as only a part of his realm.
The Black Death killed off many in Europe, but gave freedom to the serfs who because of the lack of labour began to charge wages for their efforts and no longer stuck to one landlord but worked for whoever paid them the most. The English middle class developed and many important people were now of English background. After Edward III, a powerful warrior king, France began to grow in strength and began to take over their own fiefdom. Although Henry V temporarily reversed that.
By his time, power moving away from the knightly class who had formed a European wide elite, the English middle class now more important Henry V identified as English and spoke English.
At the end of the previous century great English writers appeared, principally Chaucer. English became the main language not French and its use began dying out. There is nevertheless evidence that before Chaucer-s work both languages were to some extent used. Chaucer gave English form (he used a Middle English dialect, still used) and respectability.
Thank you. Every thing goes to be clear and related.
But coming back to your first question, let we consider another comparison,
this time not in England and the other era, but let we go to the East and Ukraine.
East Germanic tribes ruled there also. Why did their language remain Slavic?
Something that happened in England did not happen there.
I hope these comparisons shed a light on the major subject, at least partially.
It is possible that Slavonic languages arrived after Germanic tribes had gone, off on another migration. They, the Ostrogoths, had migrated there and suffered under Atilla the Hun, many joining his band while others fled. Ukraine was probably a homeland of the Scythian, and we are not sure what language they spoke. It might (possibly) have been related to Iranian. They did not die out-their cultural and ethnic identification did morphing into other identities.
The certainties of ethnicity and culture we now have really did not exist back then-and one condition of ethnicity is self-identification. If asked, I tell people I am English, but if I said Scots, Irish, French only language would confirm my statement-with Irish and Scots even dialect is not sufficient. In Portugal, where I now live, people think I am native. Looks do not decide either.
One point of interest: the Brandenberg duchy, the origins of the Prussian state and later German state, with fixed ideas of racial identity, was an elite group of German knights ruling over probably Slavs-or Polish related groups. Tall and usually with fair or blonde hair (Slavs from Eastern Europe tend to be but many southern Slavs are dark haired and of dark complexion-get the picture?)so therefore the German physical model might have been Slav in origin.
About Germans Physical Identity, probably the best places to know them now, are Scandinavians, Netherlands, Jutland I suppose.... .Of course there is no pure race, nowhere in Eurasia.
But the major problem is what were the relation between the King, nobles and the people in the case that their society is not a complicated society in which we speak about something like Middle Classes(As the first example to compare).As I remember there were a time that Slavs(I guess Russian) invites some German king to rule them.In this case probably the situation would not be so harsh, but if the tribes fight with each other and they are under some environmental pressures like starvation or some savage cultural points or pagan religion takes shape in them under this environment(Sacrificing human being, to consider killing and to be killed as an honor, bloody fetishes, Sacrificing Human being, to know their tribe as the center of the world and to know eliminating the others as their right ...) we have totally a different picture.In these cases, killing and masacres and gradually making ordinary people as serfs would happen. Here, the problem of Identity come into the center, not identity of a nation but identities of tribes.
What do anthropologists say in this regard?
There is probably another physical problem, Ukraine and Russia are vast lands, but England and Scotland are in an Island and much smaller place. Probably Germans were surrounded by a see of Slavs in there.
By the way, Do you know Sarmatian and Scythian just the same people,
similar people, or probably not so clear and somehow the situation is a Fuzziness situation?
I have no clear knowledge about Scythian and Sarmatian matter, so cannot offer any reply other than one I've already given. An additional problem arises in that most nomadic or barely known groups were identified by other-in many cases, the Ancient Greeks and Romans for whom ethnicity appears to have been an important concern. It is the Romans who separated Celts from Germans although their cultures at times look the same. The Germans may have started self/identification due to Roman incursions and cultural intrusion. It is held that the Roman advances on their borders /especially wealth goods/ began the German evolution into tribes.
Tribal identification nevertheless is often territorial, therefore constructed through markers. A stone symbol erected on a hill, forts strategically placed and the assumption of cultural habits different from their neighbours. It tends to be kin based.8
The problem in this question is to extract the major features.As you somehow pointed the racial issues doesn't seem so important. What seem much important are till now in this discussions are
The complexity of the Societies which are considered(Nomadic or not, Classes and groups), The problem of Identity , The Physical, population problem and environmental problems, Cultural impacts, The type of the regimes which they made(The structure of power).In this discussion, probably we should extract these features in a correct way.And perhaps we need anthropologists ideas more ,
But about information, I think some people even knows Latins and Celts more near rather than Celts and Germans, but such a things are very controversial and should be done by specialists.Anyhow, I read some researches about the time that Celts and German were separated, and it is before spreading of the Celts, and both were in Nowadays Germany. I hope to find the references.
The Celtic culture is normally considered to have occurred in present day Switzerland, although there are examples in Central Europe. But, the Celts were a cultural movement and not an ethnic one, and it is unlikely they referred to themselves as Celts or as a whole, integral grouping. Nor is it likely that the British, until the advent of the Anglo-Saxons considered themselves Celts, or Britons. The evidence is that in the West they identified as Romano-as did Gildas.
Caesar may have been the first to designate them in this fashion, as Celt, Gaulish, etc, but such typologies appear to have evolved from history writing. It clears up narrative and allows apparent understanding of confused issues.
But they had their own Art and Language( or similar languages), even if they do not know themselves from the same entity.We have Celtic Languages, arts and Music. As I remember it was a discussion around the difference between Celtics art and Germanic art (handicrafts), and they tried to understand based on these differences when they have separated.
Something is so strange here. There are few Celtic words both in English and French.They should be much more even as loan words.I suppose, it makes this problem somehow special respect to similar problems across the globe(not so sure) .I cant understand it.
So do Ehuropeans, Americans, Russians-Indians, Chinese to an extent-but are they related?
Think of the prominence of Arab over North Africa. Coptic was spoken in Egypt for a long while, the original Egyotian for even longer. Cultural identification caused another language to be spoken. In terms of Celtic, the King Arthur stories are one legacy.
You are right "Cultural identification caused another language to be spoken". There are sufficiently many examples. But I mean by the words, the words that remain in new language from the old language.Anyhow my intuition could be completely wrong.
The lack of Brittonic words in English is a matter for debate but perhaps is understood by the meaning of Welsh-the last enclave of Celts-which for the Anglo-Saxons meant 'slave'. Arab became linguae franca because to speak it gave advantages in the defeated polities-therefore a poor person could become important. The culture of the invading group also plays a part. There was no social mobility under the Normans in England so English speakers were the dominated group-but for every Norman there were probably a 100 Saxons.
Seemingly, the question is answered in some manner.Probably some corners are remained.Not so?
I think the question starts with a false premise--the idea that the Anglo-Saxons "wiped out" the ancient Britons in a nearly genocidal war with them. The historical record--based on both Celtic legends and historical works and Anglo-Saxons ones like the Chronicle and Doomsday Book--and the archeological record does not suggest this. Celtic sources tend to be written later after Christianization and based on an oral tradition while Anglo Saxon ones were written closer to these events. Although there is a few references to a handful of battles like Badon Hill, mostly it is a story of displacement and migration rather than hostile conquest. The Anglo-Saxons move in, the Celts move west into Wales and Ireland and north into Scotland. As for these areas losing their local languages--that does not happen until much later. England annexes Wales in 1267 but Welsh Gaelic continued to be used, both in writing and speech until the early modern period. Scots Gaelic was common among nonelites until the early 19th century--Wordsworth has a poem about a Scotswoman singing in Gaelic, a language he does not understand, that strikes him as so beautiful he is desperate to discover its meaning.
As for ethnic identity in the ancient was less physically based than it is now and was more of a linguistic and cultural reference, Anglo-Saxons, and Germanic peoples generally, were described as tending to have blondish hair and blue eyes while Celts were generally described as having reddish hair and green or hazel eyes. This is fairly consistent across Greek, Roman, Germanic and Celtic sources.
Paul, the genocide hypothesis was yes abandoned a long time ago , certainly with growing genetic evidence of the main population groups continuing. At present, it is considered that only 10% of the present population's genetic make-up can be traced back to the Anglo/Saxons. It is generally thought that the lack of obvious fighting goes against the stories of Gildas and Bede.
One of the possibilities is the role of the "key points". In brief, the story would be:
"The key points of the ancient England were occupied by Anglo-Saxons heavily. The language of that regions changed and gradually the other parts obeyed that."
Even it is possible, firstly they pushed back Celts, they occupied the key points
, but the Celts came back in the regions, but they obeyed the newcomers.
If it is so, it is probable in that regions, the Anglo Saxon Genes are seen more, even in our era. Have we any map to show the sacttering of the Genes?
If there are any differences, it shows in that time the differences were much more.
I find these two sites in the web.Comparing their maps is interesting.Seemingly, old cities in England(not all Britain) are in the same cluster.
https://www.indy100.com/article/revisiting-the-ancient-capitals-of-britain--lyi_1uCgqx
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/mar/18/genetic-study-30-percent-white-british-dna-german-ancestry
The last genetic profiling I saw said 10% but this kind of difference seems common. The genetic clustering and apparent lack of Celtic connectivity is common too, suggesting older settled, less mobile groups. Some people believe that the less clustering in the East was the direct result of Roman transport systems encouraging greater mobility.
Of interest to me was the Belgium element, something I have predicted, which may account for earlier German speakers-although only parts of the present country may have used German.
It does differ from other recent profiles. There is no West German or Friesian component here, which is where the Anglo-Saxon languages came from.
An added problem is a recent genetic profiling of ancient skeletons suggested that the original stone-age inhabitants were black-with light skinned people arriving from West Asia-probably Anatolia-and later from the direction of the Ukraine. One genetic profile rarely fits completely with another.
Its strange indeed that the traditional homes of the Angles, Saxons and Jutes are not included. Why? Certainly this turns history on its head,.
This kind of testing seems subject to likely error as it assumes the population of Belgium, etc, have been static.
I suggest that the major problem is homogeneity of population.Possibly, the same
percentage of different races in different places of England with some exceptions that we have expected.But, anyhow they consider the Germanic effect more than your estimation. Have you another resources or references?
I saw a documentary last night on Iron Age Britain where after genetic testing on West and South coast British of the time they found 5 out of 35 to be born elsewhere, possibly Spain. They thought this might be consistent throughout Britain.
Could I see the document? Your information is so interesting but it is not so clear.
Do you mean Iberian people? They were in Britain even before Celts. How could they understand they were born elsewhere?! It is possible their parents or antecedents were born somewhere else not these people themselves!
By the way, in the heart of Wales, I think there are people who are more Iberian rather than Celtic or Germanic.I don remember my reference but I remember the plot.
Seemingly, there are at least three waves of races one overcome the other and they push back the previous group to the heart of Mountains.
Stanley, what I was trying to suggest was that the Celtic groups were displaced and they migrated rather than remain. Thus it wasn't a question of them ceasing to speak their own language and start speaking Anglo-Saxon. I am sure that a few remained but the linguistic, archeological, literary and, I would submit to you, genetic evidence supports the idea.
The Guardian article Farzad linked us to made note that the Celtic areas--Cornwall, Wales, Northern Ireland and northern Scotland were all different--both from each other and the rest of the country. The mixing with French and Danish genes was not surprising given what we know about migrations in the wake of the fall of the Western Empire. Although I have to agree with you the Belgians were surprising. But then again, I have no idea who or where the Belgians were 1,000 years ago. The period between the fall of Rome and the 12th century was an age of widespread migration.
The differences between the Celtic regions is suggestive of something I have long suspected. Given the extent of the Celtic areas, beginning early in the 1st Millennium BCE, that stretched from the Danube to Ireland at their height, to the area they occupied by the end of the 1st Millennium CE, that it had ceased to be an ethnic group and had become a linguistic-cultural group.
I am not familiar with Gildas but the it has long been the interpretation among medievalists I have read and the one I studied under (I am not a medievalist--my field is literature and English language) is that the Bebe was describing essentially border raiding with exaggeration.
I would be interested in knowing how everyone thinks the recent study about the year 536 CE may have affected all of this. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/11/why-536-was-worst-year-be-alive
Paul, What do you want to say more exactly?
536CE seems in the middle of Anglo-Saxons immegeratio.n
By this event, did they immegerate mor?e
Does this made a hard situation so the weakers wiped out?
Paul, What do you want to say more exactly?
536 CE seems in the middle of Anglo-Saxons immigration.
By this event, did the wave of immigration intensified?
Did this make a hard situation so the weaker people wiped out?
Gildas, a Roman-Britain, first gave the impression of a life and death struggle between Ancient Brits and Anglo-Saxons ...c6th or 7th century. He appeared to be writing from just above Wales and may have been part of the Strathclyde polity or rather chiefdom. His information is now doubted as he was a cleric and the piece is replete with Biblical terms and attitudes. The-Oh if we Britons had been nicer and more god-fearing we would not now be getting beaten-variety. I made the earlier points about identity, that is Gildas and other elite Britains considered themselves Romano Britons. Bede was really engaging in wishful thinking.
The Belgium part may be old, that is the Belgae tribe existed in both Belgium and Britain-if they were the same. All the genetic material I've seen doesn't suggest displacement and I've heard about this eruption but what effects it may have had, if as bad as the author suggests, who knows? Europe twice at least has suffered little ice ages as a consequence of volcanic activity-one in the 17th century and another in Dickens period.
Documentary on BBC TV-BBC 4~~~~I get it on my laptop.
The Celts are thought by some to have been the Beaker people, who possibly began in Iberia. Certainly, the Irish are considered to have received their language from that part of the world. The Britons received it from Gaul perhaps, from the Celtic cultural nucleus in Switzerland. The later migrants at c500 would probably have been separate groups. Nevertheless, its known that an elite group from central Europe may have controlled the area around Stonehenge. These matters concern migrants; demonstrating their frequency.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Education