Ancient and Archaeology permalink
Anlgo-Saxon
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by OrganettoBoy (U3734614) on Monday, 6th November 2006
If I understood recent(ish) reports of a genetic survey of England that was taken to indicate that the Angles, Saxons and Jutes elite out-bred their British subjects due to an 'apartheidt' type system. I don't know about you but that doesn't sound likely to me. The likely-hood that Anglo-Saxon warriors 'kept it in their trousers' around British women seems small (compare with Slave owners). And I'm sure there would have been quite a few Anglo-Saxon women would have lain with British men.
Am I missing Something? Did South Africa under aparthiedt show any signs of whites out breding blacks?
What do you think? -
Message 2
Posted by Alaric the Goth (U1826823) on Monday, 6th November 2006
It depends a lot on how many womenfolk came across with the shiploads of warriors/settlers. I think it is now thought that the invasion/settlement was more that of a warrior elite than used to be thought (the old view was of whole movements of peoples, including women and children). It has been argued over on these Boards before whether the old view was correct or the newer view (I took the point of view that the old view still had a great deal of merit).
Certainly some British women would be wedded to Anglo-Saxon males. King Oswy is an example from the topmost tier of someone who wedded a British woman (well a princess actually!). -
Message 3
Posted by shufflin' peasant (U1778121) on Thursday, 16th November 2006
I should think that southern Britain had a fair amount of Germanic settlement before the Anglo-Saxons arrived judging by the high levels of popualtion mobility around the Roman world. So it is difficult to assess the genetic base when the Anglo-Saxons arrived – almost certainly very different to modern ‘Celtic areas’ where less settlement would have taken place.
-
Message 4
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Thursday, 16th November 2006
The Britons, who had suffered a population decline either during or immediately after the Romans left, were driven westward by the invading Anglo-Saxons, over a period of 150 years.
That is the simplest explanation and matches what little historical and archaeological evidence we have. -
Message 5
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Thursday, 16th November 2006
Hi Fascinating,
No one can ever accuse you of being inconsistant.
Kind regards,
TP -
Message 6
Posted by mykingdomforanus (U3953747) on Friday, 17th November 2006
True, I do think there is much credit in the notion that the east of england was already fairly "germanic" at the time of the romans.
Of course the Anglo Saxons invasion, on top of this layer, provided much of the impetus for the creation of Wales & England. -
Message 7
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Saturday, 18th November 2006
mykingdom, do you have time to list all of the evidence that eastern england was germanic at the time of the Romans?
-
Message 8
Posted by mykingdomforanus (U3953747) on Tuesday, 21st November 2006
No, its conjecture, but points are well made in Brian Syke's book "The Isles".
At the end of the day the victorian position of mass invasion and ethnic cleansing is fairly untenable these days.
I agree that there was a significant settlement folloiwing the departure of the Romans, say 100-200,000 or so coming across, but it is clear that there was a significant degree of intermingling with the native britons at the time. In some case of course this was violent.
The dna results quite clearly state that most britons stayed put and became one with the saxons after a few generations. If there were already "saxons" there at the time of the invasion, then this process would have been a lot easier.
Don't forget that travel by sea was far easier, quicker and safer than by land. There were established trade links with the continent and the east cost of britain, while the western parts of britain trade a lot with the Iberian peninsular and western gaull/france.
What is unarguable is that there is a general split between a germanic north west and a brittonic/celtic south west. -
Message 9
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Thursday, 23rd November 2006
You say 'the DNA results quite clearly state that Britons mostly stayed put'. I take it your are referring to the Goldstein study, and the results are not at all as clear cut as you make out. Plus they rather go against an earlier DNA study (admittedly a smaller sample). See
But this whole issue was gone over in discussion 'What's Your Angle, Saxon?'. See -
Message 10
Posted by mykingdomforanus (U3953747) on Friday, 24th November 2006
Well the DNA studies all agree that there was a far greater degree of survival of the britons than previously though, but also that there was a significant immigration from the continent following the depature of the romans.
The Thomas study you supplied the link too formed the basis of the Goldstein study. Thomas based his study on a transect running from the Welsh cost to the East Anglian coast, whilst Goldstein expanded on this by studying further sites in the south, north & Scotland.
They basically broadly agree with each other, in that there is an east west graduated split from germanic to "celtic" but goldstein merely took details from further sites, such as Faversham in Kent, where the celtic input was 75%, or York, where the germanic input was 70%. It just proves that the regional situation was more complex. - chippenham was 50-50 - the high levels of germanic input in chippenham can be explained by the well known incursion of the saxons along the Thames valley towards the severn sea.
The highest levels of germanic input were in the midlands and north east. which is logical. yes, some britons may have moved west (the elite perhaps, some to brittany), but the majority would have stayed to integrated with the saxons, becoming indistinguishable after a few generations.
Morris's "Age of Arthur" suggests that there was a largely homogenous germanic eastern seaboard, & during the late 5th & 6th leading up to and after the battle of Dyrham the saxons rapidly absorbed the western land (and british people) up to the severn estuary & the welsh mountains.
Really we're not disagreeing with each other at all, just that the situation was more complex than traditionally thought. -
Message 11
Posted by U2280797 (U2280797) on Saturday, 25th November 2006
I don't want to use what may sound like jargon, but I think this discussion is - like the earlier one mentioned above - deeply infected with nineteenth century racist ideology, and with mother's boys' fantasies of rape, murder and ethnic cleansing.
It is worth reading Oppenheimer's recent article in 'Prospect' and 'The Celtic Roots of English' (Eds Filppula, Klemola and Pitkanen, U of Joensuu, 2002) for some of the detail as to why its so very dubious. Most of the more naive genetic stuff just ACCEPTS the old, old story about population replacement and fits its findings into that, or so I'd gather - like the nonsense one lot came out with about 'Anglo-Saxons' sort of sneaking into Cornwall and learning Cornish when nobody was looking. Well, it makes a few people happy, doubtless, but I think it's time this stuff got its quietus, honestly. -
Message 12
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Saturday, 25th November 2006
Rhys, your observations about the 19th century opinion are just rubbish. Presumably a real English racist would seek somehow to justify the invasion by those fine upstanding Saxons and Angles(the progenitors of the wonderful English race) , perhaps stating that they merely occupied mainly empty land, and the native Britons decided to take on the Saxon ways because they could see that they were superior.
Rape, murder and ethnic cleansing are NOT fantasies. Don't you ever read the newspapers?These things have happened REPEATEDLY throughout all of recorded history.
I think that the modern idea that the Saxons were peaceful migrants has its source in todays right-on politically-correct notion that migration and multiculturalism are to be hailed as always good.
But let us forget about heaping insults on 19th century, or modern-day, writers. Just look at, and discuss, the actual evidence we have of what happened 1500 years ago. -
Message 13
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Saturday, 25th November 2006
I have heard it expressed that one of the causes for `germanic' incursions into East Anglia prior to the collapse of the Roman polity was that the native population, once known as the Iceni, were wiped out following the Boudiccan revolt and the area never recovered throughout the three subsequent centuries of Roman dominion.
There is considerable evidence to suggest that `germanic' incursion was spasmodic and localised thoughout the country.
There is also a strong suggestion that there may have been large scale emigration from southern Britain after the collapse of the Roman polity. Where did all the city dwellers go after their economy collapsed? Where did all the potters disappear to? -
Message 14
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Saturday, 25th November 2006
Rhys,your observations about 19th century opinion are highly pertinent. Many late 19th and early 20th century scholars saw the world, for perfectly understandable reasons, in terms of empires and invasions. Worse still they formed the view that ‘races’ or ‘peoples’ were culturally and linguistically stable entities. As you rightly say the theory of population replacement when applied to the Post-Roman situation in Britain is old, and I would say long since has been pensioned off to a comfortable retirement home in Eastbourne. The real situation was far more complex and, I consider, far more interesting. I think that the modern idea is that the Saxons were often peaceful migrant farmers, but that periodically expansionist warlords dominated regional populations. The same situation may well have applied to the largely ‘Celtic’ west of the country. Also there must have frequently been ‘fusions’, which is how the West Saxons had a leader with a British name (Cerdic) or the East Anglians had (at Sutton Hoo) a burial with Swedish links.
The end of Roman Britain was a period of economic collapse. The skilled potters, stone masons and mosaic makers remained but before long no-one could afford to pay for their skills. Villa estates producing a single cereal crop to feed the Imperial army lost their reason for existence. The culture of Roman Britain required slaves, Mediterranean imports and the maintenance of high quality infrastructure; all this became impossible. The population of early 5th C Roman Britain is open to dispute, but could hardly be less than at the time of the Domesday survey 600 years later – say 2 or 3 million people.
There may have been attempts to resume the Iron Age patterns of the ancestors and in some areas, like Scotland, a sturdy independence of Rome had always been maintained. In seems highly probably that Anglo-Saxons (if I can use that term to describe many continental tribal elements) were already here as part of the Roman army and it seems plausible that the rulers of the British successor states (who ever they were) followed the time-honoured practice of recruiting extra Germanic laeti to help meet their defence needs. This period, due to climate deterioration perhaps, was a time of movement. People moved from Europe to East Britain or Britain to Brittany, and probably back again. To accept this does not entail the belief that new arrivals always massacred the existing inhabitants. It’s not that the newly adopted Anglo-Saxon ways was superior to the Romano-British technology, far from it, but they were more appropriate to the 5-6th C situation.
I hope that Strontium and Lead enamel measurements performed on the inhabitants of Anglo-Saxon graves will eventually resolve this problem by indicating where the original owners were born, and where they spent the last 10 years of their lives. I say ‘hope’ since some are so steadfast in their espousal for the depopulation theory that only a personal encounter with Hengist & Horsa in the world to come will ever convince them.
Regards,
TP -
Message 15
Posted by henvell (U1781664) on Saturday, 25th November 2006
S Oppenheimer in The Origins of the British estimated that the Anglo Saxon contribution to the male english gene pool was ca 5.5% and to the british male gene pool ca 3.8%.
-
Message 16
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Saturday, 25th November 2006
TP, I see your little essay starts with an attack on the Victorians, a long series of speculations with almost no evidence, and a conclusion stating that your position will be confirmed by the strontium evidence, alluding to the little technicality that the evidence has not yet been gathered!
Neither you nor I wer alive in the fifth century, but Gildas was. Yes he had an agenda, and maybe was subject to exaggeration, but I prefer to look at his writings, rather than yours, for informatioin about what happened.
Even you agree that the end of Roman Britain was a period of economic collapse. So profound was this collapse that there was apparently no currency, and the pottery industry virtually ceased. Are you suggesting that there was no population collapse in these circumstances? -
Message 17
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Saturday, 25th November 2006
Hi Fascinating,
Gildas's dates are a bit speculative but I think he was probably a 6th century writer rather than a 5th. His primary intention was religious, not historical, and he did make some major blunders. Doubtless you are right to point out the many imperfections in my writings, but I can at least place the construction of Hadrian's Wall at the beginning of Roman Britain whereas Gildas places it at the end of this period. This is not to ignore his views totally but rather to point out the need to test them against other types of evidence available.
The model of Saxon interaction with the Romano-British could be large-scale migration with displacement of the existing population. But moving a Saxon population of appropriate size across the North Sea would have posed a major logistical problem. A large number of smaller migration events followed by co-operation of immigrant and native population in the same agrarian system, resulting in a single material culture and language dominance seems an easier trick to bring off. Elite Saxon dominance of a British population with no real ethnic change is also possible, but would this have changed our language?
There is no need at all to assume that one model explains the entire country and indeed, as you know, a British kingdom based on the Leeds district (Elmet) maintained its independence into the 7th century, whereas Kent had evolved into a civilised Saxon kingdom by the late 6th century (whilst keeping its Roman name of Cantium!)
The application of heavy stable isotopes (like Strontium) to questions of residual mobility is perfectly genuine and the technology is available now. It has been used to try to establish the origin of the iceman for example. It has been applied to at least one Yorkshire Saxon cemetery. I don't have the reference to hand but I seem to recall that everyone came from Lancashire, which doesn't really help either of us!
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 18
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Saturday, 25th November 2006
Oops! Residential mobility. Sorry.
TP -
Message 19
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Sunday, 26th November 2006
TP, I think we are both agreed that we are not going through the arguements about Britons and Saxons per se because they were all gone through in the 'What's your Angle?' debate.
What we are discussing here is the treatment of evidence.
I don't know about Strontium evidence, but I am sure that you are right in that it does provide reliable indications. What I am taking issue with is your presumption that the evidence will prove your own position. You said : 'I hope that Strontium and Lead enamel measurements performed on the inhabitants of Anglo-Saxon graves will eventually resolve this problem by indicating where the original owners were born, and where they spent the last 10 years of their lives. I say ‘hope’ since some are so steadfast in their espousal for the depopulation theory that only a personal encounter with Hengist & Horsa in the world to come will ever convince them.' You are clearly assuming that the evidence will back your own arguements, but the evidence is not here yet is it?
You cite the keeping of the Roman name of Cantium as some sort of evidence of Celtic survival. Well, the native American name of Minnesota is still in existence now, are we to conclude that the native americans in that area continue to be a substantial part of the population? If so, we would be wrong. And was it not the Kentish Saxon laws that held that a Briton's life was worth half that of a Saxon? What would you think if in Minnesota the law stated that a native American's life was half that of Caucasian's?
Then we come to your treatment of Gildas. Yes you are correct, we cannot rely on him for to tell us reliably about events which happened hundreds of years before his own life, but nobody is suggesting that we should. But about the events that happened in his own lifetime, and a period up to perhaps 50 years prior (ie in the lifetime of older people he surely spoke to), then I say we must take his evidence into account.
It's similar with Bede, you see. He repeatedly said that Hadrian's wall was 'built by Antoninus' - so clearly he was wrong there. And his book is full of very tall pro-christian stories about miracles which the saints caused. But that does not mean we ignore all that he says! If he says there was a praefectus in Lincoln, we assume he was correct, in the absence of anything to the contrary, and we have to take that evidence into account when trying to put together our picture of 6th century Britain.
I too imagine a large number of smaller migration events by the Saxons, I would say over a lengthy period of 150 years. I also assume that their numbers were relatively small and that leads to the question of how they came to dominate the culture and language of the Britons, which brings me to my theory of British depopulation in the 5th century which left large swathes of open land which many Saxons could have occupied without opposition, and secondly an inability of the Britons to raise sufficient forces to repel invaders. I am curious as to why, given that you acknowledge an economic collapse after the Romans left, you did not answer my question of why there could not have been a corresponding fall in the population.
You speak of co-operation but was evidence is there that there WAS such co-operation. What evidence we do have is of large battles, fire and sword. It seems to me that you just decide to bin all this evidence because it does not match your own assumptions. -
Message 20
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Sunday, 26th November 2006
Hi Fascinating,
Fair enough, we won’t rehash the ‘What’s you Angle?’ discussion; to be honest I only re-joined this thread because I thought that your response to Rhys Gethin’s observations was far too harsh. Once we start labelling the opinions of other contributors as ‘rubbish’ we are well on the way to ‘Pict at Random’ standards. We medievalists have to set a good example. Mind you some of my opinions probably are rubbish, but which?
The examination of tooth enamel for heavy stable isotopes will provide highly useful information I’m sure. I have to admit that I am indeed making the assumption that it will support my views, and yes this is a thoroughly unscientific approach. In an academic publication detachment is essential. I hope in the cut and thrust of message-board discussion we can enjoy the liberating experience of ‘taking sides’ but if you feel that this is inappropriate I won’t complain. Another opportunity a message-board affords is an opportunity to inject a little levity. I was careful not to attach the name of any specific poster to the speculative meeting with Hengist & Horsa. If despite that it caused vexation I apologise. Actually I’m not sure either really existed but that’s another issue.
Your analogy between Minnesota and Cantium is a perfectly fair one. Place name studies are a mine-field, as I have just discovered, although I have always been impressed by the number of ‘Celtic’ survivals that there are. Think of Deira and Berenicia in your area for example. The situation is quite different in the Shetlands where the Vikings achieved a virtually clean sweep of Pictish names.
However it appears I really don’t dismiss the evidence of Gildas, much less Bede, but I do wish to test their views against the physical evidence. Until the discovery of centurial stones the smart money was on the construction of Hadrian’s Wall by Septimius Severus. Only one ancient Historian mentions Hadrian in connection with the wall. Was Gildas a near contemporary of the Saxon migration? Well, nearer than me certainly. But De Excidio Britanniae was probably written in the 540s and the Gallic Chronicle gives 441- 442 as the date of the Adventus Saxonum, although that implausible statement has to be tested as well.
Which brings me back to the depopulation question. Obviously if you accept Gildas’s statement uncritically (‘fragments of corpses, covered (as it were) by a purple crust of congealed blood, looked as though they had been mixed up in some dreadful wine-press’) at face value you don’t need at epidemic. The Saxons will have done their own depopulating. If you don’t feel that Gildas’s remark is applicable for the whole of Britain then you need a selective epidemic to which the Saxons are wholly or largely immune. That doesn’t seem especially likely to me, but then I’m biased!
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 21
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Sunday, 26th November 2006
TwinProbe, I thank you for your latest message because you really seem to have read and fully considered what I said, and I can agree with most of what you have written.
Possibly calling Rhys' observations 'rubbish' was a bit harsh, but my harshness stems from the what I think are unwarranted attacks on the Victorians, who are not actually here to defend themselves. There seems to be an attitude of 'Let's have a pop at those silly Victorians, they were all racist imperialists through and through, therefore nothing they say is of any value. Of course WE have a perfectly clear, unbiased attitude to history'. As I said in my reply to Rhys, there is no need to attack dead historians, all we need to do is consider the actual evidence of the period under discussion.
Regarding Gildas, I do not accept him uncritcally. He is right slap bang in the period of history we are talking about, that is the period 450-600 which begins with Britons seeming to maintain their civilisation, and ends with almost the whole of England fragmented into Saxon kingdomes. He speaks of the destruction of cities, for example. And archaeology indicates that most cities were at least unoccupied, if not destroyed. So I do not see that anything that contradicts what Gildas said.
Regarding depopulation, note that I consider that the Britons' population decline began BEFORE most of the Saxons arrived. Depopulation is just my own theory, but I point to the evidence, a precipitate drop in material culture pointing to massive economic decline,or population decline,or both. But here I am in danger of going over an issue that was dealt with in the previous discussion. I certainly respect anyone's opinion that depopulation did not occur, but then you have to account for how the Saxons were able to come to dominate so fully, when, you say, they came only in small bands, and faced a native population of 2-3 million. My own theory does not require any special Saxon disease immunity. -
Message 22
Posted by DrkKtn6851746 (U2746042) on Sunday, 26th November 2006
For my money, the most important point that's been made has been...
There is no need at all to assume that one model explains the entire countryÂ
My own research on Northumbrian expansion has persuaded me that it's not even possible to generalise about that particular bunch of Anglo-Saxons' relationship & interaction with the Britons.
Anyone who is really interested in this topic should check out the following, if they haven't already...
Nick Higham's 'Rome, Britain and the Anglo-Saxons' (1992) & 'The English Conquest: Gildas and Britain in the Fifth Century'(1994)
Michael Lapidge & David Dumville (eds): 'Gildas: New Approaches' ('Studies in Celtic History' 5,1984) -
Message 23
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Sunday, 26th November 2006
DrkKtn, good point, every region of the country would have had a different history. I can see that in some places the Saxons were accommodated, even welcomed, and in some they came and took land with fire and sword.
Thank You for the reading list, which I will get around to soon after my 'Read Better and FAster' book arrives from Amazon. -
Message 24
Posted by DrkKtn6851746 (U2746042) on Sunday, 26th November 2006
You're welcome, fascinating.
When this topic was being discussed back in 2004, I started a thread surveying the models favoured by different posters & asking for details of their backgrounds & the sort of evidence they or the authors they'd found most convincing had concentrated upon. There was a degree of correlation between:
An archeological background/focus & 'peaceful migration & cultural change' theories.
A linguistic background/focus & 'ethnic cleansing' theories.
A textual history background/focus & 'elite conquest & domination' theories.
I suspect it's too early to generalise about a DNA-study background/focus as there have been too few studies published.
I'm firmly with elite conquest for territory north of the Humber, with some mixture of elite conquest & population replacement further south. -
Message 25
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Sunday, 26th November 2006
Hi Fascinating,
Since (as before) we've reached a measure of agreement I'll stop to let someone else have a try! Thanks for your kind remarks; much appreciated. I do try to read the postings I reply to, even if it may sometimes appear otherwise. There is a lot to be said for not attacking the Victorians when they are not here to defend themselves; I feel somewhat similarly about the Anglo-Saxons.
Hi Mr Kitten,
Excellent books in your list. Would you permit a slightly more recent addition which at least takes note of modern genetic and osteoarchaeological evidence. I'm still bruised from the last time I recommended Frances Pryor, so on this occasion I'll offer 'Origins of the English' by Cambridge archaeologist Catherine Hills (2003). Clear, concise and no attempt to minimise the difficulties.
Best wishes to you both,
TP -
Message 26
Posted by DrkKtn6851746 (U2746042) on Monday, 27th November 2006
By all means do, TP, though I admit I haven't read Hills myself.
-
Message 27
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Monday, 27th November 2006
TP, here's a thought, if I understand the Goldstein study correctly, the results did identify certain individuals who were of identifiably 'Germanic' stock. Hence you could say that the Saxons are here to defend themselves!
More seriously, I am happy that this discussion has ended in a large measure of agreement. -
Message 28
Posted by U2280797 (U2280797) on Monday, 27th November 2006
TwinProbe - As I am prevented from taking a proper part in this discussion, I'm delighted to find that I agree with everything you write - a very rare event with me when it comes to other people's postings! Fascinating, alas, has long been accustomed to describe ALL my contributions as rubbish, so I have learned to live with that - it is like the weather. I think it's important, though, to point out that the vast majority of the earlier British people - who've up to now been airbrushed out of our picture of the past - are much, much more in need of defenders than the 'Anglo-Saxons' or the Victorians. Unlike anyone else in Western Europe SOMEBODY seems to have kicked out the Roman officials in 410, SOMEBODY made a real fight of it for two hundred years or so afterwards, and SOMEBODY influenced the English language in such a ways as make it unlike German and like Cymraeg. It does seem worth pointing this out, from time to time, to me anyway.
-
Message 29
Posted by U2280797 (U2280797) on Monday, 27th November 2006
Though, to be fair, I am allowed into re-existence quite fast! I think it important that those who haven't yet done so should read Oppenheimer's article. I'm not allowed to give the full address, it seems, but 'Prospect Magazine' ought to find it. The article was in the October issue.
-
Message 30
Posted by DrkKtn6851746 (U2746042) on Monday, 27th November 2006
Rhys,
influenced the English language in such a ways as make it unlike German and like CymraegÂ
A new suggestion to me - please expand... -
Message 31
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Monday, 27th November 2006
Rhys, I checked through the whole 'Whats your Angle?' discussion, and could not see anywhere I had called your contribution rubbish, though I will admit to being very forceful. I did see your accusation of racism against me, which you graciousaly withdrew.
-
Message 32
Posted by U2280797 (U2280797) on Tuesday, 28th November 2006
DrkKtn - You'll find it in above-mentioned 'The Celtic roots of English', especially 'Attrition of Inflections in English and Welsh' by Hildegard L.C. Tristram (p111) and 'Explaining the innovations of Middle English: what, when and why' by David L. White (p153). The general points made by several of the writers in this publication is that we'd expect Brittonic to influence English, that this would be expected to occur mainly in the North and West where, on any reading, the British population would have outnumnbered the native Anglo-Saxon speakers very heavily indeed, and to have been suppressed as sub-standard during the Anglo-Saxon period. The most obvious, of course, is that English followed Brittonic bu becoming an analytic rather than an inflected language.
White gives the following Table (which I am - on a preview - having trouble getting printed AS a table, so I hope you can reconstruct it):
The Drift of English towards Brittonic
Innovation German OE PDE Britt
Nominal Case Lost No No Yes Yes
Invariable Article No No Yes Yes
Invariable Adjective No No Yes Yes
Northern Subject
Rule No No (Yes) Yes
Participle Lost No No Yes Yes
Gerundial Progressive No No Yes Yes
Semi-emphatic Aux. No No Yes Yes.
White goes on (Table 2) to compare the predictive power of Brittonic and Norse usage on later English, and finds the former scoring 9 as against 6.
In an addendum he lists (pp169-170) 52 possible Brittonicisms in English - and to this some helpful linguistics scholar has, in my university library copy, added another two, which look very convincing. You'll forgive me if I do not copy out all of these - I was previously pushed into that sort of labour, and life is too short to do it again. I recommend much of the book, however. -
Message 33
Posted by U2280797 (U2280797) on Tuesday, 28th November 2006
Very well, fascinating: I must yield to your superior research skills and graciously withdraw THIS one too. I didn't mean it entirely seriously,fair play, but sorry all the same!
-
Message 34
Posted by mykingdomforanus (U3953747) on Tuesday, 28th November 2006
"S Oppenheimer in The Origins of the British estimated that the Anglo Saxon contribution to the male english gene pool was ca 5.5% and to the british male gene pool ca 3.8%."
This is true but reading the whole book provides a much clearer and fascinating picture.
One of his basic tenets of his argument is that the Anglo Saxon settlers/invaders after the roman period may account for 6% of the population now, but that in eastern parts of Britain the saxons would already have been in place during the roman period and even before.
Take the Saxon shore forts as a case in point.
Traditionally the view has been that they were coastal defence forts against the threat of saxon raiders. Or were they forts garrisoned by saxons? Or does the "saxon shore" actually mean that these littoral regions were already populated by saxons already?
The idea is that saxons were already present in eastern britain during the roman period and old english was already spoken in these parts.
The subsequent saxon settlement after the romans merely provide the impetus for the development and the political and military muscle (when/if needed) to conquer in time, the rest of what is now England.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.