Ancient and ArchaeologyΒ permalink
Post-Roman York
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Tuesday, 16th November 2010
Some months ago we had a thread on the importance of Roman York. Eventually this drifted away into climate change and other matters, for which I was partly responsible! I thought it might be worth starting again.
Last weekend there was an excellent course entitled: The End of the Roman North held at York St John University. In summary I should say that most of the regular posters on A & A (including myself) would have found some support for their prejudices.
According to an excellent lecture by Dr Mark Whyman of the YAT post-Roman York seems to have been a mucky place. Many buildings had been extensively modified by the late 4th C, and subsequently the principia did not keep its roof until the 9th C as is widely stated. On the other hand there is good evidence that hand made, calcite gritted, coarse ware pottery jars were still being made.
A building found at the Wellington Road side underwent three phases of dramatic reconstruction after early phases had been identified as late 4th C by house of Theodosius coin finds.
Lincoln seems to have been almost as interesting as York during this period. Excellent evidence was presented for its continuance as a British centre with a large number of penannular brooch finds; gratifying for those who believe that there really was a post-Roman metal industry.
TP -
Message 2
Posted by Pete- Weatherman (U14670985) on Tuesday, 16th November 2010
Could you arnwser a question thats offten bugged me. Why did the Romans pick York, Why not some were around Leeds, it is much more centralised and routes north are just as easy (?). Was it a case of, it was alreddy a trible capital or was there some other reson, like London, the easy crossing point and deep water lower down river. or Bath, the springs.
I do find items on York intresting, it seems every five min's there expanding the place, it will soon be up to its modern bounderys
-
Message 3
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 17th November 2010
Hi Pete
The common theory is that Erboracum was selected due to it being on the boundary between the Brigantes and Parisi tribes and it is recorded that the 9th legion in 71 was actively engaged in operations against the former when they selected the site. Previously they had been headquartered in Lincoln but needed a location from which they could launch punitive raids etc with more regularity and ease.
It used to be assumed that Erboracum was a "virgin" site when the Romans fortified it but more recent archaeological excavations have revealed Iron Age settlement predating the Romans. However the theory that it was in a sort of neutral buffer zone between antagonistic tribes is still adhered to by most historians and whatever occupation existed before 71 is assumed to have been sporadic.
The confluence of the Foss and the Ouse would also have attracted military planners since it offered an enhanced level of natural defences as well as facilitating troop movements and supplies via the river. This theory is endorsed by the fact that they seemingly ignored the availability of higher ground nearby - normally an important criterion when selecting such sites - which itself suggests that in 71 the Romans were pretty confident they had the territory to the west and south of Erboracum under control and could now concentrate on "pacifying" the Brigantes to the east and north. In fact they quickly utilised the high ridge as the route for their primary land access to Erboracum (the modern A64) but did not extend this across the river until some decades later, further confirmation of the theory that Erboracum was about as far as they dared at the time, at least until Brigantean territory could be controlled. -
Message 4
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Wednesday, 17th November 2010
Twin Probe
I always thought that one of the advantages of York was that, like London, its harbour was accessible to sea-going boats..
Could they get as far as Leeds? And would the extra time involved be worthwhile?
Given the course taken by the river from the Humber the chances of catching favourable winds for much of the journey would appear to be minimal. Of course most ships of that era- and for centuries to come- also had oars. But "cost benefit" analysis would suggest lessening returns for every extra mile rowed, not least perhaps because a merchant ship being rowed up a river is much more vulnerable than the same ship on the open sea.
In the south these advantages created the logic that later moved the centre of political power from Winchester to London, though the position of Canterbury ( the old capital of the Kentish kingdom) is an interesting one.. But the Old Palace in Croydon, now the Old Palace Girl's School, along with Southwark Palace reflected the fact that the Archbishops of Canterbury tended to operate from much closer to London most of the time [ Thomas Becket was considered unusual and especially saintly because he chose to live so much of the time with the Brothers in the Canterbury House]
Cass -
Message 5
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Wednesday, 17th November 2010
Hi Pete
A good question. Leeds doesn't seem to have been a major Roman centre but nearby Castleford (Lagentium) certainly was, so I think that the puzzle is why (if the Romans wanted a base on the low, cattle-raising lands, between the Wolds and the Pennines) was York preferred to Castleford as a major legionary fortress site.
Major military foundations were invariably given good water transport for supply purposes. The Ouse is a large river and would have provided easy contact between York with the sea, but the river Aire runs conveniently north of the Castleford fort.
As you know the primary reason for the Roman road network was the rapid movement of troops. The Romans placed the main road (Ermine Street) on a raised ridge of Magnesian limestone running north through this part of Yorkshire. Both settlements are easily served by this road; Castleford is actually somewhat closer to the west than is York to the east.
It is believed that both Castleford and York were founded by legio IX Hispana when the Romans conquered the territory of the Brigantes in the 70s. Could York have been conveniently placed on the border between the tribal territories of the Brigantes and Parisii, or was the fact that York was further north of advantage if the perceived threat came from that direction?
Perhaps the final decision was made on the basis of the importance, or otherwise, of the two areas to the Iron Age inhabitants. An army of occupation may have decided to replace a significant site to demonstrate superiority, or to find an unoccupied site to avoid causing unnecessary offence.
The region of Castleford was important in the Iron Age. The Ferrybridge chariot burial site is nearby and the linear dykes around Aberford to the north are now thought to have an Iron Age date. Naturally Iron Age York lies under Medieval and Roman York; I don't imagine there will be largely scale demolition and excavation any time soon.
TP -
Message 6
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Wednesday, 17th November 2010
Twin Probe
Further to my last and your last post, I always understood that York was the firm rear-support base for the Hadrian's Wall complex.. The Humber and Ouse provided- as has been excellently explained in other posts- just about the best source of supply by sea for an inland headquarters from which to keep an eye of the Northern Frontier. And, though people always emphasize the Romans as road builders, the roads were valued because of the way that they facilitated troop movement, and there was also significant harbour and port construction.. After all the foundations of the strength of the Greco-Latin Civilization was the unique advantages offered by the "Sea in the Middle of Land" or "The Centre of the World"-- and that meant the sea. Was Rome itself not an inland port?
Cass -
Message 7
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Wednesday, 17th November 2010
Hi Cass
The situation of Roman legionary bases did change with time. Lincoln, Gloucester and Wroxeter were all hosts to the legions, and if Agricola's conquests in Scotland had endured after AD 87 a large fortress would have developed at Inchtuthil. The three permanent sites are very familiar but I don't know that their locations are completely explained.
I agree that the situation of York was well placed to support penetration of the northern frontier on the eastern side or, too a lesser extent, the western. But Castleford or Catterick seem equally good. In any case Pete's post was not to question the need for a Roman fortress and town in northern Britain, but rather its exact positioning.
You are quite correct about supply by sea of course. Bulk cargoes like grain, wine, oil and stone are vastly easier to move by water than on the roads. Most large long-lived Roman forts are near navigable waterways. The degree to which the Romans practised water engineering to make this navigation possible is controversial; you will have heard of Raymond Selkirk and the 'Piercebridge formula' I am sure.
Best wishes
TP -
Message 8
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Wednesday, 17th November 2010
TP
Thank you for your kind presumption.. But I think that certainly in this domain you should should presume almost total ignorance.
Regards
Cass -
Message 9
Posted by Pete- Weatherman (U14670985) on Wednesday, 17th November 2010
Intresting theorys so far so let me through another iron in the fire. Could part of the reson be Geologic, I have read that the rock around York is Chalk to a large degree. were over towards Leeds its some what harder rock. If this is correct then (Thinking Roman farms) the land around York is better land for Sheep and Arable. were Leeds would be rougher and less productive.
I'm a Southener so correct me if I'm wrong. -
Message 10
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Wednesday, 17th November 2010
Hi Pete
No, I don't think that's entirely right. Put very simply the rocks of Yorkshire get younger as you move east. The Yorkshire Dales are Carboniferous period limestones, with the Gritstone series and Coal Measures beneath Bradford, Wakefield and Barnsley also being Carboniferous period also, but younger.
The Permian period is only represented by the magnesian Limestone on which the A1 sits and which is well exposed at Knaresborough and Doncaster. The vale of York is covered by thick glacial drift but the solid geology underneath is Triassic & Jurassic period sandstones and mudstones I believe. Whitby and the North Yorks Moors are famous for their Jurassic fossils. You only get to chalk (Cretaceous period) much further east than York in the Yorkshire Wolds, say between Hull & Flamborough. The chalk downland soils of the Wolds are well-draining and fertile certainly.
But you are right too. The Vale of York is flat and fertile and seems to have been exploited for cattle raising in the Iron Age. It floods easily (as now) but today wheat and potatoes are grown quite frequently and I'm sure the land would have been more productive than the moorland once in the region of Leeds and Bradford. Good building stone would also be available at York. Both Millstone Grit and Magnesian Limestone were exploited.
Even southerners, of whom I was once one myself, should visit historic York!
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 11
Posted by Pete- Weatherman (U14670985) on Thursday, 18th November 2010
Thanks for putting me right on thr Geo facts, but I thought I was on the right track when it came to te Farming angle. The Geology is not to dis-similiar down here, Sand stone, lime stone and Chalk. And its just right for all asspects of farming.
Being a more produtive area Wood should of also been in plentyfull supply. This being importent for not only building, but charcoal for smelting.
The more we talk about the WHY, the more it seems that Logistics play a big hand in there choces of location. -
Message 12
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Thursday, 18th November 2010
Hi Pete
I certainly agree with that, but I think it is important to avoid 'strict environmental determinism' when discussing the activities of our ancestors. People do undertake amazing projects for apparently non-rational reasons.
Imagine archaeologists looking at the Dissolution of the Monasteries in the far distant future, without any historical texts. They would understand the re-cycling of materials like lead & stone. They would understand the division of monastic estates to reward political allies. But they couldn't even begin to understand Henry's desire for a male heir and the way this brought him into conflict with the Pope.
It is still possible that York was founded because Cerialis, or whoever, had a dream and the God Augustus told him to do it!
TP -
Message 13
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Thursday, 18th November 2010
Hi TP
I think that we ignore the significance of natural positioning at our peril. It seems to me that through the ages topography is key to the siting of forts and the associated town ships that follow.
In the previous post about York it was noted that it was built on a previous centre of one of the tribes and if we look at Norman castles many are situated near sites of Roman forts.
Does this indicate that there are natural places for cities?
Some that spring to mind are York, London, Lincoln, Chester, Winchester, Colchester, St Albans, Carmarthen, Cirencester, Gloucester, Carlisle etc. that survive and in fact thrive to this day.
Yet there are some that inexplicably have failed like Wroxeter, Silchester, Caerleon, Caerwent, Caistor St Edmund etc.
Could it be that these were in βunnatural locationsβ made up by the Romans for political control of the tribes and could only function under a Roman type Administration and Army?
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 14
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Friday, 19th November 2010
Hi TA
I'm not sure that we do know that York was built on a previous tribal centre. One suggestion is that it was actually built in a 'neutral zone' between the territories of the Brigantes and Parisii. Many Roman sites were constructed over Iron Age predecessors but there is a difference between plausible hypothesis and established fact.
No doubt you are correct; the situation of many settlements is explicable on purely topographical grounds but my point was that it is dangerous to assume these considerations provide a complete explanation. It would be absurd of me to pretend that the positioning of Roman Bath was unrelated to the famous hot springs. But for a complete explanation we need to ask what made the springs attractive to the Romans. This might be for social, religious or medical reasons; or all of them.
I think that it is fair to say that the majority of Roman settlements have survived to the present day, which makes the list of failures you provide all the more interesting. But I doubt if such are inexplicable and in most cases probably reflect changes in the very topographical factors you propose, not the absence of the Roman administration.
At Caistor (Venta Icenorum) the failure probably reflects the silting up of the Norfolk 'Great Estuary', present in Roman times. This would have left the River Tas unnavigable and the focus of settlement shifted to Anglo-Saxon Norwich where the Wensum and Yare provided better access to the sea. In the case of Wroxeter and Shrewsbury both communities had good river access to the Severn but I know that Shrewsbury has been seen as the more defensible site with a smaller population.
But is it generally true that Norman castles are situated near Roman forts? Evidently Pevensey and Porchester use Roman walling as part of their defences and I think there was once a motte inside Burgh Castle, Norfolk. But generally the Norman principle must have been to site a motte and bailey castle on a defensible position with good river access. If you could make use of pre-existing landscape features like Roman walling or a Saxon burgh all well and good. If you had to demolish existing housing to clear the site then that was fine too!
TP -
Message 15
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Friday, 19th November 2010
The siting of the Roman fortress is very easily explained; on a large river so that supplies could easily reach it, and in a large fertile plane to ensure production. The fortress was obviously pivotal to the supply of Hadrian's Wall; a road was made directly from York to the central section of the Wall at Corbridge.
I am more interested in the production of metal goods in post-Roman Britain, mentioned in the OP. What date are these metal artefacts? Where did the metal come from? -
Message 16
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Friday, 19th November 2010
Penannular brooches were popular designs from the Iron Age to the Early Medieval periods. They have been extensively studied and classified. The varieties of small penannulars known as Type G and Class 1 are considered, by experts in such matters, to be post-Roman Iron Age forms. It seems that a production facility in South Wales is considered likely but these brooches are also very common in Lincolnshire. The speaker on this topic felt that this was evidence for the survival of a British kingdom in the Lincoln region during the 5th-6th C, and that there was actual production there as well. The origins of the metal was not discussed but recycled Roman copper coinage must be likely. Typically Roman copper alloys are recognisable by a high zinc content.
Otherwise there is evidence on both sides of the 'Dark Age Metal' debate. In the 5th C copper alloy hair pins and bracelets become rare, although bone bracelets are found. The so called Hanging Bowls or Celtic Hanging Bowls that find their way into 7th century Anglo-Saxon graves are still thought to be inspired by British designs but, as late as this, the ethnic afiliation of the smiths is anyone's guess. The bowls are common in Lincolnshire too.
TP -
Message 17
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Friday, 19th November 2010
Thanks for that TP. I take it from the information you have given that the metal making skill, inherited from the Romans, may have continued to exist in South Wales to where many Britons were pushed by the Anglo-Saxon invaders, who came to the South-East. The presence of the artefacts in Lincolnshire, and indication (from Bede) of continuance of sub-Roman civic life in Lincoln, indicates that the Anglo-Saxons did not reach there, in high numbers, until later (7th century maybe). I don't see evidence that the early invaders could make metal from ore - i could be wrong there though.
-
Message 18
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Friday, 19th November 2010
Hi fascinating
There you go again, asking me to believe six impossible things before breakfast.
Firstly, was British metal working skill inherited from the Romans? Absolutely not. There was a long tradition of insular metal working going back to the Bronze Age.There were relatively simple objects like horse equipment and swords but also magnificent works of art like the Battersea Shield and the Snettisham Torc. Late Pre-Roman British artefacts, like coins and brooches, probably were influenced by Mediterranean designs, but they were also produced in Britain.
Secondly, I think the inhabitants of Wales and the West did more than exist in the Post-Imperial Iron Age. It seems clear that there were powerful kingdoms which maintained a Romanised style of life, traded with the Mediterranean, read devotional Latin works by Gildas, and carved Christian memorials in Latin verse.
Thirdly, were the Anglo-Saxons invaders? I still think that a more neutral word like 'migrants' is much to be preferred. There can surely be no doubt that the Roman army recruited Germanic soldiers and some would have settled in Britain. If the historical sources are to be believed this process continued in the post-Imperial period, albeit in a less controlled way. Doubtless there were 'illegals' and soldiers of fortune as well.
Fourthly, were the Britons pushed, and especially were they pushed west? I don't think one can stress regionality too strongly. In West Yorkshire, Lincolnshire (as we now know), Cumbria, Devon & Cornwall, and the North East , British kingdoms survived for centuries. Even in areas under Anglo-Saxon control is a skeleton buried with Saxon grave goods a Continental migrant or a Britain who recognises the new political reality and has adopted its customs?
Fifthly, could the early invaders make metal? I would be astonished if the Anglo-Saxons could not smelt and work iron. Later Saxon knives show considerable sophistication in terms of steel making, welding and quenching. Could they have made the wooden halls and ships, for which after all they are famous, without first making edged tools? Metal working in 'British Britain' is more difficult but contemporary Pictish and Irish metal workers were certainly creating magnificent silver brooches and chains, although the source of their silver may ultimately be Roman tableware.
Sixthly, well actually there isn't a sixth.
Best wishes, TP -
Message 19
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Friday, 19th November 2010
1. Yes of course the Britons were adept at making metal before the Romans came, but the skills were handed on through the Roman period.
2. Yes the inhabitants of Wales and the West continued with a partially Romanised, but very reduced, style of life. There was very little trade with the Med, compared with what there had been. The only explanation for the attempt to continue the Romano-British way of life in this area, but not in the South-East of England, is that they had been forced to abandon that way of life in the latter place - or forced to abandon that place altogether.
3 & 4. You prefer to call them migrants but what do the people who lived at the time tell us? We both know how Gildas describes the situation in Britain at the time. The Gallic Chronicle says that Britain had passed under the control of the Saxons. The AS chronicle (using previous sources) says that the Welsh fled from the Saxons like fire. Calling this movement "less controlled" than under the Romans is a gross understatement - all control was lost. Yes British kingdoms survived for centuries, but not in the SE, the place where the Saxons settled in the period we are talking about.
5 It is well established that they could melt and work metal, making their own swords for example. But I am interested in knowing if they could 'make' metal itself ie take an ore and extract iron out of it. If they could not, then they could only get metal goods from others. -
Message 20
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Saturday, 20th November 2010
Hi Fascinating
I'm sure it would be tiresome to everyone if I reprised all my arguments so I'll restrict my observations on two aspects of your post.
The Gallic Chronicle is a highly contentious document. There were a series of very scholarly, and slightly ill tempered, papers on the topic of its accuracy in the journal Britannia about 20 years ago. At the very least it just cannot be true that Britain 'passed under the control of the Saxons' within a single year of the 5th century since we know British kingdoms survived to the 7th century. If you wish to restrict this comment to the south-east of England then the statement is more plausible, although we still have the difficulty that Kent and London kept their Romano-British names. Even if the statement 'passed under the control' were completely true we may still reasonably ask what the nature of the 'control' was. Evidently control need not necessarily involve genocide or de-population, just as people may voluntarily change their established way of life should they perceive it their interest to do so.
The mining and smelting of metals from ores is a difficult activity to prove at any period between the Roman and Medieval. It is probably true that evidence for Saxon non-ferrous metal working is not great. The best evidence is 10th century although there are brooch moulds from Hartlepool (7th C) and Mucking (6th C); I wouldn't be surprised if the industry depended completely on recycled scrap, since copper and tin mines in Cornwall, Wales, Cumbria or Alderley Edge should, if they were functioning at all, have been under British control.
Ferrous metal is different. As I mentioned in a previous post the whole Saxon way of life depended on iron weapons and tools and smithing slags are common on Saxon sites. Since contemporary furnaces would not have been hot enough to produce liquid iron it follows that recycling iron scrap is not as straightforward as melting and recasting copper alloy or precious metals. Iron ore is much commoner than copper and tin. To the best of my knowledge early smelting sites have been identified in Norfolk and at Mucking again. But the Continental Germanic people certainly smelted iron on a large scale in Jutland and its really hard, or at least I find it really hard, to believe that the technology was not available to their insular relatives.
In any case the ability to make a material from its original constituents may not be a good test of technical competence. It is quite possible that all the glass used in the Roman and post-Imperial periods was actually 'made' in factories in Egypt and the Middle East. Everything else in Roman, Gaul or Britain depended on that glass being worked, coloured, shaped, blown and recycled. But some magnificent glass pieces were made by the Anglo-Saxons.
Best wishes, TP -
Message 21
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Sunday, 21st November 2010
TP, you are right, it would be tiresome, for other readers, for us both to go through the arguments that we have gone through many times over. Out of respect for objectivity, and to stop pointless arguments over terminology, I will try to call the Saxons the more neutral "migrants" in future. However you know my position. Control means that the Saxons took over the government in the area being talked about. No it does not mean genocide and depopulation, but on the basis of commons sense, along with the written evidence, it must have been done by armed force, without consent.
OK the early Saxons used and smelted iron. I still think it is salient to know whether they actually made iron. It may have been made in Jutland but that is not where the Saxons came from. The Angles came from there or near there and there is widespread finds of metal goods, particularly swords (what does that tell you?). It is striking that the only sites where early metal making is evident is in the Anglian territory of Norfolk and Suffolk.
The fact that so very few of the original Celtic place names have survived in the SE indicates (though does not prove) that the Britons were pushed away. -
Message 22
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Sunday, 21st November 2010
Hi fascinating
If you're agreeable to the notion that the Anglo-Saxons arrived as migrants to a post-Roman Britain which was at higher technological standard than a 'stone age' then I am perfectly content.
Place name studies are a minefield for the unwary. You may be right that few 'Celtic' place names have survived in the SE, although clearly that is not true of the east coast as a whole since Kent, London, Lincoln, Deira, & Bernicia are all Romano-British. Moreover Romano-British antecedents may be hard to recognise in modern designations. One would never guess that 'York' was ultimately derived from the Romano-British 'Eboracum', aside from the happy accident of the Anglian and Norse forms being known. So Canterbury would seem to be a British-Saxon hybrid and Dubris to Dover is perhaps bridgeable, even if Anderida to Pevensey is not.
It's been a long time since I lived in the SE so some of my topographic knowledge is a bit rusty. The rivers Avon & Ouse are Celtic names; 'Adur' and 'Thames' are not Anglo-Saxon surely. The place name elements which, in northern Britain, indicate a Romano-British settlement are rare I believe: cumb, craig, foss, egles, pen, walh, brettas. Can you confirm this?
As you know many places in the SE have -ingas suffixes deriving from the Anglo-Saxon word meaning 'the people of': Worthing, Hastings, Ferring and so forth. I think it might be worthwhile checking that the associated personal names are of genuinely Anglo-Saxon origin. Archaic personal names that don't appear later may be the pale shadows of our Romano-British ancestors perhaps. So I have no problems with Wilmington
I had more or less reconciled myself to the fact that the Romano-British inhabitants of Britain totally lost their language but at the recent day-course I attended the idea that English borrowed very few Celtic language words, but a great deal of Celtic language grammar, was being discussed quite seriously. This is a matter for linguistic experts of whom, very definitely, I am not one.
TP -
Message 23
Posted by ArweRheged (U14720560) on Saturday, 11th December 2010
As a newcomer, it's possible that I'm going over old ground, but for what it's worth, I've never been a big fan of the whole "Dark Age Genocide" view of the Saxon incursions, in which the Celts are systematically killed or driven off. The tendency of many to see this period of history in purely - or mainly - nationalistic terms (until recently, generally manifesting itself as "Celts good, Saxons bad") perhaps says more about our preoccupations than it does about what was happening at the time. English Wessex, at least, appears to have been founded by Britons, or at least men with British names
Equally, I'm no great fan of the more recent trend to see the Saxons as peace-loving economic migrants.
Both Brythonic and Saxon society relied heavily on warrior elites - relatively small groups of armed thugs tied by bonds of personal loyalty to their king. On the British side, some of our finest early poetry celebrates these people and their military prowess - whilst conveniently ignoring the fact that their endless squabbling ensured their own destruction. On the English side, it is hard to dispute the early evidence, which is quite explicit about how the early Saxon kingdoms carved out their independent states.
Most people weren't part of these elites. The masses were probably engaged in susbsistence farming to a greater or lesser degree, no doubt obliged to give most or all of their surplus to their kings for the upkeep of the warband. The fact that entire states could collapse on the fortunes of one battle suggests that there was little patriotism as we might understand it today. It might have been different in the early days of the English incursions, but by the seventh century, it probably mattered very little to the average dung-shoveller whether the person oppresing them was called Cadwallon or Ecgfrith.
There does appear to have been fairly large scale migration to certain areas - notably East Anglia, but Britain was always far larger than the English homelands and the idea that there was ever any need to exterminate or drive off the people who actually produced the food has never sat well with me.
Regards,
A R -
Message 24
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Sunday, 12th December 2010
Hi ArweRheged
Welcome to the messageboard. I would have guessed you were a new contributor from your readiness to use the c-word β 'Celt'. There is no reason at all not to mentioned it, but here no ground is older than genocidal Saxons. We have been discussing it endlessly for years, although we occasionally take time off to disagree about the function of Hadrian's Wall.
Evidently I am in the 'peace-loving economic migrant' camp myself as well as in the 'moved here by the Romans and decided they liked it' camp. But I'd be interested to know which pieces of evidence you find especially convincing in 'Dark Age' history. What do you mean by 'Celt' and what makes you sure they were living in eastern Britain when the Saxons arrived? Wessex was traditionally founded by Cerdic who, as you say, had a British name. Later codified laws in Wessex recognised that the 'Welsh' had a definite place in society. Was Wessex unique among Saxon kingdoms?
I agree with you that both British and Saxon societies prized warrior elites, and that British kingdoms fought each other. Perhaps 'thugs' is going too far. The British who died at Catreath or the English that died at Maldon were surely inspired by something other than personal gain and love of violence. As for carving out English kingdoms I sometimes wonder if the Anglo-Saxons really knew much more about their origins than we do. In fact what did being an insular Saxon in, say, AD 500 actually involve?
It is quite possible that rural agriculture continued unaffected by the ethnic origin of the elite although perhaps your two exemplars, Cadwallon or Ecgfrith, are not ideal choices. Cadwallon had an evil reputation even by the standards of his day, and both rulers involved their nations in catastrophic military defeats a very long way from home.
TP -
Message 25
Posted by ArweRheged (U14720560) on Sunday, 12th December 2010
Hi TP - and thanks for the welcome.
I suppose that "Celt" is a term of convenience to describe the Brythonic population of late and sub Roman Britain. I know there are those who argue that "Celt" is not a useful genetic identifier, but then again, neither is "Saxon". But I apologise for using the shorthand - I certainly can't imagine that the Britons used that word of themselves.
As to the question "who lived there?" the answer is a possibly trite "someone". The place name argument has some force, but I'm always struck by how many Brythonic place names do survive in the heavily Anglicized areas - especially when describing bigger features like rivers and tribal boundaries. A river Avon or a Kent can only survive as a name because someone speaking a Brythonic language told someone else what it was called. Friend Eggnog nods his head and exclaims - "excellent! Then I shall call it the river Avon!"
The place name argument centres heavily on village names, most of which may well have derived from one farm or family group and which now describe sprawling towns of the sort so favored in the South East. The English nucleated village thrived in certain parts of the country, but I'm not sure that is evidence to say that only genetically English people lived in them.
I'm sure Wessex wasn't unique. The story of the British of the North (my own hobby horse) is chock full of rivalry and squabbling which continued through pretty much to the union of crowns in 1603. My guess is that warriors did not pick their king for racial reasons. If you were a young Celt (there I go again) living in Norfolk and fancying adventure, it is far more likely that you would join Redwald's warband than travel to Powys and try your luck there. History remembers your kig as a Saxon and so you become Saxon by association.
I don't say that rurual agriculture was unaffacted - I'm sure it wasn't. Systems of land tenure, inheritance and tax would all play a part. But as shown by the violence of the times and the collapse of the villa system, there was no longer a ready agricultural surplus, or at least no longer the means to distribute one or organise one. That points to subsistence farming and that must have taken up most of the time of most of the people.
Were warriors thugs? I think they were, by and large. They may have had good reasons for doing what they did - gain, advancement, power, excitement or whatever - but at heart they were there to kill people. They did not seem able - or willing - to protect and defend.
Cadwallon - bad choice of name on my part. If it helps, I was using the name as an example, rather than referring specifically to Penda's chum. But I think the point is valid, nonetheless.
Regards,
A R -
Message 26
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Sunday, 12th December 2010
Hi AR
You're right about the internal squabbling sure enough. It wasn't the Saxons that assassinated Urien Rheged after all. The only part of the Arthurian legends that I find in any way plausible is that the Britons fight each other, or Romans. They never, ever, fight Saxons!
We have had endless discussions about the difficulties of descriptive terminology. The difficulty with Celt is that the 'territory' of Celtic language speakers in Europe does not seem to be co-terminus with the users of the La Tene assemblage of artefacts which have been used as a Celtic marker. Several posters don't like the use of 'Saxon' to mean any continental Germanic migrants to Britain either. They prefer to use the tribal affiliations derived from Bede (eg Anglians arrive in Norfolk) or failing that 'Anglo-Saxons'. I've little patience with this usage since it omits the Jutes, Franks and Northumbrians, and no early Germanic migrants called themselves Anglo-Saxons. When the Scots and Welsh wish to be horrid to English people they still call us Saxons today. But then I call the post-Roman native inhabitants of Britain Britons rather than Brythons since I am far from certain that they all spoke a Brythonic language.
My main interest at the moment is covered by your hypothetical 'Celt' who becomes one of Raedwald's warriors. What did he have to do to be accepted as an Anglian? I imagine: speak Old English, worship the Saxon gods (at least notionally), invent an ancestor from the Continent, and adopt some (but not necessarily all) of the Anglian dress codes. Any children he might have would be Anglian in every meaningful sense. Thugs? Well possibly, but they loved music and beautiful objects it the Sutton Hoo finds are any guide.
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 27
Posted by ArweRheged (U14720560) on Sunday, 12th December 2010
Hi TP
Urien Rheged was indeed killed by one of his supposed allies (if Nennius is to be believed), but he was most certainly fighting the Angles at the time. And it wasn't the first time - Argoed Lwyfein at least was fought against the English.
I'm in supposition territory, but in answer to your question "what does our Celt have to do to be accepted as an Anglain?", I'd say "nothing at all". History likes to simplify and make things neat - I was taught that the British won the battle of Waterloo, but even a hurried look at the nationality of the combatants shows how misleading this is.
My guess is that our Briton could join the East Anglian war band as a Briton. Generals are rarely that bothered about who fights for them, as long as they are good at fighting. Our man might have to learn a new language and he's likely to be rewarded by Shiny Things In The Latest Style (allowing his grave to be confidently asserted as "English"), but that's about it.
And on the music point - fair enough, but don't forget that most modern day fights involving British youth take place after the nighclubs have chucked out...
Regards,
A R -
Message 28
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Sunday, 12th December 2010
Twin Probe
Recent exchanges have reminded me of my posts on this some time ago that evinced your "c'est manifique mais ce n'est pas l'histoire' comment.
Cass -
Message 29
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Sunday, 12th December 2010
Hi Cass
I can't think why; would you care to elaborate?
Regards,
TP -
Message 30
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Sunday, 12th December 2010
TP
Water under the bridge.. You were not convinced by my interpretation "back then" and I am not aware of having acquired any meaningful new input.. I withdraw from "the place of slaughter"..
But do I detect a bit of battlefatigue on the MB.. A descent into "rest room" anecdotes......etc
Cass -
Message 31
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Sunday, 12th December 2010
Hi Cass
Well your reply means I have had to burrow in my hard disk, and of course it was your evident enthusiasm for Peter Hunter Blair's interpretation of post-Imperial British history that precipitated my remark.
PHB's interpretation was fine for its time but things have rather moved on. I wouldn't mention the superiority of the Saxon deep plough today, for example. And the place of slaughter could have been the place of peaceful co-operation and acculturation.
I've checked through my reply and it seems quite civil and respectful, but then (as the immortal Charles Coborn pointed out) it is possible to get 'two lovely black eyes' for 'only telling a man he was wrong'.
But sorry anyway,
TP -
Message 32
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Sunday, 12th December 2010
Your mistake was probably to be civil and dacent enough to think to leave the "c'est magnifique" bit in, TP. The problem I can see with your interlocutor is that this is (rather noticably) the bit he didn't quibble with.
Can we get back to the subject matter now? I'm finding ArweRheged's contributions - especially those ones which advocate the view that the historical "record" is itself capable of playing several versions of the tune - rather interesting. In fact I can't really see where you guys differ! -
Message 33
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Monday, 13th December 2010
Well, moving on then....
A R: since, as Nordmann points out, we are in a substantial measure of agreement I'll restrict myself to asking you questions on this occasion.
I live within the old British kingdom of Elmet. Rheged, like Elmet, endured as an independent kingdom for centuries, presumably with its own Celtic language and religion. Both kingdoms were eventually incorporated into Northumbria in the 7th century and nobody has suggested that their existing populations were massacred or displaced. There is excellent historical and place name evidence for the existence of Elmet but, to the best of my knowledge, no archaeological evidence. Even the linear dykes which used to be regarded as Elmet's boundary markers are now thought to be of pre-Roman Iron Age date. I should like to ask if in Rheged there is actual archaeological evidence of the culture of its post-Roman inhabitants? It seems hard to imagine that this evidence does not exist, but it is possible that it is presently being misidentified.
My second questions concerns language. In West Yorkshire you will hear plenty of dialect words, but they are derived from Old Norse not 'Old Elmetic'. It is a continuing puzzle that English is so little influenced by Celtic languages. Is the situation similar in Cumbria; is there evidence of Old Cumbric aside from topographical names and sheep counting I mean? It is language that makes me reticent to accept your East Anglian war-band theory. If the kings of East Anglia commanded an army drawn from both both communities would not a pidgin Old English have developed which would leave traces in modern speech? The traditional dialect of Norfolk is far from standard English, but I understand that the dialect words are again Norse.
We are on slightly firmer ground with 'shiny stuff'. Enamelled handing bowls and the latest styles of penannular brooches are regarded as British in origin and they do find themselves in graves which would otherwise be taken as Saxon. There does seem to be some mixing of material culture. Both cultures could certainly produce amazing jewellery and memorable poetry, when they weren't fighting that is.
TP -
Message 34
Posted by ArweRheged (U14720560) on Monday, 13th December 2010
Hi All,
I can't pretend to be an enormous expert, but for what it's worth:-
Question 1. Yes and no. What we have in Cumbria (in addition to Carlisle and Hadrian's Wall) is a number of sites which are almost always called "British villages" but which seem to have been in existence continuously through the Iron age, the Roman period and beyond. Alas, remains are scarce and many are probably misidentified.
These villages cluster in certain areas - the two I am most familiar with are the cluster north of the A591 (Kentdale and Staveley area) and the cluster around Crosby Ravensworth in the Eden valley. This cluster is particularly interesting, as they are very close to the River Lyvennet - a tributary of the Eden and potentially identifiable with Taliesin's Lwfennydd (sic).
There are also limited documentary records. I don't have the citation to hand, but one relates to a grant of land in the Cartmel area and specifically refers to "all the Britons living within it".
Question 2. Cumbrian dialect is a wierd and wonderful thing - the amount of Hindi loan words used in Carlisle is staggering - but I accept that much of it sounds Norse. There are, however, large numbers of mangled British place name elements which survive to this day - mountains, rivers, natural features and towns/villages. Many have been Anglicized - "The Old Man" (of Coniston) being the most famous. And, as I understand it, our famous sheep counting system is an amalgam of British and Norse.
I don't see language as being a huge issue to our putative war band. I am guilty of rushing to real world examples, but Carlos Teves has played in the Premier League for four years and stils speaks virtually no English. He - like a warrior in a war band - is a famous and celeberated "high status" individual. And, or course, our Norfolk Briton was probably brought up speaking English anyway, just as modern Welsh children are bilingual.
Regards,
AR -
Message 35
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Monday, 13th December 2010
Twin Probe
I do not see why my post should have obliged you to go back a few years- any more than I felt that your post obliged me to go back the same distance- and I see no incivility in what I wrote...
My use of the "place of slaughter" was linked to a recent post on another thread to the effect that war was/is a method of resolving conflicts within the bounds of accepted conduct... Professional soldiers, I hope, are still taught to observe the courtesies of war, outside of the place of slaughter- that is the point of having a battle-field - or even a playing field and a "game time".
But my views on AS History predated Peter Hunter Blair and were largely shaped by a "I beseech you in the bowels of Christ to think ye may be mistaken" attotude to the story of the AS invasion and the devastation of Britain that was the School version in an age when we were all being mentally prepared for the necessity of a nuclear holocaust by generations of historians, and teachers like the English teacher, who was teaching us history that year, who had spent much of the 2ww in the hands of the Gestapo.
In this respect I often quote John Ruskin's first speech as Professor of Poetry at Oxford in 1869, for he really captured the mood of that age that reality was all about a life and death struggle for the survival of the fittest, and that meant young men like Cecil Rhodes and Oscar Wilde who were in that audience. It was their job to become missionaries for a new kind of Roman Empire and take up the burden that the Romans had given up when leaving Britain to the terrible barbarian hordes who were determined to wipe out all traces of Civilization.
Cass -
Message 36
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Monday, 13th December 2010
Hi Cass
Curiosity obliged me to got back since clearly your comments in this thread meant something, and you seemed to be reluctant to explain what. Your posts are never uncivil but I did wonder if I might have been less than my normal sunny self in my reply.
Is it possible, do you suppose, that your profound knowledge of literature and mastery of English prose sometimes hinders the actual exchange of information? I can't see what the nuclear holocaust, the Gestapo, or John Ruskin have to do with this discussion. I do see that the Victorians drew parallels between the British Empire and the Roman Empire but are these helpful now and were they ever historically based?
If you would like to explain your views on post-Roman Britain in simple terms and stripped of literary allusion I, for one, would be glad to read them.
TP -
Message 37
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Monday, 13th December 2010
TP
Further to my previous- it was more a question of making my life possible/endurable- than re-writing history.
As I wrote a couple of days ago-
***
From our cots we April 44 babies could look out uncomprehendingly at a reality in which the difference between Hiroshima and Auschwitz was more incidental than actual, and when we made contact with our global peers we understood that we had lived a joint global experience- perhaps the only one in history, though Sixties pop stars much later seized the technology of the new age to stage global media events. Being an audience is not quite the same as being βdedansβ- right in it up to your neck.
And just as I was pleased to discover some kind of fellow traveller in Peter Hunter Blair and Dudley Stamp, so I realised in 1974 that I had always felt that Jacob Bronowski too was a ft.
So recently I came back once again to his moment at Auschwitz, and I wrote this:
****
So Dr. Bronowski squatting in the muddy pond at Auschwitz suggests a different image of the God of creation from Michaelangelo's famous Sistine Chapel scene. Here is a God, who has already created a 'whizz-bang', fire-cracker, inanimate universe capable of perpetual motion, who knows all things, and therefore that eventually this man will arrive at this place and this moment. God picks up this small handful of earth and weighs up in his mind "Do I really want to make humankind?"
As Bronowski said in his concluding remarks of "The Ascent of Man" in 1974 there was a serious lack of confidence and self-belief in what he and Bruce Mazlisch had described in "The Western Intellectual Tradition"- but surely in part because that Ruskin spirit had led to the abomination of Curtis le May who said that a Nuclear Holocaust that destroyed all life on Earth, apart from a Capitalist Adam and Eve to start all over again, would be a victory.
What has marked the student protests in France and Britain over the last couple of months has been a fear of the challenge of change, and Future that is as yet shown to them as one more Dark Age.
But the battle that Jacob Bronowski fought to maintain an optimistic view of the future- from his childhood in London as a Polish Jewish refugee- takes its toll. His daughter presented a programme last week "My Father, the Bomb and Me"- and she watched the interview that he did with Michael Parkinson in the normal prior publicity to the Ascent of Man series... She could recognise the danger signs in his behaviour like taking off his spectacles to clean them..He collapsed soon afterwards..
But then that was the problem of the Ruskin message- it could lead so easily to the idea that individuals or groups should take up "The White Man's Burden" as if people could be Gods.. At Auschwitz Bronowski said that this was could happen when people aspired to the knowledge of the Gods; and , he went on, science is a tribute to how much we can know given the fact that we can know nothing for sure... But I think that Ms Jardine's surprise at discovering her father's part in the bombing of the 2WW showed also that he had learned probably as a child to try to convey positivism and optimism, while keeping the darkness to himself. It was his burdened Heart that failed not his Head.
Cass -
Message 38
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Monday, 13th December 2010
C'est manifique, mais ne c'est pas l'age de fer Britannique!
I guess you just don't do 'simple'.
TP -
Message 39
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Monday, 13th December 2010
TP
But when I do keep it short and simple it seems that I get criticised or misconstrued..
As to "ages"- the only ages that I am truly interested in are the ages of man- past, present and future: and I seek to be an advocate for the defence, not to prove Humanity innocent, but to make the argument that the prosecution case is not enough to condemn Humanity to the abyss... Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone.
Cass -
Message 40
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Tuesday, 14th December 2010
Can we pleeeeeese get back to the topic now? I was really enjoying the discussion between TP and Arewerheged and learning much, it would be a shame to end it here.
-
Message 41
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Tuesday, 14th December 2010
TP
Apologies I missed your post sandwiched in between 2 of mine.... I can not recall you ever being uncivil, but perhaps I should never have mentioned following this current debate ..
Sorry ID ..
Cass -
Message 42
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Tuesday, 14th December 2010
Hi islanddawn
By all means, and it's stimulating to know anyone is actually reading the posts.
You can see what the difficulties are I am sure. What do we call this period? It could be Late Antiquity, Dark Age, post-Roman Iron Age, Late Iron Age or Early Medieval depending where in western Europe you are, and what your interests might be. There are historical sources for the period AD 400 β 700 but none of them, until Bede, intended to write a connected history of Britain, and it is difficult to make the sources equate with the archaeological evidence (such as it is).
The Roman population of Britain has been estimated as 2-4 M but they seem to have left few physical traces in the post-Imperial period, unless we are miss-identifying their remains and labelling them incorrectly as Roman, Saxon or 'Iron Age'. Finally we have the problems of why we don't now speak a Romance language like France or Spain and the reason that the 'Celtic' languages that were, presumably, spoken in Britain in the pre-Roman Iron Age have contributed so little to modern English.
Enthusiasts for this period often arrive at very different conclusions depending on whether they give priority to historical, archaeological or linguistic evidence, but it saw the transformation of Roman Britain into Anglo-Saxon England so that it cannot be ignored.
Have you found the views expressed here in any way convincing?
TP -
Message 43
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Tuesday, 14th December 2010
Hi TP,
You are both convincing, mainly because both arguments are logical. Not that there is much difference between them as Nordmann has already pointed out, but fascinating none the less.
What to call the period? Personally I rather like post-Roman Iron Age but it is so long, possibly PRIA? Although that doesn't cover it either. But you are correct, it is a difficult period to define because (as you have said) it is really a time of transition from one era to another. With re-settlement of populations, the migrations or invasions of the Angles, Saxons etc, the Norse grabbing a piece of the pie and finally ending with William in 1066 who grabbed the lot.
Possibly the problem is that we are trying to find a term that is too simple to identify what was a very complex and ever changing period? Or was it a series of small periods each deserving an identity of their own? -
Message 44
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Tuesday, 14th December 2010
Hi TP
You have summed up the conundrums really well......
If Welsh and Cornish have managed to survive (which often gives rise to the idea that the locals were pushed into the West) what is the alternative reason for them not taking to English?
It seems that regarding the villages that if there were a 2 - 4 million population at least 2 million must have lived in the countryside? Has this ever changed? This social caste seems to have been there forever.
How an earth did English have such a dramatic effect on this underlying class when they do not have seemed to have been similarly influenced by 400 years of Roman rule?
Although you have always had grave concerns over Gildas I do think that he picks up certain social points and his writing in Latin for the "ruling classes" does seem to show that "Englsih" wasn't prevalent in his day.
So if he is writing in AD550 and talking about the repulsion of invaders are we still under a semi Roman state that is starting to degenerate after Ambrosius into small Kingdom states rather than a larger Province?
So when do things start to change? What starts to change the language so fundamentally?
It would seem that people had to commmunicate in one language, not Latin, not a Celtic variation but a language that has become one of the richest in the world with a huge vocabulary greater than other European language today.
Or am I missing the point?
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 45
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Tuesday, 14th December 2010
Re naming:
Perhaps it is time to liberate ourselves from the industrial revolution and the belief that people are defined by their tools and technology--
Perhaps what is more important is what people want to do with their tools and technology, and the key here might be that the period saw the roots of English Peace.
By the last stages of the Roman Empire the emphasis on its military effort was essentially peace-keeping rather than expansion, and the evidence suggests that "Angles" and " Saxons" were among the Teutonic tribes that provided recruits to the Roman legion..[Hence the Roman pot found at York with AS designs] The Augustan Age had shown that great military force could be used to establish a "pax romanum"- and interestingly this almost seems to coincide with the mission phase of Jesus with his advice "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's".
All the glittering prizes given to Rome over time, however, created such an inherent instability that the defence of the privileged elite was a greater task than the no longer conquering and seemingly alien army could effectively accomplish.
Some of that dynamic was present within Roman Britain too, but the English brought with them either a tradition or an aspiration to "Opt out" of the Dark Ages,and, just as the Greeks are reckoned to have started with raiding and piracy only to find that peaceful trade was a better long-term strategy, so the English way of "commonweal" overcame the more common and traditional conflict model.. It was a way of life that others "bought into".. changing names as people often do when they wish to show that they have changed their belief system. As Christian Aid has come to express it, there was a belief in "life before death" rather than the kind of cults of the dead and the heroic ancestors that can be so powerful in warrior cultures.
Cass -
Message 46
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Tuesday, 14th December 2010
Hi TA
The difficulty with Gildas is that Bede had to use him as a source and naturally that great historian's take on post-Roman history has been extremely influential. But you must be right; Gildas was writing in Latin for an educated literate audience in the west of Britain. English clearly wasn't prevalent in is day, and in his locality, but this may not reflect the situation in East Anglia.
I've been reading 'Britons in Anglo-Saxon England' edited by Nick Higham. I have to admit that the language and place name specialists are far more comfortable with the genocidal theory of Anglo-Saxon migration than are the archaeologists.
I still find it hard to see how Saxon pirates could land enough people on the east coast to change the demography of Britain in the teeth of a population of 2-4M. I know that effectively white settlers in America did exactly that, but they had the 'advantages' of horses, fire-arms, and diseases to which native Americans were extremely susceptible.
One possibility is that Saxon emigration in the east occurred 1-2 centuries earlier under Roman control and essentially the population already spoke Very Old English or Latin, but never a Celtic language. The 'Saxon shore' really would have been the shore where the Saxons were settled.
It occurs to me that perhaps we shall never know for sure. Or perhaps the English reluctance to learn foreign languages and shout at foreigners goes back longer than we think!
TP -
Message 47
Posted by ArweRheged (U14720560) on Tuesday, 14th December 2010
As far as the language issue is concerned, my guess is that Latin was always the language of the ruling classes, but the lumpen masses always spoke Brythonic (or Goidelic or variants thereof). By contrast, English was a universal language, so the dynamic which allowed Latin and Brythonic to survive side by side collapsed.
As the English strengthened their grip on certain areas, it naturally followed that to get on in those areas, one had to speak English, whether or not one was a local, an Angle, a Frisian, a Jute or a cone-headed alien from Ramulak. That didn't mean that people were no longer able to speak Brythonic, but it does suggest that English as a language would ultimately triumph and become the chief language in those areas - and eventually elsewhere too.
I believe this helps us with the paucity of Celtic (eek) place names. There is limited evidence that some places back then had entirely different British and English names and, indeed, this is true even today - Mold in North Wales is also called Yr Wyddgrug and neighbouring Hawarden is called Penarlag. But as Englsih dominated, the old names fell out of use and only the English names made it into recorded history. So, the lack of Brythonic place names is evidence only of the triumph of English as a language.
Even so, plenty of Brythonic place names do exist - and I think it''s significant in the context of the OP of this thread that they tend to describe the bigger places. Both York and Lincoln derive from pre-Roman names which were Latinised, then Anglicised and perhaps even Danified. York quite probably comes via Old Irish ibarach (yew trees) and the Lin bit of Lincoln comes from the Old Welsh word for pool - rendered as Llyn in modern Welsh and refers to the once larger Brayford Pool at the foot of the city.
So why did York and Lincoln retain their Celtic names when both (but Lincoln especially) are on the cusp of heavily Anglicized areas? I'd argue that they did so because British authority or influence survived sufficiently long and sufficiently strong for those names to have become established in the minds of speakers of other languages.
Regards,
A R -
Message 48
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Tuesday, 14th December 2010
Hi TP
Not just the archeologists, the clincher surely is the geneticists and for me this is the real problem.
There is no evidence at all of mass immigration by Saxons, none, zilch. Yes there are bloodline links but again limited to certain areas so although I totally agree with Saxons fighting for the Romans this is only a small influx even if it was in the tens of thousands as opposed to the millions that were already here.
There is something else here that we are all missing, some necessity for people to start talking "English".
If we take AR's points and add it to our own points of view, yes there were warbands who supported a "warlord" or "king" but the countryside dwellers would not have changed.
Who would have done the farming? Not the Warriors.
Even the Romans realised the necessity of having a labour force to do the farming and collecting the resultant harvests as taxes.
The Legions obviously did certain amount of manual labour, making tiles, building forts, walls etc. but not farming.
So the indigenous population was needed to grow food and support the warbands.
It is this indigenous population that remains, that starts to speak English or do they?
What proof do we have as you say that there was not aleady an underlying "Old English" before the Roman's arrived within the population.
Caesar does state that the Southern tribes spoke like the Belgic tribes on the other side of the Channel but were these just isolated groups or people who were in fact bi-lingual?
Was the Atrebates home language Celtic and the Iceni's "Old English" for example?
This would fit your suggestion , just a couple of centuries earlier.......
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 49
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Tuesday, 14th December 2010
There is no evidence at all of mass immigration by Saxons, none, zilch.Β
Y Chromosome Evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration
Michael E. Weale,*1 Deborah A. Weiss,β 1 Rolf F. Jager,*β‘ Neil Bradman,* and
Mark G. Thomas*
pdf -
Message 50
Posted by ArweRheged (U14720560) on Tuesday, 14th December 2010
We do have to ask ourselves what happened to the young men in the warbands once they were too old to fight. Assuming they weren't carved up in the line of duty, they'd have gone back to the land - just like the Roman veterans. This is perhaps another way in which the dominant language of the warband leeches in to the speech of the subsistence farmer - the returning hero with his scars, his stories, his brooches and his songs.
But you make very interesting point. I'd turn your question on its head and ask you and TP what evidence there is that the people of the south east were already speaking OE by the mid fifth century? It flies against the limited written records, but it's an intriguing theory.
Regards,
A R
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 Β 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
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ iD
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ links
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ 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.