Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
First Kalamazoo Report
59 views
Skip to first unread message
Paul J Gans
May 13, 2012, 10:22:04 PM5/13/12
to
I'm on my way back from The 47th International Congress on
Medieval Studies held annually in Kalamazoo, Michigan.
I had a wonderful time meeting old friends and making new
ones. I did not attend last year since I was in the process
of purchasing a new appartment, so I had some catching up
to do.
Most important to me I met two people I admire. One, Walter
Goffart, is very well known to those interested in the fall
of the (western) Roman Empire and the early Middle Ages.
He had a full career at the University of Toronto and is now,
after retiring, at Yale still teaching and writing.
His most recent book is "Barbarian Tides: the Migration Age and
the Later Roman Empire".
I'd always thought of him as an older man and was rather
surprised to learn that he's a year younger than I am. Bernie
Bachrach introduced us and I had several pleasureable conversations
with him over the period of the conference.
The other person I was very pleased to meet was Barbara Hanawalt.
Suprisingly she does not have a Wiki page, but that's Wiki for
you. My favorite book of hers is "The Ties That Bound: Peasant
Families in Medieval England", which I've mentioned here a
great number of times. In person she's shy and very gentle with
folks who just come up to her and introduce themselves.
Among the other notables I met was Erilar, a frequent poster
in this group.
I went to a set of AVISTA sessions commorating the 50th
anniversary of Lynn White, Jr.'s publication of "Medieval
Technology and Social Change". In spite of its many shortcomings
it was and still is a very influential book. There's a quick
summary of it at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Townsend_White,_Jr.>
Medieval technology is one of my major interests (I even taught
a course in it for over a decade) and to my horror found myself
agreeing to write a chapter on a related subject for a for a
forthcoming volume dedicated to Lynn White's memory.
There's more and I'll doubtless be writing about some of it over
the next couple of weeks.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Medieval Studies held annually in Kalamazoo, Michigan.
I had a wonderful time meeting old friends and making new
ones. I did not attend last year since I was in the process
of purchasing a new appartment, so I had some catching up
to do.
Most important to me I met two people I admire. One, Walter
Goffart, is very well known to those interested in the fall
of the (western) Roman Empire and the early Middle Ages.
He had a full career at the University of Toronto and is now,
after retiring, at Yale still teaching and writing.
His most recent book is "Barbarian Tides: the Migration Age and
the Later Roman Empire".
I'd always thought of him as an older man and was rather
surprised to learn that he's a year younger than I am. Bernie
Bachrach introduced us and I had several pleasureable conversations
with him over the period of the conference.
The other person I was very pleased to meet was Barbara Hanawalt.
Suprisingly she does not have a Wiki page, but that's Wiki for
you. My favorite book of hers is "The Ties That Bound: Peasant
Families in Medieval England", which I've mentioned here a
great number of times. In person she's shy and very gentle with
folks who just come up to her and introduce themselves.
Among the other notables I met was Erilar, a frequent poster
in this group.
I went to a set of AVISTA sessions commorating the 50th
anniversary of Lynn White, Jr.'s publication of "Medieval
Technology and Social Change". In spite of its many shortcomings
it was and still is a very influential book. There's a quick
summary of it at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Townsend_White,_Jr.>
Medieval technology is one of my major interests (I even taught
a course in it for over a decade) and to my horror found myself
agreeing to write a chapter on a related subject for a for a
forthcoming volume dedicated to Lynn White's memory.
There's more and I'll doubtless be writing about some of it over
the next couple of weeks.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
a425couple
May 14, 2012, 8:24:45 AM5/14/12
to
"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message...
Sounds wonderful. I am happy for you.
(I keep thinking, just clear up & finish a couple
more major projects/commitments, then I can
spend more time on the fun stuff,,,,, )
> I'm on my way back from The 47th International Congress on
> Medieval Studies held annually in Kalamazoo, Michigan.
> I had a wonderful time meeting old friends and making new
> ones. --------------
> Medieval Studies held annually in Kalamazoo, Michigan.
> I had a wonderful time meeting old friends and making new
Sounds wonderful. I am happy for you.
(I keep thinking, just clear up & finish a couple
more major projects/commitments, then I can
spend more time on the fun stuff,,,,, )
Curt Emanuel
May 14, 2012, 11:02:35 AM5/14/12
to
or e-mailed. It's strange how in any given year there are people who I
seem to run into all the time and others I never see - and it's
different people each year.
I'll be posting Kalamazoo reports to my blog as time permits.
--
--------
Curt Emanuel
ceman...@gmail.com
http://medievalhistorygeek.wordpress.com/
Paul J Gans
May 14, 2012, 11:56:20 AM5/14/12
to
take care of the projects and commitments, but they breed
faster than rabbits.
Paul J Gans
May 14, 2012, 11:58:29 AM5/14/12
to
I missed both you and Larry. And I'm sorry you missed Goffart.
He's a nice fellow.
>I'll be posting Kalamazoo reports to my blog as time permits.
Curt Emanuel
May 14, 2012, 12:07:22 PM5/14/12
to
Curt Emanuel
May 14, 2012, 12:11:01 PM5/14/12
to
On 5/14/2012 11:58 AM, Paul J Gans wrote:
him and Guy Halsall. More correctly would be that I was talking with Guy
(I've developed a bit of a relationship with him through our respective
blogs) and Walter stopped by and I sort of faded into the background but
that was fine.
>
>> I'll be posting Kalamazoo reports to my blog as time permits.
>
> But I don't know your blog URL... ;-(
>
these days.
Paul J Gans
May 14, 2012, 7:21:18 PM5/14/12
to
Paul J Gans
May 14, 2012, 7:24:31 PM5/14/12
to
>>
>>> I'll be posting Kalamazoo reports to my blog as time permits.
>>
>> But I don't know your blog URL... ;-(
>>
>Sorry for the double reply. I'm finding myself in a hurry too often
>these days.
Weland
May 15, 2012, 2:55:13 AM5/15/12
to
intended to get to one De Re Milt session, but didn't, but one of my
grad students did go to the business meeting. Walter is good, but I do
have such a hard time agreeing with him.
Curt Emanuel
May 15, 2012, 6:04:20 AM5/15/12
to
person. He has some strong opinions and isn't afraid to share them, more
than he should sometimes, probably. He also has some very rigorous ideas
on the use of historical evidence.
John Briggs
May 15, 2012, 8:34:56 AM5/15/12
to
--
John Briggs
Paul J Gans
May 15, 2012, 1:02:11 PM5/15/12
to
I was at the de re business meeting. That's as close as we got... ;-(
Erilar
May 15, 2012, 9:29:18 PM5/15/12
to
Curt Emanuel <ceman...@gmail.com> wrote:
Re Paul Gans:
>
> Larry Swain told me he thought you were attending. I should have called
> or e-mailed. It's strange how in any given year there are people who I
> seem to run into all the time and others I never see - and it's different people each year.
>
> I'll be posting Kalamazoo reports to my blog as time permits.
I was pretty sure Paul was coming, but we didn't encounter each other until
almost the end. Om thevother hand, Curt and I kept crossing often and
even ended up in the same session the last morning.
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad
Re Paul Gans:
>
> Larry Swain told me he thought you were attending. I should have called
> or e-mailed. It's strange how in any given year there are people who I
> seem to run into all the time and others I never see - and it's different people each year.
>
> I'll be posting Kalamazoo reports to my blog as time permits.
almost the end. Om thevother hand, Curt and I kept crossing often and
even ended up in the same session the last morning.
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad
Paul F Austin
May 15, 2012, 9:45:57 PM5/15/12
to
Paul
Curt Emanuel
May 16, 2012, 7:11:58 AM5/16/12
to
his more recent work where he seems to stretch the evidence to reach
conclusions. Then I read his Variorum and figured out where his
reputation came from - his earlier stuff is really good.
It also seems strange that in his earlier work he is extremely
aggressive about people not using evidence correctly, particularly with
ethnogenesis and migration (I put a book of his and one of Wolfram's
next to each other on my bookshelf and wondered if the books would
actually fight) and more recently, rather than rationally refuting
Halsall and Heather when they call his accommodation theory into
question due to his own use of evidence(the Burgundians just don't fit -
even I can see that with my rudimentary Latin), he gets so vehement.
Paul J Gans
May 16, 2012, 12:30:41 PM5/16/12
to
I suspect that part of the problem is that there is not enough
evidence. At one of the sessions I attended there was a discussion
of the major need for historians and archaeologists to cooperate.
As it is now each seems to be unaware of the other. And, like other
scientists, archaeologists write in a jargon that makes their work
difficult for the non-specialist to understand.
One example (not one that came up in that discussion) is the Saxon
conquest of major parts of England. The sources claim that it was
done with fire and bloodshed. The archaeology seems to indicate
that for the most part the "takeover" was peaceful with no major
evidence of the burning of villages.
There's clearly something not quite right here. And there is a
real need to settle the question.
The transition years including the end of the western Empire and
the emergence of a new order in the west seem to suffer from the
same sort of problem.
For my part I tend to distrust both. There's lots of work that
needs to be done.
Renia
May 16, 2012, 1:36:30 PM5/16/12
to
On 16/05/2012 17:30, Paul J Gans wrote:
> As it is now each seems to be unaware of the other. And, like other
> scientists, archaeologists write in a jargon that makes their work
> difficult for the non-specialist to understand.
Since when have archaeologists been scientists? Some scientists (e.g.
> As it is now each seems to be unaware of the other. And, like other
> scientists, archaeologists write in a jargon that makes their work
> difficult for the non-specialist to understand.
dendrochronologists, geophysicists) contribute to archaeological
discovery and archaeologists use their knowledge, but archaeology itself
is a branch of history.
Renia
May 16, 2012, 1:43:28 PM5/16/12
to
On 16/05/2012 17:30, Paul J Gans wrote:
> One example (not one that came up in that discussion) is the Saxon
> conquest of major parts of England. The sources claim that it was
> done with fire and bloodshed. The archaeology seems to indicate
> that for the most part the "takeover" was peaceful with no major
> evidence of the burning of villages.
>
> There's clearly something not quite right here. And there is a
> real need to settle the question.
Hence the so-called "Dark Ages", due to the lack of written sources.
> conquest of major parts of England. The sources claim that it was
> done with fire and bloodshed. The archaeology seems to indicate
> that for the most part the "takeover" was peaceful with no major
> evidence of the burning of villages.
>
> There's clearly something not quite right here. And there is a
> real need to settle the question.
Much work is being done in modern archaeology which debunks the idea of
savage Vikings in helmets raiding and raping their way around England.
The Saxon conquest is not seen here (in the land of the South Saxons) as
a conquest, violent or otherwise. "It was no invasion at all, but an
intermittent, slow-motion affair, comparable with the European
colonisation of the North American coastlands." [Exploring Saxon and
Norman England; P.J.Helm; Robert Hale, London 1976.]
The question is already settled.
Jantero
May 16, 2012, 8:57:32 PM5/16/12
to
A 2002 genetic study indicated a lot of Romano/Celtic males (not
females) went missing from the gene pool in Britain during the time of
the Anglo Saxon takeover.
A few relevant timeline points come to mind:
The Roman "Count of the Saxon shore" got killed fighting the Saxon et al
raiders which indicates they were militarily effective and using force,
at least during those times (mid 300s).
By around 390 most of the Roman military had left Britain for the
continent, leavng various doors open.
"To Ætius, now consul for the third time: the groans of the Britons.
The barbarians drive us to the sea; the sea throws us back on the
barbarians: thus two modes of death await us, we are either slain or
drowned."
In the absence of the Legions, the Scot and the Pict tribes starting
attacking the Romano-celts from the west and the north, and apparently
the Angles, Saxons, etc. were hired by the Romano-celts as mercenaries
to combat them (not a peaceful scenario) and then they decided to
themselves move in and take over - afterall, they had dealt with the
tribes the Romano-celts couldn't deal with.
It could be speculated that several centuries of Roman
occupation/government and reliance on their professional military forces
had eroded tribal military institutions and capabilities, making the job
easier for the incoming Saxons et al.
The "Arthur" war band leader who defeated the Saxons at Mt. Baden c. 500
and slowed their encroachment was, well, a *war* band leader.
I would bet that there was a substantial amount of episodic fighting
going on during the 400s into the 500s, in various places, between
various opponents.
If they can avoid it, invaders don't destroy property that they intend
to make their own - these weren't Huns. The Norman conquest didn't leave
an "ash layer" in Angle-land.
Here's a piece on the genetics study, the entire article is well worth
reading:
http://harvardmagazine.com/2009/07/who-killed-the-men-england
" AN EXEMPLAR of this new approach is geneticist Mark Thomas of
University College London, whom McCormick invited to speak at Harvard as
part of the initiative in December 2007. Thomas was among the scientists
who first identified the suggestive pattern of Y-chromosome distribution
among British men in 2002; he had been seeking a plausible explanation
for the data ever since. As he recounted in a lecture titled, “No Sex
Please, We’re English: Genes, Anglo-Saxon Apartheid, and the Early
Medieval Settlement of Britain,” Thomas had found that genetically, not
one of the English towns he sampled was significantly different from the
others. Welsh towns, on the other hand, were significantly different from
each other and from the English towns. Most importantly, he found that
inhabitants of the Dutch province of Friesland were indistinguishable
genetically from the English town-dwellers. Friesland is one of the
known embarkation points of the Angl0-Saxons—and the language spoken
there is the closest living relative to English. (“Listening to a
Frisian speak,” says Thomas, “is like listening to somebody speak
English with a frog in their mouth.”) "
Paul J Gans
May 16, 2012, 9:58:35 PM5/16/12
to
still little or no archaeological evidence for the violent
replacement of one population by another. And yes, I understand
that written material says otherwise.
Jantero
May 16, 2012, 10:09:30 PM5/16/12
to
it, invaders don't destroy property that they intend to make their own -
these weren't Huns. The Norman conquest didn't leave an "ash layer" in
Angle-land. "
Or maybe I am missing something - what sort of definitive archaeological
these weren't Huns. The Norman conquest didn't leave an "ash layer" in
Angle-land. "
evidence do you think should be present?
Paul J Gans
May 16, 2012, 10:48:43 PM5/16/12
to
to the ground. Such burning leaves marks.
Of course we could be looking in the wrong places. And it is
very likely that the sources exaggerate.
Bill
May 17, 2012, 7:35:20 AM5/17/12
to
In article <jp1mkq$u68$1...@dont-email.me>, jante...@hotmail.com says...
> >> who ?rst identi?ed the suggestive pattern of Y-chromosome distribution
> >> Please, We?re English: Genes, Anglo-Saxon Apartheid, and the Early
> >> Medieval Settlement of Britain,? Thomas had found that genetically, not
> >> one of the English towns he sampled was signi?cantly different from the
> >> others. Welsh towns, on the other hand, were signi?cantly different from
> >> there is the closest living relative to English. (?Listening to a
> >> Frisian speak,? says Thomas, ?is like listening to somebody speak
> >> English with a frog in their mouth.?) "
never had any Angles living in it) I think the quotation is: 'Not a
house left standing between the Humber and the Tees'.
Nevertheless the cry of the archaeologist "There's no burnt layer' is a
persuasive one when talking of and conflict between the Saxons and the
Romano British, especially when they keep finding Saxon religious
decorations on Roman uniforms in excavations in England.
The logical question to ask is 'what would cause a disappearance of a
lot of blood lines in that period that wasn't a war'.
Did Saxons go in for lots of wives if they were rich and were the
incoming Saxons rich compared to the locals?
--
William Black
When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then it's
time to leave.
> >> among British men in 2002; he had been seeking a plausible explanation
> >> for the data ever since. As he recounted in a lecture titled, ?No Sex
> >> Please, We?re English: Genes, Anglo-Saxon Apartheid, and the Early
> >> Medieval Settlement of Britain,? Thomas had found that genetically, not
> >> one of the English towns he sampled was signi?cantly different from the
> >> others. Welsh towns, on the other hand, were signi?cantly different from
> >> each other and from the English towns. Most importantly, he found that
> >> inhabitants of the Dutch province of Friesland were indistinguishable
> >> genetically from the English town-dwellers. Friesland is one of the
> >> known embarkation points of the Angl0-Saxons?and the language spoken
> >> inhabitants of the Dutch province of Friesland were indistinguishable
> >> genetically from the English town-dwellers. Friesland is one of the
> >> there is the closest living relative to English. (?Listening to a
> >> Frisian speak,? says Thomas, ?is like listening to somebody speak
> >> English with a frog in their mouth.?) "
> >
> > I take your point, but I suspect that you miss mine. There is
> > still little or no archaeological evidence for the violent
> > replacement of one population by another. And yes, I understand
> > that written material says otherwise.
>
> I think I understood your point, I mentioned that: "If they can avoid
> it, invaders don't destroy property that they intend to make their own -
> these weren't Huns. The Norman conquest didn't leave an "ash layer" in
> Angle-land. "
>
The Normans certainly left an ash layer in Northern England, (Which
> > I take your point, but I suspect that you miss mine. There is
> > still little or no archaeological evidence for the violent
> > replacement of one population by another. And yes, I understand
> > that written material says otherwise.
>
> I think I understood your point, I mentioned that: "If they can avoid
> it, invaders don't destroy property that they intend to make their own -
> these weren't Huns. The Norman conquest didn't leave an "ash layer" in
> Angle-land. "
>
never had any Angles living in it) I think the quotation is: 'Not a
house left standing between the Humber and the Tees'.
Nevertheless the cry of the archaeologist "There's no burnt layer' is a
persuasive one when talking of and conflict between the Saxons and the
Romano British, especially when they keep finding Saxon religious
decorations on Roman uniforms in excavations in England.
The logical question to ask is 'what would cause a disappearance of a
lot of blood lines in that period that wasn't a war'.
Did Saxons go in for lots of wives if they were rich and were the
incoming Saxons rich compared to the locals?
--
William Black
When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then it's
time to leave.
Matt Tompkins
May 17, 2012, 8:47:37 AM5/17/12
to
On May 17, 1:57 am, Jantero <jantero...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> How about historical genetics? Talk about incomprehensible "jargon".
>
<snip>
> How about historical genetics? Talk about incomprehensible "jargon".
>
>
> Here's a piece on the genetics study, the entire article is well worth
> reading:
>
> http://harvardmagazine.com/2009/07/who-killed-the-men-england
>
> " AN EXEMPLAR of this new approach is geneticist Mark Thomas of
> University College London, whom McCormick invited to speak at Harvard as
> part of the initiative in December 2007. Thomas was among the scientists
> who first identified the suggestive pattern of Y-chromosome distribution
> among British men in 2002; he had been seeking a plausible explanation
> for the data ever since. As he recounted in a lecture titled, “No Sex
> Please, We’re English: Genes, Anglo-Saxon Apartheid, and the Early
> Medieval Settlement of Britain,” Thomas had found that genetically, not
> one of the English towns he sampled was significantly different from the
> others. Welsh towns, on the other hand, were significantly different from
> each other and from the English towns. Most importantly, he found that
> inhabitants of the Dutch province of Friesland were indistinguishable
> genetically from the English town-dwellers. Friesland is one of the
> known embarkation points of the Angl0-Saxons—and the language spoken
> there is the closest living relative to English. (“Listening to a
> Frisian speak,” says Thomas, “is like listening to somebody speak
> English with a frog in their mouth.”) "-
> Here's a piece on the genetics study, the entire article is well worth
> reading:
>
> http://harvardmagazine.com/2009/07/who-killed-the-men-england
>
> " AN EXEMPLAR of this new approach is geneticist Mark Thomas of
> University College London, whom McCormick invited to speak at Harvard as
> part of the initiative in December 2007. Thomas was among the scientists
> who first identified the suggestive pattern of Y-chromosome distribution
> among British men in 2002; he had been seeking a plausible explanation
> for the data ever since. As he recounted in a lecture titled, “No Sex
> Please, We’re English: Genes, Anglo-Saxon Apartheid, and the Early
> Medieval Settlement of Britain,” Thomas had found that genetically, not
> one of the English towns he sampled was significantly different from the
> others. Welsh towns, on the other hand, were significantly different from
> each other and from the English towns. Most importantly, he found that
> inhabitants of the Dutch province of Friesland were indistinguishable
> genetically from the English town-dwellers. Friesland is one of the
> known embarkation points of the Angl0-Saxons—and the language spoken
> there is the closest living relative to English. (“Listening to a
> Frisian speak,” says Thomas, “is like listening to somebody speak
Linguistics also provides evidence for a displacement of the Welsh
population by Anglo-Saxon invaders (though of course is silent as to
whether that displacement was accompanied by burnt villages), and
ought also to be given more weight by those archaeologists who see no
further than the excavation at their feet - see Richard Coates' two
articles:
‘Invisible Britons: The View from Linguistics’, in N.J. Higham (ed.),
Britons in Anglo-Saxon England (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2007),
pp. 172-91.
‘Invisible Britons: The View from Toponomastics’, in G. Broderick and
P. Cavill, eds, Language Contact in the Place-Names of Britain and
Ireland, English Place-Name Society (Nottingham, 2007), pp. 41-53.
A summary of his arguments can be seen at:
http://www-fbe.uwe.ac.uk/hlss/llas/bcl/5resources/Inaugural_coates_061207.pdf
Matt Tompkins
Paul J Gans
May 17, 2012, 11:24:57 AM5/17/12
to
like to see them too. The article is interesting, but I'd wait for
verification with references.
Having said that, I'd also be willing to believe that the burning
of villages was simple exaggeration. My GUESS (I stress that) is
that battles took place in open ground, not in villages (which were
not fortified in any case). The results of a generation of war
could have reduced the breeding population of Celtic males
significantly.
And we know that there were significant migrations to what is now
Brittany from at least Devon and Cornwall. And the migrations were
large enough to impose their language on the native Armoricans.
The question is interesting. More definitive answers will have to
await more evidence.
W. Baker
May 17, 2012, 11:53:25 AM5/17/12
to
Jantero <jante...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: On 5/16/2012 10:30 AM, Paul J Gans wrote:
: How about historical genetics? Talk about incomprehensible "jargon".
: A 2002 genetic study indicated a lot of Romano/Celtic males (not
: females) went missing from the gene pool in Britain during the time of
: the Anglo Saxon takeover.
: A few relevant timeline points come to mind:
: The Roman "Count of the Saxon shore" got killed fighting the Saxon et al
: raiders which indicates they were militarily effective and using force,
: at least during those times (mid 300s).
: By around 390 most of the Roman military had left Britain for the
: continent, leavng various doors open.
: "To ?tius, now consul for the third time: the groans of the Britons.
: who ?rst identi?ed the suggestive pattern of Y-chromosome distribution
: Please, We?re English: Genes, Anglo-Saxon Apartheid, and the Early
: Medieval Settlement of Britain,? Thomas had found that genetically, not
: one of the English towns he sampled was signi?cantly different from the
: others. Welsh towns, on the other hand, were signi?cantly different from
: there is the closest living relative to English. (?Listening to a
: Frisian speak,? says Thomas, ?is like listening to somebody speak
: English with a frog in their mouth.?) "
Perhaps my comment is simplemnded, but wouldn't this destruction of
Roman-Celt males have a great deal to do with the lack of Latin(as opposed
to later Latin-based French) on the English language?
Wendy Wisan Baker
: On 5/16/2012 10:30 AM, Paul J Gans wrote:
: How about historical genetics? Talk about incomprehensible "jargon".
: A 2002 genetic study indicated a lot of Romano/Celtic males (not
: females) went missing from the gene pool in Britain during the time of
: the Anglo Saxon takeover.
: A few relevant timeline points come to mind:
: The Roman "Count of the Saxon shore" got killed fighting the Saxon et al
: raiders which indicates they were militarily effective and using force,
: at least during those times (mid 300s).
: By around 390 most of the Roman military had left Britain for the
: continent, leavng various doors open.
: among British men in 2002; he had been seeking a plausible explanation
: for the data ever since. As he recounted in a lecture titled, ?No Sex
: Please, We?re English: Genes, Anglo-Saxon Apartheid, and the Early
: Medieval Settlement of Britain,? Thomas had found that genetically, not
: one of the English towns he sampled was signi?cantly different from the
: others. Welsh towns, on the other hand, were signi?cantly different from
: each other and from the English towns. Most importantly, he found that
: inhabitants of the Dutch province of Friesland were indistinguishable
: genetically from the English town-dwellers. Friesland is one of the
: known embarkation points of the Angl0-Saxons?and the language spoken
: inhabitants of the Dutch province of Friesland were indistinguishable
: genetically from the English town-dwellers. Friesland is one of the
: there is the closest living relative to English. (?Listening to a
: Frisian speak,? says Thomas, ?is like listening to somebody speak
: English with a frog in their mouth.?) "
Perhaps my comment is simplemnded, but wouldn't this destruction of
Roman-Celt males have a great deal to do with the lack of Latin(as opposed
to later Latin-based French) on the English language?
Wendy Wisan Baker
Renia
May 17, 2012, 12:32:12 PM5/17/12
to
On 17/05/2012 16:24, Paul J Gans wrote:
>
> And we know that there were significant migrations to what is now
> Brittany from at least Devon and Cornwall. And the migrations were
> large enough to impose their language on the native Armoricans.
Brittany even shares the same stories about King Arthur.
>
> And we know that there were significant migrations to what is now
> Brittany from at least Devon and Cornwall. And the migrations were
> large enough to impose their language on the native Armoricans.
Paul J Gans
May 17, 2012, 7:36:54 PM5/17/12
to
Jantero
May 17, 2012, 8:29:30 PM5/17/12
to
Britain was.
I think Celt was still predominant, at least among peasants.
Somebody in here should know.
After decades/centuries of Spanish rule, there wasn't much original
native language left in the New World. One culture bulldozing another.
However, in New World comparisons, killing off 90 pct of the native
population by plagues had to have had a huge effect that wasn't present
in the Briton-Angle language case.
>
> Wendy Wisan Baker
Jantero
May 17, 2012, 9:30:14 PM5/17/12
to
Does the lack of ash layers in southern England (Angle-land) mean there
was no invasion and conquest there, in 1066?
The Harrying of the north ocurred 3 or 4 years after Hastings and Edgar
Etheling's submission - in other words they were in "rebellion" and were
being taught a lesson - at least from William's standpoint.
In any case, my original point was: "If they can avoid it, invaders
don't destroy property that they intend to make their own".
What William felt he didn't have to destroy, he didn't destroy. Hence,
no ash layers in most conquered places.
On the other hand, Attila once casually exterminated and razed all the
Roman farming settlements in a large zone south of the Danube, probably
just to show what happened when he wasn't happy, but obstensibly because
they might pose a threat to his bivouacs to the north of the river.
Years later, a Roman emissary party had trouble finding a place to stop
and have a meal - a place that wasn't covered with the whitening bones
of the men, women and children who had once lived there. That, an
archaeologist could detect if he excavated in the right places.
>> Nevertheless the cry of the archaeologist "There's no burnt layer' is a
>> persuasive one when talking of and conflict between the Saxons and the
>> Romano British, especially when they keep finding Saxon religious
>> decorations on Roman uniforms in excavations in England.
>
>> The logical question to ask is 'what would cause a disappearance of a
>> lot of blood lines in that period that wasn't a war'.
>
>> Did Saxons go in for lots of wives if they were rich and were the
>> incoming Saxons rich compared to the locals?
>
> The first comment to the paper cited above asks for references. I'd
> like to see them too. The article is interesting, but I'd wait for
> verification with references.
study - Conquistadores replacing native males in the gene pool.
" Comment: What are the bibliographic details for the Ruiz-Linares paper? "
" An even more remarkable history, says Reich, is told in the genes of
the men and women living in Medellín, Colombia. Most Americans associate
Medellín with the drug cartels of that isolated region. But the
remoteness has also preserved a genetic legacy that can be traced to the
conquistadores. As described in a paper by Andrés Ruiz-Linares of
University College London, the Y-chromosomes of men in Medellín are 95
percent European, while the mitochondrial DNA of the women is 95 percent
Native American. Spanish men and Native American women created a new
population—confirming the recorded history of the region. "
Andres Ruiz Linares:
Department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment
University College London
He is currently the Editor-in-Chief of the Annals of Human Genetics,
co-organize UCL's MSc on the Genetics of Human Disease and chair CANDELA
(Consortium for the Analysis of the Diversity and Evolution of Latin
America)
xxx
The Briton-Angle genetic study was headed by Prof Mark Thomas (as below).
There is no reason to doubt that this is good research.
The question is how to explain its results.
http://www.cecd.ucl.ac.uk/people/?go1=58
Principal Investigator Profile
Prof Mark Thomas
Professor of Evolutionary Genetics, Research Department of Genetics,
Evolution and Environment, University College London
Research and Teaching interests
Research Interests:
The distribution of genetic and cultural variation in human populations
is shaped by demographic history, natural selection, mutation (or
innovation) and random factors (drift). Understanding how these
different processes interact is key to understanding our hidden past and
permits, in many cases, detailed inferences on the specific origins and
spread of populations, phenotypically / medically relevant mutations and
culturally inherited skills.
Educational Background
1982-1986: BSc in Biological Science (Genetics) at the School of
Biological Sciences, University of Birmingham , UK.
1986-1990: PhD, Department of Genetics and Microbiology, University of
Liverpool .
Title: Copper inducible genes in the flowering plant Mimulus guttatus
Associated Links:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/mace-lab/people/mark
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/mace-lab/
Associated AHRC CECD Projects (Phase 2):
• Project A002
Lactose tolerance and population expansion in prehistoric Europe
• Project A005
Population replacement in Anglo-Saxon England
• Project C010
Measuring Cultural Selection
Associated Publications - AHRC CECD - phase 2:
• J. Burger, M. Kirchner, B. Bramanti, W. Haak, and M. G. Thomas (2007).
Absence of the lactase-persistence-associated allele in early Neolithic
Europeans.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA). Vol
104. 3736-3741.
> Having said that, I'd also be willing to believe that the burning
> of villages was simple exaggeration. My GUESS (I stress that) is
> that battles took place in open ground, not in villages (which were
> not fortified in any case). The results of a generation of war
> could have reduced the breeding population of Celtic males
> significantly.
Additionally, I would guess the Romano-celts military
traditions/capbilites had lapsed over the centuries with the presence of
the professional Roman military, they couldn't cope with the Scotti and
Picts raids, and then the later Angle/Saxon settlement movement/invasion.
There was some fighting, and there were some successes.
"Arthur's" Mt Baden battle win (c. 520), is consistent with
archaeological evidence based on distinctive Saxon burial traditions
that indicate a 50 year pause in Saxon expansion around that time.
Archaelogical work has revealed what, for the time, was a very large
fortified position at Cadbury Hill. There was a great hall, the camp
walls were built in Celtic fashion, and it would have taken about 800
men to man the fort, at a time when the average war band was probably
about 100 men.
Archaeological works have revealed other forts, but not of that scale.
> And we know that there were significant migrations to what is now
> Brittany from at least Devon and Cornwall. And the migrations were
> large enough to impose their language on the native Armoricans.
Around 1190, a Breton storyteller supposedly told Henry II that "Arthur"
was buried at Glastonbury.
The monks there supposedly did some digging and found remains of a man
and woman buried together, and uncovered a lead cross saying it was
"Arturius?" and Gueneviere. Of course all this went missing a few
centuries later and the monks might have faked it so they could attract
visitors and donations.
Bill
May 18, 2012, 6:22:21 AM5/18/12
to
In article <jp48n6$5rr$1...@dont-email.me>, jante...@hotmail.com says...
The famous ash layer in England is the one in London left by Boadicea
I must assume that the cry of 'There's no ash layer' is significant to
the archaeologists because they do keep repeating it as if it is
significant.
I am forced to assume that it is a well known feature of migration
period conflict, but I really don't know.
>
> On 5/17/2012 9:24 AM, Paul J Gans wrote:
> > Bill<black...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> The Normans certainly left an ash layer in Northern England, (Which
> >> never had any Angles living in it) I think the quotation is: 'Not a
> >> house left standing between the Humber and the Tees'.
>
> Well said - you're illustrating my point.
>
> Does the lack of ash layers in southern England (Angle-land) mean there
> was no invasion and conquest there, in 1066?
>
No idea, I'm not an archaeologist.
> On 5/17/2012 9:24 AM, Paul J Gans wrote:
> > Bill<black...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> The Normans certainly left an ash layer in Northern England, (Which
> >> never had any Angles living in it) I think the quotation is: 'Not a
> >> house left standing between the Humber and the Tees'.
>
> Well said - you're illustrating my point.
>
> Does the lack of ash layers in southern England (Angle-land) mean there
> was no invasion and conquest there, in 1066?
>
The famous ash layer in England is the one in London left by Boadicea
I must assume that the cry of 'There's no ash layer' is significant to
the archaeologists because they do keep repeating it as if it is
significant.
I am forced to assume that it is a well known feature of migration
period conflict, but I really don't know.
John Briggs
May 18, 2012, 10:07:53 AM5/18/12
to
you saying that women didn't know Latin?
--
John Briggs
W. Baker
May 18, 2012, 11:24:06 AM5/18/12
to
John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Of course they did, but one would assume that the conquorors asserted
their language over time as they became the husband, mates, etc of those
women. This is speculation on my part.
Wendy Wisan Baker
their language over time as they became the husband, mates, etc of those
women. This is speculation on my part.
Wendy Wisan Baker
John Briggs
May 18, 2012, 12:06:41 PM5/18/12
to
> Of course they did, but one would assume that the conquorors asserted
> their language over time as they became the husband, mates, etc of those
> women. This is speculation on my part.
Yes, it is. Native language is called "mother tongue" for a reason, you
> their language over time as they became the husband, mates, etc of those
> women. This is speculation on my part.
know.
--
John Briggs
Paul J Gans
May 18, 2012, 1:14:10 PM5/18/12
to
Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In article <jp48n6$5rr$1...@dont-email.me>, jante...@hotmail.com says...
>>
>> On 5/17/2012 9:24 AM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>> > Bill<black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> The Normans certainly left an ash layer in Northern England, (Which
>> >> never had any Angles living in it) I think the quotation is: 'Not a
>> >> house left standing between the Humber and the Tees'.
>>
>> Well said - you're illustrating my point.
>>
>> Does the lack of ash layers in southern England (Angle-land) mean there
>> was no invasion and conquest there, in 1066?
>>
>No idea, I'm not an archaeologist.
>The famous ash layer in England is the one in London left by Boadicea
>I must assume that the cry of 'There's no ash layer' is significant to
>the archaeologists because they do keep repeating it as if it is
>significant.
>I am forced to assume that it is a well known feature of migration
>period conflict, but I really don't know.
The written records of the time speak of great destruction,
>In article <jp48n6$5rr$1...@dont-email.me>, jante...@hotmail.com says...
>>
>> On 5/17/2012 9:24 AM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>> > Bill<black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> The Normans certainly left an ash layer in Northern England, (Which
>> >> never had any Angles living in it) I think the quotation is: 'Not a
>> >> house left standing between the Humber and the Tees'.
>>
>> Well said - you're illustrating my point.
>>
>> Does the lack of ash layers in southern England (Angle-land) mean there
>> was no invasion and conquest there, in 1066?
>>
>No idea, I'm not an archaeologist.
>The famous ash layer in England is the one in London left by Boadicea
>I must assume that the cry of 'There's no ash layer' is significant to
>the archaeologists because they do keep repeating it as if it is
>significant.
>I am forced to assume that it is a well known feature of migration
>period conflict, but I really don't know.
large battles, and so on. Judging by them, there should be
the remains of burned villages, but there seem not to be.
I'd explain it by claiming that the sources are wrong or,
more likely, exaggerating the horrors of the Saxon takeover.
John Briggs
May 18, 2012, 1:20:45 PM5/18/12
to
On 18/05/2012 18:14, Paul J Gans wrote:
> Bill<black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In article<jp48n6$5rr$1...@dont-email.me>, jante...@hotmail.com says...
>>>
>>> On 5/17/2012 9:24 AM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>>>> Bill<black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> The Normans certainly left an ash layer in Northern England, (Which
>>>>> never had any Angles living in it) I think the quotation is: 'Not a
>>>>> house left standing between the Humber and the Tees'.
>>>
>>> Well said - you're illustrating my point.
>>>
>>> Does the lack of ash layers in southern England (Angle-land) mean there
>>> was no invasion and conquest there, in 1066?
>>>
>
>> No idea, I'm not an archaeologist.
>
>> The famous ash layer in England is the one in London left by Boadicea
>
>> I must assume that the cry of 'There's no ash layer' is significant to
>> the archaeologists because they do keep repeating it as if it is
>> significant.
>
>> I am forced to assume that it is a well known feature of migration
>> period conflict, but I really don't know.
>
> The written records of the time speak of great destruction,
> large battles, and so on. Judging by them, there should be
> the remains of burned villages, but there seem not to be.
There weren't any villages.
> Bill<black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In article<jp48n6$5rr$1...@dont-email.me>, jante...@hotmail.com says...
>>>
>>> On 5/17/2012 9:24 AM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>>>> Bill<black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> The Normans certainly left an ash layer in Northern England, (Which
>>>>> never had any Angles living in it) I think the quotation is: 'Not a
>>>>> house left standing between the Humber and the Tees'.
>>>
>>> Well said - you're illustrating my point.
>>>
>>> Does the lack of ash layers in southern England (Angle-land) mean there
>>> was no invasion and conquest there, in 1066?
>>>
>
>> No idea, I'm not an archaeologist.
>
>> The famous ash layer in England is the one in London left by Boadicea
>
>> I must assume that the cry of 'There's no ash layer' is significant to
>> the archaeologists because they do keep repeating it as if it is
>> significant.
>
>> I am forced to assume that it is a well known feature of migration
>> period conflict, but I really don't know.
>
> The written records of the time speak of great destruction,
> large battles, and so on. Judging by them, there should be
> the remains of burned villages, but there seem not to be.
--
John Briggs
AlexMilman
May 18, 2012, 1:52:50 PM5/18/12
to
On May 18, 1:20 pm, John Briggs <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> On 18/05/2012 18:14, Paul J Gans wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Bill<blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 18/05/2012 18:14, Paul J Gans wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> In article<jp48n6$5r...@dont-email.me>, jantero...@hotmail.com says...
>
> >>> On 5/17/2012 9:24 AM, Paul J Gans wrote:
> >>> On 5/17/2012 9:24 AM, Paul J Gans wrote:
> >>>> Bill<blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> The Normans certainly left an ash layer in Northern England, (Which
> >>>>> never had any Angles living in it) I think the quotation is: 'Not a
> >>>>> house left standing between the Humber and the Tees'.
>
> >>> Well said - you're illustrating my point.
>
> >>> Does the lack of ash layers in southern England (Angle-land) mean there
> >>> was no invasion and conquest there, in 1066?
>
> >> No idea, I'm not an archaeologist.
>
> >> The famous ash layer in England is the one in London left by Boadicea
>
> >> I must assume that the cry of 'There's no ash layer' is significant to
> >> the archaeologists because they do keep repeating it as if it is
> >> significant.
>
> >> I am forced to assume that it is a well known feature of migration
> >> period conflict, but I really don't know.
>
> > The written records of the time speak of great destruction,
> > large battles, and so on. Judging by them, there should be
> > the remains of burned villages, but there seem not to be.
>
> There weren't any villages.
You got me curious.
>
> >>>>> The Normans certainly left an ash layer in Northern England, (Which
> >>>>> never had any Angles living in it) I think the quotation is: 'Not a
> >>>>> house left standing between the Humber and the Tees'.
>
> >>> Well said - you're illustrating my point.
>
> >>> Does the lack of ash layers in southern England (Angle-land) mean there
> >>> was no invasion and conquest there, in 1066?
>
> >> No idea, I'm not an archaeologist.
>
> >> The famous ash layer in England is the one in London left by Boadicea
>
> >> I must assume that the cry of 'There's no ash layer' is significant to
> >> the archaeologists because they do keep repeating it as if it is
> >> significant.
>
> >> I am forced to assume that it is a well known feature of migration
> >> period conflict, but I really don't know.
>
> > The written records of the time speak of great destruction,
> > large battles, and so on. Judging by them, there should be
> > the remains of burned villages, but there seem not to be.
>
> There weren't any villages.
John Briggs
May 18, 2012, 4:08:41 PM5/18/12
to
Roman towns in Britain become deserted at the end of the Roman period
(whenever that was.) No-one is quite sure about the smaller settlements.
Most people seem to have lived in settlements that were much smaller
than "villages".
--
John Briggs
Paul J Gans
May 18, 2012, 10:15:16 PM5/18/12
to
Paul J Gans
May 18, 2012, 10:16:58 PM5/18/12
to
will do quite nicely. Many villages are quite small today, were
quite small in medieval England, and there is no reason to think
that they were not quite small in Saxon times as well.
Weland
May 19, 2012, 12:51:01 AM5/19/12
to
Saxon violent takeover; and such migrations were underway before the
Roman pull out.
Weland
May 19, 2012, 1:25:17 AM5/19/12
to
>
> ‘Invisible Britons: The View from Linguistics’, in N.J. Higham (ed.),
> Britons in Anglo-Saxon England (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2007),
> pp. 172-91.
>
> ‘Invisible Britons: The View from Toponomastics’, in G. Broderick and
> P. Cavill, eds, Language Contact in the Place-Names of Britain and
> Ireland, English Place-Name Society (Nottingham, 2007), pp. 41-53.
>
> A summary of his arguments can be seen at:
>
> http://www-fbe.uwe.ac.uk/hlss/llas/bcl/5resources/Inaugural_coates_061207.pdf
>
> Matt Tompkins
Coates is merely repeating the old party line and in my view and the
> ‘Invisible Britons: The View from Linguistics’, in N.J. Higham (ed.),
> Britons in Anglo-Saxon England (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2007),
> pp. 172-91.
>
> ‘Invisible Britons: The View from Toponomastics’, in G. Broderick and
> P. Cavill, eds, Language Contact in the Place-Names of Britain and
> Ireland, English Place-Name Society (Nottingham, 2007), pp. 41-53.
>
> A summary of his arguments can be seen at:
>
> http://www-fbe.uwe.ac.uk/hlss/llas/bcl/5resources/Inaugural_coates_061207.pdf
>
> Matt Tompkins
view of many others is not really engaging with some of the evidence
that points in other directions.
Weland
May 19, 2012, 1:29:43 AM5/19/12
to
are feminine in gender.
Matt Tompkins
May 19, 2012, 3:08:49 AM5/19/12
to
>
> > Matt Tompkins
>
On May 19, 6:25 am, Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
> Coates is merely repeating the old party line and in my view and the
> view of many others is not really engaging with some of the evidence
> that points in other directions
It is the view of Coates, and others, that it is the archaeologically-
On May 19, 6:25 am, Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
> Coates is merely repeating the old party line and in my view and the
> view of many others is not really engaging with some of the evidence
> that points in other directions
correct viewpoint which is now the old party line, and that its
proponents should not so blithely dismiss facts inconvenient to their
thesis, but should instead engage with them.
Matt Tompkins
Curt Emanuel
May 19, 2012, 9:09:55 AM5/19/12
to
an answer except to agree that there seems to be little evidence of an
overall violent, armed "invasion" (specific instances of violence seem
extremely likely) and for me the term "migration" seems more appropriate
though even this is important to qualify to explain exactly what is meant.
From, Michael E. Jones, "Text, Artifact, and Genome: The Disputed Nature
of the Anglo-Saxon Migration into Britain," in, Ralph W. Mathisen and
Danuta Shanzer, eds., _Romans, Barbarians and the Transformation of the
Roman World_, Surrey: Ashgate (2011) Pp 379, xix. ISBN: 978-0-7546-6814-5.
Jones' overall theme is that he believes that definitive answers to the
nature of this migration will be close to impossible to come up with
based on comparative DNA studies of modern populations and that it will
take extensive DNA studies of archaeological remains to figure it out.
I'll supply what I think is his key quote from this, "Studies of the
modern Y-chromosome evidence comparing British and continental
populations have produced contradictory interpretations. At the extreme,
Thomas's research team has concluded that a massive Anglo-Saxon
migration displaced or destroyed the indigenous male population of
central England, replacing 50-100 per cent of the male gene pool. But
other studies suggest a radically different historical picture, with the
Anglo-Saxon invaders representing only about 5 per cent of the total
population." (p. 337)
Besides Thomas, other studies he mentions includes one by Brian Sykes
which involved analysis of 6,000 modern Britons. "The study concluded
that 99 per cent of the modern British group was directly descended from
the neolithic population of 10,000 years ago ..." This references, Brian
Sykes, _Blood of the Isles: Exploring the Genetic Roots of our Tribal
History_ (London, 2006). This study did find an exception where the
islands of Shetland and Orkney show a 30-40% displacement.
Interestingly, Peter Heather appears to use the Sykes study in _Empires
and Barbarians_ to support his robust migration theory while ignoring
evidence which would not support it from the same study for Britain.
Another study he discusses was published in 2003. It covers 1,772
individuals from 25 locations and found that different parts of the
British Isles have very different genetic evidence. Orkney and Shetland
have a lot of Norwegian input, almost no German and significant
diplacement. However, "The biggest surprise was in southern England. The
genetic evidence suggested only a limited continental input into a
population that was 'predominantly indigenous.' In the context of the
Anglo-Saxon migrations, irrespective of whether the homeland of
ancestral English was presumed to be Frisia, Denmark, or northern
Germany, 'there is a clear indication of a continuing indigenous
component to the English paternal genetic makeup.' Such a conclusion
suggests significant historical continuity and an assimilation of
population." (p. 337) For this, Jones references, Christian Capelli, et
al., "A Y Chromosome Census of the British Isles," _Current Biology 13_
(2003): 979-84.
As an FYI, the Thomas study, which Jones also discusses (his discussion
doesn't add a lot to what's in the linked _Harvard Magazine_ article),
seems to come from, Machael E. Weale, et al., "Y Chromosome Evidence for
Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration," _Molecular Biology and Evolution_ 19
(2002): 1008-1021.
If you don't mind shelling out substantial $$$ I can recommend the
Mathisen & Shanzer volume. I have a review here:
http://medievalhistorygeek.wordpress.com/2011/08/06/review-romans-barbarians-and-the-transformation-of-the-roman-world/
Of course Guy Halsall thinks I missed something significant in the
review. I'm reasonably sure he's correct(he almost always is, at least
when it comes to what I write).
--
--------
Curt Emanuel
ceman...@gmail.com
http://medievalhistorygeek.wordpress.com/
AlexMilman
May 19, 2012, 12:57:57 PM5/19/12
to
On May 19, 1:29 am, Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
> On 5/18/2012 11:06 AM, John Briggs wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 18/05/2012 16:24, W. Baker wrote:
> On 5/18/2012 11:06 AM, John Briggs wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 18/05/2012 16:24, W. Baker wrote:
uniform. But, if it will make you feel better, this rule is still
applicable to Ukrainian.
Paul J Gans
May 19, 2012, 7:42:22 PM5/19/12
to
Thanks for this Curt. I learned something from it.
Brian M. Scott
May 20, 2012, 1:16:48 AM5/20/12
to
On Sat, 19 May 2012 00:29:43 -0500, Weland
<gi...@poetic.com> wrote in
<news:jp7b45$eju$1...@dont-email.me> in soc.history.medieval:
> On 5/18/2012 11:06 AM, John Briggs wrote:
[...]
>> Yes, it is. Native language is called "mother tongue" for
>> a reason, you know.
> Yes, chiefly because the words for language in
> Indo-European languages are feminine in gender.
I very much doubt that that is the main reason. I'd look at
the same connection that gives us 'milk tongue'.
And there are quite a few exceptions to that generalization:
Old Norse <mál> is neuter, as is Dutch <taal>, and Polish
<język> and its Slavic cognates are masculine.
Brian
<gi...@poetic.com> wrote in
<news:jp7b45$eju$1...@dont-email.me> in soc.history.medieval:
> On 5/18/2012 11:06 AM, John Briggs wrote:
>> Yes, it is. Native language is called "mother tongue" for
>> a reason, you know.
> Yes, chiefly because the words for language in
> Indo-European languages are feminine in gender.
the same connection that gives us 'milk tongue'.
And there are quite a few exceptions to that generalization:
Old Norse <mál> is neuter, as is Dutch <taal>, and Polish
<język> and its Slavic cognates are masculine.
Brian
Weland
May 20, 2012, 2:21:20 AM5/20/12
to
What does he think you missed?
The problem with the THomas study as I recall wasn't the study so much
as the conclusions reached weren't actually supported by the data. It's
been a long time since I read it, so I should probably go back to
substantiate that, but that's what I recall.
Weland
May 20, 2012, 2:32:23 AM5/20/12
to
> proponents should not so blithely dismiss facts inconvenient to their
> thesis, but should instead engage with them.
>
> Matt Tompkins
Can't be. Coates isn't that stupid. The linguistic evidence that
> thesis, but should instead engage with them.
>
> Matt Tompkins
Coates puts forward is well known and has been part of the linguistic
landscape in describing earliest English's relationship with late Roman
Latin and Celtic in the island in the late Roman and sub Roman periods
for longer than the archaeologists have been questioning the traditional
story on the basiss of lack of archaeological evidence. Both sides at
this point are really talking past each other: Coates certainly doesn't
make sense of the archaeological evidence, the archaeologists don't deal
in the linguistic.
Weland
May 20, 2012, 2:38:37 AM5/20/12
to
feminie in gender. The question would be then, in Russian, if the phrase
"the mother tongue" exists in Russian. My feelings have nothing to do
with it, perhaps you are projecting.
Weland
May 20, 2012, 2:49:29 AM5/20/12
to
milk tongue, and if the former, than the latter is simply another way
odidf saying the former.
ANd ok, as I didn't mean to be absolute, "generally because the words
for language in Indo-European languages are feminine in gender." Even
that may be overstating it, so let's narrow it down further: in all the
languages I know that use a phrase such as "mother tongue" in which to
describe the native, first language, the principle words for language
are feminine in grammatical gender. So the question is whether Dutch,
Polish, Russian, and Old Norse use the phrase "mother tongue" or "mother
language" as a native expression for one's native language.
Brian M. Scott
May 20, 2012, 5:26:34 AM5/20/12
to
On Sun, 20 May 2012 01:49:29 -0500, Weland
<gi...@poetic.com> wrote in
<news:jpa45n$13j$1...@dont-email.me> in soc.history.medieval:
<shrug>
To me the question is why anyone would suppose that the
grammatical gender of the word had anything to do with the
origin of the expression. I just don't see it as an idea
that merits any serious consideration.
Brian
<gi...@poetic.com> wrote in
<news:jpa45n$13j$1...@dont-email.me> in soc.history.medieval:
To me the question is why anyone would suppose that the
grammatical gender of the word had anything to do with the
origin of the expression. I just don't see it as an idea
that merits any serious consideration.
Brian
Curt Emanuel
May 20, 2012, 8:39:38 AM5/20/12
to
ethnicity. I liked it because of the detail, he thought they reached
some conclusions on ethnicity/ethnic identity that were not supported.
AlexMilman
May 20, 2012, 1:02:13 PM5/20/12
to
language'), "Rodnoy Yazik", strictly male. However, there is also
'Rodnaya Rech' (strictly female), mostly in context 'I hear sound of
<people speaking native language>' and it is rather archaic.
> My feelings have nothing to do
> with it, perhaps you are projecting.
personal feelings but about validity of your theory. Female version in
Ukrainian may serve as a confirmation of the rule you were talking
about: these 2 languages had been initially closely related but
'Russian' evolved much more than Ukrainian so existence of the female
version in today's Ukrainian and presence of some kind of equivalent
(used in a different context) in modern Russian may mean that female
version was in whatever was a source language.
James Hogg
May 21, 2012, 2:24:37 AM5/21/12
to
--
James
Weland
May 21, 2012, 2:43:40 AM5/21/12
to
better...."?
Weland
May 21, 2012, 2:44:54 AM5/21/12
to
even if indicating the same thing.
Weland
May 21, 2012, 2:54:54 AM5/21/12
to
> Brian
I didn't say it was the origin. I responded to John's blanket statement
that "native language is called "mother's tongue" for a reason." But
it's only called "mother's tongue" so far as I know, in languages where
words for language are grammatically feminine. In other languages,
other descriptions are used, as others have already pointed out. The
origin of the phrase itself is something I haven't addressed and
probably can't.
James Hogg
May 21, 2012, 3:45:06 AM5/21/12
to
Croatian "materinski jezik" is masculine.
--
James
Brian M. Scott
May 21, 2012, 6:39:19 AM5/21/12
to
On Mon, 21 May 2012 01:54:54 -0500, Weland
<gi...@poetic.com> wrote in
<news:jpcorr$dkl$1...@dont-email.me> in soc.history.medieval:
the gender of the word for 'language'. I don't care whether
the association that you had in mind was origin or something
else: I just don't see this as a plausible idea.
> But it's only called "mother's tongue" so far as I know,
> in languages where words for language are grammatically
> feminine.
I rather suspect that you're working from a significantly
limited sample of IE languages. So am I, but I do know that
Icelandic has <móðurmál> 'mother tongue', and Dutch has
<moedertaal> 'mother tongue', both neuter. They even have
Wikipedia entries in their respective languages:
<http://is.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%B3%C3%B0urm%C3%A1l>
<http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moedertaal>
Looking at some of the links to related languages, I find
masculine <mateřský jazyk> in Czech, <materinski jezik> in
Croatian, and cognate forms in several other Slavic
languages; neuter <modersmål> in Danish and Swedish and
<morsmål> in Norwegian; and neuter <memmetaal> in Frysk.
[...]
Brian
<gi...@poetic.com> wrote in
<news:jpcorr$dkl$1...@dont-email.me> in soc.history.medieval:
> I didn't say it was the origin. I responded to John's
> blanket statement that "native language is called
> "mother's tongue" for a reason."
And your response was to suggest that this had to do with
> blanket statement that "native language is called
> "mother's tongue" for a reason."
the gender of the word for 'language'. I don't care whether
the association that you had in mind was origin or something
else: I just don't see this as a plausible idea.
> But it's only called "mother's tongue" so far as I know,
> in languages where words for language are grammatically
> feminine.
limited sample of IE languages. So am I, but I do know that
Icelandic has <móðurmál> 'mother tongue', and Dutch has
<moedertaal> 'mother tongue', both neuter. They even have
Wikipedia entries in their respective languages:
<http://is.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%B3%C3%B0urm%C3%A1l>
<http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moedertaal>
Looking at some of the links to related languages, I find
masculine <mateřský jazyk> in Czech, <materinski jezik> in
Croatian, and cognate forms in several other Slavic
languages; neuter <modersmål> in Danish and Swedish and
<morsmål> in Norwegian; and neuter <memmetaal> in Frysk.
[...]
Brian
AlexMilman
May 21, 2012, 7:42:35 AM5/21/12
to
"rodnaya rech", which is being used in a somewhat different context.
AlexMilman
May 21, 2012, 7:39:43 AM5/21/12
to
If you want bickering, find yourself another partner.
AlexMilman
May 21, 2012, 7:47:16 AM5/21/12
to
the same thing, even if both of them are masculine: "mother
tongue" ("maternyi") means obscenities.
Paul F Austin
May 21, 2012, 6:15:51 PM5/21/12
to
>> In article<jp48n6$5rr$1...@dont-email.me>, jante...@hotmail.com says...
>>>
>>> On 5/17/2012 9:24 AM, Paul J Gans wrote:
> more likely, exaggerating the horrors of the Saxon takeover.
>
Another possible explanation, drawn from the American Southwest in
similar circumstance, is that the people moved to more remote and
defensible locations when the threat materialized. I am not an
archeologist nor do I have even passing familiarity with the England
during the period (on my reading list) but Steven LeBlanc's _Constant
Battles_ describes Amerindians in the ASW moving from unfortified
locations near water and crops to the tops of hills where they
constructed defensive works when under pressure from hostile groups.
Both LeBlanc and Lawrence Keeley (_War Before Civilization_) discuss the
reluctance of some archeologists to interpret evidence in ways that
indicate warfare among pre-state groups, preferring more pacific
interpretations. LeBlanc describes the discovery of large numbers of
baked clay spheroids at the inside foot of walls around neolithic
Anatolian villages, identical to sling stones from later eras, being
described as used to heat water after being placed in fires. Archeology
of early Neolithic fortifications in England, palisade and ramp
structures littered with human bones, were variously described as
"places where the dead were exposed for months before their bones were
interred in nearby communal burials" or as constructions "symbolic of
exclusion".
Paul
>>>
>>> On 5/17/2012 9:24 AM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>>>> Bill<black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> The Normans certainly left an ash layer in Northern England, (Which
>>>>> never had any Angles living in it) I think the quotation is: 'Not a
>>>>> house left standing between the Humber and the Tees'.
>>>
>
>>>>> The Normans certainly left an ash layer in Northern England, (Which
>>>>> never had any Angles living in it) I think the quotation is: 'Not a
>>>>> house left standing between the Humber and the Tees'.
>>>
>>> Well said - you're illustrating my point.
>>>
>>> Does the lack of ash layers in southern England (Angle-land) mean there
>>> was no invasion and conquest there, in 1066?
>>>
>
>> No idea, I'm not an archaeologist.
>
>> The famous ash layer in England is the one in London left by Boadicea
>
>> I must assume that the cry of 'There's no ash layer' is significant to
>> the archaeologists because they do keep repeating it as if it is
>> significant.
>
>> I am forced to assume that it is a well known feature of migration
>> period conflict, but I really don't know.
>
> The written records of the time speak of great destruction,
> large battles, and so on. Judging by them, there should be
> the remains of burned villages, but there seem not to be.
>
> I'd explain it by claiming that the sources are wrong or,
>>>
>>> Does the lack of ash layers in southern England (Angle-land) mean there
>>> was no invasion and conquest there, in 1066?
>>>
>
>> No idea, I'm not an archaeologist.
>
>> The famous ash layer in England is the one in London left by Boadicea
>
>> I must assume that the cry of 'There's no ash layer' is significant to
>> the archaeologists because they do keep repeating it as if it is
>> significant.
>
>> I am forced to assume that it is a well known feature of migration
>> period conflict, but I really don't know.
>
> The written records of the time speak of great destruction,
> large battles, and so on. Judging by them, there should be
> the remains of burned villages, but there seem not to be.
>
> more likely, exaggerating the horrors of the Saxon takeover.
>
Another possible explanation, drawn from the American Southwest in
similar circumstance, is that the people moved to more remote and
defensible locations when the threat materialized. I am not an
archeologist nor do I have even passing familiarity with the England
during the period (on my reading list) but Steven LeBlanc's _Constant
Battles_ describes Amerindians in the ASW moving from unfortified
locations near water and crops to the tops of hills where they
constructed defensive works when under pressure from hostile groups.
Both LeBlanc and Lawrence Keeley (_War Before Civilization_) discuss the
reluctance of some archeologists to interpret evidence in ways that
indicate warfare among pre-state groups, preferring more pacific
interpretations. LeBlanc describes the discovery of large numbers of
baked clay spheroids at the inside foot of walls around neolithic
Anatolian villages, identical to sling stones from later eras, being
described as used to heat water after being placed in fires. Archeology
of early Neolithic fortifications in England, palisade and ramp
structures littered with human bones, were variously described as
"places where the dead were exposed for months before their bones were
interred in nearby communal burials" or as constructions "symbolic of
exclusion".
Paul
Paul J Gans
May 21, 2012, 9:23:39 PM5/21/12
to
literally "head for the hills" when invasions threaten. That
also seems to have happened in Britain at this time.
>Both LeBlanc and Lawrence Keeley (_War Before Civilization_) discuss the
>reluctance of some archeologists to interpret evidence in ways that
>indicate warfare among pre-state groups, preferring more pacific
>interpretations. LeBlanc describes the discovery of large numbers of
>baked clay spheroids at the inside foot of walls around neolithic
>Anatolian villages, identical to sling stones from later eras, being
>described as used to heat water after being placed in fires. Archeology
>of early Neolithic fortifications in England, palisade and ramp
>structures littered with human bones, were variously described as
>"places where the dead were exposed for months before their bones were
>interred in nearby communal burials" or as constructions "symbolic of
>exclusion".
in the Americas even before the Clovis point culture, all sorts
of material evidence is being reinterpreted to show human
activity...
'Twas ever thus.
Weland
May 22, 2012, 1:42:46 AM5/22/12
to
turning around and claiming "because I was talking not about your
personal feelings" simply means you got caught out in a smal ie. That
you consider that bickering, snipped, and tried to change the focus
shows it well. You can deny it further, admit it, or just snip it and
move on.
>
>>
>> but about validity of your theory. Female version in
>>T
>>
>> but about validity of your theory. Female version in
Weland
May 22, 2012, 1:57:38 AM5/22/12
to
Weland
May 22, 2012, 1:56:19 AM5/22/12
to
Weland
May 22, 2012, 2:00:13 AM5/22/12
to
evidence.
AlexMilman
May 22, 2012, 10:31:02 AM5/22/12
to
James Hogg
May 22, 2012, 11:10:53 AM5/22/12
to
with the word for mother? Is it all about doing rude things to someone
else's mum?
--
James
Erilar
May 22, 2012, 2:03:01 PM5/22/12
to
"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
.
>
> <shrug>
>
> To me the question is why anyone would suppose that the
> grammatical gender of the word had anything to do with the
> origin of the expression. I just don't see it as an idea
> that merits any serious consideration.
>
As another linguistic-biased observer, i would strongly second that.
.
>
> <shrug>
>
> To me the question is why anyone would suppose that the
> grammatical gender of the word had anything to do with the
> origin of the expression. I just don't see it as an idea
> that merits any serious consideration.
>
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad
AlexMilman
May 22, 2012, 3:26:00 PM5/22/12
to
with many other words as well, mostly (but not exclusively) meaning
some kind of a relation (like "kirpichnyi" - made of brick,
"inostranyi" - foreign, etc.). In the case of mother this is archaic
form (modern would be "materinskii"), which was OK in XVIII but in
modern Russian means exclusively usage of obscenities.
> Is it all about doing rude things to someone
> else's mum?
mother" but there are other expressions which have nothing to do with
anybody's mother.
Paul J Gans
May 22, 2012, 10:29:25 PM5/22/12
to
Erilar <dra...@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
>"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>.
>>
>> <shrug>
>>
>> To me the question is why anyone would suppose that the
>> grammatical gender of the word had anything to do with the
>> origin of the expression. I just don't see it as an idea
>> that merits any serious consideration.
>>
>As another linguistic-biased observer, i would strongly second that.
As a rank novice, I've always wanted to know what did determine
>"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>.
>>
>> <shrug>
>>
>> To me the question is why anyone would suppose that the
>> grammatical gender of the word had anything to do with the
>> origin of the expression. I just don't see it as an idea
>> that merits any serious consideration.
>>
>As another linguistic-biased observer, i would strongly second that.
the gender of various nouns, or the lack thereof in languages that
have a neutral gender?
Weland
May 23, 2012, 1:45:20 AM5/23/12
to
meaning native language, and so nothing to do with the topic.
Erilar
May 23, 2012, 9:50:12 AM5/23/12
to
the form of the words: suffixes can change it. But it develops along the
way, based on what I also know of Latin, because Latin(and its descendants)
disagrees with Germanic gender quite noticeably, as Notker complained a
millenium ago. He considered German barbaric at least in part because of
gender disagreement 8-)
AlexMilman
May 23, 2012, 10:54:23 AM5/23/12
to
> as in "mother's tongue"
> meaning native language, and so nothing to do with the topic.
>
" The question would be then, in Russian, if the phrase "the mother
tongue" exists in Russian."
fault. _I_ kept repeating that, while such phrase exists, it has
nothing to do with context of the question. It took only couple
repetitions for you to comprehend what had been said.
Hopefully, now the issue can be put to rest.
0 new messages