DNA suggests the Celts held their ground
Diarmid Logan
DNA suggests the Celts held their ground
Scientists shatter Anglo-Saxon myth, writes STEPHEN STEWART
THE first analysis of DNA passed from father to son across the UK has
shattered the Anglocentric view of early British history, it emerged
yesterday.
For decades, historians have believed that successive waves of
invaders, such as the Anglo-Saxons, drove out the indigenous
population of the British Isles, labelled Celts, pushing them to the
fringes of Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.
However, work by a team of scientists on the Y chromosome, which is
passed from father to son, has shown the native tribes left their
genetic stamp throughout the UK and not only in the "Celtic fringe".
The evidence suggests that Anglo-Saxons tend to dominate British
history merely because they kept better written records than their
indigenous counterparts.
A large number of native people remained in England and central
Ireland and were never entirely replaced by the invaders, often
surviving in high proportions throughout the British Isles, according
to the research by Professor David Goldstein, Dr Jim Wilson, and a
team of experts at University College London.
The study was based on comparing Y chromosomes from Britain with the
invaders' Y chromosomes, represented by descendants of Danes, Vikings
(in Norway) and Anglo-Saxons (in Schleswig-Holstein, northern
Germany).
Dr Jim Wilson, a population geneticist from Orkney who is now based at
University College London, said: "The recent paper was based on a
study that I carried out on Orkney to tell if the inhabitants were
descended from Vikings.
"It found the genetic profile was halfway between Norway and Ireland,
suggesting that the Vikings did have a significant effect on the
population.
"In the new study, samples were collected from the whole of Britain in
a grid pattern. The study contradicts the notion of the complete
replacement of the indigenous people by incoming Anglo-Saxons.
"The data set doesn't show that but illustrates that the English are
largely indigenous in origin. We wanted to look at whether culture and
genetics go together.
"In Orkney and Shetland they spoke Norwegian until the 1700s and there
we have a strong case for genes and culture going hand-in-hand."
Dr Wilson and his colleagues established that Y chromosomes of
Britain's indigenous populations were almost identical to those of the
Basques, who live on the French-Spanish border and speak a language
unrelated to the Indo-European tongues that swept into Europe 8000
years ago.
"We tended to avoid the term 'Celts' as there is some debate about it.
For example, the Irish and Welsh are indistinguishable from the
Basques, who are the earliest indigenous inhabitants of Europe," he
said.
"The Basques were in Europe before farming and before the development
of Indo-European languages such as those spoken by the people labelled
Celts."
The indigenous population, genetically very close to the Basques, must
also be drawn from the original Paleolithic inhabitants of Europe.
They are possibly the first modern inhabitants of Britain, who settled
the islands about 10,000 years ago.
As well as the Vikings' genetic trail in Orkney, a centre of Viking
activity from 800-1200, many men in York and east England carry Danish
Y chromosomes but there was little sign of Anglo-Saxon heritage in
south England, once believed to have been heavily colonised.
The notion there is a specific history of the Celts, as opposed to the
individual histories of the Irish, Welsh and Scots, is a recent
phenomenon.
Between the fall of the Roman Empire and circa 1700, "Celtic" was used
only to describe the ancient Gauls of France and related continental
peoples.
The conventional view has been that Celts shared certain cultural
traits such as related languages; they were also all non-literate and
non-urban.
The alternative view is that great differences occurred between
so-called Celtic cultures. For example, Druidic cults may have been
confined to the British Isles and much of Gaul, and were possibly
unknown among most of the continental tribes called Celts in the Iron
Age.
-June 25th
Brenda G. Kent
I've always found anthropological info very interesting.
Blessings
Bren.
Wade
simplistic, but the article is interesting nonetheless. It
supports my ideas about the movement of people and
their ability to dominate an area without excessive
displacement of the indigenous populations.
Similar studies on Levantine genetic markers showed a
distinct pattern. Farmer-herder genetic material showed
up in modern day populations of Europe with an arc like
frequency distribution, with the marker count diminishing
as it neared the fringe (western Ireland).
Early invaders/migrants of the islands brought with them
previously unknown skills. Now the one thing all humans
of any age are good at is pilfering/recognizing a good idea.
The same sort of process is still in place and functioning today.
(see reply to Dan's post about current values of western culture)
--
Wade
"Diarmid Logan" <diarmi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6d220a72.03062...@posting.google.com...
Kevin Jones
>
>
> DNA suggests the Celts held their ground
>
> Scientists shatter Anglo-Saxon myth, writes STEPHEN STEWART
>
> THE first analysis of DNA passed from father to son across the UK has
> shattered the Anglocentric view of early British history, it emerged
> yesterday.
>
> For decades, historians have believed that successive waves of
> invaders, such as the Anglo-Saxons, drove out the indigenous
> population of the British Isles, labelled Celts, pushing them to the
> fringes of Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.
>
> However, work by a team of scientists on the Y chromosome, which is
> passed from father to son, has shown the native tribes left their
> genetic stamp throughout the UK and not only in the "Celtic fringe".
Errm! This is neither new nor ground-breaking - it's been pretty much a
commonplace idea for several years as far as historians and archaeologists
are concerned. It might however come as a bit of a surprise to journalists
who are rather wedded to popular ideas of history.
> The evidence suggests that Anglo-Saxons tend to dominate British
> history merely because they kept better written records than their
> indigenous counterparts.
Unlikely - the Anglo-Saxons didn't really begin keeping large numbers of
records until later, and after they'd been converted to Christianity. It is
more likely that the principal reason why the existence of Celtic people in
anglo-Saxon areas were previously overlook was because earlier scholars
tended to equate a cultural assemblage with an ethnic group. Obviously, in
their view, a change of cultural assemblage meant a change of population.
Actually that argument is a load of simplistic bollocks - the possession of
Japanese made consumer electronics does not make you Japanese. In short,
they made an assumption which was not supported by a closer study of the
evidence.
> Dr Jim Wilson, a population geneticist from Orkney who is now based at
> University College London, said: "The recent paper was based on a
> study that I carried out on Orkney to tell if the inhabitants were
> descended from Vikings.
>
> "It found the genetic profile was halfway between Norway and Ireland,
> suggesting that the Vikings did have a significant effect on the
> population.
Again, very unsurprising given the history of the Orkneys. God, they do love
to belabour the obvious!
> "In the new study, samples were collected from the whole of Britain in
> a grid pattern. The study contradicts the notion of the complete
> replacement of the indigenous people by incoming Anglo-Saxons.
>
> "The data set doesn't show that but illustrates that the English are
> largely indigenous in origin. We wanted to look at whether culture and
> genetics go together.
>
> "In Orkney and Shetland they spoke Norwegian until the 1700s and there
> we have a strong case for genes and culture going hand-in-hand."
Err? Excuse me? They've just said that the genetic profile was halfway
between Ireland and Norway. However, they spoke Norwegian - so where's the
Irish component. According to his logic, they should have spoken half
Norwegian and half Gaelic. Again, he's pointed out that there were a large
number of Celts in Anglo-Saxon Britain, so why is the culture recognisably
Germanic? Where's the gentic link? The man is a fool! Either that, or the
journalist is badly misreporting him.
> Dr Wilson and his colleagues established that Y chromosomes of
> Britain's indigenous populations were almost identical to those of the
> Basques, who live on the French-Spanish border and speak a language
> unrelated to the Indo-European tongues that swept into Europe 8000
> years ago.
>
> "We tended to avoid the term 'Celts' as there is some debate about it.
> For example, the Irish and Welsh are indistinguishable from the
> Basques, who are the earliest indigenous inhabitants of Europe," he
> said.
>
> "The Basques were in Europe before farming and before the development
> of Indo-European languages such as those spoken by the people labelled
> Celts."
In which case, to take the idea of genetics and culture going hand in hand,
why is the culture of the Irish and Welsh recognisably Indo-European? Or
could it be that someone is speaking a load of bollocks?
> The conventional view has been that Celts shared certain cultural
> traits such as related languages; they were also all non-literate and
> non-urban.
>
> The alternative view is that great differences occurred between
> so-called Celtic cultures.
Ah, well now you're into the heart of the pros and cons concerning the
Celtosceptic argument. Personally I rather suspect that the Celtosceptic
argument is far too simplistic - it has been shot down a few times already.
>For example, Druidic cults may have been
> confined to the British Isles and much of Gaul, and were possibly
> unknown among most of the continental tribes called Celts in the Iron
> Age.
Well, the British Isles, Ireland and 'much of Gaul' is a substantial part of
the territory covered by Celtic speaking peoples in antiquity. It's also
equally possible that other groups had different terms for the same
function - an ancient author enquiring 'do you have druids?' would therefore
be met with a 'no', simply because he asked the wrong question or
misinterpreted the answer. You need different evidence to argue this one way
or the other.
Kevin
1X2 Willows
> [....沘
> God, they do love to belabour the obvious!
Hey Kevin!
I've got an article here entitled "Cities Made for Walking May Be Fat
Burners", suggesting that an urban development without all drive-ins
and a huge pedestrian area instead might take a few pounds off of people
living in that city. They actually did a federally funded study on this!
While we're at it... What do you think the colour of Barbarossa's beard
was? How long lasted the 30-year war? Wanna get together and apply
for some tax funding for those studies? I'm game...!
> Err? Excuse me? They've just said that the genetic profile was halfway
> between Ireland and Norway. However, they spoke Norwegian - so
> where's the Irish component. According to his logic, they should have
> spoken half Norwegian and half Gaelic.
Now here, I'm losing you completely. First of all, I fail to see what the
genetic makeup of a person has to do with the language it speaks. Second,
if written documents were all the evidence that counts, it would be truthful
to claim that Northern Swiss people spoke/speak/will speak German.
- which is certainly nothing but a ridiculous lie...
> > [....] For example, Druidic cults may have been confined to the
> > British Isles and much of Gaul, and were possibly unknown
> > among most of the continental tribes called Celts in the Iron Age.
>
> Well, the British Isles, Ireland and 'much of Gaul' is a substantial part
> of the territory covered by Celtic speaking peoples in antiquity. It's
> also equally possible that other groups had different terms for the same
> function - an ancient author enquiring 'do you have druids?' would
> therefore be met with a 'no', simply because he asked the wrong question
> or misinterpreted the answer. You need different evidence to argue this
> one way or the other.
Glad somebody finally mentioned that. How close are the British and the US
societies for example and how much do their titles and professional
expressions vary? Sheeesh... Another candidate for federal funding.
In my own language, the name Gutuater means "Man of well doing"
or generally "Healer" anyway.
Dan
Kevin Jones
news:wUpKa.64984$Io.61...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> "Kevin Jones" <1006...@nospam.compuserve.com> wrote
> > [....¨]
> > God, they do love to belabour the obvious!
>
> Hey Kevin!
> I've got an article here entitled "Cities Made for Walking May Be Fat
> Burners", suggesting that an urban development without all drive-ins
> and a huge pedestrian area instead might take a few pounds off of people
> living in that city. They actually did a federally funded study on this!
Gawdelpus!!
> While we're at it... What do you think the colour of Barbarossa's beard
> was? How long lasted the 30-year war? Wanna get together and apply
> for some tax funding for those studies? I'm game...!
<Kevin shakes his head!>
> > Err? Excuse me? They've just said that the genetic profile was halfway
> > between Ireland and Norway. However, they spoke Norwegian - so
> > where's the Irish component. According to his logic, they should have
> > spoken half Norwegian and half Gaelic.
>
> Now here, I'm losing you completely. First of all, I fail to see what the
> genetic makeup of a person has to do with the language it speaks. Second,
> if written documents were all the evidence that counts, it would be
truthful
> to claim that Northern Swiss people spoke/speak/will speak German.
> - which is certainly nothing but a ridiculous lie...
He'd just pointed out that there was a marked Celtic genetic component in
'Anglo-Saxon' Britain, and that the genetic distribution in the Orkneys was
50% Irish descent and 50% Norwegian. He then went on to remark that the
Orcadians, until recently, spoke Norwegian - and from this claimed that
genetics and culture went hand-in-hand. Now not only would this have
archaeologists dancing around in severe irritation (no doubt waving their
trowels in anger!), but it also amounts to a non sequitur. There's nothing
in the previous argument to support this statement. It is also demonstrably
incorrect - the cultural assemblage of 'Anglo-Saxon' England is - surprise,
surprise, Anglo-Saxon and therefore Germanic. The language - apart from one
isolated 8th century pocket in the Fens - was Germanic. In short, the
culture of the population was Germanic, despite a large contribution of
Celtic genetic material. Bang goes his argument. As for Orkney, well, the
principal reason why they spoke Norwegian is that it is fairly close to
Norway and a useful stopping-off point for ships bound for Iceland. In the
early medieval period they were therefore far more culturally dominated by
Norway than they were by Ireland or even Scotland. In later centuries they
were far too remote from just about everywhere for there to be an impetus to
change. In short, absolutely nothing to do with genetics, as a brief study
of acculturation would demonstrate.
Put simply, neither ethnicity nor genetics determine the language spoken or
the culture. Ethnicity is particularly problematical, since it is largely a
fluid social construct based on percieved differences with other groups.
Those perceptions can be internal to the group ("well, we're all like this,
so we must have something in common"), or externally applied (groups seen as
separate by the dominant culture and refused admission form their own
groups). In practice it's probably a mix of the two, with external
perceptions of difference reinforcing internal perceptions. In short,
cultural differences can lead to the emergence of ethnic labels, rather than
ethnicity determining culture. This can result in the emergence of an
entirely new ethnic group, in a process called ethnogenesis.
As for genetics determining language, which is a major component of
culture - well that's a load of cobblers from start to finish. In 1970 over
42 million white Americans were the descendants of Africans, while a
substantial number have some Native American ancestry (Stuckert 1976, 139).
One notes the large numbers of white Americans who speak an African or
Native American language and who are culturally either African-American or
Native American <end of heavy irony>.
As I said, the man is either a fool, or grossly misreported.
Kevin
Stuckert R P (1976), The black ancestry of white Americans, in Hammond P B
ed., Physical Anthropology and Archaeology: Introductory Readings, London &
New York, 135-139.
zayton
>
>
> DNA suggests the Celts held their ground
>
> Scientists shatter Anglo-Saxon myth, writes STEPHEN STEWART
>
> THE first analysis of DNA passed from father to son across the UK has
> shattered the Anglocentric view of early British history, it emerged
> yesterday.
>
> For decades, historians have believed that successive waves of
> invaders, such as the Anglo-Saxons,
Weren't the Angles and the Saxons two different groups?
And doesn't that suggest that the whole post is a load of crap?
Joe
Beirn
misapplied term. A lot of british peopel for example think of a-s as one
actual group, rather than a cultural handy-label:)
--
1. Do not walk behind me for I may not lead. Do not walk ahead of me for
I may not follow. Do not walk beside me for the path is narrow. In fact,
just &*%# off and leave me alone.
"zayton" <zay...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:O2sKa.30737$uK1....@fe05.atl2.webusenet.com...
Elaine Stutt
> "Diarmid Logan" <diarmi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:6d220a72.03062...@posting.google.com...
>> http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/archive/25-6-19103-23-43-29.html
>> "In Orkney and Shetland they spoke Norwegian until the 1700s and there
>> we have a strong case for genes and culture going hand-in-hand."
>
> Err? Excuse me? They've just said that the genetic profile was halfway
> between Ireland and Norway. However, they spoke Norwegian - so where's the
> Irish component. According to his logic, they should have spoken half
> Norwegian and half Gaelic. Again, he's pointed out that there were a large
> number of Celts in Anglo-Saxon Britain, so why is the culture recognisably
> Germanic? Where's the gentic link? The man is a fool! Either that, or the
> journalist is badly misreporting him.
People interested in the topic can check out Diarmid's postings on
soc.culture.celtic. General opinion there seems to be that Diarmid
doesn't understand DNA profiling and that maybe his posts misrepresent
the data but, since he usually posts a website for you to check, you
can make up your own mind on that. Makes for an education on the
subject....unless like me you're too fuzzy headed to follow it all.
Elaine
Diarmid Logan
> > "In the new study, samples were collected from the whole of Britain in
> > a grid pattern. The study contradicts the notion of the complete
> > replacement of the indigenous people by incoming Anglo-Saxons.
> >
> > "The data set doesn't show that but illustrates that the English are
> > largely indigenous in origin. We wanted to look at whether culture and
> > genetics go together.
> >
> > "In Orkney and Shetland they spoke Norwegian until the 1700s and there
> > we have a strong case for genes and culture going hand-in-hand."
>
> Err? Excuse me? They've just said that the genetic profile was halfway
> between Ireland and Norway. However, they spoke Norwegian - so where's the
> Irish component. According to his logic, they should have spoken half
> Norwegian and half Gaelic.
You have to remember that Norwegian culture was brought in to Orkney
by the invading Vikings who conquered the people already living there.
Therefore the natives of Orkney likely ended up adopting the language
and culture of their Norwegian conquerers.
> Again, he's pointed out that there were a large
> number of Celts in Anglo-Saxon Britain, so why is the culture recognisably
> Germanic? Where's the gentic link? The man is a fool! Either that, or the
> journalist is badly misreporting him.
Again, the Anglo-Saxons came as conquering invaders and imposed their
Germanic culture on the native population.
> > Dr Wilson and his colleagues established that Y chromosomes of
> > Britain's indigenous populations were almost identical to those of the
> > Basques, who live on the French-Spanish border and speak a language
> > unrelated to the Indo-European tongues that swept into Europe 8000
> > years ago.
> >
> > "We tended to avoid the term 'Celts' as there is some debate about it.
> > For example, the Irish and Welsh are indistinguishable from the
> > Basques, who are the earliest indigenous inhabitants of Europe," he
> > said.
> >
> > "The Basques were in Europe before farming and before the development
> > of Indo-European languages such as those spoken by the people labelled
> > Celts."
>
> In which case, to take the idea of genetics and culture going hand in hand,
> why is the culture of the Irish and Welsh recognisably Indo-European? Or
> could it be that someone is speaking a load of bollocks?
The ancestors of the Irish and the Welsh most likely adopted Celtic
culture and language because they were engaged in trade with
Celtic-speaking populations in western Europe. To use a modern
analogy, many countries around the world use English in their
commercial affairs because they do so much business with the United
States and have also adopted many aspects of American culture.
David Monks
does't destroy the argument. They three elements, Angles, Saxons and Jutes
were all Germanic.
David
"zayton" <zay...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:O2sKa.30737$uK1....@fe05.atl2.webusenet.com...
SNIP
David Monks
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the Irish and the Welsh
peoples were aboriginal, connected genetically with the Basques, and adopted
versions of the Celtic languages spoken on the mainland so as to be able to
better trade...right?
I have come across this line of thought before. In fact, it may even have
been posted here before, where it didn't cause any difficulty.
In fact, again relying on memory, Trinity College in Dublin seems to have
been involved in this kind of research for some time.... Pardon me if this
is already covered or in your web site. I just don't have the time right
now to check it out.
David
"Diarmid Logan" <diarmi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6d220a72.03062...@posting.google.com...
> "Kevin Jones" <1006...@nospam.compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:<bdd47g$fii$1...@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com>...
SNIP
Diarmid Logan
Actually, from what I understand, the Angles, Saxons and Jutes were
all supposed to be closely related.
Jan
No, I don't think it suggests the whole post is a load of crap. I
think that this post (and other reports of anthroDNA studies) shows
how people's perceptions confuse culture and genetics. "Racial
purity" is still a common myth, 4ex, and for some reason even
otherwise educated and intelligent people have a blind spot about
blood lines and cultural/ethnic identity. I enjoyed this post.
~Jan
Diarmid Logan
> Diarmid,
>
> If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the Irish and the Welsh
> peoples were aboriginal, connected genetically with the Basques, and adopted
> versions of the Celtic languages spoken on the mainland so as to be able to
> better trade...right?
>
> I have come across this line of thought before. In fact, it may even have
> been posted here before, where it didn't cause any difficulty.
>
> In fact, again relying on memory, Trinity College in Dublin seems to have
> been involved in this kind of research for some time.... Pardon me if this
> is already covered or in your web site. I just don't have the time right
> now to check it out.
Trinity College did do some research in this area a few years ago.
Here are a couple of websites if you are interested in checking on
their results:
http://www.insideireland.com/sample19.htm
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v404/n6776/full/404351a0_fs.html
Diarmid Logan
Sorry Elaine but you are a little incorrect here. What usually happens
is that I post a website link along with some excerpts from the site
and then some people claim that the excerpts do not mean what they say
they mean. If you check through the posts you will see that even
though some people disagree with the material I post they are hardly
ever able to produce any material that supports their positions.
Kevin Jones
> And don't forget the Jutes - presumably from Jutland... but this aspect
> does't destroy the argument. They three elements, Angles, Saxons and
Jutes
> were all Germanic.
And the Friesians, who usually don't get much of a look in. Actually English
is most akin to Friesian.
Kevin
Kevin Jones
news:<bdd47g$fii$1...@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com>...
>
> > > "In the new study, samples were collected from the whole of Britain in
> > > a grid pattern. The study contradicts the notion of the complete
> > > replacement of the indigenous people by incoming Anglo-Saxons.
> > >
> > > "The data set doesn't show that but illustrates that the English are
> > > largely indigenous in origin. We wanted to look at whether culture and
> > > genetics go together.
> > >
> > > "In Orkney and Shetland they spoke Norwegian until the 1700s and there
> > > we have a strong case for genes and culture going hand-in-hand."
> >
> > Err? Excuse me? They've just said that the genetic profile was halfway
> > between Ireland and Norway. However, they spoke Norwegian - so where's
the
> > Irish component. According to his logic, they should have spoken half
> > Norwegian and half Gaelic.
>
> You have to remember that Norwegian culture was brought in to Orkney
> by the invading Vikings who conquered the people already living there.
> Therefore the natives of Orkney likely ended up adopting the language
> and culture of their Norwegian conquerers.
But then the Normans wound up conquering Britain and wound up speaking the
language of their Anglo-Saxon subjects. Similarly the Goths who invaded
Italy under Theoderic wound up as largely culturally Roman. Had Justinian
not intervened, Latin would have become their first language.
Kevin
Jani
"Jan" <leif_e...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4806bb2c.0306...@posting.google.com...
I just found it surprising that Brits actually *have* an Anglocentric view
of themselves. Maybe I'm just surrounded by a lot of very unobservant
people.
Jani
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
"Kevin Jones" <1006...@nospam.compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:bdfl22$rno$1...@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
I thought that was mainly people from East Anglia?
--
Dirk
The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org
Kevin Jones
Well, I just applied a bit of logic to the argument presented - it
contradicts itself. No references are needed in order to point out internal
contradictions in an argument - you only need those if you introducing
something external to the material at hand. Even then, it's only really
needed if it's vital to the supporting argument and something that someone
might quibble with.
Still, you need material supporting the position. The rest of the
information is easily found, though I did give you a reference on the one
topic that people might have argued with. For a discussion of archaeological
ideas in general, have a look at Renfrew & Bahn, "Archaeology: Theory,
Method, Practice". It contains several good sections, including pros and
cons, on culture, ethnicity, post-processual archaeological ideas,
glottochronology and its problems and other related material. One can also
try:
Chapman M (1992), The Celts: The Construction of a Myth, London & New York.
James S (1999), The Atlantic Celts: Ancient People or Modern Invention,
London.
for discussions on ethnicity. Chapman is, BTW, a marked Celtosceptic.
For discussions of continuity in the archaeological record of 'Anglo-Saxon'
England there's the following para from one of my MA essays:
"It might, however, be argued that the above changes stem from a change in
culture, rather that economic causes. Distinctive styles of building and
brooches emerge in the post-Roman period, and sites such as Bishopstone,
East Sussex, suggest abandonment and later discontinuous reoccupation; the
last, however, would be expected, given the evidence for a reduction in the
population (Drewett, Rudling & Gardiner 1988, 252, 266, 267; Hooke 1998,
107, 108). Nevertheless there is evidence of continuity. Mixed farming
continued over much of lowland England, as it had since the LPRIA, with
little change in either the type of crops grown or in methods of animal
husbandry (Green 1978; Green F J 1981, 148; Millett 1994, 120; Hooke 1998,
132, 133; Dark 2000, 131, 132, 141). Scythes continued to be used, and are
illustrated in the Tiberius Cotton calendar (Hooke 1998, 135). A variety of
other metal tools, such as billhooks and axes, are also illustrated,
although wooden implements, such as spades and flails, continued to be an
important part of the agrarian toolkit even in the later medieval period
(Hooke 1998, 164; Fowler 2002, 163, 170). The Tiberius Cotton manuscript
also shows wagons with composite felloes; this was a continuation of a Roman
method of wheel construction, in contrast to Iron Age wheels which had used
bentwood felloes (Jope 1956, 551). Even the appearance of grass-tempered pot
suggests continuity; it is seen in the unoccupied west, while in Sussex and
Kent it appears to be a continuation of a prehistoric tradition that
continued through the Roman period (Drewett, Rudling & Gardiner 1988, 252).
Furthermore, pagan Saxon burials are frequently concentrated in areas that
reflect Roman and Iron Age boundaries (Bell 1978, 68). In short, a simple
replacement of culture is far too simplistic for the observed data; economic
factors must also be relevant."
References at the end of the post.
In the essay from which the above para is taken, I'm largely discussing
continuity change and development in the agrarian toolkit of the first
millenium AD, as affected by economic factors, though the change from
Romano-Celtic to Anglo-Saxon Britain is part of the discussion.
Interestingly scythes were introduced to Britain by the Roman military -
their existence in the post-Roman period is an example of continuity. In
fact there's a lot that doesn't change, even in the south-east - the
observation about burial patterns is particularly interesting, since it
suggests that there had to be a continuity of population. As I said, there
is nothing controversial in the idea that there wasn't a wholesale
replacement of people, though there was a replacement of culture. It is
therefore unnecessary for me to defend the position of continuity in this
essay, merely to demonstrate it.
You might also like to have a look at the works of Guy Halsall, who is now a
lecturer at York. As I recall from his lectures, he drew parallels with the
development of 'barbarian' cultural assemblages in other areas of the former
western empire and suggests some rather more valid reasons for it happening.
Various possibilities might be, to take one example, links between the
aristocracy of the barbarian successor states, resulting in emulation. an
example might be the marked links between the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Kent
and Merovingian France. Since Kent became powerful due to its monopoly on
trade (especially in luxury items), other kingdoms probably copied their
lead. Additionally, Roman culture had lost its status and Rome was very far
away (Constantinople was even further) - in short it was not the dominant
culture anymore.
One should also take into account that aspects of Roman culture were
dependent upon a monetary economy, as well as cultural influences and a
Roman sociopolitical system - unfortunately the monetary economy was largely
restricted to the elite, the army (who ensured themoney supply in the late
Roman period), contractors (who were wealthy and therefore members of the
elite), and the machinery of government. By the fifth century there may,
outside this circle, have been little that was Roman in Roman Britain. The
end of the money supply and the disappearance of the major market (the
military in Gaul), and the disappearance of trade routes to that market on
which other goods piggy-backed resulted in massive economic dislocation and
the failure of commercial concerns such as pottery production. The elite
themselves were dependent upon the army to collect taxes which kept the
machinery of government going - and the army needed paying if it was to
collect taxes. No pay, no army, no taxes, no machinery of government - in
fact the army was likely to either go into business for itself or support
the nearest powerful man. BTW, none of these changes were something that
came out of the blue - they were the culmination of changes that started
with Diocletian.
In short, things became very local and directed to suit the tastes of the
new emerging elite. and in any case, Germanic tastes had been leaking into
northern Europe for a long time - the army itself becomes increasingly
'Germanised' in its clothing, diet and so on. Again, see Guy Halsall.
As I said, there is nothing remarkable in the idea that there was a
continuity of population - it's been pretty much old hat for maybe 10 years.
However, the idea that genetics dictates culture is a step very much too
far, and it has no evidence to support it. If it did, the archaeology of
Anglo-Saxon Britain would be very different.
Is that enough information to support my position?
Kevin
References:
Bell M (1978), Saxon Sussex, in Drewett P (ed.), Archaeology in Sussex to
AD 1500, London, 64-69.
Dark P (2000), The Environment of Britain in the First Millennium AD,
London.
Drewett P, D Rudling & M Gardiner (1988), The South-East to AD 1000,
London & New York.
Fowler P (2002), Farming in the First Millennium AD, Cambridge.
Green F J (1981), Iron Age, Roman and Saxon crops: the archaeological
evidence from Wessex, M Jones & G Dimbleby (eds.), The Environment
of Man: the Iron Age to the Anglo-Saxon Period, Oxford, 129-154.
Green H J M (1978), A villa estate at Godmanchester, in Todd M (ed.),
Studies in the Romano-British Villa, Leicester, 103-116.
Hooke D (1998), The Landscape of Anglo-Saxon England, Leicester.
Jope E M (1956), Vehicles and harness, in Singer C, E J Holyard, A R Hall
& T I Williams (eds.), A History of Technology, Oxford, 537-562.
Millett M (1994), The Romanization of Britain, Cambridge.
Nik Warrensson
wrote:
Their language was mutually intelligible.
Nik
Bertie the Bunyip
news:o76nfvcr51g3uskrg...@4ax.com:
All nazis
Bertie
--
\ Bertie the Bunyip \ _ ______ |
\ \ / \___-=O`/|O`/__|
\ AAS 001 \_______\ / | / )
/ / `/-==__ _/__|/__=-| -GM
/ Hero of Kiwis everwhere / * \ | |
/ / (o)
Local internet service providers may consider blocking an American
from taking part in online discussions following one of the worst cases of
"flaming" seen in this country.
A mysterious figure calling himself "Bertie the Bunyip" has upset local
Usenet newsgroups after a bizarre campaign that has included posting fake
photographs of a topless Queen Mother.
If someone burst into a cafe or pub and started yelling obscenities and
abusing everyone in sight, you might expect the manager to throw them out
or call the police.
Bertie the Bunyip
news:bdfov2$sm4l9$1...@ID-120108.news.dfncis.de:
>
>
> "Kevin Jones" <1006...@nospam.compuserve.com> wrote in message
> news:bdfl22$rno$1...@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
>> "David Monks" <dm...@tiscali.fr> wrote in message
>> news:bdetti$f1t$1...@news.tiscali.fr...
>> > And don't forget the Jutes - presumably from Jutland... but this
>> > aspect does't destroy the argument. They three elements, Angles,
>> > Saxons and Jutes were all Germanic.
>>
>> And the Friesians, who usually don't get much of a look in. Actually
>> English is most akin to Friesian.
>
> I thought that was mainly people from East Anglia?
>
Looking for recruits, Djirkie?
David Monks
> But then the Normans wound up conquering Britain and wound up speaking the
> language of their Anglo-Saxon subjects. >
Hmmm... not sure I'd go all the way down that road with you, Kevin, re the
above sentence. English, before the Norman invasion, is well nigh
impossible to understand without some academic work on it first. when it
emerges again - say in the time of Chaucer, it is in a radically altered
state. It has lost most of its inflections, grammatical gender is a thing
of the past, and apart from the Great Vowel Shift, it would, in the main,
be quite easily understood.by anyone with a reasonable education today. The
process of importing Greek, Latin and French words was already established,
something which has continued to the present day, to the extend that
gramatically English is in the Germanic family, but from a vocaulary point
of view, it's a Romance language. Any of the ordinary, common, household
words are from its Germanic past, but anything that expresses abstract or
high thought is not.... Could it be that the Normas won at least half of
the battle?
David
danyderi
> "Diarmid Logan" <diarmi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:6d220a72.03062...@posting.google.com...
> > cu...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Elaine Stutt) wrote in message
> news:<bde5up$e3v$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>...
> > > "Kevin Jones" (1006...@nospam.compuserve.com) writes:
> > > > "Diarmid Logan" <diarmi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:6d220a72.03062...@posting.google.com...
> > > >> http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/archive/25-6-19103-23-43-29.html
snip
> Interestingly scythes were introduced to Britain by the Roman military -
> their existence in the post-Roman period is an example of continuity.
The introduction of scythes could be an arguable point. For instance what
other agricultural implement or tool was being utilised by the local
inhabitants to cut the crops prior to its introduction, were they using
another indigenous tool? IIRC scythes were recovered c.600BC in South Wales
being of the La Tane typology, two
were recovered, one being a complete bronze La Tane type, the other an
unfinished indigenous iron copy. One assumes trade and exchange and
networking between communities were also an element of society during the
pre Roman period, e.g. core and periphery areas of influence. Much like the
Mecaen stool ending up in the Denmark burial mound (Glob in BA dissmail).
Therefore scythes moves from one area to another as trade items or as
prestige good. Yet one has to presume that no indigenous variant exists, if
it does then it becomes superseded by exceptional technology and
workmanship. However, miscellaneous items move through political alliances
and trade links being established between communities. i.e. those that has
it and those who want items that are given value and become desirable in
early material wealth and prestige display. The statement becomes a
debatable issue from this perspective concerning the introduction of
scythes.
Yet if movement becomes an issue, an example is the Senonne "Celtic"
community from the Paris basin; a raiding party from here made it to the
Adriatic coast in c. 400BC (Pseudo-Seylax 4th BC). The stragglers from the
returning party set up a settlement there. Indeed its conjectured that
booty, and new ideas of what they observed and enchanted would also return
with those who made it back to Gaul. Likewise the ancestors of the Etrucians
migrated and settled in northern Italy from northern Syria. Furthermore
conjectured to have brought new ideas from that area, being near the fertile
crescent to the one they later occupied. In both cases acculturation would
occur in say three degrees of settling with the local population, inclusive
of political inter marriage ties. Although that would indeed play havoc on
the bloodline as it becomes contaminated through linear decent unless its a
hierarchical y chromosome. Yet, interestingly they too had a vertical axis
on the wheel, so have they moved away from the prime mother in nature
with its rhythms (Cauvin in BA dissmail). As Jim, the elder has rightfully
contributed and brought to the Ng attention.
danyderi
Ref.: Pseudo-Seylax, Periplus 17-19
Kevin Jones
news:bdhks6$mlk$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
> Kevin Jones <1006...@nospam.compuserve.com> wrote in message
> news:bdfplh$aij$1...@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
> > "Diarmid Logan" <diarmi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:6d220a72.03062...@posting.google.com...
> > > cu...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Elaine Stutt) wrote in message
> > news:<bde5up$e3v$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>...
> > > > "Kevin Jones" (1006...@nospam.compuserve.com) writes:
> > > > > "Diarmid Logan" <diarmi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:6d220a72.03062...@posting.google.com...
> > > > >> http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/archive/25-6-19103-23-43-29.html
> snip
>
> > Interestingly scythes were introduced to Britain by the Roman military -
> > their existence in the post-Roman period is an example of continuity.
>
> The introduction of scythes could be an arguable point. For instance what
> other agricultural implement or tool was being utilised by the local
> inhabitants to cut the crops prior to its introduction, were they using
> another indigenous tool?
Reaping hooks and hand sickles, rather than big two handed scythes. You
still get these being used to harvest crops in the Anglo-Saxon period -
there are contemporary illustrations of their use in the Tiberius Cotton
manuscript. There's also Iron Age examples of the same implements.
>IIRC scythes were recovered c.600BC in South Wales being of the La Tane
>typology, two were recovered, one being a complete bronze La Tane type,
>the other an unfinished indigenous iron copy.
Well, I was going on remarks that the scythe (as in big two handed thing
with a damned great blade) is first seen in first century AD military
contexts, such as Newsteads, and is only later seen in non-military contexts
such as Farmoor (Manning 1985, 49; Dark 2000, 84). It's suggested that they
were particularly of use for cutting fodder for animals.
Kevin
Kevin Jones
I'm not too surprised that English common household words are Germanic but
words about abstract thought are not. This would imply that education was
limited to an upper strata of society who didn't use a Germanic language to
discuss abstract ideas. When they started using English for such
discussions, these words no doubt had to be included in order to extend the
vocabulary so that abstract could be discussed.
The point I was trying to get across was that it isn't always the case that
the language used by an incoming elite comes to completely replace the
indigenous language. That's far too simplistic an idea, and there are
examples to the contrary. Replacement will most probably occur if there's a
massive dominance and the indigenous people have to fit in with the
newcomer's society. One situation where that will occur is when there is a
large influx of settlers. However, this is not the only model - it's just
the one we're most familiar with.
The alternative is that the newcomers, although a minority, either largely
replace an existing elite, or rule through it, and that settlement is either
minimal or absent. In this case the new language may be restricted to
official circles and official business, at least initially. However, whether
the indigenous language gets replaced or not depends on whether the new
language confers any social or economic advantage - in short, is it of
advantage for increasing numbers of the native population to use it? Again,
its a matter of dominance.
If the newcomers, despite being a minority, are the monopoly source of
social advancement and opportunities for gaining wealth, the new language
may gain a substantial foothold, as long as the natives can get a foot in
the door by way of trade or preferment. After all, kings need soldiers,
artisans, craftsmen and advisors. Speaking the new language may not only
confer advantages, it may well be an indicator of someone who is moving up
in the world. This of course assumes there are no opportunities for
advancement available elsewhere that allow you to keep your indigenous
language. Basically you either conform or you remain a member of the lower
orders. The spread would probably be gradual however, though since it's the
elite who invariably leave records, the prevalence of an indigenous language
may well be underestimated.
If, on the other hand, there are either plenty of economic advantages
elsewhere that allow you to keep your language, or if the elite is exclusive
(for whatever reason), then you may well get a situation where the new
language is established amongst the elite and people who deal directly with
them, known to a much lesser extent by those who have only some slight
contact with them, with the bulk of the population still using the native
language for everyday use. In short, language is still a marker of status,
but the new language does not come to replace the old - it just forms a
discrete stratum. However, you will probably get some interaction between
the languages such as loan words, or changes to verbs etc.
Incidentally, if the elite collapses at some point in the future, then
reasons to continue to use the new language may disappear. OTOH, it may
continue to be spoken if it is of use as a lingua franca between groups that
speak different languages - this situation prevails in modern Africa. If
such contact is limited to elites, then the use of a lingua franca may
similarly be limited by social status, and the ability to speak it thus
becomes a mark of status and education. further, it might become the
language of education - Greek and Latin occupied this position till very
late.
OTOH, if there's no particular advantage one way or the other, then the
newcomers, being the minority, may wind up habitually using the indigenous
language. This might be likely to happen if the indigenous culture has an
approximate parity with that of the newcomers, and particularly if there's
intermarriage between the new elite and indigenous elites, as might happen
in order to secure alliances. Alternatively you may get a situation where
different languages are spoken in different parts of the country.
Anyway, I've had to work this out on the fly from basic principles, so if
anyone wants to suggest refinements/ take issue, feel free. No doubt someone
somewhere has written a damned great tome on the subject! :-)
Kevin
David Monks
within the past 120 years, I feel tempted to go further on this one, but
alas, present commitments (which I am shirking by being here) don't really
allow me to explore it while the thread is hot.
David
"Kevin Jones" <1006...@nospam.compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:bdictc$mp2$1...@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
1X2 Willows
> [....]
> The alternative is that the newcomers, although a minority, either largely
> replace an existing elite, or rule through it, and that settlement is
> either minimal or absent. In this case the new language may be restricted
> to official circles and official business, at least initially. However,
> whether the indigenous language gets replaced or not depends on whether
> the new language confers any social or economic advantage - in short, is
> it of advantage for increasing numbers of the native population to use it?
> Again, its a matter of dominance.
>
> If the newcomers, despite being a minority, are the monopoly source of
> social advancement and opportunities for gaining wealth, the new language
> may gain a substantial foothold, as long as the natives can get a foot in
> the door by way of trade or preferment. After all, kings need soldiers,
> artisans, craftsmen and advisors. Speaking the new language may not only
> confer advantages, it may well be an indicator of someone who is moving up
> in the world. This of course assumes there are no opportunities for
> advancement available elsewhere that allow you to keep your indigenous
> language. Basically you either conform or you remain a member of the lower
> orders. The spread would probably be gradual however, though since it's
> the elite who invariably leave records, the prevalence of an
> indigenous language may well be underestimated.
>
> If, on the other hand, there are either plenty of economic advantages
> elsewhere that allow you to keep your language, or if the elite is
> the new language is established amongst the elite and people who
> deal directly with them, known to a much lesser extent by those who
> have only some slight contact with them, with the bulk of the population
> still using the native language for everyday use. In short, language is
> still a marker of status, but the new language does not come to
> replace the old - it just forms a discrete stratum. However, you will
> probably get some interaction between the languages such as loan
> words, or changes to verbs etc.
In hoping not to bore you to bits with the obvious, I can only attest to the
accuracy of what you said in those three paragraphs. Following the defeat by
Caesar's Rome and his appointment of Ariovist's Germanic successors as
'caretakers' over my folks, their language became the dominant language of
social status and as that a tool for social advance.
Given that and the fact that local dialects still vary to the point of being
almost mutually incompatible (in extreme cases), it comes to no surprise
that 2000 years after these incidents, we're faced with the situation that
all writings without exception are being exectuted in German while not a
single person speaks it at home in the family, in school (outside of "German
lessons", certainly ;) or in the street, going about one's daily business.
I can't help but hypothesize what future historians and other book worms
would swear to, would it come to the language that Northern Swiss people
spoke for 2000 years if all they had were written records to go by.
More obvious yet --- ask any person of your choice in the street today.
(further away from our borders than ~300 miles, that is, because our
immediate neighbours know the facts, of course...)
Fatter of mact, I bet you this is also the secret of the success of our ...
<cough> ... interesting banking system. You won't ever find any written
public documents in German or any other non-indigenous language that
tell you exactly how it works.
wink wink - nudge nudge - say no' more.
Dan
danyderi
Having used both types of scythes the short hand held, and its longer handle
variant in the fields. This being in mind originally with the response. In
hindsight, giving more thought to the words on the board, having hitting the
send button. One did come to the later conclusion that one was probably
referring to its later variant. By which time there is no self destruct
mechanism to delete the original post available. Indeed these are easier on
the spine when used for prolong periods, no doubt the later Anglo Saxons
could have drawn the same conclusions.
danyderi
Kevin Jones
Ah, no worries. It did occur to me that reaping sickles would be hell on the
back - basic stoop labour.
As far as anyone can make out, the big two handed variety, usually
associated with the Grim Reaper, was initially for cutting lots of fodder
for animals in a short time, which is what the Roman army seems to have used
it for. Presumably it was found to be so useful that it continued in use
after the Roman period. Oddly enough, as I recall, the Tiberius Cotton
manuscript shows reaping hook/hand sickles being used for crops and scythes
for fodder. Now I suppose there may not have been the pressure to use a
scythe for corn until there was an increased economic incentive to produce
large surpluses and a) fields got much bigger b) more land was cultivated by
(or on behalf of) a lanowner. The scythe does allow one person to cut more
corn in a day. However, that development came rather later than the period I
usually look at.
Kevin
Grimner
so i pieced something together as an example, although my grammar isnt
that good. Heh.
wy lugh Griene aei yn skinke.
We love green eggs and Ham.
hja duns yn tromme oanfarre under den locht moanne.
they dance and drum at night under the light (bright) moon.
Goed nacht myn freon.
Good night my friend.
-Grimner-
Grimner
chinese constitution, even!) Dont mexicans have a Meso-American center
of view? dont blacks have an Afro-Centric View of themselves? dont jews
have a judeao centric view?
then why is it a bad thing for the brits to do so? or for that matter,
the Scottish and Irish?
as long as a cultural-centric view does not develop into a hatred of
everyone else, i dont see a problem with that.
-Grimner-
Nik Warrensson
>dont Chinese have a Sino-Centric view of themselves (its written in the
>chinese constitution, even!) Dont mexicans have a Meso-American center
>of view? dont blacks have an Afro-Centric View of themselves? dont jews
>have a judeao centric view?
>
>then why is it a bad thing for the brits to do so? or for that matter,
>the Scottish and Irish?
>
>as long as a cultural-centric view does not develop into a hatred of
>everyone else, i dont see a problem with that.
Well thats right isn't it? Humanity doesn't come in a 'one size fits
all'... Difference and diversity is more than just ok, it is to be
celebrated.
Nik
danyderi
> "danyderi" <dany...@astrocelt.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:bdmgfr$63h$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk...
Oh one is not worried, indeed the post in all likelihood was the correct one
at that past moment in time and space, even if one got hold of the middle of
the stick, rather than its correct single end. It is just like the experimen
t of using the scythes, although labour intensive and basic, it helps to
understand the importance of the community in agrarian practices. Indeed
whether it be a bronze sickle/scythe or the associated larger Saturn
variant. The old grim reaper of time perhaps, before its modern reassignment
to Pluto. Nonetheless, that's another hanes cymraeg (Welsh story), no doubt
all human beings have them regardless of race or creed. In turn, its just
another fairy tale.
danyderi
Diarmid Logan
Yes, but the Normans were a minority in Britain. The genetic research
shows that there was a substantial Norwegian invasion of the Orkneys.
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
"Nik Warrensson" <warre...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote in message
news:6u9vfv0tiv4j6r8pq...@4ax.com...
And encouraged, but not within single nations.
One of the defining characteristics of a culture is the laws it makes for
itself to live under.
Truly multicultural societies cannot do that by definition.
For example, despite what is claimed Britain is not a multicultural
society - it is a defacto secular western liberal democracy. And anyone's
culture can fit in right up to the point where it clashes with *our* laws.
As certain Moslems have discovered, it is *our* culture that makes the
rules.
FFF
Bertie the Bunyip
news:6u9vfv0tiv4j6r8pq...@4ax.com:
Especially when you nazi fjucks are all in charge of it, eh?
BTW< I think you'll find that the SCI people will find this pretty funny,
Nazi boy.
Bertie the Bunyip
>
> "Nik Warrensson" <warre...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:6u9vfv0tiv4j6r8pq...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 01:27:33 GMT, Grimner <Pan...@attbi.com> wrote:
>>
>> >dont Chinese have a Sino-Centric view of themselves (its written in
>> >the chinese constitution, even!) Dont mexicans have a Meso-American
>> >center of view? dont blacks have an Afro-Centric View of themselves?
>> >dont jews have a judeao centric view?
>> >
>> >then why is it a bad thing for the brits to do so? or for that
>> >matter, the Scottish and Irish?
>> >
>> >as long as a cultural-centric view does not develop into a hatred of
>> >everyone else, i dont see a problem with that.
>>
>> Well thats right isn't it? Humanity doesn't come in a 'one size fits
>> all'... Difference and diversity is more than just ok, it is to be
>> celebrated.
>
> And encouraged, but not within single nations.
The Nationla front speaks!
And yet you fail to denounce Djirkie, Njikky, why is that?
White Spirit
> Ive known this for a while about Frisian similarity to English.
> so i pieced something together as an example, although my grammar isnt
> that good. Heh.
> wy lugh Griene aei yn skinke.
> We love green eggs and Ham.
> hja duns yn tromme oanfarre under den locht moanne.
> they dance and drum at night under the light (bright) moon.
> Goed nacht myn freon.
> Good night my friend.
When you compare the above to Old English, particularly when considering
the pronunciation, the similarity is even more striking.
Kevin Jones
news:3F00799D...@heorot.fslife.co.uk...
That's just what I was thinking.
Kevin
Kevin Jones
news:6d220a72.03062...@posting.google.com...
> "Kevin Jones" <1006...@nospam.compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:<bdd47g$fii$1...@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com>...
>
> > > "In the new study, samples were collected from the whole of Britain in
> > > a grid pattern. The study contradicts the notion of the complete
> > > replacement of the indigenous people by incoming Anglo-Saxons.
> > >
> > > "The data set doesn't show that but illustrates that the English are
> > > largely indigenous in origin. We wanted to look at whether culture and
> > > genetics go together.
> > >
> > > "In Orkney and Shetland they spoke Norwegian until the 1700s and there
> > > we have a strong case for genes and culture going hand-in-hand."
> >
> > Err? Excuse me? They've just said that the genetic profile was halfway
> > between Ireland and Norway. However, they spoke Norwegian - so where's
the
> > Irish component. According to his logic, they should have spoken half
> > Norwegian and half Gaelic.
>
> You have to remember that Norwegian culture was brought in to Orkney
> by the invading Vikings who conquered the people already living there.
> Therefore the natives of Orkney likely ended up adopting the language
> and culture of their Norwegian conquerers.
I agree - however, what the article said was:
Dr Jim Wilson, a population geneticist from Orkney who is now based at
University College London, said: "The recent paper was based on a
study that I carried out on Orkney to tell if the inhabitants were
descended from Vikings.
"It found the genetic profile was halfway between Norway and Ireland,
suggesting that the Vikings did have a significant effect on the
population.
<little snip>
"In Orkney and Shetland they spoke Norwegian until the 1700s and there
we have a strong case for genes and culture going hand-in-hand."
Now I have no trouble with paras 1 and 2 - Orkney is sufficiently close, by
contemporary sailing standards, to have a lot of Norse turning up there.
Obviously there's going to be heavy acculturation. Where I do have the
problem is with para 3, which is getting too close to the 'genes determine
culture' argument. You don't need to invoke a link between genetics and
culture - the genes merely act as a marker of what people came from where.
which culture became dominant is down to completely different mechanisms.
Therefore genes and culture do not go 'hand-in-hand.
> > Again, he's pointed out that there were a large
> > number of Celts in Anglo-Saxon Britain, so why is the culture
recognisably
> > Germanic? Where's the gentic link? The man is a fool! Either that, or
the
> > journalist is badly misreporting him.
>
> Again, the Anglo-Saxons came as conquering invaders and imposed their
> Germanic culture on the native population.
Umm! Well that's rather under discussion at the moment. However, the old
idea of invading Saxons imposing their culture has rather gone out of the
window. Current thinking is that there may not have been that many Saxons
overall, compared to the indigenous population. Would be pretty much par for
the course in the period - a fair number of the barbarian groups only had a
small core who were ethnically as described by the collective name (e.g. the
Huns, the Goths). The rest included Greeks, Roman citizens who had deserted
the empire, or people left beyond the frontier when it contracted - there
were in fact very few true Goths in Theoderic's Gothic army. Other groups
(e.g. the Franks, the Alleman) were tribal confederations of ethnically
diverse groups - some constituent groups had Celtic names. It's a process
called ethnogenesis - a disparate bunch are welded together by a succesful
leader, in the course of which a new ethnic identity emerges.
There were in fact Saxons settled in East Anglia back in the Roman period -
they were foederati. The immediate post-Roman period is still being
discussed - however it is pretty certain that there was a complete economic
collapse, plus probable outbreaks of various plagues which depopulated parts
of the denser, more romanised areas, namely the south-east. In addition,
there's evidence for the infrastructure of the towns (e.g. sewage systems)
collapsing, which would have made matters worse, with raw sewage
contaminating drinking water. You run the risk of hepatitis; the Yellow
Plague which Maelgwn Gwynedd is supposed to have died of sounds suspiciously
like hepatitis, particularly since it is supposed to have started in the
marshes in a hot summer (probably where the sewage system would have
discharged). Anyway, the towns would have become very unhealthy, and they
were largely abandoned, except in some places by a rump population who may
have been growing food in them (hence the black earth deposits). The same
dilapidation is seen in villas, but that may have slightly different
causes - in the late Roman empire tenant farmers were tied to their employer
by all sorts of punitive legislation that dated back to Diocletian.
Legislation was enforced by the infrastructure, which was paid for by taxes
collected by the army, who also enforced the law. The army needed paying -
no pay, no army, no taxes and no law enforcement. I suspect more than a few
workers took off, particularly if there was plague around, leaving the owner
to fend as best they could. What happened next? Well, the absconding workers
could either take to banditry - probably likely - or squat a deserted
property. There is some evidence I gather for settlements being
strengthened, which could well be the consequence of banditry. Also the
Roman army, when not paid, was known to go into business for itself - it
wasn't above resorting to banditry either and did so on several occasions.
So you have economic and social collapse, plus depopulation due to plagues.
In short, you have a developing vacuum in the south-east - it's the sort of
situation that is seen elsewhere in the Roman empire in this period. The
barbarians aren't the source of the chaos - the vacuum sucks them in. No
doubt some Saxons found underpopulated areas and settled them. Again, there
is probably some truth in the old tale of Vortigern (not a name - it means
Great Lord or Great Prince) settled Saxons on parts of Britain. This was a
standard Roman practice of protecting an area, particularly if it was
underpopulated. There is some evidence of some attempt at central control -
possibly the old provincial council - but that only lasted a generation. The
infrastructure was just too badly damaged, and the late Roman period had
already seen society split into competing squirearchies, each with their
private armies.
Chances are that many people would have thrown in their lot with the nearest
strong force that could protect them from chaos and probable banditry,
regardless of who that was. Certainly not all the people named as Saxons
were Saxons - there's a gentleman called Cerdig who appears as a Saxon early
in this period. However, that's a British name. Presumably some landowners
found it useful to throw in their lot with the newcomers, in order to
preserve their position.
There's also the interesting tie with the Merovingians - the aristocracy of
the kingdom of Kent were intermarried with the Merovingian aristocracy,
which is why Kent had a monopoly on trade in the 7th century. Now it's not
impossible that the Merovingians moved some of the barbarian tribes just
beyond their borders over to south-east England, for quite strategic
reasons. They weren't above knicking a few ideas from the Romans either.
Now it is not necessary for the newcomers to impose their culture - and in
fact that would probably have been impossible. These are not modern states,
and quite frankly the aristocracy wouldn't have given a tinker's toss what
the lower orders got up to, as long as they produced the goods. In any case,
they had other things to worry about. Between the 5th and the 7th century
the amount of available wealth in the country was plummeting, to judge from
statistical analysis of grave goods. It's only really with the upsurge of
wealth through renewed trade that starts in the 7th century that you start
getting competition for power, growing centralisation, destabilisation of
relations between kingdoms, and lots of wars.
In fact the nature of the archaeological record means that you cannot make
simple direct assumptions like 'the Anglo-Saxons . . . imposed their
Germanic culture on the native population'. The evidence simply can't be
taken that far. In archaeology you're only dealing with cultural
assemblages. Just because someone has a Saxon cultural assemblage
(interpretation: they owned goods which are commonly described as Saxon)
doesn't mean that the owner spoke Saxon, not does it mean that they were
culturally Saxon, anymore than owning Japanese consumer electronics makes
you culturally Japanese, or wearing Levi jeans makes you American. All it
means is that that was what was available and it did the job.
It does indicate some sort of acculturation is going on; it doesn't tell you
what the mechanism is. You certainly cannot say it was imposed - people can
become completely assimilated by another culture without any imposition
being necessary. In fact some aspects of continuity would argue that there
wasn't any cultural imposition, such as the continued use of boundaries
dating back to the Iron Age, the continued use of grass tempered pot in Kent
(which predates the Romans), the continuation of farming practices and
methods of butchery which have far more in common with Roman methods than
Saxon ones - these are everyday bits of culture. As for other aspects -
well, there were already marked Germanic influences within the the
north-western bit of the empire long before all this - however, the
barbarians were also copying Roman military trappings (e.g. cavalry parade
helmets, of which the Sutton Hoo helmet is a descendant), so you could argue
that a new form of culture is emerging anyway.
What is thought more likely to have happened is that Roman culture lost its
status when the system collapsed - the empire was now very far away, and
became even further away with the collapse of Gothic Rome. Again, a lot of
the material aspects of Roman culture were dependent on the economic
system - pottery, for example, was made in a few major centres by commercial
concerns. Wheelthrown pot does disappear - but that was a commercial
operation at the time. People go back to handmade pots. They do the job and
you can make them at home - in many respects, things go back to an Iron Age
pattern, which has probably been underlying Romano-British culture anyway.
The old imperial cohesiveness between one area and another has broken down,
and things are now entirely local, though the roots of this go way back to
Diocletian's reforms.
Into this you introduce some new boys on the block who can hold things
together in your area. If you've got new boys on the block, you either make
what they want in order to make a crust, or you buy what they are selling.
You don't really give a toss what it looks like as long as it does the job.
OK, the bosses speak a different language - well, they are keeping you and
yours safe, so you hang around, pick up the language, maybe you can get a
job, or at lest know what's going on. They're pagan - well, the state of the
country seems to indicate that God has deserted the place, so maybe they're
on to a winner here. There's a nice lass down the road - she may speak
funny, but you'd have a roll in the hay with her anyday. Give it a few
generations of this, and you wouldn't know who was originally Romano-British
and who was Saxon. People are people, and they have an uncanny knack for
adapting, even while complaining that it is not as good as the old days.
> > In which case, to take the idea of genetics and culture going hand in
hand,
> > why is the culture of the Irish and Welsh recognisably Indo-European? Or
> > could it be that someone is speaking a load of bollocks?
>
> The ancestors of the Irish and the Welsh most likely adopted Celtic
> culture and language because they were engaged in trade with
> Celtic-speaking populations in western Europe. To use a modern
> analogy, many countries around the world use English in their
> commercial affairs because they do so much business with the United
> States and have also adopted many aspects of American culture.
Agreed - though I suspect that it's not quite that simple - but that screws
the idea of genetics and culture going hand in hand. Obviously they don't.
Kevin
Nik Warrensson
There's a very good reason for that.
Nik
Nik Warrensson
Tis a stupid thing to migrate to another country and expect it to be
just like the one you left...
English who come to New Zealand and moan about the dominance of Rugby
over Soccer here are a case in point.
Nik
David Monks
lol
You back in Kiwi-Land, Nik?
I'm emigrated too. And we never did get for that pint in Dublin!
David
"Nik Warrensson" <warre...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1nk1gvgs4qsbaeqk0...@4ax.com...
DaRC
Well Kentish and Friesian did share a lot of dialectical similarities
- I imagine most people who spoke Kentish have died by now, just as
most who speak the Sussex dialect have gone.
I remember being shown an OpenUniversity program at school
demonstrating this - it had a Kentish man speaking and a Friesian = I
could barely tell the difference. When I'm over in Holland (as I have
a smattering of French and German as well) I find reading the language
quite easy - understanding it is another matter though ;-)
However you also have to allow for the constant and close ties between
England and the Flemish / Dutch / German states over time. The
Hanseatic League had a strong influence as did the Dutch traders.
With regards to the Celt / AS in the South East there are still Celtic
based names (allegedly) - The River Adur is supposed to have come from
the Celtic Adurni for fast flowing river. This seems to point to more
of a merging of people than a non-communicative & hostile
relationship.
Cheers, Dave.
Bertie the Bunyip
news:bdrkpd$9mn$1...@news.tiscali.fr:
> There's nothing but rugnby in the papers here! Goodness, I must be in
> NZ! lol
>
Sweaty men all hugging each other.
No wonder you wanted to go back to NZ Njikky.
Bertie
Nik Warrensson
wrote:
>There's nothing but rugnby in the papers here! Goodness, I must be in NZ!
>lol
Are ye in England now? The English Rugby writers are having a virtual
frenzy at the moment. This is their best chance ever and probably for
a while to come again, to win the World Cup so they're making hay
while the sun shines...
>You back in Kiwi-Land, Nik?
I am indeed.
>I'm emigrated too. And we never did get for that pint in Dublin!
Ah mate....argh...we were handicapped for our lack of transport. Shame
that. I went to Uisneach at Beltane. That was great. I went to the
Usineach Tavern after that and the local, he didn't know I knew who he
was, Fine Gael candidate bought us a round...I had an amazing time in
Ireland.
Is mise
Nik
Kevin Jones
news:b4049d4.03070...@posting.google.com...
Well, might not be too surprising of the social and economic system in parts
of the south-east were quite the mess they seem to have been. There are some
pointers to this - some post-Roman villas in formerly wealthy areas continue
in use but get dilapidated, as if times are getting very very hard. Coin
vanishes rapidly, so you're back to payment in kind. Farming advances suited
for commercial agriculture vanish, and don't reappear until trading
opportunities are re-established. There was no market for surplus produce,
no transport system to get it there, therefore no incentive to produce a
useless surplus, therefore no incentive for capital investment, and
consequently largely subsstence agriculture. Similarly, it's not improbable
that in some areas people were left effectively leaderless. Plague doesn't
respect social station; again people of means in similar circumstances have
collected their portable valuables, bailed out and legged it to better
areas. Under those circumstances those who are left are likely to flock to
whoever can establish some sort of order. It's only later that you get
ambitious leaders attempting to expand.
Basically you're probably looking at a complete social collapse in some
areas of the south-east, increasing poverty and increasing banditry.
Now someone might enquire 'what about Arthur?' Well, the trouble is that
Geoffrey's account conflates the careers of several earlier usurpers,
including Constantine, with Arthur. There may be some history there - his
account of Carausius is accurate, but it looks as if it may have been drawn
from Roman provincial records that have since vanished. Trouble is, Geoffrey
has also added bits of garbled mythology to Arthur's story - a fair bit
would seem to come from Irish sources. Not unusual - Conchobhar mac Nessa
appears in an even earlier Welsh tale as Cwnchwr ap Nes. In the fullblown
Matter of Britain mythology overwhelms what little history remains - after
all, there are other, mythological, characters who are hidden from birth,
are brought out at adulthood to take their place, get married to a woman who
betrays them with a lover, and who are killed by a rival, only to slay them
in their turn. One might note that the earliest mention of Myrddin (Merlin)
is in the Black Book of Carmarthen, where he is the companion of Llew. It
would therefore seem that the story of a probable 6th century military
leader has been taken over by the mythology of pagan Celtic deities. This
might lead to a few interesting possibilities concerning medieval Wales,
Cornwall and Brittany, where the tales were strongest.
In Nennius Arthur is a dux bellorum, which was a Roman military rank.Badon
gets mentioned in Gildas, though Arthur doesn't - it was apparently a great
battle, though exactly what was considered a great battle back then was
moot. The earliest account appears in Y Gododdin, where he is just mentioned
in passing as a mighty warrior.
That Arthur existed is highly probable. In the 6th century there's a sudden
outbreak of people naming their children Arthur - previously it was a rare,
Roman name. Presumably someone with that name lived roundabout then.
However, it's not possible to say at this stage exactly what was happening.
It maybe that Geoffrey's account has a germ of truth - one could read it as
internal factional fighting amongst a loose collection of powerful and
ambitious mid to late 6th century groups. There's no evidence for any
central authority, so it may have simply a loose, sometimes co-operating
collection of kingdoms with someone occupying an equivalent position to the
Irish ard ri. Chances are that the population on the Saxon Shore were of
ethnically mixed origins. How they came about - well, as I said, there are
several possible mechanisms and all may apply; foederati, isolated bunches
of settlers moving into depopulated areas, later movement of groups by the
Merovingians. It's not impossible that they were allied to one of the
factions.
Problem is that the tale became a patriotic rallying point for medieval
Wales, and no doubt grew in the telling. However, rather than being a blood
and guts opposition to a full-scale foreign invasion (a very useful version
in WW2 BTW), it may just be an account of a fairly bloody internal war
between different factions, one of whom happened to be allied to a
population of both Romano-British and Germanic origins. Not that this should
be thought unusual - the principal axis of trade for Britain (and especially
London) as far back as the Antonine period had been the north-western
European littoral, and particularly the mouth of the Rhine. There were
already strong links before the western empire folded. As mentioned in
another post, there were Saxon foederati in Roman East Anglia.
There is another point - the Saxon kingdoms in Britain seem to not have been
an extension of Saxon social structure on the continent. Instead it seems to
have been something that evolved here, and there seems to have been a mixed
bag of Celtic, Roman and Saxon ideas cross-fertilising. The earlier groups
appear to have been far more decentralised. Again it suggests mixed origins,
probably slowly developing with time.
Problem is, we need more information of the period between AD 410 and maybe
AD 600. At present we don't have enough - but what we do have doesn't
suggest the mass invasion and hoplessly brave resistance of popular history.
Kevin
Bertie the Bunyip
news:t4q3gvg4q6dmd5hgi...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 11:39:09 +0100, "David Monks" <dm...@tiscali.fr>
> wrote:
>
>>There's nothing but rugnby in the papers here! Goodness, I must be in
>>NZ! lol
>
> Are ye in England now?
Ye?
Bwawhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwhahhwh!
Those little nuances get Gerry's attentio do they, nazi boy?
Bwawhahwhahwhahwhahwhhahwhahwhhahwhahwhah!
>
>>You back in Kiwi-Land, Nik?
>
> I am indeed.
>
>>I'm emigrated too. And we never did get for that pint in Dublin!
>
> Ah mate....argh...we were handicapped for our lack of transport. Shame
> that. I went to Uisneach at Beltane. That was great. I went to the
> Usineach Tavern after that and the local, he didn't know I knew who he
> was, Fine Gael candidate bought us a round...I had an amazing time in
> Ireland.
I'm sure Ireland had an amzing time too. Set back things fifty years, no
doubt.
Bertie
Aetyr
brit that is, is that the British seem to have an issue with
Angles and Celts...something which the rest of the world is
largely unaware of. For instance the entire premise of the
post...the Celts held their own with DNA, is pretty silly.
Especially using a marker like the Y chromosomal marker to show
much of anything.
The Basques are fairly isolated linguistically and, in some
respects, in regards to marriage and breeding. They have some
differences in genetic markers, mtDNA and Y chr. from the
surrounding populations. Its even been postulated that they form
some kind of population that can be studied and extrapolations
made about the pre Indo European population of PART of what is
now western Europe.
To show a correlation between Ychr. relationships between so
called "Celtic" populations in England and the
rest....insufficiently unidentified population called
Angles....can only show that there was a sufficiently large
population of pre indo European people, who were not moved out or
slaughtered, but interbred with the invading Celts...Because the
Celts are an indo European people. The Celts are not an
indigenous pre invasion people. They have standard IE language
and culture. Irish is closely related to Greek. They have the
standard cosmology. The Angles and Jutes are simply a later
invasion of England from the 2nd invasion of IE peoples into
Germanic territories. There were 3 mass invasions of Europe by
the IE over a period of 3,000 years, roughly beginning in the
early part of the Bronze age in the mid east.
To stray into another earlier post...this kind of biological
sleuthing can be revealing in population movement, but it does
not displace or discount the enormous amount of information
gathered over the past 150 years concerning these issues using
archaeological techniques, physical anthropology, and
linguistics.
Pip
"Grimner" <Pan...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3EFF910C...@attbi.com...
Aetyr
Romanized British chieftain who was besieged after the Roman
withdrawal from Britain. The sophistication that he was trying
to protect was the romanized towns and trade routes that were
left. The related him to the Rigotamous mentioned in some
records...sorry about the sketchy memory, Britain was never my
specialty.
Pipnews:bdt1l0$mm9$1...@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
Kevin Jones
news:3bhNa.233357$jp.61...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> Read an interesting book years ago where Arthur was related to a
> Romanized British chieftain who was besieged after the Roman
> withdrawal from Britain. The sophistication that he was trying
> to protect was the romanized towns and trade routes that were
> left. The related him to the Rigotamous mentioned in some
> records...sorry about the sketchy memory, Britain was never my
> specialty.
Well, this is a particularly complex period, and one that lacks a lot of
information.
Rigotamus (or Riothamus in Sidonius Apollinaris) turns up in one of the
Gothic histories (Jordanes, I think), which briefly recounts reported events
in Britain. There have been suggestions that Arthur was Rigotamus. Trouble
is Rigotamus isn't a name; it's a Latin version of a British word meaning
High King, in the same that Vortigern means Great Prince. We're not getting
any names, unfortunately.
BTW, there's a link to an interesting look at post-Roman Britain and the
works of Gildas:
http://www.geocities.com/vortigernstudies/fabio/contents.htm
There's an interesting analysis of Maglocunos (Maelgwn), the insularis draco
(dragon of the island) which would put him in North Britain, rather than
Gwynedd. The argument is rational. It's also interesting to note that
Maglocunos, whilst being the most dangerous and powerful leader in Britain,
was taught by 'the best master in Britain'.
Interstingly Gildas mentions plagues as having depopulated Britain, and
plagues are known to have happened elsewhere in the empire and bits that had
recently broken away. There's also an interesting reference, which I had
forgotten, of Justinian offering the Ostrogoths Britain. Well, that again
was fairly typical Eastern Roman diplomacy - Zeno had arranged for Theoderic
and his Goths to invade Italy at an earlier date, and rule as magister
militum.
Now Gildas doe mention a past Saxon invasion - trouble is, he's not writing
history, but polemic. History does peek through here and there, but you have
to be careful with him. The author would put Gildas as writing about 561 AD
or thereabouts (a bit later than the standard date, but not impossible),
which would have the Saxons raiding and settling round about 521 AD. There's
an overview on Anglo-Saxon settlement and the reliability of Gildas at:
http://www.vortigernstudies.org.uk/artgue/guestcapps.htm
Another writer suggests that the Saxons, rather than being a settlement of
people, were in fact ex-Roman troops of Germanic origin, brought over in the
early to mid-5th century to strengthen the defences. Now that would make
sense. Germanic troops, including Saxons, had been used by the Romans for
some time, and they would have been accompanied by their familes. this is
pretty muc a refinement of the foederati argument - the Romans habitually
did this. A levy of several thousand Sarmatian cavalry (from southern
Russia) had been settled in Britain (at Ribchester) by the Romans at a much
earlier period. Rebellion was not uncommon amongst Roman troops who didn't
get paid - they'd basically go into business for themselves. It's now
thought that a lot of the mayhem in Britain reported in the 'Barbarian
conspiracy' is because Roman troops hadn't been paid for a while and started
raiding.
Mind you, I still suspect that the Merovingians had a hand in it somewhere,
possibly in the Saxons settling Kent, though probably at a later date. By
the 6th century you had a diplomatic marriage between the ruler of the Kent
kingdom and hte Merovingians, so something was going on there.
There's also an interesting article on Ambrosius:
http://www.geocities.com/vortigernstudies/articles/guestdan1.htm
Kevin
Day Brown
genetic heritage. Sykes, The Seven Daughters of Eve, finds the same
seven primordial matriarchs in *all* parts of Europe. Given that there
are scores of sperm donors, the whole idea of Native European 'pure
blood', is absurd. We are the most bastardized race on the planet. If
you want racial purity, look at Africa, with the Masai, the Kalihari and
Congo Mbuti pygmies.
The original Proto-Indo-Europeans were like the New Yorkers; the most
culturally and genetically diverse group of people on the planet. The
dynamism of rapid adaptation drew ambitious people outta the boondocks
from all directions, and produced the most rapid technological
innovation the world had ever seen.
One of the early branches, the Cucuteni of what is now Rumania &
Moldavia, had a *black* goddess. Who so resonated with the nomadic
Aryans that they brought Her down to India, where She still reigns in
Bengal as Kali. Sykes says that the last of the seven came from the
Semetic Mideast 10,000 BP. Seems like She was prolly Black.
All the heroic alpha male warrior mythology tends to obscure the data
from the paleolithic digs, which is that maternal mortality was so high
that women were scarce. What is in short supply becomes rather valuable,
and given the size of the obese matriarchic Goddesses which we see from
that era, these big mommas were no pushovers. But even if She and her
line were African, after successive generations of mating with scores of
white guys, the skin fades. But mythic memory, as we see with Troy, is
rather durable. Those men no doubt remembered the big wide black bitch
whose steptogogic hips (seen in iconography) could pop kids out like a
cow, year after year.
The Origins of Order by Kaufman, goes into how different species evolve
depending on whether they are large masses like herds or flocks, or
isolated small populations such as was seen on the Galapagos Isles. The
Zebra, Wildebeast, Elephant, etc look pretty much the same across the
last million years. Kaufman says that innovative genes get washed out in
large gene pools. Children of the Stone Age shows how the hominids were
once spread all along the fringe of the jungle from the Atlantic to the
Rift Valley. But that the ice age broke the habitat into several small
and isloated gene pools, one of which produced us.
This process was extended and intensified in Ice age Europe. Elsewhere,
when the ice came south, people just migrated and mixed with those in
the tropics. But Europeans were stopped by the Mediterranean. And then
when the ice retreated, which the Greenland ice core record shows was a
very rapid phenomena, taking less than a century, sometimes only a
decade, the people spilled back north again, and very thinly spread
themselves across a vast empty landscape. To become very genetically
isolated, hybridized.
On the issue of whether there was intermarriage in Britain, I'd take a
close look at their Celtic cousins, the Tocharians, who lived in what is
now NW China from about 4,000 BP. They have found the desert preserved
the remains so well that you can still see the Celtic clothes they wore
and their red or blonde hair. But among the Tocharian graves, there are
also some Shang Chinese people... buried in Celtic clothes. The fact
that they hybridized is seen in the faces of those who live there, with
occassional throwbacks with blue eyes. If they did not hybridize in
Britain, I'd like to see some good reason why.
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
"Day Brown" <dayb...@hypertech.net> wrote in message
news:3F05E1ED...@hypertech.net...
> Its a bad thing for the Brits, or anyone else, to be deluded about their
> genetic heritage. Sykes, The Seven Daughters of Eve, finds the same
> seven primordial matriarchs in *all* parts of Europe. Given that there
> are scores of sperm donors, the whole idea of Native European 'pure
> blood', is absurd. We are the most bastardized race on the planet. If
> you want racial purity, look at Africa, with the Masai, the Kalihari and
> Congo Mbuti pygmies.
Wrong
It is indigenous Europeans who are almost identical genetically.
Some 20% of European genes have been traced to Middle Eastern neolithic
migrants within the past 9000 years, while the rest reflect those of a
population that has been here for some 40,000 years.
Africa has the greatest genetic variation of all.
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <di...@neopax.com> wrote in message
news:be60gr$1lecj$1...@ID-120108.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "Day Brown" <dayb...@hypertech.net> wrote in message
> news:3F05E1ED...@hypertech.net...
> > Its a bad thing for the Brits, or anyone else, to be deluded about their
> > genetic heritage. Sykes, The Seven Daughters of Eve, finds the same
> > seven primordial matriarchs in *all* parts of Europe. Given that there
> > are scores of sperm donors, the whole idea of Native European 'pure
> > blood', is absurd. We are the most bastardized race on the planet. If
> > you want racial purity, look at Africa, with the Masai, the Kalihari and
> > Congo Mbuti pygmies.
>
> Wrong
> It is indigenous Europeans who are almost identical genetically.
> Some 20% of European genes have been traced to Middle Eastern neolithic
> migrants within the past 9000 years, while the rest reflect those of a
> population that has been here for some 40,000 years.
> Africa has the greatest genetic variation of all.
>
References
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?holding=npg&cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8659525&dopt=Abstract
http://www.archaeology.org/9609/abstracts/dna.html
and on African genetic diversity
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/01/990125073157.htm
"Genetic diversity in Africa is extremely high, even between closely related
or located groups and much higher than diversity in other human
populations."
Nik Warrensson
Genetic diversity in Africa is greater than the entire rest of the
world combined.
This tends to indicate that we all, ultimately, have African origins.
Nik
Bertie the Bunyip
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 11:39:09 +0100, "David Monks" <dm...@tiscali.fr>
> wrote:
>
>>There's nothing but rugnby in the papers here! Goodness, I must be in
>>NZ! lol
>
> Are ye in England now?
ye?
Bwawhahwhahhwhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwhahhwhahwhah!
Do you ever even get a glimmer of how much of a jerkoff you are, Njiky?>
Bertie
Day Brown
>
> "Day Brown" <dayb...@hypertech.net> wrote in message
> news:3F05E1ED...@hypertech.net...
> > Its a bad thing for the Brits, or anyone else, to be deluded about their
> > genetic heritage. Sykes, The Seven Daughters of Eve, finds the same
> > seven primordial matriarchs in *all* parts of Europe. Given that there
> > are scores of sperm donors, the whole idea of Native European 'pure
> > blood', is absurd. We are the most bastardized race on the planet. If
> > you want racial purity, look at Africa, with the Masai, the Kalihari and
> > Congo Mbuti pygmies.
>
> Wrong
> It is indigenous Europeans who are almost identical genetically.
> Some 20% of European genes have been traced to Middle Eastern neolithic
> migrants within the past 9000 years, while the rest reflect those of a
> population that has been here for some 40,000 years.
> Africa has the greatest genetic variation of all.
Certainly Africa is a far more genetically diverse place; but my point
is that within Africa, there are lots of very small, exclusive, and need
I say *pure* gene pools, whereas the same genes out of a somewhat
smaller set, are found in *all* parts of Europe. I would expect in time
that the small African pure bred tribes will be seen as valuable
archives of the way we have all evolved, and there may even be UN or
government efforts to reward the members of such tribes to preserve
their genetic purity. As seen with the Ainu and the Australian
Aborigine.
Native European women may come to the same conclusion some day.
Historically, they have been the most politically and economically free
of all women all over the planet. Only they have had an advertised
tradition of finding men unlike themselves to be attractive. In most
parts of the world, the preference of the young women for different men
was sanctioned. Which is why, in America, the Asian/Caucasian crosses
are seen as more attractive, but in Asia, they are viewed as
'half-breeds'. Only in Native European literature do we see women who
are openly attracted to men unlike themselves, as in 'tall, *dark*, &
handsome'. What made the first hollywood stud muffin, Valentino,
popular, was that he could pass himself off as Arab.
In Africa we do see more diversity; we see scores of primordial men and
scores of matriarchs. It is easy to see how completely faithful women
would produce these results. But in Europe, with scores of sperm donors,
but only seven females, it is harder to draw that conclusion about the
assumed chastity of the female line. And in the culture itself, whereas
we see in Nigeria a woman being threated with stoning, (in this day and
age) in the court records of midlands midieval England, we see (Life in
a Midieval village) several different marital arrangements which were
outside the paramters of church law.
Are there 'farmer's daughters' jokes in the African languages? Look a
little more carefully at our own genealogy, and you see bastardy all
over the place. Other cultures demanded much more control over their
women, and had far fewer bastards.
To return more directly to the issue at hand, you can see in the Bible
where the zealots were appalled at the Hellenization of the power
structure after Alexander. Jews were just apoplectic about guys in city
hall shaving. I think I know that attitude, I still hear about it from
pulpits to this day. But the thing about the Greeks and the other
European tribes, was that if you talked like a Greek, wore Greek
clothes, you could become a Greek. Their most sacred spiritual event,
the famous "Mysteries of Eleusis", was open to all, men, women, master,
slave, free, Greek or Barbarian. Universal brotherhood... in the same
era when the Torah was going on about the purity of Levite priesthood.
No doubt the same in England, when the Saxons took over the power
structure, the Celts adapted, and just as is going on today, races
interbred and were assimilated. The Celts, like the Greeks, were not a
*race*, but a way of life. The Jews, and indeed most of the world, much
of it still to this day, traces it's identity in genetic bloodlines. It
was the power of the native women of Europe who were the most able, and
mostly successful, at challenging that attitude of the alpha male
warrior class.
Aetyr
But still, the observation about female choice was intriguing.
Pipnews:3F06A272...@hypertech.net...
Day Brown
>
> An interesting treatise. You have gone too far on many points.
> But still, the observation about female choice was intriguing.
It is difficult to assess the effect of the Native European relative
empowerment of women, and the effect that, or warrior class control, has
had on the gene pools.
And given the repression employed by racists all thru history, and the
desire in more recent times to grant opportunity to those who were
repressed, I can certainly understand the altruistic effort to rectify
the situation. The idea that all men are created equal has a lot of
appeal, and has gone a long ways twards granting a little more equal
justice before the law. Rightfully so, repression has been recognized;
but the idea that all men are equally endowed by their creator with
equal talents and character has not been supported by the data.
I worked in the Head Start program back in the 1960's. It most certainly
has done good. But the fact is that the efforts, limited as they have
been to the social setting and physical environment, have been too often
wasted. Confusing hopes for reasonable expectations.
But whatever the ratio in any gene pool of social predators vs
altruists, the FMRI brain scans and biochemical lab analysis is showing
that we need no longer rely on the expectations or hopes of
socialization, we can actually identify those children who will
challenge our hopes and pose greater risk of predation of their peers.
let us not also forget the predatory females and their intuitive skill
at manipulating the emotions of others.
From Mata Hari all the way back to Livia in Rome, we see European women
employ their cunts for political ends. But in the Near East, you havta
go all the way back to Esther to find women able to fuck the men they
meant to destroy. Joseph Campbell, for one, noted how much more power
Semetic women had in the early bronze age, and how as time went on, the
repression of women increased, as with the rise of Islam, and continues
there still today.
And ironically, when you look at the history of the Semite women who
were exported, by Trajan to Rome, you can see how the Ashkenazic Jews of
Europe became the most talented race of men the world has ever seen. But
it wasnt cause the Jewish men were in charge; no matter where the Jews
lived, it was either Christians or Moslems running city hall. There
never was a Jewish warrior class with any control over Ashkenazic
Jewesses.
Aetyr
"Day Brown" <dayb...@hypertech.net> wrote in message
news:3F0703AA...@hypertech.net...
> Aetyr wrote:
> >
> > An interesting treatise. You have gone too far on many
points.
> > But still, the observation about female choice was
intriguing.
> Thanx. civil discourse is appreciated among all the flaming.
People don't flame threads like these. Proof that this isn't a
place of flame wars, just pie fights. A person walks thru the
door, like Margaret Dumont in a Marx brother's movie and sez Well
I never! and then gets hit in the face with a pie...some adjust,
some cry, some put up troll lists. You be the judge of their
inner character
>
> It is difficult to assess the effect of the Native European
relative
> empowerment of women, and the effect that, or warrior class
control, has
> had on the gene pools.
>
Mr. Brown, beleive it or not, we've had a similar discussion, you
and I, about two years ago. Your obsevations are interesting,
yet incomplete. You have a point which you want to prove, but
you must realize that points can't be proved in this kind of an
arena ( not pan arw, just historically). The take off is that
power of women in the west, relative to other cultures, is
greater, and has always been greater...for the common woman.
This I can agree with to a point. You also postulate that this
has had a tremendous affect on the gene pool, which I can agree
with to a more limited point. It leaves out the historical fact
that European males travel far and wide, from Vikings to
Colonization, and in doing this have created large amounts of
mixed (race doesn't really exist, but for the sake of this
discussion, lets use that word, unwillingly)....mixed racial
types. Most studies show that mixed race individuals have a
European male progenetor. Statistics have to be used, of course,
since individuals will vary in the specifics of which ancestor
was European.
> And given the repression employed by racists all thru history,
and the
> desire in more recent times to grant opportunity to those who
were
> repressed, I can certainly understand the altruistic effort to
rectify
> the situation. The idea that all men are created equal has a
lot of
> appeal, and has gone a long ways twards granting a little more
equal
> justice before the law. Rightfully so, repression has been
recognized;
> but the idea that all men are equally endowed by their creator
with
> equal talents and character has not been supported by the data.
Well, the idea is an idealistic justification for democratic
rule. We all know that it isn't actually physically ture. Nor
ecconomically true. That is why the spiritual is brought into
it. Its a spiritual equality that underwrites this philosophy of
eqaulity.
>
> I worked in the Head Start program back in the 1960's. It most
certainly
> has done good. But the fact is that the efforts, limited as
they have
> been to the social setting and physical environment, have been
too often
> wasted. Confusing hopes for reasonable expectations.
I see what you mean. It is a good idea, a damn good idea, but
not enough to over ride the rest of what goes on. In
nature/nurture arguments, when it comes to intelligence and
performance in school, nurture really is the answer across the
board. There are smart and stupid people everywhere, but a
culture that supports effort and excellence will show results.
Head start is really so much day care without a continuing and
serious effort on the part of students and instructors.
>
> But whatever the ratio in any gene pool of social predators vs
> altruists, the FMRI brain scans and biochemical lab analysis is
showing
> that we need no longer rely on the expectations or hopes of
> socialization, we can actually identify those children who will
> challenge our hopes and pose greater risk of predation of their
peers.
> let us not also forget the predatory females and their
intuitive skill
> at manipulating the emotions of others.
You have a lot of issues. I remember that from two years ago
too. Don't let the fact that people can read you throw you so
much. The ability to NOT be read by most other human beings is a
science, an art, and most of the time pure stupid luck. People
pay a hell of a lot of attention to other people, whether they
admit it or not. As for those brain scans...you have as much
luck with predicting the predatory aspects of a person's
behaviour from them, as you do with astrology. The fact is, many
people overcome any weakness, many people not brain scan/ or
astrologically identified as such, will never develop any
symptoms of this predilection. Science can be taken too far in
our zest for answers to questions that we ourselves make
up...which may not even be valid questions.
>
> From Mata Hari all the way back to Livia in Rome, we see
European women
> employ their cunts for political ends.
Jesus and Mary...issue alert! The ghost of every concubine the
emperor chu had is laughing at you from the celestial palace of
Xanadu.
But in the Near East, you havta
> go all the way back to Esther to find women able to fuck the
men they
> meant to destroy.
Well, since you aren't very aquainted with antiquity...I'll play.
If you want to use the KJV of the Bible, you don't have to read
that far ahead to get to the part where the evil cunt brings
about the downfall of mankind. I believe its on the third page,
then more on the 15th page, then some more on the 17th page. I
think they had some issues. The too, you could go a lot further
back than the bybull to find out how cunt destroyed the world.
Joseph Campbell, for one, noted how much more power
> Semetic women had in the early bronze age, and how as time went
on, the
> repression of women increased, as with the rise of Islam, and
continues
> there still today.
Most historians agree that as the Bronze age progressed, and you
must remember we are talking about more than a couple of thousand
years, power over all classes of people solidified. One probelm
with this as a panaceia of knowledge, is that we have no written
records of anykind prior to this...except in China. And what is
written are medical formulas, philosophy, tales, and scraps of
information too incomplete to surmise anything as basic as who
had what rights when and where. Actually, most of those writings
are taoist alchemical.
>
> And ironically, when you look at the history of the Semite
women who
> were exported, by Trajan to Rome, you can see how the
Ashkenazic Jews of
> Europe became the most talented race of men the world has ever
seen. But
> it wasnt cause the Jewish men were in charge; no matter where
the Jews
> lived, it was either Christians or Moslems running city hall.
There
> never was a Jewish warrior class with any control over
Ashkenazic
> Jewesses.
But they controlled the Seraphic Jewess? You have to remember
that the center of Jewish culture and religion is the home. Its
not really the Temple, its the home. And being endogamous, in
general, its very important to remember that admittance to the
"Jewish bloodline" is always through the female. In a culture
that strives for cohesion, and limits on admittance, this gives
the female a measure of respect that is absent in other ways of
life.
The interesting points to consider in your treatise, is how these
kinds of things have been handled over time, and among different
peoples. But since your original proposition was that free
choice of mates among European females has led to great racial
intermixture....There is truth to that. But still, the European
male will be found to be the one to have advanced intermixture to
a far greater extent.
Pip
Day Brown
> The interesting points to consider in your treatise, is how these
> kinds of things have been handled over time, and among different
> peoples. But since your original proposition was that free
> choice of mates among European females has led to great racial
> intermixture....There is truth to that. But still, the European
> male will be found to be the one to have advanced intermixture to
> a far greater extent.
aristocratic members of the warrior class, but leaving the more docile,
lower class men, more often back on the farm, in either Europe or
America.
Nor do I know all the effects of empowered women. We have the Dowager
Empress of China, but no 'dowager age' such as the Victorian, or
Cathrine the Great of Russia. The concubines of the East such as Xerxes
wife as described by Plutarch, certainly did have an impact, but they
were only the power behind the throne, never able to rule in their own
right. The last most famous Eastern culture Queen, Cleopatra, was-
greek.
I think a lot of it had to do with horses. The first domestic horses in
Ukraine were small, but this was advantageous to the 'diminuative' (as
JP Mallory calls the) Cucuteni, so that a 50 kg woman could ride faster
than any Aryan warrior could run, and were he mounted, his 100kg mass
would drive such a small steed into the ground quickly. Mallory's book,
'In Search of the Indo-Europeans' has such an Amazon on such a horse on
the cover. But telling to my point is that inside the figure whose left
tit can be clearly seen, is labled as a *male*. There is a certain
blindsidedness to prehistory which I am trying to expose.
There has been recent archaeological work at Caral Peru which challenged
the almost universal opinion that civilization was founded by the
warrior class. The 5000+ year old dig shows no sign of warfare, which is
mentioned in several websites up these days. Yet, oddly, none of the
people so interested in this aspect seem to know of the same
peacefulness found in SE Europe and Anatolia, millennia before, in the
Chalcolithic era, 9,000 to 5,000 years ago. Whereas in Caral, the
culture lasted five hundred years, in Bulgaria it was more like 5,000.
Maybe horses, or the lack of, had something to do with it.
In any case, Native European literature, and the spontaneous expressions
of pubescent white girls to this very day, exhibits an affection and
fixation on horses which is not seen in the attitudes of young women of
any other lineage. Even with girls that are raised in the city. The
unicorn iconography is all over the place. I submit that this is an
instinctive genetic endowment, just as sheep dogs know what to do with
sheep. All mammals inherit very complex behavior patterns, and since
hominids are mammals, it behooves us to examine what else might have
been inherited besides the widely admired maternal instincts. Some of
that 'else' is rather distasteful predatory behavior.
Call it the machismo ratio; where the men control the bodies of women,
more of the sperm donation comes from members of the warrior class.
Where the women control their own bodies, they also have the freedom to
select an obedient beta male who will go along with whatever they want,
and produce obedient children as well. So- where the women are
empowered, the rates of male to male violence declines. Thus it is that
Steven Pinker, the Blank Slate, reports on the forensic analysis of male
skeletons in the graveyards, and finds that the males buried in Europe
were *20* times less likely to die of physical assault than the men of
indigeneous hunting tribes. So much for the 'noble savage'. And as
Pinker noted, this even includes the deaths in the great wars of Europe.
Nelson Mandela, Bishop Tutu and Cofi Anan demonstrate that peaceful men
can be found in even the darkest gene pools. But left to their own
devices, the mass of men will repeatedly choose alpha male members of
the warrior class. In Europe, Hitler & Mousolini are not typical. OTOH,
the Romans fought in the East for a millennia, but never ran into
anything like Boudicca, the British warrior queen. European women far
more often dispassionately adopted the methods of the male warrior class
than did the women of other cultures. They could only have done that
were there enough men (beta males) willing to follow them.
We are all familiar with the herbivore male contests and the 'stomping
grounds' which the dominant male is able to defend with the rewards of a
herd of females. But closer analysis with tagged livestock reveals that
it is not the same set of cows every year. The cows, it seems, have an
instinct for genetic diversity, choosing a different bull every year.
With the primates, we see the females sneak off into the bush to mate
with beta males. Again, we assume an instinct for genetic diversity.
Thus it is that the institution of marriage was promoted by a
patriarchic religion. But in Europe, that practice came later than in
other civilized regions. The Celts were known for polyamorous
lifestyles. The instinct for diversity has been practiced more by
European women. I leave it to you to decide what effect that had on the
variety and distribution of character.
One effect that comes to mind is that the idea of god as a male tyrant
dont go over so big.
DaRC
> Well, might not be too surprising of the social and economic system in parts
> of the south-east were quite the mess they seem to have been. There are some
> pointers to this - some post-Roman villas in formerly wealthy areas continue
> in use but get dilapidated, as if times are getting very very hard. Coin
> vanishes rapidly, so you're back to payment in kind. Farming advances suited
> for commercial agriculture vanish, and don't reappear until trading
> opportunities are re-established. There was no market for surplus produce,
> no transport system to get it there, therefore no incentive to produce a
> useless surplus, therefore no incentive for capital investment, and
> consequently largely subsstence agriculture. Similarly, it's not improbable
> that in some areas people were left effectively leaderless. Plague doesn't
> respect social station; again people of means in similar circumstances have
> collected their portable valuables, bailed out and legged it to better
> areas. Under those circumstances those who are left are likely to flock to
> whoever can establish some sort of order. It's only later that you get
> ambitious leaders attempting to expand.
>
respects as the 13th Century (and later waves) of plague were -
probably more so because it came tied up with the decline of the Roman
Empire.
I must look at the history of Pannage in the High Weald (where I
currently live). This practice is supposed to have been going on
since the Bronze Age (and possibly earlier) - I'm just wondering what
records/proof they have and if anyone's studied it. It would be
interesting if you could find periods of heavy / light utilisation.
> Basically you're probably looking at a complete social collapse in some
> areas of the south-east, increasing poverty and increasing banditry.
>
> Now someone might enquire 'what about Arthur?'
He (allegedly) turns up quite a bit later!
> Well, the trouble is that
> Geoffrey's account conflates the careers of several earlier usurpers,
> including Constantine, with Arthur. There may be some history there - his
> account of Carausius is accurate, but it looks as if it may have been drawn
> from Roman provincial records that have since vanished. Trouble is, Geoffrey
> has also added bits of garbled mythology to Arthur's story - a fair bit
> would seem to come from Irish sources. Not unusual - Conchobhar mac Nessa
> appears in an even earlier Welsh tale as Cwnchwr ap Nes. In the fullblown
> Matter of Britain mythology overwhelms what little history remains - after
> all, there are other, mythological, characters who are hidden from birth,
> are brought out at adulthood to take their place, get married to a woman who
> betrays them with a lover, and who are killed by a rival, only to slay them
> in their turn. One might note that the earliest mention of Myrddin (Merlin)
> is in the Black Book of Carmarthen, where he is the companion of Llew. It
> would therefore seem that the story of a probable 6th century military
> leader has been taken over by the mythology of pagan Celtic deities. This
> might lead to a few interesting possibilities concerning medieval Wales,
> Cornwall and Brittany, where the tales were strongest.
Do you know of any proof/refutation of that slate found at Tintagel
that's supposed to have had Artorius (or somesuch) written on it?
>
> In Nennius Arthur is a dux bellorum, which was a Roman military rank.Badon
> gets mentioned in Gildas, though Arthur doesn't - it was apparently a great
> battle, though exactly what was considered a great battle back then was
> moot. The earliest account appears in Y Gododdin, where he is just mentioned
> in passing as a mighty warrior.
>
There's a good background here ->
http://www.earlybritishkingdoms.com/articles/advent_saxon01.html
> That Arthur existed is highly probable. In the 6th century there's a sudden
> outbreak of people naming their children Arthur - previously it was a rare,
> Roman name. Presumably someone with that name lived roundabout then.
> However, it's not possible to say at this stage exactly what was happening.
> It maybe that Geoffrey's account has a germ of truth - one could read it as
> internal factional fighting amongst a loose collection of powerful and
> ambitious mid to late 6th century groups. There's no evidence for any
> central authority, so it may have simply a loose, sometimes co-operating
> collection of kingdoms with someone occupying an equivalent position to the
> Irish ard ri. Chances are that the population on the Saxon Shore were of
> ethnically mixed origins. How they came about - well, as I said, there are
> several possible mechanisms and all may apply; foederati, isolated bunches
> of settlers moving into depopulated areas, later movement of groups by the
> Merovingians. It's not impossible that they were allied to one of the
> factions.
>
And some more ideas
http://www.stephen.j.murray.btinternet.co.uk/vortigern.htm
> Problem is that the tale became a patriotic rallying point for medieval
> Wales, and no doubt grew in the telling.
Kind of ironic really - the whole Geoofrey of Monmouth bit is the
Norman's (& Bretons) trying to justify their invasion as 'liberators
of the British from the Anglo-Saxons' which is then taken up the
people they 'liberated' in order to rebel ;-)
> However, rather than being a blood
> and guts opposition to a full-scale foreign invasion (a very useful version
> in WW2 BTW), it may just be an account of a fairly bloody internal war
> between different factions, one of whom happened to be allied to a
> population of both Romano-British and Germanic origins. Not that this should
> be thought unusual - the principal axis of trade for Britain (and especially
> London) as far back as the Antonine period had been the north-western
> European littoral, and particularly the mouth of the Rhine. There were
> already strong links before the western empire folded. As mentioned in
> another post, there were Saxon foederati in Roman East Anglia.
>
And prior to that much like the Sarmatians they think that Germans
could well have been established on the Isle of Thanet at an earlier
date, before adopting the local customs...
http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba9/ba9news.html
> There is another point - the Saxon kingdoms in Britain seem to not have been
> an extension of Saxon social structure on the continent. Instead it seems to
> have been something that evolved here, and there seems to have been a mixed
> bag of Celtic, Roman and Saxon ideas cross-fertilising. The earlier groups
> appear to have been far more decentralised. Again it suggests mixed origins,
> probably slowly developing with time.
>
> Problem is, we need more information of the period between AD 410 and maybe
> AD 600. At present we don't have enough - but what we do have doesn't
> suggest the mass invasion and hoplessly brave resistance of popular history.
>
> Kevin
As we tend to find consistently - the paper propaganda and the
archeology show differences! It's when they tell the same story it
gets interesting.
Cheers, Dave.
Diarmid Logan
> Actually, the most information contained in that post, for a non
> brit that is, is that the British seem to have an issue with
> Angles and Celts...something which the rest of the world is
> largely unaware of. For instance the entire premise of the
> post...the Celts held their own with DNA, is pretty silly.
> Especially using a marker like the Y chromosomal marker to show
> much of anything.
> The Basques are fairly isolated linguistically and, in some
> respects, in regards to marriage and breeding. They have some
> differences in genetic markers, mtDNA and Y chr. from the
> surrounding populations. Its even been postulated that they form
> some kind of population that can be studied and extrapolations
> made about the pre Indo European population of PART of what is
> now western Europe.
> To show a correlation between Ychr. relationships between so
> called "Celtic" populations in England and the
> rest....insufficiently unidentified population called
> Angles....can only show that there was a sufficiently large
> population of pre indo European people, who were not moved out or
> slaughtered, but interbred with the invading Celts
There was no "invading Celts" according to modern genetic and
archaeological evidence. Celtic culture most likely reached Ireland
and Britain through trade and commerce.
>...Because the
> Celts are an indo European people. The Celts are not an
> indigenous pre invasion people. They have standard IE language
> and culture. Irish is closely related to Greek. They have the
> standard cosmology.
Again the evidence for a major Celtic invasion of Ireland and Britain
does not exist.
> The Angles and Jutes are simply a later
> invasion of England from the 2nd invasion of IE peoples into
> Germanic territories.
Wrong, Germanic culture entered Britain through violence against
indigenous peoples unlike Celtic culture.
White Spirit
>>The Angles and Jutes are simply a later
>>invasion of England from the 2nd invasion of IE peoples into
>>Germanic territories.
> Wrong, Germanic culture entered Britain through violence against
> indigenous peoples unlike Celtic culture.
You're forgetting about the Picts. Archaeological and linguistic
evidence so far suggests that the Celtic settlement of Pictish lands was
anything but peaceful.
Kevin Jones
Probably pretty much. Unfortunately it came at a time of political upheaval.
Effectively the Romans simply stopped paying the bills in Britain - the
money shipments stopped coming. By the fifth century there probably wasn't
much that was Roman left outside the elite and the machinery of government,
and they and their position were tied to what was left of the monetary
economy. We'd probably be in as bad a situation -or worse - if the western
economy took such a terminal nosedive. The people it least affected were the
least romanised, particularly up in the military highland area. Ironically
they were least romanised because stationing permanent garrisons up there
had had blocked the development of the sort of romanised economy seen in the
south-east.
> I must look at the history of Pannage in the High Weald (where I
> currently live). This practice is supposed to have been going on
> since the Bronze Age (and possibly earlier) - I'm just wondering what
> records/proof they have and if anyone's studied it. It would be
> interesting if you could find periods of heavy / light utilisation.
One of those references I gave in an earlier post may cover the subject:
Drewett P, D Rudling & M Gardiner (1988), The South-East to AD 1000, London
& New York.
I don't know about pannage specifically, but agriculture isn't practiced
commercially in the 5th century. Prior to that there are aspects which you
could describe as agribusiness - watermills, reaping machines, introduction
of a heavy plough - all riding on the back of an export market for
agricultural produce. True there was an export market in the Late pre-Roman
Iron Age, but it wasn't on this scale.
> > Basically you're probably looking at a complete social collapse in some
> > areas of the south-east, increasing poverty and increasing banditry.
> >
> > Now someone might enquire 'what about Arthur?'
>
> He (allegedly) turns up quite a bit later!
A century later, give or take.
Well, one was found, as part of a drain, I believe, that does have the
period equivalent of Arthur written on it - as I recall it says 'Arthur made
me' in a rather barbaric form of late Latin. However, to mean anything it
would need to have had a context, so it could be dated. OK, so the language
seems right - but that's as much as I know. Again, trouble is, there's an
outbreak of Arthur's in the sixth century, so which Arthur does it refer to?
It could be Arthur the local plumber. :-)
> > In Nennius Arthur is a dux bellorum, which was a Roman military
rank.Badon
> > gets mentioned in Gildas, though Arthur doesn't - it was apparently a
great
> > battle, though exactly what was considered a great battle back then was
> > moot. The earliest account appears in Y Gododdin, where he is just
mentioned
> > in passing as a mighty warrior.
> >
> There's a good background here ->
> http://www.earlybritishkingdoms.com/articles/advent_saxon01.html
Not a bad precis of the manuscript tradition - I was keeping it in mind,
though I was tackling it purely from archaeological data. Personally I think
something could be made of the whole lot. As I said, I have a gut feeling
the Merovingians were involved in the settlement of Kent - relationships
between the two go back a way.
There are BTW all sorts of academic quibbles that have gone on, such as
whether the appeal to Aetius really refers to Britain, whether the date of
410 for the appeal is correct and so on.
On the basis of the collected archaeological data I'd go with Faulkner.
Trouble is Dark is looking at areas outside the south-east and extrapolating
for the entire country. However, we know that conditions in the south-east
were not the same as those in the south-west or Wales, even in the Roman
period, and there's good evidence of something going awry in the south-east
in the immediate post-Roman period.
As far as Dumnonia was concerned, the Romans were probably largely an
irrelevance, apart from the romanised elite at Exeter. The garrison was
withdrawn fairly early and the population went on as before, including using
the same Iron Age settlement patterns. In fact the examples Dark gives are
all outside the most romanised south-east, which seems to have been hardest
hit area. Being less affected by the collapse these areas would have been in
a position to extend their influence via their private militias. The same
situation would not seem to have prevailed in the south-east.
Mind you, there's reasonable evidence that indigenous land division and
indigenous law co-existed with imperial law when the former wasn't in
conflict with the latter. Basically the Romans didn't mind if indigenous law
was used, as long as it's conclusions didn't contradict Roman law, so
presumably the former was modified to include the latter. The people
administering this law would have been the major local landowner(s) - so you
had a ready-made underlying replacement system even back in the Roman
period. In that sense in the you've got continuity in the highland areas.
Again, being less populated and not having major ports like London may have
made them less exposed to plagues, while their social and economic
structures had not been as dependent upon trade and what was left of the
monetary economy. Even so, you can see a decline in agriculture in southern
Scotland - the major customer, the army and its associated vici had gone.
> > Problem is that the tale became a patriotic rallying point for medieval
> > Wales, and no doubt grew in the telling.
>
> Kind of ironic really - the whole Geoofrey of Monmouth bit is the
> Norman's (& Bretons) trying to justify their invasion as 'liberators
> of the British from the Anglo-Saxons' which is then taken up the
> people they 'liberated' in order to rebel ;-)
Well, that's people for you! :-)
> > However, rather than being a blood
> > and guts opposition to a full-scale foreign invasion (a very useful
version
> > in WW2 BTW), it may just be an account of a fairly bloody internal war
> > between different factions, one of whom happened to be allied to a
> > population of both Romano-British and Germanic origins. Not that this
should
> > be thought unusual - the principal axis of trade for Britain (and
especially
> > London) as far back as the Antonine period had been the north-western
> > European littoral, and particularly the mouth of the Rhine. There were
> > already strong links before the western empire folded. As mentioned in
> > another post, there were Saxon foederati in Roman East Anglia.
> >
> And prior to that much like the Sarmatians they think that Germans
> could well have been established on the Isle of Thanet at an earlier
> date, before adopting the local customs...
> http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba9/ba9news.html
Quite possible.
> > There is another point - the Saxon kingdoms in Britain seem to not have
been
> > an extension of Saxon social structure on the continent. Instead it
seems to
> > have been something that evolved here, and there seems to have been a
mixed
> > bag of Celtic, Roman and Saxon ideas cross-fertilising. The earlier
groups
> > appear to have been far more decentralised. Again it suggests mixed
origins,
> > probably slowly developing with time.
> >
> > Problem is, we need more information of the period between AD 410 and
maybe
> > AD 600. At present we don't have enough - but what we do have doesn't
> > suggest the mass invasion and hoplessly brave resistance of popular
history.
> >
> > Kevin
>
> As we tend to find consistently - the paper propaganda and the
> archeology show differences! It's when they tell the same story it
> gets interesting.
:-)
Kevin
Kevin Jones
Now if you'd referred to the forced union of the Scottish and Pictish
kingdoms by Mac Alpin, I'd have agreed with you. Problem is, what is a Pict?
The term Pict cannot be used as an ethnic label. There is nothing
distinctively Pictish about the material culture in even the most fertile
areas, until the emergence of the symbol stones in the seventh century
AD[i]. Even then, there may be echoes of fairly standard Celtic designs of
the Late Pre-Roman Iron Age; the dumbell shapes are quite probably a crude
rendering of designs typified by Tal-y-Llyn.
The sources support this. Ptolemy's label for Britain was the Greek
rendering of a Celtic word that became Prydyn in medieval Welsh. Prydyn is
the cognate of Cruithni, the Irish name for the Picts, or rather for the
British Celts not under Roman rule[ii]. Again, Ptolemy provides only Celtic
names for the tribes in Scotland, and since there is no evidence of major
population movements or changes, one can reasonably suppose that these
tribes would later be called Picts[iii]. Further, Pictish leaders in the
Roman and post-Roman periods have Celtic names, such as Maelcon, while the
recorded Pictish language was closely akin to both Q and P-Celtic[iv].
Claims that they must have been non-Celtic because Columba needed a
translator to speak to the king, Brude are a non sequitur. The need for a
translator does not imply that Pictish belonged to an entirely different
language group. It only suggests that the dialect or language was unfamiliar
to a Gaelic speaker. There is therefore no evidence of any sort that the
Picts were anything other than Celts.
Cunedda, according to tradition, led an armed migration into Wales from what
the Romans knew as the territory of the Votadini. He is also credited with
having established the royal houses of Wales. The pre-Roman ancestry of
Cunedda contains several individuals whose names closely resemble the
Pictish king list[v]. One could conclude without any difficulty that Cunedda
's ancestors had language and culture in common with the Picts. There is
nothing to distinguish the Votadini culturally from any of the other tribes
in eastern Scotland. Now we know what language the Votadini came to speak.
The country of the Votadini was later called the Gododdin, and it became the
subject of an eponymous epic poem by Aneurin. That poem was written in
Primitive Welsh. The Picts therefore spoke a Celtic language that either
became Primitive Welsh, or it was submerged by the Gaelic of the Scots[vi].
It has been suggested that the Picts did not exist outside the imaginations
of Roman panegyrists, although this is somewhat of an over-simplification.
It would be more accurate to say that the emergence of the Picts came as
direct consequence of the Roman conquest of Britain, and that prior to this
they did not exist as a group. Faced with the threat of Roman military
power, and practical demonstrations of that power by Agricola and Septimius
Severus, the northern tribes confederated. The same response is seen on
other Roman frontiers and it was not an unusual occurrence in the Late
Empire. The label of Pict was applied to the federated tribes as a whole. In
later centuries it probably came to be seen as an ethnic description that
distinguished them from other groups. However, leaders form peoples, rather
than the other way around, by forging disparate groups into a single
community. Later generations of the new community then compose tales to
account for their existence. As a result, observers see the resulting
community as ethnically distinct from its neighbours. This process is called
ethnogenesis.
Kevin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
[i] Alcock 1971, 276
[ii] Rhys 1901, 281
[iii] Alcock 1971, 271
[iv] Thurneysen 1946, 3
[v] Bartrum 1966
[vi] The linguistic oddities of the Pictish inscriptions are due to the
primitive nature of the language, which still preserved archaic
terminations. Both Gaelic and Latin had also affected the language.
Aetyr
without warfare, it can be considered an invasion. But OK, there
is no evidence of widespread warfare. In the past, when
invasions were referred to, it meant simply that large numbers of
people entered an area and took it over. The Celtic "invasions"
of Greece happened in this way, where the Dorian displaced an
earlier Celtic invasion of Ionians. You can waffle on how they
got there, how well they were received, but the fact is, they
came in from Eurasia, they were physically different,
linguistically different, technologically different. The end.
Pipnews:6d220a72.0307...@posting.google.com...
Diarmid Logan
Actually according to Dr. Ewan Campbell, Gaelic was not introuduced
into Scotland through an Irish invasion, but has been there for over
two thousand years. The Picts spoke Brythonic Celtic from which Welsh
is derived. Brythonic Celtic is actually descended from Gaelic since
Gaelic is just an archaic form of Brythonic (think of the relationship
between Anglo-Saxon and modern English). The story of an Irish
invasion was apparently created by the descendants of MacAlpine to
make themselves appear more powerful to their enemies. The Picts were
indigenous Scots who adopted Brythonic while the Gaels were indigenous
Scots who kept speaking Gaelic. Check out the links below:
http://intarch.ac.uk/antiquity/campbell01.html
http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/LPRU/newsarchive/Art087.txt
http://www.gla.ac.uk/archaeology/staff/ec/
http://www.gla.ac.uk:443/newsdesk/pressreleases/stories.cfm?PRID=347
Jan
This is very interesting. I'm sorry I haven't studyed the Picts - I
learned that they were indigenous people of Scotland/Northumbria who
were absorbed into the system of Celtic rulers who invaded them and
that Pict names are Brythonic - is this accurate?
~Jan
Jan
> White Spirit <wul...@heorot.fslife.co.uk> wrote in message news:<bef8ma$556$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> > Diarmid Logan wrote:
> >
> > >>The Angles and Jutes are simply a later
> > >>invasion of England from the 2nd invasion of IE peoples into
> > >>Germanic territories.
>
> > > Wrong, Germanic culture entered Britain through violence against
> > > indigenous peoples unlike Celtic culture.
> >
> > You're forgetting about the Picts. Archaeological and linguistic
> > evidence so far suggests that the Celtic settlement of Pictish lands was
> > anything but peaceful.
>
>
> Actually according to Dr. Ewan Campbell, Gaelic was not introuduced
> into Scotland through an Irish invasion, but has been there for over
> two thousand years. The Picts spoke Brythonic Celtic from which Welsh
> is derived. Brythonic Celtic is actually descended from Gaelic since
> Gaelic is just an archaic form of Brythonic (think of the relationship
> between Anglo-Saxon and modern English). The story of an Irish
> invasion was apparently created by the descendants of MacAlpine to
> make themselves appear more powerful to their enemies. The Picts were
> indigenous Scots who adopted Brythonic while the Gaels were indigenous
> Scots who kept speaking Gaelic.
*raised eyebrows* How could anyone know about the languages they were
speaking?
You can't really infer much from place names or any other available
writing because speaking and writing had different functions and
priorities. (They still do, but the gap is more narrow with mass
literacy and printed/electronic text.)
~Jan
[]
Kevin Jones
> When large numbers of people arrive and settle someplace, with or
> without warfare, it can be considered an invasion. But OK, there
> is no evidence of widespread warfare. In the past, when
> invasions were referred to, it meant simply that large numbers of
> people entered an area and took it over.
Trouble is the invasion hypothesis is another one of those traditional ideas
which has largely been discarded unless there's definite evidence for a new
population displacing a previous one. A simple change in material culture
will not do, since that may be the result of other factors. In fact in many
cases a change in culture or technology is not associated with a change in
population. It may, for example, be associated with acculturation with your
nearest neighbours or trade. For example, the appearance of faience in
Bronze Age Ireland might at first sight suggest contact with Egypt.
Unfortunately the chemical composition is different, and it can be
definitely said that it didn't originate in Egypt, and there certainly
weren't Egyptians in Ireland making it. What appears to have happened
instead is that the idea of faience, and the know-how to make it, got to
Bronze Age Ireland by way of one of the European areas they were in contact.
Even this area was not in direct contact with Egypt - they got it from
further east. Trade back then was a pass-the-parcel mechanism, but ideas
also travelled with goods. This could cover enormous distances, as the trade
in amber demonstrates. It could also result in acculturation across large
areas, as recent models of the development of Aegean culture show.
When it comes to Indo-Europeans, the idea of a Indo-European invasion is
most definitely out. It should be recalled that IE is a language family, not
an ethnic description. Attempts to locate an original IE homeland have all
drawn a blank, though a long time has been spent working on it. The current
models propose that there wasn't a single Indo-European homeland - instead
the language evolved by interactions from multiple centres through contact
mechanisms such as peer-polity trade, which can lead to the development of a
common language, cultural features and religious ideas across a wide area.
This doesn't mean that there weren't population movement - however, they
weren't the huge population movements of the older theory. In any case,
Europe was hardly densely peopled in the Neolithic so you weren't going to
be tripping over them everywhere
The Celtic "invasions"
> of Greece happened in this way, where the Dorian displaced an
> earlier Celtic invasion of Ionians. You can waffle on how they
> got there, how well they were received, but the fact is, they
> came in from Eurasia, they were physically different,
> linguistically different, technologically different. The end.
Err - the Ionians were Celts? Hardly. In any case, at this period the Celts
did not exist as an ethnic group - you'd have to be talking about something
like the Late Urnfield. As for the Doric invasions, that's another
traditional view that is being seriously undermined. People have been
looking for the Dorians for a while - they can't find any physical evidence
for such an invasion. As a website at the University of Texas sums:
Most of the city-states in the Peloponnese spoke Doric Greek. The Mycenaean
dialect which was recorded with the linear B script was not Doric. This
means that at least the Mycenaean elite were not Doric speakers. How Doric
speakers came to dominate the Peloponnese has been the subject of some
controversy. We have already encountered the "Myth of the Dorian Invasion
and the Return of the Herakleidai" which tells the story of the invasion of
the Peloponnese by Greeks from Doris in central Greece under the leadership
of the descendants of the Greek hero, Herakles. Historians conclude that
Doric speaking Greeks migrated (rather than invaded) south into the
Peloponnese during the early centuries of the Dark Ages. The authors of
Ancient Greece state it as fact that this happened in the 10th century B.C.
The problem with this theory is that while it does explain the dialect
situation, there is almost no archaeolgocial trace of newcomers. I am afraid
that the answer to this fundamental question remains today beyond our grasp.
Kevin
Searles O'Dubhain
<snip>
>
> *raised eyebrows* How could anyone know about the languages they were
> speaking?
>
> You can't really infer much from place names or any other available
> writing because speaking and writing had different functions and
> priorities. (They still do, but the gap is more narrow with mass
> literacy and printed/electronic text.)
>
> ~Jan
>
> []
Place names can definitely tell one something about prior languages as
can personal names and other writing. The Picts didn't write anything
AFAICS (with the possible exception of the inscreiptions on the
undeciphered Newton Stone) until they started using Ogham in about the
6th, 7th or 8th centuries CE (when they also started using Latin).
There is also reference in the Irish literature to meetings between
the Picts and the Irish in which they must have conversed in some form
of mutually intelligble language.
For reference:
http://www.pictarts.demon.co.uk/guide/page06.htm
http://www.pictarts.demon.co.uk/guide/page06a.htm
(many other links above)
http://indoeuro.bizland.com/archive/article7.html
It seems the Picts will always be a people whose origins and languages
are the subject of dispute and/or controversy.
Searles
DaRC
Thanks Searles - on another forum I was saying only yesterday that I
knew very little about the Picts!
I know a little more now :-)
Cheers, Dave.
Diarmid Logan
Not really. According to Prof. Ewan Campbell the story of a Gaelic
invasion of Scotland was created by the descendants of Kenneth
MacAlpine to make them seem like the descendants of mighty conquering
warriors. According to Campbell, Gaelic existed in Scotland because it
was an older version of Celtic that survived the linguistic changes
that produced Brythonic.
danyderi
> "DaRC" <Darc...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:b4049d4.03070...@posting.google.com...
> > "Kevin Jones" <1006...@nospam.compuserve.com> wrote in message
> news:<bdt1l0$mm9$1...@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com>...
> > > "DaRC" <Darc...@aol.com> wrote in message
of
> > > ethnically mixed origins. How they came about - well, as I said, there
> are
> > > several possible mechanisms and all may apply; foederati, isolated
> bunches
> > > of settlers moving into depopulated areas, later movement of groups by
> the
> > > Merovingians. It's not impossible that they were allied to one of the
> > > factions.
> > As we tend to find consistently - the paper propaganda and the
> > archeology show differences! It's when they tell the same story it
> > gets interesting.
>
> :-)
>
John Hines (1994) approaches these themes and brings the material culture,
language and placement of ethnicity together with the archaeology, its a
very interesting paper. As indeed is the archaeology artefacts that derive
not just from Merovingians, Scandinavia and from the Med.
Nonetheless, touching on political marriage alliances King Aethelbert
(pagan) and Bertha a Frankish Christian princess accompanied with her
personal christian chaplain in tow eloped c.560 AD. Furthermore they had
been pulled into the network of economics, politics and trade advantages
offered as a by product through the christianization process. This
being a top down process, from the kingships, to the court and then the
subjects. Having Bertha in place in Kent, it opens the doors for trade and
etc There too is the Augustine mission in 597 sent by Pope Gregory to check
out his perception of the blond blue eyed "angles" according to Bede and
associated letters uncovered by Nicolas Brooks from the Frankish period. In
turn these "angles" were likely to have been the Germanic descendants of the
Anglii that Tactius referred too centuries earlier who places them in
present-day Netherlands, but they were up north in Deria and Bernicia having
sliced it out of Gododdin. Yet away from Kent Northumbria and etc being
influenced by Iona and the Irish form of Monasticism. While Kent with its
Jute origins later overlaid by Saxons and its material culture.
Indeed Thomas Noble suggests Rome was also not immune, and experienced
changes in the 6th and 7th century with the break down of the senate.
Intellectuals were pushing forward in all walks of life from ecclesiastical
affairs, economics and into politics. Likewise the church controlled the
education process. They themselves became a product of what was then being
taught, along with those that held authority within it. The influenced of
its learning a synthesis gathered from within the former Empire. There too
was the later encroaching theological monothelite debate to resolved with
the east. Therefore its been debated that the established church looked
westwards to increase its resources during the period. In turn certain gain
was achieved through the Chritianization process to both kingships and
missionaries who took its banner e.g. St.Wilfried comes to mind,
distributing his wealth accumulated under kingship patrimony from successful
overlordship gained by King Oswiu as Northumbria authority and influence
moves further into Gododdin, Mercia, Rhega, Strathclyde plus a foothold in
Wessex. This tends to support the acculturation process with indigenous
inhabitants still 'holding their ground' without the proposed DNA evidence.
danyderi
danyderi
> "DaRC" <Darc...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:b4049d4.03070...@posting.google.com...
> > "Kevin Jones" <1006...@nospam.compuserve.com> wrote in message
> news:<bdt1l0$mm9$1...@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com>...
> > > "DaRC" <Darc...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > <snippety snip>
of
> > > ethnically mixed origins. How they came about - well, as I said, there
> are
> > > several possible mechanisms and all may apply; foederati, isolated
> bunches
> > > of settlers moving into depopulated areas, later movement of groups by
> the
> > > Merovingians. It's not impossible that they were allied to one of the
> > > factions.
> > As we tend to find consistently - the paper propaganda and the
> > archeology show differences! It's when they tell the same story it
> > gets interesting.
>
> :-)
>
John Hines (1994) approaches these themes and brings the material culture,
danyderi
> "DaRC" <Darc...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:b4049d4.03070...@posting.google.com...
> > "Kevin Jones" <1006...@nospam.compuserve.com> wrote in message
> news:<bdt1l0$mm9$1...@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com>...
> > > "DaRC" <Darc...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > <snippety snip>
of
> > > ethnically mixed origins. How they came about - well, as I said, there
> are
> > > several possible mechanisms and all may apply; foederati, isolated
> bunches
> > > of settlers moving into depopulated areas, later movement of groups by
> the
> > > Merovingians. It's not impossible that they were allied to one of the
> > > factions.
> > As we tend to find consistently - the paper propaganda and the
> > archeology show differences! It's when they tell the same story it
> > gets interesting.
>
> :-)
>
John Hines (1994) approaches these themes and brings the material culture,
language and placement of ethnicity together with the archaeology, its a
very interesting paper. As indeed is the archaeology artefacts that derive
not just from Merovingians, Scandinavia and from the Med.
Nonetheless, touching on marriage alliances King Aethelbert (pagan) and
Bertha a Frankish Christian princess accompanied with her personal christian
chaplain in tow eloped c.560 AD. Furthermore they had been pulled into the
network of economics, politics and trade advantages offered as a by product
through the christianization process. This being a top down process, from
the kingships, to the court and then the subjects. Having Bertha in place in
Kent, it opens the doors for trade and etc There too is the Augustine
mission in 597 sent by Pope Gregory to check out his perception of the blond
blue eyed "angels" according to Bede and associated letters uncovered by
Nicolas Brooks from the Frankish period. In turn these "angels" were likely
to have been the Germanic descendants of the Anglii that Tacticus referred
too centuries earlier who placed them in present-day Netherlands. The anglii
were up north in Deira and Bernicia having sliced it out of Gododdin. Yet
away from Kent. At the same time Northumbria and etc were being influenced
by Iona and the Irish form of Monasticism. While Kent with its Jute origins
later overlaid by Saxons and its material culture.
Indeed Thomas Noble suggests that Rome was also not immune, and experienced
changes in the 6th and 7th century with the break down of the senate. It
would appear that ntellectuals were pushing forward in all walks of life
White Spirit
>>This is very interesting. I'm sorry I haven't studyed the Picts - I
>>learned that they were indigenous people of Scotland/Northumbria who
>>were absorbed into the system of Celtic rulers who invaded them and
>>that Pict names are Brythonic - is this accurate?
> Not really. According to Prof. Ewan Campbell the story of a Gaelic
> invasion of Scotland was created by the descendants of Kenneth
> MacAlpine to make them seem like the descendants of mighty conquering
> warriors. According to Campbell, Gaelic existed in Scotland because it
> was an older version of Celtic that survived the linguistic changes
> that produced Brythonic.
Given Scottish Gaelic's similarities to Irish Gaelic, wouldn't it make
more sense that Scottish Gaelic is the result of a Celtic invasion from
Ireland? Geographic/cultural isolation would be necessary to preserve
an earlier stage of Celtic while the rest of mainland Britain became
Brythonic. Linguistic evidence, as sparse as it is, doesn't uphold this.
David Monks
Gaeilge (Ireland) shared a common literary language until the breakdown of
the old Celtic system in the middle of the 17th century. As with any
language, it's the wtritten standard that acts as a brake on the spoken.
With the centralizing consensus gone, the two languages drifted apart - but
hardly too much more than English and American English. With attention and
a little acclimatising, they are mutually comprehensible, and the Feachtas
Cholmcille movement is building bridges. I'm not sure what this does to the
points of view currently being expressed - but there you have it.
David
"White Spirit" <wul...@heorot.fslife.co.uk> wrote in message
news:beka51$713$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Diarmid Logan wrote:
>
SNIPPED
Kevin Jones
news:bekigc$8rv$1...@news.tiscali.fr...
> There is a point being missed here, and that is that Gaidhlig (Scotland)
and
> Gaeilge (Ireland) shared a common literary language until the breakdown of
> the old Celtic system in the middle of the 17th century. As with any
> language, it's the wtritten standard that acts as a brake on the spoken.
> With the centralizing consensus gone, the two languages drifted apart -
but
> hardly too much more than English and American English. With attention
and
> a little acclimatising, they are mutually comprehensible, and the Feachtas
> Cholmcille movement is building bridges. I'm not sure what this does to
the
> points of view currently being expressed - but there you have it.
Must admit that I'm somewhat dubious about the theory that Scots Gaelic did
not derive from Irish Gaelic. The picture in fact may be even more complex,
since the Brigante appear to have been on both sides of the Irish Sea, while
Cuchulainn's boyhood name suggests the tribe of the Setantii, who were
roughly in the region of the Wirral. Now interestingly the Gaelic name for
the Picts, Cruithni, is equivalent to the Brythonic word Prydyn. There is in
one source - I forget which - an old tale that the Cruithni held Tara at one
point. Now this could suggest that there were P-Celtic speakers in Ireland
at one point - similarly there could have been Q-Celtic speakers in parts of
Britain long before the Scots settlement of Dalriada. However, this does not
mean that the settlement did not happen. In fact it's quite likely, since
Septimius Severus' campaigns seem to have created a depopulated zone near
the Wall, particularly in the west - some tribes just seem to disappear.
I think it was the Severan campaign where it looks as if the Romans went
north at the same time the Votadini, as clients, may have moved west - this
would catch any other tribes between a hammer and an anvil, plus allowing
the Votadini to expand their territory. Galloway seems to have been pretty
hard hit - this could have created a vacuum into which the Scots later
moved.
Kevin
Jan
Re invasion, I was thinking Much earlier, and the Picts were a Celtic
culture (definately Celtic enough for the Romans).
OK, MacAlpine was 9th CE. I think that some of the Dal Riata(sp?) were
already in the Hebrides and wastern Scotland before then as immigrant
ranchers? By the time of MacAlpine they all should have been pretty
busy with the Vikings.
~Jan
Jan
> <snip>
> >
> > *raised eyebrows* How could anyone know about the languages they were
> > speaking?
> >
> > You can't really infer much from place names or any other available
> > writing because speaking and writing had different functions and
> > priorities. (They still do, but the gap is more narrow with mass
> > literacy and printed/electronic text.)
> >
> > ~Jan
> >
> > []
>
> Place names can definitely tell one something about prior languages as
> can personal names and other writing.
But I didn't say different, I said you can't infer much from place
names...more below..
The Picts didn't write anything
> AFAICS (with the possible exception of the inscreiptions on the
> undeciphered Newton Stone) until they started using Ogham in about the
> 6th, 7th or 8th centuries CE (when they also started using Latin).
> There is also reference in the Irish literature to meetings between
> the Picts and the Irish in which they must have conversed in some form
> of mutually intelligble language.
>
And I would be suprised if Irish and Picts Didn't meet and
communicate!
> For reference:
>
> http://www.pictarts.demon.co.uk/guide/page06.htm
> http://www.pictarts.demon.co.uk/guide/page06a.htm
> (many other links above)
>
> http://indoeuro.bizland.com/archive/article7.html
>
Thank you, I like Pictish symbol stones.
> It seems the Picts will always be a people whose origins and languages
> are the subject of dispute and/or controversy.
>
> Searles
I think you are dead right about that.
But re my point, the earlier post was as if we know what language
these people were *speaking* 1200 years ago! I simply pointed out the
obvious I thought.
About place names, they exist to be recognised. (And they most often
include some trait/function of the area.) Simple as that. They can
be names in the common language there of course, but they don't have
to be.
IOW, early people in Aberdeen or Abernathy *could* have spoke a
Brythonic Pictish (or maybe even Welsh), or they could have used names
like that for bays and forks. I'm just saying that place names are
weak data for speculation - you can't put up firm odds based on it.
~Jan
PS - btw, I said this in another post, but I really don't know very
much about the Picts, so I'm just going by reason here. You may know
much more than me and have other data that indicate Pictish language
more strongly.
DaRC
all started talking about Picts too) that the Picts invaded Ireland a
little before Hadrians Wall was built. They were supposedly quite a
seafaring bunch of people.
> I think it was the Severan campaign where it looks as if the Romans went
> north at the same time the Votadini, as clients, may have moved west - this
> would catch any other tribes between a hammer and an anvil, plus allowing
> the Votadini to expand their territory. Galloway seems to have been pretty
> hard hit - this could have created a vacuum into which the Scots later
> moved.
>
> Kevin
> >
> > "White Spirit" <wul...@heorot.fslife.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:beka51$713$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > > Diarmid Logan wrote:
> > >
> >
> > SNIPPED
> >
> > > > Given Scottish Gaelic's similarities to Irish Gaelic, wouldn't it make
> > > more sense that Scottish Gaelic is the result of a Celtic invasion from
> > > Ireland? Geographic/cultural isolation would be necessary to preserve
> > > an earlier stage of Celtic while the rest of mainland Britain became
> > > Brythonic. Linguistic evidence, as sparse as it is, doesn't uphold
> this.
> > >
There was another recent report where they used Old Norse to translate
the Pictish Ogham and came out with more sense than any Celtic
language. Although I heard this third hand so I wouldn't take my word
on it ;-)
Cheers, Dave.
David Monks
Bede tells of Cruithni (i.e Pictish) peoples in Ireland: Prof. Francis John
Byrne (a relation, Beirn?) lists them as the Dál nAiraidi of Antrim, the Uí
Echach of Down, and the Loigis of Leinster. Bede also noted that the Picts
used a matrilineal system of descent/succession.
David
SNIPPED
"DaRC" <Darc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b4049d4.03071...@posting.google.com...
> I read somewhere (due to synchronicity a couple of other places have
> all started talking about Picts too) that the Picts invaded Ireland a
> little before Hadrians Wall was built. They were supposedly quite a
> seafaring bunch of people.
SNIPPEDE>
danyderi
news:bejs2g$d17$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
> Kevin Jones <1006...@nospam.compuserve.com> wrote in message
> news:beflga$po4$1...@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
> > "DaRC" <Darc...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:b4049d4.03070...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Kevin Jones" <1006...@nospam.compuserve.com> wrote in message
> > news:<bdt1l0$mm9$1...@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com>...
> > > > "DaRC" <Darc...@aol.com> wrote in message
One apologises for the triad of replies plus additional bandwidth, it looks
like gremlins have been at work
danyderi
Kevin Jones
news:4806bb2c.0307...@posting.google.com...
If memory serves me right, he was related on his father's side to the
Vikings of Dublin. His mother was Pictish.
Kevin
Kevin Jones
Probably unlikely - and it would raise the question of where they invaded
from.
Things work like this. Ptolemy the Geographer (c AD 150) has a load of
tribes with Celtic names up there - 'Pict' is not one of them. Now these
tribes are spread all over the place in Ptolemy's time - I suppose you could
argue population replacement but, since Hadrian died in 138, you would have
to also argue a massive invasion. Such a major upheaval - for which there is
no archaeological evidence - would be bound to be noticed by the Romans as a
potential military threat. If it was important to the Romans, they recorded
it. In fact we don't get any mention of Picts until the third century.
There's nothing in the archaeology to indicate any new populations coming in
between Ptolemy and the first third century mention of the Picts - that's
over 150 years. The term 'Pict' almost certainly is a name attached to a
confederation of tribes - it is not an ethnic name; accounts of the Picts
could be taken as a description of a tribal confederation. Now this isn't
unusual in this period - all along the imperial border tribes confederated
as a response to the potential Roman military threat, and possibly also
through its example. That would probably put the genesis of this tribal
confederation somewhere in the second quarter of the third century AD. It
may be a direct consequence of the Severan campaign of about 210-211 -
basically Septimius Severus got as far as the Great Glen, and probably more
or less followed the earlier Agricolan campaign. The only reason it stopped
was that he fell ill, and later died at York.
The Picts therefore did not come from elsewhere - they were always there.
They just weren't always called Picts.
Kevin
Kevin Jones
Kevin
David Monks
I believe that the term Pict comes from the Latin "Pictus", i.e. painted. I
don't think it was ever what the locals called themselves. It might be
compared to the term "fuzzy-wuzzies" used to designate the "natives" by
soldiers in the Soudan campaign which followed Gordon's death at the hands
of the Mahdi forces there. (Sorry, just reporting historical fact, and no
racist, jingoistic allusions to be inferred.)
What the Picts called themselves, I have no idea. Na Cruithnigh (mod Irish)
is how we spoke of them in history lessons in school. Change the Q sounds
to P sounds and you get Pruithnigh - approaching closely to Prydain. Could
they just have been Brythonic speaking peoples north of Hadrian's wall?
David
"Kevin Jones" <1006...@nospam.compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:beneho$9a$1...@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
Kevin Jones
> Kevin,
>
> I believe that the term Pict comes from the Latin "Pictus", i.e. painted.
I
> don't think it was ever what the locals called themselves. It might be
> compared to the term "fuzzy-wuzzies" used to designate the "natives" by
> soldiers in the Soudan campaign which followed Gordon's death at the hands
> of the Mahdi forces there. (Sorry, just reporting historical fact, and no
> racist, jingoistic allusions to be inferred.)
>
> What the Picts called themselves, I have no idea. Na Cruithnigh (mod
Irish)
> is how we spoke of them in history lessons in school. Change the Q sounds
> to P sounds and you get Pruithnigh - approaching closely to Prydain.
Could
> they just have been Brythonic speaking peoples north of Hadrian's wall?
Well, that's my argument. Yes, Pictus does seem to have originated as a
Latin word, one that migrated into Welsh (Ffichti). As I said, there's
nothing to indicate that they were anything other than Celts. As for the
inscriptions, the peculiarites are what you'd get if you took a P-Celtic
language that still retained archaic features such as terminations, put it
in contact with Latin (some of the inscriptions show the effect of Latin
spelling), and then had it in subsequent contact with Gaelic. By the time
the inscriptions are carved the language is no longer in pristine condition.
Kevin
Azure
Ireland, and Northern Europe.
The Elph, what the church called a lie, "Prey" to be hunted at will for their "Pot Of Gold"
Jani
BTW, please don't post in html.
Jani
"Azure" <e...@northpole.org> wrote in message
news:3F10C05F...@northpole.org...
Jan
I didn't know that. Interesting family. I'm sure the Pict connection
via the mother was worth quite a lot politically, which gives weight
to that Kenneth The Menace rep was mostly a story.
~Jan
Kevin Jones
Oh it was - it made him one of the claimants to the Pictish kingship. There
may however be some truth in the story of him inviting the Pictish
aristocracy to a meeting and then slaughtering them - it's one way of
dealing with rival claimants and their supporters. After that, he was the
only claimant left.
Kevin
Kevin Jones
Subject: Re: DNA suggests the Celts held their ground
Date: Monday, July 14, 2003 00:42
Azure" <e...@northpole.org> wrote in message
news:3F10C05F...@northpole.org...
If you want to know what you are talking about find a copy of the "Dun
Cow" the story of the Elph, and Faerie, the followers of the belief of the
One God, after they were stricken from society and driven to Inesfeld,
Ireland, and Northern Europe. The Elph, what the church called a lie, "Prey"
to be hunted at will for their "Pot Of Gold"
Umm - how does this relate to Kenneth Mac Alpin? Secondly, I doubt if you
could ever call the Tuatha De, aka the Fair Folk, followers of the One God,
except where some monkish hand has been inventing late propaganda.
Kevin
Azure
Azure
struck the Dannan from History, they became the Tinkers at which the church
declared us prey, after that we became the Travelers, the first gypsies.
They are part of the tribes of the Third Son, if you are related to them look
into it.