Staying Safe In Manchester.....
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Did the South East and East of England always speak English?
Generations of English people have been told that the Anglo-Saxons invaded, wiping out the Welsh and changing the people of Britain forever. We now know from genetic studies that the Anglo-Saxons imposed a ruling class and did not wipe out the people. Is it time to also reassess the English language? Repopulation of Britain after the Ice Age occurred from two sources so the Welsh are related to the Basques and the English to the North West Europeans. The North Sea only finally became a sea five thousand years ago. In that 5000 years the English are supposed to have lost their language but the Welsh kept theirs.. Did the English always speak a version of English and invite people to stay from Denmark and the Netherlands who spoke a similar proto-English after the Romans left?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Johnysid. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
the Welsh aren't "related to Basques", exactly; their forebears just came from an area we now know as the Basque country. The West Country, Ireland and Scotland seem to have been settled from there as well. Central England appears to have been settled from east Europe. I'm not yet convinced by Steven Oppenheimer's suggestions about the origins of the language.
I think you've got your timescales a bit distorted Johny. Doggerland - the land-bridge attaching us to mainland Europe - disappeared around 10 - 8000 BC. We don't have any direct evidence for the languages spoken by people round these parts at that time. The best guess is that they belong to a pre-Indo-european language group.
In the time before the Romans invaded Britain, people speaking another language settled in Britain. These were possibly the people that brought new skills such as farming, and this might have been from about 5-4000 BC onwards. This develops into what we know as the Celtic languages but many other Old World languages stem from the dame group, known as Indo European.
Latin and Greek as spoken by the Romans left little impact here - because most people did not speak these languages, but spoke some forms of Celtic.
Germanic invaders and settlers came in from around 400 AD onwards - in many different waves from refugees to mercenaries - evidence shows some interaction was peaceful, at other times and places there was killing. These were the people who brought our language, English.
Either by force, choice or economics the Celtic speakers congregated to the north and west of the British Isles - Cornwall, Wales, Ireland, Scotalnd. A celtic language was spoken in parts of Yorkshire and Lancashire until about the 1300s (Cimbric).
In the time before the Romans invaded Britain, people speaking another language settled in Britain. These were possibly the people that brought new skills such as farming, and this might have been from about 5-4000 BC onwards. This develops into what we know as the Celtic languages but many other Old World languages stem from the dame group, known as Indo European.
Latin and Greek as spoken by the Romans left little impact here - because most people did not speak these languages, but spoke some forms of Celtic.
Germanic invaders and settlers came in from around 400 AD onwards - in many different waves from refugees to mercenaries - evidence shows some interaction was peaceful, at other times and places there was killing. These were the people who brought our language, English.
Either by force, choice or economics the Celtic speakers congregated to the north and west of the British Isles - Cornwall, Wales, Ireland, Scotalnd. A celtic language was spoken in parts of Yorkshire and Lancashire until about the 1300s (Cimbric).
Mosaic, you have given a good summary of the current historical theory. I believe that theory is wrong. The dogger bank only finally sank in about 3000 BC http://
The genetic evidence is that the "Britons" who lived in the South and East of England continued to live there and formed the bulk of the population even after the Saxon invasions. In fact the "invasions" look more like a change of fashion on the ground - Britons just start being buried with Saxon cultural artefacts from 500AD onwards.
The genetic evidence shows that the Welsh and Irish were not related to the Celts (in fact "Celt" is a vague term). The original argument for Welsh being spoken in the South and East of England depended on the idea that the Anglo Saxons had wiped out the Britons. We now know this was not the case so either South, Central and East England is an extraordinarily rare example of a language that is spoken by the bulk of the population disappearing (in an age before mass media or even writing) OR the English have always spoken English.
The fact that Southern and Eastern English place names are mostly English yet those in the West Country or even on the Marches are often Welsh is evidence that English has always been spoken in England - when the English conquered Welsh/Cornish/Strathclyde territory they often used the Welsh names, why did they not do this in the South and East of England? Were the place names already in English?
The genetic evidence is that the "Britons" who lived in the South and East of England continued to live there and formed the bulk of the population even after the Saxon invasions. In fact the "invasions" look more like a change of fashion on the ground - Britons just start being buried with Saxon cultural artefacts from 500AD onwards.
The genetic evidence shows that the Welsh and Irish were not related to the Celts (in fact "Celt" is a vague term). The original argument for Welsh being spoken in the South and East of England depended on the idea that the Anglo Saxons had wiped out the Britons. We now know this was not the case so either South, Central and East England is an extraordinarily rare example of a language that is spoken by the bulk of the population disappearing (in an age before mass media or even writing) OR the English have always spoken English.
The fact that Southern and Eastern English place names are mostly English yet those in the West Country or even on the Marches are often Welsh is evidence that English has always been spoken in England - when the English conquered Welsh/Cornish/Strathclyde territory they often used the Welsh names, why did they not do this in the South and East of England? Were the place names already in English?
I agree that the inundation was possibly very slow, but it isn't likely that contact by 'trading ships' was a regular thing. I feel that a key to understanding is numbers of people involved - again, archaeo-guessology.....but....
If you accept that the language of an area is the language the majority of people speak.....so for example although the Norman overlords took over, they were insufficient in number to change the country's language to French. There were simply more English speakers and they prevailed in the long run.
It isn't guessology, but demonstrable from archaeology that the final decades of roman rule in Briton were accompanied by huge economic slump and depopulation. Some written sources refer to plague. There was also out-migration as troops and their families were recalled to fight in Gaul. So by 400 Britain had many abandoned farmsteads / factories, and towns had shrunk in size or been completely left to rot.
It's also demonstrable from archaeology that whole villages in Frisia get abandoned - evacuated, almost -at the same time. Which speaks of a mass migration of Germanic people. And we see their final destination in southern and eastern Britain.
The genetic evidence gathered so far is only partial - for example, the genetic similarity between Danes and SE England points to common ancestry but not as far back in time as you are suggesting. Genetic evidence is expanding but at the moment in the UK covers the post Roman and migrations period reasonably well, prehistory far less well (mainly due to lack of extensive DNA evidence from these earlier times)
I haven't heard of a theory that English existed as a language in Britain before about 400 AD so if you would share your source that would be fascinating.
If you accept that the language of an area is the language the majority of people speak.....so for example although the Norman overlords took over, they were insufficient in number to change the country's language to French. There were simply more English speakers and they prevailed in the long run.
It isn't guessology, but demonstrable from archaeology that the final decades of roman rule in Briton were accompanied by huge economic slump and depopulation. Some written sources refer to plague. There was also out-migration as troops and their families were recalled to fight in Gaul. So by 400 Britain had many abandoned farmsteads / factories, and towns had shrunk in size or been completely left to rot.
It's also demonstrable from archaeology that whole villages in Frisia get abandoned - evacuated, almost -at the same time. Which speaks of a mass migration of Germanic people. And we see their final destination in southern and eastern Britain.
The genetic evidence gathered so far is only partial - for example, the genetic similarity between Danes and SE England points to common ancestry but not as far back in time as you are suggesting. Genetic evidence is expanding but at the moment in the UK covers the post Roman and migrations period reasonably well, prehistory far less well (mainly due to lack of extensive DNA evidence from these earlier times)
I haven't heard of a theory that English existed as a language in Britain before about 400 AD so if you would share your source that would be fascinating.
There is an excellent web site at: http://www.proto-english.org/
I have a book somewhere, if I find it I will add its title. The genetic evidence just keeps piling up that the British continued as the majority population throughout and after the Anglo-Saxon invasion. It is not just Oppenheimer, Brian Sykes book "Blood of the Isles" reports on a large scale genetic study that shows that even in localised areas of England where Anglo-Saxon input might have been greatest only 20% of the genetic pool could have come from the invaders - over the rest of the country the English are the original, post ice age population. This pattern is now well established.
So the Anglo-Saxons did not wipe out the British, a crime that would be extremely rare in European history (kill all the slaves??). Somehow, in an age before mass media and even widespread literacy they are supposed to have replaced entirely the indigenous language within about 400 years and renamed every hamlet, village, hill and river. Stranger still they pulled off this trick in such a way that it fits the genetic faultlines between those who recolonised Britain 10-15000 years ago in the west and those who recolonised it in the east.
The Anglo-Saxon wipeout myth is a bit of propaganda. It excuses the Normans for creating depopulated areas, places the Normans as morally superior to the English and the Welsh love it because it makes the "Celts" (who are not Celts) victims of the evil English.
I have a book somewhere, if I find it I will add its title. The genetic evidence just keeps piling up that the British continued as the majority population throughout and after the Anglo-Saxon invasion. It is not just Oppenheimer, Brian Sykes book "Blood of the Isles" reports on a large scale genetic study that shows that even in localised areas of England where Anglo-Saxon input might have been greatest only 20% of the genetic pool could have come from the invaders - over the rest of the country the English are the original, post ice age population. This pattern is now well established.
So the Anglo-Saxons did not wipe out the British, a crime that would be extremely rare in European history (kill all the slaves??). Somehow, in an age before mass media and even widespread literacy they are supposed to have replaced entirely the indigenous language within about 400 years and renamed every hamlet, village, hill and river. Stranger still they pulled off this trick in such a way that it fits the genetic faultlines between those who recolonised Britain 10-15000 years ago in the west and those who recolonised it in the east.
The Anglo-Saxon wipeout myth is a bit of propaganda. It excuses the Normans for creating depopulated areas, places the Normans as morally superior to the English and the Welsh love it because it makes the "Celts" (who are not Celts) victims of the evil English.
Hi Johny, I've woken up and basked on a rock till the brain kicked in....
OK. I can see where this line of information is coming from - please don't take this as any criticism of your enthusiasm or reading, but just to place some context on it.
Michael Goormachtigh is a Belgian businessman and enthusiast - no depth of academic background. His collaborator is untraceable - 'Dr Anthony Durham' appears not to be at a university I can find, but if anyone can put me right I'll be pleased to be put right.
MG is absolutely entitled to have an enthusiastic opinion but it can't replace years of painstaking research done in the areas of archaeology and place-name studies. The latter body of knowledge suggests on very firm demonstrable grounds that English was the language of a Germanic wave of population settlement that first entered Britain around 400 AD, give or take.
The notion that the Anglo Saxon arrival heralded mass extinction of previous occupiers has not been supported for over 50 years, again based on archaeological evidence. The misconception was based on a fragment of a blood and thunder sermon written in about 600 AD by a Christian monk keen to curry favour / support the notion of just war against non-christians.
And here's another problem that distorts the information: modern politics. So MG wants to demonstrate a pan-north-european ethnicity - not necessarily for any sinister reason, he just wants to (I don't really know his motives).
Welsh, Scottish and Irish nationalists want similar pedigrees to be proven for their own modern causes. And the human genome project is already proving to be dynamite politically, eg in the Levant where Jews definitely do not want it said that their DNA is identical to Palestinians, and vice versa.
The modern DNA pattern in Britain is only emerging now and it is too early to jump to sweeping conclusions. They will be of great interest when they are done and road-tested. Small scale studies like the Wirral - Viking connection are informative, but they are only small scale.
To be able to demonstrate similar for earlier / prehistoric populations more DNA from more samples is needed, more lab time and more funding.
In the meantime the jury is definitely out. We can point at the empirical data that we have, and all we can safely say about the broad sweep suggested by Michael Goormachtigh is that there is no evidence.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - but nonetheless, it limits conclusions that can be safely made.
OK. I can see where this line of information is coming from - please don't take this as any criticism of your enthusiasm or reading, but just to place some context on it.
Michael Goormachtigh is a Belgian businessman and enthusiast - no depth of academic background. His collaborator is untraceable - 'Dr Anthony Durham' appears not to be at a university I can find, but if anyone can put me right I'll be pleased to be put right.
MG is absolutely entitled to have an enthusiastic opinion but it can't replace years of painstaking research done in the areas of archaeology and place-name studies. The latter body of knowledge suggests on very firm demonstrable grounds that English was the language of a Germanic wave of population settlement that first entered Britain around 400 AD, give or take.
The notion that the Anglo Saxon arrival heralded mass extinction of previous occupiers has not been supported for over 50 years, again based on archaeological evidence. The misconception was based on a fragment of a blood and thunder sermon written in about 600 AD by a Christian monk keen to curry favour / support the notion of just war against non-christians.
And here's another problem that distorts the information: modern politics. So MG wants to demonstrate a pan-north-european ethnicity - not necessarily for any sinister reason, he just wants to (I don't really know his motives).
Welsh, Scottish and Irish nationalists want similar pedigrees to be proven for their own modern causes. And the human genome project is already proving to be dynamite politically, eg in the Levant where Jews definitely do not want it said that their DNA is identical to Palestinians, and vice versa.
The modern DNA pattern in Britain is only emerging now and it is too early to jump to sweeping conclusions. They will be of great interest when they are done and road-tested. Small scale studies like the Wirral - Viking connection are informative, but they are only small scale.
To be able to demonstrate similar for earlier / prehistoric populations more DNA from more samples is needed, more lab time and more funding.
In the meantime the jury is definitely out. We can point at the empirical data that we have, and all we can safely say about the broad sweep suggested by Michael Goormachtigh is that there is no evidence.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - but nonetheless, it limits conclusions that can be safely made.
The problem is where to draw the boundary between Germanic and non-Germanic language in the west of Europe in pre-Roman times. Do we draw the boundary at the shores of the North Sea or along the genetic fault between post ice-age western and eastern colonisation of Britain? Did English speakers live in Doggerland then spread out to Friesland, Holland and Eastern England or did they live in Germany and spread westwards at a later date?
If you compare the standard theory with the new proposal the standard theory is weaker. In fact the standard theory treats the Anglo Saxon invasion as a unique linguistic event. Nowhere else has a large, majority population entirely lost its language in 400 years, before formal education loss of language by a majority population did not happen.
As it is largely a matter of opinion as to which linguistic theory is accepted and the standard theory has far more serious problems than the new proposal the standard theory should be rejected. The fact that current senior linguists are sticking by the current theory is not surprising, many have written and edited books that depend on the assumption of wipeout. Worse still, if you search for papers on the subject Google turns up scores of papers accusing anyone who investigates the subject of racism. What academic would risk their career against the insane postmarxists?
On the DNA front the evidence is now very strong, one study suggesting that there was an Anglo Saxon wipeout, all other and subsequent studies showing that this was not the case.
If you compare the standard theory with the new proposal the standard theory is weaker. In fact the standard theory treats the Anglo Saxon invasion as a unique linguistic event. Nowhere else has a large, majority population entirely lost its language in 400 years, before formal education loss of language by a majority population did not happen.
As it is largely a matter of opinion as to which linguistic theory is accepted and the standard theory has far more serious problems than the new proposal the standard theory should be rejected. The fact that current senior linguists are sticking by the current theory is not surprising, many have written and edited books that depend on the assumption of wipeout. Worse still, if you search for papers on the subject Google turns up scores of papers accusing anyone who investigates the subject of racism. What academic would risk their career against the insane postmarxists?
On the DNA front the evidence is now very strong, one study suggesting that there was an Anglo Saxon wipeout, all other and subsequent studies showing that this was not the case.
Just an afterthought, not only were the English supposed to lose their language completely without even a trace of the original tongue in 400 years but all of those English people who lived on the border with the Welsh and Cornish and Strathclyders (perhaps 20-25% of the population) would have had continual direct linguistic contact with the old language. No, they never spoke the same language, not ever. The standard theory is propaganda.
How in this theory would a common form of Old English come about in both the Denmark/Holland and in England at roughly the same time?
There's evidance of trade between Pre Roman Britan and phoenicians in Cornwall and the South West before this date
I'm not sure of any evidence on the other side of the country
There's evidance of trade between Pre Roman Britan and phoenicians in Cornwall and the South West before this date
I'm not sure of any evidence on the other side of the country
Mosaic, this is the book I was referring to before
Amazon.co.uk User Recommendation
Full of interesting theories though rather tediously written
Amazon.co.uk User Recommendation
Full of interesting theories though rather tediously written
Thanks for the link Jno.
Johny I can't see any conspiracy of academics seeking to silence Oppenheimer's opinions. Rather I think there is an expectancy for hypotheses of this kind to be followed up with published research that can be evaluated.
You are mixing up Doggerland and Dogger Bank - Doggerland is a modern name given to a large swathe of lowland connecting Britain south of the Humber to Denmark and what is now the North European Plain. Dogger Bank being a much smaller sandbank. At the time that Doggerland was not submerged, the human population using it was small in number and scattered - think hunting groups ranging across steppe following herds of elk.
Nobody knows what language these people spoke.
It's unlikely that they all tried to race to dry land in one go - the sea level rise would have been visible and noticeable and people would have simply moved elsewhere as the sea gradually encroached.
We have a reasonable idea for the location of the Germanic speakers at around the turn of the common era, as ol' Julius Caesar had many run-ins with them.
Pre-English placenames abound in Britain -often in the south and east remaining as topographical names - whereas in the same area most settlements have English or Scandinavia names, or a mix of both.
I agree that Celtic is a loose term - however Goedilic and Brythonic (and the extinct Cymbric) are quite precise terms for variants of an original language that definitely existed in Britain before the Roman invasion - continued to be the language of most people during the 400 years of the Roman occupation - but for whatever reasons fell out of daily use in most of what is now called England during the couple of hundred years after the end of Roman rule in Britain.
It isn't correct to say the Romano-British people spoke Welsh. Welsh is probably as close to their language as modern English is to a first century Germanic person, ie not very familiar.
These are demonstrable facts, not hypotheses.
There is no way getting round it I'm afraid. The language we speak today was imported by immigrants around 400 AD. These immigrants entered a landscape that had become largely abandoned, and simply became the more numerous ethnic group.
You can look across the channel at France, where there was not same level of economic and population decline in the 4th century AD - Germanic groups settled and eventually adapted their dialects to become latin-based ie French, because this was the language spoken by the majority of the population.
Google is not the only source of research and learning - and I find that informed discussion of language and pace name studies can be hard to locate online. Asyou have noticed, you find yourself quite quickly in the realms of the wild-eyed fanatics rather than being part of a reasoned debate.
You need to be joining in with some established research to get a rounded picture - such as the centre for place-name studies at Nottingham University.
Johny I can't see any conspiracy of academics seeking to silence Oppenheimer's opinions. Rather I think there is an expectancy for hypotheses of this kind to be followed up with published research that can be evaluated.
You are mixing up Doggerland and Dogger Bank - Doggerland is a modern name given to a large swathe of lowland connecting Britain south of the Humber to Denmark and what is now the North European Plain. Dogger Bank being a much smaller sandbank. At the time that Doggerland was not submerged, the human population using it was small in number and scattered - think hunting groups ranging across steppe following herds of elk.
Nobody knows what language these people spoke.
It's unlikely that they all tried to race to dry land in one go - the sea level rise would have been visible and noticeable and people would have simply moved elsewhere as the sea gradually encroached.
We have a reasonable idea for the location of the Germanic speakers at around the turn of the common era, as ol' Julius Caesar had many run-ins with them.
Pre-English placenames abound in Britain -often in the south and east remaining as topographical names - whereas in the same area most settlements have English or Scandinavia names, or a mix of both.
I agree that Celtic is a loose term - however Goedilic and Brythonic (and the extinct Cymbric) are quite precise terms for variants of an original language that definitely existed in Britain before the Roman invasion - continued to be the language of most people during the 400 years of the Roman occupation - but for whatever reasons fell out of daily use in most of what is now called England during the couple of hundred years after the end of Roman rule in Britain.
It isn't correct to say the Romano-British people spoke Welsh. Welsh is probably as close to their language as modern English is to a first century Germanic person, ie not very familiar.
These are demonstrable facts, not hypotheses.
There is no way getting round it I'm afraid. The language we speak today was imported by immigrants around 400 AD. These immigrants entered a landscape that had become largely abandoned, and simply became the more numerous ethnic group.
You can look across the channel at France, where there was not same level of economic and population decline in the 4th century AD - Germanic groups settled and eventually adapted their dialects to become latin-based ie French, because this was the language spoken by the majority of the population.
Google is not the only source of research and learning - and I find that informed discussion of language and pace name studies can be hard to locate online. Asyou have noticed, you find yourself quite quickly in the realms of the wild-eyed fanatics rather than being part of a reasoned debate.
You need to be joining in with some established research to get a rounded picture - such as the centre for place-name studies at Nottingham University.
JTP, there is a good article here http://
I did not say there was a conspiracy amongst academics against this theory, just that for most it would be much more trouble than its worth. Otherwise the academics are reacting to the modern genetic data as they did to carbon 14 dating - first denial, then cold shouldering then, probably, acceptance. Note that pre C14 history was often wildly inaccurate.
Mosaic, no, I am not mixing up Doggerland with Dogger Bank, the huge Island that the dogger bank marks only disappeared in around 3000BC.
Mosaic: "As you have noticed, you find yourself quite quickly in the realms of the wild-eyed fanatics rather than being part of a reasoned debate. " No, I don't think you are a fanatic, perhaps a little closed to new hypotheses :). Compare your 'wipeout' statement "These immigrants entered a landscape that had become largely abandoned" with the statement by the academics who wrote the paper for the Royal Society referenced above: "The argument concerning the relative sizes of the two groups—Britons and the Germanic people who arrived during the Early Anglo-Saxon period—is conceded, and, as discussed below, estimates obtained in the present study agree with those of Thomas et al. (2006), namely, a ‘native population in the region of two million’ and ‘migrating populations in the Early Middle Ages are between tens and low hundreds of thousands’. "
I did not say there was a conspiracy amongst academics against this theory, just that for most it would be much more trouble than its worth. Otherwise the academics are reacting to the modern genetic data as they did to carbon 14 dating - first denial, then cold shouldering then, probably, acceptance. Note that pre C14 history was often wildly inaccurate.
Mosaic, no, I am not mixing up Doggerland with Dogger Bank, the huge Island that the dogger bank marks only disappeared in around 3000BC.
Mosaic: "As you have noticed, you find yourself quite quickly in the realms of the wild-eyed fanatics rather than being part of a reasoned debate. " No, I don't think you are a fanatic, perhaps a little closed to new hypotheses :). Compare your 'wipeout' statement "These immigrants entered a landscape that had become largely abandoned" with the statement by the academics who wrote the paper for the Royal Society referenced above: "The argument concerning the relative sizes of the two groups—Britons and the Germanic people who arrived during the Early Anglo-Saxon period—is conceded, and, as discussed below, estimates obtained in the present study agree with those of Thomas et al. (2006), namely, a ‘native population in the region of two million’ and ‘migrating populations in the Early Middle Ages are between tens and low hundreds of thousands’. "
Hi Johny - I'm still finding dates closer to 6,000 BC for Dogger Bank disappearing under the briney - that's quite a way off your quote of 3000 BC - can you share sources for that?
Thanks for the link that you posted for Jake - it's very interesting in that it doesn't seem to support your point that English was the language of pre-Roman people of Britain.
It also suggests that the Germanic speakers of the 400s onwards accounted for some 5% of the overall population. This does indeed seem a small proportion to account for a linguistic shift, but it is only an estimate on the author's part.
If it's accurate then the things that account for the English language flourishing must include for example routes into law, education and trade. If your merchants are all english-speakers, you will learn english or not be able to trade.
And if the english-speaking traders occupy the areas nearest to lucrative trade routes ie the south and east sector of Britain, then they'll prosper and presumably grow in number. So the linguistic shift occurs.
Can I just emphasise - I don't think the Germanic settlers wiped out any previous populations. I have not supported this in any of my posts. Mainly cos i don't believe it. I am sure there were outbreaks of frightfulness in diffent places and at different times, but for the most part the two populations appear to have become mutually absorbed.
Thanks for the link that you posted for Jake - it's very interesting in that it doesn't seem to support your point that English was the language of pre-Roman people of Britain.
It also suggests that the Germanic speakers of the 400s onwards accounted for some 5% of the overall population. This does indeed seem a small proportion to account for a linguistic shift, but it is only an estimate on the author's part.
If it's accurate then the things that account for the English language flourishing must include for example routes into law, education and trade. If your merchants are all english-speakers, you will learn english or not be able to trade.
And if the english-speaking traders occupy the areas nearest to lucrative trade routes ie the south and east sector of Britain, then they'll prosper and presumably grow in number. So the linguistic shift occurs.
Can I just emphasise - I don't think the Germanic settlers wiped out any previous populations. I have not supported this in any of my posts. Mainly cos i don't believe it. I am sure there were outbreaks of frightfulness in diffent places and at different times, but for the most part the two populations appear to have become mutually absorbed.
One more point re post-Roman depopulation: there's plenty of archaeological evidence that shows how settlements contracted and were often comletely abandoned from around 300 onwards, often with grass literally growing over streets.
This shows that places like Londinium or Deva, that had been large cities, were effectively given up. The outlying villas that interdepended on these cities similarly either become small defendible places or are just abandoned.
So the new immigrant populations were moving into a depopulated landscape (not unpopulated - that is different) where there was quite literally room to settle.
This shows that places like Londinium or Deva, that had been large cities, were effectively given up. The outlying villas that interdepended on these cities similarly either become small defendible places or are just abandoned.
So the new immigrant populations were moving into a depopulated landscape (not unpopulated - that is different) where there was quite literally room to settle.
I'm sure you didn't mean to say the language we speak today was imported by immigrants around 400 AD!
I doubt many of us would understand a word of it.
It's fabulous how much and how rapidly English adapts and evolves we've the Early changes from Old to middle English, the huge amount of French imported post conquest - let's not forget the vast swathes invented by Shakespear and his cronies andd all the more modern ligustic imports internationally reimported especially from the US.
I'd say there's a good case for suggesting that Modern English and Modern French are closer to Old English and Modern English.
Of course that logic doesn't please nationalists trying to make out there's some sort of ancient and enduring "national British" culture that's only been threatened in modern times.
Linguistics can get so political
I doubt many of us would understand a word of it.
It's fabulous how much and how rapidly English adapts and evolves we've the Early changes from Old to middle English, the huge amount of French imported post conquest - let's not forget the vast swathes invented by Shakespear and his cronies andd all the more modern ligustic imports internationally reimported especially from the US.
I'd say there's a good case for suggesting that Modern English and Modern French are closer to Old English and Modern English.
Of course that logic doesn't please nationalists trying to make out there's some sort of ancient and enduring "national British" culture that's only been threatened in modern times.
Linguistics can get so political
The archaeological evidence for population change, such as towns being abandoned, could also be explained by de-urbanisation. The genetic evidence is much harder to explain except by assuming that there were far fewer invaders than indigents.
There have been masses of invasions in European history but the Anglo-Saxons are the only example of language wipeout. To replace the language of an entire population in a preliterate age, before schools, in 400 years is a unique achievement. Especially as they did it so thoroughly, academics must really search to find any influence or residue of Welsh in English, despite the fact that the Welsh and English were neighbours for the whole period.
In fact we are left with two hypotheses, either the indigents were wiped out or the peoples who bordered the North Sea all spoke a fairly similar language, probably because they lived together in the lowlands until they were inundated. The genetics disproves the first hypothesis, the Victorian "guess".
On your point about Doggerland being inundated earlier than I have suggested, you may well be right: http://
There have been masses of invasions in European history but the Anglo-Saxons are the only example of language wipeout. To replace the language of an entire population in a preliterate age, before schools, in 400 years is a unique achievement. Especially as they did it so thoroughly, academics must really search to find any influence or residue of Welsh in English, despite the fact that the Welsh and English were neighbours for the whole period.
In fact we are left with two hypotheses, either the indigents were wiped out or the peoples who bordered the North Sea all spoke a fairly similar language, probably because they lived together in the lowlands until they were inundated. The genetics disproves the first hypothesis, the Victorian "guess".
On your point about Doggerland being inundated earlier than I have suggested, you may well be right: http://
Latest Posts
News3 mins ago
ChatterBank7 mins ago
News7 mins ago
ChatterBank12 mins ago
Lord Botham Falls Into An Australian...
News17 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.