MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Way Out West (Pre-History)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Anti:
In just several centuries, immigrants from all over the Old World flocked or were taken to the Americas: they and their descendants number in the hundreds of millions. And still some pockets of native languages remain.

---

Umpteen million native aboriginals was still sparse. Spaces were enclosed and filled and natives actively repelled or removed to other open spaces. The lack of "blitzkrieg" invasion evidence notwithstanding, there was nowhere not already occupied and nowhere for native Britons to go.

---

Dunno so much about the South American situation. We repeat, parrot-fashion, that South Americans speak Spanish or Portuguese, but what are the real numbers?
Send private message
Duncan


In: Yorkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

But now the differences
1. The Romano-Brits were culturally superior to the invaders, not the case with native Americans vis a vis the Europeans
2. The Indians were decimated by alien infectious diseases, not the case with the Romano-Brits.
3. The Spanish (though not I think the English or the French) had a deliberate programme of language imposition for relgious reasons; the Anglo-Saxons did not
.

Okay, let's look at each point systematically.

1. I think there is little to take issue with here.
2. Dendrochronologists have found evidence of a significant climatic event in the 540's, a major volcanic eruption which led to falling crop yields and ultimately plague throughout Europe. This must have decimated the British population too.
3. We have already discussed the latest theories of Mark Thomas at UCL with regard to the creation of an apartheid-like separation between Anglo-Saxons and Welsh (7th Century Laws of Ine.) It is highly likely, though I have no documentary proof, that the herrenrace would impose their language upon the conquered. Even if we have to reduce the magnitude of this factor then it is still a puzzle how the English and French imposed their languages upon the natives without the power of Spanish Catholicism.

Anti:
In just several centuries, immigrants from all over the Old World flocked or were taken to the Americas: they and their descendents number in the hundreds of millions. And still some pockets of native languages remain
.

It is by no means beyond the question to cite extensive immigration from Saxony and Denmark during the post-Roman period. Although unfashionable today, the cultural evidence of changing burial rites and north European jewellery can still be interpreted as evidence of immigration on a large scale. As I have said elsewhere, there is considerable north European mDNA as well as yDNA. A high proportion of mDNA from the Anglo-Saxon lands does imply that the immigrant warbands also brought their families rather than taking British wives.

Umpteen million native aboriginals was still sparse. Spaces were enclosed and filled and natives actively repelled or removed to other open spaces. The lack of "blitzkrieg" invasion evidence notwithstanding, there was nowhere not already occupied and nowhere for native Britons to go.

Surely this is what could have happened in Britain too. What about the settlement of Brittany during this period? There is also the settlement of Maelgwyn Gwynedd and his entire people from Strathcyde to North Wales in direct response to Anglian incursions in Scotland. The name of the Welsh king who allowed the settlement was Anarawd and the Strathclyde Britons did stop the Saxons from pushing westwards.
Send private message
Martin



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Despite the best efforts of the invaders, the indigenous populations of Peru and Bolivia still speak Quechua the language of the Incas. The language they have always spoken.

And in England...
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

2. Dendrochronologists have found evidence of a significant climatic event in the 540's, a major volcanic eruption which led to falling crop yields and ultimately plague throughout Europe. This must have decimated the British population too.

Britons and Anglo-Saxons all in the same boat, then. Not at all the same as the North American dichotomy between endemic and epidemic.

It is highly likely, though I have no documentary proof, that the herrenrace would impose their language upon the conquered.

Why is it?

The "invasion" of North America was not a ruling elite moving in to install itself as the new head of a going concern. Colonists were self-consciously in possession of the new land down to grass roots. Natives had been "taken over" and existed only in enclaves and efforts were made to assimilate them: native languages and cultures were to be eradicated, they were to gain souls and be elevated to the level of the criminal class. Imposition of the language in America had a rather narrow context, entirely different from Anglo-Saxon England; and it was unsuccessful.

What makes you think the King had any desire to converse with peasants? Wasn't it sufficient for there to be an "interfacing" class? D'you think the Romans imposed Latin on the populace? Didn't everyone have better things to be doing and just conduct business (with the Romans) in Latin? D'you think they had the notion of nationhood that mean they ought to all speak the same language? Which nation were they, which language should they speak? {Cleopatra learned to speak Egyptian.} If anything, would the herrenrace not reserve its language for its own or for the "worthy"?

I saw The Passion of the Christ recently and thought it laughable that Pilate would converse with Caiaphas in Aramaic.

It is by no means beyond the question to cite extensive immigration from Saxony and Denmark during the post-Roman period. Although unfashionable today, the cultural evidence of changing burial rites and north European jewellery can still be interpreted as evidence of immigration on a large scale.

Can be, yes, but that is hardly a robust argument. Does the evidence of economic life on each side of the water paint a verisimilous picture of large scale immigration? From what I know, large scale immigration only goes from one prosperous country to another.

Illegal immigrants in search of a better life? Actually, they're going from a good life in search of a better one. And the channels have already provided by the (rich) industrial infrastructure. Really poor people can't afford to make the trip. If the Anglo-Saxons were so badly off, they couldn't have mounted a military expedition. If they were driven out of their coastal lowlands, why didn't they just keep a little ahead of the encroaching shoreline, instead of setting sail for the opposite coastal lowlands?

If it's so easy for the impoverished to bugger off, why are there any impoverished at all? And why did starving cities ever resort to eating its own children?

Would wealthy Anglo-Saxons have come to England for a worse life? I doubt it. So they must have been on a par. Is there evidence of a thriving economy in the thereabouts of Jutland, sufficient to provide a country's worth of population to come to England? That sure isn't what they say.

the immigrant warbands also brought their families rather than taking British wives.

Just as a ruling élite would do, come to take possession of some estates and not mix (or converse) with the locals

Surely this is what could have happened in Britain too.

Not if there was nowhere not already occupied and nowhere for native Britons to go.

What about the settlement of Brittany during this period?

Dunno what the evidence is or what they say about it. Ex hypothesi MegalithiCelti THOBRi, I suspect they're wrong.

There is also the settlement of Maelgwyn Gwynedd and his entire people from Strathcyde to North Wales in direct response to Anglian incursions in Scotland.

Sounds like one warlord ousting another. What about it?

the Strathclyde Britons did stop the Saxons from pushing westwards.

Yes, precisely. England was a piece of piss to conquer. Celtland was a completely different story because effectively a completely different nation.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Despite the best efforts of the invaders, the indigenous populations of Peru and Bolivia still speak Quechua the language of the Incas. The language they have always spoken.

Thanks Martin. I'm sure I've heard that Mayan is still spoken. Do you know if the same applies throughout Latin America: that, as a rule, they are not "Latin" at all?
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

'Ere, with all this talk of boat-loads of Anglo-Saxons taking over or forcing out... is there any suggestion (Gildas, Bede, Tony Robinson...) that the incomers then fought amongst themselves to establish kingship, etc.?

Coz that's what we know for sure, innit?: as soon as Anglo-Saxons are clearly on record, they have a well-formed power structure. Was that arranged here after a whole bunch of autonomous immigrations... or was it an organised invasion under an established leader, à la William the Conqueror?
Send private message
Duncan


In: Yorkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

As ever Dan, you bombard me with information. You've already told me that you're not prepared to accept the genetics so it's just one poorly evidenced argument against another but well here goes. Maybe we'll refine our understanding...

Dendrochronologists have found evidence of a significant climatic event in the 540's, a major volcanic eruption which led to falling crop yields and ultimately plague throughout Europe. This must have decimated the British population too.
Britons and Anglo-Saxons all in the same boat, then. Not at all the same as the North American dichotomy between endemic and epidemic.

My point is simply that the British population would have faced a period of starvation and plague which would reduce population levels thus weaking their resistance to the Anglo-Saxon warbands. Now it is probably the same in Saxony and Denmark but it is the Anglo-Sxaon survivors who are coming over to Britain. Do you see the parallel?

From what I know, large scale immigration only goes from one prosperous country to another. Illegal immigrants in search of a better life? Actually, they're going from a good life in search of a better one. And the channels have already provided by the (rich) industrial infrastructure. Really poor people can't afford to make the trip. If the Anglo-Saxons were so badly off, they couldn't have mounted a military expedition. If they were driven out of their coastal lowlands, why didn't they just keep a little ahead of the encroaching shoreline, instead of setting sail for the opposite coastal lowlands?

Phew! I think we have to see the Anglo-Saxon invasions along the lines of the later Danish ones. Groups of colonists, probably young males in the first instance, keen to make a name for themselves, would be trying to carve out some land for themselves in what was still a wealthy country. Only later would they be joined by farming types with their families. That's what happened with the Danes.

The motive? Britain was richer. The Anglo-Saxons lands were overpopulated. We're talking about the collapse of the Roman Empire with entire populations on the move. Warfare was endemic. Why should the Anglo-Saxons be spared? They were getting out while they could and going to a country whose warrior elite had left as the Legions. Whatever we are to make of the stories of Vortigern and the first coming of Hengist and Horsa they probably contain a kernel of truth. The Britons were weak and the Anglo-Saxons were used to fighting.

There is also the settlement of Maelgwyn Gwynedd and his entire people from Strathcyde to North Wales in direct response to Anglian incursions in Scotland.

Sounds like one warlord ousting another. What about it?

The Strathclyde Britons were invited to North Wales because they were losing the war in the north. It is evidence of Britons moving away when they could thus de-populating an area in the face of the Angles in Scotland.

Yes, precisely. England was a piece of piss to conquer. Celtland was a completely different story because effectively a completely different nation.

Perhaps, but as I've said before it's also much more easily defensible. The Cambrian mountains form a natural border against the English.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

What a beautiful faery story.
Send private message
Duncan


In: Yorkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

What a beautiful faery story.

Whatever Ish, but you must be prepared to replace it with a better one. As far as see it there are two distinct alternatives.

1. Anglo-Saxon invaders colonise Britain in much the same way as the Europeans colonised the Americas.
2. They don't.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Duncan wrote:
What a beautiful faery story.

Whatever Ish, but you must be prepared to replace it with a better one. As far as see it there are two distinct alternatives.

What I object to is the endless invention of particulars. We just do not know enough about the past to twaddle over details. Principle provides us with our only key to unlocking ancient history -- chief among them is the historian's version of Newton's First law of Motion:

An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

As what is will be, what is, was, unless overwhelming evidence exists to the contrary.

Speculation about starvation and plague and the sexual composition of an hypothetical invasion force, and what sort of laws were instituted by whom under imagined prevailing social conditions...it's a lark! Complete self-indulgence. We are fooling ourselves to think we know anything about such things.

Stick to the very basics. No speculation allowed. And never violate the first law.
Send private message
Duncan


In: Yorkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

What I object to is the endless invention of particulars. We just do not know enough about the past to twaddle over details. Principle prvides us our only key to unlocking ancient history

It's all about the detail Ish, this is evidence whether it be Archaeological, Historical or Biological, and it needs to be considered. Falling back on maxims and mantras, however persuasive they may be, will only serve to protect you against the reality of evidence. We really shouldn't let the facts get in the way of a good story...
Send private message
Martin



View user's profile
Reply with quote

The Mapuche of, what is now, southern Chile were conquered by the Spanish. They were subjugated and became part of Chile. However their language Mapudungan is still widely spoken, especially in the south.

The most popular football team in Chile is Colo Colo, it is named after a famous Mapuche leader who heroically fought the Spanish invaders, commanding the Mapuche forces in a number of key battles. It is said that Colo Colo will return when the Mapuche are in their darkest hour... ok, I made that last bit up.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I disagree with Ishmael about not allowing speculation but the speculation has to meet a certain basic reasonableness. Take this

Perhaps, but as I've said before it's also much more easily defensible. The Cambrian mountains form a natural border against the English.

Well, a fair enough 'speculation' except the Cambrian mountains are nowhere near the border between the English and the Welsh. Offa's Dyke runs through glorious lowland meadow throughout. One might even say it's the only large area in Wales that isn't mountainous. It is of course a commonplace observation that people hold out in mountainous terrain a bit longer, and the Welsh certainly did from time to time. In places. Other places they didn't. The correlation is just not there but this kind of lazy plausibility is rife in all history books.

Only later would they be joined by farming types with their families. That's what happened with the Danes. The motive? Britain was richer. The Anglo-Saxons lands were overpopulated. We're talking about the collapse of the Roman Empire with entire populations on the move. Warfare was endemic. Why should the Anglo-Saxons be spared?

If you are going to make a case from this kind of informed chat (even you would scarcely claim it to be more forensic than that) then you must try for a minimum of consistency. OK, Danes are like Anglo-Saxons (so why don't we speak Danish); OK the Anglo-Saxons are like all the other post-Roman wandering tribes, so why don't they speak Gothic in Spain or Lombardic in Italy?

The Strathclyde Britons were invited to North Wales because they were losing the war in the north. It is evidence of Britons moving away when they could thus de-populating an area in the face of the Angles in Scotland.

Apart from the fact that the Angles never reached Strathclyde, this kind of population movement absolutely dominates ancient history and therefore modern history. But I ask you, who in their right minds is going to invite a foreign population to replace one's own? You just don't. Who invites foreign mercenaries in? Absolutely everybody.

Which reminds me, that's another difference between North America and Romano-Britain. The Anglo-Saxons were invited in. They are known to be mercenary warbands. The European settlers in America weren't invited in. They are known to have been families specifically settling in for the long haul.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

It's all about the detail Ish, this is evidence whether it be Archaeological, Historical or Biological, and it needs to be considered.

The central question. So what counts as evidence? Let's try a test case.

Dendrochronologists have found evidence of a significant climatic event in the 540's, a major volcanic eruption which led to falling crop yields and ultimately plague throughout Europe. This must have decimated the British population too.

I say this is not evidence. I say this is essentially a concoction put together by people desperate to preserve the Anglo-Saxon takeover paradigm. Let battle commence.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Groups of colonists, probably young males in the first instance, keen to make a name for themselves, would be trying to carve out some land for themselves in what was still a wealthy country.

So England had to be both worse affected by the plague than the Anglo-Saxons, to make us easy pickings and them still able to mount an invasion; and less affected so that our economy was in better shape than theirs, making the trip worthwhile.

Neat trick.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next

Jump to:  
Page 10 of 13

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group