Page
1 ... 43 44 45 46 47
Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
New Member
|
I just found this paper by Rosser et al - some of you may already be familiar with it. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retri...078479&dopt=AbstractBasically, it suggests that language is less of an indicator of y-chromosone hereditary than geography. The fact that areas of majority briton and minority anglo dna speak english is certainly not a unique event across europe and probably more the norm than otherwise. Political dominance seems to be more important than ethnic origins when determining what language is the best one to learn and use. |
| |
|
New Member
|
Thanks Plymguy.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by ozsean: I just found this paper by Rosser et al - some of you may already be familiar with it. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retri...078479&dopt=AbstractBasically, it suggests that language is less of an indicator of y-chromosone hereditary than geography. The fact that areas of majority briton and minority anglo dna speak english is certainly not a unique event across europe and probably more the norm than otherwise. Political dominance seems to be more important than ethnic origins when determining what language is the best one to learn and use.
Very good point - and it might explain the adoption of the Celtic languages by the ancient Britons and Irish. |
| |
|
|
quote: Basically, it suggests that language is less of an indicator of y-chromosone hereditary than geography. The fact that areas of majority briton and minority anglo dna speak english is certainly not a unique event across europe and probably more the norm than otherwise. Political dominance seems to be more important than ethnic origins when determining what language is the best one to learn and use.
Hi Ozsean, Tracking human migrations by linguistics is fraught with problems. Languages themselves change and peoples change their language too. A major misconception about the celts arose in this way. It used to be believed that the five known celtic languages, brythonic, goidellic, gallic, celtiberian and lepontic indicated a movement, a spreading out, of an ethnic group. Celtic speaking groups were widely dispersed from Ireland in the west to Galatia in Anatolia in the east and Iberia in the south. This idea is now rejected and 'celtic' really only refers to a group of languages. How these languages came to be adopted and what language(s) they replaced is unknown, although fragments of early languages such as Tartesian are thought by some to be indications of an earlier language and others like Lusitanian are thought to be an inbetween stage due to the large number of celtic features. Lusitanian appears to go back to the paleolithic. Basques of course still speak the Basque language, the last of the Vasconic group. Aquitanian was very close to Basque but of course they all speak french now. It doesn't mean to say that the genepool was altered. It seems plausible that there was a common language at one time which was widely spoken in europe. Certain river names are common to many countries. The river Don appears in Britain, Russia, Don and Dneiper, Germany, Danube and France, Rhone (Rhodanus). Such hydronyms are seen as evidence of a widespread pre indo european language, but of course it would have been spoken by many ethnic groups. |
| |
|
|
quote: Very good point - and it might explain the adoption of the Celtic languages by the ancient Britons and Irish.
Jack, This is the big unknown. We may have a clue with the british tribes the romans named, Belgae, Atrebates and Parisi. The names Atrebates and Parisi also existed on the continent and the Belgae of course was a group name for a number of tribes, Morini, Menapi, Nervi etc. The links between Britain and the Continent go back a long way, the Amesbury Archer for example appears to have an origin in what became the 'celtic speaking' part of Rhineland, though we don't know what they actually spoke at the time. The 'celtic' bit just confuses so archaeologists seem to now refer to these groups as cultures, the Parisii of east Yorkshire for example are referred to as the Arras culture. But people were much more mobile than was previously thought. The Amesbury Archer's son appears to have been born in western scotland. Dad came from the Rhineland and both were buried in Amesbury. A new and interesting theory is being developed around the Doggerland Project. The Doggerland, ie much of the present day north sea was inhabited during the paleolithic and it was still possible to walk across during the mesolithic. Peoples living there would have moved both east and west as the sea levels rose until they eventually became cut off. However, it seems that they retained their links. |
| |
|
|
Apologies to Plymguy.
Hi Plymguy, I'd to apologise to you regarding one of my earlier posts in regard to Devon and its flag. After doing some more reading, I now know a lot better about the British kingdom of Dunmonia.
Bearing in mind the general theme of this thread, Devon could therefore be essentially a celtic land under the control of the Wessex elite who stopped at the Tamar.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Hi Plymguy, I'd to apologise to you regarding one of my earlier posts in regard to Devon and its flag. After doing some more reading, I now know a lot better about the British kingdom of Dunmonia.
Bearing in mind the general theme of this thread, Devon could therefore be essentially a celtic land under the control of the Wessex elite who stopped at the Tamar.
Hi Owain, Devon was indeed a part of the British kingdom of Dumnonia, which once extended from Lands End to the River Parrett in Somerset. The West Saxons eventually extended their kingdom of Wessex to include those areas of Dumnonia, which are now part of the modern county of Somerset, and later exerted control over Devon and Cornwall, although these latter two lands were never formally absorbed into the permanent core of Wessex. You are therefore quite correct in concluding that Devon was a British land under the control of the Wessex elite, but so also was Cornwall to a certain extent. For instance, Alfred held personal estates in Cornwall, and Athelstan set up a new diocese in Cornwall and dedicated a church in the far west of Cornwall. They would not have been able to do these things if they did not have control. However, the levels of control that they administered in these counties may have differed slightly, although even in Devon there is some doubt as to whether the discriminatory wergilds, applicable to the native Britons of core Wessex, were enforced. William of Malmesbury wrote (concerning Athelstan’s eviction of the Britons from Exeter): “he obliged them to retreat from Exeter, which till that time they had inhabited with equal privileges with the Angles”. The term “equal privileges” does not correlate with the separate wergilds for Britons (Welsh), as was the case in core Wessex. Also, the historian Michael Wood is of the opinion that it was only the “dissident minority”, which was expelled from Exeter, i.e. those who still refused to adhere to the dictates of the Synod of Whitby. |
| |
|
|
quote: However, the levels of control that they administered in these counties may have differed slightly, although even in Devon there is some doubt as to whether the discriminatory wergilds, applicable to the native Britons of core Wessex, were enforced. William of Malmesbury wrote (concerning Athelstan’s eviction of the Britons from Exeter): “he obliged them to retreat from Exeter, which till that time they had inhabited with equal privileges with the Angles”.
There is surely no justification for saying that because Britons, apparently, enjoyed "equal rights" in Exeter that applied to Devon as a whole. Exeter, I gather, was refounded and fortified by Alfred - as part of his defensive systems of burghs. Perhaps he was trying to encourage settlement and growth by giving Britons more rights within the burgh |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by cottar:
There is surely no justification for saying that because Britons, apparently, enjoyed "equal rights" in Exeter that applied to Devon as a whole.
cottar, I actually stated that there was “some doubt” that the ‘Welsh’ wergilds were enforced in Devon, not that they definitely weren’t. Having said that, there is no direct evidence that the ‘Welsh’ wergilds were applied in Devon either. Even in core Wessex, the separate ‘Welsh’ wergilds ceased to exist in the later law codes. This could mean one of two things. Either Brythonic speech died out in core Wessex, so that the Britons were then classed as being the same as the Saxons, or the Brythonic language remained to some extent, but the discriminatory wergilds were phased out. It is possibly the latter, as Edgar’s law codes talked of “all the nation, whether Englishmen, Danes, or Britons”, so Britons were clearly still recognised as being a significant element in the population. |
| |
|
New Member
|
quote: Originally posted by Harry Amphlett: quote: Originally posted by wendun: The case for Bromborough rests entirely on philological grounds derived from a single variant form in the sources. The real location of Brunanburh will be published in October 2005.
Wendun, Thanks for that info. I gues it will get a lot of media attention. Do you know where it will be published?
The only contemporary record of the battle is the entry for 937AD in the Anglo Saxon Chronicle, and appears as a poem. Only three place names are mentioned: "im Brunanburh" (around Brunanburh - where the battle was fought) and "Dingesmere" from where the surviving raiders escaped back to Dublin - the final place mentioned. The old name for Bromborough is Brunanburh - it is on the old maps, and it is the only variant in the original source. The problem has been no-one has satisfactorily identified or explained Dingesmere .. until last year when a team of researchers from Nottingham (including the Director of the English Place Name Society) published a paper explaining it as "the Thing's mere or mjarr" - the wetland of the Thing, a term used by locals and travellers to the Thing: although the Dee coastline of Wirral has changed considerably since 937AD, there is every chance there was "wetland" in the stretch between Neston- Heswall-Thurstaston. The poem is the only contemporary evidence available. If Bromborough was still called Brunanburh no-one would be disputing the Wirral location (in the same way no-one disputes the Battle of Maldon having taken place at Maldon, even though nothing remains from the Battle). The fundamental mistake that Wood and others have made - and some still make - is to give equal weighting to other names for the battle given by much later writers - 100-200-300 years after the battle and for reasons not necessarily for providing an accurate historical account. Higham in a published paper in 1992 has shown that the arguments of Wood for Brinsworth are untenable and both he and John McNeil Dodgson have given a complete geopolitical argument for the battle taking place in Wirral. As for the claim that the escaping raiders being chased for a long period is inconsistent with a Wirral battle, it can take several hours to travel by foot (running, hiding, dodging) from Bromborough/Bebington to Heswall, as was demonstrated earlier this year. Even though the Mersey may have been nearer, no-one in their right minds would run through enemy lines to get there (and there may have been no vessels to escape from). Although they may have been a long way from their fleet (Higham has suggested the Ribble), the Thing's mere would have given some a chance. Mancunianway |
| |
|
New Member
|
quote: Originally posted by Harry Amphlett: quote: Originally posted by wendun: The case for Bromborough rests entirely on philological grounds derived from a single variant form in the sources. The real location of Brunanburh will be published in October 2005.
Wendun, Thanks for that info. I gues it will get a lot of media attention. Do you know where it will be published?
|
| |
|
New Member
|
Sorry I never got back to you but I found the site mechanisms a bit confusing. The Brunanburh article will be in the Scottish Historical Review this month but I believe it will be referred to in Monday's Herald. Hopefully it gives a new slant on the battle's location.
|
| |
|
New Member
|
quote: Originally posted by Mancunian_way: quote: Originally posted by Harry Amphlett: quote: Originally posted by wendun: The case for Bromborough rests entirely on philological grounds derived from a single variant form in the sources. The real location of Brunanburh will be published in October 2005.
I understand the forthcoming article disputes that either Brunanburh or Dingesmere are place-names with any relevance to the battle's location. Wendun, Thanks for that info. I gues it will get a lot of media attention. Do you know where it will be published?
The only contemporary record of the battle is the entry for 937AD in the Anglo Saxon Chronicle, and appears as a poem. Only three place names are mentioned: "im Brunanburh" (around Brunanburh - where the battle was fought) and "Dingesmere" from where the surviving raiders escaped back to Dublin - the final place mentioned. The old name for Bromborough is Brunanburh - it is on the old maps, and it is the only variant in the original source. The problem has been no-one has satisfactorily identified or explained Dingesmere .. until last year when a team of researchers from Nottingham (including the Director of the English Place Name Society) published a paper explaining it as "the Thing's mere or mjarr" - the wetland of the Thing, a term used by locals and travellers to the Thing: although the Dee coastline of Wirral has changed considerably since 937AD, there is every chance there was "wetland" in the stretch between Neston- Heswall-Thurstaston. The poem is the only contemporary evidence available. If Bromborough was still called Brunanburh no-one would be disputing the Wirral location (in the same way no-one disputes the Battle of Maldon having taken place at Maldon, even though nothing remains from the Battle). The fundamental mistake that Wood and others have made - and some still make - is to give equal weighting to other names for the battle given by much later writers - 100-200-300 years after the battle and for reasons not necessarily for providing an accurate historical account. Higham in a published paper in 1992 has shown that the arguments of Wood for Brinsworth are untenable and both he and John McNeil Dodgson have given a complete geopolitical argument for the battle taking place in Wirral. As for the claim that the escaping raiders being chased for a long period is inconsistent with a Wirral battle, it can take several hours to travel by foot (running, hiding, dodging) from Bromborough/Bebington to Heswall, as was demonstrated earlier this year. Even though the Mersey may have been nearer, no-one in their right minds would run through enemy lines to get there (and there may have been no vessels to escape from). Although they may have been a long way from their fleet (Higham has suggested the Ribble), the Thing's mere would have given some a chance. Mancunianway
|
| |
|
|
Wendun
Has your user name got anything to do with the "Weodun" referred to in Wood's book?
Mancunianway
"Higham in a published paper in 1992 has shown that the arguments of Wood for Brinsworth are untenable and both he and John McNeil Dodgson have given a complete geopolitical argument for the battle taking place in Wirral. As for the claim that the escaping raiders being chased for a long period is inconsistent with a Wirral battle, it can take several hours to travel by foot (running, hiding, dodging) from Bromborough/Bebington to Heswall, as was demonstrated earlier this year. Even though the Mersey may have been nearer, no-one in their right minds would run through enemy lines to get there (and there may have been no vessels to escape from). Although they may have been a long way from their fleet (Higham has suggested the Ribble), the Thing's mere would have given some a chance."
Why would the combined army allow itself to be bottled up in the Wirral? That seems strategically crass to me.
Surely if they did fight at Bromborough they would have had ships at their back on the Mersey estuary?
Where is the sense on fighting near the Mersey but having your ships on the Dee?
|
| |
|
New Member
|
Cottar, yes it does. Simeon of Durham called the battle site 'Weondune otherwise named Etbrunnanwerc or called Brunanbyrig' and the Durham Historia Regum called it simply 'apud (at, by or near)Wendune.' These names and other evidence are considered in detail in my article in the October Scottish Historical Review which dismisses the Bromborough claim as based solely on a fiction. The Bromborough pack try to shout down critics by repeating constantly that the form which supports them (Brunanburh) is the earliest form and therefore the only valid one. This is o-level history in that they rely purely on the document's date and ignore questions of provenance, purpose, who wrote it and why etc. The most obvious thing to remember about the source of the 'burh' form is that it is a POEM constructed according to alliterative and syllabic requirements of OE and Germanic poetry, a panegyric not a guide to location. Where later chroniclers DO attempt to suggest a location for the battle they usually ignore the poetic form.
|
| |
|
|
Wendun
Thanks for that, obviously an interesting argument between you and Mancunianway.
Simeon says that a large number of ships were in the Humber. Doesn't he give a figure?
Whose ships would they be though? Wouldn't it make sense for the Vikings of Dublin and the Western Isles to have landed in the Mersey, Dee, Ribble - rather than go all the way round to the Humber? I can see the sense though in enlisting the support of the Scandanavian settlements in Yorks and the east Midlands, so an easterly approach is indicated. It is puzzling
|
| |
|
New Member
|
Cottar, the Humber reference originated with John of Worcester and advocates of Bromborough and sites other than in eastern England consider it to be a simple error. Simeon refers to 615 ships BUT does not place them in the Humber. Several later chroniclers who base much of their stuff on JOW do NOT mention the Humber either so it may well be an error. What is not always appreciated is that all the references to a fleet concern only part of the coalition army and Simeon, for example, differentiates clearly between 'Anlaf with 615 ships...and the king of the Scots and Cumbrians with all their host.' There are repeated references to Anlaf's fleet in the sources but no identification of Causantin or Owain with the sea or a fleet but rather with an 'army' or 'host'.
|
| |
|
|
wendun
"What is not always appreciated is that all the references to a fleet concern only part of the coalition army"
I guess I realised that - and that the Strathclyde Brits and Scots would come overland, on the face of it that seems to make it even more unlikely that they would allow themselves to be bottled up in the Wirral with totally inadequate means of withdrawing. As invaders the initiative must have been theirs, unless they tamely allowed themselves to be corralled into a killing ground with little prospect of escape.
So where does that leave us, wendun? Would they have taken the western route perhaps to link up with the Welsh, or the eastern route to link up with the fighting power of the Scandanavian settlements there? If Anlaf's task force didn't land in the Humber estuary, where then? What is your proposal?
|
| |
|
New Member
|
Cottar, it's all in my article which should be out any day now.I'm not being evasive or anything but to try and reduce complex arguments into a short explanation is very difficult. When the editor sends me some copies (I'm assuming I will get some, or at least an e-version) I will happily send you one. There was quite a long piece in Monday's Herald but the English press don't appear to have taken it up. I'm not sure how effective the SHR publicity machine is but it's clearly not yet a match for the Bromborough self-publicists who appear to be close to incorporating Brunanburh as a Wirral tourist attraction. Galling when the campaign didn't come within a 100 miles of the place.
|
| |
|
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
