quote:

The vast majority of the Scottish people speak English as a first language and on the east coast (Doric) and in the lowlands (Lallans) will have done so for thousands of years, if we know our Oppenheimer.

I am indeed intrigued by this assertion that lallans and Doric are somehow remnants of a pre roman tongue..

That aside, the problem with all the linguistic evidence is it does not fit the solid, real and verifiable archaeological evidence.

Why would it be that towns and villages with Anglian names start in the period when the Anglians come to the Lothians - why would it be that prior to that period, there were no 'real' towns and they all appear in the later 11th and 12th century based on Anglian foundations.

I really can't get my head around the concept you promote of

quote:

"Gaelic being brought to Scotland by the Dal Riata invading from Ireland. They were based at the fortress of Dunadd, near Dunoon. It was they who then progressively defeated the rival Picts, Strathclyde Britons and Lothian Angles to unite Scotland under Kenneth McAlpin.

ps... quite right about the Dumbarton - too much vino!! I should know better... I worked there!

If I remember they (the Dalradians) were nearly wiped out, but fortunately hung on and through marriage became kings of both Pictish lands... (I note that Pictish sounds nothing like english... so I am also interested in how that fits in)

I also note you are getting quite a bit of info on this region from Wikipedia.. right down to the quote from Andrew of Wyntoun's "Orygynale Cronykil of Scotland"

To ask why a 15th century Fife person would speak English is not to understand the relationship between Lothian and Fife, or Edinburgh and Kirkaldy, Dunfermline etc...

An understanding of teh movement and distribution of people from the 6th -12th centuries in this area explains everything. As to people speaking english... well why not... it would be the language you deal with people - you trade in, you work with... Scottish Kings of later years (and remember that scotland is not a unitied entity for many centuries) could speak (or had to) a number of tongues such as Gaelic, Scots, Latin and French.. in order to deal with differing situations or peoples.

To say teh Anglians never settled in Fife is not quite true... however I am sure you already know this paper, but if not... and for others
Scots Paper

I do hope you don't dismiss the histories as fairytales, without full and deeper research.

I may not be right, but I do come from the location, have worked on the sites and have held the evidence in my hands..... so to speak.

This has definately got me pondering hard!

quote:

The vast majority of the Scottish people speak English as a first language and on the east coast (Doric) and in the lowlands (Lallans) will have done so for thousands of years, if we know our Oppenheimer.

Hi Duncan,

Oppenheimer says that people who later became known as germanic may have come earlier than previously thought and that they possibly spoke an early form of english.

That is quite different from will have done.

quote:

This is a Scotsman from Fife (remember the Anglo-Sxaons never settled there)

How do you know that? They don't have to be Bernicians or Northumbrians. Capelli put Stonehaven in the roughly 30% part of the plot and by the MCMC analysis it is 57.6% Germanic. Even Pitlochry is, by MCMC 45.3%.

quote:

It's barmy Jean.

It's quite common Duncan.

Under Katherine the Great, a german, French was the language of court in Russia. The danish court too spoke german during several periods. If you look, you'll find many other instances.

best

Harry A

quote:

Originally posted by Harry Amp:

quote:

This is a Scotsman from Fife (remember the Anglo-Sxaons never settled there)

How do you know that? They don't have to be Bernicians or Northumbrians. Capelli put Stonehaven in the roughly 30% part of the plot and by the MCMC analysis it is 57.6% Germanic. Even Pitlochry is, by MCMC 45.3%.

We have absolutely no record of it Harry. If there were Anglo-Saxons up there then it would have been known to Bede, surely? Northumbria stops at the Forth. Surely Egfrith would have received their aid in 685 rather than just facing hostile Picts and Athelstan when he reached Dunottar, just outside Stonehaven, in 934, would surely have recognised the Old English tongue spoken by his fellow Anglo-Saxons.

Harry, I think the evidence from Capelli et al clearly demonstrates that Germanic immigration had happened well before the Anglo-Saxon migration.

Cheers,

Duncan.

quote:

Surely Egfrith would have received their aid in 685 rather than just facing hostile Picts and Athelstan when he reached Dunottar, just outside Stonehaven, in 934, would surely have recognised the Old English tongue spoken by his fellow Anglo-Saxons.

Now I am confused... for if the theory proposed is that 'english' was spoken in Scotland (Fife even) prior to Anglian incursions then they might have mentioned it... It sounds like the equivalent of turning up in France... and the locals saying... "Hwd yew doo - wlcm to ur contary and doo hav a CuppaTee" we would be going... oi! hang about that sounds nearly like us!

Either English was spoken or it was not... and imho.. it was not... in any form spoken in the Lothians until after the Anglians.

Its the only way that anything makes sense..??

Ask yourself this, BAJR: If English was always spoken everywhere in Scotland outside the Highlands and Islands, what historical document would either confirm or deny this fact? If you come up with examples of the latter I will undertake to explain them (away).

quote:

If English was always spoken everywhere in Scotland outside the Highlands and Islands, what historical document would either confirm or deny this fact?

well I did... then I thought I can't think of any that show english was spoken .. (of course which date you are talking about matters... 7thC or 20th C ) I can't accept non-tangible evidence, especially when the solid evidence of archaeology shows a more reasonable and perfectly useable framework. It seems baffling to suggest that english was spoken in Scotland, when the clear and irrefutable evidence shows that by no coincidence the names (with english origins) appear at the same time as this people from Northumbria... well I am happy with that... the evidence, the names and the times all meet to create a solid framework.. to make the English before theory work, you do have to explain annomolies and fit round pegs into square holes.. you have to explain things away.. however with the other 'theory' - the one accepted.. has no inconsistancy -- no need to force evidence to fit theory.. Do you have any documents saying... for example... Diary of A Roman Centurian... " by Jove these natives speak a language a bit like english" seriously though .. do you have any documents that conclusively show english was spoken ?

quote:

Harry, I think the evidence from Capelli et al clearly demonstrates that Germanic immigration had happened well before the Anglo-Saxon migration.

There is no timing on this in Capelli, so we don't know.

We don't know if the Parisii of the Arras culture in Yorkshire are the same as the continental Parisii and, even if they were, what their genetic make up was.

Thus, we can speculate that groups such as the Parisii did come from the continent and did settle further north, in the eastern parts of Scotland for example. We even have suggestions that the Arras culture in Yorkshire did have links with Scotland, eg. the Newbridge burial near Edinburgh, but it's still a leap of faith to conclude they spoke english. The Mosel region of Germany, where similar burials are found, was a Celtic speaking region.

best

Harry A

Your confusion, BAJR, or rather history's confusion, is that people and places only come into the historical record the moment somebody with a written language stumbles onto the scene, and we happen to have their documentation.

So it is quite incorrect to say that English place-names only turn up when the Anglo-Saxons do. You should say, "Place names in the Lothians were first recorded after the Anglo-Saxons turned up." But now we come to a second complication. Since Anglo-Saxon and English are related languages, it is inherently difficult to decide whether a particular name is English or Anglo-Saxon...or neither.

You can follow this problem yourself by considering the most important name of all in the Lothians -- Edinburgh. For years modern historians wrote textbooks that routinely said that this name denoted Edwin's burgh ie an Anglo-Saxon bloke founding an Anglo-Saxon town. But then the archaeologists discovered that Edinburgh was way older than the Anglo-Saxons, so they now say the name means something else. I can't remember what...I regard the whole Place-Name Industry as a very forgettable branch of learning.

Quite agree about place name as only evidence.. but I am lokoin at places.. and they appear first in Anglian time.. and are named with Anglian names... while @older palces' seem to have Brythinic names.. Dalkeith, Pentland, Roslin, Penicuik etc etc

You're overlooking another fact, BAJR. When people report place-names they select out whatever supports their theory, make a list of these places and amaze the unwary.

Applied Epistemologists go about the problem with a little more scientific rigour:
1. We select an area at random, let's say an OS map of part of the Lothians.
2. We list the place-names -- let's say there are a hundred of them
3. We eliminate the ones that are obviously modern
4. We are left with a sample of names for which there is no certain origin
5. We list the ones that reputable authorities (eg The Place Name Society) have given an origin to
6. We list all the others.

I don't know what the situation is in the Lothians but in England the situation tends to pan out along these lines
a tiny smattering of 'Brythonic' names
a tiny smattering of 'Roman' names
a tiny smattering of 'Anglo-Saxon' names
a tiny smattering of Norse/Danish/Norman names
ninety per cent plus 'English' names.

I have put everything in quotes because uncertainty goes with the territory. As you can see this supports The History of Britain Revealed's contention that England's place names reflect the fact that English has always been the native mother-tongue but that various invaders have founded settlements from time to time. The invaders are long gone but, as you probably know, place names are of quite incredible tenacity.

However, it would be right to point out that when I say 'English' names I include the vast majority which are in fact 'meaningless'. In other words they appear to be of such vast antiquity that we can no longer award them rhyme nor reason but they certainly do not seem to have a Brythonic, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, Danish or Norman ring to them

quote:

English

now I am even more confused

I was under the impression that 'English' and "Anglo-Saxon" were kind of the same(ish)

I am interested about this 90% english names.. and a tiny smattering of Saxon.. I have teh feeling I am going to be told that Wic and Ton and Ham and all the rest are not saxon... but "English"... Can you give me a couple of examples of these English names....

I now understand - the title is a question

Q: English Spoken in Pre-Roman Britain?
A: No


phew ... that was easier than I thought.

Your confusion is entirely understandable, BAJR, because English and Anglo-Saxon are related, that is agreed by both sides. Orthodoxy believes the relation arises because English is the modern form of Anglo-Saxon, the revisionist school believes the relatedness arises because English, Anglo-Saxon, German, Danish, Frisian all happen to be related languages ie people living near one another with languages presumably derived from a common ancestor.

And you're quite right about the place-name endings problem. Take the one you mention, 'ton'. The word means farmyard in Danish and garden in Dutch. What does it mean in English? Well, we don't exactly know but we have a Newcastle dialect word "toon" as in The Toon Army, which means 'town'. And of course we have the word town itself. We don't know what it means in Anglo-Saxon because, as far as I know, it does not appear as an independent word in any A/S text that has come down to us.

Make of that what you will.

quote:

Originally posted by BAJR:
Q: English Spoken in Pre-Roman Britain?
A: No

BAJR, youve previuosly mentioned how you have worked on archaeological sites/digs (stop me if I'm going too far). I also trust that your faith in the scientific method informs your belief in the validity of clear evidence and rational argument. Before you close your mind to new ideas (I know its easy because we humans so don't like the effort of having to change our deeply held beliefs) I would suggest you become au fait with the ideas at source.

You've two approaches:

Stephen Oppenheimer's The Origins of the British, encyclopeadic and copiously evidenced from an Oxford geneticist.

M.J. Harper's The History of Britain Revealed ,incisive, polemical and incendiary.

They disagree in places but you need to know what they're saying in depth before you can simply dismiss them.

Of course you are right... So I will make a beeline to a library and order up these books.

I am only too aware of deeply held and deeply researched work which collapses when presented with solid evidence.. however, before I make wild comments about these studies, I would eb best to at least give the benefit.. and read.

I am no stranger to coming up with wild theories myself, including the ridiculous concept of cave carvings in the Wye Valley (in 1981) - hey we were young and foolish! And imagine my shock when we were ripped apart by a disbeliving establishment... impossible, fraud.. natural... and then 25, nearly 30 years later... guess what... cave carvings are found!

So yup... I will read... but I wil also remember that solid on site evidence counts 10 times more than theories

Curiously, BAJR, it is evidence that you will NOT find, on either side of the ledger. As many of you have noted here, even such 'scientific' evidence as DNA turns out not to be particularly decisive. And when it comes to palaeolinguistics you will find that there really is no evidence. Literally. An unwritten language tells no tales. Of course there is plenty of "chat" -- people saying, "Well, that sounds like that so why don't we stick them together." That's essentially what place-name etymology amounts to. Plus a lot of chat.

Since you are an archaeologist, BAJR, you will perhaps know a little of this. Entire peoples have their history constructed on the say-so of a shard or two. The reason: we can't stand not knowing. We'd rather have a spurious history than no history.

quote:

it is evidence that you will NOT find, on either side of the ledger

In that case, I could suggest that people pre Roman spoke mandarin Chinese, and not have to back it up with evidence. (Apart from the name evidence of Ming Campbell!) and the assertion that Central Asian migrants went east and west.

quote:

We'd rather have a spurious history than no history.

That’s where an archaeologist diverges from an historian... (or should!) An Archaeologist should base theories on actual artefactual or scientific evidence, a clear black white - though of course I realise we often wander into the realms of grey, with suppositions of why..

But sticking to facts - or producing evidence is what we are about, academics then take these 'facts' and construct what they will.

For example... this pot is made of this clay, which comes from this location. These teeth contain enamel that contains fluoride from this location. This house is this shape and in this area there is ash and in this area there are metalworking debris and in this part there is high nitrate and a series of postholes. How all this is interpreted can go awry, but the actual evidence in incontrovertible, unless badly excavated.

To deal with intangibles such as religious rights and verbal communication is not possible in the realms of archaeology. (It would always remain conjecture, no matter ho much physical evidence is gathered to make hypothesis – shape of larynx, shape of brain case etc)

It is for this reason that we can have a million theories about what happened at a religious ceremony at Stonehenge… all can be very convincing, but all can also be discounted with, but we will never know what they were thinking,

We can know there was a link between Woodhenge and Stonehenge, but we can’t know how many people went along it at one time… 1, 10, 100, 1000? Were they dressed in skins or naked, were the laughing, crying, singing, playing reed flutes? We don’t know.

In the case of English being spoken in Britain as an aboriginal Language – all I can look at archaeologically is the evidence.. So first I will read the books, then I will look at the hard evidence.. and decide whether the possibility exits..

Many people are misled by this word 'evidence'. Let me give you a current example. We have overwhelming evidence of 'alien abduction'. That is, we have thousands upon thousands of contemporaneous eye-witness accounts of the phenomenon from completely normal, completely believable people. Does this make 'alien abduction' true? No. Why not? Because we apply two other tests:
1) Is the phenomenon inherently probable? Amswer, no. In overall terms, the idea is risible.
2) Do we have an alternative explanation? Amswer, yes. There's a medical condition, probably connected to oxygen deprivation during sleep, which causes people to have particularly believable 'waking dreams'.

Let's apply these thoughts to the matter under discussion here. The problem stated:
England c 500 AD was populated by people speaking Brythonic, a language akin to Welsh
England c 800 AD was populated by people speaking Anglo-Saxon, a language akin to English.
What is the evidence for this? All relevant academic specialists -- historians, archaeologists, linguists -- claim that it is 'overwhelming' and present that evidence in hundreds, thousands of books, lectures, monographs, telly programmes etc etc

Applied Epistemologists ask the other two questions:
1. Is it overall inherently plausible? Answer, no. For millions of people to so radically change their language in such a short period of time is highly unusual, almost unprecedented.
2. Is there an alternative explanation? Answer, yes. The inhabitants of England were speaking English and not 'Welsh' in c500 AD and the Anglo-Saxons were a ruling elite speaking Anglo-Saxon, a language related to but quite different from English.

Then you go back to the 'evidence' and you find that it is far from overwhelming. Indeed it is surprisingly supportive of the new paradigm. And you make your own mind up as to whether you are going to break with orthodoxy.

quote:

We have overwhelming evidence of 'alien abduction'.

We don't have any evidence. All we have is, to use your word, 'chat'.

The kind of evidence BAJR is talking about is a substance, material containing elements not found on this planet, or some technology unknown to us.

Even then, it is not evidence of alien abduction but is at least something useful which can be investigated. If you later find this previously unknown element on earth, then you can at least re write the periodic table.

best

Harry A

quote:

Many people are misled by this word 'evidence'.

Indeed they are.. the example of alien abduction was not evidence for an archaeologist, it is non-verifiable, evidence would be an alien artefact, would be a piece of spacesuit or a skull with 3 eye sockets and DNA with three strands - somebody telling me what they saw is not evidence, neither is a book telling me that people in Asia have dog heads or mouths in their bellies …(as some writers in the medieval period would have us believe) Evidence for an archaeologist would be actual physical proof. …
So let us subject this to that same criteria:

quote:

1. Is it overall inherently plausible? Answer, no. For millions of people to so radically change their language in such a short period of time is highly unusual, almost unprecedented.

Are there millions of people in Britain around 7th Century AD
Answer, from study of settlement patterns, and population models: NO
This is also based on records from 1066 – where money was involved and taxation I tend to trust the results – as you want to squeeze as much… population in England
Circa 1,100,000 and Scotland in 1086 having around 500,000 (though it is harder to get an accurate figure)

Are these people all speaking the same language.. (harder to say from solid evidence, however, each group (at the 6-8th century period) is characterised by distinct and obvious differences – different houses, different ornaments, different pottery, different burial customs etc etc… so are we now talking about the change of language of a few hundred thousand of a number of centuries? Look more like it now… I would only point to several places like New Zealand and Australia, wher a relaitivly small group of English Speakers withing a few centuries have imposed English as the language of the country… not to say that the indiginous populations still talk the talk… but add another thousand years, which is where we are now, and you could believe that New Zealand always talked English too…. UNLESS you look at the archaeological evidence, look at the period of cultural insertion, look at the change in settlment pattern etc etc etc…..

Your strictures on what is archaeological evidence, BAJR, is mostly beside the point (except admittedly for an archaeologist). Virtually all historical evidence comes from contemporaneous written sources. If a future historian unearths a cache of accounts describing episodes of alien abduction, he would, all other things being equal, be well within his rights to start composing a book describing the late twentieth century as a time when aliens frequently visited earth. That book will be a model of historical method, replete with footnotes, citations, peer review and the rest.

That is one of the main criticisms Applied Epistemologists aim at historians, especially historians of the Dark Ages. The historians are relying on contemporaries actually knowing what the situation is and then reporting it faithfully. [Besides trying to divine what is actually contemporaneous or not -- see my discussions re Bede.]

This has a profound effect on the matters you have just raised, for instance the population of Britain at various times. Nobody knew at the time so we have no strictly historical evidence and we have perforce to fall back on modern estimates from indirect sources. The ones you mention are, I am sure, put forward in good faith by people with all the relevant professional skills. But you must be aware that other equally professional workers have with equally good faith come up with figures widely different from the ones you cite.

Personally, I don't much care one way or the other. A considerable population speaking one language was supplanted by another considerable population speaking a quite different language. And it's a bit of a puzzler how this came about.

You quite properly cite cases where this has happened. But let me remind you of the differences between Australia/New Zealand in the modern era and Britain in Anglo-Saxon times:
1. It was the natives, the Romano-Brits, that were the culturally more advanced
2. The two people had had millennia of contact so there can be no question of infectious diseases, alcoholism etc effecting one side and not the other
3. The natives were not a small population of hunter-gatherers or primitive slash-n-burners, they were a large (we don't know how large) settled population of advanced agriculturalists.
4. The British settlers in Australia/NZ had a functional reason for 'disposing' of the natives, they got in the way of British nineteenth century agricultural methods. The Anglo-Saxons would have been positively perverse to get rid of the British natives -- if you conquer a new country do you really want to do the backbreaking work of growing your own food? Speaking for myself, I'd keep the natives doing all that stuff while I repaired to the Big House on the hill and enjoyed the fruits of conquest.

And by the way, it's amazing how the artefacts of the Big House dominate the archaeology of the period. A Roman villa is quite different from an Anglo-Saxon wassail-hall and get loads of attention -- it even gets called "Roman" and "Anglo-Saxon". But the peasants' stuff doesn't change much over time so archaeologists tend to use it for dating purposes....sort of "Roman" and "Anglo-Saxon". If you know what I mean. But of course we don't know what the peasants were speaking in either era. We only know that the people in the Big Houses spoke Latin and Anglo-Saxon respectively.