The Anglo-Saxon 'invasions' of Britain?

[Treffie]

There is modern evidence, according to recent archaeology, that destabilises the popularly held theory in some quarters that the Anglo-Saxons brutally invaded Celtic Britain genocidally.

The Saxon “Shore Forts” (maybe a mistranslation form the 16thC by William Camden) – 11 of which stud the south coast of England from Porchester in the south to Brancaster in Norfolk (east)- are supposedly a series of military Roman forts built especially to launch a counter-attack by Roman cavalry and repel any Saxon invasions, which may be partly true.
But experts have studied the building style of the forts and it seems that they were not originally intended to keep foreign invaders out, but to control outwardly-bound trade from within- much as Hadrian’s Wall and Offa’s Dyke did.

At West Heslerton in northern England, an archaeological dig using geophysical analysis– nicknamed the ‘ladder settlement’ due to it’s vast size and series of hamlets and farmsteads spread over 7km along a central trackway- the biggest comprehensive survey in the world of it’s kind- shows a huge settlement dating from before 2000bc to the 8thC ad, and even though there is intermittent influxes of waves of peoples over time backed up by Stable Isotope Analysis (from the University of Durham) which examines tooth enamel and revealing the origins of the person, did not show any violent disturbance to the “Celtic” settlement as had the Romans and as did the later Vikings and Normans.

It revealed rather, many of those skeletons, mostly female, found there were ‘local’, ‘poor’ peoples- not nobility or warriors, but revealing also that a peaceful, long-term economic migration of approximately half of the unearthed peoples were either Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian or western English (Cumbria) or even Welsh. There were no war cemeteries (ie. Sutton Hoo or dolmens etc) or dramatic change which a forced and violent invasion would suggest. Only a gentle change in fashion, weaponry etc as from the continent, and there was no gap of culture or peace in between the end of the Romano-British era and the advent of the English.

The language of English Britain is traditionally believed to have been Romano-British or Celtic with a sudden change to Anglo-Saxon, but again, a more fluid blend of Anglo-Celtic runs in modern English when the syntax, vocabulary, structure and accents are examined from Old English to modern.

It seems that, as they had only centuries prior, when the Romans invaded in 54/55bc and battled/settled, the Celts again adopted the new dominant language, people and way of life much as we in England today have US t-shirts, German cars and own Japanese electrical goods?

Of course, in some regions the Anglo-saxons may have waged war in these early days, and certainly did later on as they expanded west and north into the lands of a warlike people, but the evidence so far doesn’t support the initial 'mass invasion' theory.

There even seem to be suggestion that there was an established Anglo-Celtic church by the time that the Vatican had ordered missionaries such as St.Augustine to convert Britain in the early 6thC. ie. The Celts and/or Romano-Britons already had a complex system of astrological computations and symbols for Easter etc.

Apparently so shocked were they by this apparent order, that they decided upon a course of denial, and Anglo-saxons such as the Venerable Bede (who never ventured far from Northumbria) had their own agenda and demonised the native British as being unholy and backward, and thus ‘re-invented’ the English, as did the later Victorians. So hence the aggressive and sudden 'invasion' theory.

So, did the Anglo-Saxons actually wage war in ‘England’ in any initial fighting with the warlike Celts- as they themselves may have done 7-500bc when they also landed in these Isles?

http://www.englistory.co.uk/

[Osweo]

There is modern evidence, according to recent archaeology, that destabilises the popularly held theory in some quarters that the Anglo-Saxons brutally invaded Celtic Britain genocidally.
Illiteracy. Where is Psy's Jean Luc Picard Face-Palm pic when you need it?

The Saxon “Shore Forts” (maybe a mistranslation form the 16thC by William Camden)
THat an illiterate dares to have an opinion on such a great man! :rofl:

– 11 of which stud the south coast of England from Porchester in the south to Brancaster in Norfolk (east)- are supposedly a series of military Roman forts built especially to launch a counter-attack by Roman cavalry and repel any Saxon invasions, which may be partly true.
Or very, indeed. :rolleyes: There was a good reason why there was a Count of the Saxon Shore, with a big body of men under him, after all! :rolleyes:

But experts have studied the building style of the forts and it seems that they were not originally intended to keep foreign invaders out, but to control outwardly-bound trade from within- much as Hadrian’s Wall and Offa’s Dyke did.
How on Earth could you tell that from the remains? :rolleyes:
And the places needn't be so much impregnable fortresses as convenient bases, anyway.

At West Heslerton in northern England, an archaeological dig using geophysical analysis– nicknamed the ‘ladder settlement’ due to it’s vast size and series of hamlets and farmsteads spread over 7km along a central trackway- the biggest comprehensive survey in the world of it’s kind- shows a huge settlement dating from before 2000bc to the 8thC ad, and even though there is intermittent influxes of waves of peoples over time backed up by Stable Isotope Analysis (from the University of Durham) which examines tooth enamel and revealing the origins of the person, did not show any violent disturbance to the “Celtic” settlement as had the Romans and as did the later Vikings and Normans.
Why should it? Lingering Welsh populations have figured in the academic literature for centuries. It's not a 'discovery'! :rolleyes:

It revealed rather, many of those skeletons, mostly female, found there were ‘local’, ‘poor’ peoples- not nobility or warriors, but revealing also that a peaceful, long-term economic migration
I.e. "Aren't Pakis great? And don't they follow in a very ancient British tradition?" :rolleyes::mad:
And what's peaceful about terrorising natives into handing over half their harvest? You needn't kill anybody to achieve that! :rolleyes:

of approximately half of the unearthed peoples were either Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian or western English (Cumbria) or even Welsh.
How thick can you get? Answer: Very. :(

There were no war cemeteries (ie. Sutton Hoo or dolmens etc)
How the FUCK is Sutton Hoo a war cemetery!?!? Some of its men may have died in battle, but that was elsewhere, and doesn't account for the rest.

or dramatic change which a forced and violent invasion would suggest. Only a gentle change in fashion, weaponry etc as from the continent, and there was no gap of culture or peace in between the end of the Romano-British era and the advent of the English.
My Little Ponyism strikes again...

The language of English Britain is traditionally believed to have been Romano-British or Celtic with a sudden change to Anglo-Saxon, but again, a more fluid blend of Anglo-Celtic runs in modern English when the syntax, vocabulary, structure and accents are examined from Old English to modern.
THere is something to that, but it's overstated usually. Hardly argues against major invasion and violence, though.

It seems that, as they had only centuries prior, when the Romans invaded in 54/55bc and battled/settled, the Celts again adopted the new dominant language, people and way of life much as we in England today have US t-shirts, German cars and own Japanese electrical goods?
No, our ancestors were not always as useless walkovers as we are now. It takes major fatigue from World Wars and Imperial collapse to do that!

Of course, in some regions the Anglo-saxons may have waged war in these early days, and certainly did later on as they expanded west and north into the lands of a warlike people, but the evidence so far doesn’t support the initial 'mass invasion' theory.
What theory? What are its details? Oh sorry, that's too difficult to understand for this author! :rolleyes:

There even seem to be suggestion that there was an established Anglo-Celtic church by the time that the Vatican had ordered missionaries such as St.Augustine to convert Britain in the early 6thC. ie. The Celts and/or Romano-Britons already had a complex system of astrological computations and symbols for Easter etc.
THick as pig shit.

Apparently so shocked were they by this apparent order, that they decided upon a course of denial, and Anglo-saxons such as the Venerable Bede (who never ventured far from Northumbria) had their own agenda and demonised the native British as being unholy and backward, and thus ‘re-invented’ the English, as did the later Victorians. So hence the aggressive and sudden 'invasion' theory.
"Genius, Holmes!" :rofl:

So, did the Anglo-Saxons actually wage war in ‘England’ in any initial fighting with the warlike Celts- as they themselves may have done 7-500bc when they also landed in these Isles?
Eh? :rolleyes:

[Loki]

What hogwash. Even genetics support the A-S invasion history.

[Treffie]

LOL:D

I found this article on All Empires History forum so I was wondering what reaction it would get here. ;)

[Osweo]

LOL:D

I found this article on All Empires History forum so I was wondering what reaction it would get here. ;)

Far more than it deserved!

But things do need spelling out occasionally. The Proles may be reading this, after all... ;)

[Hussar]

Hmmmm..........from what i know (Classic/ancient demography), England had something like 1,5 million of native inhabitants.

Anglo-Saxons invaders between 300'000-400'000 peoples.


On an hypothetical grand total of 2 millions of peoples..........A-S couldn't be more than 25% of populations.

[Osweo]

Hmmmm..........from what i know (Classic/ancient demography), England had something like 1,5 million of native inhabitants.

Anglo-Saxons invaders between 300'000-400'000 peoples.

On an hypothetical grand total of 2 millions of peoples..........A-S couldn't be more than 25% of populations.

1.5 M? Let's say a million of breeding age. 500,000 couples. If there's a great malaise in the air, as a result of political chaos, invasion, devastation of agricultural land, rapacious landlords demanding dues to feed demanding warbands, and so on, it might not be too out of the question to imagine low birthrates of a modern scale. If we say even 2.5 and add the natural child mortality rate, you have a disaster scenario for the natives. If the invaders are buoyant with success and wealth, they each might rear at least three kids each. We know for a fact that women were brought from 'home' too. If half the Saxons had a native wife and concubines, and half stuck to their own, you might get an eventual stable population in most of Eastern Britain of 1/3 Welsh, 1/3 English and 1/3 mixed. Doesn't sound too unrealistic to me.

We have the 'benefit' over older scholars of the example before our eyes of modern Britain... :(

[Loki]

Hmmmm..........from what i know (Classic/ancient demography), England had something like 1,5 million of native inhabitants.

Anglo-Saxons invaders between 300'000-400'000 peoples.


On an hypothetical grand total of 2 millions of peoples..........A-S couldn't be more than 25% of populations.

The thing is, there seems to have been a systematic replacement going on, via a sort of apartheid system, which was nothing less than genocide of the original population.

Anglo-Saxon Apartheid: Genetic evidence (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3130)

[Osweo]

The thing is, there seems to have been a systematic replacement going on, via a sort of apartheid system, which was nothing less than genocide of the original population.

Words like 'apartheid' sell books. That's all. :rolleyes: It's too much to suppose that the Angles had a thought out system in mind. Things just happened, tendencies played out, sympathies, antipathies, statistics, chance...

.... fate?

[Allenson]

My thought is that population genetics still is not yet sophisticated enough to tease out population movements that were already quite similar as the native Brits and Anglo-Saxons likely were. It's one thing when the populations were very disparate--like say East Anglian Purtians and Algonquins but I doubt that the residents of either side of the North Sea were really all that different at a genetic level.

I also hold that the toponym evidence is one of the strongest pieces of the argument of at least a sizeable Anglo-Saxon movement.

There are also some folks who hold that even during Roman occupation times, there was already a fairly large Germanic, Englisc speaking populaton along England's east coast....

[Hussar]

@ LOKI and OSWEO



Sorry guys, but i think that the problem isn't scientific or historical, but the result of a subtle correlation between historiography and meta-poltic theories.

i mean..........you're both still biased by a certain British conventional storiography, finalized to support a distinct meta-politic vision of the things ; The theories of traditional british storiography, are focused on a undeclared will to demonstrate that the major part of english population has Anglo-Saxon ancestry.

A natural will to prove the cultural homogeneity of England, giving to the population the comfortable awarness of belonging to a unique homogeneous racial bulk. To believe in a clear and (relatively) homogeneous collective ancestry, it's a usefull element to strenghten the collective consciousness, supporting the national pride.

It's the same thing for several others nations of Europe : german historiography tries to persuade peoples that the poplation belongs to the same ancestral stock. Italian historiography tries to persuade that italians have the same roots from north to south. Etc. etc. etc.
To make it short : the politic powers of europe (and even outside Europe) often have tried to inculcate a superior loyalty in their own populations inclucating a special sense of unity (under the dominant element).

In the case of England...........this behaviour has meant the elaboration of a (sophisticated) historiography that emphatize the role of Anglo-saxons and minimize the role of native britons.



Guys, i'm sure you sincerely believe in what your cultural systems have teached you, but keep in mind that history books are written by peoples led by a political (or meta-political belief). History.........isn't teached in the schools to relax the students : rather to shape young minds, directing them in a precise direction.
I'm not stating that your anglo-saxon historiography (at least for OSWEO and LOKI) is false, just that is surely...."biased" by a fundamental need : to support a unitary collective consciousness that is the pillar of the national unity and power.


It's the same for italian historiography (since elementary textbooks), and i criticize it very much. Italian historiography is VERY biased. Not completely sincere.


So......staying on the topic : it's objectively difficult to think that 300'000 anglosaxon invaders erased 1,5 millions of peoples from the Roman Britannia, when they invaded it. It's a dream. Obviously many native briton were killed(and many migrated in Bretagne), but to state it was a "genocide" is far too much.
In the V century A.D. there weren't mass-destructions weapons as today. And the "will of massacre" of Anglo-saxons wasn't planned and organized as the Third Reich's one in Poland in the XX century.
Probable that ancient chronists (traumatized) portrayed in the worst and most bloody way the event of Anglo-saxon arrival. But this isn't a proof of a mass murder.

Maybe Anglo-saxons hadn't the will to kill all those native britons. Once taken the best lands and conquered the political power, they simply ruled (exactly like the Romans did before them).

Probably, they have simply germanized the mass of native britons , rather than exterminating it. Have you ever considered the idea ? Exactly like Romans romanized Gauls or Iberians.


just to summarize :


FRANCE (plus N.Italy) = romanized Gauls

SPAIN (plus Portgal)= romanized Iberians

ENGLAND (plus Scotland) = germanized Britons

[Brännvin]

Anglo-Saxon apartheid social structure was recently debunked, in 2008, an abstract about it, denied it.

--------------

Contrary to the assumption of limited intermarriage made in the apartheid simulation, there is evidence that significant mixing of the British and Germanic peoples occurred, and that the early law codes, such as that of King Ine of Wessex, could have deliberately encouraged such mixing.

Is it necessary to assume an apartheid-like social structure in Early Anglo-Saxon England? (http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/275/1650/2423.abstract)

[Hussar]

The same thing here in Italy : for decades was quite famous the theory of Lombard social apartheid. VERY diffcult.

[Liffrea]

I find it hard to believe anyone seriously supports the genocide argument or the elite replacement model anymore; both theories are the usual extremist nonsense some scholars have a penchant for.

Studying archaeology, the limited contemporary sources we have, environmental evidence and the very nascent science of population genetics we can come to the reasonable conclusion that the Germanic settlement of Britain differed from region to region.

I believe Heinrich Harke’s basic model for a Germanic population of c.300,000 settling into a post-Roman British population (south of Hadrian’s Wall) of some 1-2 million people is a reasonable estimate. It would also seem reasonable to suggest that East Anglia, Kent and Lincolnshire saw initially heavy settlement, it seems that around c.AD490-500 the Germanic settlement was severely halted not to begin again until the late 6th century, by which time south-eastern England was heavily Germanised.

As a general rule the further east you are the more likely you are of increased Germanic ancestry, someone from Lincolnshire, Norfolk or Kent would be more Germanic than someone from Shropshire, Devon or Somerset where there was Anglo-Saxon political control but perhaps far less settlement of Germanic peoples.

That there was a substantial survival of Britons is not really in doubt, but that doesn’t equate to there not being a substantial incoming of Germanic people’s, the very nature of England attests to the later.

[Osweo]

My thought is that population genetics still is not yet sophisticated enough to tease out population movements that were already quite similar as the native Brits and Anglo-Saxons likely were. It's one thing when the populations were very disparate--like say East Anglian Purtians and Algonquins but I doubt that the residents of either side of the North Sea were really all that different at a genetic level.
Absolutely. :thumb001:
It also pisses me off when geneticists go to a place 'where tribe X came from' and take samples from the modern inhabitants, when history tells us that most people left!

I also hold that the toponym evidence is one of the strongest pieces of the argument of at least a sizeable Anglo-Saxon movement.
Aye. And the general fact that a Germanic culture was observable here identical to its cousins across the sea. You can't manage that with only a king and a dozen warriors. It's just absurd.
We are struggling now against a general ideological opposition in the Humanities that insists on nothing but continuity in ancient history, perhaps somewhat motivated by a desire to ease present fears amongst those who worry that their countries are going to the dogs.

There are also some folks who hold that even during Roman occupation times, there was already a fairly large Germanic, Englisc speaking populaton along England's east coast....
Gods I hate this RUBBISH! :D

@ LOKI and OSWEO
YES, HUSSAR?!? :p

Sorry guys, but i think that the problem isn't scientific or historical, but the result of a subtle correlation between historiography and meta-poltic theories.
That's too clever for me to understand, but I'll read the rest to see if it becomes clearer.... ;)

i mean..........you're both still biased by a certain British conventional storiography, finalized to support a distinct meta-politic vision of the things ; The theories of traditional british storiography, are focused on a undeclared will to demonstrate that the major part of english population has Anglo-Saxon ancestry.
Oi! Capitalise those ethnicities!
Nah mate, I'm very Celtophile, and acknowledge the Welsh survival almost everywhere in England. I just can't accept that an entire language and culture can be transmitted by a small group of people. And I know enough of the history and the traditions to see what a fierce struggle there was between invader and defender.

As for metapolitic things, these ideas you're more or less pushing here usually find their origin in those opposed to a fair and honest understanding of history and our ethnogenesis. THere's WAY too much fashion involved. <spit!>

A natural will to prove the cultural homogeneity of England, giving to the population the comfortable awarness of belonging to a unique homogeneous racial bulk. To believe in a clear and (relatively) homogeneous collective ancestry, it's a usefull element to strenghten the collective consciousness, supporting the national pride.
I see what you're saying, and it may have been true occasionally in the past (subconsciously, not deliberately), but if you'd read more of my comments on this sort of thing down the years, or if I'd expressed myself better, you'd see that I don't need this for my identity. I'm already significantly Celtic by blood anyway, and have long had an interest in the interaction between Angle and Briton, or Gael.

It's the same thing for several others nations of Europe : german historiography tries to persuade peoples that the poplation belongs to the same ancestral stock. Italian historiography tries to persuade that italians have the same roots from north to south. Etc. etc. etc.
But these traditional views DO have some weight to them in so far as they demonstrate a nation's most significant unifying element. I'd say that even if Angles and Saxons and Jutes and Frisians formed only a quarter of our stock (quite a realistic figure, I don't deny it), their story still needs to be pushed as the main one for the modern English. They are the reason we are not Welsh. And we aren't simply Germanicisd Welshmen. It's far deeper than that.


To make it short : the politic powers of europe (and even outside Europe) often have tried to inculcate a superior loyalty in their own populations inclucating a special sense of unity (under the dominant element).

In the case of England...........this behaviour has meant the elaboration of a (sophisticated) historiography that emphatize the role of Anglo-saxons and minimize the role of native britons.
Tell me about the role played by the Britons. WHAT did they do? Fought, died heroically, submitted, assimilated.

Guys, i'm sure you sincerely believe in what your cultural systems have teached you, but keep in mind that history books are written by peoples led by a political (or meta-political belief). History.........isn't teached in the schools to relax the students : rather to shape young minds, directing them in a precise direction.
Actually this MOST vital stage in our history, is barely taught in schools AT ALL! :( More people learn about this from internet forums, you might even say!

I'm not stating that your anglo-saxon historiography (at least for OSWEO and LOKI) is false, just that is surely...."biased" by a fundamental need : to support a unitary collective consciousness that is the pillar of the national unity and power.
It's the same for italian historiography (since elementary textbooks), and i criticize it very much. Italian historiography is VERY biased. Not completely sincere.
You're right to bring the matter up, of course, but I think that here in England, we get a 'New' controversy about the matter almost every month in the papers. Most people who think about the subject at all are pretty inured to the spin-doctoring, rendering it less effective.

So......staying on the topic : it's objectively difficult to think that 300'000 anglosaxon invaders erased 1,5 millions of peoples from the Roman Britannia, when they invaded it. It's a dream. Obviously many native briton were killed(and many migrated in Bretagne), but to state it was a "genocide" is far too much.
I never use the word genocide.
Absorption and sporadic ousting, that's all.

In the V century A.D. there weren't mass-destructions weapons as today. And the "will of massacre" of Anglo-saxons wasn't planned and organized as the Third Reich's one in Poland in the XX century.
Probable that ancient chronists (traumatized) portrayed in the worst and most bloody way the event of Anglo-saxon arrival. But this isn't a proof of a mass murder.
The Welsh cleric Gildas did get all hysteric about it, but even he acknowledges that many Britons were brought into English society as lower status members. Other more circumstantial information like onomastica points to survival even of higher class people, who are also provided for in the earliest law codes we possess.

Maybe Anglo-saxons hadn't the will to kill all those native britons. Once taken the best lands and conquered the political power, they simply ruled (exactly like the Romans did before them).
You should talk about it on a region by region basis. I see no point in such generalisations.

Probably, they have simply germanized the mass of native britons , rather than exterminating it. Have you ever considered the idea ? Exactly like Romans romanized Gauls or Iberians.
We've been talking about that for decades, it's just a question of the proportions.


just to summarize :
FRANCE (plus N.Italy) = romanized Gauls

SPAIN (plus Portgal)= romanized Iberians

ENGLAND (plus Scotland) = germanized Britons
All horrendous generalisations, the learning of which by the layman does nothing for his historical appreciation!

[The Black Prince]

This is such an interesting subject, but I will try to be as short as possible. Reason is that so much is already said about the blood of the British Isles and every time new evidence seems to solve answers but in the end only create more questions.

I learned at school 10 yrs. ago the 'Keltomania' way. The earlier theory about mass invasion was said to be rebunked and alike the Franks, Lombards in their conquered areas the Anglo-Saxons (AS) were said to be just another elite group forcing themself over the local population and in the process giving their name to the people. This view was mainly given in after WW-II, Kelts were not as taboo as Germanic and the Kelts were the great artisans with their refined jewelry, lore and 'spiritual back to nature' mentality.

Nexto the above 'emotional' perspective also archaeologically there could be some truth init. The AS with their rowgraves and Germanic longhouses were only noticable a short time in the archaeological record and only on the eastern coastlands of England.

Offcourse emotion and sentiments has got nothing to do with it. Linguistically the Britons and other British Isles natives are/were Keltic. However the only recording of La Tène Kelts entering the British isles is around 150-100 BCE when Parisii and the Belgae entered nowadays resp. NE-Enland and SE-England. Especially the Belgae quickly built up a few petty kindoms of which the Catuvellauni were the most powerfull .The Belgae brought with them their coinage and their pottery and some Belgic petty kings like Diviciacus had lands on both side of the channel.
Unfortunately for the Belgae, the Romans entered Britain from the same direction and SE-England became the most Romanized region of Britain.

The rest of Britain following the centrum-periphery theory was less Romanized and after the Romans were gone these petty kingdoms must have fallen back in their old habit of endemic warfare. Although sources as Gildas and Bede are politically/ideological coloured it is by far not impossible that one or some of these petty kingdoms used Germanic troops in exchange for gold and land to help them. Germanic auxilia like Frisians and other North Sea tribes were already used by Romans in Britain, it is not unlikely some of them already lived in regions of Kent (see spoiler for sidenotes). Commonly known by the native Britons as Sais/Sassenach they were by their use of long knives 'Seax', shieldwalls and the cuneus or wedge formation (boar snout).

Two interesting things should be said here on a sidenote:
First that the tradtional living space of these tribes was often flooded during the end of the 3th century and 4th century. It got (mostly) complete abandoned in this period. Where did these people go? Some scholars suggest they formed a part of the new upcoming Frankish people. I think this too, but the emergence of the Saxon shoreline at the British shore at the same time could also mean some of the immigrating terp dwellers were given land here while in return obliged to provide defensive duties for the Romans as happened with the Goths in Dacia.
Second the terp area, stretching from the Rhine to Jutland, was one of the most dense populated parts of Northern Europe. An example is the terp area of Groningen (NL) which is estimated to have had ca. 50.000 inhabitants around the 3th century, that is a third of nowadays (area was also twice as large in those days with the lower sealevel). For the whole region one could think about 300,000 to 500,000 inhabitants. Offcourse, nothing compared to some contemporairy Mediterranean regions. But compared with the Goths, who settled in Dacia as earlier mentioned, they counted according to Roman sources only 80,000.

For Jutland I have no numbers but this region was also densily populated, while the British isles and especially England were after the Romans left struck by plagues and endemic warfare famines, reducing the natrive population. similar things happened in the rest of Late- and Post-Roman Europe.




Above explains why Rowgraves and AS-pottery is found in Kent, however above doesn't debunk the 'AS elite' theory. The first thorn in this theory are the sources of Bede, Gildas, Nennius and some Welsh sources. All mentioning the fight of (divided) Britons against marauding and invading AS warbands. While the local population flees towards Wales, Cornwall and Britanny. Wether overreacting or not they don't mention that the AS become the new kings, insteadt the lands were the AS settles are seen as 'Lost lands'.

However this does not explain the meagre material evidence. But Germanic housetypes are for as far I know (though not studied Briton housing types as much) not replacing the local house types. However, housetypes are often seen as a good mark of the ones who lived on the spot, that is when there is one type of housing. Already in the Iron Age f.i. the Netherlands have 8 different housetypes, sometimes different types in one settlement. It seems that housing types where not as much traditional but also based upon the materials and the way people lives (cattle farmers need different housing as sheep and wheatfarmers). England offered nexto wood also stone and local housetypes that were not diificult to copy but perhaps more practical in the British landscape. Pottery is often overestimated, the AS pottery is not as much typical becasue of its shape but for its pragmatic simplicity.
What does remain is the art, up until the Christianization of the AS the boars, wolfs and bears bling bling, contemporairy with other West- and North-Germanic is held in high esteem.
Some scholars have arued that the spiralling serpentlike motives often seen on AS jewelry and weaponry are Keltic in origin. This could be very well true, Kelts used this motives earlier than other North-Europeans however nexto AS also continental Germanics used these motives so imho this is no arguement for direct Keltic influence, rather indirect copying.

A big thorn is the language debate. Until now there is no other example of a less advanced people who, though being the elite, forces his language upon more sophisticated native populations (though most of the Western Britons might be on the same level of sophistication as the AS perhaps, I'm not sure). The Franks didn't, and neither did the Longobards, Vandals, Visigoths or the later Vikings. They left their marks sometimes but they by far did not replace the native language. This fact should not be underestimated.

The biggest thorn however that imho shatters the 'elite' theory is the genetic evidence. Altough an apartheid system has been proposed, this doesn't work that easy. The Frankish elite who became eventually the French nobility left no large mark on the French population, a bit in the north but by far not dominating continental NW-European male lineages. same could be said of Visigothic and Longobard elite. They left some mark but are not dominating the male lineages in resp. Spain and N.-Italy.
Another idea was posted earlier on other fora that the Belgae who are often seen as Germanokelten were the reason for the high occurence of Germanic lineages. However the big fault with this theory is that the area of original Belgic immigrations was heavily romanized and is one of the genetically less 'Germanicized' regions.

--

Concluding, although there are still many questions and I think we will never truly know what happened, I think that the Saxons formed the elite in SE-Britain taking over the relative passive 'civilized' Romano-British since these simply saw Romans replaced by Saxon leaders.
But Kent, Mercia, Northumbria et such which had a more ferocious native warrior-farmer population were largely or complete replaced by AS (and also the Danes later). The western parts of England I think had some local population present but were just absorbed in the AS petty kingdoms while the Welsh, Cornwall etc.. remained Briton or Silurian. This explains the male lineages.
However the females is a different story, imho Eastern England was settled by AS families but towards the west transitionally more Briton women lineages where absorbed by the AS. Offcourse the Scots, Britons and Silurian took their share of Saxon wives in various raids.;)

[Baron Samedi]

William the Conquer says "Screw ye, filthy Saxons!"

lol

In all seriousness, I have always wondered just how "Germanic" Britain really is.

[The Black Prince]

William the Conquer says "Screw ye, filthy Saxons!"

lol

In all seriousness, I have always wondered just how "Germanic" Britain really is.
That depends foremost on what your definition of 'Germanic' is.;)

[Osweo]

Glad you're here, Black Prince!
You saved me the bother of having to write all that out! :D

Kelts were not as taboo as Germanic and the Kelts were the great artisans with their refined jewelry, lore and 'spiritual back to nature' mentality.
It never ceases to sicken my how people fall for this rubbish. :(

The AS with their rowgraves and Germanic longhouses were only noticable a short time in the archaeological record and only on the eastern coastlands of England.
There are a scattering of other very early settlements. Ribchester comes to mind, RIGHT in the far northwest. Where else...? Some in the Midlands round Abingdon or thereabouts in Oxfordshire, no? I'm afraid I must admit I don't really avidly follow developments much south of the Trent, given my own regional interests.

However the only recording of La Tène Kelts entering the British isles is around 150-100 BCE when Parisii and the Belgae entered nowadays resp. NE-Enland and SE-England.
Weren't these south eastern incomers rather characterised by the absence of La Tene ornament? The most recent thing I read on it was from the 1930s, I admit, but that's what was written there. Collingwood's Roman Britain...

The Parisi were good La Teners though. I've seen it written that the Irish variant of this style probably owes a great deal to what is now Northern England, the region the Romans knew as Brigantian territory.

Germanic auxilia like Frisians and other North Sea tribes were already used by Romans in Britain,

Already the backbone of the Army in Constantine's day, I believe.

Commonly known by the native Britons as Sais/Sassenach
A modern Gaelic word with no business in this discussion!

Already in the Iron Age f.i. the Netherlands have 8 different housetypes, sometimes different types in one settlement.
:thumbs up Interesting example, thanks.

Some scholars have arued that the spiralling serpentlike motives often seen on AS jewelry and weaponry are Keltic in origin.
Examples?
People usually cite the 'Hanging Bowls' as an example of this trend, though.

A big thorn is the language debate.
Conclusive enough for me. I have taught English, I know how hard it is to learn. And without cassettes and textbooks... :rolleyes:

Concluding, although there are still many questions and I think we will never truly know what happened, I think that the Saxons formed the elite in SE-Britain taking over the relative passive 'civilized' Romano-British since these simply saw Romans replaced by Saxon leaders.
Passive ground-down over-taxed dehumanised Romano-British serfs, you might say. They would have constituted the bulk of the population here, and probably hated the little kings and lords more than the English did. See the revolts of the Bacaudae in contemporary Gallia. (The Welsh for 'the masses' is still Bagad-.)

There are examples of British elite survival here though. THere was a reasonably high up lord signing charters in Kent, with a British name, for instance. 'Cerdic' of Wessex provides another good example. The Wuffings thought it expedient to include 'Caser' in their pedigree. Lindsay's king pedigree includes the ridiculously Celtic 'Cathbad'.

But Kent, Mercia, Northumbria et such which had a more ferocious native warrior-farmer population were largely or complete replaced by AS (and also the Danes later).
ONLY in certain areas of the east.

The West Riding of Yorkshire is full of Celtic toponymy, and Lancashire even more so. We have great big Welsh pockets in the Wigan area, Cartmel, nw of Manchester, the foothills around Stockport...

Anyway, great post!

[Allenson]

Absolutely. :thumb001:
Aye. And the general fact that a Germanic culture was observable here identical to its cousins across the sea. You can't manage that with only a king and a dozen warriors. It's just absurd.

Or across the other sea in my direction. I've wondered how accuate a model, European colonization of North America might be when considering other, debated population movements--including A-S settlement in Britain.

What I mean is, there's little doubt about the numbers and manner in which settlement and population replacement happened here--in 1600s, what was once Winnacunnet became Hampton, New Hampshire. Where once Abenaki was spoken, now, other than a few river & lake names, it's all English and became thoroughly English within one-hundred years.

Surely conditions--social, environmental, political, etc.--were very different between the two events and I would never use one as absolute precendent or antecedent for the other, but I do wonder about any analogies either way.

I dunno, somethin' to think about. :coffee:

[Osweo]

Winnacunnet
...
somethin' to think about.
I'll say. :wink

Looks like a delightful British-English hybrid name. Some Engle called Wine got ownership of a hill with the common British name Cunetio... (c.f. Kennett, Cynwyd etc.)

[Allenson]

I'll say. :wink

Looks like a delightful British-English hybrid name. Some Engle called Wine got ownership of a hill with the common British name Cunetio... (c.f. Kennett, Cynwyd etc.)

LOL--nope, it's Abenaki and it means 'beautiful pines'. :cool:

[Hussar]

Your answer is passionate and interesting ;), but i'd like to point out some lines..........




Nah mate, I'm very Celtophile, and acknowledge the Welsh survival almost everywhere in England. I just can't accept that an entire language and culture can be transmitted by a small group of people. And I know enough of the history and the traditions to see what a fierce struggle there was between invader and defender.


This is your main error.

The same preconception that led (and still do) many researchers to the theories of britons annihilation.

You fail to understand that THOSE days......democracy didn't exist : the ruling class had power of life or death on their servants and population in general ; so.........even a little number of invaders was sufficient to impose transmit their culture over an overwhelming mass of autoctonous.


Comparative examples : Transalpine Gallia (modern France) had a population of 5 millions of peoples : about 100'000-150'000 romans romanized it totally.

Between 16-17° century 20 millions of indian mexican were "hispanized" by few hundred thousands of european spaniards.










But these traditional views DO have some weight to them in so far as they demonstrate a nation's most significant unifying element. I'd say that even if Angles and Saxons and Jutes and Frisians formed only a quarter of our stock (quite a realistic figure, I don't deny it), their story still needs to be pushed as the main one for the modern English. They are the reason we are not Welsh. And we aren't simply Germanicisd Welshmen. It's far deeper than that.



Well, this is an important cosideration at least. The historical relevance of Anglo-saxon invasion goes far beyond their numerical size. This is true.

But it's just the problem i underlined in my first post, Osweo : you (modern english) tend to end up with meta-politic considerations, while here the discussion is more scientific and about the exact size of an ancient population and its impact on the sub-stratum.

You see : i notice there is a unconscious will to accept historical thories (anglo-saxon demographic replacement of British isles) that fit best with your meta-politic belief.




We've been talking about that for decades, it's just a question of the proportions.



The proportions ? Anglo-saxons in the worst case were 1/4 of pop. ; in the best of cases they were 1/3.

I'd say between= 30% ?

Obviously higher in some regions (south-eastern England near 50-60% ?)





All horrendous generalisations, the learning of which by the layman does nothing for his historical appreciation!

Agreed.

Indeed was a deliberate generalization. Just to give a vague idea of what i meant.

[Liffrea]

In the late 19th century Victorian scholars were busy promoting England’s origins in Tacitus’ dark German woodlands, this fell out of favour in 1918 and was positively ignored post 1945 when anti-migration theory was all the vogue (of which the elite replacement theory is a branch of). Now we are starting to see the rehabilitation of migration theory. Of course there are also politically motivated scholars and romanticists who want to deny any sense of English identity, I have read that the English are “Celts” who forgot they are “Celts” or just don’t know it, or those who emphasise the “civilised” “cultured” and “artistic” Celts over the “barbaric” “savage” and “uncouth” Saxons. Interesting that, the later goes back to the Normans who co-opted the obscure Welsh legends of “Arthur” to concoct an elaborate load of nonsense (I still find Arthurian legends incredibly boring to this day) to justify their oppression of the hated Saxon.

Of course there are “scholars” of “Celtic” extraction who like to emphasise how the evil Saxon exterminated the “Celts” (probably to busy writing poems and picking their arses in Roman villas) and went on to create the “English” global empire (funny I thought just as many Scots, Welsh and Irish were involved as English)….

There is a slight backlash taking place and more emphasis on the Anglo-Saxon origins of the English. I’m not adverse to those who promote the survival of the Britons, there are even websites about “Celtic England”, it would be a rare Englishman that doesn’t have some British/Irish ancestry somewhere in their ancestry, but I do take exception to the Celticisation of England or the deliberate attempts to distort English origins. The English are assuredly Anglo-Saxon, certainly not completely in blood but certainly in culture and outlook, we only have to read the words of the early English themselves to see they had no doubts about their origins or who they considered kin, no self respecting Anglo-Saxon extolled the Welshman Arthur, no Anglo-Saxon considered himself a “Celt” to him the Briton was Wehlas a foreigner or slave from which we derive our word Welsh. The “Celts” to this day still see the English as “Sais”. Trying to make the English “Celts” is dishonest romanticism at best and cultural genocide at worst.

The roots of England are, and always will be, Anglo-Saxon.

[Zyklop]

no Anglo-Saxon considered himself a “Celt” to him the Briton was Wehlas a foreigner or slave from which we derive our word Welsh. The term "welsch" also was used in Germany from ancient times up to this day to discriminate against Celts and romanised Celts. During 19th century romantic nationalism it was synonymous with French and Italian.

Quite interesting etymolgy:

Walh (singular) or Walha (plural) is an ancient Germanic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_languages) word, meaning "foreigner" or "stranger" (Welsh) or "roman", German (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_language): welsch. The word can be found in Old High German (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_High_German) walhisk ‘Roman’, in Old English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_English) wilisc ‘foreign, non-English, Cymric’, in Old Norse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Norse) as valskr ‘French’. Thus it will be derived from an Proto-Germanic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Germanic) form such as *walhiska-. [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walha#cite_note-Quak_2005-0)
Walha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walha#column-one), search (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walha#searchInput)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e3/Tjurko_bracteate_replica.jpg/200px-Tjurko_bracteate_replica.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tjurko_bracteate_replica.jpg) http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tjurko_bracteate_replica.jpg)
Brass replica of the Tjurkö Bracteate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tjurk%C3%B6_Bracteate) showing the attestation of the name Walha


Walh (singular) or Walha (plural) (ᚹᚨᛚᚺᚨ) is an ancient Germanic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_languages) word, meaning "foreigner" or "stranger" (Welsh) or "roman", German (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_language): welsch. The word can be found in Old High German (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_High_German) walhisk ‘Roman’, in Old English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_English) wilisc ‘foreign, non-English, Cymric’, in Old Norse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Norse) as valskr ‘French’. Thus it will be derived from an Proto-Germanic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Germanic) form such as *walhiska-. [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walha#cite_note-Quak_2005-0)
It is attested in the Roman Iron Age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Iron_Age) Tjurkö Bracteate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tjurk%C3%B6_Bracteate) inscription as walhakurne "Roman/Gallic grain", apparently a kenning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenning) for "gold" (referring to the "bracteate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracteate)" itself). The term was used by the ancient Germanic peoples to describe inhabitants of the former Roman Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire), who were largely romanised and spoke Latin or Celtic languages. Today, in German Welsche refers to Latin (or Romanic) peoples: the Italians in particular, but also the French, and thus the Romanic neighbours of the German speakers in general.
Contents

[hide (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:toggleToc%28%29)]


1 From *Walhaz to welsch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walha#From_.2AWalhaz_to_welsch)
2 Toponyms and exonyms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walha#Toponyms_and_exonyms)

2.1 Pennsylvania Dutch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walha#Pennsylvania_Dutch)


3 Welsch/Walsch in family names (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walha#Welsch.2FWalsch_in_family_names)
4 References (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walha#References)
5 See also (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walha#See_also)

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walha&action=edit&section=1)] From *Walhaz to welsch

Walh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walh) is probably derived from the name of the tribe which was known to the Romans as Volcae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcae) (in the writings of Julius Caesar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Caesar)) and to the Greeks as Ouólkai (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ou%C3%B3lkai&action=edit&redlink=1) (Strabo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strabo) and Ptolemy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy)).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walha#cite_note-Ringe_2009-1) With the Old Germanic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Germanic) name *Walhaz, plural *Walhôz, adjectival form *walhiska-, this neighbouring people of the Germanics were meant some centuries before Christ. It is assumed that this term specifically referred to the Celtic Volcae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcae), because by a precise application of the first Germanic sound change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimm%27s_Law) the exact Germanic equivalent *Walh- would have come out. Subsequently, this term Walhôz has rather indiscriminately been applied to the southern neighbours of the Germanics, which is shown in geographic names such as Walchgau (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walchgau&action=edit&redlink=1) and Walchensee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walchensee) in Bavaria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavaria). [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walha#cite_note-Quak_2005-0). These southern neighbours, however, were then already completely romanised. Thus, by Germanic speakers this name was generalized first onto all Celts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts), and later onto all Romans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Rome). The Old High German (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_High_German) Walh became Walch in Middle High German (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_High_German), and adjectival OHG walhisk became MHG welsch, e.g. in the Romance of Alexander (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_of_Alexander) by Rudolf von Ems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_von_Ems) – resulting in Welsche in Early New High German (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_New_High_German) and Modern German (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_German) as the exonym (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exonym) for all Romanic speakers.
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walha&action=edit&section=2)] Toponyms and exonyms

Numerous names of non-Germanic European (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe) regions derive from the word Walh, in particular the exonyms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exonyms)


Walachia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walachia) and Wallachians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallachians)

→ see also Vlach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlach) and Etymology of Vlach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology_of_Vlach)
but also in several other Central European languages:


in Polish: 'Włochy', the name of Italy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy), and historical 'Wołochowie' - Vlachs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlachs)
In Hungarian: "Oláh", referring to Romanians; "Olasz", referring to Italians, "Vlachok" referring to Vlachs, generally.
In Serbian: Stari Vlah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stari_Vlah) ("the Old Vlach") region around the city of Užice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U%C5%BEice), and the name Starovlahs for the medieval local Celtic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts) population.

→ See also History of the term Vlach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_term_Vlach)
In Western European languages:


in English:

Wales (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wales), Welsh (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Welsh) (with the prefix Wal-)
Cornwall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornwall) (with the suffix -wall)
In English usage the words Gaul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaul#Name) and Gaulish are used synonymously with Latin Gallia, Gallus and Gallicus. However the similarity of the names is probably accidental: the English words are borrowed from French Gaule and Gaulois, which appear to have been borrowed themselves from walha-. Germanic w is regularly rendered with French gu / g (cf. guerre = war, garder = ward), and the diphthong au is the regular outcome of al before a following consonant (cf. cheval ~ chevaux). Gaule or Gaulle can hardly be derived from Latin Gallia, since g would become j before a (cf. gamba > jambe), and the diphthong au would be incomprehensible; the regular outcome of Latin Gallia would have been *Jaille in French.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walha#cite_note-2)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walha#cite_note-Larou.C3.9Fe-3) This also applies to the French name for Wales (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wales), which is le pays de Galles (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Galles).
waledich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waledich) or wallditch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallditch), (weahl + ditch) was the pre-Victorian name of Avebury stone circle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avebury_stone_circle), in Avebury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avebury), Wiltshire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiltshire) [5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walha#cite_note-4)
Walnut (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walnut), from Old English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_English) walhnutu(wealh+ hnutu) meaning "foreign nut", as it was introduced from Gallia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallia) ("Gaul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaul)") and Italy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy). [6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walha#cite_note-5)





Numerous attestations in German:

in village names ending in -walchen, such as Straßwalchen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stra%C3%9Fwalchen) or Seewalchen (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seewalchen&action=edit&redlink=1), mostly located in the Salzkammergut (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salzkammergut) region and indicating Roman settlement
In German (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_language) Welsch or Walsch, outdated for "Romanic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanic)", and still in use in Swiss German (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_German) for Romands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romandy).
in numerous placenames, for instance Walensee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walensee) and Walenstadt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walenstadt), as well as Welschbern (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welschbern) and Walschtirol (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walschtirol&action=edit&redlink=1) (now almost always Verona (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verona) and Trentino (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trentino)), also in:

Welschbillig (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welschbillig), in the Moselle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moselle) valley, where Moselle romanic was spoken;
Welschen Ennest (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Welschen_Ennest&action=edit&redlink=1) (community of Kirchhundem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhundem), district Olpe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olpe), Sauerland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sauerland));
Welschenrohr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welschenrohr) in the Swiss canton of Solothurn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solothurn);
Welschensteinach (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Welschensteinach&action=edit&redlink=1) in the district Ortenau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ortenau) in Baden-Württemberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baden-W%C3%BCrttemberg);


in several German exonyms like: Welschkohl, Welschkorn, Welschkraut [7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walha#cite_note-Welschen-6)
The walnut (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walnut) was originally a Welsh nut, i.e. it came through France and/or Italy to Germanic speakers (German: Walnuss, Dutch Okkernoot or Walnoot, Danish Valnød, Swedish Valnöt)
There is a street in Regensburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regensburg) named Wahlenstrasse, seemingly once inhabited by Italian merchants. In other German places like Duisburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duisburg) one can find a Welschengasse, or an Am Welschenkamp, referring to French speaking inhabitants [7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walha#cite_note-Welschen-6)
In Southern Austria, "welsch" is a prefix that generally means Italian. E.g. the wine variety "welschriesling", common in Styria, Slovenia, Croatia and Hungary (actually not related to the white riesling variety). It is often used as a rather sweeping, pejorative word for the nearest people of Latin/romanic origin (the remaining neighbours of Austria being "Tschuschen" - Slavs - and "Piefke" (Germans).
"Kauderwelsch" (Danish: "kaudervælsk", Norwegian: "kaudervelsk") is a German word for gibberish and derives from the Rhaetoroman dialect from Chur in Graubünden in Switzerland, cf. Dutch koeterwaals.



→ See also http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsche


In Dutch:

The Belgian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian) region of Wallonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallonia), cf. Dutch Waals ('Walloon'), Walenland.



[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walha&action=edit&section=3)] Pennsylvania Dutch

In Pennsylvania German language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_German_language), "Welsch" generally means "strange" as well as "Welsh," and is sometimes, although with a more restricted meaning, compounded with other words. For example, the words in Pennsylvania German (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_German) for "turkey" is "Welschhaahne" and "Welschhinkel," which literally mean "French (or Romanic) chicken". "Welschkann" is the word for maize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maize) and literally translates to "French (or Romanic) grain." The verb "welsche" means "to jabber."
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walha&action=edit&section=4)] Welsch/Walsch in family names

The element Wels(c)h/Wals(c)h also shows up in family names:


in German and Dutch:

Welsch, Welschen, Welzen [7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walha#cite_note-Welschen-6), Welches, Wälsch, Walech, Walch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walch), Wahl (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wahl_%28Begriffskl%C3%A4rung%29&action=edit&redlink=1), Wahle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahle), Wahlen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahlen), Wahlens, Wahlich, Wälke (in part indirectly through forenames (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forename) such as Walcho) [8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walha#cite_note-7), De Waal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Waal), De Waele (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=De_Waele&action=edit&redlink=1), Waelhens, Swalen, Swelsen [7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walha#cite_note-Welschen-6); but not van der Waals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals) (< river or water name Waal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waal)) [7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walha#cite_note-Welschen-6).


in English:

Welsh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_%28surname%29), Welch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welch_%28surname%29), Walsh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walsh_%28surname%29), Walch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walch), Whale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale_%28surname%29)


Slavic:

Vlach, Vlah (cyr. Влах) (forename, also for Blaise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaise))


Greek:

Vlachos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlachos), Vlachou


Jewish-Polish:

Bloch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloch), a Jewish family name, that derives from Polish Włochy


in Polish:

Włoch, Wołoch, Wołos, Wołoszyn, Wołoszek, Wołoszczak, Wołoszczuk, Bołoch, Bołoz



Historic persons:


Geremia da Valacchia (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geremia_da_Valacchia&action=edit&redlink=1) (Jon Stoika, 1556–1625), b. in Tzazo, Romania, beatificated in 1983
hr:Sveti Vlaho (http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sveti_Vlaho), Saint Blaise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Blaise), patron saint of Dubrovnik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubrovnik)[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walha#cite_note-8), an Armenian martyr.

[Beorn]

Trying to make the English “Celts” is dishonest romanticism at best and cultural genocide at worst.

Trying to make anyone "Celts" is dishonest romanticism.


The roots of England are, and always will be, Anglo-Saxon.

Questionable. But it seems the accepted consensus so I can't moan.

[Hussar]

Questionable. But it seems the accepted consensus.......so I can't moan.


Absolutely. And i'm not going to protest either (it's not the history of my land).

[Osweo]

(I still find Arthurian legends incredibly boring to this day)
:eek:
Please tell me you've only really come across the French later stuff, and not the original real powerful Welsh material!!! :eek:

no self respecting Anglo-Saxon extolled the Welshman Arthur,
Self respecting mediaeval peasants in several areas did. They had forgotten the details of their origins, and the ethnic background to the legend, but they remembered the Man. They were proper Englishmen too.

no Anglo-Saxon considered himself a “Celt” to him the Briton was Wehlas a foreigner or slave from which we derive our word Welsh.
Horrendously simplisitic. That 'slave' thing is just a 'Black Legend'. A load of bollocks. That bondsman and Wealh had a lot of overlap is of course true, but the way people nowadays try to draw an '=' between the words is absolutely unfounded.
Indeed, I quote Eilert Ekwall here, our greatest English toponymist and a Swede;

In the same direction point place-names containing an English or a Scandinavian word for"Briton." Here belongs first of all the name Walton from
O.E. Wala-tun, no doubt "the tun of the Britons." There are four Waltons in
Lancashire : Walton-on-the Hill (De), Walton-le-Dale (Bl), Ulnes Walton (Le),
and Walton near Cartmel. To these may be added Waltoncote, near Dalton-in-
Furness. These names, of course, do not prove that a British element was
recognized long after the invasion.
Of greater importance are names containing Scand. Bretar. These names are
few. A certain case is Birkby, near Cartmel. Here probably belong Brettargh
(Woolton, De) and Bretteroum (Bolton-le-Sands). At least the first two cannot well be older than the tenth century.
It is interesting to note that Birkby and Walton, near Cartmel, are situated
fairly high and at some distance from the broad Eea valley. The names seem to tell us that the Britons had to give up the best land and settle in more remote parts.
The Britons who gave name to the Waltons and Birkby may be supposed
to have been landholders and freemen. Their status may have been that of
the Wealas mentioned in Ine's laws, whose wergeld was half that of the freeborn Englishman.It should be added that names such as Walton, Birkby do not testify to a
considerable British element. They rather suggest that British villages and
homesteads were exceptions.

The term "welsch"

I didn't read thru the whole thing, but I doubt they included the Ukrainian version of Walnut with the same root! :P Volosskie Orekhi or the like.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Osweo
Please tell me you've only really come across the French later stuff, and not the original real powerful Welsh material!!!

Both, the former Norman-French dribble yawnable romanticism boring even by the standards of the troubadours. The later the tales of a Welshman who spent most of his time fighting other Welshmen, how riveting….


Self respecting mediaeval peasants in several areas did. They had forgotten the details of their origins, and the ethnic background to the legend, but they remembered the Man. They were proper Englishmen too.

But not Anglo-Saxons i.e. pre-Norman, the evidence for the knowledge of Arthur in Old English literature is non existent to my knowledge.


Indeed, I quote Eilert Ekwall here, our greatest English toponymist and a Swede;

Interesting, unarguable and utterly irrelevant to the etymological roots of the word coming from the proto-Germanic root form Walh (found in Old English, Old High German and Old Norse) and having the meaning (it seems originally exclusive to Celtic cultures) of foreigner and slave (see D. H. Green Language and History in the Early Germanic World).

As for Old English specifically I have yet to see any contradiction in either the study of Anglo-Saxon history or Old English to the word being used for foreigner and slave. In point of fact it's use as such would seem more than obvious given it's previous contexts and origin.

[Osweo]

Both, the former Norman-French dribble yawnable romanticism boring even by the standards of the troubadours. The later the tales of a Welshman who spent most of his time fighting other Welshmen, how riveting….
I am aghast.

What can you say to that?!? :eek:

You've read The Spoils of Annwfn? The Harrying of Hell! Yr Anrheithiau Annwfn! Where Arthur becomes nothing less than the Young Hero of Celtic religion? The Culture Hero who hacks his way into and out of the Underworld, our Prometheus!


http://www.celtic-twilight.com/camelot/skene/book_taliessin_xxx.htm

I. I Will praise the sovereign, supreme king of the land,
Who hath extended his dominion over the shore of the world.
Complete was the prison of Gweir in Caer Sidi,
Through the spite of Pwyll and Pryderi.
No one before him went into it.
The heavy blue chain held the faithful youth,
And before the spoils of Annwvn woefully he sings,
And till doom shall continue a bard of prayer.
Thrice enough to fill Prydwen, we went into it;
Except seven, none returned from Caer Sidi.

II. Am I not a candidate for fame, if a song is heard?
In Caer Pedryvan, four its revolutions;
In the first word from the cauldron when spoken,
From the breath of nine maidens it was gently warmed.
Is it not the cauldron of the chief of Annwvn? What is its intention?
A ridge about its edge and pearls.
It will not boil the food of a coward, that has not been sworn,
A sword bright gleaming to him was raised,
And in the hand of Lleminawg it was left.
And before the door of the gate of Uffern the lamp was burning.
And when we went with Arthur, a splendid labour,
Except seven, none returned from Caer Vedwyd.

III. Am I not a candidate for fame with the listened song
In Caer Pedryvan, in the isle of the strong door?
The twilight and pitchy darkness were mixed together.
Bright wine their liquor before their retinue.
Thrice enough to fill Prydwen we went on the sea,
Except seven, none returned from Caer Rigor.

IV. I shall not deserve much from the ruler of literature,
Beyond Caer Wydyr they saw not the prowess of Arthur.
Three score Canhwr stood on the wall,
Difficult was a conversation with its sentinel.
Thrice enough to fill Prydwen there went with Arthur,
Except seven, none returned from Caer Golud.

V. I shall not deserve much from those with long shields.
They know not what day, who the causer,
What hour in the serene day Cwy was born.
Who caused that he should not go to the dales of Devwy.
They know not the brindled ox, thick his head-band.
Seven score knobs in his collar.
And when we went with Arthur, of anxious memory,
Except seven, none returned from Caer Vandwy.

VI. I shall not deserve much from those of loose bias,
They know not what day the chief was caused.
What hour in the serene day the owner was born.
What animal they keep, silver its head.
When we went with Arthur of anxious contention,
Except seven, none returned from Caer Ochren.

VII. Monks congregate like dogs in a kennel,
From contact with their superiors they acquire knowledge,
Is one the course of the wind, is one the water of the sea?
Is one the spark of the fire, of unrestrainable tumult?
Monks congregate like wolves,
From contact with their superiors they acquire knowledge.
They know not when the deep night and dawn divide.
Nor what is the course of the wind, or who agitates it,
In what place it dies away, on what land it roars.
The grave of the saint is vanishing from the altar-tomb.
I will pray to the Lord, the great supreme,
That I be not wretched. Christ be my portion.

:suomut:


But not Anglo-Saxons i.e. pre-Norman, the evidence for the knowledge of Arthur in Old English literature is non existent to my knowledge.
Arthur will have been remembered by residents of areas where Welsh were assimilated in larger numbers. The evidence even for Beowulf is limited to that one manuscript which so nearly perished, and three recorded personal names in the early Norman period that would otherwise have been unremarked. Literature was the preserve of the elite, whose only Welsh blood came through carefully arranged marriages at the very highest level. You shouldn't look for all English folk culture there.

Interesting, unarguable and utterly irrelevant to the etymological roots of the word coming from the proto-Germanic root form Walh (found in Old English, Old High German and Old Norse) and having the meaning (it seems originally exclusive to Celtic cultures) of foreigner and slave (see D. H. Green Language and History in the Early Germanic World).

As for Old English specifically I have yet to see any contradiction in either the study of Anglo-Saxon history or Old English to the word being used for foreigner and slave. In point of fact it's use as such would seem more than obvious given it's previous contexts and origin.
I'm arguing with the bit in bold. Demonstrate to me that it was ever used unambiguously like that. I don't think you can.

I can't look up Green in my present circumstances, I'm afraid, I'll have to rely on your paraphrase. :(


And why would wealh have ended up a part of personal names, if it had had this slave connotation? Even of Kings' names, the Wodnings themselves.

[Beorn]

I remember reading that the Welsh had a particular name for the "Welsh" that were left behind and assimilated and fought for the encroaching Germanics. Can anyone recall this name? It's bugging me as I can't find the reference to it.

[Osweo]

I remember reading that the Welsh had a particular name for the "Welsh" that were left behind and assimilated and fought for the encroaching Germanics. Can anyone recall this name? It's bugging me as I can't find the reference to it.

Maybe you're referring to an attempted explanation of 'Loegrian' I heard once? It's doubtful, in any case. And seemingly specific to certain areas of Mercia. But the Welsh in the far west often allied with one or other of our kingdoms anyway.

[Beorn]

Maybe you're referring to an attempted explanation of 'Loegrian' I heard once?

It wasn't that, but thanks for introducing me to a new word nonetheless. :D

[Mesrine]

I remember reading that the Welsh had a particular name for the "Welsh" that were left behind and assimilated and fought for the encroaching Germanics. Can anyone recall this name?

[Pseudo-Brythonic] Twrayytorwws [/Pseudo-Brythonic] :D

[Osweo]

[Proper-Brythonic] Bradwyriau [/Proper-Brythonic]

Never seen the like employed as you say, Wat. But then again, this field attracts far too many 'enthusiasts' and charlatans. I've heard it put about that Bebbe, the name of the Queen of King Ida (after whom Bebbanburh > Bamburgh is named) is some sort of word for 'race-mixing traitor', with NO back up to that rather startling idea given at all. Good old fashioned CeltoBollox, methinks.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Osweo
What can you say to that?!?

Alright perhaps it isn't all that bad but I feel that Celtic myth in general loses something when compared to Germano-Norse, Greek or Vedic.

Personally the only aspect of Arthurian mythology that keeps my attention for any length of time is the legend of the Green Knight.


Arthur will have been remembered by residents of areas where Welsh were assimilated in larger numbers.

That’s a subjective opinion, we’re dealing in fact not what may have happened (however reasonable) and the fact is that Arthur has no place in Old English literature.


The evidence even for Beowulf is limited to that one manuscript which so nearly perished, and three recorded personal names in the early Norman period that would otherwise have been unremarked.

True, though I would suggest that Beowulf is not peculiar to Old English tradition.


Literature was the preserve of the elite, whose only Welsh blood came through carefully arranged marriages at the very highest level. You shouldn't look for all English folk culture there.

None the less since we are discussing literature (at least I am)…..


Demonstrate to me that it was ever used unambiguously like that. I don't think you can.

Not without a time machine, that’s an asinine request Osweo and you know it!

The point remains that in every study of Anglo-Saxon history and Old English literature I have seen it is accepted that the word meant such. Feel free to point our studies that contradict that, I’ll be most interested in seeing them.


And why would wealh have ended up a part of personal names, if it had had this slave connotation?

Many surnames are descended from various labouring tasks and most West Indian immigrants have surnames that their ancestors took off their white owners.

Why do blacks insist on calling each other "nigger" despite the derogatory nature of the word?


Even of Kings' names, the Wodnings themselves.

I would beg to differ on Wodning, this would be from the lineage of Aelfwald of East Anglia?

Wodning seems cognate to Woden, there is a Caser Wodening (Caesar Woden) in Aelfwald’s lineage.

Why do you think otherwise? I confess to not seeing this use before.

[Barreldriver]

Personally the only aspect of Arthurian mythology that keeps my attention for any length of time is the legend of the Green Knight.





Has an older base if I'm not mistaken, I'll look in my texts and find an earlier tale that I think may have inspired the Green Knight. brb

Back! It had elements from parts of the Mabinogion, such as "Pwyll Prince of Dyfed" (The test of noble virtue spiel between Pwyll and Arwan), there's elements from an 8th Century recording of the Ulster Cycle that includes a similar tale involving Cuchulainn and Bricriu (the whole beheading and bravery spiel.)

The way the events in the two reads, one from the Mabinogion, the other from the Ulster Cycle, occur in very similar fashions as the one's described in the Arthurian legend of the Green Knight, leads me to believe the Green Knight seems to be a later Christianized combination of these two tales.

[Osweo]

Alright perhaps it isn't all that bad but I feel that Celtic myth in general loses something when compared to Germano-Norse, Greek or Vedic.
:eek:

That’s a subjective opinion, we’re dealing in fact not what may have happened (however reasonable) and the fact is that Arthur has no place in Old English literature.
But the later survival in certain territories points to a transmission through the period in question.

True, though I would suggest that Beowulf is not peculiar to Old English tradition.
That’s a subjective opinion, we’re dealing in fact not what may have happened (however reasonable) and the fact is that Beowulf has no place in non-English literature.
:p:thumb001:

None the less since we are discussing literature (at least I am)…..
I usually discuss everything and nothing all at the same time. Blame the Wealh in me. :thumb001:

Not without a time machine, that’s an asinine request Osweo and you know it!
Does asinine mean like a donkey? I never bothered looking it up.

You comfortably lean on various studies, and yet they have yet to demonstrate to me the vailidity of the statement that Wealh meant slave, rather than simply Wealh. That an individual Wealh might have been a slave is immaterial, some occupied high positions in English Kingdoms.

The point remains that in every study of Anglo-Saxon history and Old English literature I have seen it is accepted that the word meant such. Feel free to point our studies that contradict that, I’ll be most interested in seeing them.
Acceptance. Tacit implicit acceptance? No argumentation to back it up? It's one of those awful things that, written once, has been repeated so much that it's hard to get to the bottom of who made it up in the first place...

I spend more time with the primary sources than anything else, and like to come at them with an open mind. Nothing I've read prompts me to equalise Wealh and slave. I can't show you a study.

Many surnames are descended from various labouring tasks and most West Indian immigrants have surnames that their ancestors took off their white owners.
Ida's name, the taker of Bamburgh, has a 'labour' element in it, true enough. But that's nothing to do with 'slave' as such.
Modern slave-surnames have little in them to allow analogy with anything in the Old English world. We're talking about Kings bearing names with 'Wealh' in them, not about the low status serfs and their descendants.

Off the top of my head we have an Underking Merewealh (floruit c. 650-85) in the Mercian dynasty, a King Cynewealh (641/3 - 672) and AEthelwalh (obit. 680/5) in the West Saxon, not to mention Waltheof in the Bernician Earldom...

Why do blacks insist on calling each other "nigger" despite the derogatory nature of the word?
The analogy would fit if the black man involved had made a success of himself in the white man's world. Do such men like to be called Nigger?

I would beg to differ on Wodning, this would be from the lineage of Aelfwald of East Anglia?
Oh no! I didn't express myself clearly enough. I meant Wodening in a very literal but developed sense - the offspring of Woden, in other words, ALL our old Kingly houses. I was pointing out that 'Wealh' did not have an offensive enough connotation to prevent it from being used in naming potential royalty.

Celtic Mal-, Gille-, Gwas-/Cwaes-/Gos- do not really have any relevance here either, as they always denote subservience to a divine authority, not human, and were thus felt fitting for the highest lords.

The way the events in the two reads, one from the Mabinogion, the other from the Ulster Cycle, occur in very similar fashions as the one's described in the Arthurian legend of the Green Knight, leads me to believe the Green Knight seems to be a later Christianized combination of these two tales.
The Irish input into later Welsh mythology was stressed by john Rhys back in 1905. It might also be regarded as simply cognate material from a common ancestor.

[Barreldriver]

The Irish input into later Welsh mythology was stressed by john Rhys back in 1905. It might also be regarded as simply cognate material from a common ancestor.

The Green Knight was a 14th Century tale, The Mabionogion 1060 to 1200 A.D., then the Ulster Cycle 8th Century A.D.

I believe that all three are influenced by a more ancient tale from perhaps Bronze Age? If you read many of the "Celtic" tales of the British Isle's they frequently mention events that are set in a more "classical" world, much of which set in the Mediterranean, the easiest contact between the "Celtic" people and the Mediterranean would have been via the Bronze Age when the bulk of Celtic culture was in Central Europe as opposed to the British Isle's. The tales coming to Britain via enculturation (by some sort of migration, and simple cultural exchange, I am under the impression that early traders and crafts people of that period would have migrated with their products and some sorts of tools much like Tinkers or Yankee Peddlers and would have had some sort of following for not just protection but aid in work and perhaps a fan base of some sort. This contact being the gateway for cultural exchange, sort of how the Yankee Peddler would tell the news from his home base to those people he met on his travels, or fashion dolls that would bring the latest fashion from the Eastern coast to the frontier.)

[Osweo]

If you read many of the "Celtic" tales of the British Isle's they frequently mention events that are set in a more "classical" world, much of which set in the Mediterranean,
While the Celtic world undoubtedly straddled the great north south watershed of the Continent, I seriously doubt that much passed from the south to the north under the Celtic aegis. Celtdom's base was always north of the Alps. The Lepontine, Balkan, Anatolian and Iberian offshoots seem just that to me. Druidry - the Celtic institution par excellence seems to have been most established in the north. We can look to its initiates as the prime vehicle for the spread of the more esoteric aspects of Celtic thought.

the easiest contact between the "Celtic" people and the Mediterranean would have been via the Bronze Age when the bulk of Celtic culture was in Central Europe as opposed to the British Isle's.
Late Bronze/Early Iron Age, rather, no?

The tales coming to Britain via enculturation (by some sort of migration, and simple cultural exchange, I am under the impression that early traders and crafts people of that period would have migrated with their products and some sorts of tools much like Tinkers or Yankee Peddlers and would have had some sort of following for not just protection but aid in work and perhaps a fan base of some sort. This contact being the gateway for cultural exchange, sort of how the Yankee Peddler would tell the news from his home base to those people he met on his travels.)

This sort of thing will have played a role, but far secondary to the invasion and putting under vassaldom the predecessors sort of thing, my gut instinct tells me. I look to historical early Irish society for the best picture of how this worked in practice - certain dynasties and clans (Eoganachta, Connachta) having achieved eminence, based on serious invasion and conquest, with others relegated to subject status - see the Borama tribute imposed on the Lagin. The other peoples aimed to improve their lot, and those who did so, and were thought suitable for co-opting into the elite exploitative rank were afforded 'Milesian' pedigrees, regardless of actual ethnic belonging. None of this happens without the significant conquest in the first place. The identity of various tribal names in different parts of the Celtic world points at this sort of mobility, and the historically recorded migrations or attempted migrations of the Helvetii and Belgae speak for it too.

[Barreldriver]

While the Celtic world undoubtedly straddled the great north south watershed of the Continent, I seriously doubt that much passed from the south to the north under the Celtic aegis. Celtdom's base was always north of the Alps. The Lepontine, Balkan, Anatolian and Iberian offshoots seem just that to me. Druidry - the Celtic institution par excellence seems to have been most established in the north. We can look to its initiates as the prime vehicle for the spread of the more esoteric aspects of Celtic thought.

In the words of Pliny the Elder:

"Nowadays, Britain continues to be held spellbound by magic and conducts so much ritual that it would seem that it was Britain that had given magic to the Persians"

(Natural History, xxx.3)


Late Bronze/Early Iron Age, rather, no?

Yes


This sort of thing will have played a role, but far secondary to the invasion and putting under vassaldom the predecessors sort of thing, my gut instinct tells me. I look to historical early Irish society for the best picture of how this worked in practice - certain dynasties and clans (Eoganachta, Connachta) having achieved eminence, based on serious invasion and conquest, with others relegated to subject status - see the Borama tribute imposed on the Lagin. The other peoples aimed to improve their lot, and those who did so, and were thought suitable for co-opting into the elite exploitative rank were afforded 'Milesian' pedigrees, regardless of actual ethnic belonging. None of this happens without the significant conquest in the first place. The identity of various tribal names in different parts of the Celtic world points at this sort of mobility, and the historically recorded migrations or attempted migrations of the Helvetii and Belgae speak for it too.

Excellent point here. I'm inclined to read more in regards to this pattern.

[The Black Prince]

Weren't these south eastern incomers rather characterised by the absence of La Tene ornament? The most recent thing I read on it was from the 1930s, I admit, but that's what was written there. Collingwood's Roman Britain...

About the Kelts, a great deal is written about them by Haywood, I can really recommend:

Haywood, J., 2004. The Celts: Bronze Age to New Age. Pearson Education

And about the Belgic tribes in pre-Roman Britian I can recommend a book about Londinium. It is not only about the Roman settlement but also describes in detail the inhabitants of SE-England before and during the time of the Roman invasions, that is the Belgic tribes:

Morris, J., 1982. Londinium: London in the Roman Empire. London

Both books - while written with scholar detail - are very readable.:)



There are examples of British elite survival here though. THere was a reasonably high up lord signing charters in Kent, with a British name, for instance. 'Cerdic' of Wessex provides another good example. The Wuffings thought it expedient to include 'Caser' in their pedigree. Lindsay's king pedigree includes the ridiculously Celtic 'Cathbad'.

Yeah 'Cerdic' is as we say in Dutch 'a strange duck in the bite'. The story about him (I believe he was introduced in one source and since then copied) is as those of Aelle and other Saxon leaders, arriving in a few boats with some kinsmen and a warband. But his name sounds Briton.

The one basic source is either wrong about the where he comes from (thus not an invading searaider) as proposed by some scholars who say he was the bastard son of a Saxon Haedling (Aetheling) and a Briton woman, hence the name. Or the basic source made a misspelling in his name, instead of Cerdic the name would be Cedric, -ric (Latin) or -rik (Greek) suffix meaning roughly a 'mighty' one in Germanic and common in various forms among the migrating Germanic tribal leaders during that age.

Personally I think the AngloSaxon-ation of Britian was a slow process, not as much caused by the weaknes of Britons or the strength of the invaders (Irish, Pictish, Saxon, etc..). But caused by the typical elements of a two-fronts war.
At the eastern coast the petty Anglo-Saxon kingdoms were and at the west of Britain some of the petty Briton kingdoms. All fighting/raiding/pausing among them. In such a case the middle petty kingdoms suffer the most since they are attacked from both sides and get weakened to much. However the same counts in a lesser degree for the western Briton kingdoms who also can be attacked from the west by Irish searaiders. The Saxons have the advantage that though other migrating/invading Saxons might arrive, those don't raid but can easily be absorbed, they share the same language, religion and kinship as the already settled Saxons.
But this is merely my personal opinion, it would be hard to proof this.;)

[Osweo]

Morris, J., 1982. Londinium: London in the Roman Empire. London
The same as he who wrote 'the Age of Arthur' that is widely mocked for being packed full of wild conjecture? (I actually like a lot of his ideas... :p)

The one basic source is either wrong about the where he comes from (thus not an invading searaider)
This ties in well with the Middle Thames Saxons of the archaeological record, well attested in physical remains, but ignored by the saga-history, aye. Nice to tie up loose ends!
It seems that sea warrior carving out a kingdom was a popular motif - unsurprisingly. Bandit leader who topple his British bosses and steals a kingdom seems less so! Nicking the tale from a neighbour is a good way of undermining their rulers' legitimacy vis a vis your own ambitions and designs on their vulnerable patrimony... I'm not a great fan of early Wessex, by the way. ;)

as proposed by some scholars who say he was the bastard son of a Saxon Haedling (Aetheling) and a Briton woman, hence the name.
Where is that H-word seen? :confused:

Or the basic source made a misspelling in his name, instead of Cerdic the name would be Cedric, -ric (Latin) or -rik (Greek) suffix meaning roughly a 'mighty' one in Germanic and common in various forms among the migrating Germanic tribal leaders during that age.
There's no need whatsoever to be looking to the Classical tongues for this element! Ric is well attested in all Germanic branches, and has its pedigree etymology comfortably within the Germanosphere. VERY old relations with Celtic wouldn't be too out of place to mention, given their love of the -rix suffix, but I wouldn't look at the relationship as one of borrowing so much as IE cognates.

And we are still left with the Ced element. Undoubtedly Celtic. Means 'battle' 'warfare'. We may be faced with a hybrid name, indeed. There are other peculiar constructions seen in English onomastica that smack of the same.

Personally I think the AngloSaxon-ation of Britian was a slow process, not as much caused by the weaknes of Britons or the strength of the invaders (Irish, Pictish, Saxon, etc..). But caused by the typical elements of a two-fronts war. ...
But this is merely my personal opinion, it would be hard to proof this.;)
Good thinking. One of the factors, indeed, I'd say.

I stress more the inability of the British to slough off the Romanisation well enough to cope with the new political circumstances of the Migrations age. Even in far Gwynedd they clung to old titles like tribunus and magistratus. Every tinpot king had a dream of imperium. Those least effected by it seem to have survived best. Actually, you might argue that even the Welsh who did make it owe it to extra-imperial antecedents. Cunedda of Gwynedd came from north of the wall, Dyfed, Cornwall, and Brecknock have their Irish heritage too... Was there any polity that lacked this? Was Powys the only exception?

[The Black Prince]

The proportions ? Anglo-saxons in the worst case were 1/4 of pop. ; in the best of cases they were 1/3.

I'd say between= 30% ?

Obviously higher in some regions (south-eastern England near 50-60% ?)

I would rather say the opponent. The AS first entered via Kent, according to literature and archaeological eveidence they settled here. But this region was the most dense settled region of Post-Roman Britain. Within a generation these people were ruled by 'rebelling' AS. The AS formed a minority here since they left the locals on their own. This in fact is a similar stunt as the Lombards, Franks, Burgundians, Visigoths, etc.. did.

However the AS also invaded via the North, creating kingdoms as Bernicia et such and via the south from perhaps Neustria (nowadays Normandy, but in those days also an AS stronghold). Here they entered land populated by more ferocious 'less-Romanized' Britons. But also lands of a much less population density.



You fail to understand that THOSE days......democracy didn't exist : the ruling class had power of life or death on their servants and population in general ; so.........even a little number of invaders was sufficient to impose transmit their culture over an overwhelming mass of autoctonous.

Comparative examples : Transalpine Gallia (modern France) had a population of 5 millions of peoples : about 100'000-150'000 romans romanized it totally.

Between 16-17° century 20 millions of indian mexican were "hispanized" by few hundred thousands of european spaniards.

Well, this is an important cosideration at least. The historical relevance of Anglo-saxon invasion goes far beyond their numerical size. This is true.

I know you adress this to Osweo, but I like to inform you about my earlier post.

Unlike the Spaniards, The AS didn't have the technological overweight. The Spaniards were, when compared with the Aztec, armed with a vocabulary that extended those of the natives a few times. And they brought with them their state organization, spoke and written in Spanish.

The Anglo-Saxons didn't write, later the monks wrote and they wrote in Latin. The first form of Anglo-Saxon writing in a 'organized state' context is by Alfred the Great. Though he was still just forming the state awareness of 'Anglecynn' (English Kinship) from the petty kingdom Wessex still was, not earlier as the late 9th century.

The same accounts for the Roman occupation of Gaul, though population estimates vary for Gaul from 2 to 4 million as I thought? A large part was rebellious against the Romans at some period. The Romans were ruthless on those occassions, and the consequences were extermination of the males and enslavement for the woman and children.
The Romans in these things were often helped by other competing lesser Gallic chieftans who in return where given Roman citizenship and Latin citizenship for their tribal members.



But it's just the problem i underlined in my first post, Osweo : you (modern english) tend to end up with meta-politic considerations, while here the discussion is more scientific and about the exact size of an ancient population and its impact on the sub-stratum.

You see : i notice there is a unconscious will to accept historical thories (anglo-saxon demographic replacement of British isles) that fit best with your meta-politic belief.


So if there is no vocabulary and technologically overweight and neither a state organized overweight. The most plausible reason for the English-speaking of the Anglo-Saxon petty kingdoms, is an acre for an acre conquest by a migrating people that originally considered the local 'native' population as 'foreigners' (Wealhas).

However When these petty kingdoms got larger they more easily absorbed larger parts. This also according to the genetical evidence we all know, left much more room for 'native briton' influences. And since the originally AS kingdoms were already firmly settled and culturally/linguistic 'Anglecynn' this was easily adapted by the smaller new lands.
At that point there is also a technological overweight and organized state, hence the reason that the common language caused by the Anglo-Norman conquest became English on the whole British isles while leaving only a minor input in the local genes of the Welshmen, Higlanders and Irish, etc..

[The Black Prince]

Where is that H-word seen? :confused:

hehe.. just a joke of mine.:D

It is unsure what Cerdic his status was in the beginning. That is before he carved out a kingdom for himself.

So therefore the Haedling/Aethling thing:
Haadling (Frisian): for headman.
In earlier Frisian it was written as Haedling (ae: pronounced as 'aa' in Frisian, unlike in old-English 'ae' pronouced as 'ea' in head )
lose the 'H' and the 'd' for 'th' is Aethling

Anglo-Saxon 'Aethel' stands for noble (Eal,Ael,Arl,Aal,Adel,Aedel,Eadel,Edel,Athel, etc..)

Nevertheless haedman/haedling means headman/headling or f.i. hoofdman/hoofdling in Dutch or hauptman/hauptling in German. Therefore having more relation with the Norse term Hersir, meaning again the same as 'hearser' in Frisian or 'heerser' in Dutch. The Norse 'hersir'can however be exchanged with the Anglo-Saxon Thegn/Thane qua standing, this standing is equal to that of a Haedling in Frisia during the Middle Ages.



The same as he who wrote 'the Age of Arthur' that is widely mocked for being packed full of wild conjecture? (I actually like a lot of his ideas... )

hmm, I only read Londinium, which was quite well in line with the current stand of archaeology of the 1980's.

However 'The age of Arthur' sounds very daring. Arthur being somewhat the epitome of historian/archeological porn. Porn meaning in the sense of the same as the 'Secret of the Templars' for historians and 'The finding of Atlantis' for archaeologists.

Everybody likes porn, but nobody of a certain standing can be put in connection with it.:D



And we are still left with the Ced element. Undoubtedly Celtic. Means 'battle' 'warfare'. We may be faced with a hybrid name, indeed. There are other peculiar constructions seen in English onomastica that smack of the same.

true, I own a book about Frisian names. With Cedric, (I only found Kedrik) it said:

Kedrik Ruler that brings gifts or gifted ruler.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Osweo
That’s a subjective opinion

Nope, Saga of Hrolf Kraki, the parallels between that and Beowulf are well documented in Old English and Old Norse literary study.

I could add more but that would be opinion.


Does asinine mean like a donkey? I never bothered looking it up.

Buy a dictionary.:D

If you don't know the most basic of Modern English words can I accept your criticism of an Old English usage (cough)?:p


You comfortably lean on various studies, and yet they have yet to demonstrate to me the vailidity of the statement that Wealh meant slave, rather than simply Wealh. That an individual Wealh might have been a slave is immaterial, some occupied high positions in English Kingdoms.

Well if you’re going to ignore the bulk of scholarship…..


No argumentation to back it up?

D.H Green for one. I can’t really list the entirety of Anglo-Saxon/Germanic scholarship, I have plans for the next five days….


I spend more time with the primary sources than anything else, and like to come at them with an open mind. Nothing I've read prompts me to equalise Wealh and slave. I can't show you a study.

All serious scholars work from the primary sources and without translation as well (I’m working on it), do I accept their view or Osweo………….Hmmmmm……..sorry Osy I have to go with the accepted definition here. Show me a reason to change my mind, but as you have already stated you can’t.


I was pointing out that 'Wealh' did not have an offensive enough connotation to prevent it from being used in naming potential royalty.

That’s not proof that the word didn’t mean slave, though is it? It’s not beyond the realm of possibility that the word could mean both foreigner and slave and also be used by a descendent of either/or, even a King. Words have power, words can be taken, twisted and altered......

[Germanicus]

Quote:Osweo
I spend more time with the primary sources than anything else, and like to come at them with an open mind. Nothing I've read prompts me to equalise Wealh and slave. I can't show you a study.

I always thought "Welsic" was the term A/S gave for slave, that is where the Welsh got their name from?

[Osweo]

However 'The age of Arthur' sounds very daring. Arthur being somewhat the epitome of historian/archeological porn. Porn meaning in the sense of the same as the 'Secret of the Templars' for historians and 'The finding of Atlantis' for archaeologists.

Everybody likes porn, but nobody of a certain standing can be put in connection with it.:D
:thumb001:
Morris did the good service of putting all the relevant sources in the one book though. This other book is just his attempt at fitting it all together, oh, and to make a few bob... ;)

true, I own a book about Frisian names. With Cedric, (I only found Kedrik) it said:

Kedrik Ruler that brings gifts or gifted ruler.
Interesting, but what are the parallels for this Ked-?

Is the book designed for modern practical use - naming babies - or is it more academic? I'd be interested to hear if it gives a date and context for the first attestation of this name...

Oh, and is there a Frisian version of Osweo? :P < *AnsuwihaZ. ON Asi.

Nope, Saga of Hrolf Kraki, the parallels between that and Beowulf are well documented in Old English and Old Norse literary study.

I could add more but that would be opinion.
Please do!

Buy a dictionary.:D

If you don't know the most basic of Modern English words can I accept your criticism of an Old English usage (cough)?:p
Most English use the French borrowings without the slightest idea of their actual meaning, and often in senses quite the opposite of that. I, though, ask when I don't know for sure. I've lived in a non-English speaking country for many years, and you get rusty, and come back a bit more questioning about some things you took as read before.



D.H Green for one. I can’t really list the entirety of Anglo-Saxon/Germanic scholarship, I have plans for the next five days….
I don't want a list. I want their REASONS. Surely you can at least outline them here. Simple question; what indicates the use of Wealh to mean 'slave'? Was it applied to slaves of English (or other) stock ever? Was it only applied to Welsh slaves, and thus might not have signified their status so much as ethnicity?



All serious scholars work from the primary sources and without translation as well (I’m working on it), do I accept their view or Osweo………….Hmmmmm……..sorry Osy I have to go with the accepted definition here. Show me a reason to change my mind, but as you have already stated you can’t.
Accepted accepted...

But WHY?

That’s not proof that the word didn’t mean slave, though is it?
I am no logician. I can't tell you exactly what kind of fallacy you're commiting there, or give the Latin phrase that it is usually defined by, but I do feel the presence of it.

The word meant 'western/southern foreigner', and therefore Celt/Italic. This much is certain. It was borrowed by Slavs to refer to Romance peoples. We stray into the realms of conjecture when we mention possible derivations from the tribal name 'Volcae', the Celts from the upper Rhine. But on the Continent there is nothing to indicate that there was a 'slave' meaning.

So we pass into the British Isles. What is the material that prompts us to see a shift in meaning? I haven't come across it. Naturally, I haven't read everyhting, far from it, but even so...

It seems to me that this 'slave' notion is just throwing in unnecessary extra variables to confuse matters.

It’s not beyond the realm of possibility that the word could mean both foreigner and slave and also be used by a descendent of either/or, even a King. Words have power, words can be taken, twisted and altered......
The King names may well refer to British background, but there is no indication and very little likelihood of servile origins being so proclaimed.

I always thought "Welsic" was the term A/S gave for slave, that is where the Welsh got their name from?
G, I believe it to be one of things that somebody said once, based on a hunch, 150 years ago, and which many people have repeated unthinkingly ever since. You'd be amazed how often that sort of thing happens.

That's why 'bulk of literature' is no support. I'm looking for a good proof/demonstration/argument, and I have never heard it.

[Hrolf Kraki]

See here: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14878/14878-8.txt

[Osweo]

See here: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14878/14878-8.txt
Cheers, Mate! I'll be reading thru that soon enough...

Does it quash the idea that Beowulf contains a lot of Irish influence? I never really favoured the idea myself, but have seen it floated around. But a lot of different things float. ;)

Anyone got any thoughts on the proposed involvement of King Aldfrith in Beowulf's composition/putting down into writing?

[The Black Prince]

It could be that the term Wealhas originally meaning 'foreigner/alien' at some point might for a while became synonymous with a person of the unfree/master bound class?

However the officiall term for the unfree/master bound class is Esne or ðeow in AS society, as I believe Thrall in Norse. In later English and other Germanic languages to be replaced with the term Slave (e.g. NL: Slaaf; GER: Sklave; DK: Slave).


Interesting, but what are the parallels for this Ked-?

Is the book designed for modern practical use - naming babies - or is it more academic? I'd be interested to hear if it gives a date and context for the first attestation of this name...

Oh, and is there a Frisian version of Osweo? < *AnsuwihaZ. ON Asi.
It is a more comprehensive naming book, it contains more names than the lighter babymaterial. But no, I would certainly not call it academic.;)

Ked is seen as an flaaifoarm/vleivorm (don't know how to translate this to English, but it means something as 'flatter form') of Get being a flatterform of either Gelt/Geld/Gild meaning value, gift, treausure or Ger meaning spear.

And the only direct linked word I can come up with is the Frisian term kedde meaning carthorse/hackney.

Concerning Osweo:

Os- is related to Ase
Ase (m) ferkoarting fan Germaanske namme Ask- (spear fan askehout) of fan in namme mei Ans-(god).
To be short could stand for ash (used for ashwood spears) or of a name with 'god' init.

And -Weo as you said Wihaz
Wih- is striid (battle)
But as a suffix it is never used in that way in Frisian names. Frisian names with wih- are Wycher/Wieger or Wytse/Wietse, whereas wyd/wyh can also stand for water/waterway. f.i. the Frisian term for Viking is Wytsing.

[Osweo]

Ked is seen as an flaaifoarm/vleivorm (don't know how to translate this to English, but it means something as 'flatter form')
I did a little googling:
May ... Een 19e eeuwse Schotse vleivorm van Margaret Mary.
i.e.
May ... A 19th Century Scottish diminuitive of Margaret or Mary.

That's how I'd translate it in the 'lofty' style. Otherwise I'd just say 'short form' or 'May is short for Margaret'. :thumb001: Or 'pet name'.

of Get being a flatterform of either Gelt/Geld/Gild meaning value, gift, treausure or Ger meaning spear.
Interesting...
I suppose we could add Geat- to this list, for the sake of completeness. This ethnonym IS attested in English onomastica.

But I've seen a lot of Old English diminutives, and am not sure that G- to C- was the sort of thing we did. But then again, nicknames are very unpredictable.

Nah, I don't believe we should think too much about the possibilities of a 'Cedric'. It's written 'Cerdic' and that's just FAR too close to the English spelling of the British Caratacus > Caradog > Craddock. Bede, in 741, records a Welsh King of Elmet as Cerdic. That satisfies me that we're dealing with a Welsh name.


Concerning Osweo:
... Wih- is striid (battle)
But as a suffix it is never used in that way in Frisian names. Frisian names with wih- are Wycher/Wieger or Wytse/Wietse,
Ah, but I think this is our Old English WIG-.
We have Wighere to match your example above.

The suffix in Osweo is something different. It is the Weih in Weihnachten. It means 'sacred', 'holy'. We see it in some English place names to denote a Heathen shrine. Doesn't Frisian have a similar word?

(Great resource, that book by the way! Is it cheap to buy on Amazon or whatever? THis probably won't be the first time I ask you to consult it... :thumb001:)

[The Black Prince]

I tend to agree with you on Cerdic, the resemblance with other Briton names is to great and the fact that Bede used the same name for a Welsh king does it.

Concerning the etymology, I did a little search on Amazon (com and co.uk) and came up with two titles:

1. The first is an older version of the one I have (written in Dutch/Frisian), but this on only counts 48 pages (my version counts 170 pages). I think it is a rather simple form, anyway it is cheap for $5.99 in the US via Amazon.com (via Amazon.co.uk it is more expensive: £27.12).

Fryske foarnammen =: Friese voornamen (Fryske Akademy) 1987 (http://www.amazon.com/Fryske-foarnammen-Friese-voornamen-Akademy/dp/9033013703/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255976881&sr=1-1)

2. A better (academic) but more expensive book is the Old Frisian Etymological Dictionary. It contains 598 pages and is written by two Dutch scholars in English. The price is £101.82 for a new one at Amazon.co.uk ($155.60 on Amazon.com) So it is a hefty purchase but probably well worth it.
Here is the Amazon.co.uk link, however a customer review is written on amazon.com.

Old Frisian Etymological Dictionary (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary) (Hardcover) (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Frisian-Etymological-Dictionary-Leiden-Indo-European/dp/9004145311/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255977390&sr=8-1)

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Osweo
Please do!

Keep an eye out in the future for a certain something we both know about, Beowulf will figure….


I've lived in a non-English speaking country for many years, and you get rusty, and come back a bit more questioning about some things you took as read before.

I’m not a hundred percent sure of your point here…..


I don't want a list. I want their REASONS. Surely you can at least outline them here. Simple question; what indicates the use of Wealh to mean 'slave'? Was it applied to slaves of English (or other) stock ever? Was it only applied to Welsh slaves, and thus might not have signified their status so much as ethnicity?

Wealh/Wealas (as far as I have read) is a word cognate to other words in Old Norse and Old High German from a root word meaning foreigner and also used (at least in Anglo-Saxon England) to denote slave (it may have applied to Celts specifically later being used of other people’s like Slavs).

What do we know about the use of the word in England? We know it was applied to the Britons in both the context of foreigner/outsider and also as slave, given that many Britons surviving in English controlled lands survived as slaves. Were all Britons slaves? No we know that many held land, were all slaves British? No.

Did it apply to non-Britons? Probably not, the Old English for Scots is Scyttisc or Scotta, where as the Britons are singled out as Wealas.


The word meant 'western/southern foreigner', and therefore Celt/Italic. This much is certain. It was borrowed by Slavs to refer to Romance peoples.

Where do you base your claim for this from? The works I have read indicate it to be of Germanic origin (and ancient at that).


It seems to me that this 'slave' notion is just throwing in unnecessary extra variables to confuse matters.

It’s not an “unnecessary extra variable”, the word wealh/wealas survives as a term denoting the British both foreigner and slave. It is used in both contexts in Old English literature it doesn’t seem difficult to accept to me or a point of much consequence.


The King names may well refer to British background, but there is no indication and very little likelihood of servile origins being so proclaimed.

You’re forgetting that the word didn’t just mean a slave it was also used to describe the British in general….

Besides we only have later regal lists to promote claims to divine ancestors or famous figures of Germanic legend. King Offa of Mercian proclaimed his descent from Offa of Angeln the victor of Fifeldor, there isn’t a shred of documented evidence to support such a claim, for all we know Offa was the descendent of bunch of cut throat pirates who managed to stamp their authority on the local region, such is the reality of early Germanic kingship, where a king was often anybody who had the followers to make himself one. In point of fact there is no reliable evidence for the existence of a Mercian kingdom before c.AD600…..

It is highly likely that “kings” fathered numerous bastards on whatever women (including slaves) took their fancy. Whilst there is, as far as I know, no evidence of an Anglo-Saxon king having a slave in their ancestry I wouldn’t find it unlikely a slave could buy freedom and (by extension) own property, many slaves were English as well. Besides given that early Anglo-Saxon succession wasn’t by primogenitor a man born of a king and a slave was just as much an Atheling (of the blood) as any other kings spawn. If he showed skill in war and luck with the Gods….

[Osweo]

Keep an eye out in the future for a certain something we both know about, Beowulf will figure….
Ah, I know what you mean! :thumbs up Very good!

I’m not a hundred percent sure of your point here…..
I was just saying how and why my English doesn't flow so well any more, and why I am a bit more suspicious of some words sometimes.

Wealh/Wealas (as far as I have read) is a word cognate to other words in Old Norse and Old High German from a root word meaning foreigner and also used (at least in Anglo-Saxon England) to denote slave (it may have applied to Celts specifically later being used of other people’s like Slavs).
No, the Slavs took it from the Germans to use of southerners, usually Romance peoples.

What do we know about the use of the word in England? We know it was applied to the Britons in both the context of foreigner/outsider
Yep...

and also as slave,
And here's where we hit my difficulty again. HOW can you demonstrate that.
Wealh was undoubtedly used of rich influential Britons, integrated into English society. Engle might have sneered a bit while saying it, sure, but that's the ethnic coming into play, not social definitions.
How could it simultaneously mean 'slave'. It was only used of a slave if the slave was Welsh, and so was only referring to his ethnicity, not social position.

Here's how I see the logic of it:
"Wealh meant Briton and slave of British stock" = "Paki means person from the Subcontinent and postman of Subcontinental stock"

Did it apply to non-Britons? Probably not, the Old English for Scots is Scyttisc or Scotta, where as the Britons are singled out as Wealas.
So a Gaelic slave wouldn't be called Wealh. How therefore can Wealh MEAN slave?!?


The word meant 'western/southern foreigner', and therefore Celt/Italic. This much is certain. It was borrowed by Slavs to refer to Romance peoples.
Where do you base your claim for this from? The works I have read indicate it to be of Germanic origin (and ancient at that).
No no, you misread me, it should be "therefore WAS APPLIED to Celts/Italics."
It's very Germanic, though ultimately might have summat to do with the Gaulish Volcae tribe.


It’s not an “unnecessary extra variable”, the word wealh/wealas survives as a term denoting the British both foreigner and slave.
WHERE is it seen with the latter connotation!?

A decent example of it, and I'm converted! It's THAT simple!

Proof might be a gloss of Latin servus as wealh, for instance.


It is used in both contexts in Old English literature it doesn’t seem difficult to accept to me or a point of much consequence.
THere is a great deal of political consequence in insisting on this equation of meanings. Idiot celtomaniacs will use this to beat the English with, and even in academia we're introducing the flavour of a feeling that might not even have existed.

Besides we only have later regal lists to promote claims to divine ancestors or famous figures of Germanic legend. King Offa of Mercian proclaimed his descent from Offa of Angeln the victor of Fifeldor, there isn’t a shred of documented evidence to support such a claim, for all we know Offa was the descendent of bunch of cut throat pirates who managed to stamp their authority on the local region, such is the reality of early Germanic kingship, where a king was often anybody who had the followers to make himself one. In point of fact there is no reliable evidence for the existence of a Mercian kingdom before c.AD600…..
Offa had enemies, who could easily have used this to bash him with. We hear nothing of it. Angeln's dynasty started out prestigious and wealthy, how could they so easily have fallen from this position? There was a great deal of respect in English society for the principal of legitimacy. The illegitimacy of Aldfrith, Ethelwald Moll, and the later Northumbrian usurpers was hooted abroad no end. We don't hear this of the Icelings. Perhaps it is best to assume some continuity from Continental dynasties after all. Pirates have trouble building things that last. It takes them a lifetime to build up what they have, and then some other bugger usually pops up to snatch it away. I own that this has happened in some of our kingdoms, probably Kent and Bernicia standing out most, but Mercia seems a little different.

It is highly likely that “kings” fathered numerous bastards on whatever women (including slaves) took their fancy. Whilst there is, as far as I know, no evidence of an Anglo-Saxon king having a slave in their ancestry I wouldn’t find it unlikely a slave could buy freedom and (by extension) own property, many slaves were English as well.
The nobles around the king had a vested interest in upholding legitimacy in their own families and positions. They wouldn't stand for too much deviance at the centre of the state. Whenever they did bring up a Perkin Warbeck type pretender, they always were very anxious to protest his legitimacy. They wouldn't have wanted it broadcast aloud that the new ruler was of slave stock. I think we're dealing with something else in the naming practice here. Perhaps Xeno- in Greek names is a worthwhile thing to look at in this connection?

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Osweo
How could it simultaneously mean 'slave'. It was only used of a slave if the slave was Welsh, and so was only referring to his ethnicity, not social position.

Right so we’ve wasted four pages on a misunderstanding….sigh….

Let me recap my position.

The word Walh (attested in Old English, Old Norse and Old High German) is the root word of Wealh/Wealas.

It was a word that may have been used exclusively to describe Celtic people’s encountered by continental Germanic peoples’s. I emphasise may, whether it was used for foreigners in general, or not, I don’t know.

When the various Germanic people’s (who later became known as the Anglo-Saxons) migrated to the Britain they applied the word to the indigenous Britons (both outside and inside English controlled territory and free and none-free).

Was it specific to the Britons? It doesn’t seem so, the English had different words for the Scots and Irish, seemingly if the word originally meant Celt it had obviously evolved in later times.

The Old English word for slave is theow, many slaves were English prisoners of war, debtors or people made slaves by law. That Wealas was used to refer to Welsh/British slaves was because of the large proportion of Britons who were slaves in England. The connotation of slave was meant by the term. Think of it in the same way as Pakistanis, Indians, Bengalis, Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus are all “Asians” there are connotation applicable to the word. In Anglo-Saxon England to call someone Wealas was an ethnic description (the English by and large only dealt with Welsh speakers to begin with) but it also was understood socially as well given that most Welsh were probably slaves and usually considered second class citizens even when free.

Hope that makes sense.