I have surmised from mixed sources, historical, archaeology, historical
geographical that in Sussex that the Romano/Brits occupied the strategic
best resources at the time of of the Saxon incursions.
The Welsh were still there (speaking a different language) in the
countryside occupying the less profitable areas and probably breeding less
successfully for half a millennium.
Historical documents propose a political vacuum at the fall of the Roman
Empire. Evidence indicates from the AS Chronicle that the Welsh were first
met by the newcomers. They ran away.
Later the Saxons fought battles with the Romano Brits which they drew
(Mearc redes burna) and made treaties, and the other one they won with at
least a bit of genocide (Andertium).
The % of immigrants really depends on the native population at the time. I
can't find the research for this. My surmise that Sussex was a rich
resource are with grain (the oil of today) being the main resource (the
engine of the armies) and the Romans exploited this for 500 years or more.
The land may have been underpopulated to exploit the resources with a
political vacuum when some (not all ) of the Romans left.
For the Saxons to get in a position to breed more successfully, they had to
gain political control (waging war) on the holders of the best resources or
making treaties. I don't think it was like apartheid at all. I think they
sided with the Welsh to maintain a presence and gain power, but not
everywhere. I think the apartheid bit is just plain wrong. I think the
biological successful breeding bit might be right though. They became
dominant and occupied large areas, but does seem the later kings and duces
had Welsh names.
As for the language disappearing in Sussex with most of the place names,
the Romans had half a millennium to start the change and the Saxons
continued the process. I am inclined to think the Romans were more
responsible than the Saxons.
Plausibility world view.
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 22:09:12 +0100, John Briggs <[log in to unmask]>
>Bea Hopkinson wrote:
>> I am not clear why Roman mosaic pavements would illuminate the
>> subject. They were doubtless expensive accountrements to a villa or
>> settlement which might not be affordable to most of the population.
>> It would seem somewhat tenuous to ssume their presence or absence
>> points to the language they were speaking?
>A little reflection would lead to the conclusion that areas with mosaic
>pavements would be most likely to have a high degree of Romanisation, and
>hence a greater likelihood of a Latin-speaking population. But it is the
>converse that is more interesting: that areas known to have supported a
>Celtic-speaking population subsequently, lacked mosaic pavements - so it is
>more likely that they continued to speak a Celtic language because they had
>always done so, rather than because they accepted Celtic-speaking refugees.
>> Linguistics is not my field of study but I am wondering, if there are few
>> Latin loan words in English, if that is because English became mandatory
>> at the Reformation?
>This is a baffling question on any number of levels. English did not, of
>course, become mandatory at the Reformation (except, perhaps, in Ireland).
>But it is the number of Latin loan words in Old English that is the issue.