>I find that easy to accept. But of course, that goes for immigrants who
>go to a new country where they adapt. In the case of Anglo-Saxon
>England, it's much more difficult to set up such a simple model, since
>it depends on so many factors.
I guess we all search for the ultimate truth which perhaps cannot
should be focussing simply on the evidence - and more importantly recent
evidence. I don't mean to throw out the baby with the bathwater, but the
written at the turn of the century need revision based on the kind of
evidence we have to hand nowadays.
>How many Britons kept speaking Brythonic? Until how late? And how many
>spoke English as a second language? When did the change come? Fast and
>furious or over centuries? Maybe the Germanic immigrants had been living
>in Britain far longer than we assumed? I think that's one of the points
>behind the 'apartheid' model - a minority forcing a majority to adapt to
>their culture, their language. But why can't that have happened
>voluntarily? To take part in the new culture?
Oh, I so agree - my own thinking is that it would have been
voluntary...convenient to do so - we all take the easy road when it suits
us. I think about it like the switch from £ sterling to the decimal
pound - we all resisted it at first - as I still do with Farenheit and
Centigrade because I think/feel Farenheit - but when you are part of it
everyday it becomes the norm and you no longer think of the difficulties
during transition. It just becomes familiar and eventually integrated
into our thinking.
>Sure, I could imagine massive immigrations that lead to a society being
>forced to adapt to the new language. In fact, that's what I used to
>think did happen in Britain before I first learned about the signs of
>continuity (I, too, grew up with tales of reforestation and massive
>Roman ruins being shunned by Saxon immigrants who founded new
>settlements and cut the trees again).
Even in Domesday Book we have evidence of one deforestation (in
Gloucestershire ( if my memory serves me right) which regrew in 30 years.
>Even in a milder model of assimilation and adaptation, I could envisage
>a population that has only one choice if it wants to take part in the
>new elite, and that is adapt to the culture of that group, and speak
>But maybe it was even less forced, purely by attraction? I know it's
>totally alien to some to even think that way of the 'Anglo-Saxon'
>culture, in regards of the 'vastly superior' (not my choice of words)
>Roman culture. Maybe the Britons actually liked what the Saxons had to
>offer? Something like what happened after the initial Arab conquest of
>North Africa and Spain - these invaders were also a minority, with a new
>religion and a new language. They did not massacre the native, nor force
>them away, but gradually all came to speak Arabic.
Eventually is the word :)
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: British archaeology discussion list
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> On Behalf Of Bea Hopkinson
>> Sent: maandag 24 juli 2006 23:00
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [BRITARCH] Continuity of Brythonic society'
>> If we look at our own mixed societies today we find bi-lingual ability
>> least in the first immigrant generation, then a gradual dying out of
>> language in the second and third and so on. Why cannot we accept this
>> antiquity? There are so many complexities in integrating societies
>> wiping them out would NOT seem very sensible if you want them to
>> to work and communicate with you, the conqueror. They would also have
>> translators. Like Robert I thought that archaeological evidence has
>> shown the anhiliation theory to be no longer acceptable.