"Pryor or Bede?" Topic

I got to watch Francis Pyor's "Britain AD" series on DVD this weekend--probably old stuff for most of you, but new to me. The archeology of the large post-Roman buildings and the gravimeter surveys of the farming communities in the north of England were fascinating.

In the 3rd episode Pryor hustles to discount DNA evidence and in particular Bede's history, to argue from the archeology there was no violent conquest of Britain by the Saxons. Granted he may be only rhetorically tossing down a gauntlet, but it is going too far to discard written history when the sources are rare enough as it is.

1. Why did English replace Bretonic language in Great Britain, except through conquest by Saxon warriors?
2. Is it plausible that peace and prosperity reigned in Britain when war was a universal part of society in European and Mediterranean culture?
3. It would need only a few thousand warriors over a couple of generations to completely disrupt an established society, such as seen in Britain with the Vikings and the Normans, and in the Roman empire with the Germanic crossing of the Rhine in 406AD.

Once the present revisionist fad of history has run its course, I expect Bede and Nennius will be treated with more respect, as has come to pass with Homer, Herodotus, and Thucydides.

All history is revisionist, often including the primary sources…

Damon.

This is all part of the de-barbarianization that has come to be popular in Western history.
Just look at the Vikings one would hardly know about their raiding if you read todays books.

I believe that some historians have contrasted the rapid overrunning of Gaul and Spain, where the invaders assimilated the Romance languages of the native majority, with the situation in Britain, where it is implied that more substantial and prolonged resistance would have led to a slower and more concentrated advance, and the gradual predominance of the English language.

I talked to a potter at West Stow Anglo-Saxon village who argued that we don't know what language the 'British' were speaking before the Roman Conquest. Evidence for it being solely Brythonic is slender?
Had 'Germanics' really not been crossing the North Sea for all the centuries prior?

Were the Saxons on the continent under pressure from the Huns/Slavs in the 4th-5th centuries, helping motivate them to go to Britain?

Did the boat culture of the Saxons get passed on to the Vikings, or is Bede's description of the ships of Saxon warriors anachronistic because of Vikings in his day?

What language did the Bretons speak who resettled in Gaul during this time? Did the Roman historians identify the language of the Britons?

I would put my money on Bede.

All the linguistic evidence we have for pre Roman Britain shows Celtic speaking peoples. There is lots of it too.

There is no evidence that the mass of the British gave up speaking P Celtic and used Latin instead.

Francis Prior is in La La land on this one.

The Britons who became Bretons spoke P Celtic as do the Bretons and Welsh today.

All the celtic languages (including Breton) are related but not identical in their modern spoken forms. They aren't germanic nor romantic. Since these areas surround the Saxon bits of the UK surely that's indicative that a "native" celtic tongue was supplanted by a germanic one?

I did a thesis on this about ten years ago and the easiest thing to do is to compare the Germanic migration/invasions of the 5th century onward with the Norman Conquest of 1066.

The main difference berween the two was a decisive battle that removed the AngloSaxon leadership virtually at one blow leaving only followup actions. The Germanic invasions took much longer but the aftermath and linguistic effects were similar.

IMHO there was no slaughter of the native peoples by the conquerors in either situation. We know what happened in 1066 which was pretty similar to what probably happened earlier.

A strong warrior elite was transplanted into positions of authority and control. After 1066 the rulers, nobles, high churchmen lawcourts etc all operated in Norman French. If you wanted to get along you learned French. Meanwhile in the countryside your average peasant continued to speak what he had always spoke but was forced to add in new words that related to the new elite to cover new things and ideas . These were aded to the mixture of Celtic latin German, etc words being used. With few exceptions what survives are the remnants of the "ruling"language in inscriptions, documents etc. There was very little need to write down what your average peasant had to say.

Eventually a language fusion comes about with a mixtures of words from a varity of lingustic sources that eventually evolves into a common language. In England that was English.

Surprisingly in Ireland the language that emmerged was Irish. The original Norman invaders became more Irish than the Irish and were soon Irish speakers.

Take Bede with a good grain of salt. Bede was very anti Celtic as he was part of the Latin Church that never held the Celtic church in high esteem. He never gives credit to the Celts just look at the way he handles the Arthurian story. But that is another issue comletely.

"We know what happened in 1066 which was pretty similar to what probably happened earlier."

No we don't and I would doubt you could give any evidence for it being similar in any meaningful way.

But be my guest.

The Norman incursion in Ireland is not a good comparator for what happened in post Roman Britain.

Bede was very anti British Celt but he liked the Irish Celts but that's Northumbria for you.

Oh appropo Normans does the phrase 'The Harrying Of The North' ring a bell at all?

Good advice. I'm very willing to consume grains of salt with Bede or other historical works, ancient or modern. The depth of good research into the motives and unconscious prejudices of the ancient writers, woven into what they've written, is one of the strengths of more current histories. Merely an interested reader of history, I depend on historians to reveal those perspectives. I think of good history trying to draw knowlege from the broad range of evidence, archeological and linguistic as well as historic. And also looking outside the geographic limits of the country of particular interest.

Pryor's book was slated in the academic press, and for good reason. His arguments show no evidence of having actually read the books that he is busily ignoring and they contain errors that support this idea. As such, the book has little credibility. Under the circumstances, and given the gaping holes in Pryor's book, I would grant Bede greater credence and Pryor less. It's another example of a personality creating a fuss to sell books.

The linguistic transformation of English after the Norman Conquest took hundreds of years with clear textual evidence of the evolution along the way. The collapse of Welsh (or Latin, if you please) in most of Britain is sudden, spectacular and without significant survival in contemporary English. If the natives did drop Welsh OR Latin and pick up Anglo-Saxon, they did so without bringing any noticeable vocabulary or grammatical influence of their supposed native tongues.

Now that I think about it, didn't we have this discussion some time back?

There was an article on genetic roots of the English population which was discussed some time back which was also presented as evidence of Brythonic continuity, but all that really established was that the Anglo-Saxons had not been genocidal.

Iapatrie88- The Nydam Boat is a C4th Germanic 'keel'. It is very like the C5th migration boats Bede described & the later Sutton Hoo ship

Yes we certainly had a similar discussion not so long ago.

Any conclusions relying on DNA evidence currently available are not to be relied upon. The best publicised and least scholarly that of Stephen Oppenheimer is worthless.

Genocidal Saxons seems to have depended on where we are talking about. The founders of Wessex all have Celtic names and the later Laws of Ine differentiate between more valuable Saxons and less valuable 'Welsh'. These applied across all social classes. Hardly neccessary if you had extirminated the natives.

Linguistic evidence in north east England and south east Scotland seems to indicate Celts mainly in the hills and Angles mainly in the valleys. So no extirmination there.

Some parts of Celtic Britain remained more or less unchanged ( a war here, a submission there) until the Viking period.

Elsewhere though I think there is enough evidence to indicate genocide occurred.

There is also evidence of the original English homeland being abandoned.

Perhaps Francis Prior should change his Christian name to Aldridge. Apologies to those who never read Viz.

I read Viz: Jack Black is a fervent favourite as it protrays so many of my neighbours.
"The best publicised and least scholarly that of Stephen Oppenheimer is worthless."
sorry never proved …

Now the rest of you, back off as Oh and me row for weeks

(except I go on holiday [first in 10 months] tomorrow!)

Boy do we disagree ….

OB -- Where is the original English homeland? Am I wrong about it being in Saxony, or was it more like Frisia?

Ah Reddrabs you drawn like a moth to a flame. I know you like Oppenheimer's conclusions but the fact is its bad science, not peer reviewed, he made up his own catergories and gave them silly names. For more see link

link

We do disagree but as we established last time the views you champion serve you as a sort of political comfort blanket. As that is your starting point it allows you little flexibility as the debate evolves.

Anyway enjoy your holiday sounds as if you have earned it.

lapatrie88 southern Scandanavia specificaly Angeln in Schleswig Holstein but like all big movements of people others joined in too. Frisians were involved.

Only three men have fully understood Schleswig-Holstein…

And one of them is dead.

I think Francis Prior is a fine Neolithic archeologist, who want to branch out into a more interesting period.

You have to take all historical information with a grain of salt. History has always had a point of view. You present your case by highlight the facts that prove your point and belittle anything that doesn't.

I think Francis Prior is a fine Neolithic archeologist, who want to branch out into a more interesting period.

He is a well-respected (for the most part) prehistorian, but therein lies the problem with his forays into historical periods.

You have to take all historical information with a grain of salt. History has always had a point of view. You present your case by highlight the facts that prove your point and belittle anything that doesn't.

One key element in researching any historical period is learning about the biases inherent in the source material and taking account of it when drawing your own conclusions. Pryor does not have the critical toolkit. Actually, it is a reasonable point to make that most archaeologists should not be allowed near primary written source material because they lack the training and skills to analyse it properly. The resultant mess when they do try using them is often quite spectacular. Studying primary texts is not a part of any archaeology degree that I am aware of, so archaeologists are not trained in interpreting those texts.

Hi

or the reverse, too often "proper training in interpretation those texts…." means you were taught to agree with the conventional wisdom of your instructor.

Grin.

It is a usual ploy to assert in a baseless argument that the issue is that someone is too stupid to interpret things correctly. Never mind pointing out how often the same passage gets "different" over "school" or distance.

Rocky

I think all 3 are dead now

or the reverse, too often "proper training in interpretation those texts…." means you were taught to agree with the conventional wisdom of your instructor.

Yup, seen that too but not to a great extent among post-grads.

It is a usual ploy to assert in a baseless argument that the issue is that someone is too stupid to interpret things correctly. Never mind pointing out how often the same passage gets "different" over "school" or distance.

While this is true, I am not stating that Pryor is too stupid to understand the texts. I am merely stating that he lacks the critical toolkit to interpret them because he has not had that training. It is not about stupidity but about knowledge of the issues that surround understanding and interpreting texts.

To some extent this is irrelevant because it appears clear from the book that he has not read the texts since he makes some very basic errors when discussing them, and also when talking about Roman history and the migration period in general. I particularly like a couple of his comments and questions about the Migration Period:

"The very idea of a 'Migration Period' is absurd. Why should people suddenly decide to move around in this peculiar and hyperactive fashion?"
and
"Why should the social disruption brought about by the end of the Western Roman Empire cause people to wander aimlessly about?"

Discuss.

Or "there was no such thing as an English people until Bede invented them"?

Why did people emigrate from Europe to the New World? Social unrest, famine and warfare in their homeland, opportunity to gain wealth or improve their social condition? Granted these were not migrations of an entire people, but certainly people living in a dangerous situation, such as the anarchy or tyranny following the fall of the western Roman Empire, would be tempted to move away from there to a better place if they knew of one.

Hi

I hear there is free land and good huntin in Kaintuck.

Rocky

Just back: trying to get a week is not easy at the mo. The flame: "sort of political comfort blanket" : no chance of that. For the discussion : I'm half Irish and very non nationalist.

I do hope I remember to look this stuff up in twenty years or so. I want to compare what we think we know then with what we think we know now, and with what we thought we knew twenty years ago.

Even modern history with its plethora of recodings is not free from argument and debate about what "really" happened.

Why should events a thousand years ago (give or take) be any different?

Yes Redrabs I know you have frequently said so. We did this one to death and were left with your political desires.

Hope you enjoyed your time off.

political desires

which are?

I refute your knowing them …

P.S. thanks yes … The Ashmolean was worth the visit.

That, politics, seems your motivation on this subject from what you said previously. Your right though I don't know or need to know the particular variety. Yeah the Ashmolean's a blast.

nope

Having studied prehistory and archaeology at Sheffield some 35 years ago, I taught history at a comprehensive for 27 years and was very interested in all eras we covered. I cannot claim to be an expert (nor totally on Oppenheimer's side) but was asked several searching questions by Irish folklorists and Germanists which made me read into the whole aspect of … peoples.

I am very aware of the way these arguments are used in anglocentric polemics but this does not invalidate them (in the same way Nazi misuse of evolutionary theories does not invalidate these explanations).

I am aware of the emotional needs that your ideas allow (you correctly put to one side such)but equally am concerned we must not allow such to colour proper discourse.

If you knew me, you'd be aware that a very common criticism in my job is when I do not know the answer, I try to find out even if this is unacceptable to the managers.

That's interesting Reddrabs but its ideological and requires the dismissal of far to much sound evidence on the strength of discredited theories put forward by less than credible proponents.

You know as I do, but you refuse to accept, that to state my views are dismissing "sound evidence" by basing my views on "discredited theories" and "less than credible proponents"
needs YOU to give properly supported argument and REVEAL proper sources. The onus is on you. This is the basis of any didactic thought.
SO do SO.

The way I see it- it would take a large population shift to turn England from a Celtic speaking area to a Germanic one. The only why Pryor could have a case is if he could show that there was a large Germanic speaking community already in England when the Romans left or before they arrived. I guess it could be argued that the Celts in the south East where a group with significant Germanic influence (and as far as I remember he did touch on this). But there seems to be very little to support Pryor's thrust.

That doesn't mean we can take Bede to be very reliable.

There seems to be too much revisionist history that works on the line of- well we don't have many sources and their not reliable- so I can make up what suites the prejudice of the historian (or their market)- and then they don't bother to answer the difficult questions, to boot.

Reddrabs don't you think shouting on the internet looks silly?

This thread invites us to comment on 'Prior or Bede?'. You have failed to do so.

If you want to set out your stall replete with Prior and Oppenheimer or whoever on a seperate thread I'm sure you will get a response.