Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Indo-European family tree (was Re: Celtic and Afro-Asiatic?)

Expand Messages
  • Roger Mills
    ... My thought here: W.Europe was heavily forested, no? That would totally flummox nomads. Farmers at least would figure out slash-and-burn, even if they
    Message 1 of 35 , Oct 3, 2005
      Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:

      > Andreas Johansson wrote:
      >
      > > Quoting Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...>:
      > >
      > > > Hallo!
      > > >
      > > > [...]
      > > >
      > > > Sorry, but I don't understand what you are aiming at. As you say,
      > > > the climatological argument is against *nomads* carrying IE westward,
      > > > and not against *farmers* doing so.

      My thought here: W.Europe was heavily forested, no? That would totally
      flummox nomads. Farmers at least would figure out slash-and-burn, even if
      they didn't have the tools to cut down large numbers of trees.

      > > > What allowed the Anglo-Saxons to replace Celtic and Latin in Britain?

      Sheer numbers? Constant in-migrations, thanks to the relative ease of
      getting there? As a result, not only a ruling elite, but lots of common folk
      too.

      > True. The Goths, Franks and Lombards failed to displace Romance,
      > while the Anglo-Saxons displaced Celtic and whatever kind of Romance
      > (or Vulgar Latin) may have existed in Roman Britain.

      As I proposed, numbers probably counted. What's surprising is that France
      did not become more germanified, though French is the most germanified of
      the Romance langs., Italian next. Spanish the least-- suggesting to me that
      there were fewer migrations into Spain. And IIRC, the Visigoths had some
      quaint laws or customs about not marrying with the locals (surely more
      honored in the breach, however)

      But you offered
      > an explanation by yourself above. Thomas Wier says that it was
      > "more or less now accepted that the Anglo-Saxons exterminated most
      > of the Romano-Celtic population in Britain". I am doubtful of that;

      Me too; given sufficient numbers, the A-S could simply marginalize the
      natives-- grabbing their lands, competing in the trades, etc.
    • Peter Bleackley
      ... One interesting historical fact to add into the mix here - according to Bede, the Angles migrated to England in such numbers that their original homeland
      Message 35 of 35 , Oct 4, 2005
        At 14:53 04/10/2005, you wrote:
        >Roger wrote:
        > > Joerg wrote:
        > > > But you offered
        > > > an explanation by yourself above. Thomas Wier says that it was
        > > > "more or less now accepted that the Anglo-Saxons exterminated most
        > > > of the Romano-Celtic population in Britain". I am doubtful of that;
        > >
        > > Me too; given sufficient numbers, the A-S could simply marginalize the
        > > natives-- grabbing their lands, competing in the trades, etc.
        >
        >Look, what I was saying was the opinion of people who've looked
        >at the question a great deal harder than any of us. And I did
        >also include ethnic cleansing as a possibility cited in the literature.
        >But it would be nice (and polite) if instead of simply denying the
        >claim, people would, you know, give a reasoned argument against it,
        >preferably including citations such as I have done.

        One interesting historical fact to add into the mix here - according to
        Bede, the Angles migrated to England in such numbers that their original
        homeland was left empty to his day. We also know that the Romano-British
        were militarily weak, since they originally invited Hengest and Horsa to
        their country as mercenaries. It's quite possible that the majority of them
        simply fled before the Anglo-Saxon advance.

        Pete
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.