Re: Indo-European family tree (was Re: Celtic and Afro-Asiatic?)
- Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> Andreas Johansson wrote:My thought here: W.Europe was heavily forested, no? That would totally
> > 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.
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
> True. The Goths, Franks and Lombards failed to displace Romance,As I proposed, numbers probably counted. What's surprising is that France
> while the Anglo-Saxons displaced Celtic and whatever kind of Romance
> (or Vulgar Latin) may have existed in Roman Britain.
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 wasMe too; given sufficient numbers, the A-S could simply marginalize the
> "more or less now accepted that the Anglo-Saxons exterminated most
> of the Romano-Celtic population in Britain". I am doubtful of that;
natives-- grabbing their lands, competing in the trades, etc.
- At 14:53 04/10/2005, you wrote:
>Roger wrote:One interesting historical fact to add into the mix here - according to
> > 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.
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.