This is a useful article on the evolution of the academic debate on the Pictish language. If you're interested in such stuff it's well worth a read.
http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/2081/1/languagepictland.pdf
even though my language skills lack finesse, I do enjoy reading and discussions on etymology/origin of languages
Fascinating. Thanks for posting the link.
Cheers
Mick
You're welcome, it is interesting stuff and I think it takes us somewhere in terms of how things developed.
As an aside I'm now reading, thanks to Anthony on another thread, Davies The Revolt of Owain Glyndwr. It immediately struck me just how closely native Welsh society mirrored its Irish counter part and vice versa. Likewise I think, the Dal Riada Scots, The Picts and north British all operated within a shared social/legal and political model that enabled shifts in over lordship to be more easily accommodated without the elimination of competing lineages.
Part of that might be a rather different attitude to 'kingship' than that we currently have to anyone who is called king and different concepts of sovereignty. Just reading Britain's Heroic Age and the author is keen on genealogies being created which are accurate for say two generations back and then being compiled to include parallel ruling houses. So Wessex, for example, has possibly three separate and geographically divided bloodlines in its eventual ruling family tree. Whether that was done to be inclusive of past rulers on the basis of pulling in their descendants and their dependants into loyalty or whether it represents a central claiming of hereditary rights over groups is not certain.
One benefit he sees in conversion to Christianity is that it enabled rulers to claim legitimacy over a wider area and thus become more powerful.
Roy
Is that Koch's Heroic Age Roy?
There was an interesting legal convention in Irish law that gave a segment of a ruling lineage three generations to exert their claim to primacy. If they failed to do so in that time they and their descendants were considered ineligible for the kingship although otherwise they maintained aristocratic status. Such failed segments would still appear in the genealogies unless they were edited out and the scions would still be kin to the royal segment.
I don't know if the same applied in other non Irish Celtic polities but it's possible. There is certainly a lot going on in the early part of the Wessex king list and I often wonder what it reflects.
It occurs to me that other advantage of adopting Christianity was in foreign policy where any pagans and their assets were fair game.
Quote from: Anton on April 09, 2018, 09:04:43 PM
Is that Koch's Heroic Age Roy?
There was an interesting legal convention in Irish law that gave a segment of a ruling lineage three generations to exert their claim to primacy. If they failed to do so in that time they and their descendants were considered ineligible for the kingship although otherwise they maintained aristocratic status. Such failed segments would still appear in the genealogies unless they were edited out and the scions would still be kin to the royal segment.
I don't know if the same applied in other non Irish Celtic polities but it's possible. There is certainly a lot going on in the early part of the Wessex king list and I often wonder what it reflects.
It occurs to me that other advantage of adopting Christianity was in foreign policy where any pagans and their assets were fair game.
I think Roy is referring to Flint F Johnson's The British Heroic Age. In that book, Johnson argues that genealogies are remembered (before written records) by around 2 previous generations so once you are past that point you are 'free' to adopt any ancestors you think are worthy
Thanks, it is Johnson.
Roy
Quote from: aligern on April 09, 2018, 10:42:36 PM
Thanks, it is Johnson.
Roy
having just read his book that I feel is one of his better arguments
Quote from: Jim Webster on April 10, 2018, 07:06:10 AM
Quote from: aligern on April 09, 2018, 10:42:36 PM
Thanks, it is Johnson.
Roy
having just read his book that I feel is one of his better arguments
agreed and could explain a lot about things like the Saxon ancestry legendarium
Of course once you converted to Christianity, as king, you gained some priests and they could write! That meant that you could control the past because you approved the written version. Johnson sees the 'Kentish Source' which is the first written A/S history as being written to kegalise the ceding of Kent to Hengist and the legalisation of his conquests by them being a response to Vortigern's treachery. So the Jutes move from aggressive rebellious federates to acting in self defence . Vortigern, who plays a major part in the story , was in all likelihood, according to Johnson, elevated to being an overking to legitimise the cession if territory and raise the profile of Hengist. In actuality it is unlikely that there was a direct line from Hengist to Ethelbert, but then there did not need to be. J's map of the Jutish settlements shows Wight conbected to Kent via a strip of land that connects via hants and Surrey to Kent. Sussex is a small settlement hidden behind the Weald and does not expand from there, which sort of makes sense of the Jutes pushing along its northern border.
I don't feel that Johnson tackled the political situation in Southern Britain very convincingly, , something that I felt Jim Storr did rather better. The archeological evidence of all if those earthworks is just not considered in Johnson, nor is the possible organisation by civitates. J concentrates on the development of kings in the West because that is where the later literary evidence is concentrated because it suited the needs of Welsh kings and Irish anbalists.
Something that Johnson opened me too was that the late seventh to early eighth century is radically different from the earlier period because England moves fom a patchwork of small 'tribal' settlements into the Heptarchy abd this changes the nature and scale of leadership and indeed may be the result of the conversion.
One fact that had previously escaped me which I found in Storr was that Swaffham means 'settlement of the Suebians'. Years ago I remember seeing a Suebian knot in a glass case in an Oxford museum and being intrigued that perhaps some Germanic settlers had brought with them such a Continental fashion.
Is there any subject which on this forum does not eventually devolve into othismos or Arthuriana? :P
The article is interesting - though I sort of thought its conclusion were the orthodoxy by now.
Quote from: aligern on April 10, 2018, 08:05:53 PM
Of course once you converted to Christianity, as king, you gained some priests and they could write! That meant that you could control the past because you approved the written version. Johnson sees the 'Kentish Source' which is the first written A/S history as being written to kegalise the ceding of Kent to Hengist and the legalisation of his conquests by them being a response to Vortigern's treachery. So the Jutes move from aggressive rebellious federates to acting in self defence . Vortigern, who plays a major part in the story , was in all likelihood, according to Johnson, elevated to being an overking to legitimise the cession if territory and raise the profile of Hengist. In actuality it is unlikely that there was a direct line from Hengist to Ethelbert, but then there did not need to be. J's map of the Jutish settlements shows Wight conbected to Kent via a strip of land that connects via hants and Surrey to Kent. Sussex is a small settlement hidden behind the Weald and does not expand from there, which sort of makes sense of the Jutes pushing along its northern border.
I don't feel that Johnson tackled the political situation in Southern Britain very convincingly, , something that I felt Jim Storr did rather better. The archeological evidence of all if those earthworks is just not considered in Johnson, nor is the possible organisation by civitates. J concentrates on the development of kings in the West because that is where the later literary evidence is concentrated because it suited the needs of Welsh kings and Irish anbalists.
Something that Johnson opened me too was that the late seventh to early eighth century is radically different from the earlier period because England moves fom a patchwork of small 'tribal' settlements into the Heptarchy abd this changes the nature and scale of leadership and indeed may be the result of the conversion.
One fact that had previously escaped me which I found in Storr was that Swaffham means 'settlement of the Suebians'. Years ago I remember seeing a Suebian knot in a glass case in an Oxford museum and being intrigued that perhaps some Germanic settlers had brought with them such a Continental fashion.
I wasn't convinced that he was right with his Sub-Romans devolving down to village level. I suspect that organisation stopped perhaps at the level of civitates
Another place where I might diverge from him was that he claims the saxons in the North and South formed kingdoms because they'd been conquered by the Britons who had imposed tax collecting saxon overlords on them.
But actually I'd suggest that they could have formed kingdoms because they'd had to band together under British pressure.
Quote from: Jim Webster on April 10, 2018, 09:23:55 PM
Quote from: aligern on April 10, 2018, 08:05:53 PM
Of course once you converted to Christianity, as king, you gained some priests and they could write! That meant that you could control the past because you approved the written version. Johnson sees the 'Kentish Source' which is the first written A/S history as being written to kegalise the ceding of Kent to Hengist and the legalisation of his conquests by them being a response to Vortigern's treachery. So the Jutes move from aggressive rebellious federates to acting in self defence . Vortigern, who plays a major part in the story , was in all likelihood, according to Johnson, elevated to being an overking to legitimise the cession if territory and raise the profile of Hengist. In actuality it is unlikely that there was a direct line from Hengist to Ethelbert, but then there did not need to be. J's map of the Jutish settlements shows Wight conbected to Kent via a strip of land that connects via hants and Surrey to Kent. Sussex is a small settlement hidden behind the Weald and does not expand from there, which sort of makes sense of the Jutes pushing along its northern border.
I don't feel that Johnson tackled the political situation in Southern Britain very convincingly, , something that I felt Jim Storr did rather better. The archeological evidence of all if those earthworks is just not considered in Johnson, nor is the possible organisation by civitates. J concentrates on the development of kings in the West because that is where the later literary evidence is concentrated because it suited the needs of Welsh kings and Irish anbalists.
Something that Johnson opened me too was that the late seventh to early eighth century is radically different from the earlier period because England moves fom a patchwork of small 'tribal' settlements into the Heptarchy abd this changes the nature and scale of leadership and indeed may be the result of the conversion.
One fact that had previously escaped me which I found in Storr was that Swaffham means 'settlement of the Suebians'. Years ago I remember seeing a Suebian knot in a glass case in an Oxford museum and being intrigued that perhaps some Germanic settlers had brought with them such a Continental fashion.
I wasn't convinced that he was right with his Sub-Romans devolving down to village level. I suspect that organisation stopped perhaps at the level of civitates
Another place where I might diverge from him was that he claims the saxons in the North and South formed kingdoms because they'd been conquered by the Britons who had imposed tax collecting saxon overlords on them.
But actually I'd suggest that they could have formed kingdoms because they'd had to band together under British pressure.
it does feel a little bit stretched re the tax collection route to the establishment of kingdoms but you never know.....
Quote from: Holly on April 10, 2018, 10:05:15 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on April 10, 2018, 09:23:55 PM
Quote from: aligern on April 10, 2018, 08:05:53 PM
Of course once you converted to Christianity, as king, you gained some priests and they could write! That meant that you could control the past because you approved the written version. Johnson sees the 'Kentish Source' which is the first written A/S history as being written to kegalise the ceding of Kent to Hengist and the legalisation of his conquests by them being a response to Vortigern's treachery. So the Jutes move from aggressive rebellious federates to acting in self defence . Vortigern, who plays a major part in the story , was in all likelihood, according to Johnson, elevated to being an overking to legitimise the cession if territory and raise the profile of Hengist. In actuality it is unlikely that there was a direct line from Hengist to Ethelbert, but then there did not need to be. J's map of the Jutish settlements shows Wight conbected to Kent via a strip of land that connects via hants and Surrey to Kent. Sussex is a small settlement hidden behind the Weald and does not expand from there, which sort of makes sense of the Jutes pushing along its northern border.
I don't feel that Johnson tackled the political situation in Southern Britain very convincingly, , something that I felt Jim Storr did rather better. The archeological evidence of all if those earthworks is just not considered in Johnson, nor is the possible organisation by civitates. J concentrates on the development of kings in the West because that is where the later literary evidence is concentrated because it suited the needs of Welsh kings and Irish anbalists.
Something that Johnson opened me too was that the late seventh to early eighth century is radically different from the earlier period because England moves fom a patchwork of small 'tribal' settlements into the Heptarchy abd this changes the nature and scale of leadership and indeed may be the result of the conversion.
One fact that had previously escaped me which I found in Storr was that Swaffham means 'settlement of the Suebians'. Years ago I remember seeing a Suebian knot in a glass case in an Oxford museum and being intrigued that perhaps some Germanic settlers had brought with them such a Continental fashion.
I wasn't convinced that he was right with his Sub-Romans devolving down to village level. I suspect that organisation stopped perhaps at the level of civitates
Another place where I might diverge from him was that he claims the saxons in the North and South formed kingdoms because they'd been conquered by the Britons who had imposed tax collecting saxon overlords on them.
But actually I'd suggest that they could have formed kingdoms because they'd had to band together under British pressure.
it does feel a little bit stretched re the tax collection route to the establishment of kingdoms but you never know.....
Oh it could be the route, but the German tribes across the Rhine are assumed to form confederations and become larger peoples under Roman pressure. It's apparently a model we've seen working elsewhere 8)
Any explanation if the formation of A/S kingdoms has to cope with them arriving in very small groups, either as foederati or as boatloads of immigrants. I am pretty convinced that the Germans in this period had a very class defined social structure so tgat arrivals in groups had leaders who had traditions of geing the better off and could command loyalty and labour from their wider kin and dependants. Jim Storr sees the Saxons etc. putting up earthworks that would need to be a common effort and deliver protection to a group. These small groups of Germans ( and maybe Britons) have to coalesce into larger groups. The small groups could be very quickly to kingdom status, Essex or Sussex are only counties , they are tiny polities.
Behind Johnson's idea of the Romano Brits devolving down to groups of villages is the puzzle as to why, in the face of this inchoate migration, the Britons do not just sweep away the Saxons. Assuming parity of unit size does give an explanation. However, he needs a mechanism to get from a tough guy holding a group of villages to a state such as Powys or Dumnonia. when they are inheriting little of the Roman provincial organisation. Aren't his growing British states just as likely to be caused by Saxon threat as his Saxon states are caused by British piwers needing to appoint a tax collector.
Quote from: aligern on April 11, 2018, 07:59:48 AM
Any explanation if the formation of A/S kingdoms has to cope with them arriving in very small groups, either as foederati or as boatloads of immigrants. I am pretty convinced that the Germans in this period had a very class defined social structure so tgat arrivals in groups had leaders who had traditions of geing the better off and could command loyalty and labour from their wider kin and dependants. Jim Storr sees the Saxons etc. putting up earthworks that would need to be a common effort and deliver protection to a group. These small groups of Germans ( and maybe Britons) have to coalesce into larger groups. The small groups could be very quickly to kingdom status, Essex or Sussex are only counties , they are tiny polities.
Behind Johnson's idea of the Romano Brits devolving down to groups of villages is the puzzle as to why, in the face of this inchoate migration, the Britons do not just sweep away the Saxons. Assuming parity of unit size does give an explanation. However, he needs a mechanism to get from a tough guy holding a group of villages to a state such as Powys or Dumnonia. when they are inheriting little of the Roman provincial organisation. Aren't his growing British states just as likely to be caused by Saxon threat as his Saxon states are caused by British piwers needing to appoint a tax collector.
one of two writers have pointed out that you can trace the boundaries of civitates by a string of German settlements, and there's been some thought that the civitates had their own foederate.
If you go down the civitates route for the Britons you are probably well on the road to forming the later British states.
Some of his ideas I liked, some I could see working but not perhaps as he intended ;)
I thought it was a useful addition to the melting pot 8)
Quote from: aligern on April 10, 2018, 08:05:53 PMOf course once you converted to Christianity, as king, you gained some priests and they could write! That meant that you could control the past because you approved THE written version.
Sometime you only got to approve
A written version.
When multiple histories of the same period were written at different points in time, later authors might move around who was married to who and who did what.
I can think of Tibetan and Chinese examples but I am sure there are western corollaries.
Sometimes an author would write about the same event in two different histories and change the facts - I'm talking about you Eusebius.
Quote from: Dangun on April 11, 2018, 09:30:16 AM
Quote from: aligern on April 10, 2018, 08:05:53 PMOf course once you converted to Christianity, as king, you gained some priests and they could write! That meant that you could control the past because you approved THE written version.
Sometime you only got to approve A written version.
When multiple histories of the same period were written at different points in time, later authors might move around who was married to who and who did what.
I can think of Tibetan and Chinese examples but I am sure there are western corollaries.
Sometimes an author would write about the same event in two different histories and change the facts - I'm talking about you Eusebius.
Our picture of the Emperor Justinian would be very different if the only work we had from Procopius was his Secret History
Quote from: Jim Webster on April 11, 2018, 08:34:35 AM
Quote from: aligern on April 11, 2018, 07:59:48 AM
Any explanation if the formation of A/S kingdoms has to cope with them arriving in very small groups, either as foederati or as boatloads of immigrants. I am pretty convinced that the Germans in this period had a very class defined social structure so tgat arrivals in groups had leaders who had traditions of geing the better off and could command loyalty and labour from their wider kin and dependants. Jim Storr sees the Saxons etc. putting up earthworks that would need to be a common effort and deliver protection to a group. These small groups of Germans ( and maybe Britons) have to coalesce into larger groups. The small groups could be very quickly to kingdom status, Essex or Sussex are only counties , they are tiny polities.
Behind Johnson's idea of the Romano Brits devolving down to groups of villages is the puzzle as to why, in the face of this inchoate migration, the Britons do not just sweep away the Saxons. Assuming parity of unit size does give an explanation. However, he needs a mechanism to get from a tough guy holding a group of villages to a state such as Powys or Dumnonia. when they are inheriting little of the Roman provincial organisation. Aren't his growing British states just as likely to be caused by Saxon threat as his Saxon states are caused by British piwers needing to appoint a tax collector.
one of two writers have pointed out that you can trace the boundaries of civitates by a string of German settlements, and there's been some thought that the civitates had their own foederate.
If you go down the civitates route for the Britons you are probably well on the road to forming the later British states.
Some of his ideas I liked, some I could see working but not perhaps as he intended ;)
I thought it was a useful addition to the melting pot 8)
agreed Jim. If you assume (for one moment) that all civitates adopt foederates, then you could argue that some evolved into 'British' states and some into 'Saxon' or 'Irish' states even though the 'genetic' make up might be disproportionate. Also the closer to the east and south coast the more likely to have a push towards 'Saxon' and to the West towards 'Irish'. Over time language conforms to the ruling polity and so forth (to a degree, there are exceptions obviously)
I take the view that micro polities were the building blocks of bigger polities (Civitates) and probably had been so for a very long time. In times of extreme pressure the system seems to have allowed for supra tribal leaders to be appointed without any difficulty. I'm thinking Vercingetorix, Boudicca, Caractacus, who ever Cunedda reported to, Vortigern, Ambrosius, and very likely Arthur.
To return to the Picts for a moment. In his essay The Conversion of Ireland and the Emergence of the Old Irish Language, AD 367–637 Koch makes the following proposition:
"What I am proposing therefore is that, until the mid- sixth century (or later) both Britain and Ireland retained a learned elite possessing closely related varieties of Old Celtic within their respective educational Establishments."
If he is right, and as ever he is thorough and persuasive, all sorts of thoughts and contexts come to mind when considering our sources.
First, we have an elite variant of the language that was spoken by the Celtic elites regardless of their polity enabled them to recognise each other and freely communicate. Perhaps it functioned like RP English a generation ago or aristocratic Latin in the Empire.
Secondly this is the sort of thing that greases the wheels of diplomacy and interaction at least as far as British, Gallic, Irish, Pictish and perhaps north Spanish elites went.
I think this can help us understand the dynamics at play in politics north of the Wall, St. Patrick with his retinue of King's sons and the activities of the Irish in western Britannia post Macsen Wledig.
Any how Koch notes that this elite use of a common Old Celtic fell victim to Christianity, which would have left the Pictish elite with no one to talk to as it were.
I should add Andreas is quite right the essay in my OP does reflect current orthodoxy but it didn't when it was published back in'95. I thought the journey interesting.
thanks Stephen, always good to have your thoughts on the subject (being well read on the matter). I must (possibly) get that Koch title as it's one I dont have!
Thanks Dave.
You can read it here. As ever with Koch there's so much in it and his almost incidental asides are often as rewarding as his main points.
https://www.academia.edu/7012591/The_Conversion_of_Ireland_and_the_Emergence_of_the_Old_Irish_Language_AD_367_637
thanks very much Stephen