Languages in Roman and Post Roman Britain

[Imperial Dave]

A thought struck me, supported by reading around the subject, that perhaps our perception of Roman and post-Roman Britain is a bit linear when it comes to languages. We (in this I generalise) assume that the language of the "educated" was Latin and that in the countryside, the pagus spoke a variant of Brythonic......

Ok, all well and good. Or is it. There is of course the presence of Goidelic on the outer fringes (Ireland) and depending on which theory you ascribe to either continually present in the Western parts of Scotland throughout the period or introduced with Irish migrations towards the later part of the period.

What I am interested in is the suggestion that parts of lowland Britain, where the Belgic tribes were in evidence, could have spoken a Germanic based language. There is conjecture generally about the Belgic tribes of the continent (as well as the Parisi et al in Britain) whether the language used was pure Gaulish, a mix of Gaulish/Germanic or predominantly Germanic.

If the above is the case, and Germanic type languages exist within Britain during the Roman period then it is perhaps (a big maybe) a part of the puzzle of why lowland Britain adopted English with relatively little "Celtic" loan words in the period after Roman influence wanes. Of course another piece is the positioning of Gemanic foederati within lowland Britain...but thats another story

So my point is, with potentially many languages present both during and after the Roman period, do we need to be a little bit more expansive with our perceptions of language use and prevalence. I think multi linguistic populations are sometimes under-estimated in Britain in this period and we really need to relook at our own perceptions. The simplistic assumed model of "English" (a very generic and generalised term!), Latin and "Welsh" speaking populations is not so clear cut in this period to my mind (post 8th Centurey the picture changes and solidifies somewhat). Multi lingual populations would be more the norm as many more languages were used, writing was not necessarily very widespread outside of built up urban areas and the spoken word had much more reliance placed on it. If we have for instance large portions of the population able to speak at least 2 if not 3 or more languages, could this not help to explain the relative quick adoption of "English" in the lowland areas?

Comments?

[Jim Webster]

For most people it probably wasn't an issue, they never travelled all that far so they may never really have heard much in other languages
From memory we assume Latin was widely spoken in towns because even the graffiti was in latin.
Rural areas could have spoken dialects that varied widely, look how widely 'kitchen Welsh' can vary from one valley to the next.
Buying and selling doesn't take a big command of the other person's language, not in a market setting, some common words for numbers and a lot of pointing.
Land ownership and tenancy agreements, Intermarriage and shared religion would probably lead to more use of common language

Jim

[Patrick Waterson]

That makes sense, at least to me.

Latin was the language of church, administration and the army (at least while there was an army).  This would have been overlaid on a mix of mutually intelligible Celtic dialects.  I am less sure about the Belgae hanging on to German, on the basis that they would have needed to communicate much more with Celtic speakers, but it may or may not be coincidence that the first German foederati (i.e. Saxons) hired by the ruler of post-Roman Britain seem to have been settled in Belgae areas.

If we have for instance large portions of the population able to speak at least 2 if not 3 or more languages, could this not help to explain the relative quick adoption of "English" in the lowland areas?

There is another, more traditional, explanation based on the non-Germanic speakers being expelled or eradicated by fire and sword before they had the opportunity to do more than pass on a few loan words ...

[Justin Swanton]

My understanding of the period is that it is a confusing paradox. There is evidence of a near-total collapse of the Roman economic, societal and administrative structures that went hand-in-hand with an ad-hoc substitution by the residual tribal structures, not enough to build a stable society but enough to allow for the existence of warlords and 'kings' of the stamp of Vortigern and Ambrosius, and which did not leave the Saxon arrivals anything to emulate.

Things were different on the continent. There the Roman infrastructure remained substantially intact (at least in most places), and the barbarian invaders assimilated and adopted it, more or less. The Saxons were no more brutal or primitive than the Franks, but they did not find an intact and functioning Romanised society (bearing in mind that Gaul had been under Roman rule only slightly longer than Britain). In Britain when they came as paid mercenaries what they saw was by and large a tabula rasa. They had nothing to look up to and so no reason to give up their tribal structures, customs and language. The eastern Britons, on the other hand, had been reduced to such a basic level of existence that adopting the way of life including the language of the new conquerors was natural. They no longer had a Roman reference point. So Saxons they became.

The question then is what reduced Britain to such a degree of anarchy? It wasn't fire and the Saxon sword as the Saxons came after the damage had been done.  There was some radical weakness in Romano-British society that brought it crashing down spectacularly.

[Imperial Dave]

That makes sense, at least to me.

If we have for instance large portions of the population able to speak at least 2 if not 3 or more languages, could this not help to explain the relative quick adoption of "English" in the lowland areas?

There is another, more traditional, explanation based on the non-Germanic speakers being expelled or eradicated by fire and sword before they had the opportunity to do more than pass on a few loan words ...

Agreed, although modern genetic studies suggest that this may not be the case, ie large portions of the Romano-British population may have in fact stayed where they were or at least the lower levels of society did

[Imperial Dave]

My understanding of the period is that it is a confusing paradox. There is evidence of a near-total collapse of the Roman economic, societal and administrative structures that went hand-in-hand with an ad-hoc substitution by the residual tribal structures, not enough to build a stable society but enough to allow for the existence of warlords and 'kings' of the stamp of Vortigern and Ambrosius, and which did not leave the Saxon arrivals anything to emulate.

Things were different on the continent. There the Roman infrastructure remained substantially intact (at least in most places), and the barbarian invaders assimilated and adopted it, more or less. The Saxons were no more brutal or primitive than the Franks, but they did not find an intact and functioning Romanised society (bearing in mind that Gaul had been under Roman rule only slightly longer than Britain). In Britain when they came as paid mercenaries what they saw was by and large a tabula rasa. They had nothing to look up to and so no reason to give up their tribal structures, customs and language. The eastern Britons, on the other hand, had been reduced to such a basic level of existence that adopting the way of life including the language of the new conquerors was natural. They no longer had a Roman reference point. So Saxons they became.

The question then is what reduced Britain to such a degree of anarchy? It wasn't fire and the Saxon sword as the Saxons came after the damage had been done.  There was some radical weakness in Romano-British society that brought it crashing down spectacularly.

The latest perceived wisdom suggests that the monetary system broke down...which led to many of the villas being abandoned and the towns reduced in size. This wasnt simply just the coinage system per se it was the whole economic bedrock of a functioning government with a functioning army which simply melted away in the 5th century.

At the risk of drifting away from my own thread title its also worth mentioning that Britannia was divided into 4 provinces (5 if you think that Velentia existed in ts own right) along potential soci-economic lines which may have roughly existed before the 1st Century. Removal of Roman structured government simply allowed these "fault lines" to reopen...

Other issues such as the Pelagian heresy further split competing factions which meant that there was no centralised and coherent guiding light for all to follow....the rest is history as they say

[Robert Heiligers]

What I am interested in is the suggestion that parts of lowland Britain, where the Belgic tribes were in evidence, could have spoken a Germanic based language. There is conjecture generally about the Belgic tribes of the continent (as well as the Parisi et al in Britain) whether the language used was pure Gaulish, a mix of Gaulish/Germanic or predominantly Germanic.

As far as I am aware, there is no evidence that the Belgae were a Germanic tribe. The Parisi(i) certainly were not. A contemporary specialist on the Celtic world, Alain Duval, places the various peoples where Caesar was later to encounter them. In L'ART CELTIQUE DE LA GAULE, 1989 he states that in the north of Gaul and in England lived the Belgae and that the insular Belgae were called Britons.
If this is correct, then either part of the Belgae moved from the Continent to Britain, or - why not?- from Britain to the Continent. By the same token, Brittany (Bretagne) in modern France is called after the Britons that left Great Britain (La Grande Bretagne), after the island was invaded by Germanic tribes in the 5th century AD.

Another thing is that, whereas people will adopt many loanwords from a foreign language that they are in regular contact with, they will never speak a real mix of two languages. A good example of this is the French spoken by the Québecois in Canada. Even though their French is riddled with English loanwords and expressions, it is still distinctly an autonomous French dialect.

In other words, before the Anglo-Saxon invasions, the Britons in Great Britain will have either spoken Latin, or pidgin versions of it, or Celtic larded with a lot of Roman loanwords, depending how far away they lived from the centres of Roman culture.

Hope this helps,
Robert

[Erpingham]

One of the problems we have with this question is a lot is the lack of solid evidence can lead to extremes of interpretation.  So, the lack of Celtic loan words in Old English must mean an ethnic cleansing of Romano-Britons.  Except we don't know that the Romano-Britons still spoke Celtic langages in the lowland zone from which the loan words could come.  There are Latin loan words, which are assumed to come via the Church.  What if they came from the language spoken in the lowland zone?  Not my original idea but originally a piece of diabolic advocacy by Guy Halsall (IIRC).  Place names are interesting - it is clear that the names of some places in Roman Britain continued into the early English settlement because a garbled version of them is preserved, which does not point to a deserted landscape, even if it also doesn't confirm continuity.

[Imperial Dave]

What I am interested in is the suggestion that parts of lowland Britain, where the Belgic tribes were in evidence, could have spoken a Germanic based language. There is conjecture generally about the Belgic tribes of the continent (as well as the Parisi et al in Britain) whether the language used was pure Gaulish, a mix of Gaulish/Germanic or predominantly Germanic.

As far as I am aware, there is no evidence that the Belgae were a Germanic tribe. The Parisi(i) certainly were not. A contemporary specialist on the Celtic world, Alain Duval, places the various peoples where Caesar was later to encounter them. In L'ART CELTIQUE DE LA GAULE, 1989 he states that in the north of Gaul and in England lived the Belgae and that the insular Belgae were called Britons.
If this is correct, then either part of the Belgae moved from the Continent to Britain, or - why not?- from Britain to the Continent. By the same token, Brittany (Bretagne) in modern France is called after the Britons that left Great Britain (La Grande Bretagne), after the island was invaded by Germanic tribes in the 5th century AD.

Another thing is that, whereas people will adopt many loanwords from a foreign language that they are in regular contact with, they will never speak a real mix of two languages. A good example of this is the French spoken by the Québecois in Canada. Even though their French is riddled with English loanwords and expressions, it is still distinctly an autonomous French dialect.

In other words, before the Anglo-Saxon invasions, the Britons in Great Britain will have either spoken Latin, or pidgin versions of it, or Celtic larded with a lot of Roman loanwords, depending how far away they lived from the centres of Roman culture.

Hope this helps,
Robert

Thanks Robert.

I am not personally convinced that the relatively linear and traditional picture you have painted above does necessairly hold true for Britain. Its hard to prove hence the discussion but I feel there is enough circumstantial evidence to suggest a much more complex picture existed with regards to language centres within Britain, before during and immediately after the Roman period

[Imperial Dave]

One of the problems we have with this question is a lot is the lack of solid evidence can lead to extremes of interpretation.  So, the lack of Celtic loan words in Old English must mean an ethnic cleansing of Romano-Britons.  Except we don't know that the Romano-Britons still spoke Celtic langages in the lowland zone from which the loan words could come.  There are Latin loan words, which are assumed to come via the Church.  What if they came from the language spoken in the lowland zone?  Not my original idea but originally a piece of diabolic advocacy by Guy Halsall (IIRC).  Place names are interesting - it is clear that the names of some places in Roman Britain continued into the early English settlement because a garbled version of them is preserved, which does not point to a deserted landscape, even if it also doesn't confirm continuity.

Yes Guy Halsall has interesting ideas with regards to that aspect of the lowland language origins.

I wonder if Roman British populations under the control of Anglo Saxon being regarded as "2nd class citizens" led them to adopt English (in all its forms!) rapidly to avoid disadvantage. Knowledge of certain dialects of English would help this transition. The siting of foederati throughout lowland Britain would certainly help to make this situation viable

[gavindbm]

Whilst agreeing that if a low status group is differentiated from a high status group by language (or clothing/hair styles) then there is a clear incentive for members of the low status group to adopt the language etc of the high status group - however the high status group is often motivated to attempt to deny them easy mobility (between status levels).  All the various Medieval laws about what type of clothes / colours various groups were entitled to (and those on food) spring to mind.

Just a thought offered into the discussion....

[Patrick Waterson]

There is another, more traditional, explanation based on the non-Germanic speakers being expelled or eradicated by fire and sword before they had the opportunity to do more than pass on a few loan words ...

Agreed, although modern genetic studies suggest that this may not be the case, ie large portions of the Romano-British population may have in fact stayed where they were or at least the lower levels of society did

I had the impression this was the infamous study that in essence said: we can tell people's origin by the trace elements in their teeth, because this shows where they drank their water.  These skeletons have teeth which shows that most of them drank most or all of their water in Britain.  Therefore they were Britons.  (Spot the gap in logic ...)

Or have there been some genuine genetic studies?  It would be nice if these could be pinpointed.

Another thing is that, whereas people will adopt many loanwords from a foreign language that they are in regular contact with, they will never speak a real mix of two languages. A good example of this is the French spoken by the Québecois in Canada. Even though their French is riddled with English loanwords and expressions, it is still distinctly an autonomous French dialect.

I am not sure if this principle is universally applicable: my impression (right or wrong) is that the majority of Belgians speak good English, as do many Norwegians, it being in effect a second language in each country.  Admittedly the primary current Norwegian means of learning English - television - would not be a factor in the 5th century AD.

As far as I am aware, there is no evidence that the Belgae were a Germanic tribe.

I think the basis for the Belgae being considered German is in Caesar's Gallic War II.4:

"When Caesar inquired of them what states were in arms, how powerful they were, and what they could do, in war, he received the following information: that the greater part of the Belgae were sprung from the Germans, and that having crossed the Rhine at an early period, they had settled there on account of the fertility of the country and had driven out the Gauls who inhabited those regions; and that they were the only people who, in the memory of our fathers, when all Gaul was overrun, had prevented the Teutones and the Cimbri from entering their territories; the effect of which was that from the recollection of those events they assumed to themselves great authority and haughtiness in military matters."

When the Remi report on the tribes' agreed mobilisation, Caesar lists (ibid):

"... the Condrusi, the Eburones, the Caeraesi, the Paemani, who are called by the common name of Germans [had promised], they thought, to the number of 40,000. "

When the Eburones were, following their revolt and destruction of Sabinus' legion, being ravaged by a Roman revenge campaign, some Germans crossed the Rhine to prey on the weakened tribe.

"Allured by booty, they advance further; neither morass nor forest obstructs these men, born amid war and depredations; they inquire of their prisoners in what part Caesar is; they find that he has advanced further, and learn that all the army has removed. Thereon one of the prisoners says, 'Why do you pursue such wretched and trifling spoil; you, to whom it is granted to become even now most richly endowed by fortune? In three hours you can reach Aduatuca; there the Roman army has deposited all its fortunes; there is so little of a garrison that not even the wall can be manned, nor dare any one go beyond the fortifications'."

Communication of this easy and detailed nature suggests that captors and captives shared a common language, although it is not clear whether the Eburones as a tribe spoke only German or both Celtic and German.

All the various Medieval laws about what type of clothes / colours various groups were entitled to (and those on food) spring to mind.

One can see the division between Norman-French and English in the vocabulary for live and dead meat.  From the English/Anglo-Saxon point of view:

Live (male) cattle: bull (or ox).  Dead cattle: beef (boeuf).
Live sheep: sheep.  Dead sheep: mutton (mouton).
Live pig: pig. Dead pig: pork (porc).

In each case the English term for meat ready to be eaten is the French term for the live animal.

[Robert Heiligers]

... So, the lack of Celtic loan words in Old English must mean an ethnic cleansing of Romano-Britons.  Except we don't know that the Romano-Britons still spoke Celtic langages in the lowland zone from which the loan words could come.  There are Latin loan words, which are assumed to come via the Church.  What if they came from the language spoken in the lowland zone?  Not my original idea but originally a piece of diabolic advocacy by Guy Halsall (IIRC).  Place names are interesting - .

I am not sure if the lack of Celtic loanwords is primarily due to an ethnic cleansing of Romano-Britons. We should not forget that in sub-Roman days writing was limited to the Church (Latin) and the ruling classes (Latin). I am not a specialist in Roman Britain, but I have a hunch that there are hardly any written Celtic documents available that date back to the sub-Roman or directly post-Roman period, apart from occasional inscriptions in stones.

In such a situation, it is only logical that Latin became the official trade language, as it did in France, Spain and other parts of Europe occupied by the Romans. Languages are often replaced due to the political or social dominance of another language, also without the involvement of force. Look at Australia, most of Canada and the USA, where the languages of the immigrants from many different nations, as well as those of the local natives, was basically replaced by English, mainly because English had become the official trade language. The same goes for South America, where Spanish and Portuguese are now widely spoken. The occasional eradication of local tribes and competing nations definitely speeded up the process.

So far, I see no reason to abandon the linear approach to language evolution in Britain. Bede wrote in his Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum (completed in 731) that "currently, [there are in Britain] the languages of five peoples, namely that of the Angles (English), the Britons (Welsh), the Scots (Gaelic), the Picts and the Latins" (HE 1.1).
If we rule out the Angles, who arrived after the Roman period, we are basically left with 3 indigenous Celtic or Brythonic languages and Latin. Bede wrote his Historia in a period when the Angles, Jutes and Saxons had been around for some 300 years. Not much later Britain would be invaded by the Danes. Apparently, the socio-economic power and numbers of the Germanic invaders was large enough to literally marginalise the speakers of Brythonic and Latin dialects.

Place names: I have a map on Saxon and Viking Britain at home, published by the Council for British Archeology. Apart from in Scotland and in Wales, especially the Saxons seem to have been all over the place. It is proposed that they formed a ruling elite, with acculturisation of the local population, which accounts for the marginalisation of the Brythonic languages.

[Duncan Head]

I think the basis for the Belgae being considered German is in Caesar's Gallic War II.4:
...
Communication of this easy and detailed nature suggests that captors and captives shared a common language, although it is not clear whether the Eburones as a tribe spoke only German or both Celtic and German.

Of course, Caesar's use of "German" has been questioned. It may just mean "wild barbarian from beyond the Rhine, against whom I can claim to be defending, not conquering, Gaul" rather than having any real linguistic component.

[Erpingham]

I am not sure if the lack of Celtic loanwords is primarily due to an ethnic cleansing of Romano-Britons.

Old theory, but with modern term "ethnic cleansing" inserted to replace "massacre".

It is proposed that they formed a ruling elite, with acculturisation of the local population, which accounts for the marginalisation of the Brythonic languages.

Newer theory.  Probably the current paradigm.  However, there will doubtless be newer theories, there always are