The Language of the Picts

[Anton]

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

[Imperial Dave]

even though my language skills lack finesse, I do enjoy reading and discussions on etymology/origin of languages

[Mick Hession]

Fascinating. Thanks for posting the link.

Cheers
Mick

[Anton]

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.

[aligern]

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

[Anton]

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.

[Imperial Dave]

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

[aligern]

Thanks, it is Johnson.
Roy

[Jim Webster]

Thanks, it is Johnson.
Roy

having just read his book that I feel is one of his better arguments

[Imperial Dave]

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

[aligern]

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.

[Andreas Johansson]

Is there any subject which on this forum does not eventually devolve into othismos or Arthuriana?

The article is interesting - though I sort of thought its conclusion were the orthodoxy by now.

[Jim Webster]

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.

[Imperial Dave]

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.....

[Jim Webster]

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