The Language of the Picts

[aligern]

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.

[Jim Webster]

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 

[Dangun]

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.

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.

[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.

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

[Imperial Dave]

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 

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)

[Anton]

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.

[Imperial Dave]

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!

[Anton]

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

[Imperial Dave]

thanks very much Stephen