Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

King Arthur - The Scottish Dimension

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by MarkV View Post

    In the North and North West of Britain what the Romans referred to (possibly incorrectly) as Pictish was spoken. From the surviving inscriptions in this language it is clear. that it was not a Celtic language and indeed not an indo-european tongue. It may have had a common source to Basque. It is also possible that the Hiberni also spoke this language. The coverage of Gaelic forms over what became Scotland and Ireland appears to be due to the 6th Century Christian missionaries most of whom were Gaelic speakers. However it is wrong to say that they spoke an early form of Welsh. All six known forms of Gaelic (there may have been others now lost to knowledge) evolved from one or more Britonic languages so to call it an early form of Welsh makes about as much sense as to call it an early form of Manx or Cornish. Interestingly the Gaelic spoken in the Western Islands of Ireland is apparently closer to Breton than Welsh.

    In truth we don't know exactly who was speaking what in the British Isles but it would be unlikely to be universally Gaelic

    See Ball, Martin J. and James Fife (ed.) The Celtic languages. Routledge London 1993.
    Your reference is outdated and wrong.
    No one seriously claims that the Picts spoke a language that was not Celtic. That crazy idea died out years ago.

    Pictish was most likely a variant on the Brittonic language spoken in the rest of mainland Britain before the Romans. Place names in north and eastern Scotland give the game away, e.g. Aberdeen, Aberlour, etc. All are similar to those in Wales.

    Welsh is derived from Brittonic, as is Cornish and Bretton. So Brittonic is an early version of Welsh.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pictish_language
    "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Surrey View Post

      Your reference is outdated and wrong.
      No one seriously claims that the Picts spoke a language that was not Celtic. That crazy idea died out years ago.

      Pictish was most likely a variant on the Brittonic language spoken in the rest of mainland Britain before the Romans. Place names in north and eastern Scotland give the game away, e.g. Aberdeen, Aberlour, etc. All are similar to those in Wales.

      Welsh is derived from Brittonic, as is Cornish and Bretton. So Brittonic is an early version of Welsh.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pictish_language
      By Yeshua, son of Wotan, I do believe I'll leave this one alone....
      The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Surrey View Post

        Your reference is outdated and wrong.
        No one seriously claims that the Picts spoke a language that was not Celtic. That crazy idea died out years ago.

        Pictish was most likely a variant on the Brittonic language spoken in the rest of mainland Britain before the Romans. Place names in north and eastern Scotland give the game away, e.g. Aberdeen, Aberlour, etc. All are similar to those in Wales.

        Welsh is derived from Brittonic, as is Cornish and Bretton. So Brittonic is an early version of Welsh.

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pictish_language
        Do you have a reliable source then?Wilki is not peer reviewed and doesn't count.
        Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
        Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by MarkV View Post

          Do you have a reliable source then?Wilki is not peer reviewed and doesn't count.
          you are the one with the mad theory. Give me the name of an acedemic historian who supports your alien oringins for the Picts within the last 15 years.
          "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Surrey View Post

            you are the one with the mad theory. Give me the name of an acedemic historian who supports your alien oringins for the Picts within the last 15 years.
            While your link concerning Pictish languages looks reasonable at first glance, your previous link concerning a form of Welsh as the British language pre Rome is more than suspect. Given the same basic source for both links, it is you that probably should clarify your position with references.

            The whole raison d'etre for King Arthur is a 'Celtic' hero who stems an Anglo-Saxon invasion for a period of time.

            However, from Roman sources, it is almost certain that the Saxons were already here. I've stated this before many times, but its worth repeating. Rome effectively stated that the 'Saxons were already in Britain before its successful invasion starting 43 AD. Julius Caesar said that the Belgae spoke a Germanic language. Tacitus said most Britons and Belgae spoke a similar language. QED Britons near Europe spoke a Germanic language, not Welsh.

            This is reinforced by the fact that the British Shore Forts, and its commander, were called Saxon in part. Rome did not name its defenses after an enemy, but what it protected.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Count_..._Saxonicum.png
            How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
            Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

            Comment


            • #51
              I'm certain Arthur was Welsh. I'm certain of this because my surname is Jones and Arthur was portrayed by a man whose surname is Owen.
              Those are the facts, folks. And they are not in dispute.
              "Shoot for the epaulets, boys! Shoot for the epaulets!" - Daniel Morgan

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post

                While your link concerning Pictish languages looks reasonable at first glance, your previous link concerning a form of Welsh as the British language pre Rome is more than suspect. Given the same basic source for both links, it is you that probably should clarify your position with references.

                The whole raison d'etre for King Arthur is a 'Celtic' hero who stems an Anglo-Saxon invasion for a period of time.

                However, from Roman sources, it is almost certain that the Saxons were already here. I've stated this before many times, but its worth repeating. Rome effectively stated that the 'Saxons were already in Britain before its successful invasion starting 43 AD. Julius Caesar said that the Belgae spoke a Germanic language. Tacitus said most Britons and Belgae spoke a similar language. QED Britons near Europe spoke a Germanic language, not Welsh.

                This is reinforced by the fact that the British Shore Forts, and its commander, were called Saxon in part. Rome did not name its defenses after an enemy, but what it protected.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Count_..._Saxonicum.png
                The standard theory for the language of the Picts is that it was either Brittonic or a variant on Brittonic. Welsh is derived from Brittonic, it is not Brittonic itself. Languages change over 2000 years for example Ancient Greek is not exactly the same as the Greek spoken in Greece today but there is a clear close relationship.
                There was a somewhat bizarre theory many years ago that the Pictish language and culture was somehow completely unrelated to any of the neighbouring peoples and was not even an Indo European language. This has now largely been discredited.and the Picts are seen as just Britons who were less subject to Rome's influence than those living nearer the Wall. As I mentioned previously Pictish place names are similar to those in Wales e.g the use of the prefix 'Aber' c.f Aberdeen in north eastern Scotland; Abertawe in south Wales; Aberfal in Cornwall; Aber Wrac'h in Brittany. All areas were Common Brittonic was spoken.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aber_a...lements)#Wales

                Further to your bit about the language in south eastern and eastern Britain pre Rome.

                There are again Celtic place names such as Kent, Dover, Thames, Thanet and York further north.
                While there are less Celtic place names in the east than in the West this reflects the greater intensity of Germanic settlement after the Romans had left. Britain itself is a Celtic British word.
                Last edited by Surrey; 10 Nov 19, 13:32.
                "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Surrey View Post

                  The standard theory for the language of the Picts is that it was either Brittonic or a variant on Brittonic. Welsh is derived from Brittonic, it is not Brittonic itself. Languages change over 2000 years for example Ancient Greek is not exactly the same as the Greek spoken in Greece today but there is a clear close relationship.
                  There was a somewhat bizarre theory many years ago that the Pictish language and culture was somehow completely unrelated to any of the neighbouring peoples and was not even an Indo European language. This has now largely been discredited.and the Picts are seen as just Britons who were less subject to Rome's influence than those living nearer the Wall. As I mentioned previously Pictish place names are similar to those in Wales e.g the use of the prefix 'Aber' c.f Aberdeen in north eastern Scotland; Abertawe in south Wales; Aberfal in Cornwall; Aber Wrac'h in Brittany. All areas were Common Brittonic was spoken.

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aber_a...lements)#Wales

                  Further to your bit about the language in south eastern and eastern Britain pre Rome.

                  There are again Celtic place names such as Kent, Dover, Thames, Thanet and York further north.
                  While there are less Celtic place names in the east than in the West this reflects the greater intensity of Germanic settlement after the Romans had left. Britain itself is a Celtic British word.
                  Kent, named after the Cantii tribe, should have been the first place to be renamed, if there had been an A-S invasion. It's the closest part of Britain after all.

                  In addition, place names are not always a good indicator of peoples who inhabit a region. There was next to no impact of Rome on Britain after they left, except for roads and names, such as xxx-chester (walled settlement) or burgh/borough (both from burgi and byhr).
                  How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                  Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post

                    Kent, named after the Cantii tribe, should have been the first place to be renamed, if there had been an A-S invasion. It's the closest part of Britain after all.

                    In addition, place names are not always a good indicator of peoples who inhabit a region. There was next to no impact of Rome on Britain after they left, except for roads and names, such as xxx-chester (walled settlement) or burgh/borough (both from burgi and byhr).


                    Place names are an indication of long term occupation by people speaking that language. NAmes are not always changed by conquerors, e.g. Paris was conquered by the Romans then Franks but the Parisii's name still survives. The Cantii were described by Caesar as being similar to the Gauls who were Celts and spoke a p Celtic language.

                    "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Surrey View Post



                      Place names are an indication of long term occupation by people speaking that language. NAmes are not always changed by conquerors, e.g. Paris was conquered by the Romans then Franks but the Parisii's name still survives. The Cantii were described by Caesar as being similar to the Gauls who were Celts and spoke a p Celtic language.
                      Often yes for the first part, almost certainly wrong for the second. Caesar did not say they spoke a p celtic language. He said those in Kent differ but little from Gauls in their customs. He also said Gaul was divided into 3 parts, one of which was the Belgae, who were mainly descended from Germanic tribes, not Celt. It is the Germanic speaking Belgae that those in Kent mirrored, including their language, confirmed by Tacitus.
                      All Gaul is divided into three parts, one of which the Belgae inhabit, the Aquitani another, those who in their own language are called Celts, in our Gauls, the third. All these differ from each other in language, customs and laws.
                      http://www.stcharlesprep.org/01_parents/oneil_j/Useful%20Links/AP%20Latin%20Assignments/HW/The%20Gallic%20Wars.pdf
                      Those who are nearest to the Gauls are also like them (Belgae), either from the permanent influence of original descent, or, because in countries which run out so far to meet each other, climate has produced similar physical qualities. But a general survey inclines me to believe that the Gauls established themselves in an island so near to them. Their religious belief may be traced in the strongly-marked British superstition.
                      https://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/tac/ag01010.htm
                      How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                      Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by KRJ View Post
                        I'm certain Arthur was Welsh. I'm certain of this because my surname is Jones and Arthur was portrayed by a man whose surname is Owen.
                        Those are the facts, folks. And they are not in dispute.
                        \the many legends of
                        king \Artur are built around the idea of a leader who could link the small warring \British kingdoms and re - introduce the glory of roman Britain under Theodosius. \to quote \Bernard \Cornwall " to introduce two leaders halves the strength of the whole army."

                        \why \
                        Rome abandoned Britain is known - at least three army commanders who declared themselves emperors. The island was seen as trouble by Honorius, a weak and shortsighted emperor.

                        Unfortunately for Rome, the empire ran on silver, and Britain was the source. \at least 400 tonnes, iirc, were paid to buy off the Danes......
                        The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by marktwain View Post

                          \the many legends of
                          king \Artur are built around the idea of a leader who could link the small warring \British kingdoms and re - introduce the glory of roman Britain under Theodosius. \to quote \Bernard \Cornwall " to introduce two leaders halves the strength of the whole army."

                          \why \
                          Rome abandoned Britain is known - at least three army commanders who declared themselves emperors. The island was seen as trouble by Honorius, a weak and shortsighted emperor.

                          Unfortunately for Rome, the empire ran on silver, and Britain was the source. \at least 400 tonnes, iirc, were paid to buy off the Danes......
                          Silver, and Gold, can be acquired from lead, and Britain was full of lead.

                          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_in_Roman_Britain
                          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining...ain.Mining.jpg
                          https://www.bgs.ac.uk/mendips/minerals/Mins_Mines_2.htm

                          How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                          Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Given that there was not the traditional Anglo-Saxon invasion, and that the Irish invasions of Britain could have been 'Saxon' (source Sidonius Appolinaris), there are 4 areas that Arthur could have operated in. These are Cornwall, N and S Wales and Scotland.


                            https://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users...britain_5c.gif

                            https://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users.../iron_age.html
                            https://www.sarahwoodbury.com/irish-in-wales/
                            http://www.sarahwoodbury.com/wp-cont...-Wales-map.jpg


                            How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                            Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              King Arthur's Wars, by Jim Storr, contains some interesting analysis of this period. Lots of guesswork and educated guesses from very limited information, but I found it interesting. I read it n Kindle, so the maps were problematic, and I would probably have found it more interesting if I knew the detailed places better.

                              https://www.amazon.com/King-Arthurs-.../dp/1910777811

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                                Given that there was not the traditional Anglo-Saxon invasion, and that the Irish invasions of Britain could have been 'Saxon' (source Sidonius Appolinaris), there are 4 areas that Arthur could have operated in. These are Cornwall, N and S Wales and Scotland.


                                https://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users...britain_5c.gif

                                https://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users.../iron_age.html
                                https://www.sarahwoodbury.com/irish-in-wales/
                                http://www.sarahwoodbury.com/wp-cont...-Wales-map.jpg

                                The Chronicle of the Princes (the Red Book of Hergest) has this to say:

                                “And after joining battle, with cruel fighting on every side, the Flemings and the Normans took to flight, according to their usual custom. And after some of them had been killed, and others burned, aand the limbs of the horses of others broken/ and others taken captive, and the greater part, like fools, drowned in the river, and after losing about three thousand of their men, they returned exceedingly sorrowful to their country.


                                \\sarah \woodbury\
                                Sarah's not terribly pro French/
                                Belgium, is she?
                                The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X