Invasion? What Invasion?'Gildas and Bede for example, are re-evaluated in the light of modern scientific techniques in archaeology, linguistics, and even genetics.'
'Tradition has it that ‘English’ developed in England, from the language of the Angles and Saxons, about 1,500 years ago. Yet Dr. Forster argues that the Angles and the Saxons were both really Germanic peoples from the continent who began raiding Britannia ahead of the accepted historical schedule. They did not bring their language to England because an embryonic ‘English’, in his view, was already spoken there[...]'
'Germanic is usually assumed to have split into three branches: West Germanic, which includes German and Dutch; East Germanic, the language of the Goths and Vandals; and North Germanic, consisting of the Scandinavian languages. Dr. Forster's analysis shows English is not an off-shoot of West Germanic, as usually understood, but is a branch independent of the other three, implying a greater antiquity. Historians have traditionally assumed that ‘Celtic’ was spoken throughout Britain by the time the Romans arrived. But Dr. Forster estimates that Germanic split into its four branches some 2,000 to 6,000 years ago. If correct, this increases the likelihood that the ‘Celtic’ associated with Britain may have been misidentified and was instead the fourth branch of the Germanic language tree. As argued by Dr. Oppenheimer, the apparent absence of ‘Celtic’ place names in England (words for places are particularly durable) supports the theory. From one who is uncomfortable with the hackneyed Anglo-Saxon history of Britain, the continuity of a Germanic based language seems to make more sense.'
- By Puffer Fish
- By Istanbuller
- By KurtFF8