Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

AethelweardSaxon t1_iraw8k5 wrote

Reply to comment by MagicRaptor in Where did the English language REALLY come from? by MagicRaptor

I wasn't suggesting genocide as the primary factor, but people don't just give up their land without a fight, there were certainly many battles fought and the chronicles attest to this.

In terms of settlements, there is perfect evidence for this. There are almost no place names in England with a Celtic etymology. A vast vast majority are from Anglo-Saxon derivation, the only other influence is a handful of Norse derivations in certain parts of the country.

4

Thanatikos t1_irb7r5g wrote

Oh, aren’t there even good examples of Latin place names? Londonum…

1

AethelweardSaxon t1_irb8jtt wrote

There a few cities sure, anything with -cester on the end of them especially i.e. Chichester, Leicester, Worcester, Gloucester. But even these are the exception to the rule and notable because of it.

Of course there are thousands more villages and towns than cities, and these are the ones with with nearly all Anglo Saxon derivations.

6

Thanatikos t1_irb9qta wrote

No, I was actually trying to bolster your point. If Celtic names (and genes) are largely missing even while Latin ones managed to make it through, it doesn’t bode well for the idea that the Celts were integrated in the area. I don’t think genocide or “replacement” are great leaps in logic to come to. I think genetic and archaeological evidence are showing more and more that older populations all over the planet were replaced by successive waves of migration and technology. The genes of the oldest human remains almost never suggest a common lineage with present day populations.

2