AS Conquest

[David L. White]

> As the Britons at the time of the arrival of the Saxons certainly lived in a
> hierarchically organised agricultural society, the closest analogy is
> probably to the population of the Aztec and Inca empires and to African
> kingdoms like Congo. Of course, analogies are no substitute for facts. But
> putting together these analogies and the facts discussed so far, it seems
> that we have different situations in the areas on the SE coast first hit by
> the Saxons (plundering, enslavement and selling of the slave to the
> continent, expulsion, and killing) and further inland, where the Celts were
> turned into serfs and kept their language, religion, and culture for some
> time still.

        Yes, this is exactly right, except that the Britons (or most of
them) were already de facto serfs.  They just got new masters.

> One note on the "Celtic traces in the language" issue: one thing about
> French which is cited in language histories over and over again is the small
> number of Gaulish substrate words in the language. Normally, "alouette"
> ("lark") and some agricultural terms are quoted. On the other hand, French
> phonology (and to a lesser degree grammar) is regularly described as heavily
> influenced by the Gaulish substrate. But nobody doubts that the population
> of France was basically Celtic, with only a minority of Roman settlers (and
> a later smattering of Franks). So the small number of Celtic loanwords in
> English cannot be used as an indicator for a massive eradication of Britons.

        Yes, again this is right.  As I noted before, it is simply not true
that grammatical and lexical influences march in lock-step, or anything
close to it.

                                                            Dr. David L. White