PDA

View Full Version : English Origins: Y Chromosome Evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration



Glenlivet
Tuesday, May 11th, 2004, 09:46 AM
Y Chromosome Evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/tcga/tcgapdf/Weale-MBE-02-AS.pdf)

Also read
The Frisian Connection, continued (http://www.geocities.com/farthegn/the_frisian_connection_continued.html)

I noticed that the quote he claim is from CS Coon is in fact from R McCulloch whom did not cite his source. His interpretation is correct as far as Coon's opinions are concerned.

Over here one can also read about the letter to Marx:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1864/letters/64_11_02a.htm

Genetic evidence for different male and female roles during cultural transitions in the British Isles (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/98/9/5078#B32)

I had in any case always thought that many in Eastern England (the studies show even more inland too!) are anthropologically related to Holsteiners. This just confirms it.

AryanKrieger
Sunday, August 22nd, 2004, 05:21 PM
The Frisian involvement in the Germanic colonisation of what became England is much underplayed but the evidence is definitely there, particularly in the field of comparative Germanic linguistics and also in the use of Frisian runes in the Anglo-Saxon Futhorc.

Darius
Sunday, August 22nd, 2004, 06:31 PM
There are also mediterranid racial types in certain areas in Britain such as Wales. The early iron age people may have also mixed with the celtic (picts). The viking invasion on the eastern coast of England and scotland may have also added to the British genetic pool.

But we must not forget the Roman stay in Britain, which may be still present in the genetic pool of Britain. Much of the English language is as well partly Latin. As well there are some Gaelic derived words, and the other major half consisting of the anglo-saxon (Germanic)/Jut.

AryanKrieger
Sunday, August 22nd, 2004, 08:33 PM
There are also mediterranid racial types in certain areas in Britain such as Wales. The early iron age people may have also mixed with the celtic (picts). The viking invasion on the eastern coast of England and scotland may have also added to the British genetic pool.

But we must not forget the Roman stay in Britain, which may be still present in the genetic pool of Britain. Much of the English language is as well partly Latin. As well there are some Gaelic derived words, and the other major half consisting of the anglo-saxon (Germanic)/Jut.
I must correct some of the points that you have made. The vast majority of core everday English is primarily of Germanic stock.
The Romans arrived in Britain 400+ years before the coming of the English and left a few decades before the English boats started to arrive. Therefore the Romans could not possibly have had ANY influence upon Old English from which modern English is derived.
The few latin words that are contained in modern English owe their existence to Norman French, brought over in the Norman Conquest in 1066.
I must also correct you in that English contains few words of Gaelic origin. I dont know where you derive that conclusion from.

Darius
Sunday, August 22nd, 2004, 10:01 PM
I must correct some of the points that you have made. The vast majority of core everday English is primarily of Germanic stock.
The Romans arrived in Britain 400+ years before the coming of the English and left a few decades before the English boats started to arrive. Therefore the Romans could not possibly have had ANY influence upon Old English from which modern English is derived.
The few latin words that are contained in modern English owe their existence to Norman French, brought over in the Norman Conquest in 1066.
I must also correct you in that English contains few words of Gaelic origin. I dont know where you derive that conclusion from.
But Normans weren't Northmen?

Johannes de León
Sunday, August 22nd, 2004, 10:06 PM
But Normans weren't Northmen? The Normans were especially Danish Vikings, who began to occupy the northern area of France, now known as Normandy in the latter half of the 9th century.

The Norman people adopted Christianity and the French language and created a new cultural identity separate from that of their Scandinavian forebears and French neighbours.

Darius
Sunday, August 22nd, 2004, 10:14 PM
I understand the Norman question, but the presence of mediterranid phenotypes in Britain does not annegate the fact that the Romans left their part in the British genetic pool. Though predominantly the genetic pool of brits is Germanic, we must not also forget the intermingling with the Celtic people.

AryanKrieger
Sunday, August 22nd, 2004, 11:20 PM
But Normans weren't Northmen?
They were miscegenated Norseman who spoke Norman French after colonising what is now Normandy in France. It is they who latinised elements of the English language.

beowulf_
Tuesday, August 24th, 2004, 12:51 PM
Very informativ in this respect are the settlement names:

They show the Saxon colonization of Southern England exactly. The old settlement area of of the Saxon tribes is the starting point (Lower Saxony, Western Holstein,
Westphalia, Eastern Netherlands). From there the Saxons migrated through Flanders and over the English Channel into Kent and Essex.

Also some other Germanic tribes (Franks (look at -loh/-lea names)), Thuringians and Frisians) seem to participate.

This expansion route is supported by names with the element Riede, -hude/heath, hor-, horst, -tuna/ton/tun and -mar.

The situation in northern England and the Midlands (the old Anglian lands Northumbria, East Anglia and Mercia) is not so clear because of two reasons:

First the Saxon language and culture became constitutive for the whole of England. Second the probable continental homelands of the Angles with centrum in Eastern Schleswig has been vacated competely (as is shown by poll analysis and as Beda states) so that today´s place names in East Schleswig mainly belong to the Viking time (PN + -by) or the Danish colonization (-trup/rup).

The suffixes -brink and -klint which don´t exist south of the Thames and Flanders but on the Cimbrian peninsula and Northern England indicate that the Anglians migrated directy over the North Sea.

beowulf_
Tuesday, August 24th, 2004, 02:02 PM
Addition:
The French Normans were only a ruler cast without great genetic
impact. More important in this respect is the Danish colonization in the Danelag (place names ending with -by and -thorpe).

AryanKrieger
Wednesday, August 25th, 2004, 10:50 PM
I understand the Norman question, but the presence of mediterranid phenotypes in Britain does not annegate the fact that the Romans left their part in the British genetic pool. Though predominantly the genetic pool of brits is Germanic, we must not also forget the intermingling with the Celtic people.
Call me old fashioned but I still hold to the view that the Anglo-Saxons slaughtered the Wealas. Any residual Celtic admixture in the Germanic English population would therefore be negligible.

Vestmannr
Thursday, August 26th, 2004, 06:55 PM
I understand the Norman question, but the presence of mediterranid phenotypes in Britain does not annegate the fact that the Romans left their part in the British genetic pool. Though predominantly the genetic pool of brits is Germanic, we must not also forget the intermingling with the Celtic people.

The problem is that the phenotypes are not 'Mediterranid'. That term has little use. Atlantid is much more common in Britain than 'Med'. The British gene pool and grave sites are largely 'Roman free', if one means the South Italian culture that built the city of Rome. The great majority of Roman units in Britannia (and thus settlers) were from 'Barbarian areas. To get a good picture of what settlement is like, and why the genetic types of Britain, consider:

We have pre-historic populations: basically UP/Atlantid folk.

Then there is the 'Celtic' invasion, which from the historical record we can only begin to pin down with the Belgae (who might not be genetically separate from the later Franks, Frisians, Batavians.)

Then, the Romans come. An example of what 'types' enter Britannia under Roman occupation can come from a listing of troops stationed in what is today Southern Scotland and the English Borders.
2 Regiments of Asturian Cavalry (Spanish Celts)
1 Regiment Vettonian Cavalry (Spanish Celts)
1 Regiment Pannonian Cavalry (Central European Celts)
1 Regiment Tungrian Cavalry (Belgian Celts)
3 Regiments Gallic Cavalry (Gallic Celts)
1 Cohort Dacian Infantry
1 Cohort German Infantry (raised in Dacia)
1 Cohort Spanish Cavalry
1 Cohort Tungrian Infantry (Belgian Celts)
1 Cohort Tungrian Cavalry (Belgian Celts)
1 Cohort Vangiones Infantry (Upper Germans)
1 Cohort Vardulli Cavalry (Spanish Celts)
1 Cohort Roman Infantry
1 Cohort Aquitanian Cavalry
1 Cohort Asturian Cavalry
1 Cohort Baetasii Infantry (Lower Germany)
1 Cohort Batavian Cavalry (Netherlands)
1 Cohort Batavian Infantry (Netherlands)
1 Cohort Breuci Infantry (Pannonian Celts)
1 Cohort Cornovii Infantry (from Cornwall)
1 Cohort 'Ulpia Triana' Infantry (Lower Germany)
3 Cohorts Dalmatian Cavalry
1 Cohort Frisian Infantry
3 Cohorts Gallic Cavalry
1 Cohort Hamian Archers (Syrians)
5 Cohorts 'Lingonum' Infantry (Upper Germany)
1 Cohort Morinorum Infantry (Gallic Celts)
2 Cohorts Nervii Infantry (Gallic Celts)
2 Cohorts Pannonian Infantry (Celts)
1 Cohort Raetian Infantry (Swiss-Germans)
3 Cohorts Thracian Cavalry
7 Numerus Frisian Cavalry
1 Numerus 'Tigrisenium' Lightermen (Mesopotamian boatmen)
2 Numerus Raetian Infantry
1 Numerus Moorish Infantry
1 Numerus 'Venatores' British Scouts

The Hamians and Tigris boatmen were likely of Assyrian type (similar to Alpine.) The great bulk, as one can see, were German and Celtic/Gallic. One unit was Roman. The other 'large minorities' were Thracian, Dacian, and Dalmatian units. (No doubt another reason we have Dinaric Britons?) Also, it was typically the Auxiliary units and Irregulars that were allowed to settle after retirement in frontier areas like Brittania. The 'Romans' themselves left Britain rather than retire there, and according to British history left entirely with the death of Magnus Maximus in 383 A.D.

The Anglo-Saxon invasions were actually invasions of Saxons, Angles, Jutes, Frisians (very important), Wends, and even some Franks and Danes. Included in this number were Celtic types absorbed and enthralled in previous centuries. The Viking settlements were more of the same, likely also bringing in some Baltic blood (as we can say that the R1a present in Britain is most likely from Viking sources.)

The Normans were Danes, but also had intermarried into the local 'Gallo-Romans' - who were Roman only in language and law. Their culture and 'blood' was still primarily the Germanic-Celtic mixture common to Northern France/the Rhine/the Low Countries for more than a thousand years previous.

Again, Atlantid types are what most are miscalling 'Med' in Britain. Roman and Celtic Britain had already had extensive Germanic settlement before later Anglo-Saxon invasions. Some even postulate that the pre-Roman tribe of the Coritani were actually Germanic as well.

So, historically when we say 'the Romans came to Britain', we mean the Roman law, military, etc. - not Roman genes or phenotypes. Most of the 'Romans' who came to Britain and settled were in fact Germans, Gauls, Celts, Dalmatians, Dacians, and Thracians... there might have been a few Romans here and there, but being sent to Brittania for a noble Roman would have been exile. Their impact was slight if any at all.

Added: I should have added this. Besides the fact that the Viking and Anglo-Saxon invasions probably included individuals who were basically 'Celtic' or 'Gallic' - or indistinguishable by genetics from some peoples already in Britannia. Particularly, the 'Norman' invasion was only partially Norman. One whole wing of the Conqueror's Army was Flemish, and the other was Breton. With the Norman invasion, both Low German and Celtic peoples entered Britain yet again. So, things are not so simple with British history as 'Celt, Saxon, Norman/Viking'.

morfrain_encilgar
Thursday, August 26th, 2004, 07:44 PM
Call me old fashioned but I still hold to the view that the Anglo-Saxons slaughtered the Wealas. Any residual Celtic admixture in the Germanic English population would therefore be negligible.

Well, documentary evidence would seem to disprove this idea, because it shows that there was mixing between the Anglo-Saxons and the native Britons. For example in Anglo-Saxon law there were many clauses for the Welsh.

morfrain_encilgar
Thursday, August 26th, 2004, 07:52 PM
The Hamians and Tigris boatmen were likely of Assyrian type (similar to Alpine.)

The Assyrid is actually less Alpine than Armenids are, although they're often confused with them, but they're also related to the Orientalid type. You can think of them as less distinct Armenids.

Vestmannr
Thursday, August 26th, 2004, 08:23 PM
Call me old fashioned but I still hold to the view that the Anglo-Saxons slaughtered the Wealas. Any residual Celtic admixture in the Germanic English population would therefore be negligible.

The problem is we have no history nor tradition of any such slaughter. The genetics indicate that the Celts stayed there. Archaeologically, we know they continued ... often merging with Saxons, and in some cases continuing Roman culture in small villages (complete with the Christian faith) all the way up til the period when the English were entirely Christian. Historically, even many of the Royal lines of various English kingdoms had Celtic admixture as Celtic/Brythonic names were common. We know many parts of England remained mostly or with high numbers of British, and even had some autonomy til being assimilated (not slaughtered): Kent, Elmet, the Chilterns, Somerset, Devonshire, Cornwall, Bernaccia, Cumbria, the Fens, etc.) We even know of one entire British tribe that was allied with the Anglo-Saxon invasion in SW Britain.

The idea of a 'Anglo-Saxon slaughter of Celts' comes primarily from Gildas who was writing a polemical/religious work, not a history. His intention was not to record some holocaust but to call the folk of Britain to repentance. Exaggeration of 'evangelistically speaking' is the norm with this sort of writing. We know Gildas exaggerated: there are no piles of bones. Some deaths did happen, but nothing more serious than the depredations of the Vikings upon the English and Celts (the Vikings also were primarily settlers, not plunderers/rapists/murderers). The only other bit of evidence that is served up is a law from Offa's Mercia about killing any 'wild Welsh' found over the dyke. However, we do not find Offa purging the native Britons in his own kingdom, or turning on Elmet or those Britons still in the south or cities. With the term 'Wild Welsh', the term 'Wild' is key: it was not describing anyone of Britonnic race, but rather anyone from the mountain tribes to the West: IOW, those living in the old tribal manner... not the civilized and now 'Anglicized' Britons of the former Roman provinces.

Darius
Thursday, August 26th, 2004, 10:23 PM
Excuse me for my ignorance, but I think there were also the true English apart from , the Celto/Germanic ones. Or?...Did such people exist?

morfrain_encilgar
Thursday, August 26th, 2004, 10:52 PM
Excuse me for my ignorance, but I think there were also the true English apart from , the Celto/Germanic ones. Or?...Did such people exist?

The words England and Anglia are thought to come from Ing, which is thought to be another name for Freyr, a Germanic deity. If this is correct, then until the cult of Freyr arrived there wouldn't have been any "English".

Vestmannr
Thursday, August 26th, 2004, 10:55 PM
Excuse me for my ignorance, but I think there were also the true English apart from , the Celto/Germanic ones. Or?...Did such people exist?

No such thing as 'true English'. The closest we may come to that might be the Angles, where some claim we have the name English. I contend that English/England is not from Angle, but from descendants of Yngvi of which the Frisians were one tribe (along with the Angles, being of the cultus of Freyr, and their elite counting descent from the Swedish king Yngvi.) The Low Country, NW Germany, the Danish peninsula: all had Celtic inhabitants, and German inhabitants. They were mixed. Even the Frisians only had an upper class originating in Uppsala (thus the Ing- connection). The truth is, across a broad area of NW Europe, it is difficult to identify what is German, what is Celtic: our first historical mention of Germans in fact is as allies of Celts.

What we call English is ultimately this Celto-Germanic melding of Briton, Belgae, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, Norse, and Norman. There is a mythos that developed in the Victorian era that tried to purge English history of both Briton, Celt, Roman, Viking and Norman. One gets a taste of it with Sir Walter Scott's creation of this 'segregated' Saxon-Norman fictional history (good Saxons, evil Nomans). In this view, the noble Anglo-Saxons (no Wends, Frisians, or Jutes) land as the Romans rot away, kill all the Celts except those that flee to the far West/North, then live in Utopia til the Vikings come, which they successfully drive off, then the Normans come and oppress them, til they die off, then the Angevins, etc. etc. - with this idea of Anglo-Saxon purity (baffling to anyone who has ever bothered to just take a note of what the English populace *looks like*.) Archaeology, Genetics, and the primary sources themselves never supported this baffling view which was actually closely tied to the British Israelitist theory popular in certain circles of 18th/19th c. England.

Added: I was typing this as Atlanto-Med posted, but basically what she said. It should be noted: not all the Anglo-Saxons were of Freyr's cultus or counted descent from Ing. Many of the Saxons were worshippers of their ancestor-god Woden, and some Irminsul made it to England as well. I have no idea what evidence we have for the religious cults that the Wends might have brought.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Saturday, August 28th, 2004, 06:24 AM
You know that the Kingdom of Jorvik was founded by Uppsala? The throne at Sjaelland was merely a familial coordinator to extend the distance of Swedish rule into Britain. Later on as the Swedes and Danes went in different directions, the Norse took over York. Danes never ruled York but they did live in the Danelaw of Five Boroughs and East Anglia along with Geats.

There is a myth that surnames and placename borrowing didn't happen till after Christianity and that is patently false! Lerwick is the capital of Hjaltland(Shetland), a name taken from Larvik in Vestfold. My wife's surname is Barnes from near Balmoral in Aberdeenshire, in what was Pictish Scotland. That name is from Vestfold as well. There are a lot of myths about the purity in mass labeling groups as all one tribe and whatnot. My own Yorkshire surname is after a place in the western part of Uppsala's kingdom. There are a few others from Sweden I have seen, but I will not explain them here. I know full well that Ragnar's sons made Jorvik, and I'll have words with any who disagree that Ivar the Boneless and his brothers had no part in it.

beowulf_
Sunday, August 29th, 2004, 04:18 PM
That Ing-Anglia-connection is nonsense as well as the statement that there
were Celts in Northern Germany or Scandinavia (just look at the RGA). Further
there was no cultural Scandinavian influence or ruler cast within the
continental Germanic tribes.

Tacitus states that the Germanic tribes were split into four groups
which derived from the four sons of Mannus.
Particulary because Ing-Freyr is the national god of the Danes and Swedes
it has been supposed to link the Ingvaeones with the north-Germanic group,
but even that is not clear at all. It´s been proven that the Angles and
probably also the Wanes and Jutes were of Elb-Germanic origin
(Nerthus amphyctony, Jastorf culture). The name of the Angles itself
stems from the landscape in north-eastern SH.
(see e.g. W.Laur about place in Schleswig-Holstein and the Anglish
colonization of middle and north England).

PS The -wik names are more related to the Saxon-Frisian area
while the Nordish -vig is restricted to bays.

King Yngvar
Saturday, September 25th, 2004, 03:38 AM
The Normans were especially Danish Vikings, who began to occupy the northern area of France, now known as Normandy in the latter half of the 9th century.
Norwegians, Gangr-Hrolf their leader was from Norway, then likely was most of his men Norwegians as well. The Norman nobility was mostly Scandinavian by blood (at least father-to-son speaking), even if they spoke French at the time of the invasion of England.

AryanKrieger
Saturday, September 25th, 2004, 11:12 AM
The problem is we have no history nor tradition of any such slaughter.

I refer you to the book "Celt and Saxon The Struggle For Britain AD410-937", in which the author builds an astounding case to support the theory that the Romano-British population was by and large slaughtered by the incoming Saxon invaders. I make no moral judgement myself as I have both Saxon and Anglo-Saxon heritage.However this was the normal way of things and not just in ancient wartime but right upto the present day.
I quote from Gildas,De Excido et Conquesta Britanniae-"A number of the wretched survivors were caught in the mountains and butchered wholesale. Others, their spirits broken by hunger, went to surrender to the enemy; they were taken to be slaves forever, if indeed they were not killed straight away, the highest boon. Others made for lands beyond the sea, beneath the swelling sails they loudly wailed, singing a psalm that took the place of a shanty. "You have given us like sheep for the eating and scattered us among the haethen.""
Clearly xtianity had weakened the resolve of the once great warlike Celts to resist the Germanic invaders.
The extermiantion theory is also supported on the English side by the Anglo-Saxon chronicles.
Academics are desperate these days to "prove" 2 things-
That the English are not ethnically Germanic and that a mass invasionof Teutons/extermination of the Celts did not occur. This is entirely because of Jewish pressure upon the educational institutions of England and also the attempt by the English since 2 world wars to distance themselves from their continental German kinsmen.




The genetics indicate that the Celts stayed there.

What genetics? Please provide your evidence as this is at variance with the latest evidence that I have seen which indicates a continuity in the Anglo-Saxon population of Englaland down to the present day.


Archaeologically, we know they continued ... often merging with Saxons,

No, we do not know that,not to any great degree. An isolated example of peaceful co-existence does not prove that this was the general picture and goes against the historical chronicles of the time.

and in some cases continuing Roman culture in small villages (complete with the Christian faith) all the way up til the period when the English were entirely Christian.

Give me some examples please! Brian Bates in "The Real Middle Earth" demonstrates that the incoming Germanic invaders cared nothing for the stone Romano-British towns and cities but dwellt in their wattle and daub huts and settlements, living close to nature as they did in Germania and as the pre-xtian Celts did in Britain prior to the Roman invasion.

Historically, even many of the Royal lines of various English kingdoms had Celtic admixture as Celtic/Brythonic names were common.

They were the exception not the rule and this did not reflect what went on at a local level amongst the ordinary people.

We know many parts of England remained mostly or with high numbers of British, and even had some autonomy til being assimilated (not slaughtered): Kent, Elmet, the Chilterns, Somerset, Devonshire, Cornwall, Bernaccia, Cumbria, the Fens, etc.) We even know of one entire British tribe that was allied with the Anglo-Saxon invasion in SW Britain.

Again we are talking about the exception and not the rule yet you seem intent on trying to prove a point from meagre evidence.

The idea of a 'Anglo-Saxon slaughter of Celts' comes primarily from Gildas who was writing a polemical/religious work, not a history.

All history is written from a polemic persepctive. What one does in such circumstances is balance the evidence,giving due weight to certain types of evidence against others.His account agrees with that of the Anglo-Saxon chronicles.
Does it not surprise you that virtually nothing remains of Celtic influence upon the pre-Norman Conquest English language? Why is that?
Why also is there practically no legacy of Celtic place names in England apart from Cornwall and Cumbria? Why is that?

His intention was not to record some holocaust but to call the folk of Britain to repentance. Exaggeration of 'evangelistically speaking' is the norm with this sort of writing. We know Gildas exaggerated: there are no piles of bones. Some deaths did happen, but nothing more serious than the depredations of the Vikings upon the English and Celts (the Vikings also were primarily settlers, not plunderers/rapists/murderers). The only other bit of evidence that is served up is a law from Offa's Mercia about killing any 'wild Welsh' found over the dyke. However, we do not find Offa purging the native Britons in his own kingdom, or turning on Elmet or those Britons still in the south or cities. With the term 'Wild Welsh', the term 'Wild' is key: it was not describing anyone of Britonnic race, but rather anyone from the mountain tribes to the West: IOW, those living in the old tribal manner... not the civilized and now 'Anglicized' Britons of the former Roman provinces.
The Welsh chronicles and Anglo-Saxon Chronicles report of a state of more or less continuous warfare between the Anglo-Saxons and the Wealas as the Anglo-Saxon settlements gradually spread over 150 years to cover entirely what is now known as England.
"In Llongborth Geraint was slain. Heroes of the land of Dumnonia,before they were slaughtered, they slew"[Anon, ninth century Welsh]

"Ecgfrith, the king led an army to ravage the kingdom of the Picts...."[Bede,Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum]

"Aelle and Cyssa beseiged Anderida,near Pevensey,and killed all who who were inside,so there was not one Briton left."[Year 491,Anglo-Saxon Chronicles]

"There came two ealdormen to Britain: Cerdic and Cynric his son, with five ships,to the place called Cerdicesora; on the same day they fought the Welsh."[Year 495,Anglo-Saxon Chronicles]

"Port came to Britain with his two sons,Bleda and Maegla,and two ships, to the place called Portsmouth,and killed a young British man,a very noble man."[Year 501,Anglo-Saxon Chronicles]

"Cerdic and Cynric killed a British king named Natanlaod,and five thousand men with him. After that the land was known as Natanleag up to Cerdicesford."[Year 508,Anglo-Saxon Chronicles.

AryanKrieger
Saturday, September 25th, 2004, 11:15 AM
Well, documentary evidence would seem to disprove this idea, because it shows that there was mixing between the Anglo-Saxons and the native Britons. For example in Anglo-Saxon law there were many clauses for the Welsh.Perhaps you could cite some examples please!
Having specific clauses within a law code for a subject and slave population proves nothing,certainly not mixing.

AryanKrieger
Saturday, September 25th, 2004, 11:25 AM
The words England and Anglia are thought to come from Ing, which is thought to be another name for Freyr, a Germanic deity. If this is correct, then until the cult of Freyr arrived there wouldn't have been any "English".This is incorrect: there is nothing to substantiate a direct etymological connection between the name of the god and rune "Ing" and "English".
England means "land of the Angles" and the Angles who were the Germanic tribe to give their name to the land of the Anglo-Saxons originally came from Angeln in Denmark in the northern part of the Jutland peninsula. Their latin name is "Anglii". Archaeological evidence indicates that Angeln was completely depopulated at the time of the Germanic invasions of Britain which suggests that the Angles came to Britain en masse.
The god Ing may be the Anglo-Saxon equivalent of Frey and means "lord".
There is nothing to suggest that Germanics apart from the Angles did not also honour this god.

beowulf_
Saturday, September 25th, 2004, 05:16 PM
@AryanKrieger

Angeln in Denmark

In fact, it´s Angeln (Danish: Angel, OE: Ongel, Proto-Germanic: *Angliz) in Germany since 1864. I must know.:)

completely depopulated

There stayed a few remainder settlements, especially in the SW corner of the landscape (Moldenit, Behrend, Winning etc.). But as to the overall picture I must concede that the bulk of the place names (-trup/-rup,-by) and the remark made by Beda Venerabilis indicate the depopulation and Viking time re-colonization of Angeln as well as poll analysis and archaeologic studies about ancient fields and villages which discontinue in the 5th century (see e.g. Willroth 1992).

Ing>Angles can be regarded as a folk etymology. It´s much more probable that the Angles traced themeselves back to Wodan as it is indicated by family trees of the Old-Anglian king houses which start with Wodan.

BTW these family trees show another interesting connection: Swaefdag (which is a mythical person of the Swaebian tradition) is mentioned as an ancestor of the houses of Kent and Deira of Northumbria.

S.Gutenbrunner counts with further Swaebian traditions in the Anglian kingdoms.

And some findings indicate a relationship between the continental Anglish holy district of the Thorburnsberg moorland in Angeln and the holy shrine of the Swaebes/Semnones in the Mark Brandenburg.

As I stated above:

It´s been proven that the Angles and probably also the Wanes and Jutes
were of Elb-Germanic origin (Nerthus amphyctony, Jastorf culture).

The Angles migrated northward into the by then sparsely populated Schleswig area in the last centuries BC which coincedes with the expansion of the Jastorf culture.

The Jastorf culture was the most important, technically progressive and aggressively expanding of the Iron Age Germanic cultures. It´s roots lie in the middle Elbe region (Altmark, Mittelmark respectively Saxony-Anhalt and Brandenburg). One can tell the Jastorf culture "proto-Swaebic" not only but also because of the geographic congruence.

Nerthus is an earth/fertility goddess, terra mater in the interpretatio Romana, the famine form of Njörd. The Germanic tribes in Jutland and Schleswig-Holstein formed the holy community of Nerthus.

Tacitus states
XL. Contra Langobardos paucitas nobilitat: plurimis ac valentissimis nationibus cincti non per obsequium, sed proeliis ac periclitando tuti sunt.

Reudigni deinde et Aviones et Anglii et Varini et Eudoses et Suardones et Nuithones fluminibus aut silvis muniuntur.

The tribes are sorted from south to north. So it´s clear that the Angles must have settled in the midst of the Cimbrian peninsula.

Reudigni (German "roden") = the Holstes (German Holsten="Holz-sassen") which both designate forest inhabitants
Aviones = island inhabitants (Fehmarn/*Fembre???)
Anglii = Angles (means people of the landscape Angeln which has an arched form (like e.g. in Ankara, Angora)
Varini = Varnes, German "Warnen"
Eudoses = Jutes
The Suardones (German "schwarz") and the Nuithones (the Nerthus admirer), seem to be two smaller tribes in northern Jutland which are not mentioned elsewhere (maybe as Eowan in the Beowulf) and laterwards possibly were absorbed by the Jutes.

beowulf_
Saturday, September 25th, 2004, 05:44 PM
The Offa legend (~300 AD) as a witness of an interior Swaebian controversy
in the Widsith, an OE mnemonic poem:

(Fifeldor=Eider)

35 Offa ruled the Angle, Alewih the Danes;
he was that man who was the bravest of all;
however he over Offa in valor did not pass,
for Offa forged first among men,
when he was but a boy, most of his nation.
40 No one of his time was in valor mightier
on the battlefield. Once with his sword
he gained the mark of excellence with Myrgings
by Fifeldor; his ground held afterwards
by Angles and Swaefe, so Offa could strike.

035 "Offa weold Ongle, Alewih Denum;
036 "se wæs þara manna modgast ealra,
037 "no hwæþre he ofer Offan eorlscype fremede,
038 "ac Offa geslog ærest monna,
039 "cnihtwesende, cynerica mæst.
040 "Nænig efeneald him eorlscype maran
041 "on orette. Ane sweorde
042 "merce gemærde wið Myrgingum
043 "bi Fifeldore; heoldon forð siþþan
044 "Engle ond Swæfe, swa hit Offa geslog.

Vestmannr
Saturday, September 25th, 2004, 05:56 PM
Norwegians, Gangr-Hrolf their leader was from Norway, then likely was most of his men Norwegians as well. The Norman nobility was mostly Scandinavian by blood (at least father-to-son speaking), even if they spoke French at the time of the invasion of England.

Well, if you want to get technical, he was from Orkney (his father was Earl of Orkney). The Norman nobility was mixed from the beginning with the local Romanized Gauls (Neustrians), hence the rather 'dark' character of Norman families in Britain. We are speaking of course of the Normans who invaded England, which again were only 1/3rd Normans - the others were Flemish (mixed Frank and Belgae), and Bretons (pure Celts). The reason they spoke French was because they had *mixed* with the Romano-Gauls, and had taken on the local culture and language.

Vestmannr
Saturday, September 25th, 2004, 07:07 PM
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/934748/posts

There is something to begin with, to note the continuity of Celtic genes in England.


I refer you to the book "Celt and Saxon The Struggle For Britain AD410-937", in which the author builds an astounding case to support the theory that the Romano-British population was by and large slaughtered by the incoming Saxon invaders.

Yes, you are quoting from a book by the famous psedo-historian and Celtophile Peter Berresford Ellis. His writings are rife with Celtic (anti-English) propaganda, conspiracy theories, and ignorance of the subject he pretends to. A *real* scholar, Prof. Charles Thomas (who taught at Exeter U., as well as at Edinburgh) produced several studies through the 70s and 80s showing the continuity of Celtic and Roman communities in England up through Anglo-Saxon, Viking, Dane, and Norman times. Some of his work was dealing with urban centers (like York), that have had continuous occupation (London is conspicuous as one of the few without continuity), some of his work was on the continuity of Christianity from Roman times til Christian Saxon times - Thomas proved that there was a roughly triangular zone that stayed Christian throughout the period of 'pagan resurgence', roughly from Bristol out to and encompassing Essex and Kent. Smaller communities such as Shepton Mallet (near Wells and Bath) have been continuously occupied and Christian (and Roman Celtic) since those times.

The truth is: the Anglo-Saxons were *invited* by Romans/Britons, and settled amongst them.


I quote from Gildas,De Excido et Conquesta Britanniae

Yes, and I have already covered what Gildas' intentions as a writer were. Gildas' description is not witnessed to by contemporaries in other places, and from the archeological record can only be an exaggeration. I say this, as Gildas is a focus of my academic studies (through University of Wales.) Gildas produced other works, primarily instructions for monastics and canon law - his writing 'De Excidio...' was not meant as a history, but as a spiritual polemic. To treat it otherwise is academically irresponsible.


Clearly xtianity had weakened the resolve of the once great warlike Celts to resist the Germanic invaders.
The extermiantion theory is also supported on the English side by the Anglo-Saxon chronicles.

The 'extermination' theory is not supported by the Anglo-Saxon chronicles. The fact is that in some Anglo-Saxon kingdoms (such as Wessex and Northumbria) the royal lines include individuals with Celtic names. We know they married Celtic royal brides.

"Xtianity" had nothing to do with it. (Typically, someone who uses the term 'Xtianity' is attempting to be offensive, being the mark of neo-pagans with a chip on their shoulder against Christianity. In their own ignorance, they do not realize that 'X' is an initial/symbol for Christ 'Xristos'. I'm used to dealing with neo-pagans, however, even if they take up my time at BritArch and elsewhere waiting for pats on the back, or raving because the evidence destroys their precious beliefs. ;) ) Christianity did not 'weaken the resolve' as the Britons who had the greatest success resisting the invaders *were* the Christianized Britons. The continuity of the Celtic Christians in Briton is proven and obvious, even as far east as Kent. The Celtic pagans, however, were wiped out both by Saxon paganism and Christian evangelisation (Britain being one of the few places were the native pagan religion and Christianity were never 'at war'.)


Academics are desperate these days to "prove" 2 things-
That the English are not ethnically Germanic and that a mass invasionof Teutons/extermination of the Celts did not occur. This is entirely because of Jewish pressure upon the educational institutions of England and also the attempt by the English since 2 world wars to distance themselves from their continental German kinsmen.

It has nothing to do with Jewish pressure, and we aren't "desparate" - we just know better. The fact is that the English *are* ethnically German, because being German also means being part Celtic. The same subraces found amongst Celtic groups are the *exact same* subraces found amongst Germanic groups. The two 'meta-ethnicities' are intertwined, as they have been since the beginning of the historical period. There are no 'Jews' in my field, nor anyone giving a care what they think - we only care about the evidence. If only the geneticists were so apolitical! If you want to clean up a field of academia, start with fellows like Cavalli-Sforza and his un-academic 'no race' idea.



What genetics? Please provide your evidence as this is at variance with the latest evidence that I have seen which indicates a continuity in the Anglo-Saxon population of Englaland down to the present day.

The link above and the work of UCL, probably the best genetics lab in the UK. The fact of Romano-Celtic continuity has nothing to do with 'Anglo-Saxon continuity'. Of course the Anglo-Saxons are still there, just mixed in to various degrees. The fact is: the English are not *purely* Anglo-Saxon, nor *purely* Celtic. Same goes with Germany - so many Germans are of Celtic ancestry, and even many of Slavic or Scandinavian. The Christianization of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms (most often on their own initiative) led to only more synthesis between Saxon and Celt in England. Some places in England today are *still* bastions of Celtic genes: Elmet (in W. Yorkshire), the Chiltern hills, Cornwall, Dumnonia, Somerset, Gloucestershire, Kent, the Fens, the Pennines, Cumbria and Westmoreland, and other areas. The 'most Anglo-Saxon' part of England really is East Anglia, that's about as close to 'pure Anglo-Saxon' one can get in England.


Give me some examples please! Brian Bates in "The Real Middle Earth" demonstrates that the incoming Germanic invaders cared nothing for the stone Romano-British towns and cities but dwellt in their wattle and daub huts and settlements, living close to nature as they did in Germania and as the pre-xtian Celts did in Britain prior to the Roman invasion.

Again, Brian Bates primarily teaches 'Shamanism' - he is neither historian nor archaeologist. As I understand, he is a *Psychologist*. I would depend upon him for information on Psychology, but obviously he has not delved in depth to what we know about British archaeology and Medieval history. Prof. Charles Thomas, as I noted before, had demonstrated the continuity from Roman times up through Norman times. Shepton Mallet is one place I know for certain as I have *visited* the site, York is the largest city that was continuous. Most of Kent was continuous, even to the point that the Celtic/Roman churches were still doing 'business as usual' at the arrival of St. Augustine of Canterbury. Silchester and Wroxeter *absolutely* had continuity through that period, as is demonstrated by our digs, by land records, folk-lore and folk-customs, place names, and finally : genetics. An extremely large percentage of English have genetic continuity in Britain since the Stone Age!


They were the exception not the rule and this did not reflect what went on at a local level amongst the ordinary people.

They were only the exception in that there were Romano-Celtic folk retaining enough status to marry in with the ruling Anglo-Saxon families. They Anglo-Saxon kingdoms had large numbers of 'thralls' (serfs) of Romano-Celtic origin, wives taken, and in some areas whole Romano-Celtic tribes as equals (the Hwicce, Elmet, etc.) Our whole knowledge of the period shows no 'racial bias' as to Anglo-Saxons vs. Celts, but rather that Celtic kingdoms would ally with Germanic kingdoms vs. other Celtic and Germanic kingdoms. The idea of Germanic racial hatred of Celts and vice versa is *unknown*, so much so that even the Irish monasteries were full of Saxons, Frisians, and others who were not 'Gaelic' or 'Briton'.


All history is written from a polemic persepctive. What one does in such circumstances is balance the evidence,giving due weight to certain types of evidence against others.His account agrees with that of the Anglo-Saxon chronicles.
Does it not surprise you that virtually nothing remains of Celtic influence upon the pre-Norman Conquest English language? Why is that?
Why also is there practically no legacy of Celtic place names in England apart from Cornwall and Cumbria? Why is that?

First off: no, not all history is written from a polemic perspective. In fact, if you write polemically in modern academic circles, you aren't likely to take a degree in history. ;) Gildas' account does *not* agree with the Anglo-Saxon chronicles, as the chronicles give no account of a wholesale 'holocaust' of Britons across the island. In fact, the idea of a 'holocaust' of Britons was resurrected by a modern selective reading of Gildas (outside of his genre) with the intention of making a 'Celtic victimhood' based upon the Jewish holocaust mythos. This is so much so, that to buy into a 'Celtic Holocaust' is to buy into the whole Holocaust Industry. Congratulations! ;)

As for Celtic place names in England? They are *legion*, beginning with river names (most river names throughout England are just so.) Most of the major cities kept their same names. They did go through a process of development as the culture was Anglicized (both by presence of Anglo-Saxons, and their culture being predominant in economic/political/military power.) So, York, Silchester, Gloucester, London, Canterbury - so many names are simply anglicized continuations of the Romano-Celtic names of those places. Often the Anglo-Saxons *did* build their settlements right next to the Roman cities, but the fact is *someone* told them what those places were called, and they accepted those names as a body.


The Welsh chronicles and Anglo-Saxon Chronicles report of a state of more or less continuous warfare between the Anglo-Saxons and the Wealas as the Anglo-Saxon settlements gradually spread over 150 years to cover entirely what is now known as England.

"Wealas" properly only referred to those in the West of the country. The "Wealas" were not Romanized as the Britons in other regions. This idea continued later with the idea of 'Wild Welsh'. The Britons of southern Scotland were not considered 'Wild Welsh' for instance, neither were the folk of the West country (Somerset, Salisbury, Devonshire.) Only Mercia had laws about 'Wealas' not being allowed to cross into that country - none of the other Anglo-Saxon kingdoms did, even those we *know* were adjacent to or included Celtic areas like Elmet or the Chilterns.


"In Llongborth Geraint was slain. Heroes of the land of Dumnonia,before they were slaughtered, they slew"[Anon, ninth century Welsh]

Yes, which proves a battle - not a genocide. In fact, they often did take prisoners; for ransom, and as slaves, and sometimes as wives or adopted sons. Only in a few historical cases is it recorded that 'they killed them all', and only in reference to certain fortresses.


"Ecgfrith, the king led an army to ravage the kingdom of the Picts...."[Bede,Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum]

Bede's history is a polemic, but in any case you notice it is *Picts* we are speaking of here. Picts were north of the Edinburgh line, and were enemies of the Britons. The area between Northumbria and the Pictish kingdoms remained (and still remains) primarily Brythonic in ancestry.


"Aelle and Cyssa beseiged Anderida,near Pevensey,and killed all who who were inside,so there was not one Briton left."[Year 491,Anglo-Saxon Chronicles]

Yes, all those in Anderida, not all in the region.


"There came two ealdormen to Britain: Cerdic and Cynric his son, with five ships,to the place called Cerdicesora; on the same day they fought the Welsh."[Year 495,Anglo-Saxon Chronicles]

Yes, because there were still Welsh in the area of Wessex. Not that Cerdic 'killed every Briton', but that they fought one of their armies. Note: there were already Anglo-Saxons settled there, whom Cerdic became king of (the Oxford basin area on the upper Thames.)


"Port came to Britain with his two sons,Bleda and Maegla,and two ships, to the place called Portsmouth,and killed a young British man,a very noble man."[Year 501,Anglo-Saxon Chronicles]

Yes, "A man", notice the singular case. One does kill the ruler if one wants to rule in his place, yes? Portsmouth, in any case, is one area that still has Celtic genetics along with the Saxon, Frisian and Jute settlers in the same area (and later Vikings.)


"Cerdic and Cynric killed a British king named Natanlaod,and five thousand men with him. After that the land was known as Natanleag up to Cerdicesford."[Year 508,Anglo-Saxon Chronicles.

Yes, and as you'll note this happens before Cerdic and Cynric's battles with other Britons of the same region, and before they became the kings of Wessex. In fact, 44 years later they fight another Briton army at *Sarum* (one of those places with continuity?) The fact is, English *are* hybrids of Celtics and Germanics, just as are most southern and western Germans, Scots, eastern Irish, northern French, Swiss, Austrians, northern Italians, Catalans, Galicians/Asturians, Dutch, Belgians, and Danes. Which is why, again: the diversity of haplotypes amongst English (including many R1b), the great diversity of subraces in England proper, and why many English counties are distinct in their own way as to looks, language, and customs.

AryanKrieger
Saturday, September 25th, 2004, 07:21 PM
@AryanKrieger

Angeln in Denmark

In fact, it´s Angeln (Danish: Angel, OE: Ongel, Proto-Germanic: *Angliz)
in Germany since 1864. I must know.:)

I feel strongly that it is dangerous to attach too much credance to Tacitus attempts at naming the various Germanic tribes and their geographical location unless supported by independant additional evidence.

AryanKrieger
Saturday, September 25th, 2004, 07:50 PM
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/934748/posts

There is something to begin with, to note the continuity of Celtic genes in England.

Oh not that little chessnut again.This has already been debated on Sormfront and I am not going to repeat the arguments here.Goldstein,in case it has escaped you is a Jew. I cannot therefore as an Aryan nationalist accept his findings on this subject.
I am surprised that you cant find something published by an Aryan.


Yes, you are quoting from a book by the famous psedo-historian and Celtophile Peter Berresford Ellis. His writings are rife with Celtic (anti-English) propaganda, conspiracy theories, and ignorance of the subject he pretends to.

You are splitting at genetic hairs in your attempt to deny an English identity. Even Ellis doesnt do that.

beowulf_
Saturday, September 25th, 2004, 07:50 PM
My source is: W. Laur - Die Erdgöttin Nerthus: die Geschichte einer wohl auch in Angeln verehrten germanischen Gottheit, in: Jahrbuch des Angler Heimatvereins (1961)

The topic is discussed there also in context of the old Germanic heroic poetry and substantiated with archaeological facts.

E.g. the old Thuringian law ends with the formula: "Law of the Angles and Warnes, this is of the Thuringians", so it´s likely that these two tribes were neighbours and migrated to Thuringia together.

AryanKrieger
Saturday, September 25th, 2004, 08:23 PM
Thank you.

beowulf_
Saturday, September 25th, 2004, 08:37 PM
Jutland is historically Danish territory and was completely under Danish sovereignity until 1864

At the risk to deviate from the thread theme nevertheless let me say a few words about this:

At the concerned time the Danes still lived in Shonen, southern Sweden, only just before Gorm the Old got king of Denmark the western parts of what is today Denmark had become Danish (according to Saxo Grammaticus and Adam of Bremen).

The ethnic question of modern Angeln is very interwoven.

In the Viking time there were two colonizations of Angeln, a Swedish one outgoing from a dynasty in Haithabu and a Jutish one from the north (Sundewitt).

The people´s language was a Danish dialect (angeldanish) until the first half of the 18th century, the last speaker died 1934. It could not be understood by those who spoke realm Danish. Therefore the Danish language rescripts from 1851 failed which aimed to introduce realm Danish as the language of the schools and the church which indeed had been German since the reformation. The administration and the nobility were under German control since the middle ages.

So Angeln was not as Danish as one might think.

AryanKrieger
Saturday, September 25th, 2004, 09:00 PM
I can see and acknowledge that you know a great deal about this subject to a remarkable depth. However in the final analysis none of it maters. Scandinavian,German,Dutch or Anglo-Saxon we are all Teutons and I hate to use the expression,but should love one another.

We are too few to be disunited all because of petty national boundaries.Good blood is all that interests me.

Vestmannr
Saturday, September 25th, 2004, 09:01 PM
Oh not that little chessnut again.This has already been debated on Sormfront and I am not going to repeat the arguments here.Goldstein,in case it has escaped you is a Jew. I cannot therefore as an Aryan nationalist accept his findings on this subject. I am surprised that you cant find something published by an Aryan.

You can call it a chestnut, but it doesn't change the fact that a great number of Englishmen are R1b (as are many Germans), meaning they share the same genetic patrimony as Portuguese, Spaniards, French, North Italians, Swiss, South and West Germans, Belgians, Dutch, etc.

If you only base your reality on what is 'published by an Aryan', then your belief system is no better than the Fundamentalist Prots and their mythology. I'm not likely to accept the arguments on Stormfront, as I don't frequent that board (from what I hear, I'm not missing anything.) In any case, Goldstein's evidence *does* match all of the other evidence we have.


That is your opinion.

Yes, but it is an academic and informed/educated opinion based upon Peter Ellis and his work. His books are *not* academic works. (Have you noticed he has neither footnotes nor bibliographies in his works?) His books are primarily written with a political goal in mind per the Pan-Celtic 'Celtic League'. However, much of what he writes (besides being exaggerated or untrue) is unnecessary for preserving Celtic identity contra the 'Germanic' and 'Romance' English and French. I know of *no* educated authority that would consider Ellis' writings as legitimate sources or 'evidence'.


London is and always has been a muliticultural cesspit. The incoming Germanic invaders as I have already pointed out left the Romano-British cities alone,apart from sacking them.They did not occupy them.

To the contrary, London was uninhabited for a few hundred years. The fact is that there is not a genetic split between 'rural' and 'urban' in England. The differences are largely by county (as should be expected.)


No they were not:they were initially invited by Romano-British leaders to act as mercanaries and provide protection against raiding Saxon pirates. But they were merely the first wave. The real invasion and colonisation started afterwards.

Yes, that is the typical 'mythology' based upon the story of Vortigern. However, historically we know that Britain was already full of Germanic tribes through the Roman army (Batavians, Frisians, etc.) The area of Oxford had been settled by Saxons as early as 410, the county of Lincolnshire had been settled by Germanics from the Low-country *before* the Roman invasion. Again, the 'invasion' was not so much like a warlike invasion, but like 'border crossings' by other tribes - much like modern Pakis in Britain. Someone brought them in, settled them amongst the other people, and they brought their families.


You are clutching at straws with your meagre examples of intermarriage. Royal dynasties have always done this-it means little. It isn't 'grasping' at straws. It is evidence of Celtic survival in Anglo-Saxon territory. If Anglo-Saxons were 'racist' against Celts (they weren't, as they looked similar and had similar customs) then there would have been *no* intermarriage. The fact that it was happening at the highest levels of power in a heroic society like the Anglo-Saxons means that it would have been *much more likely* at the lower levels of society. In that time and place, whom you were related to was important - to marry Kings (who were central, not separate from their people at that time) meant that one still had high status. *Status* is the issue there - if Celtic folk were considered unable to be assimilated by that society, there would be *no* Celtic intermarriage, especially not *serially* and in more than one kingdom.


No,again you are wrong.I use the term as shorthand.The X is actually a rune called gebo and means gift/love.

Nice backpedaling. ;) I spent years in the Reconstructionist movement, I know the lingo.


I am not a "neo-pagan": I am an Odinist.

Yes, which is 'neo-pagan' - there is no continuity in 'Odinist' religion or practices, so it is 'neo', a reconstruction.


There are many types of war and the struggle for religious supremacy can be fought on many fronts as I am sure that you are aware.

Yes, and 'Aryan' Christianity won out over 'Aryan' paganism/heathenism - which is European history for the past 2000 years. :) Those modern Europeans who have debased their Christianity (which is why Anglicans are now called 'Episco-pagans' here in my country) are 'losing' - which is why so many are converting to those Christianities which haven't committed spiritual suicide (particularly Orthodoxy and traditional Catholicism.)


Who is the "we". Are you saying that an academic is entirely free to persue his own line of research and still expect to receive funding and help with publishing a book if he goes against the mainstream prevailing opinion?

We is the academic community. And yes, an academic is free to pursue his own line of research - if one finds issues in funding, there is always self-funding, or finding another foundation. 'Mainstream prevailing opinion' is not a top-down phenomenon, but is a result of peer-review, dialogue, debate, evidence, and the scientific method. I've *never* seen anyone told what their results were to be beforehand. If they were, the great majority of us would say "yeah, right" and call the press. Anti-academics do seem vulnerable to this sort of 'conspiracy theory' culture, with its fear of education, power, etc. - the truth is that academia is not a factory but a battleground - we don't get pre-determined results, we fight for the truth or at the least the 'most probable' result.


In what way do you mean this?

It means that 'Germanic' as an identity is not monolithic: genetically or culturally. It also means that much of what makes 'Germanic' people overlaps much of what makes 'Celtic' people, and even 'Slavic' to a lesser degree. English are 'Germanic' in a broader sense, especially culturally - modern English less so as their language is far more Romance in vocabulary. However, even Germans are 'Celtic' to a great extent.


Whether you are an academic is neither here nor there.We are all anonymous here and it is unfair for you to use this as a means to apply pressure on those who disagree with your theories.

We are not all *that* anonymous here. I do speak from my experience, and that *is* as an academic. You opened that up by trying to 'apply pressure' in an argument from credibility: using sources for your claims. Presenting sources to 'apply pressure' is an attempt to use an academic method. I would be neglectful if I didn't discuss your sources according to the tools that I have. As for 'my theories', this isn't a discussion about 'my theories', but about the accepted genetic and cultural history of the British Isles. A theory ceases to be a theory when it is proven.


Evidence please!

I gave you the evidence. However, Goldstein is unacceptable a priori in your view. I'm sure Sykes is as well and his work at Oxford (he is the one that has shown genetic continuity in Britain from the Stone Age on), and even the venerable Prof. Charles Thomas (his works are readily available at any library.) Go read for yourself. I've provided the evidence, and if you reject it out of hand, then your ignorance is your own fault: don't blame me (or anyone else, Jews included) for it.


No they are not "legion" but are a tiny minority.River names are the only exception.

River names are not an exception. Many village, town, and city names are as well (and physical features.) They tended to go through a process from Celtic, to a Latinized form, further Anglicized and then Modernized. Not a 'tiny minority'.


The term "Wealas" merely means foreigner and has been used outside of British contexts.

Yes, and you'll note the context I was speaking of was specific as to the age and place. Specificity of time and place is *very* important.


You are splitting at genetic hairs in your attempt to deny an English identity. Even Ellis doesnt do that.

No, I never denied an English identity. But the English identity is one of synthesis and evolution beyond their continental Germanic origins. It isn't a 'splitting of hairs' either. It is the particulars. An absolute that is contrary to the particulars is no absolute.

In fact, the view we hold is pretty much what was held throughout English history: only in Victorian times did it change to try to revision a myth that was 'pure German' (no doubt influence from the Germanizing of the Royal family?) for English origins. In England itself, folk in the 16th-18th centuries would describe themselves as either 'Anglo-Celtic' or 'Anglo-Scandinavian' based upon looks. The former type was considered typical for the South of England, the Western parts, and the far North. The North in general and the East was considered more towards the latter type. It is the same reason why one can find German Brunns, Irish Brunns, and English Brunns who look related or Keltic Nordics of English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, Belgian, French, German, Scandinavian, or Dutch ancestry. My specific haplotype, for instance, is shared by Germans on the Rhine, Englishmen in the West and North, and by Scottish folk (of Gaelic, Briton, Pictish, Angle, and Norse family origin.) All of these folk had been mixing for millenia in Northwest Europe, just as recorded in Classical texts. Germanized Celts and Celticized Germans were nothing out of the ordinary.

Rhydderch
Thursday, January 6th, 2005, 11:44 AM
The Romans arrived in Britain 400+ years before the coming of the English and left a few decades before the English boats started to arrive.Saxons (with their "English boats") had been raiding the coasts of Britain and Gaul from the 200's A.D. and many served in the Roman army so their contact with the Roman world had been extensive; it is therefore likely that many (or most) of the Saxon leaders who entered Britain could speak Latin.

The idea of Saxons suddenly arriving on the scene as invited mercenaries (Hengest, Horsa etc.) and then turning on their hosts is a foundation story and whilst containing elements of truth, it is an extreme simplification of the matter.


Call me old fashioned but I still hold to the view that the Anglo-Saxons slaughtered the Wealas. Any residual Celtic admixture in the Germanic English population would therefore be negligible.Something which should be taken into consideration is the fact that the Saxons do not appear to have used mast and sail on their ships, they appear to have had only oar-driven ships of about 30 metres long.
So it is rather unlikely that they migrated directly across the North Sea, as often stated; it's more likely that they rowed along the coast of Germany and the Netherlands until reaching the strait of Dover, and then either crossed to Britain or continued down the coast of Gaul (much of the northern Gaulish coastal area was conquered by Saxons, and in fact, John Beddoe (an English anthropologist) said that a Saxon language was spoken in parts of the area until the 11th century).

Even if some of the ships had sails, they were still very small and open (no roof or shelter) so a mass migration seems very unlikely.

The population of late Roman and post-Roman Britain is usually estimated to have been about 4 million, with more extreme estimates ranging from 2 to 6 million.
Now the Angle-Saxon-Frisian homelands are much smaller than Britain and the population in late Roman times probably numbered no more than about 600 000 so even if they totally vacated the area and left for Britain then massacred 1 million Britons (which would be unparalelled in the history of Germanic migrations), they would still be a minority of the population.

The fact is, probably less than half of them migrated, and of those, many settled in the Netherlands, Belgium and Northern Gaul. I have not found any reason to believe that settlement was more dense in Britain than in those countries.

This means that the total migration into Britain of 200 000 is probably not an underestimate, but is quite likely the opposite.
I would guess that the total was perhaps around 150 000 (at most), as against a British population of 2, 4 or even 6 million, and this is consistent with what I know of traditional English customs, folk music and a great deal of other evidence about England.

So the idea that the English are predominantly Germanic is simply not feasible, let alone the idea that Wealas or Celtic admixture in England is negligible.

Rhydderch
Wednesday, February 2nd, 2005, 02:41 AM
One reason that many historians have thought that the Anglo-Saxons slaughtered the Britons is the impression given by Gildas and Bede of massacre, carnage and general destruction.

About a year ago I came across an interesting article on the issue, which has some points that I think sufficiently invalidate the position of those who use Gildas’ descriptions to support a “massacre theory” of early England.

Here is some of the article:

“In Gildas’ own words of chapter 24, the raiding Saxons all but destroyed Britain, its citizens and its towns, in enormous carnage, slaughter and ruin:

DEB, 24:
’For the fire of vengeance, justly kindled by former crimes, spread from sea to sea, fed by the hands of the impious easterners, and did not cease, until, destroying the neighbouring towns and lands, it reached the other side of the island, and dipped its red and savage tongue in the western ocean. In these assaults, therefore, not unlike that of the Assyrian upon Judea, was fulfilled in our case what the prophet describes in words of lamentation: "They have burned with fire the sanctuary; they have polluted on earth the tabernacle of thy name." And again, "O God, the gentiles have come into thine inheritance; thy holy temple have they defiled," &c. All the colonies were levelled to the ground by the frequent strokes of the battering-ram, all the husbandmen routed, together with their bishops, priests, and people, whilst the sword gleamed, and the flames crackled around them on every side. Lamentable to behold, in the midst of the streets lay the tops of lofty towers, tumbled to the ground, stones of high walls, holy altars, fragments of human bodies, covered with livid clots of coagulated blood, looking as if they had been squeezed together in a press; and with no chance of being buried, save in the ruins of the houses, or in the ravening bellies of wild beasts and birds; with reverence be it spoken for their blessed souls, if, indeed, there were many found who were carried, at that time, into the high heaven by the holy angels.’

And in chapter 26:
DEB, 26:
’But not even to this day are the cities of our country inhabited as before, but deserted and dismantled, still lie neglected; because though foreign wars have ceased, domestic troubles still remain.’

This description cannot be rejected without proper research, but archaeology rejects it today. Almost all major towns of Roman Britain have shown evidence of continuity and sometimes even major construction well into the fifth century. Though impoverished and not comparable to their heighdays under Roman rule, these towns were inhabited well into the sixth century, some even into the seventh or continuously. Clearly, the cities were never razed to the ground, and it looks like that the population was never slaughtered either. So what was Gildas on about? How literal can we take this? Patrick Sims-Williams points to a solution that has a direct bearing on Gildas’ education. He refers to similar descriptions of civil violence and destruction by fifth- and sixth-century authors from the continent. It is very useful to show these again here:
To start with, the anonymous author of De Vita Christiana, who may have been a Pelagian and possibly even a Briton, wrote in the early fifth century. Note especially the savagery with which he vividly describes the carnage of the wicked, which also turn up in DEB, as do the carrion-eating animals:

The works of Fastidius, chapter 3
’Of these some, who had frequently shed the blood of others, felt the wrath of God to such effect that they were compelled at last to shed their own. …Others who had committed similar deeds were so completely overthrown by the wrath of God that their bodies lay unburied and became food for the beasts and the birds of the air. Yet others who had unjustly destroyed a countless multitude of men have been torn to pieces limb from limb, piece by piece…’

Next is the poet Orientius, who described the barbarian onslaught in the first decades of the fifth century in Gaul. He uses the same geographical terminology as Gildas (caves, forest, etc.), but also the same universal picture of slaughter, using similar words:

Orientius, Commonitorium, II.167-84
’Neither the harsh terrain of dense forest and high mountain [celsi montis], nor strong rivers with their rapid currents, nor castles [castella] with their stones, nor cities protected by walls, nor the barrier of the sea, nor the troubles of the wilderness, nor caves, nor even caverns beneath black rocks, were sufficient to escape the hands of the barbarians. To many false trust was the cause of death, to many injury, to many civic treachery. What was not overcome by force was overcome by famine. The unlucky mother fell with her child and husband, the master underwent servitude with his slaves. Some lay food for dogs, and flaming roofs deprived many of life, giving then a funeral pyre. Throughout towns and villas, throughout fields and crossroads and all regions, on every road this way and that, there was death, sorrow, ruin [excidium], burning, grief. All Gaul was a single funeral pyre.’

Third is Salvian, whose description around AD 440 of the sack of the once-great city of Trier, which had been the capital of the Roman empire until the last decades of the fourth century, was written about ten to twenty years after the event. Salvian had clearly observed the horrors with his own eyes, and was able to report them vividly decades later. Did Gildas look at the same carnage somewhere? Notice that Salvian also mentions the few men of rank who had survived, though he rates them somewhat less than Gildas does:

Salvian, De Gubernate Dei, VI.15.83-85
’Those whom the enemy had not killed while they pillaged the city were overwhelmed by disaster after the sack; those who had escaped death in the capture did not survive the ruin that followed. Some died lingering deaths from deep wounds, others were burned by the enemy’s fires and suffered tortures even after the flames were extinguished. Some perished of hunger, others of nakedness, some wasting away, other paralysed with cold, and so all alike by diverse deaths hastened to the common goal. Worse than this, other cities suffered from the destruction of this single town. There lay all about the torn and naked bodies of both sexes, a sight that I myself endured. These were a pollution to the eyes of the city, as they lay there lacerated by birds and dogs. The stench of the dead brought pestilence on the living: death breathed out death. Thus even those who had escaped the destruction of the city suffered the evils that sprang from the fate of the rest. What followed these calamities? Who can assay such utter folly? The few man of rank who had survived destruction demanded of the emperors circuses as the sovereign remedy for a ruined city!’

The fourth is the anonymous author of the Narratio de imperatoribus domus Valentinianae et Theodosiane, who wrote an anonymous series of biographies of the emperors from Valentinian I to Honorius (364-423). The anonymous author wrote this obscure and very brief series between 423, the deaths of Honorius (which is the last event noted), and of Theodosius II (450), as the latter’s reign is mentioned as well. He uses these words:

'Gaul and Spain were demolished and utterly destroyed by the barbarian nations of the Vandals, Sueves, and Alans.'

Fifth is Sidonius Appolinaris, Bishop of Clermont-Ferrand, who wrote to Constantius (the biographer of Germanus) during the winter of AD 473-4 of a Visigothic raid in the Auvergne. Constantius is pictured like a restorer, in much the same language as Gildas praises Ambrosius Aurelianus (though much flowery):

Sidonius, Epistulae, book III, letter 2
’What joy it was for the afflicted when you set your sacred foot within our half-ruined ramparts! …What tears you shed, as if you were the father of all, over buildings destroyed by fire and half-burnt homes. How greatly you grieved over fields that were buried under unburied bones! How splendid then was your encouragement, how spirited your arguments for reconstruction! To this it may be added that, when you found the city evacuated because of civic dissension as well as barbarian attack, you, by urging peace, restored charity to the people and the people to their fatherland. Thanks to your advice the people have returned to a single mind as well as to a single city; to you the walls owe the return of their people, the returned people their unity.’

Sixth and last is Gregory of Tours, who described the ruin of Italy in the late sixth century. Gregory, who was an ecclesiastic like Gildas, uses much of the same images and language:

Gregory of Tours, Homilies on Ezekiel, II.6.22
’What is there to please us in this life? On every side we see grief, on every side we hear groans. Cities are destroyed, forts overthrown, fields depopulated, the lands reduced to a wilderness. No inhabitant remains in the fields, and scarcely any dweller in the cities; and yet these tiny remnants of the human race are still afflicted every day without respite. And the lashes of heavenly justice do not end because their faults are not corrected even under the lash. Some we see carried into captivity, other mutilated, others killed. What then is there to please us in this life, my brothers? If we still delight in such a world, it must be wounds we love, not joys. We see what will be left of Rome herself, who for a while seemed mistress of the world; bruised again and again by many great sorrows, by desertion of her citizens, by oppression by her enemies, and by repeated destructions, so that we may see in her what the prophet says against the city of Samaria [Ezekiel 24] …Where is now the senate? Where now the people? …And we few who have remained are still daily oppressed by the sword and innumerable tribulations… For because the senate is missing and the people lost, and because even among those who remain sorrows and groans daily increase, Rome. Now deserted, burns.’

Would we use this lament as direct evidence for the destruction of city-life in Italy? I think not. It seems that Gildas’ descriptions were not so dramatic when compared to all these similar lamentations. We do not have to believe the pictures of bone-covered fields, cities deserted by all inhabitants, bodies lying around, eaten by beasts, all of Gaul burning. The shock of the ending of the Roman empire must have been great, but not as dramatic as these authors let us believe. Small wonder that Gildas is citing from the Bible, and most of all from Jeremiah, who lived through the sack of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple!

The Roman legacy
But through all this, we can also spot the contrary evidence of his words. For not only writes Gildas these sentences in a very accurate Latin, he also confirms to the literary standard of his age, when he conforms to the dramatic language of his fellow-authors in describing the disasters of their age.”

Concerning Bede, it is clear from his writings that he had studied Gildas; his description of the Anglo-Saxons spreading slaughter in Britain is far from original, and in fact, much of it is almost word for word with Gildas.

Rhydderch
Tuesday, February 8th, 2005, 12:00 PM
Bede states that the Angli before they came to Britain dwelt in a land called Angulus, and similar evidence is given by the Historia Brittonum. King Alfred and the chronicler Æthelweard identified this place with the district which is now called Angel in the province of Schleswig (Slesvig), though it may then have been of greater extent, and this identification agrees very well with the indications given by Bede.
Tacitus and Ptolemy also mention Angli. Interestingly though, the former (who lived earlier in history) makes no mention of Saxons, and some think they may have been a later offshoot of the Angles; I tend to agree, because the kings of Wessex referred to themselves and their language as 'English', which word could well be derived from 'Angli'.

Sigel
Thursday, February 10th, 2005, 11:54 AM
I’d first like to congratulate A.N.H. on a first rate thread. I’ve read through it and found some excellent points which I shall try not to repeat. The whole topic is something I have looked into, for some time now. My conclusion is that whilst the idea of total replacement of the native British population is improbable, a mass migration event, nevertheless, did occur. The arguments for ‘Elite Domination’ or just ‘Cultural Migration’ don’t bear serious scrutiny.

Small elite groups, to my knowledge, have never managed to displace a host society’s religion, culture and language. The Franks, though numerous, were Romanicised and Christianised within a few generations, Rollo’s Vikings likewise. The Normans could not impose the French language upon us and came to see themselves as English. All these elites have left traces but were ultimately absorbed.

One argument against mass migration is the now discredited belief that the Anglo-Saxons did not use sails on their boats and therefore had to paddle around the North Sea in small boats, thus making the logistics of transporting large numbers across the North Sea quite impossible. The evidence used to support this idea is based upon a flawed understanding of small number of finds, including the Sutton Hoo Ship. These ships did not have keels and therefore, it is stated, would be unstable under sail. The truth is quite the opposite. Replica boats have been rigged out with sails and have been successfully used. The lack of a keel enabled these agile craft to be directly beached where conditions were appropriate.

North Sea Germanic tribes had neighbours who all used sail, Celts, Romans and Germanic Franks. Even the Roman Rhine barges had sail and a wide variety of craft, large and small, from different dates, have been found around the Rhine delta. Many were suitable for transporting large cargoes. Strange then that the AS didn’t know about this! No one claims that the migration happened all at once. It spanned several generations and there is no reason to doubt that it was logistically possible to transport a large amount of people in this time.*

To exasperate, what should be a rational debate, we are now faced with a lamentable Multi-Cultural political agenda, that dare not consider the full implications of mass migration. In fact, from a liberal perspective, it is essential that people do not accept the historical implications of mass-migration. Because if it happened once, it could happen again and the electorate may come to view the current influx of immigrants in a new light. This is, in my opinion, one reason politicians, the media and certain "academics" are now attacking something which, until now, they have been content to ignore.

*Dark Age Naval Power (A reassessment of Frankish and Anglo-Saxon Seafaring Activity)
John Haywood
Anglo-Saxon Books ISBN 1-898281-22-X

Rhydderch
Friday, February 11th, 2005, 11:58 AM
Small elite groups, to my knowledge, have never managed to displace a host society’s religion, culture and language. The Franks, though numerous, were Romanicised and Christianised within a few generations, Rollo’s Vikings likewise. The Normans could not impose the French language upon us and came to see themselves as English. All these elites have left traces but were ultimately absorbed.From what I know of history, (including non-European) it would seem that those three cases are fairly unusual. I believe there are clear reasons why the native language in those cases took over that of the conquerors.
But also, evidence suggests that although the Old English language eventually became dominant in England, the culture and religion were not eliminated, they were simply added to. This also is what happened in other parts of the conquered former Roman world.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I find that English folk tunes sound quite Celtic, similar to those of Ireland and Scotland, and virtually indistinguishable from those of Wales.
Folk tunes are often ultimately of very ancient origin.


One argument against mass migration is the now discredited belief that the Anglo-Saxons did not use sails on their boats and therefore had to paddle around the North Sea in small boats, thus making the logistics of transporting large numbers across the North Sea quite impossible. The evidence used to support this idea is based upon a flawed understanding of small number of finds, including the Sutton Hoo Ship. These ships did not have keels and therefore, it is stated, would be unstable under sail. The truth is quite the opposite. Replica boats have been rigged out with sails and have been successfully used. The lack of a keel enabled these agile craft to be directly beached where conditions were appropriate.According to an account I've read, the idea is also based on literary evidence from Roman times. I think it's also because these boats did'nt have masts or anywhere for a mast to fit.
But they were also small boats and unable to carry many people.


North Sea Germanic tribes had neighbours who all used sail, Celts, Romans and Germanic Franks. Even the Roman Rhine barges had sail and a wide variety of craft, large and small, from different dates, have been found around the Rhine delta. Many were suitable for transporting large cargoes. Strange then that the AS didn’t know about this!I think the reason is that Saxon ships were designed for a particular purpose, that is, to raid, but ships of other nations were often designed for travelling fairly long distances and far from the coast.


No one claims that the migration happened all at once. It spanned several generations and there is no reason to doubt that it was logistically possible to transport a large amount of people in this time.*It's true that a larger number could theoretically have migrated, but the evidence indicates that migration was restricted to the period 450-500 and perhaps even for most of that time not very intense.
That period is also the time when a lot of the Continental Germanic invasions occured.


To exasperate, what should be a rational debate, we are now faced with a lamentable Multi-Cultural political agenda, that dare not consider the full implications of mass migration. In fact, from a liberal perspective, it is essential that people do not accept the historical implications of mass-migration. Because if it happened once, it could happen again and the electorate may come to view the current influx of immigrants in a new light. This is, in my opinion, one reason politicians, the media and certain "academics" are now attacking something which, until now, they have been content to ignore.I also think many academics have their politically correct agenda behind rejecting the mass migration theory. But I think they have also come up with important information in the process.

From my study of the matter, I am convinced that the Anglo-Saxon conquest of Britain was fundamentally no different to the Germanic invasions of other Roman lands such as Gaul.
I believe the apparently different outcome is due to the situation in post-Roman Britain itself, rather than to the nature of the invaders or their invasion.

Sigel
Friday, February 11th, 2005, 09:43 PM
Thanks for replying to my post Rhydderch. I’ll try to expand a few of the points you picked up on.


From what I know of history, (including non-European) it would seem that those three cases are fairly unusual.

Not that unusual. Hardly any Germanic tribes succeed in imposing their language and religion after the age of migration. Lombards, Goths, Burgundians, Vandals etc. all melted into their host populations and Christianised. So why did a ‘handful’ of Saxons succeed where others had failed?


As I mentioned in an earlier post, I find that English folk tunes sound quite Celtic, similar to those of Ireland and Scotland, and virtually indistinguishable from those of Wales. Folk tunes are often ultimately of very ancient origin.

I take it you’re a fan - me too. Love it! I could argue that Celtic tunes are similar to English, due to the English influence on them, but let’s not get petty. I would largely say it comes down to how you wish to define similarity. I’m sure experts could explain this in terms of ‘Doric Mode’ etc. but it’s beyond me.
I disagree on one point though. The Irish music is quite unique. The ‘Borahn & Whistle’ sound could never be reproduced by the Saxon, he’d do himself an injury. It’s tempestuous, beautiful & intricate; quite unlike anything else.


According to an account I’ve read, the idea is also based on literary evidence from Roman times. I think it’s also because these boats didn’t have masts or anywhere for a mast to fit. But they were also small boats and unable to carry many people.

The ‘mast’ question is covered in great detail in the book I’ve mentioned. Yes, the boats were small. They could not have even carried enough provisions for a leisurely ‘paddle’ around the North Sea let alone ‘paddled’ a tribe across it. The fact is, as I’ve explained, they didn’t! The small, sleek raiders were prestige objects in themselves, like a dark age Ferrari. Any tribal chief worth his mead would want to be buried, sunk or immolated with one, and they were. Who would want to be buried with a large ugly transport ship? Evidence for these ships is there but their fate, at the end of a life of service was re-cycling or fire wood.

The problem is that we are fixated on the popular notion of small boats without sails. Think about it. All nations trade and raid - it’s horses for courses. Germanic seamen were first class sailors, some even employed by the Romans to transport their legions over here and there is even evidence for Saxon and Frankish activity in the Mediterranean!!!
I sat on a rowing machine in the gym today, and honest dude, I wouldn’t paddle anywhere, if I knew about sail and I could rig one up, would you? Well then.


evidence indicates that migration was restricted to the period 450-500 and perhaps even for most of that time not very intense.

What evidence? Please share.


I believe the apparently different outcome is due to the situation in post-Roman Britain itself, rather than to the nature of the invaders or their invasion.

Now I’m hooked. You see, if it wasn’t a mass migration, then something awesome and unparalleled must have happened. Bring it on.

Rhydderch
Saturday, February 12th, 2005, 04:07 AM
Not that unusual. Hardly any Germanic tribes succeed in imposing their language and religion after the age of migration. Lombards, Goths, Burgundians, Vandals etc. all melted into their host populations and Christianised. So why did a ‘handful’ of Saxons succeed where others had failed?I suppose I was really including those invasions as one of the three, in that they were invasions of Latin-speaking areas. When conquerors adopt the language of the conquered, it usually seems to be because that language is prestigious.
Here's something I posted on another thread:

"It's true that the English speak a Germanic language, but I think if 'vulgar' Latin had been dominant in late Roman Britain (as it was in late Roman Gaul) then the English would probably be speaking some sort of Germanicised Latin."

Personal names and other evidence suggests that even the post-Roman British aristocracy were still speaking Brythonic as a first language, whereas Latin was dominant in the rest of the Roman world, even though for instance Gaulish was apparently still spoken to some extent in Gaul at the time, but not by the ruling classes.

I have also thought of a reason why Old English was a relatively pure Germanic language. It's my own theory but I think it fits the situation perfectly. It does'nt involve 'cultural cringe'.

I'll post it on this thread if you're interested.

My opinion is that the migration involved perhaps a total between 100 and 200 thousand people, which if you look at it one way, is actually quite a substantial migration.
I also think it was only 'elite dominance' in a limited sense. I think that probably the majority of invaders were free commoners, rather than aristocracy, but it was the latter who became kings.

Concerning religion, I think this probably also has its origin in the lesser degree of Romanisation. On the continent, conversion to Christianity had become political, and closely associated with a 'Roman' identity, whereas it appears that the Britons no longer (or maybe never did) considered themselves Roman. There is also evidence to suggest that, although the invaders (and the Britons themselves in some cases), continued with their pagan religion, Christianity also continued.


I take it you’re a fan - me too. Love it! I could argue that Celtic tunes are similar to English, due to the English influence on them, but let’s not get petty. I would largely say it comes down to how you wish to define similarity. I’m sure experts could explain this in terms of ‘Doric Mode’ etc. but it’s beyond me.I also have in mind the music of Holland, Germany and Scandinavia. Although I'm not nearly as familiar with that, from what I do know it has a distinctive sound to it (and a sound which all those countries seem to have in common) which is quite different to that of English folk music.
There would probably be some degree of criss-crossing of music styles between England and the 'Celtic' countries, but I would think it is probably not enough to effect it significantly.


I disagree on one point though. The Irish music is quite unique. The ‘Borahn & Whistle’ sound could never be reproduced by the Saxon, he’d do himself an injury. It’s tempestuous, beautiful & intricate; quite unlike anything else.That's true (although I'd say it often is very similar to Scottish music), but Welsh music (like English) also has less of that vigorous, tempestuous sound, although in comparison with the continental Germanic countries, English and Welsh music is often fast and flowing, but in all the British Isles there are also much slower ones.


The ‘mast’ question is covered in great detail in the book I’ve mentioned. Yes, the boats were small. They could not have even carried enough provisions for a leisurely ‘paddle’ around the North Sea let alone ‘paddled’ a tribe across it. The fact is, as I’ve explained, they didn’t! The small, sleek raiders were prestige objects in themselves, like a dark age Ferrari. Any tribal chief worth his mead would want to be buried, sunk or immolated with one, and they were. Who would want to be buried with a large ugly transport ship? Evidence for these ships is there but their fate, at the end of a life of service was re-cycling or fire wood.I'm not sure that having sails or not would effect their speed. Sidonius indicates that the Saxon galleys were terrifying in their manoeverability and speed.
And although small, they were large enough to carry booty (and family in migrations) and probably provisions, but for the latter, it would depend how fast they could travel, and also it seems likely to me that they travelled near the coast and could come ashore for provisions at any time, so it may have been not unlike the other Germanic migrations by land.


I sat on a rowing machine in the gym today, and honest dude, I wouldn’t paddle anywhere, if I knew about sail and I could rig one up, would you? Well then.Although they may have known about sail, they probably would'nt necessarily have given up their traditional way of doing things, which they probably found easier, and they may not have really known how to make and maintain sails.


What evidence? Please share.Unfortunately that's a difficult question :) What I know of the evidence is from a number of different things.
I can think of one or two things though; Bede speaks of migration as if it was something of the distant past: early post-Roman times.

I've also come across an article on Saxons which says they are not (or scarcely) heard of as a sea-faring people after 500 A.D.
I googled for the site again but I have'nt found it so far. If I find it I'll give you a link.

Sigel
Monday, February 14th, 2005, 11:13 AM
Hi Rhydderch. I’d like to chew over a few points:

I suppose I was really including those invasions as one of the three
mmm... so not that unusual then.

When conquerors adopt the language of the conquered, it usually seems to be because that language is prestigious... Personal names and other evidence suggests that even the post-Roman British aristocracy were still speaking Brythonic as a first language, whereas Latin was dominant in the rest of the Roman world
It didn’t get any more prestigious than Roman Latin, that’s true. So, er... why after hundreds of years of Roman occupation were those stubborn Brits still clinging to Brythonic? and why suddenly choose to drop it when a bunch of sweaty, paddling Germanics came ashore?

I have also thought of a reason why Old English was a relatively pure Germanic language. It’s my own theory but I think it fits the situation perfectly. It does’nt involve ‘cultural cringe’.
I’ll post it on this thread if you’re interested.
Yes please, it may explain the above.

My opinion is that the migration involved perhaps a total between 100 and 200 thousand people, which if you look at it one way, is actually quite a substantial migration.
I assume it was more but, then again, I would.

I’m not sure that having sails or not would effect their speed. Sidonius indicates that the Saxon galleys were terrifying in their manoeverability and speed.
Ultimately, speed was not the issue. There is no great distance between the hook of Holland and the coast of East Anglia. Sail merely allows a greater ratio of passengers to crew.

it seems likely to me that they travelled near the coast and could come ashore for provisions at any time
I wouldn’t say ‘any time’. One has to be careful when disembarking in someone else’s territory. It would have been far easier to cross the North Sea. Check on any map. Where do you see the Anglian homeland? Then look across to the east coast of England. Do the same for the Saxons and bear in mind that the Jutes were settled around the mouth of the Rhine before migrating. Notice anything?
A good friend of mine, a Celtic expert, told me that identical (pre-Roman) shrines were erected by named Gallic merchants along the Humber and the old Rhine in Holland. They crossed over. The shrines were to give thanks for a safe passage. I asked him about the Saxon sail question. He was surprised that anyone would consider Saxons not to have had them. The Romans adopted these routes, as did the Angles. The Humber, itself, takes its name from the Ingvaeonic tribe, the Humbrones who settled along both banks and quite far inland.

Although they may have known about sail, they probably wouldn’t necessarily have given up their traditional way of doing things, which they probably found easier, and they may not have really known how to make and maintain sails.
So they really were an intransigent, laughable, bunch of grunts, as recently portrayed in the Arthur movie?
Baffles me why any educated, civilized Brit would want to adopt such a culture!

Bear in mind that all of the objections to mass migration could also be used to ‘prove’ that Celts never came to Britain in significant numbers. Likewise those Neolithic chaps before them, and so on and so on.

Perhaps sometime in the future your descendants will encounter statements such as this:
"As I have demonstrated, very few whites ever migrated to Australia. The original population is today, as it always was, virtually unaltered. Australians merely adopted the English language and Western ways, due to globalization. We’re all aboriginals in denial”.

Food for thought eh?

Rhydderch
Monday, February 14th, 2005, 01:35 PM
Yes please, it may explain the above.Here it is (with additions):

The relative "Germanic purity" of Old English is probably due to the same reason as the purity of Latin in Britain; i.e. most of the Britons (in England) spoke Old English only as a second language at least up until the time it became a written language (around 600 A.D.); and once the written form became established, it probably changed very little (which was very common in ancient languages, for example Ancient Egyptian) compared to the spoken form, so that for example, the spoken language of 1000 A.D. may well have been far more Celtic influenced than we would guess by looking at the writings from that era. Latin by the way, was of a purer form in Roman Britain than in Gaul for instance; it is generally considered that the cause for this was that Britons spoke it as a second language, and it had not spread to the lower classes as it had in much of the Empire.

So I think that spoken Old English probably only took on Celtic influence once the Britons had begun to speak it among themselves as a first language.

A written form also often influences the spoken, so that early Celtic influence in the spoken form quite possibly weakened over time.

Anyway, I think this would also mean that the Norman Conquest did not have such a profound effect on the structure of English as is commonly thought. It could well be that written Old English was quite archaic (by the time of the Normans).

My view of the situation is that both Briton and most Saxon (as in the earlier post) leaders could speak Latin. Initial communication then would have been done in Latin, and perhaps continued for a time after the Saxons took over a kingdom (and the Saxons maybe used it for administrative purposes for a short time).
But since both peoples spoke it only as a second language, it would have become more practical for the Britons to learn the language of the Saxon kings (albeit as a non-native tongue), and so Old English would have become the administrative language, with Latin ultimately dropping out of use.

I think the difference with the continent is that since Latin was the native tongue of the conquered, as well as the administrative language, they (Gallo-Romans for instance) would'nt have found it necessary to adopt the language of the conquerors, since the conquerors could already speak their native language.

I have heard though that in places like Gaul, many of the Germanic invaders continued to speak their own language among themselves, while Latin was only used administratively.


I think then that the relative purity of Old English may well have its origin in the continued use of Brythonic, rather than its rapid demise.

I have to go but I'll reply to the rest of your post when possible.

Sigel
Monday, February 14th, 2005, 08:59 PM
Hi Rhydderch. Thanks for burning the midnight oil and getting back so soon. Your theory is interesting. I’d like to examine a few points.
The relative “Germanic purity” of Old English is due to the fact that no Brythonic loan words entered the language. You believe that this is due to an inflexible written form not yielding to foreign words, like your example of Ancient Egyptian.
There is an inherent contradiction in your thesis. As you point out Anglo-Saxon became a written language around 600, almost 200 years after colonisation. Plenty of time for a spoken minority language to vanish or at least adopt a huge amount of the majority Brythonic, as was the case with the Franks. Why didn’t this happen?
If the common man was using huge amounts of Celtic vocabulary, this would have appeared in the newly emerging written form, there could be no alternative, it would simply be embedded in.
There is no ancient example of any written form ever holding back the evolution of a language. Sanskrit became the sole preserve of the Brahmin class and was virtually unintelligible to the normal Northern Indian. Sumerian was maintained as a purely literary form, long after Proto Semitic languages had superseded it. Both of these were already codified and had many works produced in them. As delightful as inscriptions in the Anglo-Frisian Futhark are, I would not dare to imply that they carried the same literary weight as the Rig Verda or The Epic of Gilgamesh.

So I think that spoken Old English probably only took on Celtic influence once the Britons had begun to speak it among themselves as a first language.
Where is this “Celtic influence” in Old English? I am learning Anglo-Saxon and I can’t find any at all.

I think this would also mean that the Norman Conquest did not have such a profound effect on the structure of English as is commonly thought. It could well be that written Old English was quite archaic (by the time of the Normans)
You are spot on here. English didn’t change overnight. There was a gradual absorption of Latinate words, as surviving works demonstrate. But Old English was never archaic. Each region had its own variety. There was no common spelling or usage and it had evolved continuously since its arrival in these islands. Like all languages, it was not set in stone and was wide open for loan word acquisition (see the whopping influence of Norse on English vocabulary and grammar), so why didn’t this happen?

In the scenario, you envisage, the purely administrative, minority, Anglo-Saxon would have become outdated and irrelevant to a majority population who were using ever more Brythonic language. Today we would be speaking a form of Welsh with a smattering of AS/ Norse loan words and a generous helping of French.

The continued use of Brythonic would have been the death of Anglo-Saxon, not the cause of its survival.

morfrain_encilgar
Monday, February 14th, 2005, 09:57 PM
It didn’t get any more prestigious than Roman Latin, that’s true. So, er... why after hundreds of years of Roman occupation were those stubborn Brits still clinging to Brythonic? and why suddenly choose to drop it when a bunch of sweaty, paddling Germanics came ashore?

The Roman occupation of Britain had a limited effect on the culture because it was mostly official, and cultural borrowings in Britain were mostly related to the borrowing of motifs of Roman power by a native British elite. Because Roman authority in Britain was so limited, I would expect Roman language to have had a limited influence on Welsh language.

Rhydderch
Tuesday, February 15th, 2005, 02:48 AM
Hi Rhydderch. Thanks for burning the midnight oil and getting back so soon. Your theory is interesting. I’d like to examine a few points.
The relative “Germanic purity” of Old English is due to the fact that no Brythonic loan words entered the language. You believe that this is due to an inflexible written form not yielding to foreign words, like your example of Ancient Egyptian.
There is an inherent contradiction in your thesis. As you point out Anglo-Saxon became a written language around 600, almost 200 years after colonisation. Plenty of time for a spoken minority language to vanish or at least adopt a huge amount of the majority Brythonic, as was the case with the Franks. Why didn’t this happen?That's the point I was making about the Britons not speaking it as a native language until at least 600 A.D.
It tends to be mainly when people take a new language on as a native tongue that it will display characteristics of their former language.
An administrative language used non-natively (such as Latin in Britain) often does'nt really take on characteristics of the more widely spoken one, although Old English does have a few Celtic borrowings, however negligible. As far as I remember, their are nine which can be certainly traced to Brythonic, but there are as many as thirty possibilities.

I think it's also possible that Old English was rather resistant to borrowings, preferring to translate words. After the early English adopted Roman Catholocism, Latin began to be learned by scholars, and a number of loanwords (especially religious) did enter Old English from Latin. However, there are many examples of translation (for new concepts) rather than borrowing of words; for example, the Latin Spiritus Sanctus became Holy Ghost. I think it's likely that many Celtic concepts were borrowed in this way.


There is no ancient example of any written form ever holding back the evolution of a language. Sanskrit became the sole preserve of the Brahmin class and was virtually unintelligible to the normal Northern Indian. Sumerian was maintained as a purely literary form, long after Proto Semitic languages had superseded it. Both of these were already codified and had many works produced in them. As delightful as inscriptions in the Anglo-Frisian Futhark are, I would not dare to imply that they carried the same literary weight as the Rig Verda or The Epic of Gilgamesh.A written form would'nt totally hold back the evolution of a language, but it tends to stabilise it, and it would undoubtably influence the spoken form to some degree, and to slow the evolution down to some degree.
Languages without a written form tend to change much more rapidly.


Where is this “Celtic influence” in Old English? I am learning Anglo-Saxon and I can’t find any at all.I'm talking hypothetically about the spoken form. I'm saying that after the Britons began to speak it as a native language (theoretically after 600 A.D.) there may have been considerable Celtic influence in the way they spoke, but which is not evident in the written form.


You are spot on here. English didn’t change overnight. There was a gradual absorption of Latinate words, as surviving works demonstrate. But Old English was never archaic. Each region had its own variety. There was no common spelling or usage and it had evolved continuously since its arrival in these islands. Like all languages, it was not set in stone and was wide open for loan word acquisition (see the whopping influence of Norse on English vocabulary and grammar), so why didn’t this happen?As I said above, written forms do change. But this is an interesting bit; if I remember rightly, there are something like 900 Norse words in Middle English, but only about 150 in Old English.

Also, there are apparently considerably more words in Middle English of Brythonic origin than in Old English.
Examples are the words mum, dad, bogey and many others which presumably don't appear in Old English. Some have said that the two former words are only coincidence, and that they are babyish terms which can arise in any language, but I see no reason for that interpretation; their similarity with the Welsh words is obvious.

Another thing I could add here is that the last entry in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is in 1154 (in West Saxon), by which time Middle English was apparently the spoken language.


In the scenario, you envisage, the purely administrative, minority, Anglo-Saxon would have become outdated and irrelevant to a majority population who were using ever more Brythonic language.In my scenario, it would have been a minority language, but not purely administrative. Those of Saxon descent would have used Old English as a native language, and even in Saxon settlements in Northern Gaul (dating from early post-Roman times), their language survived (according to John Beddoe) until the 1000's A.D.

It would also have been widely spoken among the Britons, but initially as a second language, and only to communicate with Saxons.

Sigel
Tuesday, February 15th, 2005, 10:10 AM
That’s the point I was making about the Britons not speaking it as a native language until at least 600 A.D. It tends to be mainly when people take a new language on as a native tongue that it will display characteristics of their former language.
I agree that the Brits adopted Anglo-Saxon, not vice versa and the few loan words (30 possibilities) first entered English when surviving British natives where using AS as their mother tongue - no probs there.

I’m talking hypothetically about the spoken form. I’m saying that after the Britons began to speak it as a native language (theoretically after 600 A.D.) there may have been considerable Celtic influence in the way they spoke, but which is not evident in the written form.
Okay, I’ll keep an open mind on this one.

As I said above, written forms do change. But this is an interesting bit; if I remember rightly, there are something like 900 Norse words in Middle English, but only about 150 in Old English.
Another thing I could add here is that the last entry in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is in 1154 (in West Saxon), by which time Middle English was apparently the spoken language.
Fine, we know that scribes were notorious for preserving older forms in their written works, sort of adds authority etc.

In my scenario, it would have been a minority language, but not purely administrative. Those of Saxon descent would have used Old English as a native language
... okay, a minority language.

It would also have been widely spoken among the Britons, but initially as a second language, and only to communicate with Saxons.
By what means did this racial and linguistic minority force the British majority to completely abandon their language, something even the Romans had failed to do, as Atlanto Med states?

Until this question is resolved we have to assume that the AS formed the dominant majority population, in the fertile lowland zone. We agree on lots of points but you must see why the idea of a majority Brythonic population just does not stack up. There was nothing the AS had that the British needed. Technologically they were similar. This is one reason why few loan words were swapped - Saxon and Celt had a sufficient vocabulary for all their requirements. The AS had no cudos or high culture, like the Romans, which the British may have wished to emulate. There is simply NO reason why they would have adopted AS ways, unless they had little choice in the matter.

Rhydderch
Tuesday, February 15th, 2005, 11:56 AM
I agree that the Brits adopted Anglo-Saxon, not vice versa and the few loan words (30 possibilities) first entered English when surviving British natives where using AS as their mother tongue - no probs there.Actually I meant that those few words could possibly have entered Old English before it was spoken by Britons as a first language.


By what means did this racial and linguistic minority force the British majority to completely abandon their language, something even the Romans had failed to do, as Atlanto Med states?The Romans failed to do that in Britain but they succeded elsewhere, for example in Gaul and Spain. I would say though that the number of Romans who entered Britain was probably lower than that of the Germanic invaders, and also the Romans who did enter were probably more spread out and more mobile, so perhaps their language would have had a harder time establishing itself.


Until this question is resolved we have to assume that the AS formed the dominant majority population, in the fertile lowland zone. We agree on lots of points but you must see why the idea of a majority Brythonic population just does not stack up. There was nothing the AS had that the British needed. Technologically they were similar. This is one reason why few loan words were swapped - Saxon and Celt had a sufficient vocabulary for all their requirements. The AS had no cudos or high culture, like the Romans, which the British may have wished to emulate. There is simply NO reason why they would have adopted AS ways, unless they had little choice in the matter.I think that the Saxons were probably at a similar level of advancement and Roman influence as the Franks, who conquered Gaul. Now the Gallo-Romans did actually adopt both the identity and the personal names of the Franks, and the social structure in early France contained both Germanic and Gallo-Roman elements. It seems to me that, apart from language (the reasons for which I have explained), the level of influence that the Franks had on the Gauls was similar to that of the Saxons on the Britons.

I would also say that I believe the Celtic invaders were a minority in proportion to the earlier inhabitants, and the same with the Beaker folk invaders before them; it is a general rule of history, the minority invaders come and conquer the land and the earlier peoples take on the language.

But if we are to believe the anthropologist Coon, it would seem that the physical type of the Celtic invaders (as found in Iron Age graves) is commoner in England today than any one type, either pre-Celtic or Germanic, but it is still in a minority overall.

Huzar
Tuesday, February 15th, 2005, 01:04 PM
About English origins, historical estimations tell that ANGLO-SAXON-JUTS invaders mass, was less than a million people (700'000/800'000), while autoctonous Celtic-roman element was almost 2 million. The conquest was very violent, at least, at the begin; Anglo-saxons destroyed three quarters of previous celtic roman civilization. Besides many were killed or forced to escape on the continent, where they settled BRETAGNE (here, i think we could find signs of ancient celtic roman culture), making it the most Celtic of all france regions. Counting all these demographic factors, the population stabilized itself, with a final ratio, in my opinion of : Germanic element 35-40% ; Celtic element 60-65%. There isn't a germanic majority, strictly numerically, but if we remember that Germanics were the RULERS, then there is a BIG cultural majoriy. Not sufficient , numerically to create an overwhelming genetic dominance, surely sufficient to impose the language to all the country(in modern and ancient times there are many elites constituted by 5-10% of population, or less). After the most violent, first phase ( about 50 years) the ethno demographical situation crystalized itself thank insular position of England that stopped others waves of invasions (around 550 a.c.)
NOTE 1) : the Celtic group, contains a Latin influence (very little, but notable, less than 1/5 of Celtic total) All population was considered "latin", but it's a cultural denomination : Roman citizenship was a cultural, rather than racial concept, so many who hadn't roman blood in their veins were considered latin.
2) Viking Norman/apport. I can't suppose any "percentage on this. I only know vikings settled north eastern coast of England (Biasutti/Bedooe relevations here gave a light- mixed light eyes at 75-80%, twenty points over English mean). About Normands they took the power in England and became the new aristocracy ( but here i haven't any statistical data)

My final analysis : strong Germanic stratum, culturally dominant. Stronger Celtic sub-stratum, culturally latent. Very little latin influence overall.

Sigel
Tuesday, February 15th, 2005, 01:15 PM
The Romans failed to do that in Britain but they succeded elsewhere, for example in Gaul and Spain. I would say though that the number of Romans who entered Britain was probably lower than that of the Germanic invaders, and also the Romans who did enter were probably more spread out and more mobile, so perhaps their language would have had a harder time establishing itself.
So that's why the Celts adopted Anglo-Saxon, now I get it!


I think that the Saxons were probably at a similar level of advancement and Roman influence as the Franks, who conquered Gaul. Now the Gallo-Romans did actually adopt both the identity and the personal names of the Franks, and the social structure in early France contained both Germanic and Gallo-Roman elements. It seems to me that, apart from language (the reasons for which I have explained), the level of influence that the Franks had on the Gauls was similar to that of the Saxons on the Britons.
Genau! My German gets me a long way in France.

I would also say that I believe the Celtic invaders were a minority in proportion to the earlier inhabitants, and the same with the Beaker folk invaders before them; it is a general rule of history, the minority invaders come and conquer the land and the earlier peoples take on the language.
You've cited multiple examples to back this up, okay, okay I concede!

But if we are to believe the anthropologist Coon, it would seem that the physical type of the Celtic invaders (as found in Iron Age graves) is commoner in England today than any one type, either pre-Celtic or Germanic, but it is still in a minority overall.
Thanks, that clears it up for me.

P.S.
If anyone would like a few more details on the Anglo-Saxon sail thing, they could check this out:
http://www.wuffings.co.uk/MySHPages/SHTreasure/SHGhostShip.htm
I had a chat with a sailing pal of mine. He reckons boats of this kind could have sailed across the North Sea in around 4 days, depending on conditions, size of boat etc.

Vanir
Tuesday, February 15th, 2005, 04:21 PM
If the Japanese started to speak Swedish, would you identify them as Swedish, or Japanese just speaking swedish?


irish; sasana/sasanach
scottish; sasain/sasanachwelsh; lloegr/saeson The Irish refer to England as Sasana, the Scottish Sasannach, the Welsh Saeson. These "celtic" peoples seem united in their clear, unambiguous identification of an "English" people. Unless you propose that people of ancient history had uniformly impaired powers of observation regardless of location.

The Welsh name for England is "Lloegr" which presumably is the name they had for the land comprising England when it was theirs, so, they identify the land as seperate from the distinct "saxons" who occupy it.

If they were just Britons/Celts/Smurfs/whatever label it is that the anti-English agitant is using to assail english identity at the time, why did the people of the allegedly identical ethnicity in the immediately neighbouring areas observably feel no kinship with them (and vice-versa)?

It'd be a bit strange of them to just collectively make a decision to "forget" (Mass hypnosis perhaps?) the fact they were all predominantly identical. Because, either they were different, or they weren't.

Another thing, would "any" of the (Herpes Europaeaea) nations of Europe's quaint, self-congratulatory little notions of racial integrity stand up to an analysis of the same level of magnification that is applied to the English?

The implied conclusions of these little "illuminations" seems to be that England is not allowed to retain any connection with its culture or past unless it can prove before a Court of Law that it is racially identical to the original Northern Germanic bearers of the English language and culture into England.

For instance, Rhydderch, do you think that you are racially identical to the people that bore Celtic culture into whatever celtic nation it is your ancestors hail from? If not, what grounds do you have to feel even one iota of pride in your alleged Celtic heritage? Going by the same thorough standards being applied to "Englishness", you would not be Celtic at all. And even if you personally do not feel this way about the apparent need for racial purity as a basis for cultural legitimacy, it can not be denied that that is the general thrust and consensus within the ranks of those who bring this fucktarded question up again and again.

Taking the set of standards applied to the English over to the surrender-monkey nations of the continent, where the movements of various tribes and blending of peoples is even MORE convoluted, I could run rampant tearing apart national identities.

But such energy & focus is ONLY applied to the English. Why? If it is in "the spirit of scientific inquiry" why is it only England, again and again, that finds its way under the microscope for examination?

There is an inconcealable malice and hostile purpose behind this sustained attack on England.

In the end it all boils down to an attack on labels, because when I look in the mirror I can very quickly ascertain I do exist, am not the figment of some greasy spaniard's or bogwogs (they, as I can read on "other" forums, have taken the liberty to despise and hate my kind, so I feel at liberty to return the sentiment) imagination, and am clearly a product of Germanic tribes going to the British Isles.

Rhydderch
Wednesday, February 16th, 2005, 02:41 AM
But such energy & focus is ONLY applied to the English. Why? If it is in "the spirit of scientific inquiry" why is it only England, again and again, that finds its way under the microscope for examination?Some of it could well be malice against the English, but the main reason for this "scientific" inquiry about England is because it seems to be about the only nation in Europe which has a significant proportion of its population who think that national identity must involve descent from those who gave it its name and language.
If the French all claimed to be descendants of the original Roman or Frankish invaders then probably the same inquiries would be made.

Edwin
Wednesday, February 16th, 2005, 03:11 AM
Some of it could well be malice against the English, but the main reason for this "scientific" inquiry about England is because it seems to be about the only nation in Europe which has a significant proportion of its population who think that national identity must involve descent from those who gave it its name and language.
If the French all claimed to be descendants of the original Roman or Frankish invaders then probably the same inquiries would be made.

All of Europe's nations are like England in this sense, when the aspect being regarded is derived from a modern concept like Celtic or Germanic. However, when it is literary, such as what is Arthurian or Eddaic, you will find that it doesn't engage the herd at such a restricted (and feminine) level. ;)

Vanir
Wednesday, February 16th, 2005, 03:45 AM
Some of it could well be malice against the English, but the main reason for this "scientific" inquiry about England is because it seems to be about the only nation in Europe which has a significant proportion of its population who think that national identity must involve descent from those who gave it its name and language.
If the French all claimed to be descendants of the original Roman or Frankish invaders then probably the same inquiries would be made. On the contrary, it is a modern development that certain elements INSIST upon racial integrity to this pristine extent as the basis for cultural legitimacy. And only for the English. It is a set of standards and focus pointed only at England.

Is one to believe that the people inhabiting England are devoid of any legitimate identity, history, and culture? The tears, agony, glory, war, pain, suffering. The lives lived. All fake, false, non-existent.
Following the train of logic, that seems to be the next stop along the conclusion trail.

Shall we turn this high-powered microscope upon Ireland next? How strong is the Celtic identity to which she clings so passionately?

Or what about the Greeks? literally humping the leg of the 2500 year old wrecked ruins of Ancient Greece on a daily basis for self-gratification. What right do they have to identify as Greeks unless they are racially identical to their ancestors. Oh, but of course. Their populations "magically" stayed as pure as the driven snow, unaltered in spite of the weather-system of population movements and blendings that makes up europe. Need I go on with examples? No nation is immune.

I am but one man. One. I do not have an army of hostile, left-wing academics to send forth (like flying monkeys in the Wizard of Oz) to perform loaded studies from limited or selected population samples, or type essay after essay blurring and distorting history to paint a black picture, but had I such resources at my disposal (fuelled by either the ethnic and/or political resentment that seems to fuel most academics and rabble passionately anti-english) do you doubt that I could savage, maul and bring down the "cultural delusions" that many peoples of Europe entertain going by your reasoning? Especially if said targets were as apathetic and listless as the English are today.

But, off you go.
You run around playing the bag-pipes, drinking guiness and keep telling yourself you're Irish (or whatever).

It is apparent to me that a cultural war is being waged, so forgive me for being dubious about the motives, feelings and goals of the drongos harrying England like curs at the moment.

Rhydderch
Wednesday, February 16th, 2005, 06:44 AM
Is one to believe that the people inhabiting England are devoid of any legitimate identity, history, and culture?Why is it that many of the English want to deny themselves of their Ancient Briton heritage? I don't see how acknowledging this heritage would take away an English identity.

If you're wondering about me, I'm not trying to deny the English an identity.


Or what about the Greeks? literally humping the leg of the 2500 year old wrecked ruins of Ancient Greece on a daily basis for self-gratification. What right do they have to identify as Greeks unless they are racially identical to their ancestors.Do you think I'm saying the English should'nt identify themselves as 'English'?

A nation is formed by its long history and by the various peoples which have entered it, so it's the same with every country in the British Isles.

I'm not going to pretend that the Scottish people are overwhelmingly descendants of the original Gaelic-speaking invaders (who were called Scots).



I am but one man. One. I do not have an army of hostile, left-wing academics to send forth (like flying monkeys in the Wizard of Oz) to do perform loaded studies from limited or selected population samples, or type essay after essay blurring and distorting history to paint a black picture, but had I such resources at my disposal (fuelled by either the ethnic and/or political resentment that seems to fuel most academics and rabble passionately anti-english) do you doubt that I could savage, maul and bring down the "cultural delusions" that many peoples of Europe entertain going by your reasoning? Especially if said targets were as apathetic and listless as the English are today.My view of the situation is quite different from these people you're referring to. They say that the Britons totally gave up their culture and adopted the Saxon culture and language overnight. The motives behind a lot of what they say are clear to me, and I don't believe many of them have studied the situation in depth.

I've also looked at some of the information itself (largely over the internet), and from that I know that a lot of misinformation has circulated (about the Saxon conquest etc.) since the nineteenth century, which clearly contradicts the recorded facts, and due to certain assumptions that were made, it affected the subsequent interpretation of information, so that it was not objective.

There are obvious (IMO) answers to the queries of earlier posts (sasanach etc.), but I'll refrain from giving them since it only seems to be creating a hubbub or upsetting people.

Vanir
Wednesday, February 16th, 2005, 08:07 AM
Why is it that many of the English want to deny themselves of their Ancient Briton heritage? I don't see how acknowledging this heritage would take away an English identity. Turn that around. Why is it that so many want to deny completely the English identity & ancestry, that has defined them for some 1600 unbroken years?


If you're wondering about me, I'm not trying to deny the English an identity. No, just the identity that they have had since the English first arrived.


Do you think I'm saying the English should'nt identify themselves as 'English'? You are.


A nation is formed by its long history and by the various peoples which have entered it, so it's the same with every country in the British Isles. And the rest of Europe, and the rest of the World. Who denies it? It is just that, for some "special" reason, the conclusions of such a statement are negatively aimed solely at English cultural identity.


I'm not going to pretend that the Scottish people are overwhelmingly descendants of the original Gaelic-speaking invaders (who were called Scots). Or the Irish, or the French, or the Greeks, or the "Celt-Iberian gaelic" portuguese/spanish etc etc yet no-one questions their cultural legitimacy at all. Ever. Why do inquiring minds never ask?
The nations of Europe seem to have been living a lie.


I've also looked at some of the information itself (largely over the internet), and from that I know that a lot of misinformation has circulated (about the Saxon conquest etc.) since the nineteenth century, which clearly contradicts the recorded facts the people on the ground at the time, the place names, the record of british tribes fleeing before the Angles, the existence of the province, people, language & culture of Brittany (unless you propose British culture fled to Brittany, without any people actually travelling with it, haha), the clear identification of Saxons by the surrounding Celts, etc, all point to the existence, in clear keeping with common sense, of the presence of Germanic tribes dominating said areas with their distinct presence. Which of the recorded facts above contradicts it.


There are obvious (IMO) answers to the queries of earlier posts (sasanach etc.), but I'll refrain from giving them since it only seems to be creating a hubbub or upsetting people. That's precious.

The Anglo-Saxon invasions only seem to be inconvenient for anti-nationalist leftwing historians and other rabble "humanitarian" academics, and for the surrender monkeys on the continent who openly (and I MEAN openly) despise England. For me to not have a personal reaction to that would be strange indeed.

But let's hear your super-dooper opinion, my arbitrarily celtic friend.

Rhydderch
Wednesday, February 16th, 2005, 09:26 AM
the people on the ground at the time, the place names, the record of british tribes fleeing before the Angles, the existence of the province, people, language & culture of Brittany (unless you propose British culture fled to Brittany, without any people actually travelling with it, haha), the clear identification of Saxons by the surrounding Celts, etc, all point to the existence, in clear keeping with common sense, of the presence of Germanic tribes dominating said areas with their distinct presence. Which of the recorded facts above contradicts it.The issue of Brittany was one thing I had in mind actually. Much of it was ruled by British kings long before any part of Britain was conquered by Saxons, in fact from at least as early the 300's.
Some Britons did migrate to Brittany in the 400's but the available evidence suggests that they were mostly from Wales and the western parts of Britain, which did'nt come under the domination of Saxon kingdoms until many centuries later. There is no good reason to assume that they were fleeing from Saxons, as so many have.

By the way, I'm not saying that there was never a Saxon invasion or conquest, as you'll know by reading the earlier posts in this thread.


But let's hear your super-dooper opinion, my arbitrarily celtic friend.I'll reserve that for people who are interested in looking at the situation objectively.

Sigel
Wednesday, February 16th, 2005, 09:42 AM
the people on the ground at the time, the place names, the record of british tribes fleeing before the Angles, the existence of the province, people, language & culture of Brittany (unless you propose British culture fled to Brittany, without any people actually travelling with it, haha), the clear identification of Saxons by the surrounding Celts, etc, all point to the existence, in clear keeping with common sense, of the presence of Germanic tribes dominating said areas with their distinct presence. Which of the recorded facts above contradicts it.

Well said! None of the recorded facts contradict the above statement. There has, to my knowledge, never been a case of any incoming minority succeeding in replacing the language and culture of the majority.

Rhydderch, if there is, please enlighten us.

That the Saxons first started to write their spoken language down 200 years after their arrival does not explain why this “minority” failed to include the Brythonic vocabulary you claim they had absorbed in the interim. It also goes no way towards explaining why the “majority” Celtic population felt any need to completely abandon their language in favour of the “minority” Anglo-Saxon.

This is one question you repeatedly fail to address. If you can provide a clear explanation for this paradox, please do so.

Rhydderch
Wednesday, February 16th, 2005, 10:12 AM
That the Saxons first started to write their spoken language down 200 years after their arrival does not explain why this “minority” failed to include the Brythonic vocabulary you claim they had absorbed in the interim.No, I did'nt say that. My hypothesis is that most of the Britons did'nt take on Old English as a native language until about 600 A.D. I'm saying that due to that fact, Old English did not have much Celtic influence at least until then.
What I said was that once they began to adopt the language (theoretically after 600 A.D.), it could well have taken on a Celtic influence in the spoken form, but which is not evident in the written form.

So I repeat that I'm not claiming there was significant Brythonic vocabulary absorbed in the interim of 200 years.


This is one question you repeatedly fail to address. If you can provide a clear explanation for this paradox, please do so.One example I can think of is the Central Asian Turkic people who entered Anatolia and gave it its language (Turkish). Another is the Arabs, who conquered the Middle east and North Africa, which are Arabic-speaking as a result. I could go on and on, with more ancient examples as well.

Sigel
Wednesday, February 16th, 2005, 11:23 AM
Britons did'nt take on Old English as a native language until about 600 A.D.

Just one more try then: So what induced the “majority” Celtic population to abandon their language?

Rhydderch
Wednesday, February 16th, 2005, 11:49 AM
Just one more try then: So what induced the “majority” Celtic population to abandon their language?The fact that it was the language of administration, of the kings (and a lot of the aristocracy in many areas) and presumably the de facto 'official' language of what had become powerful kingdoms; there would also have been communities of Old English speakers of lower rank. It would not have been a sudden decision to abandon the British tongue, but, as is usual in cases of linguistic change, a gradually declining use of it.
It most likely started with the British aristocracy; they could speak Old English and it would have become less and less necessary to speak their old language; it would have subsequently spread to the lower classes.
There's no great mystery about it.

I have also read references to the Brythonic language surviving in parts of England at surprisingly late dates: Wiltshire and Derbyshire until the Norman Conquest, the Fens into the 1300's, the Pennines until Tudor times, and in Devon into the 1500's.

Sigel
Wednesday, February 16th, 2005, 01:09 PM
Phew! Thanks.

The fact that it was the language of administration, of the kings (and a lot of the aristocracy in many areas) and presumably the de facto 'official' language of what had become powerful kingdoms; there would also have been communities of Old English speakers of lower rank.
Precisely, this was indeed the case, although I consider the AS to have comprised a huge quantity of lower rank individuals. The AS migration was not an elite conquest by administrators, it was more a land grab like the rush to the Americas. We also need to consider how the AS kingdoms became so powerful.

It would not have been a sudden decision to abandon the British tongue, but, as is usual in cases of linguistic change, a gradually declining use of it.
Agreed, in the peripheral zones.

it would have become less and less necessary to speak their old language
I would add that the initial demographic and later economic domination of the AS areas was the prime reason for the disappearance of remaining pockets of Brythonic.
I've never argued for total replacement but, for the sort of changes we are discussing to occur, a critical point has to be reached and passed. Quite where that point lies is open to debate. In any case it is far beyond that reached by either the Romans or Normans.

Rhydderch
Wednesday, February 16th, 2005, 01:42 PM
We also need to consider how the AS kingdoms became so powerful.
It's not always easy to know but probably for the same reason that the Frankish and other Germanic kingdoms which were set up in what had been the Roman world.

Concerning the communities of Old English speakers, I would'nt think it was necessarily a major part of the reason why the Britons took on the language but it would have helped to stabilise it, as also seems to have been the case with Saxon settlements in Northern Gaul.

Rhydderch
Thursday, February 17th, 2005, 01:57 AM
I wouldn’t say ‘any time’. One has to be careful when disembarking in someone else’s territory. It would have been far easier to cross the North Sea. Check on any map. Where do you see the Anglian homeland? Then look across to the east coast of England. Do the same for the Saxons and bear in mind that the Jutes were settled around the mouth of the Rhine before migrating. Notice anything?If I understand you rightly, that's basically what I was saying. Anglo-Saxons and Jutes were all originally from the area around and near the border of Denmark and North Germany. So then what I'm saying is that they probably travelled westward and southwestward down the coast of North Germany and Holland and then either continued down the coast of Gaul or else crossed to Britain where the gap between it and the Continent is short.

So I think it may be unlikely that they travelled directly westward across the North Sea from North Germany, but rather that they crossed in the region of the English channel.

Sigel
Thursday, February 17th, 2005, 10:51 AM
So I think it may be unlikely that they travelled directly westward across the North Sea from North Germany, but rather that they crossed in the region of the English channel.
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~wychwood/reference/
http://timepirates.atticmedia.com/html/location.aspx?id=200
http://www.wuffings.co.uk/MySHPages/SHTreasure/SHGhostShip.htm
http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/ships/html/sh_089100_suttonhooshi.htm
http://film.regia.org/filmships.htm

I think that they were able to sail directly westward across the North Sea, as I believe they had sail and a variety of vessels at their disposal - check the links above.

They would have taken a pragmatic view. If conditions were fine for sail, they would have used it, if not, either waited or rowed, just like the Vikings. Crossing the open sea was a risk, but a calculated risk. It would have saved days, if not weeks, and meant fewer stop offs for provisions.

A boat without sail needs to make many more stops. An Anglian boat rowing from the mouth of the Elbe would have had to make landfall along the European coast, stopping in various kingdoms en route to provision - an expensive (tolls etc.) and potentially risky situation. Then after crossing the Channel it would need to pass a few Saxon territories, requiring provisions etc., before finally arriving at its destination.

A sail boat, by comparison, in the right conditions could leave the Elbe, follow the coast down to the Hook of Holland with fewer, or no stops, then strike out across the sea arriving in much less time and with fewer potential problems.

They key here is to keep an open mind. The ‘evidence’ for lack of sail is scant and flawed. At the very best we must give the AS the benefit of the doubt, as all other North Sea peoples used sail.

Rhydderch
Thursday, February 17th, 2005, 01:04 PM
They key here is to keep an open mind. The ‘evidence’ for lack of sail is scant and flawed. At the very best we must give the AS the benefit of the doubt, as all other North Sea peoples used sail.As I said earlier though I'm not sure that having sails or not would make a lot of difference to the speed or efficiency of the journey, but I'm nevertheless interested in the prospect that they may have had sails, it could well be the case.
From what I've heard, the largest Saxon boats were about 80 feet long.

Rhydderch
Thursday, February 17th, 2005, 01:10 PM
A boat without sail needs to make many more stops. An Anglian boat rowing from the mouth of the Elbe would have had to make landfall along the European coast, stopping in various kingdoms en route to provision - an expensive (tolls etc.) and potentially risky situation.
It may not have been all that big a problem, because the Continental Germanic migrations would have crossed through foreign territory, and yet it did'nt seem to be a problem for them. I think most nations would'nt have attacked them as long as they passed through peacably.

Sigel
Thursday, February 17th, 2005, 03:26 PM
As I said earlier though I’m not sure that having sails or not would make a lot of difference to the speed or efficiency of the journey,
My yachting pals assure me it would.


From what I’ve heard, the largest Saxon boats were about 80 feet long.
It’s just a pity we don’t have more finds. Many of the remains are thought to be under water and this kind of marine archeology is notoriously, painstaking and expensive.

Allenson
Thursday, February 17th, 2005, 05:19 PM
I just wanted to chime in and say that this has been a most interesting thread to read and follow. I don't have much to add myself--except that as someone who has done a lot of both sailing and rowing (me of course ;) ), if I had the option, I would gladly grab a-hold of halyard, sheet and tiller and leave the oars for when Old Mother West Wind is taking a nap. ;)

Vanir
Thursday, February 17th, 2005, 07:56 PM
It may not have been all that big a problem, because the Continental Germanic migrations would have crossed through foreign territory, and yet it did'nt seem to be a problem for them. I think most nations would'nt have attacked them as long as they passed through peacably. You think?

You live by the sea, you have boats, you want to get to an island.
So you walk across a country first. Makes sense.

the large völkerwanderung of the Cimbri & Teutones had to fight much of the way, they just swept opposition aside.
Would France have just "let" the Germans casually make their way through the french countryside on their way to the Channel? What's the difference?
You're entertaining a long stretch on this one.


There is no good reason to assume that they were fleeing from Saxons, as so many have Assume?! Who's assuming anything?
The weight of historical evidence overwhelmingly indicates that that is indeed what happened.
It stands to reason that there was a Breton presence in the Brittany peninsula, but that's why they fled there en masse when driven to. It was a safe-port in the storm. If you were driven out of your home, would you run off into the woods to starve and die? Or go somewhere safe, like a relative's, where you could find succour and support?

btw, Would YOU row a boat all the way from Denmark to England if you could sit back, conserve MASSIVE amounts of energy, and utilize the common, well known and unremarkable concept of the Sail?
It seems to me that some people cling dearly to the idea, in spite of the evidence (and plain common sense) that the English only used rowing-boats do so as they feel it validates their opinion that no large-scale population movement occurred because rowing boats are too small, and were used only for raiding etc etc.

Basically, I can see, and have never denied, that the English today are not exactly the same in the distribution & proportion of racial types as their forefathers. But, SO WHAT!? What I don't agree with is the conclusion that this issue in general is so painfully and obviously aimed at, and that you yourself are coyly dancing around in this thread; ("Obsolete paganism" wasn't it?) that this therefore renders the English Cultural Identity that the English have always had untenable. (Again, only England being subject to the idea of cultural legitimacy being tied to population purity).

Or the opinion that, in defiance of uniform historical facts as recorded by all parties, not to mention common sense, the germanic Anglo-Saxons "magically" left no genetic imprint upon the British Isles...the Nordid types there conveniently dismissed as"blond atlanto-meds" (that was the term wasn't it?) or some other indigenous strain. Anything but an Anglo-Saxon.

Why don't you write what YOU think happened, from start to finish, in one simple post. Enthrall me with your objectivity. You're the one trying to rewrite history, the burden of proof is on you my arbitrarily celtic friend.

btw, In your opinion, *IS* cultural identity only valid in the presence of racial purity in relation to its original bearers?

And, in your opinion, what form of convenient faculty-impairment caused all the surrounding Celtic peoples, along with peoples on the continent, to clearly identify a "Saxon" peoples living in England that wasn't actually there?

Rhydderch
Friday, February 18th, 2005, 11:02 AM
the large völkerwanderung of the Cimbri & Teutones had to fight much of the way, they just swept opposition aside.
Would France have just "let" the Germans casually make their way through the french countryside on their way to the Channel? What's the difference?
You're entertaining a long stretch on this one.I don't know if you've intentionally misunderstood me, but I'm talking about the Saxons travelling by sea and stopping off for provisions, in which case those nations are unlikely to attack them.
There were Saxon traders as well.


It stands to reason that there was a Breton presence in the Brittany peninsula, but that's why they fled there en masse when driven to.What evidence do you have for them fleeing en masse into Brittany?


It was a safe-port in the storm. If you were driven out of your home, would you run off into the woods to starve and die? Or go somewhere safe, like a relative's, where you could find succour and support?Read the article I posted earlier about Gildas and his descriptions of massacre and destruction. It's a style of writing which was also employed by Continental writers to describe the Barbarian invasions there. Certainly there were murderous and destructive raids, but their extent was clearly exaggerated.


It seems to me that some people cling dearly to the idea, in spite of the evidence (and plain common sense) that the English only used rowing-boats do so as they feel it validates their opinion that no large-scale population movement occurred because rowing boats are too small, and were used only for raiding etc etc.Well I'm not clinging to the idea. But they were fairly small boats nontheless.

And they were many-oared galleys, I'm not sure that you'd call such a vessel a 'rowing-boat'.


Or the opinion that, in defiance of uniform historical facts as recorded by all parties, not to mention common sense, the germanic Anglo-Saxons "magically" left no genetic imprint upon the British Isles...the Nordid types there conveniently dismissed as"blond atlanto-meds" (that was the term wasn't it?) or some other indigenous strain. Anything but an Anglo-Saxon.You clearly have'nt read my posts properly if you think I'm saying there was never an entry of Germanic Anglo-Saxons into England.


Why don't you write what YOU think happened, from start to finish, in one simple post.The problem is that it's not that simple, especially when one is up against a whole lot of misinformation which must be corrected. And besides, it's not worth going to the trouble for someone who is only going to dismiss it all as motivated by an 'anti-English' agenda.


btw, In your opinion, *IS* cultural identity only valid in the presence of racial purity in relation to its original bearers?Cultural identity is complex, it goes beyond a name. You mentioned Ireland earlier, well I think most people would know that the Irish are largely descended from pre-Celtic stock, and cultural influences are also apparently present from those people.


And, in your opinion, what form of convenient faculty-impairment caused all the surrounding Celtic peoples, along with peoples on the continent, to clearly identify a "Saxon" peoples living in England that wasn't actually there?I'll just give an example here; the historian Tacitus speaks of something like 70,000 Romans being killed in the Boudician rebellion. Since there were probably not nearly that many true romans in Britain, it's most likely that he was largely referring to people from kingdoms which were allied with the Romans.
In the same way, British Celtic kingdoms which had been incorporated under the authority of a Saxon kingdom and allied with it would have been regarded as part of that kingdom and therefore as part of the Saxon host.
Again I can give the example of the Franks. One could ask why the descendants of the Gallo-Romans were referred to as Franks by neighbouring peoples.
But if you're talking about a theory in which it is said that no Saxons entered England, then go and argue with someone who proposes it.

Vanir
Monday, February 28th, 2005, 03:14 PM
Alright, where were we?


What evidence do you have for them fleeing en masse into Brittany? What evidence do you have that they didn't?
Again, you are the one trying to rewrite history, the burden of proof is on you.

I highly doubt your opinion alone is going do that.


I'll just give an example here; the historian Tacitus speaks of something like 70,000 Romans being killed in the Boudician rebellion. Since there were probably not nearly that many true romans in Britain, it's most likely that he was largely referring to people from kingdoms which were allied with the Romans. Have you ever heard of exaggeration? I'd wager that that 70000 figure just about has an extra decimal place.
Just about every estimate, from troop numbers to casualties, is inflated in historical accounts. It seems to have been de rigeur from what I can see.

Identification with Romans is going to be made easy anyway by the almost franchised way they entered Britain not as a migrating ethnicity as much as just an occupying Force, identification on ethnic grounds would have been pointless anyway given the variety of peoples comprising the Legions. I doubt the Anglo-Saxons were so multi-cultural (so to speak)

The English sailed to England, they brought their language and culture with them (they weren't ghost ships) which they still have to this day.
They didn't really like the Britons and Welsh (and I can see why), and killed a big heap of them, compelling the Wealas (Anglo-Saxon: Foreigner. Hmm, why would they call them that I wonder) to run away (something they were good at) to the western extremes and Brittany.
The English took England for their own.
Over the centuries, they have been altered when blending with Britons still there, along with Danish and Norwegian elements, becoming the English today. It's really pretty simple, and doesn't involve suspension of disbelief, amazing and protracted coincidence, mass hypnosis and conspiracy theories or propaganda campaigns.


And besides, it's not worth going to the trouble for someone who is only going to dismiss it all as motivated by an 'anti-English' agenda.. <shrugs> Well, "Rhydderch", like anything objective regarding England is going to come out of a Welshman's mouth anyway...

I think the English are English, and Germanic, and have been that way since they came to the British Isles, they weren't boatload after boatload of Dolph Lundgren clones, they were just normal Germans, normal men and women, a mixture of various sub-racial types like today, so the absence of a predominance of such blond Dolph Lundgren robot-warrior types in England doesn't prove as much as the Anti-English brigade thinks it does.

Rhydderch
Tuesday, March 1st, 2005, 10:24 AM
Again, you are the one trying to rewrite history, the burden of proof is on you.The burden of proof is on those who have invented a story of massacre, mass displacement and mass migration on a scale unparalleled in Ancient History.


Have you ever heard of exaggeration? I'd wager that that 70000 figure just about has an extra decimal place.
Just about every estimate, from troop numbers to casualties, is inflated in historical accounts. It seems to have been de rigeur from what I can see.It could have been exaggerated, but even so I think it would have included British allies of Rome.
And we still have the problem of the Franks, who were a Germanic people like the Anglo-Saxons. The Gallo-Romans eventually took on the nominal identity and personal names of the Franks, and were 'Franks' in the eyes of neighbouring nations.


The English sailed to England, they brought their language and culture with them (they weren't ghost ships) which they still have to this day.True, but they did'nt annihilate the Celtic culture, which is still there to this day.


(Anglo-Saxon: Foreigner. Hmm, why would they call them that I wonder)Well I've mentioned that already, (perhaps on a different thread) the word meant something like 'Celt', and was apparently not used by Germanic people to mean anyone but Celts or Romanised populations. As far as I've ascertained, it does'nt seem ever to have meant 'foreigner'.


Over the centuries, they have been altered when blending with Britons still there, along with Danish and Norwegian elements, becoming the English today. It's really pretty simple, and doesn't involve suspension of disbelief, amazing and protracted coincidence, mass hypnosis and conspiracy theories or propaganda campaigns.I'd say that's rather simplistic than simple. But I would say the real situation is simple; that is, in Late and Post Roman times, Germanic invaders conquered what had been the Western Roman Empire, and the situation in Britain was fundamentally no different to what happened elsewhere.


<shrugs> Well, "Rhydderch", like anything objective regarding England is going to come out of a Welshman's mouth anyway...That attitude is in itself decidedly unobjective.
Besides, Welshmen who hate the English (anti-English agenda etc.) usually insist that they are very different from the English, so it would not be in their interests to say that the two are closely related.


I think the English are English, and Germanic, and have been that way since they came to the British Isles, they weren't boatload after boatload of Dolph Lundgren clones, they were just normal Germans, normal men and women, a mixture of various sub-racial types like today, so the absence of a predominance of such blond Dolph Lundgren robot-warrior types in England doesn't prove as much as the Anti-English brigade thinks it does.The archaeological evidence indicates that the Anglo-Saxon invaders were predominantly Germanic Nordic but with a strong mixture of Cro-Magnon, as well as a couple of other minor elements.

I have also mentioned this issue in another thread. I believe the upper and middle classes were, as freemen, the migrating and fighting classes and tended to be somewhat racially distinct from the lower classes, who in Northern Germany would have been largely Tydals, Borrebies and others, descendants of the Pre-Germanic peoples of that area.

I believe this aspect of the structure of society was the same with the Celts and other ancient peoples, as I've indicated here:

http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=30116&page=1&pp=20

So I think it's very likely that the Anglo-Saxon invaders were more Germanic Nordic than are modern North Germans, and their skeletons indicate that.

Glenlivet
Wednesday, March 2nd, 2005, 09:38 PM
My main argument is that England is a predominantly Nordid nation. There are other elements present, as there are in all nations, but the great majority of Englishmen are of some Nordid type. I have personally seen more splendid (at least morphologically) Nordid individuals in most of England than I have seen in Eastern Sweden.

There are those whom people assume are English simply because England is the biggest and most well known nation in Britain. There are four nations that make up Britain, and England is only one of these. Steve Coogan is such a case, with Irish parents, and yet another is Richard Coyle. They live in England, and have grown up in England, and their parents might be from a related (if eastern Irish) stock. However, to develop a mental picture of the racial makeup of the English from such examples is, quite simply, incorrect.

I have noticed that many whom are used as examples of English with darker pigment are in fact of Welsh or Irish descent. There are more Welshmen who resemble Christian Bale than there are English.

English is per definition of some Nordid type, more so than the Welsh and Irish, with some exceptions when it comes to eastern parts of Scotland.

There might be Englishmen (although one should not call them English, biologically speaking) who have curly black hair like Welsh actor Richard Mylan, but his type is rare to non-non-existent in most regions of England. Palaeo-Atlantid is not English.

It's quite easy to tell apart Irishmen like James Nesbitt (Northern Ireland) from most Englishmen. Ulster is supposedly blonder and more Nordid than the republic though, and the Scots-Irish emigrated from Lowland Scotland, which is Scando-Nordid (Göta and Trönder?) and Anglo-Saxon and maybe a bit North-Atlantid.

Bill Nighy is a typical blonde (ashen), Nordid Englishman. His phenotype is quite common in many parts of England.

http://www.teilani.de/la-munich-billnighy01kl.jpg
http://ffmedia.ign.com/drwho/image/billnighy.jpg

Emma Thompson is a typical blonde (golden), Nordid Englishwoman.

http://entimg.msn.com/i/150/ce/0204/EmmaThompson_150x208.jpg
http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2004/WORLD/europe/02/02/AIDS.conference/vert.story.emma.jpg

The English actress Joanna Lumley has a phenotype that is clearly from Angles/Saxons/Jutes/Frisians (all racially very similar!). Ballard Berkley and Richard Vernon are males of the same type.

Patsy Kensit has also Anglo-Saxon features that are rather common for England. The strawberry blonde and blue-eyed English actress Kelly Reilly (she may have some Irish ancestry too) is probably of the same type.

There are also a good number of Englishwomen with Phalian (see the mouth shape!) facial traits like the actress Leslie Ash.

http://www.merseybeat-tv.co.uk/scaps8/149.jpg

I'm aware of the talks about her plastic surgery. You can take a look at her in Quadrophenia (teenager) and Men Behaving Badly.

English actor Kris Marshall is most likely a Germanic derived Nordid.

Interview with Kris Marshall: http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/mylifeinfilm/interviews/realmedia/clip1.ram

There are also many Englishmen who are clearly of Göta type. The English actor Edward Fox is one such example.

There are English with darker (medium brown) hair too. But the morphology is often North-Atlantid (which is a west-Nordid type in Lundman's scheme), the eyes light (more blue than grey) or light to dark-mixed, and the skin is always fair and often florid. The typically small-statured, delicate-boned, brown-eyed, black-haired, olive-complexioned insular (west) Mediterranid, is simply not a significant type in England, and neither is it even in most parts of Wales, although it is probably present there. Even these North-Atlantids are in all probability a small minority among the English. Actor Jack Davenport is probably such an example, and some classify Hugh Grant (but I read that he is of Scottish descent) as the same type too. North-Atlantid is only common in the oceanic parts of Great Britain. The North-Atlantid is morphologically similar to the Scando-Nordids (mostly the equally lean Göta, which has much fairer hair though). Black hair is found in less than 10 % of the English. Blue and light-mixed eyes are in the majority in England.

There's also a Litoroid (here defined as Mediterranid-Armenoid, see Czekanowski, Beckman and Lundman) element found in some coastal (Cornwall and to a lesser extent in Kent) regions.

I think the most common (majority) phenotype in England is maybe Reihengräber (as defined by the Dutch anthropologist Nyessen, which is a type that came with the Jutes, Frisians, Angles and Saxons, and similar populations) type with some Keltic Nordic (North-Atlantid + Litoroid would probably create a similar phenotype) in minority, and only concentrated to certain regions.

Lundman (1977) wrote that "the major racial contrasts in Europe are between the blond North and the brunet South and between the lowskulled West and the high-skulled East. These regional differences have remained approximately the same for several millennia". There's nothing that would indicate that England does not belong to the blonde and low-skulled northwestern Europe.

England is predominantly Nordid in most antropological maps. I have attached one by Lundman (strongly simplified, but important enough). Southern England is called Nordid + Alpinid, but the rest of England is just Nordid. Most of the racial differences in England are social rather than geographical, but I do not deny that there are regional differences of some importance.

The dimensions of the head of the English are too great for any Mediterranid form, and the bigonials and min. bifrontal are too broad. The English are on average mesocephalic (76-78). All this, together with their fair (and florid) skins, light eyes and relatively fair hair are characteristics that indicate a Nordid origin. England has also an almost complete lack of East-Baltid whereas such a strain is found in eastern parts of Scandinavia. Blondism in England has a very high correlation with Nordid morphology.

The Nordid character of the Englishman is evident, in more ways than one. The English and Scottish along the North Sea coast are very Nordid, tall, big-boned and often fair in colouring (Danes and Anglo-Saxons). The other extreme in Britain is especially South Wales where one can find dark, small-boned, slender and rather short individuals. It's true that the English as a whole are darker than Scandinavians, but so is also most of Germany and the Netherlands. One could accurately and in rough terms describe the colouring of the British between Spaniards and Scandinavians, and in that regard the English being closest to the Scandinanavians and the southern Welsh to the Spaniards. I don't claim (and nor have many anthropologist) that the local differences approach absolute contrast, but I doubt that anyone will deny that they do exist and are significant. Those of you whom claim that England is a land of long-headed people more because of Mediterranid than Nordid should also take into consideration that the brachycephalisation of Central Europe was also due to Alpinid. Alpinid is very uncommon in England. I don't think Coon's Keltic Nordic is in majority in England. Extreme Keltic Nordic phenotypes like that of Irish actor David Kelly (see the film Waking Ned, 1988) are quite atypical in England, but I admit that I have observed the traits among some of my English friends and acquaintances, but always secondary to the Anglo-Saxon form. We must also keep in mind that the Irish/Brünn strain is present among West-Germanics (which one may call Phalian and is present in the interior of southern Norway, Netherlands and W Germany) too, but in them, it come with many other traits that yield an overall look that is often different. You will see what I mean if you take a look at Julie Andrews. She has strong Brünn traits, yet she look English (Anglo-Saxon), and not completely like an Irish northern UP type. R1b does not correlate with a particular phenotype, but it has a high percentage in Atlantic Europe from N Iberia to W Scandinavia, regardless of ethnicity and linguistic affiliation. Curiously enough, Lundman's Atlantic group make a lot of sense in light of the knowledge we now have of the population genetics of Western Europe. Coon claimed that the Iron Age Nordic element hold the nations of Britain together, but he also wrote that the Germanic (and he probably meant racially Anglo-Saxon) element is distinctive in England. Mark Wingett is possibly a good example of an Englishman with a Keltic Nordic phenotype. The type is little altered when viewed from the perspective of Göta.

You cannot know much of the ancestry of an individual based on his phenotype. If all the ancestors of any one of us had been separate people, each of us would be represented by 32768 persons fifteen generations ago. In this way a particular item of physical inheritance, or a bundle of physical characteristics may come down in whole or part along several ancestral lines and so may be reinforced in spite of crossing with other persons carrying different features.

In the Plynlimon area, the Hiraethog Moors and south Cardiganshire, fully brunet long-heads (cephalic index below 78,6) form 26-27 per cent of the population. That is in Wales though, and not England.

I think Lundman was quite fair when it comes to the anthropology of Britian. Let me quote him; "The British Isles are more Nordid in race in the eastern regions. This is to be expected from the history of settlement of these lands. In parts of the counties of York and Lincoln and in the lowlands of Scotland, the population is just as pronouncedly Nordid in race as in Sweden or Friesland. The poorer parts of Scotland and almost all Ireland become always more North-Atlantid in race toward the west. There are also local survivals of the Palaeo-Atlantid proto-stock. We find Mediterranean strains in the south of Wales, in some heath-regions of southwestern England, and in a few bogregions in the interior of Ireland." (B Lundman, The Races and Peoples of Europe, 1977)

Rhydderch
Thursday, March 3rd, 2005, 05:35 AM
There are those whom people assume are English simply because England is the biggest and most well known nation in Britain. There are four nations that make up Britain, and England is only one of these. Steve Coogan is such a case, with Irish parents, and yet another is Richard Coyle. They live in England, and have grown up in England, and their parents might be from a related (if eastern Irish) stock. However, to develop a mental picture of the racial makeup of the English from such examples is, quite simply, incorrect.

I have noticed that many whom are used as examples of English with darker pigment are in fact of Welsh or Irish descent. There are more Welshmen who resemble Christian Bale than there are English.One thing I try to take into account with Englishmen is their surname and their county of origin (and also where the surname originates), and I have also noticed that many celebrities called English actually have non-English surnames. So I leave such people out of the equation.


There might be Englishmen (although one should not call them English, biologically speaking) who have curly black hair like Welsh actor Richard Mylan, but his type is rare to non-non-existent in most regions of England. Palaeo-Atlantid is not English.There is a curly haired, hook nosed type in the British Isles which probably came from around Spain/North Africa; it seems to be not uncommon in Western England but probably much less common in the central and especially eastern parts, and this is to be expected considering their probable place of origin.


It's quite easy to tell apart Irishmen like James Nesbitt (Northern Ireland) from most Englishmen. Ulster is supposedly blonder and more Nordid than the republic though, and the Scots-Irish emigrated from Lowland Scotland, which is Scando-Nordid (Göta and Trönder?) and Anglo-Saxon and maybe a bit North-Atlantid.I don't think Ulster is any blonder than other parts of Ireland, and Protestant Church of England adherents there are no blonder than Catholics, and if I remember rightly, they are in fact, somewhat darker eyed.


There are English with darker (medium brown) hair too. But the morphology is often North-Atlantid (which is a west-Nordid type in Lundman's scheme), the eyes light (more blue than grey) or light to dark-mixed, and the skin is always fair and often florid. The typically small-statured, delicate-boned, brown-eyed, black-haired, olive-complexioned insular (west) Mediterranid, is simply not a significant type in England, and neither is it even in most parts of Wales, although it is probably present there. Even these North-Atlantids are in all probability a small minority among the English. Actor Jack Davenport is probably such an example, and some classify Hugh Grant (but I read that he is of Scottish descent) as the same type too. North-Atlantid is only common in the oceanic parts of Great Britain. The North-Atlantid is morphologically similar to the Scando-Nordids (mostly the equally lean Göta, which has much fairer hair though). Black hair is found in less than 10 % of the English. Blue and light-mixed eyes are in the majority in England.Black hair is found in 10% of Welshman, between 4 and 5% of Englishmen, 4% of Scotsmen and Frenchmen, and probably something similar in Ireland.
So certainly Wales has a considerably higher proportion of jet black hair (and brunet skin and eye colour) than England, but it is also blacker haired than Scotland, Ireland and France.

In some western counties of England I think the percentage is 10%, and in Devon, more than 10.

I'm not sure exactly what your definition of Nordid is, but if you mean relatively long-headed and faced, tall and slim, with light eye and skin colour, and hair colour anything short of black, then I would agree that England is strongly Nordid.

I also agree that individuals with olive skin, dark eyes and an Ibero-Insular morphology are a relatively small minority in most of England, however, there are a number of other Mediterranid types in all of the British Isles.

But one must note the morphology as well, and at least in Ireland and Western England, most people seem to have some traits from one or another of these Mediterranid types or from Dinaric, even though they have light skin and eye colour. So fully Mediterranid individuals are in a minority, but the Mediterranean influence is overall quite strong.


There's also a Litoroid (here defined as Mediterranid-Armenoid, see Czekanowski, Beckman and Lundman) element found in some coastal (Cornwall and to a lesser extent in Kent) regions.I think Litoroid individuals can be found in all parts of England, but perhaps only significant in some areas.


The dimensions of the head of the English are too great for any Mediterranid form, and the bigonials and min. bifrontal are too broad. The English are on average mesocephalic (76-78). All this, together with their fair (and florid) skins, light eyes and relatively fair hair are characteristics that indicate a Nordid origin.The English are relatively fair haired on average in comparison to Southern Europeans, but fair/blond hair is certainly not predominant in England.


I don't think Coon's Keltic Nordic is in majority in EnglandI doubt that any one type is in a majority in England.


Coon claimed that the Iron Age Nordic element hold the nations of Britain together, but he also wrote that the Germanic (and he probably meant racially Anglo-Saxon) element is distinctive in England.Coon said that the Celtic (or Keltic) Iron Age type is predominant in England, Ireland, and I think Scotland and Wales as well (but less common in the latter and almost non-existent in North-East Scotland). However, I don't think he meant that it is in a majority, but rather that it is the most common type.
When he said the Germanic Nordic element is distinctive in England I think he meant it is more common there than in the other countries of the British Isles, because I think I remember he also said that the Atlanto-Med is distinctive in Wales, and yet Atlanto-Meds are still less common there than the Celtic type.

Huzar
Thursday, March 3rd, 2005, 08:27 AM
I must say the discussion to be rather interesting. When we speak , generally, of north-european populations and about tipically nordish populations, our first examples are scandinavian countries and germanic continental area ; only in a second moment the british isles are cited. At least this is my personal impression. There is something of not completely clear in the british isles ethnic/subracial evaluations; i note, sometimes, opposed opinions. Personally, i believe that reality is rather simple : British isles geographical position has permitted the survival of a strong pure "celtic" mass, who contains inside it a number of ancient, like modern, types. From anthropologic data(Biasutti/Beddoe) i have and from my personal observations, i'd say that English people has 60-65 % light eyes and around 25% light hair. Too much for any southern europe population, like Spaniards, southern italians or Greeks. A little dark compared to the most "germanic" european area. Well,pigmentation is not all, but i believe that it's a clear demonstration of the more dark celtic strain.

About Ireland, i read that blondism percentage is less or more 15-20%, then notably inferior than English mean. In Ulster area, there is a maximum of 7/8% of red hair (among chatolic pop.) associated with a curly texture.

Rhydderch
Tuesday, May 31st, 2005, 03:19 AM
They key here is to keep an open mind. The ‘evidence’ for lack of sail is scant and flawed. At the very best we must give the AS the benefit of the doubt, as all other North Sea peoples used sail.
There is little or no evidence of sail among any North Sea peoples at the time in question. If there was, then the Saxons probably would be given the benefit of the doubt; it is apparently not until around the 600's that evidence for sail becomes clear.

Whilst it's possible that sails were used in the latter part of the 400's, it still appears that oars were at least of major importance in their travel. For instance, from what I've read on the issue, it is said that not only archaeological but also literary evidence from Roman writers has found nothing to indicate the use of sail.
Procopius (I think) expressed surprise that Saxons used oars to cross the English channel. It's possible that these writers took it for granted that these ships also had sails, but either way the Saxons must have made a lot of the use of oars.

Rhydderch
Tuesday, May 31st, 2005, 04:50 AM
The Welsh name for England is "Lloegr" which presumably is the name they had for the land comprising England when it was theirs, so, they identify the land as seperate from the distinct "saxons" who occupy it.
Well, actually, I've often seen that as possibly indicative of something quite different. There is (as far as I know) no evidence that the word was used before something like 8 or 9 hundred A.D., but the English people themselves were frequently referred to by the Welsh as "Lloegrians". The word may mean 'borderers' and I think it's quite possible that this usage arose because many principalities (especially those nearer Wales) in Saxon kingdoms were actually populated with, and ruled by Celtic-speakers,
and whilst considered enemies, as being joined with the English, it was still known that they were culturally indistinguishable from the Welsh.

I mention "joined with the English" because the Welsh Chronicle records (during the 800's) that certain noblemen from the British kingdom of Strathclyde in Southern Scotland migrated to North Wales because they "did not want to join with the English". This was at the time when Strathclyde became (apparently peacefully) a sub-kingdom of Scottish Dalriada, so it was probably the Scots that these noblemen did not want to join with, and there was probably a confusion in the chronicle (which was possibly only written down much later) between 'Scots' and 'English'. But I think the substitution of 'English' possibly suggests that a kingdom "joining with the English" had happened before.
This is quite possible, taking into account the fact that the 'English' kingdoms had become very powerful, and that dynastic struggles were common in British (and English) kingdoms.
A man who could'nt beat his rival for the throne would quite likely appeal to a powerful English kingdom for help, and make a deal that if they aided him in gaining the throne, then he would become an ally and vassal of the English kingdom.
This pattern of events was'nt uncommon in ancient times, and this was in fact the original reason (or excuse) for the Claudian invasion of Britain. Men who want power are often prepared to do a fair bit to get it.

Rhydderch
Tuesday, April 4th, 2006, 07:26 AM
Here's my theory on why English prevailed over Celtic and Latin in early England. I've taken it from elsewhere on the internet:

Now a language which is used, at the expense of all others, for official and administrative purposes, historically seems almost inevitably to supplant, given time, the local language(s). So the question which needs to be asked is why English achieved such a position.

Generally, one would expect that when invaders conquer a country, the conquered will make an effort to learn the language of the invaders, and vice versa. If the conquered are reduced to unfree serfdom, then really they are politically irrelevant, even if they constitute a majority; so in this case, it is to be expected that their language would also become irrelevant, and only the language of the invaders would be used for official purposes.

But in a situation where the conquered population constitutes a majority even of the nobility, we would expect that both languages would be used officially, and after a period of bilingualism, the language of the invaders would eventually become irrelevant, since they could communicate easily enough in the language spoken natively by the majority of politically relevant people.

Clearly then, it would take an exceptional circumstance for the language of an invader to dominate in a country where the nobility retain their positions, outnumbering the nobility of the invaders. I believe that there was indeed an exceptional circumstance in early England.

One exceptional circumstance would be when the invaders bring political union to a linguistically diverse area. In this case, the invaders language would be used for official purposes because it will become the only language common to the whole area. This applies to Empires, and it perhaps also accounts for the eventual dominance of invader languages like Croatian or Hungarian in their respective areas of conquest. Clearly though, this was not the case in Britain, and I think there was another circumstance which ensured the dominance of English.

Firstly, I think the available evidence makes it fairly clear that Latin had not replaced Celtic as the native language, even among the ruling class. Evidence for this includes the fact that kings in Post Roman Britain (even the southeast) had British names. Then there is the fact that even late in the Roman Empire, Romans and Gauls seem to have had something of a prejudice against Britons, and tended to consider them, in the words of a British Archaeology article, "treacherous and rebellious no-goods". Gildas and other Britons also don't seem to have considered themselves "Romans", which would indicate a relative lack of cultural Romanisation. The fact that Britain is an island, and indeed a more distant part of the Empire, would sufficiently explain why Romanisation could be slow to establish itself. However, if even Gaulish was still spoken at the fall of the Empire, though not by the ruling classes, it's no great surprise if Latin hadn't established itself among that class in the more peripheral province of Britain.

But after the separation from Rome, both Celtic and Latin would have been used in administration.

Together with this, it's highly likely that the invaders (at least their leading men) had a knowledge of Latin, because they had a long history of contact with the Empire, serving in its army, and trading.

So this would have led to a situation where the conquered people, naturally enough, made an effort to learn the invaders' language, but the invaders did not need to learn Brythonic, since they could already communicate in Latin; so Latin and English would both have been used for official and administrative purposes. But then, because Latin was not the native language of anybody, it became increasingly irrelevant, and eventually died out (probably hastened by the decline in education). But by the time it died out, anyone of political relevance would have been able to speak English, so there was no point in the Saxons learning Brythonic, and Britain was left with English as the only language of administration and for official purposes.

So in other words, Latin allowed time for the spread of knowledge of English, whilst preventing the necessity for knowledge of Brythonic to spread among the Saxons, but then conveniently died out, leaving a puzzling situation for historians to assess.

If no one understands what I'm on about, I'm happy to know; I could make things clearer, or explain apparent problems.

Germaniathane
Thursday, April 27th, 2017, 11:45 PM
One thing I try to take into account with Englishmen is their surname and their county of origin (and also where the surname originates), and I have also noticed that many celebrities called English actually have non-English surnames. So I leave such people out of the equation.

There is a curly haired, hook nosed type in the British Isles which probably came from around Spain/North Africa; it seems to be not uncommon in Western England but probably much less common in the central and especially eastern parts, and this is to be expected considering their probable place of origin.

I don't think Ulster is any blonder than other parts of Ireland, and Protestant Church of England adherents there are no blonder than Catholics, and if I remember rightly, they are in fact, somewhat darker eyed.

Black hair is found in 10% of Welshman, between 4 and 5% of Englishmen, 4% of Scotsmen and Frenchmen, and probably something similar in Ireland.
So certainly Wales has a considerably higher proportion of jet black hair (and brunet skin and eye colour) than England, but it is also blacker haired than Scotland, Ireland and France.

In some western counties of England I think the percentage is 10%, and in Devon, more than 10.

I'm not sure exactly what your definition of Nordid is, but if you mean relatively long-headed and faced, tall and slim, with light eye and skin colour, and hair colour anything short of black, then I would agree that England is strongly Nordid.

I also agree that individuals with olive skin, dark eyes and an Ibero-Insular morphology are a relatively small minority in most of England, however, there are a number of other Mediterranid types in all of the British Isles.

But one must note the morphology as well, and at least in Ireland and Western England, most people seem to have some traits from one or another of these Mediterranid types or from Dinaric, even though they have light skin and eye colour. So fully Mediterranid individuals are in a minority, but the Mediterranean influence is overall quite strong.

I think Litoroid individuals can be found in all parts of England, but perhaps only significant in some areas.

The English are relatively fair haired on average in comparison to Southern Europeans, but fair/blond hair is certainly not predominant in England.

I doubt that any one type is in a majority in England.

Coon said that the Celtic (or Keltic) Iron Age type is predominant in England, Ireland, and I think Scotland and Wales as well (but less common in the latter and almost non-existent in North-East Scotland). However, I don't think he meant that it is in a majority, but rather that it is the most common type.
When he said the Germanic Nordic element is distinctive in England I think he meant it is more common there than in the other countries of the British Isles, because I think I remember he also said that the Atlanto-Med is distinctive in Wales, and yet Atlanto-Meds are still less common there than the Celtic type.

Wales is not darker-haired than France, but is as a whole darker-haired than England similar to Ireland. Obviously more than 20% of the Welsh are blond-haired and the most common eye color in Wales is blue (45% confirmed by ScotlandDNA project 2014) and depending on the definition 10-15% of Welsh people have red hair (Eupedia). This is higher than in any nation outside of Ireland and Scotland. Welsh people are most similar to the people of Ireland and Highland Scotland. Approximately 60% of the Welsh have light hair (red+blonde+light brown shades) and over 75% have light eyes (blue+green) as most Britons, comparable to nations in Northern and Central Europe. The "Atlanto-Mediterranid" type is very rare in Wales, more proper for the Iberian Peninsular where less than 20% have blue eyes, less 1% have red hair and usually less than 15% are blond-haired.
% blue eyes in Wales (45%) is very comparable to some other European nations:
Denmark = 50.9%
Latvia = 46% (32% bluish-gray and 14% blue)
Switzerland = 28%
France = 20.2%
Portugal = 9%

Indo-European
Thursday, August 3rd, 2017, 08:11 PM
Here is a great video on why it is accurate to call the English "Anglo-Saxons". They most certainly are.

_iVdy0s8ARE

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Monday, April 23rd, 2018, 06:32 AM
It's not that Frisian contributions were especially important, only that Frisian investments were largely independent of other concerns. Jutes were being assimilated by the Danes and Saxons were fighting for supremacy in Germany, but only Frisians remained distinct enough without any direct relationship to other purposes. Flanders essentially got wealthy as a go-between England and Friesland, with merchants shipping to and fro along the coastline. It could be said that the Franks got somewhere above their fellow Germanics by parasitically draining the Anglo-Frisian economy into their own pockets--skimming off the top, as it were.