PDA

View Full Version : From Where did the Anglo-Saxon's Invade Britain?



alphaknave
Thursday, March 24th, 2005, 03:12 PM
I have a question: From where did the Anglo-Saxon's invade Britain? I know when they landed it was all along the eastern coast, but where did they come from?

Also, who were the inhabitants before?

Vanir
Thursday, March 24th, 2005, 04:03 PM
I have a question: From where did the Angelo-Saxon's invade the English island? I know when they landed it was all along the eastern coast, but where did they come from?

Also, who where the inhaditants before? it's ANGLO-Saxon not Angelo.

http://www.members.optusnet.com.au/%7EThorburn/angeln.gif
Saxons came from the area named "Schleswig-Holstein" and probably from Northern Netherlands as well

Angles came from the area named "Angeln" (and also from the islands to the left of it too, IIRC reading of King Alfred the Great sailing past those Danish islands and remarking upon how they still remained empty since the time the Angles left them. Can't remember what book it was I read it in)

Jutes came from the Jutish peninsula, or from somewhere just north of the Angles...

Basically, the Saxons came from Northern Germany, the Angles from Denmark, and the Jutes from somewhere in Denmark too (I imagine; don't know all that much about their origins, but guess this isn't too far from the mark).

I'll leave it to someone else to explain the tangled threads of the British already there when the Anglo-Saxons invaded. I'm off to bed!

Milesian
Thursday, March 24th, 2005, 04:04 PM
The Angles and Saxons were originally from Northern Germany & Denmark.

The previous inhabitants of those areas were Brythonic Celts, whose descendets became the Welsh, Cornish and Bretons. They had been under Roman dominion until the Romans began to pull their legions out of Britain to help defend Rome from the Barbarian hordes. A Brythonic King named Vortigern originally invited some Saxons over to help defend his territroes against Gaelic and Pictish attacks. The Saxons decided to settle permantly instead and betrayed Vortigern (some say Vortigern himself renaged on a deal with the Saxons. The rest as they say is history.

Phill
Thursday, March 24th, 2005, 04:14 PM
I have a question: From where did the Angelo-Saxon's invade the English island? I know when they landed it was all along the eastern coast, but where did they come from?

Also, who where the inhaditants before?

Jutland, the Schleswig-Holstein (I hope I spelled it right) area, and from the areas a little south and west of S-H.

The inhabitants before the invasion of the Anglo-Saxons were mainly the Celtic people, and in the East of England, in the area around York, there were some Romans (whether Mediterrean, or not, who knows) that decided to settle down a little bit. I have read a line here or there, and heard that their might be a population of Mediterrean people here or there, because there was contact with mediterrean and Britain for trade at some points.

EDIT - Gah, someone is a faster replier than I.

alphaknave
Friday, March 25th, 2005, 12:17 AM
Ah, Ok thanks. My history is about as clear as an English sky. Since this is where I came from, I intend to learn more.

I'd like to ask about earlier in history. Is it known where the origional inhabitants (Brythonic Celts) came from?

Edwin
Friday, March 25th, 2005, 03:42 AM
Ah, Ok thanks. My history is about as clear as an English sky. Since this is where I came from, I intend to learn more.

I'd like to ask about earlier in history. Is it known where the origional inhabitants (Brythonic Celts) came from?

From Germany and Gaul roughly 700-800 years before the Anglo-Saxons - but the history of that invasion is not extant. :)

alphaknave
Friday, March 25th, 2005, 04:20 AM
From Germany and Gaul roughly 700-800 years before the Anglo-Saxons - but the history of that invasion is not extant. :)
So there were no ancient inhabitants, just occasional mainlanders happened to spot it and stay. When I say ancient, I mean like stone age.

Phill
Friday, March 25th, 2005, 04:31 AM
Ah, Ok thanks. My history is about as clear as an English sky. Since this is where I came from, I intend to learn more.

I'd like to ask about earlier in history. Is it known where the origional inhabitants (Brythonic Celts) came from?

Brythonic Celts are a subdivision of Celts on the British Isles, the other main division, I believe, is Goidelic (who are now the Irish and Scotts).

The Celts originated in central Europe above the Alps, about around Austria and Lower Germany. They spread out from there, to into Upper Italy and into France (moving into the middle first, the outreaches, such as the border to Spain and on, they came to eventually rule over... but the people there were... Different.)

I can't remember when... Obviously sometime after that some headed for Britain, and before the Romans started their push into Gaul (I have something to say about that... but I'll hold my tongue for now), the major Celtic tribe in northern Gaul, the Belgae (I hope I spelled it right), were starting to have some growing migrations to Briton.

alphaknave
Friday, March 25th, 2005, 04:49 AM
Brythonic Celts are a subdivision of Celts on the British Isles, the other main division, I believe, is Goidelic (who are now the Irish and Scotts).

The Celts originated in central Europe above the Alps, about around Austria and Lower Germany. They spread out from there, to into Upper Italy and into France (moving into the middle first, the outreaches, such as the border to Spain and on, they came to eventually rule over... but the people there were... Different.)

I can't remember when... Obviously sometime after that some headed for Britain, and before the Romans started their push into Gaul (I have something to say about that... but I'll hold my tongue for now), the major Celtic tribe in northern Gaul, the Belgae (I hope I spelled it right), were starting to have some growing migrations to Briton.
Was gaul deserted of people before this? Do visi-goths have anything to do with gaul?

Edwin
Friday, March 25th, 2005, 05:01 AM
So there were no ancient inhabitants, just occasional mainlanders happened to spot it and stay. When I say ancient, I mean like stone age.

There were plenty in fact, arriving . . .

1. Ancient Cro-Magnon and perhaps some Neandertal as well
2. Atlanto-Mediterranean (Megalithic) from Spain
3. Dinaric/Noric (Bell Beaker) from everywhere
4. Borreby (Gaelic or True Celtic) from Denmark and Germany
5. Borreby + Keltic Nordic (Brythonic) from Gaul

alphaknave
Friday, March 25th, 2005, 05:14 AM
There were plenty in fact, arriving . . .

1. Ancient Cro-Magnon and perhaps some Neandertal as well
2. Atlanto-Mediterranean (Megalithic) from Spain
3. Dinaric/Noric (Bell Beaker) from everywhere
4. Borreby (Gaelic or True Celtic) from Denmark and Germany
5. Borreby + Keltic Nordic (Brythonic) from Gaul
I'm going to fast-forward to Middle Ages. Were English people around the time of Longshanks desendants of Anglo-Saxons, a mixer like people in England today, or something else?

Rhydderch
Friday, March 25th, 2005, 05:20 AM
So there were no ancient inhabitants, just occasional mainlanders happened to spot it and stay. When I say ancient, I mean like stone age.There were probably Neanderthals in Britain early on, and then Upper Palaeolithic Cro-magnon-type men arrived. More people probably entered during the Mesolithic, and in the Neolithic, it appears that a few peoples entered from Spain and possibly North Africa, culminating with the "Long Barrow' people, who in turn were eventually conquered by the Beaker Folk, who introduced bronze to Britain; these people came from around Belgium and the Rhineland.
It was after this that Iron Age Celtic people arrived, and their arrival is usually estimated to have been around 700 B.C, although I think there is some debate on that.

alphaknave
Friday, March 25th, 2005, 05:24 AM
There were probably Neanderthals in Britain early on, and then Upper Palaeolithic Cro-magnon-type men arrived. More people probably entered during the Mesolithic, and in the Neolithic, it appears that a few peoples entered from Spain and possibly North Africa, culminating with the "Long Barrow' people, who in turn were eventually conquered by the Beaker Folk, who introduced bronze to Britain; these people came from around Belgium and the Rhineland.
It was after this that Iron Age Celtic people arrived, and their arrival is usually estimated to have been around 700 B.C, although I think there is some debate on that.
Ok. But, when new groups arrived, were the previous inhabitants concured and killed by the invaders, or did they just mix and interbreed?

Rhydderch
Friday, March 25th, 2005, 05:32 AM
I'm going to fast-forward to Middle Ages. Were English people around the time of Longshanks desendants of Anglo-Saxons, a mixer like people in England today, or something else?There is quite a lot of discussion over that, although it could depend on what you mean by Anglo-Saxon. If you mean the pre-Norman English, then certainly the people of Longshanks' time were almost all descended from them.
If you mean the actual Anglo-Saxon invaders of post-Roman Britain then I would say no, the great majority were descended from the "Britons" including all the prehistoric invaders, but as I said, not everyone agrees on that.

NormanBlood
Friday, March 25th, 2005, 05:34 AM
To put it simply the English aristocracy of the Central to Late Middle Ages was Anglo-Norman, the majority of the Anglo-Danish aristocracy fell at the Battle of Hastings in 1066. The people of England by the time of Longshanks were, depending on location, a mix between the Anglo-Saxons, Normans, Danes, and Celts.

alphaknave
Friday, March 25th, 2005, 05:35 AM
There is quite a lot of discussion over that, although it could depend on what you mean by Anglo-Saxon. If you mean the pre-Norman English, then certainly the people of Longshanks' time were almost all descended from them.
If you mean the actual Anglo-Saxon invaders of post-Roman Britain then I would say no, the great majority were descended from the "Britons" including all the prehistoric invaders, but as I said, not everyone agrees on that.
You mentioned "pre-Norman". If you don't mind, the Norman are who?

Rhydderch
Friday, March 25th, 2005, 05:38 AM
Ok. But, when new groups arrived, were the previous inhabitants concured and killed by the invaders, or did they just mix and interbreed?They apparently mixed and interbred, at least to an extent. In early times, when a new group conquered the place, they made serfs or slaves of the inhabitants, so they became a lower class or grade of society, but in the majority of cases, the original inhabitants probably outnumbered the conquerors.

NormanBlood
Friday, March 25th, 2005, 05:41 AM
The Normans were the descendants of Danes settled in northern Neustrie following Viking invasions along the Seine ending in 911 when Hrolfr le Marcheur was given possession of the land which came to be known as the Duchy of Normandy.

Following the death of Edward the Confessor Harold betrayed his word to Duke William, which set Norman, Breton and Frankish troops into motion. The Normans successfully conquered England in 1066, thus setting into motion French/English conflict which would carry on until the conclusion of the Hundred Years War.

Really, the best thing to do is go pick up a few books and read about it. As you read on you'll see the complexity of some of the issues.

alphaknave
Friday, March 25th, 2005, 05:48 AM
The Normans were the descendants of Danes settled in northern Neustrie following Viking invasions along the Seine ending in 911 when Hrolfr le Marcheur was given possession of the land which came to be known as the Duchy of Normandy.

Following the death of Edward the Confessor Harold betrayed his word to Duke William, which set Norman, Breton and Frankish troops into motion. The Normans successfully conquered England in 1066, thus setting into motion French/English conflict which would carry on until the conclusion of the Hundred Years War.

Really, the best thing to do is go pick up a few books and read about it. As you read on you'll see the complexity of some of the issues.
Ah, so Normans are generally considered French.

Rhydderch
Friday, March 25th, 2005, 05:48 AM
To put it simply the English aristocracy of the Central to Late Middle Ages was Anglo-Norman
The uppermost level of the aristocracy were Anglo-Norman, for instance the regional rulers and tenants-in-chief, however most of the aristocracy remained English, although supplemented with Normans; it was only the top level which was largely replaced.

alphaknave
Friday, March 25th, 2005, 05:51 AM
They apparently mixed and interbred, at least to an extent. In early times, when a new group conquered the place, they made serfs or slaves of the inhabitants, so they became a lower class or grade of society, but in the majority of cases, the original inhabitants probably outnumbered the conquerors.
So, if you are English, you are probably a mixture of all the previously existing peoples.

NormanBlood
Friday, March 25th, 2005, 05:55 AM
The uppermost level of the aristocracy were Anglo-Norman, for instance the regional rulers and tenants-in-chief, however most of the aristocracy remained English, although supplemented with Normans; it was only the top level which was largely replaced.

That is quite incorrect. The Normans penetrated the English aristocracy quite thoroughly. By Longshanks time it would be difficult to say that the aristocracy could not be called "Anglo-Norman". That was simply the reality of the situation.

edit* yes you most likely are. However, it depends which region of England you come from. Inhabitants of the Danelaw area would most likely still be highly Anglo-Dane depending on their family's history.

alphaknave
Friday, March 25th, 2005, 05:57 AM
That is quite incorrect. The Normans penetrated the English aristocracy quite thoroughly. By Longshanks time it would be difficult to say that the aristocracy could not be called "Anglo-Norman". That was simply the reality of the situation.

edit* yes you most likely are. However, it depends which region of England you come from. Inhabitants of the Danelaw area would most likely still be highly Anglo-Dane depending on their family's history.
Are these in anyway related to political party leaders at the time of the Revolutionary War for America?

NormanBlood
Friday, March 25th, 2005, 06:04 AM
Now you've jumped ahead several hundred years ;) No, nothing to do with the American War of Independance.

alphaknave
Friday, March 25th, 2005, 06:12 AM
Now you've jumped ahead several hundred years ;) No, nothing to do with the American War of Independance.
Yea, I know, ha, I'm just trying to make connections in my head. Thanks for keeping with me here.

Rhydderch
Friday, March 25th, 2005, 06:20 AM
So, if you are English, you are probably a mixture of all the previously existing peoples.That's right, and the same goes for any European country, the inhabitants descend from the various peoples which have entered during the country's history. For instance, in England one can see people whose skeletal structure is similar to that of the Upper Palaeolithic inhabitants, or to that of the Beaker Folk etc; of course, most people have a phenotype which has aspects from more than one of these types of people.

Milesian
Friday, March 25th, 2005, 12:00 PM
There were plenty in fact, arriving . . .

1. Ancient Cro-Magnon and perhaps some Neandertal as well
2. Atlanto-Mediterranean (Megalithic) from Spain
3. Dinaric/Noric (Bell Beaker) from everywhere
4. Borreby (Gaelic or True Celtic) from Denmark and Germany
5. Borreby + Keltic Nordic (Brythonic) from Gaul


Well, I will say tha the sub-races of these people's are speculative at best.
The Celts were likely a heterogenous people anyway.

Also, the Gaels came via Iberia to the south ;)

Rhydderch
Friday, March 25th, 2005, 01:21 PM
Well, I will say tha the sub-races of these people's are speculative at best.
The Celts were likely a heterogenous people anyway.

Also, the Gaels came via Iberia to the south ;)In some cases it is speculative, but not in others. As for the Celts, the archaeological evidence apparently indicates an entry into Britain of a distinctive type during the Iron Age; there was probably some mixture, but the majority were of an easily distinguished type. Those who entered Ireland were a little taller than those who entered Britain, but "the cranial type of the (Celtic) invaders was inevitably the same".

Milesian
Friday, March 25th, 2005, 03:23 PM
In some cases it is speculative, but not in others. As for the Celts, the archaeological evidence apparently indicates an entry into Britain of a distinctive type during the Iron Age;

The first Celts entered the British Isles during the Bronze Age and continued migrating through the Iron Age/. This might represent a particular Celtic tribe with different morphological traits.



there was probably some mixture, but the majority were of an easily distinguished type. Those who entered Ireland were a little taller than those who entered Britain, but "the cranial type of the (Celtic) invaders was inevitably the same".

Interesting. Do you have the data for this or a source I could link to?
I must admit i don't really have any cranial or anthropological data for this.

Rhydderch
Friday, March 25th, 2005, 04:22 PM
The first Celts entered the British Isles during the Bronze Age and continued migrating through the Iron Age/. This might represent a particular Celtic tribe with different morphological traits.I'm not sure that there is any solid evidence to suggest that Celts entered during the Bronze Age. At this time, the Beaker Folk entered Britain and the Food Vessel people entered Ireland; the former were mixed in culture and physical types; the types were Corded, Borreby and Dinaric.
The Food Vessel people were Dinarics from (apparently) Northern Spain or Southwest France.
Some might argue that the two peoples were Celts but I think it seems unlikely.


Interesting. Do you have the data for this or a source I could link to?
I must admit i don't really have any cranial or anthropological data for this.The source of the quote was Coon, in "Great Britain, general survey". I got that (and the above information) from a website with some of his works, but unfortunately the website seems to be no longer available.
I have to go now but I do have access to that chapter in print, so I will give the quote more fully.

alphaknave
Friday, March 25th, 2005, 09:15 PM
The Neolithic Era (c. 4000 - 2000 B.C.)

The Neolithic or New Stone Age can be defined as the time when people took up agriculture as a way of life, and stopped being nomadic hunter-gatherers. Sometime around 4000 BC the ideas and technology of farming, and perhaps some of the first livestock, crossed the Channel and arrived in England. Farming quickly spread all across the British Isles, a social revolution every bit as eventful as the Industrial Revolution some 6000 years later.

Neolithic farmers settled in stable communities, cleared land, planted wheat and barley, and raised herds of domesticated sheep, cattle, and pigs. What hunting they did as a supplement to their agriculture may have been done with the assistance of small dogs.

They settled on the easily drained soils of the upland hills and on the coastal plains, avoiding the thickly wooded valley bottoms. This meant that the areas of heaviest settlement were the chalk hills of the south and west, where many of their remains can be seen today.

These Neolithic settlers originally lived in rectangular log cabins, similar in style to those of the early American West.


http://www.britainexpress.com/images/locations/silbury-hill.JPG
Silbury Hill
Communities were small, but they were communities, so people could and did indulge in large projects requiring group participation, such as the building of communal graves (long barrows (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/prehistoric_monuments.htm#Longbarrows)), causewayed camps (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/prehistoric_monuments.htm#Causewayedcamp s), and henges (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/prehistoric_monuments.htm#Henges). More on these later.

Although these people were farmers, they hadn't yet ironed out all the fine details of crop management, so every 10-20 years the land would reach the point where it could no longer support crops and the group would have to move on. Each group, probably no larger than an extended family, seems to have moved around a fairly small region in this way; packing up when the land would no longer produce. In a few generations they could have returned to the original settlement after the land had lain fallow long enough to regenerate.

Clothing seems to have been simple hide garments. Ornamentation was extremely simple; animal teeth and bone necklaces.

Life span was short, about 35 years for men and 30 for women. Arthritis was rampant, as was malnutrition. This was not a Golden Age of Yore; it was a difficult time to scratch a living from the earth.



Bronze Age Britain c. 2500 - 600 B.C.

Beaker People. About 2500 B.C. an influx of migrants settled in Britain. These newcomers have been called the Beaker People because of the shape of the pottery vessels which are so often found in their round barrow graves. The stocky newcomers, although few at first, seem to have quickly gotten the upper hand on their Neolithic landlords, becoming a sort of nouveau aristocracy.

The Beaker folk were farmers and archers, wearing stone wrist guards to protect their arms from the sting of the bowstring. They were also the first metalsmiths in Britain, working first in copper and gold, and later in the bronze which has given its name to this era.

How they lived
There was a changeover during this period to round houses, echoed in the mushroom-like growth of stone circles (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/prehistoric_monuments.htm#StoneCircles) and round barrow mounds (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/prehistoric_monuments.htm#BarrowMounds). We can guess that huts had a low stone wall for a base which was used to brace wooden poles and rafters. On top of this would have been a roof of thatch, turf, or hides.

They made their own pottery, and eventually the first woven garments in Britain .They also seem to have introduced the first known alcoholic drink into Britain, a form of honey-based mead. The islands have never been the same since.

The Beaker Folk introduced a pastoral pattern to the agricultural lifestyle of Neolithic times. As population grew, more marginal land was brought into cultivation, and was farmed successfully for hundreds of years, until climate changes forced its abandonment. The Beaker Folk were a patriarchal society, and it is during the Bronze Age that the individual warrior-chief or king gained importance, contrasting with the community orientation of the Neolithic times.

Towards the end of the Bronze Age the climate changed drastically. According to tree ring evidence, a major volcanic eruption in Iceland may have caused a significant temperature drop in just one year. At this time the settlements on Dartmoor were abandoned, for example, and peat started to form in many places over what were once farms, houses, and their field systems. It seems likely that warfare and banditry erupted as the starving survivors fought over land that could no longer support them.

Religion
We've already mentioned the round barrows. They were often clustered in groups which suggest family cemeteries, sometimes very close to earlier Neolithic henges (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/prehistoric_monuments.htm#Henges) and monuments, as if taking advantage of sites already felt to be sacred. The barrow graves were generally filled with grave goods, indicating the importance of the dead person and a belief in some kind of afterlife. Some of the goods included in barrows were: pottery jars, golden buckles, bronze daggers, cups, necklaces, and sceptres in various stones and precious materials.

Both men and women were accorded barrow burials. A curious fact was noted in studying these Bronze Age burials; in many cases the corpses were carefully laid with the head to the south, men facing east, women facing west. We can only guess that this was to allow the corpse to see the sun at a particular time of day. Many of the best barrow burials found today are the Iron Age or even Saxon/Norse type barrows rather than Bronze Age.

The other main area of Bronze Age focus was stone circles (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/prehistoric_monuments.htm#StoneCircles). Although circles may have been erected as early as 3400 B.C., the major circle building era was during the Bronze Age. This suggests (don't you just love the way historians will never commit themselves?) that The Beaker Folk and their descendants took over or adopted many of the beliefs and customs of the earlier Neolithic inhabitants. Certainly they had a go at improving the most famous of all stone circles, Stonehenge (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/Stonehenge.htm).





Celtic Britain
(The Iron Age) c. 600 BC - 50 AD

Who were they? The Iron Age is the age of the "Celt" in Britain. Over the 500 or so years leading up to the first Roman invasion a Celtic culture established itself throughout the British Isles. Who were these Celts?

For a start, the concept of a "Celtic" people is a modern and somewhat romantic reinterpretation of history. The “Celts” were warring tribes who certainly wouldn’t have seen themselves as one people at the time.

The "Celts" as we traditionaly regard them exist largely in the magnificence of their art and the words of the Romans who fought them. The trouble with the reports of the Romans is that they were a mix of reportage and political propaganda. It was politically expedient for the Celtic peoples to be coloured as barbarians and the Romans as a great civilizing force. And history written by the winners is always suspect.

Where did they come from? What we do know is that the people we call Celts gradually infiltrated Britain over the course of the centuries between about 500 and 100 B.C. There was probably never an organized Celtic invasion; for one thing the Celts were so fragmented and given to fighting among themselves that the idea of a concerted invasion would have been ludicrous.

The Celts were a group of peoples loosely tied by similar language, religion, and cultural expression. They were not centrally governed, and quite as happy to fight each other as any non-Celt. They were warriors, living for the glories of battle and plunder. They were also the people who brought iron working to the British Isles.

The advent of iron. The use of iron had amazing repercussions. First, it changed trade and fostered local independence. Trade was essential during the Bronze Age (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/Bronze_Age.htm), for not every area was naturally endowed with the necessary ores to make bronze. Iron, on the other hand, was relatively cheap and available almost everywhere.

Hill forts. The time of the "Celtic conversion" of Britain saw a huge growth in the number of hill forts (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/prehistoric_monuments.htm#HillForts) throughout the region. These were often small ditch and bank combinations encircling defensible hilltops. Some are small enough that they were of no practical use for more than an individual family, though over time many larger forts were built. The curious thing is that we don't know if the hill forts were built by the native Britons to defend themselves from the encroaching Celts, or by the Celts as they moved their way into hostile territory.

Usually these forts contained no source of water, so their use as long term settlements is doubtful, though they may have been useful indeed for withstanding a short term siege. Many of the hill forts were built on top of earlier causewayed camps (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/prehistoric_monuments.htm#Causewayedcamp s).

Celtic family life. The basic unit of Celtic life was the clan, a sort of extended family. The term "family" is a bit misleading, for by all accounts the Celts practiced a peculiar form of child rearing; they didn't rear them, they farmed them out. Children were actually raised by foster parents. The foster father was often the brother of the birth-mother. Got it?

Clans were bound together very loosely with other clans into tribes, each of which had its own social structure and customs, and possibly its own local gods.

Housing. The Celts lived in huts of arched timber with walls of wicker and roofs of thatch. The huts were generally gathered in loose hamlets. In several places each tribe had its own coinage system.

Farming. The Celts were farmers when they weren't fighting. One of the interesting innovations that they brought to Britain was the iron plough. Earlier ploughs had been awkward affairs, basically a stick with a pointed end harnessed behind two oxen. They were suitable only for ploughing the light upland soils. The heavier iron ploughs constituted an agricultural revolution all by themselves, for they made it possible for the first time to cultivate the rich valley and lowland soils. They came with a price, though. It generally required a team of eight oxen to pull the plough, so to avoid the difficulty of turning that large a team, Celtic fields tended to be long and narrow, a pattern that can still be seen in some parts of the country today.

The lot of women. Celtic lands were owned communally, and wealth seems to have been based largely on the size of cattle herd owned. The lot of women was a good deal better than in most societies of that time. They were technically equal to men, owned property, and could choose their own husbands. They could also be war leaders, as Boudicca (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/Boudicca%27s_Revolt.htm) (Boadicea) later proved.

Language. There was a written Celtic language, but it developed well into Christian times, so for much of Celtic history they relied on oral transmission of culture, primarily through the efforts of bards and poets. These arts were tremendously important to the Celts, and much of what we know of their traditions comes to us today through the old tales and poems that were handed down for generations before eventually being written down.
Druids. Another area where oral traditions were important was in the training of Druids. There has been a lot of nonsense written about Druids, but they were a curious lot; a sort of super-class of priests, political advisors, teachers, healers, and arbitrators. They had their own universities, where traditional knowledge was passed on by rote. They had the right to speak ahead of the king in council, and may have held more authority than the king. They acted as ambassadors in time of war, they composed verse and upheld the law. They were a sort of glue holding together Celtic culture.

Religion. From what we know of the Celts from Roman commentators, who are, remember, witnesses with an axe to grind, they held many of their religious ceremonies in woodland groves and near sacred water, such as wells and springs. The Romans speak of human sacrifice as being a part of Celtic religion. One thing we do know, the Celts revered human heads.

Celtic warriors would cut off the heads of their enemies in battle and display them as trophies. They mounted heads in doorposts and hung them from their belts. This might seem barbaric to us, but to the Celt the seat of spiritual power was the head, so by taking the head of a vanquished foe they were appropriating that power for themselves. It was a kind of bloody religious observance.

The Iron Age is when we first find cemeteries of ordinary people’s burials (in hole-in-the-ground graves) as opposed to the elaborate barrows of the elite few that provide our main records of burials in earlier periods.

The Celts at War. The Celts loved war. If one wasn't happening they'd be sure to start one. They were scrappers from the word go. They arrayed themselves as fiercely as possible, sometimes charging into battle fully naked, dyed blue from head to toe, and screaming like banshees to terrify their enemies.

They took tremendous pride in their appearance in battle, if we can judge by the elaborately embellished weapons and paraphernalia they used. Golden shields and breastplates shared pride of place with ornamented helmets and trumpets.

The Celts were great users of light chariots in warfare. From this chariot, drawn by two horses, they would throw spears at an enemy before dismounting to have a go with heavy slashing swords. They also had a habit of dragging families and baggage along to their battles, forming a great milling mass of encumbrances, which sometimes cost them a victory, as Queen Boudicca would later discover to her dismay.

As mentioned, they beheaded their opponents in battle and it was considered a sign of prowess and social standing to have a goodly number of heads to display.

The main problem with the Celts was that they couldn't stop fighting among themselves long enough to put up a unified front. Each tribe was out for itself, and in the long run this cost them control of Britain.





Seems to me that the people of British Isles where the last to advance in their technology and way of thinking because of their remote locations.

alphaknave
Friday, March 25th, 2005, 09:20 PM
Rulers of Britain:


Monarchs of England

Monarch
Reign

HOUSE OF WESSEX
Egbert
802-839
Aethelbald
855-860
Aethelbert
860-866
Aethelred
866-871
Alfred the Great (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/Alfred_the_Great.htm)
871-899
Edward the Elder
899-925
Athelstan
925-940
Edmund the Magnificent
940-946
Eadred
946-955
Eadwig (Edwy) All-Fair
955-959
Edgar the Peaceable
959-975
Edward the Martyr
975-978
Æthelred II (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/Ethelred_the_Danes_and_the_Confessor.htm ) (Ethelred the Unready)
979-1013 and 1014-1016
Edmund II (Ironside)
1016

DANISH
Svein Forkbeard
1014
Cnut (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/Ethelred_the_Danes_and_the_Confessor.htm ) (Canute)
1016-1035
Harold I
1035-1040
Hardicnut
1040-1042

SAXONS
Edward (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/Ethelred_the_Danes_and_the_Confessor.htm ) (the Confessor)
1042-1066
Harold II (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/Ethelred_the_Danes_and_the_Confessor.htm )
1066

NORMANS
William I (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/William_the_Conqueror.htm)
1066-1087
William I (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/William_II_and_Henry_I.htm)I (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/William_II_and_Henry_I.htm)
1087-1100
Henry I (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/William_II_and_Henry_I.htm)
1100-1135
Stephen (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/Stephen_and_Maud.htm)
1135-1154
Empress Matilda (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/Stephen_and_Maud.htm) (Queen Maud)
1141

PLANTAGENETS
Henry II (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/Henry_II_and_Thomas_a_Becket.htm)
1154-1189
Richard I (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/Richard_the_Lionheart_and_King_John.htm)
1189-1199
John (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/Richard_the_Lionheart_and_King_John.htm)
1199-1216
Henry III (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/Henry_III_and_Edward_I.htm)
1216-1272
Edward I (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/Henry_III_and_Edward_I.htm)
1272-1307
Edward II (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/Edward_II_and_Edward_III.htm)
1307-1327
Edward III (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/Edward_II_and_Edward_III.htm)
1327-1377
Richard II (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/Richard_II_to_Henry_V.htm)
1377-1399

HOUSE OF LANCASTER
Henry IV (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/Richard_II_to_Henry_V.htm)
1399-1413
Henry V (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/Richard_II_to_Henry_V.htm)
1413-1422
Henry VI (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/Wars_of_the_Roses.htm)
1422-1461

HOUSE OF YORK
Edward IV (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/Wars_of_the_Roses.htm)
1461-1483
Edward V (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/Wars_of_the_Roses.htm)
1483
Richard III (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/Wars_of_the_Roses.htm)
1483-1485

TUDORS
Henry VII (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/Henry_VII.htm)
1485-1509
Henry VIII (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/Henry_VIII.htm)
1509-1547
Edward VI (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/Edward_Mary_and_Elizabeth.htm)
1547-1553
Jane Grey (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/tudor/grey.htm)
1553
Mary I (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/Edward_Mary_and_Elizabeth.htm)
1553-1558
Elizabeth I (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/Edward_Mary_and_Elizabeth.htm)
1558-1603

STUARTS
James I (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/Early_Stuarts_and_the_Civil_War.htm)
1603-1625
Charles I (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/Early_Stuarts_and_the_Civil_War.htm)
1625-1649

COMMONWEALTH
Oliver Cromwell (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/stuart/cromwell.htm)
1649-1658
Richard Cromwell
1658-1659

STUARTS (restored)
Charles II (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/The_Later_Stuarts.htm)
1660-1685
James II (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/The_Later_Stuarts.htm)
1685-1688
William III (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/The_Later_Stuarts.htm)
1689-1702
Mary II (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/The_Later_Stuarts.htm)
1689-1694
Anne (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/The_Later_Stuarts.htm)
1702-1714

HOUSE OF HANOVER
George I (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/George_I.htm)
1714-1727
George II (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/George_II.htm)
1727-1760
George III (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/George_III.htm)
1760-1820
George IV (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/George_III.htm)
1820-1830
William IV
1830-1837
Victoria (http://www.britainexpress.com/History/Young_Queen_Victoria.htm)
1837-1901

SAXE-COBURG-GOTHA
Edward VII
1901-1910

WINDSOR
George V
1910-1936
Edward VIII
1936-1936
George VI
1936-1952
Elizabeth II (http://www.britainexpress.com/royals/queen.htm)
1952 - present

Edwin
Saturday, March 26th, 2005, 12:25 AM
Well, I will say tha the sub-races of these people's are speculative at best.
The Celts were likely a heterogenous people anyway.

Also, the Gaels came via Iberia to the south ;)

A number of studies show that it was the other way around. The possibly q-Celtic region of Iberia was most likely home to colonists from Ireland, because the entirety of Britain was probably q-Celtic speaking before it was p-Celtic.

So, Iberia likely spoke p-Celtic before it spoke q-Celtic, even though the latter is the elder.

I will eventually have to make a good study for this board in order to prove the obvious (to me) position of the Borreby in the ancient Celtic world. :)

Rhydderch
Wednesday, July 6th, 2005, 02:22 PM
The source of the quote was Coon, in "Great Britain, general survey". I got that (and the above information) from a website with some of his works, but unfortunately the website seems to be no longer available.
I have to go now but I do have access to that chapter in print, so I will give the quote more fully.I must have forgotten :D

Here is the whole quote:

"Whoever the Bronze Age peoples were, and whatever languages they spoke, we know that the Iron Age invaders were uniformly Keltic; they came in various waves, through various points of entry, but the cranial type of the invaders was inevitably the same. Both the Goidels of Ireland, and the Kymric A and B invaders of England, belonged to the Keltic Iron Age branch of the Nordic race; a type characterised by a medium-sized mesocephalic skull, with a low vault, a sloping forehead, a cylindrical lateral vault profile, a long, prominent nose, and a relatively small lower facial segment. Those who entered Ireland were tall; those who entered England and Wales were perhaps shorter. The Belgae, the last of the Iron Age Kelts or near-Kelts, despite their alleged Germanic mixture, cannot be shown to have differed from the others.
These invasions furnished Ireland with her upper classes, but apparently not with the bulk of her population; in England regional Iron Age cemeteries disclose the survival of Bronze Age types, although the Keltic Iron Age people furnished a larger ultimate population element than any other contributing group which came before or after."