PDA

View Full Version : Anglo-Saxon Origins: The Reality of the Myth



Glenlivet
Saturday, August 2nd, 2003, 01:12 PM
by Malcolm Todd, Professor of Archaeology at the University of Exeter.


One of the strangest things about the English is the fact that they do not have a foundation legend or a founder-hero. Most peoples have one or the other. Some have more than one of both. The English have neither, and yet the opportunities and contexts for such were available. Perhaps the position of hero was usurped, from the High Middle Ages at least, by the Celtic Arthur. That an opponent, whether mythical or real is not my immediate concern, of the Anglo Saxon settlement in England should be so regarded is one of those peculiarly English paradoxes that have been exploited by writers from Geoffrey Chaucer to Angus Wilson. How Englishness has been defined in the past is a surprisingly complex story and I only intend to highlight a few episodes and phases in the recognition of the insular Anglo-Saxons as a distinct people. Whether or not they can, or should, be so regarded is a quite separate question. But there is a major problem here and it is one which will not go away and which still awakes powerful political echoes. How a modern British nation was forged has recently been admirably discussed by Linda Colley [1].

The English have been studied by someone who originated in central Europe, first saw England at the age of seventeen, and stayed on to occupy the Regius Chair of History at Cambridge. Geoffrey Elton's view of the English was bound to be highly individual [2]. The trouble is that anybody's view will be so. I'd better admit that mine is that of a native Northumbrian, who sees Sheffield and Manchester as midland cities, and everything south of the Thames as an alien culture.I must begin with another native Northumbrian, probably the greatest. The most effective definer of the early English was Bede. It was he who first presented the English as a culturally unified people living under a number of regional kings [3]. In Bede's own day (the early eighth century) they were nothing of the kind and his account of how the motley band of Germanic settlers in Britain, entering in increasing numbers from the middle of the fifth century to the late sixth, had been brought together in the seventh century by good, i.e. Christian, kings is one of the most brilliant works of creative history ever produced in Europe. What Bede created was not only a history of the English Church, but also a history of the early English nation itself. It is the nearest thing we have to a foundation legend, though it is much more than that. Although they were neither ethnically pure nor culturally close-knit, the Germanic migrants who found their way to Britain did have access to one unifying force which was to prove enormously effective in building the nation: the English language. Latin, whether late Classical or demotic, was a learned language, a writer's language. Anglo-Saxon dialects formed a vernacular, but a remarkably adaptable one, capable of producing Beowulf but also able to deal with the technical requirements of government and law, and before long the writing of history. The rapid growth of Anglo-Saxon into an expressive language, capable of great subtlety and blunt power, is one of the central facts of early English history. Concealed here is an immense scholarly achievement, for the language was not developed by unlettered people. But we know little about the scholars and writers who were responsible. The legend (or was it myth ?) of Caedmon is their epitaph.

The legendary history of early Britain is rich and it includes two main traditions, one of the British, the other of the Saxons or the early English. Unlike the English, the British did have a foundation legend and a founder. This was Brutus, a prince of Troy, whose great deeds were celebrated long before Geoffrey of Monmouth brought the stories together about 1135 in his brilliant book, The History of the Kings of Britain, one of the most successful and enduring works of secular literature of the High Middle Ages. Its racy narrative gave the British a place among the major peoples of Europe, but it did nothing for the English. One of Geoffrey's star turns was, of course, Arthur, for whom he probably relied upon a series of tales, not all of them old, and a web of Celtic romance transmitted through bards, of whom nothing is known for certain. Why Geoffrey cut the English out completely and what his Anglo-Norman and English audience thought about it are fascinating questions which have never been answered and may never be. But at the very time that Geoffrey was writing, the cult of Charlemagne was being actively promoted in the building up of Arthur was a demonstration that the British had had their own conquering king, who had once dominated all the lands around the North Sea.

What, then, of the English and their origins? No one doubted that they had arrived at the end of Roman rule in Britain and formed the English-speaking bloc of the peoples of Britain. But who were the English? Bede's great account of the Church in Britain, with its reliance on Angles, Saxons and Jutes, gave an authoritative and plausible answer. But it was not enough for everyone. Even as late as the seventeenth century, some still sought an ancestry in Old Testament figures, Noah and Japhet being particularly favoured [4]. Others looked for descent from more shadowy Germanic ancestors, Tuisco, found in the Germania of Tacitus being a favourite choice. In 1605 you might have heard this account of British and English origins in Oxford:

Britain was originally called Albion and then Britain when it was conquered by Brutus, who was not a prince of Troy but a Gaul and thus a collateral of Tuisco. The Scots came from Scythia, part of the northern European world, and the Picts from the Baltic. The language of all these peoples was Cimbric, an ancestor of Anglo-Saxon and the tongue spoken by Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.This was the thesis of a Student of Christ Church, RichardVerstegan, in his book Restitution of Decayed Intelligence in Antiquities concerning the most Noble and Renowned English Nation. What now appears to be crazed ramblings was actually an attempt to provide a coherent ancestry for all the peoples of Britain at a time when nationhood was an increasingly live issue. Verstegan didn't do it well; the materials simply were not available for any such attempt and he was driven to invent them. Nevertheless, over the previous half-century there had been huge advances in understanding the role of the Anglo-Saxon peoples in the cultural, religious and political development of Britain. One of the most important of these advances had concerned the English language. Remains of Old English were already being collected by John Leland before 1550 and this essential activity was further promoted by Archbishop Parker, Robert Cotton, Lawrence Nowell and William Lambard. When William Camden began work which was to lead to the publication of his epoch-making Britannia, he was fully aware that a knowledge of Anglo-Saxon would be an essential part of his training. The leading role in this aspect of Anglo-Saxon rediscovery was taken by Lawrence Nowell, of a middlingly prosperous Lancashire family, who failed as a schoolmaster, fled to Germany to stay clear of Queen Mary's agents, but later returned and became Dean of Lichfield [5]. It is striking, incidentally, that most of those who contributed to the study of the early English came from the middling professional ranks. Aristocrats contributed little, royalty nothing at all. Application to both Mary and Elisabeth by John Bale and Robert Cotton to establish a Royal Library to preserve the antiquities of the English nation was rejected. The great libraries of Parker and Cotton were private creations and the disastrous fire in the Cotton library in 1731 was the greatest blow to early English scholarship before the late twentieth century. But we return to Nowell.

Nowell's work on Anglo-Saxon manuscripts was done within the scholarly circle which gathered around Archbishop Matthew Parker. From about 1560, he transcribed the Alfredian translation of Bede into Old English, along with the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and a collection of Anglo-Saxon laws. This manuscript is Cotton Ms. Otho B xi and it was almost totally destroyed in the fire of 1731, so that Nowell's transcript is almost all we have. He moved on to further study of early English history and antiquities. As he himself owned the famous manuscript, which contains the Beowulf epic, he might be seen as having an unusual advantage. But he attempted far more ambitious things than reading Beowulf. He compiled the first Saxon dictionary and contributed to the growing science of cartography by drawing up a map of Saxon England using the Old English place-names found in the Chronicle and other sources. He was also familiar with the Anglo-Saxon poetry in the Exeter Book, as his handwriting has been identified in that volume.

But Old English studies did not hold the field alone in the second half of the sixteenth century. At the same time, and often followed by the same scholars, there ran another stream of enquiry about the British past: Britain in the world of Rome. The masterwork in this field, of course, was the Britannia of William Camden (first edition in 1586), which revealed for the first time the island as a Roman province and performed the task so well that successive and ever-larger editions went on appearing until 1806 [6].Camden was writing in a topographical tradition which had been formed in Italy and he was largely responsible for bringing this aspect of British scholarship into the European mainstream. It is still something which we do well, though we are steadily being overhauled by some of our continental neighbours. The Britannia was a staggering achievement for a man of thirty-five years, but it did less for the Anglo-Saxons than Nowell's work. And in the next century other ways of unearthing the English, and the British past, were to be found.

The rediscovery of the physical remains of the Anglo-Saxons began in the seventeenth century with the finding of burials and gravegoods, which were usually assigned to the Ancient Britons or to the Romans. Sir Thomas Browne's Hydriotaphia is typical in its Judgement, though its sub-title does wear a faintly archaeological air: Urn Burial. A Discourse of the Sepulchral Urns latelyfound in Norfolk Browne saw a pagan Anglo-Saxon cremation cemetery about 1650 but believed the "sad, sepulchral pitchers" to contain the remains of Romans. Anglo-Saxon coins, of course, could be confidently identified, as the later silver pennies bore the names of known Saxon kings. And the occasional fine object could also be attributed to the Saxon past. The most famous single object is the Alfred Jewel, found in 1693 and identified as belonging to King Alfred soon afterwards. William Musgrave, who wrote in Exeter, commented in 1719: "Work very fine, so as to make some men question its true age. But in all probability it did belong to that great king" [7]. Anglo Saxons were still widely viewed as barbaric rather than barbarian and thus seemed unlikely to have been capable of such artistic skill. It was not until the eighteenth century that Anglo-Saxon remains began to recognized for what they were and the outline of their proper cultural context fully established. This process was begun in Kent by the Rev. Bryan Faussett, who excavated and rescued a series of important cemeteries in danger of destruction, and was able to date some of the graves, helped by the presence of Byzantine and other imported coins [8]. Sadly, Faussett's work was not published until a century later, in 1856, with a plaintive dedication to Joseph Mayer, whose liberality preserved what the government of the day would have allowed to be dispersed. We might see the eventual publication of Faussett's material as the first publication of national English antiquities.

In the same year of 1856, the continental origins of the Anglo-Saxons were for the first time given a clear archaeological context by an illustration of the links between northern Germany and eastern Britain. This really was a break-through and it was achieved by John Mitchell Kemble [9], a scholar of wide interests and competence. He noticed that cremation urns found at Stade in the Elbe valley were identical with others found in East Anglia and Lincolnshire. Migration period archaeology had taken its first decisive step in Germany eight years earlier, when a Frankish cemetery at Selzen in Rheinhessen was excavated by the Lindenschmidt brothers and immediately recognized as a monument of national importance [10]. The fact that the year was 1848 no doubt played a part here, but there is no mistaking the academic leap forward which the publication of the Selzen cemetery represented.

In this century, the greatest advance has been the definition of the extent and character of the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain and their legacy to the mediaeval kingdom. The circumstances in which the migrants reached these shores have also attracted much attention, especially by students of late Roman Britain. The ancestors of the English came from a wide swathe of the northern European coastlands: the Elbe and Weser estuaries, Jutland, SchleswigHolstein, Friesland and probably the area between the northern coast and the Rhine. Most archaeologists, and some historians, are now prepared to allow a small part to the Franks in the settlement of England, especially, but not exclusively, in Kent. There were no doubt others, such as the Suebi, who left their name at Swaffham in Norfolk. Most would now agree that the migrants arrived in mixed groups, not as distinct ethnic bands, as nineteenth century savants assumed. The model of war-bands arriving in a Roman province, to be followed by larger population groups is now well established for many other areas of the Roman West. The migration of the Anglo-Saxons was not a Volkerwanderung like that of the Visigoths into Aquitaine or the Lombards into Italy. It was a piecemeal, cumulative process, extending over two centuries or more. This is one reason why kingdoms were so slow to emerge and why so many were minute powers, probably no more than the retinue around a single family occupying a small bloc of territory. Who now remembers outside a limited circle the Somersaetan of Somerset, the Magonsaetan of the southern Welsh border or the Hwicce of the Cotswolds ? All of these were submerged in the larger kingdom by the ninth century, no doubt along with others whose names were not recorded. Presumably by this time, the English felt that they were English, but there is no unequivocal record of when this stage really was reached.

Relations with the native British are still a largely obscure and difficult field. A few historians still hold to a vision of the British being swept westwards into Wales and the South-west. It is much more likely that a large proportion of the British population remained in place and was progressively dominated by a Germanic aristocracy, in some cases marrying into it and leaving Celtic names in the, admittedly very dubious, early lists of Anglo-Saxon dynasties. But how we identify the surviving Britons in areas of predominantly Anglo-Saxon settlement, either archaeologically or linguistically, is still one of the deepest problems of early English history. The place-names in wealh give us a brief glimpse of the British presence, but little more [11].

As for the Anglo-Saxon groupings, no-one would now dream of thinking in terms of nationhood, either ethnically defined or set within the framework of a polity before the time of Alfred. The very notion of an ethnos: as a coherent, unchanging entity has received a great deal of attention of late from anthropologists, archaeologists and historians, though not much of this has been directed at the problems of early mediaeval Europe [12]. It is clearly right to be cautious, or even highly sceptical, about identifying early mediaeval ethnoi as the ancestors of later peoples or nations. A major preoccupation of later nineteenth century scholars, it was inevitably linked with nationalism in several parts of Europe and was contorted by political pressures into unimaginable shapes after the First World War. Ethnicity, however defined, is rarely a basis for nationhood and we may not seek the ancestors of the modern English among the migrants of the fifth and sixth centuries, any more than the modern French look back to the early Franks. The roots of nationhood are of much recent growth and they are still tender and vulnerable. By the time the Anglo-Saxons had been unearthed and clad in cultural garments, they had long ceased to be a leading and distinct component of the British nation.

The creation of nations is a mysterious business and often follows no rational course. Identification with a land is sometimes a powerful force. Belief in descent from a powerful or brilliant ancestral people still provides cohesion to the Albanians, for example, who look back to the ancient Illyrians, and to the Greeks, though the latter must blot out the widespread Slav and Bulgar settlement of northern Greece and an Ottoman occupation of four centuries' duration. Some of the smaller nations may owe their survival largely to cultural and linguistic difference from powerful neighbours, as with the Vlachs in the Balkans and the Basques in Spain and France. What of the English? It is a moot point as to whether or not an English nation still exists, except in the contexts of sport and the American mind. It is not entirely frivolous to ask whether an English nation ever existed independently of the kingdom of England. It is impossible to write a history of the English people, or even an account of them through the centuries, as I feel Professor Elton has recently found, for the 'nation' has been constantly changing, not least in its relations with the non-English cultures within the British Isles. There has never been a close identification with the land, as is the case in France, Hungary and much of Spain. For much of 'English' history, there has been an obsession with the holding territory outside Britain, whether in France, the American continent, India, Africa and further-flung dominions. Mere Englishness did not make a nation, and this may have much to do with the origins of the English. Their ancestors arrived in Britain as a tatterdemalion band of migrants, who were to take five hundred years to create a unified kingdom there, well over a thousand to unite the Celtic powers in the island. An English nation was not defined and given form by a founder-hero or a foundation-legend. That was better done by Celts. Nor was there a mystic, volkisch union with the land. Nor did monarchs do much to unify the nation in any wide cultural sense. Several were much better at division. The contribution of language and of scholarship was greater, or at least as great, as anything else. The names of those I have brought forward - Bede, Geoffrey of Monmouth, Nowell Camden, Faussett, Kemble - are a very mixed band, but all were in some degree scholars and their labours, combined with others, have been formative in defining the English genius. The greatest of these still seems to me to be Bede, in whose work there is abundance of myth. In the formation of nations, in modern times as in antiquity, myth has usually played a role. Without it, failure, even tragedy, has frequently followed. Among the more enduring nations, myth has often been the reality.

The particular problem for English nationhood has been, and to an extent still is, distinction from the British. English people who have spent their entire lives in England and who would be classified as English by any foreigner nevertheless feel (and thus know) they are British, not always because of an ancestry which includes a member from Scotland, Wales or Ireland. This feeling is impossible to define closely or explain convincingly, but it is potent. Part of the explanation may lie in the history of relations between the English and the British as briefly outlined above, but there is an unresolved problem here as modern politicians still find to their cost.


Notes:

1 Britons. Forging the Nation (Yale 1992). (return)

2 The English (Oxford 1992). (return)

3 The Ecclesiastical History of the English People. On this, see the historical commentary by J. M. WallaceHadrill (Oxford 1988). (return)

4 S. Piggott, Celts, Saxons and the Early Antiquaries (Edinburgh 1966) (return)

5 R. Flower, Laurence Nowell and the Discovery of England in Tudor Times, Proceedinqs of the British Academy 21(1935), 47-73 (return)

6 Its full title bears mention: Britannia. Sive florentissimorum reqnorum Angliae, Scotiae, Hiberniae et insularum adiacentium ex inEma antiquitate chorographica descriptio (London 1586) (return)

7 Antiquitates Britanno-Belgicae (1719) (return)

8 Inventorium Sepulchrare (ed. by C. Roach Smith, London 1856) (return)

9 On mortuary urns, found at Stade on the Elbe..., Archaeologia 36(1856), 270-83. (return)

10 W and L. Lindenschmidt, Das germanische Todtenlaqer bei Selzen (Mainz 1848) (return)

11 Meaning 'British', hence later 'Welsh'. (return)

12 An excellent example is P. Heather, Goths and Romans 332-489 (Oxford 1991) (return)

Saoirse
Saturday, August 2nd, 2003, 01:15 PM
Don't the English/Anglo-Saxon's have Germanic blood?

Glenlivet
Saturday, August 2nd, 2003, 01:27 PM
It is not so easy to say that the English have Germanic roots. The roots of nationhood and who your ancestors are is a very complex issue. You must read all of the article. Families in Britain differ a lot from each other, culturally, socially and racially (some types dominate in certain regions etc.).



Don't the English/Anglo-Saxon's have Germanic blood?

Saoirse
Saturday, August 2nd, 2003, 01:29 PM
Even as late as the seventeenth century, some still sought an ancestry in Old Testament figures (Semitic and Hebrew), Noah and Japhet being particularly favoured [4]. Others looked for descent from more shadowy Germanic ancestors, Tuisco, found in the Germania of Tacitus being a favourite choice.

Milesian
Saturday, August 2nd, 2003, 01:42 PM
Even as late as the seventeenth century, some still sought an ancestry in Old Testament figures (Semitic and Hebrew), Noah and Japhet being particularly favoured [4]. Others looked for descent from more shadowy Germanic ancestors, Tuisco, found in the Germania of Tacitus being a favourite choice.

The English are laregly descended from Angles and Saxons from Germany, and to a lesser extent Jutes from Denmark.
There will likely be some Celtic from the conquered Britons and some Viking genes especially in areas such as the North-East but on the whole they are primarily Germanic.
They arrived in these isles with their leaders Hengist and Horsa in the 6th century AD. They entered into a pact with a Briton king called Vortigern (who was being harried by Scots and Picts) to help defend his kingdom in return for political and military support.

The Saxons arrived in Kent, although Kent maintained a Jutish identity for a long time.Eventually quarrels began and the Celtic Britons were driven out of Kent and so began the long Celtic retreat and the Germanic advance

Loki
Saturday, August 2nd, 2003, 01:57 PM
It is not so easy to say that the English have Germanic roots. The roots of nationhood and who your ancestors are is a very complex issue. You must read all of the article. Families in Britain differ a lot from each other, culturally, socially and racially (some types dominate in certain regions etc.).

"It is not so easy to say that the English have Germanic roots" is a misleading statement, unfortunately. It is all too well-known that the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Danes and Normans all have roots in either Germany or Scandinavia - thus Germanic.

Recent genetic studies have confirmed that the areas most densely settled by Anglo-Saxons and Vikings, namely eastern England, are virtually identical to northern Germany and Denmark, from which these people hail. Anglo-Saxon blood has even inflitrated the eastern parts of Wales. It is rare in western Wales. Of course, in large parts of England the Germanic and the pre-Germanic is mixed to a certain degree - more so to the west than to the east.

This is a new sort of anti-Germanic political correctness, attempting to alienate English people from their racial and ethnic roots.

Regards,

Loki

Loki
Saturday, August 2nd, 2003, 02:03 PM
Anglo-Saxon Origins: The Reality of the Myth

Malcolm Todd



Malcolm Todd is Professor of Archaeology at the University of Exeter.



One of the strangest things about the English is the fact that they do not have a foundation legend or a founder-hero. Most peoples have one or the other. Some have more than one of both. The English have neither, and yet the opportunities and contexts for such were available.

Malcolm Todd is clearly a misinformed, liberal, and half-intellectual pseudo-scientist. Perhaps he has never heard of the Venerable Bede, and his work "The Ecclesiastical History of the English People". I am amazed at the great lengths these people go to misinform the uneducated masses. This paragraph I quoted, is nothing more than a blatant lie.

Götterschicksal
Saturday, August 2nd, 2003, 03:09 PM
English are of predominately germanic blood.

http://indoeuro.bizland.com/project/grammar/britain.jpg

This picture shows the settlement of the tribes.

Loki
Friday, August 8th, 2003, 12:35 AM
The more I read this article, the more disgusted I become. It is incredible that a professor of a British university would utter such hogwash...


It is clearly right to be cautious, or even highly sceptical, about identifying early mediaeval ethnoi as the ancestors of later peoples or nations

+Suomut+
Monday, August 11th, 2003, 05:52 AM
Here are some more maps per this topic.

These pictures show the settlement of the tribes in more detail.

Götterschicksal
Monday, August 11th, 2003, 06:16 AM
do you have a map showing under "Dane-law"?

+Suomut+
Monday, August 11th, 2003, 06:58 AM
do you have a map showing under "Dane-law"?

The "Danelaw" is depicted in yellow in the bottom map. It should be noted, though, how this Danelaw (more Danish than Norse, really) seemingly corresponded with the original "Angle" area (note "conquest" map). A certain % of the ethnic composition of the modern "English" nation is Angle (of course, this tribe is the namesake), and anyone who knows anything about the ancient "Angle" tribe knows their "borderline" status between Continental and Scandinavian "Germanics." So, in latter times, when "Danish vikings (mostly)" pushed their cause in the "British" Isles their strongest foothold, which came to be called the "Danelaw (i.e. "law" under the Danes) was virtually identical with the earlier Angle areas...so, these latter Danish vikings had taken control over folks who were only very recently their close cousins.

Actually, anyone who knows English or Danish history knows of the close relations between these 2 "nations." Review this history. ;-)

It probably is true, though, that the Saxon tribal element within the "English" nation is majority element, esp. since Saxon tribal elements were in ancient times the largest and most powerful among the tribal elements in "low Germany." The Saxons (not the Angles) of "England" were the ones that really took back "England" from the Danes; as well as going on to fight the "Normans" too.

"England" and all "Englishfolks" are named after the Angles. But there was a time when, among Saxons in "England" was called "Seaxland," or "Saxon-land." (Surely, all these tribal elements had their own names for what we all now call "England.) Imagine the political implications of all this had "Seaxland" stuck as the name of the land and "Saxons" not "Englishmen" had stuck as the name of the folks. It would have been hard to have imagined the "Seaxons" of "Seaxland" going to war at any time in history against the Sachsens of Lower Germany would it?! The psychology of it would have been TOO strong against it.

Allenson
Monday, August 11th, 2003, 08:02 PM
I've read this before and I wasn't very impressed either. One curious thing about the article, is the opening statement and yet no mention whatsoever of Hengest and Horsa. It has always been my impression that these brothers were indeed considered 'founders' of Anglo-Saxon England.

Milesian
Monday, August 11th, 2003, 09:01 PM
It probably is true, though, that the Saxon tribal element within the "English" nation is majority element, esp. since Saxon tribal elements were in ancient times the largest and most powerful among the tribal elements in "low Germany." The Saxons (not the Angles) of "England" were the ones that really took back "England" from the Danes; as well as going on to fight the "Normans" too.

"England" and all "Englishfolks" are named after the Angles. But there was a time when, among Saxons in "England" was called "Seaxland," or "Saxon-land." (Surely, all these tribal elements had their own names for what we all now call "England.) Imagine the political implications of all this had "Seaxland" stuck as the name of the land and "Saxons" not "Englishmen" had stuck as the name of the folks. It would have been hard to have imagined the "Seaxons" of "Seaxland" going to war at any time in history against the Sachsens of Lower Germany would it?! The psychology of it would have been TOO strong against it.

Yes, it always made me wonder why the country eventually took it's name from the Angles rather than the Saxons.
Certainly the Celts identified the land with the Saxons.
In Irish and Scottish, an English person is a Sassenach (Saxon), while England is Sassana

Glenlivet
Monday, August 11th, 2003, 09:33 PM
I think that liberals (in the American sense of the word) and leftists/socialists can give us valuable information as well. It is interesting that he makes a distinction between the British (meaning Celtic and pre-Celtic people) and English, while he says the Anglo-Saxons were not an ethnos. He does not seem to make a distinction between nationality and ethnicity, or want to understand the difference between nationality (British) and ethnicity (e.g. English, with all its components), which make up a folk.

Anglo-Saxon should denote the English ethnicity as opposed to "Scots", "Welsh" and "Irish". There is no doubt that the Anglo-Saxons were the Germanic-speaking tribes that invaded Britain. What can be discussed is if all English people are of that descent, and if not, how much have the other people contributed to what is the creation of an English ethnicity.

The Internet medieval sourcebook, England:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook1n.html#Anglo-Saxon%20Britain

I will post a text from a Teutonist (better: Germanist) historian. This will give a more balanced view of what the English ethnicity is.


J.R. Green
from The Conquest of England (1884)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Green, J.R. The Conquest of England. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1884.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





...The winning of western Britain [in the ninth century] opened, in fact, a way to that addition of outer elements to the pure English stock which has gone on from that day to this without a break. Celt and Gael, Welshman and Irishman, Frisian and Flamand, French Huguenot and German Palatine, have come successively in, with a hundred smaller streams of foreign blood. The intermingling of races has nowhere been less hindered by national antipathy; and even the hindrances interposed by law, such as Offa's prohibition of marriage between English and Welsh, or Edward III.'s prohibition of marriage between English and Irish, have met with the same disregard. The result is that, so far as blood goes, few nations are of an origin more mixed than the present English nation; for there is certainly no living Englishman who can say with certainty that the blood of any of the races we have named does not mingle in his veins. As regards the political or social structure of the people, indeed, this intermingling of the blood has had little or no result. They remain purely English or Teutonic. The firm English groundwork which had been laid by the character of the early conquest has never been disturbed. Gathered gradually in, tribe by tribe, fugitive by fugitive, these outer elements were quietly absorbed into a people whose social and political form was already fixed. But though it would be hard to distinguish the changes wrought by the mixture of race from the changes wrought by the lapse of time and the different circumstances which surround each generation, there can be no doubt that it has brought with it moral results in modifying the character of the nation. It is not without significance that the highest type of the race, the one Englishman who has combined in their largest measure the mobility and fancy of the Celt with the depth and energy of the Teutonic temper, was born on the old Welsh and English border.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2076470.stm

The article found on the link above support the close relationship between the English and Frisians, and the greater difference between the Welsh and English.

I will try to post more articles about the haplogroup comparisons in the new Genetics & Human Microbiology forum.

I am pleased to see a nice personality like Suomut2_13 joining the board. I assume that he is the same Suomut whom I know from the old nordish.com group. He is very welcome and I always wanted to invite him.

Gladstone
Monday, August 11th, 2003, 11:23 PM
It is not so easy to say that the English have Germanic roots.

Every now and then I have run across Old English writings. Having taken German in school a great deal of the Old English is easily recognizeable as German. Words such as "Der" ("the" in English) and the use of "marks" in reference to money stand out among others. Even into Elizabeths time (1558-1600) the Old English was used if I remember.

Then suddenly one does not see the Old English....but the modern appears.

What'sthe story about that? Was the Old English a remnant of that Anglo Saxon past? And why the sudden change to the modern English (more or less modern,that is,of the 1600's) or was it that sudden, but rather a gradual change to a less pronounced Germanic influence?

English to this day has much in common with German. Many English and German words are for practical purposes identical.

Gladstone

Loki
Tuesday, August 12th, 2003, 12:19 AM
I will post a text from a Teutonist (better: Germanist) historian. This will give a more balanced view of what the English ethnicity is.



You're kidding, right? ;)

Respectfully, volksdeutsche, I don't know of anyone in this day and age who will still take the words of this "Teutonist" (really?) of the ninetheenth century seriously. In fact, John R Baker mockingly refers to some of his quotes, in his acclaimed Race - where he spends considerable time dissecting the history and origins of the English people. Let me quote some of his writings;


It has been claimed that the British people are 'one of the most mongrel of all the strains of the human race'. It is appropriate to examine this statement here.

...

It has been stated that the English were 'a truly multiracial society' because there were Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Normans, Belgics, and 'flamboyant Celts' among their ancestors. The reader should note that all these peoples were not only of one race (Europid) but of one subrace (Nordid). Incidentally it is doubtful whether the Angles and Saxons were different peoples in any sense.
It follows what has been said that the English are far from being 'one of the most mongrel strains of the human race'.

I am indeed somewhat concerned that these outdated ideas from the nineteenth century are still around... and unfortunately, in this politically correct, anti-English; anti-Germanic political culture, rears its ugly head again - this time to an audience which has been robbed of any sense of ethnic belonging, and with a profound lack of historical insight.

Regards

Loki

Glenlivet
Tuesday, August 12th, 2003, 01:53 AM
You're kidding, right? ;)

Respectfully, volksdeutsche, I don't know of anyone in this day and age who will still take the words of this "Teutonist" (really?) of the ninetheenth century seriously. In fact, John R Baker mockingly refers to some of his quotes, in his acclaimed Race - where he spends considerable time dissecting the history and origins of the English people. Let me quote some of his writings;

What is it that you do not like? Is it that he equate ethnicity and race when he refer to Celt and Gael, Welshman and Irishman, Frisian and Flamand, French Huguenot and German Palatine and says: "The result is that, so far as blood goes, few nations are of an origin more mixed than the present English nation; for there is certainly no living Englishman who can say with certainty that the blood of any of the races we have named does not mingle in his veins."

He should not at all mentioned Celt, Gael, Welshman and Irishman. Mixed is fine. There are no pure races, only types, or certain convergent set of features (e.g. a doliocephalic skull, low vault, concavo-convex nose, sloping forehead, strong browridges, strong chin etc.) which has stabilised in various populations. It is easier to define what the makeup of the Swedish ethnicity is. England is more interesting. It is less homogenous, don't you think so?



I am indeed somewhat concerned that these outdated ideas from the nineteenth century are still around... and unfortunately, in this politically correct, anti-English; anti-Germanic political culture, rears its ugly head again - this time to an audience which has been robbed of any sense of ethnic belonging, and with a profound lack of historical insight.

Regards

Loki

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "in this politically correct, anti-English; anti-Germanic political nature"?

Are you implying that a profound lack of historical insight lead to racial (by that I mean morphological, or phenotypical differences) mixing? I did not know that the English have been robbed of any sense of ethnic belongning. I like to read outdated ideas. I have never claimed that they are all accurate. I look for alternative thoughts. Anyone can go and read English history from prehistoric Britain, Roman Britain, Anglo-Saxon era, the Middle Ages, the Tudor era, Stuart Britain, Georgian Britain to the Victorian age and so forth. I am not trying to rob an audience of historical insight.

Another outdated text:


Thomas Huxley
"The Forefathers and Forerunners
of the English People" (1870)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huxley, Thomas. "The Forefathers and Forerunners of the English People." Pall Mall Gazette. (10 January 1870): 8-9.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Of late years ethnology, the science which is concerned with the natural history of man, has had a good deal to do with practical politics. A vague though powerful sentiment has become developed in favour of the determination of political by natural relationships....A leading article on the affairs of Ireland in any popular English paper is pretty certain to contain some allusion to the Celt and his assumed pecularities. If the writer means to be civil, the Celt is taken to be a charming person, full of wit and vivacity and kindness, but, unfortunately, thoughtless, impetuous, and unstable, and having standards of right and wrong so different from those of the Anglo-Saxon that it would be absurd, not to say cruel, to treat him in the same way; or if the instructor of the public is angry, he talks of the Celt as if he were a kind of savage, out of whom no good ever has come or ever will come, and whose proper fate is to be kept as a hewer of wood and drawer of water for his Anglo-Saxon master. This is the picture of the lion by the man....Nor are the ethnological assumptions involved in these views of the antagonism of the Celt and the Teuton confined to mere popular scribblers or demagogues. Grave and able disputants dealing with such a problem as the Irish land question have much to say about the necessity of respecting Celtic peculiarities, and take their countrymen seriously to task for their narrowness in supposing that what is good for Teutonic is good for Celtic races of mankind.

...If one wishes to think of a representative Irishman, the image of the "Tipperary Boy," with all his merits and all his faults, involuntariily presents itself to those who have known Irishmen. But I believe that I am affirming no more than there is warranty for, if I declare that a native of Tipperary is just as much or as little an Anglo-Saxon as is a native Devonshire. And, if you want to know why a Tipperary man occasionally "tumbles" his landlord, and a Devonshire man does not, you must seek the cause of the difference in something else than in the presence of Celtic blood in the one and not in the other.

To sum up, there is full evidence to prove that in Ireland as well as in Britain the present population is made up of two parties -- the one primitive, so far as history goes, and speaking a Celtic tongue; the other, secondary and intrusive, and speaking a Teutonic tongue....

In Ireland, as in Britain, the dark stock predominates in the west and south, the fair in the east and north....Turn to Caesar and you will find the reason of this singular distribution of complexion...the mixed population -- a Celtiberian -- everywhere, so far as I know, speaking Celtic....I believe it is this Iberian blood which is the source of the so-called black Celts in Ireland and in Britain....In everything that constitutes a race, [the] Aryan or Celtic and Teutonic nations are of one race. In every particular by which races of mankind differ, the Iberians and the Aryans are of different races.

Thus English political ethnology offers two problems: -- 1. Is there any evidence to shop that the Iberians and the Aryans differ in their capacity for civilisation, or intheir intellectual and moral powers? All I can say is, that I know of none....2. Is there any evidence to show that ther is what may be called a political difference between the Celtic Aryan and the Germanic Aryan? I must say again that I can find none....Do not let what I have said mislead you into the notion that I disbelieve in the importance of race. I am a firm believer in blood, as every naturalist must be, and I entertain no doubt that our Iberic forefathers have contributed a something to the making of the modern Englishman totally distinct from the elements which he has inherited from his Aryan forefathers. But which is the Aryan element and which the Iberian I believe no man can tell, and he who affirms that any quality needful for this, that, or the other form of political organisation is present in the one and absent in the other, make a statement which I believe to be as baseless in natural science as it is mischevious in politics. I say again that I believe in the immense influence of that fixed hereditary transmission which constitutes a race. I believe it just as I believe in the influence of ancestors upon children. But the character of a man depends in part upon the tendencies he bourght with himm into the world, and in part upon the circumstances to which he is subjected - - sometimes one group of influence predominates, sometimes the other. And there is this further truth which lies within every one's observation -- that by diligent and careful education you may help a child to be good and wise and keep it out of evil and folly. But the wisest education cannot ensure its being either good or wise; while, on the other hand, a few years of perverted ingenuity would suffice to convert the bet child that ever lived into a monster of vice and wickedness. The like applies to those great children, nations, and their rulers, who are their educators. The most a good government can do is to help its people to be wise and noble, and that mainly by clearing obstacles out of their way. But a thoroughly bad government can debauch and demoralise a people for generations, discouraging all that is good, cherishing all that is evil, until is is as impossible to discover the original nobleness of the stock, as it is to find truthfulness and self-restraint in a spoiled and demoralised child. Let Englishmen ponder these things. If what I have to say in a manner of science weighs with any man who has political power, I ask him to believe that the arguments about the difference between Anglo-Saxons and Celts are a mere sham and delusion. And the next time the Irish difficulty rises before him I ask him...to put before himself these plain questions: -- Firstly, Are the essentially Celtic people of Devonshire and Cornwall orderly, contented, industrious Englishmen or are they not? And, secondly, is there the smallest probability that the folk who sang, "And shall Trelawney die?" would have been what they are if they had been dealt with as the people of Tipperary were by our pious Puritan ancestors? And if he answers the first question in the affirmative, and the second in the negative, he will have fulfilled Dr. Johnson's condition for dealing with all great questions -- "Sir, first clear your mind of cant."

Is the text below also politically correct?

In eager rapes, and furious lust begot,
Between a painted Briton and a Scot:
Whose gen'ring offspring quickly learnt to bow.
And yoke their heifers to the Roman plough:
From whence a mongrel half-bred race there came,
With neither name nor nation, speech or fame:
In whose hot veins now mixtures quickly ran,
Infus'd betwixt a Saxon and a Dane.
While their rank daughters, to their parents just,
Receiv'd all nations with promiscuous lust.
This nauseous brood directly did contain,
The well-extracted blood of Englishmen.

By Daniel Defoe

Take care

Loki
Tuesday, August 12th, 2003, 08:25 AM
What is it that you do not like? Is it that he equate ethnicity and race when he refer to Celt and Gael, Welshman and Irishman, Frisian and Flamand, French Huguenot and German Palatine and says: "The result is that, so far as blood goes, few nations are of an origin more mixed than the present English nation; for there is certainly no living Englishman who can say with certainty that the blood of any of the races we have named does not mingle in his veins."

He should not at all mentioned Celt, Gael, Welshman and Irishman. Mixed is fine. There are no pure races, only types, or certain convergent set of features (e.g. a doliocephalic skull, low vault, concavo-convex nose, sloping forehead, strong browridges, strong chin etc.) which has stabilised in various populations. It is easier to define what the makeup of the Swedish ethnicity is. England is more interesting. It is less homogenous, don't you think so?





Just briefly (on my way to work) I need to mention that ironically, the belief has been held that the Welsh, for example, were (and are) more homogenous than the English. This is of course, simply not true... and because of several reasons. The Welsh are not of pure Celtic origin - they contain elements from the pre-Celtic Mediterranean population, of course Upper Paleolithic, Beaker Folk, etc etc. Yes, the English also have these elements, but of a much lesser degree, and more mixed towards the west (Welsh border). Eastern England has been "purged" to quite an extent by successive waves of Germanic invasion - England has sustained the greatest amount of exclusive Germanic invasion over the past 1,500 years, of any nation I can imagine.

Anyway, I will talk more this evening. Now to work ;)

Wish you a good and cooler day.

Kind regards,

Loki

Loki
Tuesday, August 12th, 2003, 08:50 AM
What is it that you do not like? Is it that he equate ethnicity and race when he refer to Celt and Gael, Welshman and Irishman, Frisian and Flamand, French Huguenot and German Palatine and says: "The result is that, so far as blood goes, few nations are of an origin more mixed than the present English nation; for there is certainly no living Englishman who can say with certainty that the blood of any of the races we have named does not mingle in his veins."

He should not at all mentioned Celt, Gael, Welshman and Irishman. Mixed is fine. There are no pure races, only types, or certain convergent set of features (e.g. a doliocephalic skull, low vault, concavo-convex nose, sloping forehead, strong browridges, strong chin etc.) which has stabilised in various populations. It is easier to define what the makeup of the Swedish ethnicity is. England is more interesting. It is less homogenous, don't you think so?



There are no pure races, yet you decide to single out England as an extreme example of this supposed heterogeneity. This is a distortion of facts, I believe.

Certainly, Sweden is in all probablility more homogenous than England - I don't disagree with that. And maybe Norway, Denmark and Netherlands (as far as the Germanic countries go). But this is as far as it goes... England is actually more homogenous than most continental countries - perhaps including Germany - and mostly because of its relative isolation. The English Channel is a wonderful thing.

few nations are of an origin more mixed than the present English nation still sounds a bit unrealistic and perhaps uneducated to me... you don't agree?

Loki
Tuesday, August 12th, 2003, 08:58 AM
Can you elaborate on what you mean by "in this politically correct, anti-English; anti-Germanic political nature"?

Later ;)


Are you implying that a profound lack of historical insight lead to racial (by that I mean morphological, or phenotypical differences) mixing?

No...certainly not. Is this how you read my posts?


I did not know that the English have been robbed of any sense of ethnic belongning. I like to read outdated ideas. I have never claimed that they are all accurate. I look for alternative thoughts. Anyone can go and read English history from prehistoric Britain, Roman Britain, Anglo-Saxon era, the Middle Ages, the Tudor era, Stuart Britain, Georgian Britain to the Victorian age and so forth. I am not trying to rob an audience of historical insight.



The English are being robbed, constantly, of the knowledge of their Germanic roots - especially by politicians. Amazingly, I have read on the British Government's website that someone claimed "Britain has always been a mixed-race country". It is such ignorance that I deplore. Your average Englishman does not possess adequate knowledge to refute this claim. Actually, many English people I spoke to, didn't even know that the Angles and Saxons came from Denmark and Germany respectively. This is a shocking modern development. History is now taught differently in school, as to not be "offensive" to ethnic minorities. I can go on about this later.

I am not accusing yourself as doing this, but the first author in this thread is certainly guilty to a degree.

Regards

Loki
Tuesday, August 12th, 2003, 01:09 PM
It is easier to define what the makeup of the Swedish ethnicity is. England is more interesting. It is less homogenous, don't you think so?



Actually, if you look at Sweden with the same critical logic, then you will observe a few things. It is not entirely homogenous, but is made up of the following: (I am going to use the same flawed logic that different tribes are necessarily different races; ethnos)

Svear (Central Sweden)
Getae (Southern Sweden)
Danes (Extreme southern Sweden)
Saami (Northern half of Sweden - genetics attest to this)
Finns (especially northwestern Sweden)
Dalo-Falids of unknown origin (Dalarna)
French Huguenots and other medieval/more recent immigrants, including Germans.

So, if one uses the logic of the first author quoted in this thread, you will have to conclude that there is no such thing as a "Swedish" ethnicity or race in Sweden, and that the Swedes are one of the most mixed races on the face of this earth, and cannot be seriously thought of as a Germanic nation.

You see what I'm getting at?

Phlegethon
Tuesday, August 12th, 2003, 01:55 PM
England is actually more homogenous than most continental countries - perhaps including Germany - and mostly because of its relative isolation. The English Channel is a wonderful thing.

I have to ask: Have you ever been to London, Manchester, Sunderland, Newscastle? There must be something wrong with the Channel. Maybe it has to do with a very recent invention called "planes".

Loki
Tuesday, August 12th, 2003, 05:28 PM
I have to ask: Have you ever been to London, Manchester, Sunderland, Newscastle? There must be something wrong with the Channel. Maybe it has to do with a very recent invention called "planes".

I live in London. Of course, when I say "England", I don't mean London... because at the moment, about half the population of the capital is non-European anyway. Also, London has been a hub for trickling migration since Roman times. Rural England, on the other hand, is a different story altogether.

Manchester is a Paki hellhole.

Sunderland and Newcastle are actually markedly Nordid, according to my observations. I have spent some time in both these cities (which are very close to one another), and have to conclude that it is very blonde, very Germanic, and apparently very homogenously English. In these parts, the Angle(ish) settlement has been extensive, and also bore the brunt of the Danish Viking invasions. Sure, there are ethnic minorities in these two cities too, but not nearly as much as in Manchester and London, whom you mentioned.

One thing that struck me, was that in Newcastle, everyone seemed to have the same nose shape... straight or slightly concave. Mine is slightly convex, so I actually felt like an intruder there... :D

Loki
Wednesday, August 13th, 2003, 09:37 PM
I am pleased to see a nice personality like Suomut2_13 joining the board. I assume that he is the same Suomut whom I know from the old nordish.com group. He is very welcome and I always wanted to invite him.

Yes.... I for one am happy to see my good old friend Suomut2_13 posting on Skadi. It will be nice to read his contributions - I hope he decides to stay on with us.

+Suomut+
Thursday, August 14th, 2003, 05:21 AM
I am pleased to see a nice personality like Suomut2_13 joining the board. I assume that he is the same Suomut whom I know from the old nordish.com group. He is very welcome and I always wanted to invite him.


Yes.... I for one am happy to see my good old friend Suomut2_13 posting on Skadi. It will be nice to read his contributions - I hope he decides to stay on with us.

I have to THANK! you gentlemen for the GRAND compliments and welcomes!!!! =)))) Ja, Volks...it's me from the old S.N.P.A. and N.E.A. ;-))) Hey, Volks you DID invite me to join "Aryan Dawn!" LOL ;-) It's good to see some of the folks from "OVER THERE"...over here! ;-) Let's see: Loki, Volks, Dalonord, Frans3108 (the MASTER! of SKULLS & BONES!!! lol), Cosmocreator, Thorburn, et al. (my apologies to all those I've overlooked/haven't noticed yet).

Boys & Girls, these "ANGLO-SAXONS" are TROUBLE, aren't they!?!??! I thought being TROUBLE! was the domain of Irishmen (esp.! women) and Scotsmen (esp.! women) NOT the domain of Englishfolks!!! LOL!!!! I'm trying to interject some "humor" here :-|...:-O...;-)

Maybe at somepoint soon I'll have some more things to say about Mr. MALCOLM! (catch this CLUE!, folks, lol ;-) Todd! =) OR, maybe I'll have something soon to say about all those who've said their piece about about the piece by Mr./Professor/"Dr.?" Todd! ;-)

Anyway, THANKS AGAIN...Volksdeutsche & Loki!!!! Are we all friends!??!! LOL Ah, yeah, sure we're all pals!!! lol ;-)

Glenlivet
Thursday, August 14th, 2003, 07:13 PM
Loki, I can see that you may have misunderstood the reason why I made this thread. I am neither anti-English nor anti-Germanic, and I do not want people who are less familiar about the English folk than you are to get the wrong impression of the English from the little knowledge that I possess. I do think that the evil deeds in the world of the English in power should be strongly criticized. Around the globe, the English are sadly enough famous for negative actions, by using their diplomatic skills to infiltrate foreign lands, to for example split up peaceful nations, by the famous divide and conquer tactics, and to have slaughtered many civilians in far off lands. The hands are stained with blood. These acts are nothing that can make any humanitarian proud. Nevertheless, I do like a great many of the Englishmen that I have been fortunate enough to know, including my English girlfriend, whom is of course the reason why the English folk are even more interesting to me, and all that is on a personal level, far off from world politics.

I guess that I was a bit bored, so I actually searched for such an article about the makeup of the English ethnogeny without knowing that it even existed. I did suspect that some scholar has such ideas, and it was very easy to find one. I wanted to start a discussion about how Germanic England is, and which parts are of what tribes and so forth. Perhaps I should learn to be more straightforward in my approach. Therefore, I ought to write a bit about the history of the English people, argue for or against pre-Celtic, Celtic or Germanic elements, and I shall give some information about the anthropology of the folk.

I start out by quoting a British ethnologist, Francis Huxley, from "Peoples of the World in Colour" (first published in 1964, reprinted in 1971 and 1975). It is a rather silly and popularised book. It is fun to read it. He begins with, what is a people? From the Introduction, page 103-104:

"Take Britain, for instance. The British are notoriously a mongrel race: the historical Britons have long since given place to Angles, Saxons, Normans, and Vikings, and the term now includes the Scots who are part Celt and part Pict, the Celtic Irish, Welsh and Cornish, and numerous immigrants such as Huguenot weavers, German refugees and members of the Free Polish Army who have since become naturalized. Each of these groups in its time was regarded as being foreign, as they indeed were, since they spoke a different language and had different customs; sometimes they were also regarded as being of a different race, because of some distinctive physical trait, such as red hair, or a hooked nose. However, most of them have now become assimilated by long residence here and by intermarriage, so that their cultural differences have largely diminished and the physical traits by which they were recognised have either blended into those of their neighbours or perhaps just go unnoticed as part of the enormous variety of physique and facial appearance which we now find in Britain.
Racially, then, the British are a marvellous mixture, and while they may be unique, they are certainly not pure. One could spend pages in an attempt to describe such a mixture, to the define the various racial types which compose it and to show its history."

Some claimed, around 1919, after WW1, that the Germanic blood of the Englishmen have been so diluted that the present time Englishmen in all essentiality conform with the old Brits. Here you have a thick shell of exaggeration around an essence of truth.

The truth is – that the Celtic Brits still live in present day Englishmen in a far higher degree than one had thought, have played, and play a bigger role in the English development. However, as an example, because of that you cannot reason like the reader Jarl Charpentier in his excellent outline "De indoeuropeiska språken" (Uppsala, 1915, in English, The Indo-European languages"), when he says (my translation from Swedish to English):

"Yet thus, the Celtic languages are diminishing to an absolute point of extinction, so it is on the other hand perfectly sure, that the Celtic race – although strongly mixed – it constitutes the considerable base of at least Great Britain's population. The theory that present day Englishmen should be Germanics not only by language, but also by race, can surely not be approved without reason, if one take into consideration, how relatively insignificant the amount of the Germanic invaders must been in comparison to the compact mass of the Celtic population, whom at the Middle Ages beginning subdued England. Moreover, that the Norman invasion of the year 1066 simply influenced the higher classes, but almost not at all on the bigger mass of the folk, is altogether well known to be discussed more closely."

Allow me to ask: how could it be that a relatively insignificant amount of Germanic invaders has been able to beat and repress the Brits?

The Roman legions had indeed been pulled from Britannia on the year of 409. Nevertheless, there were yet weapon capable folk, and what was more, there existed commanders of Roman dynasty and practiced Roman art of war. The British author Gildas expressively say in his work De Excidio et Conuestu Brittanie, written in the middle of the 6th century AD, that the Saxons first invasion became successfully repelled by the Brits under the leadership of Ambrosius Aurelianus, whom appears to possessed that of the Romans established military office comes littoris Saxonici, commander of the Saxon coast. And later, in the beginning of the 6th century AD, the Saxons whom returned with reinforcement and clung to the country, were on repeatedly times utterly beaten and forced back of a not less feared warrior, Artorius or Arturus, the model for the king of the sagas, Artur. King, he was indeed not, but he seemed to have carried the title dux bellorum, and perhaps even imperator bellorum, that is to say highest commander over the countries armed forces. Welsh Nynniaw or Nennius, whom in his Historia Brittonum around year 800 given the only historical information about Artur, state that time after time the beaten enemy were compelled to seek help in Germany. Help was received, and it must have been strong, because the Saxons not only recaptured what they lost, but they lied under big part of Britannia under themselves. Nevertheless, it is clear, that such a tough and stubborn resistance as this one could not be broken of an enemy with an inferior art of war – and supposedly no one doubt that the Roman art of war were superior of the Anglo-Saxon – unless he does not come with a tremendous amount of folk. We also know that the Ango-Saxon-Jutish invasion of Britannia continued to the later half of the 6th century AD. It is possible that a mighty troop of Germanics came over such a long time as one and a half century. On the other hand, a large amount of Celtic Brits left their Vaterland and sought their way to a new home in the peninsula, which up to today is called after them, Bretagne. The rest were evicted to one the one hand to Cornwall, on the other to Wales, Cumberland and the Clyde valley. Much cannot been left in eastern and central (Midlands) parts of present day England. The Brits were rather insignificant there. Therefore, England was certainly predominantly Germanic, and some hundred years later, the Viking journeys began. Through them, whole of Eastern England became a Scandinavian colony, and in the western parts, like Cumberland and Devonshire, Vikings settled down, although in lesser numbers. The Scandinavians became numerous in also Central England, although they always became a minority there. The Anglo-Saxons reached Scotland as early as the 7th century up to the region of Edinburgh, the southeastern parts of this country consequently became completely Germanic; and later the Vikings handled the Germanisation of the Shetlands - and Orkney Islands and partly Caithness and the Hebrides. The Nordic language died out in the two last-mentioned parts, and now Gaelic is spoken; but it is by no means any pure Celts who live there, as the Nordic element in many respects fully perceptible.

In addition to this England’s history and the English culture testify of the English folk’s predominant Germanic character. This is strikingly evident, that one must close the eyes to be able to not see it. The contrast England-Wales and England-Ireland and Scottish Highlands-Scottish lowlands do not leave any remaining doubt about the tribal difference between the folk.

To what extent the English-speaking population outside Europe is also Germanic, is probably very hard to determine. Though one can say that in USA, the Celtic (Irish, Welsh and Highland Scottish) element is extraordinary strong, and it is probably in Canada, South Africa and Australia stronger than in England.

That was ethnogeny, now I shall write a bit about the physical anthropology of England. It is part of a text that our friend dalonord has already seen. I sent it to him yesterday afternoon. That was callsed "The English are a very Nordid folk". The first part of this post is "History of the English folk". Therefore, he will definitely recognise the text below.

The English are a very Nordid folk. England is a Nordid land in most of the anthropogeographic maps that I have seen, even the western part of the country, except for Cornwall. I can say that it is a predominantly Nordid land without seeing Eastern England, which is probably the most Germanic, and thus Nordid region of the country. In the heathland in west, together with Ireland, the North-Atlantid sub-race predominates, which is merely distinguished by darker (and comparatively redder) hair. Southeast England, which I have seen the most of, is also predominantly Nordid, and the people are most probably derived from Anglo-Saxon invaders from NW Germany/N Netherlands. I took notice of the jutting occiputs and low vaults of the English, more so than what I have seen in Eastern Sweden. The quantity of low-skulled, West-Nordid types may be more in England than in Sweden. The noses in England are most definitely more prominent and convex and straight noses are as a rule among females, while concave to straight noses, with a shorter length is more common in Sweden, among males and females. The foreheads among Englishmen are probably more sloping. Dark blue eyes are more common in England, and I saw more persons with brown eyes.

Chins varies, with wider faces you have stronger chins, and weaker and more retreating ones with more narrow faces. The same goes for the jaw and cheekbones. Features are rarely disharmonic. Men with very long faces usually have long and convex noses and so on. Certain features are more feminine, e.g. bulbous foreheads, round faces and concave noses. Men can have those features, although it is rare, and it may be more typical for the Old-Atlantic/Tydal type. The English have many more individuals with rosy, vascular skin, which is prone to freckling, regardless of eye or hair colour, that point to a stronger Norwegian element, as this type of skin is rare in Sweden, where the population tan very well to a golden, light brownish tone.

The West-European, Atlantic and low-skulled racial circle has its centre in Britain, with low levels of the blood allele q. The Nordid race is supposed to have its centre in the Nordic countries and in that case SE Norway and SW Sweden. The Nordid race predominates in the coastal regions of the Baltic - and North Sea from W Finland and W Estonia far into Britain. NW Germany is also very Nordid, partly with a broad-faced Falid variant in Westphalia.

Pre-historical discovering, and perhaps even old legends, and information from old classical authors speak for, that the main group of the natives came from southwest through Western France’s coast. Surely, this was more or less strongly Mediterranid. Later, Celtic tribes invaded, largely of Nordid race. The Celts were as is well known an Indo-European people, which seem to have beforehand lived in South Germany and thereabouts. England and Southern Scotland was invaded by the Romans around Christ birth, which though, few and racially mixed, left few traces behind. When the Roman Empire collapsed North German tribes of pure Nordid race came in masses. It was both Angles and Jutes from Southern Jylland (Jutland) and Saxons from nowadays Hannover and Oldenburg. (That is why Englishmen, at least before the World Wars, still gladly called themselves Anglo-Saxons). These pushed aside the Celtic population from the fertile regions of Eastern England to the mountain - and mire regions in west. Later on, as is known, Norwegians and Danes came, the latter to the eastern parts. Especially the Norwegian invasion were of racial importance, as it carried a lot of Nordid blood to the then still fully Celtic and racially even more pre-Celtic west. In the end Wilhelm the conqueror came in with his Normans from Normandy, French-speaking, but to the biggest part descendants of Danish and Norwegian Vikings. These Normans made up a thin conqueror class, which has not been of such a great racial importance. Later immigrations to Great Britain and Ireland are of little significance; Flemish and Walloon textile weavers to some small towns north of London in the end of the Middle Ages, and lots of German Jews during the 19th and 20th century and so forth. It is evident, by what it said, that at least the affluent Englishmen in the countries eastern parts, are of strong Nordid origin, which is also as a rule seen on their type. It is as obvious, that the darker, partly Mediterranid native population still appear in west and in the lower layers of the folk, also partly in the east. Welsh miners can even pass for a typical Italian (for what is typical in the south), small, dark and lively. Ireland and Highland Scotland have little of suchlike Mediterranid sub-race, but more of a remarkable intermediate or transitionary type between the same and the Nordid sub-race, which is dark-haired, but big-bodied and light-eyed. This last-mentioned type is also very common among the 100 % Americans of old families, whom are largely descended from fleeing Scottish and North English sectarians.

I saw Gothic, Falid, Brünn and very few North-Atlantid types. I did not see any Trönder types. There are individuals who have Old Atlantic/Tydal strains. It is too difficult for me to make out if it is the same as Brünn (especially hard to distinguish among females), or another type, which might be more related to the Berid type. I saw a type that does not correspond to the Coon’s Keltic Nordic being the same as Lundman’s North-Atlantid. It was a type with the same facial structure of what is called Keltic Nordic, the typical narrow and sloping forehead, with very refined features, slightly convex and narrow nose, pointed chin, compressed malars and a very lean body type. What is surprising is that such men had mostly a pink skin complexion and they were more blond than brown-haired, with blue or light-mixed eyes. Their difference with the North-Atlantids may be that they have a Dinarid (or pseudo-Dinarid) strain, yet they cannot have a much lower Cephalic Index. Lundman put the average Cehalic Index of Britain to 78. Dalarna had 76 in his examinations of that Swedish county around a half century ago. It is mainly the nasal shape, which point towards such a direction, although the nasal shape is as a rule upturned, and almost never turned down.

Another type is the one with light golden blond hair, light blue eyes, a prominent and convex (sometimes all the way, from bone to cartilage), high-rooted nose (also women), narrow face and a very long head with a low vault. It is not Falid, so the Anglo-Saxon type could be for real. The Falid nose is shortened, and thicker, concave, straight to concavo-convex and rarely very narrow, long and convex, so it is quite different. The face is more square-shaped etc. The Falid chin is much stronger. Pigmentation is similar, ruddy, perhaps with more grey eyes, yet as much light hair, red or red-blond, with a significant minority who have light chestnut or dark auburn. The body is more thickset and stocky appearing, wider, larger and robust and so forth.

I did see boys who could be mistaken for Insular types from Iberia, on this visit and on the other times that I visited England. They are a rather small minority though, and almost all have been from Southampton (it is probably a coincidence). The area with a strong Insular racial element is outside our concern, as it is not in England, but Southern Wales, where a shorter stature and very dark pigmentation is common, including of the eyes.

My estimation of the England that I saw is that 30 % are Keltic Nordid, 20 % Falid, 20 % Brünn (the number can be higher than the reality, as some whom I thought is that could be non-English Brits), 10 % Anglo-Saxon (I have to use that terminology till I find something more suitable), 10 % are Gothic Nordid, 5 % North-Atlantid and 5 % are Insular types.

30% Keltic Nordid
20% Falid
20% Brünn
10 % Anglo-Saxon
10 % Gothic Nordid
5% North-Atlantid
5% Insular

90% Central Nordish, 5 % Peripheral Nordish (I think that North-Atlantid is a very Nordid type, at least by morphology alone, which is the most important, and if the system is built upon Nordid being central then it is not a peripheral type). 5 % non-Nordish (West-Mediterranid, Insular type). 95 % Nordish land. Keep in mind that the Nordid types are only variations, they form certain stocks, and people within a family may show the phenotype of one type and another one of another Nordid. In Sweden it is the Göta (Gothic), Trönder, Västmanland (with a Faloid type, the shorter, thickset type with often a broader face and concave nose, yet as much low-skulled, Lundman's "Västmanlandstyp") and Tydal pockets in Central Scandinavia. Perhaps the Swiss anthropologist Otto Schlaginhaufen was right when he spoke of Phenotypes, rather than race. There is also a Lappid element in Northern Sweden, and a weak East-Baltid from Finns, in central and Eastern Sweden. John Beddoe made similar examinations in his outdated work "Races of Britain" (1885). I was in the process of making an anthropological bibliography, although summer time, other studies, work, and personal life taken all time. I shall try to complete it.

Now it depends how many mistakes I made with my eyes, who were English and not, and if my sample is a good representative of the folk, and this is regional. There are many regions that I have not yet seen, and these might not be a great representative (and who decide what is good or bad representative) of England as a whole. I suspect that the Falid element is stronger in the Southeast England. The Keltic Nordid might be stronger in Northwest England and so forth. I also saw blond, Cro-Magnoid men who looked neither Falid nor Brünn. They are probably a more high-skulled Borreby type, many times with a flat occiput. According to Bertil Lundman ("Jordens Människoraser och Folkstammar", or in English, "The Physical Races and Ethnic Groups of the World, 1943) an "Alpinisation" has not occurred, because the warm ocean gave rich nourishment. The same author claims that the North-Atlantid type is cultivated for a cold and damp climate in England. Eastern Britain (Scotland and England) and southeastern Ireland were predominantly Nordid until the most recent family lines big emigrations from the workers in west, above all Ireland’s, poorest regions. There are here and there small residuals of old Bell Beaker stock, a Dinarid phenotype, which are now in mostly some coastal (e.g. Dover) regions, which therefore have somewhat higher Breadth-Length Index. I need to study the local types of Britain to say anything else. A mere observation is of course fun, interesting enough and even partly accurate if you have a trained eye, yet it is not sufficient and scientific enough to say anything more for now.

Thanks for reading this rather long and perhaps boring text.

Loki
Thursday, August 14th, 2003, 08:02 PM
Hi volksdeutsche, and thank you for the effort to make such a long post - it was not boring to read at all.


I start out by quoting a British ethnologist, Francis Huxley, from "Peoples of the World in Colour" (first published in 1964, reprinted in 1971 and 1975). It is a rather silly and popularised book. It is fun to read it. He begins with, what is a people? From the Introduction, page 103-104:

"Take Britain, for instance. The British are notoriously a mongrel race:

You know what, there are very many authors who have written about the English people's roots and ethnicity. But for some reason, you always seem to quote the ones who think that the English are "mongrels". I can, and I will, find other authors who have a different view.


Some claimed, around 1919, after WW1, that the Germanic blood of the Englishmen have been so diluted that the present time Englishmen in all essentiality conform with the old Brits. Here you have a thick shell of exaggeration around an essence of truth.

Diluted by whom? Has England ever been invaded since 1066? I'm sorry, but I don't buy this story that the majority of the English are merely ancient Britons who have taken on the Anglo-Saxon language. As I have always said, you find varying degrees of Anglo-Saxon/Danish/Germanic blood in England, and the highest concentration one would find in eastern, and especially northeastern England. In Western England, and even into Mercia, one finds more remnants of Ancient Briton blood. But northeastern England is definitely a great majority invader, genetically.

I want you to go look at Goldstein's study - the .pdf that you have posted. You will see, that only a small percentage of Goldstein's sample sites were within areas most densely settled by the Anglo-Saxons and Danes... in fact, I think only a handful. The majority of his sites were in western and central Britain. The purpose of his study was not to see where the most Germanic blood still is in Britain, but rather to find out how far it has penetrated inland to the west. Amazingly enough, even some of his Welsh sites reported good Germanic genetic contributions, especially bordering England.

I will see if I can reply to the rest of your post when I have more time.

Sincerely,

Loki

Loki
Thursday, August 14th, 2003, 10:50 PM
Allow me to ask: how could it be that a relatively insignificant amount of Germanic invaders has been able to beat and repress the Brits?



Fact is, that the Anglo-Saxon coming to Britain was not merely an invasion, but rather a settlement of whole tribes over many decades - on a massive scale. Let me quote from Sir Francis Palgrave's History of the Anglo-Saxons, published in 1876:


CHAPTER II

The "three tribes of Germany" - the Jutes, the Angles, and the Saxons, by whom Britain was subdued, seem originally to have constituted but one nation, speaking the same language, and ruled by monarchs who all claimed their descent from the deified monarch of the Teutons, Woden or Odin. They frequently changed their position on the firm land of Europe, as the stream of population rolled forward, impelled by the secondary causes, prepared and destined to act in fulfilment of the decree by which the enlargement of Japhet had been foretold. [lol... excuse this author's Christian bias ;) ]

The Jutes, together with their neighbours the Angles, dwelt in the peninsula of Jutland, or the "Cimbric Chersonesus," and in the adjoining Holstein, where there still is a district called Angeln. That, in fact, is the real Old England; and, properly speaking, our "Old England" is New England, though now we give that name to a province in America. The Saxons were more widely dispersed. Ptolemy places them in the Cimbric Chersonesus, near the Jutes and Angles; but they afterwards occupied a much larger extent, from the Delta of the Rhine to the Weser. After the migration of the Saxons to Britain, the name of Old Saxons was given to the parent stock. One very large body of Saxon population occupied the present Westphalia; but the tribes by whom Britain was invaded, appear principally to have proceeded from the country now called Friesland; for of all the continental dialects, the ancient Frisick is the one which approaches most nearly to the Anglo-Saxon of our ancestors.

.....

No portion of our island has continued more truly Anglo-Saxon than "Cantwara Land." [Kent] The fair-haired Kentish yeoman bears in his countenance the stamp of his remote ancestry...

.....

Thus did the Jutes and the Saxons resort to Britain; and now came the Angles - and in such numbers, that Old England was almost emptied of its inhabitants; and the district continued very thinly peopled, even in the days of Venerable Bede.

Loki
Thursday, August 14th, 2003, 11:32 PM
Volksdeutsche, I have enjoyed reading your essay on the physical anthropology of Britain. You are very near the mark, I believe.... excellent work. I would also like to see your work and studies when finished, if we would be so honoured as to observe it.

I noted that you replaced the dubious "Hallstatt Nordic" with Gothic Nordid. I am pleased by this development. I never liked the "Hallstatt" term to be associated with the Swedish population. It designates a Celtic cultural phase more accurately!

Dr. Solar Wolff
Tuesday, September 30th, 2003, 04:45 AM
As an Anglo-Saxon, please let me make the following observations:

1. Hingist and Horsa are the founders always cited but it is also always cited that these guys may just be fictional or figureheads.

2. Proper English people are more than a little embarassed at having founders who were basically just raiders who stayed.

3. In reference to #2, educated English always longed for a true, classical origin of their culture and people. All sorts of attempts at this have been made in English literature and it still goes on today with this notion that the House of Windsor is somehow descended from Christ.

4. Anglo-Saxons are Germans, pure and simple and if they were ever told, fully and completely how close they were to their cousins on the mainland it is doubtfull if they would have been so eager to fight so many wars against them.

5. American Anglo-Saxons are even more ignorant of their racial heritage than those in Britain. This is consistant with the fact that Americans are the "most stupid people to ever evolve from blue-green slime", as my attorny says. I feel able to say this because I am an American.

5. The book in question by the British Professor is just another attempt to clean up Hingist and Horsa, his ancestors, in a way more acceptable to classically minded sensibilities.

Loki
Tuesday, September 30th, 2003, 12:10 PM
Thank you Dr. Solar Wolff for clearing this up!

Excellent post, true and to the point.

Loki

cbvnm
Tuesday, September 30th, 2003, 03:02 PM
quote :

``Britain, as told to the Y chromosome
Nicholas Wade NYT

History books favor stories of conquest, not of continuity, so it is perhaps not surprising that many Englishmen grow up believing they are a fighting mixture of the Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Danes, Vikings and Normans who invaded Britain. The defeated Celts, by this reckoning, left their legacy only in the hinterlands of Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
.
A new genetic survey of Y chromosomes throughout the British Isles has revealed a very different story. The Celtic inhabitants of Britain were real survivors. Nowhere were they entirely replaced by the invaders and they survive in high proportions, often 50 percent or more, throughout the British Isles, according to a study by Cristian Capelli, David Goldstein and others at University College London.
.
The study, reported Tuesday in Current Biology, was based on comparing Y chromosomes sampled throughout the British Isles with the invaders' Y chromosomes, as represented by the present-day descendants of the Danes, Vikings (in Norway) and Anglo-Saxons (in Schleswig-Holstein in northern Germany). The survey began as a request from the BBC to look for genetic signatures of the Vikings in England, later broadened to include Danes and Anglo-Saxons. Goldstein said that not enough money was available to study two other invaders, the Romans and the Normans, but that he felt that their demographic contribution had probably been small.``

http://www.iht.com/articles/97790.html



another quote :


``Surprising lack of Anglo-Saxon DNA

Thursday June 26, 2003
The Guardian

A new survey of Y chromosomes in the British Isles suggests that the Anglo-Saxons failed to leave as much of a genetic stamp on the UK as history books imply.
Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Danes, Vikings and Normans invaded Britain repeatedly between 50BC and AD1050. Many historians ascribe much of the British ancestry to the Anglo-Saxons because their written legacy overshadows that of the Celts.

But the Y chromosomes of the regions tell a different story. "The Celts weren't pushed to the fringes of Scotland and Wales; a lot of them remained in England and central Ireland," says David Goldstein, of University College London. This is surprising: the Anglo-Saxons reputedly colonized southern England heavily.``

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/dispatch/story/0,12978,984738,00.html

Loki
Tuesday, September 30th, 2003, 03:19 PM
Hahaha, the Jew Goldstein's study is not very enlightening. Why not? Because only one of his sample locations came from East Anglia, where the Anglo-Saxons settled most heavily. He doesn't even have a single sampling done in central England (the Anglo-Saxon "Mercia"). Besides, his samplings took no account for racial differentiation, and were too small to mean anything.

http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/capelli2_CB.pdf

Milesian
Tuesday, September 30th, 2003, 06:26 PM
Hahaha, the Jew Goldstein's study is not very enlightening. Why not? Because only one of his sample locations came from East Anglia, where the Anglo-Saxons settled most heavily. He doesn't even have a single sampling done in central England (the Anglo-Saxon "Mercia"). Besides, his samplings took no account for racial differentiation, and were too small to mean anything.

http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/capelli2_CB.pdf

Yes, I saw a similar study or perhaps the same one whch was sponsered by the BBC to look for signs of the Vikings genetic legacy in Britain.
While Norwegian and English source populations showed a great deal of similarity, the Celtic populations (Scots, Irish and Welsh) proved to be quite disimilar. In fact they shared a genetic marker which was fairly unique and the only thing similar to it was found in Basques. It's theorised that it points to descendants of Europe's pre-farming (ie. pre-Indo-European) population.

In addition, you would have a hard time convincing the majority of the "Celtic peoples" that the English are fellow Celts ;)

cbvnm
Tuesday, September 30th, 2003, 06:48 PM
``While Norwegian and English source populations showed a great deal of similarity``

I would like to have a link to the source where you get that information from, because I have read a lot of dna studies about the English and the Scandinavians but I have never seen one that claims the Norwegian dna is identical to the English dna.

There is no study that proves that. You are mistaken with the Dutch-Frisians. The Dutch-Frisians (northern-Netherlands) are almost the same as the (eastern) English.
The Norwegian, Swedish and Danish dna is far from any English group.

Loki
Tuesday, September 30th, 2003, 06:58 PM
The Norwegian, Swedish and Danish dna is far from any English group.

You don't know what you're talking about. The nation that is genetically closest to the English, is Denmark.

cbvnm
Tuesday, September 30th, 2003, 07:01 PM
``You don't know what you're talking about. The nation that is genetically closest to the English, is Denmark.``

Completely rubbish.

Danish people are similar to Sleeswijk Holstein (north-Germany near the Danish border), Norway and Sweden

The nation that is closest to England is the Netherlands. The Dutch-Frisians are identical to the East-English and the West-English (Cornwall etc) are identical to the southern-Dutch

Milesian
Tuesday, September 30th, 2003, 07:01 PM
``While Norwegian and English source populations showed a great deal of similarity``

I would like to have a link to the source where you get that information from, because I have read a lot of dna studies about the English and the Scandinavians but I have never seen one that claims the Norwegian dna is identical to the English dna.

There is no study that proves that. You are mistaken with the Dutch-Frisians. The Dutch-Frisians (northern-Netherlands) are almost the same as the (eastern) English.
The Norwegian, Swedish and Danish dna is far from any English group.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/programmes/bloodofthevikings/genetics_results_01.shtml

The results show the the English population is a mix of Angle, Saxon, Viking and Briton genes. The figures increase towards more "Celtic" types as you move west and north, following the routes that the Celtic populations retreated before the Germanic advances.

If you read my initial post you will see that I did not say that Norwegian and English DNA were identical, you said that. I said they were very similar in that obvious similarities were found that were not found in non-English populations sources of the British Isles and Ireland. Please avoid putting words into my mouth.

cbvnm
Tuesday, September 30th, 2003, 07:04 PM
Milesian : yes its true that the English are not exactly the same as the Scots, Irish and Welsh

but the English are also not the same as the Scandinavians in dna

The English are intermediate between Scandinavians and Scots/Irish/Welsh, but the English are closer to the Scots/Irish/Welsh than to the Scandinavians

There is only one conclusion to this data : English people are a mix of Celtic and Germanic with the Celtic being more important than the germanic

Milesian
Tuesday, September 30th, 2003, 07:05 PM
``You don't know what you're talking about. The nation that is genetically closest to the English, is Denmark.``

Completely rubbish.

Danish people are similar to Sleeswijk Holstein (north-Germany near the Danish border), Norway and Sweden

The nation that is closest to England is the Netherlands. The Dutch-Frisians are identical to the East-English and the West-English (Cornwall etc) are identical to the southern-Dutch

The Angles and Saxons came from the Sleeswijk Holstein region and the Jutes were not from far off either, so why would it be suprising that the English were most like the Danish? I assume you are relating a Dutch / English relation due to Celtic tribes such as the Belgae who inhabited both lands. However the majority of these peoples would have retreated north and west with the rest of the Celts under pressure from the Germanic tribes. Of course there would have been some mix as I'm sure not every Briton fled or escaped, but the majority did.
The history of our Celtic lands, our lore, our politics, our place and region names all attest to these migrations

cbvnm
Tuesday, September 30th, 2003, 07:09 PM
I am basing my facts on DNA studies and conclusions from DNA experts on these dna data.

I am not speculating on historical events like you both do. Speculating makes no sense.

The DNA data will give us the hard facts

Milesian
Tuesday, September 30th, 2003, 07:11 PM
Milesian : yes its true that the English are not exactly the same as the Scots, Irish and Welsh

but the English are also not the same as the Scandinavians in dna

The English are intermediate between Scandinavians and Scots/Irish/Welsh, but the English are closer to the Scots/Irish/Welsh than to the Scandinavians

There is only one conclusion to this data : English people are a mix of Celtic and Germanic with the Celtic being more important than the germanic

The English are not the same as Scandinavians in terms of DNA, that is obvious. But I never said they were the same or identical. I said they were very similar and the test obviously confirms this.
I'm afraid I have to disagree that the English are more similar to the Celts than Scandinavians. It's too general.
Perhaps in areas such as the SW of England or the areas bordering Wales then that's a distinct possibility. However, the people of NE England are closest to Scandinavians (York was the great Viking city of Jorvik). Those of SE England are closest to the Saxons.
England is after all "Angle-Land" in their own tongue. In the tongue of the Goidelic Celts is is "Sassana" (Saxon-Land). It seems neither the English or the Celtic Britons ever considered them to be Celtic.

I agree that they are a mix, but I see the stress being on the Germanic (Anglo-Saxon and Norse) rather than Celtic (Briton)

Milesian
Tuesday, September 30th, 2003, 07:14 PM
I am basing my facts on DNA studies and conclusions from DNA experts on these dna data.

I am not speculating on historical events like you both do. Speculating makes no sense.

The DNA data will give us the hard facts

I am also basing my facts on the very same DNA studies you claimed in addition to history.
I see neither supporting your conclusion, however.

cbvnm
Tuesday, September 30th, 2003, 07:18 PM
``England is after all "Angle-Land" in their own tongue. In the tongue of the Goidelic Celts is is "Sassana" (Saxon-Land). It seems neither the English or the Celtic Britons ever considered them to be Celtic.``


Languages dont have to say anything.

The Anglo-Saxons obviously only made up the ruling class when they invaded England while the peasants stayed Celtic.

The Anglo-Saxons replaced a lot of Celts (this is why the English are not exactly identical to the Scots/Welsh/Irish in dna)

But most Celts were not replaced by the Anglo-Saxon invader.

The modern day English people are mainly a mix of Celtic and Anglo-Saxon with the Celtic element being more important than the Anglo-Saxon element (especially in Western-England)

All dna studies done on the English will confirm this view

Milesian
Tuesday, September 30th, 2003, 07:27 PM
``England is after all "Angle-Land" in their own tongue. In the tongue of the Goidelic Celts is is "Sassana" (Saxon-Land). It seems neither the English or the Celtic Britons ever considered them to be Celtic.``


Languages dont have to say anything.

The Anglo-Saxons obviously only made up the ruling class when they invaded England while the peasants stayed Celtic.

The Anglo-Saxons replaced a lot of Celts (this is why the English are not exactly identical to the Scots/Welsh/Irish in dna)

But most Celts were not replaced by the Anglo-Saxon invader.

The modern day English people are mainly a mix of Celtic and Anglo-Saxon with the Celtic element being more important than the Anglo-Saxon element (especially in Western-England)

All dna studies done on the English will confirm this view


So are you saying that historical and liguistical data are unimportant because they do not support your beliefs? How can you just discount so much data?

You say that the Anglo-Saxons were obviously only the ruling class and the "peasants" were still Celtic. I don't see anything obvious about that. I know it is a fact that huge numbers of Celts began moving west and north and it impacted the lands they were migrating into. The fact that they started giving their names to these lands are linguistic pices of evidence. The fact that chronicals from those times also agree with that are historical pieces of evidence. But obviously they should just be dismissed?

Well, at least we have gotten closer to the truth that certain parts of Western England have a higher predominance of Celtic genes than other areas. This is still not the same as saying the English as a whole are more Celtic than Germanic though. The study merely shows that the English have some Celtic mixed with various Germanic strains, which is under no dispute and is a fact of history. It also shows that the Celtic peoples do not show this level of Germanic influence. Howver, the study doesn't seem to back up your claims that the English are still predominantly Celtic.

If there is a study which specifically backs this claim up then please present it

cbvnm
Tuesday, September 30th, 2003, 07:30 PM
Milesian :

well at least you say that English people have a lot of Celtic blood and are far from the Germanic populations of Scandinavia

Thats a point we both agree on.

The differences between our views is the amount of celtic versus germanic blood the English have

Milesian
Tuesday, September 30th, 2003, 07:34 PM
Milesian :

well at least you say that English people have a lot of Celtic blood and are far from the Germanic populations of Scandinavia

Thats a point we both agree on.

The differences between our views is the amount of celtic versus germanic blood the English have

No, I didn't say that they have a lot of Celtic blood, merely that many of them do have it. Nor did I say that they are far from the Germanics of Scandinavia, In some places the are closest to the Scandinavians in places like Newcastle and surrounding areas of the North East.

But yes you are correct that we both agree they have Celtic and Germanic blood and it is the level we disgree on.
What is not in dispute is the fact that the English are unquestionably ethnically Germanic, in addition.

Allenson
Tuesday, September 30th, 2003, 07:44 PM
cbvnm,

here is a study showing evidence of Anglo-Saxon migration to what is now called England:

http://mbe.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/19/7/1008

Let me know if you can't open this site. It may be a "subscription only" site that I can access as I am at a university that has such things. I will gladly email you the PDF file if you'd like to read it.

cbvnm
Tuesday, September 30th, 2003, 07:45 PM
``What is not in dispute is the fact that the English are unquestionably ethnically Germanic, in addition.``

Like I said, this is not true

The dna facts tell a whole different story. The dna tell us that Germanic blood is represented among the English, but its not a majority

cbvnm
Tuesday, September 30th, 2003, 07:50 PM
Dalonord :

I already know that study

The researches made a big mistake by claiming the Dutch-Frisians are Anglo-Saxon and because of the similarity between the Dutch-Frisians and the Eastern-English they came to the false conclusion the English are mostly Anglo-Saxon

The real truth is that the Dutch-Frisians are a mix of Celtic and Germanic

Ofcourse the Eastern-English and Dutch-Frisians turned out to be very similar in the study, this is because they are similar. Eastern-English and Dutch-Frisians are both a mix of celtic and germanic

This study is from 2002 by the way

It is outdated.

The newer 2003 study from Goldstein corrected the mistake and took the Danes and Sleeswijk Holstein people as the original homeland of the Anglo-Saxons

the Goldstein 2003 study (the newer and more up to date one) :

http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/capelli2_CB.pdf


summarizing : the big fault of the 2002 study was to take Dutch-Frisia is the original homeland of the Anglo-Saxons
The newer 2003 Goldstein study corrected this and took the Danes/Sleeswijk-Holstein as the homeland of the Anglo-Saxons

Vetinari
Tuesday, November 4th, 2003, 06:33 PM
Hahaha, the Jew Goldstein's study is not very enlightening. Why not? Because only one of his sample locations came from East Anglia, where the Anglo-Saxons settled most heavily. He doesn't even have a single sampling done in central England (the Anglo-Saxon "Mercia"). Besides, his samplings took no account for racial differentiation, and were too small to mean anything.

http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/capelli2_CB.pdf

I think your attack on Goldstein is a little unfair. The purpose of his research was to discover the amount of Germanic DNA in Britain as a whole, not in a particular part of England. His research does show that England is more Germanic in the east than in the west. The link below also shows that the Welsh have a much higher level of "Celtic" (i.e. pre-Anglo-Saxon) DNA than the central-eastern English.

http://mbe.oupjournals.org/cgi/reprint/19/7/1008.pdf

Vetinari
Tuesday, November 4th, 2003, 06:39 PM
Yes, I saw a similar study or perhaps the same one whch was sponsered by the BBC to look for signs of the Vikings genetic legacy in Britain.
While Norwegian and English source populations showed a great deal of similarity, the Celtic populations (Scots, Irish and Welsh) proved to be quite disimilar. In fact they shared a genetic marker which was fairly unique and the only thing similar to it was found in Basques. It's theorised that it points to descendants of Europe's pre-farming (ie. pre-Indo-European) population.

In addition, you would have a hard time convincing the majority of the "Celtic peoples" that the English are fellow Celts ;)

Actually, the Scots seem to be somewhere in between the Irish and the Welsh - on the one hand - and the English on the other. Like the English, the Scots seem to be a Germano-Celtic mixture with the Scots having a slightly higher level of Celtic ancestry. Check out the links below:

http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200wales/content_objectid=13502852_method=full_si teid=50082_headline=-Genetics-make-Welsh-distinct-name_page.html

http://icnorthwales.icnetwork.co.uk/news/regionalnews/content_objectid=13499034_method=full_si teid=50142_headline=-Are-we-the-progeny-of-stone-age-Siberians--name_page.html

Vetinari
Tuesday, November 4th, 2003, 06:45 PM
You don't know what you're talking about. The nation that is genetically closest to the English, is Denmark.

According to the link below, the Swedes are closely related to the Norwegians while the Danes are closely related to the eastern English:

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v67n6/002082/002082.web.pdf

Angelcynn
Wednesday, August 25th, 2004, 04:26 AM
As an Anglo-Saxon, please let me make the following observations:

1. Hingist and Horsa are the founders always cited but it is also always cited that these guys may just be fictional or figureheads.

2. Proper English people are more than a little embarassed at having founders who were basically just raiders who stayed.

3. In reference to #2, educated English always longed for a true, classical origin of their culture and people. All sorts of attempts at this have been made in English literature and it still goes on today with this notion that the House of Windsor is somehow descended from Christ.

4. Anglo-Saxons are Germans, pure and simple and if they were ever told, fully and completely how close they were to their cousins on the mainland it is doubtfull if they would have been so eager to fight so many wars against them.

5. American Anglo-Saxons are even more ignorant of their racial heritage than those in Britain. This is consistant with the fact that Americans are the "most stupid people to ever evolve from blue-green slime", as my attorny says. I feel able to say this because I am an American.

5. The book in question by the British Professor is just another attempt to clean up Hingist and Horsa, his ancestors, in a way more acceptable to classically minded sensibilities.The universities in England are a collective stain on the national conscience, and Exeter, being foremost among the Marxist-run liberal institutions of higher lying queuing up to attack their own kind, is no exception. The latest propaganda claims that Germanic invaders did not replace the earlier inhabitants of the country. All this is calculated to undermine further the all ready fragile confidence in and knowledge of our national story.

Even so I do not see that English people are embarrassed by Hengist and Horsa. Nor do I understand the idea of somehow longing for a classical civilization. Real English people couldn't care less. They couldn't - and never did - because real English people are the ordinary folk of our land. The idle daydreams of europhile aristocrats and well-heeled writers past and present are a different matter entirely, but then our leaders were replaced by foreigners after 1066, so these fancies were theirs, not ours. As to the House of Windsor and its lineage, this probably has more to do with conspiracy theory and New World Order than any long-standing cultural insecurity that I would recognize.

England's history, which is as rich and vivid as anyone's, is often denied or denigrated by those who would never dream of questioning the widespread 'celtic' fantasy lovingly fostered by Scots and Irish (and evidently still popular even on what seems a fairly intelligent board like this one), suggesting that attacks are driven by overt political considerations rather than any love of truth. Academics are a standing rebuke to anyone mad enough to put faith in their pronouncements, for as a breed they are quite wretched creatures in the main, and are driven by vanity and gimlet-eyed opportunism as much as any common robber might be, whatever lip-service they pay to the rhetoric of objectivity. Thank you to all who have posted here in defence of my people. I shall, I hope, return another time.

herr georg
Saturday, October 8th, 2005, 12:28 PM
The british isles originally inhabited by the
cornish, pictish, britons, and manx people.
Then angles, saxons and jutes invaded, also later normans and danes.
Before aforementioned celtic people arrived,
indigenous europeans, UP and medish lived.
English is just derived of an old german dialect with latin words. Makes you wander how many words we think have latin origins are really german in origin but similar to latin words as per indo-european roots. And in some parts of britian people speak celtic tongues, still.

æþeling
Sunday, October 9th, 2005, 12:18 AM
It has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that there was a large scale folk movement of Germanic peoples into Britain from c.AD450 onwards. Genetics, archaeology, and contemporary literature largely support this view. Indeed in my own research, which I have carried out over the last eight years I have worked the following figures, these are obviously my own and based on my oppinion. I estimate that between 250-300,000 people migrated to Britain from AD450-650. These peoples came from a number of tribes. Principaly were the Angles from modern day Schleswig-Holstein in Germany, Saxons a confederation of tribes from the German North Sea coastal region, Jutes from Jutland in Denmark, Frisians from the Netherlands and western Danish coast. Other small groups included the Allemani who were possibly Roman laeti, Franks, and Geats hence Sutton Hoo-Gotland connection. The Dano-Norse settlemets from c.AD860-1000, possibly added a few tens of thousands mostly settled in eastern England.

It seems that the Angles and Frisians were the main settlers. The Saxons seem to have had little impact genetically south of the Thames. England gets its name from the Angles, which suggests that they were the dominant tribal group. The Germanic peoples had a tradition of taking the name of the dominant peoples. We know that the term Anglo-Saxon was used from at least the time of Alfred the Great. It is possible that an Anglisc identity emerged relatively soon after the migrations. We also know that the Germanic peoples spoke dialects of a similar tongue which would have further linked them together in face of the hostile Celtic population. Procopius the Byzantine historian does though call them the Anglo-Frisians.

It is my surmise that some 70-80% of the population of modern England are descended either wholey, or partly, from these Germanic settlers. Indeed the Anglo-Scandinavian settlements were the last major settlement of peoples in Britain so we can reasonably say that the anthropological and genetic structure of the modern English has changed little since then. Genetically the English are close kin of the Danes and Dutch and the Germans of the North Sea coast. There is also in northern England a substantial population related to the Norwegians. Anthropologically we are a mixed bunch. Mostly Kelto-Nord with Anglo-Saxon. Throw in some Scandinavian strains and you have the English. Although generally speaking we are Nordic.

Culturally the English are a hybridised nation. We have an underlay of Germanic fused with Graeco-Roman and some Celt, plus later Western advances to produce a distinctly English culture. As for a foundation myth Hengest and Horsa are obvious. Any who wish to read it see below:

http://www.northvegr.org/lore/angliad/index.php

We have possibly the first modern ethnic identity in Europe dating from at least the mid 8th century. Along with Scotland we were the first nation-state north of the Alps. The Treaty of Wedmore in AD886, for me, marks the beginning of the English state. And the Anglo-Saxon kingdom that fell in 1066 was by far the most prosperous state in northern Europe with a highly advanced and centralised government.

Ealhswið
Monday, February 12th, 2007, 04:03 AM
As for a foundation myth Hengest and Horsa are obvious.Yes, they are obvious mythical founders of the English nation, which makes me wonder if it was purposefully overlooked by Todd for some reason. Otherwise, I am baffled as to how a learned scholar, a 'Professor of Archaeology' no less, has never encountered the figure of Hengest (or his brother and daughter) in his studies!

A cursory read of the Royal Genealogies also gives one a good sense of an Anglo-Saxon myth of origin; descendancy from Gods.

How he can contend that we have no foundation myth(s) whatsoever is stupefying.

æþeling
Monday, February 12th, 2007, 01:16 PM
Originally Posted by Ealhswið
How he can contend that we have no foundation myth(s) whatsoever is stupefying.

What you have to understand is that there is pretty much an organised campaign in academia to deny, or vilify, the English, probably related to the political campaign, after all academics are human, most of them, and have their own bias and agendas.

The anti-English brigade is quite divided in its attempts to harass the English, on the one hand we have the evil genocidel maniac Saxons, and on the other hand the lost and bewildered Germanified Celts.

The first seeks to paint a picture that the Anglo-Saxons, normally termed Saxons in this case, were evil xenophobes who committed a genocide in Britain that makes the holocaust look like a WI convention in Hyde Park. Basically they, or we, as many like to emphasise, cleansed the land of the Celts and drove them all off to the hills, butchering the poor sods who couldn’t get away. Add to this, Peter Berresford Ellis’ opinion that the English have been happily conquering and exterminating ever since.

The second idea says well actually the English don’t really exist, we are all pretty much Celts who were unfortunate enough to be conquered by an elite of Germanic incomers who imposed themselves on the 99.99999% of the British population, and they conveniently forget the history of nearby Gaul in the process. I suspect this idea comes, in part, from the “British” campaigners.

Both positions are, to put it mildly, nonsense. A few geneticists actually do conduct relatively neutral research, like Bryan Sykes who I respect, but then reach rather daft conclusions.

From his latest book Blood of the Isles, which I still recommend:

“However we may feel about ourselves and each other, we are genetically rooted in a Celtic past. The Irish, the Welsh and the Scots know this, but the English sometimes think otherwise.”

We think otherwise because it’s only half true, or more specifically around two thirds, and because his study says otherwise. For one there is next to no evidence supporting a Celtic invasion, either in genetics or archaeology. What both suggest is that those who once, and those who still do, call themselves Celts have been here since the end of the last ice age and the resettlement of the British Isles, around 12,000 years ago. Genetically then they have resided here at least 9,500 years before the Celtic period.

Anyway I’ll stop now before I bore you to tears.

On the Hengest and Horsa point, though, it is really only one of several origin myths for the English kingdoms. It’s pretty much specific to Kent, whilst Wessex has Cerdic, and my own dear Mercia has Icel, whom we know next to nothing about other than his illustrious ancestor Offa.

Oswiu
Monday, February 12th, 2007, 01:30 PM
On the Hengest and Horsa point, though, it is really only one of several origin myths for the English kingdoms. It’s pretty much specific to Kent, whilst Wessex has Cerdic, and my own dear Mercia has Icel, whom we know next to nothing about other than his illustrious ancestor Offa.
Don't forget the IDINGS!!!!!!
:sviking :otter:fviking: :norsehel :viking :AViking

Actually, there is a little more to Hengest and Horsa than a mere Kentish story, as they were used by Vortigern in several parts of his territories, founding several outposts. Vortigern probably ordered regional rulers to accept these forces, setting up Deira and Lindsey, and something up near the Wall perhaps. Octha and Ebissa may indeed be remembered in some garbled form in the northern Kingly pedigrees, and may also be mentioned in Welsh material involving the west and north. I'll dig this up later... :)

æþeling
Monday, February 12th, 2007, 07:09 PM
Originally Posted by Oswiu
Don't forget the IDINGS!!!!!!


LOL, there's always one!:D



Actually, there is a little more to Hengest and Horsa than a mere Kentish story, as they were used by Vortigern in several parts of his territories, founding several outposts. Vortigern probably ordered regional rulers to accept these forces, setting up Deira and Lindsey, and something up near the Wall perhaps.


Like most myths, this one probably has a fair bit of truth to it. I don’t think anyone can doubt that Germanic mercenaries were employed from at least the late 3rd century.

I have read one theory that suggests part of the divide between Angle and Saxon could have been that the Angles were a true tribal migration, whilst the Saxons may have been just employed mercenaries who chose to stay on after Rome withdrew.


Octha and Ebissa may indeed be remembered in some garbled form in the northern Kingly pedigrees, and may also be mentioned in Welsh material involving the west and north. I'll dig this up later...

It’s mentioned in Tokien’s work on the Fiinnesburh Fragment. In one of the appendix it is discussed whether Hengest/Octha and Horsa/Ebissa were actually Jutes or part of the Angle tribe, or part of the Anglian rulers of the Swæfe.

Oswiu
Monday, February 12th, 2007, 07:23 PM
Octha and Ebissa may indeed be remembered in some garbled form in the northern Kingly pedigrees, and may also be mentioned in Welsh material involving the west and north. I'll dig this up later... :)
http://www.kmatthews.org.uk/history/anglian_collection.html
The Anglian Genealogies show an Eoppa Oesing [son of Oesa Eðilberhting] as the father of Ida of Bebbanburh, and I've seen attempts to link this Eoppa with Ebissa, and Oesa with Octha. Nothing conclusive, mind, but interesting. Welsh poetry remembers an Osla Big-Knife from the very earlier days of the Incoming.


LOL, there's always one!:D
Don't worry - I feel like I'm the Last One most of the time. ;) Like Chingachgook . Er... Chingatchqeguque? :D




Like most myths, this one probably has a fair bit of truth to it. I don’t think anyone can doubt that Germanic mercenaries were employed from at least the late 3rd century.
Have you read Rydberg, on the PanGermanic origin myth? I don't agree that H and H were purely literary figures, but would admit that the same story coloured theirs somewhat.

I have read one theory that suggests part of the divide between Angle and Saxon could have been that the Angles were a true tribal migration, whilst the Saxons may have been just employed mercenaries who chose to stay on after Rome withdrew.
For the Mercians, that would make a lot of sense, given their genealogy back to Offa. The presence of a 'Caser' as son of Woden in the East Anglian genealogy [this Greek word is annoying me - do we have a synonym [ooh the irony]?] would tend to make me suspicious of such a claim made for them, though.

It’s mentioned in Tokien’s work on the Finnesburh Fragment. In one of the appendix it is discussed whether Hengest/Octha and Horsa/Ebissa were actually Jutes or part of the Angle tribe, or part of the Anglian rulers of the Swæfe.
Is this online anywhere, do you know?

æþeling
Monday, February 12th, 2007, 09:41 PM
Originally Posted by Oswiu
Have you read Rydberg, on the PanGermanic origin myth?


No, is it a published work or online article?


I don't agree that H and H were purely literary figures, but would admit that the same story coloured theirs somewhat.

Probably like Arthur, a Welsh warlord who possibly didn’t fight the English becoming the “once and future king.”

As an aside what bugs me is that more isn't made of Alfred...


do we have a synonym

William Barnes came up with kinlore, I am not sure it would catch on. Fyrn means elder in OE doesn’t it? I was thinking of Fyrnsidu/elder faith.


Is this online anywhere, do you know?

Not that I know of, but Amazon do a cheap edition:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Finn-Hengest-Fragment-J-R-R-Tolkien/dp/0261103555/sr=1-1/qid=1171312613/ref=sr_1_1/026-5180158-8256431?ie=UTF8&s=books

Oswiu
Monday, February 12th, 2007, 10:03 PM
No, is it a published work or online article?

Both! An 1887 work. Fascinating stuff, though he goes a little too far in reverse euhemerisation for me;

http://www.boudicca.de/teut.htm

Probably like Arthur, a Welsh warlord who possibly didn’t fight the English becoming the “once and future king.”
And more on his home ground, becoming the new form of the Celtic Dis Pater. Have you read the Harrying of Annwyfn?


As an aside what bugs me is that more isn't made of Alfred...
But do you know, somehow I don't feel much appeal in him. I'm not sure why. :( :shrug Maybe it's a regional thing. Or maybe it's because of that awful film they made of him in the 60s. Or maybe my anti-Christian and pro Norse sympathies...


Not that I know of, but Amazon do a cheap edition:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Finn-Hengest-Fragment-J-R-R-Tolkien/dp/0261103555/sr=1-1/qid=1171312613/ref=sr_1_1/026-5180158-8256431?ie=UTF8&s=books
:thumbup

æþeling
Friday, February 16th, 2007, 09:48 PM
Originally Posted by Oswiu
But do you know, somehow I don't feel much appeal in him. I'm not sure why.


Well he was Christian, but what a victory at Ethandun, truly decisive. I wrote this a year or so back, inspired by The Pale Horseman novel by Bernard Cornwall, in honour of the victory:



Ethandun





The suns rays break through the dark clouds and bathe the place of the old people in pale light. The spear points of fierce warriors shine like beacons lighting the way to the gates of death. Battle scarred men line the earthen ramparts of a people long since vanished. Banners flutter in the light breeze. A dragon’s mouth, a raven, a white horse, all will bare witness to this day of battle, this day of death, this day of reckoning. To the left of Ethandun more spear Danes crowd the open land. They don shirts of mail, and they sharpen their swords with stones. The earlier rain darkens their brightly painted shields. Their breath hangs in the cold early morning air. Some eat stale bread; others drink mead brought to them by their women. Some sit motionless contemplating the day of slaughter that lies ahead. Some seem unable to hide their fear. All are preparing for the clash of shield on shield. Most offer silent prayer to Odin and Thor. Some scan the sky for the All Fathers messengers to learn his will.

Alfred sees all this from his vantage point. Astride his horse he has rode forward to view his enemy. Behind him his army prepares for battle. A red banner with a white dragon and a banner of Christ will lead his men to war against the Danes. He thinks of his men. They have risked much to be here. They could have abandoned Alfred and let his kingdom die. They could have bowed to the Dane. But they chose not to, they chose to come here and fight. Many of his men are warriors. They know how to kill and they are loyal to Alfred. But most are simple farmers. Yet they have chosen to face the Danes, who are warriors one and all. How many will run? How many will die on the Danish shield wall?

Alfred turns his stead around and spurs it back to his men. He contemplates this army of Englishman. He sees the beardless boys standing next to the grim faced men. He sees the mighty limbs of the honest farmer raised on good English soil stand shoulder to shoulder with the scarred resolute features of the trained killer. Alfred knows they need courage. He knows they need more than the intangible promise of heaven if they fall. They need to know that they fight, and face death, for their families, for their land, for the right to be free.

“ Men of Wessex. Many years ago our forefathers came to this land. They saw the beauty of this island, they saw how fertile the soil was, they knew that they could raise strong and healthy families. They saw that the Weahlas had not the power to withstand our ancestors fierce might. They took this land and they made it their own. Now comes the Dane. He seeks to make this land his. He seeks to kill you and make whores of your women and slaves of your children; he will till your soil and grow fat on your land. We will not let him do this. Our native might will make him shake with fear, he will die on English steel, he will curse the day he ever heard of the Engle, and his folk will live to regret the day he ever came to steal what is ours. Men of Wessex we stand here today not just to fight for our families or even our kingdom, but for all England. We fight for all Saxons, we fight for England!”

The war horns rent the air as the sound of England’s roar reverberated from the hills around them. The thunderclap of spear on shield pulsed through the earth. Alfred drew forth his sword and turning about thrust it towards the Danish army.

On Alfred’s command the banners were raised high and the dragon’s mouth gaped towards the Danes. The farmer’s son palms sticky with sweat and heart racing with fear gripped his spear as he stared towards the Danish host. The sweet taste of mead was on his tongue and the smell of it mingled with the odour of countless of his countrymen was around him. He thought of his wife and children back home with his elderly father. His wife would be weaving or cooking the meal, his children would be helping their mother or more than likely swimming in the clear waters of the river near their farm. He thought about his humble farm that generations of his kin had lived in and built. Before him were people who would seek to take all that away from him. The thought turned his fear into anger; his nerves became pride in his family and ancestors. With a fierce spark in his eyes and a grim countenance to his face he strode forward for his people…

The young girl awoke on the hill of Ethandun carpeted in wild flowers the late summer sunshine bathing the hill in warmth. Below she heard the call of her father as he looked for her and she heard the engine ticking over from her father’s car on the road below. Wiping the sleep from her eyes she had an image of mans face vivid in her mind. Something about him, and this place seemed familiar, yet long ago. He was holding a weapon, a spear, but it was the face that she could not shake from her mind. Those eyes that looked so like her fathers, or the nose that had the same shape as her mothers. She felt as if he was trying to say something, but she could not hear him. Yet she had the strange feeling that she knew him. Dusting herself off the girl ran down the hill to her father. She was excited because after dinner her and her brothers would go down to the old ruins where they would run and play hide and seek amongst the old walls. Her father had said that it had been there for ages and used to belong to some old man who had died a long time ago. Her father had always meant to find out more about it. He also constantly lectured them about swimming in the clear waters of the river next to it, but he had never managed to stop them yet. If she was clever they might be able to sneak in through the back porch without him even knowing.

Ediruc
Friday, January 1st, 2010, 09:52 PM
I don't understand why the Anglo-Saxon people should need a heroic progenitor of their royal race. Each and every single Anglo-Saxon, male or female, is an individual hero. The English people are a royal race, and should be treated as such. Being that each Anglo-Saxon is to his own individual and character, it must be understood that every action, whether good or bad, affects the entire Anglo-Saxon race as a whole. Because we are a royal race, our actions affect the outcome of our survival. And this can be said about the Germanic people as a whole too.

Méldmir
Friday, January 1st, 2010, 09:57 PM
I don't understand why the Anglo-Saxon people should need a heroic progenitor of their royal race. Each and every single Anglo-Saxon, male or female, is an individual hero. The English people are a royal race, and should be treated as such. Being that each Anglo-Saxon is to his own individual and character, it must be understood that every action, whether good or bad, affects the entire Anglo-Saxon race as a whole. Because we are a royal race, our actions affect the outcome of our survival. And this can be said about the Germanic people as a whole too.

This is about the Anglo-Saxon people, not the subrace. You seem to use the term people and race interchangeably, which is not correct in this case.

Ediruc
Friday, January 1st, 2010, 11:32 PM
This is about the Anglo-Saxon people, not the subrace. You seem to use the term people and race interchangeably, which is not correct in this case.

Sorry :D, I think I was off-topic with what I was trying to say. It seems like a habit for me to use the terms race and people interchangeably when I'm rambling about what I just read and perceived of what I was reading. Thanks for pointing that out to me.

-Edoric.

ubbe
Saturday, January 2nd, 2010, 12:14 AM
Dalonord :

The researches made a big mistake by claiming the Dutch-Frisians are Anglo-Saxon and because of the similarity between the Dutch-Frisians and the Eastern-English they came to the false conclusion the English are mostly Anglo-Saxon

The real truth is that the Dutch-Frisians are a mix of Celtic and Germanic

Ofcourse the Eastern-English and Dutch-Frisians turned out to be very similar in the study, this is because they are similar. Eastern-English and Dutch-Frisians are both a mix of celtic and germanic




You are fairly ignorant of the Frisians. Frisian is the closest living language to English. The Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Frisians were basically similar stock genetically and spoke mutually intelligible tongues. These tribes intermarried, offered sanctuary, fought as allies, shared the same faith/culture besides the wars they fought between eachother. Read the story of Finn the Frisian found in Beowulf and the Finnsburg Fragment. Or J.R.R. Tolkien's take on the story in Finn and Hengest.

Finn is a Frisian Lord who is married to the sister of a Danish Lord. In his service are a large number of Jute Thanes. Another group of Jutes come to spend the winter in Finn's Hall and celebrate Yule. The two groups of Jutes are bitter rivals and a fight eventually breaks out in which Finn is killed.

Ocko
Saturday, January 2nd, 2010, 01:16 AM
About Hengist and Horsa.

In modern german Hengst means a stallion. Horsa in english means obviously horse, maybe a mare.

The state flag of lower saxony in Germany, the homeland of the saxon is still a leaping horse:

http://http://www.nationalflaggen.de/media/flags/flagge-niedersachsen.gif


On old farmhouses in Lower-Saxony you find crossed horses at the gable:

http://http://www.reise-karhu.de/Niedersachsenhaus.gif


you find those markings on the gable to this day.

As the horses obviously had a central meaning in the culture/mythology/religion of saxons it can be identified as having a saxon background.

I like to suggest that they were not names (might have been though) but religious/cultural positions (maybe for men and for women as a ruling religious couple) which could be obtained by different people. In faint relation to the position of 'pope' for the catholics.

Could also have been sects of the original religion.


The horse stands as far as can see it for 'freedom' and 'independence'.

It might have been a certain strain in a religious sense. Something which draws people to a new land, similarly to the early settlers in Americas.

It might be that young people who couldn't inherit land moved to new countries to obtain it by adventure, fortune, robbing etc. Once established there relatives followed and pulled more people over there for several centuries until the land was more or less settled.

it is just a suggestion of how it could have been.

OneWolf
Saturday, January 2nd, 2010, 03:38 AM
Your right Ocko.The Saxon confederation of tribes loved to use the horse as a symbol of strength and virility.Tactius says in his "Germania" that the Germanic people at the time would practice a sort of "Horse Whispering" in which several priests would observe a horse tied up and would cast divinities based on the movements and actions of the horse.
As far as Hengist and Horsa go,I think they were givin these names because they where large of stature, very strong and basically Alpha Males.
I believe that the invasion of England was a slow process.I think it took 200 years for the Anglo-Saxon forces to finally subdue the Welsh or strangers and to begin their reign unimpeded until the Normans changed their way of life and became the ruling class.
One custom I always found interesting was at the birth of a Northmans son,the northman would produce a sword,lay it by the newborn and whisper"With this sword you must take all that you may need".With those kinds of "family values"nobody was safe from the wrath of the Northman.Here is a link to the Risala or Ibn Fadlan's account of the Rus.

http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/ibn_fdln.shtml#Risala

Angelcynn Beorn
Sunday, January 3rd, 2010, 03:32 AM
You are fairly ignorant of the Frisians. Frisian is the closest living language to English. The Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Frisians were basically similar stock genetically and spoke mutually intelligible tongues. These tribes intermarried, offered sanctuary, fought as allies, shared the same faith/culture besides the wars they fought between eachother. Read the story of Finn the Frisian found in Beowulf and the Finnsburg Fragment. Or J.R.R. Tolkien's take on the story in Finn and Hengest.

Finn is a Frisian Lord who is married to the sister of a Danish Lord. In his service are a large number of Jute Thanes. Another group of Jutes come to spend the winter in Finn's Hall and celebrate Yule. The two groups of Jutes are bitter rivals and a fight eventually breaks out in which Finn is killed.

You're wasting your time. Cbvnm was one of those net nut-cases that come along from time to time, and had this grand theory that everyone's heritage could be deciphered from their hair colour. Brown hair meant you were Celtic; blond that you were Germanic; and black that you were Latin. He flittered around several racialist boards posting this sort of nonsense for a couple of years under various guises.

Even more importantly, he made that post around 7 years ago, and hasn't been seen on this site in a long time. So i doubt he'll be thankful for the effort you went to to respond to him.

:thumbup

osred
Saturday, January 16th, 2010, 09:20 PM
The paleolithic continuity theory states that indo-europeans have been indigenous to Europe since the last ice-age.

Ancient people travelled and communicated along waterways. British geography - with waterways on western and eastern sides but mountain ranges down the middle - meant that it was settled from the first by two distinct populations creating different civilisations.

A North Sea civilisation developed as Germanic ('Anglo-Frisian') people travelled from an ice-age refuge in southern France around 10,000BP and settled the North Sea basin before it was flooded and then moved into neighbouring areas of Eastern Britain and Western Europe.

An Atlantic civilisation developed as Brythonic Celtic people travelled along the Atlantic coast from Iberia into Western Britain and Ireland. (Much later - just before Roman times - their distant cousins the Gaels took the same route and invaded Ireland)

The Ancient English were physically larger than the Celts - and there existence has been confirmed by the larger footprints they have left.

The Celts developed a megalithic culture (stonehenge etc) - and remains of megaliths are all in the western parts of Britain - and not in the eastern germanic areas.

There will have been movements of germanic people across the english channel or north sea since the Ice Age - but always in small numbers - never in enough quantities to change the basic Anglo-Frisian nature of the population.

Similarly at times Celtic warlords may have invaded from western Britain and created a celtic aristocracy ruling over a germanic population.

After the Romans left then relatively small numbers of continental germanics came over and filled the power vaccuum.

However the mass of the population remained Anglo-Frisian in genetics and language and customs. (For instance house-building styles remained indigenous and different from the continental invaders).

Thus the English language still shows its closest kinship with Frisian and not with the language of the invading Saxons from Germany. Thus it has so few Celtic words or place names because there have never been many Celtic speakers in Eastern Britain ever.

Origin of Indo-Europeans - Paleolithic Continuity Theory (http://www.enter.net/~torve/trogholm/wonder/indoeuropean/indoeuropean1.html)

KWulf
Wednesday, January 20th, 2010, 10:32 PM
by Malcolm Todd, Professor of Archaeology at the University of Exeter.
One of the strangest things about the English is the fact that they do not have a foundation legend or a founder-hero. (return)
[/SIZE]

The tale goes something like this:

After the Romans left them the lands of Britain were ruled by a high king named Vortigern who realised that Rome's rule had made his people fat, soft, weak, and thus easy prey for the Picts to the North, the Scots-Irish of the West and the ever-present threat of the Eastern sea-wolves; the blue-eyed Saxon raiders of Germania who worshiped storm and gleefully rode the curning waves on their foam-cresters. So he sought to fight fire with fire, and with the lure of thick Roman gold coins he summoned for barbarian swords of hire to come to his domain's aid. Answering the Welshman's call came three strong keels filled with warrior-crews of masterless men headed by Hengest; great-great-grandson of the god Woden himself. And it twas the Allfather himself who had guided Hengest and his sturdy men from Finn's smouldering hall in Friesland to Britain's shores, for in his own country the lands were becoming thick with men and foodstuffs were becoming lean. And so as customary Hengest and his thanes had left their homelands on the Jutland peninsula to find employment as mercenaries just as their ancestors had done for the Legions in days long gone by. Vortigern then declared that if the Germans would serve him well in the field of battle he would grant them and their dependents good lands in Kent as payment. As was inevitable when Pictish marauders troubled the land once more Vortigern and his housemen stood back and relaxed as they watched the German newcomers easily butcher the lesser warriors and send them running back over the wall of Hadrian to their darksome glens. For this great service Hengest and his men were given the island of fine island of Thanet by Vortigern and on it they built a mighty stronghold ready to drive away all enemies. This building would be a wise move for though Vortigern had sworn sacred oaths with Hengest and even become kin to him through marriage to his beautiful daughter, the Welsh king had no respect for plighted troth and in his halls he planned betrayal. Knowing that if the Germans wanted to seize more power they could and fearing that Hengest was as treacherous as him and wished to take his throne Vortigern broke his oath to the warlord and told him and his hard-fighting men to leave Kent and Britain forever, thus was born the phrase 'to be welshed' as in 'to be swindled'. Rightly the warrior king was furious and so he sent back word to his kinsmen and the other landless men of Germana concerning the richness of Britain's lands and the worthlessness of her current inhabitants. And so all those Jutes, Saxons and Angles who would later be called the English came then unto the country of the White Cliffs, not now as raiders but as invaders and settlers, mighty war-smiths they took the land. Meeting Vortigern and his underlings at Stonehenge Hengest and his allies slaughtered the Welsh to a man, thus encouraging more and more English folk to flock to the island. With these conquering pioneers came Horsa from Bunde, the brother to Hengest he bore their ancestral banner of the proud White Horse which thereafter was taken up by the sons of Kent. The sons of Vortigern thus called the Welshmen to arms and met with the English in great battle near the place now named Aylesford, there Horsa was slain and in his honour the sacred rock of Ing became his burial ground; the White Horse stone. Hengest then swore no peace with the Welsh and for the rest of his life-reign as King of Kent he led the English tribes into battle, winning great victories in places such as Crayford, where four thousand Welshmen were cut down. The massacre at Crayford would only be the beginning; for other great warlords like Cerdic, Aella, and Ida would soon come take Britain and though Hengest would never see with his eyes, the Welsh would eventaully flee the English like fire into the mountains and craggy coasts of western Britain; where they remain to this day. Three hundred years later all the Germanic lands would be united under one English king, and it would be forever named thus afterwards for its masters: England.

Foundation legend: check.:thumbup Founder-hero: check.:thumbup
Its all there if you know where to look.:)

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Monday, April 23rd, 2018, 06:08 AM
The English did not form in Britain as a coalescence of Germanic tribes, but in Hedeby. Like in this area, oriented toward Angeln, where Angles were surrounded by Jutes, Saxons and Frisians, all of these nations provided contingents toward the settlement of Britain, but not as independent actors, yet merely as components of the larger Ingvaeonic group. Similarly, whatever individuals or families left between Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands, had to have been absorbed into the surrounding populations and since made indistinct. BTW, the founder of the Angles was Yngvi. Furthermore, if we can refer to Scottish people as Scots, despite disparate origins, then why not refer to us as Angles, rather than English? It's a double standard. French are not Franks? Then why have the name?

Sigebrond
Thursday, May 24th, 2018, 12:05 AM
Yngvi a.k.a. Yngvi-Freyr is a god, not the "founder of Angles". All that means is they named a Nordic god as their tribal ancestor, just as many other Germanic tribes did with Woden. The reason most likely being that we all share common ancestry the further we go back, and the god-ancestor represents that shared ancestry and fragmented consciousness and memory that every pagan culture seeks to reassemble in future generations, through "reincarnation". They weren't stupid enough to think they were all descended from a God in the sky, this is a Judeo-Christian creationist concept. Tribes could only trace, or remember, their royal family tree back so far, until they had to represent their distant ancestors with this deity ancestor.

The Angles most likely actually led the Anglo-Saxon invasion, and along with the Danes appear to have dominated the confederation of tribes, over their weaker Jutish and Frisian rivals at least. The Jutes were actually defeated and governed by the Angles, so Hengest and Horsa, or whatever their real names were (possibly Octa and Ebissa), would likely have been Anglish nobles. This background (which is better understood by reading Saxo Grammaticus and the basis for the Hamlet story) explains a lot about the tension that reaches boiling point in the Finnesburg fragment, and its retelling in Beowulf. Regarding Frisians, if they contributed to our ethnic makeup at all, they weren't actually real Frisians (who died or left en masse due to rising water levels) but were of essentially the same mixture of tribes as the Anglo-Saxons, i.e. Angles, Saxons and Jutes. I have come across theories arguing that Old English became distinct from Old Frisian because of the influence of Flemish, and that Flemish migrants may have affected Britain much more than Frisians.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Thursday, May 24th, 2018, 07:26 AM
People always think of Scandinavia and Germany, but English ancestry is from Jutland, its own entity. The English Folk is caught between the two major populations and the Celts. We ought to really focus on our Jutish blood and soil. Imagine seizing Jutland and letting the Celts go. England could straddle the German Ocean once again, whether or not the Danes per se are involved in this. Denmark proper ought to consist of Skaaneland and Sjaelland, even Viken.

Sigebrond
Thursday, May 24th, 2018, 11:37 PM
Jutish identity doesn't really mean anything. The Jutes only populated Kent, the Isle of White and to some degree Hampshire (and a little in Surrey or Middlesex I think). In sources "Angles" and "Danes" are used interchangeably, because of their close alliance I suppose, so there may have even been some Danish settlement. Anyway on average half of our ancestry is a mixture of Celtic (Austrian) and pre-Celtic (Dutch) settlers. I don't see why anyone from Germanic-speaking countries cares (or pretends to care) about migration age tribal identities when all Nordic people are a mish mash of several tribes (in addition to non-Germanic language-speaking tribes).

English identity is what it is, there's a reason this became the umbrella term for the Anglo-Saxon language, and as said above, even the Jutes were led by Anglish royalty, because the Jutes had been conquered by the Angles long before. The Jutes are actually pretty mysterious in the sources, and it's debatable if they were all that distinct a group at all (the language divide in England is clearly between English and Saxon dialects, not between English, Saxon and Jutish. There is little to no difference between the Sussex and Kentish dialects)

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Friday, May 25th, 2018, 01:28 AM
England and Jutland are a happy medium between Danes and Saxons. Jutland and England as regions need neither German nor Scandinavian bias for overarching genetic and cultural determinants. Now that I think about it, Jutland is just as much influenced primarily by Danes, Angles and Saxons, as England is by Danes, Jutes and Saxons. Anglo-Jute is far more middling and unitive in disposition ("via media"), than appealing to the supporters of Great Alfred and Great Knud (sod off to Great Charles). We shouldn't celebrate the divisions caused by the Danevirke and Watling Street and be preyed upon by Francophile Brussels. We're all Germanic.

Sigebrond
Friday, May 25th, 2018, 08:25 PM
There is no "bias", our ancestors originate in Germany/Austria and Scandinavia period. I never really cared that much about Jutish or Danish ancestry, and always felt a bit sorry for Northerners insecure enough to get really excited when some (dubious) DNA test tells them they have "Viking ancestry", whatever that means. I know my ancestors hail from Scandinavia regardless. I don't particularly want to be descended from Viking Age Norse settlers, because they aren't that interesting.

Germanic identity means next to nothing, because it's just a language. All that matters is broadly Nordic identity, and to a much lesser extent an understandable amount of regional pride. England is my country, English is my language, the Angles and Saxons were my ancestors (in addition to other miscellaneous Nordic peoples). That's it, I don't particularly feel the need to rename it as something else.

Uwe Jens Lornsen
Friday, May 25th, 2018, 11:36 PM
The letters 'G' and 'J' are a little bit interchangeable here.

Similar with the letters 'B' and 'V' for Slavic people.

'Jutland' might have been spelled 'Gutland' in former times.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Saturday, May 26th, 2018, 01:55 AM
There is no "bias", our ancestors originate in Germany/Austria and Scandinavia period. I never really cared that much about Jutish or Danish ancestry, and always felt a bit sorry for Northerners insecure enough to get really excited when some (dubious) DNA test tells them they have "Viking ancestry", whatever that means. I know my ancestors hail from Scandinavia regardless. I don't particularly want to be descended from Viking Age Norse settlers, because they aren't that interesting.

Germanic identity means next to nothing, because it's just a language. All that matters is broadly Nordic identity, and to a much lesser extent an understandable amount of regional pride. England is my country, English is my language, the Angles and Saxons were my ancestors (in addition to other miscellaneous Nordic peoples). That's it, I don't particularly feel the need to rename it as something else.

Englishness is its own phenomena and not tied down to either West Germanic or North Germanic. Our ancestors mostly originate in the nexus between the two and it's easy to pin down the exact region vis a vis others. It's funny to see those with an erection for France go on about the Franks supposedly being an important element in the settlement of Britain. There are tangents to the main stock of blood and soil roots, but the exception to the rule ought not obscure the norm.

Sigebrond
Monday, May 28th, 2018, 06:19 PM
English means Angles and Saxons, you can accept it or not, doesn't matter. What's worse than making too much of Anglo-Saxon heritage as a basis for your identity is going out of your way to cling to something that doesn't exist (a "Jutish Britain").

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Monday, May 28th, 2018, 06:29 PM
So, it's okay to use broad brush terms like "German" and "Scandinavian", but not embrace more precise and accurate geography to describe the region in which most of the tribal origins are sourced to? You're whinging whilst splitting hairs. Me thinketh thou doth protest too much. I use Jutish as a geographical term, due to the proximity to all the known important ethnic history of our Folk. I'm not fixated on this or that tribe and not addressing any political differences like the Heptarchy.

I'm aware that you have an avowed German bias. The problem with that is, the fact that our English ancestors were not clearly German or Scandinavian, but overlapped on the frontier. This is the case for both on the Continent and in the Isles. It's a remarkably consistent situation and no matter the power dynamic that gives Germans greater leverage, that doesn't make Scandinavians inferior or irrelevant. You're just another Fascist obsessed with der Reich.