Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 83

Thread: English Origins: Y Chromosome Evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration

  1. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Last Online
    Thursday, April 28th, 2011 @ 05:29 AM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    Berlin Berlin
    Location
    Berlin
    Gender
    Age
    38
    Occupation
    student
    Politics
    deutschnational
    Religion
    Lutheran
    Posts
    70
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Post Re: English origins

    My source is: W. Laur - Die Erdgöttin Nerthus: die Geschichte einer wohl auch in Angeln verehrten germanischen Gottheit, in: Jahrbuch des Angler Heimatvereins (1961)

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

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

  2. #32
    Senior Member AryanKrieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Last Online
    Tuesday, December 21st, 2004 @ 08:28 PM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Age
    58
    Politics
    National Socialist
    Religion
    Wotanist
    Posts
    756
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: English origins

    Thank you.

  3. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Last Online
    Thursday, April 28th, 2011 @ 05:29 AM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    Berlin Berlin
    Location
    Berlin
    Gender
    Age
    38
    Occupation
    student
    Politics
    deutschnational
    Religion
    Lutheran
    Posts
    70
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Post Re: English origins

    Jutland is historically Danish territory and was completely under Danish sovereignity until 1864

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

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

    The ethnic question of modern Angeln is very interwoven.

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

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

    So Angeln was not as Danish as one might think.

  4. #34
    Senior Member AryanKrieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Last Online
    Tuesday, December 21st, 2004 @ 08:28 PM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Age
    58
    Politics
    National Socialist
    Religion
    Wotanist
    Posts
    756
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: English origins

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

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

  5. #35
    Senior Member Vestmannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Last Online
    Thursday, June 16th, 2011 @ 10:39 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Oklahoma Oklahoma
    Gender
    Age
    48
    Posts
    727
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8
    Thanked in
    8 Posts

    Post Re: English origins

    Quote Originally Posted by AryanKrieger
    Oh not that little chessnut again.This has already been debated on Sormfront and I am not going to repeat the arguments here.Goldstein,in case it has escaped you is a Jew. I cannot therefore as an Aryan nationalist accept his findings on this subject. I am surprised that you cant find something published by an Aryan.
    You can call it a chestnut, but it doesn't change the fact that a great number of Englishmen are R1b (as are many Germans), meaning they share the same genetic patrimony as Portuguese, Spaniards, French, North Italians, Swiss, South and West Germans, Belgians, Dutch, etc.

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

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

    London is and always has been a muliticultural cesspit. The incoming Germanic invaders as I have already pointed out left the Romano-British cities alone,apart from sacking them.They did not occupy them.
    To the contrary, London was uninhabited for a few hundred years. The fact is that there is not a genetic split between 'rural' and 'urban' in England. The differences are largely by county (as should be expected.)

    No they were not:they were initially invited by Romano-British leaders to act as mercanaries and provide protection against raiding Saxon pirates. But they were merely the first wave. The real invasion and colonisation started afterwards.
    Yes, that is the typical 'mythology' based upon the story of Vortigern. However, historically we know that Britain was already full of Germanic tribes through the Roman army (Batavians, Frisians, etc.) The area of Oxford had been settled by Saxons as early as 410, the county of Lincolnshire had been settled by Germanics from the Low-country *before* the Roman invasion. Again, the 'invasion' was not so much like a warlike invasion, but like 'border crossings' by other tribes - much like modern Pakis in Britain. Someone brought them in, settled them amongst the other people, and they brought their families.

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

    No,again you are wrong.I use the term as shorthand.The X is actually a rune called gebo and means gift/love.
    Nice backpedaling. I spent years in the Reconstructionist movement, I know the lingo.

    I am not a "neo-pagan": I am an Odinist.
    Yes, which is 'neo-pagan' - there is no continuity in 'Odinist' religion or practices, so it is 'neo', a reconstruction.

    There are many types of war and the struggle for religious supremacy can be fought on many fronts as I am sure that you are aware.
    Yes, and 'Aryan' Christianity won out over 'Aryan' paganism/heathenism - which is European history for the past 2000 years. Those modern Europeans who have debased their Christianity (which is why Anglicans are now called 'Episco-pagans' here in my country) are 'losing' - which is why so many are converting to those Christianities which haven't committed spiritual suicide (particularly Orthodoxy and traditional Catholicism.)

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

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

    Whether you are an academic is neither here nor there.We are all anonymous here and it is unfair for you to use this as a means to apply pressure on those who disagree with your theories.
    We are not all *that* anonymous here. I do speak from my experience, and that *is* as an academic. You opened that up by trying to 'apply pressure' in an argument from credibility: using sources for your claims. Presenting sources to 'apply pressure' is an attempt to use an academic method. I would be neglectful if I didn't discuss your sources according to the tools that I have. As for 'my theories', this isn't a discussion about 'my theories', but about the accepted genetic and cultural history of the British Isles. A theory ceases to be a theory when it is proven.

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

    No they are not "legion" but are a tiny minority.River names are the only exception.
    River names are not an exception. Many village, town, and city names are as well (and physical features.) They tended to go through a process from Celtic, to a Latinized form, further Anglicized and then Modernized. Not a 'tiny minority'.

    The term "Wealas" merely means foreigner and has been used outside of British contexts.
    Yes, and you'll note the context I was speaking of was specific as to the age and place. Specificity of time and place is *very* important.

    You are splitting at genetic hairs in your attempt to deny an English identity. Even Ellis doesnt do that.
    No, I never denied an English identity. But the English identity is one of synthesis and evolution beyond their continental Germanic origins. It isn't a 'splitting of hairs' either. It is the particulars. An absolute that is contrary to the particulars is no absolute.

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

  6. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, July 28th, 2011 @ 06:35 AM
    Ethnicity
    Scottish (basically)
    Country
    Australia Australia
    Location
    Victoria
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Posts
    1,493
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts

    Post Re: English origins

    Quote Originally Posted by AryanKrieger
    The Romans arrived in Britain 400+ years before the coming of the English and left a few decades before the English boats started to arrive.
    Saxons (with their "English boats") had been raiding the coasts of Britain and Gaul from the 200's A.D. and many served in the Roman army so their contact with the Roman world had been extensive; it is therefore likely that many (or most) of the Saxon leaders who entered Britain could speak Latin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    So the idea that the English are predominantly Germanic is simply not feasible, let alone the idea that Wealas or Celtic admixture in England is negligible.
    Last edited by Rhydderch; Thursday, January 6th, 2005 at 12:19 PM.

  7. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, July 28th, 2011 @ 06:35 AM
    Ethnicity
    Scottish (basically)
    Country
    Australia Australia
    Location
    Victoria
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Posts
    1,493
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts

    Post Re: English origins

    One reason that many historians have thought that the Anglo-Saxons slaughtered the Britons is the impression given by Gildas and Bede of massacre, carnage and general destruction.

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

    Here is some of the article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  8. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, July 28th, 2011 @ 06:35 AM
    Ethnicity
    Scottish (basically)
    Country
    Australia Australia
    Location
    Victoria
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Posts
    1,493
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts

    Post Re: English origins

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

  9. #39
    Senior Member Sigel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Last Online
    Thursday, March 16th, 2006 @ 02:02 PM
    Subrace
    Ingvaeonic
    Country
    England England
    Location
    Heorot
    Gender
    Age
    48
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic
    Religion
    Lofgeornost
    Posts
    480
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post Re: English origins

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

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

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

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

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

    *Dark Age Naval Power (A reassessment of Frankish and Anglo-Saxon Seafaring Activity)
    John Haywood
    Anglo-Saxon Books ISBN 1-898281-22-X
    A people which takes no pride in the noble achievements of remote ancestors
    will never achieve anything worthy to be remembered with pride by remote descendents.

    Lord Macauley

  10. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, July 28th, 2011 @ 06:35 AM
    Ethnicity
    Scottish (basically)
    Country
    Australia Australia
    Location
    Victoria
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Posts
    1,493
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts

    Post Re: English origins

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Anglo-Saxon Origins: The Reality of the Myth
    By Glenlivet in forum Anthropogeny & Ethnogenesis
    Replies: 83
    Last Post: Monday, May 28th, 2018, 05:29 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: Saturday, May 26th, 2018, 03:17 AM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: Monday, April 23rd, 2018, 06:35 AM
  4. The Origins of the Anglo-Saxon Church
    By Dagna in forum Christianity
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Sunday, April 22nd, 2018, 05:52 AM
  5. Y-Chromosome Evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration
    By Euclides in forum Y-Chromosome (Y-DNA) Haplogroups
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Wednesday, May 26th, 2004, 02:38 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •