Page 1 of 9 123456 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 84

Thread: Anglo-Saxon Origins: The Reality of the Myth

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Last Online
    Friday, December 8th, 2006 @ 02:25 AM
    Country
    European Union European Union
    Gender
    Posts
    4,101
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts

    Lightbulb Anglo-Saxon Origins: The Reality of the Myth

    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)

  2. #2
    Account Inactive Saoirse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Last Online
    Thursday, October 28th, 2004 @ 05:16 AM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    Seattle - soon to the midlands
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Occupation
    Red Robins
    Politics
    National Socialist
    Religion
    Atheist
    Posts
    636
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post

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

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Last Online
    Friday, December 8th, 2006 @ 02:25 AM
    Country
    European Union European Union
    Gender
    Posts
    4,101
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts

    Post

    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.).


    Quote Originally Posted by IrishBen
    Don't the English/Anglo-Saxon's have Germanic blood?

  4. #4
    Account Inactive Saoirse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Last Online
    Thursday, October 28th, 2004 @ 05:16 AM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    Seattle - soon to the midlands
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Occupation
    Red Robins
    Politics
    National Socialist
    Religion
    Atheist
    Posts
    636
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post

    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.

  5. #5
    Sideways to the Sun
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Milesian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Last Online
    Thursday, September 18th, 2008 @ 04:55 PM
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Location
    Aileach
    Gender
    Occupation
    Rebel
    Politics
    Anti-Neophilia
    Religion
    Traditional Catholicism
    Posts
    2,745
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by IrishBen
    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

  6. #6
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Gender
    Politics
    Putinism
    Posts
    5,212
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by volksdeutsche
    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

  7. #7
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Gender
    Politics
    Putinism
    Posts
    5,212
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by volksdeutsche
    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.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Götterschicksal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Last Online
    Monday, September 15th, 2003 @ 06:10 AM
    Location
    Österreich
    Gender
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    Europäer
    Posts
    135
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post

    English are of predominately germanic blood.



    This picture shows the settlement of the tribes.
    „Sollten Sie dabei sein, wenn ich sterbe, so werden Sie sehen, dass ich ruhig dahinscheide; denn ich glaube, dass nach dem Tode alles zu Ende ist.”
    Friedrich der Große

  9. #9
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Gender
    Politics
    Putinism
    Posts
    5,212
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts

    Post

    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

  10. #10
    . "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member



    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Last Online
    @
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    .
    Gender
    Age
    53
    Religion
    +
    Posts
    848
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11
    Thanked in
    11 Posts

    Post More A.S. Maps

    Here are some more maps per this topic.

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

Page 1 of 9 123456 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Dracula, Myth and Reality
    By Marius in forum Early Modern Age
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: Friday, November 30th, 2018, 01:17 PM
  2. Celtic and Germanic DNA: Scientists shatter Anglo-Saxon Myth
    By Tryggvi in forum Population Genetics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Monday, April 23rd, 2018, 06:39 AM
  3. English Origins: Y Chromosome Evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration
    By Glenlivet in forum Y-Chromosome (Y-DNA) Haplogroups
    Replies: 82
    Last Post: Monday, April 23rd, 2018, 06:32 AM
  4. Anglo-Saxon Cavalry – Horseplay or Reality?
    By BeornWulfWer in forum Middle Ages
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Monday, April 23rd, 2018, 05:15 AM
  5. The Origins of the Anglo-Saxon Church
    By Dagna in forum Christianity
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Sunday, April 22nd, 2018, 05:52 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
  •