PDA

View Full Version : On the Britons and Anglo-Saxons



Gwydion
08-13-2018, 01:47 AM
So what is the latest, using genetic data and other disciplines, on the Anglicization of England and the Celtic Britons? It seems obvious based on various P312 subclades, not to mention the possibility of some U106 being present in Britain prior to the Anglo-Saxons, that the Celtic Britons didn't come to an abrupt end. What though was the process by which Anglicization happened so rapidly and left so few Celtic loanwords, place names, material culture, etc. in England?

Some specific questions I have perhaps some might be able to assist with:

1. Is it really the case that there was some strict apartheid and that the Celtic Britons were regulated to an underclass, or were those who were assimilated to be founder in the higher ranks? It seems possible that certain Saxon royal houses, such as that of Wessex, may have actually been Anglicized Celtic Britons:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerdic_of_Wessex#Origins

So I wonder, is it possible some of the Celtic Britons essentially joined up with the Anglo-Saxons and were thereby in positions of higher rank rather than the assumed stereotype of Celtic peasants? I've heard this theory about Britons willingly joining the Saxons, but it seems odd that one would willingly give up ones language and culture in favor of an invaders.


2. Was there any difference between Northern England and Southern England in terms of survival of Celtic Britons or the ways in which they were integrated into English society? It seems a common position that Southeast England is the most English-English, whereas perhaps Northumbria may have been more Celtic in nature? I believe I read that Lothian/Bernicia/Northumberland in particular may have been less firmly Anglian?

In short please share anything on Anglicization, Celtic survivals, the Celtic component of the English, etc.

JonikW
08-13-2018, 07:23 AM
That's a big topic! I think the consensus is that the situation will have varied in different parts of the country. For example, in the Peak District the Angles seem to have had little or no hold in parts. That's because their graves avoid the Hope valley and places where Eccles names (church sites) survived into sub-Roman times and beyond. Dykes in the area have also been interpreted as dividing the two communities, as in some other parts of England.

sktibo
08-13-2018, 10:19 AM
Genetically the insular celtic paper is the best resource for this IMO. It includes a comparison of modern clusters to ancient iron age Britons and Anglo Saxons as well. That should answer your questions on the autosomal front.

http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1007152

I should add, that IIRC one of the ancient Anglo-Saxon samples we have is autosomally like a native Briton, but his burial indicated high status in Anglo Saxon society - so it seems that some of the Anglo Saxons were ethnic Britons, even at the higher levels. The two groups must have mixed a good amount.

JMcB
08-13-2018, 01:38 PM
Genetically the insular celtic paper is the best resource for this IMO. It includes a comparison of modern clusters to ancient iron age Britons and Anglo Saxons as well. That should answer your questions on the autosomal front.

http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1007152

I should add, that IIRC one of the ancient Anglo-Saxon samples we have is autosomally like a native Briton, but his burial indicated high status in Anglo Saxon society - so it seems that some of the Anglo Saxons were ethnic Britons, even at the higher levels. The two groups must have mixed a good amount.

If I remember correctly - and normally I would check first but I have to go to the dentist - the high status individual was a she, not a he. There was another sample that appeared Anglo Saxon but she looked to be a lower status person and there was another who appeared to be an intermediary between the two. The only male sample that I know of was I-M253, who I believe was the sample NO3423, found in the same paper as the Roman Gladiators.


Edit:

Our analysis of early and middle Anglo-Saxon samples from East England adds significantly to our picture of the Anglo-Saxon period in Britain. In the cemetery at Oakington we see evidence even in the early Anglo-Saxon period for a genetically mixed but culturally Anglo-Saxon community24,25, in contrast to claims for strong segregation between newcomers and indigenous peoples7. The genomes of two sequenced individuals (O1 and O2) are consistent with them being of recent immigrant origin, from a source population close to modern Dutch, one was genetically similar to native Iron Age samples (O4), and the fourth was consistent with being an admixed individual (O3), indicating interbreeding. Despite this, their graves were conspicuously similar, with all four individuals buried in flexed position, and with similar grave furnishing. Interestingly the wealthiest grave, with a large cruciform brooch, belonged to the individual of native British ancestry (O4), and the individual without grave goods was one of the two genetically ‘foreign’ ones (O2), an observation consistent with isotope analysis at West Heslerton which suggests that new immigrants were frequently poorer26,27

[…]


Given the mixing apparent ∼500 CE, and that the modern population is not more than 40% of Anglo-Saxon ancestry, it is perhaps surprising that the middle Anglo-Saxon individuals from the more dispersed field cemetery in Hinxton look more genetically consistent with unmixed immigrant ancestry. One possibility is that this reflects continued immigration until at least the Middle Saxon period. The unmixed Hinxton group, versus the mixing of the Oakington population, shows that early medieval migration took a variety of forms and that these migrants integrated with the incumbent population in different ways.

Iron Age and Anglo-Saxon genomes from East England reveal British migration history

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms10408


Second Edit:

Genomic signals of migration and continuity
in Britain before the Anglo-Saxons

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4735653/pdf/ncomms10326.pdf

The purported migrations that have formed the peoples of Britain have been the focus of generations of scholarly controversy. However, this has not benefited from direct analyses of ancient genomes. Here we report nine ancient genomes (B1 �� ) of individuals from northern Britain: seven from a Roman era York cemetery, bookended by earlier Iron-Age and later Anglo-Saxon burials. Six of the Roman genomes show affinity with modern British Celtic populations, particularly Welsh, but significantly diverge from populations from Yorkshire and other eastern English samples. They also show similarity with the earlier Iron-Age genome, suggesting population continuity, but differ from the later Anglo-Saxon genome. This pattern concords with profound impact of migrations in the Anglo-Saxon period. Strikingly, one Roman skeleton shows a clear signal of exogenous origin, with affinities pointing towards the Middle East, confirming the cosmopolitan character of the Empire, even at its northernmost fringes.

[…]

Using the ratio between sequencing reads aligned to the X and Y chromo- somes16, it was possible to assign biological sex to each individual, confirming skeletal assessments: the Anglo-Saxon and each Roman-period sample were male, whereas the Iron-Age sample was female .... the majority (6/7) of Driffield Terrace samples belong to sub-lineages of R1b-L52/L11, which reaches its highest frequencies (470%) in Western European countries18. Sample 3DRIF-26, on the other hand, despite belonging to the same burial context, presented a lineage consistent with haplogroup J2-L228, which has a modern distribution centred on the Middle East, but which is also present in the Caucasus region, the Balkans and Italy19. The Anglo-Saxon (NO3423) sample was assigned to haplogroup I1-S107, which is widespread in Nordic countries20.

Gwydion
08-13-2018, 01:59 PM
Thanks for the replies.

I've seen some odd theories out there to explain the dearth of Celtic loanwords, place names, material culture, etc. among the Anglo-Saxons, such as much of England already being Germanic prior to the proper Anglo-Saxon migrations. I don't think this is true, but again it does seem odd to me that many Britons would willingly allow themselves to be absorbed into a foreign culture at the cost of abandoning their own language, traditions, etc.

Gwydion
08-13-2018, 02:54 PM
This bit from Higham's Britons in Anglo-Saxon England doesn't take genetics into consideration, but nonetheless an interesting observation:

The Anglo-Saxon immigration had, therefore, long been viewed as exceptional by the standards of fifth-century Europe, in terms both of the sheer numbers involved and its inclusion of a mass of peasantry.This picture of mass migration squeezing out the Britons became less credible, however, as new answers began to emerge to the question: How many Britons were there? From the 1960s onwards, aerial photography and archaeological survey revealed hitherto unsuspected numbers of new sites and population estimates for Roman Britain, which centred on a mere million or so in the 1930s, climbed to two to four million for the fourth century, with some estimates significantly higher. Britain was beginning to look very full of people indeed in the later Roman period: indeed, such figures approximate to the sixteenth century, which was a period of marked population pressure. For the Britons to have been overwhelmed numerically by continental immigrants who had ferried themselves across the Channel in small boats was looking ever less plausible.

Traditional views of Germanic immigration, of course, face comparable difficulties of scale. Bede informs us that three tribes were involved, among which the Angles derived from the area known in his day as Angulus, which can be identified with some confidence as the narrow isthmus of the Danish peninsula, around Schleswig and Flensburg. Thence Bede claimed that the East Angles, Middle Angles, Mercians and Northumbrians, plus other tribes which he failed to name, had migrated. A homeland approximating in scale to East Anglia and beset by numerous wetlands was therefore supposed to have populated two thirds of England, throwing up serious challenges to Bede’s credibility.

Considering the above there seems to be even more of a mystery regarding the rapid and complete Anglicization of what is now England.

spruithean
08-13-2018, 04:27 PM
Thanks for the replies.

I've seen some odd theories out there to explain the dearth of Celtic loanwords, place names, material culture, etc. among the Anglo-Saxons, such as much of England already being Germanic prior to the proper Anglo-Saxon migrations. I don't think this is true, but again it does seem odd to me that many Britons would willingly allow themselves to be absorbed into a foreign culture at the cost of abandoning their own language, traditions, etc.

I agree with you on the Germanic presence prior to Anglo-Saxon immigration being a strange theory. While it accounts for the lack of Celtic loanwords and other things of that nature it definitely is not something mentioned in any historical texts. However one thing that should be pointed out is many of the laeti and foederati who were residing in Britain were of a Germanic and Gallic origin. A fair number of Germanic cohorts were station at Hadrian's Wall in the nearby forts. It isn't out of the question for these soldiers to have married British women, or settled on the island. Arbogast, a general in the Roman army of Frankish origin was a "native of Galatia Minor" he was born in Anatolia, obviously there had to be some population of Franks settled in that part of the empire.

http://roman-britain.co.uk/military/british_irregulars.htm, this website has a pretty decent collection of the various units in Roman Britain at the time.

Here's where I think our modern thinking prevents us from looking at this time period with a different lens. We're looking at a Roman Britain, or a sub-Roman Britain, where people saw themselves to at least some (albeit dwindling) degree as part of a greater Roman identity (on the fringes of the empire). They may have unknowingly over time adopted Germanic pottery types, dwelling construction and other cultural aspects by contact, early intermingling, or as a way to advance and communicate with the new Germanic arrivals on the island. We know some individuals in the Anglo-Saxon graves were Britons in "disguise" and some at a genetic level appeared to be of mixed origins. - here is an article about ethno-identity in early Britain http://www.heroicage.org/issues/4/Matthews.html


I want to mention this interview with Graeme Young about the burials at Bamburgh, they found an individual (or a few I can't remember) who seems to have grown up in Ulster or Western Scotland, in Bamburgh, part of Bernicia at the time. - http://www.heroicage.org/issues/4/Bamburgh.html


This bit from Higham's Britons in Anglo-Saxon England doesn't take genetics into consideration, but nonetheless an interesting observation:

The Anglo-Saxon immigration had, therefore, long been viewed as exceptional by the standards of fifth-century Europe, in terms both of the sheer numbers involved and its inclusion of a mass of peasantry.This picture of mass migration squeezing out the Britons became less credible, however, as new answers began to emerge to the question: How many Britons were there? From the 1960s onwards, aerial photography and archaeological survey revealed hitherto unsuspected numbers of new sites and population estimates for Roman Britain, which centred on a mere million or so in the 1930s, climbed to two to four million for the fourth century, with some estimates significantly higher. Britain was beginning to look very full of people indeed in the later Roman period: indeed, such figures approximate to the sixteenth century, which was a period of marked population pressure. For the Britons to have been overwhelmed numerically by continental immigrants who had ferried themselves across the Channel in small boats was looking ever less plausible.

Traditional views of Germanic immigration, of course, face comparable difficulties of scale. Bede informs us that three tribes were involved, among which the Angles derived from the area known in his day as Angulus, which can be identified with some confidence as the narrow isthmus of the Danish peninsula, around Schleswig and Flensburg. Thence Bede claimed that the East Angles, Middle Angles, Mercians and Northumbrians, plus other tribes which he failed to name, had migrated. A homeland approximating in scale to East Anglia and beset by numerous wetlands was therefore supposed to have populated two thirds of England, throwing up serious challenges to Bede’s credibility.

Considering the above there seems to be even more of a mystery regarding the rapid and complete Anglicization of what is now England.

That is actually one of the main things that I've found so odd, Bede's description paints this image of such a small area of land supporting such large tribes, it doesn't make sense. Bede also seemed to be glorifying his ancestors, making them out to be more than they were.

Heinrich Härke in "Anglo-Saxon Immigration and Ethnogenesis" had this interesting quote:


"It is now widely accepted that the Anglo-Saxons were not just transplanted Germanic invaders and settlers from the Continent, but the outcome of insular interactions and changes. But we are still lacking explicit models that suggest how this ethnogenetic process might have worked in concrete terms"

It seems the growing consensus is that the Anglo-Saxons were a mixture of invaders, migrants and acculturated Britons. What the ratios were is not agreed upon, but I think a mixture like that could allow for such rapid Anglicisation and advancement in the hierarchy of the day. One example I like of some level of Anglo-Brittonic syncretism is what is seen in Northumbria, in Bernicia we see Northumbrian occupation of Brittonic hillforts (Dunbar, etc), an adoption of the Celtic Church and a larger presence of Brittonic graves in a traditionally Anglian kingdom.

I should also mention the Magonsćte who had a leader named "Merewalh" which is allegedly a Celtic name which means "Famous Foreigner". As you mentioned a fair number of Anglo-Saxon kings had Celtic names, however so did Continental Germanic chiefs quite early on, a few examples are Maroboduus of the Marcomanni, Verritus and Malorix of the Frisii, etc.

Sorry if this is all over the place, writing this on a cellphone is harder than I expected!

JonikW
08-13-2018, 04:57 PM
I think you make some great points spruithean. I wonder how many descendants of foederati and laeti are with us today. They would be indistinguishable from the slightly later Anglo-Saxons when it comes to DNA. Distinguishing by TMRCA match estimates would be next to impossible too. According to Dio, Marcomanni were settled in Britain by Marcus Aurelius; Zosimus says Burgundians were settled under the leader Igillus in the third century; and Ammianus Marcellinus says Alamanni were settled under Fraomar in the fourth.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
08-13-2018, 05:18 PM
Thanks for the replies.

I've seen some odd theories out there to explain the dearth of Celtic loanwords, place names, material culture, etc. among the Anglo-Saxons, such as much of England already being Germanic prior to the proper Anglo-Saxon migrations. I don't think this is true, but again it does seem odd to me that many Britons would willingly allow themselves to be absorbed into a foreign culture at the cost of abandoning their own language, traditions, etc.

This is an interesting article on celtic place names in England. The reference (and map) to names of rivers seems to show, as you would expect the greatest "Anglo Saxon" language influence in the East.
There are of course parts of England where celtic place names are common and even use of the language carried on until very recent times, or still continues, like the English side of the Welsh border and Cornwall for example.
I think myself the adoption of Anglo Saxon language rather than celtic forms was similar to the adoption of English in places like Wales during the 19th Century. It became the language of the Law and commerce education and the influential, so if you wanted to get on in life, it paid to speak the most "beneficial" language. Of course this was over hundreds of years. As we know, later on the English language spread over much of the World for much the same reasons. It don't think it means that all aspects of "celtic" culture and lifestyle were wiped out in England though, although of course these things diminish over time.

http://www.yorkshiredialect.com/celtpn.htm

Finn
08-13-2018, 06:57 PM
Intersting topic. In general sense I guess that apartheid is a wrong word that suggest a kind of racialism that at that time simply didn't exist. What did exist among the germanic people was a strict kind of class distinction the jarls (elite/nobiles), the karl (middle class, free farmers) and the thralls (slaves unfree). Marriages were arranged to keep up the status of the 'own class'. I guess this must have prevented the intermingle with the Celts in the early years. And especially the elite must have been interconnected across the North Sea. Through the ages this watered....

Besides that there is another intriguing think because there was also a diversity of Germanic tribes....The initial Saxons (mid fifth century) originated in NW Germany (Lower Saxony) they settled in the diverse regions of England and the Netherlands were followed by some elite migration from Southern Scandinavia ('Jutes') in the sixth century to Friesland (central place Wijnaldum) also to the mound of the Weser (central place Sievern) and to Kent. They had a distinctive style and had a tremendous influence on the other Germanic tribes as well (Salin Style II). They spread also a new Odin religion.

Still puzzling about their genetic effect. I suppose my father's K36 report of Lukasz gives a indication of this Saxon/Southern Scandinavian admixture......

https://www.mupload.nl/img/k147zh.png

But may be too far fetched....

rms2
08-13-2018, 07:16 PM
. . . not to mention the possibility of some U106 being present in Britain prior to the Anglo-Saxons . . .

This is a topic guaranteed to make me unpopular, as it has done in the past.

Obviously some U106 was brought to Britain prior to the advent of the Anglo-Saxons by the Romans (gladiators, foederati, etc.), but you seem to be implying something more than that.

So, what makes you think there was any U106 among the Celtic Britons?

Gwydion
08-13-2018, 07:26 PM
This is a topic guaranteed to make me unpopular, as it has done in the past.

Obviously some U106 was brought to Britain prior to the advent of the Anglo-Saxons by the Romans (gladiators, foederati, etc.), but you seem to be implying something more than that.

So, what makes you think there was any U106 among the Celtic Britons?

I am not advocating for a large amount of U106, I do believe most of it is attributable to Anglo-Saxons, but also Danes/Norse, possibly smaller amounts from the Normans, later immigration, etc.

As there was a Germanic presence in Britain since the Romans at least it seems possible that some of these early Germanics may have left U106 descendants who subsequently became part of the Celtic British population prior to the shift brought about by the Anglo-Saxons.

I suppose my point is less that there was U106 in Britain prior to the Anglo-Saxons so much as it not all need be attributed to the Anglo-Saxons. Perhaps pre-Danelaw and other later migrations there may have been less U106 than today?

rms2
08-13-2018, 07:31 PM
I am not advocating for a large amount of U106, I do believe most of it is attributable to Anglo-Saxons, but also Danes/Norse, possibly smaller amounts from the Normans, later immigration, etc.

As there was a Germanic presence in Britain since the Romans at least it seems possible that some of these early Germanics may have left U106 descendants who subsequently became part of the Celtic British population prior to the shift brought about by the Anglo-Saxons.

I suppose my point is less that there was U106 in Britain prior to the Anglo-Saxons so much as it not all need be attributed to the Anglo-Saxons. Perhaps pre-Danelaw and other later migrations there may have been less U106 than today?

Okay. I really don't give a rat's arse, especially given all the grief I have caught over the years arguing that I don't think there was much if any U106 in Britain prior to the Anglo-Saxons.

Just thought I would ask, since I don't see any evidence of much of a U106 presence in Britain prior to the Anglo-Saxons.

But anything is possible, I guess.

Gwydion
08-13-2018, 07:43 PM
Intersting topic. In general sense I guess that apartheid is a wrong word that suggest a kind of racialism that at that time simply didn't exist. What did exist among the germanic people was a strict kind of class distinction the jarls (elite/nobiles), the karl (middle class, free farmers) and the thralls (slaves unfree). Marriages were arranged to keep up the status of the 'own class'. I guess this must have prevented the intermingle with the Celts in the early years. And especially the elite must have been interconnected across the North Sea. Through the ages this watered....

Besides that there is another intriguing think because there was also a diversity of Germanic tribes....The initial Saxons (mid fifth century) originated in NW Germany (Lower Saxony) that settled in the diverse regions of England and the Netherlands were followed by some elite migration from Southern Scandinavia ('Jutes') in the sixth century to Friesland (central place Wijnaldum) also to the mound of the Weser (central place Sievern) and to Kent. They had a distinctive style and had a tremendous influence on the other Germanic tribes as well (Salin Style II). They spread also a new Odin religion.

Still puzzling about their genetic effect. I suppose my father's K36 report of Lukasz gives a indication of this Saxon/Southern Scandinavian admixture......

https://www.mupload.nl/img/k147zh.png

But may be too far fetched....

I used "apartheid" mainly because that's a popular term I've head thrown around when talking about the idea that the Anglo-Saxons simply outbred the Britons via a system that kept the latter as an underclass. What has been used as evidence for this before are certain laws regarding the Britons, giving them a lower wergeld than a Saxon, etc.

That said I imagine it may have been the highest elite or royal lines of Anglo-Saxons which would have had great British admixture since they often were intermarrying with British princes for political purposes, such as Oswiu of Northumbria's marriage to Riemmelth of Rheged, etc.

GoldenHind
08-13-2018, 07:56 PM
So what is the latest, using genetic data and other disciplines, on the Anglicization of England and the Celtic Britons? It seems obvious based on various P312 subclades, not to mention the possibility of some U106 being present in Britain prior to the Anglo-Saxons, that the Celtic Britons didn't come to an abrupt end. What though was the process by which Anglicization happened so rapidly and left so few Celtic loanwords, place names, material culture, etc. in England?



While the question may eventually be at least partly solved by genetics, I have no doubt the answer won't be found by simply counting the amount of P312 in Britain. There are three P312 subclades that at the very least are predominantly Germanic. While when and how this occurred may be an open question, it appears to have been the case at least by the time of the Migration Age. Even those P312 subclades which appear to have been primarily Celtic also have a substantial presence in Germanic areas, including the traditional homelands of the Anglo-Saxons.

Noted historian of the Anglo-Saxons James Campbell has written, that Bede notwithstanding, "It is certain that men came to Britain from many parts of the Germanic world, from Norway to south Germany." This opinion appears to be based largely on archaeological evidence.

I think it is also clear that the "Anglo-Saxons" predominantly settled in the eastern parts of England, and that they were fewer in number in the west, where in in at least some areas the Britons may have remained predominant. Campbell notes the area between the upper Thames and the Wash was thickly settled with Anglo-Saxons by the 6th century, and that Britons may not have survived there in any significant numbers. He also says the kingdom of Bernicia probably remained largely British.

A study of the origin of place names divided England into four zones. In two of these, river names of Celtic origin are rare, and even the names of streams are exclusively of Germanic origin, while in the third zone Celtic names are common. In the fourth zone, consisting of Wales, Cornwall the southwest corner of Herefordshire, British names predominate and show little sign of English influence.

EDIT: I corrected my rather hurriedly done original post.

etrusco
08-13-2018, 08:08 PM
So what is the latest, using genetic data and other disciplines, on the Anglicization of England and the Celtic Britons? It seems obvious based on various P312 subclades, not to mention the possibility of some U106 being present in Britain prior to the Anglo-Saxons, that the Celtic Britons didn't come to an abrupt end. What though was the process by which Anglicization happened so rapidly and left so few Celtic loanwords, place names, material culture, etc. in England?

Some specific questions I have perhaps some might be able to assist with:

1. Is it really the case that there was some strict apartheid and that the Celtic Britons were regulated to an underclass, or were those who were assimilated to be founder in the higher ranks? It seems possible that certain Saxon royal houses, such as that of Wessex, may have actually been Anglicized Celtic Britons:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerdic_of_Wessex#Origins

So I wonder, is it possible some of the Celtic Britons essentially joined up with the Anglo-Saxons and were thereby in positions of higher rank rather than the assumed stereotype of Celtic peasants? I've heard this theory about Britons willingly joining the Saxons, but it seems odd that one would willingly give up ones language and culture in favor of an invaders.


2. Was there any difference between Northern England and Southern England in terms of survival of Celtic Britons or the ways in which they were integrated into English society? It seems a common position that Southeast England is the most English-English, whereas perhaps Northumbria may have been more Celtic in nature? I believe I read that Lothian/Bernicia/Northumberland in particular may have been less firmly Anglian?

In short please share anything on Anglicization, Celtic survivals, the Celtic component of the English, etc.


I think that in order to deal with the issue of the anglo-saxon invasion of britain we need to remember that

1) In the last centuries BC britain was occupied ( since when we do not know with certainty) by a group of belgian tribes that define themselves as germans so we have a likely presence in the east of the country of a pretty much sizable germanic speaking population

2) during roman times we have in britain a large inflow of soldiers and troops of germanic origin ( especially frisians that spoke a language quite close to AS). So during roman occupation the "germanification" of britannia was reinforced.

When the legions left the country I think many of those "germanic" were left to their own devices and at this point the arrival of more germanic tribes like AS Jutes tilted the balance against the celtic speaking part of the isles. I think back then it was not a matter of "race": germans against celts. It was just a matter of taking the land/defending the land. My personal opinion is that what really gave the AS the hedge was that they embraced the new faith christianity more eagerly and more willingly so they looked more trustworthy at the eyes of the ecclesiastical authority ( correct me if I'm wrong but Bede links the demise of the britons as a punishment by God).

I think what we had after the conversion is that celtic speaking population switched to germanic and by doing so they created some of the most peculiar features of the english language as the do and ing form which are clearly of celtic origin.

etrusco
08-13-2018, 08:18 PM
Some interesting papers on the linguistic situation of post-roman britain


http://www.academia.edu/6599939/Celtic_influence_on_Old_English_and_West_Germanic
http://www.academia.edu/6656068/Why_is_West-Saxon_English_different_from_Old_Saxonhttps:

//www.academia.edu/13835386/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_British_Latin_Evidence_from_E nglish_and_Brittonichttps://www.academia.edu/13835386/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_British_Latin_Evidence_from_E nglish_and_Brittonic

rms2
08-13-2018, 08:33 PM
I think that in order to deal with the issue of the anglo-saxon invasion of britain we need to remember that

1) In the last centuries BC britain was occupied ( since when we do not know with certainty) by a group of belgian tribes that define themselves as germans so we have a likely presence in the east of the country of a pretty much sizable germanic speaking population

The Belgae were Celtic, not Germanic. The names of their leaders were Celtic, and the names of the tribes were Celtic.

The confusion about them stems from Caesar's references to them in his Gallic Wars as having come from east of the Rhine and therefore, in his mind, being of German origin.



2) during roman times we have in britain a large inflow of soldiers and troops of germanic origin ( especially frisians that spoke a language quite close to AS). So during roman occupation the "germanification" of britannia was reinforced.

When the legions left the country I think many of those "germanic" were left to their own devices and at this point the arrival of more germanic tribes like AS Jutes tilted the balance against the celtic speaking part of the isles. I think back then it was not a matter of "race": germans against celts. It was just a matter of taking the land/defending the land. My personal opinion is that what really gave the AS the hedge was that they embraced the new faith christianity more eagerly and more willingly so they looked more trustworthy at the eyes of the ecclesiastical authority ( correct me if I'm wrong but Bede links the demise of the britons as a punishment by God).

I think what we had after the conversion is that celtic speaking population switched to germanic and by doing so they created some of the most peculiar features of the english language as the do and ing form which are clearly of celtic origin.

I agree with some that, but it took the Anglo-Saxons awhile to embrace Christianity. They were fiercely pagan at first. That is reflected in the names of the days of the week in English, most of them still derived from old Germanic gods and at least one goddess.

I don't think there is much about English that reflects any Celtic influence.

etrusco
08-13-2018, 08:50 PM
The Belgae were Celtic, not Germanic. The names of their leaders were Celtic, and the names of the tribes were Celtic.

The confusion about them stems from Caesar's references to them in his Gallic Wars as having come from east of the Rhine and therefore, in his mind, being of German origin.



I agree with some that, but it took the Anglo-Saxons awhile to embrace Christianity. They were fiercely pagan at first. That is reflected in the names of the days of the week in English, most of them still derived from old Germanic gods and at least one goddess.

I don't think there is much about English that reflects any Celtic influence.

The name of the tribes and the kings is not important since the celts had a deep influence on the germanic world...look for example the cimbri and teutoni that came from northern danemark, clearly germanic tribes with names of tribes and leaders of celtic origin.
I think what is important is this quote from the De Bello gallico:

Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres, quarum unam incolunt Belgae, aliam Aquitani, tertiam qui ipsorum lingua Celtae, nostra Galli appellantur. Hi omnes lingua, institutis, legibus inter se differunt.
( All Gaul is divided into three parts, one of which the Belgae inhabit, the Aquitani another, those who in their own language are called Celts, in ours Gauls, the third. All these differ from each other in language, customs and laws." )


Now the romans were well aware of what a celtic language was because they fought and traded with the celtic world since 400 years. we know that the aquitani spoke a basque related language, the celts well they spoke celtic ...which was the third different language family mentioned in the de bello gallico if not germanic?

Finn
08-13-2018, 08:54 PM
I think that in order to deal with the issue of the anglo-saxon invasion of britain we need to remember that

1) In the last centuries BC britain was occupied ( since when we do not know with certainty) by a group of belgian tribes that define themselves as germans so we have a likely presence in the east of the country of a pretty much sizable germanic speaking population

2) during roman times we have in britain a large inflow of soldiers and troops of germanic origin ( especially frisians that spoke a language quite close to AS). So during roman occupation the "germanification" of britannia was reinforced.

When the legions left the country I think many of those "germanic" were left to their own devices and at this point the arrival of more germanic tribes like AS Jutes tilted the balance against the celtic speaking part of the isles. I think back then it was not a matter of "race": germans against celts. It was just a matter of taking the land/defending the land. My personal opinion is that what really gave the AS the hedge was that they embraced the new faith christianity more eagerly and more willingly so they looked more trustworthy at the eyes of the ecclesiastical authority ( correct me if I'm wrong but Bede links the demise of the britons as a punishment by God).

I think what we had after the conversion is that celtic speaking population switched to germanic and by doing so they created some of the most peculiar features of the english language as the do and ing form which are clearly of celtic origin.


1. The Belgae were not germanic not in Caesarian sense (left of the Rhine is Celtic, right of the Rhine is Germanic) and not in genetic sense.
2. The Frisii of the (pre) Roman time were not the Frisians of the migration time. The new Frisians were a conglomerate of Saxons and Scandinavians. The Germanization of the Frisians was definitely a product of the migration time not before. Just as in England was the case.

Nibelung
08-13-2018, 08:57 PM
It's usually the rule that where Germanic replaced Celtic, Continental or Insular, there is little to no direct influence from the former. Total paradigm shift, if you will. However, in Britain's case, the Celtic spoken must be considered in a Continental context due to the extremely direct Roman presence for a few centuries. The situation for Gaelic/Goidelic was and is different. It looks to me like some people might be attempting an assault on Gaeldom using post-Roman England-Wales as a proxy.

rms2
08-13-2018, 08:59 PM
The name of the tribes and the kings is not important since the celts had a deep influence on the germanic world...look for example the cimbri and teutoni that came from northern danemark, clearly germanic tribes with names of tribes and leaders of celtic origin.
I think what is important is this quote from the De Bello gallico:

Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres, quarum unam incolunt Belgae, aliam Aquitani, tertiam qui ipsorum lingua Celtae, nostra Galli appellantur. Hi omnes lingua, institutis, legibus inter se differunt.
( All Gaul is divided into three parts, one of which the Belgae inhabit, the Aquitani another, those who in their own language are called Celts, in ours Gauls, the third. All these differ from each other in language, customs and laws." )


Now the romans were well aware of what a celtic language was because they fought and traded with the celtic world since 400 years. we know that the aquitani spoke a basque related language, the celts well they spoke celtic ...which was the third different language family mentioned in the de bello gallico if not germanic?

You make Caesar more of a linguist than he was. The tribal leaders of the Belgae had Celtic names, and the names of the tribes were Celtic, yet you seem to think they spoke some form of Germanic. Yeah, that makes sense.

It's pretty obvious that Caesar attributed a Germanic origin to the Belgae not because he knew they spoke a Germanic language but because they had recently migrated from east of the Rhine. This is a topic that has been done to death, by the way.

The origin of the Cimbri and Teutoni is a separate issue, also much debated.

Interestingly, the Hinxton Celts were recovered from the territory of the Belgic Catuvellauni and lived and died there at the time the Catuvellauni lived there, and they were R1b-L21.

Finn
08-13-2018, 09:05 PM
I think that in order to deal with the issue of the anglo-saxon invasion of britain we need to remember that

1) In the last centuries BC britain was occupied ( since when we do not know with certainty) by a group of belgian tribes that define themselves as germans so we have a likely presence in the east of the country of a pretty much sizable germanic speaking population

2) during roman times we have in britain a large inflow of soldiers and troops of germanic origin ( especially frisians that spoke a language quite close to AS). So during roman occupation the "germanification" of britannia was reinforced.

When the legions left the country I think many of those "germanic" were left to their own devices and at this point the arrival of more germanic tribes like AS Jutes tilted the balance against the celtic speaking part of the isles. I think back then it was not a matter of "race": germans against celts. It was just a matter of taking the land/defending the land. My personal opinion is that what really gave the AS the hedge was that they embraced the new faith christianity more eagerly and more willingly so they looked more trustworthy at the eyes of the ecclesiastical authority ( correct me if I'm wrong but Bede links the demise of the britons as a punishment by God).

I think what we had after the conversion is that celtic speaking population switched to germanic and by doing so they created some of the most peculiar features of the english language as the do and ing form which are clearly of celtic origin.


But I must admit that the situation in the Low Lands is in some sense very confusing in the (pre)Roman time, the Celtic civilization had indeed a severe effect on the Germanic one even on the Jastorf civilization. There is still debate about their language....not only of the Belgae but also of the Frisii.

rms2
08-13-2018, 09:07 PM
While the question may eventually be at least partly solved by genetics, I have no doubt the answer won't be found by simply counting the amount of P312 in Britain. There are three P312 subclades that at the very least are predominantly Germanic . . .

I agree with that. DF19, DF99 and L238 appear to be primarily Germanic.

We know L21 got to Britain and Ireland with the Kurgan Bell Beaker people and thus far hasn't turned up in Migration Period Germans (unlike DF99, which has turned up in the Lombards, a Germanic tribe ultimately of Scandinavian origin).

L21 also turned up in the Hinxton Celts, so it was pretty obviously well represented among the ancient Britons. Those other three P312 clades I mentioned above, along with U106 and I-M253, have a much more southeastern center of gravity in Britain than does L21, which increases in frequency as one moves west and north.

etrusco
08-13-2018, 09:15 PM
1. The Belgae were not germanic not in Caesarian sense (left of the Rhine is Celtic, right of the Rhine is Germanic) and not in genetic sense.
2. The Frisii of the (pre) Roman time were not the Frisians of the migration time. The new Frisians were a conglomerate of Saxons and Scandinavians. The Germanization of the Frisians was definitely a product of the migration time not before. Just as in England was the case.

That the "new frisians" were in realty made up of a large number of migrating angles and saxons doesn't change a bit the fact that the "old frisians" were a germanic speaking population. That does not change that these frisians were a large proportion of germanic troops in the roman legions in britain.
could you link me some papers that talks about the germanization of the frisians since I've never heard of this theory.

Finn
08-13-2018, 09:23 PM
That the "new frisians" were in realty made up of a large number of migrating angles and saxons doesn't change a bit the fact that the "old frisians" were a germanic speaking population. That does not change that these frisians were a large proportion of germanic troops in the roman legions in britain.
could you link me some papers that talks about the germanization of the frisians since I've never heard of this theory.

No that's not a fact, it is still in dispute....some say Germanic, some a in between till even a kind of Celtic...
Yep the old Frisii were there, there is some prove along the Hadrian wall.
This is one along the many:
https://www.academia.edu/35420221/Odin_in_Friesland._Scandinavian_influences_in_the_ southern_North_Sea_area_during_the_Migration_and_E arly_Merovingian_periods

Camulogčne Rix
08-13-2018, 09:29 PM
You make Caesar more of a linguist than he was. The tribal leaders of the Belgae had Celtic names, and the names of the tribes were Celtic, yet you seem to think they spoke some form of Germanic. Yeah, that makes sense.

It's pretty obvious that Caesar attributed a Germanic origin to the Belgae not because he knew they spoke a Germanic language but because they had recently migrated from east of the Rhine. This is a topic that has been done to death, by the way.


Ethnonyms of the Belgae tribes are key to know whether they were rather 'Celtic' or 'Germanic':

Gallic: Remi, Bellovaci, Morini, Atrebates...
Germanic:Nervii, Aduatuci, Condruses, Menapi…

Basically Celtae and Belgae were more alike than Aquitani

msmarjoribanks
08-13-2018, 09:55 PM
I used "apartheid" mainly because that's a popular term I've head thrown around when talking about the idea that the Anglo-Saxons simply outbred the Britons via a system that kept the latter as an underclass. What has been used as evidence for this before are certain laws regarding the Britons, giving them a lower wergeld than a Saxon, etc.

That said I imagine it may have been the highest elite or royal lines of Anglo-Saxons which would have had great British admixture since they often were intermarrying with British princes for political purposes, such as Oswiu of Northumbria's marriage to Riemmelth of Rheged, etc.

The "apartheid" thing is based on this study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1635457/

Here is one response to it: http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/275/1650/2423

Popular article about it here: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13752-germanic-invaders-may-not-have-ruled-by-apartheid/

etrusco
08-13-2018, 11:56 PM
rms2

"I agree with some that, but it took the Anglo-Saxons awhile to embrace Christianity. They were fiercely pagan at first. That is reflected in the names of the days of the week in English, most of them still derived from old Germanic gods and at least one goddess."

This will probably turn out to be the dumbest post of the year. Are you aware that even the romance languages maintain the old pagan words for the day of the week? That means that this is not a sign of an unwillingness to convert.

etrusco
08-13-2018, 11:58 PM
You make Caesar more of a linguist than he was. The tribal leaders of the Belgae had Celtic names, and the names of the tribes were Celtic, yet you seem to think they spoke some form of Germanic. Yeah, that makes sense.

It's pretty obvious that Caesar attributed a Germanic origin to the Belgae not because he knew they spoke a Germanic language but because they had recently migrated from east of the Rhine. This is a topic that has been done to death, by the way.

The origin of the Cimbri and Teutoni is a separate issue, also much debated.

Interestingly, the Hinxton Celts were recovered from the territory of the Belgic Catuvellauni and lived and died there at the time the Catuvellauni lived there, and they were R1b-L21.

Ok so would you tell me please to which language family belonged the one spoken by the belgae?

spruithean
08-14-2018, 12:32 AM
This is a topic guaranteed to make me unpopular, as it has done in the past.

Obviously some U106 was brought to Britain prior to the advent of the Anglo-Saxons by the Romans (gladiators, foederati, etc.), but you seem to be implying something more than that.

So, what makes you think there was any U106 among the Celtic Britons?

I'm in the same boat, I am still under the impression that any early U106 in Britain came with the Romans via Germanic slaves, soldiers, etc. But I am not sold that it was ever in Britain earlier than that. Is there chance few individuals were U106? Maybe, but probably not.


I used "apartheid" mainly because that's a popular term I've head thrown around when talking about the idea that the Anglo-Saxons simply outbred the Britons via a system that kept the latter as an underclass. What has been used as evidence for this before are certain laws regarding the Britons, giving them a lower wergeld than a Saxon, etc.

That said I imagine it may have been the highest elite or royal lines of Anglo-Saxons which would have had great British admixture since they often were intermarrying with British princes for political purposes, such as Oswiu of Northumbria's marriage to Riemmelth of Rheged, etc.

Oswiu had quite a few marriages, one of his wives was Fín, the daughter or granddaughter of Colmán Rímid of the Cenél nEógain. There son was Aldfrith, king of Northumbria (his Gaelic name being Flann Fína mac Ossu). Aldfrith is quite interesting, he spent a fair amount of time in Dál Riata and elsewhere in the Gaelic-speaking world. Quite a few Northumbrian nobles from the Bernician noble families spent exile (or just time in general) in the courts of both the Pictish and Dál Riatan kings, obviously the nobles didn't go to these other courts without their retinue of guards, servants and others. Interestingly it seems the Deiran Northumbrians would head to southern courts, while the Bernicians showed more affinity for their northern neighbours.

Sure the Anglo-Saxon nobles and British noble families were intermarrying for political gain, if many "every day" Britons had gradually adopted Anglo-Saxon culture and in what may be rather large numbers considering current findings, would the general population not be Anglo-Saxon and British mixed to a larger degree than the nobles?

There is certainly still a lot to be learned with the Anglo-Saxons in general, we are missing chunks of their history and mythology thanks to their lack of writing on those subjects. If only I had a time machine...

JerryS.
08-14-2018, 01:09 AM
I have English (Shropshire/Shrewsbury and Kent/Dartford), North German (Lower Saxony/Bremen) and Scottish from an unknown location.... the Scottish and Shropshire English (Welsh/Celtic?) I think would be reason enough for some calculator models to show me as some sort of Irish/Celtic regularly but I only get that once in a blue moon and only on calculators heavily bias for N./N.W. Europe. In fact, on the N./N.W. European bias models I often show some sort of Scandinavian as a primary population with regular oracle....

spruithean
08-14-2018, 01:30 AM
I think you make some great points spruithean. I wonder how many descendants of foederati and laeti are with us today. They would be indistinguishable from the slightly later Anglo-Saxons when it comes to DNA. Distinguishing by TMRCA match estimates would be next to impossible too. According to Dio, Marcomanni were settled in Britain by Marcus Aurelius; Zosimus says Burgundians were settled under the leader Igillus in the third century; and Ammianus Marcellinus says Alamanni were settled under Fraomar in the fourth.

I've wondered the same, though I'm not sure how one would go about determining which Y-DNA haplogroups represented these foederati/laeti. Perhaps the dates of formation for various haplogroups could be useful, but they are dependent on the formulas being correct, along with having a decent sample size for each haplogroup to make the calculations. If there is anything to that then perhaps some clades of I1 or R1b in Britain that have formed dates prior to the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons (or Vikings) could be candidates? I'm not familiar with Igillus, though I recall Fraomar was the leader of the Bucinobantes tribe, which was itself a group within the greater Alemannic group.

Another thing that may have influenced the gradual wave of Germanicization of Britain was the Germanic piracy that Roman Britain endured, the North Sea Germans had to have some level of power/influence, especially after the Roman legions withdrew from Britain. Perhaps some Britons adopted Germanic cultural aspects through this route?

Gwydion
08-14-2018, 01:56 AM
Noted historian of the Anglo-Saxons James Campbell has written, that Bede notwithstanding, "It is certain that men came to Britain from many parts of the Germanic world, from Norway to south Germany." This opinion appears to be based largely on archaeological evidence.

Any idea of which archaeological evidence supports migration from places further south in Germany than the typical locales associated with the Anglo-Saxons, i.e. Northwestern Germany, Jutland, Frisia, etc.? Or do you happen to know of any further reading on the topic?

Not to detract from the thread topic but I ask because I often wonder what the most likely scenario for R1b-U152 L2 in Southern Scotland/Northern England would have been since this is my haplgroup. While it was present early enough to have ancient samples in Lothian (Bronze Age) and York (Romano-Briton), my surname is of Middle English derivation ultimately of Old Norse origin and mostly distributed across Southern Scotland and Northern England. Given that U152 tends to be strongest on the East Coast and my surname was born in a Northumbrian English speaking area which received influences from Old Norse, one wonders about the possibility of it coming with Anglian migration or perhaps Danish sources despite the relatively lower numbers of the HG in their respective homelands. Hence the notion that more southerly German areas (where U152 would be denser) were also part of the Anglo-Saxon migrations interests me.

Or more in line with the topic, if my U152 ancestor were a British Celt I wonder by which process he would have been integrated into Anglian society, etc.

spruithean
08-14-2018, 02:13 AM
Any idea of which archaeological evidence supports migration from places further south in Germany than the typical locales associated with the Anglo-Saxons, i.e. Northwestern Germany, Jutland, Frisia, etc.? Or do you happen to know of any further reading on the topic?

Not to detract from the thread topic but I ask because I often wonder what the most likely scenario for R1b-U152 L2 in Southern Scotland/Northern England would have been since this is my haplgroup. While it was present early enough to have ancient samples in Lothian (Bronze Age) and York (Romano-Briton), my surname is of Middle English derivation ultimately of Old Norse origin and mostly distributed across Southern Scotland and Northern England. Given that U152 tends to be strongest on the East Coast and my surname was born in a Northumbrian English speaking area which received influences from Old Norse, one wonders about the possibility of it coming with Anglian migration or perhaps Danish sources despite the relatively lower numbers of the HG in their respective homelands. Hence the notion that more southerly German areas (where U152 would be denser) were also part of the Anglo-Saxon migrations interests me.

Or more in line with the topic, if my U152 ancestor were a British Celt I wonder by which process he would have been integrated into Anglian society, etc.

I'm also curious about the evidence for Germanic groups coming from southern Germany, however I suppose it is a summary of foederati and laeti settled in Britain, we have to remember that sub-Roman Britain, still saw itself to some degree as "Roman", if the legends are right, Vortigern hired these Anglo-Saxon-Jute mercenaries and settled them, which was a very Roman thing to do.

I don't think your interest in your haplogroup detracts from this discussion at all, we actually have completely opposite haplogroup-surname scenarios, my surname being Gaelic (and strongly associated with the Hebrides) and my Y-DNA being some ragged branch of I1-M253. I seem to recall your surname could have multiple origins ranging from Old Norse, Norman or Gaelic (specifically situated in Arran). Could you link me to the R-L2 found in Lothian? Acquiring surname can be a product of various scenarios. But if your ancestor were a British Celt and he was integrated into Anglian society it could have been through a marriage of nobility, slavery, or perhaps more easily imagined, a family who lived in northern Britain, perhaps close to or within Scotland who eventually adopted the surname of a powerful family in the area for protection from neighbouring people on either side of the border?

JonikW
08-14-2018, 02:34 AM
Any idea of which archaeological evidence supports migration from places further south in Germany than the typical locales associated with the Anglo-Saxons, i.e. Northwestern Germany, Jutland, Frisia, etc.? Or do you happen to know of any further reading on the topic?

Not to detract from the thread topic but I ask because I often wonder what the most likely scenario for R1b-U152 L2 in Southern Scotland/Northern England would have been since this is my haplgroup. While it was present early enough to have ancient samples in Lothian (Bronze Age) and York (Romano-Briton), my surname is of Middle English derivation ultimately of Old Norse origin and mostly distributed across Southern Scotland and Northern England. Given that U152 tends to be strongest on the East Coast and my surname was born in a Northumbrian English speaking area which received influences from Old Norse, one wonders about the possibility of it coming with Anglian migration or perhaps Danish sources despite the relatively lower numbers of the HG in their respective homelands. Hence the notion that more southerly German areas (where U152 would be denser) were also part of the Anglo-Saxon migrations interests me.

Or more in line with the topic, if my U152 ancestor were a British Celt I wonder by which process he would have been integrated into Anglian society, etc.

The Sancton cemetery close to the Humber in Yorkshire offers some evidence of southern German migration. This cemetery was in use by Germanic immigrants from about 400 to 650 AD. Interestingly, it turns out that while pottery urns of a more Anglian type predominate, there are several examples of pots that only have close parallels in the Alemannic regions (Myres, 1973. The Anglo-Saxon Cremation Cemetery at Sancton, East Yorkshire).
A fourth century brooch of south German origin (otherwise unfamiliar in Britain) survived to be buried in mid-sixth century grave at Londesborough in East Yorkshire. A spearhead and pottery similar to south German types come from Driffield in the same area.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
08-14-2018, 06:31 AM
I think that in order to deal with the issue of the anglo-saxon invasion of britain we need to remember that

1) In the last centuries BC britain was occupied ( since when we do not know with certainty) by a group of belgian tribes that define themselves as germans so we have a likely presence in the east of the country of a pretty much sizable germanic speaking population

2) during roman times we have in britain a large inflow of soldiers and troops of germanic origin ( especially frisians that spoke a language quite close to AS). So during roman occupation the "germanification" of britannia was reinforced.

When the legions left the country I think many of those "germanic" were left to their own devices and at this point the arrival of more germanic tribes like AS Jutes tilted the balance against the celtic speaking part of the isles. I think back then it was not a matter of "race": germans against celts. It was just a matter of taking the land/defending the land. My personal opinion is that what really gave the AS the hedge was that they embraced the new faith christianity more eagerly and more willingly so they looked more trustworthy at the eyes of the ecclesiastical authority ( correct me if I'm wrong but Bede links the demise of the britons as a punishment by God).

I think what we had after the conversion is that celtic speaking population switched to germanic and by doing so they created some of the most peculiar features of the english language as the do and ing form which are clearly of celtic origin.

Cirencestor, Gloucestershire Roman Memorials (1st Century AD) :-

"The inscription reads: Sextus Valerius Genialis, trooper of the (first) cavalry regiment of Thracians, a Frisian tribesman, in the troop of Genialis, aged 40, of 20 years service, lies buried here. His heir had this set up."


"The short epitaph on the tombstones gives us valuable information about these two soldiers. Sextus Valerius Genialis was a Frisian (from Holland) in a unit of Thracians (modern Bulgaria) whilst Dannicus of the ala Indiana came from Augusta Raurica (Augst, Switzerland)."


https://followinghadrian.com/2015/03/24/7-roman-wonders-from-the-corinium-museum-in-cirencester-uk/

Finn
08-14-2018, 07:27 AM
The "apartheid" thing is based on this study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1635457/

Here is one response to it: http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/275/1650/2423

Popular article about it here: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13752-germanic-invaders-may-not-have-ruled-by-apartheid/

Thanks for this overview!

I prefer a third position. The 'apartheid' thing is a wrong frame. But a statement (in the response) that the A-S followed a kind of integrative policy is at least for the early middle ages equally wrong. The first sense of being 'English' was around Alfred the Great about four centuries after the first migrations.....

I think we must take in account that it was a migration in a tribal setting. And that within the tribes there were pretty rigid social divisions.

Like everywhere with migrations the first generations stayed very recognizable people. They stayed in some way connected with the heartland abroad. You could even recognize their tribe heritage by their clothes, pottery, jewelry. Because the society at that time wasn't very settled you see even a greater 'need' to be distinctive. See about 600 AD Sutton Hoo and also in northern Sweden in the Vendel period. See also Beowulf: what was the setting? Not an English entourage....but scenes from the heartland.

And internal those tribes were no meritocracies.....the social divisions were harsh. Marriages were arranged to ensure the social positions.

Ok ok life is stronger than some rules....but you must be 'social blindfolded' not to take these factors in account. In the beginning they were pretty 'entre nous'. Except some marriages of the elite to create truces the majority of the Britons, Welsh etc, say shortly Celts, didn't intermingle much with the diverse Germanic tribes. No ties. No rewards (for the Germanic tribes) to do so.

Later on when the ties with oversea loosened more and more and the sense of being 'English' became bigger and bigger, this all changed of course.....

Gwydion
08-14-2018, 11:50 AM
I don't think your interest in your haplogroup detracts from this discussion at all, we actually have completely opposite haplogroup-surname scenarios, my surname being Gaelic (and strongly associated with the Hebrides) and my Y-DNA being some ragged branch of I1-M253. I seem to recall your surname could have multiple origins ranging from Old Norse, Norman or Gaelic (specifically situated in Arran). Could you link me to the R-L2 found in Lothian? Acquiring surname can be a product of various scenarios. But if your ancestor were a British Celt and he was integrated into Anglian society it could have been through a marriage of nobility, slavery, or perhaps more easily imagined, a family who lived in northern Britain, perhaps close to or within Scotland who eventually adopted the surname of a powerful family in the area for protection from neighbouring people on either side of the border?

Well I realize surnames are mutable things and not necessarily indicative of origins, I more or less just try to speculate based on where the surname arose, the linguistic origin of the name, the area it is largely distributed, and my own Y-DNA where my ancestor would have originated or where he would have been in the early Middle Ages, during the Anglo-Saxon period, etc. Strange things happen though so what is most probable isn't necessarily going to be the actual explanation of ones own particular case. That said going by the above criteria, I would guess my ancestor was somewhere in Northeastern Britain stretching from Southeast Scotland down to the Yorkshire during this period and the period when surnames were forming and being widely adopted. Interestingly that same zone is where two of the earliest mentions of the name are found (Stobo in Peeblesshire and Rievaulx Abbey, both around the late 12th century.)

As to the ancient L2 found in Lothian, it is on the FTDNA U152 Project's "Ancient DNA" map. Here is the description of the sample in question:

I2656_d L2+ DF110? Scotland_Late Bronze Age 1278–979 calBCE (2930±50 BP, GU-2762) Longniddry, Grainfoot, East Lothian, Scotland

Reads for DF110: 1A 1G. Olalde et al (2018)

So based on the above my ancestor could have been in Britain as early as the Bronze Age, but the small amounts of U152 in Jutland along with the possibility of Frankish, Alemmanic, or other more southern Germanic lineages coming with the Anglo-Saxons or the possibility of a later Danish origin is enough to keep one guessing.

rms2
08-14-2018, 12:02 PM
I'm in the same boat, I am still under the impression that any early U106 in Britain came with the Romans via Germanic slaves, soldiers, etc. But I am not sold that it was ever in Britain earlier than that. Is there chance few individuals were U106? Maybe, but probably not . . .


Sure, there's a chance of that, but what we normally discuss here are movements big enough to have made an impact, something that modern individuals could look to for the origin of their own ancestors.

JonikW
08-14-2018, 12:06 PM
Well I realize surnames are mutable things and not necessarily indicative of origins, I more or less just try to speculate based on where the surname arose, the linguistic origin of the name, the area it is largely distributed, and my own Y-DNA where my ancestor would have originated or where he would have been in the early Middle Ages, during the Anglo-Saxon period, etc. Strange things happen though so what is most probable isn't necessarily going to be the actual explanation of ones own particular case. That said going by the above criteria, I would guess my ancestor was somewhere in Northeastern Britain stretching from Southeast Scotland down to the Yorkshire during this period and the period when surnames were forming and being widely adopted. Interestingly that same zone is where two of the earliest mentions of the name are found (Stobo in Peeblesshire and Rievaulx Abbey, both around the late 12th century.)

As to the ancient L2 found in Lothian, it is on the FTDNA U152 Project's "Ancient DNA" map. Here is the description of the sample in question:

I2656_d L2+ DF110? Scotland_Late Bronze Age 1278–979 calBCE (2930±50 BP, GU-2762) Longniddry, Grainfoot, East Lothian, Scotland

Reads for DF110: 1A 1G. Olalde et al (2018)

So based on the above my ancestor could have been in Britain as early as the Bronze Age, but the small amounts of U152 in Jutland along with the possibility of Frankish, Alemmanic, or other more southern Germanic lineages coming with the Anglo-Saxons or the possibility of a later Danish origin is enough to keep one guessing.

You're right about the most parsimonious explanation not always being the right one of course. Forgive me if I've missed it, but where did you test your Y? My YFull/FTDNA match overturned my Anglian expectation, although I hope for another informative match in future. I think a continental match with a TMRCA in the right timeframe is possibly the best chance you've got of discovering how and when your forefather arrived in Britain.

rms2
08-14-2018, 12:10 PM
rms2

"I agree with some that, but it took the Anglo-Saxons awhile to embrace Christianity. They were fiercely pagan at first. That is reflected in the names of the days of the week in English, most of them still derived from old Germanic gods and at least one goddess."

This will probably turn out to be the dumbest post of the year. Are you aware that even the romance languages maintain the old pagan words for the day of the week? That means that this is not a sign of an unwillingness to convert.

No, I think your response is.

We know the Anglo-Saxons were fiercely pagan when they first arrived in Britain. They didn't convert right away, and when they did, it wasn't via the offices of the Celtic church.

Retention of the pagan names of the days of the week in the Romance languages is likewise a sign that it took a long while for conversion to Christianity to take effect, particularly among rural people, the Latin name for which is the source of the word pagan.

rms2
08-14-2018, 12:13 PM
Ok so would you tell me please to which language family belonged the one spoken by the belgae?

Let's guess together. The names of Belgic tribal leaders were Celtic, and the names of the Belgic tribes were Celtic.

Hmmm . . . think that means they spoke Celtic.

JonikW
08-14-2018, 12:16 PM
Let's guess together. The names of Belgic tribal leaders were Celtic, and the names of the Belgic tribes were Celtic.

Hmmm . . . think that means they spoke Celtic.

You're right. I'm curious about their origin myth though. They were apparently proud of what they thought of as their German origin, if I remember correctly.

rms2
08-14-2018, 12:24 PM
You're right. I'm curious about their origin myth though. They were apparently proud of what they thought of as their German origin, if I remember correctly.

Caesar thought they were Germans because they had recently come from east of the Rhine. I don't think we're ever told what they thought of themselves, although I am guessing they had no concept of Celtic or Germanic. Probably they thought of themselves merely as members of their own tribes.

JonikW
08-14-2018, 12:36 PM
Caesar thought they were Germans because they had recently come from east of the Rhine. I don't think we're ever told what they thought of themselves, although I am guessing they had no concept of Celtic or Germanic. Probably they thought of themselves merely as members of their own tribes.

I'm on holiday so only have my Kindle version of Caesar's De Bello Gallico. This is what I'd remembered, although there may be other instances. I'm not saying the Belgae were Germans; I'm just interested in how and why they may have viewed themselves to be so to a certain extent. As always, the tragedy is that they couldn't speak to us for themselves.

IV.--When Caesar inquired of them what states were in arms, how powerful they were, and what they could do in war, he received the following information: that the greater part of the Belgae were sprung from the Germans, and that having crossed the Rhine at an early period, they had settled there, on account of the fertility of the country, and had driven out the Gauls who inhabited those regions; and that they were the only people who, in the memory of our fathers, when all Gaul was overrun, had prevented the Teutones and the Cimbri from entering their territories; the effect of which was that, from the recollection of those events, they assumed to themselves great authority and haughtiness in military matters.

rms2
08-14-2018, 12:40 PM
Ethnonyms of the Belgae tribes are key to know whether they were rather 'Celtic' or 'Germanic':

Gallic: Remi, Bellovaci, Morini, Atrebates...
Germanic:Nervii, Aduatuci, Condruses, Menapi…

Basically Celtae and Belgae were more alike than Aquitani


Nervii and Menapii were not Germanic tribal names. Those two tribes were Belgic. The Aduatuci and the Condrusi, as I understand it, were not Belgic but were Germans living west of the Rhine.

Since I am not an expert, I don't really want to become involved in another argument about the Belgae. The consensus among scholars has long been that the Belgae were a Celtic-speaking people who may have done some mixing with nearby Germans.

Usually people who argue that the Belgae were Germans do so from a desire to bring the Germans to Britain as early as possible so as to make the English as purely Germanic as possible.

rms2
08-14-2018, 12:47 PM
I'm on holiday so only have my Kindle version of Caesar's De Bello Gallico. This is what I'd remembered, although there may be other instances. I'm not saying the Belgae were Germans; I'm just interested in how and why they may have viewed themselves to be so to a certain extent. As always, the tragedy is that they couldn't speak to us for themselves.

IV.--When Caesar inquired of them what states were in arms, how powerful they were, and what they could do in war, he received the following information: that the greater part of the Belgae were sprung from the Germans, and that having crossed the Rhine at an early period, they had settled there, on account of the fertility of the country, and had driven out the Gauls who inhabited those regions; and that they were the only people who, in the memory of our fathers, when all Gaul was overrun, had prevented the Teutones and the Cimbri from entering their territories; the effect of which was that, from the recollection of those events, they assumed to themselves great authority and haughtiness in military matters.

I know. I've read it several times.

"[T]he Belgae were sprung from the Germans" sounds like the Belgae were Germans, but we know they spoke Celtic languages, at least based on the names of their tribes, the names of their tribal leaders, and place names.

Caesar tells us what "sprung from the Germans" really means in this case when he writes "having crossed the Rhine at an early period". In other words, the Belgae were sprung from among the Germans, that is, they came from east of the Rhine.

JonikW
08-14-2018, 12:48 PM
The Nervii and Menapii were not Germanic tribal names. Those two tribes were Belgic. The Aduatuci and the Condrusi, as I understand it, were not Belgic but were Germans living west of the Rhine.

Since I am not an expert, I don't really want to become involved in another argument about the Belgae. The consensus among scholars has long been that the Belgae were a Celtic-speaking people who may have done some mixing with nearby Germans.

Usually people who argue that the Belgae were Germans do so from a desire to bring the Germans to Britain as early as possible so as to make the English as purely Germanic as possible.

I certainly don't agree with the latter position. There's no ancient source that mentions a Germanic language in Britain, and I'm sure someone would have remarked on it if there had been, particularly considering the large territory of the Belgae there. ADD: roll on the Reich paper when we'll have a better picture of the overall situation. That should result in a great deal of interesting debate on this forum.

rms2
08-14-2018, 12:57 PM
I certainly don't agree with the latter position. There's no ancient source that mentions a Germanic language in Britain, and I'm sure someone would have remarked on it if there had been, particularly considering the large territory of the Belgae there.

Well, I agree with you, but there are people who think a Germanic language was spoken in SE Britain very early on. Oppenheimer suggested that in his already-obsolete-when-published book, The Origins of the British.

Through the years the Belgae-were-Germans argument has popped up now and then on forums like this one. I was saying it is an argument used to make the English as purely Germanic as possible by bringing Germans to what is now England long before the Anglo-Saxons got there.

JonikW
08-14-2018, 01:04 PM
Well, I agree with you, but there are people who think a Germanic language was spoken in SE Britain very early on. Oppenheimer suggested that in his already-obsolete-when-published book, The Origins of the British.

Through the years the Belgae-were-Germans argument has popped up now and then on forums like this one. I was saying it is an argument used to make the English as purely Germanic as possible by bringing Germans to what is now England long before the Anglo-Saxons got there.

Yes, I'm aware of the debate and see it hinges on who lived east of the Rhine. I've read those archaeological arguments too. The paper should settle things for good.:)

spruithean
08-14-2018, 01:05 PM
You're right about the most parsimonious explanation not always being the right one of course. Forgive me if I've missed it, but where did you test your Y? My YFull/FTDNA match overturned my Anglian expectation, although I hope for another informative match in future. I think a continental match with a TMRCA in the right timeframe is possibly the best chance you've got of discovering how and when your forefather arrived in Britain.

Interesting that your closest Big Y/YFull match is located in Sweden. My 2 closest Big Y are seemingly of British origin and downstream of me, our TMRCA is calculated to be 1,700-1,850 ybp. That doesn't really clear anything up as it is quite a bit before the Anglo-Saxon arrival and long before the Viking period.


No, I think your response is.

We know the Anglo-Saxons were fiercely pagan when they first arrived in Britain. They didn't convert right away, and when they did, it wasn't via the offices of the Celtic church.

That was what I was confused by as well, I was sure that I had read the AS were pagan upon arrival and it took some work to convert them, with some holding on to paganism longer or reverting back to it (Penda of Mercia, Eanfrith of Bernicia, etc). I think there was only one AS kingdom that was converted via the Celtic Church and that was at least the northern portion of Northumbria, however it was fairly shortlived and they eventually followed the Roman Church after the death of Oswald thanks to Oswiu eventually deciding that was the way to go.


Retention of the pagan names of the days of the week in the Romance languages is likewise a sign that it took a long while for conversion to Christianity to take effect, particularly among rural people, the Latin name for which is the source of the word pagan.

Indeed.

In regards to Germanic being spoken in SE Britain, I seem to recall Francis Pryor held a similar position. Yet it seems rather ridiculous, there isn't strong evidence for it and the only chance of Germanic being spoken early is with Germanic Roman troops, but that isn't widespread in the country and limited to small bands of soldiers.

rms2
08-14-2018, 01:06 PM
We may find out some things about the genetic make-up of the Belgae in Britain very soon, thanks to this study (https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-43712587) by David Reich and his team. It won't tell us what language they spoke, however.

Personally, I think the answer is the "third possibility":



The third possibility is that scholars have simply underestimated the genetic impact of the Roman occupation, which lasted in Britain from AD 43 until 410. Roman settlers from the Italian peninsula would have traced a large proportion of their ancestry to Neolithic farmers like those that inhabited Britain before the arrival of the Beaker people.


And not just from the Italian peninsula. The Romans brought lots of people to Britain from outside the Italian peninsula who would have had a higher proportion of EEF than the native, Beaker-descended British Celtic population had.

JonikW
08-14-2018, 01:09 PM
Interesting that your closest Big Y/YFull match is located in Sweden. My 2 closest Big Y are seemingly of British origin and downstream of me, our TMRCA is calculated to be 1,700-1,850 ybp. That doesn't really clear anything up as it is quite a bit before the Anglo-Saxon arrival and long before the Viking period.



That was what I was confused by as well, I was sure that I had read the AS were pagan upon arrival and it took some work to convert them, with some holding on to paganism longer or reverting back to it (Penda of Mercia, Eanfrith of Bernicia, etc). I think there was only one AS kingdom that was converted via the Celtic Church and that was at least the northern portion of Northumbria, however it was fairly shortlived and they eventually followed the Roman Church after the death of Oswald thanks to Oswiu eventually deciding that was the way to go.



Indeed.

In regards to Germanic being spoken in SE Britain, I seem to recall Francis Pryor held a similar position. Yet it seems rather ridiculous, there isn't strong evidence for it and the only chance of Germanic being spoken early is with Germanic Roman troops, but that isn't widespread in the country and limited to small bands of soldiers.

Yes, much as I like Pryor for his books and TV work, he built his career on an anti-migration thesis that is fast disintegrating. Similar with Oppenheimer, whose book I also read (and enjoyed while thinking that much of it was absurd).

JonikW
08-14-2018, 01:11 PM
We may find out some things about the genetic make-up of the Belgae in Britain very soon, thanks to this study (https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-43712587) by David Reich and his team. It won't tell us what language they spoke, however.

Personally, I think the answer is the "third possibility":

I agree that we will see that. I've mentioned before the number of villas within a few miles of my house. They can't all have been natives and there will have been an impact.

Gwydion
08-14-2018, 01:14 PM
As an aside, including Y-DNA lineages and autosomal groupings, what are the general percentages of Celtic pre-Anglo-Saxon and Germanic post-Anglo-Saxon in the modern English population? I used to hear it was something like 50-50, but I've also heard the Germanic ranges from 20-40% depending on region? Could it thus be said that the English still largely descend from the Celtic populations that inhabited the region prior to the coming of the Anglo-Saxons, Danes, etc.?

spruithean
08-14-2018, 01:21 PM
As an aside, including Y-DNA lineages and autosomal groupings, what are the general percentages of Celtic pre-Anglo-Saxon and Germanic post-Anglo-Saxon in the modern English population? I used to hear it was something like 50-50, but I've also heard the Germanic ranges from 20-40% depending on region? Could it thus be said that the English still largely descend from the Celtic populations that inhabited the region prior to the coming of the Anglo-Saxons, Danes, etc.?

I'm not sure on the total percentages but the general consensus is that the English are still mostly descended from Celtic populations with some Germanic thrown in among other things. The same can be said for the rest of the Isles only to varying degrees.

rms2
08-14-2018, 01:26 PM
As an aside, including Y-DNA lineages and autosomal groupings, what are the general percentages of Celtic pre-Anglo-Saxon and Germanic post-Anglo-Saxon in the modern English population? I used to hear it was something like 50-50, but I've also heard the Germanic ranges from 20-40% depending on region? Could it thus be said that the English still largely descend from the Celtic populations that inhabited the region prior to the coming of the Anglo-Saxons, Danes, etc.?

I'm sure someone will pop up with the definitive answer very soon, but I recall we had a (heated) discussion on this topic a couple of months ago. I think you're right that about 20-40% (37% sticks in my head for some reason) is the autosomal figure.

As my contribution here are a couple of maps. The source of them is Eupedia. Note the differences in the percentages represented by the various shades. Besides that, I don't think U106 is as high as 30-40% anywhere in Britain. As I recall, around 30% (or a little less) is as high as it gets.

25274

Here is a photo showing the differences east and west of Offa's Dyke, at least in terms of U106 and L21.

25275

Besides U106, in terms of likely Germanic/Viking y-dna, one has to factor in I-M253, DF19, DF99, and L238, as well. Perhaps the y-dna replacement in England outstripped the overall genomic replacement.

msmarjoribanks
08-14-2018, 02:19 PM
I certainly don't agree with the latter position. There's no ancient source that mentions a Germanic language in Britain, and I'm sure someone would have remarked on it if there had been, particularly considering the large territory of the Belgae there. ADD: roll on the Reich paper when we'll have a better picture of the overall situation. That should result in a great deal of interesting debate on this forum.

There are apparently enough people suggesting such a thing that Higham explains why it's extremely unlikely, in The Anglo Saxon World. Probably the temptation is there because the language shift is hard to explain.

msmarjoribanks
08-14-2018, 02:26 PM
You're right about the most parsimonious explanation not always being the right one of course. Forgive me if I've missed it, but where did you test your Y? My YFull/FTDNA match overturned my Anglian expectation, although I hope for another informative match in future. I think a continental match with a TMRCA in the right timeframe is possibly the best chance you've got of discovering how and when your forefather arrived in Britain.

My thoughts are similar.

Of course, so far no dice with my dad's YDNA, as his closest match seems to be likely of Spanish origin (Cuban), but the TMRCA is estimated at 3500 years (range 4600 to 2600), so that's not close enough.

JonikW
08-14-2018, 02:31 PM
My thoughts are similar.

Of course, so far no dice with my dad's YDNA, as his closest match seems to be likely of Spanish origin (Cuban), but the TMRCA is estimated at 3500 years (range 4600 to 2600), so that's not close enough.

I'd say, just keep waiting.:) We're 20 years too early to this game in one sense, but in another somebody has to fork out the money and help to pave the way. Any day could bring an informative match and I hope you get one soon.

msmarjoribanks
08-14-2018, 02:39 PM
I'm sure someone will pop up with the definitive answer very soon, but I recall we had a (heated) discussion on this topic a couple of months ago. I think you're right that about 20-40% (37% sticks in my head for some reason) is the autosomal figure.

I thought of the same discussion. Here's a link to the study that number came from: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms10408

It was 38% in East England overall, but 37% in Kent.

I thought I'd read in the past about a greater A-S influence on YDNA than autosomal, but I can't find anything addressing/supporting that quickly, anyway. And I think that might have been based on a belief that the overall influence was less than the numbers in the study cited here.

rms2
08-14-2018, 02:48 PM
I thought of the same discussion. Here's a link to the study that number came from: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms10408

It was 38% in East England overall, but 37% in Kent.

I thought I'd read in the past about a greater A-S influence on YDNA than autosomal, but I can't find anything addressing/supporting that quickly, anyway. And I think that might have been based on a belief that the overall influence was less than the numbers in the study cited here.

Right. I think if you add up the frequency of likely Germanic/Viking subclades, it comes to a higher figure than that 38%.

Anyway, it just shows that social and political power were in the hands of a Germanic male hierarchy in what is now England, and that translated to increased access to native females.

msmarjoribanks
08-14-2018, 02:50 PM
More on the numbers, the POBI (https://peopleofthebritishisles.web.ox.ac.uk/population-genetics) says: "The most obvious contribution representing the Anglo-Saxons is EU3 (pink) from North and North West Germany. That is consistent with the lack of evidence for Anglo-Saxon incursions into Wales. Denmark (EU18 dark red) is another clear candidate for an Anglo-Saxon contribution. Based on these two contributions, the best estimates for the proportion of presumed Anglo-Saxon ancestry in the large eastern, central and southern England cluster (red squares) are a maximum of 40% and could be as little as 10%. This is strong evidence against an Anglo-Saxon wipe-out of the resident ancient British population, but clearly indicates extensive admixture between the incoming invaders and the indigenous people. The difference between Devon and Cornwall is most probably due to the greater Saxon influence in Devon, this being consistent with the slightly greater contributions of EU3 (pink) and EU18(dark red) to the makeup of the Devon cluster as compared to that in Cornwall."

It goes on to say little Danish (so called Viking) contribution, because: "The homogeneity of the east, central and southern British cluster (red squares) with no obvious differences in the Danish contribution (EU18 dark red) between them and the more northern English populations, strongly suggests that the Danish Vikings, in spite of their major influence through the “Danelaw’ and many place names of Danish origin, contributed little of their DNA to the English population." I'm still not convinced we can know this, given the overlap between the AS and Danish genetic contribution.

msmarjoribanks
08-14-2018, 02:55 PM
Right. I think if you add up the frequency of likely Germanic/Viking subclades, it comes to a higher figure than that 38%.

Anyway, it just shows that social and political power were in the hands of a Germanic male hierarchy in what is now England, and that translated to increased access to native females.

That's what I always had understood, which is why the apartheid-type arguments made less sense to me. A greater effect on autosomal than Y-DNA suggests interbreeding. I think (and I think we talked about this some in the other thread) that the desire to find an explanation other than interbreeding is based on the idea that that would be contrary to the language change, and there are plenty of reasons why I don't think that follows.

One question would be number of AS who came overall (but that's the big question) and also the relative number of men vs. women. The no interbreeding idea seems to assume that there's not a meaningful imbalance, and while I do know many AS woman came over time, I'd need some evidence to believe there was no meaningful imbalance, especially in the earlier periods (and at least one of the studies we talked about suggested more interbreeding initially, then maybe less, and then more again).

rms2
08-14-2018, 03:07 PM
That's what I always had understood, which is why the apartheid-type arguments made less sense to me. A greater effect on autosomal than Y-DNA suggests interbreeding. I think (and I think we talked about this some in the other thread) that the desire to find an explanation other than interbreeding is based on the idea that that would be contrary to the language change, and there are plenty of reasons why I don't think that follows.

One question would be number of AS who came overall (but that's the big question) and also the relative number of men vs. women. The no interbreeding idea seems to assume that there's not a meaningful imbalance, and while I do know many AS woman came over time, I'd need some evidence to believe there was no meaningful imbalance, especially in the earlier periods (and at least one of the studies we talked about suggested more interbreeding initially, then maybe less, and then more again).

I think what you quoted from POBI makes sense:



Based on these two contributions, the best estimates for the proportion of presumed Anglo-Saxon ancestry in the large eastern, central and southern England cluster (red squares) are a maximum of 40% and could be as little as 10%. This is strong evidence against an Anglo-Saxon wipe-out of the resident ancient British population, but clearly indicates extensive admixture between the incoming invaders and the indigenous people.


There must have been tremendous social and economic pressure to speak English, besides the usual pressure a bride would feel to fit into her husband's world.

I have a theory that there were young male Britons who became socialized as Anglo-Saxons through participation in the old Indo-European tradition of the war band, by offering their services as warriors to Anglo-Saxon chiefs. We know that there were Germanic tribesmen who served in Hunnic war bands, so ethnic origin was not always an absolute bar to social advancement. We also know that Britons often allied themselves with Anglo-Saxons and fought against other Britons (cf. the assassination of Urien of Rheged, for example).

The Anglo-Saxon king of Wessex, Cerdic, is thought to have been a Briton, at least on his father's side.

Gwydion
08-14-2018, 03:07 PM
Anyone know of any good resources in understanding the difference in Anglo-Saxon settlement and Anglicization of Lothian/Northern England and Southern England?

Something of interest I came across on the topic. This is from the Celtic Culture : A Historical Encyclopedia edited by Koch:

Nonetheless, Lothian is of interest to Celtic studies for several reasons. First, prior to 638 it had formed part of the northern Brythonic kingdom of Gododdin. Brythonic place-names are as thick on the ground there as anywhere outside Wales (Cymru), Cornwall (Kernow), or Brittany (Breizh), indicating a high level of survival and a less than overwhelming Anglian settlement. The hagiography of the Celtic St Kentigern of Glasgow (Glaschu) looks back to Brythonic Lothian as his home country. It should also be borne in mind that King Oswald himself and the 7th-century church of Bernicia were heavily influenced by Gaelic culture by way of the island monastery of Iona (Eilean Ě) and the cult of its founder, St Colum Cille. The Bernician grip on Lothian was not all that strong and seems to have been partly rolled back in the north-west after the great Pictish victory of Nechtanesmere in 685.

Interesting to combine with the following data:

https://www.heroicage.org/issues/10/fox.html

http://i.imgur.com/4Y1bBIp.jpg

So it seems Bernicia/Lothian was perhaps less Anglian than other places. Perhaps that general cline of South/East more Anglo, North/West more Celt holds largely true.

JonikW
08-14-2018, 03:09 PM
It goes on to say little Danish (so called Viking) contribution, because: "The homogeneity of the east, central and southern British cluster (red squares) with no obvious differences in the Danish contribution (EU18 dark red) between them and the more northern English populations, strongly suggests that the Danish Vikings, in spite of their major influence through the “Danelaw’ and many place names of Danish origin, contributed little of their DNA to the English population." I'm still not convinced we can know this, given the overlap between the AS and Danish genetic contribution.

Yes, just look at my case. It seems possible my forefathers were Angles before they came over as Danes. My Y match traces his line back to Scania, where Angelholm is thought to have been settled by the Angles (and indeed some have posited it as the origin of the tribal name over the better-known Angeln).

JonikW
08-14-2018, 03:16 PM
.

The Anglo-Saxon king of Wessex, Cerdic, is thought to have been a Briton, at least on his father's side.

I believe that's because of his name, which could equally have been given to him as part of the cultural mixing we've been discussing. His house still claimed the ubiquitous descent from Woden.

rms2
08-14-2018, 03:23 PM
I believe that's because of his name, which could equally have been given to him as part of the cultural mixing we've been discussing. His house still claimed the ubiquitous descent from Woden.

Cerdic's father is said to have been Elesa, and some scholars evidently think he was actually the Romano-Briton Elasius.

Cerdic's descendants had British names like Ceawlin, Cedda, and Caedwalla, as well.

Descent from Woden was probably an obligatory formality for any Anglo-Saxon claiming regal authority.

Webb
08-14-2018, 03:25 PM
I'm on holiday so only have my Kindle version of Caesar's De Bello Gallico. This is what I'd remembered, although there may be other instances. I'm not saying the Belgae were Germans; I'm just interested in how and why they may have viewed themselves to be so to a certain extent. As always, the tragedy is that they couldn't speak to us for themselves.

IV.--When Caesar inquired of them what states were in arms, how powerful they were, and what they could do in war, he received the following information: that the greater part of the Belgae were sprung from the Germans, and that having crossed the Rhine at an early period, they had settled there, on account of the fertility of the country, and had driven out the Gauls who inhabited those regions; and that they were the only people who, in the memory of our fathers, when all Gaul was overrun, had prevented the Teutones and the Cimbri from entering their territories; the effect of which was that, from the recollection of those events, they assumed to themselves great authority and haughtiness in military matters.

What is interesting is that Boiorix was one of the leaders of the Cimbri along with Caesorix, Claodicus, and Lugius. It has been suggested that there is some Celtic element associated with the Cimbri, but not proven. But the name Boiorix is very interesting.

JonikW
08-14-2018, 03:26 PM
Cerdic's father is said to have been Elesa, and some scholars evidently think he was actually the Romano-Briton Elasius.

Cerdic's descendants had British names like Ceawlin, Cedda, and Caedwalla, as well.

Descent from Woden was probably an obligatory formality for any Anglo-Saxon claiming regal authority.

Yes, it was ubiquitous among the royal houses. I remember those family names. Ive just long thought the explanation may not lie on the obvious paternal line.

Gwydion
08-14-2018, 03:33 PM
Cerdic's father is said to have been Elesa, and some scholars evidently think he was actually the Romano-Briton Elasius.

Cerdic's descendants had British names like Ceawlin, Cedda, and Caedwalla, as well.

Descent from Woden was probably an obligatory formality for any Anglo-Saxon claiming regal authority.

Strange irony of history then that the Anglo-Saxon kingdom which would eventually become the basis of a unified England may have had a British Celtic origin and royal dynasty, especially taking into consideration historic perceived sense of superiority of the English vis a vis the Celts.

rms2
08-14-2018, 03:34 PM
Yes, it was ubiquitous among the royal houses. I remember those family names. Ive just long thought the explanation may not lie on the obvious paternal line.

We'll probably never know for sure. I prefer the idea that he was a Romano-Briton on his father's side who was politically astute and nimble enough to both preserve and advance his status among the invaders.

That's just my own preference though; I don't know the right answer. The names Cerdic ("Cereticus"), Elesa (or Elasius), Ceawlin, Cedda, and Caedwalla certainly weren't typical Anglo-Saxon names, however.

Webb
08-14-2018, 03:36 PM
The same could be said of the Franks. Childeric, Theodric, Chlodoric, Chararic.

JonikW
08-14-2018, 03:37 PM
We'll probably never know for sure. I prefer the idea that he was a Romano-Briton on his father's side who was politically astute and nimble enough to both preserve and advance his status among the invaders.

That's just my own preference though; I don't know what the right answer. The names Cerdic ("Cereticus"), Elesa (or Elasius), Caewlin, Cedda, and Caedwalla certainly weren't typical Anglo-Saxon names, however.

I like it too, and given that he was in the west it's more possible. He certainly was no Hengist or Horsa.:)

rms2
08-14-2018, 03:44 PM
The same could be said of the Franks. Childeric, Theodric, Chlodoric, Chararic.

I think those are actually Germanic names. For example, Theodric (or Theodoric) is just the old Germanic form of the modern name Dietrich.

etrusco
08-14-2018, 03:47 PM
Nervii and Menapii were not Germanic tribal names. Those two tribes were Belgic. The Aduatuci and the Condrusi, as I understand it, were not Belgic but were Germans living west of the Rhine.

Since I am not an expert, I don't really want to become involved in another argument about the Belgae. The consensus among scholars has long been that the Belgae were a Celtic-speaking people who may have done some mixing with nearby Germans.

Usually people who argue that the Belgae were Germans do so from a desire to bring the Germans to Britain as early as possible so as to make the English as purely Germanic as possible.


I'm italian so I do not have any agenda to make britain as more "germanic" as possible. I researched on the matter because I tried to give myself an answer as to why Britannia was the only major part of the empire to undergo a language shift ( at least in Europe of course). The chance of having a presence of germanic speaking populations before the arrival of the AS is a possible explanation. The fact that the belgians labelled themselves of being of germanic origin is important. I think they knew better about themselves than me and you or whoever else. Don't you agree?
Also Cesar's words about the presence of three different speaking region in Gaul is important. No ancient author AFAIR questioned the linguistic picture described in the De bello gallico which is ( surprise) perfectly fitted with what we know about language families present in northwestern europe.
Mind: Cesar along with all military ranks of the roman empire were well aware of the linguistic landscape of the territory in which they fought. During battle prisoners were taken and they need to understand their language so it is quite laughable that people that live thousand of years after pretend to know better that people that were present in the region back then themselves!
The presence of germanic tribes in England in the time BC should upset none. We know from the Negau inscription that germanic soldiers and mercenarie were already present south of the alps ( modern day Slovenia) in III/II century BC. So why rule out the possibility of them arriving in Britain which was much closer to their homeland?

But we have another proof of a possible presence of germanic speaking populations in britain. This is a quote of the famous book " De origine et situ Germanorum" of Tacitus :

"Ergo iam dextro Suebici maris litore Aestiorum gentes adluuntur, quibus ritus habitusque Sueborum, lingua Britannicae propior."

" At this point the Suevic sea, on its eastern shore, washes the tribes of the Ćstii, whose rites and fashions and style of dress are those of the Suevi, while their language is more like the British."

Remind everyone:

1) Tacitus was born likely or in northern Italy or in southern France so he was well aware of what was a celtic language ( he was probably of celtic breed himself).

2) He's talking about germanic people and he is well aware of the presence of celtic speaking tribes ( like the Cotini ) in the territory of Magna Germania( Free Germany). So he's quite precise on the subject.

3) He states that the Aestii are like the Suebi ( germanic of course) but he is struck by the fact that their language was not like the one of their neighbors ( likely an east germanic language) but was like the one spoken by the ( surprise) british. Tacitus knew celtic languages. Now how can he be so dumb as to not being able to understand what the language of the brits was. Britannia was part of the empire!! It is impossible. Or at least presumption is on him being correct.
Here again AFAIR no ancient author ever questioned Tacitus'words.

I know this issue is a sensible one for people living ( or who have origin in ) the british isles. The narrative of the AS invasions as the starting point of germanic identity in england is strong and difficult to challenge from a psychological point of view. It is understandable. I'm fine with that. But we need to improve our understanding of the past. That germanic presence in England could be older than the AS is quite likely. I know this could worry the "celtic" part of Britain. But at the end only truth matters for historians.

Regarding the days of the week they are not related with conversion to Christianity. Otherwise in the middle age when everyone was christian they would have changed them. They didn't. It is a no issue regarding the willingness or unwillingness of turning to the christian faith. In this sense your post was dumb ( in a friendly way).

Regarding the Cestii of course they could not be celts. Celts never made it so ( north) east.

JonikW
08-14-2018, 03:57 PM
That's what I love about this forum. Honest and informed debate, with everyone ready to challenge other opinions and add something interesting into the mix. I'd always assumed Tacitus or his sources had been thrown by the sound of a language in the Baltic, but this has given me cause for thought.

rms2
08-14-2018, 03:59 PM
The Belgae did not identify themselves as Germans. Caesar said that, based on what he heard from informants, and it's pretty clear that he merely meant they had recently come from east of the Rhine.

Even if Caesar had said clearly, "The Belgae are Germanic", the fact would remain that the names of their leaders and of their tribes were Celtic, so it isn't likely they were Germans.

Tacitus was writing about conditions late in the first century A.D., nearly 160 years after Caesar's Gallic Wars, after a great deal of movement and mixing had taken place, and long after the Belgae and other Celtic tribes had been driven west of the Rhine by the Germans.

Camulogčne Rix
08-14-2018, 04:09 PM
Let's guess together. The names of Belgic tribal leaders were Celtic, and the names of the Belgic tribes were Celtic.

Hmmm . . . think that means they spoke Celtic.

Agreed. Cujus Rex, ejus Lingua.

Regarding Germanic tribes, let's keep in mind this sentence from Tacitus:


Ceterum Germaniae vocabulum recens et nuper additum; quoniam, qui primi Rhenum transgressi Gallos expulerint, ac nunc Tungri, tunc Germani vocati sint: ita nationis nomen, non gentis evaluisse paulatim, ut omnes primum a victore ob metum, mox a seipsis invento nomine Germani vocarentur.

The name Germany, on the other hand, they say, is modern and newly introduced, from the fact that the tribes which first crossed the Rhine and drove out the Gauls, and are now called Tungrians, were then called Germans. Thus what was the name of a tribe, and not of a race, gradually prevailed, till all called themselves by this self-invented name of Germans, which the conquerors had first employed to inspire terror.

rms2
08-14-2018, 04:13 PM
. . .
Regarding the days of the week they are not related with conversion to Christianity. Otherwise in the middle age when everyone was christian they would have changed them. They didn't. It is a no issue regarding the willingness or unwillingness of turning to the christian faith. In this sense your post was dumb ( in a friendly way).
. . .

Look. The preservation of the names of pagan gods and goddesses in the names of the days of the week is clearly an indication that the conversion of the population to Christianity took time and did not reach every nook and cranny of the social structure.

And there have been Christian sects that have rejected the pagan names of the days of the week and have substituted their own systems, chiefly the biblical system of simply numbering them, i.e., first day, second day, etc.

We know the Anglo-Saxons were pagans when they arrived in Britain. Their conversion to Christianity really did not get rolling until the 7th century, and even then was a long, drawn out process.

By the Middle Ages probably the vast majority of the people had no idea of the origin of the names of the days of the week and so had no reason to object to them . . . like most people today.

Tomenable
08-14-2018, 04:24 PM
Well I realize surnames are mutable things and not necessarily indicative of origins, I more or less just try to speculate based on where the surname arose, the linguistic origin of the name, the area it is largely distributed, and my own Y-DNA where my ancestor would have originated or where he would have been in the early Middle Ages, during the Anglo-Saxon period, etc. Strange things happen though so what is most probable isn't necessarily going to be the actual explanation of ones own particular case. That said going by the above criteria, I would guess my ancestor was somewhere in Northeastern Britain stretching from Southeast Scotland down to the Yorkshire during this period and the period when surnames were forming and being widely adopted. Interestingly that same zone is where two of the earliest mentions of the name are found (Stobo in Peeblesshire and Rievaulx Abbey, both around the late 12th century.)

As to the ancient L2 found in Lothian, it is on the FTDNA U152 Project's "Ancient DNA" map. Here is the description of the sample in question:

I2656_d L2+ DF110? Scotland_Late Bronze Age 1278–979 calBCE (2930±50 BP, GU-2762) Longniddry, Grainfoot, East Lothian, Scotland

Reads for DF110: 1A 1G. Olalde et al (2018)

So based on the above my ancestor could have been in Britain as early as the Bronze Age, but the small amounts of U152 in Jutland along with the possibility of Frankish, Alemmanic, or other more southern Germanic lineages coming with the Anglo-Saxons or the possibility of a later Danish origin is enough to keep one guessing.

In my opinion ancient DNA > modern distribution. But maybe eventually some ancient U152>L2 will be found in Jutland.

rms2
08-14-2018, 04:34 PM
Agreed. Cujus Rex, ejus Lingua.

Regarding Germanic tribes, let's keep in mind this sentence from Tacitus:

For our purposes, however, I think we rely on the opinions of historical linguists in deciding whether the Belgae were Celts or Germans. Since the consensus among them, from all I have read, is that the names of the Belgic tribes and of their leaders were Celtic, and the place names in their old stomping grounds were Celtic, therefore the Belgae were Celtic, perhaps with some Germanic admixture.

spruithean
08-14-2018, 04:40 PM
I think what you quoted from POBI makes sense:



There must have been tremendous social and economic pressure to speak English, besides the usual pressure a bride would feel to fit into her husband's world.

I have a theory that there were young male Britons who became socialized as Anglo-Saxons through participation in the old Indo-European tradition of the war band, by offering their services as warriors to Anglo-Saxon chiefs. We know that there were Germanic tribesmen who served in Hunnic war bands, so ethnic origin was not always an absolute bar to social advancement. We also know that Britons often allied themselves with Anglo-Saxons and fought against other Britons (cf. the assassination of Urien of Rheged, for example).

The Anglo-Saxon king of Wessex, Cerdic, is thought to have been a Briton, at least on his father's side.

That is an interesting and definitely logical theory, I didn't even think of male Britons joining the war band and offering their services. That would definitely be a way to join the ranks of Anglo-Saxon society.

Interestingly Cerdic and his descendants aren't the only Anglo-Saxon kings to have Celtic names, some of the petty kings within Mercia, especially close to Wales had seemingly Celtic names, I think a fair number of Britons did this and their descendants became Anglo-Saxons.


Anyone know of any good resources in understanding the difference in Anglo-Saxon settlement and Anglicization of Lothian/Northern England and Southern England?

Something of interest I came across on the topic. This is from the Celtic Culture : A Historical Encyclopedia edited by Koch:

Nonetheless, Lothian is of interest to Celtic studies for several reasons. First, prior to 638 it had formed part of the northern Brythonic kingdom of Gododdin. Brythonic place-names are as thick on the ground there as anywhere outside Wales (Cymru), Cornwall (Kernow), or Brittany (Breizh), indicating a high level of survival and a less than overwhelming Anglian settlement. The hagiography of the Celtic St Kentigern of Glasgow (Glaschu) looks back to Brythonic Lothian as his homhttps://anthrogenica.com/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=15043e country. It should also be borne in mind that King Oswald himself and the 7th-century church of Bernicia were heavily influenced by Gaelic culture by way of the island monastery of Iona (Eilean Ě) and the cult of its founder, St Colum Cille. The Bernician grip on Lothian was not all that strong and seems to have been partly rolled back in the north-west after the great Pictish victory of Nechtanesmere in 685.

Interesting to combine with the following data:

https://www.heroicage.org/issues/10/fox.html

http://i.imgur.com/4Y1bBIp.jpg

So it seems Bernicia/Lothian was perhaps less Anglian than other places. Perhaps that general cline of South/East more Anglo, North/West more Celt holds largely true.

It is generally well accepted that Bernicia (Bryneich in Brittonic) was originally a Celtic kingdom which eventually caved to an Anglian ruling class, who they themselves had strong ties to their Celtic neighbours to the north, there are a few trains of thought on these Angle rulers, were they the descendants of Germanic mercenaries at Hadrian's Wall or did they sail up the coast from Deira?

When Dál Riata, under Áedán mac Gabráin was expanding rapidly they were quickly checked by Ćthelfrith at Degsastan, the son (Hering son of Hussa) of a rival Anglian ruling family led the Dál Riatans there. Why Hering fled to Dál Riata is unknown, especially for an Anglo-Saxon ćtheling, who could have probably blended in with his Anglo-Saxon neighbours to the south (Deira, East Anglia, etc), why many of them chose these "foreign" kingdoms is unknown to me.

Hering wasn't the only ćtheling from Bernicia to head northwards when in exile, Eanfrith (to Pictland), Oswald & Oswiu (their other siblings included). This tradition seems to have held on quite late with later kings like Eadwulf (704-705), fled to Dál Riata or Pictland and Alchred (765-774), who fled to the Picts and was received from King Ciniod.

From what I've read on a few blogs and Heroic Age, it seems many believe Bernicia was more Anglo-British than it was Anglo-Saxon, however there still was pretty clear Anglian settlement in the Lothians and west from there, though I think the majority of Anglo-Saxons came later, especially after 1066 due to the pressure the Normans were exerting on the nobles and their followers, that and later we have Anglo-Normans coming into Scotland with English speaking followers.

EDIT: We can't be totally sure about the total early Bernician Angle settlement as it seems they had a thing for taking over Celtic hillforts and other defensive locations. But that again could be a product of a higher Celtic population within the Anglian kingdom.

Gwydion
08-14-2018, 04:43 PM
I would also agree that the Belgae were Celtic.

Apparently some of the old associations of certain tribes along the Rhine have been questioned recently. When I was researching the tribes that inhabited the area my mother's father's family was from in Germany (Kallstadt, Bad Durkheim, etc.) I came across new studies which called into question the Germanic association of the Nemetes (obvious Celtic associated name) and Vangiones just to use one example. Then again the contact zones along the Rhine between Gaul and German was likely quite fluid, perhaps Celts who were once on the Eastern side of the Rhine had once assimilated Germanic peoples who in turn would later assimilate them during the Volkerwanderung, etc.

JonikW
08-14-2018, 04:50 PM
I would also agree that the Belgae were Celtic.

Apparently some of the old associations of certain tribes along the Rhine have been questioned recently. When I was researching the tribes that inhabited the area my mother's father's family was from in Germany (Kallstadt, Bad Durkheim, etc.) I came across new studies which called into question the Germanic association of the Nemetes (obvious Celtic associated name) and Vangiones just to use one example. Then again the contact zones along the Rhine between Gaul and German was likely quite fluid, perhaps Celts who were once on the Eastern side of the Rhine had once assimilated Germanic peoples who in turn would later assimilate them during the Volkerwanderung, etc.

I didn't know that Nemetes was a Celtic name. That's interesting because there are two theories that I know of for why the Russians call the Germans Nemtsy. One is that tribe and the other is that nemoi means "dumb", or by extension unable to speak our language.

Camulogčne Rix
08-14-2018, 05:02 PM
Nemetes comes from Nemeton, which means "sanctuary, sacred area" in Gaulish

JonikW
08-14-2018, 05:06 PM
Nemetes comes from Nemeton, which means "sanctuary, sacred area" in Gaulish

Very interesting. How do we know that's how they got their name? Not disputing, just curious as there are often several theories.

etrusco
08-14-2018, 05:10 PM
I didn't know that Nemetes was a Celtic name. That's interesting because there are two theories that I know of for why the Russians call the Germans Nemtsy. One is that tribe and the other is that nemoi means "dumb", or by extension unable to speak our language.


I think likely the second: the dumb meaning. Basically it is the same meaning of "barbarian" i.e. someone who is unable to speak someone else's language.

JonikW
08-14-2018, 05:16 PM
I think likely the second: the dumb meaning. Basically it is the same meaning of "barbarian" i.e. someone who is unable to speak someone else's language.

I agree. It's always made sense to me. Just thinking back to the supposed German name being from the dominant tribe. Same with the Alemanni, as we all know today.

etrusco
08-14-2018, 05:20 PM
@all

the fact of "gerrmanic" tribes having celtic like names and leaders with celtic names must not be overestimated. It is due to the fact that the celtic world had a tremendous impact on the ethnogenesis of the germanic people ( just follow the influence of La Tene culture in northern europe). Hence for germanics having celtic names was the trendiest thing of all back then. A thread on the cultural impact of the celts upon the germans is seriously needed in this forum I think. If the logic is celtic names of leaders= celtic people then we would have practically no germans at all!. Both germanic and celts used the ending rix ( that after became reich in proper german and rich in english). That ending doesn't make someone celtic or germanic. The gothic king Theodoric then with this logic would have been celt because both roots of the name are celts ( teuto = tribe and rix= king). It was simply shared by the two ethnicities.

Camulogčne Rix
08-14-2018, 05:31 PM
Very interesting. How do we know that's how they got their name? Not disputing, just curious as there are often several theories.

My source:
https://www.worldcat.org/title/gods-of-the-celts-and-the-indo-europeans/oclc/924591218?lang=en

Besides I have the chance to have a Gaulish/French dictionary written by a good friend of mine.

spruithean
08-14-2018, 05:33 PM
@all

the fact of "gerrmanic" tribes having celtic like names and leaders with celtic names must not be overestimated. It is due to the fact that the celtic world had a tremendous impact on the ethnogenesis of the germanic people ( just follow the influence of La Tene culture in northern europe). Hence for germanics having celtic names was the trendiest thing of all back then. A thread on the cultural impact of the celts upon the germans is seriously needed in this forum I think. If the logic is celtic names of leaders= celtic people then we would have practically no germans at all!. Both germanic and celts used the ending rix ( that after became reich in proper german and rich in english). That ending doesn't make someone celtic or germanic. The gothic king Theodoric then with this logic would have been celt because both roots of the name are celts ( teuto = tribe and rix= king). It was simply shared by the two ethnicities.

Obviously names can spread across different cultural groups without problems, and I'm aware that a German with a Celtic name is not necessarily a Celt, but in cases like what we see in Wessex (Cerdic, Caedwalla, etc) there may have been a definite Celtic origin, especially if Cerdic's father was indeed Elesa (Elasius).

Maroboduus was a chieftain of the Marcomanni and he had a Celtic name, as did the two chiefs of the Frisii, Verritus and Malorix, whether the Frisii were actually Germanic is up for debate due to recent discussions. Some believe they may have actually been Celts.

We should remember that the Celts and Germans were both products of the Indo-European language/culture, and they will share a large amount of similarities...

msmarjoribanks
08-14-2018, 05:35 PM
Since I mentioned it above and the topic came up again, here's Higham and Ryan on why it's unlikely that German was commonly spoken in eastern parts of Roman Britain due to the influence of the Belgae:

(1) The Belgae are at least as likely to have spoken Celtic as Germanic, and Belgae-influenced place names don't seem to be German but more Celtic.
(2) There are demonstrated cross-Channel contacts with Celtic areas and southern Britain.
(3) Place names in eastern Roman Britain are as uniformly Romano-Celtic as in the west.
(4) Celtic name development continued into the 5th century, demonstrating that British Celtic was a living language.

JonikW
08-14-2018, 05:54 PM
Yes, and there's always good old Tacitus. Perhaps the Pompeii scrolls they're trying to read through new technology will bring us lost works of this nature.

On a general estimate, however, it is likely that Gauls took possession of the neighbouring island. In both lands you find the same rituals, the same superstitious beliefs; the language does not differ much; there is the same boldness in courting danger.

Webb
08-14-2018, 06:37 PM
I think those are actually Germanic names. For example, Theodric (or Theodoric) is just the old Germanic form of the modern name Dietrich.

Yes, but you could argue the suffix of ric, rix, ri, which means king or ruler could just be an old Indo-European suffix, or there could be a Celtic element amongst these Germanic tribes nobility-warrior class.

GoldenHind
08-14-2018, 07:02 PM
Any idea of which archaeological evidence supports migration from places further south in Germany than the typical locales associated with the Anglo-Saxons, i.e. Northwestern Germany, Jutland, Frisia, etc.? Or do you happen to know of any further reading on the topic?



The book by James Campbell I referred to is The Anglo-Saxons, Cornell Univ. Press, 1982. It is more of a general survey than an archaeological study. In addition to my earlier quote, he also says there is "archaeological evidence for extensive settlement in eastern England, from the late fifth century, by people whose continental homes lay considerably to the north the Angles and Saxons, from modern north Denmark and south Norway." This is several centuries before the advent of the Vikings.

Another work I can mention is Donald Henson, The Origins of the Anglo-Saxons, 2006.

Regarding settlement from southern Germany, there are two places in eastern England, one in Norfolk and another in Cambridgeshire, named Swaffham, which is said to be derived from "settlement of the Swabians".

Finn
08-14-2018, 07:09 PM
German is not so wel defined as it looks like..... the first Germani were a Gaul/ Celtic tribe .....


First attested in writings of Julius Caesar, who used Germani to designate a group of tribes in northeastern Gaul, of unknown origin and considered to be neither Latin nor Germanic. Perhaps originally the name of an individual tribe, but Gaulish (Celtic) origins have been proposed source (https://www.etymonline.com/word/german)

So the first Germani were Celtic!:biggrin1:

The Bataves (https://books.google.nl/books?id=kfv6HKXErqAC&pg=PA62&lpg=PA62&dq=bataves+germanic+celtic&source=bl&ots=_zZFGfuZ0D&sig=eQ2Glt3E9MSgAb971yxnLkPLyVc&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiyjMi_me3cAhUQZ1AKHY4GDN8Q6AEwAHoECAkQA Q#v=onepage&q=bataves%20germanic%20celtic&f=false) who lived along the Rhine in the Netherlands got a Germanic mark, but can also be related to the Celts.

There were much other words in use to describe this people for example Teutonic.

In the perception at that time it didn't play a part of the consciousness of these people at stake.

I guess the Romans used Celts as equivalent for barbaric (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbarian#Etymology), but they Romanized and so became 'civilized' and Germans for 'supra barbaric' and eventually out of reach for them....

JonikW
08-14-2018, 07:21 PM
The book by James Campbell I referred to is The Anglo-Saxons, Cornell Univ. Press, 1982. It is more of a general survey than an archaeological study. In addition to my earlier quote, he also says there is "archaeological evidence for extensive settlement in eastern England, from the late fifth century, by people whose continental homes lay considerably to the north the Angles and Saxons, from modern north Denmark and south Norway." This is several centuries before the advent of the Vikings.

Another work I can mention is Donald Henson, The Origins of the Anglo-Saxons, 2006.

Regarding settlement from southern Germany, there are two places in eastern England, one in Norfolk and another in Cambridgeshire, named Swaffham, which is said to be derived from "settlement of the Swabians".

I still think the knowledge of Myres has not been paralleled. In particular his book on the pottery of Anglo-Saxon England and what it can tell us. Sometimes pots are people. The sweep of that work is unsurpassed.

Finn
08-14-2018, 07:27 PM
https://www.mupload.nl/img/2b67nbl3x3.png
source (https://books.google.nl/books?id=kfv6HKXErqAC&pg=PA62&lpg=PA62&dq=bataves+germanic+celtic&source=bl&ots=_zZFGfuZ0D&sig=eQ2Glt3E9MSgAb971yxnLkPLyVc&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiyjMi_me3cAhUQZ1AKHY4GDN8Q6AEwAHoECAkQA Q#v=snippet&q=%20germani&f=false)

rms2
08-14-2018, 07:31 PM
Yes, but you could argue the suffix of ric, rix, ri, which means king or ruler could just be an old Indo-European suffix, or there could be a Celtic element amongst these Germanic tribes nobility-warrior class.

Except no one I know of thinks the names of those Frankish leaders were Celtic. The names of the leaders of the Belgae are another story.

Finn
08-14-2018, 07:40 PM
Except no one I know of thinks the names of those Frankish leaders were Celtic. The names of the leaders of the Belgae are another story.

just for fun and these Frisian 'kings???

https://www.mupload.nl/img/x9cubbnom6k.png

source (https://books.google.nl/books?id=J7Q4DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45&dq=Malorix+en+Verritus+frisians&source=bl&ots=N93Er7ulqD&sig=hZRMtKMPfSZQR7KzmbUmT_sWetE&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjPqYyXpe3cAhULaVAKHYSqCOM4ChDoATAFegQIB BAB#v=onepage&q=Malorix%20en%20Verritus%20frisians&f=false)

rms2
08-14-2018, 07:40 PM
Since I mentioned it above and the topic came up again, here's Higham and Ryan on why it's unlikely that German was commonly spoken in eastern parts of Roman Britain due to the influence of the Belgae:

(1) The Belgae are at least as likely to have spoken Celtic as Germanic, and Belgae-influenced place names don't seem to be German but more Celtic.
(2) There are demonstrated cross-Channel contacts with Celtic areas and southern Britain.
(3) Place names in eastern Roman Britain are as uniformly Romano-Celtic as in the west.
(4) Celtic name development continued into the 5th century, demonstrating that British Celtic was a living language.

Another thing I have already mentioned is that the Hinxton Celts, whose skeletons were recovered from the old territory of the Belgic Catuvellauni, and who lived and died there at the time the Catuvellauni held sway, were both R1b-L21.

rms2
08-14-2018, 07:45 PM
just for fun and these Frisians 'kings???

https://www.mupload.nl/img/x9cubbnom6k.png

source (https://books.google.nl/books?id=J7Q4DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45&dq=Malorix+en+Verritus+frisians&source=bl&ots=N93Er7ulqD&sig=hZRMtKMPfSZQR7KzmbUmT_sWetE&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjPqYyXpe3cAhULaVAKHYSqCOM4ChDoATAFegQIB BAB#v=onepage&q=Malorix%20en%20Verritus%20frisians&f=false)

Rix is a Celtic ending, no doubt, but we were talking about the Franks and names ending in ric.

There may have been Celts in what is now Friesland at one time, but they were replaced by Germans, and the Frisians who went to what is now England during the Migration Period were not Celts.

Paul333
08-14-2018, 07:45 PM
I still think the knowledge of Myres has not been paralleled. In particular his book on the pottery of Anglo-Saxon England and what it can tell us. Sometimes pots are people. The sweep of that work is unsurpassed.

I think Bruce N Eagles, The Anglo Saxon settlement of Humberside, Part i & ii, ( BAR British Series 68 ) 1979, takes some beating, He has a great deal of drawings and comparison of grave goods and pottery drawings including those of the Anglo Saxon Cemetary at Sancton, mentioned earlier on this forum, he also refers to Myers & green,1973 and Myers & Southern 1973 etc. I have a copy of Part ii, and the detailed drawings of the Early Anglo/Saxon pottery, and grave goods are second to none.

Finn
08-14-2018, 07:53 PM
There may have been Celts in what is now Friesland at one time, but they were replaced by Germans, and the Frisians who went to what is now England during the Migration Period were not Celts.

Hear hear!!:kiss:
No campaign needed rms2!:biggrin1:

rms2
08-14-2018, 08:12 PM
One of the differences between the south of Britain and Scotland is the influence of King David I of Scotland in settling Anglian Northumbrians in eastern Scotland in the 12th century.

Webb
08-14-2018, 08:13 PM
Except no one I know of thinks the names of those Frankish leaders were Celtic. The names of the leaders of the Belgae are another story.

I don't think they were completely Celtic either. I am suggesting a naming ritual that may go back many generations to a Celtic substrate in the Germanic tribes.

rms2
08-14-2018, 08:17 PM
I don't think they were completely Celtic either. I am suggesting a naming ritual that may go back many generations to a Celtic substrate in the Germanic tribes.

Honestly, ric is an element in a number of Germanic personal names. I don't think it has anything to do with Celtic but goes back further, to their shared IE roots.

I could be wrong though, but ric was common among Germans who were pretty distant from any Celtic contacts, like the Scandinavians, so I don't think we should look to the Celts as the source of it.

Webb
08-14-2018, 08:20 PM
I don't know if anyone here is familiar with www.historyfiles.co.uk. It is a pretty informative site, with lots of information, maps and such. I don't know how accurate it is, however.

Gwydion
08-14-2018, 08:23 PM
Honestly, ric is an element in a number of Germanic personal names. I don't think it has anything to do with Celtic but goes back further, to their shared IE roots.

I could be wrong though, but ric was common among Germans who were pretty distant from any Celtic contacts, like the Scandinavians, so I don't think we should look to the Celts as the source of it.


Could potentially be the source though. From The Baiuvarii and Thuringi: An Ethnographic Perspective:

https://i.imgur.com/TvuwbiO.png

spruithean
08-14-2018, 08:24 PM
Honestly, ric is an element in a number of Germanic personal names. I don't think it has anything to do with Celtic but goes back further, to their shared IE roots.

I could be wrong though, but ric was common among Germans who were pretty distant from any Celtic contacts, like the Scandinavians, so I don't think we should look to the Celts as the source of it.

Apparently the Proto-Germanic word *rīks is an early borrowing from Proto-Celtic *rīxs both meaning "king" or "ruler", however the Germanic version eventually acquired extra meanings.

But an early borrowing from Proto-Celtic could explain the use of the suffix in Scandinavian names far removed from Celtic areas.

rms2
08-14-2018, 08:32 PM
I think it's more likely to go back to the PIE *h₃rḗĝs, from which the Latin rex and the Sanskrit raja are derived, as well.

Pylsteen
08-14-2018, 08:42 PM
I think it's more likely to go back to the PIE *h₃rḗĝs, from which the Latin rex and the Sanskrit raja are derived, as well.

This would have given Germanic *rēk-. However, we find Germanic *rīk-. The long ī instead of ē is a typical Celtic development. The Germanic form can therefore be seen as a borrowing from Celtic (before Grimm's Law).

rms2
08-14-2018, 08:47 PM
This would have given Germanic *rēk-. However, we find Germanic *rīk-. The long ī instead of ē is a typical Celtic development. The Germanic form can therefore be seen as a borrowing from Celtic (before Grimm's Law).

Suppose for a moment you're right. Who thinks Frankish personal names like Childeric, Theodric, Chlodoric, Chararic were Celtic or that other Germanic personal names like Gaiseric were Celtic?

Was rix pronounced with a long i sound or a short i sound?

Honestly, I don't follow your reasoning. Obviously the development from *h₃rḗĝs to rex in Latin and raja in Sanskrit did not result in *rēk-. Why should we expect it to do that in Germanic?

Paul333
08-14-2018, 08:47 PM
Honestly, ric is an element in a number of Germanic personal names. I don't think it has anything to do with Celtic but goes back further, to their shared IE roots.

I could be wrong though, but ric was common among Germans who were pretty distant from any Celtic contacts, like the Scandinavians, so I don't think we should look to the Celts as the source of it.

I agree, one of my direct family lines has the surname Goodricke, originally it was believed to of been based on the Anglo-Saxon personal name 'Godric' meaning Good ruler, or God ruler.

Pylsteen
08-14-2018, 08:55 PM
Suppose for a moment you're right. Who thinks Frankish personal names like Childeric, Theodric, Chlodoric, Chararic were Celtic or that other Germanic personal names like Gaiseric were Celtic?

Good question; I would regard the names such as Theoderic as Germanic formations, because -ric was incorporated in Proto-Germanic already. That doesn't take away that Celtic names such as Teutorix are similar formations and could perhaps have served as a source of inspiration if the similarity is not just by chance.

etrusco
08-14-2018, 09:01 PM
I think it's more likely to go back to the PIE *h₃rḗĝs, from which the Latin rex and the Sanskrit raja are derived, as well.

no, the germanic did use the root *hregs but they did not use to name the king of the tribe, they used it instead to form the word right (recht, rettr, reht). The use of this IE root at the end of a personal name to denote the ruling power over the tribe is universally considered to be a celtic borrowing.

Finn
08-14-2018, 09:02 PM
Apparently the Proto-Germanic word *rīks is an early borrowing from Proto-Celtic *rīxs both meaning "king" or "ruler", however the Germanic version eventually acquired extra meanings.

But an early borrowing from Proto-Celtic could explain the use of the suffix in Scandinavian names far removed from Celtic areas.

Rixt(e) is still a girlsname in Friesland and Groningen.

rms2
08-14-2018, 09:08 PM
no, the germanic did use the root *hregs but they did not use to name the king of the tribe, they used it instead to form the word right (recht, rettr, reht). The use of this IE root at the end of a personal name to denote the ruling power over the tribe is universally considered to be a celtic borrowing.

Recht stems from a related PIE word *h₃rḗĝtos, not from *h₃rḗĝs itself.

Ric may have have come via a very early Celtic borrowing, but the original topic was the list of Frankish personal names Webb brought up.

There is no reason to regard them as Celtic.

etrusco
08-14-2018, 09:14 PM
No I was referring to this reconstruction that puts right and rix under the same root:

right (adj.1)

"morally correct," Old English riht "just, good, fair; proper, fitting; straight, not bent, direct, erect," from Proto-Germanic *rehtan (source also of Old Frisian riucht "right," Old Saxon reht, Middle Dutch and Dutch recht, Old High German reht, German recht, Old Norse rettr, Gothic raihts), from PIE root *reg- "move in a straight line," also "to rule, to lead straight, to put right" (source also of Greek orektos "stretched out, upright;" Latin rectus "straight, right;" Old Persian rasta- "straight; right," aršta- "rectitude;" Old Irish recht "law;" Welsh rhaith, Breton reiz "just, righteous, wise").

Compare slang straight (adj.1) "honest, morally upright," and Latin rectus "right," literally "straight," Lithuanian teisus "right, true," literally "straight." Greek dikaios "just" (in the moral and legal sense) is from dike "custom." As an emphatic, meaning "you are right," it is recorded from 1580s; use as a question meaning "am I not right?" is from 1961. The sense in right whale is "justly entitled to the name." Right stuff "best human ingredients" is from 1848, popularized by Tom Wolfe's 1979 book about the first astronauts. Right of way is attested from 1767. Right angle is from late 14c.

then root *reg

*reg-
Proto-Indo-European root meaning "move in a straight line," with derivatives meaning "to direct in a straight line," thus "to lead, rule."

It forms all or part of: abrogate; address; adroit; Alaric; alert; anorectic; anorexia; arrogant; arrogate; bishopric; correct; corvee; derecho; derogate; derogatory; Dietrich; direct; dress; eldritch; erect; ergo; Eric; Frederick; Henry; incorrigible; interregnum; interrogate; maharajah; Maratha; prerogative; prorogue; rack (n.1) "frame with bars;" rail (n.1) "horizontal bar passing from one post or support to another;" Raj; rajah; rake (n.1) "toothed tool for drawing or scraping things together;" rake (n.2) "debauchee; idle, dissolute person;" rakish; rank (adj.) "corrupt, loathsome, foul;" real (n.) "small Spanish silver coin;" realm; reck; reckless; reckon; rectangle; rectify; rectilinear; rectitude; recto; recto-; rector; rectum; regal; regent; regicide; regime; regimen; regiment; region; regular; regulate; Regulus; Reich; reign; resurgent; rex; rich; right; Risorgimento; rogation; royal; rule; sord; source; subrogate; subrogation; surge; surrogate; viceroy.

It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by:

Sanskrit raj- "a king, a leader," rjyati "he stretches himself," riag "torture" (by racking); Avestan razeyeiti "directs," raštva- "directed, arranged, straight;" Persian rahst "right, correct;" Latin regere "to rule, direct, lead, govern," rex (genitive regis) "king," rectus "right, correct;" Greek oregein "to reach, extend;" Old Irish ri, Gaelic righ "a king," Gaulish -rix "a king" (in personal names, such as Vircingetorix), Old Irish rigim "to stretch out;" Gothic reiks "a leader," raihts "straight, right;" Lithuanian raižytis "to stretch oneself;" Old English rice "kingdom," -ric "king," rice "rich, powerful," riht "correct;" Gothic raihts, Old High German recht, Old Swedish reht, Old Norse rettr "correct."

Yes I agree those frankish names are not celtic of course

rms2
08-14-2018, 09:23 PM
Recht and right stem from the same PIE root as the root for the word for king but not from king, *h₃rḗĝs, itself.

That was my point.

Anyway, that was kind of a useless tangent. No one thinks those Frankish personal names were Celtic, even if they contained an ending that might have been borrowed from Celtic into Germanic long before anyone bearing them was born.

Agamemnon
08-14-2018, 09:34 PM
Suppose for a moment you're right. Who thinks Frankish personal names like Childeric, Theodric, Chlodoric, Chararic were Celtic or that other Germanic personal names like Gaiseric were Celtic?

Was rix pronounced with a long i sound or a short i sound?

Honestly, I don't follow your reasoning. Obviously the development from *h₃rḗĝs to rex in Latin and raja in Sanskrit did not result in *rēk-. Why should we expect it to do that in Germanic?

Pylsteen is right on this, this is a borrowing from Celtic into pre-Proto-Germanic.

rms2
08-14-2018, 09:40 PM
Pylsteen is right on this, this is a borrowing from Celtic into pre-Proto-Germanic.

In other words, long long before any Franks or other Migration Period Germans bearing ric as part of their names existed.

Agamemnon
08-14-2018, 09:47 PM
In other words, long long before any Franks or other Migration Period Germans bearing ric as part of their names existed.

Yes, absolutely. Pre-PGmc would sound somewhat alien to Germanic speakers, including the earliest ones.

Camulogčne Rix
08-19-2018, 08:30 PM
You want to see what the Gauls (or the Britons) looked like, look, the precision is amazing!

http://www.visualforensic.com/2018.html

anglesqueville
08-20-2018, 09:40 AM
You want to see what the Gauls (or the Britons) looked like, look, the precision is amazing!

http://www.visualforensic.com/2018.html

Amazing site. Thanks Camu!

Finn
08-20-2018, 11:15 AM
You want to see what the Gauls (or the Britons) looked like, look, the precision is amazing!

http://www.visualforensic.com/2018.html

Indeed very sharp! And still recognizable I recognize my father in law ;)

Radboud
08-20-2018, 03:12 PM
Pylsteen is right on this, this is a borrowing from Celtic into pre-Proto-Germanic.

Yeah you are right, but the word king is ultimately of Germanic origin right?

etrusco
08-20-2018, 03:23 PM
Yeah you are right, but the word king is ultimately of Germanic origin right?


Absolutely:

KING:

a late Old English contraction of cyning "king, ruler" (also used as a title), from Proto-Germanic *kuningaz (source also of Dutch koning, Old Norse konungr, Danish konge, Old Saxon and Old High German kuning, Middle High German künic, German König).

This is of uncertain origin. It is possibly related to Old English cynn "family, race" (see kin), making a king originally a "leader of the people." Or perhaps it is from a related prehistoric Germanic word meaning "noble birth," making a king etymologically "one who descended from noble birth" (or "the descendant of a divine race"). The sociological and ideological implications render this a topic of much debate. "The exact notional relation of king with kin is undetermined, but the etymological relation is hardly to be doubted" [Century Dictionary].

General Germanic, but not attested in Gothic, where ţiudans (cognate with Old English ţeoden "chief of a tribe, ruler, prince, king") was used. Finnish kuningas "king," Old Church Slavonic kunegu "prince" (Russian knyaz, Bohemian knez), Lithuanian kunigas "clergyman" are forms of this word taken from Germanic. Meaning "one who has superiority in a certain field or class" is from late 14c.

As leon is the king of bestes. [John Gower, "Confessio Amantis," 1390]
In Old English, used for chiefs of Anglian and Saxon tribes or clans, of the heads of states they founded, and of the British and Danish chiefs they fought. The word acquired a more imposing quality with the rise of European nation-states, but then it was applied to tribal chiefs in Africa, Asia, North America. The chess piece is so called from c. 1400; the playing card from 1560s; the use in checkers/draughts is first recorded 1820. Three Kings for the Biblical Wise Men is from c. 1200.

rms2
08-23-2018, 07:59 PM
Here's something I had almost forgotten but that I just happened to come across today while glancing through my copy of David Anthony's The Horse The Wheel and Language. It's from page 118, and it really seems appropriate to this thread, since it is evident that the English language spread without much of a dna replacement.



Immigrant elite languages are adopted only where an elite status system is not only dominant but is also open to recruitment and alliance. For people to change to a new language, the shift must provide a key to integration within the new system, and those who join the system must see an opportunity to rise within it.29

JerryS.
08-23-2018, 09:48 PM
quick question.... does the DNA from ancient Brtis (pre and post Roman eras) get run through the GEDmacth calculators, and if so what are the admixture breakdowns? if not run through, why not?

Gwydion
08-23-2018, 11:04 PM
It still seems a bit bizarre to me that so quickly and so thoroughly a group could abandon their language, culture, and sense of identity due to the importation of a new elite, even if such a new elite were able to afford social opportunity or other benefits, leaving a dearth of loan words, place names, and cultural elements in the new language/culture.

I wonder also what specifically in the case of the Eastern Britons made them wish to abandon their culture, language, and identity. Why did Britishness lose prestige in relation to Anglo-Saxon culture? The Anglo-Saxons didn't seem necessarily more materially or culturally advanced, indeed the heroic ethos and way of life of the two groups were quite similar. I guess the spiritually oriented tribalist in me envisioning myself in that scenario would rather flee into the West or be reduced to peasantry or even die in battle than abandon who I am for material or social gain.

In a way it lends from the British or Celtic perspective a sense of tragedy to English history since the latter in effect are Britons who adopted a new language and identity and proceeded to push their fellow Britons into Wales/Cornwall (or cause them to flee to Brittany) and thereby deprive their own native culture of the sovereignty of the island, cause their own native language to become a minority language, etc. Call me a Romantic but I can't shake the sensation that the adoption of English-ness and subsequent wars and persecution against the Britons was in a way self-harm by the English if only due to it being an attack on their deepest roots. Could also be me channeling my inner Tolkien (speaking on Welsh):

“For many of us it rings a bell, or rather it stirs deep harp-strings in our linguistic nature. It is the native language to which in unexplored desire we would still go home.”

msmarjoribanks
08-23-2018, 11:24 PM
quick question.... does the DNA from ancient Brtis (pre and post Roman eras) get run through the GEDmacth calculators, and if so what are the admixture breakdowns? if not run through, why not?

You might find this thread interesting: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11039-Roman-era-gladiators-from-York-in-K36

Gedmatch numbers are on the last page.

msmarjoribanks
08-23-2018, 11:28 PM
It still seems a bit bizarre to me that so quickly and so thoroughly a group could abandon their language, culture, and sense of identity due to the importation of a new elite, even if such a new elite were able to afford social opportunity or other benefits, leaving a dearth of loan words, place names, and cultural elements in the new language/culture.

I wonder also what specifically in the case of the Eastern Britons made them wish to abandon their culture, language, and identity.

From what I've read it likely had something to do with the prior incomplete but semi Romanization and then the collapse of that society.

alan
08-23-2018, 11:35 PM
Cerdic's father is said to have been Elesa, and some scholars evidently think he was actually the Romano-Briton Elasius.

Cerdic's descendants had British names like Ceawlin, Cedda, and Caedwalla, as well.

Descent from Woden was probably an obligatory formality for any Anglo-Saxon claiming regal authority.

I think the early Wessex dynasty has such an extreme dose of celtic names that it might be a real case of a Romano British royal dynasty with a warband of Germanic mercenaries who didnt usurp their employer but came to form the noble class just below the royal dynasty. There were what look like could have been such pockets of mercenaries or strategically placed buffer garrisons settled far west of the main Anglo-Saxon frontier in that phase of stand off and i think its entirely plausible that a Romano British dynasty with Anglo Saxon warbands could have survived if the leader/king was seen as a good leader with mutual benefit on occasion. I suspect such a dynasty would have intermarried so much with the germanic military class just below it that they would archaeologically appear to be Anglo-Saxons.

EDIT - another possibility (a strong one) is the Anglo-Saxon chronicle is largely fictional for the first centuries and much of it has been written to glorify and back project their own kingdoms rise and hegemony in some areas a century or two earlier than reality. It wouldnt surprise me at all if the West Saxons story (which really is very suspicious and contradictory) is total horseshit and that the reality is they didnt really come to power over the Britons of south-central (and slightly further western) England until the 2nd half of the 600s.

JerryS.
08-23-2018, 11:47 PM
You might find this thread interesting: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11039-Roman-era-gladiators-from-York-in-K36

Gedmatch numbers are on the last page.

interesting. one middle easterner, one that was mostly English with some German(?) mixed in, and the rest were all English.

Molfish
08-24-2018, 12:00 AM
From what I've read it likely had something to do with the prior incomplete but semi Romanization and then the collapse of that society.
The complete dearth of Celtic culture on the continent suggests there was nobody better at destroying it than the Romans, and the Germanic invaders may have had a relatively easy task converting the deracinated, demoralised Roman Celts to their vigorous culture.

alan
08-24-2018, 12:54 AM
I think Germanic's spread was probably helped by a divide between Latin speaking more Romanised Britons in the higher classes, urban areas, army and probably in general in the south and east of England on the one hand and British Celtic speaking Britons in lower classes, rural areas and probably in general in the less Romanised parts of Britain (the bits where there were few villas) like south-western and north-western England and Wales and probably in areas remote from towns or military bases in general. They may have had conflicting identities with some elements basically very Roman in identity and others from the less Romanised parts of society having class-based dislike of Romans. Some areas like Wales and Dumnonia and parts of northern England were barely Romanised at all in terms of the system of villas and towns and others would largely have experience Rome from military settlements. I think there could have been some serious identity and linguistic divisions in sub-roman Britain. And that is without even considering the tribal type fragmentation into smaller units after the Romans left. I think that (as well as the systems collapse after Rome left which probably reduced much of life to a basic subsistence level) created an easy scenario where a new language and identity could spread if a significant number of settlers came as a mix of conquerors, settlers, mercenaries in other areas etc. I think though it was a very very complex mosaic across England varying from locality to locality and there may be no single answer to what happened. I personally think much of that Bede is very misleading, had an agenda and also that the Anglo-Saxon chronicle is pure fiction written 3-400 years after the early events and its pretty clear from genealogies that a Celtic dynasty is what we see in the Wessex genealogies deep into the 600s until there is a sudden end to Celtic names which probably represents some late usurping or that they have stolen the identity of some Cetic petty kingdom who ruled that area until the mid 600s to lengthen their genealogy.

Gwydion
08-24-2018, 01:40 AM
It's sort of strange also to consider that the area of what is now Scotland and Northern England would have an entirely different set of historical circumstances to Southeastern England, such as a lack of Roman political control or Romanization, yet the native British languages and cultures (Pictish and Cumbric) would in turn either be Gaelicized or Anglicized. The Gaelicization of the Picts is an entirely different process and Cumbric survived likely into the 12th century, yet in the case of Bernicia you have the Britons adopting an Anglian identity, language, and culture without really being under strong Roman political control (the area being a frontier zone) or Romanization, complete with British tribal aristocracies and kingdoms, yet they too would adopt and completely discard their own language, culture, and identity.

As noted this seems baffling and mysterious to me. The old "wipe out" or genocide theory prevalent in the 19th century would seemingly explain the situation quite well but we of course know now through genetics and other criteria that this wasn't the case.

alan
08-24-2018, 01:44 AM
as others have noted, the kings and princes of Anglo-Saxons kingdoms are known to have married British and Gaelic princesses, Gaelic kings took Pictish, British and Anglo-Saxon princesses for wives etc in pretty well every combo possible. So it may be that the royal level of society was pretty admixed and almost 'pan insular' genetically rather than ethnos specific. OK that is an overstatement but there was a process of that nature going on. Now, if you bank that and combine it with another pattern - that the better off of society produced far more descendants in that era - then you have a mechanism in which elite level admixing can eventually introduce that admixture to the population at large. That is of course just one way admixture could have happened. I would also content that - unlike insular Celtic societies where descent and lineage was everything and a clan type structure was the basis - Germanic societies seem to have been based more around service to a lord and rewards for service. The warband was not a clan army as it was among the insular Celts. So, I think Germanic society was able to absorb outsiders into warbands, service etc in a way Celtic society was less able to.

alan
08-24-2018, 01:58 AM
It's sort of strange also to consider that the area of what is now Scotland and Northern England would have an entirely different set of historical circumstances to Southeastern England, such as a lack of Roman political control or Romanization, yet the native British languages and cultures (Pictish and Cumbric) would in turn either be Gaelicized or Anglicized. The Gaelicization of the Picts is an entirely different process and Cumbric survived likely into the 12th century, yet in the case of Bernicia you have the Britons adopting an Anglian identity, language, and culture without really being under strong Roman political control (the area being a frontier zone) or Romanization, complete with British tribal aristocracies and kingdoms, yet they too would adopt and completely discard their own language, culture, and identity.

As noted this seems baffling and mysterious to me. The old "wipe out" or genocide theory prevalent in the 19th century would seemingly explain the situation quite well but we of course know now through genetics and other criteria that this wasn't the case.

It seems that Bernicia was always a largely British population genetically speaking. Even the royals were heavily intermarried with various types of Celts and heavily influenced by the church of Iona and Irish Christianity in general. Funny enough ive always felt Geordies today seems to have a type of personality, humour, very talkative always joking friendly demeanor that is more like Scots and Irish than it is English. Travelling I couldnt help but notice that the Geordies kind of friendly very talkative manic madcap style is incredibly different to coastal Yorkshire just south of there where people seem far more reserved, far less talkative and more dry in humour. They seem like totally different peoples

Gwydion
08-24-2018, 02:09 AM
I would also content that - unlike insular Celtic societies where descent and lineage was everything and a clan type structure was the basis - Germanic societies seem to have been based more around service to a lord and rewards for service. The warband was not a clan army as it was among the insular Celts. So, I think Germanic society was able to absorb outsiders into warbands, service etc in a way Celtic society was less able to.

I think I have read something similar and that certainly coincides with what we know about the attitudes of later Ireland and Wales in relation to the importance of ancestry in determining social and ethnic standing/affiliation.

Overall I can't say I find the various forces in play that could have lead to the Anglicization of the Britons baffling so much as the idea of willingly adopting a foreign culture, language, and identity at the complete expense of ones own which seems to have occurred to some degree based upon earlier posts in this thread.

I suppose I could imagine a hybrid culture being created or one in which the Anglo-Saxon cultural/linguistic component predominates but which some Celtic Britishness remained, yet it would seem what occurred was largely the complete abandonment or annihilation of the British Celtic cultural and linguistic elements. To purge oneself of ancestral memory, the meaning given to the land by the toponymy in the native tongue, to forget ones myths and stories, and all the other cultural forms which must have been abandoned for the sake of social or political benefit just strikes me as strange, perhaps a bit contrary to what one might observe elsewhere in human history or general sentiments regarding language and nationhood.

spruithean
08-24-2018, 02:15 AM
It still seems a bit bizarre to me that so quickly and so thoroughly a group could abandon their language, culture, and sense of identity due to the importation of a new elite, even if such a new elite were able to afford social opportunity or other benefits, leaving a dearth of loan words, place names, and cultural elements in the new language/culture.

I wonder also what specifically in the case of the Eastern Britons made them wish to abandon their culture, language, and identity. Why did Britishness lose prestige in relation to Anglo-Saxon culture? The Anglo-Saxons didn't seem necessarily more materially or culturally advanced, indeed the heroic ethos and way of life of the two groups were quite similar. I guess the spiritually oriented tribalist in me envisioning myself in that scenario would rather flee into the West or be reduced to peasantry or even die in battle than abandon who I am for material or social gain.

In a way it lends from the British or Celtic perspective a sense of tragedy to English history since the latter in effect are Britons who adopted a new language and identity and proceeded to push their fellow Britons into Wales/Cornwall (or cause them to flee to Brittany) and thereby deprive their own native culture of the sovereignty of the island, cause their own native language to become a minority language, etc. Call me a Romantic but I can't shake the sensation that the adoption of English-ness and subsequent wars and persecution against the Britons was in a way self-harm by the English if only due to it being an attack on their deepest roots. Could also be me channeling my inner Tolkien (speaking on Welsh):

“For many of us it rings a bell, or rather it stirs deep harp-strings in our linguistic nature. It is the native language to which in unexplored desire we would still go home.”

I think we are looking at this from a romanticised view, or a viewing the Britons as noble and entirely unified, when in reality chances are they weren't entirely unified. Remember Vercingetorix worked very hard to unify the Gauls to fight back against Caesar. It is easy to imagine various factions of Britons who saw benefits to adopting Anglo-Saxon culture as a way to gain an upper-hand against rival tribes/clans in the area, or as a way to acquire land from people who had access to high quality land.

In regards to adopting the language or another cultures ways, while I realize this isn't necessarily the same route of adoption of culture, but my maternal grandparents when their respective families settled in Canada, they anglicized their surnames and quickly adopted the English language in effort to become more "Canadian". As it was of benefit to them to learn the local language, despite living in a rural setting and continuing to farm and work in agriculture.

I understand a tribalist view and I understand what you mean when you find it hard to understand why so many Britons would have "caved" to the new Germanic incomers, but if the Germanic incomers belonged to a mix of elite, settler and various other layers of society it would make sense for the Britons to try to become part of this new society, especially in a post-Roman era.


I think the early Wessex dynasty has such an extreme dose of celtic names that it might be a real case of a Romano British royal dynasty with a warband of Germanic mercenaries who didnt usurp their employer but came to form the noble class just below the royal dynasty. There were what look like could have been such pockets of mercenaries or strategically placed buffer garrisons settled far west of the main Anglo-Saxon frontier in that phase of stand off and i think its entirely plausible that a Romano British dynasty with Anglo Saxon warbands could have survived if the leader/king was seen as a good leader with mutual benefit on occasion. I suspect such a dynasty would have intermarried so much with the germanic military class just below it that they would archaeologically appear to be Anglo-Saxons.

EDIT - another possibility (a strong one) is the Anglo-Saxon chronicle is largely fictional for the first centuries and much of it has been written to glorify and back project their own kingdoms rise and hegemony in some areas a century or two earlier than reality. It wouldnt surprise me at all if the West Saxons story (which really is very suspicious and contradictory) is total horseshit and that the reality is they didnt really come to power over the Britons of south-central (and slightly further western) England until the 2nd half of the 600s.


The complete dearth of Celtic culture on the continent suggests there was nobody better at destroying it than the Romans, and the Germanic invaders may have had a relatively easy task converting the deracinated, demoralised Roman Celts to their vigorous culture.

I agree, I believe the Mercians may have had a partial Celtic origin at one point too, Pybba, Penda and Peada all have names with allegedly Brittonic etymologies, while their names also have Germanic etymologies they don't make as much sense in regards to a forename. It is believed that Merewalh of the Magonsaete was also a son of Penda, his name even means "Famous Foreigner" or "Celebrated Welshman". It seems perfectly reasonable for there to be two routes to the eventual heptarchy in Britain, with varying degrees of British elite + Germanic warband/etc and Germanic elite + British warband/etc.

I recently read an article on Yeavering, which was a rather important location in Bernicia in the far north of Northumbria, where it is rather evident that Yeavering may have been, in the early days of Bernicia, an area where the British society and Anglo-Saxon society blended.


It's sort of strange also to consider that the area of what is now Scotland and Northern England would have an entirely different set of historical circumstances to Southeastern England, such as a lack of Roman political control or Romanization, yet the native British languages and cultures (Pictish and Cumbric) would in turn either be Gaelicized or Anglicized. The Gaelicization of the Picts is an entirely different process and Cumbric survived likely into the 12th century, yet in the case of Bernicia you have the Britons adopting an Anglian identity, language, and culture without really being under strong Roman political control (the area being a frontier zone) or Romanization, complete with British tribal aristocracies and kingdoms, yet they too would adopt and completely discard their own language, culture, and identity.

As noted this seems baffling and mysterious to me. The old "wipe out" or genocide theory prevalent in the 19th century would seemingly explain the situation quite well but we of course know now through genetics and other criteria that this wasn't the case.

Again, the same thing happened in northern Bernicia (or is at least believed to have happened) where an incoming Germanic people eventually acquired control over the "kingdom" but the population was still mostly British, with an eventual adoption of the culture and language of the Anglo-Saxons. However it is worth noting that within Northumbria there is evidence of Celtic-speaking areas remaining, Bede made reference to a woman whose son was to be taken by the church, but she fled with her son and they resided amongst the Celts (her son was taken away from her anyway).

I would say something similar happened to the Picts with their Gaelicization that we see with the Britons and their eventual Anglicization. The ruling elite of the Picts eventually became a Gaelic family (however there is debate that the House of Alpin was actually Pictish), and the layers within the elite class were Gaelic speaking, institutions of learning would eventually make use of the Gaelic language, etc. There is clearly a parallel to the British Anglicization. An incoming group asserting some level of dominance, the indigenous population adopting the new groups culture either by force, their own free will, etc.


as others have noted, the kings and princes of Anglo-Saxons kingdoms are known to have married British and Gaelic princesses, Gaelic kings took Pictish, British and Anglo-Saxon princesses for wives etc in pretty well every combo possible. So it may be that the royal level of society was pretty admixed and almost 'pan insular' genetically rather than ethnos specific. OK that is an overstatement but there was a process of that nature going on. Now, if you bank that and combine it with another pattern - that the better off of society produced far more descendants in that era - then you have a mechanism in which elite level admixing can eventually introduce that admixture to the population at large. That is of course just one way admixture could have happened. I would also content that - unlike insular Celtic societies where descent and lineage was everything and a clan type structure was the basis - Germanic societies seem to have been based more around service to a lord and rewards for service. The warband was not a clan army as it was among the insular Celts. So, I think Germanic society was able to absorb outsiders into warbands, service etc in a way Celtic society was less able to.

Yes, even the children of Ćthelfrith of Bernicia were raised in Gaelic milieu (Oswald & Oswiu notably), the other son of Ćthelfrith, Eanfrith married a Pictish princess and his son was Talorgan mac Enfret, who was the king of Picts briefly, and one who is responsible for defeating Dál Riata in battle. I agree with your comment about the 'pan insular" genetic admixture.


The Germanic people did seem to have a Clan system too though, while there was some basis for a common descent, allegiance to the chieftain was more important and was the basis for the more complicated feudal system we see later on.

JerryS.
08-24-2018, 02:15 AM
You might find this thread interesting: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11039-Roman-era-gladiators-from-York-in-K36

Gedmatch numbers are on the last page.

I have to wonder, how many full middle easterners were brought to England back then and to what point it influenced modern populations.

Nibelung
08-24-2018, 03:57 AM
It seems that Bernicia was always a largely British population genetically speaking. Even the royals were heavily intermarried with various types of Celts and heavily influenced by the church of Iona and Irish Christianity in general. Funny enough ive always felt Geordies today seems to have a type of personality, humour, very talkative always joking friendly demeanor that is more like Scots and Irish than it is English. Travelling I couldnt help but notice that the Geordies kind of friendly very talkative manic madcap style is incredibly different to coastal Yorkshire just south of there where people seem far more reserved, far less talkative and more dry in humour. They seem like totally different peoples

I've often seen the Irish described as stern and both we and the Scots (I'm also part Scottish) are famously prone to violence, which in both societies has been historically channeled with spectacular success into an archaic societal militarism. The Catholic Church in Ireland is the meanest one too. What I think are excellent Gaelic communication and sometimes political skills can be perceived as "friendly". English and to some extent also Welsh historical tradition has long painted the Gaels and at one time their Norse buddies as "awful". When the Irish were raiding terrorizing Britain over 1500 years ago it was mostly out of cruelty to the disadvantaged, which was built into the entire society. Their economic gains were limited.

Even though I've read more on my near and distant relations than I've actually had personally to do with them, we probably don't know the same Irish. No wonder you called the Anglo-Saxons for help. If they hadn't of come Wales and well beyond would have been destroyed. People were watching this happen from Rome.

Finn
08-24-2018, 05:37 AM
as others have noted, the kings and princes of Anglo-Saxons kingdoms are known to have married British and Gaelic princesses, Gaelic kings took Pictish, British and Anglo-Saxon princesses for wives etc in pretty well every combo possible. So it may be that the royal level of society was pretty admixed and almost 'pan insular' genetically rather than ethnos specific. OK that is an overstatement but there was a process of that nature going on. Now, if you bank that and combine it with another pattern - that the better off of society produced far more descendants in that era - then you have a mechanism in which elite level admixing can eventually introduce that admixture to the population at large. That is of course just one way admixture could have happened. I would also content that - unlike insular Celtic societies where descent and lineage was everything and a clan type structure was the basis - Germanic societies seem to have been based more around service to a lord and rewards for service. The warband was not a clan army as it was among the insular Celts. So, I think Germanic society was able to absorb outsiders into warbands, service etc in a way Celtic society was less able to.

Interesting contributions Alan. I certainly believe that in migration time there was on the top of the Germanic and Britonic society kind of intermixture. And I also believe that the Germanic elite set up a kind of network al along the North Sea coast. Indeed kind of clans or Gefolgschaften. Besides that the biggest impact must have come from the free farmers, the ceorls (German: Karls, Dutch: kerels). They were the core of the Germanic society. I'm curios how the intermingling with the Britons at that level took place....

Besides that I'm more and more convinced that there were in essence two migration waves along the North Sea Coast (this must really be the perspective the migration to England was not a stand alone). In the fifth century were the Saxons (hotspot the Northern Weser-Elbe area) the leading force. Followed by the Danes/South Scandinavians in the sixth century. The second one more or less influenced the hotspots of the first waves.

Like the Iceland case has shown may be in the the middle age society (and in fact until the ninetheenth/twentieth century) the upper strata of the society had better survival rates, could spread their genes more....that could have enhanced the Germanic factor in England too?

Gwydion
08-24-2018, 12:52 PM
I think we are looking at this from a romanticised view, or a viewing the Britons as noble and entirely unified, when in reality chances are they weren't entirely unified. Remember Vercingetorix worked very hard to unify the Gauls to fight back against Caesar. It is easy to imagine various factions of Britons who saw benefits to adopting Anglo-Saxon culture as a way to gain an upper-hand against rival tribes/clans in the area, or as a way to acquire land from people who had access to high quality land.

In regards to adopting the language or another cultures ways, while I realize this isn't necessarily the same route of adoption of culture, but my maternal grandparents when their respective families settled in Canada, they anglicized their surnames and quickly adopted the English language in effort to become more "Canadian". As it was of benefit to them to learn the local language, despite living in a rural setting and continuing to farm and work in agriculture.

I understand a tribalist view and I understand what you mean when you find it hard to understand why so many Britons would have "caved" to the new Germanic incomers, but if the Germanic incomers belonged to a mix of elite, settler and various other layers of society it would make sense for the Britons to try to become part of this new society, especially in a post-Roman era.

I wouldn't say my view is entirely romanticized. Obviously the Britons weren't unified politically and I don't think one can determine if they were any more noble or ignoble than the incomers, but what is certain is that they were relatively unified linguistically and in their shared cultural origin. Both the terms "cymry" and "welsh" were of fairly early provenance, both at least pre-7th century if I recall correctly and hence may have been in use during the Anglo-Saxon period and reflect that both groups differentiated one another based on their speech. While their motivations are questionable it does seem both Gildas and Bede had the notion of Celtic Briton and Anglo-Saxon representing two different ethnic categories despite the lack of political unity among either. While some question its authenticity the fact that Cunedda could come from Brythonic Scotland to Gwynedd in order to drive out the Irish or that the vast majority of the warriors represented in the Gododdin poem are Britons from various locales in Britain (while some doubt it its possibility I believe one came from Cornwall/Devon) shows there must have been some sort of sense of "us" vs "them."

What is strange to my mindset is how quickly, thoroughly, and apparently perhaps willingly a group of people could divest themselves of all the marks that make them what they are. As I say if a blended Anglo-Saxon-British culture arose, sort of like the Norse-Gaels in the Hebrides in the Viking period, it would make more sense to me. Many have commented that the soul of a people is bound up in their language, culture, ancestral memory, and the words given to the landscape around them which imparted meaning (often spiritual in premodern cultures) to the land. If one accepts that, then didn't the Britons who became English lose their souls? After all their identity was thereafter tied to Scandinavia, learning of the legends like Beowulfs or early Scandinavian kings, etc.



I would say something similar happened to the Picts with their Gaelicization that we see with the Britons and their eventual Anglicization. The ruling elite of the Picts eventually became a Gaelic family (however there is debate that the House of Alpin was actually Pictish), and the layers within the elite class were Gaelic speaking, institutions of learning would eventually make use of the Gaelic language, etc. There is clearly a parallel to the British Anglicization. An incoming group asserting some level of dominance, the indigenous population adopting the new groups culture either by force, their own free will, etc.


I suppose the primary difference is that the Picts and Scots, while sometimes enemies, had often been allies and in close interaction since the 4th and 5th centuries. It was a long process of two related Celtic cultures interacting, intermarrying, part of the Picts being attached to the Columban Church, and eventually being united politically under a Gaelic dynasty that lead to their Gaelicization. However in the case of the new Scots there seems to have been much Pictish inheritance, such as the continuing use of ritual landscapes such as Scone, the Stone of Scone, certain Pictish forms of organization, etc. Contrast with the Britons who became English who within a century completely divested themselves of all Britishness to become English.

Finn
08-24-2018, 01:57 PM
What is strange to my mindset is how quickly, thoroughly, and apparently perhaps willingly a group of people could divest themselves of all the marks that make them what they are. As I say if a blended Anglo-Saxon-British culture arose, sort of like the Norse-Gaels in the Hebrides in the Viking period, it would make more sense to me. Many have commented that the soul of a people is bound up in their language, culture, ancestral memory, and the words given to the landscape around them which imparted meaning (often spiritual in premodern cultures) to the land. If one accepts that, then didn't the Britons who became English lose their souls? After all their identity was thereafter tied to Scandinavia, learning of the legends like Beowulfs or early Scandinavian kings, etc.


Will all the respect this is pure Romantic thought ('Volksgeist'). Imo there is not such thing as a pure or static soul of the people. The English identity manifest since the time about Alfred the Great is already a mixture of Anglo-Saxon, Britonic influences, already fused. The Britons became not pure sang Anglo-Saxon, no the fusion product was English.....and that contained also Britonic influences. No doubt.

Like the Frisian one who was already in the seventh century a fusion of old Frisii (from pre-Roman time), Saxons from the Weser-Elbe and Danes/Scandinavians. When the Frisians have/had a soul this was already in the middle ages a chameleon.

Of course people have identities but they are not written in marble, piecemeal change, intermingles, fusions what so ever....

When you see the findings of Sutton Hoo (about 600 AD) you see a mixture of diverse influences of that time!

Gwydion
08-24-2018, 02:39 PM
Will all the respect this is pure Romantic thought ('Volksgeist'). Imo there is not such thing as a pure or static soul of the people. The English identity manifest since the time about Alfred the Great is already a mixture of Anglo-Saxon, Britonic influences, already fused. The Britons became not pure sang Anglo-Saxon, no the fusion product was English.....and that contained also Britonic influences. No doubt.


This idea of a soul of a people being bound up with language, which in turn produces culture, is older than Romanticism though. There are old Chinese texts (say for example the Daoist text Laozi Huahu Jing ) which emphasize the barbarity of foreigners due to a combination of both their race/ethnic stock (being hairier, darker skinned, smellier, etc.) and language. The English in Ireland as well as the Lowland Scots both emphasized that perceived Gaelic barbarity was due to their language, which in turn molded their perception of the world and culture, and this is why both made efforts to eradicate the languages via different government policies, say for example the Statutes of Iona in the early 17th century. There are in turn old Irish texts which emphasize the opposite about the Sasanach/Gall.

So this idea that there was a certain essence to a particular people which was bound up both with physical race and language, which both in turn produced culture or ways of life or ways of perceiving the world, long precedes its formulation in Romanticism.

In the case of the Celtic Britons, there was as far as we know a largely natural development proceeding from the early Western Indo-Europeans to Proto-Celtic to British, perhaps a span of 3000 years or so, and this language would have again imparted meaning to the actual physical landscape of Britain with its toponyms (considered of sacred importance in older tribal societies), formed the connection to the deep past via mythology and ancestry, etc. and all of this was lost within a century or two to create a new people who would in turn see the remaining Celtic Britons, now Welsh, as enemies to be destroyed. For me there can't but be a sense of loss and tragedy in all of this.

Now this isn't coming from a pro-Celtic or anti-Germanic perspective since I equally admire the ancient Germanic peoples. But I personally can't help but think loss of culture, language, and identity and absorption into a new and foreign one is not something either entirely positive or even neutral.

spruithean
08-24-2018, 02:40 PM
I wouldn't say my view is entirely romanticized. Obviously the Britons weren't unified politically and I don't think one can determine if they were any more noble or ignoble than the incomers, but what is certain is that they were relatively unified linguistically and in their shared cultural origin. Both the terms "cymry" and "welsh" were of fairly early provenance, both at least pre-7th century if I recall correctly and hence may have been in use during the Anglo-Saxon period and reflect that both groups differentiated one another based on their speech. While their motivations are questionable it does seem both Gildas and Bede had the notion of Celtic Briton and Anglo-Saxon representing two different ethnic categories despite the lack of political unity among either. While some question its authenticity the fact that Cunedda could come from Brythonic Scotland to Gwynedd in order to drive out the Irish or that the vast majority of the warriors represented in the Gododdin poem are Britons from various locales in Britain (while some doubt it its possibility I believe one came from Cornwall/Devon) shows there must have been some sort of sense of "us" vs "them."

There are some theories that if we consider the early use of the term "Englisc" among the people of Ine in Wessex and especially in his laws in regards to his English and British subjects, coupled with the term "Wylisc" in this early period it is possible that English was already a spoken language and it didn't matter whether one had Germanic ancestors in this period, what allowed people to be identified as AS or Brittonic was through language and not ancestry. However this theory crumbles if "Englisc" was a later entry into the older documents (edited in).

I agree that there is definitely a sense of us vs them in these early poems and written works, yet a lot of these works seem glorified and heavily dramaticised, especially Gilda's IMO (he seems the most dramatic at times :laugh: ).


What is strange to my mindset is how quickly, thoroughly, and apparently perhaps willingly a group of people could divest themselves of all the marks that make them what they are. As I say if a blended Anglo-Saxon-British culture arose, sort of like the Norse-Gaels in the Hebrides in the Viking period, it would make more sense to me. Many have commented that the soul of a people is bound up in their language, culture, ancestral memory, and the words given to the landscape around them which imparted meaning (often spiritual in premodern cultures) to the land. If one accepts that, then didn't the Britons who became English lose their souls? After all their identity was thereafter tied to Scandinavia, learning of the legends like Beowulfs or early Scandinavian kings, etc.

The success of the Anglo-Saxons and the quick spread of their culture/language could have been through "elite dominance" this has been seen in areas in North Africa, Russia and elsewhere. Where a minority culture that has significant power and influence and that culture and its language is adopted by the settled majority relatively quickly. It's not unheard of throughout history at all.

The Norse-Gaels still had both languages spoken throughout the Kingdom of Mann and the Isles, rulers of mixed heritage with Norse and Gaelic names, etc. The same can be seen in Anglo-Saxon England, Cćdbćd of Lindsey, Cćdwalla of Wessex, Merewalh of Magonsćte, Ćthelwealh, men of religion like Cedd, Cćdmon, Kingdom of Elmet "Elmetsćte" within Northumbria etc.

Obviously the Gaelic language succeeded in Mann & Isles and Norse eventually disappeared, while English succeeded and Brittonic languages disappeared in England.



I suppose the primary difference is that the Picts and Scots, while sometimes enemies, had often been allies and in close interaction since the 4th and 5th centuries. It was a long process of two related Celtic cultures interacting, intermarrying, part of the Picts being attached to the Columban Church, and eventually being united politically under a Gaelic dynasty that lead to their Gaelicization. However in the case of the new Scots there seems to have been much Pictish inheritance, such as the continuing use of ritual landscapes such as Scone, the Stone of Scone, certain Pictish forms of organization, etc. Contrast with the Britons who became English who within a century completely divested themselves of all Britishness to become English.

However there we see Pictish influence, because the majority of the population in Alba was of Pictish origin, yet somehow they eventually adopted Gaelic influences and clearly lost Pictish culture entirely (we know very little about it) which you could say they lost their souls too.

How can we say there aren't aspects of Anglo-Saxon culture that aren't from an insular Celtic source? In all fairness there had to have been to some extent,
given the proximities of both populations. We know very little of Anglo-Saxon early mythology because pre-Christian AS society was illiterate, and anything we know about their mythology is through "half-remembering" in later works of Bede, anonymous writers, Beowulf, etc.

Gwydion
08-24-2018, 03:41 PM
The success of the Anglo-Saxons and the quick spread of their culture/language could have been through "elite dominance" this has been seen in areas in North Africa, Russia and elsewhere. Where a minority culture that has significant power and influence and that culture and its language is adopted by the settled majority relatively quickly. It's not unheard of throughout history at all.

The Norse-Gaels still had both languages spoken throughout the Kingdom of Mann and the Isles, rulers of mixed heritage with Norse and Gaelic names, etc. The same can be seen in Anglo-Saxon England, Cćdbćd of Lindsey, Cćdwalla of Wessex, Merewalh of Magonsćte, Ćthelwealh, men of religion like Cedd, Cćdmon, Kingdom of Elmet "Elmetsćte" within Northumbria etc.

Obviously the Gaelic language succeeded in Mann & Isles and Norse eventually disappeared, while English succeeded and Brittonic languages disappeared in England.

Well if there were any Brittonic elements to early Anglo-Saxon society, they were nonetheless minor and perhaps primarily at the level of political mechanism rather than anything cultural or linguistic and ultimately lead to the native Celtic British culture becoming an underclass that eventually died out. As I've noted I don't find the notion that elite dominance could change the language odd so much as the personal choice, especially of certain native elites, to abandon their culture and language, at least personally. One cannot know how one would behave in a given situation unless one was there but projecting myself into the past as a Celtic Briton during the upheavals of the 5th and 6th centuries I could not see myself making a conscious choice to be rid of my language, culture, and identity in order to benefit myself socially, politically, or financially. I guess I would have been one of the Britons seeking refuge in Wales or Brittany or being rendered part of a peasant underclass.

But yeah I am one of those who, like the ancient Chinese, believes in a spiritual bond of blood and ancestry. Thus if let's say all Koreans adopted Spanish language, culture, and identity, for me there would still be something that is Korean about them and I would see their older Korean language/culture as a more authentic representation of who they are. In the case of the English, who still primarily descend from the Celtic Britons, well you could see how personally I would view their Englishness as something newfangled in the grand scheme of the things. Further in the ancient world there was this notion that things older were better and more authentic, which is why various religions tried to prove the ancientness of their pedigree to lend greater authenticity to their tradition. Hence if we follow that train of thought and combine it with the genetic reality, isn't there some sort of loss to be seen in the Anglicization of the Britons and subsequent tragedy in the role they would play in reducing Welsh to a partly endangered minority language regulated to a small part of the island?


However there we see Pictish influence, because the majority of the population in Alba was of Pictish origin, yet somehow they eventually adopted Gaelic influences and clearly lost Pictish culture entirely (we know very little about it) which you could say they lost their souls too.

Perhaps to a degree you could say so, but I feel the situation is a bit different. In particular due to the Picts and Gaels essentially being mirror insular Celtic societies primarily differentiated by smaller differences in language (rather than Briton vs Saxon who were linguistically and culturally of long divergent branches of the Indo-European) and the process of their unification as a long one initially and primarily influenced by religion (the Columban Church) rather than the presence of foreign warbands taking power. Further while there was a conscious Gaelicization after the ascension of the Alpinid dynasty, there was as far as I am aware no disparagement against remaining Pictish institutions or speakers rendering them an underclass as in the case with the remaining non-Anglicized Britons in Anglo-Saxon society.

Finn
08-24-2018, 04:34 PM
This idea of a soul of a people being bound up with language, which in turn produces culture, is older than Romanticism though. There are old Chinese texts (say for example the Daoist text Laozi Huahu Jing ) which emphasize the barbarity of foreigners due to a combination of both their race/ethnic stock (being hairier, darker skinned, smellier, etc.) and language. The English in Ireland as well as the Lowland Scots both emphasized that perceived Gaelic barbarity was due to their language, which in turn molded their perception of the world and culture, and this is why both made efforts to eradicate the languages via different government policies, say for example the Statutes of Iona in the early 17th century. There are in turn old Irish texts which emphasize the opposite about the Sasanach/Gall.

So this idea that there was a certain essence to a particular people which was bound up both with physical race and language, which both in turn produced culture or ways of life or ways of perceiving the world, long precedes its formulation in Romanticism.

In the case of the Celtic Britons, there was as far as we know a largely natural development proceeding from the early Western Indo-Europeans to Proto-Celtic to British, perhaps a span of 3000 years or so, and this language would have again imparted meaning to the actual physical landscape of Britain with its toponyms (considered of sacred importance in older tribal societies), formed the connection to the deep past via mythology and ancestry, etc. and all of this was lost within a century or two to create a new people who would in turn see the remaining Celtic Britons, now Welsh, as enemies to be destroyed. For me there can't but be a sense of loss and tragedy in all of this.

Now this isn't coming from a pro-Celtic or anti-Germanic perspective since I equally admire the ancient Germanic peoples. But I personally can't help but think loss of culture, language, and identity and absorption into a new and foreign one is not something either entirely positive or even neutral.

The difference with the Daoist is that the Daoist never speak about a soul or nucleus, Romantici do....

The idea
that physical race and language, which both in turn produced culture or ways of life or ways of perceiving the world, long precedes its formulation in Romanticism. may be right....but that doen't make it as such correct (or not part of Romantic thought).

Those connections are IMO too close knit....too much as the Germans say aus einem Guss (one piece).


For me there can't but be a sense of loss and tragedy in all of this.


Yep that's the romantic spirit it leads mostly to a sense of Weltschmerz, a sense of loss.

Why would that be, those 3000 years Britonic history is retrospect, the people at that time weren't even aware of.

Must be very difficult to live when you consider language race etcetra as "all in one" and than with the Scottish, Irish, English, and old German flag? Looks superficial contrary.....or a soul crisis ;)

I guess the US must from the beginning in a soul crisis.

In sum I see like the Daoist no essence, no static soul, just fluidity. It can be a theory in Zen or in Dao (dunno exactly) that water that stays without a flow lost vivid and is going to stink :biggrin1: May be that's the real loss.....

Gwydion
08-24-2018, 05:01 PM
The difference with the Daoist is that the Daoist never speak about a soul or nucleus, Romantici do....

Diverging a bit from the topic but Daoists do speak of a soul, or multiple souls in fact. The 神 shen or spirit is one concept roughly equivalent to Western notions of soul or spirit, and the Daoists also believe in 魂hun and 魄 po, basically a heavenly and earthly soul which diverge at death. The latter view is due to the tripartite view of the world they hold, where man is the third power or mediating force of heaven and earth. Whether they believed groups of people had a spiritual essence I am not sure, but they believed that both culture and ancestors were of divine origin and spiritual importance.


Yep that's the romantic spirit it leads mostly to a sense of Weltschmerz, a sense of loss.

Why would that be, those 3000 years Britonic history is retrospect, the people at that time weren't even aware of.

Must be very difficult to live when you consider language race etcetra as "all in one" and than with the Scottish, Irish, English, and old German flag? Looks superficial contrary.....or a soul crisis ;)

I guess the US must from the beginning in a soul crisis.


Well yeah I would agree with that sense of loss and with the idea of the US from the beginning being a soul crisis as you say. Rather than explain why I would just point to Rene Guenon and Julius Evola as I am in general agreement with their perspectives on various issues. Even excluding them I would say I am more in agreement with the Romantics than modern reductionism.

Of course this is personal and philosophical and not really directly relevant to the topic, but it is how I see things. I am predominately of British Isles descent and my German is from the old La Tene heartlands along the Rhine and my Y-DNA is associated with the Celts, so in general I see myself as greatly connected with those people despite whatever new languages and cultural forms have appeared in more recent centuries.

spruithean
08-24-2018, 05:14 PM
Here (http://theconversation.com/why-the-idea-that-the-english-have-a-common-anglo-saxon-origin-is-a-myth-88272)is an interesting article written by one of the people involved in the Oakington/Hinxton excavations.

Finn
08-24-2018, 05:41 PM
Diverging a bit from the topic but Daoists do speak of a soul, or multiple souls in fact. The 神 shen or spirit is one concept roughly equivalent to Western notions of soul or spirit, and the Daoists also believe in 魂hun and 魄 po, basically a heavenly and earthly soul which diverge at death. The latter view is due to the tripartite view of the world they hold, where man is the third power or mediating force of heaven and earth. Whether they believed groups of people had a spiritual essence I am not sure, but they believed that both culture and ancestors were of divine origin and spiritual importance.



Well yeah I would agree with that sense of loss and with the idea of the US from the beginning being a soul crisis as you say. Rather than explain why I would just point to Rene Guenon and Julius Evola as I am in general agreement with their perspectives on various issues. Even excluding them I would say I am more in agreement with the Romantics than modern reductionism.

Of course this is personal and philosophical and not really directly relevant to the topic, but it is how I see things. I am predominately of British Isles descent and my German is from the old La Tene heartlands along the Rhine and my Y-DNA is associated with the Celts, so in general I see myself as greatly connected with those people despite whatever new languages and cultural forms have appeared in more recent centuries.

I would stick to a kind or Romanticism (but not the kind that stress an essence) too but that of Guizo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/François_Guizot)t, juste mileu, very adaptive, not dogmatic (despite their Doctrinair name ;) I see no sense to aim to turn back the clock....And i guess I'm too down to earth for esoterica. Especially in relationship to genetics etc. But ok life and let life (or is this too liberal ;)

JonikW
08-24-2018, 05:54 PM
I'm not much into Romanticism, but I always heard as a kid that Lloegr, Welsh for England, means The Lost Lands. I think of that every time I'm back in Wales and see Lloegr on the border sign when I cross back over. It certainly evokes a sense of loss.

Finn
08-24-2018, 06:22 PM
Here (http://theconversation.com/why-the-idea-that-the-english-have-a-common-anglo-saxon-origin-is-a-myth-88272)is an interesting article written by one of the people involved in the Oakington/Hinxton excavations.

That’s what I mean when you claim a specific spirit of the people, when we follow the line of Gwydion the Odinist are right, they claim the spirit of their ancestors isn’t it?

They claim they are suppressed, and that their identity is taken away. My goodness.....get a life.

JonikW
08-24-2018, 06:35 PM
That’s what I mean when you claim a specific spirit of the people, when we follow the line of Gwydion the Odinist are right, they claim the spirit of their ancestors isn’t it?

They claim they are suppressed, and that their identity is taken away. My goodness.....get a life.

Yep, the Odinists want to take action against the CofE. I'm thinking of seeking reparation from the state of Italy as the successor to Rome for the damage done to my ancient British ancestors. :argue:I guess it all goes to show how the Britons and Anglo-Saxons still have a hold on our identity, as per the title of this thread.

Finn
08-24-2018, 06:43 PM
Yep, the Odinists want to take action against the CofE. I'm thinking of seeking reparation from the state of Italy as the successor to Rome for the damage done to my ancient British ancestors. :argue:I guess it all goes to show how the Britons and Anglo-Saxons still have a hold on our identity, as per the title of this thread.

The next one is a counter claim of the Vatican against the Frisians for killing Bonifatius in 754 in Dokkum :biggrin1:

Finn
08-24-2018, 06:49 PM
Fascinating story though! Obviously this Anglo Saxon priest was able to communicate deep into Germany at that time;
https://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=1025

Dewsloth
08-24-2018, 07:23 PM
Fascinating story though! Obviously this Anglo Saxon priest was able to communicate deep into Germany at that time;
https://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=1025

When I was trying to figure out why so many German DF19s had the Irish surname "Killian" I stumbled across Saint Killian, whose story was similar:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Kilian



Saint Kilian

Irish Franconian Apostle
Born 640
Died 8 July 689

Saint Kilian, also spelled Killian (or alternatively Irish: Cillian; Latin: Kilianus), was an Irish missionary bishop and the Apostle of Franconia (nowadays the northern part of Bavaria), where he began his labours towards the end of the 7th century. His feast day is July 8.


Accounts of his life
According to Irish sources, Kilian was born to noble parents in approximately the year 640 in Cloughballybeg[1], near Mullagh, County Cavan, Ireland. Some records state that Kilian served as a monk in the celebrated monastery at Hy, Hy being an early name for what was later known as Iona.[2] He began his education in Rosscarbery (the School of Ross), County Cork and completed it in Tuosist in County Kerry.

In the summer of 686 Kilian, with eleven companions, travelled through Gaul to Rome to receive missionary faculties from the pope, arriving in late autumn and meeting with Pope Conon.[3] From there they traveled to the castle of Würzburg, inhabited by the Thuringian (Frankish) Duke Gozbert, who was, like his people, still pagan.[2]

The original group separated — some departing to seek other fields of missionary work, while St. Kilian with two companions, the priest Colmán (also called Colonan or Kolonat) and the deacon Totnan, remained in Würzburg. Kilian made this town as the base of his activity, which extended over an ever-increasing area in East Franconia and Thuringia, and converted Duke Gozbert with a large part of his subjects to Christianity.[2]

Death
Kilian told the Duke that he was in violation of sacred scripture by being married to his brother's widow, Geilana. When Geilana, whom Kilian had failed to convert to Christianity, heard of Kilian's words against her marriage, she was so angry that, in the absence of the duke, she had her soldiers sent to the main square of Würzburg, where Kilian and his colleagues were preaching, and had him beheaded, along with two of his companions, Colmán and Totnan.[2]

Veneration
Relic of Kilian, Colman and Totnan
Saint Burchard, appointed by Boniface as the first bishop of Würzburg, built a cathedral on the spot where the martyrs were said to have met their deaths and had their relics unearthed and buried within a vault of that cathedral church.[2]





My guess is the Germans took the name when they were baptised. You can see the surname in different blocks:

http://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=183

JonikW
08-24-2018, 07:53 PM
Fascinating story though! Obviously this Anglo Saxon priest was able to communicate deep into Germany at that time;
https://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=1025

There was a lot of English evangelising into the homelands. I imagine there wasn't much difference in language/dialect at that time. I was in Finn's home of Friesland (German side though) a few years ago. An old man greeted us with a cheerful "Moin". I replied in my normal accent where we shorten it to a kind of "mornin'" or "morn'", and I doubt whether he heard the difference. He certainly didn't bat an eyelid or ask where we were from.

spruithean
08-24-2018, 08:27 PM
There was a lot of English evangelising into the homelands. I imagine there wasn't much difference in language/dialect at that time. I was in Finn's home of Friesland (German side though) a few years ago. An old man greeted us with a cheerful "Moin". I replied in my normal accent where we shorten it to a kind of "mornin'" or "morn'", and I doubt whether he heard the difference. He certainly didn't bat an eyelid or ask where we were from.

That reminds me of my grandfather :laugh: , often he'd show up saying "Hallo" or "Hoi" little did I realize he was actually speaking Dutch, I thought it was just an accent that I was hearing, only later on did I realize what was actually happening. Other things my grandparents said were very obviously not English (tot ziens, dank u wel, doei, alsjeblieft/alstublieft, etc)

Gwydion
08-24-2018, 08:39 PM
On that same topic there's this classic clip:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeC1yAaWG34

Finn
08-24-2018, 09:11 PM
@your grandparents said doei that’s quite surprising that’s a kind popular greeting of the last twenty years or so, not quite westeremden like hahahah
I think they probably said Moi
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moin

@gwydion hahahah exactly I speak a language that is close to the language of this man a East Frisian, Germany, from the border area, he talks like my grandfather (even looks a bit like him)

I bet you don’t understand a word of it...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sdtIZnNxy-s

spruithean
08-24-2018, 09:19 PM
@your grandparents said doei that’s quite surprising that’s a kind popular greeting of the last twenty years or so, not quite westeremden like hahahah
I think they probably said Moi
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moin



Probably, though only one line of my family is from Westeremden, my grandfather was from Zuid-Holland while my grandmother and her family had roots mostly in NE Groningen and Northern Groningen. Westeremden is my direct maternal line following the route of mtDNA.

Finn
08-24-2018, 09:25 PM
There was a lot of English evangelising into the homelands. I imagine there wasn't much difference in language/dialect at that time. I was in Finn's home of Friesland (German side though) a few years ago. An old man greeted us with a cheerful "Moin". I replied in my normal accent where we shorten it to a kind of "mornin'" or "morn'", and I doubt whether he heard the difference. He certainly didn't bat an eyelid or ask where we were from.

The East Frisians and the Groningers speak Lower Saxon with an Old Frisian substrate....nowadays English is indeed not comparable, but I would not rule out that in the first few ages after the big migration there were lots of resemblances.....but not until deep in Germany.

But I guess you followed the right procedure to produce something like morning hahahha if you used doei like spruithean he would indeed have wondered:biggrin1:

JonikW
08-24-2018, 09:36 PM
That reminds me of my grandfather :laugh: , often he'd show up saying "Hallo" or "Hoi" little did I realize he was actually speaking Dutch, I thought it was just an accent that I was hearing, only later on did I realize what was actually happening. Other things my grandparents said were very obviously not English (tot ziens, dank u wel, doei, alsjeblieft/alstublieft, etc)

Every time I'm in the Netherlands or Flemish Belgium I actually always think dank u wel sounds English. Isn't it just thank you well? You certainly wouldn't need a translator.:)

Gwydion
08-24-2018, 09:50 PM
Being from New Jersey most of my family lines which have been here since the colonial period have Dutch ancestry (all my lines on my father's side and one on my mother's.) Some of them were Frisians proper, but most of them are distant lines. The closest family member I have with a surname with roots in the general area is my 4th great grandmother on my father's line whose family came over to New Netherlands from Oldenburg. Not sure what language was being spoken in Oldenburg then but the family arrived in the 17th century.

On some of the autosomal calculators my father shows up as fairly Dutch. For example MDLP K23b his top result was 1 Frisian_ @ 2.980221. With Dodecad K12b his second population was Dutch_Dodecad @ 3.868096. On the Eurogenes EUtest he got NL @ 3.119622 as his top match. With AncestryDNA, despite the fact that he is like 95% or more English with the rest Dutch he shows up as Europe West 52% and Scandinavia 10% but Great Britain only 3%. That's why I am looking forward to seeing the AncestryDNA update to see if there are any changes. If not it looks like my father might be quite Saxon oriented genetically.

Webb
08-24-2018, 11:13 PM
Being from New Jersey most of my family lines which have been here since the colonial period have Dutch ancestry (all my lines on my father's side and one on my mother's.) Some of them were Frisians proper, but most of them are distant lines. The closest family member I have with a surname with roots in the general area is my 4th great grandmother on my father's line whose family came over to New Netherlands from Oldenburg. Not sure what language was being spoken in Oldenburg then but the family arrived in the 17th century.

On some of the autosomal calculators my father shows up as fairly Dutch. For example MDLP K23b his top result was 1 Frisian_ @ 2.980221. With Dodecad K12b his second population was Dutch_Dodecad @ 3.868096. On the Eurogenes EUtest he got NL @ 3.119622 as his top match. With AncestryDNA, despite the fact that he is like 95% or more English with the rest Dutch he shows up as Europe West 52% and Scandinavia 10% but Great Britain only 3%. That's why I am looking forward to seeing the AncestryDNA update to see if there are any changes. If not it looks like my father might be quite Saxon oriented genetically.

One of the oldest lines I have traced on my grandmothers side is a Titus Syrach de Vries and his wife Jannetje Teunis Nyssen Couverts. They were part of the New Holland settlement in Long Island. Their son was Teunis Titus. A very unusual name that was used as recently as my mom’s cousin, Tunis Cooper. Over 300 years later. That was my point with the naming rituals amongst the ruling elite. No one knows how far back the naming rituals go. Some of the oldest P312 samples have been found deep in the interior of Germany. I wouldn’t be surprised if the contact between Celt and German is long and complex.

Finn
08-25-2018, 06:23 AM
Not sure what language was being spoken in Oldenburg then but the family arrived in the 17th century.
.

Without doubt lower Saxon or Platt. (Like the man in the clip)

spruithean
08-25-2018, 04:02 PM
One of the oldest lines I have traced on my grandmothers side is a Titus Syrach de Vries and his wife Jannetje Teunis Nyssen Couverts. They were part of the New Holland settlement in Long Island. Their son was Teunis Titus. A very unusual name that was used as recently as my mom’s cousin, Tunis Cooper. Over 300 years later. That was my point with the naming rituals amongst the ruling elite. No one knows how far back the naming rituals go. Some of the oldest P312 samples have been found deep in the interior of Germany. I wouldn’t be surprised if the contact between Celt and German is long and complex.

I feel as though there may be some patronymics at play here, perhaps Titus father was Syrach de Vries? Jannetje's father could have been Teunis? The name Teunis and variants like Theun are still used to this day in Dutch families. My ggg-grandfather was named Teunis, and my maternal grandfather's uncle was also named Teunis.

No doubt the Celts and Germans had a long and complex relationship, obviously it predates recorded history and likely fits right in to recorded history behind the scenes.

Pylsteen
08-25-2018, 04:31 PM
I feel as though there may be some patronymics at play here, perhaps Titus father was Syrach de Vries? Jannetje's father could have been Teunis?

This is almost certain; it was a very common practice during the 17th century. Teunis is a normal Dutch variant of Antonius (Anthony, Thonis etc.)

spruithean
08-25-2018, 06:44 PM
This is almost certain; it was a very common practice during the 17th century. Teunis is a normal Dutch variant of Antonius (Anthony, Thonis etc.)

Oh yes definitely, the vast majority of my tree at a certain point is entirely patronymics, I have to tag them with the modern family's taken surnames so I don't confuse myself.

alan
08-26-2018, 02:40 PM
U
I wouldn't say my view is entirely romanticized. Obviously the Britons weren't unified politically and I don't think one can determine if they were any more noble or ignoble than the incomers, but what is certain is that they were relatively unified linguistically and in their shared cultural origin. Both the terms "cymry" and "welsh" were of fairly early provenance, both at least pre-7th century if I recall correctly and hence may have been in use during the Anglo-Saxon period and reflect that both groups differentiated one another based on their speech. While their motivations are questionable it does seem both Gildas and Bede had the notion of Celtic Briton and Anglo-Saxon representing two different ethnic categories despite the lack of political unity among either. While some question its authenticity the fact that Cunedda could come from Brythonic Scotland to Gwynedd in order to drive out the Irish or that the vast majority of the warriors represented in the Gododdin poem are Britons from various locales in Britain (while some doubt it its possibility I believe one came from Cornwall/Devon) shows there must have been some sort of sense of "us" vs "them."

What is strange to my mindset is how quickly, thoroughly, and apparently perhaps willingly a group of people could divest themselves of all the marks that make them what they are. As I say if a blended Anglo-Saxon-British culture arose, sort of like the Norse-Gaels in the Hebrides in the Viking period, it would make more sense to me. Many have commented that the soul of a people is bound up in their language, culture, ancestral memory, and the words given to the landscape around them which imparted meaning (often spiritual in premodern cultures) to the land. If one accepts that, then didn't the Britons who became English lose their souls? After all their identity was thereafter tied to Scandinavia, learning of the legends like Beowulfs or early Scandinavian kings, etc.




I suppose the primary difference is that the Picts and Scots, while sometimes enemies, had often been allies and in close interaction since the 4th and 5th centuries. It was a long process of two related Celtic cultures interacting, intermarrying, part of the Picts being attached to the Columban Church, and eventually being united politically under a Gaelic dynasty that lead to their Gaelicization. However in the case of the new Scots there seems to have been much Pictish inheritance, such as the continuing use of ritual landscapes such as Scone, the Stone of Scone, certain Pictish forms of organization, etc. Contrast with the Britons who became English who within a century completely divested themselves of all Britishness to become English.
One thing people tend to overlook is that the distinctive changes that led to Old Irish, Welsh and probably Pictish to diverge away from a common ‘Insular Celtic’ which was very like continental Celtic (ignore the P-Q thing - it’s no longer thought important) happened quite late and after the three groups had already been mixing for 200 years.
. At the start of the mixing phase in the late and sub Roman period 300-600AD the three groups were speaking almost identical languages and could easily blend. If you look at the archaic Irish on the ogham stones of the 5th and 6th centuries AD you can see it was still very close to proto Celtic. It was only in the late 6th century that there was a dramatic restructuring of the languages into distinct ones. That dramatic restructuring probably originated with the impact as very Romanised Latinate Britons fleeing west and mixing with the non Latinate Britons and Irish. Most of these sudden shifts in Irish and Welsh also happened in Latinate speech at tha same time.

sktibo
08-26-2018, 03:12 PM
U
One thing people tend to overlook is that the distinctive changes that led to Old Irish, Welsh and probably Pictish to diverge away from a common ‘Insular Celtic’ which was very like continental Celtic (ignore the P-Q thing - it’s no longer thought important) happened quite late and after the three groups had already been mixing for 200 years.
. At the start of the mixing phase in the late and sub Roman period 300-600AD the three groups were speaking almost identical languages and could easily blend. If you look at the archaic Irish on the ogham stones of the 5th and 6th centuries AD you can see it was still very close to proto Celtic. It was only in the late 6th century that there was a dramatic restructuring of the languages into distinct ones. That dramatic restructuring probably originated with the impact as very Romanised Latinate Britons fleeing west and mixing with the non Latinate Britons and Irish. Most of these sudden shifts in Irish and Welsh also happened in Latinate speech at tha same time.

that is seriously interesting stuff. I've nothing to add but just wanted to thank you for sharing that.. I've wondered about how relatively widespread ogham was but it didn't occur to me that these languages could have been more closely related than is often thought.. I think that makes a lot of sense.

alan
08-26-2018, 05:17 PM
that is seriously interesting stuff. I've nothing to add but just wanted to thank you for sharing that.. I've wondered about how relatively widespread ogham was but it didn't occur to me that these languages could have been more closely related than is often thought.. I think that makes a lot of sense.

Ogham really just records the stage of evolution Irish/Gaelic was in that period 400-600 (opinion varies on refining that range). But what it shows is that Irish was still at a stage very similar to Gaulish and proto-Celtic. Basically it was in the insular Celtic stage. The fact the Irish had kept the Q over the P was really just a quirk and its of no consequence. Certainly at this period, it is probably that most of the changes that created the distinct Old Irish and oldest stages of Welsh had not yet occurred. At that period they apparently still had those type of -os ending that were later dropped and lots of other shifts had not happened e.g Fergus was then Vergosus, Conall was Cunavalas. http://heraldry.sca.org/names/ogham/ogham.html

Its generally though British Celtic went through a parallel process. However, my key point is that when the Irish were settling in western Scotland and Wales in the 400s and much of the 500s, these shifts had not yet happened. So you could say that they were just speaking insular celtic, albeit with the P-Q difference. So, in that period of the last tottering of Roman in Britain and the century or more after, there may have been not a lot of difference between the speech of the Gaels, Britons and Picts. Certainly nothing like the differences by around 600AD when they had diverged a lot more. So St. Columba may have needed a translator when speaking to a Pict in the late 500s but he might not have needed one if he had come over with the first Gaelic settlers to western Scotland. I am not a follower of the Glasgow school view that Gaelic was as native to western Scotland as Ireland but I also dont believe the old historian based view that it all started just before 500AD. I think the movement could have started to arrive as early as c. 300AD and almost certainly were around by the 400s - the 500AD date is just the date of the King Fergus moving his capital to Scotland, not the commencement of the settlement. The possible period of the movement IMO falls between the Ptolemy indication of British tribes rather than Gaelic Dal Riata in Argyll and inner Hebrides in the 2nd century AD and maybe about 450AD. I think the movement probably started around the time the Romans start to mention a strong Irish naval presence c. 300AD.

sktibo
08-27-2018, 02:05 PM
Ogham really just records the stage of evolution Irish/Gaelic was in that period 400-600 (opinion varies on refining that range). But what it shows is that Irish was still at a stage very similar to Gaulish and proto-Celtic. Basically it was in the insular Celtic stage. The fact the Irish had kept the Q over the P was really just a quirk and its of no consequence. Certainly at this period, it is probably that most of the changes that created the distinct Old Irish and oldest stages of Welsh had not yet occurred. At that period they apparently still had those type of -os ending that were later dropped and lots of other shifts had not happened e.g Fergus was then Vergosus, Conall was Cunavalas. http://heraldry.sca.org/names/ogham/ogham.html

Its generally though British Celtic went through a parallel process. However, my key point is that when the Irish were settling in western Scotland and Wales in the 400s and much of the 500s, these shifts had not yet happened. So you could say that they were just speaking insular celtic, albeit with the P-Q difference. So, in that period of the last tottering of Roman in Britain and the century or more after, there may have been not a lot of difference between the speech of the Gaels, Britons and Picts. Certainly nothing like the differences by around 600AD when they had diverged a lot more. So St. Columba may have needed a translator when speaking to a Pict in the late 500s but he might not have needed one if he had come over with the first Gaelic settlers to western Scotland. I am not a follower of the Glasgow school view that Gaelic was as native to western Scotland as Ireland but I also dont believe the old historian based view that it all started just before 500AD. I think the movement could have started to arrive as early as c. 300AD and almost certainly were around by the 400s - the 500AD date is just the date of the King Fergus moving his capital to Scotland, not the commencement of the settlement. The possible period of the movement IMO falls between the Ptolemy indication of British tribes rather than Gaelic Dal Riata in Argyll and inner Hebrides in the 2nd century AD and maybe about 450AD. I think the movement probably started around the time the Romans start to mention a strong Irish naval presence c. 300AD.

While I personally am inclined to believe the view that Gaelic was native to Western Scotland (or at least was in the Hebrides and some of the western coast from a very early point in time) the idea that significant splits in the Celtic languages are more recent than commonly thought issues a reasonable challenge to this Glasgow school view as you call it. Some of my reasoning for thinking Gaelic could have been native is based on the idea that mountainous geography divided while water connected or even acted as a sort of highway. I also read in school about the shift of some forms of architecture appearing to move from Scotland to Ireland due to dating. However, if these peoples were speaking mutually intelligible languages, even if a bit different, then that presents the possibility that these things could have happened without Gaelic language dominance - Ideas could flow easily from Scotland to Ireland and people from Ireland would be able to easily move between Ireland and western Scotland without the need for a linguistic change. I will certainly keep it in mind for my future discussions and remain open to this possibility.

alan
08-27-2018, 06:12 PM
While I personally am inclined to believe the view that Gaelic was native to Western Scotland (or at least was in the Hebrides and some of the western coast from a very early point in time) the idea that significant splits in the Celtic languages are more recent than commonly thought issues a reasonable challenge to this Glasgow school view as you call it. Some of my reasoning for thinking Gaelic could have been native is based on the idea that mountainous geography divided while water connected or even acted as a sort of highway. I also read in school about the shift of some forms of architecture appearing to move from Scotland to Ireland due to dating. However, if these peoples were speaking mutually intelligible languages, even if a bit different, then that presents the possibility that these things could have happened without Gaelic language dominance - Ideas could flow easily from Scotland to Ireland and people from Ireland would be able to easily move between Ireland and western Scotland without the need for a linguistic change. I will certainly keep it in mind for my future discussions and remain open to this possibility.

I think the idea Gaelic was native to Scotland is borderline impossible. The form of Gaelic we see is essentially Old Irish and Scottish Gaelic clearly comes from Old Irish, virtually identical. Now that form did not exist until well into the 500s. The chance of absolutely identical Old Irish forming in two places at the same time from the sort of Ogham primitive Gaelic is pretty well zero when you consider the totally radical changes that were required to move from the Ogham primitive Gaelic c. 400- some point in the 500s on the one hand and the Old Irish forms that we see by the close of the 500s. Its so dramatic and the forms are so identical that its impossible to put it down to parallel independent development.

Plus the Old Irish form is known throughout Ireland and in Scotland it is only known and attested in Argyle and the Inner Hebrides in early documents so it seems a hell of a coincidence that that is the exact place -Dal Riada where historical sources place an Irish settlement. There are other things too that make the nativist model (which the vast maj of linguistics disagree with BTW) hugely unlikely. For example even the social structure and terminology seen in the survey of Dal Riada - the Senchus Fir nan Alban in the 600s is specifically identical to the Irish system using terms like Dal, Cenela, roughly 700 men military units divided further into 80s etc. So its clearly the Irish social system. That this system was not just a paper one is shown by the survival of its territorial terms like Lorne, Cowell etc and even the subdivisions survive in names like the parish of Kenelvaden (I think) with the Cenel terminology.

I wrote a thesis on this and I was open to the idea of a much more ancient link. The key fact was the absolutely identical (no drift at all) linguistic and social structure system in Ireland and Argyle that existed in by the 600s and is heavily implied as being in existence in the 500s. This basically narrows it down to two options that i looked at:

1. There really was a fairly intense settlement not drastically earlier than the traditional settlement period (or perhaps just an elite and constant slow movement after for centuries leading up to it).

2. There was such constant and total interaction between Ireland and SPECIFICALLY Argyle that the dialect used in both places did not diverge over a vast period of time from the Bronze Age to the 600s AD.

I considered them both seriously but there is a key problem for the idea of constant interaction between Ireland and Argyle preventing divergence of dialects - and that is that there is virtually no evidence of similarity between the two area between 700BC and the early centuries AD. Ireland (including the closest bit which was the Irish kingdom of Dalriada in NE Antrim) and Argyle and the inner hebrides were very different places in the Iron Age. There is evidence and it shows a chasm of difference. That is the guts of a millennium for divergence. So, it just doesnt seem plausible that to say that the a single language over Ireland and Argyle was able to resist divergence for 1000 years and come out looking identical in the earliest records of the 600s.

I also think the presence of P-Celtic names like Epidi and Epidium in Argyle and Islay takes special pleading to explain away. And as for the frankly daft idea that because Eochaid appears on the Dal Riada king list meaning it refers to Epidi, well only someone unfamiliar with Irish ancient genealogical tracts could make that mistake. Eochaid occurs in many Irish geneological tracts including the Ui Neill and Connachta's ancestor Eochaid Mugmedon. Eochaid 'horse lord' was an ancestral figure in Irish mythology including the ancestor of everyone - Eochaid Ollathair - also known as the Dagda - in Irish mythology. So its a really silly argument made my someone who was dabbling beyond their expertise.

The absence of archaeological evidence thing doesnt really hold much water either as it notoriously difficult to spot invasion horizons in some cases - just think ancient Greece.

I think the reality is that Ptolemy shows P Celtic speaking peoples on the Western Seaboard of Scotland in the 2nd century AD and that gives us a terminus post quem for the arrival of Gaelic in that area and there is no reason or justification for seeing it as otherwise other than wanting it to be so. Also little known is the fact that there is very good evidence in both historical references and placenames to P-Celtic speaking Picts in the even more remote part of the west of Scotland to the north of Argyle - both mainland and islands - from Applecross to Cape Wrath. It seems by the 600s that this area too was being contested between factions of Scots and Picts. There is some good stuff online if you can find it. I once posted the stuff to Jean when I was trying to advise her not to follow the Glasgow school ideas on Dalriada.

This is important because its highly unlikely that a shift to P Celtic would have happened in those areas but not the less remote Argyle which was right next to the Strathclyde Britons and highly visible from their coasts - even sharing a border near the north end of Loch Lomond. So, I think the reality is that all of Scotland was P-Celtic speaking until a wedge of Q celtic was inserted in the period between Ptolemy's map c. 150AD and the first historical records (which suggest a real grip by the mid 500s). I personally think its 99% certain that this is the case.

Now its no coincidence that records of Irish raids start in the end of the 200s and the term Scotti started to appear from 312 in records. All post-Ptolemy. The term has never been explained in any language in any way that does involve mental gymnastics. Personally I have a hunch the term actually means Scythians with it being used as a nickname pejorative to imply the Gaels shared the same lowest levels of primitive barbarity of the Scythians in the Roman mind.

What Scotti does look like is one of many names like Picti and others on the continent that referred to enemy confederations or groupings who formed to attack Roman territory. The best background I could find is the apparent major investment in boats to raid that took place in Ireland in the period from the late 200s onwards. Another reason to see Ireland as the driving force of the Scotti (other than the historical references) as there was a genuine demographic driver that has been identified in pollen cores in Ireland. Ireland had an enormous population explosion in that very period after a long period in the demographic doldrums. So it all fits rather well.

Anyway having viewed all the evidence I concluded the Scotti was a generalised name for Irish sea raiders c. 300-450AD used by Roman and sub-Roman alike and by Christian church when it arrived in Ireland around the end of that period. I do think the positive evidence all points to Irish settlement arriving after Ptolemy, almost certainly after the early 200s and most probably not before the period approaching 300AD when a lot of naval attacks from Ireland are mentioned.

An interesting thing to consider thought is that while successful permanent settlement of Roman Britain by Irish raiders is unlikely before the final withdrawal of the legions (unless they were invited as foederati of course), the territories the Irish settled in Argyle and the hebrides were beyond the Roman territories. So they could have slipped in there somewhat earlier, though I still think it must have been after Ptolemy, and almost certainly after the abandonment of the Antonine line (final revival of it was under Severus c. 208). The western end of that line was far too close to Argyle for comfort to any would be settlers IMO. I personally think late 200s/early 300s but that is just a hunch.

The final thing to consider is this - and this really is a mystery - Old Irish did not exist until some point in the 500s. Settlers in the 200s, 300s, 400s and even probably the early 500s would likely have ben speaking something like Ogham Irish (Primitive Irish) not the radically different Old Irish that they actually were speaking in both Argyle and Ireland by the 600s. How did that happen? The only way I can understand that is there was very intensive constant contact and movement between Ireland and Argyle (both secular and church) after the initial settlement and especially in the 500s when the shift happened. That does fit the traditional historical model of Dal Riada or a variant of it with a slow take over perhaps starting from the late 200s or 300s and becoming a powerful entity in the 500s.

Gwydion
08-27-2018, 06:30 PM
May as well be asked/discussed in this thread:

Since we previously touched on Brittonic survivals in Anglo-Saxon England, let's expound further on that topic. What elements of the British past found their way into the Anglo-Saxon and perhaps medieval future? We've mentioned how some particular dynasties, notably Wessex, may have been British in origin. There's been talk of perhaps sub-Roman or native Celtic British institutions or organization perhaps being adopted by the Angles, particularly in Bernicia. How about any artistic or culture elements, did British (perhaps Pictish too) art influence Anglo-Saxon art? Were any military institutions or ideals shared between the two?

Aside from Wales, Cornwall, and Cumbria which areas of England remained British the longest or had the greatest influences? Genetically what are likely the least Anglo-Saxon (or Danish) and most British locations in England today?

spruithean
08-27-2018, 06:42 PM
May as well be asked/discussed in this thread:

Since we previously touched on Brittonic survivals in Anglo-Saxon England, let's expound further on that topic. What elements of the British past found their way into the Anglo-Saxon and perhaps medieval future? We've mentioned how some particular dynasties, notably Wessex, may have been British in origin. There's been talk of perhaps sub-Roman or native Celtic British institutions or organization perhaps being adopted by the Angles, particularly in Bernicia. How about any artistic or culture elements, did British (perhaps Pictish too) art influence Anglo-Saxon art? Were any military institutions or ideals shared between the two?

Aside from Wales, Cornwall, and Cumbria which areas of England remained British the longest or had the greatest influences? Genetically what are likely the least Anglo-Saxon (or Danish) and most British locations in England today?

Yes, Celtic art influenced Anglo-Saxon art and vice versa, basically it is called "Insular art" or "Hiberno-Saxon art", this can be seen everywhere from the Isles and into the European continent,where insular art is known to have affected all European medieval art. Elements of Insular art survived in Romanesque and Gothic art pieces.

Ruthwell Cross is an example of Insular art known to be associated with an Anglo-Saxon site in modern day Ruthwell in Dumfriesshire.

The Angles of Bernicia quite obviously adopted and made use of Celtic hillforts (see Bamburgh and Dunbar), it has also been noted that there is a chance that the Bernicians had adopted and made use of cavalry (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/007817291790175691?journalCode=ynhi20) (perhaps learned from the northern Britons), the majority of Anglo-Saxon warfare didn't make use of cavalry, instead horses were often rode to battle by nobles and special individuals, but not used in battle. Interestingly enough the two warrior kings who fought at the Battle of Dun Nechtain were very likely cousins, as Nennius states that Bridei III mac Bili was the maternal cousin of Ecgfrith of Northumbria. It's probable that Bridei's mother was a descendant of Edwin of Northumbria, thus a relation to Oswiu's (father of Ecgfrith) mother Acha daughter of Edwin of Northumbria (most believe she was Oswiu's mother, as she is Oswald's mother)

Places in England besides Wales, Cornwall and Cumbria where some Celtic genetics and influence survived to some degree would perhaps be where the old Kingdom of Elmet was located, which was even found to have a unique genetic signature compared to the rest of the northern England (especially Yorkshire).

JonikW
08-27-2018, 07:18 PM
May as well be asked/discussed in this thread:

Since we previously touched on Brittonic survivals in Anglo-Saxon England, let's expound further on that topic. What elements of the British past found their way into the Anglo-Saxon and perhaps medieval future? We've mentioned how some particular dynasties, notably Wessex, may have been British in origin. There's been talk of perhaps sub-Roman or native Celtic British institutions or organization perhaps being adopted by the Angles, particularly in Bernicia. How about any artistic or culture elements, did British (perhaps Pictish too) art influence Anglo-Saxon art? Were any military institutions or ideals shared between the two?

Aside from Wales, Cornwall, and Cumbria which areas of England remained British the longest or had the greatest influences? Genetically what are likely the least Anglo-Saxon (or Danish) and most British locations in England today?

I think the most Celtic place in England has to be Cornwall. Cumbria, I'm not sure about because a lot of Germanic people seem to have that signal too. However, I remember a school friend with a Cumbrian grandparent telling me about the local counting system as a kid, which reminded me of the Welsh I'd been taught at that time by my mother's friends near Aberystwyth when we stayed with them on holiday. I've never forgotten a single word.

alan
08-27-2018, 08:31 PM
I think the idea Gaelic was native to Scotland is borderline impossible. The form of Gaelic we see is essentially Old Irish and Scottish Gaelic clearly comes from Old Irish, virtually identical. Now that form did not exist until well into the 500s. The chance of absolutely identical Old Irish forming in two places at the same time from the sort of Ogham primitive Gaelic is pretty well zero when you consider the totally radical changes that were required to move from the Ogham primitive Gaelic c. 400- some point in the 500s on the one hand and the Old Irish forms that we see by the close of the 500s. Its so dramatic and the forms are so identical that its impossible to put it down to parallel independent development.

Plus the Old Irish form is known throughout Ireland and in Scotland it is only known and attested in Argyle and the Inner Hebrides in early documents so it seems a hell of a coincidence that that is the exact place -Dal Riada where historical sources place an Irish settlement. There are other things too that make the nativist model (which the vast maj of linguistics disagree with BTW) hugely unlikely. For example even the social structure and terminology seen in the survey of Dal Riada - the Senchus Fir nan Alban in the 600s is specifically identical to the Irish system using terms like Dal, Cenela, roughly 700 men military units divided further into 80s etc. So its clearly the Irish social system. That this system was not just a paper one is shown by the survival of its territorial terms like Lorne, Cowell etc and even the subdivisions survive in names like the parish of Kenelvaden (I think) with the Cenel terminology.

I wrote a thesis on this and I was open to the idea of a much more ancient link. The key fact was the absolutely identical (no drift at all) linguistic and social structure system in Ireland and Argyle that existed in by the 600s and is heavily implied as being in existence in the 500s. This basically narrows it down to two options that i looked at:

1. There really was a fairly intense settlement not drastically earlier than the traditional settlement period (or perhaps just an elite and constant slow movement after for centuries leading up to it).

2. There was such constant and total interaction between Ireland and SPECIFICALLY Argyle that the dialect used in both places did not diverge over a vast period of time from the Bronze Age to the 600s AD.

I considered them both seriously but there is a key problem for the idea of constant interaction between Ireland and Argyle preventing divergence of dialects - and that is that there is virtually no evidence of similarity between the two area between 700BC and the early centuries AD. Ireland (including the closest bit which was the Irish kingdom of Dalriada in NE Antrim) and Argyle and the inner hebrides were very different places in the Iron Age. There is evidence and it shows a chasm of difference. That is the guts of a millennium for divergence. So, it just doesnt seem plausible that to say that the a single language over Ireland and Argyle was able to resist divergence for 1000 years and come out looking identical in the earliest records of the 600s.

I also think the presence of P-Celtic names like Epidi and Epidium in Argyle and Islay takes special pleading to explain away. And as for the frankly daft idea that because Eochaid appears on the Dal Riada king list meaning it refers to Epidi, well only someone unfamiliar with Irish ancient genealogical tracts could make that mistake. Eochaid occurs in many Irish geneological tracts including the Ui Neill and Connachta's ancestor Eochaid Mugmedon. Eochaid 'horse lord' was an ancestral figure in Irish mythology including the ancestor of everyone - Eochaid Ollathair - also known as the Dagda - in Irish mythology. So its a really silly argument made my someone who was dabbling beyond their expertise.

The absence of archaeological evidence thing doesnt really hold much water either as it notoriously difficult to spot invasion horizons in some cases - just think ancient Greece.

I think the reality is that Ptolemy shows P Celtic speaking peoples on the Western Seaboard of Scotland in the 2nd century AD and that gives us a terminus post quem for the arrival of Gaelic in that area and there is no reason or justification for seeing it as otherwise other than wanting it to be so. Also little known is the fact that there is very good evidence in both historical references and placenames to P-Celtic speaking Picts in the even more remote part of the west of Scotland to the north of Argyle - both mainland and islands - from Applecross to Cape Wrath. It seems by the 600s that this area too was being contested between factions of Scots and Picts. There is some good stuff online if you can find it. I once posted the stuff to Jean when I was trying to advise her not to follow the Glasgow school ideas on Dalriada.

This is important because its highly unlikely that a shift to P Celtic would have happened in those areas but not the less remote Argyle which was right next to the Strathclyde Britons and highly visible from their coasts - even sharing a border near the north end of Loch Lomond. So, I think the reality is that all of Scotland was P-Celtic speaking until a wedge of Q celtic was inserted in the period between Ptolemy's map c. 150AD and the first historical records (which suggest a real grip by the mid 500s). I personally think its 99% certain that this is the case.

Now its no coincidence that records of Irish raids start in the end of the 200s and the term Scotti started to appear from 312 in records. All post-Ptolemy. The term has never been explained in any language in any way that does involve mental gymnastics. Personally I have a hunch the term actually means Scythians with it being used as a nickname pejorative to imply the Gaels shared the same lowest levels of primitive barbarity of the Scythians in the Roman mind.

What Scotti does look like is one of many names like Picti and others on the continent that referred to enemy confederations or groupings who formed to attack Roman territory. The best background I could find is the apparent major investment in boats to raid that took place in Ireland in the period from the late 200s onwards. Another reason to see Ireland as the driving force of the Scotti (other than the historical references) as there was a genuine demographic driver that has been identified in pollen cores in Ireland. Ireland had an enormous population explosion in that very period after a long period in the demographic doldrums. So it all fits rather well.

Anyway having viewed all the evidence I concluded the Scotti was a generalised name for Irish sea raiders c. 300-450AD used by Roman and sub-Roman alike and by Christian church when it arrived in Ireland around the end of that period. I do think the positive evidence all points to Irish settlement arriving after Ptolemy, almost certainly after the early 200s and most probably not before the period approaching 300AD when a lot of naval attacks from Ireland are mentioned.

An interesting thing to consider thought is that while successful permanent settlement of Roman Britain by Irish raiders is unlikely before the final withdrawal of the legions (unless they were invited as foederati of course), the territories the Irish settled in Argyle and the hebrides were beyond the Roman territories. So they could have slipped in there somewhat earlier, though I still think it must have been after Ptolemy, and almost certainly after the abandonment of the Antonine line (final revival of it was under Severus c. 208). The western end of that line was far too close to Argyle for comfort to any would be settlers IMO. I personally think late 200s/early 300s but that is just a hunch.

The final thing to consider is this - and this really is a mystery - Old Irish did not exist until some point in the 500s. Settlers in the 200s, 300s, 400s and even probably the early 500s would likely have ben speaking something like Ogham Irish (Primitive Irish) not the radically different Old Irish that they actually were speaking in both Argyle and Ireland by the 600s. How did that happen? The only way I can understand that is there was very intensive constant contact and movement between Ireland and Argyle (both secular and church) after the initial settlement and especially in the 500s when the shift happened. That does fit the traditional historical model of Dal Riada or a variant of it with a slow take over perhaps starting from the late 200s or 300s and becoming a powerful entity in the 500s.

There are a few other more obscure bits of evidence that are probably worth mentioning. Irish late iron age metalwork actually does start to appear in the Hebrides, albeit in native type contexts like Broch sites etc - spear butts etc. There is a chapter on this in the book The Stone Age to the '45. Another obscure thing I didnt mention is the evidence of P-Celtic in Argyle itself. The most clearcut one in Adomnan's Life of Columba is Loch Aber which was apparently the Pictish name for Loch Linne. Another more obscure observation I found came from Watson's classic very old but still highly respected book on placenames in Scotland. He suggests that there is evidence of Brythonic or Pictish substrate in the choice of Gaelic words that were chosen in placenames and the way they were used. It was almost like the closest Gaelic word was used to substitute an existing Brythonic name rather than the most common Gaelic word. For example in Scotland the term Ben was used as the most common name for mountain rather than Slieve which is most typical in Ireland. Ireland of course does also use the name Ben for mountains (there is a particular concentration in Connemara in western Ireland and it is used all over) but it is generally much less used than Slieve. So it appears almost as though the Gaels found a mountain called something like Pen Mawr and made the choice of Gaelic terms to change it as little as possible to Benmore or the like. You get my drift. There are other terms and way placenames were constructed in Scotland (including Argyle) that suggest this same phenomenon. For example, although Inver also means mouth of a river in Ireland, it is rare to find placenames called Inver+rivername. Not unknown but rare. But in Wales lots of placenames are formed by Aber+rivername. In Scotland there are both but in the west its pretty well all Inver+rivername. This suggests again that these inver names involved using Gaelic in a way that least changed a pre-existing Brythonic/Pictish Aber+river placename. So, there is evidence in Scotland that Gaelic was imposed and simply translated pre-existing placenames with a distinctive Brythonic-Pictish pattern, even in Argyll.

Hammer
08-27-2018, 09:31 PM
@your grandparents said doei that’s quite surprising that’s a kind popular greeting of the last twenty years or so, not quite westeremden like hahahah
I think they probably said Moi
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moin

@gwydion hahahah exactly I speak a language that is close to the language of this man a East Frisian, Germany, from the border area, he talks like my grandfather (even looks a bit like him)

I bet you don’t understand a word of it...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sdtIZnNxy-s

I can understand some of what he says, but by no means all of it. I remember the old people, grandparents and great-grandparents generation, speaking sort of like that in the village of my dad near the Baltic coast. But nowadays it seems people, at least those under 60 years of age, only keep that intonation and some dialect terms while speaking standard German otherwise.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
08-28-2018, 05:17 AM
May as well be asked/discussed in this thread:

Since we previously touched on Brittonic survivals in Anglo-Saxon England, let's expound further on that topic. What elements of the British past found their way into the Anglo-Saxon and perhaps medieval future? We've mentioned how some particular dynasties, notably Wessex, may have been British in origin. There's been talk of perhaps sub-Roman or native Celtic British institutions or organization perhaps being adopted by the Angles, particularly in Bernicia. How about any artistic or culture elements, did British (perhaps Pictish too) art influence Anglo-Saxon art? Were any military institutions or ideals shared between the two?

Aside from Wales, Cornwall, and Cumbria which areas of England remained British the longest or had the greatest influences? Genetically what are likely the least Anglo-Saxon (or Danish) and most British locations in England today?

My paternal ancestry is from the South west corner of Herefordshire, part of the former Welsh Kingdom pf Ergyn later known as Archenfield. My understanding is that as it was mainly West of the River Wye is was never part of the Anglo Saxon administrative system and was probably ruled by a Welsh minor client king. Even during the Norman era it was ruled by the Marcher Lords rather than directly by the King.

25563

This seemed to lead to a strange mix of Welsh Anglo Saxon and Norman culture with some Irish influences possibly from nearby Breconshire although there does appear to have been at least some Irish/Norse settlement also. This is best seen in the strange mix of carvings at Kilpeck Church. Welsh was spoken in the area until comparatively recently and there are many place names of Welsh origin.
There were certainly military alliances between some of the Welsh and the Anglo Saxons including against incursions by the vikings, at least one of which was driven off by a combined force of Anglo Saxon and Welsh.
Harold Godwinson had Welsh allies fighting for him against other Welsh. The notion of Welsh (or Briton) against Anglo Saxon is a bit simplistic I think given that for much of the time they were tribal societies with tribal alliances and priorities in terms of territory and influence.

Link below and film on Kilpeck Church carving influences :-

http://kilpeckchurch.org.uk/

sktibo
08-28-2018, 06:28 AM
There are a few other more obscure bits of evidence that are probably worth mentioning. Irish late iron age metalwork actually does start to appear in the Hebrides, albeit in native type contexts like Broch sites etc - spear butts etc. There is a chapter on this in the book The Stone Age to the '45. Another obscure thing I didnt mention is the evidence of P-Celtic in Argyle itself. The most clearcut one in Adomnan's Life of Columba is Loch Aber which was apparently the Pictish name for Loch Linne. Another more obscure observation I found came from Watson's classic very old but still highly respected book on placenames in Scotland. He suggests that there is evidence of Brythonic or Pictish substrate in the choice of Gaelic words that were chosen in placenames and the way they were used. It was almost like the closest Gaelic word was used to substitute an existing Brythonic name rather than the most common Gaelic word. For example in Scotland the term Ben was used as the most common name for mountain rather than Slieve which is most typical in Ireland. Ireland of course does also use the name Ben for mountains (there is a particular concentration in Connemara in western Ireland and it is used all over) but it is generally much less used than Slieve. So it appears almost as though the Gaels found a mountain called something like Pen Mawr and made the choice of Gaelic terms to change it as little as possible to Benmore or the like. You get my drift. There are other terms and way placenames were constructed in Scotland (including Argyle) that suggest this same phenomenon. For example, although Inver also means mouth of a river in Ireland, it is rare to find placenames called Inver+rivername. Not unknown but rare. But in Wales lots of placenames are formed by Aber+rivername. In Scotland there are both but in the west its pretty well all Inver+rivername. This suggests again that these inver names involved using Gaelic in a way that least changed a pre-existing Brythonic/Pictish Aber+river placename. So, there is evidence in Scotland that Gaelic was imposed and simply translated pre-existing placenames with a distinctive Brythonic-Pictish pattern, even in Argyll.

This is incredibly interesting stuff, I want you to know that I am going to share to this with my circle of friends who are interested and or involved with Scottish Gaelic. Thank you for sharing it with me here; I think this is the best or most convincing argument against Gaelic being native to Scotland I have heard.. it will be interesting to see if some of the people I know who actually teach Scottish Gaelic as their profession can be convinced. I'll respond here if they have anything particularly notable to add.

JonikW
08-28-2018, 01:34 PM
There are a few other more obscure bits of evidence that are probably worth mentioning. Irish late iron age metalwork actually does start to appear in the Hebrides, albeit in native type contexts like Broch sites etc - spear butts etc. There is a chapter on this in the book The Stone Age to the '45. Another obscure thing I didnt mention is the evidence of P-Celtic in Argyle itself. The most clearcut one in Adomnan's Life of Columba is Loch Aber which was apparently the Pictish name for Loch Linne. Another more obscure observation I found came from Watson's classic very old but still highly respected book on placenames in Scotland. He suggests that there is evidence of Brythonic or Pictish substrate in the choice of Gaelic words that were chosen in placenames and the way they were used. It was almost like the closest Gaelic word was used to substitute an existing Brythonic name rather than the most common Gaelic word. For example in Scotland the term Ben was used as the most common name for mountain rather than Slieve which is most typical in Ireland. Ireland of course does also use the name Ben for mountains (there is a particular concentration in Connemara in western Ireland and it is used all over) but it is generally much less used than Slieve. So it appears almost as though the Gaels found a mountain called something like Pen Mawr and made the choice of Gaelic terms to change it as little as possible to Benmore or the like. You get my drift. There are other terms and way placenames were constructed in Scotland (including Argyle) that suggest this same phenomenon. For example, although Inver also means mouth of a river in Ireland, it is rare to find placenames called Inver+rivername. Not unknown but rare. But in Wales lots of placenames are formed by Aber+rivername. In Scotland there are both but in the west its pretty well all Inver+rivername. This suggests again that these inver names involved using Gaelic in a way that least changed a pre-existing Brythonic/Pictish Aber+river placename. So, there is evidence in Scotland that Gaelic was imposed and simply translated pre-existing placenames with a distinctive Brythonic-Pictish pattern, even in Argyll.

I'd recommend the Life of St Columba to anyone who hasn't read it. I used to get off the train in central London feeling as if I'd just been to early Medieval Scotland while I was relishing it on my commute. My edition says that Airchartdan, which also features, is thought to be Glen Urquhart. This may well represent P Celtic "ar", "on", or "next, against", and "cardden", or "copse". The editor points out that this is is part of the evidence for Pictish showing Brittonic features.

msmarjoribanks
08-28-2018, 02:40 PM
The notion of Welsh (or Briton) against Anglo Saxon is a bit simplistic I think given that for much of the time they were tribal societies with tribal alliances and priorities in terms of territory and influence.

I think this is very true and an important point, and also explains to some extent the events under the Romans and then the various Germanic peoples. You also see the same thing, of course, for years after that -- the shifting alliances of various "AngloSaxons" in later years, when faced with other threats, and even (of course) with the various Welsh factions being unable to remain unified vs. later English efforts to control Wales.

JonikW
08-28-2018, 03:07 PM
I think this is very true and an important point, and also explains to some extent the events under the Romans and then the various Germanic peoples. You also see the same thing, of course, for years after that -- the shifting alliances of various "AngloSaxons" in later years, when faced with other threats, and even (of course) with the various Welsh factions being unable to remain unified vs. later English efforts to control Wales.

Well said John and msmarjoribanks. Strange today to think that the Princes of Powys held land as far into England as Derbyshire at one point. Basically, Anglo-Saxon thegns owed them fealty as far as Ashford in the Peak District.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
08-28-2018, 04:23 PM
In relation to the Op's question about military similarities and organisation between the Britons/Anglo Saxons, the link below is quite interesting.
"Despite the great outpouring of material that stresses supposedly pan-Celtic traits in warfare, religion and culture generally, it is debatable whether the remaining Celtic-speaking regions of the Viking Era—Ireland, the Pictish and Scottish kingdoms, Strathclyde, Wales, and Brittany—had much more in common with each other than they did with their Germanic neighbors, except their linguistic affinity. The evidence for military organization in all these regions in the early Middle Ages is sparse, but there is enough to show that there were many similarities with Frankish and English kingdoms."

https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2017/02/01/anglo-saxon-england-and-welsh-armed-forces-against-the-vikings/

Saetro
08-29-2018, 07:19 PM
In relation to the Op's question about military similarities and organisation between the Britons/Anglo Saxons, the link below is quite interesting.
"Despite the great outpouring of material that stresses supposedly pan-Celtic traits in warfare, religion and culture generally, it is debatable whether the remaining Celtic-speaking regions of the Viking Era—Ireland, the Pictish and Scottish kingdoms, Strathclyde, Wales, and Brittany—had much more in common with each other than they did with their Germanic neighbors, except their linguistic affinity. The evidence for military organization in all these regions in the early Middle Ages is sparse, but there is enough to show that there were many similarities with Frankish and English kingdoms."

https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2017/02/01/anglo-saxon-england-and-welsh-armed-forces-against-the-vikings/

Great reference.
The detail that followed indicated general aspects of military organisation that might be similar due simply to the common elements of logistics and weaponry.
For example, a shield-bearer indicates a heavy shield and someone to carry it while the prince is not using it for warfare.
There is nothing in the text below the quoted paragraph that suggests that the Celtic shield was copied from an AngloSaxon original.
Similarly, with the idea of a special inner guard for the prince.
Yes, the statement in the quoted paragraph appears in the reference, but the reference does not substantiate this claim on the linked page.
Does this appear somewhere else?
I may have missed it while looking over this website.
It would be no surprise if a clever ruler did copy successful enemies.

Gwydion
08-29-2018, 09:53 PM
The Angles of Bernicia quite obviously adopted and made use of Celtic hillforts (see Bamburgh and Dunbar), it has also been noted that there is a chance that the Bernicians had adopted and made use of cavalry (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/007817291790175691?journalCode=ynhi20) (perhaps learned from the northern Britons), the majority of Anglo-Saxon warfare didn't make use of cavalry, instead horses were often rode to battle by nobles and special individuals, but not used in battle.

Reminds one of that theory that the Sarmatians placed on Hadrian's Wall were the origin of a cavalry tradition that may include the Bernecians as you noted but also of course the later border reivers, said to be among the finest light cavalry in Europe during their time. If I recall there claims perhaps of elevated R1b Ht35 around the border area and some were linking that to the Sarmatians, perhaps related people like the Alans, etc.

rms2
08-31-2018, 11:43 AM
Reminds one of that theory that the Sarmatians placed on Hadrian's Wall were the origin of a cavalry tradition that may include the Bernecians as you noted but also of course the later border reivers, said to be among the finest light cavalry in Europe during their time. If I recall there claims perhaps of elevated R1b Ht35 around the border area and some were linking that to the Sarmatians, perhaps related people like the Alans, etc.

Just my opinion, but I don't believe any of that. What evidence is there in the English/Scottish border region of an elevated frequency of what used to be called "Ht35", but which we now know is R1b-Z2103? I could get a surprise, I guess, but I don't think there is any such evidence. Besides, were I looking for the y chromosome descendants of ancient Sarmatians or Alans, I would be looking for R1a-Z93. There isn't much of that in Britain, except perhaps in modern immigrants from places where Z93 is more frequent.

I could be wrong, but IMHO the whole Sarmatian thing is romantic hogwash.

msmarjoribanks
09-01-2018, 12:48 AM
This reminded me of this piece: https://aelarsen.wordpress.com/2015/08/03/king-arthur-the-sarmatian-theory/

It's about King Arthur specifically, but I thought it might be of interest.

spruithean
09-01-2018, 02:10 AM
Just my opinion, but I don't believe any of that. What evidence is there in the English/Scottish border region of an elevated frequency of what used to be called "Ht35", but which we now know is R1b-Z2103? I could get a surprise, I guess, but I don't think there is any such evidence. Besides, were I looking for the y chromosome descendants of ancient Sarmatians or Alans, I would be looking for R1a-Z93. There isn't much of that in Britain, except perhaps in modern immigrants from places where Z93 is more frequent.

I could be wrong, but IMHO the whole Sarmatian thing is romantic hogwash.

I seem to recall there were some Sarmatians at Ribchester (http://roman-britain.co.uk/places/bremetenacum.htm), however I highly doubt that many (if any) stayed behind after the fall of Roman Britain.


This reminded me of this piece: https://aelarsen.wordpress.com/2015/08/03/king-arthur-the-sarmatian-theory/

It's about King Arthur specifically, but I thought it might be of interest.

Interesting read, though the Sarmatian Theory has quite a few holes in it that weaken it. The King Arthur movie was definitely a product of the usual movie adaptation of historical events. Portraying the Saxons as entirely evil people while the Romans and Britons were entirely good definitely weakened that movies reception IMO.

msmarjoribanks
09-01-2018, 02:11 PM
I seem to recall there were some Sarmatians at Ribchester (http://roman-britain.co.uk/places/bremetenacum.htm), however I highly doubt that many (if any) stayed behind after the fall of Roman Britain.



Interesting read, though the Sarmatian Theory has quite a few holes in it that weaken it. The King Arthur movie was definitely a product of the usual movie adaptation of historical events. Portraying the Saxons as entirely evil people while the Romans and Britons were entirely good definitely weakened that movies reception IMO.

Yeah, I didn't think the author bought into it at all, and clearly thought the history in the movie was off. (I vaguely recall them playing games with dates, but don't remember it well enough to know what I was thinking about.)

Gwydion
09-02-2018, 06:55 PM
Just my opinion, but I don't believe any of that. What evidence is there in the English/Scottish border region of an elevated frequency of what used to be called "Ht35", but which we now know is R1b-Z2103? I could get a surprise, I guess, but I don't think there is any such evidence. Besides, were I looking for the y chromosome descendants of ancient Sarmatians or Alans, I would be looking for R1a-Z93. There isn't much of that in Britain, except perhaps in modern immigrants from places where Z93 is more frequent.

I could be wrong, but IMHO the whole Sarmatian thing is romantic hogwash.

I don't believe it either, just saying the Bernecians as being unique for the employment of cavalry reminded me of the theory. But then we know the Bretons employed light cavalry to achieve their victories against the Franks and that's at the opposite end of the Brythonic world so no need for a Sarmatian explanation for Britons (or their Anglicized descendants) using cavalry, though the Alans did apparently settle in Gaul.

Webb
09-02-2018, 10:48 PM
Speaking of Alans, I almost hesitate to mention the similarity in names of Fritigern, the Thervingian Gothic Chieftan, and Kentigern, the Scottish Saint. I’m afraid it may be too much for my friend, rms2. Lol

rms2
09-08-2018, 01:33 AM
Speaking of Alans, I almost hesitate to mention the similarity in names of Fritigern, the Thervingian Gothic Chieftan, and Kentigern, the Scottish Saint. I’m afraid it may be too much for my friend, rms2. Lol

What do those two have to do with Alans? The Alans were an Iranian people (I'm referring to language, not to modern nation states).

Probably that igern was a common Germanic ending for a name, maybe related to the modern German gern, as in Ich habe es gern (I like it). I'm just guessing though. I don't know if they are related.

Webb
09-08-2018, 03:21 AM
What do those two have to do with Alans? The Alans were an Iranian people (I'm referring to language, not to modern nation states).

Probably that igern was a common Germanic ending for a name, maybe related to the the modern German gern, as in Ich habe es gern (I like it). I'm just guessing though. I don't know if they are related.

It has nothing to do with each other, really. I’m just attempting to get your goat.

razyn
03-03-2019, 03:38 AM
There is a GIF at this url that runs through about the last 1500 years of The Isles and what was spoken, where, in 100-year slices. I make no claim for its usefulness, but it's kind of interesting to sit and stare at. It was linked on Facebook, where I see such things because my sons have friends who animate the graphics for computer games, etc. Not my cup of tea, or skill set, but pretty tricky in its way. Every time the boundary shifted between two colors, one may assume somebody was serious pissed off, and there is some faction somewhere that remains so to this day.

https://starkeycomics.com/2019/03/01/a-brief-history-of-british-and-irish-languages/?fbclid=IwAR3VD1fcsolblxXzcVOBmbYvpr6igOl-bxriliMeAAwVUUNNl-aCOQkZ-MU

BillMC
03-12-2019, 09:46 PM
Some historians are of the opinion that AngloSaxons were settled in eastern Britain prior to the Roman invasion.

spruithean
03-13-2019, 01:50 AM
Some historians are of the opinion that AngloSaxons were settled in eastern Britain prior to the Roman invasion.

I've heard this theory, however there is a lack of evidence of that, no?

Earliest I can think that Germanic groups were in Britain is with the Romans as foederati and laeti.

BillMC
03-13-2019, 08:37 PM
Hi spruithean
I watched a historical documentary on Youtube about the AngloSaxon settlements in ancient Britain which did indeed feature this point along with archaelogical evidence. I will try and see if I can find the link for it. I also read a book by a Graeme Davis 'The Early English Settlements of Orkney and Shetland'. He based his conclusions by analysing the Norn language of these islands and concluded that it contained words of Anglo Saxon origin. There have also been genetic historians such as Stephen Oppenhiemer claiming that there is DNA evidence of early west Germanic settlements in eastern Britain prior to Roman invasion.

BillMC
03-13-2019, 09:00 PM
Hi spruithean

This might just be the link for it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0-N05K_MKY

Towards the end of this ocumentary there is something mentioned about the English language having a structure in it related to a previous Brythonic Celtic influence, which my answer a point that a person on this thread previously mentioned concerning the lack of Celtic influence on the Anglo Saxons.

and here are the details of the Graehm Davis book:


https://www.amazon.co.uk/Early-English-Settlement-Orkney-Shetland-ebook/dp/B00BO7BBZQ/ref=sr_1_fkmrnull_1?keywords=early+english+settlem ents+of+orkney+and+shetland&qid=1552509741&s=gateway&sr=8-1-fkmrnull

GoldenHind
03-13-2019, 10:06 PM
Hi spruithean
I watched a historical documentary on Youtube about the AngloSaxon settlements in ancient Britain which did indeed feature this point along with archaelogical evidence. I will try and see if I can find the link for it. I also read a book by a Graeme Davis 'The Early English Settlements of Orkney and Shetland'. He based his conclusions by analysing the Norn language of these islands and concluded that it contained words of Anglo Saxon origin. There have also been genetic historians such as Stephen Oppenhiemer claiming that there is DNA evidence of early west Germanic settlements in eastern Britain prior to Roman invasion.

Oppenheimer did indeed advance that theory, and it has been roundly rejected, along with much of his work.

JonikW
03-15-2019, 12:01 AM
Oppenheimer did indeed advance that theory, and it has been roundly rejected, along with much of his work.

I agree. I enjoyed his book and it's worth reading, but that theory has no evidence to back it up and is obviously total bollocks as we say over here. I agree with spruithean. According to Dio, Marcomanni were settled in Britain by Marcus Aurelius; Zosimus says Burgundians were settled under the leader Igillus in the third century; and Ammianus Marcellinus says Alamanni were settled under Fraomar in the fourth. Those are the attested early Germanic settlers although there may be similar ones where records haven't survived. Of course there were Germanic auxillary units in the Roman army too, and some of those soldiers must inevitably have had children to British mothers.

rms2
03-15-2019, 01:04 AM
. . . I enjoyed his book and it's worth reading . . .

I enjoyed reading it when it first came out, but Oppenheimer's book is so inaccurate, so absolutely wrong and misleading that no, it's not worth reading, not now, except by those who are forewarned and already aware of its erroneous nature and are interested only in a bit of historiography under the rubric of "Goofy Ideas That Were Once Popular".

JonikW
03-15-2019, 01:46 AM
I enjoyed reading it when it first came out, but Oppenheimer's book is so inaccurate, so absolutely wrong and misleading that no, it's not worth reading, not now, except by those who are forewarned and already aware of its erroneous nature and are interested only in a bit of historiography under the rubric of "Goofy Ideas That Were Once Popular".

I don't agree. From memory, much of it was a solid and mainstream introduction to P and Q Celtic, geography, history and so on. His own unique theories are not the bulk of the work. In any case I enjoy thinking that questions my assumptions (which are obviously never completely accurate at that distance) and provides a spur to make me check those ideas and ponder more deeply. I enjoyed the book and it encouraged me to read again about early Germanic people in what is now England among other things. It's made me think in particular about whether he could possibly be right on the Belgae, for example. I've wondered about similarities between earlier Bronze Age carvings I've seen in Scandinavia and Derbyshire and have looked into it always with doubt in my mind somewhere.That was worth the price of the book alone.

rms2
03-15-2019, 11:24 AM
I don't agree . . .

I definitely part company with you there, that much is true. That book is so chock full of errors that reading it without an awareness of them beforehand would actually be harmful and could set a newbie back years.

Its chief value now is as a doorstop.

JonikW
03-15-2019, 10:18 PM
I definitely part company with you there, that much is true. That book is so chock full of errors that reading it without an awareness of them beforehand would actually be harmful and could set a newbie back years.

Its chief value now is as a doorstop.

Fair enough. Don't know why I defended him when I felt he was so wrong. Guess it's just because I enjoyed it more than most books and it got me thinking about how long my Y line might have been in Britain.

rms2
03-15-2019, 11:57 PM
Fair enough. Don't know why I defended him when I felt he was so wrong. Guess it's just because I enjoyed it more than most books and it got me thinking about how long my Y line might have been in Britain.

Well, Oppenheimer is a talented writer. I'll give him that. The book was a good read.

Finn
03-16-2019, 07:49 PM
Regarding the question between Britons and Anglo-Saxons, I guess they are basically the same, they (or we) are "muted Bell Beakers" (LN-EBA).
From Bronze Age to nowadays the NW Bell Beakers (Single Grave heirs) blended with the previous populations consisting of HG and Neolithic Farmer.
From Ireland to Scandinavia people the populations became a higher HG and Neolithic component compared to the Dutch/ British Beakers at a certain expense of the Steppe component.
The more North the more the WHG gained, more southwest in NW Europe the Neolithic Farmer gained.
Genetic drift from Iron Age until now made probably the difference between "Celts" and " Germans" but this is not a basic difference!

Molfish
06-13-2019, 12:00 AM
Would people say this good reason to think that my mother is at least 40% Germanic (Anglo-Saxon + Viking)?

Using K36 and G25 coordinates.


"fit": 1.0868,
"English_Cornwall": 34.17,
"England_IA": 25,
"Swedish": 24.17,
"Norwegian": 16.67,
"closestDistances": [
"English_Cornwall:HG00255: 1.754547",
"English_Cornwall:HG00259: 2.289969",
"English_Cornwall:HG00243: 2.314623",
"Swedish:Sweden4: 2.435002",
"English_Cornwall:HG00264: 2.469064",
"English_Cornwall:HG00160: 2.534547",
"Swedish:Sweden9: 2.549047",
"England_IA:I0156: 2.576671",
"Norwegian:NOR109: 2.580292",
"Norwegian:NOR108: 2.747145",
"English_Cornwall:HG00236: 2.783325",
"Norwegian:NOR106: 2.796216",
"Swedish:Sweden5: 2.802517",
"Swedish:Sweden1: 2.829322",
"Swedish:Sweden10: 2.874294",
"Swedish:Sweden7: 2.920265",
"Swedish:Sweden13: 2.926203",
"England_IA:M1489: 2.975167",



"fit": 2.5846,
"SW_England": 59.17,
"SV_Skane": 40.83,
"closestDistances": [
"SW_England:average: 2.830272",
"SV_Skane:average: 3.073091"




"fit": 2.5576,
"SW_England": 54.17,
"Denmark": 45.83,
"closestDistances": [
"SW_England:average: 2.830272",
"Denmark:average: 2.927649"


"fit": 2.2963,
"Mecklenburg-Vorpommern": 53.33,
"SW_England": 40,
"NE_England": 6.67,
"Denmark": 0,
"closestDistances": [
"NE_England:average: 2.671000",
"Mecklenburg-Vorpommern:average: 2.690689",
"SW_England:average: 2.830272",
"Denmark:average: 2.927649"



"fit": 2.2759,
"Mecklenburg-Vorpommern": 43.33,
"Cumbria": 38.33,
"SW_England": 18.33,
"closestDistances": [
"Cumbria:average: 2.455614",
"Mecklenburg-Vorpommern:average: 2.690689",
"SW_England:average: 2.830272"



"fit": 0.9891,
"HUN_MA_Szolad": 40.83,
"England_IA": 30.83,
"England_Roman": 26.67,
"DEU_MA": 1.67,
"closestDistances": [
"HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ11: 2.077035",
"England_Roman:6DT22: 2.254127",
"England_IA:I0156: 2.576671",
"England_Roman:6DT18: 2.695315",
"HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ7: 2.720507",
"HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ13: 2.757432",
"HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ42: 2.761494",
"HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ12: 2.854859",
"HUN_MA_Szolad:SZ22: 2.905681",
"England_IA:M1489: 2.975167",

BillMC
07-22-2019, 09:24 PM
Thanks for the replies.

I've seen some odd theories out there to explain the dearth of Celtic loanwords, place names, material culture, etc. among the Anglo-Saxons, such as much of England already being Germanic prior to the proper Anglo-Saxon migrations. I don't think this is true, but again it does seem odd to me that many Britons would willingly allow themselves to be absorbed into a foreign culture at the cost of abandoning their own language, traditions, etc.

I watched a documentary about the Anglo Saxons (the link for it might actually be on one of this thread's posts). One of the things that this documentary featured was a linguistic expect who noted that there is speach paterns among English people along with the grammer structure of the English language, which is unrelated to either Germanic languages nor the French influence on the English language by the Normans.

BillMC
07-22-2019, 09:26 PM
Regarding the question between Britons and Anglo-Saxons, I guess they are basically the same, they (or we) are "muted Bell Beakers" (LN-EBA).
From Bronze Age to nowadays the NW Bell Beakers (Single Grave heirs) blended with the previous populations consisting of HG and Neolithic Farmer.
From Ireland to Scandinavia people the populations became a higher HG and Neolithic component compared to the Dutch/ British Beakers at a certain expense of the Steppe component.
The more North the more the WHG gained, more southwest in NW Europe the Neolithic Farmer gained.
Genetic drift from Iron Age until now made probably the difference between "Celts" and " Germans" but this is not a basic difference!

I read somewhere that many AS had subclads of the R1b haplogroup as did the Brythonic Celts. This would suggest IMO that they both shared a common ancient ancestral localation.

BillMC
07-22-2019, 09:41 PM
I am not advocating for a large amount of U106, I do believe most of it is attributable to Anglo-Saxons, but also Danes/Norse, possibly smaller amounts from the Normans, later immigration, etc.

As there was a Germanic presence in Britain since the Romans at least it seems possible that some of these early Germanics may have left U106 descendants who subsequently became part of the Celtic British population prior to the shift brought about by the Anglo-Saxons.

I suppose my point is less that there was U106 in Britain prior to the Anglo-Saxons so much as it not all need be attributed to the Anglo-Saxons. Perhaps pre-Danelaw and other later migrations there may have been less U106 than today?

I often get the impression that historians specializing in the ancient and early Medievil period along with the opinions of some people on this board that they are not happy about the fact that there must have been some form of interation between native Britons and the lands on the other side of the North Sea prior to the Roman invasions.

IMO it is inconceivable that there was no interations with these lands and their peoples in ancient times. Yes, I believe that these interations would have led to a few people settling down in Britain, as opposed to mass immigrations or invasions.

BillMC
07-22-2019, 09:52 PM
( correct me if I'm wrong but Bede links the demise of the britons as a punishment by God).

Maybe did or didn't, but Gildas a Romano-British deacon and monk did. The Venerable Bede may well have quoted or made reference to Gildas.

Sometime between the late 5th century and the 6th century, he wrote a book called 'The Ruin of Britain', which describes a time of dramatic change, when the Roman legions had left Britain and the Romano-British population was under attack from invaders.

You read more about him and his book here:
https://blogs.bl.uk/digitisedmanuscripts/2019/06/gildas.html

JonikW
07-22-2019, 10:20 PM
I often get the impression that historians specializing in the ancient and early Medievil period along with the opinions of some people on this board that they are not happy about the fact that there must have been some form of interation between native Britons and the lands on the other side of the North Sea prior to the Roman invasions.

IMO it is inconceivable that there was no interations with these lands and their peoples in ancient times. Yes, I believe that these interations would have led to a few people settling down in Britain, as opposed to mass immigrations or invasions.

I agree there must have been some contact of one kind or another in the distant past. But the evidence -- archaeological, historical and genetic -- all points to a post-Roman date for the vast majority of U106, I1 etc in Britain. That's when the Germanic floodgates opened as you know.

Edit: trying to think of evidence of earlier contact between Britain and, say, Scandinavia. I'm thinking of the time before the Germanic languages and people were fully formed but when haplogroups existed that became core to them later. Solar ring and cup marks on rock carvings spring to mind as a possibility. Plus I now live near the Medway Neolithic megaliths, the earliest of their kind in this country, which have parallels in Scandinavia. I've visited one in Sweden. Any other ideas?
DNA-wise, what would we be looking for? Perhaps a haplogroup or subclade where testers with a TMRCA after 3,000 to 4,000 ybp are mainly of British descent while those upstream are continental. Any contenders?