Upcoming paper on Anglo-Saxon migration period??

[Finn]

Point taken: Written in mid 4th about something that occurred in late 3rd. I think we can agree it’s safe to assume Saxons as a group did indeed exist in 3rd century AD. The author would have known people who were alive then.

I’m agnostic on this discussion debate involving Angles, Jutes, Saxons, PCAs, UMAP results Germanic languages and Urheimat, Germania inferior etc….to the point that I don’t know the details of the debate. I’m assuming you thought I was on the other side of the fence from your point of view (which I’m not that familiar with). Sure, I gloss over the back and forths between you and other AG members, but I don’t delve into the details.

But I guess I will jump into this minefield…

As I don’t know the specific bones of contention of this debate, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Saxons were related to/Descended from the Chauci (I have no idea if this statement is a contentious one in this thread).

From wiki “ The Chauci entered the historical record in descriptions of them by classical Roman sources late in the first century BC in the context of Roman military campaigns and sea raiding… The Chauci lost their separate identity in the third century when they merged with the Saxons,[6] after which time they were considered to be Saxons. The circumstances of the merger are an unsettled issue of scholarly research.”

Chauci and Saxons occupied the same general geographic area and both conducted sea raiding. One disappeared from the historical record about the same time the other appeared in history.



So I guess the Chauci could be related to the Franks as well.

Wiki:

The Franks are mentioned in the Tabula Peutingeriana, an atlas of Roman roads. It is a 13th-century copy of a 4th or 5th century document that reflects information from the 3rd century. The Romans knew the shape of Europe, but their knowledge is not evident from the map, which was only a practical guide to the roads to be followed from point to point. In the middle Rhine region of the map, the word Francia is close to a misspelling of Bructeri. Beyond Mainz is Suevia, the country of the Suebi, and beyond that is Alamannia, the country of the Alamanni. Four tribes at the mouth of the Rhine are depicted: the Chauci, the Amsivarii ('Ems dwellers'), the Cherusci and the Chamavi, followed by qui et Pranci ('who are also Franks'). This implies that the Chamavi were considered Franks. The Tabula was probably based on the Orbis Pictus, a map of twenty years' labour commissioned by Augustus and then kept by the Roman's treasury department for the assessment of taxes. It did not survive as such. Information about the imperial divisions of Gaul probably derives from it.

(The Cherusci are also interesting because of the Anderten/ Hannover samples. And the Chamavi are the Salians!)

[Finn]

Add to the wiki quote. some tribes that were founding fro the Franks:

[MitchellSince1893]

c.170 - 175
The coastal Chauci have long been sea raiders, but by the late second century the problem has grown much worse. Now Chauci raids are as bad as the better-known Saxon raids of the fourth century, but what is assumed to be their last recorded attack happens in this period. Archaeological finds show a layer of destruction along a great deal of the North Sea and Atlantic coast of Europe, between Belgica and southern Gaul, and in eastern Britain.
The Chauci are prime suspects for the raids, and Rome responds with improved defensive measures over the following thirty years or so. Fortifications are put in place at sites including the Iceni civitas of Venta Icenorum (modern Caistor-by-Norwich), the Trinovantes town of Caesaromagus (modern Chelmsford), and the civitas of the Canninefates, Forum Hadriani (modern Voorburg). This is the start of the system that will develop into the Saxon Shore in Britain.

So the Roman response to the Chauci sea raiding led to what would later be known as the “Saxon Shore” coastal fort system

3rd century
The Saxons begin forming a loose state in northern Germania, and become relatively important in the region. Their tribal collective is swelled by the absorption of smaller tribes, such as the Chauci, with this large coalition of tribes occupying the territory between modern Berlin and the northern Frisian coast. The nature of the coalition is unknown, although it probably contains a fairly equal amount of conquest and voluntary accession, something that has been happening for some centuries with various Germanic coalitions. The individual identity of the Chauci is assumed to be lost over a gradual period, and the Saxons take over the Chauci practice of coastal raiding..

https://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingL...rianChauci.htm

Definitely seems to be some connection between Chauci and Saxons.

[Finn]

So the Roman response to the Chauci sea raiding led to what would later be known as the “Saxon Shore” coastal fort system



https://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingL...rianChauci.htm

Definitely seems to be some connection between Chauci and Saxons.

Please search Hadeln and Saxons the rest is for tommorowland ��

[JonikW]

Yes we can agree on that Chauci became also part of the Franks, and those who staid had to deal with the incoming Saxons.

Those raiding thing is from all folks around the North Sea. The Chauci were early raiders too.

What is at the core is that Bede made an invented tradition, a origin myth, call it a frame.

And a very strong one because it's still alive!

Nevertheless it doesn't correspondent with the events and the shift of the Roman period and after.

Two things ar very clear:
1. The label Saxon(es) is from the end of the Roman period, and is specific used in the context of pirates (those with the long Saxon knives!);
2. Behind the label Saxon, behind those pirates we see folks from the bottle neck c.q Angles and Jutes etc.

The heptarchy kings tried tot distinguish themselves and what functions better in this respect with a rooting that has something 'more' than that of the other "six kings".

Imo we must see Bede's writings in this context, not as 'responsible' history writing!

It was "responsible" history writing in as much as big groupings of families, clans and lone settlers identified as Saxons or Angles before Bede's time. Thus we have the East Saxons and so on naming territories in honour of those identities when they settled in England before he was born and in contrast to the regions of their neighbours at times. That's an indisputable fact.

Tribal names and identities are subject to change as groups break off or come together in alliances. So while the Franks or the Saxons may not have existed at the time of Tacitus, they were real entities by the time the Romans left Britain. Bede merely chronicled that reality.

[David Mc]

It's become a common trope that writers like Bede were essentially mythmakers. I think we need to resist this kind of "chronological snobbery" (to borrow a term from C. S. Lewis). I'm not saying that Bede was right about these three peoples. I think he could have been. though, easily. We need to show a little more epistemic humility when we read writers like Bede. We don't really know. We don't have all the facts. We have ideas. I appreciate Finn's willingness to push for new ideas, but I'm with MitchellSince1893 and JonikW on wanting to moderate our language a bit.

[alexfritz]

You want nitpick, you get nitpick:



The last one is an assumption, so actual he wrote it for the first time about mid fourth century.

But ok, when your assumption is ok, then the limit has shifted 13 years. Applaus.

“I wasn’t aware that the Saxons were mentioned in 3rd century AD” and mea culpa.

But the core thing is does this basically change my point? My point was the Saxons was a label with a history not longer than end of the Roman period. So was not a 'tribe' with an old history.

Those 13 years would not make the difference in this respect

the saxons are 'technicly' already first mentioned in the mid second century by ptolomaeus (geo.)
but some have doubts because several surviving texts write 'axones' (Ἄξονας) and not 'saxones' (Σάξονας) and therefor some claim that the original text was actually referring to aviones later corrupted into 'axones' - however the same texts (omega group) that have Ἄξονας instead of Σάξονας then also write of the islands as Σαςόνων (sazones) a corruption from anything ref to aviones to sazones is not possible; meaning that ptolomaeus referring to the saxons on the 'neck of the cimbric pen' in the mid second is more real than not; the angles are also mentioned and refered to as suevi angili (Συήβων τῶν Ἀγγειλῶν)

 

ptolomaeus map (note the saxon islands i.saxonum)

the rest is indeed much later
the 'saxons shore' is not mentioned in the third century (carinus or carausius) or even in the fourth century when nectaridus was still 'comes maritimi tractus' during the invasion of britannia in 367/68 (in which the saxons were involved) only after 368 is the 'litus saxonicum' and a 'comes litoris saxonici' mentioned in the notitia dignitatum; a fortified coast most prob in direct response to the saxons of 367 and pos continued attacks;

[alan]

regarding the different identities recorded by Bede among the neighbours, it’s worth considering if these were really just the IDs of royal/elite dynasties they were then projected as national myths of origin Hence a not very accurate sharp division into Angles, Saxons, Jutes etc was created from this. That is the basic theme - dynastic origin myths being projected onto entire nations/states in Medievsl Europe - discussed in the book Myth of Nations by Patrick Geary. But as we of course know, nations don’t tend to literally decent from a single eponymous ancestor and the application of a dynastic style family tree model for entire nations is medieval fictional thinking. So for example a dynasty with a Jutish origin myth in Kent may have imposed this myth of origin on a population that was actually a Saxon-Frankish mix. A distortion of the reality.

[sheepslayer]

BUK001 is frustrating. Take this with a grain of salt because he's apparently 2 reads negative for R1b-U106>BY30097.

Generous estimate
BUK001: R1b-U106>Z381>Z301>L48>Z9>Z30>Z2 (one read)

Conservative estimate
BUK001: R1b-U106>Z381>Z301>L48>Z9 (two reads)
Negative by at least two reads for Z330, with a false positive at Z330

There is nothing else unobstructed by negatives under L151, so
Depressive estimate
BUK001: R1b-L151

 

Level	Variant	Position	Mutation	BUK001
R-L151	L151	16492547	C to T	3T
R-Z381	Z381	7246726	C to T	1T
R-Z9	Z9	6788390	C to T	2T
R-Z2	Z2	7883339	C to T	1T

The Yleaf calls placing BUK001 under R1b-U106>Z301>L48>L47>Z159 and R1b-U106>Z156>DF96>FGC13326 are both wrong because BUK001 is negative at points between Z381 and both of those branches. Still no calls for Z301, L48, or L47

[Finn]

It was "responsible" history writing in as much as big groupings of families, clans and lone settlers identified as Saxons or Angles before Bede's time. Thus we have the East Saxons and so on naming territories in honour of those identities when they settled in England before he was born and in contrast to the regions of their neighbours at times. That's an indisputable fact.

Tribal names and identities are subject to change as groups break off or come together in alliances. So while the Franks or the Saxons may not have existed at the time of Tacitus, they were real entities by the time the Romans left Britain. Bede merely chronicled that reality.

You make it to a dogma, and dogma's can't be disputed.

Nevertheless this separation into Saxon/Angles/Jutes doesn't make sense. Because there was no Saxon folk that was situated besides the Angles and Jutes.

Were would you pinpoint the heartland of the Saxons? When the 'honour for the identies' was so deep a simple pinpointing question would be easy to answer....

Tribal names and identities are subject to change as groups break off or come together in alliances.

That's the clue! The people of the bottleneck, who were just like some other North Sea people, pirates, raiders, they scummed around the coast of Brittain, the Romans identified them as Saxones, the pirates with the big knives.

As such they were just like any warband of that time gathered around warlords. Not necessarily restricted to even one tribe.

So while the Franks or the Saxons may not have existed at the time of Tacitus, they were real entities by the time the Romans left Britain.

Indeed but just like a matryoshka doll they contained people from the bottleneck Angles and Jutes (and Warini etc etc).

Bede merely chronicled that reality.

He wrote down the story's and frames that were current in England in the eight century. It was absolutely biased.