Britain Is More Germanic than It Thinks

[Viggen]

How Germanic is Great Britain really? Archeologists and geneticists have unveiled surprising revelations about the historical origins of people in the modern United Kingdom -- many of whom have ancestors who once crossed the North Sea. According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, two Germanic tribesmen, Hengist and Horsa, came ashore on the coast of Kent in southeast England in the year 449. They had sailed 600 kilometers (372 miles) down the coast from their native North Frisia, and had then made the crossing to a green and pleasant Britain. But how many people came to Britain across the North Sea in total? A thousand? Ten thousand? Or was it an even higher number?

Until now, the so-called Minimalists have set the tone in British archeology. They believe in what they call an "elite transfer", in which a small caste of Germanic noble warriors, perhaps a few thousand, placed themselves at the top of society in a coup of sorts, and eventually even displaced the Celtic language with their own. Many contemporary Britons, not overly keen on having such a close kinship with the Continent, like this scenario.

Archeologist Heinrich Hörke of the University of Reading has now come up with a quantitative estimate of the migratory movement. He suspects that "up to 200,000 emigrants" crossed the North Sea. The massive movement of people was apparently triggered in 407 A.D., the year in which the ailing Roman Empire withdrew much of its army from Britain. Soon afterwards, it stopped paying its soldiers altogether. As a result, the last legionaries took off.

again a fascinating article from Der Spiegel

[Viggen]

...what a quote...

The Celts were no match for these roughnecks. The Romans had taught them how to play the lyre and drink copious amounts of wine, but the populace in the regions controlled by the Pax Romana was barred from carrying weapons. As a result, the local peoples, no longer accustomed to the sword, lost one battle after the next and were forced to the edges of the island.

 

...so what you think did the Romans soften up the celts too much?

 

 

[sonic]

Ok, I'll bite. How do the researchers know that the 'Germans' came across at the time of Hengist and Horsa? Is there dating evidence from the DNA?

[Melvadius]

On the face of it this seems to be a bit of a "volte-face" for Heinrich Harke since he has been working in this field since at least the mid-1990's when he was stating, such as this article from British Archaeology in 1995, a view that the majority of 'Anglo-Saxons' found in cemeteries were actually of British rather than continental descent.

 

I would agree with Sonic here. While DNA evidence has proven to be a boon in some areas of research there are still major issues with it not least interpolation of evidence when sample sizes are very small. There are strong indications that cultural interaction was variable across the UK - with most previous reports suggesting a much earlier (ie pre-Roman) rather than later 'Anglo-Saxon' input to the UK genetic mix. On this basis and especially given how problematical the survival of skeletal evidence from most Anglo-Saxon cemeteries has proven to be I really would like to know what the extent of the evidence base is for this apparent change of view.

 

As things stand, without seeing the precise evidence on which this report is based, I would be a lot happier if it was supported by isotope analysis of teeth. Since isotope analysis is based on chemical changes in the dental layers due to water absorption and trace elements in food it can give a definitive geographic area for both birth and where individuals grew up.

[Ursus]

But there is no use in denying it. It is now clear that the nation which most dislikes the Germans were once Krauts themselves

I thought it was France that most hated the Germans ...

... Anyway, wasn't there an article a while back that a lot of the "Celtic" tribes that had settled pre-Roman Britain were really Germanic?

[docoflove1974]

There are a couple of problems here, as I see it. As Sonic and Melvadius have brought up, DNA can go so far. I don't know how 'rare' this Frisian chromosome type is; it's not quite like Basque DNA, as the Basques have been relatively isolated as a genetic group for so long. Also, I'd like to know how close it is to other Germanic (especially Nordic), as well as Celtic, DNA...if that can be done. I think that information would help to put this all into perspective.

 

As I recall, linguistically Old Celtic and Italic are more contemporary, with Germanic having been established earlier. There are grammatical analyses that suggest (mostly Lehmann, I believe) that Germanic was a relatively early migration out of the PIE area, well after Anatolian but prior to Celtic, Italic, and (I believe) Balto-Slavic. This is based on the declension formations and verbal syntax patterns, that Germanic shows patterns in transition more than Celtic and the others. So, could there have been Germanic peoples in the British Isles beforehand, and perhaps it was the Celts who bullied them out first, only to be reconquered by the later Germanic tribes? Who knows...

 

Certainly the isotope analysis would provide more valuable data, Melvadius.

[Melvadius]

I missed the single paragreaph in the Spiegel article referring to isotope analysis but I would still like to know a bit more on this tpic. E.G. something to show how widespread the analysis has been, sample sizes and/or locations involved compared to known cemteries.

[DecimusCaesar]

I think the problem with interpretating the evidence is this - say you find a ancient body. The man is buried with a Celtic sword and La tene style art, but his DNA states that he is a German. So is he a Celt or a German? Does La Tene style art really represent the Celts, or was it just a common Iron Age style? There in lies a problem. DNA and artistic styles/pottery etc doesn't really show what culture, language or identity group this man belonged too. The only we could really find that out was to ask him if he were alive. A nobleman buried in Ancient China with Roman pottery doesn't make that nobleman a Roman. A man with 'Celtic' or 'Germanic' DNA doesn't necessarily mean that this man would have identified himself with those groups. Culture and identity are hard things to pin down in the archaeological record - blood and pottery doesn't determine personal identity. The Romans are much easier to pin down as they usually left written records.

 

What's interesting with this article is that it seems to hark back to the early genetic data (of around 2000-2001) which showed that the Anglo-Saxons dominated southern Britain. Recent surveys by Stephen Oppenheimer and Bryan Sykes pointed out that Britain's genetic material was roughly unchanged since Neolithic times, and that the Anglo-Saxons had very little impact on the British blood. Now it seems we've come full circle - with evidence shifting to show Anglo-Saxon dominance.

Edited June 17, 2011 by DecimusCaesar

[GhostOfClayton]

They believe in what they call an "elite transfer", in which a small caste of Germanic noble warriors, perhaps a few thousand, placed themselves at the top of society in a coup of sorts

 

This somewhat reflects the Norman invasion, and to a degree they're still apparent as a class apart in British society to this day. Also, I once watched a documentary that suggested there was far less Viking DNA in the modern northern Brit than may have been thought . . . and we all know how the Roman elite behaved in that respect. From this, it would seem that "elite transfer" is typical behaviour, and it's entirely possible that the same happened with the Saxons. However, there is documentary evidence of marriages (maybe of convenience) between Norman Lords and Saxon Countesses long after 1066.

Edited June 28, 2011 by GhostOfClayton

[Viggen]

I contacted Dr. H

[Klingan]

I must say that I'm most impressed by Dr. H

[caldrail]

The 'germanisation' (don't you just hate that word?) of Britain began during the empire. The stationing of germanic troops for security in the british provinces was not unique in the late empire but certainly it should be remembered that Britain was not 'Romanized' either. The celtic iron age was present alongside the Roman occupation throughout and although diluted by the insidious nature of Roman commerce and industry, we can still see native housing built in later centuries plus we also note the re-occupation of hill forts. Those saxons present in Britain during imperial times were described as good citizens, but not as Romans.

 

It has been noted that some populations of germanic tribes, such as the Thames Valley Saxons, apparently practised a form of apartheid. They did not interbreed with locals nor seem to have socialised with them. On the other hand, the dominance of this germanic culture was purell local in scope. The west saxons, whose kingdom would later dominate England prior to the viking settlement, took a different by intermarriage and adoption. They were no less aggressive than other saxons but at least some cultural blending took place, or we would not see Weesex kings with british names.

 

It's hard to see how Britain could fail to become more germanic. Roman style religions had passed largely into history and the arrival of irish christianity supplanted the major faiths worshipped in the sub-Roman world. The influx of pagan germanic tribes in that period pushed aside anything left. Indeed, the invasions and colonisations of continental tribes does seem to have sidelined native celtic culture, either in a real sense by refugees moving to remote regions to remain free, or by simple acceptance that pagan Germans were in charge and demanded certain observances.

 

However, we cannot ignore the cultural influence of the church. On the one hand, we have Gildas moaning about the behaviour of the warlords of his day, and with the arrival of the Augustine Mission in the late 6th century the return of Roman Christianity was made converting saxons to continetal ideas of religious conformity, which seem somewhat looser and more expedient than the austere nature of irish christianity. That the saxons wrshipped God in their own style (under Roman aegis) does underline the 'germanisation' of Britain.

 

Language of course reveals much. So much of english is derived from germanic languages, along with later norse and norman influence, whilst the abstraction of latin remained an inheritance of Roman christianity, largely confined to the educated classes of which there were few in the ages follwoing the departure of Roman legions and the eventual seccesion of Britain from the Roman Empire.

[Melvadius]

I must join Klingan and Viggen in thanking Dr H

[docoflove1974]

I, too, am very happy for Dr. H

[Romanus]

Ok, I'll bite. How do the researchers know that the 'Germans' came across at the time of Hengist and Horsa? Is there dating evidence from the DNA?

 

DNA markers don't help that much for the great migration period as it was to small geologically with to many overlapping migrations from the same genetic stock. A large problem with genetic studies is that it's very hard to separate Anglo-Saxon and Danish genetic markers to tell how much of the population is truly Anglo-Saxon and what part came later. The easier way is with archaeological digs where you look at the tools, clothing, lifestyle, population density and such of the region just before then during then shortly after Hengist's and Horsa's landing. You can also read The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle which paints a picture of the two seeing a weak and helpless British population on rich and fertile land ripe for the pickings.