Anglo Saxon migration to Britain

[spittle]

I'm reading 'In Search of the Dark Ages' by Michael Wood and he writes much concerning a huge influx of Anglo-Saxons into Britain in the first centuries following the Fall of Roman power on this island.

Last year I listened to a BBC radio programme where a historian claimed that the DNA evidence did not support this theory. He speculated that the use of Anglo-Saxon names and values had been a cultural import that was more similar to the Normans (a minority imposing theirselves on a much larger indigenous group).

 

If anyone could enlighten me as to the views prevalent at the moment I would be very interested.

[P.Clodius]

I'm reading 'In Search of the Dark Ages' by Michael Wood and he writes much concerning a huge influx of Anglo-Saxons into Britain in the first centuries following the Fall of Roman power on this island.

Last year I listened to a BBC radio programme where a historian claimed that the DNA evidence did not support this theory. He speculated that the use of Anglo-Saxon names and values had been a cultural import that was more similar to the Normans (a minority imposing theirselves on a much larger indigenous group).

 

If anyone could enlighten me as to the views prevalent at the moment I would be very interested.

You could start HERE then HERE

[caldrail]

The DNA evidence needs to properly interpreted. The anglo-saxons were very keen on britain for a some time, hence the roman shore forts. Pevensey for instead was attacked by saxons in the mid fifth century and it appears the locals were slaughtered. Raids like this were uncommon however. The saxons were coming across to bag new farming land (which britain had in abundance, and the saxons were keen farmers), but also because rising sea levels were flooding theirs. The supposed conquest of britain was hotly contested by the local warlords (it may even have spawned the King Arthur legend) who had quickly taken over the collapsed roman administration with petty kingdoms. Had the british been united, such raids might possibly have been contained in much the same way as the later viking incursions - but that wasn't so. Saxons captured land in fits and starts rather than a prolonged military campaign. The Battle of Beranburgh above Wroughton in Wiltshire has been downgraded from its previous depiction of a mass battle to something far more modest, but this central/western england area wasn't subject to saxon incursions n this scale and aggression until the sixth century, perhaps a hundred years after Pevensey on the southeast coast. The numbers of invaders was certainly less than native populations and therefore the idea of a saxon minority dominating the rest isn't so wrong, and its likely that when a saxon chief wanted expansion, he would gather and concentrate his supply of willing warriors for this end, rather than have lots of raids by small numbers everywhere. Also, the effect of these battle, even if on a small scale, was to open up territory for this intended expansion. The locals had already found out that the saxons were a race 'hateful to God' and either evacuated or accepted their presence.

Edited March 12, 2008 by caldrail

[Northern Neil]

Here is an extractfrom something I wrote on a similar thread, 'Ancient Celts Did Not Exist':

 

...examination of DNA evidence throws more fuel into this debate... 'The Origins of the British' by Stephen Oppenheimer, published in 2006 [states that] our current theories about [anglo saxon settlement] are derived from Victorian assumptions. For example: Assuming that all people who belonged to a given culture by definition all spoke the same language, and were of the same ethnic group.

 

...he states that the Angles, Saxons and Jutes contribution to the British gene pool is only 5%. Further, the degree of separation of English from mainland Germanic languages is more in the order of Several thousand years, rather than the 1500 years assumed in current (and again Victorian) theories. He concludes that the area we now call 'England' has been Germanic - not Celtic speaking from a very early time, and that insular Celts always HAVE been confined to the West. Historical evidence in support of this is Caesar and Tacitus' description of Belgae, Northern Gauls and lowland Britons, who are described as tall and blonde, which would make them resemble Germans in appearance.

 

According to genetic studies,[since the end of the ice age] Britain was subject to a slow but constant colonisation from two directions - from the Iberian peninsula, Western Gaul and Brittany, settling in Ireland and Western Britain. The other migration came from north east Gaul and the Low Countries/Jutland, which of course settled the south east of the island.

 

The only things the primary sources say about the language of the lowland ancient Britons is that it was similar to that of Eastern and Northern Gaul, but different from that of western and Southern Gaul. Currently, the evidence suggests that 'England' spoke a germanic language almost from the start, which would explain the complete takeover of the country by such a small group, the continuity of Roman and pre-Roman place names, and Vortigern's invitation for the Saxons to enter Britain as foederatii.

 

These current theories cast considerable doubt on the 'Celtic wipe - out theory' which has been around, in one form or another, for many centuries. Mainly because, the people we now call the Celts were actually never in England in large numbers in the first place. Oppenheimer's book is not yet another revisionist publication stating a plausible yet singly derived hypothesis. It is a summary of recent evidence derived from many sections of the scientific community - in particular linguists, genetecist, historians, archaeologists and even geologists.

Edited March 12, 2008 by Northern Neil

[DecimusCaesar]

These ideas are repeated in Francis Pryor's 'Britain AD'. Pryor goes one step further by claiming that there were no Anglo-Saxon migrations to Britain, and that the culture of the Saxons were imported peacefully by traders. He also agrees with the DNA evidence, and he says that there is very little evidence for native Britons uprooting during the fifth century (as they would have done in the face of an invasion).

 

As for the DNA evidence, it is difficult to come to conclusion based on research as it is often contradictory. For instance, research carried out by Dr. Mark Thomas of the Center for Genetic anthropology at University

College London in 2004, came to the exact opposite conclusion of Oppenheimer's research. He claims that the English share their DNA with the Dutch.

 

Research by Dr. Brian Sykes on the other hand points to a strong genetic connection between the people of Britain with the Basques of continental Europe.

[Northern Neil]

As for the DNA evidence, it is difficult to come to conclusion based on research as it is often contradictory. For instance, research carried out by Dr. Mark Thomas of the Center for Genetic anthropology at University

College London in 2004, came to the exact opposite conclusion of Oppenheimer's research. He claims that the English share their DNA with the Dutch.

 

Research by Dr. Brian Sykes on the other hand points to a strong genetic connection between the people of Britain with the Basques of continental Europe.

Oppenheimer actually states that the people of England come from North West Europe (including Frisia) and that the insular celts appear to have come via a western route from Aquitaine/Basque region. That is in fact one of the main theses of his book - that England is Germanic speaking is without doubt. The question is, when did these germanics arrive, with their language? Some evidence (see my previous post - blonde Belgae, linguistic similarities with north east Gaul etc ) suggests it was already in place when the Romans got here.

[P.Clodius]

Going from memory here but don't the Chronicles talk of seeking the help of the Angles in exchange for land, to help fight the Picts?

[Northern Neil]

Going from memory here but don't the Chronicles talk of seeking the help of the Angles in exchange for land, to help fight the Picts?

Indeed yes, but the genetic evidence suggests that the input to the English gene pool of these people was something in the order of 5%. The mass immigration of Angles, Saxons and Jutes with a wipeout of the indigenous population is simply not borne out by the evidence. The evidence suggests that what we now call England was ALREADY germanic even prior to the Claudian invasion. This also applies to the Belgae and other Northern Gaulish tribes, who have been assumed to be celtic but may actually not have been.

Edited March 21, 2008 by Northern Neil

[sonic]

There are two distinct viewpoints on this. The first sees the English as a massive influx of barbarians that over-ran the Celts and either enslaved them or drove them back into the highlands (Wales, Cornwall and Cumberland - an old English county) The large numbers of invaders swamped the Celtic languages, leaving no trace of 'Welsh' in modern English, but many traces of English in modern Welsh. This is the linguistic view.

 

On the opposite side, there is the view that only a few English came over and the majority of Celts adopted the English language and assimilated with them to form the 'English'. This is supported, albeit with huge reservations, by DNA testing. It is also supported by some name evidence: for example, one of the leaders of the English in the south was called Cerdic. This is just a translation into English of the Welsh name 'Ceredig'. This shows an input from Celts into the Saxon invaders and doesn't really fit with the 'wipe them out/enslave them' theory.

 

And the two sides will never agree!!

 

Please note that this is a massive over-simplification of the argument, shrunk to fit in a small post!!

Edited March 22, 2008 by sonic

[sonic]

Going from memory here but don't the Chronicles talk of seeking the help of the Angles in exchange for land, to help fight the Picts?

Indeed yes, but the genetic evidence suggests that the input to the English gene pool of these people was something in the order of 5%. The mass immigration of Angles, Saxons and Jutes with a wipeout of the indigenous population is simply not borne out by the evidence. The evidence suggests that what we now call England was ALREADY germanic even prior to the Claudian invasion. This also applies to the Belgae and other Northern Gaulish tribes, who have been assumed to be celtic but may actually not have been.

 

But surely the DNA evidence also suggests that the concept of a 'pre-Roman Germanic England' is also wrong? Anyway, the division of continental tribes arbitrarily into 'Celt' and 'German' rests on evidence in Caesar, and attempts to prove it rest on archaeological evidence which traces 'cultural' identity, not linguistic or DNA-traceable 'genetic' ties. As such, the concept that Britain was 'English' before the Romans is very, very dubious.

Edited March 22, 2008 by sonic

[caldrail]

And the evidence of conflict is there. That doesn't mean there weren't peaceful immigrants as well. less peaceful immigrants were invited by Vortigern to support his conquest of the petty kingdoms, and unfortunately, they wouldn't go home, leaving Vortigern as a despised ruler in the southeast.

 

Britain before the romans arrived had belgic tribes settling here with close links across the channel to Gaul. The original celts were already pressed westward. Englishness is technically post-Norman Invasion, as this was the last large scale invasion/settlement by a foreign peoples. Unless you include the modern day of course.

[spittle]

Is there any contemporary source that mentions Druids in other Germanic area's of continental Europe?

I am wondering if pre- and early Roman Britain had similar spiritual system to any other Anglo-Saxon area's (I always regard the Druids as 'Celtic' and wonder if other are's had Celts displaced by Germanics).

 

Have any mass graves of celts been found dating from the time of the speculated Anglo-Saxon invasion?

I know that absense of proof is not proof of absense but a total lack of evidence in the archeological record must be a strong indicator that large scale wars never took place.

 

There are places linked to Celts as far east as Galicia in Poland (this is my limited knowledge, I'm sure some forum members could mention places even further away). What is the accepted history of Celtic displacement/'Barbarian' migration (if any) in these area's?

 

This is turning into a fascinating thread.

So far I'm leaning to 'Celts came from central European Basque stock (why no linguistic connection to the isolate Euskera?)' and Anglo-saxons came from North Western germanics (already accepted fact).

What I am not understanding is the extent of these two waves

and the time frame of the Celtic arrivals, reasons for their migration....

 

And the timeframe of the pre-Roman Germanic arrivals.

Edited March 22, 2008 by spittle

[Kosmo]

There was a lot of confusion beetwen celts/gauls and germans in Antiquity. Moderns tried to setlle this especially from nationalist resons but I guess that largely failed especially because the two resambled a lot. If we add to this the posibility that other lingvistic groups were present here and there, especially in Britain, things are more confusing.

I believe that celts of continental Europe had a similar culture and were very alike germans, but had no, or little connection with the people of Ireland that later influenced Scotland (scoti came from Ireland and overrun caledonians) and Wales.

Because celts and germans are hard to distinguish (if it was a significant difference) it's hard to tell if England was inhabited by one or the other.

[Northern Neil]

But surely the DNA evidence also suggests that the concept of a 'pre-Roman Germanic England' is also wrong?

How? The genetic evidence actually points to the 'Pre Roman Germanic England' fairly firmly, and is starting to become a mainstream view. I admit there are holes and flaws in the theory, but not nearly as many as in the traditional one, which is based almost entirely not on scientific process, but assumptions. It is supported not just by oppenheimer, who simply collated the evidence, but also by Colin Renfrew and Barry cunliffe. Lesser experts in this field have said that they always thought the traditional view inaccurate, but were afraid to go against the established academia, who up until now have been VERY conservative in this field.

 

The 'wipeout' theory has largely been dispensed with as Sonic suggests, whilst the view that Britain was entirely occupied by people we now call celts until the Anglian invasions is several hundred years old, and rests very largely on the supposition that lowland Brits spoke Celtic. As can be seen, there is, at best, slight linguistic evidense that some of them spoke Celtic, for some of the time, just as there is an islated Ogham inscription in Silchester, even though this script was used primarily by the Irish. I can add another - there is a reference - I think in Bede - about 'Welsh' speakers residing in the Fens as late as 750. But these data are very slight and sporadic indeed, compared to the significant evidence from many disciplines of the scientific community which suggest otherwise. I can only propose that people read Oppenheimer and weigh the evidence themselves. His is the best and briefest summary of the evidence to date, although even this becomes quite heavy with scientific detail in the middle chapters.

[sonic]

But surely the DNA evidence also suggests that the concept of a 'pre-Roman Germanic England' is also wrong?

How? The genetic evidence actually points to the 'Pre Roman Germanic England' fairly firmly, and is starting to become a mainstream view. I admit there are holes and flaws in the theory, but not nearly as many as in the traditional one, which is based almost entirely not on scientific process, but assumptions. It is supported not just by oppenheimer, who simply collated the evidence, but also by Colin Renfrew and Barry cunliffe. Lesser experts in this field have said that they always thought the traditional view inaccurate, but were afraid to go against the established academia, who up until now have been VERY conservative in this field.

 

The 'wipeout' theory has largely been dispensed with as Sonic suggests, whilst the view that Britain was entirely occupied by people we now call celts until the Anglian invasions is several hundred years old, and rests very largely on the supposition that lowland Brits spoke Celtic. As can be seen, there is, at best, slight linguistic evidense that some of them spoke Celtic, for some of the time, just as there is an islated Ogham inscription in Silchester, even though this script was used primarily by the Irish. I can add another - there is a reference - I think in Bede - about 'Welsh' speakers residing in the Fens as late as 750. But these data are very slight and sporadic indeed, compared to the significant evidence from many disciplines of the scientific community which suggest otherwise. I can only propose that people read Oppenheimer and weigh the evidence themselves. His is the best and briefest summary of the evidence to date, although even this becomes quite heavy with scientific detail in the middle chapters.

 

Still not convinced: I suppose I'll have to read Oppenheimer for a clearer understanding of the arguments!

 

Anybody got a copy they can give to a poor, starving student of History??

Edited March 22, 2008 by sonic