Anglo Saxon migration to Britain

[spittle]

Northern Neil,

Can you post the actual title and full name of the author of materials relating to this discussion?

 

Thanks in advance,

Paul.

[Northern Neil]

Northern Neil,

Can you post the actual title and full name of the author of materials relating to this discussion?

 

Thanks in advance,

Paul.

Certainly - the book which introduced me to this research is 'The Origins of the British' by Stephen Oppenheimer ISBN 978-1-84529-482-3. The bibliography cites other authors whose works support the theories under discussion, such as Barry Cunliffe and Colin Renfrew.

 

I find the theories under discussion compelling for a number of reasons. I have always found the 'British wipe-out theory' unrealistic even since childhood - enduring pre-saxon names such as Kent (Cantiacii) and Lincoln (Lindum Colonia) are direct evidence against it. Furthermore, I have always recognised that Belgae and other lowland Brits/northern Gauls are described as looking like Germans by primary sources, whereas modern Celtic speakers do not. These, and many other things, have never satisfactorily been explained by the traditional theory, whereas (to me at least) these theories actually explain ALL this.

Edited March 22, 2008 by Northern Neil

[caldrail]

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 aren't any mass graves but then the population distribution didn't lend itself to large scale actions. It might simply be we haven't found any - my thoughts are that conflict between celtic and germanic tribes were small scale. This is borne out by evidence from my own area. During the mid 5th century a saxon warlord named Bera pushed westward into Wiltshire - Barbury Castle (an iron age hillfort) is named after him - along the Ridgeway, one of those important pre-roman trails. Locally the site of the Battle of Beranburgh (Beranburgh means hill-top fort of Bera) has been known for a long time, its on the plateau next to Wroughton Airfield (but on MOD land!), and even used to be marked on ordnance survey maps. Back then, it was asumed the battle was sgnificant and relics of the fight have indeed been found. However, recently its become clear the battle was nowhere near as big as originally assumed. Nor were most of the battles of this time. A hundred years before the situation was different. Aella landed at Pevensey in Kent in AD477 and trashed the place, slaughtering the inhabitants. I understand he did this in other places nearby too. He was invading, taking advantage of the roman withdrawal and quite possibly well aware of the collapse of english government soon afterward since traders would have been active across the english channel at that time. The point is that whilst saxons settled in england - gaulish/germanic tribes can be seen gravitating toward an agricultural existence as opposed to their former warrior cultures during the roman period regardless of roman influene - they don't appear to have been good neighbours. This is exactly the sort of thing that happened in Wiltshire. Bera wasn't content to rule the land he already controlled, and gathered men to push westward. His men discovered an neolithic tomb on the Ridgeway and assumd it was a place of the gods, naming it Waylands Smithy. Now the battle that followed may not have been big, but neither was the resistance to his advance, and its entirely possible that southwest england was opened up to saxon incursion because the local inhabitants couldn't prevent it. Since the saxons had the upper hand, like many conquerors, they may simply have said we're in charge now, dominating local life as the new regime so to speak.

 

All this is all very well, but it remains specific to the area in which these events took place. As to events in the midlands or northern england, I have absolutely no idea.

Edited March 23, 2008 by caldrail

[DecimusCaesar]

Barry Cunliffe and Simon James do agree that it is very hard to define ancient Europeans. The 'Celts' of continental Europe had some similarities but they were also very different. The Gauls and the Iberians were distinctly different in appearance, religion and architecture for instance.

 

Francis Pryor mentions that there were regional differences in technology, architecture and artistic styles in Britain as well. In parts of Scotland, the people lived in large stone Brochs, while those of southern England lived in sprawling Oppida. Northen England had a distinctly different sense of burial, with men being buried in graves with their chariots and worldly goods. The tribes of North Wales did not produce their own pottery (leaving large blanks in the archaeological record) and they had bronze tools instead of the Iron types used in Eastern England. Pryor emphasises that there were big differences between these regions of Britain...so much so that the different tribes might have considered their neighbours had come from the moon.

 

Tacitus mentions these differences, as outlined by Northern Neil. But I personally don't think that the differences were that big. For instance, we have tribes from several different regions joining each other during Boudica's rebellion of AD 60. Caractacus also had support from the tribes of Wales, and he sought help from Cartimandua from Northern England (even though he was betrayed). Perhaps these tribes felt the need to unite in the face of Roman domination. Then again they might have had peaceful connections stretching back to prehistoric times - afterall, Stonehenge was built with stones brought from several different areas.

[spittle]

Northern Neil,

Can you post the actual title and full name of the author of materials relating to this discussion?

 

Thanks in advance,

Paul.

Certainly - the book which introduced me to this research is 'The Origins of the British' by Stephen Oppenheimer ISBN 978-1-84529-482-3. The bibliography cites other authors whose works support the theories under discussion, such as Barry Cunliffe and Colin Renfrew.

 

I find the theories under discussion compelling for a number of reasons. I have always found the 'British wipe-out theory' unrealistic even since childhood - enduring pre-saxon names such as Kent (Cantiacii) and Lincoln (Lindum Colonia) are direct evidence against it. Furthermore, I have always recognised that Belgae and other lowland Brits/northern Gauls are described as looking like Germans by primary sources, whereas modern Celtic speakers do not. These, and many other things, have never satisfactorily been explained by the traditional theory, whereas (to me at least) these theories actually explain ALL this.

 

Oppenheimer's 'The Origins of the British' gets some very sketchy reviews on Amazon, so I'll order it from the library before I spend my hard earned cash on a copy. The hardback starts at

[spittle]

The more this thread progresses the less certain I am about the theories.

If, occasionally, posters could summarize their arguments I would be appreciative.

 

The Celts and Angles/Saxons seem to overlap on occasion.

A short description of their actual differences would be helpful.

[caldrail]

Celts - Belgae - Gauls etc...

 

Angles, Jutes, Saxons, Germans etc...

 

Not descriptive or informative but generally the two groups are linked by common culture amongst each other.

[Northern Neil]

Celts - Belgae - Gauls etc...

 

Angles, Jutes, Saxons, Germans etc...

 

Not descriptive or informative but generally the two groups are linked by common culture amongst each other.

..However, one of the main thrusts of this research is that Belgae and some Gauls precisely didnt share a common culture with people we now call Celts - they shared a common culture with the Germans, Angles, Jutes, Saxons etc. Caesar states quite clearly that the (lowland) Britons, Northen Gauls and Germans were very similar, although Western Gauls were quite different. Tacitus states that the Western Britons were quite different from the lowland Britons. This fits in very well with the genetic and linguistic evidence that 'England' has been germanic a heck of a lot longer than 1500 years.

[Kosmo]

How did this theories explain the fact the England had to be converted to christianty in the VII C? Christianty was present since roman rule and survived in the West and spreaded from there to Ireland but the East had to be converted by pope's emissaries. If the locals survived in England one would expect that christianty survived also even in a subordinate position.

 

Belgae were not present in Ireland also?

[Northern Neil]

How did this theories explain the fact the England had to be converted to christianty in the VII C? Christianty was present since roman rule and survived in the West and spreaded from there to Ireland but the East had to be converted by pope's emissaries. If the locals survived in England one would expect that christianty survived also even in a subordinate position.

 

Belgae were not present in Ireland also?

If Belgae were present in Ireland, it was not in large enough numbers to appear in the historical record. As stated already, the people of Ireland, Brittany, Wales and western Gaul are described in ancient sources as being quite dissimilar in many ways to lowland Brits, including the Belgae.

 

The religious question you raise does expose a gap in these theories. It could be explained away by stating that the Anglian invasions were only a small military elite who remained pagan; conversely it could be said that paganism was still very common in Britain in the late 4th century, as shown by freshly laid mosaics of Orpheus, and a relative lack of Christian material compared to mainland Europe. It could also be said that Augustine came to England in the 6th century to convert Pagans, which is well documented, but it is not stated categorically that there were no christians already there. Maybe he came to convert this ruling elite which had reduced the existing christian population to vassalage?

 

However, I do acknowledge this point which appears to run contrary to the theories under discussion, and would like to see how Oppenheimer et al explain this.

[DecimusCaesar]

I think a few archaeologists believe that Christianity never took off much in Roman Britain. It is also worth noting that a lot of the Christian sects in Britain were considered heretical by the Roman Catholic Church, such as the Pelagian church. Maybe the Romano-Britons never fully adopted the Christianity worshipped in Rome, and that they remained largely as pagans or heretical Christians.

 

The only problem I can see with this idea is that why did the pagans of southern England abandon their 'Romano-Celtic' gods in favour of Germanic ones ? Why did Sulis-Minerva make way for Woden, and why did the old gods fall out of favour completely - to be overtaken by the Germanic deities?

 

Perhaps Germanic gods had always been worshipped in Britain?

[Ursus]

The only problem I can see with this idea is that why did the pagans of southern England abandon their 'Romano-Celtic' gods in favour of Germanic ones ? Why did Sulis-Minerva make way for Woden, and why did the old gods fall out of favour completely - to be overtaken by the Germanic deities?

 

 

Religion often follows power. Just as the Celts started honoring Romanized deities after Roman conquest, they could have gradually switched to Germans gods after Germanic conquest.

 

The religious systems of the Celts and the Germans were not entirely different in any event. Along the Rhine border the Celts and the Germans seemed to have honored a few gods in common.

[caldrail]

I think a few archaeologists believe that Christianity never took off much in Roman Britain. It is also worth noting that a lot of the Christian sects in Britain were considered heretical by the Roman Catholic Church, such as the Pelagian church. Maybe the Romano-Britons never fully adopted the Christianity worshipped in Rome, and that they remained largely as pagans or heretical Christians.

 

The only problem I can see with this idea is that why did the pagans of southern England abandon their 'Romano-Celtic' gods in favour of Germanic ones ? Why did Sulis-Minerva make way for Woden, and why did the old gods fall out of favour completely - to be overtaken by the Germanic deities?

 

Perhaps Germanic gods had always been worshipped in Britain?

Pagan tradition survived in Britain better than some other regions of the roman world (apart from the middle east of course, Syria was a notable hotbed of religious invention). Nonetheless, there are plenty of roman burials even in the late empire that have all the hallmarks of christianity. In some cases, this is for no other reason that christianity was the state sponspored religion and to ignore it was going to ruffle some feathers, but given the superstitious nature of roman life you have to assume that these people were christian during life. Its also true that a resurgence in pagan beliefs occured after the roman withdrawal. The influence of germanic incursion can't be discounted there, and its almost as if those early missionaries were trying to bring Britain back within the fold. There is another side to this though. Is the roman withdrawal, and the subsequent rapid decline of british administration, a factor in an abandonment of christian belief by many people?

[spittle]

I have no evidence to support this, I have not even read it anywhere BUT couldn't a return to Paganism be a result of the locals believing the Fall of Roman rule in Britain being a result of Christianity, or more specifically neglecting their former Gods?

After all Christianity had been the official religion for a relatively tiny length of time.

[caldrail]

Well it was just since christianity was a state sponspored religion, the removal of roman support, the collapse of the economy, abandonment of urban life, the vacuum of government and subsequent violent anarchy may well have made some people think that god had failed them.

 

Generally speaking people only believe they have failed to worship their gods sufficiently if someone actually points that that out to them, which means someone with influence was doing that for a reason. The length of time that christianity was worshipped isn't necessarily a factor since it was introduced something like AD50 onwards culminating in official acceptance in the 300's. Thats a fair few generations to establish civic tradition. Further, christianity does have the advantage that people tend not to discard it easily - it does after all provide protection against death by the promise of an perpetual afterlife in paradise, not to be discounted in age when death was never far away. Since Britain wasn't prone to natural disasters there wasn't a lot of scope for believing god was angry at them, and its not likely that a christian believes he or she isn't in gods favour because the religion has a built-in guilt-forgiveness mechanism.