"Anglo-Saxon genocide" contested again

[Brian G Turner]

Teeth unravel Anglo-Saxon legacy
New scientific research adds to growing evidence that the Anglo-Saxons did not replace the native population in England as history books suggest.


The data indicates at least some areas of eastern England absorbed very few Anglo-Saxon invaders, contrary to the view in many historical accounts.

Chemical analysis of human teeth from a Medieval cemetery in Yorkshire found few individuals of continental origin. Details of the work are described in the scholarly journal Antiquity.

Researchers from the University of Durham and the British Geological Survey looked at different types of the elements strontium and oxygen in the teeth of 24 skeletons from an early Anglo-Saxon cemetery at West Heslerton, North Yorkshire that spans the fifth to the seventh centuries AD.


These types, or isotopes, of oxygen in local drinking water vary across Europe and locally within the British Isles. The differences are influenced by latitude, altitude, distance from the sea and, to a lesser extent, mean annual temperature.


More: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3514756.stm

 

[Esioul]

I think they think (!) that there weren't as many Anglo Saxons living in england as was previously thought- a lot of the 'Scandinavians' were actually natives (maybe some Celts?) who had just adopted Sacndinavian grave goods etc.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Interpretation of the whole period is a strange mixture of assumptions and generalisations - and something that isn't widely acknowledged is that the Anglo-Saxon migrations into Britain were part of a long-standing tradition - even the CElts were originally from Central Europe, and they displaced the original Henge builders - who themselves had displaced the previous peoples. I guess the Saxon migration, occurring in "the Dark Ages", therefore requires some form of "dark" theme that must be somehow expressed.

 

[Esioul]

Do you go for the migrationist interpretations? I don't know anything much about the Saxons, the Romans and Sumerians are more my obsessions, but I'd heard there was some general whinging that the previously accepted theories were wrong and that the Celts didn't exactly migrate, although I think maybe some must have done. I wonder why the migrated?

 

[Brian G Turner]

I'm not exactly sure of "why" - or even what form these actual migrations took. For example, how violent would they have been? How much cultural assimilation was involved? My point was more than the Saxons were following a long trend - of an influx of mainland Europeans into Britain. Yet people have been fairly fixed on dark tones for the Saxon migration, whereas the movement of the Celts into Britain and displacing the Henge builders barely raises an eye.

 

[Esioul]

I do see what you mean- people tend to think, poor Celts, nasty Saxons taking over and so on. It might be because so little is nearly known about the Henge builders. One weird thing about henges- the only places they appear in Europe at that time were Britain and Brittany. I wonder why? This might suggest that cultural assimilation didn't always take place with some things (like religion, if the henges are to do with religion).

I suppose it's possible to say that the Celts were here before the Saxons so it's a shame that the Saxons kicked them out or whatever, but the Celts weren't natives here either, and nor where the Henge builders etc, for that matter. Weird, and probably off-topic of me...sorry....

 

[Brian G Turner]

Not off-topic at all.

It's also something of a shame that pagan groups who claim to be following "native European traditions" often seem quite unaware that the Celts were not responsible for building Stonehenge.

And it's probably quite true that the Celts get more of a look in because recorded history actually gave them a name and an identity - whereas the henge builders remain as enigmatic as ever. Perhaps deeper research into the Picts might shed some light on that topic - my impression is that were a hunted and diminshed people, squeezd into the Western corners of Britain. Perhaps there's a relationioship there.

 

[Esioul]

Ther's been an idea that the Scottish and especially the Welsh and Cornish might be sort of Celts, or what remains of them anyway: they were pushed into these areas by various invaders etc. But there's also been the idea that saying so is too political, or something. I think it was the Romans who first really identified the Celts, calling them the 'Keltoi' or something like that.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Keltoi is actually the Greek form.

More info:
http://www.comparative-religion.com/ancient/celtic/

There are Celtic languages still known to geographic regions where it was pushed - Cornish and Breton as one language group, I believe, whereas the other distinct Celtic language group includes Welsh, Manx, and the Irish and Scottish dialechts of Gaelic (which differes from the Highland language of Scots). Something like that, anyhow.

 

[Esioul]

Aargh- our Arch teacher told us it was Latin. Yep, just put it through my computer Latin dictionary and it didn't like it. I don't know a word of Greek, but I might try teaching myself next year. I want to continue with Latin too, if I can get a teacher, because I want to study some at uni, even though I only took it up this year.

Yeah, I'd heard they'd found loads of connections between those languages which made them think they might all have been the same language at one time.

 

[Brian G Turner]

I have - at different times and in different ways - tried to teach myself Latin, Manx, and Arabic. NEver succeeded past the introductory lessons, though - Languages are simply not my strong piont, though. English is hard enough to understand.

 

[Esioul]

Not necessarily- I find it really hard to teach myself a language, because a book or whatever can't answer all my questions. I've found that learning Latin this year has helped my English no end- it's increased my awareness of grammer and vocab. I'm not ever so good at languages, but I'm hoping to pass it if I can. Our college has a policy against doing GCSE's, so I had to take the AS level. I mean, it's all right for the private school snobs who've had the privilage of being taught Latin for years and years!

 

[Moondancer]

Um... I'm not a snob, but Latin was compulsory at my school. I really agree about the grammar & vocab though - I found that they didn't teach grammar in English, so when we were taught it in Latin it helped to make sense of the English.
GCSE Latin is pretty close to the AS level anyway - or at least it was when I did it... the A-Level is just more intensive & requires English into Latin as well. If you can get hold of a copy, Kennedy's Latin Primer is the best grammar book I've found & is really useful.

 

[Neil040]

A fascinating discussion!

I think the megalithic people pretty well disappeared albeit not exactly without trace obviously! I remember the first time I stood on the edge of Dun Aengus, a megalithic fortress on Inishmore off the Galway coast.. it was built above the cliffs that fell 500 feet to the Atlantic Ocean.. built before stonehenge I think.. three concentric half circles of massive stone construction.. very complex fortifications that included a field of sharpened stones to break attackers... tunnels through the walls as access. and ending with their backs to that sheer drop... They believe those people came from the Iberian Peninsular... and landed on the extreme edge of europe.. remote I can tell you! But the thought that came to my mind... was what the hell did they build all THAT to protect themselves from!!! Now THAT is an interesting thought...

I have some thoughts about the Saxons too.. but its late so I shall leave that for another day/night...

 

[Rosemary]

Ther's been an idea that the Scottish and especially the Welsh and Cornish might be sort of Celts, or what remains of them anyway: they were pushed into these areas by various invaders etc. But there's also been the idea that saying so is too political, or something. I think it was the Romans who first really identified the Celts, calling them the 'Keltoi' or something like that.

The ancient Celtic tribal lands were subdued by Caesar. The Celtic tribes moved away to other various parts of Europe.

The Celts arrived in Britain (not England then) about 900BC. Stonehenge was finished around 1500BC, long before the Celts. The Celts assimilated themselves throughout most of the country and into the British tribes.

The later invasions by the Angles, Saxons and Jutes drove the Celts west and north, so fled across the channel to Armorica (now named Brittany after them).

The term Scotti was used to describe Irish tribes. The term eventually embodied in the name of Scotland, was not a tribal name. It was a generic term meaning raiders. Original Celtic name for Scotland was Alba, later understood to mean England. The Irish Scotti tribes invaded Scotland and northern England. Adamnan, an Irish historian moved to Scotland and used the name Scotia to refer to Ireland and not Scotland!! In 11th century an Irish exile called Marianus Scotus refered to his Irish compatriots as Scots. The first Irish kingdom of Scotland was known as the Dal Riada, after Carbri Riada, son of King Conair. He led his men from Kerry to the coast of Scotland at the place now known as Argyle. So the Scottish clans of Cambells, MacAllens and MacCullums were actually decended from the Irish Dal Riada. From Ad850 the country was known as Scotia Minor to distinguish it from Scotia Major (Ireland). So the name of Scotia finally became known as Scotland. Later after a great battle around 891AD, some of the Dal Riada tribes moved south and settled in Northern Wales. Celtic language was divided in the P Celtic and the C Celtic. The C Celtic tribes of Ireland (Scots as they should be properly called) also invaded the coast of Wales. The P Celtic tribes stayed and lived in Scotland. The Prophecies of Merlin were P Celtic Stories. The Q Celtic language was also heard in Cornwall
All very confusing I know but just thought I would share some of my research with you.

 

[lazygun]

..wonder if this explains the all-encompassing nature of kilt colours?.....

 

[Rosemary]

..wonder if this explains the all-encompassing nature of kilt colours?.....

The confusion or the history of the Scots !

Not too sure when they actually started wearing the tartan! Hmm have to see if I can find out. Good thought though lazygun

 

[sanityassassin]

most of the tartan you see today is quite recent late 17thC or later the real work tartan is heavy and drab none of this bright yellows and reds, but oche and brown and the kilts were long peices of cloth wrapped around the body

 

[Stalker]

In connection with above history of Scottish invasion from Eire to Alba, I thought it would be proper to add some lyrics into discussion... Remember a great ballad by Robert Louis Stevenson, Heather Ale?
From the bonny bells of heather
They brewed a drink long-syne,
Was sweeter far than honey,
Was stronger far than wine.
They brewed it and they drank it,
And lay in a blessed swound
For days and days together
In their dwellings underground.

There rose a king in Scotland,
A fell man to his foes,
He smote the Picts in battle,
He hunted them like roes.
Over miles of the red mountain
He hunted as they fled,
And strewed the dwarfish bodies
Of the dying and the dead...

 

[Brian G Turner]

Just to let you know I removed some general chatter about kippers from this thread...