The English and the Celts - no genocide?

[authun]

Or were the Saxons under one ruler? (not my area at all but humour me)

Hi Tarbicus,

Highly unlikely. Even at the end of the 8th century, Widukind is not a king of the continental saxons, simply the most respected amongst several 'saxon' leaders, the one they all turn to.

In the 5th - 7th cents, we don't even know who the 'saxons' were. Who were the Jutish saxons around Antwerp or the saxons in Britanny or the Pas de Calais. The term appears to be applied to any north sea german who was not a Frank.

Perhaps the situation is similar to that of the Alemanni where we have many 'chieftains', Crocus, Fraomarius, Igillus, Bitheridius and Hortarius all of whom came to Britain during the roman period. Vadomarius I think went to Spain. Although they are all Alemanni, none are 'overall king'. Fraomarius for example, was the leader of the Bucinobantes.

best

Harry Amphlett

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Vortigern,
Germanic settlers of the 5th and 6th cents. had little interest in towns. They are only of use where there is production, markets and an economic system. They do make sense in the west where there is continued trade with the roman world.

Hi Harry,

I don't agree. Look at what happened in Gaul, where the Goths, Franks and Burgundians had a very keen interest in towns. Read Bachrach's study: Bachrach, Bernard S. (1994): The Anatomy of a Little War, History and Warfare Series, (Oxford) about the strategic role of the civitates of former Roman Gaul.

The towns in post-Roman Britain were no longer real towns. As Mike pointed out in the case of Viroconium, towns that were defendable functioned more like forts than as towns. In Britain, most towns had ceased to function as towns in the sense of the word already during Roman times - I think I recall it's Neil Faulkner who made that point: Faulkner, Neil (2000): The Decline and Fall of Roman Britain, (Tempus).

[Robert Vermaat]

Or were the Saxons under one ruler? (not my area at all but humour me)

Best read: Bassett, Steve (1989a): In search of the origins of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, in: Bassett, Steve et al (1989): The Origins of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, (Leicester University Press), pp. 3-27. Very good study!

It is argued there that the future English kingdoms coalesce out of a myriad of very small groups. This is of course totally opposite to what we are told by the historians of those later kingdoms, who suggest (Anglo-Saxon Chronicle) that most dynasties were a direct continuation of the invasion groups.

[Robert Vermaat]

The situation with the church in Britain is very interesting. The most Christianised part of Roman Britain was the south east with scant evidence of christianisation in the west. However, by the end of the 6th cent., the situation is reversed. Whether this is the result of the church and the congregation moving west, or the church only, is unknown. The important point is that, in Britain, the church moved whereas in Gaul, it didn't.

Indeed a very interesting question. The total lack of sources for these sort of details compells us to speculate. Did the church move?

Gildas, writing in the early 6th c. does not give one single hint that the Saxons drove either British or Christians before them to the West. Whereas he clearly speaks of hard times and occupying saxons, he never accuses them of persecuting Christians. Instead, he confirms that the British still have a functioning clerical organisation, more than half a century after the point where some want to see a Saxon wave of immigrants driving all before them. Gildas never ever indicates that the Britons or the Christian Britons have been driven from vast trackts of the east.

Ken Dark is of the opiniion that not only British people stayed put, but also that British Christians were around during Bede's time: Dark, Kenneth R. (2000): Britain and the End of the Roman Empire, (Tempus, Stroud).

Of course, Britain would not be the only place where Christian, under pressure of pagans, reverted back to paganism.

[authun]

I don't agree. Look at what happened in Gaul, ...

... The towns in post-Roman Britain were no longer real towns.

Hi Vortigern,

That's what I mean, in eastern England the towns had ceased to function and there was no interest in re-occupying them. Gaul is different of course where, as I have said, institutions remained in a much better condition.

Gildas, writing in the early 6th c. does not give one single hint that the Saxons drove either British or Christians before them to the West.

That's true, though Gildas gives no clues as to geography. His personal knowledge of the british isles too is suspect, hence he draws on unreliable sources for Hadrian's and the Antonine walls. british christian communities did survive though, even in Kent, hence the 'eccles' names. Eccles itself is a brythonic word borrowed into latin hence english uses a latinised welsh word to denote a community of british christians. Most however, are in the west where direct contacts with Rome had been broken but indirect contacts via Ireland were maintained. I don't think the christians in the east were persecuted, but the church itself seems to have moved, maybe for fear of persecution. If you can get hold of the ASSAH volume 10, there is a good paper on this by Lucas Quensel von Kalben, entitled: 'The British Church and the emergence of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms'.

Gildas never ever indicates that the Britons or the Christian Britons have been driven from vast trackts of the east.

That's right and even Bede wrote that Britons willing to pay tribute could stay. But he writes that for Northumbria of the early 7th cent. Härke suggests that a population crash occured in the immediate post roman period but that the romano british population remained stable from the mid 5th cent onwards. In my opinion, those areas under pressure from Irish and Pictish raids are the ones most likely to be affected. Lincolnshire was a major area of cereal production but, with the collapse of the economy and the threat of raids via the Humber, there would appear to be little motivation for continuing a romano british way of life. It could be very different in other parts of the country however. It's far from being uniform.

Another major consideration is the late roman marine transgression which altered the landscape considerably. many areas simply became cut off. The map below gives an impression of the extent of flooding. The roman roads at the bottom of the map converge to a point just north of Lincoln (not shown). The routes north from Lincoln clearly show that the land was marginal, even during roman times, but there are virtually no anglo saxon finds in the areas that did flood and roman finds are sometimes under 3 metres of marine deposit. Coin deposits in the dry areas of north Lincolnshire together with defensive fortifications may hint at an attempt to protect against Pictish raids via the Humber but, for many it seems, large parts may have simply been an unattractive proposition.

The roman road between Tadcaster and Castleford, still called the roman ridge road in these parts, separates the kingdoms of Elmet and Deira. Although deira was an early AS kingdom, Elmet remains British until the early 7th cent, even though it is to the east of the Pennines. This road, the modern A1(M), passes through the Becca banks, defensive earthworks on the only dry route between these two kingdoms. It is not known however who are the defenders and who is the possible aggressor. Maybe it was a peaceful existence for a couple of hundred years.




Again of interest is that the natural boundaries seem to map closely to the dialect boundaries and may also explain the boundaries of many of the early AS kingdoms listed in the tribal hidage.

best
Harry A[/img]

[authun]

You'll be pleased to note that a dutchman, Vermuyden, was responsible for draining much of that area. He also did the same in the fens area to the south.

[ambrosius]

Certain Gallic words remaining in Frankish (French) are ~120
Certain Gallic words remaining in Latin are ~40
Certain British words remaining in English are... 3

Exactly! Well, if fact Coates brings up some more, but the number is not a large one even then.

Coates mentions the twenty or so English words which have, at various times since the 1920s, been considered as possibly being of Brittonic origin. But most of these are now rejected. That's why I used the word 'certain' to prefix all the above categories. There are only three
certain Brittonic words in English, as I understand it. And as I
also understand it, the point Coates is making is the relative
adoption of Celtic words by these three invading cultures. You can
see that Franks were more open to adopting Gallic words than were Romans. And you can also see that Anglo-Saxons were, apparently,
totally disinterested in speaking Brittonic.

But let’s compare the numbers. Would you classify the position of the Gallic tribes in respect to the conquering Romans as similar to the Romano-Britons in respect to the conquering Anglo-Saxons, as Coates does? Invisible, enslaved, insignificant?

Perhaps initially, yes. Certainly moreso under Caesar than Augustus.
But by the time of Claudius, you see him wanting to introduce Gallic
senators, to widen the enfranchisement of the Empire. You can hardly
claim to see the same kind of evidence of enfranchisement being
extended from Anglo-Saxon kings towards native Britons, certainly
not within a century of the initial conquest, c. 450. English-Welsh
mutual cultural and linguistic hostility continues even today, and for
several centuries the early Anglo-Saxon kingdoms remained hostile
to native Britons and vice-versa. Why, even in 1066, Harold II, the
Saxon king of England, had been busy beating-up on the Welsh only
a few months before turning his attention towards Hastings. :lol:

I for sure can't see the Gauls having disappeared as some today would have the Britons disappear. of course not! The Gauls became valued Gallo-Romans and kept speaking Celtic. And even so, only about 40 Celtic words 'rubbed off' of the language of the dominating victors.

Well I'm not sure if Coates actually argued for a disappearance of
Gauls. Certianly, they did not, in any case. Why do you think that
5th c. natives of Gaul are termed 'Gallo-Romans', by historians.
And actually, the ration of 3:40 implies that Gallic was ten times
more interesting to Romans as Brittonic was to Anglo-Saxons. :wink:

Vortigern Studies\\n[quote]Yet Coates argues:
“If a Brittonic population had redefined itself as English through being “absorbed by degrees into the population of the English settlementsâ€

[ambrosius]

Vortigern Studies\\n[quote]
Yet Coates arges:
“If a Brittonic population had redefined itself as English through being “absorbed by
degrees into the population of the English settlementsâ€

[Aryaman2]

Actually, no, Robert. That is precisely the point Coates makes.
The same one Aryaman made. And as a Linguistic proffesor, you'd
think Coates would know. Linguistic borrowing only takes place by a
conqueror when there is some prestige to be gained by the
conqueror. Franks admired Roman culture - even Romano-Gauls, and
saw them as strong people to be emulated. Obviously, Anglo-Saxons
didn't think much of Britons.

I disagree, Coates points to enslavement, expulsion and genocide as probable answers, my reply was that social considerations could be enough to explain it.

[Aryaman2]

In fact, as I have posted before, there is no genetic evidence to support anything like an ethnic cleansing, genetic studies seems to be very heavily influenced by politics in Britain, and totally opposed conclusions have been draught from the same data. The real problem is that while there is a degree of genetic variation in a West/East axis, it is not very significant, there is nothing like the genetic wall we see across the Gibraltar Straits, Anglo-Saxons are not a clearly differentiated genetic population as were the Arabic conquers in Spain, where Arabic genetic print can be easily traced. If we take a world wide genetic map, the whole of Britain fits into a “Western Europeanâ€

[authun]

It looks like the Anglo-Saxons were intent on replacing British
culture completely.

Hi Ambrosius,

I don't think intent is the correct word. Intent suggests a planned aim or objective and implies that there was such a thing as British culture after Rome. Certainly in parts there was, but surely not everywhere. If the term 'Britunculi', nasty little Brits, found at Vindolanda was typical of the roman attitude towards the locals, probably some would have had no desire to continue being romanised. But what sort of culture did they have?

Bede indicates that Aethelfrith's objective was tribute. Britons who were willing to pay tax were welcome to stay. It's a shame Bede does not mention what the attitude to unwilling AS taxpayers was. I suspect that they too had to go but were generally treated better as a bit of a sweetener if they played ball.

It is important to think in terms of population density and understand how few people actually inhabited Britain at the time. If Härke is correct and the british population did crash to 2 million in the years between the roman withdrawal and the anglo saxon migration, Britain is a pretty empty place. Go to any market town today and, for every sixty people you count, imagine 58 of them are not there.

We don't know who the Westmoringas were other than it was a germanic term to describe the dwellers of the western moors. If you go to the old county of Westmorland today you will see how empty it is. In 1974 the population was around 70,000 suggesting only a couple of thousand existed during the AS period. If it looks empty now, it must have seemed deserted then. If those who were there spoke brittonic, how would any germanic speaker even hear their words? Who would go and listen to them talk to each other?

It does make sense that, when the AS settlement areas become wealthier, those Westmoringas may attempt some trade and do so in the germanic language but otherwise, there is simply no need for germanics to learn any Brittonic. In Deira, germanic settlers were trading with the germanic speaking continent. I just don't see any benefit for the germanic speakers in taking the trouble to learn Brittonic.

best

Harry Amphlett

[ambrosius]

My reason to bring up Coates was to discuss several of his point about Anglo-Saxon-British interaction.
His treatment of the historical sources is not correct. Starting with Gildas, who writes of Romano-Britons being driven from their cities up into the hills and caves where they starve of hunger, while behind them all their cities burn. Of course, no-one believes that, and archaeology disproves it. Yet Coates uses this to support a ‘vacated east’.

Actually, archaeology doesn't disprove it. Archaeology supports it.

No Mike, archaeology does not support Gildas' claim that all cities burned and were deserted.

I agree with your post about the cities, not about that wave of immigrants pushing west, but I wás referring to Gildas apocalyptic view ..

No, Robert, archaeology does support Gildas's claim that all British
cities were deserted by the time he was writing (c.540). See my previous
post for the evidence. Maybe he was exaggerating about them all being
burnt, but we know from Fulford's excavations at Silchester that after
the British occupation ceased (6th c?) the whole city was actually
demolished rather systematically. In his view, it is a rather pointed act,
which puts a full-stop to occupation, there. And you may not agree with
waves of immigrants pushing West, but the archaeology shows a gradual
and progressive abandonment of these cities going Westwards with time.
What else could any surviving Britons do except escape Westwards,
as the British colonization of Brittany implies. And if no Britons actually
did escape Westwards (and to Brittany) as refugees, then they must
either have been killed or stayed-put within the emerging Anglo-Saxon kingdoms of the East. Yet we have no record of Brittonic still being
spoken in the East. So they must have adopted Old English completely.
In which case, they did not continue to speak their native Celtic tongue
within a benevolent incoming culture - unlike the Gauls under Rome.

I really don't think you can criticize Gildas for having written an apocalyptic view of the Anglo-Saxon invasion. Had you ever been
invaded, you would probably have exaggerated on the details, too.
You shouldn't dismiss Gildas as not being corroborated by archaeology just because he made political propaganda out of his record of events.
If the archaeology supports his statement of the abandonment of all
British cities by the time he wrote (except Wroxeter - which, as pointed
out, was a special case) then who are you to say that there was no
burning going-on as well.


Ambrosius / Mike

[ambrosius]

We know that the Saxons had advanced up the Thames as far as Dorchester on Thames before 500 AD, bypassing St. Albans & Silchester, which apparently continued as Romano-British enclaves 'amidst a sea of Anglo-Saxonism' - if you like. So yes, they were 'scattered statelets'. Each surviving British city became like the old Greek city states. Not out of choice, but out of circumstance.

We don't know such a thing, it's a hypothesis amongst many.

But Robert, you're always telling us that the Saxons had settled as far
up the Thames as Dorchester before 500. 8) And if you read 'Britons
and Saxons - The Chiltern region 400-700', you'll see the archaeological
evidence for how the Saxons occupied the Thames valley floor (with
all its heavy clay, unsuitable for agriculture) whilst British occupation
continued at St. Albans and Silchester, either side of them to North &
South. Had there not been British power-bases at these two cities, then
there would not have been a bar to prevent the Saxons from occupying
the more fertile land which these cities commanded. Yet the Chiltern
region is conspicuously devoid of Saxon archaeological material until
the late 6th c.

We also don't know how many Anglo-Saxons lived amongst how many British, that's what the folks at the universities are arguing about.
But even so, if you take the end of occupation layers of some eastern towns as proof that these places were overwhelmed by a wave of Anglo-saxon settlers, I say you cannot claim that cities that do continue are 'islands' that were bypassed.

Why not? If their latest occupation levels are later than the cities
furthest East, then clearly, (British) occupation continued there later.
And if Saxon settlement bypassed these later-surviving cities (as it
did in the Thames region) with East angles forming the nascent kingdom
Mercia to the North and South Saxons and West Saxons to the South,
then St. Albans and Silchester sound like they're becoming surrounded
to me. Hence, British cities in a sea of Anglo-Saxon archaeology.

Also, no one can actually tell how large or how small the British kingdoms actually were. I'd say that could depend on a lot of factors, since no such kingdom will have had fixed borders.

But we don't really need to concern ourselves with size. The fact that
they existed at all is enough to prove the point. Look at the archaeology
of Saxon settlement around St. Albans and Silchester. The same goes
for Chichester, on the south coast. Saxon archaeology before 500,
which accords with the ASC description of Aelle's landing 477 and
capturing Pevensey Saxon Shore Fort c. 490. But you won't find any
evidence for Saxon settlement for miles around Chichester, as it was
another large walled-town, probably too well defended.

Ambrosius / Mike

[ambrosius]

If the 'wave' of Saxon immigration and conquest were by many different warlords, is it possible that each British settlement could have received different treatment and terms from each warlord? Or were the Saxons under one ruler? (not my area at all but humour me)

Hi Jim,

Well, by all accounts, we have multiple landings in many regions over an
extended period of time. Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians, Franks, Geats,
to name the continental Germanic tribes known to come here. But that's
also complicated by the fact that we have Scandinavian landings as well.
The well-Known king of Sutton-Hoo - Raedwald (you there, Paul?) -
was of the kin of the Wuffings, who were actually from Sweden (judging
from the helmet he wore being decorated with Vendel motifs). Then
the supposedly 'Anglian' early kingdom of Lindsay (Lincolnshire) seems
to kick-off with a Norwegian name - Winta (this may still be in use in
modern Norway). Also, the much debated first two entries in the king-
list of Wessex kicks-off with 'Cerdic' (ofter assumed to be British) which,
as Authun (Harry) can tell you seems to match the name of an 11th c.
Norwegian Viking, who invaded the then Saxon England, who had the
name of 'Kerdic'. Now, as you probably know, Jim, Latin had no 'K' in it.
So Latin 'C' was pronounced as a 'K'. So Kerdic is actually a perfect
11th c. Saxon or Norse spelling of the Cerdic who was listed (in Latin,
of course) in the Anglo-Saxon chronicle. 8)

And the immigration of Gernamic settlers (assylum-seekers, economic-
migrants, what-you-will) is generally thought to have continued from
450 (the Adventus Saxonum) to at least 600? So there were many
small 'Anglo-Saxon' kingdoms forming at various places around the
coast and spreading inland. Many different tribes, kins, families, etc.
But they probably spoke very similar languages (which coalesced into
Old English) worshipped the same gods (the Germanic Woden was the
same as the later Viking Odin) and probably had similar attitudes to
the native Britons (whatever they were) :wink:

Ambrosius / Mike

[ambrosius]

Hi Harry,

The situation with the church in Britain is very interesting. The most Christianised part of Roman Britain was the south east with scant evidence of christianisation in the west. However, by the end of the 6th cent., the situation is reversed.

Christianity in Roman/early post-Britain is very interesting. It's often
assumed that there was more Christianisation in the East than the West
or the North, but that's mainly the result of poor archaeological remains
(and even poorer scholarship :roll: ).

In fact, Constantine the Great (my hero ) claimed in a letter to
the Egyptians that he baegan his ministry (process of evangelising the
Empire) in Britain, when he was first acclaimed Emperor by his troops
in York in 306 (1700th anniversary just passed). And as early as the
Council of Arles (which he called in 314) no less than four metropolitan
bishops are sent from Britain. They seem to come from the four late-
Roman provincial capital cities of London, Lincoln, York and Cirencester.

Then we get the archaeology. No less than three of the forts on Hadrian's
Wall show evidence of 4th c. churches - Housteads, Vindolanda and
Arbeia. Then we get the likely remains of a 4th c. church in Lincoln, in
the courtyard of the Forum-Basilica (not surprising, if the city had a
biahop). There are also tentative remains of a large church/cathedral
in Roman London. There is the famous early (Constantinian) church in
Silchester (which is kind-of on the border between what would have
been the South East and South West). There is, of course, the 4th c.
baptismal font at the Saxon Shore Fort at Richborough in Kent (which
is about as far East as you can go :lol: ).

But then we get the villas with Christian mosaics and likely 'house-churches'. There's Lullingstone, of course, again in Kent, but we also
see many in the South West, as well. Hinton St Mary villa had a very
fine mosaic of Christ (in the British Museum, now) which is actually
though to have been modelled on a bust of Constantine (how apposite).
Then there are several 4th c. villas in the South West which have
bath-houses that seem to be converted into baptistries. There's one at Holcombe in Devon, Lufton and again at Keynsham in Somerset, Stroud,
Great Witcombe and again at Chedworth in Gloucestershire. Then there
is the piece-de-resistance: the recently excavated double-villa at
Bradford-on-Avon. This had a very lovely late pagan mosaic (c. 360)
in its apsidal living-room ripped-out and a baptismal font put in its place.
So any time from 360 onwards, really, for this operation. Though the
stratigraphy and the style of design suggest 5th c. as there are fonts
analogous to this in 5th c. Gaul and Italy.

All this would actually tend to suggest that there was more archaeological
evidence for christianity in the South West of 4th/5th c. Britain than in
the South East! Though, hot-off-the-presses, there is also a newly
discovered villa-baptistry (or possibly even a Jewish Mikvah) which was
built in the 4th c., then rebuilt in the early 5th c. in Kent! The actual
location is a secret for now, though. I could tell you where it is,
but then, as they say, 'I'd have to kill you'! (says he, fingering the hilt
of his spatha) :lol:

Whether this is the result of the church and the congregation moving west, or the church only, is unknown. The important point is that, in Britain, the church moved whereas in Gaul, it didn't.

Actually, it's not so much a case of the Church in Britain moving
anywhere at all (far less, the churches - subsidence). As we can see, there's plenty of evidence for churches and baptistries in the South West from the 4th through the 5th c. It's more a case that the incoming Anglo-Saxons in the East were, of course, Wodenists, and therefore didn't recognise the Church. They had to wait till 597 when St. Augustine converted the Jutes of Kent. Incidentally, when he did so, he found that the Britons in the West Country/Wales were, of course, still as Christian as thay had been for 300 years. :wink:

Ambrosius / Mike[/quote]