I was just watching The Face of Britain (2nd episode, on Saxons/Viking; missed the first I'm afraid).
At the start, the presenter described the original inhabitants of Britain as having been "flame-haired Celts from southern Europe".
From what I saw, it appears that the researchers found common genetic markers in the Welsh, Scots, West Country etc, and concluded that these people were decendents of these Celts.
The dominance of a different set of genetic markers in the people of East Angila and thereabouts, shared with people from Denmark, Germany, and the Netherlands, was taken as evidence of major immigration (and probably ethnic cleansing) by the Angles and Saxons.
However, I see a potentially major flaw in these conclusions.
According to the Roman historian Tacitus, writing in the 1st century AD, there were already three physically distinct ethnic groups in the Britain.
The Silures (Welsh) were described as resembling the Spanish (dark, curly hair and, I think, dark complexions - I don't have a copy of the work available at the moment).
The Caledonians were described as having "large limbs and red hair", in common with the Germans.
And those "living closest to Gaul" were described as "resembling the Gauls".
This suggests that Britain had already been settled by people from at least three different parts of Europe.
In my view (I admit I am in no way an expert on this part of history), it seems entierly plausible that the Gaulish Celts and Welsh Celts are genetically separate peoples (which seems reasonable given that British Celts are usually described as having a strong "Celtic" link with Brittany, but not the rest of France).
Given this, could it be that there is a strong similarity between "Saxon" genes and "Gaulish" genes, and that there was an extensive "Saxon" genetic presence in Britain since before the Roman invasion, and the main effect of the later Anglo-Saxon invasions was, after all, merely a change in the ruling elite, and the dominant culture, without the genocide or ethnic cleansing that the genetics at first suggests?
Yes it would appear that the major premise of the program may be based upon shaky foundations.
1. The term ‘Celtic’ (and presumably Germanic) refers to a linguistic/cultural group rather than people sharing a common genetic identity (the program is concerned with genetics). 2. That these Celtic speakers, arriving in the British Isles circa 500 BC, themselves superimposed their language/culture on a population who had arrived her in successive movements since the end of the last ice age. A population which as you point out showed distinct regional characteristics even to the non-scientific Roman observer. 3. The program offered no proof that the genetic markers found today in Eastern England/Scotland were not present in these populations even prior to the Anglo-Saxon invasions. 4. It would seem odd that while historians can accept a sea born movement of peoples and cultural ideas from Iberia and beyond into Western Britain during prehistory, that while it can accept seagoing links between Britain and the Phoenicians, Greeks, Gaul and Ireland prior to the Romans, it is quiet over any pre-historical North Sea movements of ideas or people. Certainly even up to quite recently, in historical terms, movement by water has always been much easier than by movement by land. A sea journey from the then Harwich to Holland would have perhaps been preferable over a land journey from Harwich to Hereford. To deny a pre-historic genetic or cultural relatedness between the North Sea coastal peoples would beggar belief. 5. I certainly can’t accept any premise of widespread ethnic cleansing resulting from Anglo-Saxon invasions (especially being that several of the leading ‘Saxon’ invaders had Celtic names) without concrete evidence of mass burials or slaughter. Obviously they’ve never been produced.
It was wrong to use the word "Celtic". What the guy meant was people who speak a Celtic language now or who spoke one in the recent past.
I think that after the ice age Britain was mainly populated from the south, as the guy said. As far as I know the ethnic Celts came from central Europe, which is east.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ColinM62: >My first post, so see how it woorks!<
I'm only getting to grips with the set-up myself.
>It was wrong to use the word "Celtic". What the guy meant was people who speak a Celtic language now or who spoke one in the recent past.<
We all make the same mistake sometimes.
>I think that after the ice age Britain was mainly populated from the south,<
I believe the land bridge stretched as far north as the Dutch/Belgian border? However as what is now France was no doubt warmer and had a greater population perhaps we can assume that most if not all came from the south?
> as the guy said. As far as I know the ethnic Celts came from central Europe, which is east.<
Same mistake? The Celts are not an ethnic group, besides they only (presumably) arrived as an iron weapon/tool aristocracy much later.
Originally posted by Howell W.: Same mistake? The Celts are not an ethnic group, besides they only (presumably) arrived as an iron weapon/tool aristocracy much later.
Cheers
If they ever arrived at all. Doubt has been expressed. Celtic Bri ts continued to live in round houses whilst the continental Celts built theirs rectangular. British Celtic art is also distinctive from Continental.
Originally posted by Howell W.: Same mistake? The Celts are not an ethnic group, besides they only (presumably) arrived as an iron weapon/tool aristocracy much later.
Cheers
If they ever arrived at all. Doubt has been expressed. Celtic Bri ts continued to live in round houses whilst the continental Celts built theirs rectangular. British Celtic art is also distinctive from Continental.
Yes good point. It would increasingly appear that most of what we've been taught isn't worth the paper it was written on.
Originally posted by Howell W.: Same mistake? The Celts are not an ethnic group, besides they only (presumably) arrived as an iron weapon/tool aristocracy much later.
I think if we go back to the Hallstatt culture we can say that Celts once existed as an ethnic group, with their own language(s), &, as far as we know, these were the first Indoeuropean language(s) to appear in central Europe. The question is then: how did Celtic language(s) become so widespread in Britain?
I think most archaeologists would agree with you, that Celtic speaking people appeared in Britain at the same time as Iron, about 800BC, & practised "elite dominance". The only problem being that there is no sign of any change, not even in the way people lived at that time.
I think that Celtic speaking people kind of "infiltrated" Britain over a long period of time, starting much earlier than 800BC. They were in some way "superior" to the Britons & slowly took over as an aristocracy. But its only my opinion.
>I think if we go back to the Hallstatt culture we can say that Celts once existed as an ethnic group, with their own language(s), &, as far as we know, these were the first Indoeuropean language(s) to appear in central Europe. The question is then: how did Celtic language(s) become so widespread in Britain?<
This raises another related issue. If the people of the Hallstadt and La Tene cultures were, as we assume Celtic speakers, then by what process did they morph into the German speaking peoples found there today? Were they driven out, wiped out, or merely submerged by the German speaking newcomers? Or did these Austrian/Swiss/Bavarian "Celtic" peoples also speak German as some would argue was the case with the so called Celts living in post Roman eastern England?
This raises another related issue. If the people of the Hallstadt and La Tene cultures were, as we assume Celtic speakers, then by what process did they morph into the German speaking peoples found there today? Were they driven out, wiped out, or merely submerged by the German speaking newcomers? Or did these Austrian/Swiss/Bavarian "Celtic" peoples also speak German as some would argue was the case with the so called Celts living in post Roman eastern England?
I'm not sure if anybody really knows. I imagine that in some cases there was simply a change of dominanant elite & in other cases there was some degree of population replacement. One way or another, they all speak German now.
Celtic & Germanic languages must have had a common root at some point, but I think they were quite separate by Roman times, & I can't imagine that many people were bilingual. If I remember correctly there is an argument which says that some tribes in Northern France & SE England were speaking Germanic languages before the Romans came, but I don't know how much support it gets.
Or did these Austrian/Swiss/Bavarian "Celtic" peoples also speak German as some would argue was the case with the so called Celts living in post Roman eastern England?
No, they were a distinctive linguistic group. German speakers refer to the Suisse Romande, the french speaking part of Switzerland, as Das Welschland, an echo of its Celtic linguistic past. The Canton of Valais is taken from germanic Wallis, again denoting an area formerly inhabited by Celtic speakers.
You also find areas in Bavaria and Austria such as the Walsertal, valley of the welsh and Walchersee, lake of the welsh. In medieval Germany, several areas were still known as Welschland. They shared a naming convention paralleled by Das Wendland (land of the slavs) which still exists today east of Lüneburg and which was still slavic speaking in the middle ages.
As with Das Wendland which contains many slavic 'itz', and 'ow' place name endings, former Celtic speaking areas contain place name endings providing evidence of the earlier language.
The Rhine is derived from roman Rhenus which in turn is taken from Celtic Renos. Main, Mosel, Tauber all have celtic etymologies.
Other rivers, such as the Isar and Donau have etymologies which pass through the celtic speaking period and which are earlier in origin and widespread thoughout europe: Don, Rhone (Rhodanus), Dneippe, Esera, Isère, Yser and Jizera.
Places such as Remagen, Worms, Bonn, Vienna, possibly Zürich, all have celtic etymologies and many southern german towns and villages have elements such as Celtic meg 'meadow' in Meggingen.
Many names are not immediately obvious. Augsburg for example takes it name from the roman emperor Augustus but was originally called Augusta Vindelicorum, the latter taking its name from the celtic Vindelici tribe.
Interesting questions exists about the nature of the language sandwiched between the expanding celtic languages from the south and the germanic languages expanding from the north. There is no concensus on this and whilst some argue an indo european or proto indo european language, some argue for an entirely different language group.
If I remember correctly there is an argument which says that some tribes in Northern France & SE England were speaking Germanic languages before the Romans came, but I don't know how much support it gets.
Virtually none, simply because there is no evidence. The arguments are largely based on possibilities which may make it possible that ... and so on.
For example, York was called Eburacum by the romans. The accepted etymology is that it was a latinised name for celtic personal name Eburos or the noun eburos "yew tree".
However, it is possible to argue a germanic etymology using Eber for boar, but it is also possible to argue a Vasconic etymology, a non indo european language, using Ibara as a place where two rivers meet, the Ouse and the Foss. You need a spread or cluster of names to get any sense of what's going on. And if you argue that it was either a germanic or vasconic language, you have to explain why there is a hill with a celtic name Pen y Ghent 30 or 40 miles away, why we have celtic Aber place names even closer and so on.
The problem arises because we don't know what the language of the Belgic tribes was. The Gallic language was making incursions from the south and the germanic language from the north and east. Famously Caesar wrote that the language of the Belgae was different from that of the Gauls but Caesar knew that the Germanic tribes spoke yet another language. He doesn't state that the belgae spoke german, simply that some german tribes had moved into their territory.
Caesar also wrote that the language in Britain was similar to that spoken by the Gauls. This argues for a celtic language in Britain in those areas to which Caesar referred.
It is quite possible that the Parisii of the Arras culture in Yorkshire are descended from the continental Parisii and spoke a separate language. But, if the language that they spoke was not Gallic, ie a celtic language, it simply doesn't follow that they therefore spoke a germanic language. It may have been Old European or North West Block or any of the other competing theories.
The problem arises because we don't know what the language of the Belgic tribes was. The Gallic language was making incursions from the south and the germanic language from the north and east. Famously Caesar wrote that the language of the Belgae was different from that of the Gauls but Caesar knew that the Germanic tribes spoke yet another language. He doesn't state that the belgae spoke german, simply that some german tribes had moved into their territory.
I'd like to see Frances Pryor's opinion of the Face of Britain series, as he also is not a supporter of the 'Anglo-Saxon invasion' model either.
Surely it would be better to drop the terms CELTIC and ANGLO-SAXON from the DNA results. Call them 'population A', 'population B' etc. These would not carry the baggage of pre-existing assumptions about who lived here.
A key question to put to researchers might be 'What language did Boudicca speak?'. This has the nice sound-bite quality that popular TV seems to need.
Surely it would be better to drop the terms CELTIC and ANGLO-SAXON from the DNA results. Call them 'population A', 'population B' etc. These would not carry the baggage of pre-existing assumptions about who lived here.
That's certainly true for the Celts and many archaeologists are doing this. For example, the Parisii used to be called a Celtic tribe but the archaeology is now referred to as the Arras culture, after Arras farm in Yorkshire, not Arras in France, which coincidentally has similar archaeology for the period.
The anglo saxons should, in my opinion simply be called migration age germanic speakers. The Angles, although ostensibly from Schleswig, but not Holstein, probably had many from the danish isles and southern norway amongst their numbers. We don't even know who the saxons were. British sources refer to all germanic speakers as saxon whilst gallo roman sources refer to all germanic speakers from the north sea, who were not franks who they do seem to recognise, as Saxon. The term Saxon was used rather like we use the term Viking today.
The anglo saxons should, in my opinion simply be called migration age germanic speakers. The Angles, although ostensibly from Schleswig, but not Holstein, probably had many from the danish isles and southern norway amongst their numbers. We don't even know who the saxons were.
Regardless of where they cam from, I thought that these people called themselves "Engle", "Englisc", or some other variation, when they came here. This became "Angli" in Latin & has become "Angle" quite recently.
"Saxon" is what other people called them, although they themselves used the word later on. The term "Angli Saxones" was then invented to differentiate them from Saxons elsewhere.
So "migration age germanic speakers" might be called "English", that being the modern form of the word they used to describe themselves?
They were certainly called Anglii by Tacitus in the 1st cent AD and their supposed homeland is still known as Angeln. The area was largely deserted in 4th cent and they may have been the first of several groups to cross the Elbe and move towards the Weser. If they were the first, any subsequent group following on and joining them may have be simply identified as 'an Angle'.
The problem with using a name which is associated with an area is that the number of Angles who came to Britain is likely to be confined to the number of people the homeland could have supported. In other words, an area the size of Angeln could not have supported more than say, 20,000 people, therefore no more than 20,000 Angles could have come to Britain.
This type of constraint can seriously mislead. If as Myres suggests, the danish island of Fyn should be included or, as Hines suggests, parts as far away as Norway, the immigration figure can become much larger because the supposed homeland is much larger.
Another group of people who later became known as Saxons also existed. They were known as the Nordalbingens, 'North of the Elbe' and analagous to those men north of the humber, the Northumbrians. These were the Dithmarscher, the Holsten and the Stoermänner, the marsh folk, the men of the forest and the men of the Stoer (river system). These are identified by many historians as the original 'Saxons'. The Saxons of Charlemagne however, contained around 100 such groups, though they didn't refer to themselves by that name and there was no political unity with a single leader. As with the Angles, if we constrain the name to a particular geographic location, we limit the numbers involved.
Once in England, germanic speakers did refer to other germanic speakers as Engli. Even the south saxons are sometimes referred to as suth engli. But not all did. The West Saxons called themselves Gwissae and the term Iutae is also well attested. Placename evidence suggests other groups such as the frisians and swaefa also came.
The problem with using a name which is associated with an area is that the number of Angles who came to Britain is likely to be confined to the number of people the homeland could have supported. In other words, an area the size of Angeln could not have supported more than say, 20,000 people, therefore no more than 20,000 Angles could have come to Britain.
Once in England, germanic speakers did refer to other germanic speakers as Engli. Even the south saxons are sometimes referred to as suth engli. But not all did. The West Saxons called themselves Gwissae and the term Iutae is also well attested. Placename evidence suggests other groups such as the frisians and swaefa also came.
Yes, it was a chaotic time & no doubt many people came here, so there is no need to limit the homelands & thus the number of possible migrants. But in the end we have English people in England. This would suggest that the Engli became the dominant group, no matter the size of their own particular homeland?
This would suggest that the Engli became the dominant group, no matter the size of their own particular homeland?
The name did certainly, whatever their continental origins were. Even some West Saxon coins are minted Rex Anglorum. From memory, the earliest contemporary uses of the term 'engli' here are around the late 7th early 8th cents. Procopius, writing in the 6th cntury, stated that we were inhabited by Angles and Frisians. He doesn't mention Saxons.
The Annals of Ulster refers to England as Saxonland but indicates that the Angles were the first:
U464.2
The Angles came to England.
Written much later of course, it may reflect a knowledge of the different tribal origins. Offa is referred to as the famous Angle king.
The Jutes of course are the other early group who retain a continental name. From the scant runic evidence that we have for the period around 400AD, the indications are that the continental homelands of both the Jutes and the Angles belonged to a common linguistic area covering parts of southern scandinavia. South of the River Eider, the Holstein element of Schleswig Holstein appears to have been different. The two forms of germanic may well have been mutually intelligible however as the north and west branches of the germanic languages had only just started to split.
Some people claim that the early language was anglo jutish which then gave way to anglo frisian as more low west germanic speakers moved in.
I found a small village in North Friesland last summer called England. I'd love to know how far that name goes back in time. Frisians settled north of the river Eider in the 700's. Makes me wonder if there were still small pockets of Angles about.
The name did certainly, whatever their continental origins were.
Could we then say, in outline:- 1. Before the glaciation Europe was occupied by two groups, known as "Aurignacian" & "Gravettian", the latter being dominant in northern Europe. These two groups now make up about 80% of the current European gene pool. 2. During the glaciation the main shelters were in Spain & the Balkans. 3. Britain was mainly occupied from Spain. The Balkan group did get into western Europe, by various routes, and, from there some of them got into eastern Britian. 4. Another group of people then brought farming into Europe from Anatolia. This group now makes up about 20% of the current European gene pool, but is much thinner than that in Britain. 5. People speaking a proto-Indo-European language then "wandered" into Europe from a homeland north of the Black Sea. No way of identifying these people genetically has yet been found. In northern Europe there are reasons to think that these people were associated with "corded ware" pottery, and it is from this area that Celtic, German, Italic, Baltic & Slavic languages might have emerged. 6 People speaking Celtic languages entered Britain from central and/or western Europe and their influence was such that all Britons were speaking Celtic languages by the time the Romans arrived. 7 When the Romans left a number of people speaking Germanic languages entered Britain from north west Europe, as we have discussed.
There is no concensus on any of the points 1 to 6 and, as you will most likely know, the level of germanic immigration is too debated.
Those who argue for cultural diffusion, ie the movement of ideas with minimal movement of people rely heavily on the hypothesis that the Basque peoples are representative of the paleolithic population of europe. It is oft overlooked that this is just a hypothesis despite the many warnings. For example:
"We know of no other study, however, that provides direct evidence of a close relationship in the paternal heritage of the Basque- and the Celtic speaking populations of Britain." Wilson et al (2001)
"It is customary, in population genetics studies, to consider Basques as the direct descendants of the Paleolithic Europeans. However, until now there has been no irrefutable genetic proof to support this supposition." González et al (2006)
It is of no surprise then when other studies make the following observations:
However, the strong genetic drift experienced by the Basques does not allow us to consider Basques either the only or the best representatives of the ancestral European gene pool."
and, in addition:
"Contrary to previous suggestions, we do not observe any particular link between Basques and Celtic populations beyond that provided by the Paleolithic ancestry common to European populations ..." (Santos Alonso 2005)
Some geneticists do argue for demic diffusion, ie a movement of people, to explain the spread of the indo european language or the spread of agriculture. Chihki and Barbujani argue for a neolithic contribution greater than 60% for example.
Alzualde's studies on ancient dna at the Aldaieta cemetery show that there was some introgression of both mtDNA and yDNA into the Basque population in the neolithic and Cinnioglu's studies claim that Anatolia too was an LGM refuge for R1b1c, the haplogroup usually at the centre of these discussions.
In other words, what has been seen as a post LGM expansion of R1b1c out of Iberia may actually be a combination of that and a neolithic expansion out of Anatolia.
I have no idea which is correct but it's important to be aware of arguments which are counter to those often presented which are, to quote Santos Alonso, 'circular'.
