World Families Forums - Extinction vs. Continuity Theories of the Anglo-Saxon Settlement of Britain

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 29, 2014, 02:47:49 AM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: rms2)
| | |-+  Extinction vs. Continuity Theories of the Anglo-Saxon Settlement of Britain
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Extinction vs. Continuity Theories of the Anglo-Saxon Settlement of Britain  (Read 5055 times)
NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« on: November 22, 2009, 09:50:37 PM »

Goldenhind-lol I can see you must have come across the continuity extremists, Francis Pryor being the most famous.  I am sort of in the middle ground.  I think a large number of Germanic garrisons were scattered throughout much of England, not just the SE, in times well before the traditional adventus.  I think in total they probably ran into many 1000s.  I do think they were originally in the pay of the Britons, possibly even directed by a sub-Roman overlord.  My feeling is that they eventually moved from servants to masters and when that happened they were probably followed up in the east by more fresh waves.  I still cant see the migration having brought more than a few 10s of thousands into a Brittania of several millions Britons.  However, I (partly) agree with the idea that they would have multiplied within Britain in the later generations due to their higher status so the numbers of 2nd, 3rd, 4th generation A-Saxons was far more than ever crossed the sea in the 1st generation.  The Anglo-Saxons perhaps had an average of 500 years dominance to use this advantage on average when you look at lingering Britons in the west and Danes in the east.  I think this would have raised their numbers but not to the degree some suggested.  

A parallel is the Ui Neils dominance of the northern half of Ireland.  The Ui Neill  had nearly twice the length of hegemony in NW Ireland than the A-Saxons had in England on average.  They also had the typical Irish social structure whereby success depends on and results in massive lineage growth.  In Irish society the growth of the clan lineage was everything.  The thing to note is despite this M222 never became an absolute majority anywhere in Ireland.  Anglo-Saxons did not have the same sort of deep lineage based clan type society and a lot more was down to patronage etc.  So, they are not especially known for huge lineages.  Also, the Anglo-Saxons only had half the period of time the UI Neill had in the NW.  Now if M222 never got near to an absolute majoiorty in a 1000 year span in a clan based society known for its Ghengises then it doesnt seem likely that the much less lineage obsessed Anglo-Saxon society would have done better in half the time.
Your scenario begs an explanation of how 10,000 Anglo-Saxons came to utterly dominate several million technologically superior Romano-Britons.
However I fully agree we have completely hijacked this thread, so I will refrain from futher comments on this subject here.
Perhaps someone could transfer the above posts relating to this subject to a new thread?

Here ya go. lol

I agree with GoldenHind that sometimes we get carried away with the L21 = Celtic thing. He knows I am eager to point out L21 in places like Norway or Denmark, which have never been Celtic. Of that L21 in England, who knows an exact percentage, but some is of Anglo-Saxon extraction.

My surname (Downing) is ultimately of English origin; I'm not Irish.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2009, 09:51:51 PM by NealtheRed » Logged

Y-DNA: R-Z255 (L159.2+) - Downing (Irish Sea)


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 23, 2009, 11:55:06 AM »

Thanks for restarting this in the right topic, Nealelred.

I agree with you that L21 = Celtic is not necessarily a given, at least permanently.  By that I mean it is possible, that L21 was predominately carried by early Celtic cultures.  Perhaps they were the Proto-Celts, or perhaps P312 was ... remember there really isn't that much difference in time between P312 and L21.  Then, some of these L21+ may have integrated with Scandinavian and Germanic cultures or first integrated with Neolithic cultures and then integrated with the Scandinavian and Germanic cultures.

In any case, some L21+ folks probably integrated into Scandinavian and Germanic cultures prior to Caesar as well as after.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2009, 12:17:25 PM by Mike » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #2 on: November 23, 2009, 12:59:36 PM »

Yeah, I think that L21 predates the Celtic-Germanic split. Still, look at the numbers in Norway. That must mean Proto-Germanic settlement, right? Angles settled in southern Norway too.

I'll make it easier for you; we could say it was populated by Scots...
Logged

Y-DNA: R-Z255 (L159.2+) - Downing (Irish Sea)


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #3 on: November 23, 2009, 02:06:52 PM »

... I still cant see the migration having brought more than a few 10s of thousands into a Brittania of several millions Britons.  However, I (partly) agree with the idea that they would have multiplied within Britain in the later generations due to their higher status so the numbers of 2nd, 3rd, 4th generation A-Saxons was far more than ever crossed the sea in the 1st generation.  The Anglo-Saxons perhaps had an average of 500 years dominance to use this advantage on average when you look at lingering Britons in the west and Danes in the east.  I think this would have raised their numbers but not to the degree some suggested. ....
Your scenario begs an explanation of how 10,000 Anglo-Saxons came to utterly dominate several million technologically superior Romano-Britons...
I don't think technology superiority guarantees population success, nor even cultural survival.  The Indo-European Myceneans overtook the more advanced Minoan civilization over a long period of time.

That being said, I don't know how many Anglo-Saxons came into Britain.  There must have been a lot.

I think it is also pertinent to remember the Roman Empire as a whole, and quite possibly Romano-Britain, deteriorated of its own momentum.  The decline of the economy may have preceded the decline of the culture and language use.

Let us not forget that a factor in the decline of the Empire was the Justinian Plague.  Being trading partner with Mediterranean ports may have been turned out to be a disadvantage for Romano-Britain.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
authun
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #4 on: November 23, 2009, 04:17:43 PM »

I think in total they probably ran into many 1000s.  I do think they were originally in the pay of the Britons, possibly even directed by a sub-Roman overlord.

Heinrich Härke, who is in favour of the acculturalist model, puts the figure at around 250,000. The problem with the term 'in the pay of the Britons' is that there was no coinage, or at least none has been found, so the question is, with what did they pay?

Nothing has been found in the archaeology. The material culture is a sharp change from romano-british to germanic with nothing inbetween. Even in very earlier sites such as West Heslerton in Yorkshire, the quernstones come from the Eifel region in the Rhineland, not places like Wharncliffe in Yorkshire which produced quernstones from the neolithic until the 19th cent, albeit by then as millstones.

A charactistic of the 5th cent. AD is the paucity of sub roman british archaeology. There is little even in the areas thought to have remained British. The pottery industry collapsed and was replaced by crude pottery fired in open flames and save for a handfull of belt buckles, there is no evidence of metal working. There must have been some of course, but not enough for us to find any of it. It is hard to see how germanic mercenaries could have been paid.

best
authun
« Last Edit: November 23, 2009, 04:19:22 PM by authun » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #5 on: November 23, 2009, 07:34:00 PM »

Very little L21 has been found in the traditional A-S homelands to date.  So, I personally do not think a great deal came with the A-S settlers.  Some maybe but not a lot.  There is probably a better case that Norwegian Vikings could have brought some but their settlements were pretty restricted in England.  So, I think they are a side issue.  

I think in R1b terms the interpretation of S21 is important.  Its common in England and much rarer in the Celtic fringe.  So, a lot depends on whether S21 can be interpeted safely as a Germanic (A-S and Danish vikings). If it was, then the L21-S21 ratio would be a good proxy for what proportion of pre-Germanic lines survive in England (I think S116* and S28 are too debatable in the isles so leave them out of the equation for now). What are the L21-S21 ratios in Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England?  That would give some sort of indicator.  

However, although that ratio is interesting, I do not think it is on safe ground and at best the L21-S21 ratio would only give a minumum degree of pre-Germanic survival in England.  The real figure could be much higher.  The reason I say that is that it assumes that the Britons of the SE of England were always the same as the Britons of the west and north.  In fact classical historians make it clear this was not the case.  Major differences between the Britons of the SE may have begun in the beaker period when the SE was very connected to the low countries. This trend continued and culminated in the Belgic tribes covering both the Low Countries and SE England.  So the Belgium/Holland-like nature of SE English y-DNA was probably well under way long before the Anglo-Saxons.  SO you cant just look at SE England and say all its differences with the north and west are down to Germanic invasions.  Its a matter of historical fact that SE England was very much more like the Low Countries than it was the rest of the isles at the time of the Roman invasion. So, IMO, an unknown portion of English S21 may be pre-German      
« Last Edit: November 23, 2009, 07:41:55 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #6 on: November 23, 2009, 07:52:06 PM »


A charactistic of the 5th cent. AD is the paucity of sub roman british archaeology. There is little even in the areas thought to have remained British. The pottery industry collapsed and was replaced by crude pottery fired in open flames and save for a handfull of belt buckles, there is no evidence of metal working. There must have been some of course, but not enough for us to find any of it. It is hard to see how germanic mercenaries could have been paid.

best
authun
[/quote]

When pottery ceases to be used, it is almost impossible to find sites.  Pottery often is the only type of find on archaeological sites dating to the period after flint ceased to be generally used. When it goes only RC dating can help.  I think periods where pottery was not used give the false impression of a dissapearance of settlement.


As for payment, mercenaries can be paid in all sort of ways including lands granted for military service.
Logged
GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #7 on: November 23, 2009, 09:53:33 PM »

... I still cant see the migration having brought more than a few 10s of thousands into a Brittania of several millions Britons.  However, I (partly) agree with the idea that they would have multiplied within Britain in the later generations due to their higher status so the numbers of 2nd, 3rd, 4th generation A-Saxons was far more than ever crossed the sea in the 1st generation.  The Anglo-Saxons perhaps had an average of 500 years dominance to use this advantage on average when you look at lingering Britons in the west and Danes in the east.  I think this would have raised their numbers but not to the degree some suggested. ....
Your scenario begs an explanation of how 10,000 Anglo-Saxons came to utterly dominate several million technologically superior Romano-Britons...
I don't think technology superiority guarantees population success, nor even cultural survival.  The Indo-European Myceneans overtook the more advanced Minoan civilization over a long period of time.

That being said, I don't know how many Anglo-Saxons came into Britain.  There must have been a lot.

I think it is also pertinent to remember the Roman Empire as a whole, and quite possibly Romano-Britain, deteriorated of its own momentum.  The decline of the economy may have preceded the decline of the culture and language use.

Let us not forget that a factor in the decline of the Empire was the Justinian Plague.  Being trading partner with Mediterranean ports may have been turned out to be a disadvantage for Romano-Britain.
Yes, I agree with both of these points as well as your earlier comment about Ydna replacement (not total) through a reproductive advantage. That is why I chose to frame my opinion about the A/S composition in 1066, on the eve of the Conquest, rather than several centuries earlier. I believe Thomas estimated a favorable reproductive rate could result in a 50% or more replacement in as little as five generations. By1066 the A/S would have upwards of 20 generations to increase their portion of the English gene pool.
As for economic collapse in the Roman empire during the migration period, I have read that the average human height in north Italy declined by almost six inches in a 50 year period, possibly indicating a collapse of agriculture. Something similar may have happened in Britain. leading to fmine and malnutrition.
As for the Justinian plague, the argument has been made that it decimated the Romano-British population, who brought the plague in from the rest of the empire with whom they maintained trade, while it didn't have much effect on the A/S who occupied a separate area of the country and traded only with their North Sea homelands.
Both of these may have contributed to a collapse of the Romano-British world and left them easy prey for the A/S.
Logged
GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #8 on: November 23, 2009, 10:12:38 PM »

Very little L21 has been found in the traditional A-S homelands to date.  So, I personally do not think a great deal came with the A-S settlers.  Some maybe but not a lot.  There is probably a better case that Norwegian Vikings could have brought some but their settlements were pretty restricted in England.  So, I think they are a side issue.  

I think in R1b terms the interpretation of S21 is important.  Its common in England and much rarer in the Celtic fringe.  So, a lot depends on whether S21 can be interpeted safely as a Germanic (A-S and Danish vikings). If it was, then the L21-S21 ratio would be a good proxy for what proportion of pre-Germanic lines survive in England (I think S116* and S28 are too debatable in the isles so leave them out of the equation for now). What are the L21-S21 ratios in Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England?  That would give some sort of indicator.  

However, although that ratio is interesting, I do not think it is on safe ground and at best the L21-S21 ratio would only give a minumum degree of pre-Germanic survival in England.  The real figure could be much higher.  The reason I say that is that it assumes that the Britons of the SE of England were always the same as the Britons of the west and north.  In fact classical historians make it clear this was not the case.  Major differences between the Britons of the SE may have begun in the beaker period when the SE was very connected to the low countries. This trend continued and culminated in the Belgic tribes covering both the Low Countries and SE England.  So the Belgium/Holland-like nature of SE English y-DNA was probably well under way long before the Anglo-Saxons.  SO you cant just look at SE England and say all its differences with the north and west are down to Germanic invasions.  Its a matter of historical fact that SE England was very much more like the Low Countries than it was the rest of the isles at the time of the Roman invasion. So, IMO, an unknown portion of English S21 may be pre-German      
I don't think this is safe ground either. Even if we could neatly divide U106 into Germanics and L21 into Celts, we would need a scientifically selected sampling from various regions of Britain. Instead we have a self-selected sampling with testing for U106 having gone on for five or more years before L21 was even discovered, which certainly skews the results.
More importantly, I don't believe there is any good evidence that L21 is exclusively Celtic and U106 Germanic. Even that simplistic idea trumpeted by Faux and his supporters always maintained that U106 subclade U198/S29 was an indicator of pre A/S Britain.
Finally I read that there is archaeological evidence of a south Norwegian component amongst the Angles.
"The links between Norway and Anglian settlers in Britain are marked by particular artifacts: sleeve clasps, equal armed brooches, phase I square headed brooches, some types of scutiform pendants and class C bracteates. In particular, Hines sees the the introduction of sleeve clasps as due to Norwegian presence in East Anglia and/or the Humber estuary from c.475."  Donald Henson, The Origins of the Anglo-Saxons.
There is every reason to believe L21 has a strong presence in Norway, and as I recall from the L21 maps, seems to be strong in East Anglia as well.
Logged
NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #9 on: November 23, 2009, 11:00:28 PM »

Aha. I remember reading that the Angles migrated into Southern Norway, and there are place-names for them too. That could easily have added L21 to numbers in Norway. Why someone would instead claim that Aberdeen Scots are responsible for populating Scandinavia is beyond me, seems a bit simple-minded.

At any rate, I agree with GoldenHind that some "cherry-picking" has been going on with U106 since its discovery five years ago. People will do that to support a hypothesis.

Now, if Henri Hubert is right about the Goidels being from Northern Germany, then that could also make sense of the L21 there too. I know some scholars link the historical Cauci tribe of Ireland with the Germanic Chauci. I'm not sure how accurate it is, but some early tribal names in Ireland are similar to those tribes found in Belgic and Germanic areas (i.e. the Manapii and Menapii).
Logged

Y-DNA: R-Z255 (L159.2+) - Downing (Irish Sea)


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #10 on: November 24, 2009, 12:48:06 AM »

It's great to have you join in, Authun.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
authun
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #11 on: November 24, 2009, 06:28:42 AM »

When pottery ceases to be used, it is almost impossible to find sites.  Pottery often is the only type of find on archaeological sites dating to the period after flint ceased to be generally used. When it goes only RC dating can help.  I think periods where pottery was not used give the false impression of a dissapearance of settlement.

The pottery doesn't disappear, it changes in form, style and quality, rather dramatically in fact. Nor is it the only dating technique. Coinage is the primary artefact for dating during the roman period and what we find is that no new coins appear to be minted towards the end of the 4th cent AD. Dendrochronology is another dating method. The problem isn't dating, it is the paucity of anything distinctively british in the 5th cent. AD which begs the question, why do objects which were numerous during the roman period disappear from the archaeological record immediately after the roman period? If the hypothesis is that small numbers germanic mercenaries were hired, there is no reason to suppose that britons gave up the sort of things that they had previously been using on a large scale.

Furthermore, where are the signs of life? Wherever people live, they lose things or throw things away. Things like shoes, wooden buckets and tools, simple household knives etc. These things are rarely found immediately on top of the roman layer, stratigraphy being another dating method. It is the change from evidence of widespread activity to one which shows a near absence of any activity which is the puzzle.

Quote
As for payment, mercenaries can be paid in all sort of ways including lands granted for military service.

That's true and the romans did settle laeti in this way. The late romano-britons too may have continued with this practice. However, if this did happen, the numbers involved will have been large and not represented by a small military elite. You need some warriors, but you need more farmers plus their wives plus their children. This is what we do find in the archaeology, quern stones to grind corn, middens with sea shells, piles of butchered animals bones etc. The quantities are large. West Heslerton has produced over 2 million artefacts, 750,000 of which were animal bones alone. It's an indication of how much rubbish a community produces.

However, it is precisely because we do find evidence of the latter, which is distinctly germanic and we do not find similar evidence which is distinctly british which raises the questions. Where are their deposits?

best
authun
Logged
authun
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #12 on: November 24, 2009, 07:07:53 AM »

Finally I read that there is archaeological evidence of a south Norwegian component amongst the Angles.
"The links between Norway and Anglian settlers in Britain are marked by particular artifacts: sleeve clasps, equal armed brooches, phase I square headed brooches, some types of scutiform pendants and class C bracteates. In particular, Hines sees the the introduction of sleeve clasps as due to Norwegian presence in East Anglia and/or the Humber estuary from c.475."  Donald Henson, The Origins of the Anglo-Saxons.

The earliest graves immediately north of the Humber found on the Yorkshire Wolds in places like Sancton, Londesbrough, Newbold etc are distinctly Anglian. They are cremation burials and are typical of those found in Angeln (in Schleswig) and on the island of Fyn. A few miles to the north at West Heslerton however, in the Vale of Pickering, the graves are primarily inhumations. Here there are examples of southern scandinavian metalwork. West Heslerton too is seen as a very early settlement.

Slightly later, immediately to the north of the Humber and in the southern part of the Wolds, we start to see the fused North Sea pottery styles, often termed 'Anglo Saxon' here. These, apparantly, are distinctive enough to distinguish them from the earlier Anglian style. It makes one wonder if these sites represent waves of settlement which, in the early years, kept their regional or tribal identity only to become fused or mixed at a later date.

best
authun

« Last Edit: November 24, 2009, 07:10:37 AM by authun » Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #13 on: November 24, 2009, 09:49:33 AM »

When pottery ceases to be used, it is almost impossible to find sites.  Pottery often is the only type of find on archaeological sites dating to the period after flint ceased to be generally used. When it goes only RC dating can help.  I think periods where pottery was not used give the false impression of a dissapearance of settlement.

The pottery doesn't disappear, it changes in form, style and quality, rather dramatically in fact. Nor is it the only dating technique. Coinage is the primary artefact for dating during the roman period and what we find is that no new coins appear to be minted towards the end of the 4th cent AD. Dendrochronology is another dating method. The problem isn't dating, it is the paucity of anything distinctively british in the 5th cent. AD which begs the question, why do objects which were numerous during the roman period disappear from the archaeological record immediately after the roman period? If the hypothesis is that small numbers germanic mercenaries were hired, there is no reason to suppose that britons gave up the sort of things that they had previously been using on a large scale.

Furthermore, where are the signs of life? Wherever people live, they lose things or throw things away. Things like shoes, wooden buckets and tools, simple household knives etc. These things are rarely found immediately on top of the roman layer, stratigraphy being another dating method. It is the change from evidence of widespread activity to one which shows a near absence of any activity which is the puzzle.

Quote
As for payment, mercenaries can be paid in all sort of ways including lands granted for military service.

That's true and the romans did settle laeti in this way. The late romano-britons too may have continued with this practice. However, if this did happen, the numbers involved will have been large and not represented by a small military elite. You need some warriors, but you need more farmers plus their wives plus their children. This is what we do find in the archaeology, quern stones to grind corn, middens with sea shells, piles of butchered animals bones etc. The quantities are large. West Heslerton has produced over 2 million artefacts, 750,000 of which were animal bones alone. It's an indication of how much rubbish a community produces.

However, it is precisely because we do find evidence of the latter, which is distinctly germanic and we do not find similar evidence which is distinctly british which raises the questions. Where are their deposits?

best
authun
I agree that this should all be considered, but this reminds of something Barry Cunliffe is supposed to be fond of saying... "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

http://tinyurl.com/yjh5ysl
« Last Edit: November 24, 2009, 01:46:53 PM by rms2 » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #14 on: November 24, 2009, 09:57:53 AM »

... However, it is precisely because we do find evidence of the latter, which is distinctly germanic and we do not find similar evidence which is distinctly british which raises the questions. Where are their deposits?
What level of integration do you think is likely from the old Britons into the Germanic communities?  or did surviving Britons move into the countryside?  I don't know, but perhaps integration is a partial explanation.

It it is a bit early to say, but it appears likely that the genetic evidence will point that there this a large proportion (didn't say majority) of people in England that aren't much different (if at all) than a large number of Irish, Scottish and Welsh.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
authun
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #15 on: November 24, 2009, 10:51:47 AM »


I agree that this should all be considered, but this reminds of something Barry Cunliffe is supposed to be fond of saying... "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

Of course we may simply be looking in the wrong place or, failing to find evidence of the expected continuity, overlooking the signs of a different type of continuity. Either way, it shows things changed and this doesn't fit in with a model of a small number of mercenaries coming at the request of romano britons to help maintain an existing system.

Rather, to me at least, it suggests a declining romano british population under both internal and external pressures, the external pressure coming from the Picts and the Irish, not producing much and recycling what there is. Whether land was given to the germanic settlers as an incentive, or they simply moved into vacated land I don't know, but they must have been substantial in numbers, but not necessarily overwhelming.

The romano british population didn't have much to offer the germanics but neither did the germanic settlers have much to offer the romano british either. The early graves are rather poor. The fancy stuff comes later. For whatever reason, early germanic settlements appear to have become more successful and their numbers increased.

Gildas tells us that, in the 6th century, some parts of Britain are occupied by the saxons. The inference is, most isn't at that time. Bede tells us that in the 8th century, Britons live under their own kings in some parts of Britain whilst in other parts, Britons still live but now under germanic kings. So there is no question of a wipeout. We know that the result is, that in England at least, the germanic culture and language becomes dominant and so the questions, what happened to the post roman britons and how did the germanics become dominant require robust models to answer them. A small military elite model doesn't fit well with the evidence. By the same token, a wipeout model of the Britons doesn't fit with what people living at the time state or the evidence that we see today.

The male dominated warrior elite model for example does not explain why swords and other weapons are found in women's graves, in the graves of infants and in the graves of men too old or infirm to fight. Most germanic graves don't have weapons. There are areas of the country where the contemporary accounts tell us Britons were still living in the 7th cent, Elmet for example. There is no evidence for this however. All the local museums have material from the paleolithic onwards, down to the level of roasted hazelnuts. We know where they had their summer camps and where they lit their fires and where they knapped their flints. By the time we get to the roman period we even know who made the tiles and who dressed the stone. Then there is a gap, for no germanic settlers ever moved into Elemt before the 8th cent. Where are the Britons? Where did they build their houses and where did they grow their crops?

I don't think any questions about the impact of the germanic settlers can be answered without first understanding what happened to the Britons in the immediate post roman period. What happened to them is likely to be the key to understanding why the germanics became successful.

best
authun
« Last Edit: November 24, 2009, 10:56:06 AM by authun » Logged
NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #16 on: November 24, 2009, 12:00:28 PM »

Authun,

What was the situation like in Northern England? Did more Anglian settlement take place there, and if so, around what period are we looking at? I would assume the Britons would be more numerous in the north.
Logged

Y-DNA: R-Z255 (L159.2+) - Downing (Irish Sea)


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



authun
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #17 on: November 24, 2009, 12:04:26 PM »

What level of integration do you think is likely from the old Britons into the Germanic communities?  or did surviving Britons move into the countryside?  I don't know, but perhaps integration is a partial explanation.

We could do with an mtDNA study along the lines of Weale or Capelli to help answer that one. Maybe the Peoples of the British Isles Project will help, but my guess is that it will be mixed in with the autosomal data and difficult to extract. We'll have to wait and see.

Roman towns did survive, Nennius provides a list, but they are shadows of their former selves and have contracted. The villas have all disapeared by the late 5th cent too. Where did all these people go? It is tempting to conclude that they may have simply joined the germanic settlers who were successfully growing food and one could argue that as germanic settlements grew, they needed more labour to help them grow the food. But there is no evidence for this. Despite looking for it, no evidence has been found to show any relationship between York and West Heslerton. They appear to operate in two entirely different spheres.

Perhaps many Britons did migrate to where their own leaders were still operating successfully and these don't have to all be necessarily in the west. They could include places such as Hadrian's Wall. Even if they all became vegans though, we ought to be finding things like quernstones. Any group who eats food leaves some signs, even if it is just the rubbish. We ought to find middens or some signs of occupation.

Those that didn't migrate probably simply became absorbed by the germanic expansions in the 7th cent. They may have initially grouped around places such as Carl Wark hill fort, oddly enough where we do still see the quernstones lying around, and where they did retain their independence for two or three centuries.

http://www.brigantesnation.com/SiteResearch/Iron%20Age/Carl%20Walk/CarlWark.htm

An interesting observation about Carl Wark is that the stone wall and earth embankment is very similar in construction to those found in iron age scotland. Carl Wark wasn't permanently settled but was probably used in transhumance farming, temporary accomodation during the summer months when the animals could graze on the upper pastures. There are hundreds of hill forts around. I have always been intrigued by Ingleborough and Pen Y Ghent. Ingleborough means something like the fort of the english. Pen Y Ghent, the neighbouring hill, is somewhat more difficult but one possible translation is hill of the foreigners. As it is a brythonic name, it may have represented the last hill in British territory and beyond that were, the foreigners, starting with those english on the next hill.

cheers

authun
« Last Edit: November 24, 2009, 12:05:46 PM by authun » Logged
authun
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #18 on: November 24, 2009, 04:23:43 PM »

What was the situation like in Northern England? Did more Anglian settlement take place there, and if so, around what period are we looking at? I would assume the Britons would be more numerous in the north.

The Angles in the 5th and 6th cents are confined to East Yorkshire, basically the Yorkshire Wolds, and parts of North Yorkshire, the Vale of Pickering. This is the area known as Deira.

The founder of the kindom of Bernicia is said to be Ida in the 6th cent., but he was holed up for a few years before they were able to break out. However, it seems that some Angles at least were there before him, but we know little of them or their relationship with the Britons.

Bernicia was expansionist and various battles were fought between them and the Britons and also with the Deirans. The Deirans apparantly had a good relationship with the Britons in Elmet, in West Yorkshire and also with the Britons in Gwynedd, Wales. In terms of territory, Britons held most of the north of England until approximately 600 AD. However, most of the archaeology is in the germanic areas.

West of the Pennines, the Kingdom of Reghed remained British for even longer, but it is a kingdom on paper and it is very difficult to know what was going on in places like Lancashire. Most activity is in Cumbria and the Solway Firth area and we don't have any real idea of the settlement between there and say, Wales. A place like Westmoreland may have only had 1200 - 1500 inhabitants. They were called the westmoringas, dwellers on the western moors. It's an english term but could describe either Britons or Angles. 1200 - 1500 inhabitants could simply represent isolated farmsteads, sheep farmers, dotted around the valleys. That would make them very difficult to detect in the archaeology, particularly if it was subsistence farming, ie no markets, no goods sold or manufactured. Perhaps this was the case in places like Craven and Elmet too. Lead had been mined in the Pennines during roman times but that industry disappeared with the romans. Hard to know what happened to those people but miners often go where the work is.

Crucially, in my opinion, the germanic settlement in Deira is where the roman villas were. Other than Deira, villas in the north are few and far between. With the collapse of the villa economy, the germanic settlers may have just entered empty land. The interesting questions are really about life in the rest of the north, in areas where there was no mining and which weren't cultivated. What did those Britons do during Roman times? I think there was a good deal of continuity in such areas but, because we don't know much about how they lived during the roman period, we don't know how they lived in the 5th and 6th cents. Ceretic, a king of Elmet, may in reality have been little more than the wealthiest farmer in the area, someone who had good pasture and a large flock of sheep and some good arable land. It may have put him in a position of surplus so he could sell wool and farming produce whereas most others were just at the subsistence level.

Britons are there for sure, but we know nothing about them. However, we don't know much about them during the roman period either.

best
authun

« Last Edit: November 24, 2009, 04:27:36 PM by authun » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #19 on: November 24, 2009, 04:43:54 PM »

I am always a little suspicious when the traditional Anglo-Saxon homeland is extended to take in everywhere from Sweden to Belgium.  I think its important to stick to the real Danish/north German area where the vast majority are thought to have come from.  I am aware of small minority influences from elsewhere in northern Europe from Belgium to Sweden but I would not let that skew the basic comparison.  If you compare the L21 count in north Germany and Denmark it is very low to date.   In Germany the L21 and U152 concentrations do have an incredible drop off when the Iron Age Celt-German boundary is passed.  I think there is an extremely strong pattern and that Norway is a kind of exception which is not a big factor in English history anyway.  That the pattern is so strong after a couple of millenia of moving about is pretty remarkable IMO.  Given the short period of time there has been to test it, the huge strength of L21 relative to S21 in places like France and the Celtic fringe of the isles is a certainty.  

So, I think there is (with some caveats) much in using the S21/L21 ratio as a crude proxy for Germanic and pre-Germanics in Britain.  IMO, the figure then may (its not clear) need some afjustment to allow for S21 that is pre-Germanic in Britain.  The S21 bit is not as safe as the L21 part of the idea IMO.  Anyway the main point is that English R1b still has a substantial proportion of L21, far higher than in the core Anglo-Saxon homelands.    Put it this way, given the lack fo Norwegian settlement in England (much more in Scotland, Ireland etc), I dont think nordic L21 is a big factor.   So, IMO most Englsih L21 is mainly due to a surviving pre-Germanci element scatterd through eveyr bit of England.    
« Last Edit: November 24, 2009, 05:24:38 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #20 on: November 24, 2009, 05:14:23 PM »

Alan,

I think you're right that U106 is heavy in the north German/Danish areas, but there is still about 50% of R1b unaccounted for there (U106 conjectured to run about 50% of R1b there). How many Danes have deep clade tested since L21 was discovered in '08? The Netherlands has shown recently that L21 exists there too.

I just think it's a bit odd that we don't see many Danish deep clade results nowadays.

We know Norway wasn't populated by Scots, so the L21 population had to get there somehow, most likely via the inlet between Denmark and Norway. From what I am reading on this forum, it seems now that the British population was decimated from plague and economical factors. If L21 in England is Briton, then the Anglo-Saxons had very little effect on the gene pool. But how does that make sense, unless L21 is the northern branch of P312 and is Germanic as well?
« Last Edit: November 24, 2009, 05:21:16 PM by NealtheRed » Logged

Y-DNA: R-Z255 (L159.2+) - Downing (Irish Sea)


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #21 on: November 24, 2009, 05:20:37 PM »

Authon
There is a lot of sense in that post and to the middle position you take.  The wipeout idea is crazy.  Land is worth nothing to even a couple of 100,000 conquerors if they do not have the several million tillers of the soil needed to use it.  There is no evidence for mass regeneration of woods and wastes so its pretty clear that the Britons became a big part of the peasant stock across Anglo-Saxon England.  

The point you make about the fact the Britons were invisible even where we know they lived from historical sources is a demonstration that lack of evidence is misleading.  There are huge periods where we know from history of frantic movements and wars where there is practically no traces.  

In Ireland not one domestic Iron Age house has been found although there were huge defensive ditches crossing the country, massive ritual sites and high staus metalwork in Ireland in that period.  In later 16th century AD Ireland there was something approaching total war which is richly recorded in historical sources but although we know there were 100s of thousands of Irish people, they are invisible.  Most material lost is ceramics and when people do not use cermacs they are often invisible to field walking.  When people use wicker walls that are driven into the ground only as deep as the topsoil but do not penetrate into the subsoil then a single ploughing would remove all traces of structures.  There is practically no decent land that has never been subject to the plough at some time.   

Personblly I think the British (except those in the north and west who had never become dependant on Roman culture) probably suffered a systems collapse when all the mass production and import of Roman goods etc ceased and A-S mateiral culture probably filled the void for both Germans and Celts.  History is full of ordinary native people dressing and using the material culture of their conquerors.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2009, 05:40:52 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #22 on: November 24, 2009, 05:24:09 PM »


Personblly I think the British (except those in the north and west who had never become dependant on Roman culture) probably suffered a systems collapse when all the mass production and import of Roman goods etc ceased and A-S mateiral culture probably filled the void for both Germans and Celts.  History is full of ordinary native people dressing and using the material culture of their conquerors.

This makes sense.
Logged

Y-DNA: R-Z255 (L159.2+) - Downing (Irish Sea)


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #23 on: November 24, 2009, 05:30:20 PM »

Alan,

I think you're right that U106 is heavy in the north German/Danish areas, but there is still about 50% of R1b unaccounted for there (U106 conjectured to run about 50% of R1b there). How many Danes have deep clade tested since L21 was discovered in '08? The Netherlands has shown recently that L21 exists there too.

I just think it's a bit odd that we don't see many Danish deep clade results nowadays.

We know Norway wasn't populated by Scots, so the L21 population had to get there somehow, most likely via the inlet between Denmark and Norway. From what I am reading on this forum, it seems now that the British population was decimated from plague and economical factors. If L21 in England is Briton, then the Anglo-Saxons had very little effect on the gene pool. But how does that make sense, unless L21 is the northern branch of P312 and is Germanic as well?

The Dutch L21 and U152 is nearly all on the south/west side of the original path of the Rhine and therfore in what was Gaulish territory.  The Dutch Lower Rhine (later part of the Roman emperial border) was actually well to the north of its present path starting on the coas tnear Katwits (not sure if that is correct spellng). 
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #24 on: November 24, 2009, 05:36:24 PM »

Alan,

I think you're right that U106 is heavy in the north German/Danish areas, but there is still about 50% of R1b unaccounted for there (U106 conjectured to run about 50% of R1b there). How many Danes have deep clade tested since L21 was discovered in '08? The Netherlands has shown recently that L21 exists there too.

I just think it's a bit odd that we don't see many Danish deep clade results nowadays.

We know Norway wasn't populated by Scots, so the L21 population had to get there somehow, most likely via the inlet between Denmark and Norway. From what I am reading on this forum, it seems now that the British population was decimated from plague and economical factors. If L21 in England is Briton, then the Anglo-Saxons had very little effect on the gene pool. But how does that make sense, unless L21 is the northern branch of P312 and is Germanic as well?

Even i if L21 is all Celtic, that leaves a hell of a lot of y-DNA that could be Anglo-Saxon.  The most obvious are U106 and various I clades. Atributing L21 to Britons only goes as far as showing a reasonable pre-Germaic survival in England.  Remember in England, unlike the Celtic fringe of the ises, L21 is far less dominant.  In fact, is it not thought to be less than a third of English R1b??
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.144 seconds with 18 queries.