Did the Anglo-Saxon Conquest Really Happen?

There is some debate amongst academics about the actual Germanic language spoken by the Anglo-Saxon migrants/invaders during the fifth century. The minority opinion is that there was a common ancestor that was spoken in northern Germany which these academics call Anglo-Frisian, so if you are interested then please read these two papers. Best to read Kortlandt`s paper first before tackling Colleran`s more specialist paper.



(4) (PDF) Old English and Old Frisian | Frederik Kortlandt - Academia.edu

Colleran2017.pdf (ed.ac.uk)

Chlodio said:

Please define 'gradual.' When did the Germanization of England begin and when did it end? I think you will find many people in this thread who would agree that the Germanization of England was a gradual process that took place between 400 and 700 CE. If you have different dates, please share them with us.

How advanced was the Germanization of England in 400? How many people living in Britain in 400 spoke German who were not laeti, foederati, or other Roman soldiers?

Was the Germanization of England accomplished mainly through genocide/ ethnic cleansing or through cultural conversion?

Click to expand...

Did you read my post you quoted? I would start with the migration of the Atrebates and Belgae up to the Vikings. However, it is clear that at least the British closest to Gaul were still speaking the main language of those Celts in the 1st century AD. Once conquered, the Britons would have no reason to start speaking 'German' until they left. The language shift would have happened after 400AD. Since I cannot use genetics as an argument, I'm going with cultural conversion as a best guess.

Davidius said:

But those coins, whether domestic or imported, show Celtic style and design, not Germanic. If those coins did come into Britain from the continent then this surely indicates a Celtic culture and language in the Belgic homelands.


True, but when the coins do include personal names those names are, without exception, Celtic.


Not an indicator of tribal affiliation perhaps but definitely an indication of ethnicity and, by association, language.

As you consistently demand sources and references, and appear to be quite content with Wikipedia as a valid source, consider these from the Wiki on the Belgae.

"It seems that, whatever their Germanic ancestry, at least some of the Belgic tribes spoke a variety of the Celtic Gaulish language as their main language by Caesar's time, and all of them used such languages in at least some contexts."

"While Caesar or his sources described the Belgae as distinctly different from the Gauls, Strabo stated that the differences between the Celts (Gauls) and Belgae, in countenance, language, politics and way of life was a small one, unlike the difference between the Aquitanians and Celts"

"However, most of the Belgic tribal and personal names recorded are identifiably Gaulish, including those of the Germani cisrhenani, and this is indeed also true of the tribes immediately over the Rhine at this time, such as the Tencteri and Usipetes. Surviving inscriptions also indicate that Gaulish was spoken in at least part of Belgic territory."

Belgae - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Click to expand...

I don't just use Wiki. Some examples from my posts above .

Davidius said:

But those coins, whether domestic or imported, show Celtic style and design, not Germanic. If those coins did come into Britain from the continent then this surely indicates a Celtic culture and language in the Belgic homelands.


True, but when the coins do include personal names those names are, without exception, Celtic.


Not an indicator of tribal affiliation perhaps but definitely an indication of ethnicity and, by association, language.

As you consistently demand sources and references, and appear to be quite content with Wikipedia as a valid source, consider these from the Wiki on the Belgae.

"It seems that, whatever their Germanic ancestry, at least some of the Belgic tribes spoke a variety of the Celtic Gaulish language as their main language by Caesar's time, and all of them used such languages in at least some contexts."

"While Caesar or his sources described the Belgae as distinctly different from the Gauls, Strabo stated that the differences between the Celts (Gauls) and Belgae, in countenance, language, politics and way of life was a small one, unlike the difference between the Aquitanians and Celts"

"However, most of the Belgic tribal and personal names recorded are identifiably Gaulish, including those of the Germani cisrhenani, and this is indeed also true of the tribes immediately over the Rhine at this time, such as the Tencteri and Usipetes. Surviving inscriptions also indicate that Gaulish was spoken in at least part of Belgic territory."

Belgae - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Click to expand...

The post you quoted does not use wiki .

If you read the works, you would realise that it appears the coins were not used for trade, but as gifts.

Further, much of the currency is Macedonian. I'm pretty certain that the Britons had neither a Greek culture or language.

Let me repeat the non wiki links you've dismissed .

Nick the Noodle said:

The post you quoted does not use wiki .

Click to expand...

I never said it did. For someone so insistent that others read your posts properly you appear not to extend that courtesy to others in return.

If you read the works, you would realise that it appears the coins were not used for trade, but as gifts.

Click to expand...

I have read the works you listed and, whilst I was already aware that Iron Age coinage was sometimes used as gift tokens, your own source states that "some may represent exchanges between the elite of each society.....". Some may is not the same as never was.
I'm not sure if you are being intellectually dishonest or if you just haven't read your own sources properly but, either way, your sources don't support your position.

Further, much of the currency is Macedonian. I'm pretty certain that the Britons had neither a Greek culture or language.

Click to expand...

Now you are distorting the information in your sources in an attempt to validate your hypothesis.
Your link states that some of the first European Iron Age coinage was based on Macedonian staters while others were based on other Greek issues. It also states that very few of these issues reached Britain. That's not "much of the currency" by anyone's measure. But we are not discussing the origins of coinage here so your point is both irrelevant and an attempt to confuse the issue at hand.

Let me repeat the non wiki links you've dismissed .

Click to expand...

Kindly point out one instance where I have dismissed one of your links.
Disagreeing with your viewpoint is not analogous to dismissing your sources. I question your interpretation of those sources, not their content.

The question remains unanswered, Why would a culturally, linguistically and ethnically Germanic culture (as you propose) use coinage with Celtic names and imagery, recovered from culturally Celtic contexts?

Davidius said:

I never said it did. For someone so insistent that others read your posts properly you appear not to extend that courtesy to others in return.

Click to expand...

But those opposing my opinion are NOT using sources. That's the problem. Even you only used one wiki source, while I have used multiple non wiki sources.

Davidius said:

I have read the works you listed and, whilst I was already aware that Iron Age coinage was sometimes used as gift tokens, your own source states that "some may represent exchanges between the elite of each society.....". Some may is not the same as never was.
I'm not sure if you are being intellectually dishonest or if you just haven't read your own sources properly but, either way, your sources don't support your position.

Click to expand...

There were never enough coins in Britain before Rome to be considered currency. The gift hypothesis remains valid, as per the papers quoted.

Davidius said:

Now you are distorting the information in your sources in an attempt to validate your hypothesis.
Your link states that some of the first European Iron Age coinage was based on Macedonian staters while others were based on other Greek issues. It also states that very few of these issues reached Britain. That's not "much of the currency" by anyone's measure. But we are not discussing the origins of coinage here so your point is both irrelevant and an attempt to confuse the issue at hand.

Click to expand...

A substantial number of the golden coins were Macedonian. If I were an Iron Age Warlord, I'm not spending them down the shops. These coins have value beyond their gold content.

Davidius said:

Kindly point out one instance where I have dismissed one of your links.
Disagreeing with your viewpoint is not analogous to dismissing your sources. I question your interpretation of those sources, not their content

Click to expand...

The fact that you used one wiki link, because I had used wiki, while not acknowledging the fact that I had used multiple non wiki links is disingenuous at best.

Davidius said:

The question remains unanswered, Why would a culturally, linguistically and ethnically Germanic culture (as you propose) use coinage with Celtic names and imagery, recovered from culturally Celtic contexts?

Click to expand...

Because they have value. Money is money.

I used to believe in an Anglo Saxon Invasion. It's why I became interested in King Arthur. I've several score books concerning that subject, but unlike my even more numerous library on WW2 tanks, most of the works I have on the subject are crap. Wilson and Blackett immediately comes to mind, because their books are so readable. Alcock and Morris are two more authors that have made headlines with said subject. They are best sellers.

The problem with the Anglo Saxon Invasion is the actual invasion sites. Let's consider Aelle of Sussex. He was the second Germanic conqueror Of Britain. His invasion ended with the capture of Sussex, which is but one county of modern England. The next invader is Cerdic. He gained Hampshire, yet another county. That leaves another 25 counties or so. Cerdic is interesting in that he has a British name, but conquers a Germanic named county. We don't really know about Cerdic, but a Germanic chieftain with a Celtic name sounds Belgae to me?

Once I realised that the invasion theory was more than suspect, I did a U turn and went non AS invasion.







However, as persuasive as Francis Prior is above, it does not explain the language shift. There is no mechanism to change the peasants to speak a different language. It's clear from Tacitus, the 'English' were speaking a Celtic language before the Roman invasion, and there is no compulsion for them to change during the occupation.

This meant a language shift from 'Celt' to 'German' from 400-600 AD. This is easily explained by invasion, but the subject that cannot be stated disproves this. For some reason, 'English' culture was already pro German. Some of this was probably from trade. Every other country around the North Sea (German ocean) spoke a Germanic language. However, it is clear that England were officially invaded by various Germanic tribes that were unlikely to speak the same 'German'. Jutes, Angles, Saxons and Frisians do not speak the same language.

When the Romans invaded Britannia, the Celts either retreated to Wales, Cornwall , and Scotland, or assimilated with Roman culture and became Romano-British. The Romano-British are the primary people that the Anglo-Saxons encountered when they started to settle, not the Celts. The primary language of the Romano-British was British Vulgar Latin, not a Celtic dialect.

Nick the Noodle said:

There were never enough coins in Britain before Rome to be considered currency.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. Currency is not defined by quantity. By this logic there were never enough torcs discovered in Britain to be considered jewelry.
Here is a list of Iron Age hoards, the majority of which contained coins, it does not include coins found as grave goods or single item finds.
But, just out of interest, how many coins do you think need to be found before they can be considered currency?

The gift hypothesis remains valid, as per the papers quoted.

Click to expand...

Again, no one has said the gift hypothesis isn't valid, just that a) it is extremely unlikely to be the sole use of currency at the time and b) the possibility of such use is unproven despite your attempts to inflate its importance and prevalence.

A substantial number of the golden coins were Macedonian.

Click to expand...

No. you are misinterpreting your own sources (again). The Gallo-Belgic gold coins were not Macedonian, their style and design was based on Macedonian staters and associated Greek coinage. They were not made in Macedonia, used Macedonian derived metal or were crafted by Macedonian craftsmen. Additionally very few (as stated in your source) cannot be interpreted as a substantial number (your comment).
The Gallo-Belgic coins were mostly minted in Belgic territory on the continent. According to you the Belgae were linguistically (and presumably culturally)Germanic. So, Again, why would a Germanic people mint coinage and export that coinage to their Germanic kinfolk across the channel but put images and writing of another language and culture (Celtic)on those coins? until you can provide a satisfactory answer to that your hypothesis is dead in the water.
And please don't repeat your facile answer that "money is money so they valued it regardless". The Greeks, the Romans, the Ottomans, the Spanish and the British empires all used their own alphabets and imagery on the coinage they sent out to their conquered and colonial territories. Why did the Belgae do it differently? Simple answer: they didn't because both the continental and Briton Belgae were culturally and linguistically Celtic.

If I were an Iron Age Warlord, I'm not spending them down the shops.

Click to expand...

No, you would be spending them at the ports, donating them at the temples, hiring extra soldiers, paying bribes, giving gifts, commissioning jewelry, and buying livestock. You know, all the things that currency is so very useful for.

The fact that you used one wiki link, because I had used wiki, while not acknowledging the fact that I had used multiple non wiki links is disingenuous at best.

Click to expand...

Didn't acknowledge your links? I replied to your posts using information specifically stated in those links, how much more acknowledgement do you want?
But if it will make you happy: "I hereby acknowledge Nick the Noodle's use of non Wikipedia links and sources in the Historum thread Did the Anglo-Saxon conquest really happen?" Happy now?

As for my sources I will refer you to the books Europe between the Oceans: 9000 BC – AD 1000. , On the Ocean: The Mediterranean and the Atlantic from Prehistory to AD 1500 and Iron age communities in Britain (4th edition), all by Professor Sir Barry Cunliffe. If you require specific chapter and page references I will be more than happy to provide them but in summary He says that Belgic coins were definitely used as currency as we would understand it due to the prevalence of finds associated with a mercantile context. He does examine the gifting theory of coinage but correctly points out that this was (possibly) only one of the uses for it. He also eschews the use of the term Belgic in southern Britain (outside of accepted numismatic nomenclature) as a great deal of the archeological similarities between continental and British "Belgic" tribes can be explained by the Britons continental origins and continued cross channel trade and diplomacy, he posits a separate tribal identity for the southern British tribe despite shared history and origins with the continental Belgae.

Davidius said:

Nonsense. Currency is not defined by quantity. By this logic there were never enough torcs discovered in Britain to be considered jewelry.
Here is a list of Iron Age hoards, the majority of which contained coins, it does not include coins found as grave goods or single item finds.

List of Iron Age hoards in Great Britain - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But, just out of interest, how many coins do you think need to be found before they can be considered currency?

Click to expand...

You're assuming all coins are currency. When coins are limited, they have status.

Davidius said:

Again, no one has said the gift hypothesis isn't valid, just that a) it is extremely unlikely to be the sole use of currency at the time and b) the possibility of such use is unproven despite your attempts to inflate its importance and prevalence.

Click to expand...

There are not enough coins known about to be used like the Roman Denarius.

Davidius said:

No. you are misinterpreting your own sources (again). The Gallo-Belgic gold coins were not Macedonian, their style and design was based on Macedonian staters and associated Greek coinage. They were not made in Macedonia, used Macedonian derived metal or were crafted by Macedonian craftsmen. Additionally very few (as stated in your source) cannot be interpreted as a substantial number (your comment).

Click to expand...

Fair enough.

Davidius said:

The Gallo-Belgic coins were mostly minted in Belgic territory on the continent. According to you the Belgae were linguistically (and presumably culturally)Germanic. So, Again, why would a Germanic people mint coinage and export that coinage to their Germanic kinfolk across the channel but put images and writing of another language and culture (Celtic)on those coins? until you can provide a satisfactory answer to that your hypothesis is dead in the water.
And please don't repeat your facile answer that "money is money so they valued it regardless". The Greeks, the Romans, the Ottomans, the Spanish and the British empires all used their own alphabets and imagery on the coinage they sent out to their conquered and colonial territories. Why did the Belgae do it differently? Simple answer: they didn't because both the continental and Briton Belgae were culturally and linguistically Celtic.

Click to expand...

Can you an example of Celtic language on Belgic coins that is not a name?

Davidius said:

No, you would be spending them at the ports, donating them at the temples, hiring extra soldiers, paying bribes, giving gifts, commissioning jewelry, and buying livestock. You know, all the things that currency is so very useful for.

Click to expand...

Big items perhaps, but not for everyday sundry items. The rarity of coins makes that highly improbable.

Davidius said:

Didn't acknowledge your links? I replied to your posts using information specifically stated in those links, how much more acknowledgement do you want?
But if it will make you happy: "I hereby acknowledge Nick the Noodle's use of non Wikipedia links and sources in the Historum thread Did the Anglo-Saxon conquest really happen?" Happy now?

Click to expand...

Davidius said:

As for my sources I will refer you to the books Europe between the Oceans: 9000 BC – AD 1000. , On the Ocean: The Mediterranean and the Atlantic from Prehistory to AD 1500 and Iron age communities in Britain (4th edition), all by Professor Sir Barry Cunliffe. If you require specific chapter and page references I will be more than happy to provide them but in summary He says that Belgic coins were definitely used as currency as we would understand it due to the prevalence of finds associated with a mercantile context. He does examine the gifting theory of coinage but correctly points out that this was (possibly) only one of the uses for it. He also eschews the use of the term Belgic in southern Britain (outside of accepted numismatic nomenclature) as a great deal of the archeological similarities between continental and British "Belgic" tribes can be explained by the Britons continental origins and continued cross channel trade and diplomacy, he posits a separate tribal identity for the southern British tribe despite shared history and origins with the continental Belgae.

Click to expand...

Obviously I cannot comment on books I don't own, or have access to.

Here's a decent paper on coins that muddies the waters further. The inscriptions on the coins are not helpful to determine the language spoken by the peoples involved.

Chlodio said:

Peter is asking 'Is Germanness something one is born with or is it a culture that one can learn?' When we say that 'Celtic and Latin disappeared from Britain and only Anglo-Saxon survived,' are we saying that 'Ancient bloodlines were wiped out in a genocide' or are we saying that 'people abandoned their Celtic and Latin culture and adopted the Anglo-Saxon culture?'

Click to expand...

Quite. I am also suggesting that what we think of as Anglo-Saxon culture is actually a hybridised culture that owes something to the Germanic groups that came here in the post-Roman period, something to the people that were already living here when they arrived and rather more to developments on the near Continent, where Germanic identities appear to have replaced Roman ones as the dominant means of expressing power.

I think it no coincidence that the parts of Britain that adopted Anglo-Saxon culture are the same parts of Britain that have always been most open to Continental influence (basically, everywhere south and east of the Tees Exe line). The geographical distribution of this new culture does not match the 'westward advance' model derived from the close reading of the documentary sources that dominated post-War historiography.

Are you using hyperbole here because I have never come across any text book to describe the Adventus Saxonum so?

Click to expand...

I'm sure you have. You routinely quote scholars who argue this (or elements of this) and there are many more, whether or not you have read them. My summary was deliberately light-hearted, but the essential elements - binary ethnic opposition, a war (or wars) in which the warlike Anglo-Saxons ultimately defeat the largely defenceless Britons and spread their language, culture and political dominance across the country by force, a shackling of archaeology to historical narratives and the tendency to view 'Anglo-Saxon' cemeteries as the passive indicators of an incursive culture - accurately capture the frameworks of the 1970s and before.

You have always championed this approach. In this thread you link to Richard Coates, himself a champion of an ethnocentric understanding of post-Roman political and social history. You have previously used words like 'swamped' when discussing the scale of Germanic migration and its impact on the Britons. You are of the majority view on Historum and fair play to you.

You also queried the term 'Germanic'. I actually agree with you here. There is a growing school of thought that seeks to dispute the usefulness of the term 'Germanic' in post-Roman historical discourse, partly because it risks accepting as accurate and then perpetuating the cultural prejudices and rampant 'othering' of Roman writers and partly because it keeps getting appropriated by the far right. These are not the hand-wringing whines of politically correct scholars in their ivory towers - the scholarship is heavyweight and, in part at least, persuasive (IMO). That said I disagree with the new thinking. I have no issue about the use of the terms 'Germanic' or 'Anglo-Saxon' (a term that is also coming in for increasing stick, but I do think we have to be careful to be clear about precisely what we mean when we use them. In this thread, I think there are a number of different views as to what these descriptive terms mean and I suspect that most of us (me included) assume that their interpretation is a) understood, b) shared by everyone else because c) it is so plainly obvious.

It would be diverting us from the OP to discuss that further, but one day it might be useful to have that debate in another thread.

Chlodio said:

Why are the only two choices either a pre-existing Germanic presence or a language shift caused by invasion? I've never heard anyone else argue for a significant Germanic element prior to the Roman departure. (There was a small Germanic presence in Britain, but not a significant one.) As I understand the controversy one side says the language shift occurred due to genocide/ ethnic cleansing while the other side attributes the language shift to cultural assimilation. (My terms - I find invasion, migration, change, continuity, etc to be hopelessly vague). You say yourself the language shift occurred between 400 and 600. I agree. Both genocide or cultural assimilation are possible in a long window like that. What argument do you have against Celtic or Latin speaking Britons adopting the language and culture of Anglo-Saxon immigrants who arrived after 400?

Click to expand...

As far as language goes, Stephen Oppenheimer makes a case for at least elements of the English language being used in Britain before the Advent. It's in his book, Origins of the British, which is otherwise generally concerned with genetics. More tongue in cheek, but still fairly convincing, is M J Harpers 'The History of Britain Revealed', which states the same.

As far as the OP is concerned, even if you take the AS Chronicle at face value, which you shouldn't, an invasion doesn't explain the language shift. Hengist and Horsa are almost certainly myths. The next conqueror, Aelle, conquers but one county, Sussex. Next is Cerdic who conquers Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. He is the first leader who can reasonably verified as actually existed. Cuthwulf, grandson of Cerdic, takes a couple more counties in the SE in 571AD. The next big battle, Deorham, is in 577AD, which gives the Anglo Saxons control over the SW. If the language of most of Britain had become English by 600AD, these battles are too late to do so, without ethnic cleansing. There is no evidence to support that.

Over time I have changed my opinion at least twice. First I believed in the invasion theory, with a King Arthur resistance figure attempting to halt its flow. Spent the best part of 2 decades trying to seperate reality from myth, without success.
Then I went the complete other way, and believed in no invasion at all, as per Francis Pryor in Britain AD. Videos above.
Now I believe there major raids, but after Rome left, Britain looked around at who to trade and have cultural links with. With the exception of what is now Cornwall and Wales, Britain south of the Picts adopted Germanic practices. The is basically the approach used by Robin Fleming in her excellent book Britain After Rome.

Calebxy said:

Yes. The word for 'king'.

Click to expand...

Rex is a Roman word found on some Celtic coins. Can't find the P-Celtic word 'Brenin' on any of them?

Now's your chance to reference your post .

Davidius said:

Nonsense. Currency is not defined by quantity.

Click to expand...

However, 2.3 million coins can be considered currency. I was wrong in my original assessment on the use of coins pre Rome.

From around 60 BC to 50 BC huge numbers of the coin known as Gallo-Belgic E were struck, with a stylised horse on one side and a blank obverse design. It has been estimated that about 5,000 kg of gold was needed to produce this coinage, almost certainly to pay troops to fight Caesar in Gaul. Large numbers of this coin have been found in Britain, spread from the south coast to the Humber, confirming Caesar's comment that Britain was a base for his enemies in Gaul.

Click to expand...

St Edmundsbury Local History - Coinage, mints and tokens of the area

They were replaced with Gallo-Belgic E (58-50 BC) which is possibly the largest series ever minted by the Celts. At the time of writing (2019) there are 1,019 known reverse dies, and over 2,100 known coins, leading to an estimate of 2,314 reverse dies (technically, somewhere between 1,778 and 3,318 dies, with 95% confidence). Assuming that one die could make 1,000 coins, total production would have been around 2.3 million coins.

Click to expand...

Calebxy said:

The word you should be looking for is 'rigonos', which appears, for example, on some of the coins of Tasciovanus, the father of Cunobelinus.

Click to expand...

Thanks. Was able to verify that.