Lowland Scotland constitutes the second Anglo-Saxon State on the Island of Britain.

Joined Feb 2009
7,422 Posts | 836+
Eastern PA
I came across this post on Quora and thought it interesting.

I asked the author, Mark Simon Hockey, (MA. Philosophy, Politics, and Economics, St Edmund Hall, Oxford) to post it here. Mr. Hockey granted permission for me to post it.


The greatest “dirty secret” of Scotland is that Lowland Scotland constitutes the second Anglo-Saxon State on the Island of Britain.

As Philip Brian Hall has observed in his excellent answer, Sassenach (or Saxon) referred originally to the ethnic and linguistic English inhabitants of that part of southern Caledonia, which later became Lowland Scotland, not to the ethnic English living in England. I would like to explain how this came about as it is a fascinating story, little known in England and entirely suppressed by Nationalists in Scotland. The Gaels (descendants of Irish invaders, concentrated in the Highlands and Islands) only learned English in the 19C, whereas for lowland Caledonia, English has been their mother tongue for the last 1,200 years.

Have you ever wondered why English was spoken at the Scottish Court even before the union with England, under James I? And why Wales, ruled by England off and on since Norman times, and with half the population of Scotland, has perhaps twenty times more native Welsh speakers than Scotland has Gaelic speakers? And why you can easily understand someone from Inverness, but sometimes barely make out a Glaswegian? I hope to reveal all.

Edinburgh is likely named after King Edwin of Northumbria, the overlord of all English kings (Bretwalda) born 586 AD, who made it his Capital. So Edinburgh was, in a way, for a time the Capital of England, before Scotland ever existed. The Northumbrian English conquered southern Caledonia from the Welsh, at a time when the Irish invaders (Scots) had not yet taken all of the more northerly Caledonia from the native Picts. Welsh was anyway the language originally spoken in Lowland Scotland, indeed spoken both sides of Hadrian’s Wall until it was replaced by English. Lowland Scotland has never much spoken Gaelic, it largely went straight from Welsh to English. Although Gaelic and Welsh are both Celtic languages, they are (and were) no more intelligible to each other than English and German today (both Teutonic languages).

The name given by the Teutonic conquerors for a Romanised Celt is “Walas”, from which we get the name for Wales, the Wallace clan (from SW Scotland- so yes, the greatest hero of Scottish Independence “Braveheart “, was a Welshman, certainly in ancestry and probably in speech). It also gives us the name for the Latin (now French) speaking part of Belgium (Wallonia), one of the Latin (now Romanian) speaking areas of the Balkans (Walachia), the second part of the name for the county of Cornwall, and even the nut introduced to Celtic Britain by the Romans (Walnut).

Before the arrival of the English and Scots, SW Caledonia was part of the kingdom of the Strathclyde Britons and SE Caledonia the kingdom of Gododdin, both spoke Brythonic Celtic (or Welsh). Strathclyde had never been conquered or occupied by any Gaelic-speaking Scots, all of whom came from Ireland. The very name for Strathclyde derives from the Welsh, “Ystrad Clud” (Ystrad means “vale”, “clud” means “sheltered”) it was conquered by the Scots in the 11C but remained Welsh-speaking until the 13C.

The other clue that English has been spoken in Lowland Scotland almost as long as it has been spoken in England is that it comes from an ancient branch of Northumbrian English called Lallans. And just look at all the clearly English Clan names, Anderson, Ayton, Aitkinhead, Armstrong, Crawford, Cunningham, Bannerman, Davidson, Elphinstone Edmonstone, etc, (and I haven’t even gone beyond “E” in the list!) In fact well over half the present SNP Westminster MPs bear “sassanach” surnames, eg Black, Blackman, Blackford,etc as well as the Party Leadership, Salmond and Sturgeon, of course. The clue to the ancient lineage of Lallans is that modern speakers of Received Pronunciation can barely understand Glaswegian. Yet, the English spoken in the Highlands and Islands is, like Irish English, perfectly intelligible to people from London. Is this not a paradox? And the explanation is that the longer a language follows its own separate development, the more different it becomes from the original (sort of the same thing to language as the genetic mutation rate is to the formation of new species in evolution) and the Gaelic areas adopted English only in the 19C, whereas it was the mother tongue of the English settlers in Lowland Caledonia from the 7C.

By way of illustrating this important point, the English had themselves arrived from Germany after 445AD and continental Saxons, Angles, Frisians and Franks could still understand the English until about 750–800 AD. This is why the Pope was able to use English missionaries like St Boniface (or Winfrith, born near Crediton in Devon) to convert continental Germans- indeed this English cleric is known as “The Apostle of Germany”. As he put it “for we are of one blood and one bone with you”. (Do look up St Boniface on Wikipedia, he is probably the most significant Englishman that no one has ever heard of, and hard to think of any Englishman before Churchill who played a greater role in the destiny of continental Europe). Much of N. W. Europe was evangelised by Anglo-Saxons. Even the patron saint of Finland is an Englishman.

Getting back to Lallans, or Lowland Scots English (the language of Robbie Burns), this developed separately from mainstream English. It may derive from an old English word meaning something like “unclear or hard to understand”. The Dutch word “lollen”means to mumble, “Lollards” (those proto Protestant English, who “muttered” (perhaps the closest word in modern English) against the Roman Church derive from the same root. It has also simply been said to derive from the area of Scotland where it was spoken, “the lowlands”. Lallans began it’s separate development from mainstream English after the Vikings took most of Northumbria, from around 800AD, and cut off the unconquered English in what is now SE Scotland, Lothian, and Bamburgh, from the rest of the English speakers of Britain, to the South of what had become Viking territory.

So Wessex was NOT “The Last Kingdom”, to survive, both Bamburgh and Anglo-Saxon Scotland also successfully retained their independence from the Vikings, but only Bamburgh and the rest of what became modern Northumbria was later reincorporated into the English State after 927 when Athelstan (grandson of Alfred the Great of Wessex) united all of England by defeating the Viking kingdom of York, and his successors deposing Eric Bloodaxe, the last Viking king of York, ally of Thorfinn Skullsplitter of Orkney (another Norse charmer, they don’t make names like that anymore).

In the intervening 200 years between the fall of most of Northumbria to the Vikings and the West Saxon reconquest of the whole of England, which established the modern English State, the English who had been cut off in Lowland Scotland had, in order to survive, allied themselves with their fellow Christians, the Scots, who had come from Ireland to invade northern Caledonia (inhabited originally by the Picts) at about the same time as the English had invaded Southern Caledonia. And given the choice of heathen Viking rule (by kings with names like Eric Bloodaxe) or incorporating yourself into a single State with the Christian Scots from Ireland, the Caledonian English of course chose to become part of Scotland, and they were natural allies, both Scots and English were Christian and both were being attacked by the same horrific enemy, the Vikings, who had actually seized Dublin and the Hebrides. Thus, by the time the West Saxon liberators reached the Tweed, after AD 927, those ancient English subjects of what had once been Northern Northumbria were now part of the new Kingdom of Scotland, so the Northern part of what had been Northumbria, including its old Capital, “Edwin’s Burgh”, was permanently lost to England, and its people became the only Anglo-Saxons never to become part of the English Unitary State. But they were, in blood, language and culture, Northumbrian English, and Gaelic was never much spoken in their part of Southern Scotland, which today includes both the largest city (Glasgow) and the Capital. They adopted tartans, bagpipes etc. A great Anglo-Gaelic cultural fusion took place in which the Gaels ultimately adopted English (but only in the 18C and 19C) and the Sassenachs (or English-speaking inhabitants of Southern Caledonia) accepted the Irish Clan system and tartan dress, etc.

This is why modern English ears understand Highland Scots and Irish English infinitely better than they understand Lowland Scots, spoken by the descendants of the original English invaders of Britain. The Gaels of the Highlands only adopted English in the 18-19C, so the English they adopted was essentially modern English, whereas in Glasgow they speak the descendant of ancient Lallans, a form of English with a thousand years of separate development from Southern English. Southern English people also struggle to understand Ulster English for the same reason, many of the 17C Protestant colonists to Ulster came from Lowland Scotland and spoke the ancient Lallans variety of English.

And do you know that you also speak Lallans, if only once a year?

If you want to consider some Lallans that even the southern English will know, look over the words of “Auld Lang Syne”, we all sing it at New Year. It is at the heart of Scots culture, yet also at the heart of the English, and it includes pure Lallans, ancient English. It is one of those rare moments when Scotland, old Northumbria and all of the rest of England express in song, every New Year, their shared heritage.

Wikipedia it and you can see the modern translation of the old words, ancient even when Robbie Burns copied it down for the first time from an old man, around 1788. And what could be more appropriate to have set to an ancient tongue, than words which remind us that ancient friendships should be remembered, and made central to our present lives.

[edit 29.1.20] Rather moving that today this was the song, with arms joined across the chamber, that not only British MEPs, but many from other Countries sang immediately after the European Parliament had voted for the Brexit agreement. The words had been printed off and widely circulated within the chamber. MEPs from the Irish Republic were especially warm, joining in, being of course more familiar with Auld Lang Syne than most Europeans.
 
Joined Nov 2010
14,406 Posts | 4,143+
Cornwall
The concept is interesting but I'm still wondering how they got there. I can understand that Saxon invaders seemed to be so insidious in spreading - as against the Roman army/fort/wall - that we don't really know how they took over England either.

But to my inexpert eyes there seems to be a lot that's been supposed or made to 'fit' there - be interesting to see what our Anglo Saxon experts say
 
Joined Feb 2009
7,422 Posts | 836+
Eastern PA
I do not know either, but it appears to be a fairly good fit to what is.
 
Joined Jan 2008
111 Posts | 71+
Springfield, Massachusetts, United States
Last edited:
Thanks for the information in the initial topic. I'd known that the old-English speaking Anglo-Saxon Kingdom of Northumbria extended into the eastern Scottish Lowlands. And that the Brythonic-speaking Kingdom of Strathclyde/Cumbria existed simultaneously in the western Scottish Lowlands. I think that for awhile Northumbria and Strathclyde/Cumbria were united under a Northumbrian king, but they later separated when Northumbria became a Danish Viking state, although the northern part remained autonomous under a native ruler. Rory Stewart's book The Marches: A Borderland Journey (2015) gives a good account of this historical period.

I suppose that the modern Scottish Borders district would approximately correspond to the northern area of old Anglo-Saxon Northumbria, and the modern Scottish Galloway district might approximately correspond to the old Brythonic Cumbria/Strathclyde kingdom. I'm not altogether sure, but Cumbria might have been the northern part of the old Brythonic kingdom of Rheged. Glasgow seems to be right about in the middle, and has probably seen much immigration from the rest of Scotland, as well as from Ireland. While Edinburgh likely was part of old Anglo-Saxon Northumbria until it became part of Scotland. Please don't take this as absolute certainty. It's just the impression I've gotten from reading Scottish history.

But it's the first time I've seen the language situation set forth this way. And it makes sense that although the eastern Scottish Lowlands was the first Scottish area to speak English, they had their own dialect (the Scots language), and it became the basis for their present language. While the Gaelic-speaking areas (northwestern Scotland, Dalriada) and Pictish/Brythonic-speaking areas (northeastern Scotland, Fortrieu,as well as the western Scottish Lowlands) didn't adopt the English language until a considerably later date, and so took on a more recent version of English. It's an interesting observation. One of the quirks of linguistic history.
 
Joined Jul 2009
11,426 Posts | 1,453+
Last edited:
There are other threads concerning 'Germanic' settlement in the east of Britain, as well as the Old North, and on Gododdin which/who appeared to be the inhabitants of the territory involved here.

Traprain Law has been referred to as a hoard of Roman era gifts and bribes from the management of their northern frontier in Britannia and I don't know if that corresponds well to the OP. In any event, it may have been known as an attraction for the sub-Roman military elite that remained after about AD 410. It could have been seen as a royal treasure if you will.

For some decades before that, after the 360s, there were sizable numbers of military personnel from Germany in the north, both regulars and laeti, as well as mercenaries (?), who remained there. There is some opinion that there is no official evidence for either foederati or laeti in Britain, but it can be assumed that they in fact were there.

As the Angles gradually advanced up the east coast (Lindsey; Deira), contact with other Germans, at least with Allemani, may have made for a blend of military settlers - a critical mass of newer arrivals in the 5th to 6th centuries. It is very possible that the arriving Angles and the Germanic settlers already there had conflict over resources and land, but that was sort of the way of the world. How all that may have affected Bernicia and Northumbria in their early stages of formation is a possible topic for discussion here, IMO.

I will have to get out my copy of JNL Myres. :)
 
Joined Nov 2008
2,795 Posts | 1,085+
England
I think that for awhile Northumbria and Strathclyde/Cumbria were united under a Northumbrian king, but they later separated when Northumbria became a Danish Viking state, although the northern part remained autonomous under a native ruler.
There is some evidence that the powerful Northumbrian kings Aethelfrith (593-617) and Edwin (617-633/4) may have reduced Strathclyde to vassalage, but the two kingdoms were never actually united.
 
Joined Jul 2009
11,426 Posts | 1,453+
So, was the second Anglo-Saxon state Bernicia or Northumbria? Or was it another? Mark Simon Hockey, in his article above, seems to focus on language more than other factors, and the first "kingdoms" of the Heptarchy would indicate that there were multiple Anglo-Saxon states/kingdoms established in Britain before the later two that incorporated parts of lowland Scotland.

Just a question for discussion.
 
Joined Nov 2008
2,795 Posts | 1,085+
England
So, was the second Anglo-Saxon state Bernicia or Northumbria? Or was it another? Mark Simon Hockey, in his article above, seems to focus on language more than other factors, and the first "kingdoms" of the Heptarchy would indicate that there were multiple Anglo-Saxon states/kingdoms established in Britain before the later two that incorporated parts of lowland Scotland.

Just a question for discussion.
There were two kingdoms north of the Humber which formed in the late 6th century, one called Bernicia which is the northern one and Deira which was towards the south, centred on Yorkshire. Aethelfrith whom I mentioned ruled originally over Bernicia when in 604 he conquered Deira. He can be regarded as the first king Of Northumbria, but it would not be called that at the time. He may have styled himself as "King of the Angles" but we do not know for sure.
 
Joined Nov 2008
2,795 Posts | 1,085+
England
And to muddy the waters further, The northern king Ecgfrith, from 664-670/1 was sub-king of Deira, then he gained kingship over Bernicia also but was styled rex Humbronensium, king of the Humbrians, at the council of Hatfield in 679 or 680. This may well indicate he held territory south of the Humber, possibly Lindsey.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pikeshot1600
Joined Jan 2014
3,887 Posts | 1,282+
Westmorland
The greatest “dirty secret” of Scotland is that Lowland Scotland constitutes the second Anglo-Saxon State on the Island of Britain.

I'd argue that calling it a 'State' goes too far and risks conflating language, culture and politics.

Lowland eastern Scotland - basically everything between the Tweed and the Forth and up to about Stirling - has been linguistically and culturally English since the era of political domination by Northumbria in the sixth century.

Bernicia - the northern polity that formed part of Northumbria and gave Northumbria its most successful dynasty - is perhaps the key to understanding all of this. Roman engineers seem to have run Hadrian's Wall through Votadini territory, sundering a chunk of land from Tyne to Tees from the rest of their territory further north. In the post-Roman period, the southern part of what had been Votadini territory (straddling both sides of the Wall) emerged as Bernicia. The name 'Bernicia' is an anglicisation of the Brittonic form Bryneich, suggesting that prior to expansion by Anglo-Saxon groups, that territory was British.

The northern part of Votadini territory became Gododdin - the name of the latter derives from the former.

So, you've got two post-Roman Brittonic territories on land that had once been held by a single Brittonic Iron Age tribe (or confederation of tribes). What the Anglo-Saxons essentially did was to anglicise the whole region. Bryneich became Bernicia, a formidable and highly successful Anglo-Saxon polity that grew to absorb both Brittonic Bryneich but also Brittonic Gododdin. That meant there was a large Old-English speaking polity between the Tees and at least the Forth.

However, by Bede's time (731) it already appears that Northumbria's greatest territorial extent was in the rear view mirror. The problems pre-dated the Vikings. You've got Picts to the north, Britons to the west and Irish to the north west. There was significant intermarriage between the various dynasties, but also lots of jockeying for hegemony, although what none of them appear to have been very good at was seeking to occupy one another's territory for the long term.

The Vikings ultimately break Northumbrian political hegemony, but they never permanently occupied the Bernician heartlands. These therefore remained linguistically and culturally English.

The Irish (assuming that is what they were - there is an argument that Dal Riata was always a polity on both sides of the sea) ultimately absorbed the Picts culturally and linguistically, giving rise to Scotland. Scotland went on to ultimately absorb both the northern bit of Bernicia (what is now Lothian) and Brittonic Strathclyde.

The other observation is that Edinburgh is most unlikely to be named for Edwin of Deira. The root is most likely Brittonic. It appears as Etin or Eidyn and survives in a couole fo other place names in that area, inclduing Carriden.
 
Joined Nov 2008
2,795 Posts | 1,085+
England
The Irish (assuming that is what they were - there is an argument that Dal Riata was always a polity on both sides of the sea) ultimately absorbed the Picts culturally and linguistically, giving rise to Scotland. Scotland went on to ultimately absorb both the northern bit of Bernicia (what is now Lothian) and Brittonic Strathclyde.
This is new to me and interesting. Would you mind telling us all a little bit more about this?
 
Joined Jul 2009
11,426 Posts | 1,453+
Last edited:
@Aelfwine
@Peter Graham

The linguistic aspect which the Hockey article seems to emphasize may be his determinant of a state. All these early "kingdoms" were IMO tribal entities that may, or may not, have had some minimal connection to a Romano-British administrative unit that might be seen to give them some coherence.

One of them, Deira, may be seen to date from the mid 5th century. By around AD 600, Edwin had, IIRC, accepted baptism (or whatever happened at the time) and some degree of early medieval political maturation would have been achieved, Christianity being such an important institution.

In the 5th century, settled Germanic laeti may have been instrumental in the establishments of these tribal kingdoms, even though many of them were of different tribal backgrounds. The Alemanni in Yorkshire are the example JNL Myres mentions most prominently. Former laeti of whatever background would have been useful to Deira. Michael Jones as I recall mentions the fast-moving history of the 5th century in Britain. According to Myres, at a later time, Edwin and his followers may have seen themselves as heirs to the authority of the dux Britanniarum in the north of sub-Roman Britain.

Further north, Bernicia may date from the mid 6th century as an Anglo-Saxon state. One difference between Deira to the south and Bernicia north of it was the economic base. Deira was characterized by land acquisition among the A-S elite. In the north, as the Anglo-Saxons were initially mostly along the coast, the situation was more a matter of collecting renders from the native (Celtic) population. Celtic dialects and place names continued in Bernicia moreso than among the Germanic elements in Deira to the south. As such, lowland Scotland would have been a "hybrid state" with multiple languages and a more primitive economy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kotromanic
Joined Jan 2014
3,887 Posts | 1,282+
Westmorland
Last edited:
This is new to me and interesting. Would you mind telling us all a little bit more about this?
Do you mean about Dal Riata? I'd have to dig out references as it is a while since I looked into this, but in broad terms the argument runs that Q-Celtic (the language that lies behind Irish and Gaelic) was not simply a language of Ireland but was also spoken in mainland Britain.

The extent to which it was spoken across mainland Britain is disputed. According to the more strident proponents of the theory, it was widely spoken, perhaps being marginalised in the late Iron Age by new groups who spoke P-Celtic. A handful of place-names well away from what is now Scotland may hint at this. A good example is Eboracon, which may mean 'place abounding in yew trees' - a good description for the vale of York. However, the first element is Q-Celtic ibor ('yew trees') where one might expect to see a name derived from P-Celtic ywen. The second element looks to be the ubiquitous Brittonic 'aco-' which carries the sense of 'lots'. Another example is Crummock Water, which derives from crumbaco - 'lots of bends'. Other names work as well, or better with a Q-Celtic etymology than a P-Celtic one.

Even if we don't want to go that far, the idea that Dal Riata was a single, Q-Celtic polity spanning the Irish Sea at its narrowest point has some legs, especially when one considers that seas were routes rather than barriers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aelfwine
Joined Jan 2014
3,887 Posts | 1,282+
Westmorland
@Aelfwine
@Peter Graham

The linguistic aspect which the Hockey article seems to emphasize may be his determinant of a state. All these early "kingdoms" were IMO tribal entities that may, or may not, have had some minimal connection to a Romano-British administrative unit that might be seen to give them some coherence.

One of them, Deira, may be seen to date from the mid 5th century. By around AD 600, Edwin had, IIRC, accepted baptism (or whatever happened at the time) and some degree of early medieval political maturation would have been achieved, Christianity being such an important institution.

The origins of Deira are intriguing and I have often wondered if its territorial extent was similar to that of the Parisi, a pre-Roman group who appear to have had somewhat different customs to their neighbours.

In the 5th century, settled Germanic laeti may have been instrumental in the establishments of these tribal kingdoms, even though many of them were of different tribal backgrounds. The Alemanni in Yorkshire are the example JNL Myres mentions most prominently. Former laeti of whatever background would have been useful to Deira. Michael Jones as I recall mentions the fast-moving history of the 5th century in Britain. According to Myres, at a later time, Edwin and his followers may have seen themselves as heirs to the authority of the dux Britanniarum in the north of sub-Roman Britain.

Myres was a fine scholar, but his work is a bit long in the tooth now. If you haven't read it check out David Rollason's book on Northumbria.

I suspect that argument about Edwin's pretensions to being something akin to a dux is based in Bede's mention of him being accompanied by a chap bearing a tufa, which many commentators have taken to be some sort of Roman symbol of power. It's possible, but my guess is that he very much saw himself as a king in his own right rather than as an official in the Roman tradition. Something with Roman antecedents may have survived as part of the regalia of office, but whether that represented a conscious choice to appear Roman seems rather doubtful, IMO. Presumably the Franks (who really had, erm, 'inherited' power from the Romans) were doing something similar and I think we have to be alive to the fact that Anglo-Saxon England was part of a wider North Sea world and was influenced by what was going on in what had been Gaul.

Further north, Bernicia may date from the mid 6th century as an Anglo-Saxon state. One difference between Deira to the south and Bernicia north of it was the economic base. Deira was characterized by land acquisition among the A-S elite. In the north, as the Anglo-Saxons were initially mostly along the coast, the situation was more a matter of collecting renders from the native (Celtic) population. Celtic dialects and place names continued in Bernicia moreso than among the Germanic elements in Deira to the south. As such, lowland Scotland would have been a "hybrid state" with multiple languages and a more primitive economy.

I'd say we know too little of early Deira and early Bernicia to make such assumptions, although that doesn't mean that you aren't right. Place names are tricky, as we don't know how old many of them are. There is a tendency to assume that Brittonic place-names must be older than English ones. That may well be right, but I looked at the relative densities of Brittonic place names in lowland Scotland and, wierdly, they are thicker on the ground in supposedly Anglophone eastern lowland Scotland than they are in Brittonic Strathclyde. There are lots of potential reasons for that, but it's an oddity.

I'm not sure that early Bernicia would have had a more 'primitive' economy that early Deira. What do you argue that the differences were? Either way, Bernicia came to dominate Deira. Aside from Edwin, the big names of early Northumbrian kingship (Aethelfrith, Oswald, Oswy, Ecgfrith and perhaps Aldfrith) were all Bernician.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pikeshot1600
Joined Nov 2008
2,795 Posts | 1,085+
England
Myres was a fine scholar, but his work is a bit long in the tooth now. If you haven't read it check out David Rollason's book on Northumbria.
I read Rollason`s books on a number of occasions, borrowing it often from the library at Chesterfield here in Derbyshire. No longer there, alas. Anyway, another academic worth checking out is Alex Woolf who specialises on Scottish and northern history.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peter Graham
Joined Jul 2009
11,426 Posts | 1,453+
Last edited:
I suspect that argument about Edwin's pretensions to being something akin to a dux is based in Bede's mention of him being accompanied by a chap bearing a tufa, which many commentators have taken to be some sort of Roman symbol of power. It's possible, but my guess is that he very much saw himself as a king in his own right rather than as an official in the Roman tradition. Something with Roman antecedents may have survived as part of the regalia of office, but whether that represented a conscious choice to appear Roman seems rather doubtful, IMO. Presumably the Franks (who really had, erm, 'inherited' power from the Romans) were doing something similar and I think we have to be alive to the fact that Anglo-Saxon England was part of a wider North Sea world and was influenced by what was going on in what had been Gaul.
Indeed. Clovis, while adopting imitatio imperii, was still a Frankish king. In re Edwin's geographic distance from Gaul, and the assumed lack of education of the contemporary elite, he may, or may not, have known much about a dux Britanniarum. It was an opinion of Myres.

Ian Wood and Barbara Yorke reference the interaction of Franks and of Kent. Wood also IIRC has a section in his Merovingian Kingdoms on the "Merovingian church culture" reflected in c. AD 700 Northumbria by the Frankish influence on monasteries and their establishment.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Peter Graham
Joined Jul 2009
11,426 Posts | 1,453+
Last edited:
Myres......his work is a bit long in the tooth now.
Me too!
I'm not sure that early Bernicia would have had a more 'primitive' economy that early Deira. What do you argue that the differences were?
I really did not think about it much. At first blush, it seemed that copping renders from someone is less sophisticated than managing one's own agricultural land, even if you stole it.
 
Joined Jul 2009
11,426 Posts | 1,453+
There were two kingdoms north of the Humber which formed in the late 6th century, one called Bernicia which is the northern one and Deira which was towards the south, centred on Yorkshire. Aethelfrith whom I mentioned ruled originally over Bernicia when in 604 he conquered Deira. He can be regarded as the first king Of Northumbria, but it would not be called that at the time. He may have styled himself as "King of the Angles" but we do not know for sure.
In regard to the OP, it would seem (to me) that 'Lowland Scotland' was not the second A-S state as there were at least four - and maybe six - A-S kingdoms in Britain by the mid 6th century. According to some scholars, Deira was a very early "kingdom" formed maybe by the mid to late 5th century. Maybe it was, and maybe not. It may have been a tribal territorium at that early time. However, the (about six) Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in the south were all formed by the very late 5th century or in the earlier 6th. Ida, AFAIK was the first Angle to be considered a king in Bernicia - about the mid 6th c. Kent, of course can be considered Jutish; Mercia maybe a combination of A-S tribal identities.

The Mark Simon Hockey paper seems to stress linguistic/philological considerations.
 
Joined Jan 2014
3,887 Posts | 1,282+
Westmorland
Indeed. Clovis, while adopting imitatio imperii, was still a Frankish king. In re Edwin's geographic distance from Gaul, and the assumed lack of education of the contemporary elite, he may, or may not, have known much about a dux Britanniarum. It was an opinion of Myres.

Ian Wood and Barbara Yorke reference the interaction of Franks and of Kent. Wood also IIRC has a section in his Merovingian Kingdoms on the "Merovingian church culture" reflected in c. AD 700 Northumbria by the Frankish influence on monasteries and their establishment.

Good points. Frankish influence was, I suspect, greater than we have tended to give it credit for.

Questions about continuity and change in post-Roman Britain were typically answered in insular terms - basically, how much of the Roman system survived in the face of Anglo-Saxon migration. More recently, we have got better at looking at parallels across the Channel and this has led to a growing acceptance that post-Roman Britain was fully plugged into the wider world of Late Antiquity and was not some outlying oddity where everything was done differently.

I've probably said it before on these pages, but I personally think of it in terms of three major spheres of influence. Firstly, there is a North Sea sphere, which is increasingly influenced by the rise of Germanic culture. Then we have an Irish Sea sphere increasingly influenced by Irish culture. Finally, we have an Atlantic sphere increasingly influenced by British culture. Each of these spheres is subject to the 'pulls and pushes' of migration but they are not necessarily geographically contiguous. For example, great swathes of what is now north west England appear to have far more in common with the Atlantic sphere (bits of Wales, the southwest peninsula, Brittany and perhaps also Galicia) than they do with the Irish Sea sphere (places such as western Scotland, Man and big chunks of Wales). For me, the Irish Sea and Atlantic spheres effectively subdivide what was traditionally thought of as the 'British' half of the island. Irish influence on western Britain has not received the same amount of attention as Germanic influence on eastern Britain and the patchiness of that influence has received less attention still.

The importance of the Franks to the North Sea sphere may also have been somewhat underestimated, at least here in the UK. I'd be interested to know how much Frankish or Frankish-infuenced material pops up in the archaeology of the early Anglo-Saxon cemeteries in places other than Kent. We've talked about Frankish infuence on Kent before (this being attested in part, at least, by documentary sources), but the range of cultural affiliations in Anglo-Saxon grave goods is something I am increasingly interested in, although I know very little about it. Do any of our Anglo-Saxonists have any knowledge or reading recommendations they can share?
 
  • Like
Reactions: pikeshot1600

Trending History Discussions

Top