Ancient and Archaeology permalink
Why is Kent not called Jutland?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Friday, 15th April 2011
According to Wikipedia (I know, I know but I came acroos it andit made me think), the old name for Kent was Cantia.
Alone of the English counties on the eastern and southern coasts, the name seems to derive from the Cantiaci, the Iron Age British tribe who inbited the area before the Romans arrived. The Angles and Saxons gave their names to the places they took over but Kent seems to have retained its links to its pre-Roman past.
So, why is Kent not Jutland? Why are Norfolk and Suffolk not Icenia? What happened to Atrebatia?
Names are important, indenotinghistory and aspirations, so how did Kent survive when others faded? -
Message 2
Posted by glen berro (U8860283) on Friday, 15th April 2011
I don't know, Tony, but I quite like the idea of being a resident of Votadinia(?)
-
Message 3
Posted by ArweRheged (U14720560) on Friday, 15th April 2011
Hi Tony,
Wiki is correct! Hurrah!
Cantia (or coantia) is one of those facinating names of hazy origin. It might mean something like "border" or "boundary". The River Kent in Cumbria (possibly referenced in Ptolemy) carries the same name.
I suspect it retained its name because the first English settlers came as federates, not conquerors. They were not in charge and so might be expected to adopt the names used by their British leaders.
It happened elsewhere too - Lindsey, Kesteven (both still administrative districts of Lincolnshire), Deira and Bernicia are all British words in origin.
Regards,
A R -
Message 4
Posted by Seamus an Chaca (U14844281) on Saturday, 16th April 2011
It is because the Germanic tribes were first here as allies to Vortigern, and so the place retained it's British place name.
-
Message 5
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Sunday, 17th April 2011
Maybe there wasn't any Anglo-Saxon invasion after all, just immigrants looking for a better opportunity which the collapse of the Roman polity permitted.
The conquest myth does not appear until the end of the ninth century when the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms were under pressure from the Scandinavian incursions. It could just be a `we-were-here-first' type of self-legitimisation.
The Welsh romantics then bought into this idea as it allowed them to have their own sense of grievance.
All we can really say with any degree of certainty is that following the collapse of the Roman dominion in Britain - or was it even over Britain - a number of people, clans, maybe tribes from around the North Sea basin arrived to settle in what may have been relatively empty landscapes. This may have been a natural process which had gone on for centuries before the Roman arrival and during their dominion. Inevitably this migration led to settlement, intermarriage and the occasional conflicts between the more self-important people who should have known better.
Since conflicts are always reported by the winners and only the Bible tells us who begat whom, then we have this violent myth of invasion and conquest which the archaeological record just does not support. -
Message 6
Posted by Daniel-K (U2684833) on Sunday, 17th April 2011
Maybe there wasn't any Anglo-Saxon invasion after all, just immigrants looking for a better opportunity which the collapse of the Roman polity permitted.
The conquest myth does not appear until the end of the ninth century when the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms were under pressure from the Scandinavian incursions. It could just be a `we-were-here-first' type of self-legitimisation.
The Welsh romantics then bought into this idea as it allowed them to have their own sense of grievance.
All we can really say with any degree of certainty is that following the collapse of the Roman dominion in Britain - or was it even over Britain - a number of people, clans, maybe tribes from around the North Sea basin arrived to settle in what may have been relatively empty landscapes. This may have been a natural process which had gone on for centuries before the Roman arrival and during their dominion. Inevitably this migration led to settlement, intermarriage and the occasional conflicts between the more self-important people who should have known better.
Since conflicts are always reported by the winners and only the Bible tells us who begat whom, then we have this violent myth of invasion and conquest which the archaeological record just does not support.Â
Well, this is the trendy view of course. It seems to be influenced by the experience of the British Empire where small elites were able to govern large indigenous populations and effect significant cultural changes in those populations - and is thus favoured by most British historians. In Germany, by contrast, which has experienced large movements of population over its history, the invasion model of the origins of Anglo-Saxon England remains strong.
But the British view tends to be advanced in the teeth of the evidence. In the fourth century, the Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus tells of the Saxon raids on Britain and the "Great Conspiracy" of the barbarians that resulted in coordinated attacks on Britain. The Gallic Chronicles in the fifth century report Britain falling into the power of the Saxons. Gildas, our sole witness from the early sixth century, is clear than the Saxons came en masse, fought against the British and claimed their land. Bede in the early eighth century records the traditions of the Anglo-Saxons themselves that they came from across the sea and held their kingdoms by right of conquest. Consistently the story is the same: large movements of population and conquest of territory by force of arms. No account supports the fashionable, cosy view that the people of the east of the island of Britain decided to adopt Anglo-Saxons ways just because they thought the Anglo-Saxons were cool.
Doubtless the picture was a little more complicated than simply hordes of Angles and Saxons coming across the North Sea and displacing the local population. I am happy to accept that there may have been centuries of peaceful settlement along the east coast before the legions departed and new opportunities opened up. We have the intriguing case of the early kings of Wessex, many of whom have what seem to be British names. I also wonder whether, when Gildas condemns Constantine as "tyrannical whelp of the unclean lioness of Damnonia", using very similar terms to those he has previously used of the Saxon invaders ("a multitude of whelps came forth from the lair of this barbaric lioness") he is alluding to Constantine having mixed British and Saxon ancestry. So there probably was population mixing and exchange. However, the basic invasion and conquest model is the one that fits the historical, archaeological, linguistic, and genetic evidence best and we should be looking to make that model more inclusive of the subtleties of invasion and conquest, collaboration and resistance, rather than abandoning it. -
Message 7
Posted by tucuxii (U13714114) on Sunday, 17th April 2011
By that logic South Wales would Dementia
-
Message 8
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Monday, 18th April 2011
The Great Conspiracy of the barbarians happened before the collapse of the Roman polity in Britain and even then there are questions as to who were the barbarians and with whom they were conspiring.
The fact that all the historical commentators of this period are reporting at best second-hand information often many years after the actual events is not comforting.
Gildas was more concerned at beating up on British kings who behaved in un-Christian ways and used the image of the blood thirsty Saxons hordes as a stick with which to beat a particularly unpleasant bunch of tyrants.
It is quiet apparent that Bede wrote down what he understood to be the case but again he was not there at the time. It is open to interpretation.
The problem we have with the traditional invasion model is that it does not fit what we can find on the ground. The picture is far more complex. There is no archaeological record for invasion, plunder and rapine and entire populations driven from their homes. more a case of local incursions and elites competing for dominion over subsistent farmers.
My view is that the immigration model is far more likely. -
Message 9
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Monday, 18th April 2011
Daniel, I'd be very interested to see the archaeological evidence that supports the invasion model, bearing in mind of course that evidence of culture and cultural practice is not evidence of ethnicity. As I understand it, the evidence is ambiguous at best.
As to the genetics, I'm not entirely up to speed but I do think I recall that a UCLA study suggested a maximum of 20% A S DNA in the south east and suggested that this could be, at least in part, due to the higher reproductive success of the elite migrant males. -
Message 10
Posted by beethovenspiano (U5093596) on Tuesday, 19th April 2011
Why don't they perform genetic studies on remains found in Anglo-Saxon graves - especially young people/children. Or is it technically not possible?
-
Message 11
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Tuesday, 19th April 2011
There is no archaeological record for invasion, plunder and rapine and entire populations driven from their homes.Â
There is no archaeological record for the Battle of Hastings either.
The Migration Period archaeological record does in fact support Bede, but he does not say that anyone opposed this migration to Britain, not on an organised scale anyway.
The Walton place names support what he says about the segregation practiced by the Angles and Brits, the archaeological record also supports this. -
Message 12
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Tuesday, 19th April 2011
Daniel, I'd be very interested to see the archaeological evidence that supports the invasion model, bearing in mind of course that evidence of culture and cultural practice is not evidence of ethnicity. As I understand it, the evidence is ambiguous at best.
As to the genetics, I'm not entirely up to speed but I do think I recall that a UCLA study suggested a maximum of 20% A S DNA in the south east and suggested that this could be, at least in part, due to the higher reproductive success of the elite migrant males.Â
"Using novel population genetic models that incorporate both mass migration and continuous gene flow, we conclude that these striking patterns are best explained by a substantial migration of Anglo-Saxon Y chromosomes into Central England (contributing 50%–100% to the gene pool at that time) but not into North Wales."
-
Message 13
Posted by ArweRheged (U14720560) on Tuesday, 19th April 2011
"In the fourth century, the Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus tells of the Saxon raids on Britain and the "Great Conspiracy" of the barbarians that resulted in coordinated attacks on Britain. The Gallic Chronicles in the fifth century report Britain falling into the power of the Saxons."
Grave goods and other archaeological finds give the lie to these broad statements. At best, one can argue that parts of Britain may have fallen as a result of violent conquest, but it is difficult to put up a cohesive argument that all - or even most - of Britain went that way.
There is some evidence of a depopulation of Angeln which coincides with the emergence of Icel's Mercian dynasty, but even that doesn't have to involve huge numbers of people.
"However, the basic invasion and conquest model is the one that fits the historical, archaeological, linguistic, and genetic evidence best and we should be looking to make that model more inclusive of the subtleties of invasion and conquest, collaboration and resistance, rather than abandoning it."
I suspect we have different conditions in different places. In Lincolnshire and East Yorks, for example, I am increasingly of the view that power was transferred relatively peacefully. It may have been different dahn saaf. But even if it was, what I think we don't have is an nationalistic struggle between the noble Celts and the evil Saxons. The surviving literature is clear that we are looking at a dynastic struggle, not an ethnic one.
Regards,
A R -
Message 14
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Tuesday, 19th April 2011
Daniel, did you read all of the article, including this bit " We note, however, that our data do not allow us to distinguish an event that simply added to the indigenous Central English male gene pool from one where indigenous males were displaced elsewhere or one where indigenous males were reduced in number. Furthermore, although our models assume a single instantaneous migration event, we would also expect a more gradual process lasting several generations but still resulting in the same degree of admixture (a picture which may fit the historical data better [Härke 2002]) to produce very similar genetic patterns."?
I'm trying to track down the UCLA study but I've got a 3 year old demanding attention today! -
Message 15
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Tuesday, 19th April 2011
"Given the probable widespread persistence of tribal identities, increasing archaeological evidence for Late Roman to Anglo-Saxon continuity, and, above all, the geographical correspondence between Roman civitates and Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, it may be time for a major rethink. We must pose the question: was post-Roman Britain a classic ‘failed state’, fragmenting into ethnic enclaves, falling prey to warlords and mercenaries, sinking into backwardness in a turmoil of killing and border conflict – into a true ‘Dark Age’?"
Late Roman archaeology in coastal Essex shows a lot of fire damage. Bede of course puts a location and name to the hired Anglo-Saxons of Gildas, who then defeat the northern invaders, Kent would be an odd base if these invaders were not in Essex. Possibly Bede did not want Anglo-Saxons fighting Anglo-Saxons and substituted Picts and Scotti. Germanic tribes during the migration period allying with the Romans against other Germanic tribes is well attested, there is no reason to suppose they would not do this in post Roman Britain. -
Message 16
Posted by Daniel-K (U2684833) on Tuesday, 19th April 2011
That was Haesten link not mine.
On a related point but not taken from the link, one interesting thing is that there is, so I understand, a strange lack of women in sub-Roman British cemetaries, perhaps suggesting the women were marrying out into Saxon communities. But that itself would surely argue against the immigration model: immigrants tend to marry among themselves or return to their homeland for a wife while it is conquerors who have the pick of the women of the conquered populace -
Message 17
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Wednesday, 20th April 2011
So, why is Kent not Jutland? Â
Kent appears to have been under the Frankish sphere of influence in the 6th century, Venantius Fortunatus claims that the Danes and Euthians (Jutes?) were under the Merovingian sphere of influence. Early Kentish kings have Frankish names and Æthelberht was married to a Christian Frank.
The coast of Gaul was also under attack from Anglo-Saxon pirates during the 5/6th centuries and I think controll of the straights of Dover is as key in this period as it was to the Roman Classis Britannica.
We assume that Hengist and co were hired to fight a land based threat, but they were seamen based in the old Classis Britannica port. -
Message 18
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Saturday, 23rd April 2011
But that itself would surely argue against the immigration model: immigrants tend to marry among themselves or return to their homeland for a wife while it is conquerors who have the pick of the women of the conquered populaceÂ
A bizarre statement.
After the British Empire conquered Palestine in 1918 how many of the British soldiers then married Palestinean wives?
And if, say, an Irish woman marries a Nigerian man and they choose to live in Ireland then should her husband (according to you) be perceived as a 'conqueror'? -
Message 19
Posted by tucuxii (U13714114) on Saturday, 23rd April 2011
It is possible for people to be conquerors and immigrants like white north Americans and Australians - the term you are both searching for is colonisers.
it is my understanding that genetic studies have shown that most people - other than recent immigrants - in Eastern England are of Anglo-Saxon origin on both the paternal (Y-chromosome) and maternal (mitochondrial DNA) lines
The British administered Palestine on behalf of the League of Nations they didn't colonize it like they did in the antipodes and north America and when it was time to go they all left - unlike the Normans in England -
Message 20
Posted by Daniel-K (U2684833) on Saturday, 23rd April 2011
I'm not sure how I got caught up in a debate about whether the Anglo-Saxons were invaders or immigrants. That is not the question. It is a false dichotomy. The real debate is between theories of, as it were, influx or influence. Whether the Anglo-Saxon came over in large numbers (either as invaders or immigrants) and by force of arms or sheer weight of numbers created an English culture in the east and south of Britain in place of the British one or whether your actual continental Angles and Saxons came in insignificant numbers but, by elite dominance or just some accident of fashion, the Britons in the east and south of the island opted for an English identity in place of their ancestors' British one. Whether, in other words, there was an ethnic displacement of (largely) British populations by (largely) Anglo-Saxons ones or a cultural displacement of British culture by Anglo-Saxon culture among an enduring population
I support the first thesis: that there was a large movement of population across the North Sea and that the establishment of English culture in the east and south of Britain was achieved by this mass movement of people. I also believe that at the head of this population movement was the point of a sword but that is a secondary consideration. -
Message 21
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Saturday, 23rd April 2011
The English language and English place names say they came in large numbers. They were probably here in significant numbers during the Roman period serving in the army. -
Message 22
Posted by tucuxii (U13714114) on Sunday, 24th April 2011
Genetic studies indicate a large scale displacement in the east of England, alittle influx into Wales snd the south-west and a more mixed picture in the centre.
-
Message 23
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Monday, 25th April 2011
The large scale displacement in Eastern England could be because of Scandinavian settlement in the tenth and eleventh centuries.
Again it has to be stressed that the east coast of Britain is part of the North Sea basin and so populations around the basin will naturally tend to reflect the existence of each other. -
Message 24
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Monday, 25th April 2011
You would need to explain why modern English is predominantly Anglo-Saxon rather than Norse.
Scots dialect English has the most Norse influence. -
Message 25
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Monday, 25th April 2011
The story as to how modern English developed from Old English is by no means certain.
I am rather taken by the view that Old English became an elite language that died out with that elite. Middle English as a vernacular language came through eventually after absorbing Norman French.
As you say different dialects present themselves throughout these islands. The Norse influence on Scotland is very evident whereas the Danish influence in East Anglia is less so, -
Message 26
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Monday, 25th April 2011
Early middle English (12th century) is almost entirely Anglo-Saxon with some Norse borrowings that cause the inflection to be lost. It's the spoken street language and varies from south to north.
"The loss of case-endings was part of a general trend from inflections to fixed word order that also occurred in other Germanic languages, so cannot be attributed simply to the influence of French-speaking sections of the population. English remained, after all, the language of the vast majority."
The later 12th century entries of ASCe are in middle English, this is the street language of Peterborough/Danelaw, still almost entirely Anglo-Saxon in origin.
Anglo-Saxon and Danish Viking DNA is indistinguishable, this includes Norman DNA, as they all are originally from the same area.
The Norse settlers of the Danelaw were speaking English by the 12th century.even though they came in substantial numbers, compare this to Old English having virtually no Celtic or Roman Latin. -
Message 27
Posted by arty macclench (U14332487) on Wednesday, 4th May 2011
'Scots dialect English has the most Norse influence.'
"That would be scanned:"
Norse (i.e. Norwegian) influence in Scotland was predominantly through the Gaelic speech of Hiberno-Norse settlers who in the C10th were dispersing from Ireland all along the western seaboard from Cumbria to the Isles. While Norse raids penetrated deep into the Scoto-Pictish heartland, they did not stay to settle in may places, the strongest influence being in Caithness and the northern Isles.
By contrast the English dialect that evolved in lowland Scotland during the C12th & C13th was influenced by contact between the Anglo-Danish communities of the northern 'Danelaw.' and the English-speaking Lothian and the Merse (remnants of Anglian Northumbria). This included settlers from the Cistercian communities of the Yorkshire Dales whose influence would have been out of all proportion with their numbers -
Message 28
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Thursday, 12th May 2011
I came across this article while looking for something else but it seemed to have a bearing on this thread. "Continuity or Colonization in Anglo-Saxon England? Isotope Evidence for Mobility, Subsistence Practice, and Status at West Heslerton" If you have a personal or institutional login to Wiley you can read it all but the abstract sums it up pretty well. <quote> The adventus Saxonum is a crucial event in English protohistory. Scholars from a range of disciplines dispute the scale and demographic pro?le of the purported colonizing population. The 5th 7th century burial ground at West Heslerton, North Yorkshire, is oneof the few Anglian cemeteries where an associated settlement site has been identi?ed and subjected to extensive multidisciplinary postexcavation study. Skeletal and grave good evidence has been used to indicate the presence of Scandinavian settlers. A small, preliminary study using lead and strontium isotope analysis of tooth enamel,mineralized in early childhood, from Neolithic/Early Bronze Age (n 8), Iron Age (n 2), and Early AngloSaxon (n 32) skeletons, was carried out to directly investigate this hypothesis. Results suggest that lead provides dissimilar types of information in different time periods. In post-Roman England, it appears to re?ect the level of exposure to circulated anthropogenic rather than natural geological lead, thus being a cultural rather than geographical marker. Consequently, only strontium provides mobility evidence among the Anglian population, whereas both isotope systems do so in pre-Roman periods. Strontium data imply the presence of two groups: one of local and one of nonlocal origin, but more work is required to de?ne the limits of local variation and identify immigrants with con?dence. Correlations with traditional archaeological evidence are inconclusive. While the majority of juveniles and prehistoric individuals fall within the local group, both groups contain juveniles, and adults of both sexes. There is thus no clear support for the exclusively male, military-elite invasion model at this site.
-
Message 29
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Sunday, 15th May 2011
The recent discovery of a seventh century plough coulter at Lyminge in Kent suggests that this technology did not disappear with the Romans.
This has all sorts of implications in that the continuity of a Roman based technology that required a villa-type infrastructure of an ox-herd, carpentry and iron working technology suggests a peaceful transition in over-lordship rather than an invasion.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.