"anglo-saxon attitudes" Topic

from POWERLINE blog:

In the Telegraph, John Preston writes intriguingly about the discovery of an enormous cache of Anglo-Saxon gold in a field in Staffordshire. Preston recalls the words of British archaeologist Howard Carter describing his feelings as he peered inside the tomb of Tutankhamun in November 1922: "For a moment, time as a factor in human life has lost its meaning. Thousands of years may have passed and gone since human feet last trod the floor on which you stand, and yet you feel it might have been but yesterday."

Preston also compares the current discovery "to the 1.5 kilos of gold found at Sutton Hoo – previously the largest Anglo-Saxon treasure trove ever discovered. And, just as Sutton Hoo prompted a radical re-evaluation of the Dark Ages, so the Staffordshire discoveries are bound to throw new light on what remains the most mysterious period in our history." Preston recalls that the Sutton Hoo discovery in Suffolk was made in the summer of 1939 when Britain stood on the brink of war.

Following the war, the British novelist Angus Wilson turned the excavation at Sutton Hoo to his own purposes in Anglo-Saxon Attitudes. (Wilson discussed the genesis of the novel in a 1981 lecture posted here.) The plot of Anglo-Saxon Attitudes turns on the discovery of "an obscene idol" turned up in the coffin of a seventh-century bishop during an archaeological dig. The gold cache discovered in Staffordshire provides a good occasion for readers to discover, or rediscover, Wilson's witty novel.

link

and here's the link to the John Preston TELEGRAPH article -- well worth reading.

A-S attitudes were mirror-perfect to our own. In the place of horses we have cars (the more high-bred the horse / high-priced the car, the higher the status); in the place of property, social class, politics and religion, we have… the very same things actually. Vikings threatening invasion? We have Islamists, and lesser mortals who want our blood. Sex? Well there you go, NO change whatsoever….

The Anglo-Saxons had S&M clubs? LOL!!

Cheers,

Darrell.

Well, they had clubs, used them for killing vermin & mugging people

You left out the religious ambiguity.

Modern archaeologists are increasingly coming to the opinion that there was NO Anglo-Saxon Invasion.
link

Don't you just love the way history get rewritten ever
generation or so?

Modern archaeologists are increasingly coming to the opinion that there was NO Anglo-Saxon Invasion.

The problem with Francis Pryor is that he is a prehistorian and not an Anglo-Saxon specialist. That limits his ability to analyse the period properly.

There has certainly been a movement in archaeology away from invasions to slower settlement; we were taught that back in the early eighties at university, so it is not that new an idea really. Nevertheless, it was definitely not all tea and buns together on the lawn. Also, fashions in archaeological thought change. I am sure that invasions will become a popular theory again in some form or other at a later date

I forgot to add that it might be worth checking reviews of Pryor's book before accepting what is written. The Heroic Age has a review that is really rather scathing:
link
I could not find any other academic reviews with a quick search, but I'm sure others can.

Interesting stuff. I've always been of the opinion that in the long run, human attitudes have changed very little when it comes down to it.

We've simply replaced pharaoh with celebrities and relatively anonymous CEOs.

Back on topic I was pretty excited by that find- its neat to see major archaeology hauls are still possible, and that we can learn more about the 'dark ages'.

No Anglo-Saxon invasion?

Odd how the oral history of the locals says there was one.

The Welsh word for England 'Lloegyr' means 'Lost Lands'….

Another trouble with this "No invasion" theory is that it gained a lot of press around the late 1990s, when devolution was coming in, that is whether there is anything to it or not, it was being used as a propaganda tool by UK Unionists, which made it harder to discuss dispassionately

"The problem with Francis Pryor is that he is a prehistorian and not an Anglo-Saxon specialist. That limits his ability to analyse the period properly."

In the Channel 4 series "Britain AD", several archaeologists support the view that there was no real invasion. So its' not really anything to do with him being a "prehistorian" (whatever that is).

"I forgot to add that it might be worth checking reviews of Pryor's book before accepting what is written. The Heroic Age has a review that is really rather scathing:"

There will always be a dissenting view. There's even one in the TV series!

Rather than take a review at face value, I suggest you read his book for yourself.

From that review:
"Pryor is a part-time archaeologist "

Interesting how reviewers can distort the truth to make a point. Pryor describes himself as a "part time archaeologist" now (see link below) but he was a full time archaeologist for over 30 years:

"But in essence I have spent over 30 years digging and surveying Roman and prehistoric sites in the Fens, mostly around Peterborough."
link

Jutes, Angles and Saxons did more of an incursion than an invasion. That is, there was no concerted military campaign to conquer Britannia: just a bunch of fully-armed gangs showing up for over a generation in longships, looking for something to do, something to steal, and some fightin' if it was in the offing. They found the moribund Roman province wide open and ripe for the picking. Most of the fighting that happened was between the "invaders". They literally "came, saw and stayed"….

If there was no invasion does that mean Y Gododdin is a lie? I'm most disappointed in Ms. Sutcliffe. :)

So it's not really anything to do with him being a "prehistorian" (whatever that is).

A prehistorian is an archaeologist that specialises in the study of prehistory. Any archaeologist in Britain would recognise the term.

Rather than take a review at face value, I suggest you read his book for yourself.

Reading any book is a good idea so that you can comment on it in an informed manner, should you wish to do so. I did not actually state whether I believed the review or whether I had read the book and believed it. I provided an alternative viewpoint and a suggestion that checking the academic reviews might provide a more balanced view of the content of said book. I linked to that review because it was easy to find as an example of what I meant.

I was most amused by some of the reviews on the Amazon page you linked too. Clearly, not everyone favours Pryor's view!

The part that get me is the discounting of all histrical records from this period because they were written by the church.

Just to muddy things up further……

There is an interesting book called "The Origins Of The British" by Stephen Oppenheimer. In it, he proposes a radical theory that the 'English' were already living in South-East Britain BEFORE the Roman invasion.

He bases this on several bits of evidence. First DNA analysis, which reveals that the vast majority of the English have an unbroken line of genetic descent stretching back beyond 6000 years. This is the information which changed the old view of a massive Anglo-Saxon influx displacing the original population, to the fairly well established current view of a new ruling elite.

The problem with a change of ruling elite theory is one of language. Why is English a Germanic language not a Celtic or Latin one? New ruling elites tend to influence but not change the existing language. Normans in England, Franks in Gaul etc.

The other problem with modern English is the order of magnitude with which it diverges from other modern languages with a Germanic root. Other Germanic languages are much closer to each other, with English way out on a branch all by itself.

His answer is that English started to branch out as a seperate language much earlier, well over 2000 years ago. Again, before the Roman conquest.

He provides further evidence from Roman sources, including Caesar. Before the Roman conquest of Gaul, it is famously described as being in three parts (OK 4 if you count Asterix!). The tribes North of the Seine are described as being Germanic, not Celtic, speaking Germanic languages. It is these tribes which, in several cases, share their tribal names with tribes in Britain.

His conclusion is that Germanic invaders and settlers occupied lowland Britain between 3 and 6 thousand years ago, at which point their Germanic language began to diverge from continental versions and starting its path to modern English.

Controversial theory I know. I have no idea whether it stands up to academic scrutiny but it was a good read!

By the time they got here (Cornwall) they were definitely not being particularly neighbourly. Some would say they still aren't.

re Stephen Oppenheimer – having read the book and contemplated it with a couple of language graduates: he does make a strong point but the book is very polemical. So can anyone point me to an academic review.

re the invasion theory. Angles, Saxons and Jutes seem too pat – they do not fit the continental evidence that well. What we have is migrations just we have in Britain for thousands of years – the elite may have changed (by adopting the garb of the fashionable elite as much as anything else) but the remembered Welsh/English thing probably is a malange of the growing nations fighting each other mixed with earlier contests between lowlanders and highlanders.

I read Prior with relief – a popular book that states what theories are accepted by those who use the evidence but write it in more difficult to find journals.

Um more later maybe but as far as I can tell Prior is discredited on this and so is Oppenheimer. I'm inclined to think that Hurcheon'it was being used as a propaganda tool by UK Unionists, which made it harder to discuss dispassionately' has it about right. Neither Prior or Oppenheimer were writing 'in their comfort zone' and were unable to respond to informed critics. Still it made them a few quid.

I'll have to check out Oppenheimer. I barely understand genetics. I do wonder how accurate this DNA mapping can be after such a long period. How does one determine the difference between British and Continental Celtic DNA?
I thought there were large numbers of Belgic Gauls in the south of Britian when the Romans invaded. The Belgae in Gaul were living next door to Germanic tribes so it is not unreasonable to assume they mixed together.

During and after the Roman conquest of Britain they stationed several Germanic auxilary units there. I would suppose these warriors would produce children with the local women. Would these examples influence the DNA sample?

Here is the linguistic arguement against Prior I find it convincing.

PDF link

I find in LONG….

To paraphrase for those who don't wish to trudge through pages of linguistics.

Usually when two languages butt up against each other there's a degree of borrowing. This is the case even with a conquest – witness the Aboriginal terms the Aussies use or the plethora of Indian terms found in English.

There are but three Welsh words universally accepted as having made it into Old English (and one modern one – penguin, but I digress).

This is exceptionally unusual as suggests strongly that the English kicked out the Celts, ensuring there was no local Celtic culture to borrow words from.

Place names are slightly different – the English seemed to have found out what a place was called before kicking the locals out of it – i.e. Pendle hill (which is 'hill' three times…), Long Mynd (Mynydd menaing mountain) etc.

Linguistics do not denote race but what passes for a cultural group. I'm not sure that Welsh not moving into English proves the extermination or ethnic cleansing theories. It could be that English was (until a political set of entities came about that reinforced Welsh) more flexible/more fashionable/less infra dig. American English is pushing out "English" English but I haven't noticed such changes as we portray.

Prior does not live in a "comfort zone" as any academic cannot – the whole sense of peer review makes it very uncomfortable (unless you are waspish Starkey). Also he is not alone in this view.

In fact in stating that the British (except perhaps for some western areas) were not Celts and there was not a huge extermination campaign bu Anglo-Saxons is anything but comfortable. It flies in the face of popular feelings and feelings are what makes people angry. Such historians have been accused of denying birth-rights. That can be dangerous.

Bringing in Unionists is av red herring – every historical theory is (mis)used by proponents of political messages.

Yet the only times such a linguistic barrier exists, some form of extemrination has occurred.

Australians historically have hardly regarded Aboriginal culture as more fashionable and yet they've adopted 200 Aboriginal words.

For me it seems strange that both the Welsh and English have an oral tradition that states the event happened if it didn't.

*it (sheesh, it wasn't even late at night)….

Prior does not live in a "comfort zone" as any academic cannot

While this is true in some respects, it is important to remember that Pryor is primarily a prehistorian. That is what he has worked with most. This means that his 'comfort zone' is the prehistoric period, insofar as he can have one. It also means that he has not developed the detailed knowledge of the Anglo-Saxon period that an Anglo-Saxonist would have. This should be borne in mind when reading his book on the Anglo-Saxon period because it affects the extent to which he understands the period and the issues that affect it. Just because you are an archaeologist does not mean that you can equally evaluate and assess all periods. While some principles are universal within British archaeology, but not necessarily in other countries, many are not and you need to develop the specialist knowledge to analyse them properly.

It should also be remembered that 'Britain AD' is not a peer-reviewed acadmeic book. It is a popular text produced to make money off the back of a television series and controversy will help that. You do not see television series entitled '100 great consensuses in Anglo-Saxon studies' or anything like that now, do you?

"It should also be remembered that 'Britain AD' is not a peer-reviewed acadmeic book. It is a popular text produced to make money off the back of a television series and controversy will help that. You do not see television series entitled '100 great consensuses in Anglo-Saxon studies' or anything like that now, do you?"

I would think if Pryor's peers disagreed with his thesis they would have said so somewhere in print.

I would think if Pryor's peers disagreed with his thesis they would have said so somewhere in print.

Now you are just being awkward and ignoring what has gone before in this discussion, but, to answer your point; we did. See the review in The Heroic Age, for example. The Heroic Age is a fully peer-reviewed online academic journal, as it states on its home page, if you would care to check. Other reviews are no doubt available through your local library and I suggest that you check them too for a more balanced view.

Also, it is not Pryor's thesis per se. The idea had been around at least since the 80s when I first encountered it, as I wrote earlier. Pryor just picked up on it as a gimmick on which to base a TV series and a book.

"we did"

??? You are a professional archaeologist?

"The Heroic Age is a fully peer-reviewed online academic journal, as it states on its home page,"

Meaning the journal itself is peer reviewed, not the other works being reviewed within its pages, but I digress.

I quote from that review:
"Returning to Britain, Pryor contrasts his views with the long-discredited idea that the Anglo-Saxon invaders drove out all the Britons from eastern Britain, or swamped them by their numbers. It is now generally thought that the Anglo-Saxon invaders numbered in the tens of thousands at most, and formed a military elite. In this scenario, it is not surprising that farms continued to be used as before. It can even be imagined that some of the cultural change in post-Roman Britain was a reversion to pre-Roman practices, as Pryor argues. Most of the peasants would have stayed put, and indeed would have chosen (over the course of some generations) to identify themselves as Anglo-Saxons in order to improve their social prospects. But even in this scenario, they changed because there was an Anglo-Saxon invasion."

It would seem that Wiseman's argument hinges on the meaning of the term "Anglo-Saxon invasion". Clearly he means one thing and Pryor implies something else.

Interestingly, Wiseman actually agrees with Pryor's basic premise that the Anglo-Saxon invaders drove out all the Britons from eastern Britain, or swamped them by their numbers." is a long-discredited idea

"Also, it is not Pryor's thesis per se. The idea had been around at least since the 80s when I first encountered it, as I wrote earlier. Pryor just picked up on it as a gimmick on which to base a TV series and a book."

If it's been around that long, it is obvious that no-one has been able to completely refute it

But if there was only an elite of English amongst a mass of Celts, lingusitically Old English would have taken on a much more Celtic flavour, as happened to Norman French.

But no hybridisation occurred, as has happened everywhere else cultures mingled.

??? You are a professional archaeologist?

Yes. Since 1985. I don't know why it needs so many question marks though.

Meaning the journal itself is peer reviewed, not the other works being reviewed within its pages, but I digress.

That misses the point. The point is that an academic journal has addressed the issue. You queried why Pryor's peers had not dismissed Pryor's ideas. The peer review element is merely mentioned to demonstrate that the Heroic Age is produced by his peers, rather than being a popular journal.

From the review:
Based largely on evidence for continuity in farm use, Pryor concludes that there was never an Anglo-Saxon invasion of (or even peaceful migration to) Britain.

I don't think it is the case that Wiseman and Pryor share different views of what constitutes an invasion, as you state after your quotation from Wiseman's review.

If it's been around that long, it is obvious that no-one has been able to completely refute it

The idea that berserkers used mushrooms to go berserk has been around since 1784. It has been completely refuted many times but still people return to it as an idea, usually because it suits their predilections. Just because an idea keeps resurfacing does not mean that it has not been refuted academically. Pryor's lack of expertise in Anglo-Saxon archaeology could easily have led him to believe that he could make more of the idea than an Anglo-Saxonist would. Alternatively, he just saw a way to make money by generating controversy.

??? You are a professional archaeologist?

Yes. Since 1985.

It would have been polite to state your vested interest before.

"Just because an idea keeps resurfacing does not mean that it has not been refuted academically."

But I said: "no-one has been able to completely refute it", with the emphasis on "completely". If the idea had been completely refuted then no-one in their right mind would continue to maintain it without being dismissed as a crackpot. So others may refute it academically, but unless that refutaion is conclusive and complete it will continue to resurface.

"Alternatively, he just saw a way to make money by generating controversy."

Sadly, that may well be true.

It would have been polite to state your vested interest before.

My apologies. I did not see it as a vested interest. My specialist area of expertise is the later Anglo-Saxon period and the Viking Age with an emphasis on multi-disciplinary work. Had the discussion revolved around them, I would feel that I had a vested interest in the discussion. I have mentioned this on this forum previously in other threads. I dislike mentioning it, in case it smacks of me saying "I'm right because I am an archaeologist" rather than trying to produce solid arguments that address the issue.

If the idea had been completely refuted then no-one in their right mind would continue to maintain it without being dismissed as a crackpot.

It is very hard, if not impossible, to completely refute anything in a discipline like archaeology. Nevertheless, the body of evidence and academic opinion weighs heavily against him, as does his lack of expertise in the period under discussion. I will say that his work is an interesting experiment though.

Vested interest? Please some one explain?

Vested interest = a stake in a particular theory being taken as the right one. At least that's what I assume Mike Snorbens meant. I don't have one in any theory relating to post-Roman Britain. Now, if you start talking Viking Age warfare, then I really do have a vested interest in it!

I have just finished reading Oppenheimer. Odd book. It veers from unsupported polemic to very detailed analysis that only an expert could comment on. It introduces entirely new information in both the final chapter AND the 'Epilogue'. Every chapter is a re-iteration of the same main points, just from different angles. There is a degree of development in his argument, but I cant help feeling that he is often only using internal proofs ('If chapter 2 proves chapter 3, then chapter 3 proves chapter 2!)

Oppenheimer only bothers with Pryor to the degree that he furthers his own theories. Pryor only bothers with anybody if they further his own stance. 'Saxons claim they invaded.
Britons claim they got invaded. Must be rubbish since a monk reported it'! All monks are wrong, ergo I am right. What a pathetic basis for a book, even one just designed as a post retirement cash-in.

Incidentally, in the UK the 'non invasion' view has not been very prevalent amongst 'unionists' at all. (Note the presumption that all unionists must be fascists – that's the give away.) In fact, Pryor in particular is most popular with the 'multiculturalist' Left leaning end of academia. The premise is that all immigration throughout history is both peaceful and beneficial. If history doesnt fit this belief, then history must be made to.

Oppenheimer does make a very interesting distinction between Angles, Saxons and Jutes. He does not deny there were major recurrent violent incursions to the British Isles. He attributes them to the Angles and the Jutes, on the basis that the Saxons were already here. 'Dont worry dear – it's not a Saxon cutting your throat. Its just one of those naughty Jutes. Saxons are a bit like Germans. Jutes are really proto-Vikings, so much crueller. They havent turned into nice Danes yet'

Oppenheimer points out that incoming groups tended to land in areas where they already enjoyed some cultural affinity. Saxons landed in Essex. Jutes landed in Suffolk. In each instance he makes a good case for similar language and DNA already in those locations. The situation, in my view is analogous to that of the Byzantines with the First Crusade. Groups needed to be passed rapily through to frontier areas where their aspirations for loot and land could be met. Groups that could not or would not pass through destabilised and attacked the 'host' society, whatever common ground outsiders may believe them to have shared. In Crusades studies it is posible to say two seemingly contradictory things and it still be understood. So:-

'The Crusaders displaced the Muslims in Outremer and formed a new state' AND/OR 'the Crusaders did not displace the Muslims and just imposed themselves as a ruling elite.' are both accurate within certain parameters.

Somehow many are unwilling to accept the same perceptual tensions when looking at the Northern invasions of Britain.

I'd have thought the Angles landed in Suffolk given the region is called East Anglia and not West Jutland – though I suppose they may have been subsumed into the general Germanic mass.

There is actually one other piece of anecdotal evidence that points to widespread population change rather than a change of elites and that is the phenotypic differences.

Even today you get very few blond Welshmen – I've lived in Wales 20 years and never has anyone mistaken me for anything other than English, even before I've opened my mouth.

Yes England has a Viking influence which Wales by and large lacks but even so…. similarly black hair is much more common here than back home in East Anglia.

Ditto redheads, one reason I stay here :)

Now if the invasion had been of a few thousand elites, surely the difference would be less marked – i.e. the Enlgish would be darker?

"Now if the invasion had been of a few thousand elites, surely the difference would be less marked – i.e. the Enlgish would be darker?"

That's one for a geneticist. maybe something to do with dominant and recessive genes?

Interesting post Beaumap. From memory Oppenheimer chose his own 'labels' for genetic groupings which caused some comment from the Geneticists. Of course for most of his career he was a Paedatrician so like Prior was really on ground much better known to others.

If I might digress I'm suprised at the sentiment all Unionists must be fascists. In my experience some of the most vociferous unionists are communists. That said of course individual unionists are of all political persuasions or indeed none at all.

I must admit I'm coming to the conclusion these boys were doing a Dan Brown.

Bangorstu

According to the Romans, the 'Welsh' Britons looked different to the rest of the Britons back then as well. They thought the 'Welsh' must have come from Spain!

Acually Cerdic that only applies to the Silures iirc.

Stu, yes definatley Angles rather than Saxons in your place of origin and interestingly recognised as enjoying some sort of senior status amongst the rest of the Germans. Also lets note its the tribal name of the Angles that gives us the name English.

'Now if the invasion had been of a few thousand elites, surely the difference would be less marked – i.e. the Enlgish would be darker?'

Interesting point and I suspect we might once have seen some regional variations.

Years ago I was doing research that involved looking at British Army enlistment records for WW1. I was struck by the number of men listed as fair haired; well above 70% iirc. This seemed very high and bore no relation to what you would see on the street.

It left me wondering if:
A) the slaughter of WW1 had actually led to a change in the appearance of the English?

B) The desire for 'sturdy Saxon' stock inluenced the catergorisation of the hair colour of those recruited?

To leap back in – sorry but been away – altho' I was trained as a prehistorian (so long ago it itself is prehistory) I have been involved in history for over 30 years as a teacher.
Why I feel Pryor's book is closer to "what happened" is that it fits a long period of cross-north sea (including the channel) inter-relationships with some martial incursions as normal. I also feel that the religious evidence is so biased that it must be used to support other evidence not form a firm basis for the whole theory.

As stated above, the matter is not dark/light hair as the British Isles (in which I include Ireland) has cultural differences back another 2000 years which are only now been eroded.

"The premise is that all immigration throughout history is both peaceful and beneficial. If history doesnt fit this belief, then history must be made to." – not so. A debating point, sir.

Now you have lept back Reddrab's what impact does the linguistic evidence have on your view?

Your point on religous evidence baffles me but if your talking about Gildas I suspect your either have not read him or misunderstand what he was about.

Oh - 'fair haired' might well have included light brown, if the other choices are red and black… that might well get you your 70%