Proceedings of the Castle Aching Parish Council, 1905

[Nearholmer]

Well, nobody really knows, do they?

 

This was always something that intrigued me when I was "into" this period. From what I understand, and I admit that my reading is probably thirty-years out of date now, there isn't strong evidence for mass exodus, forced or otherwise, or for genocide, and while it is recorded when the ruling elites were overthrown and replaced, and there is pretty solid evidence for inter-marriage at a very early date, that leaves plenty of questions about the Celt on the Penge* Ox unanswered.

 

I came away with the impression that the land was possibly able to support the settlers without full-on conflict, but that the settlers quickly came to dominate, maybe a bit like the initial European settlement in what is now the NE of the USA. But, why were the incomers more "fit"? Their technology wasn't more advanced, was it? Something about the organising capability of the incomers? Or, were they continually topping-up their numbers with new immigrants from home, and simply elbowed their predecessors out of the way bit by bit?

 

If anyone knows more/better, I'd be fascinated to hear.

 

*Penge is a Celtic word; Clapham Anglo-Saxon.

Edited November 17, 2020 by Nearholmer

[petethemole]

This has been discussed among historians, linguists and various factions of archaeologists for many years.  I will send you two recent papers via PM, as I don't want to risk a copyright breach. 

[webbcompound]

Well of course it depends which theory you support but there is quite a strong suggestion that nothing much changed day to day, but we are looking at quite long term change. Esentially in the Lloegyr (the much Romanised middle and East  bit of Britain, as opposed to the more Britonic North and West) the power base was local landowners (villas) ruling with under Roman control, with largely Germanic military support. When contact with Rome was severed the Roman influence declined, so the power base shifted towards the Germanic military. A lot of what we see in graves is quite likely to be the same people just adopting the cultural trappings of the increasingly dominant group. This is certainely the case in the North of Gaul, where the Germanic group is referred to as Franks. In Britain, where little documentation survives there is evidence of Frankish, Jute, Angle and Saxon cultural groups in different parts of the Lloegyr. Over time the Saxons become dominant (hence the Welsh term for the Lloegyr people as Saesneg, and the Scotti term as Sasenachs). The term Anglo-Saxon is a modern invention. the easy division of the country into Welsh and English is also a modern fiction. The Cumbri (Cymry) living in the see of Glasgow were certainely keeping some reconrds in Cumbrian (=Britonic="Welsh") as late as the 11th Century, and there were Norse and (in the West) Irish settlements all over the place, and by the time of the Norman invasion very little of the North of "England" was actually English. 

[Regularity]

2 hours ago, rocor said:

 

The original occupants of this neighbourhood not saying anything, because they are now live in Wales.

A lot of them stayed, learned the lingo, and added their biological diversity to the collective.

Only the belligerent moved westwards...

 

Mind you, by the time the Danes turned up, the Angles had been settled for several generations.

[Regularity]

1 hour ago, webbcompound said:

The term Anglo-Saxon is a modern invention

As is the term “Celtic”, from the Greek “keltoi” which basically meant (to the Greeks) “anyone who isn’t Greek”, but formally means “foreigners”, or “anyone who isn’t us”, whatever “us” happens to mean.

[Nearholmer]

I shall have a read of ‘Pete’s Papers’ later, but in the meantime: genetics.

 

What little has been done seems to suggest Saxon genetic prevalence in the south and east, and far less so further north and west. 
 

So, in the S&E not lot of celts added their biodiversity, which to me suggests a lot of separation between incomers and remainers, given the human propensity to do a bit of crafty biodiversifying at the slightest opportunity.

 

 

Edited November 17, 2020 by Nearholmer

[Edwardian]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

 

 

What little has been done seems to suggest Saxon genetic prevalence in the south  
 

 

 

Could have told you they're all Germans down there; they drive BMWs and say "yah". 

[Nearholmer]

That’s the impression you’d get mixing with lawyers, I’d agree.

[Edwardian]

3 hours ago, webbcompound said:

Well of course it depends which theory you support but there is quite a strong suggestion that nothing much changed day to day, but we are looking at quite long term change. Esentially in the Lloegyr (the much Romanised middle and East  bit of Britain, as opposed to the more Britonic North and West) the power base was local landowners (villas) ruling with under Roman control, with largely Germanic military support. When contact with Rome was severed the Roman influence declined, so the power base shifted towards the Germanic military. A lot of what we see in graves is quite likely to be the same people just adopting the cultural trappings of the increasingly dominant group. This is certainely the case in the North of Gaul, where the Germanic group is referred to as Franks. In Britain, where little documentation survives there is evidence of Frankish, Jute, Angle and Saxon cultural groups in different parts of the Lloegyr. Over time the Saxons become dominant (hence the Welsh term for the Lloegyr people as Saesneg, and the Scotti term as Sasenachs). The term Anglo-Saxon is a modern invention. the easy division of the country into Welsh and English is also a modern fiction. The Cumbri (Cymry) living in the see of Glasgow were certainely keeping some reconrds in Cumbrian (=Britonic="Welsh") as late as the 11th Century, and there were Norse and (in the West) Irish settlements all over the place, and by the time of the Norman invasion very little of the North of "England" was actually English. 

 

The more I read the less convinced I am that there was significant Romanisation of the Brits.

 

We fondly imagine that there was a 'Romano-British' culture, but I wonder.  Up here they didn't seem to let the natives into the vici and they took scant notice of the Brittunculi 

 

We may have been kidding ourselves that the Romans civilised us.  They seem largely to have ignored us for four centuries and then gone home.  Everything from our public school system to our Empire and our architecture draws on the implied notion that Britain was an inheritor of Rome, but, actually, I wonder if we were merely the Helots to their Spartans?

 

As for the bloody Normans, don't get me started ....

 

In folkloric terms, I read today, that the Normans pretty much killed off the Elfs (or Elves, as JRRT revived them). 

 

 

 

 

[Compound2632]

4 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

The more I read the less convinced I am that there was significant Romanisation of the Brits.

 

We fondly imagine that there was a 'Romano-British' culture, but I wonder.  Up here they didn't seem to let the natives into the vici and they took scant notice of the Brittunculi 

 

We may have been kidding ourselves that the Romans civilised us.  They seem largely to have ignored us for four centuries and then gone home.  Everything from our public school system to our Empire and our architecture draws on the implied notion that Britain was an inheritor of Rome, but, actually, I wonder if we were merely the Helots to their Spartans?

 

Not sure about "we" in this context as my ancestors at least were most likely inhabiting the Frisian marshes or the Hibernian bogs. But it seems to me that the Roman influence on Britain was much like the British influence on India, merely substitute railways for roads.

[Edwardian]

1 minute ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Not sure about "we" in this context as my ancestors at least were most likely inhabiting the Frisian marshes or the Hibernian bogs. But it seems to me that the Roman influence on Britain was much like the British influence on India, merely substitute railways for roads.

 

... and the aqueducts 

 

 

 

[Caley Jim]

2 hours ago, Regularity said:

As is the term “Celtic”, from the Greek “keltoi” which basically meant (to the Greeks) “anyone who isn’t Greek”, but formally means “foreigners”, or “anyone who isn’t us”, whatever “us” happens to mean.

In her book 'The Celts - Search for a civilisation' Alice Roberts suggests that 'Celtic' described more a culture than a people.  Evidence of this influence can be found from the west of Ireland to even as far East as the Balkans.

 

Jim

[Regularity]

7 minutes ago, Caley Jim said:

In her book 'The Celts - Search for a civilisation' Alice Roberts suggests that 'Celtic' described more a culture than a people.  Evidence of this influence can be found from the west of Ireland to even as far East as the Balkans.

Yes, so they may even have been the forebears to some of what later came to be called Angles, Saxons, etc.

I seriously doubt that they had a view of their way of life and trade/warfare as a "culture", though.

[Nearholmer]

29 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

But it seems to me that the Roman influence on Britain was much like the British influence on India

 

So, why don't we have an enormous civil-service bureaucracy, transacting at least partly in Latin?

 

Actually, maybe we do.

 

[Edwardian]

11 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

 

So, why don't we have an enormous civil-service bureaucracy, transacting at least partly in Latin?

 

Actually, maybe we do.

 

 

res ipsa loquitur

[Regularity]

If a referendum takes place, and promises are made, then if the promises are voted for, do they have to happen?

 

If they don’t happen, are the broken promises grounds for prosecution due to breaking some form of constitutional law, or at least a compact between the people and the campaigners?

 

[Malcolm 0-6-0]

4 hours ago, Regularity said:

If a referendum takes place, and promises are made, then if the promises are voted for, do they have to happen?

 

 

Well that went well didn't it .......... 

 

 

 

Edited November 18, 2020 by Malcolm 0-6-0

[Malcolm 0-6-0]

7 hours ago, Caley Jim said:

In her book 'The Celts - Search for a civilisation' Alice Roberts suggests that 'Celtic' described more a culture than a people.  Evidence of this influence can be found from the west of Ireland to even as far East as the Balkans.

 

Jim

 

Speaking as an archaeologist the problem is that groups like the Celts fall into the more prehistoric than historic category which is a convoluted way of saying that one's primary source of data about them is material artefacts rather than a definitive written record. The only written records come from the Romans and Greeks and regarding the Celts those are large derogatory and designed to assert the cultural superiority of those who write those records. History being written by the victors.

 

So that means the Celts fall within the old definition of culture adopted by archaeologists which was used to create out of a more or less common range of material artefacts distributed across a defined area the idea of a discrete people. However the problem with that definition for anyone who thinks about it is that just because a group of people have a similar material culture it doesn't mean they are a unified culture in the political or social sense. Modern Europeans have a pretty much common material assemblage, and have had so  for quite a few centuries, but as the historical evidence demonstrates they aren't and never have been a unified political or social culture (the EU notwithstanding). European history is basically a long series of disputes either political or bloody.

 

There is no reason to think that Celtic populations in the same geographic area were any different to the Europeans in their relationships with each other within that area. I would go far as to suggest that in fact there isn't any evidence to suggest that Europeans and Celts are even a different people. The reality is it's just the same ethnic mix but all that has changed is the material culture. The political and social background has adjusted to the material changes but the underlying ethnicity remains. As for groups invading and replacing earlier groups in the same landscape ancient peoples did not have the population or resources to do that - they might launch well armed forays but in the end their numbers were not sufficient to overwhelm the existing populations, instead they just stayed and interbred. There might have been a few leaders etc. who set themselves up in castles/forts etc. but their followers were left to interbreed and farm just as they would have if they'd stayed where they came from.

 

Certainly there is evidence of violent overthrows of existing settlements e.g. Normans etc. however this fairly rare in the archaeological record. But to me the process is more long term and results from the spread of material culture. Which, as it was accepted for its economic benefits, generated social and political changes via the intellectual impetus that accompanied the new technologies and material etc. In short cultural change encompasses complex long term combinations of intellectual and material artefacts and that doesn't happen at the point of a spear or sword if it is to be something that will endure.        

[Nearholmer]

2 hours ago, Malcolm 0-6-0 said:

there isn't any evidence to suggest that Europeans and Celts are even a different people

There is clear evidence of genetic difference, and the Saxon arrivistes were identifiably taller and more slender than the native Brits.

[Nearholmer]

Well, I read one of the papers that Pete forwarded, and am part way through the (much less well written) second one.

 

One thing that does lodge is the estimate of numbers: possibly c2M ‘ancient Brits’ with possibly 100-200k Saxons arriving over several decades. This seems to have settled out over time to a position where in the S&E there was a c50:50 split British and Saxon among men.

 

Second is the evidence for different funeral traditions, but sometimes on a shared site, suggesting two groups living in parallel.

 

Thirdly, the DNA evidence that points to very limited intermarriage.

 

The author postulates and models an ‘apartheid’ social arrangement, but I was left wondering why he didn’t seem to consider something more like outright slavery, at least initially.

 

In the NE, the situation seems to have been more like a palace coup than “out settlement”. And, the Wessex "West Saxons" seem possibly to have been a combination of incomers and Brits who allied with them to form a strong body that then pushed outwards from their core area around Winchester, rather than a pure Saxon bunch.

 

I found the bit about Sussex particularly interesting, it being "home turf". The author says that it looks as if Saxons might have initially been given a "patch" between the Ouse and the Cuckmere. This is quite narrow, 10-15 miles at maximum, and a days walk gets you from coast to Weald, which would then have been very dense forest, so a very small area. The vegetation and river courses  were different then, but is is a great "patch", because it has multiple different soils, "lays of the land", and micro-climates - I would definitely choose it if I wanted to settle a new land. It seems that they prospered on it, bred like rabbits, and then burst out of it.

 

About 300 years to reach a point where the Brit/Saxon distinction withered away, the final cementing possibly being due to the Vikings turning-up in threatening numbers.

 

Very interesting, but still no answer to my question about why the incomers became dominant, in fact it’s an even bigger question once the numbers are considered, maybe 10:1 in favour of the Brits. I wonder if the Brits were simply used to being bossed-about, considered it normal.

 

The second paper is really hard going, because the author is a gasbag; so far he seems to be heading in similar directions using ten times more words.

 

But, it does seem that I wasn’t far wide of the mark when I said that  “nobody really knows”, and it must be either fun or demoralising to work in a field (and a laboratory, and an office) where so much is built on so little evidence, and the outcomes really make not a jot of difference to anyone anyway!

 

We could do with a CA Parish Dropbox for stuff as interesting as this.

Edited November 18, 2020 by Nearholmer

[Regularity]

All the societies being discussed made extensive use of slavery, which requires a social hierarchy, which in turn means that to take over, you simply replace the ruling elite. Very clearly demonstrated by the Normans!

[Schooner]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

it must be either fun or demoralising

Sadly, I found it the latter. Fascinating end result, dismal (to me) process. 

 

4 hours ago, Malcolm 0-6-0 said:

...

TL,DR: They had similar pots*.

 

I'm rather with Bill Bailey's throwaway line...

 

*If one invents a category to which their pots can all  belong. Inventing a 'they' in the same process as justifying 'their' existence. The Victorians...

Edited November 18, 2020 by Schooner
+1 for a CA Dropbox. Extra snark :)

[Nearholmer]

So far, I haven't read mention of slavery in these two papers, and I don't remember (and I think I would) it being mentioned as a major factor in my thirty-years-ago reading, which I do find curious -  surely it ought to be ruled in or out as a significant factor, or remarked upon as an imponderable, rather than not being mentioned.

 

Not that a society has to be slave-based in order for supplanting the elite to work as a way of seizing control - think how embedded the "it makes no difference to the likes of us" view is nowadays, both in terms of a change of ruling political party, and when one business takes-over another.

 

There was a notable "wag" working as a maintenance fitter where I used to work, and he took great delight in wearing an ensemble of PPE carrying the logos of the multiple businesses that had "owned him" over a ten year span, while he had continued to perform exactly the same job, in exactly the same substations, on exactly the same equipment. He did it deliberately, to make the point to new bosses that while he was a fixture, because he was very good at his job, they weren't!

[Edwardian]

55 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

 

There was a notable "wag" working as a maintenance fitter ...

 

Can't really see that, myself

 

[Nearholmer]

Hard to tell really, under the flame-proof boiler-suit, boots, goggles, hard-hat, ear-defenders etc, I suppose the person I always assumed was a middle-aged bloke was in fact a young, and expensively tanned, woman. Very gravelly voice, though.