The Saxon invasion... fact or fiction?
Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 8:55 pm
I watched a very interesting TV documentary recently, which has challenged my understanding of how parts of Britain became "Saxon, or Anglo-Saxon".
Essentially, conventional wisdom has taught us to believe that at some point during the Dark Ages the Saxons and the Angles mounted and invasion on the shores of eastern Britain, eradicating/displacing the Celtic-Romano tribes of old, as well as the native Celtic languages.
By and large this view comes from the writings of Bede (673-735 AD), who lived around 200 years after the Angles/Saxons were supposed to have invaded Britain.
That's the conventional story in a nutshell. However, there has been recently (and still is) a massive Archaeological study of certain parts of northern and eastern England, which is directly challenging what we have been taught. Basically, when invasions take place there is always very clear Archaeological evidence of such violent events. For example, we know that the Romans, the Vikings and the Normans invaded Britain. The evidence for these invasions show up in things such as burned villages, evidence of mass killings etc. etc. However, the massive Archaeological study currently taking place has found no evidence whatsoever of the so-called "invasion" by the Angles/Saxons.
The clear evidence so far paints a very different picture. Instead of there being an invasion, there was a friendly mingling of cultures as small bands of foreigners traded with the Celtic tribes. Slowly, over a few hundred years, the Celtic tribes picked up words and phrases from the Angles/Saxons until the language became very similar... the beginnings of "English" as we know it. Linguists have shown that English is more closely related to Dutch than any other language, which sort of fits in with the new theory. So rather than a violent invasion changing the nation through conquest, it was a peaceful integration of foreign cultures and language that made England what it was in the years preceding the Norman invasion.
For me, It was very difficult to suddenly have to acknowledge that what I thought was the true history of England may well be wrong. I keep wanting to rebel against this new evidence, but if it's the truth and what I previously believed was a lie spreading down through history from the Ecclesiastical writings of Bede, then I'm prepared to change my beliefs. In fact, the new theory makes more sense to me and I feel more comfortable with it than the "old" history.
Essentially, conventional wisdom has taught us to believe that at some point during the Dark Ages the Saxons and the Angles mounted and invasion on the shores of eastern Britain, eradicating/displacing the Celtic-Romano tribes of old, as well as the native Celtic languages.
By and large this view comes from the writings of Bede (673-735 AD), who lived around 200 years after the Angles/Saxons were supposed to have invaded Britain.
That's the conventional story in a nutshell. However, there has been recently (and still is) a massive Archaeological study of certain parts of northern and eastern England, which is directly challenging what we have been taught. Basically, when invasions take place there is always very clear Archaeological evidence of such violent events. For example, we know that the Romans, the Vikings and the Normans invaded Britain. The evidence for these invasions show up in things such as burned villages, evidence of mass killings etc. etc. However, the massive Archaeological study currently taking place has found no evidence whatsoever of the so-called "invasion" by the Angles/Saxons.
The clear evidence so far paints a very different picture. Instead of there being an invasion, there was a friendly mingling of cultures as small bands of foreigners traded with the Celtic tribes. Slowly, over a few hundred years, the Celtic tribes picked up words and phrases from the Angles/Saxons until the language became very similar... the beginnings of "English" as we know it. Linguists have shown that English is more closely related to Dutch than any other language, which sort of fits in with the new theory. So rather than a violent invasion changing the nation through conquest, it was a peaceful integration of foreign cultures and language that made England what it was in the years preceding the Norman invasion.
For me, It was very difficult to suddenly have to acknowledge that what I thought was the true history of England may well be wrong. I keep wanting to rebel against this new evidence, but if it's the truth and what I previously believed was a lie spreading down through history from the Ecclesiastical writings of Bede, then I'm prepared to change my beliefs. In fact, the new theory makes more sense to me and I feel more comfortable with it than the "old" history.
