The Mystery Of The Sutton Hoo Anglo-Saxon Helmet | King Arthur's Britain | Timeline
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 พ.ค. 2024
- In the last programme of the series Francis focuses his attention on the Anglo-Saxon invasion.
Sheep-farming archaeologist, Francis Pryor, presents a brand new historical series which explores Britain A.D, the British national character and the ultimate British icon King Arthur.
Finding new and previously unexplained evidence, Francis Pryor overturns the idea that Britain reverted to a state of anarchy and disorder after the Romans left in 410 AD. Instead of doom and gloom Francis discovers a continuous culture that assimilated influences from as far a field as the Middle East and Constantinople. Through scrutinising the myth of King Arthur to find out what was really going on when the Romans left, Francis is confronted by evidence that confounds traditional views of the 'Dark Ages'. There was also no invasion of bloodthirsty Anglo Saxons, rampaging across the countryside. With new archaeological evidence Francis discovers a far more interesting story.
It's like Netflix for history... Sign up to History Hit, the world's best history documentary service, at a huge discount using the code 'TIMELINE' ---ᐳ bit.ly/3a7ambu
You can find more from us on:
/ timelinewh
/ timelinewh
This channel is part of the History Hit Network. Any queries, please contact owned-enquiries@littledotstudios.com
The Netflix of History. Use code 'timeline' for 80% off bit.ly/TimelineHistory
Unga Girl pp
For those arguing about Pryor ignoring DNA evidence, note that Timeline chose to use the expression "brand new historical series" in 2017 for a program first broadcast in 2004. The DNA work showing the significant change in population DNA after the Roman period wasn't done until around 2015 or so.
🖕🏻
@Uncle Jed Depends. Some think German mercenaries were settled in Britain by Magnus Maximus well before the fifth century. It is claimed Magnus redrew the frontier just North of the Midlands and took the regular troops away. It has been pointed out that it seems incredulous that seaborne pirates would overthrow and repopulate a whole entity. The Irish didn't do that in the West and neither did the Picts etc to the North.
@@SimonOBrien-be8qt Simon ignoring that these events happened in waves.
Which grew stronger as the Empire collapsed
I love how we all have no problem pointing out that writers of the past had certain axes to grind or political points to push but then act like the ones in modern times do not.
Not so, modern historians can have all sorts of prejudices, but that have to produce evidence for their views. There are currently at least four interpretations as to who started WW1
Or we shouldn't trust Bede because he's three centuries from the events he describes, so instead we should trust historians who are distanced by a millennium and a half.
@@Gorboduc You see no difference between a 7th century monk writing to show the triumph of catholic orthodoxy, replete with miracles and wonders, and a modern trained historian who is required to show their sources and the evidence which supports their views? Maybe history is not your thing.
I think those who replied has missed his point. He isn't referring to historians writings about history. He is referring to writers writing about contemporary issues regardless of the time period.
@@Gorboduc It's not about trusting historians as people, whenever they write and however distant they are from the events they work on, because as individuals of course they have preferences, biases, and are likely to make mistakes.
It's about trusting the method of investing, collecting data and analyzing it, trusting the process of collaboration and pear review. It's never one historian with eureka breakthroughs, it's lots of competent people reaching a consensus as to what is the best possible explanation considering the information we have.
I don't know how Bede worked exactly but from what I understand here he was more a myth writer working from inside an institution (the church) that's very pro-myths, rather than a historian in the modern scientific sense of the word.
I'm a prehistorian. Francis Pryor is a well respected prehistorian and has seriously advanced what we know of prehistoric Britain. No academic is perfect and we often say a lot of 'wrong' things which might be 'right' at the time. Archaeology is a science and it is constantly evolving. We study people, which are the hardest subjects to study. There is so much we can't know and we draw on the efforts of MANY disciplines to help us study past peoples. So, whereas I can't agree with everything being said in this documentary series, what is said largely reflected what we knew at the time (2004). Certain language was being used that would capture audiences. Words like 'celtic' and 'barbarian' and 'migration/invasion' are often used as rhetoric to evoke emotion among viewers who might have learned about (extremely outdated--like, 1960s/1970s) models of early Britain.
The advancements in the methods and theories and ideas of archaeology are slow to hit mainstream dispersal. And it requires a large percentage of consensus to get there in the first place. Dr. Rachel Pope has just revolutionized what we know of 'celts' and 'celtic languages'. That paper is still being written and will likely be published this year/2020. It won't be mainstream for a long time yet. It'll undergo a lot of debate and scrutiny. But if it does change our view of 'celts' and 'celtic languages', it'll feel very much like many of you do now. Why should it be absurd to suggest that sea 'forts' are warehouses? Defending an expensive store of goods with stone walls and palisades seems like a good idea to me. It also sends a statement. Language change is a fascinating subject. People don't just abandon their native language, but it does start to change if you begin trading with people of a different language. We often think of the coercive approach to language change (Koreans forced to speak Japanese during their 20th C. occupation, for example), but we also see the peaceful addition of languages too (Spanish is rapidly becoming the dual language of Chicago). It's a matter of communication, for whatever reason.
Revision is key to archaeology. It's nothing to apologize for. This retrospection is critical for understanding how we interpret past peoples. For a long time, the past was a world of MEN. No women, but we kind of assumed they were there. Gender archaeologists spent decades asserting their views about 'women's work' and the role of women in the past. No one cared when archaeologists started calling past as a world of PEOPLE. But then again, as viewers, we are influenced by our own histories and ideas and experiences. Also, archaeology is weird, confusing, and very incomplete. We do our best and we love to share what we know.
Sometimes there is a gem in the comments section, and it makes reading through some of hate and filth worthwhile.
Thank you. ^-^
Makes sense to me too. A world of PEOPLE. They all mattered. They all contributed. As a nessecity, all people were needed and participated.
Hi Jennifer, something else that's changed since 2004 is how we look at things from the air. Back then a hot air balloon or a light aircraft... now it's all drones. Cheaper but much less fun.
@@aylbdrmadison1051 Indeed reading through the hate and filth, as you put it, does sometimes become worthwhile. Depending, of course, on which side of the hate and filth side you are standing.
@@rorytennes8576 Correct, but there are valid points being made that the history of Britain includes a little more than what was Roman Britain. Yet immediately we get retorts of, "Filth and hate". No one mentioned hate or filth - just that if considering British early history there is indeed lines to be drawn around Roman Britain and Britain.
If we want the full history these obvious boundaries have to be considered. No matter how or why the Germanic Tribes arrived and settled they did arrive in South Britain which was already Romanised while large areas of Britain were not Romanised. Nothing to do with hate or filth, simple factual details.
I have said it before. Sutton Hoo bears a striking resemblance to the ship burials in Vendel-Valsgarde from 500-600 BC just north of Upsala in Sweden. What that implies I can not say. I am a layman.
What do you mean ?
It implies we are all related. My DNA results suggest I am around 25 percent Scandinavian, around 53 percent Irish and the rest Briton. I was born in Morecambe, Lancashire. My and my cousins’ research suggest a big connection with Yorkshire in terms of our maternal ancestry. We are more diverse than we may realise! I watch documentaries about Anglo Saxons fighting the Vikings, but I think..okay.. you’re both my ancestors so that’s okay!
@@susangrant-mackie9139 the Nepalese DNA Is found in some ancient Aztec people. But they are from two opposite sides of the world. So how is that possible ??
@@russcooke5671 probably because they walked their back when it was connected mate.
@@russcooke5671 this just futher shows how connected we all are. We're from one ancestor, as the Bible days
I really love the way this episode was written by Dr. Pryor, so seamlessly weaving one piece of evidence after another. Wonderful!
What a great conversation at 5:45. It is so nice to see two people who completely disagree debating so respectfully.
I favor the "Frisians settle a de-populated landscape" scenario. Makes geographic sense for a sea-faring people, supported by linguistic and genetic analyses.
Also, the withdraw of Roman authority and stability was more likely chaotic and disastrous, rather than beneficial for that population.
@@andywomack3414 But where did the people go? There is no evidence for a dramatic rise in population in Wales etc. And anyone coming from some small german populations is not going to field huge forces, boatloads at most - this isn't DDay
@@SimonOBrien-be8qt Thanks for that response. I now have reason to doubt my original assertion. I would rather think that when Romans left, some part of their orderly nature remained behind in Britannia. I tend to think the Roman Britain more favorably than many.
I make an image of Frisian sailors making the east coast of Britain a favored stop to barter goods from Europe and fish from the North Sea, interacting with those people who did not fight and die against the Romans, and like sailors are stereotyped to do, leaving offspring in their wake. That is the type of history I like to imagine.
@@andywomack3414 Sounds reasonable but one of the issues here is identification. The British were romans, there was no distinction - St Patrick thought himself a Roman.
@@SimonOBrien-be8qt There were tribes, kingdoms and empires, but no nations then. There were Romans who would never set foot in Italy, unless it was as a legionary en route to to a campaign in a far corner of the Empire. At least that's what I gather from watching various TH-cam vids as well as taking a class on the subject a couple years ago.
Archaeologists in programs I've watched have pointed out it's very difficult to find Anglo Saxon buildings because they were wood. It doesn't necessarily mean there is no archaeological evidence. Even where there's supposed to be evidence it's difficult to find. The DNA studies have revealed there is substantial biological Anglo Saxon ancestry. It seems pretty clear the Angles and Saxons came from Europe to Britain.
Actually no and lack of evidence is not evidence. You have to be careful with DNA analysis, dentine analysis is far more useful for telling you where someone came from eg The Amesbury archer whoi is thought to come from the alps.
Of course they did. But the point here is that they didn’t invade and there weren’t battles. The population after the Roman invasion was sparse and spread across the whole of the islands. There was plenty of room for peaceful migration and trade to take place. Those which were more succesful grew in population and their fashions influenced the remainder.
@@garryowen8875 I don't think the population was sparse at all in the Roman period.I think much of low land Britain was quite heavily populated and in terms of geography and resources very favourable for settlement.What isn't so clear is the type of society which existed under Roman rule and the closeness to Anglo Saxon culture and people's on the near continent.The DNA evidence suggests a lot of moving around before, during and after the Roman period.
@@Marvin-dg8vj perhaps. I think there was plenty of room, and not much resistance as there would have been plenty of trade and likely early settlement. It would have been gradual and not a violent sudden takeover.
@@garryowen8875 I was thinking in terms of a lot of two way movement over time as well.
We tend to be stuck on modern frameworks of borders and passports!
For those arguing about Pryor ignoring DNA evidence, note that Timeline chose to use the expression "brand new historical series" in 2017 for a program first broadcast in 2004. The DNA work showing the significant change in population DNA after the Roman period wasn't done until around 2015 or so.
He still used patchy evidence. He used the teeth that im pretty sure he said were from the 7th century meaning generations after the migration to say that there were no first generation immigrants therefore no immigrants
Romans used frisians in the UK. They have written it.
Frisia was drowning in their country and familiar already with England. In the Netherlands it is known the frisians almost all moved out of the wetlands.
They were already trading with England. They knew the land.
Old english and old frisian are the most familiar languages.
Probably the Jutes Angels and Saxons came after the frisians towards England, looking for land.
I find the argument about a Celtic language being replaced by a Germanic language without invasion singularly unconvincing. People are deeply tied to their mother tongue. They don't give it up easily. Languages do die. But they die when they are overwhelmed by a more powerful local group who speak another language. They don't die because a community admires another culture and wants to learn from it. People develop a pidgin to communicate with people they are trading with. They may borrow the architecture, the musical styles, the fashions of another culture. But they keep speaking the language of their childhood, unless they are overwhelmed.
Well, the Normans eventually gave up French for a Frenchified English. But they had strong motivations (e.g. losing France, trying to establish an English national identity, and simply being massively outnumbered). As you say, no dominant native culture abandons its language as thoroughly as the British did for Anglo-Saxon without SOME kind of pressure other than mere trading convenience.
We might consider the origin of the phrase 'mother tongue'- which in this case suggests children learning to speak English at the knee of English-speaking mothers or nurses. This was how the Scandinavian warrior settlements in Ireland, Man and the Western Isles became Gaelic speaking. What comparable pattern might we imagine in relatio to the transition to English in southern Britain?
Invasion of a small but powerful and wealthy 'king' from mainland Europe? Perhaps an outlawed king, a Saxon king, without large swaths of his own kind
@@childwaters You assume all anglo - saxons spoke exactly the same language in the same way
@@childwaters We can all see the impact of English imperialism and harsh policies in Wales and Cornwall and Ireland. The native Celtic languages were placed under awful pressures and in the case of Wales and Ireland the languages and cultures were persecuted for centuries
Funny how chaps like Pryor come on so strong with their thesis that they dismiss anything that threatens their particular paradigm. This always has a corrosive effect on their credibility as scholars and turns the process into a pissing match rather than a collaboration with a common goal. SOME TIMES TWO THINGS CAN BE EQUALLY TRUE. Some of Pryor's initial comments in Episode 1 are revealing. He, like so many other historians, is fighting a battle with some ex-colleagues or professors we don't even know or care about. This is not how scholarship is supposed to work - but the pettiness and zealous devotion to their life's work and rigid paradigm are often their greatest weakness. The reality is, if you make your own "history" documentary - you control pretty much everything, and if that view is limited to an invested paradigm, that is all we learn.
Scholars disagree on almost everything.🤔
It is similar to expert witnesses at trials. There is evidence and interpretation of evidence. 🤔😉😏
Now that I am really listening to the argument Francis Prior is putting forward, it is not all that different from the standard scholarship on the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons to post Roman Britain. The standard viewpoint is that that the Anglo-Saxons came to East Anglia as invaders and conquerors. Francis Prior is saying the Anglo-Saxons came to Britain and integrated into the native population. And so their arrival held no special significance.
What if the population was decimated by the Romans so when the Anglo Saxons came in there wasn't much resistance. Added to the fact that they was probably sick of fighting and loosing loved ones.
You can call it "invasion", you can call it "mass migration", the fact is still that between the V and the VI centuries the population in the island called Britannia by the Romans, drastically changed. Did the Romans begin to settle German immigrants on British land? Were those immigrants mercenaries and/or farmers who slowly (or drastically) took over the power when the Romans left the provincia? Was that a "process", or was it a dramatic sequence of violent episodes? Nobody can still write down an ultimate truth on this page of history. What I find surprising in this case is the absolute lack of any alternate model to replace the concept of "invasion", to explain the "germanization" of the Roman-British civilization in that age in that land. You can't simply say "No, I don't believe in the great invasion" you must give an alternative model about the change that actually took place in Britain! Sorry for the low quality of my English but I'm just an Italian viewer with a deep interest in Late Roman history.
Just pointing out that that applies to South East England not to the British Isles.
@Derrick Bridges your a vulgar little man
I agree with you this program has an agenda.
they discuss cultural exchange...
@@Issaquan5 Yes but, even in the case of the deep cultural exchange, I'd say 'change', between new Germanic settlers (invaders? immigrants? Mercenaries with families?) and Roman/Britsh people living in the post-Roman Britain, if we refuse the invasion model, we still need a convincing model to explain what actually led to the vanishment of the Gallo Roman civilization in what the Roman called Britannia.
A Farmers view made me smile as Feances raises sheep! He has such a lovely voice we are blessed as he shares his wisdom.
Francis Pryor has some interesting ideas about the development of post Roman Britain but I do not agree with his basic contention of a largely peaceful cultural sea change from that of the native British to the early Anglo Saxon. Fashion and foreign contact can effect changes in a culture but not to the extent of changing the dress, language, lifestyle and development as appeared to occur at that time. The almost total absence of British nouns in English, despite the tenuous word order change, and the lack of Celtic names for towns and dwellings in nearly all of England indicates that something far more profound than a change of fashion took place. That is indicative of a new culture being introduced by a new people. I do not believe that the native Britons were all either exterminated or pushed west, I think that assimilation by the dominant society and culture (ie the Anglo Saxons) is far more likely and the only way for a foreign culture to become dominant is by conquest. The truth is probably somewhere between the two extremes of gradual, peaceful change and bloody, violent intrusion. At present, despite the claims made in this series, the jury is still out on this and unless some startling new discoveries are made in the future, will remain so for some time to come.
Sorry, I was cut off when trying to amend typos.
The point I want to respectfully make is that there was no one universal homogenous British population in pre or post Roman times. People in the East would have already have had far more contact with people in North West Europe, than the inhabitants of the West who in turn would have had contacts with France or Ireland.
Which is why the origin of X or Y chromosomes should always be treated with caution. There would have already been a millennium and a half's worth of two-way migration/interchange across the North Sea from at least the start of the Bronze age to the Roman 'withdrawal' in the fifth century, as there has been and still is for the 1,500 years since then.
DNA studies are a magnificence new tool for historical and genealogical research, but the statistical analysis used in some of the more popular reports are less than convincing.
@@RichardBrown7k You are, of course, correct when dealing with genetic evidence. What complicates the genetic picture is that both the Germanic tribes and the Celts are thought to have originated in different eras from roughly the same location - just south of the Baltic Sea. This means that the genetic 'fingerprints' of Jutes, Angles, Saxons, British, Irish and Franks are very similar. Also there would have been movement around the North Sea from before, during and after the Romans not to mention local influxes from more distant parts of the Roman Empire. People have never stood still throughout the whole of human history. There is no reason to thank that things would have been different in the fifth and sixth centuries.
@@madgeordie4469 Well expressed
@@SimonOBrien-be8qt what's never changed however is the continual smearing of the Celt. The Romans did it. The Saxons did it. Normans did it. Those whos wave the Union flag today do it. Go read any Whig Historian book. Nothings changed.
@Irish Jester the Picts were not genocided. That's garbage. The Picts are Briton's same as the Welsh. I'm one. 33% Scots men carry the Pict gene. I'm not however British. That's modern day political construct. After the Romans left what's now southern England Romano Celts were in a bit if a pickle. Anglo Saxons then came over. It's actually fairly simple all this. Much disinformation re Celt, mainly from what's known as Whig historians.
Gaul = Celt. True continental Celt. Celtic tribes were all over continental Europe. Roman empire. Disappeared. Wiped out, more or less.
There is little evidence that the Brythonic 'Celts', modern day Welsh, Cornish and Scots are genetically related to the continental Celt.
However the Brythonic tribes, Pict took on the Celtic culture, language etc.
Frisians were the traders of the 5th and 6th centuary. Living in the wetlands of the Netherland and coastle Germany. They traded and worked together with the romans. The shortest way to England was East-anglia.
Also Old-english and Old Frisian is almost the same.
I do believe that the frisians did not invade but traded a lot on the english coast. Especially in the time water got a greater problem in the Netherland, they probably moved to England a lot.
The saxons lived more inland of the Netherlands an Germany. Every person was carrying a so called sax. It's not only a saxon thing wearing a knife.
It is interesting that we have never been given an official historical explanation of the similarities between the language and place names of the Netherlands and Britain. I agree with you that people must have come over gradually and peacefully and settled .
Yes, this makes sense. So many words are similar in Frisland. They were sailors of the north sea,
Yes, in the BBC documentary The Story of English, they show how many of the most common words still in English are almost identical to Frisian. He very quickly skips over any question of language, but that is the most obvious way to show that there must have been invasion/immigration by the Angles, Saxons and Jutes.
The funniest part is when he describes England as a democracy, and the walks into the house of lords (unelected people who can overrule (slightly) democratically elected MPs, but who ultimately answer to a monarch.
@42:00
The Monarchy Had Absolute Rule Until The "Monarchy Restoration",When They Finally Became A Constitutional Monarchy
@@jameskpolkastronomyhistory5984 Proportional representation, with STV, gives us the only two true democracies on the planet. Malta and Ireland.
There are no other truly democratic countries.
When the head of your government is a monarch, then you live in a monarchy. This applies not only to the U.K. (and the commonwealth countries who still pledge allegiance to German Lizzy, and her late Greek cousin/husband), but any country with an unelected monarch as the head of government
@@TerryODowd The Queen is not the head of government.
@@drey8 Do you really not know that your queen is the head of your government?
I'm not British, and I know that she has the final say.
You may also want to take a look at the house of lords, and how it's almost as inbred as your royal family.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom
@@TerryODowd I'm not here to have an argument with you, especially if your comments are going to be immature, but in a constitutional monarchy the sovereign is a head of state only. Any legislation could _in theory_ be blocked by the sovereign but _in practice_ it never is because the elected government nowadays has more powers. It would serve you well to actually read the wikipedia article you've provided as evidence, because it's all there, 5th paragraph in sums it up.
So awesome to see and hear Francis Pryor narrate this show.
Language change, that's the best counter-argument against this theory, there's no way the people would change their language because of new peaceful travelers, we know from history that the people who invade make their language the spoken language by force.
The force, however, could be economic. The fact that so many people who do not live in English-speaking countries speak English is largely due to economic reasons. Even in Victorian times. people who wanted to "get ahead" spoke English in their public and Gaelic at home. The transition in language may have taken a similar path.
@@Orphen42O Indeed.
Not just language, but names and surnames disappeared. Changed religion too. The whole culture changed to Saxon/ English
Before "A bunch of Celts who fought and drank"
After "A bunch of Germans who fought and drank - but at least their farms were very neat and clean"
😂😂😂
Before - A bunch of Britons who fought and drank. No Celts here.
@@billythedog-309 Celts were a culture, not a people. And that culture once dominated Briton
@@markothwriter That's not the view of many in Scotland and lreland - they believe they are a different race from the awful Anglo Saxons.
@@billythedog-309 There are Celtic artifacts found in Turkey, Germany, the Baltics. It was a design and a druidic movement. I'm no expert.
I think that reason why there isn't evidence of a military invasion by the Anglo-Saxons like their was during the Roman invasion is because native English had significantly assimilated into Roman culture and when the Anglo-Saxons eventually showed up their wasn't much friction between the two because northern Europeans had ALSO assimilated to the Roman culture that conquered them. This would kind of explain why the Sutton Hoo helmet has a bit of a Roman like style along with other archeological finds throughout southern England.
Perhaps the 6th-century Justinian Plague is relevant. If there was still trade between the Mediterranean and Britain, the plague may have reached Britain. The Anglo-Saxons came from the continent, and may have had more genetic resistance to plagues than the Celtic people. If there was a mass die-off of Celts in mixed Celtic/Anglo-Saxon areas, the Anglo-Saxons would become dominant by default.
There is some truth in this. Britons and Anglo-Saxons had to come to a stalemate in the early sixth century. Southern Britain was divided between them with the Anglo-Saxons to the north of the east. London was a British Island in an English sea. There is a reasonable body of evidence for a British general called Arthur after the Celtic God.
But the Anglo Saxon seem to have survived the plague far better than the Britons. Perhaps it was because they were less urbanized. Whatever the reason, in the late 500s they seem to have taken over most of southern Britain.
Also the massive volcano eruption in what is now Indonesia in 535 caused many people to move around due to the substantial changes in weather patterns. They had to endure cold temperatures due to the huge amount of ash in the skies and this caused large scale migrations. This is what caused the Turks to move westward. So many people were looking for land to grow food and survive and this volcanic eruption had to play a part in this as well.
You make an excellent point - of which these guys seemed to not even know about the plague and the volcano.
When Europeans encountered indigeneous people, there was a major decline in the indigeneous population due to disease. It is possible that when the anglo-Saxons arrived in Britain, they had the same effect on the Celtic people. After all, helped by disease, a relatively few Europeans were able to wipe out thousands of indigenous people without having to conduct the type of damage that would live behind a great deal of archeological evidence. When the native population was decimated, the newcomers would simply take over the land while putting the native population into a subservient position. If the indigeneous population ascribed the newcomers arrival with a deadly disease to some supernatural power, it would be that much easier for the newcomers to impose their will. Celtic culture did not completely disappear. It retreated to the more remote areas such as the Scottish highlands. It is likely that the Anglo-Saxons came to Britain because they needed to escape from warfare, poverty and disease that existed in their own homelands.
@@Orphen42O The other way round is more likely. The more urbanized Britons might pass on diseases to which they had resistance to the rural Anglo-Saxons who had no resistance. Also, in this case, both Celts and Saxons were European.
@@eugenesullivan ..what you wrote is a nice Summerup,lol..yea Celts ,like me ,lol
Wow! He shuts down any theory that conflicts with his own
Yeah makes me think he's already made up his mind and is only accepting evidence that proves his point and neglecting, disregarding it dismissing anything that disproves his theory. That my friend is called bad archaeology.
Must be a Democrat 😂😂😂
@@adammessina6182, more likely a QANON Republican 😄
Yeah, sounds like every liberal democrat who gets a chance to speak , huh? 🤔🤔🤔
" I don't believe" is how he frames his argument. Not "I can prove" or "I think".
English is not descended from German. It is descended from the West Germanic branch of languages, from which both English and German are descended. In addition to the subtle influence of the Celtic language, there was also influence from the Norse language (e.g. the use of "th" in our language, which is not found in German).
'Th' is not found in German but is found in Welsh.
I’m pretty sure that while it’s not found in High German now, it once was. German is the one that changed in this respect, not English. “Th” is original in Old English, and was already present in proto-Germanic. It doesn’t come to English from Norse.
My understanding, the closest language to English is Frisian, a north Germanic language.
It makes geographic sense for there to be cultural, linguistic, and genetic ties between England and the Dutch sea-coast. My guess, those ties began during the neolithic with the development of sea-faring technology. That Frisian settlement happened in periodic waves; that language, genes and culture crossed the North Sea as much, or more, by (mostly) peaceful trade as by violent organized confrontation.
@@andywomack3414 well from what ive heard the beaker people did come to britain through the netherlands so yes in a way they were but then the beaker people were replaced by celtic people, genetic evidence shows it was up to 90% and the netherlands eventually became germanic so i can only assume it was similar for them so those ties were severed then reformed after frisian people joined in the anglo-saxon migration
@@jackcocker545 Thanks for that.
Most of my focus for ancient history is further south, giving me the impression that was where most of the action was.
In a way, I suppose that would be correct due to geography and environment.
The first people to settle Britannia from Europe walked rather than floated there anyway.
Sorry,to say I always found Francis totally unconvincing,even when he appeared on Timeteam.
Francis is an archaeologist,not an historian. No archaeological evidence does not mean something did not occur.
Give me Michael Wood anyday.
In Britain BC he said ancient Britons used dogs to herd sheep. He didn't provide any evidence for that. They could be just hunting dogs.
I agree. Michael Wood is much more insightful.
A very interesting presentation, but Pryor's explanation of why British people changed their language from Celtic to Germanic is weak and unconvincing.
It is as if they almost ignore the 1066 "migration" and its aftereffects! ;-)
@@MaegnasMw ha so true mate.. I wonder why..?
See conquered. I could legitimately argue the English haven't had control of their institutions since. Because they haven't.
The same bloodlines sit in the HoL. The English have accepted serfdom. Only they cannot see it. Jingoistic claptrap whipped up by these Whig historians see.
I think there may have been some motivation to come up with an iconoclastic-revisionist reinterpretation of history, but it strikes me as a bit of a nothing-burger. Call it an invasion. Call it the great replacement. Imagine a hoard of torch-wielding pseudo-Britons chanting “Jutes will not replace us!”. Whatever you want to call it, it happened.
@@MendTheWorld And that is your evidence is it? And you seem to have history and archaeology mixed up with fundamentalist religion. History changes as evidence comes forth. The Sutton Hoo ship was thought to be Viking, no longer, the famous helmet was thought to be Swedish, no longer. British place names were thought not to exist in the East, no longer - keep up.
It was Expats, not them Anglo Saxon immigrants !
Keeps claiming the Britons didnt have their culture affected by invaders except for the fact they basically lost their entire language, nice atory bro.
Michael McDougall I have to agree. In what universe do the home group welcome a group of new people, and instead of the new learning the native language, the home group goes through the effort of learning the new? And abandons their own language. The Celtic languages are so different that us makes no sense for themto have been eclipsed like this. Too bad. I usually enjoy this,channel, but this episode made me doubt the scholarship.
He didn't say they didn't have their culture affected. That's obvious. We speak English. He is just saying they weren't necessarily invaders. Happens all the time. Look at the cultural and linguistic influence of the British Empire and the Americans today, the Persians, Romans and Chinese before them. U don't have to invade countries to change them. Trade and culture can do that too
@@susancassan6870 in ours.... He is right. look at france for instance. first they spoke gaul, then latin... yet if you check their genes, they still are exactly where they should be genetic wise still natives of their land. look at spain... the language changed to latin and yet they are nowhere near italian or roman in genes. look at romania... even the national name claims decendance of the romans. sources even claim the natives were wiped out and got repopulated by romans. today romanian as a language is closest to latin out of all countries. yet do the romanians show up to be geneticly roman? not even close. look at almost all countries who speak a turkic language, even "the turks"... they are not majorly descended by turkic people, yet got the language. I think you need to give this more thoughts susan. there are many more examples.
The Britons lost their rulers when the Romans left. Alpha dog Angles and Saxons, I'm sure given their battles with Rome on the continent, quickly came swooping in and said that they would be your rulers now. Same happened on the continent, didn't it? in Gaul, i.e. Franks. The Britons were an occupied, or let's say conquered people, and the German tribes were not. They had an entirely different view on life and therefore different ambitions and motivations. So, ya, the Britons may have indeed welcomed them in some way, either genuinely or reluctantly.
@@jh1859 if you watched episode 2 you'd know that the Britons did just fine, thank you very much, after the Romans left for a while, and were one of the richest and most literate peoples in Europe at the time. The Franks as well, assimilated into the culture that they came to rule, just as the Anglo-Saxons must have and the Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Lombards, Vikings and Normans did later as well
It's amazing how positive these archaeologists are about things for which there is absolutely no, or very little, evidence.
Thanks god they're not scientists.
If they were scientists they would be scientific.
Trying to understand the past is never easy. What one must do is collect as much evidence as possible than offer an interpretation. No interpretation is set in stone. As additional evidence is found the interpretatikns offered are modified. This is an on going process. Archaeology will always be limited by the fact that most material culture doesn’t survive. That's the nature of the discipline. If you really knew anything about archaeology then you'd understand that archaeologists do in fact adhere to the scientific method, and professional archaeologists typical employ highly structured recovery techniques.
More holes than a swiss cheese in most of his arguments.
Mm. Swiss cheese... 😋
Kidding. I am also genuinely curious what you think is wrong with these arguments. I could probably think of one or two myself but I'm home sick and cognitively not exactly at 100% right now.
So where's your archeological evidence, Mark?
@@letitbeenow Roman fortifications to defend against Germanic tribes for starters!
Late Roman accounts asking for Aid !
As for trying to look for battle sites in that period it’s going to be near impossible for obvious reasons.
We have difficulty identifying battlefield site in the later medieval period let alone back then.
I’d also point to the fighting between the Normans and Saxons after the Conquest and the Normans and Welsh and Scottish in the Marches (Re Marcher Lords)for further evidence that the post Roman period was a peaceful change over.
It’s about
Territory
Resources and Gold
They have started more wars than anything else (not religion)
Or maybe you think the Saxons Jutes and Angles came over in rubber boats aided by criminals and aid workers 🙄
Mark is trying to rewrite history like the Jacobins and intellectual left.
@@letitbeenow th-cam.com/video/wuApNmdYksc/w-d-xo.html
There you go
Some of the video's arguments lack subtlety and prompt some real questions: First, why couldn't a massive Roman fortification serve as both a bastion against invasion AND an economic center for import and export trade? After all, we know that Roman colonias and forts elsewhere in Britain (e.g. Hadrian's Wall) were meant both to establish Roman military presence and to form client communities that were economically dependent on Roman authority. The Romans always mixed military control with economic dominance -- as did later Norman rulers in Britain and Ireland. Second, why does the host take two conflicting genetic studies and simply decide that they don't disprove his favored bias? They don't prove it, either. Third, why is it convincing that there were villages in Yorkshire that existed until the 7th century and then disappeared? Would that not tend to indicate they were wiped out -- either by famine or conflict -- caused by, oh, I don't know Anglo-Saxon incursions? This entire program seems like a grab-you thesis that searches for "iron clad" proof and, in the process, just steamrolls any conflicting facts.
Seriously proposing that a series of forts were built to facilitate trade? That's not what forts are built for, and if you want to facilitate trade you build docks and warehouses that open up additional space for people and goods. You don't surround yourself by stone walls and poke your head up waving your goods on a spear point.
This whole episode only had one agenda and everything in it had to be spun that way. Just ludicrous!
@@MsOpal55 It was a documentary not a meeting. It didn't have an agenda or action points
Forts are the guarantor of trade.
The military and merchants go hand-in-hand
@@donlove3741 Of course. And before relatively recently buildings served a variety of purposes. St Pauls cathedral and other churches were used to host business meetings and meals, with flat tombs serving as tables. Apart from very distinguished company most people in medieval castles, mansions slept where they could, there were no specific rooms. When Bob Hope's family house was sold in the UK 2 decades ago it was remarked that it did not seem to have a bthroom. The explanation was the idea of having a room for a bath would have seemed ridiculous - you bathed where the tin bath was placed.
@@MsOpal55 A sad reflection of times today ..
Incredibly misleading title here. basically all three episodes lead to the central thesis that Anglo-Saxon is a made-up group (while cherry picking certain theories and theorists, FYI), wrongfully asserting that established theories to the british people as ethnically homogeneous (they don't), and that in conclusion it's all about peaceful diversity and migration rather than tumultuous invasion from time to time. Also let's completely disregard the fact that the term Dark ages had much more to do with a relative scarcity of documentation or evidence from that time period when compared to others, rather than as a term of indictment that the time was evil and horrendous.
You certainly are applying a 21st century happy thought paradigm to a decidedly non 21st century period of history. And then claiming it has anything to do with the whole idea of Arthurian Britain I guess just to get people to watch.
literally can't disagree with any of that.
Yes, but why can't it be a significant anglo saxon migration over a crntury rather than invasion? It would still mean that Britons was once settled by Colts and gradually Saxons populated and pushed the Celts west and north.
Mostly because significant migration into territory held by other groups was rarely if ever peaceful in antiquity and the very concept of invasion doesn't always imply mass murdering. It is often a tumultuous changing of the times and frankly even the video isn't making the conclusion you're positing.
Invasion can actually be a relatively benign term and simply denotes that the history of migration and mass movement of people is better seen in terms of conflict/conquering/eventual settling/displacement rather than simple cohesion. To a certain extent it can be seen simply as the overtaking of supreme as one ethnic group of another not necessarily through war like means either but rather cultural overtaking.
my only point was that the title was incredibly misleading because it really wasn't talking much about Arthurian Britain rather than positing a theory that completely disregards established research on the subject.
No one is suggesting a set invasion date and time with established armies and leaders and movements a la the Roman invasion of Britain. But to suggest it was a simple migration and there were no speed bumps or conflict over the course of a century isn't even something the video is claiming. also the concept of invasion isn't a set date and time and can often take decades and even centuries. The post Roman shuffling of European countries and ethnic groups was not peaceful and the history of the world is a history of invasion, displacement and tribal conflict.
as a huge fan of time team, seeing Dr. Francis in his element is awesome! Hes like a schoolboy so exited and pround!
We should all be very pround
Excellent, many thanks. At long last the actual history of humanity is recognized in the lives of ordinary people--not just the bravura of narcissism.
As a former postwoman, I came across many foreign familynames, from all over Europe and Asia. When I happened to start a conversation, I noticed even more 'foreignity' amongst the people. There has allways, through the ages, been a coming and going of peoples searching for a better living, freedom, learning. I love that. Makes a society so interesting. What I like most of 'the English' is their interest in their history as their present identity. Their dead are among them, their archtecture and tools still in use, their culture cherished and vivid.
And slowly, but surely, we come to the end of the film where it is "look how diverse we are", look at our "identities". Identity is not as important as the "idea" and our "idea" of Western Civilization is the individual and the value of him/her.
In any case there is one factor never mentioned and that is "Cultural Differences". Your place of birth is not important and it was only the, "national", sports teams that used place of birth to be your, "Nationality", it never was the legal definition. For example Cliff Richards was born of British oar ants in India is he an Indian?
I have two cousins who, with myself, were born less than six months apart We were all born of Scottish parents in Scotland but one, (me), remained to grow up in Scotland, one grew up in London and the other in Detroit USA.
Now the one from London is as English as can be I have been an SNP supporter/activist for around 71 years and, bizarrely, our USA born cousin identifies as Scottish to the extent of now living in Canada and wearing full Highland dress, speaking Gaelic and regularly attending the local Scottish Society.
Thing is the family were originally Scottish Borders then East Lothian then Mid Lothian/Edinburgh. Where the USAsian got his Highland culture from is anyone's guess?
I didn't get that far, I stopped watching 15 minutes in of the third part. I see it got worse and I was picking up on that already.
Thank you. Was scrolling through the comments to see if it was clear to others as well.
Yes, a diversity of a Celtic and Anglo-Saxon backgrounds. That makes sense. Two interesting European cultures make up what it means to be English. Something to be proud of.
Thats the point of the anglo saxon migration. There were heavy influences on the DNA of britain because immigrants from germany, the netherlands and denmark were interbreeding with the britons. This man says that because there isnt any evidence of violence that means a migration never occured while ignoring studies that show 40% of british DNA comes directly from the anglo-saxons which is a lot considering there were unfluences from pre-celtic people, celtic people, normans and even more migration later on from different areas of the world
@@jackcocker545 romans left barely any dna in England
@@masonmccarty8551 thats why I didn't mention them
I'd say it's a mistake for Pryor to imply that the idea of Anglo-Saxon *Invasion* remains some sort of historiographical orthodoxy that he is the first to demolish ... academic critiques of the *invasion hypothesis* have been growing (to the point of becoming the new orthodoxy) over the past 5 or 6 decades.
As well this could be said true of the entirety of the Anglosphere, though it continues to evolve in its diverse diasporas
It wasn't just that "the Roman troops departed". Britain had been a Roman province for about 400 years and that had indelibly changed the culture long before the Anglo-Saxons started moving in. Much like the American Indians the native Celtic / Druid population had been decimated or driven west to Wales or Ireland. I think during this period there was an influx of trade and people from the continent which blended to form the ancestors of modern England.
1) after 400 years Romans and Brits became one ethnic group.
2) with the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons, most of the Roman Britons were killed and the women raped, guaranteeing the survival of the DNA of the Roman Britons. in england the Roman DNA fluctuates between 2 and 16 percent in different areas
An unconvincing documentary to say the least.
an attempt by sjws to change your past so you forget the real one
Lived in the fifth century did you? Amazing
We would like to see some evidence to the contrary before we agree that your opinion carries more gravity than that of dedicated scholars.
@@chronosschiron This video uses multiple evidences to substantiate its claim. Where are yours?
@@chronosschiron What evidence would be acceptable if not that offered in this video?
Agreeing with most of the comments below - the course of the change from Celtic England to Anglo-Saxon England is probably complex and obscure, but Pryor's interpretation is weirdly tendentious. For example, at Sutton Hoo he carefully ignores the obviously Germanic techniques and design in the construction of the Sutton Hoo ship. Britons could have copied the style of Germanic ships, but they could not have adopted the construction techniques without strong tuition.
Not really, you have to prove it is not the other way around. Null hypothesis is that they both separately came up with the same design.
I believe the enameling tradition is British though that just means the Anglo-Saxons learnt the technique at some point, the Sutton Hoo burial is basically an early Viking burial showing how close the Anglo-Saxons, or at least some of them, were to the later Norse in culture - essentially the same people which is why the geneticists weren't able to tell the difference between Norse and Anglo-Saxon dna. That may have since changed.
@Chris Wings It The style of the artwork found at the Sutton Hoo burial is called Vendelic and it comes from Sweden, near Stockholm. It is the style associated with the so-called Saxons in Britain in the 6th and 7th centuries. Maybe a small number were actually Saxons, but the vast majority were likely Friesians, iutes, Ingwines, Hasdingi, and Geats. Within each of these groups were likely a strangely mixed hodgepodge of ethnicities.
@Chris Wings It By Brythonic I assume you're referring to the late Le Tene style which with the Roman conquest quickly died out in the 1st-century AD. Nevertheless, the Vendel style is distinct, well documented, and centered on northern Scandinavia, in the area around Stockholm, as was the very distinct and elaborate ship burial complex seen at Sutton Hoo.
@Chris Wings It I'm sorry but the term Brythonic refers specifically to a type of P-Celt language and not an artistic style. If by your use of Brythonic in a stylistic sense, you're not referring to the Celtic Late Latene style, I'll assume you mean the so-called Insular style, also known as, the Hiberno-Saxon style which was derived from the earlier Vendelic style, which came to dominate the British Isles by the mid-6th century. The later Hiberno-Saxon style which was based on the Vendelic style was predominant until the mid-11th century. This was likely due to its adoption by the local Latin Church as the approved artistic expression. The elaborate design (specifically) often associated with the so-called Celtic Cross you mention is of West Germanic origin and harkens back to pre-Christian tradition and deeply rooted Germanic/Norse mythology, which to some extent was found in the Late Letene style, as well. For example, the use of the intertwined twin serpent motif depicting Sváfnir and Jörmunr. This is likely due to the fact that in myth the Celtic, Italic, Baltic, and Germanic traditions all share a common Indo-European cultural ancestor.
Pryor clearly has his own agender and own version of history.
Or you've been very well indoctrinated.
@@DrNatemiester "Indoctinated" into what, exactly? Skepticism? You do know history is in the humanities, right? It's not an exact science. Pryor is asserting a theory that the Celts vanished without a protest even though friction between Anglos and Celts still exists in Britain today. Interestingly we know the Norse invasion was more violent and yet there is far less friction between Anglo-Norse and Anglo-Saxon Britons. There's still a hint of it in the north-south divide but that's more of an economic than an ethnic issue. The big question is, where did all the Celts go? Nobody knows apparently.
@@viktoriabentham8664 History has become a science when it is supported by evidence like genetics, measurement of isotopes and proper archaeology. In the past, when it was solely based on written accounts of indirect or biased witnesses, it was far removed from the scientific method.
@@paulmakinson1965 History, by definition, is not and never will be a science. History is the forming of a narrative based on discovery of documents that hints at something, not proving it. Historians do not set out to prove something is true based on the scientific method. Scientific experiment can only prove something is 100% true if there is empirical evidence. Since it is impossible to empirically observe life in 800 AD Britain for ourselves we leave it to historians to interpret what little evidence remains into a narrative which always depends on the personal biases of the historian. All witnesses are biased and all historians are biased. Everybody is biased. There is no such thing as a 100% unbiased article, essay, journal, diary, or thesis. History belongs to the humanities. Genetics is not empirical evidence and only gives us hints.
@@viktoriabentham8664 You're very fond of the letter k aren't you? Also you appear to think that the Celts are a race, rather than a style or culture.
I am not an expert at all, but *I strongly believe* that overwhelming number of cultural references and historical hints about Saxon-Celtic struggle have got to be based on some facts.
So, where does all the anglo saxon names on towns come from?
And why would a large majority of Gaelic speaking Britons adopt the anglosaxon language ?
There are also Viking names. And Roman names. And Celtic names. It's a mix. That's the point - that Britain has been multi-cultural for a very long time. He never said the Anglo-Saxons weren't here, or that they didn't have an influence - just that their influence didn't necessarily come from violence.
They didn't adopt the Anglo-Saxon language - if they did, we would now be speaking German, or Dutch, or Flemish. We speak English, because what they did was to assimilate Anglo-Saxon words and concepts into their own Celtic/Gaelic way of speaking, and also with Latin, to create a new language.
Nowadays English is a mixture between old (Norman) French and proto old high German and has then evolved over the centuries. These 2 sources along with some Latin words make up 95% or more of nowadays English. German words have survived in the rural areas. Eg. The denomination of farm animals ist mostly German while the same meat of this animal is French (Cow, bull, Ox vs. beef or calf vs. veal) Celtic / Gaelic is practically non existent
stonehenge was like a statue of liberty, right?
"I don't believe" is hardly a sound basis for reaching a conclusion.
Um, "I don't believe" is the announcement of what conclusion a person has reached. From there on out, it's the soundest basis for whatever they conclude next.
Get it, Julie? What they say is what they mean, I'd think.
The 'I don't believe', is actually backed by the lack of evidence to support the current narrative lol
@@krimmer66 Francis' favourite phrase is 'Personally, I am convinced that... ' Eventually you just stop listening.
@@krimmer66
How can a nothing do any backing, Ken?
@@lordfnord5768
We probably never know what the whole and right story is without traveling back in time.
The Norman invasion didn't lead to population replacement and in fact consisted of only a few thousand men and their horses, but nevertheless transformed English society and were still definitely invasions.
Well since up to 40% of modern britsh DNA (higher in england) is made up of anglo-saxon genes that were the exact same as the populations in germamy, the netherlands and denmark I think its safe to assume a huge amount of anglo-saxons migrated to these islands
You're right about the Normans.
Just makes me wonder how England will change after a few more decades of mass colonization by middle easterners and Pakistanis, on top of the millions who have settled there over the past few decades.
That's not even what colonisation means, immigration is not the same thing. And the amount of middle Eastern people in the UK is low. Many people were coming from Poland but Brexit has changed that and fewer Europeans will come into the UK because other Europeans have also faced discrimination and no longer feel welcome. Non EU immigrants mostly come from South Asia, mainly India. Not the middle East. This is because a lot of the former colonies of the British empire that are in the commonwealth were allowed to immigrate after WW2 when the population had dropped.
@@SorceressWitch when did the population drop ?
@@jackcocker545 The Anglo - Saxons are myth - you didn't watch the video. Bede made them up.
Celts were not primitive savages, and I believe their culture, infused with strong Roman influences during the occupation period, was mature enough to hold its own.
I've seen other docs that state that the Saxons, Angles, Jutes and Frisians were invited to come to Britannia to act as "live-in" mercenaries to help bolster the military forces of the Christian Romano-British in their fight against the Gaels, Picts and not so fellow pagan Britons. What started out as a protection agreement slowly became a colonization.
You might be nearly right. The Romanised South Britons had been around 400 years without experience of either defence or running a country and history records that a similar, "Invasion", in continental France by Norsemen was actually an invitation to the marauding Norsemen to settle in an area of France if they would just stop raiding the area, and Normandy was born - Norseman land). So it makes since that the south Briton would make the same offer to the Germanic tribes and can also explain the Norman invasion of South Britain a bit later.
There had been a good deal of warfare between the leading Britons as the elites quickly turned into argumentative princes ruling over the former Roman administrative areas and even though they appointed their own king after they had kicked out the Roman magistrates and officials (Gildas refers to these ousted officials as 'rectores') they were not averse to getting rid of the king if he didn't do what they wanted. One powerful magnate, know later as 'Vortigern' (which means the 'proud tyrant) who seems to have ruled from Gloucestershire (which may be the reason for the survival and refurbishment of villas like Chedworth, which are in that area) is said by Bede to have invited Saxon warriors in to fight for him. There is no reason to disbelieve this. Vortigern was certainly a real person whose memory is preserved in lots of tales from Brittany (where large numbers of wealthy Britons later emigrated to, giving the area its present name) and inviting Germanic tribes in to fight on your behalf in exchange for land (in this case in Kent) was standard late Roman practice, which Vortigern was following.
Exactly! Invited as mercenaries by Vortigern. And exactly how the Roman's got a foothold here at Fishbourne....invited in by a besieged friend of Romes. Just in this case, a besieged Briton invited in the Saex/Angles/Jutes.
@@TheAuldBob absolutely correct, agree with you. Its a proven fact.
@@Crispvs1 Hurrah! Good to see someone who knows their history as opposed to many here just trying to rubbish this film.
"The people of Britain changed their language, their customs, their political allegiance because they knew from experience that this was the best way to keep up with changing times"? Really? Did they figure this out from the wee trickle of continental families that are grumblingly admitted to have landed upon the isles? This is absurd in so many ways.
This "documentary" is pro mass immigration propaganda disguised as history. A few comments in the earlier parts gave me pause to think what they were on about. It became evident when he dismissed the genetic data due to it not supporting the general theme of continued survival of the local population and culture.
@@Catubrannos
Exactly.
Also can't take anyone seriously who says that English is descended from German. They are both descended from proto Germanic, which is a wholly different proposition.
As for the ludicrous "Celtic" grammar "influence".....!?
Old English was an inflected language, where word order was less important than word endings but this changed due to the impact of the Danish settlement and the Norman Conquest. It didn't happen in the 5th, 6th or 7th century. Couldn't he have checked an Old
English manuscript and seen the development in the 10th and 11th Centuries.....?
FP doing a Dark Age doc. This reeks of the BBC. Can't wait for an in-depth re-analysis of the Bronze Age by a mediaeval expert.
Does seem very unlikely that trickle of people may bring new ideas even some word changes but not an entire language
@@Catubrannos That's the ooposite of what he was saying.
ANOTHER GREAT ACCOUNT / CHANNEL. WE LOVE ANCIENT, MYSTERIOUS HISTORY.
Feeling a bit nostalgic for days of hot air balloon surveys rather than drone flights
The Britons just adopted a foreign language for the heck of it, very unlikely
Have you been to East London in the last twenty years? It happens all the time.
There wasn't any official language you just spoke what your own tribe was speaking. The Britons probably learned the new Germanic languages with even more problems than the Latin in the ages before. I suppose it took ages to develop into Anglo Saxon as one language.
Agree; without significant migration, language shifts take a very long time. For example, despite four hundred years of Roman rule, Latin doesn't seem to have been spoken by the majority in Britain by the time the Anglo-Saxons arrived. Old English, on the other hand, had spread throughout most of southern Britain within a couple of centuries. That kind of shift needs large-scale migration.
They want to rewrite history, they want to justify the migration.
all people in the world come from migration Paul think about it
And now we have "our diverse and resilient culture"...Thanks for the insight Francis...
Its not that diverse, most of the influences are indo-european anyway so they were very closely related
Awesome. Anyone who can get me to reconsider my POV as Francis just has earns my respect.
I really thought that towards the end of the documentary they would eventually discuss the actual history.
Anglo-Saxon mercenaries were invited by the local government in Briton to help them fight off raiders from Scotland. Eventually the Saxons turned on their Briton patrons and wiped most of them out as evidenced with the rise of King Arthur who was most likely based in wales.
I truly believed that this documentary was going to discuss the facts and I was saddened that it instead chose to ignore them and rewrite history to suit their Neoliberal philosophy of Globalism and forced multiculturalism.
The point is there is no archaeological evidence to support the wiping out theory.
@@garryowen8875
In fact, more than 50% of the DNA of the British population are from Middle Eastern farmers, from somewhere in France!
so you think you are telling them something they have never heard before? trumpers abound everywhere. :/
So, really they are MEFS and not WASPS.
6.50 the argument here could be that the increase spread of Plague amongst the Celts at the time meant that great swathes of land were left abandoned or unpopulated as a result. Meaning the Anglo-Saxons were able to move west and deeper into modern England without resistance.
If you figure that few people reached their 30s, perhaps only 2 out of 14 children a mother might have, survived due to climate, famine, plagues etc and the Anglo Saxons moving into the gaps with only a slighter better mortality rate due to being in a position to control resources better and having slave women handy as concubines, males killed or held as slaves it would not take long for the original male population to disappear without much of a population drop being noticed by archaeology.
HOW MANY COMMERCIALS DO YOU NEED!!!!
i don't mind a few adverts, as they have to make a living. but this was way too many, I don't need a new phone plan or a SUV thanks.
@@albatelf Here it was adverts about cooking, banking, and now I can't remember. Guess I'll have to watch it all over again...
@@albatelf Yeah, make a living from other people's "content". They didn't make this documentary, they don't deserve to make money from it.
AD BLOCKER
totally, never watching this channel again
This doesn't address how the Celtic language survived Roman occupation, but was replaced by English. The Normans were few in number as he claims the Saxons were, yet significant amounts of English remained post invasion. Something is missing here.
2:36 "Came in to help" Yeaaahh! As in "We're from the government and we're here to help"
more like, " we need workers" and then they never leave.
Could many Brits have died during the mid-sixth century bubonic plague, leaving unpopulated areas for Angles and Saxons to settle?
Of course, but academics don't like things like that, preferring fantasies where everyone suddenly decides to learn German and then let a monk tell them who they are.
@@celteuskara There were no Brits back then there were the ....undisciplined Celts. 🤔😉😏
There may not have been a foreign invasion in those days, but there is definitely one going on now. The local culture survived then, but there is no certainty it will survive now a days.
I love red faced Francis Pryor! And I still love Time Team!!! Good see you Helen!
Bede not only ventured from Tyneside he lived and worked on Wearside in the monastery of St Peter's where there was a library. What little he did record about his his own life was the fact that he grew up at St Peter's in Monkwearmouth. It is also known that he visited York and Lindisfarne. The programme proposes a fairly radical theory but worryingly gets some very basic facts wrong yet conveniently they do fit the narrative.
Pryor's theory is interesting and indeed there are many unanswered questions about the arrival of the Anglo Saxon society in Britain but as a sociologist I am very sceptical though about the notion that over a relatively short time the local Brits simply adopted the culture of a handful of Anglo Saxons. Communities simply do not abandon their cultural identity and their established way of life either willingly or very easily and especially not in pre-industrial societies. One's culture and communal identity is held in place by a set of very complex social and economic factors as well as established beliefs. Pryor himself even argues that contrary to our previous assumptions an especially strong cultural and social identity existed in Britain before the Anglo Saxons arrived. A culture that he argues was superior to the rest of Europe's. What the heck then was it about a few Anglo Saxons of all the other European races that cause the Britons to abandon their own "superior" culture and begin to completely identify themselves en masse as Anglo Saxons within the space of a couple of hundred years? To even to get to the point that Bede did of sneering at the Britons without realising that he was one of them? I am far from convinced that as their own legend of Horsa and Hengist suggests there was a hostile Anglo Saxon invasion of Britain but I will say don't give up the sheep farming just yet Francis.
Hmm is that correct? In most SA countries Spanish language and Religion are totally dominant and it only took a couple of hundred years. Bede was a RC monk, this mattered at this time, he did not consider the British church to be orthodox. To him this was an important difference. And sadly we do not know much about the state of British culture in the fifth century or even what language they spoke and if they all spoke the same one. No one believes "Horse"and "Mare" ever existed . Is "mare" the name a conquering chief would use? Wouldn't people laugh? Pryor's view is nothing new.
I was told that the Anglo-Saxons integrated with native Britain when I was at school 35 years ago. Sounds like he's trying to make an already established history into a new revolutionary idea.
Well they more likely migrated on mass and interbred with the locals which explains why there were suddenly two distinct cultures that merged within a generation or two, it was less about integrating and more about exchanging. Also the britons werent native, they were an indo-european group that replaced the previous bell beakers who themselves replaced the previous people who built stonehenge by up to 90%. This man has half information and makes radical claims based on it, sometimes even being very decietful by saying that because there werent many first generation immigrants a few hundred years after the main migration took place that means the migration never took place
@@jackcocker545 What do you mean "replaced" how? Where is the evidence for this "replacement" where are these stats coming from?
Hi Nick. I'm concerned that you attended school while the Anglo-Saxons were integrating. Try: "While I was attending school 35 years ago, I learnt....." If you think I'm too serious read the post above.
They taught Anglo-Saxon history in your school? What school is this? Most just like to start from 1066 for English history.
@@SorceressWitch Er no Augustine, Alfred the Great etc also get covered.
I found a great deal of interesting ideas and information in your video. However your conclusion reveals that the point of it was propaganda. How very disappointing.
Yes!
I really enjoy telling the story of Vortigern's Tower in which the birth of Arthur is foretold. It's difficult to separate fact from fiction
Merlín claimed him from Uther before he was conceived.
If I do this... what become of this will be mine....
a fasinating programme but, as per the many comments here, many questions arise of things that do not seem to fit the pattern being tabled. i wonder why the elaborate Sutton Hoo anglo saxon buriel ( with many artifacts originating from sweden) took place, if the tribe concerned were simply minor immigrants as suggested?
Its not the only burial on the site. It was one of many, but the largest one. Some are earlier but different. And it's on a rise close to the River Deben, so the boat was hauled up there.
Am I an idiot for watching this series thinking this was about the myth and legends of King Arthur?
Yes, but I am the idiot whom did not watch it after it appeared a couple of times in my feed because I wanted to know about post Roman Britain and not myths and legends.
@@carbon1255 multicultural propaganda of course, I hope he will get diarrhea
... from his chicken masala
Francis archey with sheep farming tendices. Or other way round?
@@carbon1255 Is Arthur a legend? Thing is Brythonic was spoken right up north as far as old Strathclyde, (further north than the current Strathclyde), and there is an Arthur's Seat in Edinburgh and a village, (now part of Falkirk), called, "Camelon". Tintagel Castle was built long after the Artur Story so may well by a side-track. I read somewhere that the round Table story could not fit the Arthur story as the teckknowlegy to construct a round table large enough to seat all those Knights didn't exist back then but the two words in the Brythonic language for table and house were only one letter different and the type of building in Scotland from the claimed period was certainly roundhouses. Was Arthur a north Briton, (no Scotland or England back then)? Me! I don't know but just state what I read.
“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”
― George Orwell, 1984
i think thy try and do that here lol
Orwell was a mere hack.
“History is written by the victors” ~Winston Churchill
...and Donald Trump, 2016-2024.
WOW!
I prefer the invasion explanation. It happened in Belgium too. until 400 AD, the population in Belgium was romanized Celtic, then the Francs come in from the North, and there seem to have been no struggle. If you look at the toponyms, you see that rivers and villages along rivers are Celtic, and toponyms in empty spaces between them are German of origin. The Francs just settled in the available space.
Yes but we have a lot of historical references to a flood of Goths,Vandals etc coming over the Rhine en masse at the end of 405 ( or 406).The Romans struggled with this influx and were not able to organize a proper defence until 450 .At other times they were more concerned with settling these incomers as Roman federates.This is much more specific evidence than anything that happened in Roman Britain after 400.We do know Roman admin in Britain collapsed more thoroughly and DNA evidence suggests an influx of new comers of about 10% in the early AS period.
Several decades ago I worked with a fellow who had inherited an unusually explicit bit of his own genealogy. His family had handed down a piece of information that had to have originated maybe 1500 years ago. He was a descendant of a fellow named "Fubert the Saxon". I have concluded that whether or not there was an Anglo-Saxon invasion of the British Isles, there were, at one time, people living there who reckoned that they were Saxons.
Right and the fact Fubert was called "the Saxon" implies that there weren't many of them.
Nobody said there weren’t Anglo Saxons in Britain, there had to have been…. *what **_was_** said is that there has never been any great invasion of Anglo Saxons, an idea which was wrongly promulgated by historians for centuries.* That’s a very different statement. Not only that, but many aspects of our modern English language is Germanic, from the Anglo Saxons, but newer evaluations of linguistics strongly indicate a Celtic basis, something which has been denied in the past. What I find interesting is that our English language has only some French vocabulary words, despite the mass invasion which we know took place in 1066, and despite that fact that French was the language of the royal court for centuries. This to me provides more evidence for a slow influx of Anglo Saxons over many centuries.
Well needless to say I sensed where this was going in the first 3 seconds.
It's obvious now why the first two parts are free; so they can try to bend you over and insert the post-modern objective they had all along.
You got it Green Mage!
Not even kind enough to give you a tub of vaseline are they?
Chicken tikka masala 🤯🤡😒
Perfect example of one extreme : the Dark Ages were reallv, really, l mean totally really dark, going to the other extreme : the Dark Ages were a period of happiness and bliss and nobody invaded anything...
Then I'd like this very learned revisonnist, but respectable archaeologist to explain why the country known then as Armoricun (Armorique, in french) became the country known today as Bretagne, the french translation of Britain. (whch explains why Britain is now called Great Britain), to differentiate it from the french Britain.
I was told that the name changed after the arrival there of thousand upon thousand of british refugees fleeing the Anglo-saxon invasion --the one that never happened according to our learned revisionnist-- and were welcomed by their celtic kin on the other side of the Channel.
I gather it must be another myth... Actually they went there for a vacation, thought the place was cool and decided to stay...
Sheeeesh...
You was told wrong ;-)
Lesser Britain, Armorica had strong links to greater Britain, before during and more significantly after the Roman's leaving Britain. During the Dark Ages those ties were strengthened further and maintained throughout the successive Jute/Angle/Saex invasions.
Those ties were weakened by what went in France, Normandy and neighbouring regions. After the Norman invasion Anglo Saxons never sought refuge in Armorica or Bretagne, Brittany......as they had no historic or familial ties. Many Anglo Saxons in fact returned to the Danish shores or further afield to the Byzantine Empire. Some served in the Varangian guard, or were used as auxiliaries to the Eastern Roman Empire. So numerous were they after 1066 that they were granted land in the Crimea or in Turkey and founded the original "New Britain" there......but they, the Anglo Saxons had nothing to do with the subject matter of this programme or King Arthur, other than invading King Arthur's country.
Excellent video. Would've liked more on Hengest and Horsa. Also, one of the big issues for Bede was that the Anglo-Saxons were calculating Easter wrong. He felt they needed the Roman Church to help convert them into doing it correctly.
THE FIRST ANGLO SAXON THAT CAME WERE NOT EVEN CHRISTIANS BUT PAGAN, ARCHAEOLOGY HAS PROVEN THIS BECAUSE THEY FOUND MANY EARLY ANGLO SAXON PAGAN BURIAL. BUT MANY OF THE ROMANO BRITAIN AT THAT TIMES WERE ALREADY CHRISTIANS. THIS IS CLEAR ENOUGH EVIDENCE THAT THE ANGLO SAXON WERE INVADERS.
So insightful would love to learn more.
02:50 - 03:32 - You don't bury a king with all these precious items on the foreign soul, exposing it to probable devastation or robbery by indigenous (British) population. You bury a king in such luxurious manner on the soil (territory) you as ethnicity consider as yours.
Basically, it is impossible to generalize about "invasion" or "not invasion". It probably must have varied from one part of British island to another.
I read Frank Stenton’s Anglo Saxon England many years ago and thoroughly enjoyed it.
Do we just discard this book now.
I guess if you want to read it as fiction, it's okay to keep it.
@@nohjuan3048 Really!u
No, genetic evidence has proven this video to be wrong. Either he overlooked this evidence or this video was made before the evidence was released
@@jackcocker545 The language, place name , culture, they have been massively changed from the Romano British world. Scholars can convince anyone by using their intellect. the fact remains the Germanic invasions changed the fabric of this country just as centuries later the Danes changes the east of England and had an influence on our place names and language. This process is continuing today with the latest foreigners arrive with their ethnic culture, they bring a change that influent’s our language, music and styles of food. All this enriches our national experiences.
To deny this country was not changed by our Germanic ancestors is total nonsense. No matter what The archeologist say.
Our history seems to be proven by a shard of pottery, and by the interpretation the archaeologist place in it. I still feel Frank Stenson’s research cannot be dismissed.
Athelstan, Alfred the Great, and the many Anglo Saxon Kings before these giants of Englishness, should be honoured as our heroes.
They are certainly my English heroes no matter what Francis Pryor is trying to prove.
Jai Sai Ram.
@@nohjuan3048 Fiction. you sir are a fool... Except it it was almost a compete replacement... This has since been proven by GENECTICS.
Very interesting, and very thought-provoking.
But all those Roman shore forts, with walls so massively-thick they endure to the present day, would have required a fantastic outlay of time, effort and resources to build.
Somehow, I can’t help thinking that the theory they were storage locations for trading goods just does not justify their fortress-like dimensions.
There would have had to be very pressing reasons to construct them.
And it’s remarkable that their geographic locations mirror those of the Martello Towers built during the Napoleonic era, and the Chain Home (Radar) stations constructed shortly before the Second World War.
And as we all know, there were very urgent and very pressing reasons for building those.
It’s also remarkable that in my own location near the Sussex coast, Roman villas have been excavated showing signs of violent destruction and burning …
So Francis is saying the Celts adopted some Anglo Saxon culture, over time, as a result of a process of trade migration etc, instead of invasion. Quite feasible thus leading to a dominant Anglo Saxon culture with a Celtic underpinning. It would still make English culture largely Anglo Saxon but over a different time frame. All cultures around the world have their view of how they came to be this simply suggests that the route to the end outcome is a different one. All history is created in a political and social context.
Fascinating. Political agenda revealed at the conclusion but fantastically well research until then.
Right. DIVERSITY was the selling the point here.
Excellent! Such pleasure to watch and listen to…
Supreme.
Had my DNA done and was suprised I had so much Briton and barely any Anglo-Saxon (Danish-German). My mother's English side goes back to 1400s on Ancestry.
I’m happy to say that I’m 94% Germanic 6% Scandinavian ,so a rare “AngloSaxon” bird 🤔this is after two separate tests by different company’s
@@Jez.Von.Franco Wow and you are English? No Celtic?
@@trilithon108 so it seems , a couple of good books to read are The Seven Daughter’s of Eve ,The Blood of the Isles and tribes of Britain 🇬🇧
@Jez Francis Britons are Celtic so I am mostly Celtic and very little Anglo-Saxon.
Look, the gradual immigration of Angles and Saxon is hardly a new view. In fact it has been the mainstream historical account for some time.
@Graham, King of the Britons! oh yes.
TheWhitehiker... Amianus Marcellinus ,a roman historian of the IV century mentions the invasion of Britania by Saxson , Jutes and other germanic tribes as Britania was a roman Province.
@@ezzovonachalm7534 indeed.
The case for almost completely peaceful adopting another language is utterly unconvincing. He's arguing with an agenda instead of going where the evidence leads him. Lots of stuff in part I & II is quite good, but that's where he lost me.
Absolutely agree.
He is basing his entire hypothesis on just one excavation site. Very precarious to say the least.
Famous historian's wisdom: absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence
Oncaphilis, I second that. Part I and II are exciting things but this is just absurd.
Absolutely.The moment where they seemed to be surprised by the similarity between English and Frisian genetic pools... like okay, wheredid the Saxons come from. Oh and what a surprise! Yan-t tell them that uch apart from Danes. For these guys apparently the relationship between the Jutes and Jutland must be purely coincidental. I mean, what-s their hypothesis then to sustain why it's English and not some Romance or Celtic language that is spoken in England?
That's one reason I love archeology! Always rewriting history!
This was a really interesting documentary. Lots of food for thought.
Fascinating and thought-provoking: my only disappointment is that in all of this the story of Britain seems to be seen as an evolution towards what was to become England, and that the North British kingdoms, especially Strathclyde, don't figure: since it outlasted the other post-Roman kingdoms (maintaining a technical identity into early medieval times) this seems odd. We are often shown the patchwork of kingdoms stretching up the east of what is now Scotland, but of course that was rolled back by the Picts (who were Britons) who were in turn (it is assumed) subsumed within the Scots from Ireland. I think a dearth of serious archaeology north of the border may have skewed our limited understanding of post-Roman Britain to produce an almost exclusively English narrative, and that one set of false assumptions may be replaced with another, no less misleading. We hear about Pope Gregory and how the Anglo-Saxons became Christian, but nothing of the Irish monastic tradition and Columkil (Columba) who preceded him and (partially!) Christianised the Picts. Nevertheless this is not a major criticism - I merely wonder whether the patterns Dr Pryor identifies were evident in the "British" societies which lasted longest.
Yes. A huge cavern opened up and vanished in a blink when the oxygen isotope analysis found swathes of 'Cumbrians(!?)' in east Yorks. These were brethonic speaking Old North-eners from Rhegged or Stathclyde. Whichever of those 3 descriptors best pertains. ie 'Brits' dismissed as 'economic migrants' with breathtakingly implicit Anglo-centricism! They were the dominant culture pre, post, and maybe during 'Roman Britain'. There were several prominent Brit Emperors in Rome. Then Francis shows that 'English' is well influenced by that very brethonic language base. And still the penny doesn't drop that the well established and questionably 'Rpmanised' brits were by far the biggest influence throughout what became England and Wales, let alone those in Strathclyde and with the also brethonic Picts, as you rightly point out. btw Francis' premise IS refreshingly diffusionist and encompassing. It's a stepping stone to the peoples of these isles reclaiming their once widely taught brit-centric history. Whatever languages we ended up adopting/shaping or keeping - as with Welsh, Cornish, Gaelic etc. Our history is clearly written for all still to see in those languages. It's just been ignored or dismissed by those seeking to reinvent their own claims - exactly as Francis clarifies in this piece. And it's not just Bede's 'papal' revisionism we need to correct...
I have a very close and trusted friend who has complied a dossier of so much information on this person(s) in his extensive collection he has unearthed more than one that could be called Arthur or of the Aurthurian umbrella sort of like maybe Zorro or Robin Hood a character for whom there is not a direct spot on here it is person but people who fought for things that were exemplary. Archetypes they're called I know. But I am a hopeless romantic at heart. I think that Jack Whyte's King Arthur series of books were the most well put together idea's of the anti-Saxon hero trying to put together a nation that would stand against the enemies foreign and domestic.
For thirty years I've been watching time team... and finally a theory that makes sense. Culture changes at a grain by grain pace - not in leaps and bounds. Of course there are times when society is overwhelmed, but there exists the uneventful periods when change is all but un-noticed.
The Arthur myth was used to forge a nationalist identity as early as the medieval period, which became more anglicised with Malory, and even through the Tudor monarchy, when Henry VII named his first son Arthur. The story was later used in Spenser’s The Faerie Queene, which he used to justify the invasion and suppression of Ireland.
The Authur myth also seems to be a collage of different tales, stories, histories, myths told, retold embellished and modified down threw the years. Alot going on there, but thats English history for you. One busy island.
The Victorians who were genuine white nationalists were very taken with the idea of Anglo Saxon origins of democracy.
They were not keen on the Normans for obvious reasons.
Monty Python has ruined me for watching things like this. Every time the guy says "the Britains" I hear Terry Gilliam as the peasant woman saying "Who are the Britains?" in the back of my head.
@dan b...lol,I'm conevinced Monthy python got it right
Actually, he did. The average person probably thought the world was that twenty mile area that surrounded his home. He probably did not think in terms of nationhood. In fact, the local culture probably meant more to him than any thoughts about national identity.
@@Orphen42O ..the Python team were the greatest..politics,religion,broken down to a comical farce,but somehow true
This has been debunked already, this historian is in an absolute minority with this opinion. No one has ever said it was one big invasion, it happened over time - they emigrated over a time. Our DNA has been mapped and it clearly shows most of our roots, it's from Northern Germany and Holland, which is where Anglo-Saxons originate, as well as Scandinavian DNA. Celtic is a different tyoe, commonly found in Wales, Scotland and Ireland - as well as border areas of these countries with England. I'm surprised this documentary is still showing.
Its not history, its cultural engineering. You are multi-cultural Britons, you're not pure, so do not be upset about immigration from Pakistan...
@@movinon1242 what
@@movinon1242 no ones pure haha aslong as they have morals and treat women like humans then no problem and come here legally unfortunately look at all the crimes
@@movinon1242 Ok buddy I think no country is keen on Pakistani and Afghan immigrants atm.
We Americans don’t have this identity anguish, nearly everyone has roots in several other parts of the world, it’s the mixture that keeps the energy and creativity of humanity going.
If Dominique's excavation proves there was no Anglo-Saxon invasion, it must also prove there was no Roman invasion by the same logical conclusion. The only thing it could possible prove is there was no signs of violence at that particular site.
Except we have actual contemporary records from the Roman General who did the invading
Rubbish!
This is my least favourite of the three programmes. he seems to go off track here. it's fair enough to say that there was a mixing of people between Britons and foreign migrators. To say that it was an entirely peaceful event is crazy however. The Welsh call the English the old enemy to this day. There are strong cultural differences between English and Welsh societies to this day. It's pretty horrific how any Welsh and Irish historical documents are simply discarded. There is a great deal to be learnt about the history of this country by learning Welsh and simply reading a map. It's a shame that this episode let's down the series so badly.
I think you have misunderstood the whole thesis.
Mr. Thomas, a good friend of mine , when I first started EFM (Education for Ministry) twelve years ago, once stated, " History=his story, and he's sticking to it". I think the various speakers are stating this. The main thing to remember is that Rome couldn't abide by the fact Britain, The Island of the Mighty, SURVIVED no matter what happened to it. Rome, the Church, even Sir Thomas Mallory and Crètian de Trois all had their own agendas as to what Britain and King Arthur, as well as other legends were.
From reading your comments, it seems to me that you have the Welsh equivalent of, " Sassenach awa' hame " syndrome, and missed the point that the majority of British people are of the same stock as pre-Roman Britain.
agree 100%
Rhys I totally agree it goes well of track about 10 minutes in or so
Thanks for your input.you seam to good outlook!
Ok, if there was Anglo Saxon invasion of Britain how do you explain this?
"In the early eighth century, Cornwall was probably a sub-division of Dumnonia, and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records that in 710 Geraint, king of Dumnonia, fought against Ine, king of Wessex. The Annales Cambriae states that in 722 the Battle of Hehil "among the Cornishmen" was won by the Britons."
When the lady was talking about the dig and how Oxford n cambs came to help… my thoughts went out to Mr Basil Brown. The real MVP!
Well, Basil was just a peasant, don't you know.
Interesting video but per some of the comments below, how do you know the small hamlet-sized sample space you have excavated is representative of Britain writ large?
Obviously with anything as big as a national migration, there are going to be sparse areas, perhaps many, if certain places of ingress are more saturated.
Is there something strategic about the area you have reviewed that would make it a necessary foothold for said nonexistent invasion?
So - The show called King Arthur's Britain - hypes up the search for Arthur in two episodes...Then says in the 3rd there was no invasion, no reason for Arthur to have existed...
It was a BBC series called "Britain AD", so no Arthur hyping.
No invasion doesn’t mean no conflict.
@@siarlb8115 and no invasion doesnt mean no migration
Celtic propaganda to underplay the impact of the Anglo Saxons !
regardless of how the language was adopted, it's cool how it blended to become modern english!
It's such a pity that you havs failed to use it correctly.
@Mahafrin Chowdhry : Quote "It's such a pity that you *havs* failed to use it correctly." end quote.
That is all, thank you. ^-^
True story mi ode duk 👍🏼
The modern English language is only partly made from Anglo Saxons, it's a blend of French, Latin, Celtic.
I like the fact unruly hair aka Mick Ashton is a sign of good archaeology .
How about the beetroot face? The trouble with watching Francis is that I'm always worried he's going to explode or something : )
Sorry to say, I became interested in this topic after watching the dig.
It’s pretty neat.
Now I’m eating it up.
This "immigration" model of Saxonisation is very much in line with the ideological position of the academics who propose it. The old view of invasion might indeed not involve people replacement, but it does not preclude relatively small warrior groups gaining dominance over larger populations without the means to contest their arrival. They find, land, people to dominate and women to take. The osmosis of culture just takes place naturally as people seek to copy the most powerful in society. We do indeed wear American jeans today, and there are not many Americans here, but it is also true that America is effectively the dominant power here. Their numerous military bases here bear witness.
Agenda alert!
350 years of Roman military artistry were too impressive not to be justified afterwards. What was it good for?
West Frisian Jokes they never discovered, because only East Westfalians know how to to fix them with East Frisian Jokes.
You have a helluva lot more to worry about than American blue jeans. Your own government has opened a Pandora's box on you.
@@shanecomeback8296 That's gibberish, Shane.
‘Murrica!