Origins of the Anglo-Saxons interpreted from place names

[Albion]

Chadwick's (1924: 52) remark concerning his account:

“Bede's statement as to the origin of the various nations in Britain are so definite
that we should certainly expect to get evidence for the same classification elsewhere.
Such evidence, however, is not easy to find.”

Therefore, the present thesis will try to show
that the Germanic tribes who invaded England during the fifth century did not come directly
from Schleswig and Denmark across the North Sea, rather they came from parts of
Northern Germany, the Netherlands and Flanders across the Channel. Because of the
shorter crossing distance this assumption already seems to be more logical. Udolph (1994,
1995) carried out leading investigations on this topic and came to the following conclusion:

Schleswig-Holstein und Dänemark scheiden als Basis der germanischen Besiedler
Englands aus, der Weg führte vielmehr über die Niederlande (vor allem
durch deren südliche Provinzen) und Nordbelgien nach Flandern und
Nordfrankreich, überwand den Kanal an seiner engsten Stelle und setzte sich
in südöstlichen Grafschaften Englands kontinuierlich fort. (1995: 266)

This statement forms the underlying basis of the present thesis and with the help of the
distribution of three topographical place-name elements, it will look at the early settlement
movements to England from an onomastic perspective. Thus, the investigation will
neither aim at any specific conclusions as to the tribal composition of the early settlers,
nor will it try to establish a settlement chronology. In these areas the informative value of
place-names is limited. Hence—as the title suggests—the main focus of the thesis lies in
locating the continental origins of the Germanic settlers.

The second part contains the actual investigation. It starts with an introductory note
on the method and material used. This is then followed by a thorough analysis of all three
Germanic elements under investigation: klei (‘clayey soil, clay’), rusch/risch (‘rush’), sol
(‘muddy or miry pool’). This analysis will include each element's etymology, its distribution
on the Continent and in England, and will, finally, discuss specific characteristics and
striking structural features found in the place- and field-names for each element.

With the existence of such convincing results it is quite surprising and has been regretted
by different scholars (e.g. Riemann 1942: 128) that not much research, concerning
this continental connection, has been carried out by British researchers. Although there
are definitely intensive investigations on single place-name elements and sometimes even
a link to their Germanic origin, all of this research is restricted to England (e.g. Jacobsson
1997). Considering the consistent view from England towards Scandinavia this is even
more surprising. Yet the pioneering place-name scholar, Eilert Ekwall (1951) commented
on this topic: “However, the migration to Britain will not have been in all cases direct from
the Jutish peninsula and the districts immediately south of it, but a gradual movement
from the original seats to the coast of the English Channel” (quoted in Udolph 1994: 768).

The origins of the Anglo-Saxon settlers of England are
definitely not restricted to Schleswig-Holstein and Jutland, as suggested by historical authorities,
but quite seemingly include parts of Lower Saxony, Westphalia, Belgium,
Flanders and northern France. This, in turn does not mean that nobody from the Jutland
territory made their way to England. This view also finds support in historical research on
the origins of the Saxons, which will be elaborated upon further (cf. 1.4). Although historiIntroduction:
Previous Studies 8
ans (e.g. Myres 1986: 50-5) suggest major tribal movements from Scandinavia southwards
and westwards along the coastline into the lands of the Frisians, which might then lead
into a Channel crossing, this requires further proof. This can be perfectly achieved on the
basis of place-names. For this purpose the following two chapters will introduce the scientific
basis of the present thesis.

Nevertheless, the majority of the settlers consisted of Angles and Saxons. Yet this
still leaves a few questions: Who were they exactly? Where did these tribes come from?
What is known about them? It is known that the Latinized form Anglii was first mentioned
(without a precise geographical position) by the Latin scholar Tacitus in his Germania
(about AD 100), in which he tries to give a complete picture of its inhabitants (Blair
1956: 8). According to Bede the homeland of the Angles was Angulus, which is believed to
have survived in the area Angeln located in today's Schleswig-Holstein (Hoops 1973: 285,
Blair 1965: 169). However, already in 1924 Chadwick gives the following objection as to
their location: “We have hardly any references to a people called Angli on the Continent,
and the locality of their original home is therefore to some extent open to doubt” (85).
Also Ptolemy's description of an inland tribe west of the middle Elbe has been refused and
the assumption that the Angles are a maritime people that lived in Jutland and neighbouring
islands can be supported by archaeological findings (Stenton 1950: 12-3).
As to the Saxons no reference can be found in Tacitus's early account of barbarian
Germania (Springer 2004: 21). They are only mentioned about one century later by the
Greek geographer Ptolemy, who places them on the neck of the Cimbric peninsula
between the lower reaches of the rivers Weser and Elbe (Blair 1956: 9). However, since his
data does not seem to be very reliable this location cannot be taken as granted. Furthermore,
it seems implausible that the Saxons were mentioned by the later writer Ptolemy
but not by Tacitus who had a more focused aim (Springer 2004: 21).
At this point a recent historical approach by Springer (2004) sheds some light on this
problem. Springer ascribes the general assumption of the original Saxon homelands being
on the Cimbric peninsula to a misspelling of the name in a later copy of Ptolemy's Geography.
Springer (2004: 27-9) shows that Ptolemy did not write Sáxones but Avíones. He
concludes that “ein mittelalterlicher Abschreiber der ‘Geographie’ der nichts von den Avionen
wusste, [hat] den Namen zu Axones verballhornt, ein weiterer dieses Unwort zu Sáxones
verschlimmbessert” (Springer 2004: 28). In other words, this misspelling happened
because of the simple fact that the name was not known to the copyist and also not able to
be identified and was, therefore, replaced by a familiar one. This is a quite frequent behaviour—
especially when considering one's own behaviour when trying to read old handwritten
letters. The idea that Tacitus did not mention the Saxones but the Aviones (SpringIntroduction:
The Early Settlers 18
er 2004: 27) becomes even more interesting in connection with the present work. Since Tacitus's
intention was to describe barbarian Germania it seems remarkable that he did not
mention the Saxones, whereas Ptolemy—the later Greek writer—did. Furthermore, it is
even thought that the Aviones came from the Cimbric peninsula—which means that they
appear where Ptolemy placed his supposed Saxons (Springer 2004: 28). Not only can we
see from this that there is some need for reconsidering this matter, but it also raises questions
as to the reliability of historical accounts with their often late copies.
From all this no exact location for the Angles or the Saxons can be identified. Thus,
it would also seem too dangerous to restrict them to the suggested regions on the Cimbric
peninsula which emerge from Bede's description.

[Albion]

Klei

Generally, as place-name elements Germanic klei and OE clǣg are well recorded in
the whole investigation area. Along the coastal line of Lower Saxony and the Netherlands
it is sparsely distributed and can mainly be found between the Weser and Elbe region. Although
Wiswe (1970: 220) describes the appellative as being typical of the specific soil of
the area around Salzgitter, the examples located there only show more or less modern records
and thus do not carry too much weight here. More interesting for Germany seems to
be Westphalia, where klei (klai, kle) is well attested as a place-name element, as well as
with early recordings (three examples before 1100). These examples find their continuation
in Belgium—in North Brabant and especially Flanders. A look at the distribution map
clearly suggests that Flanders represents the last derivatives of the West Germanic settlers
before crossing to England. Concerning the Germanic toponym klei the area of the early
English settlers is definitely not connected to Schleswig-Holstein and Denmark. The map
entry Klejs for Denmark will be analysed later in this text. The spreading with its concentration
in Northern Germany rather supports a comment made by Jellinghaus (1898: 299).
He states that the element klei is well attested “in ndd. und nl. namen von wohnplätzen
und fluren […],” and goes on “das wort scheint bei den Süddeutschen zu fehlen.” Moreover,
the evident cluster along the coastal line of West Flanders supports the present assumption
that the crossing from the Continent to England occured across the Channel and not
across the North Sea. To sum up, the distribution of Germanic klei on the Continent supports
the theory advanced by Udolph (1994, 1995), which because of a concentration of old
Germanic toponyms in Belgium, the Netherlands, and Westphalia assumes that the settlers
were especially numerous in this coastal regions before crossing the Channel to England.
At first glance England gives the impression of a relatively even distribution of the
appellative clǣg. Numerous place- and field-names can be seen from Devon to Yorkshire
and from Norfolk to Shropshire. However, having a closer look two slight clusters can be
recognised. One in the more central region around Warwickshire, Staffordshire, Leicestershire,
and Northamptonshire, and the other in the more south-eastern area including
Berkshire, Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Middlesex, Surrey, and Sussex. Furthermore, of
the 26 examples with early records (before 1100) six are located in the south-eastern part
(Buckinghamshire, Middlesex, Surrey, Sussex) of England and five more in the East (Cambridgeshire,
Norfolk, Suffolk). Both regions are generally assumed to represent territory of
early Germanic settlements. At this point the distribution map does not offer any other
conclusions. A more detailed discussion of certain aspects will follow in the next section.
It must be borne in mind that the focus of the present investigation lies on the origins of
the Germanic settlers on the Continent and the analysis of England will not be as detailed.

Rusch / risch

According to Udolph (2006: 331) Jellinghaus stated in 1923 that the continental forms
(rüsch, rüsk, rusk, rusch) derived from OE risc, rix, rysc, resc are well distributed in Westphalia
and Lower Saxony. However, first glance at the map clearly contradicts this proposition.
On the whole, the distribution of rusch/risch in Germany is not very frequent. Two
field-names and one place-name are mapped for Lower Saxony, two more place-names for
North Rhine-Westphalia, and two for Schleswig-Holstein. Although only three examples
can be found in Lower Saxony on the distribution map the full appendix lists nine more
field-name examples. Unfortunately, they all have records after 1600 and have not been
mapped because of this (cf. 2). Apart from the generally late continental record tradition
the fact that they are all field-names constitutes another reason for their late recognition.
This view is supported by the lost field-name Rishbrede (LS) with its first record going
back to as early as 1310.

Going westwards towards the direction of the English Channel the evidence on the
map for rusch/risch increases on the way from western Westphalia via the Belgian regions
Brabant and Hainout continuing and clustering along the coastal area of Flanders. Although
not very clear a slight connection between western Germany and Belgium can be
assumed. And again, this distribution hardly leaves any doubts about the connection
between the Continent and England via the Channel.
Drawing the attention to England the element rusch/risch seems to be evenly distributed
all over the central and southern regions. Clusters around the areas of Cheshire,
Staffordshire, and Shropshire can be observed. This certainly is a little unsuspected since
these counties do not belong to the areas of first Germanic settlements. However, having a
closer look at the listings in the appendix one realises that in Cheshire the majority (nine)
of the sixteen examples constitute later field-names recorded after 1200. Moreover, the
EPNS edition for Cheshire presents one of the more recent issues, which have been carried
out more precisely, especially for field-names. The numerous examples found in Cheshire
have to be qualified with this. Thus, over half of the names found in the West Midlands
can be regarded as later coinages. However, it has to be mentioned that there are also four
records found in this region, which have been recorded in Domesday Book (1086). Although
this rather early record seems to be significant one has to be reminded that “for
many place-names […] it furnishes the earliest record extant” (Clark 1992: 453) and should
thus be treated with care (cf. 1.2). It can be concluded that the cluster found in the area of
the West Midlands does not point to early Germanic settlements but seems to belong to
secondary settlement movements.
On the other hand the more expected clusters in the southern and south-eastern regions
of England are, at first glance, not evident. Yet—they are definitely existent. The
south-eastern regions including Berkshire, Hertfordshire, Norfolk, Oxfordshire, and Suffolk
show eight place- and field-names. The more southern counties of Middlesex, Surrey,
Sussex, and Kent have twelve more examples on record. Furthermore, the EPNS volumes
for Kent, Suffolk, Norfolk, and also Hampshire are still in progress (cf. 2), which partly explains
a distributional imbalance in comparison to other English areas.
In summary, without having a closer look at the actual data the cluster on the distribution
map in the West Midlands appears prominent, but it turns out to consist of a number
of field-names, whose later records suggest an area of secondary settlements. For the
southern and south-eastern counties, which are believed to be areas of early Germanic settlements, twenty examples are listed.

By analysing the relatively complex etymology of the investigated MLG rusch/
risch it has been possible to show that the continental forms as well as OE risc, rix, rysc
can be considered to represent ancient Germanic word stock. All forms refer to a plant
growing on marshy ground and until today the modern English form rush is part of the
English language stock. On the Continent some dialectal forms can also still be found in
the Lower German language area (Piirainen 1984: 338). The distribution map mirrors
strong occurrence in Flanders and England and definite traces are also present in the
north-west of Germany. This mapping repeats the results of the first analysis with klei and
clearly demonstrates where the West Germanic settlers of England came from. Denmark
and Jutland are irrelevant as a starting point for the settlement movement to England. Yet
Schleswig-Holstein also seems to play a part in this movement. In England, the cluster in
the West Midlands has been qualified and has left another one in the regions of East
Anglia and the South East. This cluster marks a region of early Germanic settlements.
Concerning the underlying assumption of this thesis about the origins of the Germanic
settlers it can be said that the place-name element rusch/risch clearly supports a connection
across the Channel.

Sol

Generally, it is striking that the element sol—as appellative as well as a proper name
—is especially frequent in field-names. In comparison to the two preceding elements sol is
well-distributed all over Germany and not restricted to certain parts. A cluster occurs in
the Solling area near Holzminden and Northeim in Lower Saxony. This range of hills is
characterised by numerous marshy areas. Therefore, several field-names can be found in
this region. Besides the few examples in Holstein and Denmark the more northern parts
of Germany do not show as many examples as other regions of Germany. The map rather
gives the impression that an assumed line can be drawn across the more central parts of
Germany. This belt reaches from the Weser Uplands (‘Weserbergland’) via parts of the
Lower and Middle Rhine continues westwards along the Namur region of Wallonia and
ends in the coastal regions of West Flanders and northern France. This distribution agrees
with the preceding analyses. It can be seen that the connection with England has been established
across the Channel rather than from the Cimbric peninsula across the North
Sea. Furthermore, the appearance parallels the distribution of another ancient Germanic
term OHG horo ‘Schlamm, Brei, Kot, Schmutz, Erde’ (‘mud, dirt, mire’) (cf. map in
Udolph 1995: 251). This term is an early Germanic hydronymic term which is also evenly
distributed all over Germany (Udolph 1995: 248). The concordance of the two elements in
their distribution supports the assumption that sol is also an ancient Germanic element.
Having a look at the distribution in England the cluster in Kent is noteworthy. Being
a region of early Germanic settlements there can hardly be any doubts about a connection
of the English place-name examples with those found on the Continent. Another well-distributed
region comprises parts of Berkshire, Hampshire, Surrey, and Sussex. Whereas the
rest of England shows relatively few and mainly later records (earliest in Lancashire with
1200) which suggests them to be the result of secondary settlements. Thus, the southern
territory has a recognisable higher distribution of the element sol. Furthermore, the element's main distribution in Kent and the Hampshire region strongly reminds of the territory
that—according to Bede—is said to be part of early Jutish settlement in England. And
although Bede regards the Jutes as the northern neighbours of the Angles on the Jutish
peninsula, it is widely accepted that “[…] it seems unlikely that the Jutes came directly
from Jutland, if at all; rather, their archaeological remains bear a striking resemblance to
those of the Ripuarian Franks of the middle Rhine” (Robinson 1997: 137). Therefore, the
distribution of sol supports the assumption that both regions—Kent and Hampshire—are
linked to each other in a certain way. Whether this link is of linguistic and/or tribal nature
needs to be clarified. Collingwood and Myres (1963: 346) remark that the dialectal and social
similarities “[...] seem to link Kent more closely to Frisia than to any other part of the
Continent”. And since there is an undeniably close resemblance between Old English and
Old Frisian this connection seems to be more logical. Moreover, Robinson (1997: 137)
already states that the “[...] invading tribes of England would include large numbers of
Frisians. […] It is certain that many of the invaders had spent time on the Frisian coast before
moving on to Britain, as Frisia's geographically intermediate position would suggest.”
Unfortunately, the limited space in the present thesis prohibits further discussion on this
topic.
To sum up, it can be noted that the distribution map of sol suggests that England is
not connected to Schleswig-Holstein and Denmark in the first instance but rather to the
more central parts of Lower Saxony, to Westphalia, Flanders, and northern France. Once
again it becomes clearly visible that the early Germanic settlers must have come to England
via the Channel.

With the element sol it is important to remember the subtle difference of long -ūand
short -u- in the etymology of OHG sol ‘Lache, Pfütze, Tümpel’ (‘pool, puddle’). Only
the forms consisting of a short -u- represent positive examples for this investigation.
Moreover, there are a considerable number of homonymous forms which often complicate
the interpretation of a name. In comparison to the distribution of the two preceding elements
it is worth mentioning that the element sol is generally more frequent in fieldnames
and has more examples on the Continent. The spreading in England reveals a connection
between Kent and the Hampshire region which might indicate a further connection
not only of a linguistic character. In summary, it can certainly be noted that the distribution
and analysis of the place-and field-names consisting of the Germanic element sol
again shows that the connection between the Continent and England can only be established
across the Channel via West Flanders. Schleswig-Holstein and Denmark do not represent
the starting point of the Germanic settlers.

[Albion]

Thus, the question as to the origins of the Germanic settlers can be answered on the basis
of this investigation. However, which tribes these Germanic settlers really belonged to is
very difficult to decide solely on the basis of onomastics since mainly linguistic results can
be gained from it (cf. 1.2). Such assumptions should be made in collaboration with other
disciplines. However, some ideas have arisen from the present investigation which can be
expressed at this point but will have to be considered carefully. It can be suggested that although
Schleswig-Holstein and Denmark have been excluded as constituting the major
part of the the origins of the Germanic settlers, this does not necessarily mean that no one
from the Cimbric peninsula made their way to England (cf. 1.1). As mentioned in the thesis
(cf. 1.4) it has been suggested by Myres (1986: 50-55) that a south-westward migration
from southern Scandinavia along the coastline into Frisia took place. Also another source
suggests a migration of “the Weser-Rhine group […] mainly southward, occupying the
western part of present Germany, most of the Netherlands, and large parts of Belgium and
northern France (Robinson 1997: 18). Such a movement would support a fact stated by
Schwarz (1956: 124) where it says that the Anglo-Saxon Jutes belonged, according to their
language, to the North Sea Germanic language group rather than to the North Germanic
one. “Sie müssen also,” concludes Schwarz (1956: 124) “aus dem nordseegermanischen
Festlandsbereich des 5. Jh. gekommen sein.” Therefore, the Anglo-Saxon Jutes cannot have
come directly from the Jutish peninsula across the North Sea towards England as suggested
by Bede. Furthermore, Schwarz (1956: 125) gives examples of North Germanic words
found in the Flanders region and suggests that they are most likely to have been brought
Summary and Conclusion 52
with them by immigrants from Jutland, which also supports this south-westward movement.
The following statement by Stenton (1950: 15) also contributes to it: “Where all is
obscure, it seems most probable that Bede was mistaken in the position which he gave to
the pre-migration Jutes, and that it was not from the western fjords of Jutland but from
the mouths of the Rhine that they descended upon England.” Moreover, such a southwestward
movement from southern Scandinavia would be congruent with the widely believed
tribal intermixture that occurred during the migration period. In the end it would
even agree with Bede's statement that the Jutes were amongst the early settlers of England.
To a certain extent this movement is also mirrored in the distribution of the investigated
elements klei and rusch/risch.
Furthermore, a statement made by Laur might also be explained with this westward
movement. Laur (1964: 296) tried to explain the missing place-name parallels between the
Cimbric peninsula (especially the region ‘Angeln’ in Schleswig-Holstein) and England on
the basis of a complete emigration of the tribes (‘Angles’) from this area to England, This
theory, however, has not only been criticised by Myres (1986: 52) who says that although it
is tempting to connect the desertion with the possibility of movement overseas to Britain
he rather prefers the idea of a westward movement. However, this is a very hypothetical assumption
which is has to be treated carefully and needs further investigation and verification
since non-linguistic conclusions are drawn from linguistic material. As mentioned
this is always a difficult task and should be done in concordance with other disciplines (cf.
1.2).
Another assumption about the tribal composition of the Germanic settlers of England
has already been mentioned in the analysis of the appellative sol. Its distribution in
England supports the assumed link between Kent and the Hampshire region which show a
distinct character concerning culture and language in comparison to other regions of England.
This has also been verified by archaeological findings (Hills 1980: 84). Bede suggests
that exact these regions were settled by Jutes which takes us back to the difficult task of
locating the Jutes on the Continent. But from the distribution of the appellative sol on the
Continent no certain statements as to any origin can be made since it is found in placenames
all over Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands. Only Riemann's (1942: 79) suggestion
about the Jutes being at least “Non-Saxons”, because of their cultural difference from
other regions, may be followed. However, whether it is possible to establish a tribal connection
between the continental and the English regions on the basis of the special distribution
of sol cannot be answered here and might be subject of further investigations.

Although the main aim is the concentration on the continental side some conclusions
concerning England can also be drawn. It can be noted that the distribution of the
three appellatives in England shows a tendency to cluster in the south eastern and southern
parts of it, which comprises today's regions of the South East and East Anglia. This
goes along with the widely accepted view of the early Germanic settlements being located
in this region. This parallel between klei, rusch/risch, and sol mirrors the results of earlier
investigations (cf. Udolph 1994, 1995). The three elements also tend to be found quite frequently
in the more western regions of England. Yet this can only be mentioned at this
point and belongs to a different study.
In summary, on the basis of onomastics the question that was able to be answered
was where the Germanic settlers of England originate on the Continent. The other questions
as to which tribes they belonged or when they arrived can only be answered in collaboration
with other disciplines like history and archaeology. Although it has been said
that the present thesis does not decide upon the composition of the different tribes that
came to England, some suggestions have been made on the basis of the investigated material.
However, place-name studies provide supplementary information and the gathered
data should be considered carefully. Nevertheless, based on Udolph (1995: 267) it is definitely
safe to state the following conclusions: First, it is sure that the settlers belonged to
Germanic tribes. Secondly, it is difficult to ascribe them to single tribes on the basis of
place-names. Thirdly, the Northern Germanic language does not play a role in the settlement
of England.

A PDF of the study

[Albion]

The place name study is quite revealing. It looks very much like the distribution of R1b L48 and also shows that the Anglo-Saxons may not have been primarily from the German bight, but further south in the Frankish (former Belgae) lands and may even have taken the same routes to England as the Belgae - Belgae were found in Hampshire, Cerdic latter landed there.
It also fits in with a quote I saw in Oppenheimer's book - that English was closer to some West Flemish dialects than Frisian languages. Another major hole in the theory is that Germanic boats aren't supposed to have been good enough to take to the high seas before the Vikings improved the design. They were mainly useful for coastal trade, so Anglo-Saxons taking the Southern route would only have had to make a short crossing and would have hugged the coast and then sailed up rivers.