This was very informative.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXAjMlTO7Dc
Printable View
This was very informative.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXAjMlTO7Dc
Why England is named after the Angles and not the Saxons is still a bit mysterious, I listened to something recently that went some way to explaining but I've forgotten what it was unfortunately. The continental Angles were pretty small and obscure, and the Jutes were unknown. That we talk of the Jutes with the other two groups in magnitude is often considered an arbitrary choice of Bede. The Saxons were the largest of the tribes on the continent, the first into Britain (hence the Insular Celts forever calling the English Saxons), and the Kindom of England was united by and under West Saxons. The idea that it was because there already was a 'Saxonland' sounds a little unconvincing and like retrospective logic, but maybe.
The fact that the Scots took the name of the Irish is well-known but still tickling. With regards to Eire, my birth certificate lists my father's birthplace as Eire, not Ireland. That held up a security clearance for me once because they didn't know wtf Eire was. I suppose it ceased to be officially designated as Eire in 1949 after it left the Commonwealth.
The chance of Wales being renamed Cum-ree in English is pretty low.
From reading up on it again, the naming of England and the English after the Angles seems to largely be a shortening for simplicity, and likely for West Saxons to assert the political legitimacy of their rule over the Mercians and Northumbrians (Angles). The title of rex Angul-Saxonum (King of the Anglo-Saxons) transitioned to rex Anglorum (King of the Angles/English) between Alfred and his grandson Athelstan who conquered the North. The shortening of the identity for simplicity is probably similar to the way 'Anglo-' has become a simpler synonym for 'Anglo-Celtic' in Australia as people become more detached from the ancestral differences, or people who may have once been self-consciously 'Scots-Irish' often just shorten it to Irish now in America.
Have also read that the Saxons in Britain may have used Angle/Englisc as an endonym alongside Saxon from very early on, which would explain why they seemingly had no problems calling their land Angle-land and themselves English. It may be that modern people split hairs between these tribes far more than they did themselves; especially after they'd been together in Britain for generations, and living in communities alongside Welsh/Britons (and 'Franks'?).
Wales comes from Old Saxon: "Weelas", meaning foreigners.
Insular Celts use 'Saxon' for the English cause that was the Romano-British name for them, and they just borrowed it. They use that word cause that was the word in Latin, and they borrowed it from Latin, not from Old English.
The vast majority of England was Anglian land. Mercia, Northumberland, and East Anglia were established by the Angles and considered Anglian kingdoms. Wessex, Sussex, and Essex are named after the Saxons and people from there were called Saxons, but this is likely mostly cause of Romano-British influence similar to the case with Insular Celts using Saxon. 'Saxon' in the context of Germanic Britain was just adopted by some Germanic dynasties and came to be used as a regional identity, not an ethnic or linguistic one. There isn't a single instance in all of Old English where the British Germanics called their language Seaxisc or people Seaxecynn, but Englisc and Angelcynn are used all the time.
Kent was said to be a Jutish kingdom, so their inclusion wouldn't be completely arbitrary.
https://external-preview.redd.it/sN-...=webp&8ee0286f
Wouldn't be surprised if it happens eventually given the ongoing name change movements like Ivory Coast > Côte d'Ivoire, Turkey > Türkiye, and most recently a proposal of India > Bharat. If the Irish can get Eire, then Cymru isn't a stretch by any means.Quote:
The fact that the Scots took the name of the Irish is well-known but still tickling. With regards to Eire, my birth certificate lists my father's birthplace as Eire, not Ireland. That held up a security clearance for me once because they didn't know wtf Eire was. I suppose it ceased to be officially designated as Eire in 1949 after it left the Commonwealth.
The chance of Wales being renamed Cum-ree in English is pretty low.
On a related note, we had a naturally Anglicised form of the Old Welsh name for the region called Cumberland in English. But this name has been assigned to the former territory of Rheged, one of the last Welsh/Brythonic strongholds in modern England. If we had called Wales Cumberland instead of Wales in English, it would've been better as it would've matched what the Welsh called themselves, but in English. Another name used in English for Wales was Camberland, derived from the Latin name for Wales, Cambria.
'Anglo-Saxon' was more or less just used in Latin phrases like rex Angulsaxonum to distinguish Insular 'Saxons' from the Mainland Saxons of Germany. There are actually three exceptions to this where Old English did use it, but these three instances were all after the 8th century and only in the most Latin influenced Old English texts. So this compound was used very rarely, and only by the Latin influenced class. The English would only call themselves 'English' in normal circumstances, not 'Anglo-Saxon,' which was a Latin designation.
So to summarise, England and its people/language are named after the Angles cause they made up the vast majority of Germanic Britain's inhabitants. 'Saxon' as a term was used cause of Romano-British influence and there's no evidence of British Germanics identifying with it ethnically.
The (Low) Saxon medieval chronist Widukind of Corvey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widukind_of_Corvey explained the name of the Anglo-Saxons by it meaning the Saxons that were living in an angle/corner of the sea, so kind of the fringe Saxons. Of course, he can be wrong.
If I'm not mistaken, Bede is the first to at all mention tribal Angles and Jutes among the having immigrated Germanics, btw. centuries after the immigration.
Bede actually doesn't even say Jutes but something that is more like Eotas which was a little Germanic tribe at the Rhine mouth. The Eotas that then settled primarily in Kent were those Migration Period Germanic immigrants that had the highest Roman influence in their material culture. In contrast to this Jutland Jutes would have been the Germanics with the least Roman influence. So it can be ruled out that the "Jutes" were Jutland Jutes, at least in that sense that they were coming directly from the Cimbrian Peninsula.
Considering the Saxon Shore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxon_Shore in Northern France, many of the emigrating to Albion Saxons came from there and had been living for many generations under Roman rule. They even had lived as far west as in Armorica. It's almost ironical that pushed back Britons later went to there, kind of swapped land with those Saxons, and founded Small Britain (Brittanny).
They are regional self-identifications, not ethnolinguistic ones. Englishmen from those regions considered themselves ethnic English and called their language English, not Saxon. Saxon was just their regional identity, which they probably adopted via Latin influence.
Englishmen with Saxon regional identity were also the majority of the Germanic British population under King Alfred (after the Danes conquered Northumberland and most of Mercia) and his West Saxon dialect was used as the standard dialect of Old English; yet he called his people ethnic Englishmen, his language English, and his nation England.
<j> is supposed to make the <i> sound. It was invented as a letter to represent consonantal <i>. If you look at the letter <j>, it's just an <i> with a hook. It actually represented this sound in early English writings in words like wijf and lijf (now spelled wife and life). Its modern pronunciation in English is cause of French influence. And the <e> in Jute wasn't originally silent. So that would make Jutes more like Iotas pronunciation, which is much closer to Eotas.
If you look at the words for this name in other Germanic tongues, they're all pretty close and clearly referencing the same people:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Recon...Germanic/eutaz
It also makes more sense that these Eotas were from Jutland given that its in the same neighborhood as where the Angles, Saxons, and Frisians came from, and they were part of the same migration.
Do you have a source about Eotas being from the Rhine mouth with the most Roman influence?
I think 'Saxon' was just a name used by the Romans as a generic word for Germanics in the region and not an accurate ethnic descriptor in the context of the Saxon Shore since most of the migrants from the Saxon Shore to England would've realistically been Anglians (Anglians came to England via France, they didn't swim there from Jutland). Romans seemed to use the word 'Saxon' very liberally. Even the names German and Teuton were originally the names of specific tribes before the Romans generalised them onto all West Germanics, so this is probably similar. There's no other reason for Insular Celts to call the English 'Saxons', especially the Irish (Gaels) who bordered Anglian kingdoms as opposed to 'Saxon' ones in the deep south. Also, considering that English is closer to Frisian than either English or Frisian are to Saxon (Low Saxon), this shows that actual Saxon influence is overblown.Quote:
Considering the Saxon Shore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxon_Shore in Northern France, many of the emigrating to Albion Saxons came from there and had been living for many generations under Roman rule.
True. Based on Y-DNA, much of the Norman army invading England would have comprised of Little Britons (Bretons), so a bit of a Brythonic Reconquista.Quote:
They even had lived as far west as in Armorica. It's almost ironical that pushed back Britons later went to there, kind of swapped land with those Saxons, and founded Small Britain (Brittanny).
It’s a funny thing as we actually apply diametrally opposite approaches on this tribe question. While you do what you elaborated I follow as a provocant working hypothesis to question if there were at all tribal Angles in England and not all just Saxons (and a few Eotas). Background is that angle is not just a tribe name but a Germanic productive word that means an angle, corner, and that could emerge independently by the usage of Germanic language.
If tribal Angles are proved for Britain, I’d be absolutely fine with that as well.
Unfortunately I don’t find it now (I should be able to find a source, though) but I want to make clear my statement:
1. There was a litte Germanic tribe called Eotas at the Rhine mouth.
2. The archaeological material culture of the Germanic settlers in areas that traditionally are considered settled by Jutes (f. i. East Kent) show more Roman influence than those considered settled by non-Jutes.
As for the latter I found this in the English Wikipedia (emphasis by me):
"Although not all historians accept Bede's scheme for the settlement of Britain into Anglian, Jutish and Saxon areas as perfectly accurate,[36] the archaeological evidence indicates that the peoples of west Kent were culturally distinct from those in the east of Kent, with west Kent sharing the 'Saxon' characteristics of its neighbours in the south east of England.[37] Brooches and bracteates found in east Kent, the Isle of Wight and southern Hampshire showed a strong Frankish and North Sea influence from the mid-fifth century to the late sixth century compared to north German styles found elsewhere in Anglo-Saxon England.[39][37][40] There is discussion about who crafted the jewellery (found in the archaeological sites of Kent). Suggestions include crafts people who had been trained in the Roman workshops of northern Gaul or the Rhineland. It is also possible that those artisans went on to develop their own individual style.[41] By the late 6th century grave goods indicate that west Kent had adopted the distinctive east Kent material culture.[37]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jutes
I agree that a neighborhood would make sense and also this is pointing against an origin of the immigrants in Jutland. Because many if not most of the Saxons or what was called Saxons came from just across the English channel.
I found this in the German Wikipedia article on the Saxon Shore:
„In Britannien eingewanderte germanische Stämme haben zum Teil früher an den Rheinmündungen, um Bononia (Boulogne-sur-Mer) oder im Gebiet des bis heute unbekannten Grannona (entweder bei Granville oder Port-en-Bessin-Huppain) gesiedelt, auch dort wurde diese Region als litus Saxonicum, als eine von den Stammesangehörigen der Sachsen bewohnte Küste bezeichnet.[5“
„Translation: Some of the Germanic tribes that migrated into Britain had previously settled at the mouths of the Rhine, around Bononia (Boulogne-sur-Mer) or in the area of Grannona (either near Granville or Port-en-Bessin-Huppain), which is still unknown today; this region was also referred to as litus Saxonicum, a coast inhabited by the Saxon tribesmen.[5“
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sachsenk%C3%BCste
Also, the onomast (place name linguist) Jürgen Udolph has examined what Germanic name types show up where and came to the conclusion that the imported to Britain Germanic place name types do not have their corresponding sources in Jutland and Schleswig-Holstein but in more continental Germania and among that pretty much in Flanders and in Northern France.
Maybe you can access this article of his in English:
https://benjamins.com/catalog/cilt.321.02udo
I have it in German as a PDF file. Another pic is this showing the distribution of wik place names.
https://i.imgur.com/FSFVEUM.jpeg
Tribal Angles doubtlessly existed. They likely made up one of two important sources of the new tribe of Thuringians. When Charlemagne ordered to write up the tribal law of Thuringians (there had been a serious uprising in Thuringia against the Frankish rule after in a marriage context the Thuringian law had been not applied in favour of the Frankish law - it was likely just a pretext for the uprising but nevertheless) this was done and one old copy of the „Lex Thurgingorum“ does wear the title „Lex Angliorum et Werinorum hoc est Thuringorum“. You also have place names that refer to the Angles tribe name in Thuringia like Westerengel and Kirchengel.
This comparison does not prove a relative linguistic distance to (Low) Saxon, because you here do compare „Anglo-Saxon“ to itself and, of course, that relation is always closer.
What?!
It’s commonly accepted among scholars that the Frisians essentially are not derived from the antique Frisii but from later Germanics that are considered tribally Saxons.
From the English Wikipedia article (emphasis by me), and the last contradicting sentence I just quote as well as for completeness:
„Final demise of the ancient Frisii
The emperor Constantius Chlorus campaigned successfully against several Germanic peoples during the internecine civil wars that brought him to sole power over the Roman Empire. Among them were the Frisii and Chamavi, who were described in the Panegyrici Latini (Manuscript VIII) as being forced to resettle within Roman territory as laeti (i.e., Roman-era serfs) in c. 296.[23] This is the last reference to the ancient Frisii in the historical record. However, they appear once more, now in the archaeological record. The discovery of a type of pottery unique to 4th century Frisia known as Tritzum earthenware shows that an unknown number of them were resettled in Flanders and Kent under the aforementioned Roman coercion.[24]
If there were any Frisii left in Frisia, they fell victim to the whims of nature, civil strife and piracy. After several hundred years of favorable conditions, the natural environment in the low-lying coastal regions of northwestern Europe began to deteriorate c. 250 AD and gradually worsened over the next 200 years. Rising sea levels and storm surges combined to flood some areas. Many deserted village sites were silted over. The situation was probably aggravated by a shift to a cooler, wetter climate in the region as well as by the introduction of malaria and other epidemic diseases.[25][26][27][28][29]
In the 3rd and 4th centuries the population of Frisia steadily decreased, and by the 5th century it dropped dramatically. Archaeological surveys indicate that only small pockets of the original population stayed behind (e.g. in the Groningen coastal marshes).[30] The coastal lands remained largely unpopulated for the next one or two centuries. As soon as conditions improved, Frisia received an influx of new settlers, mostly from regions later characterized as Saxon, and these would eventually be referred to as 'Frisians', though they were not necessarily descended from the ancient Frisii. It is these 'new Frisians' who are largely the ancestors of the medieval and modern Frisians.[5] Their Old Frisian language, however, was more intricately related to Old English spoken by their relatives settling abroad, than to the Old Saxon language spoken by the people staying behind in Germany.
Arguing against the replacement theory, recent excavations in the coastal dunes of Kennemerland show clear indication of a permanent habitation.[31][32] „
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisii
Absolutely. As for the wik names it's shown by the map.
Other maps do show a somewhat different pic, some of them showing notably connections to Flanders and Northern France. This is all no contradiction because such a map shows what connections there are but a connection per se does not exclude additional connections so this topic has to be enlightened on a broad scale. But regarding the number of dots in England representing wik names this is, however, among the more important connections.
Likely much of the Rhine mouth area was tribally Saxon as well at that time. Tellingly, the expansion of the Franks to the Sea coinceeded with that Saxon mass emigration to Albion. It was at abt. 450 AD.
Who knows, maybe the last future Englishmen at that time already experienced a little Dunkirk at Dunkirk. :p
It looks like a Frankish aimed blow in the direction of Kalen (Calais) and Dünkirchen (Dunkirk), likely promoted by a notable power collaps particularly there (arrow added by me) due to the emigration. Which in turn likely promoted the emigration of remaining Saxons.
https://i.imgur.com/8wBzcXk.jpeg
This kind of logic can be applied to almost any tribe if you go back far enough, Saxons included. They started off as generic words and over time became ethnic-tribal identities.
Angle/Engle - Fish-hook
Saxon - Knife
Jute - Giant
Frank - Axe
In Old English; they used the words Angelcynn, Angeltheod ('English Nation'), and Angelfolc. And they called their language Englisc. All these words point to English being an ethnic identity (which would've emerged out of a tribal one) regardless of the etymology of the word.
By the way, the earliest source I can find distinguishing the nations of post-Germanic Britain is from Procopius in the mid-6th century and he doesn't mention Saxons as living in England.
"The island of Britain is inhabited by three very populous nations, each ruled by a king. And the names of these nations are the Angiloi, Frisians, and, after the island, Britons."
It's interesting he mentions Frisians over the others when they're traditionally considered the smallest Germanic tribe of England. Quite a contrast with what Bede wrote two centuries after Procopius.
Here's a quote from a historian on the Roman misusage of 'Saxon':
https://i.imgur.com/v9deozk.png
To be clear, I think Saxons were a real tribe just like the Angles. It's just that their name was misused by the Romans for West Germanics in general (a tradition later adopted by Insular Celts from the Romans).
Interesting. So I guess there would've been two large waves of migration from Mainland Europe to Britain, both would've been: Schleswig-Holstein > Rhine Mouth > Saxon Shore > Britain. But the second wave wouldn't have been as Roman influenced, and I think should have been on a smaller scale unlike what the article above states. 🤔Quote:
Unfortunately I don’t find it now(I should be able to find a source, though) but I want to make clear my statement:
1. There was a litte Germanic tribe called Eotas at the Rhine mouth.
2. The archaeological material culture of the Germanic settlers in areas that traditionally are considered settled by Jutes (f. i. East Kent) show more Roman influence than those considered settled by non-Jutes.
As for the latter I found this in the English Wikipedia (emphasis by me):
"Although not all historians accept Bede's scheme for the settlement of Britain into Anglian, Jutish and Saxon areas as perfectly accurate,[36] the archaeological evidence indicates that the peoples of west Kent were culturally distinct from those in the east of Kent, with west Kent sharing the 'Saxon' characteristics of its neighbours in the south east of England.[37] Brooches and bracteates found in east Kent, the Isle of Wight and southern Hampshire showed a strong Frankish and North Sea influence from the mid-fifth century to the late sixth century compared to north German styles found elsewhere in Anglo-Saxon England.[39][37][40] There is discussion about who crafted the jewellery (found in the archaeological sites of Kent). Suggestions include crafts people who had been trained in the Roman workshops of northern Gaul or the Rhineland. It is also possible that those artisans went on to develop their own individual style.[41] By the late 6th century grave goods indicate that west Kent had adopted the distinctive east Kent material culture.[37]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jutes
I agree that a neighborhood would make sense and also this is pointing against an origin of the immigrants in Jutland. Because many if not most of the Saxons or what was called Saxons came from just across the English channel.
I found this in the German Wikipedia article on the Saxon Shore:
„In Britannien eingewanderte germanische Stämme haben zum Teil früher an den Rheinmündungen, um Bononia (Boulogne-sur-Mer) oder im Gebiet des bis heute unbekannten Grannona (entweder bei Granville oder Port-en-Bessin-Huppain) gesiedelt, auch dort wurde diese Region als litus Saxonicum, als eine von den Stammesangehörigen der Sachsen bewohnte Küste bezeichnet.[5“
„Translation: Some of the Germanic tribes that migrated into Britain had previously settled at the mouths of the Rhine, around Bononia (Boulogne-sur-Mer) or in the area of Grannona (either near Granville or Port-en-Bessin-Huppain), which is still unknown today; this region was also referred to as litus Saxonicum, a coast inhabited by the Saxon tribesmen.[5“
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sachsenk%C3%BCste
Also, the onomast (place name linguist) Jürgen Udolph has examined what Germanic name types show up where and came to the conclusion that the imported to Britain Germanic place name types do not have their corresponding sources in Jutland and Schleswig-Holstein but in more continental Germania and among that pretty much in Flanders and in Northern France.
Maybe you can access this article of his in English:
https://benjamins.com/catalog/cilt.321.02udo
I have it in German as a PDF file. Another pic is this showing the distribution of wik place names.
https://i.imgur.com/FSFVEUM.jpeg
So in the Wikipedia article you cited, they seem to be right about the cultural divide mainly in the southern coast of England, but toponymic and runic linguistic evidence shows that most of England's early settlements are connected to the mouth of the Rhine rather than deeper in the mainland or Schleswig-Holstein:
https://i.imgur.com/igSw6YG.png
I got the above image from here, it has lots of interesting discussion on the topic with a focus on Frisians:
https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/6655463...2_Frisians.pdf
Thanks for the info.Quote:
Tribal Angles doubtlessly existed. They likely made up one of two important sources of the new tribe of Thuringians. When Charlemagne ordered to write up the tribal law of Thuringians (there had been a serious uprising in Thuringia against the Frankish rule after in a marriage context the Thuringian law had been not applied in favour of the Frankish law - it was likely just a pretext for the uprising but nevertheless) this was done and one old copy of the „Lex Thurgingorum“ does wear the title „Lex Angliorum et Werinorum hoc est Thuringorum“. You also have place names that refer to the Angles tribe name in Thuringia like Westerengel and Kirchengel.
Mainland Saxons (modern speakers of Low Saxon) should be the same as the Saxons of Anglo-Saxon England just like the Frisians of modern Frisia are the same as the Frisians of Anglo-Saxon England. But the modern Saxon language is more distantly related to modern English than modern Frisian is, which shows the Old Saxon influence on the development of Old English was weak.Quote:
This comparison does not prove a relative linguistic distance to (Low) Saxon, because you here do compare „Anglo-Saxon“ to itself and, of course, that relation is always closer.
What?!
It's being debated still, read the last line I colored in green from your own source. I also heard that there was a significant degree of population continuity in West Friesland (modern North Holland) compared to other regions of Friesland.Quote:
It’s commonly accepted among scholars that the Frisians essentially are not derived from the antique Frisii but from later Germanics that are considered tribally Saxons.
From the English Wikipedia article (emphasis by me), and the last contradicting sentence I just quote as well as for completeness:
„Final demise of the ancient Frisii
The emperor Constantius Chlorus campaigned successfully against several Germanic peoples during the internecine civil wars that brought him to sole power over the Roman Empire. Among them were the Frisii and Chamavi, who were described in the Panegyrici Latini (Manuscript VIII) as being forced to resettle within Roman territory as laeti (i.e., Roman-era serfs) in c. 296.[23] This is the last reference to the ancient Frisii in the historical record. However, they appear once more, now in the archaeological record. The discovery of a type of pottery unique to 4th century Frisia known as Tritzum earthenware shows that an unknown number of them were resettled in Flanders and Kent under the aforementioned Roman coercion.[24]
If there were any Frisii left in Frisia, they fell victim to the whims of nature, civil strife and piracy. After several hundred years of favorable conditions, the natural environment in the low-lying coastal regions of northwestern Europe began to deteriorate c. 250 AD and gradually worsened over the next 200 years. Rising sea levels and storm surges combined to flood some areas. Many deserted village sites were silted over. The situation was probably aggravated by a shift to a cooler, wetter climate in the region as well as by the introduction of malaria and other epidemic diseases.[25][26][27][28][29]
In the 3rd and 4th centuries the population of Frisia steadily decreased, and by the 5th century it dropped dramatically. Archaeological surveys indicate that only small pockets of the original population stayed behind (e.g. in the Groningen coastal marshes).[30] The coastal lands remained largely unpopulated for the next one or two centuries. As soon as conditions improved, Frisia received an influx of new settlers, mostly from regions later characterized as Saxon, and these would eventually be referred to as 'Frisians', though they were not necessarily descended from the ancient Frisii. It is these 'new Frisians' who are largely the ancestors of the medieval and modern Frisians.[5] Their Old Frisian language, however, was more intricately related to Old English spoken by their relatives settling abroad, than to the Old Saxon language spoken by the people staying behind in Germany.
Arguing against the replacement theory, recent excavations in the coastal dunes of Kennemerland show clear indication of a permanent habitation.[31][32] „
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisii
Regardless, I agree there was 'Anglo-Saxon' migration to modern Frisia, but the pre-migration people of Frisia may have already spoken an Ingvaeonic language since they neighbored other Ingvaeonic tribes before the migrations even if there is little to no continuity.
And as I said before, 'Saxon' was used very loosely, so I wouldn't say they're tribally Saxons, maybe closer to Saxons than to the original Frisii, maybe not. The original Frisii, modern Frisians, and Saxons were all North Sea Germanics/Low Germans anyways with no important linguistic differences until centuries later.
A bit off topic, but related to the Frisians and Saxons of North Germany, do you know why the Saxon-speaking Frisians of East Frisia identify as Frisian when they speak a [Low] Saxon dialect? Why didn't they lose Frisian identity and adopt Saxon identity after their assimilation into Saxon culture?
To my perception they don't really identify as Frisians but as Ostfriesen as the inhabitants of Ostfriesland and a regional identity within the Lower Saxon speakers. Still (Lower) Saxons are a too big entity for being referred to by all of its inhabitants. Although tribal Saxons, also Oldenburger, Ditmarsians, Holsatians and Westphalians f. i. do identify primarily as belonging to these entities rather than referring to being Saxons (which is no contradiction). The Ostfriesen were picked as the ones in Germany that you do make stupidity jokes of, implying that they are very stupid. I've no clue how this came and I also see no stupidity-related reason. Maybe they behaved in a proud way that gave others the motivation to start teasing them. I really don't know. However, this "attack" on them may have forced them to relate to being Ostfriesen and by that have contributed to strengthen their respective self-awareness.
Maybe #Oda# :irminsul: , an Eastphalian that does not even expand her primary identity to the whole of Eastphalia, can contribute and/or correct me.
I’ve no real objections towards that thought and the Procopius quote was unknown to me.
Your thoughts can be supported by that the Roman Saxon Shore was on both sides of the English Channel, i. e. also in Britain, and that this termonological fixation already may have introduced the Saxon name in Britain as a general name for Germanics.
Another thing is that the Saxon tribe anyhow was a new tribe and nobody knows how it at all emerged and found together. There was not even a common king among (Low) Saxons. Only in periods of war a common leader was installed. Prior known tribes as Chauki, Frisii, Angrivarii, Brukteri and Tubanti etc. likely merged to a new tribe of Saxons. Whether there earlier had been a small core of tribal Saxons is unclear. Nothing is known of such a tribe and the early and singleton mentioning at Ptolmy is likely no mentioning of them. Translated from the German Wikipedia article on Saxons:
„Ptolemy probably originally wrote "ΑΒΙΟΝΕΣ" (pronounced Aviones), which was changed to "ΣΑΞΟΝΕΣ" (pronounced Saxones) by later transcribers. In the majority of manuscripts, the word Saxony is also not found, but an intermediate form "ΑΞΟΝΕΣ" (pronounced Axones)[6].“
It has to be considered that also the Alemanns, the Thuringians, the Bavarians and the Franks were previously not existing Germanic tribes that had emerged through re-groupings and mergings of other tribes.
I think that we even have to expand our imagination to the point where it’s not a matter of fact if some folks are Saxons, but a matter of opinion or common sense. And such views may have been uncertain for quite a while. I read the text that allegendly was spoken when the Frankish king Chlodowech I was baptised. In spite of that the Franks had exited for quite a while there was said „bow your head, Sugambrian“. I was astounded when I read that a long time ago and looked it up and the Sugambrians was one of the smaller tribes that had merged to become Franks. But in the view of traditional and knowledgeable social classes the Frankish king was remembered to have emerged out of Sugambrian family, hence being in fact a Sugambrian.
Resembling conditions may have been regarding the understanding who was a Saxon and who not. Tribal Angles may have been part of the new tribe of Saxons like they were a part of the new tribe of Thuringians. By emigration they left the political sphere of the continental Saxon tribal confederation which may have re-made them Angles. Like among recently emigrating to Germany Turks after Turkish-Kurdish conflicts more and more exhibited themselvs as Kurds resulting in that there are abt. 500.000 Kurds in Germany in spite of that they immigrated under the Turk label.
Thanks, very interesting and I read almost all.
I agree to much, in particular also to that there may have been a not really tribally defined continuum of North Sea Germanic speakers.
Completely new to me was that the North Frisians are said to be strongly diveded between those on the big islands and those on the halligs and at the coast. I never heard of that before. To my information it was undisputed that they all are later immigrants from Frisland in the Netherlands.
That were interesting thoughts whether one of the groups in fact was a remnant of such continental „Anglo-Frisians“. In contrast to what is said in the article, the fact that the Jutlanders did not also exhibit common linguistic innovations is no hurdle to that idea. Because the Jutlanders linguistically are immigrated (in the 6th century) North Germanic speaking Danes from the Danish islands and Scania. They linguistically replaced likely West Germanic speaking Jutes. This is why you have no Germanic dialect continuum at the German-Danish border.
Interesting is also the find of where runic inscriptions were found in Britain and how that geographically stunningly is concordant with the claimed settlement area of Angles and Jutes.
The author’s question mark on the essentially only late runic inscriptions in the Alemannic area in spite of that they had been there since centuries without such inscriptions is very legit. Just some days ago I by chance read about that and it was told by scholars that there is assumed a connection with the Thurigian empire having beed destructen and conquered by Franks (and likely Saxons) in 531/534 AD and that that event removed a prior barrier. As the Franks acted unusually harschly towards the Thuringians, I also consider the possibility of Thuringian refugees. And if you consider that prior tribal Angles are said to have been one of the main components of Thuringians the showing of of runes is not that surprising anymore.
As I earlier said, the Angles and the Warini are said to be the core Thuringians. Both had been connected to the southern Jutland peninsula, however, archaeology suggests so, and they had been living in Holstein (Angles) and Mecklenburg (Warini) before they moved to Thuringia.
I tend to the aforementioned understanding that Anglo-Frisians where just a part of what operated under the Saxon label. So if we today look at Old Saxon, then this is just the more remote from the sea part of what once acted under the label of Saxons. The (new) Frisians are another part. Resembling what I stated regarding today’s Ostfriesen, the new Frisians at that time likely essentially were also Frisia-land Saxons. But maybe of another tribal main ancestry than the inland Saxons.
What we both say - you say the Saxon label in a close post-Roman era war applied to all Germanics in a Britain context and I say that the Saxon tribe confederation likely even first also contained all those folks - is compatible with that.
Agreed to that assumption.
I agree and can sign that.
But that wich comes from wig (fight). Like in Hedwig/Hedwich, Hartwig/Hartwich, Ludwig/Clodowech etc., cf. also https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_Viggen :)
In contrast to this the Germanic wik means settlement, via an old IE commonality related to Latin vicus.
The Viking name is likely derived from another word, a North Germanic word vik, that means bay. In earlier times the big bay south of Olso was called simply Viken (the bay) and also in Sweden there is a lake that has a shape that caused it to get the name Viken. http://www.skaraborgsleder.se/kanotn...ng__viken.html
Throwing this in there
https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.6dc7d792...res=1&sresct=1
Distribution of cruciform brooches in 5th-6th century England
https://www.researchgate.net/profile...y-analyses.ppm
Quote:
Kentish Square-headed
There are two main styles of Kentish square-headed brooch: the Jutish-style and the Continental-style. The Jutish-style brooches closely resemble brooches originating in Jutland, in the amount of animal decoration and often the inclusion of a disc on the bow of the brooch. The Continental-style consists of simpler animal decoration and is usually combined with inset garnets.
Posted in an earlier thread but worth posting again, almost all the CWE/Gaulish ancestry found in the early Anglo-Saxon period is in Southern England, not in Anglian territories.
https://i.postimg.cc/CMC7YBLm/Screen...-22-151548.png
Spelling.
<c> represented both the /tʃ/ and /k/ sounds in Old English, digraphs with <-h> such as <ch> are from French influence and didn't exist in Old English.Quote:
'cause as far as I know they were all spelled -wic in the Early Middle Ages.
Compare native English ditch with the Norse influenced dyke, or rich with Norse influenced rike. When there's two spellings and one is with <(t)ch> and another with <(c)k>, it's a safe bet that the latter is Norse influenced. Same with <sh> vs. <sk>.
Looking into the genealogy of the English Saxon polities (Wessex, Sussex, Middlesex, Essex), their original genealogy seem to be fabricated. And they seem to be using ones invented by Jutes for them or having stolen from the Welsh. They probably didn't have much to do with Saxons around when Procopius at least based on their claimed genealogy. Jutes were still a significant force on the other hand and probably the main group in Southeast England rather than just Kent and Wight.
There's basically two distinct groups of Saxons, and they lost their Saxon ethnic identity very early on if they had it. These are the Western Saxons of Wessex and the Eastern Saxons of Sussex, Middlesex, and Essex. For convenience, I'm going to group the latter three regions together under "Greater Essex." Wessex was not part of the original Saxon Shore of Roman Britain, only Greater Essex was. Greater Essex has the least Celtic influence in toponymy of any region in Britain, which further shows they were part of a separate earlier wave of migrants than the later ones that settled the rest of England. Saxons migrated from the Gaulish Saxon Shore to the British Saxon Shore (Greater Essex) during Roman times while the ones in Wessex were part of a separate migration wave. This can be seen in their genealogy as well (which I'll get to later). They came to both sides of the Saxon Shore (Southern Britain, Northern Gaul) under Roman supervision. The Saxon Shore was a military district and the Saxon colonists were military colonists (permanent residents) employed by Romans. Once the Franks conquered Gaul, more Saxons were pushed into Roman Britain. And the Saxon Shore wasn't exclusively Saxon, but they were the main group, which is why it was named after them. Franks were another prominent group in the Saxon Shore. Suevi were mentioned too, but this could've been referring to Saxons as it was a very generic name.
Now onto the genealogies of the Saxon kingdoms. As I mentioned, Greater Essex was part of the Saxon Shore of Roman Britain. It can be split into three regions - Essex, Middlesex, Sussex. In between Essex and Sussex is Kent, which was a Jutish kingdom. Both Essex and Sussex were tributary states of Kent and not independent kingdoms like Kent was. Middlesex was likely originally between Essex and Sussex i.e. in the middle of two -sex polities, but is now pushed to the side bounded by Kent and Surrey instead of Sussex. Sussex's founder is given an Anglian name that doesn't exist among Saxons (Ælli), he may have been confused by a scribe for the Ælli of the Anglian Kingdom of Northumberland. And his three sons are fictitious names invented by working backwards from the names of major cities in Sussex that aren't named by Bede or Welsh annalists. Essex's founder is called Æscwine or Ercanwine, a clear reference to the patriarch Æsc of Jutish nation. Since Essex was controlled by Jutish Kent and they have the same genealogy, Essex's kings would've been Jutes. One sign of being a proper independent kingdom as opposed to a tributary state is minting their own separate coins. Sussex, Essex, and Middlesex didn't mint their own coins while Wessex and Kent did. So Greater Essex was basically comprised of Jutish regions for the most part, which is why Procopius would've mentioned them as the main Germanic tribe in Britain alongside the Angles.
Regarding Wessex, their genealogy is unconnected to Jutes or any other Germanics, but seems to have been ripped off from the Welsh. Their first king and founder has a native British (Welsh) name, Cerdic, as opposed to a Germanic one. And they follow the tradition of Welsh princes of claiming descent from Gewissa. Cerdic's also the son of Elisa, who also has a Welsh name. West Saxons are also the only English Saxons to refer to British Celts as "Brit" rather than "Welsh". And two of Cerdic's sons are named Wihtgar and Port, who are said to have landed at Wight and Portsmouth. The odds of not one, but two people, just randomly happening to land in cities with their names in it is virtually impossible... So yeah, this seems like a fabricated story borrowed from the Welsh and nothing to do with Saxons.
By the way, besides the Romans and Insular Celts, another group that had a lot of historical contact with British Germanics (Old English) were the Norse and they never once called the English "Saxon." In fact, they called them "Swabian" once, which was also a generic word for West Germanics.
After properly reading that Frisian link I sent you, I realise I underestimated the Saxon influence in England (as well as the Saxon Shore of Gaul). Saxon regions are strongly correlated with regions of England that didn't have any runic inscriptions while Anglian and Jutish regions are strongly correlated with regions where runes are found. So while "Saxon" was used liberally, that could've been mainly done in Britain in later times (but it was done in Gaul too to some extent). But regardless, Saxon ethnic identity didn't exist in England in Alfred's time when the Romans and Celts were using it for them, as they are only recorded calling themselves English, not Saxon or Anglo-Saxon.Quote:
Your thoughts can be supported by that the Roman Saxon Shore was on both sides of the English Channel, i. e. also in Britain, and that this termonological fixation already may have introduced the Saxon name in Britain as a general name for Germanics.
Bructeri had Frankish identity according to Bede. They were considered separate from Saxons and their border with Saxons was at at Lippe in the northwestern part of modern Westfalia. Tacitus says that the Bructeri were destroyed by the Angrivarii (Angrians) and Chamavi (of Hamaland AKA Eastern Netherlands and Northern Westfalia). They were probably chased across the Rhine by these two groups where they were accepted by their fellow Franks.Quote:
Another thing is that the Saxon tribe anyhow was a new tribe and nobody knows how it at all emerged and found together. There was not even a common king among (Low) Saxons. Only in periods of war a common leader was installed. Prior known tribes as Chauki, Frisii, Angrivarii, Brukteri and Tubanti etc. likely merged to a new tribe of Saxons. Whether there earlier had been a small core of tribal Saxons is unclear. Nothing is known of such a tribe and the early and singleton mentioning at Ptolmy is likely no mentioning of them.
Chauci also lived in Northern Westfalia where they would've replaced the Bructeri. Due to the resemblance of toponymies in the former Chauci territory with the Frisian language, the Chauci were likely part of the Anglo-Frisian group i.e. closer to Frisians than to Saxons. Maybe the New Frisians that settled Friesland during the Anglo-Saxon migration were just Coastal Chauci? Former Chauci territory contains toponyms ending in -a (Withula, Bracla, Sitnia, Alladna, Frethenna, etc.) which are a Frisian feature. As Frisians were never recorded in Westfalia and the Chauci neighbored them, the Frisian-like Chauci are the best assumption for who these toponyms come from.
Then there's -husun which is associated with Angrians in toponyms like Bennenhusun, Bovinkhusun, Sevinhuson, etc. Engern was also one of the main Saxon lands so the Angrians that expanded into Westfalia are probably the same as those that identified as Saxons later on. Westfalia and Eastfalia are relatively young names that date back to around the Carolingian period and aren't original Saxon tribes, just regional names ("Western Plain" and "Eastern Plain") that got turned into Saxon subgroups later (same with the North Albingians). Cherusci was also used for the Germans of Engern and they were said to be closely allied with Angrians, but likely just the same people with different names. Cherusci are also said to have bordered the Chatti and Chauci who were the western neighbors of Angrians, and this wouldn't be possible unless they were Angrians themselves. Their name possibly comes from the cheru (kheru) sword that they used (though this etymology is disputed). And -sci (-ski) is a demonym suffix like *thiudiskaz (which Deutsch derives from), still used in Scandinavian languages. Ambrones and Fosi were probably also the same as them, with these names being geography based (from the Ems River and Fuhse River respectively). It's like how there was one Slavic people, but they got called different names by different groups (Veneti or Wend by Germans, Sclaveni or Sklabenoi by Greeks, Antes by Sarmatians). So basically; Angrian, Cherusci, Fosi, and Ambrones were just different names of the same people. Cherusci, Fosi, and Ambrones seem to be exonyms based on their etymology and Angrivarii their native name. These people later in history became known by the name "Saxon". Saxons may have been named after their regional Saxnot deity even if their name originally referred to a type of knife.
Aviones probably weren't Saxons, but Axones probably were.Quote:
Translated from the German Wikipedia article on Saxons:
„Ptolemy probably originally wrote "ΑΒΙΟΝΕΣ" (pronounced Aviones), which was changed to "ΣΑΞΟΝΕΣ" (pronounced Saxones) by later transcribers. In the majority of manuscripts, the word Saxony is also not found, but an intermediate form "ΑΞΟΝΕΣ" (pronounced Axones)[6].“
Alemanns were probably one of the tribes of Germania Superior (Vangiones, Nemetes, or Tulingi). Their name was also said to be originally used in the generic sense for Germanics as a whole.Quote:
It has to be considered that also the Alemanns, the Thuringians, the Bavarians and the Franks were previously not existing Germanic tribes that had emerged through re-groupings and mergings of other tribes.
Bavarians are just the Marcomanni of Bohemia I'm pretty sure. Their region was named after the Celtic Boii and they ended up adopting that regional name as their ethnic name over time (Boi + [Germanic] -er → Boyer/Bayer → Boarn/Bayern/Bayerland). Bohemia (which is also a Germanic form of the Celtic name, Boi + [Germanic] -haimaz) and Bayern are both named after the Boii. Eastern Germany and Bohemia were previously German (West Germanic) lands bordering East Germanic Vandals in BC times before the Slavic expansion.
Franks seem to be a tribal confederation from their early origins and not really a prominent tribe from antiquity.
Thurings are connected to the Hermanduri: Hermanduri → Duri (Thuri)+ -ing ("descendant of") → Thuring
But as you said, their origins are referenced as being a mix of the English and Werns. So could the Hermanduri have migrated north and absorbed the English and Werns in Northwest Mecklenburg or Holstein?
Makes sense to me, Franks were a confederation after all.Quote:
I think that we even have to expand our imagination to the point where it’s not a matter of fact if some folks are Saxons, but a matter of opinion or common sense. And such views may have been uncertain for quite a while. I read the text that allegendly was spoken when the Frankish king Chlodowech I was baptised. In spite of that the Franks had exited for quite a while there was said „bow your head, Sugambrian“. I was astounded when I read that a long time ago and looked it up and the Sugambrians was one of the smaller tribes that had merged to become Franks. But in the view of traditional and knowledgeable social classes the Frankish king was remembered to have emerged out of Sugambrian family, hence being in fact a Sugambrian.
I don't think that was the case though. Since they're distinguished in England, it's reasonable to assume they would've been in Schleswig-Holstein too. I think Saxons would've ended up getting subsumed into the English "tribal" label in Britain and I don't see any evidence of the opposite happening in Germany.Quote:
Resembling conditions may have been regarding the understanding who was a Saxon and who not. Tribal Angles may have been part of the new tribe of Saxons like they were a part of the new tribe of Thuringians. By emigration they left the political sphere of the continental Saxon tribal confederation which may have re-made them Angles. Like among recently emigrating to Germany Turks after Turkish-Kurdish conflicts more and more exhibited themselvs as Kurds resulting in that there are abt. 500.000 Kurds in Germany in spite of that they immigrated under the Turk label.
I agree. All new information to me as well.Quote:
Thanks, very interesting and I read almost all.
I agree to much, in particular also to that there may have been a not really tribally defined continuum of North Sea Germanic speakers.
Completely new to me was that the North Frisians are said to be strongly diveded between those on the big islands and those on the halligs and at the coast. I never heard of that before. To my information it was undisputed that they all are later immigrants from Frisland in the Netherlands.
That were interesting thoughts whether one of the groups in fact was a remnant of such continental „Anglo-Frisians“. In contrast to what is said in the article, the fact that the Jutlanders did not also exhibit common linguistic innovations is no hurdle to that idea. Because the Jutlanders linguistically are immigrated (in the 6th century) North Germanic speaking Danes from the Danish islands and Scania. They linguistically replaced likely West Germanic speaking Jutes. This is why you have no Germanic dialect continuum at the German-Danish border.
Interesting is also the find of where runic inscriptions were found in Britain and how that geographically stunningly is concordant with the claimed settlement area of Angles and Jutes.
But I don't see why a new Germanic continuum couldn't have formed after the Danes arrived? Scandinavian and Low German remained mutually intelligible dialects for centuries after Danes colonised Jutland, the split between Norse and West Germanic would've happened after the first millennium at the earliest. There's no real geographic barrier between them and plenty of cultural exchange continued taking place through the Hansa and later High German influence in their Lutheran liturgy. North German and Dutch names and cuisine are more similar to Scandinavian ones than to South German and Austrian ones if I'm not mistaken.
What do you make of the Hermanduri-Thuringi connection?Quote:
The author’s question mark on the essentially only late runic inscriptions in the Alemannic area in spite of that they had been there since centuries without such inscriptions is very legit. Just some days ago I by chance read about that and it was told by scholars that there is assumed a connection with the Thurigian empire having beed destructen and conquered by Franks (and likely Saxons) in 531/534 AD and that that event removed a prior barrier. As the Franks acted unusually harschly towards the Thuringians, I also consider the possibility of Thuringian refugees. And if you consider that prior tribal Angles are said to have been one of the main components of Thuringians the showing of of runes is not that surprising anymore.
As I earlier said, the Angles and the Warini are said to be the core Thuringians. Both had been connected to the southern Jutland peninsula, however, archaeology suggests so, and they had been living in Holstein (Angles) and Mecklenburg (Warini) before they moved to Thuringia.
As I briefly mentioned above, Thurings were described as living in Hadeln before being overtaken by Saxons.
Have you heard the story? If not, what basically happened was, according to the Thuringian Chronicle, a group of Saxons wearing gold encountered Thurings in Hadeln. A Saxon met with a Thuring and told him he was looking to sell his gold for anything the Thuring agreed to give. So the Thuring was like, "Anything? How about a lap full of soil?" And the Saxon accepted without any hesitation (soil was scarce there). When returning with the gold, the Thurings celebrated and praised their dealer thinking they got the gold for very cheap. And after the Saxon returned with the soil, he started sprinkling soil over the fields with his fellow Saxons and they built forts to claim the land as their own. The Thurings saw this land claim and got angry at the Saxons for violating their pact. Saxons told them that they bought the land fair and square with their gold and the land was now theirs. The Thurings didn't accept this so attacked them and ended up getting defeated. They fought several times until the Saxons destroyed them.
There's another historical narrative about this basically stating that the Thurings under Hermanafrid were fighting the Franks under Theodoric. Theodoric getting desperate told the Saxon chief Hadugot that he would give them land conquered from the Thurings (Hadeln) if he helped them, which he did. In connection to this, Widukind also mentions Saxons fighting Thurings under Hermanafrid in Ronnenberg (near Hannover) in a battle lasting three days that the Saxons won, after which the Thurings fled to the Halle region (which is a modern Thuringian-speaking region). These Thurings were weakened by Franks first since they were fighting the Franks at the same time. This story anyways kind of implies that Engern and Eastfalia at least were previously occupied by Thurings before the Saxons (and Franks) pushed them south of the Hart Mountains.
Just as a side note that Suebi are something old and specific as it depicts a cultural-ritual confederation. From all my dealings it seems to me unlikely that the Suebi name became a generalised name for Germanics (except for the 20th century Danube Swabian term for Germans in Hungary and the 19th century szwaby Polish slur for Germans). I’d take the Suevi mentioning serious. On the other hand Tacitus counted Angli as Suevi...
Maybe. But in general the tempting try to connect specific Germanic names to various tribes has not been successful. On the other hand you do have for certain periods of time some tribal popularities visible. What’s the etymology of the name member Æsc? (Ercan is clear.)
The rulers are a little bit like Y DNA haplogroups. You prove a connection but it remains unclear to what extent that connection is representative for the whole ancestry respectively population.
Yes. And interesting elaborations.
Which would be correct also without a generic meaning, see above.
Both this and the not equal geographical distribution of runic inscriptions I’ll have to digest and keep in mind for further dealings.
Before I listed some tribes merged into Saxons I for avoiding unnecessary wrongs had a brief look into the German Wikipedia and there picked up Bructeri for the first time. Well…
The Chauci are commonly considered a core of the new Saxon tribe. But it doesn’t necessarly contradict what you say. I’d assume them to have spoken essentially like the new Frisians. I know that you somewhat ignored the referred to by me quotes about the new Frisians being derived from areas that were and are assigned without reservation to tribal Saxons, but just keep in mind that it’s assessed like that by resonable scholars. I don’t know whether you also were at Anthrogenica but there were two Frisians from the Netherlands or more correct: one Frisian and one wannabe Frisian. And they both claimed that all up there were „Saxo-Frisians“, no matter whether they spoke (new) Frisian or the historically expanding (Low) Saxon language.
Frisians are so „lazy“ in their prononciations and spellings - that is making up their language - that you could just screamingly run away. I don’t know how this is with the toponyms but regarding the family names like Reemtsma, Brinkama etc. -ma is a shortening for -mann. The low Saxons also go in that direction but less extreme. Place names ending with -sen are shorted from -husen and place names with -um are shortened from -heim.
This said, I take for granted that your mentioned toponyms characteristically ending with -a are nothing but such a horrible late development that is unconnected to the linguistic origin. I even think that this development is just because NW Germany lacked a continous layer of STRICT scholars and burocrates! NW Germans are more practical and un-fanatic, too un-fanatic imo. What am I at all talking about? In the local Hessian dialect Mannheim is spoken Monnem. And I’m fully convinced that if there would not have been the German strictness and sense for correctness among higher level burocrates it would today have been written Monnem instead of Mannheim!
Such a tribal association can not be maintained. -husun is simply the Low German form for High German -hausen. You have myriads of -hausen names in Germany that - if not lazy shortenend to -sen (Tötensen, Boltersen, Bevensen) - in Northern Germany exhibit the Low german form like in Kellinghusen in Holstein. (And Holstein btw. being an embarassing etymological accident: You had the Holt-saten (those who sit (dwell) in the wood, would be Holz-sassen in High German), slightly abraded called Holsaten and later Holsten (pronounced „holstn“). And then someone hypercorrected an assumed Low German sten (stone) to High German Stein. :picard2: )
Damn, I didn’t know and should long have looked it up!
But imo expressing sequences of mergings and splitting-ups rather than simultanously having different terms for the same subject.
I did not yet hear of an etymology of the Cherusci (If Laly would have said it, it would quite obvious have been chère Russki) name. However, the endings are clear.
Interesting with the Ems river. The older spelling of the connected town Emden was Embden. That would fit.
Often Ambrones are put in some relation to the island of Amrum and actually a number of scholars claim that there can be assumed a pre Germanic and pre Italic tribe IE common tribe that after a split-up also gave the name to the Umbrians. I guess that would then not be compatible with the river Ems.
The Slavs were distributed over a so big area that they encountered different people that had no connection with each other, which much promoted the existence of a number of different names for the same subject. I’m a little bit sceptical if those conditions can be projected to smaller Germanic tribes where all neighbours can communicate with each other and also with them.
Maybe.
But you understand that according to that opinion (that I do follow) Axones is just a typo by copists for Aviones? That was the reason to display how resembling it looks in Greek letters.
I recently read some 30 pages on the Alemann name only. (Here, starting at the PDF page 126: file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/alemannien-und-der-norden-internationales-symposium-vom-18-20-oktober-2001-in-zrich-3110178915-9783110178913_compress.pdf)
The most common opinion is that the tribe name formed after the penetration of the Limes at abt. 260 AD (I don’t recall the exact year.)
As for Germania superior: I looked at the extent of that province after the Arminius battle and I must say that I’m not aware that there at all lived any Germanics in that territory. Have a though for that as for the turn of times. I consider the Germania superior province at that time having a hoax name in order to mask the fact that so much of Roman ruled Germania had become lost.
Interestingly (even) the somewhat anti-German Cosmas of Prague that wrote at abt. 1000 AD stated that Bohemia is located „in Germania“. Stunning that educated Slavic scholars at that time seemingly ”remembered” the Slavic expansion.
There is a relative cluelessness among scholars as for what are Bavarians. The general lines are clear. Boiohaemum. But already the new name instead of older names does suggest that this is likely not just a continuation of Markomanns. Prior to the Slavic expansion Bohemia had belonged to the Longobard empire. Before they came to Pannonia their king Wacho had even his ”capital” in (likely Northern) Bohemia. Hermundurs are somewhat connected to Markomanns and will have contributed to the Germanic population. In Moravia and westernmost Slovakia you had Quadi. You also had a little kindom by the Rugii in Rugiland directly at the Danube and that area likely was continously Germanic since the migration period and there was later nothing else than Baiuvarii. When the Avars conquered most lands at the Middle Danube in the context of emigrating Longobards 567/568 likely loads of Germanics were pushed westwards and ended up in the later Bavarian tribal area. There are numerous Eastern Germanic influences among early Bavarians. If you consider what all had been left for kind of Germanics at the Middle Danube when they got freed from the Huns at the battle of Nedao in 454, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Herulii, Skirii, Quadi, Gepids, remaining Longobards, Vandals, then you can imagine that there might have come a lot of different Germanics. And considering that the last Celtic tribe in Bohemia/Moravia was heard of in the Markomannic wars at abt. 166 (it were Cotini in Moravia, I think) then it can be assumed that from then during additionally 400 years of Germanic rule and settlement likely all Celts will have become Germanised per 568. This implicates that the Baiuvarii also will have hailed from the Boii etc.
As for direct ties and traces such are given by the Friedenhain-Prestovice archaeological culture: https://www.historisches-lexikon-bay...Prestovice.jpg
Yes.
There are kind of a dozen theories and this one is to my perception in majority rejected today (I also don’t stick to that.)
There is an interesting female scholar, Heike Grahn-Hoek, that has written much about migration period Thurigia. This subject is stunning foggy. It is believed that at the zenit of it’s power Thurigia ruled (with subdued allied tribes) close to all of Germania magna, i. e. the area outside of the former Roman Empire. It bordered its ally, the Ostrogothic kingdom, at the Danube in today’s Bavaria and it likely reached up to Mecklenburg which was essentially empty at that time (500 AD). The border to the east is completely unknown.
As for the name Grahn-Hoek has developed an own theory (I’m sceptical, but it’s interesting): She thinks it comes from teruingi (Gothic Tervingi) and that name is derived from the Tyras river (today Dnjestr), cf. Tiraspol. The Thuringians were famous for their sophisticated horse breeding and she says this is something that likely teruingi, that also as Eastern Germanics were well into horse breeding, brought. She knows of the diverse origin of the Thuringians, ofc, and she doesn’t equal them with Tervingians but she assumes the latter to have made a key contribution including the name.
No. You can archaelogically see that the movement went from north to south only.
The cuisine doesn’t help.
There will have been a continuum but with the Danish expansion a continuum of maybe 400 km was compressed to 1 km figuratively. And at about the same time the contact will have become almost cut off. First (from abt. 500/550 on) all those areas that were later subject to the Slavic expansion were essentially empty of people. And later the Slavs were a barrier. There area, where Saxons and Danes could have a contact in the eastern half of Schleswig was just some 12 km at the most narrow place. The west of Schleswig was swampy wadden sea-like land. This condition went on for centuries before by the German eastward expansion the Slavic barrier became dissoluted.
Nothing. Those scholars who reject it claim that a review of for what locations the Hermunduri are mentioned, this is just east of the Elbe river and at the Danube so that does not even concern the core territories of lather Thuringia. (I can not quickly check these things.)
Yes, I know. This is from the Saxon chronicle of Widukind of Corvey. To my conviction this is nonsense. The Thuringians formed with the beginning of the 5th century and Saxons were existent before. In this story they come from the sea and the Lower Saxon coast in Germany is Thuringia figuratively. It doesn’t fit to anything. I consider it a confusion with later battles with the Thuringians as enemies. There are some theories that core Saxons may have come from North Albingia and maybe they landed somewhere and had such inistial hassles before they established. that would fit to land Hadeln. But then they had conflicts with Chauci and that must have been before the existence of tribal Thuringians.
The first part is still this landing nonsense in Hadeln, at least it’s nonsense in a Thuringian context.
The second part is essentially applicable. It’s about the fights in 531/534 when the Thuringian empire became crushed enduringly. The Frankish chronists don’t state a word about a Saxon participation but after the Saxons got notable parts of the Thüringian Empire, say the eastern 2/3 of later Eastphalia and even some areas south of the Harz, this is very indicative of their participation. And the Saxon chronists do state such a participation. In fact they in turn do not much talk abot the Franks. While the decisive battle is by the Frank told to have been at the Onestrudis (Unstrut) river, the Saxons speak of Runibergun as the battle field and of Scithingi (likely Burgscheidungen in today’s Thuringia). There are a number of possible locations for Runibergun amongst them one in the Hannover area. Others are in Thuringia. It could not be located with confidence till this very day.
I have something in my own genealogy research referring to the names you mention, and its not true that Elli is not found among Saxons:
Reginwerch v. ITTER, Count in the Southern Ittergau, documental in 973 - 74, first of the family named Itter
His father Elli (Alli, Allo) is from the ancient Saxionian family of counts named E s i k o n e n .
He appears from 942 to 965 as Count of the Saxonian Hessengau and around 950 as Count in Leinegau (districts in Hessen and on Leine River). His father is Esiko (Esicho, Asico, Asig, Adalrich), documental in 839 and 842, Count of Hessengau and son of Hiddi (813). This Saxonian noblemen Hiddi was a follower of the King of Franks.
From what I recall, the Angles were mostly settled in northeast England and southern Scotland, yes?
There must be a flaw in your research. :p
At a first glance I'd guess Aelli/Elli to be a shortening of agil- names like Agilmar > Elmar.
I didn't dig deeper in that particular case but my told general stance was that trys to connect particular Germanic names to particular tribes essentially have failed.
Thanks for the detailed information.
24. G E N E R A T I O N
1024 + 1104 + 2136 + 7594 / 1025 + 1105 + 2137 + 7595
Gottfried III v. HATZFELD documental in 1239, 43 and 50 + after 1250 - must have been a knight
After his wife’s death he gave 1 hide of land to the Cistercian cloister in Haina for his and his wife’s salvation of souls.
oo Jutta v. ITTER + 1250 The Edelherren of Itter come down from the Esikonen, a family of Saxonian counts.
As followers of C h a r l e m a g n e , King of Franks, they had to leave their country and were appointed as Counts in Leinegau and Hessengau (districts on Leine River and in North-Hessen) by him. Their descendants appear as Counts of (Winzenberg-)Reinhausen, v. Itter, v. Warburg and v. Kanstein.
It was Aelle/Ella of Sussex, not Aelli/Elli.
My username, an early Anglian King of the Mercians, also has a supposed namesake in the early West Saxon line, and is thought by some to be of partly Brittonic derivation, his son Pybba and grandson Penda's names were definitely of Celtic origin. Don't think Brittonic names in early Anglo-Saxon kings is proof of much other than there being closer cultural ties between the Britons and Anglo-Saxons than often thought.
They settled most heavily in East Anglia, Central England (Mercia) and Yorkshire (Deira). They also settled NW England, NE England and SE Scotland (Bernicia), but those areas have less Germanic/Anglian ancestry than the former.
Vikings also refer to the English (as a whole) as Suevi, so Tacitus using it for the English makes sense if you broaden its meaning to refer to West Germanics in general. I think Tacitus saw the Suebi as a confederation of tribes and not a tribe itself (similar to Franks). Tacitus also uses it for the Langobards and Semnones as well.
From what I can tell, Suebi seems to have been used synonymously with Irminone or Hermione, so basically the High German languages south of the Harz.
It's the name of a Germanic god, he was probably the main god of the Jutes like Saxnot was for Saxons:Quote:
Maybe. But in general the tempting try to connect specific Germanic names to various tribes has not been successful. On the other hand you do have for certain periods of time some tribal popularities visible. What’s the etymology of the name member Æsc? (Ercan is clear.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansuz_(rune)
Frisians are distinguished from Chauci and both lived on coastal regions, so there isn't enough evidence to say they were the same. I guess the idea of New Frisians of Friesland being descended from a northern population of Old Frisians is stronger for now.Quote:
The Chauci are commonly considered a core of the new Saxon tribe. But it doesn’t necessarly contradict what you say. I’d assume them to have spoken essentially like the new Frisians.
The Frisian King Finn's wife, Queen Hildeburh, is a Chauci:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27700695?seq=1
And I assumed they got defeated and gradually absorbed by the Angrians/Saxons rather than willingly join into a confederation under them. Population densities were lower before and population replacements were more common before. DNA tests show we overestimate how much ancient ancestry populations have.
I think I forgot to reply to that part. Who assigns New Frisians to tribal Saxons?Quote:
I know that you somewhat ignored the referred to by me quotes about the new Frisians being derived from areas that were and are assigned without reservation to tribal Saxons, but just keep in mind that it’s assessed like that by resonable scholars. I don’t know whether you also were at Anthrogenica but there were two Frisians from the Netherlands or more correct: one Frisian and one wannabe Frisian. And they both claimed that all up there were „Saxo-Frisians“, no matter whether they spoke (new) Frisian or the historically expanding (Low) Saxon language.
I had an account there, but rarely used it, and I'm not familiar with those users. Are you calling the other one a wannabe cause he was from Groningen? As far as I know, "Saxo-Frisian" is used for the Saxon-speaking Frisians of East Frisia (including Groningen).
Well, yes, but when you have these similar suffixes being shortened the same way and being associated more with certain dialects, then I don't think it's unreasonable to link them. This was anyways a conclusion I read from someone else, I haven't looked into it further myself. It's nothing extraordinary, but there's almost nothing left behind from those groups besides this.Quote:
Frisians are so „lazy“ in their prononciations and spellings - that is making up their language - that you could just screamingly run away. I don’t know how this is with the toponyms but regarding the family names like Reemtsma, Brinkama etc. -ma is a shortening for -mann. The low Saxons also go in that direction but less extreme. Place names ending with -sen are shorted from -husen and place names with -um are shortened from -heim.
This said, I take for granted that your mentioned toponyms characteristically ending with -a are nothing but such a horrible late development that is unconnected to the linguistic origin. I even think that this development is just because NW Germany lacked a continous layer of STRICT scholars and burocrates! NW Germans are more practical and un-fanatic, too un-fanatic imo. What am I at all talking about? In the local Hessian dialect Mannheim is spoken Monnem. And I’m fully convinced that if there would not have been the German strictness and sense for correctness among higher level burocrates it would today have been written Monnem instead of Mannheim!
Such a tribal association can not be maintained. -husun is simply the Low German form for High German -hausen. You have myriads of -hausen names in Germany that - if not lazy shortenend to -sen (Tötensen, Boltersen, Bevensen) - in Northern Germany exhibit the Low german form like in Kellinghusen in Holstein.
And from Wikipedia, it seems like the local Northern Saxon dialects started using Holsteen: 🤦*♂️Quote:
(And Holstein btw. being an embarassing etymological accident: You had the Holt-saten (those who sit (dwell) in the wood, would be Holz-sassen in High German), slightly abraded called Holsaten and later Holsten (pronounced „holstn“). And then someone hypercorrected an assumed Low German sten (stone) to High German Stein. :picard2: )
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holstein
By the way, the -saten suffix in Holsaten exists in some English toponyms too in the form of -set such as in Dorset and Somerset. And the High German -saß in Elsaß (Alsace) is the same as well.
Do you have any idea about the etymology of "Engern" by the way?Quote:
Damn, I didn’t know and should long have looked it up!
What do you mean?Quote:
But imo expressing sequences of mergings and splitting-ups rather than simultanously having different terms for the same subject.
From Wikipedia:Quote:
I did not yet hear of an etymology of the Cherusci (If Laly would have said it, it would quite obvious have been chère Russki) name. However, the endings are clear.
Quote:
Cherusci (Latin: [kʰeːˈrus.kiː]) is the Latin name for the tribe. Both it and the Greek form Khēroûskoi (Χηροῦσκοι) are presumably transcriptions of an otherwise unattested Old Germanic demonym, whose etymology is unclear. The dominant opinion in scholarship is that it may derive from *herut ("hart"), which may have had totemistic significance for the group.[1] Another hypothesis—proposed in the 19th century by Jacob Grimm and others—derives the name from *heru- (Gothic: hairus; heoru, a kind of sword).[2] Hans Kuhn has argued that the derivational suffix -sk- involved in both explanations is uncommon in Germanic. He suggested that the name may therefore be a compound of ultimately non-Germanic origin and connected to the hypothesized Nordwestblock.[3]
I have also heard the Humber River in Britain etymologically equated to it as well.Quote:
Interesting with the Ems river. The older spelling of the connected town Emden was Embden. That would fit.
Often Ambrones are put in some relation to the island of Amrum and actually a number of scholars claim that there can be assumed a pre Germanic and pre Italic tribe IE common tribe that after a split-up also gave the name to the Umbrians. I guess that would then not be compatible with the river Ems.
Humber and Umbria being connected sound like folk etymology to me anyways. I'm also skeptical of the Ambrones connection despite mentioning it above. The Ampsivarii are also said to derive their name from the Ems. I'm not so sure about the Ambrones, but I think the other three I mentioned are more likely to be one and the same.
There's also smaller nations having different names by their neighbors. Georgia is called Sakartvelo in Georgian, Vrastan in Armenian, and Gurjistan in Persian. And we already mentioned before how some German tribal names like Saxon, Suebi, Alemanni, Frank were misused.Quote:
The Slavs were distributed over a so big area that they encountered different people that had no connection with each other, which much promoted the existence of a number of different names for the same subject. I’m a little bit sceptical if those conditions can be projected to smaller Germanic tribes where all neighbours can communicate with each other and also with them.
I see.Quote:
But you understand that according to that opinion (that I do follow) Axones is just a typo by copists for Aviones? That was the reason to display how resembling it looks in Greek letters.
Was it ever used as a generic name for Germanics as a whole in the past?Quote:
I recently read some 30 pages on the Alemann name only. (Here, starting at the PDF page 126: file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/alemannien-und-der-norden-internationales-symposium-vom-18-20-oktober-2001-in-zrich-3110178915-9783110178913_compress.pdf)
The most common opinion is that the tribe name formed after the penetration of the Limes at abt. 260 AD (I don’t recall the exact year.)
What about the Vangiones, Nemetes, or Tulingi?Quote:
As for Germania superior: I looked at the extent of that province after the Arminius battle and I must say that I’m not aware that there at all lived any Germanics in that territory. Have a though for that as for the turn of times. I consider the Germania superior province at that time having a hoax name in order to mask the fact that so much of Roman ruled Germania had become lost.
I don't see why they couldn't have had a name change. Look at Albanians changing their name from Arberori to Shqiptare, Dutch from Frank to Nederlander, French from Roman to Francois, and there's the possibility that New Frisians didn't originally call themselves Fries as well. Then you also have those like the Russians who use a foreign Germanic name for their ethnicity despite obviously being from tribes that would've originally had Slavic names. If Bavarians didn't exist before, that means they are just descended from an older tribe that started using a new name.Quote:
There is a relative cluelessness among scholars as for what are Bavarians. The general lines are clear. Boiohaemum. But already the new name instead of older names does suggest that this is likely not just a continuation of Markomanns. Prior to the Slavic expansion Bohemia had belonged to the Longobard empire. Before they came to Pannonia their king Wacho had even his ”capital” in (likely Northern) Bohemia. Hermundurs are somewhat connected to Markomanns and will have contributed to the Germanic population. In Moravia and westernmost Slovakia you had Quadi. You also had a little kindom by the Rugii in Rugiland directly at the Danube and that area likely was continously Germanic since the migration period and there was later nothing else than Baiuvarii. When the Avars conquered most lands at the Middle Danube in the context of emigrating Longobards 567/568 likely loads of Germanics were pushed westwards and ended up in the later Bavarian tribal area. There are numerous Eastern Germanic influences among early Bavarians. If you consider what all had been left for kind of Germanics at the Middle Danube when they got freed from the Huns at the battle of Nedao in 454, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Herulii, Skirii, Quadi, Gepids, remaining Longobards, Vandals, then you can imagine that there might have come a lot of different Germanics. And considering that the last Celtic tribe in Bohemia/Moravia was heard of in the Markomannic wars at abt. 166 (it were Cotini in Moravia, I think) then it can be assumed that from then during additionally 400 years of Germanic rule and settlement likely all Celts will have become Germanised per 568. This implicates that the Baiuvarii also will have hailed from the Boii etc.
These are the possibilities for why the Marcomanni may have changed their name to Baier:
- Bavarians were the strongest subtribe or regional subgroup, and their oversized influence led to their name taking over.
- Marcomanni weren't strict in what they called themselves, they decided to adopt the Bohemia-Bayern region's name after making it their home.
I think the latter is more likely. Keep in mind that Marcomanni was originally a regional name that gained tribal identity later similarly, it's the exact same as the modern German Märkisch or Modern English Mercian meaning "frontiersman".
Hermanduri are probably the ancestors of East Franks in northern parts of Bavaria and Wurttemberg? East Franks speak a distinctive Upper German language and I'm not sure which other ancient group they can be connected with.
👍Quote:
As for direct ties and traces such are given by the Friedenhain-Prestovice archaeological culture: https://www.historisches-lexikon-bay...Prestovice.jpg
Interesting. Seems like a huge stretch to me. Are there any other proposed etymologies for Thuringi?Quote:
There are kind of a dozen theories and this one is to my perception in majority rejected today (I also don’t stick to that.)
There is an interesting female scholar, Heike Grahn-Hoek, that has written much about migration period Thurigia. This subject is stunning foggy. It is believed that at the zenit of it’s power Thurigia ruled (with subdued allied tribes) close to all of Germania magna, i. e. the area outside of the former Roman Empire. It bordered its ally, the Ostrogothic kingdom, at the Danube in today’s Bavaria and it likely reached up to Mecklenburg which was essentially empty at that time (500 AD). The border to the east is completely unknown.
As for the name Grahn-Hoek has developed an own theory (I’m sceptical, but it’s interesting): She thinks it comes from teruingi (Gothic Tervingi) and that name is derived from the Tyras river (today Dnjestr), cf. Tiraspol. The Thuringians were famous for their sophisticated horse breeding and she says this is something that likely teruingi, that also as Eastern Germanics were well into horse breeding, brought. She knows of the diverse origin of the Thuringians, ofc, and she doesn’t equal them with Tervingians but she assumes the latter to have made a key contribution including the name.
No. You can archaelogically see that the movement went from north to south only.
Also, if their name is from a name of the Dniester River, why would they start using it after the Angles and Werns united to form the Thuringian confederation? My guess is that they got the same name Duri/Thuri independently from the Hermanduri. Maybe the Duri/Thuri in Hermanduri and/or Thuringi are originally exonyms that they made their own? Or the name of a Celtic tribe whose name they adopted originally as a regional identity similar to the Bavarians?
Quote:
The name Hermanduri may come from the Ancient Greek word Ermóndoroi. The word "herman" in Hermunduri may also be related to the word "german", which was used by the Hermunduri to refer to themselves as spearmen.
I see. If not for the Slavic interference, then Saxon and Danish could probably have been part of the same dialect continuum?Quote:
There will have been a continuum but with the Danish expansion a continuum of maybe 400 km was compressed to 1 km figuratively. And at about the same time the contact will have become almost cut off. First (from abt. 500/550 on) all those areas that were later subject to the Slavic expansion were essentially empty of people. And later the Slavs were a barrier. There area, where Saxons and Danes could have a contact in the eastern half of Schleswig was just some 12 km at the most narrow place. The west of Schleswig was swampy wadden sea-like land. This condition went on for centuries before by the German eastward expansion the Slavic barrier became dissoluted.
Bede also said that in the 7th century, Anglia (Eastern Schleswig) was still uninhabited, not sure how reliable that is.
What other place could it be confused with? Multiple different accounts mention the place (Haduloha in Old Saxon, Hatheloe in Latin) and it's described as a coastal town. Could it be that the land was inhabited by a different German tribe (like Frisians or Chauci?), but they inserted Thuringians into the story since the other tribe was subject to them?Quote:
Yes, I know. This is from the Saxon chronicle of Widukind of Corvey. To my conviction this is nonsense. The Thuringians formed with the beginning of the 5th century and Saxons were existent before. In this story they come from the sea and the Lower Saxon coast in Germany is Thuringia figuratively. It doesn’t fit to anything. I consider it a confusion with later battles with the Thuringians as enemies. There are some theories that core Saxons may have come from North Albingia and maybe they landed somewhere and had such inistial hassles before they established. that would fit to land Hadeln. But then they had conflicts with Chauci and that must have been before the existence of tribal Thuringians.
So you agree with the account saying that Eastfalia (including Hannover) was inhabited by Thuringians first and they were pushed south of the Harz by the Saxons?Quote:
The first part is still this landing nonsense in Hadeln, at least it’s nonsense in a Thuringian context.
The second part is essentially applicable. It’s about the fights in 531/534 when the Thuringian empire became crushed enduringly. The Frankish chronists don’t state a word about a Saxon participation but after the Saxons got notable parts of the Thüringian Empire, say the eastern 2/3 of later Eastphalia and even some areas south of the Harz, this is very indicative of their participation. And the Saxon chronists do state such a participation. In fact they in turn do not much talk abot the Franks. While the decisive battle is by the Frank told to have been at the Onestrudis (Unstrut) river, the Saxons speak of Runibergun as the battle field and of Scithingi (likely Burgscheidungen in today’s Thuringia). There are a number of possible locations for Runibergun amongst them one in the Hannover area. Others are in Thuringia. It could not be located with confidence till this very day.