The Mysteries of British History
It is not many years since radioactive dating showed that Stonehenge is as
old as the older pyramids. Prior to this application of science
British archaeologists and historians had enthusiastically declared
Stonehenge to have been built almost two thousand years later and mocked
anyone who disagreed. British historians have several other beliefs
that should be re-assessed in the light of modern science and recent
The Anglo-Saxon/Viking Wipeout Theory
British historians have tried to explain the lack of any clear
transitional culture between the Romans and the Anglo-Saxons in the south
east and east of England with a theory that the invading Saxons (and
Vikings) killed everyone and destroyed everything: the "Wipeout
Theory". Modern genetic evidence shows that this was not the case
and suggests that most of the population survived the Anglo-Saxon
invasion, as Stephen
"75% of British and Irish ancestors arrive[d]
between 15,000 and 7,500 years ago". The Wipeout Theory is almost
Supporters of the Wipeout Theory have had a remarkably easy ride, even
before the genetic evidence it was clear that when the Anglo-Saxons
invaded Cumbria they did not wipe out the local inhabitants. The
Cumbrians continued to speak Cumbric for centuries after being invaded so
could not have been eradicated. The same is true of
Cornwall. Given that the wipeout did not occur in Cumbria or
Cornwall the Wipeout Theory is left with a belief that the Saxons wiped
out all the people from the South East and East of the country.
Sadly for the historians, the genetics of people from towns such as
Midhurst in Sussex clearly shows that the people were not annihilated. As
et al (2003)
put it "Perhaps the most surprising conclusion is the
limited continental input in southern England, which appears to be
predominantly indigenous..". In other words the Saxons scarcely killed
anyone or even took up residence in precisely those areas where the
"wipeout" should have been most extreme.
The archaeological evidence is also consistent with gradual change rather
than Wipeout: "Recent studies of the Essex landscape and the relationship
between Roman and Saxon sites suggest that the structure of the Roman
countryside largely survived and that any changes in rural settlement were
a gradual response to changing economic and political
circumstances." (Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon
England By Dr Barbara Yorke).
The lack of Saxon input to the genetics of the South Eastern English
population utterly refutes the Wipeout Theory and may even suggest that
the people in the South East were allies of the Saxons.
The failure of the Wipeout Theory should not surprise anyone. The Saxons
did not wipe out everyone from the other places they invaded. Slaves are
too valuable, in fact in those days you invaded to get slaves. The last
thing you wanted as an invader was to defeat an enemy so completely that
it left you tilling the fields, reaping the crops and doing the cooking.
The English Language
The failure of the Wipeout Theory leads us to another problem. The
main reason for the Wipeout Theory was undoubtedly linguistic, how could a
million or more people just stop speaking their native tongue and adopt
Anglo-Saxon before the days of formal education? Why did Welsh, Cornish
and Cumbric survive when the "British" of the South East of England has
disappeared without any trace? If most of the people living in
England in 600 AD were descendants of the people who had lived in England
in 200 AD what happened to their language? Why did they cease
speaking their native tongue and adopt "Anglo-Saxon" before schools
existed? The answer that is still supported by 99% of British
historians is that the native population was wiped out. Given that
the population was not wiped out and that Cumbric survived the Saxon
conquest even though Cumbria was thinly populated and an easy prey for
genocide, the most obvious answer is that the people who lived in South
East and Eastern England spoke a language very similar to Anglo-Saxon
before the Saxons invaded.
Observers at the time of the Roman invasion of Britain noted that the
tribes on both sides of the Straits of Dover were related and in close
contact. Caesar, in his book, The Conquest of Gaul, describes the
Channel as a place where there was considerable trade carried by large and
"if the worst came to the worst, those born sailors knew that they could
take to the stout ships which had weathered so many storms"
The people on both sides of the channel had advanced sea faring cargo
ships - see note (1) below. When Caesar attacked Northern Gaul the
British came to help their "fair haired" friends across the Channel and
Caesar's invasion of Britain was to "to punish the southern tribes, who
had helped their kinsmen in Gaul to resist him" (Chapter 6).
Despite these contemporary accounts of Southern England having a close
affinity with the Germanic tribes of Northern France and Belgium British
historians cannot bring themselves to propose that the Southern and
Eastern English may have for centuries been invading and trading with
Northern France, Belgium, Holland and Friesland and vice versa.
Would it really be so surprising to find that these South Easterners were
culturally Anglo-Saxon and already spoke Anglo-Saxon before the
Anglo-Saxons invaded? Would it be so shocking if the South Eastern
English always spoke English?
The best argument for an Anglo-Saxon dialect being spoken in the South
East of England is the place names or "toponymy" of the area. There
are almost no Ancient Briton place names but there are survivals of Roman
place names such as Porchester, Chichester etc. The historians
are going to have us believe that every single village and hamlet in South
East England completely changed name in the 500 years after the Romans
left even though there is almost no evidence of Anglo-Saxon population
replacement in the South East and few people could write! This is
obvious nonsense, the people of the South East of England always spoke
with an Anglo-Saxon dialect, even before Hengist and Horsa arrived.
The Norman Apocalypse - The Cause of the "Dark Ages"
British historians like to portray the Anglo-Saxons as primitives who
lived in wooden huts. According to the myth these primitives were
extremely lucky because the Normans came and within 100-200 years had
built a church or cathedral in every town and village. The Saxons
left almost no trace of civilisation, being primitive folk. It is
only recently, since metal detectorists and excavations have found various
hordes of jewellery that this view appears simplistic.
|Saxon art: The
Winchester Cathedral glass bowl from the 10th century and the
Sutton Hoo Shoulder Clasp from the 6th-7th century
The Winchester Cathedral glass bowl from the 10th century and the Sutton
Hoo Shoulder Clasp from the 6th-7th century show just how primitive Saxon
culture could be (click on the pictures to show finer detail).
Notice that these objects were found in graves. Only goods
that were buried or hidden survived.
Saxon architecture is incredibly rare in Britain. Two examples are
architecture: St Laurence's Church, Bradford Upon Avon and St
Peter's Barton upon Humber.
These were not city churches or even large town churches. What
happened to the Saxon churches that must have existed in every larger
English town? What happened to all the Saxon artefacts and
books? British historians call the results of this apocalyptic
destruction of Saxon culture the "Dark Ages", "dark" because almost no
record of Saxon culture has been left.
Not only was almost every Saxon church demolished and replaced in the
first century or so after the Norman conquest, all the houses disappeared
as well. It is time to reassess the Norman conquest, it has the
characteristics of an apocalypse, or Maoist style Cultural Revolution,
rather than a simple conquest, with everything relating to the previous
regime utterly destroyed.
Note 1: A contemporary description of Channel shipping.
The countries that bordered the Channel in 50BC used large, ocean going
sailing ships to cross the seas. This is clear in Caesar's account
of a naval battle at that time:
"The rams of the light galleys would fail to make any impression on those
huge hulls. The deck-turrets were run up: but even then the Romans were
overtopped by the lofty poops, and could not throw their javelins with
effect But the Roman engineers had prepared an ingenious contrivance. Two
or more galleys rowed up close to one of the enemies' ships. Then, with
sharp hooks fixed to the ends of long poles, the Romans caught hold of the
halyards, and pulled them tight the rowers pulled their oars with might
and main ; and the sudden strain snapped the ropes. Down fell the yards :
the troops clambered on to the helpless hulk; and the struggle was soon
ended by the short sword. When several ships had been thus captured, the
rest prepared to escape. But they had hardly been put before the wind when
there was a dead calm ; and, as they had no oars, they could not stir."
From Caesar's Conquest of Gaul
Click here to comment on Twitter:
Click here to mention this article on Twitter: