Initial Notes: As you read thru this document you will see page numbers.  These numbers relate to the original document and assisted me during the edit process and will be useful if updates are required in future.
Y-DNA Haplogroup R-U152 in Britain: (Hypothesis B)

Proposed Link to the 5th Century Migration of the Angle and Jute Tribes from Jutland and Fyn, Denmark

Research Paper by David K. Faux  listed here by permission


This present work is a result of a single observation. A geographical pattern had emerged in the author’s database and map representing men of British ancestry with the Y-chromosome marker S28 / U152. The place of birth of their earliest known ancestor tended to cluster along the eastern coastal areas of England inland to the Midlands, some around the area immediately north of Wales (as well as Anglesey), but none along the south coast or the southwest in general. Also in Scotland the distribution included the Northern Isles and along the east coast, with none on the west coast. Furthermore, despite very heavy sampling, no one with a native Irish surname and documented ancestry to Ireland has yet tested positive for R-U152. As the new data continued to “fit the mold” it occurred that this was not random, and so an interpretation in keeping with known historical events might be found, since the clustering suggested a relatively recent immigration to Britain rather than events associated with distant pre-historical times. When the author drew a line around the outside perimeter of the ancestral homes of those who tested U152 positive, it was clear that this was very similar to the boundaries of the Danelaw which separated the territories of the Danish Viking immigrants and the Saxon lands in the south and west. At a later date it became apparent that this was virtually the same boundary relating to the lands settled by the Angles three hundred years earlier. Hence, there was an apparent overlap between all three distributions – R-U152, the Danelaw, and the Angle Kingdoms.

Based on the above database, the regions where R-U152 was observed on the Continent appeared to mirror the known distribution of the Hallstatt and La Tene Celts. This includes locations from Spain to Ukraine with a “hotspot” in Switzerland (see a related study by the present author), and hence a search was initiated for a Celtic group that could explain the R- U152 in for example Orkney and East Anglia. A group that “matched the criteria” was quickly located.

The Cimbri tribe resided on the Jutland Peninsula (and surrounds). They are well documented in that region between about 100 BC and 500 AD. The Cimbri were Celtic – speaking, and many of the most dramatic Celtic finds (e.g., the Gundestrup Cauldron) have been discovered in their homeland around Limfjord, or further south in Jutland (e.g., the Gallehus horns). The “Celticity” of Jutland and Fyn is reflected in the fact that even in the Pre-Roman Iron Age, There are suggestions of direct links between the North and the western Celtic world in burial ritual. The burial of dismantled carts with the dead at Husby in Schleswig, at Kargbeck in Denmark and Langa in Fyn is closely paralleled in the Rhine Valley and northern Gaul (Todd, 2004, p. 20). Furthermore genetic testing has shown that R-U152 is indeed found in southern Norway and Sweden around Oslofjord immediately north of Jutland, and in Denmark on the island of Fyn, but not found in the regions to the immediate south, including Friesland and northern Germany (above Koblenz). Hence there is an association between the Continental Celtic marker R-U152 in Scandinavia and the probable territories of the Celtic – speaking Cimbri - a Celtic isolate essentially set within a vast Germanic region. Further information about the proposed Cimbri – Viking connection can be found in an earlier study by the present author exploring “Hypothesis A”.

In this essay the author will examine the evidence linking R-U152 in Britain to the peoples of the Cimbric Peninsula (Jutland), including the Cimbri, the Angles, and the Jutes. The sum total of the evidence strongly suggests that this source represents the majority of R-U152 in England. In addition, it is entirely possible that despite the “tight” clustering of R-U152 in England and Scotland, that an unknown number of men with this marker may trace their ancestry to other locations on the Continent. It would appear that the various tribes of the Belgae immediately across the English Channel represent a logical source considering their proximity to England and being source populations for the Celtic groups who immigrated to southern England before the time of Caesar, as well as some of the Normans and Flemings. This work represents “Hypothesis C” and is the third study of the matter by the present author in what amounts to a trilogy.

Genetic Background

A Y-chromosome SNP (single nucleotide polymorphism) was discovered in 2005, and developed commercially by EthnoAncestry. It was found to be downstream of the most commonly observed marker in Western Europe, M269 (the phylogenetic category R1b1c) and assigned the label S28. In the early stages of testing those men who were in the M269 category, two individuals were found to be positive for this new marker. One was of Palatine German heritage in the direct male line; and the other (the present author), co-founder of EthnoAncestry, was of English ancestry from East Anglia. The mutation was assigned to the phylogenetic category R1b1c10, today known as R1b1b2a2g (ISOGG, 2008) and R1b1b2h (Karafet et al., 2008), an most recently R1b1b2a1b7 (FTDNA, 2008). These categories will change as new discoveries are made. This marker is now known to be downstream of the newly discovered S116 / P312 as well as the ancestor to both, M269 (R1b1b2 in Karafet et al., 2008). For the sake of clarity, consistency and brevity the haplogroup under consideration will be identified as R-U152. In 2007 and 2008, thanks to the chip technology used by DeCODEme and 23andME allowing about 2000 Y-SNPs to be assessed simultaneously in each sample, two SNPs downstream of U152 have emerged. The significance of L2/S139 and L20/S144 is in the process of being evaluated.

The Myres et al. (2007) study found that of the various subclades of R1b1b2 in Denmark, about 50% were R-U106. That leaves 50% “unresolved”. The present author predicted that of this percentage perhaps half would be R-U152 and the rest the more ubiquitous R-S116 / P312*. The scant testing has brought to light one R-U152 man from Fyn. However to date the Danish – Demes Y-DNA Project at Family Tree DNA has included few who have opted for deep clade haplogroup testing. Of these men one is R-P312*, two are R-U106, and one R-U152

Page 2

An inspection of results of other Danes who are not members of this Project suggests that there will be more R-U106, somewhat fewer R-P312*, and fewer even R-U152 (although this has yet to be demonstrated with a regionally representative sample from Denmark). It is not expected that there will be many R-U152 in the homeland of the Angles (with the exception of Fyn) since there is historical and archaeological evidence that the entire area was depopulated circa 450 to 550 AD. A more comprehensive analysis of all of the haplogroups relating to Denmark is found in the above noted study (“Hypothesis A”) by the present author.

An unpublished research study of Norway found that the percentage of R-U106 made up about 65% of the R-M269 (R1b1b2) group. Ten percent were R-U152, but all from the southeast of the country north of Jutland (Vestfold, the Vik and surrounding Oslofjord). Very limited commercial testing tends to confirm this finding with a Norwegian R-U152 at Strang in Upper Oslofjord, another further south in Telemark; and two R-U152 men from the far west of Sweden, adjoining the Vik (but to date in no other location in Sweden). This area has seen some recent immigration (e.g., Walloon in the 17th Century) so the Scandinavian heritage of at least one of these individuals is probable but not assured.

In an unpublished study of the Orkney Islands, R-U152 only made up about 10% of the R1b1b2 sample, but every person identified as R-U152 had a Norse farm or place surname which in Orkney is found only among the descendants of the original Norse settlers.

Hence there is some evidence that R-U152 was brought to the north of Britain by Norse Vikings, and in the south of Britain arrived via a combination of the Danish Vikings beginning in the 8th Century; and earlier by the Angles at the time of the Anglo-Saxon migrations beginning in the 5th Century. These may in fact all be descendants of the Celtic- speaking Cimbri, originally of northern and central Jutland. However, the presence of R- U152 in areas of Belgium, Luxembourg and Northern France does open the door to the possibility that some of this haplogroup in England may trace their roots to these regions.

Hypothesis A – Cimbrian Descendants of Scandinavia, the Danelaw, and the Viking Era

Based on a convergence of historical, archaeological and linguistic evidence the present author assembled a 92 page study of the proposed link between:

a) The Celtic-speaking Cimbri tribe and others (e.g., Teutons, Charudes, Jutes) of the “Cimbric Peninsula” (now Jutland), Denmark.
b) The geographical areas encompassed within the Danelaw in England, and the Norse settlements in Scotland.
c) The Y-chromosome genetic marker U152 / S28 (haplogroup R-U152).

In essence, the argument was that the reason for the observation that R-U152 is largely confined to the Northern Isles and east coast of Scotland and the Danelaw in England was because men bearing this haplogroup migrated to Britain as Norse and Danish Vikings between the 9th and 11th Centuries. The hypothesis requires a multi – disciplinary

Page 3

chronological approach to understanding the background of the tribes residing on the Cimbrian Peninsula from Bronze Age times in Scandinavia, through the Viking era in both Scandinavia and Britain. This work provides a more detailed analysis of background information than what follows, so interested readers are referred to this study to set the stage for “Hypothesis B”.

If further testing confirms the relatively low number of Danes who are R-U152, this would place any hypothesis of a relatively large scale Viking era migration of men of this haplogroup to the Danelaw in England on shaky ground. The evidence is stronger in linking R-U152, the Scandinavian Oslofjord region, and the Scottish Northern Isles and east coastal area as well as to some extent the eastern coastal areas of England. One of the “problems” in supporting a Viking era migration to explain the link between R-U152 and the Danelaw is that there is no evidence that during the Viking era settlements in Jutland were abandoned. If this depopulation could have been demonstrated, it may have accounted for more R-U152 in England than in Denmark (as appears to be the case via preliminary work). An example of the general continuity of the village sites in Cimbri territory from the Viking era, including the 7th to 11th Centuries, is found in the archaeological data (Christiensen, 2002).

Until further testing is completed, a tentative conclusion is that men who were R-U152 and residing in Jutland and western Denmark made only a small genetic contribution to the areas in England settled in the 9th Century by the (largely Danish) Vikings. However, considering the striking distribution and clustering of this haplogroup in England, are there other candidates for the origin of R-U152 in Britain? Again, the very restricted distribution suggests a relatively recent appearance there.

Hypothesis B - The Angles and Jutes during the Migration Era

There is another hypothesis which would still retain a link between Eastern England and Jutland, possibly involving the Cimbri, but with earlier (pre Viking era) migrations to Britain. If this hypothesis is going to be credible two conditions must be met if it is determined that there is little R-U152 in present – day Jutland:

  a) It must be shown that at some point during or prior to the Viking era there was a significant abandonment of settlements in Jutland.
b) At the same time as the above, there must appear in the archaeological record of Eastern England evidence of an influx of migrants from Jutland (and / or adjacent areas of Scandinavia) sufficient to account for the numbers of R-U152 seen in the country today.

     1) Evidence Relating to Jutland:

A quote by R.H. Hodges is interesting. He said, If we seek out the original England of the continental Angles, we must go to the districts of Angle, in the Cimbric, that is the Danish, peninsula (Starke, 1968, p. 107).

Page 4

This section will explore the possible role of the Angles and Jutes in explaining the distribution of R-U152 in England. There will be repetition of some of the information from the above noted study by the present author, however the present inquiry will highlight the people who resided in the central and southern areas of the Jutland Peninsula, as well as the island of Fyn, until the 5th Century. The focus here will be on the Angles and there will be a more specific examination of the Jutes toward the end of this section.
Considering the documented behavior of the Cimbri of Jutland in earlier days (e.g., 120 BC), it is possible that sometime before the Viking invasions (these beginning about 789 AD) the entire tribe deserted its homeland and migrated en masse leaving no or few descendants in Jutland. Two destinations may have been southern Norway and Britain. If an event of this nature did occur, the available evidence clearly points to the mid 5th and 6th Centuries (circa 450 to 600 AD).

It is possible that those residing at the southern end of the Peninsula may have also included a large number of men who were R-U152, whether or not their cultural affiliation was Celtic or Germanic.

Historical Evidence – the Angles of Jutland: The documentary sources (be they Greek, Roman, Frankish or other) who make mention of the Angles are well summarized in Grane (2003). The name Angle is possibly geographic and could mean that they resided by the narrows (e.g., the water between the mainland and a series of islands), or a narrow peninsula of land – “ang” being a Indo-European word meaning “narrow”. It appears that their territory included (but was probably not limited to) what is today known as Angeln on the east side of the southern part of Jutland in Schleswig (where it is in fact near the narrowest location on the neck of Jutland). This region is between the modern Flensburg and Schleswig, shown in the map above (brown area), and in a closer view illustrated in the map below. It could also mean the angle that the sea takes as it goes from a horizontal aspect along the Baltic Sea, to vertical in reaching Jutland. In assessing the range of evidence, Starke (1968) considers that the Angle territory included also adjacent parts of Jutland as well as the Island of Fyn (Funnen) (the large island in green opposite Als in the above map) and associated isles.

A very interesting proposal concering how the Angles got their name has been put forward by Farthing (2008) relating to the harpoon – like lance that they used in battle. He noted that these items have been found in deposits throughout Angle territory. He states that, The Old English word angel or angul, akin to Old High German ango, and Old Norse ongull, can be traced back to the Latin uncus, and then to the Greek onkos, which means arrow-barb. Farthing discusses how this rather wicked weapon would be very effective in making it difficult for an enemy to remove the item embedded in a shield so he would be forced to drop it; and removing it from a wound would only create much greater damage. Considering that the Angles were known as Onguls in various record sources (see later), the present author accepts this interpretation as most probable.
Page 6

An Ongull or barbed weapon from which the Angles may have taken their name

Circa 23 AD Strabo wrote his, Geography, including a description of the Germanic tribes, however there is no mention of the Angles – they perhaps being subsumed under “Suebi”. In 43 AD Mela of Spain in De Chorographia, gives a vague description noting that the Cimbri and Teutoni were residing on a bay below a point of land (probably that which juts out near Arhus) south down (apparently) the eastern side of Jutland. It is possible that the Angles are part of the Teutoni narion, who are described as also residing on an island (Fyn or Sealand?) which is larger and more fertile than the others in the bay. Pliny the Elder’s (circa 77 AD) description, in Naturalis Historia, of “Lagnus” being at the boundary of the Cimbrian territory may match a border between these people and the Angles, but he did not specifically note the Angle tribe by name. It is entirely possible and even likely that the Cimbri broke into a number of different tribal groupings with the passage of time.

What links the Cimbri (and the Teutoni and Chauci according to Pliny), and the Angles of Jutland, is their joint affiliation as members of the Ingaevones confederation (supposedly descended from an ancestor in common, Ingwaz as well as Mannus). It is possible that Angle were among the people who follow Inge (associated with the Yngvi-Freya Ynglinga) dynasty of Upsala, Sweden and Oslofjord, Norway. Much is left to the imagination.

The Angles enter recorded history circa 98 AD when Tacitus wrote his Germania. In relation to the Anglii, Tacitus simply lists them among six tribes who worshiped the goddess Nerthus at a sanctuary on an island. This group includes the Reudingi, Aviones, Anglii, Varini, Eudoses, Suardones and Nuithones. Tacitus’s failure to mention the Cimbri here is probably an oversight.

Page 7

It is noteworthy that the Celtic style Djebjerg wagons (from Cimbri territory in central Jutland) appear as a perfect match to the vehicle which would have been used on this occasion. It is somewhat unclear as to who the other tribes are since some seem to disappear from the record (or are unrecognizable in subsequent descriptions of the peoples of the area). Tacitus is thus the first to address the religious belief system of the Angles. Nerthus is seen as an earth mother goddess who may be an incarnation of the Danish Gefion who is said to have plowed the land from Skane to Sealand. Most scholars believe that the island where the sacred grove and lake involving rituals associated with Nerthus, was Sealand, and specifically at or near Niartharum. Nerthus is also associated with the Norse Freyia, the Vanir goddess, and sister to Frey who is the progenitor of the Ynglinga dynasty of Vestfold Norway. The link between Ing as the ancestor of the Angles and of the Scylde dynasty of Denmark and of the Ynglingas ties all together (Chadwick, 1907; Grigsby, 2005). Parallels seen in the Anglo-Saxon literature and archaeology relating to England will be examined later.

Ptolemy writing his Guide to Geography about 150 AD also does not include the Angles in his descriptions of the area, however he placed many other tribes on the Cimbric Cheronese (including Jutland and surrounding islands). These are the Sigulones, Sabaldingi, Chali, Cobandi, Funusii, Charudes, and Cimbri. He does place the “Leuvoni” (a clerical error for Teutoni?) on an island that may be Sealand or Fyn. If this is really a bad translation, then perhaps the Sigulones were Angles – but that is perhaps a stretch. The Fundusi are probably the people residing on Fyn (Funnen). Ptolemy also has the Teutonoari placed near, but south, of the Teutoni who are immediately to the east near the Baltic (as well as possibly on Sealand as noted above). It should be noted that there is no surviving contemporary map of these locations, although he does give coordinates for geographical locations such as settlements.

It could be productive to explore the Danish sagas for hints that might assist in pinning down the origin of the settlers in Anglo-Saxon times. Perhaps one example will suffice. Saxo Grammaticus wrote Gesta Dannorum in the 12th Century, between 1208 and 1218 (e.g., Davidson and Fisher, 1980), and it is difficult to parse out fact from myth. However he begins his history of the Danes with the story that the Danes were the descendants of two brothers, Dan and Angul. It was the latter who was the progenitor of the “Anglian race” who took possession of Britain. It is also noteworthy that Saxo said that, Hamlet was king of the Jutes who fell in a battle with Viglek, King of the Angles and grandfather of Offa, who must have lived at the beginning of the 4th Century. Saxo says of Hamlet, ‘His grave can be seen in Jutland on a heath which bears his name’. This is probably Ammel Hede, east of Randers (Starke, 1968, p. 98). This suggests that the territory of the Jutes may have included central Jutland. Starke believes that the Geatas of Beowulf are one in the same with the Jutes. Saxo further discusses events in the time of Wormund (whose father was Vigletus / Wihtlaeg), and whose son was Offa (born circa 415 AD). During the rule of Wormund, The country about Sleswig was much disturbed by incursions of a warlike king of Sweden whose name was Athilus. At this time Frowinus was governor of Schelswig, and was later slain by Athilus. Keto, a son of the latter, sent Folco, his chief officer, to Wormund at Jaellinge with the news (p. 122). Here two pieces of information link to this event of circa 430 AD. First, at least some of the military bog offerings at Thorsberg and Vimose (see later) probably related to unsuccessful Swedish raiding expeditions.

Page 8

Secondly, the palatial residence of the king of the Angles appears to have been in central Jutland at or near Jelling (probably Vorbasse) – the seat of the later kings of Denmark.

The map at left dated to 1645 (edited by Blaeu) combines information from Pliny and Tacitus, and perhaps had other confirmatory cartographic evidence which is no longer extant. They show the Cimbri where the Angels and Jutes are located (southwestern Jutland), and the Sabaldingii where the Angles resided circa 400 AD.


The Anglo-Saxon Exeter Cathedral Book confirms much of this, where Widsith (who calls himself a Myrginga who sets out “from the east out of Angeln”), and probably written circa 570 AD (Chambers, 1912) states that in the Migration Period Offa (died circa 476 AD), Wormund’s son, was king of the Angles and at Rendsburg circa 450 AD (“when still a boy”) he won a great battle and took over the Myrgingas (probably Mercians in England), which is also repeated in Saxo’s verion above. Offa may also have been known as simply Angul. Saxo said that two brothers, Onghul and Dan (apparently sons of Wermund) had joint rule over Denmark. According to Widsith, Offa rules the Angles, Alewith the Danes (perhaps the latter was known colloquially as Dan). Possibly Angul / Offa and his people left for England relinquishing the homeland to Dan, the legendary progenitor of the Danish people. Hence it would seem that the Angles and the Danes had the same origin, something that we will see reflected in the archaeological evidence.

Page 9

Furthermore, a German source, Annales Quedlinburgenses, dating from the 11th Century, and stating that in 445 AD the Angles, led by King Angling, ‘went to England from Angel which the Danes now occupy’ (Starke, 1989).

Historical Evidence - the Angles of Thuringia: Although the evidence of a direct connection between the Angles of England and the Angles of the southern and central regions of Jutland and nearby islands is clear, there is another layer of complexity.  There was a group with the same name (or very similar) who lived much further south, and who appear to have had a connection to the Angles of the north and England.  Their documented residence is at Engelin by the Unstrut River near Eurfurt (Thuringia near Hesse).

This group should not be confused with the Angrivarii who appear in the records as early as 9 AD in connection with the Battle of Teutoburg Forest.  In the work Germania, circa 98 AD, Tacitus clearly differentiated the Anglii (noted above) from the Angrivarii, residing between the Chauci in the north, and the Cherusi in the south – near Minden on the Wesser River near Engern.

Page 10

The Unstrut region is, according to Koch (2007) within the Lugii and Boii tribal areas (Lugidunon being a recorded settlement in the area). It is interesting to note that at the time of the disasterous Cimbri and Teutone defeat at Vercellae in 101 BC, that the destination of the survivors is unknown – although clearly it appears that some either never left, and others returned to Jutland where these tribes are both found in the early geographies of the Germanic areas. The chiefs at the time were Boirix (King of the Boii) and Lugius, and so the link to both of these tribes is apparent. Hence it would not be surprising if the southern Angles and the northern Angles as well as the Cimbri and Teutones were connected by a common heritage through the Lugii and Boii as well as perhaps the Helvetii and Vindelici to the immediate south.  This area near Erfurt is perhaps the northern limit of the groups where R-U152 is relatively common.

Pliny the Elder circa 77 AD listed the “Cimbri mediterranei” (i.e., southern Cimbri) proximal to the Suebi (Herminones) east of the Rhine River. The point being that there may have been a parallel with both the Cimbri and the Angles having “southern branches”. Chadwick (1907) states, The Angli Mediterranei are frequently mentioned by Bede in a way which leaves no doubt that he regarded them as quite distinct from the Mercians (p. 8),

Page 11

and appear to be identical to the “Meddil-Angli” (Middle Angles). It is not unusual to have two branches of a tribe residing in separate locations, and the evidence exploring the possibility that the Angle neighbors to the north, the Charudes, may have had a connection to the Harz Mountain area is considered in the author’s previous work on the Cimbri. It appears that the Anglii are in their expected place around Sleswig with the Varini circa 98 AD in Germania as reported by Tacitus.

Ptolemy circa 150 AD records, in his Guide to Geography, the Syeboi Angeilloi (Thuringia), north of the Cherusci and west of the Calucones (a Celtic group according to Koch, 2007) along the Elbe. In the territory where the Angles resided in the time of Tacitus, are found the Sigulones and the Sabalingi – either of which could be a copy error for Angles. It is possible that this was their original home, or merely a southern spur of the main group on Jutland, or nothing more than a coincidence of names meaning little more than “the Suebi tribe living at the bend or angle”.  However there are “-leben” names in this part of Thuringia, whereas there are “-lev” names in Angle territory (but both uncommon elsewhere), suggesting a cultural connection.

The Anglevarii shield is on the far left of the third row from the top

In addition to the Cimbriani appearing in the Notitia Dignitatum (circa 420 AD), this document listing groups attached to the Roman military establishment also lists the Anglevarii among eighteen “auxilia palatina”. The compound name is related to Ang – ware as in Cantware (Kent, England), meaning “inhabitants of” (Latham, 1851). Unfortunately

Page 12

other than “gamers” vivid imaginations (e.g., “The Battle of the Dunes in 430 AD”), there is nothing to indicate any specific actions in which this group participated. It is as likely that the notation refers only to the Anglevarii of Thuringia, and that the Angles at Schleswig were subsumed under the Cimbriani.

The monk Fulda, writing before 865 AD, noted that about the middle of the 6th Century, a group of Angles came from Britain to the Continent looking for new lands and Theuderic the king of the Franks invited them to act as mercenaries in the Thuringian War of 532 AD and when this was finished, he gave them land north of the River Unstrut upon which to settle (Starke, 1968). How all of this fits with Ptolemy and earlier migrations it is impossible to say with any certainty. Procopius (Byzantine historian) noted that circa 550 AD there was war between the Angles of Britain who attacked their former neighbors the Varni (Henson, 2004).

It is possibly noteworthy that in the early 9th Century an inscription reads, Lex Angliorum et Werinorum hoc est Thuringorum, which means that both the Angles and Warni are Thuringians. Von Rotteck (1842) stated, The laws of the Frieslanders and the Anglevarii (Thuringians) were compiled about the same time (p. 90) – at the urging of Theodoric I.

In summary, it is worth noting that Ptolemy placed the Anglii and Varini side by side about 150 AD, and about 400 or so years later, they are again listed together, in the “Lex” and living in Thuringia.

Historical Evidence - the Jutes of Jutland: There is considerable controversy surrounding the origin of the Jutes. Unfortunately there is little of a concrete nature in any source that would demonstrate clearly where the Jutes lived prior to their emigration to England – just suppositions. What follows includes a series of fragments that are known, woven together with a lot of guesswork.

The Jutes may have been the Eudoses (Fundosii) of Ptolemy noted as residing immediately south of the Cimbri circa 150 AD. To further complicte matters, there were apparently Eudoses residing on the Black Sea at the time of Ptolemy. Two hundred years later, after 350 AD, there are reports of Eudoses residing east of the Crimea and Tanais on the Black Sea. Brandt (2006) speculates that after a defeat by the Goths they scattered to the south and east – however it may be that at this time they returned to the peninsula that would bear their name. It also cannot be entirely ruled out (since it is an assumption that Eudoses = Jutes) that the above noted Juthungi of Lower Saxony and Bavaria, being probably descendants of the Tungri and before Aduatuci (i.e., Cimbri and Teutones who stayed in Belgium), moved north to become the Jutes and give their name to the Peninsula. The Augsburg Memorial Stone records that the Juthungi were descendants of the Semnoni who were the lead tribe of the Suevi and allies of the Cimbri at the time of Augustus. The Juthungi were sometimes noted as Jutes during their raids on Roman Raetia (part of Switzerland) at various times between 259 and 431. They were recorded in other documents as residing north of the Danube between Regensburg and Guzenburg in 430 AD and were also known as Euthungi. Perhaps they moved north after this defeat and under pressure from the Huns – but were supposedly seen again in the above location between 450 and 500. It is not at all unusual for a tribe to

Page 13

split into two factions which each go their separate ways (e.g., Visigoths and Ostrogoths; West Herules and East Herules). Needless to say, however, this is all very confusing and not entirely helpful in sorting out the origins of the Jutes. The State University of New York at Albany’s Ethnohistory Project concludes that the Eudoses resided on the right bank of the Rhine between Karlsruhe and Strassbourg at some point between 70 BC and 200 AD and were part of the Jutes who in turn gave rise to the Euthungi.

Camden, (1607) reflects a common sentiment about the link between the Getae of Beowulf and the Jutes – who are often confused of discussed together as if they were one of two sides of a coin. Specifically, Camden stated,

The Jutes, who had that name (as many think) from the Gutes, Getes, or Gothes (for in a manuscript booke we read Geatun ) did for certaine inhabite the upper part of Cimbrica Chersonesus, which still the Danes call Juitland, descended haply of those Guttae whom Ptolomee hath placed in Scandia, whose habitation this day is called Gothland. But take heede you thinke not with Jornandes that this was the native country of those Gothes who with victorious conquests over-ran all Europe: for the most ancient and best approoved writers have recorded unto us that they dwelt beyond the river Ister fast by Pontus Euxinus, as were before time called Getae.

In support of Brandt’s claim above, there is some evidence that both Goth and Jute pushed into the Indus Valley and Northern India. In his study of the ethnography of Afghanistan, Bellew (1891) reported that the Mand branch of the Geta or Jata were known as Getai or Yeuchi from north of China and equivalent to the Goth and Jutes of Europe as part of the Hun confederacy. This does seem, based on the genetic evidence, to be very unlikely as the only “European” Y-chromosome haplogroups to be found in India are R1a1*, which is below 10% in Germany, Denmark, and Kent England (where the Jutes are known to have settled). This haplogroup is however common among the Norwegians, Swedes and particularly the Poles and Ukrainians and so a Far East source is hard to support on genetic grounds. Before entirely dismissing this eastern connection it may be noteworthy that the “gavelkind” inheritance in Kent England, attributed to the Jutes, has a parallel in India, specifically the Getes or Jata of Rajasthan, where it is called “bhoom”. Here the youngest son inherits a double portion of the land divided during the parent’s lifetime. Tod, in his “Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan” noted that this pattern of inheritance is Scythian and was brought by the Goths (Yuti or Getes) when they came to Europe from Jaxartes and the Black Sea. Other similarities, brought to the author’s attention by A. Parasar (personal communication, 2007) is the naming of old Jutish towns in Kent such as Cantwara and in other parts of their territory, Wightwara. This is identical to the many town names in Jata territory in India ending in the same suffix (wara, meaning “house”) such as Teliwara. To this day those of the regions of Kent and Jutland speak a dialect different from that of their neighbors.

The semi – mythical Jute / Angle princes and brothers Hengest (the first King of Kent) and Horsa (sons of Wihlgils – possibly Wiglek noted as King of Jutland by Saxo) arrived in England with three ships about the year 449 AD at the behest of King Voltigen. Beowulf recorded that Hengest was involved in the fight between Finn the leader of the Frisians and the Dane Hnaef (leader of the Hocingas according to Widsith) who was killed in the fracas.

Page 14

Hengest, as the latter’s lieutenant, kills Finn. Beowulf clearly differentiates between the Danes and the Jutes (assuming that the “Eotens” are Jutes – as most translations do). For example, the Crossley – Holland (1999) translation includes the statement that, Finn should give up to them another hall, with its high seat in its entirety, which the Danes should own in common with the Jutes (p.101). It is unknown how many men left their supposed home in Jutland and / or the old Chauci or Cheruci territory at the base of the Peninsula to settle in England during the Anglo – Saxon invasions. However they, under their leaders Hengest and Horsa, were at first mercenaries in the service of the Romano – British Celts, then later invaders and settlers (according to Bede) in Kent, the Isle of Wight, and adjacent Hampshire (more on this later).

In England the terms Ytum (Saxon), Eotum and Iotum (Anglian) appear to be equivalent versions of Jute (Chambers, 1912). Bede (731 AD) uses the term Iutarum and Geata apparently to mean from Jutland in relation to the Jutish conquerors of England who lived to the north of the Angles. These also appear to be the Geatas of Beowulf. This whole matter of the Geatas being from Sweden or Jutland and their relationship to the Goths is entirely unresolved among scholars.

If it can be assumed that the Euthiones noted in a poem by Venantius Fortunatus (dated 583 AD) are Jutes, then they were residing between the Danes and Saxons (Carmina IX i.73). Hence a reasonable assumption is that they were located, as the map below suggests, on the western side of the Jutland Peninsula above the Elbe River. Among the few to study the matter in detail, Starcke (1968) answered the question as to Jutish origins. He said they came, From Jutland. In the districts round Hjerring Bay, Esbjerg, Varde and Ribe, the Jutes had their tribal area. This was situated between the areas inhabited by the Angles and the Hardi (p. 95); and may have used the Frisian coast as a stepping stone to England.

Myres (1989) reported that, Between 561 and 584 Chilperich, king of Soissons, is described as the lord by conquest of a people known as the Euthiones, who are shown by their name to have belonged to the same nation as the Jutes of Kent and clearly represent the remanant of this nation which had not taken part in the migration to Kent (p. 59).

Archaeological support for this statement comes from a study of the village sites in Southwest Jutland near Ribe, for example Drengsted and Dankirke which have cemeteries dating throughout the entire length of the settlement period. None of the settlements in these locations date to earlier than 100 BC, and most were abandoned in the 5th Century AD (Jensen, 1982) – precisely when the Jutes were recorded as settling in England.

There is a distinct lack of references to the Jutes in England other than the scant information in Bede. Bush (2001) summarizes what little is known and reports that circa 686 AD the Saxons executed King Arwald of the Jutes and his two brothers, and then may have engaged in a form of ethnic cleansing. In Hampshire their territory can be ascertained to a degree by place names such as Ytene, Ytings, and Yte Deas. The area known as Hengistbury Head opposite the Isle of Wight may have been named after Hengest. Archaeological data is entirely unclear. There are no further records to which one can refer. It is possible that there were very few Jutes, just an aristocracy which was largely or wholly exterminated by the Saxons. There is better evidence of a continuing presence in Kent where some of the local customs

Page 15

(e.g., gavelkind land tenure noted above) are attributed to the Jutes. Apparently the situation between the Jutes and Britons deteriorated and 3 battles ensured resulting in the explusion of the latter. Hengest’s son Aesc is said to have continued to rule until 512 AD in Kent.

It may or may not be of significance, considering the uncertainties in relation to pointing to a Jutish homeland, but on the east side of Holstein, on the Baltic, is a village called Eutin, which may indicate the home of some part of the tribe at one time (Myres, 1989, pp. 46-47)

Should the genetic marker U152 continue to turn up in these areas of England (two samples from Kent are known to be U152) then this would suggest a continuing presence of the Jutes here if in fact they were kin to the Cimbri or Teutones.

In a subject of this nature, it is impossible to discuss Europe without describing events that were occurring in the Romanized world. The Roman Empire did not come tumbling down with some single cataclysmic event – it was more a slow burn toward disintegration. In 407 the Roman forces were withdrawn from England never to return. At this time there was a massive migration of Germanic peoples (e.g., Lombards, Brugundians, Ostrogoths, Vandals, Suebi) into the territories formerly administered by the Romans. In 455 the Vandals sacked Rome; and in 493 Italy was absorbed into the Ostrogoth Kingdom.

There is ample evidence that the people of the Cimbric Peninsula (Angles and Jutes) were associated with the Roman military establishment from circa 20 AD to some time after 420 AD (see above study by author). They were deployed to regions from Bulgaria (Moesia), to Algeria, to the Roman limes in Southern Germany (e.g., near Heidelburg).

As the Empire withered, the economic situation deteriorated and the hardship was amplified by the incursions of the Huns in the early years of the 5th Century. It might be expected that the people in Jutland were particularly hard hit since the prime source of employment and of rich trade goods was likely via those in Roman service. It would make sense that these men, when forced to return home when foreign military employment opportunities dried up, would be looking for similar work (as mercenaries) perhaps closer to home, and the possibility to better the lives of themselves and their families since the trading networks had been severed and poverty may have loomed. Hence, a reasonable explanation for their early appearance in England can be found in these facts. It should be noted that the “Notitia” is dated to circa 420 AD and it is likely that after this date these warriors would have been unemployed in their chosen field. This data (and the timing) coincides well with the appearance of Hengest and Horsa on the shores of England.

Archaeological Evidence: An examination of the archaeology of the Angle homeland needs to consider the Pre-Migrational era in order to illustrate the links of various sorts between these areas and other regions both near and far, then highlight the circumstances specifically tied to the time when the Angles began to migrate to England in the 5th Century.

The archaeological data showing the apparent relationship between north and south Jutland as well as Fyn was detailed in the author’s previous work. For example, Continental

Page 16

archaeologists assert that the Anglian “Formenkreis” is seen in the distinctive cultural grouping of the Angelin region, which includes the southern and western parts of Fyn (Oberjersdal culture); but in the wider context includes western Jutland and the Frisian Islands as well as southern Scandinavia and England (Myers, 1989). It appears that the center of power (as reflected in the richness of the archaeological assemblages) shifts frequently during the first half of the first millennium AD (the Roman Iron Age). In the early days the northern areas of Jutland show very close affinities to the island of Bornholm to the east, while the areas south of Limfjord, specifically below Vejle, move closer to a common cultural “package”. Aristocratic power appears to be focused on Sealand (to the 4th Century) and Fyn (to the 5th Century and beyond), both of which to some degree retain their population and very wealthy aristocratic structure during and after the Migration Period while those elsewhere are struggling.

What seems evident from the archaeological record is that the Himlingoje dynasty of Sealand held sway over much of Scandinavia from circa 150 AD to the 3rd Century AD. However, while their influence is evident in many places including much of Jutland and southeastern Fyn, it had less impact in the Anglin area and the lands immediately north on the Peninsula (Storgaard, 2003).

Map illustrating proposed hegemony of Gudme and Fyn in Angle lands

Hines (1994) focuses on “ports of entry”. He says, Our earliest found port of this kind in the North-Sea zone is Lundeborg on Fyn, a site associated with the rise of Gudme and south- eastern Fyn to pre-eminence in southern Scandinavia in the Late Roman Period, at the expense of the Stevns area on Sjaelland (p. 18). The evidence whether considering an examination of coins, jewelry style, burial customs and weapons appears to paint a clear picture of the domination of Gudme on Fyn (Fonnesbech-Sandberg (1994). In essence both the population and wealth seems to shift southwards in Jutland and to Fyn as the Migration

Page 17

Period progresses – but the culture becomes more homogeneous by about 300 AD. This includes sacrificial weapon finds in eastern Jutland (central and south), as well as Fyn. It is to Fyn where, for an area of its size, there is a huge array of sacrificial sites (e.g., Ejsbol, Vimose), and also what their peninsular cousins lack after 500 AD – continuity of settlement. For example the finds, are astonishing and without parallel in Germania (Todd, 2004, p. 97). The sheer “glitz” of the finds at and near Gudame dating from 200 to 800 AD (during the Viking era) is amazing. It is thought to represent a royal residential site. Perhaps the Cimbri had transferred their centers of power and authority to Fyn and to some degree also south on Jutland as upheavals at home and abroad began to have a larger impact on the more exposed zones of their territories.

An exploration of the more typical villages as they changed over time can also be instructive. Further evidence of the territorial abandonment during the Migration Era is seen at the largest settlement complex yet excavated in Jutland. Vorbasse, begins in the 1st Century AD and its various phases have been securely dated. It appears to have been a substantial settlement composed of clusters of up to 20 farmsteads. However for no obvious reason, The village was torn down at some point in the fifth century, and its further fate cannot be traced (Jensen, 1982, p. 217). No regular settlement at this site reappears until the 8th Century at which time it is a Viking community. Jensen says further that, After c. 500 AD the archaeological record completely fails us, and as yet no villages from the sixth and seventh centuries have been found in Denmark (p. 220). One of the exceptions is Gudme on Fyn. Here, The superior hall bears comparison for size with Charlemagne’s palace buildings at Aachen, and now justifies earlier speculation that Gudme was the site of a villa regalis. Gudme may very well have been a religious cult center from its first dominant phase too (Hines, 1994, p. 19).

It is not only settlements which seem to disappear in the 5th Century AD, but the years from the fifth to the eighth centuries AD comprise one of the most curious periods in the prehistory of Denmark: most of the find groups are very meager and the archaeological record does not allow for much interpretation (p. 264) which is a fact which has not yet been satisfactorily explained (p. 274).

There seems to have been considerable advancement in the standard of living and technological innovation in the first half of the first millennium AD. For example there were grand scale defensive infrastructure works such as extensive earthen ramparts extending for miles, and protective barriers installed at the entrance to key fjords in Jutland during the Iron Age. Perhaps the most impressive is at Olgerdiget, a 30 kilometer triple pallisaded earthen rampart stockade just north of Anglin. It was begun about the time of Christ and was maintained to about 300 AD. It largely mimics the Roman limes structure, and is clearly influenced by the latter. This and many others in the vicinity may be the “monuments” built by the Cimbri as noted by Tacitus (see before). However “something” seems to bring most works to an abrupt halt in the second half of the 5th Century. Hence subsequent to a very active period of building, after 440 AD, there is no documentation of barrages or long ramparts in Denmark (Jorgensen, 2003, p. 200). Dating of these features is excellent due to the use of dendochronology.

Page 18

Also informative are aristocratic burials, particularly of the first half of the 1st Century AD, and found in northern Jutland, Fyn and particularly Hoby on Lolland. Few appear at this time in Anglin. Later, considering the first half of the 3rd Century, while there was a modest number in eastern central Jutland, and considerably more on Fyn, again there is little to be seen in Anglin. However during the latter part of the Roman Iron Age, the similarities between Funen and the central German grave furnishings can hardly be coincidental (Storgaard, 2003, p. 119). The most dramatic parallels are between Leuna (Thuringia, in the Anglevarii region) and Funen (Fyn). In addition to various sites on Fyn, the Neudorf – Bornstein site in Anglin would fall into this category also. In relation to the latter, the burials there circa 300 AD include what appears to be Roman military paraphernalia in the form of ornate jewel studded gold belt fittings. These items were found in the Rendsburg – Eckernforde area, and were likely worn by the officers of the Cimbriani units (see author’s previous study). Some individuals were fitted with Celtic style torcs, gold neck rings (von Carnap-Borsheim, 2003). Oddly, though, almost identical items have been found in an entirely different context. The Ejsbol bog votive site 100 kilometers north includes gear from 10 or 11 officers and a “commander”. The latter’s outfit includes a uniform including a gilded silver with niello inlay buckle dated to circa 400 AD. The items here are very similar to those found in grave contexts to the south. Interpretation of this assemblage is challenging (Andersen, 2003).

The grave furnishings of the burials of warriors can also provide diagnostic information. Specifically, in examining the weapon-grave custom in Denmark one can see fairly stable cultural areas throughout much of the Iron Age. Watt (2003) has identified four groupings including North Jutland; Bornholm; Sealand and adjacent islands; and finally eastern South Jutland and North Schleswig, Southern Funen with its surrounding islands and in periods also Lolland and Falster (p. 189). This suggests some sort of cultural affinity linking peoples within these defined areas. The weapon-grave tradition appears to have begun circa 100 BC (the time the Cimbri returned from Italy) in northern Jutland and Bornholm. The traditions vary significantly by location. In South Jutland and North Schleswig the double- edged sword of the La Tene type is almost universal in the urn burials (p. 184), and around Vejle for example these swords (made locally) are found in almost all graves. The assemblages on Fyn are very similar to those in southern Jutland, and sometimes parts of Celtic wagons similar to that of the famous Djebjerg version are found here. No weapons graves are found in this time period in Sealand. Then, rather dramatically, the La Tene swords almost entirely disappear from burials.

The extreme paucity of burials of any sort is also part of the “larger picture” of the Migration Period. Although it is clear that there was a dramatic evacuation of the area in the later 4th and early 5th Centuries, there are burials at five sites which show limited continuity to the mid 5th Century. These include, Bordesholm, Kr. Rendsburg; Borgstedt, Kr. Eckenforde; Schmalstede, Kr. Eckenforde; Sorup, Kr. Flensburg; and Suderbrarup, Kr. Schleswig. There are also a couple of cemeteries further south with similar affinities. However, radiocarbon dating shows that these burial grounds decline at varying rates, from the early 5th to the 7th Centuries. The cemeteries at Schmalstede and Borgstede, have mid – or even late fifth- century brooches and other dress-accessories with important parallels in Anglian England (p. 39). Continuity arising from he former cemetery is seen with two high status cruciform

Page 19

brooches (similar to the Idsteadt Scandinavian variety) that date to the late 5th Century, and appear to have been introduced to England circa 500 AD along with the more common square – headed brooches (noted in detail later).

Another source of evidence is the distribution of Roman coins from the 1st to the 4th Centuries. Through the duration of this timeframe the area of central and southern Jutland have consistently the largest percentage anywhere in Scandinavia or the southern Baltic region. Perhaps these finds relate primarily to the pay received by the locals for their service in the Roman military. It is only in the latter part of this period that both Fyn and Sealand come to approach the finds of the nearby Jutlandic regions (Storgaard, 2003).

Settlements and votive deposits in Angle region

There is a chronological sequence as to the directions of the supposed attacks involving the territory of the Angles, as reflected in the votive deposits of military parphrenalia. Looking at the artifactual record found in bogs in central Jutland and Fyn, the attacks during the 2nd Century came from the south including a wide area from the River Main to the North Sea and along a wide area of the Baltic Sea east of Rugen. During the first half of the 3rd Century the offensive encounters in Angelin came from a circular area around the Unstrutt – Saale area (home of the Anglevarii). In the last half of the 3rd and early 4th Centuries the attacks were orchestrated from the Gamla Uppsala and Vendel areas of Sweden and focused not only on Anglin, but also eastern Jutland and Fyn. However another interpretation of the data is that these votive offerings reflect the activities perpetrated by Scandinavian mercenaries in Roman employ who attempted to seize property or land on their way home. A third interpretation is that the war booty was brought back from a successful expedition and sacrificed at home much as the Romans did. Perhaps this explains why few (often no) human bones are found with these depositions. The jury is still out in chosing which of these scenarios best fits the data (Hansen, 2003).

Page 20

It is also noteworthy that even long established cultural practices simply stop at virtually the same time (4th or early 5th Centuries AD). For example, there are about 15,000 items in a ritual deposit at Illerup Aderal near Arhus, Jutland beginning about 200 AD (a tradition that can be seen locally dating back to circa 400 BC). Then, for reasons that have not been determined, not a single comb or sword or anything is added after about 500 AD. Similarly at the Nydam Bog there is a series of ritual deposits including boats from the 3rd. At that point the deposits cease. The latter date represents the last known weapon sacrifice in Denmark, where during the interval between the 1st and 5th Centuries the primary focus of this behavior was in Eastern Jutland and adjacent Fyn (Funen) (Jorgensen and Petersen, 2003). The Nydam bog is within the territory of the Angles, as is another long - standing sacrificial site at Thorsberg Bog. Here military objects (e.g., shields), a complete tunic and trouser set, and a Roman helmet are among the items deposited here from the 1st to the 4th Centuries AD. All categories of bog offerings cease at this time across Jutland - from weapons to earthenware to bog bodies – and it is difficult to explain these changes (Kaul, 2003, p. 39). Specifically, the Nydam bog just north of Anglin received its last offering, of about 1000 objects, 450-475 AD, which included gilded scabbards in a style reminiscent of the Gallehus horns; plus the double lupine creatures seen in Scandinavia and English – Anglian artifacts (Sutton Hoo) from two centuries later (jorgensen and Petersen, 2003). Among the closest parallels are seen in Gotland and Norwegian grave finds from the 5th Century. The finds from the latest known depostition appear to have been bundled and surrounded by a ring of 36 swords without scabbards. Henceforth, all the southern Scandinavian weapon sacrifices lose their meaning as central sacred places at the end of the fifth century (Jorgensen and Petersen, 2003, p. 284).

Summing up, Hamerow could not be more direct in noting that, there is undisputed archaeological evidence that the traditional homeland of the Anglian migrants, Angeln, was effectively depopulated during the Migration Period (Hamerow 1994, 165). Furthermore, Hines (2000) states that although simplified, archaeological and linguistic data, seem to agree with each other in painting a picture that agrees very largely with Bede’s report of total emigration from and the abandonment of the area (p. 38). These facts, from multiple perspectives relating to the archaeological record, certainly seem to the present author as pointing to abandonment of the region and migration elsewhere.

As to the primary reason for this massive dislocation of the peoples of the Jutland Peninsula a hint can be taken from the sheer scale of the military weaponry sacrificially consigned to the bogs from the 1st to the 5th Centuries. There must have been tremendous anxiety about the future as news of the Hun incursions and subsequent dislocations of Germanic peoples became common knowledge. As Myres (1989) stated, It was this pressure from southern Scandinavia which must have unsettled the Angles from their homeland around Angelin in eastern Schleswig, and their neighbors the Jutes from Jutland and Fyn (p. 54). Additional reasons may be frequent flooding and significant sandstorms, and possibly the presence of plague, which all served to aggravate the situation.

Soon after this date (circa 500 AD) is often seen as the time of the arrival of the Danes in Jutland (replacing the Cimbri or descendant tribes who had departed?). If so, then the major time of arrival of R-U152 in England could have been during the poorly documented Anglo- Saxon-Jute times prior to any Viking activity

Page 21

in the area, as well as later via any Viking groups from the thinly populated areas of Jutland and particularly Fyn.

It may be wondered if there is any evidence of Celtic cultural survival in Jutland and Fyn circa 500 AD.  This is an important point since the present author is attempting to link the Continental Celts and the people residing on Jutland and adjacent islands with Y-DNA haplogroup R-U152.  Todd (2004) comments on the survival of apparent Celtic links until this late date for example seen in the metalwork styles.

Specifically, It has long been remarked that some of the motifs on the Gallehus horns [golden embossed drinking horns from the Angle territory] of about AD 400 are drawn from a Celtic repertoire (p. 132).  It is perhaps noteworthy that according to historical sources from England (discussed below) in relation to the Angles, Saxons, Friesians and Jutes, the Jutland princes Hengeist and Horsa arrived with their people in southeast Britain at the behest of the local Brythonic king Vortigern about 429 or 449 BC.  Perhaps the reason why the men of Jutland were chosen was that as possible descendants of the Cimbri (Angles and Jutes), they may have spoken Celtic (may have been bilingual at the time). It is also curious that the names of some of the major Angle kingdoms along the east coast of England are Celtic – Bernicia, Deira, Lindsey and Kent.

2) Evidence Relating to Eastern England:

Before proceeding any further it needs to be stated that despite the evidence from the Continent, the “processual” school of archaeology in England (e.g., Pryor, 1994), are migration deniers.  In other words they believe that Gildas, Bede and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (the many versions written in different locations) are all wrong – the only migration was one of ideas, and that the native Britons simply adopted new cultural packages. All data is interpreted within a dogmatic “process model” and so according to this view there were no Anglo-Saxons, this is merely “an origin myth”.  Due to their continuing role in shaping interpretation of the data, it is necessary to digress and provide a more balanced view, even though the world’s most respected archaeologists (e.g., Cunliffe, 2008) still ascribe to the migration theory.  Montgomery (2002) has the following to say:

Processual archaeologists of the 1960s and 1970s went even further and rejected migration in its entirety as an explanation for social change, effectively relegating the adventus to an origin myth.  They claimed such change was explained by a rapid process of indigenous acculturation and assimilation of an available material culture into the Post-Roman void (Adams et al. 1978).  Nevertheless, there is a considerable amount of evidence to suggest that there was neither cultural, settlement nor governmental continuity from Roman to Early Anglo-Saxon periods and such changes cannot be entirely explained by trade and contact alone (Hills 1999, 22). 

No traditionally “British” cemeteries dating from the Migration Period have so far been found in England (Crawford 1997, 45) and it is not known whether the Britons were simply absent or had adopted wholesale the Anglo-Saxon burial rite.  The situation becomes even more perplexing because large areas of England, such as Hertfordshire, Essex, the Weald of Kent and the Sussex Downs are completely devoid of Anglo-Saxon cemeteries, despite many being attractive areas for settlement

Page 22

(Lucy 2000, 140). Migration theory would suggest that this is evidence for chain migration as migrants followed kin to targeted destinations rather than “wash(ing) heedlessly over entire landscapes” (Anthony 1997, 24).

In England, the vast majority of Early Anglo-Saxon cemeteries, many of them displaying a distinctively Germanic style, ideology and burial rite, are sited away from the previous Romano-British cemetery sites. Only a few, such as Wasperton, Warwickshire (Wise 1991), Dorchester (Hawkes & Dunning 1961) and Lankhills, Winchester (Baldwin 1985) appear to contain both Romano-British and 4th – 5th century burials with Germanic grave goods. Moreover, there is evidence for Anglo- Saxon burials being made amongst Roman villa ruins (Ellis 1997; Welch 1992, 104).

Archaeological evidence for Anglo-Saxon settlements is extremely rare, whilst most Romano-British settlements appear to have been abandoned by the sixth century (Hamerow 1994, 174; Lucy 1998, 3).  For many researchers, the settlement by considerable numbers of Scandinavian and Germanic peoples is an unavoidable conclusion (Härke 1990; Hills 1999, 22; Hines 1984; Welch 1992).

Historical Sources:

First it is important to note that through the various time periods including the earliest references to pagan or barbarian invaders, the name “Saxon” was often used as a “catch all” or generic phrase for all Germanic peoples of the time. To Roman and Celtic writers alike the word Saxon soon came to lose any precise geographical or ethnic significance (Myres, 1989, p. 105).

The source for the information below is Hindley (2006) unless otherwise noted.  Clearly historical and archaeological sources agree that among the Roman foederati were Germanic tribes, but that raiding of the British shores from the German – speaking world probably began in the late 3rd Century when the “Saxon Shore” defenses were established.  This might be termed the first phase of settlement. Historical sources suggest that the earliest permanent settlements may have begun about 370 AD subsequent to a combined assault on British shores by the Scotti, Picts and Germanic tribesmen in 367 AD.  Archaeological evidence of German settlements in Canterbury at this time would support this assertion.  Since the sources are severely limited (Gildas, Bede, Anglo-Saxon Chronicles), it is difficult to pin down specifics in the early years.  Looking at the archaeological evidence, at Mucking in Essex there is a Germanic settlement with two cemeteries continuously occupied from the early years of the 400s to the 700s.  The assemblage (e.g., pottery, an excellent marker for culture) is virtually identical to that seen at Feddersen Wierdse, a Frisian – Saxon area, beginning about 430 AD.  Note that the evidence suggests that this region was abandoned in the 5th Century, thereby hinting at a possible discontinuity with those who resided there in later times. This was generally agreed to have been a “jumping off” or “assembly” point for all of the Germanic – Danish groups prior to raid or migration to locations such as England (Davies, 1999).  The settlements there were abandoned in the middle of the 5th Century, beginning about 430 AD, hence the people who are residing there today may or may not be the same folk as lived there 1500 years ago. Therefore direct comparisons of Y-chromosome data between say Frisland and England today may be unjustified.

Page 23

The Wessex Anglo-Saxon Chronicle gives a date of 477 AD for the arrival of the Saxons AElla and his three sons who landed at Selsey Bill in Sussex and from there the conquest proceeded in fits and spurts moving west to east. The next significant Saxon recorded event is 495 when Cerdic and son Cynric arrived in Wessex and began to battle with the Britons in earnest (Stanton, 1971). However it is the data relating to the Angles and Jutes which will be the focus of the present study.

Gildas (a Briton) wrote (about 540 AD) that during the 440s (his specific dating may have been 20 years later than was the case) the call for assistance against the Germanic threat went out to the Roman commander on the Continent, Aetius, but no assistance could be offered. Hence a “British tyrant” invited “barbarians” to come and settle among the Britons to help in their defense. Three boatloads arrived and the warriors were given lands somewhere in the eastern part of England (Mucking?). Prior to 500 AD these mercenaries turned against their employers / hosts and attacked the Britons.

Around 555 AD, Procopius of Caesarea wrote that in Britain there were three “races”, Angiloi, Frissiones, and Britons. He commented further that each year men, women and children from each group left Britain for the land of the Franks. It was sometime after 531 AD when Angeli from Britain, having fought for Theuderich, were given lands among the Franks, in this case in Thuringia (Stanton, 1971).

Bede (a Northumbrian Anglian) writing in 731 AD is even more specific in dating the arrival of the first settlers to 449 AD. Bede names the first chieftains, the brothers Hengest and Horsa who came at the behest of King Vortigen to assist him with the “Pictish problem”. This would appear to be the Hengest of the Eoten tribe noted in the epic poem, Beowulf. As an aside, Newton (1993) has concluded that the manuscript was written circa 713-749 AD, and that it speaks of events circa 535 AD.

Bede noted that that the English were composed of three peoples, the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes. He also mentions some Frisians, Bructeri, Danes, Huns and Rugini. The map below reflects the standard interpretation of Bede’s terse statement. It was likely oversimplified, especially in the Thames region where there was a multi-cultural mix (Davies, 1999). Among the candidates for those bringing R-U152 to England are the Jutes, whose documented territories in Kent, Hampshire, and the Isle of Wight may relate to only one settlement wave. Evidence noted earlier suggests that the Saxons may have engaged in “ethnic cleansing” of the Jutes outside Kent. More particularly it is the Angles, whose territory included all of East Anglia, Merica, and Northumbria, who are the best candidates for bringing R-U152 to the shores of England. This hypothesis is only going to be convincing if one accepts that the restricted distribution of this haplogroup today reflects to some extent the situation 1500 years ago.

Page 24

Map of Anglo – Saxon England showing where the Jutes are believed to have settled.

According to Bede, the Angles came from a region known to him as Angelus, the entire nation immigrating and consequently leaving behind a landscape still deserted in 731 AD.  This area has commonly been assumed to be the Angelin Peninsula in Schleswig in southern Jutland.  It likely included this and adjoining regions, but the relationship between the Angles and the Jutes and their geographic distribution in Jutland has not been resolved, although as noted earlier the place name Eutin in eastern Jutland (Holstein) is suggestive.  It may be rather more complicated especially in light of the interpretation (see Polorny) of the word Angle as being equivalent to Harudi (Charudes) the tribal group immediately to the south of the Cimbri in the time of Tacitus – and who were likely an offshoot of the Cimbrian group.

The entry of the Laud Manuscript version of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for the year 443 states, that after being turned down by the Romans for help with the Pictish threat, the Britons, Then sent they to the Angles, and requested they the same from the nobles of that nation. More help was needed to they sent for assistance from the Jutes and Saxons as well. The brief synopsis of 449 AD reads, From Anglia, which has ever since remained waste between the Jutes and the Saxons, came the East Angles, the Middle Angles, the Mercians, and all of those north of the Humber. Their leaders were two brothers, Hengest and Horsa; who were the sons of Wihtgils; Wihtgils was the son of Witta, Witta of Wecta, Wecta of Woden. From this Woden arose all our royal kindred, and that also of the Southumbrians

Also the Kentish edition of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle notes that at this time Vortigen, the British king, invited Octha with 40 warships to England to address the Pictish problem. Apparently after completing this task the warriors did not return home but settled in Northumberland.

Page 25

The second phase of settlement occurred from the 450s to the early years of the 6th Century and encompassed Kent and the south shore of England. The immigration to England began in earnest circa 477 AD, at which time it is likely that the various kings or would-be kings and their entourages arrived from Jutland. It may be of significance that the Mercian Royal family (Angles) had connections in Angelin, Schleswig and Rendsburg. It was at Rendsburg in Jutland where the head of the later Myrginga dynasty of Jutland (later known as the Mercian dynasty of England), Offa (died circa 456 AD), King of the Angles, fought a battle that won him “a great kingdom” (Chadwick, 1907). The East Anglian Royal family ruled from Rendelsham in Suffolk – whether the latter name is a variant of Rendsburg in Anglin is unknown.

In East Anglia and Kent the largest wave of immigration seemed to occur after 525 “from Sweden via Denmark and Friesland”, perhaps leading to the establishment of the first King of East Anglia, named Wehha (according to a 9th Century historian Nennius). This accords well with that, preserved in the chronicle of Henry of Huntingdon in the 1th century of a phase of settlement in East Anglia and Mercia by small bands of settlers under a variety of ‘kings’ in 527 (Henson, 2004, p. 147). About 540 AD Wuffa led his people up the Deben, founding Ufford and the Wuffinga dynasty. Eventually (circa 600 AD) Raedwald became king, ruling from Rendelsham. In or about 620 AD Raedwald died and was buried in a pagan warship (despite being nominally Christian) in a style befitting a Swedish king – there being a strong parallel with the ship graves at Vendel and Valsgaarde. This brings forth the possibility that the Wuffingas were related to the Royal Swedes at Upsala, the Scylfings. Much of the above comes from a wide scattering of sources but summarized on the website of the St. Edmundsbury Council providing detailed information on the early origins of Suffolk.

It is important to note that the Anglo-Saxon “invasions” bore little if any resemblance to the Norman invasion of 1066 when all or most of the previous political structures were swept away in a few years of the migrations. A much more protracted process appears in England with the Anglo-Saxons. Arnold (1997), based on archaeological data, sees migration and colonization as ending about 550 AD; and the key period for the expansion of Anglo-Saxon political control over Britain seems to have begun c. 570 (Henson, 2004, p. 168). Some maintain, however, that some degree of migration continued until after the joint Pict – Northumbrian campaign of 756 AD (Davies, 1999).

The stories of two 9th Century merchants and adventurers were told to King Alfred and recorded by him as part of his translation of the history of Osorius. The first is Ohthere (Ottar) of Halogaland in Norway, who, told that from Sciringesheal it took five days to sail to a port called Hedeby, which stands between the Wends, Saxons, Angles, and belongs to the Danes. Thitherward he sailed from Sciringesheal, and Denmark he kept to his larboard, and to his starboard the open sea for three days. But two days ere he arrived at Hedeby on his starboard were Jutland, Zealand, and several other islands. Eventually he debarked into that land which is inhabited by the Angles. Another translation is as follows:

to that port which men call Et-Haethum, which is between the Winedum, Seaxum, and Angle, and makes part of Dene. When Ohthere sailed to this place from Sciringes heal, Denmark

Page 26

was on his left, and on the right a wide sea for three days, as also two days before he came to Hasthum, Gotland, lSillende, and many islands (these lands were inhabited by the Angle before they came hither); for two days the islands which belong to Dene were on the left. (Barrington, 1773).

The second is Wulfstan a merchant from Hedeby on the east coast of Jutland immediately above Schleswig. Wulfstan told he journeyed from Hedeby to Trusö in seven nights and days, with his ship all the while under full sail. Wendland was to his starboard, and Langeland to his larboard together with Lolland, Falster, and Skåne. All this land is under the Danes' command. Hence at this time Hedeby had been established in what was at one time the land of the Angles but now of the Danes. See Stanton (1971) for an overview of these voyages.

What these commentators appear to be saying is that the Danish Islands of Lolland (the residence of the famous 1st Century AD “Hoby Prince”) etc. at one time belonged to the Angles.

Chambers (1912) interprets this data as follows, However we read this passage it can hardly be interpreted otherwise than that the old Anglian home extended two days’ sail (i.e. between one and two hundred miles) from its center in Schleswig, and embraced ‘many islands’ (p. 254). Whether by Gotland is meant Jutland is unclear. Chambers says further that, It looks then as if the cynerica mast of Offa might well have included the greater part of the present Denmark, as well as Schleswig (p. 255).

The Historia Brittonum written by a Briton named Ninnius in 1021 AD, uses many different sources unavailable today to tell the story of the British people. Ninnius also provides a great deal of information about the “Saxons” which is a term he uses to encompass all Germanic peoples. He gives the arrival date of the “Saxons” as 428 after the birth of Christ; but the brothers Hengest and Horsa as “four hundred and forty – seven years after the passion of Christ” – the two dates combining to offer a date about 20 years earlier than that provided by Bede (but more in keeping with the archaeological evidence discussed later). He also gives the genealogy of Hengest and Horsa as, sons of Wihtgils. Wihtgils was the son of Witta; Witta of Wecta; Wecta of Woden; Woden of Frithowald, Frithowald of Frithuwulf; Frithuwulf of Finn; Finn of Godwulf; Godwulf of Geat with the latter being the son of a god (idol) blinded by some demon (this being consistent with a description of Odin). He also says specifically that the brothers and their crew of three vessels were given lands on Thanet in Kent. They were able to take full control of Kent by a ruse involving giving Vortigen the daughter of Hengest in marriage. Then Hengist, who had already consulted with the elders who attended him of the Oghgul race, demanded for his daughter the province, called in English, Centland, in British, Ceint, (Kent.) Other manuscipt versions give the above as, who had come with him from the island of Oghgul (Angul). Clearly the Oghgul’s are the Angles and by the wording it appears that he is consulting the elders of his tribe and thus the brothers were Angles. This would call into question the differentiation between Angle and Jute.

With Vortigen’s permission, 16 more vessels arrived as reinforcements to assist with the attacks of the Picts, and soon after another 40 ships.  After a falling out with Vortigen,

Page 27

Hengest sent for even greater numbers of men from the Germanic regions. According to Ninnius, during the time of the Arthurian battles, The more the Saxons were vanquished, the more they sought for new supplies of Saxons from Germany; so that kings, commanders, and military bands were invited over from almost every province. And this practice they continued till the reign of Ida, who was the son of Eoppa, he, of the Saxon race, was the first king in Bernicia, and in Cair Ebrauc (York).

Ninnius then specifically mentions the “nation of the Angles” (but until then appears to have used the word “Saxon” as an overriding term for “Germanic”), and proceeds to list all of the kings, including the lineage from Hengest leading to the conclusion that Hengest was an Angle. He gives lengthy genealogy for each Angle kingdom, all descending from a son of Woden:
a) Kent: Via Wecta as noted above, with Hengest being the first king.
b) Bernicia: Via Beldeg, with Eoppa being the first king.
c) Dynguayth Guarth: This kingdom was united with Bernicia by Ida the son of Eoppa.
d) Deira: Via Beldeg, the king Soemil being the one who separated Deira from Bernicia.
e) East Anglia: Via Casser, Guillem Guercha (other manuscripts being Uffa or Wuffa) being the first king.
f) Mercia: Via Guedolgeat, the first king being “Ossa” (Offa?).

An earlier pedigree written circa 725 AD, lists the ancestors of King Aelfwald (ruled circa 713-749 AD) of the East Angles.  Backwards for 14 generations these include: Aelfwald alduulfing; Alduulf ethilricing; Athilric ening; Eni tyttling; Tyttla wuffing; Wuffa wehing; Wehha wilhelming; Wilhelm hryping; Hryp hrothmunding; Hrothmund trygling; Trygil tyttmaning; Tyttman casering; Caser wodning; Woden. Number 10, Hrothmund, is the Danish Scylding prince in Beowulf (Newton, 1993).

The Angles who migrated to England also recognized their ancestral Ingaevone heritage with the kings of Bernicia in northern England suggesting this by having Ingui(o) as one of their ancestors.  In Beowulf, Hrothgar is king of the Ingwines (Danes).  Ninnius may have corrupted Mannus to Alanus and Ingui to Neugio. However, there is still an echo of the old ancestral Ingui heritage.

In addition to the evidence of wholesale migration as noted above, it might be wondered whether there is any evidence that any pagan / pre-Christian religions traditions came over with the Angles. The comments of Tacitus in the 1st Century AD noted earlier show that the Angles worshiped an earth mother goddess called Nerthus at that time. In looking at Anglo- Saxon literature we see that in Beowulf, the monster Grendel’s mother resided in a lake (which was also the home of Nerthus). Furthermore, and 11th Century manuscript includes certain fertility rites related to a bountiful harvest. One of the incantations invokes “Erce”, the “mother of earth” to assist. This would appear to be a vestigial reference to Nerthus, which survived Christianity and the 1000 years back to the time of Tacitus (Gordon, 1962).

Page 28

Whether or not there were, flames blazing from sea to sea (Gildas), it does appear that the influx of Germanics was linked to a large migration of Britons to Gaul (e.g., Bretteville on the Seine River), as well as a more general exodus to the west and also from southern England to Brittany, to the extent that the emigrants may have come to outnumber the locals (Davies, 1999). None the less, there is little evidence in the historical, archaeological or genetics record that the Britons were annihilated, on the contrary, it is likely that with the exception of the eastern area, although some displacement occurred, most survived such that their descendants compose not only a majority of the population of Wales and Cornwall, but at the very least a significant segment of the population of the British Isles, including England.

Picture the Heptarchy

For a comprehensive single source relating to the history of each Anglian Kingdom, there can be none better than Stanton (1968). The reader is referred to this work to pick up the historical thread to Norman times. An interactive map of the sequential Anglian takeover can be seen here.

Archaeological Evidence:

Archaeologists, despite diligent searches, have had little success in identifying any evidence of the native Britons from the 5th century onward in eastern England.  As Henson (2004) notes, in spite of increasing recognition of British inhumations in the 5th century British population in the eastern half of the island is still largely invisible (p. 154).  This stands in stark contrast to the situation in the western half where a distinctive British culture, which included rich Byzantine artifacts, remained intact.

Earliest Phase of Continental Migration to England - First, Myres (1989) notes that there is ample evidence that there were Saxon settlements in the region known to history as the “Saxon Shore” in Romano-British times and dating to the 3rd Century (e.g., locations such as Caistor-by-Norwich). This can be seen as an earliest phase of Germanic settlement in the region which by the 5th Century had become Anglican. Thus there may have been a substantial Roman-Germanic substrate into which the more numerous Anglians integrated. Urns from the Abingdon cemetery on the Thames above Dorchester, can be paralleled at many sites in the homelands of the continental Saxons between the Elbe and Weser, where most of them appear to date between 350 and 450 (p. 102).

There is some question as to how early the Germanic sites in England occur. In or about 430 AD, Germanic settlements were established at Caistor by Norwich, Lutton and Abingdon. At this time the once “ornate” graves and extensive settlement sites were drying up in East Jutland and much of Fyn. Only in the east and south regions of Sealand, as well in northeast Fyn, where towns with the ending – lev abound, do these rich burials remain (Bronstead noted in Starke, 1968). In general, The settlers in eastern Britain appear more like immigrations of whole communities, structure and cultural practices, separated from but existing alongside the native inhabitants (Henson, 2004, p. 74). See Henson (2004) for a comprehensive overview of the sequence and pattern of settlement.

At Caistor – by – Norwich the decorations on cremation urns have exact duplicates on Fyn, but in a style that lasted from about 325 AD to the 5th Century. Germany scholars have agreed that Fyn is ‘at one with north Schleswig’, in ‘the same cultural region’. What is 5th - century in Fyn is 5th – century in Schleswig, and also in England (Morris, 1973, p. 230). Hence this group may have integrated with the earlier arriving peoples. There is a brooch with duplicates on Fyn which consensus gives at well before 400. However, taken as a whole, the dating of the site (urns and brooches) is likely 400 to 420 AD. Morris states further that these finds firmly establish, Caistor as one of the few cemeteries that unquestionably belong to the first coming of the English (p. 231). Similarly, beginning about the mid 5th Century at Lackford, Suffolk, the urns show that, The older examples include Anglian types, like those of eastern Slesvig and Funnen, but also others were characteristic of Frisia or Saxony (Plunkett, 2005, p. 40).

One of the largest Anglo-Saxon cremation cemeteries is in Sancton, within the kingdom of Deira. The surviving pottery includes a considerable number of pieces which can be closely paralleled in the cemeteries of the continental Anglian Schleswig and Fyn, where they are mostly dated to no later than the fourth or fifth centuries – with the strongest link to

Page 30

Borgstedt (Myres, 1989, p. 92). Other links, particularly the large urns of globular or rounded form, can be seen with the Alamanni of southern Germany (e.g., Nord-Baden and Rhineland) are evident.

It is entirely possible that the settlements were established long before the historical sources indicate (none of the contemporary authors would likely know what was happening outside their orbit). Archaeological excavations in the north would tend to confirm this statement. One of the most extensively excavated sites is West Heslerton in the Vale of Pickering, Yorkshire. The site had been heavily settled from the Bronze Age to Romano-British times. Here Anglian features such as grubenhausers or “pit dwellings” (actually storage sheds) appear circa 400 AD, and a village of about 500 square meters was built with Continental – style rectangular houses. The cemetery included cremation burials from the earliest dates, and was used from circa 370 AD to 650 AD – sited near and among prehistoric barrow burials and a sacred spring. According to the excavator the layout of the cemetery suggests the existence of 5 distinct lineages, but no particular elite stratification. The distinctive Anglian (as opposed to Saxon or Jutish) nature of the female dress accessories: cruciform, square-headed, and small-long brooches, bucket pendants, braids and wrist-clasps, found in the graves strongly suggest links with both Schleswig-Holstein and Scandinavia, specifically western Norway and southern Sweden (Montgomery, 2002).

Many archaeologists have commented on the rather dramatic findings from this source. For example, Jan Kuhn describes how the urns and other archaeological finds typical for Angle suddenly appear in East Anglia in England. It seems to say that the cemeteries of Angle are continued in East Anglia (Starke, 1968, p. 114). Starke further states that concerning cruciform brooches there is a sequence – first found only in Angle and one location in England; then in Angle and East Anglia; then not at all in Angle (consistent with the historical documentation indicating abandonment of the home settlements) but in areas in England from Northumberland to Kent. We will now examine this evidence in detail.

Later Continental Migration: 450 AD to the 7th Century: Settlement and Burial

Traditional and documentary sources place the first arrivals of Germanic peoples to 449 AD. Arnold (1988) plots the earliest known Anglo-Saxon settlements in England, and they are largely in Kent and north of the Thames in the Midlands and East Anglia, with others along the coastal areas of Yorkshire. Among the best-documented Anglian sites are in Suffolk and Northumberland.

In terms of Kent, It was toward the end of the 5th century, possibly in the 400s according to Suzuki, that a secondary migration brought Germanic immigrants of higher status using bracteates and square-headed brooches in a style most like central Jutland (Henson, 2004, p. 138).

West Stow in Suffolk (c. 450 – 550 AD),see Plunkett, 2005, with various pit buildings, out buildings, and halls represents a “typical” East Anglian settlement (and has been made into a “living museum” site). A nearby site at Pakenham has for example two rows of about 25 collapsed loom weights found in situ in a former building. Another extensive excavation is at Flixton on the south bank of the Waveney River. To date 5 halls, 5 smaller post-hole

Page 31

buildings, and 8 “sunken-featured” buildings have come to light. A ditched enclosure, with a circular pit, has been interpreted by some as a pagan sanctuary (Plunkett, 2005).

Yeaverling, Northumberland is the supposed Anglian Bernician royal settlement which was established in the mid 5th Century and flourished until the early 7th Century (Pryor, 2006). Here the six timber halls (one being 3000 square feet) east of the “great enclosure” have been excavated. At the center of the complex is a multi-tiered timber “grandstand” (which burned down circa 630 AD – perhaps due to Mercian incursions of the time). The site, however, is characterized by a poverty of artifacts.

By about 570 AD a whole new era was ushered in with the establishment of an East Anglian royal burial complex downstream of the one at Rendlesham and Ufford. It appears that by 660 AD Rendlesham was the apparent dynastic house (vicus regius) of the Wuffingas; and Gipeswic (Ipswich) the market center. This gravefield, known as Sutton Hoo near the Deben River and Woodbridge is without parallel and is the burial site for the Wulfinga dynasty, whose connection with the Danish Scyldings has been much debated (Plunkett, 2005).

Around the middle of the 6th Century boat burials occur, but only in East Anglia. A 14 meter ship was placed in a mound above the north bank of the River Alde (some cremation urns having been carefully reburied elsewhere). Later burials in this mound at Snape include, a small log boat with a horse and bridle similar to those found on the Isle of Bornholm in the Baltic – whose cultural links to Jutland extend back to early Roman Iron Age times (Plunkett, 2005).

A 20 meter boat had been placed over a plundered burial ship at Sutton. Precious objects in the burial chamber include two gilt bronze discs, a sword likely made by the same individual who crafted the one in the unplundered Sutton – Hoo burial, and a gilt bronze mount showing a dragon’s head was part of the emblem on a large shield. Both graves contained silver-gilt drinking-horn Vandykes stamped from the same dies (Plunkett, 2005, p. 72). This appears to be the grave of the son of Wuffa, Tyttla (died circa 599 AD), the father of Raedwald (died circa 624 AD) and Eni.

The unplundered Sutton – Hoo burial is well documented, and believed to be the burial place of Raedwald (e.g., see Plunkett, 2005).  The grave goods are overwhelmingly ornate (e.g., highly decorated inlay work), and, for example, the helmet and shield are “Vendel style” showing a possible cultural link to Sweden at this time.  The similarity to the burial assemblage at Vendel Grave 12 is uncanny, and unlikely to be a mere coincidence (Newton, 1993). There may be more fine tuning via this and other data that could elaborate on the Anglians parsed into North folk and South folk, but united by the Scandinavian - linked Wuffing Dynasty.

It is possible that the rich burial mound at Caenby, Lincolnshire contains the remains of Raedwald’s son Raegenhere who was killed during the fighting here against the Northumbrians. The grave goods contain ornaments, harness mounts, and a Swedish – style helmet reminiscent of Sutton – Hoo (Plunkett, 2005). What is particularly interesting is the iconography on the helmet, as well as one from the great mound at Gamla Uppsala, Sweden

Page 32

circa 500 AD. Here, on both items, the weapon holding horned warriors (the horns actually being birds whose beaks touch) show strong parallels with a horned warrior holding a spear in each hand found on a belt buckle from Finglesham, Kent (Pollington, 2008). The same general pattern is seen with the horned dancing warriors on the Gallehus drinking horns from Schleswig made perhaps 100 years earlier. The link between the Aseir of Gamala Uppsala and the Vanir of Vendel is noted in Snorri Sturlasson’s Heimskringla. The Vanir are linked with Frey and Freya abnd hence the Ynglinga Dynasty of Vestfold Norway (e.g., borre and Gotstadt boat burial). These data appear to further enclose the East Anglian Dynasty and people with a geographical location in Vestfold. Further archaeological and genetic evidence will illustrate that Anglians may include those from Jutland and Fyn, but also nearby areas to the immediate north. The ties between the Swedish (Scylfing Dynasty), Angle / Danish (Scylding Dynasty), and Anglian aristocracy appear to be reflected in the historical and archaeological data.

The many twists and turns of the Anglian royal dynasties are summarized in Plunkett (2005), and detailed in Stenton (1968), to whom the interested reader is refered.

Further Evidence from Burials Post-Dating 450 AD

Arnold (1988) notes that even the burial sites can provide diagnostic evidence of links between England and the Continent, for example in the choice of inhumation or cremation (although both are frequently found on the same site and of the same date). For example, there is the large cremation cemetery, dating to the 4th and 5th Centuries at Borgstedterfeld (near Rendsberg, Jutland), whose urns and other grave goods such as 20 cruciform brooches are duplicated in the cemeteries in Eastern England (Bury et al., 1911; Chadwick, 1907). Cremation burials although widespread show “hotspots” in East Anglia and Lincolnshire (Arnold, 1988). The shear number of Germanic cemeteries that spread across the landscape of for example Suffolk is astounding (Plunkett, 2005) and must reflect an early and massive folk movement. There are also marked graves with posts or ditches; and similarities of east – west aligned ditched graves links Kent and Anglesey (Wales) 510 plus or minus 60 years AD (prior to the adoption of Christianity with which this practice is typically associated).

One particularly interesting grave was among 200 dated from the 5th to the 7th Centuries found in 1997 near Lackenheath, Suffolk, and including those with typical Anglian features such as square headed brooches. The grave of the horse and rider has been dated to c. 550 A.D. The rider was buried in a wooden coffin with his sword; his shield and spear had been carefully laid on top and a slaughtered goat or sheep was placed at the foot. The horse in full gilt bronze harness was buried next to the coffin with a bucket that probably originally contained food. The discovery of the horse will allow archaeologists to discover for the first time how harnesses were used. The grave was also encircled by a ring ditch indicating that there was originally a burial mound.

A female burial at Westgarth Gardens (Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk) includes not only two long brooches and wrist-clasps, but she also had a fossilized sea urchin in her hand (Plunkett, 2005) – something that links her directly to high status lineage burials in Jutland and Fyn (as described in the present author’s earlier study).


In the 6th Century, Plunkett (2005) sees an East Anglian cultural province linked via artifact assemblages, between eastern England and west Norway, giving a significantly Norwegian aspect to the early Anglo-Saxon identity in Britain (p. 48).

In addition the early Anglian cremation cemeteries (e.g., in Lincolnshire) occur in the proximity of prehistoric British burial mounds, a burial custom which they brought with them from the Continent. Some of the large Germanic cemeteries of the period, were centred on burial mounds of Neolithic or Bronze Age date (Myres, 1989, p. 111).

With the acceptance of Christianity brought changes in burial customs – ultimately burial without any grave furniture or artifacts of any kind. Generally burial in ethnic folk costume died out in the 7th Century, but can be found sporadically into the 8th in Christian contexts. For example, there is an extensive artifact rich cemetery at Hemingstone, Suffolk where a woman is buried on a bed. She has assorted accompanying grave goods including a cross- pendant enclosing a rare coin of King Dagobert I of the Franks (628-38). A silver penny dropped into the grave shows that she was buried in around 700 (Plunkett, 2005, p. 139).

Within England it is possible to distinguish Anglian inhumation burials from others. Vince reports, study of the dress accessories of the Anglo-Saxon cemeteries in the East Midlands indicates that the female Anglo-Saxon dress was the ‘Anglian’ type, paralleled by that found north of the Humber and in East Anglia but distinguishable from that found in the ‘Saxon’ areas of the south and the southeast (p. 10). This matter will be explored in greater depth later in this study.

It is perhaps worth noting, considering the probable R-U152 from Gaul, that In the Salisbury group, a grave in the country of Peterfinger contains objects which probably derive from Frankish Gaul (Todd, 2004, p. 209). These influences appear to be confined to the southern parts of England. There is considerable evidence that there was a mixing of Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Frisian, Thuringians, Franks and other Continental Europeans who came ultimately under the rubric “Anglo-Saxon”.

Artifacts and Cultural Practices: Continuity Between the Continent and England

- Some material artifact items with diagnostic attributes will now be singled out.

It has been noted, for example, that among the various Germanic groupings, the clothing and handywork of the females varies from group to group. Brooches are perhaps the most singularly significant signal of ethnic identity in those times. Circa 500 AD the women of the Angles were wearing square headed broaches rarely seen in other groups. These devices, commonly used as clothing fasteners, provide a valuable indication of date and origin. The shape and type of decoration varied between tribal groups. Even slight differences can be significant in the search for tribal identifiers, and can often be tied very specifically to a time and place. Round and equal arm brooches were common among Saxons, while the Angles and Jutes preferred cruciform brooches. In addition, wrist clasps were common among the Angles (Bakken, 1994).

Page 34

The distribution of Cruciform and saucea brooches 5th and early 6th centuries Cruciform broach as a marker of Angles and Jutland on left and Saxon circular broach on right

Myres (1989) provides a very detailed analysis of the links between England and the Continent via examining jewelry and pottery largely from cemeteries in both locations. In Scandinavia, Jutland, the Danish Islands and Schleswig the long broach has a head plate either square or rectangular, often cruciform in style with protruding knobs on the arms, and a diamond shaped foot plate. This type is common in the Anglian areas of Eastern and Mid Anglia, Mercia and Northumberland. Classic examples are found in Norfolk (e.g., Kenninghall), Suffolk (e.g., West Stow), and Lincolnshire (e.g., Sleaford). This is contrasted with the round or saucer shaped broaches that are commonly found in the Elbe – Weser area, and in the areas of England settled by the Saxons, and likely to be found in regions settled by the Middle Angles, also in Kent and Essex and locations further south. Another item of jewelry that can be “diagnostic” are wrist clasps seen in the Scandinavian regions and the Anglian regions. Henson (2004) states that, Hines sees the introduction of sleeve clasps as due to Norwegian presence in East Anglia and / or the Hunber estuary from c. 475, and furthermore in relation to the Jutes that, the quoit brooch style of metalwork developing in Kent from origins in Jutland (p. 69). Henson also reports that in general, Anglian cultural material is restricted to the traditionally Anglian areas of Britain, but Saxon material was not restricted to the traditionally Saxon areas. For example saucer brooches are found in East Anglia. There is also an overlap with the coastal Frisian groups who were later replaced by the Saxons.


A very dramatic example of jewelry whose similarity has to be more than a coincidence, is a pendant found at Sletner Austford Norway and one from Kent, as seen below. A remarkable quantity of imported material from the Sleaford cemetery is evident though.   This was true of amber beads, ivory rings and crystal beads. It would seem, therefore, that the Sleaford cemetery reflects a community with remarkable access to imported goods, probably of Scandinavian origin (Vince, 2000, p. 28).
The pendant on the left is from Norway and on the right one from Kent The bracteate (whose function is not clearly understood but likely a pendant and/or coin) with Futhark runic script in the top photo below was found near Lakenheath, Suffolk and dates to the 5th Century, as does the one immediately below it from Fyn, Denmark

The bracteate (whose function is not clearly understood but likely a pendant and/or coin) with Futhark runic script in the top photo below was found near Lakenheath, Suffolk and dates to the 5th Century, as does the one immediately below it from Fyn, Denmark. In England these pendant / coins are found only in Kent and East Anglia. The “head over animal style” (Bracteate C) is fairly common. In relation to the Undley, Suffolk bracteate, Hines (2000) states, I reiterate without reservation my argument that both art-history and archaeology suggest that this object was made somewhere in the area of Schleswig-Holstein or southern Scandinavia and imported into Britain (p. 45). These items, complete with runic inscriptions (e.g., 730s to 750s AD), seem to morph into a much reduced version, the sceattas of various moneyers in East Anglia. Those of King Offa include the head, Romulus and Remus suckling a she-wolf, runic letters, and odd symbols which tie the bracteates to English coin of the late 8th Century (Plunkett, 2005).

 Page 37

Distribution of A to C bracteates based on Gaimster

As to metalwork, there is almost a one to one correspondence between the ornate eagle head on the silver gilt buckle from Aker in southeast Norway with the same item found at the Sutton Hoo burial in Suffolk (Meehan, 1992). Perhaps this grave reflects the culture of southeast Norway. Midlands and East Anglian work is often found in Norwegian contexts. Concerning discs with a cruciform arrangement of paired creatures from Bolnhurst, Bedfordshire have strong parallels in Scandinavia such as the, cruciform pendant from Kaupang (Vestfold) and a superb chip-carved plaque from a woman’s grave at Bjorke (More, Romsdal) as well as many other objects show English – Norwegian connections (p. 168). Similarly, the gold cloisonné mounts of the Sutton Hoo purse lid is almost exactly mirrored in the same human figure positioned between wolf – like creatures posed with their mouths encompassing both sides of a human head; strikingly similar to an object in bronze from Oland, Sweden (Newton, 1993); as well as a sliver fibulae from Galsted in South Jutland dated to 425-450 AD (Petersen, 2003).

Furthermore, Pottery fashions have about the same division as brooches. The Angles and Jutes favored rectangular decoration while the Saxons used more curvilinear styles. In addition, stamped decoration was common on Saxon pottery and was not used by the Angles and Jutes (Bakken, 1994). Specifically, there is a very strong link between the pottery found in a cemetery at Sancton (Kingdom of Deira in Northern England) dating to about 380 AD with that seen in cemeteries in Jutland in Schleswig and Fyn from the late 4th and early 5th

Page 38

Centuries. This clearly suggests a Germanic presence there that predates the Anglo-Saxon invasions. Myres (1989) states, Among the cremation urns from the Anglian cemetery at Sancton in East Yorkshire, for example there too many close parallels with the corresponding pottery from Borgstedt in Angeln to be explicable by pure coincidence. Then again it is virtually certain that one of the Anglian urns from Caistor-by-Norwich, Norfolk came from the same workshop as that which made two others, showing the same stylistic idiosyncricies, for cemeteries at Hammoor in Holstein and Sorup in Schleswig (p. 72). As Henson (2004) notes, In general, Anglian pottery can be traced back to Schleswig and Fyn. As to the Jutes, Pots from early 5th century Kent are similar to pots from the Ribe and Esbjerg areas of Jutland (p. 68). Henson also discusses the rather complicated mixed pattern seen in some locations, and the link with other groups such as the Frisians; as well as that between the material culture of Gotland Sweden to the assemblages at Kempton, Sancton and Sleaford; and that between Norway and locations in Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire.

Myres (1989) notes the strong affiliation between pottery styles and geography and ethnicity, and contrasts the styles of the Saxons and related groups to, the styles in vogue among the northern group of peoples in eastern Schleswig and Jutland, the Danish islands, and southern Scandinavia (p. 63). The strongest links are between all of Jutland and Kent to the Thames River (Bede’s Jutes). In Jutland and Anglian England there is a rectangular style with massed groups of lines or grooves, horizontal on the neck and vertical on the shoulder – and the body has the look of polished metal. The jars tend to be short and squat. The comparison diagrams of pots from Jutland and East Anglia (seen on page 65) are strikingly similar, even virtually identical in the intricate design pattern (e.g., Borgstedt, Jutland and Newark, Northumberland). This can be contrasted to the Saxon version with, for example, curvilinear patterns and large jars. However this analysis is somewhat simplified since in Deira (northern Anglian territory) for example there are Saxon, Ango-Frisian and Alamanni artifacts (the town name Almondsbury may reflect an Alamanni settlement). The connections to Frisia (which included northern Belgium and Holland) must be noted. For example, the word “roth” (clearing) in English as an exact parallel with “rothe” in Frisian; and in Northamptonshire where such names occur (e.g., Rothwell), for example produced pots with distinct similarities to those from St. Gilles-Les-Termonde in Belgium (Myres, 1989). It is perhaps noteworthy that R-U152 has been found at relatively high frequency in the areas of Germany where the Alamanni settled.
Glassware also has diagnostic value. For example, Brandon also has fragments in blue and green which show that English production of claw-breakers (fancy drinking – vessels with drawn pendant glass ‘claws’), fashionable from the fifth to seventh centuries, continued into the eighth: formerly such late examples were known only from Swedish sites with English associations (Plunkett, 2005, p. 163).
It is worth noting that the great ramparts or dykes seen in Jutland are also a feature of the English Anglian landscape. For example there are 5 ditch and bank features such as the Devil’s Dyle, 12 miles in length and extending to the borders of the East Saxon Kingdoms. English archaeologists consider these features to be boundary markers (Bond et al., 1990).

Page 39

The port complex at Lundburg on Fyn is paralleled by the English Anglian post and market settlement of Ipswich in Suffolk; which may have served the same function to the aristocracy on the River Deben as the former played with the Great Hall complex at Gudme.

One question which should be explored, considering the extent of the behavior in Jutland, is whether there is evidence of sacrificial votive offerings in or near the sites settled by the Angles. One “problem” is that most of the land was better drained than in the homeland and conditions may be less favorable to this “tradition” – or perhaps it was considered unnecessary in the new homeland since they were the aggressors and there were no “predators”. In examining causeways set at right angles to the rivers in Lincolnshire, Pryor (2004) notes that these were probably tribal boundary territorial markers. In fact it is typical to use the wet areas where these features meet the River Witham for sacrifical deposits of human heads, shields, swords and so on with the behavior continuing to the 14th Century. – over 70% of the known ritual sites surviving into Medieval times here. Hamerow (2006) compared the apparent votive offerings at Anglian settlements (e.g., objects beneath the house floor or in post holes) such as at West Stow, Suffolk to a 6th Century longhouse at Dankirke in western Jutland and a probable 5th Century building at Gudme on Fyn, serving some kind of ceremonial function (p. 22). Although parallels between the Continent and England can be found, it appears that new social traditions emerged in the new environment such that wholesale adoption of previous practices are spotty and relate to specific contexts such as “special deposits” at the “Great Halls” where emphasizing the status of leading families continued.

It is also noteworthy, considering the genetic findings noted later, that there was a Northumbrian Anglian presence at Llanbedrgoch on Anglesey, Wales, likely from the attempts by Edwin circa 630 AD to establish hegemony there, and Isle of Mann. The generally accepted interpretation (no one is certain) for the origin of the name is that it comes from Ongul, a Norse personal name. Surely this tradition is in error since “the Isle of the Angles” makes considerably more sense. This is important because of the evidence that R- U152 has been found in substantial numbers in Angelsey (see later). The latest work has established that the settlement was founded as early as the 6th century, perhaps earlier. A 7th century bird-headed Saxon brooch with parallels in Yorkshire provides material evidence of contacts between the kingdoms of Gwynedd and Northumbria in this period, long known from historical sources. In the early part of the century the Northumbrian king Edwin was overlord of the Welsh, but a year after his death in 633 the king of Gwynedd, Cadwallon, killed Edwin's successor, and himself took control of Northumbria for a year. Furthermore, Two 9th century Northumbrian pennies have also been found on the site - a third is known from Segontium near Caernarfon - indicating that trading contacts with north-eastern England continued (British Archaeology, 1998).

Budd et al. (2006) used isotopic analysis of the tooth enamel obtained from the cemetery at West Heslerton, Yorkshire and of 24 samples was able to conclude that some were local (were born and grew up in that area), some appeared to have lived west of the Midlands, and four were likely from an area of Scandinavia north of Schleswig (these being females and one infant). It is not clear that the authors only included early Anglian burials. However, clearly some of the individuals tested were likely among the original immigrants from

Page 40

Jutland (one problem being that it is difficult to separate samples into Jutland and England with any degree of confidence). This author is also of the processual school and, along with Pryor (2004), attempts to downplay any evidence of immigration. A more complete analysis of the isotopic data in relation to the cemetery is found in Montgomery (2002). The latter also reports that the earlier inhumation burials of males with weapons include morphological features in the skeletons (tall and gracile) more characteristic of Scandinavians than local Britons.

In conclusion, the evidence noted above would appear to be consistent with a wholesale uprooting of many or most communities in Jutland and other adjacent areas, and transplanting intact communities and social structures to England. Hence if the Angles and their likely possible ancestors the Cimbri were largely or partly R-U152 (other haplogroups would also be involved), thus we should not expect to find many men in southern Jutland today who belong to this haplogroup. This would be reinforced by the fact that the regions likely to supply the incoming haplogroups (eastern Sweden and eastern Denmark) are not likely to have included males with the R-U152 haplogroup (based on limited genetic studies), unless from the Oslofjord area.

In considering the weight of archaeological evidence, Hills (1978) says that this can, be explained only in terms of substantial immigration of people who came in sufficient force to retain their religion and way of life – not to become absorbed into the existing society but to absorb the remains of that society into their own (p. 313). Newton (1993) states that, East Anglia had a stronger Scandinavian affinities than any other early English Kingdom (p. 109).

Proposed homelands and routes from Continent to England

Page 41


Linguistic Evidence:

Myres (1989) considers the earliest place names of England such as wic and ham (and combinations such as wickham), and tun, as well as –ingas (a folk name) that quickly spread across the derelict and largely abandoned countryside. Within a short time almost all trace of Romano-British names have been erased and Germanic names covered the countryside. However attempts to draw more specific conclusions seem to be fraught with pitfalls. It would be highly unusual I, if there was a substantial Romano-British population remaining in Britain that fewer than 20 words may have been borrowed into English from British (even these are debatable). Furthermore Germanic sounds were substituted for almost all the native sounds in any potentially native place names. This can be contrasted to the 90 Gothic and 4,000 Arabic words incorporated into Spanish. The evidence is seen by Henson (2004) as suggesting, a large element of population migration rather than acculturation (p. 87). However some genetic contribution of the British in the Pennines and East Riding is suggested by, the existence of counting systems in the folklore of various parts of England that can only have come from a British original (Henson, 2004, p. 88). Stanton (1968), however, concluded that, The local nomenclature of East Anglia as a whole gives the definite impression of a self-contained people whose ancestors had migrated to England independently of other peoples before the end of the fifth century (p. 53).

A summary of Oppenheimer’s analysis (2006) offers two potentially important conclusions. The first is the variety of Germanic (English) at the time Beowulf was written (before the Viking invasions) was closer to that found in Scandinavia (Jutland) than in Saxony (using Forster’s data). Secondly, he provides an analysis of the distribution of the early versus late Rune stone inscriptions (Elder Futhark) in England and concludes that these are almost exclusively found in the Anglian and Jute areas, not those occupied by the Saxons. He sees this as further evidence that the Saxons were not the primary 5th Century invaders of England. Hines (2000) further states that, The distribution of the earliest runic inscriptions in England shows a clear positive correlation with the Anglian areas (p. 45). As summarized by Henson (2004), the earliest inscriptions, of the 5th century, are all from East Anglia. This is one of the areas where Germanic settlement seems to have been earliest and densest (p. 116). A map of early rune inscriptions (Arnold, 1988) is interpreted as follows: The geographical distribution is also uneven, there being in Kent, the Island of Wight and the region around the Wash from the Humber to Norfolk (p. 125). In other words the areas Bede specifies as settled by the Jutes and Angles.

It is noteworthy that, In the area of Jutland known even today under the name Angeln some of the most spectacular finds of runic inscriptions have been made dating from before the year 450 A.D. These inscriptions are written in a language which is commonly called ‘Proto-Scandinavian’, but which is more appropriately termed ‘Northern Germanic’, since it is clearly the predecessor of all later North and West Germanic languages (Antonsen, 2002, p. 331). As Hines (2000) notes, the language area north of the Schleswig-Husum neck, with what can rather loosely be referred to as some form of distincitively Ingvaeconic, Proto-Low- German language (which ultimately gave rise to English). Furthermore there are a number of place-names in Scheleswig-Holstein including a group of about twenty place names in Angelin and Schwanen, within which we can reasonably look for early, pre-eighth century forms, including potentially diagnostic early suffixes: - ing, -stedt (p. 44). Furthermore,

Page 42

concerning the 174 names with –ingas or -ingaham, 72.5% are found in Kent, Sussex, Essex, Suffolk, Norfolk, Lincolnshire and the East Riding (Henson, 2004, p. 71).

It is noteworthy that our language is called English not Saxonish, and the country is called England (land of the Angles). This reality can be traced to Bede who used the term ‘gens angelorum’, and Offa (d. 796), ‘Rex Anglorum’ or King of the English. Even the great King Alfred of Saxon Wessex termed himself “King of the English” (Davies, 1999).

Henson (2004) provides a detailed analysis of the place-name evidence when considering all aspects of language such as vocabulary, phonology, and grammar and concludes that, British influences have never been detected in Old English as a consequence of a German population that was large enough to swamp the British (p. 111). Hence, we really need to accept that a large number of migrants is needed to carry the German language to Britain (p. 112). However there is a greater tendency for the Saxon regions to incorporate Latin words from Romano-British into place-names, for example portus (harbor) and castra (fort, walled town). It is yet another line of evidence that suggests that Saxon settlement was different in kind to that of the Angles, and may have taken place within a functioning late Roman administrative structure (Henson, 2004, p. 122).

In a painstaking analysis of the evidence relating to the Beowulf manuscript, Newton (1993) concludes that between the late 5th and middle 6th Centuries, the Wulffing dynasty home was in southern Scandinavia, in what is now south-western Sweden and south-eastern Norway (p. 116). This deduction will now be compared to the genetic evidence.

Genetic Evidence:

Previous academic studies of the Y-chromosome structure of the British Isles have suffered from very small “bikini” haplotypes (e.g., 6 markers when 67 are commonly used in the commercial sphere). Also none have done deep haplogroup analysis or subclade genotyping of the largest genetic grouping, R1b / M269. Hence any conclusions may be hopelessly flawed. Thus important studies such as Wilson et al. (2001), Weale et al. (2004), Capelli et al. (2004), Oppenheimer (2006) and Bowden et al. (2007) are as likely to confuse as to clarify. Estimates of population change by the Anglo-Saxons vary from virtually no effect on the numbers of indigenous Britons, to wholesale replacement. Oppenheimer (2006) obtained results suggesting that the incomers comprised a mere 4% of the population in England as a whole, but up to 17% if mapped to the area where cruciform brooches are found such as parts of Norfolk. This is diametrically opposed to Weale et al. (2004) who see their data as pointing to potentially an almost complete wipeout of the natives where after the invasion 50 to 100% of the population can be considered Y- chromosome descendants of the Anglo-Saxon invaders. Although a proper assessment of the importance of each of these studies requires reading each source, a summary of this body of literature can be found in many places including rather surprising locations such as Henson (2004), who is an archaeologist. What is important, and not noted in the published literature, is the need to have extended haplotypes of many STR markers and deep genotyping (below M269 in the “R1b” category) to obtain better precision and avoid conflating / confusing for example an Irish / Brithonic R-L21 with a Germanic R-U106 where the haplotypes may be indistinguishable.

Page 43

The present author’s database does, however, include 67 marker haplotypes genotyped to the level of R-M269, R-P312, and downstream to R-U152 and even the newly discovered subclades of the latter, L2/S139 and L20/S144. The present - day distribution of Y haplogroup R-U152, mirrors both the boundaries of settlement of the Angles from circa 400 to 700 AD, and the Danish Vikings (in the Danelaw) circa 800 to 1100 AD. The difference is that in the Viking era there is nothing in the archaeological or historical evidence sources relating to Jutland to suggest that whole regions were depopulated at this time – on the contrary it appears that the population was expanding in these areas of Scandinavia. R-U152 tentatively appears to be very limited in Jutland and Fyn today, but found at more substantial levels around the Oslofjord area of Norway and Sweden. Therefore it seems reasonable to conclude that immigration of any R-U152 men at this time would have established themselves in the areas where the Norse Vikings raided and settled (e.g., Northern Isles and eastern Scotland), but not to the same extent in the Danish areas (i.e., the Danelaw of Eastern England). One location where is may on first glance seem “out of place” to find R-U152 in Anglesey (Isle of the Angles), off the northwest coast of Wales. An unpublished study found up to 20% of the population to be of this haplogroup, and yet none across the Irish Sea. It is likely noteworthy that R-U106, common in Scandinavia and Northern Germany, makes up an even more substantial percentage of the population on this island (data from an unpublished study), plus other Germanic haplogroups (I-M223 and R-M17).

Some conclusions:

As shown in the map above, the territory of the Angles and the Jutes would include the Northumbrian area as far north as Edinburgh, south through Deira, Lindsey, East Anglia and Kent. The region between the latter two appears to have included both Angles and Saxons.  In addition, the Mercian area is Angle, which leaves only the southern and western parts of England, Wales (beyond Offa’s Dyke), as well as the western coast above Chester. To repeat, this distribution remarkably coincides with both the Danelaw east – west division and the present – day distribution of R-U152. Oppenheimer (2006) posits that the Vikings, avoided Saxon England and settled extensively and exclusively in those north-eastern regions that their recent ancestors, the Jutes and Angles, had invaded a few hundred years before (p. 415). He sees this as reflecting long term divisions between Angle and Saxon. It is also noteworthy that the map of Anglo-Saxon burials, particularly those with distinctive cruciform brooches found largely in the Anglian and Jutish areas of Denmark and England, is virtually duplicated in the distribution of R- U152 today. Furthermore, the early (pre 650 AD) stones inscribed with Runic script, with analogies only in Jutland (particularly the lower neck of the Peninsula), are only found at sites of early Anglian or Jutish settlement (see Oppenheimer, 2006), and so again map nicely to the scatter of R-U152 today. It appears that a very viable candidate group from those who brought much of R-U152 to England is the Angles arriving from the 4th to 7th Centuries. The precise numbers of immigrants is unknown, largely since arguments among archaeologists rage as to whether a burial is Angle or acculturated Briton. However the migration was sufficient to ensure that we speak English today (not Brythonic, not Latin, not Danish, not Norman French but English), named after the people to gave us the language spoken as a lingua franca across the world. The word Anglo-Saxon was never used prior to 1066, it was coined on the Continent by Alcuin, and was not before ever used to describe the peoples of England. It was only the Britons such as Gildas and Ninnius who refered to the Saxons as the invaders of England and they were correct in that the Saxons were the ones who

Page 44

conquered the region from the Thames River through Sussex and Wessex, precisely where these two Britons were residing.

In the words of Hines (2000), speaking of the strong link between the Anglian areas of England and Scandinvia, he interprets the evidence as showing, a common southern Scandinavian / Anglian area of cultural innovation (p. 46).

It is now time to consider other possibilities that may explain the presence of some R-U152 in Britain. An important question, however, is whether any or all would be sufficient to explain even a small percentage of this haplogroup in the British Isles today. This “Hypothesis C”, relates to the Belgae tribes of the Continent will be explored in the third study of this trilogy.

David K. Faux, Ph.D.

Seal Beach, California   fauxdk [ at ] Amended: 9 December 2008

Copyright 2008

Copyright 2008 (David K. Faux) This document is a research study and constitutes the intellectual property of the owner DKF. It may only be copied for personal study, or added as a link to other websites. For all other purposes written permission of the author is required.  Listed here by permission January 2, 2015.

Page 45

Up top