Really enjoyed this article and its argument. That’s pretty crazy that a museum would make such a claim, when there is more evidence disputing it.
It does raise a question though:
What would be the motivation behind calling the Saxons a myth? My guess is that it is due to the lack of a complete story surrounding their history? Although, I always thought it was mainstream to see the Saxon’s as authentic
history because of similar sources you mentioned (Swords, gravestones and such).
A lot of archaeologists spend much of their time engaged in things like brushing pottery fragments, not studying history, philology and the like. They often make better cataloguers of facts than explainers of history.
I’m briefly in hospital so I can’t check my sources, but my understanding of the term Saxons, as applied to Britain, was Sassones, or ‘a settled people’.
Many peoples were settled in post Roman colonies to ‘keep the peace’ when the Roman Army returned to Rome. Thinking of King Gor in Gaul. It is not inconceivable that the Saxons served a similar purpose in Britain.
The etymological connection of Saxon with 'settled' was first proposed in the years before the modern discipline of linguistics emerged. That is usually a sure sign that an etymology is not reliable.
The Roman navy seems to have lost control over both the Irish and North Seas in the late fourth century, allowing Irish migrants to settle in Cornwall, Wales and Argyll, and Saxons to subsequently settle in both Britain and Gaul.
The idea of a Saxon invasion as per Gildas is pretty well debunked. The forts of the “Saxon shore” may well get their name from being manned by Saxons. There were Saxons in the former Roman naval base at Bayeux in the sixth century.
Yes. I agree entirely. I am writing a book on this early period. Indeed, the Saxon Shore forts were primarily grain stores rather than defensive positions. There’s an enormous amount of rubbish written about the early Saxons and I’m keen to try to set the record straight.
When talking about the Roman fleet, this would only be if interest if there had been a new occupying force stationed in Britain. I don’t believe there was one.
I do wonder about some of Gildas though. Who were the ‘Old enemy’?
It’s generally taken to mean the Scots and the Picts but I wonder if it could be the Romans. They were the only ones to occupy the country ‘from shore to shore’.
Yes, you do get people throwing up impressionistic etymologies from time to time. It's a problem generally with linguistic knowledge. St Isidore of Seville, for example, suggested that the British received their name from the Latin word for 'brute'. But there is no reason why the name of the British would derive from a Latin root or, equally, that the name of the Saxons would come from Persian.
Really enjoyed this article and its argument. That’s pretty crazy that a museum would make such a claim, when there is more evidence disputing it.
It does raise a question though:
What would be the motivation behind calling the Saxons a myth? My guess is that it is due to the lack of a complete story surrounding their history? Although, I always thought it was mainstream to see the Saxon’s as authentic
history because of similar sources you mentioned (Swords, gravestones and such).
A lot of archaeologists spend much of their time engaged in things like brushing pottery fragments, not studying history, philology and the like. They often make better cataloguers of facts than explainers of history.
Really interesting essay, thanks for posting 🫡
I’m briefly in hospital so I can’t check my sources, but my understanding of the term Saxons, as applied to Britain, was Sassones, or ‘a settled people’.
Many peoples were settled in post Roman colonies to ‘keep the peace’ when the Roman Army returned to Rome. Thinking of King Gor in Gaul. It is not inconceivable that the Saxons served a similar purpose in Britain.
I expect there is more to this.
The etymological connection of Saxon with 'settled' was first proposed in the years before the modern discipline of linguistics emerged. That is usually a sure sign that an etymology is not reliable.
Thank you. Luckily, I have my MA (with Distinction) and no one ever noticed.
I still feel that the Roman navy was the only fleet that could have moved ‘an invasion’ of Saxons. Of course, the invasion theory is just one.
The Roman navy seems to have lost control over both the Irish and North Seas in the late fourth century, allowing Irish migrants to settle in Cornwall, Wales and Argyll, and Saxons to subsequently settle in both Britain and Gaul.
All true.
The idea of a Saxon invasion as per Gildas is pretty well debunked. The forts of the “Saxon shore” may well get their name from being manned by Saxons. There were Saxons in the former Roman naval base at Bayeux in the sixth century.
Yes. I agree entirely. I am writing a book on this early period. Indeed, the Saxon Shore forts were primarily grain stores rather than defensive positions. There’s an enormous amount of rubbish written about the early Saxons and I’m keen to try to set the record straight.
When talking about the Roman fleet, this would only be if interest if there had been a new occupying force stationed in Britain. I don’t believe there was one.
I do wonder about some of Gildas though. Who were the ‘Old enemy’?
It’s generally taken to mean the Scots and the Picts but I wonder if it could be the Romans. They were the only ones to occupy the country ‘from shore to shore’.
I heard a theory only today that the name Saxon derived from a Persian word.
Yes, you do get people throwing up impressionistic etymologies from time to time. It's a problem generally with linguistic knowledge. St Isidore of Seville, for example, suggested that the British received their name from the Latin word for 'brute'. But there is no reason why the name of the British would derive from a Latin root or, equally, that the name of the Saxons would come from Persian.
Any other references to Saxeneat would be the thing to find, but I suppose there are few...
And what about the Dendrites?
Do you mean the Obotrites?