Anglo-Saxons [AD 5-700]
Saxon & Jutes
Near Easterners (E3bs)
King Vortigern (a British king - whatever "British" meant in that context), according to the Empire's historians, invited Angles to come back and receive land, if they would help to defend "the British" against "the Picts." The Picts? Please.....
Successful Angles sent word back north that good land was available, and that the "the British (i.e. Celts)" were useless as soldiers, according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, AD 449:
"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."
Based on Bede's "Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum", [not the most reliable of sources], external populations were descendants of three Germanic tribes (I doubt the Scandinavians would all be thrilled to be considered "Germanic", but one never knows for sure.
They seem to have a strong sense of nationality, even among themselves. However, those who arrived from the south by sea might have felt differently than those who crossed the continent and mixed for centuries with the Germans, Austrians, Poles and other nationalities.
Not to be too critical of poor Bede, he was working with the information he had in concluding that:
Saxons were from Lower Saxony
Jutes were from the Jutland Peninsula (Danes)
Angles were from Angeln
He wrote that the whole Angle nation came to Britain, leaving their former lands unoccupied sounding like the above reference to land that "remained waste between the Jutes and the Saxons." And that was more likely caused by flooding later than these reports implied.
In fact, a report from Caesar first hand says that lands left vacant were quickly taken up by others, I find it hard to believe that, barring flooding, the land would remained waste and not been immediately taken up by others.
Those who moved in if Caesar was right about there being two kinds of Frisian -determined by good and poor land, those on good land being better soldiers - can be assumed to have been those Frisians on poor land, in poor health, who moved in - and why not?
Place names confirm that other continental tribes were in Britain earlier than thought:
Frisians at Fresham, Freston, and Friston
Flemings at Flempton and Flimby
Swabians at Swaffham; and, perhaps,
Franks at Frankton and Frankley.
There may be a link here with the time at which the Romans quashed the Batavian Revolt. They no doubt took the Frisians and whomever else they could lay hands on and dragged them off to Britain.
They may have bragged that they laid waste the lands. But others did move in - although I can see there being friction between the Danes and Saxons about which of them should have control. Some must have remained as the Romans would likely have only taken men who could fight.
A similar situation may have played itself out when these same peoples joined the Anglo-Frisians to aid Vortigern later. Or, the two events may simply have gotten mixed together in the common mind, and history recorded both in identical terms after the fact.
I doubt any King in Britain was having trouble with the Picts. They were far to the North in Scotland and are now lost in the mists of time. Much of this ancient history, recorded from oral tradition, simply seems ill-informed and confused.
"North of the Humber" is the kingdom of Northumbria, now in north and northeastern England and southern Scotland. Mercia was located in central England and is now the Midlands. There is a map below to help with some of this.
Initially, the Jutes are reported to have gone southwest in Britain. Angeln bears comparison to Jutland. It is situated on a large bight linking the Baltic to the Bay of Kiel (Kieler Bucht or Holsteiner Bucht). Angles were part of the Federation of the Ingaevones, their mystic ancestor and god of fertility being Yngvi.
Germanic scholars argue that notions of nationality based on word games are simplistic, a suspicion confirmed in this case, initially, by archaeology. East and north Britain were settled by women wearing cruciform brooches from Scandinavia, all of Denmark, and Schleswig-Holstein south to the lower Elbe and east to the Oder, as well as coastal Friesland
This was their point of departure when their husbands answered the call. Many of these peoples speak or spoke "Germanic" languages, but this does not confirm that the are Haplogroup G German, in fact, just the opposite. Many are rated as being of the R or I Haplogroups. So genetics has something to add as well ... and it may not agree with cherished historical records.
Recalling the "Pie Map' above, there is some German genetic influence (the brown R1b slices), but it is minimal. I have not seen similar maps for other Haplogroups, so I cannot comment with authority about German genetic influence there. But "I" is generally considered Norse, not G, which is German. E3b, likely came with the Romans, but it's anyone's guess right now.
South central Britain was settled by women wearing the saucer brooch of Lower Saxony, the south side of the lower Elbe, then among the Franks, up the Rhine and along the coast to the mouth of the Seine.
Angeln history is subsumed within that of Southern Jutland or Schleswig (Danish: Slesvig) and, until the 19th century, it belonged to Denmark. If anything, the Angles and Jutes were Danish or near Danish, located in the northwest, near the Saxons and Frisians.
Their genetic footprint has left the British confused. The modern British like to think of themselves as Anglo-Saxon and believe that they replaced the indigenous Celts. They are mistaken.
Not only are many of them Celts (perish the thought), but they took quite a knock from the Danes and Normans, and are even now ruled by a Germanic Monarchy. Many of "the upper crust" refuse DNA tests for a reason. They are more than a little unsure about who and what they are, and afraid to find out!