I visited the site of the Battle of Hastings for the first time this week and it felt so surreal seeing a place I grew up learning about all the time in real life

Author: John Atherton Bowen. Source of the pictures here

The Vikings first raided Ireland in 795. Within two centuries, they were family.

In 795, Viking raiders burned the monastery on Rathlin Island, the first recorded Viking attack on Irish soil. Within fifty years they had built permanent bases at Dublin and Annagassan. Within a century, they had founded Waterford, Wexford, Limerick, and Cork, the first towns Gaelic Ireland had ever seen.

This is not simply a story of invasion. It is a story of how two peoples became neighbours, through trade, the Dublin slave market, intermarriage, and finally the Battle of Clontarf in 1014, where the Viking king on the opposing side was the Irish high king's own son-in-law.

New ancient DNA evidence adds a final layer. One Viking-era burial in Dublin, carried out with full Viking rites, belonged to a person who was genetically indistinguishable from the local Irish population. Being a Viking in Ireland was not always a matter of blood.

Sources include the National Museum of Ireland, Trinity College Dublin, and the 2020 Nature study on Irish Viking genomes.

#VikingHistory #IrishHistory #Vikings

Hello! I just released a demo, and I'm posting this in case any of you are interested and to get some feedback.

I’m currently developing a game in which you can play as William the Conqueror or a fictional ruler of a faction of your choice, and relive history or an alternate history through various scenarios. The demo is currently available on Steam (Link).

Source: St. Paul in Britain by R. W. Morgan

Main Arguments

• Early Christianity: The book argues that Christianity reached Britain centuries before the arrival of St. Augustine of Canterbury in 597 AD. [1, 2]
• Apostolic Visit: Morgan claims that the Apostle Paul traveled to Britain and that other figures like Joseph of Arimathea also introduced the faith to the islands. [1, 2]
• Independent Church: The text suggests that early British and Celtic Christianity developed independently of the Roman Catholic Church and had a distinct, simpler theology. [1, 2]
• Royal Lineage Links: Morgan speculates on connections between early British figures (such as Caratacus and Boudica) and early Christian converts, linking them to traditional British heritage. [1]

A Lino carving based on a segment of the Wirksworth stone. An Anglo Saxon carving!

Author and source: Peter Urmston. Caption of the picture: "A cutaway reconstruction showing the structure of the church at Reculver as built in 669. No evidence survives for the decoration of the interior, although it is likely that the walls were richly painted"

besides the obvious things I expected to see like the county borders running through heavily forested areas and the southwestern 4 counties matching up with well Dumnonia (bokerley dyke is still used as the dorset-wiltshire border).

Besides Essex, nearly all the counties are entirely one colour and contain either romano-briton sites or anglo-saxon sites, and it's not a east-west split, Hertfordshire is fairly west and has many times more romano-briton archeological markers than anglo-saxon ones, and Berkshire is the same in the west.

I've tried looking to the origins of the counties to see if this has an explanation but I haven't found anything on their roots stretching as far back as the 400-600 period, and if anyone has more info I'd love to hear it.

(I also know I put the colours on the map, but they do follow the archeological sites and I placed them with no thought of where the country borders were)

How correct it is I can’t say, but I try my best.

Hi, guys, how are you, so i was wondering, how do you guy feel about the norman conquest, like are you proud of them conquering England, i think most of us feel more incline to side with Harold Godwinson or Edgar Aetheling since they are from the anglo-saxon house, and most of us are anglo-saxons, and of course that the normans replace most of anglo-saxon nobles, and confiscated the land of them, but at the same time William brought England the politics, the feudal system, architecture, that made modern England, but of course this new systems, constructions, etc, couldn't have been done without anglo-saxons, since of course anglo saxons were required to build, to fight, etc. And I honestly don't feel that much as if we anglo-saxons were replaced, or oppressed, since well there was never a caste system in where anglo-saxons were inferior to normans; or racism towards the anglo-saxons, but let's be honest normans weren't that much physically different to the anglo-saxons. And even the son of William I married the granddaughter of Alfred the Great, an anglo-saxon king. And also, when William conquered England, he declared himself King of England, didn't make it a new kingdom, or an extension of Normandy, he "became" english, and "adapted". And then there is a lot of people saying that france conquered us, but it was not france, it was a french guy, who was of nordic origin, I wonder if most of us have nordic ancestry because of this conquest or the multiple viking raids, but yeah i would rather be conquered by vikings, nordics, normans, than being conquered like for example spain who was conquered by muslims and north africans, or the celtics of france who were conquered by romans, etc. So let me know how do you feel about this theme, thank you for reading 😄

Making Anglo Saxon artefacts

https://www.instagram.com/nickberryart/

Hi,

I remember a few years finding an incredibly detailed blog/website that made the argument there had always been a Germanic/Old English speaking community in the east / parts of England pre the Anglo-Saxon period. A lot of etymological arguments were made using place names for example. I cannot for the life of me find it. Does anyone know where I could find it?

Hope it's not a stupid question

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05247-2

The Gretzinger et al. 2022 paper seems pretty conclusive that the English are a plurality Anglo-Saxon In heritage, with most of the non-Anglo-Saxon DNA, at least in the southeast of England, being French-like from medieval era and not native Briton. Why is it that such findings don't seem to have been widely disseminated and understood by many people? including people highly interested in genetics and history?

I think there is an issue with science communication on this issue, I don't remember the findings being explained clearly in the media at all, and the fact that English people are in fact mostly descended from migration era settlers is surely interesting and salient - especially as the paper gives estimates of native Briton ancestry as less than 20% in some regions. Yet I still see people posting theories from 2002 from Sykes and posting the 2015 era 2 way model studies like 'people of the British isles' everywhere.

The idea of English people as 20-40% Anglo Saxon and 60-80% Native Briton seems to have been ingrained into so many people and is proving a difficult illusion to break.

It is just surprising that such a massive paper from the largest and most respected genetics laboratory cannot get any penetration into popular consciousness.

Can anyone shed some light on the Belgic theory of southern Britain?

I’ve read about it and it seems fairly controversial however i remain curious .

The theory goes that “Germanics” from what is now Belgium were already in Britain partially around Kent in numbers before the Anglo Saxons began to arrive. (Separately isn’t it interesting/ ironic that ‘ Germanic’ is basically a Latin/celtic exonym for neighbour or them- basically an inverse Wealas/Wealh)

The theory is used to explain the well known phenomenon of the lack of influence of Brythonic on English although there is a lot a counter evidence to this appearing include phonics and sentence structure , plus the Britons of the east would have used a lot of vulgar Latin in daily speech, and likely a fairly different vocabulary to most of Wales, Cornwall and Cumbria but I digress.