Cumbrians--the seventh Celtic Nation? How can their language/culture/identity survive?

There appears to have been longer British/Angle cohabitation in Lindsey than most places, around 100 years. This comprised surviving Roman-British elites and a fairly peaceful transfer of power, with Britons involved in the AS genealogy of the kings of Lindsey. The last factor goes for Wessex as well, but there is tonnes of other evidence for Lindsey.
The material and the few historical evidence we have for other coastal areas seems to go in the same sense : the insistence of Kentish king to title themselves "Kings of Cantium" or "Kings of Cantians" is a pretty clear insistance on an institutional continuity from post-Imperial Britain. It appears that these coastal petty-kingdoms were born out of a mixity of German settlers (not only from North-West Germany directly, but from Germans in Gaul and Scandinavians as well) and the local Britto-Roman population. And while I agree Lindsey provides with more evidences on this regard, it's rather from our own point of view than Northumbrians that might not have see a big difference between Lindsey and, say, East-Anglia and collectively named Southumbrians what was not part of their own political construction (Northumbria being "artificial" enough to see the lasting use "Bernicia and Deira" preferred from time to time), which is my whole point on this (and certainly not to deny the conditions of early Germanic petty-kingdoms in England we agree on).
 
Maybe if we extend the brief Kentish hegemony while slowing Christianization outside of it. Kent, the only Christian center in the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms is attacked by the Mercians or East Anglians and calls for aid from the Franks, leading to an Frankish intervention to bring Christianity to the north.
It's going to be a problem : Kentish hegemony was heavily reliant over its connection with North Sea/Rhine and Channel/Seine trade to the point it's more than likely that the kingdom was under Frankish dominance in the VIth, and that a good part of its structuration was taken from its powerful neighbour. This includes a big stress on Christianisation.
 
There appears to have been longer British/Angle cohabitation in Lindsey than most places, around 100 years. This comprised surviving Roman-British elites and a fairly peaceful transfer of power, with Britons involved in the AS genealogy of the kings of Lindsey. The last factor goes for Wessex as well, but there is tonnes of other evidence for Lindsey.

Yes possibly, there is no “actual” evidence for peaceful cohabitation or otherwise and therefore a lack of evidence is no guarantee that tensions did not arise.

Also unfortunately I may be first to mention him in this particular thread but according to Nennius many of the battles attributed by him to Arthur occurred in Linnius not to mention also a battle at the River Glen the nomenclature of said river occurs just twice in the British Isles one in the North East of England and one in Lincolnshire. I am not saying Nennius is correct but any shared even if incorrect memory of actual battles may still indicate conflict in the said area.
 
Yes possibly, there is no “actual” evidence for peaceful cohabitation or otherwise and therefore a lack of evidence is no guarantee that tensions did not arise.
There is evidence for continuity of Britto-Roman and Germanic settlements in the VIth centuries, tough. It does not imply a particularily peaceful situation and even less there were no tensions : but the question arises of much of these conflicts were actually ethnic-based and not politically-based between two social-political entities that growingly differentiated themselves in the same period (which certainly helped, with a significant North Sea/Channel migration, fusion of populations on a Germanic basis).

I agree that relatively close (chronologically) choniclers perception of the area isn't to be ignored for the sake of it, but the necessity of Germanic mercenaries and semi-foedi (so to speak) may not have arisen from Pictish and Gaelic raiding, but from internal strife as well that is was eventually understable (especially with a VIIth century perception, where ethno-political identities were settling down) to paint as "us vs. them" especially following Gildas' exemple.
 

Brunaburh

Gone Fishin'
The material and the few historical evidence we have for other coastal areas seems to go in the same sense : the insistence of Kentish king to title themselves "Kings of Cantium" or "Kings of Cantians" is a pretty clear insistance on an institutional continuity from post-Imperial Britain. It appears that these coastal petty-kingdoms were born out of a mixity of German settlers (not only from North-West Germany directly, but from Germans in Gaul and Scandinavians as well) and the local Britto-Roman population. And while I agree Lindsey provides with more evidences on this regard, it's rather from our own point of view than Northumbrians that might not have see a big difference between Lindsey and, say, East-Anglia and collectively named Southumbrians what was not part of their own political construction (Northumbria being "artificial" enough to see the lasting use "Bernicia and Deira" preferred from time to time), which is my whole point on this (and certainly not to deny the conditions of early Germanic petty-kingdoms in England we agree on).

Yes, I'd tend to agree on your conclusions re: Northumbria. There's also the textual evidence of the survival of Christianity in Kent until the time of the augustinian mission.

Yes possibly, there is no “actual” evidence for peaceful cohabitation or otherwise and therefore a lack of evidence is no guarantee that tensions did not arise.
.

I'd agree on the "absence of evidence =/= evidence of absence" question, but archaeological remains in Lindsey are hard to square with anything other than a long period of coexistence in a very tight geographical area. It may have ended badly (most things do) but the period of dual elites who seem to have intermarried was substantial and significant.
 
Yes, I'd tend to agree on your conclusions re: Northumbria. There's also the textual evidence of the survival of Christianity in Kent until the time of the augustinian mission.



I'd agree on the "absence of evidence =/= evidence of absence" question, but archaeological remains in Lindsey are hard to square with anything other than a long period of coexistence in a very tight geographical area. It may have ended badly (most things do) but the period of dual elites who seem to have intermarried was substantial and significant.

What evidence are we actually referring to? Is it possible to be specific? Having studied this topic due to my genuine local interest there are plenty of “legends” which support a more tumultuous co existence and frankly I don’t think anyone can definitively give credibility to either position.

For example according to legend Vortigern gave the important roman settlement of Caistor to the incoming mercenaries who then used this base as a staging point for military expansion.

The settlement of Tetford is also steeped in legend a great battle has been alleged to have occurred here between a British leader and the Saxons.

Legends however are just that, legends but warrior graves both Romano British and Saxon have been unearthed and yet this is no t irrefutable evidence of conflict it still points to a warrior culture. Such as the female Anglo Saxon warrior grave in Ancaster near Lincoln.

Whilst no large set piece battles have been found in the archeology neither have large set piece battles been found elsewhere in the Uk In any great number. Indeed there is no physical evidence for Brunaburh but I am confident in my own mind that this happened. Such a “great battle” and yet no evidence so I wouldn’t point to the lack of evidence in Lindsey as a direct correlation to the lack of conflict.
 
It may have ended badly (most things do) but the period of dual elites who seem to have intermarried was substantial and significant.
Dual elites aren't really obvious, AFAIK, though. It's quite possible that relatively acephalic Germanic communities, mixing with remaining Britton communities took the lead thanks to better connection with kin groups in the North Sea, notably along the Frisian and Channel coast, natural mouths to Seine and Rhine trade roads to Mediterranean trade centers.
Especially giving that Britto-Roman culture went trough a severe collapse at this point: IIRC, the Brittons archeological find after the Vth are in their crushing majority objects from graves or familial heirloom that were still used but not made anymore.

Britons elites are more spottable in western ensembles, with a stress on (apparently) landowning and political dominance grounds, and were deprived of these connections and court-to-court trade from Gaul, which is probably one of the main key from the transformation of acephalic communities into strong chiefdoms (simple then complex) in a relatively quick time (one of the other being that they sat on remembered, rather than maintained strictly speaking, old geopolitical territories).

What evidence are we actually referring to? Is it possible to be specific?
Mostly material culture evidence, with communities in the East being tied to what existed on North Sea coasts, broadly so at least, with a continued use of old Britton objects (altough less on a maintained use, than "remembered" due to the use of old objects rather than continuously made); the permanence of some post-imperial settlements, and some toponymic evidence that Brittons names were translated as such in German speeches.

It doesn't imply peaceful cohabitation at the latest, but in conjunction with historical sources, it's enough to theorize a social/cultural mix-up.

Robin Fleming made a good summary of this, IMO, in Britain after Rome.
 
Last edited:

Brunaburh

Gone Fishin'
What evidence are we actually referring to? Is it possible to be specific? Having studied this topic due to my genuine local interest there are plenty of “legends” which support a more tumultuous co existence and frankly I don’t think anyone can definitively give credibility to either position.

Sure yeah.

The continuity of settlement in Lincoln, including its church building (site of present St Paul-in-the-Bail), expanded in the 6th century and probably demolished and rebuilt as the Anglo-Saxons took over the British church. This is further supported the lack of AS cremation cemeteries around Lincoln, showing a stretch of land where Anglo-Saxon culture can't be demonstrated until the later 6th century, surrounded by areas where AS were clearly present. In these cemetery areas, high-status Anglo-Saxon metalwork is found which is absent from the area around Lincoln, contrasting with York, Leicester, Ancaster and Caistor in Norfolk where AS cemeteries and metalwork are found right by the Roman walls. There is also the presence of British style "type I" broaches in Lincolnshire which are absent from the AS territories, but present in the British controlled regions further north and west, there is also evidence for their local production. This is mirrored by the presence of British-type hanging bowls, which appear all over Lincolnshire (indicating adoption by local AS populations) but rarely anywhere else Anglo-Saxon. The distribution of these finds suggests a degree of acculturation by British elites in conquered areas, and a certain adoption of British mores by AS individuals.

In addition there are the linguistic arguments, the one possible (Cretta) and one definite (Caedbaed) Celtic name in the kinglist of Lindsey (and it's a very short list if we ignore fictional characters). We also have the British names Vasso and Turch attested in AS placenames near Lincoln, showing British-named individuals were important in contemporary Lindsey society, we don't get that at all in East Anglia or Kent, where any Celtic toponyms are geographical. And the name Lindsey itself which is best explained as a wholly Celtic name Lind-issi, the men of *Lindes (Lincoln), which requires a 5th-6th century Celtic polity to have been coined. This is unlike Kent, whose attested forms only require knowledge of the Latin name existing when the AS arrived. The name underwent a rational development in Welsh to Linnuis, where it is mentioned in sources that refer to Linnuis men as Britons. There is also the name of Lissingleys, which probably contains Welsh "Llys", royal court.

It is also worth mentioning the legend of Havelok, first attested in the 12th century, which mentions Orwain "the sister of the king of Lincoln and Lindesi" who is "a Briton".

This strongly suggests, as an ensemble, a long period of stable coexistence between a British polity and AS polities, which, despite the possibility of violence at times, generally mixed together and formed an alliance. These polities merged in the late 6th century, with the AS element dominant culturally, but with elements of the British elite co-opted, and a degree of mutual understanding which allowed the continuation of Christianity in Lincoln. It is likely these 6th century polities were often in conflict with other groups, both AS and British, and the traditions of battles recorded later could easily apply to mixed ethnicity armies on both sides.

There is some amazing work on this by Caitlin Green, which you should enjoy!
 
Last edited:
I hail from the Kingdom of Lindsey.
As do I (see username) albeit from Grimsby which is almost certainly Danish not British!
From my admittedly VERY limited knowledge of the time, there were more British (I hesitate to call them Romano-British) holdouts in what became England than most realise. The wolds of Lincolnshire and the pennine areas of Elmet to name two. There is a reason that Pen-y-ghent in the Dales is so called despite everybody who rolled over the area in later times (although it is cumbric in origin and Rheged survived in some form until Edwin).
 
Top