Ancient England had an apartheid caste system?

Another link http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=588&art_id=qw1153228321565B216


Britain - The Anglo-Saxons who conquered England in the fifth century set up a system of apartheid that enabled them to master and outbreed the native British majority, according to gene research published on Wednesday.

In less than 15 generations, more than half of the population in England had the genes of the invaders, investigators say.

"The native Britons were genetically and culturally absorbed by the Anglo-Saxons over a period of as little as a few hundred years," said Mark Thomas, a University College London biologist.

"An initially small invading Anglo-Saxon elite could have quickly established themselves by having more children who survived to adulthood, thanks to their military power and economic advantage.

"We believe that they also prevented the native British genes getting into the Anglo-Saxon population by restricting intermarriage in a system of apartheid that left the country culturally and genetically Germanised," he said.

"This is what we see today - a population of largely Germanic genetic origin, speaking a principally German language."

Thomas believes the study, published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, a British journal, answers key questions about one of the turning points in European history.

The Anglo-Saxons - Germanic tribes who lived in present-day Germany, northern Holland and Denmark - invaded Britain in 450 AD after the fall of the Roman empire.

They conquered England but were unable to penetrate far into the Celtic fringes of what are now Wales and Scotland. They coincidentally prompted an exodus of Britons to what is now Brittany, France.

The population of England at that time was probably around two million while the number of Anglo-Saxons was minute: the lowest estimate puts the number of migrants at less than than 10 000 some 200 years after the invasion, although others put it at more than 100 000.

How could such a tiny minority have ruled a country so emphatically?

How could it skirt assimilation with the native British majority and impose a language, laws, economy and culture whose stamp is visible today?

The answer, suggest Thomas and colleagues: an "apartheid-like social structure" that enshrined Anglo-Saxons as the master and the native Britons (called "Welshmen", from the Germanic word for slave) as the servants.

Evidence for this comes from ancient texts, including the laws of Ine, the late seventh-century ruler of Wessex, an Anglo-Saxon kingdom in western England.

Ine set down payments of "wergild", or blood money, that was payable to a family for the killing of one of its members in order to prevent a blood feud.

If an Anglo-Saxon was killed, the wergild was between two and five times more than the fine payable for the life of a "Welshman" of comparable status.

Burial sites also provide a pointer about economic and social disparity.

The skeletal remains of men believed to be Anglo-Saxons are often found alongside a weapon or other precious artefacts, whereas those of native Britons are usually weaponless and have only one or two objects.

In previous work, Thomas' team compared the gene pool among native, white Englishmen in central England today and counterparts in the ancestral lands of the Anglo-Saxons.

They found that the two groups shared between 50 percent and 100 percent of telltale variations in the male sex chromosome, Y.

In the latest research, he used computer simulations to try to explain how segregation would have enabled the Anglo-Saxons to flourish and the native Britons to decline.

The computer model uses various scenarios involving the size of the immigration influx, different ethnic intermarriage rates and the reproductive advantage of being Anglo-Saxon, with more wealth and resources.

Apartheid is best known today for the notorious racial segregation that prevailed in white-minority South Africa.

But the authors point out that there are many other examples in history, when conquerors or settlers used such controls to avoid assimilation, nurture their identity and maintain their political, military or economic supremacy over an ethnic majority.

By the time of King Alfred the Great in the ninth century, the differences in legal status between Anglo-Saxons and Britons had faded out altogether.

Two centuries later, the Normans invaded England and imposed their own apartheid, giving themselves higher legal status than the Britons and allowing Norman men to marry native women but preventing native men from marrying Norman women. - Sapa-AFP

I think the idea of Germanic tribes assimilating the Britons is pure and utter garbage.For a start look at the language,placenames etc and Gildas himself our only main chronicler of the time told us the Romano-British were butchered or sold into slavery wholesale.
Without a doubt during the Fifth and sixth centuries the pagan Germanic tribes massacred great numbers of Britons and pushed many westwards or to Brittany or Ireland.This is again confimed with much relish in the Anglo-Saxon chronicle and in various Irish chronicles also.

Welsh does neither mean `Slaves` nor `Foreigners`,it actually means `those under Roman rule` or in some cases `Romans`.

By the seventh century we are talking a whole new kettle of fish,the majority of Saxonic folk were now at least Nominal christians.As the laws of Ine indicate and the conquest of Elmet by Edwin,it appears that the christian Saxons indeed assimilated the Britons of the area.
Around the year 638 AD Oswiu, who would become the King of Northumbria, married Riemmelth, a direct descendant of Urien of Rheged and a Princess of the kingdom. This peaceable alliance between the British and English nations signalled the beginning of the end of Cumbrian independence, as Angles from the north east began to filter into the Eden Valley and along the north and south coasts of the county.
Another example from the seventh Century would be the pagan kingdom of Mercia ruled by Penda most possibly as junior partner to Cadwallon,king of Britons and of Gwynedd in Alliance.Later upon Cadwallons death,Penda continued his alliance with the Welsh rulers at least Cadafael ap Cynfeddw of Gwynedd and at least the rulers of the Kingdoms of Gwent,Powys and Pengwern.

I will point out i have a large problem will Anglo-Saxon experts who will gladly tell us about the conquest of Britain.Heres my beef:The Germanic tribes were here as federates even when the Roman Empire was still about,the Hengist episode starts around 449AD(or 426 to some)then the Saxons conquer Kent.OK problem,what do they do the next 100 years just sit about sharpening there axes by the beach!Clovis ruled France in under 50 years(ok much by assimilation).Just look at the first kings we have of East Anglia and Mercia,we have nothing really until the seventh century,im not believing those areas just sat stagnant.I will take the idea that perhaps the original settlers of the Kingdoms of Wessex and Sussex were originally intending to settle in the more hospitable climate of Gaul until they saw Clovis reigned supreme there.Though i do not at all believe that the Germanic tribes just sat by the seashore until the time of Aethelfrith and Ceawlin.