Is "Anglo-Saxon" an impolite term ?

Here are some questions from my pal hippo for you to ponder on - and to contribute a comment if you feel so inclined.

1. Why do the French refer to us on occasions as Anglo-Saxons ?

2. Who is included in that description - is it just the English, or does it include the Scots, the Welsh and the Northern Irish ?

3. What is the term "Anglo-Saxon" intended to convey that is not adequately described by the term British, English etc ?

4. Is the term Anglo-Saxon intended to be pejorative ? If so, mildly or strongly ?

5. Anglo-Saxons are described in some history books as 'barbarian invaders'. Is the term Anglo-Saxon synonomous with barbarian ?

6. When the French refer to Anglo-Saxon economics, which of the following countries is included: : Britain, Ireland, the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa ?

7. If it is OK to refer to Britons, or British-derived stock as Anglo-Saxons, would it be equally OK to refer to the French as Franks, Gauls, or Normans ?

Re-discovered. Our 'Britannian' heritage

Gradually, little by little, the full implications of Oppenheimer’s obituary to our "Anglo-Saxon" identity sinks in. For those new to this site, look please at two earlier posts on this blog ("Discover your inner Basque" Part1 & Part 2).

To recap, briefly, there's a Professor Stephen Oppenheimer of Oxford University who has painstakingly gathered sophisticated, high-tech genetic data proving that the British are just as indigenous to Britain as the Aborigines are to Australia, or the Inuit to the Arctic. Forget all that nonsense, he says, about Celts being the true Britons, or the English really being “Anglo-Saxons”, relatively new arrivals from the land of the Angles (Denmark) or Saxony on the north German plain.

All of us, he says, English, Scots, Welsh, and even the Irish ( yes the Irish as well, bless their little linen socks ) are for the most part descended from Basque immigrants. It was these hardy folk, Europe’s great survivors, who migrated from their homeland, in the Pyrenees, and who re-populated Britain after the last Ice Age. But it happened so long ago (15,000 years) that Britain was then still part of Continental Europe, joined by a land bridge.

So the new arrivals would have had to make some effort to get on with their new neighbours. At some point these Basque settlers dumped their own language in favour of the local lingua franca (hardly surprising, one might think, looking at the complexity of Basque, at least to our eyes and ears: Basque is like no other language).

In so doing the Basques became 'proto-British', in exactly the same way, many millennia later, a group of Scandinavian settlers in northern France adopted the local language, dropped their own, and in so doing became proto-French. We call them the Normans ( a good name because it alludes to their origins).

Oppenheimer has some other surprises too (while straying away from hard genetics into more contentious areas of linguistics): he believes that English is NOT derived from a 5th century Germanic tongue, brought in by Anglo-Saxon settlers, as we were told at school, but from an earlier Germanic tongue that was established well before the Roman invasion.

So our genes are mainly (typically 80-90%) indigenous, rather than foreign imports. We are not mongrels, Heinz 57 varieties, forced to console ourselves with the thought that what we may lack in ethnic authenticity, in finely groomed pedigree status, we hopefully make up for in hybrid vigour.

Whether we consider ourselves as English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish, we are all “British”. Ah, but meaning what, you may ask ? A second generation Jamaican living in Manchester is British, but is unlikely to have Basque genes, and is indeed very happy with the ones he has got. Whilst not especially enamoured of my first name, I’d have been very happy to have Powell as a surname, all nicely preceded by General, with gold braid, chauffered limousine and salary to match ! Yes, Colin (“Coe-leen”) Powell has a Jamaican Mum and Dad.

So if we want to talk meaningfully about our origins in pre-history - our roots- what we are clearly lacking is a word that is a collective for the indigenous population of the British Isles , ie GB and Ireland (Eire and Ulster) prior to the arrival of more recent immigrants.

But I can't think of one, off the top of my head. So let’s invent one, for the purpose of this exercise, to avoid possible confusion, and likewise to avoid giving offence to the many splendid folk of so-called New Commonwealth origin. Many of them have contributed in numerous ways, large and small, to modern British society.

How about “Basque-British” or simply “Basquish” for starters?

There's one drawback : 15,000 years is a long time to be separated from one's antecedents. A lot of water has flowed under the bridge. Actually, there's quite a lot we share in common - raising sheep, fishing, building ships etc. But the problem has been that language of their's. A lot of Brits have learned to speak Spanish, both Castilian and Catalan. But how many do you know how can speak Basque ? As I say, we've lost contact with our forbears. The linguistic phone went dead a long time ago. We both of us hung up. So few of us will rush precipately into calling ourselves Basquish.

So while we gradually get back on speaking terms, let’s look for a different name for ourselves, enlighted with Oppenheimer's research and scholarship.

There are many folk these days who make no secret of their dissatisfaction with the term "British". I know I do. It’s too vague to mean anything useful. Some have now retreated back to their "footballing" national identity.

That’s been true of the proud Scots and other minority nations for a long time. More recently, the English have begun describing themselves as such, ie English, and rediscovering the Cross of St. George, and places to hang it on their windowsills.

Some of this resurgence of nationalism has been spurred on by Scottish devolution, the unresolved Lothian question, and the fact that your Scottish aunt gets better treatment north of the border from the so-called NHS. Many of us, then, view the retreat into, say Englishness, from Britishness, with some regret, and with a degree of suspicion that with it may come a hidden, rabidly right-wing political agenda.

And there are those of us who, while ready to dump "British" as an outdated label, regret seeming to distance ourselves from our fellow members of the United Kingdom. There's a sense of having thrown out the baby with the bath water.

Here’s a suggestion. The Romans had a

name for the island that we call Great

Britain. They called it Britannia. And what

did the Romans ever do for us, apart from giving us a regal-sounding name ?

Well, as you see, they put us on their map of the known world. And that was just for starters.

So why don’t we, descended from the original inhabitants of Great Britain, nay the entire British isles, who are possessed largely of aboriginal genes, so we are told, start calling ourselves Britannians ?

Why ? It's the heritage thing, stupid. It's so as to stop feeling as if we were Johnny-Come -Lately's. Like Tartars off the Central European steppe. And it would provide a welcome, re-invigorated reconnection with our national icon Britannia who graces our coins, and some of our stamps.

And there are one or two fine statues of that charismatic lady (Maggie Thatcher Mark 1 ?) in London and elsewhere. Or am I thinking of Boadicea ? Never mind, the two look a bit similar, chiselled features an' all and no one ever questions the British credentials of that warrior queen. It was, after all, she who anticipated James Bond's inventive pal Q in the axle-mounted blade department by about 2000 years, putting the Romans to flight. Well, for a while, at any rate.

So that's the problem sorted then, as far as the English, Scots and Welsh are concerned. Oh yes, and the Cornish.

But that leaves the problem what to call the Irish ? Oh dear, there's just no escaping that Irish Question.

Well, one thing's for certain. The inhabitants of the Irish Republic (Eire) will probably not be rushing to celebrate their genetic kinship with us Brits, so are not a problem.

The difficulty as ever, is with those folk in the north, they of the Scottish antecedents, we are told. Although before that I understand they were Irish, like, you know, Irish Irish. (It’s all so complicated ! ).

The Irish may not be Britannian, in the Roman sense of the word, but let's not get hung up on Latin semantics: if the Irish want to be called the same as us, then let them (just as they presently call themselves British, despite there being a touch of geopolitical licence there).

The Romans called the island of Ireland “Hibernia”. By this reckoning, the Rev Ian Paisley could be described as “Hiberno-Britannian”. I'm sure he's had some less flattering descriptions in his time. But in the event that even he, with his formidable tongue, might find "Hiberno-Britannian" too much of a mouthful, he might prefer to go on calling himself an Ulsterman, or just plain British (on the assumption that he won't be confused with the Paisleys who divide their time between Brixton and Kingston. Kingston, Jamaica that is).

All this semantic ground-work is in preparation for tomorrow’s post. It’s to placate a little fellow who’s been crashing around on a certain hippo- campus for days, staging endless protests, sit-ins, waving placards, having tantrums, demanding instant solutions, immediate redress.

I'm now a model of composure, I'll have you know.

So what’s got hippo so worked up ? Well, I'll tell you. It began with his reading about Stephen Oppenheimer. And it progressed from there. And it's all come to be focused on one little word. Correction: two hyphenated words. It’s that term that the French have for us, whenever the subject of economic and social policy differences arise, which is like – every day. You’ve guessed it. Anglo-Saxon.

Yes, hippo demands action and redress. And if he doesn’t get it, then you know what ? He’ll start to retaliate in kind, by referring to the French* as, guess what ? Normans !

Read what hippo has to say tomorrow, dear friends.

*Well, the northern ones at least. Not my antiboulenc* next-door neighbours, perish the thought. Some of our best friends (now) are French.

Antiboulenc, in case you were wondering, is the old Provencal word meaning “belonging or pertaining to Antibes” . My wife is active in the Antiboulenc Society. The modern rendering is Antibois, a term I avoid. Can’t risk having the party hostess think I’m teetotal.

Discover your inner Basque (Part 1)

Years ago there was a fellow expatriate - a Welshman - at a school I taught at in Ghana. We'll call him by his initials , A J. (You can probably guess what the J stands for). AJ painted in his spare time, strange fusions of European and African art , mixing Roman Catholic and animist imagery - and liked to disport himself as a creative type. This was a reflection he said of his Celtic genes. The Celts he said, were the original pre-Roman inhabitants of Britain, with a long cultural tradition, in contrast to myself, a West Londoner, who was an Anglo-Saxon - a Johnny- come -lately . You had to hand it to the Anglo-Saxons , he said - they certainly had practical skills- but in most other respects they were cultural philistines, lacking a soul.

Well, A, I wish you were here right now, reading this blog. Does the name Stephen Oppenheimer mean anything to you ? If not, then you are in for a big surprise, along with probably millions of other who think or assume that Britons divide into two groups:

1. Anglo-Saxons in the heartlands, invaders from mainland Europe following the departure of the Romans

2. The Celtic fringe - the "real" Britons, driven off the plains, and into the hills and mountains by those fierce warlike Nordic and Germanic invaders .

You see, according to Stephen Oppenheimer, who's a genetics Professor at Oxford University, there's really not a lot of difference, genetically speaking, between Brits in the heartland, and those at the fringes. In fact to label them Anglo-Saxons and Celts is totally misleading, because only 10% -20% or so of their genes on average derive from either of those two ethnic stocks. The remainder are all of the same origin, and if you don't know, or haven't heard yet, what that is, then prepare to have your socks blown off.


Because according to Oppenheimer, we inherited most our present genes from Basque ancestors in pre-history. And that's true whether you are English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish !

Those ancestors settled in Britain some 15,000 years ago, while it was still joined to the Continent by a land bridge.

Thus the title of this piece, and the graphic above of the Basque shepherd at peace with the world.


This is quite a big subject to tackle, and my role here will be merely that of facilitator. I have little if anything by way of specialist knowledge, but when something interests me, then I waste no time in using first my battered Joy of Knowlege Encyclopaedia, circa 1980, and then this wonderful Internet to get acquainted.

Today's instalment will centre of the mysterious Basque language, and what it tells us, or doesn't, about the origins of the Basque identity.

Tomorrow's is about the modern and exciting genetic evidence that Oppenheimer has gathered to support his view that we Brits are for the most part derived from Basques who emigrated to the British Isles some 15000 years ago. And contrary to received wisdom, we resisted cultural assimilation by wave after wave of later settlers: the Celts, Vikings, Angles, Saxons and Normans .

One wonders what the Middle English was for "oversexed and over here". Or: "Yes, my daughter would love you to call by, Fritz, now she's nearly over her mumps. "

This is what I call a "piton post". I don't like writing for more than a half hour or so at a stretch, so will post now, so that my one or two regulars know what's in store. I'll return later, refreshed and caffeine-infused, with some more goodies. In the meantime, here's something to be looking at. Can you spot the English and Celtic tongues ? Can you also spot the Basque language ? (Click to enlarge)

ed. Oops, it doesn't enlarge. Click instead on this link to the Indo-European family tree

OK, so English and Celtic are both there on the Indo-European tree. But not Basque. So is it somewhere else - on the non I-E part of the tree ?

Nope. The simple answer is that that the Basque language, aka Euskara, has withstood all attempts on the part of scholars to link it to any other known language - either in Europe, or anywhere else in the world for that matter.

If the Basque language is unique, then it suggests strongly that its speakers are NOT long haul immigrants who had ambled in footsore from some distant part of Europe or Asia. They are truly indigenous to the present Basque region, in Northern Spain, and SW France, and have been since time immemorial. It's reckoned that the Basques were established in N Spain during the Stone Age, and probably earlier, and have been there ever since.

Put another way, they are Europe's great survivors, despite their being stubborn stay-putters. Everyone else around – the Catalans, the Castilians for example - all are new kids on the block, with the proviso that each page in your calendar represents a millennium.

What about Basque as a language ? If you want to hear how it sounds, here's a fun website, where you can hear Basque spoken

Here's what it look like when you get there (click to enlarge):

One simply clicks on the loudspeakers to hear the phrases.

The sounds you hear are reasonably close to the spellings, which might make you think the language would be easy to learn. But do not be deceived? It is, we are told, a devilishly difficult language to master, certainly if you are aiming for fluency. Why is that ?

Wikipedia lists its "peculiarities". Without labouring them, here, in green, is a sample of what awaits you :

Basque is an ergative-absolutive language. The subject of an intransitive verb is in the absolutive case (which is unmarked), and the same case is used for the direct object of a transitive verb. The subject of the transitive verb (that is, the agent) is marked differently, with the ergative case (shown by the suffix -k). This also triggers main and auxiliary verbal agreement.
The auxiliary verb which accompanies most main verbs agrees not only with the subject, but with the direct object and the indirect object, if present. Among European languages, this polypersonal system (multiple verb agreement) is only found in Basque and some Caucasian languages. The ergative-absolutive alignment is also unique among European languages, and rather rare worldwide.
Consider the phrase:
Martinek egunkariak erosten dizkit.
"Martin buys the newspapers for me."
Martin-ek is the agent (transitive subject), so it is marked with the ergative case ending -k (with an epenthetic -e-). Egunkariak has an -ak ending which marks plural object (plural absolutive, direct object case). The verb is erosten dizkit, in which erosten is a kind of gerund ("buying") and the auxiliary dizkit indicates:
di- marks a verb with the equivalent of both a direct and an indirect object, in the present tense;
-zki- marks the equivalent of a plural direct object (in this case the newspapers; if it were singular there would be no infix); and
-t is the equivalent of the indirect object mark: "to/for me".
in this instance an unmarked or "null case" equates to the "nork", which in most European languages would be the subject.
The phrase:
"you buy the newspapers for me" would translate as:
Zuek egunkariak erosten dizkidazue
The auxiliary verb is composed as di-zki-da-zue
(equivalent terms in European languages)
di- = direct object
-zki- = marks plural of direct object
-da- = indirect object (to/for me) {-t becomes -da- when intercalated.}
-zue = subject (you pl.)
A Basque noun is inflected in 17 different ways for case, multiplied by 4 ways for its definiteness and number. These first 68 forms are further modified based on other parts of the sentence, which in turn are inflected for the noun again. It's been estimated that at two levels of recursion, a Basque noun may have 458,683 inflected forms (Agirre et al, 1992).

Ouch ! One wonders if the first prehistoric Basque "Founding Fathers" who set sail for Britain all those thousands of years ago were perhaps fleeing linguistic persecution. And the first decision on arrival in Cornwall or wherever would have been to name the rocky headland a cliff if there was just one, or cliffs if more than one, and leave it at that. Freedom !

What is the evidence for Basque being an ancient language ? Very little direct evidence, unsurprising since it was not written down before the 16 th century. No ancient stone tablets.

ed: the above sentence was drafted a few day ago, but I have just this minute chanced upon a recent update to Wikipedia, that now contradicts it.

In June 2006, archaeologists at the site of Iruña-Veleia discovered an epigraphic set with a series of 270 Basque inscriptions and drawings from the third century. [1] Some of the words and phrases found were "urdin" (blue), "zuri" (white), "gori" (red), "edan" (drink) "ian" (eat), "lo" (sleep), "Iesus, Iose ata ta Mirian ama" (Jesus, the father Joseph and the mother Mary), and "Geure ata zutan" (May the Father be with you). This discovery shows once again that the basque language is a very stable one.

Well now, we learn new things all the time !

And here's something interesting: the Basque words for axe and knife are closely related to that of stone. Scholars believe that those words were coined thousands of years ago, in the Stone Age era. Put another way, and with no pejorative overtones whatsoever, Basque appears to be a Stone Age language, albeit one that has evolved, and has imported and adopted many foreign words from Latin etc.


A sizeable number of Basques emigrated to the United States during the 19th century. Many were initially attracted to the gold mines, but often defaulted, so to speak, to sheep farming, with which they were more at home.

I have yet to read Stephen Oppenheimer's book. I will be interested to see how he addresses the issue of the English language, given we are descendants of early Basques.
However, it would be wrong to suppose that an immigrant group, finding itself in new territory, separated from their native homeland by hundreds of miles of ocean, and surrounded by new neighbours, should retain their own language.

There are strong incentives, in fact, to adopt that of their neighbours, their new trading partners ( or possibly old ones!). This is what the Normans did. They were originally Norsemen, as the name indicates, who migrated south into present day France, and who quickly, within the space of a few generations went so completely native that, by the time of the Norman invasion, it was a 11th century form of French they introduced into England, subsequently to be called Anglo-Norman.

But despite this Conquest, and some intermarriage with the locals (or the more predatory droit de seigneur if you recall a particularly ugly scene in Braveheart), the Normans and other invaders have left very little evidence in the genetic record. Clearly our Brit ancestors were very fussy about whom they would let their daughters marry ! I mean to say, blacksmith John, would you let your daughter marry one of those frenchified Normans ?

So why don't we still have the odd word or two of Basque origin in English ? In fact there is one – "bizarre" - which seems appropriate, although it's a late arrival.

Oh, and did you know that Arizona is from Basque, meaning "good wood " ? Nope, I didn't think you did. Nor did I until quite recently (yesterday) .