The Ancient Anglo-Frisian Hypothesis

The Frisian languages are the closest living languages to English. West Frisian in particular is very similar. On top of this, Frisians are very genetically similar to the English. A 2002 study noted that samples from Central England and Friesland were "statistically indistinguishable."

The common explanation for this situation is that Anglo-Saxons colonised both England and Friesland. The famed Anglo-Saxon invasion of England following the collapse of Roman rule in the one case, and a slightly less bloody migration of Anglo-Saxons into the underpopulated region of Freesia in the other.

There are a few issues with this theory though. The first, and most apparent, is how two separated peoples managed to develop a language so similar. Languages more similar to each other than either are to the common ancestor language - in this case Anglo-Saxon, aka Old English.

For instance, here are a few examples:

(click to enlarge)

Compare this to a passage from the famed Old English poem Beowulf:

Though, in the interests of fairness, here are the above common phrases translated into Old English.

(Again, click to enlarge)

Clearly these are likewise very similar to modern English, especially when we note that the letter thorn gives us the th sound.

Hwaet is this?

Hu micel is this?

Hwaet is thin nama? (What is thine name?)

Wa hast thu of? (Where hast thou of?)

Ic gehyre the? (I hear thee?)

All very Yorkshire sounding, bah gum ..but nevertheless easily translated into English. So the official theory isn't lacking in merit either. Still, the similarity of West Frisian to modern English is quite striking. Surely after a thousand years or more we'd see divergence and further lack of intelligibility.

Not, Wat is jo namme?

A further sticking point is that we have a Frisian people in existence before the Anglo-Saxon migration into that region. According to Roman records a people called the Frisii lived in this region. They're quite well attested to as well.

The official narrative states that these ancient Frisians left the area due to changes in the climate, notably sea level rises, in the 3rd to 5th centuries. Leaving the area underpopulated. As conditions improved Angles and Saxons then moved in to repopulate the region. They also ended up acquiring the moniker Frisian. Becoming the modern Frisians.

Obviously, this is a little bit convenient, as it allows for the common linguistic (and genetic) heritage of the English and the Frisians. Surely though it would be much more natural to just assume the ancient Frisians and the modern Frisians were one continuous people/culture.

I even came across a theory stating that Anglo-Frisian originally developed in Britain, and was seeded into Friesland by Anglo-Saxons that remigrated back to the continent from England.

So What's The Ancient Anglo-Frisian Hypothesis?

A more pleasing explanation would be that Anglo-Frisian (the ancestor of English and Frisian) preceded any Anglo-Saxon invasion -- i.e. that it was a common language across parts of Britain and continental Friesland in ancient times.

In effect, that Germanic peoples have always been in Britain, and didn't arrive for the first time post Roman occupation.

Just going from first principles this is perfectly reasonable, if not expected. It's generally thought that the Celtic peoples of Britain are contiguous with peoples from Gaul and Iberia. If waves of people from Western Europe can reach ancient Britain from across the sea, then there's no reason why Germanic tribes couldn't have done the same. Crossing the Channel or North Sea to reach the adjacent eastern half of the island. In fact, Britain was still somewhat attached to Europe via Doggerland just 8,000 years ago, approximately. We don't need to go that far back, but clearly there'll have been links across those waters prior to Rome's invasion of Britain, and not just subsequent to it.

So Germanic speaking peoples being in Britain prior to Roman occupation is realistic.

Furthermore, the demarcation between Germanic and Gaul in ancient times isn't altogether clear. Things tend to blur at the seams. So there's a lot of assumption going on when it comes to labels. Especially in the region opposite the south east of England. For example, the Belgae, a confederation of tribes living in northern Gaul between the Seine and the Rhine are generally considered to be Gaulish. However, Caesar, in his Bello Gallico, noted that "the greater part of the Belgae were sprung from the Germans."

Interestingly, we also find tribes on both sides of the English Channel with the same name.

(The Atrebates and Belgae

on both sides of the Channel)

It's also worth noting this following snippet regarding the ancient Frisians found on Wikipedia:

"The discovery of a type of earthenware unique to fourth century Frisia, called terp Tritzum, shows that an unknown number of them were resettled in Flanders and Kent, probably as laeti under Roman coercion."

Again showing cross channel interaction.

So perhaps it was the case that a Frisian-speaking tribal group spanned this divide in pre-Roman times.

(A crude map, showing the general

ancient Anglo-Frisian language region)

The Danelaw

This brings us to a further thing of note: namely the Danelaw. The Danelaw came into being in the late ninth century. So a few centuries after the Anglo-Saxon invasion. However, it's curious how well the map of the Danelaw parallels the map of the territories settled by the Angles.

Left: The Danelaw

Right: Angle and Saxon settlements

Obviously the maps aren't a perfect correlation. Plus, maps like this tend to be approximations anyway. Still, the general picture is noticeable. The North and East Anglia (the red area of the map) is both Angle country and Danelaw country.

It's also curious to note that the Angles essentially came from Denmark. Though, again, it's all much of muchness.

(Ignore the Jutes, 

the perennial third wheel)

This brings me to a third curiosity. That is, the following quote from the Greek historian Procopius, who lived during the 6th century AD. He stated:

"The island of Brittia is inhabited by three very numerous nations, each having one king over it. And the names of these nations are Angili, Frissones, and Brittones, the last being named from the island itself."

So Angles, Frisians and Britons. With no mention of Jutes or Saxons.

This seems a touch odd at first. However, if we equate the Frisians with the Saxons suddenly things make a lot more sense.

The Angles are the Danes.

The Britons are the native Welsh/Celtic peoples.

And the Frisians are the native Germanics/Saxons.

The Frisians are, of course, Germanic, being part of the wider Germanic language group. And Saxon is just another term for German. In Scottish Gaelic the name for England is Sasuun (Saxon), and in Welsh the English language is called Saesneg (again, Saxon).

It makes sense that Celtic people living in Britain would think of Frisians as just being German. Just as non-Celts would naturally label all Celts as Celtic, even though, on closer inspection, there may be multiple tribes, each speaking different variants of the language.

So Saxon and Frisian essentially mean the same thing in the context of England. This brings us back to our theory that Frisian (or Anglo-Frisian) existed in Britain before the Roman occupation. The Angles (i.e. Danes) being a later interloper into this Frisian-speaking region.

[Of course, in reality there'll have been lots of migrations and invasions over the centuries. Not just a single event. The general Anglo-Saxon origin myth essentially giving an exaggerated, but simplified narrative.]

The Evolution of the English Language

This returns us to the question of whether modern English developed from Old English/Anglo-Saxon - the commonly held view of academia. Or whether it developed from a deeper rooted ancient Anglo-Frisian language.

Not only do we have the uncanny similarity of English to West Frisian, people have also questioned how Anglo-Saxon could've evolved into the English of Geoffrey Chaucer in such a short space of time. Arriving via Angles and Saxons in the early Dark Age to become a unified and fully formed English by the Medieval Era. Perhaps the best elucidation of this view is M. J. Harper's The History of Britain Revealed. The book that started me down this avenue a good few years ago.

Following this theory the Anglo-Saxon language could be viewed as a sister language to English/Frisian, as opposed to the mother language of it. Perhaps spoken by Angles, or some ruling elite subset of the Angles, in contrast to the English spoken by the native Frisian/Saxons. After all, that most famous Anglo-Saxon text, Beowulf, takes place in what is now Denmark (and Sweden).

Doubtless the Anglo-Saxon language had some influence on the development of English, but a lesser one than is currently thought.

I think the question remains open-ended though. At least for me.