The English histories of the Saxons don’t usually go back beyond 400 AD, the time when they began to first plant themselves in their new island home. Some Historians make mention of their origins from the mainland of Europe, but most just leave their pre-English history a mysterious blank. Bill Cooper in his book on pre-christian Europe,(1) points out that while the Saxons were not as prolific as the Irish or Welsh, the blank page is not due to a lack of extant material written by the Saxons themselves. There is in fact a wealth of information about the pre-migration pagan Saxons, and it was all very well known in jolly old England up to fairly recent times.
The problem wasn’t the lack of material, but rather the content of the records that has caused them to have disappeared from the realm of common knowledge. You guessed it, the Saxon records traced the Saxons straight back to Noah through Japheth, and after the rise of Darwinism and the self acclaimed rationalism in the 1800’s, they fell out of vogue and were dimissed into swift retirement.
It was well known that back in the early 1600’s it was common for many castles in England to have large tapestries whcih traced the 6 lines of the Saxon clans back to Noah. (2) Groos. These are of course scoffed at by modern scholarship as products of a self promoting and imaginative Saxon nobility. Unfortunately for the intelligentsia, a myriad of much older material consisting of kings lists and genealogies also exists, which could haunt those doubters of the ancient record keepers.
And you have to wonder if the confidence of those early 19th century scoffers would have been dampened if they had known of the hundreds of ancient chronolgies and genealogies found in so many countries and particularly in the indigenous peoples of the world. Most of it recently discovered, often with very biblical sounding flood and creation stories. Perhaps not, but the fact that the Saxon histories are backed not only by the other European nations, but by most of the rest of the world as well, shouldn’t be ignored.
Some of these ancient Saxon genealogies have been found in the leather bindings of old books and they do sound a common theme. An interesting but often overlooked point is that in the more ancient and pre-Christian accounts the name of Sceaf appears as the son of Noah from which the Saxons are descended. In the more recent Christian period accounts, the name Japheth is the progenitor of the Saxons.
Some Scholars have tried to link Sceaf to the biblical Seth, the son of Adam, but even the sceptical Sisam has doubted this, recognizing that all the Northern European peoples traced themselves back to Noah through Japheth. Sisam, however, lines himself up quite well with most modern scholarship when he regards all the kings and names beyond Cerdic to myth or legend.(3) The Saxons felt differently though and said;
“Se Sceaf waes Noes sunu and he waes innan threae earce geborhen”. or as Cooper translates, “This Sceaf was Noahs son, and he was born in the Ark.” (4) Cooper (5) Reliq. Ant. p. 173
Clearly here Sceaf was a son of Noah and said to have been born on the Ark, not the son of Adam. Later Christianized Saxons would not have recognized the name of Sceaf but would have used Japheth and every monk in England knew that Japheth helped to build the Ark, he wasn’t born on it. So it seems more than likely that Sceaf is the pre-Christian pagan Saxon name for Japheth and thus helps point to the premigration and pagan nature of these histories. Nor is the manuscript quoted the only one that speaks of Sceafs sonship with Noah or his birth on the Ark.
However this wealth of manuscripts and histories remains locked up in the dusty tombs of “undesirable” physical evidence that could otherwise rise up and haunt the keepers of the New Religion of Secular Atheism and damage their efforts to keep us lesser folk in the dark and “trusting Darwin”, into oblivion. Have a great day.
(1) Cooper, Bill, After the flood, New Wine Press.
(2) Groos, the Diary of Baron Waldstein, p.61
(3) Sisam, Anglo-Saxon Royal Genealogies, p.322
(4) Cooper, Ibid.
(5) Wright, Reliquae Antiquae, Londons Guildhall Library