Wusun Merge With The Saka to Become the Saxons

Wu SunsThe mysterious origins of the Saxons before they had merged with the Angles and various other tribes to then become Anglo-Saxons, is somewhat of a mystery. A mysterious connection which I have found is in ancient Central Asia, related to a Scythian tribe called the Sacae or Saka and also another long lost tribe known in ancient times by the Chinese as the Wusun or Usun.

These two tribes would later merge to then be called the Sacae-Sun or Sako-Usuni, and more commonly known to us today as the “Saxons.” These same Saxons we find several centuries later when they would later be found in Britain, Ireland and Scotland, with many more tribes such as the Angles and Picts.

These tribes of the Saxons would later merge into one tribe that we know as the “Anglo-Saxons.” (more…)

The Raven – The Northmen and Wusun Connection

Raven coinIn my last article titled, Wusun Merge With The Saka to Become the Saxons, I had introduced my theory in regards to the origins of the Saxons. In this research presented online I have detailed various tribes such as the Saka and Wusun, who had resided in Central Asia and then later merged with one another between the 7th and 3rd centuries B.C. This union of the tribes known as the Saka and Wusun is what I believe had created a new tribe that we know of today as the “Saka-Suns” or in English as the “Saxons.” Much of my research for my first article on this connection was taken from Chinese and Greek historical records that detail these events.

Today I would like to list more details that I have found on the mysterious and unknown origins of the Wusuns before they may have merged or mixed blood with other tribes such as the Saka in Central Asia. The questions I will address in my attempt to find the truth are; Were the Wusun the true natives of this land and were tribes such as the Scythians and Sakas an invading peoples? Or was it the Scythians who were natives to the land and the Wusun unwelcome or even welcomed visitors? Can ancient symbols and or DNA help identify who these peoples actually were and or connect them with their ancestors or people still living today? (more…)

Introduction and Overview

There are, it has been estimated, in England and on the Continent, in all about 140 manuscripts of the “Ecclesiastical History.” Of these, four date from the eighth century: the Moore MS. (Cambridge), so called, because, after being sold by auction in the reign of William III, it came into the possession of Bishop Moore, who bequeathed it to the University of Cambridge; Cotton, Tiberius A, xiv; Cotton, Tiberius C, ii; and the Namur MS. A detailed account of these, as well as of a great number of other manuscripts, will be found in Mr. Plummer’s Introduction to his edition of Bede’s Historical Works. He has been the first to collate the four oldest MSS., besides examining numerous others and collating them in certain passages. He has pointed out that two of the MSS. dating from the eighth century (the century in which Bede died), the Moore MS. and Cotton, Tiberius A, xiv, point to a common original which cannot be far removed from Bede’s autograph. We are thus brought very near to our author, and may have more than in most cases the assurance that we have before us what he actually meant to say.

The earliest editions were printed on the Continent; the “editio princeps” is believed to date from 1475. A number of editions followed in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; the first in England was published by Abraham Whelock at Cambridge in 1643-4. Smith’s edition in 1722 marked a new era in the history of the book. It was the first critical edition, the text being based on the Moore MS. collated with three others, of which two were eighth century MSS.; and succeeding editors, Stevenson (1841), Giles (1842), Hussey (1846), the editor in the “Monumenta Historica Britannica” (1848), Moberly (1869), Holder (1882), base their work mainly on Smith’s. Mr. Mayor and Mr. Lumby together edited Books III and IV with excellent notes in 1878. Their text “reproduces exactly the Moore MS.” which they collated with some other Cambridge MSS. (cf. Mayor and Lumby, Excursus II). In 1896 the Rev. C. Plummer published his edition of Bede’s Historical Works, the first critical edition since Smith’s, and “the very first which exhibits in an apparatus criticus the various readings of the MSS. on which the text is based.” For the student of Bede this admirable book is of the highest value, and the labours of all succeeding editors are made comparatively light. Besides the most minute and accurate work on the text, it contains a copious and interesting commentary and the fullest references to the various sources upon which the editor has drawn.

The first translation of the “Ecclesiastical History” is the Anglo-Saxon version, executed either by Alfred himself or under his immediate supervision. Of this version Dr. Hodgkin says: “As this book had become a kind of classic among churchmen, Alfred allowed himself here less liberty than in some of his other translations. Some letters, epitaphs, and similar documents are omitted, and there is an almost complete erasure of the chapters relating to the wearisome Paschal controversy. In other respects the king’s translation seems to be a fairly accurate reproduction of the original work.” Mr. Plummer, however, finds it “very rarely available for the settlement of minute differences of reading.”

The first modern English translation is Thomas Stapleton’s (1565), published at Antwerp. It is a controversial work, intended to point out to Queen Elizabeth “in how many and weighty pointes the pretended refourmers of the Church . . . have departed from the patern of that sounde and Catholike faith planted first among Englishmen by holy S. Augustine, our Apostle, and his vertuous company, described truly and sincerely by Venerable Bede, so called in all Christendom for his passing vertues and rare lerning, the Author of this History.” To save Elizabeth’s time “in espying out the particulars,” the translator has “gathered out of the whole History a number of diversities between the pretended religion of Protestants and the primitive faith of the English Church.” If charm and appropriateness of style were the only qualities to be aimed at in a translation, we might well content ourselves with this rendering, which fills with despair the translator of to-day, debarred by his date from writing Elizabethan English.

Pin It on Pinterest