A captivating claim buried in the pages of The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, one of England’s oldest historical records, has ignited modern curiosity: it states that the original inhabitants of Britain — the Britons — came from Armenia before settling in the southern part of the island.
The text, written in Old English during the 8th to 9th centuries, was designed to chronicle the history of the Anglo-Saxon people. In an early passage, the Chronicle reads:
“The first inhabiting this land were Britons; they came from Armenia and first settled southward in Britain.”
A 20th-century translation in The Laud Chronicle (Version E) echoes the same message, suggesting that the Britons took possession of Britain after arriving from what it again names as “Armenia.” But is this historically accurate, or a medieval geographical mix-up?
Scholars have long debated this claim, and the consensus is that “Armenia” was likely a scribal error for “Armorica” — the ancient name for the northwestern region of modern-day France, known today as Brittany. This region was historically home to Celtic tribes and is widely believed to have been a major source of early migration into the British Isles.
The 8th-century English monk and historian Bede — one of the Chronicle's key influences — used the Latin phrase “de tractu Armoricano advecti”, meaning "brought over from the region of Armorica," when describing the origins of the Britons. It is possible that as the Chronicle was copied over the centuries, “Armorica” was miswritten or misunderstood as “Armenia.”
Modern archaeological evidence and linguistic studies support the idea that the Britons were part of larger Celtic migrations from continental Europe, likely moving from regions including Armorica and Gaul (modern France) to the British Isles between 1200 BCE and 600 BCE. These groups brought with them distinct languages, artistic traditions, and tribal structures that would define Britain’s early history.
The suggestion that they came from Armenia, a region in the South Caucasus thousands of kilometers away, is highly unlikely, especially given the lack of archaeological evidence for such a migration route.
While the reference to Armenia is almost certainly a mistake, it remains a fascinating window into how medieval writers viewed their past — and how errors in transcription could shape national origin myths.
Manuscripts in the early Middle Ages were copied by hand in monasteries, often across linguistic barriers and through evolving dialects. A simple misreading or miswriting could easily turn “Armorica” into “Armenia,” especially as Latin and Old English scribes relied on oral sources or poorly understood geographical references.
Follow the latest news on Google News
