No Saxon invasion?

[Ghostmojo]

The discussion seems to me to remain semantic to a large (I nearly typed lager! then :lol: ) degree.

I don't think anybody would deny there wasn't any kind of invasion, or series of mini-invasions, or serious incursions - but the issue would seem to me to be how much, how often and over how long a period of time did this migration occur?

There is also this issue of what did migrant Saxons, Jutes, Frisians, Swedes, Franks and Angles find in their immediate wanderings upon arrival. Empty, deserted farmsteads? A smattering of friendly or not (as the case may be) Romano-British remnant groups? Already settled or settling demobbed 'Romano-Germanic' groups? Out and out hostile reactions from the indigenous populace - or maybe a combination of all of these at different times, places and periods? What are the views here about the likely effects of bubonic plague during this period?

It may be that periodic interaction had gone on for quite some time between these differing peoples prior to the 'mass' migration phase. Cultural and linguistic penetration may have been embedded to some extent long before major physical settlement occurred. This was the same issue about the supposed 'Celticness' of 'Celtic' art in Britain. Did it spring fully formed from within these isles or was it merely local reworkings of imported stylings from over a long period of time?

My guess is that there is no standard answer to this. In some areas migrants might have been tacitly accepted, even accommodated (if there was territory to spare) and perhaps cooperated with. In other areas various degrees of rivalry, hostility and conflict clearly occured. If the Saxons had been helping out as Roman recruits/mercenaries for a period prior to all of this then at least some of the native Brits would have been familar with them and perhaps even some alliance or reciprocity developing? There was after all substantial germanisation of Roman legions in some provinces which might have led to a critical mass of 'germans' already in Britain. And they were there supposedly to protect the local population and keep order.

I am merely speculating here to restimulate this topic - but hoping for more colourful discussions without perhaps quite so much of the CSI-Britannica/DNA Saxonicum chemical analysis :lol:

[Ingvar Sigurdson]

Okay..we'll move to other sources, some neatly discussed within this pdf link and although concerning pottery don't let this put you off as it is still very interesting.

archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/arch.../3_001_078.pdf

Enjoy.

best
Ingvar

[authun]

... the issue would seem to me to be how much, how often and over how long a period of time did this migration occur?

Identifying new immigrants and getting accurate dates for their burial is not straightforward. Isotopic analysis requires that the actual immigrants, not their offspring, be indentified. Offspring just have the same isotopic values as locals.

West Heslerton was an early attempt to use oxygen isotopes but was limited by the fact that the expected oxygen isotopic values for West Heslerton were the same as the expected values for parts of Jutland and north Germany. Another problem was that the expected value is not a single value,eg. - 6, but a range and this range was unknown so, whilst it was possible to say that someone with a value of - 10 was an outlier, ie an immigrant, - 7 may or may not be. Furthermore we don't know the birthrate and we don't know at what age the immigrants had children. This is important because if two immigrants have two children who each go on to have two children each, after six generation we should have 128 graves with 2 looking like immigrants and 126 looking local. But, in reality, we don't know what ratio we should expect.

Janet Montgomery had some success with Strontium isotopes at West Heslerton and studied 22 graves combined with carbon dating. Using the upper and lower date ranges, she found:

22 samples using the earliest possible phase
I (450–500 AD) 4 local 7 non local
II (500–550 AD) 5 local 3 non local
III (550–600 AD) 2 local 1 non local

The same 22 samples using the latest possible phase
II (500–550 AD) 2 local 3 non local
III (550–600 AD) 6 local 5 non local
IV (600–650 AD) 3 local 3 non local


The earliest dating shows that most non locals appeared in the 2nd half of the 5th cent but also that some arrived later. The second date range shows a more even distribution over a 150 year period.

Susan Hughes had more success with oxygen isotopes of 19 bodies buried in the 'Saxon' cemetary at Eastbourne. Here the cemetary contained 4 or 5 generations who died between 450 AD and 550 AD. 25% of them had depleted values expected on the continent. This high figure suggests that the other 75% who look local may be the offspring of the immigrants.

Hughes also tested a 'germanic' graveyard at Berinsfield but nearly all were found to be 'local'. Unfortunately she did not give a figure for Berinsfield for the number of non locals found there. Local however does not necessarily mean indigenous Briton. They could be locally born offspring of immigrants. It is always hard to tell without finding the bodies of the actual immigrants themselves.

Catherine Hills published some new dating evidence from Berinsfield graveyards in Antiquity Journal. One graveyard, Queenford Farm is interpreted as Late Roman or Romano British whilst the other, Wally Corner is interpreted as Anglo Saxon. They are about half a mile distant from each other. Early dating techniques had suggested that both were in use during the same period, into the 6th cent., as if the romano british used one and the anglo saxon used the other. Her dating now suggests however that Queenford farm was in use between AD 254-426 (earliest calibration) or AD 240-531 (latest calibration) whereas Wally Corner was in use AD 385-538 or AD 344-556. Whilst the article in Antiquity provides graphs for date usage of each cemetery which I cannot reproduce here, she summarises in the text:

"The main period of use at Queenford Farm is in the fourth and into the fifth century
AD, whilst at Berinsfield it is in the fifth into the sixth century AD"

There is also this issue of what did migrant Saxons, Jutes, Frisians, Swedes, Franks and Angles find in their immediate wanderings upon arrival. Empty, deserted farmsteads? A smattering of friendly or not (as the case may be) Romano-British remnant groups? Already settled or settling demobbed 'Romano-Germanic' groups? Out and out hostile reactions from the indigenous populace - or maybe a combination of all of these at different times, places and periods?

Ingvar has posted a link to the pottery evidence and the work of Myres. Myres' proposal in 'The English Settlements' was that settlement started from germanic auxilliaries in Britain during the late roman period who were joined later by people initially from Angeln and other parts of Jutland and then by more mixed north sea germanic groups. Rahtz's conference on the West Heslerton evidence makes two comments pertinent to your questions:

"No links could be found between the late Roman pottery and the Anglian that followed - nothing ‘sub-Roman’; the general impression is still of a social and economic collapse in the latest 4th-early 5th century, with a parallel collapse of Crambeck and other pottery industries."

"Although DP stressed his own belief in continuity, it was generally seen more as one of continuity of place, with a dichotomy between ‘late Romans’ and the new settlers"

At West Heslerton, it looks as if the new settlers entered a vacated landscape. The graveyards at Berinsfield however do show a small overlap so the two communities did live side by side even if only for a short time. However Hills points out that the two had very different dietary practices and the romano british cemetery had a higher proportion of child deaths.

What are the views here about the likely effects of bubonic plague during this period?

The Justinian plague in mid 6th century may be a factor. Contemporary accounts suggest that it did arrive in the west of Britain and Ireland and, if the two communities did keep separate, it may have affected the romano british communmity more than the anglo saxon community. Joel Gunn's book 'The Years without Summer: Tracing A.D. 536 and Its Aftermath' suggests that Britain may have received a fresh wave of immigrants from southern scandinavia as the climate deteriorated there. The work of John Hines, 'The Scandinavian character of Anglian England in the pre-Viking period' may provide some clues to this.

best
authun

[Ghostmojo]

Thanks Harry and Ingvar - some interesting stuff there. I will check it out ... although I couldn't get this link to work:

http://www.archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/...01_078.pdf (???)

[authun]

Thanks Harry and Ingvar - some interesting stuff there. I will check it out ... although I couldn't get this link to work:

http://www.archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/...01_078.pdf (???)

This link works. The ... indicates that the text on screen is a truncation but I have added the full address to the URL Tag so, although it appears the same, the full address is included behind it, ie click on the link, don't cut and paste it.

http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/cata...01_078.pdf


best
authun

[Robert Vermaat]

I don't think anybody would deny there wasn't any kind of invasion, or series of mini-invasions, or serious incursions - but the issue would seem to me to be how much, how often and over how long a period of time did this migration occur?

I couldn't agree more.

If the Saxons had been helping out as Roman recruits/mercenaries for a period prior to all of this then at least some of the native Brits would have been familar with them and perhaps even some alliance or reciprocity developing? There was after all substantial germanisation of Roman legions in some provinces which might have led to a critical mass of 'germans' already in Britain. And they were there supposedly to protect the local population and keep order.

There is plenty of evidence that they did. Typical material was taken back home to the Anglo-Saxon homelands and buried with the warriors there.

[Robert Vermaat]

The Justinian plague in mid 6th century may be a factor. Contemporary accounts suggest that it did arrive in the west of Britain and Ireland and, if the two communities did keep separate, it may have affected the romano british communmity more than the anglo saxon community.

I think there is no case to be built on the assumption that this plague affected the Britons more than the Anglo-Saxons on the basis of 'the communities being separate'. There is, I think, enough evidence to show that this cannot have been the case across the whole of Britain, and I've always felt that this ideas served more as an explanation of the question 'why did the Britons lose'? Which, of course, is a very old question, first asked during the early Middle Ages, but never really answered.

One of the more remarkable interpretations of Anglo-Saxons living side-by-side with a 'native' British community, is that the latter community seems to 'vanish' after some time, the interpretation often being that the natives moved away or something more sinister. I wonder whether these past years the possibility of the Britons adapting to the customs of their new neighbours and thereby vanishing from the archaeological record, is accepted as a possibility? Did the British simply stop burying their dead at their old graveyard at Queenford Farm and move to the new one, or were they all exterminated or driven off, after which their cemetary became derelict? At Berinsfield, where a small overlap in use occurred, showing that the two communities did live side by side even if only for a short time, does that mean that the British continued eating differently, with more child deaths, until they vanished? Or did they, after that short time, convert to the ways of their neighbours?

The question is: are there signs of British communities living side by side with Anglo-Saxons, continuing their different practises for a long time? Comparing this to the Roman occupation of Britain, how long did the British natives continue in livving according to their Iron Age diets and burial practises, until they 'vanish' from the archaeological record - but which is not interpreted by any archaeologist as a wholesale Roman extermination of the natives, even locally?

But since we have 'moaning Gildas' who (in the best Late Antique tradition I must add) wrote about the whole nation being a slaughterhouse/funeral pyre, we have looked upon the process of Britain becoming England, as one continuing story of murder and ethnic cleansing. I doubt that this Gildensian picture is correct.

[Robert Vermaat]

To add to my yammerings below, an nice article by Mak Wilson, who posted this last week on Arthurnet, where this discussion has been raging since the beginning of Time:
http://www.makwilson.co.uk/All%20Quiet%2...0Front.pdf

[authun]

I think there is no case to be built on the assumption that this plague affected the Britons more than the Anglo-Saxons on the basis of 'the communities being separate'. There is, I think, enough evidence to show that this cannot have been the case across the whole of Britain, and I've always felt that this ideas served more as an explanation of the question 'why did the Britons lose'? Which, of course, is a very old question, first asked during the early Middle Ages, but never really answered.

The Justinian plague is mid 6th cent. and cannot therefore be used to explain events for the 5th cent. or first half of the 6th cent., ie. the nature of the first generations of anglo saxon settlement. What it may do is explain why the continution of a romano british lifestyle in places such as Tintagel suddenly ceased, putting further economic pressure on some parts of the romano british community. It might be that in some parts, they simply gave up and decided to throw their lot in with the new settlers or in other parts resorted to a more self sufficient lifestyle with a resultant hiatus in the archaeological record. It may therefore be a factor but not the whole story by any means. Events in the 5th cent. and first half of the 6th cent. are likely to remain important in this respect.

I wonder whether these past years the possibility of the Britons adapting to the customs of their new neighbours and thereby vanishing from the archaeological record, is accepted as a possibility? Did the British simply stop burying their dead at their old graveyard at Queenford Farm and move to the new one, or were they all exterminated or driven off, after which their cemetary became derelict? At Berinsfield, where a small overlap in use occurred, showing that the two communities did live side by side even if only for a short time, does that mean that the British continued eating differently, with more child deaths, until they vanished? Or did they, after that short time, convert to the ways of their neighbours?

Britons do continue to exist within 8th century anglo saxon kingdoms. Bede in Book 5 on the Present State of the English Nation writes that "in part they are their own masters yet elsewhere they are also brought under subjection to the English." The references to walhs in the Laws of Ine support Bede's statement. The unanswered questions are, in which parts and what is meant by subjection?

Bede only gives us one clue about the nature of subjection when he writes about Aethelfrith who "conquered more territories from the Britons, either making them tributary, or driving the inhabitants clean out, and planting English in their places, than any other king or tribune."

Early historians tended to concentrate on "driving the inhabitants clean out, and planting English in their places" and didn't explain "making them tributary" which must also be an indication of the continuation of British communities. Furthermore, Aethelfrith's aggressive expansionism has been seen as typical of the Anglo Saxon kings whereas Bede, in my opinion, notes that he was exceptionally aggressive in this respect, "[more] than any other king", something he reiterates in the same passage. Nor is Aethelfrith's aggression soley aimed at the Britons. The Deirans Edwin and Hereric both fled and sought sanctuary within British Kingdoms which shows some degree of stability or cooperation between the two communities. But again these events are long after the adventus and more to do with the politics and ambitions of emerging kingdoms in the 7th cent. and should not be used as a model typical of the 5th and early 6th cents. Whatever happened during those early years, it should be noted that by the 7th cent. there are still Britons around and Britons who are still living under their own kings who are at least, on speaking terms with their anglo saxon counterparts.

The Berinsfield cemeteries only provide an observation from which we cannot deduce anything concrete. Whereas West Heslerton shows a dichotemy between the old and new settlers, Berinsfield shows an overlap. It may suggest that no single model can be applied the the whole of england. Whilst Eastbourne strongly suggests a solid core of Anglo Saxons in the 5th and 6th cents., Elmet, which is to the east of the Pennines at the start of the 7th cent. appears, from the historical record, to be british.

The question is: are there signs of British communities living side by side with Anglo-Saxons, continuing their different practises for a long time?

Elmet is interesting in this respect. It is in the east but there is no anglo saxon archaeology before the 8th cent. and even then the first archaeology is ecclesiastical in nature. Unfortunately, we have little in the way of archaeology of the Britons of Elmet either and nothing to tell us about how they were living. They don't appear to have adopted an anglo saxon material culture and we are simply left with a hiatus.

It's a puzzling situation because we can find charred hazelnuts, flints and camp fires going back to the mesolithic. Axes heads and quern stones from the neolithic are still lying around. A lot of roman archaeology exists, coins, tiles etc but nothing that is sub roman. As an example of post roman Britain untouched by the Anglo Saxons, it ought to give us a lot of information about the nature of a British community. Sadly, it doesn't.

But since we have 'moaning Gildas' who (in the best Late Antique tradition I must add) wrote about the whole nation being a slaughterhouse/funeral pyre, we have looked upon the process of Britain becoming England, as one continuing story of murder and ethnic cleansing. I doubt that this Gildensian picture is correct.

Gildas actually writes a lot about the devastation caused by the Picts and Irish as well as the problems caused by civil wars between the Britons. Earlier historians have interpreted the bodies lying unburied in the fields as being the result of Saxons but, in my opinion, Gildas doesn't make it clear who was to blame. The Saxons are just one factor.

best
authun

[authun]

To add to my yammerings below, an nice article by Mak Wilson, who posted this last week on Arthurnet, where this discussion has been raging since the beginning of Time:
http://www.makwilson.co.uk/All%20Quiet%2...0Front.pdf

I've only skimmed through that article but I wholeheartedly agree with the point:

"The one thing to note about these maps is, unlike Morris and Dark, they donʼt take
into account the gaps in settlements and cemeteries, so may give a false picture of ʻAnglo-
Saxonʼ rule or the true spread of their cultures."

Why gaps or cultural boundaries exist is often a matter of geography which only becomes clear when one looks at the geography of the period. For example, the romans knew that the southern part of the Vale of York and the Humberhead Levels were subject to innundation. As a consequence, they built their roads from Lincoln to York around the edges. The westerly route is still known as the ridge road. You can see the area concerned on this map:



Towards the end of the roman period, the dark green areas became innundated during the North Sea Marine Transgression. Some of the roman archaeology found in this area is under 3m of marine deposit. It remained flooded until drainage started in earnest around the 16th cent. Anglian settlement in 5th and 6th cents is limited to the Yorkshire and Lincolnshire Wolds. Elmet is to the south west of York and is thus separated from Deira by a wetland landscape which looks something like this, one of the few remaining places:



Westwards expansion in Lincolnshire appears to start in the 7th century when settlers look as if they crossed the Vale of Lincoln and we start to find anglo saxon material on the Lincolnshire Edge. If names such as the Spaldingas and Lindisfaerona are anything to go by, movements by germanic speaking groups in the east appear to have been largely from south to north during the 5th and 6th cents., not east to west.

best
authun

[authun]

Another indication of settlement patterns may possibly be gleaned from the distribution of early runes. This map by Page shows that the distribution in England is almost entirely within perceived Anglian or Jutish areas with a paucity in the 'saxon' counties in England. This mirrors early runic finds on the continent where the majority of early runic finds are in Jutland and the danish isles. North Germany south of the Elbe only has a couple dating to around the 5th cent, at Fallward and Beuchte.



The single westerly find of the early runic inscription in Watchfield may be interesting from the point of view of telling us something about the nature of settlement in the upper Thames region, that of the Gewissae. They only become known as the West Saxons in the 7th cent. We don't know who the early Gewissae were.

best
authun

[authun]

An interesting news item on BBC's Radio 4 Today programme, 'Not Scots, but English':

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/new...501822.stm

best
authun

[Ghostmojo]

I heard that interview driving to work. Interesting stuff.

I often wonder whether these guys, when they came running up our beaches, stopped briefly to place their beach towels ... this is my spot now! :lol:

[authun]

I often wonder whether these guys, when they came running up our beaches, stopped briefly to place their beach towels ... this is my spot now! :lol:

A bit chilly for that on the Farne Islands.

Actually this is a good example of cashing in on the interest of genetic genealogy. Jim Wilson is an academic but also has a business interest in Ethnoancesntry, a commercial testing company. He has cooperated with Moffat in the production of a book The Scots: A Genetic Journey which aims to popularise the subject, http://www.amazon.co.uk/Scots-Genetic-Jo...511&sr=8-1 You may have noticed that they also used the opportunity to plug their new book covering the whole of Britain.

Whilst it is true that his L22 marker is centered on Scandinavia, they use the Ethnoancestry term S142, the rest of the story must be a case of filling in the blanks, either that or there is more information which they haven't stated. It's highest frequency is in Sweden and it is also found in northern Germany, south of the area known as Angeln. It is an area that encompasses many different groups.

When it arrived in Scotland is an entirely different matter. I have the same marker plus one more recent marker but as far as I can tell, my lot didn't arrive until the 12th cent. and came from French Flanders. The assumption that in Naughtie's case it must have arrived in Northumbria and therefore be 'Anglian' is conjecture and the MacBeth story no more than a possible explantion of how it moved further north. It could just as easily be the result of trade with the Hanseatic League or any one of number of other possible explanations. In fact, Flemings were resettled in Scotland and it could be the result of that too. Perhaps Moffat has some paper trail however which was not discussed but, on the basis of the genetic marker alone, it is no more than a more likely explanation amongst several other possibilities.

best
authun

[Makinus Cornovii]

Well, this is kind of spooky Robert as I haven't been here for a while on on my return the first thing I see is you pointing folk to my blog! I am humbled and honoured! Thank you.

Now I have to read all these threads to catch up!

Mak