Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
No Saxon invasion?
#1
According to the British documentary, The Celts - The Complete Epic Saga (2010, 6 episodes total 303 minutes) there is no evidence of any invasion by the Saxons or other Germanics. The farmsteads of SE Britain showed no archaeological evidence of anything except for continuous occupation and the isotopes gathered from skeletal remains of the era show no influx of people from northern Germany or Denmark. They explain the adoption of the English language as a voluntary act by the British to fit in with the people of influence and power. The documentary also states that the Saxon shore forts were not built to repulse invasion because there is no evidence that any of them were ever attacked, rather they were build and used as centers of commerce and trade. The 'myth' of Saxon invasion was perpetrated by historians and writers who lived long after the era.

I wondered if any of the other well known invasions of Britain: Romans, Norse, and Normans left any archaeological evidence or isotope traces. I've read that there is no archaeological evidence of the Battle of Hastings, if that is true I suppose the makers of The Celts could also hypothesize that battle was also a myth. The reasoning if the British adoption of the English language doesn't really make sense to me, if so why did not Latin or Norse or French (from the Normans) take hold in a similar lasting manner? The theory about the Saxon shore forts particularly strikes me as academic overthinking. I suppose that the Edwardian castles built in Wales will very likely show little archaeological evidence of assault but that doesn't mean they weren't built with a military purpose in mind.

Has this new theory about the Saxon non invasion become generally accepted? I'd like to read other opinions on this.

thanks,

Jeff
Reply
#2
Quote: I've read that there is no archaeological evidence of the Battle of Hastings, if that is true I suppose the makers of The Celts could also hypothesize that battle was also a myth...

Has this new theory about the Saxon non invasion become generally accepted? I'd like to read other opinions on this.

thanks,

Jeff

Not an academic but a supporter of the gradual absorption of the Saxon culture by the Britons (whoever they are - perhpas I should say the post Roman inhabitants of the old Province of Britannia!))...I was under the impression the some Saxons were invited in by the Romans in the last throes of the Empire's influence in Britain to help serve as protectors of their "property".

And as for no archaeological evidence for the Battle of Hastings, my immediate thought is the Bayeux Tapestry!
Moi Watson

Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, Merlot in one hand, Cigar in the other; body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, what a ride!
Reply
#3
I'm not sure that the tapestry counts as archaeological evidence, or more to the point, why the writings of Bede or Nennius would not have equal historical credibility. The Notitia Dignitatum and its information on the Saxon Shore commands and forces also seem to have been ignored as 'archaeological evidence' of a Saxon threat (or at least the attempt to organize a defense against it).
Reply
#4
Re-defining the Saxon Shore fortifications as centers of commerce and trade is typical of the bankruptcy of modern scholarship. It ranks with the attempted brain-washing I got in Oslo some years ago when the local tour guide maintained that the Vikings were just merchants and all that raiding business a myth. No, there's ample evidence of the Germanic threat to Britain before and after the departure of the legions. The Saxon Shore were late, not early, Roman constructions.

But the other half of the question is more difficult: Were the Germans conquers or just the new elite? The written evidence only reports major battles--and then often local affairs--once every twenty or thirty years during the two or more centuries of the Saxon "invasion." Perhaps it's a little--or a lot--of both. The Germans established homes in this more hospitable environment and gradually pushed the frontier of their authority westward--by force occasionally, but also by intermarriage and cultural assimilation--until they found themselves under pressure from the Danes. Then came the Normans. They also didn't depopulate the land, as evidenced by the Doomsday Book. They became the new ruling class.

But wasn't that the pattern among much of the post-Roman west? The conquers brought their entire communities but they didn't necessarily kill off all the previous inhabitants. Often they established a warrior elite who ruled a population of largely the original inhabitants in Iberia and north Africa and even Gaul and Italy. The later exploits of the various hordes from Asia was not necessarily the pattern of the earlier invaders.
"Fugit irreparabile tempus" (Irrecoverable time glides away) Virgil

Ron Andrea
Reply
#5
Quote:I'm not sure that the tapestry counts as archaeological evidence, or more to the point, why the writings of Bede or Nennius would not have equal historical credibility. The Notitia Dignitatum and its information on the Saxon Shore commands and forces also seem to have been ignored as 'archaeological evidence' of a Saxon threat (or at least the attempt to organize a defense against it).

The tapestry is a contemporary artefact...meets my criteria for archaeology...just because it wasn't dug up out of the ground doesnt mean to say it isnt relevant.

Ignoring the sources from the period is always a mistake. But it is one of the main sources of argument between ancient historians and archaeologists so I am sure students of the Dark Ages or Pre Medievalists (whatever they are called these days) will argue the toss anyway.

Edit: To remove my hideous slepping nistikes! Big Grin
Moi Watson

Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, Merlot in one hand, Cigar in the other; body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, what a ride!
Reply
#6
I believe that the antiwar movements of the 20th century imposed a mentality that sees the terms "war" and "invasion" as synonymous with "extermination." This has rarely been the case historically. Most wars are fought between ruling classes (though the sword-fodder may be mostly underlings) and most people aren't involved at all unless they are in the path of the armies. After all, throughout history the people of the conquered land were part of the loot. Back in the 19th century Sir walter Scott noted that in modern English, the words for food animals are of Anglo-Saxon derivation: cow, calf,swine, sheep, deer - while the words for the meat of those animals derive from French: beef, veal, pork, mutton, venison. This tells you who was raising the animals and who was eating them.
Even the utter savagery of modern war doesn't effect whole populations all that much. Japan was bombed into rubble and starved in WWII but you'd hardly know it now, 65 years later. Bloodlines and languages are lost mainly through assimilation and cultural dominance, not through slaughter.
Pecunia non olet
Reply
#7
This is a fascinating topic and I await its development with interest. Recent views about the Anglo-Saxon invasions as being more the intrusion of numerous elite warrior bands (almost entirely male) rather than full-scale invasion have certainly taken root and created considerable debate. I am just starting to read up about this, although it does rather chime in with my own views about the lack of evidence of mass burials for displaced peoples that the A.S.s are supposed to have displaced. But, I keep an open mind. I am reading Francis Pryor's books Britain BC and Britain AD at the moment and he hints at this mass migration/invasion as being unlikely.

I have tended to the view in recent years that the phrase Anglo-Saxon Britain or England is a very unhelpful term. It seems certain to me that Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians and perhaps a few Franks arrived in eastern England in the post Roman period (and even before). They seem to have settled different areas with the Saxons in the south-east and central south (verging on the south-west); the Angles more into the midlands, east anglia, the Humber area and further north etc. How numerous they were is speculation as far as I can see. They made their mark certainly. It seems more likely to me that by the Anglo-Saxon Period we really mean Anglo-Saxon-Others Influenced/Dominated/Led Period; and by the Anglo-Saxons we mean a whole host of peoples of whom these two groups were merely the most obvious/noisey bunch! The Norman Period was a time when England (and later Wales and even Scotland in parts) was dominated by a successful warrior elite - but they were an ethnic minority compared with the mass of the population. So when we talk of the Normans we mean the Norman Elite Led peoples of England. The term Anglo-Norman perhaps goes some way towards reinforcing just how few arrived from the shores of Normandy, and how they eventually went native rather than the other way around. Whenever we talk of any period of history we always end up using terms that denote the movers and shakers rather than the mass of the population about whom we usually hear very little. Four hundred years of Roman Britain after all was achieved with very few actual Romans compared to the full roster of Britain's native (and other) inhabitants.
[size=75:2kpklzm3]Ghostmojo / Howard Johnston[/size]

[Image: A-TTLGAvatar-1-1.jpg]

[size=75:2kpklzm3]Xerxes - "What did the guy in the pass say?" ... Scout - "Μολὼν λαβέ my Lord - and he meant it!!!"[/size]
Reply
#8
If there was no invasion why would the peoples of Britain adopt the tribal names of the continental Germanics? Why would they rename their British tribal areas as (e.g.) East Anglia, Sussex, Wessex for Angles and Saxons?

Why didn't the takeovers of Germanic tribes in the rest of the Western Roman Empire have the same linguistic effect: Franks in Gaul, Visigoths in SW Gaul and Hispania, Suebi in NW Hispania, and Vandals in Africa? Of course these invasions may be just as ficitional as Saxon invasions.
Reply
#9
No, there was an invasion. This study was based on female skeletons, which just means that the British women stayed alive, which makes complete sense.
Nicholas
Reply
#10
Quote:If there was no invasion why would the peoples of Britain adopt the tribal names of the continental Germanics? Why would they rename their British tribal areas as (e.g.) East Anglia, Sussex, Wessex for Angles and Saxons?

Why didn't the takeovers of Germanic tribes in the rest of the Western Roman Empire have the same linguistic effect: Franks in Gaul, Visigoths in SW Gaul and Hispania, Suebi in NW Hispania, and Vandals in Africa? Of course these invasions may be just as ficitional as Saxon invasions.

In the case of Britain (and I am speculating not preaching) I suppose it depends upon what exactly you mean by invasion. A mass swamping/over-running in a very short time - or a series of notable and significant (albeit smaller) limited incursions. As both Romans and Normans demonstrated - you do not need overwhelming numbers to subjugate an established populace - nor to make your mark upon the land.

Regarding the names - well, that is surely more complicated, but again links to the notion of dominance. Why is Scotland called Scotland? The vast majority of its people are descended from groups other than the Scots (who were after all not a race themselves but immigrant Irish bands ([size=85:31jxh8cn]Scot in a similar way to the term Viking, meaning raider[/size])) such as Picts, Angles, Strathclyde Britons, Norse etc. France is so-named despite the fact that its people draw heavily from Gauls as well as Franks. America is seemingly named because of either Amerigo Vespucci or John Ammerick (take your pick). The nomenclature of tribal territories or otherwise is not nearly so neat as you might suggest. These areas of England came to receive those names surely because of dominance rather than total displacement?

Quote:No, there was an invasion. This study was based on female skeletons, which just means that the British women stayed alive, which makes complete sense.

Does it? Don't mass bloody invasions that wipe out a preceding people usually involve rape and murder of all the inhabitants rather than just the menfolk? I accept there may have been an element of slavery or co-opting but invasions are rarely so gender-prescribed as you suggest.
[size=75:2kpklzm3]Ghostmojo / Howard Johnston[/size]

[Image: A-TTLGAvatar-1-1.jpg]

[size=75:2kpklzm3]Xerxes - "What did the guy in the pass say?" ... Scout - "Μολὼν λαβέ my Lord - and he meant it!!!"[/size]
Reply
#11
Quote:my immediate thought is the Bayeux Tapestry!

My thought was Battle Abbey! Sadly, this sounds like more revisionist claptrap of the sort that is very trendy the the moment. A lot of it is politically motivated, little of it founded on sound scholarship. Sells books and TV programmes though... :-( (

Mike Bishop
You know my method. It is founded upon the observance of trifles

Blogging, tweeting, and mapping Hadrian\'s Wall... because it\'s there
Reply
#12
Concur. Which is why we have to take even "serious" scholars with a grain of salt.
"Fugit irreparabile tempus" (Irrecoverable time glides away) Virgil

Ron Andrea
Reply
#13
Well, if there weren't any "Celts" in the first place, and we know those silly propagandistic Romans never actually were there, why should we believe in any Saxon invasion? Of course, that finishes off that mythical "William the Conqueror" guy, too, just the first of many crutches invented by those warmongering imperialistic elitist monarchic Victorians. We now return you to your homogenous peaceable worker's paradise...

Matthew

PS: Am I in a mood today or what??
Matthew Amt (Quintus)
Legio XX, USA
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.larp.com/legioxx/">http://www.larp.com/legioxx/
Reply
#14
Not to mention, Matt, the silly notion that the British ever sent colonists across the dragon infested Atlantic and established colonies over there. Who thought up that myth?
M. Demetrius Abicio
(David Wills)

Saepe veritas est dura.
Reply
#15
Quote:No, there was an invasion. This study was based on female skeletons, which just means that the British women stayed alive, which makes complete sense.
There's a big difference between an invasion and a migration.

I see no reason for a wave of tens of thousdands of Saxons, arriving in waves each summer over a matter of decades, pushing the Britons ever westward along a shifting frontline. That's an outdated view.

Nor do I vote for 'minimalist' option that sees only a few warbands ariving, after which every Briton changes their name, language and reliogion. That's not possible either.

In my (personal) view I see a mix of both: invited Germanic groups first, several regions taken over forcefully, migration on different scales following that, wars but also alliances later, and all that over a period of at leats 150 years. I'm not saying that writers like Prior are right, but I think that they aren't 100% wrong either. Anglo-Saxons did not start again from start, they also took over existing structures. Britons can indeed have changed their culture under germanic influence: they did so under Roman influence, but it's been a long no-no to even suggest that and supposedly backward heathen Saxons could have any influence on British culture other than forced. Britons aping Germans? Never! :wink:

What is also difficult to guess is the time that it took for all these changes to take hold. Yes, names and languages changed, but when wexactly? We simply do not have the sources to find out, and sadly, linguistics is not always a tool that can tell us at what rate such changed took place, only the end result. By the late 7th century we have a pretty good idea about the state of things, but what exactly happened during the 5th and 6th century will always remain a mystery. But I do not think that when a Saxon sets foot on land somewhere, the situation of the 7th century can already been reached within evena decade.

Therefore: migration yes, invasion no.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply


Forum Jump: