Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
No Saxon invasion?
#91
Authun wrote "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."

Bryan Ward- Perkins points out this absence of evidence as evidence in its own right for the economic collapse of Britain in the 5th century- where the country went from 4th century cow-byres with tiles to the entire absence of wheel-thrown pottery in the late 5th century. Building becomes organic- and much harder to spot,
[Image: wip2_r1_c1-1-1.jpg] [Image: Comitatuslogo3.jpg]


aka Paul B, moderator
http://www.romanarmy.net/auxilia.htm
Moderation in all things
Reply
#92
Quote:Bryan Ward- Perkins points out this absence of evidence as evidence in its own right for the economic collapse of Britain in the 5th century- where the country went from 4th century cow-byres with tiles to the entire absence of wheel-thrown pottery in the late 5th century. Building becomes organic- and much harder to spot,

That there was both and economic and social collapse is accepted by many, but not all, researchers. The question is, what evidence is there for the survival of British communities?

The mass invasion hypothesis posits a view based on absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Britons were expelled, enslaved or killed off. However, several types of evidence suggest that this didn't happen on the scale suggested by the size of the hole in the archaeological record.

As you suggest, a return to the use of perishable materials, wooden hair pins, vessels made of leather etc. would make such evidence harder to find. Housing however was constructed out of perishable materials before the roman period and they are still found. It might be an that post roman British structures were very lightweight and more easily perishable than the more heavily constructed LPRIA structures, wickerwork walls, ligher roofs which did not require substantial posts etc.

A third possibility is that Britons survived but that their evidence is not yet recognised. My point about charred hazelnuts from the mesolithic was that we knew where to look for them because we found the flint objects first, mostly knappings, in an area where there is no natural flint. The knappings showed that men had been in the area and, if men had been there, they must have left traces. Had we not found the flint, no one would have looked for hearths and the hazelnuts would not have been found.

We don't have evidence for their lightweight shelters, that's long gone, but people leave traces of some sort. Where are the bones of the animals consumed by Britons in the post roman period? Where are their fields if they grew crops? Where are their quernstones for grinding the corn?

best
authun
Harry Amphlett
Reply
#93
Both Chris Wickham ("Framing The Early Medieval Period') and Guy Halsall (http://600transformer.blogspot.com/2011/...roman.html) have very interesting, if somewhat different takes on the situation.

Mak
May the horse be with you!
Reply
#94
Quote:Both Chris Wickham ("Framing The Early Medieval Period') and Guy Halsall (http://600transformer.blogspot.com/2011/...roman.html) have very interesting, if somewhat different takes on the situation.

They deal with the wider subject of Germanic settlement in Britain, but I can't help feeling that the question of 'what happened to the Britons?' is something that needs to be addressed. Why is it that in many areas in England, where we have no evidence for either germanic settlement or germanic influence, do we not find evidence of Britons?

That's not to say they are not there, simply what sort of life were they living which left virtually no traces? What are we missing?

As Halsall writes, large scale abandonment on the Continent was concluded from a perceived hiatus in the archaeological record. However, analysis of crop pollens have shown that there was a contraction in the settled areas, but not complete abandonment. In the map below, the yellow settled areas in the late 6th cent, have all shown contraction with forest or marsh encroaching into the previously cultivated land.

[Image: settlement.gif]

Once the pollen record showed that people still lived in the same areas, but on a reduced scale, there was an impetus to look for new evidence, and evidence for continuity was found.

Daniel Nösler of the Lower Saxony Institute for Historical Coastal Research writes in his paper 'Break or Tradition? Analysis of Ceramics from the Dark Ages in the Elbe-Weser Triangle':

"For the first time in northern Lower Saxony, a large-scale settlement, for which a continuous settling from the 1st to the 9th century and thus also for the so-called “settlement gap” between the 6th and 7th century has been verified, has been excavated on the geest at Loxstedt, Cuxhaven county.
......
Currently it is assumed that this area was depopulated by widespread migrations at the end of the migration period and the repopulation did not start until the 8th century. The results of multiple pollen analyses prove a decline in human settlement but no complete abandonment of the population. To shed new light on questions of the settlement continuity or the possible immigration of new population strata, test samples of settlement ceramics of the 6th/7th century were analyzed archaeometrically in cooperation with the Laboratory for Ceramic Research, University of Lund. Especially thin sections were used, which gave illuminating insights to the used raw material, the temper and the pottery style. The first preliminary results of this analysis make a continuity of the pottery tradition very likely and thus neither point to a gap in the settling nor to an immigration of new settlers."


If evidence of continuity could be found in the Elbe Weser triangle, why can't we find evidence for continuity of Britons in England? My point is that evidence for Britons living in England but not under Germanic control may yet exist, but that we haven't found it yet.

cheers
authun
Harry Amphlett
Reply
#95
Quote:My point is that evidence for Britons living in England but not under Germanic control may yet exist, but that we haven't found it yet.
I agree with harry on this: if the Saxons are supposedly migrating to Britain because of the worsening conditions, did the Britons do the same? Move away? To Brittany? To Wales?

Neither scenario is satisfactory. I mean, why did the Saxons migrate en masse to Britain (which was a much more risky migration) instead of going deeper inland, as almost every Germanic tribe did before them, eventually ending up in Gaul or Italy? And where did the Britons go? Brittany nor Wales show signs of large 5th-c. migrations from the lowlands of Britain, do they? And if Brittany was so attractive (in theory at least) for the Britons, then why didn't the Saxons go there in much larger masses than we have seen them do?

So far, it does not make perfect sense yet.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#96
Quote:I mean, why did the Saxons migrate en masse to Britain (which was a much more risky migration) instead of going deeper inland, as almost every Germanic tribe did before them, eventually ending up in Gaul or Italy?

Haio Zimmermann offers a possible explanation in his paper 'Favourable conditions for cattle farming, one reason for the Anglo-Saxon migration over the North Sea?'. Britain's climate is heavily infuenced by the Gulf Stream and our winters tend to be milder than on the Continent. Snow rarely lies for more than 3 days. There is a reduced need therefore, for cattle to be stalled indoors in the winter as enough biomass grows for them to feed outdoors.

This means that farmers in Britain don't have to grow as much fodder for winter feeding in the summer months and can grow more food for human consumption. It becomes an easier and more productive lifestyle, good motivators for migration.

http://www.nihk.de//downloads/5/favourab...arming.pdf


Quote:And where did the Britons go? Brittany nor Wales show signs of large 5th-c. migrations from the lowlands of Britain, do they?

That's the puzzle. The answer may not have anything to do with the saxons. St. Patrick, writing about his return to Britain during his first escape from Ireland, that the and was deserted and that they wandered for many days without food and feared starvation. What has happened? He doesn't report scenes of destruction or devastation.

On his second return, he visits his home and reports that life and property had suffered but that the land still yielded its fruits, but again he doesn't mention saxons.

The immediate post roman period of Britain, the first 50 years or so of the 5th cent. are probably key to understanding the conditions which allowed the saxons to firstly, establish themselves and secondly, to allow their culture to become dominant. The transition to Anglo Saxon England is probably the result of this, not the cause of it.

cheers
authun
Harry Amphlett
Reply
#97
Quote:This means that farmers in Britain don't have to grow as much fodder for winter feeding in the summer months and can grow more food for human consumption. It becomes an easier and more productive lifestyle, good motivators for migration.
I can understand why Britain would be more favorable, but
a) Britain was not empty (Saxon settlement patterns show a spread - not 'advance'- which takes more than a century. You don't move house across the sea to an island that you must fight for. You do that when your settlement chances are reasonable to good.
b) That does still not explain why Gaul would not be more favorable over Britain.

Quote:The immediate post roman period of Britain, the first 50 years or so of the 5th cent. are probably key to understanding the conditions which allowed the saxons to firstly, establish themselves and secondly, to allow their culture to become dominant.
I would rather say the second half of the 5th c., or perhaps even the 6th c. would be more interesting, for these decades would show in what way the Britons are adapting (or not) to the new cultural power on the island.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#98
Quote:[quote="authun" post=294201]
b) That does still not explain why Gaul would not be more favorable over Britain.

Hmm. What about political conditions, or at least perceptions of conditions? Relatively peaceful in Britain, 420-480: Civil wars, expanding Goths, contiuous wars with 'foederati', invading Huns etc. in Gaul? :wink:

Just a thought.
Ian (Sonic) Hughes
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides, Peloponnesian War
"I have just jazzed mine up a little" - Spike Milligan, World War II
Reply
#99
Quote:a) Britain was not empty (Saxon settlement patterns show a spread - not 'advance'- which takes more than a century. You don't move house across the sea to an island that you must fight for. You do that when your settlement chances are reasonable to good.

Not empty everywhere but possibly empty is some places. The new settlers at West Heslerton appear to have entered an abandonned landscape for example. East Yorks, North Lincs and the northern part of East Anglia may have been deserted. What does the manager of a villa do when he can't sell his produce on behalf of the owner back in Rome? What do his workers do? Moreover, if they continue to grow but others come and steal the harvest, who can he appeal to for help? Eventually, I think they would give up.

Quote:b) That does still not explain why Gaul would not be more favorable over Britain.

Well we do have settlements in the Loire valley around Angers, the Saxones Baiocassini in the Cherbourg penninsular and possibly three phases of germanic settlement in the Pas de Calais region which pre date the Merovingians. As with possible saxon settlements in Scotland, these never became kingdoms that we know about.

Quote:I would rather say the second half of the 5th c., or perhaps even the 6th c. would be more interesting, for these decades would show in what way the Britons are adapting (or not) to the new cultural power on the island.

Yes, of course how the Britons adapted is of interest but so too is the question of what they were adapting from. There is both a gap between the withdrawal of Rome and the arrival of the germanics and there are also parts of Britain untouched by the germanics. Elmet for example still has a British king at the start of the 7th century, yet it is east of the Pennines. Where were they living? What kind of existence was it? There's no data to go on but, on the face of it, it wasn't a continuation of Roman Britain. If it was a rudimentary lifestyle based largely on self sufficiency, that may explain a readiness to adapt to germanic ways.

best
authun
Harry Amphlett
Reply


Forum Jump: