4th century Saxons on Hadrians Wall?

[Caballo]

Just read Guy Halsall's new book (Worlds of Arthur-Fact and Fiction of the Dark Ages) and one theory that he invites people to look at is that Saxons were settled on the Wall in the late 4th century, and that this is linked to the lack of late Roman army belt sets the.
What evidence for Saxons is there?

From "Finds on the Frontier" I can find some late Roman crossbow buckles on the Wall, and some 6th century Saxon brooches ( eg at Birdoswald). Is there other evidence?

[Robert Vermaat]

Guy Halsall is no idiot so I suspect he will have good reasons for suggesting this.
However, from what I know there's a distinctive lack of ANY metal that would indicate a military presence on the Wall during the middle and second half of the 4th century, with lots of finds from the middle and the south of Britain instead.
Does this mean that the Wall was garissoned by Saxons? I think not, at least not until we find tell-tale signs of them. From what we can tell in Britain as well as on the continent, usually Germanic troops that are used in a strict military fashion are equipped from Roman fabricae. We can see the military belt-sets being buried in the regions of origin after their service ends. Saxons would not be treated any differently I think (at least I can't see any pressing reason to assume that).
And I do NOT subscribe to the notion of any group being present but somehow 'invisible' due to some reason.

Of course, the map is dating to 1986:
http://www.fectio.org.uk/articles/hwb/fig18.htm

[attachment=6444]18large.jpg[/attachment]

[Caballo]

Thanks- very much not!- and I would recommend the book by the way- extremely interesting and stimulating. The first three sections on the limited / zero evidence for Arthur is stuff that I suspect that we would all agree with- and the final section is full of new and stimulating theories. Look forward to debating them!

[Nathan Ross]

From what we can tell in Britain as well as on the continent, usually Germanic troops that are used in a strict military fashion are equipped from Roman fabricae.

So is Halsall suggesting that these Saxons were settled as laeti, in 'civilian' communities as a sort of buffer state (like Toxandria?), rather than as a military garrison? Or is the evidence from Toxandria the same - Roman stuff?

Or perhaps, like elephants, the Saxons went back to their homeland to die? :-)

Interesting theory anyway - I suppose we can assume that somebody was living there, and if there's no evidence for Roman troops - who?

[mcbishop]

Just read Guy Halsall's new book (Worlds of Arthur-Fact and Fiction of the Dark Ages) and one theory that he invites people to look at is that Saxons were settled on the Wall in the late 4th century, and that this is linked to the lack of late Roman army belt sets the.
What evidence for Saxons is there?

From "Finds on the Frontier" I can find some late Roman crossbow buckles on the Wall, and some 6th century Saxon brooches ( eg at Birdoswald). Is there other evidence?

There were certainly Germans on the Wall, particularly around Housesteads, with first the Tungrians and then others (including Hnaudifridus and his chums) but I don't think there is any suggestion that they were imported Saxons. Rather they were long-established Germanic folk (going back at least into the 3rd century), with an imported Germanic pottery tradition that is now known as Housesteads Ware. Anglo-Saxon burials and finds occur at Corbridge but in a post-Roman context and, again, a 4th-century date would be unlikely there (not least as there was a dirty big thriving Roman town in the way).

The lack of late-Roman belt fittings is more perceived than real, I suspect (there's a nice one from Corbridge), and a product of the limited and incomplete nature of proper archaeological work that has been conducted there. Since the whole thing is now scheduled, the PAS is not going to add anything as detecting on any component of the Wall is streng verboten. All distribution maps tell you less about distribution and more about the loopholes in the methodology and inadequacies of the evidential basis.

Mike Bishop

[Flavivs Aetivs]

The Notitia Dignitatum lists "Cohors Frixagorum" which is believed to be a misnomer for a "Cohors Frisiavonum" and a Frisian contingient on Hadrian's wall.

[Redwald]

I was very impressed with this book; it is very thought provoking -- lots of closely argued ideas, usually backed up with evidence. Migration minimalists won't like it however. Nor will 'died in the wool' Arthurians. I can't remember his arguments regarding Saxons on the wall in detail at the moment, but with Halsall you can be sure that he will have explained why he makes the suggestion.

[Robert Vermaat]

Migration minimalists won't like it however.

Why?

Nor will 'died in the wool' Arthurians.

:lol:

I can't remember his arguments regarding Saxons on the wall in detail at the moment, but with Halsall you can be sure that he will have explained why he makes the suggestion.

Too bad there are no notes in the book..

[mcbishop]

The Notitia Dignitatum lists "Cohors Frixagorum" which is believed to be a misnomer for a "Cohors Frisiavonum" and a Frisian contingient on Hadrian's wall.

Cohors I Frixiavonum was recorded at Carrawburgh, the next fort to the east, from an altar (RIB 1523) in Coventina's Well (earlier than late-4th century) and the Notitia entry refers to Rudchester, some way to the east. They are recorded in Britain as early as the diploma of AD105. Here's a paper on Frisians in Britain for those with nothing better to do. Is this in fact the origin of the 'Saxons on the Wall' meme, I wonder?

Mike Bishop

[Renatus]

Too bad there are no notes in the book..

What? And the fellow calls himself a scholar!

[mcbishop]

What? And the fellow calls himself a scholar!

Many British publishers are scared of notes in a book. Just like all those recaps and dumbed-down summaries on TV documentaries, they are scared the reader/viewer will lose interest. All part of British anti-intellectualism. Never underestimate the underestimation of the uncomprehending.

Mike Bishop
Never knowingly de-noted

[Caballo]

"Never underestimate the underestimation of the uncomprehending." Sadly true. But the book is a good attempt to bridge the gap between scholarly conclusions and the general public, and to save them (the public) from spending money on books on Arthur than aren't really worth the paper they are printed on...

"Migration minimalists won't like it however.
Why?"

Halsall very convincingly takes apart the "loads of Saxons fighting the Romano Britons , starting in the east and slowly conquering till they reach Wales" theory. 5th century Britain is much more complicated than that, with each area trying to do the best for their particular patch of land, and with multiple alliances and cross alliances.

[Robert Vermaat]

"Migration minimalists won't like it however.
Why?"
Halsall very convincingly takes apart the "loads of Saxons fighting the Romano Britons , starting in the east and slowly conquering till they reach Wales" theory. 5th century Britain is much more complicated than that, with each area trying to do the best for their particular patch of land, and with multiple alliances and cross alliances.

Sounds like a great book for me. ;-)

[Renatus]

Many British publishers are scared of notes in a book.

You might have expected better from OUP, though.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Sounds like a great book for me. ;-)

And me as well, I always viewed the collapse of britain as the result of granting land to mercenaries and the degredation of the Roman-Style government resulting in the collapse of control to essentially small city-states, with some retained authority in Londinium and a portion of Britain until c. 450.