The issue of the survival of the larger towns as centres of population, administration or both is a vexed question. There are some towns that do show continuities: St Albans, York, Canterbury, and London are examples. The survival of the cult of St Alban; archaeological evidence for the ongoing use of the legionary fortress and of Roman property boundaries at York; and the survival (with minor mutations) of the names of Canterbury and London imply continuous occupation. While we might not trust the detail of Gildas’s very precise comment that Britain was “ornamented with twenty eight cities” it is reasonable to assume that cities did survive in some form. After all, Gildas’s writings would lose credibility with his contemporaries if he were to fabricate the presence of a large number of cities. However, Arnold argues that the increase in deposits of black soil indicates urban decay and the consequent growth of vegetation. Loseby is probably correct to argue from this that the towns cannot have survived in an administrative capacity during the sub-Roman period: it would seem that hill forts and other isolated strong points (such as South Cadbury and Tintagel) were the principal centres of authority. However, the examples of continuity do suggest that some towns did survive as centres of British population, albeit upon a smaller scale than in Roman times.
Furthermore, there is evidence of continuity in assessment procedures and tolls. There are, for example, parallels between tribute systems in Wales and Northumbria: the name of the vacca de metreth (cow render in Durham) seems to have its origins in the Welsh treth (tribute). This implies a British basis for the tribute. Similarly, obligations to provide building services and entertainment to the ruler are common to British and Anglo-Saxon systems. Sawyer, who is generally keen to stress continuity, accepts that this latter argument is undermined by the possibility that the systems evolved separately, given the common Indo-European origin of the Britons and the immigrants; the parallel in terminology is far stronger evidence for a degree of institutional continuity. Moreover, rulers in Romano-British and Anglo-Saxon times had rights to tolls at certain sites, many of which remained the same (London, Fordwich, Sarre, Droitwich, Aylesbury and Benson, for example), perhaps suggesting continuity in those collecting the tolls. Myres suggests that the immigrants might have learned of these traditions during the time when they were employed as mercenaries and re-instituted them, after, as he claims, a thorough conquest. Again the evidence is not conclusive; it is, however, at least suggestive of the possibility that Romano-British institutions survived.
There are also aspects of British culture that survived. The names Cerdic and Caedwalla, which were later given to Anglo-Saxon kings, are British. This quite probably indicates that there was extensive intermarriage between Britons and Anglo-Saxons. Furthermore, the English adopted the festival of Lammas, which was celebrated on 1st August. There is no Continental parallel for this; Sawyer suggests the most likely derivation is the Celtic festival of Lughnasa. What we see from the evidence so far presented is that some aspects of Romano-British life did not disappear with the adventus: this makes it very hard to sustain the theses of Myres and Stenton, that the Britons were simply overwhelmed and displaced by the Anglo-Saxons. Clearly it is impossible to prove conclusively each of the examples of continuity suggested; the available evidence is too thin for that. However, they do suggest, by their accumulation and by some of the less disputable examples, that there was probably a considerable British survival.
Needless to say, there is evidence that might suggest that a large part of the Romano-British population was destroyed; I shall examine this evidence, demonstrating that we need not conclude that this was the case. Firstly, there are the writings in the early sources, which specifically refer to destruction. Gildas describes “congealed blood” that looked as if it “had been mixed up in some dreadful wine press”; the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for 491 says that “Aelle and Cissa besieged Anderitum, and killed all who lived there” and Bede approvingly refers to Aethelfrith, who “laid waste the nation of the Britons”. The first two references are to the destruction of towns; however, it will be argued below that the towns were already weak and that they should not be taken as representative of Britain as a whole. The third reference is primarily to battles fought by Aethelfrith’s war bands. Without doubt, battles did occur across Britain, with examples including Old Sarum, Beranbyrg, Biedcanford, Catraeth, Wodnesbeorh and Mons Badonicus (of which the last two were British victories). However, we may doubt the extent of their impact, since, as Gododdin and Beowulf imply, battles were generally fought between relatively small aristocratic forces. Evidence of extreme British hostility to the Anglo-Saxons (such as Gododdin) was probably written primarily for aristocratic consumption and need indicate neither that the general rural population was unduly hostile to the Anglo-Saxons nor that the mass of the British population was in some way wiped out.
Since Gildas’s readership would presumably have realised if he had fabricated recent events, we should accept that at least some cities were attacked and were “in ruins and unkempt”; however, we should neither attribute the decline of the towns entirely to the Anglo-Saxons nor overstate the significance of attacks on British towns. Following the departure of the Romans, the towns declined as economic and administrative centres; this is suggested by the dark soil mentioned above. The attacks of the Anglo-Saxons were not therefore the sole cause of the decline of the towns. Moreover, in examining continuity, the emphasis should, as Finberg argues, be on the countryside, where the majority of people lived. The evidence of the towns (which, in any case, do show some signs of continued British influence) should not lead us to conclude that the British population was seriously damaged by the adventus. A possible reason why towns were sites of conflict was that they would be more likely to have defences, which might encourage British resistance; it is quite probable that the general rural population was ‘conquered’ without widespread violence.
It has been claimed, notably by Stenton, that the almost total absence of British words from the English language and the small number of British place names indicate that the British population was totally overwhelmed. It is impossible to argue that the British language did not disappear; according to Gelling, less than twenty Celtic words survived in the English language. However, as Campbell, Higham, Sawyer and Ward-Perkins argue, this need not indicate that the British population was vanquished. It is not unusual for people to adopt the languages of their conquerors: this is seen from the examples of Ireland (English) and France and Spain (Latin). The motives to change were probably not particularly complex in Britain: the discrimination on the grounds of ethnicity evident in Ine’s law code (Britons were allocated a lower wergeld than Saxons of comparable rank) suggests that social advancement was predicated upon adopting aspects of the culture of the conquerors. Such a process of acculturation fits more readily than a thesis of catastrophic change with the evidence for some continuity. On the issue of place names, Stenton notes the small number of British place names in Sussex, but this is insufficient evidence to support his conclusion that there was therefore “little room for British survival”. It is quite possible, as Higham argues, that this adoption of Anglo-Saxon place names is simply another aspect of acculturation for social gain. However, there are a number of Celtic elements that survived, as noted above in the case of settlements. The survival of place names is particularly common for rivers, although continuity is far less common in the East than the West; Thames, Avon and Severn, for example, are of Celtic origin.
In some ways, it seems that there was much discontinuity in building styles: Continental building styles, such as dwellings with a sunken floor (Grubenhäuser) and rectangular (rather than circular) houses, were introduced, as Hamerow and Hills note. There is a degree of doubt, however: the Germanic longhouse style was not transferred to Britain and Hodges claims that there are similarities between certain Romano-British and Anglo-Saxon dwellings. He cites the examples at Dunston’s Clump (Romano-British) and Catholme (Anglo-Saxon), which both have timber posts supporting the roof; it had been generally considered that Romano-British houses did not have this ‘Anglo-Saxon’ feature. More evidence would need to be gathered to support a claim that there was widespread continuity, but, in any case, it is plausible that the changes in building style were the result of British emulation of their Anglo-Saxon conquerors, rather than the destruction of Romano-British influences.
Furthermore, the same argument about acculturation can be applied to claims that religious and artistic changes illustrate a complete Anglo-Saxon takeover. Myres contrasts the state of British culture in the East and West, noting that Christianity persisted in the West, as well as some forms of British decoration; these are generally absent in the East. Cremation cemeteries in the East also show the arrival of Germanic culture: one at Spong Hill, in particular, has yielded many Germanic cremation urns and the rite of cremation (rather than inhumation) was Continental. However, this contrast is not sufficient to justify the claim that the British culture was destroyed in the East and certainly need not imply the destruction of the Britons there. Hill suggests that our lack of knowledge about British culture may mean that we fail to identify accurately British artefacts that are found in the East; this argument is somewhat speculative, but is nonetheless a possibility. Furthermore, it appears that Christianity was not in any sense persecuted in the East, but was tolerated, for example by Raedwald and Penda. It is probable that the three hanging bowls in the Sutton Hoo treasure are of Celtic origin. What we see from this is that British culture was not being stamped out, which suggests that change to Germanic culture was voluntary. Ward-Perkins points out that there is a parallel for this in North Africa, where a largely Christian population gave up its language, religion and material culture after being overrun by Muslims. Since there are clear continuities in some areas, this implies the survival of substantial numbers of ethnic Britons in the Anglo-Saxon parts of Britain; the most logical way to explain the major changes that are apparent is therefore through acculturation, which, as we have seen, provides an adequate explanation for these transformations. Britons most probably adapted aspects of their lifestyle that were seen as indicating their ethnicity, but matters like settlement and agricultural processes could be retained, because they were presumably not viewed at the time as grounds for discrimination.
Having determined that a substantial British population survived in the areas conquered by the Anglo-Saxons, it is appropriate to consider the scale of the adventus. Higham, the greatest exponent of the acculturation theory, sees it as an elite migration of perhaps a thousand former mercenaries. Such an extremely small figure is not really plausible: while it is reasonable to conclude that a conquered majority might seek to emulate a conquering minority, there would at least have to be a sufficiently large number of immigrants for the Britons to see clearly what they should emulate! It would be just possible to argue that a small clique of immigrants could transmit their religion, burial practices and material culture to a mass of indigenous Britons through highly public displays. However, the thorough change in language would surely require relatively close interpersonal contact, which suggests that there must have been a sufficiently high number of immigrants to permeate society. It is highly unlikely that the immigrants would have come close to outnumbering the Britons, but the idea of a language being transmitted when there were perhaps 200,000 immigrants is far more plausible than Higham’s claim that a thousand immigrants could swiftly induce a total shift in language. Furthermore, Hamerow points out that we do not see burials combining elements of British and Germanic rituals, as a gradual change would imply: this suggests that the initial migration must have been sufficiently large to prompt a swift alteration in burial practices. This, probably combined with ongoing immigration, would explain the very rapid rise in the number of Germanic burials noted by Hill and Hodges. The only adequate explanation of the transformation of some aspects of the culture in Britain is therefore a sizeable Anglo-Saxon immigration. Moreover, such a conclusion fits well with Bede’s claim that Angulus was depopulated since the emigration from that area was so great. In turn, this claim is buttressed by excavations in Schleswig-Holstein, which, according to Hamerow, reveal settlements that were deserted around this period.
We have, therefore, the two conclusions that a significant British population survived the adventus and that there was large-scale immigration: it is necessary to confirm that the aspects of this viewpoint are not contradictory. On the face of it, there is no reason why there should not have been a net increase in the population of Britain: it is not as if one Briton had to disappear for every Anglo-Saxon immigrant! The most significant evidence against such an increase is a paleobotanical study cited by Higham, which suggests that there was not a significant increase in population at this time. However, it is perhaps possible to incorporate this claim. Firstly, a devastating plague swept through Europe in the 540s, which probably coincides with the latter stages of the post-Mons Badonicus ‘calm’: this would mean that the second phase of Anglo-Saxon expansion began at a time when the population base in Britain was depressed. Secondly, Procopius refers to large numbers of Angles, Frisians and Britons emigrating from Britain to the territory of the Franks because there were so many people of these races. This would help to limit the net growth of the population of Britain, and the hint that there was overcrowding only lends weight to the argument that there was large-scale Anglo-Saxon immigration.
How appropriate is the word ‘invasions’ when referring to the adventus Saxonum? In one sense, the term is quite apt: it suggests a large movement of people, and it seems reasonable to posit relatively large-scale immigration to Britain. The traditional historiographical interpretation viewed the destruction of the British population as the logical corollary of this immigration, but we must now question this claim, in the light of the substantial elements of continuity with the sub-Roman period that can be deduced: the destructive connotations of the word ‘invasions’ therefore render it inappropriate in this context. There were indeed many important changes in Britain, not least the replacement of the Brittonic language with English. However, these changes need not indicate the replacement of ethnic Britons with ethnic Saxons: in the light of the continuities that are apparent, it is preferable to see the changes as the result of acculturation for social advancement. The resultant changes were such that it was probably often hard to distinguish between Britons and Saxons. Therefore, although there were aspects of continuity, it would be a mistake to try to force the whole period into a straitjacket of continuity. The stark choice that Finberg presents with the title “Continuity or Cataclysm?” is not particularly helpful: although this was a period of transformation, with significant elements of continuity, this transformation probably did not involve widespread violence for most ordinary rural Britons, as ‘cataclysm’ would imply. We should therefore understand the adventus Saxonum quite simply as ‘the arrival of the Saxons’, and neither imbue our translation of the expression with the idea of extensive violent replacement of Britons with Saxons, as the word ‘invasions’ might imply, nor deny, as Higham does, that a large migration of people from the Continent to Britain occurred.
Bibliography
Sources:
Bede, Ecclesiastical History, ed. and trans. B Colgrave & R.A.B. Mynors (1969)
Gildas, The Ruin of Britain, ed. and trans. M. Winterbottom (1978)
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, ed. and trans. M. Swanton (1996)
Secondary works:
C.J. Arnold, Roman Britain to Saxon England (1984)
J. Campbell, The Anglo-Saxons (1982)
J. Campbell, Essays in Anglo-Saxon History (1986)
H.P.R Finberg, ‘Continuity or Cataclysm?’ in Lucerna (1964)
P. Fowler, ‘Agriculture and Rural Settlement’ in The Archaeology of Anglo-Saxon England, ed. D.M. Wilson (1976)
M. Gelling, Signposts to the Past (1977)
H. Hamerow, ‘Migration theory and the Anglo-Saxon “identity crisis”’ in Migrations and Invasions in Archaeological Explanation, ed. H. Hamerow and J. Chapman (1997)
N. Higham, Rome, Britain and the Anglo-Saxons (1992)
C. Hills, ‘The Archaeology of Anglo-Saxon England in the Pagan Period: a Review’, in Anglo-Saxon England 8 (1979)
R. Hodges, The Anglo-Saxon Achievement (1989)
S.T. Loseby, ‘Power and Towns in late Roman Britain and early Anglo-Saxon England’ in Sedes Regiae (ann.400-800), ed. G. Ripoll and J.M. Gurt (2000)
J.N.L. Myres, The English Settlements (1986)
P.H. Sawyer, From Roman Britain to Norman England (1998)
C.A. Snyder, An Age of Tyrants: Britain and the Britons, 400-600 (1998)
F.M. Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England (1971)
B. Ward-Perkins, ‘Why did the Anglo-Saxons not become more British?’ in English Historical Review 115 (2000)
I. Wood, ‘Before and After the Migration to Britain’ in The Anglo-Saxons from the Migration Period to the Eighth Century: An Ethnographic Perspective, ed. J. Hines (1997)
Gildas, The Ruin of Britain, 3
Gildas, The Ruin of Britain, 24
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle 491
Bede, Ecclesiastical History, i.34
Gildas, The Ruin of Britain, 24 and 26
Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, p.18
This figure, suggested by Ward-Perkins (Why did the Anglo-Saxons not become more British?, p.523) would give a ratio of about four Britons to every one immigrant
Bede, Ecclesiastical History, i.15
Procopius, Wars, viii, 20