How should we nowadays understand the Anglo-Saxon 'Invasions' of lowland Britain?

Authors Avatar

George Molyneaux

How should we nowadays understand the Anglo-Saxon ‘Invasions’ of lowland Britain?

There is considerable uncertainty about the transition from a ‘Romano-British’ society to a predominantly ‘Anglo-Saxon’ society that occurred in most of lowland Britain between the fourth and sixth centuries; indeed, since we must rely on a very few writings, supplemented by fragmentary archaeological and philological evidence, it is questionable to what extent we can hope to ‘understand’ the period. Nevertheless, by considering the different types of evidence in relation to each other, we can reach tentative conclusions. I do not propose to analyse in detail the precise chronology of the period: the basic outline, upon which Gildas and archaeological evidence agree, is that, after Roman and sub-Roman leaders invited mercenaries from the Continent in the fourth and fifth centuries, these mercenaries rebelled. Joined by others from the Continent, they settled across southern and eastern Britain over subsequent centuries. This expansion was not uniform: there were periods of British success (such as after Mons Badonicus) and some British kingdoms (such as Elmet) survived in lowland Britain for some time.

While there is important debate about the origin of the Anglo-Saxon immigrants and the timing of their arrival, the central matters of historiographical dispute nowadays concern the scale of the Anglo-Saxon immigration and the extent to which the Britons survived the adventus Saxonum, the expression often used for the Anglo-Saxon ‘invasions’. The question is whether this adventus (literally “arrival”) was a full-scale ‘invasion’, which comprehensively demolished or displaced the Britons, or a smaller ‘elite migration’, which involved changes in leadership and language, but allowed considerable continuity with the sub-Roman period. The tendency has been to see these as strict alternatives, with historians like Stenton and Myres taking the former view and Arnold, Hodges and Higham adhering to the latter. However, I shall argue that the survival of many Britons and substantial Anglo-Saxon immigration are not mutually exclusive; Hamerow points at such a conclusion, without exploring it fully. I shall firstly examine the evidence that suggests significant continuities between the sub-Roman period and time of the emergence of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms: these continuities imply that a substantial British population survived, casting doubt upon the theses of Stenton and Myres. Secondly, we must consider those areas where there were discontinuities; generally, I shall not deny these discontinuities, but will suggest that they are not necessarily inconsistent with British survival. Related to this is the question of how these fundamental changes, especially in language and material culture, were brought about. If a significant British population survived but aspects of British culture were lost, this means that there was acculturation, as Higham argues; however, I shall argue that the extent of the changes required much greater immigration than Higham posits. Finally, it is appropriate to confirm that it is not contradictory to argue that there was large-scale immigration without a corresponding decline in the British population.

There are various indicators of continuity between the periods before and after the adventus: some of the most significant relate to land use and settlement. In many cases, field systems can be shown to have survived the adventus: examples of such continuities include Sampford (Devon), Blockley (Gloucestershire), Piddletrenthide (Dorset), Eastry (Kent) and Great Wymondley (Hertfordshire). However, the evidence for the smooth transition of estates from sub-Roman to Anglo-Saxon periods is not as clear in Britain as it is in Gaul, where the Franks frequently and clearly took over estates with minimal disruption. Nevertheless, this is not a sufficient reason to claim that there was not continuity in much of Britain: as Hodges points out, the number of parallels being noted in Britain is increasing as more effort is devoted to detailed field-walking studies. The division of land and the organisation of farming must have been central to the rhythms of everyday rural life; the likely survival of sub-Roman field systems in many cases suggests continuity in population and therefore widespread British survival, even if Britons were primarily performing relatively menial work for their new rulers.

Similarly, there are villages that remained as centres of settlement, such as Cranborne Chase, Isle of Purbeck and Withington (Dorset) and Mucking (Essex). Continuity of settlement is also implied by the cemetery near Long Whittenham, which contains Roman, pagan Saxon and Christian Saxon burials. The evidence relating to these villages should perhaps not be pressed as hard as the evidence of field systems, since, as Myres argues, it is possible that the Anglo-Saxons established settlements on Romano-British sites, which were probably naturally suited to habitation by their location. Nevertheless, the evidence of place-names does favour the continued existence of some settlements: Gelling points out that many Anglo-Saxon place names contain elements like wic (from vicus, an administrative centre), ecles (implying the existence of a church), camp (from campus, a field), funta (suggesting the presence of a spring) and port (from portus, a harbour), which suggest continuity with the Romano-British past. Examples of such place-names include Wycombe, Warningcamp, Eccles, Fovant and Portsmouth; the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle’s claim that Portsmouth was named after a Saxon named Port is probably spurious, since a harbour was there since Roman times. The adoption of such elements in place-names is strong evidence that some settlements existed continuously between the Roman and the Anglo-Saxon periods.

Join now!

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 ...

This is a preview of the whole essay