Were there Anglo-Saxon invasions after the Romans left?

[Donna Ferentes]

Having seen Francis Pryor's series and recently read his Britain AD book, I'm fascinated to learn that many historians now believe that the invasions recounted by Bede never happened - that the whole version of post-Roman history that I was taught at college* is wrong and largely imaginary.

However, I have some problems with this thesis, on which I will expand if there's any interest in the subject. Are there, in fact, posters with any academic or amateur knowledge of this field?

[* = by VHH Green, the man on whom John Le Carré based Smiley...]

 

[Belushi]

I thought that Francis Pryor series was a crock, haven't read Britain AD.

There were certainly 'Anglo-Saxons' in Britain prior to the Roman withdrawl, many had served here as mercenaries and settlements of them had built up along the East Coast. AFAIK most sources from the time (and there are very few of them) broadly agree with Bedes version of events, with Germanic mercenaries becoming settlers.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Except that there aren't really any sources from the time: the only such source is Gildas, at the end of the sixth century, and Bede based his account on that.

Whether Gioldas plucked his account, as the contemporary parlance has it, out of his arse, is the question.

 

[Belushi]

Except that there aren't really any sources from the time: the only such source is Gildas, at the end of the sixth century, and Bede based his account on that.

Whether Gioldas plucked his account, as the contemporary parlance has it, out of his arse, is the question.

Doesnt Nennius also mention Saxon invaders? and believe there are also mentions of invasions in some Monkish Chronicles on the Continent. Looks like Im going to have to do some research! I'll have a look tonight and get back to you tomorrow.

 

[Belushi]

Interesting essay here http://www.vortigernstudies.org.uk/artgue/guestcapps.htm

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Doesnt Nennius also mention Saxon invaders? and believe there are also mentions of invasions in some Monkish Chronicles on the Continent.

This is something that interests me. I mean you'd expect somebody to have a go in the circumstances, wouldn't you?

 

[Belushi]

This is something that interests me. I mean you'd expect somebody to have a go in the circumstances, wouldn't you?

I was going to look up a few things last night but ended up smoking a few spliffs instead

 

[Donna Ferentes]

That's probably what happened to the Anglo-Saxons too. "I was going to get the ships ready, but you know how it is..."

 

[Donna Ferentes]

I was going to write to Pryor to ask him about this, incidentally - might do anywy. I had four main objections:

1. I don't really believe that the Anglo-Saxon language (to use a clumsy phrase) would develop in Britain, or come to be adopted there, over a relatively short historical period, just because there were contacts with continental Europe. For something like that to happen I think it needs to be imposed in one way or another.

2. Farming patterns. Pryor sems to argue that having Anglo-Saxon houses, clotehs etc isn't evidence of Anglo-Saxon invaders: they could simply be adopted (as per "Celtic" ironware) because they were good. Fair enough, but is it then consistent to say that if farms continued to be worked in the same way after the period as they were before it means it must have been the same people working them? Why can't invading Anglo-Saxons have seen that the farming methods worked and kept them the same?

3. Pryor seems to use fourth-century religious movements as evidence of social and intellectual self-confidence and stability - in the fifth century.

4. As I say above, why not invade? And who would have stopped an invasion?

I might also add - if an organised Church survived long, where's the documentation?

 

[Belushi]

we have attacks on Britain by Saxons mention in the fourth century historian Ammianus Marcellinus and in the late fifth century Life of Saint Germanus. Gildas (writing about 510 AD), Bede (writing in the early eighth century), the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the Historia Brittonum and the Annals Cambrae all mention the Anglo-Saxon take over. The Gallic Chroniclers of 452 and 511 (who lived in modern Provence) mention the Saxon invasion and the sixth century historian Procopius (who lived in Constantinople) tells as Angles and Frisians lived in Britain.

From a review of Britian AD here http://dark-ages.mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/page5.html

 

[Stigmata]

It's my understanding that the Anglo-Saxons arrived as mercenaries to fill the gap left by the departure of the legions c410. They came to dominate the lands of England through a mixture of conquest and settlement. That's the standard view of course. I can't see what Bede or anyone else stood to achieve by making this up. I believe St Patrick said something about this too, and the Anglo-Saxon invasion was supposedly detailed in several Welsh poems now lost.

Added to this there's lots of incidental evidence of some pretty fundamental changes that corroborate the 'invasion' idea. One example off the top of my head is the replacement of the Romano-British custom of burial of the dead with the Germanic custom of cremation. This happened around the time the invasion is supposed to have taken place.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

we have attacks on Britain by Saxons mention in the fourth century historian Ammianus Marcellinus and in the late fifth century Life of Saint Germanus. Gildas (writing about 510 AD), Bede (writing in the early eighth century), the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the Historia Brittonum and the Annals Cambrae all mention the Anglo-Saxon take over. The Gallic Chroniclers of 452 and 511 (who lived in modern Provence) mention the Saxon invasion and the sixth century historian Procopius (who lived in Constantinople) tells as Angles and Frisians lived in Britain.

Some of this is a bit problematic - for instance, the fourth-century attacks are well-documented but are soemthing else entirely, taking place forty years before the Roman departure. Bede drew on Gildas and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle probably drew on Bede.

The stuff at the end, though, I'd like to know more about.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

It's my understanding that the Anglo-Saxons arrived as mercenaries to fill the gap left by the departure of the legions c410. They came to dominate the lands of England through a mixture of conquest and settlement. That's the standard view of course. I can't see what Bede or anyone else stood to achieve by making this up. I believe St Patrick said something about this too, and the Anglo-Saxon invasion was supposedly detailed in several Welsh poems now lost.

Added to this there's lots of incidental evidence of some pretty fundamental changes that corroborate the 'invasion' idea. One example off the top of my head is the replacement of the Romano-British custom of burial of the dead with the Germanic custom of cremation. This happened around the time the invasion is supposed to have taken place.

On the first paragraph: well, if it was made up, it was made up by Gildas. Not all writers are reliable and it is possible that he wasn't: that's why you want corroborating sources. One of the strength's of Pryor's arguments, you see, is the lack of corroborating archaeology.

On which, the second point. It is apparent that there were changes in customs in some ways, and not in others: but what Pryor feels - in the absence of hard archaeological evidence for the movement of peoples - is that it wasn't necessarily unusual for people in one part of the world to gradualy absorb and adapt the customs of people from a neighbouring part of the world. (This is why, for instance, what was previous thought to be the spreading of a Celtic "people" is now widely believed to have been the spreading of a "culture" instead, i.e. it was the customs that moves and not the people.)

 

[Belushi]

The stuff at the end, though, I'd like to know more about.

Theres an article here http://www.vortigernstudies.org.uk/artsou/procop.htm

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Yeah, I'm not quite sure of the academic standing of that site.

 

[Belushi]

for instance, the fourth-century attacks are well-documented but are soemthing else entirely, taking place forty years before the Roman departure.

As dfar as I can tell from a quick google Germanus visited Britain in c429 and then again in the 440s, and in the hagiography written around 480 is described as having led an army of Christian Britons against a combined force of Picts and Saxons, an account which predates Gildas.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

You'll forgive me for observing that I'm also unconvinced of the academic standing of "a quick Google".

 

[Belushi]

Yeah, I'm not quite sure of the academic standing of that site.

Yes, it seems to be run by a Dutch enthusiast, it seems well sourced though.

 

[Belushi]

You'll forgive me for observing that I'm also unconvinced of the academic standing of "a quick Google".

I dont expect you to take it as Gospel, but I dont have a copy of St Germanus's Hagiography to hand various sites have the same information so I'm guessing its probably accurate.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Yeah, but you're mixing things up I think. The fourth century invasions are something else entirely: there's a name to them (the something Conspiracy, my Pryor's at home and so's my Salway) and no question of their historical existence.

 

[Belushi]

Yeah, but you're mixing things up I think. The fourth century invasions are something else entirely: there's a name to them (the something Conspiracy, my Pryor's at home and so's my Salway) and no question of their historical existence.

So Pryor's agreeing that the invasions which are corrobarated by two different sources happened but disputing the ones which our only sources are Gildas and Bede?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Not sure of the point you're making.

 

[Belushi]

Not sure of the point you're making.

That Prior seems to be picking and choosing what he believes in.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Well not really, because there's many sources for the fourth-century stuff, there's no question of anybody "believing" in it or not. It's questioned by nobody because there's no reason to: it'd be like questioning the invasions of Julius Caesar or Claudius.

For the posited Anglo-Saxon invasions, though we have only one source from Britain, and that written at the end of the sixth century by a writer of unknown reliability. So it's a bit different.

 

[Belushi]

Well not really, because there's many sources for the fourth-century stuff, there's no question of anybody "believing" in it or not. It's questioned by nobody because there's no reason to: it'd be like questioning the invasions of Julius Caesar or Claudius.

For the posited Anglo-Saxon invasions, though we have only one source from Britain, and that written at the end of the sixth century by a writer of unknown reliability. So it's a bit different.

But Germanus visited Britain in the fifth century (429AD and in the 440s, after the Roman departure.

And Gildas was writting aroun d 510Ad wasnt he?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Gildas rather later.

Germanus I know less about.

 

[Belushi]

The Centre of Genetic Anthropology at UCL carried out a study that came to the conclusion that there had been a large scale migration from Frisia/North Germany in this period (audio-visual presentation link at the bottom of the page).

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/tcga/

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Ah. I think Pryor attacks that study at some length.

I'll have to look this up when back at the castillo...

 

[Idaho]

I'll freely admit to not being studied in this area. However it does come across to the casual reader that unreliable evidence is not proof of the contrary. And in the abscence of proof to the contrary, we are forced to accept unreliable sources.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Well, we're not: we don't have to accept it. But substantial archeologial evidence in one direction may well be preferred to one single unreliable account written long after the events it describes.

Pryor discusses the UCL survey on p. 221-4 of Britain AD (it's a shorter discussion than that reference implies, two of the pages are for maps) and also, according to his footnote, on p.xxvi of Britain BC.

There were attacks on Britain (and uprisings within it) in 360, 364 and 367, the last of these being the so-called Barbarian Conspiracy.

There's obviously been a debate on the Anglo-Saxon invasions going on in historiography for a generation or more, although it doesn't seem to have entered the public consciousness until recently (since books from as recently as a decade ago don't necessarily mention that the invasions are doubted in some quarters). I was hoping somebody might have knowledge of books and articles that challenged Pryor's views and evidence directly, rather than the old material which Pryor himself is challenging...