|
This article is part |
|
|
| Government |
| Anglo-Saxon economy |
| Anglo-Saxon charters |
| Anglo-Saxon kings and kingdoms |
| Anglo-Saxon military organization |
| Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain |
| Anglo-Saxon warfare
Religion |
| Anglo-Saxon Christianity |
| Anglo-Saxon paganism
|
| Material culture |
| Anglo-Saxon architecture |
| Anglo-Saxon art |
| Anglo-Saxon burial |
| Anglo-Saxon dress |
| Anglo-Saxon glass
|
| Other |
| Anglo-Saxon language |
| Anglo-Saxon literature |
| Anglo-Saxon women |
The Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain was the invasion and migration of Germanic peoples from continental Europe to Great Britain during the Early Middle Ages, specifically the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons in Britain after the demise of Roman rule in the 5th century.
The stimulus, progression and impact of the Germanic settlement of Britain is subject to considerable disagreement, prompted by varying accounts and evidence. The traditional division of the migrants into Angles, Saxons and Jutes — peoples from Angeln, Saxony and Jutland — comes from the Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum, an 8th-century Latin history written by the Venerable Bede about Christianity in the Kingdom of England.[1] Historical and archaeological research in the early 20th century has shown that a wider range of Germanic peoples from the coasts of Frisia, Lower Saxony, and Sweden also have moved to Britain in this era.[2] The Anglo-Saxons supplanted Celtic culture and society in much of southern and central Britain and contributed to the creation of Anglo-Saxon England and the use of the Old English language.
Contents |
Slaves were the engine of both the economy and the army in Roman Britain, as they were throughout the Roman Empire. Estimates for the prevalence of slavery vary, with some estimating that approximately 30% of the population of the Empire in the 1st century was enslaved.[3] The Germanic region was one of the main sources of slaves. The business of selling slaves was mostly carried out by wholesale dealers who followed the Roman armies. There was a reduction of sources for procurement of slaves after the expansion phase, although around AD 210 there was a significant increase of piracy in the North Sea which helped the Empire partially resolve the issue. Pirates often attacked whole villages, capturing people for ransom or to sell as slaves.
Under Diocletian, the Ius Colonatus was a reform of the slavery system introduced around AD 286. This provided a set of rights for slaves and improved their living conditions, establishing a system similar to later serfdom. The owners of slaves paid a tax to prevent the recruitment of their slaves into the army. This led to a Germanization and barbarization of the army, as the tax was used to recruit mercenaries. Britannia required approximately 3 to 4 legions to maintain Roman control. After the Battle of Adrianople, the foederati reforms extended the practice of subsidizing entire barbarian tribes in exchange for their providing warriors to fight in the Roman armies. The Hospitalitas reform involved the granting of a third of the land or fees of a region to barbarians who had invaded them. In return, these people declared loyalty to the Emperor and provided military support, while retaining their independence with Roman approval. Some Germanic peoples may have been resident in Britain after these reforms.
Between the third and fifth century many people living around the borders of the empire were displaced by raids by the Huns; this was the period of highest movement of Germanic populations to the island.
The population of Britain may have decreased after the Roman period by between 1.5 and 3 million people. This reduction may have been caused by environmental changes – some reconstructions of historical climatology have found a sharp fall-off in 3rd-century and 5th-century temperatures in the northern hemisphere[4] – or by disease – the Plague of Justinian reached Britain around 544[5] and is estimated to have killed 50–60% of Europe's population over the next century; smallpox left India around AD 600.[6]
It has long been held that the Anglo-Saxons invaded Sub-Roman Britain – mostly later England – in large numbers in the fifth and sixth centuries during the Germanic Migration Period, substantially displacing the British people. According to the 12th-century Anglo-Norman chronicler Henry of Huntingdon, the first Germanic polity to be created was Kingdom of Kent in the 6th century, followed by Sussex, Wessex, Essex, East Anglia, Mercia and Northumbria.[7] These seven states were considered by Henry to form a Heptarchy, although modern historians generally discount it as an over-simplification.[7][8] Meanwhile, many groups of native Britons even resettled on the continent, principally in Armorica (Brittany) in France and Britonia in Spanish Galicia,[9] the homes of pre-existing Celtic communities.
The Anglo-Saxon historian Frank Stenton, although making considerable allowance for British survival, argued in 1943 that "the greater part of southern England was overrun in the first phase of the war".[10] This interpretation was based on the written sources – particularly Gildas, whose sermon De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae portrayed the arrival of Germanic people as divine punishment for the sins of the British,[11] but also the later sources such as Bede's Ecclesiastical History, the 9th-century Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, and the later Anglo-Norman chroniclers[11][12][13] – that cast the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons as a violent event. The placename and linguistic evidence was also considered to support this interpretation, as very few British place-names survived in eastern Britain, very few British Celtic words entered the Old English language and the migration of Brittonic language and peoples from south-western Britain to Armorica, which eventually became Brittany.[14]
According to research led by University College London, Anglo-Saxon settlers could have enjoyed a substantial social and economic advantage over the native Celtic Britons[15] who lived in what is now England, establishing an apartheid-like culture for more than 300 years from the middle of the 5th century.[16][17][18]
The invasion narrative particularly appealed to early English historians, who wanted to further their view that England had developed differently from Europe with a limited monarchy and love of liberty. This, they argued, came from the mass Anglo-Saxon invasions. While this view was never universal – Edward Gibbon, for one, believed that there had been a great deal of British survival – it was the dominant paradigm. Though many scholars would now challenge this argument, the traditional view is still held by many others. Lawrence James wrote in 2002 that England was "submerged by an Anglo-Saxon current which swept away the Romano-British".[14]
The traditional view has been deconstructed to a degree since the 1990s. At the centre of this is a re-estimation of the numbers of Anglo-Saxons arriving in Britain during this period. A lower figure is sometimes accepted, which would mean that it is highly unlikely that the existing British population was substantially displaced by the Anglo-Saxons.[19] The Saxons are thus seen as a ruling elite coexisting with the local population, with "Saxon" graves possibly those of Britons.[20] Many scholars continue to disagree with this interpretation.[21][22][23][24][25]
The traditional view of mass Anglo-Saxon migration and violent invasion is most challenged by the historian and archaeologist Francis Pryor who believes that northern European migration to Britain was a slow, peaceful and limited process resulting in an infusion of culture. This view was strongly expressed in his Discovery Channel television program "Britain AD: King Arthur's Britain" and in his book Britain AD: a quest for Arthur, England and the Anglo-Saxons.
Archaeologists have uncovered Celtic artefacts in England dating from later times than the supposed Anglo-Saxon 'apartheid' of Britons was believed to take place.[26] Some areas, such as those around the Pennines still retained a strong Celtic culture, a prime example being the speaking of the Cumbric language until late into the 12th century and the Cornish language even longer until the 18th century. Celtic traditions and words have survived even until today, such as Cornish, Cumbrian and Lancashire wrestling and many placenames such as Pen-y-Ghent in North Yorkshire.[27]
Linguistic evidence can be interpreted as a marker of the cultures that have influenced given regions.[28] Study in Old English has shown little evidence of a Celtic language substratum. A recently emerging (2004) diglossia model proposes to explain the substantial changes between Old English and Middle English. According to this model, Old English was the written language of the Anglo-Saxon period but a large portion of the population spoke a Celticised English which emerged in Middle English following the Norman conquest and the overthrowing of the Anglo-Saxon elite.[29][30][31] Niehues suggests that words from the various Celtic languages can be found in almost all spheres of the English language, ranging from first names and surnames to names of places, to common nouns, and even to a number of verbs.[32] He also points out that there is no general consensus on how large the Celtic contribution to the English lexicon actually is and whether it is smaller than one would expect or merely not yet fully recognised.[32][33] Celtic is claimed as a cause in the change from a synthetic language expressing grammatical relations through suffixes to an analytic one employing word order instead[29] and the use of the progressive tense (e.g., "am reading").[34][35] Celtic influence is also used to explain puzzling elements in English – for instance, frequent dependence on the semantically neutral verb "to do" ("I don't know", rather than "I know not")[36] and the lack of an external possessor in English, despite its presence in all major European languages except Celtic.[37]
When the Anglo-Saxons arrived in Britain in the 5th century, they had a strong oral tradition but were largely illiterate,[38][39] save for some use of Germanic runes.[40] They were introduced to Latin script by way of Christian missionaries from the late 7th century onwards.[41] During the Anglo-Saxon period, documents would have been produced in writing offices known as scriptoria in cathedrals and monasteries.[41] Based on ideas from the remaining Brythonic Celtic communities and possibly Ireland, the scribes developed an Old English script.[41] Manuscripts were then produced, providing us with a written record of the language although Latin continued to predominate.[41] The use of Old English script diminished after the Norman Conquest, but did not finally die out until the 12th century.[41]
Studies of placenames give clues about the linguistic history of an area.[42] The traditional perspective held that Brythonic language and culture and the political power of the original Britons were displaced in these areas over time, but remained in Wales, Cornwall, and for a time in the Hen Ogledd ("Old North"), an area now divided between northern England and southern Scotland.[27] Some recent research on placenames suggests that some Brythonic-speakers actually survived the Anglo-Saxon conquest in some parts of what is now England, and that Brythonic may have been spoken in north-west Wiltshire after 600,[43] many parts of the west Midlands until the end of the 9th century,[44] and Cumberland until the 12th century.[45][46][47]
However, although recent research has demonstrated that there are more Brythonic placenames in English than traditionally thought, it still remains relatively moderate.[42][48] There are scattered Celtic placenames throughout, increasing towards the west. There are also Celtic river names and topographical names. The placename and linguistic evidence has been explained by the argument that the settlement of Anglo-Saxons being politically and socially dominant in the south and east of Britain, their language and culture also became dominant in those areas. Names with Latin elements suggest continuity of settlement, while some placenames have names of pagan Germanic deities. Names of British origin are usually taken as indicating survival of a British population, though this may not be so. Names such as Walton, based on the Anglo-Saxon word for the British wealh, are also taken as indicating British survival.[49]
Epigraphic evidence, such as Anglo-Saxon runes, provide another source of information on the settlements of the Saxons and others in this period.
Recent work analysing the Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA of people now living in Britain and on the continent has provided some insight into population movements during the sub-Roman period. A 2002 study from University College London was interpreted as showing the possibility of large scale Anglo-Saxon migration to central and eastern England, accounting for 50–100% of the population in Central England.[50] However, a more complete study in 2003 suggests that there may have been substantially less Anglo-Saxon migration to other regions of England and that the transition between England and Wales was more gradual than the earlier study suggested.[51] The study also provides evidence that all areas of the British Isles have some pre-Anglo-Saxon genetic component. It did not identify a discernible difference in the Y chromosomes of the presumed source populations of Anglo-Saxons and the later Danish invaders, thus the survey registered both sets of chromosomes as belonging to the same group. Further, when the study included the samples from Friesland used by the 2002 study as a source population for Anglo-Saxons, it found no statistically significant difference between those samples and the North German/Danish group. All continental samples were statistically different from British samples. On the other hand the principal components analysis showed that samples from Friesland, although closer to the North German/Danish samples, were somewhat closer to the British samples than the North German/Danish samples were.[52]
Others interpret the genetic evidence above differently. Stephen Oppenheimer in The Origins of the British and Bryan Sykes in Blood of the Isles suggest that the contribution to the British gene pool from Anglo-Saxons and other late invaders may have been very limited. They claim that about two-thirds of English people's ancestors are Paleolithic settlers who migrated from the western European Ice Age refuge[53] in Paleolithic Iberia, comprising three-quarters of British people's ancestors. If true, this would support the idea of an ancient relationship between the populations of Atlantic Europe, though the eastern and southeastern coasts of Great Britain do not belong to this zone.[54] Sykes and Oppenheimer state that even in the east of England, where there is the best evidence for migration, no more than 10% of paternal lines may be designated as coming from an "Anglo-Saxon" migration event and that in the same English regions 69% of male lines are still of aboriginal origin. Oppenheimer postulates a possible pre-Anglo-Saxon genetic relationship between the modern populations of England (especially the south and east) and the people living on the opposing North Sea regions, indicating a much older pre-Roman Germanic influence in southern and eastern England. There is some evidence that Y-chromosome Haplogroup I, which occurs at similar frequencies around the North Sea coast, may represent a mesolithic colonization rather than an Anglo-Saxon migration as is argued by other researchers. This haplogroup represents a migration from the Balkan refuge that may have travelled along inland European rivers rather than by the Atlantic coast.[55]
Oppenheimer also postulates that the arrival of Germanic languages in England may be considerably earlier than previously thought – perhaps pre-Roman – and that both mainland and English Belgae from Gaul may have been Germanic-speaking peoples and represented closely related ethnic groups or a single cross-channel ethnic group. The invasions recorded by Bede would then have been simply the exchange of one Germanic elite for another.[56]
The following semi-legendary 5th and 6th century kings are credited with establishing the first Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in England: