FROM the DEATH of EAGLES to the COMING of WOLVES: the CREATION of POST-ROMAN BRITAIN 400-600 C.E. a University Thesis Presented

Home , Magnus Maximus, Middle England, Nennius, Wansdyke (earthwork)

FROM THE DEATH OF EAGLES TO THE COMING OF WOLVES: THE CREATION OF POST-ROMAN BRITAIN 400-600 C.E.

A University Thesis Presented to the Faculty

California State University, East Bay

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts in History

Bryan Doherty

May 2020

Abstract This Research explores the transition from post-Roman British to Anglo-Saxon as the dominant culture of England took place between the fifth and seventh centuries by utilizing the disciplines of history and archaeology. Studying cultures without a written tradition or limited primary sources such as the two studied in this research, results in a great limitation of evidence. Without any direct written records to assist them or only very few, historians turn to ethnohistorical methods, requiring them to filter through culture biases and issues of intended audience, genre, and intent of the text to find clues as to the nature of certain historical events and cultural aspects of interest. Archaeology supplies a great wealth of knowledge as to related material culture but suffers due to the disconnection between archaeological and historical scholarly literature.

What has been revealed through research combining these two disciplines is a long-standing narrative of the British peoples not having agency in their own history. The narrative of both disciplines until the 2000’s, was that Britain was conquered and occupied by Rome, and then quickly fell into chaos after Rome’s exodus in the early fifth century. It was then quickly conquered by Anglo-Saxons by the beginning of the sixth century as most of the material culture dated to the sixth century was classified as Anglo-

Saxon. Recent Archaeological research, however, namely that of Francis Pryor, James

Gerrad, and Stuart Laycock suggest a counter narrative; one in which the British peoples had a direct and dramatic influence on the changes in Britain of the late fourth to sixth centuries. This narrative has been formed by challenging three major elements of the narrative conquest: Pryor argues that elements of British culture survived and thrived in

iii

the late days of the Roman occupation and returned in many ways to a pre-Roman Britain after the Roman exodus. Gerrad challenges the notion of an economic collapse when the

Roman influence in Britain collapsed and bolsters Pryor’s argument of a fiercely independent Britain after the Roman occupation in an examination of a resurgence of a pastoral and agricultural focused economy practiced in pre-Roman Britain. Laycock adds to this narrative of British agency by arguing that it was British tribal conflicts, not necessarily invading Germanic peoples that shaped Britain in the late fourth through sixth centuries.

This new narrative of British agency will be investigated and combined with the argument that the transition from post-Roman British to Anglo-Saxon as the dominant culture in Britain during the Migration Era was not the result of conquest but of cultural integration and assimilation. This argument will focus on three major elements of study:

The rise of British power and influence in the waning years of the Roman occupation and the formation of a fiercely independent Britain in the decades following the Roman exodus. It will be followed by an intensive investigation and challenge to the founding of

Kent, which according to the invasion narrative was the first seat of power in the Anglo-

Saxon conquest. Finally, a comparison of settlement patterns and land management between British and Anglo-Saxon cultures will be examined to challenge the invasion narrative on a country wide scale.

FROM THE DEATH OF EAGLES TO THE COMING OF WOLVES:

THE CREATION OF POST-ROMAN BRITAIN 400-600 C.E.

Bryan Doherty

Approved: Date:

Electronic Signature Available May 15, 2020

______

Dr. Kevin Kaatz

Electronic Signature Available May 15, 2020

______

Dr. Albert Gonzalez

Acknowledgments

Deep thanks to Professor Kaatz, and Professor Gonzalez for their guidance and infinite patience in the process of writing this research. I am fortunate to have you has my advisor and reader respectively as well as great mentors!

Deep thanks to Kevin Beckham for his aid in research and all his hard, unseen work on this research project!

To Chelsea, without her infinite patience and support through this process, I would have not completed!

Thank you all so much, without all of you this would have not been possible!

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments………………………………………………………………...... vi

List of Figures…………………………………………………………………...... viii

List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………..ix

List of Maps……………………………………………...... x

Chapter One: Giving up the Ghost of Rome……………...... 1

The Last of Rome………………………………………………...... 11 Britain After Rome………………………………………………………20

Chapter Two: Much Ado About Kent…………………………………………………...34

The Kentish Narrative……………………………………...... 34 Players on the Stage of History: Vortigern, Hengest and the Narrative of Kent………………………………………………………...41 Conclusions……………………………………………………………...55

Chapter Three: Conquest or Cultural Assimilation……………………………………...57

Conquest: The Narrative Against the Evidence…………………...... 57 Settlement: Invasive Expansion or Assimilation………………………...72 Similarities in Landscape Management: Ties in Agricultural and Pastoral Practices………………………………90 Conclusions………………………………………………………...... 96

Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………..98

vii

List of Figures

Figure 1: Graph of late Roman economy………………………………………………...18

Figure 2: Recreation of Roman Plumbata…………………………………...... 31

Figure 3: Comparison of Quiot brooch and buckle types…………………...... 32

Figure 4: Pillar of Eliseg…………………………………………………………………42

Figure 5: Thumb damage on skeleton from battle of Chester……………...... 65

Figure 6: Depressions on the skull of skeleton 2…………………………...... 65

Figure 7: Damage from bladed weapons to skull of skeleton 1………………………….66

Figure 8: Sunken feature buildings………………………………………………………77

Figure 9: Building C12 at Cowdery’s Down Hampshire…………………...... 79

Figure 10: Drawing of the footprint of Lake Village at Glastonbury……………………83

Figure 11: Recreation of the internal wall of a Round house……………...... 85

Figure 12: Drawing of two-story Round House at Thetford……………………………..87

Figure 13: Photo of the Round House at Pimperene Down………………...... 88

Figure 14: Photo of Iron Age British overhead granaries………………………………..89

viii

List of Tables

Table 1: Timeline of Primary sources of the Kentish Narrative…………………………36

Table 2: Table of Weapon types found in Graves…………………………...... 70

List of Maps

Map 1: Map of British tribal territories…………………………………………………..23

Map 2: Map of central tribal territories based on coin hoards……………...... 26

Map 3: Map of the locations of possible villa burnings………………………………….29

Map 4: Map of 5th century Anglo-Saxon Settlements……………………...... 49

Map 5: Map of Anglo-Saxon territories based on ethnicity………………...... 62

Chapter 1: Giving Up the Ghost of Rome

In order to explore the circumstances of cultural transition from Post-Roman

British to Anglo-Saxon as the dominant culture from mid fifth to sixth century Britain, we must first attempt to establish a defined British culture after the Roman exodus. This is a lofty challenge as the British culture that exists after centuries of Roman occupation and cultural influence is arguably, an amalgamation of uniquely British customs and many echoes of Roman material and social culture as well. In regards to archaeology this is particularly difficult, as the ability to identify uniquely British material culture amongst

Roman urban centers and cemeteries is problematic as the various British peoples living with the occupying Roman population took on many cultural elements from their occupiers and integrated it into their own. This no doubt happened with Romans as well, resulting in a complex ebb and flow of culture influence, adaptation and adoption that is very difficult to present in a defined, crystalized form.

Both the historical and archaeological record may however, supply some insight into how the cultural and socio-political situation in Britain was shaped after the Roman exodus in the early fifth century. Rome had occupied Britain since the first century C.E., subduing the resistance of united British tribes led by the husband of the famous warrior

Queen Boudica of the Iceni, a tribe with a territory in eastern Britain. Part of this Roman take over was the attack on the Isle of Mona, where a vast number of the British druids, a class that preserved British laws, customs and history resided. With most of the druids killed in that attack, Rome had crippled the ability of the British people to keep a hold on

their customs for future generations, leaving room only for Roman customs, laws and culture to permeate the British cultural consciousness.

This was enforced by a strong military presence in Britain. The Notitia

Dignitatum, a document detailing military deployment and stationing in Britain during the Roman occupation, details three commands in Britain: the Comes Britanniarum, an officer who seemingly had under his command a ‘field army’ of six cavalry units and three infantry units; that of the dux Britanniarum, whose troops are listed as occupying forts in the northern Britain and per lineam valli (along the line of the wall). Finally, the comes litoris Saxonici, whose command covered a number of fortifications along

Britain’s south-eastern coast.1 The total amount of Roman soldiers stationed in Britain in the fourth century has been estimated between 10,000 and 15,000 about half of the number of the garrison of the second century. The reduction in numbers would imply a more stable political and military situation in Britain in the fourth century and this was largely true until late in the second half. Internal politics and struggles of several aristocratic families and warlords vying for emperorship of the Western Roman empire resulted in Rome’s political and military influence over Britain beginning to fade.

An event dubbed the “Barbarian Conspiracy,” reportedly occurring in the winter of 367 C.E., involved a rebellion of the Roman garrison stationed along Hadrian’s wall across the northern border of Roman Britain allowing Pict and Scottish tribes to invade the territory, creating a brief period of unrest and chaos. This also included raids by

1 James Garred, The Ruin of Roman Britain: An Archaeological Perspective (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.) 27.

Saxons and Franks along the coast of Gaul (modern day France). This event was chronicled by Ammianus, who was in service to the current emperor, Valentinian.

Valentinian had recently seized power however, through a great political shake up in

Rome. Just a year prior to the conspiracy, a rebellion lead by Procopius, a usurper with links to the Constantinian Dynasty, was quelled by Valens securing Emperor

Valentinian’s rule. Valentinian had split the rule of the Western empire between himself and his brother Vallens in 364 C.E., the year he ascended to the role of emperor.2

The event itself and its chronology has been called into question by historians and archaeologists a like. Historical archaeologist, James Gerrad along with historian Stuart

Laycock both note that Ammianus’s chronology becomes suspect as the emperor’s itinerary suggests he did not receive word of the trouble in Britain until mid-summer and rushed to Amiens, a city in Gaul.3 Shortly after arriving in Amiens, Valentinian fell ill resulting in more jockeying for political power in Rome with Valentinian’s son Gratian being elevated to the title of Augustus and Emperor in August. Garred notes that the intended military campaign Valentinian was reportedly set to take to quell the rebellion would have given him the validation of military competency needed to cement his position as emperor in the eyes of the roman people and perhaps more importantly, the military. More doubt is cast on Amminanus’ account due to his claim that quelling of the rebellion heavily depleted the Roman garrisons stationed in Britain is at odds with other

2 Garred, Ruin of Roman Britain. 23-24.

3 Garred, Ruin of Roman Britain. 23; Stuart Laycock, Britiannia the Failed State: Tribal Conflicts and the End of Roman Britain (Gloucestershire: The History Press, 2009) 111.

contemporary sources namely the Notitia Dignitatum. Even if the “Barbarian

Conspiracy” of 367 C.E. was false flag event, generated to cement Valentinian’s rite as emperor, it still demonstrates the great political and military turmoil the Western Roman

Empire found itself in in the late fourth century. It would only escalate in the coming years leading into the early fifth century.

The next major rebellion would be conducted by another Roman general in

Britain, Magnus Maximus in 383 C.E. In this rebellion Maximus would kill Valentinian’s successor Gratian and name himself master of the north-western provinces. Though concrete evidence of Maximus’ title and military position is unclear, Gerrad cites that he was largely thought to be a disaffected army officer, perhaps the dux Britanniarum or comes Britanniarum. The evidence for this too is problematic at best, coming from the

Gallic Chronicle of 452 C.E.4 The entry in the Chronicle details a campaign led by

Maximus against the Picti and Scotti, two tribes north of Hadrian’s Wall that were known and constant invaders of the northern British boarder. The fact that the Chronicle is the sole source for this military action by Maximus, may lead one to question its accuracy, and more importantly, its motivation. Gerrad notes that the document was composed in

Southern Gaul, and very well may have been another politically charged document to glorify Maximus and vilify the Theodosian dynasty. The fact that Theodosius I defeated

Maximus and seized power of the region in 388 C.E. would give those allied with the

Eastern Roman empire, which Maximus also had connections to, plenty of motivation to slander the Theodosian rival dynasty. While late fourth century political rivalries in

4 Gerrad. Ruin of Roman Britain. 25.

Rome are not the focal point of this research, these two examples illustrate the need

Roman aristocratic families felt to cement the validity of their dynasties through the clever use of reported historical events and deeds as disguised propaganda.

Political turmoil was not the only factor in Rome’s fading influence over Britain in the late fourth century. There is strong evidence suggesting a rearming of many of the

British tribes throughout Britain at this time. Whether this rearming was an effort on the part of Roman political and military officials to supplement the standing forces in Britain or a voluntary rearming by the tribes themselves is not entirely clear but the archaeological record shows that tribes, especially in central and southern Britain, were rearming in roughly 370 C.E. A Roman military style belt buckle began emerging across

Britain in higher frequency at this time, a standardized Late Roman typology of the belt suggests that these buckles were distributed through the authority of the Roman government. The fact that these buckles have been found in both military and civilian settlements and graves also suggest an effort on the part of Rome to pad a reduced garrison with local militias. There is hard documented evidence of British tribal warrior forces being used to supplement Roman garrisons in the Notitia Dignitatum. Late fourth century entries refer to a unit comprising of members of the Cornovii tribes, the Cohors I

Cornoviorum, being stationed at Pons Aelius (Newcastle). There are also a number of inscriptions along Hadrian’s Wall, also dated to the late fourth century, that record work by men from the civitates (citizen body), of the Dumnonii, the Durotriges and the

Catuvellauni.5 Another curious source of possible evidence of British peoples being

5 Stuart Laycock, Britannia, 129.

armed by Rome is from Gildas, a monk who famously wrote a history of late fourth and fifth century Britain that would set a narrative long held in the historical community. In

Gildas’ De Excidio Britanniae (On the Ruin of Britain), he reports when a large portion of the Roman army left in 406-407 C.E., Rome supplied British tribes with arms and the means to make more arms in chapter eighteen of his history:

The Romans, therefore, left the country, giving notice that they could no longer be harassed by such laborious expeditions, nor suffer the Roman standards, with so large an army, be worn out by sea and land fighting vagabonds; but the islanders, inuring themselves to war like weapons, and bravely fighting, should valiantly protect their country, their property, wives and children, and what is dearer than these, their liberty and lives…they should arm those hands with buckler, sword and spear ready for the field of battle….They [The Romans], gave energetic council to the timorous natives, and leave them patterns by which to manufacture arms.6

While Gildas’ account paints the Romans in a much more benevolent light than the documented history suggests, the entry is still valuable as it may lend credence to the argument of British rearming in the late fourth century and that it was sponsored by the

Roman government. The line in which Gildas suggests that the British people should be allowed to protect their highly valued liberty also is worth noting as evidence suggests it is also possible that British peoples were being elevated to offices of local and regional political office. Historian Stuart Laycock cites that it was a practice in Rome and its provinces that when soldiers or men joining government service to ‘to take the cingulum’

6 Gildas, On the Ruin of Britain, translated by J.A, Giles. (Maryland: Serenity Publishers LLC, 2009) Chapter 18, “The History,” 26.

(Roman military belt) as a symbol of their service.7 With the possibility of British representation in not only the army but in local principalities within a Roman government plagued with both military and political turmoil, a strictly “Roman” influence on Britain in a socio-political context seems to have faded notably in the late fourth century.

Political and military control may not have been the only arena’s in which

Rome’s influence on the British peoples was fading. Historian and archaeologist, Francis

Pryor reports evidence of the practice of deposition of sacred items in bodies of water in the late fourth century in Britain which may demonstrate links to pagan practices prior to

Roman occupation. Pryor details finds of lead tanks, which were likely fonts, engraved with the chi-rho, a symbol of early Christianity, that were ritually destroyed and deposited in wells or other bodies of water. One find in Ashton in Northamptonshire, included two lead tanks that showed signs of being ritually smashed, its sides caved in before being put in the well. Pryor notes that lead was a valuable and rare commodity at this time, so its ritual destruction and deposition quite significant. Ashton is hardly the only case, many sites have been found throughout central and eastern Britain, Pryor notes that Professor Mike Fulford did a survey of sites of ritual water deposition. He found instances in several Romano-British towns such as London, Silchester Neatham, Baldock and Verulamium. Ritual water deposition was even found at the Late Roman fort at

Portchester Castle on the south coast, where occupation did not begin until the late third century.8

7 Laycock, Britannia: The Failed State, 114-116.

8 Pryor, Britain AD, 116.

Fulford’s study of deposition of items in specifically dug pits, and in many cases wells reveals a possible practice of ritual deposition of items. In some cases, these could be dismissed as rubbish pits but in many cases at each of the site’s valuable items such as complete pottery vessels and pewter flagons that were ritually destroyed were found at the bottom of pits that were likely wells. The two flagons were found in Silchester, one of which had been pierced with a circular hole right near the base of the flagon. The second flagon was pierced with a hole in the body and the well it was found in also contained a carved ogham stone that was placed just above the flagon.9 Ogham were a

Celtic runic alphabet system, though Irish in origin Ogham rune stones have been found in Britain and Scotland as well.

Near the find of the flagons at Silchester there were also several pits that had large quantities of complete pottery vessels. Fulford notes that one said pits contained two complete pottery vessels that were identified as being made from the New Forest typology, which was located in West central Britain. The pit also contained a cattle tarsal joint. Another pit of note contained nearly the complete skeleton of a dog set against the side of the pit in a, “as in life position,” as Fulford terms it.10 While Fulford does not offer interpretation on this animal burial it could possibly represent an example of a ritual animal sacrifice but that is difficult to prove as there osteological evidence of this are not

9 Michael Fulford, “Links with the Past: Pervasive ‘Ritual’ Behavoir in Roman Britain,” Britannia Vol. 32 (2001). 201.

10 Fulford, “Links with the Past,” 201.

mentioned in the report. The deliberate placement of the dog in an “as in life” position does however, suggest some form of special intent in the burial.

London also had pits of note in Merrifield dating to the mid second-century.

These pits were lined with timber and contained forty-two pots that were either complete or reconstructed as largely complete. A majority of these vessels were found in pit F28 and Fulford believes suggest a votive offering due to the quantity of the vessels. 11

Another pit, F30, includes what Fulford calls a smith-urn and believes it to be a votive offering or at least associated with a Celtic Smith deity. Pit 17, though noted as too shallow for it likely being a well, also contained clearly ritualistic items. It contained nearly complete incense vessels as well as two Venus figurines. Fulford notes that the second figurine, likely from this pit, was missing both its head and feet.12 Along with human oriented ritual burials, a cemetery east of London contained a pit with skeletal remains of many animals: an adult horse, a dog and a juvenile red deer all carefully arranged nose to tail. Fulford asserts that this burial, considering the animals involved and the intentional arrangement is meant to recreate or invoke a hunting scene.13

Fulford’s survey of these sites reveals a practice of ritual deposition, often associated with wells that was common as early as the Roman occupation. Some pits that were identified as wells in Baldock show evidence of important vessel disposition as

11 Fulford, “Links with the Past,” 207.

12 Fulford, “Links with the Past,” 207.

13 Fulford, “Links with the Past,” 208.

early as the mid first century B.C.E.14 The fact that this practice carried through the

Roman period and is linked with the find at Ashton associated with the deposition of possible Gnostic items suggests a potential through line of religious practice in Britain linked with water. As noted above the Gnostic iconography linked heavily with Neptune may very well be a carry over of British pagan rites of the deposition of sacred items in bodies of water as a means of sacrifice. Pryor believes that water was associated with a transition to another world in ancient Celtic myth and religion. The act depositing these items into bodies of water, for Romano-British peoples keeping the old ways, would not view this as an act of destruction but a transition of the items into the Celtic otherworld.

We can see echoes of this in the Lady of the Lake in the Arthurian legends. The concept of a divine deity residing in a body of water which to sacrifices are made, such as the return of the sacred and magical sword Excalibur after the death of Arthur, is a surviving element of this pagan practice and belief.

At first glance the Gnostic controversy and the ritual deposition of sacred items in water may seem an anecdotal example of pre-British culture surviving in the Roman era, but it implies a greater scale of the endurance of British cultural practices. Paired with the evidence of British peoples possibly joining the ranks of both the Roman military and government evidence of pre-Roman religious practices presents the possibility of a

British culture that may be much more intact than initially thought. To what degree

British culture remained unaffected by Roman culture remains unclear but does become

14 Fulford, “Links with the Past,” 208.

clear in the final years of Roman occupation is a rejection of many Roman cultural systems on the part of the British peoples in the dawn of the fifth century.

The Last of Rome

The chaotic churning tide of coups and power bids in the Western Roman Empire in the late fourth century would culminate in a large exodus of the Roman army.

Centralized control in the Roman West had faded so significantly by the end of the fourth century that Roman garrisons stationed in Britain began granting the generals of their armies the title of emperor. The third man to be named emperor in this manner was

Constantine, who would later become Constantine III. Quickly after being promoted to emperor by his men, Constantine left Britain to stake his claim to the Western Roman empire, taking much of the standing army with him in 406-407 C.E. As noted by Gildas, with the large, centrally organized military force of the Roman army departed, the old enemies of the British peoples, tribes of the Picts and Scotts, renewed incursions into the territory. The narrative of the primary sources indicates that the tribes of Britain sent a request for more military support to Rome and were met with the famous response of,

“look to your own defenses,” in 410 C.E. Rome at that time was in crisis as the former capital city of Rome itself was surrounded by a desperate and vengeful army of

Visigoths. Rome as a geopolitical power at this point then, at least in its Western Empire, was no shape to send aid to Britain as it was on the verge of collapse. Without the means to re-establish influence in Britain, many aspects of Roman culture began to rapidly fade leaving way for a British power structure and societal organization to return.

This rapid change in the first half of the fifth century took place in different arenas of British political and social structure in two very significant ways: a rejection of the Roman industrialized economic model as well as a reignition of tribal power struggles that likely resulted in the dominance of one tribal confederacy, the Dobunni.

Archaeological evidence has suggested, ironically enough, that the rise of the Dobunnic confederacy may have been aided by the adoption and retention of certain Roman military technologies and settlement patterns which will be explored in depth later in this chapter. While the Dobunni may have adopted Roman advantageous aspects of Roman technology the archaeological record suggests that Roman economy and urbanized- settlement-structured-living quickly and dramatically faded after centralized Roman control dissolved.

Many Roman industries, including coin minting and circulation, metal working and mining and pottery, to name a few, seem to have rapidly collapsed in Britain after the exodus of 407 C.E. At first glance, the rapid decline of industries, namely pottery and metal working could easily be read as a catastrophic collapse of the Roman economy, at least from an industrialized world view. By 400 C.E. pottery was no longer made on an industrialized scale as only a few tribal territories, including the Dobunnic in the south west of Britain, were producing and circulating pottery exclusively to tribal areas.15 Ten years later most pottery production seems to have largely ceased. Evidence from several locations seem to suggest that the reduction of pottery production was a sequential event.

15 Laycock, Britannia: The Failed State, 115.

Laycock presumes that this was due to the collapse or economic shifts spread across borders of the various tribal territories. Laycock does point out however, that there is some evidence of pottery industries being continuing after 410 C.E. by the British peoples but on a much lower scale. He cites that some tribal territories in the west such as the Dummonii were still producing pottery, after 400 C.E.16 The large industrial scale of production during the Roman period had reduced to a small localized scale in which tribes likely produced for themselves and perhaps a small surplus for trade with friendly bordering tribes.

Another Roman industry that showed signs of great collapse was that of metal working. During the height of the metal working across the Roman empire in the third century, Britain produced an estimated 2,250 tons of iron each year.17 Site excavations at two large metal working sites reveal a very contrasting tale in late fourth century Britain.

The two sites, Southwark, just east of London, and Ickham, in the region of Kent, show signs of metal workers using scavenged metal rather than newly smelted iron. In the previous three centuries, both sites had shown regular use of freshly smelted iron for forging and not scraps or recycled iron. By 420 C.E. both sites had been abandoned. The cause of this abandonment, according to Medieval historian Robin Fleming, was not only a shortage of fresh smelted iron after the collapse of the Roman economy, but also a reduction of the skilled labor force to produce it. With each passing generation after the

16 Laycock, Britannia the Failed State, 158.

17 Robin Fleming, “Recycling in Britain After the fall of Rome’s Metal Economy,” Past & Present, No.217 (November 2012): 6.

exodus of Rome, less and less of metal working skills of the Roman period were passed down resulting in a significant decrease in those skilled enough to maintain the practice.

Fleming cites that the decline of the Roman metal working industry began in the last third of the fourth century. Evidence suggests that by 370 C.E. only miniscule amounts of new iron was being produced in lowland Britain. Smelting produces copious amounts of slag, roughly three kilograms of slag for every kilogram of iron produced.18

In past centuries, Romano-British metal working sites, especially before the third century, often produced thousands of tons of slag. There was a slag heap from the classical period which collapsed and destroyed a bath house in Sussex, was thought to at one time contain

100,000 tons of slag representing the creation of an estimated 30,000 tons of iron.19 In stark contrast, the handful of fifth and sixth century places in Britain with evidence of iron smelting on average only a few kilograms of smelting slag. In a survey of metal working sites forty-two instances before 900 C.E. have been discovered for smelting activity in lowland Britain. These dates are acquired by radiocarbon dating the charcoal of early medieval slag heaps. It is estimated that only approximately nine of these dates could have possibly been from the fifth century.20

Though the archaeological record supplies an overwhelming abundance of evidence of a collapsed metal working industry in Britain after the Roman exodus,

Fleming suggests that metal working was still being done in Britain in the fifth and sixth

18 Fleming, “Recycling in Britain,” 11.

19 Fleming, “Recycling in Britain,” 12 . 20 Fleming, “Recycling in Britain,” 13.

centuries, just at severely reduced scale. She also suggests that the main source of iron was not freshly smelted but recycled Roman metal. Excavations of Roman buildings, like the ones in Northmaptonshire in central Britain show evidence of the removal of a considerable amount of metal after abandonment. The cache taken from the building in

Northamptonshire, was 11.5kg worth of lead. Some of the lead bears marks of being cut from buildings with axes or saws.21 Another building in Icklingham, Essex, had a hoard of removed metal including iron saw blades along with a large number of iron hinges, nails and rings all of which had been taken from a building. Other buildings in the region of Essex have also showed signs of deliberate metal removal from buildings post 400

C.E., but perhaps the most famous example is that from a building in Bath. It is estimated that sometime around 450 C.E. stone walls of the Roman temple and bathing complex, once dedicated to Sulis Minerva, either fell down or were pulled down. Before this happened however, all of the iron clamps with lead fittings were hacked out of the wall in what seems to be a deliberate salvage operation.22

An interesting aspect of Flemings research, is the geographic location of the sudden and dramatic collapse of the metal working industry in Britain and the locations of the sites with evidence of the collection of Roman metal are all located in eastern or central Britain. While eastern and central Britain show archaeological signs of industry collapse, both historical and archaeological reports an expansion and reconstruction in

Western Britain. Some evidence suggests that Western British tribes, namely the

21 Fleming, “Recycling in Britain,” 16.

22 Fleming, “Recycling in Britain,” 16.

Dobunni, retained Roman technologies leading to great success and expansion of tribal principalities in the west of Britain. What we might be exploring is a situation of a total economic collapse in eastern and central Britain at this time with a contrasting thriving western British economy.

Historical archaeologist James Gerrad offers yet another perspective on the economic situation in Britain after the Roman exodus. Gerrad argues that the notion of an economic collapse of Britain after Roman occupation is the result of a biased industrialized world view. It is his assertion that what took place in Britain in the early fifth century was far from an economic collapse, but a dramatic economic adjustment from an industrialized to a pastoral model. One of the possible causes for the collapse model to be so widely accepted, Gerrad cites, is the categorization of material culture.

Typology for material culture found in Britain that is considered to be Anglo-Saxon uses

450 C.E. as chronological point of origin. This is only one year later than the Venerable

Bede, an ecclesiastical writer and historian, places the arrival of the Angles in his work,

Ecclesiastical History of English People.23 Gerrad asserts that using rigid dating conventions is difficult as archaeologically speaking, the end of Roman Britain is very difficult to define chronologically. It can begin as early as 350 C.E. and end as late as

450-500 C.E., there is no unanimous timeline. Due to blurred timelines, and material culture categorizations, the lack of distinctly Romano-British material culture after a certain date as proof of an economic collapse, according to Gerrad, becomes a circular

23 Gerrad, Ruin of Roman Britain, 82.

argument. The lack of specific Roman-British objects made after 410 C.E., “indicate a collapse and the collapse means no objects.”24

In an unconventional proposal, Gerrad suggests that the reliance on visible archaeological evidence, such as material culture and building techniques present a misleading picture of the social and economic circumstances of fifth century Britain. One such example is a survey of brooches found in Britain. 34,000 Roman objects were recorded on the Portable Antiques Scheme database in January 2011. Nearly 12,000 were

Roman period brooches with a vast majority of them being dated to the first through third centuries. Only one-hundred and twenty-four were dated in the fourth century.25 What

Gerrad is pointing out is that there is a much more restricted range of material cultural across the board for fourth and fifth century Britain, and that correlation does not necessarily mean causation.

If the quantity and distribution of material culture is not a reliable method to measure economic shifts in fifth century Britain what should be examined in its place then? Gerrad offers an investigation of shifts in agriculture, surplus, and taxation systems.

He cites that in the second century state expenditure has been estimated as fifteen percent of empire-wide disposable surplus would give a gross tax rate of seven and a half percent.

He argues that is unlikely that the late Roman taxation rates would be any lower than this.26 Other evidence suggests that the Late-Roman economy in Britain was deeply

24 Gerrad, Ruin of Roman Britain, 81.

25 Gerrad, Ruin of Roman Britain, 90.

26 Gerrad, Ruin of Roman Britain, 97-98.

dependent on agricultural production. Gerrad cites evidence suggests minimum subsistence requirements for peasant cultivations have been suggested to be in the region of 250kg wheat equivalent per year. So, a family of four would need to grow 1.3 tons of wheat equivalent each year to meet their bare minimum subsistence needs in Late Roman

Britain.27 Gerrad notes that the absence of meaningful statistical data relating to agricultural production in Late Roman Britain can only be measured by approximation through modeling the statistics off of the Roman Empire as a whole during this period.

(See Figure 1).

Figure 1: Hypothetical reconstruction of the division of agricultural production between subsistence tax, rent and disposable surplus. Taken from Gerrad’s the Ruin of Roman Britain page 97.

27 Gerrad, Ruin of Roman Britain, 99.

Evidence of incredible agricultural production on the part of Roman Britain was a reported event in 358-359 C.E. the Caesar Julian sent grain from Britain to Roman garrisons stationed on the Rhine. According to some sources, the grain was transported with eight hundred ships. Even Gerrad is quick to recognize that this may be an extreme and exaggerated account, but even so it may provide a clue to the quantity of agriculture

Late Roman Britain was producing. A vessel found in Romano-British London, called the

Blackfriars I, had an estimated capacity of fifty tons of grain.28 If even half the number of the reported ships sailed to deliver grain to garrisons on the Rhine, it should illustrate the importance of the agricultural output of Late Roman Britain to the empire. Gerrad notes that Infield-Outfield agriculture, a practice in which land close to the settlement was used more intensely, and land further from the settlement less so was commonly practiced in both the Roman and early medieval period. Though other industries, such as pottery and metal working were important elements of the Late Roman British economy, agricultural and the ability to keep a constant surplus would have been paramount for Roman governmental interests, especially considering that the Roman empire was dependent on the stability of trade and agriculture from their provinces. It is Gerrad’s argument that because the main focus of the economy of the late Roman occupation in Britain that a switch to a pastoral focused economy was not a collapse but a change in the scale of industry.

This crucial Roman agricultural model would shift gradually in Britain beginning in the fifth century. Gerrad notes that the greatest change to agriculture across Europe

28 Gerrad, Ruin of Roman Britain, 99.

including Britain from 400 C.E. to 700 C.E. is a shift from large-scale arable production towards less intensive pastoral farming. Evidence of this process has been deduced from the organization of field boundaries at a number of sites.29 With the exodus of Rome and the dissolving of governmental control, the resulting disappearance of a Roman tax burden would have likely been a welcome change to the British people. It would also likely result in no need for the intensive farming of land necessitated by a taxed and regulated industrialized agricultural system. This along with the ability to maintain larger grazing lands likely lead to the shift to a pastoral agricultural system where great industrial quantities of grain and other goods were no longer necessary. Agricultural production now required only a local scale to a tribal settlement or region as opposed to supplying the whole island or mainland Europe. This switch also may have significantly devalued minted coins as currency and livestock likely replaced coins as a measure of wealth. Gerrad cites evidence for this in the etymology of the Old English word, feoh, which meant cattle, movable goods, property and money.30

Britain After Rome

By the early decades of the fifth century, Rome had largely faded as a political, military and economic presence. The great question left as the ghost of Rome was in its final whisper is: what shape did the socio-political landscape in Britain take? The

29 Gerrad, Ruin of Roman Britain, 102.

30 Gerrad, Ruin of Roman Britain, 102.

answer, of course, is much more difficult to produce than the question but cross- examination of the historical and archaeological record may lend some insight. It is the strong opinion of historical archaeologist Stuart Laycock that Britain, largely returned to a political landscape mirrored in Britain’s pre-Roman past. It is a Britain, now free from the occupying control of Rome, returns to a state of tribal principalities all vying for power and political dominance in recently created power vacuum. In order to understand the tribes and their territories that were largely intact from conditions previous to Roman occupation, we must investigate the tribal landscape of Britain as it existed in the first century C.E.

For this, Laycock relied heavily on the works of the Roman geographer Claudius

Ptolemy, who recorded his report of the tribes and their regions in the second century

C.E. The accuracy of Ptolemy’s work can be accepted as reasonably reliable as Romans created their geography based on the location of the territories of various peoples and cultures rather than landscapes. Laycock recreates a map heavily relying on the works of

Ptolemy, along with the locations of coin hoards between various tribes in Britain. (See

Map 1).

While all the tribes are valuable to the study of Britain in the late fifth century, a few tribes, namely those in the west and central west of Britain made more successful bids for expansion in the fifth century. Those tribes are the Atrebates, Belgae, Durotrages and especially the Dobunni. Ptolemy places the Atrebates north of the Belgae and including the eastern portion of Berkshire, possibly extending into eastern Wiltshire, placing the principality soundly in south western England. Atrebatic coin distribution

suggests that the territory may have stretched as far as north of the river Thames which stretches two hundred and fifteen miles across southern England and is the islands largest river system.31 The far eastern border of Atrebatic territory boasted the great Iron mining area the Weald. Archaeological evidence suggests low levels of iron were harvested in the pre-Roman period but dramatically increased in the second century C.E. An estimated

10,000 tons of iron was harvest from a site at Bardown site alone.32 The Atrebatic territories also boast two pottery industries the Farmham industry and the New Forest

Industry. There is also evidence of salt mining beginning in the pre-Roman period and continuing through the Roman period. The New Forest industry was huge in the early fourth century with a wide distribution network, but showed signs of decline in the second half of the fourth century, possibly the 370’s C.E.33

31 Laycock, Britannia the Failed State, 28.

32 Laycock, Britannia the Failed State, 29.

33 Laycock, Britannia The Failed State, 140.

Map 1: A map composed by Stuart Laycock based on Ptolemy’s Geography. Map Taken from page 18 in Laycock, Britannia The Failed State.

The territory of the Belgae, according to Ptolemy, includes Winchester and a town that he calls Aquae Calidae, which Laycok asserts is likely Bath. Coin distribution and ceramic shards suggests that the Belgae had connections with the Atrebates and Dobunni in that

the east of Belgae territory was shared with the Atrebates and the western section with the Dobunni.34

In contrast, the Durotriges, possibly Durotages, (the naming convention is not entirely clear,) located to the south-east of the Atrebates show no connections to their tribal neighbors. Laycock notes that their territory was in Dorset and a portion of

Somerset and had unique trading links across the channel and had access to the Atlantic trade routes that eventually linked all the way south into the Mediterranean trade networks by the first century B.C.E.35 A significant amount of Amorican pottery and coinage has been discovered in Durotriges territories suggesting a presence of a considerable Amorican population within the Durotriges. The evidence of trade and foreign population certainly suggest the wealth of the Durotriges in the first century

B.C.E. but the territory also contains some of England’s most known hill-forts. This evidence would suggest that at least in the first century B.C.E. the Durotriges were a major power within Britain. There is also evidence that the Durotriges had links to the

Dobunni as silver and lead mines of the Durotriges lies on the Dobunnic border.

Evidence of coin exchanges between the two tribes also suggest a connection between the two.

The standing and relationship of the Dobunni with its neighboring tribes in the appears to have been dramatically different in the Pre-Roman history to that of the late fourth and early fifth centuries. Though no less involved in intrigue, Dobunnic power

34 Laycock, Britannia The Failed State, 27.

35 Laycock, Britannia The Failed State, 29.

seems to have been significantly lower in Pre-Roman times. Laycock notes that much of the coinage in Dobunnic regions appears to be Atrebatic in nature suggesting that the

Atrebates may have had a significant influence over the Dobunni at this time or at least a considerable trade relationship. Dobunnic coins take an Atrebatic character until 35

C.E.36 Laycock also notes that the Dobunnic territory was substantial stretching as far north as Warcester and far west as the Upper Thames. Due to the close proximity and the interlacing borders of both the Atrebates and the Durotriges it is little wonder that intrigue was a constant between the three tribes. (See Map 2).

Despite its powerful neighbors the Dobunni boasted a resource rich territory.

Laycock notes several high value industries being active in the pre-Roman period and in some cases carrying through to the late fourth and early fifth centuries. One was rich farmlands in the southern and eastern regions of the territory which produced lavish villas complexes in the Roman period. There is also evidence of iron mines near the Forest of

Dean during the Roman period. It also shared silver and lead mines on the border of

Durotriges territory. These tribal relationships would gain in complexity and mystery in the period after the Roman exodus.

36 Laycock, Britannia the Failed State, 33.

Map 2: A Map of Tribal territories based on coin hoards and coin distribution. Map found on Page 20 in Laycock, Britannia the Failed State.

As the grip of the Roman military and government began to slip, it seems that tribal tensions reignited in the west of Britain, especially between the Dubonni and the

Durotriges. A string of villas lying along the tribal borders of these neighboring tribes show signs of what Laycock believes are arson fires dating roughly in the 370’s C.E.

Laycock believes these fires were violent in nature due to several factors: one being that the villas were along tribal boundaries, in addition nearly all of the villa burnings happen within a similar date range and show evidence of not only the burning of villas but skeletons have been found showing signs of fire damage as well. It should be noted that cremation as a means of funerary rites was not commonly practiced by the peoples of

Britain; it has been classified strictly as an early Anglo-Saxon rite.

Certain villa burning sites, such as Brislington show not only the signs of burning but the bones of both humans and cattle being tipped into the well at some stage between

337 and around 370 C.E. At the Keynsham Villa, there was a large fire sometime before

375 and a skeleton was found beneath a collapsed wall.37 There is also a cluster of villas that were all in the same valley and approximately only five kilometers apart that all show similar patterns of burning and human remains. Laycock notes that one of the villa sites, Bowood, had six human skeletons that showed evidence of fire damage along with the burning of the villa.

Other historians have suggested that the villa burnings could have been the result of Irish raids in the late fourth century, but Laycock is quick to dismiss this as a plausible explanation due to the geographical pattern of the string of villa burnings. A great

37 Laycock, Britannia the Failed State, 140.

earthwork trench system runs through the path of the villa burnings. Laycock notes that

Dobunnic and Durotrigan material culture are found on opposite sides of this earthwork system, known as the Wansdyke. (See Map 3). The Wansdyke is an enormous earth work system with two main sections, the east section runs between Savernake Forest in

Wiltshire, (a county located in south west England) and Morgan’s Hill in the West of

Wiltshire. It is measured at nearly nineteen kilometers. The western section is also linear and runs approximately fourteen kilometers across south eastern England from Bath to

Bristol.38

The eastern section of the dyke divides the borders between the Dobunnic and

Durotrigan tribal territories and Laycock presents the possibility that some of the rich resources along this border may have been the origin or cause of the proposed dispute between the tribal powers. Silver and lead mining would be a rare practice in Britain after the Roman exodus and control over precious metal sources would give either tribe great influence in the west of Britain. Laycock notes a high degree of coin loss along the eastern section of the dyke in the form of coin hoards.39 Coin hoards suggest an intentional hiding or storing of coins, in the context of potential military conflicts, creating cashes of money seems a very reasonable strategy. One could use said stashes of wealth to pay mercenaries, pay off ransoms, or simply prevent great stores from falling into enemy hands. Some currency was made with lead which could, if need be, be melted

38 Ben Johnson, “Wansdyke,” https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryMagazine/DestinationsUK/Wansdyke/, Accessed January 20, 2020.

39 Laycock, Britannia, 158.

down for other metal goods. While the possibilities of the intent and purpose of coin hoards is not entirely clear, they certainly do not suggest a time of great stability in the region.

Map 3: Map of Wansdyke and villas in the area showing signs of possible burnings in the fourth century. Black dots represent villas showing signs of being burned, parallel lines indicate Wansdyke. Map taken from page 141 of Laycock’s Britannia the Failed State.

Villa burnings are not the only evidence Laycock is citing for this theory of

British tribal conflict in the late Roman and post Roman period of Britain. There is

evidence of fortifications being repaired or constructed near Silchester, the assumed capitol of Atrebates. A series of linear earthworks just to the north of Silchester has been discovered and is thought to be post-Roman. Laycock notes that the facing of said earthwork defenses face the direction of the Dobunni tribal territory. Along with the newly constructed earthworks, military belt buckles and belt fittings dated to the fourth century have been discovered along the Wansdyke and the road connecting its two main sections. The line of military buckles can be drawn almost straight through the center of

Wiltshire to Salisbury.40 This cluster of military buckles also lays outside of Mildenhall near roads leading from the Dobunnic capital at Cirencester heavily implicates Dobunnic involvement in this suggested military activity.

Other archaeological evidence also suggests Dobunnic military activity and expansion. Finds of both military belt buckles of a unique typology along with Roman military technology found exclusively in Dobunnic territories help paint the picture of a

Dobunnic tribal rise and expansion in power. The Roman military weapon in question is the plumbata, a weighted and thrown missile weapon that would have been very effective against small forces utilizing shield wall tactics that were common across Europe at this time. (See Figure 2). It has been well documented that Roman technology was largely abandoned by the British peoples after the Roman exodus. As generations pass without practicing the use of said technologies, the knowledge of said technologies, and the skills to use them properly would also fade. Along with the military advantage the seemingly exclusive use of the plumbata by the Dobunni would put their enemies at a disadvantage

40 Laycock, Britannia the Failed State, 146.

as familiarity with the weapon and how to properly countermeasure it in battle would also be relegated to fading cultural memory.

Figure 2: Reconstructions of the Plumbata. Photo from romanartifacts.com

Along with unique Roman military technology in the form of the plumbata,

Dobunnic tribal expansion and conquest is suggested by the presence of a military belt buckle of a unique typology shared only with Germanic peoples, specifically the region of Kent, the supposed first seat of Anglo-Saxon power in Britain. The Quoit Brooch, as it is called, is produced through chip carving, a metal working style that creates a raised pattern on the buckle. These brooches are uniquely found in Dobunnic territories and the fact that they are Germanic in origin suggests that not only were the Dobunni

aggressively expanding, but they very likely were using the employ of Germanic mercenaries to do so. (See Figure 3).

Figure 3: Comparison of motifs on Dobunnic and Quiot (Kentish) Brooch style belt fittings. Figure taken from Laycock, Warlords, pg. 62.

While Laycock focuses on the military evidence for Dobunnic expansion he also notes that great villa reconstruction projects took place in the west of Britain in the late

Roman period. In the fourth century a large number of lavish villas were built in the tribal territories along with two mosaic schools emerged within the territory. Dobunnic mosaic styles would later expand beyond Dobunnic borders in a pattern mirrored by pre-Roman

Dobunnic coin distribution, implying that after the Roman occupation the Dobunnic tribe reclaimed their previously held territories. One such territory is that of the tribal territory of the Cornovii. It is possible that the Cornovii were absorbed into the Dobunni by means of confederation, where the Cornovii may have been able to maintain their independence as a tribe regarding customs and hierarchical structure, but owed political and military allegiance.

The path of the Dobunni from pre to the post Roman period in a way, echoes the path that Britain as a whole took in this period. We see a British culture that adapted to the circumstances of the Roman occupation taking on certain Roman customs and ways of life. Simultaneously we see glimpses of staunch cultural independence, such as Pryor’s example of pagan practices surviving in the deposition of sacred items in water while

Christianity was the wide spread religion. As Rome’s influence began to fade in Britain, the British people acted with increasing agency, becoming part of the failing Roman government and military system. When Roman occupation ended in 410 C.E. we see a

Britain that largely rejected the Roman economic model and returned to a way of life much like its former self if Pryor and Gerrad are to be believed. There is no denying that after three centuries some Roman influences remained, but Britain was no longer an imperial province but again a collection of complex, staunchly individualist collection of tribal peoples and confederacies left largely to their own devices. Britain was independent again, until the midpoint of the fifth century with the first arrival of the

Anglo-Saxons and the establishment of their first kingdom in eastern Britain, Kent. Or so the long-accepted story had gone.

Chapter 2

Much Ado About Kent: Investigating the narrative of Kent as the base of Anglo-Saxon Conquest in Migration Era Britain

The Kentish Narrative

Then all the councillors, together with that proud tyrant Gurthigern [Vortigern], the British king, were so blinded, that, as a protection to their country, they sealed its doom by inviting in among them like wolves into the sheep fold, the fierce and impious Saxons, a race hateful both to God and men, to repel the invasions of the northern nations. 41

Recorded by the monk Gildas in 540 C.E., these words created the narrative of the

Anglo-Saxon conquest of Britain during the Migration Era. It is the tale of an incompetent British king, Vortigern, who unwittingly dooms his country to invasion by hiring Germanic mercenaries to fight on his behalf. Upon the invitation from Vortigern, a multitude of these "Saxon whelps," as Gildas calls them, come forth from their lair in three ships of war (cyuls) with hungry eyes on Britain. Recounting Gildas' narrative for his own Ecclesiastical History of the British People which he completed in roughly 731

C.E., Bede, another monk historian, corroborated and perpetuated this narrative. Nearly a century later the narrative endured, carried further by the chronicler Nennius who compiled his Historia Brittonum between 796-806 C.E.

41 Gildas, Excidio De Britannie (on the Ruin of Britain) trans. J.A. Giles. (Maryland: Serenity Publishing LLC, 2009) 32.

Whether these primary sources call these Germanic invaders Saxons as Gildas and Nennius do, or Angles as Bede names them, two elements of the narrative run constant throughout every chronicle, including the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: that the first of the Anglo-Saxons to land in Britain and establish political and military power on the island were the brothers Hengest and Horsa, and that Kent was the seat of their power.

These sources also place the landing of Hengest and Horsa within two years of each other. While Gildas does not provide enough chronological context to his history to speculate a specific date range, Nennius asserts that the Anglo-Saxon brothers arrived in three ships in 447 C.E. While corroborating Hengest and Horsa arriving with a host of three ships, Bede and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle claim the brothers landed in Britain in

449 C.E. With only a discrepancy of roughly two years, the narrative of the primary sources fixes the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons and the events surrounding Vortigern, and

Hengest and Horsa, firmly in the latter half of the fifth century.

The conventional historical narrative of Kent was composed through historical documents spanning over three centuries; beginning with Gildas' work in circa 540 C.E. and ending with the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle commissioned by Alfred the Great in circa

890 C.E. (See Table 1) While such a span of chronology for a tale to be told does produce inconsistencies and contradictions as one might expect, it is still surprising how many elements of the narrative persist. As the story goes, Kent is either taken by force or yielded to Hengest by Vortigern sometime in the second half of the fifth century.

Time Line of Primary Sources Regarding the Kentish Narrative

De Excidio Britonum- Gildas, written in 540 C.E.

Ecclesiastic History of the English Peoples- Bede, completed in 731 C.E.

Historia Brittonum- Nennius, written in 796-858 C.E.

Anglo-Saxon Chronicle- Commissioned by Alfred the Great, 890 C.E.

Table 1: Time Line of Primary Sources that contribute to the Kentish Narrative.

Gildas first forms the narrative regarding Vortigern and the landing of the Anglo-

Saxons in the East of Britain. While Gildas creates the basic framework of the narrative in older translations of De Excidio Britanniae, Gildas, as Laycock notes, does not list

Vortigern by name.42 In place of a named ruler Gildas uses the term superbus tyrannus.

At first glance, this would read as a corrupt and unfit ruler, and while that is indeed

Gildas' intent in the chronicle, the term tyrannus is not equivalent to the modern understanding of the term. In the context of the time, tyrannus was a term given to a ruler who had seized power usually through military means. In the eyes of a member of the

Roman based clergy such as Gildas, this could very well mean a local British warlord

42 Stuart Laycock. Warlords: The Struggle for Power in Post-Roman Britain (Gloucestershire: The History Press, 2010) 50.

who assumed power through political maneuvering, military conquest, or intimidation and would be condemned as corrupt or unfit to rule. In recent scholarly assessments,

Gildas' work as a reliable chronicle is dubious at best. He is often criticized for producing a work closer to a sermon than a historical chronicle. Historians such as Laycock, and

Flint F. Johnson have also suggested that Gildas' vindictive critique of the actions taken by this British ruler was Gildas' allegorical lament of Rome recently losing political power and influence in Britain.

. Gildas’ work is the closest in chronology to the events he describes in chapter two of his history. Gildas describes the coming of the Saxons as mercenaries hired by the tyrant king of Britain, Gurthrigern, to fight Pict and Scottish tribes from the north. While these Saxons hold their end of the bargain for a time, they soon turn against the Britons and become conquerors themselves. Gildas’ verse is nothing less than biblical in his description of the chaos brought by the Saxons:

For the fire of vengeance, justly kindled by former crimes, spread from sea to sea, fed by the hands of our foes in the east, and did not cease, until, destroying the neighbouring towns and lands, it reached the other side of the island, and dipped its red and savage tongue in the western ocean. 43

Gildas goes on to write that the Saxons were eventually defeated by a British force led by a Roman, Ambrosius Aurelianus at Bath Hill forty-four years after the Saxons landed. In his brief history Gildas lays the ground work for the narrative of conquest of Britain by the Anglo-Saxons. Though in his chronicle the Saxons are defeated, his claim after that

43 J. A. Giles, trans., Gildas On the Ruin of Britain, Chapter 2, section 24. 33.

Britain was left in chaos and ruin from the conflict suggests that there were further military and political struggles within Britain. Historians would use Gildas’ account to build the narrative of a complete collapse and destabilization of Britain after the Roman exodus.

Bede echoes Gildas’ narrative in chapters fifteen and sixteen of his Ecclesiastical history. Much Gildas’ narrative Bede tells the of the landing of the Saxons or Angles on invitation of the British King to settle on lands in the east in exchange for protection against the Picts. The betrayal of the Saxons or Angles also plays out the same along with the heroic deeds of Ambrosius Aurelianus. Bede’s chronology is identical to Gildas’ other than the fact he gives a precise date for the arrival of the Saxons or Angles, 449

C.E. He also supplies an exact year for the uprising led by Ambrosius at 493 C.E. seeming to lend even more credibility to Gildas’ account. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle echoes the pages of Bede placing the landing of the Angles in eastern Britain in 449 C.E.

It also composes a narrative conquest for its entries of the mid fifth to sixth centuries. Out of thirty-eight entries in the Chronicle, eighteen detail military conflict naming either the

Britons or the Welsh as the adversary. These primary sources were cited as evidence of conquest by the historical community for quite a long while. In the 2000’s, however, this narrative has been substantially challenged in sight of new historical and archaeological evidence.

Despite this there are many in both the historical and archaeological community that maintain that conquest was the driving force behind the spread of Anglo-Saxon influence in Britain. While historians and archaeologists such as Laycock, Pryor and

Gerrad argue for a history of migration era Britain where acculturation and cultural assimilation is the driving force behind the spread of Anglo-Saxon influence, military historian James Storr, as well as other archaeologists such as C. J. Arnold and D. J. V.

Fisher believe that conquest was likely. In this invasion or conquest narrative, Kent is the first in a small series of conquests which is why investigating its origins and challenging that narrative is the main focus of this chapter.

Historian Flint F. Johnson challenges this narrative directly in his monograph,

Hengest, Gwrtheyrn and the Chronology of Post-Roman Britain. He claims that Kent representing the first power center and the seat of Anglo-Saxon lineage in Britain was an intentionally fabricated narrative with both Anglo-Saxon and British motivations informing its construction.44 In the case of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle it would appear that structuring the Kentish narrative played into the broader history of conquest that the chronicle asserts. By placing Kent as the first point of Anglo-Saxon control in Britain in the latter half of the fifth century, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle fixes a point of Anglo-

Saxon lineage in Britain, forming the base for an Anglo-Saxon dynasty in the eastern region of the country. Johnson argues that the British goals were not nearly as nationalistic and that the narrative of Kent came out Canterbury church with the goal of presenting itself as a historic authority. In doing so, Canterbury, located in Kent, would elevate both the church and the region above all other contemporary religious and political powers in Britain.

44 Johnson, F. Flint. Hengest, Gwyrtheyrn and the Chronology of Post-Roman Britain (North Carolina: McFarland & Company Inc. 2014) 79.

Johnson's challenge to the narrative of Kent being the first seat of Anglo-Saxon power in Britain is bolstered by Laycock, who notes that the estimated first settlement by

Anglo-Saxons in Britain are dated between 425 and 450 C.E. Laycock also notes that the main geographical area of the earliest Anglo-Saxon settlement, as suggested by archaeological evidence, was not Kent but in south central Britain; a different region and perhaps a full century earlier than the narrative of the primary sources suggests.45 While

Laycock admits that the archaeological record does suggest that Anglo-Saxon settlement was spread throughout the eastern region of Britain in the mid-fifth century, he is quick to note that recent scholarly opinion on the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as a reliable historic source for the fifth and sixth centuries are doubtful at best.46

This new scholarly criticism of the narrative reported by the primary sources chronicling the Anglo-Saxon conquest of Britain and Kent as the first base of power in said conquest has extended into archaeological investigation as well. In Economies and

Social Change in Anglo-Saxon Kent A.D. 400-900, archaeologist Stuart Brooks aims to investigate the process in which Kent rose from a small local town center to a province that displayed many elements of medieval statehood by the early seventh century through the study of archaeology and material culture. The main focus of his investigation is whether the social and economic changes that transformed Kent were a result of top- down political processes or the consequence of bottom-up, dynamic changes due to landscape and cultural exchange.

45 Laycock, Warlords, 44.

46 Laycock, Warlords, 45.

The Players on the Stage of History: Vortigern, Hengest and the Narrative of Kent

Laycock, who detailed the apparent rise of the Dobunni as a powerful tribal confederacy in Britain believes there may have been a historical analogue for the character of Vortigern and that they were, quite possibly, a leader of the Dobunni. Along with other British tribal ties and possible Germanic influences, Laycock believes there is strong evidence for an allegiance with Powys, a powerful Welsh territory which neighbored the Dobunni to the West. The first suggestion of evidence comes from a name. Gwyrtheyrnion is an ancient name for a territory in Powys, a Welsh territory just beyond the Western border of England and Wales. This place name derives from the

British name Gwrtheyrn, a Welsh variant of Vortigern.47 It is then plausible that

Gwrtheyrnion is named after Gwrtheyrn, a likely ruler of the territory as the name translates to over-king. This possible historic identity of Vortigern is made more plausible by a partial name on a Ninth Century transcription of the Pillar of Eliseg in

Powys. The pillar is a stone that lists the lineage of the kings of Powys and in the listing of the transcription is the partial name Guarthi- which Laycock claims could have originally read Guarthigirn, another British spelling of Vortigern.48 (See Figure 4).

47 Laycock, Stuart. Warlords: The Struggle for Power in Post-Roman Britain (Gloucestershire: The History Press, 2010) 47.

48 Laycock, Warlords. 47.

Figure 4: Eliseg Pillar. Photo taken from castlewales.com.

While this archaeological and historic evidence lends to the plausibility of a historic personage of Vortigern that equates his status as an important warlord in the

West of Britain, the question of his influence and involvement of Kent remains to be answered. Through an examination of literary sources challenging the narrative of Kent,

Johnson, never the less concedes the possibility that the portion in the narrative of Kent where Vortigern gives the territory over to Hengest could be the result of British tribal political tensions. Johnson cites Dr. Nora Chadwick's research which suggests the anti

Vortigern section of the Historia Brittonum was added at the same time that the last

rulers of Powys were naming Gwrtheyrn as their progenitor and one of their most prestigious rulers.49

The section of the narrative in the Historia to which Chadwick is referring is the following selection of Chapter thirty-seven, in which Vortigern is seemingly bribed by

Hengest to bequeath Kent in exchange for a promise of peace and Hengest's daughter.

Then Hengist, who had already consulted with the elders who attended him of the Oghgul race, demanded for his daughter the province, called in English, Centland in British, Ceint (Kent). This cession was made without the knowledge of the king, Gouyrancgonus who then reigned in Kent, and who experienced no inconsiderable share of grief, from seeing his kingdom thus clandestinely, fraudulently, and the king, who slept with her, and loved her exceedingly.50

In the second half of the passage, it is revealed that Vortigern makes this arrangement unbeknownst to the king of Kent, Gouyrancgonus, further vilifying

Vortigern as not only covetous and lecherous but dishonorable as well. This passage also suggests that Vortigern indeed had the authority to hand over the region of Kent to the

Anglo-Saxons. Citing Chadwick's research, Johnson lends even more credence to the argument of a historical analogue to Vortigern by proposing the possibility of an undisclosed literary source of Kentish origin informing the narrative of the later primary sources. This source would have heavily influenced namely Bede and Nennius, to paint the character of Vortigern as a villain. If indeed Gwrtheyrn had political influence over

49 Johnson, F. Flint. Hengest, Gwyrtheyrn and the Chronology of Post-Roman Britain (North Carolina: McFarland & Company Inc.) 87.

50 Nennius, Historia Brittonum (The History of Britain) trans. J.A. Giles. (San Bernadino: Serenity Publishing LLC, 2015) 11.

Kent and Kent had to pay tribute to this rival ruler of the Dobunni/Powys confederacy, the chroniclers of Kent would desire a period of subservience of their kingdom to rival power to not be included in the narrative. As Johnson suggests, their solution was to reframe the narrative of the chronicle by not only painting Gwrtheyrn as the villainous

Vortigern, but to plant the notion of early Kentish Kingship in the narrative as well.51

Through this ecclesiastical PR move, the chroniclers of the Kentish sources would have maintained the importance of Kent as a province in the fractious, tribal political climate of post-Roman Britain, while simultaneously undermining a rival ruler in Vortigern.

While the archaeological evidence combined with an examination of the primary sources provide substantial evidence for a potential historical analogue of Vortigern and his actions, one important element of the narrative becomes problematic under further investigation: the chronology. Limitations in the ranges of carbon dating have placed the archeological finds of material culture classified as Germanic or Anglo-Saxon in a wide band of the fifth century and provide, at best, a loose plausibility to the chronology claimed by the primary sources. Johnson places the deeds of Vortigern between 560 and

593 C.E., a whole century after the chronology reported by the primary sources. Johnson cites that one Powys line places Gwrtheyrn in the sixth century. He notes that no literary evidence outside of the primary sources points to a king of multiple regions or one under the name of Gwrtheyrn living in the fifth century.52 Further doubt in the credibility of the

51 Johnson, Hengest, Gwrtheyrn, 91.

52 Johnson, Hengest, Gwrtheyrn. 87.

chronology of the primary sources is cast by contradiction between them and the archaeological record of the first arrival of the Anglo-Saxons in Britain during the fifth century. No historical analogues for Hengest or Horsa exist outside the primary sources, casting more doubt on the accuracy of their narrative. Due to this evidence, paired with the suggestion of the Kentish source also being composed in the sixth century, it is

Johnson's assertion that the concept of Kentish kingship began under the aegis of

Gwrtheyrn, without the involvement of Anglo-Saxons, and that it took place no earlier than 560 C.E. 53

Under initial consideration, Johnson's assertion appears quite plausible, however the scope of his research is limited by his adherence to the practices of the academic discipline of history. By focusing largely on the literary records while giving little attention to recent archaeological research, Johnson limits his investigation to only one portion of the puzzle of reconstructing the historical narrative of Kent. When one combines the valuable research that historians like Johnson have recently contributed with the insight of recent archaeological findings, the necessity of combining disciplines to create a more complete picture of Migration Era Britain becomes clear; especially in regards to the complex task of re-evaluating the narrative of Kent and its role in the proposed Anglo-Saxon conquest of Britain.

When one examines the archaeological record against the historical research much like the case of Vortigern, a defined chronology of the Kentish narrative is revealed to be more complicated than a mere lack of literary evidence as cited by Johnson. While

53 Johnson, Hengest, Gwrtheyrn. 92.

Johnson's assertion of the sixth century chronology of Vortigern and Kent is far from flawed, the strong archaeological evidence of the presence of Germanic peoples much earlier than the fifth century proposes a new chronology separate from both the primary sources and Johnson's.

This new chronology emerges from archaeological evidence that suggests that a significant number of Germanic peoples were present throughout Britain during the

Roman period. Surveys of the material culture found in several settlements in Britain, dated to both the Roman and post-Roman periods, show a significant selection of grave goods that have been identified as Germanic in origin. Laycock notes that these items including francisca, a throwing axe, as well as agons, a type of javelin used uniquely by the Germanic peoples known as the Franks. The Franks made up a great portion of the population of Roman Gaul just across the English Channel, as well as a significant portion of the military of the late fourth to fifth century Western Roman Empire. This was the result of a massive fourth century westward migration of Germanic peoples, many of them pushed by the expansion of the Huns, a confederacy of tribes from a region known as the Steppes. Due to this migration, by the late fourth to early fifth century, the

Romans stopped practicing conventional recruitment of military forces and instead began using groups of Germanic prisoners to garrison Roman settlements or simply hiring

Germanic peoples as mercenaries.54

54 Laycock, Warlords. 73.

Considering this evidence along with the presence of Germanic settlements in the territories of the British tribes of the Iceni, Corieltauvi and the civitas of the Belgae dated in the early fifth century, Laycock's suggestion that Britons continued the practice of hiring German mercenaries after the Roman period appears more grounded than

Johnson's proposed chronology.55 (See Map 4).

The presence of Germanic peoples in Britain before the proposed chronology of the Kentish narrative complicates the role of Hengest and the Anglo-Saxons in the narrative. Unlike Vortigern, Hengest, in the narrative of the primary sources, is portrayed as a shrewd opportunistic villain to the British people; a calculated mercenary with his eyes on the conquest of Britain. Much like the case of Vortigern, evidence in the archaeological record suggests the presence of Anglo-Saxon people in the Kentish region in the second half of the fifth century. Archaeological studies of Kent in the date range of fifth to the tenth century compiled by Stuart Brookes reveals a pattern of Anglo-Saxon settlement that could corroborate the chronicle of the primary sources. Early Anglo-

Saxon settlement, dated in the second half of the fifth century, were most dense in the eastern coastal region of the county and were networked in connection with major roman constructed roads as well as water ways.

55 Laycock, Warlords, 65.

Map 4: Map of Anglo-Saxon settlements in the fifth century. Black circles represent early to mid-fifth century settlement. Empty circles represent mid to late fifth century settlement. Map taken from Laycock’s Warlords, Page 65.

The densest cluster of early settlements lies on the Isle of Thanet on the most eastern tip of the county along the eastern sea board of Britain and corroborates the account of where Hengest landed in both the Historia Brittonum and the Anglo-Saxon

Chronicle. In chapter thirty-one of the Historia, Nennius writes, " Vortigern received

them as friends, and delivered up to them the island which is in their language called

Thanet, and by the Britons Ruym."56 While Nennius calls the Isle by name, the Anglo-

Saxon Chronicle gives a specific landing site, Wippidsfleet, which is thought be modern day Ebbsfleet near Ramsgate along the southern coast of the Isle of Thanet.

Along with corroborating locations of settlement in the primary sources, the archaeological record also suggests Anglo-Saxon settlement beyond mere military purpose. Surveys of fifth century Anglo-Saxon cemeteries in the county of Kent revealed seventy-five burial sites with a total of nearly twelve-hundred graves of individuals.57 In these graves the most common items found were military equipment such as spears, knife blades and shield bosses, along with a high volume of three different types of glass beads.

Beads are thought to be a jewelry item commonly worn by Anglo-Saxon women.58 The evidence of the material culture implies that there was a population of Anglo-Saxons comprising of families, not something a group of people with the sole goal of military service and profit typically bring to a territory which they intend to campaign in. While this evidence suggests a strong Anglo-Saxon civilian presence in the county of Kent in the fifth century it does not lend any more clues in regard to the chronology of settlement.

There is no evidence clearly outlining a time frame of Anglo-Saxon settlement. Whether

Anglo-Saxon were already settled in some degree in Kent before the fifth century or

56 Nennius, Historia. 10.

57 Brookes, Stuart. Economics and Social Change in Anglo-Saxon Kent AD 400-900: Landscapes, Communities and Exchange. (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2007). 105-106.

58 Gale R. Owen-Crocker. Dress in Anglo-Saxon England. (Woodrige: Boydell Press, 2004) 86.

arrived in its later half as the primary sources suggest is unclear. A census of Anglo-

Saxon settlements and burials of southern Britain in the date range of 400 to 700 C.E. suggests that Kent grew substantially in both settlement and population in that time span.

The census data was compiled by Sue Harrington and Martin Welch based on archaeological research through 2007 and it revealed that in the region of Kent small isolated burials were converted into large scale cemeteries at a great frequency than the other kingdoms surveyed.59 The data revealed a total of three-hundred and sixty-five cemeteries with an estimated population of twelve thousand over the course of the three centuries.60 Harrington and Welch note that the burials surveyed in Kent made up approximately forty percent of the total population in the region suggesting a great deal of expansion or at least that the region was densely populated.61 There is no denying that

Kent was indeed a strongly populated Anglo-Saxon kingdom in the fifth to eight centuries but the unprecise dating conventions of the census lend little insight to the chronology of Kentish settlement and expansion. By placing the beginning of the chronology of Anglo-Saxon settlement at the beginning of the fifth century, it becomes difficult to discern between Germanic and Anglo-Saxon material culture in the archaeological record.

The chronology of Hengest's arrival is not the only issue in his role in the Kentish narrative; the existence of a historical personage for Hengest is equally problematic.

59 Sue Harrington, Martin Welch. The Early Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms of Southern Britain AD 450-650. (Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2014) 22-23.

60 Harrington, Welch, Early Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, 23.

61 Harrington, Welch, Early Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, 23.

Though Hengest is credited with settling and winning Kent, whether it is through shrewd negotiation as reported by Nennius or at the point of spear as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle claims; he is not the progenitor the Anglo-Saxons name in their Kentish dynasty. They trace their line to the character of Oisc or Esc in Old-English, the successor of Hengest according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: "A.D. 488. This year Esc succeeded to the

Kingdom; and was king of the men of Kent twenty-four winters."62 Much like the Anglo-

Saxon Chronicle, Bede in the second chapter in the fifth book of his ecclesiastical history writes that Hengest arrived with Oisc, contradicting his own account of Hengest arriving with his brother Horsa in the fifteenth chapter of the first book. Anglo-Saxons descending from Kent claim themselves as Oiscingas. Based on this contradiction in

Bede's historical reporting and the claim of the Kentish line beginning with Oisc, Johnson makes the assertion that the narrative of Hengest, Horsa and the Anglo-Saxon conquest of

Kent is a product of two invasion legends being used by the primary sources and had not been integrated into the narrative by the time of Bede's writing.63

This assertion is further supported by the fact that there is a written record that a different Anglo-Saxon chieftain landed in England in the second half of the fifth century.

According to the Ravenna Cosmographer, this Anglo-Saxon chieftain was called Ansehi, or Anski as it is commonly translated to in Old Germanic.64 The Old English equivalent

62 Ingram, Rev. James. trans. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. (San Bernardino: CreateSpace Independent Publishing, 2018). 11.

63 Johnson, Hengest, Gwrtheyrn. 83.

64 Johnson, Hengest, Gwrtheyrn. 84.

is Oski. It is Johnson's belief that Oski was the origin of the Oisc persona in the second invasion narrative that used by Bede in his Ecclesiastical History. This begs the question, how then does Hengest fit into this re-evaluation of the Kentish narrative? Was he indeed the Anglo-Saxon chieftain who established Kent as the first seat of Anglo-Saxon political power in England? Or was he the Germanic equivalent to King Arthur, and was a character of legend woven into the historical record?

Another issue is the accuracy of the Ravenna Cosmography. The text was first published in 1688 from a manuscript discovered in the Vatican Library.65 In a recent assessment of the document historian Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews reviews the accuracy of the document as a source of Romano-British place names and more specifically its relation to the collection of founding myths of Kent. Matthews notes that it appears that the unknown author of the Cosmography used maps has their main source for place names as they mistakenly name Thames as a place while locating regions in Kent.66 He further investigates possible map sources which seemingly were Roman in origin due to the high accuracy of the placement of Roman Road systems and the mentioned error of

Thames as a place name as opposed to the River. It is Matthews suggestion that this might be due to an error in copying on part of the author as Thames may have been placed inland on the map source.67 The Ravenna Cosmography is yet another source that

65 Keith J. Fitzpatrick-Matthews, “Britannia in the Ravenna Cosmography: A Reassessment,” academia.edu. https://www.academia.edu/4175080/BRITANNIA_IN_THE_RAVENNA_COSMOGRAPHY_A_REASSESSMENT ?auto=download, accessed March 14, 2020. 1.

66 Matthews, “Britannia in the Ravenna Cosmography,” 23.

67 Matthews, “Britannia in the Ravenna Cosmography,” 87-88.

gives plausible evidence of a possible founder of Kent rife with contradictions to the other contemporary sources and their narratives that further confuses the issue of a historic personage on which the character of Hengest is based.

The first confirmed example we have of the Kentish royal family comes from an entry in the history of Gregory of Tours. The Kentish geneaologies name Eromenric as

Athelbert’s father which Gregory of Tours chronicles as marrying Bertha, the daughter to the Frankish King, Charibert of Paris.68 Though regrettably Tours does not provide a date for the wedding but does imply that Bertha was not born until sometime after 561 C.E. which could mean that Eormenric could have still been ruling in 589.69 Historian Barbara

Yorke notes that the Eromenric’s name enforces suggested connection to the Frankish dynasty of sixth century Kent as it is not a common name in the Anglo-Saxon nomenclature but a common name amongst Frankish royal houses and aristocracy.70

Yorke notes that Kentish grave goods, particularly in Eastern Kent, reflect this connection to the Franks across the channel as many of the ornamentation and jewelry reflect Frankish styles.71 This is also noted by Gale R. Owen Crocker in her study of

Kentish fashion in her monograph Dress in Anglo-Saxon England. Crocker notes that

Frankish styles are particularly apparent in the grave goods of women in the region of eastern Kent. This evidence of a Frankish connect early in the Kingdom of Kent’s history

68 Barbara Yorke. Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England. (London: Routledge, 2013) 28.

69 Yorke, Kings and Kingdoms, 28.

70 Yorke, Kings and Kingdoms, 28.

71 Yorke, Kings and Kingdoms, 27.

adds another wrinkle into the narrative of its forming. It suggests two powerful allies in which the founders or the rulers of Kent in the fifth century could find themselves in relation with. If indeed Kent was aligned with the proposed Dobunnic super power in

Britain and also had early connections to the Franks across the channel, they could provide not only military assistance but a great trade connection as well to their British allies. If they indeed had both connections what need would they have of mercenary work to the Dobunnic kingdom in Britain? Considering these potential relationships with two powerful political entities, it seems Kent would have little motivation to serve as mercenaries, or attempt to conquer Britain.

Further doubt is cast by the contradiction of the primary sources regarding the invasion/conquest narrative they report. Analysis of Bede's account has revealed the potential of the existence of two different invasion narratives, one with Hengest as the leader and the other as Oski as the leader of the Anglo-Saxon force. Though he doesn't name Hengest directly, Gildas does mark the Anglo-Saxons as mercenaries and in older translations and uses a very telling term to refer to them: foedus. This explicitly labels the

Anglo-Saxons as foederati, Germanic mercenaries fighting for Rome in mainland

Europe.72 Thus, Gildas's account, which is the oldest narrative and was composed in the closest proximity of chronology to the events in question regarding Kent, would seem to support Laycock's theory of a Germanic and Anglo-Saxon presence in the region contemporary to the proposed chronology of the narrative in the primary sources.

72 Johnson, Hengest, 84.

Conclusions

While the primary sources imply the continued use of Germanic mercenaries in the way of fifth century British powers employing Anglo-Saxons the archaeological record seems to contradict the conquest and military conflict elements of the narrative.

Archaeological evidence confirms Anglo-Saxon settlement in the eastern portion of

Britain in the fifth century as documented by Brooks. However, Laycock presents a counter narrative to the invasion and conquest narrative through the argument of continued military and political alliances between the Dobunnic confederacy, and Kent through a shared typology of military belt buckle. Johnson has supported the theory that the conquest narrative of Kent was a fabrication motivated by Anglo-Saxon goals of lending evidence to dynastic claim and maintaining ecclesiastical authority and supremacy in the region on the part of the Church of Canterbury. Political motivation also was revealed to be a possible cause of the apparent incompetence in which Vortigern is depicted in the narrative. This ironically has added to the credibility of both Laycock’s and Johnson’s arguments for the likely hood of a historic personage on which Vortigern was based and that they very well may have been the king of the Dobunnic confederacy in Britain.

A great degree of doubt however has been cast on the likelihood of a historic personage for Hengest in light of the evidence investigated in this chapter. More importantly, the circumstances of Kent coming to power has been revealed to be more likely a scenario of political partnership and alliance rather than conquest. It was even suggested by Johnson that the Kentish settlement may have started in the last half of the

fourth century with the proposed arrival of Anski as claimed by the Ravenna

Cosmography or at least that the name Anski was the origin of the personage of Oisc, whom the founding of the Kentish dynasty is credited. While this does present a contradictory chronology of settlement to the primary sources, it does suggest a scenario in which Kent or at least a region of settlements before it became recognized as a polity, existed for at least a century outside of direct conflict with the indigenous British peoples.

This scenario has been somewhat enforced by the suggestion of continual Kentish expansion from the beginning of the fifth century through the archaeological census reported by Harrington and Welch.

The importance of challenging the narrative of the founding of Kent and its role in

Anglo-Saxon conquest is paramount in challenging the narrative and the paradigm as whole. For so long there has been a strong adherence to the narrative reported by the primary sources that Kent was established out of the first area of conquest in a series of small Anglo-Saxon incursions that resulted in at least the eastern half of Britain being conquered by the end of the fifth century. Challenging this narrative and arguing that the foundation of Kent was the result of not aggressive colonization but rather a process of settlement and complex political and military alliances with not only the indigenous

British peoples but, at least in the case of eastern Kent, Frankia as well is an important step building a narrative of exchange and assimilation as the main cause of cultural transition in Migration era Britain.

Chapter 3 Conquest or Cultural Exchange

Conquest: The Narrative Against the Evidence

As it was established in the last chapter, the main sources driving the narrative of the Anglo-Saxon conquest of Britain in the fifth century were the ecclesiastical histories and chronicles composed by Gildas, Bede and Nennius. Gildas’ narrative in On the Ruin of Britain is echoed and built upon by Bede, and in turn Bede’s narrative is built upon by

Nennius. What is curious however, is that both Gildas and Bede report no specific events, or any specific accounts for that matter, past the victory over the Saxons according to

Gildas, or the Angles according Bede. After the deeds of the Roman hero Aurelianus

Gildas’ history quickly ends. Bede gives one entry in Chapter twenty-two of Book One in his history, of a date that stretches from 440-590 C.E. that reports, “a rest from foreign, though not from civil, wars.”73 This is curious on several levels: one is that in this statement Bede contradicts his own timeline that he establishes in chapter fifteen of Book

One where he states the arrival of the Angles in 449 C.E. The other is the fact that while both Bede and Gildas report of the war between the Britons lead by Aurelianus and the

Angles or Saxons, both historians have very little if any significant history to report until, in Bede’s case, the coming of Augustine to England to preach the word of God to the

73 Bede, Ecclesiastical History of the English People, trans. Leo Sherley-Price. (London: Penguin Books) Book One, Chapter 22. 72

British people in 596 C.E.. This leaves us with one source that continues the invasion narrative in the chronological gap left by Gildas and Bede, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.

In the thirty-eight entries in the Chronicle spanning the fifth and sixth centuries, eighteen of them detail military conflict and name the British or the Welsh as the enemies being engaged and defeated. The collection of entries also details the foundation of not only Kent, but the kingdoms of Wessex in Britain as well. Though the names and particular circumstances are different, one element of the narrative for the beginning of the kingdom of Wessex remains the same, the Saxon warlords land in Britain with a handful of ships, defeat their enemy in either one or a series of decisive battles and take control of that region. The Chronicle names precise landing spots for the conquest and development Wessex, but also details another landing by another warlord. In the case of the kingdom of the West-Saxons (Wessex), the warlord Cerdic and his son Cynric land in a place called Cerdic’s-Ore with five ships. The entry is dated at 495 C.E. and specifically states that the Welsh were fought on the same day as the landing.74 Cerdic’s-

Ore is a difficult landing spot to define as there are only estimates as to where this was on a modern map. Hampshire is the current county in which the kingdom of Wessex originated in the final years of the fifth century. An exact place of landing is very difficult to narrow down and Wareham is merely a suggestion based only on the fact that is a port town in Hampshire on England’s south-central coastline.

Several entries following the first landing of Cerdic and Cynric in the Chronicle detail more military engagements with the British and the Welsh. It details the landing of

74 Alfred the Great, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, trans. Rev. James Ingram. (San Berdino, 2018). 11.

three more ships at Cerdic’s-Ore in 514 C.E. Five years later the Chronicle claims that

Cerdic and Cynric take official control of the government in Wessex. This entry also claims they fought the British at Charford, a small village in Worcestershire, a county north of the territory of Wessex. The entry ends stating, “From that day have reigned the children of the West-Saxon kings.75 An entry dated at 530 C.E. reports that Cynric,

Cerdic’s son, conquers the Isle of Wight, a small isle just off the south coast of

Hampshire.76 By the end of the sixth century, at least according to the Chronicle, Wessex was a kingdom that now eclipsed Kent.

By the sixth century Britain had become Anglo-Saxon Britain, divided into seven different kingdoms known as the heptarchy. Heptarchy draws its name from the Greek terms seven and rule, an represents a time period from the end of the fifth century until the Danish invasions of the late ninth century. The seven kingdoms that made up the

Heptarchy are: Northumbria, Mercia, East Anglia, Essex, Kent, Sussex and Wessex.

Saxons controlled Wessex, Sussex and Essex, Angles had settled Northumbria, Mercia and East Anglia, and the Jutes settled Kent and the Isle of Wight. (See Map 5).

This assumption of Anglo-Saxon dominance had been informed initially by the fact that the archaeological record indicates that an overwhelming majority of material culture discovered, dating to the sixth century was categorized as Germanic.77

75 Alfred the Great, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 13.

76 Alfred the Great, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 13.

77 Barbara Yorke, Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England. (London: Routledge, 2013). 26.

Map 5: Map of Britain and Anglo-Saxon settlement. Locations settled by the Jutes are colored in brown, Saxon settlement in pink and Angle settlement in green. Map from the Anglo-Saxon World Nicholas J. Highman and Martin J. Ryan. (London: Yale University Press, 2015). 74

Other elements of the archaeological record such as the Saxon Shore Forts and the

Wansdyke have been used for arguments of conquest by historians and archaeologists.

While we explored Laycock’s theory that the Wansdyke was of British origin and constructed some time during the Roman period, other theories assert that the Wansdyke was either constructed by British to combat Anglo-Saxon invasions and that the east and west sections of the Wansdyke were a means to create a border to better defend western

and southern Britain. Another theory is that the Wansdyke was constructed during the late sixth century and could have been a constructed border between the kingdoms of

Wessex and Mercia.78 Historian Douglas John Vivian Fisher, also states it is possible that the Wansdyke indicates that the northern and southern sections of the kingdom of the

West Saxons (Wessex) may have been in the control of different warlords respectively in the late sixth century.79 Fisher presents an interesting theory but does not offer as thorough an argument for his case as Laycock does for a British origin of the Wansdyke.

While Fisher’s theory shares some elements of Laycock’s in that the substantial earth work trench runs through a significant portion of middle England and therefore borders of rival Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, Fisher does not offer any other archaeological evidence to support the assertion that the Wansdyke was constructed by Anglo-Saxons. It is entirely possible that the Wansdyke was used as Fisher describes, but the crux of the debate comes down to the point of origin. As the research indicates, Laycock presents a stronger argument for a British origin of the earth work trench. Laycock’s argument in

Chapter 1 that the Wansdyke was an earthwork border marker between two possibly feuding British tribes in the late fourth century due to both the noted propensity of the

British people to use earthwork trenches not only for military defense but also, as we will explore later in this chapter, to signify field boundaries for agricultural use. Fisher cites that that the Anglo-Saxons used the Wansdyke for a similar purpose of establishing

78 D J V Fisher, The Anglo-Saxon Age: C. 400-1042. (London: Routledge, 2014) 36.

79 Fisher, The Anglo-Saxon Age, 36.

military and territorial borders but does not give as detailed an argument as Laycock provides.

The Wansdyke is not the only evidence Fisher cites, however, for signs of Anglo-

Saxon conquest in the late fifth to the seventh centuries. He names the battle of Dyrham, dating 577 C.E. in which Caewlin, the current king of the West Saxons fought with the

British and took three cities: Gloucester, Cirencester and Bath according to the entry in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.80 Fisher seems to take the entry in the Chronicle at face value, but with little to no evidence of warfare in the archaeological record in the way of battle ground finds dating to the sixth century it is very difficult to prove. The battle of

Dyrham is far from unique in this issue as very little clear evidence of battles and their locations exists in the archaeological record. This is due, in no small part, to the incredibly acidic soil conditions in most of Britain.81 Acidic soil conditions tend to erode metal artifacts making battlefield archaeological finds incredibly difficult. There has been only one confirmed battle site found in the time span of the fifth to seventh centuries, the

Battle of Chester, which is dated to 616 C.E.82 This is long after the act of conquest supposedly took place when one considers that a vast amount of the material culture found in Britain dating as early as the sixth century is considered to be Anglo-Saxon.

80 Alfred the Great, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 15.

81 Gerrad, Ruin of Roman Britian, 65.

82 Sean Davies, “The Battle of Chester and Warfare in Post-Roman Britain,” History, Vol. 95, No. 2 (April 2010). 143.

An investigation of the battle of Chester is valuable to this research, however, as it is the first confirmed battle between British and Anglo-Saxon forces and is one of the very rare cases in which a battle detailed in the contemporary primary sources has been supported by archaeological evidence. It also reveals that British and Welsh military and political power was still substantial enough to challenge or threaten Anglo-Saxon holdings in Britain in the seventh century. Bede details this battle between Aethlfrith, the ambitious king of Northumbria and Welsh noblemen of the kingdom of Powys. He names the location as Chester and puts the number of men slain in the conflict at 1,200 and only fifty surviving by flight. Historian Sean Davies cites this from a translation of Bede’s work by B. Colgrave and R. A. B. Mynors.83 It is Davies assertion that the battle was motivated by the attempts on the part of Aethlfrith to expand Northumbria and settle a score with rival noble in Edwin, who had at this point allied himself with not only the

Welsh courts of Powys and Gwynedd but Readwald, the king of East Anglia.84 If Davies is to be believed then the circumstances surrounding the battle of Chester illustrate a complex and tangled web of political intrigue amongst Anglo-Saxon British and Welsh kingdoms at the end of the sixth and beginning of the seventh centuries.

The site of the archaeological discovery, Heronbridge lies just one and a half miles south of Chester on the road connecting the legionary fortress of Deva with

Whitchurch, Wroxester and London.85 The structure was of curvilinear design and was

83 Davies, The Battle of Chester, 145.

84 Davies, The Battle of Chester, 148.

85 Davies, The Battle of Chester, 144.

surrounded by a ditch and rampart strongly suggesting fortification. The excavation was conducted by the Chester Archaeology Society and involved a re-examination of an inhumation cemetery within the fortifications first discovered in 1930. The recent analysis confirmed that it was indeed a mass grave for battle casualties. Considering the close proximity to the Chester battle site it is assumed by the Chester Archaeology

Society, along with Davies that this mass grave was used for the casualties of the battle.86

Two skeletons from the site were extracted from the site for full osteological evaluation, the first was estimated to be between thirty-six and forty-five at the time of death, and the second between eighteen and twenty-five. The first skeleton had four separate wounds, all of which were potentially fatal. There were also signs of a stab wound in the lower abdomen and the top of the thumb was missing, suggesting a desperate attempt to protect the head.87(See Figure 5). Along with these traumatic wounds the skull of the second skeleton revealed four healed depression injuries sustained earlier in life.88 (See Figure

6). In light of this evidence Davies makes the reasonable assertion that this man was likely a military veteran who had seen combat before.

86 Davies, The Battle of Chester, 144.

87 Davies, The Battle of Chester, 152.

88 Davies, The Battle of Chester, 152.

Figure 5: Photograph of thumb bone with blade damage. From Osteology Analysis Heronbridge Chester Cheshire, page 8.

Figure 6: Photograph of the skull depressions on Skull of Skeleton 2. From Osteology Analysis Heronbridge Chester Cheshire, page 8.

The first skeleton had five blade cuts to the skull, one of them split the top of the skull in two, and another blow sliced off the back of the skull. (See Figure 7). The

Osteology report carbon dated both the skeletons to be from between 530 and 660 C.E.89 putting them in a date range that makes them more than eligible for participation in the battle.

Figure 7: Photograph of the five blade wounds on the Skull of Skeleton 1. From Osteology Analysis Heronbridge Chester Cheshire, page 9.

89 Malin, Holst. Osteological Analysis Heronbridge Chester Cheshire. York Osteoarchaeology, 2004. Iii.

What Davies’ report along with the Osteological report conducted by York

Osteoarchaeology proves is that warfare certainly took place in the fifth to seventh centuries but the question remains, on what scale and with what frequency? The battle of

Chester cannot be taken as an example of average force sizes as the primary sources suggest that the Britons rallied many noble houses and their retainers to the battle. Davies notes that archaeologist David Mason estimates that Aethlfrith’s forces at a minimum pre-battle strength of five hundred men and a thousand seems more likely.90 This number seems quite a bit larger than forces of the Anglo-Saxons would have been in the fifth century.

When one investigates the numbers and circumstances of many of the battles of the fifth century in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, as written they suggest forces much more akin to Mason’s estimations, often claiming thousands of warriors on each side of the battle. Many of the battles listed claim that the Anglo-Saxon forces were engaged immediately after landing in two or three ships. This raises the question of how many fighting men could an Anglo-Saxon ceol carry across the sea? While no empirical answer can be reached at this time, a rough estimate can be reached by comparing the sizes of archaeological ship finds. The first ship to be examined is the famous Sutton Hoo ship burial discovered in Suffolk in 1938. The overall length of the ship was roughly eighty feet, but the ship, when excavated was missing the upper sections of both the stem and sternposts suggests that it would have been between eighty-five and ninety feet.91 The

90 Davies, The Battle of Chester, 153.

91 Charles, Green. Sutton Hoo: The Excavation of a Royal Ship Burial. (London: The Merlin Press, 1988). 60.

Sutton Hoo ship does not contain any evidence of how many oars were used on each side of the vessel, which is used as an indicator of crew size, but it does offer one of few

Anglo-Saxon ship finds in the archaeological record to date. It also presents a problem in that it was possibly built as a funerary vessel which has led to a controversial conclusion that Anglo-Saxon ships did not have sails as the Sutton Hoo Ship shows no signs of a mast being included in construction. To make this assumption based on a funerary vessel seems ill advised however as many contemporary vessels, as well as other vessels from

Europe used sails and had for several centuries before.

The insight the Sutton Hoo ship does offer, however is its striking similarity in structure and design to another ship find in Nydam, Demark. It was originally discovered in a peat bog by archaeologist Conrad Engelhardt. The ship is roughly dated to 400 C.E. and though smaller at nearly seventy-four feet in length, shares many design elements of the Sutton Hoo ship.92 What they Nydam ship offers that the Sutton Hoo ship burial does not is a number of oars, fifteen to a side which implies a total crew of roughly forty, fifteen oarsman on each side and then a few others to work rigging if the ships had sails, and others to navigate and direct the oarsmen. Even if the ships did not have sails, as some historians and archaeologists, Charles Green included, believe, the minimum crew of the Nydam ship can be assumed to between thirty to forty men. When compared to the

Sutton Ship, which was notably larger, by ten or fifteen feet, one can assume at least two additional oarsmen on each side of the boat extending the crew to somewhere between forty and fifty men. When compared with Viking long ships, the Sutton Hoo ship is

92 Green, Sutton Hoo, 56.

similar in size, however some long ships used in the Viking Age were thought to have a capacity of roughly seventy.

Assuming that Anglo-Saxon ships could also carry seventy sailors may be too generous, but for the sake of argument if they did, the Anglo-Saxon forces arriving in two to three ceols as they are called, would be roughly two-hundred strong at best. If there were indeed military engagements between these landing forces and British or Welsh opposition, the scale of warfare would be significantly lower than the Anglo-Saxon

Chronicle suggests. Instead of mass battles with thousands of troops involved, it is more likely that tribal skirmishes between two to three hundred warriors on each side occurred.

These factors considered, the narrative of continual large-scale military conflict in Britain during the second half of the fifth and sixth centuries becomes doubtful.

The scale of the warfare is not the only question regarding Anglo-Saxon conquest.

Another great concern is the frequency the Anglo-Saxons, British and Welsh engaged in warfare in the late fifth and sixth centuries. While the British sources suggest civil warfare between British tribal powers during the fifth century, the archaeological record also cast doubts on the frequency in which the Anglo-Saxons engaged in warfare during this time. A survey of over seven-hundred weapon burials across forty-seven different

Anglo-Saxon settlements conducted by archaeologist Heinrich Harke, revealed a low percentage of weapon sets in male graves. While the survey reveals a spike in the mid sixth century, he notes a sharp decline in the volume of weapon sets (some graves contained more than one weapon, I.E. a spear and shield or sword, ect.), shortly after. He

also notes that many of the weapon sets show no sign of usage or damage. The table of

Harke’s findings is included below:

TABLE 2 FREQUENCIES OF WEAPON TYPES IN ANGLO-SAXON BURIALS IN A SAMPLE OF FORTY-SEVEN CEMETERIES

Number of burials Percentage of all with this weapon Burials Spear 589 83.9 Shield 317 45.2 Sword 76 10.8 Seax 30 4.3 Axe 14 2.0 Arrow 7 1.0 Total of weapon burials 702 93

Out of the male graves surveyed, only one fifth of them included weapon sets. Harke also is unsure that the male graves found with weapon sets were indeed fighting men as evident by the many incomplete weapon sets found in the graves as well as very few of the weapons showing signs of damage or use. It is well documented that the Anglo-

Saxons were a warrior cult culture and therefore martial prowess was associated with

93 Heinrich Harke, "Warrior Graves? The Background of the Anglo-Saxon Weapon Burial Rite," Past and Present No. 126 (Feb. 1990) 26.

social standing. Harke notes that males buried with more expensive and rare weapons such as swords and axes were more likely to be buried with more complete or rare weapons sets such as swords and shields were more often buried in coffins than those without more complete sets. Harke suggests it is possible that these burials surveyed were ceremonial in context rather than graves of actual combatants as no indication of trauma was found on the human remains. Though Harke’s research was done in the 1990’s, there has not been a comprehensive survey like his taken since, leaving it as the only documented and published survey of weapon finds on that scale in the archaeological record thus far.

Harke’s findings do not strongly support an invasion scenario in Britain during the fifth and sixth centuries. He notes there is a brief spike in the amounts of weapons in burials in the sixth century. This could suggest two different scenarios: one that warfare became so common that more warriors were dying and thus the increase of burials containing weapons. The second scenario is that times were so prosperous that there was an excess of weapons that could be spared for ritual burials. Given the shortage of active metal working sites in the archaeological record in fifth century Britain as cited by

Fleming, if warfare was frequent, it is possible that weapons would be needed and too scarce to bury with the dead. So, a spike in volume of weapon burials might suggest prosperous times with a growing population of Anglo-Saxon nobility in Britain at the time. Harke suggests that the only conclusion that can be drawn by the survey is that,

“there is no positive correlation between the weapon burial rite and historically attested warfare.”94

The frustrating reality in the attempts to ground proof the conquest narrative with the archaeological record is that the result is inconclusive empirically speaking. While the expansion of Anglo-Saxon settlement in the second half of the fifth century is undeniable, the theory that a series of small conquests through military force is difficult to prove.

Examples such as Chester show that warfare indeed took place and that it was possibly conducted by significant forces on the field. However, the lack of hard evidence of battles taking place before the seventh century paired with the inconclusive survey of the amounts of weapons found in Anglo-Saxon burials dating to the fifth century cast a long shadow of doubt over the narrative of conquest reported by the primary sources. The primary sources themselves cast their own doubts, with Bede’s contradicting chronology and invasion events and a seemingly inflated numbers of battles fought and the troops participating in them in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, warfare appears to be an unreliable mechanism to measure cultural transition by.

Settlement: Invasive Expansion or Assimilation

If conquest does not seem a likely mechanism for cultural transition, settlement patterns and their expansion could lend new insights. Regrettably there is no clear evidence of the political landscape of Britain in the fifth or sixth centuries. However

94 Harke, “Warrior Graves?,” 32-33.

certain elements of the political relations and circumstances surrounding and leading to the battle of Chester can be deduced. The fact that Wales was able to muster several tribal forces to meet the Northumbrians in a battle would suggest that Welsh political power, at the very least lasted through to the seventh century. This would lead one to believe that both Welsh and British political influence continued well into the fifth and quite possibly the seventh century. It is even likely as we explored in Chapter 2, that the establishment of Kent was directly affected and quite possibly granted by the British confederacy of the

Dobunni. Considering this information, it would be frankly, unreasonable to assume that the British peoples did not have significant influence and a direct, dramatic effect on the process. Both the historical and archaeological record have cast a long shadow of doubt over the invasion narrative, long held in historical community, which leaves another possibility: cultural adaptation and assimilation.

If this is to be believed at first glance this theory would seem to be based on an unlikely chronology. According to the archaeological record, the Anglo-Saxon conquest only takes roughly, fifty years if the timeline from the long-held narrative is to be believed. The narrative, historically, is that the Anglo-Saxons arrive in 449 C.E. and by the beginning of the 500’s C.E. material culture across nearly all of Britain is categorized as Anglo-Saxon. This is accepted as fact by many historians including many used in this research such as Fisher, Arnold and Yorke to name a few. As explored in Chapter 1, it seems the British peoples quickly rejected the economic and settlement patterns established by the Roman occupation within a few decades. Britain returned quickly to both a pastoral economy and settlement pattern in the east of the country. While it is true

that villa reconstruction and expansion occurred in the west, the eastern region of Britain, which was the region that Anglo-Saxons populated first, was already utilizing and practicing a pastoral economy and settlement. Anglo-Saxon settlement patterns in many ways mirror this model of living.

Archaeological excavations of Anglo-Saxon settlements in West Stow, in the region of Kent reveal this to be true. A survey of the animal bones recovered from the site suggest that hunting was rarely a regular source of the daily diet but rather people relied on pasture and heard animals. In the settlement’s history, it appears that cattle, sheep, goat pig horse, geese, and chickens provided the majority of the protein diet.95 Sheep served as a resource with multiple uses; not only meat but dairy and wool production as well. Goats were used in a similar fashion and a cultural difference emerging from Celtic traditions which held cattle in high regard and provided similar resources. Archaeologist,

C. J. Arnolds notes that pigs were the primary source of protein in the early fifth century and notes that fellow archaeologist, Pam Crabtree suggests this is due to the fact that herds of sheep and goats would take time to establish after migration. Pigs however, mature quickly and multiply rapidly, making them ideal livestock for a newly established settlement in foreign land.96 This would make them an ideal animal to use as livestock for

Anglo-Saxons migrating and settling in Britain. The other animals were also used by

Anglo-Saxons as the most common textile materials in the Anglo-Saxon period of Britain remained wool and linen.

95 C. J. Arnold. An Archaeology of the Early Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms. (London: Routledge, 2000). 34.

96 Arnold, An Archaeology, 35.

Along with the keeping of livestock, grains, namely wheat and barley remained the main agricultural crops grown in the region after Anglo-Saxon settlement. Barley remained the most common in the data from a survey of Anglo-Saxon settlements in the east and midlands. It is followed closely by wheat, rye, and oats which make up the other staple crops and diet of the fifth and sixth centuries. Arnold notes that in West Stow that naked bread wheats replaced hulled varieties sometime between the mid-fifth century and the middle-Saxon period.97 Though this illustrates a shift in what type of wheat may have been a common crop, this indicates that the staple diet grains in Britain did not shift dramatically during the Anglo-Saxon. Archaeological research of pre-Roman British agriculture shows that the important grain crops did not shift dramatically other than maybe the type of wheat grown. Seed finds indicated that wheat and barley where the two main cereal crops in Iron Age Britain as well. The other top cereals include oats, rye and millet.98

If it appears that resources and their uses did not change dramatically in Anglo-

Saxon settlement, perhaps the use of the landscape in the way of settlement layout can lend insight to significant cultural differences. Excavations at West Stow revealed a total of sixty-nine sunken feature buildings placed around seven hall-type buildings.99 The overall footprint of the settlement, at least the layouts of the buildings, consisted of

97 Arnold, An Archaeology, 37.

98 Peter J. Renoylds, “Rural Life and Farming,” in The Celtic World, ed. Miranda Green (London: Routledge, 1996). 182.

99 Pam J. Crabtree, Early Medieval Britain: The Rebirth of Towns in the Post-Roman West. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2018). 59.

approximately four and a half acres. The halls have been interpreted as the main dwellings for families surrounded with a cluster of sunken-feature buildings serving as workshops, barns, or grain storage.100 The hall type buildings could house one to perhaps three families as indicated by partitions on in the interior of the hall. This assumption has been based off of finds of a wide variety of tools being found in the remains and foundation footprints of the structures. These items include, hand sickles, awls, knives and punches for leather working, and tools for textile production. Six of the sunken- feature buildings at West Stow were confirmed to be used for textile production as clay weights for vertical looms were found, some leaving no less than one hundred weights.101

Though only the foundations and posts remain of these sunken-feature buildings, the implied dimensions of the structure, approximated at an average of 3x2 meters, add to the argument that they were workshops and not living quarters. Structures at West Stow suggest that a six-post foundation was the earliest form but that one post on each end of the foundation was the most common.102 (See Figures 8 and 9).

100 Crabtree, Early Medieval Britain, 60.

101 Arnold, An Archaeology, 41.

102 Arnold, An Archaeology, 39.

Figure 8: Comparisons of Sunken-feature buildings from early Anglo-Saxon settlements showing variety in construction methods. Image taken from an Archaeology of the Early Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms page 40.

The hall type buildings are rectangular timber buildings and much like the sunken-feature buildings, all that remain are post holes and beam slots dug in the subsoil.

Three basic types can be discerned based on the few finds that include the position of door frames and evidence of internal partitions.103 The three types, categorized by Arnold

103 Arnold, An Archaeology, 41.

are halls with opposed doors and internal partitions, opposed doors and no partitions, and those with single doorways.104 Only one hall-type buildings at West Stow showed evidence of partitions. These rectangular hall type buildings vary greatly in size, many of the buildings with no partitions range from 8.5 x 5.3 meters and 6.5 x 3.5 meters, buildings with single doorways tend to be.105 Crabtree adds to Arnolds research of West

Stow by noting that excavations in 2007 for the construction of a new gift shop for a new visitor center revealed six additional sunken-feature buildings suggesting that the settlement was much more expansive than originally thought. She also notes that the location of the buildings in the Lark River Valley were both along both sides of the river resembles a common settlement pattern along water sources.106

104 Arnold, An Archaeology, 41.

105 Arnold, An Archaeology, 41.

106 Crabtree, Early Medieval Britain, 61.

Figure 9: Possible reconstruction of building C12 at Cowdery’s Down Hampshire. Taken from an Archaeology of the Early Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms page 74.

Another important Anglo-Saxon settlement at Mucking in Essex, may very well greatly inform the chronology of Anglo-Saxon settlement and expansion in Britain during the fifth and sixth centuries. Crabtree cites that it is the most extensively excavated early

Anglo-Saxon settlement to date. It has revealed two Pagan cemeteries, fifty-three post hole buildings and 203 sunken-feature buildings in a footprint of nearly forty-four and a half acres. 107 Excavations also indicate the site was initially settled in the first half of the fifth century and was occupied through the late seventh possibly early eighth century.

Arnold notes that the excavations of Mucking reveal three distinct phases of the

107 Crabtree, Early Medieval Britain, 61-62.

settlement. It is theorized that the settlement was initially, comprised largely of sunken- feature buildings. In the late fifth or early sixth, it appears the settlement gradually moved northward and was still largely dispersed at this time. In the late sixth or early seventh century it spread north-eastward and showed signs of growing density and hall type buildings becoming more dominant. In its final phase, dated to the seventh century, the settlement spread westward and shifted to a collection of isolated farmsteads.108 This information has led Arnold to the conclusion that Mucking was not one village but a collection of small, shifting hamlets which began as a close knit community with less and less interaction as time went on.

Crabtree offers a second theory on the development of Mucking based on not only settlement data but ceramics as well. She cites the research of fellow archaeologist Jess

Tipper, which indicates that the settlement began with a small nucleated settlement in the fifth century in the southwest section of the settlement.109 Tipper believes a separate settlement was established on the north end of the area in the sixth century. It is Tipper’s belief that these settlements were independent of each other separated by the cemeteries and that they occupied the area through the sixth and seventh centuries.110 Crabtree adds that evidence suggests that after Mucking was abandoned in the late seventh or eighth century the site reverted to agriculture and that they developed out of late ditch systems established in the twilight of Mucking’s occupation.

108 Arnold, An Archaeology, 59-61.

109 Crabtree, Early Medieval Britain, 62.

110 Crabtree, Early Medieval Britain, 62.

Though both sites of West Stow and Mucking reveal commonalities of Anglo-

Saxon settlement patterns and demonstrate a preference to pastoral living styles, the sample size of Anglo-Saxon settlements that have been thoroughly excavated is quite small. Crabtree is quick to point out despite the fact that between thirty and forty thousand pagan Anglo-Saxon burials have been discovered, only a handful of fifth and sixth century Anglo-Saxon excavations have been published, West Stow and Mucking among them.111 Despite this low sample size, some commonalities can be established regarding Anglo-Saxon settlements. Hall type buildings appear to be constructed and used as main living quarters for one to three families based on the partitions in certain hall buildings. These main living quarters were surrounded by sunken-feature buildings that served as workshops, barns or perhaps grain storage and were clustered around the halls. Livestock appears to be the main source of protein in the diet, which was not a dramatic departure from life in Britain prior to Roman occupation. Anglo-Saxon settlements also seem to be near fresh water sources and rely heavily on that for both fishing and clean water for drinking as Arnold notes that wells are nearly entirely absent from early Anglo-Saxon settlements and do not appear in a rural context until the eighth century onwards.112

It is these patterns of Anglo-Saxon settlement that will be compared with what little evidence is available for distinctly British Iron Age settlements. Pre-Roman settlements have been chosen as the comparison in an effort to establish a distinctly

111 Crabtree, Early Medieval Britain, 57.

112 Arnold, An Archaeology, 61.

British cultural settlement pattern. This is in no way intended to dismiss the importance of the effect of Romanization on British settlements and culture, however, considering this aspect would make a distinction of “British” culture too difficult to define. In arguing that Britain largely returned to culture very familiar to the pre-Roman period after the

Roman exodus in the early fifth century, comparing a for lack of a better term, “purely

British,” settlement pattern allows a clearer direct comparison of British and Anglo-

Saxon settlement. The two British sites that will be examined are that of the Lake

Village in Glastonbury and a royal hillfort palace at Fison way at Thetford, which may have been the royal house of Queen Boudica of the Iceni.

The lake village name was given to the find at Glastonbury because both it and a discovery of a similar village in Meare were made at a time when similar villages had recently been found in Switzerland.113 Pryor notes that it is more appropriate to think of the lake village at Glastonbury as a marsh village as it was not settled on a lake at all but on higher ground that were wetlands at the time. The lifespan of the village has been estimated at roughly two hundred years. Its estimated origins, much like that of West

Stow and Mucking, began very small, with a number of houses of no more than five or six with only roughly fifty inhabitants.114 The chronology of the origins of the settlement remain unclear, but Pryor notes that it is believed to be founded by four extended family groups. By 150 B.C.E, it was considered to have a significant enough population and

113 Francis Pryor, Britain B.C.: Life in Britain and Ireland before the Romans. (London: Harper Perennial, 2003). 403.

114 Pryor, Britain B.C., 403.

footprint to be considered a village and continued to grow, adding eleven houses by 125

B.C.E.115 It is estimated that the settlement at this time had a population of approximately two hundred and housed fourteen to fifteen families. Pryor notes that the site was surrounded by a low timber fence which differed from other sites at the time. Fencing was not as common to allow for the wandering of livestock at the time. 116 (See Figure

10).

Figure 10: Drawing of the estimated footprint of the Lake Village at Glastonbury at its largest about 125 B.C.E. From Britain B.C. page 402.

115 Pryor, Britain B.C., 403.

116 Pryor, Britain B.C., 404.

Another interesting element of the location of the Glastonbury village was that it along with the two villages found in Meare lay close to the Brue River, which Pryor notes, were thought to be the boundary between the later rival tribes of the Durotriges and the Dobunni.117 Other than their placement however, no other signs of warfare in the archaeological record suggest relatively peaceful cohabitation between the two tribes.

There were no signs of damaged property in the area near the tribal borders explored in

Chapter 1 and the low level of the fencing around the cites and the absence of earth work defenses suggests no open conflict. In fact, archaeological finds at Glastonbury reveal quite the opposite, a great number of pottery pieces with decorations that were distinctly

Celtic were present. Pryor suggests that these villages operated as border market settlements as Glastonbury and the other villages showed signs of heavy craft industries, including metal working, textile production, and agriculture besides the aforementioned pottery. The amount of pottery found in Glastonbury alone are estimated at fifty thousand.118 Considering that the settlement was supporting no more than fifteen families at its height of use, the number of pottery vessels suggests a dramatic surplus of ceramics.

Making the assumption that the village served as a trading destination more plausible.

While these Iron Age British villages share commonalities with those of Anglo-

Saxon both in the circumstances of their growth and function as Mucking and the

Glastonbury Lake Village share origins of small nucleated settlements that gradually

117 Pryor, Britain B.C., 404.

118 Pryor, Britain B.C., 406.

expanded over time, an element in which the settlement patterns of both cultures differ is the shape and construction of their buildings. Before the Roman occupation, the British peoples lived in roundhouses that were built of stone or timber foundations. The walls were typically constructed of a wattle and daub technique, which involved wrapping either hazel or willow wattle around posts to make the frame. The frame would then be plastered with daub, that once dried, would make for a hard and sturdy surface. Phil

Bennet, manager of Castell Henllys Iron Age Fort in Western Wales, suggests that these roundhouses were quite small, ranging from twenty to thirty feet in diameter.119 Bennet also notes that occasionally the daub was fire hardened much like the same process used in pottery and have remained intact to be discovered in the archaeological record revealing not only the use of daub but the imprints of the hazel and or willow wattle woven underneath it. (See Figure 11).

Figure 11: A recreation of an internal wall of a round house showing traditional wattle and daub construction. Photo taken from Roman Britain: Shire Living Histories, Richard Russell Lawrence, (Oxford: Shire Publications Ltd., 2010). Page 22.

119 Phil, Bennet, “Reconstructing Iron Age Buildings,” BBC. Last modified 2/28/2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/british_prehistory/ironage_roundhouse_01.shtml. Accessed February 22, 2020.

Housing of elites were settled upon the top of hillforts. These structures involved a step network of earthen embankments that increased in the severity of the incline with one pathway up the layered embankments to the gate of the settlement itself. The royal house at Thetford is thought to be one of these structures. It is dated to the very early

Roman period between 60 and 70 C.E. It has eight lines of hedging, which, Pryor claims is unique from all other hillforts in Britain.120 Within the enclosure of the hillfort were only three roundhouses, all facing the main entrance. Pryor claims that it is likely that the central house was two stories and that the hillfort enclosure itself, paired with the fact that it lies in the heart of Iceni tribal territory, was royal housing.121 It is possible even, as the dating matches the timeline of the Iceni revolt lead by the Queen of the tribe at the time

Boudica, that this hillfort served as her capital. (See Figure 12).

120 Pryor, Britain B.C, 411.

121 Pryor, Britain B.C, 413.

Figure 12: Drawing of the two-story roundhouse at Fison Way, Thetford. Drawing by Piers Millington- Wallace. From Britain B.C. page 413.

One elite owned round house find, however, shows that pre-Roman British peoples may have also had buildings that housed more than one family. The great round house discovered Pimperne Down in Dorset was very large, over thirteen meters in diameter and took an estimated two hundred hazel trees to construct.122 The roof with the timber framing and nearly twenty tons of thatching straw weighed nearly twenty-five

122 Peter J. Reynolds, “Rurial Life and Farming,” in The Celtic World, ed. Miranda J. Green (London: Routledge, 1996) 196.

tones and shows great complexity of construction. (See Figure 13). Due to its size and the noted complexity of the construction of the building, along with the incredible amount of resources required for construction, archaeologist Peter J. Reynolds has concluded that the home belonged to a very wealthy family.123 Reynold also notes that it was likely that this incredibly large round house housed several families possibly a tribal chieftain and extended family or that it was a hosting hall of sorts for large tribal gatherings. Other archaeologists, such as J.D. Hill, have noted that these large round houses were very common in central and southern Britain in the first century B.C.E.124

Figure 13: The Pimperene Down Round-house. Photo Copyright: Peter Reynolds. The Celtic World, ed. Miranda J. Green, page 196.

123 Reynolds, “Rural Life and Farming,” 196.

124 J. D. Hill, “The Pre-Roman Iron Age in Britain and Ireland (ca. 800 BC. To AD. 100): An Overview,” Journal of World Prehistory, Vol. 9 No. 1 (March 1995). 59.

Reynolds also notes a possible similarity in pre-Roman British and Anglo-Saxon building construction and purposes in the construction and use of British grain storage. There have been discoveries of British grain storage units which involve a sunken feature lay out similar to that of the Anglo-Saxon sunken feature buildings for the foundation and posts.

The grain storage units are simple timber structures that are elevated off the ground to prevent the grain from becoming spoiled by ground water and prevent access of the grain to rodents. (See Figure 14). These grain storage buildings hold a surprising low amount of edible grain as Reynolds estimates that the annual consumption of grains in the mixed

British pre-Roman diet near only sixty kilograms. Granaries supplying ten people would not have to hold much more than a cubic meter of grain.125

Figure 14: Two four post overhead granaries under construction. Copyright: Peter Reynolds. The Celtic World, ed. Miranda J. Green, page 193.

125 Renoylds, “Rural Lifar and Farming,” 207-208.

Similarities in Landscape Management: Ties in Agricultural and Pastoral Practices

A comparison of pre-Roman British and Anglo-Saxon settlement arrangement and building design does not show a great deal of similarity between the two cultures.

However, both cultures do show a great deal of similarity is the use of landscape management as well has agricultural and pastoral practices. As noted above the main grain diets and practice of live stock management and the animals selected did not change dramatically, at least in the east of Britain, between pre-Roman British and Anglo-Saxon cultures. Pre-Roman British agriculture can be divided into two focuses, arable and pastoral farming. While land became more privatized under Roman administration in the first to fourth centuries as noted in Chapter 1, agriculture and pastoral livestock management remained the main economic boon of Britain. This practice continued into the fifth century and as explored above remained the main agricultural practice in Anglo-

Saxon culture as well. In the early seven century, Anglo-Saxon law shows evidence of both the recognition and the practice of concepts of private and collective ownership of land as an effective form of resource management for both agricultural and pastoral farming. “At the beginning of the seventh century king Aethelbert of Kent assumed that privately owned homesteads and estates were conventional components in the landscape of his kingdom.”126 The concept is also shown as being practiced in Wessex as legislation included conditions limiting rights of redress to damage from stray cattle both with a

126 Susan Oosthuzien, “Recognizing and Moving on from a Failed Paradigm: The case of Landscapes in Anglo-Saxon England c. AD 400-800,” Journal of Archaeological Research Vol. 24, No. 2 (June 2016). 201.

ceorl’s homestead and on land that was held in common.127 It is the argument of archaeologist Susan Oosthuizen that common practices in land management, particularly this concept of private and common land use between British and Anglo-Saxon peoples could be the key to understanding a potential road to cultural assimilation. In her own words she argues for a shift from the “top-down” paradigm of conquest and political/military take overs by warlord elites in Migration era Britain to a “bottom-up” study of the time period:

By anchoring abstractions about social relations in the everyday realities of making a living, an investigation of making a living, an investigation of agricultural property rights in early Anglo-Saxon England offers the possibility of a bottom up perspective on post imperial cultural exchange.128

Oothuizen argues that forms of private and common property rights were practiced in pre-Roman British landscape management. A detailed study of the landscape in Dartmoor shows evidence of field systems and houses dispersed among them and that these settlements were likely a collection of families in small communities. It is possible that each small farm belonged to each family privately, but it was very clear that much of the cultivation was undertaken collectively or, at the very least, cooperatively.129 Many pre-Roman British settlements also showed a large patch of pasture land for livestock or other nonarable use along with privately owned farmland. Oothuizen notes that a survey

127 Oosthuizen, “Recognizing and Moving on from a Failed Paradigm,” 201.

128 Oosthuizen, “Recognizing and Moving on from a Failed Paradigm,” 201.

129 Oosthuizen, “Recognizing and Moving on from a Failed Paradigm,” 209.

of many archaeologists’ research on the subject suggested that livestock was collectively monitored and managed to discourage trespassers.130

Further evidence of collectively managed non-arable land in pre-Roman Britain is demonstrated by the term, “empty zones,” given by many British archaeologists to,

“areas of long-standing nonarable usage, devoid of almost any archaeological evidence, and usually separated by earthwork boundaries from contemporary fields and settlements.”131 Oosthuizen notes that these empty zones have been theorized as summer grazing grounds for livestock. This view is shared by Reynolds as his research indicates that after the crops were planted in late spring, livestock, particularly cattle, were the focus of agricultural life and were taken out to grazing fields at the end of spring and early summer was when grass was most plentiful.132 J.D. Hill also notes that archaeological research has indicated that pre-Roman British settlements show fields very close to settlements suggesting close, and perhaps private, management but that some distance was likely travelled for livestock summer grazing.133 Hill adds that livestock management was crucial to the pre-British diet, much like the Anglo-Saxon diet as noted by Arnold and Crabtree, was largely dependent on domesticated animals. Hill’s research

130 Oosthuizen, “Recognizing and Moving on from a Failed Paradigm,” 209.

131 Oosthuizen, “Recognizing and Moving on from a Failed Paradigm,” 210.

132 Reynolds, “Rural Life and Farming,” 203.

133 Hill, “The Pre-Roman Iron Age,”61.

indicates that wild game and plants made up a “tiny” percent of the pre-Roman British diet.134

If this model of agricultural production and cultivation is used by both pre-Roman

British and Anglo-Saxon cultures, it would of great importance to both cultures to create institutions and cultural practices that ensure the maintenance of that land management system. The endurance of this practice of landscape management of both agricultural crops and livestock as the primary resources of food and textile production in the fifth century, may largely be due to the fact that Roman occupation did little to alter it other than further privatizing. It has been well documented in chapter 1 that agriculture and livestock were still incredibly important to the Romano-British economy. After the exodus of Rome in the first decade of the fifth century the only thing that changed in the pre-Roman British landscape management model was that it instead of production on an industrial level, agriculture and livestock management scaled down to a familiar local or regional scale.

It is the argument of Oosthuizen that if British elites remained in control of former

Romano-British polities and ample evidence of this has been explored in this paper establishing that this was the case, certainly in the west and central Britain, then this pre-

British model of landscape management also endured. As it has been established by archeological research that early Anglo-Saxon settlements operated in much the same way regarding agriculture and livestock management for day to day living, cultural exchange and assimilation at least at the level of the common person, whether they were

134 Hill “The Pre-Roman Iron Age,” 60.

British, Jutish, Anglican, or Saxon did not dramatically change. Oosthuizen is quick to point out that this model of landscape management in Britain did not change significantly for four centuries.135She further notes that many Romano-British grazing pastures, many of them marked by earthwork boundaries, continued to be used in the Anglo-Saxon period. The fact that these pastures were not subdivided during this time suggest that the pastures remained common grazing areas and were not privatized but collectively managed.136 Oosthuizen notes that Anglo-Saxon settlements have been classified by archaeologists to be organized in a very similar way to that of pre-Roman British organization in that they revolve around a “core” an a periphery. The core is defined an area containing settlement and arable fields surrounded by uncultivated pasture

(periphery). This classification is given not only to Anglo-Saxon settlements but early medieval settlements as well.137 These core areas had strong political control and clear rights of public property and according to Oosthuizen, formed the nuclei of fifth century

Anglo-Saxon polities that eventually expanded into one of the early Anglo-Saxon kingdoms.138

This is not to suggest however that innovations or changes to landscape management remained stagnant over the course of the pre-Roman period to the Anglo-

Saxon period. To do so would be to deny a wealth of evidence to the contrary. Even in

135 Oosthuizen, “Recognizing and Moving on from a Failed Paradigm,” 216.

136 Oosthuizen, “Recognizing and Moving on from a Failed Paradigm,” 216.

137 Oosthuizen, “Recognizing and Moving on from a Failed Paradigm,” 214.

138 Oosthuizen, “Recognizing and Moving on from a Failed Paradigm,” 214.

the case of late pre-Roman British settlement much like Anglo-Saxon expansion in the east of Britain, shows signs of greatly increasing rural population centers. Hill notes that by the first century B.C.E. briefly before the Roman invasion, Britain’s landscape was densely populated. Though an exact population number cannot be reached it is estimated that between two and five million were living in Britain, a number closely similar to that of Medieval Britain.139 Changes in the landscape also contributed to rendering certain grazing pastures unusable. Hill notes that floodplains and marshlands were used for temporary pastures or seasonal settlements and changes in weather could substantially alter grazing pastures as well.140

Oosthuizen also notes that the collective use and management of these grazing pastures or peripheries were altered by Anglo-Saxon law in the mid sixth and following centuries. Property rights over the peripheries became more and more defined until eventually, through peaceful expansion or conflict, territorial boundaries were established. In central England, “a common characteristic of these minor folk regions seems to have been the presence of a heartland area which was often less developed but valued as a region of hunting and pastoral activity and which may initially have served as a region of summer pasture.” 141

It is clear that while the landscape management of both pre-Roman British and

Anglo-Saxon peoples shared a great deal of commonality, landscape, economy and social

139 Hill, “Pre-Roman Iron Age,” 61.

140 Hill, “Pre-Roman Iron Age,” 61.

141 Oosthuizen, “Recognizing and Moving on from a Failed Paradigm,” 214.

structures did dramatically change between both time periods and cultures. The investigation of similarities in agricultural practice is not to suggest stagnation in the fifth to sixth centuries but to offer a pathway in which both cultures could find common ground in daily living practices and in that perhaps a pathway to cultural exchange and assimilation outside of conquest. Not a top-down narrative of a takeover of Germanic elites but rather a bottom-up narrative of cultural adaptation and exchange through the commonality of daily life practices.

Conclusions

Now that settlement patterns for both British peoples and Anglo-Saxons have been established, what conclusions can be drawn regarding issues of adaption and assimilation? The archaeological record shows that material culture was largely Anglo-

Saxon by the beginning of the sixth century. It was long thought that conquest and military conflict was the main mechanism by which this culture switch took place.

Though there are key differences between Anglo-Saxon and British settlement patterns, much of the economic and agricultural practices, especially in the east of Britain did not change in dramatic fashion. Pastoral agricultural and livestock raising were the main dietary and daily life resources in the country. Industry in the early Anglo-Saxon period of the fifth and sixth centuries also largely mirrored the local scale industry already in practice of the British people after the Roman exodus.

These considerations, along with suggested complex political alliances and relationships outlined in the earlier section of the chapter, in the seventh and eighth

centuries between British, Welsh, and Anglo-Saxon principalities strongly suggest cultural interaction and exchange rather than a process of conquest. While the chronology of exchange and the nuances of the socio-political circumstances remain unclear new narrative seems to be taking shape; a narrative of complex cultural exchange instead of militant German colonialism. A comparison of settlement patterns of British and Anglo-

Saxon cultures considering the current state of the body of research, can only suggest the possibility of cultural adaptation and assimilation through common economic and agricultural management.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Brooks, Stuart. Economics and Social Change in Anglo-Saxon Kent AD 400-900: Landscapes, Communities and Exchange. Oxford: BAR Publishing, 2007.

Holst, Malin. Osteological Analysis Heronbridge Chester Cheshire. York Osteoarchaeology, 2004.

Gildas, On the Ruin of Britain, translated by J.A, Giles. Maryland: Serenity Publishers LLC, 2009.

Nennius, History of the Britons (Historia Brittonum), translated by J.A. Giles. San Bernardino, 2015.

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, translated by Rev. James Ingram, J.A. Giles. Florida: Red and Black Publishers 2009.

Ammianus Marcellinus, The Later Roman Empire (A.D. 354-378), translated by Walter Hamilton. London: Penguin Books, 2004.

Tacitus, Agricola and Germania, translated by Harold Mattingly. London: Penguin Classics, 2009.

Bede, Ecclesiastical History of the English People, translated by Leo Sherley-Price. London: Penguin Books, 1990.

Claudius Ptolemy, Geography of Claudius Ptolemy, translated by Edward Luther Stevenson. New York: Cosimo Classics, 2011.

Secondary Sources

Arnold, CJ. An Archaeology of Early Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms. New York: Routledge, 2000.

Bennet, Phil. “Reconstructing Iron Age Buildings,” BBC. Last modified 2/28/2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/british_prehistory/ironage_roundhouse_01.s html. Accessed February 22, 2020.

Crabtree, J. Pam. Early Medieval Britain: The Rebirth of Towns in the Post-Roman West. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018.

Crawford, Sally. Anglo-Saxon England: Shire Living Histories. New York: Shire Publications, 2011.

Crocker-Owen, Gale, R. Dress in Anglo-Saxon England. Woolbridge: The Boydell Press, 2004.

Dickinson, M. Tania. "Symbols of Protection: The Significance of Animal Ornamentated Shields in Early Anglo-Saxon England," Medieval Archaeology 2005, 109-163.

Fisher, J.V., D. The Anglo-Saxon Age c 400-1042. New York: Routledge, 2014.

Fleming, Robin. "Recycling in Britain After the Fall of the Rome's Metal Economy." Past & Present No. 217 (November 2012): 3-45.

100

Gerrad, James. The Ruin of Roman Britain: An Archaeological Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.

Green, Charles. Sutton Hoo: The Excavation of a Royal Ship Burial. (London: The Merlin Press, 1988)

Harke, Heinrich. "Warrior Graves? The Background of the Anglo-Saxon Weapon Burial Rite." Past and Present No. 126 (Feb.1990) 22-43.

Harrington, Sue, Welch, Martin. The Early Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms of Southern Britain AD 450-650: Beneath the Tribal Hidage. Harvertown: Oxbow Books, 2014.

Highman, J. Nicholas, Ryan, J. Martin. The Anglo-Saxon World. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2015.

Hill, J.D. “The Pre-Roman Iron Age in Britain and Ireland (ca. 800 BC. To AD. 100): An Overview,” Journal of World Prehistory, Vol. 9 No. 1 (March 1995). 47-98.

Johnson, F. Flint. Hengest, Gwrtheyrn and the Chronology of Post-Roman Britain. North Carolina: McFarland & Company Inc, 2014.

Laycock, Stuart. Britannia the Failed State: Tribal Conflicts and the End of Roman Britain. Gloucestershire: The History Press, 2008.

Laycock, Stuart. Warlords: The Struggle for Power in Post-Roman Britain. Gloucestershire: The History Press, 2010.

101

Matthews-Fitzpatrick, Keith J. “Britannia in the Ravenna Cosmography: A Reassessment,” academia.edu. https://www.academia.edu/4175080/BRITANNIA_IN_THE_RAVENNA_COSM OGRAPHY_A_REASSESSMENT?auto=download, accessed March 14, 2020. 1- 123.

Pryor, Francis. Britain B.C.: Life in Britain and Ireland before the Romans. London: Harper Perennial, 2004. 229-427.

Pryor, Francis. Britain A.D.: A Quest for Arthur, England and the Anglo-Saxons. London: Harper Perennial, 2005. 43-190.

Oothuizen, Susan. “Recognizing and Moving on from a Failed Paradigm: The case of Landscapes in Anglo-Saxon England c. AD 400-800,” Journal of Archaeological Research Vol. 24, No. 2 (June 2016). 179-227.

Renoylds, Peter J. “Rural Life and Farming,” in The Celtic World, ed. Miranda Green (London: Routledge, 1996) 176-208.

Yorke, Barbara. Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England. New York: Routledge, 2013.