Anglo-Saxons didn't settle in Britain?

[DecimusCaesar]

I was reading Britain BC recently and after finishing the book I was thinking of getting the next in the series: Britain AD. After reading through reviews on amazon and on academic sites, it seems that Dr. Pryor's new book isn't as recommended as the previous one. Most of the book's criticism is centered on the bizarre idea that the Anglo-Saxons didn't settle in Britain, and further more they didn't even exist!

 

Pryor bases his idea squarely on the shoulders of archaeology, as he basically refuses to aknowledge the historical record, claiming that writers such as Bede and Gildas made the invasion up in order to invent a creation myth for the English. He also suggest that because Britain was not over run by invaders such as Neolithic farmers, Beaker people and Celts in prehistoric times (as originally supposed by scholars) then it must be true that there was no Anglo-Saxon settlement in Britain, and that their culture, language, customs and art were peacefully imported by traders. He even suggests that the Saxon shore forts built by the Romans were used as trading warehouses not as defensive fortresses. There is, in his own point of view, no evidence for an invasion or settlement by Anglo-Saxons in the archaeological record in England.

 

Has anyone else read this book? What's your opinion on this idea? I personally find it very, very bizarre as it goes against everything we know from the historical record. There are more sources for settlement of Anglo-Saxons in Britain than just the English and British written records - there are for instance the Roman records e.g - they mention the Barbarian conspiracy in Britain in AD 367, where the Saxons and the Picts launched a two pronged attack on southern Britain etc.

Then there is also evidence from the continent from the Life of St. Germanus, and numerous records from other areas.

[Ursus]

Major revisions of history can be exciting, but they demand convincing evidence. I haven't read the book but would be interested in reading a quality review of the evidence presented.

[harmonicus]

I was reading Britain BC recently and after finishing the book I was thinking of getting the next in the series: Britain AD. After reading through reviews on amazon and on academic sites, it seems that Dr. Pryor's new book isn't as recommended as the previous one. Most of the book's criticism is centered on the bizarre idea that the Anglo-Saxons didn't settle in Britain, and further more they didn't even exist!

 

Pryor bases his idea squarely on the shoulders of archaeology, as he basically refuses to aknowledge the historical record, claiming that writers such as Bede and Gildas made the invasion up in order to invent a creation myth for the English. He also suggest that because Britain was not over run by invaders such as Neolithic farmers, Beaker people and Celts in prehistoric times (as originally supposed by scholars) then it must be true that there was no Anglo-Saxon settlement in Britain, and that their culture, language, customs and art were peacefully imported by traders. He even suggests that the Saxon shore forts built by the Romans were used as trading warehouses not as defensive fortresses. There is, in his own point of view, no evidence for an invasion or settlement by Anglo-Saxons in the archaeological record in England.

 

Has anyone else read this book? What's your opinion on this idea? I personally find it very, very bizarre as it goes against everything we know from the historical record. There are more sources for settlement of Anglo-Saxons in Britain than just the English and British written records - there are for instance the Roman records e.g - they mention the Barbarian conspiracy in Britain in AD 367, where the Saxons and the Picts launched a two pronged attack on southern Britain etc.

Then there is also evidence from the continent from the Life of St. Germanus, and numerous records from other areas.

I have almost finished Britain AD, haven't read BC yet. Pryor's hypothesis seems to be that the so-called Anglo-Saxon invasion was more of a gradual migration, and had no observable disruptive effects on the existing Romano-British population. He traces the large-scale abandonment of urban centers to the late-Roman period. His major theme is the endurance of an agricultural society with origins in the Neolithic period. Pryor is a farmer, as well as a scholar, and I think his obvious love of farming contributes largely to his attitudes. He is somewhat dismissive of historical sources (well, more like source, i.e. Gildas) and there's a definite prehistorian vs. classicist subtext to the work. All that said, I really dug the book.

Edited September 11, 2007 by harmonicus

[caldrail]

I was reading Britain BC recently and after finishing the book I was thinking of getting the next in the series: Britain AD. After reading through reviews on amazon and on academic sites, it seems that Dr. Pryor's new book isn't as recommended as the previous one. Most of the book's criticism is centered on the bizarre idea that the Anglo-Saxons didn't settle in Britain, and further more they didn't even exist!

 

Pryor bases his idea squarely on the shoulders of archaeology, as he basically refuses to aknowledge the historical record, claiming that writers such as Bede and Gildas made the invasion up in order to invent a creation myth for the English. He also suggest that because Britain was not over run by invaders such as Neolithic farmers, Beaker people and Celts in prehistoric times (as originally supposed by scholars) then it must be true that there was no Anglo-Saxon settlement in Britain, and that their culture, language, customs and art were peacefully imported by traders. He even suggests that the Saxon shore forts built by the Romans were used as trading warehouses not as defensive fortresses. There is, in his own point of view, no evidence for an invasion or settlement by Anglo-Saxons in the archaeological record in England.

 

Has anyone else read this book? What's your opinion on this idea? I personally find it very, very bizarre as it goes against everything we know from the historical record. There are more sources for settlement of Anglo-Saxons in Britain than just the English and British written records - there are for instance the Roman records e.g - they mention the Barbarian conspiracy in Britain in AD 367, where the Saxons and the Picts launched a two pronged attack on southern Britain etc.

Then there is also evidence from the continent from the Life of St. Germanus, and numerous records from other areas.

 

Ahem. now even I have to say this thesis isn't accurate. In my area are some ancient sites known to have been over-run by saxons. Wayland Smithy, a neothilic burial site, was regarded as a sacred site by the impressed saxon invaders marching down the Ridgeway, and the hill-fort at Barbury is so named because it was taken over by Bera, a saxon warlord. Further, just down the hill from that fort is a level plateau where a dark age battle took place between saxon invaders and romano-celtic defenders, who lost. The remains of this relatively minor set-to have been found. If you look at the map of wiltshire, there are plenty of saxon names given to sites, and we know the saxons were keen farmers as much as hated warriors. Well I would suggest Mr Pryor comes down to north wiltshire armed with an ordnance survey and read up on saxon place-names. He might see things differently.

[DecimusCaesar]

I have almost finished Britain AD, haven't read BC yet. Pryor's hypothesis seems to be that the so-called Anglo-Saxon invasion was more of a gradual migration, and had no observable disruptive effects on the existing Romano-British population. He traces the large-scale abandonment of urban centers to the late-Roman period. His major theme is the endurance of an agricultural society with origins in the Neolithic period. Pryor is a farmer, as well as a scholar, and I think his obvious love of farming contributes largely to his attitudes. He is somewhat dismissive of historical sources (well, more like source, i.e. Gildas) and there's a definite prehistorian vs. classicist subtext to the work. All that said, I really dug the book.

 

Does Francis Pryor mention the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle at all? These writings extend beyond the initial contact between the Anglo-Saxons and Britons in the fourth-sixth centuries AD. They mention several battles taking place between the Saxons and the Britons, as does the work of British chroniclers like Nennius etc. There is also some archaeological evidence such as the ruined remains of Huntcliffe and Goldsborough, where the bodies of up to 14 people had been massacred and dumped into a well (Huntcliffe), and the bodeis of individuals who had been stabbed and had their throats cut (Goldsborough). Nearby these sites, the Romans had set up forts such as Burgh Castle for coastal defence.

Both these sites date to the early fifth century.

 

There is also evidence of coin hoards and other symbols of wealth being buried across the country, such as those at Patching in Sussex.

 

Pryor says that its ludicrous that people should just pick and move to another region, yet we know that during the same period as the Anglo-Saxon settlements, the Britons moved in droves to the coast of northern France, creating Brittany. We also know from the wider picture of events in Europe that dozens of tribes and peoples were moving on mass to settle in the Western Roman Empire.

 

Most of this boils down to how archaeological evidence we have to show that Britain was settled. This is very difficult considering that battles and wars rarely register in the archaeological record, as they occur swiftly. Take into consideration the devastation brought on the Roman empire by the Goths and Huns. Although we know that many of these tribes caused considerable damage to towns, these rarely register, especially if people move back into the town and begin repairs and removal at a later date. Most of the sites from the 4th-5th centuries that were sacked by barbarians - and have evidence of this destruction - are usually sites that were never re-populated or rebuilt. How much archaeological evidence do we have for the sack of Rome by Vandals in AD 455, or the looting of the city by the Spanish in the sixteenth?

 

What I am also unsure about is how the Britons through trade with the Anglii and the Saxonii, decided to take on these tribal names, and also refer to parts of their old country as Sussex, Wessex, Essex etc and why is there no mention of this complete cultural change in them in contempory records, both at home and abroad. I could understand this taking place if we have some small settlement by Saxons in these regions (such as what happened with the Normans in 1066) but why would it happen if there were no influx of Saxons into the region?

[docoflove1974]

Pryor says that its ludicrous that people should just pick and move to another region, yet we know that during the same period as the Anglo-Saxon settlements, the Britons moved in droves to the coast of northern France, creating Brittany. We also know from the wider picture of events in Europe that dozens of tribes and peoples were moving on mass to settle in the Western Roman Empire.

 

So does Pryor even consider the fact that the Huns were pressing on various Germanic (and other) tribes?? IIRC, it was the Vandals, who ran into the Gothic territories, who ran into the Saxon and Angle territories, etc., but I could be wrong on the exact order and/or tribes. Attila and his gang were pushing several peoples out of their normal territories, which created a need for people to pick up stakes and settle elsewhere.

[Pertinax]

And the wealth of Anglo-Saxon place names is irrelevant?

[harmonicus]

I was reading Britain BC recently and after finishing the book I was thinking of getting the next in the series: Britain AD. After reading through reviews on amazon and on academic sites, it seems that Dr. Pryor's new book isn't as recommended as the previous one. Most of the book's criticism is centered on the bizarre idea that the Anglo-Saxons didn't settle in Britain, and further more they didn't even exist!

 

Pryor bases his idea squarely on the shoulders of archaeology, as he basically refuses to aknowledge the historical record, claiming that writers such as Bede and Gildas made the invasion up in order to invent a creation myth for the English. He also suggest that because Britain was not over run by invaders such as Neolithic farmers, Beaker people and Celts in prehistoric times (as originally supposed by scholars) then it must be true that there was no Anglo-Saxon settlement in Britain, and that their culture, language, customs and art were peacefully imported by traders. He even suggests that the Saxon shore forts built by the Romans were used as trading warehouses not as defensive fortresses. There is, in his own point of view, no evidence for an invasion or settlement by Anglo-Saxons in the archaeological record in England.

 

Has anyone else read this book? What's your opinion on this idea? I personally find it very, very bizarre as it goes against everything we know from the historical record. There are more sources for settlement of Anglo-Saxons in Britain than just the English and British written records - there are for instance the Roman records e.g - they mention the Barbarian conspiracy in Britain in AD 367, where the Saxons and the Picts launched a two pronged attack on southern Britain etc.

Then there is also evidence from the continent from the Life of St. Germanus, and numerous records from other areas.

 

Ahem. now even I have to say this thesis isn't accurate. In my area are some ancient sites known to have been over-run by saxons. Wayland Smithy, a neothilic burial site, was regarded as a sacred site by the impressed saxon invaders marching down the Ridgeway, and the hill-fort at Barbury is so named because it was taken over by Bera, a saxon warlord. Further, just down the hill from that fort is a level plateau where a dark age battle took place between saxon invaders and romano-celtic defenders, who lost. The remains of this relatively minor set-to have been found. If you look at the map of wiltshire, there are plenty of saxon names given to sites, and we know the saxons were keen farmers as much as hated warriors. Well I would suggest Mr Pryor comes down to north wiltshire armed with an ordnance survey and read up on saxon place-names. He might see things differently.

I was attempting to encapsulate Pryor's thesis, and didn't intend to be overly lengthy. Personally, I think he's gone a little bit too far, maybe way too far. I don't think the displacement of language, and place-names can easily be explained by a gradual absorption of incoming Saxons. Here in the USA there are alot of Native American place-names and loan words in a stiuation where the entire aboriginal population was displaced. I think there is a need somewhere to believe that the post-roman invasions were amiable. Hey, I think Wayland Smithy might be a Saxon name! (Just kidding, but that a cool name!)

[caldrail]

Wayland is a saxon name. Also, one of the reasons for the saxon land grab (it wasn't a military invasion, I'll accept that) was that the coastal settlements in europe were being inundated by rising sea levels, a process not finished since the end of the ice ages.

[DecimusCaesar]

Wayland is a saxon name. Also, one of the reasons for the saxon land grab (it wasn't a military invasion, I'll accept that) was that the coastal settlements in europe were being inundated by rising sea levels, a process not finished since the end of the ice ages.

 

I decided to get the book, and although Pryor does present some very good arguments (he's also an excellent writer), I still have trouble accepting all of his points. I'm only halfway through, so It might be best if I finish it before I start opposing it.

 

So far, he points out that settlements in Britain remained occupied from the late Iron Age till the post Roman period, and he therefore points out that the Saxons did not invade, as an invasion would signify the area being abandoned or at least recieving a new group os settlers. He says that the appearence of Saxon pottery on the site (along with Saxon Grubenhaus buildings) is just evidence of the native population accepting imported Saxon items from Europe...yet, this same settlement (Orton Hall Farm) had Roman pottery. Yet, no one argues that these Roman items were peacefully imported from Europe, and that the Romans never conquered England and Wales.

 

I guess what Pryor is mainly arguing against, is the idea of the Saxons arriving in Britain as bloodthirsty Warriors who pillage, murder and destroy everything in their path. I for one can agree with him on this matter, but I'm still unconvinced that there was virtually no settlement (peacefull or violent) by the Saxons.

[caldrail]

Yet on the plateau south of where I live, near the site of Wroughton Airfield, is where saxons fought the locals for control of the area. The remains, including saxon weapons, have been found. The hill-fort on the hill south of that was taken by the saxon leader (Bera) and used as a burial ground. A monk of the time writes that the saxons are 'a race hateful to god'. They did not mount a military blitzkrieg. What they did was colonise britain, especially after rising sea levels inundated their coastal settlements on the continent. They had become adept at using ships, and were commiting raids and acts of piracy in the english channel. We know they attacked the ex-roman settlement at Pevennsey and razed it. Once the saxons realised they could beat the brits they started expanding. It wasn't a short campaign of occupation. It was a slow intermittent take-over by people who wanted land for farming, or rather they wanted the land owned by the locals, and were preapred to take it by force. The vikings behaved in a similar way to saxon tribes except with a stronger emphasis on raids, and way back in the 300's BC the gauls had gone through a similar expansion albeit on land. This was a cultural expansion, by force if necessary. The result is clearly visible on the maps of britain as Pertinax points out, with saxon-derived place names everywhere.