The arrival of the Anglo-Saxons is one of the most important events in the history of Britain. It set this island on a course that would lead it to become one of the most powerful nations in the world, and also changed its culture irrevocably. But, despite its significance, there is still a massive debate over how the arrival happened, being split between two major theories: The violent conquest and the peaceful immigrants. The evidence is split between the two, and so are major historians on this period, who continue to argue over which theory is right and which is not true. But why is it still so split? Surely with two such contrasting theories one would have to have come out on top in the past 16 centuries since they first arrived? And how do these theories relate to eugenics of the 19th and 20th century? Well the answer, if there is one at all, is marred by complexity and contradictions in accounts and evidence, and unwrapping the web woven over many years cannot simply be done in one article, but nevertheless I aim to bring.
The violent invaders theory is one that has been the normal for over 1000 years, coming from the only available source until the last 100 years: chronicles. The Anglo-Saxon chronicles provide the most insight into the early mediaeval period, detailing from pre-Roman times all the way to the Danelaw, and putting light into a period often considered the “dark” ages. The most useful writers for an investigation into the “Adventus Saxonum” (as dubbed by historians) are St Bede and Gildas, two catholic monks. They both have similar accounts of the AS, with a few slight differences, but agreeing on the most part on major points. Gildas starts his account with the idea that the Britons were having a tough time from the Picts and Scots after the Roman legions had left, quoting a letter from a king of the time:
“The Barbarians drive us to the sea, the sea throws us back to the Barbarians: Thus two modes of death await us, we are either slain or drowned”
The use of the word “Barbarians” shows that the Britons, despite the Romans having left, still consider themselves Romans by culture, meaning that they can be called Romano-Briton. But despite believing themselves to be Roman, they definitely did not have the military strength of the former empire, leaving them at the mercy of the invaders. So, keeping with the Roman tradition of Foederati, the overlord of Britain, Vortigern, decided to fight fire with fire, and hire a group of Barbarian warriors to deal with the Picts: The dreaded Saxons. Gildas speaks about the invitation like this –
“Then all the councillors together with that proud tyrant (Vortigern), the British king, were so blinded, that, as a protection to their country, they sealed their doom by inviting among them (like wolves into a sheep fold), the fierce and impious Saxons”
Now, past all the wordy clauses, we get a sense that Gildas perceived the Romano-Britons as fools for inviting the Saxons to defend them, as he describes them as “impious” and “fierce”, creating the feeling they are violent and untrustworthy. Specifically, Bede mentions two Saxon leaders by the name of Hengest and Horsa, who arrived in 449, landing in Kent. They were good fighters, defeating the Picts and saving the Britons, and all seemed well. Until Hengest and Horsa realised they actually liked Britain, and seeing the weak and feeble Britons, they decided to invite over their friends from the mainland to start their own kingdoms. Once again, Gildas gives us a good insight into this, saying
“Their motherland, finding her first brood thus successful, sent forth a larger company of her wolfish offspring, which sailed over, and joined their bastard-born comrades”
So, Angles, Jutes and Saxons poured in, and pushed the Britons out west and North, fighting many violent battles that are recorded in the Anglo-Saxon chronicles. The Britons and Anglo-Saxons were kept completely separate, and Anglo-Saxon culture remained completely separate from that of the Britons (except their eventual submission to the Catholic church). There is also some evidence that was gathered to push forward this theory, to be found in the linguistics of place names. It is clear across Britain that the majority of areas in England have names of Germanic origins (apart from those in the north that were changed by the vikings), and the only ones that have Celtic origins are those in Wales and Cornwall, the west. This aligns with the chronicles, who say that the Saxons settled the south and east, the Angles north of the Thames up to Scotland, and the Jutes Kent and parts of Hampshire, with the Britons moving out west. This can be seen on the map below:
It can also be seen in the old English language (definitely being mainly based in Proto-Germanic), in which the root of the name for the country Wales (Wahla), not only means foreigner, but can be interpreted to also mean slave.
But these theories rely heavily on the information provided by the chronicles, and this cannot be taken as gospel. Bede is writing over 300 years after the Adventus Saxonum, and from the north of the country (Lindisfarne specifically), meaning he was relatively isolated from the event. The other main author, Gildas, is writing 100 years after the event, and from Cornwall as he himself is Romano-British. This does give him excellent insight, as he was one of the people directly affected by this “invasion” and was born only 50 years after it. But, in Gildas’ mind, this invasion was a punishment by God for the laziness and arrogance of the Britons, and so he would want to describe this as a violent conquest, wanting to see them as separate people and not an extension of their own.
But going deeper, why has this theory been retained for so long? It was mainly taken as true through the middle ages, as it was monks writing history in monasteries, so for the Catholic country it was just accepted as fact. After the reformation, many looked to the Anglo-Saxon’s a source of inspiration due to king Alfred’s practice of writing documents in english rather than latin, seeing them as evidence of a church being seperate from Rome, therefore wanting to remian seperate from the Romano-Britons. It was by the time of the Victorians that the arrival of the Saxons became popularised, with Britain ruling ¼ of the world. So, historians began looking into the past of the English “race”, and liked the ideas of Bede and Gildas that these cultures were completely separate. Not only this, but the Victorians liked “romantic” history, full of drama and legends, so the betrayal of Vortigern by the Saxons and subsequent invasion was definitely legendary for them, along with king Arthur, the round table and all that. Even worse, by this point in history eugenics was being popularised across Europe and North America, and they thought that the Anglo-Saxons were a “superior race”. This meant that the idea of a powerful race of north Germans crushing the barbarians and founding a kingdom separate from them was attractive, and they therefore perpetuated it. Eugenics like this, although widely rejected and abandoned by society, still plague history and historical perceptions, and don’t just skew popular beliefs about history, but create dangerous preconceptions about different cultures throughout time. So, the violent invader theory became ingrained in our culture, and widely accepted by most historians up until the 20th century.
However, in modern times, a development in technology and a change in attitudes means that this theory has been shunned in favour of a new one. This theory states that instead of the Anglo-Saxons being violent invaders, they were instead peaceful immigrants coming from mainland Europe. Also, coming with the Angles, Jutes and Saxons were the Friesians, Franks and some Danes, creating a real diverse melting pot of culture. They started arriving in the mid 5th century, and continued over the next few centuries, slowly integrating and spreading across England, with the two cultures merging through marriages and living together. It’s a simple theory, but it’s one that is virtually completely based on evidence, with little to no impact from the chronicles. So what is the evidence that provides the basis for the amalgamation? Well there are two things that need to be studied to try and prove a multi-cultural society – Cultural features and Genetic features. Both are indicative of cultural amalgamation, and whilst either can indicate they co-existed and merged, together they give the clearest evidence to back this theory up.
Cultural features are by far the hardest to look at and scrutinise, as this culture existed over 1000 years ago, and since then has been irreparably changed through events such as the Norman invasion and just the passage of time. But it is possible through one key part of the cultures – burial sites. Both the Anglo-Saxons and Romano-Britons had very different burial practices, and for both cultures burial rights were some of the most important parts of their spiritual lives. This means by looking at burial sites in which both cultures have bodies, we can see the separate practices and observe how the two cultures interacted – a good example is the Wasperton cemetery. The site was found near the river Avon, most likely in the area ruled by the kingdom of Mercia, and had been in use from the 4th century to the 7th, before the Adventus Saxonum up to the establishment of the Heptarchy. Of all the graves, 44% were Anglo-Saxon burial sites, with 22 being cremations and 53 were inhumations. These burial sites were decorated with spears, jewels and other ornaments. However, whilst the Anglo-Saxon sites began appearing from 480 onward, the Romano-British sites continued on past this date up until the early 7th century, suggesting that the cultures existed together. Not only this, but artefacts crossed cultures and went between graves, with Romano-Briton jewels appearing in Anglo-Saxon graves, and vice-versa. This suggests that the cultures didn’t just live together parallel, but interacted and possibly merged, sharing a site for burials and also sharing burial practices.
Genetic features may not be the best for looking at coexistence, as a person who is genetically Romano-Briton could be culturally Saxon, and vice versa. But what we can use genetics to look at is to what extent the two populations mingled: was this society a separate one where both peoples stayed separate, or an integrated one in which they interacted and had children with each other? A recent Oxford university study found that only 10-40% of all DNA was contributed by the Anglo-Saxons to southern and eastern English genetic makeup, leading to the report saying:
“This settles a historical controversy in showing that the Anglo-Saxons intermarried with, rather than replaced, the existing populations”
Furthermore, another hint can be seen in the names of the kings of the time. Many Anglo-Saxon kings had names that sounded more Briton than Germanic, such as Penda of Mercia (who ruled in the 7th century) and most names of Wessex kings had Cornish names until the late 600s. Why would these fierce Anglo-Saxon kings take the names of their conquered foes, unless they weren’t subjugated and instead befriended.
There are also many answers to the limited evidence put forward by the violent conquest theory, such as the place names from across England being Germanic and not Briton. However, this could be because they were changed a long time after the Germanic invasions, after old English replaced the former languages, and the previous names had lost their relevance. Another answer could be the idea of settlement shift. Settlement shift is when a village slowly moves over time as new buildings are built and old ones abandoned, eventually becoming set in completely different places, and (following the ship of Theseus logic) being completely different villages. Not only this, but there are still many names that are not Germanic across England today – the rivers Ouse, Tweed and Cam are all Celt based, meaning that the idea that there are no traces of Britons left in England is misplaced. Furthermore, for all the battles recorded in the chronicles, we can not find any of the archaeological sites. Events recorded by Ethelwerd such as battles at “Wipped’s-fleet”, “Aldredes-league” and “Cerdics-ford” have little to know evidence to support them, with most having no real recorded location, let alone archaeological evidence to support them. This means that on archaeological evidence alone, the peaceful settlement theory trumps the violent invader theory completely.
However, archaeological evidence, whilst useful in proving a theory, cannot by itself create one. In the words of Frank Stenton:
“Archaeology is a poor basis for establishing chronology”
This points out a key flaw in the peaceful settlement theory, whilst it certainly has evidence, this alone proves nothing. Furthermore, there are many things that archaeology alone can’t tell us. Whilst certainly there would be evidence for battles, there are other types of violence that can’t be recorded, such as simply taking a village without a fight, instead of a long bloody war. In WW2, most countries occupied by Nazi Germany were unable to put up much of a fight, like Denmark and Belgium, but the invasion certainly would certainly not be referred to as a peaceful migration. The words of chroniclers, whilst they can’t be taken as absolute fact, cannot be completely disregarded as fiction either. Most chronicles agree with each other on the main picture, and many were in the service of royalty and very smart, such as Asser writing his chronicle for Alfred. Therefore, neither theory can be disregarded, as neither can fully defeat the other. But there is a third option, one which combines the strengths of both, and provides an adequate explanation of both.
This third option is a hybrid theory, taking parts from each of the original two theories and adding them together, creating a new and plausible one. It starts with the arrival of the Saxons, not necessarily Hengest and Horsa, but it is very possible they were invited over originally as was the Roman custom of Foederati. These fighters then decide to stay, and take over parts of the country using force and violence. Then, over the next few decades, hundreds of thousands arrive from the mainland to build new lives, most likely families and warriors, due to war and famine. They move into towns and villages, ruling over and also living with the conquered Romano-Britons, dominating the 3-4 million of them living in England during the 5th century. But as the years move forward, their separate cultures begin to merge slightly, with not just the Romano-Britons adopting Anglo-Saxon culture, but also the Anglo-Saxons copying some parts of the Roman culture. However, because this had mostly collapsed by the time they arrived, the Anglo-Saxon culture mostly overpowers the previous one, as it has functioning systems of government (mostly based on warriors). This meant that whilst the majority of people were ethnically Britons, their culture became Anglo-Saxon as they lived in a society created by the culture. Eventually, the two cultures and ethnicities amalgamated and became one, but the power lay more with the Anglo-Saxon side. This theory ticks most of the boxes for all sides of the evidence, explaining why there is a lack of Anglo-Saxon DNA, but lots of their culture, and why many scholars and chronicles claim violence and battles.
But whilst this theory certainly makes sense, we can never truly know how the Adventus Saxonum occurred. It is likely that historians will never truly agree on how it occurred, with the two sides locked in what feels like an eternal war, and new discoveries just aggravating either side, never showing a true winner. Maybe the Anglo-Saxons did arrive in a blaze of violence and conquest, or maybe they came peacefully and in search of a better life, or maybe it is a little of both, or it could possibly be neither. We can only be certain in one thing: that the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons changed British, and indeed world history, altering the history of both forever.
Links to sources used:
Wasperton cemetery: https://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/view/wasperton_eh_2008/overview.cfm
Oxford university genetic studies: https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2015-03-19-who-do-you-think-you-really-are-genetic-map-british-isles#:~:text=A%20genetic%20map%20of%20the%20British%20Isles,-ResearchScience&text=By%20constructing%20the%20first%20fine,similar%20individuals%20across%20the%20UK.
Alot of information was gathered through David Crowthers Anglo-Saxon England Podcast, which can be found here – https://open.spotify.com/show/2kGGFnyItgqD0umgXKnoTK?si=5utcokOfSA2r_YsK54XHpA