Very good point re the lack of a European view of the period and not just British-centric one. Of course, the Western Roman Empire had the same Euro-centric view such that the English Channel was a waterway conduit not a barrier. A view brought into sharp relief by the Carausian rebellion and the short lived Gallic Empire before it.
Re the indigenous population of the SE, it is worth remembering that when the economic system in Britain collapsed, it is possible that many of the inhabitants simply went 'back' to Roman Gaul (or other Roman territories). There are many attested hoard burials around the turn of the 5th century in the SE and 'villa' belt of Romanised Britain. This could be taken to infer that the owners were worried about Imperial tax collectors appropriating their wealth when they moved back into areas under Imperial control. Maybe...
Of course there is also the possibility of westward migration from the SE areas but this may come later. My personal opinion is that denuded of a good chunk of the population allowed unsanctioned immigration in the SE in a patchwork process rather than an 'invasion' style event. This would corroborate the admittedly sparce data from burials that show battle wounds on 5th century bones are remarkably low. Using the 'perfusion' model allows a build up of immigrants from the Northern areas of Europe which eventually ended in nascent kingdoms forming relatively late.
Good article. Important to compare the British archaeology with what was happening on the Continent.
"Many of the local British population must have been enslaved, massacred or fled, just as St Gildas records in his Ruin of Britain." I'm not wholly sure this is what the genetics shows, nor do we know if this is what Gildas refers to in his lament about the destruction of British cities. He also thought Hadrian's Wall was built in the fifth century, so his understanding of the wars, rebellions, and invasions before his birth can easily be read as hyperbolic extrapolations of what really happened. It was in his interest to show the Saxons as savage heathens, and the Christian kings who trusted them as backsliders. No doubt Saxons invaded and subjugated local populations along the south coasts, but this would have been significantly variable by region. Most of the Saxon expansionism comes from later, such as the emergence of Wessex in the mid-sixth century.
You may be aquainted with it, but the Gretzinger et al 2022 archaeo-genetics paper is very illuminating on the fate of local populations in the period. It and other papers also point to a much more extended period of cross-colonisation from Gaul and Germanic homelands.
Thanks for the comment Tim. The relevant quote from St Gildas's Ruin is "Some of the wretched remnant were consequently captured on the mountains and killed in heaps. Others, overcome by hunger, came and yielded themselves to the enemies, to be their slaves forever, if they were not instantly slain". The bit about Hadrian's Wall largely parrots what fourth- and fifth-century accounts all say, so you can't really fault St Gildas for that. And yes, I read the Gretzinger paper when it first appeared - but what I'd really like to see an aDNA study do now is sample the bones of St Gildas held at St-Gildas-de-Rhuys in Brittany.
Very good point re the lack of a European view of the period and not just British-centric one. Of course, the Western Roman Empire had the same Euro-centric view such that the English Channel was a waterway conduit not a barrier. A view brought into sharp relief by the Carausian rebellion and the short lived Gallic Empire before it.
Re the indigenous population of the SE, it is worth remembering that when the economic system in Britain collapsed, it is possible that many of the inhabitants simply went 'back' to Roman Gaul (or other Roman territories). There are many attested hoard burials around the turn of the 5th century in the SE and 'villa' belt of Romanised Britain. This could be taken to infer that the owners were worried about Imperial tax collectors appropriating their wealth when they moved back into areas under Imperial control. Maybe...
Of course there is also the possibility of westward migration from the SE areas but this may come later. My personal opinion is that denuded of a good chunk of the population allowed unsanctioned immigration in the SE in a patchwork process rather than an 'invasion' style event. This would corroborate the admittedly sparce data from burials that show battle wounds on 5th century bones are remarkably low. Using the 'perfusion' model allows a build up of immigrants from the Northern areas of Europe which eventually ended in nascent kingdoms forming relatively late.
Great article and would love to see more.
Good article. Important to compare the British archaeology with what was happening on the Continent.
"Many of the local British population must have been enslaved, massacred or fled, just as St Gildas records in his Ruin of Britain." I'm not wholly sure this is what the genetics shows, nor do we know if this is what Gildas refers to in his lament about the destruction of British cities. He also thought Hadrian's Wall was built in the fifth century, so his understanding of the wars, rebellions, and invasions before his birth can easily be read as hyperbolic extrapolations of what really happened. It was in his interest to show the Saxons as savage heathens, and the Christian kings who trusted them as backsliders. No doubt Saxons invaded and subjugated local populations along the south coasts, but this would have been significantly variable by region. Most of the Saxon expansionism comes from later, such as the emergence of Wessex in the mid-sixth century.
You may be aquainted with it, but the Gretzinger et al 2022 archaeo-genetics paper is very illuminating on the fate of local populations in the period. It and other papers also point to a much more extended period of cross-colonisation from Gaul and Germanic homelands.
Thanks for the comment Tim. The relevant quote from St Gildas's Ruin is "Some of the wretched remnant were consequently captured on the mountains and killed in heaps. Others, overcome by hunger, came and yielded themselves to the enemies, to be their slaves forever, if they were not instantly slain". The bit about Hadrian's Wall largely parrots what fourth- and fifth-century accounts all say, so you can't really fault St Gildas for that. And yes, I read the Gretzinger paper when it first appeared - but what I'd really like to see an aDNA study do now is sample the bones of St Gildas held at St-Gildas-de-Rhuys in Brittany.