The Matter of England Part II

[sollers]

Now for the period I want to discuss: the second half of the 5th century and the first half of the 6th, with particular focus on the first half, as described in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.

 

The dates given are not accurate. They are not even consistent between versions; there's a two year difference in the dates for the battle of Crecganford. However, they do agree about the sequence of events, and if the sequence is accurate, and approximate time gaps can be accepted, an interesting pattern emerges:

Phase I: Kent

A three year sequence of fighting, followed by a gap of ten years; more fighting over a short period; another gap of over five years; another battle and then no further fighting. The Saxons are confined to eastern Kent.

Phase II: Sussex

This begins after the fighting in Kent ended.

After the sack of what is almost certainly Anderida, there is no further fighting, and the Saxons are confined to the area south of the Weald.

Phase III: Wessex

This does not start until about 10 years after fighting in Sussex ends. There is a very confused picture that will be examined in detail later, but nothing conclusive until the taking of the Isle of Wight. There is no real breakout on the mainland until half way through the 6th century - fifty years after the original landings.

Hardly the waves of invincible Saxons of tradition.

There is something else that is interesting: something that isn't there. There are no accounts of what happened north of the Thames until Ida in Northumbria, again half way through the 6th century. Either there were no great battles or notable kings, or nobody bothered to pass on the stories; again no suggestion of irresistible waves of invaders.

So much for the documentary evidence. How does it tie in with the archaeology? Surprisingly well. The densest, earliest concentration of finds is in east Kent; the densest concentration in Sussex - a very small dense area - is a few miles from Anderida; and the picture in Wessex is confusing.

North of the Thames, the picture is fascinating. The key area is south east of the Fosse Way, the area first conquered by the Romans and an area interesting from the farming point of view. A recent letter in the Guardian (which stupidly I didn't keep) was from a farmer in the West Country saying that there is a good reason for cereal crops being mainly grown in the eastern part of the country: rainfall. A shortage of rain is not as devastating as downpours that waterlog the ground and rot the roots of the plants. He stated his intention of giving up trying to fight the weather and switching from cereal crops to cattle; and it's no coincidence that many notable English cheeses come from the west side of the country.

This arable part of the country, the most Romanised part, is the part where Saxon finds are earliest. But they don't, as I would have expected, start from the east coast and spread west. They start off as a thin scatter throughout the area, and over time the scatter gets thicker. This doesn't look like waves of conquest either.

Now, since the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and the archaeological finds are independent of each other, the fact that they tell much the same story indicates that the Chronicle is, if not completely accurate, drawing a roughly accurate picture.

(To be continued)