Continuity or Colonization: Debating Anglo-Saxon Migration

Recently, I  have been reading quite a bit about migration during the Early Medieval period. Traditional narratives of this period tend to argue that as the Roman Empire was declining in the late 4th and early 5th centuries, various barbarians groups from Germany and Eastern Europe began invading and raiding Western Europe. In England, this is portrayed as three groups, the Angles, Saxons and Jutes, entering the island after the Roman Empire left, and conquering the entire country. Once these barbarian groups had removed all traces of the empire, Western Europe was plunged into the Dark Ages.

Of course, more recent analysis and archaeological interpretation has shown that it wasn’t this dire, and perhaps wasn’t even that dark, culturally speaking. There is even question as to the extent of colonization, and whether the changes in the West were more due to internal processes rather than external migration. Various scholars have classified this period from being one of invasion and destruction, to replacement of a tired regime with new vital blood, to one where only a small elite of barbarians invaded and there was primarily continuity between the periods. We have something vital to the argument that may aid in determining the extent of migration- the physical remains of the people from this period.

Anglo-Saxon migration map, via Wikimedia

Anglo-Saxon migration map, via Wikimedia

The mass migration of Germanic groups into England is known as the Adventus Saxonum, a term coined by Gildas, a 6th century British cleric who wrote the history of post-Roman Britain. However, the best characterization of the event was written by Bede, and in it he identifies three primary groups that migrated: the Angles, Saxons and Jutes. While we know that there was a major change in material culture during this period, the actual scale and manner of the migration is still highly debated. Cemetery analyses of this period have in the past focused on material culture as a way to determine who was native and who was a migrant, however, the problem is that materials don’t always indicate the ethnic backgrounds of an individual. Historic studies of these groups argued that cremation or burials with grave goods were indicative of immigrants, whereas simple inhumation burials were native Britons- a simplistic argument that has been proven wrong. As Anthony (1998) argues “cultures don’t migrate; people do,”.

Therefore, in order to learn more about actual migration, stable isotope analysis has been done at a number of early medieval cemeteries to determine who these individuals were, and perhaps learn more about migration. Increasingly, stable isotope analysis of the ratios of strontium, oxygen, and sometimes lead within skeletal remains is being used to determine where the individual is originally from. There is an assumption that the bones of individuals contain an isotopic composition similar to the geology and geographic area from which they originated.

There are two recent studies that use this technique to aid in the interpretation of the Adventus Saxonum using early medieval cemeteries from England. These include the Anglian cemetery at West Heslerton (Montgomery et al. 2005), and the Bowl Hole Anglian cemetery at Bamburgh, Northumberland (Groves et al. 2013). The West Heslerton Cemetery was in use from the late 5th to early 7th centuries, and was placed near a Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age ritual site consisting of a hengiform enclosure, timber post circle, round barrows, and associated burials. The site had over 100 burials, and of these 33 were selected for stable isotope analysis based on the presence of Germanic artifacts that may indicate they were a migrant. Both children and adults were selected for sampling. The Bowl Hole cemetery is located near the famous Bamburgh Castle, and has a long history of use. The burials themselves were laid out in rows and there were a total of 91 discrete burials, though more burials were found in non-traditional burial locations across the site. The deceased population consisted of a demographic mix, and from this a sample of 78 individuals were selected for isotopic analysis. In both studies, the teeth were selected for sampling.

Anglo-Saxon Burial, bones somewhat intact, via Daily Mail

Anglo-Saxon Burial, bones somewhat intact, via Daily Mail

The analysis of the cemetery at West Heslerton revealed that there were two different groups of strontium isotopes suggestive of either different origins or different sources of food. The first group was reflective of the local geology, and would be more likely to consist of the native group. The second had ratios outside the normal range of the area and either consist of immigrants or imported their food. This second group isn’t necessarily Germanic, since the strontium range found could potentially be located in England, but there is a higher likelihood. Both groups had similar demography, which means the strontium difference wasn’t based on diet differences by age or gender. They also found that when comparing grave goods to strontium, those individuals with non-native strontium levels were more likely to have wrist-clasps and cruciform brooches, Anglian associated artifacts. There were not however differences in other grave goods or burial types that were differentiated by burial. 

At the Bowl Hole cemetery, it was determined that the majority of individuals found at the site were non-local, and came from a variety of areas possibly attracted to the site due to its royal status. Some of the strontium levels are highly suggestive of immigration from Germanic and Scandinavian countries, although there is also a group from the site that corresponds with Mediterranean or Northern African origins. Like West Heslerton, sex and age was well distributed throughout the groups, suggesting that families were moving, not groups of elite males. In general, those identified as non-local were healthier and taller than the locals. A comparison of grave goods and burial patterns revealed no clear correlation between the immigrants and natives.

It is important here with these studies to recognize what Anthony said earlier, we are studying people not cultures. Immigration doesn’t necessarily mean that one is going to appear culturally different in the archaeological record. It also doesn’t mean that the native peoples won’t quickly adopt an immigrant culture. The way people are buried are reflective of their beliefs, ideologies, histories, and understandings of the body. All of these can change with migration, exposure to new ideas, and change in situation. While strontium allows us to determine who was local or non-local, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they were culturally different.

Works Cited

ResearchBlogging.orgMontgomery J, Evans JA, Powlesland D, & Roberts CA (2005). Continuity or colonization in Anglo-Saxon England? Isotope evidence for mobility, subsistence practice, and status at West Heslerton. American journal of physical anthropology, 126 (2), 123-38 PMID: 15386290

Groves SE, Roberts CA, Lucy S, Pearson G, Gröcke DR, Nowell G, Macpherson CG, & Young G (2013). Mobility histories of 7th-9th century AD people buried at early medieval Bamburgh, Northumberland, England. American journal of physical anthropology, 151 (3), 462-76 PMID: 23737109

Anthony D. 1997. Prehistoric migration as a social process. In: Chapman J, Hamerow H, editors. Migrations and invasions in
archaeological explanation. BAR international series 664. Oxford: Archaeopress. p 21–32.

12 responses to “Continuity or Colonization: Debating Anglo-Saxon Migration

  1. All very interesting! Do you know whether the evolution of Old English been considered in this recent context of not-necessarily-total-invasion? It seems possible that there could be considerable influence from internal precoesses there too.
    – James

    • Actually, the language is one of the interesting pieces of evidence that supports complete takeover and invasion. It is kind of a conundrum with the new evidence of hybridization and continuity. One of the theories is that since the Anglo-Saxon migrants became elites, they controlled the language.

      • There is a counter-argument that word order in Old English often resembles Celtic structures rather than those found in similar Germanic languages, as if vocabulary replacement has been laid over the grammar. It is, however, not my field!

      • Intriguing and certainly plausible given the nature of our language. I like to think I could have pulled off being a linguistician(?) if I hadn’t chosen life sciences🙂

      • If you hold up a mirror and consider the example of North America, one has to doubt the ‘complete takeover and invasion’ of England hypothesis. The Anglo Saxons came from different parts of northern Europe and brought a range of languages which eventually evolved into English. But nonetheless traces of pre Anglo Saxon British survived (e.g. in the far southwest in Cornwall and (outside England) in Wales), along with Norse, in the dialects of Northern England.

        North America had a range of native languages before the Europeans arrived. Now the language hegemony is of American English. But there are pockets of Native American languages, and of other European languages (e.g. French in Quebec, Spanish in the SW USA and Mexico). The history of European migration and the expropriation of Native North American peoples is more accessible than that of the Anglo Saxons in England.

        From the European side of the Atlantic I see the triumph of American English as a function of power: which Europeans became the elite? So I agree with the explanation of the triumphal takeover of England by a relatively small Anglo-Saxon elite is more likely to account for Anglo Saxon English replacing British and the other European languages brought by migrants. This elite got to write the dominant history, although there are alternative histories in Welsh/British.

        But interestingly the French elite that came over with William the Conqueror in 1066 didn’t succeed in imposing French, the language of the English court for centuries, on the Anglo-Saxon majority. Sometimes the weight of numbers combined with the vagaries of chance such as the emergence of seminal writers like Chaucer and the arrival of printing are decisive.

  2. This puzzle will have to be solved by ancient DNA, at a rather high resolution too. However, based on modern DNA, I predict that the Germanic tribes had a significant demographic impact on most of England, but there were very few regions which experienced complete population replacement.

  3. The linguistic evidence may be more complicated that even that! Recent research from Daphne Nash Briggs indicates that a proto Anglo saxon may have been spoken in East Anglia among the iceni before the Roman invasion ( THE IRON AGE IN NORTHERN EAST ANGLIA: NEW WORK IN THE LAND OF THE ICENI. Edited by John A. Davies. Pp. iv and 105, Illus 77. Archaeopress (British Archaeological Reports British Series, 549), 2011. ISBN 978 1 407308 85 2.) This could make proto Anglo saxon a trading lingua franca acriss the N. Sea trading sone- rather like Swahili in East Africa.

  4. Pingback: First world blogging problems | A H Gray·

  5. After reading about Britain after the Romans and the Anglo-Saxon “invasions”, I find this quite fascinating. Yes, perhaps there was no invasion at all, but more of a migration and an adaption by the locals of the customs and language of the immigrants? There’s a BBC documentary from 2004 about this where they show excavations of a 5th century cemetery at West Heslerton you mentioned above. Maybe you’ve been there?

    • I haven’t been there, but I have read the site reports for the site. It is quite interesting! I love the ‘puzzle’ the Anglo-Saxon period provides for archaeologists!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s