Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain

The Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain is the process which changed the language and culture of most of
what became England from Romano-British to Germanic. The Germanic-speakers in Britain, themselves of
diverse origins, eventually developed a common cultural identity as Anglo-Saxons. This process principally
occurred from the mid-fifth to early seventh centuries, following the end of Roman rule in Britain around
the year 410. The settlement was followed by the establishment of the Heptarchy, Anglo-Saxon kingdoms
in the south and east of Britain, later followed by the rest of modern England, and the south-east of modern
Scotland.[1]

The available evidence includes the scant contemporary and near-contemporary written record,
archaeological and genetic information.[a] The few literary sources tell of hostility between incomers and
natives. They describe violence, destruction, massacre, and the flight of the Romano-British population.
Moreover, little clear evidence exists for any significant influence of British Celtic or British Latin on Old
English. These factors suggested a mass influx of Germanic-speaking peoples. In this view, held by most
historians and archaeologists until the mid-to-late 20th century, much of what is now England was cleared
of its prior inhabitants. If this traditional viewpoint were to be correct, the genes of the later English people
would have been overwhelmingly inherited from Germanic migrants.

However, another view, the most favoured among 21st century scholars,[3] is that the migrants were fewer,
possibly centred on a warrior elite. This hypothesis suggests that the incomers achieved a position of
political and social dominance, which, aided by intermarriage, initiated a process of acculturation of the
natives to the incoming language and material culture. Archaeologists have found that settlement patterns
and land use show no clear break with the Romano-British past, though changes in material culture were
profound. This view predicts that the ancestry of the people of Anglo-Saxon and modern England would
be largely derived from the Romano-British.

Even so, if these incomers established themselves as a social elite practising a level of endogamy, this could
have allowed them enhanced reproductive success (the 'apartheid theory', named after the 20th-century
apartheid system of South Africa). In this case, the prevalent genes of later Anglo-Saxon England could
have been largely derived from moderate numbers of Germanic migrants.[4][5] This theory, originating in an
early population genetics study, has proven controversial, and has been critically received by many
scholars. More recent genetic studies have tentatively supported the conclusion that the Germanic-speaking
incomers, while contributing substantially to the current English gene pool, did not replace the pre-existing
British population.

Contents
Background
Historical evidence
Early sources
Gildas' De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae
Bede's Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum
Tribal Hideage
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
Linguistic evidence
The evidence
The debate
Current research
Elite personal names
Archaeological evidence
Understanding the Roman legacy
Settler evidence
Tribal characteristics
Reuse of earlier monuments
Landscape archaeology
Distribution of settlements
Cemetery evidence
Molecular evidence
Y-chromosome evidence
Ancient DNA, rare alleles and whole genome sequencing
Modern population studies
Ancient DNA studies
Isotope analysis
Criticism
Migration and acculturation theories
Estimating continental migrants' numbers
Saxon political ascendancy in Britain
Romano-Britons' fate in the south-east
Regional variation in settlement patterns
Aspects of the success of the Anglo-Saxon settlement
Anglo-Saxon political formation
Rural freedoms and kinship groups
Material culture
Culture of belief
Language and literature
See also
Notes
Citations
References
General
Archaeology
History

Background
By 400, the Roman provinces in Britain (all the territory to the south
of Hadrian's Wall) were a peripheral part of the Roman Empire,
occasionally lost to rebellion or invasion, but until then always
eventually recovered. That cycle of loss and recapture collapsed over
the next decade. Eventually, around 410, although Roman power
remained a force to be reckoned with for a further three generations
across much of Gaul, Britain slipped beyond direct imperial control
into a phase which has generally been termed "sub-Roman".[6]

The history of this period has traditionally been a narrative of decline

and fall. However, evidence from Verulamium suggests that urban-
type rebuilding,[7] featuring piped water, was continuing late on in the
fifth century, if not beyond. At Silchester, signs of sub-Roman
occupation are found down to around 500,[8] and at Wroxeter, new
Britain, 383–410[b]
baths have been identified as of Roman-type.[9]

The writing of Saint Patrick and Gildas (see below) demonstrates the
survival in Britain of Latin literacy and Roman education, learning and law within elite society and
Christianity, throughout the bulk of the fifth and sixth centuries. Also, signs in Gildas' works indicate that
the economy was thriving without Roman taxation, as he complains of luxuria and self-indulgence. In the
mid fifth century, Anglo-Saxons begin to appear in an apparently still functionally Romanised Britain.[10]

Historical evidence
The act of surveying the historical sources for signs of the Anglo-Saxon settlement assumes that the words
Angles, Saxons, or Anglo-Saxon have the same meaning in all the sources. Assigning ethnic labels such as
"Anglo-Saxon" is fraught with difficulties and the term only began to be used in the 8th century to
distinguish "Germanic" groups in Britain from those on the continent (Old Saxony in present-day Northern
Germany).[11][c]

Early sources

The Chronica Gallica of 452 records for the year 441: "The British provinces, which to this time had
suffered various defeats and misfortunes, are reduced to Saxon rule." The chronicle was written some
distance from Britain.[12] There is uncertainty about precise dates for fifth-century events especially before
446.[13] This, however, does not undermine the position of the Gallic Chronicles as a very important
contemporary source, which suggests that Bede's later date for 'the arrival of the Saxons' was mistaken. In
the chronicle, Britain is grouped with four other Roman territories which came under 'Germanic' dominion
around the same time, the list being intended as an explanation of the end of the Roman empire in the
west.[14] The four share a similar history, as they were all given into the "power of the barbarians" by
Roman authority: three were deliberately settled with Germanic federates and though the Vandals took
Africa by force their dominion was confirmed by treaty.[12]

Procopius states that Brittia was settled by three nations: the Angili, Frissones, and Brittones, each ruled by
its own king. Each nation was so prolific that it sent large numbers of individuals every year to the Franks,
who planted them in unpopulated regions of its territory. Michael Jones, a historian at Bates College in
New England, says that "Procopius himself, however, betrays doubts about this specific passage, and
subsequent details in the chapter undermine its credibility as a clue to sixth-century population in
Britain."[15] Writing in the mid-sixth century, Procopius also states that after the overthrow of Constantine
III in 411, "the Romans never succeeded in recovering Britain, but it remained from that time under
tyrants."[16]

Gildas' De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae

In Gildas' work of the sixth century (perhaps 510–530), De Excidio

et Conquestu Britanniae, a religious tract on the state of Britain, the
Saxons were enemies originally from overseas, who brought well-
deserved judgement upon the local kings or 'tyrants'.[d][17]

The sequence of events in Gildas is:[18]

1. After an appeal to Aëtius (the Groans of the Britons) the

Britons were gripped by famine while suffering attacks
from the Picts and Scoti; some fought back successfully,
leading to a period of peace.
2. Peace led to luxuria and self-indulgence.
3. A renewed attack was threatened by the Picts and Scoti,
and this led to a council, where it was proposed and An 1130 depiction of Angles,
agreed that land in the east would be given to the Saxons, and Jutes crossing the sea
Saxons on the basis of a treaty, a foedus, by which the to Britain equipped with war gear
Saxons would defend the Britons in exchange for food from the Miscellany on the Life of St.
supplies. This type of arrangement was unexceptional in Edmund
a Late Roman context; Franks had been settled as
foederati on imperial territory in northern Gaul
(Toxandria) in the fourth century, and the Visigoths were
settled in Gallia Aquitania early in the fifth century.
4. The Saxon foederati first complained that their monthly
supplies were inadequate. Then they threatened to
break the treaty, which they did, spreading the onslaught
"from sea to sea".
5. This war, which Higham called the "War of the Saxon
Federates", ended some 20–30 years later, shortly after
the siege at Mons Badonicus, and some 40 years before
Gildas was born.[e]
6. A peace existed with the Saxons, who returned to their
eastern home, which Gildas called a lugubre divortium
barbarorum—a grievous divorce from the barbarians.
The "divorce settlement", Higham in particular has
argued, was a worse treaty from the British viewpoint.
This included the payment of tribute to the people in the
east (i.e. the Saxons), who were under the leadership of
the person whom Gildas called pater diabolus.[19] Britain around the year 540. Anglo-
Saxon kingdom's names are
Gildas used the correct late Roman term for the Saxons, foederati, coloured red. Britonnic kingdoms'
people who came to Britain under a well-used treaty system. This names are coloured black.
kind of treaty had been used elsewhere to bring people into the
Roman Empire to move along the roads or rivers and work
alongside the army.[20] Gildas called them Saxons, which was probably the common British term for the
settlers. Gildas' use of the word patria,[f][21] when used in relation to the Saxons and Picts, gave the
impression that some Saxons could by then be regarded as native to Britannia.[22]
Britain for Gildas was the whole island. Ethnicity and language were not his issue; he was concerned with
the leaders' faith and actions. The historical details are, as Snyder had it: "by-products from his recounting
of royal-sins".[23] There is a strong tradition of Christian writers who were concerned with the moral
qualities of leadership and Gildas joined these. He used apocalyptic language: for example the Saxons were
"villains", "enemies", led by a Devil-father. Yet, Gildas had lived through, in his own words, an age of
"external peace", and it is this peace that brought with it the tyrannis—"unjust rule".

Gildas' remarks reflected his continuing concern regarding the vulnerability of his countrymen and their
disregard and in-fighting: for example, "it was always true of this people (as it is now) that it was weak in
beating off the weapons of the enemy, but strong in putting up with civil war and the burden of sin."[24]
However, after the War of the Saxon Federates, if there were acts of genocide, mass exodus, or mass
slavery, Gildas did not seem to know about them. Gildas, in discussing the holy shrines, mentioned that the
spiritual life of Britain had suffered, because of the partition (divortium), of the country, which was
preventing the citizens (cives) from worshipping at the shrines of the martyrs. Control had been ceded to the
Saxons, even control of access to such shrines. The church was now 'tributary', her sons had 'embraced
dung' and the nobility had lost their authority to govern.[25]

Gildas described the corruption of the elite: "Britain has kings but they are tyrants; she has judges but they
are wicked".[26] This passage provides a glimpse into the world of Gildas, he continued: "they plunder and
terrorise the innocent, they defend and protect the guilty and thieving, they have many wives, whores and
adulteresses, swear false oaths, tell lies, reward thieves, sit with murderous men, despise the humble, their
commanders are 'enemies of God'"; the list is long. Oath breaking and the absence of just judgements for
ordinary people were mentioned a number of times. British leadership, everywhere, was immoral and the
cause of the "ruin of Britain".[26]

Bede's Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum

Gildas and other sources were used by Bede in his Historia

ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum, written around 731. Bede identifies the
migrants as Angles, Saxons, and Jutes, reporting (Bk I, Ch 15) that the
Saxons came from Old Saxony (Northern Germany) and the Angles
from 'Anglia', which lay between the homelands of the Saxons and
Jutes.[27] Anglia is usually interpreted as the old Schleswig-Holstein
Province (straddling the modern Danish-German border), and
containing the modern Angeln. The coast between the Elbe and Weser
rivers (modern German state of Lower Saxony) is the Saxon area of
origin. Jutland, the peninsula containing part of Denmark, was the
homeland of the Jutes.

Bede seems to identify three phases of settlement: an exploration

phase, when mercenaries came to protect the resident population; a
migration phase, which was substantial, as implied by the statement
that Anglus was deserted; and an establishment phase, in which
Folio 3v from the Petersburg
Anglo-Saxons started to control areas, implied in Bede's statement
Bede. The Saint Petersburg
about the origins of the tribes.[28] This analysis of Bede has led to a re-
Bede (Saint Petersburg, National
evaluation, in terms of continuity and change, of Bede's
Library of Russia, lat. Q. v. I. 18),
"Northumbrian" view of history and how this view was projected
a near-contemporary version of
back into the account of the latter two phases of settlement; and a
the Historia ecclesiastica gentis
possible overhaul of the traditional chronological framework.
Anglorum
The concept of Bretwalda originates in Bede's comment on who held the Imperium of Britain.[29] From
this concept, historians have inferred a formal institution of overlordship south of the Humber. Whether
such an institution existed is uncertain, but Simon Keynes argues that the idea is not an invented
concept.[30] The Bretwalda concept is taken as evidence for a presence of a number of early Anglo-Saxon
elite families. Whether the majority were early settlers, descendant from settlers, or especially after the
exploration stage, were Roman-British leaders who adopted Anglo-Saxon culture, is unclear, but the
balance of opinion is that most were migrants. Notable gaps include: no-one from the East or West
Midlands is represented in the list of Bretwaldas, and some uncertainty about the dates of these leaders.

Bede's view of Britons is partly responsible for the picture of them as the downtrodden subjects of Anglo-
Saxon oppression. This has been used by some linguists and archaeologists to produce invasion and
settlement theories involving genocide, forced migration and enslavement.[31] The depiction of the Britons
in the Historia Ecclesiastica is influenced by the writing of Gildas, who viewed the Saxons as a
punishment from God against the British people. Windy McKinney notes that "Bede focused on this point
and extended Gildas' vision by portraying the pagan Anglo-Saxons not as God's scourge against the
reprobate Britons, but rather as the agents of Britain's redemption. Therefore, the ghastly scenario that
Gildas feared is calmly explained away by Bede; any rough treatment was necessary, and ordained by God,
because the Britons had lost God's favour, and incurred his wrath."[32] McKinney, who suggests that
"Bede himself may not have been an ethnically 'pure' Angle," argues that his use of ethnic terms was "tied
to the expression of tradition and religious ideas, to the loyalty of a people to authority, and subject to
change as history continued to unfold. Therefore, it is a moot point whether all of those whom Bede
encompassed under the term Angli were racially Germanic".[32]

Tribal Hideage

The Tribal Hideage is a list of 35 tribes that was compiled in Anglo-Saxon England some time between the
seventh and ninth centuries. The inclusion of the 'Elmet-dwellers' suggests to Simon Keynes that the Tribal
Hideage was compiled in the early 670s, during the reign of King Wulfhere, since Elmet seems to have
reverted thereafter to Northumbrian control.[30]

It includes a number of independent kingdoms and other smaller territories and assigns a number of hides to
each one. A hide was an amount of land sufficient to support a household. The list of tribes is headed by
Mercia and consists almost exclusively of peoples who lived south of the Humber estuary and territories
that surrounded the Mercian kingdom, some of which have never been satisfactorily identified by scholars.
The document is problematic, but extremely important for historians, as it provides a glimpse into the
relationship between people, land, and the tribes and groups into which they had organised themselves.

The individual units in the list developed from the settlement areas of tribal groups, some of which are as
little as 300 hides. The names are difficult to locate: places such as East wixna and Sweord ora. What it
reveals is that micro-identity of tribe and family is important from the start. The list is evidence for more
complex settlement than the single political entity of the other historical sources.[33]

Anglo-Saxon Chronicle

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is a historical record of events in Anglo-Saxon England, which was kept from
the late 9th to the mid-12th century. The chronicle is a collection of annals that were still being updated in
some cases more than 600 years after the events they describe. They contain various entries that seem to
add to the breadth of the historical evidence and provide good evidence for a migration, the Anglo-Saxon
elites, and various significant historical events.
The earliest events described in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle were transcribed centuries after they had
occurred. Barbara Yorke, Patrick Sims-Williams, and David Dumville, among others, have highlighted how
a number of features of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for the fifth and early sixth centuries clearly contradict
the idea that they contain a reliable year-by-year record.[34] Stuart Laycock has suggested that some
information describing the early period may be accepted as containing a kernel of truth if the obvious
glosses and fictions are rejected (such as the information about Porta and Portsmouth). The sequence of the
events associated with Ælle of Sussex seems plausible, whilst the dates are uncertain.[35] However,
presenting evidence for the Anglo-Saxon settlement from a chronicle such as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is
uncertain and relies heavily on the present view of which entries are acceptable truth. As Dumville points
out about the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: "medieval historiography has assumptions different from our own,
particularly in terms of distinctions between fiction and non-fiction".[36]

Linguistic evidence
Explaining linguistic change, and particularly the rise of Old
English, is crucial in any account of the Anglo-Saxon settlement of
Britain. The modern consensus is that the spread of English can be
explained by a minority of Germanic-speaking immigrants
becoming politically and socially dominant, in a context where
Latin had lost its usefulness and prestige due to the collapse of the
Roman economy and administration.

The evidence

All linguistic evidence from Roman Britain suggests that most

inhabitants spoke British Celtic and/or British Latin. However, by
the eighth century, when extensive evidence for the post-Roman
language situation is next available, it is clear that the dominant
language in what is now eastern and southern England was Old Kenneth Jackson's map showing
English, whose West Germanic predecessors were spoken in what British river names of Celtic
is now the Netherlands and northern Germany.[39] Old English etymology, thought to be a good
then continued spreading westwards and northwards in the ensuing indicator of the spread of Old
centuries. This development is strikingly different from, for English. Area I, where Celtic names
example, post-Roman Gaul, Iberia, or North Africa, where are rare and confined to large and
Germanic-speaking invaders gradually switched to local medium-sized rivers, shows English-
languages.[40][41][42] Old English shows little obvious influence language dominance to c. 500–550;
from Celtic or spoken Latin: there are for example vanishingly few Area II to c. 600; Area III, where
English words of Brittonic origin. [43][44][45] Moreover, except in even many small streams have
Cornwall, the vast majority of place-names in England are easily Brittonic names to c. 700. In Area IV,
etymologised as Old English (or Old Norse, due to later Viking Brittonic remained the dominant
influence), demonstrating the dominance of English across post- language 'till at least the Norman
Roman England. [46] Intensive research in recent decades on Celtic Conquest' and river names are
toponymy has shown that more names in England and southern overwhelmingly Celtic.[37]
Scotland have Brittonic, or occasionally Latin, etymologies than
was once thought,[47] but even so, it is clear that Brittonic and
Latin place-names in the eastern half of England are extremely rare, and although they are noticeably more
common in the western half, they are still a tiny minority─2% in Cheshire, for example.[48]

The debate
Into the later twentieth century, scholars' usual
explanation for the lack of Celtic influence on
English, supported by uncritical readings of the
accounts of Gildas and Bede, was that Old English
became dominant primarily because Germanic-
speaking invaders killed, chased away, and/or
enslaved the previous inhabitants of the areas that
they settled. In recent decades, a few specialists
have continued to support this
interpretation, [49][50][51] and Peter Schrijver has
said that 'to a large extent, it is linguistics that is
responsible for thinking in terms of drastic Map of place-names between the Firth of Forth and
scenarios' about demographic change in late the River Tees: in green, names likely containing
Roman Britain.[52] Brittonic elements; in red and orange, names likely
containing the Old English elements -ham and -
But the consensus among experts today, influenced ingaham respectively. Brittonic names lie mostly to
by research in contact linguistics, is that political the north of the Lammermuir and Moorfoot Hills.[38]
dominance by a fairly small number of Old
English-speakers could have driven large numbers
of Britons to adopt Old English while leaving little detectable trace of this language-shift.[44][53][54] The
collapse of Britain's Roman economy and administrative structures seems to have left Britons living in a
technologically similar society to their Anglo-Saxon neighbours, making it unlikely that Anglo-Saxons
would need to borrow words for unfamiliar concepts.[55] If Old English became the most prestigious
language in a particular region, speakers of other languages may have found it advantageous to become
bilingual and, over a few generations, stop speaking the less prestigious languages (in this case British
Celtic and/or British Latin). This account, which demands only small numbers of politically dominant
Germanic-speaking migrants to Britain, has become 'the standard explanation' for the gradual death of
Celtic and spoken Latin in post-Roman Britain.[56][57][58][59][60]

Likewise, scholars have posited various mechanisms other than massive demographic change by which
pre-migration Celtic place-names could have been lost. Scholars have stressed that Welsh and Cornish
place-names from the Roman period seem no more likely to survive than English ones: 'clearly name loss
was a Romano-British phenomenon, not just one associated with Anglo-Saxon incomers'.[61][62] Other
explanations for the replacement of Roman period place-names include adaptation of Celtic names such
that they now seem to come from Old English;[63][64][65][66][67] a more gradual loss of Celtic names than
was once assumed;[68][69][70] and new names being coined (in the newly dominant English language)
because instability of settlements and land-tenure.[69][70]

Current research

Extensive research is ongoing on whether British Celtic did exert subtle substrate influence on the
phonology, morphology, and syntax of Old English[71][72][73][74][75] (as well as on whether British Latin-
speakers influenced the Brittonic languages, perhaps as they fled westwards from Anglo-Saxon domination
into highland areas of Britain).[76][77][78] These arguments have not yet, however, become consensus
views. Thus a recent synthesis concludes that 'the evidence for Celtic influence on Old English is
somewhat sparse, which only means that it remains elusive, not that it did not exist'.[79]

Debate continues within a framework assuming that many Brittonic-speakers shifted to English, for
example over whether at least some Germanic-speaking peasant-class immigrants must have been involved
to bring about the language-shift; what legal or social structures (such as enslavement or apartheid-like
customs) might have promoted the high status of English; and precisely how slowly Brittonic (and British
Latin) disappeared in different regions.

An idiosyncratic view that has won extensive popular attention is Stephen Oppenheimer's suggestion that
the lack of Celtic influence on English is because the ancestor of English was already widely spoken in
Britain by the Belgae before the end of the Roman period.[80] However, Oppenheimer's ideas have not
been found helpful in explaining the known facts: there is no evidence for a well established Germanic
language in Britain before the fifth century, and Oppenheimer's idea contradicts the extensive evidence for
the use of Celtic and Latin.[81][42]

Elite personal names

While many studies admit that a substantial survival of native British people from
lower social strata is probable, with these people becoming anglicised over time due
to the action of "elite dominance" mechanisms, there is also evidence for the survival The name of the
of British elites and their anglicisation. An Anglo-Saxon elite could be formed in two Bretwalda
ways: from an incoming chieftain and his war band from northern Germania taking Ceawlin,
over an area of Britain, or through a native British chieftain and his war band rendered
adopting Anglo-Saxon culture and language.[82] 'ceaulin', as it
appears in the
The incidence of British Celtic personal names in the royal genealogies of a number Anglo-Saxon
of "Anglo-Saxon" dynasties is very suggestive of the latter process. The Wessex royal Chronicle (C-text)
line was traditionally founded by a man named Cerdic, an undoubtedly Celtic name
identical to Ceretic, the name given to two British kings, and ultimately derived from
the Brittonic *Caraticos.[83] This may indicate that Cerdic was a native Briton, and that his dynasty became
anglicised over time.[84][82] A number of Cerdic's alleged descendants also possessed Celtic names,
including the 'Bretwalda' Ceawlin.[85] The last occurrence of a British name in this dynasty was that of
King Caedwalla, who died as late as 689.[86] The British name Caedbaed is found in the pedigree of the
kings of Lindsey, which argues for the survival of British elites in this area also.[87] In the Mercian royal
pedigree, the name of King Penda and the names of other kings have more obvious Brittonic than
Germanic etymologies, though they do not correspond to known Welsh personal names.[88][89]

Bede, in his major work, charts the careers of four upper-class brothers in the English Church; he refers to
them as being Northumbrian, and therefore "English".[90] However, the names of Saint Chad of Mercia (a
prominent bishop) and his brothers Cedd (also a bishop), Cynibil and Caelin (a variant spelling of Ceawlin)
are British rather than Anglo-Saxon.[91][92]

A good case can be made for southern Britain (especially Wessex, Kent, Essex and parts of Southern East
Anglia), at least, having been taken over by dynasties having some Germanic ancestry or connections, but
also having origins in, or intermarrying with, native British elites.[82][93]

Archaeological evidence
Archaeologists seeking to understand evidence for migration and/or acculturation must first get to grips
with early Anglo-Saxon archaeology as an "Archaeology of Identity". Guarding against considering one
aspect of archaeology in isolation, this concept ensures that different topics are considered together, that
previously were considered separately, including gender, age, ethnicity, religion and status.[94]
The task of interpretation has been hampered by the lack of works of
archaeological synthesis for the Anglo-Saxon period in general, and the
early period in particular. This is changing, with new works of synthesis
and chronology, in particular the work of Catherine Hills and Sam Lucy
on the evidence of Spong Hill, which has opened up the possible
synthesis with continental material culture and has moved the
chronology for the settlement earlier than AD 450, with a significant
number of items now in phases before this historically set date.[95]

Understanding the Roman legacy

Archaeological evidence for the emergence of both a native British

An Anglo-Frisian funerary urn
identity and the appearance of a Germanic culture in Britain in the 5th
excavated from the Snape ship
and 6th centuries must consider first the period at the end of Roman burial in East Anglia. Item is
rule. The collapse of Roman material culture some time in the early 5th located in Aldeburgh Moot Hall
century left a gap in the archaeological record that was quite rapidly Museum
filled by the intrusive Anglo-Saxon material culture, while the native
culture became archaeologically close to invisible—although recent
hoards and metal-detector finds show that coin use and imports did not stop abruptly at AD 410.[96][97][98]

The archaeology of the Roman military systems within Britain is well known but is not well understood:
for example, whether the Saxon Shore was defensive or to facilitate the passage of goods. Andrew Pearson
suggests that the "Saxon Shore Forts" and other coastal installations played a more significant economic
and logistical role than is often appreciated, and that the tradition of Saxon and other continental piracy,
based on the name of these forts, is probably a myth.[99]

The archaeology of late Roman (and sub-Roman) Britain has been mainly focused on the elite rather than
the peasant and slave: their villas, houses, mosaics, furniture, fittings and silver plate.[100] This group had a
strict code on how their wealth was to be displayed, and this provides a rich material culture, from which
"Britons" are identified. There was a large gap between richest and poorest; the trappings of the latter have
been the focus of less archaeological study. However the archaeology of the peasant from the 4th and 5th
centuries is dominated by "ladder" field systems or enclosures, associated with extended families, and in the
South and East of England, the extensive use of timber-built buildings and farmsteads shows a lower level
of engagement with Roman building methods than is shown by the houses of the numerically much smaller
elite.[101]

Settler evidence

Confirmation of the use of Anglo-Saxons as foederati or federate troops has been seen as coming from
burials of Anglo-Saxons wearing military equipment of a type issued to late Roman forces, which have
been found both in late Roman contexts, such as the Roman cemeteries of Winchester and Colchester, and
in purely 'Anglo-Saxon' rural cemeteries like Mucking (Essex),[102] though this was at a settlement used by
the Romano-British. The distribution of the earliest Anglo-Saxon sites and place names in close proximity
to Roman settlements and roads has been interpreted as showing that initial Anglo-Saxon settlements were
being controlled by the Romano-British.[103]

Catherine Hills suggests it is not necessary to see all the early settlers as federate troops, and that this
interpretation has been used rather too readily by some archaeologists.[104] A variety of relationships could
have existed between Romano-British and incoming Anglo-Saxons. The broader archaeological picture
suggests that no one model will explain all the Anglo-Saxon settlements in Britain and that there was
considerable regional variation.[105] Settlement density varied
within southern and eastern England. Norfolk has more large
Anglo-Saxon cemeteries than the neighbouring East Anglian
county of Suffolk; eastern Yorkshire (the nucleus of the Anglo-
Saxon kingdom of Deira) far more than the rest of
Northumbria.[106] The settlers were not all of the same type. Some
were indeed warriors who were buried equipped with their
weapons, but we should not assume that all of these were invited
guests who were to guard Romano-British communities. Possibly
some, like the later Viking settlers, may have begun as piratical Romano-British or Anglo-Saxon belt
raiders who later seized land and made permanent settlements. fittings in the Quoit Brooch Style
Other settlers seem to have been much humbler people who had from the Mucking Anglo-Saxon
few if any weapons and suffered from malnutrition. These were cemetery, early 5th century, using a
characterised by Sonia Chadwick Hawkes as Germanic 'boat mainly Roman style for very early
people', refugees from crowded settlements on the North Sea which Anglo-Saxon clients
deteriorating climatic conditions would have made untenable.[107]

Tribal characteristics

Catherine Hills points out that it is too easy to consider Anglo-Saxon

archaeology solely as a study of ethnology and to fail to consider that
identity is "less related to an overall Anglo-Saxon ethnicity and more to
membership of family or tribe, Christian or pagan, elite or peasant".[108]
"Anglo-Saxons" or "Britons" were no more homogeneous than
nationalities are today, and they would have exhibited diverse
characteristics: male/female, old/young, rich/poor, farmer/warrior—or
even Gildas' patria (fellow citizens), cives (indigenous people) and
hostes (enemies)—as well as a diversity associated with language.
Beyond these, in the early Anglo-Saxon period, identity was local:
although people would have known their neighbours, it may have been
important to indicate tribal loyalty with details of clothing and especially
fasteners.[109] It is sometimes hard in thinking about the period to avoid
importing anachronistic 19th-century ideas of nationalism: in fact it is
unlikely that people would have thought of themselves as Anglo-Saxon
Frankish glass 'claw beaker'
– instead they were part of a tribe or region, descendants of a patron or
5th–6th century, excavated in
followers of a leader. It is this identity that archaeological evidence seeks
Kent
to understand and determine, considering how it might support separate
identity groups, or identities that were inter-connected.[110]

Part of a well-furnished pagan-period mixed, inhumation-cremation, cemetery at Alwalton near

Peterborough was excavated in 1999. Twenty-eight urned and two unurned cremations dating from
between the 5th and 6th centuries, and 34 inhumations, dating from between the late 5th and early 7th
centuries, were uncovered. Both cremations and inhumations were provided with pyre or grave goods, and
some of the burials were richly furnished. The excavation found evidence for a mixture of practices and
symbolic clothing; these reflected local differences that appeared to be associated with tribal or family
loyalty. This use of clothing in particular was very symbolic, and distinct differences within groups in the
cemetery could be found.[111]

Some recent scholarship has argued, however, that current approaches to the sociology of ethnicity render it
extremely difficult, if not impossible, to demonstrate ethnic identity via purely archaeological means, and
has thereby rejected the basis for using furnished inhumation or such clothing practices as the use of peplos
dress, or particular artistic styles found on artefacts such as those found at Alwalton, for evidence of pagan
beliefs, or cultural memories of tribal or ethnic affiliation.[112][113]

Reuse of earlier monuments

The evidence for monument reuse in the early Anglo-Saxon period reveals a number of significant aspects
of the practice. Ancient monuments were one of the most important factors determining the placing of the
dead in the early Anglo-Saxon landscape. Anglo-Saxon secondary activity on prehistoric and Roman sites
was traditionally explained in practical terms. These explanations, in the view of Howard Williams, failed
to account for the numbers and types of monuments and graves (from villas to barrows) reused.[114]

Anglo-Saxon barrow burials started in the late 6th century and continued into the early 8th century.
Prehistoric barrows, in particular, have been seen as physical expressions of land claims and links to the
ancestors, and John Shephard has extended this interpretation to Anglo-Saxon tumuli.[115] Eva Thäte has
emphasised the continental origins of monument reuse in post-Roman England,[116] Howard Williams has
suggested that the main purpose of this custom was to give sense to a landscape that the immigrants did not
find empty.[114]

In the 7th and 8th centuries, monument reuse became so widespread that it strongly suggests the deliberate
location of burials of the elite next to visible monuments of the pre-Saxon past, but with 'ordinary' burial
grounds of this phase also frequently being located next to prehistoric barrows. The relative increase of this
kind of spatial association from the 5th/6th centuries to the 7th/8th centuries is conspicuous. Williams'
analysis of two well-documented samples shows an increase from 32% to 50% of Anglo-Saxon burial sites
in the Upper Thames region, and from 47% to 71% of Anglo-Saxon cemeteries excavated since 1945.
Härke suggests that one of the contexts for the increasing reuse of monuments may be "the adoption by the
natives of the material culture of the dominant immigrants".[5]

Landscape archaeology

The Anglo-Saxons did not settle in an abandoned landscape on which they imposed new types of
settlement and farming, as was once believed. By the late 4th century the English rural landscape was
largely cleared and generally occupied by dispersed farms and hamlets, each surrounded by its own fields
but often sharing other resources in common (called "infield-outfield cultivation").[117] Such fields,
whether of prehistoric or Roman origin, fall into two very general types, found both separately and
together: irregular layouts, in which one field after another had been added to an arable hub over many
centuries; and regular rectilinear layouts, often roughly following the local topography, that had resulted
from the large-scale division of considerable areas of land. Such stability was reversed within a few
decades of the 5th century, as early "Anglo-Saxon" farmers, affected both by the collapse of Roman Britain
and a climatic deterioration which reached its peak probably around 500, concentrated on subsistence,
converting to pasture large areas of previously ploughed land. However, there is little evidence of
abandoned arable land.

Evidence across southern and central England increasingly shows the persistence of prehistoric and Roman
field layouts into and, in some cases throughout, the Anglo-Saxon period, whether or not such fields were
continuously ploughed. Landscapes at Yarnton, Oxfordshire, and Mucking, Essex, remained unchanged
throughout the 5th century, while at Barton Court, Oxfordshire, the 'grid of ditched paddocks or closes' of a
Roman villa estate formed a general framework for the Anglo-Saxon settlement there.[118] Similar evidence
has been found at Sutton Courtenay, Berkshire.[119] The Romano-British fields at Church Down in
Chalton and Catherington, both in Hampshire, Bow Brickhill, Buckinghamshire, and Havering, Essex,
were all ploughed as late as the 7th century.[120][121]
Susan Oosthuizen has taken this further and establishes evidence that aspects of the "collective organisation
of arable cultivation appear to find an echo in fields of pre-historic and Roman Britain":[122] in particular,
the open field systems, shared between a number of cultivators but cropped individually; the link between
arable holdings and rights to common pasture land; in structures of governance and the duty to pay some of
the surplus to the local overlord, whether in rent or duty. Together these reveal that kinship ties and social
relations were continuous across the 5th and 6th centuries, with no evidence of the uniformity or
destruction, imposed by lords, the savage action of invaders or system collapse. This has implications on
how later developments are considered, such as the developments in the 7th and 8th centuries.

Landscape studies draw upon a variety of topographical, archaeological and written sources. There are
major problems in trying to relate Anglo-Saxon charter boundaries to those of Roman estates for which
there are no written records, and by the end of the Anglo-Saxon period there had been major changes to the
organisation of the landscape which can obscure earlier arrangements.[123] Interpretation is also hindered
by uncertainty about late Roman administrative arrangements. Nevertheless, studies carried out throughout
the country, in "British" as well as "Anglo-Saxon" areas, have found examples of continuity of territorial
boundaries where, for instance, Roman villa estate boundaries seem to have been identical with those of
medieval estates, as delineated in early charters, though settlement sites within the defined territory might
shift.[124] What we see in these examples is probably continuity of the estate or territory as a unit of
administration rather than one of exploitation.[125] Although the upper level of Roman administration based
on towns seems to have disappeared during the 5th century, a subsidiary system based on subdivisions of
the countryside may have continued.[126]

The basis of the internal organisation of both the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms and those of their Celtic
neighbours was a large rural territory which contained a number of subsidiary settlements dependent upon a
central residence which the Anglo-Saxons called a villa in Latin and a tūn in Old English. These
developments suggest that the basic infrastructure of the early Anglo-Saxon local administration (or the
settlement of early kings or earls) was inherited from late Roman or Sub-Roman Britain.[127]

Distribution of settlements

There are a number of difficulties in recognising early Anglo-Saxon settlements as migrant settlers. This in
part is because most early rural Anglo-Saxon sites have yielded few finds other than pottery and bone. The
use of aerial photography does not yield easily identifiable settlements, partly due to the dispersed nature of
many of these settlements.[128]

The distribution of known settlements also remains elusive with few settlements found in the West
Midlands or North-West. Even in Kent, an area of rich early Anglo-Saxon archaeology, the number of
excavated settlements is fewer than expected. However, in contrast the counties of Northamptonshire,
Oxfordshire, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire are relatively rich in early settlements. These have revealed a
tendency for early Anglo-Saxon settlements to be on the light soils associated with river terraces.[128]

Many of the inland settlements are on rivers that had been major navigation routes during the Roman
era.[129][130] These sites, such as Dorchester on Thames on the upper Thames, were readily accessible by
the shallow-draught, clinker-built boats used by the Anglo-Saxons. The same is true of the settlements
along the rivers Ouse, Trent, Witham, Nene and along the marshy lower Thames. Less well known due to a
dearth of physical evidence but attested by surviving place names, there were Jutish settlements on the Isle
of Wight and the nearby southern coast of Hampshire.

A number of Anglo-Saxon settlements are located near or at Roman-era towns, but the question of
simultaneous town occupation by the Romano-Britons and a nearby Anglo-Saxon settlement (i.e.,
suggesting a relationship) is not confirmed. At Roman Caistor-by-Norwich, for example, recent analysis
suggests that the cemetery post-dates the town's virtual abandonment.[131]

Cemetery evidence

The earliest cemeteries that can be classified as Anglo-Saxon are

found in widely separate regions and are dated to the early 5th
century.[132] The exception is in Kent, where the density of
cemeteries and artefacts suggest either an exceptionally heavy
Anglo-Saxon settlement, or continued settlement beginning at an
early date, or both. By the late 5th century there were additional
Anglo-Saxon cemeteries, some of them adjacent to earlier ones,
but with a large expansion in other areas, and now including the
southern coast of Sussex.[133]

Up to the year 2000, roughly 10,000 early 'Anglo-Saxon'

cremations and inhumations had been found, exhibiting a large
degree of diversity in styles and types of mortuary ritual.[134] This
is consistent with evidence for many micro cultures and local Early cemeteries of possible Settler
practice. Cemetery evidence is still dominated by the material origin
culture: finds of clothes, jewellery, weapons, pots and personal
items; but physical and molecular evidence from skeletons, bones
and teeth are increasingly important.

Considering the early cemeteries of Kent, most relevant finds come from furnished graves with distinctive
links to the Continent. However, there are some unique items, these include pots and urns and especially
brooches,[135] an important element of female dress that functioned as a fastener, rather like a modern
safety pin. The style of brooches (called Quoits), is unique to southern England in the fifth century AD,
with the greatest concentration of such items occurring in Kent. Seiichi Suzuki defines the style through an
analysis of its design organisation, and, by comparing it with near-contemporary styles in Britain and on the
continent, identifying those features which make it unique. He suggests that the quoit brooch style was
made and remade as part of the process of construction of new group identities during the political
uncertainties of the time, and sets the development of the style in the context of the socio-cultural dynamics
of an emergent post-Roman society. The brooch shows that culture was not just transposed from the
continent, but from an early phase a new "Anglo-Saxon" culture was being developed.[135]

Women's fashions (native costumes not thought to have been trade goods), have been used to distinguish
and identify settlers,[136] supplemented by other finds that can be related to specific regions of the
Continent. A large number of Frankish artefacts have been found in Kent, and these are largely interpreted
to be a reflection of trade and commerce rather than early migration. Yorke (Wessex in the Early Middle
Ages, 1995), for example, only allows that some Frankish settlement is possible.[137] Frankish sea raiding
was recorded as early as 260[138] and became common for the next century, but their raids on Britain ended
c. 367[139] as Frankish interest turned southward and was thereafter focused on the control and occupation
of northern Gaul and Germania.

The presence of artefacts that are identifiably North Germanic along the coastal areas between the Humber
Estuary and East Anglia indicates that Scandinavians migrated to Britain.[140][141][142][143] However, this
does not suggest that they arrived at the same time as the Angles: they may have arrived almost a century
later,[143][144] and their status and influence upon arrival is uncertain. In particular, regarding a significant
Swedish influence in association with the Sutton Hoo ship and a Swedish origin for the East Anglian
Wuffinga dynasty, both possibilities are now considered uncertain.[145]
The process of mixing and assimilation of immigrant and native populations is virtually impossible to
elucidate with material culture, but the skeletal evidence may shed some light on it. The 7th/8th-century
average stature of male individuals in Anglo-Saxon cemeteries dropped by 15 mm (5 ⁄8 in) compared with
the 5th/6th-century average.[146] This development is most marked in Wessex where the average dropped
by 24 mm (1 in).[147] This drop is not easily explained by environmental changes; there is no evidence for
a change in diet in the 7th/8th centuries, nor is there any evidence of a further influx of immigrants at this
time. Given the lower average stature of Britons, the most likely explanation would be a gradual
Saxonisation or Anglicisation of the material culture of native enclaves, an increasing assimilation of native
populations into Anglo-Saxon communities, and increasing intermarriage between immigrants and natives
within Anglo-Saxon populations. Skeletal material from the Late Roman and Early Anglo-Saxon period
from Hampshire was directly compared. It was concluded that the physical type represented in urban
Roman burials, was not annihilated nor did it die-out, but it continued to be well represented in subsequent
burials of Anglo-Saxon date.[148]

At Stretton-on-Fosse II (Warwickshire), located on the western fringes of the early Anglo-Saxon settlement
area, the proportion of male adults with weapons is 82%, well above the average in southern England.
Cemetery II, the Anglo-Saxon burial site, is immediately adjacent to two Romano-British cemeteries,
Stretton-on-Fosse I and III, the latter only 60 metres (200 feet) away from Anglo-Saxon burials. Continuity
of the native female population at this site has been inferred from the continuity of textile techniques
(unusual in the transition from the Romano-British to the Anglo-Saxon periods), and by the continuity of
epigenetic traits from the Roman to the Anglo-Saxon burials. At the same time, the skeletal evidence
demonstrates the appearance in the post-Roman period of a new physical type of males who are more
slender and taller than the men in the adjacent Romano-British cemeteries.[149] Taken together, the
observations suggest the influx of a group of males, probably most or all of them Germanic, who took
control of the local community and married native women. It is not easy to confirm such cases of 'warband'
settlement in the absence of detailed skeletal, and other complementary, information, but assuming that such
cases are indicated by very high proportions of weapon burials, this type of settlement was much less
frequent than the kin group model.[5]

Nick Higham outlines the main questions:

"It is fairly clear that most Anglo-Saxon cemeteries are unrepresentative of the whole
population, and particularly the whole age range. This was, therefore, a community which
made decisions about the disposal of the dead based upon various factors, but at those we can
barely guess. Was the inclusion of some but not all individuals subject to political control, or
cultural screening? Was this a mark of ethnicity or did it represent a particular kinship, real or
constructed, or the adherents of a particular cult? Was it status specific, with the rural
proletariat – who would have been the vast majority of the population – perhaps excluded? So
are many of these cemeteries associated with specific, high-status households and weighted
particularly towards adult members? We do not know, but the commitment of particular parts
of the community to an imported and in some senses 'Germanic', cremation ritual does seem to
have been considerable, and is something which requires explanation."[150]

Molecular evidence
Researchers have employed various forms of molecular evidence to investigate the relative importance of
immigration, the acculturation of natives and inter-marriage in the creation of Anglo-Saxon England.

Y-chromosome evidence
The inheritance of gender-specific elements of the human genome allows the study of separate female-only
and male-only lineages, using mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome DNA, respectively.[151]
Mitochondrial DNA ("mtDNA") and Y-chromosome DNA differ from the DNA of diploid nuclear
chromosomes in that they are not formed from the combination of both parents' genes. Rather, males inherit
the Y-chromosome directly from their fathers, and both sexes inherit mtDNA directly from their mothers.
Consequently, they preserve a genetic record from person to descendant that is altered only through
mutation.

An examination of Y-chromosome variation,

sampled in an east–west transect across England
and Wales, was compared with similar samples
taken in Friesland (East and West Fresia). It was
selected for the study due to it being regarded as a
source of Anglo-Saxon migrants, and because of
the similarities between Old English and Frisian.
Samples from Norway were also selected, as this is
a source of the later Viking migrations. It found that
Map of Y-chromosome distribution from data derived
in England, in small population samples, 50% to
from "Y chromosome evidence for Anglo-Saxon mass
100% of paternal genetic inheritance was derived
migration" by Weale et al. (2002)
from people originating in the Germanic coastlands
of the North Sea.[152]

Other research, also published in 2003 taken from a larger sample population and from more UK
populations suggested that in southernmost England including Kent, continental (North German and
Danish) paternal genetic input ranged between 25% and 45%, with a mean of 37%. East Anglia, the East
Midlands, and Yorkshire all had over 50%. Across the latter much Viking settlement is attested. The study
could not distinguish between North German and Danish populations, thus the relative proportions of
genetic input derived from the Anglo-Saxon settlements and later Danish Viking colonisation could not be
ascertained.[153] The mean value of Germanic genetic input in this study was calculated at 54 percent.[154]

A paper by Thomas et al. developed an "apartheid-like social structure" theory to explain how a small
proportion of settlers could have made a larger contribution to the modern gene pool.[155] This view has
been criticized by JE Pattison, who suggested that the Y-chromosome evidence could still support the idea
of a small settlement of people without the apartheid-like structures.[156] It has been proposed, too, that the
genetic similarities between people on either side of the North Sea may reflect a cumulative process of
population movement, possibly beginning well before the historically attested formation of the Anglo-
Saxons or the invasions of the Vikings.[157] The 'apartheid theory' has received a considerable body of
critical comment, especially the genetic studies from which it derives its rationale. Problems with the design
of Weale's study and the level of historical naïvete evidenced by some population genetics studies have
been particularly highlighted.[158][159][160][161][162]

Stephen Oppenheimer reviewed the Weale and Capelli studies and suggested that correlations of gene
frequency mean nothing without a knowledge of the genetic prehistory of the regions in question. His
criticism of these studies is that they generated models based on the historical evidence of Gildas and
Procopius, and then selected methodologies to test against these populations. Weale's transect spotlights that
Belgium is further west in the genetic map than North Walsham, Asbourne and Friesland. In
Oppenheimer's view, this is evidence that the Belgae and other continental people – and hence continental
genetic markers indistinguishable from those ascribed to Anglo-Saxons – arrived earlier and were already
strong in the 5th century in particular regions or areas.[80] Oppenheimer, basing his research on the Weale
and Capelli studies, maintains that none of the invasions following the Romans have had a significant
impact on the gene pool of the British Isles, and that the inhabitants from prehistoric times belong to an
Iberian genetic grouping. He says that most people in the British Isles are genetically similar to the Basque
people of northern Spain and southwestern France, from 90% in Wales to 66% in East Anglia.[80]
Oppenheimer suggests that the division between the West and the East of England is not due to the Anglo-
Saxon invasion but originates with two main routes of genetic flow – one up the Atlantic coast, the other
from neighbouring areas of Continental Europe – which occurred just after the Last Glacial Maximum.[80]
Bryan Sykes, a former geneticist at Oxford University, came to fairly similar conclusions as Oppenheimer.

More recent work has challenged the theories of Oppenheimer and Sykes. David Reich's Harvard
laboratory found that over 90% of the British Neolithic population was overturned by the Bell Beaker
People from the Lower Rhine, who had little genetic relation to the Iberians or other southern
Europeans.[163] Modern autosomal genetic clustering is testament to this fact, as the British and Irish cluster
genetically very closely with other North European populations, rather than Iberians, Galicians, Basques or
those from the south of France.[164][165] Further, more recent research (see below) has broadly supported
the idea that genetic differences between the English and the Welsh have origins in the settlement of the
Anglo-Saxons rather than prehistoric migration events.

Ancient DNA, rare alleles and whole genome sequencing

Modern population studies

A major study in 2015 by Leslie et al. on "The fine scale genetic structure of the British population"
revealed regional patterns of genetic differentiation, with genetic clusters reflecting historical demographic
events and sometimes corresponding to the geographic boundaries of historical polities. Based on two
separate analyses, the study found clear evidence in modern England of the Anglo-Saxon migration and
identified the regions not carrying genetic material from these migrations. The authors argued that the
proportion of "Saxon" ancestry in Central/Southern England was probably in the range 10%–40%.
Additionally, in the "non-Saxon" parts of the UK they found various genetic subgroups rather than a
homogenous "Celtic" population.[166]

Ancient DNA studies

In 2016, through the investigation of burials in Cambridgeshire using ancient DNA techniques, researchers
found evidence of intermarriage in the earliest phase of Anglo-Saxon settlement. The highest status grave
of the burials investigated, as evidenced by the associated goods, was that of a female of local, British,
origins; two other women were of Anglo-Saxon origin, and another showed signs of mixed ancestry.
People of native, immigrant and mixed ancestry were buried in the same cemetery, with grave goods from
the same material culture, without any discernible distinction. The authors remark that their results run
contrary to previous theories that have postulated strict reproductive segregation between natives and
incomers. By studying rare alleles and employing whole genome sequencing, it was claimed that the
continental and insular origins of the ancient remains could be discriminated, and it was calculated that a
range of 25–40% of the ancestry of modern Britons is attributable to continental 'Anglo-Saxon' origins. The
breakdown of the estimates given in this work into the modern populations of Britain determined that the
population of eastern England is consistent with 38% Anglo-Saxon ancestry on average, with a large
spread from 25 to 50%, and the Welsh and Scottish samples are consistent with 30% Anglo-Saxon ancestry
on average, again with a large spread. The study also found that there is a small but significant difference
between the mean values in the three modern British sample groups, with East English samples sharing
slightly more alleles with the Dutch, and Scottish samples looking more like the Iron Age (Celtic)
samples.[167][168]
Another 2016 study analyzed nine ancient genomes of individuals from northern Britain, with seven from a
Roman-era cemetery in York, and the others from earlier Iron-Age and later Anglo-Saxon burials. Six of
the Roman genomes showed affinity with modern British Celtic populations, such as the Welsh, but were
significantly different from eastern English samples. They also were similar to the earlier Iron-Age genome,
suggesting population continuity, but differed from the later Anglo-Saxon genome, which was found to be
similar to the samples from East Anglia, as well as other Anglo-Saxon era burials in Cambridgeshire (see
above).[169] This pattern was found to support a profound impact of migrations in the Anglo-Saxon period.
The authors commented that the English population showed variation, with samples from the east and south
showing greater similarity with the Anglo-Saxon burials and those in the north and west being closer to the
Roman and Iron Age burials.[170]

A third study, focused on the genetics of Ireland, combined the ancient data from both of the preceding
studies and compared it to a large number of modern samples from across Britain and Ireland. This study
found that modern southern, central and eastern English populations were of "a predominantly Anglo-
Saxon-like ancestry", while those from northern and southwestern England had a greater degree of
indigenous origin.[171]

A major 2020 study, which used DNA from hundreds of Viking-era burials in various regions across
Europe, found that modern English samples showed a 38% genetic contribution on average from a native
British "North Atlantic" population and a 37% contribution from a Danish-like population. The researchers
estimated that up to 6% of the latter signature could have been derived from Danish Vikings, with the rest
being attributed to the Anglo-Saxons.[172]

Isotope analysis

Isotope analysis has begun to be employed to help answer the uncertainties regarding Anglo-Saxon
migration; this can indicate whether an individual had always lived near his burial location. However, such
studies cannot clearly distinguish ancestry. Thus, a descendant of migrants born in Britain would appear
indistinguishable from somebody of native British origin.[5]

Strontium data in a 5th–7th-century cemetery in West Heslerton implied the presence of two groups: one of
"local" and one of "nonlocal" origin. Although the study suggested that they could not define the limits of
local variation and identify immigrants with confidence, they could give a useful account of the issues.[173]
Oxygen and strontium isotope data in an early Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Wally Corner, Berinsfield in the
Upper Thames Valley, Oxfordshire, found only 5.3% of the sample originating from continental Europe,
supporting the hypothesis of acculturation. Furthermore, they found that there was no change in this pattern
over time, except amongst some females.[174] Another isotope test, conducted in 2018 from skeletons
found near Eastbourne in Sussex, concluded that neither the traditional invasion model nor the elite
acculturation model was applicable. The study found a large number of migrants, both male and female,
who seemed to be less wealthy than the natives. There was evidence of continued migration throughout the
early Anglo-Saxon period.[175]

Another isotopic method has been employed to investigate whether protein sources in human diets in the
early Anglo-Saxon varied with geographic location, or with respect to age or sex. This would provide
evidence for social advantage. The results suggest that protein sources varied little according to geographic
location and that terrestrial foods dominated at all locations.[176]

Criticism
Some scholars have questioned whether it is legitimate to conflate ethnic and cultural identity with patterns
highlighted by molecular evidence at all.[177][178][179] A 2018 editorial for Nature argued[180] that
simplistic use of this category of data risks resembling the 'Culture-History' model of archaeological
scholarship deployed in the early twentieth century, but which many present-day archaeologists consider to
be problematic: for example the question of whether "Germanic" peoples can be considered to have shared
any form of cultural or ethnic unity outside of their construction in Roman ethnography is far from settled,
with some scholars expressing doubt that "Germanic" peoples had any strong sense of cultural affinity
outside of speaking languages in the same language family.[181]

Migration and acculturation theories

Various scholars have used a synthesis of evidence to present
models to suggest an answer to the questions that surround the
Anglo-Saxon settlement. These questions include how many
migrants there were, when the Anglo-Saxons gained political
ascendency, and what happened to the Romano-British people in
the areas they took over. The later Anglo-Saxons were a mix of
invaders, migrants and acculturated indigenous people. The ratios
and relationships between these formative elements at the time of
the Anglo-Saxon settlement are the subject of enquiry. The
traditional interpretation of the settlement of Britain has been
subject to profound reappraisal, with scholars embracing the
evidence for both migration and acculturation. Heinrich Härke
Possible routes of Anglo-Saxon
explains the nature of this agreement:
migration in the 5th/6th centuries

It is now widely accepted that the Anglo-Saxons

were not just transplanted Germanic invaders and
settlers from the Continent, but the outcome of
insular interactions and changes. But we are still
lacking explicit models that suggest how this
ethnogenetic process might have worked in concrete
terms.[5]

Estimating continental migrants' numbers

Knowing the number of migrants who came from the continent provides a context from which scholars can
build an interpretation framework and understanding of the events of the 5th and 6th centuries. Robert
Hedges in discussing this point observes that "archaeological evidence only addresses these issues
indirectly."[182] The traditional methodology used by archaeology to estimate the number of migrants starts
with a figure for the population in Roman Britannia in the 3rd and 4th centuries. This is usually estimated at
between 2 and 4 million.[183] From this figure, Heinrich Härke and Michael Wood have argued that taking
into account declines associated with political collapses, the population of what was to become Anglo-
Saxon England had fallen to 1 million by the fifth century.[5][184]

Within 200 years of their first arrival, the settlement density has been established as an Anglo-Saxon village
every 2–5 kilometres (1.2–3.1 miles), in the areas where evidence has been gathered.[185] Given that these
settlements are typically of around 50 people, this implies an Anglo-Saxon population in southern and
eastern England of 250,000. The number of migrants therefore depends on the population increase variable.
If the population rose by 1 percent per year (slightly less than the present world population growth rate),
this would suggest a migrant figure of 30,000. However, if the population rose by 2 percent per year
(similar to India in the last 20 years), the migrant figure would be closer to 5,000.[182] The excavations at
Spong Hill revealed over 2,000 cremations and inhumations in what is a very large early cemetery.
However, when the period of use is taken into account (over 200 years) and its size, it is presumed to be a
major cemetery for the entire area and not just one village; such findings point to a smaller rather than larger
number of original immigrants, possibly around 20,000.[186]

Härke concluded that "most of the biological and cultural evidence points to a minority immigration on the
scale of 10 to 20% of the native population. The immigration itself was not a single 'invasion', but rather a
series of intrusions and immigrations over a considerable period, differing from region to region, and
changing over time even within regions. The total immigrant population may have numbered somewhere
between 100,000 and 200,000 over about a century, but the geographical variations in numbers, and in
social and ethnic composition, should have led to a variety of settlement processes."[5]

However, there is a discrepancy between, on the one hand, some archaeological and historical ideas about
the scale of the Anglo-Saxon immigration, and on the other, estimates of the genetic contribution of the
Anglo-Saxon immigrants to the modern English gene pool (see "Molecular evidence" above). Härke, Mark
Thomas and Michael Stumpf created a statistical study of those who held the "migrant" Y chromosomes
and those that didn't, and examined the effect of differential reproductive success between those groups,
coupled with limited intermarriage between the groups, on the spread of the genetic variant to discover
whether the levels of migration needed to meet a 50% contribution to the modern gene pool had been
attained. Their findings demonstrated that a genetic pool can rise from less than 5% to more than 50% in as
little as 200 years with the addition of a slight increase in reproduction advantage of 1.8 (meaning a ratio
51.8 to 50) and restricting the amount of female (migrant genes) and male (indigenous genes) inter-breeding
to at most 10%.[155]

Generally, however, the problems associated with seeking estimates for the population before AD 1089
were set out by Thomas, Stumpf and Härke, who write that "incidental reports of numbers of immigrants
are notoriously unreliable, and absolute numbers of immigrants before the Norman period can only be
calculated as a proportion of the estimated overall population."[187] Recent isotope and genetic
evidence[188][189] has suggested that migration continued over several centuries, possibly allowing for
significantly more new arrivals than has been previously thought.

Saxon political ascendancy in Britain

A re-evaluation of the traditional picture of decay and dissolution

in post-Roman Britain has occurred, with sub-Roman Britain
being thought to have been more a part of the Late Antique world
of western Europe than was customary a half century ago.[190]
As part of this re-evaluation some suggest that sub-Roman
Britain, in its entirety, retained a significant political, economic
and military momentum across the fifth century and even the bulk
of the sixth. This in large part stems from attempts to develop
visions of British success against the incoming Anglo-Saxons, as
suggested by the Chronicles which were written in the ninth and
mid-tenth century. However, recent scholarship has contested the
extent to which either can be credited with any level of historicity Probable areas for Saxon settler
regarding the decades around AD 500.[191] communities
The representation of long-lasting British triumphs against the Saxons appears in large parts of the
Chronicles, but stems ultimately from Gildas's brief and elusive reference to a British victory at Mons
Badonicus – Mount Badon (see historical evidence above). Nick Higham suggests that the war between
Britons and Saxons seems to have ended in some sort of compromise, which conceded a very considerable
sphere of influence within Britain to the incomers. Kenneth Dark, on the other hand, has argued for a
continuation of British political, cultural and military power well into the latter part of the sixth century,
even in the eastern part of the country. Dark's argument rests on the very uneven distribution of Anglo-
Saxon cemeteries and the proposition that large gaps in that distribution necessarily represent strong British
polities which excluded Anglo-Saxon settlers by force.[192] Cremation cemeteries in eastern Britain north
of the Thames begin during the second quarter of the fifth century,[193] backed up by new archaeological
phases before 450 (see Archaeological evidence above). The chronology of this "adventus" of cremations
is supported by the Gallic Chronicle of 452, which states that wide parts of Britain fell under Saxon rule in
441.

Romano-Britons' fate in the south-east

Multiple theories have been proposed as to the reason behind the invisibility of the Romano-Britons in the
archaeological and historical records of the Anglo-Saxon period.

One theory, first set out by Edward Augustus Freeman, suggests that the Anglo Saxons and the Britons
were competing cultures, and that through invasion, extermination, slavery, and forced resettlement the
Anglo-Saxons defeated the Britons and consequently their culture and language prevailed.[194]
This view
has influenced much of the scholarly and popular perceptions of the process of anglicisation in Britain. It
remains the starting point and 'default position', to which other hypotheses are compared in modern reviews
of the evidence.[195] Widespread extermination and displacement of the native peoples of Britain is still
considered a viable possibility by a number of scholars.[196][197][198] Such a view is broadly supported by
the linguistic and toponymic evidence, as well as the few primary sources from the time.

Another theory has challenged this view and proposes that the Anglo-Saxon migration was an elite
takeover, similar to the Norman Conquest, rather than a large-scale migration, and that the bulk of the
population was composed of Britons who adopted the culture of the conquerors. Bryan Ward-Perkins
argues that while "culturally, the later Anglo-Saxons and English did emerge as remarkably un-British, ...
their genetic, biological make-up is none the less likely to have been substantially, indeed predominantly,
British".[199] Within this theory, two processes leading to Anglo-Saxonisation have been proposed. One is
similar to culture changes observed in Russia, North Africa and parts of the Islamic world, where a
politically and socially powerful minority culture becomes, over a rather short period, adopted by a settled
majority. This process is usually termed 'elite dominance'.[200] The second process is explained through
incentives, such as the wergild outlined in the law code of Ine of Wessex. The wergild of an Englishman
was set at a value twice that of a Briton of similar wealth. However, some Britons could be very prosperous
and own five hides of land, which gave thegn-like status, with a wergild of 600 shillings.[201] Ine set down
requirements to prove guilt or innocence, both for his English subjects and for his British subjects, who
were termed 'foreigners/wealas' ('Welshmen').[202] The difference in status between the Anglo-Saxons and
Britons could have produced an incentive for a Briton to become Anglo-Saxon or at least English
speaking.[155]

While most scholars currently accept a degree of population continuity from the Roman period, this view
has not gone without criticism. Stefan Burmeister notes that "to all appearances, the settlement was carried
out by small, agriculturally-oriented kinship groups. This process corresponds most closely with a classic
settler model. The absence of early evidence of a socially demarcated elite underscores the supposition that
such an elite did not play a substantial role. Rich burials such as are well-known from Denmark have no
counterparts in England until the 6th century."[203] Richard Coates points out that linguistically, "the case
of the Britons in England appears consistent with the withdrawal of speakers of the previously dominant
language, rather than the assimilation of the dominant classes by the incomers."[204]

Several theories have been proposed by which numbers of native Britons could have been lowered without
resorting to violent means. There is linguistic and historical evidence for a significant movement of
Brittonic-speakers to Armorica, which became known as Brittany.[205][206] Meanwhile, it has been
speculated that plagues arriving through Roman trade links could have disproportionately affected the
Britons.[207][208][209]

Regional variation in settlement patterns

In recent years, scholars have sought to combine elements of the mass migration and elite dominance
models, emphasizing that no single explanation can be used to account for cultural change across the
entirety of England. Heinrich Härke writes that "the Anglo-Saxon migration [was] a process rather than an
event, with implications for variations of the process over time, resulting in chronological and geographical
diversity of immigrant groups, their origins, composition, sizes and settlement areas in Britain. These
variations are, to a certain extent, reported in the written sources."[5] According to Toby Martin, "Regional
variation may well provide the key to resolution, with something more akin to mass migration in the south-
east, gradually spreading into elite dominance in the north and west."[210] This view has support in the
toponymic evidence. In the southeastern counties of England, Brittonic place names are nearly nonexistent,
but moving north and west, they gradually increase in frequency.[211]

East Anglia has been identified by a number of scholars, including Härke, Martin, Catherine Hills and
Kenneth Dark, as a region in which a large-scale continental migration occurred,[5][212][213] possibly
following a period of depopulation in the fourth century.[214] Lincolnshire has also been cited by Hills and
Martin as a key center of early settlement from the continent.[212][213] Alexander Mirrington argues that in
Essex, the cultural change seen in the archaeological record is so complete that "a migration of a large
number of people is the most logical and least extreme solution."[215] In Kent, according to Sue Harrington
and Stuart Brookes, "the weight of archaeological evidence and that from literary sources favours
migrations" as the main reason for cultural change.[216]

Immigration into the area that was to become Wessex occurred from both the south coast and the Upper
Thames valley. The earlier, southern settlements may have been more prosaic than descriptions in the
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle imply. Jillian Hawkins suggests that powerful Romano-British trading ports around
the Solent were able to direct significant numbers of Germanic settlers inland into areas such as the Meon
valley, where they formed their own communities.[217] In areas that were settled from the Thames, different
processes may have been at play, with the Germanic immigrants holding a greater degree of power. Bruce
Eagles argues that the later population of areas such as Wiltshire would have included large numbers of
Britons who had adopted the culture of the socially dominant Saxons, while also noting that "it seems
reasonable to consider that there must have been sufficient numbers of widely dispersed immigrants to
bring about this situation in a relatively short space of time."[218]

In the northern kingdom of Bernicia, however, Härke states that "a small group of immigrants may have
replaced the native British elite and took over the kingdom as a going concern."[5] Linguist Frederik
Kortlandt agrees, commenting that in this region "there was a noticeable Celtic
contribution to art, culture
and possibly socio-military organization. It appears that
the immigrants took over the institutions of the local
population here."[219] In a study of place names in northeastern England and southern Scotland, Bethany
Fox concluded that the immigration that did occur in this region was centered on the river valleys, such as
those of the Tyne and the Tweed, with the Britons moving to the less fertile hill country and becoming
acculturated over a longer period.[220]
Aspects of the success of the Anglo-Saxon settlement
The reasons for the success of Anglo-Saxon settlements remain uncertain. Helena Hamerow has made an
observation that in Anglo-Saxon society "local and extended kin groups remained ... the essential unit of
production throughout the Anglo-Saxon period". "Local and extended kin groups" is one of a number of
possible reasons for success, along with societal advantages, freedom and the relationship to an elite, that
allowed the Anglo-Saxons' culture and language to flourish in the fifth and sixth centuries.[221]

Anglo-Saxon political formation

Nick Higham is convinced that the success of the Anglo-Saxon elite in gaining an early compromise
shortly after the Battle of Badon is a key to the success of the culture. This produced a political ascendancy
across the south and east of Britain, which in turn required some structure to be successful.[222]

The Bretwalda concept is taken as evidence for a presence of a number of early Anglo-Saxon elite families
and a clear unitary oversight. Whether the majority of these leaders were early settlers, descendant from
settlers, or especially after the exploration stage they were Roman-British leaders who adopted Anglo-
Saxon culture is unclear. The balance of opinion is that most were migrants, although it shouldn't be
assumed they were all Germanic. There is agreement that these were small in number and proportion, yet
large enough in power and influence to ensure "Anglo-Saxon" acculturation in the lowlands of Britain.[223]
Most historians believe these elites were those named by Bede, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and others,
although there is discussion regarding their floruit dates. Importantly, whatever their origin or when they
flourished, they established their claim to lordship through their links to extended kin ties. As Helen Geake
jokingly points out "they all just happened to be related back to Woden".[224]

The Tribal Hidage is evidence of the existence of numerous smaller provinces, meaning that southern and
eastern Britain may have lost any macro-political cohesion in the fifth and sixth centuries and fragmented
into many small autonomous units, though late Roman administrative organisation of the countryside may
have helped dictate their boundaries. By the end of the sixth century the leaders of these communities were
styling themselves kings, with the majority of the larger kingdoms based on the south or east coasts.[225]
They include the provinces of the Jutes of Hampshire and Wight, the South Saxons, Kent, the East Saxons,
East Angles, Lindsey and (north of the Humber) Deira and Bernicia. Several of these kingdoms may have
their foundation the former Roman civitas and this has been argued as particularly likely for the provinces
of Kent, Lindsey, Deira and Bernicia, all of whose names derive from Romano-British tribal or district
names.[35]

The southern and east coasts were, of course, the areas settled first and in greatest numbers by the settlers
and so presumably were the earliest to pass from Romano-British to Anglo-Saxon control. Once
established they had the advantage of easy communication with continental territories in Europe via the
North Sea or the Channel. The east and south coast provinces may never have fragmented to the extent of
some areas inland and by the end of the sixth century they were already beginning to expand by annexing
smaller neighbours. Barbara Yorke suggests that such aggressiveness must have encouraged areas which
did not already possess military protection in the form of kings and their armies to acquire their own war-
leaders or protection alliances.[105] By the time of the Tribal Hidage there were also two large 'inland'
kingdoms, those of the Mercians and West Saxons, whose spectacular growth we can trace in par in our
sources for the seventh century, but it is not clear how far this expansion had proceeded by the end of the
sixth century.[225]

What Bede seems to imply in his Bretwalda list of the elite is the ability to extract tribute and overawe
and/or protect communities, which may well have been relatively short-lived in any one instance, but
ostensibly "Anglo-Saxon" dynasties variously replaced one another in this role in a discontinuous but
influential and potent roll call of warrior elites, with very few interruptions from other "British"
warlords.[226] The success of this elite was felt beyond their geography, to include neighbouring British
territories in the centre and west of what later became England, and even the far west of the island. Again,
Bede was very clear that English imperium could on occasion encompass British and English kingships
alike,[227] and that Britons and Angles marched to war together in the early seventh century, under both
British and English kings.[228] It is Bede who provides the most vivid picture of a late sixth- and early
seventh-century Anglian warlord in action, in the person of Æthelfrith of Northumbria, King of Bernicia (a
kingdom with a non-English name), who rapidly built up a personal 'empire' by military victories over the
Britons of the North, the Scots of Dalriada, the Angles of Deira and the Britons of north-eastern Wales,
only ultimately to experience disaster at the hands of Rædwald of East Anglia.[229]

Rural freedoms and kinship groups

Where arable cultivation continued in early Anglo-Saxon England, there seems to have been considerable
continuity with the Roman period in both field layout and arable practices, although we do not know
whether there were also changes to patterns of tenure or the regulation of cultivation. The greatest
perceptible alterations in land usage between about AD 400 and 600 are therefore in the proportions of the
land of each community that lay under grass or the plough, rather than in changes to the layout or
management of arable fields.[118]

The Anglo-Saxons settled in small groups covering a handful of widely dispersed local communities.[230]
These farms were for the most part mobile. This mobility, which was typical across much of Northern
Europe took two forms: the gradual shifting of the settlement within its boundaries or the complete
relocation of the settlement. These shifting settlements (called Wandersiedlungen or "wandering
settlements") were a common feature since the Bronze Age. Why farms became abandoned and then
relocated is much debated. However it is suggested that this might be related to the death of a patron of the
family or the desire to move to better farmlands.[231]

These farms are often falsely supposed to be "peasant farms". However, a ceorl, who was the lowest
ranking freeman in early Anglo-Saxon society, was not a peasant but an arms-owning male with access to
law, support of a kindred and the wergild, situated at the apex of an extended household working at least
one hide of land. It is the ceorl that we should associate with the standard 8–10 metres (26–33 feet) x 4–5
metres (13–16 feet) post-hole building of the early Anglo-Saxon period, grouped with others of the same
kin group. Each such household head had a number of less-free dependants and slaves.[232]

The success of the rural world in the 5th and 6th centuries, according to the landscape archaeology, was
due to three factors: the continuity with the past, with no evidence of up-rooting in the landscape; farmers'
freedom and rights over lands, with provision of a rent or duty to an overlord, who provided only slight
lordly input; and the common outfield arable land (of an outfield-infield system) that provided the ability to
build kinship and group cultural ties.

Material culture

The origins of the timber building tradition seen in early Anglo-Saxon England have generated much
debate which has mirrored a wider debate about the cultural affinities of Anglo-Saxon material culture.

Philip Rahtz asserted that buildings seen in West Stow and Mucking had late Roman origins.[233]
Archaeologist Philip Dixon noted the striking similarity between Anglo-Saxon timber halls and Romano-
British rural houses. The Anglo-Saxons did not import the 'long-house', the traditional dwelling of the
continental Germanic peoples, to Britain. Instead they upheld a local vernacular British building tradition
dating back to the late first century. This has been interpreted
as evidence of the endurance of kinship and household
structures from the Roman into the Anglo-Saxon
period.[234][235]

However, this has been considered too neat an explanation

for all the evidence. Anne and Gary Marshall summarise the
situation:

"One of the main problems in Anglo-Saxon A type of Anglo-Saxon building called a

archaeology has been to account for the Grubenhaus
apparent uniqueness of the English timber
structures of the period. These structures seem to
bear little resemblance either to earlier Romano-
British or to continental models. In essence, the
problem is that the hybrid Anglo-Saxon style
seems to appear full-blown with no examples of
development from the two potentially ancestral
traditions  ... The consensus of the published
work was that the Anglo-Saxon building style
was predominantly home-grown."[236]

In the Sutton Hoo burial, perhaps that of the East Anglian king Raedwald, a long and complex iron chain,
used for suspending a cauldron from the beams of a hall, was found. It was the product of a continuous
British smithing tradition dating to pre-Roman times. This was, however, a high-status object.[237]

For Bryan Ward-Perkins the answer to the relative lack of native influence on everyday objects is found in
the success of the Anglo-Saxon culture and highlights the micro-diversity and larger cohesion that
produced a dynamic force in comparison to the Brittonic culture.[200] From beads and quoits to clothes and
houses, there is something unique happening in the early Anglo-Saxon period. The material culture
evidence shows that people adopted and adapted styles based on set roles and styles. John Hines,
commenting on the diversity of nearly a thousand glass beads and many different clothes clasps from
Lakenheath, states that these reveal a "society where people relied on others to fulfill a role" and "what they
had around them was making a statement", not one about the individual, but about "identity between small
groups not within small groups".[238]

Julian Richards commenting on this and other evidence suggests:

"[The Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain] was more complex than a mass invasion bringing
fully formed lifestyles and beliefs. The early Anglo-Saxon, just like today's migrants, were
probably riding different cultural identities. They brought from their homelands the traditions
of their ancestors. But they would have been trying to work out not only who they were, but
who they wanted to be ... and forge an identity for those who followed."[239]

Looking beyond simplistic 'homeland' scenarios, and explaining the observations that 'Anglo-Saxon'
houses and other aspects of material culture do not find exact matches in the 'Germanic homelands' in
Europe, Halsall explains the changes within the context of a larger 'North Sea interaction zone', including
lowland England, Northern Gaul and northern Germany. These areas experienced marked social and
cultural changes in the wake of Roman collapse—experienced not only within the former Roman provinces
(Gaul, Britain) but also in Barbaricum itself. All three areas experienced changes in social structure,
settlement patterns and ways of expressing identities, as well as tensions which created push and pull
factors for migrations in, perhaps, multiple directions.[240]

Culture of belief

The study of pagan religious practice in the early Anglo-Saxon period is difficult. Most of the texts that
may contain relevant information are not contemporary, but written later by Christian writers who tended to
have a hostile attitude to pre-Christian beliefs, and who may have distorted their portrayal of them. Much of
the information used to reconstruct Anglo-Saxon paganism comes from later Scandinavian and Icelandic
texts and there is a debate about how relevant these are. The study of pagan Anglo-Saxon beliefs has often
been approached with reference to Roman or even Greek typologies and categories. Archaeologists
therefore use such terms as gods, myths, temples, sanctuaries, priests, magic and cults. Charlotte Behr
argues that this provides a worldview of Anglo-Saxon practice culture which is unhelpful.[241]

Peter Brown employed a new method of looking at the belief systems of the fifth to seventh centuries, by
arguing for a model of religion which was typified by a pick and choose approach. The period was
exceptional because there was no orthodoxy or institutions to control or hinder the people. This freedom of
culture is seen also in the Roman-British community and is very evident in the complaints of Gildas.[242]

One Anglo-Saxon cultural practice that is better understood are the burial customs, due in part to
archaeological excavations at various sites including Sutton Hoo, Spong Hill, Prittlewell, Snape and
Walkington Wold, and the existence of around 1,200 pagan (or non-Christian) cemeteries. There was no set
form of burial, with cremation being preferred in the north and inhumation in the south, although both
forms were found throughout England, sometimes in the same cemeteries. When cremation did take place,
the ashes were usually placed within an urn and then buried, sometimes along with grave goods.[243]
According to archaeologist Dave Wilson, "the usual orientation for an inhumation in a pagan Anglo-Saxon
cemetery was west–east, with the head to the west, although there were often deviations from this."[244]
Indicative of possible religious belief, grave goods were common amongst inhumation burials as well as
cremations; free Anglo-Saxon men were buried with at least one weapon in the pagan tradition, often a
seax, but sometimes also with a spear, sword or shield, or a combination of these.[243] There are also a
number of recorded cases of parts of animals being buried within such graves. Most common amongst
these were body parts belonging to either goats or sheep, although parts of oxen were also relatively
common, and there are also isolated cases of goose, crab apples, duck eggs and hazelnuts being buried in
graves. It is widely thought therefore that such items constituted a food source for the deceased.[245] In
some cases, animal skulls, particularly oxen but also pig, were buried in human graves, a practice that was
also found earlier in Roman Britain.[243]

There is also evidence for the continuation of Christianity in south and east Britain. The Christian shrine at
St Albans and its martyr cult survived throughout the period (see Gildas above). There are references in
Anglo-Saxon poetry, including Beowulf, that show some interaction between pagan and Christian practices
and values. While there is little scholarly focus on this subject, there is enough evidence from Gildas and
elsewhere that it is safe to assume some continuing – perhaps more free – form of Christianity survived.
Richard Whinder states "(The Church's pre-Augustine) characteristics place it in continuity with the rest of
the Christian Church in Europe at that time and, indeed, in continuity with the Catholic faith ... today."[246]

Anglo-Saxon paganism was folk-based, centred on the individual and the community; it was not dependant
on faith, but on ritual. The rituals were intended to bring benefits to, or to avert disaster from, the celebrants.
As kingship developed, conversion to Christianity proved an attractive way for leaders to directly influence
religion, with a priestly class under their immediate sponsorship. It is evident that the process of
Christianisation was a 'top down' phenomenon, driven by kings.[247]
Language and literature

Little is known about the everyday spoken language of people living in the migration period. Old English is
a contact language and reconstructing the pidgin used in this period from the written language found in the
West Saxon literature of some 400 years later is difficult. Two general theories are proposed regarding why
people changed their language to Old English (or an early form of such); either a person or household
changed so as to serve an elite, or a person or household changed through choice as it provided some
advantage economically or legally.[248]

According to Nick Higham, the adoption of the language—as well as the material culture and traditions—
of an Anglo-Saxon elite, "by large numbers of the local people seeking to improve their status within the
social structure, and undertaking for this purpose rigorous acculturation", is the key to understanding the
transition from Romano-British to Anglo-Saxon. The progressive nature of this language acquisition, and
the 'retrospective reworking' of kinship ties to the dominant group led, ultimately, to the "myths which tied
the entire society to immigration as an explanation of their origins in Britain".[249]

The final few lines of the poem "The Battle of Brunanburh", a 10th-century Anglo-Saxon poem that
celebrates a victory of Æthelstan, the first king of all the English, give a poetic voice to the English
conception of their origins.[250]

Old English Modern English

...Engle and Seaxe upp becomon, ...Angles and Saxons came up

of[v]er brad brimu Britene sohton, over the broad sea. Britain they sought,
wlance wig-smithas, Wealas[ʃ] of[v]ercomon, Proud war-smiths who overcame the Welsh,
eorlas[ʃ] ar-hwaete eard[ð/θ] begeaton. glorious warriors they took hold of the land.

The orthography chosen by the scribe lacked v, ð/θ and ʃ, these are marked in square
brackets after the ambiguous letter chosen.

This 'heroic tradition' of conquering incomers is consistent with the conviction of Bede, and later Anglo-
Saxon historians, that the ancestral origin of the English was not the result of any assimilation with the
native British, but was derived solely from the Germanic migrants of the post-Roman period. It also
explains the enduring appeal of poems and heroic stories such as Beowulf, Wulf and Eadwacer and Judith,
well into the Christian period. The success of the language is the most obvious result of the settlement
period. This language was not just the language of acculturation, but through its stories, poetry and oral
traditions became the agency of change.[251]

Nick Higham has provided this summary of the processes:

"As Bede later implied, language was a key indicator of ethnicity in early England. In
circumstances where freedom at law, acceptance with the kindred, access to patronage, and the
use or possession of weapons were all exclusive to those who could claim Germanic descent,
then speaking Old English without Latin or Brittonic inflection had considerable value."[252]

See also
History of Anglo-Saxon England – History of England from the 5th to the 11th centuries
 Timeline of conflict in Anglo-Saxon Britain – Timeline from 4th to 11th centuries
History of England – Historical development of England
Romano-British culture – Pre-Saxon England
Modern immigration to the United Kingdom – Immigration to the United Kingdom since the
independence of Ireland in 1922

Notes
a. A sample of this discussion can be seen on the television series Britain AD: King Arthur's
Britain, particularly the discussion between Francis Pryor and Heinrich Härke.[2]
b. Based on Jones & Mattingly's Atlas of Roman Britain (ISBN 978-1-84217-067-0, 1990,
reprinted 2007); Mattingly's Imperial Possession (ISBN 978-0-14-014822-0, 2006); Higham's
Rome, Britain, and the Anglo-Saxons (ISBN 1-85264-022-7, 1992); Frere's Britannia
(ISBN 0-7102-1215-1, 1987); and Snyder's An Age of Tyrants (ISBN 978-0-631-22260-6) —
the sources are cited in the image legend — Locations of towns (fortified and unfortified) are
given on p. 156, with tribal civitates and coloniae specified on p. 154, of Atlas of Roman
Britain. Specification of the Romanised regions of Britain are also from the Atlas, p. 151. The
"Departure Dates" are found in the cited sources, and are generally known. The Pictish,
Saxon, and Scoti raids are found in the cited sources, as is the date of the Irish settlements
in Wales. Frere suggests (p. 355) that it was the Irish who sacked Wroxeter c. 383. The
locations of the Irish settlements is from the locations of inscription stones given in
File:Britain.Deisi.Laigin.jpg as of 2010-10-11, which cites its sources of information.
c. Throughout this article Anglo-Saxon is used for Saxon, Angles, Jute or Frisian unless it is
specific to a point being made; Anglo-Saxon is used when specifically the culture is meant
rather than any ethnicity. However, all these terms are interchangeably used by scholars
d. By the waning years of the Roman Empire, Britain was earning a special reputation as a
"province fertile with tyrants". These tyrants dominate the historical accounts of the fifth and
sixth centuries and the work tells us much about the transition from magisterial to
monarchical power in Britain.
e. The phrase which mentions 40 years has been subject of much scholarly discussion. See
Battle of Badon for more details.
f. From patrius ("of or pertaining to a father"), from pater ("father"), and (understanding "terra")
the ordinary word for one's native country or home, used extensively by Cicero, Virgil,
Lucretius and many authors (Lewis and Short, Latin-English Lexicon, s.v.).

Citations
1. Lothian in modern Scotland was also anglicised in this period, following the conquest of the
British 'kingdom' of Manau Gododdin. It formed part of the Anglian kingdoms of Bernicia and
Northumbria, only becoming a part of Scotland as late as 1018, when a recent Scottish
annexation was recognised by the English. See: Fry, P.S. and Mitchison, R. (1985) The
History of Scotland, Routledge, p. 48
2. Channel 4 2004, Episode 3 Britain AD: King Arthur's Britain.
3. Higham & Ryan 2013:104–105
4. Brugmann, B. Migration and Endogenous Change in The Oxford Handbook of Anglo-Saxon
Archaeology (2011), Hamerow, H., Hinton, D.A. and Crawford, S. (eds.), OUP Oxford, pp.
30–45
 5. Härke, Heinrich (2011). "Anglo-Saxon Immigration and Ethnogenesis". Medieval
Archaeology. 55 (1): 1–28. doi:10.1179/174581711X13103897378311 (https://doi.org/10.11
79%2F174581711X13103897378311). S2CID 162331501 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/
CorpusID:162331501).
6. P. Salway, Roman Britain (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1981), pp. 295–311, 318, 322,
349, 356, 380, 401–5
7. S. S. Frere, Verulamium Excavations, II (London, Society of Antiquaries, 1983).
8. M. G. Fulford, 'Excavations on the sites of the amphitheatre and forum-basilica at Silchester,
Hampshire: an interim report', Antiquaries Journal, 65, 1985, pp. 39–81; Fulford, Guide to the
Silchester excavations: the Forum basilica 1982–4 (Reading, Department of Archaeology,
University of Reading, 1985); Fulford, The Silchester amphitheatre: excavations of 1979–85
(London, Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies, 1989).
9. P. Barker et al., The Baths Basilica, Wroxeter: Excavations 1966–90 (London, English
Heritage Archaeological Reports 8, 1997). The general point of urban decline is made by A.
Woolf, 'The Britons', in Regna and Gentes: The Relationship between Late Antique and
Early Medieval Peoples and Kingdoms in the Transformation of the Roman World, eds H.-W.
Goetz, J. Jarnut and W. Pohl (Leiden, Brill, 2003), pp. 362–3
10. A. B. E. Hood (ed. and trans.), St. Patrick: His Writings and Muirchu's Life (Chichester,
Phillimore, 1978); M. Winterbottom (ed. and trans.), Gildas: The Ruin of Britain and other
works (Chichester, Phillimore, 1978). Neither text is securely dated, but both are clearly post-
Roman and Patrick at least is generally assumed to be a fifth-century author. For the dating
of Gildas, see variously D. N. Dumville The Chronology of De Excidio Britanniae, Book I, in
Gildas: New Approaches, eds M. Lapidge and D. N. Dumville (Woodbridge, Boydell and
Brewer, 1984), pp. 61–84; N. J. Higham, The English Conquest: Gildas and Britain in the
Fifth Century (Manchester, Manchester University Press, 1994), pp. 118–45.
11. Higham & Ryan 2013:7"The Anglo-Saxon World"
12. Jones & Casey 1988:367–98 "The Gallic Chronicle Restored: a Chronology for the Anglo-
Saxon Invasions and the End of Roman Britain"
13. Miller, Molly (1978): The Last British Entry in the 'Gallic Chronicles', in: Britannia 9, pp. 315–
318.
14. Wood 1984, p. 19.
15. Jones, Michael E. (1998). The End of Roman Britain (https://books.google.com/books?id=hB
Nr765THaIC&q=%5B%5BProcopius%5D%5D%20states%20that%20Britain%20was%20se
ttled%20by%20three%20nations%3A&pg=PA54). Cornell University Press. p. 54.
ISBN 978-0-8014-8530-5. Retrieved 1 March 2020.
16. Dewing, H B (1962). Procopius: History of the Wars Books VII and VIII with an English
Translation (https://web.archive.org/web/20200303224542/https://eclass.uoa.gr/modules/doc
ument/file.php/SLAVSTUD182/Procopius%20Wars%20Books%20VII.36-VIII.pdf) (PDF).
Harvard University Press. pp. 252–255. Archived from the original (https://eclass.uoa.gr/mod
ules/document/file.php/SLAVSTUD182/Procopius%20Wars%20Books%20VII.36-VIII.pdf)
(PDF) on 3 March 2020. Retrieved 1 March 2020.
17. Snyder 1998, Age of Tyrants.
18. Winterbottom, M. (1978), De Excidio britanniae, Chichester The standard modern edition
and translation.
19. Higham, Nick (1995). An English Empire: Bede and the Early Anglo-Saxon Kings (https://bo
oks.google.com/books?id=jv68AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA2). Manchester University Press. p. 2.
ISBN 9780719044243.
20. Heather, Peter J., and P. J. Heather. Goths and Romans, 332–489. Clarendon Press, 1991.
21. Snyder 1998:Chapter 5, Age of Tyrants
22. Daniell, Christopher. "The geographical perspective of Gildas." Britannia 25 (1994): 213–
217.
23. Snyder 1998:85
24. De Excidio XXI, 1, Winterbottom, Gildas, p. 24.
25. De Excidio I, 5, Winterbottom, Gildas, pp. 13–14.
26. Winterbottom, M. (1978), De Excidio britanniae, Chichester The standard modern edition
and translation. Chapter 27
27. Giles 1843a:72–73, Bede's Ecclesiastical History, Bk I, Ch 15.
28. Brugmann, B. I. R. T. E. "Migration and endogenous change." The Oxford Handbook of
Anglo-Saxon Archaeology (2011): 30–45.
29. Giles 1843a:72–73, Bede's Ecclesiastical History, Bk 2, Ch 5.
30. Keynes, Simon. "England, 700–900." The New Cambridge Medieval History 2 (1995): 18–
42.
31. See Coates 2007 for such a view
32. McKinney, Windy A. "Creating a gens Anglorum: Social and Ethnic Identity in Anglo-Saxon
England through the Lens of Bede's Historia Ecclesiastica." (2011).
33. Davies, Wendy & Hayo Vierck – The Contexts of the Tribal Hidage: Social Aggregates and
Settlement Patterns, Frühmittelalterliche Studien 8, 1974
34. Dumville, D.N. (1986) 'The West Saxon Genealogical Regnal List: manuscripts and texts', in
Anglia 104, 1–32
35. Laycock, Stuart. Britannia – The Failed State: Tribal Conflict and the End of Roman Britain.
History Press, 2012.
36. Kooper, Erik, ed. The Medieval Chronicle II: Proceedings of the 2nd International
Conference on the Medieval Chronicle, Driebergen/Utrecht 16–21 July 1999. Vol. 144.
Rodopi, 2002. p167
37. Kenneth Hurlstone Jackson, Language and History in Early Britain: A Chronological Survey
of the Brittonic Languages, First to Twelfth Century A.D., Edinburgh University Publications,
Language and Literature, 4 (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1953), p. 220.
38. Map by Alaric Hall, first published here [1] (http://www.heroicage.org/issues/10/placenames/f
rames.htm) as part of Bethany Fox, 'The P-Celtic Place-Names of North-East England and
South-East Scotland (http://www.heroicage.org/issues/10/fox.html)', The Heroic Age, 10
(2007).
39. Cf. Hans Frede Nielsen, The Continental Backgrounds of English and its Insular
Development until 1154 (Odense, 1998), pp. 77–9; Peter Trudgill, New-Dialect Formation:
The Inevitability of Colonial Englishes (Edinburgh, 2004), p. 11.
40. Ward-Perkins, 'Why did the Anglo-Saxons', 258, suggested that the successful native
resistance of local, militarised tribal societies to the invaders may perhaps account for the
fact of the slow progress of Anglo-Saxonisation as opposed to the sweeping conquest of
Gaul by the Franks.
41. Chris Wickham, Framing the Early Middle Ages: Europe and the Mediterranean 400–800
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), p. 311-12.
42. Hills C.M. (2013). Anglo-Saxon Migrations. The Encyclopedia of Global Human Migration.
Wiley-Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781444351071.wbeghm029 (https://doi.org/10.1002%2F978
1444351071.wbeghm029).
43. Kastovsky, Dieter, 'Semantics and Vocabulary', in The Cambridge History of the English
Language, Volume 1: The Beginnings to 1066, ed. by Richard M. Hogg (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 290–408 (pp. 301–20).
44. Matthew Townend, 'Contacts and Conflicts: Latin, Norse, and French', in The Oxford History
of English, ed. by Lynda Mugglestone, rev. edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), pp.
75–105 (pp. 78–80).
45. A. Wollmann, 'Lateinisch-Altenglische Lehnbeziehungen im 5. und 6. Jahrhundert', in Britain
400–600, ed. by A. Bammesberger and A. Wollmann, Anglistische Forschungen, 205
(Heidelberg: Winter, 1990), pp. 373–96.
46. Nicholas J. Higham and Martin J. Ryan, The Anglo-Saxon World (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 2013), pp. 99–101.
47. E.g. Richard Coates and Andrew Breeze, Celtic Voices, English Places: Studies of the
Celtic impact on place-names in Britain(Stamford: Tyas, 2000).
48. Nicholas J. Higham and Martin J. Ryan, The Anglo-Saxon World (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 2013), pp. 98–101.
49. D. Hooke, 'The Anglo-Saxons in England in the seventh and eighth centuries: aspects of
location in space', in The Anglo-Saxons from the Migration Period to the Eighth Century: an
Ethnographic Perspective, ed. by J. Hines (Woodbridge: Boydell, 1997), 64–99 (p. 68).
50. O. J. Padel. 2007. "Place-names and the Saxon conquest of Devon and Cornwall." In
Britons in Anglo-Saxon England [Publications of the Manchester Centre for Anglo-Saxon
Studies 7], N. J. Higham (ed.), 215–230. Woodbridge: Boydell.
51. R. Coates. 2007. "Invisible Britons: The view from linguistics." In Britons in Anglo-Saxon
England [Publications of the Manchester Centre for Anglo-Saxon Studies 7], N. J. Higham
(ed.), 172–191. Woodbridge: Boydell.
52. Peter Schrijver, Language Contact and the Origins of the Germanic Languages, Routledge
Studies in Linguistics, 13 (New York: Routledge, 2014), quoting p. 16.
53. D. Gary Miller, External Influences on English: From Its Beginnings to the Renaissance
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), pp. 35–40).
54. Kastovsky, Dieter, 'Semantics and Vocabulary', in The Cambridge History of the English
Language, Volume 1: The Beginnings to 1066, ed. by Richard M. Hogg (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 290–408 (pp. 317–18).
55. Chris Wickham, The Inheritance of Rome: A History of Europe from 400 to 1000 (London:
Allen Lane, 2009), p. 157.
56. Quoting Matthew Townend, 'Contacts and Conflicts: Latin, Norse, and French', in The Oxford
History of English, ed. by Lynda Mugglestone, rev. edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2012), pp. 75–105 (p. 80).
57. Alaric Hall, 'The Instability of Place-names in Anglo-Saxon England and Early Medieval
Wales, and the Loss of Roman Toponymy (https://www.academia.edu/2977260)', in Sense of
Place in Anglo-Saxon England, ed. by Richard Jones and Sarah Semple (Donington: Tyas,
2012), pp. 101–29 (pp. 102–3).
58. Pryor 2005 Pryor, Francis. Britain AD: A Quest for Arthur, England and the Anglo-Saxons.
HarperCollins UK, 2009.
59. D. Gary Miller, External Influences on English: From Its Beginnings to the Renaissance
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), pp. 35–40.
60. Nicholas J. Higham and Martin J. Ryan, The Anglo-Saxon World (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 2013), pp. 97–99.
61. Quoting Nicholas J. Higham and Martin J. Ryan, The Anglo-Saxon World (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 2013), p. 99.
62. Alaric Hall, 'The Instability of Place-names in Anglo-Saxon England and Early Medieval
Wales, and the Loss of Roman Toponymy (https://www.academia.edu/2977260)', in Sense of
Place in Anglo-Saxon England, ed. by Richard Jones and Sarah Semple (Donington: Tyas,
2012), pp. 101–29 (pp. 112–13).
63. Higham and Ryan (2013), p. 100.
64. Smith, C. 1980. "The survival of Romano-British toponymy." Nomina 4: 27–40.
65. Carole Hough. 2004. The (non?)-survival of Romano-British toponymy. Neuphilologische
Mitteilungen 105:25–32.
66. Bethany Fox, 'The P-Celtic Place-Names of North-East England and South-East Scotland (h
ttp://www.heroicage.org/issues/10/fox.html)', The Heroic Age, 10 (2007), §23.
67. Alaric Hall, 'A gente Anglorum appellatur: The Evidence of Bede's Historia ecclesiastica
gentis Anglorum for the Replacement of Roman Names by English Ones During the Early
Anglo-Saxon Period (https://www.academia.edu/821750)', in Words in Dictionaries and
History: Essays in Honour of R. W. McConchie, ed. by Olga Timofeeva and Tanja Säily,
Terminology and Lexicography Research and Practice, 14 (Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2011),
pp. 219–31.
68. Barrie Cox, 'The Place-Names of the Earliest English Records', Journal of the English
Place-Name Society, 8 (1975–76), 12–66.
69. Alaric Hall, 'The Instability of Place-names in Anglo-Saxon England and Early Medieval
Wales, and the Loss of Roman Toponymy (https://www.academia.edu/2977260)', in Sense of
Place in Anglo-Saxon England, ed. by Richard Jones and Sarah Semple (Donington: Tyas,
2012), pp. 101–29 (pp. 108–9).
70. Nicholas J. Higham and Martin J. Ryan, The Anglo-Saxon World (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 2013), pp. 100–101.
71. Filppula, Markku, and Juhani Klemola, eds. 2009. Re-evaluating the Celtic Hypothesis.
Special issue of English Language and Linguistics 13.2.
72. The Celtic Roots of English, ed. by Markku Filppula, Juhani Klemola and Heli Pitkänen,
Studies in Languages, 37 (Joensuu: University of Joensuu, Faculty of Humanities, 2002).
73. Hildegard L. C. Von Tristram (ed.), The Celtic Englishes, Anglistische Forschungen 247,
286, 324, 3 vols (Heidelberg: Winter, 1997–2003).
74. Peter Schrijver, Language Contact and the Origins of the Germanic Languages, Routledge
Studies in Linguistics, 13 (New York: Routledge, 2014), pp. 12–93.
75. Poussa, Patricia. 1990. 'A Contact-Universals Origin for Periphrastic Do, with Special
Consideration of OE-Celtic Contact'. In Papers from the Fifth International Conference on
English Historical Linguistics, ed. Sylvia Adamson, Vivien Law, Nigel Vincent, and Susan
Wright, 407–34. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
76. Paul Russell, 'Latin and British in Roman and Post-Roman Britain: methodology and
morphology', Transactions of the Royal Philological Society, 109.2 (July 2011), 138–57.
77. Peter Schrijver, Language Contact and the Origins of the Germanic Languages, Routledge
Studies in Linguistics, 13 (New York: Routledge, 2014), pp. 31–91.
78. D. Gary Miller, External Influences on English: From Its Beginnings to the Renaissance
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), pp. 25–28.
79. Quoting D. Gary Miller, External Influences on English: From Its Beginnings to the
Renaissance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), pp. 35–40 (p. 39).
80. Oppenheimer, Stephen (2006). The Origins of the British: A Genetic Detective Story:
Constable and Robinson, London. ISBN 978-1-84529-158-7.
81. Alaric Hall, 'A gente Anglorum appellatur: The Evidence of Bede's Historia ecclesiastica
gentis Anglorum for the Replacement of Roman Names by English Ones During the Early
Anglo-Saxon Period (https://www.academia.edu/821750)', in Words in Dictionaries and
History: Essays in Honour of R. W. McConchie, ed. by Olga Timofeeva and Tanja Säily,
Terminology and Lexicography Research and Practice, 14 (Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2011),
pp. 219–31 (pp. 220–21).
82. Myres, J.N.L. (1989) The English Settlements. Oxford University Press, pp. 146–147
 83. Parsons, D. (1997) British *Caraticos, Old English Cerdic, Cambrian Medieval Celtic
Studies, 33, pp, 1–8.
84. Koch, J.T., (2006) Celtic Culture: A Historical Encyclopedia, ABC-CLIO, ISBN 1-85109-440-
7, pp. 392–393.
85. Ward-Perkins, B., Why did the Anglo-Saxons not become more British? The English
Historical Review 115.462 (June 2000): p513.
86. Yorke, B. (1990), Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England, London: Seaby,
ISBN 1-85264-027-8 pp. 138–139
87. Basset, S. (ed.) (1989) The Origins of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, Leicester University Press
88. Koch, J.T., (2006) Celtic Culture: A Historical Encyclopedia, ABC-CLIO, ISBN 1-85109-440-
7, p. 60
89. Higham and Ryan (2013), pp. 143, 178
90. Bede, Ecclesiastical History of the English People, Book 3, chapter 23
91. Koch, J.T., (2006) Celtic Culture: A Historical Encyclopedia, ABC-CLIO, ISBN 1-85109-440-
7, p. 360
92. Higham and Ryan (2013), p. 143
93. Catherine Hills (2003) Origins of the English, Duckworth, pp. 55, 105
94. Díaz-Andreu, Margarita, and Sam Lucy. Archaeology of Identity. Routledge, 2005.
95. Hills, C.; Lucy, S. (2013). Spong Hill IX: Chronology and Synthesis (http://www.mcdonald.ca
m.ac.uk/publications/publication-images/table%20of%20contents/spong-hill-toc).
Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. ISBN 978-1-902937-62-5.
96. Esmonde Cleary, S 1993, 'Approaches to the differences between late Romano-British and
early Anglo-Saxon archaeology', Anglo-Saxon Stud Archaeol Hist 6, 57–6.
97. Härke, H 2007a, 'Invisible Britons, Gallo-Romans and Russians: perspectives on culture
change', in Higham (ed), 57–67.
98. Also see Cool, H E M 2000, 'The parts left over: material culture into the 5th century', in T
Wilmott and P Wilson (eds), The Late Roman Transition in the North, Brit Archaeol Rep Brit
Ser 299, 47–65.
99. Pearson, A. F. "Barbarian piracy and the Saxon Shore: a reappraisal." Oxford Journal of
Archaeology 24.1 (2005): 73–88.
100. Creary. S "The Ending(s) of Roman Britain", The Oxford Handbook of Anglo-Saxon
Archaeology (2011): 3–12.
101. Hingley, Rural Settlements in Roman Britain 1989
102. Jones, M U 1980: 'Mucking and Early Saxon rural settlement in Essex.' Buckley (ed) 1980,
82–6
103. Myres, J N L 1986: The Anglo-Saxon Settlements. Oxford
104. Hills, C 1979: 'The archaeology of Anglo-Saxon England in the pagan period: a review.'
Anglo-Saxon England 8, 297–329
105. Yorke, Barbara. Kings and kingdoms of early Anglo-Saxon England. Routledge, 2002.
106. Arnold, C. 1988a: An Archaeology of the Early Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms. London
107. Hawkes, S Chadwick 1982: 'Anglo-Saxon Kent c 425–725.' Archaeology in Kent to AD
1500. ed P E Leach, London
108. Hills, Catherine. "Overview: Anglo-Saxon identity." The Oxford Handbook of Anglo-Saxon
Archaeology (2011):4
109. Hills, Catherine. "Overview: Anglo-Saxon identity." The Oxford Handbook of Anglo-Saxon
Archaeology (2011): 3–12.
110. Brooks, Nicholas. "The formation of the Mercian Kingdom", The Origins of Anglo-Saxon
Kingdoms (1989): 159–170.
111. Gibson, C. 2007. Minerva: an early Anglo-Saxon mixed-rite cemetery in Alwalton,
Cambridgeshire. In Semple, S. and Williams, H. (eds.), Early Medieval Mortuary Practices:
Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History, 14, 238–350. Oxford: Oxford University
School of Archaeology.
112. Halsall, Guy (2011). "Ethnicity and early medieval cemeteries" (https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pl
uginfile.php/889847/mod_resource/content/0/Ethnicity_and_early_medieval_cemeteries.pd
f) (PDF). Arqueología y Territorio Medieval. 18: 15–27. doi:10.17561/aytm.v18i0.1462 (http
s://doi.org/10.17561%2Faytm.v18i0.1462). Retrieved 27 October 2020.
113. Harland, James M. (2019). "Memories of Migration? The 'Anglo-Saxon' Burial Costume of
the 5th Century AD" (https://doi.org/10.15184%2Faqy.2019.60). Antiquity. 93 (370): 954–
969. doi:10.15184/aqy.2019.60 (https://doi.org/10.15184%2Faqy.2019.60).
114. Williams, Howard. "Ancient Landscapes and the Dead: The Reuse of Prehistoric and
Roman Monuments as Early Anglo-Saxon Burial Sites." (1997).
115. Shephard, J 1979, 'The social identity of the individual in isolated barrows and barrow
cemeteries in Anglo-Saxon England', in B C Burnham and J Kingsbury (eds), Space,
Hierarchy and Society, Brit Archaeol Rep Int Ser 59, 47–79.
116. Thäte, E 1996, 'Alte Denkmäler und frühgeschichtliche Bestattungen: Ein sächsisch-
angelsächsischer Totenbrauch und seine Kontinuität', Archäol Inf 19, 105–16
117. Taylor, Christopher. Village and farmstead: a history of rural settlement in England. G. Philip,
1983: 83–106
118. Hamerow 2002.
119. Hamerow et al. 2007: 'Anglo-Saxon settlement near Drayton Road, SuttonCourtenay,
Berkshire'. Archaeological Journal 164: p115
120. Gaimster, M. and Bradley, J. 2003,'Medieval Britain and Ireland, 2002'. Medieval
Archaeology 47: p242
121. Everitt, A 1986: Continuity and Colonization. The Evolution of Kentish Settlement. Leicester:
pp 69–92
122. Oosthuizen, Susan. Tradition and Transformation in Anglo-Saxon England: Archaeology,
Common Rights and Landscape. Bloomsbury Academic, 2013.
123. Hall, D 1988: 'The late Saxon countryside: villages and their fields.' Hooke (ed) 1988, 99–
122
124. Rodwell, W J and Rodwell, K A 1985: Rivenhall: Investigations of a Villa, Church and
Village, 1950–1977.
125. Rippon, Stephen, et al. "The Fields of Britannia: Continuity and Discontinuity in the Pays
and Regions of Roman Britain." Landscapes 14.1 (2013): 33–53.
126. Foard, G 1985: 'The administrative organization of Northamptonshire in the Saxon period.'
Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History 4, 185–222
127. Wareham, Andrew. Lords and communities in early medieval East Anglia. Boydell Press,
2005
128. Hamerow, Helena, David A. Hinton, and Sally Crawford, eds. The Oxford Handbook of
Anglo-Saxon Archaeology. OUP Oxford, 2011. p 119–124
129. Jones 1990:199, An Atlas of Roman Britain. The major inland navigation routes are shown.
130. Zaluckyj 2001:13, Mercia, "Mercia: The Beginnings", by Sarah Zaluckyj. Zaluckyj states that
the Angles travelled up river valleys, specifically mentioning the Trent and Nene.
131. Russo 1998:71, Town Origins and Development in Early England.
132. Jones 1990:317, An Atlas of Roman Britain
133. Jones 1990:318, An Atlas of Roman Britain
134. Lucy, Sam. The Anglo-Saxon way of death: burial rites in early England. Sutton Publishing,
2000.
135. Suzuki, Seiichi. The quoit brooch style and Anglo-Saxon settlement: a casting and recasting
of cultural identity symbols. Boydell & Brewer, 2000.
136. Yorke 2006:57, The Conversion of Britain c.600–800.
137. Yorke 1995:43, Wessex in the Early Middle Ages.
138. Haywood 1999:47, Dark Age Naval Power.
139. Haywood 1999:111, Dark Age Naval Power.
140. Yorke 1995:31, Wessex in the Early Middle Ages.
141. Jones 1990:308–309, Atlas of Roman Britain.
142. Yorke 1990:61, Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England, "The East Angles".
143. Brown 2001:151, Mercia, "The Archaeology of Mercia", by Martin Welch.
144. Snyder 2003:86, The Britons, "Britons and Saxons". Snyder says that they arrived in the late
5th century.
145. Kirby 2000:16, The Earliest English Kings.
146. Härke, H 1992a, Angelsächsische Waffengräber des 5. bis 7. Jahrhunderts, Zeitschrift für
Archäologie des Mittelalters Beiheft 6.
147. Pace Stuckert, C M 1980, Roman to Saxon: population biology and archaeology. Paper
presented at the Society for American Archaeology Forty-Fifth Annual Meeting 1–3 May
1980, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 4–5, who worked with a significantly smaller sample and
less refined dating; her unpublished work was quoted by Arnold, C J 1984, Roman Britain to
Saxon England, London: Croom Helm., 129–30, to support the continuity argument.
148. Arnold, C J 1984, Roman Britain to Saxon England, London: Croom Helm., 130
149. Ford, W J 2002, 'The Romano-British and Anglo-Saxon settlement and cemeteries at
Stretton on-Fosse, Warwickshire', Trans Birmingham Warwickshire Archaeol Soc 106, 1–
115.
150. Higham 2004.
151. Renfrew, C. & Bahn, P. 2008. Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice. London:
Thames & Hudson p. 464
152. Weale, M.E et al. (2003) Y chromosome evidence for Anglo-Saxon mass migration,
Molecular Biology and Evolution 19, 7, pp. 1008–1021
153. Capelli, C. et al. (2003) A Y chromosome census of the British Isles. Curr. Biol. 13, 979–984.
(doi:10.1016/S0960-9822(03)00373-7)
154. Härke, Heinrich; Thomas, Mark G; Stumpf, Michael P H. "Integration versus apartheid in
post-Roman Britain: A response to Pattison" (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2313
5029).
155. Thomas, Mark G., Michael PH Stumpf, and Heinrich Härke. "Evidence for an apartheid-like
social structure in early Anglo-Saxon England." Proceedings of the Royal Society B:
Biological Sciences 273.1601 (2006): 2651–2657.
156. Pattison, John E. "Is it necessary to assume an apartheid-like social structure in Early Anglo-
Saxon England?." Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 275.1650
(2008): 2423–2429.
157. Hills, C. (2003), Origins of the English, Duckworth, London. ISBN 0-7156-3191-8, p. 67
158. Higham, C. 2008, "Whither Archaeogenetics? A view from the trenches". In Simulations,
Genetics and Human Prehistory—a focus on islands. S. Matsumura, P. Forster, and C.
Renfrew, eds. Cambridge, UK: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 183–187.
Published by: Wayne State University Press
159. Green, C. (2012), Britons and Anglo-Saxons: Lincolnshire AD 400–650. History of
Lincolnshire Committee, Lincoln (critique of Weale on pp. 124–125)
160. Pattison J.E. (2011) Integration Versus Apartheid in Post-Roman Britain: A Response to
Thomas et al. (2008), Human Biology 83(6):715–733
161. Woolf, A. (2007). Apartheid and economics in Anglo-Saxon England. In: Britons in Anglo-
Saxon England. N. J. Higham, ed. Woodridge, UK: Boydell & Brewer, 115–129.
162. Hills, C. (2009). 'Anglo-Saxon DNA?', in Sayer & Williams, eds, Mortuary Practices and
Social Identities in the Middle Ages., University of Exeter Press, p. 129
163. Olalde, I.; Brace, S.; Allentoft, M.E.; Armit, I.; Kristiansen, K.; Rohland, N.; Mallick, S.; Booth,
T.; Szécsényi-Nagy, A.; Mittnik, A.; Altena, E.; Lipson, M.; Lazaridis, I.; Patterson, N.J.;
Broomandkhoshbacht, N.; Diekmann, Y.; Faltyskova, Z.; Fernandes, D.M.; Ferry, M.; Harney,
E.; de Knijff, P.; Michel, M.; Oppenheimer, J.; Stewardson, K.; Barclay, A.; Alt, K.W.; Avilés
Fernández, A.; Bánffy, E.; Bernabò-Brea, M.; et al. (2018). "The Beaker phenomenon and
the genomic transformation of northwest Europe". Nature. 555 (7695): 190–196.
164. Novembre, J.; Johnson, T.; Bryc, K.; Kutalik, Z.; Boyko, A.R.; Auton, A.; Indap, A.; King, K.S.;
Bergmann, S.; Nelson, M.R.; Stephens, M.; Bustamante, C.D. (2008). "Genes mirror
geography within Europe". Nature. 456 (7218): 98–101.
165. Lao, O.; Lu, T.T.; Nothnagel, M.; Junge, O.; Freitag-Wolf, S.; Caliebe, A.; Balascakova, M.;
Bertranpetit, J.; Bindoff, L.A.; Comas, D.; Holmlund, G.; Kouvatsi, A.; Macek, M.; Mollet, I.;
Parson, W.; Palo, J.; Ploski, R.; Sajantila, A.; Tagliabracci, A.; Gether, U.; Werge, T.;
Rivadeneira, F.; Hofman, A.; Uitterlinden, A.G.; Gieger, C.; Wichmann, H.; Rüther, A.;
Schreiber, S.; Becker, C.; Nürnberg, P.; Nelson, M.R.; Krawczak, M.; Kayser, M. (2008).
"Correlation between genetic and geographic structure in Europe". Current Biology. 18 (16):
1241–1248.
166. Leslie et al. (2015) The fine scale genetic structure of the British population (https://www.ncb
i.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4632200/)
167. Rincon, Paul (19 January 2016). "English DNA 'one-third' Anglo-Saxon – BBC News" (http
s://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35344663). Retrieved 17 February 2016.
168. Schiffels, S. et al. (2016) Iron Age and Anglo-Saxon genomes from East England reveal
British migration history (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26783965), Nature
Communications 7, Article number:10408 doi:10.1038/ncomms10408
169. Stephan Schiffels and Duncan Sayer, "Investigating Anglo-Saxon migration history with
ancient and modern DNA" (2017)
170. Martiniano et al. (2016) Genomic signals of migration and continuity in Britain before the
Anglo-Saxons. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26783717) Material was
copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
171. Byrne, Ross P; Martiniano, Rui; Cassidy, Lara M; Carrigan, Matthew; Hellenthal, Garrett;
Hardiman, Orla; Bradley, Daniel G; McLaughlin, Russell (25 January 2018). "Insular Celtic
population structure and genomic footprints of migration" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/
articles/PMC5784891). PLOS Genetics. 14 (1): e1007152.
doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1007152 (https://doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1007152).
PMC 5784891 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5784891). PMID 29370172
(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29370172).
172. Margaryan, A., Lawson, D.J., Sikora, M. et al. Population genomics of the Viking world.
Nature 585, 390–396 (2020) See Supplementary Note 11 in particular
173. Montgomery, Janet, et al. "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 (2005): 123–138.
174. Hughes, Susan S., et al. "Anglo-Saxon origins investigated by isotopic analysis of burials
from Berinsfield, Oxfordshire, UK." Journal of Archaeological Science 42 (2014): 81–92.
175. Hughes, Susan S. and Millard, Andrew R. and Chenery, Carolyn A. and Nowell, Geoff and
Pearson, D.
Graham (2018) 'Isotopic analysis of burials from the early Anglo-Saxon
cemetery at Eastbourne, Sussex,
U.K.', Journal of archaeological science : reports., 19 . pp.
513-525.
176. Mays, S., and N. Beavan. "An investigation of diet in early Anglo-Saxon England using
carbon and nitrogen stable isotope analysis of human bone collagen." Journal of
Archaeological Science 39.4 (2012): 867–874.
177. Mark Jobling, "The impact of recent events on human genetic diversity," (https://royalsociety
publishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rstb.2011.0297) Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society B: Biological Sciences 367 (2012), 793–799
178. Sebastian Brather, "New Questions instead of Old Answers: Archaeological Expectations of
aDNA Analysis," (https://www.medievalworlds.net/0xc1aa5576_0x00348d11.pdf) Medieval
Worlds 4 (2016): pp. 5–21.
179. Guy Halsall, Worlds of Arthur: Facts & Fictions of the Dark Ages (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2013), pp. 242-5.
180. "Editorial: On the Use and Abuse of Ancient DNA" (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-
018-03857-3), Nature 55 (2018), p. 559
181. Matthias Friedrich and James M. Harland (eds.), Interrogating the "Germanic": A Category
and its Use in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (Berlin, De Gruyter, 2020); Mischa
Meier, Geschichte der Völkerwanderung (Munich, C.H. Beck, 2019), pp. 99-116; Guy
Halsall, Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West (Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press, 2008), p. 24; Walter Pohl, Die Germanen (Munich, Oldenbourg, 2002), pp. 50-51;
Walter Goffart, "Two Notes on Germanic Antiquity Today", Traditio 50: pp. 9-30 (1995)
182. Hedges, Robert (2011). "Anglo-Saxon migration and the molecular evidence" (https://books.
google.com/books?id=xucNJfS42PwC&q=anglo-saxon+migration&pg=PA79). In Hamerow,
Helena; Hinton, David A.; Crawford, Sally (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Anglo-Saxon
Archaeology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. pp. 81–83. ISBN 9780199212149.
183. Millet, Martin. "The Romanization of Britain." An Essay in Archaeological Interpretation
(1990).
184. Wood, Michael. "Viewpoint: The time Britain slid into chaos" (https://www.bbc.com/news/ma
gazine-18159752). BBC News.
185. Hamerow, Helena. "The earliest Anglo-Saxon kingdoms." The New Cambridge Medieval
History 1 (2005): 263–90.
186. The Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Spong Hill, North Elmham. Norfolk Archaeological Unit,
1995.
187. Thomas, Mark G., Michael PH Stumpf, and Heinrich Härke. "Integration versus apartheid in
post-Roman Britain: a response to Pattison." Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological
Sciences 275.1650 (2008): 2419–2421.
188. Schiffels, S. and Sayer, D., "Investigating Anglo-Saxon migration history with ancient and
modern DNA," 2017, H.H. Meller, F. Daim, J. Frause and R. Risch (eds) Migration and
Integration form Prehisory to the Middle Ages. Tagungen Des Landesmuseums Für
Vorgeschichte Halle, Saale
189. Hughes, Susan S. and Millard, Andrew R. and Chenery, Carolyn A. and Nowell, Geoff and
Pearson, D. Graham (2018) 'Isotopic analysis of burials from the early Anglo-Saxon
cemetery at Eastbourne, Sussex, U.K.', Journal of archaeological science : reports., 19 . pp.
513-525.
190. A. S. Esmonde Cleary, 'The Roman to medieval transition', in Britons and Romans:
advancing an archaeological agenda, eds S. James and M. Millett (York, Council for British
Archaeology Research Report 125, 2001), pp. 90–7.
191. D. N. Dumville, 'Sub-Roman Britain: History and legend', History, 62, 1977, pp. 173–92;
Dumville, 'The historical value of the Historia Brittonum', Arthurian Literature, 6, 1986, pp. 1–
26
192. Dark, K., Civitas to Kingdom: British Political Continuity 300–80 (London, Leicester
University Press, 1994) p 97–104
193. J. Hines, 'Philology, Archaeology and the Adventus Saxonum vel Anglorum', in Britain 400–
600: Language and History, eds A. Bammesberger and A. Wollman (Heidelberg, Carl
Winter, 1990), pp. 17–36.
194. Freeman, E.A. (1869) Old English History for Children, MacMillan, London, pp. 7, 27–28
195. Grimmer, M. (2007) Invasion, Settlement or Political Conquest: Changing Representations of
the Arrival of the Anglo-Saxons in Britain, Journal of the Australian Early Medieval
Association, 3(1) pp. 169–186.
196. Ausenda, G. (1997) Current issues and future directions in the study of the early Anglo-
Saxon period, in Hines, J. (ed.) The Anglo-Saxons from Migration Period to the Eighth
Century, Studies in Historical Archaeoethnology, pp. 411–450
197. O. J. Padel. 2007. "Place-names and the Saxon conquest of Devon and Cornwall." In
Britons in Anglo-Saxon England [Publications of the Manchester Centre for Anglo-Saxon
Studies 7], N. Higham (ed.), 215–230. Woodbridge: Boydell.
198. R. Coates. 2007. "Invisible Britons: The view from linguistics." In Britons in Anglo-Saxon
England [Publications of the Manchester Centre for Anglo-Saxon Studies 7], N. Higham
(ed.), 172–191. Woodbridge: Boydell.
199. Ward-Perkins, Bryan. "Why did the Anglo-Saxons not become more British?." The English
Historical Review 115.462 (2000): page 523
200. Ward-Perkins, Bryan. "Why did the Anglo-Saxons not become more British?." The English
Historical Review 115.462 (2000): 513–533.
201. Lavelle, R. (2010) Alfred's Wars: Sources and Interpretations of Anglo-Saxon Warfare in the
Viking Age, Boydell & Brewer p. 85
202. Attenborough. The laws of Ine and Alfred. pp. 35–61 (https://archive.org/stream/lawsofearlie
sten00grea#page/34/mode/2up)
203. Burmeister, Stefan. "Archaeology and Migration" (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2
00032760).
204. Coates, Richard (2017). "Celtic whispers: revisiting the problems of the relation between
Brittonic and Old English" (https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/226134354.pdf) (PDF).
Namenkundliche Informationen (Journal of Onomastics). Leipziger Universitätsverlag.
109/110: 166. ISBN 978-3-96023-186-8.
205. Dark, Ken R. (2003). "Large-scale population movements into and from Britain south of
Hadrian's Wall in the fourth to sixth centuries AD" (https://www.reading.ac.uk/web/files/GCM
S/RMS-2003-03_K._R._Dark,_Large-scale_population_movements_into_and_from_Britan_
south_of_Hadrian's_Wall_in_the_fourth_to_sixth_centuries_AD.pdf) (PDF).
206. Jean Merkale, King of the Celts: Arthurian Legends and Celtic Tradition (1994), pp. 97-98
207. Coates, Richard (2017). "Celtic whispers: revisiting the problems of the relation between
Brittonic and Old English" (https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/226134354.pdf) (PDF).
Namenkundliche Informationen (Journal of Onomastics). Leipziger Universitätsverlag.
109/110: 150. ISBN 978-3-96023-186-8.
208. Nicholas Ostler, Ad Infinitum: A Biography of Latin (2009: Bloomsbury Publishing), p. 141
209. Jim Storr, King Arthur's Wars: The Anglo-Saxon Conquest of England (2016), p. 114
210. Toby F. Martin, The Cruciform Brooch and Anglo-Saxon England (2015: Boydell and
Brewer), pp. 173-174
211. Coates, Richard. "Celtic whispers: revisiting the problems of the relation between Brittonic
and Old English" (https://ul.qucosa.de/api/qucosa%3A31804/attachment/ATT-0/).
212. Toby F. Martin, The Cruciform Brooch and Anglo-Saxon England (2015: Boydell and
Brewer), pp. 174-175
213. Catherine Hills, "The Anglo-Saxon Migration: An Archaeological Case Study of Disruption,"
in Migration and Disruptions: Toward a Unifying Theory of Ancient and Contemporary
Migrations, ed. Brenda J. Baker and Takeyuki Tsuda (2015: University Press of Florida), pp.
47-48
214. Ken R. Dark, "Large-scale population movements into and from Britain south of Hadrian's
Wall in the fourth to sixth centuries AD" (2003)
215. Alexander D. Mirrington, Transformations of Identity and Society in Anglo-Saxon Essex: A
Case Study of an Early Medieval North Atlantic Community (2019: Amsterdam University
Press), p. 98
216. Stuart Brookes and Susan Harrington, The Kingdom and People of Kent, AD 400-1066, p.
24
217. Jillian Hawkins, "Words and Swords: People and Power along the Solent in the 5th
Century" (2020)
218. Bruce Eagles, From Roman Civitas to Anglo-Saxon Shire: Topographical Studies on the
Formation of Wessex (2018: Oxbow Books), pp. 74, 139
219. Kortlandt, Frederik (2018). "Relative Chronology" (https://www.kortlandt.nl/publications/art32
0e.pdf) (PDF).
220. Fox, Bethany. "The P-Celtic Place Names of North-East England and South-East Scotland"
(http://www.heroicage.org/issues/10/fox.html).
221. Hamerow, Helena. Rural Settlements and Society in Anglo-Saxon England. Oxford
University Press, 2012.p166
222. Higham Nicholas J. "From Tribal Chieftains to Christian Kings." The Anglo-Saxon World
(2013): 126.
223. Yorke, Barbara. "The vocabulary of Anglo-Saxon overlordship." Anglo-Saxon Studies in
Archaeology and History. BAR British Series 92 (1981): 171–200.
224. Britain AD: King Arthur's Britain, Programme 2 – Three part Channel 4 series. 2004
225. Davies, Wendy, and Hayo Vierck. "The contexts of Tribal Hidage: social aggregates and
settlement patterns." Issues 44 (2011).
226. Bede, Historia Ecclesiastica, II, 5.
227. As in his remarks on Edwin's imperium: Historia Ecclesiastica, II, 5, 9.
228. As in his remarks concerning Cædwallon and Penda, Historia Ecclesiastica, II, 20.
229. Bede, Historia Ecclesiastica, I, 34; II, 12.
230. Wickham 2009:157, The Inheritance of Rome.
231. Hamerow 2002, p. 105.
232. Higham, Nicholas J. An English Empire: Bede, the Britons, and the Early Anglo-Saxon
Kings. Vol 2 p244
233. Rahtz, Philip. "Buildings and rural settlement." The Archaeology of Anglo-Saxon England
44 (1976): p 56
234. Hodges, R. (1989) The Anglo-Saxon Achievement Duckworth, London. ISBN 0-7156-2130-
0, pp. 34–36
235. Dixon, Philip. "How Saxon is the Saxon house?" Structural reconstruction. Oxford (1982).
236. Marshall, Anne, and Garry Marshall. "A survey and analysis of the buildings of Early and
Middle Anglo-Saxon England." Medieval Archaeology 35 (1991): 29
237. Bruce-Mitford 1983, 511–553.
238. John Hines: "Stories from the Dark Earth: Meet the Ancestors Revisited" Episode 4 BBC
2013
239. Julian Richards: "Stories from the Dark Earth: Meet the Ancestors Revisited" Episode 4 BBC
2013
240. Halsall (2011, p. 35)
241. Behr, Charlotte. Review "Signals of Belief in Early England: Anglo-Saxon Paganism
Revisited, edited by Martin Carver, Alex Sanmark & Sarah Semple, 2010. Oxford: Oxbow
Books; ISBN 978-1-84217-395-4". in Cambridge Archaeological Journal 21.02 (2011): 315–
316.
242. Brown, Peter. The Rise of Western Christendom. Oxford, 2003.
243. Hutton 1991. p. 274.
244. Wilson 1992. p. 87.
245. Wilson 1992. pp. 98–100.
246. Whinder, R, Christianity in Britain before St Augustine Catholic History Society 2008
247. Higham and Ryan (2013), pp. 152-153
248. Killie, Kristin. "Old English–Late British language contact and the English progressive."
Language Contact and Development Around the North Sea 321 (2012): p119
249. Higham, N. 1992. Rome, Britain and the Anglo-Saxons. Guildford: Seaby p 229–230
250. "Old-English poem The Battle of Brunanburh along with translations and background
information" (http://loki.stockton.edu/~kinsellt/litresources/brun/brun2.html#astext).
251. Harris, Stephen (2003) Race and Ethnicity in Anglo-Saxon Literature Routledge,
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.4324/9780203497999, eBook ISBN 9781135924379
252. Higham, Nicholas J., and Martin J. Ryan. The Anglo-Saxon World. Yale University Press,
2013.

References

General
Channel 4 (2004), Britain AD: King Arthur's Britain (http://www.channel4.com/programmes/br
itain-ad-king-arthurs-britain)
Hamerow, Helena; Hinton, David A.; Crawford, Sally, eds. (2011), The Oxford Handbook of
Anglo-Saxon Archaeology., Oxford: OUP, ISBN 978-0-19-921214-9
Higham, Nicholas J.; Ryan, Martin J. (2013), The Anglo-Saxon World, Yale University Press,
ISBN 978-0-300-12534-4
Hills, Catherine (2003), Origins of the English, London: Duckworth, ISBN 978-0-7156-3191-
1
Koch, John T. (2006), Celtic Culture: A Historical Encyclopedia, Santa Barbara and Oxford:
ABC-CLIO, ISBN 978-1-85109-440-0
Pryor, Francis (2005), Britain AD: A Quest for Arthur, England and the Anglo-Saxons,
London: Harper Perennial (published 2001), p. 320, ISBN 978-0-00-718187-2

Archaeology
Behr, Charlotte (2010), Review of Signals of Belief in Early England Anglo-Saxon England
21 (2) (Cambridge University Press), Cambridge
Millett, Martin (1990), The Romanization of Britain: An Essay in Archaeological Interpretation
(https://books.google.com/books?id=nRNlQgAACAAJ), Cambridge University Press,
ISBN 9780521360845
Bruce-Mitford, Rupert (1983). The Sutton Hoo Ship-Burial, Volume 3: Late Roman and
Byzantine silver, hanging-bowls, drinking vessels, cauldrons and other containers, textiles,
the lyre, pottery bottle and other items. Vol. II. London: British Museum Publications. ISBN 0-
7141-0530-9.
Brugmann, Birte (2011), Migration and endogenous change: The Oxford Handbook of
Anglo-Saxon Archaeology., Oxford: OUP, ISBN 978-0-19-921214-9
Dixon, Philip (1982), How Saxon is the Saxon house, in Structural Reconstruction.
Approaches to the interpretation of the excavated remains of buildings, British
Archaeological Reports British Series 110, Oxford
Marshall, Anne; Marshall, Garry (1991), A survey and analysis of the buildings of Early and
Middle Anglo-Saxon England." Medieval Archaeology 35, Medieval Archaeology 35
Halsall, Guy (2011), "Archaeology and Migration: Rethinking the debate", in Rica Annaert;
Tinne Jacobs; Ingrid In 't Ven; Steffi Coppens (eds.), The very beginning of Europe? Cultural
and Social Dimensions of Early-Medieval Migration and Colonisation (5th–8th century),
Flanders Heritage Agency, pp. 29–40, ISBN 978-90-7523-034-5
Halsall, Guy (2006), "Movers and Shakers: Barbarians and the Fall of Rome", in Noble,
Thomas (ed.), From Roman Provinces to Medieval Kingdoms, Psychology Press,
ISBN 9780415327428
Hamerow, Helena (1993), Buildings and rural settlement, in The Archaeology of Anglo-
Saxon England 44
Hamerow, Helena (2002), Early Medieval Settlements: The Archaeology of Rural
Communities in Northwest Europe, 400–900 (https://books.google.com/books?id=r9W7nHt
m4K0C), Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-924697-7
Hamerow, Helena.; Hinton, David A.; Crawford, Sally., eds. (2011), The Oxford Handbook of
Anglo-Saxon Archaeology., Oxford: OUP, ISBN 978-0-19-921214-9
Hamerow, Helena (5 July 2012), Rural Settlements and Society in Anglo-Saxon England (htt
ps://books.google.com/books?id=x7o7lUC_qtYC), Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-
920325-3
Higham, Nick (2004), "From sub-Roman Britain to Anglo-Saxon England: Debating the
Insular Dark Ages", History Compass, 2: **, doi:10.1111/j.1478-0542.2004.00085.x (https://d
oi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1478-0542.2004.00085.x)
Hodges, Richard (1 January 1989), The Anglo-Saxon Achievement: Archaeology & the
Beginnings of English Society (https://books.google.com/books?id=VDpnAAAAMAAJ),
Duckworth, ISBN 978-0-7156-2130-1
Hughes, S. S.; Millard, A. R.; Lucy, S. J.; Chenery, C. A.; Evans, J. A.; Nowell, G.; Pearson,
D. G. (2014), Anglo-Saxon origins investigated by isotopic analysis of burials from
Berinsfield, Oxfordshire, UK., in Journal of Archaeological Science, 42, pp. 81–92
Jantina, Helena Looijenga (1997), Runes around the North Sea and on the continent AD
150 – 700 (https://books.google.com/books?id=brAVAgAACAAJ), Groningen University:
SSG Uitg., ISBN 978-90-6781-014-2
Rahtz, Philip (1976), Excavations at Mucking, Volume 2: The Anglo-Saxon Settlement, in
Archaeological Report-Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission For England 21
Myres, John (1989), The English Settlements (https://books.google.com/books?id=S1EdW6i
3iTcC), Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-282235-2
 Suzuki, Seiichi (2000), The quoit brooch style and Anglo-Saxon settlement: a casting and
recasting of cultural identity symbols., Woodbridge, Eng. & Rochester N.Y.: Boydell &
Brewer, ISBN 978-0-85115-749-8
Williams, H. (2002), Remains of Pagan Saxondom (https://books.google.com/books?id=4FC
oMQEACAAJ), in Sam Lucy; Andrew J. Reynolds, eds., Burial in Early Medieval England
and Wales, Society for Medieval Archaeology, ISBN 978-1-902653-65-5

History
Bazelmans, Jos (2009), "The early-medieval use of ethnic names from classical antiquity:
The case of the Frisians" (https://books.google.com/books?id=fM_cmuhmSbIC&pg=PA321),
in Derks, Ton; Roymans, Nico (eds.), Ethnic Constructs in Antiquity: The Role of Power and
Tradition, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University, pp. 321–337, ISBN 978-90-8964-078-9
Brown, Michelle P.; Farr, Carol A., eds. (2001), Mercia: An Anglo-Saxon Kingdom in Europe,
Leicester: Leicester University Press, ISBN 978-0-8264-7765-1
Charles-Edwards, Thomas, ed. (2003), After Rome, Oxford: Oxford University Press,
ISBN 978-0-19-924982-4
Dornier, Ann, ed. (1977), Mercian Studies, Leicester: Leicester University Press, ISBN 978-
0-7185-1148-7
Elton, Charles Isaac (1882), "Origins of English History" (https://books.google.com/books?id
=WUdnAAAAMAAJ), Nature, London: Bernard Quaritch, 25 (648): 501–502,
Bibcode:1882Natur..25..501T (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1882Natur..25..501T),
doi:10.1038/025501a0 (https://doi.org/10.1038%2F025501a0), S2CID 4097604 (https://api.s
emanticscholar.org/CorpusID:4097604)
Frere, Sheppard Sunderland (1987), Britannia: A History of Roman Britain (3rd, revised ed.),
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, ISBN 978-0-7102-1215-3
Giles, John Allen, ed. (1841), "The Works of Gildas" (https://books.google.com/books?id=3R
1mCE7p44MC&pg=PA1), The Works of Gildas and Nennius, London: James Bohn
Giles, John Allen, ed. (1843a), "Ecclesiastical History, Books I, II and III", The Miscellaneous
Works of Venerable Bede (https://books.google.com/books?id=azApAAAAYAAJ), vol. II,
London: Whittaker and Co. (published 1843)
Giles, John Allen, ed. (1843b), "Ecclesiastical History, Books IV and V", The Miscellaneous
Works of Venerable Bede (https://books.google.com/books?id=0ycpAAAAYAAJ), vol. III,
London: Whittaker and Co. (published 1843)
Härke, Heinrich (2003), "Population replacement or acculturation? An archaeological
perspective on population and migration in post-Roman Britain." (https://www.academia.edu/
480680), Celtic-Englishes, III (Winter): 13–28, retrieved 18 January 2014
Haywood, John (1999), Dark Age Naval Power: Frankish & Anglo-Saxon Seafaring Activity
(revised ed.), Frithgarth: Anglo-Saxon Books, ISBN 978-1-898281-43-6
Higham, Nicholas (1992), Rome, Britain and the Anglo-Saxons, London: B. A. Seaby,
ISBN 978-1-85264-022-4
Higham, Nicholas (1993), The Kingdom of Northumbria AD 350–1100, Phoenix Mill: Alan
Sutton Publishing, ISBN 978-0-86299-730-4
Jones, Barri; Mattingly, David (1990), An Atlas of Roman Britain, Cambridge: Blackwell
Publishers (published 2007), ISBN 978-1-84217-067-0
 Jones, Michael E.; Casey, John (1988), "The Gallic Chronicle Restored: a Chronology for
the Anglo-Saxon Invasions and the End of Roman Britain" (http://journals.cambridge.org/acti
on/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8282111), Britannia, XIX (November): 367–98,
doi:10.2307/526206 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F526206), JSTOR 526206 (https://www.jstor.
org/stable/526206), retrieved 6 January 2014
Kirby, D. P. (2000), The Earliest English Kings (Revised ed.), London: Routledge, ISBN 978-
0-415-24211-0
Laing, Lloyd; Laing, Jennifer (1990), Celtic Britain and Ireland, c. 200–800, New York: St.
Martin's Press, ISBN 978-0-312-04767-2
McGrail, Seàn, ed. (1988), Maritime Celts, Frisians and Saxons, London: Council for British
Archaeology (published 1990), pp. 1–16, ISBN 978-0-906780-93-0
Mattingly, David (2006), An Imperial Possession: Britain in the Roman Empire (https://archiv
e.org/details/imperialpossessi0000matt), London: Penguin Books (published 2007),
ISBN 978-0-14-014822-0
Pryor, Francis (2004), Britain AD, London: Harper Perennial (published 2005), ISBN 978-0-
00-718187-2
Russo, Daniel G. (1998), Town Origins and Development in Early England, c. 400–950 A.D.,
Greenwood Publishing Group, ISBN 978-0-313-30079-0
Snyder, Christopher A. (1998), An Age of Tyrants: Britain and the Britons A.D. 400–600,
University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, ISBN 978-0-271-01780-8
Snyder, Christopher A. (2003), The Britons (https://archive.org/details/britons00snyd),
Malden: Blackwell Publishing (published 2005), ISBN 978-0-631-22260-6
Wickham, Chris (2005), Framing the Early Middle Ages: Europe and the Mediterranean,
400–800, Oxford: Oxford University Press (published 2006), ISBN 978-0-19-921296-5
Wickham, Chris (2009), "Kings Without States: Britain and Ireland, 400–800", The
Inheritance of Rome: Illuminating the Dark Ages, 400–1000, London: Penguin Books
(published 2010), pp. 150–169, ISBN 978-0-14-311742-1
Wood, Ian (1984), "The end of Roman Britain: Continental evidence and parallels", in
Lapidge, M. (ed.), Gildas: New Approaches, Woodbridge: Boydell, p. 19
Wood, Ian (1988), "The Channel from the 4th to the 7th centuries AD", in McGrail, Seàn
(ed.), Maritime Celts, Frisians and Saxons, London: Council for British Archaeology
(published 1990), pp. 93–99, ISBN 978-0-906780-93-0
Yorke, Barbara (1990), Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England, B. A. Seaby,
ISBN 978-0-415-16639-3
Yorke, Barbara (1995), Wessex in the Early Middle Ages, London: Leicester University
Press, ISBN 978-0-7185-1856-1
Yorke, Barbara (2006), Robbins, Keith (ed.), The Conversion of Britain: Religion, Politics
and Society in Britain c.600–800, Harlow: Pearson Education Limited, ISBN 978-0-582-
77292-2
Zaluckyj, Sarah, ed. (2001), Mercia: The Anglo-Saxon Kingdom of Central England (https://a
rchive.org/details/merciaanglosaxon0000zalu), Little Logaston: Logaston, ISBN 978-1-
873827-62-8

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain&oldid=1094003794"

This page was last edited on 20 June 2022, at 05:36 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 3.0;

additional terms may apply. By
using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.