mcmanus2099 t1_ir9gz3d wrote on October 6, 2022 at 10:04 AM

I haven't read either of the authors you mention but I know those that argue against any form of migration often use straw man arguments by using a mass invasion as the opposing argument they are refuting. They also heavily refer to Bede's explanation & argue against that. The problem with this approach is we know both the mass invasion hypothesis & Bede's description are untrue, refuting them doesn't refute migration.

Here are a few things we know:

Bede lived in a world of defined Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, he tried to explain how they came to be using mass migrations so his theory of Jutes south east, Saxons in the South, Angles in the mid & North is him working backwards rather than actual historical research. This is both proveably false & totally implausible that it's easy to take shots at. Just because migrations definitely didn't happen how Bede describes doesn't mean they didn't happen.
We know the late Roman Empire used Germanic tribes to supplement it's military forces & that towards the very end significant military towns in the Empire were drawing their troop requirements repeatedly from specific Germanic areas. It is believed Britania was doing the same with the region that contained Saxon tribes & this would likely have continued when Britain was cut off from the empire. As the military latin used by troops in Gaul created French the military Germanic language used by Saxon tribes could have had the same effect in England. The question here would be why the tribes would keep Germanic language than learning Latin & the answer is probably explained by the fact Britain was cut off from the Empire & so Latin wasn't as significant for all soldiers to learn.
Though Bede's explanation of how can be debunked what we cannot ignore is that Bede of many cultural touch points that refer to a migration of some sort. Of Germanic ppl's coming over to Britain. There is something in living memory of that experience both in the Anglo-Saxon culture & in the Welsh & Cumbrian cultures.
We know through studies of the fall of the Roman Empire & of colonialism that languages & cultural identity don't need a population displacement to change root & branch. In a society where military might equals total power & those with it were the minority it actually wouldn't take a large number of people to migrate to see a cultural change if these dominated the military class. The more dangerous & fractious society the more this is the case. So if it's a period of lack of central authority, there are small petty kingdoms everywhere, villages are fighting villages. Then a member of a Saxon warrior band sets up farm in your village. You can bet your bottom dollar every villager is kissing his ass & learning his language to both avoid being his victim & to use his warrior influence to ensure their farms are also defended. Just like that he's the feudal lord there. Individual ppl are chameleons who will copy others culturally if it improves survival or offers advancement.
The best Roman coin hoards we have found in Britain come from this period. Though it's not uncommon for coins to be buried for safety in normal times it isn't common for large coin hoards to then be forgotten about. These are instances where a person has buried a hoard of coins & then never been able to go back & claim them. This is signs of fleeing suddenly.

As a result of these facts the historical consensus at present was that there were small warrior bands & traders migrating & settling in England. These were usual of mixed tribal background, warrior bands tended not to be ethnocentric. These bands were military elite & drove immitation. It was a violent time of which these bands were part of that drove large scale uprooting of population - note not necessarily driven away by invading migration but by the violence of the time of which the warrior bands took part. Though some must have been displaced by settling bands. What emerges from the violence is a society that has homogenised around the Saxon warrior elite.

MagicRaptor OP t1_ira88x1 wrote on October 6, 2022 at 2:19 PM

The only point you made that I disagree with is point 3. All of the archaeological evidence suggests that the early medieval period of Britain was not dangerous, violent, or even unstable. Quite the contrary in fact. It all seems to suggest that people just kept on living their lives just as they had under the Romans. Not much really changed. All of their civic structures that they inherited from the Romans remained intact, and there was no interruption or change in how the land was occupied or used. There is nothing in the archaeology to indicate marauding bands of Saxons dominating the locals by force or intimidation.

You do make a good point though, just because the migration didn't happen the way Bede describes it doesn't mean it didn't happen at all. It very well may have, but unfortunately we just don't know for certain. All we can do is speculate until new discoveries are made.

mcmanus2099 t1_iracprk wrote on October 6, 2022 at 2:50 PM

Whilst you are right that initially Britania continued as under the Romans it did not remain that way up until the formation of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. We know large provincial authorities fracture at some point. It is unusual for this to happen peacefully & having independent regions the size of towns almost always leads to struggles with raids, local resource conflicts etc.

We know the wall stops becoming defense & Celtic raids become more frequent with places like Vindolanda - which carried on as a civilian bathhouse after the troops left, was abandoned. We also can see the coin deposits found that were buried & never returned to.

Whilst it's true large towns & cities, the best places for finding evidence of violence in archeological record would have been largely insulated from this. It doesn't mean the countryside, where wooden buildings leave little record isn't being impacted.

So yes, Britain carries on as before when the military forces leave & do not return but we see a slow gradual decline of authority to local struggles towards the end of the next century.

Imaginary_Engine5052 t1_irb7mvw wrote on October 6, 2022 at 6:13 PM

One small point about your excellent reply... As I understand it, we don't really know why the coin hoards were deposited. It might not be "hiding" as much as some kind of religious tribute, or even a more prosaic reason such as putting it somewhere for safe keeping and forgetting where.

And the unfortunate fact is that if there IS any archaeological evidence of violence or general disruption, it is probably not going to be found except by accident as it will either be under a major city and inaccessible, or in the middle of nowhere (like West Heslerton) and only found through a combination of luck and hard work.