http://www.heritagedaily.com/2017/07/casting-light-dark-ages-anglo-saxon-fenland-re-imagined/116029
another piece of the puzzle and one firmly in favour of integration of communities rather than genocidal cleansing during the early A-S period in the Fenland area
Quote from: Holly on July 22, 2017, 08:22:31 AM
http://www.heritagedaily.com/2017/07/casting-light-dark-ages-anglo-saxon-fenland-re-imagined/116029
another piece of the puzzle and one firmly in favour of integration of communities rather than genocidal cleansing during the early A-S period in the Fenland area
interesting
I am not sure that it demonstrates anything like seamless integration. The picture of continuity of farming practice is consistent with an invader enslaving the survivors of a local population and having them carry on farming in the same way with the same crops and cattle for their new masters. And, for that matter, learning from them how best to handle the land and livestock available.
Had the author been able to demonstrate radically different patterns of farming and land use in areas where occupancy was demonstrably violent (i.e. battles were fought) she might have a point. As it is, continuity of farming practices demonstrates only that the new occupiers were able to follow the old (optimised) patterns, which is what any sensible pagan would do. It does nothing to demonstrate that they acquired the land and any surviving population in peaceable fashion.
Unless I have missed something?
One of the key things the author does is to tackle this apparent falacy
Historians have long argued that during the 'dark' ages (the period between the withdrawal of Roman administration in around 400 AD and the Norman Conquest in 1066) most settlements in the region were deserted, and the fens became an anarchic, sparsely inhabited, watery wilderness.
The area, it seems, was not depopulated and land management traditions continued. This would argue against either flight of the majority of natives or ethnic cleansing. Whether this means assimilation by individuals and families, or whether it points to the native population continuing in a similar way under "new management", seems hard to tell from the article but is perhaps clearer in the book.
One would hope so - in particular, if the author can demonstrate that practices did change when invasion resulted in massacre and displacement it would strengthen the case for assimilation.
Comparison with the Norman invasion, which reduced and subjugated without displacing the existing population, would also have been useful (we all know how peaceful and assimilative that was). Unfortunately without such cross-comparisons the author is simply building castles in air. Or perhaps marsh.
dont forget the author makes a good point and one I truly ascribe to in that people of the period especially in 'border' areas would probably have been multilingual and this would help to reduce tensions
Quote from: Holly on July 22, 2017, 10:58:38 AM
dont forget the author makes a good point and one I truly ascribe to in that people of the period especially in 'border' areas would probably have been multilingual and this would help to reduce tensions
I suspect that with many of these things the local population merely had a change of landlord. There would be no point in displacing the people doing the work. None of the conquerors actually wanted to spend their lives herding cattle in the fens, they were perfectly happy to let them get on with it. So the only change the folk in the fens might notice would be that their rent was collected by a different chap with different bodyguards. (or perhaps the same chap because at least he knew where everybody was so was worth keeping on for his local knowledge)
Indeed it depends at what level the takeover occurred as it might be that the local landlords were left in place and they were allowed to keep running things, just paying their contributions to the new master. This shows that being multilingual is useful. It gets you a job liaising between the new masters and the locals paying the rent
Remember nobody crosses the North Sea and then fights for the right to be a subsistence farmer working every hour they could to make a poor living.
Jim
Quote from: Jim Webster on July 22, 2017, 11:09:22 AM
Remember nobody crosses the North Sea and then fights for the right to be a subsistence farmer working every hour they could to make a poor living.
Good point, Jim - especially if there are thralls to be had at the destination.
The takeover itself would however involve a bit of force to convince the current chaps in charge that they no longer had a future in the area.
Thinking about it, the local free population would be inclined to resist (it is after all their lands in question) but the slave population could perhaps be acquired as a going concern (once they had been rounded up in the wake of installation of the new management).
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 22, 2017, 08:25:57 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on July 22, 2017, 11:09:22 AM
Remember nobody crosses the North Sea and then fights for the right to be a subsistence farmer working every hour they could to make a poor living.
Good point, Jim - especially if there are thralls to be had at the destination.
The takeover itself would however involve a bit of force to convince the current chaps in charge that they no longer had a future in the area.
Thinking about it, the local free population would be inclined to resist (it is after all their lands in question) but the slave population could perhaps be acquired as a going concern (once they had been rounded up in the wake of installation of the new management).
depends how you define 'free' population. A 'tenant' who's told his rent isn't going up isn't going to care too much who he pays it to. The free population in an area like that might amount to a handful of wealthy families whose coloni will might not even recognise them. Indeed the new owner might just move into the big house when the old owner flees, keep on the steward and similar, and live there with his housecarls (or whatever you want to call them) and let the administration that was there keep working for him.
There would be slow changes as eventually his followers would look for land of their own as they married, but they might well marry local girls.
We see it in Italy where the Goths were issued with lands but also acquired others through marriage or purchase, and this meant they held land which was split between different tax assessments.
Remember when the new 'lord' or 'landlord' moves into an area, it's his. He wants it running smoothly, peacefully. And he doesn't want to have to do the bluidy manual work. His men are perfectly happy with that.
So I suspect that once the land was parceled out the new landlords would settle in and over the next few generations their men would intermarry with local girls and inherit land, as well as being given land by their lord. The dominant language would be 'germanic' and the dominant culture would tend to be 'germanic' and gradually the people would drift into being germanic as well
Quote from: Jim Webster on July 22, 2017, 08:44:28 PM
depends how you define 'free' population. A 'tenant' who's told his rent isn't going up isn't going to care too much who he pays it to. The free population in an area like that might amount to a handful of wealthy families whose coloni will might not even recognise them. Indeed the new owner might just move into the big house when the old owner flees, keep on the steward and similar, and live there with his housecarls (or whatever you want to call them) and let the administration that was there keep working for him.
Assuming the old owner flees without a fight and that the Germanic new arrivals have no particular inclination to let off steam after their voyage (we are talking about a culture noted for violent descents on the countryside, otherwise why did the Romans bother with the Saxon Shore forts
et. al.?). I think the local population inherited by the new arrivals would consist principally of slaves who hid rather than ran and women who could not run as fast as the sheep rather than the entire non-villa-owning section of the population being 'peacefully' acquired lock, stock and barrel.
We also should look at the holistic situation and there will have been different scenarios in different places....some dynastic displacement, some peaceful coexistence and some direct confrontations
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 22, 2017, 09:10:35 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on July 22, 2017, 08:44:28 PM
depends how you define 'free' population. A 'tenant' who's told his rent isn't going up isn't going to care too much who he pays it to. The free population in an area like that might amount to a handful of wealthy families whose coloni will might not even recognise them. Indeed the new owner might just move into the big house when the old owner flees, keep on the steward and similar, and live there with his housecarls (or whatever you want to call them) and let the administration that was there keep working for him.
Assuming the old owner flees without a fight and that the Germanic new arrivals have no particular inclination to let off steam after their voyage (we are talking about a culture noted for violent descents on the countryside, otherwise why did the Romans bother with the Saxon Shore forts et. al.?). I think the local population inherited by the new arrivals would consist principally of slaves who hid rather than ran and women who could not run as fast as the sheep rather than the entire non-villa-owning section of the population being 'peacefully' acquired lock, stock and barrel.
What you must remember is invasion is different to raiding. Raiding it's grab everything and back in the boat. Invasion and there might have been a fight thirty miles south, your leader is now in charge, a deal has been done and there's no point pillaging because it's yours anyway.
Quote from: Jim Webster on July 22, 2017, 10:04:44 PM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 22, 2017, 09:10:35 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on July 22, 2017, 08:44:28 PM
depends how you define 'free' population. A 'tenant' who's told his rent isn't going up isn't going to care too much who he pays it to. The free population in an area like that might amount to a handful of wealthy families whose coloni will might not even recognise them. Indeed the new owner might just move into the big house when the old owner flees, keep on the steward and similar, and live there with his housecarls (or whatever you want to call them) and let the administration that was there keep working for him.
Assuming the old owner flees without a fight and that the Germanic new arrivals have no particular inclination to let off steam after their voyage (we are talking about a culture noted for violent descents on the countryside, otherwise why did the Romans bother with the Saxon Shore forts et. al.?). I think the local population inherited by the new arrivals would consist principally of slaves who hid rather than ran and women who could not run as fast as the sheep rather than the entire non-villa-owning section of the population being 'peacefully' acquired lock, stock and barrel.
What you must remember is invasion is different to raiding. Raiding it's grab everything and back in the boat. Invasion and there might have been a fight thirty miles south, your leader is now in charge, a deal has been done and there's no point pillaging because it's yours anyway.
exactly so we can add that to the multidimensional situtation that would have existed all along the seaboard and in the immediate hinterland
Yes, the fenland is going to be the last land they bother with. Not even worth raiding into when there is other land to go at and by the time they get round to it, they've conquered everywhere else
Quote from: Jim Webster on July 22, 2017, 10:04:44 PM
What you must remember is invasion is different to raiding. Raiding it's grab everything and back in the boat. Invasion and there might have been a fight thirty miles south, your leader is now in charge, a deal has been done and there's no point pillaging because it's yours anyway.
Seaborne raiding ideally needs needs targets with quite dense value. You do not need to split up and chase sheep, most of which won't make it to the boat. So precious materials or slaves are the order of the day. Extracting them from the Fens might have been more effort than it was worth.
The other possibility about a landgrab is a coup. Sign up with a few ships crews to fight for a local tyrant then, once you've familiarised yourself with how things work, seize control. This could have the effect in out-of-the-way places like the Fens as Jim described - the system of rents/tribute continues with new collectors.
All of which suggests the fens may in fact have been picked up more or less by default once other areas had been subdued in more traditional fashion. This would certainly be compatible with the apparent continuity of occupancy and seemingly of cultural interactions with landscape, so yes, it could be that the fens changed hands without the customary effects of new occupancy on sheep, houses and women. One might even posit a Men-of-Kent-and-Duke-William Invicta-style bargain with the Angles once it became apparent that the Fens were standing alone.
Or the invaders may have moved in, done the usual bit of pillage etc. but taken over the survivors as a going concern as they were not, as Anthony rightly points out, raiding at this juncture but rather conquering in order to settle. And as Jim emphasises, nobody (with the possible exception of Pilgrim Fathers) wants to cross the sea purely to engage in subsistence farming, so taking over as much as possible of the resident population to do the spadework seems like a good idea.
Either way, the Fens are something of an exception to the green and pleasant agricultural land characterising the more desirable parts of the country and hence we should be very careful about assuming that a transition of ownership leaving land working practices intact in the Fens tells us anything about the rest of England.
What we can presumably conclude, and which I take to be Dave's initial point, is that the invaders did not engage in a 'final solution' involving exterminating every man jack (and woman jill?) among the locals. I would however question any assumption that the changeover involved nothing more than simple immigration and integration.
immigration and integration works best if you don't have large numbers of men, and we never get huge figures for the various Germanic people, three keels here, a few more there
The trouble with the thesis that there are few German speaking invaders and those mainly warriors who intermarry with the local indigenes is that the subsequent development of English does not contain loan words from Welsh or Latin for things to do with childhood or mothering.
I can well believe that areas such as the Fens are not immediately penetrated, but the arriving Germans came fromnFenland areas such as Frisia and would be familiae with economically exploiting such areas.
Whatever model we cleave to for the A/S takeover it has to take into account the complete Anglicisation of the East of the country.
Roy
Re Fenland anglicisation, I am remind that St Guthlac (674-715) retreated to the Fens as a hermit and was beset not only by Britons but British speaking demons. This raises the possibility that either there were British speakers there or it was felt the sort of backward place that might harbour British speakers. Fortunately, Guthlac could speak British and successfully defeated them without resort to violence.
dont forget, we are speaking about a time 1500 years ago. Multilingual societies, cross channel familial connections, multi cultural contacts...all things that possibly made the area feel part of a small world in some respects.
I was wondering if St Guthlac would get a mention. His parents seem to have had Celtic names and he was from Mercia so we can assume he knew what British sounded like.
Refugees inhabiting marginal areas seems a reasonable explanation.
I'd take the same view as Roy on this discussion and add two things. I recall we had a post on the concentration of 'Germanic' DNA in East Anglia. Also Peter Heather holds the view that East Anglia was one of the areas where mass migration took place. If so, even the rank and file warriors needed some reward if political stability was to have a chance. In such circumstances all land changes hands and the original population, where it continues, now has new owners.
agreed and mass 'extinctions' of the lower classes is much less than previously thought (and written about)
QuoteAlso Peter Heather holds the view that East Anglia was one of the areas where mass migration took place.
We shouldn't forget that the fenland isn't the majority of East Anglia. Its just the boggy wilderness at the top left. It isn't the part which would automatically attract settlers while there is better land on offer.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/ea/East_Anglian_kingdom.svg/273px-East_Anglian_kingdom.svg.png)
That is interesting, Anthony.
I hadn't realised the fens were surrounded on three land sides.
It reduces their isolation quite a bit, I think.
although it enhances their 'leave them alone' status ie not worth the bother initially