Chapter XV: Part 15

Forts of this kind were dotted all along the military roads of the Welsh and northern hill-districts. In Wales a road ran from Chester past a fort at Caer-hyn (near Conway) to a fort at Carnarvon (Segontium). A similar road ran along the south coast from Caerleon-on-Usk past a fort at Cardiff and perhaps others, to Carmarthen. A third, roughly parallel to the shore of Cardigan Bay, with forts at Llanio and Tommen-y-mur (near Festiniog), connected the northern and southern roads, while the interior was held by a system of roads and forts not yet well understood but discernible at such points as Caer-gai on Bala Lake, Castle Collen near Llandrindod Wells, the Gaer near Brecon, Merthyr and Gellygaer. In the north of Britain we find three principal roads. One led due north from York past forts at Catterick Bridge, Piers Bridge, Binchester, Lanchester, Ebchester to the wall and to Scotland, while branches through Chester-le-Street reached the Tyne Bridge (Pons Aelius) at Newcastle and the Tyne mouth at South Shields. A second road, turning north-west from Catterick Bridge, mounted the Pennine Chain by way of forts at Rokeby, Bowes and Brough-under-Stainmoor, descended into the Eden valley, reached Hadrian's wall near Carlisle (Luguvallium), and passed on to Birrens. The third route, starting from Chester and passing up the western coast, is more complex, and exists in duplicate, the result perhaps of two different schemes of road-making. Forts in plenty can be detected along it, notably Manchester (Mancunium or Mamucium), Ribchester (Bremetennacum), Brougham Castle (Brocavum), Old Penrith (Voreda), and on a western branch, Watercrook near Kendal, Waterhead near the hotel of that name on Ambleside, Hardknott above Eskdale, Maryport (Uxellod[=u]num), and Old Carlisle (possibly Petriana). In addition, two or three cross roads, not yet sufficiently explored, maintained communication between the troops in Yorkshire and those in Cheshire and Lancashire. This road system bears plain marks of having been made at different times, and with different objectives, but we have no evidence that any one part was abandoned when any other was built. There are signs, however, that various forts were dismantled as the country grew quieter. Thus, Gellygaer in South Wales and Hardknott in Cumberland have yielded nothing later than the opening of the 2nd century.

From _Social England_, by permission of Cassell & Co., Ltd.]

Besides these detached forts and their connecting roads, the north of Britain was defended by Hadrian's wall (figs. 2 and 3). The history of this wall has been given above. The actual works are threefold. First, there is that which to-day forms the most striking feature in the whole, the wall of stone 6-8 ft. thick, and originally perhaps 14 ft. high, with a deep ditch in front, and forts and "mile castles" and turrets and a connecting road behind it. On the high moors between Chollerford and Gilsland its traces are still plain, as it climbs from hill to hill and winds along perilous precipices. Secondly, there is the so-called "Vallum," in reality no _vallum_ at all, but a broad flat-bottomed ditch out of which the earth has been cast up on either side into regular and continuous mounds that resemble ramparts. Thirdly, nowhere very clear on the surface and as yet detected only at a few points, there are the remains of the "turf wall," constructed of sods laid in regular courses, with a ditch in front. This turf wall is certainly older than the stone wall, and, as our ancient writers mention two wall-builders, Hadrian and Septimius Severus, the natural inference is that Hadrian built his wall of [v.04 p.0586] turf and Severus reconstructed it in stone. The reconstruction probably followed in general the line of Hadrian's wall in order to utilize the existing ditch, and this explains why the turf wall itself survives only at special points. In general it was destroyed to make way for the new wall in stone. Occasionally (as at Birdoswald) there was a deviation, and the older work survived. This conversion of earthwork into stone in the age of Severus can be paralleled from other parts of the Roman empire.

The meaning of the _vallum_ is much more doubtful. John Hodgson and Bruce, the local authorities of the 19th century, supposed that it was erected to defend the wall from southern insurgents. Others have ascribed it to Agricola, or have thought it to be the wall of Hadrian, or even assigned it to pre-Roman natives. The two facts that are clear about it are, that it is a Roman work, no older than Hadrian (if so old), and that it was not intended, like the wall, for military defence. Probably it is contemporaneous with either the turf wall or the stone wall, and marked some limit of the civil province of Britain. Beyond this we cannot at present go.

III. _The Civilization of Roman Britain._--Behind these formidable garrisons, sheltered from barbarians and in easy contact with the Roman empire, stretched the lowlands of southern and eastern Britain. Here a civilized life grew up, and Roman culture spread. This part of Britain became Romanized. In the lands looking on to the Thames estuary (Kent, Essex, Middlesex) the process had perhaps begun before the Roman conquest. It was continued after that event, and in two ways. To some extent it was definitely encouraged by the Roman government, which here, as elsewhere, founded towns peopled with Roman citizens--generally discharged legionaries--and endowed them with franchise and constitution like those of the Italian municipalities. It developed still more by its own automatic growth. The coherent civilization of the Romans was accepted by the Britons, as it was by the Gauls, with something like enthusiasm. Encouraged perhaps by sympathetic Romans, spurred on still more by their own instincts, and led no doubt by their nobles, they began to speak Latin, to use the material resources of Roman civilized life, and in time to consider themselves not the unwilling subjects of a foreign empire, but the British members of the Roman state. The steps by which these results were reached can to some extent be dated. Within a few years of the Claudian invasion a _colonia_, or municipality of time-expired soldiers, had been planted in the old native capital of Colchester (Camulod[=u]num), and though it served at first mainly as a fortress and thus provoked British hatred, it came soon to exercise a civilizing influence. At the same time the British town of Verulamium (St Albans) was thought sufficiently Romanized to deserve the municipal status of a _municipium_, which at this period differed little from that of a _colonia_. Romanized Britons must now have begun to be numerous. In the great revolt of Boadicea (60) the nationalist party seem to have massacred many thousands of them along with actual Romans. Fifteen or twenty years later, the movement increases. Towns spring up, such as Silchester, laid out in Roman fashion, furnished with public buildings of Roman type, and filled with houses which are Roman in fittings if not in plan. The baths of Bath (Aquae Sulis) are exploited. Another _colonia_ is planted at Lincoln (Lindum), and a third at Gloucester (Glevum) in 96. A new "chief judge" is appointed for increasing civil business. The tax-gatherer and recruiting officer begin to make their way into the hills. During the 2nd century progress was perhaps slower, hindered doubtless by the repeated risings in the north. It was not till the 3rd century that country houses and farms became common in most parts of the civilized area. In the beginning of the 4th century the skilled artisans and builders, and the cloth and corn of Britain were equally famous on the continent. This probably was the age when the prosperity and Romanization of the province reached its height. By this time the town populations and the educated among the country-folk spoke Latin, and Britain regarded itself as a Roman land, inhabited by Romans and distinct from outer barbarians.

The civilization which had thus spread over half the island was genuinely Roman, identical in kind with that of the other western provinces of the empire, and in particular with that of northern Gaul. But it was defective in quantity. The elements which compose it are marked by smaller size, less wealth and less splendour than the same elements elsewhere. It was also uneven in its distribution. Large tracts, in particular Warwickshire and the adjoining midlands, were very thinly inhabited. Even densely peopled areas like north Kent, the Sussex coast, west Gloucestershire and east Somerset, immediately adjoin areas like the Weald of Kent and Sussex where Romano-British remains hardly occur.

The administration of the civilized part of the province, while subject to the governor of all Britain, was practically entrusted to local authorities. Each Roman municipality ruled itself and a territory perhaps as large as a small county which belonged to it. Some districts belonged to the Imperial Domains, and were administered by agents of the emperor. The rest, by far the larger part of the country, was divided up among the old native tribes or cantons, some ten or twelve in number, each grouped round some country town where its council (_ordo_) met for cantonal business. This cantonal system closely resembles that which we find in Gaul. It is an old native element recast in Roman form, and well illustrates the Roman principle of local government by devolution.

In the general framework of Romano-British life the two chief features were the town, and the _villa_. The towns of the province, as we have already implied, fall into two classes. Five modern cities, Colchester, Lincoln, York, Gloucester and St Albans, stand on the sites, and in some fragmentary fashion bear the names of five Roman municipalities, founded by the Roman government with special charters and constitutions. All of these reached a considerable measure of prosperity. None of them rivals the greater municipalities of other provinces. Besides them we trace a larger number of country towns, varying much in size, but all possessing in some degree the characteristics of a town. The chief of these seem to be cantonal capitals, probably developed out of the market centres or capitals of the Celtic tribes before the Roman conquest. Such are Isurium Brigantum, capital of the Brigantes, 12 m. north-west of York and the most northerly Romano-British town; Ratae, now Leicester, capital of the Coritani; Viroconium, now Wroxeter, near Shrewsbury, capital of the Cornovii; Venta Silurum, now Caerwent, near Chepstow; Corinium, now Cirencester, capital of the Dobuni; Isca Dumnoniorum, now Exeter, the most westerly of these towns; Durnovaria, now Dorchester, in Dorset, capital of the Durotriges; Venta Belgarum, now Winchester; Calleva Atrebatum, now Silchester, 10 m. south of Reading; Durovernum Cantiacorum, now Canterbury; and Venta Icenorum, now Caistor-by-Norwich. Besides these country towns, Londinium (London) was a rich and important trading town, centre of the road system, and the seat of the finance officials of the province, as the remarkable objects discovered in it abundantly prove, while Aquae Sulis (Bath) was a spa provided with splendid baths, and a richly adorned temple of the native patron deity, Sul or Sulis, whom the Romans called Minerva. Many smaller places, too, for example, Magna or Kenchester near Hereford, Durobrivae or Rochester in Kent, another Durobrivae near Peterborough, a site of uncertain name near Cambridge, another of uncertain name near Chesterford, exhibited some measure of town life.

As a specimen we may take Silchester, remarkable as the one town in the whole Roman empire which has been completely [v.04 p.0587] and systematically uncovered. As we see it to-day, it is an open space of 100 acres, set on a hill with a wide prospect east and south and west, in shape an irregular hexagon, enclosed in a circuit of a mile and a half by the massive ruins of a city wall which still stands here and there some 20 ft. high (fig. 4). Outside, on the north-east, is the grassy hollow of a tiny amphitheatre; on the west a line of earthworks runs in wider circuit than the walls. The area within the walls is a vast expanse of cultivated land, unbroken by any vestige of antiquity; yet the soil is thick with tile and potsherd, and in hot summers the unevenly growing corn reveals the remains of streets beneath the surface. Casual excavations were made here in 1744 and 1833; more systematic ones intermittently between 1864 and 1884 by the Rev. J.G. Joyce and others; finally, in May 1890, the complete uncovering of the whole site was begun by Mr G.E. Fox and others. The work was carried on with splendid perseverance, and the uncovering of the interior was completed in 1908.

The chief results concern the buildings. Though these have vanished wholly from the surface, the foundations and lowest courses of their walls survive fairly perfect below ground: thus the plan of the town can be minutely recovered, and both the character of the buildings which make up a place like Calleva, and the character of Romano-British buildings generally, become plainer. Of the buildings the chief are:--

1. _Forum._--Near the middle of the town was a rectangular block covering two acres. It comprised a central open court, 132 ft. by 140 ft. in size, surrounded on three sides by a corridor or cloister, with rooms opening on the cloister (fig. 5). On the fourth side was a great hall, with rooms opening into it from behind. This hall was 270 ft. long and 58 ft. wide; two rows of Corinthian columns ran down the middle, and the clerestory roof may have stood 50 ft. above the floor; the walls were frescoed or lined with marble, and for ornament there were probably statues. Finally, a corridor ran round outside the whole block. Here the local authorities had their offices, justice was administered, traders trafficked, citizens and idlers gathered. Though we cannot apportion the rooms to their precise uses, the great hall was plainly the basilica, for meetings and business; the rooms behind it were perhaps law courts, and some of the rooms on the other three sides of the quadrangle may have been shops. Similar municipal buildings existed in most towns of the western Empire, whether they were full municipalities or (as probably Calleva was) of lower rank. The Callevan Forum seems in general simpler than others, but its basilica is remarkably large. Probably the British climate compelled more indoor life than the sunnier south.

2. _Temples._--Two small square temples, of a common western-provincial type, were in the east of the town; the _cella_ of the larger measured 42 ft. sq., and was lined with Purbeck marble. A third, circular temple stood between the forum and the south gate. A fourth, a smaller square shrine found in 1907 a little east of the forum, yielded some interesting inscriptions which relate to a gild (_collegium_) and incidentally confirm the name Calleva.

3. _Christian Church._--Close outside the south-east angle of the forum was a small edifice, 42 ft. by 27 ft., consisting of a nave and two aisles which ended at the east in a porch as wide as the building, and at the west in an apse and two flanking chambers. The nave and porch were floored with plain red tesserae: in the apse was a simple mosaic panel in red, black and white. Round the building was a yard, fenced with wooden palings; in it were a well near the apse, and a small structure of tile with a pit near the east end. No direct proof of date or use was discovered. But the ground plan is that of an early Christian church of the "basilican" type. This type comprised nave and aisles, ending at one end in an apse and two chambers resembling rudimentary transepts, and at the other end in a porch (_narthex_). Previous to about A.D. 420 the porch was often at the east end and the apse at the west, and the altar, often movable, stood in the apse--as at Silchester, perhaps, on the mosaic panel. A court enclosed the whole; near the porch was a laver for the ablutions of intending worshippers. Many such churches have been found in other countries, especially in Roman Africa; no other satisfactory instance is known in Britain.

4. _Town Baths._--A suite of public baths stood a little east of the forum. At the entrance were a peristyle court for loungers and a latrine: hence the bather passed into the Apodyterium (dressing-room), the Frigidarium (cold room) fitted with a cold bath for use at the end of the bathing ceremony, and a series of hot rooms--the whole resembling many modern Turkish baths. In their first form the baths of Silchester were about 160 ft. by 80 ft., but they were later considerably extended.

5. _Private Houses._--The private houses of Silchester are of two types. They consist either of a row of rooms, with a corridor along them, and perhaps one or two additional rooms at one or both ends, or of three such corridors and rows of rooms, forming three sides of a large square open yard. They are detached houses, standing each in its own garden, and not forming terraces or rows. The country houses of Roman Britain have long been recognized as embodying these (or allied) types; now it becomes plain that they were the normal types throughout Britain. They differ widely from the town houses of Rome and Pompeii: they are less unlike some of the country houses of Italy and Roman Africa; but their real parallels occur in Gaul, and they may be Celtic types modified to Roman use--like Indian bungalows. Their internal fittings--hypocausts, frescoes, mosaics--are everywhere Roman; those at Silchester are average specimens, and, except for one mosaic, not individually striking. The largest Silchester house, with a special annexe for baths, is usually taken to be a guest-house or inn for travellers between London and the west (fig. 6). Altogether, the town probably did not contain more than seventy or eighty houses of any size, and large spaces were not built over at all. This fact and the peculiar character of the houses must have given to Silchester rather the appearance of a village with scattered cottages, each in its own plot facing its own way, than a town with regular and continuous streets.

6. _Industries._--Shops are conjectured in the forum and elsewhere, [v.04 p.0588] but were not numerous. Many dyers' furnaces, a little silver refinery, and perhaps a bakery have also been noticed.

7. _Streets, Roads, &c._--The streets were paved with gravel: they varied in width up to 28½ ft. They intersect regularly at right angles, dividing the town into square blocks, like modern Mannheim or Turin, according to a Roman system usual in both Italy and the provinces: plainly they were laid out all at once, possibly by Agricola (Tac. _Agr._ 21) and most probably about his time. There were four chief gates, not quite symmetrically placed. The town-walls are built of flint and concrete bonded with ironstone, and are backed with earth. In the plans, though not in the reports, of the excavations, they are shown as built later than the streets. No traces of meat-market, theatre or aqueduct have come to light: water was got from wells lined with wooden tubs, and must have been scanty in dry summers. Smaller objects abound--coins, pottery, window and bottle and cup glass, bronze ornaments, iron tools, &c.--and many belong to the beginnings of Calleva, but few pieces are individually notable. Traces of late Celtic art are singularly absent; Roman fashions rule supreme, and inscriptions show that even the lower classes here spoke and wrote Latin. Outside the walls were the cemeteries, not yet explored. Of suburbs we have as yet no hint. Nor indeed is the neighbourhood of Calleva at all rich in Roman remains. In fact, as well as in Celtic etymology, it was "the town in the forest." A similar absence of remains may be noticed outside other Romano-British towns, and is significant of their economic position. Such doubtless were most of the towns of Roman Britain--thoroughly Romanized, peopled with Roman-speaking citizens, furnished with Roman appurtenances, living in Roman ways, but not very large, not very rich, a humble witness to the assimilating power of the Roman civilization in Britain.

The country, as opposed to the towns, of Roman Britain seems to have been divided into estates, commonly (though perhaps incorrectly) known as "villas." Many examples survive, some of them large and luxurious country-houses, some mere farms, constructed usually on one of the two patterns described in the account of Silchester above. The inhabitants were plainly as various--a few of them great nobles and wealthy landowners, others small farmers or possibly bailiffs. Some of these estates were worked on the true "villa" system, by which the lord occupied the "great house," and cultivated the land close round it by slaves, while he let the rest to half-free _coloni_. But other systems may have prevailed as well. Among the most important country-houses are those of Bignor in west Sussex, and Woodchester and Chedworth in Gloucestershire.

The wealth of the country was principally agrarian. Wheat and wool were exported in the 4th century, when, as we have said, Britain was especially prosperous. But the details of the trade are unrecorded. More is known of the lead and iron mines which, at least in the first two centuries, were worked in many districts--lead in Somerset, Shropshire, Flintshire and Derbyshire; iron in the west Sussex Weald, the Forest of Dean, and (to a slight extent) elsewhere. Other minerals were less notable. The gold mentioned by Tacitus proved scanty. The Cornish tin, according to present evidence, was worked comparatively little, and perhaps most in the later Empire.

Lastly, the roads. Here we must put aside all idea of "Four Great Roads." That category is probably the invention of antiquaries, and certainly unconnected with Roman Britain (see ERMINE STREET). Instead, we may distinguish four main groups of roads radiating from London, and a fifth which runs obliquely. One road ran south-east to Canterbury and the Kentish ports, of which Richborough (Rutupiae) was the most frequented. A second ran west to Silchester, and thence by various branches to Winchester, Exeter, Bath, Gloucester and South Wales. A third, known afterwards to the English as Watling Street, ran by St Albans Wall near Lichfield (Letocetum), to Wroxeter and Chester. It also gave access by a branch to Leicester and Lincoln. A fourth served Colchester, the eastern counties, Lincoln and York. The fifth is that known to the English as the Fosse, which joins Lincoln and Leicester with Cirencester, Bath and Exeter. Besides these five groups, an obscure road, called by the Saxons Akeman Street, gave alternative access from London through Alchester (outside of Bicester) to Bath, while another obscure road winds south from near Sheffield, past Derby and Birmingham, and connects the lower Severn with the Humber. By these roads and their various branches the Romans provided adequate communications throughout the lowlands of Britain.

IV. _The End of Roman Britain._--Early in the 4th century it was necessary to establish a special coast defence, reaching from the Wash to Spithead, against Saxon pirates: there were forts at Brancaster, Borough Castle (near Yarmouth), Bradwell (at the mouth of the Colne and Blackwater), Reculver, Richborough, Dover and Lymme (all in Kent), Pevensey in Sussex, Porchester near Portsmouth, and perhaps also at Felixstowe in Suffolk. After about 350, barbarian assaults, not only of Saxons but also of Irish (Scoti) and Picts, became commoner and more terrible. At the end of the century Magnus Maximus, claiming to be emperor, withdrew many troops from Britain and a later pretender did the same. Early in the 5th century the Teutonic conquest of Gaul cut the island off from Rome. This does not mean that there was any great "departure of Romans." The central government simply ceased to send the usual governors and high officers. The Romano-British were left to themselves. Their position was weak. Their fortresses lay in the north and west, while the Saxons attacked the east and south. Their trained troops, and even their own numbers, must have been few. It is intelligible that they followed a precedent set by Rome in that age, and hired Saxons to repel Saxons. But they could not command the fidelity of their mercenaries, and the Saxon peril only grew greater. It would seem as if the Romano-Britons were speedily driven from the east of the island. Even Wroxeter on the Welsh border may have been finally destroyed before the end of the 5th century. It seems that the Saxons though apparently unable to maintain their hold so far to the west, were able to prevent the natives from recovering the lowlands. Thus driven from the centres of Romanized life, from the region of walled cities and civilized houses, into the hills of Wales and the north-west, the provincials underwent an intelligible change. The Celtic element, never quite extinct in those hills and, like most forms of barbarism, reasserting itself in this wild age--not without reinforcement from Ireland--challenged the remnants of Roman civilization and in the end absorbed them. The Celtic language reappeared; the Celtic art emerged from its shelters in the west to develop in new and medieval fashions.

AUTHORITIES.--The principal references to early Britain in classical writers occur in Strabo, Diodorus, Julius Caesar, the elder Pliny, Tacitus, Ptolemy and Cassius Dio, and in the lists of the Antonine Itinerary (probably about A.D. 210-230; ed. Parthey, 1848), the _Notitia Dignitatum_ (about A.D. 400; ed. Seeck, 1876), and the Ravennas (7th-century _rechauffé_; ed. Parthey 1860). The chief passages are collected in Petrie's _Monumenta Hist. Britann._ (1848), and (alphabetically) in Holder's _Altkeltische Sprachschatz_ (1896-1908). The Roman inscriptions have been collected by Hübner, _Corpus Inscriptionum Latin._ vii. (1873), and in supplements by Hübner and Haverfield in the periodical _Ephemeris epigraphica_; see also Hübner, _Inscript. Britann. Christianae_ (1876, now out of date), and J. Rhys on Pictish, &c., inscriptions, _Proceedings Soc. Antiq. Scotland_, xxvi., xxxii.

Of modern works the best summary for Roman Britain and for Caesar's invasions is T.R. Holmes, _Ancient Britain_ (1907), who cites numerous authorities. See also Sir John Evans, _Stone Implements, [v.04 p.0589] Bronze Implements_, and _Ancient British Coins_ (with suppl.); Boyd Dawkins, _Early Man in Britain_ (1880); J. Rhys, _Celtic Britain_ (3rd ed., 1904). For late Celtic art see J.M. Kemble and A.W. Franks' _Horae Ferales_ (1863), and Arthur J. Evans in _Archaeologia_, vols. lii.-lv. Celtic ethnology and philology (see CELT) are still in the "age of discussion." For ancient earthworks see A. Hadrian Allcroft, _Earthwork of England_ (1909).

For Roman Britain see, in general, Prof. F. Haverfield, _The Romanization of Roman Britain_ (Oxford, 1906), and his articles in the _Victoria County History_; also the chapter in Mommsen's _Roman Provinces_; and an article in the _Edinburgh Review_, 1899. For the wall of Hadrian see John Hodgson, _History of Northumberland_ (1840); J.C. Bruce, _Roman Wall_ (3rd ed., 1867); reports of excavations by Haverfield in the _Cumberland Archaeological Society Transactions_ (1894-1904); and R.C. Bosanquet, _Roman Camp at Housesteads_ (Newcastle, 1904). For the Scottish Excavations see _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_, xx.-xl., and especially J. Macdonald, _Bar Hill_ (reprint, Glasgow, 1906). For other forts see R.S. Ferguson, _Cumberland Arch. Soc. Trans._ xii., on Hardknott; and J. Ward, _Roman Fort of Gellygaer_ (London, 1903). For the Roman occupation of Scotland see Haverfield in _Antonine Wall Report_ (1899); J. Macdonald, _Roman Stones in Hunterian Mus._ (1897); and, though an older work, Stuart's _Caledonia Romana_ (1852). For Silchester, _Archaeologia_ (1890-1908); for Caerwent (ib. 1901-1908); for London, Charles Roach Smith, _Roman London_ (1859); for Christianity in Roman Britain, _Engl. Hist. Rev._ (1896); for the villages, Gen. Pitt-Rivers' _Excavations in Cranborne Chase, &c._ (4 vols., 1887-1908), and _Proc. Soc. of Ant._ xviii. For the end of Roman Britain see _Engl. Hist. Rev._ (1904); Prof. Bury's _Life of St Patrick_ (1905); Haverfield's _Romanization_ (cited above); and P. Vinogradoff, _Growth of the Manor_ (1905), bk. i.

(F. J. H.)

ANGLO-SAXON BRITAIN

1. _History._--The history of Britain after the withdrawal of the Roman troops is extremely obscure, but there can be little doubt that for many years the inhabitants of the provinces were exposed to devastating raids by the Picts and Scots. According to Gildas it was for protection against these incursions that the Britons decided to call in the Saxons. Their allies soon obtained a decisive victory; but subsequently they turned their arms against the Britons themselves, alleging that they had not received sufficient payment for their services. A somewhat different account, probably of English origin, may be traced in the _Historia Brittonum_, according to which the first leaders of the Saxons, Hengest and Horsa, came as exiles, seeking the protection of the British king, Vortigern. Having embraced his service they quickly succeeded in expelling the northern invaders. Eventually, however, they overcame the Britons through treachery, by inducing the king to allow them to send for large bodies of their own countrymen. It was to these adventurers, according to tradition, that the kingdom of Kent owed its origin. The story is in itself by no means improbable, while the dates assigned to the first invasion by various Welsh, Gaulish and English authorities, with one exception all fall within about a quarter of a century, viz. between the year 428 and the joint reign of Martian and Valentinian III. (450-455).

For the subsequent course of the invasion our information is of the most meagre and unsatisfactory character. According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle the kingdom of Sussex was founded by a certain Ella or Ælle, who landed in 477, while Wessex owed its origin to Cerdic, who arrived some eighteen years later. No value, however, can be attached to these dates; indeed, in the latter case the story itself is open to suspicion on several grounds (see WESSEX). For the movements which led to the foundation of the more northern kingdoms we have no evidence worth consideration, nor do we know even approximately when they took place. But the view that the invasion was effected throughout by small bodies of adventurers acting independently of one another, and that each of the various kingdoms owes its origin to a separate enterprise, has little probability in its favour. Bede states that the invaders belonged to three different nations, Kent and southern Hampshire being occupied by Jutes (_q.v._), while Essex, Sussex and Wessex were founded by the Saxons, and the remaining kingdoms by the Angli (_q.v._). The peculiarities of social organization in Kent certainly tend to show that this kingdom had a different origin from the rest; but the evidence for the distinction between the Saxons and the Angli is of a much less satisfactory character (see ANGLO-SAXONS). The royal family of Essex may really have been of Saxon origin (see ESSEX), but on the other hand the West Saxon royal family claimed to be of the same stock as that of Bernicia, and their connexions in the past seem to have lain with the Angli.

We need not doubt that the first invasion was followed by a long period of warfare between the natives and the invaders, in which the latter gradually strengthened their hold on the conquered territories. It is very probable that by the end of the 5th century all the eastern part of Britain, at least as far as the Humber, was in their hands. The first important check was received at the siege of "Mons Badonicus" in the year 517 (_Ann. Cambr._), or perhaps rather some fifteen or twenty years earlier. According to Gildas this event was followed by a period of peace for at least forty-four years. In the latter part of the 6th century, however, the territories occupied by the invaders seem to have been greatly extended. In the south the West Saxons are said to have conquered first Wiltshire and then all the upper part of the Thames valley, together with the country beyond as far as the Severn. The northern frontier also seems to have been pushed considerably farther forward, perhaps into what is now Scotland, and it is very probable that the basin of the Trent, together with the central districts between the Trent and the Thames, was conquered about the same time, though of this we have no record. Again, the destruction of Chester about 615 was soon followed by the overthrow of the British kingdom of Elmet in south-west Yorkshire, and the occupation of Shropshire and the Lothians took place perhaps about the same period, that of Herefordshire probably somewhat later. In the south, Somerset is said to have been conquered by the West Saxons shortly after the middle of the 7th century. Dorset had probably been acquired by them before this time, while part of Devon seems to have come into their hands soon afterwards.

The area thus conquered was occupied by a number of separate kingdoms, each with a royal family of its own. The districts north of the Humber contained two kingdoms, Bernicia (_q.v._) and Deira (_q.v._), which were eventually united in Northumbria. South of the Humber, Lindsey seems to have had a dynasty of its own, though in historical times it was apparently always subject to the kings of Northumbria or Mercia. The upper basin of the Trent formed the nucleus of the kingdom of Mercia (_q.v._), while farther down the east coast was the kingdom of East Anglia (_q.v._). Between these two lay a territory called Middle Anglia, which is sometimes described as a kingdom, though we do not know whether it ever had a separate dynasty. Essex, Kent and Sussex (see articles on these kingdoms) preserve the names of ancient kingdoms, while the old diocese of Worcester grew out of the kingdom of the Hwicce (_q.v._), with which it probably coincided in area. The south of England, between Sussex and "West Wales" (eventually reduced to Cornwall), was occupied by Wessex, which originally also possessed some territory to the north of the Thames. Lastly, even the Isle of Wight appears to have had a dynasty of its own. But it must not be supposed that all these kingdoms were always, or even normally, independent. When history begins, Æthelberht, king of Kent, was supreme over all the kings south of the Humber. He was followed by the East Anglian king Raedwald, and the latter again by a series of Northumbrian kings with an even wider supremacy. Before Æthelberht a similar position had been held by the West Saxon king Ceawlin, and at a much earlier period, according to tradition, by Ella or Ælle, the first king of Sussex. The nature of this supremacy has been much discussed, but the true explanation seems to be furnished by that principle of personal allegiance which formed such an important element in Anglo-Saxon society.

2. _Government._--Internally the various states seem to have been organized on very similar lines. In every case we find kingly government from the time of our earliest records, and there is no doubt that the institution goes back to a date anterior to the invasion of Britain (see OFFA; WERMUND). The royal title, however, was frequently borne by more than one person. Sometimes we find one supreme king together with a number of under-kings (_subreguli_); sometimes again, especially in the smaller kingdoms, Essex, Sussex and Hwicce, we meet with two [v.04 p.0590] or more kings, generally brothers, reigning together apparently on equal terms. During the greater part of the 8th century Kent seems to have been divided into two kingdoms; but as a rule such divisions did not last beyond the lifetime of the kings between whom the arrangement had been made. The kings were, with very rare exceptions, chosen from one particular family in each state, the ancestry of which was traced back not only to the founder of the kingdom but also, in a remoter degree, to a god. The members of such families were entitled to special wergilds, apparently six times as great as those of the higher class of nobles (see below).

The only other central authority in the state was the king's council or court (_þeod_, _witan_, _plebs_, _concilium_). This body consisted partly of young warriors in constant attendance on the king, and partly of senior officials whom he called together from time to time. The terms used for the two classes by Bede are _milites_ (_ministri_) and _comites_, for which the Anglo-Saxon version has _þegnas_ and _gesiðas_ respectively. Both classes alike consisted in part of members of the royal family. But they were by no means confined to such persons or even to born subjects of the king. Indeed, we are told that popular kings like Oswine attracted young nobles to their service from all quarters. The functions of the council have been much discussed, and it has been claimed that they had the right of electing and deposing kings. This view, however, seems to involve the existence of a greater feeling for constitutionalism than is warranted by the information at our disposal. The incidents which have been brought forward as evidence to this effect may with at least equal probability be interpreted as cases of profession or transference of personal allegiance. In other respects the functions of the council seem to have been of a deliberative character. It was certainly customary for the king to seek their advice and moral support on important questions, but there is nothing to show that he had to abide by the opinion of the majority.

For administrative purposes each of the various kingdoms was divided into a number of districts under the charge of royal reeves (_cyninges gerefa_, _praefectus_, _praepositus_). These officials seem to have been located in royal villages (_cyninges tun_, _villa regalis_) or fortresses (_cyninges burg_, _urbs regis_), which served as centres and meeting-places (markets, &c.) for the inhabitants of the district, and to which their dues, both in payments and services had to be rendered. The usual size of such districts in early times seems to have been 300, 600 or 1200 hides.[1] In addition to these districts we find mention also of much larger divisions containing 2000, 3000, 5000 or 7000 hides. To this category belong the shires of Wessex (Hampshire, Wiltshire, Berkshire, &c.), each of which had an earl (_aldormon_, _princeps_, _dux_) of its own, at all events from the 8th century onwards. Many, if not all, of these persons were members of the royal family, and it is not unlikely that they originally bore the kingly title. At all events they are sometimes described as _subreguli_.

3. _Social Organization._--The officials mentioned above, whether of royal birth or not, were probably drawn from the king's personal retinue. In Anglo-Saxon society, as in that of all Teutonic nations in early times, the two most important principles were those of kinship and personal allegiance. If a man suffered injury it was to his relatives and his lord, rather than to any public official, that he applied first for protection and redress. If he was slain, a fixed sum (_wergild_), varying according to his station, had to be paid to his relatives, while a further but smaller sum (_manbot_) was due to his lord. These principles applied to all classes of society alike, and though strife within the family was by no means unknown, at all events in royal families, the actual slaying of a kinsman was regarded as the most heinous of all offences. Much the same feeling applied to the slaying of a lord--an offence for which no compensation could be rendered. How far the armed followers of a lord were entitled to compensation when the latter was slain is uncertain, but in the case of a king they received an amount equal to the wergild. Another important development of the principle of allegiance is to be found in the custom of heriots. In later times this custom amounted practically to a system of death-duties, payable in horses and arms or in money to the lord of the deceased. There can be little doubt, however, that originally it was a restoration to the lord of the military outfit with which he had presented his man when he entered his service. The institution of thegnhood, _i.e._ membership of the _comitatus_ or retinue of a prince, offered the only opening by which public life could be entered. Hence it was probably adopted almost universally by young men of the highest classes. The thegn was expected to fight for his lord, and generally to place his services at his disposal in both war and peace. The lord, on the other hand, had to keep his thegns and reward them from time to time with arms and treasure. When they were of an age to marry he was expected to provide them with the means of doing so. If the lord was a king this provision took the form of a grant, perhaps normally ten hides, from the royal lands. Such estates were not strictly hereditary, though as a mark of favour they were not unfrequently re-granted to the sons of deceased holders.

The structure of society in England was of a somewhat peculiar type. In addition to slaves, who in early times seem to have been numerous, we find in Wessex and apparently also in Mercia three classes, described as _twelfhynde_, _sixhynde_ and _twihynde_ from the amount of their wergilds, viz. 1200, 600 and 200 shillings respectively. It is probable that similar classes existed also in Northumbria, though not under the same names. Besides these terms there were others which were probably in use everywhere, viz. _gesiðcund_ for the two higher classes and _ceorlisc_ for the lowest. Indeed, we find these terms even in Kent, though the social system of that kingdom seems to have been of an essentially different character. Here the wergild of the _ceorlisc_ class amounted to 100 shillings, each containing twenty silver coins (_sceattas_), as against 200 shillings of four (in Wessex five) silver coins, and was thus very much greater than the latter. Again, there was apparently but one _gestiðcund_ class in Kent, with a wergild of 300 shillings, while, on the other hand, below the _ceorlisc_ class we find three classes of persons described as _laetas_, who corresponded in all probability to the _liti_ or freedmen of the continental laws, and who possessed wergilds of 80, 60 and 40 shillings respectively. To these we find nothing analogous in the other kingdoms, though the poorer classes of Welsh freemen had wergilds varying from 120 to 60 shillings. It should be added that the differential treatment of the various classes was by no means confined to the case of wergilds. We find it also in the compensations to which they were entitled for various injuries, in the fines to which they were liable, and in the value attached to their oaths. Generally, though not always, the proportions observed were the same as in the wergilds.

The nature of the distinction between the _gesiðcund_ and _ceorlisc_ classes is nowhere clearly explained; but it was certainly hereditary and probably of considerable antiquity. In general we may perhaps define them as nobles and commons, though in view of the numbers of the higher classes it would probably be more correct to speak of gentry and peasants. The distinction between the _twelfhynde_ and _sixhynde_ classes was also in part at least hereditary, but there is good reason for believing that it arose out of the possession of land. The former consisted of persons who possessed, whether as individuals or families, at least five hides of land--which practically means a village--while the latter were landless, _i.e._ probably without this amount of land. Within the _ceorlisc_ class we find similar subdivisions, though they were not marked by a difference in wergild. The _gafolgelda_ or _tributarius_ (tribute-payer) seems to have been a ceorl who possessed at least a hide, while the _gebur_ was without land of his own, and received his outfit as a loan from his lord.

4. _Payments and Services._--We have already had occasion to refer to the dues which were rendered by different classes of the population, and which the reeves in royal villages had to collect and superintend. The payments seem to have varied greatly according to the class from which they were due. Those [v.04 p.0591] rendered by landowners seem to have been known as _feorm_ or _fostor_, and consisted of a fixed quantity of articles paid in kind. In Ine's Laws (cap. 70) we find a list of payments specified for a unit of ten hides, perhaps the normal holding of a _twelfhynde_ man--though on the other hand it may be nothing more than a mere fiscal unit in an aggregate of estates. The list consists of oxen, sheep, geese, hens, honey, ale, loaves, cheese, butter, fodder, salmon and eels. Very similar specifications are found elsewhere. The payments rendered by the _gafolgelda_ (_tributarius_) were known as _gafol_ (_tributuni_), as his name implies. In Ine's Laws we hear only of the _hwitel_ or white cloak, which was to be of the value of six pence per household (hide), and of barley, which was to be six pounds in weight for each worker. In later times we meet with many other payments both in money and in kind, some of which were doubtless in accordance with ancient custom. On the other hand the _gebur_ seems not to have been liable to payments of this kind, presumably because the land which he cultivated formed part of the demesne (_inland_) of his lord. The term _gafol_, however, may have been applied to the payments which he rendered to the latter.

The services required of landowners were very manifold in character. Probably the most important were military service (_fird_, _expeditio_) and the repairing of fortifications and bridges--the _trinoda necessitas_ of later times. Besides these we find reference in charters of the 9th century to the keeping of the king's hunters, horses, dogs and hawks, and the entertaining of messengers and other persons in the king's service. The duties of men of the _sixhynde_ class, if they are to be identified with the _radcnihtas_ (_radmanni_) of later times, probably consisted chiefly in riding on the king's (or their lord's) business. The services of the peasantry can only be conjectured from what we find in later times. Presumably their chief duty was to undertake a share in the cultivation of the demesne land. We need scarcely doubt also that the labour of repairing fortifications and bridges, though it is charged against the landowners, was in reality delegated by them to their dependents.

5. _Warfare._--All classes are said to have been liable to the duty of military service. Hence, since the ceorls doubtless formed the bulk of the population, it has been thought that the Anglo-Saxon armies of early times were essentially peasant forces. The evidence at our disposal, however, gives little justification for such a view. The regulation that every five or six hides should supply a warrior was not a product of the Danish invasions, as is sometimes stated, but goes back at least to the beginning of the 9th century. Had the fighting material been drawn from the _ceorlisc_ class a warrior would surely have been required from each hide, but for military service no such regulation is found. Again, the fird (_fyrd_) was composed of mounted warriors during the 9th century, though apparently they fought on foot, and there are indications that such was the case also in the 7th century. No doubt ceorls took part in military expeditions, but they may have gone as attendants and camp-followers rather than as warriors, their chief business being to make stockades and bridges, and especially to carry provisions. The serious fighting, however, was probably left to the _gesiðcund_ classes, who possessed horses and more or less effective weapons. Indeed, there is good reason for regarding these classes as essentially military.

The chief weapons were the sword and spear. The former were two-edged and on the average about 3 ft. long. The hilts were often elaborately ornamented and sometimes these weapons were of considerable value. No definite line can be drawn between the spear proper and the javelin. The spear-heads which have been found in graves vary considerably in both form and size. They were fitted on to the shaft, by a socket which was open on one side. Other weapons appear to have been quite rare. Bows and arrows were certainly in use for sporting purposes, but there is no reason for believing that they were much used in warfare before the Danish invasions. They are very seldom met with in graves. The most common article of defensive armour was the shield, which was small and circular and apparently of quite thin lime-wood, the edge being formed probably by a thin band of iron. In the centre of the shield, in order to protect the hand which held it, was a strong iron boss, some 7 in. in diameter and projecting about 3 in. It is clear from literary evidence that the helmet (_helm_) and coat of chain mail (_byrne_) were also in common use. They are seldom found in graves, however, whether owing to the custom of heriots or to the fact that, on account of their relatively high value, they were frequently handed on from generation to generation as heirlooms. Greaves are not often mentioned. It is worth noting that in later times the heriot of an "ordinary thegn" (_medema þegn_)--by which is meant apparently not a king's thegn but a man of the _twelfhynde_ class--consisted of his horse with its saddle, &c. and his arms, or two pounds of silver as an equivalent of the whole. The arms required were probably a sword, helmet, coat of mail and one or two spears and shields. There are distinct indications that a similar outfit was fairly common in Ine's time, and that its value was much the same. One would scarcely be justified, however, in supposing that it was anything like universal; for the purchasing power of such a sum was at that time considerable, representing as it did about 16-20 oxen or 100-120 sheep. It would hardly be safe to credit men of the _sixhynde_ class in general with more than a horse, spear and shield.

6. _Agriculture and Village Life._--There is no doubt that a fairly advanced system of agriculture must have been known to the Anglo-Saxons before they settled in Britain. This is made clear above all by the representation of a plough drawn by two oxen in one of the very ancient rock-carvings at Tegneby in Bohuslän. In Domesday Book the heavy plough with eight oxen seems to be universal, and it can be traced back in Kent to the beginning of the 9th century. In this kingdom the system of agricultural terminology was based on it. The unit was the _sulung_ (_aratrum_) or ploughland (from _sulh_, "plough"), the fourth part of which was the _geocled_ or _geoc_ (_jugum_), originally a yoke of oxen. An analogy is supplied by the _carucata_ of the Danelagh, the eighth part of which was the _bouata_ or "ox-land." In the 10th century the _sulung_ seems to have been identified with the hide, but in earlier times it contained apparently two hides. The hide itself, which was the regular unit in the other kingdoms, usually contained 120 acres in later times and was divided into four _girda_ (_virgatae_) or yardlands. But originally it seems to have meant simply the land pertaining to a household, and its area in early times is quite uncertain, though probably far less. For the acre also there was in later times a standard length and breadth, the former being called _furhlang_ (_furlong_) and reckoned at one-eighth of a mile, while the _aecerbraedu_ or "acre-breadth" (chain) was also a definite measure. We need not doubt, however, that in practice the form of the acre was largely conditioned by the nature of the ground. Originally it is thought to have been the measure of a day's ploughing, in which case the dimensions given above would scarcely be reached. Account must also be taken of the possibility that in early times lighter teams were in general use. If so the normal dimensions of the acre may very well have been quite different.

The husbandry was of a co-operative character. In the 11th century it was distinctly unusual for a peasant to possess a whole team of his own, and there is no reason for supposing the case to have been otherwise in early times; for though the peasant might then hold a hide, the hide itself was doubtless smaller and not commensurate in any way with the ploughland. The holdings were probably not compact but consisted of scattered strips in common fields, changed perhaps from year to year, the choice being determined by lot or otherwise. As for the method of cultivation itself there is little or no evidence. Both the "two-course system" and the "three-course system" may have been in use; but on the other hand it is quite possible that in many cases the same ground was not sown more than once in three years. The prevalence of the co-operative principle, it may be observed, was doubtless due in large measure to the fact that the greater part of England, especially towards the east, was settled not in scattered farms or hamlets but in compact villages with the cultivated lands lying round them.