ANGLO-SAXON BRITAIN 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 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 turned their arms against the Britons them selves, alleging that they had not received sufficient payment for their services. A 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 expelled the northern invaders. Eventually, however, they overcame the Britons through treach ery, 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. For the subsequent course of the invasion the information is most meagre and unsatisfactory. According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle the kingdom of Sussex was founded by a certain Ella or Aelle, who landed in 477, while Wessex owed its origin to Cerdic, who arrived some 18 years later. No value, however, can be attached to these dates; indeed, in the latter case the story itself is open to suspicion (see WESSEX). For the move ments which led to the foundation of the more northern king doms 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 adven turers acting independently of one another, and that each of the various kingdoms owes its origin to a separate enterprise, has little probability. 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 much less satisfactory (see ANGLO-SAX ONS). The royal family of Essex may 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 connections in the past seem to have lain with the Angli.
There is no 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 con quered territories. It is 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 re ceived at the siege of "Mons Badonicus" in the year 517 (Ann. Cambr.), or perhaps rather some 15 or 20 years earlier. Accord ing to Gildas this event was followed by a period of peace for at least 44 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 con quered 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 consider ably farther forward, perhaps into what is now Scotland, and it is 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 there is no record. Again, the destruction of Chester about 615 was soon followed by the overthrow of the British kingdom of Elmet in south-west York shire, and the occupation of Shropshire and the Lothians took place perhaps about the same period, that of Herefordshire prob ably 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 that 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 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 sub ject 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, sometimes described as a kingdom, though whether it ever had a separate dynasty is not known. 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 coin cided in area. The south of England, between Sussex and "West Wales" (eventually reduced to Cornwall), was occupied by Wes sex, 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 these kingdoms were not always, or even normally, independent. When history begins, Aethelberht, king of Kent, was supreme over all the kings south of the Humber.
The only other central authority in the state was the king's council or court (tlieod, witan, concilium). This body was made up 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 mmilites (ministri) and comites, for which the Anglo-Saxon version has thegnas and gesithas respectively. Both classes consisted in part of members of the royal family. But they were not 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 postulate a greater feeling for constitutionalism than is warranted by the information at our disposal. The incidents which have been brought forward as evidence may with 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 deliberative. It was 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 kingdom was divided into a number of districts under the charge of royal reeves (cyninges gere f a, prae f ectus, prae positus) . These officials seem to have been located in royal villages (cyninges tun, villa regalis) or fortresses (cyninges burg, orbs regis), which served as centres and meeting places (markets, etc.,) for the inhabitants of the district, and to which their dues, both in payments and services, had to be ren dered. The usual size of such districts in early times seems to have been 300, 600, or 1,200 hides. Much larger divisions con taining 2,000, 3,000, 5,000, or 7,000 hides are also mentioned. To this category belong the shires of Wessex (Hampshire, Wilt shire, Berkshire, etc.), each of which had an earl (aldormon, princeps, dux) of its own, at all events from the 8th century on wards. 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.
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, there were in Wessex and apparently also in Mercia three classes, described as twel f hynde, sixhynde, and twi hynde from the amount of their wergilds, viz., 1,200, 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., gesithcund for the two higher classes and ceorlisc for the lowest. Indeed, these terms occur even in Kent, though the social system of that kingdom seems to have been essentially different. Here the wergild of the ceorlisc class amounted to r oo shillings, each containing 20 silver coins (sceattas), as against 200 shillings of four (in Wessex five) silver coins. Again, there was apparently but one gesithcund class in Kent, with a wergild of 30o shillings, while, on the other hand, below the ceorlisc class there were three classes of persons described as laetas, who prob ably corresponded to the liti or freedmen of the Continental laws, and possessed wergilds of 8o, 6o, and 4o shillings respectively. To these no analogy is found in the other kingdoms, though the poorer classes of Welsh freemen had wergilds varying from 120 to 6o shillings. This differential treatment of the various classes was not confined to the case of wergilds. It appears 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 ob served were the same as in the wergilds.
The nature of the distinction between the gesithcund and ceorlisc classes is nowhere clearly explained; but it was certainly hered itary and probably of considerable antiquity. 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 twel f h ynde and sixhynde classes was also in part at least hered itary, 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 ga f olgelda 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.
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 (see TRINODA NECESSITAS). In addition to these we find ref erence in charters of the gth century to the keeping of the king's hunters, horses, dogs, and hawks, and the entertaining of mes sengers 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 the custom of later times. Presumably their chief duty was to undertake a share in the cultivation of the demesne land. No doubt also the labour of repairing fortifications and bridges, though it was charged against the landowners, was in reality delegated by them to their dependents.
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 avail able evidence, 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 gth 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 gth cen tury, 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 gesithcund 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 3f t. ' 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. 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 appar ently 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 Tin. in diameter and projecting about 3in. It is clear from liter ary 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. In later times the heriot of an "ordinary thegn" (medema thegn)--by which is meant appar ently not a king's thegn but a man of the twel f h ynde class— consisted of his horse with its saddle, etc., and his arms, or two pounds of silver as an equivalent of the whole. The arms re quired 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 pur chasing power of such a sum was at that time considerable, representing as it did about 16-2o 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.
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 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. For the method of cultivation there is little or no evidence. Both the "two-course system" and the "three course system" may have been in use; but 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 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 around them.
The mill was another element which tended to promote the same principle. There can be little doubt that before the Anglo Saxons came to Britain they possessed no instrument for grinding corn except the quern (cweorn), and in remote districts this con tinued in use until quite late times. The grinding seems to have been performed chiefly by female slaves, but occasionally we hear also of a donkey-mill (esolcweorn). The mill proper, however, which was derived from the Romans, as its name (mylen, from Lat. molina) indicates, must have come into use fairly early. In the II th century every village of any size seems to have possessed one, while the earliest references go back to the 8th century. It is not unlikely that they were in use during the Roman occupation of Britain, and consequently that they became known to the invaders almost from the first. The mills were presumably driven for the most part by water, though there is a reference to a wind mill as early as the year 833.
All the ordinary domestic animals were known. Cattle and sheep were pastured on the common lands appertaining to the village; while pigs, which (especially in Kent) seem to have been very numerous, were kept in the woods. Bee-keeping was also practised. In all these matters the invasion of Britain had brought about no change. The cultivation of fruit and vegetables on the other hand was probably almost entirely new. The names are almost all derived from Latin, though most of them seem to have been known soon after the invasion, at all events by the 7th century.
The question how far the villages were really new settlements is difficult to answer, for the terminations -limn, -toga, etc., cannot be regarded as conclusive evidence. Thus, according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (ann. 571), Bensington and Eynsham were formerly British villages. Even if the first part of Egonesham is English—which is by no means certain—it is hardly sufficient reason for discrediting this statement, for Canterbury (Cantwara burg) and Rochester (Hro f es ceaster) were without doubt Roman places in spite of their English names. On the whole it seems likely that the cultivation of the land was not generally interrupted for more than a very few years ; hence the conven ience of utilizing existing sites of villages would be obvious, even if the buildings themselves had been burnt.
Originally scilling ("shilling") and sceatt seem to have been the terms for gold and silver coins respectively. By the time of Ine, however, pending, pen(n)ing ("penny"), had already come into use for the latter, while, owing to the temporary disappearance of a gold coinage, shilling had come to denote a mere unit of ac count. It was, however, a variable unit, for the Kentish shilling contained 20 sceattas (pence), while the Mercian contained only four. The West Saxon shilling seems originally to have been iden tical with the Mercian, but later it contained five pence. Large payments were generally made by weight, 24o-25o pence being reckoned to the pound, perhaps from the 7th century onwards. The mancus was equated with 3o pence, probably from the time of its introduction. This means that the value of gold relatively to silver was I o : I from the end of Offa's reign. There is reason, however, for thinking that in earlier times it was as low as 6:I, or even 5:I. In Northumbria a totally different monetary system prevailed, the unit being the tryms, which contained three sceattas or pence. As to the value of the bronze coins we are without information.
The purchasing power of money was very great. The sheep was valued at a shilling in both Wessex and Mercia, from early times till the I I th century. One pound was the normal price of a slave and half a pound that of a horse. The price of a pig was twice, and that of an ox six times as great as that of a sheep.
Ornaments.—Of these the most interesting are the brooches which were worn by both sexes and of which large numbers have been found in heathen cemeteries. They may be classed under eight leading types : (I) circular or ring-shaped, (2) cruciform, (3) square-headed, (4) radiated, (5) S-shaped, (6) bird-shaped, (7) disk-shaped, (8) cupelliform or saucer-shaped. Of these Nos. 5 and 6 appear to be of Continental origin, and this is prob ably the case also with No. 4 and in part with No. 7. But the last-mentioned type varies greatly, from rude and almost plain disks of bronze to magnificent gold specimens studded with gems. No. 8 is believed to be peculiar to England and occurs chiefly in the southern Midlands, specimens being usually found in pairs. The interiors are gilt, often furnished with detachable plates and sometimes set with brilliants. The remaining types were proba bly brought over by the Anglo-Saxons at the time of the invasion.
Among other ornaments we may mention hairpins, rings and ear-rings, and especially buckles, which are of ten of elaborate workmanship. Bracelets and necklets are not very common, a fact which is rather surprising, as in early times, before the issuing of a coinage, these articles (beagas) took the place of money to a large extent. The glass vessels are finely made and of somewhat striking appearance, though they closely resemble contemporary Continental types. Since the art of glass-working was unknown, according to Bede, until nearly the end of the 7th century, it is probable that these were all of Continental or Roman-British origin.