Introduction

The story of early Britain has traditionally been told in terms of waves of invaders displacing or
annihilating their predecessors. Archaeology suggests that this picture is fundamentally wrong.
For over 10,000 years people have been moving into - and out of - Britain, sometimes in
substantial numbers, yet there has always been a basic continuity of population.

The gene pool of the island has changed, but more slowly and
far less completely than implied by the old 'invasion model', Before Roman
and the notion of large-scale migrations, once the key times, 'Britain'
explanation for change in early Britain, has been widely was just a
discredited. geographical
entity and had no
Substantial genetic continuity of population does not preclude political meaning
profound shifts in culture and identity. It is actually quite and no single
common to observe important cultural change, including cultural identity.
adoption of wholly new identities, with little or no biological
change to a population. Millions of people since Roman times have thought of themselves as
'British', for example, yet this identity was only created in 1707 with the Union of England, Wales
and Scotland.

Before Roman times 'Britain' was just a geographical entity, and had no political meaning, and no
single cultural identity. Arguably this remained generally true until the 17th century, when James
I of England and VI of Scotland sought to establish a pan-British monarchy.

Throughout recorded history the island has consisted of multiple cultural groups and identities.
Many of these groupings looked outwards, across the seas, for their closest connections - they
did not necessarily connect naturally with their fellow islanders, many of whom were harder to
reach than maritime neighbours in Ireland or continental Europe.

It therefore makes no sense to look at Britain in isolation; we have to consider it with Ireland as
part of the wider 'Atlantic Archipelago', nearer to continental Europe and, like Scandinavia, part
of the North Sea world.

First peoples
From the arrival of the first modern humans - who were hunter- The first 'Britons' were an
gatherers, following the retreating ice of the Ice Age northwards - ethnically mixed group  ©
to the beginning of recorded history is a period of about 100
centuries, or 400 generations. This is a vast time span, and we
know very little about what went on through those years; it is
hard even to fully answer the question, 'Who were the early
peoples of Britain?', because they have left no accounts of
themselves.

We can, however, say that biologically they were part of the

Caucasoid population of Europe. The regional physical Throughout
stereotypes familiar to us today, a pattern widely thought to prehistory there
result from the post-Roman Anglo-Saxon and Viking invasions were myriad
- red-headed people in Scotland, small, dark-haired folk in small-scale
Wales and lanky blondes in southern England - already societies and
existed in Roman times. Insofar as they represent reality, many petty
they perhaps attest the post-Ice Age peopling of Britain, or 'tribal'
the first farmers of 6,000 years ago. identities...

From an early stage, the constraints and opportunities of the varied environments of the islands
of Britain encouraged a great regional diversity of culture. Throughout prehistory there were
myriad small-scale societies, and many petty 'tribal' identities, typically lasting perhaps no more
than a few generations before splitting, merging or becoming obliterated. These groups were in
contact and conflict with their neighbours, and sometimes with more distant groups - the
appearance of exotic imported objects attest exchanges, alliance and kinship links, and wars.

Before Rome: the 'Celts'

At the end of the Iron Age (roughly the last 700 years BC), we get The defeated Iron Age tribes
our first eye-witness accounts of Britain from Greco-Roman of Britain  ©
authors, not least Julius Caesar who invaded in 55 and 54 BC.
These reveal a mosaic of named peoples (Trinovantes, Silures,
Cornovii, Selgovae, etc), but there is little sign such groups had
any sense of collective identity any more than the islanders of AD
1000 all considered themselves 'Britons'.

However, there is one thing

that the Romans, modern Calling the British
archaeologists and the Iron Iron Age 'Celtic' is so
Age islanders themselves misleading that it is
would all agree on: they were best abandoned.
not Celts. This was an
invention of the 18th century; the name was not used earlier. The idea came from the discovery
around 1700 that the non-English island tongues relate to that of the ancient continental Gauls,
who really were called Celts. This ancient continental ethnic label was applied to the wider family
of languages. But 'Celtic' was soon extended to describe insular monuments, art, culture and
peoples, ancient and modern: island 'Celtic' identity was born, like Britishness, in the 18th
century.

However, language does not determine ethnicity (that would make the modern islanders
'Germans', since they mostly speak English, classified as a Germanic tongue). And anyway, no
one knows how or when the languages that we choose to call 'Celtic', arrived in the archipelago -
they were already long established and had diversified into several tongues, when our evidence
begins. Certainly, there is no reason to link the coming of 'Celtic' language with any great 'Celtic
invasions' from Europe during the Iron Age, because there is no hard evidence to suggest there
were any.

Archaeologists widely agree on two things about the British Iron Age: its many regional cultures
grew out of the preceding local Bronze Age, and did not derive from waves of continental 'Celtic'
invaders. And secondly, calling the British Iron Age 'Celtic' is so misleading that it is best
abandoned. Of course, there are important cultural similarities and connections between Britain,
Ireland and continental Europe, reflecting intimate contacts and undoubtedly the movement of
some people, but the same could be said for many other periods of history.

The things we have labelled 'Celtic' icons - such as hill-forts and art, weapons and jewellery -
were more about aristocratic, political, military and religious connections than common ethnicity.
(Compare the later cases of medieval Catholic Christianity or European Renaissance culture, or
indeed the Hellenistic Greek Mediterranean and the Roman world - all show similar patterns of
cultural sharing and emulation among the powerful, across ethnic boundaries.)

Britain and the Romans

The Roman conquest, which started in AD 43, illustrates the Almost everyone in
profound cultural and political impact that small numbers of Britannia was legally and
people can have in some circumstances, for the Romans did not
culturally 'Roman'  ©
colonise the islands of Britain to any significant degree. To a
population of around three million, their army, administration and
carpet-baggers added only a
few per cent. The future
Scotland
The province's towns and villas remained beyond
were overwhelmingly built by Roman
indigenous people - again the government,
although the
nearby presence
of the empire
had major
effects.
wealthy - adopting the new international culture of power. Greco-Roman civilisation displaced the
'Celtic' culture of Iron Age Europe. These islanders actually became Romans, both culturally and
legally (the Roman citizenship was more a political status than an ethnic identity). By AD 300,
almost everyone in 'Britannia' was Roman, legally and culturally, even though of indigenous
descent and still mostly speaking 'Celtic' dialects. Roman rule saw profound cultural change, but
emphatically without any mass migration.

However, Rome only ever conquered half the island. The future Scotland remained beyond
Roman government, although the nearby presence of the empire had major effects. The kingdom
of the Picts appeared during the third century AD, the first of a series of statelets which, during
the last years and collapse of Roman power, developed through the merging of the 'tribes' of
earlier times.

The 'Dark Ages'

In western and northern Britain, around the western seas, the Were the 'Celts' displaced or
end of Roman power saw the reassertion of ancient patterns, ie absorbed by the invaders?
continuity of linguistic and cultural trends reaching back to before
©
the Iron Age. Yet in the long term, the continuous development of
a shifting mosaic of societies gradually tended (as elsewhere in
Europe) towards larger states. Thus, for example, the far north-
western, Irish-ruled kingdom of Dalriada merged in the ninth
century with the Pictish kingdom to form Scotland.

The western-most parts of the

old province, where Roman It was once believed
ways had not displaced that the Romano-
traditional culture, also British were
partook of these trends, slaughtered or driven
west by hordes of
creating small kingdoms which
invading Anglo-
would develop, under pressure
Saxons, part of the
from the Saxons, into the great westward
Welsh and Cornish regions. movement of
'barbarians'
The fate of the rest of the overwhelming the
Roman province was very western empire.
different: after imperial power
collapsed c.410 AD Romanised
civilisation swiftly vanished. By the sixth century, most of Britannia was taken over by 'Germanic'
kingdoms. There was apparently complete discontinuity between Roman Britain and Anglo-Saxon
England; it was once believed that the Romano-British were slaughtered or driven west by
hordes of invading Anglo-Saxons, part of the great westward movement of 'barbarians'
overwhelming the western empire. However, there was no such simple displacement of 'Celts' by
'Germans'.

Conclusion
How many settlers actually crossed the North Sea to Britain is Britain has always absorbed
disputed, although it is clear that they eventually mixed with invaders and been home to
substantial surviving indigenous populations which, in many
multiple peoples  ©
areas, apparently formed the majority.

English and Norman Society

As with the adoption of 'Celtic' cultural traits in the Iron Age, and then Greco-Roman civilisation,
so the development of Anglo-Saxon England marks the adoption of a new politically ascendant
culture; that of the 'Germanic barbarians'.
Perhaps the switch was more profound than the preceding
cases, since the proportion of incomers was probably higher Contrary to the
than in Iron Age or Roman times, and, crucially, Romano- traditional idea that
British power structures and culture seem to have undergone Britain originally
catastrophic collapse - through isolation from Rome and the possessed a 'Celtic'
uniformity which first
support of the imperial armies - some time before there was a
Roman, then Saxon
substantial presence of 'Anglo-Saxons'.
and other invaders
disrupted, in reality
In contrast to Gaul, where the Franks merged with an intact Britain has always
Gallo-Roman society to create Latin-based French culture, the been home to multiple
new Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in Britain, although melded from peoples...
indigenous and immigrant populations, represented no such
cultural continuity; they drew their cultural inspiration, and
their dominant language, almost entirely from across the North Sea. Mixed natives and
immigrants became the English.

Contrary to the traditional idea that Britain originally possessed a 'Celtic' uniformity, which first
Roman, then Saxon and other invaders disrupted, in reality Britain has always been home to
multiple peoples. While its population has shown strong biological continuity over millennia, the
identities the islanders have chosen to adopt have undergone some remarkable changes. Many of
these have been due to contacts and conflicts across the seas, not least as the result of episodic,
but often very modest, arrivals of newcomers.

Immigration and land

To speak of the 'differences' between English and Norman society is to start from the wrong
standpoint. We should never forget that the Normans and the Anglo-Saxons came from the same
basic stock.

At rock bottom, they were each Scandinavian immigrants who had settled in another land and
taken over from its ruling aristocracy. It should therefore not surprise us that on a fundamental
level, English and Norman social structures were very similar. What is interesting is the way
these similarities received different shadings because of the time and place in which each side
had finally settled down.

For both societies, land was the defining currency. The Lord
owned land, which he parcelled out amongst his followers in ...it was a self-
return for service. They in turn settled the land as minor lords perpetuating dynamic
in their own right, surrounded by a retinue of warriors to fuelled by expansion
whom they would grant gifts as rewards for good service and and warfare...
as tokens of their own good lordship (of which the greatest
gift was land).

Success in war generated more land and booty which could be passed around. If a lord wasn't
successful or generous enough, his followers would desert him for a 'better' lord. It was a self-
perpetuating dynamic fuelled by expansion and warfare in which the value of a man was
determined by his warlike ability: the lord led warriors; the warrior fought for his lord; they were
both serviced by non-fighting tenant farmers who owed their livelihoods to the lord; and below
them came the unfree slaves.

The hearth
The basic building block of the system was the hearth. On his land, the Lord owned a hearth-hall,
within which he housed his retinue of warriors. His tenants brought their produce to this hall,
feeding and maintaining the retinue. In return, the Lord provided all on his land with security. It
was when he was unable to provide that security that the lord got worried: lack of security was
the defining trait of 'bad' lordship.

This is best exemplified in the epic Saxon poem Beowulf, in which the adventurer Beowulf is
drawn to the hearth of the Danish king Hrothgar by the king's famed generosity. There, he rids
Hrothgar of the monsters which are threatening the security of his hearth and is generously
rewarded. Beowulf finally dies trying to win a treasure hoard from a dragon threatening his own
land - a potent combination of security and gold, the two driving forces of lordship in his time.

Administration
In 10th Century Anglo-Saxon England, this dynamic had been
complicated by a highly chequered history. In administrative ...pre-Norman England
terms, it meant that pre-Norman England had become the had become the most
most 'organised' state in Western Europe. The king controlled organised state in
a land divided into shires and hundreds, on which taxation Western Europe...
was assessed and levied. These taxes were collected in coin
from the burhs and fresh coin was minted 3 times a year in 60 royal mints arranged throughout
the country. In this respect, it was a very Roman system.

It is even likely (though not certain) that Edward the Confessor had a Chancery headed by the
clerk Regenbald. The whole system was run by a set of royal officers, the shire reeves (sheriffs),
with individual reeves looking after each hundred.

The hearth
The basic building block of the system was the hearth. On his land, the Lord owned a hearth-hall,
within which he housed his retinue of warriors. His tenants brought their produce to this hall,
feeding and maintaining the retinue. In return, the Lord provided all on his land with security. It
was when he was unable to provide that security that the lord got worried: lack of security was
the defining trait of 'bad' lordship.

This is best exemplified in the epic Saxon poem Beowulf, in which the adventurer Beowulf is
drawn to the hearth of the Danish king Hrothgar by the king's famed generosity. There, he rids
Hrothgar of the monsters which are threatening the security of his hearth and is generously
rewarded. Beowulf finally dies trying to win a treasure hoard from a dragon threatening his own
land - a potent combination of security and gold, the two driving forces of lordship in his time.

Administration
In 10th Century Anglo-Saxon England, this dynamic had been
complicated by a highly chequered history. In administrative ...pre-Norman
terms, it meant that pre-Norman England had become the England had
most 'organised' state in Western Europe. The king controlled become the most
a land divided into shires and hundreds, on which taxation organised state
was assessed and levied. These taxes were collected in coin in Western
from the burhs and fresh coin was minted 3 times a year in 60 Europe...
royal mints arranged throughout the country. In this respect,
it was a very Roman system.

It is even likely (though not certain) that Edward the Confessor had a Chancery headed by the
clerk Regenbald. The whole system was run by a set of royal officers, the shire reeves (sheriffs),
with individual reeves looking after each hundred.

The Germanic system

Overlaid onto this was the old Germanic system of lordship and the hearth, An Anglo-Saxon
but it had been altered almost beyond recognition by the demands of the Housecarl  ©
previous two centuries.

Military service was still technically based on land 'loaned' from a lord in
return for service. Yet by the 10th Century, this land had often been
granted away in the form of 'bookland' which was a royal gift in perpetuity to a loyal retainer.
Alfred and his successors had dealt with the problem by instituting the fyrd and military
obligation was measured in hides.

In essence, the Anglo-Saxon kings had bypassed the problem

of lordship by imposing duties on the land itself. Large ...the Anglo-
landowners were now expected to bring a retinue of thegns Saxon kings had
with them, based on the hideage of their land, and the very bypassed the
definition of a thegn was someone who could afford to arm problem of
himself as a warrior with the proceeds of his land. The more lordship...
powerful thegns themselves had retinues of housecarls, old-
style military retainers who served in the hope of being granted bookland and thegn status in
return for their loyalty.

The Norman system

By contrast, the Norman system was much more basic. In Saxon terms, the Normans were
second or third generation immigrants to Northern France. According to their own foundation
myth, the land of Normandy was granted to their founder, Rollo c.911, and he and his successors
ruled it as 'marcher' lords of the frontier on behalf of the Frankish king. Therefore, the Norman
system was coloured by Frankish practice and was still firmly entrenched in the familia - the
lord's hearth.

Whilst technically the Norman Duke had the power to call out
a general levy (much like the fyrd), he usually relied on his ...the Normans
military familia, which was the complex set of family ties and were second or
loyalties he had established with the great magnates who third generation
occupied his land. By the time of William, this relationship had immigrants to
hardened from one of mutuality in which the Norman nobles Northern
were fidelis (faithful men), to one of dominance, in which the France...
duke was dominus (lord). William himself had had a lot to do
with that change. It was this familia which helped govern the country and owed personal loyalty
to the duke.

Though Norman dukes controlled the coinage in their domain, no new coins had been minted
since the time of William's grandfather. The duke still called upon his nobles to provide an army
when he wanted to go to war, and they obliged in the expectation of a share in the spoils of
conquest.

Differences
In essence, both systems had a similar root, but the differences were crucial. The Norman
system had led to the development of a mounted military élite totally focussed on war, while the
Anglo-Saxon system was manned by what was in essence a levy of farmers, who rode to the
battlefield but fought on foot. That is not to say that the English thegn was any less formidable
than the Norman knight, as Hastings was to show. In the crucial months leading up to the
Hastings campaign however, Harold was to be hamstrung by the limitations of the fyrd. On the
14th October 1066, much of Harold's tiny force was made up of the housecarls of his most
powerful magnates because the fyrd had been disbanded.

Similarities
Yet the similarities remain more important than the
differences. On a macro level, they meant that William could ...Harold was to
come in and superimpose the Norman system onto the Saxon be hamstrung by
with virtually no problem - the thegns simply became Norman the limitations of
the fyrd...
knights (or Norman knights became thegns, however you want to look at it). The emphasis of
obligation returned to the old familia structure, which we used to call feudalism until it became a
dirty word. The methods of Anglo-Saxon kingly control, the use of writs, courts and sheriffs
became the instruments of dominance for the new Norman king, who also introduced the concept
of justiciars and regents to represent the king when he was abroad in the rest of his land.

English law
Finally, the Normans introduced one major change into
English law. Prior to the Conquest, cases were tried in front of ...a final telling
juries selected from the hundred on the basis of Trial by example of the
Ordeal, or Trial by Oath Taking. cruder nature of
the Conquerors.
Oath Taking was a specifically Saxon process whereby a man
would rely on the oaths of his lord and peers to vouch for his innocence and good name - the
higher the status of your oath-helper, the better your chances of success. It relied on good
lordship and reciprocity to make it work (and we can see it in action in the sworn testimonies of
the Domesday Book).

These were complemented by the Norman practice of Trial by Battle, in which the judgement of
God was determined not by the speed it took you to heal from the Ordeal, but by the success of
your champion in battle. In this, it typified the military onus of Norman society and provides a
final telling example of the cruder nature of the Conquerors.