ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Did the Anglo-Saxon Invasion Really Happen?

Updated on May 22, 2020
Caleb Howells profile image

Caleb has been researching ancient British history for years and has published a book on the origins behind the tales of King Arthur.

The Sutton Hoo Helmet. How did the Saxons arrive? Through peaceful migration, or through invasion?
The Sutton Hoo Helmet. How did the Saxons arrive? Through peaceful migration, or through invasion?

In recent decades, there has been a trend among scholars to claim that there was not really a full-scale, Anglo-Saxon invasion in the fifth and sixth centuries. Rather, they claim, there was just a semi-peaceful migration with a few conflicts here and there. This obviously has a huge impact on the study of Dark Age Britain, as it concerns the era in which Arthur and his father were supposed to have lived and fought the Saxons.

There was a recent BBC documentary called King Arthur's Britain: The Truth Unearthed. This documentary was primarily about the Anglo-Saxon invasion, and it went through numerous different pieces of evidence that supposedly proved that there was not an invasion, but a migration and integration of cultures. Let's examine this supposed evidence in detail and see how well it stands up to scrutiny.

The Lack of Violence

One specific detail mentioned in the documentary is that, apparently, the number of skeletal remains from this period which display signs of violence is less than 2% (for the purpose of this discussion, let's simplify things and say it's precisely 2%). That doesn't sound like much. But what does this statistic actually show? Well, consider the fact that the armies that would have fought in the Anglo-Saxon invasion (if it really happened) would have been composed primarily of men. We should not really expect to see many signs of violence among the female remains. So to get an accurate idea of how much violence was really occurring in this era, it would be logical to remove the female remains from the statistics. So if we take away 50%, then the 2% of remains that show evidence of violence actually becomes 4%.

However, we also need to take away the children from the equation, because as with the women, we would also not expect the Saxon armies to have been composed of children. So taking away the skeletal remains of children from the calculation would probably remove another 50% at least, though probably more given that each couple probably had multiple children. So now the 4% should actually be, most likely, about 10% or more.

So even though only 2% of skeletal remains display signs of violence, the percentage of remains of those whom we would actually expect to contain said signs of violence (i.e. the adult men) is +10%. And that is quite high. In addition to that, consider the fact that a huge proportion of men slain on the battle field probably received no burial whatsoever and just became food for animals or rotted away. So that 10% only includes the bodies that were actually preserved, which is likely only a relatively small fraction of those who were actually slain in battle.

It should be clear now that even though 2% sounds small at first, the above-mentioned facts demonstrate that this figure is actually in perfect agreement with the notion that there was an invasion.

Cultural Integration
Another piece of evidence mentioned in the documentary is the fact that certain works of pottery found among ostensibly Germanic sites were created using native processes, which indicates that there were actually natives living there among the culturally-Germanic villages. This was taken as evidence, again, that there was no real invasion but just a migration and integration of cultures. Is this valid? Well, let us take by way of example the well-documented Roman invasion. This absolutely was an invasion. The Romans attacked Britain, invaded with large armies, and took over the country. Did they wipe out the natives? No, they did not. Did they totally erase all of the previously-present native British culture? No, they did not.

The Romans came, took over the country, imposed their society and culture and way of living on the native Britons - the native Britons, for their part, continued living where they were but now with new overlords. With that situation, obviously we see innumerable examples of native British customs being continued into the Roman era.

The documentary presents a false dichotomy, in that it claims or at least implies that there was either a wholesale massacre of the native Britons, or there was no invasion. This is obviously absurd. The fact that there is some evidence of native British pottery-making techniques within Germanic villages simply shows that the natives were not all massacred. Instead, the Saxons invaded and conquered, imposing their society and culture and way of living on the native Britons, as the Romans had done centuries before them. Obviously there were still Britons living in towns that are now recognised as culturally-Germanic. In fact, if the Roman precedent is anything to go by, there may well have been plenty of 'Germanic' villages that were entirely inhabited by natives Britons, and this would do nothing at all to contradict the invasion theory.

DNA Evidence
Similarly to the previous point, an argument was made that there was no invasion on the basis that Anglo-Saxon DNA does not constitute the major part of the DNA found in the population inhabiting England. And in fact, DNA studies have shown that people are very closely grouped to how they were in pre-Saxon, and indeed pre-Roman, times. This shows that the natives were not wiped out, nor, perhaps, were particularly forced out of their area of the country.

The refutation for this point is exactly the same as it was for the previous point. An invasion does not mean a totally annihilation. To say that the Saxons invaded and took control of huge parts of Britain does not mean that they wiped out the natives, any more than saying that the Romans invaded and took control of huge parts of the country means that they wiped out the natives. In fact, it is most revealing to note that the DNA studies revealed that the population of Britain is basically still divided into the tribal areas that existed before the Roman era. Yet we know that the Roman invasion happened. This being the case, it is evident that a large-scale invasion by a foreign force does not necessarily change the population dynamic of the country.

Another point that should be noted is that these DNA studies primarily use mitochondrial DNA, which passes through the mother's line, not the father's line. So these studies are basically just seeing whether or not the line of descent through females changed due to the Saxons or not. With this fact in mind, it should be pointed out that it was not uncommon for an invading force to keep the women as wives even if they wiped out the men. So that would contribute to explaining the DNA studies, though as mentioned in the previous paragraph, an invasion does not necessarily mean a massacre of the male natives anyway (just a defeat of their armies).

On the other hand, what evidence is there that a proper invasion did take place? One such piece of evidence is the written testimony of the Gallic Chronicle of 452. For the year 441, this reports that Britain had fallen under the power of the Saxons. This is a contemporary record, and as such is an incredibly valuable source. It wholly supports the later written evidence, such as that from Gildas or Bede (both of whom should not be dismissed in their own right anyway).

It is absurd to dismiss the whole corpus of surviving written evidence on the weak basis that there is no evidence of a total genocide of the native Britons. Sure, maybe the later records such as Gildas and Bede are exaggerated (we know that Gildas was not writing a history, but was writing a message that was meant to motivate his readers). But that does not mean that the fundamental fact that there was an invasion of Anglo-Saxons who took over much of the country is a lie. There is good evidence of its veracity, and more could be written in support of it, though this article is written primarily to refute the apparent negative evidence.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No comments yet.


    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at:

    Show Details
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the or domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
    ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)