A REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE FOR CONTINUITY IN BRITISH TOWNS IN THE 5TH AND 6TH CENTURIES¹

Abstract

A n attempt is first made to define 'town' and 'continuity'for this period, and to assess the vigour of towns in the fourth century. The body of the article is a review of the fifth and sixth century archaeological evidence (including structures, artefacts and dark soil) and an analysis of the interpretations based upon it especially the theories of (1) Germanic 'mercenaries' and (2) the prolongation of towns into the fifth century so that they overlap with early English activity. The conclusion is reached that there is no archaeological evidence for continuity in fifth and sixth century towns.

The Case for Continuity in Fifth‐century Canterbury Re‐examined

“…In the 1984-85 Annual Report of the Canterbury Archaeological Trust, even the earliest of them are attributed to the period from c.550 onwards (P. Blockley 1984-85, 24-25). And in Brooks (1986) Frere's dating of them by the pottery was considered far from secure, on the basis of Cunliffe's (1976,171) analysis of a similar type of pottery found at PortChester: this seemed to offer a date-bracket for the grubenhiuser stretching from the fifth to the early eighth century. However, also in the 1984-85 Annual Report of the Canterbury Archaeological Trust, Macpherson-Grant summarises his findings, from a detailed and meticulous study, on the evolution of Canterbury's post-Roman pottery from Anglo-Saxon to late medieval.…”

“…A recent detailed review of the question (Brooks 1986) concluded, however, that there was no compelling evidence for continuity, and that the pre-1960s theory of total desertion of all the towns of Roman Britain was in fact more probable. Since that review went to press, however, important new evidence for Canterbury has become available which necessitates a reexamination of the case for continuity in that one town.…”

“…Were dark soil to be shown to represent some form of agricultural activity, such as market gardening (cf Macphail 1981), then a link might be possible between the Roman town and the later Saxon settlement. Brooks (1986) also evaluated the evidence then available on dark soil, and concluded that the attempt to bridge the RomadAnglo-Saxon gap by this agricultural re-interpretation had not been successful.…”

“…In Brooks (1986) criteria were set out for categories of evidence which, it was argued, would constitute good grounds for believing that a particular site had been continuously occupied during the fifth and sixth centuries. In descending order of reliability these were: (A) continuity and maintenance of standing buildings from at least the fourth to the seventh century (B) buildings renewed one on top of the other on the same site with the earliest to date not later than the fourth century and the latest no earlier than the seventh century (C) 'prolongation and overlap', i.e.…”

“…

Brooks (1986) concluded that there was no compelling evidence for continuity between the late Roman and early Anglo-Saxon periods in any of the major towns of Roman Britain. Important new evidence, especially from the Marlowe I-N and Marlowe Theatre sites, necessitates a reexamination of the position in Canterbury.

…”