Archaeology, common rights and the origins of Anglo-Saxon identity

Abstract

Archaeology, common rights and the origins of Anglo-Saxon identitye med_316 153..181 Susan OosthuizenIt is generally accepted that rights over land, especially rights of pasture, played a formative role in establishing the identity of early Anglo-Saxon 'folk groups', the predecessors of the middle Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. This speculative paper sets early medieval and medieval common rights in the context of the archaeological longue durée of the period before 400 AD. It argues that ancient traditions of common governance, integral to Anglo-Saxon identity, might have offered an attractive legitimacy to middle Anglo-Saxon kingdombuilders. While not seeking to establish any answers, the paper hopes to contribute to a wider research agenda.Although their demographic and political histories diverged before and after the Roman period, documentary evidence suggests that since at least the early Middle Ages British regions have shared an understanding of what is meant by rights of common and how these should be organized and regulated. While specific details of custom and practice varied from place to place, from circumstance to circumstance, and from period to period, the structures which underlay them were universal: governance and management as the prerogative of right-holders; an oral tradition based on collective participation in decision-making; regular meetings of assemblies and courts; decisions made on the basis of custom and practice; and the election of representatives to settle disputes and/or enforce judgements.Deeply resistant to change -common rights were legal rights whose amendment required the assent of all right-holders -the oral traditions of custom and practice through which such rights were exercised offered a flexible and pragmatic system which both managed the detail of resource allocation, regulation and management, and allowed

Beyond hierarchy: the archaeology of collective governance

“…The exemplars suggest such governance was characterized by metastructures which match well against those stipulated by Östrom: they met at regular intervals; the exploitation of common resources was structured so as to be equitable, open and accountable; custom and practice was recorded in and perpetuated through oral traditions. This does not, of course, mean that all land was subject to common rights: there is also good evidence for arable and pasture held and exploited in severalty by individual farmsteads (Oosthuizen 2011b(Oosthuizen , 175 n.99, 2011a. Rather, prehistoric and Romano-British CPrRs coexisted alongside several rights over property, just as they did during the Middle Ages and do still today.…”

“…While hypothesis-testing through the indicative conditional offers new possibilities for archaeological research into social relations, it is may be unlikely to provide definitive answers to such questions without support from other methods. Some examples are now considered in detail and readers are referred to Oosthuizen (2011aOosthuizen ( , 2011bOosthuizen ( , 2013 for full references to sites mentioned.…”

Review of periodical literature published in 2011

“…Medieval systems of common rights depended on their underlying philosophy of access to common land as ‘the prerogative of right‐holders’ (p. 153) and on traditional systems of management which included periodic assemblies. Taking these as her starting‐point Oosthuizen looks for their origins deep in the past. In Anglo‐Saxon England an essential element in belonging to a social group, or ‘folk’, was shared access to what was considered the pasture belonging to its ‘folk territory’.…”

“…Late prehistory has a rich record of transhumance, if it is accepted that the long linear features which transverse different environmental zones, known as ‘coaxial’ elements, are related to pastoralism. Oosthuizen argues further: that continued transhumance implies a notion of a community's rights to pasture. From the point of view of the early medieval historian, who will generally have to take the archaeological evidence on trust, the most arresting conclusion of this important article may be Oosthuizen's claim that, by associating themselves with these long traditions, Anglo‐Saxon kings accrued an ‘attractive legitimacy’.…”

“…Oosthuizen argues further: that continued transhumance implies a notion of a community's rights to pasture. From the point of view of the early medieval historian, who will generally have to take the archaeological evidence on trust, the most arresting conclusion of this important article may be Oosthuizen's claim that, by associating themselves with these long traditions, Anglo‐Saxon kings accrued an ‘attractive legitimacy’. Mumby re‐appraises what we have come to believe, on very little evidence (she judges that ‘Cautious expectations of fuzziness are in order’; p. 400), were Anglo‐Saxon inheritance customs.…”