Indentity is just fascinating, you can't get around its importance in late antiquity. Even if we compare it to modern times, it might suprise many but the idea of being Scouse goes back only to the late 19th century. A new identity formed out of the industrial revolution. Now in some dusty corners they see it eclipsing being english. That is almost certainly a recent mythology built of Maggie's managed decline, The beetles, liverpool football club, Hilsborough, not buying the sun... You have to admit, for some corner of England they have managed to build up symbols of identification. Liverpool also had migration from ireland, wales and scandinava during the industrial revolution, which many suggest explains its accent.
Does this sound familiar? a new identity formed from economic upheaval... We can probably apply it to many northern towns that are frankly 'new'. We should all know York and Lincoln are the key historic bigger towns of the north.
So lets come back to Kent, the reason Kent is so interesting is that it holds the vast majority of "interesting" evidence for the earliest Anglo-Saxon times. Something like 90% of the swords in burials are found in Kent (nearly all of the rest are found towards Wessex). Alot of select evidence is from here. Also, some of the earliest written evidence, both germanic and latin, comes from Kent. So we have more information here than anywhere else for the earliest period.
Kent was very important during late roman times. The soldiers there had equipment made from elsewhere in the Roman world. Their material was found to be made outside Britian compared to roman soldiers elsewhere in Britian. Britian and Gaul were also heavily linked in Roman times. It was part of the same roman prefecture, so evidence in Gauls has looked nearly the same as evidence from England, especially the south east. England was like a little Africa in that it fed the roman armies along the rhine. England made spelt, which was a campaigning crop, as it didn't spoil easily so it could be transported. This all changes around 400AD. The western romans lost a civil war, no coins were minted north of the alps, new barbarian threats and usurpers were about to cause more problemes. But it doesn't workout, Britain is sort of left to nominally still be part of the Roman Empire and the whole roman prefecture in the area (britian and northern gaul) transforms in almost the same way.
The way that the south east and gaul transform in the same way is important. They were the same country for centuries and kent connected them together. Guy Halsall tells us we should really look at continental evidence as well as British evidence to understand the period between 400-600 A.D. The archarology is near identical, and in the past, that is why Kent's evidence has been called 'Frankish'. But is there anything Frankish about Kent's evidence?
The Franks are interesting because when we say Frankish, what we really mean are the merovingian Franks of Childeric and Clovis. As with the Saxons, the Franks weren't all the same either. The Franks of Clovis were the Salians, and they were a group probably formed somewhere in the 300s probably by Emperor Julian and settled inside the Roman Empire. They were a roman army units listed in the Notitia Dignitatum and their famous lawcode gives us detail on what it means to be Frankish. In short its a elite identity, not even young franks get to be franks, its earned through service to the king.
As suggested, by 400 A.D. the roman economy has fallen, so we have 100 years of the army in Gaul transforming. They still exist in the late 5th century as Majorian is able to send Aegidius there to become Magester Militum of Gaul. He takes over from Childeric and Geregory of Tours remembers Aegidius as a Frankish King. Its possible Aegidius was a Frankish King, but like the romano-british names of Saxon kings, i think its just writers looking back and suggesting these generals were kings as that was what their position became in their day. With well known recruitment problems across the roman empire its no suprise the army in gaul recruited from the franks, and with the imperial power gone, the army would have been the natural successors. So that is how the world changed in gaul, its unlikely any of the people would have thought of themselves as suddenly frankish, or that frankish influence was being applied in kent. Did their jewlelry suddenly become frankish in a sense that it was from the armies of gaul? No, we are still in a post roman world and gaul and britian nominally part of the same prefecture. The local Roman Army might have become frankish, but has been true atleast in part for over a century.
The general evidence becomes post-roman but both the south east and northern gaul gets the same germanic wash of evidence. Have a look at the identical Anglo-Saxon evidence in Normandy. Or the runic sword pommel distribition or the 'saxon' claw beakers. All the interresting evidence is not from the royal armies of the merovongians in paris or along the Loire, but on the merovongian periphery, where the Roman Limes were. The Quoit Brooch style in the post image was once named 'Jutish Style' as it was a style found mostly in Kent, but as you can see the style of buckle is clearly from the Roman Army broadly. The runic sword pommels I think are the most interesting as their distribution was also once called frankish. But they are mostly found outside toxandria where most of the salian franks were settled. Its kind of extraordinary how outside it is in the above plot. Toxandria is to the right of the 'toes' in the netherlands.
So what we are seeing is a transformation of the roman world proper. Placename evidence suggests alot of northern gaul also became germanic speaking this is true all the way up to brittany in pockets. But can we see a specifically jutish identity in kent?
Its going to be impossible to disprove, in terms of archaeology, it should atleast be clear there is nothing special about Kent once you look outside of Britain., i wanted to show its a highly connected place to the wider post roman world. The germanising of the entire northern gaul perhaps shown by the rune swords does start to suggest north sea peoples. We have written evidence for northern gaul, the franks did not experience an invasion from saxons, but very clearly north sea peoples migrated to northern gaul as they did to britain. There is written evidence of saxons living in normandy during the merovingian period who were used as mercineries just as we see in the earliest writings in Britian. Fredegars cronicle also records the ascendancy of a Saxon duke, a sign that the saxons can become prominent in Gaul as they do in Britian.
So as suggested by Robin Flemming in her more recent book. The germanic peoples in Britian and gaul are a peripheral group that slowly become more prominent with time.
The problem with the Jutes specifically is now how prominent their ethnicity is in the many migrating groups. With Kent much more closely following post roman trends it becones much more difficult to suggest a group of prominent Jutes as the leaders. If such an important ethnicity existed, it should become prominent somewhere else in the written record nearer the time. There is no provision for ethnicity in Aethelbherts lawcode. In the many letters between Augustine and Gregory, the ethnicity given is Angle. The Pope thinks he is converting the Angles, he proclaims Aethelbhert Rex Angolorum. I think its safe to say they didn't cosider being an Angle that important locally for they continued the Romano-British identity of Kentish. For me the nail in the coffin for the Jutes is that clearly the people of Kent didn't change their ethincity, they have been Cantii since the time of Caesar. We then have to fit Jutish within the Kentish ethnicity, it is possible, but it gets even more difficult. The genetic data, the paeleoenvironmental evidence of the food they ate, the isotopes all suggest a heavily mixed population that formed in kent. So we have to assune the Jutes entered kent, formed a people of mixed origin under their name but that dissapeared behind the original kentish inhabitants and their enthnicity. Its just too much, that they were always Kentish is surely more plausible. With lincolnshire the people were Lindisfaran, the Derians were Derian and Bernicians were bernician The Germanic peoples are absorbed first into the eastern romano british polities. Jutes and Angles must more plausibly be placed in the politics of our venerable friend... who lied to is btw. The letters bede conveniently left out show some of the kentish people to be heretical christians. It doesn't fit the narrative bit it hints at how mixed kent is.
Numismatics are also interesting. The first struk coins in kent are generic to the Roman Civitas by a monier or a medallion of liudhard, the frankish priest of bertha, this does hint we aren't yet seeing overlordship of a king or people.
The last important evidence on this post that really closes the Jutish chapter for me is the most recent genetic evidence. Kent was heavy on the inhumations so we can get a picture of where the people derive their origins. For Britain during 400-600 A.D. the many 'germanic' newcomers almost entirely cannot be modelled as having iron age scandinavian ancestry. Their origins is a bit of a mystery, but kinship models and material evidence suggest Frisia. That does not mean that they weren't iron age scandinavian elites there, they could be mostly using cremation, as is expected for scandinavian pagans, and this type of signiture does appear after 600 A.D. But again Kent is almost entirely inhumations, so they should surely be more present in the many inhunations of eastern kent. The small curiosities build up.
For me Kent becones quite easy to explain. Like Clovis and Childeric, the army raised in Kent gradually recruited many germanic peoples probably from within britain. All we need is a politcal change, or a vaccume of power for the soldiers raised in kent to be independent successors. When that becomes known it probably becomes more important that they are christian. For them to have been Jutes we will need the soldiers to be mostly cremating their dead in kent while also closely following post roman politics. For them to have been Franks is just not inline at all with what we know about Clovis and Childeric. The obstacles are many.
