6 THE ESSEX NATURALIST.
continental home in and near the same "Coln triangle," if we
are to believe the evidence of their pedestal urns.7 It is the
same area which later was occupied by Jutes, and into which
the Roman field system had penetrated during the intervening
period, since remains of true centuriation exist there.8 It seems
possible to trace the persistence of the hamlet or farmstead
settlement in Kent and the "Coln triangle" during Belgico-
Roman times, and it is both possible and probable that it
strongly influenced the settlements of the later invading Jutes.
In crossing to Kent, following the paths already taken by the
La Tene III and Roman peoples, the Jutes must have gone
from a district in which Belgico-Roman agriculture had been
practised to a second area in which the same system was in
force.9 Thus the Jutish area of south-eastern England, while
not extending over the whole "hamlet area"—which it is
proposed to call British area—did lie upon a part of it. More-
over, the conditions of agriculture and settlement introduced
by the Jutes probably did not contain elements fundamentally
different from those already in existence.
The reason for this extensive survey of the south of England
is that the case of Essex is, in some degree, parallel with that
of Kent. The similarity of field systems between Essex and
Kent was commented upon by Gray and Slater, the former
stressing the possibility of Roman influences having survived
in these districts.
It has been held by the writer that the heavily populated
Romano-British area of South-East Essex was brought under
Saxon rule by peaceful penetration and maintained its Romano-
British hamlet settlement pattern and its unified agricultural
holdings.10 Throughout the extent of the south of the County
around Laindon and Burstead occur these hamlets; nucleated
settlements such as villages are rare indeed (Fig. i). This
theory gains further credence by the fact that many place-
names in this southern area appear to have a British origin—
'Brockhill' and 'Runwell' are two such names. Further, the
7 Archaeological Journal. 1930. Hawkes, C. F. C. and Dunning, G. C.
8 Haverfield. English Historical Review, 1918.
9 Both the Belgic and Roman systems would have been open fields, those of the latter being
naturally more regular in outline, whilst both differed from the Saxon type in having united
holdings.
10 Essex Naturalist. Vol. xxiv., p..124.