01-23-2007, 11:03 AM
Quote:Harke thinks that's why the Anglo-Saxons came here in such large numbers - deluging of their coastal farmlands. And although some may claim that not as many as 1-2 million could have come here in the 5th & 6th centuries, ...
Hi Ambrosius,
Härke doesn't suggest these large numbers. He's at the upper end of the minimalist debate suggesting between 150,000 and 250,000.
2002 "Kings and warriors: Population and landscape from post-Roman to Norman Britain", in: Paul Slack--Ryk Ward (eds.), 145-175.
2003 "Population replacement or acculturation? An archaeological perspective on population and migration in post-Roman Britain", in: Hildegard L.C. Tristram (ed.), 13-28.
Does Härke really suggest flooding as the sole cause for the migration? The area of modern day Angeln is a glacial moraine landscape, rolling hills. They deserted that area during the 4th cent. It seems unlikely that it was due to outside threats as it was not repopulated. It may have been climatic, but without flooding.
The coastal area of Jutland immediately to the north of the Elbe, Dithmarschen does show some evidence of abandonment due to flooding, Terps which had been raised from around 200 AD were finally abandonned around 300 AD, but it is still too early to explain a mid 5th cent. invasion.
Robert van de Noort makes the point that, in Yorkshire at least, the germanic settlers did not exploit the wetlands created by the late roman north sea transgression and attributes this to a change in animal husbandry practices. However, if the 'Angles' in England did in fact come from Schleswig along with others from the danish islands and southern Norway, they had no history of exploiting wetlands anyway. This might explain the early settlements on higher ground in the wolds.
best
Harry A
Harry Amphlett
