The English and the Celts - no genocide?

[ambrosius]

The survival of Christian communities in Kent, ánd the (eccles-)names for them, is one of those signs that for me speak against a mass migration in the early days of the Anglo-saxon arrival and a total population replacement in the east, as Coates advocates.

:lol: Ah, but that's an unwarranted assumption, Robert! :lol:
What on Earth do you think constitutes the evidence for a survival of Christian (presumably, you intend 'British') communities in Kent in the early days of the Anglo-Saxon arrival? Are you assuming that the
survival of a Greek/Latin loan word in Brittonic for 'Church' - that is,
'Ecclesia' - which gets adopted as a generic placename by the invading Anglo-Saxons (in the form 'Eccles') for any surviving church building
is evidence for a surviving British Christian community? :lol: :lol: :lol:

It's only evidence for the fact that the invading Jutes in Kent recognised
a Romano-British church building - no more, no less. It says absolutely
nothing about whether there was a surviving British community there.
To make any further assumption beyond the one that the Anglo-Saxons
simply recognised the architecture of an empty Roman church building
would be as falacious as to assume that every town/fort in England
which bears the suffix 'Chester/Caster/Caister' in its name was called
thus by the Anglo-Saxons because it was still a functioning town or fort
complete with Christian, Romanised Britons living inside it! 8) 8) 8)
And I happen to KNOW you don't believe that was the case, as
you (and Neil Faulkner) keep telling us. 8) So why - simply on the basis
of the Anglo-Saxon recognition of the architectural function of a now abandoned British church building - would you assume that this church
building is proof that there was a still surviving Christian British
community living in the area??? 8) :lol:

It seems to me that you are trying to have your cake and eat it...

Either British towns and forts in the East did not still function as towns
and forts (as you and Faulkner claim) and nor were there any Britons
living at Eccles in Kent when the Jutes captured it after winning the
battle of Aylesford - OR - if you really want to claim that every
Anglo-Saxon name for a standing British church building means there
must have been a surviving British community still living there (and that
they had not been killed or sent into exile) then you must also
make the same assumption that all British towns and forts in Kent and
the South East (with the Anglo-Saxon suffix 'Chester/Caster/Caister'
in their names) similarly imply a surviving Christian British community
at these sites, also. Which would imply that all the walled-towns of Rochester, Chichester, Colchester etc and the Saxon Shore Forts of
Caister, Brancaster, Portchester & Pevensey Castle (Andredscaster in
Old English) all had Christian British garrisons manning their walls.

Or... we needn't assume any of the above (without any archaeological
evidence to support it) and just accept that the Anglo-Saxon names
of the type 'Eccles' do [b]NOT[b] , necessarily, imply a Christian British
community surviving in the immediate area. 8)

Ambrosius / Mike[/quote]