The English and the Celts - no genocide?

[Robert Vermaat]

This means that they had likely captured the river-crossing of Aylesford - and the site of the Roman villa (and church) at the nearby hamlet of 'Eccles'. The fact that the name survived at Eccles shows that the (pagan) Jutes recognised the church as such (even though they would have no use for it, themselves, for another 150 years, until St. Augustine came to convert them). :lol:
[..]
All it says is that the Jutes who captured Aylesford recognized the nearby church as being what it was.
A church. That's all we can say. The site may well have already been abandoned by the native Britons, seeking refuge from the advancing Jutes. Certainly, I wouldn't expect there to have been any British civilians hanging around at Aylesford to see the outcome of the coming battle. Any still there when the Jutish forces arrived would presumably have been killed or fled.

Mike, that's just rubbish. Advancing pagan Jutes who not only recognise building as churches, AND retain the name! If that would really have happened, they would most likely have torched the place and renamed it after one of their own gods! :lol:

Talk about unwarrented assumptions - I like your sense of humour!

Let's face it Mike. I see signs of Britons living among the Anglo-saxons, how few or many I can't tell, but I see signs.
You have a different model - no contacts at all, and that means you must explain awy every such sign that points into the other direction.

That's your good right, but I see no point in discussing that any further - it's down to differences of opinion and neither of us can really prove what happened for real.