02-04-2007, 11:27 AM
Hi Harry,
Ah well, there we go. The name may indicate a continued presence
(of Britons living in the area of the 'Eccles' name) but the archaeology
disproves it. As I say, the adoption by the invading Anglo-Saxons of
the name 'Eccles' for a Christian church only proves that they recognized
the architectural features characteristic of a Roman church. They may
have been quite familiar with the basic design from churches they had
either seen or simply heard about in the Roman territory West of the
Rhine. That's all. As I also pointed-out before to Robert, nobody ever
makes the assumption that all the walled-towns or Saxon Shore Forts
in the East of England were still occupied or even garrisoned by Romano
Christian Brits (even though we have written evidence to suggest that
they were, from the ASC, eg Pevensey Castle, Carisbrooke Castle, and
from the very name of Walton Castle). Yet most of them bear the
unmistakeable generic Old English loan-word for a Roman Fortress
(Castra/Castrum > Chester/Caster/Caister). Rochester, Chichester,
Colchester, Brancaster, Caister, Portchester, Andredscaster were all
given the 'Fortress' suffix by the invading Anglo-Saxons. Yet we don't
assume they were still occupied by Britons (even though the archaeology
suggests they were - the 5th c. burials outside Chichester & Colchester
and the general absence of any Germanic archaeology in a wide area around Chichester, Silchester & St. Albans indeed do indicate a still
extant British population. Yet some people want to assume that the
use of a generic Latin loan-word into Old English describing a Roman
Church building is evidence of an extant British population :!: :?: :!:
Simply by virtue of the legacy of its name? :lol: As you point-out,
the archaeology does not indicate a continuation of Christian burials...
Doubt it, Harry. Look, the name is only evidence of the Anglo-Saxons
recognising the architecture. The shape of the building. And perhaps
that the last Britons seen in the area (before being killed or running-off)
were noted to be Christians. It proves nothing about continued occupation
by Christians. The church didn't move anywhere. It was throughout the
West as well as the East from the 4th c. onwards. The CHURCH
didn't move - the CONGEREGATION moved. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Ambrosius / Mike[/quote]
Quote:Härke doesn't argue for empty landscapes throughout the east, just in some areas.
Von Kalben makes the point that the two eccles sites in Kent indicate a continued presence during the AS period. However, christian burials suggest that it was more heavily christianised during the roman period. The question is, what happened to the others?
Ah well, there we go. The name may indicate a continued presence
(of Britons living in the area of the 'Eccles' name) but the archaeology
disproves it. As I say, the adoption by the invading Anglo-Saxons of
the name 'Eccles' for a Christian church only proves that they recognized
the architectural features characteristic of a Roman church. They may
have been quite familiar with the basic design from churches they had
either seen or simply heard about in the Roman territory West of the
Rhine. That's all. As I also pointed-out before to Robert, nobody ever
makes the assumption that all the walled-towns or Saxon Shore Forts
in the East of England were still occupied or even garrisoned by Romano
Christian Brits (even though we have written evidence to suggest that
they were, from the ASC, eg Pevensey Castle, Carisbrooke Castle, and
from the very name of Walton Castle). Yet most of them bear the
unmistakeable generic Old English loan-word for a Roman Fortress
(Castra/Castrum > Chester/Caster/Caister). Rochester, Chichester,
Colchester, Brancaster, Caister, Portchester, Andredscaster were all
given the 'Fortress' suffix by the invading Anglo-Saxons. Yet we don't
assume they were still occupied by Britons (even though the archaeology
suggests they were - the 5th c. burials outside Chichester & Colchester
and the general absence of any Germanic archaeology in a wide area around Chichester, Silchester & St. Albans indeed do indicate a still
extant British population. Yet some people want to assume that the
use of a generic Latin loan-word into Old English describing a Roman
Church building is evidence of an extant British population :!: :?: :!:
Simply by virtue of the legacy of its name? :lol: As you point-out,
the archaeology does not indicate a continuation of Christian burials...
Quote:If the church moved, many Britons in Kent may have just ceased to remain christian, without the guiding hand of the church. Some obviously did remain practicing christians, and were noted as such, hence the name, but there could have still been lapsed christians around.
Doubt it, Harry. Look, the name is only evidence of the Anglo-Saxons
recognising the architecture. The shape of the building. And perhaps
that the last Britons seen in the area (before being killed or running-off)
were noted to be Christians. It proves nothing about continued occupation
by Christians. The church didn't move anywhere. It was throughout the
West as well as the East from the 4th c. onwards. The CHURCH
didn't move - the CONGEREGATION moved. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Ambrosius / Mike[/quote]
"Feel the fire in your bones."
