Appearence and tactics of early 5th century Saxons.

[egfroth]

IIRC, I saw something years ago that said the Anglo-Saxons settled in a different type of country from the Romano-Britons (I think one lot farmed the hilltops and the other the valleys, or something like that), so settlements and farms co-existed, rather than one destroying and replacing the other. But I can't cite any sources on that, I'm afraid.

Regarding war-gear, the earliest Anglo-Saxon helmets - the Benty Grange, Sutton Hoo and Northampton helmets - found in England are 7th century, which is rather too late for our discussion. But if you want to see them, they're all at http://www.missouri.edu/~rls555/SCA/res ... s/PVAH.htm

However, there seems to be no evidence that helmets and armour were widespread among the early Anglo-Saxons, and it's fairly likely they were worn only by the wealthy or noble.

There really hasn't been anything much from the early period found in England, so we really don't have much idea how they were equipped.

[Carus Andiae]

Thanks.

Despite its late date, the Sutton Hoo Helmet looks very like a 'Saxonified' late Roman ridge helmet design, wouldn't you say?

[S SEVERUS]

I wonder why like the anglo-saxons, the picts didn't invade to the south of Hadrian's wall after the expulsion of the roman government under the usurper Constantine III. After all there was a large roman presence in the north against them?

[Robert Vermaat]

Vortigern,
The tooth enamel studies are a bit misleading, all they show is where someone was brought up. A german couple coming to England would have isotopes thaat betrayed their continental homeland, however, their children and their granchildren would have isotopes in common with where they were brought up; that is England.
Raedwald

Hi Readweald,

No, these studies are not misleading, their use is limited, as the archaeologists who use them fully well know. But if you study a site in East Yorkshire and the only 4 buried people out of 24 studied that come from Scandinavia/Germania are a) women and children and b) they entered Britain over a 250-year period, than I say that something is missing - the warriors from the supposed invasuion. Add to that the fact that 10 of that 24 came from the West, across the Pennines, and I'd say that these folks should, at least according to the theories of the 'invasion-lovers', have been running TO the the West, not migrating from there the the East where the Saxons were supposedly invading.

Sure, I know, it's not suddenly clear what went on where and when - but this result throws a bit of a spanner in the works of those who always had a simple clear view on saxons invading and pushing the Brits west..

[Robert Vermaat]

There is evidence of population movement from the continet to England:
1. Almost complete change in burial rites.
2. Parts of the Jutland peninsula and coastal areas of Germany largely abandoned.
3. New styles of housing - similar to that on continent.
4. New pottery -- just like that on the continent.
5. New jewellery styles -- just like that on the continent and Scandinavia.
6. Weapon types change to Germanic types.
7. The english language has very, very few loan words from the British languages -- if Anglo Saxon men had married British wives you would expect lots of domestic words for food and utensils, etc to have been in everyday use as the women would use them and pass them on to their children. This just did not happen. The Normans were an elite -- and a powerful one -- but they failed to make us speak French after 1066.
8. Quite a few archaeologists and historians have changed their ideas and abandoned the idea of elite dominance and gone back to the idea of a fair sized migration, probably over a long period of time but with large scale replacement in some areas and, perhaps integration or co-existence in others. The elite dominance theory is no longer, particularly in fashion.
Why would there be discontinuity in farming? The incomers needed to eat just like the people who were using the field before them.

1. Not true, such rites existed in pre-Roman Britain and continued to be used, especially in the areas that were later supposedly invaded.
2.settlements were abandoned, sure, but where in the past it was automatically assumed that the folks took ship to Britain, nowadays we are more careful. Maybe they built new houses at another spot, close by or some distance away> It is very common for settlements to 'move' that way. But in the past it was the chiocken and the egg: the folks went so they had to join the invasion, and the invasions happened because the folks semed to be gone.
3. Sure, and that is why i don't like the theories of those who say that none even migrated. But Romans also brought new styles, and they never killed off the population, nor brought a mass migration of Romans to Britain. But when the Saxons are supposed to have arrived we suddenly should look at it differently?
4. Same as above. Such things also happen in prehistoric times, but prehistoric archaelogist learned a long time ago to stop seeing an invasion as soon as new potery or other styles arrived. But somehow historical archaeologist, especially when the Saxons are involved, take up a different appoach.
5. See above.
6. So what are Germanic weapons? Spears are spears, and other types turn up long before any germanic invader supposedly does. Part of the answer is the same as above (styles change when cultural influences change, you don't need invasion for that), but I'd like to add that fighting styles, as described by some sources, also seem to resemble Roman style.
7. And that's the main argument. But then I must add that we don't have any sources that shed light on names and places between 400 and 800, Bede being the fight one and he speaks mostly of other things. My point is, the invasion-theorists say that the change was fast and brutal, with the inavaders forcing a new language upon the vanquished. My answer would be that a new langauage could also have taken up 300 years to push earlier languages out. My best example is the Arab conquest of Syria and North Africa, where former Romans citizens gradually took up a new faith and also a new language. All inhabitants of these areas now speak Arab, and the Arabs did not kill or displace the masses, nor invade with a mass migration in their wake. Sure, the linguistic bother me, i admit that, but contuity on the ground speaks against a displacement of the rural population:
8. When you ara a farmer and you are scared off (or killed), it's totally illogica to suppose that the newcomer, who is a warrior at best, manages to continue the farm in exactly the same manner, with exactly the same means, on exactly the same fields - as if the former owner had left him a manual!

[Thiudareiks Flavius]

7. And that's the main argument. But then I must add that we don't have any sources that shed light on names and places between 400 and 800, Bede being the fight one and he speaks mostly of other things. My point is, the invasion-theorists say that the change was fast and brutal, with the inavaders forcing a new language upon the vanquished. My answer would be that a new langauage could also have taken up 300 years to push earlier languages out. My best example is the Arab conquest of Syria and North Africa, where former Romans citizens gradually took up a new faith and also a new language. All inhabitants of these areas now speak Arab, and the Arabs did not kill or displace the masses, nor invade with a mass migration in their wake. Sure, the linguistic bother me, i admit that, but contuity on the ground speaks against a displacement of the rural population

My current take on this debate (my position has changed a few times over the years) is that there is a tendency for people to view it as a binary question - either it was a wholesale invasion and displacement or there was substantial continuity. I feel that the answer may lie somewhere between these two extremes.

The adoption of 'Germanic' names, dress-styles, weaponry, political organisation and building styles is paralleled in parts of post-Roman Europe where we know that the numbers of the Germanic invaders were actually very small: Frankish Gaul, Ostrogothic Italy and Visigothic Gaul and Spain, for example. So these things in themselves aren't neccessarily signs of wholesale displacement. But Britain is significant in the way language was affected.

In Gaul, Italy and Spain we find a scattering of Germanic loan words entering the languages - largely to do with war and political organisation for obvious reasons - but the languages remained substantially post-Latin/Romance. But in Britain we do see a fairly wholesale adoption of a Germanic language. Old English has a few Latin loan words, but most of these are either (i) pre-invasion words which had found their way into West Germanic through contact with the Roman Empire before the Fifth Century or (ii) ecclesiastical terms which found their way into Old English via the Church. It also has a tiny number of Celtic words, names and place names (especially, for some reason, the names of rivers - Avon, Thames etc). But otherwise Old English remained stubbornly Germanic until the Norman Invasion.

Other examples of wholesale replacement of the native language tend to reveal different circumstances to what probably happened in post-Roman Britain. In North Africa, for example, Berber, Punic and Latin were certainly replaced by Arabic. But there the Arab invaders didn't just bring a new political order, but also brought a religion which was based on a Holy Book and worship in Arabic. Non-Arabic languages survived the invasion for some centuries, but it seems that it was the central place that Arabic held in the form of Islam brought to North Africa that led to their eventual demise and the wholesale adoption of Arabic.

In Britain, on the other hand, the invaders didn't bring a religion which was as 'aggressive' in its dominance or as linked to the newcomer's language.

In Roman Dacia the local languages were slowly replaced by Latin. Ditto for Gaul and Spain which is why modern France, Spain and Romania all speak Romance languages rather than Celtic, Iberian or Dacian ones. But in all those cases we see this happening as a result of not just political domination but also colonisation over a period of many centuries.

In New Guinea we see local dialects (thousands of them - there are more languages spoken in Papua New Guinea and West Irian than anywhere else on Earth) replaced by English and Bhasa Indonesian or, more commonly, by pidgin combinations of the colonists' languages and local dialects. But this is because most of the local languages are mutually unintelligable and the colonial languages or pidgins based on them provide a lingua franca by which the locals can not only communicate with the colonists but also with each other.

The wholesale adoption of Old English in the areas of Britain settled and dominated by Germanics does, in my opinion, indicate a substantial colonisation by newcomers. But I don't go so far as to say it supports wholesale displacement of the local population. Clearly it means there were more Germanic-speakers coming to Britain than there were in Ostrogothic Italy or Frankish Gaul, but other evidence indicates that the imposition of Old English was also due to political and cultural domination by these newcomers of the locals.

I'd say the situation in post-Roman Britain is closer to that in Roman Dacia, though with the colonisation and subsequent linguistic dominance happening much faster. There almost certainly was some displacement, particularly at first. But it was nowhere near wholesale displacement. The newcomers came in sufficient numbers to dominate the locals politically and then linguistically, but many of the people of 'Angalaland' in the Sixth to Eleventh Centuries would still have been people of Celtic descent who simply adopted Germanic names and language.

[Redwald]

Vortigern,
Are you using the West Heslerton samples for your tooth analysis?

24 samples isn't a lot. we will have to wait until a lot more work is completed in this area but my original comments about this still hold true.

I think your term 'invasion lovers' is somewhat derrogatory and dismissive -- I don't think that you should use it.


Raedwald

[Redwald]

Vortigern,

Thank you for your extensive reply to my post. I would like to comment further:

1. Burials. You are right - Germanic burials were being used in these islands before the Romans left. But why was this? There were significant numbers of Germans here who had been brought here and settled in order to fight for the Romans. Mucking in Essex, not far from where I live is one such site. These early German settlers may well have laid the foundations of the later settlements when their relatives, friends etc came and joined them. In many cases these later settlements may well have been relatively or even totally peaceful.
2. Jutland. Your comments may well have some validity -- but those people did go somewhere. As Bede says that they came here and as similar pottery, etc styles suddenly crop up in England at around the right time - it seems a little obtuse to just dismiss the argument. Yes I know it is not fashionable to believe what Bede and Gildas say, that they are supposed to have other agendas, etc, etc, but from a literary standpoint they are the nearest to the time, especially Gildas.
4. Pottery. There is one very strange aspect of the new Germanic pottery. It wasn't particularly good, in fact the early stuff was quite crude (it could have some pretty designs, though). Why abandon better pottery for the new Germanic style?
5. Jewellery. The new styles are, mostly, radically different from what went before. Why would British women want to copy Germanic ones?
6. Weapons. The new weapons are stylistically very different from the earlier, British ones. I think that you are ignoring this. If you wish we can discuss Swanton's spear head types and look at the forms that the Germanic sword took. Shields and their decoration (where it survives) are very different.
7. Language. The case of Arabic is not the same. The Islamic conversion was just that, a conversion. With that conversion came the necessity to speak Arabic. The Germanic settlers did not set out, as far as we know, to convert anyone to their faith. In fact they do not seem to have had anything resemblin a unified system of beliefs -- possibly family or tribal beliefs that varied a great deal.
One other point is the fact that Old English had very few, probably not more than a couple of dozen, British loan words, none of which are words relating to cooking, utensils, food, etc - the sorts of words that a British mother might teach her children. This is not the case in some Arabic lands like Algeria where many words survive from displaced languages.
8. Farming. I cannot agree with you and do not follow the logic of your statement. The Anglo-Saxons had to eat, they would need to use the land as soon as possible, they could not afford to let it waste, if they did they would starve. So what they were warriors -- warriors need food like anyone else -- many warriors, or members of their families, would have been farmers, too. The Anglo-Saxons, like the British lived in a close relationship with the land. Why would they need a manual?

One other point that I would like to make. The early English and many of the British did not benefit from a liberal, multi cultural education, they lived in tribal societies and regarded others, as not the same, perhaps not even human. They would not, necessarily excercise too much restraint in getting the means to survive and thrive from people that they regarded as 'Welsh' (foriegn) - people who were not of their kin. I am sure that different groups of Germans also saw the other as enemies.


Cheers,

Paul

[Redwald]

Thiudareiks Flavius,
I have to say that I am much closer to your position that Vortigern's. Howecer, I would like to make a couple of comments about place names. River names are particularly conservative and seem to last despite new occupants of a land. In some cases in England river names seem to predate even the British. I'll try and get some examples from my notes. Place names, too tend to last. you do even get examples of places that have an old British name to which has been added an Old English name which means the same thing, an example, I think, is Breedon Hill, which simple means hill, hill, hill in different languages. If there had been the continuity that some people believe why would they give it the same name over and over again?

Raedwald

[Robert Vermaat]

Vortigern,
Are you using the West Heslerton samples for your tooth analysis?
24 samples isn't a lot. we will have to wait until a lot more work is completed in this area but my original comments about this still hold true.
I think your term 'invasion lovers' is somewhat derrogatory and dismissive -- I don't think that you should use it.

West Heslerton , yes I think that's them.
24 is not much, but so far it's telling, and pointing at other things than a massive immigration that supposedly is pushing the original inhabitants out and west. But I never claimed that this is the answer, or anything final. I'm just saying it's different that was expected.
I meant no disrespect to anyone, it was merely 0.30 when I wrote it, after a hard day re-enacting in the heat. My apologies, this was never meant to turn into politics.

[Robert Vermaat]

My current take on this debate (my position has changed a few times over the years) is that there is a tendency for people to view it as a binary question - either it was a wholesale invasion and displacement or there was substantial continuity. I feel that the answer may lie somewhere between these two extremes.
Hi Thiudareiks, that's my point too. I'm definately against the 'no invasion at all' theory. So far I've tried to point out the point that can be made against the 'mass migration and large-scale replacement' theory, which was the satrt of this bout of discussion. As I see it, there had to be migration to give the impetus to the cultural influences that turn up in Britain. There may in some areas indeed have been more immigrants then Romano-British inhabitants, we just have not identified yet. My two main points are just these:
1) don't trust the 'historical accounts' of the Anglo-Saxon invasions as written down many centuries later, and
2) don't trust the opinion of the researchers who claim that by testing modern humans they can prove that the Anglo-Saxons killed off or displaced 50-80% of the male population in post-Roman Britain.

The adoption of 'Germanic' names, dress-styles, weaponry, political organisation and building styles is paralleled in parts of post-Roman Europe where we know that the numbers of the Germanic invaders were actually very small: Frankish Gaul, Ostrogothic Italy and Visigothic Gaul and Spain, for example. So these things in themselves aren't neccessarily signs of wholesale displacement. But Britain is significant in the way language was affected.
Exactly.
The language is different in the sense that less Brythonic words suvive in modern English. But even there no mass extinction is needed to achieve that.

In Gaul, Italy and Spain we find a scattering of Germanic loan words entering the languages - largely to do with war and political organisation for obvious reasons - but the languages remained substantially post-Latin/Romance. But in Britain we do see a fairly wholesale adoption of a Germanic language.
Especially in Gaul we see a new ruling class that want to become Romanised. The thing you should look at is how many Gallic words are still found in French. We know from Sidonius Appolinaris and others that Celtic was still a much-spoken language among the 5th-c. Gallo-Roman citizens. Did words from their language survive into modern French?

Old English has a few Latin loan words, but most of these are either (i) pre-invasion words which had found their way into West Germanic through contact with the Roman Empire before the Fifth Century or (ii) ecclesiastical terms which found their way into Old English via the Church. It also has a tiny number of Celtic words, names and place names (especially, for some reason, the names of rivers - Avon, Thames etc). But otherwise Old English remained stubbornly Germanic until the Norman Invasion.
I can recommend Brian Ward-Perkins (2000): Why did the Anglo-Saxons not become more British?, in: English Historical Review 115: pp. 513-533. to explain a possible reason.

Other examples of wholesale replacement of the native language tend to reveal different circumstances to what probably happened in post-Roman Britain. In North Africa, for example, Berber, Punic and Latin were certainly replaced by Arabic. But there the Arab invaders didn't just bring a new political order, but also brought a religion which was based on a Holy Book and worship in Arabic. Non-Arabic languages survived the invasion for some centuries, but it seems that it was the central place that Arabic held in the form of Islam brought to North Africa that led to their eventual demise and the wholesale adoption of Arabic.
My point exactly. But Berber was never replaced (see below). And where you see the religion as a difference, I mainly look at the lack of coercion that still brought about the language change.

In Britain, on the other hand, the invaders didn't bring a religion which was as 'aggressive' in its dominance or as linked to the newcomer's language.
Ah, Islam was not brought agressively in any way. Early Islam was purely a matter of soft coercion and many opportunities. In my opinion that could also have been the case for Britain, where Germanic culture and Anglo-Saxon language were seen as an opportunity.

The wholesale adoption of Old English in the areas of Britain settled and dominated by Germanics does, in my opinion, indicate a substantial colonisation by newcomers. But I don't go so far as to say it supports wholesale displacement of the local population. Clearly it means there were more Germanic-speakers coming to Britain than there were in Ostrogothic Italy or Frankish Gaul, but other evidence indicates that the imposition of Old English was also due to political and cultural domination by these newcomers of the locals.
Odd, your position on the Roman colonisation of Gaul, etc. seems opposed to this conclusion. But even if there were sufficient colonists to replace the language, I think that even the most stauch supporters of mass migration theories never see more than 800.000 German colonist, while most experts seem convinced that lowland Britain had 4 to 6 million inhabitants. In any case that would mean the newcomers were outnumbered heavily. I think (with Francis Pryor) the main difference is that in the areas that some see as colonised and others as culturally altered, is also the area that was most Romanised, i.e. where the inhabitants were already adapted earlier and maybe were less opposed to new influeces and changes.

The newcomers came in sufficient numbers to dominate the locals politically and then linguistically, but many of the people of 'Angalaland' in the Sixth to Eleventh Centuries would still have been people of Celtic descent who simply adopted Germanic names and language.
I agree.

[Robert Vermaat]

I have to say that I am much closer to your position that Vortigern's.
Hi Raedwald, I doubt that you even know what my position is! But read my reply to Thiudareiks and you'll get a better idea.

Breedon Hill, which simple means hill, hill, hill in different languages. If there had been the continuity that some people believe why would they give it the same name over and over again?
That's nothing to do with language change. Look at Hamwic, an Anglo-Saxon settlement that means settlement settlement, both in the same language.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Raedwald,

1. Burials. You are right - Germanic burials were being used in these islands before the Romans left. But why was this? There were significant numbers of Germans here who had been brought here and settled in order to fight for the Romans. Mucking in Essex, not far from where I live is one such site. These early German settlers may well have laid the foundations of the later settlements when their relatives, friends etc came and joined them. In many cases these later settlements may well have been relatively or even totally peaceful.
Not germanic! What we see is a burial style: inhumation instead of cremation. This has nothing to do with Germanic origins. Pre-Roman Celtic British used inhumation style burials in the southeast, and continued (at a lower level) to do this during Roman times. When inhumation is used in post-Roman times, why should it suddenly be Germanic? Compare, for instance, the Celtic Late Iron Age chamber burial of the Lexden tumulus near Colchester, Essex, to the Pritlewell chamber burial near Southend, also Essex. If the one is a British Celt and the other an Anglo-Saxon, the way of burial and the gravegoods are chillingly equal. Why can't this be continuation and does it have to be a new immigrant?

2. Jutland. Your comments may well have some validity -- but those people did go somewhere. As Bede says that they came here and as similar pottery, etc styles suddenly crop up in England at around the right time - it seems a little obtuse to just dismiss the argument. Yes I know it is not fashionable to believe what Bede and Gildas say, that they are supposed to have other agendas, etc, etc, but from a literary standpoint they are the nearest to the time, especially Gildas.
Like I said in another post--you mistake my argument. I never argue against immigration, I argue against mass migration and large-scale population replacemnt, by showing you sign after sign of continuation.

4. Pottery. There is one very strange aspect of the new Germanic pottery. It wasn't particularly good, in fact the early stuff was quite crude (it could have some pretty designs, though). Why abandon better pottery for the new Germanic style?
We see that the higher quality pottery diasappears already during the Roman period, when large markets for these products diasappear. They are replaced by local styles, of lower quality. If the 'Anglo-Saxon' pottery is indeed of lesser quality, it would fit in that processs. Again, I argue against opions that assert that is would be 'imposible' that the Britons would have change supposedly higher quality culture for supoposedly lesser quality culture if not by force or displacement. I find that abit racist, as if the Anglo-Saxons and their culture were to be classed as inferior.

5. Jewellery. The new styles are, mostly, radically different from what went before. Why would British women want to copy Germanic ones?
Why indeed? See my point above! Why be so denigrating about that possibility? But look at the Later Roman Empire and you'll see many such changes - Roman soldiers wearing belts and buckles copied from Germanic styles. Why? Why? Because they obviously preferred it. So why would British women be different?

6. Weapons. The new weapons are stylistically very different from the earlier, British ones. I think that you are ignoring this. If you wish we can discuss Swanton's spear head types and look at the forms that the Germanic sword took. Shields and their decoration (where it survives) are very different.
I'm not sure what you mean - I guess you are referring to Roman weapons. Well, Romans did not allow their citizens to carry arms, and for the better part of a century before we call BVritain 'post-Roman', the state had a weapon monopoly. So any new weapon would very easily be brought in by Germanic traders, long before 400. And besides, early Anglo-Saxon swords are considered to be a development from Roman swords...

7. Language. The case of Arabic is not the same. The Islamic conversion was just that, a conversion. With that conversion came the necessity to speak Arabic.
That is absolutely untrue. There was no force to convert to Islam in the conquered territories. There was a light coercion and you could get ahead if you did, but even so high posts were never closed to Christians. Alexandria kept speaking Greek for centuries. In fact it was the Crusades that did much to alter all that. But let's not digress.

The Germanic settlers did not set out, as far as we know, to convert anyone to their faith. In fact they do not seem to have had anything resemblin a unified system of beliefs -- possibly family or tribal beliefs that varied a great deal.
Yet it may be posible that Romano-British reverted to paganism and followed the example of Germanic immigrants. Sure.

One other point is the fact that Old English had very few, probably not more than a couple of dozen, British loan words, none of which are words relating to cooking, utensils, food, etc - the sorts of words that a British mother might teach her children. This is not the case in some Arabic lands like Algeria where many words survive from displaced languages.
I agree, that seems to be the most different change when you compare it to other pre-Germanic languages. But see my point in the answer to Thiudareiks about Gallic and Gallic words in French. But I immediately say that I don't know the answer to this, only that is it not the proof for either mass migration or large-scale displacement. Maybe English was an easier language to learn?

8. Farming. I cannot agree with you and do not follow the logic of your statement. The Anglo-Saxons had to eat, they would need to use the land as soon as possible, they could not afford to let it waste, if they did they would starve. So what they were warriors -- warriors need food like anyone else -- many warriors, or members of their families, would have been farmers, too. The Anglo-Saxons, like the British lived in a close relationship with the land. Why would they need a manual?
My point (or rather that of Francis Pryor) is that it is impossible for someone from across the sea to enter Britain, chase the natives away and continue their farm as if nothing happened. They would not know the land, the seasons, the climate, in any way as the farmer would have known. He would have to start new, with a smaller farm or something like that. There would have to be a sign of discontinuity.

One other point that I would like to make. The early English and many of the British did not benefit from a liberal, multi cultural education, they lived in tribal societies and regarded others, as not the same, perhaps not even human.
I would very much like to know where you base that on, since in my opinion we can't possibly know that.

They would not, necessarily excercise too much restraint in getting the means to survive and thrive from people that they regarded as 'Welsh' (foriegn) - people who were not of their kin. I am sure that different groups of Germans also saw the other as enemies.
Welsh does not mean forein at all. It was at that time mostly used by germanic peoples to denote Romans (instead of foreign, which could also include germanics).
But even if you force a farmer to farm for you, that farm will change, since more people need to be sustained from it.

[Redwald]

Hi Vortigern,
Hi Raedwald, I doubt that you even know what my position is! Very Happy But read my reply to Thiudareiks and you'll get a better idea.

Well it is becoming much clearer.




Nice kit by the way!

Raedwald

ps- I'll reply to the rest on Monday.

[Redwald]

Hi Vortigern,
Sorry for the delay -- very busy weekend.

(1) Burials

In the Iron Age accompanied inhumation seems to have been the preferred rite in high-status burials which were under tumuli in prominent positions. During the period and extent of Roman rule, unaccompanied inhumation close by villa, vicus or town was normal for some people, for the rich in elaborate mausolea. The poor probably were cremated.

The introduced Germanic burial rites are (i) cremation in distinctive forms of urn and (ii) accompanied (usually) inhumation in separate cemetery areas away from settlements. Usually the settlements are in river valleys while the cemeteries are up on the higher ground. Mound burial does not seem to have been among the earlier rites, but only comes in from ca.600, therefore there is a gap of about 700 years between Lexden and Prittlewell in which little or no mound burial took place.

4. No-one is arguing that the AS are inferior, but their pottery is not of such good quality as the late Roman products. This is because their ability with wood and maybe leather was so good that they did not need ceramics except for particular, traditional purposes i.e. burial containers. Presumably British potters did not forget how to throw a pot on a wheel; but if the potters were no longer there then that would account for the loss of that industry and its skills.

5 Jewellery. Across the Gmc world, women’s adornment carries information about status and ethnicity. Perhaps British women did want to copy Gmc fashions, but the point is: would that be possible/allowed? If wearing a great square-headed brooch showed a certain status and position, then it would be vital to restrict these materials to those who were eligible to wear them.

6 I am not referring to Roman weapons but to Germanic ones -- I am surprised that you don't know what I mean. If you have access to Menghin's Das Schwert im Fruhen Mittealter or Davidson's The Sword in Anglo Saxon England - you will see that Germanic swords are stylistically very different. The same goes for other war gear.

7. Of course it was true that there were incentives to convert to Islam and some of these may have amounted to coercion. If you read what I said in my original post -- I used the word 'conversion' I did not mention force. However, the history of Islam is not without incidences where people were 'encouraged' to convert. Incidentally, the original split between Shia's and Sunni's was extremely bloody -- so I find arguments that matters of doctrine are not important rather unconvincing.

Of course, unlike in England, in places like Algeria, the original language is still alive and well (Berber).

As for English being an easier language to learn I think that you are on weak ground there. Today it may be easier for a German to learn English than Chinese -- but I don't really think that Britons would have found it particularly easy. For a Briton it would have been much easier to continue speaking British!


As for religion, if Britons decided to abandon their old ways and go with AS then where is the continuity? If they revived their old ways, then they did not follow the Gmc religions. Can’t have it both ways.

8) Farming. There is plenty of evidence for villa estates falling into disuse, downsizing of farms, wasteland regenerating, etc. Pryor ignores this and just points to a few villas that stayed in production – all in the west as far as I know. Besides Pryor is not a farmer, I wouldn't attach too much importance to his statements about farming -- people had to eat and the newcomers would have used whatever they could -- they were already experienced farmers -- unlike Pryor. Incidentally, he isn't an early medievalist either -- he is a bronze age specialist who has found his way onto tellevision and been asked to comment on subjects of which he actually knows very little. His interview with Heinrich Harke was emberassing -- Harke is an early medieval specialist but Pryor basically ignored all that he said.


As for your reply to my saying that the AS did not recieve a liberal, multi cultural education -- I can't understand why you think they may have. They lived in a tribal society, their kin were the most important people on earth to them -- outsiders, especially those who spoke a different language and were culturally different were not regarded as belonging to the group -- they may not have even been regarded as people.


“Welshâ€