The English and the Celts - no genocide?

[ambrosius]

Eccles itself is a brythonic word borrowed into latin hence english uses a latinised welsh word to denote a community of british christians.

Actually, Harry, I was under the impression that 'eccles' ultimately
derived from Latin 'Ecclesia', meaning a church - whether its attribution
in Britain makes it Brythonic or Old English - and that Latin originally
borrowed it from Greek. :?

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.

Actually, Robert, there is only one 'eccles' placename in Kent. That's
not a lot, really, when there are many more further West and North. In fact, when you take the dozens on Eccles and Eccles-derivative placenames in the more Brythonic regions further away from the initial Anglo-Saxon landings in Kent, I would disagree with your opinion that
this speaks against a mass-migration of Britons away from Kent in the
early days after the Adventus Saxonum. To me, the fact that this is the
only one in Kent indicates exactly the opposite: that there indeed
was a mass migration of British Christians away from the Anglo-
Saxon landings in Kent. But whereto? Why, the most logical answer
would of course be further West & North, where the abundance of
'Eccles' placenames indicates a more extensive British Christian
community surviving far longer, before being conquered by the later
emerging Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. 8)

Interestingly - as you know - this Eccles in Kent is a modern village
neighboring the town of Aylesford, which lies on the East bank of the River Medway. And Aylesford is, of course, one of the three main
battle-sites in Kent where Vortigern's two sons fought against the two
Jutish brothers, Hengist & Horsa after the Adventus.

Härke suggests that a population crash occured in the immediate post roman period but that the romano british population remained stable from the mid 5th cent onwards.

Does he really? How strange - that would mean that the population took a sharp dive after Britain became independent (Gildas saw that as a happier time, I believe), and that is stabilised when the Anglo-Saxons arrived in (according to Härke, right?) a mass migration, driving all the British before them? I find that hard to believe.

Oh so do I, Robert. But then I read what Harke says slightly differently
than you do. :lol: You assume that the population crash takes place
before the Anglo-Saxon arrival. On the other hand, if it took place
after the Anglo-Saxon arrival, then that would actually corroborate
what Gildas tells you, wouldn't it. 8) After all, you favour a much earlier
date for the Adventus Saxonum than most of us, taking it as being long
before the traditional date of c.450. Thus, if you were right (and I'm
not saying you are) and the Adventus took place much earlier in the
5th c. than 450, then this would not allow any time for the Romano-
British population to crash before the Anglo-Saxon arrival. :lol:
Therfore, we could easily attribute this population crash to the actual
arrival of the Anglo-Saxons. And the subsequent stabilization of
the British population would undoubtedly be far more likely due to the
recorded resistance of the British to the Anglo-Saxons in the form of
the three battles in Kent, dated - oh, let's see, now - from the mid
5th century onwards... :wink: That is, from 455-465 in Kent. 8)

I think current thought has the British population already diminishing since the 3rd c.,

I don't know about that (except for Faulkner et al). From the 1970s it
has been widely accepted that the Romano-British population c. 400
was between 2 & 6 million, with most scholars taking the average of
4 million to work with. The fact that it's only listed as being 2 million
again in the Domesday Book, after 600 years of Anglo-Saxon rule,
only serves to imply the loss of a stable and prosperous economy and
the 'forgetting' of once widely known skills such as personal hygeine
and medicine - under the Roman administration - which probably led
to vastly increased rates of infant mortality.

...a curve that i could well accept becoming a bit steeper during the 5th c., with all the raids, civil wars and Anglo-Saxon migration starting.

:!: Wow! "... raids (by Anglo-Saxons, of course, as well as Picts) and
Anglo-Saxon migration starting." Keep it up, Robert; I like your style!
8)

Another major consideration is the late roman marine transgression which altered the landscape considerably.

Yes, we know that already startyed during the Roman period. It must have been very problematic for the low-lying areas.

Indeedy! 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, if you include all the coastal farmland in a zone
from the Pas de Calais up through Holland and Denmark and include
Sweden and Norway as being likely origins of some migrants, that is an
enormous area. As Harke, himself points out: We know that these
regions became depopulated at this time. If they weren't all coming to
Britain, then there must be many thousands of longboats lying at the
bottom of the North sea! :lol:

Ambrosius / Mike[/quote]