08-13-2006, 04:08 PM
Hi Robert,
Sure. I was forgetting that a molehill can look like a
mountain to someone who is only 6" tall...... (That was what you said,
if I remember correctly......) :lol: :lol: :lol:
Well, the Mesolothic hunters of 'France' we now know
made it to America by canoeing along the edges of the ice-floes in the
Atlantic, camping on the ice overnight before paddling-on. So I guess
anything is possible. 8)
Ah yes, but it's the refugees in their wake, who would,
themselves, be seeking farmland of their own. As Andreas pointed-out,
the Frisians etc couldn't farm the highland (poor soil), they couldn't
go South West and tackle the Franks, and to the South East there are
these refugees fleeing the Huns. If they could have stayed-put, then
they may have been okay. But, those rising sea-levels...
Erm, see above? It doesn't have to be the only answer,
but we do need to start somewhere. They didn't fly-off into space.
Well there we agree. (Is that the sound of distant cheering?)
Erm, that's because they're buried in the wheat-field.
The new tenants would have needed fertilizer... :oops:
Yes, it's an eminently reasonable point. Though it's one I
thought I had dealt with already. But here goes once more: The
Germanic chip-carved buckles were adopted (from fashion and practicality) by the Western Roman Army in the 4th & 5th century.
Not made in Germania, or even by Germanic peoples, probably, but
by and for Roman soldiers. However, what makes them not Germanic mercenaries, or even Roman soldiers of Germanic descent,
(necessarily) is that they are still also wearing their Roman crossbow brooches etc. There is a fusion of styles, over a period of
time, and not a sudden replacement of one native style by another, foreign one. I could accept that the 5th c. Jutish graves in Kent might
be native Britons dressed-up as Jutes if they were still wearing a diagnostic artifact which was normally worn by pre-Jutish-arrival
Britons. I mean, from Andrew Richardson's survey of Jutish brooches
in Kent, he can even tell from the nuances of Frisian styles incorporated into them that the Jutes must have had contact with the Frisians on their way from Jutland. Which is hardly surprising, actually, and fits with the fact that the safest way to sail from Jutland to Kent was to skirt the
coast of Frisia. So we can see the subtle influences of Frisian culture imprinted on Jutish brooches in the 5th c. But we don't see any
Romano-British influence on them.
hock:
Why, if there was the slightest contact between Jutish and Romano-
British culture, is there no Romano-British signature on Jutish brooches?
And why, if the Britons were adopting Jutish brooches, did they just
copy them perfectly (or buy them) without adding any nuances of
Romano-British brooch design? You see what I'm saying? There was
more cultural exchange between Jutes and Frisians from an overnight
stop for a bagel and a coffee than there was between the Jutes who
came to Kent and the native Britons over a period of 200 years.
Cheers,
Ambrosius/Mike
P.S. I'm not sure what happened back there, but either your writing
suddenly got bigger, or I don't need these glasses any more. :lol:
Quote:ambrosius:1svi1gsq Wrote:Lots of it. it's just so you folks who are spoilt with hills and stuff don't recognise it over here.
Okay Robert. You live in Holland. So please tell me what
'higher ground' you see out of your window right now. :lol:Higher ground can means 5 meters higher, or just 2, whatever keeps your fields dry from tides that would normally overrun it.
Sure. I was forgetting that a molehill can look like a
mountain to someone who is only 6" tall...... (That was what you said,
if I remember correctly......) :lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote: Mind you, I never said they did not migrate anywhere overseas. Maybe America?
Well, the Mesolothic hunters of 'France' we now know
made it to America by canoeing along the edges of the ice-floes in the
Atlantic, camping on the ice overnight before paddling-on. So I guess
anything is possible. 8)
Quote:Well, some flooding, by no means all, and over more than a century.
And the Huns never made it that far north, either. As if they would. 8)
Ah yes, but it's the refugees in their wake, who would,
themselves, be seeking farmland of their own. As Andreas pointed-out,
the Frisians etc couldn't farm the highland (poor soil), they couldn't
go South West and tackle the Franks, and to the South East there are
these refugees fleeing the Huns. If they could have stayed-put, then
they may have been okay. But, those rising sea-levels...
Quote:Can you not simply accept that perfectly respected GermanicWell, that my problem - why can it be the only logical explanation? As a scientists, I would have a problem with that - so many variables, uncertainties, possibilities, and that's the only logical solution? Why Britain? Why not Belgium, France, Spain, North Africa [/quote]
(for want of a better word) migration-period scholars like Heinrich Harke
and Michael Gebuhr have no problem with seeing the only logical route
of migration for Frisians, Angles & Jutes as being across the North Sea
and to Britain? As for the migrants arriving at their leisure, that's not
a problem.
Erm, see above? It doesn't have to be the only answer,
but we do need to start somewhere. They didn't fly-off into space.
Quote:You know I think that there was an attenuated migration overSure, that could've been the case. And yes, a slower and smaller migration might still be hostile. Why not - pirates/traders were a normal sign of the time, and raiders and petty chiefs might be hostile to their neighbours, sure. I never claimed all had to be peaceful. I'm just againt the mass-migration (over a short time)[/quote]
maybe 150-200 years. But that doesn't mean it wasn't hostile
Well there we agree. (Is that the sound of distant cheering?)
Quote: and a massive displacement of the natives - I still see no signs of the native farmers being forced away in large numbers, leaving the land just for immigrants to start anew.
Erm, that's because they're buried in the wheat-field.
The new tenants would have needed fertilizer... :oops:
Quote:I have no doubt that such reasoning lies behind the current thought - stuff's Anglo-Saxon, so the owners must be Anglo-Saxons. But isn't that a trap that archaeologists contantly warn about? That the fibula can't tell you anything about the ethnicity of the owner? [color=red]Isn't that, too, not the reasoning behing the Germanic belt-sets etc. found in Britain - whose owners 'can't be Germanics' because those very same experts say they can't? So who's fooling who? If the one Germanic style must be worn by a germanic person and the other Germanic style can't be worn by a Germanic person around the very same time, then I don't know what to argue anymore. But if Germanic buckles could be buried with british soldiers, than Germanic swords and jewellery could also be buries with British persons, surely?[/quote]
It's certainly illogical to assume that when the first Anglo-
Saxon weapons burials appear in Kent c. 450 that 400 years of Romano-
British burial culture goes out the window and Romanized, Christianised
Britons suddenly swap all their jewellery and clothing for Anglo-Saxon
styles, and revert to pagan weapons burials. You are always exhorting
people to use Occam's Razor. Well, please try it yourself, now. What's
the simplest and most logical explanation for these weapons burials
suddenly appearing? That they are Anglo-Saxon imigrants, or that they
are Romanized Britons pretending to be Anglo-Saxons, just to fool us?
Yes, it's an eminently reasonable point. Though it's one I
thought I had dealt with already. But here goes once more: The
Germanic chip-carved buckles were adopted (from fashion and practicality) by the Western Roman Army in the 4th & 5th century.
Not made in Germania, or even by Germanic peoples, probably, but
by and for Roman soldiers. However, what makes them not Germanic mercenaries, or even Roman soldiers of Germanic descent,
(necessarily) is that they are still also wearing their Roman crossbow brooches etc. There is a fusion of styles, over a period of
time, and not a sudden replacement of one native style by another, foreign one. I could accept that the 5th c. Jutish graves in Kent might
be native Britons dressed-up as Jutes if they were still wearing a diagnostic artifact which was normally worn by pre-Jutish-arrival
Britons. I mean, from Andrew Richardson's survey of Jutish brooches
in Kent, he can even tell from the nuances of Frisian styles incorporated into them that the Jutes must have had contact with the Frisians on their way from Jutland. Which is hardly surprising, actually, and fits with the fact that the safest way to sail from Jutland to Kent was to skirt the
coast of Frisia. So we can see the subtle influences of Frisian culture imprinted on Jutish brooches in the 5th c. But we don't see any
Romano-British influence on them.
hock: Why, if there was the slightest contact between Jutish and Romano-
British culture, is there no Romano-British signature on Jutish brooches?
And why, if the Britons were adopting Jutish brooches, did they just
copy them perfectly (or buy them) without adding any nuances of
Romano-British brooch design? You see what I'm saying? There was
more cultural exchange between Jutes and Frisians from an overnight
stop for a bagel and a coffee than there was between the Jutes who
came to Kent and the native Britons over a period of 200 years.
Cheers,
Ambrosius/Mike
P.S. I'm not sure what happened back there, but either your writing
suddenly got bigger, or I don't need these glasses any more. :lol:
"Feel the fire in your bones."
