Appearence and tactics of early 5th century Saxons.

[ambrosius]

Now that's the point, here, isn't it. Because Robert's 'current belief' hasn't , indeed, been 'current' since the seventies, when the 'current' crop of neo-Marxist British and American archaeology graduates started to reject the Anglo-Saxon migration model. To them, all Empires are evil, and so, as long as the Roman one was ending, they don't care what replaces it. And to them, hoardes of invading Anglo-Saxons are an improvement (just, don't call it an 'invasion', as we don't want to contemplate anything umpleasant, now do we...)

I doubt all of them are, or were, neo-Marxists. It is also a bit of an overstatement.

Well indeed it is a bit of an overstatement of you, Andreas,
since I never said modern archaeology graduates were all neo-Marxists. Please read carefully what I said. It's not the same thing.
You're always trying to tell me and others to read statements carefully,
now you should do the same. I said there was a current crop of
neo-Marxists among present archaeology graduates. Obviously
many of them aren't. I even know quite a few. 8)

Invasions were a standard explanation for many, if not all cases where relatively rapid cultural changes occurred, or where culturally alien artefacts suddenly propped up, even if there were no historical records available to either prove or disprove an invasion.

Such a pity, then, that we have so many lines of evidence showing invasion in 5th c. Britain. Archaeological, documentary, linguistic, place-name... it just goes on. :wink:

Unfortunately, this by itself healthy correction led to a situation where all too often even the possibility of invasion or migration is denied when it comes to prehistory... Compare this to the literature about the medieval German “Ostsiedlung” or the colonization of the Americas and Australia, where these events are not contested, because the evidence of the historical records is simply overwhelming. :mrgreen:

Evidence about 5th c. Britain will clearly never be over-whelming enough for some... No, I'm not looking at anyone. :lol:

Anyway, there are now several academic battlefields concerning, for instance, the transformation of Roman Britain.

Yes. It's interesting, isn't it, that academics can battle with
each other in print and verbally on T.V. but they fail to draw the obvious
connection with the conflicts of the past which they apparently deny. :lol:

Anyway, returning to the Anglo-Saxons, I also blame
the media.

Well it's an interesting hypothesis... but I doubt we can blame
200 years of endemic, Dark-Age bloodshed on the BBC... :lol:

Of course, Pryor’s views may have received a bit of extra attention thanks to the BBC...

[color-blue]Actually, Britain AD and the various Time Team episodes
that Pryor crops-up-on are on Channel 4. So far (fingers crossed :lol: )
he hasn't been invited onto the BBC. Maybe they know something. 8)
[/color]

...but hey, in two years Timewatch or Horizon might just as well devote an episode to genetic evidence of ethnic cleansing in central England, add a few warrior graves, some archaeological evidence indicative of violent destruction, an ominous voice quoting Gildas, and selected soundbites featuring Weale, Härke and others. Presto! A newsworthy item on the Beeb. And then there will be, once again, copious posts in the Internet fora…

Well if that state-of-affairs ever transpires, I think I shall
be able to take a well-earned rest from stating the obvious. :lol:

That's rubbish - if you are referring to me, that is. In fact, I challenge you to find anything in Harke's article that disagrees with what I've been saying. I shan't even bother to pick any points out. If you think I differ from him, them please explain why. As a matter of fact, what Harke says, above, implies a 50% replacement of adult males in the 5th/6th c. And that's entirely consistent with the Y-Chromosome studies by Weale, Capelli, Goldstein and West Heslerton.

No need to feel addressed, Mike, I wasn’t referring to you :|

Oh, well that's alright, then. Only it's just that you made your
comment about certain people immediately before quoting another
one of my comments, straight after it. :wink:

And if you read the article carefully, you would have seen that Härke specifically referred to two types of mixed community in southern England, as well as British enclaves.

Well there you go again, you see, accusing other people
- that is, me - of not reading articles properly. When what I said was that
what Harke said agreed with the Weale study, which only looked at the
East-West tranche across the Midlands. And they do agree, where
Harke refers to the Midlands. As you know, it was the Goldstein study
that covered the whole island, looking at the South & North as well.
As for British enclaves, did you know that the Chilterns (North-West of
London, between St. Albans and Silchester) were largely free of
Anglo-Saxon archaeological evidence until the 7th c.? Even after they'd been bypassed by the West Saxons. That's more circumstantial evidence
for the British enclaves at St. Albans and Silchester, of course.

There are apparently plenty of historically attested examples, and only recently it was proven (or at least plausibly suggested) that a large percentage of the central Asian population was descended from Genghis Khan and his immediate family. To paraphrase Mel Brooks, at one time it could said that "It's good to be the Khan!".

Khan was killed by Kirk in Star Trek II. But also remember:
we're all descended from Adam... 8)

Personally, I think that, assuming Weale’s interpretation was more or less correct, the high percentage in the central, eastern and northern regions isn’t primarily caused through reproductive advantage. A cursory look at the map of the North Sea regions and the Danelaw is enough: More “Germanic” genes ended up further north because these areas were closer to the migrants’ homeland.

You see... we do agree sometimes. 8)


Ambrosius/Mike