Appearence and tactics of early 5th century Saxons.

[ambrosius]

[quote]Dear Vortigern,

Sorry, but isn’t that a derogatory remark – only farmers can speak about agricultural issues? He’s a prehistoric archaeologist (no, not a Bronze Age specialist) – I take it for granted that these people are well-versed in their speciality - which was about prehistoric farmers! He also never claimed to be an Early medieval specialist.

Now Robert, Prehistoric archaeology does include the
study of the Bronze Age. And that's what Pryor likes to work on, in
addition to the Iron Age. Let's not get quite so pedantic about this.
In the interview between Pryor and Harke, they were actually at the
site of the burial at Taplow, discussing the Anglo-Saxon migration
in the 5th c. That's hardly prehistoric, now is it.

I don't think that it is a derogatory remark at all, nor did I say that you should only listen to farmers about farming. I am just pointing out that Pryor has a tendency to speak outside his field, and because he does it with the authority of television his views do need to challenged-- as for him not claiming to be an early medieval specialist -- he presented a programme about the early medieval, post Roman period!

Hear, hear, Paul! Pryor is indeed not a mediaeval specialist,
and you are absolutely right in what you said. His interview with Harke
was embarrassing, because he wouldn't listen to a mediaeval
expert's opinion, instead, coming out with his own conceited conjecture
(now commonly known amongst archaeologists as 'Pryor's Merrie
Englande hypothesis of British history', wherein the past is one,
seamless continuity, where invasions never happen). By the way, I
like your pun on 'fields'. It is indeed wrong for a farmer (such as Pryor)
to speak outside his field. If he does so, then he must be in some other
farmer's field, and is, therefore, trespassing! :lol:

Please discuss arguments here, not personal views.

But what Paul is discussing is Pryor's personal views.
It is Pryor who is the one with the opinions, and who refuses to
listen to the experts on the evidence. Throughout the first episode
of 'Britain AD', Pryor interspersed his own personal opinions (desires)
such as : 'Roman-Britain ended in 410 AD' or '410, when the legions
returned to Rome'. Which you and I both know is garbage, and not at
all supported by any evidence. Yet comments like this literally peppered
his naration once every minute. Despite the fact that almost every one
of the Roman archaeologists he interviewed from Mark Whyman to Tony
Wilmott proved this was not the case. But Pryor is so blinkered in his
agenda that he probably didn't even notice he was being publicly
undermined. :lol:

[quote=Paul]
I am a bit puzzled by this remark -- how can you argue without using personal views? I am happy to discuss this aspect on pms rather than here but my personal views and yours are the basis of what we are talking about. Your personal view of the Adventus Saxonom is different to mine -- we would not be having this discussion otherwise.[/quote]

Absolutely right! To quote the foreword of the book:
'Gods with Thunderbolts', by Guy de la Bedoyere:

"We're all prejudiced. Prejudice is the essence of discussion. Without it, we'd all be exactly the same, and there would be nothing to talk about."

Ambrosius/Mike