Appearence and tactics of early 5th century Saxons.

[ambrosius]

Hi Robert,

]
Now to be honest, I thought, at the time, that you were
contradicting yourself, rather. But I didn't like to point it out to you,
in case you called me racist, or something :lol: So my question, above,
about customs control of importation of Germanic weapons in the century
before 400 still stands. Unless you wish to revise what you said. :wink:

Mike, it's not even nice to use that word in jest now is it?

Ah, but I'm neither being racist, nor accusing anyone else
of that, only trying to avoid it being levelled against me. But yes, let's
agree not to mention the word again. Probably. Maybe not. 8)

But maybe I was misaten - to answer your previous question about customs - of course traders could sell to Romans who were allowed to carry arms. So soldiers could of course buy weapons from foreign traders - why not? I said the Roman state had a monopoly of arms manufacture, and you of course know that arms exports were forbidden, but that did not means that arms imports were off limits too.

Ah, I see. You meant the military importing weapons, not
civilian merchants. Though I still think it unwise to do that. We had the
Iron for making weapons (more than the Anglo-Saxons) and all the
other resources for Iron-working. Plus it's unwise to depend for weapons
on anyone you may have to go to war against. And don't tell me that
the Anglo-Saxons made any othe those - oh, whatchamacallthem -
plumbatae (I thought they didn't use them) :? Besides, due to being
from an 'Iron-poor' region, wouldn't it make more sense for them to be
buying weapons from us? hock:

Btw, must sign-off, now, before my home-computer cuts-out. The
internet connection tends to get lost unless I put another shilling in
the meter. Speak to you soon. 8)

Cheers,
Ambrosius/Mike

[ambrosius]

Hi again, shilling in the meter. Now, where were we?

Absolutely. So why did you suggest, in the post I replied to,
that Britons might have been tempted to convert to Anglo-Saxon paganism a century earlier, c. 450? 8)

Oh, I don't know - to get away from the clutches of a church that managed to send guys like Germanus to areas where he had no business, but with an apparent mandate to haul back Pelagian heretics in chains to Rome?
I'm jesting a bit....

Yes, jest a bit.

If Gildas was writing around 550, which he did not in my opinion!, there would hardly have been anything like an 'Anglo-Saxon frontline' in that area.. In my opinion Wessex (which I think you refer to as 'penetrating to the Bristol Channel') was at that time still as British as the next kingdom.

No I don't Robert. You should know better than to put
words into people's mouths. 8) You look back over my (numerous)
posts, and you won't find one mention of 'Wessex' in the 6th c.
I said: 'the Anglo-Saxons penetrated to the Bristol channel by the
mid-6th c.' :wink:

Even the kings had British names.

Yes, I've noticed that's something you repeat, quite a lot.
But please consider that it may be no less common for an early Anglo-
Saxon king to go by a 'British' name than for a putative Celtic separatist,
such as - oh, I don't know... Vortigern - also to have a 'Roman' name,
such as Vitalinus? :wink:

Not even Kenneth Jackson drew his (in)famous occupation frontier that far West for 550AD (Jackson, Kenneth H. (1953): Language and History in Early Britain, (Edinburgh), pp. 208-9).

Here's a list of battles and their dates:

Carisbrook 530, Salisbury 552, Beranbirg 556, Dyrham 577

Beranbirg was close to Cirencester, and Dyrham gave full access to the Bristol Channel. And yes these are from the ASC, so feel free not to
believe any of them. :lol:

And of course, by far not all Britons changed their faith - not all were Christian (at least more than nominally)

As spock would say: 'Fascinating'. Do you have any
evidence for that? 8)
Sure, ask Martin Henig about those fascinating pagan details in Late Roman mosaics in Britain: http://www.asprom.org/resources/Lulling ... Henig.html

:lol: :lol: :lol: I have. Martin Henig is a bit of a
neo-pagan, himself (nice chap, but pagan). And those mosaics you
mention hint at being Gnostic ones, in what is accepted by all as a 4th c.
Romano-British house-church. Gnosticism was a variant (some love
to say, heresy) on Christianity. But that's heretical Christianity, just
like Pelagianism - which is so easily confused with paganism, I know,
by those who aren't careful with their spelling. :wink: Surely you
aren't quoting one of the best pieces of evidence for Christianity in
Roman Britain as evidence for paganism; far less, as evidence for
Anglo-Saxon paganism, which is what I asked you for further
up above, hmmm? 8) Incidentally, there's a nice exhibition on at
Somerset House in London, of 4th-6th c. Byzantine art, showing
that - contrary to popular opinion - Classical imagery (like we see
in the Lullingstone mosaics) was *not* abandoned in the Byzantine
period (for fear of diluting their Christian faith). It seems that the
Byzantines were sure enough og their Christianity not to be afraid
of using classical Greek imagery in their art. After all, we live in a nominally Christian Western Europe, but nobody is afraid to go
and see movies like Troy (well, not on religious grounds, at least).

and as Ken Dark advocated, many Christians were still to be found in ‘Anglo-Saxon lands’ before 597.

Well of course they were. Judging from the placename and
archaeological evidence, there were British enclaves from Walton Castle
on the East coast to London, Silchester, Chichester etc till c.500. There
is no evidence that any of these British enclaves had converted to
paganism, nor that any Anglo-Saxons had converted to Christianity.

Well, there you go then.

hock: My God! We agree! (What went wrong?)
:o lol: :wink:

Cheers,
Ambrosius/Mike
[/quote]

[Chariovalda]

Well, it took quite some effort :wink: , but I was able to dig up original material pertaining to the oft-quoted “West Heslertonâ€

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Andreas,
Thanks for that effort! Laudes awarded.
Just goes to show, you can't trust the 'results' of any research.... :x

However, the reason for me using the West Heslerton research was to make another point, which still stands. This point was that the cemetery failed to show a large group of foreigners, especially males or warriors, who were supposed to signify the large wave of immigrants that, according to current belief, reached Britain in the 5th or 6th centuries and displaced the native inhabitants.

Of course it is wrong to state that, on the basis of the research results pointed out above, that people migrated from ‘west of the Pennines’ if that is not altogether sure. Indeed, they could have come from Wales or Norway (which seems as likely as the others). But so far, if I’m not mistaken, none represent that warrior group that is said to have arrived early and in big numbers.
And yes, I realise that this group could have arrived, did their thing and moved away, leaving room for later migrants to arrive at leisure over an extended period of time. Or they did not arrive there at all – the (lack of) evidence goes either way. But the West Heslerton cemetery does not prove the arrival of a large wave of migrant warriors from northern Germany or south Scandinavia which then settled there, which was (part of) the original point.

[Chariovalda]

Hi Andreas,
Thanks for that effort! Laudes awarded.
Just goes to show, you can't trust the 'results' of any research.... :x

Huzzah! Laudes!

Anyway…what it shows, I think, is this:

1. make a difference between the facts uncovered, and the interpretations slapped on top of them by the author(s), no matter how respected the scholar.
2. so always try to get your hands on the original papers, read them and try to understand them, no matter how technical the stuff gets (and at times, Montgomery’s work was very technical).

I admit that, once things fell into place, I was a bit paranoid, wondering whether the pre-existing assumptions of Budd or Lucy (who was a collaborator in the Budd article), rather than the facts, determined their conclusion.

However, on second thought, I think it’s more a matter “that a conclusion is expectedâ€

[Robert Vermaat]

Anyway…what it shows, I think, is this:
1. make a difference between the facts uncovered, and the interpretations slapped on top of them by the author(s), no matter how respected the scholar.
2. so always try to get your hands on the original papers, read them and try to understand them, no matter how technical the stuff gets (and at times, Montgomery’s work was very technical).

Ah, the voice of reason! And right again! Another laudes!

[ambrosius]

Hmmm....if I am allowed a suggestion?

The thread is getting a bit of unreadable and unmanageable because of humongous multiple replies, of which I am just as guilty as the rest.
Soon, and we'll need a separate moderator for this thread.

That is the plan. Today, this thread. Tomorrow, RAT. :lol:

However, questions like the reliability and prejudices of scholars like Pryor or Härke, or the fact whether the Saxon Shore forts were built in 100 or 200 years, or were used for the storage of Mars chocolate bars or as a breeding pen for Romano-British slaves intended for export to the salt mines on Pluto...

Sadly, that last is looking increasingly unlikely. Since poor
Pluto has recently been downgraded from the status of a Planet, I doubt
ther'd be room for any salt mines...

It would also be nice if people would actually read the authors or researches that they attack or semi-quote. Has anyone actually read the original "Apartheid" article?

Yep. Didn't believe a word of it.

Also, did anyone actually read the research report on West Heslerton? It can be found here [url:2c39c5mb]http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/109087483/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0[/url]

Unfortunately, in the latter case you'll have to pay $25 for access.

Don't have $25.

I think I'll wait for the movie: West Heslerton: the decent-sized survey.
Rumour has it that we were actually invaded by Anglo-Saxon women.
(They should have been looking at the mitochondrial DNA... hock: ).

No offense to any persons, living, dead or imaginary, was meant by this post... 8)

Any similarity between this thread and a work of
scholarship is purely coincidental. :roll:

Ambrosius/Mike [/quote]

[Chariovalda]

However, the reason for me using the West Heslerton research was to make another point, which still stands. This point was that the cemetery failed to show a large group of foreigners, especially males or warriors, who were supposed to signify the large wave of immigrants that, according to current belief, reached Britain in the 5th or 6th centuries and displaced the native inhabitants.
But so far, if I’m not mistaken, none represent that warrior group that is said to have arrived early and in big numbers.
And yes, I realise that this group could have arrived, did their thing and moved away, leaving room for later migrants to arrive at leisure over an extended period of time. Or they did not arrive there at all – the (lack of) evidence goes either way. But the West Heslerton cemetery does not prove the arrival of a large wave of migrant warriors from northern Germany or south Scandinavia which then settled there, which was (part of) the original point.

Well...

True, but “current beliefâ€

[ambrosius]

Well, it took quite some effort :wink:

And it was well worth it, wasn't it. 8) Thanks for all that.
As you point out, there is still an enormous amount of political-agenda-
making being done with all the evidence in cases like this. The worst,
though, as I pointed out before, is Powlesland shamelessly claiming
that the demographics of the findings (four Anglo-Saxon women out
of a sampl eof 24 graves) doesn't constitute an invasion. When he
was at pains to point out that several of his 'Anglo-Saxon' weapons-
burials at West Heslerton were female! And he went on to make the
point (in a different T.V. documentary years ago) that it's no longer
safe to say: 'This one's got a spear - it's a bloke; this one's wearing
jewellery - it's a girle'. But he seems to have forgotten he said all
that, now.

Ambrosius/Mike

[ambrosius]

I admit that, once things fell into place, I was a bit
paranoid, wondering whether the pre-existing assumptions of Budd or
Lucy (who was a collaborator in the Budd article) rather than the facts
determined their conclusion.

Well, that just about says it all, doesn't it. :roll: What did
I say about Dr. Lucy, above? :wink: You see, you may all think I have
an agenda of my own in what I say, but I'm actually just trying to
expose the agendas of others like Pryor, Powlesland, Lucy & Budd,
who can do this kind of thing with the evidence on national TV and
pull the wool over the eyes of an entire generation of British people
about their History (which is what Paul/Raedwald was also trying to
point-out). I mean, it's monstrous for disinformation to be propagated
like that on such a large scale. :evil: I just hope I live long enough
to see the scholars concerned made to eat their words. 8)

Ambrosius/Mike

[ambrosius]

Hi Andreas,
Thanks for that effort! Laudes awarded.
Just goes to show, you can't trust the 'results' of any research.... :x

Well you could if the results weren't biased by those doing
the research. As I keep saying on Arthurnet, most people who have
joined that list bring a huge baggage of preconceived ideas with them
(and we know what they are, don't we 8) ) and they just will not be
made to look at the evidence dispationately. The same for Pryor's
Britain AD and the study of the West Heslerton evidence, apparently.
If a political agenda requires a certain 'slant' on the conclusion, in order
to pay the funding for the research, then that's what you get. :evil: :roll:

However, the reason for me using the West Heslerton research was to make another point, which still stands. This point was that the cemetery failed to show a large group of foreigners, especially males or warriors, who were supposed to signify the large wave of immigrants that, according to current belief, reached Britain in the 5th or 6th centuries and displaced the native inhabitants.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Actually, ArVee, I'd say
that your other point is in a slightly more recumbent position than
'still standing'. More like 'flat on its back'. 8)

Of course it is wrong to state that, on the basis of the research results pointed out above, that people migrated from ‘west of the Pennines’ if that is not altogether sure. Indeed, they could have come from Wales or Norway...

...or Denmark or northern Germany?

(which seems as likely as the others). But so far, if I’m not mistaken, none represent that warrior group that is said to have arrived early and in big numbers.

But are you sure you're not mistaken? What's the percentage
of weapons burials among the earliest graves. Does anybody know?
And don't forget to include the women, will you... :lol:

And yes, I realise that this group could have arrived, did their thing and moved away, leaving room for later migrants to arrive at leisure over an extended period of time. Or they did not arrive there at all – the (lack of) evidence goes either way. But the West Heslerton cemetery does not prove the arrival of a large wave of migrant warriors from northern Germany or south Scandinavia which then settled there, which was (part of) the original point.

Actually, from what Andreas has just said, I rather thought
that it might. Certainly, it's possible - from what he says - that none of
the bodies so far examined come from native Britons at all... 8)

Ambrosius/Mike[/quote]

[ambrosius]

However, the reason for me using the West Heslerton research was to make another point, which still stands. This point was that the cemetery failed to show a large group of foreigners, especially males or warriors, who were supposed to signify the large wave of immigrants that, according to current belief, reached Britain in the 5th or 6th centuries and displaced the native inhabitants.

Well...

True, but “current beliefâ€

[Felix]

"ambrosius wrote:
Quote:
It would also be nice if people would actually read the authors or researches that they attack or semi-quote. Has anyone actually read the original "Apartheid" article?


Yep. Didn't believe a word of it.

Now there's comprehensive and constructive criticism
for you

And which part of the above sentence did you not understand?
It's nonsense for that article to propose that one gene-pool can
sellectively outbreed and replace another gene-pool through 'apartheid'.
It would be impossible. Look at South Africa. "

Mike, I too have some doubts about the "apartheid" article; but I must agree with Andreas that you haven't offered a particularly useful critique of said article. I am not knowledgeable in modeling population genetics - if you can point out exactly why the article is "nonsense", that would be more illuminating.

[ambrosius]

"ambrosius wrote:
Quote:
It would also be nice if people would actually read the authors or researches that they attack or semi-quote. Has anyone actually read the original "Apartheid" article?

Yep. Didn't believe a word of it.

Now there's comprehensive and constructive criticism
for you

And which part of the above sentence did you not understand?
It's nonsense for that article to propose that one gene-pool can
sellectively outbreed and replace another gene-pool through 'apartheid'.
It would be impossible. Look at South Africa. "

Mike, I too have some doubts about the "apartheid" article; but I must agree with Andreas that you haven't offered a particularly useful critique of said article. I am not knowledgeable in modeling population genetics - if you can point out exactly why the article is "nonsense", that would be more illuminating.

Well, I think that both Andreas & I had gotten a bit
flippant - even facetious - by that stage, and so our replies had
got a bit curt and personal. I'm used to that with ArVee (who is
an old sparring-partner of mine on this subject). 8)

Anyhoo, as for the article in question, I honestly wasn't sure why
anyone would need to be a biochemist to understand that it just
doesn't fly. What the article tries to claim is that the previously
conducted genetic surveys (which suggest a 50-100% replacement
of 'native' Y-Chromosomes with 'Germanic' ones - at some time in
the last 2,000 years - they cannot be specific over time of arrival)
can be explained by the arrival of only a minority 'elite' of Anglo-
Saxons. And the way this article tries to explain that is to suggest
that this elite can have left such an enormous impact of their own
genes in the present population by a sellectively higher rate of
reproduction with the native female population. That is, the incoming
Anglo-Saxon males (they always assume it's only the males, even
though West Heslerton proves otherwise) kill, disposess or otherwise
'cuckold' the native males and take preferential place with the native
females, leaving their own Y-Chromosomes to dominate in the
present gene-pool.

This was what the English tried doing with the Scots in the movie
Braveheart, remember. But I ask you, how can anyone call this
process 'apartheid'? By its very definition, 'apartheid' means the
segregation of the races (whichever they happen to be). So how
can Anglo-Saxon males breed with native women if there is a
segregation of the races? There may be a segregation between
the Anglo-Saxon males and the native males, but
that's not apartheid. It sounds more like what happened in the
Southern States during Slavery. But it's not apartheid. What is
apartheid (or was) in South Africa actually prohibited that
kind of thing.

So yes, a minority elite can outbreed their native competitors,
by 'doing-away' with the native males or prohibiting them from
breeding with their own women. But it's not 'apartheid'. And if
they meant to call it only an apartheid between the two rival
groups of males (not the females) then they should have made
that clear. Because that would have implied a situation similar
to the 'Slavery' mentioned above. Though, looking at the Laws
of Ine (where Britons were valued monetarily less than Anglo-
Saxons) that may well have been the case where British and
Anglo-Saxon communities were actually 'integrated'.

Ambrosius/Mike

[Felix]

Thank you. It appears that your main objection is to the use of the term apartheid, rather than the gist of the article.