The English and the Celts - no genocide?

[Robert Vermaat]

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.

Actually Mike, there are two, there’s also an Eccleshill (on the List of Names from the 6 inch O.S. Maps of Kent (revised 1905/08)).
Not a lot, indeed. But the point was not their number, but their existence in the first place – if (according to Härke and Coates) the Anglo-Saxons entered an empty landscape, then why would such a name exist at all? No Britons were apparently talking to the newcomers according to that model, let alone that these pagans would allow Christians to exist? If there was a mass migration of British Christians away from the Anglo-Saxon landings in Kent, why would there be such names at all?

You assume that the population crash takes place before the Anglo-Saxon arrival.

Not at all. I see no population crash at, never have. I see a decline that set in during Late Roman times, as in much of the West, causing all kinds of trouble to the Roman tax-gatherers. It’s very difficult to see how fast or slow this decline actually was, so I don’t presume to say anything about ‘population crashes’ or things like that. But there were for sure a good deal less Britons by 600 AD than there were in 300 AD, for all kinds of reasons, war, climate, plague being surely among them.

:!: 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)

Thought you would Mike, thought you would. Mind you, I never claimed this did not happen – my problem is just with the intensity, period and the circumstances of these events. Some theories are far too extreme in my view, as you’re aware, but I would never dream of denying them.

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.

I find it odd that all those who see these folks taking to their ships when their fields get wet, never even assume that these folks would look for higher ground first, instead of seeking out a hostile island that was even more prone to flooding! :lol:
After all, we see the first traces of these migrants all along the coast – not just British, but also Gallic shores. Strange, if you’re fleeing from the flood. Aren’t we just looking at migrants who seek out new shores for altogether different reasons, as the Vikings did later?

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:

“There must beâ€