08-30-2013, 12:15 PM
Thank You, John, Nathan and Renatus
I think I had put Webster et al. rather to the back of my mind. The temptation being to get a bit excited about the latest analysis. As you say, Paulersbury was inconclusive, not least because (I seem to recall, among other things) a Saxon cemetery was mistaken for an early British one.
Having read most of this blog, I asked myself much was being achieved by 40 pages of well- intentioned and informed speculation, especially when someone said that many of the readers had little to say due to lack of knowledge (or words to that effect). In case I fall into that category, I decided to divert the discussion onto another tack. Not through devilment, but to draw out a different way of looking at the enigma.
By the way, how many academics or archaeological draw inspiration from what is being said here?
I think I had put Webster et al. rather to the back of my mind. The temptation being to get a bit excited about the latest analysis. As you say, Paulersbury was inconclusive, not least because (I seem to recall, among other things) a Saxon cemetery was mistaken for an early British one.
Having read most of this blog, I asked myself much was being achieved by 40 pages of well- intentioned and informed speculation, especially when someone said that many of the readers had little to say due to lack of knowledge (or words to that effect). In case I fall into that category, I decided to divert the discussion onto another tack. Not through devilment, but to draw out a different way of looking at the enigma.
By the way, how many academics or archaeological draw inspiration from what is being said here?
Davidus