Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Appearence and tactics of early 5th century Saxons.
#46
Vortigern,

I think you should start reading my posts more carefully, since this is not the first time you mix my words(my English is not that good)


I do read your posts most carefully -- your English is a lot better than my Dutch!

Meaning the other guy is not?

Precisely; he is not an early medievalist!


So archaeologists have to remain silent 'outside their field'?

No, but they should be a little more circumspect than he has been. In the programme, Pryor never declared that he wasn't an early medievalist - in fact it come across as though he is.

Paul
Paul Mortimer
Reply
#47
Hi Paul,

I think that TV show has a lot toanswer for. That's why I think that discussing this topic is best based on books and articles. Big Grin

I also think we'd best agree to disagree and end it here because of that - and because the subject is getting more and more OT! 8)
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#48
Hi Vortigern,

I also think we'd best agree to disagree and end it here because of that - and because the subject is getting more and more OT! Cool


Agreed!

Paul
Paul Mortimer
Reply
#49
OK, laudes for to because you put up with my tenacious discussing-style for that long. Big Grin
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#50
Can i congratulate you guys for one of the best discussions ( on a subject close to my heart ) I have seen in a while ... nice to have bit of "heated" :wink: debate !!

I have an adjunct question which i will post separately.
Conal Moran

Do or do not, there is no try!
Yoda
Reply
#51
Vortigern Studies\\n[quote]Hi Raedwald,

1. Burials. You are right - Germanic burials were being used in these islands before the Romans left. But why was this? There were significant numbers of Germans here who had been brought here and settled in order to fight for the Romans. Mucking in Essex, not far from where I live is one such site. These early German settlers may well have laid the foundations of the later settlements when their relatives, friends etc came and joined them. In many cases these later settlements may well have been relatively or even totally peaceful.
Not germanic! What we see is a burial style: inhumation instead of cremation. This has nothing to do with Germanic origins. Pre-Roman Celtic British used inhumation style burials in the southeast, and continued (at a lower level) to do this during Roman times. When inhumation is used in post-Roman times, why should it suddenly be Germanic? Compare, for instance, the Celtic Late Iron Age chamber burial of the Lexden tumulus near Colchester, Essex, to the Pritlewell chamber burial near Southend, also Essex. If the one is a British Celt and the other an Anglo-Saxon, the way of burial and the gravegoods are chillingly equal. Why can't this be continuation and does it have to be a new immigrant?

I think you've answered your own question, here, Robert 8)
The British, Iron-Age Celt and the Anglo-Saxon graves you describe are
centuries apart, separated by 4/500 years of Romanised burial culture.
That is why it cannot be a continuation. And what the grave goods
do show is that you have a similar 'warrior-culture' at both ends of Roman
Britain, in the form of Celtic and Anglo-Saxon, respectively.


2. Jutland. Your comments may well have some validity -- but those people did go somewhere. As Bede says that they came here and as similar pottery, etc styles suddenly crop up in England at around the right time - it seems a little obtuse to just dismiss the argument. Yes I know it is not fashionable to believe what Bede and Gildas say, that they are supposed to have other agendas, etc, etc, but from a literary standpoint they are the nearest to the time, especially Gildas.
Like I said in another post--you mistake my argument. I never argue against immigration, I argue against mass migration and large-scale population replacemnt, by showing you sign after sign of continuation.

There is always going to be some continuation. But that is
not to ignore the changes. As they say: 'The Devil is in the details!'
Raedwald is right. And Dr. Heinrich Harke (whom I know you know of)
puts it very succinctly: We know that the coastal lands were abandoned
in Frisia, Anglia & Jutland at this time. If the migrants did not arrive in
Britain, then there must be many thousands of longships at the bottom
of the North Sea :lol:


4. Pottery. There is one very strange aspect of the new Germanic pottery. It wasn't particularly good, in fact the early stuff was quite crude (it could have some pretty designs, though). Why abandon better pottery for the new Germanic style?
We see that the higher quality pottery diasappears already during the Roman period, when large markets for these products diasappear. They are replaced by local styles, of lower quality. If the 'Anglo-Saxon' pottery is indeed of lesser quality, it would fit in that processs. Again, I argue against opions that assert that is would be 'imposible' that the Britons would have change supposedly higher quality culture for supoposedly lesser quality culture if not by force or displacement. I find that abit racist, as if the Anglo-Saxons and their culture were to be classed as inferior.

It's not 'racist' to prefer your own material culture to that
of an invader/migrant. That's simply a matter of personal preference.
It's especially not racist to resent being invaded :roll: As for preferring
quality over lack of quality, would it also be 'racist' for you to prefer a high quality BMW to a Lada? Tongue


5. Jewellery. The new styles are, mostly, radically different from what went before. Why would British women want to copy Germanic ones?
Why indeed? See my point above! Why be so denigrating about that possibility? But look at the Later Roman Empire and you'll see many such changes - Roman soldiers wearing belts and buckles copied from Germanic styles. Why? Why? Because they obviously preferred it. So why would British women be different?

Because the Roman soldiers adopting 'Germanic style' buckles
in the 4th/5th c. were doing so out of choice or practicality. They were
not being forced to adopt them by invading Germanic peoples. Whilst
at the same time, they still retained established 'Roman' equipment or
fashions, such as crossbow-brooches. So there was a free and unforced
blend of the two. But for British women to suddenly drop all their old
cultural modes of dress/jewellery does not sound realistic. If they
weren't actually Saxon women, but British, then why not retain some of
their own 'Celtic' or Roman styles of dress alongside the 'adoptive'
Saxon ones?


6. Weapons. The new weapons are stylistically very different from the earlier, British ones. I think that you are ignoring this. If you wish we can discuss Swanton's spear head types and look at the forms that the Germanic sword took. Shields and their decoration (where it survives) are very different.
I'm not sure what you mean - I guess you are referring to Roman weapons. Well, Romans did not allow their citizens to carry arms, and for the better part of a century before we call BVritain 'post-Roman', the state had a weapon monopoly. So any new weapon would very easily be brought in by Germanic traders, long before 400. And besides, early Anglo-Saxon swords are considered to be a development from Roman swords...

But these new weapons being brought in by Germanic
traders - how are these supposed to get past the 'customs officials'?
Are traders in Roman Britain allowed to import arms into the country?
And are civilians allowed to buy them? I don't think so.


The Germanic settlers did not set out, as far as we know, to convert anyone to their faith. In fact they do not seem to have had anything resemblin a unified system of beliefs -- possibly family or tribal beliefs that varied a great deal.
Yet it may be posible that Romano-British reverted to paganism and followed the example of Germanic immigrants. Sure.

Highly unlikely, Robert. Gildas criticises the Britons for many
things in the mid-6th c. but paganism isn't one of them. 8) As for the
paganism of the Saxons, they all seem to have shared the same
gods (especially Woden) from placename evidence. And we know
that they weren't converted to Christianity till 597 onwards, and even
then it was a slow and fitful process.


Ambrosius

aka Mike
"Feel the fire in your bones."
Reply
#52
Hi Raedwald,

Firstly, I agree with all that you have been saying to Robert. But on one
point, I need to make a correction:

Quote:8) Farming. There is plenty of evidence for villa estates falling into disuse, downsizing of farms, wasteland regenerating, etc. Pryor ignores this and just points to a few villas that stayed in production – all in the west as far as I know. Besides Pryor is not a farmer, I wouldn't attach too much importance to his statements about farming --

:oops: Actually, Pryor is a farmer :wink: But I think that's
precisely where he goes wrong in all his assumptions about minimal
Germanic immigration in the 5th c. and a supposed lack of conflict
between them and the native Britons. This was seen in his interview
with Heinrich Harke in the series 'Britain AD', where Pryor insisted
that the end of Roman administration in the 5th c. would have had
all the British farmers shouting 'Whoopee! - No more taxes!' To which
Harke replied: "Hmmm... very much a farmer's view, I think."

The point being, of course, Pryor has no conception of the context of
what he is saying. Since the late 2nd c. Anglo-Saxon pirates had been
a threat to British farmers and grain shipments to the continent. We
know this because the earliest Saxon Shore Forts (Reculver, Caistor,
Brancaster) have been dated to before 200 AD in initial construction.
The taxes of British farmers of course paid for the construction and
garrisoning of these forts, in order to protect these same British farmers.
Therefore, come the end of 'Official' Roman administration in the 5thc.
the British farmers would certainly have wanted that taxation system
to have continued, so as to fund the continuing protection of their land
from Anglo-Saxon pirates. The very last thing any British farmer
in the 5th c. would be shouting was 'whoopee!' at the thought of that
taxation/military protection system being removed. 8)

Quote: people had to eat and the newcomers would have used whatever they could -- they were already experienced farmers --

Exactly, exactly, exactly! :lol: Why, oh why, do people always assume
that incoming invaders would not need to eat :?: :!: :?: Were they
Martians or something :?:

Quote: unlike Pryor. Incidentally, he isn't an early medievalist either -- he is a bronze age specialist who has found his way onto tellevision and been asked to comment on subjects of which he actually knows very little. His interview with Heinrich Harke was emberassing -- Harke is an early medieval specialist but Pryor basically ignored all that he said.

:lol: :lol: :lol: Like it, like it, like it :!:

Quote:As for your reply to my saying that the AS did not recieve a liberal, multi cultural education -- I can't understand why you think they may have. They lived in a tribal society, their kin were the most important people on earth to them -- outsiders, especially those who spoke a different language and were culturally different were not regarded as belonging to the group -- they may not have even been regarded as people.

You seem to say exactly what I wanted to say. Keep going. :wink:

[quote=Raedwald]
“Welshâ€
"Feel the fire in your bones."
Reply
#53
Quote:8. Farming. I cannot agree with you and do not follow the logic of your statement. The Anglo-Saxons had to eat, they would need to use the land as soon as possible, they could not afford to let it waste, if they did they would starve. So what they were warriors -- warriors need food like anyone else -- many warriors, or members of their families, would have been farmers, too. The Anglo-Saxons, like the British lived in a close relationship with the land. Why would they need a manual?
My point (or rather that of Francis Pryor) is that it is impossible for someone from across the sea to enter Britain, chase the natives away and continue their farm as if nothing happened. They would not know the land, the seasons, the climate, in any way as the farmer would have known. He would have to start new, with a smaller farm or something like that. There would have to be a sign of discontinuity.

Robert, I have to agree with Raedwald. What you are
saying, here (or how you are paraphrasing Pryor) simply makes no
sense. Holland (as you must very well know) is on exactly the same
latitude as East Anglia. Therefore, Angles etc sailing here to escape the
flooding of their own coastal farmland would find land in precisely the
same condition as that which they had left. They would have no problem
whatsoever farming here, as it would be the same kind of aluvial
fenland and climate which they had just left. Pryor may, indeed, be a
farmer, but you certainly don't sound like one. :wink: And this whole
spurious argument about: 'Invasion means that there would have to be
a sign of discontinuity' is the same nonsense trotted-out by that
ally of Pryor, Dominic Powlesland, who is obsessed with trying to
write all conflict out of 5th c. Britain at West Heslerton. Look: the Angles
supposedly came here looking for farmland, didn't they? So when they
find it (in East Anglia/Lincolnshire/Yorkshire) what do you think they are
going to do about it - sit around for 10 years thinking: "Bugger! Before
we killed/chased-off all the native Britons, we should have thought to
ask them for an instruction manual!"?


One other point that I would like to make. The early English and many of the British did not benefit from a liberal, multi cultural education, they lived in tribal societies and regarded others, as not the same, perhaps not even human.
I would very much like to know where you base that on, since in my opinion we can't possibly know that.

The Laws of Ine codify the Anglo-Saxon attitude to native
Britons in Wessex. A Briton was worth less money for 'Wergild' purposes
than an Anglo-Saxon. If one Human being is of less value than
another then that is not only very good evidence of apartheid, it is
damned-well racist, as far as I'm concerned. :evil:


They would not, necessarily excercise too much restraint in getting the means to survive and thrive from people that they regarded as 'Welsh' (foriegn) - people who were not of their kin. I am sure that different groups of Germans also saw the other as enemies.
Welsh does not mean forein at all. It was at that time mostly used by germanic peoples to denote Romans (instead of foreign, which could also include germanics).


Which is very good evidence, is it not, for the survival
of Roman culture in 5th c. Britain? 8)


Quote:But even if you force a farmer to farm for you, that farm will change, since more people need to be sustained from it.

I don't think anyone has suggested that the Anglo-Saxons
forced native farmers to farm for them. The natives in the East seem
either to have been killed or become refugees, escaping to the West,
according to the records of the time. There would be no increase in
the number of people living on the Eastern farmland, only a change from
natives to Anglo-Saxons. Incidentally, it is interesting that, in addition
to the arrival of Anglo-Saxons at West Heslerton, there also seems to
have been a movement Eastwards of native Britons from Cumbria.
But that could be due to many reasons. Perhaps they were escaping
from Irish pirates in the West. Perhaps they were British troops sent
East to fight-off the arriving Anglo-Saxons. Perhaps the two communities
did eventually come to integrate. We may never know. But the fact
remains that we have a large proportion of 1st generation Anglo-Saxon
immigrants, who (as Raedwald correctly points out) are only the tip
of the iceberg, since their children and grandchildren would all be being
brought-up in Anglo-Saxon households, in the Anglo-Saxon culture.
And the most significant thing about these immigrants being women is
that you learn to speak from your mother. So this explains why English
replaced Brythonic in the East - Anglo-Saxon mothers were bringing-up
Anglo-Saxon children to speak English. 8)

Ambrosius/Mike
"Feel the fire in your bones."
Reply
#54
Quote:Thank you for the reference. I thought yousaid that Germans called other Germans, wealas, but your reply says that the Franks called their Gallo-Roman subjects walas. Presumably these subjexts were not ethnically Franks and not German, so the same rule still seems to appliy - the word is being used to address people that the Franks consider foreign, i.e. not Frankish.
I think you should start reading my posts more carefully, since this is not the first time you mix my words(my English is not that good) .. Big Grin
No, my point was that the word did not denote 'foreigner', but was more likely used for 'Roman'.

BTW -- I have never suggested that anyone practised 'apartheid' -
OK Big Grin

although you yourself have just pointed out that the Franks treated their Gallo-Roman subjects differently-- isn't that a form of apartheid?
No, of course not. Apartheid suggests an extreme (next to) total segregation of the population. [/quote]


Hmmm. I'm not sure I quite buy that, Robert. What you actually said
before was this:

Quote: I don't know the article by heart, but I recall that the
author (looking at all the names for the British and Welsh in this article)
finds parallels with the Franks, who not only call their Gallo-Roman
subjects walas, but in law also treat them similarly as the
wealhas are treated in Ine of Wessex' laws.

I agree with Raedwald. For the Franks to treat the Gallo-Romans as
differently in law as the Laws of Ine treated the Welsh, then this most
definitely is treating Gallo-Romans differently to Franks and it
does amount to a form of apartheid, in everything but name.
It doesn't matter if the Franks call Gallo-Romans 'foreigners', 'Romans',
or 'Pilsbury doughboys'. If it's true, as you imply, that they are classified
in law as being of lesser value than Franks, then that would indeed be
apartheid and racist. Period. :x

Ambrosius/Mike
"Feel the fire in your bones."
Reply
#55
[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
"Feel the fire in your bones."
Reply
#56
Quote:Hi Paul,

Why is ' found his way on to television' an insulting remark? Only recently I found my way onto television in a BBC4 programme about the Sutton Hoo helmet.
Good for you! I may have been mistaken, but you used it in a sentence where you clearly voiced an opinion about Richard Pryor...

Robert, Richard Pryor was the American comedian
who appeared in Superman III. FrancisPryor is the archaeologist under discussion. :lol:


("
Quote:he is a bronze age specialist who has found his way onto television and been asked to comment on subjects of which he actually knows very little").
My English may not be very good, but to me that constitutes a derogatory remark.

No, actually, that's a pretty accurate description. And I
think you'll find that most archaeologists agree with it. Francis Pryor is
a rather mediocre prehistoric archaeologist who is rather opinionated,
and who happens to be the President of the Council for British
Archaeology - probably because nobody else wanted the job. :roll:



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--

Absolutely!

Vortigern Wrote:Man, that TV show must've been bad! What can I say - please read the book and check each argument in detail.

Yes, the TV show was bad. And no, the book says exactly
the same things.


Quote: Be warned about his chapter on Roman Britain though - that's crap.

Oh, I see! So it's okay for you to criticise Pryor's book,
but not Paul... :twisted:


Quote:I do not think that by presenting a show you automatically claim that you are the expert

Well Pryor did. He introduced the first episode by telling
us that all received wisdom about 5th c. Britain was 'Rubbish', and
he went on to give us the Merrie Englande version.


I am a bit puzzled by this remark -- how can you argue without using personal views?
Paul, I suspect you know what I meant there. If not I'll repeat it: plaese discuss the arguments, not if someone has a right to speak up or not. See the above comment.

Paul was criticising Pryor's attitude, not his right to speak.
And you have criticised Pryor's book whilst telling Paul he hasn't the
right to criticise the TV series. :roll:

Ambrosius/Mike
"Feel the fire in your bones."
Reply
#57
Well have had a bit of a rest, I would like to return to the fray and hopefully we can discuss the issues without talking about Frances Pryor.

I may be appearing to go off at a bit of a tangent for a bit but stay with me - it could be worthwhile. I would like to make a couple of points.

There are many known, mass, bog sacrifices around Denmark, perhaps the most prolific and certainly the best excavated are those at Illerup. The sacrifices of soldiers’ equipment begins at around 200 A.D. and continues for about three hundred years. It seems that the victors sacrificed the armour, weapons, trappings and tools that belonged to the dead of the army that they had vanquished. Whether the battles had been fought locally or abroad and the captured wargear brought home for a Roman (style triumphal parade before sacrifice in a holy lake is not absolutely clear. The sheer quantity of the bog finds and their timescale demonstrate that warfare was a frequent and bloody occurrence. They represent at least fifty major battles. These finds are illustrative of the power struggles between the people inhabiting what is now Denmark and those from the southern and western Scandinavian peninsula. Later, as Angles, Jutes, Saxons and even later as Vikings these peoples would turn their attention to the British Isles and the continent. It is the earliest site of Illerup, Illerup A that has been the most thoroughly investigated and which will provide clear evidence of the possible size of an army at a chieftain’s disposal.

According to Albrethsen’s* analysis, armies of the time could have considerable numbers. The finds from Illerup A comprise the equipment of about five very well equipped warriors who he sees as senior officers. There are about 40 sets of finds that would service soldiers of a middle rank, and about three hundred for ordinary warriors. This is not the complete force represented in the bog, to get a better idea of the true numbers involved it must be remembered that so far only 40% of Illerup A has been excavated. If the remaining 60% was examined then the numbers are likely to grow to about 12 senior officers, 100 from the middle ranks and about 750 soldiers. If an army loses 30% of its forces then that is usually a disastrous defeat, however, Albrethsen suggests losses of 50% which would scale up the figures to 24 senior officers, 200 middle ranking officers and 1,500 ordinary soldiers. If the figure of 30% is used then the army would be even bigger. At around 1,500 men the army is roughly comparable to a Roman auxiliary unit. These figures are supported by Hansen** who actually gives slightly higher numbers of ordinary soldiers (1,750).

Now when you take into account the fact that boat houses in Norway (during the same period) particularly in the south, are in clusters of up to 250 boathouses, each capable of housing a boat of at least 20 metres (Nydam type - 30 men each) and sometimes up to 40 metres, you begin to see that the military potential in Southern Scandinavia/ Northern Germany was huge and it was well organised around central chieftains king, whatever. *** Boathouses of similar types may well also have existed in Denmark and Germany but have not yet been searched for and may have been of a different type.

The point of all this is to demonstrate that fairly large bodies of men, organised and well motivated were perfectly able to move across the sea to the British Isles, either to raid (Saxon Shore forts) or to invade if they felt like it.

A second point is; if there was an invasion and a displacement of a largely agricultural people what traces would be visible in the archaeological record?


Paul


*Svend Albrethsen: Logistical Problems in Iron Age Warfare, in Military Aspects of Scandinavian Society (MASS) Copenhagen 1997.
**Ulla Hansen: The Nature of Centres, in Military Aspects of the Aristocracy in Barbaricum in the Roman and Early Migration Periods (MAB). Copenhagen 2001.
***Oliver Grimm: Norwegian Boathouses from the Late Roman and Migration Periods. An analysis of their militaryt functions. (MAB).
Oliver Grimm: THe Military Context of Norwegian Boathouses, in Maritime Warfare in Northern Europe. Copenhagen 2002.
Bjorn Myhre: Boathouses and Naval Organisation. (MASS).
Paul Mortimer
Reply
#58
Quote: I think you've answered your own question, here, Robert 8)
The British, Iron-Age Celt and the Anglo-Saxon graves you describe are
centuries apart, separated by 4/500 years of Romanised burial culture.
That is why it cannot be a continuation. And what the grave goods
do show is that you have a similar 'warrior-culture' at both ends of Roman
Britain, in the form of Celtic and Anglo-Saxon, respectively.

Hi Mike, best read all the posts. On August 3 I refuted that:
Quote:Ah, but there you are wrong, this gap does not exist. Take, for instance, Six Hills at Stevenage, Hertfordshire, and the Bartlow Hills at Ashdon, Essex. I also know of several in East Kent, two near Birchington, two more near the east coast farmsteads at Broadstairs and Dumpton, and another near Manston Aerodrome. These are all mound burials from the Roman period.
Sure, chamber burials are found on each side on the Roman period, but inhumation burials or tumuli burials are not.

Quote: There is always going to be some continuation. But that is
not to ignore the changes. As they say: 'The Devil is in the details!'
Raedwald is right. And Dr. Heinrich Harke (whom I know you know of)
puts it very succinctly: We know that the coastal lands were abandoned
in Frisia, Anglia & Jutland at this time. If the migrants did not arrive in
Britain, then there must be many thousands of longships at the bottom
of the North Sea :lol:
Again, Mike, I answered this to Redwald before, July 28:
Quote: settlements were abandoned, sure, but where in the past it was automatically assumed that the folks took ship to Britain, nowadays we are more careful. Maybe they built new houses at another spot, close by or some distance away> It is very common for settlements to 'move' that way. But in the past it was the chicken and the egg: the folks went so they had to join the invasion, and the invasions happened because the folks seemed to be gone.
Which would be a safe place where you would be safe from proving where the went. But so far, no massive waves of 5th-c. Germanic immigrants have been attested. Those who come into the island, seem to have done so at leisure, not in massive waves. The West Hestlerton case nicely shows that. Härke assumes, as so many did earlier, that the settlements were emptied by folks who took ship for Britain. But they did not leave notes about their whereabouts, did they? It’s a fact that no research was done about continuation of settlements nearby, maybe on higher ground.

Look, I’ll say it again and again – if you’re meaning to attack my position that there were no immigrations you’re barking up the wrong tree-that is NOT my position. My position is against those who advocate a mass migration, emptying of lands on the other side of the North Sea, and the mass displacement of the natives, or their extinction.

Quote: It's not 'racist' to prefer your own material culture to that
of an invader/migrant. That's simply a matter of personal preference.
It's especially not racist to resent being invaded :roll: As for preferring
quality over lack of quality, would it also be 'racist' for you to prefer a high quality BMW to a Lada? Tongue
Not at all, but it is racist to assume that Britons could not possibly have wanted to prefer Anglo-Saxon culture over their own, which is what is implied by those who maintain that everywhere remains of that culture are found, an immigrant must be assumed.
Btw, I would not be so sure that Anglo-Saxon culture was like 'a Lada', when compared to the post-Roman culture of the British, which I would compare the 'a BMW'. Well, maybe a rusty 1970s model.

If what you say holds water, then why did the Anglo-Saxons not immediately drop their culture for the apparently superior Romano-British culture?

Quote: Because the Roman soldiers adopting 'Germanic style' buckles
in the 4th/5th c. were doing so out of choice or practicality. They were
not being forced to adopt them by invading Germanic peoples. Whilst
at the same time, they still retained established 'Roman' equipment or
fashions, such as crossbow-brooches.
Exactly! Free choice and practicality! Exactly what is advocated in the 'acculturisation' model - no Saxon forced anyone to do anything, but the natives liked what they saw - that had been going on for centuries when it comes to fashion and other Germanic influences. And indeginous items also remained - how about those grinders that were part of Romano-British food preparation and that continue to turn up even when the household seems to have become an Anglo-Saxon one? Apparently the natives were scared off but asked how they prepared their food just before that.

Quote: But for British women to suddenly drop all their old cultural modes of dress/jewellery does not sound realistic. If they weren't actually Saxon women, but British, then why not retain some of their own 'Celtic' or Roman styles of dress alongside the 'adoptive'
Saxon ones?
No-one says anything about suddenly. All this what we're discussing here is a gradual process, beginning sometimes during the Late Roman period and sometimes ending not before the 8th century. As for jewellery, that had started to come in already during the 3rd c., no one mentions a sudden change. But I can well imagine that avilabilty changed, with trade route to the Roman Empire closing and those to the North Sea regions growing stronger.

Quote:But these new weapons being brought in by Germanic traders - how are these supposed to get past the 'customs officials'?
Are traders in Roman Britain allowed to import arms into the country?
And are civilians allowed to buy them? I don't think so.
Mike, we're talking about a timeframe when those customs officials had all long gone home to Rome. Big Grin

Quote:Highly unlikely, Robert. Gildas criticises the Britons for many things in the mid-6th c. but paganism isn't one of them. 8) As for the paganism of the Saxons, they all seem to have shared the same gods (especially Woden) from placename evidence. And we know that they weren't converted to Christianity till 597 onwards, and even then it was a slow and fitful process.
Gildas wrote at a time when a reversion to paganism would still be in it’s early stages, don’t you think? Besides, if he indeed wrote in the North or the West of Britain, that would put him far away from the regions in the Southeast that we’re talking about. And of course, by far not all Britons changed their faith - not all were Christian (at least more than nominally) and as Ken Dark advocated, many Christians were still to be found in ‘Anglo-Saxon lands’ before 597.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#59
Quote: Pryor insisted that the end of Roman administration in the 5th c. would have had all the British farmers shouting 'Whoopee! - No more taxes!' To which Harke replied: "Hmmm... very much a farmer's view, I think."
So what is your point? Is Härke disagreeing with Pryor? I seems not, from what I read there.

Quote: The point being, of course, Pryor has no conception of the context of
what he is saying. Since the late 2nd c. Anglo-Saxon pirates had been
a threat to British farmers and grain shipments to the continent. We
know this because the earliest Saxon Shore Forts (Reculver, Caistor,
Brancaster) have been dated to before 200 AD in initial construction.
The taxes of British farmers of course paid for the construction and
garrisoning of these forts, in order to protect these same British farmers.
Therefore, come the end of 'Official' Roman administration in the 5thc.
the British farmers would certainly have wanted that taxation system
to have continued, so as to fund the continuing protection of their land
from Anglo-Saxon pirates. The very last thing any British farmer
in the 5th c. would be shouting was 'whoopee!' at the thought of that
taxation/military protection system being removed. 8)
What sources tell us that British grain shipments were actually threatened by Saxon pirates? Of course it seem logical to assume, but was the threat bad enough to warrant a scheme of fort-building on such a scale? A scheme, however, that never seems to have existed at all.
The Saxon Shore forts were not an answer to a threat from the sea. We know this because they are built over a 200-year period, and when the last were built some of the oldest had already been abandoned. Whilst their impressive walls certainly point to impressive defensive measurements, none actually have a harbour or any other shipping/naval facilities that would prove they were built as an answer to such a sea-borne threat. In fact, were it not for their (temporary?) listing in one command in the Notitia Dignitatum, one could doubt that there should be a reason for them to belong to one concept. Besides, excavation has shown that some completely lack evidence of barracks, while on the other hand remain of civilian occupation have been found. There is a school of thought that sees in them not defensive forts but strengthened ware-houses for the gathering of taxes. I would not know how to prove this, but it seems not totally illogical.

Quote:
Exactly, exactly, exactly! :lol: Why, oh why, do people always assume
that incoming invaders would not need to eat :?: :!: :?: Were they
Martians or something :?:
Well, women are from Venus…
Eat, sure, but so far, no-one has shown that the dangerous raping and plundering pirates stepped off the boat and immediately began to farm. And not only that, they immediately took over the British farms, apparently chased away the owner (or shunned them to death according to Härke) but still continued to farm there as if nothing had happened. Sorry guys, by you may frown on Pryor’s farming experience if you want, but I still think his arguments hold water: if a farm continues to be run year after year, with no change, you can’t tell me that somewhere the British owner was ousted and an Anglo-Saxon took over. Without any change in the pattern on the ground.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#60
Quote: I don't think anyone has suggested that the Anglo-Saxons
forced native farmers to farm for them. The natives in the East seem
either to have been killed or become refugees, escaping to the West,
according to the records of the time. There would be no increase in
the number of people living on the Eastern farmland, only a change from
natives to Anglo-Saxons. Incidentally, it is interesting that, in addition
to the arrival of Anglo-Saxons at West Heslerton, there also seems to
have been a movement Eastwards of native Britons from Cumbria.
But that could be due to many reasons. Perhaps they were escaping
from Irish pirates in the West. Perhaps they were British troops sent
East to fight-off the arriving Anglo-Saxons. Perhaps the two communities
did eventually come to integrate. We may never know. But the fact
remains that we have a large proportion of 1st generation Anglo-Saxon
immigrants, who (as Raedwald correctly points out) are only the tip
of the iceberg, since their children and grandchildren would all be being
brought-up in Anglo-Saxon households, in the Anglo-Saxon culture.
And the most significant thing about these immigrants being women is
that you learn to speak from your mother. So this explains why English
replaced Brythonic in the East - Anglo-Saxon mothers were bringing-up
Anglo-Saxon children to speak English. 8)

Well, a valid point of course, which I thought about. But isn’t that the point indeed? Change the distant landlord and nothing changes, and you’ll have a farmer that continues to till his land and herds his flock, all the while looking at his new lord, and at some point taking up what the man has to offer.

Facts? What fact? When you take West Heslerton (indeed), the evidence points rather to a migration FROM the West that TO the West. The only 4 Anglo-Saxons that stepped off the boat there were women and children, NOT a large proportion as you claim but a minority (2 out of 24), and arriving not in the earliest ‘wave’ but over a 250-year period. The remainder were dived 50-50 into natives (who could be 2nd-generation Saxons as well as 2nd-generation Britons) and immigrants from Cumbria. Who, btw, were not buried with traditional British goods but indistinguishable from the rest of the burials.
Sure, you can claim Irish threats, but that would hardly have caused them to flee to their Saxon enemies, would it? And if they are British soldiers than how did they end up in those Anglo-Saxon households that you claim their children were brought up in?

Back to farmer forced to farm – if their farms were taken over by Saxons who set up their households there, took their women and raised their children, you still expect nothing to happen? The enslaved farmer is forced to tell his captors all about his farm while his offspring is – what? If they are also slaves, then I still see no reason for all of them to continue to live in the house, build new ones (NOT Saxon types, mind you) and change not a thing? As if the newcomers would sign a document – “I enslave you but in return I promise to keep your farm as it is, unchanged, over three generationsâ€
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Where to put your Saxons? Arturus Uriconium 28 6,393 02-12-2009, 11:32 AM
Last Post: Arturus Uriconium

Forum Jump: