Appearence and tactics of early 5th century Saxons.

[ambrosius]

Hello Robert,

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), [/quote]

hock: :? roll: Oh dear, Robert. Why is it, when we
have these discussions, that your estimates are always out by a factor
of two...? 8) So 4 Anglo-Saxons is actually only 2 out of 24? I'd love
to see you use quadratic equasions to prove that. Meanwhile, let's
stick with it being 4 adult Anglo-Saxon women, who would then have
gone on to have (at the very most conservative estimate) one child
and one grandchild each (who, of course, appear invisible in this study,
due to having been brought-up here, not in 'Anglia'). Which means
(as I tried pointing-out to you before) a total of at least 12 (that's
12) of the individuals in that survey of 24 would have been
brought-up in Anglo-Saxon households. All thing being equal.

Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe all four women had 2 children
and 3 grandchildren. In which case all24 would jave been
ethnically Anglo-Saxon. But I erred on the side of conservatism, as I
didn't want to make you feel depressed. :lol:

Perhaps it's time someone persuaded Powlesland to stop messing-about
and do a survey of 100 graves...

...and arriving not in the earliest ‘wave’ but over a 250-year period.

Really? Has Powlesland Carbon-dated all four women to
between 450 and 700? 8) I'm afraid that just proves my point that there
was a slow and steady immigration over two centuries, doesn't it? :lol:

And it doesn't particularly matter when they arrived, only that,
out of a sample of 24, there are 4 of them. And that all their offspring
in this sample would be undetectable by this method, as it can only
tell us where someone was born - not their parentage.

The remainder were dived 50-50 into natives (who could be 2nd-generation Saxons as well as 2nd-generation Britons) and immigrants from Cumbria.

Okay. So of the remaining 20 from this sample of 24,
we have a possible 10 Anglo-Saxon offspring and another 10 who
were born in Cumbria. Yes, that's interesting, isn't it. As I suggested
before, the Cumbrian lot could have been refugees from Irish pirates
on the West coast. Or they could have been British troops sent
East to tackle the Anglo-Saxons. Though if they were being buried
with the Anglo-Saxons, that does sound less likely. So perhaps
this might be our first hint of ethnic/cultural integration. But it's a pity
we don't have the datails about how these samples were taken from
the cemetary - spatially, that is - nor about the dating of these
Cumbrian graves. Do we know whether the cumbrians arrived 250
years after the Anglo-Saxons, or were they contemporary?

Who, btw, were not buried with traditional British goods but indistinguishable from the rest of the burials.

Yes, that's interesting, too. Maybe after 250 years, the
(by now, native) Anglo-saxons owned all the decent land, and so
Cumbrians had to move East and, as you say, doff their cap to the
new landlords...?

Cheers,

Ambrosius/Mike

[ambrosius]

Hello Robert,

Back to farmer forced to farm –

Well, I'm relly not quite sure why you keep mentioning
this, as I've never suggested anyone was forced to farm for anyone
else. That's your way of trying to explain how the two groups
might have co-existed without anyone getting killed, I think.

...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?

No. I don't expect the Anglo-Saxons to enslave anyone.
That's you idea, not mine. After all, Another reason why the Cumbrians
start moving East might be because the Angles in the East have killed
all the native Britons there, mightn't it? 8) And these Cumbrians are
just filling the vacuum... :wink:

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?

Well we're not talking about keeping any of the native
farmers alive (at least I'm not). But if you've come here to steal
farmland (after killing or driving the natives West as refugees) then
why would you burn-down the farmhouse that goes with it. Surely,
you'd need somewhere to sleep as well as something to eat...? :lol:
But seriously, is Powlesland actually claiming that there are no examples
of Anglo-Saxon architecture at West Heslerton?

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 generations”. Nonsense. Saxons farmed on the other end of the sea, why would they suddenly use British farming techniques when they entered Britain? And yet that is what we see – continuity on the ground.

But precisely what is it that you're claiming was different
about Anglian farming techniques in their homeland, versus Yorkshire?
This seems to be the basis of your (and Powlesland's) assumption that
Britons must still be farming this land.

Either the newcomers were chameleons or they were few and far between and left the natives in peace.

Now you're saying they were reptiles? hock: My God! It's
no wonder the didn't interbreed with the natives. They couldn't! :wink:


Cheers,
Ambrosius/Mike[/color][/quote]

[ambrosius]

Hello Robert,

[size=18]

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

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.

Mike, apartheid suggests segregation in daily life, exclusion from your part of society and treatment as inferiors. Apartheid is the fornmer South-African system, not some new thingy that we can define on our own. Every nation has laws that treat non-citizens differently from citizens.

Well, I think you've just agreed with me, then, Robert. :o
If Britons were classified in law as being of lesser value by Ine's Law
(which they were) and (as you suggested) Gallo-Romans were likewise
classified by the Franks, then that is 'apartheid'. If you classify native
Britons as being worth less Wergild than a Saxon, and you manintain
the differential between Briton and Saxon by segregation (otherwise,
the system would simply not work) then that is apartheid. You are
not allowing fraternization between the ethnic groups becaue then how
the Hell could you enforce this Law? So please explain to me why the
segregation of Britons and Saxons is different from that anywhere else
where 'apartheid' is or was practised. And for incoming Anglo-Saxons
to classifiy native Britons as 'non-citizens' (as you word it, above, in
your revised definition of Ine's Laws) in their own land is adding
yet another insult to the injury of invading them in the first place.

I mean, it's one thing to invade somebody, but to call them 'Wealas',
or foreigners, in their own land, then classify them in law as 'non-citizens',
and segregate them (which is what we see from the placename evidence
of sites such as 'Walton') is 'apartheid'. I'm sorry, it just is. :evil:

Romans treated Roman citizens different from non-cotizen Romans. Was that apartheid? Of course it wasn't.

I think you'll find it was, actually. But then that is why I
(like you) have always preferred the late-Empire. And even in the early
Empire, there was mobility between 'castes' in society. A non-citizen
could 'earn' citizenship. A slave could 'earn' manumission. There is at
least one Emperor who started out as a slave. But if the Laws of Ine
set in stone that a Briton, from birth, was worth less than a Saxon,
then that is an irreversible form of 'apartheid'.

The Frank treated Romans differently from Franks, sure. But not lesser - they made sure Franks fell under Frankish (Salian) law and Romans were judged by Roman law.

Oh, well that's alright, then. Only I thought you were
telling us that the Franks treated the Gallo-Romans similarly to the
Britons under the Laws of Ine. The quote from your original post is
still there, at the top of this one, if you wanted the check it.


Cheers,
Ambrosius/Mike

[ambrosius]

Hello Robert,

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:

Mike, that is also a derogatory remark. Who are you to decide that Pryor is mediocre or not? As to opinionated.. I know more of them.

You're darn' tootin' it's a derogatory remark - just like
you calling his book chapter on Roman Britain: 'crap'. And I'll tell
you the difference between people who are opinionated and those
who hold opinions: The opinionated ones (and yes, we both know
a lot of them on other lists) are the ones who form their own opinions
without listening to all the evidence available to them, and then
go on national T.V. and preach their fanciful delusions as if they are
Gospel, without listening to any of their peers. As Paul has pointed out.

But here are some objective comments about the Adventus Saxonum
from last year's Time Team Big Roman Dig from Dr. Neil Faulkner
(who is far from being a Romanist - in fact, he detests everything
Roman, yet he is fair in aportioning credit where it's due) and others
of Pryor's archaeological peers:

Tony Robinson:
"Now, the interesting thing is, I always thought that the Saxons were a
bunch of nasty thugs who came over here and duffed-up the Brits. Is
that right or not?"

Neil Faulkner:
"Well...... I think that Francis has got this idea that Britain of the past
is a kind of 'Merrie Englande', where everyone is involved in
enchanting little lakeside rituals and it's all very peaceful. And I just
do not believe that. I mean, early Anglo-Saxon society was a heroic,
warrior society, where huge value was put on militery achievement.
There was a lot of fighting, there are lots of weapons in the
archaeological record. I think it was a nasty place, frankly."

Tony Robinson:
"Mick, did the Saxons just exploit the chaos, or did they cause it?"

Mick Aston:
"Well, it's probably a mixture of both, isn't it. They certainly seem to
have found some weak spots to get in. They were probably a nuisance
up and down the coast."

Tony Robinson:
"Tom, when did they first arrive, the Saxons?"

Tom Holland:
"Well, they're first mentioned in the 3rd c. But even so, it takes the
Saxons decades to take over what was to become Saxon England."

Tony Robinson:
"Was their culture as different from the Roman as we tend to think?"

Mick Aston:
"Yes, I think it probably was. But what is interesting is that they seem to
be aping Roman things. I know that a lot of the burials that Helen Geake
has studied, for example, she says that they're almost trying to pretend
that they're Roman rulers."

Neil Faulkner:
"Some people see that as a kind of continuity from the Roman period,
don't they. But actually, there's quite a gap between the end of the
Roman administration and the beginning of this Anglo-Saxon evidence,
where Saxons are pretending to be Roman."

Yes, indeed. That's because the native Britons were still pretending to
be Roman, themselves, in the meantime. :wink: 8)

Cheers,
Ambrosius/Mike

[Chariovalda]

All this, of course, is pending of further research in which the size of samples are increased.

Could someone explain to me how this research, which for all I know is done on living persons and not on ancient bone fragments, can really tell us something about peoples moving about in the past? I mean, if this is about very big groups, sure, I can guess that some statistics apply. But how on earth could we really tell if an influence took place in 300 BC or 1000 AD? Or am I right in thinking that these conclusions are reached with a book about migrations in the other hand?

Well, here I go. We have had these discussions before... 8)

In a nutshell:
Men have Y-chromosomes, which doesn't combine and which are only inherited in the male. This allows tracing direct male descent. Y-chromosomes can be grouped into haplogroups, which in turn can be subdivided into haplotypes and these can be subdivided again. The groups and types are defined by genetic markers that indicate past mutations, allowing the formation of a "genetic family tree".
Everybody has mitochondria, which are exclusively inherited through the mother. This allows a classification broadly similar to that of Y-chromosomes, and the construction of a family tree in the female line.

(My apologies if I describe this a bit superficially and crudely, but hey, I'm a historian by background, not a geneticist :wink: )

Anyway, the various different haplogroups and -types show distribution patterns that vary from region to region. They are the current end result of the past genetic history of the populations there. Distinct patterns have been found in various regions. For instance, when it comes to Y-chromosomes, populations in the western parts of Europe are surprisingly homogenous. One haplogroup, R1b, varies from over 90% in the Basque country to 80 to 90% in the "Celtic Fringe" (this is where all those media reports about "Irish and Welsh being close kin to Sardinians and Basques" come from) and about 70% in the far south of England and something about 50+% in our own little piece of swampish real estate. Eastward, the percentage quickly diminishes.
Faced with this, scientists had to explain this pattern. The most commonly accepted explanation is that we're dealing with a repopulation of western Europe after the last Ice Age, from a population that was genetically (at least on the Y chromosome level) surprisingly homogenous (suggesting, for instance, the existance of a "population bottleneck" at some time, severely limiting the number of Y-chromosome lineages present).

Anyway, other populations are more varied, suggesting a degree of mingling with other populations creating a more diverse Y-chromosome pattern. Among these, patterns can be discerned as well; some haplogroups and types are more common in some populations than others. Certain populations have a division of haplotypes that is very similar over a wide area, or share certain haplogroups / types that are rare elsewhere.
To a large degree, these represent the end results of demographic processes that are wholly or largely "invisible" to history (lacking adequate records) and archaeology. Interpreting modern (and, if available, ancient) genetic data in order to reconstruct a picture of these processes, has produced what Colin Renfrew has coined "archaeogenetics".

So far, so good. For some additional information I now refer you to:

[url:35ovu9jb]http://www.ucl.ac.uk/tcga/presentations/ASdemo/AS-26-11-03b.html[/url]
You don't have to agree with the conclusions of Weale (and I think you may have looked at it a few years ago), but it's a nice intro into the methodology.
As well as here:
[url:35ovu9jb]http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/94/15/7719[/url]
A classic article by Luca Cavalli-Sforza, one of the fathers of historical genetics (or archaeogenetics, as Colin Renfrew calls it).
[url:35ovu9jb]http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/98/9/4830[/url]
And an article by the ever-productive Lord himself

[Chariovalda]

Now to the question of "the coming of the Anglo-Saxons" and genetics. There have been three major research efforts so far, by Weale, Goldstein and Capelli. You may remember Goldstein, his research was conducted in the context of the BBC "Blood of the Vikings" series.

What they did, was check the frequency of certain Y chromosome haplogroups in the "homelands" of the Vikings resp. the Anglo-Saxons (Norway and Denmark in the case of the Vikings, Denmark/North Germany/Friesland in the case of the Anglo-Saxons). They also did this for Wales, central Ireland and Scotland.
Although this has sometimes been claimed, the three researches did not produce mutually contradictory results. Broadly speaking, the pattern in central-eastern-northern England was more similar to that of the "Anglo-Saxon homelands"; Wales, Ireland and Cornwall had a very different pattern and southern England and parts of Scotland lay somewhere in-between.

Again, so far so good. The broad picture seems to be clear, but it needs a lot of refinement, in terms of sample size (correcting and/or increasing the reliability of the division percentages found) and geographic spread (more and widely scattered samples from villages and rural towns - the most recent large investigation, by Capelli et al, left a huge area in north-southern England and south-central England wide open :roll: ).

Now as for the interpretation...

Haplogroups and haplotypes can be dated, or at least geneticists attempt to do so (based on expected mutation rates and so on), but it is, of course, very hard to date the arrival of the first carrier of that haplogroup/type in a certain locality.
One theoretically fairly water-tight way of checking the arrival of new populations with different genetic signatures would be to build up a huge database with genetic profiles of past populations divided by region. Unfortunately, our ancestors have often been so inconsiderate to either cremate their dead or bury them in soils where the local chemical composition sort of dissolved the bodies over time. Crudely put: No bones, no DNA. Scientific philistines! :evil:

Even if some DNA is salvaged, you need a large sample to produce a statistically sound result… So this makes it very hard, if not impossible to establish reliable genetic profiles for past populations.

So, for the time being and for the immediate future, this leaves the living, with “ancientâ€

[Chariovalda]

Andreas
Unfortunately those links don´t work for me

Now they should work 8)

Yes, J is present in low percentages in Western Europe. The problem with the "Saxon invasion" question is that it is apparently very biased. Some researchers seem to be obsessed with I1a, probably because it has a nice looking Germanic distribution, as shown in Rootsi et Al maps. But I1a is only a marker, it is not the dominant hapogroup not even in Scandinavia, so if you consider it as showing Germanic lineage you have to admit it is minoritary even in Scandinavia, let aside England, but if you use as a marker, you have to use in combination with other markers, you can´t have both. IMO the research of other markers, including J, R1a and E3b would be more meaningful.

I think I've run into what you meant by your remark about the obsession with I1a, though mostly in the form of forums and amateur websites.
Anyway, this "obsession" does not apply to the work of Weale and Capelli.

What was a bit annoying to me when re-reading articles was the use of different systems of haplogroup and -type definition, oh, those benighted pre-Y consortium days...

Anyway, I was wondering about your remarks about the population of northern France and Belgium vis a vis those of England and the Netherlands / North Germany / South Scandinavia. I did find some data in Rosser (AMJH 2000), which agreed with what you said, using what appears to be a sample from Flanders (conceivably "Germanic") and from Picardy in France. The latter sample was however rather small, and from a part of Gaul not too far from the language frontier and the main areas of Frankish settlement. I would very much want to see larger samples and also with more detailed haplogroup and haplotype divisions (and please, using the Y chromosome consortium's classification system :wink: ), so that one would have more complete information and perhaps ways of identifying differences or the absence of differences in the Y chromosome makeup of Northern French / Belgian and Netherlandish/North German/South Scandinavian populations.

Alright, enough DNA gibberish for now; I suspect few understand what we're babbling about anyway, and it's not easy for me either (hey, I'm just a poor history graduate, not a geneticist :wink: ).

If you want to exchange info, documents, links etc. just PM me; I've collected quite a little library of articles…

[ambrosius]

Hi Agraes,

Hello, Im new here but Robert knows me as he helped me working on a project, Arthurian: Total War, a mod for Rome: Total War.

Arthurians are most welcome. :wink:

Christianity
There was clearly a lack of motivation from brythonic monks and priests to try to convert the Anglo-Saxons. This work will be done by frankish priests in the VIIth century, the "Celtic" church of Iona did however helped convert the Northumbrians. Augustine will met 2 times the "welsh" bishops, wanting them to help him in his work but both times they send him to roses, saying they don't want to do anything with the Saxons.

That's right. 8)

The Justinian Plague
For what I have read, the plague affected Britons, Gaels and Picts but much more less the Saxons, because there wasn't trade and contacts between the Britons and the Saxons.

Another good point! (Even though it is only a theory about
the plague, it would explain the lack of cultural integration, since we do
know that Mediterranean trade did only exist with the West.) 8)

My question is, if the Britons under germanic rule were in a kind of equallity with the Saxons, won't the other Britons had maintened contact with them? Because a part of them would probably still be christians, etc.

Good point. Of course, we know from the Laws of Ine in
Wessex that Britons were not only recognised as being 'different', but
were of less value in Law. So there doesn't seem to be much equality
between Britons and Saxons.

Origins of the various kingdoms really appear linked to the Foederati like you pointed out: in Kent Jutish foederati, in Bernicia and Deira Angles, in Wessex Saxons.

But the trouble is, we have no evidence for the supposed
hiring of Anglo-Saxon foederati in 5th c. Britain - except the single
specific case of the hiring of the Jutes in Kent. None. The assumption
is always made that other foederati must have come here because the
assumption is that the entire Romano-British garrison was taken to
Gaul/Rome in 410AD. Says who? There's a scribal-error in Zosimus
for Bruttium, in Italy, which is always assumed to mean 'Britannia',
where Honorius tells the cities to defend themselves. But this is a province
in southern Italy, besieged by Alaric the Goth. Not Britain. And even if
he was talking to Britannia, there's no mention of the withdrawal of all
troops. Nor under Constantine III's campaign in Gaul. So there's no need
to hire foederati except for the specific purpose of recruiting the
Jutes to guard the East coast with their ships against Pictish pirates.
But then, more Jutes arrive, and then more. And soon you've got a
whole Jutish kingdom in Kent. Then the Angles and Saxons take advantage of the situation and start arriving on their own initiative to
grab some land of their own. There need have been no invitation. and
there's certainly no record of any. 8)

Cheers,
Ambrosius/Mike [/quote]

[ambrosius]

Hi Andreas,

Well, I thought I'd join in. Being of impeccable Saxon and Frisian lineage (well, ignoring the vile rumours of Frankish and even Gallo-Roman ancestors somewhere in my lineage), I'd like to add my voice to that of that romanized Frankish Chamavian mongr... :wink: er, I mean, my dear friend Valerius/Robert. Well, add to...and counter as well...

:lol: :lol: :lol: I wish there was an emoticon for a referee holding a couple of old 'bruisers' like me and Vorty apart, at arm's
length, in order to prevent bloodshed. 8)

Cheers,
Ambrosius/Mike

[ambrosius]

Hi Robert,

True enough, point taken, the continuity would have had to be outside Roman Britain. I was with my head on top of a tumulus, a form of burial monument...

hock: Yikes! Still attached to the rest of you, I hope! :lol:
And not: 'buried up to your neck in it', either, one would wish... 8)

... that, like inhumation, tend to be overlooked as indeed continuous. But you're right about weapons.

Speaking of barrows, there's an article in the latest issue
of the Kent Archaeological Society newsletter, about an excavation at
Bradstow School, Broadstairs:

"During May & June of 2006, Archaeology South East excavated a large
Bronze-Age round barrow at Bradstow School, following evaluation of
the site by the Trust for Thanet Archaeology the preceding January.

Bradstow School has before produced significant archaeological remains.
Hurd's excavations of 1910-11 found one round barrow containing nine
crouched, Bronze Age inhumations, as well as 30 Anglo-Saxon graves.
Further work was carried out between 1970 and 1974 by the British
Museum, finding a further 60 Anglo-Saxon burials, as well as the ring ditches of additional round barrows. Two further Saxon graves were also
uncovered at the school by Canterbury Archaeological Trust in 2003.

The 2006 barrow is therefore part of a monumantal prehistoric cemetary
situated on the East face of a promontory commanding the Thanet coast,
which was later re-used by the Saxons....

Aside from the barrow, at least three 'four-post' structures could be
discerned during the excavation. Dating for these structures is uncertain.
Preliminary estimates put an Iron Age date to their construction, but full
analysis of the pottery is still awaited, and a Saxon date cannot yet be
ruled-out."

This is another example of what you were talking about before, I think.
Though in this case, there is a clear gap between the original Bronze Age
burials in this cemetary and the Anglo-Saxon burials. Even allowing for
the possible Iron Age date on the wooden structures, there is still nothing
between the 1st & 5th centuries here to suggest continuity of interment
from Iron Age Celtic to early Anglo-Saxon. It just seems to be the case
that early Anglo-Saxons preferred to be buried in pre-existing cemetaries
(as far as they could still be distinguished in the geography of the land)
as this appeared to be 'hallowed-ground' to them. And a Bronze Age
barrow would still have been a noticeable monument in the 5th c. :wink:

Cheers,
Ambrosius/Mike[/quote]

[ambrosius]

Hi Robert,

Okay Robert. You live in Holland. So please tell me what
'higher ground' you see out of your window right now. :lol:

Lots of it. it's just so you folks who are spoilt with hills and stuff don't recognise it over here. Higher ground can means 5 meters higher, or just 2, whatever keeps your fields dry from tides that would normally overrun it.

Sure. I was forgetting that a molehill can look like a
mountain to someone who is only 6" tall...... (That was what you said,
if I remember correctly......) :lol: :lol: :lol:

Mind you, I never said they did not migrate anywhere overseas. Maybe America?

Well, the Mesolothic hunters of 'France' we now know
made it to America by canoeing along the edges of the ice-floes in the
Atlantic, camping on the ice overnight before paddling-on. So I guess
anything is possible. 8)

Well, some flooding, by no means all, and over more than a century.
And the Huns never made it that far north, either. As if they would. 8)

Ah yes, but it's the refugees in their wake, who would,
themselves, be seeking farmland of their own. As Andreas pointed-out,
the Frisians etc couldn't farm the highland (poor soil), they couldn't
go South West and tackle the Franks, and to the South East there are
these refugees fleeing the Huns. If they could have stayed-put, then
they may have been okay. But, those rising sea-levels...

Can you not simply accept that perfectly respected Germanic
(for want of a better word) migration-period scholars like Heinrich Harke
and Michael Gebuhr have no problem with seeing the only logical route
of migration for Frisians, Angles & Jutes as being across the North Sea
and to Britain? As for the migrants arriving at their leisure, that's not
a problem.

Well, that my problem - why can it be the only logical explanation? As a scientists, I would have a problem with that - so many variables, uncertainties, possibilities, and that's the only logical solution? Why Britain? Why not Belgium, France, Spain, North Africa [/quote]

Erm, see above? It doesn't have to be the only answer,
but we do need to start somewhere. They didn't fly-off into space.

You know I think that there was an attenuated migration over
maybe 150-200 years. But that doesn't mean it wasn't hostile

Sure, that could've been the case. And yes, a slower and smaller migration might still be hostile. Why not - pirates/traders were a normal sign of the time, and raiders and petty chiefs might be hostile to their neighbours, sure. I never claimed all had to be peaceful. I'm just againt the mass-migration (over a short time)[/quote]

Well there we agree. (Is that the sound of distant cheering?)

and a massive displacement of the natives - I still see no signs of the native farmers being forced away in large numbers, leaving the land just for immigrants to start anew.

Erm, that's because they're buried in the wheat-field.
The new tenants would have needed fertilizer... :oops:

It's certainly illogical to assume that when the first Anglo-
Saxon weapons burials appear in Kent c. 450 that 400 years of Romano-
British burial culture goes out the window and Romanized, Christianised
Britons suddenly swap all their jewellery and clothing for Anglo-Saxon
styles, and revert to pagan weapons burials. You are always exhorting
people to use Occam's Razor. Well, please try it yourself, now. What's
the simplest and most logical explanation for these weapons burials
suddenly appearing? That they are Anglo-Saxon imigrants, or that they
are Romanized Britons pretending to be Anglo-Saxons, just to fool us?

I have no doubt that such reasoning lies behind the current thought - stuff's Anglo-Saxon, so the owners must be Anglo-Saxons. But isn't that a trap that archaeologists contantly warn about? That the fibula can't tell you anything about the ethnicity of the owner? [color=red]Isn't that, too, not the reasoning behing the Germanic belt-sets etc. found in Britain - whose owners 'can't be Germanics' because those very same experts say they can't? So who's fooling who? If the one Germanic style must be worn by a germanic person and the other Germanic style can't be worn by a Germanic person around the very same time, then I don't know what to argue anymore. But if Germanic buckles could be buried with british soldiers, than Germanic swords and jewellery could also be buries with British persons, surely?[/quote]

Yes, it's an eminently reasonable point. Though it's one I
thought I had dealt with already. But here goes once more: The
Germanic chip-carved buckles were adopted (from fashion and practicality) by the Western Roman Army in the 4th & 5th century.
Not made in Germania, or even by Germanic peoples, probably, but
by and for Roman soldiers. However, what makes them not Germanic mercenaries, or even Roman soldiers of Germanic descent,
(necessarily) is that they are still also wearing their Roman crossbow brooches etc. There is a fusion of styles, over a period of
time, and not a sudden replacement of one native style by another, foreign one. I could accept that the 5th c. Jutish graves in Kent might
be native Britons dressed-up as Jutes if they were still wearing a diagnostic artifact which was normally worn by pre-Jutish-arrival
Britons. I mean, from Andrew Richardson's survey of Jutish brooches
in Kent, he can even tell from the nuances of Frisian styles incorporated into them that the Jutes must have had contact with the Frisians on their way from Jutland. Which is hardly surprising, actually, and fits with the fact that the safest way to sail from Jutland to Kent was to skirt the
coast of Frisia. So we can see the subtle influences of Frisian culture imprinted on Jutish brooches in the 5th c. But we don't see any
Romano-British influence on them. hock:

Why, if there was the slightest contact between Jutish and Romano-
British culture, is there no Romano-British signature on Jutish brooches?
And why, if the Britons were adopting Jutish brooches, did they just
copy them perfectly (or buy them) without adding any nuances of
Romano-British brooch design? You see what I'm saying? There was
more cultural exchange between Jutes and Frisians from an overnight
stop for a bagel and a coffee than there was between the Jutes who
came to Kent and the native Britons over a period of 200 years.

Cheers,
Ambrosius/Mike

P.S. I'm not sure what happened back there, but either your writing
suddenly got bigger, or I don't need these glasses any more. :lol:

[ambrosius]

Hi Robert,

The simplest explanation
is that if it walks like a Saxon and quacks like a Saxon, then it's a Saxon.

So if it wears a Germanic buckle and carries a Germanic sword it's a Germanic soldier? :twisted:

It may well be - as well as one of a dozen other ethnicities
present in the late-Roman army. But a crossbow brooch will tell you
if it's a genuine Roman soldier or just a hypothetical 'foederate'.[/blue]

=Vortigern]

[color=blue] But graves containing exclusively Anglo-Saxon grave-goods
do appear suddenly c. 450 onwards in Kent

You keep saying that, and so they might, but when Coca-Cola bottles suddenly start appearing in Europe, does that mean we were invaded by Americans and driven from our homes, too?

You mean that hasn't happened to you, yet? :lol: But to be
serious, this is the same kind of false-logic used by Dr. Sam Lucy
(yes, another of Pryor's accolytes - and an Anglo-Saxonist) who tries
comparing modern Global culture with the 5th c. She makes the point
that if she drives a Mercedes, that doesn't make her a German. No dear.
But then, you can buy a Mercedes just around the corner from where I
live. You don't have to go to Germany to get one. Nor do you even need
to speak to anyone in German to make your purchase. That's what's
called the global economy. The same applies to the Coca Cola.
If there's free, global trade in all commodities (why, I can even order
a replica Roman helmet from India, how bizarre is that?) then, no,
driving a Mercedes or drinking Coke doesn't make you German or American (though just you watch-out 8) ). But for Kent to be suddenly
flooded with Jutish brooches in the 5th c. is a little unusual. :lol:

Or did a new style appear with new immigrants that suddenly became the total hot fashion, taken up by the natives who continued to be buried amongst the newcomers, but incresingly indistinguishable?

That's just it. it wasn't a slow process of change of
material-culture.

Cheers,
Ambrosius/Mike

[Chariovalda]

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

Would it be an idea to confine oneself to one post, then only write another one when other people have replied? And confine oneself to what has become the real subject of the thread, the transformation of Roman Britain into England?

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.

Although the initial question concerned Saxon appearance and tactics (did that even get an adequate answer? I can't remember), this thread quickly shifted to the nature of the change of Roman Britannia into Anglo-Saxon England. Fair enough, and while I'm no expert on Dark Age Britain it's certainly a fascinating question and relevant to what happened to the old Western Empire in its later stages and immediately after it.

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 only serve to lengthen the replies and have, by themselves, little relevance to the way in which Roman Britain was "transformed".

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? It can be found here [url:3f9kup4e]http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_b/papers/RSPB20063627.pdf[/url]. Also, did anyone actually read the research report on West Heslerton? It can be found here [url:3f9kup4e]http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/109087483/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0[/url]

Because, haha, I got the impression people were just relying on the BBC, whose scientific editors, or at least some of them, should be summarily shot :wink:

Unfortunately, in the latter case you'll have to pay $25 for access. I really, really hate this kind of rip-off :evil:
It's a scientific article, and its contents should be available to everybody...even more so if the research was paid for with public funds... :x

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

[Robert Vermaat]

Well, some flooding, by no means all, and over more than a century. And the Huns never made it that far north, either. As if they would. 8)

Ah yes, but it's the refugees in their wake, who would,
themselves, be seeking farmland of their own. As Andreas pointed-out,
the Frisians etc couldn't farm the highland (poor soil), they couldn't
go South West and tackle the Franks, and to the South East there are
these refugees fleeing the Huns. If they could have stayed-put, then
they may have been okay. But, those rising sea-levels...
I wonder what makes you say that they couldn't tackle the Franks. After all, we see many Saxon settlements along the Belgian and French coasts, especially the Loire area. Remeber those saxons there in the late 5th c.? So some could, and evidently did. Besides, the whole of the province of Belgica II was in upheaval, with effective Roman rule either withdrawn to the south or turned ver to Frankish groups. This would be a perfect spot to get a foothold, and some seems to have succeeded. And some went to Britain, sure, I keep saying that. Just not thousands upon thousands who managed to drive off a native popultion of millions.

Erm, see above? It doesn't have to be the only answer, but we do need to start somewhere. They didn't fly-off into space.

Sure. But with an open mind, I hope. OK, I'll grant you that - space is out of the question!

Yes, it's an eminently reasonable point. Though it's one I
thought I had dealt with already. But here goes once more: The
Germanic chip-carved buckles were adopted (from fashion and practicality) by the Western Roman Army in the 4th & 5th century.
Not made in Germania, or even by Germanic peoples, probably, but
by and for Roman soldiers. However, what makes them not Germanic mercenaries, or even Roman soldiers of Germanic descent,
(necessarily) is that they are still also wearing their Roman crossbow brooches etc. There is a fusion of styles, over a period of
time, and not a sudden replacement of one native style by another, foreign one. I could accept that the 5th c. Jutish graves in Kent might
be native Britons dressed-up as Jutes if they were still wearing a diagnostic artifact which was normally worn by pre-Jutish-arrival
Britons. I mean, from Andrew Richardson's survey of Jutish brooches
in Kent, he can even tell from the nuances of Frisian styles incorporated into them that the Jutes must have had contact with the Frisians on their way from Jutland. Which is hardly surprising, actually, and fits with the fact that the safest way to sail from Jutland to Kent was to skirt the
coast of Frisia. So we can see the subtle influences of Frisian culture imprinted on Jutish brooches in the 5th c. But we don't see any
Romano-British influence on them. hock:

Why, if there was the slightest contact between Jutish and Romano-
British culture, is there no Romano-British signature on Jutish brooches?
And why, if the Britons were adopting Jutish brooches, did they just
copy them perfectly (or buy them) without adding any nuances of
Romano-British brooch design? You see what I'm saying? There was
more cultural exchange between Jutes and Frisians from an overnight
stop for a bagel and a coffee than there was between the Jutes who
came to Kent and the native Britons over a period of 200 years.

Good one. That's always a difficult point, who's influencing who? What you call Roman crossbow fibulae are in fact not totally Roman ones (yes, they are produced by Romans for Romans), but the type is directly derived from German fibulae.
And hey, I'm not suggesting that there were no Jutes in Kent and all Jutish jewellery must be traded and worn as fashion. Of course not. But trade may/must play a big role here, nonetheless. Maybe it was the Jutes of Britain that continued to make these objects, for a British market, whose customers were Jutes, Saxons, Anglians, as well as Britons?
Take for instance the wealth of finds from Dorchester on Thames, which include many Germanic finds, including female jewellery. But also Romano-British stuff that we just classified as non-Germanic Roman military..
I'm just saying it can be possible.

[Robert Vermaat]

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

Would it be an idea to confine oneself to one post, then only write another one when other people have replied? And confine oneself to what has become the real subject of the thread, the transformation of Roman Britain into England?

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.

Good point. I opened a separate one about the Saxon Shore here: http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=10148