Hello,

From Sussex

From rather scanty evidence and an even a scanter explantion at the moment,
i had the impression and my own deductions that the Germanic tribes would
initially and up to the first 200 years or so, been not sufficient in
mumber to displace the Romano-Brits from their spheres of influence, which
in many cases would have been the best lands by selection. There may have
been some political fighting, which may have meant to the death by the
seaxe in those days?

There may have been one or two places where the Saxons did not replace the
Romans, but in most cases there would have been a merger and as the
archaeology does not seem to distinguish the two groups other evidence is
necessary.

Of course, Anderceaster was replaced by Pefensea, a change name following a
change of occupation, on account of all the Brets being killed. AD 495
(ASC).

Might some have escaped to tell the tale?

Andy Horton



On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 23:50:23 -0000, rob <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>Andy,
>
>No we know that sites such as Silchester and Wroxeter were not occupied by
>the Germanic people. I was trying to suggest that maybe sites that were
>fertile and excellent for arable farming were not colonised by the
Germanics
>until the mid 7th early 8th Centuries. What is the reasoning behind this?
>Could it as I was alluding to have been because Romano British people were
>still farming them? It would seem from the limited works I have read that
>the Germanic influx wasn't as great as I believed and in fact in some way
>continued on from the DNA debate that lasted for a lengthy period of time.
>Gildas gives us an impression that the Saxon incomers were a bunch of war
>happy people yet the archaeology seems not to bear this out. Using
>Wroxetter as an example we can see that there was sufficient peace for a
>substantial wooden building to have been built on the site of the old
>Basilica if the Saxons were intent on killing of the Romano British as
>Gildas suggests this just wouldn't have occurred.
>
>This is just something that as gotten a grip on me and I need to know the
>answer so to speak. AS Britain is not something I am well read in and I
may
>be bubbling well below boiling point with my thoughts so I thought I would
>make myself look slightly idiotic by asking a question that probably
>couldn't be answered
>
>Rob
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Andy Horton" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 11:42 PM
>Subject: Re: Anglo Saxon period question
>
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Could it better to ask whether there are any Roman occupation sites that
>> were not subsequently occupied by Saxons or German immigrants?
>>
>> Or the main river valleys and favoured occupation areas seem to have been
>> the same this present day (with the possible exception of the ports
>serving
>> America e.g. Liverpool, and perhaps coal mining areas and some areas that
>> expanded during the industrial revolution).
>>
>> Today, the Thames Valley seems to be the richest area and this seems to
be
>> the same in the post-Roman period.
>>
>> Andy (Sussex)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 12:07:47 -0000, Robert Burns
>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> >HI all,
>> >
>> >I have recently been compiling an essay on the early Germanic incomers
>for
>> >my degree course. The basis being what differences if any exist between
>> the
>> >native population and the Germanics. Of course the evidence would
>suggest
>> >none however I did note that in the mid 7th century the Saxons started
to
>> >move from the land they were farming which was shall we say not the best
>> >ground onto the more productive soils.
>> >
>> >This got me to thinking and arguing with myself why was this. If as the
>> >Germanic people were marauding savages as Gildas would have us believe
>did
>> >they not just over run the better lands? Could this land movement
>coincide
>> >with the final Romano British Bloodlines having either died off or
>> >intermarried? How many Anglo Saxon structures/sites have been
discovered
>> on
>> >or close to Villas which can be shown to extend beyond the end of the
>Roman
>> >period I.E.AD410. Finally is there any works that look at this in
>greater
>> >detail rather than the books I have looked at that just mention it in
>> >passing so to speak.
>> >
>> >My apologies for such a heavy question on a Saturday
>> >
>> >Rob