----- Original Message -----
From: "rob" <[log in to unmask]>
> No, we know that sites such as Silchester and Wroxeter were not
> occupied by the Germanic people.
That's true. Sellected Romano-British cities were not reoccupied
by the Germanic immigrants. But Andy is also correct that the
majority of the most favoured river-valley sites are indeed still
the preferred places to be, as they were in Roman and A/S times.
> 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.
I think most of the serious Westward expansion was completed
a century before. From a century after the Adventus (arrival of
the Germanic peoples) British resistance seems to have held
them in 'check' in the Eastern quarter/half of the island. But by
the mid-6th century, we see a steady Westwards expansion.
Not due to a search for more fertile land; but a search for
more land. Period. Due to a probable mixture of continued
immigration and rising of the 'native' A/S population.
>What is the reasoning behind this? (The suggestion that some
> sites were not colonised by the Germanics.) Could it as I was
> alluding to have been because Romano British people were
> still farming them?
Absolutely it could.
> 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.
But according to the frequency of spear and shield inhumation
burials among the early Germanics, it would. According to the
need to build the Saxon-Shore-Forts it would. According to
the ASC it would. According to the HB it would. According
to the Gallic Chronicle it would. According to the linguistic
evidence it would. As far as I can see, it is only the Genetic
evidence which suggests otherwise - and even then, there are
Genetic studies which say completely the opposite, and agree
with the Archaeology, recorded History and the Linguistics.
Give it up, people. Roman-Britain was destroyed by a
pernicious and attenuated campaign of attrition by Anglo-
Saxon-Jutish piratical raiders - who eventually decided to
stay, like all other conquerors, both before and since.
We seem to have no qualms about accepting the veracity of
the Danish Viking raiding which subsequently plagued the
now established Saxon Kingdom of England. And yet this
was virtually a carbon-copy of the Anglo-Saxon-Jutish
raiding of centuries before, not only in the geographical
origin of those doing the invading, but in their invasion
routes and their initial targets. And I find it amusing that
the now established Saxon Kingdom seemed to fare
worse against the Vikings than the Romano-Britons had
against their Germanic ancestors.
> 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.
Okay, I think we need a little clarification, here. By 'peace',
are you suggestiing a total absence of conflict between the
Britons in the West and the Germanics in the East? Because
there is another form of peace: That earned on the point of
a sword. And since we now have ten plumbatae (late-Roman
lead-weighted darts/short javelins) from Wroxeter (some of
which date to the same period as the substantial wooden
building you mention - ie the mid 6th century) I would humbly
suggest that it is the latter of the two forms of 'peace' that we
are seeing this building activity being encouraged by. Because,
although (as you pointed out) Wroxeter (alongside Silchester)
was not reoccupied by the Germanics, we DO know that
the region aroung Wroxeter was subsequently annexed by
the Germanic leader, Penda (early 7th c.).
>if the Saxons were intent on killing of the Romano British as
> Gildas suggests this just wouldn't have occurred.
What wouldn't? The rebuilding, by the Romano-Britons,
of their own cities? It certainly would have occurred if the
Roman-Britons were as effective as I believe they were
in staving-off a concerted conquest of the kind which
Gildas mentions. You seem to be in danger of compounding
one assumption upon another, here, Rob. Firstly, you assume
that Gildas (and all other written sources, I might add) were
lying about the intentions of the Germanic incomers. Then,
secondly, you seem to be assuming that - had the Germanics
really been intent upon conquering the Romano-Britons -
there was nothing the native popluation could have done in
order to stop them. (Now, I'm not attacking you, personally,
here Rob :o) It's just that you happen to have articulated the
position which many modern scholars espouse - and it's
one I find utterly infuriating. So I'm taking this opportunity
you've given me to shoot it down in flames...... Bang! :o)
I believe I see the origins of the Myth that there was no
Germanic conquest in the 5th & 6th centuries, here. Firstly,
people assume that all the existing Romano-British troops were
stripped from this island in 410 and taken to the continent, in
order to defend Italy (which, in any case, always presumes
that the remaining population were utterly incapable of raising
a fresh host to defend themselves). Secondly, they assume that
(because of the first assumption) there cannot have been
a Germanic conquest of Britain, since, there was evidently
still construction work going on inside British cities as late
as the 550s (despite the corroborating archaeological
evidence for Romanised troops defending those cities).
Hmmm. I can see how some people have found this whole
question so confusing in the past. But it really isn't, just so
long as you stick to the evidence, and forget the fantasy
of post-modernist revisonism :o)