Blame whichever of the authors of the original article - Mark Thomas,
since he is the first-named - decided to use the term apartheid, as the
BBC have just picked it up from there. Presumably the notion was to
place the stress on their theory that there was a ban or prejudice
against inter-marriage with locals. Personally I should like to see the
assumptions underlying their computer model (e.g. how much 'Anglo-Saxon'
immigration do they allow pre-5th century and post-5th century) before
trumpeting it as a vindication of anyone's views. It is after all,
simply a set of computer simulation models which allows for the
possibility that the authors' favoured solution is correct after certain
assumptions have been made,
From: British archaeology discussion list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Andy Horton
Sent: 19 July 2006 15:16
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BRITARCH] Britain 'had apartheid society'
Not a description I would have used. But the parallels with South
society is suggested. Fair enough journalese, just about. Maybe the BBC
should be above all that?
I would have streesed the biological model for immigration. In the
discussion, the example of South Africa came up.
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 15:06:28 +0100, Christopher Cumberpatch
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I'm no expert in the post-Roman period (far from it in fact), but
>using the word 'apartheid' is stretching the evidence a bit. Apartheid
>was surely the outcome of a particular set of historical circumstances
>and has particular characteristics which are not present during the
>post-Roman period. But is this obsessive pedantry or a desire for
>precision in the
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Mike Heyworth" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 12:36 PM
>Subject: [BRITARCH] Britain 'had apartheid society'
>An apartheid society existed in early Anglo-Saxon Britain, research