JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for BRITARCH Archives


BRITARCH Archives

BRITARCH Archives


BRITARCH@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

BRITARCH Home

BRITARCH Home

BRITARCH  July 2006

BRITARCH July 2006

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Britain 'had apartheid society' - the original paper.

From:

Andy Horton <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

British archaeology discussion list <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 19 Jul 2006 19:55:11 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (114 lines)

Hello,

Rambling Thoughts on the published *pdf file   No graphs (I have done my 
own stats in the BRITARCH archives somewhere). 

Thanks for the reference to the full article.

Nobody is suggesting it proves anything. It is a hypothesis to explain the 
divergent archaeological and linguistic evidence and the new genetic 
evidence as well. It fits the pattern better than mass immigration and 
genocide. 

I would go as far as to say it would fit other invasions/immigrations as 
well. 

What it has going for it is:

1)  studies of immigration patterns where historic records are known show 
the same tendency
2)  biological studies of animals show greater breeding success of the 
fittest and most suited as clear from invasions of alien organisms

What it does not seem to have going for it

1)  population studies, with no explanation of a fall of millions of people 
during the Roman period (another explanation would have to be thought about 
this, if all the population estimates are right, which I do not think they 
are)

2)  To be fitter to exploit the environment, the newcomers would have to be 
in a positions either with new technology to exploit the land better, or 
they could pinch the best resources by force and remove the Romano/Brits 
from their land

3)  There is name evidence that there was integration of the Saxons and 
welas as early as the 8th century, so the integration would be much quicker 
than proposed. I would actually suggest that the welas and Saxons were 
quite quick to gang up on their previous Roman overlords when it suited 
their purpose, especially as some had vamoosed back off to Rome and left 
their treasures buried in the earth. Then fighting for scarce resources and 
double crossing and murdering each other when it was politically 
expedient.  (I use Saxons as a collective name for the mixed tribes.)

I expect the apartheid enclaves could be called 'tribes'. I expect they 
fought amongst themselves as well. 

I see that the basic argument is that new German political masters would 
have all the best land and resources and that this could explain there 
greater breeding success without the need to invent famines and world 
disasters which there is exiguous evidence for.

For the linguistic people to be satisfied though, it would need the 
population to be 2 million, and for many of the natives to speak Latin and 
not Welsh. 

As 2 million people will not have got missing in the Roman occupation 
period, the only explanation can be that that there was not 3.4 million 
population during Roman times in Britain. I think the population would have 
to be about 1.5 million when the Romans came in AD 43 officially. (Can't 
just wipe out 2 million people without an explanation, but I suppose you 
can say they were never there in the first place!)

However, it is not necessary to think of Britain as an isolated island back 
then. The English Channel would have been a highway and the only bit the 
immigrants would want, both the Romans and the Saxons is the rich fertile 
bits of southern and middle England. And the Thames Valley. Just the bits 
that are richest even today!

In short, cut out the apartheid bit and the theory has always made sense to 
me, because I thought out independently that something like this would have 
happened.

Andy Horton




On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 16:20:27 +0100, Trevor Ogden <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>The text of the paper is available free at 
>http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_b/papers/RSPB20063627.pdf
>
>The reference is "Evidence for an apartheid-like social structure in early 
>Anglo-Saxon England" by Mark G Thomas, Michael PH Stumpfl, and Heinrich 
>Härke.  Proc Roy Soc B, doi: 10.1098/rspb2006.3627.
>(For any who don't know, doi means digital object identifier, and is a way 
>of specifying a paper that has been published on line by a journal ahead 
of 
>the paginated version.)
>
>Without yet having read the paper, I agree with Nick - it looks as if they 
>have shown by computer simulation that a particular social pattern would 
>explain the observed outcome, but that does not of course prove that this 
>was the social pattern that actually occurred.
>
>Trevor Ogden
>
>At 15:45 19/07/2006, Nick.Thorpe wrote:
>>Dear All,
>>
>>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,
>>
>>Nick Thorpe
>========================================================================

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998


WWW.JISCMAIL.AC.UK

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager