The placenames indeed seem to be the problem, but where is the total
break in rural sites which supposedly were overrun by the invading
Also, supposedly 'early' Anglo-Saxon place-names (such as -inga names)
are also given to 'old' sites, that were by no means new foundations.
Meaning, supposedly old names need not show patterns for early
settlement of immigrants.
To me, the modern studies of dna in the population are totally invalid.
Why? They take it as a given that the population today can
scientifically reflect the population of the 5th-6th c. AD. However,
there is no model available why that would be the case. In truth,
populations of any given town or village could (I'm not saying that this
happened) have been replaced several times, giving a dna-pattern that
would tell us very weird things?
So what if 50 to 100 % of the British population in some areas has
'Germanic' dna? Does that mean the Germanic 'invaders' pushed out all
the (male) Brits? Of course not! It tells us that the modern population
has ancestors that came from Germany, at any time between the last ice
Age and today. But I guess that such 'results' donít make headlines...
I'm not a fan of Mr Prior, but he has a big point when he points at the
continuity on many rural sites in the Southeast that exclude any violent
take-over by invading Anglo-Saxons, Šnd the influence of fashion - a
change in styles does not need a big immigration wave. Indeed,
archaeologists of the post-Roman age could do well to look at results of
archaeology of the pre-Roman period..
Or am I cursing in Church now?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: British archaeology discussion list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Andy Horton
> Sent: woensdag 19 juli 2006 15:22
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BRITARCH] Britain 'had apartheid society'
> Following on from this with the Roman invasion of Britain. The Romans
> probably did the same thing before AD 43.
> They had their enclaves of Romanised immigrants especially in Sussex.
> never needed to invade Sussex because they were already there!
> For the linguists, why are there no Celtic (unless you count Lewes?)
> names in Sussex. Because the Romans got rid of most of them and then
> Saxons got rid of the rest. There are still part Roman place names.
> Portslade, Stretham, Southwick, Wyckham, plus.