On 07/03/2016 11:50, Mike Weatherley wrote:
> From: Michael <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: 04 March 2016 13:01
>> Thank you Mike - however it would be useful to know what you are trying to argue against.
> I suspect that you know only too well what I'm arguing against; however, I shall repeat it for you, since you asked for clarification: It is the presumption - in the article cited below - that because the inhabitants of Oakington Anglo-Saxon cemetery were 'treated the same way in death despite their different biological heritage' that this tells us anything about how (post-) Roman Britain became Anglo-Saxon England. Specifically, the implied claim that there was a peaceful and willing changeover by the native Celtic-speaking (presumably non-'Wodenist') population to early Anglo-Saxon culture. This seems
> to have become the 'default' position of the modern English Archaeological elite, regardless of the written, linguistic or archaeological evidence to the contrary - which evidence was curiously quite well accepted by previous generations of no lesser mental faculty. It seems, therefore, to be not so much a change in methodology (or understanding of the evidence) as a wholesale political realignment in the way that history may be represented in academia (and to the general public); which I believe Christopher Catling described in the March issue of Current Archaeology by coining the phrase: The 'Peacenik' view of history. (Which, as we are all sadly aware, is not actually very true to life or to the vast majority of evidence for the last 5,000 years or so of the human experience.) I do hope that makes it clearer for you.
Thanks for clarifying that. If I may summarise your argument it is that
you are asserting that the Anglo Saxon invaders used force. That doesn't
sound very contentious. I'm sure people might argue about the degree of
coercion and the relative fatalities on both sides, but that is very
different from the point of view you seemed to be supporting which was
an Anglo Saxon Genocide of the previous British population (whatever
their language & culture).
So long as you are not arguing for widespread genocide, if you don't
mind, I will leave it to others to argue about the relative scale of
co-operation and non-cooperation as it doesn't fundamentally affect me.