I remember the feet bit as well. I made cursory efforts to discover why
this evidence? was included. I eventually discarded it as unlikely ???


On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 12:29:45 -0000, rob <[log in to unmask]>

>You have eloquently put what I was trying to suggest.  My own findings for
>my essay was such that without historical evidence we cannot be certain
>occurred and the archaeology doesn't help us at all in this.  I remember a
>Meet the Ancestor program ( or was it time team) that used the feet to
>distinguish between Romano British and Anglo Saxon from a burial but to my
>mind this is just a little tenuous.  I suppose the use of isotope testing
>for this period would not be able to prove one way or another either.
>Thanks for your input
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Andy Horton" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 12:01 PM
>Subject: Re: Anglo Saxon period question
>> Hello,
>> From Sussex
>> From rather scanty evidence and an even a scanter explantion at the
>> i had the impression and my own deductions that the Germanic tribes would
>> initially and up to the first 200 years or so, been not sufficient in
>> mumber to displace the Romano-Brits from their spheres of influence,
>> in many cases would have been the best lands by selection. There may have
>> been some political fighting, which may have meant to the death by the
>> seaxe in those days?
>> There may have been one or two places where the Saxons did not replace
>> Romans, but in most cases there would have been a merger and as the
>> archaeology does not seem to distinguish the two groups other evidence is
>> necessary.
>> Of course, Anderceaster was replaced by Pefensea, a change name following
>> change of occupation, on account of all the Brets being killed. AD 495
>> (ASC).
>> Might some have escaped to tell the tale?
>> Andy Horton
>> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 23:50:23 -0000, rob
<[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>> >Andy,
>> >
>> >No we know that sites such as Silchester and Wroxeter were not occupied
>> >the Germanic people.  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.  What is the reasoning behind
>> >Could it as I was alluding to have been because Romano British people
>> >still farming them?  It would seem from the limited works I have read
>> >the Germanic influx wasn't as great as I believed and in fact in some
>> >continued on from the DNA debate that lasted for a lengthy period of
>> >Gildas gives us an impression that the Saxon incomers were a bunch of
>> >happy people yet the archaeology seems not to bear this out.  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 if the Saxons were intent on killing of the Romano British as
>> >Gildas suggests this just wouldn't have occurred.
>> >
>> >This is just something that as gotten a grip on me and I need to know
>> >answer so to speak.  AS Britain is not something I am well read in and I
>> may
>> >be bubbling well below boiling point with my thoughts so I thought I
>> >make myself look slightly idiotic by asking a question that probably
>> >couldn't be answered
>> >
>> >Rob
>> >----- Original Message -----
>> >From: "Andy Horton" <[log in to unmask]>
>> >To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> >Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 11:42 PM
>> >Subject: Re: Anglo Saxon period question
>> >
>> >
>> >> Hello,
>> >>
>> >> Could it better to ask whether there are any Roman occupation sites
>> >> were not subsequently occupied by Saxons or German immigrants?
>> >>
>> >> Or the main river valleys and favoured occupation areas seem to have
>> >> the same this present day (with the possible exception of the ports
>> >serving
>> >> America e.g. Liverpool, and perhaps coal mining areas and some areas
>> >> expanded during the industrial revolution).
>> >>
>> >> Today, the Thames Valley seems to be the richest area and this seems
>> be
>> >> the same in the post-Roman period.
>> >>
>> >> Andy (Sussex)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 12:07:47 -0000, Robert Burns
>> >> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >HI all,
>> >> >
>> >> >I have recently been compiling an essay on the early Germanic
>> >for
>> >> >my degree course.  The basis being what differences if any exist
>> >> the
>> >> >native population and the Germanics.  Of course the evidence would
>> >suggest
>> >> >none however I did note that in the mid 7th century the Saxons
>> to
>> >> >move from the land they were farming which was shall we say not the
>> >> >ground onto the more productive soils.
>> >> >
>> >> >This got me to thinking and arguing with myself why was this.  If as
>> >> >Germanic people were marauding savages as Gildas would have us
>> >did
>> >> >they not just over run the better lands?  Could this land movement
>> >coincide
>> >> >with the final Romano British Bloodlines having either died off or
>> >> >intermarried?  How many Anglo Saxon structures/sites have been
>> discovered
>> >> on
>> >> >or close to Villas which can be shown to extend beyond the end of the
>> >Roman
>> >> >period I.E.AD410.  Finally is there any works that look at this in
>> >greater
>> >> >detail rather than the books I have looked at that just mention it in
>> >> >passing so to speak.
>> >> >
>> >> >My apologies for such a heavy question on a Saturday
>> >> >
>> >> >Rob