|
 Log in |
Register
|
|
 Head To Head The Modern Antiquarian Stonehenge and its Environs Forum | Start a topic | Search |
92 messages | Select a forum: |
If next week new evidence revises the numbers of either indigenous population or conquerers, the model goes out the window. Of course, that applies to any study in any walk of life - meanwhile let's stick with the study at hand shall we. But the point is that the indigenous people WERE displaced en masse, albeit over fifteen or twenty generations... No, my understanding of the word displaced is 'moved elsewhere'. While some indigenous peoples may have chosen (or were forced) to move elsewhere it seems from the study in question that many (most?) stayed where they were and either diminished in numbers or became 'assimilated' (or both). What kind of "respect" do you imagine the Anglos had for the Welisc religion(s)? Dunno really, but I'd hazard a guess they were pretty tolerant (as were the Romans before them with regard to different religions). After all, why upset the local gods? That kind of intolerance only really came in with Christianity. In the hinterlands, old wives would have been leaving tat by the wells as their mothers had done forever. Tat? Tat is something people visiting ancient sites leave today. I doubt that things left in ancient times would have been seen as tat, and you seem to be slipping again into a slightly disrespectful way of describing the ancient people of these lands and their activities (I wonder why you do that?). So much history, all muddled up! I think you should have stopped with your, "So much history, so little time!" That was good :-) History is a glorious amalgam of everything - describing it as muddled or tangled shows more the makeup of the 'historian' than of the history ;-) Reply | with quote |  23rd July 2006ce 21:56 In reply to: Re: Rocks? (BuckyE) |
Messages in this topic: |
|