3 ms·
True not recent. But the Angles and the Saxons had their lands taken away, their language subverted and were repressed by the Norsemen... So not "recent" but a
by mc32 4y ago
True not recent. But the Angles and the Saxons had their lands taken away, their language subverted and were repressed by the Norsemen... So not "recent" but also not "ancient".
Incidentally a group known as the "diggers" did seek some redress from their successors.
In any event, bones are bones. I feel that after certain cut-off point, they become historical and are fair game for archeology. It's another story if it's an active or tended to graveyard --but if it's not known and is forgotten, then I think it's a fair archeological site.
- Tagbert 4y agoAnd 600 years before the Norman invasion it was the Angles, Jutes, and Saxons invading and displacing the Britains.
- mc32 4y agoYep, and Cornish and Manx... So, you know, it's just human activity. Which is why I think bones are bones and they should be treated the same.
- M2Ys4U 4y ago>So not "recent" but also not "ancient. Is the 11th century too recent to qualify as "ancient"? We're going back ~950 years here...
- mc32 4y agoMedieval, I would say. "Ancient" to me ends more or less with the fall of Rome (Not Constantinople).