> >> would have been a strong Anglo-Saxon (most likely Angle) influence
> >Weren t the Angle s mostly destroyed, as Paul as said after Carham in
> >1018? Nothing remains of the Anlog-Saxon heptarquey?
> Yes, the _effective fighting force_ of the Angles would have been
> defeated after this battle. But, as in most things, a victory in the
> field did not necessarily mean that there was a purging of the land of
> these people (something which is very difficult to do, even in modern
> times--though it's been tried).
Well, you can't have it both ways - either the Angles invaded but
didn't shift the rural populace of Celts, and then the Angles were
driven out, also not shifting the rural populace of Celts OR the
Angles killed, enslaved, or drove out the Celts, and were then
themselves killed, enslaved, and driven out by the Scots...either
way, the outcome is that the majority of people, even in eastern
lowland Scotland, were basicly Celts after Carham.
I tend to think "purging" the land was a bit easier to achieve in the
dark ages than now - houses were easier to build, people had less to
carry, and therefore less to hold them to a place, and because
populations were relatively low, they had somewhere thay could go. In
this case, the distances involved are also fairly short, so if I were
an Anglian peasant and there were armies of rampaging Picts and Scots
running around having destroyed my army, I'd pack up and walk south
for a few days rather than hang around and take my chances!!!