Thank you. Glad you enjoyed it!

Thanks a lot!!

I'm glad it did!! Thank you for subscribing and I'm glad you like my work!

A lot of those teraces are neolithic but is need to look into it! Could be Roman Iron Age! I'm really glad you enjoy the content and how it's developed!

Well I'm a bit biased towards the North so we balanced out :)

Possible but I would need to look at the items, if you search for the Rhynie man and look at his sholder youll see the tool. I affectionaly call it the Bonkstick 600.

Thank you and I hope you enjoy it here!

Thank you! Glad it ticks the boxes for a fellow Northumberian/Frisian!

Glad you enjoyed it

I think there's going to be evidence of continuous use in the future.

Older buildings are a rich source of buildiing materials for new ones. It makes sense to reuse sites without implying any continuity of purpose.

@@kubhlaikhan2015 If a site has a "use" its normally for a reason, Fresh water, defence etc. Until that Use is redundant then not much point in not keep using it. Many cities in history got destroyed in war but got rebuilt. The site was obviously useful. Even some plague villages got reused...

@@davidsoulsby1102 I'm saying that the reuse of a site - whether in the same way or a different way - doesn't really tell us anything. Continual use of a castle doesn't tell us who was inside it, rebuilding of houses in a different style doesn't mean they weren't the same ethnic group following a newer fashion. Personally I am very sceptical about the way modern historians use the term "Anglo-Saxons" as if they were a foreign people with foreign ideas. There is no sound evidence for the Germanic replacement hypothesis, no sound rationale either. Anglosaxon was just a new pidgin language adopted for trade and educational purposes after the routes to Rome were blocked by civil war. Even estimates of the number of people who spoke it before the Norman period are tenuous and unproven. Sadly, most of our history is a collection of myths of dubious origin that still likes to pretend it is "scientific". I don't see it.

@@kubhlaikhan2015 rubbish

Thank you!

Thanks a lot! Means a lot from you guys!

Thank you!

Thank you, got a couple more about hillforts and working on some more Roman episodes for the fututre. If you have anything you are intrested in I always take feedback, but it may be a while before you see it! Alex

Good to know!! Hope you enjoy the content and please do chat in the comments, I do try to communicate with you all!

Thank you

Thank you!

Haha! Thank you! Got to practice that!

Thank you so much!!

Thank you!

Perhaps St Aidan was not preaching in a desert when he arrived in Northumberland. Maybe not to the converted but possibly to people who were already familiar with Christianity through their native British population.

You are welcome! It's always good to revisit a text and look at it again. Also I think the lines of Briton and Anglo-Saxon were probably a lot more blurred!

I'd think so. I'm sure some were pleased that there was going to be a more structured church operating again. Or even for the first time. We don't know how the Romans delt with it other than the fact there's a lot of British Christian kingdoms in the 5th and 6th century.

Bede's problem with the Britons was not just the mutual animosity, but the Celtic Church was heretical to the Roman Catholic, with some different practices. This included calendrical annomilies, setting Easter out of sinque with the Roman year, but also liturgical & practical differences. Bede considered this to be backward & almost unchristian, meaning its followers were little better than pagans. If they would not conform to the Roman standard then they remained outside of the true Church, & thereto the 'Civilised' world, & beyond the hope of Heaven.

@@danielferguson3784 You got there 19 minutes before me! Yet another case of the Wrong sort of Christian!

Incredibly generous of you thanks again!

Thank you!

I really want to take some time to think about seasonality and settlements. Its facinating and really important to be able to understand how people interacted with the landscape!

@@AlexIlesUK well you can’t grow crops in the fall and winter. People typically gather all summer long into the fall nuts. There are also seasonal fishing opportunities. Gathering eggs from rookeries and things like that everything they did prior to agriculture would have depended on seasons. Also you can store food underground with ice. The American Indians dried Bison meat in the sun and with smoke. Hunter gatherers would have food caches. Even before pottery. The Ancestors of the Navajo built granaries in cliffs. Other strategies include platforms or hanging from trees. The summers would have been spent putting up stores for the winter. Modern urban people don’t appreciate canning and freezers. Food had to be stored without jars, cans, bottles or refrigerated. If we were to have a huge catastrophe urban populations would not know how to survive a single year. The survivors would be farmers and hunter gatherers.

Thank you!!

There's so much Archeology around there - at least ten henges and lots more yet to be discovered!

Thank you.

Thank you!

I would need to read more to comment more on those, but yes there were germanic peoples in Roman service.

It is so true isn't it! A good site invites people back even if it's hundreds of years apart

I would suggest anytihng by George Jobey as a starting point: archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/library/browse/personDetails.xhtml?personId=6694 After that, theres a couple of options - hope this helps. I have put URL's below: archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/library/browse/issue.xhtml?recordId=1165590 archaeology.co.uk/articles/features/pontelands-prehistoric-past.htm archaeologicalresearchservices.com/product/ancient_northumberland/

Sorry for the Northumbrian costal plane - this link: www.arbsoc.org.uk/IronAge

I keep meaning to do a video on that dig! It's on the list of things to do!

Thank you. Yes in a BC/AD man

Yes, do you like it? Trying some new things.

@@AlexIlesUK I do!

I think Early Medieval is really helpful for a number of reasons. Firslty it shows it was not a clean break when the Normans invaded. The systems that they inherited were already established - else it sweeps under the rug six hundred years of developement, conflict, mixing and the establishment of the various peoples of the British isles. Early medeival is also helpful as it shows that there are a lot of diffrent people, from the British in the North and West, the Picts in Northen and Eastern Scotland, the Irish in Western Scotland (the Scotti) the Welsh and their interactions with the Mercians. It also alows for studies into the Frisians, Franks, Danes, Norwegians and other peoples who also settled into the British isles or interacted with it. Its a very useful term. What I will never use is Early English like some American academics use because thats just wrong and causes a lot more damage than they will ever realise.

@@AlexIlesUK If your subject is the Anglo_Saxons, ie the people who saw themselves as different to Irish, Welsh etc then use Anglo-Saxon, if its purely about a time period, covering a range of peoples, then use early medieval. Otherwise stop using "irish", "Viking" or any of the other thousands of name conventions. The fact certain people are attempting to change the use is not for academic reasons, we know that..... Because if you do fall into step with these people you are not being honest, Anglo-Saxon by definition is a mix of people from both side of the North Sea. Nobody ever assumes there is a definite time when a people changed. The same argument applies when you get Irish Republicans blaming the English for invading Ireland. As you well know it was not an English King but a Norman Frenchman who happened to hold the English Crown, who used Norman nobles to force Anglo-saxons to fight. There was even 2 languages used. But people with a view to push ignore this, thats also the point in the use of Early Medieval to replace Anglo-Saxon. You know that to be the case. You mentioned the Yamnia, we don't even know for sure who, where how many or if they were one group. If its good enough for them its good enough for the Anglo-Saxons... don't be part of the deliberate sowing of division.

@@AlexIlesUK I have to agree. One term is used as a time period and the other distinguishes different peoples, culture. Enjoyed, thanks

I am not in step with these people, and I am being honest. I have studied this and it is not a culture war point. It is making sure we are nuanced. What you are doing by saying that is creating an 'us or them' point of view which does not help when we come to the study of this period. I think we are coming at this from different points of view and I have gone into depth above as to why I use early Medieval - one key reason is that we are putting these ethnic toponyms onto people from that period based on our classification of items, buildings and even modern classifications of aDNA. We do not know how they viewed their culture or their ethnicities and if we are not careful we are putting our modern point of view onto ancient populations based on Victorian identifications of items and settlements as well as historical texts from the period. We need to look at how they were interacting and how there are differences even in areas like England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. Then we get the colourful and brilliant pictures of borderlands and the interaction between people that make up our history. I get you trying to suggest that with your statement of 'Nobody ever assumes there is a definite time when a people changed.' but with the rest of your comment it ultimately becomes lines on the map coloured in with nice neat 'Anglo-Saxon', 'Irish', 'Danish' and 'British' blocks like all the maps you can google online. I don't think the Irish parallel is useful as you are bringing in another very weighted and emotionally charged period of history to make a point. There's a good argument for not using Irish or Viking either to define things as exactly that. I will use Anglo-Saxon, Viking, British and Irish when it's useful and appropriate but it's the early medieval period on this channel (roughly AD 410- AD 1066) or late antiquity (AD 250- AD 750) to describe this period of time when I need to be more specific. Best wishes, Alex

My good sir, we're an endangered species. The reason I'm Alex Iles UK is because there's an American Jazz player and an Austrian make-up artist! Wanted to make sure people were getting the right Iles!

Indeed we are. Coincidentally my middle name is Alex!

So, can we learn something new that we didn't know before?

We don't learn "What Happened" in a once and forever way. We work out what happened by putting the evidence together, but as time goes on we add new evidence and find we have to discard other elements and come up with different interpretations. There's no unchanging "Oxford History of Northumberland" to which we must genuflect. So in that way "History" does change. Plato might have thought there was an unchanging "Real History," behind all that, but as we have as yet no time machines we have no access to it.

Very well put @faithlesshound5621

If we weren't there, we don't know and rely on evidence. The more evidence is uncovered, the theories have to change. That's the evolution. It's a sad day when we stop looking because someone likes the narrative the way it is. That would be the death knell of the enquiring mind.

Have you watched the episode?

Thank you!