To the BBC I suppose but this is to criticise and question a common myth often perpetuated as fact regarding 'English' conversion to Christianity in the years after the Romans departed.

Specifically the BBC's programme about the Staffordshire Hoard suggested England at the time was strongly pagan with the leaders of the various 'Anglo-Saxon' kingdoms being gradually 'converted to Christianity' which 'brought writing and laws'. Again, specifically the hypothesis that the hoard's existence suggested conflict between possibly pagan Mercia and a neighbouring Christian faction, possibly one of the Welsh kingdoms.

But there are two narratives going on here. The first describes how the Roman Empire, which included much of Britain, became officially Christian. Further, the records of the Roman Church describe how a Saint Germanus was sent here after or during the end of the Roman period in Britain to preach against the teachings of a monk known as Pelagius. The second describes how when the Romans left, the Britons forgot how to speak [and presumably read!] Latin and adopted the Nordic/Germanic religion of the incoming Anglo-Saxons.

I think the question is not when Christianity was introduced to these islands but when Christianity was accepted among the common people and I think in some sense this was a lot more recent and probably during the Reformation and the religious wars in Europe. Yet in the same sense, strictly speaking Biblical Law was practiced by the Anglo-Saxons before the reign of Alfred.

We know from records that the Anglo-Saxons practices blood feuds. We also know that fugitives where entitled to sanctuary in churches in the later medieval period. These two 'laws' are mentioned in the Bible. The Bible states that if an individual commits murder a member of the victims family is entitled to murder the murderer. But a person who commits murder is also entitled to sanctuary.More importanly, the duty or entitlement of a family member to excact lethal revenge for murder would be the logical starting point for any blood feud.

So, we have a Biblical/Christian justification for common practices during the Dark Ages and yet we are told no-one could read or speak Latin because everyone had forgotten to do so! Also, we are again lead to believe that the Romano-Brits forgot how to speak Latin (what evidence is there that they ever did?) and adopted the langauge of/were ethnically cleansed by the incoming Anglo-Saxons. Also we have the idea that the Romano-Brits also forgot their religion and adopted a new one and yet the teachings of Pelagius were considered so dangerous that the Roman Church felt in had to send an important religous figure to combat this heresy.

There are many myths and possible false narratives about the Dark Ages. It has even been suggested that the events between c.600 and c.900 CE never actually happened, that 300 years of history were effectively filled in or invented. But there is an 'invented' history when we are taking the Northumbrian's and the East Angle's word that they ethnically cleansed the East Britons and set up new kingdoms after the Romans departed. Ethnic cleansing and conquest could explain why Christianity was abandoned but do we really have to belive the Britons forgot Latin and learned Old English instead?

What if the Angles and Saxons, if they did come in large numbers, came with the Romans, possibly as mercenaries or auxilliaries during the 1st century and/or later in the 4ths century as confederati-bringing foreigers onto Roman soil in return for military service/protecting the borders? There is some evidence for this in English-sounding place names that date from before the Saxon period. There are no mass graves from the 5th century but the population of Briton before, during and after the Roman period dropped from four to two million,probably partly due to the Roman occupation, Britons being relocated elsewhere for military service or slave labour.

What really may be going on here is: what if the Staffordshire Hoard represents a conflict, or what would today probably be regarded as a civil war, between followers of Pelagius [who preached against the concepts of Original Sin and predestination] and those who could be regarded as 'Predestinationists'. Furthermore, what if historians such as Bede created a 'false narrative' of conquest and conversion to legitimise the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms on the east coast of England.