Sub roman Britain revisited

[Jim Webster]

Presumably, the move away from using our limited contemporary resources and focussing on the science and the archaeology frees us of the need to have all the usual suspects - Arthur, Ambrosius, Vortigern etc .  Be interesting to see what the period specialists say.

It would be dangerous to completely ignore all of the written info pre the 8th C and rely solely on archaeology and DNA analysis, however meticulously analysed. It would be like historians 1500 years from now not having any written records and finding lots of bikes in old river courses and declaring that in the 20th C the main form of transport was the bike or worse still that they were votive offerings to river nymphs

It's obviously nonsense, the correct votive offerings to river nymphs are supermarket trolleys

[Imperial Dave]

Or curaghs that have sunk and the leather coverings have disintergrated

[nikgaukroger]

a quick look shows no 'ancient texts' or the usual suspects in the biblio. Also the mentions of things like Vortigern (0), Arthur (4), Gildas (2), Nennius (0), Bede (1), ASC (1) in the whole book shows a dramatic departure from the norm.

Intrigued but not necessarily imbued with high hopes at this point....

So unencumbered by the usual baggage and the frequent nonsense spouted about it - sounds like a positive recommendation to me.

[Imperial Dave]

it can be however I believe a combined approach is best. Done the 1st chapter and erm.....hoping it gets better

[Anton]

a quick look shows no 'ancient texts' or the usual suspects in the biblio. Also the mentions of things like Vortigern (0), Arthur (4), Gildas (2), Nennius (0), Bede (1), ASC (1) in the whole book shows a dramatic departure from the norm.

Intrigued but not necessarily imbued with high hopes at this point....

So unencumbered by the usual baggage and the frequent nonsense spouted about it - sounds like a positive recommendation to me.

I don't know about that Nick judging from the short review.

"Lambshead said there was no evidence for an Anglo-Saxon invasion, and this would have been beyond the organisational and technological capabilities of 5th and 6th century Germans with only rowing boats for the crossing."

"He infers that population pressure in the 7th and 8th centuries caused the Anglo-Saxons, who had in the meantime developed hierarchical societies with kings and warrior elites, to seize land from the impoverished and less organised Britons."

All seems familiar.

[Imperial Dave]

the first chapter is pretty black and white according to the author. There was no invasion/migration event pre 8thC. But rather than say it may have been possible but unlikely or it may have happened in small groupings in areas with low local control, its a no and it just didnt happen at all etc.....

[Erpingham]

the first chapter is pretty black and white according to the author. There was no invasion/migration event pre 8thC. But rather than say it may have been possible but unlikely or it may have happened in small groupings in areas with low local control, its a no and it just didnt happen at all etc.....

So he goes for an extreme acculturation model?  All alien elements in the archaeological assemblage prior to the 8th century are changes in fashion but the population remains British?   Interestingly radical.  Presumably, he has a rationale for discarding the various textual sources?

[Imperial Dave]

there are some interesting observations on highland v lowland areas and the differences culturally and militarily plus a comparison with similar area in Europe at the time. However, the main thrust to lay the context is that invaders didnt possess enough suitable ships/boats to have 'an invasion' and so thats that, the incomers and the British lived side by side and didnt mix till later. Small groupings of people may have arrived bit by bit over the years but this wasnt significant numerically or politically until muuuuuch later.

I will have a read of chapter 2 later 

[aligern]

Sounds more than a little nonsensical. Why would the Empire build forts along the Channel shores? How come we have the Saxons of Bayeux who come to fight with Aetius?
Cornish gig boats, which are about the same size as an Anglian rowing boat are proppelled by oars and can happily make the trip to France under oars . Actually the emigrants in the Channel are a good example, in a year easily 30,000 of them cross. Do that for ten years and we have 300,000, easily enough to dominate the East coast of Britannia.
Roy

[Anton]

there are some interesting observations on highland v lowland areas and the differences culturally and militarily plus a comparison with similar area in Europe at the time. However, the main thrust to lay the context is that invaders didnt possess enough suitable ships/boats to have 'an invasion' and so thats that, the incomers and the British lived side by side and didnt mix till later. Small groupings of people may have arrived bit by bit over the years but this wasnt significant numerically or politically until muuuuuch later.

I will have a read of chapter 2 later 

Your updates as you go are appreciated Dave.  Thank you.

[Anton]

Sounds more than a little nonsensical. Why would the Empire build forts along the Channel shores? How come we have the Saxons of Bayeux who come to fight with Aetius?
Cornish gig boats, which are about the same size as an Anglian rowing boat are proppelled by oars and can happily make the trip to France under oars . Actually the emigrants in the Channel are a good example, in a year easily 30,000 of them cross. Do that for ten years and we have 300,000, easily enough to dominate the East coast of Britannia.
Roy

Yes, good points Roy.  There was also the possibility of hiring bigger Roman Merchant vessels to transport larger contingents.

[Imperial Dave]

Sounds more than a little nonsensical. Why would the Empire build forts along the Channel shores? How come we have the Saxons of Bayeux who come to fight with Aetius?
Cornish gig boats, which are about the same size as an Anglian rowing boat are proppelled by oars and can happily make the trip to France under oars . Actually the emigrants in the Channel are a good example, in a year easily 30,000 of them cross. Do that for ten years and we have 300,000, easily enough to dominate the East coast of Britannia.
Roy

Yes, good points Roy.  There was also the possibility of hiring bigger Roman Merchant vessels to transport larger contingents.

or nicking them....

[Anton]

I tend to agree Stephen. Early ascetic leanings gave way to a more prominent positions within society especially with the regard to the anointing of kings post 410AD and all that. Having said that, Britannia was more rooted in the duality of Christianity and secular authority imbued in the power structures before, during and after Roman control

I think that is right Dave. 

Koch, Charles-Edwards and Dark all envisage a successful mass programme of evangelism.  If Koch is right about St. Patrick's floreat it extends into the Old North up to the Firth of Forth and beyond. To the Picts and to Ireland.  No small undertaking.

It was a societal re organisation and the building blocks were the tribally inspired civitates.

It interests me is that there are distinct non-Christian elements to Irish and Welsh Law that pre date and survive the process.  These persisted, despite the hostility of the clerics from Gildas onwards.

I think of Gildas writing "The island was Roman in name only." and Zozimus telling us the Britons no longer recognised Roman Law reflects this.
 
I enjoyed re reading E.A Thompson's'82 piece.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/638584?read-now=1&seq=4#page_scan_tab_contents&target=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanN0b3Iub3Jn

[Jim Webster]

I think he doth protest too much with no migrants.
We know the  Alamannic king Chrocus proclaimed Constantine Emperor, we know that Franks served under Carausius and Allectus.

It is unlikely that there were no 'Germanic' infantry serving in Britain under the late Empire.

[Imperial Dave]

I am now a 3rd of the way into the book. The author has now decided to treat us to combined analysis of roman Britain from the 1st century onwards relying on.....written records. Surely his approach should be to bin the written stuff as unreliable and just go on the archaeology