Sub roman Britain revisited

[Erpingham]

Surely his approach should be to bin the written stuff as unreliable and just go on the archaeology

A touch harsh, perhaps?  I get the impression, though, that he is not doing what he should be doing and explaining why he relies on some written sources and discards others. 

[Imperial Dave]

Firmly tongue in cheek..... but I agree that to dismiss sources without too much explanation is odd to say the least

[Erpingham]

Firmly tongue in cheek..... but I agree that to dismiss sources without too much explanation is odd to say the least

Particularly as he is a retired academic scientist, who ought to be better at handling evidence. 

[Imperial Dave]

Regardless to say that the subsequent chapters do offer up some good arguments and proposals so all is not lost

[Jim Webster]

Firmly tongue in cheek..... but I agree that to dismiss sources without too much explanation is odd to say the least

There does seem to be a tendency, perhaps especially in this period, of dismissing as hopelessly wrong those sources that you cannot get to fit the story you have decided is the right one. Given the nature of a lot of the sources, this is probably done more easily than in some more respectable and better documented periods 

But it does rather smack of being the Academic equivalent of shooting the bearer of bad news 

With apologies to Dorothy Parker

Gildas pains you;
Nennius is damp;
Plagiarism stains you;
Archaeology causes cramp.
Literacy criticism is loaded;
Colleagues will taunt;
Arthur is outmoded;
Publish what you want.

[Imperial Dave]

Rather apt Jim. 

[CarlL]

Jim
Those Chinese cracker riddles are great...... Did you get them from Wu Rothschild & co......
CarlL (with tongue firmly in cheek)

[Nick Harbud]

I found this book by Birgitta Hoffmann contained quite a good description of what both written sources and archaeology can tell us about Roman Britain and their limitations.

[nikgaukroger]

There has been a quite interesting series of podcasts on the History Extra podcast about the end of Roman Britain. Maybe not quite what the book mentioned at the start of this topic is about but could be useful - the penultimate episode has some interesting stuff on isotope analysis and some hints on DNA analysis work.

Google Podcast link to History Extra - https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5hY2FzdC5jb20vcHVibGljL3Nob3dzLzQwM2I4MDNkLTdkMGItNDlhNi1hZTY4LWNiMGEzN2I4Y2Q1Zg?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjJlPy4mKr5AhVJ8BoKHQd4AOQQ9sEGegQIARAS

Link to the episode I mentioned - https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5hY2FzdC5jb20vcHVibGljL3Nob3dzLzQwM2I4MDNkLTdkMGItNDlhNi1hZTY4LWNiMGEzN2I4Y2Q1Zg/episode/NjJkMTJlNTBhZTcwNGUwMDExNjYzNzNl?sa=X&ved=0CAUQkfYCahcKEwjI75a5mKr5AhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQLA

[Anton]

Lots of interesting stuff there Nik.  Thank you.

[Imperial Dave]

Brilliant thanks

[Imperial Dave]

finished the book now. Not as long as I thought it would be. Also more readable than I feared after the first chapter or 2. I will do a write up for Slingshot (probably) and the gist of the summary is that it does throw up some very interesting points and bits of data that dont normally do the rounds in other books on the same subject and period. The majority of the book covers the 'Roman' period with less focus and detail on the pre and post elements. The title of the book therefore feels a little bit engineered to appeal to a wider audience. It reminds me of the old Monty Python sketch that had a David Attenborough-esque character looking for the bricks that the ancients Britons used to build Stonehenge...

In some respects it is too short a book to deal adequately with all of the points that the author raises (some of which are very good points indeed and deserve more in-depth analysis). In other respects the book is too superficial and feels a bit rushed with conclusions that are definitive and not speculative (had to, must have, did etc). There are a lot of recycled ideas and information from other examinations of the period and the area the author really shines a new light is when he deals with genetic markers and population transitions/transplantations/amalgamations.

In summary, people may be of the opinion I didnt like the book. Au contrair Blackadder, I actually found the book really accessible and a pleasure to read. Not dry in the slightest and keeping away from the heavy duty commentaries on secular/religious frictions or wild speculations about battle lists etc was a breath of fresh air. There were some genuinely interesting proposals in the book and some very useful analogies and comparisons employed to make valid points. I would like to have seen a bit more on the post Roman analysis/discourse and some acknowledgement of primary sources as potentially useful (even if believed to be unreliable). Its not perfect but it is up to date and fresh enough in ideas and current thinking to be of use to students and fans of -the period. Just dont expect the usual fare on the subject matter and dont look for post-Roman heroes, there are not there

[Anton]

Very good, I look forward to reading your thoughts on it.

[Imperial Dave]

I'll probably reread it to get the extra depth (it normally takes a couple of readings for me to fully explore a book rather than read and miss a few things)

[Anton]

I'll probably reread it to get the extra depth (it normally takes a couple of readings for me to fully explore a book rather than read and miss a few things)

Not just you.  I also like to do that.