Looks interesting
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-38679324
This is connected with the launch of the book discussed in our earlier thread http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=2218.msg25528 - I've got it on order.
I'll be interested in your thoughts on it Duncan at the appropriate time
Koch places Rheged in Cumbria with the heart land in the Eden Valley. Tim Clarkson who champions Rheged in Galloway discusses it briefly in a recent blog. If memory serves TC now thinks his is a minority view.
I am strangely ambivalent on this thorny issue Anton, and open to persuasion. However, I am more tending to the 'traditionalist' view (along with Koch) that it is South of the wall but that doesnt completely rule out Rheged sprawling over a wide area and possibly beyond the wall as well.
Probably the closest approximation to hand
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/Northumbria.rise.600.700.jpg (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/Northumbria.rise.600.700.jpg)
I think it was Koch who postulated that Northern Britain (as a diocese) fractured in the twighlight of the Late Roman period into Deifr, Bryneich, Rheged, plus associated areas north of the wall with lots of in fighting between these areas before the Angles took over
Likewise, I would find a 'southern' Rheged more in keeping with what we know. TC's 'northern' Rheged is perfectly feasible as the expansion of the Strathclyde kings shows but I suspect it was otherwise. That Rheged held territory beyond the Solway seems real enough.
There was some discussion of Corbridge as the civates centre of Bryneich but I lost track of it.
possibly a fracturing of a 'greater Rheged' into 2 areas - one below the (Hadrians) Wall and the other between the 2 walls?
May be so, I suppose it would ultimately go back to the northern Brigantian border wherever that was.
its not absolutely certain but it would make sense that territories would tend to lineate around the 2 walls
ie north of the Antonine wall - 'free' Britons/Picts/Caledones/Scotti etc
between the walls of Antonine and Hadrian - tribal Britons either allied to Rome or hostile but certainly influenced by them and carrying through a militarised society into our period
below Hadrians Wall - our sub Roman Britons laced with laeti/foederati
https://www.archaeology.co.uk/articles/features/rheged-rediscovered-uncovering-a-lost-british-kingdom-in-galloway.htm
a shortened version of the article in CA 327
I enjoyed that Holly, thank you. It occurs to me that setting up symbol stones seems to have been a declaration of presence and status.
As an aside the Wiseman article I was looking for is called:
A British legion stationed near Orléans c. 530? Evidence for Brittonic military activity in late antique Gaul in Vita Sancti Dalmatii
and other sources
Howard M. Wiseman
Centre for Quantum Dynamics,
Griffith University
I have a hard copy but cannot find it online.
I think dark mentions boundary stones rivers palaces as junctions between kingdoms of sub roman britain
Quote from: Anton on May 06, 2017, 04:22:18 PM
As an aside the Wiseman article I was looking for is called:
A British legion stationed near Orléans c. 530? Evidence for Brittonic military activity in late antique Gaul in Vita Sancti Dalmatii
and other sources
Howard M. Wiseman
Centre for Quantum Dynamics,
Griffith University
Ah, you mean this one (https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au/handle/10072/43272)? I do not think it is online, but if you asked Prof Wiseman I am sure he could make a digital copy available. His email address is on this page (http://www.ict.griffith.edu.au/wiseman/), under the Address section.
Thank you Patrick.
It's online at http://www.ict.griffith.edu.au/wiseman/DECB/Wiseman-Dalmas-JAEMA.pdf
Thanks Duncan.
slightly OT, but that article mentions Procopius stating that Britons were settling in Brittany along with Angles and Frisians. Not read that before. Not sure whether that means 'together' or in separate groups or in conflict or not....
Intriguingly, Justin previously covered much of this in forum discussion and a Slingshot article.
Quote from: Holly on May 08, 2017, 06:43:55 AM
slightly OT, but that article mentions Procopius stating that Britons were settling in Brittany along with Angles and Frisians. Not read that before. Not sure whether that means 'together' or in separate groups or in conflict or not....
What Procopius says is:
Quote from: Wars 8.20.6-10Three very populous nations inhabit the Island of Brittia, and one king is set over each of them. And the names of these nations are Angles, Frisians, and Britons who have the same name as the island. So great apparently is the multitude of these peoples that every year in large groups they migrate from there with their women and children and go to the Franks. And they [the Franks] are settling them in what seems to be the more desolate part of their land, and as a result of this they say they are gaining possession of the island. So that not long ago the king of the Franks actually sent some of his friends to the Emperor Justinian in Byzantium, and despatched with them the men of the Angles, claiming that this island [Britain], too, is ruled by him. Such then are the matters concerning the island called Brittia.
So Brittany/Armorica is not named, but inferred from the presence of Britons. See http://www.vortigernstudies.org.uk/artsou/procop.htm for discussion of names.
Presumably the groups are not "in conflict", since P says they're all being settled under Frankish patronage. Compare Gregory of Tours for the
Saxones Bajocassini settled in Normandy
again, slightly OT, I did read in Dark's Civitas to Kingdom that there is a suggestion that inhabitants of (mainly lowland) Britain in the 5th/6th/7th C could be grouped together as 'Saxons' in the widest term but encompasing all sub nationalities including native Britons. ie a political grouping
Just a thought as the Procopius passage seems to imply specific 'nationalities' - an interesting notion. Were the Saxons more federate and the Angles/Jutes less so or the other way around. Always intrigued me why Saxons is a common term but we end up with Angles/English
I wonder if Procopius' "Frisians" might be other authors' "Saxons"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisii suggests that the ancient Frisian population collapsed, as a result of Roman deportations plus rising sea levels, and by the 5th century Frisia was practically depopulated. Then
QuoteAs soon as conditions improved, Frisia received an influx of new settlers, mostly from regions later characterized as Saxon, and these would eventually be referred to as 'Frisians', though they were not necessarily descended from the ancient Frisii.
Doesn't explain the later preference for Anglian over Saxonish, but might help reconcile various listings of migrant nations.
Hm. Whoever wrote the WP piece doesn't think Prokopios' note counts as a mention of the ancient Frisians, because of the unreliability of some of his other data on "Brittia". But presumably the remnant populations attested archaeologically (The 6C is before the time given for the arrival of the "new Frisians") must have been known by some name(s) and "Frisii" seems the obvious candidate.
But I guess it's entirely possible that Prokopios was archaicizing, figuring that whatever Greek version of "Frisians" he was using could be applied to the Saxons of his day just like how "Scythians" could be applied to latter steppe nomads of whatever ethnic origin.
I tend to the view that in the longer term the Anglian polities succeeded in Britannia while the Saxon ones failed to prosper. So we end up with 'Angland' rather than some Saxon inspired name.
The Celtic practice of calling all Germanic communities Saxons muddies the waters as does the eventual rise of Wessex. From what we can see it seems to me that the protracted conquest of Britannia was mainly an Anglian achievement emanating out of East Anglia.
Interesting, as it is Wessex that ultimately triumphs and unifies the country. Anglian kings only acheive primus inter pares status, with other states as tributary. Wessex gets to be the site of the political capital and when the Danes attack again it is Wessex that hold out longest and is the heart of the kingdom in 1066.
My suggested theory is that the move to the use of England and English is a smart move by Alfred the Great, who needed to bring English Mercia on board and hence flattered the Mercians by giving them primacy in language and naming the hew nation that Alfred intended. At the time east Anglia was held by Danes, as was Deira and the five boroughs dominated Danish Mercia so there was no political strength in the Angles, but the accession of English Mercia made Wessex the strongest power in the island and the price Alfred willingly paid for that was 'naming rights'.
Roy
Quote from: aligern on May 08, 2017, 10:06:57 PMMy suggested theory is that the move to the use of England and English is a smart move by Alfred the Great
Surely the usage is already established by Bede's
Historia Ecclesisatica Gentis Anglorum,and his use of phrases such as "
ab aduentu uero Anglorum in Brittaniam". The most Alfred did is not try to change it.
Bede was an Anglian writing in an Anglian kingdom. What any theory of Angle and Saxon as rival names has to account for is why one group or the other would dominate...or at least its nane and language label would stand for the whole. At the monent I do not see that this unifying action occurred before the post Great Army settlement. By what mechanism sm would successful Wessex become Anglian?
Roy
Do we know when Continental languages started using "England", "Angleterre", etc. for the whole?
drifted slightly off topic but I am more than interested in this :)
Quote from: aligern on May 08, 2017, 11:45:10 PM
Bede was an Anglian writing in an Anglian kingdom. What any theory of Angle and Saxon as rival names has to account for is why one group or the other would dominate...or at least its nane and language label would stand for the whole. At the monent I do not see that this unifying action occurred before the post Great Army settlement. By what mechanism sm would successful Wessex become Anglian?
For your theory to work, you would need to demonstrate a difference in usage between Anglian and Saxon regions pre-Alfred. Can you? Bede was read throughout England, so I see no reason at the moment to doubt that his usage was common.
Just for the fun of it, looking at the list of Bretwalda a pattern emerges.
Aelle of the South Saxons is thought a likely candidate for the losing side at Badon. Presumably he was a Saxon. Sussex never becomes a major kingdom.
Ceawlin of Wessex, grandson of Cerdic. He is a leader of Saxons otherwise the Cerdic story would not have survived. Then again, I'd say talk of Wessex is premature until the laws of Ine, and Ceawlin like his father and grandfather was leading an Atrebate successor state with a Saxon component tied to the royal house.
Aethelberht of Kent leads an unusual kingdom according to the sources. A Jutish military aristocracy emerges from a foedus with Votigern. Kent is contested by its original possessors, hammered by Cerdic and his immediate successors and seems to have accepted Frankish over lordship. It never becomes a major kingdom. Was Aethelberht a Saxon or a Jute?
Raedwald of East Anglia is the first Anglian Bretwalda and seems to have exercised considerable power. It is from Raedwald's realm that Mercia and Northumbria eventually come into being.
Edwin, Oswald and Oswiu of Northumbria are all Anglian Bretwalda.
On the face of it this is a story of Anglian achievement. I'd imagine all of the Germanic communities were very aware of what had happened.
Wessex only comes to the fore when every other Kingdom had collapsed before the Danish onslaught and well after the contest with the British for the ownership of lowland Britain was settled.
nice round up Stephen.
Am still going through Dark's book at the mo. Its a bit stop and start. In some ways I think he could have written a much more expansive book
No I would not have to demonstrate a difference in usage between the Anglian kingdoms and the Saxon and Jutish ones. Bede ascribes them 'nationalities' . That leads to a natural pepresumption that those with Saxon nanes for their kingdoms are in some way different from the Anglian ones.mAt some point they have to come together.nCan Duncan or anyone else show that in the Saxon areas they thought of themselves as English or speaking English before Alfred. If there is good evidence then Zi am only too happy to accept it. If not then Alfred is a natural point for the creayion of an English identity because he was incorporating Mercia.
Roy
Thanks Dave.
I agree that Dark could have written a bigger book, that said he has given us something very useful which might be best digested one chapter at a time after the initial read. It's certainly one I keep going back to.
His plebian religious revolution, if we can call it that, interests me. Some of the subsequent bigger Christian developments like Bangor and Iona seem to me to be emulation of the Eastern Roman symbiosis between Church and State. If Gildas (Koch thinks he was based in Bangor) is read from that perspective we have a very political cleric indeed, and Iona endlessly involved itself in politics on both islands.
The West Saxon Laws of Ine (cap.24) mention "Engliscmon" (possibly in opposition to the "Wealh" of the previous clause) not a "Saecson"; and (cap.74), "If a Welsh slave slays an Engliscne mon". So West Saxons are "Englisc" even c. 700.
Quote from: Anton on May 09, 2017, 07:53:08 PM
Thanks Dave.
I agree that Dark could have written a bigger book, that said he has given us something very useful which might be best digested one chapter at a time after the initial read. It's certainly one I keep going back to.
His plebian religious revolution, if we can call it that, interests me. Some of the subsequent bigger Christian developments like Bangor and Iona seem to me to be emulation of the Eastern Roman symbiosis between Church and State. If Gildas (Koch thinks he was based in Bangor) is read from that perspective we have a very political cleric indeed, and Iona endlessly involved itself in politics on both islands.
I think I will definitely have to go back and reread one chapter at a time (and not necessarily in the book order). The book feels like a series of essays
Unfirtunately the first text of the Laws of Ine is an appendix to the Laws of Alfred. Hence it is possible that they were updated to conform to the ethnogenetic project that Alfred was engaged in.
Bede is interesting, his work is a history of the English people, it is dedicated to the Mercian Ceolwulf, it is heavily concerned with the Northumbrian (Anglian) church. He equivocated between the English and calling the remote Southerners Saxons. He also makes a point about the distinct nature of the Jutes. It may be that the Germanic states all identified their language as English, or even saw their ethnicity as English, but if so Bede equivocates and calls his West Saxons just that, West Saxons. It may be that at the time there was just not the developed vocabulary to define West Saxons as members of a separate kingdom. Given that there was a substantial mixing of German types, including perhaps Scandinavians in East Anglia and that all the heptarchy states contained lots of Britons, some long Germanicised, some recently assimilated, then attributing kingdoms to Angle, Saxon or Jute is a brutal generalisation.
Roy
What intrigues me is why Alfred would wish to redesignate his realm as 'English' when the bulk, perhaps the entirety, of ethnic Angles were left under the Danelaw.
Quote from: aligern on May 09, 2017, 10:29:31 PM
Unfirtunately the first text of the Laws of Ine is an appendix to the Laws of Alfred. Hence it is possible that they were updated to conform to the ethnogenetic project that Alfred was engaged in.
Not impossible, but generally considered unlikely:
Quote... the 'appendix', which purports to have been issued two centuries before Alfred's code by King Ine of Wessex (688-726), contradicts Alfred's own law on several occasions. ... Furthermore, given the existence of these contradictions, one must question whether Alfred ever intended Ine's code to be read as an integral part of his own law-book.
...
The diction, syntax and substance of the Ine appendix all suggest an unmodified seventh century provenance ...
from Dammery's edition of Alfred's code at https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/251507
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on May 10, 2017, 08:57:27 AM
What intrigues me is why Alfred would wish to redesignate his realm as 'English' when the bulk, perhaps the entirety, of ethnic Angles were left under the Danelaw.
That seems reasonably natural to me: by presenting him as an English king - or, perhaps more to the point, as
the English king - he's in effect telling those Angles/English under Danish rule that their natural allegiance is with him.
What's more interesting to me is that his Saxon subjects apparently had no objections. That's unsurprising if the West Saxons were already accustomed to thinking of themselves as a subset of a larger English nation, but if English and Saxon had previously been coordinate entities, he's in effect telling his key supporters that they should switch their ethnic/tribal identity for that of their neighbours. That seems an unlikely and dangerous route when Anglian
sensu stricto fortunes were at a nadir.
Angles, Jutes and Saxons seem to have spoken, more or less, the same language and operated under the same social system and law codes. Their non Germanic neighbors saw them as different parts of the same thing and named them after the first such group they had encountered.
I'm inclined to see the Angle, Jute and Saxon political units in the same way as I'd view the various Celtic ones below the Antonine Wall, there might be dynastic differences of origin(for both) but there seems to be a continuum of identity operating.
Quote from: Anton on May 10, 2017, 10:58:17 AM
Angles, Jutes and Saxons seem to have spoken, more or less, the same language and operated under the same social system and law codes. Their non Germanic neighbors saw them as different parts of the same thing and named them after the first such group they had encountered.
I'm inclined to see the Angle, Jute and Saxon political units in the same way as I'd view the various Celtic ones below the Antonine Wall, there might be dynastic differences of origin(for both) but there seems to be a continuum of identity operating.
in other words the comparison is
British (post Roman) sub groups are bundled up as 'British/Britons' and later as Welsh but when we drill down they are regionalised (as per pre and post roman tribal groupings - some of which come through the 'Roman period' intact) by some. Why should the Angles/Saxons/Jutes/Franks be any different. During the Roman period, all Germanics may have been referred to as 'Saxons' and then as the Post Roman period progressed other tribal/regional groupings may have come through more strongly.
QuoteDuring the Roman period, all Germanics may have been referred to as 'Saxons' and then as the Post Roman period progressed other tribal/regional groupings may have come through more strongly.
Or the Roman nomenclature continues among the Britons/Welsh but we see on the other side the concepts bought from the other side of the sea - that they identified collectively as Angles rather than Saxons but within that preserved tribal groupings of Saxons, Jutes and maybe Frisians (who Procopius, we recall, thought were involved in the channel settlements).
Do we have any positive evidence that the Saxons (in Britain) didn't think themselves English/Anglian at any period?
I was thinking about what happened to that other group of successful intruders-the Irish. We tend to think of Dal Riada when the Irish are mentioned in this context but there is much more to it.
Various Irish dynasties established themselves below the Wall leaving behind monumental and textual evidence that proclaimed their identity. Within a couple of generations they had become British mainly because there was no language barrier, and also a shared legal code and the same social structure and due to the British missionary effort they were fellow Christians. I'm also minded to think that the large areas of former Roman Garrison land available enabled accommodation without displacement.
For the British these people were soon seen as us, not them. As Gildas says of an Irish dynasty "bad son of a good king". Yet its clear their origin was not just forgotten, a stone proclaiming Ordovician identity on behalf of a man with an Irish name shows both identities in play. Also we have Koch's intriguing mention of Irish battle coats among the loot taken by Cynan in a raid on an Irish established polity.
If this perception of similarity worked between the incoming Irish and British then I'd say it would would work equally well among the incoming German peoples for pretty much the same reasons barring Christianity obviously.
I agree. Obviously as the 'heroic' period comes to a close, such diversification of tribal origins has started to fade away a little and it starts to become more 'us and them' by the 8th C ie Welsh/British vs Angles/Saxons vs Scots vs Irish in a polity sense not necessarily from a historical/ethnic sense
Yes, I think so too, the challenging thing is understanding how they got to that point.
I think Dark is on the right path and that polity splits originate along lowland/highland, Romanised vs semi (or non!) Romanised areas. The ethnicity that gets them there is almost an irrelevance
One area I would go with Guy Halsall in is that people have multiple identities and can choose which one suits them at a time. Identities are much easier to morph if the next one has the same language, religion and culture and history/ myth.
I am minded of Mrs Merkel who reacted to a question about the Scots Independence referendum by asking Why? to us you are all the same...and she was right. Differences held to quite fiercely may look insignificant to a foreigner. Identity is likely to be held to because it confers some benefit. Laeti and Ripenses and foederati turn up to support Aetius against Attila. Why do they do this? Well it is very likely that they hold teir lands by Roman law and by a contract with a Roman state that really no longer exists, except that it is the reason you cannot be just pushed off your farm. Similarly people claim to be Goths in ninth century Septimania, most likely because it gives tgem rights and duties in the civitas even though they are now speaking dog latin, Catholic Christian, pretty fully intermarried with the locals.
Do we know if the 'Saxons' in Britain ever described themselves as such? Is West Saxon merely a matterof geography? Why did it arise in the first place. Interestingly Mercia is not a a descriptor of a region of Anglia or a people of Anglian heritage, mYbe it was a more inclusive project, consciously taking in all those little groups in the tribal hideage and such more significant sections such as Hwicce and Gewissae?
I'm more inclined to see it as more nuanced. The lowland dynasties are under the greatest pressure but there seems plenty of evidence that they existed. They also should be the beneficaries of Dark's plebian religious revolt. They certainly don't succumb quickly.
I wonder about the great Imperial estates and there impact upon the emerging polities. Suddenly a lot of good land is up for grabs and what of those who worked it, were they free or unfree? Slavery seems to have been an active reality. Either way I'd expect the local grandees to grab it. How did this impact on military potential? Rich enough to hire soldiers and neglect native capability?
What of Penda? A Mercian pagan thoroughly allied to the British and amazingly if he ever had an Anglian name we don't know it. Could it be Dark's revolution was less far reaching than he thought and some British high status pagans survived and prospered?
Ethnicity always counts because it determines status and status is closely guarded because of the rights attached to it. We seem to have situations where differing ethnicities co existed and then situations where to be of the wrong ethnicity meant huge disadvantage in life.
Would there be any mileage in looking at anything to do with Papal references to this sceptred isle and seeing how it is referred to prior to Alfred? Do we in fact have any such references?
Gregory the Great, Non Anglii sed Angeli.......though they may have been Angles!
R
claimed ethnicity is important, true ethnicity much less so. Look at modern Britain. Anyone who claims to be British is British regardless of where they were born. Within a generation (which is not very long in the scheme of things), immigrants' sons and daughters are British even if they still adhere to some aspects of their culture.
Therefore I would say claimed culture is more important than ethnicity per se
Quote from: aligern on May 10, 2017, 08:28:39 PM
Interestingly Mercia is not a a descriptor of a region of Anglia
Isn't it? The name means basically "borderland" - isn't that very likely the borderland of Anglia?
I'm wary of analogies, especially modern ones.
Let's say that King Ines Welsh Horsemen would have found considerable benefit in claiming to be West Saxons but the law made it clear they couldn't change their ethnicity at will. They remained the King's Welsh Horsemen.
Likewise it's clear that Uruei Map Ulstan would have benefited hugely from claiming to be an ethnic Gododdin tribesman. As the poet expressly tells us, he couldn't do that.
In both these cases we are dealing with high status men yet they could not transend the ethnic/legal barriers to a more desirable status. Those lower down the social scale would have zero chance of changing their identity to bring advantage.
Yes, Mercia is the borderland - from the Germanic mark I think.
The Papal question is an interesting one Celestine seems to have encouraged the evangelisation of the two islands. Later in this period we have Heather's Frankish model of Catholicism in place which might change perspectives.
Quote from: aligern on May 10, 2017, 08:47:46 PM
Gregory the Great, Non Anglii sed Angeli.......though they may have been Angles!
They were, they were Deirans:
QuoteResponsum est, quod Angli uocarentur. At ille: 'Bene,' inquit; 'nam et angelicam habent faciem, et tales angelorum in caelis decet esse coheredes. Quod habet nomen ipsa prouincia, de qua isti sunt adlati?' Responsum est, quod Deiri uocarentur idem prouinciales. At ille: 'Bene,' inquit, 'Deiri; de ira eruti, et ad misericordiam Christi uocati. Rex prouinciae illius quomodo appellatur?' Responsum est, quod Aelli diceretur. At ille adludens ad nomen ait: 'Alleluia, laudem Dei Creatoris illis in partibus oportet cantari.'
Well Andreas, from where the original Mercia is it could be the borderland of East Anglia, or of Deira, or of British States in the Midlands. We do tend to assume that it is a frontier set up by the English, but it might ge an area set up by the Britons against incursions , but using Germanic foederati.
If we take the tribal hidage as having meaning in terms of the relative positioning and scale of the states and statelets paying tribute ( most likely to Northumbria) then Mercia is a unit that is already facing a region that is settled . Perhaps you t would be wrong to see Mercia as a frontier that sdvances westward, if westward was already settled? Maybe it was a frontier facing in a different direction?
R
Quote from: Anton on May 10, 2017, 11:05:34 PM
I'm wary of analogies, especially modern ones.
Let's say that King Ines Welsh Horsemen would have found considerable benefit in claiming to be West Saxons but the law made it clear they couldn't change their ethnicity at will. They remained the King's Welsh Horsemen.
Likewise it's clear that Uruei Map Ulstan would have benefited hugely from claiming to be an ethnic Gododdin tribesman. As the poet expressly tells us, he couldn't do that.
In both these cases we are dealing with high status men yet they could not transend the ethnic/legal barriers to a more desirable status. Those lower down the social scale would have zero chance of changing their identity to bring advantage.
Yes, Mercia is the borderland - from the Germanic mark I think.
The Papal question is an interesting one Celestine seems to have encouraged the evangelisation of the two islands. Later in this period we have Heather's Frankish model of Catholicism in place which might change perspectives.
good points. I believe that by the 8th C this is pretty much on the money. I am just not sure in the 5th/6th especially it would be as great a pressure to be ethnically 'pure'. The great Germanic migrations of the period swept up great swaths of people and tribes and in some cases they got branded at certain ethnic groups. I see no essential difference immediately post Roman control. I think there is a middle ground :)
Quote from: aligern on May 11, 2017, 12:21:40 AM
Well Andreas, from where the original Mercia is it could be the borderland of East Anglia, or of Deira, or of British States in the Midlands. We do tend to assume that it is a frontier set up by the English, but it might ge an area set up by the Britons against incursions , but using Germanic foederati.
It could be many things, but unless one can show it
can't be the borderland of Anglia, it's premature to say it isn't a descriptor of a region of Anglia.
There are some interesting indicators of how multi ethnic polities might work in Koch's treatment of Northumbria.
Rhun of Rheged engaged in the mass baptism of Bernicean Angles including the royals and there was a marriage alliance. Some high status Bernicean Angles clearly favoured, or felt the need for co-operation. By Bede's time that is over and the British of Northumbria have been despoiled and any co operation written out of the record. Bede tells us how it was done with great relish.
I'm tempted to see this as a numbers game once critical mass is achieved new pressures come to the fore. Koch makes the point that if the descendants of the high status British speaking Bernicean Angles who fought for Gododdin were still around they probably joined Ida.
absolutely and its an interesting timeline in the development of the Northumbrian state and entirely logical and plausable
I think its worthwhile to look at the land question.
Post 410 AD there is suddenly an awful lot of land available, most of it valuable land that used to belong to the military or the imperial state. In the early part of our period this means additional people and innovations can be accommodated without anyone being displaced.
Before 410 AD but seminal to this discussion, Rance in his Irish Federates discusses such accommodation, as Koch likely does in his Marwanad Cunedda and Koch's description (from Bede) of the scale Bangor is a good exemplar of the innovation possible.
Once this land has been redistributed that safety valve is gone and good land invariably belongs to someone else.
land is a very good point....post imperial ownership, its up for grabs or redistribution. Ergo early in the post imperial period, there is room for newcomers to settle in exchange for foederate services etc. After that, as you say, its eviction time normally at the end of a sword. Could we attempt to 'map' imperial possessions with possible Angles/Saxons population distributions in the late 4th/early 5th?
It would be great if we could map it but as far as I know no one is sure where the imperial estates were. I'd love to see someone attempt it though. Each fort had territory allocated to it and we have a good idea about that.
If we recall Cunedda he supports a court and is wealthy enough to endow his poet with a farm and slaves to run it. He does not seem to be a Bryneichian tribesman as far as I can see. He fights alongside the men of Bryneich rather than as a man of Bryneich. I'd guess because he performs a military function that he has been allocated former military land.
I also find myself thinking about the relative strength of the civates, strong ones must have been better placed than weaker ones. I also wonder about the Colonia are we to assume that because the military has been locally recruited British for sometime that the ordo of the Colonia were too?
More questions than answers but I feel some progress is being made in understanding what happened.
agreed and in my head I can see a pattern emerging with civitas/tribal areas 'regaining' control of land that is used for allotment to favoured individuals, groups or 'mercenaries' in return for service. This then solidifies the 'identity' or polity of the post roman areas. Some areas have largish populations of 'foreign' (fresh imported or 1st/2nd/3rd generation naturalised British) people which gradually achieve primacy through martial exploits (in the heroic age, the strongest leaders will win out politically). This then transmutes into 'settled' population areas with a tribal/ethnic identity and we progress through the 7th and into the 8th C. As this solidification occurs, stronger leaders being overkings of others and thus 'kingdoms' come into focus more
That does seem to be a viable view of the process from what we know. It would be nice to try and follow it as it developed but I'm not sure we have enough yet.
absolutely. What I am trying to frame in my head is the 'Arthur' question and how the 'Saxon' wars fit into this picture. I am not convinced of an overlord in the 6th C trying to hold back the tide of heathens from the dying light of a post roman imperial bastion....
Using Gildas can be misleading but he does concentrate on the Western/Highland areas in general. Do we have a N/S E/W split of affairs and polities emerging? The Eastern/Southern areas/polities being the most beligerent as land runs out for expansion and allotment to followers prompting conflict. 'Saxons' push towards the west (be they Angles/Saxons/converted British/conglomerate areas) and are met by piecemeal civitas polities. Does this lead to an attempt at an overlord or leader to combat (finally) a perceived encroachment on all areas?
Quote from: Anton on May 11, 2017, 04:17:29 PM
It would be great if we could map it but as far as I know no one is sure where the imperial estates were. I'd love to see someone attempt it though.
you're probably right, http://www.bahs.org.uk/AGHR/ARTICLES/06n2a1.pdf mentions some
Jim
That's an interesting essay Jim, lots of historians suspect they have identified imperial estates but we seem to have no full picture.
I think if we were we to take Britannia Prima, Britannia Secunda, Maxima Caesariensis and Flavia Caesariensis separately, and in turn, we might find ourselves somewhere useful when we looked at the totality of the information we had assembled.
It would be a big undertaking though best done in bite sized chunks as it were..
I've omitted Valentia because there is no consensus as to where it was.
nice find Jim and I agree re looking at the province approach Stephen. Valentia is a thorny issue and I agree is best left out of the equation. Re the provinces, back to lowland/highland viewpoints i think
Y,ou should play in three other things as well;
1) the effect of plagues as we know they were severe and very likely did result in depopulation.
2) Depopulation due to the ragging effect of raids by Picts and Scots in particular. The loss of the Roman defensive system may well have resulted in the withdrawal of settlement to more defensible positions and thus the abandonment of fields too far to walk to. This looks like what happened in Italy and Spain.
3) The effect of imperial withdrawal on taxes and the money economy. If you are a large landowner your operation produces enough food to ; feed you and your peasant farmers, sell to pay taxes and sell to the army to feed it. If towns decline and buy less grain and meat and if the army disappears then the need to plant land above subsistence declines...probably quite dramatically, because some of the above impacts are sudden. The spare land is only useful for settling people on who will use the product to feed themselves. With all these causes for the abandonment of land working I would not believe that after the utilisation of imperial lands all land belonged to someone. In theory it might be owned, but much would have no economic use if it had been abandoned due to pkague, raids or being uneconomic.
I think the land element is definitely worth drilling down on. If there is less requirement for useful/farmed land and/or revenues for local landowners falls, there is more panic about defensibility and therefore we have a situation whereby mercenaries are recruited in small groups on an ad hoc basis initially. More people coming in means more revenue for local magnates and also greater security ..... until the wolf turns
Quote from: Holly on May 12, 2017, 10:29:53 AM
I think the land element is definitely worth drilling down on. If there is less requirement for useful/farmed land and/or revenues for local landowners falls, there is more panic about defensibility and therefore we have a situation whereby mercenaries are recruited in small groups on an ad hoc basis initially. More people coming in means more revenue for local magnates and also greater security ..... until the wolf turns
looking at yields, the article talks about 15-20 bushels per acre, which is crudely 550 to 720 litres per acre
This is 390kg to 511kg per acre
Columella gives a yield of 4:1. So if we assume 400kg of grain per acre, 100 would have to be kept back for seed.
This is actually quite good and when the empire finally fell yields like this weren't achieved again until 1250. Once you hit yields at this level you release labour from the land to start industries which concentrate in towns. Here they doubtless pen smug letters decrying the ignorance of the peasantry.
Columella's figures are considered a bit low, but he is merely budging reasonable so that your landowner doesn't starve one year in four, and also he's dealing with the south of Europe where yields were higher at the time.
By 1000AD yields in the north of Europe struggled to hit 2:1 (that's two pounds of grain harvested for every pound sown)
Quote from: Jim Webster on May 12, 2017, 11:02:53 AM
Quote from: Holly on May 12, 2017, 10:29:53 AM
I think the land element is definitely worth drilling down on. If there is less requirement for useful/farmed land and/or revenues for local landowners falls, there is more panic about defensibility and therefore we have a situation whereby mercenaries are recruited in small groups on an ad hoc basis initially. More people coming in means more revenue for local magnates and also greater security ..... until the wolf turns
looking at yields, the article talks about 15-20 bushels per acre, which is crudely 550 to 720 litres per acre
This is 390kg to 511kg per acre
Columella gives a yield of 4:1. So if we assume 400kg of grain per acre, 100 would have to be kept back for seed.
This is actually quite good and when the empire finally fell yields like this weren't achieved again until 1250. Once you hit yields at this level you release labour from the land to start industries which concentrate in towns. Here they doubtless pen smug letters decrying the ignorance of the peasantry.
Columella's figures are considered a bit low, but he is merely budging reasonable so that your landowner doesn't starve one year in four, and also he's dealing with the south of Europe where yields were higher at the time.
By 1000AD yields in the north of Europe struggled to hit 2:1 (that's two pounds of grain harvested for every pound sown)
here's an interesting notion then....
- empire falls
- management of imperial lands and large holdings drops away for several reasons
- population falls (disease, war, emigration, less food yield = starvation etc)
- large areas left fallow but available for newcomers
- less protection = increased raiding (for slaves, food, transportable booty)
- solution = locally arranged extra protection via small groups of mercenaries/tribal warriors plus families
- population grows
- yields not as high as under imperial times/control
- population pressures = raiding on neighbours and/or political instability (change of management)
- political and ethnic shifts based on the strongest elements within an area
- lowland Britain more used to producing better yields therefore suffers more from drop in yields (highland areas = less yield even under imperial control)
- lowland areas more susceptible to the above = more rapid change to A/S polities
its a bit simplistic but just having a stab based on people's thoughts and comments
All good stuff. The size and complexity of Villas should be a pointer to were big estates were. We still wont know who owned them but its there that real economies of scale kick in and maximum surplus is achieved.
One thing comes to mind is do we actually know were the provincial boundaries were?
good question and one beyond me for the moment....! An alternative way of looking at it is how were the divisions of provinces decided upon:
- lowland/upland
- militarised/demilitarised
- revenue/output
- tribal boundaries
- and/or geographical/physical boundaries
- landed gentry
We can take the figures even further. The article comments that a lot of villa estates were around 300 acres plus. (I'm a bit wary of the figure to be honest, but let it stand)
The article also says "The village unit at Figheldean Down covered about 370 acres of arable, feeding some dozen families"
So assuming a yield of 400 kg per acre.
Assuming alternate years fallow which was common,
Then the land produced 74 tons of wheat
18.5 tons have to be kept as seed
If we take the Egyptian figure of a family needing 0.75 tons of wheat to be self sufficient, then somewhere between nine and twelve tons have to be kept back to feed the people who're growing it.
So of your 74 tons, 44 tons are 'surplus.'
Assuming 3lb of wheat per man (Engels, Alexander the Great and the logistics of the Macedonian army) this estate, selling its surplus to the army, will feed 90 men in the neighbouring garrison for a year
Jim
Fascinating to see this article again. I used this a lot in my undergraduate dissertation (yes, it is that old). It inspired me to have aquick scout around on the internet for more modern work and I found this useful set of comparators
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/77571.pdf
Go to appendix 5 on p.412
A key thing is standard roman sowing rate of 5 modii per iugerum which is apparently 135kg/ha. On Columella's basis, this gives 540 kg per hectare, lower than Applebaum's figure. But Columella is rather lower than other Roman yield estimates. Then again, compare the early medieval yields produced by small farmers rather than large estates, which are lower that Columella. I think overall all I'm saying is there is a shed load of variability to contend with in trying to get post-Roman yield rates right.
Quote from: Erpingham on May 12, 2017, 02:46:33 PM
Fascinating to see this article again. I used this a lot in my undergraduate dissertation (yes, it is that old). It inspired me to have aquick scout around on the internet for more modern work and I found this useful set of comparators
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/77571.pdf
Go to appendix 5 on p.412
A key thing is standard roman sowing rate of 5 modii per iugerum which is apparently 135kg/ha. On Columella's basis, this gives 540 kg per hectare, lower than Applebaum's figure. But Columella is rather lower than other Roman yield estimates. Then again, compare the early medieval yields produced by small farmers rather than large estates, which are lower that Columella. I think overall all I'm saying is there is a shed load of variability to contend with in trying to get post-Roman yield rates right.
there are a lot of variables, and average yields seemed to vary wildly around the Med. Wheat does best with sun and high temperatures, provided there is enough water, so I'd expect British yields to be at the low end
Quote from: Jim Webster on May 12, 2017, 02:55:04 PM
there are a lot of variables, and average yields seemed to vary wildly around the Med. Wheat does best with sun and high temperatures, provided there is enough water, so I'd expect British yields to be at the low end
I'm just working on what I've read rather than having real knowledge of farming but it looks that way to me too. I also turned up a large meta-study of medieval English crop yields in which the authors didn't even look at yields per hectare because of the variables but just looked at the other yield measure of seed to crop. Averaged out about 3.75 IIRC. So our ballpark for our sub-Roman yields could plausibly be 270-540 kg per hectare normally, depending on where and scale of operation and have the British weather is an important wildcard variable.
Quote from: Erpingham on May 12, 2017, 03:06:55 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on May 12, 2017, 02:55:04 PM
there are a lot of variables, and average yields seemed to vary wildly around the Med. Wheat does best with sun and high temperatures, provided there is enough water, so I'd expect British yields to be at the low end
I'm just working on what I've read rather than having real knowledge of farming but it looks that way to me too. I also turned up a large meta-study of medieval English crop yields in which the authors didn't even look at yields per hectare because of the variables but just looked at the other yield measure of seed to crop. Averaged out about 3.75 IIRC. So our ballpark for our sub-Roman yields could plausibly be 270-540 kg per hectare normally, depending on where and scale of operation and have the British weather is an important wildcard variable.
Have you read Georges Duby's 'Rural Economy and Country Life in the Medieval West'? He's one who looks at yield to seed ratios for exactly the reason you mention.
But he sees an increase (for good agricultural reasons) fro 2:1 about 1000 AD to 5:1 or slightly better about 1300AD (with occasional good years or well run estates hitting as high as 11:1 on rare and much celebrated occasions.
He also comments that in 1812, the sous prefect of Marseilles, in reply to a query, wrote to say that the average harvest, over a ten year period, produced a yield of between 4.5 and 5 to one.
Only dipped into this area occassionally because of a residual interest as I say dating back to that article and others of the time (there was a great one about Iron Age Holland, I recall). The thing the some of these studies did was to try to look at the wider economy of these farms - animal husbandry, other crops etc., which of course makes it more complicated. For example, the Medieval English grew lots of peas and beans and various mixes of cereals to protect themselves against weather conditions working against one crop. Did the Romans and any settlers do this and how might it affect calculations? But maybe that's getting off too far off the track :)
One thing we might valuably do in which a good husbandman would have an insight is what impact does sustaining horsemen rather than footmen have on the equation?
Quote from: Jim Webster on May 12, 2017, 01:44:08 PM
Assuming 3lb of wheat per man (Engels, Alexander the Great and the logistics of the Macedonian army) this estate, selling its surplus to the army, will feed 90 men in the neighbouring garrison for a year
Do we have any idea how many artisans, soldiers' wives, and assorted hangers-on a provincial Roman unit would have per fighting man?
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on May 12, 2017, 05:13:53 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on May 12, 2017, 01:44:08 PM
Assuming 3lb of wheat per man (Engels, Alexander the Great and the logistics of the Macedonian army) this estate, selling its surplus to the army, will feed 90 men in the neighbouring garrison for a year
Do we have any idea how many artisans, soldiers' wives, and assorted hangers-on a provincial Roman unit would have per fighting man?
In crude terms we could just assume the Egyptian 0.75 tons per head per year for fighting man and 'family' which would cut the number supported to 60 men (probably 50 because of double pay men etc)
Another way is to see what annona they would expect when still paid in kind
Jim
unless mentioned elsewhere, there's this article as well
https://www.academia.edu/1534036/The_Roman_Agricultural_Economy_Organization_Investment_and_Production