Dear All
Well, I got to watch the first instalment of this UK Channel 4 programme.
I would think it was a bit slow and basic for most, if not all, of this NG,
but it may get better.
It was presented bty Francis Pryor, a well known Prehistory Archaeologist
(Personal profile at
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/archaeology/staff/pryor.html)
The first 15 mins was the BIG IDEA, that the received wisdom/history taught
in British schools [ie after the Romans left the lights went out until the
Saxons invaded and wiped out the Britons except those they pushed across to
Wales] about the Dark Ages was WRONG.
The second 15 mins was about the myth of Arthurian Swords - out of a stone
and Excalibur thrown into water - related to historical fact. The 'out of
a stone' being a folk remembrance of the making of a bronze age sword [I
can not remember who first came up with this idea, but I know I have seen
it somewhere else before this] and the throwing of Excalibur into water
being the issue of votive offerings to water spirits, that has lasted in
the UK from earliest times upto current day (coins in a fountain is our
current expression of this). He expanded this part, by looking at finds in
water in the Fenlands (East Britain) where the finds (including swords)
date from prehistoric times to circa 14th Century, and where abbeys appear
to have been built close to relevant spots, with from 14th Century arms and
armour being deposited in the churches or abbeys.
[The issue he did not tackle at this point - but see next paragraph - was
that this was fairly early Saxon land - Nor(th)folk, - and for those who
follow Morris, the Fenland he was looking at was on the River Witham, which
Morris equates with Dubglas of the Twelve Battles]
From this continuity of custom he drew the conclusion that the
'Saxon/Angles/Jute Invasion' of the 5th Century was more of a replacement
of the ruling elite, with the majority of people continuing to live, and
serve their water-spirits, in the same way as before.
The third 15 mins was suggeting, in effect, that a similar effect could be
seen prior to the Roman AD43 Invasion, with the local Kings/elite adopting
Roman ways, and then Verica of the Atrebates inviting the Romans in, to
support him against other tribes; that Fishbourne was built as a palace for
Verica or his son - ie the Romanisation (read civilisation) of Celtic
Britain rather than Roman subjugation of them.
The fourth 15 mins continued this theme - that the indigenous people
survived from pre-historic times, through Roman times and in the process
the elite took on Romanisation to a significant effect, with villas like
Chedworth being Romanised Brits (complete with sacred spring - shown lined
with current day coins!!) rather than the abodes of Roman immigrants, and
that Britain was an essential part of the Roman Empire rather than a pimple
on its backside (my words, not Pryor's). And that when the legions left,
the Romanised Brits were left in control, although they retreated from
their villas to re-occupying the hillforts (eg Cadbury). [No real mention
yet of rebellious Emperors -apart from Constantine the Great -, Honorius's
Rescript or Zosimus or, indeed, Viriconium, but these may come next week.]
I am away for the next couple of Mondays, so will not see the next two
instalments until my return. But I do hope they have a few more sources
(please, just a few more - I realise this is meant to be popular TV) and at
least mention the counter arguments. As aways there is a 'book of the
series' - which I shall get on my return to see if it has any other,
fuller? information, arguments.
Kind regards
Malcolm Martin
London, UK