|
|
51 of 58 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A minimalist view of the Dark Ages, 21 Nov 2005
Other writers have wished to remove King Arthur from history, but in doing so they always try to retain the traditional picture of post-Roman Britain from which he emerges, and for which Leslie Alcock’s Arthur’s Britain represented a kind of late summary. They want to keep Arthurian Britain with its complete and sudden collapse of romanitas, hordes of lusty Saxons raging from sea to sea and loss of contact with the continent, but find the king himself something of a romantic embarrassment (anyone for Hamlet without the prince?). The resulting inconsistencies and double standards have been well described by Christopher Gidlow in The Reign of Arthur. By contrast, Francis Pryor shows that he is quite willing to dispense with the idea of an historical Arthur for the simple reason that he doesn’t think that Britain was ever really Arthurian.In the Pryor version of things, post-roman civitas polities evolve into British and Saxon kingdoms and there is no more migration than usual, while the Saxonisation of eastern Britain is explained by cultural influence rather than wholesale immigration. In doing so, he takes a position even more extreme than that of Saxon expert NJ Higham, who explained this change as the influence of a small Saxon warrior elite that rapidly seized power in lowland Britain. So how well does he prove his case? In archaeological terms, pretty well. Pryor has been excavating around Peterborough for more than thirty years, and if there was any evidence for mass immigration from across the North Sea, it would certainly show up here, in fertile farmland easily reached by Saxon keels rowing up the brackish river Nene. In fact, as he shows, there are none of the sudden changes in building and farming that would be expected, only the partial switch from grain production to stock raising predictable from the loss of Roman era long-range trade. On the way, he comprehensively demolishes the idea that the “Saxon shore” forts were actually built to keep out raiders, showing that they are much more consistent with use as secure supply ports for the Roman army (though he doesn’t mention their obvious usefulness in the event of a rebellion). The traditional objection to this more mundane view of the Dark Ages is that since English contains very few Celtic words, there must have been wholesale population replacement. Although I knew that Hungarian was a Finnish-related language adopted by a Germanic people, I always found this objection persuasive. The change for me came when I moved to a triple language border in Europe and began to raise children bilingually. By talking to other people in the same position it quickly became clear that people just do not learn languages “mixed-up”. Bilingual children do make mistakes but they’re very quick to correct themselves, and find switching from one language to another as easy and natural as putting on a posh accent to answer the telephone. All that’s needed for complete replacement is several generations in which one language confers a higher attainable status than another and is therefore more worth retaining. That’s why the main threat to Europe’s minority languages is not any risk of merging with other languages but rather the risk of being wiped out completely by their low percieved status. So with that objection out of the way I was ready to read this book without thinking “Ah yes, but what about language” all the time. This is a more impassioned book than Pryor's Britain BC or Seahenge, and he doesn't justify or reference his claims as systematically as he did in those books, but this also makes it a more exciting read.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
 
|
|
|
|
by Francis Pryor
by Francis Pryor
by Michael Wood
by Francis Pryor
by Christopher Gidlow
