Britain AD: Arthur's Britain Channel 4

[Adam]

One of the advantages of self employment is that I can see some TV I don't normally get to see... I caught this yesterday on C4 and a bit of today's and it looks very interesting... a broad thesis, but academically well backed up I think.

From Channel 4's website

"In Britain AD, which accompanies and expands on his Channel 4 series, Francis Pryor traces the story of King Arthur back to its ancient origins. Putting forth the compelling idea that most of its key elements are deeply rooted in Bronze and Iron Ages, he argues that the legend's survival mirrors a flourishing, indigenous culture that endured through the Roman occupation of Britain and the subsequent invasions of the so-called Dark Ages. "

[Tegernacus]

Britain BC is more our bailiwick, and we've discussed this before (do a search ). I think Francis Pryor is excellent, although some disagree (and I must say he goes a bit wonky when it comes to A.D, I don't buy some of his conclusions, but again, that isn't his area of expertise). Still, it's all fuel to the fire.

[Adam]

Hi Tegernacus

I did a search but couldn't find anything... apologies for rehashing old ground

The reason I thought it interesting and pertinent was that

a) Francis Pryor is a pre-historian, applying that particular methodology to the so called Dark Ages of 410-597AD (IIRC), and

b) he argues for a continuity of culture from BC that hasn't really been recognised before (or so I believe from the programme) and is still controversial, and suggests that during that period a particular flowering of culture took place, rooted in that continuity

As far as I could see, the Arthur thing is almost just a hook to hang the rest of the thesis on... I particularly liked the stuff yesterday about weapons found in what would have been areas of water in Norfolk before the marshes were drained :-) It gave me a taste of what analysing pre-historical data must be like

BTW, just listening to that Omnia download... stunning stuff

[Tegernacus]

there was a continuity of culture, sure. Just because your chief starts knocking up a villa and spouting latin around the place, doesn't mean your culture ends. Although, saying that, by the time Rome officially withdrew, the Britons thought of themselves as civilised Romano-Christians. Even though, in reality, they were much the same as they were before the Romans. Which is where the trouble came from with those dirty savage Saxons. Ewww... get orf moi land!

Culture and continuity DID change with the coming of the Saxons and their cousins. Even though they may not have slaughtered all the Brits, very often just killing the chief and taking over, they did impose a kind of apartheid, gradually culturally-cleansing them. It was very thorough.

I'm unsure about all these "continuation" theories, based on genetics or linguistics or whatever. Especially when they are based on the flimsiest of evidence and tenuous of leads. Very often, it seems to me, they are made by Anglo-Saxons, to come up with some divine right to Britain, much as the early peoples did with Jerusalem ("we have always lived here! we're descended from the original Britons.."). Like Queen Victoria putting up statues of Boudica, drawing a direct line. Often, it seems, that whenever there is a Welsh upsurge, along come these "no, we're the real Britons!" from the other side of the border. It's more politics than science.

[littleraven]

Yep, you can find a portrait of Caratacos in Holyrood house, an example of downward cultrual assimilation. Last time I looked the chances of the house of Sax-Coburgh being descended from Cunbelinus are somewhat slim.

[Adam]

I certainly didn't get the impression that Dr Pryor was arguing that continuity meant no change... in today's programme he stressed very strongly the influence of Roman culture on the development during the dark ages, and argued that Britain was the one place that after the fall of Rome, Latin was used in its highest form, that Britain was Romanised, but that practices and cultural aspects had persisted and contributed to a period that was always thought of as thuggish and brutal (which I guess in many ways it was... I'm not entirely sure we would class the Romans as civilised by today's standards :-) ) but had many growths of a positive culture rooted in that earlier heritage

[littleraven]

When looking at continuity of culture it's always a good idea to look at some of the fundamentals. When Rome left, Britain returned to a society mirroing that which was here before the Romans came - hillforts were re-fortified, the Roman towns fell into disuse, tribal society returned. The indication being the management had gone but the workforce carried on as best they knew, doing things the way they always did. When the Saxons arrived we do see a fundamenatal change in the arrangement of society. To me that represents intermarriage at the highest levels and cultrual assimilation from the top. With the Romasn, there seemed to be a seperation, a snobbiness if you will that posh Romans didn't marry into barbarian families so the society essentially stayed seperate.

[wodensown]

I read somewhere recently that the Saxon civilisation...... errr... sorrry..... invasion of Britain were probably on a much smaller scale than once thought, but were, as you say, rather high status, and thus as much of an intigration as an invasion.

[Adam]

Sept 23, 2008 11:33:08 GMT -1 @wodensown said:

I read somewhere recently that the Saxon civilisation...... errr... sorrry..... invasion of Britain were probably on a much smaller scale than once thought, but were, as you say, rather high status, and thus as much of an intigration as an invasion.

I think they cover that in tomorrow's programme :-)

[Adam]

Sept 23, 2008 11:14:35 GMT -1 littleraven said:

When looking at continuity of culture it's always a good idea to look at some of the fundamentals. When Rome left, Britain returned to a society mirroing that which was here before the Romans came - hillforts were re-fortified, the Roman towns fell into disuse, tribal society returned. The indication being the management had gone but the workforce carried on as best they knew, doing things the way they always did. When the Saxons arrived we do see a fundamenatal change in the arrangement of society. To me that represents intermarriage at the highest levels and cultrual assimilation from the top. With the Romasn, there seemed to be a seperation, a snobbiness if you will that posh Romans didn't marry into barbarian families so the society essentially stayed seperate.

I'm getting in way over my academic head here (but hey rigour has to start somewhere and it is better if it isn't with mortis), and going way beyond my intent in the original post, which was simply to draw people's attention to the programme if they thought it might be interesting... but today they covered some buildings that have been dated to the post Roman period that were built on the rubble of some of the original villas that were massive and would have required significant organisation, implying at least that some degree of organisation above and beyond the workforce simply continuing to do what they knew best

[Tegernacus]

yeah. The thrust of Francis' arguement in Britain AD is that basically, we're all still the same people we were 2000 years ago. Rome came and went, the Saxons were a blip, the Normans didn't do much aside from introduce new words... but basically, the same group of people have lived on the Island up until recently. Which may be true, if you're concerned with bloodlines. But it's not about blood, it's about culture. Culturally, Rome ran side-by-side with British culture, administration aside. Saxon culture replaced British culture, which is essential the difference. Let's not forget the Vikings and the Irish too. A lot of different cultures moved in after Rome left, all left their mark. We're NOT the same people we were 2000 years ago, especially in the east and far north of Britain.

Of course, if you subscribe to "celtic" culture this hardly matters, as all these European peoples moving in were part of celtic Europe, so all related anyhow. Depends how picky you want to get. For example, we're all African, if you want to go down a genetic route. However, that isn't what matters to people, tribal affiliations do. Try telling a Victorian Australian Aborigine that the dutch settlers who just bought your burial ground have a right to it, since we're all genetically related anyhow. Doesn't quite work.

[Tegernacus]

incidently, the "we're all the same people" arguement works in Britain BC, since there is that continuity. In Britain AD, there are too many other factors at work, the waters get muddy, tempers get hot, facts and histories are made up, archaeology is a bit inconclusive... it's not called "the dark ages" for nothing

[littleraven]

Sept 23, 2008 11:33:08 GMT -1 @wodensown said:

I read somewhere recently that the Saxon civilisation...... errr... sorrry..... invasion of Britain were probably on a much smaller scale than once thought, but were, as you say, rather high status, and thus as much of an intigration as an invasion.

I agree completely. Although I don't doubt there were battles, we have to remember that these 'battles' would have been a few hundred people. Essentailly the retinues of the famiies who have something to lose/gain.

Example 1:
"I am Caratacos, you shall pay tribute to me"
"Yeah okay, how much how often?"

Example 2
"I am the agent of Claudius, you shall pay tribute to the emperor, and of that I shall take a small 'gratuity'"
"Yeah okay, how much how often"

Example 3
"I am the thegn of Hengist, you shall pay tribute to the lord!"
"Piss off Saxon scum, say hello to friend 'Gutbiter'"
"Yeah okay, how much how often"

Example 4
"I am the priest of the lord, pay tribute to the Almighty and you shall find everlasting salvation in paradise"
"Yeah okay, how much how often?"
"Nothing my child"
"What?"
"It shall cost you nothing other than your time on the Sabbath day to demonstrate your devotion"
"Nothing at all?"
"No child"
"Ooooo ..... "

[Lee]

from what i recall genetic studies showed that a large bulk of the people in the UK are descended from original inhabitants from stone and bronze ages. possibly more so in wales. scotching the ideas of waves of immigration and genocide of the previous bunch.

there is a noticeable differecne between the welsh and english too.

Blood of the isles i think it was called, by Brian Sykes. not too bad reading.

[Blackbird]

rigour has to start somewhere and it is better if it isn't with mortis

I like that

Like anything, the truth lies somewhere in between, and the current historical/archaeological theories always mirror the current political/social situation.

It does sound like an interesting programme, and being also self employed, I'll try to catch some of it too.

[Sìle]

Adam

When you do a search, you need to change the days from 7 to around 700 in order to bring up old threads, such as this one, Britain BC.

Síle ;D

[Adam]

ach... thank you Síle

[Tegernacus]

hehehe... anyhow, watch it, if it makes you think then it's job done as far as I'm concerned. It's kind-of like this forum... take it or leave it, but if the members arguments make you think about your beliefs, then it's worth taking part.

[Tegernacus]

here ye go, Britain BC:

Britain BC Part 1
Britain BC Part 2

you can download it for your iPod from that page if you haven't got 90 minutes to watch it. Worth watching, for anyone who hasn't seen it or read the book.

its a bit out of sync, so just listen to it. You don't need to see the pictures.

(part 2 is the religious bit. part 1 is more about farming/mining)