08-12-2006, 04:43 PM
Hello Robert,
You're darn' tootin' it's a derogatory remark - just like
you calling his book chapter on Roman Britain: 'crap'. And I'll tell
you the difference between people who are opinionated and those
who hold opinions: The opinionated ones (and yes, we both know
a lot of them on other lists) are the ones who form their own opinions
without listening to all the evidence available to them, and then
go on national T.V. and preach their fanciful delusions as if they are
Gospel, without listening to any of their peers. As Paul has pointed out.
But here are some objective comments about the Adventus Saxonum
from last year's Time Team Big Roman Dig from Dr. Neil Faulkner
(who is far from being a Romanist - in fact, he detests everything
Roman, yet he is fair in aportioning credit where it's due) and others
of Pryor's archaeological peers:
Tony Robinson:
"Now, the interesting thing is, I always thought that the Saxons were a
bunch of nasty thugs who came over here and duffed-up the Brits. Is
that right or not?"
Neil Faulkner:
"Well...... I think that Francis has got this idea that Britain of the past
is a kind of 'Merrie Englande', where everyone is involved in
enchanting little lakeside rituals and it's all very peaceful. And I just
do not believe that. I mean, early Anglo-Saxon society was a heroic,
warrior society, where huge value was put on militery achievement.
There was a lot of fighting, there are lots of weapons in the
archaeological record. I think it was a nasty place, frankly."
Tony Robinson:
"Mick, did the Saxons just exploit the chaos, or did they cause it?"
Mick Aston:
"Well, it's probably a mixture of both, isn't it. They certainly seem to
have found some weak spots to get in. They were probably a nuisance
up and down the coast."
Tony Robinson:
"Tom, when did they first arrive, the Saxons?"
Tom Holland:
"Well, they're first mentioned in the 3rd c. But even so, it takes the
Saxons decades to take over what was to become Saxon England."
Tony Robinson:
"Was their culture as different from the Roman as we tend to think?"
Mick Aston:
"Yes, I think it probably was. But what is interesting is that they seem to
be aping Roman things. I know that a lot of the burials that Helen Geake
has studied, for example, she says that they're almost trying to pretend
that they're Roman rulers."
Neil Faulkner:
"Some people see that as a kind of continuity from the Roman period,
don't they. But actually, there's quite a gap between the end of the
Roman administration and the beginning of this Anglo-Saxon evidence,
where Saxons are pretending to be Roman."
Yes, indeed. That's because the native Britons were still pretending to
be Roman, themselves, in the meantime. :wink: 8)
Cheers,
Ambrosius/Mike
Quote:ambrosius:1m871t39 Wrote:Mike, that is also a derogatory remark. Who are you to decide that Pryor is mediocre or not? As to opinionated.. I know more of them.
No, actually, that's a pretty accurate description. And I
think you'll find that most archaeologists agree with it. Francis Pryor is
a rather mediocre prehistoric archaeologist who is rather opinionated,
and who happens to be the President of the Council for British
Archaeology - probably because nobody else wanted the job. :roll:
You're darn' tootin' it's a derogatory remark - just like
you calling his book chapter on Roman Britain: 'crap'. And I'll tell
you the difference between people who are opinionated and those
who hold opinions: The opinionated ones (and yes, we both know
a lot of them on other lists) are the ones who form their own opinions
without listening to all the evidence available to them, and then
go on national T.V. and preach their fanciful delusions as if they are
Gospel, without listening to any of their peers. As Paul has pointed out.
But here are some objective comments about the Adventus Saxonum
from last year's Time Team Big Roman Dig from Dr. Neil Faulkner
(who is far from being a Romanist - in fact, he detests everything
Roman, yet he is fair in aportioning credit where it's due) and others
of Pryor's archaeological peers:
Tony Robinson:
"Now, the interesting thing is, I always thought that the Saxons were a
bunch of nasty thugs who came over here and duffed-up the Brits. Is
that right or not?"
Neil Faulkner:
"Well...... I think that Francis has got this idea that Britain of the past
is a kind of 'Merrie Englande', where everyone is involved in
enchanting little lakeside rituals and it's all very peaceful. And I just
do not believe that. I mean, early Anglo-Saxon society was a heroic,
warrior society, where huge value was put on militery achievement.
There was a lot of fighting, there are lots of weapons in the
archaeological record. I think it was a nasty place, frankly."
Tony Robinson:
"Mick, did the Saxons just exploit the chaos, or did they cause it?"
Mick Aston:
"Well, it's probably a mixture of both, isn't it. They certainly seem to
have found some weak spots to get in. They were probably a nuisance
up and down the coast."
Tony Robinson:
"Tom, when did they first arrive, the Saxons?"
Tom Holland:
"Well, they're first mentioned in the 3rd c. But even so, it takes the
Saxons decades to take over what was to become Saxon England."
Tony Robinson:
"Was their culture as different from the Roman as we tend to think?"
Mick Aston:
"Yes, I think it probably was. But what is interesting is that they seem to
be aping Roman things. I know that a lot of the burials that Helen Geake
has studied, for example, she says that they're almost trying to pretend
that they're Roman rulers."
Neil Faulkner:
"Some people see that as a kind of continuity from the Roman period,
don't they. But actually, there's quite a gap between the end of the
Roman administration and the beginning of this Anglo-Saxon evidence,
where Saxons are pretending to be Roman."
Yes, indeed. That's because the native Britons were still pretending to
be Roman, themselves, in the meantime. :wink: 8)
Cheers,
Ambrosius/Mike
"Feel the fire in your bones."
