Dud links and computer errors aside, what do you think of the thesis? I picked my copy up last month at Housesteads... I have only had time to skim it, tho' I have read his conclusions, as well as the S. Frere article in last year's Britannia.<br>
<br>
I can see some merit, and some fault, in both... Frere too readily dismisses the archaeological finds in Sussex since they don't fit his model. Manley has explained the geography around Rutupiae well enough, but does not appear to have explained the "strategic geography" of coming "up" from Sussex vice "in" from Kent... But to be fair, I do need to read the full work to compare properly with Frere.<br>
<br>
BTW, speaking of geography. Does anyone know of a good source that explains British geography in the Imperial period? I'm thinking about the Fens and the Wash, and just how "wet" they were in the period 55 BCE to 600 CE... I recently visited the "Iceni Village" in Norfolk, and they had a set of maps that for practical purposes showed the Fens as "sea." This would explain sites in Norfolk today that "border" the Fens that etymologically (is that a word? ) come down to us as "so & so's beach" or "landing place" but are 40-some-odd miles inland... unless the Fens were open to the sea and highly tidal during the Angles' invasion...<br>
<br>
<p>==========================================<BR>
"If there's one thing we don't want to see, it's Americans fighting Americans. I won't stand for it, not here, not anywhere." Sergeant Frank Tree, 10th Armored Division, Saturday, 13 December 1941... a little after 0701 hrs... somewhere near Santa Monica, Calif.</p><i></i>
Duane C. Young, M.A.
