Quote: According to chapter 7 the Pangeyrici Latini Constantius Chlorus resettled a large number of them in Flanders and Kent, along the Rhine down to about Tournai and Arras, in 297, where they persisted there from their characteristic "Terp Tritzum" pottery style throughout the 4th century and into the 5th century in where Frisiavones (Frixiavones) they are listed in the Notitia with the other British Units at Vindobala and Rudchester (this one is a Tombstone).
Frisian cohorts had been present in Britain long before that time, so you need to be careful about which Frisians serve where. The 'deportation' by Chlorus did evidently not take place from the traditional homeland of the Frisians (we see no break in inhabitation there), nor do we see those tribes appear in the traditional areas of the Batavi. It is very much possible that the name was used but without a hard ethnical identification. Roman sources are not known for their correct identification of barbarian tribes. The areas 'along the Rhine down to about Tournai and Arras' is where we find large Frankish settlements, and even Sarmatians, but large groups of Frisians. maybe these were small numbers from the mouth of the Rhine?
Quote: The foederati section of the Notitia was updated until 442 and the Batavi are not listed. Nor are Saxons or Frisians.
That's not correct. Even if we accept that the ND was written c. 394, the Eastern section was never updated. Of the Western section, only parts were updated. Some claim this was as late as the 420s, but evidence remains shaky. No claim that 'the ND'(or even the Western sections) was updated to a date as late as 442. And besides that, even from the original MS large parts of the British section seem to be missing, which makes it impossible to draw any hard conclusions about the British garrison at all.
Quote: The Frisii return as the "Frisian Kingdom" beginning in 511, but these were actually a kingdom of Saxons and Angles, the Frisii had been absorbed by the Roman and then Merovingian supercultures by this point.
I really hope you won't ever set foot in Friesland claiming that! Old habits die hard!
Actually we have no clue who was where during the 6th century, no clear sources exist. The Frisians of Tacitus were long gone, but the a culture of indigenous Frisians mixed with Scandinavian influences (Angles/Saxons Frisians as mentioned by Bede) took shape much as the Franks and Alamanni did. By the later 8th century the Franks claim suzerainty again on the Lower Rhine, and then they defeat the Frisians who have their capital at Utrecht. But that's much much later.
Quote: According to chapter 7 the Pangeyrici Latini Constantius Chlorus resettled a large number of them in Flanders and Kent, along the Rhine down to about Tournai and Arras, in 297, where they persisted there from their characteristic "Terp Tritzum" pottery style throughout the 4th century and into the 5th century in where Frisiavones (Frixiavones) they are listed in the Notitia with the other British Units at Vindobala and Rudchester (this one is a Tombstone).
Frisian cohorts had been present in Britain long before that time, so you need to be careful about which Frisians serve where. The 'deportation' by Chlorus did evidently not take place from the traditional homeland of the Frisians (we see no break in inhabitation there), nor do we see those tribes appear in the traditional areas of the Batavi. It is very much possible that the name was used but without a hard ethnical identification. Roman sources are not known for their correct identification of barbarian tribes. The areas 'along the Rhine down to about Tournai and Arras' is where we find large Frankish settlements, and even Sarmatians, but large groups of Frisians. maybe these were small numbers from the mouth of the Rhine?
Quote: The foederati section of the Notitia was updated until 442 and the Batavi are not listed. Nor are Saxons or Frisians.
That's not correct. Even if we accept that the ND was written c. 394, the Eastern section was never updated. Of the Western section, only parts were updated. Some claim this was as late as the 420s, but evidence remains shaky. No claim that 'the ND'(or even the Western sections) was updated to a date as late as 442. And besides that, even from the original MS large parts of the British section seem to be missing, which makes it impossible to draw any hard conclusions about the British garrison at all.
Quote: The Frisii return as the "Frisian Kingdom" beginning in 511, but these were actually a kingdom of Saxons and Angles, the Frisii had been absorbed by the Roman and then Merovingian supercultures by this point.
I really hope you won't ever set foot in Friesland claiming that! Old habits die hard!
Actually we have no clue who was where during the 6th century, no clear sources exist. The Frisians of Tacitus were long gone, but the a culture of indigenous Frisians mixed with Scandinavian influences (Angles/Saxons Frisians as mentioned by Bede) took shape much as the Franks and Alamanni did. By the later 8th century the Franks claim suzerainty again on the Lower Rhine, and then they defeat the Frisians who have their capital at Utrecht. But that's much much later.
Quote:Fun fact: Genetic markers show the Frisii, Frisiavones, and Chauchi werein fact not of Germanic origin like the Batavii, Chatti, Gothones, etc were.
Aren't you confusing language with genetic background (Germanic)? Their origin may have been different but they spoke Germanic languages.
I do wonder though how we determine a Frisian from a Frisiavone skeleton..
