01-21-2007, 03:08 PM
Hi Authun,
Come now, Harry. We can only judge peoples intent (in the absence
of any written statement - the 5th/6th c. Anglo-Saxons couldn't
write, I believe :lol: ) by their behaviour. The Anglo-Saxons
evidently did not adopt Brittonic as Franks adopted Gallic. Nor did they
adopt Christianity from 450-597 (and only then very fitfully after the
advent of Augustine, constantly reverting to paganism - in both
Aethelbert's Jutish Kent and Raedwald's Wuffing Anglia). The Wessex
Saxon king, Ine, later still published his law stating that a native Briton
was worth less wergild than an Anglo-Saxon. Now, not only does this
show that Wessex Saxons regarded Britons as a lower life-form than
themselves, but also - importantly - it shows that Britons were still
very easily distinguishable from Anglo-Saxons. Otherwise, how on Earth
would they have been able to make this law workable? So I think you
can quite acceptably atribute intent to the early (first 250 years)
Anglo-Saxons in both wanting to dismiss and replace British culture
with their own. As for British culture, this is evident in the archaeology
in Western England & Wales at least until 550. Nor is it a case of
British culture being different from that of Rome. Hardly a surprise,
when we realis that there are cultural links between the British West and
not only Gaul but Byzantium. In fact, most of the archaeology in the
British West from 400 is decidedly Roman/Byzantine in character.
Aw, Harry! Your being decidedly anachronistic with that remark! :lol:
You do know that those writing tablets from Vindolanda are dated from
AD85-AD120, I hope. And as a consequence, when discussing the
period around the year 500AD, that comment is 400 years out of date!
Actually, we have recently been discussing the meaning of that passage
on RAT, and nobody is quite sure what it means. Is it saying that the
unconquered Brigantians and Caledonii still to the North of the Stanegate
(the original border before Hadrian's Wall) were 'nasty little Brits -
which would be a perfectly understandable comment for the advancing
Roman army - or, is it saying that the local British recruits to the
auxiliary units from the pacified British tribes to the South have
a weird tactic of dismounting before throwing their javelins at
the enemy? Nobody actually knows! 8)
But I've got another susprise for you, Harry: The units in garrison at
Vindolanda from 85-120 were actually... GERMANS. :wink:
That's right. According to the exact date of that particular writing-tablet,
the unit in residence was either of Batavians or Tungrians. :lol:
Which puts a rather different complexion on these comments, now,
doesn't it. :wink: Because if it was actually newly recruited and imported
Germanic troops who were describing the Brits as Brittunculi,
then it is no more of a foreshadowing of the attitude of the conquering
Anglo-Saxons 400 years hence, and nothing at all to do with the
comments of etnically Italian Roman soldiers in Britain at all!
By the way, Flavius Cerialis - the unit commander - was likely not
ethnically Italian, himself, but a Romanized Batavian. And it was actually
the Roman practise to allow Batavian and Tungrian cohorts to be
commanded by their native nobles and kings. There's an interesting
book on the subject:
'Life and Letters on the Roman Frontier (Vindolanda and its people)'
by Alan Bowman, 2003, The British Museum Press.
So you see, that Vindolanda Tablet - when read with a little background
knowledge, actually reinforces the Germanic attitude towards Celts
which we see expressed 400 years later in Britain, rather then detracting
from it. :wink:
Ambrosius / Mike
Quote:Quote:It looks like the Anglo-Saxons were intent on replacing British culture completely.
I don't think intent is the correct word. Intent suggests a planned aim or objective and implies that there was such a thing as British culture after Rome.
Come now, Harry. We can only judge peoples intent (in the absence
of any written statement - the 5th/6th c. Anglo-Saxons couldn't
write, I believe :lol: ) by their behaviour. The Anglo-Saxons
evidently did not adopt Brittonic as Franks adopted Gallic. Nor did they
adopt Christianity from 450-597 (and only then very fitfully after the
advent of Augustine, constantly reverting to paganism - in both
Aethelbert's Jutish Kent and Raedwald's Wuffing Anglia). The Wessex
Saxon king, Ine, later still published his law stating that a native Briton
was worth less wergild than an Anglo-Saxon. Now, not only does this
show that Wessex Saxons regarded Britons as a lower life-form than
themselves, but also - importantly - it shows that Britons were still
very easily distinguishable from Anglo-Saxons. Otherwise, how on Earth
would they have been able to make this law workable? So I think you
can quite acceptably atribute intent to the early (first 250 years)
Anglo-Saxons in both wanting to dismiss and replace British culture
with their own. As for British culture, this is evident in the archaeology
in Western England & Wales at least until 550. Nor is it a case of
British culture being different from that of Rome. Hardly a surprise,
when we realis that there are cultural links between the British West and
not only Gaul but Byzantium. In fact, most of the archaeology in the
British West from 400 is decidedly Roman/Byzantine in character.
Quote: Certainly in parts there was, but surely not everywhere. If the term 'Britunculi', nasty little Brits, found at Vindolanda was typical of the roman attitude towards the locals, probably some would have had no desire to continue being romanised. But what sort of culture did they have?
Aw, Harry! Your being decidedly anachronistic with that remark! :lol:
You do know that those writing tablets from Vindolanda are dated from
AD85-AD120, I hope. And as a consequence, when discussing the
period around the year 500AD, that comment is 400 years out of date!
Actually, we have recently been discussing the meaning of that passage
on RAT, and nobody is quite sure what it means. Is it saying that the
unconquered Brigantians and Caledonii still to the North of the Stanegate
(the original border before Hadrian's Wall) were 'nasty little Brits -
which would be a perfectly understandable comment for the advancing
Roman army - or, is it saying that the local British recruits to the
auxiliary units from the pacified British tribes to the South have
a weird tactic of dismounting before throwing their javelins at
the enemy? Nobody actually knows! 8)
But I've got another susprise for you, Harry: The units in garrison at
Vindolanda from 85-120 were actually... GERMANS. :wink:
That's right. According to the exact date of that particular writing-tablet,
the unit in residence was either of Batavians or Tungrians. :lol:
Which puts a rather different complexion on these comments, now,
doesn't it. :wink: Because if it was actually newly recruited and imported
Germanic troops who were describing the Brits as Brittunculi,
then it is no more of a foreshadowing of the attitude of the conquering
Anglo-Saxons 400 years hence, and nothing at all to do with the
comments of etnically Italian Roman soldiers in Britain at all!
By the way, Flavius Cerialis - the unit commander - was likely not
ethnically Italian, himself, but a Romanized Batavian. And it was actually
the Roman practise to allow Batavian and Tungrian cohorts to be
commanded by their native nobles and kings. There's an interesting
book on the subject:
'Life and Letters on the Roman Frontier (Vindolanda and its people)'
by Alan Bowman, 2003, The British Museum Press.
So you see, that Vindolanda Tablet - when read with a little background
knowledge, actually reinforces the Germanic attitude towards Celts
which we see expressed 400 years later in Britain, rather then detracting
from it. :wink:
Ambrosius / Mike
"Feel the fire in your bones."
