quote:

Is it true and are his figures accurate?

Let's admit from the start that no population figures can be accurate without a thorough, systematic and complete census. Domesday falls short of that, but is a darn site better than the estimates for previous populations.

However I have no problem visualising a massive drop in population due to political and economic instability in the late Roman and Post-Roman period. We can draw many parallels. The Roman Empire (when stable) provided peace and a huge market, which fostered trade and manufacture. We would expect the population under those conditions to be considerably higher than in the post-Roman economy.

quote:

Let's admit from the start that no population figures can be accurate without a thorough, systematic and complete census. Domesday falls short of that, but is a darn site better than the estimates for previous populations.

Yes, Härke admits that many assumptions are made in the calculations. Millet also uses grain yields per acre in his calculations but this is problematic. Firstly, we don't know what agricultural productivity actually was in Britain, there are indications that it was rather poor when compared to other areas, and we don't know what the split was between grain for export and grain for local consumption.

Here are Russell's figures:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pop-in-eur.html

Russell's low figure for 500 AD for Britain here was based on 19th cent work and he upgraded it to 1 million later. I haven't seen Millet's calculations but the interesting aspect of Russell is that there is a population crash which is widespread for the 650 AD figure. I have seen back projections from Domesday which put the population of England, not Britain, to between 1.2m and 1.5 m for 650 AD.

Here are some more estimates:

http://www.tulane.edu/~august/H303/handouts/Population.htm

I don't know how good Millet's estimates are but they are widely accepted. If germanic settlers were few in number during the 5th and early 6th cents. it's probably within the general population crash that things were turned around somehow.

Perhaps the previous poster, Gil_Das can throw some light on current population estimates, their strengths and weaknesses?

best

Harry A

quote:

The migration to Brittany occured around this time.

Yes and, from brythonic place name evidence, to Galicia in north West Iberia too. But we have no numbers.

Gil_Das above points to archaeologists being trained to be more critical of previous interpretations of evidence. The scale of immigration to Britanny is subject to this too. But, Jonathan D complains of an unquestioned orthodoxy, the subject of this thread, and my support for this view is based on the uni-directional nature of the criticsm of early interpretations. How can anyone state that the population of Roman Britain was 3.9m at the time of the Adventus, ignore the loss of 2 million people by the time of Domesday and still claim to be taking a strict approach to interpreting the evidence? It still looks like picking and choosing evidence to suit in my opinion.

best
Harry A

[/QUOTE] The arrogance of the acculturalist orthodoxy is also baffling in the lack of these questions being answered. I am not an archeologist myself but I watch time team and have an interest in early medical history. I frankly find it incredible the way in which professional academics seem to blatantly avoid difficult questions, ignore evidence and select evidence to support their theories. Can anyone enlighten me?[/QUOTE]

If this is the general opinion regarding the activities of professional academics derived from TV archaeology, then there are real problems, and we should seriously consider its future. In response, there’s inevitably a difference between what’s published in academic journals / reports / theses (which contain much supporting evidence – otherwise new ideas would not be accepted), and what ends up on TV, which to make it economically viable needs to appeal to the widest audience and so must have an entertainment value. (To a certain extent, the same might be said of ‘coffee-table’ books - I would include those lacking citations in this category - brought out by some publishers). Even within academic publications, there are usually quite rigorous word limits, and all of the data surveyed cannot be included – however much we wish it could be.

During the process of archaeological interpretation, ideas from other disciplines may be adopted because, through knowledge of the evidence, they are seen as potentially viable. Hypotheses are applied to a wide range of evidence if they are seen as prospectively of better fit than previous propositions (i.e. there is a greater correlation between ideas and evidence). Sometimes when tested against the evidence, this is seen not to be the case, or there is found to be insufficient supporting evidence, so the hypothesis is shelved. Other times, the ideas undergo repetitive refinement in an attempt to get closer to the most likely scenario. This is the stage we are at now – we have adapted some of the initial ‘extremes’ and are increasingly developing conclusions that fit the evidence better than previous hypotheses (whether belonging to the 'invasion' or so-called 'acculturation' approach). There is rarely a situation when all of the answers are apparent, or all of the problems are solved, in the initial analyses (if they are, then experience suggests that it’s probably too good to be true, and empirical investigation usually demonstrates this to be so). In presenting a new argument, the problems are generally highlighted, to demonstrate where future work is needed. The ideas are only seen as valid if, overall, they fit the evidence better than early hypotheses. That is not to say that earlier arguments should be abandoned, but reassessed in the light of new evidence and ideas. Evidence in support of the ideas is of course presented, but in acknowledging the problems, evidence against is usually mentioned, too – if one neglects to do this, then someone else will inevitably do so. Regional (alongside local) analyses are beginning to build up a picture of the various developments during the early middle ages, which accommodates the DNA evidence etc. Putting it very simplistically, whilst in some areas communities were predominantly immigrant, in others they were predominantly indigenous, but in both cases, identities were reconstructed over time. But, in the latter areas, indigenes increasingly adopted Germanic/Scandinavian culture, and in some cases identities. I've put a link below to a useful article which has suggestions as to why

My point above was that the idea of ethnic change is valid (but that Helen Geake – and Frances Pryor - goes too far). This may be due to their specialisms not being in ethnicity, and therefore a lack of awareness of more nuanced recent developments – an argument that may be levelled at anyone in the same position. One problem is that many researchers don’t have the funding to take time out to publish in anything but journals (which many may not be aware of). Therefore, recent developments (in any academic field) often take a while to filter down to the rest of academia, and so on. Granted, there needs to be better explanation of the mechanisms of ethnic change in the media (and the regional variation made explicit).

Just a brief note on place names - these are not being ignored, but rather their interpretation is not as cut-and-dry evidence for mass Germanic immigration as hitherto believed. Whilst it’s very difficult to date place names, some early Anglo-Saxon place names are recognised, but these are few, whilst many seem to have developed in the mid-late Saxon period. There’s also record of some changes from British to Anglo-Saxon in the mid Saxon period, which may provide one explanation.

Regarding how linguistic changes may relate to the archaeology, there’s an article worth reading by Alex Woolf - a very good archaeologist-historian with knowledge of linguistics. This appears within Nick Higham’s Britons and Saxons volume - a very expensive book, but Alex has very kindly provided a link to the paper:
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/history/staff/alexwoolf/Apartheidandeconomics.pdf

Also, take a look at:
Bryan Ward-Perkins, ‘Why Did the Anglo-Saxons Not Become More British?’, The English Historical Review, Vol. 115, No. 462. (Jun., 2000), pp. 513-533 (If I remember rightly, this mentions language and place names)

A general article that may be of interest is:

John Moreland’s ‘Ethnicity, Power and the English’ in B. Frazer and A. Tyrell (eds.) 2000 Social Identity in Early Medieval Britain and Ireland

And with regard to Anglo-Saxon regional (‘tribal’) identities (and a summary of the basis of the ideas esposed by HG), see Sam Lucy’s The Anglo-Saxon Way of Death, although she also goes too far in minimising immigration, in my opinion


In response to other comments:

There’s little sign of possible population change / demise mid 5th - 7th century in the west; be wary of Keys and other such catastrophe causation theories – not all areas imported from the east, and of those that did, much material came from areas other than Byzantium. Change is also rarely due to sole factors

Be cautious also of using Neil Faulkner’s work – this is good, but represents an extreme viewpoint, and is generally invalid for all but the SE

Regarding population, I’m no environmentalist, so am not qualified to comment on the methodology used to determine figures via agricultural yield. But, without systematic, nationwide survey of settlements, we’re limited to very broad estimates (e.g. 2-6 million) anyway: more and more later Roman rural settlements are being found, so minimal numbers at least are likely to rise (although with the ensuing housing slump and drop in construction, may be not for a while). DB figures shouldn't really be used, considering the numerous historical and material changes that occurred between the early and late Anglo-Saxon periods. Therefore, I personally wouldn’t use putative population figures to counter or support arguments of immigration levels, continuity or genocide.
The process of mapping cultural change is ongoing, and the best way of doing this is attempting to determine the extent to which people changed the way they did things - rather than merely the material culture they used - in asserting new identities.

I'm off for fieldwork tomorrow, but will see if the thread is still active when I return

Gil

Most interesting article by Alex Woolf. Thanks for the link.

Thank you very much, fascinating stuff.

I'll add my thanks too. I've enjoyed reading through this thread - although I have wondered if I get a certificate or something if I actually read through all the refs as well!

Harry - I'm no Romanist, and therefore do not have scholarly sources by me, but I have had a ferret around online for evidence of declining population within the Roman Empire as it headed towards its fall in the West. Wikipedia:

quote:

There is ... evidence of some demographic contraction. The population appears to have diminished in many provinces, especially in western Europe, as can be inferred from the size of the fortifications built to protect the cities from barbarian incursions from the 3rd century on, often restricted to the center of the city only, suggesting that parts of the periphery were not inhabited anymore.

An example would be Worcester:

quote:

The third century seems to mark the limit of the settlement’s expansion, by which time it extended over an area greater than that of the later medieval city, and during the late third and fourth century the effects of rampant inflation, the breakdown in continental trade and the fragmentation of administrative control which characterise this period, would have conspired to produce a general decline in the urban population. The settlement appears to have contracted into a defended enclosure

http://www.worcestercitymuseums.org.uk/content/pothist/phrom.htm

quote:

If this is the general opinion regarding the activities of professional academics derived from TV archaeology, then there are real problems, and we should seriously consider its future.

The media attempts to tell the story that the producer wants his or her audience to hear and picks the experts who allow that story to be told. Often the story is sensational. As you point out, this is true of many popular publications too.

The benefit of forums such as this is that, with interest kindled by the media, viewers or readers can learn of alternative interpretations or arguments. Many learn to be more critical and are prompted to read more academic publications. You see the positive response to the Woolf link. Even if people don't read those papers thoroughly or are not familiar with much of the history referred to, they will understand that there are many more things to consider than the original story but, much of this would not happen without the original stimulus.

Owain's charge of 'arrogance' is not limited to TV archaeology however. I have heard Sam Lucy telling a BBC Radio 4 audience that as far as Bede's HE is concerned, 'you can throw it out of the window' and another well known archaeologist referring to the pottery evidence ponder 'whether these marching pots wore jackboots'. Such comments only serve to raise questions about the quality of their interpretations of the evidence.

best

harry A

Nick Higham's book, Britons in Anglo-Saxon England referred to by Gil above, is a collection of papers written, if I recall correctly, for a conference in 2004. I imagine all the papers are worth reading. One of the contributors, Richard Coates has a paper entitled 'Invisible Britons: the view from linguistics' which is also online:

http://www.sussex.ac.uk/linguistics/documents/rc_britons.pdf

As Gil stated, the book is expensive but other papers may be online. A list of the papers can be seen at:

http://www.boydell.co.uk/43833123.HTM

Very much a bargain at the moment are back issues of several volumes from the Anglo Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History series. Annually, several papers are contributed to this publication, each year having a 'theme'. Volumes 3 to 12 are all priced at £9.95, whereas 13, 14 & 15 are all around £50.

A list of the volumes and contents, not maintained, can be seen at:

http://web.arch.ox.ac.uk/assah/dsub.htm

and you can see a list of volumes and prices at:

http://www.oxbowbooks.com/results.cfm/q/anglo%20saxon%2...hor/ST/QS/StartRow/1

best
authun

A most fascinating thread -showing the forum at its best...
thanks to you all for giving much food for thought (for we interested but non academic readers)and many avenues to explore.

Yes I found the details of Nick Higham (ed), Britons in Anglo-Saxon England (Boydell press 2007), which seems to be c. £50 on Amazon. Thanks for the link to the paper by Coates.

I don't think we should let this excellent thread get sidetracked by attacks on/ defences of academics as a breed. I am an academic (part-time) and devoted to the scholarly ethos, but wouldn't dream of defending the views of everyone who has ever held a lecturing post!

Objectivity is the ideal, but impossible to achieve within the social sciences. Man studying men? Not like physics exactly. We look at the evidence through the prism of our own culture, and awash with feelings about our own identities. We can only strive to be aware of our own biases. Does a particular thesis have an instant appeal? Why? Does it make us feel good about ourselves? If so, caution might be needed.

quote:

well known archaeologist referring to the pottery evidence ponder 'whether these marching pots wore jackboots'.

Very interesting example. The violent swing of the pendulum against the "waves of invasion" approach to British history came in the decades after the 2nd World War. The British - already insular in their thinking - had been threatened from the Continent, and by the very people we had seen as cousins. How much more appealing was the view of ourselves as a breed apart! And one which had successfully resisted invasions.

quote:

An example would be Worcester:

Thanks Jean. That's a good history for a museum web site. Much better than many I have seen.

A series of books entitled Peoples of the British Isles covers several of the pre roman tribal groupings. Each book appears to finish on a chapter about the late 4th and early 5th cents and provides details of the archaeology for the period. I only have three copies but the neighbouring group, the Cornovii by Graham Webster details a similar picture for Wroxeter.

This sort of contraction used to be interpreted as evidence of an anglo saxon threat. Webster writes that some bodies found in the hypocaust of the baths were seen, rather typically for 19th cent. antiquarians, as final proof of the poor souls crawling down for their own safety, only to be suffocated by the building being burnt above their heads.

There is however no indication of this holocaust and Webster thinks it is much more likely that the ruined buildings were simply used as a graveyard after the floor had been broken up to extract the tiles below. The hypercaust simply provided ready dug 'graves'.

best

Harry A

quote:

a similar picture for Wroxeter.

That reminded me that I actually have Roger White and Philip Barker, Wroxeter: Life and death of a Roman city (1998) on my shelves. Honestly my memory is dreadful! I've got so many books here I lose track.

quote:

Objectivity is the ideal, but impossible to achieve within the social sciences. Man studying men? Not like physics exactly.

Oh be assured it exists in Physics too. Steady state versus expanding universe theories, Einstein's 'biggest blunder', the cosmological constant' and Eric Laithwaite's heresy to question Isaac Newton.

I saw an experiment where the effect is observable and repeatable on TV in the 1970s and started to ask my maths professor who interrupted me.

'I don't know. But, one thing's for sure, Newton isn't wrong. I'd like to see a top applied mathematician like Laithwaite investigate this' I was told.

Well, he did. The BBC included his ruined career in their series 'Heretic'. Someone's even put it up on the web:

http://www.gyroscopes.org/heretic.asp

I still haven't seen any explanation why the effect is observed but that apparantly is not as important as not questioning Newton.

best

harry A

You may also like to see this extract, 'What's wrong with the scientific world' from the 1974 - 75 Christmas Lectures:

http://www.gyros.biz/lecture/wmv/13.wmv

Good old Eric was a star.

cheers

Harry A

quote:

How much more appealing was the view of ourselves as a breed apart! And one which had successfully resisted invasions.

Until Jack Straw, responding to Donald Rumsfeld's comment about 'Old Europe' told the United Nations that the United Kingdom was founded by the French in 1066.

Mind, we were negotiating gas and electricity supplies from France at the time.

best
Harry A

Excuse me but..

my family having arrived here with the conk from Normandy....

the Normans were scandanavian not French -we are supposedly Danish!

Non of the present government seemed to have read history at all (otherwise they would not have gone into Afghanistan!)

I'm pretty sure I have one Norman ancestor, but I wouldn't care to guess his ancestry! The Norman army that arrived with William was an ethnic mixture. There were French and Breton troops. (The Bretons had a lot of British blood and spoke Breton, which is like Welsh.)

As for the Normans themselves - Normandy was granted to a band of Danish Vikings led by Rollo, for sure. But they just formed the upper crust. The people they lorded it over were a mixture of Frank and Gaul. And after a few generations of inter-mixing, even the upper crust wouldn't have been pure Dane. William himself was the son of a tanner's daughter remember.

One of the topics being currently debated on the dna-forums is that of the 'Normans', some people trying to find something distinctive about their markers. This is as likely as finding a distinctive Bolshevik marker.

In addition to Jean's groupings, we can add the original Amorican dna to the Bretons, who surely weren't exclusively of british descent. A number of Flemmings were also included in William's army. These may have consisted of the Belgic group, the Morini amongst whom had settled Jutish Saxons, if we are to believe Gregory.

But Ann's comments will go down well with some Scandinavian historians who are keen to point out that William's name appears mostly in its Scandinavian form on the Bayeaux tapestry, rather than its french form and that many 'french' nobles, such as Tancred d'Hautville, were descended from Scandinavians. Tancred is thought to be descended from the Morejarls of Orkney.

But, Scandinavian historians tend to argue that all germanic speaking peoples came from Scandinavia anyway, using the term Womb of Nations. German historians prefer to see an origin in the LBK and Jastdorf cultures.

The UK is not alone with disagreements on origins.

best

Harry A

Its the name -supposed to be of Danish extraction - actually I take it with the proverbial pinch of salt! But they did come with the conk.

What a fascinating thread. The more I know the less likely I feel we will ever really understand what happened and maybe that defunct old phrase the "Dark Ages" should be shown a little more respect. The theories and speculation read like interesting plots for good historical fictions, but not good science. Perhaps the genetic evidence will eventually reach a level to swing the debate onto a firm scientific basis, but maybe it will just confound? In the meantime I will enjoy the speculation and be moved by sad daydreams of a lost world and those who watched, suffered and tried to make sense of the upheaval in which they were caught up.

I am however tempted to join in with my amatuer unscientific speculations/questions...... There seems to be an implication that Britons were a homogenous group by this time? How diverse might they have been and in which case how diverse their responses?
Presumbaly there was still a sizeable slave class ? They would have had a different response to the social changes, opportuninties and risks than wealthier land owners?
Would remaining artisans with portable wealth and skills have tended to head west or seek patronage among the newcomers ? You could speculate that young male Britons would have felt vulnerable and disenfranchised by the new arrivals (like some today!) and would have headed west where I guess military employment may have been a way out of subserviance (as it still for some today)

With regard to language whats the evidence that Britons spoke ONE celtic language at this time? Whats the evidence that Roman occupation had caused a coalescing of pre conquest languages/dialects? Presumably if preconquest tribal areas retained discrete languages then what would have been the obvious lingua franca if not the language of the newcomers.

In terms of fertility of the 2 communities its not difficult to see the vulnerability of the Britons. Take the example of New Zealand Maori. In 1830 there were 200,000 Maori and 2000 mostly male Europeans. The Europeans usually took several Maori wives and had large families. European Y-DNA within a generation is 10000 , 5% of total pop if they all had 5 sons surviving into adul