DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Even Greener Pastures
HTML https://evengreener.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Books, Films and Series
*****************************************************
#Post#: 12514--------------------------------------------------
"Britain after Rome" by Robin Fleming
By: Alharacas Date: February 14, 2019, 4:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It's a book about the history of Britain ca. 350 - 1070. It's
not quite new (ca. 2012), but so far, it's simply brilliant!
Yes, I know not many of you are going to be even faintly
interested, but you don't have to read on, do you?
Since there's so little written evidence about this time, and
chronicles were usually written several hundred years after
events, the author mostly relies on archeological evidence.
You'd have to read mountains of dusty scientific archeology
journals to collect anything like the sheer amout of facts - not
to mention fascinating details - Robin Fleming's presenting.
To give you an idea, let me quote a few paragraphs about the
excavation of Poundbury cemetery, where about 1,200 people were
buried in the 4th century:
For the most part, [...] the brevity of their lives was the
result of long-term, low-grade malnutrition, not from
starvation, but rather from a flawed diet. Children grew slowly
(the growth of young children lagged two years behind those of
comparable age today), and puberty came late; and those who
lived to adulthood had light bones and por teeth. These are
classic signs of poor nutrition. Lead, infant feeding practices
and scurvy may have been major culprits in this. Stomach
maladies like diarrhoea could also compromise health, because
they led to the poor absoprtion of nutrients from food and
brought on a host of more serious complaints: gout,
osteoporosis, leg ulcers and infertility were all likely common
catastrophes in fourth-century Dorset.
[...] Hair in Poundboury was neatly combed and dressed with oil.
The men wore their hair long at the neck and combed orward from
the crowns of their heads. One older man had dyed his hair with
henna, and combed it to cover his bald spot! The women wore
their hair coiled or braided in buns and twists, and the coif of
one woman was so elaborate that she could not have done it
without help. This woman was not the only person buried at
Poundbury who looks like a member of the elite. A number of men
[...] were laid to rest in lead coffins, others inside
mausoleums. Most of these people were especially tall and
robust, and they would have stood out physically in and around
Poundbury. A number [...] exhibited signs of [...] something
which in modern population signals adult-onset diabetes or
obesity. And two of them, as we know from an analysis of stable
isotopes trapped in their bones, were among the only people
buried in the cemetery to have eaten seafood, or perhaps fish
sauce, which would have been an expensive delicacy in
fourth-century Britain.
#Post#: 12516--------------------------------------------------
Re: "Britain after Rome" by Robin Fleming
By: Kseniia Date: February 14, 2019, 4:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you, Alharacas, that's interesting. Though I wonder why
seafood would have been "an expensive delicacy" in
fourth-century Britain. How far is Poundbury from the sea? 10
miles or so? Hmm.
#Post#: 12518--------------------------------------------------
Re: "Britain after Rome" by Robin Fleming
By: Alharacas Date: February 14, 2019, 5:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You're right, Kseniia. On the other hand, if it hadn't been
expensive, why would only 2 out of 1,200 have eaten any? Plus, I
suppose any kind of food not produced by inland subsistence
farming would be considered expensive in times of economical
crisis, wouldn't it?
And then... I'm trying to figure it out here: okay, a trained
marathon walker would be able to walk to the coast and back in a
day. That's not counting the return walk being slowed down by
the fish the guy would have had to carry.
But they didn't have trained walkers, did they? What they had
were undernourished farm workers.
So, give it at least 2 to 3 days for this errand - provided
somebody's fishing boat had just come in. It means you'd lose a
a worker during this time, would have to provide him with money
for the shopping, food for the road (what about shelter?) AND
would only get as much fish as 1 guy could comfortably carry.
That does make it look rather more expensive, doesn't it?
#Post#: 12530--------------------------------------------------
Re: "Britain after Rome" by Robin Fleming
By: NealC Date: February 14, 2019, 7:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I think this sounds like a very interesting book!
I have always been skeptical of studies that show the peasantry
of old ate poorly. The whole allure of subsistence farming is
it does provide subsistence, and a diet a lot more varied than
the "thin gruel" of social studies textbooks. And you don't
need Oranges or Limes to cure scurvy, vegetables do the trick.
My father said they didn't have much in the way of things or
spending money during the depression, but on the farm they
always ate.
Anyway, I love that kind of info, I will check out the book
#Post#: 12533--------------------------------------------------
Re: "Britain after Rome" by Robin Fleming
By: Coligno Date: February 14, 2019, 7:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I suppose finding the population in such conditions (and I don't
just mean the hairstyles) must have made things easier for the
Angles and Saxons (and Jutes) to take over south-east Britain.
The British language (the ancestor of modern Welsh, Cornish and
Breton) seems to have left surprisingly few lexical traces in
English, which would tend to suggest a large-scale replacement
of the population, rather than the natives simply adopting the
language of the invaders (though it is thought to have had quite
a profound effect in other ways, such as on syntax).
There's some historical evidence for a plague devastating
Sub-Roman Britain (I think the Annals of Ulster mention it, if I
remember correctly), which would certainly have found fertile
ground amongst a people so debilitated (does your book say
anything about it? I'm not sure what the general consensus
amongst historians is).
#Post#: 12534--------------------------------------------------
Re: "Britain after Rome" by Robin Fleming
By: Alharacas Date: February 14, 2019, 7:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=NealC link=topic=851.msg12530#msg12530
date=1550151510]
I have always been skeptical of studies that show the peasantry
of old ate poorly. The whole allure of subsistence farming is
it does provide subsistence, and a diet a lot more varied than
the "thin gruel" of social studies textbooks. And you don't
need Oranges or Limes to cure scurvy, vegetables do the trick.
[/quote]
I was hoping you might find it interesting, although so far,
there hasn't been much in the way of military history in it. ;)
I found scurvy surprising, too. But then, munching raw carrots
or even onions is not something you'd particularly want to do if
you had poor teeth - even supposing you had an inkling it would
be good for you. Apples had only just been introduced (by the
Romans), so they probably weren't of the kind yet which would
keep through the winter, I suppose.
Also, I don't think the writer was saying people were starving,
exactly, just that they weren't getting the right kind of
nutrients. Plus, she mentioned ringworm* and also another kind
of intestinal parasite, so this surely contributed to their
being malnourished.
*Oops! Sorry! Not "ringworm"! Roundworm! And whipworm!
#Post#: 12535--------------------------------------------------
Re: "Britain after Rome" by Robin Fleming
By: NealC Date: February 14, 2019, 8:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Basic sanitation was something a lot of these societies were not
very good at and I am sure parasites were rampant. The Romans
introduced things like heated baths and the importance of
potable fresh water but those sort of public works would be
amongst the first things to break down after they left. Combine
that with the Roman affinity for using lead and you have quite a
few dangers to health.
Fish should have been in the diet so close to the sea, but fish
sauce is very interesting. A lot of that would come from the
Mediterranean, as the climate is better in warmer areas to make
the sauce. Pompeii was famous for its fish sauce, and I am sure
that taste (umami) would appeal to the rich, especially if they
had Roman ancestry. The ancient trade in fish sauce is an
interesting study.
I think Coligno is right, language does point to replacement.
Perhaps being the benefits of being a Roman vassal quickly
deteriorated when the Romans departed.
That might even be one of the themes of the book? The fourth
century would definitely be a society in decline as the society
transitoned from the possibilities of specialization and
urbanization under an organized regime, to a more basic
subsistence style.
#Post#: 12541--------------------------------------------------
Re: "Britain after Rome" by Robin Fleming
By: Kseniia Date: February 14, 2019, 10:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=NealC link=topic=851.msg12535#msg12535
date=1550153036]
Perhaps the benefits of being a Roman vassal quickly
deteriorated when the Romans departed.
[/quote]
Emm... well, maybe we just have a slightly different view on
this in Russia (if there is anything I remember from my history
lessons, it is the phrase "they make a desert and call it
peace")... What were these benefits? Surely you're not talking
about heated baths or something? Urbanisation then? Trade?
#Post#: 12548--------------------------------------------------
Re: "Britain after Rome" by Robin Fleming
By: NealC Date: February 14, 2019, 12:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Nothing for peace quite like a desert :-)
You have to admit, the Romans did bring some advancement. Their
civilization was nearly up to steam power before things fell
apart.
In terms of allowing greater urbanization through engineering,
aqueducts, public baths, -- these things make it so people can
live close together without crippling outbreaks of disease.
Trade brings wealth, the roads Rome built and the contacts with
outside people brought trade. Their navies kept the peace in
the Med, which brought in grain from egypt, where it grew
better/faster. Their politics mostly brought peace and
religious tolerance, except if you wanted complete freedom of
course. Then it was desert time.
Imagine living in a British city, working a trade, and the
systems the Romans put in place break down because they are
gone. Public works start going to shit, water is contaminated,
sewage breaks down all that leads to parasites and disease. The
roads are bad or dangerous, no one is coming in for my trade
skills, I cant even get fish from 10 miles away! I would think
3rd Century Britain would be in the middle of a crisis.
#Post#: 12562--------------------------------------------------
Re: "Britain after Rome" by Robin Fleming
By: Kseniia Date: February 15, 2019, 5:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
@Neal, well, I see what you mean, but I'm not sure I agree that
these advancements outweighed the disadvantages of being under
the Roman rule. It's a bit like saying that India is indebted to
the British Empire for the railways. As for sanitation etc. -
introducing smallpox and plague to the island almost offset the
positive impact I suppose.
I've been thinking about this fish thing, Alharacas... But it
seems to me that it still doesn't add up (or maybe I'm just not
smart enough to figure it out). I mean, we're talking about the
4th century, what kind of trade relations did they have with
their closest neighbours then? Who lived there 10 miles south,
didn't let them fish (I'm pretty sure that they could afford
losing one or two labour units in order to get an expensive
good) and didn't even want to sell them any seafood at a more or
less affordable price (who did they sell it to then)? Or did
those people buried in the cemetery have absolutely nothing to
barter? I'm honestly starting to think that maybe la Manche was
fishless back then.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page