Ancient and Archaeology聽 permalink
Where and How did the 3.5 million Brythons live under the Romans?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.聽
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Wednesday, 30th December 2009
If there were 3.5 million Brythons in the Roman era obviously these were still not in the cities (100,000 people) or the forts (20,000 - 50,000 soldiers + 50,000 followers) 鈥 can any one answer whether they were they living in villages and how was their society structured?
Link to this forum: Where and How did the 3.5 million Brythons live under the Romans?
-
Message 2
Posted by Birdyphil (U14277858) on Wednesday, 30th December 2009
They lived mainly in family groups in small villages, 麻豆约拍steads(Farms) and in some areas in larger towns such as the predessesors of the later Roman "cities" of St Albans , Colchester or small towns like Braughing in East Herts.
The family groups are thought to have belonged to or formed larger Tribes such as the Iceni, Trinovantes, Catevelaunni etc.Link to this forum: Where and How did the 3.5 million Brythons live under the Romans?
-
Message 3
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Thursday, 31st December 2009
Hi Birdyphil
I meant the period post AD410 to AD500 not pre-Roman.
It seems to me that although we have an understanding (although limited) of the people living in the Cities, the Villas and Soldiers and their followers living in the Forts etc., we have no real understanding of the structure of Brython Society which is some 3,000,000 people we believe unaccounted for.
The Brythons themselves were taxed, one assumes by the Roman Administration, but how was this tax collected?
Was it through their leaders who were based in the Cities under Roman "protection" or was the Villa Society the methodology for collecting taxes?
After the Romans had beaten the Tribes in Brtain was a Tribal Society still in place?
So the question still stands what was the structure of Brython Society post AD410?
Do we assume that there was in effect a set of strata with the peasants at the bottom level, then landowners, then tribal leaders or warlords, then an Administration backed by the Military?
Kind Regards - TALink to this forum: Where and How did the 3.5 million Brythons live under the Romans?
-
Message 4
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Saturday, 2nd January 2010
Current evidence suggests that the locals carried on much as before the arrival of the Romans with the exception of the tribal elites. These were required to participate in the development of the local tribal capitals into Roman towns.
It is likely that these people were offered loans to fund the creation of a forum, temples and basilicas appropriate to Romanitas. It might be the calling in of such loans was a factor in triggering Boudicca's uprising.
There is argument as to the extent of Roman penetration into native British society. There is evidence to suggest that this was by no means as deep and as extensive as what took place in southern Gaul.
Furthermore there are arguments that given the significant size of the Roman military garrison within Britain that in the conquest of Britain the Romans had gone beyond their own capabilities. The jury is still out on this matter.
There is also evidence to suggest that pre-invasion tribal identities had a resurgence after the collapse of the Empire with one notable exception: namely, the Catuvellauni seemed to have disappeared leaving the south east of the island exposed to foreign incursions. The discussion continues.Link to this forum: Where and How did the 3.5 million Brythons live under the Romans?
-
Message 5
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Sunday, 3rd January 2010
Hi TA
I think that there is only one way of even attempting to answer your question, and that is moving from the known to the unknown. The Domesday survey enables some estimates to be made about the demography of Norman England based on is manorial structure. I am not an enthusiast for this period but I understand that the Domesday Book (which does not even cover the whole of England) lists some 13,000 communities (most of which we would describe as villages or hamlets). Scholars of medieval England have suggested a total population of 2 million of which 90% were rural.
Moving now to Roman Britain, say the day in 307 when Constantine I was elected Emperor, we may ask how did Roman Britain's population compare with that of Norman England's? Archaeology reveals that Roman Britain is thickly set with planned and unplanned towns, villages, roads and large villa estates. The more detailed and intensive the research, the more Roman settlements that are found. It is really hard to believed that Roman Britain was less densely populated than Norman England, and since we agree that the 4th century towns were in decline then the majority of the people will have also lived in the countryside. I would suggest a population of 2-3 million with again 90% being rural. Determining what happened to the population between these two periods is largely speculative. What type of data could shed light on the problem? Some decline would not be surprising based on the social dislocations of the late 4th century, and the probable climate deterioration and possible epidemics of the 5th.
Until the construction of medieval planned towns I think that we can be quite sure that the inhabitants of post-Imperial Britain lived in villages, but determining the basis on which their society was structured is very difficult indeed. Well, we know that Gildas found 5 kings to criticise in 'Wales' and the south-west, so if this was an average incidence of kingdoms per square mile there might easily be 10-15 more in Britain as a whole. If we imagine a score of successor states each with its own kinglet or 'war-lord' we cannot be far wrong. These kinglets might well be the last holders of Roman imperium in each area, or claimed descent from those holders. Alternatively they might have been 'Irish' or 'Anglo-Saxon' migrants who had arrived with a ready made retinue. Each kinglet would have had to provide his followers with enough agricultural land to support fighting men, a situation not so dissimilar from that in Norman England. In the West could Christianity have survived in a complete enough a state for churches and monasteries to have provided an alternative social structure to the naked coercive power of war-lords?
Many posters evidently feel that the Iron Age tribal structure survived right through the Roman period to emerge again in the 5th century. I'd love to believe this but I cannot. Four hundred years is a very long time. The secular elites and the druids, who seem to have had important roles in the Iron Age tribes had been totally destroyed. Post-imperial Britain was a 'multi-ethnic' society and many of its members will have changed both religion and language. I'd need some powerful evidence to be convinced, although I'd be happy if someone could convince me!
Kind regards,
TPLink to this forum: Where and How did the 3.5 million Brythons live under the Romans?
-
Message 6
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Sunday, 3rd January 2010
Hi TP
An excellent Post.
I am concerned that we are in total agreement here regarding the 鈥淜ingdoms鈥 and this makes for an elitist 鈥渢ake over鈥 by foreign war bands far more likely during the 6th and 7th Centuries bringing their families along with them.
Looking at the DNA evidence Stephen Oppenheimer鈥檚 article of 2006 has an interesting twist鈥︹.
He postulates that in fact although we assume that England was populated by Celtic Tribes the fact is that the aboriginal inhabitants that populated the whole of Britain were a peoples who migrated from the Basque area between 15,000 and 7,500 years ago. It is their DNA that is 75% of the make up of the British Isles.
During the Neolithic however the Celts did migrate as part of a tribe of farmers and settled in Cornwall, Wales and the South and West Coasts as well as Ireland, this is borne out by the Celtic artifacts in the west but not in 鈥淓ngland鈥.
Again the Celtic DNA evidence is only about 20% of the whole of the 鈥淏ritish鈥 DNA.
So who were the people who were inhabiting England when the Romans invaded? You will notice that I refer to 鈥淓ngland鈥 and not Britain 鈥 as usual the two names cause major confusion.
It is likely that, and DNA evidence confirms this, the tribes in the South of England were actually part of the 鈥淏elgae Nations鈥 themselves based on Germanic roots. In fact Tacitus states that 鈥渢he language differs but little鈥 from Gaul.
Further to this during the Neolithic it seems that there were Scandinavian influences down the East Coast from Shetland down to Anglia and these peoples were already well established prior the Roman invasions.
So when the Romans invaded Britain it was possibly made up of difering tribes of German rooted people in Southern England, Celts in part of England and Wales and Scandanivians in Northern and Eastern England.
So according to the DNA evidence the invasions by the Belgae, Romans, Saxons, Jutes, Angles Vikings and Normans did not influence the gene pool by any great amount (probably as a whole by 5%) showing that the invasions after the Roman time was definitely based upon elitist replacement.
This also answers the question of why the language in England was Germanic and Scandinavian based within two hundred years of the Romans leaving 鈥 mainly because the tribes in England had been speaking it for centuries.
It would perhaps explain why the German invaders easily settled amongst the locals as basically they all spoke the same language and had similar customs.
They would also respect 鈥渆lite鈥 replacement and take it as part of the norm.
Kind Regards - TALink to this forum: Where and How did the 3.5 million Brythons live under the Romans?
-
Message 7
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Monday, 4th January 2010
Hi TA,
Thanks for your kind remarks; was Oppenheimer's book a Christmas present?
We can try to construct a narrative describing the pre-history of Britain and Ireland based on historical sources, or linguistic studies, or archaeological findings or, now, genetics. The great problem is that no one person is the master, or mistress, of all these disciplines, and in any case the stories the disciplines appear to tell are not the same.
To begin with I really think you should avoid using the terms 'Celts' and 'celtic'. Oppenheimer himself provides the arguments in favour of such an avoidance. Essentially the terms have been used to describe Iron Age people using Central European Hallstat, and subsequently La Tene, technology. But the same terms have been employed to describe those speaking a language of the Celtic family, the immediate origins of which would seem to be in southern 'France'. The technological and linguistic areas are not co-terminus and I'm sure that a more neutral usage, such as 鈥淚ron Age tribe鈥, is desirable. I am also unhappy at your use of 'Scandinavian', since Scandinavia is a modern construct. Would you accept 'pre-Viking Norse' as a substitute? Finally to use the word 'England' to describe a part of the UK prior to the reign of Edward the Elder does not seem, to me at least, to make the subject any clearer.
I think that we can be quite sure that a deserted Britain and Ireland were repopulated by plants, animals and humans at the end of the last period of glaciation. Clearly it would have to be from a human population centre substantially south of the sub-Arctic tundra that was northern Europe, and there is nothing intrinsically unlikely for people from the Basque region of modern France & Spain to move, generation after generation, up the Atlantic coast of France and into the south-west of Britain, and southern Ireland. The idea that there were subsequently massive migrations, with regular population replacements, are unquestionably hypotheses in retreat. If the bulk of the genetic heritage of the British and Irish is seen to derive from those first Palaeolithic migrants then this certainly fits with modern archaeological theories which tend to minimise the numbers involved in subsequent ingresses of Neolithic farmers, Beaker people, Romans, Anglo-Saxons and so forth. There are four plausible routes of entry into mainland Britain: the Atlantic route already mentioned, from 'Ireland' into western Britain, a north sea route via the Northern Isles, and finally a cross-channel route, as used by Julius Caesar and the Saxon migrants.
The first written language used in Britain was Latin. We can have no certain knowledge about earlier spoken languages, although in view of the survival of modern Breton, Welsh, Irish, Gaelic and so forth it seems highly likely that a Celtic language was spoken in lowland Britain in the pre-Roman period, may we call this 'Old British'? Lord Renfrew proposed that a proto-Old British entered Britain in association with the Neolithic package of technology although, inevitably, this idea has been challenged by scholars of linguistics. Whenever 'Old British' arrived it replaced an unknown, and hypothetical, earlier Mesolithic language. In time 'Old British' was replaced by 'Very Old English'. Now you say that 鈥渢he language in England was Germanic and Scandinavian based within two hundred years of the Romans leaving鈥 (that is by the early 7th century), but we don't really know how long it took Old English to become the common speech of the bulk of the population. In the case of Cornwall at least it took until the Middle Ages.
The two most contentious ideas of Oppenheimer's are that 'Very Old English' was spoken in Iron Age south-east Britain, and that there was significant pre-Viking Norse contact with north-east Britain.
Naturally the Romans didn't invent place-names wholesale but often borrowed or modified earlier names. It's a difficult area but the fact is that most Roman place names can be interpreted to make sense in a Celtic language and none, so far as I know, in English. I don't have any problem with Germanic languages being spoken in Britain centuries before the Saxon migrations (by Roman auxiliaries for example) but is there any positive evidence for the significant use of Very Old English in the pre-Roman Iron Age?
Significant (not just the occasional half-drowned sailor) pre-Viking Norse contact with the Northern Isles and north-east mainland Scotland would solve some historical problems. Bede describes the Picts coming from 'Scythia', and the place names of Shetland, which are almost entirely Norse in origin, could have then originated in some fashion more acceptable that the wholesale massacre of the indigenous population. The difficulty here is one of artefacts. Items of unquestioned Norse origin, like schist hones and steatite bowls, often occur in datable contexts. But none of these, again so far as I am aware, have dates earlier than the historical Viking era. The earliest skeletal material in Iceland is also from this historical period.
Best wishes,
TPLink to this forum: Where and How did the 3.5 million Brythons live under the Romans?
-
Message 8
Posted by Poldertijger (U11154078) on Monday, 4th January 2010
Re: message 6.
Hello TheodericAur,
I feel that one should be careful with data taken from DNA. Available is the history of the father of the father of the father... or the mother of the mother of the mother... only. This hardly constitutes a random test.
Regards,
PoldertijgerLink to this forum: Where and How did the 3.5 million Brythons live under the Romans?
-
Message 9
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Monday, 4th January 2010
Hi Poldertijger
I take your point on board and as TP says we have to look at more than one angle or proof. I still find it interesting that the base DNA of 75%, is still basically Basque and not Celt (sorry TP) Anglo Saxon, Viking or Norman.
From my point of view it is a refreshing look at tribes where I had assumed that although the Romans had listed them as different I hadn鈥檛 thought of them as being of different identities, customs etc.
Kind Regards - TALink to this forum: Where and How did the 3.5 million Brythons live under the Romans?
-
Message 10
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Tuesday, 5th January 2010
Hi TP
Thanks for your most recent post - again loads of food for thought!
I of course have no problem with Pre Viking Norse, it is after all totally accurate.
When I was referring to "England" it was an attempt to break up Britain but you are right - completely out of context...it was just the reverse of when today people say 鈥淓ngland鈥 when they mean 鈥淏ritain鈥.
Regarding the "Celts", I agree that from a DNA point of view we are talking about the Iron Age Tribe who came from Southern France and who had been established for many years.
After looking at this again I realise how right you were many months ago to question the idea of the Romans identifying the locals as tribes 鈥 they were in fact establishing 鈥淭axable Areas鈥 sometimes based on tribal lines, but not always but always with the objective of controlling the local population.
After thinking on your point of Roman / Celtic names a further thought struck me.
Similarly to Latin being spoken and indeed written in the Roman Provinces, would it not be feasible that in areas outside these Provinces that Celtic was the 鈥淐ommon Language鈥 spoken between tribes in Britain but this would not preclude the establishment of other tribal groups who settled in Britain but who had a different set of DNA roots.
As far as I am aware the Druids were the law makers and educators, therefore to have a legal common language would make sense.
Another thought that also struck me is that Offas Dyke and Wansdyke lie on the borders of some of these areas, so perhaps these were of the earlier period rather than Roman or post Roman 鈥 this of course does not prevent various peoples utilising the original earthworks for themselves in their time鈥︹
Best Wishes - TALink to this forum: Where and How did the 3.5 million Brythons live under the Romans?
-
Message 11
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Tuesday, 5th January 2010
Hi TA,
I think that we have to assume that Roman colonial administrators in Britain were about as aware of indigenous tribal sensitivities as British colonial administrators in Africa. Anything the Romans did was purely for their benefit, and if their taxable areas did happen to correspond to tribal territories then this would have purely been a matter of their convenience. They were happy to build a massive wall across the territory of the Brigantes weren't they!
I can't think of any immediate objection to a Celtic 'Old British' being a supra-tribal language. I am a poor linguist myself and I find in hard to imagine fluency in more than one tongue. But many residents of, say, modern Pakistan must have knowledge of a regional language, a national language (Urdu), an international language (English), and a religious language (Arabic). On this analogy it would be perfectly possible for the Druids also to have had their own separate religious language (like Latin in the Catholic Church).
Dating Offa's or any Linear Dyke should, in theory, be a simple matter even without modern scientific dating methods. Firstly you ask at what period's the dykes make political sense as boundaries or defensive works. Secondly you ask what datable materials are found on the original ground surface over which material is dumped to make the bank. In practice, as we all found out on the Offa's Dyke thread (happy days), things are not quite so clear. My memory is that a post-Imperial date still seem most likely but we could look at this in more detail. But in it's own thread perhaps?
Kind regards,
TPLink to this forum: Where and How did the 3.5 million Brythons live under the Romans?
-
Message 12
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Tuesday, 5th January 2010
Hi TP
Getting back to an earlier point that you raised, I have always found it difficult to understand how the Christian Church became so powerful but I have a sneaky suspicion that it raised its head through the military and gradually started to gain power.
Obviously Gildas felt confident enough not to be threatened in spite of his insults and criticisms to all the kings in his region鈥.
The Christian Church became huge in terms of wealth and Power how do you think this happened without formal support from AD410 onwards?
Do we assume that Christianity was already a powerful force not only with the Romans and the Elite but also the rest of the Brythons?
Kind Regards - TALink to this forum: Where and How did the 3.5 million Brythons live under the Romans?
-
Message 13
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Tuesday, 5th January 2010
Hi TA,
That's an absolutely massive question which I will need to think about before even attempting to answer. Would you be willing to pose it again in a new thread of its own? I think it might attract an audience who would be indifferent to more secular 'end of Roman Britain' questions?
TPLink to this forum: Where and How did the 3.5 million Brythons live under the Romans?
-
Message 14
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Tuesday, 5th January 2010
Hi TP
Which board would you suggest?
Kind Regards - TALink to this forum: Where and How did the 3.5 million Brythons live under the Romans?
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or 聽to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
麻豆约拍 iD
麻豆约拍 navigation
麻豆约拍 links
麻豆约拍 漏 2014 The 麻豆约拍 is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.