Ancient and ArchaeologyÌý permalink
Treasures of the Anglo-Saxons
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by Kevin Futers (U14581272) on Tuesday, 10th August 2010
I have just watched one of the best programmes I have ever seen on Anglo-Saxon art presented with passion and knowledge by Dr. Janina Ramirez on Â鶹ԼÅÄ4, a criminal slot for such an excellent piece. It is airing (presumably) as part of the Â鶹ԼÅÄ's current Norman Season (see what they did! Those rotten Normans overturning centuries of artistic development!).
I was disappointed by her simplification of the Anglo-Saxons following Rome, the rest of the country following native Christianity when it was the fact that the two had to co-exist for a time in the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms that brought about the decision to change. She was of course right in identifying the figure of St Cuthbert as the figure around whom the two traditions could mix and grow (even if he may have been obedient rather than enthusiastic about the change).
I was slightly intrigued by why her boots seemed to play such a star role in the programme though, as they wended their way in close up through St Paul's in Jarrow, across the turf at Lindisfarne Priory and through the halls of the British Library and the British Museum.
That aside, I learned a few new opinions, saw some objects I had never seen before and finally got to see the hall that Regia Anglorum were building in Kent back when I was a member.
Excellent stuff!
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator] -
Message 2
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Wednesday, 11th August 2010
I didn't see this programme, but most general history books seem to "begin" with William I.
'They [the Normans] produced little in art or learning and nothing in literature that could be set beside the work of the Englishmen.'
Prof. Frank Stenton – "Anglo-Saxon England".
'[England] was many times richer than Normandy in wealth and in military strength'
King William's hagiographic Chaplain, William of Poitiers. -
Message 3
Posted by ChrisB5 (U14582135) on Wednesday, 11th August 2010
Why on earth she was so obsessed with cloven hooves I can't even begin to imagine. The images are blindingly obviously top welted turn shoes with a decorative strip of what was probably either fine embroidered or brocaded braid, or tablet woven braid.
An unforgiveable mistake in that it's such an easy thing to have asked about and got right. She was even filming with people who would know - the re-enactors from Regia Anglorum! -
Message 4
Posted by glen berro (U8860283) on Sunday, 15th August 2010
I've just seen this on Â鶹ԼÅÄi and also noticed that her boots seemed to have a starring role.
Perhaps you were concentrating on them so much that you missed the caption which referred to 'Durham Cathedral, Northumberland'. That must have come as a shock to residents of Co. Durham.
glen [From Northumberland]. -
Message 5
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Monday, 16th August 2010
I thought she was very good despite the boots.
-
Message 6
Posted by glen berro (U8860283) on Monday, 16th August 2010
You are right, Haesten.
It is good to see someone who loves history and is not merely trying to become a meeja person. I thought her enthusiasm with her subject came through, and feel the boots were down to the folk who did the filming. -
Message 7
Posted by lizness (U14593902) on Wednesday, 25th August 2010
I have to agree with the boot comments. Why did she have to walk about so much? I found most of the walking distracting and pointless. The standing in front of a wall in London to talk about the 'wall built to keep the Picts out'... I think I can spot a wall and even think one up in my minds eye with out the need to illustrate it. This 'clowning' everything up to entertain us is patronizing. I can actually concentrate for an hour on a subject I am interested in without the use of 'fun' images. To be honest, you wouldn't have watched this if you were looking for Eastenders. I would also like a bit more information about where the sites were filmed as I would like to visit some of the wilder spots..and not just to track her high heeled boot marks!!!
-
Message 8
Posted by Brigid (U14593966) on Wednesday, 25th August 2010
It was a odd programme in that the presenter, Dr Janina Ramirez, was evidently fluent in Anglo-Saxon, but showed an erratic grasp of contemporary English grammar and usage. For example, she seemed unaware that collective nouns are followed by a singular verb (e.g. she said 'the family ....are' when it should have been 'the family.... is'), and she followed 'each' by 'are' instead of by 'is'. She referred to the '4th century' meaning the year 410, and the '5th century' when she meant the 500s.
I find it strange that an Oxford graduate should make such basic mistakes in what was, presumably, a prepared text.
I was doing the ironing while watching the programme so was unable to make a note of the other examples of Dr. Ramirez' sloppy use of language. Did anyone else notice? Does anyone care? Am I the last dinosaur? -
Message 9
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Wednesday, 25th August 2010
For example, she seemed unaware that collective nouns are followed by a singular verb (e.g. she said 'the family ....are' when it should have been 'the family.... is')
Ìý
Brigid
Appears to be common usage.
We are going, they are going, he is going, she is going. -
Message 10
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 25th August 2010
Re: Message 8.
Brigid,
if it can help?...they say in Dutch: "de familie is" and "iedereen is"..."de familie zijn" and "iedereen zijn" is nearly a curse in Dutch and is unthinkable to be said even by the lowest educated level of people...as it is even in Dutch dialects that way...
Kind regards,
Paul. -
Message 11
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 25th August 2010
OOPS and I forgot to say: ask the contributor Stoggler, while he is very knowledgeable about the English and the Dutch language...
-
Message 12
Posted by Brigid (U14593966) on Thursday, 26th August 2010
Oh dear!
What's wrong with 'the family is going' ?
If you're committed to using the plural you can say 'Members of the family are going.....' (though that's rather longwinded).
Unfortunately 'The Guardian book of the English Language' doesn't address this issue. -
Message 13
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Thursday, 26th August 2010
What's wrong with 'the family is going' ?
Ìý
Nothing according to MS Word grammar, but it is also quite happy with 'the family are going'.
The wife has an ology in English and thinks the Guardian headline is more correct.
I think 'family' being plural or singular is a bit of a grey area.
"A noun that denotes a collection of persons or things regarded as a unit.
Usage Note: In American usage, a collective noun takes a singular verb when it refers to the collection considered as a whole, as in The family was united on this question. The enemy is suing for peace. It takes a plural verb when it refers to the members of the group considered as individuals, as in My family are always fighting among themselves. The enemy were showing up in groups of three or four to turn in their weapons. In British usage, however, collective nouns are more often treated as plurals: The government have not announced a new policy. The team are playing in the test matches next week. A collective noun should not be treated as both singular and plural in the same construction; thus The family is determined to press its (not their) claim. Among the common collective nouns are committee, clergy, company, enemy, group, family, flock, public, and team." -
Message 14
Posted by Jack Cade (U14582854) on Thursday, 26th August 2010
I was doing the ironing while watching the programme so was unable to make a note of the other examples of Dr. Ramirez' sloppy use of language. Did anyone else notice? Ìý
Yes, her command of Anglo-Saxon seemed (to my untutored ears) to be much better than her command of English, and I'm surprised that "each one tells their own story" managed to survive the Oxford Marking Scheme.
My favourite line was the one about the Celtic-Anglo-Saxon Wars: "We have no way of knowing how much of this is true", which must come as a relief to those impoverished farmers who settled along the East coast. -
Message 15
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Thursday, 26th August 2010
I'm surprised that "each one tells their own story" managed to survive the Oxford Marking Scheme.
Ìý
Word will accept either 'their' or 'its', I would say as 'each' is plural, then 'their' is correct. -
Message 16
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Thursday, 26th August 2010
Re: Message 13.
Haesten,
you seems to be right:
Have to say it is different from Dutch. Will have a quick look for the Dutch language, but I know quite a lot about Dutch and never in my whole life (67 now) and reading thousands of books, I met the plurial as with family and all that.
Kind regards,
Paul. -
Message 17
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Thursday, 26th August 2010
Paul
The plural of family is 'families', so in that respect family is singular.
Day - day's
(If the word has a consonant before the final 'y' then the plural ends with 'ies')
Family is from the Latin 'familia', "household" including relatives and servants.
Replaced the Old English 'hÃwscipe' (plural) 'hÃwscipeas'. -
Message 18
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Thursday, 26th August 2010
Re: Message 16 and 17.
Haesten,
"I met the plurial as with family and all that"
I meant of course: I never met the plurial of the verb in congruency with a "collectivum" as the word "family"...my sentence wasn't that well constructed I agree.
Did the last hour some painstaking research for the construction in Dutch and it seems to be as I said, thus different from the English. But that said there are a lot of subtilities. Even a Stoggler I suppose would have difficulties with it.
For example: That family was a disaster. A bunch of good-for-nothings were it...
And all that...Stoggler were are you when you are needed...
Kind regards,
Paul. -
Message 19
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Thursday, 26th August 2010
My Oxford English Grammar tells me that "family", like "group" or "team" can be treated as singular or plural nouns depending on context. If the sentence implies a regard for the constituent members then "are" applies. If the context suggests it be regarded as a unit then "is" applies. The example cited with regard to "team" is:
The team is currently top of the league.
The team are playing better than ever.
I assume an equivalent for "family" might be:
The family is a group of people affiliated by consanguinity.
The family are heading on holiday next week. -
Message 20
Posted by Jack Cade (U14582854) on Friday, 27th August 2010
The team are playing better than ever.Ìý I know it's a shortcoming, but I can still hear the sound of fingernails running down a blackboard every time I hear that phrase.
How about these?
'It was literally the worm that turned the world.'
'The finds from Sutton Hoo would literally rewrite the history book'.
'This is a serious piece of double-edged art, literally'. -
Message 21
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 27th August 2010
I'm literally with you on the "literally" thing. I hate it - literally.
-
Message 22
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Friday, 27th August 2010
The team are playing better than ever.
Quoted from this message
I know it's a shortcoming, but I can still hear the sound of fingernails running down a blackboard every time I hear that phrase.
Ìý
How about,
"The team 'be' playing better than ever."
(O.E. beon, beom, bion "be, exist, come to be, become)
BE (infinitive, subjunctive, imperative)
AM (present 1st person singular)
ARE (present 2nd person singular and all plural)
IS (present 3rd person singular)
WAS (past 1st and 3rd persons singular)
WERE (past 2nd person singular, all plural; subjunctive)
BEING (progressive & present participle; gerund)
BEEN (perfect participle). -
Message 23
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 27th August 2010
How about,
"The team 'be' playing better than ever."
Ìý
If the team be Devon, thee mayst be roit! -
Message 24
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Saturday, 28th August 2010
"To be, or not to be"
Shakespeare invented much of modern English.
-
Message 25
Posted by arty macclench (U14332487) on Tuesday, 31st August 2010
"Shakespeare invented much of modern English".
-but then, his works are full of quotations. -
Message 26
Posted by arty macclench (U14332487) on Tuesday, 31st August 2010
Just caught up with this programme.
Who was it aimed at? It seemed to be written by nine year olds for nine year olds.
"Jarrow was destroyed by the Vikings!" (What, ALL of them?)
"His name was Alfred!" NO! That'll be his statue then. And again. And again.
"The Normans defeated the Anglo Saxons..." (does she mean 'The English'?
Yet, the script included snappy little quips about Easter and Eostre, which would have been caviarr to the general. Possibly the infantile style was imposed by the director responsible for those lamentable visual puns. Yet, although I am happy listening to her read Old English poetry, I imagine she would have lost most of the nine year olds.
As for Ms Ramirez' command of English- (did she grow up elsewhere?) was she the only member of the production who doesn't know the difference between 'prostate' and 'PROSTRATE' (Funny, that error normally works the other way) and between 'chancery' and 'CHANCEL.'
She may loosen up and learn to walk and talk at the same time, God bless her, but those boots were a miscalculation. There was a flash of her character unbound when she was upstaged by a toddler (why??) and a Victoria sponge.
She knows and clearly loves her subject but as a programme this was woeful stuff.
In my opinion. -
Message 27
Posted by Jack Cade (U14582854) on Wednesday, 1st September 2010
I thought the script was a bit poor, but many people seem to have enjoyed it, despite the cameraman's obsession with Dr Janina's boots.
-
Message 28
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Sunday, 5th September 2010
I would have enjoyed the programme more if she had shown a greater competence at Anglo-Saxon history.
I nearly engaged in that most futile 21st century exercise of shouting at the television in disagreement.
It made me remember the year I spent at Art College where we were lectured on Art History. This was a totally parallel universe to history. Why is it when `art' is introduced to a subject it proceeds more with `art' than with events. Context is everything!
Cultural history, as I prefer to call it, is an active ingredient in history and permits wider interpretations. It is not a separate subject. -
Message 29
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Sunday, 5th September 2010
stanilic
What did you object to?
I would take issue with the latest treasure find (Mercian hoard) being the proceeds of a 7c battle.
The Christian cross is of a later date and the archaeological report on the soil points to burial at a much later date. -
Message 30
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Sunday, 5th September 2010
Haesten
The introduction about the Romans was a tad simplistic although they did get the message across that some Germanic folk had already arrived.
The entire historical commentary jumped about a bit: it could have been smoother.
The Sutton Hoo helmet is parade kit. Nobody would use that in battle as they would not be able to see a thing. This point was not even suggested.
The hoard is still open to evaluation but the chopped up parts of body decoration are more significant as they do suggest battle-wreck at some time or another.
After a while I put aside my criticisms to enjoy the programme content as the artefacts presented were quite interesting in their own right even though some were familiar. Consequently I can't fully recall all my objections. -
Message 31
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Sunday, 5th September 2010
stanilic
The last time I was at Sutton Hoo they were doing a photo shoot for the magazine, Rædwald was there in full replica regalia, he could see perfectly well.
-
Message 32
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Sunday, 12th September 2010
Haesten
Neither you nor I have been in the middle of a sixth century battle. Whilst one would wish to have headcover one would also need to have clear vision to dodge incoming blades.
I am no expert in these matters but my late father was an expert swordsman and experienced in armed combat at close quarters. He always asserted that anyone using that type of helmet would not last five minutes in open battle. I have always defered to that view. -
Message 33
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Sunday, 12th September 2010
stanilic
Later armoured knights had far more restrictive helmets. -
Message 34
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Friday, 17th September 2010
Haesten
Which is one of the reasons why poorly equipped archers slaughtered those heavily armoured knights wholesale.
To survive in close quarter combat you have to be agile and observant. Sure, armour can protect you when you receive blows from your similarly armoured opponent, but it also slows you down and makes you vulnerable to the agile.
Or are you arguing that war is only for gentlemen? -
Message 35
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Friday, 17th September 2010
Haesten
Which is one of the reasons why poorly equipped archers slaughtered those heavily armoured knights wholesale.
Ìý
Well their horses were vulnerable to the longbow at quite a distance, the shock wave from falling from a horse brought down, in full armour could be fatal. Then the bodkin of the heavy war arrow was armour piercing at about 50 yds.
A Roman cavalry helmet.
-
Message 36
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Friday, 17th September 2010
Haesten
The link says it was for `sporting events'.
It was for showing off and all that other manly stuff.
This is precisely my point. These were ceremonial togs for ritual, not for real fighting. -
Message 37
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Friday, 17th September 2010
stanilic
Very likely, as the vision is a fraction of the Sutton Hoo helmet.
The point is, the Sutton Hoo helmet has far better vision than 100 Year War helmets.
If you believe the latest Mercian find was war booty, rather than grave robbery buried at a later date for some reason, then the Sutton Hoo helmet was almost certainly worn in battle.
-
Message 38
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Friday, 17th September 2010
Well, if he did wear it in battle then it is no wonder it became grave goods.
I am agnostic as to the origin of the Mercian hoard one way or another although broken and fragmented valuables suggest loot hacked from off the dead. We are just not going to know at this stage. -
Message 39
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Friday, 17th September 2010
stanilic
An Anglo-Saxon sword of this status, would have had near mythical status for the blade.
Some swords are hundreds of years old in AS wills, odd the blades were discarded for the gold? -
Message 40
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Sunday, 19th September 2010
The blade of the sword was one thing: the decoration of the hilt and the scabbard are another. A good blade called for valuable decoration.
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 Ìýto 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
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ 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.