11-27-2010, 02:36 PM
A couple of months ago I watched this British documentary, The Celts - The Complete Epic Saga (2010, 6 episodes total 303 minutes), whose premise was that the Celts are a myth and that the term was invented a few centuries ago to perpetuate the cherished myths of dark age Britain. There were a few other revisionist theories. One was that there was no Anglo-Saxon invasion; that no archaeological evidence exists for burnt out or destroyed Briton communities in that period, that peaceful activities like farming and trade continued without interruption and most interestingly that the genetic evidence shows no influx of people from northern Germany or Denmark (backed up by a lack of isotopes in the teeth of skeletons of that period that would show origin in those lands). The adoption of English language is explained as due to it being the new language of the powerful and that people learned and used it to become part of that population with power and influence. Another theory was that the Saxon Shore fortresses were not built to defend against a Germanic invasion, that there is no evidence that they were ever attacked and that their real function was as centers of trade and commerce.
I consider myself open minded and am willing to consider new theories and evidence but the theory ignores the documented military interventions from Carausius to Theodosius and Stilicho that were necessary to defend the island against infaders as well as ignores the "groans of the Britons" entreaties made to Aetius to send help against the Saxons.
The last the theory about the fortresses I find to be lacking incredible. I can think of many fortresses/defenses that would show no evidence of being attacked. Future archaeologists will search in vain to find any evidence that the Maginot Line suffered any general or prolonged attack, the Great Wall of China shows little to no evidence of assault. I would find theories that these were not built to address some perceived threat as equally incredible. The Saxon Shore fortresses were too well designed to be successfully attacked by Germanic raiders of that period, perhaps the evidence of trade originated due to this near invulnerability of the forts and the safety they provided for goods and traders.
I wonder if these researchers have found any genetic or isotopic evidence of the Norman invasion or the Viking invasion of Alfred the Great's period (or for that matter of the German invasions of France in the 20th Century).
Has anyone else seen these documentaries? Any comments?
I consider myself open minded and am willing to consider new theories and evidence but the theory ignores the documented military interventions from Carausius to Theodosius and Stilicho that were necessary to defend the island against infaders as well as ignores the "groans of the Britons" entreaties made to Aetius to send help against the Saxons.
The last the theory about the fortresses I find to be lacking incredible. I can think of many fortresses/defenses that would show no evidence of being attacked. Future archaeologists will search in vain to find any evidence that the Maginot Line suffered any general or prolonged attack, the Great Wall of China shows little to no evidence of assault. I would find theories that these were not built to address some perceived threat as equally incredible. The Saxon Shore fortresses were too well designed to be successfully attacked by Germanic raiders of that period, perhaps the evidence of trade originated due to this near invulnerability of the forts and the safety they provided for goods and traders.
I wonder if these researchers have found any genetic or isotopic evidence of the Norman invasion or the Viking invasion of Alfred the Great's period (or for that matter of the German invasions of France in the 20th Century).
Has anyone else seen these documentaries? Any comments?
