Talk:Sub-Roman Britain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Anglo-Saxon migration

In an attempt to tidy up, the information from Anglo-Saxons on the Anglo-Saxon migration has been moved to this page. It needs tidying up, but I think it firmly belongs in this page. Harthacanute 11:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally I'm not sure I'm too happy with with "Anglo-Saxon Invasion" Invasion! This article has suddenly bulged enormously. I think the recent A-S section needs to be trimmed and the removed material moved back to some A-S related article, or made into a new article or something. It's just a bit too A-S heavy. If there's no other place for it, I guess it will do for now, but this just seem kind of haphazard... --Smccandlish 05:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
In particular, I think about 90% of the genetics blather needs to get axed from this article (though I think it might make a fine article by itself. It's a very distracting and disruptive insertion here!) --Smccandlish 05:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
PS: Compare how similar genetic information is presented in Early history of Ireland; much better - just two short, informative paragraphs that don't go on and on about study methologies and other excruciating detailia. --SMcCandlish 00:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I wrote the genetic section, originally in Anglo-Saxons and moved here, because the original section was misinformed, misunderstood and had deliberatelly distorted the original findings of the genetic studies [1]. The original sources were exclusively journalistic, and had sensationalised the findings of the original academic papers. I used the original papers as a source for the edit as per wikipedia policy on reliable sources, these papers were more considered, and didn't make claims of genocide or mass expulsions, as the journalistic sources had claimed. I am sorry if accuracy and detail bore you. I shall, in future allow inacuracies, misinterpretations and down right lies to creep into articles, for fear that their correction will offend or bore you. Alun 13:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
You needn't take it personally. I didn't say it was poorly written, or incorrect, nor am I questioning your motives. I'm saying only that it is a distracting and disruptive insertion. It has swelled the size of the article to impart nitpicky details that the typical reader will not be interested in and which don't actually have anything salient to do with Sub-Roman Britain. This is not an article about the methodolgy of genetic studies. If the study itself warrants that much information being written about it, then it should have its own article (and maybe it should - you say that journalists, et al., have been misinterpreting it, after all). Again, see how the same sort of information was handled in Early history of Ireland. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] - 04:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
How can I not take it personally when you refer to my edit as blather and nitpicky. It is all very well to express your opinion on the talk page, but you shuld be aware that this is your opinion (and is not necessarily shared by others), and talk pages should be used in a constructive way to get consensus about article content, rather than used to make offensive remarks. Maybe this isn't the right place for the edit I made, but I did not put it here, I put it in the Anglo-Saxons article, it was subsequently moved here. The edit does go into some detail about methodology, but without a clear understanding of how the data were compiled, what assumptions were made, and how the data were subsequently manipulated, a proper understanding of the conclusions cannot be reached. I do not necessarily disagree with you that the content may not be appropriate to this article, but you could have expressed this opinion without being offensive. Alun 05:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I can take full responsibility for moving the genetic stuff from Anglo-Saxons, so any criticism for that should be sent my way. However, we now have a situation where a detailed methodology of the genetic evidence doesn't appear on either page (which I think is appropriate). I think I've suggested before and I'll suggest again that genetic analysis could do with its own article, as I'm sure a wide range of matters (beyond the Anglo-Saxon - e.g. Vikings) can be used as examples. I lack the expertise to write on it, though, so if people want that I'll leave it in the hands of others. Harthacanute 11:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
A split seems reasonable. As well as Cavalli-Sforza's books & stuff, the Weale & Capelli studies, plus the assorted Irish ones, there's a study by Topf et al on Neolithic & later emigration, which I haven't seen. The abstract is findable with Google, but it's not on Pubmed or any of the free access sites as yet. But there should be enough in those for article on "Genetic evidence for historic migration to Britain and Ireland" (or something, that's not a very exciting title). Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I've been thinking this is a good idea for some time. I could have a crack at some point in the future, but at present I'm a bit strapped for time. Been doing a major rewrite of Rosalind Franklin and have sent it for peer review. If anyone's interested in reviewing this article, comments are always appreciated. Also plan to do a fact and reference check over at English people. Alun 07:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Without wanting to get in the middle of a debate, just a small point. How can it be an Anglo-Saxon invasion when surely it was the Saxons who invaded (or migrated, depending on which theory you subscribe to) and became Anglicised, thus leading to the term Anglo-Saxon? fluoronaut 11:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Fluoronaut, what they mean is that the Angles were also Germanic arrivals (like the Saxons). Before that, the population of what we now call England (ie Angleland) was Celtic (ie Britons) who had adopted many Roman customs (hence Romano-British). Jameswilson 23:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Cheers James - this makes it much clearer. I was under the impression that this term was applied to the Germanic group only after they invaded/migrated to Britain since they are alleged to have settled in fairly discrete areas of southern Britain. Hope this is not muddying the waters unnecessarily. fluoronaut 17:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion copied from Talk:Aurelanii Wars

The following discussion has been copied from Talk:Aurelanii Wars (Wetman 19:35, 18 May 2005 (UTC)):

There is indeed a genuine gap in the History of Britain sequence. The Roman Britain article doesn't bring the story, thin as it may be, through to the Anglo-Saxon settlements. Isn't this timeframe sometimes designated Sub-Roman Britain? It's based on archaeology nowadays, with a glance at Bede and the hagiographies. Is that right? Should we start afresh with that title, or is there a better title to fit into the "History of Britain" taxobox? --Wetman 00:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

That sounds as good a name as any to me. I've been half-meaning to start an article on that for a while, but have been too lazy. But I'll definitely contribute.Kuralyov 00:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
I've tried to cover part of this in Anglo-Saxons; feel free to use the relevant section as a start. (And I can provide references politely.) Some co-ordination with Historical basis for King Arthur, & the usual Welsh kingdoms ought to be done, too. -- llywrch 01:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
I certainly have no problem with anyone using information from the Historical King Arthur article. I'm just curious as to the timeframe for Sub-Roman Britain - 410 as the beginning, I assume, but to when? Alfred? The Norman Conquest?Kuralyov 01:19, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
To the arrival of Augustine at Canterbury is suggested by Snyder. Check the ext. refs. in the stub at Sub-Roman Britain. The History of Britain series already picks up the threads with the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. --Wetman 02:17, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Or to AD 600, which is practically the same thing (Augustine arrived in Kent in 597). The reasons for this cut-off are as follows:
  • Quality of information dramatically changes. Before 600, we are heavily dependent on archeology & traditions, some of which were not written down until 500 years later. After this point we have Bede, & a fair number of contemporary documents, whose numbers continue to increase.
  • Although there are exceptions, the primary theme until that point is how to preserve Romanitas against the Barbarians; after that, the theme more closely mirrors medieval struggles.
  • Augustine of Canterbury's arrival primarily affected the Saxons, & not the Cornish, Welsh & northern kingdoms -- at least immediately. Putting the end point at 600 avoids that problem.
(P.S. Shouldn't this discussion be moved to/continued at Talk:Sub-Roman Britain? -- llywrch 17:25, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Upholders of a civilized tradition"

I do not understand the meaning of the following phrase in this article: " This is the era of Arthur and of Patrick, upholders of a civilized tradition at the limits of its frontier. Could someone please explain it to me?--Heathcliff 02:49, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Surely you could just give them a more telling and accurate joint characterization yourself. --Wetman 03:09, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
I simply do not know what the phrase is being used to mean and would like to know. Does the question bother you? I'm sorry, but so much of a statement is lost without the voice inflection and the body language that I can't tell if you mean to sound annoyed. I see that you wrote the phrase in question. Is there a reason you won't tell me what you were getting at.--Heathcliff 03:28, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

"Patrick" is Saint Patrick and "Arthur" is King Arthur who are both considered to be figures of this period who have entered into legend. User:Dimadick

That's okay.

If it were a High School essay question, might it go like this? Patrick and Arthur: Compare and Contrast: The historical Patrick and the perhaps-historical Arthur: in what senses did they both operate at the edges of their respective cultural sphere? (Use your definition of Marches in your answer.) What episodes in their legend or career would suggest that this is so? Which aspects of the two men were the most "Romanized"? Violence is constant in their milieu: how did their reactions to violence differ? (10 minutes: 10 points)
(;>p) Wetman 19:35, 18 May 2005 (UTC))
I really don't know how to take this response. Is there a reason why you will not explain to me what you mean when you say they were "upholders of a civilized tradition at the limits of its frontier"?--Heathcliff 22:22, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Britain was the limit of the Roman frontier. Patrick and Arthur fought to maintain Roman culture. It can't get much simpler than that.Kuralyov 00:09, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

In that case I think that "upholders of the Roman tradition at the limits of its frontier" would be clearer," but I'm wondering if that statement is really acurate or at least verifiable. Arthur it seems to me was almost ceratinly not a real person, and even if he was almost nothing is known about the real man so it's hard to say that he upheld anything. I don't know anything about St. Patrick. In what we did he uphold Roman tradition?--Heathcliff 02:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Since no one has offered an opinion that the statement is accurate, I'm going to go ahead and take it out. It can always be put back in if someone feels that it is correct.--Heathcliff 21:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A timeline?

This seems one area of history where the definitive dates that a timeline necessarily implies are too arbitrary not to be misleading and a source of largely irrelevant contention. Can't we work all the elements in the "timeline" into more nuanced discourse in the main text? --Wetman 05:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Lack of balance

This article gives way more space to the theories of Francis Pryor than to the consensus view. Whatever that is. The article doesn't bother to tell.

In light of some of the comments here I've done a pretty serious re-write of this page. The previous version seemed to concentrate far too much on a small number of issues and interpretations (such as genetic evidence and Francis Pryor's theories). I've tried to give a balanced account of the main evidence and debates for this period. There's some pretty big gaps, especially on North Britain, but I don't have the expertise to write on that. There's a lot to cover and so I've made each bit fairly short; the page could easily be three times this length with each issue handled satisfactorily. I'm sure there'll be plenty of criticism, but hopefully this is a move in the right direction. Harthacanute 18:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the rewrite. It's much better now. (I wrote the comment two paragraphs up - hadn't learnt how to sign yet) Jon kare 22:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing title

It seems to be an accepted archaelogical/historical term, but I must say I find the use of "Sub-Roman Britain" to refer to this intermediate period to be confusing.

My first reaction was that the use of the prefix "sub" in "Sub-Roman" sounded odd, then parsed it as "Britain under the Romans"; I was then surprised to read it referred to the period after the Roman occupation. I'm afraid I can't suggest an alternative: if it weren't so redundant, I would go for "Romano-British Britain". --Saforrest 00:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Sub-Roman Britain is a term in use, and uniquely identifies the period. Romano-British Britain isn't used. There are zero GBooks hits for romano-british-britain versus the 250-odd for sub-roman-britain, but the winner is, ta da, post-roman-britain, 640 hits, no doubt beaten by Dark Ages by a mile, but that's not exactly a real alternative given the plethora of dark ages. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
The Dark Ages article covers some of the (mis)use of the term (dark ages) in history, popular culture and academia. I wonder what the most recent books being published by Oxford University Press, Princeton, Harvard, etc.. call the "5th-7th c" period? -- Stbalbach 01:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
So just make "Post-Roman Britain" go to this article too and everyone should be happy.
PS: I'm very happy to see this article "calm down" over the last month or so. Earlier this year it was a real mess. It was practically a radically different article every time I stopped by! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] - 05:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Use 'Post-Roman', it sounds les dopy, idiotic and confuseing!!!--86.25.54.39 (talk) 16:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Map

I've removed the map as the information it contains does not seem to be based on any reliable sources. Though there are occasional references to some of the kingdoms on the map in contemporary sources (such as those kingdoms mentioned in Gildas), there is little to locate them geographically, and certainly not to start drawing a complex network of borders on a map. Other kingdoms on the map seem to be inferred from later or earlier political entities, assuming that they existed in 500. As with many things on this period, great unknowns and grey areas are regularly glossed over in an attempt to give a coherent picture that can not be substantiated by the source material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.219.157 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Genetic evidence

I just reverted a deletion of a passage about genetic evidence. This isn't meant to be editwarring; I'd just like to discuss what to do with such material in general first. More than half-a-year or so ago I objected to the addition of a very, very wordy (and science-geeky) paragraph on this topic to the article myself. But I do think the material has value. What I'd like to suggest is that all of that material be summarized, without reference to this chromosome or alelle or that, and just get to the conclusions (and arguments against them, if they are strong and sourceable). I think it IS of value to the article to discuss the post-Roman genepool, but we needn't get tumid or overly technical about it in this article. Yes? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The things I dislike about these English articles are the Pro-Celtic bias and the anti-Anglo-Saxon bias. Genetics doesn't make the English (the name 'English' is itself from 'Angle') a Celtic group. Whether or not the English have some Celtic blood is unimportant, they are a Germanic group. Also, Oppenheimer has been criticised by many and numerous studies have contradicted his, so using him as the only source for English genetics is, to put it bluntly, laughable. DR. Martin Hesselius 13:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Eh? There are about five sources for genetics here. The genetic data do not contradict each other. Indeed the genetic data are remarkably consistent. It seems to me that you have not actually read any of the genetic papers if you make this claim. What is true is that the genetic data can be interpreted in different ways. Oppenheimer is as good a source as any other, he doesn't actually say anything that different to any of the other sources. The most important work is that done by Capelli so far, and they show only limited "Anglo-Saxon" migration. Besides which this has got bugger all to do with genetics, archaeologists have been casting doubt on migrationist theories for the last thirty years, so I don't understand why people get all upset when genetics just supports what archaeologists have been saying for years anyway. It's not "pro-Celtic" to say that academics from two different disciplines reject a mass Anglo-Saxon invasion, it is simply citing sources. If you have a problem take it up with the people who publish the papers. Besides which claiming that there was a limited invasion rather than a mass migration is not the same as claiming that the the "Anglo-Saxons" were not a Germanic people. Germanic in this sense is surely a social/cultural/linguistic term, and indeed no one is claiming that the "Anglo-Saxons" did not speak a Germanic language or have a Germanic culture/society. There is evidence that there were indeed regions where "Anglo-Saxons" lived where non-Anglo-Saxons also lived. There is also evidence that Germanic languages may have been spoken in parts of England since before the Roman occupation. Indeed if you had actually bothered to read Oppenheimer you would know that the main thrust of his argument is that the Germanic nature of eastern England is very ancient, and that there were contacts between the various peoples of the North Sea for millenia. So his argument is that there doesn't need to have been a mass migration, the nature of North Sea Britain was already Germanic. This is a very similar idea to Barry Cunliffe's idea of an "Atlantic zone", a "central zone" and a "North Sea zone" of prehistoric contacts for the British Isles. So rejecting an "Anglo-Saxon" mass migration is not the same as claiming that the "Anglo-Saxons" were not Germanic, and it is facile to equate migration with cultural change. I'd like to see the "many and numerous studies" that criticize Oppenheimer, I note that you don't actually provide any sources, presumably these are archaeologists who also disagree with people like Catherine Hills, Barry Cunliffe and Francis Pryor? Alun 05:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contemporary?

Can Gildas really be called contemporary? He covers a lot of ground, and was clearly not alive when much of his historical narrative took place (Dumville especially in his 1977 article points out the lack of reliable contemporary sources). St Patrick appears to be in similar doubt. The dating just doesn't seem to be secure enough to assert that they were contemporary with sub-Roman Britain. fluoronaut 16:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever his credibility and precise dates, Gildas' book is De Excidio Britanniae or "On the Ruin of Britain"; the sub-Roman cultural point-of-view is virtually defined by Gildas' sermon.--Wetman 05:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I will answer your question and also add a few more things.

Gildas was alive during the Anglo-Sason migration, so be it the end of it. He does note a mass migration and the 'Welsh' being pushed into the hills. Obviously the British and Anglo-Saxons mixed in some cases but I doubt it happened often in the earlier days due to the Anglo-Saxon paganism. As does Bede who was nearer to the period than modern academics like Oppenheimer etc but still many years after. I believe in a mass migration as genetical studies don't really prove anything other than the ancestors of the English lived in Siberia for a time. The part of British DNA termed 'Celtic' or 'British' isn't really much to do with the Celts but a great deal of European people. Oppenheimer claims that there has been a Germanic presence before Rome (which maybe true, however, I would have thought the Romans would have know this! There were certainly Germanic soldiers in service of Rome) but it is safer to say that Gildas was right about the Anglo-Saxon mass migration.King Óðinn The Aesir 21:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The trouble with your argument is that Gildas doesn't mention a mass migration at all. Indeed, Gildas, Bede and the A-S Chronicle make references to warbands arriving in small numbers of "keels" (large open rowing boats like the one at Sutton Hoo). I haven't checked, but the Chronicle probably mentions no more than 9 or so boatloads of incomers leading to the creation of Wessex. In fact no contemporary or near contemporary writing mentions a single peasant being imported from the Continent, only warriors, and small numbers of these, are described.

In regard to the implied situation of apartheid between the A-S and the natives, this really has no basis. The two peoples had very similar societies, material cultures and didn't look very different, why would they have treated each other as wholly alien? The British and native Indians (of India) were far more different culturally and equally different in religion than the A-S and Celtic Britons were, and lo and behold, where did the "Anglo-Indian" population come from?

There are a number of indications that native dynasties became Anglo-Saxon over time. The founder of Wessex was a man called Cerdic, this is a British name derived from Caratacus. Some of his successors had undisputedly Celtic names also, such as Ceawlin and Caedwalla. Even that great pagan Penda, didn't have a Germanic name, his name relates to the Welsh 'pen' meaning head or chief, his father Pybba has a name perhaps related to 'pybyr' meaning 'strong' also in Welsh.

Oppenheimer like many others gets confused by language. Language is a cultural trait, it isn't inherited like DNA markers. He might argue that 'north-central European' genetic markers were present in Britain before the Romans but he cannot have any idea what language or languages the possessors of these genetic markers spoke.

There is a phrase in the article about a "British underclass" described in Ine's laws. The wergild price of Britons was lower than that of the English, but the laws describe "Welshmen who prosper and own 5 hydes of land." This was quite a lot of land and its owner would have been an important person. There are also Welshmen who are described as "The King's horse-Welshmen" who seem to have had a special relationship to the king. To describe these as being an underclass would seem somewhat inaccurate, to describe them as being at a legal disadvantage compared to their English compatriots would be better.

Urselius 15:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Migration/Invasion

Wikipedia should refer to migration or invasion consistently. For their own reasons, brits like to refer to Roman/Norman invasions but refer to Saxon migration. Wikipedia should be harmonised and use one of the two terms consistently.

Not all things are amenable to regularisation. The Roman and Norman invasions were just that, and they were extensively recorded by contemporary historians. The way that large parts of Sub-Roman Britain became Anglo-Saxon England is rather more obscure. There doesn't seem to have been a single invasion, but even the multiple small invasions by Germanic war-bands described in the sources were recorded long after the events and some accounts may have more than a little legendary, rather than factual, content.

The changes of culture and language in lowland Britain were profound but the idea that a mass-migration of people from North Germany caused these changes has been challenged by both archaeological and genetic evidence in the past few decades. Therefore appropriateness the use of the word "migration" is also moot. Perhaps the term "Anglicisation" is the best catch-all title for the process.

Urselius 11:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Aboriginal" or "aboriginal pre-Celtic"?

The reference to Cunliffe, Iron Age Britain 1995:7 that read "in the same English regions 69% of male lines are still of aboriginal, pre-Celtic origin" has been edited to delete "pre-Celtic" by User:Zburh. Was this a correction to better reflect Cunliffe's assertion, or just a manipulation of the information?--Wetman 19:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The Cunliffe ref is for "the eastern and south eastern coasts of Great Britain do not belong to this zone". That's a reasonable summary of what he says and what map 2 shows. The bit Zburh changed appears to be referenced to something by Oppenheimer. Absent an explanation or a reference, I'd revert the change, but that's just me. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of section on Hengest

The reference in Bede, writing well over two centuries after the supposed time of Hengest, is based on Anglo-Saxon origin myths. The dates used by Bede are his rationalisation of an existing oral myth. These is no contemporary (fifth-century) evidence for the existence of Hengest. As an essentially legendary character from Anglo-Saxon myth, perhaps a section on Hengest would be better placed in a section on Anglo-Saxon beliefs and culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.157.20 (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Post-Roman Britain?

Should this article be retitled Post-Roman Britain? There are two reasons to consider this change - that the term "sub" is derogatory and that Post-Roman is more widely used. The former comes from the days when the cultural characteristics of the Roman period were seen as ideal but a more appreciative view is now often taken of the cultural characteristics of the following period. Comparing the number of search engine hits on the web for the two terms reveals that Post-Roman is used nearly 40 times as often as Sub-Britain. The latter is mainly used in archaeological contexts. I know that this is a poor measure of its relative importance but is indicative. Adresia (talk) 11:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the wide use of the term 'sub-Roman Britain' stems from the important article by Dumville ('Sub-Roman Britain: History and Legend' in History 62, 173-92, 1993) and which has been generally adopted by scholars in this field. One argument for not using the term post-Roman would be that a number of historians believe that the Roman empire continued to strongly influence British life for many years after the withdrawal of soldiers and the fall of Rome itself. As far as being derogatory goes, well, evidence suggests that there was a decline in quality of life in Britain at this time, which can plausibly be seen as a decrease in 'civilised' habits (eg. rapid decline quality of pottery, increase in disorder, increase in invasions etc etc). fluoronaut (talk) 10:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The article appeared in 1977 not 1993. Most of the hits on "sub-Roman Britain" appear shortly after this time and many are references to this paper. Both Post-Roman and Sub-Roman are now used with the former in the lead on Google Books and Google Scholar. Sub-Roman implies that Roman culture was better but this was not necessarily so for the majority of Britons. Adresia (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't know where 1993 came from - you're right of course, it's much earlier. fluoronaut (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There just is no derogatory implication in "sub-Roman Britain": it is an archaeological descriptor of provincial Roman culture quite far from style centers, that was thrown on its own after the breakdown of long-distance trade: thus pottery becomes locally-made and cruder. I wouldn't insist on changes to quite familiar designations unless I were a leader in the field, in which case I'd begin with a resounding article in a major publication. --Wetman (talk) 10:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The name for the period in the article on "History of England" is Post Roman! 88.105.250.69 (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Durotrigia

Does anyone know of evidence for its existence in the post-Roman period? It was certainly an important entity in the pre-Roman period. It is shown on the British kingdoms map but on what basis? Adresia (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The main settlement of the Celtic federation of Britons called the Durotriges was Durnovaria (modern Dorchester, Dorset); do any of the relevant articles help you with the archaeology? --Wetman (talk) 06:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
What's your reference for Durotrigia before the Roman period (or during/after it)? I know of no written material that has survived from Britain before the Roman period, and I know of no source that talks about a "Celtic federation of Britons". Can you outline your source for this so I can investigate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.24.1 (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably the main evidence in the LPRIA for the Durotriges is their coins. There is some written evidence for them in the Roman period but not after. Different maps (guesses) exist for the post roman period. 88.105.161.36 (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

My source should be familiar to all, as it's been in print in various revisions since 1974: it's Barry Cunliffe, Iron Age Communities in Britain: An Account of England, Scotland and Wales from the Seventh Century BC Until the Roman Conquest, 4th ed. 2005: Part II.8 "The tribes of the periphery: Durotriges, Dobunni, Iceni and Corieltauvi" (pp 178-201). "The Durotriges were a close-knit confederacy of smaller units centred on modern Dorset," he begins (p. 178). Anyone with more than the slenderest desultory interest in the Durotriges needs to see this book. --Wetman (talk) 10:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Though Cunliffe's souce? Or did he infer that the Durotriges were a close-knit confederacy of smaller units from their coins alone? It's just that I was recently in a lecture with Mary Beard (Professor of Classics at Cambridge University) and she stated that pretty much everything people like Cunliffe say about tribal groupings prior to the Roman conquest is at best educated conjecture, and at worst mere fantasy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.155.12 (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)