Patrick Dundee wrote:
> Don't you think that the British experience was a rejection of romanisation
> by a people so thoroughly romanised that they had nothing really to replace
> it with and thus there was a kind of anarchy that was not represented in
> mainland europe. If you like, to put it another way the Romano-britons were
> "too" Roman and not Celtic enough, they had forgotten what they were from a
> social and political perspective.
> Is not much of "celtic" organisation and social orientation in Britain not
> merely christianity asserting itself upon the debris of societies that
> thoroughly destroyed themselves by destroying their own political and urban
> fabric? Therefore europe and britain are very different.
> Britain rejected the manifestation of organised romanism completely and
> entered a dark age. Europe never rejected it to the same extent and it
> survived even under the patronage of true barbarians and prospered under
> the patronage of Frank and Goth.
No, I don't think so. Actually, in more remote regions pretty much of
unharmed and uninfluenced Celtic culture seems to have survived even
inside the Roman province Britannia, as in Wales except the nort and
south coast or most of Cornwall, and in the whole region of modern
southern Scotland, roughly the Borders up to the Firth of Forth.
Actually, this even might be the reason as to why those areas kept their
"Celtic" identity up to today, while the areas which had been heavily
influenced by the Roman empire quickly succumbed to Saxon culture once
the Roman empire, which had been the centre of their self-definition,
crumbled to dust.
RAY - Mag.phil. Raimund KARL
Universität Wien, Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte
A-1190 Wien, Franz Klein Gasse 1
E-Mail: <[log in to unmask]>
Visit the Celtic-L Resources Page at
Privat: A-1120 Wien, Hasenhutgasse 7-11/9/4
Tel/AB/Fax: (+43 1) 8103629 oder mobil: (+43 676) 3048830