Imagine one evening you attend a fanciful “toga party” at a country estate somewhere in the UK’s home counties. There are drinks; and that’s the last thing you remember. A week later, you awake in a dingy cinema in Chester. The film “The Dig” is playing onscreen, and Ralph Fiennes is prattling on about some ship he’s discovered with fabulous artifacts. You stink of beer; there’s seaweed stuck to your shoes, and you’re draped in a damp and smoky woolen tunic. In your pocket are two gold coins, half a Cornish pasty and the crossword puzzle from last Sunday’s Guardian. You dimly recall a journey, but that’s about it. You have only what you’re wearing, and the contents of your pockets, to figure out what happened.
This is an apt (and only half joking) analogy for deciphering British history between AD 410 and 670. Where you ended up is not in question: by 670, Christian Anglo-Saxon kingdoms have been solidified, the native (Celtic) population has assimilated or has been pushed westward, and Roman Britain is but a dim memory.
But how did we get there? And what happened along the way? Contemporary written sources are paltry, suspect, and in many cases altered centuries later. Archaeology provides physical clues in abundance, but aren’t conclusive. We are still unable to piece together a sure chronology except at the broadest levels. (They don’t call this “dark ages" for nothing.)
Johnson aims to provide a synthesis of advances in post-Roman studies since Leslie Alcock's 1971 classic book "Arthur's Britain" (updated with a new bibliography in 1987). This synthesis is needed, and in many ways, Johnson succeeds (although some some caveats below). Also just a quick word on what Johnson’s book is—and what it isn’t. This book focuses primarily on the political and dynastic timeline between the late Roman British era and the late 7th century. What you won’t find here is any lengthy description of society or culture (although the considerable impact of religion on sources and politics is covered extremely well.) There are cultural and social observations woven though Johnson’s narrative, but it isn’t as explicitly covered, as it was by Alcock in "Arthur’s Britain". On the other hand, there are now numerous others who have done this sort of thing; these will give a fuller, updated picture (and Johnson cites them throughout in copious endnotes and a very good bibliography).
Johnson’s synthesis is based mainly (although not exclusively) on original written sources, and also references the large volume of historical work done since Alcock published an updated bibliography in Arthur’s Britain in the late-‘80s. Archaeology plays a supporting role in his narrative, where needed (Johnson’s not an archaeologist, and truthfully in a political narrative, it can only be confirmatory at best).
Where Johnson really displays his skill is in taking a new and critical look at the various sources and weaving them into a cohesive whole. And here he’s pretty darn good indeed. He starts with a very thorough—and painstaking—outline of the available written sources. This is just magnificent—not only because of the exhaustive nature, but also how Johnson explains it. He not only describes WHAT is available (and, conversely, what is NOT available), but also explains in a clear manner WHY these texts survived (and why others either didn’t survive, or weren’t written to begin with.) While this may not always make for thrilling reading, its absolutely necessary for this period, and I’m not sure I’ve seen it better done elsewhere. One small gem of an appendix called "The Vortigern Figure" really shows this aptitude in action.
A further point on Johnson’s skills here: critical understanding of context. In "Arthur’s Britain", Alcock commented on the necessary relationship between deep textual source analysis, and the wider processes and structures of daily life that generated the sources to begin with. In essence, deep textual specialists shouldn’t divorce themselves from what one might call "historical common sense”; if their conclusions depart from a fairly logical view of life on the ground, then perhaps they need to step back and ask different questions. There’s plenty of Historical Common Sense on display in Johnson’s synthesis. In fact one of the great merits of the book is that Johnson continually relates specific textual issues back to their larger context, in trying to illuminate a political and dynastic narrative covering 300 years. (He’s also pretty good at demonstrating how a number previous historians seemed to lose their perspective while they carried around all their own accumulated academic baggage.)
Of course, deploying good historical sense doesn’t mean there aren’t alternative explanations available. For example, I was not totally convinced by Johnson’s discussion of how British (i.e., Celtic) tribal units, proto-kingdoms and heroic bards “reemerged” as Romanization declined. Did they ever really go away? Some of these were deeper cultural constructs, and I, for one, doubt they ever disappeared completely while Britain was a Roman province. Much work has been done (and much ink has been spilt) on this issue in the last 20 years, and I wish Johnson had spent more time giving the opposing views an airing, since they’re at the crux of his political and dynastic narrative up through about AD 500 if not later.
Johnson’s writing is clear, direct and matter-of-fact; very easy to follow. This is a real virtue. He avoids what my professors used to call the "deadly pallor” of academic writing about mediaeval history. This clarity makes a book about a challenging period more facile and easier to work through.
But that also leads to one final caveat. Johnson’s breezy writing style makes many of his conclusions seem almost too facile. (In this sense, Johnson is nowhere near as cautious in his writing or conclusions as the archaeologist Alcock). Johnson has posited a number of logical and credible theories about elements in the 3-century timeline, and backs up his theories. However (as the other reviewers observed) these theories get posited quickly and then built upon as if they were well-established facts. They’re not…they’re theories. At the end of the day, this is still the most difficult period in British history, and we’re likely never going to approach a fully fleshed-out and widely-accepted narrative of “what happened.” As good as this synthesis is ("very good" in my opinion)—there will always be several opposing (and equally credible) theories about any part of the political, territorial and ethnic timeline. You don’t need to be beaten over head with this uncertainty like some sort of historian’s doxology, but Its worth remembering as Johnson takes you quickly from point A to B to C and ultimately onto point Z. I am reminded of a line from Christopher McKay’s superb synthesis of the Breakdown of the Roman Republic: “The reader should be warned that there is hardly any point in this book which some scholar would not wish to dispute.”
All in all, however, I very much enjoyed this, learned a ton, and believe Johnson’s done "dark age” historical enthusiasts a real service with his synthesis. I’ll be returning to it often.
Enjoy fast, free delivery, exclusive deals, and award-winning movies & TV shows with Prime
Try Prime
and start saving today with fast, free delivery
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Book recommendations, author interviews, editors' picks, and more. Read it now.
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
Top reviews from other countries
Amazon Customer
... previous reviewer that there are some assumptions made (and like a lot of writers of the period
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on April 9, 2018Philip I. Reeves
Interesting but flawed
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on September 26, 2021
