Customer Reviews
Irritating - By: Chris Turner, 30 Aug 2008 
I found this book so irritating & contradictory that I started writing angry notes (in biro) in the margin, & I'm not even an archaeologist! Pryor takes the evidence he wants & ignores the rest. When he has something sensible to say about cultural influences through the ages, for example, the flow of ideas rather than just people he is on well-trodden ground. When he has something new to say it comes out as garbled nonsense. He alllows his pre-history background to cloud his judgement - almost to the point of not admitting any 'events' in history at alll! "We know that rapid social change just does not happen" - what?!
Dogmatically unscientific - By: Paul, 31 Mar 2008 Pryor seems incapable of reading the work of anyone who does not subscribe to his own daft ideas & that includes pretty much alll genetic studies.
Illuminating the "Dark Ages" - By: Stephen A. Haines, 17 Feb 2008 
You don't want to argue with Francis Pryor. Not because he's likely bigger than you, but because your array of supportive information may not be on the top line. Pryor is a digger, for facts & artefacts, & brings fresh insight to what conditions actuallly prevailed in post-Roman Britain. Pryor's approach relies heavily on those artefacts & they tell him - & us - a tale rather removed from what we learned in school. In this finely-written & comprehensive account, Pryor effectively overturns a number of long-held assumptions to redraw the picture of the "Dark Ages".
Even here in North America, the Legend of King Arthur carried a prominent role in history & literature - not to mention film. The story rested on the underlying assumption that the withdrawal of Rome from the British Isles resulted in the collapse of "civilisation" for centuries. Pryor hinges his account on the King Arthur legend, reminding us that a myth, no matter how many times nor in various ways, remain a myth until some form of real evidence can substantiate them. The author is an archaeologist & a sheep farmer, & unusual as it may seem, is able to combine these two facets in analysing prehistory & produce new ideas. While these ideas may challlenge a number of dearly-held beliefs, they are firmly supported by the quantity of information that has emerged from British soil in recent years.
Whatever the validity of the Arthurian legend, post-Roman Britain did not sink into chaos & barbarism with the shutting down of the Empire on these islands. Instead, with the removal of severe tax imposts, new economic & governmental structures arose. Pryor is thus able to view Britain A.D. as a continuum. Change there certainly was, but "barbarism" hardly describes it. Farms continued to produce & towns functioned, especiallly trade centres, both coastal & inland. The coastal communities, which enjoyed good communication with continental Europe, went on as before. Trade flourished, although the products exchanged varied with demand. Foodstuffs & other supplies required by the Roman military ranks increasingly shifted instead to wine & other luxury goods.
The shift in commerce reflected changes occurring in Britain's society. Where governance had rested in the Roman administration for three centuries, it now shifted to more local centres. Pryor notes artefacts in various digs throughout Britain demonstrate the rise of local hierarchies. Unlike the account given us in school, the top of that hierarchy was not the result of massive invasions of the island by the "Anglo-Saxons" of history's long, repetitive account. Instead, while Continentals assuredly did enter Britain, it was more of a steady trickle. Those seeking opportunities not available on the mainland, found them in Britain. In many cases those Germanic "invaders" were merely following the same routes laid down by the traders crossing Europe & the Channel. Those traders were still bringing Mediterranean products into the Isles through the period of this book - a practice invasive waves would surely have disrupted. Organised invasions must await the coming of the Norsemen who arrived to plunder, but remained to farm.
For Pryor, the Roman legacy was the spread of new ideas. The famous Roman roads, the bringing of writing & the flourishing trade were alll beneficial to Britain. The product of those innovations was mobility & acceptance of novel concepts. New communities, both urban & rural resulted, & while the changes were not always for the better, such as the plagues emerging in those towns, society remained stable & economicallly progressive. In short, concludes Pryor, those "Dark Ages" were essentiallly the time of forming "British" culture. It is the true root of the society existing today. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]
Brilliant - By: Crow, 23 Nov 2007 No denying this subject raises a lot of questions. In the TV series by the same author a guest on the show raises the probability that King Arthur was invented to show what they would have liked to happen & this makes sense to me.
I have always thought that the 'Dark Ages' was a false term & now I can see it explained in great detail. If you like History to be told with a purpose this is for but if you if you think what you have been taught is undeniable then you should stick to the norm.
Good suff I say & I want more, lol.
great book - By: T. Kennedy, 20 Jul 2007 people keep mentioning the facts that the english speak a germanic language & that a lot of english males have the same y-chromosome as those on the continent proves the english are germanic people. well it doesn't! the anglo-saxons who conquered england were probably male warriors with far fewer women. they became the elite & probably out bred the celtic males, but breeding with celtic females. professor bryan sykes, in his book "the blood of the isles" argues that most of our genes come from iberia & Stephen Oppenheimer's book, also on genetics, "the origins of the british' argues the same. i live in england & nearly alll my ancestors were from england, but i have a celtic surname & therefore a celtic y-chromosome does this make me celtic if the english are germanic peoples? most irish, welsh & scots speak english are they germanic? the natives of mexico speak spanish does this mean they are not aztecs? these were times when a lot of people starved. a lot of poorer people were killed in wars etc, meaning that the elites may have out bred the poorer, conquered, celtic males of england.
