"UnRoman Britain" by Miles Russel & Stuart Laycock

Full Title: UnRoman Britain: Exposing the Great Myth of Britannia
Authors: Miles Russel and Stuart Laycock
Publisher: The History Press, Stroud, England
Earliest Copyright: 2010
ISBN: 978-0-7524-5566-2


Critique:
Over all, I have very positive remarks about the first eight chapters of this book. What's not to love? Erudite with photos!  I am a little curious as to why the authors didn't choose to use the standard alphabetical listing of their names.  Repeatedly Mr. Russel's name appears before Mr. Laycock.  If two people are going to write together, I'd like to think they work as equal partners, so I'm a little dismayed that this may not be the case.  


From the introduction through Chapter 8 ("Leaving the Empire"), I found myself really enthused with the authors' thesis which is, simply put, that Britain was never as Roman as traditional historians would have us believe.  Of course, to be fair, some historians have been saying something similar for decades now, but the authors go to great pains to provide real archaeological and documentary evidence.  From time to time (it would be nice to know whom to blame for it), they do enter into a bit too much speculation, but rarely.  They stick to the facts, and even though they come at this topic with a typical, English bias, through sticking to the facts, they produce an introduction and eight thought-provoking chapters that held my interest even through the end of a semester.  Most of their examples come from England, and they largely ignore Wales where I think they would have found even more evidence to support their thesis.  On the other hand, if they could show that the supposedly most-Romanized area of Britain was not so very Roman, they make their case even stronger.  I personally would have added material about hill forts such as Tre'r Ceri in North Wales, or even Din Lligwy where it appears the traditional Celtic way of life continued all through the Roman occupation.


I enjoyed Chapter 8.  The authors did a wonderful job of chronicling the end of the Roman empire.  They describe in almost minute detail how Rome fell now with a single death knell, but it horrifying fits of rebellion in Britain (which they underscore mark so much of the occupation), but also in the establishment of the Gallic Empire.  They do good service to "all involved", explaining how some view the Gallic Empire as nothing more than an up-start rebel fiefdom while others see it as a legitimate, albeit temporary, successor to Rome.  They vividly describe the descent of Rome and do so succinctly without turning their book into a history of the empire.


In Chapters 9 and 10, they begin, however, to enter the world of fancy.  Perhaps it was not they but their publishers who forced to name Chapter 9 "From UnRoman Britain to Anglo-Saxon England".  While the contents of the chapter have a great deal of merit, the title of this chapter is ethnocentric and spurious. UnRoman Britain did not just transform into Anglo-Saxon England; indeed, the Anglo-Saxons did not occupy all of present day England at all.  It took the Normans around another six centuries to accomplish that goal.  While the authors appear to have been very deliberate in their work so far, on p 194, they  make a comparison of Celtic Britain, Brittany and northern Spain with Mauretania, stating that what all these areas "have in common among other things, is that they are relatively remote, relatively UnRomanised; in each instance there is evidence of the locals developing an independent military capability of their own..."  An obvious, and missed, sub-thesis here is that, except Mauretania, all the other territories had a Celtic presence.  I'm heretofore unfamiliar with the ethnographic history of Mauretania, but I would be delighted to discover someday that it had Celtic settlements! 


Later on on Chapter 9, the authors go one to make the statement that place names in Cornwall aren't very much more Celtic than in eastern parts of England. I assume here that they mean pre-Roman Celtic.  Cornwall is replete with Cornish names; perhaps the authors fail to realize that Cornwall's Celtic language still exists, though tenuously, and that certain English place names there, like Padstow have Cornish names (Lannwedhenek in Cornish); of course that said, Padstow's English origins are in Cornish anyhow.  Nonetheless, how the authors cane make such a claim without data is difficult to accept.


Finally, Chapter 10 is a wistful flight of fantasy and is better off without a dross of commentary.  It centers (thankfully briefly) around old harped on clap-trap about how wonderful Roman in fact was, including a jolting reminder of how the Victorians saw themselves as Roman (but only in the nice ways...)


Overall Grade: B+/A-  - If it weren't for Chapters 9 and 10, it would be an A-.  These guys even use citations (most of the time, sort of...), so you can check their sources!


About the Authors: Dr. Russell works at Bournemouth University (http://onlineservices.bournemouth.ac.uk/academicstaff/Profile.aspx?staff=russellm); his co-author, Mr. Laycock seems to be a bit more intermittent in his academic work, but maintains a keen interest. A little more about him at: http://www.wansdyke21.org.uk/wansdyke/wanart/laycock.htm.


About the Publisher: The History Press (http://www.thehistorypress.co.uk/)  appears to be a legitimate, relatively large volume publisher; they do, however, publish on a very, very wide range of topics, and one wonders if a somewhat more erudite publisher would not have better fit this work.