> 'Frisians', Procopius & Bede independently mention as ppl of 5th-6thC...? Obv open to debate, but interesting!)
-
-
-
I take your point, but I wouldn't treat either as a reliable source for 5th-6thC Frisia.
-
Bede too far removed chronologically (by 8thC there undeniably were Frisians in that region)
-
And Procopius working in Classical tradition which 'knew' there were Frisians in that region.
-
Ah, but Procopius referring to them in Britain as immigrant group & apparently relying on Anglians actually >
-
> present w/ Frankish delegation in mid-6thC Constantinople, so slightly different? & Bede says same fwiw... >
-
> On other hand, def been suggested that both could be suspect as you suggest! (Though one might additionally >
-
>wonder what evidence would be acceptable/not 'possibly suspect' to those who believe in empty Frisia?!? ;) ;) )
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Not saying I necessarily agree with 'empty landscape' theories, but it is an interesting debate.
-
But as a rule I try to leave archaeology to the archaeologists!
-
Problem is, archaeology doesn't deal well with arch invisibility -- def a major issue in 5th-6thC Britain but >
-
>after couple of generations of declaring Britons all gone, now mostly happy to say just can't see in 5-6thC etc!
-
I guess my question would not be about empty landscape but whether people there called themselves Frisians
-
Indeed! But unanswerable as were largely non-literate & external sources seem to be automatically suspect! ;)
-
(Perhaps similar in this to debate on whether immigrant groups in 6thC E. Britain called themselves Anglians >
-
> or not; fwiw, I'd prob cite Procopius here too as a starting point...! ;) )
- 9 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.