The Book of Llandaf as a Historical Source. By Patrick Sims-Williams. Pp xiv + 211. The Boydell Press, Woodbridge, 2019. isbn 9781783274185. £75.00 (hbk).

Abstract

of case studies of illustrative archaeological sites. The point that it is the excavated evidence which underlies the vital archaeologically based perspective on these centuries is an important one. Nevertheless, with the first  pages made up of just five chapters, it does make for a read in which the chapters feel rather long. And with Harvard-style references in chapter endnotes, the weight of those case studies can get wearying at times. The book is also copiously illustrated, but regrettably it must be noted that the quality and scale of reproduction is often unsatisfactory. In light of Carver’s own long experience, it seems likely that the fault in this respect lies with the publishers and the approach to production. At present, technology and business models seem widely to be leading to a conspicuous deterioration in publication standards. Intellectually, probably the most innovative feature of the work is the proposition that it is especially relevant to conceive of Britain as a whole in this period in terms of its ‘formative’ state: one more re-conceptualisation of a period for which we have a long tradition of different perspectives. It is admittedly a little facile, but not irrelevant, to note that it can only be a truism that any and every period of history is formative − if at different paces, and with varying weight. The term is quite briefly explained, with an ostentatious reference to Mesoamerican archaeology from the former editor of Antiquity, on pp xxiii–xxiv of the Preface. One thing that I think was really needed to give this concept more traction and to justify an especial focus on formativity was a fuller evaluation of the virtual tabula rasa of Roman Britain. It would also seem to be implied that this formative process saw a culturally more consistent Britain in major respects by the eleventh century. That may indeed be a valid proposition, but it would be right, then, also to stress the extent to which it is true as a Europe-wide phenomenon. It poses, however, a further critical question: was the level of cultural consistency achieved by a thousand years ago significantly different from that two thousand years ago at the end of the Iron Age? That could lead us to the proposition that the contrasting processes of disruption and divergences on the one hand and re-assimilation on the other during the first millennium AD were definitive features of an even wider period and zone. This is profoundly relevant to painful and destructive controversies that are currently being driven forward from some quarters in respect of the fifth to eleventh centuries AD, with reference to England in particular. Leaving aside obsolete concepts like the ‘Dark Ages’, notions of a ‘post-Roman’ or ‘pre-Conquest’ or even an ‘EarlyMedieval’ period effectively de-characterise the phase within itself, focusing instead on its status as a (long) transitional phase, which ended with the enforced political linking of England to Continental power-blocs, and of Wales − subsequently Ireland − with England; rooted in a system of ‘feudal’ social control involving a regular pattern of manors and parishes, and all correlated too with substantial, favourable, climatic and demographic changes. That the period of the fifth to eleventh centuries was one of change and reconstruction with long-term ramifications is undeniable. But to represent it primarily in potentially teleological terms for purposes of ‘interest’ and ‘relevance’ may have implications that are considerably more problematic than is immediately obvious.