NitaKeepUp

A book review:

I just finished the book, Barbarians to Angels: The Dark Ages Reconsidered by Peter S. Wells.  Wells does not think the Dark Ages were dark at all.  He goes through archaeology evidence to prove that this time period thrived after Rome fell.  Archaeology that proves that people were eating well, living in populated cities (both new and old), and making art.  He goes into much detail about London.  London thrived during Roman’s height.  After Rome fell, much of the stone buildings were dismantled and used for other things.  Instead of taking this as an abandonment of London, as many used to believe, Wells looks at archaeology evidence that the people during the time period were using different materials to build their homes.  I think what Wells is really trying to prove is that just because government, buildings, religion, art, and education were no longer Roman, does not make this time period worse off, just different.

I like this quote in the last chapter:

For the auxiliary soldier serving on the Rhine frontier at the end of the Roman period, for farmers in villages in central France, and for elites at northern centers such as Gudme, in Denmark, and Helgo, in Sweden, there was no abrupt fall of the imperial power.  The changes that were taking place from the fifth to the eighth century were gradual; they would not have been perceived as abrupt or transformational to anyone living at the time. It is the way we think about chagne in the past, and the way we sometimes place too much faith in texts concerning warfare and mass movements of people, that can lead us astray. (p. 200)

And a baby:

My first nephew, Ethan James.  He was born Saturday at 3:30am and weighed 5 pounds 8 ounces.  He is a bit early, but is doing very well, and so is his mother.