When a "problem" becomes a bonus...
As all good historians know, the secret to uncovering the "truth" about any source is being able to test it's veracity and reliability by cross-referencing it with other contemporary sources in the first instance and then against historical sources, preferably from different centuries.
Why historical accounts from different centuries? As you will no doubt be aware, historical opinions of, for example, Oliver Cromwell, Richard III and even later history like the Vietnam War have all changed with the decades. Sometimes this is because new discoveries have been made (e.g. Richard III's body being found in a Leicester car-park under the letter "R"!); sometimes it is down to newly released, once secret documents (viz Vietnam); and sometimes is it because sensitivities have simply changed with time (hopefully we no longer define a "witch" as a women who can walk backwards whilst talking, has a black cat - or who has visible facial moles)!
Archaeological finds that have been verified and dated are an invaluable resource, especially when studying any period of Ancient History. For those of us studying Roman Britain it is the only measure against which we can attempt to evaluate the reliability of our sources.
Iron Age Celtic Britons were first described as "barbarians" by Julius Caesar after his 'conquest' of Britain in 55 & 54BC, and for centuries afterwards it was suggested that they lacked the sophistication of Roman society and, being illiterate, were not as advanced. However, retrospective histories written by Christian Celts declare that the early Celts, though literate, chose not to commit their information into a written form for fear of it falling into enemy hands. Enemy in that context did, of course, refer to any tribe other than their own - for the Celtic Britons were innately insular tribes and the island lacked any sense of nationality. On two occasions some previously divided tribes united under inspirational leaders to fight against Rome but eventually both Caratacus and Boudicca were defeated and Rome exacted terrible revenge. Even when Rome eventually withdrew c.AD 410 the united province of Rome rapidly disintegrated and returned to divided, individual & inward looking tribes. It took the arrival of the Normans in the 11th century before any form of unification returned to the island of Britain.
The problem of studying Romano-Britain is the fact that we possess few contemporary sources - the closest being Tacitus who wrote some 50 years after the events he describes. In addition, all written records were produced by Roman Historians, writing in retrospect and writing for fellow Romans in order to dramatically amuse and entertain, whilst glorifying all things Roman.
To check their reliability we have to compare their accounts with ancient and modern maps of Britain, and with archaeological evidence.
Why historical accounts from different centuries? As you will no doubt be aware, historical opinions of, for example, Oliver Cromwell, Richard III and even later history like the Vietnam War have all changed with the decades. Sometimes this is because new discoveries have been made (e.g. Richard III's body being found in a Leicester car-park under the letter "R"!); sometimes it is down to newly released, once secret documents (viz Vietnam); and sometimes is it because sensitivities have simply changed with time (hopefully we no longer define a "witch" as a women who can walk backwards whilst talking, has a black cat - or who has visible facial moles)!
Archaeological finds that have been verified and dated are an invaluable resource, especially when studying any period of Ancient History. For those of us studying Roman Britain it is the only measure against which we can attempt to evaluate the reliability of our sources.
Iron Age Celtic Britons were first described as "barbarians" by Julius Caesar after his 'conquest' of Britain in 55 & 54BC, and for centuries afterwards it was suggested that they lacked the sophistication of Roman society and, being illiterate, were not as advanced. However, retrospective histories written by Christian Celts declare that the early Celts, though literate, chose not to commit their information into a written form for fear of it falling into enemy hands. Enemy in that context did, of course, refer to any tribe other than their own - for the Celtic Britons were innately insular tribes and the island lacked any sense of nationality. On two occasions some previously divided tribes united under inspirational leaders to fight against Rome but eventually both Caratacus and Boudicca were defeated and Rome exacted terrible revenge. Even when Rome eventually withdrew c.AD 410 the united province of Rome rapidly disintegrated and returned to divided, individual & inward looking tribes. It took the arrival of the Normans in the 11th century before any form of unification returned to the island of Britain.
The problem of studying Romano-Britain is the fact that we possess few contemporary sources - the closest being Tacitus who wrote some 50 years after the events he describes. In addition, all written records were produced by Roman Historians, writing in retrospect and writing for fellow Romans in order to dramatically amuse and entertain, whilst glorifying all things Roman.
To check their reliability we have to compare their accounts with ancient and modern maps of Britain, and with archaeological evidence.