it far more complex than this book states? Thankfully there is more scrutiny of the 1640s as a case study in this chapter. Here we learn that the borderers resisted participation in the wars, but that national identity was still to the fore. In all the case studies Anglo-Scottish alliances are presented as temporary – though interesting. As Schultz says on p. 275, more research is needed on the mid-seventeenth-century borderlands. Ultimately, the Borderers appeared as divided in 1552 as they had been in 1652. The conclusion makes remarks about the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence that are unnecessary, dated and distracting from the central thesis being offered. However, the appendices have a useful updated list of Border Wardens. There was evidence of extensive use of primary sources in this book, but key secondary sources were missing, including Marcus Merriman’s book on the Rough Wooing and John Rule’s doctoral thesis on the Western Borders.

中文翻译：

---

“鲜花盛开的花坛”：通过挖掘和立式建筑调查揭示的阿尼克城堡围墙花园的历史

它比这本书所说的要复杂得多？值得庆幸的是，本章对 1640 年代进行了更多的审查作为案例研究。在这里我们了解到，边疆人拒绝参与战争，但民族认同仍然是最重要的。在所有案例研究中，盎格鲁-苏格兰联盟都被视为暂时的——尽管很有趣。正如舒尔茨在 p. 上所说的那样。275，需要对 17 世纪中叶边境地区进行更多研究。最终，边民在 1552 年和 1652 年一样分裂。结论对 2014 年苏格兰独立公投的评论是不必要的、过时的，并且会分散所提供的中心论点的注意力。但是，附录中有一个有用的更新的边境看守人名单。有证据表明本书广泛使用了一手资料，但缺少关键的二手资料，