origins of village-type morphologies and their farming contexts on the other. Does this work have any faults or weaknesses? The answer will very much depend on the reader’s disciplinary perspective. It is worth emphasising that Blair is by training a historian: irrespective of how versatile he is in combining different sources of evidence, the rich archaeological data upon which his book is founded is interpreted through a historical lens with epistemological and methodological frameworks specific to that discipline. This is at once liberating and constraining. The archaeology is unquestionably richly and ingeniously contextualized, perhaps more so than if marshalled by an out-and-out archaeologist. On the other hand, as per his apologetic confessions in the introduction and conclusion of the book, Blair is clearly conscious of his inadequacies in manipulating and presenting large archaeological datasets. There are accordingly problems with the empirical underpinnings of the study, arguably most acutely manifested in the establishment of a regional framework set out in Chapter 2. Sweeping cultural inferences are made in respect of patterns of archaeological visibility (ostensibly that after a short-lived Anglo-Saxon phase, building culture in regions outside a core ‘Eastern Zone’ post AD 650 became indigenised to native, highly ephemeral, British norms, rendering it archaeologically invisible). For such a central plank in the thesis, one would have liked to have seen a more rigorous empirical evaluation of the evidence (with the opportunity to consult the relevant datasets) to gain satisfaction that these regions have a genuine absence of evidence for the period defined. Beyond this issue, some readers may feel that Blair has a tendency to over-interpret the archaeology to fit a particular historical paradigm. The emphasis placed on monastic enterprise specifically, and religious ideology more generally, in driving transformations in the built environment, is in particular likely to have its dissenters, both historians and archaeologists alike. While these issues may attract critical scrutiny from some quarters, they are eclipsed by the profoundly stimulating work that Blair has bestowed on Anglo-Saxon studies; a fitting scholarly edifice with which to celebrate the sophistication, vibrancy and ambition of a lost building culture which he has brought newly and vividly to our attention.

中文翻译：

---

中世纪早期的英国。后罗马西部城镇的重生。早期社会的案例研究

另一方面，村庄类型形态的起源及其农业环境。这项工作有什么缺点或弱点吗？答案在很大程度上取决于读者的学科观点。值得强调的是，布莱尔是通过训练历史学家来培养的：无论他在结合不同证据来源方面有多多才多艺，他的书所依据的丰富考古数据都是通过历史镜头和特定于该学科的认识论和方法论框架来解释的. 这既是解放又是约束。考古学无疑具有丰富而巧妙的语境，也许比由一个彻头彻尾的考古学家编组更是如此。另一方面，根据他在本书的引言和结论中的道歉忏悔，布莱尔清楚地意识到他在处理和展示大型考古数据集方面的不足。因此，该研究的实证基础存在问题，可以说最尖锐地表现在第 2 章中提出的区域框架的建立中。 广泛的文化推断是关于考古可见性的模式（表面上是在短暂的盎格鲁之后- 撒克逊阶段，公元 650 年后在核心“东区”以外的地区建立文化变得本土化，适应当地的、高度短暂的英国规范，使其在考古学上不可见）。对于论文中的这样一个中心板，人们本来希望看到对证据进行更严格的实证评估（有机会查阅相关数据集），以便对这些地区在规定的时期内确实缺乏证据感到满意。除了这个问题，一些读者可能会觉得布莱尔倾向于过度解释考古学以适应特定的历史范式。特别强调寺院事业，更普遍地强调宗教意识形态，在推动建筑环境的转变方面，特别可能有其反对者，包括历史学家和考古学家。虽然这些问题可能会引起某些方面的批判性审查，但布莱尔对盎格鲁撒克逊研究的深刻启发性工作使它们黯然失色；