|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Digging up ancient graves looking for pots to cook in... |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Robot Emperor 762 posts |
Nov 24, 2015, 11:55
|
||
|
Reading a book that claims that Britain after the Roman Occupation became aceramic for centuries, that the populace were reduced to scavenging for funerary urns to cook in. This may be common knowledge amongst those of a archaeological bent yet I was astonished. To claim that even in ancient(ish) times the link between the populace as a whole and those with knowledge of a relatively straightforward technology was vast, similar to me being told to get down to my local nuclear power station and get it going. I was wondering if I had (yet again) fallen for a seductive yet flawed interpretation of our past? Has the claim validity? Since it concerns the post Roman world the evidence could only be archaeological. And if the populace were "scavenging" for pottery where would they look other than yet more ancient tombs and burial chambers, those dating to before the Roman invasion that seems to have infantilised British society? Is there proof of such desperate and sad vandalism? (The book is good btw... The Real Lives Of Roman Britain by Guy de la Bedoyere).
|
|||
thesweetcheat 6214 posts |
Nov 24, 2015, 12:37
|
||
|
Seems kind of unlikely. Britain was able to produce pots before the Romans and I'd bet a lot of the pot-makers when the Romans were here were indigenous. Yes, there may well have been a loss of technology (don't see many hypocausts or viaducts dating from the post-Roman period) but to the point of not being able to make a pot? More likely graves were dug to look for loot than cooking pots, I'd have thought.
|
|||
tiompan 5758 posts |
Nov 24, 2015, 12:55
|
||
|
Robot Emperor wrote: Reading a book that claims that Britain after the Roman Occupation became aceramic for centuries, that the populace were reduced to scavenging for funerary urns to cook in. This may be common knowledge amongst those of a archaeological bent yet I was astonished. To claim that even in ancient(ish) times the link between the populace as a whole and those with knowledge of a relatively straightforward technology was vast, similar to me being told to get down to my local nuclear power station and get it going. I was wondering if I had (yet again) fallen for a seductive yet flawed interpretation of our past? Has the claim validity? Since it concerns the post Roman world the evidence could only be archaeological. And if the populace were "scavenging" for pottery where would they look other than yet more ancient tombs and burial chambers, those dating to before the Roman invasion that seems to have infantilised British society? Is there proof of such desperate and sad vandalism? (The book is good btw... The Real Lives Of Roman Britain by Guy de la Bedoyere). You might find the introduction ,and possibly more , of Mark Whyman's Phd interesting .Google "Late Roman Britain in transition AD 300 -500 " . Yes , the technology is straightforward ,particularly without a wheel . Dunno about the evidence for the scavenging ,doesn't Guy provide it ?
|
|||
|
Robot Emperor 762 posts |
Nov 24, 2015, 13:50
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: You might find the introduction ,and possibly more , of Mark Whyman's Phd interesting .Google "Late Roman Britain in transition AD 300 -500 " . Yes , the technology is straightforward ,particularly without a wheel . Dunno about the evidence for the scavenging ,doesn't Guy provide it ? More of an aside in a relatively dense book. You know the kind of thing, a lot of research behind a non-descript paragraph. The issue is just outside what are the concerns of the book - how, despite the existence of writing from the Roman Occupation, we are still largely ignorant of the day-to-day lives of those in Roman Britain. What fascinated me were potential issues of a technocracy and the impact of imperialism. If evidence of an aceramic Post-Roman Britain was anything more than informed extrapolation? Obvious to me now (post in haste etc) that we can never expect anything else from archaeology. Looking at the link you provided (thanks) and others leading from it then it is a tantalising possibility.
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Nov 24, 2015, 15:58
|
||
|
“we are still largely ignorant of the day-to-day lives of those in Roman Britain.” Part of the problem of the peasant experience being almost silent until the 18th C . “If evidence of an aceramic Post-Roman Britain was anything more than informed extrapolation? Obvious to me now (post in haste etc) that we can never expect anything else from archaeology. “ Without the written record , which can be mistaken or wilfully inaccurate (victors etc ) archaeology is often the only recourse we have for retrieving info . Often the archaeological evidence is contrary to the earlier written record . When there are extrapolations /over-interpretations , they are due to individuals not the discipline , in this case the dissenting voice ,complete with evidence ,was also an archaeologist.
|
|||
|
Robot Emperor 762 posts |
Nov 25, 2015, 10:59
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: “If evidence of an aceramic Post-Roman Britain was anything more than informed extrapolation? Obvious to me now (post in haste etc) that we can never expect anything else from archaeology. “ When there are extrapolations /over-interpretations , they are due to individuals not the discipline , in this case the dissenting voice ,complete with evidence ,was also an archaeologist. Nah. Nothing wrong with extrapolation, just ask palaeontologists. I'd argue that, given the relative paucity of archaeological data for vast swathes of human prehistory, that it is inevitable. Individual finds still open up whole worlds of new possibilities, the Stonehenge archer for example, that are strictly speaking beyond their existence as just artefacts. As in science, historical speculation taken from archaeology is changed one discovery at a time. I intended no slur on the noble pursuit. Missed your dissenting voice and evidence. From sources related to the link you provided (thanks again, fascinating) regions of Britain do seem to have been aceramic for a surprising amount of time after the occupation and pots from earlier periods were reused. I think I agree with Thesweetcheat that loot a more likely motive for digging stuff up, pots a welcome bonus. Hopeless dilettante that I am, I'll flit on to something else to interest me for a day or so now.
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Nov 25, 2015, 13:02
|
||
|
We take the extrapolations/over interpretations with a pinch of salt , there can be quite a variety for each case at any one time ,and bigger changes within a generation .It is what we expect from archaeos but it is not their most important contribution . The Stonehenge Archer is a good example ,we no longer believe that the presence of a bracer is an indication of an archer . Mark's dissent was with the orthodoxy of previous historians and the evidence proving Britain wasn't aceramic in the post Roman period was the presence of pre Roman coarse ware production in eastern Yorkshire that was still producing pottery in the post Roman 5th C "It is scarcely credible that structural phases 3 - 7, which involve major and (in the case of Phase 4) massive structural alterations, and must post-date AD 388, can be compressed into a chronology which sees all of this activity as having taken place before c.AD 420. (This assertion is further reinforced if account is taken of the single Theodosian coin recorded as having come from the make-up deposit of structural Phase 1). It is infinitely more likely that the chronology of the structural sequence extends at least to c.AD 450, and very probably beyond." Looting and scavenging for pots in earlier monuments may have taken place ,despite the lack of evidence ,but more certain activity, is that like the BA inhabitants who re-used earlier neolithic monuments ,the Anglo Saxons did the same and were actually depositing pottery , as well as human and animal remains in the earlier monuments .
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Nov 25, 2015, 15:04
|
||
|
On a lighter note, does aceramic mean "without a pot to piss in"? Coat got.
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Nov 25, 2015, 15:45
|
||
|
Sycamore hugger ? Wardrobe removed .
|
|||
tjj 3606 posts |
Edited Nov 25, 2015, 18:40
Nov 25, 2015, 17:42
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: On a lighter note, does aceramic mean "without a pot to piss in"? Coat got. An interesting topic ... prompted me to look up post-Roman middens. Came up with this link about Bosta, Great Bernera http://www.hebrideanconnections.com/subjects/31351 described as a post Roman Iron Age settlement. Scatters of pottery were among the items found there - probably not relevant to this discussion as Bosta is on the most north-westerly edge of the British Isles, their lives untouched by Roman influence. However, it also got me thinking about what people did when 'they had to go' - post Roman. We know the Roman villas had quite sophisticated latrines and bath houses, a legacy that didn't seem to catch on after they left. The word 'midden' is found in north country dialect for outdoor earth closet and these were still being used by country folk during the last century (maybe still are in some places). They are making a comeback in some places as eco toilets. I imagine country people just went outside and found a bush - was it only with the growth of towns and cities they needed a pot to piss in?? (I surmise).
|
| Pages: 2 – [ 1 2 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
