Page
1 ... 26 27 28 29 30 31
Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
|
quote: Originally posted by aardvark: Oh, and I forgot to mention Caesar, who talks of (in translation anyway) the ground being 'thickly studded with homesteads' - a curious choice of words if he meant villages 
|
| |
|
|
Beautiful aardvark... Beautiful... ah the problems with evidence (when it contradicts a "back of a fag packet", a bloke told me in a pub style theory,,,) respect  |
| |
|
|
quote: your unwillingness to deal with the excavated evidence
On the contrary, some of us have been banging on about the evidence being the only thing that might sway it one way or the other. But you seem to mistake according the evidence a different logical status for dismissing it. Do you think that any amount of repetition of evidence interpreted consistently with a premise in any way argues for the premise? Your references to databases appear to have vanished, so please sum it up for us: of the 100,000 or so small, scattered settlements required to satisfy the 2,000,000 population estimate, spaced less than a mile apart, how many do we have direct evidence of? A ball park figure will get me off the subject. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Innocent Bystander:
I already know that there is no linguistic basis for the assertion. I also know that the English-from-Anglo-Saxon paradigm carries a number of material ramifications which archaeology should have plenty to tell us about....
You are evidently not a linguist and yet you presume to "know better" than those who are and say there is. You are most evidently not an archaeologist and yet presume to tell us you "know better" than we how to interpret the archaeological evidence. Since this is an archaeological forum, let's just look at that second claim. What, pray, is there in the archaeological record (the one you "know" about) which disproves the connection between Anglo-Saxon and (Middle) English? What direct proof do you have from the archaeological record of the implausibility of this transition having taken place? By what chain of epistmological arguments do you demolish the accepted interpretations of the archaeologically observable trends between the appearance of Anglo-Saxon material culture and the rise of fully-fledged Middle English? No more Eng. Lit. correctified-spelling "does this look like Anglo-Saxon to you" mumbo-jumbo, lets talk about the archaeological evidence for the PRECISE transition you call into question. Where is the orthodox picture epistemologically wrong? And what is the Revisionist interpretation of the SAME archaeological evidence and what is the direct evidence on which it is based? Remember we are talking about the epistemology of archaeological interpretations. |
| |
|
|
My word I must have said some dull things on the roman road thread.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Innocent Bystander:
On the contrary, some of us have been banging on about the evidence being the only thing that might sway it one way or the other. But you seem to mistake according the evidence a different logical status for dismissing it.
If, and I do mean if, you really do believe that the evidence is key, why have you made no effort to familiarise yourself with it? Time after time your posts on here are riddled with inaccurate generalisations or wild assumptions. the issue of where the late Iron Age population lived is just one of these. Your post on the likely survival rates of hand made poorly fired post-Roman pots compared to the much better made, hard fired Iron Age pots was a case in point, as is your assumption that modern villages will remove all traces of their Iron Age and Roman predecessors, but somehow still leave the remains of their Saxon cores intact. Laughable. Simply laughable. Once again, I plead to to start from an evidential base, otherwise there is little merit in further discussion. quote: Originally posted by Innocent Bystander:
Your references to databases appear to have vanished, so please sum it up for us:
of the 100,000 or so small, scattered settlements required to satisfy the 2,000,000 population estimate, spaced less than a mile apart, how many do we have direct evidence of? A ball park figure will get me off the subject.
Go to the ADS (Archaeology Data Service)website, use their ARCSEARCH ENGINE and type In Iron Age settlement. I got 5815 records. Then bear in mind that their databases do not cover the whole country, or that many of the results of recent excavations (such as the 6 settlements in 50 hectares excavated at Stasted, or the 4 excavated on the recently published A120 excavations - ooops there's 10 for you, all dug recently, and all in one small corner of one county) Or you could look at the English Heritage Website. Use their Pastscape database and look for 'houses' under monuments and 'Iron Age' under period. I got 3922 records. |
| |
|
|
Aardvark,
Wouldn't the number of buildings found during the iron age overstate the actual number of buildings at any one moment during the time span? It's a long period for this type of building and, as one fell into disrepair and another was built close by, the archaeology would show two for example, whereas only one say, was inhabited.
best
Harry A
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Harry Amp:
Aardvark,
Wouldn't the number of buildings found during the iron age overstate the actual number of buildings at any one moment during the time span? It's a long period for this type of building and, as one fell into disrepair and another was built close by, the archaeology would show two for example, whereas only one say, was inhabited.
best
Harry A
Yes it would, although often the stratigraphy of a site will tell you this, and it will be clear which was occupied first. As you say, we have no idea how long these buildings would have stood for, although estimates vary from a generation to hundreds of years. the latter might seem improbable, but plenty of cob and timber framed buildings have similar lifespans, providing their thatch is replaced, and water kept off their foundations. Focussing on the specifics of numbers though tends to cloud the issue, however. The argument would be no less strong had we found twice as many. We know what Iron Age roundhouses look like, we know what Iron Age pottery and metalwork looklike. Iron Age sites do not, as a rule, co-incide with the location of modern villages. |
| |
|
|
Thanks for the ballpark figures: we can now leave this particular subject behind us. About like so: quote: I got 5815 records.
Let's be generous with the figures: that's 10% of the projected total. We do indeed find farmsteads scattered about between the modern villages: that is consistent with the premise. But is 10% conclusive? It also vindicates Harper's observation that we do not have direct evidence for the whereabouts of the general population. I'd say 90% constitutes "general". He suggested that the evidence should be missing if people were living in the Iron Age much as they were in the Roman, medieval and modern ages; that the place with the greatest statistical chance of having Iron Age remains is the place with the least practical chance of being looked at. If there were ten times more Iron Age settlements than medieval villages, then 90% of them -- OK, 80% since modern villages are bigger -- 80% of them should be lying there waiting to be found. Your figures tell us they have not been. Neither of us can use this paucity of evidence to shoot the other down because the premise is used to interpret the data in its own favour. Again in rough-cut figures: if there were 10,000 villages; each with a big nob living outside the nucleus; and their households numbered, say, 10; then the élite population is on the order of 5% of the total. The 6-10% in the ADS database is of the right order of magnitude to represent only the ruling class. I'm not saying it does, but it surely illustrates how the data are susceptible to different interpretations on different paradigms. That's in the nature of scientific enquiry. quote: 6 settlements in 50 hectares excavated at Stansted
This is seventeen times the average density you postulated! Clearly unrepresentative data and neither supportive nor damaging to either case. (Rather more in favour of MJ Harper, if anything, since he advocated dense population clusters of various sorts as we have seen throughout recorded history being the norm in pre-recorded history, too.) |
| |
|
|
quote: Your post on the likely survival rates of hand made poorly fired post-Roman pots compared to the much better made, hard fired Iron Age pots was a case in point
I don't follow. How does the survival of good Iron Age pottery tell us anything at all about what may not have survived? If post-Roman bad pots can be almost completely destroyed, what chance does comparable Iron Age pottery stand after a further handful of centuries? If there was any. quote: [Harper] suggested that the evidence should be missing...
Can it be shown that the evidence should not be missing, that umpteen thousand years of continuous occupation would still look like umpteen thousand years of continuous occupation, as opposed to what we do see? If 2 million people x N centuries' worth of waste is not "missing", please say so. If there is no direct evidence of it, then it is a conundrum. Since the waste is reckoned to be intimately associated with settlements, the expansion of a village on the same site is likely to obliterate (or simply cover up) the majority of the waste from its earliest days. Is there any reason not to expect this gap in the evidence? What is the evidence for the majority of English villages having Anglo-Saxon origins? What are these "Saxon cores"? |
| |
|
|
I can but agree with both aardarks methedology and findings and statements...
In an area of my county we have settlement pattern just as described... within a km square we have 3 enclosed settlements of one/two houses .. all contemporary... (all excavated and dated) this is just what I would expect for teh landscape as a whole... many many singular family groups and some larger settlement... but not corresponding to later post roman settlment pattern, other than the undeniable fact that a large town will no doubt sit on earlier sites.. they can't really help it... given the size... and that the new fangled nucleated settlment patern comes to teh fore... aka the village.. with streets and square houses etc etc.........
|
| |
|
|
quote: We know what Iron Age roundhouses look like, we know what Iron Age pottery and metalwork looklike. Iron Age sites do not, as a rule, co-incide with the location of modern villages.
Aardvark, I agree with that. I was wondering about the population estimates primarily. The most persuasive argument against modern villages being cited over an iron age layer is that we find so little iron age archaeology in them, whereas we do anglo saxon archaeology. best Harry A |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Harry Amp: quote: We know what Iron Age roundhouses look like, we know what Iron Age pottery and metalwork looklike. Iron Age sites do not, as a rule, co-incide with the location of modern villages.
Aardvark, I agree with that. I was wondering about the population estimates primarily. The most persuasive argument against modern villages being cited over an iron age layer is that we find so little iron age archaeology in them, whereas we do anglo saxon archaeology. best Harry A
Indeed! |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Innocent Bystander:
Let's be generous with the figures: that's 10% of the projected total. We do indeed find farmsteads scattered about between the modern villages: that is consistent with the premise. But is 10% conclusive?
It also vindicates Harper's observation that we do not have direct evidence for the whereabouts of the general population. I'd say 90% constitutes "general".
He suggested that the evidence should be missing if people were living in the Iron Age much as they were in the Roman, medieval and modern ages; that the place with the greatest statistical chance of having Iron Age remains is the place with the least practical chance of being looked at.
If there were ten times more Iron Age settlements than medieval villages, then 90% of them -- OK, 80% since modern villages are bigger -- 80% of them should be lying there waiting to be found. Your figures tell us they have not been. Neither of us can use this paucity of evidence to shoot the other down because the premise is used to interpret the data in its own favour.
Again in rough-cut figures: if there were 10,000 villages; each with a big nob living outside the nucleus; and their households numbered, say, 10; then the élite population is on the order of 5% of the total. The 6-10% in the ADS database is of the right order of magnitude to represent only the ruling class. I'm not saying it does, but it surely illustrates how the data are susceptible to different interpretations on different paradigms. That's in the nature of scientific enquiry.
But once again you are missing the point. We have reached the 5,000 figure without really trying. These comprise the sites which are either obvious from the air or on the ground (i.e have extant earthworks or remains) or have been identified by programmes of archaeological fieldwork. You should bear in mind that the vast majority of the country has not been subject to archaeological survey, which is why we have not found considerably more. Still, its a few more than you and Mr Harper seemed to think we had a few days ago. Your interpretation also tells me (sadly) tahat you have made little or no effort to look at the sites on these databases or you would have a much clearer idea of the types of sites you are dealing with. quote: Originally posted by Innocent Bystander:
This is seventeen times the average density you postulated! Clearly unrepresentative data and neither supportive nor damaging to either case. (Rather more in favour of MJ Harper, if anything, since he advocated dense population clusters of various sorts as we have seen throughout recorded history being the norm in pre-recorded history, too.)
Ah yes, I was waiting for that. My population density is too great. Just as well it doesn't damage your case eh! Clearly ignorable. If you gave any thought to the landscape, or had a clear feel for the archaeology of the period, then you would realise that a greater population density is likely to occur in an area such as Essex (heartland to one of the great Iron Age kingdoms) and on good agricultural land than, say, the peak district. That goes back to what I was saying about estimates. they don't really help. as soon as I work out crude figures, they instantly become some sort of target which has to be met by the data or the data is suddenly 'unrepresentative'. Incidentally predicting areas of denser population hardly makes Harper a genius, nor does it place him at odds with the orthodoxy, so I fail to see the point Now, kindly please answer a question. If the majority of Iron Age settlements lie underneath modern villages, why do we not find any evidence of them? |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Innocent Bystander:
I don't follow. How does the survival of good Iron Age pottery tell us anything at all about what may not have survived? If post-Roman bad pots can be almost completely destroyed, what chance does comparable Iron Age pottery stand after a further handful of centuries? If there was any.
Yet again you do not understand the evidence. Iron Age pottery was well made and hard fired. we find it on both high-status and low status settlement types. it lasts incredibly well in ths soil, no matter how often you plough it. slightly less stable are all the fancy bits of metalwork and coins of the Iron Age period, although they too seem to survive quite well. Roman pots, building material and coins also tend to survive quite well, and we STILL do not find them closely associated with modern villages. The point about the poor post Roman pottery was that it was incredibly badly made, and only survives in small quantities. quote: Can it be shown that the evidence should not be missing, that umpteen thousand years of continuous occupation would still look like umpteen thousand years of continuous occupation, as opposed to what we do see?
If 2 million people x N centuries' worth of waste is not "missing", please say so. If there is no direct evidence of it, then it is a conundrum. Since the waste is reckoned to be intimately associated with settlements, the expansion of a village on the same site is likely to obliterate (or simply cover up) the majority of the waste from its earliest days.
We know what sites which have been occupied for thousands of years continuously look like. We find them in the middle east, and they are called tells. BAJR can no doubt tell you much more about them than I. If modern villages had been occupied in the Iron Age and Roman periods, we would have found the evidence by now. We have not. it is not there. Village expansion would neither obliterate nor cover up this evidence. quote: What is the evidence for the majority of English villages having Anglo-Saxon origins? What are these "Saxon cores"?
Oh come on. If you do have not even bothered to look into the evidence for this, how can you support a theory that seks to dismiss it. Is this really the rigorous application of scientific theory. I think not! |
| |
|
|
quote: We know what sites which have been occupied for thousands of years continuously look like. We find them in the middle east, and they are called tells. BAJR can no doubt tell you much more about them than I.
Health and safety nightmares  Tell sites can be 10s of metres high.. building upon building... with one site I excavated in Turkey (Tille Huyuk) being some 50m high and stretching from the Neolithic to 1995AD when the area was flooded. Now thats stratigraphy... We do work in towns and villages (often now in advance of development) and as aardvark says.. we ain't found the evidence of a village stretchnig back into teh mists of time. The closest is for example at Dreghorn in Ayrshire... a Nelithic Settlement.. a gap... nearby a Bronze Age house... a gap.... then an Iron Age group of one or two... then Erly Historic... then further north was Medieval... and finally the present village.. it was so unusual it made international news... thats how rare it is... and even then it was not continuity... but gaps of thousands or hundreds of years... with people choosing roughly the same place... given teh terrain... the only place to set up a house/farm. We do know what it looks like... we know how to recognise it.. from thousands of examples and comparible studies... and so far.. your theories hold as much water as a leaky sieve... We would have to ... from now on... ONLY find what you suggest in vilages and towns to make even a slight dent in the overwhelming evidence agaist this proposal of continous occupation by "English Speakers" I sometimes wonder why evidence is produced, if it is ignored by some.... |
| |
|
|
quote: But once again you are missing the point. We have reached the 5,000 figure without really trying.
But once again you are missing the point. No one said that the data we have are incompatible with the model of scattered farmsteads. But we still only have a small sample of data plus a model, not a full set of data plus an analysis. And the small set of data remains compatible with alternative models. quote: You should bear in mind that the vast majority of the country has not been subject to archaeological survey...
We might still ask whether the existence of so many settlements scattered everywhere should leave so much evidence that their existence is anecdotal, common knowledge, given the extensive aerial surveys the majority of the country has been subjected to and the amount of time farmers spend looking at what's going on in their fields... but this is enough for now: "the vast majority of the country has not been subject to archaeological survey". The dataset is small. quote: ...which is why we have not found considerably more.
That is the paradigm assumption that is consistent with the data but not demonstrated by the data. Ditto "this is just what I would expect for the landscape as a whole", which is not deduced from the data, but is the assumption on which the statistical model is based from which extrapolations are made. And you can't say it's implied by a representative sample of data because what is representative is a function of the model! This evidence does not help us and the paradigms must be assessed another way. |
| |
|
|
quote: Still, its a few more than you and Mr Harper seemed to think we had a few days ago.
I had no numbers in mind, personally. quote: Yet again you do not understand the evidence. Iron Age pottery was well made and hard fired. we find it on both high-status and low status settlement types. it lasts incredibly well in the soil, no matter how often you plough it.
That's all about the evidence we have. What about the evidence we might not have? If the answer is that there is so much surviving Iron Age pot that there is 'no room' for people to have had badly made pots as well, please say so. quote: Now, kindly please answer a question. If the majority of Iron Age settlements lie underneath modern villages, why do we not find any evidence of them?
Us laypeople come to you for the answers! But I do not assert that they do: I am interested in whether the evidence we have can decide the matter. I did try looking this up, but found nothing useful, so please give us an overview -- crude figures are fine: how many of the 10-15,000 villages have been excavated, how extensively and where? What sort of evidence proves Iron Age settlement and is missing from villages? What sort of evidence proves Anglo-Saxon settlement and is found? What sort of evidence is unlikely to have survived and must be acknowledged as a gap in our knowledge? How would the deposition and survival of Iron Age remains be affected if the peasants lived in houses made of stones? How would the certainty of dating/interpretation be affected if they were otherwise systematically different from the settlements found outside the villages? MJ Harper's maxim is " what is is what was, except when it wasn't" and, if there is incontrovertible evidence that the villages as we know them did not exist before the Anglo-Saxons, then he would have to accept that on this matter what is is not what was. Please don't go too far out of your way, though, because where the people actually lived, as Harper said himself, is merely a secondary matter. However, if you can make the data accessible to the rest of us, I'm sure it would interest many readers. |
| |
|
|
quote: Tell sites can be 10s of metres high.. building upon building... with one site I excavated in Turkey (Tille Huyuk) being some 50m high and stretching from the Neolithic to 1995AD when the area was flooded. Now thats stratigraphy...
Another interesting example. All I can find is Tille Hüyük at the centre of controversy over dendro-dating. Never mind.That's 50 metres in about 10,000 years. Does that mean the Anglo-Saxon origins of English villages 1500 years ago can be found 7 or 8 metres down? (Or rather, that all villages can be found 7 or 8 metres up?) |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Innocent Bystander:
If the answer is that there is so much surviving Iron Age pot that there is 'no room' for people to have had badly made pots as well, please say so.
I have been saying this for ages. The Iron Age pottery we find, on both low status and high status sites is very well fired and lasts for a long time. If they also used v poory fired pots, we have no evidence for it. quote: Us laypeople come to you for the answers!
But you ignore the answers when we give them to you. As for the rest of your questions, if you are really interested in the answers, do some reading. All I am going to do is repeat what I have said above, that there is no substantive evidence for modern villages having pre-Roman or Roman origins. The best evidence we have points to a Saxon origin. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Innocent Bystander: quote: But once again you are missing the point. We have reached the 5,000 figure without really trying.
But once again you are missing the point. No one said that the data we have are incompatible with the model of scattered farmsteads. But we still only have a small sample
| |
