Did Francis really say "Ancient photograph"? I don't think they really answered this one. Walls 5.1 metres wide just to hold cattle in? I didn't realise they had Limousins in those days! Since it wasn't on the top of the hill they discounted the walls as being defensive so was it all just a status symbol? 5,000 tonnes is a lot of stone, where did it come from, because there must be a big hole somewhere?
Yes, when Tony suggested a sheep fold at the start he was laughed at. Then at the end the hypothesis wasn't that far removed, unless the people in the Dark Ages radically built up the walls.
Still, congratulations to them for all the hard work on what looked like a very difficult site.
Hi. I think they were a bit close to clutching at straws this time. It looked very unlikely from the start that it was seriously defensive, but some people clung to the word "fort" for a long time. Also, I swear I heard someone (Mick?) say the lack of evidence supported it being Iron Age. Yes, I know what they mean, but...
In the past they've tried soil sampling to check if there were a lot of animals kept in an enclosure (as in one of the Sat a.m. repeats). I thought they might usefully have tried that on this site, although they had a lady who nibbled dirt, instead. To each her own. Is the phosphates measurement technique discredited, a one-off, not always suitable, or what?
I believe, it was the same lady. Emma Tetlow - from Birmingham University. She seems to know what she is talking about, according to their website, she is a professional environmental archaeologist!
The site was very different to the one she used it on last time. No suitable occupation floors were uncovered by the looks of things and I don't imagine it is something you can use on stone floors.
She did say at the end she found beetles which suggested manure and stuff.
I agree with Hudson, it looked like a really challenging site.
In this programme unprovable, evidence dodging, fantasising reached a new level.
Francis managed to claim the existence of an Iron Age roundhouse (from some stones that never even approximated what a round house foundation actually looks like) then claimed because it wasn't there it must have been ploughed out!
Or maybe it was never there and Francis was making it up? Are TT abandoning conventional archaeological thought which normally focuses on evidence? When plough marks are observed on other sites, will it automatically be assumed that there must have been amazing archaeology on all of those which has been ploughed out?
Next Francis made up a rectangular building (again from the stones, which didn't look like the foundations of a structure at all and may well just have been a dumped deposit, or possibly a dry stone wall) which because it was earlier than the post-medieval ploughing must have been "Dark Age" (whooo lets all get excited).
Or possibly it was 18th century or 17th century? No it couldn't possibly be any other period except the one period we don't normally find structures associated with. Yes that must be it! Because Francis said it in a sort of half whisper whilst leaning in towards Mick in that "the games afoot" style so it must be true.
This was not archaeology just people making it up. Meanwhile the lack of evidence and fact were not going to get in the way of the wild speculation so despite the fact that most sites of the Dark Age or sub-Roman period are normally only identified through scientific dating (except where specific pottery types occur) and the complete lack of any IA material or features, Francis now has a central important roundhouse which is later replaced by a high status Dark Age rectangular building. I kept thinking "christ anytime now he's going to declare that he'd found Camelot!"
At the end of the programme we found out that the site was "definitely Iron Age" because "of its context within the landscape". Always be wary of people who say stuff like this, its the same as bad management speak, it doesn't actually mean anything it just sounds impressive. It states "I know things about the landscape because I'm very clever so I know this site can only be Iron Age". What it actually means is "well, I had a look at a few other similar type sites and most people reckon they're Iron Age so I'm going to go along with them". It doesn't prove anything and wasn't new information.
Also (we discovered) that it wasn't some castles like its name suggested as the name had been made up by local farmers (implication that "they" were too stupid to now any better and luckily some experts could now put the right). We found out that the photos of the earlier excavation didn't reveal that the guard chamber was a different phase (oh, actually didn't see the proof of this on the programme either did we? no they just sort of said it and mumbled something about non-matching sides, hmmm?)
So one trench showed that understanding the entrance was too difficult from a single trench. Another showed that the wall was really thick and had been terraced into the hill, amazing eh? The wall was 5.1m thick, amazingly almost exactly matching the sixteen feet as quoted on the regional tourism webpage for the last ten years, outstanding! Oh and another building was made up on the basis of about four stones at the edge of a trench.
Really, Really sad and just gives archaeology a bad press.
Surely context within the landscape refers to the relationship of one feature with other features of known date. Vis if medieval ploughing goes around a structure then that structure must be older than the ploughing.
"well, I had a look at a few other similar type sites and most people reckon they're Iron Age so I'm going to go along with them".
Is that wrong? Any experienced archaeologist should know what an Iron Age round house looks like and what features distinguish it from it's Bronze Age equivalent.
5,000 tonnes is a lot of stone, where did it come from, because there must be a big hole somewhere?
There is a quarry nearby. One would have though that a comparison of the stone from the quarry and the site be made by a geologist. I also don't understand why anyone would want to build a wall 5 metres wide and only 1.5 metres high. Would it not be more likely that the wall was considerably higher and that the stone had been taken to form field walls over the years. The original stone would then have been more likely 15,000 tons and the wall height 3metres, and then it would be more likely to be defensive.
Originally posted by Fil2: Surely context within the landscape refers to the relationship of one feature with other features of known date. Vis if medieval ploughing goes around a structure then that structure must be older than the ploughing.
"well, I had a look at a few other similar type sites and most people reckon they're Iron Age so I'm going to go along with them".
Is that wrong? Any experienced archaeologist should know what an Iron Age round house looks like and what features distinguish it from it's Bronze Age equivalent.
Hi Fil2 Yep, one (the BA) generally has an emphasis on internal posts as structural supports while the other (IA) is more reliant on a supporting outer "wall" resulting often in a single circular feature (or external wall postholes) rather than separate rings of external and internal postholes, and can incorporate a porch.
Oh! Except when the IA ones are post set (rather than ringbeamesque) or stone walled and look almost exactly the same as BA ones! Or the Bronze Age ones are Late Bronze Age when they look exactly the same as the IA ones and can only be dated by the ceramics associated with them. My point is that unless you have associated evidence dating is subjective and you prove my point beautifully. Any good archaeologist knows not to assume context because that colours perceptions and therefore narrows interpretation.
Your med ploughing example is really a stratigraphic relationship rather than a landscape context but I do take your point that it is that type of evidence which makes up the study.
Look, I have excavated a site that TT, trenched, surveyed and then "contextulised within its landscape". It was assumed by TT that the site was located in a certain field and one trench had produced a piece of med pot next (note next) to a wall. A measured survey was carried out on the basis of the idea that the field contained medieval remains. Thus this survey plotted a series of buildings and other features as expected on a medieval site of the type. The conclusion was therefore, that the field contained significant (and they meant nationally significant) archaeology.
The subsequent excavation (years later as part of a planning issue, by a professional unit) showed that the wall was 19th century (as was obvious as it lead on from a standing wall Douh!) and that there was no medieval archaeology was in the field at all. The surveyed "buildings" were just flat areas where cattle troughs had been positioned over the last 30 years and the piece of med pottery was clearly residual and had nothing to do with wall.
You see the "context within the landscape" was predicated on the belief that the site was medieval and significant. Therefore, any observable "features" within the field must represent significant medieval archaeology.
Have a look at aerial photographs of the landscape around the Hamsterley and all you see is enclosed fields, the site "fits" well into this system. There are no fossilised early fields or features except perhaps the woodland although that fits also within an 18th-19th century enclosed landscape. Its location in terms of topography is not indicative as it sit at a reasonably mid level rather than on a hilltop etc. In terms of other Iron Age defended settlements in the region, most are hilltop, have mixed stone and wooden/earthen palisade defences and are quite often more circular in form. Sites such as Lordenshaws are much more characteristic of IA defended sites and I can't find any other rectangular walled sites in the county or region, although there was discussion on the programme about similar sites in Scotland, I cannot find any which share characteristics. The "uniqueness" of the site in terms of the regions IA worries me.
I know of a site which is a large circular earthwork comprising on a bank and internal ditch, located on a the crest of a hill associated closely with a BA barrow cemetery (ie right next to it) and not far from a series of henges of similar scale and topographic location. It is located where 3 parish boundaries meet and a Roman road appears to go around the feature.
Luckily the 18th century fop who had it built on a whim recorded the fact otherwise it would "contextulise nicely into its prehistoric landscape".
There was a point in the show when other local sites looking over the river were identified by Stuart. I wondered if the hills were being used for beacons to light up fires - if anyone came up the river, as an early warning to towns on the other side of the valley. Not a castle or fort - but in times of threat of invasion it could be a site reused over time but not lived in - hence the lack of finds relating to occupation. It is a lot of stone to carry up the hill, but not to have buildings. If the buildings were robbed out why not the massive walls?
A beacon is the kind of place you repair in times of peace and rely on in times of conflict. You may want people to see this from the river to warn them off that they are being watched but dont have the people to actually keep watch all the time, or build extensive defences.
So when are the local population watching the river valleys for invaders, raiders, pirates? When might the local landowner spend time and money building something like this? When are the main threats in this particular location?
Any making sure anyone who comes up river can see there is a local presence to watch them.
I didnt see any convincing dating evidence other than the map reference at the start of the show (and I dont see how you can decide it is Bronze Age or anything else without datable evidence).
However you must look at the context of buildings and findings, everything has a context - but not every roman building is a roman villa and not every defensive position has to be a castle.
I enjoy TT - and I am a fan, but I agree I when the finds fail to show up on day 1 or day 2 by day 3 there is pressure to come up with something - personally I'd rather hear experts say they dont know or cant prove their ideas than suggest with sone certainty, what the site is about without being able to hold the argument.
Originally posted by ChazB: I'd rather hear experts say they don't know or cant prove their ideas than suggest with some certainty, what the site is about without being able to hold the argument.
I think you'll wait a long time for that to happen
........................................................................ Support the PAS Go with the FLO
