quote:

Originally posted by Innocent Bystander:

quote:

Even if the Roman engineers were able to locate all the Iron Age trackway ditches,

That's the easy part: they're the ones that led from place to place and got built up.

What evidence there is of "the ones they missed" I asked about a couple of times before, but no one has answered.

quote:

enclosure ditches, field boundaries, roundhouses, postholes, cesspits, rubbish pits, wells and waterholes and completely excavate them of all the Iron Age deposits and material they contained, there would still be large quantities of Iron Age material kicking about unstratified.

Who said all evidence of Iron Age Britain is supposed to be rubbed out? Just that when you dig a Roman road or town, it's no surprise to find nothing underneath.

The suggestion that wooden buildings/houses chiefly denote high status was nicely corroborated by West Heslerton, and not challenged by anything else, so where to expect to find postholes is still moot.

I think rubbish pits being dug and re-dug was mentioned by someone here; and neither the fact that we only find disused rubbish pits nor the fact that we do not find the ones presently sited under people's garages has been addressed.

How can you tell a well freshly dug for an expanding town from one re-dug for an expanding town? And what can we say about the ones currently obscured by bus depots?

Of course, it's only a matter of "managing to locate" all the Iron Age settlement evidence if it is scattered far and wide and the Romans have no particular reason to come across it. But we are concerned here with (the possibility of) deliberately and systematically building over Iron Age settlements, which means all the evidence covered up or "destratified" was, as it were, easy to find.

There is Iron Age material left -- both "plenty of it" and "a pale shadow of the population" -- but not where the Romans set to with their spades. Why is that not precisely what we would expect had they built over roads and towns?

quote:

Originally posted by Innocent Bystander:
That's the easy part: they're the ones that led from place to place and got built up.

What evidence there is of "the ones they missed" I asked about a couple of times before, but no one has answered.

[QUOTE]Who said all evidence of Iron Age Britain is supposed to be rubbed out? Just that when you dig a Roman road or town, it's no surprise to find nothing underneath.]

quote:

I think rubbish pits being dug and re-dug was mentioned by someone here; and neither the fact that we only find disused rubbish pits nor the fact that we do not find the ones presently sited under people's garages has been addressed.]

quote:

How can you tell a well freshly dug for an expanding town from one re-dug for an expanding town? And what can we say about the ones currently obscured by bus depots?

quote:

There is Iron Age material left -- both "plenty of it" and "a pale shadow of the population" -- but not where the Romans set to with their spades. Why is that not precisely what we would expect had they built over roads and towns?

PLease go away, read something on how sites form, even your precious internet should be able to help you there. All of the points above can easily be answered, but you will only understand the reply if you appreciate how archaeological stratigraphy works, which you have clearly demonstrated in this and numerous other posts, that you do not.

Thank you for those helpful answers. Life is so much easier since the advent of the discussion forum.

Perhaps you could direct your readers to the worthwhile sources, so that we can avoid the usual wrangling that results from amateurs reading up what they can... and then being told they are not sufficiently up to date... or that the very latest paper is not to be trusted because it contradicts earlier findings... all that sort of thing.

Unfortunately, it's the easy answers that are in the books. I would like to penetrate quickly to the difficult ones. (I'm rather surprised that you'd rather not try to encapsulate each point for us: it's generally true that teaching something sharpens your own skill with it.) Scholarly works are each the tip of the iceberg; each one refers to the findings of others; in a long paper chase that us amateurs are unlikely to be able to follow. (Indeed, amateurs are denied access to various library and museum materials.) It would really help if you could point to the original account that establishes that Britain's Roman roads were indeed conceived
by the Romans.

I trust that such a pivotal point in the British school curriculum is readily accessible to the general public. (It is academe's task to advance knowledge on behalf of the general public, is it not?) (If you can't point to it, and instead you advocate a general self-education in archaeological methods, it begins to appear to us outsiders as though there
is no such seminal account; rather a general consensus that it is the case, supported by anything and everything you say. In which case, no amount of reading is going to answer the paradigm questions for me. Is the establishment of the paradigm even part of the formal education? Remember: working consistently with the paradigm does not answer this question!)

quote:

Originally posted by Innocent Bystander:
I'm rather surprised that you'd rather not try to encapsulate each point for us: it's generally true that teaching something sharpens your own skill with it

Probably because this is a discussion forum, not an online open university course unit. You want to learn that way, enrol on one and shell out. Don't be "surprised" that people like Aardvark are not too keen to give up their time for free "teaching" people who have not the nouse to find out anything before they begin to question everything. Especially someone who has shown himself (sorry) incapable of understanding some pretty simple stuff so far and apparently from our previous discussions not really very keen to venture further than "wot I saw on the telly"...

quote:

It would really help if you could point to the original account that establishes that Britain's Roman roads were indeed conceived
by the Romans

Well, golly jeepers, I thought that was what you "applied epistemologists" were depicting yourselves as engaged in doing !! How ON EARTH can you pretend to be deconstructing existing paradigms while admitting you have not the foggiest how they were constructed? Knowledge of the development of research in a particular field is fiundamental to ANY epistemological critique of the existing concepts within it, isn't it?

That's what makes this forum so good,
everyone willing to share their expertise
and good will to each other.
Yes it is a ''a discussion forum''
but without much discussion,
more the one liners,put you downs,
and sarcasm,
thank goodness for the yellow triangle
eh.....

quote:

Originally posted by kevmart:
That's what makes this forum so good,
everyone willing to share their expertise

Well, yes, if you look back through four pages of this thread you will see four pages where some of us have been giving our arguments "why Roman roads are Roman". But that's not enough to convince the Harperians, now they want reading lists and a point by point exposition. But at the same time reserve the right to keep putting stumbling blocks in the way of the learning process all from their fertile "what if' imagination. It's all a bit futile.

I should take a break then if I were you, PMB.

quote:

Originally posted by M J Harper:
I should take a break then if I were you, PMB.

There you are Kevmar, they don't even WANT any help. It would appear that they are perfectly happy with their quaint home-grown revisionist views because it seems whatever we might say they are always going to feel they "know better".

Paul,for the most part,
it's not what you say,
but how you say it.........

how true.... and I don't agree one iota with MJ Harper or his er... other well organised buddies..

Aardvark... you have spent more time being patient than me... you get an MBE - but seriously folks... if you have a question.... ask it... but if the answer shows you are barking up a tree... please have the good grace to admit it... If after 100 questions you find one that is almost fitting ... it still has to cope with 99 that don't.

I agree with Kevmart that question should be asked and answered helpfully... if however you are going to debate a theory that is supposedly well researched... please try harder...

I wouldn't say we were well-organised, old chap. It's just we are all Applied Epistemologists. But I know what you mean since you archaeologists seem well-organised to us. Doubtless both sides seem to be singing from the same hymn-sheet but remember the devil has all the best tunes.

quote:

... if however you are going to debate a theory that is supposedly well researched... please try harder...

It remains our stated policy to leave the research to those who've a demonstrated knack for it.

quote:

Originally posted by BAJR:
I agree with Kevmart that question should be asked and answered helpfully...

So why aren't you spending more of your BAJR time promoting "archaeology for all" by "helpfully" providing them with reading lists and point by point lists why Roman roads are dated to the Roman period? Here's an ideal opportunity to put this ideal into practice!! The original helpful replies at the beginning of the thread were dismissed. Thirty six pages of discussion here with the Harperians really gives no grounds for optimism that if somebody spent two hours compiling a list of books and itemised reasons how the paradigm of "Roman road" was created and why it is maintained, that it would be taken any differently. There is a limit to the time anyone can spend being helpful when all the time its just thrown back in their face. If you have the time and desire to do it please go ahead, but don't criticise those who feel they have already wasted enough time over the past days attempting to help these people understand, when actually it is clear that they want something completely different.

Anyway I'm not the one that goes around shouting that everything is "archaeology for all" David. I'm interested to see how you'd put this ideal into action here. Give the Harperians "archaeology". Tell them more helpfully than others here, why ARE Roman roads Roman?

''There is a limit to the time anyone can spend being helpful when all the time its just thrown back in their face''.

Hmm I remember this bit,

as for
''archaeology for all''
just be honest Paul,
your mantra is
''Archaeology ,for Archaeologists''
and others shouldn't be allowed involvement
unless it's from ones armchair.
Within reason (of course there are places
that should be professionally excavated)
Iv'e said that many times,but our past,our history should be for everyone to be involved
with,from muck under fingernails
to reading reports,
it shouldn't be a closed shop.........

Here's one road worth debating, the road at Blackstone Edge. Described by many as a 'roman road', it is by no means certain that it is. Unlike the nearby York to Chester roman road, there are no forts guarding the summit traverse (Slack and Castleshaw), no associated archeaology, such as the tile kilns for Slack and Castleshaw and no contemporary documentation. Additionally, the purpose of the central gulley remains a mystery as drainage ditches exist on either side.

Is this a Harperian pre roman road, a medieval pack horse road or, as this site suggests, roman?

http://ourpasthistory.com/Gallery/Blackstone-Edge-Roman-Road

best

harry A

Archaeology for all..

BAJR is involved in everything from Public and Private debates on Pay and COnditions, Community Archaeology, Buildings Archaeology, Curatorial Standards, Online SMRs, Battlefield Designation, Supporting teh start of a COunty Heritage trust, Producing public documents on everything from Geopyhsics to Animal Bone identification, carrying out work with NAtional Organisation as part of a national training plan for masons and brickies.. er... oh yes.. working with detectorists to promote best practice.. through in some YAC club work.. a smattering of work in the Middle East...organising a second archaeology conference in York - even offered to help the start of the group that asked for suggestions on this forum.. giving up my time etc etc... so you see.. I am doing my best... I am however one person.. and quite busy - (even writing a book on describing architectural features and recording buildings) I don't have a one track mind..

however for the benefit of Harpies... heres a couple of books to aid your knowledge on Roman Roads..

A useful start - Roman Roads in Britian

Margary, Ivan D. (1973). Roman Roads in Britain, third edition, London: John Baker

Roads in Roman Britain by Hugh Davies (Tempus Publishing, 2002)

The Landscape of Roman Britain by Ken and Petra Dark (Sutton, 1998)


Hope that helps...

Archaeology for All (well minus a couple I could think of..ah no... thats not fair... you're welcome as well.)

I'd probably approach the problem from the other angle, Harry. Take the York to Chester road. If these are Roman cities then the road would presumably be Roman. But are they Roman? Would not Iron Age Brits need a port for Ireland? Would not the local Yorkshire kingdom (who? Parisii?) need a capital? Aren't these places "lowest crossing points" on the Dee and Ouse (check, I've no idea) and hence must have always existed in some form.

As for Manchester...that is a true enigma. It always eems eerily important (remember the leader of the Parliamentary Army?) but is always described as "a village" before suddenly becoming one of the more important cities in world history.

quote:

I'd probably approach the problem from the other angle ...

Well it's not the York to Chester road I am asking about. It's the road at Blackstone Edge. What is it?

It is thought that the Brigantes had their 'capital' at Aldeborough and the Parisii their's at Brough on Humber by the way.

quote:

Take the York to Chester road. If these are Roman cities then the road would presumably be Roman. But are they Roman? Would not Iron Age Brits need a port for Ireland?

I don't think there would be any need for the type of road network you suggest for either of these groups to obtain iron. Both the Pennines and the North York Moors have various iron deposits. The very large hill fort at Sutton Bank may have been cited there to protect the boundary between the two tribes.

best

Harry A

I don't think iron's got much to do with it -- I should think such high value/low weight goods would be specialist traffic -- possibly tinkers /travellers/ Romanies/ their predecessors. But we have to start thinking realistically about pre-Roman trade. After all, we know as far back as the neolithic flint mines that long distance trade in Britain was a fairly flourishing business.

Now there are two ways of looking at this. The first is that long distance trade is analagous to song-lines, that is small groups specialising in discrete routes by memory. But the alternative (and certainly one I would favour) is that Britain (and pre-literate Europe generally) has quite a sophisticated road network. But whether we're talking about upgraded drover roads or state-sponsored trunk routes is something still very much up for grabs.

So returning to the road at Blackstone Edge the questions that need asking are
1. Is there any obvious strategic purpose for the Romans to build this road
2. Did the Romans build roads for strictly economic purposes
3. How does the road "fit" with the known Roman network (whether they upgraded it or build it do novo).
4. How does the road link with pre-Roman sites especially megalithic or similar
5. Does the road fit inside a pre-Roman political organisation (who DID control York then....Brough-on-Humber doesn't seem very convenient...unless they were a colony of the other Parisians).
6. etc etc

quote:

Brough-on-Humber doesn't seem very convenient

Not if you look at modern maps, but during the roman period, the land to the west, stretching almost all the way to the Pennines was marshy. Hence the two roman routes from Lincoln to York.

Brough then was effectively at the tip of peninsular with good marine and river access to other areas. It's the most convenient location in the territory of the Parisii.

best

Harry A

quote:

A useful start - Roman Roads in Britain

http://www.romans-in-britain.org.uk/inv_roads.htm


A most interesting article. It doesn't say anything about how it is known that the road network was laid out by the Romans de novo, but it does quietly contradict this view a few times.


"As the Romans went forward and deeper in England, they established towns and regional capitals (civitas capitals: the name given to the capital town in the territory occupied by a conquered tribe)."

Sounds more like "commandeering" towns and investing client rulers/officials than breaking ground and saying "this is where you will now live". The age of the towns is not made any clearer in this article.


"The new roads enable troops and equipment to be moved great distance in a fraction of the time it would normally take. Trade benefited by the introduction of the roads by giving merchants the ability to move goods between towns much faster and easier and with less risk of damage to their goods. Fresh fruit and vegetables were moved around from the agriculturally rich lands in the south and sold in the north where conditions for farming were less favourable. The produce arrived fresher, and so meant that a better price could be bargained."

All good common sense. And if merchants were now better able to get from town to town, then, a fortiori, they used to be getting from town to town.


"Firstly a ditch about 3 ft (1 metre) deep was excavated."

Which did what, precisely, to any pre-existing evidence?


"...large stones... smaller stones... gravel, or small pieces of flint that was compressed as tightly as possible.
If local materials, such as slag from local mines was available, then this too was added to give extra strength."

So not just the roadway but big chunks of the countryside were churned up in the process...


"The amazing part of all this is that the Roman road system was very much the same throughout the whole empire. But not one instruction book has ever been found that gives details of how it was done."

That's odd, isn't it? Unless the instructions were simple: rebuild the main thoroughfares like so...


"Roman roads were not exactly straight over their entire length. But the straightest parts are in long sections. This leads us to believe that they went across a straight route allowing the inaccuracies to build up until they reached a point where slight changes in direction was necessary. This would account for there consistently being many miles of straight sections, then a slight bend, followed by more miles of straight road."

Coming up with a suitable explanation is one thing, but it says nothing at all about other explanations.


"The Celts had worn tracks from place to place over the years, so the Romans had a rough idea in which direction they were going."

!!!


"Many of the roads were already there in a very crude form."

!!!


"But these tracks had been made by accident by people walking along them, so they weaved around all over the place."

That's a most peculiar way to characterise going from place to place, except in the context of enthusing about the contrasting Roman roads.

I'd be interested to hear how we know that Celtic roads wandered about given that even the meandering lanes that we have now are not supposed to date from then.

We wouldn't dream of taking the scenic unless it was just that, since we have all these lovely trunk routes. But Celts liked to wander about; and I'm sure I once actually heard Mick Aston say the Saxons liked their roads to snake around. They had the Roman road system before their very eyes and apparently chose to go the long way around instead. Curious.


"Once all the measurement had been taken, they would all head back to the office and transfer the readings onto one long sheet of paper, marking each point taking into account any deviation from the ones one either side. Once this had been done and all the points had been joined, the whole finished article was fixed to a wall and the surveyors could stand back and see the whole course of the road from start to finish. From this they could see which markers needed to be moved to make the road as straight as possible."

This seems a very detailed account considering we have bugger-all in the way of original sources and have to glean clues from the topology of the roads themselves.


"When all the rogue markers had been re-sighted and the calculations remade and the map updated, the road was now showing sections of straight road with slight deviations where a change of course was necessary. A change of course would, for example, happen where the road was to cross a river and the Romans wanted to make the bridge at the narrowest point."

Apart from the fact that there is not evidence of any such Roman maps, this is a flat contradiction of the deviations being necessary to correct accumulated errors and thereby giving clues to how it was done.


"One thing archaeologists are thankful for, is the practice of many builders of inscribing their name and the year into the [mile]stone. This not only helps in ascertaining the age of the road, it also helps to estimate the year the Romans entered that area of Britain, and so reinforce the knowledge we have of how the Romans moved through the country."

So the roads were built progressively as the Romans took full possession? A series of independent, local or regional projects, then? Interesting how they nevertheless link up into nation-spanning straight roads that "hardly deviated in course from one town to another no matter how far apart they were."