I accept the Domesday evidence as definitive.

quote:

Not much call for a Roman road then.

It is not I who is arguing that all the roman roads are placed on top of iron age 'roads'.

But it does support my contention that settlements and any tracks associated with them come and go. The same with Carl Wark. It is not a picture of continuity. These things exist in isolated periods in time only.

Castle Hill starts as a seasonal site used in the mesolithic. It starts to become more permanent from the neolithic onwards and becomes increasingly fortified during the bronze and iron ages. Around 400 AD it is abandoned. There are no signs of an permanent settlement until the normans build a motte and bailie there. After that, the de Lacy's built a manor there. When that was abandoned, there was a further period when no one used the site. In the 1800's, someone built a pub there. That too has now disappeared and again the site is unoccupied.

If you find a mesolithic flint scatter near to a modern day settlement, you can't assume continuous occupation throughout the period.

quote:

I'm claiming the opposite of "the Romans worked miracles"; that they rebuilt the roads that were in use at the time.

I'll leave Aardvark to deal with those parts of your post where you quote him but the above is probably true only of some sections of road. Moreover, recognition of the fact that many routes or trackways have been abandoned and are no longer in use surely argues against any idea of continuity. The places where people live today are not the same as the places they used to live.

best

harry A

There are some fine iron age ?Bronze age / Iron age chariots built in the south but turning up in excavations waaaay ooop north. I believe in pre-Roman roads.

Mandy

quote:

It is not I who is arguing that all the roman roads are placed on top of iron age 'roads'.

No one is claiming that Roman roads were built on top of all Iron Age roads. But in the case of a site abandoned 4 or 5 centuries before, there is no reason to think there was an Iron Age road there anyway!

quote:

But it does support my contention that settlements and any tracks associated with them come and go.

Of course! But that's just a vote for "there is unlikely to be enough direct evidence of Iron Age roads anywhere sufficient to indicate whether or not the locations of Roman roads were predetermined; circumstantial evidence is all we've got".

quote:

These things exist in isolated periods in time only.

I wouldn't expect anything else.

But how do you explain the fact that everything before about the 10th century is transient while everything since about the 10th century has been permanent?

quote:

Around 400 AD it is abandoned.

Hold up: you said 400 BC before.

quote:

[That they rebuilt the roads that were in use at the time] is probably true only of some sections of road.

You are prepared to say this without any direct evidence?

If it is true of any sections of road, why couldn't it be true of the whole of the south-east or the whole country? From observation, we do not know where any 'equivalent' Iron Age tracks went; and by definition, we're not going to find them where the roads actually lay; so what is stopping you saying "as best as we can tell, they had either no roads or these roads"?

quote:

Moreover, recognition of the fact that many routes or trackways have been abandoned and are no longer in use surely argues against any idea of continuity.

Not a bit. The Romans metalled the roads. New balls please.

<<But how do you explain the fact that everything before about the 10th century is transient while everything since about the 10th century has been permanent?>>

This is the critical paradigm question. With the exception of London and few other centres (and roads), it would appear that nothing -- what people spoke, where people lived, where people worshipped, the roads people travelled on et al et al -- have a remarkable continuity during historical periods and an even more remarkable discontinuity when the historical record is unavailable.

There's either something to be explained about the British or something to be explained about British historians.

quote:

But in the case of a site abandoned 4 or 5 centuries before, there is no reason to think there was an Iron Age road there anyway!

There are plenty of hill forts which weren't abandoned but, since you are not claiming that the romans didn't build over all the iron age tracks/roads, we don't need to pursue that further. It remains simply a question of which ones they did build over and where they built from scratch.

quote:

... everything since about the 10th century has been permanent?

That's not true. There are many villages which have disappeared since the 10th cent.

quote:

Hold up: you said 400 BC before.

Yes, I should have written 400 BC.

quote:

You are prepared to say this without any direct evidence?

I said probably and I stand by that. In particular some of those roman roads which linked roman forts which had been cited strategically. The need for roads to facilitate the movement of troops and supplies has nothing to do with ancient trackways. They are determined by military conditions at the time. It's not disimilar to the building of the Irano-russian supply route in WW2.

As for direct evidence, the evidence of a roman road without any evidence for anything there previously is strongly suggestive. Certainly good enough for me to write 'probably'. Only you could ask for direct evidence that something never existed.

In response to my statement 'Moreover, recognition of the fact that many routes or trackways have been abandoned and are no longer in use surely argues against any idea of continuity.', you replied:

quote:

Not a bit. The Romans metalled the roads. New balls please.

So, where are the trackways used by those at Carl Wark? There are no metalled roman roads in the vicinity.

best

Harry A

quote:

it would appear that nothing -- what people spoke, where people lived, where people worshipped, the roads people travelled on et al et al -- have a remarkable continuity during historical periods

Have you never heard of places such as Wharram Percy? Why did the iron and steel industry in Grosmont decline or why was the canal system built and why did it decline? Change is everywhere and regular.

best

Harry A

quote:

Only you could ask for direct evidence that something never existed.

Yes. It sounds somewhat strange. We are used to hearing of the impossibility of “proving the negative.” But really, it’s not only possible to do so, it’s the only means by which science operates. The scientific method never allows for proving the positive. It only ever permits the proving of the negative. This is the principle of falsification: The simplest model proposed is presumed true until facts emerge with which it is inconsistent.

Now how do we go about falsifying a proposition concerning history. Let me give you an example. As we are discussing roads, let us consider a more-recent form of transportation: the Aeroplane.

Now, as we look around our own time and place, we quickly get a sense of how people and things move in the context of a world in which air travel is possible. Observations include:

1) Enormous numbers of people moving very quickly over long distances.
2) Rapid inter-continental transit
3) Few passengers transported between continents by ship
4) Rapid intercontinental package delivery

As we look back in time to, say, 1910, we encounter a world where these observation no longer hold true. We find instead…

1) Small numbers of people moving very slowly over long distances.
2) Slow inter-continental transit
3) Many passengers transported between continents by ship
4) Slow and intercontinental package delivery

These observations are inconsistent with the presence of air travel. We would conclude, therefore, that aircraft were either non-existent or rudimentary in 1910.

Looking at the problem of roads in Great Britain, we would look to see massive transformation in trade and in the movement of peoples and goods between the pre and post Roman periods. In an island lacking a road network, we should expect only rudimentary capabilities in trade and very limited ability to transport heavy goods – compared with the time under the Roman occupation of course (not compared with today). To the extent that such a transformation is observed, the case for Roman Roads is established (because observation of pre-Roman conditions would produce results inconsistent with the presence of Roads).

On the other hand, should it turn out that very little difference in export levels and very little change in mobility within the island is evidenced between each period, no good evidence would then exist for the road network having been constructed at the time of the Romans. The simpler model would prevail.

One more point.

Where we do not have enough data to determine whether change has occurred, no change is assumed. Stasis is always the most probable condition.

<<That's not true. There are many villages which have disappeared since the 10th cent.>>

Oh come on, Harry, don't spoil everything by descending into pedantry. You know perfectly well that "many" adds up to a few plague villages and various others demolished by a series of change-of-use landowners, ancient and modern, from sheep-crazed monasteries to the National Water Board building reservoirs.

I'd really like you to think about this. You have a grasp of the past. By all means come up with explanations but don't deny the reality of the anomaly.

quote:

You know perfectly well that "many" adds up to a few plague villages and various others demolished by a series of change-of-use landowners, ancient and modern, from sheep-crazed monasteries to the National Water Board building reservoirs.

A few? A few thousand more likely and it's not just villages. It includes farms, hamlets, drovers' trails, packhorse trails, mines and the miners' houses, quarries and the quarrymen's houses and even whole industries which rose, flourished and then went into decline as the natural resources dried up. They all come and go. Even the lead mining which expanded under the romans, was further developed under Henry 2nd and which reached its height in the 17th cent, has gone. The only constant I see is change.

best

Harry A

quote:

Where we do not have enough data to determine whether change has occurred, no change is assumed. Stasis is always the most probable condition.

I don't doubt the attraction of the method Ishmael. Even Sir Fred Hoyle argued for a steady state universe so you are, in this respect, in esteemed company indeed. But, just as we all think we have got a subject sorted, along comes new data which causes us to reappraise what we thought we knew.

Take for example, the section of the York to Chester roman road between the forts at Slack and Castleshaw, shown in red, ie 'route uncertain' on the link provided by BAJR. This is the section to the east of Huddersfield.

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

Some sections are visible, it's how they join up that is uncertain. Margary's route is wrong. He assumes that the long straight A640 overlays the roman road but the consequence of this is that he has the road approaching Castleshaw from the north west. Aerial photography however shows the road running in a north easterly direction, on the opposite side of the fort. This was confirmed some 20 years ago by archaeology on visible aggers on the moor. These were linked up to form a new proposed route between the two forts. However, a dozen or so recent excavations have revealed an entirely new possibility using a completely different route. Were there two routes? Did one replace the other or, is only perhaps one of them roman? No sense has been made of this yet but it does very much look like two routes, connecting two neighbouring roman camps exist. The answer is likley to be complex. Certainly the new route is the one I would walk, well at least 30 years ago so, in this respect, it could have taken a route used in the late pre roman iron age. But, how do we then explain the 'other roman road', for parts of that certainly do exist on other parts of the moor?

It's fun to speculate that the romans took an existing Brigantine route to attack the Fortress of the King, as implied by the name Rigodunum and then later built a 'proper' roman road once they were subdued, but it is only speculation and shouldn't be used to re-write history. We don't really know if Rigodunum is Castleshaw and the name Cambodunum for Slack is contentious anyway. All we know if that there appears to be two routes connecting two neighbouring roman forts and we don't know why.

best

Harry A

quote:

There are many villages which have disappeared since the 10th cent.

Almost everywhere in Roman, Saxon and Domesday records still exists: we've lost a few and gained a few -- that's just normal economic life -- amounting to a few percent. Near enough, everything is the same as when records began.

quote:

I said probably and I stand by that.

I agree with you: despite the lack of direct evidence, it is probable that they rebuilt at least some of the roads that were in use at the time.

quote:

In particular some of those roman roads which linked roman forts which had been cited strategically. The need for roads to facilitate the movement of troops and supplies has nothing to do with ancient trackways. They are determined by military conditions at the time.

Well, I did say early on that they may well have added some of their own here and there -- that'd be natural, too. But I don't quite follow what you're saying. The Romans had to conquer people, had to go where the people were going. They might have made special provisions for, say, Pictish incursions, but the same goes for the Picts: they had to go where the people were, so overall the natives, the Romans and other invaders all needed to be going to and from the same places (with the possible exception of military stations to distract from or intercept the route to important towns, or something like that, which would be small fry and, in any case, in addition to the 'domestic' infrastructure).

quote:

So, where are the trackways used by those at Carl Wark? There are no metalled roman roads in the vicinity.

Apart from the fact that Carl Wark is described as lying "near the Roman road from Brough-on-Noe to Templeborough", you make the case admirably. We know perfectly well that people were making their way into and out of Carl Wark via one or two visible entrances, perhaps as recently as... well, no one has any idea... so let's say 1500 years ago; and yet there is no sign of the track. So we can be very sure that if the Romans had (mostly) built up existing roads then there would be no sign of the previous roads. There is no direct evidence to answer the question -- we would see nothing older than Roman remains whether the Roman road is the oldest thing there or there were older things that left no trace -- so we must fall back to circumstantial evidence.

On the question of continuity: of course some roads fall into disuse... and some new ones are established... and some are used continuously... It doesn't even matter what the proportions in these categories are: it's a new game once the Romans come along and metal the main roads in use at the time. This leaves evidence like never before and does more to guarantee the longevity of these precise routes than anything before. Whether these particular routes were already of great age when the Romans arrived is a separate (circumstantial) question.

quote:

The only constant I see is change.

That's because you're only looking at the changes! At the very same time, things go on much the same as they always have.

I asked the question before about the mains electricity supply by way of analogy. It changes rapidly, back and forth 50 times a second; and it is constantly at 240 volts and 50 hertz; and those figures are allowed to vary by a few percent; and there is a complete blackout from time to time; and it always comes on again...

Constancy and change are both always present: you need to be able to change your perspective. Otherwise, you must give your study of history because you believe it's impossible to apply any principles and draw any conclusions.

Certainly, farms and villages and factories and industries and markets come and go, but there are always farms and villages and factories and industries and markets.

quote:

Apart from the fact that Carl Wark is described as lying "near the Roman road from Brough-on-Noe to Templeborough",

That's quite a statement since we don't know where the roman road is. There is a roman fort at Brough-on-Noe and there are written records of a road to Templeborough, near Rotherham, but we don't know by which route they were connected. Furthmore, the topography here is key. What looks close on a modern street map is not country that is easily crossed. So how close is 'near'? All we have here is a written mention of a roman road and some lost tracks to a hill fort, nothing more.

Getting the Britons out of hill forts was a relatively hard task for the romans. Having got them out, the general picture is one of not letting them back in hence, in all probability, the roman fort at Brough-on-Noe which probably also made sure that they didn't reoccupy Mam Tor either, although it is debatable whether Mam Tor was occupied in the Iron Age, it may be entirely Bronze Age.

For me, the picture looks as if the locals lived in these fort(s) and not in Brough itself, which is where the romans put their fort. The village of Brough is not mentioned in the Domesday Book so I doubt the existence of an 'iron age village' here. Hope and bamford, which like Brough also sit between Mam Tor and Carl Wark, are mentioned in the Domesday Book, but there is no evidence of any iron age settlement in them.

quote:

Certainly, farms and villages and factories and industries and markets come and go, but there are always farms and villages and factories and industries and markets.

But not necessarily in the same place which is what you require to prove your hypothesis.

best

harry A

<<there are written records of a road to Templeborough, near Rotherham...All we have here is a written mention of a roman road and some lost tracks to a hill fort, nothing more.>>

Harry, what is the status of this written record? Would the person writing it be in any better position to know that it was a Roman road than we do? After all, I have a written record of the existence of this Roman road too...your last post!

quote:

it is debatable whether Mam Tor was occupied in the Iron Age, it may be entirely Bronze Age. For me, the picture looks as if the locals lived in these fort(s) and not in Brough itself

So even on a long abandoned site, it can be rather conjectural as to whether people lived there in the Iron Age?

quote:

But not necessarily in the same place which is what you require to prove your hypothesis.

If housing, farming and industry are in constant flux and there is no particular reason for them to be sited in any particular place, shouldn't the entire countryside be peppered with remains? Shouldn't it be impossible for fieldwalking to suggest sites because everywhere should have evidence?

If on the other hand, even virgin territory has features that suggest the best places to live and work and travel, then activity is likely to centre on certain spots more than others (like the best places to knap flint whilst waiting for the herd). And once places have been proved suitable for certain purposes and the resources are available in certain places and the tracks are already trodden... it is most likely that activity remains centred there. And sometimes there is expansion and sometimes decay and sometimes something new to try that lasts for however long and sometimes the big nobs want some privacy away from the hoi polloi and sometimes the village gets moved and so on and on and on. The evidence should be clustered: centred but blurry, with odds and ends scattered in between. That's what we have now. That's what we see in the archaeology and lack of it.

quote:

Harry, what is the status of this written record? Would the person writing it be in any better position to know that it was a Roman road than we do? After all, I have a written record of the existence of this Roman road too...your last post!

You'd better address that question to Innocent MJ, he's the one who is holding it up as an argument.

best

harry A

quote:

So even on a long abandoned site, it can be rather conjectural as to whether people lived there in the Iron Age?

Without evidence, always. That's why archaeologists look for evidence, to be sure. It's a good habit to get into.

quote:

Shouldn't it be impossible for fieldwalking to suggest sites because everywhere should have evidence?

Depends on the what type of evidence is found, the quantity of finds, in what context it was found and the local or regional patterns of finds. So, a single anglo saxon gold coin found in Skipton means only that someone after that coin was minted was there at one moment in time. The many fields in Lincolnshire which turn up roman pottery suggests that there was more sustained activity there during the roman period. It's not helpful to assume too much from too little.

best

Harry A

quote:

You'd better address that question to Innocent MJ, he's the one who is holding it up as an argument.

I am?

quote:

Without evidence, always.

Well, yes, that's the question. But can there be good reasons for supposing a place was inhabited and still not find the direct evidence of it? A tor is a bit iffy, but a hillfort is clearly to be occupied in one form or another. Some have umpteen buildings, others nothing at all. I gather some sites known to be occupied even in the post-Roman era have nothing to show for it. Are there still reasons to suppose hillforts were the everyday residences of large chunks of population?

quote:

Depends on the what type of evidence is found...

Yes, of course the finds can be analysed, but shouldn't finds have been accumulating everywhere over the last 10,000 years (500,000 years in the south)?

Or are they actually few enough and far enough between for people to get excited about them? (Some fields in Lincolnshire and a few other places, rather than all fields in Lincolnshire and most other places.)

quote:

I am?

I thought you were when you wrote "Apart from the fact that Carl Wark is described as lying "near the Roman road from Brough-on-Noe to Templeborough ...". Maybe I read too much into it.

quote:

But can there be good reasons for supposing a place was inhabited and still not find the direct evidence of it?

That's one for the archaeologists. The Blackstone Edge road, if roman, ought to have a fort or villa somewhere along it. As Tommy Adds pointed out, an altar stone has been found. But where does one start looking?

quote:

Are there still reasons to suppose hillforts were the everyday residences of large chunks of population?

You need evidence of occupation, such as quern stones, field systems, animal enclosures etc to be sure. Otherwise they may be a sort of 'bolt hole' where people gathered in times of threat.

quote:

Or are they actually few enough and far enough between for people to get excited about them?

Roman pottery is so common in Lincolnshire fields apparantly, it's not particularly exciting. It's the context which is important. Roman pottery in an iron age hill fort would be much more exciting, particularly if you had a date for it.

There was an iron age quern stone factory at Wharncliffe craggs and these quern stones appear in various iron age hill forts and enclosures including the hill fort at Castle Hill and an enclosure in Meltham. Whilst the existance of these querns point to habitiation in the places they are found, their production and distribution becomes interesting in itself. Also, as with the question you asked above about habitation with no evidence, where did the people quarrying this stone at Wharncliffe live?
I don't know of any site there, but it is reasonable to assume that some group lived nearby. There's plenty of Millstone Grit around these parts so I can't imagine that people went to Wharncliffe to get the raw material. The querns must have been fashioned or part fashioned on site. Where are the houses?

best

Harry A

quote:

Originally posted by Innocent Bystander:
---
Does anyone know what I am remembering as "in Gaul, the roads carry straight on through their towns regardless"? I thought it was in the Gallic Wars but I can't find it.

An Historical Geography of France
The first book of its kind to appear in the English language. Two of France's leading scholars trace the historical geography of their country.

From a section titled ‘The network of roads’

“ Strategic control of this large area was ensured by a network of roads that the Romans developed. A good system of roads already existed in Gaul and communications were relatively rapid, which no doubt partly explains the swiftness of roman conquest here. But there is no doubt the Romans rethought the overall organisation of the network, with the view to maintaining their dominion over the entire area.”

The Romans merely expanded the original network to accommodate the rapid deployment of troops. New roads were built when and where it was strategically necessary.