ABSTRACT: This contribution illustrates the diversity of chronological
frameworks in use in archaeology in the British Isles and emphasises the
need for an integrated scheme for the main periods that is explicit about
the assumptions and evidence on which the chronology is based. It is
suggested that a standard reference chronology should be set up with the
participation of the whole archaeological community, along with those in
related disciplines.
____________________________________________________________

A CONUNDRUM

Did you know that both Julius Caesar and William the Conqueror landed in
the South coast of England in the same period? Would it surprise you that
period was the Iron Age?

AN EXPLANATION

The RCHME periods list defines the start of the Romano-British period as
AD43 - the Claudian invasion. Strict application of this ‘terminus post
quem' would therefore classify Caesar's expeditions in 55BC and 54BC as
Iron Age.

In England it is usual to accept that the Middle Ages proper began in 1066,
when William defeated King Harold at Hastings. In Ireland, however, it is
commonly considered that the Middle Ages did not begin until the late
twelfth century AD, when Normans from England established settlements in
Ireland, - furthermore, many Irish archaeologists talk of the period up to
the Anglo-Norman invasion as Late Iron Age (see for example Laurence
Flanagan's ‘A dictionary of Irish archaeology', published in 1992 by Gill &
Macmillan). Thus the Norman Conquest of England could be referred to as an
Iron Age event.

SO WHAT?

Traditionally, parallel, relative chronologies have been used in different
regions to deal with the archaeological evidence as it exists in different
geographical/cultural areas. We have learned to make allowances for this
and we all know what we really mean by the terms Neolithic, Bronze Age,
Iron Age etc, don't we?.

But this relativism seems increasingly less rational as modern methods now
enable archaeological evidence to be dated in much more absolute terms. Not
only are scientific methods - such as radiocarbon determination and
tree-ring analysis - providing ever more calendar dates with which to peg
down chronologies, but increasingly sophisticated studies of artefacts are
refining our ability to date occupation from cultural evidence. Integration
of regional chronologies provides better opportunities for identifying
cultural parallels and facilitates the study of interregional comparisons.

And, from an information specialist's perspective (as the example above
shows) it cannot be assumed that we all know what we mean by the names we
ascribe to archaeological periods - computers certainly don't!

At the British and Irish Archaeological Bibliography (BIAB) we analyse the
content of publications relating to all aspects of archaeology from across
the UK and Republic of Ireland; these publications emanate from a wide
range of institutions of varying status - both professional and amateur -
and many originate from abroad. We classify  references according to topic,
with the period being of primary importance - because experience tells us
that is what people most often look for when searching for archaeological
information. At present, when we ascribe a period classification to an
article we need to take into account the different chronologies in use in
the British Isles and consider carefully how researchers are going to
expect to be able to retrieve information. If an Irish archaeologist
describes a site as Iron Age, are they saying it date within a range of
c250BC to cAD1170? If so, is an English archaeologist searching for Iron
Age references going to be interested in this site? Should a site in Orkney
dated to AD200 be classed as ‘Roman', ‘Iron Age', or something else?

What if new evidence emerges to redefine the dating of a period? The
discoverer of that evidence may consider it as incontrovertible and amend
their own use of the period name immediately. It may be some time before
the rest of the archaeological community learns of the new evidence or
realises its significance and many will continue to use an old designation.
Personal experience provides me with an example of this: at BIAB we had
been using a scheme that gave the start of the Palaeolithic as 350,000BC;
however, while reviewing the scheme as a prelude to this FISHEN discussion
we realised that the recent hominid find from Boxgrove in Sussex had
effectively pushed back to 500,000BP the earliest evidence of human
occupation (and thus the start of the Palaeolithic) in Britain.

The Boxgrove example also illustrates how modern dating methods have
generally transposed the prehistoric periods back in time. Early
archaeologists and antiquaries conceived of the prehistoric past as being
much more recent than we now know it was - and that means we need also to
consider how our intellectual predecessors constructed their chronologies.

PROPOSAL FOR THE CREATION OF A STANDARD REFERENCE CHRONOLOGY DEFINING
ARCHAEOLOGICAL PERIODS

I hope that what I have just said highlights the need for a standard
reference resource that provides authoritative definitions of the key
periods (respecting regional and international needs). This resource should
also be informative, identifying and explaining the evidence on which the
dating is based. To be authoritative the resource must be inclusive of all
main chronological systems used in the UK and, preferably, the whole of
Ireland.

I would like the reference chronology should include dates for:

* Documented events, eg battles/invasions; biographical dates; kingships;
documented inventions

* Periods of currency of monument types and artefact types, certainly for
those most representative of their respective periods

* Cultural and technological innovations, eg introduction of metallurgy

WHO WOULD USE THE REFERENCE CHRONOLOGY?

A standard archaeological reference chronology would be a valuable tool for
a wide range of users (professionals, amateurs, school and university
students) and it ought potentially be of interest to researchers in related
disciplines and have a variety of applications. The reference chronology
should therefore be made available in a form and medium that would
facilitate its use by the widest range of users.

PRACTICAL PROCEDURES FOR DEVELOPING THE REFERENCE CHRONOLOGY?

I envisage that the reference chronology would be developed in the
following five stages:

1) Collect information on the chronological schemes currently in use by
archaeologists in the British Isles. (Out-of-date schemes might also be
included for the benefit of anyone working on retrospective data.)

2) Collect any additional chronological data that are relevant (kingship
lists and dates for key historical events etc)

3) Collate the received schemes

4) Establish and agree the defining characteristics of each period, based
on collation of the received schemes.

5) Define the date ranges for each main period by encapsulating the
accepted dates for all the component characteristics.

To maximise the cross-disciplinary potential of the reference chronology
the participation should be sought of historians, palaeoclimatologists,
environmental historians and experts in other in related fields.

Data on various chronological schemes could be collected and entered onto a
simple database, a possible field structure for which is set out in
Appendix I.

____________________________________________________________

APPENDIX I: SUGGESTED FIELD STRUCTURE FOR RECORDING CHRONOLOGICAL DATA

Suggested fields are set out below ( TPQ = terminus post quem [point after
which - i.e. earliest possible date]; TAQ = terminus ante quem [point
before which - i.e latest possible date]).

Record fields
	Name (of period/historical event):
	Note on name:
	Start TPQ: (Iso standard format YYYYMMDD)
	Note on Start TPQ:
	Start TAQ: (Iso standard format YYYYMMDD)
	Note on Start TAQ:
	End TPQ: (Iso standard format YYYYMMDD)
	Note on End TPQ:
	End TAQ: (Iso standard format YYYYMMDD)
	Note on End TAQ:


Illustrative examples of completed records
	Name: Bronze Age
	Note on name:
	Start TPQ: -23000000
	Note on Start TPQ: established proprietary convention
	Start TAQ:
	Note on Start TAQ: none
	End TPQ:
	Note on End TPQ: none
	End TAQ: -7000000
	Note on End TAQ: established proprietary convention

	Name: Romano-British
	Note on name: period of Roman occupation of Britain
	Start TPQ: 00430000
	Note on Start TPQ: literary source refs...
	Start TAQ:
	Note on Start TAQ:
	End TPQ: 04100000
	Note on End TPQ: literary source refs...
	End TAQ: 04500000
	Note on End TAQ: assumes persistence of local Roman administration

The dates are given in Iso format. Day and month should be included to
allow for the possibility of these being known (however remote this may
be!) Zeros could signify blank in these fields - although too many noughts
could encourage typos! The note fields allow for source to be cited, but it
might be worth setting up a separate table of sources. Both TPQ and TAQ are
required for Start and End dates respectively in case of, say, the end of
the Roman period where there is debate about how long the Roman way of life
persisted.

____________________________________________________________

This paper is adapted from a deposition sent to the FISHEN meeting on 22
November 1999.
____________________________________________________________



___________________________________________________

Jeremy Oetgen

British and Irish Archaeological Bibliography

New address: c/o The British Academy, 10 Carlton House Terrace, London SW1Y
5AH, England.
Tel: +(44)(0)171 969 5444 [or (0)20 7969 5444]
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
E-mail (personal only): [log in to unmask]
Internet: http://www.britarch.ac.uk/biab/index.html
___________________________________________________


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%