It's a journalistic hook to hang the story on.

At least there is actually some 'news' value to the story - I read this in
the Guardian at the weekend:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/britain/article/0,,1821179,00.html - a story
concerning the appearance of the line 'Praefectus numeri barcariorum
Tigrisiensium, Arbeia' in the Notitia Dignitatum, and whose only news value
seems to be the pointing-out of the irony of Iraqis having once acted as
part of an army of subjugation within Britain.

One notices at the foot of the article that the press release must have been
issued by the British Museum in advance of some planned 2008 Hadrian
exhibition. Once again I feel a wee bit disappointed by the way in which the
archaeological establishment co-operates with the press in trying to grab
coverage, whatever the method.

The Iraq/British inversion is an intriguing and topical observation, but not
what I'd call news. The announcement of the forthcoming exhibition is
interesting, and it's news. I'd like to learn more about that, but I don't
here.







-----Original Message-----
From: British archaeology discussion list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Nick.Thorpe
Sent: 19 July 2006 15:45
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BRITARCH] Britain 'had apartheid society'


Dear All,

Blame whichever of the authors of the original article - Mark Thomas,
since he is the first-named - decided to use the term apartheid, as the
BBC have just picked it up from there.  Presumably the notion was to
place the stress on their theory that there was a ban or prejudice
against inter-marriage with locals.  Personally I should like to see the
assumptions underlying their computer model (e.g. how much 'Anglo-Saxon'
immigration do they allow pre-5th century and post-5th century) before
trumpeting it as a vindication of anyone's views.  It is after all,
simply a set of computer simulation models which allows for the
possibility that the authors' favoured solution is correct after certain
assumptions have been made,

Nick Thorpe


-----Original Message-----
From: British archaeology discussion list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Andy Horton
Sent: 19 July 2006 15:16
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BRITARCH] Britain 'had apartheid society'


Hello,

Not a description I would have used. But the parallels with South
African
society is suggested. Fair enough journalese, just about. Maybe the BBC
should be above all that?

I would have streesed the biological model for immigration. In the
previous
discussion, the example of South Africa came up.

Andy Horton






On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 15:06:28 +0100, Christopher Cumberpatch
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>    I'm no expert in the post-Roman period (far from it in fact), but
surely
>using the word 'apartheid' is stretching the evidence a bit.  Apartheid

>was surely the outcome of a particular set of historical circumstances
>and has particular characteristics which are not present during the
>post-Roman period.  But is this obsessive pedantry or a desire for
>precision in the
use
>of language?
>
>Chris Cumberpatch
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Mike Heyworth" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 12:36 PM
>Subject: [BRITARCH] Britain 'had apartheid society'
>
>
>An apartheid society existed in early Anglo-Saxon Britain, research
>suggests.
>
>see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5192634.stm
>=======================================================================
>==