JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for BRITARCH Archives


BRITARCH Archives

BRITARCH Archives


BRITARCH@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

BRITARCH Home

BRITARCH Home

BRITARCH  September 2008

BRITARCH September 2008

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Ferrybridge Chariot (ceramics experts?)

From:

John Hooker <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

British archaeology discussion list <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 2 Sep 2008 13:25:49 -0600

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (200 lines)

Hi Andy,

I have been receiving further information on the site and it is clear 
that not only are there problems in the C14 dates for the Iron Age in 
Britain, generally, but this site contains some additional anomalies in 
that respect and there is a possibility of some contamination. The C14 
dates on the grave were for the pig bones (no later than the 3rd Cent. 
B.C.) and the human bones (no later than the early 2nd Cent. B.C.). Both 
of these dates are far from the 5th to 4th century B.C. date that was 
reported not long after the discovery. I must presume that it was the 
anomalies in the data that led to the earlier estimation. This also 
calls into question the validity of the exceptionally late dates for 
some of the bones in the surrounding ditch in the link I gave and which 
cites early 3rd Cent. A.D. from recent C14 analyses.

With regard to the involute brooch typologies, there are several which 
must be considered. Most important is the general chronology of the 
type, itself. Involute brooches are all of La Tène II in that the foot 
returns to be attached to the bow. Although involute brooches are a 
British phenomenon, La Tène II brooches are well established in their 
relative chronology throughout the central and western Celtic world. It 
would be difficult, indeed, to make a claim that British La Tène II 
brooches precede some La Tène I brooches from the Swiss Plateau and even 
precede some La Tène I brooches from England (such as the Wessex type).

There are two factors to be considered about the internal chronology of 
the involute type. The first is whether the catchplate is open or solid. 
Jope (2000, p. 49) uses the example of the Woodeaton involute which has 
a solid catchplate and that this feature "is hardly to be seen" on the 
earlier continental brooches. He places the Woodeaton brooch at the end 
of the sequence "though not necessarily later than the first century 
B.C." To counter this, there is the early La Tène III brooches of Hull's 
Glastonbury type which derive from the La Tène II type, yet have an open 
catchplate. All Yorkshire involutes have an open catchplate so there can 
be no chronology offered on this feature specific to the region.

The second factor is the whether the curve of the involute is shallow 
(early) or extreme (late). As there are three regions which yield 
involutes: the southwest, middle Thames, and Yorkshire, the situation 
regarding this feature is unclear and it might to be a general 
observation over all the regions, although I have not looked into this 
to verify that statement.  Be that as it may, what is important is to 
demonstrate an evolutionary process in this feature -- something to say 
that the extreme curvature became necessary because of some functional 
consideration. Without that, there can only be whim or fashion and the 
expressions of these could thus be variable and arbitrary.

Because of the dificulties and anomalies in other dating methods for 
this period, nothing can be used as a check to verify chronologies. Very 
broad chronologies (which place involutes under the heading of La Tène 
II), because of their numbers and broad range across Europe. This can be 
easily demonstrated to appear on the time scale in different positions 
depending on geographical factors and yet all in a logical order which 
corroborates the overall chronology.
There can be no external scientific procedure which could yield a 
mathematical plus or minor error range for a typology and any given 
would be completely  guess-work. The best that we can say about the 
involute type is that it is 2nd century B.C. with the possibility of 
some being either slightly earlier or slightly later.

For my study of Coriosolite die chronology I expressed fixed and 
variable chronological points thusly:

1, 2, 3 (4, 5,) 6, (7, 8, 9, 10, 11) 12, 13, (14, 15)

The numbers within parentheses are variable and their internal order is 
based only on my best educated guesses while the numbers outside the 
parentheses and the parentheses themselves are absolute and are 
demonstrated through several overlapping evolutionary sequences where 
the chances of error are statistically minuscule. Like my example above, 
the real data gave only a maximum of five variable points within a 
parenthesis set.

I maintain that better evolutionary traits of design should be plotted 
for Celtic art. It is extremely varied and thus good chronologies can be 
built by using a proper art-historical analysis. In works on Celtic art, 
this technique is used passim, but is thus very difficult to follow as 
most of the objects are grouped by type, instead.

Now, if we apply all of this to the Ferrybridge burial (setting aside 
the outer ditch data), it follows that the pig bones cannot possibly be 
any earlier than the late 3rd century B.C. to allow for the "gray-area" 
at this end of the La Tène II involute brooch range. If the relative 
chronologies of the bone material are pig followed by human, it presents 
quite a dilemma in the interpretation. Why would we imagine that a human 
being was buried to commemorate an event that was previously marked only 
by a feast of pork?

Moving on to the facsimile parts in the burial. I have been informed 
that these were some of the terrets and that they were not filled with 
ceramic as the first news accounts said, but instead of silt that 
appears to have been formed wet, then dried and contracted. There was 
evidence of charcoal and hammer scale upon close examination. This 
suggests to me that the same techniques of repoussé were being used that 
emerged in the 3rd century B.C. and continued into the 1st century A.D. 
The earlier objects, by and large, were rather thick in section whereas 
the skill developed to allow very thin copper alloy to be worked in this 
way at the end of the sequence. Gold work is another matter, being far 
more malleable than bronze. The initial reports say "foil", so if it 
was, indeed, this thin, then a very late manufacture is possible and a 
very early manufacture less likely.

The next part is very "unscientific", but I feel that it is a mistake to 
rely completely on the science when the model thus revealed lacks a 
certain practical coherence. I demonstrated this point with coins from 
the Trébry hoard which had been analyzed through neutron activation and 
had been shown, statistically, to establish that the source alloys were 
being debased by about 2% for each class. First of all, those particular 
classes were a modern construct and did not reflect any intentions of 
the moneyers to arrange the issues thus. Therefore, the 2% was a curious 
coincidence and nothing more. secondly, the hoard had been constructed 
from coins that had already been in "circulation" and were thus subject 
to Gresham's law that bad money drives out good: the more intrinsically 
valuable coins had been culled to profit on the metal. Thirdly, was the 
psychological discovery that a repetitious task builds up to a certain 
efficiency rating and then drops off when boredom sets in. This was not 
just noticed in human beings, but an experiment with planarian worms -- 
which of course do not even have brains, revealed the same mechanism. I 
mentioned this to an English professor friend of mine as proof that even 
very low forms of life have a rudimentary intelligence. He dismissed the 
idea, saying that he was not convinced that even some of his own 
students had a rudimentary intelligence.

The second and third factors, together, created the illusion.

We must ask ourselves why such an apparently important chariot burial 
consisted of mismatched chariot parts with some facsimile terrets when 
other chariot burials of the alleged period do not. Furthermore, what is 
to be made of the varying dates of all of the finds from within and 
without the burial? Could some of the C14 anomalies have come from the 
situation of a reburial during the Roman period? Was the site itself 
really just a burial that had been commemorated, or was it a religious 
or council site that had a staged burial as part of its features?

One thing that is certain is that none of the dates of the objects can 
be much closer than than about 175 years later than the 400 B.C. that 
was stated in some of the reports, or 275 years later than the initial 
"500 B.C." If the human skeleton was not a secondary burial, then there 
must be something wrong with his C14 date. Is it possible for such a 
date to be as much as 250 years off?

I have also been informed that the skeleton was slightly flexed and not 
completely laid out flat.

Cheers,

John

Andy Holland wrote:
> Whilst John's comments are very interesting and he poses some great
> archaeological questions......
> ....can I just add a cautionary note about the dating of archaeology.
>
> Firstly the radiocarbon dates of the British Iron-Age..... they are
> terrible! It's unavoidable and is because the dendro based calibration
> curves for Northern Europe and particularly Northern England at that
> time are very flat - so you get a very wide error range. No matter how
> accurate your C14 date the date is never going to be very precise for a
> British Iron Age sample and it's a real pain in the rear. (There are
> currently some interesting PhDs and research projects looking at Baysian
> analysis of multiple C14 dates in stratigraphic sequences to try to help
> improve the dating resolution a little).
>
> Also whilst I'm no expert on the intricacies of Involute Brooch typology
> can I also add a cautionary note about the use of typologies as a form
> of dating - they're only supposed dates for these sequences and they are
> only ever as good as the other dating technique used to date the
> archaeological context from which original examples of that type of
> brooch come from. 
> Many typologies have a long history of study - which is all well and
> good, however, the earlier studies of a particular type will attribute a
> particular type to a certain date based on the dating evidence available
> at the time the study was carried out..... those dating techniques may
> now be suspect, prone to errors unknown at the time or just plain wrong.
> Hence the typology dates can be out by a considerable degree - which is
> why whilst they can be useful, they should not be considered absolute
> dates or used as a single piece of evidence
>
> I would make a plea for typologies to adopt the same scientific rigour
> of other dating techniques by the mathematical calculation of error
> ranges and deviation (multiply the errors from each dating technique
> used together to form the error for the typology overall).
>
> This is not to suggest that John's hypothesis is wrong (in fact I'll be
> asking some of his questions to my friends who have worked on the
> Ferrybridge samples about the dating next time I see them) but just an
> observation from an archaeological science trained archaeologist to
> throw into the melting pot for consideration.
>
> Many Thanks
>
>   Andy
>
>
> The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the
> author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Council for British
> Archaeology
>
>
>   

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998


WWW.JISCMAIL.AC.UK

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager