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:

Wed, 3 Sep 2008 16:00:06 -0600

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (117 lines)

Hi Andy,

The dating of the La Tène period is very complicated, but is mostly 
accomplished through diagnostic artefacts within a certain site and 
extended across multiple sites and multiple regions (which introduces 
important factors of time). Combinations of criteria are used -- 
including calibrated C14, but the latter is only of limited use. A good 
example of this is to take a particular C14 date to see how useful it 
might be in comparison to diagnostic artefacts of the same range. 
Raftery, Pagan Celtic Ireland (1994, p.230) gives a sample of C 14 dates 
for sites mentioned in the text. One of these is at the hilltop 
enclosure of Dún Ailinne in Co. Kildare  where an occupation phase 5, 6, 
or 7 gave a sample (calibrated) of
390-30 B.C.. Even if it could be fully determined which phase this 
sample came from, the range is far too great to date, say, a series of 
brooches. Other dates of the site give an approximate habitation range 
of  390 B.C. to 320 A.D. The artefacts have not been able to be dated 
with any great accuracy -- a middle  La Tène sword and a few Roman 
period brooches (although one illustrated seems to be an identifiable La 
Tène III type that might be focused somewhat better -- but as it appears 
to be a British brooch, who can say when it got there). The rest of the 
stuff is less dateable.  390 - 30 B.C. would span La Tène I to III

Fortunately, we have a few actual historical references from Italy and 
other parts of the Mediterranean and elsewhere that can give us exact 
dates. In Gaul, for example, there is Alesia. So what emerges from all 
of this is a complex matrix of varying accuracy that is, unfortunately, 
not too easily accessed by the general reader. Taking involutes alone, 
Jope writes of these in the main body of the text in over three pages 
and includes 27 footnotes. His illustrations and descriptions of such 
adding more pages devoted to this sort of brooch. He also makes 
comparisons and notes developments with details on other objects such as 
the Newnham Croft armring and the Standlake scabbard. He mentions the 
many different materials used in their construction including 
red-painted sandstone (which must be later than than red coral it is 
intended to imitate) an so on. From this, we can then take any of those 
secondary objects, say the Newnham Croft armring, and its associated 
finds in the same grave (pp. 45-7 and an additional 27 footnotes) and 
track all of their influences and similarities, and so on and so on. It 
follows that an effective critique of all of this is going to take up 
even more room and then would follow the inevitable critiques of that 
one until we might end up with something of encyclopaedic proportions 
that no one is really going to understand -- all on involute brooches!

When Jope places the shallow profile involutes earlier on his time line 
than the deeply profiled involutes, we can assume that he has good 
reasons for doing so and that these include the presence of other 
features that, on the whole, can be attributed as earlier or later 
features by the comparison with other objects completely.

Following along from this, someone like Simon James comes along and says 
"there was no unified Celtic culture" because  he really believes that 
to be the case, or John Collis comes along and says the same thing 
because he really wants us to prove that he is wrong -- then the great 
unwashed public starts to believe that "Celtic" is a naughty word. They 
are then told to replace it with "Iron Age" (so as not to confuse the 
dears) and then some of us Celticists who have achieved varying levels 
of connoisseurship in our respective, and undoubtedly anal retentive, 
specialties shake our heads and say "but...?"

What is really going on is just as scientific as C14 and 
dendrochronology and the rest, but it is far more difficult to 
demonstrate. I am sure that some who publish stuff about Early Celtic 
Art could give even more precise dates than what appears in their papers 
and books. It is just that, in order to build a tight case, it requires 
an awful lot of writing. Better to just say 2nd century B.C. and leave 
it at that -- especially if the innocent question that is asked will 
steer us away from some of the things we really want to look into. 
Things that we do not know yet.

Cheers,

John



Andy Holland wrote:
> Hi John,
>
>  Thanks for your details and interesting comments.
>
> I'd not dream of questioning the relative sequence of the brooch chronology (I'm not qualified to do so as I don't know enough about them) but it's the tying of that relative sequence to an absolute date.....
>
> "The best that we can say about the involute type is that it is 2nd century B.C."
>
> Where did typologists get the 2nd Century BC date? You can't date the brooches themselves so it must have come from the dating of the archaeological contexts that the brooches were found in.
>
> NO problem with that - that's the way archaeology works. But what I want to bring a bit of caution to is..... the context may have been dated a long time ago - since when the dating technique used may have been shown to be flawed, inaccurate etc. 
> The context date may get re-evaluated but often no one follows this through to change the date for the typology.
> Now for one date that's acceptable but many typology sequences have been built up over a very long period of academic study - so the original outline of the typology may have been based on very dodgy dating (perhaps even only ceramic typologies - which suffer from the same problem but on a much bigger scale!). This builds up the errors over and over to the point that the typology may really be a house of cards.
>
> There is really no way round this - except continued review of the typologies (which your doing) especially if the reviews occasionally re-examine the original dating technique to date each brooch type. It's an insane amount of work I know! Each dating technique for each brooch will have both an error range (re-determined in the light of current value of the dating technique) and a confidence - these can be combined in a standard mathematically and statistical method to form an overall confidence and error range for each section of a typology.
>
> Example (all hypothetical cases):
> Type b might be a very specific typological form found in only a small geographical area with really good multiple dating techniques that a baysian approach can really narrow the error and boost the confidence - those would therefore be very valuable in dating archaeological contexts.
>
> Type g might perhaps be a broad range of forms found in a wide area whose dating is based on really early C14 dating (before we began calibrating the dates) - so an uncal C14 date would give a very poor confidence and a large error range for this type making the presence of this type in an archaeological context of low value for dating purposes.
>
> Type j might be a form that was dated on the say of a learned professor of archaeology in 1946 based on his knowledge of pottery typologies of the region it was found in and the pottery typology was in that order because "he said so and he was the professor!" (we all know this happened and occasionally still does). The dates attributed to this type have no value at all - with no confidence in the date. This would be a good candidate for new research or a PhD thesis to re-evaluate the sequence around this type using more recent dating techniques.
>
> This is the sort of considered caution is what I meant by being careful with dating archaeology particularly in the British Iron Age. 
> (the above is an example I use when teaching students about the difference between relative dating techniques (like artefact typology) and absolute techniques (like C14, OSL, TL U series etc)).
>
> Apologies if I'm teaching grannies to suck eggs!
>
> Not withstanding this your points about Ferrybridge are very thought provoking and I'll have to have a bit of a read of the report before I quiz my colleagues at Bradford.
>
> Take Care,
>
> Andy
>
> Mr. A.D. Holland B.Sc. M.Sc. AIFA.
> Education Project Officer (11 - 18),
> Council for British Archaeology,
> York.
> Tel: 01904 671417
> Email: [log in to unmask]

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
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


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

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