Is it useful to have these narrow terms in HBSMR though? As HBSMR can
look up by the numerical date, and surely most researchers interested in
the transition period would use this, it seems a little redundant to use
Early/Mid/Late BA as terms.
Maybe I'm being a bit negative.
Hugh Winfield
Archaeologist
Development Management
Regeneration Department
North East Lincolnshire Council
Origin Two, Origin Way
Europarc, Grimsby
North East Lincolnshire
DN37 9TZ
Tel: (01472) 32 3586 Fax: (01472) 32 4216
-----Original Message-----
From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Emily Edwards
Sent: 23 March 2010 15:16
To: Winfield, Hugh
Subject: Re: Bronze Age dates query
May I cut in, please, and add my tuppence worth? Although I am on this
list as someone who works with HER's, my main alternative life is as a
prehistorian.
I have always very strictly stuck to the reference to a late Neolithic
period, a transitional late Neolithic-early Bronze Age and an early
Bronze Age, as agreed upon by Stuart Needham, Colin Burgess, Richard
Bradley, Alistair Barclay. The chronological dates and terminology do
vary as different people publish new studies or according to context,
and it is interesting to see that there is no agreed standard amongst
HERs and other resources. That is as it should be, probably, as there
are so many important regional differences. Anyway, the answer to
Helen's question is embedded in this ramble; your Bronze Age date is
earlier than your EBA date, because your BA date encompasses the late
Neolithic-early Bronze Age transitional period, which should not
properly be thought of as part of the Bronze Age:
late Neolithic (LN) - 2800 to 2300 cal BC
late Neolithic-early Bronze Age (LNEBA) - 2400 to 1700
early Bronze Age (EBA) - 2000 to 1500
whereas radiocarbon date ranges for early prehistoric pottery differ:
Grooved Ware - 2900 to 2200 cal BC
Beaker - 2400 to 1700 cal BC
Food Vessel, Collared Urn, Biconical Urn - 2200 to 1500 cal BC
Hope that helps (hem).
Yes, they do all overlap somewhat but that is because the evidence
itself overlaps. This is why I think the object dated should have a
queriable field. I never go to an HER wanting to find out about all the
early Bronze Age things on the data base. My statistical research would
be focusing on objects and I would want to know about absolute and
relative chronologies. So, for example, if I want to carry out some
research using an HER, it will be on Food Vessels, not early Bronze Age
pottery.
Definately a good idea to have a 'profession-wide' discussion about
useful terminology and date ranges?
All the Best
Emily Edwards
Honorary Research Associate with the Institute of Archaeology and
Antiquity at the University of Birmingham
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduce your environmental footprint, please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
The information in this message including any attachments may be confidential or privileged and is for the use of the named recipient only. If you are not the named or intended recipient you may not copy, distribute, or deliver this message to anyone or take any action in reliance on it. If you receive this message in error please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system
Scanned by Anti Virus Software
|