Theoretical Structural Archaeology

Hadrian’s bridging of the North Tyne

2013-04-30T01:55:00.001+01:00

I have previously discussed the evidence for a temporary timber and earth rampart with associated infrastructure which necessarily predated and facilitated the construction of Hadrian’s Wall in stone, it follows that there was probably a temporary bridge where it crossed the North Tyne at Chollerford, [Chesters].

In addition, unlike a timber bridge built on piles, the construction of a Stone bridge also requires significant temporary works, which are evident from the air.

In the context of Hadrian’s Wall there are two aspects to the crossing of the river;

A carriageway for road traffic
The continuation of the barrier across the river

The surviving bridge abutment on the east bank has two phases;

An original structure, presumably Hadrian’s, only 3m wide was designed to carry the wall;
A second and more massive phase, thought to date from the refurbishment around 160 AD, built to carry both the Wall and the Military Way.[1]

The Fort at Chesters , Bridge Abutment and the North Tyne on Google Earth [2]

Missing Bridges

The evidence from the bridge abutment prompts the question where was road bridge in the initial for plan Hadrian’s Wall?

I have already suggested that the Vallum was dug as a foundation for a road behind the Wall, since this flat bottomed trench follows the ideal course for a road with the spoil moved with enormous effort to facilitate two lanes on either side of a metalled carriageway. Like much of the ambitious initial plan, it was abandoned following the Dislocation – a break in the work presumably caused by warfare. [7]

In addition, it might be presumed there was an initial timber phase of bridge to carry the Military Way, not to mention some form of barrier across the river corresponding to the temporary wall. These defencive works would necessarily be to the north of the Bridge Abutment, while the temporary bridge was perhaps between the between the Wall and the Vallum.

Another factor would have been any existing bridges in the area, it is presumed that earlier East – West Stanegate road crossed the North Tyne a little further downstream.

The area around Chesters on Google Earth

Missing Forts

Chesters Fort is a well preserved stone cavalry fort on the West bank, which overlies the foundations of an original Wall turret, and in this form, represents one of the forts that were added to the Wall.

As previously noted, those engaged in the construction and garrisoning the Wall in its initials phases of construction would require secure accommodation.

There is a large crop mark which may be such a temporary fort, [above], with other marks around it, to the south of the Bridge Abutment. There may have been similar arrangements on the West bank, certainly during the construction of the fort, but perhaps earlier a military presence on both sides of the bridge may have been considered prudent.

Missing works

In order to build bridge carried on stone piers in the river, presumably the water level in the vicinity of these works had to be lowered to facilitate construction.

There are two possible methods

Divert the river around the works using a channel,
Building individual cofferdams for each pier

While it is clear that Cofferdams were being used by the early second century, it seems less likely that this technology would be used by an army in the field on the northern frontier, rather than the technologically simpler method of diverting the river.[3] Caesar used a similar method to lower the river Segre, Lerida [Spain] to allow his troops to ford it, when there was no timber to build a bridge.[4]

The most interesting and feature on the East bank is the ‘L’ shaped feature that forms a two sides of a rough square with the river, around the bridge abutment, [above]. This appears to have some interesting characteristics;

Both ends of the feature appear to terminate where the river bank was in Roman times, slightly further South and East of the existing curve; [5]
It appears to be blocked, noticeably at the N [upstream] end, as might be expected;
The spoil appears to be thrown to East and South.
The regular island created by this channel is of sufficient size to accommodate a small fort at the eastern end of the bridge works.
Since the feature’s East West leg follows the presumed line of Vallum, which was abandoned when work resumed following the dislocation, it was presumably dug in this or a later period.
It is also appears to be crossed by the line of the wall, suggesting it dates from early in the construction sequence.

Conclusions

The construction of the Bridge at Chollerford, like the other more technical aspects of the stonework, would have prioritised for gangs of specialists, [6] and might be expected that work would be underway by the time of the Dislocation, when work on the wall was disrupted, having reached this area.[7]

Since the earliest stone bridge at the existing abutment is only wide enough to carry the Wall, it adds to the argument that the main road crossing was intended to be where the ‘Vallum’ crossed the river. In any event, while the possible channel is perfectly placed to service the Wall crossing and the later enlarged Wall/road crossing represented by the surviving abutment, it cuts the presumed line of the Vallum, so could not be related to the construction of any bridge planned here.

The principle random factor in an understanding of the engineering of Hadrian’s Wall is the Dislocation, which left work suspended and then prompted many changes in the scheme; thus, it is possible that this work had started before, and was completed after the dislocation.

While there should be extensive temporary works which have yet to be properly defined, the exact position of any early bridge is one of the more important missing pieces of Hadrian’s Wall at Chollerford.

Sources and further reading

[1] http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/daysout/properties/chesters-bridge-abutment-hadrians-wall/history-and-research/ [Accessed 27/04/2013]

[2] Note; This article uses illustrations based on images from Google Earth: http://www.google.com/earth/index.html

[3] Brown, D. J., 2005, Bridges: three thousand years of defying nature. NB. The Sant'Angelo bridge, built for Hadrian in AD 134

[4] Julius Caesar/ R Warner, 1960, War commentaries of Caesar, [New York] New American Library. [The campaign of Lerida first stages 49 B.C.]

[5] http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/content/imported-docs/a-e/chesters-ba-pp.pdf

[6] Hill, P. R. 2006. The construction of Hadrian's Wall. Tempus,

[7] [Opt cit.] Chapter 10 and Breeze, D.J. 2003. "Warfare in Britain and the Building of Hadrian's Wall." Archaeologia Aeliana 32, 13 –16.

Hadrian's Ghost Wall

2013-03-28T21:24:00.000Z

The key to understanding Hadrian’s Wall is that the Romans built a temporary frontier of wood in the East, and wood and earth in the West, to protect them while they constructed the permanent stone frontier. It follows that there would also be temporary forts and other structures amounting to a whole ghost timber and earth version of Hadrian’s Wall.
Understanding the Timber Wall.

The construction of a temporary Timber Wall is covered extensively elsewhere [eg; here / free download] It explains and contextualises the rest of the evidence including;

The precise pattern position of the postholes found in several recent excavations. [1]
How the Romans were able to build a stone wall and forts in potentially hostile territory over a number of years dispersed along a 73 mile /120 km front.
The context of the Turf Wall
The position, form, and course of the ditch
The width of the berm . . . Note; Per Lineam Valli – Mike Bishop's excellent and detailed guide to remains of the Wall, did me the honour of mentioning my work in this context.

…a series of short stubby posts marking the position of a series of pits which we now know formed berm obstacles. These would have been filled with something like thorn bushes to form the Roman equivalent of a barbed-wire entanglement.

Wall Mile 0
The berm pits are not universally accepted as evidence of an entanglement. One writer has suggested that they are no such thing and in fact represent an early timber predecessor to Hadrian’s Wall. An interesting idea, but the absence of a berm between this putative timber wall and the ditch would make it unlikely on the grounds of stability, …

Wall Mile 11

It is important to deal with some of these misunderstandings.

The idea that the width of berm, wider than the Wall was tall, is for structural stability is an old but patently unfounded idea, inconsistent both with Roman practice elsewhere such as the Turf Wall, and a modern understanding of soil mechanics.
Similarly, the idea that the large roughly circular postholes, up to 600 per 100m, could have held thorn trees with interlocking branches [2] is inconsistent with morphology of native trees and completely unrealistic in terms of arboriculture.
These postholes have nothing to do with the branches and tree trunks buried in a backfilled ditch hundreds of feet from the Roman line [Cippi ] during the Siege of Alesia mentioned once by Caesar [3].
However, they fit perfectly with the building of timber ramparts with a ditch in front, mentioned Caesar on numerous occasions, described by other authors, and which might be regarded as standard practice for the Roman army.[4]

Rethinking the Wall

Once it is understood that this was a live military frontier, and the Roman army was in the field, I want to focus on two observations and follow them through;

The Roman army always dug in using earth and timber [4]
You cannot defend a stone fortification while it is under construction.

It follows;

Therefore for every stone fort there must be a temporary timber and earth fort to house the work force and garrison.

A selection of medium sized camps near the Hadrian’s Wall on Google Earth

In addition, since the construction force was larger than the eventual garrison, temporary works may be more extensive than those of the finished frontier.
Since gateways in forts and mile castles are the most technical aspects of the main Wall, the skilled legionary labour, working westwards, was probably spread out to mile castle level over quite long stretches simultaneously. [5]
It would seem likely for the sake of logistics that there were smaller camps to house those garrisoning and building the sectors of wall between the main forts.

A selection of small camps from behind the Wall in the central sector

The Story so far

After the first few seasons, a temporary frontier of earth and timber had been established, with fortifications housing the garrison of Auxiliaries as well and the legionaries, who working west, had built much of the "Broad" Stone Wall as far as the North Tyne.
The construction of the wall has reached the central sector, [the only section where both the stone and earth forts and Wall now survive].

The Dislocation

Some scholars now think it likely that work on the wall was disrupted, probably by War. [6]
When work resumed, probably after several years, the both quantity and quality of the work is scaled back.
Then, almost as soon as the Wall is finished, it is abandoned in favour of a shorter more concentrated frontier further north. [The Antonine Wall].

Some of the larger Temporary camps near Hadrian’s Wall on Google Earth

So what might have happened?

When people see the central sector they ask the question who would attack the Wall up here? Which is precisely the point, and perhaps not one lost on the Romans.

The central sector might be a good place to attack the Wall because;

The Stone Wall fortifications were not yet finished.
There is good cover in rough uneven terrain to North of Wall.
Might catch a legionary force spread out in work details.
The Region is furthest from the coast – from where reinforcements can be brought in by sea.
Splits the Roman forces in half.
Hold the high ground in the centre with options to move south on either flank of the Pennines.
From the Roman point of view the forces along the frontier are now dispersed and facing the wrong way.
The two land routes reinforcement can come from York or Chester, both can be out flanked by a force in the centre
It is also worth noting that the east central sector was reinforced with extra forts when work resumed after the dislocation, [the fort at Carrawbrough/ Brocolitia below].

Notwithstanding this speculation, the central sector is the only place where the temporary camps cans be found,so these slight structures may preserve the best evidence of how work on the wall was organised and perhaps even what happened to so disrupt its progress.

While the stone fortifications may continue to be the focus of attention, we should not overlook that these less prominent and very fragile remains of the long Roman occupation of Northern England which have yet to be systematically explored.

If we are ever to understand the complex history and origins of Britain's largest ancient monument, the form and extent of these temporary works must be considered.

Sources & further reading
Note; This article uses illustrations based on images from Google Earth: ttp://www.google.com/earth/index.html [Accessed 07/12/11]

[1]Bidwell, Paul T.; Watson, Moira. 1989 'A Trial Excavation on Hadrian's Wall at Buddle Street, Wallsend'. Archaeologia Aeliana, 5th ser., 17 (1989), 21-28.

T. Frain, J. McKelvey & P. Bidwell 2005 Excavations and watching brief along the berm of Hadrian’s Wall at Throckley, Newcastle upon Tyne, in 2001-2002. Arbeia J, 8 53-76.

Grey literature; Throckley, Newcastle upon Tyne, archaeological excavation and watching brief. TWM Archaeology 12/2003 TWM archaeology 10/2006

Grey literature: Shields Road, Newcastle, Phase 2b, archaeological excavation.

Grey literature: Newcastle, Melbourne Street, Archaeological excavations. Archaeological services, University of Durham. http://csweb.bournemouth.ac.uk/aip/gaz2004/ene.pdf

[2] Bidwell, P T, 2005 'The system of obstacles on Hadrian's Wall; their extent, date and purpose', Arbeia J, 8, 53-76. http://www.arbeiasociety.org.uk/journal.htm

[3] Caius Julius Caesar De Bello Gallico VII.73 [De Bello Gallico and Other Commentaries English translation by W. A. MacDevitt, introduction by Thomas De Quincey (1915) http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/10657]

[4] In addition to Caesar [op cit.] see also; The Military Institutions of the Romans (De Re Militari) by Flavius Vegetius Renatus, Translated from the Latin by Lieutenant John Clarke, translation published in 1767. [Etext version by Mads Brevik (2001) http://www.pvv.ntnu.no/~madsb/home/war/vegetius/]

And Polybius; http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/18*.html#18 [Accessed 25/03/2011],

[5] Hill, P. R. 2006. The construction of Hadrian's Wall. Tempus,

[6] [Opt cit.]Chapter 10 and Breeze, D.J. 2003. "Warfare in Britain and the Building of Hadrian's Wall." Archaeologia Aeliana 32, 13 –16.

Red Nose Archaeology

2013-03-15T20:35:00.000Z

Today is red nose day - for Comic Relief a charity event organised by British comedians.

Archaeology is one those subjects traditionally associated with drinking, it was one of the few compensations for low wages, poor working conditions, and zero career prospects, although quite why well paid academics should be red noses has never been fully explained.

Perhaps it helps you make sense of post-processualism and why projecting your own conception of what a dead person’s conception of things that only the dead person has seen is archaeology.

In New Archaeology, unlike necromancy, which in some ways it resembles, the dead are mute, but their thoughts and beliefs are communicated through the medium of post-processual archaeologists. This allows archaeological plans of structures and landscapes to be annotated with perceptions of prehistoric people. Sadly it only works for prehistoric people, since most Classical and Historical archaeologists are just not that mental.

As usual the joke is on the tax payers and the probably otherwise respectable academic institutions who gave them tenure.

Since I have been so disrespectful of ideas that might have originated from the greatest and highest paid minds in British archaeology, I will pledge 10% of weekly income to Comic Relief.

Understanding the Neolithic Longhouse

2013-02-27T21:21:00.000Z

Archaeology is recorded in diagrams

All pictures of a Neolithic Longhouse are imaginary; generally, all that remains are the archaeological plans of their foundations, however, it is possible to produce a theoretical model of the form of engineering that fits the nature of this data.

Prior to the advent of digital recording systems large amounts of information were routinely recorded by visual representation in the form of hand drawn plans and sections. Structural archaeology takes these diagrams and extends them into a ‘theoretical’ three dimensional space; in some respects these models are as accurate as the original plan.

Theoretical structural archaeology is theoretical because it based on measurements and ideas that can be expressed as diagrams and models which are the best fit for an imperfect data set. This fit tends to improve with further study and this article represents an updating of my previous articles.

In these I considered the general background of LBK colonisation of NW Europe. More specially, the issue of building with tapering tree trunks, the importance of ground stone chisels in cutting mortise joints, and the general structural principles of this type of building were discussed with reference to building 32 at Elsloo. [1]

Theoretical Model; Elsloo Neolithic Longhouse

The pitch roof is shown as a 3:4:5 triangle, this being a minimum practical angle for a thatch roof.
The load baring structure of the building is founded on posts sunk in the ground, which below ground at least are in the round.
The centre of the pitched roof is marked by the deepest postsholes that support a Ridge Piece; since this line is offset from the theoretical centre, the presence of a Collar is presumed.
Parallel to the ridge are the posts with ties supporting an Arcade positioned midway between the centre and the edge of the roof.
The lowest support from the roof comes from a Roof Plate supported on Ties.
The Arcade Plate and Ridge Pieces, while indirectly supported by posts at their ends can be supported by Queen Posts and King Post respectively from the Ties in the middle of the building.
Among the Posts on either side forming what is nominally the wall, the shallowest are taken to resent support for a Secondary Frame/s.
The Secondary Frame has its own posts ties and longitudinal timbers that support the floors and increase the rigidity of the frame, and the shallowest postholes within the interior relate to lower frames.

The pitched roof is formed by Rafter Pairs, joined at the apex above the Ridge Piece, supported in the middle of their span by an Arcade Plate, and carried at the base of a Roof Plate, which in turn is supported on Ties morticed to the head of the posts.
To simplify this key junction, [Post / Tie / Wall Plate / Rafter], the components are offset, forming 3 separate joints; the opposing rafters sit on either side of the Post and Tie, the latter, morticed to Posts run at a slight angle across the base of the roof.
In addition there is provision in the layout for Braces at 45° and 60° which together with Ties can trap the posts in increase the rigidity of the building.

Depending on the size of the bays, it is possible that in addition to the primary frame, there could be two or even three separate frames in parts of some longhouses.
The lower frame can replicate portions of the roof allowing for Rafter Pairs to be supported below the main roof, so that it becomes practical to create a lower roof below a clerestory or window

Utilisation

The utilisation of space within the building is principally a matter for other lines of archaeological evidence, which in turn have to be viewed as deriving from the occupation of a floored structure. From an architectural perspective, and presuming these building are farmhouses, my general view is as follows.

In plan structure is divided into three principle spaces separated by cross passages, creating by the overlapping of three separate structural units.
These probably mark the position of entrances; [a presumed entrance on the SE is sometimes illustrated].
The square SE section contains the stairs, and serves as the entrance to the domestic portion of the house.
The central space seems the best location for a byre, with principle living quarters on the floors above; this implies a low ceiling space on ground floor.
The stave built section at the rear of the building is the coolest and most secure space, and presumably housed the important products and processes of the farm.
The general proportion based on the width of the roof, are not necessarily metrically significant, and are to illustrate the architectural approach.

Matters arising

Just to be certain the implications of this analysis are understood, I should make the following general points.

People do not emerge from woods, caves, or the Mesolithic to start building timber frame longhouses.
This engineering is a technology brought into an area by individuals as part of a wider a well-established farming culture.
From the LBK onwards, Northern European mixed agriculture is based around the use of timber buildings to house the stock, produce and processes.
Rooms, doors, windows, floors and stairs do not have to be ‘invented’; but they do have to be engineered.

The archaeological data can produce an understanding of the engineering of the buildings frame, which can be tested for ‘fit’, and ‘built’ physically or electronically.
This model accounts for most of the physical and spatial characteristics of the evidence, it still requires further study using three-dimensional modelling of appropriate data sets.

Reversed assembly structures, with Ties morticed directly to the Posts, naturally lend themselves to jettied construction, a feature of later ‘timber framed’ buildings in Northern Europe.
Reversed assembly is still used in Chinese timber architecture where it has been retained due to its resilience in earthquakes, however, the use of dougongs the and absence of bracing, are significant technological developments of this basic Neolithic model.

Imagining a Longhouse

In the previous post I dealt with issue of ‘realism’ in images and its impact of archaeological thinking; while you cannot see the past, some contemporary archaeological approaches, like post-processualism, is often descriptive of imaginary landscapes and buildings, perceived through the eyes of imaginary people. This is particularly true of the prehistoric timber built environment, which has largely vanished, leaving behind nothing but a problem of how archaeologists express tentative ideas about structures visually.

Built environments are important; you know where you are in both space and time by the buildings; architecture is backdrop to history, the context of culture, and the spatial focus of people’s daily experience; a central aspect of a ‘culture’, both for those who inhabit them, and those who need to imagine or realise it.

This is delightful drawing, adapted from of Approach to Architecture by Manning and N K Robertson, illustrates the difficulties of finding a style to satisfy demanding clients. [2] It also neatly sums up the dilemma faced by archaeology; in some cases it may be possible to understand the theme or form of the structure, but the all-important visual aesthetic – what the customer wants – requires decisions to be made about issues we have no data.

To satisfy both doubt and the legitimate expectation of a ‘picture’, I deliberately add anachronisms, subvert conventions, and create contextual ambiguity to emphasise its imaginary nature.

This first image is my minimal view of a two frame building, with a first floor and attic space. It features a half hip roof at the NW end, and a central bay turned through 90° to produce a SW facing gable facilitating the lighting of the main living quarters.

This is a three frame structure with a slightly more complex roof and windows. It is probably close the limit in terms of elevation for this form of structure using 40 - 50’ / 12- 15m timbers.

Essentially, these images portray a two or three storey farmhouse made from the local trees, mud and thatch, built for needs local farmers by craftsmen who had been building for generations. Look at the ancient farms and barns of a location, and it will give a sense of scale - how much hay has to be stored, grain to be dried, and how many cows to be milked.

The past is not a foreign country; it’s the same country a long time ago.

Sources and further reading

[1] PJR Modderman (1970), 'Linearbandkeramik aus Elsloo und Stein 2.' Tafelband, Leiden Univ., Faculty of Archaeology.

PJR Modderman (1975), 'Elsloo, a Neolithic farming community in the Netherlands,' in Bruce-Mitford, R L S, Recent archaeological excavations in Europe, Chapter IX.

PJR Modderman (1985), D'ie Bandkeramik im Graetheidegebiet, Niederländisch-Limburg.' Berichte der Römisch- Germanischen Kommission, 66::25-121.

[2] After; Robertson, M & N K , 1948, Approach to architecture, Edward Arnold & Co 1948,Fig. 12.

The North South Divide

2013-02-18T18:02:00.000Z

On a day that our Deputy Prime minister Nick Clegg has talked about rebalancing the North South economic divide my friend and fellow blogger Michael Anderson has very kindly posted a joint article about the Wall.

Mike Anderson's Ancient History Blog looks at the ancient world in terms of what the past teaches us about the present. I rather stole Michael’s thunder and wrote about Geography of the North South divide, and it’s resonance through history.

" . .Emasculating the north and overburdening the south .. . “

Deputy Prime minister Nick Clegg.

Recent history is still at bit raw, but going back a bit, if the North had revolted following the death of Trajan, [117], then by the time Hadrian’s engineers had constructed his Wall [122], there may not have been a lot of people left to complain. My understanding of Hadrian’s Wall, as a purely military enterprise, might be seen alongside William the Conqueror’s ethnic cleansing and genocide as a solution to the North-South divide.

In this context Margret Thatcher’s systematically closing those industries that the North relied on seems like good natured gerrymandering.

After all, who needs engineers when you can have commodity traders?

Doubt, and the archaeology of the imagined past.

2013-02-13T22:02:00.003Z

One thing that was apparent at the CAA conference [Computer Applications in Archaeology] at Southampton, was the ability of our current technology to produce any image we can imagine with a remarkable degree of realism. The look of the past, the shared visual culture, is commercially important to the entertainment industry, and in some senses is the end product offered to consumers of archaeology as infotainment. As a structural archaeologist, while I am groping towards an understanding of how a Neolithic longhouse was engineered, the one thing I am certain of is that I don’t know what a building ‘looked’ like.

So, given the ability to visually express anything we can imagine - how do we express doubt?

Subversive images

To produce a good ‘artistic reconstruction’ in any form, requires not only skills which I do not possess, but far more importantly, decisions about issues for which there is no archaeological evidence,

It is down to the artist to ‘realise’ the past, it is not part of my brief as an archaeologist.

So, to be hard line; it is not my job to make things up - especially to put potentially misleading pictures into the visual culture of the past.

While am happy to draw a diagram to communicate what I understand, there is an expectation of an image that can be believed. In attempting to resolve this conflict, I have sought novel ways expressing or creating doubt in images, at best to encourage the viewer think critically about an image, and perhaps to subvert the existing pictures in their mind.

This is a version of a previous image of a Neolithic Longhouse; it has a Ford Mondeos parked outside because;

It deliberately subverts the idea / rules of reconstruction
It provides an easily comprehended idea of scale
It makes the past feel more familiar, mundane, and utilitarian.

In the next post, I will show how this model has developed; the idea of ‘best fit’ and degrees of certainty is an important aspect of this approach; doubt is an on-going and developing form of understanding.

Studying the Imaginary past

Archaeological reports are full of diagrams, much of the data is in the form of plans and sections, which are difficult to comprehend. In addition, their significance is often lost in the impact of the ‘reconstruction’ on the cover; which is an imaginary and fictional visual abstract of thousands of meticulously gathered pieces of information.

The ‘suspension of disbelief’ required to comprehend an image, offers a way of absorbing large amounts of information uncritically and subconsciously, which then can exert a powerful influence on subsequent thinking. In some ways, we are prisoners of this conditioning, the product of our contemporary pictorial representations of the past.

The visual culture of British prehistory is a tradition of artistic and physical reconstructions, heavily influenced by observations of the ‘primitive cultures’ encounter during European cultural expansion and exploration. While what was seen in Africa might have been their ‘Iron Age’, it was not ours, but regardless of the lack any enviromental, cultural, and technological similarities, these images continue to influence our picture of our own prehistory.

This visual conditioning has effected the way the past is thought about, and scholarship has undoubtedly been informed by this imaginary visual culture of the past. It has become legitimate to think of the past in terms how it was perceived at the time, but whose pictures of the past are we discussing?

Modern archaeological thinking, like post-processualism, seems to involve peopling these imaginary landscapes with imaginary people, and then imagining how these imaginary people perceived this imagery world.

So that is the problem with pictures, they can create belief without recourse to understanding.

The fictional pictures of the past, and the ideas they generate about belief and cosmology, soon become articles of faith and an obstruction to understanding the real diagrammatic evidence. Since the visual dogma of faith based archaeology is an officially sanctioned, peer-reviewed and publically funded delusion, so inevitably it transcends the need for doubt.

Inside the mind of a New Archaeologist

2012-12-21T22:58:00.001Z

In my view, the inability of conventional archaeology to interpret the majority of the excavated evidence from prehistoric sites, in particular postholes, has led to development of “New” archaeology, where academics study and become experts in those aspects of culture we don’t find. In those countries like Netherlands and Germany, where they understand their archaeology, their narrative of the Neolithic is about agriculture, in Britain it is more often expressed in terms of the perceptions, beliefs, rituals, personhood, and cosmologies.
In a clear case of counterfeiting in the knowledge economy, New Archaeologists are employed in publicly funded Universities to teach students what they know about the things we don’t have any evidence for. Sadly, anyone who claims that they know how prehistoric dead people perceived the world either is mentally ill or a fraud, and quite possibly both.

New archaeology as projection
The relevant definition of projection;

…..8. a. [Psychology];
The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or suppositions to others:

"Even trained anthropologists have been guilty of unconscious projection of clothing the subjects of their research in theories brought with them into the field" (Alex Shoumatoff). [1].

Clearly, New Archaeologists are just projecting ideas in their own minds into the minds of the long dead - who inevitably demonstrate a remarkable unanimity and prescience in their perception of their own archaeology. To what extent, in creating a narrative of how the dead perceived themselves, their dead, the landscape, structures, and even materials like stone and wood, New Archaeologists are fooling the University authorities, funding bodies and ultimately the tax payer is an interesting question, but the crucial psychological issue is to whether they are they fooling each other and themselves.

Do they realise that by projecting their own intuitions into the minds of people evidenced only by skeletal remains they are simply fabricating a mythology . In short, are they fully cognisant of their own conceit?

Notwithstanding they teach the courses, review each other’s papers, choose research projects, set and mark the exams, shouldn't somebody have stopped them creating this imaginary past?

And what of the real victims, the students who go to study archaeology, to be taught to dig holes and think like the archaeologists they see on Time Team?

They will have their rationality challenged and undermined by the intellectual demagoguery of a faith-based pedagogy characterised by lexicographic prestidigitation and decontextualized-asymmetrical-cross-cultural-anthropology masquerading as a methodology for the conceptualisation and analysis of archaeological data. Lucky people.

New Archaeology; a survival guide for students

Students should remember;

You can’t interrogate the dead, but it’s ok to pretend and play along, as long you remember it is just make believe.

Who marks the exams.

Don’t ask “What was their favourite colour?”

If you must join in, this is how it works . . .

. . .Start with a simplistic idea – we all have a favourite colour - so prehistoric people must have had one, throw in Levi-Strauss, Kandinsky, Gestalt, the extrastriate cortex, the Himba people and Hilbert space, sprinkle liberally with lots of long words and obscure references , then clinch the argument with the Matebele, who have spears, cows, round houses and crucially ware blue earrings. The latter is probably strong enough evidence to establish that blue was prehistoric peoples’ favourite colour.
So we now know that Bluestones were brought to Stonehenge because blue was their favourite colour, - leaving space for others to argue that it was the dead’s or even a God’s favourite colour, and soon we have a lot to teach students about archaeo-colour preference.

Obviously, this is a simple reductio ad absurdum, just a parody; besides, it cannot be true because I think Prof Parker-Pierson assures us that stone symbolised death in minds of builders of Stonehenge. [2].

Theoretical Structural Archaeology is back.

Notes.

[2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/bookreviews/9361647/Stonehenge-by-Mike-Parker-Pearson-review.html