Understanding Hadrian's Wall ~ Part III ~ The Hidden Disaster Video . . .

Please excuse the delay, Part III has been on adventure, it disappeared off on a weeks unscheduled leave to digital Neverland.
The Theoretical Structural Archaeology data centre asynchronous binary server farm suffered a failure - a real black screen job.  There are some things in life you can't fix with a trowel or a hammer. However, as a result of my misspent midlife in the real world, my little dark grey Chinese friend now has a new hard disc, and is now operating in new two digit windows environment, which is shedding new light on an old, and as it turns out,  somewhat incompatible system.
To cut a long and stressful week short, all was recovered and rehoused to a new Seagate home with a new windows to look out of by 5.20 am on the Sunday of the following week.
I can only apologise for the quality, particularly the sound, hopefully, this and other technical issues have been addressed.

In the future, I may re-edit these first three this as a single more succinct video, as well as producing a more technical [ / more boring] video about the archaeology of the Wall.

Hopefully, we can get on with some videos about prehistoric buildings, and how this conflicts with the views of the imaginary people interacting the imaginary landscapes in the imagination of academics.  Walk through 3d graphics don't work well in PPS.
I would like to thank my family, and friends, particularly Andy and Raph for their support, even Guy Opperman, for at least being prepared to listen, although Heritage & Higher Education hardly registers MP's corruption radar.
Special Thanks to The Beacon Club, Hexham.

Burnt Bridges
 I do now have a Macmillan nurse and a couple operations coming up soon, so it was important for me to stake a claim to these ideas because Jane Webster and Neill Marshall have ensured they cannot be accepted while I am alive. Thanks to Prof Andrew for explaining the facts of death to my Mother, she now understands this is the only way forward for my work.
I wanted to go into full on iconoclastic mode, but I have railed about duplicitous mendacious academics completely unconscious of their own conceits, and the decent of another institution into the post-truth zeitgeist, many times before.  After all, power, without the freedom to abuse it, is just a responsibility, which is why allowing universities a monopoly and their staff a job for life has been a disaster for archaeology.
I hope this video demonstrates, that while narratives may appear credible to the school leavers, the most credulous of whom will go on teach them, a lot of what you are sold by universities can be debunked in short order by a return to a traditional evidence based approach to archaeology.

Caveat Emptor

Select Bibliography

Arthur E Gordon. 1983, Illustrated Introduction to Latin Epigraphy

Austin L,Egan, S, Clarke, S, & Kirby G & Millward D. The geology and geodynamics of the Northumberland Trough Region: Insights from mathematical modelling, Earth Sciences and Geography, School of Physical and Geographical Sciences, Keele University.

Aviam, M., 2007, The Archaeological illumination of Josephus; in Making History: Josephus And Historical Method, edited by Zuleika Rodgers, pp. 354 -355, 361-2, 381.

Aviam, Mordechai. 2007, The archaeological illumination of Josephus’ narrative of the battles at Yodefat and Gamla.

Bennett, Julian. 2000, (Roman Imperial Biographies) Trajan: Optimus Princeps

Bidwell, P T, 2005 'The system of obstacles on Hadrian's Wall; their extent, date and purpose', Arbeia J, 8, 53-76.

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.

Birley, Anthony R, 2005, The Roman Government of Britain

Birley, Anthony, R. 2013; [Roman Imperial Biographies] Hadrian: The Restless Emperor

Birley, R. 2009 Vindolanda: A Roman Frontier Fort on Hadrian’s Wall. Amberley

Bramwell, M., [ed]. 1982. The international book of wood. London.

Breeze, D.J. 2003. "Warfare in Britain and the Building of Hadrian's Wall." Archaeologia Aeliana 32, 13 –16.

Breeze, David J.1982, Northern Frontiers of Roman Britain, Harper Collins

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

Burley R 2009, Vindolanda A Roman fort on Hadrians Wall. Amberley ISBN978-1-84868-210-8

Caius Julius Caesar "De Bello Gallico" and Other Commentaries English translation by W. A. MacDevitt, introduction by Thomas De Quincey (1915) ]Lewis, Charlton, T. An Elementary Latin Dictionary. New York, Cincinnati, and Chicago. American Book Company. 1890.

Caius Julius Caesar, Commentaries on the Civil War William Duncan, Ed.

Cambell, Brian. 2008, Roman Britain (Routledge Sourcebooks for the Ancient World)

Codrington, T. 1903 Roman Roads in Britain: the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, London.

Collingwood Bruce, J.1966. Handbook to The Roman Wall. J. . Published by Hindson & Andrew Reid Ltd, Newcastle upon Tyne

Conybeare, Edward, 1903 Early Britain--Roman Britain

Dumayne L. and Barber K.E. 1994, The impact of the Romans on the environment of northern England: pollen data from three sites close to Hadrian's Wall, The Holocene, June 1994 vol. 4 no. 2 165-173

Dunning,. G. C. 1945, Two Fires in Roman London', Ant. J. 25 (1945) 48-77.

Frain T. ,McKelvey J. ,& Bidwell P. 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.

Frere, S. 1974. Britannia. Cardinal Books. P 156–7

Gibson, J.P. & Simpson, F.G. 1911. "The Milecastle on the Wall of Hadrian at the Poltross Burn"; Trans. CWAAS XI (New Series) Art XXIII pp390–461

Graafstal, Erik P.: 2012, Hadrian's haste: a priority programme for the Wall. Archaeologia Aeliana, 5th Series, vol 41, 123–84

Hanson, C.,O. 1934. Forestry for Woodmen. Oxord press.

Haverfield, F. 1897. "Report of the Cumberland Excavation Committee, 1896," TransCumberland Westmorland Antiq Archaeol Soc, o ser, 14, 413-433

Heywood, B. 1965. "The Vallum- its problems restated," in M G Jarrett and B Dobson (eds). Britain and Rome: essays presented to Eric Birley. (Kendal), 85-94

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

Hodgson, E. 1897. "Notes on the Excavations on the line of the Roman Wall in Cumberland in 1894 and 1895," Trans Cumberland Westmorland Antiq Archaeol Soc, o ser, 14, 390-407.

Ireland, Stanley. 2008, Roman Britain (Routledge Sourcebooks for the Ancient World)

Jenkins, J G. 1978. Traditional country craftsmen. Routledge & Kegan Paul

Kay N.W. [ed]. 1946. The Practical carpenter and Joiner Illustrated. Odhams Press

Keppie, Lawrence. 1991 Understanding Roman Inscriptions -

Leutscher, A. 1969. Field natural history: A guide to ecology. Bell, London.

Mattingly, D. 2006. An Imperial Possession; Britain in the Roman Empire 54BC--AD409. Penguin: Allen Lane.

More, D., & Fitter, A. 1980. Trees. Collins Gem Guide

Perring, Dominic. Roman London B (P72).

Platell, A. C.: Excavations on Hadrian's Wall at Melbourne Street, Newcastle upon Tyne. 5th Series, vol 41, 185–206

Powell, Lindsay. 2017 The Bar Kokhba War AD 132–135: The Last Jewish Revolt Against Imperial Rome.

Press, B. 1992. The field guide to the trees of Britain and Europe. New Holland, London.

Publius Papinius Statius, c. AD 95. Extract from Via Domitiana Silvae 4.3

Rayner,Dorothy H.1980 Stratigraphy of the British Isles, Cambridge University Press

Rodgers, Zuleika (ed). 2006 Making History: Josephus and Historical Method (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Roskams, Steve & Watson, Lez 1981 `The Hadrianic fire of London - a reassessment of the evidence' London Archaeol 4, 1981 62-6

Sigurðardóttir , S. 2008, Building with Turf; English version by Nancy Marie Brown ISBN 978-9979-9757-4-8

Simpson F. G. and I. A. Richmond I.A., 1935, The Turf Wall of Hadrian, 1895-1935, The Journal of Roman Studies Vol. 25, (1935), pp. 1-18

Welfare, H. 2004. ‘Variation in the form of the ditch, and of its equivalents, on Hadrian’s Wall’. Archaeologia Aeliana, ser 5, 33, 9-24

Wilmott, T., [ed]. 2009. Hadrian's Wall: Archaeological Research by English Heritage ; (p. 114 the pollen James Wells p. 116 The plant macrofossils, Allan Hall, )

Wood, Eric S., 1973, Collins Field Guide To Archaeology In Britain, Book Club Associates, (first published 1967) After fig. 7, p132

Woolliscroft, D.J., Excavations at Garnhall on the line of the Antonine Wall., Proc Soc Antiq Scot 138 (2008), 129–176

On Line

Wilmott,T., TheTurfWall https://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/archaeological.services/research_training/hadrianswall_research_framework/project_documents/TurfWall.pdf

http://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/archaeological.services/research_training/hadrianswall_research_framework/project_documents/Carrawburghrev.pdf

http://www.roman-britain.org/places/brocolitia.htm

http://www.arbeiasociety.org.uk/journal.htm

Hadrian’s Wall Archaeological Research by English Heritage 1976–2000edited by Tony Wilmott http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archiveDS/archiveDownload?t=arch-1416-1/dissemination/pdf/9781848021587_all.pdf

Texts

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]

C. Julius Caesar, Gallic War

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0001

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.digitalattic.org/home/war/vegetius/

Polybius, Histories

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0234

Inscriptions

http://www.romanbritain.org/epigraphy/rib_hadrianswall.htm

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4d/Via_Munita.png Roman Road; Via Munita [from Smith, W. 1875. A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities. John Murray, London.

Illustrations

This Video uses based on images from Google Earth: http://www.google.com/earth/index.html 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Agricola.Campaigns.78.84.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Bronze_head_of_Hadrian_found_in_the_River_Thames_in_London.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/Statue_of_Hadrian_from_Tel_Shalem.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadrian#/media/File:Roman_Empire_125.png

* * * * * * *

  Special Guest  Non-appearance

                           

Courtesy of Tyne & Wear Museums 

                          

~ Horse Toilets  ~

Hodgson N. & Bidwell P. T. Auxiliary Barracks in a New Light: Recent 

Discoveries on Hadrian's Wall.   Britannia Vol. 35 (2004), pp. 121-157

                           

Truly this is the death of reason 

& the most fantastic  thing ever 

published in a peer reviewed journal

R.I.P Britannia 

The Journal of Romano-British and Kindred Horse Sanitation Studies

2016 - Review of the Year

One of basic principles that always governed my professional practice in commercial world was “Always do what you say you are going to do”, if everyone sticks to this, then even quite complex projects can come together successfully.   Since the year started with a bold statement of intent concerning building a model of a CAD Class Ei building, some form of progress report is probably due.   However, what happens, or is reported on this blog, is a separate issue to what is going on in terms of research; you can do it or write about it; it is not that there is nothing to report, but that things are changing; you can spend weeks illustrating and writing a post about a particular problem, only to find that you have solved it. 

There are other things going on; I am virtually busy working on a range of other case studies, methodology, and projects with other people; there is even the real world, which exacts its a terrible crushing toll on a daily basis.  

Virtual Archaeology; A Roman Timber Rampart

The need to illustrate recent speaking engagements, has necessitated the revisiting a virtual model of the Roman timber rampart based on foundations found at Shields Road, Byker, which a real place in Newcastle. [1]  In addition, live reaction to my work, provides an opportunity to reconsider and improve its subsequent presentation, and thus every question, comment or observation is important. 
Since this particular technological approach, and in particular the underlying reverse engineering, has proved  too advanced for a parochial academia, it is worth restating the fundamental methodical differences between CAD modelling and visualisation of the past.  

The use of engineering  in the understanding of structures can produce models with varying degrees of certainty and spatial accuracy, but what it cannot really do is tell you what the past looked like.  While the artist’s reconstruction has become the de facto money shot of archaeotainment staples such as Time Team, and even on the front of serious archaeological reports, a picture is worth a thousand peer reviewed words, ultimately, there is no inherent entitlement or legitimacy to a visual culture of the past. 

Reading the Wall

Conference; Reading the Wall; Newcastle University; 15/6/16 – 17/6/16.

The Turf Wall and the Vallum: Linguistic Dislocation on Hadrian’s Wall; Geoff Carter.

Abstract;  Above and beyond the physical reality of its archaeological deposits, Hadrian’s Wall exists as a literary entity with its own distinct vocabulary including Latin loan words.   Research has often been confined to this linguistic construct, creating an understanding that has in part been conditioned by the inherent meaning of its own terminology, in certain cases this circularity has resulted in a growing discontinuity between what is discussed and what is actually present.  The paper considers this process with specific reference to the Turf Wall and the Vallum, contrasting the physical evidence in terms of their soil science to the textural narrative, reaching different conclusions as to the nature of these important early structures.

Or, in short, the paper explains that the Turf Wall could not have been made from turf, along with the more familiar idea that The Vallum was not a vallum, which has some interesting implications for our understanding of Hadrian's Wall.

Deconstructing a Stonehenge "House"

A game of blind house detective

When a reader contacted me to ask my opinion on a reconstruction that was referred to as “the Stonehenge House”, I saw an interesting opportunity for a blind test.  In truth, I had not looked at this, so I requested and received a copy of the archaeological plan from Durrington Walls on which the reconstruction was based. I fully expected to produce a different conclusion since, as an archaeologist, I try to work by deduction, rather than by comparison or projection; it's the difference between astronomy and astrology.

I sent my reply back in just over a day, in the form of the drawing reproduced below.  It was just a quick hack; it has taken a lot longer to write it up for this post, probably because in term as of scale it is more like a Stonehenge Shed, and I have more significant structures I should be working on, but being an Aries, I can’t resist a challenge.   

Regular readers will be aware that I do have serious prejudices about the nature of built environments in this period, which included  large class Ei buildings like “Durrington Walls” [1].  My interest is mainly in this main structure, which  I know was a building, even though only half survives, because I have done the maths; post-processual academics know it is “ritual” because they haven’t.

Dumbing down the past.

Dumbing down through abstraction.

In two previous posts, [ 1 + 2 ] I have demonstrated that one of the central images of British Prehistory, the Wessex Roundhouse, is a construct which does not accurately represent the evidence.  It is not a discovery, or rocket science, I just read the relevant reports and looked at the plans and sections.

While I am happy to call these roundhouse constructs dumbing down, what to call the scholarship they generate presents a problem, since it represents the application of presumably perfectly acceptable theory to an imaginary data set. 

Archaeology is often at its best and most incisive when it has borrowed from other disciplines, but left to their own devices some academics have wandered off through the dewy system to delve into ideas about the relationship between people and built environments. But perhaps sometimes they just look at the pictures.

It is possible for anthropologists to study the relationship between people and their built environments; the humans can be questioned and observed, and the spaces inspected. In such a study, we might also wish consider factors of age, status, and gender, as well as more complex issues pertaining to the ownership and creation of spaces.

In anthropology, a theory, a set of ideas or a cosmology which explain the patterns of behaviour associated with particular places can be developed through the study of people and spaces. 

However, in Archaeology the people we study are dead and their spaces destroyed, or they usually are after we have finished with them....

Debunking the Iron Age Round House

Is Prehistory is more or less bunk ?

In 1916, when archaeology was in its infancy, the industrialist Henry Ford expressed the view that History is more or less bunk, so what he would have made of Prehistory would probably have been unprintable.[1]  However, perhaps as an engineer, his concerns were elsewhere, solving the problems in the present and helping to mould the future.

In his remark, we might perceive a fundamental dichotomy of science v arts, but while this is clearly simplistic, there is a certain resonance for archaeology which sits, sometimes uncomfortably, between the two. Much of what is important, incisive and certainly less bunk in archaeology originally came from outside, from the borrowing of scientific techniques from other disciplines.  Further, in Henry Ford’s prejudice one might also perceive a divergence between practical v theoretical, or practitioners v academics; for archaeology, the latter are often from an “arts background”, and by creating the past in their own image, have divested Prehistory of its engineers, architects, builders; a prehistoric built environment fabricated almost entirely from bunk.

In the West, Archaeology is fairly new discipline, not much older than the motor car, but prehistory is not vital, and so nobody cares if you get it wrong or make it up. Unlike engineering, archaeology can be a faith based study, with objectivity, and even the evidence being secondary, what is important is belief in the narrative and its institutions.  In archaeology things can be true because people believe them, not because they are supported by the evidence. 

This is hard concept to grasp if you come from another discipline, or importantly, if you believe in the intellectual integrity of archaeology, but ideas about ancient building are a classic case in point.

The archaeology of the Imaginary Spaces

One of the first things you learn as an archaeologist is that “History” is the study of specialist artefacts involving writing and other forms of recording, and that “Prehistory” is marked by the absence of such material. There is period we call “Proto-history”, in which “Prehistoric” issues are alluded to in later documents, providing plenty of scope for conjecture; ideas like “Druids” inhabit these spaces, along with more peripheral characters like Merlin and Arthur.
Narrative History on the BBC Television is a cultural phenomenon in its own right, and while Prehistory has always had the attraction of the mysterious, and offers the potential of a “Detective Story” format, in reality it has no recognisable narratives. Thus, I was very rude about “The History of Ancient Britain” series’ attempt to manufacture one, and so I greet the news of Neil Oliver's  “Sacred Wonders of Britain” with some degree of scepticism.   However, Neil is keen to get his retaliation in first;

 “We were at all times sensitive to one absolute truth – that it is quite impossible to put yourself in the mind of a Neolithic farmer, or to understand the thinking of an Iron Age druid.”

Good; this did seem to be lacking from the last outing into the past. However, as the program promises an exploration of Prehistoric sacredness, I suspect there is going to be a “but” in there somewhere.  Luckily there are experts on hand; in academia you get the “truth” you pay for.

Doubt, and the archaeology of the imagined past.

 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?

Inside the mind of a New Archaeologist

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 their archaeology is better understood, their narrative of the Neolithic is generally  about agriculture, while in Britain it is more often expressed in terms of the perceptions, beliefs, rituals, personhood, and cosmologies.

The Archaeology of a strange and alien land

As a professional archaeologist, I owe my existence not just to a planning system and government legislation that protects our heritage, but also, and more fundamentally, to a wider public interest in the past. This popularity is evidenced by highly rated series like Channel 4's Time Team in mainstream television schedules, as well as by specialist commercial channels like Discovery History, History, and Yesterday.
The BBC’s series a History of Ancient Britain, is an interesting proposition, not least because history is primarily based on written sources, and the program is mostly about prehistory, which, by definition, is not. I have already made my feelings fairly plain about the Age of Cosmology episode: It is a perfect example of the loss of rationality that afflicts much modern archaeological thinking and clearly informed this script.
If archaeologists start imagining beliefs, cosmologies, and perceptions for people who left no records, there is the real danger that our audience will lose faith in the narrative. However, one thing that I found most challenging, was one of the opening lines in the set up;

" . . .This Britain was a strange and alien world . . "

Is Post-Processual Archaeology a New Age Cult?

I recently suggested that post-processual archaeology was a faith-based approach that mystifies the evidence, but on reflection, thinking of it as a religion, is probably to exaggerate its objectivity. This time, I’m looking at the messages we're getting about, and apparently from, the past, and asking if this new archaeology a New Age cult?

I shall do this with the help Neil Oliver’s BBC program, History of Ancient Britain, which has, through no fault of its own, been singled out to be my Auntie Sally. His program is more than just a warm glass of intellectual Drambuie on a Sunday night, but actually reflects some state of the art archaeological thinking, as one might expect of the BBC.[1]

For the sake of balance I will try to explain why some archaeologists have painted themselves into the corner of their yoga mats, and readers should be warned be there maybe some intellectual cartoon violence, and outbreaks of Kermodian ranting.

Is Post-processual archaeology a form of religion?

Anyone who has excavated a complex prehistoric archaeology site will have realised that they are quite difficult to understand. Some archaeologists, faced with deciphering this complex phenomenon, decided the easiest thing to do was abandon objectivity, go beyond the empirical limits of the evidence, and simply ‘make up’ something to explain it, redefining the terms of reference for archaeology to allow them to do this. For convenience, I will use the term ‘Post-processual’ for this new archaeology [1], although this term covers quite a wide and very complex can of worms.
Among university academics, these post-processual archaeologists are in the probably unique position of being paid to invent knowledge to cover those topics currently beyond our understanding, especially in those areas where objective knowledge is impossible. 
Traditionally, this is the province of religion, whose prophets have special insights beyond our shared objective reality, and whose texts can testify to events that transcend normal physical laws. While priests can report on opinions and beliefs of prophets, and even gods, at least they have some written records to work with; professors of prehistory can profess a detailed knowledge of the minds of people who left no records at all, and use it to explain the physical evidence.
Is it time to reclassify this form of archaeology as a religion, differentiated from mainstream scholarship, and fund it accordingly?