The “Turf“ Wall; Science Denial at English Heritage / Historic England – Now It’s Official

To test the water, and offer English Heritage a chance to consider the matter I sent an e-mail explaining the Science that proves Bede, writing in the C8th was wrong to suggest Hadrian built a Wall of turf aka The Turf Wall.

Twenty years ago their own excavation Appleby produced unequivocal evidence that this section of Wall was made of Timber, information they failed to comprehend at the time.[1]

The science is simple and irrefutable.

1. Soil science.

If turf is blocks of local soil held together with plant roots, then the composition of the "Turf " Wall deposit at Appletree with its complete absence of mechanical particles other than some sand grains in what is essentially a peaty deposit indicates that this cannot have derived from a local soil and therefore, can not ever been made of Turves.
[QED] [2]

2. Palynology
The palynology dominated by tree species alder, oak and in particular Hazel, [ a shrub] [3]
3. Palaeobotany
The recovered plant macrofossils were dominated by pieces of carbonised wood, trunk & branch up 0.01m, and notable remains of Ceratodon purpureus fruiting bodies. [4]

Conclusions.

4. All the scientific evidence, indicate the use of timber to construct this rampart, a conclusion which is also confirmed by the Roman’s own accounts of their engineering.[5]
5. It is fair to conclude that the concept of a “Turf Wall” is a native literary tradition, now largely driven by nominative determinism, and the momentum of the inherited orthodoxy in institutions.

I sent an email outlining the arguments using their data [6]

Hi

I am a structural archaeologist working in the NE of England and I have serious concerns about the denial of Science in favour of faith-based arguments.

20 years ago you produced a report that proved beyond all doubt that the Romans did not build a "Turf" Wall using soil science palynology and palaeobotany; tragically, the report concluded the exact opposite.

This prompts serious questions about quality control and competence at the highest level.

Thus, my principle question is who takes responsibility for such serious mistakes and the blatant denial of science that ideas like a "Turf Wall" represent?

Is anyone at EH prepared to defend this non-scientific stance in public or discuss the issues it raises?

Best

Geoff Carter

After the usual robotic exchange of pleasantries, they responded thusly.

Dear Geoff,

Thank you for your email. It is always interesting to hear alternative interpretations. However, it remains our view based on the evidence recovered from a number of excavations and associated analyses that the wall is constructed of turves in the widest sense with Appletree as the classic example.

A consideration of turves in the archaeological record is laid out in Hall, A R 2003 Recognition and Characterisation of Turves in Archaeological Occupation Deposits by means of Macrofossil Plant Remains. Historic England Research Report 16/2003.

Kind regards,

Rosie Ryder

Historic England Communications Team

I responded, seeking reassurance they had understood the argument, and further pressing my point, but no further communication was forthcoming.[8]

" . the wall is constructed of turves in the widest sense with Appletree . . " is basically a denial of the science, with not enough wiggle room to escape such a charge. 

Observations.

• While as an academic subject, “Research“ is driven by simple reproduction of the existing narrative, since the skills necessary to understand archaeological base-data are often lacking.

• The reference cited reviews the evidence of “turf” in a variety of contexts, and demonstrated that archaeological expectations are not by and large confirmed by paleoenvironmental data

• It highlights a broader lack of basic methodology and the tendency to use of excavations as an opportunity to reinforce or fine tune part of an existing narrative, ignoring or excluding data that does not fit the expected pattern.

• However, even learning Archaeology out of a book from someone who learned it out of a book, should not preclude a basic understanding of soil science, it is after all, what archaeologists find most of.

• Institutions, working in monopoly, offering careers for life, and in an environment where their customers, students and the public can be assumed to be wrong, have no market pressures to raise their game above a minimalistic mediocracy.

• Archaeology is not mission critical, nobody dies through this sort of science denial, and while disappointing, it’s only our money and their institutional creditability that is being wasting.

Notes 

[1] Hadrian’s Wall Archaeological Research by English Heritage 1976–2000

edited by Tony Wilmott
http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archiveDS/archiveDownload?t=arch-1416-1/dissemination/pdf/9781848021587_all.pdf [Accessed 25/12/2014],

[2] op. cit.116 The plant macrofossils,  Allan Hall

[3]op cit p. 114 the pollen  James Wells

[4]Ceratodon purpureus, Fire Moss,  present in quantity, which as the name suggests is an early coloniser after forest fires, and it commonly grows on is dead wood.

[5] a. C. Julius Caesar, Gallic War 
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0001  [Accessed 25/12/2014],
b. C. Julius Caesar, Commentaries on the Civil War  William Duncan, Ed.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0076 [Accessed 25/12/2014],
c.  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/  [Accessed 25/12/2014],
d. Polybius, Histories http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0234 [Accessed 25/12/2014],[7] 12 Feb, 09:51

[6] Dear Rosie,
Thank you for your prompt reply and the link; this is a very important paper as it it demonstrates my view that the “evidence” is not scientific, but is driven by archaeologists’ expectations.  
It confirms that from the plant micro-fossil point of view the case is not proven in any Roman context, and draws attentions to other, more normal processes that can account for these assemblages.  [The occasional use of turf as a roofing material and even for small walls in area devoid of other resources is not in dispute].
Deposits derived from crop processing, organic flooring such as reeds, charcoal burning,
and the decay of building materials such as daub are theoretical sources of plant assemblages, that might be similar to turves.
The issue of soil science, in particular the lack of mineral particles in “Peaty” deposits is not discussed; it is one of the deeper issues with archaeological fieldwork being driven by the existing literature.  
I have observed that archaeologists when dealing with soil have a culture of “stick in a bag and ask the specialists what it means”.   To which the hard-pressed specialist has asked for a specific question about a specific context.  The science is being asked the wrong questions; rather than, where did the turves come from?
It should be what is the origin of this deposit?
It is partly a tradition of the way archaeology funding is granted in terms of objectives, project design and “Answering Questions”.
In short, there is nothing in the evidence presented that demonstrates the use of turf in Roman Military contexts, and I would argue that the plant micro-fossil evidence that has been retrieved confirms the use of timber.
Further, the soils at Appletree make it impossible; that is not an opinion, it is archaeological soil science 101.*
I will look at the data tables in more detail, particularly the mosses, but you do not have any “Science” on your side, only a literary tradition dating back to Bede.
Naturally, it is a matter I intend to push you on, can you take this matter any further?
Best
Geoff
* Being an archaeologist is much more difficult than people imagine, especially if you have actually been trained as an archaeological lecturer by an a university lecturer with no real experience of being an archaeologist or writing up complex excavations.
Geoff Carter
Structural Archaeologist

UK Academic Archaeology; Incompetence, Science Denial and Racism

The good news is that my cancer has not returned, but having reached the "Do Not Revive" age group, I am not taking anything for granted, and I  have further surgery scheduled in the next few weeks.  

So I intend to spend what time remains to me in trying to prevent young people, international students  and tax payers being stiffed by these unscrupulous institutions peddling science denial.

I have decided to return to blogging and hopefully more making videos featuring some of the more outrageously dumb tin hat archaeology being promulgated at public expense. 

Obviously, Academics with a job for life in a monopoly where the customers always wrong have no need to defend their ignorance, any more than English Heritage or Museums services feel the need to justify their science denying stance. 

I have to admit I have found it psychologically difficult to reconcile being blackballed for challenging science deniers; apart from the money, why are these people [1] so anxious to piss in our collective chips?

Denial or Ignorance

We all should be aware of the dangers of science denial, but to allow it blossom in Higher Education is either stupidly criminal or criminally stupid, but despite repeated requests, Newcastle University refuse to confirm which is the case for their former Post-Graduate Dean and his staff. [op. cit.]

One might be forgiven for thinking that archaeology was not a real academic subject but a form of badly informed infotainment, after all, celebrities and members of the public don't do forensic accounting or midwifery on the weekend, but are regularly invited to hack holes in inoffensive ancient monuments for out amusement.

Sadly it's not just bottom feeders of Russell branded universities like Newcastle, but also those who regard themselves as serious institutions like Oxford and Cambridge that are guilty of dumbing down the subject through science denial and/or ignorance.

For the hoard of begowned over paid functionaries,  deans, chancellors and the like who see their task as improving the return of the Universities' property portfolio archaeology is an obvious target for dumbing down; do this to a science at you would be risking lives and our economic future.  

Fundamentally, merit is gained in subjects like archaeology by copying out other peoples work in your best handwriting, regardless of its merit or evidential basis, allowing for the reproduction of myths, fallacies and ensuring the progress of the credulous.

You are taught "archaeology" out of a book from some one who learned it out of a book, so all the victims of the system can do is practice archaeology out of a book. Thus,  "Methodology" in archaeology is basically what proper subjects call  "bias".

Many archaeology students naively imagine they are learning to be an archaeologist, but unfortunately they are being trained by a lecturer to be a lecturer, their fees are subsiding the very small percentage sufficiently compliant students to become the next generation of lecturers.

I am reliably informed that Academics teaching archaeology are payed the same money as those engaged in evidence based teaching, so ignorance is not only bliss it's just as financially rewarding as real knowledge.

A Classical Gaff

Being taught archaeology out of book by someone who learned it out of book would not be a problem if archaeologist found books, but surprisingly what they actually find is soil, and that's where the problems start.

Every institution involved with Roman Britain,  universities, museums, and most notably English Heritage persist in the promoting the myth of the Romans building things out of "turf".

This myth dates back to the eight century and Venerable Bede, and has been faithfully reproduced in their best handwriting by generations of academics.

Tragically, twenty years ago English Heritage excavated the "Turf Wall", and having gathered all the scientific data to demonstrate beyond all reasonable doubt that this was not true, concluded it was made of "turf".  [2]

The power of nominative determinism is quite extraordinary, as is the fact that, in denial of the peer reviewed evidence,  academics continued to buy into this myth and sell it to their students.

The Roman Wall was no more made out of turf than the Moon is made from cheese, anyone regardless of status or salary, who tells you otherwise is either ignorant of, or in denial of basic soil science.

However, that's just the pointy end of a very long stick;  it is common practice to assume that any Roman structure not made of stone must therefor made of "Turf", [Q.E.D.] [!], resulting in numerous "turf" forts and a second "Turf" wall in Scotland - none of which has a scintilla of evidence to support it. 

Experimental archaeology - racism in action.

"Experimental" Archaeology tells you a great deal about Academics and virtually nothing about the past.  Repeated attempts to reproduce "primitive" "African" mud huts in the UK in defiance of the archaeological evidence is a tribute to the persistence of ideas about Cultural Evolution.  These concepts, similar to those which fuelled the genocidal politics of National Socialism, and are a remarkable example of both the racism and science denial that is central to UK academic archaeology.  

Portrayal of our ancestors as some form of white negro is a perfect analogue of racial theory that drove British imperialism and the slave trade; this is theme I intend to pursue in future work. It is also evident from our shared our visual culture of the past, which having no evidential basis serves only to illuminate the racist presumptions of UK academic culture. 

Personally, I feel it important to try to preserve some of the intellectual culture that made our education some of the best in the world, but once you dumb it down I suspect that it's gone for good.

However, I intend to keep on going because in some countries, particularly in the USA and parts of Europe, archaeology is still treated as a serious academic subject and has not fallen victim to the cadre of mediocre racist science deniers who have infiltrated our education system. 

Notes.

[1] I refer explicitly in this case to Professor Niell Marshall - Former Post-graduate dean and enabler of Dr Jane Wester a self confessed "expert in Iron Age Building Cosmology".

While "Cosmology" is a big word [Neill],  so is "tautology" and it's criminal that you and your colleagues can't grasp such basic evidential principles, and cannot recognise or admit you are defrauding your students by faith based teaching. 

I retain a special affection for Professor Ian Haynes ["I wish I could help you Geoff, but I don't want to stabbed in the back by the people who stabbed, - I have my career to think about"], for his complicity in this duplicity.

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