Re: Archaeological dating methods, was: ARCHAEOLOGY VERSUS TACITUS' AGRICOLA was to Paul Burke Re: Grænlendinga þáttur

From: Doug Weller (dweller_at_ramtops.removethisdemon.co.uk)
Date: 03/19/05 

Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 07:02:13 +0000

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 02:25:07 GMT, in sci.archaeology, I.E_Johansson wrote:

>
>"Doug Weller" <dweller@ramtops.removethisdemon.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
>news:ch5m319tb553tun5v0po4hu4cl3ktr74kq@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 07:13:17 GMT, in sci.archaeology, I.E_Johansson wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Doug Weller" <dweller@ramtops.removethisdemon.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
>> >news:73rk31toe4mn4j2dbpal4pajmvh9nko3h3@4ax.com...
>> >> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 23:33:17 GMT, in sci.archaeology, I.E_Johansson
>wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"Doug Weller" <dweller@ramtops.removethisdemon.co.uk> skrev i
>meddelandet
>> >> >news:up0k315fk0tlj932sjpqs8cmpgo9o5bqvm@4ax.com...
>> >> >> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 21:58:48 GMT, in sci.archaeology, I.E_Johansson
>> >wrote:
>> >> >> [SNIP]
>> >> >> > Many of the Roman sites in England have been dated
>> >> >> >using comparing methods - this or that type of pottery, mosaic etc.
>> >Very
>> >> >few
>> >> >> >have been presented with C14 dating from every single layer and
>every
>> >> >part
>> >> >> >of a building.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I doubt that you have evidence for this, but in any case, why would
>you
>> >> >> expect C14 dating to be more accurate than dating using artistic
>style
>> >or
>> >> >> pottery type? I note you don't mention coins.
>> >> >
>> >> >Lets start with the last thing first. OK?
>> >> >I didn't mention coins because what a coin gives is the earliest
>possible
>> >> >time when exactly that there are over it could have been made given
>that
>> >you
>> >> >aren't dealing with mixed layer due to too deep agricultural activity
>> >then
>> >> >it could as you yourself in an alike situation pointed out been placed
>> >there
>> >> >anywhere between that date and now.
>> >>
>> >> The correct terminology for what you are referring to is terminus post
>> >> quem, ('the end after which'. Not all Roman ruins in Britain are found
>in
>> >> agricultural areas and of course anything dated by C14 could have the
>same
>> >> problems you mention.
>> >> >
>> >> >Why I expect C-14 to give better information than pottery. I thought
>you
>> >> >were a scholar of science. Could be wrong you know. Anyhow C-14
>> >definitely
>> >> >give better dating than artistic work, pottery or such. I personally
>hold
>> >> >dendrocronology when it's possible to be more accurate but as some
>> >pointed
>> >> >out the other day it depends on the areas where the tree grow. Could
>in
>> >some
>> >> >cases be hard to establish the 'year-rings'. My supervisor for the
>> >C-essay,
>> >> >Vattenvägarna in mot Roxen i äldre tider, Jan Eriksson has always been
>> >> >specialist in dendrocronology and thus I might have been influenced by
>> >him.
>> >>
>> >> Since you would be lucky to get C14 dating that is even as accurate as
>> >> giving you a date with a 95% probability error of being within 100
>years,
>> >> and you might well have an error range of several centuries, I don't
>think
>> >> you've made a case.
>> >
>> > On the contrary I have. First of all I doubt that most scholars working
>> >with C-14 dating would accept your probablity assumptions, but let us
>leave
>> >that for the moment. You actually proven my point - no matter we don't
>agree
>> >upon C-14.
>> >Please explain how you possibly could have known that a house we call
>Roman
>> >House(no matter if it was owned by a Roman or an upperclass Englishman
>> >trying to live Roman style life) was built by Roman workers and when if
>it
>> >hadn't been for the written sources proving that the Romans got to
>England
>> >and when?
>>
>> Roman workers? House? How about Legionary fortresses? Hadrian's wall?
>> Hadrian's column (ok, but it's relevant)? Roman roads? Which of these
>> require textual evidence to prove a Roman presence?
>
>How would you possibly been able to prove that they were Roman made if you
>hadn't had the written sources? Please try to prove it if you can. Remember
>that you have to prove that it's not diffusion one way or an other if you
>should rule out every written source that prove that the Romans invaded
>Britain.
>You can't prove it from coins.

I never said you could. You seem to have problems understanding what I
wrote.

There have been many Roman solidi found
>outside Roman Empire on European Continent. You can't use your fort and
>fortress theory. In Östergötland there are many fort and fortress ruins or
>partremains which within 20 to 50 years changed the mortar contents same way
>the Romans did and also changed the construction way.... You can't use
>agricultural artifacts as seed because the same change to new seeds happened
>in Östergötland Sweden where the Romans never came. You can't use Hadrians
>wall because alike construction been found, ok the dating has been discussed
>back and forth over the last 50 years due to very diverging C-14 readings,
>in Östergötland - Östgötavirke called man to man.
>sources:
>Bolin Sture, Ur penningens historia, Lund 1962
>Ekholm Gunnar, Romersk import i Norden, Uppsala 1974
>Göransson H, The Flandrian Vegetational history of southern Östergötland,
>Lund 1977
>Hyenstrand, Åke, Fasta fornlämningar och arkeologiska regioner. Stockholm
>RAÄ 1984.
>Kaliff Anders, Östergötland - ett landskap växer fram, Tor 24, Uppsala 1992
>Lind Lennart, Romerska denarer funna i Sverige, Stockholm 1988
>Loos Wiggo, Östergötland, ur STF:s Tusen sevärdheter i Sverige, Stockholm
>1960 sid 149
>Modéer, Ivar, Färdvägar och sjö-märken vid Nordens kuster. Uppsala 1936.
>Möller Olof, Det forntida Tjust, ur Västerviks stads historia, Gamleby 1983
>Oxenstierna Eric, Die ältere Eisenzeit in Östergötland, Lidingö 1958
>Pettersson Harald, Från Norra Kalmar län för länge sedan, Västervik 1973
>Ridderstad Anton, Historiskt, geografiskt och statistiskt lexikon öfver
>Östergötland, del I, Norrköping 1875-76
>Romdahl Axel L, Östergötland i historien, ur Östergötland utgiven av Östgöta
>Nation, Stockholm 1937
>Stale Harald, ur Meddelande Tjustbygdens kulturhistoriska förening,
>Västervik 1970
>Widgren Mats, Settlement and farming systems in the early Iron Age,
>Stockholm 1983
>
>You will have a hard time proving that the Romans invaded England if you are
>to do it without written sources. But of course I look forward for your
>proofs.

You obviously wouldn't understand them. This is a stupid discussion as
you are arguing for a network of Roman roads in Britain not built by
Romans, ditto the camps and forts, the Roman temples and arenas and
basilicas, the Roman artefacts associated with their army, everything, is
all somehow not proof of a Roman presence (and invasion).

>
>Inger E
>
>>
>> Doug
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Of course I know of the problem when C-14 without calibration(but also
>> >with
>> >> >depending on many factors).
>> >>
>> >> Without calibration it's useless. I'm referring to with calibration.
>Most
>> >> dating methods have problems, the best thing to do is to use several
>and
>> >> not rely on one particular one -- although dendro is very good and can
>be
>> >> very reliable in the right circumstances.
>> >>
>> >> Never the less the C-14 dating is much more
>> >> >'specific' than any kind of artistic or pottery comparing methods.
>First
>> >of
>> >> >all the later needs that you have got correct value for the first one
>to
>> >> >which others been compared. That's definitely not always so. Then you
>> >have
>> >> >to admit that neither you, I nor anyone else knows if a specific type
>of
>> >> >pottery were produced before artifact x which has been used to compare
>> >with
>> >> >and how long after that type was done. We only know what have been
>found,
>> >> >not what's under soil in unexcavated areas. Compared with written
>> >> >documentation that type of dating sucks, which C-14 don't no matter
>the
>> >> >problems involved.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Last days I have looked at some films from excavations of
>> >> >> >Roman Houses, Roman Fort etc in England up to Hadrian's wall. I
>can't
>> >say
>> >> >> >that I would realy on any of the Roman period specialist
>> >archaeologists
>> >> >in
>> >> >> >cases where both Tacitus and other contemporary with Agricula give
>> >other
>> >> >> >dating.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Snicker. It's fascinating that you can judge archaeologists by
>looking
>> >at
>> >> >> films of excavations, but not surprising that you don't like them.
>> >> >
>> >> >I have been on excavations, many times, talked about the excavations
>of
>> >> >Roman houses and such in England them I never seen directly. I thought
>I
>> >had
>> >> >made it clear to you long ago that I have worked together with
>> >> >archaeologists. In three of my jobs as well as when writing my C-essay
>> >and
>> >> >the D-essay/thesis I worked with and had help by archaeologists. I had
>to
>> >> >because some of the needed validation wasn't mine to make nor was it
>my
>> >MA
>> >> >friends. It took more knowledge for some of it.
>> >> So your claim that looking at films led you to the conclusion that you
>> >> wouldn't rely on 'Roman period specialist archaeologists' isn't in
>fact
>> >> the case.. It was what we call a red herring. And you haven't read any
>> >> detailed publications from British Romano-British specialists dealing
>with
>> >> the matter. Ok.
>> >
>> >No. I don't claim the films to have led me to anything more than
>confirming
>> >the consensus in discussions in Imperial Rome or what friends and others
>who
>> >have participate in excavations related to the Roman Age already have
>said.
>> >But the films sure did confirm their points in these issues...
>> >
>> >Inger E
>> >>
>> >> Doug>Inger E
>> >> >>
>> >> >> [snip]
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Doug
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Doug Weller -- exorcise the demon to reply
>> >> >> Doug & Helen's Dogs http://www.dougandhelen.com
>> >> >> A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at
>http://www.hallofmaat.com
>> >> >> Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Doug Weller -- exorcise the demon to reply
>> >> Doug & Helen's Dogs http://www.dougandhelen.com
>> >> A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
>> >> Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Doug Weller -- exorcise the demon to reply
>> Doug & Helen's Dogs http://www.dougandhelen.com
>> A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
>> Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
>>
>>
> 

-- 
Doug Weller -- exorcise the demon to reply
Doug & Helen's Dogs http://www.dougandhelen.com
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk