3rd October 2011, 01:08 PM
To paraphrase Dominic Powlesland at a recent talk (second hand unfortunately)..
'...There is no Iron Age, no Romano-British, no Anglo-Saxon.......is all just boll*&x...there is just people.'
The divisions we see are a product of looking at time in compressed chunks and through eyes masked by typology.
The term Romano-British was used to steer away from native sites (and features) being called Roman and hence implying the presence of Romans. But in dating terms its meaningless. Take the example of the River Don at around AD 70. According to (very few and dubious) written evidence, the River Don marked the southern boundary of the Brigantian Confederacy of tribes. The Brigantes were allied to Rome until a civil war caused the Roman Advance into the north around AD 71.
So taking this as 'True' a settlement dated to the early 1st century AD north of the Don would be Iron Age, but south of the River would be Romano-British...urk!
But the deeper you look into the so-called documentary evidence, dating, pottery, cultural change etc..etc.., the worse it gets!
But I agree with Dino.....the terms native and Roman are current.............as is much debate on theories on ethnicity, how it is perceived (from all directions), how it changes and how this relates to material culture and hence archaeological remains.
At the current state of archaeology I'd be very cautious! One important point (made above) is that the answers are very regionally based, there is a massive difference in the archaeological record between different regions.
Also for stuff on material culture/identity and creolization see.....
James, J. and Millet, M. (2001) Britons and Romans: advancing an archaeological agenda. Council for British Archaeology Research Report 125
'...There is no Iron Age, no Romano-British, no Anglo-Saxon.......is all just boll*&x...there is just people.'
The divisions we see are a product of looking at time in compressed chunks and through eyes masked by typology.
The term Romano-British was used to steer away from native sites (and features) being called Roman and hence implying the presence of Romans. But in dating terms its meaningless. Take the example of the River Don at around AD 70. According to (very few and dubious) written evidence, the River Don marked the southern boundary of the Brigantian Confederacy of tribes. The Brigantes were allied to Rome until a civil war caused the Roman Advance into the north around AD 71.
So taking this as 'True' a settlement dated to the early 1st century AD north of the Don would be Iron Age, but south of the River would be Romano-British...urk!
But the deeper you look into the so-called documentary evidence, dating, pottery, cultural change etc..etc.., the worse it gets!
But I agree with Dino.....the terms native and Roman are current.............as is much debate on theories on ethnicity, how it is perceived (from all directions), how it changes and how this relates to material culture and hence archaeological remains.
At the current state of archaeology I'd be very cautious! One important point (made above) is that the answers are very regionally based, there is a massive difference in the archaeological record between different regions.
Also for stuff on material culture/identity and creolization see.....
James, J. and Millet, M. (2001) Britons and Romans: advancing an archaeological agenda. Council for British Archaeology Research Report 125