5th October 2011, 10:08 PM
GnomeKing Wrote:never mind that : Jack is spot on;
"....the settlement was probably abandoned and the enclosure ditch in-filled by the late 1st century AD and hence probably fell out of use during or soon after the Roman advance into the region."
of course how the 'Roman Advance' is defined is another matter....occupation, alliance, trade, ideas...concrete social process, not applied retrospective terminology...
...and without much insight into the fineries of muddy scraps of 'RB' pottery maybe I will still need some easily communicative Name for them...
(but Jack is right)
I'm sure he is but it's a genuine question. Where do you draw the line in removing all/any context to the dating of things? Also, where do you pin the starting point, and if terms such as Romano-British are useless, what do you propose to use. CE, BCE? Aren't those simply veneers over the same concept?
As for needing easily communicative names, doesn't that put things right back to the starting point? I'm concerned that replacing one kind of naming system for another will permit intrusions from people with modern political/cultural agendas to dictate things. Roman advance will become Roman invasion.... and so on.
Prime practitioner of headology, with a side order of melting glass with a stern glare.