From Mr Tim Clough
Sir: The extraordinary photograph on the cover of June's British
Archaeology, and Timothy Taylor's article, 'Uncovering the
prehistory of sex' (June) call to mind that splendid little ditty
which I think I first heard when I was an undergraduate student
of Stuart Piggott:
Diodorus Siculus
Any curator of social history will tell you that
early thimbles have holes in the top. Clearly the Bulgarians have
it wrong - the chap from Varna was not sowing seed: simply sewing!
Yours faithfully,
From Mr Paul Pettitt
Sir: I would like to offer an alternative interpretation of the 'Ice
Age dildoes'. Most Palaeolithic art that survives depicts food
- mainly the herbivores on which Palaeolithic societies depended.
I suggest that, far from being dildoes, the examples Dr Taylor
discusses are stylised fish.
Depictions of fish are plentiful
in the Palaeolithic. If one compares Dr Taylor's examples to known
engravings of fish - such as the salmon from the ceiling of the
Abri du Poisson, Dordogne, or the fish on a bone from Isturitz,
there is a similarity in the curve of the tailfins and taper of
the body. His 'double dildo' bears an engraved circle on the shorter
branch which may represent an eye. Furthermore, an engraving
of a fish on a baton from Goyet, Belgium, might be taken
for a phallus were it not for a similarly engraved eye.
Yours faithfully,
From Mr Max Adams
Sir: Bill Hanson's letter in response to my article ('Iron Age ridge
and furrow? So it seems', April; Letters, June) lends weight to
my argument that it is dangerous to assume an understanding of
complex landscapes just because they fit into common archaeological
preconceptions.
I speculate that the terraces and so-called ridge
and furrow on Haystack Hill may belong to an agricultural regime
predating the medieval period. This is not to say there are not
also structures on Haystack Hill which are later than its
first phase, and are possibly medieval (some of them are known
to have been in use in 1840, though relating to pastoral not arable
farming). Many other periods are also represented.
Bill Hanson
reinforces a dangerous set of assumptions - rectangular buildings
are medieval; ridge and furrow is medieval; round houses are prehistoric
or Romano-British. In the Cheviots we simply do not know, and
never will, if we do not continue to do fieldwork and ask questions.
The work of the University of Durham/ Northumberland National
Park project has already demonstrated the dangers of extrapolating
from a visible monument to the archaeology beneath it. An apparently
post-medieval field wall, for example, on excavation is shown
to lie directly over ard marks which in turn overlie several earlier
versions of the same boundary.
Of course the area represents a
palimpsest of landscape activity from the Neolithic to the present,
but its conscious layout under an arable then a pastoral system
could belong to any time between the late Iron Age and the medieval
period. I think it belongs better in an early period, but what
matters more is that we investigate it on first principles.
Yours sincerely,
From Ms Jarmila Dvor
Sir: I write in opposition to Norman Nail's letter (June) responding
to Peter James's article 'Updating the centuries of darkness'
(April). James does not, either in the book Centuries of Darkness
or in his article, deny the existence of 'dark ages'. What
he does oppose is the idea that there can be long periods in the
archaeological record when there is no evidence at all, or that
material culture can remain completely static for hundreds of
years. The main thrust of the book is that the dark ages which
came at the end of the Bronze Age should be shortened and redated.
This does not equate with a denial of the existence of a dark
age within this period as Mr Nail suggests.
In the book and article
Peter James quotes both experts and scientific dating to support
his theory. All these are dismissed by Mr Nail as 'arrant nonsense'.
This would seem to break the rule that facts cannot be ignored
simply because they disagree with your theory.
Yours sincerely,
From Mr Dennis Turner
Sir: I was a little saddened that Richard Morris could raise two cheers
for Protecting Our Heritage, the Green Paper from DNH and
the Welsh Office ('Two cheers for a tidy-up programme', July).
The Green Paper contains several photographs of neatly manicured
monuments in guardianship. It fails to take note of the vast majority
of scheduled standing ruins that are not in the care of EH/Cadw
or the NT. Several of these are in local authority ownership and
the Green Paper ignores the fact that current government policy
with regard to local authority finance makes it very difficult
for these authorities to look after their sites. Similarly, such
authorities and EH/Cadw find it impossible to help private owners
of such monuments in a realistic way. Similar strictures apply
to listed buildings.
Not all parts of the country have a satisfactory
museum service. Recent DNH cuts have rendered difficult the operation
of many museums and galleries that do exist. The problem of the
archaeological archive has yet to be addressed. None of these
questions finds mention in the Green Paper.
The Green Paper ignores
the way in which planning legislation is tilted in favour of
the developer. If an application for Listed Building Consent to
demolish is refused, this can be appealed against. If the refusal
is upheld on appeal, reapplication can be made again and again
until permission is granted. If an application to demolish is
granted, however, conservationists cannot appeal.
Nowhere did
I find reference to the relationship between our heritage and
scholarship. The Royal Commissions have never had sufficient resources
to fulfill their proper recording role in respect of listed building
demolitions. Recent cuts in the financing of the Royal Commissions
and in EH/Cadw publication grants will slow down the growth of
understanding.
Yours faithfully,
Return to the British Archaeology homepage
© Council for British Archaeology, 1996
Sex objects or not
Made himself ridiculous
By asserting thimbles
Were really phallic symbols.
TIM CLOUGH
Rutland County Museum, Oakham
14 June
PAUL PETTITT
University of Oxford
25 July
Do not assume
MAX ADAMS
University of Durham
13 June
Back to darkness
JARMILA DVORAKOVA
Prague
14 June
Unsafe heritage
DENNIS TURNER
Reigate
17 July
