From Mr Peter Topping
Sir: I was interested to read Gillian Varndell's response to your
article on the RCHME work at Grimes Graves and other Neolithic
flint mines (`Grimes Graves mined for ritual reasons', October;
Letters, December). While one realistically has to accept that
a degree of functionalism may have lain behind flint mining, it
is the range of non-functional features and deposits that suggest
that ceremonial or ritual formed a significant part of the extraction
process.
I concur with Mrs Varndell that taphonomic processes may be obscuring
the picture - possibly leading to the survival of relatively more
non-functional axes of mined flint than workaday tools of mined
flint. The identification of mined and nonmined flint lies at
the heart of the problem, but this cannot yet be done with certainty.
However, the main question is why Neolithic groups mined flint
at all, as surface deposits were readily available next to many
of the mines. The traditional suggestion that deep-mined flint
was valued for its workable qualities, allowing the production
of larger artefacts, cannot be upheld, as during the preceding
Mesolithic sizeable artefacts such as `Thames picks' were manufactured
without mined flint.
Yours sincerely,
From Mr Ken Hamilton
Sir: In his letter, `No to franchises' (February), Barry Horne
states that `amateurs have been quick to take advantage of competitive
tendering, as . . . they can undercut anyone - and why shouldn't
they? '
Groups drastically undercutting others by not paying their excavators
could signify the death of professional archaeology, returning
it to being a hobby of the rich, as the number of paid jobs decrease.
The number of students would decline, as potential students realise
archaeology is a job without pay and therefore without future.
This is not an attack on amateur archaeology, as I fully realise
the contribution it makes. But I urge that, if entering into competitive
tendering, amateur groups should pay workers fairly, therefore
keeping the market alive and ensuring a future for those wishing
a career in archaeology.
Yours sincerely,
From Mr Simon James
Sir: In his article, `Weaving the strands of a new Iron Age' (September),
JD Hill presented an excellent outline of the exciting new views
of the British Iron Age, which he has been in the forefront of
creating.
He is fully justified in attacking the old Classical-text-derived
image of an Iron Age dominated by warrior nobles, since archaeology
renders this largely untenable. However, implicitly he goes further.
There is a danger of inadvertently - or knowingly - replacing
warrior aristocrats with an equally romantic and misleading view
of Iron Age societies.
There seems a concern among many Iron Age archaeologists to play
down not only specialist warriors, but also the likely prevalence
of violence and warfare in general. Emphasising that the archaeological
record is overwhelmingly one of farming communities, and their
symbolic and ritual lives, rather than of warriors, may give the
impression that most Iron Age societies consisted of peace-loving
egalitarian peasants all, in Alexei Sayle's memorable phrase,
crocheting their own yoghurt.
At face value, most of the archaeology may be consistent with
this. Yet superficially the archaeology of Late Republican Roman
Italy appears equally pacific; there are no warrior-burials,
and precious few other military artefacts or monuments, other
than town walls which, like British hillforts, also had symbolic
as well as military aspects. However, documentary sources reveal
this to be the territory of one of the most warlike societies
in history.
There is no guarantee that archaeology will tell us clearly about
facets of society such as intra- and inter-communal violence.
Unambiguous, direct evidence rarely enters the archaeological
record. There is now an excessive tendency to explain away in
terms of symbolism and ritual those remains which probably do
relate to violent conflict instead - or as well. It is time to
reaffirm that hillforts do have a military aspect. Skeletons at Danebury
do have weapon injuries. There are arms in the East Yorkshire cemeteries, and so on.
Even quite egalitarian farming communities can be fighters too, as the 16th and 17th century
history of the Iroquois clearly shows. (And significantly, Iroquois
archaeology also produces little evidence which would lead one
to deduce their well-attested and fearsome military reputation.)
Most, perhaps all, societies exhibit varying kinds and degrees
of interpersonal violence, and we need to keep this in mind as
a highly probable component of life among Iron Age communities.
Yours faithfully,
From Dr Alison Sheridan
Sir: It is most regrettable that Tim SchadlaHall, in his anti-
national museums letter (`Treasure for all', February), has not
seen fit to acquaint himself with the facts about Treasure Trove
allocations in Scotland.
Here are the figures. In 1808-1956, all but three allocations
in Scotland were to the national museum, for the very good reason
that it was, for much of this time, the only professionally staffed
and properly resourced museum in Scotland. In 1970-1986, half
the allocations were to the national museum. In 1986-1990, 30
per cent were to the national museum (excluding allocations in
its capacity as local museum for much of the Lothians). In 1990-1996,
the figure was 18 per cent excluding `local' allocations.
The material allocated to regional and local museums can hardly
be described as inconsequential, since it has included objects
of national significance.
The question of whether there is `great concern' about the operation
of the Scottish system is a matter for debate, since the Scottish
Office (who now have overall control of the system) have received
no submissions expressing such concern, other than the material
submitted by Perth Museum (Letters, November).
What is lacking from discussions over allocations is a reasoned
and sensible debate about the relative roles of museums at the
local, regional and national level. Schadla-Hall's bald statement
that `there really is no case . . . for not distributing archaeological
finds closer to the areas in which they were found' is symptomatic
of a tub-thumping school of thought which is unwilling to consider,
let alone acknowledge, that larger museums do have a meaningful
role.
Yours sincerely,
Return to the British Archaeology homepage
© Council for British Archaeology, 1997
Grimes Graves
PETER TOPPING
RCHME, Cambridge
10 January
Amateurs and pay
KEN HAMILTON
Bradford
6 February
Iron Age warfare
SIMON JAMES
University of Durham
8 January
Scottish treasure
ALISON SHERIDAN
Treasure Trove Advisory Panel
National Museums of Scotland
13 February