From Mr Joe Hillaby
Sir: It was reassuring to find debate beginning on the nature of the `Guildford chamber'
(Letters, October). John Schofield suggests it may have been
a rear porch. However, the two doorways do not align and that on the south east is of much
poorer, later workmanship than that on the north west.
He asks whether private synagogues were entered from outside. The answer is yes. One was only a
few steps from the home of the Museum of London Archaeology Service. An inquest of 1278
determined that Hagin, archpresbyter of the Jews 1257-80, had `ingress into, passage through, and
regress' from his capital messuage, which extended between Ironmonger Lane and Colechurch Lane
(Old Jewry), `as far as the synagogue in [his son] Cok's houses'. These latter lay to the north,
abutting Catte (Gresham) Street, for access was by a `postern' on Cok's southern boundary.
Evidence relating to this, and other London synagogues, was published four years ago in `London:
the 13th-century Jewry revisited', Jewish Hist Studies 32, pp 89-158. Incidentally, Isaac
of Southwark's predecessor will be found there as well, on the London tallage roll of 1239.
David Bird correctly draws attention to the importance of Guildford Castle. Indeed it belonged
to that small number of castles where the fabric was maintained continuously throughout the
Norman and Angevin periods by the Crown. This is not surprising as it lay halfway on the route
from London to Winchester, the new and old capitals. Further, it was the administrative centre
not only of Surrey but also of Sussex. The area beyond was emparked by Henry II. In such sites,
the `people of importance' with `interests' there who, unlike the royal officials, lived not
inside but outside the castle were the Jews - as financial agents of the Crown. It was from this
castle that Henry II issued the draconian Guildford tallage on the English Jewry in 1186.
Finally, a word of tribute to the Guildford Museum Archaeology Unit and to John Boas in
particular. Without his keen nose for a significant site there would be no debate today. Such
voluntary groups with a shrewd local knowledge, persistent application and welcome enthusiasm
still have a vital role to play. Let the debate on their discovery, and on Guildford's role in
12th and 13th century England which it has fostered, flourish.
Yours faithfully,
From Mr Mark Bowden
Sir: I would not disagree with the central point made by Simon James regarding the endemic nature
of violence and warfare in the British Iron Age (Letters,
March). It remains true, however, that the symbolic aspects of Iron Age life were desperately
under-estimated until comparatively recently. There is no need to `reaffirm that hillforts do
have a military aspect'. Those of us who have suggested that more thought should be given to the
non-military aspects of hillforts have never (well, only for a couple of seconds) denied that
most hillforts have an underlying defensive purpose. Yet there remain a few sites with
ramparts of hillfort dimensions which, because of their topographic location, cannot seriously
be considered defensive. We have to come to terms with these sites somehow.
Yours faithfully,
From Mr Mick Cuddeford
Sir: The evidence of combat damage on Bronze Age weapons (`The
first weapons devised only for war', March) neatly accords with Simon James's letter, in the
same issue, reaffirming the probability of early warfare. To discount warfare as a major part of
prehistoric experience - as many archaeologists have done - is to ignore the evidence of
anthropology.
Human societies function in fairly similar ways. Territorial behaviour is a dictate of nature.
When distinct tribal groups of humans compete for resources, they inevitably fight. Given the
landscape and material evidence we have of Britain in the 1st millennium BC, it would be
incredible if warfare had not been a major aspect of those times, all within a pastoral and
ritualistic mode of life.
Yours sincerely,
From Prof John Hunter
Sir: I am sorry, but not surprised, that your correspondent Neil Faulkner sees fit to question
the validity of forensic archaeology as a specific discipline
(Letters, February). A few years ago I would probably have
agreed with him on the misconception that it involved no more than the straightforward
application of archaeological techniques to police work. Since then, I and several others have
experienced otherwise.
The nature of scene-of-crime protocols and processes, the techniques and timescales of recovery,
the questions asked of the excavator, the type of evidence, and the requirement to work closely
with a range of non-archaeological specialists within the tight confines of a judicial system all
make for a very different type of `archaeology'. I think I would find Mr Faulkner's definition
of archaeology as a `humane discipline concerned with the study of the past' of little comfort
to me when being cross-examined by a slick barrister in a Crown Court.
Forensic archaeology is here to stay as an area of practice in its own right. All of us who work
in archaeology have the responsibility to broaden its application and widen its public appeal.
The British Archaeological Award for forensic archaeology to which Mr Faulkner seems to take
exception was welcome recognition of that, and for the growing number of people (not just me) who
have helped to achieve it.
Yours faithfully,
From Ms Helen Davies
Sir: I was interested to read your article `Erosion places
coastal sites in danger' (March), and the point made that `lack of time and money has meant
that few coastal sites have been properly recorded'.
It must be the case that lack of time and money means that many sites, not only coastal but also
inland, are not being properly recorded. And yet there are many people, not professional
archaeologists but who are qualified, knowledgeable, enthusiastic, ready to give their time and
to finance themselves, whose help would be of the greatest benefit to the archaeological
community. Could not a great deal more use be made of local archaeological groups and individuals
by seconding them to undertake relevant work?
Yours sincerely,
Return to the British Archaeology homepage
© Council for British Archaeology, 1997
Synagogues again
JOE HILLABY
The Great Doward,
Herefordshire
16 March
Iron Age life
MARK BOWDEN
RCHME
Swindon
12 March
MICK CUDDEFORD
Chelmsford
10 March
Forensic award
JOHN HUNTER
University of Birmingham
4 March
Time for helpers
HELEN DAVIES
Guildford
17 March