Ö÷²¥´óÐã

Ancient and Archaeology  permalink

Ancient rubble and stuff

• Message 1. 

  Posted by Priscilla (U14315550) on Friday, 28th October 2011

  The fortress walls hastily built - from a new slave pool I suppose ,at the fall of Constantinople are a fascinating site of grinding stones, bits of Greek and Roman columns, statues and so on. Likewise many rural church buildings and exposed castle wall infill reveal traces of ealier habitation. even to the casual eye.
  Several of our local churches reveal Roman brick. And I recall someone finding a barn step made from a Roman conduit not far from a relevant dig, and so on.
  Is there any serious study done of this sort of archaeology?
  
  Regards, P.

  Link to this forum: Ancient rubble and stuff

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Friday, 28th October 2011

  In a word, P, yes. The incorporation of older material in a structure should always be considered very carefully and its interpretation given.
  Sometimes it is purely utilitarian or even accidental, just a convenient use of available material. Here's one one that I'm familiar with
  
  where the stone appears to have been used simply as another stone in the wall with no consideration of its significance. Rubble in buildings is not dissimilar to middens in the information it gives about social practices and the values assigned to the past, in the past.
  
  On the other hand, the component parts of an earlier structure can be deployed symbolically as here.(it's not my picture, I have no idea who the child is but it shows what I mean,I have some of my own which are internal to the building but I can't post a link, )
  
  The remnants of the Roman temple are used in a way that manifests the conquest of paganism by Christianity and are deliberately left visible to affirm this.
  Reuse of older material can also be a way of appropriating the status and significance of the older structure and where they are placed can indicate this, an obvious example being the blue stones at Stonehenge.
  

  Link to this forum: Ancient rubble and stuff

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Friday, 28th October 2011

  Hi Priscilla
  
  I'm not sure where in the world you live but in England Roman stone and brick recycled into Anglo-Saxon and Medieval churches is common. The nearer you are to a major Roman site the commoner it is, naturally, but when you know what to look for spotting even small amounts of Roman masonry is not difficult.
  
  Recycling continued after this period. I can think of two medieval churches with Norman doors and the scientific dating of bricks has shown a few examples of early medieval bricks in later medieval buildings.
  
  Occasionally the opposite is true. The older building is retained and new material incorporated into the structure. Ferval will know of IA brochs in Atlantic Scotland with later wheelhouses constructed inside them. The broch at the major IA site of Old Scatness, Shetland has a wheelhouse constructed inside it, and then an even later Pictish cellular structure inside that!
  
  The question Ferval poses about the significance of the recycling is very important. It is hard to believe that the church wasn't making a statement when it moved much of Roman Corbridge to Hexham Abbey or much of Binchester to Escomb. But we don't know this for certain. There are good secular reasons for recycling too!
  
  TP

  Link to this forum: Ancient rubble and stuff

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by Priscilla (U14315550) on Friday, 28th October 2011

  Thank you both for info. Does any one actually pot about recording this kind of thing.
  
  Colchester Castle has no outer stone shell - it being Essex I suppose it was nicked for anothe project. I hear hey have a massive grant for a refit - internal that would be but thoug I have next got close to the walls the exposed infill looks interesting.
  
  A few years back, and snooping down on a neighbour's new building work at the bottom of their garden, I saw a small digger lifting out masses of stone pieces from about 6ft down. By the time I could get close enough it had been removed - exceptionally quickly too for this part of the world, and the lorry gone.. The workmen were not going to talk about it, either. Later I asked the owner.
  
  We know of nothing that was ever built there and the workmen shrugged it off.
  Now my locale has established prehistory links and the position of our homes screams out that it once had relative site importance.
  
  I suppose that much gets moved thus or goes unrecorded. I would not make a good archaeologist because my imagination is far too lateral.
  
  Regards, P

  Link to this forum: Ancient rubble and stuff

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Friday, 28th October 2011

  I would not make a good archaeologist because my imagination is far too lateral. 
  Quite the reverse, P, that's exactly the kind of imagination you'd need.
  Your suspicions about the rapid removal of the stone may be well founded; if they were significant and reported then the resultant archaeological assessment and its possible outcome are exactly what a developer doesn't want. Expensive and very time consuming!
  I've got an old rockery in my garden and several of the stones have slots and sockets in them, clearly demolition material from another building although not particularly old, they appear machine cut, but I'd love to know their stories.
  I've got some interesting old bricks round the back as well, TP!

  Link to this forum: Ancient rubble and stuff

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 31st October 2011

  The location of the Viking cemetery in Dublin has long eluded archaeology. For all the hundreds of thousands of artefacts from the period which have been excavated there are almost no human remains excepting some scant evidence from within the city boundary (illegal deaths and/or burials most likeley) and the more notable warrior burials three miles upriver (which are presumed to predate Dublin's rise as a Viking trade hub).
  
  We do know however that the likely sites for such an installation are limited - given that traditiion would place this area not too far from the city defences and on ground high enough to avoid elluvial flooding.
  
  Which is why I was aghast when informed (with considerable pride) by a fellow traveller on a double-decker bus as it inched its way past a then newly constructed office block on Dame Street, that upon digging the building's foundations and the discovery that as much bone was coming out of the ground as earth, and on the realisation that the introduction of the police (or even worse the "archie meddlists" as he called them) would mean the building might not go up at all and he'd be out of his foreman's job, promptly switched the excavation to day-and-night-digging and the pouring of concrete into the pit was achieved three weeks ahead of schedule.

  Link to this forum: Ancient rubble and stuff

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 6.

  Posted by Priscilla (U14315550) on Monday, 31st October 2011

  Similarly, a retired history teacher told me that on telling someone in a pub about where he used to live, the man smiled and said 'Oh that Battle place'
  
  He meant the Battle of Maldon. He added that he was a bit ashamed because when bringing out gravel from a pit, he did as ordered when relics of bones, bits of weapons and such were unearthed. The place he mentioned coincides with all the local theories about where the battle was and where the Vikongs camped- not the celebrated site but between the hill and the a village called Heybridge.
  
  My mother lived near there and spoke of how the 'oldens' of the locale always said that 'them experts' got it wrong. Many local historians were of their opinion too., I came to find out. However in came t'hem experts' who made some assumptions and it is as if the matter is closed - but they offered no substantial proof.
  
  Sadly now challenging proof is lost and the oldens all dead. Those oldens knew the lay of the land far better than visiting historians,. They knew of many changes in the river course and recounted tales of other causeways and fords and wooden bridges as was handed down through family tales. Local families there often were long rooted in their environs until quite recently. Sometimes they spoke of ancient times as if they were yesterday. No experts ever asked them and now it is too late and in the rush for yet more building we are losing so much useful material.
  
  Regards, P.
  
  
  
  

  Link to this forum: Ancient rubble and stuff

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by Priscilla (U14315550) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2011

  And with horror I read today that someone is seeking to build where the locals think the above mentioned Battle took place. There are protestors but they will lose out.
  
  A local village council has just given permission for 'vegetation' to be removed from a real eyesore of a small housing development. The vegetation is a beautiful tree.
  
  I hope someone there saw that tiny bit of print in the local rag - but probably too late by now. I bet the chain saw was out that night.
  
  Regards P.

  Link to this forum: Ancient rubble and stuff

  Report message8

Back to top