15th January 2008, 02:21 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by tom wilson
Quote:quote:Originally posted by achingknees
The young (sic) detectorist made a very valid point when discussing the nature of Viking archaeology. To paraphrase - they didn't mess up the ground as much as in other periods. Not stated in the most academic way, but so what?!
Actually that was a rather ignorant point, as he was comparing Vikings with the likely creators of a ring ditch. Vikings did use foundations, and they dug plenty of holes for other purposes too.
I used 'young' as a relative identifier. I should have followed Gumbo's term of 'younger' I guess. Age is relative, as is pedantry.
I wouldn't call it an ignorant point. Of course Vikings may have dug pits, foundations etc etc in certain contexts. However, even in major urban centres such as Jorvik the structural remains are pretty flimsy. They were also able to build structures that left little archaeological trace, such as using turf. You have to remember that much Viking activity could have been transitory - tents leave very little trace. Seasonal meeting places (trading?) would not have large timber halls.
I live and work in Mercia, where there is an abundance of evidence for Viking settlement in terms of place names and material culture. Very little (if any) evidence for pits, structures etc etc. I think that was what the young[u]er</u> chap might have been alluding to. His delivery might have been awkward, in a north-eastern, working class accent, but that is not a sign of ignorance.
Quick acid test around the office, full of local archies. 'OK from memory name ten famous British sites of the Palaeolithic period'(insert succeeding culture historic period thereafter). Guess which period came off worse?
I know...Jorvik, Sutton Hoo, that Orcadian site, that one on Time Team last night(?) errr...