03-02-2010, 01:12 PM
The story so far ...
Unfortunately, as I tried to point out before, you have made several mistaken assumptions, which you have now repeated.
(1) Johnson: I have explained the difference between an academic bibliography and an Osprey Further Reading list. Sadly, it seems that you want to force me into having drawn upon a book which you evidently admire, but which doesn't appear in my Further Reading section, and (as I have said) upon which I have not drawn during the writing of Roman Auxiliary Forts. I don't know why you feel that it is important to deny those plain facts.
(2) Stables: I have explained that, although archaeologists have always tried to identify stables in Roman forts, the realisation that cavalrymen actually shared accommodation with their horses is a relatively new one, and stems directly from recent work at Wallsend. Johnson was not psychic; she could not have known what exciting discoveries would be made at Wallsend. This means that, unfortunately, her plan of the fort is out-of-date; for a better one, see Roman Auxiliary Forts p. 48, which shows the crucial soakaway pits in the barrack rooms. (Also, Brian Delf has created a splendid full-colour reconstruction of this feature on p. 50, Plate E.)
Anyone who thinks that Johnson "refers to the combined barrack/stable at the second century Fort at Dormagen in Germany" is mistaken. Although it turned out that such a combined barrack/stable existed at Dormagen, in 1983 it was still usual to interpret the (only fragmentarily known) building as a stable. With the benefit of hindsight, we can see that Brough-on-Noe probably has the same arrangement, but no-one would have guessed this in 1983. These seemed to be stables, not the combined barrack/stable that we now recognise.
(3) Annexes: I have pointed to the existence of fort annexes as perhaps relevant to the subject of animal husbandry. You replied that "Johnson mentions the fact that in many cases the cavalry mounts and pack animals may well have been corralled outside the fort". Sadly, you have refused to supply a page reference, even after I admitted that I cannot find such a statement in the book, and it cannot be traced using the index. (That, in itself, rings warning bells in a reference book.)
The point is trivial, in any case, as your goal seems to be either to demonstrate that I have used Johnson's book (when I clearly have not), or to demonstrate that Johnson's book is up-to-date (when, imho, it is not).
(4) Women: As an aside, I mentioned that Roman Auxiliary Forts includes a section on women in forts ... a topic of no relevance to mules or stables, I hasten to add. By now fervently defending Johnson against every imagined slight, you announced that she has "more" on this, but again you have refused to cite the page reference. (Advising someone to read a 300-page book that they don't want to read is not very helpful.)
And that's pretty much it. For some reason, you have accused me of "attempts to disparage earlier works", and feel the need to "defend other works from your unjustified and false/incorrect criticism" (er, let's have some perspective ... I called a 1983 book "out-of-date"). And if you imagine that that constitutes "falsely criticising earlier, more comprehensive work by a respected scholar in order to further one's own commercial gain", then I beg to differ. Nor do I think I have "unfairly maligned" her book, and certainly not "for commercial reasons".
Perhaps, in the interests of this thread, we could agree that Johnson has nothing to contribute on the subject of "where did they keep the mules?"
Quote:I realise now that, when I claimed that Anne Johnson's 1983 book is out-of-date, I should have added "imho". Then I could have saved several lengthy rebuttals. Dear RAT readers, I apologise for omitting those crucial letters.Byron:1x6wr0m1 Wrote:Apparently it has been used to identify the location where horses were kept, i.e. in the same building as the cavelrymen.Of course, that's in a permanent fort site, Byron. You'll find details in my Roman Auxiliary Forts book (but not in the very out-of-date fort books by Roger Wilson and Anne Johnson, that were advertised on another thread).
Quote:I have neither ‘critiqued’ nor ‘reviewed’ your work, beyond agreeing with Jona that it represented an “excellent introduction” to the subject – I have only mentioned it in passing whilst defending Ms Johnson’s work from your mistaken accusations of being ‘out-of-date’ in comparison to your more recent booklet.[/i]Thank you very much for that ringing endorsement of the Osprey Roman Auxiliary Forts book.
Unfortunately, as I tried to point out before, you have made several mistaken assumptions, which you have now repeated.
(1) Johnson: I have explained the difference between an academic bibliography and an Osprey Further Reading list. Sadly, it seems that you want to force me into having drawn upon a book which you evidently admire, but which doesn't appear in my Further Reading section, and (as I have said) upon which I have not drawn during the writing of Roman Auxiliary Forts. I don't know why you feel that it is important to deny those plain facts.
(2) Stables: I have explained that, although archaeologists have always tried to identify stables in Roman forts, the realisation that cavalrymen actually shared accommodation with their horses is a relatively new one, and stems directly from recent work at Wallsend. Johnson was not psychic; she could not have known what exciting discoveries would be made at Wallsend. This means that, unfortunately, her plan of the fort is out-of-date; for a better one, see Roman Auxiliary Forts p. 48, which shows the crucial soakaway pits in the barrack rooms. (Also, Brian Delf has created a splendid full-colour reconstruction of this feature on p. 50, Plate E.)
Anyone who thinks that Johnson "refers to the combined barrack/stable at the second century Fort at Dormagen in Germany" is mistaken. Although it turned out that such a combined barrack/stable existed at Dormagen, in 1983 it was still usual to interpret the (only fragmentarily known) building as a stable. With the benefit of hindsight, we can see that Brough-on-Noe probably has the same arrangement, but no-one would have guessed this in 1983. These seemed to be stables, not the combined barrack/stable that we now recognise.
(3) Annexes: I have pointed to the existence of fort annexes as perhaps relevant to the subject of animal husbandry. You replied that "Johnson mentions the fact that in many cases the cavalry mounts and pack animals may well have been corralled outside the fort". Sadly, you have refused to supply a page reference, even after I admitted that I cannot find such a statement in the book, and it cannot be traced using the index. (That, in itself, rings warning bells in a reference book.)
The point is trivial, in any case, as your goal seems to be either to demonstrate that I have used Johnson's book (when I clearly have not), or to demonstrate that Johnson's book is up-to-date (when, imho, it is not).
(4) Women: As an aside, I mentioned that Roman Auxiliary Forts includes a section on women in forts ... a topic of no relevance to mules or stables, I hasten to add. By now fervently defending Johnson against every imagined slight, you announced that she has "more" on this, but again you have refused to cite the page reference. (Advising someone to read a 300-page book that they don't want to read is not very helpful.)
And that's pretty much it. For some reason, you have accused me of "attempts to disparage earlier works", and feel the need to "defend other works from your unjustified and false/incorrect criticism" (er, let's have some perspective ... I called a 1983 book "out-of-date"). And if you imagine that that constitutes "falsely criticising earlier, more comprehensive work by a respected scholar in order to further one's own commercial gain", then I beg to differ. Nor do I think I have "unfairly maligned" her book, and certainly not "for commercial reasons".
Perhaps, in the interests of this thread, we could agree that Johnson has nothing to contribute on the subject of "where did they keep the mules?"
