07-20-2011, 01:24 AM
Well, I've just listened to it and I have to wonder what planet Manda Scott is living on - has Pioneer 12 reached it yet?
Her constant use of the words 'us' and 'we' when talking of (her version of) the various ancient British tribes demonstrates a worrying level of self delusion in her view of iron age Britain. To identify so closely with a people (or peoples) about whose culture very little is really known for sure is to invite the skepticism of those of us of a somewhat more academic bent.
Yes, it is a recognised fact that superb metalworking skills were to be found in iron age Britain, but that alone does not mean that all other aspects of the culture (or cultures) as a whole were just as advanced.
Her view of ancient British society as an advanced, peaceful, stable, egalitarian warrior society where warfare existed but did not cause casualties (although in a later part of her piece she seemed to contradict herself on that point) so as to leave more men to bring in the harvest seems to contrast strongly with the evidence for a strictly stratified society which was so geared to war that it participated in huge engineering projects to fortify hills, went on military expeditions to Gaul and liked to display its prowess in war by the showing off the preserved heads of slain enemies and which also participated in human sacrifice. Also, a definition of 'egalitarian' as meaning equality of the sexes but not equality of society as a whole is a rather odd definition of the word.
She often dismisses the evidence we do have in favour of assumed 'evidence' which we do not have. True, the winners write the history and very little was written by the Britains in any case but that does not mean that Caesar, Strabo and co lied, although we can readily accept that they may have misunderstood many things. She also relies very heavily on assumptions, a case in point being her statements about productivity. She says that Butser Ancient Farm has proved how productive the ancient Britains were but when I went there and talked to them, I was shown the impressive results of their agricultural experiments and was told of the potential productivity that these results *might* indicate. The excellent staff at Butser made no claims of proof to me, only claims of demonstrated possibility. She also makes bothersome assumptions about warfare. It may be news to her that practiced skill with weapons is as important as self belief and I would also question assumptions based on "a limited experience of battle re-enactment". Re-enactment combat does not have to take account of a whole host of variables which may have been historically present. Also, it is hardly likely that the warrior class would be the ones bringing in the harvest.
Her chronological knowledge is also very poor. The body with the 'bolt' in its back was not post Roman but in fact was stratigraphically dated to around fifty years before the Roman invasion and had a javelin head, not an artillery bolt head in its back. This is hardly a novel and unknown fact. Also her statement about Paul's view of things being accepted because the population of Jerusalem had been wiped out seems ignorant of the fact that Paul died during the Neronian persecution, so the Roman capture of Jerusalem in AD70 could not have influenced him (not that there is anything much in his letters which is critical of the Roman state anyway - he was a Roman citizen and valued [and made use of] this status, but he was also a Jew and knew the history of the Roman occupation of his homeland, as well as having been on the receiving end of it, which was just as widely published). She also seemed to run neolithic Britain (reference to Grime's Graves) into late La Tene Britain as if they were one and the same culture. I would also have to ask when she thinks the Romans "continued to win out in Parthia". I would also love to know how she feels that Christianity equates with genocide.
It is obvious that she has visited a few museums and has dipped into a copy of Suetonius (the slightly dodgy Penguin translation perhaps?) but her overall understanding of the ancient world seemed very poor.
I didn't get to see any of the writers' talks as I was tied to one part of the site for the whole weekend (although Ben Kane did stop by to say hello) but I think I would have had a lot of critical comments to make in response to her talk.
Nathan, I didn't know you were at Kelmarsh. It would nave been nice to meet face to face at last. Ah well, perhaps another time.
Crispvs
Her constant use of the words 'us' and 'we' when talking of (her version of) the various ancient British tribes demonstrates a worrying level of self delusion in her view of iron age Britain. To identify so closely with a people (or peoples) about whose culture very little is really known for sure is to invite the skepticism of those of us of a somewhat more academic bent.
Yes, it is a recognised fact that superb metalworking skills were to be found in iron age Britain, but that alone does not mean that all other aspects of the culture (or cultures) as a whole were just as advanced.
Her view of ancient British society as an advanced, peaceful, stable, egalitarian warrior society where warfare existed but did not cause casualties (although in a later part of her piece she seemed to contradict herself on that point) so as to leave more men to bring in the harvest seems to contrast strongly with the evidence for a strictly stratified society which was so geared to war that it participated in huge engineering projects to fortify hills, went on military expeditions to Gaul and liked to display its prowess in war by the showing off the preserved heads of slain enemies and which also participated in human sacrifice. Also, a definition of 'egalitarian' as meaning equality of the sexes but not equality of society as a whole is a rather odd definition of the word.
She often dismisses the evidence we do have in favour of assumed 'evidence' which we do not have. True, the winners write the history and very little was written by the Britains in any case but that does not mean that Caesar, Strabo and co lied, although we can readily accept that they may have misunderstood many things. She also relies very heavily on assumptions, a case in point being her statements about productivity. She says that Butser Ancient Farm has proved how productive the ancient Britains were but when I went there and talked to them, I was shown the impressive results of their agricultural experiments and was told of the potential productivity that these results *might* indicate. The excellent staff at Butser made no claims of proof to me, only claims of demonstrated possibility. She also makes bothersome assumptions about warfare. It may be news to her that practiced skill with weapons is as important as self belief and I would also question assumptions based on "a limited experience of battle re-enactment". Re-enactment combat does not have to take account of a whole host of variables which may have been historically present. Also, it is hardly likely that the warrior class would be the ones bringing in the harvest.
Her chronological knowledge is also very poor. The body with the 'bolt' in its back was not post Roman but in fact was stratigraphically dated to around fifty years before the Roman invasion and had a javelin head, not an artillery bolt head in its back. This is hardly a novel and unknown fact. Also her statement about Paul's view of things being accepted because the population of Jerusalem had been wiped out seems ignorant of the fact that Paul died during the Neronian persecution, so the Roman capture of Jerusalem in AD70 could not have influenced him (not that there is anything much in his letters which is critical of the Roman state anyway - he was a Roman citizen and valued [and made use of] this status, but he was also a Jew and knew the history of the Roman occupation of his homeland, as well as having been on the receiving end of it, which was just as widely published). She also seemed to run neolithic Britain (reference to Grime's Graves) into late La Tene Britain as if they were one and the same culture. I would also have to ask when she thinks the Romans "continued to win out in Parthia". I would also love to know how she feels that Christianity equates with genocide.
It is obvious that she has visited a few museums and has dipped into a copy of Suetonius (the slightly dodgy Penguin translation perhaps?) but her overall understanding of the ancient world seemed very poor.
I didn't get to see any of the writers' talks as I was tied to one part of the site for the whole weekend (although Ben Kane did stop by to say hello) but I think I would have had a lot of critical comments to make in response to her talk.
Nathan, I didn't know you were at Kelmarsh. It would nave been nice to meet face to face at last. Ah well, perhaps another time.
Crispvs
Who is called \'\'Paul\'\' by no-one other than his wife, parents and brothers. :!: <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_exclaim.gif" alt=":!:" title="Exclamation" />:!:
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.net">www.romanarmy.net
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.net">www.romanarmy.net
