skip to navigation
ADS Main Website
Help
|
Login
/
Browse by Series
/
Series
/ Journal Issue
Oxford J Archaeol 25 (1)
Title
The title of the publication or report
Title:
Oxford J Archaeol 25 (1)
Series
The series the publication or report is included in
Series:
Oxford Journal of Archaeology
Volume
Volume number and part
Volume:
25 (1)
Publication Type
The type of publication - report, monograph, journal article or chapter from a book
Publication Type:
Journal
Editor
The editor of the publication or report
Editor:
Barry Cunliffe
Helena Hamerow
Nicholas Purcell
Andrew Sherratt
Publisher
The publisher of the publication or report
Publisher:
Blackwell Publishing
Year of Publication
The year the book, article or report was published
Year of Publication:
2006
Source
Where the record has come from or which dataset it was orginally included in.
Source:
BIAB (The British & Irish Archaeological Bibliography (BIAB))
Relations
Other resources which are relevant to this publication or report
Relations:
URI:
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/toc/ojoa/25/1
Created Date
The date the record of the pubication was first entered
Created Date:
21 Apr 2006
Please click on an Article link to go to the Article Details.
Article Title
Access Type
Author / Editor
Page
Start/End
Abstract
Preseli dolerite bluestones: axe-heads, Stonehenge monoliths, and outcrop sourc...
Olwen Williams-Thorpe
M C Jones
Philip J Potts
Peter C Webb
29 - 46
Chemical compositions and magnetic susceptibility data were compared for twelve dolerite bluestone implements including axes, axe-hammers and battle-axes, eleven Stonehenge monoliths (chemical data only), and potential source outcrops in Preseli, South Wales. Most of the studied artefacts are of spotted dolerite, a small number being unspotted dolerite. Bivariate graphs, discriminant analysis and t-tests were used singly and in combination to show, respectively, that the implements found at sites in England are mainly similar to Stonehenge monoliths, while the implements found in Wales have a variety of compositions and are much less similar to Stonehenge monoliths. The dichotomy between English and Welsh dolerite bluestone implements could be explained by exploitation of different Preseli outcrops or erratic assemblages derived from them. A small number of spotted dolerite implements have previously been shown to have chemical compositions atypical of and marginal to Preseli, suggesting the possibility of a source of spotted dolerite outside Preseli. Previously published analytical data in combination with the new implement/outcrop comparisons presented in this paper support derivation of the majority of analysed Stonehenge monoliths at one particular outcrop within the group of four identified by Thorpe et al fifteen years ago. Analysis of all the extant bluestone monoliths at Stonehenge (now possible using non-destructive methods) would allow progress in identifying monolith outcrop sources, and in understanding the links with the bluestone axe trade.
Redefining the Northern British Iron Age
Dennis W Harding
61 - 82
Unlike Southern Britain, the Iron Age in Northern Britain spans two millennia from the introduction of iron technology to the Norse settlements. Starting from the position that Northern Britain is divided into a series of geographical and archaeological regions, including for the pre-Roman Earlier Iron Age the whole of aceramic and non-coin-using northern England, it is argued that despite a wealth of settlement evidence, the Earlier Iron Age lacks diagnostic material assemblages, even in the ceramic Atlantic regions, where radiocarbon dating is now confirming the origins of Atlantic roundhouses in the mid-first millennium BC. It is suggested that external connections may have been long-distance, reflecting a complex variety of selective connections. For the Later Iron Age, it is argued that interpretation based upon historical sources has inhibited a proper archaeological evaluation of the `Picts' and of the traditional view of Dalriadic settlement in Argyll, both of which are now under review.
`Roman' or `native' bodies in Britain: the evidence of Late Roman nail-cleaner strap-ends
Hella Eckardt
Nina Crummy
83 - 103
The paper reviews late Roman `nail-cleaner strap-ends', a group of objects first discussed by Hawkes and Dunning (1961). The precise function of these objects is unclear as their shape suggests use as toilet instruments but the split socket suggests that they were part of belt-fittings. The authors suggest a detailed typology and discuss the dating evidence and the spatial distribution of the type. Regardless of their precise function, it is argued that nail-cleaner strap-ends of this type are unique to late Roman Britain and thus represent a distinct regional type. The use of nail-cleaner strap-ends can be viewed in the context of gender associations, military status and religious beliefs. Includes
Appendix 1
102 - 103
table of late Roman nail-cleaner strap-ends referred to in the text
Neither baths nor baptisteries
Martin Henig
105 - 107
Response to `Baths or baptisteries? Holcombe, Lufton and their analogues' by Malcolm Todd (in Oxford J Archaeol 24(3) (2005), pages 307--11).
