Letters: British Archaeology 104, January/February 2009

Star Letter – Gin Drinker’s Line

Martin Brown

I was fascinated by the article on the Gin Drinker’s Line, the Hong Kong defence line taken by Japan in 1941 (feature, Jul/Aug 2008). The authors note it predates the second world war stop lines in the UK.

It clearly draws on the experiences of the Western Front, employing the German system of concrete strong points controlling key positions of a defensive trace. Reinforced with wire and fire trenches, this system of defence could hold up significant numbers of troops at a high cost to the attackers, as the Hong Kong experience shows. The same is, to an extent, true of the British home defences, but here General Alan Brooke had taken account of the threat from mobile armour and aerial bombing. These were not as significant in 1918 or 1937 as they would be by 1942, which seems to have contributed to the defences’ partial failure. The line also seems, from the article, to have a fatal flaw: it was a stop line, and once breached its use was questionable. A closer consideration of German field fortification of 1917–18 would have prompted greater reliance on defence in depth, to wear down the attackers and buy time for the deployment of reserves.

Further echoes of the Great War may be seen in the naming of tunnels within the Shing Mun redoubt: almost all trenches on theWestern Front bore names, including street names from the major cities (Sackville Street), personal names (Butterworth Trench), and fanciful evocations of place, such as Rats’ Alley. These names aided navigation in the warren of trenches and allowed units to stamp a little of their identity on this strange, new world.

Martin Brown, environmental adviser (archaeology), Defence Estates, Tilshead

Ghastly!

We accept that The Ghastly Book of Stonehenge contained a number of glaring errors and should not have gone on sale (Spoilheap, Nov/Dec 2008). The book was, however, withdrawn as soon as these errors became apparent.

The English Heritage Publishing Team was reorganised at the beginning of 2008 and procedures were established to control the quality of our publications which will prevent this sort of mistake happening again.

I am the author of The Ghastly Book of Stonehenge. I understand from English Heritage that an incorrect set of proofs was sent to the printer. With one exception, the errors you mention did not occur in the text I submitted. On page 2 it states that the text is my copyright “except pp6–9 & 44–48 © English Heritage”. These are the pages on which most of the errors occur. I didn’t mention Aurelius Ambrosius in my text, neither did I write anything about a “prehistoric nightclub”.

I did, however, make a mistake about the distance of Stonehenge from Avebury. I do take this seriously since I always try to ensure there are no mistakes in any manuscript I send to a publisher.

Factual mistakes tend to happen in children’s non-fiction when people in the creative team think they know something about the topic, but seldom do. These slips are usually caught in time, but clearly not in this case. If English Heritage is indeed “pulling back from commercial and educational publishing”, then an opportunity arises for another body to fill the gap in children’s books. Perhaps this is something for the CBA to embrace, before someone else does (and gets it wrong again). Note to commissioning editor: I am available for hire.

Vikings on front cover!

I wish to express my disappointment with the front cover on the latest issue (Nov/Dec 2008), especially as the article it promotes is interesting and revealing.

I am a part-time historical interpreter, delivering lessons to school children on Vikings and our heritage, and speaking to the public at events across the country. My aim is to pass over my passion and knowledge to a wider audience. This is compromised when I have to spend time explaining that Viking warriors did not wear horned helmets. Also, the idea of all Vikings having blond hair and long beards does not bear close scrutiny.

This just perpetuates the myth and takes attention away from the real history, which seems to be fairly peaceable settlement in later years. Not what I expect from a credible archaeology magazine.

Am a little puzzled by the cover picture – I thought it was decided some time ago that Vikings didn’t wear horned helmets. Has this been changed?

• The 1972 Look & Learn illustration made a cover that many appreciated, including the feature’s authors (“The cover’s brilliant”, said one). It was, of course, intended as a teaching aid to illustrate the point that horned helmets are out of fashion. Ed

Hole in two

I enjoyed the articles on Iona (Mick’s travels and More travels, Nov/Dec 2008). But a word of warning.When I went about five years ago, only residents were allowed to take vehicles onto the island – or perhaps longer stay visitors. Jon Cannon mentions golf. It is marked on the OS map, but there is not a course in the usual sense of the word. Just a few holes – I was glad that I did not carry my clubs across the island.

I have been to Stonehenge and always wondered about its origins (News, Nov/Dec 2008). I am thankful that archaeologists are on the case with the Aubrey Hole, it will give us more details to this fascinating mystery. I have always thought that the stones were there fromthe beginning and not wooden posts.

Migration

As increasing numbers of early Beaker burials prove to be intrusive and their remains those of individuals from quite distant sources – and not just in Britain – isn’t it time to re-examine the prevailing anti-migrationist orthodoxy? The “cult package” explanation for the Beaker complex was always dubious. In a preliterate setting, the simplest method of moving ideas, whether rituals or languages, is always to move the living heads that contain them.

Matrix revolutions

Edward Harris (feature, Nov/Dec 2008) notes that “American Antiquity also refused to publish one of my papers... as far as I know, nothing of substance on the matrix and its fundamental concepts has yet to appear in either journal [AA or Antiquity]”. This may be strictly correct, but Harris should take heart from the fact that, as long ago as January 1979, American Antiquity (Vol 44, p94) published two Harris Matrices in a full-page figure in our paper on the early Maya stratigraphy of the Cuello site in Belize: there was no negative feedback, and the matrix has since been widely adopted in Maya archaeology (see “Matrices and Maya archaeology”, Journal of Field Archaeology 18 [1991], 27–41).

In fact, the Maya were one of the first beneficiaries of the Harris Matrix outside Britain: we used matrices extensively in 1974 to record our excavations at Nohmul, also in Belize, and published them in our 1974–75 report.

Kicking bones

I know you have said that you have put Bonekickers to bed (Letters, Nov/Dec 2008), but please consider this from a (very) mature student in archaeology, who in a previous life was a police officer heavily involved in crime scene preservation and investigation, and also the interview of suspects.

I very rarely watch any “policiers” on television because I have yet to see ANY programme portraying crimes scenes with integrity, with leading characters violating basic rules. I cannot remember any interviews with suspects which have been wholly admissible in evidence. I have seen many cases where unlawful arrests and interviews would lead to the release of murderers at court. Need I go on? I know police advisers work on the programmes and they are often ignored. Much as with the press, why let the truth get in the way of a good story?

So with respect,may I suggest that those who are infuriated by the liberties taken with plots follow my way of dealing with it? I tell myself, “Get over it, it is only a story”.

I was a little surprised that correspondents believed that the programme would even be close to reality. I’ve spent longer as a policeman than an archaeologist, and have yet to see any British TV drama that reflects the way that police officers actually go about their daily work. I do, however, live in hope, and will extend that hope to include any future series of Bonekickers.

I could not help but smile when I read your correspondents’ comments about Bonekickers. For 33 years I have worked as a biomedical scientist in a clinical chemistry laboratory, and I was prompted to consider how laboratory science has been portrayed on the TV.

Leaving aside CSI and Silent (horribly mutilated mummified body) Witness, two examples come to mind. First there is Quincy, where Sam could often be seen using equipment that was not switched on, and second Holby City where the entire path lab staff complement consisted of the bloke who used to be Spider in Corrie. No wonder little work was done.

Given this, and that the public remain as ignorant of what goes on in a hospital lab (or any other) as they ever have, I doubt Bonekickers will have the detrimental effect on archaeology your correspondents fear. If Pathology is something to do with blood, Archaeology will be something to do with Tony Robinson.

Oh, what did I think? Well, it was better than Merlin even if Victor Meldrew was not in it.

Hadrianic pride

Brian Robinson (Letters, Nov/Dec 2008) objects that the British Museum’s exhibition and associated material refer to Hadrian’s “gay” relationship with Antinous. Presumably exhibition visitors and viewers want as realistic a picture of Hadrian as possible, not one sanitised by modern prudery. It is not long since public institutions such as the BM and the BBC would have thought twice about this, given the now-abolished section 28 and the formerly pervasive influence of moralisers such as Mary Whitehouse. Notwithstanding Hadrian’s genocidal side, I would have thought presenting a powerful, famous and militarily-successful historical figure in this way (cf also Alexander) would do a lot for the self-esteem of gay fans of the ancient world. Well done to Neil MacGregor and Thorsten Opper for having the courage to be upfront about it.

“[At any new] building development, the archaeologists are usually allowed in first. With little new ground being broken, demand for archaeologists is falling”. RBS economist Geoffrey Dicks predicts a recession, Mail on Sunday, May 18 2008

Please send your ideas for the magazine: we may not publish them all, but we will read and take notice. Ed

We welcome letters from readers. They may be emailed to Mike Pitts the Editor at editor@britarch.ac.uk or faxed to 01904 671384. They may be edited.

British

Archaeology

The voice of archaeology in Britain and beyond

letters