CBA SMA\SMA 1998.PDF - Council for British Archaeology

graphs on pages 102 and 103 of Bastardy:- Public Attitudes
and Social Reality 1760 - 1840 are scruffy and some dates
are illegible; the same is true of the map Fig 5 which has
names but no location points. It spoilt an otherwise
enjoyable paper on an interesting subject. The same applies
to Elmondesham House - An Amersham Landmark for
Three Centuries, jointly written by the Editor. Fig 2 of the
correction on page 2 leaves much to be desired in its printing
which has some of its lines fading out. Proof reading could
have been more thorough. The volume would also have been
improved by a heavier quality paper that did not let the other
side show through so much. As a general observation the
archaeological site plans are much more professional than
most of the illustrations in other categories of papers.
The paper on Magiovinium justifies single watching briefs
and their gradual accumulation of knowledge because here
it uses various contributions of evidence, including previous
investigations by David Neal, to piece together an
impressive and convincing story. It is clear from the
disclaimer on page 6(3) that the dating has been dominated
by the pottery report, and that ceramic date ranges are used
rather than structural phases - even recuts not identified in
the field are proposed because of the pottery. One is left to
wonder how much independent structural analysis was
undertaken., though this may be unfair criticism since the
data may not have been available. The authors stress that
some of the recording was under rescue conditions and
needs to be used with caution. The finds have been treated
in an old fashioned way, for instance classifying finds by
material rather than function. I found the pottery report
initially confusing; it might have helped if the table on page
26 included date ranges and perhaps forms. It does,
however, relate to Yvonne Panninter's wider work rather
than confine itself to an internal story; and there are some
useful comments which illustrate the material culture
represented by the fills of features and plots. The pottery and
finds drawings here are of a very high standard except for
Fig 21, the bronze ram from Fenny Stratford Bypass which
looks as though it deserved better. Were the blades 16 and
17 in Fig 22 really worth publishing for the information the
drawings gave? The Fig 19 histogram of coins is virtually
useless without a key. The report tries very hard to pull
together the various threads of evidence without giving them
too much weight, and the tentative identification of the
location of Magiovinium in the Fenny Stratford area is
important for the study of small towns. Perhaps if this paper
had preceded publication of Burnham and Wacher's "The
small towns of Roman Britain" in 1990, Magiovinium might
have been included.
If we turn to Dr Bailey's Buckinghamshire Slavery in 1086
the reader is given an easy introduction and terms of
reference are declared at the beginning - but it is a tough read
with a large mathematical content. One of the most
surprising pieces of information is that "With the exception
of royal and ecclesiastical estates, between one in five and
one in six of the recorded population in Bucks. was in
slavery at the end of the eleventh century". Among other
fascinating insights is that a substantial part of these
numbers are accounted for by the need to have plough teams
to operate the demesne ploughs, and that a shortfall on many
estates is compensated for by larger numbers of bordars.
There are significant geographical shifts for which
explanations are tendered. Manumission had arrived, but
perhaps Bailey has demonstrated that it was happening more
slowly in Buckinghamshire than in neighbouring counties.
A straightforward account of a watching brief and selected
excavation at the scheduled site at Castlethorpe is a useful
addition to castle studies but begs the question as to whether
the level of detail published in multiple hard copy is
following the welcome trend of modern/more selective
archaeological publishing. The photographs reproduced
poorly.
Following on from Castleford the reader is again confronted
with a well written documentary based paper - on the subject
of "Bastardy". This is readable research, but the sample sizé
is perhaps too arbitrary and too small, and there are a few
assumptions which would better not have been made.
However, the author has identified several factors
influencing the number of bastards and the manner in which
society viewed mother and child. One quibble arising
concerns the assumption that the deaths of both babes born
base or legitimate that were not registered, effectively cancel
each other out - some single mothers may not have had the
same access to quality food and shelter, and this might be
expected to have some effects on the proportion of live births
or the viability of the new-bom. This does not detract from
the paper as a whole, which is a welcome contrast to the
more tedious archaeological papers. It shows late 17th and
early 18th century mothers were less automatically reliant
upon "the state" than appears to be the case today, though
the prejudices appear to be remarkably similar.
With the rescue of the hoards at Chalfont St Peter, the first
question is how much further evidence could have been
achieved had the find spot been archaeologically excavated
from the moment its significance was surmised. Although
the finder and landowner were generous it cannot be good
that the hoard has been dispersed, some to private
individuals; in the case of the latter one fears that their
provenance will soon be lost, and only a paper record will
survive.
The paper on Elmodesham house was an interesting analysis
of a property, its decoration and its owners, together with
insights into middle class education and social aspirations
of the day, but once again was let down badly by some of
the illustrations. It was good to see the museum contribution
and a number of useful notes. The notes on the Society
could be emulated by other journals. Indeed, it is devoutly
hoped that, with the changes for the worse in
Bucicinghamshire's local authority archaeology and the loss
of its County Archaeologist, that this, one of the better
county journals, not only survives but flourishes.
Evelyn Baker
94