Archaeologists & Imagination
I believe there is a module in the training course for archaeologists called Module 4, which focuses on imagination and imaginative writing. We can all be considered archaeologists to some extent, especially metal detectorists who are interested in the past. Sometimes, these hobbyists show better imaginative skills than the so-called “experts,” although Barford might challenge this notion.
Archaeologists study the remnants of the past and how they relate to the traces they find. They then use these findings to create a meaningful understanding, whether it’s through making inventories, accounts, narratives, explanations, or anything else. Many people find this subject fascinating, including metal detectorists.
“To imagine the world behind the ruin in the land, behind the sherd of antique pottery, this is the work of the archaeological imagination.” Michael Shanks
Of course, archaeology combines various disciplines such as literature, popular culture, historical texts, archaeological remains, antiquarian interpretation, philosophy, cultural geography, geology, photography, contemporary art, and social theory.
The detectorist, with years of experience, has learned and gained knowledge while on the job. They might have identified an artefact without realising it by using different definitions mentioned above. I’ve heard it called ‘The University of Life.’
The late Jim Halliday: an appreciation
EXTRACT
In December 2010, Jim stopped writing his column for The Searcher magazine, and I took over in the New Year. I feel honoured to follow in his footsteps. I will miss his emails giving feedback and occasionally congratulating me on my writing. Whenever I write a new column, I’ll think about Jim’s guidance.
His many contributions were a part of Jim’s legacy. He will be remembered for his great knowledge and expertise, which he generously shared with his fellow detectorists. Jim also volunteered with the York Archaeological Trust and assisted at PAS identification days hosted at York Museum.
Found in a Ditch at Vindolanda: 1992
In 1992 this wooden artefact was found in Vindolanda, the Roman fort in Northumberland. Here’s your opportunity to play at being an archaeologist. Do YOU know what it is?
It may surprise you to learn that after its discovery, a learned archaeologist tied a label on it saying ‘Roman Darning Tool’ and filed it away with the other organic materials such as writing tablets made of wood and a pair of leather boxing gloves. Have you got it yet? Give the arkie credit. He got two out of three!
To be fair, the seven-inch-long artefact was thought at the time to be used in several ways, including as a pestle or a good-luck charm to ward off evil, which was widespread across the Empire and was commonly believed to be a way to protect against bad luck.
However, a study earlier this year shows that it is more than a ‘charm.’ Dr. Rob Collins of Newcastle University, said that it was definitely not as catalogued after its discovery. He said “… it’s self-evident that it is a penis. I don’t know who entered it into the catalogue. Maybe it was somebody uncomfortable with it or didn’t think the Romans would do such silly things.” They couldn’t be more wrong thinking that. I bet YOU thought that all along. See the article from the magazine Antiquity
from the PAS database
Have you noticed how, when archaeologists are attempting to identify an object they invariably use the words PROBABLY, POSSIBLY, WE THINK, MAYBE and similar words. That’s because they cannot be certain. The above object illustrates this point admirably.
“Probably copper alloy; not magnetic; probable screw. This object was identified by the finder as a phallic pendant, which was an initially plausible identification. However, bright metal is revealed by wear or abrasion of its dark surface, rather than representing a decorative coating. The ‘glans‘ is separated from ‘shaft’ by a circumferential rib; however this rib appears to be repeated, indicating this to probably be an abraded screw thread. A light groove separating the ‘testes‘ may be the remnant of a slotted head of a screw, though this has been distorted by heat or impact. Unless specialist identification of the metal determines it to be silver – it does seem heavy, and in which case the object may qualify under the Treasure Act – a modern date should be preferred over Roman. Suggested date: Probably Modern, 1800-1950.”
Make up you mind,PAS. You infer that it is ‘probably a screw’, but you go on to use the words GLAND, SHAFT and TESTES. I’m just a little confused. Perhaps the finder was right all along?
Also on the PAS database
“Probably copper alloy; not magnetic; probable screw. This object was identified by the finder as a phallic pendant, which was an initially plausible identification. However, bright metal is revealed by wear or abrasion of its dark surface, rather than representing a decorative coating. The ‘glans‘ is separated from ‘shaft‘ by a circumferential rib; however this rib appears to be repeated, indicating this to probably be an abraded screw thread. A light groove separating the ‘testes‘ may be the remnant of a slotted head of a screw, though this has been distorted by heat or impact. Unless specialist identification of the metal determines it to be silver – it does seem heavy, and in which case the object may qualify under the Treasure Act – a modern date should be preferred over Roman. Suggested date: Probably Modern, 1800-1950.”
[Note to my proof reader] No, I haven’t inadvertently repeated the same thing twice. The two screws shown are recorded with exactly the same words. What conclusion can we draw from this? Answers on a postcard!
“Possible stone phallic object of uncertain date. The object is cylindrical and oval in cross-section and has the characteristics of a phallus. It is therefore, possibly a votive offering. The object appears to be complete and has a light brown patina.”
LVPL was evidently recorded by another. What makes this a ‘possible’ phallic object and not the others?
CONCLUSION
Whether this object is a dildo, darning tool pestle or good luck charm depends, in the main, on the information gleaned from archaeologists. For decades it was identified as a pestle. After a re-examination the arkies say that it is definitely a device used during sex. We know that the Romans used sexual implements, but you may ask why it was found at Vindolanda. It is thought that many of the Romans brought their wives to the fort, but its use as a dildo is questionable.
This a wooden object, hard and unbendy: I’ve never used one during sex or otherwise but I would think that a lack of flexibility makes it’s use doubtful. I think a good luck symbol is a better bet. ‘Experts’ have said it is unique, the first known example of a disembodied phallus made of wood recovered anywhere in the Roman world. Read here what Newcastle University said in a press release earlier this year.
FINAL CHECK TO SEE IF YOU HAVE UNDERSTOOD. WHAT IS THIS?
This has been another tongue-in-cheek production by The Old Fart <CLUE
The phallus is now on display in the Vindolanda museum. For more information and opening times, visit www.vindolanda.com/
Discover more from
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
johnwinterblog.wordpress.com 
last bit john” conclusion” looks like something from a constipated roman
LikeLiked by 1 person
I managed to get the first one accurately John.. although it is rather obvious by the examination of the narrow end. I guessed the bottom and much to my dismay, I actually got it correct; albeit it was more modern than I would have thought.
The archies really do like to couch their conclusions in rather vague statements.. “A firm possibility of a definite Maybe”
Hope all is well my friend
Best
Micheal
LikeLiked by 1 person