Search results

AbstractArchaeology, and in particular the study of ceramics, lies at the heart of the interpretive schemes that underpin Framing the Early Middle Ages. While this is to be welcomed, it is proposed that even more extensive use of archaeological evidence - especially that generated through the excavation of prehistoric burial-mounds and rural settlements, as well as the study of early medieval coins - would have produced a rather more dynamic and nuanced picture of the transformations in social and political structures that marked the passage from late Roman Britain to Anglo-Saxon England.

An overview of the relationship between archaeology and history is presented as the context in which to situate the argument that a rapprochement between the disciplines can be achieved only if we begin to think of texts and objects as having had efficacy in the past rather than just as evidence about it. Discussions of the meaning of material culture and the power of texts conclude with the suggestion that historical archaeologists need to be more cognizant of the latter. A case-study from the Roman world is used to illustrate the fact that texts can be both instruments of oppression and vehicles for enlightenment and liberation.

Our country has a long history of striving for openness and transparency in government processes. In 1978, the United States Supreme Court held, "It is clear that the courts of this country recognize a general right to insect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents." Long before America's high court recognized this common law principle, court records were historically accessible for inspection by lawyers, journalists, land title companies, credit agencies, academics, and members of the general public. These individuals were also permitted to take notes as a part of their right to inspect court documents. Having free access to copies (i.e. reproductions), however, was a completely different matter. Unlike the right of free inspection, the right of free copies did not exist, and copies of court records could be extremely expensive to citizens seeking the information. For example, in 1853, a copy of a court document was ten cents a page, a steep price for the mid-nineteenth century. One could even make an argument that the right to simply inspect court documents was not actually "free" for many, due to the associated travel costs of physically going to the courthouse in an era before mass transportation and the internet.