No abstract

This paper is about the archaeology of superstition, a subject often neglected, although archaeologists frequently write about religion. The paper distinguishes between ritual and superstition, and explores the Roman material evidence in detail. It is argued that the evidence fOT Roman Period activity at prehistoric ritual monuments in Britain and Armorica is invariably reduced to anecdotal significance, obscuring important relationships. It is argued that prehistoric ritual monuments were perceived in different ways in Roman Britain and the Armorican peninsula. In Armvrica they were used as religious sites throughout the Roman period and in the immediate post-Roman centuries were often Christianised; in Roman Britain they were construed in a superstitious rather than religious fashion, and formed no part of OTganised paganism.

No abstract

Roman military sites in western and northern Britain, forming a pattern of widespread disuse in the fifth and sixth centuries, has been strongly established. 1 South of the Mersey the post-Roman finds from Segontium are not certainly of pre-eighth-century date, 2 and the apparent evidence at Brecon Gaer has now been discounted by J.L. Davies. 3 So-unless we accept a post-Roman dating for the penannular brooch from Castell Collen-only Pen Llystyn, where there is a single, possibly fourth-century, potsherd, has produced what might be considered convincing evidence of immediately post-Roman occupation at a fourth-century fort site. 4 At Pen Llystyn the evidence, albeit enigmatic, seems to indicate fifth-or sixth-century reuse (perhaps even by the Irish notable named on a nearby Class-I inscribed stone) of the disused Roman fort for the site of a palisaded enclosure. 5 It must, however, be doubted whether the site was in use in the fourth century. In the North, sites with fifth-and sixth-century evidence are only a little more plentiful-Manchester, Piercebridge, and Ribchester have possible, or probable, evidence of such use. 6 It is therefore surprising to find that eight fourth-century fort sites on, or close to, the line of Hadrian's Wall have produced, albeit sometimes slight, evidence of fifth-to sixth-century use (see Table i and below). Nor is this simply a reflection of a pattern found farther north; for no Roman fort site in what is now Scotland has any plausible evidence of immediately post-Roman reuse. 7 Thus the situation to the north of the Wall is similar to that found in Wales. What is more surprising still is the character of the reuse found on the line of the Wall. Two sites, Housesteads and Chesterholm, have evidence not only of internal occupation,

This paper presents an analysis and reinterpretation of current evidence for houses, streets and shops in fifth-to twelfth-century Byzantine Constantinople, focussing on archaeological evidence. Previously unidentified townhouses and residential blocks are located. These show greater similarities to Roman-period domestic architecture than might be expected. Changes in the architectural style may be related to social change in the seventh century. Berger's reconstruction of the early Byzantine street plan is shown to be archaeologically untenable. This has implications for the identification of formal planning and the boundaries of urban districts in the Byzantine capital. The limited archaeological evidence for streets and shops is also discussed. #