19th Century Archaeology & Anthropology

This newsletter article provides information about the Astor House Community Archaeology Project. Targeted archaeological excavations at the historic Astor House were conducted in June and July 2021, with community tours in July. Here, we update the members of the Colorado Archaeological Society on the initial findings and progress of the project.

Following an archaeological evaluation at 1 Park Town, Oxford in August 2012, John Moore Heritage Services undertook the excavation of the area of the footprint of the proposed new dwelling in September 2012. The site had previously functioned as
a laboratory for D’Overbroeks School and before that as gardens for the house.

Consequently, the site had been heavily truncated in places.
Nevertheless, the remains of five Middle Iron Age pits and a contemporary surface were recovered in addition to a further five undated pits, which were probably also of Middle Iron Age date.

This indicates the presence of later prehistoric activity complementing that on Port Meadow and at Grandpont, locating the Park Town site within the characteristic Upper Thames Valley Middle Iron Age tradition.

During the 19th century the site was redeveloped. The land where Park Town now stands, which had been owned by New College and sold to the Oxford Local Board, or Board of Guardians, was to be used for the St Giles’ workhouse. When the workhouse was built in Cowley, the New College land was redeveloped for the Board by Samuel Lipscomb Seckham. Although not a part of Norham Manor, owned by St John’s, Park Town provided the template for the redevelopment of North Oxford.

When 1 Park Town was erected a stables was also built to the rear of the property, with some garden features present, which were evidenced archaeologically and cartographically.

This chapter explores how the anthropologist Edward Burnett Tylor integrated evidence from the ancient world into his most well-known work Primitive Culture (1871) and how his ideas about culture influenced early theories of Romanization. Tylor’s study of classics shaped how he entered one of the preeminent anthropological debates of his time: what is “culture” and do cultures progress towards civilization, degenerate towards savagery, or do both at different times? He famously defined culture as a holistic concept consisting of belief, art, laws, morals, etc., and he promoted an evolutionary theory of culture, which viewed cultures as progressing from a savage to civilized state with ‘survivals’ that could persist across stages. His evolutionary and more material ideas about culture, which drew on classical scholarship as well as ancient Greek and Latin texts, were broadly influential and, in turn, shaped the development of scholarship about the ancient world. Here, F. J. Haverfield and R. G. Collingwood—both based in Oxford around the same time that Tylor was—serve as case studies for the legacy of Tylor’s theories in so-called Romanization studies. Haverfield’s notion of a superior, comprehensive Roman culture that unilaterally spread throughout the provinces and his idea that aspects of ‘native’ culture could survive both seem in dialogue with Tylor’s ideas. More explicitly, Collingwood’s writings indicate that he was familiar with Tylor’s work and that he added nuance to Tylor’s ideas in promoting his own fusion model of Romanization. Tylor’s progressive theory of culture, refracted through Haverfield and Collingwood as well as more recent scholars, has a legacy in today’s studies of cultural change in the Roman provinces. Excavating the history of the term can, therefore, help us refine current approaches to questions raised in these studies.