Demystifying Archaeology
Sheffield Conference 1999

Contents

1. Introduction

2. Some successful independent projects

3. Finding a Site

4. Photography

5. The Art of Excavation

6. Dealing with the Finds

7. Building an archive

8. Publication

(Return to Contents)

Introduction

Demystifying archaeology

Andrew Selkirk

Over the past generation, archaeology has been `mystified'. Instead of seeing the study of the past as being something that a wide range of enthusiasts should be encouraged to study and to participate in, it has been taken over by `specialists' who have mystified the past and have erected a barrier between `professionals' and `amateurs'.

It is our aim to tear down these barriers, and to `de-mystify' archaeology.

This mystique rests on three legs. The first and most insidious was the invention in the 1960s of the so called Harris or Winchester Matrix method of recording stratigraphy. This gave those who used it a considerable advantage and for a time, professional archaeologists had a superior method of recording until the amateur archaeologists caught up.

The second source of mystification has been the belief that archaeology is now a `science'. Certainly a much greater range of scientific methods have now become available. Some, notably radiocarbon dating, are matters wholly for big laboratories, and even the professionals buy in their radiocarbon dating. However other scientific aspects are well within reach of any local archaeological society. A good example of this is the resistivity meter for archaeological prospecting, and we will be putting forward some ideas of how to make your own.

The third great source of mystique is specialisation. In the old days it was assumed that the director could do everything. Today we have gone to the other extreme and professional archaeology is split into numerous specialities. This is something which the CIA wishes to promote in its Index of Experts to enable independent archaeologists to help each other.

But the main problem has been that the morale of the amateur archaeologists has been broken. It is assumed that any professional archaeologist, however inexperienced, and however ignorant of local conditions, can nevertheless do anything, and that the gulf between professional archaeologists and the rest of the world is so great that it is not even worth while trying to bridge it. One of our objects is to de-bunk this belief and de-mystify archaeology.

A key point comes over the cry that we should all adhere to `professional' standards: but what do we mean by professional standards? In the broader sense of the term, professional standards are simply used to mean good standards. In its narrower term it means something rather different, for professional standards are minimal standards, the standard below which a profession should not fall. Amateur standards on the other hand can be the opposite. If you are working for love not money there are no limits to the excellence and precision to which you may aspire.

There are other ways in which we can distinguish between amateur and professional standards. One of them is publication, where professional standards have simply gone off the rail and it is up to us the independents to pioneer a new method of writing up reports.

A more subtle problem comes over the problem of objectives. In an amateur excavation, the director at least will know what he is looking for and if he is to retain his volunteers he must impart this vision to others. A professional on the other hand often does not know what he is looking for. He is digging because he has been sent there and because he has been paid for it. The strategy behind any project is drawn up by a committee or by the `curator' who draws up a brief, and the professional often knows no more about the project than what the research brief tells him.

Another mystique of professional standards is that they are impossibly high. If you don't know why you are excavating, then every time you have the slightest query, then take a sample - someone else will be paid to analyse it. The truth is the very opposite. The impact of contract archaeology has to bring the archaeologist back to earth. If you are digging to a budget, you must at every point decide what is cost-effective. I think we need to take some lessons from the books of the actual practising archaeologists and make certain that what we do is what they actually do and not what they say we ought to do.

Closely aligned with this question of professional standards is the question of what ought to be taught to amateur archaeologists. One of the problems is that virtually all training today is done by professional archaeologists who have no idea about how amateur archaeology works. I often think that we the CIA should run a certification scheme for all those doing training courses in archaeology to ensure that those who offer training for amateurs have themselves had amateur experience, have worked with local societies and can therefore turn out people who will become valuable and useful members of their society.

Finally, can I conclude with some further thoughts. The mystification of the past is extremely dangerous. We are dealing with our past, our heritage, our roots, and we should never allow any one group to seize this past and claim a monopoly of knowledge, concealing it in the fog of mystique. The time has come to roll back that fog: I have a vision for archaeology in the twenty first century which has become a people's archaeology. I would like to see every town in this country having its own archaeological society which is regarded as the first port of call for anything archaeological. Archaeology has become too much of a mystique, there are too many priests celebrating the mysteries remote from the eyes of the congregation. Let's demystify archaeology and bring it back to where it belongs - to the people!

(Return to Contents)

Some successful independent projects

Excavation At Hough On The Hill Lincolnshire

The St. Aidan's Project

The Greyfriars' Site Lanark (Return to Contents)

Excavation At Hough On The Hill Lincolnshire

The "Hall Close Site". Probable location of a 12th Century Priory.

Garland G. Grylls

The Grantham Archaeology Group is an informal affair about 30 strong. It was formed in 1988 with the help of Dr. Peter Hayes and the staff of The Heritage Trust of Lincolnshire, (HT of L), who have been our advisors since the beginning.

In 1992 The Community Archaeologist for the Trust asked us to do a morphological field survey for the Trust on a site that might be the location of a Priory. There is good historical evidence that in the Parish a Chantry Priory was established in 1164 but its exact location is not known. The O.S. map of 1903 with later revisions shows "Augustinian Priory. Site of" on the site we are working on and there is, among other relics, a fine fishpond. However there were never more than two canons there and one only from about 1350 to the dissolution.

Our plan of the site was duly completed and handed to HT of L. We then got permission from the owner of the site Mr Henry Lord, to excavate and we began where there was the only constructional stonework that showed. Since then we have visited the site about 25 times a year at weekends.

We have been at some trouble always to keep adequate "planned" records of the work and to place copies of our records with HT of L. We have also published two reports ... "Occasional Papers 1 & 2".

At the beginning we found we were exposing a fine cobbled path running down the steep side of the site to the "High Road", once a stream across which there was a bridge, and leading towards the church. At the bottom the path branched.

Up the slope the path connected to a level area of similar cobbles about 5 m square. On advice we cut a trench across this which disclosed two antique drains which we think served the "Platform" only. and on the western side, where the cobbles became chaotic, a "field" wall was disclosed which seems to have been a retaining wall. In this area there is a well, unexcavated, and an open "gutter".

At the south west corner of the platform were the foundations of the corner of a substantial building partly of ashlar stone work. This has now been proved to have been adapted with the intrusion of low level brickwork structures which include a "Quenching Pit".

The north wall of the building encouraged us to investigate, where, at a distance to the west, the wall seemed to be going. More substantial "field" walls were discovered which led to the excavation of a probable cesspit ("The Pit") at the north site boundary. We are now working on part of the "Building" which may be the base of a circular oven projecting into the interior of the "Building".

The path first excavated led us to another "field" wall which it cuts through but does not go beyond. The path may be part of a formal terraced garden which we are following up.

The purpose of the cobbled "Platform", whose full extent has not yet been determined, is not known but is thought to be concerned with stock rearing, possibly a lambing shelter.

Most finds have not been in a stratigraphic situation but there have been some interesting ones:- a Saxon pot-sherd, a half groat, a 15th century spigotted cistern, a face from a bellarmine, 17/18th century and later pottery, metal working tools, several knife blades, quantities of butchered animal bones, and many clay pipe stems and bowls, traces of charcoal and coal.

Much remains to be done elsewhere on the site.

The St. Aidan's Project

Eric Houlder

In March 1988 machines at the Saint Aidan's Opencast Site between Castleford and Swillington struck an unrecorded artificially- filled meander of the River Aire. Shortly afterwards, water pressure blew out the fill, flooded the mine and drained the Aire and Calder Navigation, bringing navigation to a halt and shutting down a power station. On privatisation, the new owners, RJB Mining, obtained planning permission to mine the old riverbed and canal in order to finance a new, concrete, joint watercourse.

As the old riverbed dried, it became evident that a number of features from the earliest stage of navigation here (1698 onward) and several sunken craft still survived. Credit for the discovery must go to Mike Clarke, who informed John McIlwaine of the Dept. Archaeological Sciences at Bradford University. The latter asked John Buglass of the Nautical Archaeology Society (NAS) North East Section, and Humber Archaeology, to direct a series of excavations in advance of mining. Work was to take place at weekends and involve a mixed team of amateurs and professionals drawn from the NAS, the P&DAS, The Wood Hall Archaeological Trust (WHAT Ltd.), the University and evening classes in Harrogate and Doncaster. In addition, members of Doncaster, Wakefield, and the John Wheelwright (Dewsbury) archaeological societies and sixth formers from Ossett High School participated. One volunteer travelled regularly from Wiltshire to take part.

The owners and their contractors helped by allowing access at weekends, by supplying four wheel drive vehicles and radio communications. They also surveyed gridpoints, bulldozed ramps into the riverbed, and excavated sumps where necessary.

The riverbed varied from dry gravel to deep slurry, which at times froze. The latter often hid the three metre deep sumps, so crossing some sites was quite an adventure! All equipment had to be able to survive the rough ride in and out, as well as the Pennine weather.

Finance was largely from the two main societies, with contributions from CBA (Yorkshire), and a television company. Several university departments and museums are undertaking work or conservation for the Project in return for student participation and research samples.

To date, four more-or-less complete below-waterline hulls have been excavated and recorded as well as numerous fragments of others, all wood and mainly clinker construction. All were close to the 57' 6" specified by the Aire and Calder Navigation in its original Act, suggesting that they are quite early. Other technical factors also support this thesis.

As well as the vessels, an early lock, a dry dock, a ferry crossing and several phases of weir, one probably medieval, have been recorded. Exact dating awaits dendrochronological reports, but it is clear that the Aire hid evidence of the earliest phases of industrialisation. Other rivers throughout Britain probably hide similar treasures.

The consortium is now actively seeking funding to publish what will be a unique and important report on a period which, until now, has been the province of the historian rather than the archaeologist.

The Greyfriars' Site Lanark

Ed Archer

For the past two months members of the Lanark Archaeological Society and the Lanark Museum Trust have been engaged on excavation work in the vicinity of the Clydesdale Hotel. This work started on the site as a result of a housing development for Scottish Homes. From the outset there was interest in the archaeological potential of the site and an archaeological assessment was made of the areas threatened by destruction by the West of Scotland Archaeological service. This identified one area of potential interest; this was dug out by using an excavator and little was found. Initially members had a look at the site with a couple of detectors but little was found either in terms of artefacts or pottery. However, this assessment was to change dramatically. First of all Medieval pottery was found near the trench dug by the excavator and it was decided to mount an excavation of the area. This proved to be worthwhile as not only pottery but tile fragments were found. If that was not enough a piece of stained glass, a clasp of a prayer book and several pieces of leather were found. All of these items came from Medieval levels.

But that was not to be the highlight; a decision was made to look at an area adjacent to the Clydesdale Hotel where a seventeenth century building was known to stand. However not only were the foundations of this building discovered, but further investigations happened to reveal the only stone building of the fourteenth century to be unearthed by excavation. It is thought that the building could have been part of the Franciscan Friary due to its position and the variety of artefacts with a religious connection found in its vicinity.

The Friary was founded in 1329 by Robert the Bruce and was staffed by a maximum of 12 friars; these originally came to Scotland from Newcastle but it was not long before the Friary came under the influence of Berwick. During the Friary's history the most important event to occur, was the death of an influential Friar called Stephen Harding. He died in 1418 after unsuccessfully trying to get support for the Anti - Pope Benedict XIII. He came to Lanark a dispirited man after being badly treated by the students of St Andrews who supported the Pope in Rome. The Friary though was to fall on hard times for by 1566 it had been taken over by the Lockhart family. From records we do know that some of these buildings were still standing in 1592.

The discoveries made by the dig show that the area round the Clydesdale Hotel was used for a wide variety of trades including metal working, butchery and leather working. Items have been found that show that all these trades were being practised in this part of Lanark before the Friars even set foot in the town. Indeed it could be said that the Friars probably ended up in the most polluted and smelly part of Lanark. Indeed this is what it was like in Wallace's day. Talking of Wallace the diggers found a silver penny of his king John Balliol. Also pottery has been found of Wallace's time and earlier. The friars certainly had their work cut out. However, a site of this sort appealed to the Friars who had a great following amongst ordinary people such as butchers and labourers.

The excavation showed that the building was fairly posh for its times. It had stone tiles on the roof - no string, the flooring was covered with a mixture of glazed tiles and plain red sandstone flags. It even had stained glass - an expensive item in those days. The appearance of the building was beautiful, for it had well carved stonework if the fine late Medieval mullion window fragment is anything to go by that was found on the site. Other items of an ecclesiastical nature include part of a Medieval stylus used for writing and a bronze clasp of a prayer book of the 14th century, previously mentioned.

More mundane items such as pottery indicate trade with France and England as well as other parts of Scotland. There is also the possibility that the people of Lanark made their own pottery. A stone was found with glaze spilt on it. The vast collection of bones and oyster shells found tell us about the diet of the Lanarkians in the Middle Ages. The oysters were probably fresh water ones from the Clyde and were the Medieval equivalent of a fish supper. The animal bones show us that the friars liked the best cuts - no sheeps' heads for them.

There will be much more to find out and the Archaeological Society will be looking for expert help to find out more about our finds. If anybody would like to offer advice or donate money, please contact me - Ed Archer, 18 Hope Street, Lanark, ML 11 7NE.

Finally special thanks must go to the firm of Robert Hogg, Builders and Scottish homes, the developers for putting up with the excavation work.

Finding a Site

Studying Field-Names

Using Air-Photos

Do-it-yourself Geophysics

Studying Field-Names

Ruth E. Richardson

Field-names may include the oldest documentary and verbal information available to us. Although most names were actually first written down in the 18th and l9th centuries, field-names are mentioned sufficiently often in manorial and estate records to show that they were in common usage. An early famous example is in the peace treaty of 1215 between King John and the barons, later known as Magna Carta, which was signed "in the meadow that is called Runnymede", Old English for council or assembly island. In Much Marcle in Herefordshire a group of 13th and 14th century deeds has survived. They are sale transactions for the exchange of strips in the Common Fields to allow blocks of holdings to be formed. An example of a field-name on the 1839 tithe map is Normandy and this can be traced back to 1308 through these deeds. Interestingly, one deed of 1491 actually names a strip in this field, showing that at least some strips had their own independent names within the larger named field. Another example is the tithe map name of Lying Down field which can be traced back to La Lynde, or Lyndende, which shows that it is derived from the word for lime trees. Limes, even more than oaks are indicators of ancient woodland.

Field-names provide a simple and practical method for referring to a piece of land. This is only necessary if the person involved is recording information about it, or discussing it with another person. If you are working in your field you do not need to name it! It is probable that every used piece of land has, or had, a field-name because farmers, probably from as far back as the neolithic, found this useful. A farmer could leave word of where he could be found if needed. He could easily note which fields had been worked according to agricultural requirements. The field-names chosen would be something relevant to the field. The majority concern the quality of the soil, the shape of the field, the prevalent vegetation and agricultural use. They are a way of recording difficulties about the soil and the state of the field in the days before computerised records. However, an important result of such practices was to provide a way of passing information to future generations of farmers - a stony field could break the plough - and this was especially important in the past when young adults could die suddenly.

However, for us, field-names can demonstrate changes in the landscape and they allow features to be traced. A minority of names preserves the history of the fields giving ownership names, some of which can be confirmed from other sources, or by recording significant events, which may be less easy to verify.

Two notes of caution need to be mentioned. Firstly, it is likely some fields have become subdivided. If a name was given to a particular field it is always possible that it was perpetuated attached to only a portion of the original. If the name refers to a condition like soil, or a survival like a Roman road, or indeed anything peculiar to what was once a part of a field, then it is a possibility that the name survived attached to the 'wrong' portion. This is why it is always useful to examine an area around a field-name and not just one modern field. Secondly, there is absolutely no certainty that each and every instance of a fieldname will have the same derivation, as some may come from other sources such as personal names. Care is needed as a lot of rubbish has discredited field-name use in the past when people have jumped to conclusions concerning meanings. The earliest reference needs to be found if possible. Although the original spelling of a name may be difficult to determine, deductions, with a statistical probability of a meaning, can be made by examining occurrence over a wide area.

However, such reservations do not matter if a significant field- name is considered to be only the start of an investigation. It shows a site is worth examining and one needs to remember that the reason for a particular field-name must always predate its first use for that particular field. Therefore, the age of the field-name is crucial.

Archaeological field-names are relatively few but are an archaeological tool to be used with evidence gained from fieldwalking, geophysical surveying and aerial photography. It was in order to demonstrate their usefulness that a group of the members of the Woolhope Naturalists' Field Club in Herefordshire decided to publish the tithe maps and the field-names for the whole county.

The tithe survey resulted from the Tithe Commutation Act of 1836 and the Herefordshire survey was produced between 1838-1846, Some counties already had enclosure maps so did not warrant a full survey. Herefordshire had few enclosure awards though the Woolhope Group used these to supplement the tithe survey where necessary. Indeed, as the field-names for every parish have now been published, Herefordshire has the first complete coverage readily available for any county in Britain. All involved were volunteers and the organisation followed a set procedure, which I would be happy to describe in detail if any of you would like to ask me afterwards. Tithe maps are so large that comparing more than two is impossible. Therefore, the maps were redrawn to a uniform, and reduced, scale of 6 ins: 1 mile by a cartographer. This allows comparisons between parishes, and with ordnance survey maps, so the actual fields can be located.

Publication began in 1987 with nineteen parishes, more being added annually, usually twice a year, until all were published in the autumn of 1993.

number of people involved - 118 (collecting/publishing)

number of fields copied - 125,367

number of parishes/townships - 260, in 222 booklets

cost - from £1.25 to £4.50 per parish (total set £542)

number of booklets sold - 9,000+

They were bought by schools, libraries, the general public, the English Place-Name Society, the local Archaeological Unit and more. Requests even came from Australia, Europe and America - from people whose families used to know certain parishes. In this way more information was obtained, sometimes just about one field. In order to further publicise the potential of field-names to a wider audience the Woolhope Group entered the 1994 British Archaeological Awards and were thrilled to win. An accompanying cheque from the Robert Kiln Trust is being used as core funding forThe Millennium Air Survey of Herefordshire and these aerial photographs, taken by Chris Musson, can be compared with known sites and with field-names.

The first part of The Herefordshire Field-Name Survey was simply to make the parishes, and field-names, available. The second, on- going, part is to record field-names from other sources such as wills, deeds, sales, documents, leases, etc. The information is published regularly in the Woolhope' Club transactions. People are asked to provide the field-name found /its date /source /location using the tithe number.

This information is required whether the field-name is the same as, or different from, the tithe field-name as only in this way can the ages of the field-names be properly assessed. In addition, several of our group have analysed particular field- names and the full results will be in the next, 1996, edition of the Woolhope Club Transactions.

Field-names provide extremely varied information about the landscape and so can be of use in many disciplines. There is still an incredible amount of information to be learned from them. Fieldnames are a direct link with the past and are an invaluable resource. It is research open to anyone and I do urge you to use them.

Using Air-photos

Jim Pickering It is more than 70 years since archaeologists realised that photographs taken from the air provided a new source of information on archaeological sites. Information accumulated from this source is now so immense and varied that its volume is a barrier to its incorporation into the archaeological ethos both locally and nationally. Its development in Europe raises the same problems.

Initially, new archaeological information was obtained from routine air photographs taken for other than archaeological purposes. Inclusion of archaeological information was accidental. This source was made obsolete by the prospecting and recording techniques developed by the late Major Allen in the 1930s. Whilst very limited information can occasionally and unpredictably be obtained from routine photographs, the techniques of Major Allen provide the main source of new information. Unfortunately, use of the results has preceded an understanding of the factors involved.

The development of aerial archaeology as a specific subject has taken place on the periphery of archaeology rather than as an integral part of its research. To some extent this has been inevitable because training and experience are required that are not a part of archaeological studies.

Most archaeologists know that the most prolific source of new information comes from the patterns provided by small variations of growth stages of the deeper rooting annual crops, that may be visible for only a few days at infrequent annual intervals. A photograph is merely the easiest and quickest way of recording an observation. Some of the crop mark patterns are only visible from limited angles and some provide the most information from a critical angle that can only be decided by the pilot. Many casual attempts have been made by archaeologists to carry out surveys from the air, but lack of experience, perseverance and resources doomed most of them to disappointing results or total failure.

Distribution of the information obtained in this way has always been a major difficulty. Archaeological field work is mainly directed to specific sites, specific problems, specific periods and local interests. To exploit crop marks, it is necessary to carry out air archaeology in those areas where crop marks have become visible and these do not often coincide with current archaeological activity in any one year. Nor is there a sound reason to start a programme of air archaeology for an area unless it is to be systematically applied for decades. Without this, only a few known hardy annuals will be repeatedly recorded.

Interpreting the information on air photographs has made little progress in the last 50 years. The patterns of crop marks that seem similar to the ground plans of excavated sites can be plotted onto maps to provide a catalogue to information on file, but this only provides an archaeological explanation of some. It will for instance identify Roman forts, or some Roman villas, but neither excavation nor plotting on maps have explained pit alignments. There are many crop mark patterns for which there are no excavated parallels.

Archaeologists can only investigate a fraction of the information already on file, before it is erased. Whether archaeology does so as a scientific research into the past, as a search for "treasure~' or for arcane antiquarianism remains an open question.

Do-it-yourself Geophysics

Kevan Fadden & Mike Rumbold

The subject on the Demystifying Archaeology programme that appeared to generate the most interest was "Low cost geophysics". It is unfortunate that the three speakers lined up to speak on the subject were unable to come, each for completely different but genuine reasons. However in the true tradition of CIA Congresses John Brown of Teesside Archaeological Society offered to give an impromptu talk, and a super session ensued. Not only did he explain the subject very well but also agreed to send information to the Committee when he got back from holiday, explaining how we could make a resistivity meter, a data logger and probe. We are delighted to say that pack has now arrived and an excerpt is included below. In all it is a comprehensive report which Mike and I believe will make a good basis for a pack of information we are compiling for those at of the Congress who requested it.

The Electronics

John Brown.

Though my own background is in electronics, I am fully aware of the trepidation many of you may be confronted with when the more technical aspects of this project have to be addressed. It would be foolish of me to claim all elements of this project are within the technical ability of everybody. That is certainly not the case. Anybody who is reasonably handy with DIY should be able to construct the frame and probes which only require the ability to use a hacksaw, wood saw, and spanners and perform basic soldering. The mounting case for the electronics can again be prepared with no great difficulty.

The circuits themselves have to be constructed with the utmost care, ensuring that all components go into their correct positions and that any component that is polarised (i.e. with a positive and negative terminal) is mounted the correct way round. The quality of the soldering is of fundamental importance, poor soldering is the biggest cause of faulty operation of equipment whether hobby or commercially bought. If you have any doubts about your ability to construct the project, I would seriously recommend an approach to a friend who may work in electronics, or even an approach to the local college electronics specialist.

Assuming you bite the bullet and decide to build, there are two ways you can approach the project. You can buy the circuit board from Practical Electronics and buy all the components from local or national electronic suppliers. The problem with this route is that often some of the components have been superseded, and are not readily available. Chasing around for odd components can be an extremely time consuming process, which may result in a brick wall being encountered. My recommended option if available, is to purchase the complete kit from an established kit supplier ¹, who will usually include all the components for the complete project, including the case. The kit will be slightly more expensive than the individual components, but if telephone calls and time wasted searching for components are taken into account it will work out cheaper.

Magenta Electronics supply a complete kit for a Data Logger, though I'm not sure whether they make one for the Resistivity meter.² When buying cable for the remote probes use ordinary two core flex that is used on table lamps. Don't buy it by the metre from your local DIY shop, it can cost up to 40p a metre buying it loose. Locate a local electrical wholesaler and buy a 100m drum, which should cost no more than A315 to A320.

List of suppliers:

Everyday Practical Electronics subscription³

Everyday Practical Electronics Circuit Board Service 01202 881749

Maplin - Yellow Pages for local store (Components, Project boxes)

Farnell - 0113 263 6311 (Components)

B & Q - Yellow Pages for local store (Threaded Rod and 6mm steel rod)

Magenta Electronic - 01283 565435 (Kits and components)

City Electrical Factors (CEF) - Yellow Pages for local store (Cable)

For those who use the net, the following sites should be visited:

www.resis99.freeserve.co.uk/

www.ttser.demon.co.uk/geophys/cct.htm

www.archaeology.co.uk/cia/geophyz.htm

¹ With all the research we have carried out since the Congress this is the sticking point. We have been unable to find anyone who will supply a kit of parts that we can rely on to make a workable resistivity meter. We would be delighted to hear from anyone who has cracked this problem.

² They do not and have no plans to do so.

³ A call to Everyday Practical Electronics established that back 8D copies are available.

The article Earth Resistivity Meter by Robert Beck is in the January and February 1997 Issues.

An 8-Channel Analogue Data Logger by John Becker is described in August and September 1999.

The cost of back numbers is £2.75 each incl. P+P, if they run out specified articles will be provided as Photostats for the same price. Everyday Practical Electronics (ISSN 0262 3617) is published by Wimborne Publishing Ltd., Allen House, East Borough, Wimborne, Dorset, BH21 1PF, U.K. Tel. + 44 (0)1202 881 749. Fax + 44 (0)1202 841 692

Photography

Advanced Site Photography

Eric Houlder LRPS

`Advanced' means different things to different groups. For the purpose of this paper I shall assume an archaeologically knowledgeable audience with some basic photographic skills. In addition, to simplify matters I shall assume that most people will be familiar with the 35mm camera. It is taken for granted that the medium or large format camera will produce better results but will require a good deal more photographic skill, as well as a much deeper wallet and strong-shoulders!

Cameras, especially those designed for amateur use, have become marvels of technology, with both exposure and focusing automated. However, in archaeology the best results are obtained in spite of such advances, the only really useful innovation being through the lens (TTL) flash metering. The parallel developments in lens design, however have produced some really excellent optics at good prices, especially wide angles. In view of all this, it is instructive to examine the work of past-masters like F0FG0FSimpson, Sydney Smith, and especially Maurice Cookson. They worked in monochrome with slow lenses in clumsy plate cameras. If we can produce records as good or better than they, then we deserve to be called Site Photographers.

Equipment

The most important item is a tripod, coupled with a cable release. This one thing ensures better levelling and framing and sharper pictures.

Good scales are vital, correctly placed with at least one parallel to a frame-edge. Clean ranging poles are excellent for large areas, whilst good metre, half-metre and 30cm can be made with little effort. Macro and micro scales are best purchased, see contact details below.

Some form of artificial light is useful. A powerful TTL flashgun, with a brolly and separate reflector is important for studio work on finds. In addition, a small monobloc studio head with flash-meter will be better still, though more complex in use.

Correct exposure cannot be obtained with a built-in meter. This will work for negative films in most circumstances, but for really accurate exposure of slide films an incident meter is vital.

Monochrome pictures, still important because they last much longer, need filters. Each colour lightens its own, and darkens the opposite. Resin square ones are cheapest and best. Always use a lens-hood with filters.

Finally, a cheap water-spray, obtained from a garden centre will enable colours to be deepened, or used to accentuate differential drying of otherwise invisible features.

Light

It goes without saying that the site photographer must have an idea of the progress of the sun around a site, and the effect of different lights on different subjects.

Cleaning And Photography

The most important procedure is the cleaning preparatory to photography. Wood and bone are best cleaned with surgical tongue-depressors, whilst stone, earth etc are trowelled. Fine detail can be cleaned with a leaf.

Sections should have a fine line scribed along the base, and protrusions should also be carefully lined. No attempt should be made to inscribe the strata until after the section has been drawn. The longest possible lens should be used from as near the mid-point as possible.

Post pits may need to be slightly lowered in order to create shadows. Some fill may be left rough for the same reason. TTY to photograph into the light from the tower.

Stonework should be washed thoroughly. Often it photographs better dry. It nearly always benefits from an orange filter in mono, in diffused light.

Burials used to be photographed after washing and drying. This lightens the bone, but emphasises crumbs on the base, and makes soil colours disappear. The writer often photographs them after spraying, with due consideration for DNA sampling etc. beforehand. Diffused light is best. If the sun refuses to hide, then flash may be used to 'lift' the shadowed areas.

Close-up details in-situ usually benefit from a reflector. A right-angled viewfinder (Jessop's) avoids impossible contortions. Darkfield-ground and infinity-curve finds pictures really require a makeshift studio set-up with brolly-flash and reflector as a minimum. It is the convention that the main light must always come from top left, viewed from the camera.

Contact Details

Scales. Melamine macro scales: John Price, 01252 721455. Encapsulated macro and micro scales: Roger Miles, 01727 865735. Roger also makes other useful archaeological items. Iris Audio Visual, 0181 500 2846, make rolls of millimetre self-adhesive scale like sellotape.

Processing. Nothing spoils a good picture more than cheap high street processing. The writer has found the following labs excellent and good value for money:

E6 (slides). Peak Imaging, 0870 126 6100. E6 Process, 01481 59995.

C41 (Colour negative package deals). Peak imaging (above). Home Counties Colour Service, 01582 31899. Monochrome. Peak (above).

Trowels (WHS), leaves, etc. Barnetts, old-fashioned ironmongers, just around corner from the ARC, York. Discount film in bulk - MX2 01481 257336

The art of excavation

At The Trowel Face

Recording Archaeological Stratification

At The Trowel Face

Tony Rook

This might better be called `An Introduction to the Mystery of Digging', using the word `Mystery' in the sense employed by the ancient craft guilds.

The first thing to learn is that there are best ways to use tools. We aren't born with an instinctive knowledge of how to use tools and it is ridiculous to lose your temper when someone tells you a better way to use a shovel. And a hand-brush? Some otherwise excellent diggers never learn that you don't pull it, or smear it, but push it!

The best way to learn is to find someone who is really good at it, and empathise, imitate. There is an enormous satisfaction in knowing you are doing it right, akin, perhaps, to playing a straight bat, or climbing a rock-face.

Digging a `clean' hole, with straight sides and sharp sections is essential. Brush away those crumbs (but don't smear them)! My best diggers, having dug all day and found nothing, say: `But isn't it a lovely hole?' and really mean it, and are genuinely sorry to have to fill it in. Another great satisfaction, then, is making a significant void.

The real mystery is how you find things. `Why don't you use a sieve?' or `A metal detector?' are cries of the uninitiated. Brief answer: 'There isn't any one criterion that distinguishes the significant find from the soil - the plum from the pudding. It just might be a different size or be made of metal, but that's unlikely. You are sensing (`looking' won't do here, will it?) subtle changes in the texture of the soil, its colour, the feel, the sound your towel makes. You can't learn that from books, I'm afraid.

Even on my digs you can't help finding things. There's a right way to behave. The primary rule is not to get excited. Don't scream and get all the other diggers round you in a scrum. Don't work with adrenalin pumping. Find a displacement activity until you've cooled down. (We used to say and `light a cigarette and contemplate what to do next.') A good idea is to work round the find, to see if it is part of a larger `complex'.

I've found a nail.. Is it the sole of a shoe? Part of a Saxon ship? Corner of a coffin? When in doubt0F-0Fask. But quietly, please!

Try to see and if possible handle as many as possible of the sort of objects that might turn up on the site you're working on. Always volunteer to wash finds. Stare into other people's finds- trays, museum cases. Look at the pictures in books!

So - what are we doing it for? Because it's a physical recreation with an intellectual purpose. A bit like fishing; you spend all day in the fresh air and don't know what you're going to catch until you've caught it. But there's more exercise of mind and body at the trowel face.

Last, but by no means least, there's the pleasure of belonging to a group. No, we're not all the same; some like to use a pickaxe and shovel, and some are happier with a hat-pin and paint-brush. Some get a kick out of putting up fences, talking to visitors (a very important duty). `And some are hardly fit to trust with anything that grows....' but if they are useful members of society, there's always something they can do.

Don't be put off by the elitist academic attitude that says that archaeology is too good for the workers. Digging is like sex in the afternoon. Some people do it for money, and some people do it for love. I do it for passion, myself.

Recording Archaeological Stratification

Neil Faulkner

Neil gave his talk in the light of his excavations over the past few years at Sedgeford (Sedgeford Historical and Archaeological Research Project). Experience has shown that there is no ideal method which can deal with every eventuality and that methods must be adapted to suit conditions encountered. He summed his talk up by three overhead projector slides which are reproduced here.

Some philosophical foundations

In archaeology, all facts are made up

Archaeological field-methods are contingent and variable

Interpretations are integral to excavation and recording

Material, methods and meanings interact and must be made to 'fit'

Some practical consequences

Separating data-collection and site interpretation is incorrect

Collecting data for its own sake is pointless

Excavation and recording methods will vary according to:

a) research questions, preconceptions and changing ideas

b) the stratification encountered

c) the methodologies available and their usefulness in practice

Some basic principles

Separate archaeological contexts/features represent separate past events

Single-context/feature recording is stratigraphically correct

Recording by physical level is stratigraphically incorrect

Some contexts/features are more equal than others

Diagnostic contexts/features should be recorded in more detail

For each context/feature, we should know about the following things:

a) its general character

b) its shape and extent

c) its position and relationships with other contexts

d) what it is likely to have been

e) how reliable it is as evidence

f) the associated finds and samples

g) its full ID and cross-references

Some basic procedures

1) The site note-book, including matrix

2) The context-sheets

3) The drawings

4) The photographs

5) The finds

6) The samples

Dealing with the finds

Analysing the pottery

Excavation of Human Remains

Analysing the pottery

Barry Horne

I have decided that in 20 minutes this is not really possible so I will concentrate on "Deciding what we have got".

With a whole pot it is easy for those with the knowledge to say, "That is Beaker" or "That is a Roman flagon". But how do we know that is the case? We do it in the same way that we identify cars or clothes from a particular era. I'm sure most of us can pick out a 1970s Open University programme, the flared trousers and flowery shirts etc are a dead give away. To be able to identify pottery we must become familiar with the pottery styles of the past.

Broad styles can be learnt from the Shire books such as "Prehistoric Pottery", "Pottery in Roman Britain" and "Slipware". The styles from your area will be found in local journals; those for my area are Bedfordshire Archaeology, Hertfordshire Archaeology and the Records of Buckinghamshire. Syntheses of particular types of pottery such as the BAR reports on Oxfordshire and New Forest Roman pottery may be useful. What local kilns have you got? Books such as Vivien Swan's The Pottery Kilns of Roman Britain are useful here.

This is, however, not something which can solely be learnt from books. Visits to museums will give a better idea of the colour and texture of the pottery. If a picture is worth a thousand words then getting your hands on the stuff is worth ten pictures. There is no substitute for handling the material.

A thorough knowledge of the styles which may be encountered in an excavation or through fieldwalking is important because it allows us to mentally reconstruct a whole pot from, perhaps, a single sherd. This will give you form and form may give you what all archaeologist crave - a date!

Excavation of Human Remains

Melanie Van Twest

There are many reasons for the excavation of human remains, but the most important is always the desire to understand - or understand more fully - the disease processes, injuries, stature and state of health of a past population. Where sufficient population statistics exist (or can be estimated), this can also allow us to gain an understanding of the mortality and morbidity (death and sickness) statistics for the same population. In any event, the excavation of human remains allows us to understand more about humans who have lived before us.

In the context of SHARP (Sedgeford Historical and Archaeological Research Project), finding human remains comes about purely by accident: at best, by trowelling across someone's forehead: at worst, by putting a mattock through it. This is not always the case, as in other sites the cut created by the creation of the grave will become evident at a level some distance above that of the burial itself. In either event, the decision must eventually be made as to whether or not to excavate the burial: in most cases this is determined by the extent and complexity of the archaeology that surrounds it. Sooner or later a decision will be made to 'lift the skeleton': and how do we go about this?

The excavation of human remains, once at the level of the burial itself, can be broken down into two phases: the cleaning back and the lifting. In the first, the aim is to expose as fully as possible the disposition of the bones as buried: therefore, we work down from the head to the feet, cleaning and exposing every bone as it lies. For the sake of quality photography and planning it is necessary to have as clear a picture as possible of how the individual lay at the time of burial. This will allow comparison between styles and types of burials within the same population.

The tools used for `cleaning back' tend towards the functional but small. Most important are small plastic or wooden tools - pottery tools are best - which will allow scraping away of soils without risking damage to skeletal remains. Also necessary are small brushes which allow the removal of spoil without the disturbance of the bones. These may be adapted to a variety of soils and fills: for example, in the SHARP Reeddam area we experience more muddy, clay-type soils which require the `scooping away' of spoil rather than brushing. In very hard soils the delicate use of a trowel might be necessarY.

While working, one should be careful not to disturb the surrounding area, particularly if a discernible grave cut is evident. All work takes place within the grave cut as it in itself is valuable as evidence of burial practices.

Once cleaned back, the skeleton must be recorded by means of a skeleton context sheet, including details of the disposition, surrounding archaeology, related contexts, finds, etc. which form part of the burial area. Also necessary before lifting is the planning (at 1:10 scale) and photography of the skeleton. Though these may appear to overlap as means of recording, both are essential: the photograph records all features and surrounds, while the plan is a clean line-drawing of the skeleton alone and also records the grid-references and levels associated with the burial. These allow the later (if necessary) reconstruction of an overall layout in both plan (overhead, horizontal view) and section (vertical view in layers). Remember that archaeology is destructive: anything not recorded is lost.

Lifting the skeleton is the final and, in terms of post-excavation, an essential phase of the excavation process. Working in the opposite fashion - from the feet up to the head - the excavators clean around and remove each bone from its resting place and deposit them in bags already labelled appropriately. Working in logical sections - feet, left leg, right leg, left & right pelvis, sacrum, vertebrae, etc - is strongly suggested, as is the use of an anatomical textbook to ensure nothing is missed. Where possible soil is removed from the bone before placing in bags. In the case of extremely fragmentary bone - particularly in the case of skulls - several methods exist, one of the simplest of which involves the use of kitchen foil to ensure every piece is included. At last, one should have the entire skeleton, as present, packed into a box with the heaviest bones at the base and the skull separate.

Further treatment is considered post-excavation and is beyond the scope of this presentation, but suffice to say that the post- excavation treatment - particularly the immediate conservation practices are as important as the excavation itself. If desired, I am happy to answer any queries and provide advice as required.

Building an archive

Setting up a post-excavation project

Roy Friendship-Taylor

The Upper Nene Archaeological Society has been excavating the late Iron Age settlement and Romano-British villa at Piddington, Northamptonshire for the past 20 years and has produced a prodigious quantity of material, such as 2.5 tonnes of pottery. One of the largest assemblages of samian in the midlands (so my samian specialist tells me), some 25,000 oyster shells, over 100 sq. metre trays of painted wall plaster, nearly 1000 coins - and so it goes on.

It is against this background of ever increasing material evidence emanating from the excavation that it was imperative to have a rolling programme of finds processing leading to a final fully researched piece of work ready for publication.

With a project the size of Piddington it is essential to keep up to date with basic processing, to enable the more detailed work to progress quickly and smoothly; for example we found that there was no county or for that matter a regional fabric type series to help with the identification of the many different fabric types that were beginning to emerge. So we have had to create our own fabric type series. It is designed in such a way as to conform as closely as possible with that of the new Roman Pottery National Reference Collection now held at the British Museum (unfortunately it has had to be packed up and put into store because of the rebuilding work going on in the main building). However, there is a new publication available (Tomber & Dore, 1999). It is hoped that this pottery reference collection will be used by both independents and the professionals alike. Inevitably though, our reference collection has to be tailored to our own needs. Parallel with the processing, the pottery has to be illustrated - so far some 1500 pottery drawings have been completed to a scale of 1:1 and then reduced to the published scale of 1:4 using the Society's own Photo Mechanical Transfer camera.

Not only does continuing finds processing advance the task to manageable proportions, but useful information is gained about the finds and hence, the interpretation of the site, while excavation is still in progress.

People

Volunteers need to be encouraged to `OWN' a subject area and with such a large resource that Piddington provides there is no shortage of topics to choose from. Already, we have a mix of subject categories under way. The largest is the coarse pottery followed by the samian, illustrations for which have just begun.

Just completed and virtually ready for inclusion into a `Faunal Remains' volume is the study of the insects from the Well at Piddington (About one of the largest stone-lined wells in Roman Britain). This was a BA dissertation by one of our regular team completed at the University of Birmingham.

The Animal Remains and the Marine Mollusca are both theses completed by our regular team members who studied them respectively at the Universities of Leicester and Newcastle. Other topics which were undertaken by nationally known specialists have been completed and are awaiting publication, they are the `Worked Bone' objects and the `Brooches'.

Topics

The Society benefits greatly from university-based archaeological students seeking research topics for their dissertations and theses. Indeed, we do get considerable help from several universities, it is a two way process.

One recent piece of research conducted by one of our regular team, a mature student at the University of Nottingham,was the study of the `Ceramic Building Materials from Piddington'. We have just received the proofs and it should be printed in a few weeks time - this was achieved with the aid of a Lottery `Awards for All' grant.

We try and encourage Society members to `OWN' a subject, with a view to completing a full study of a topic for eventual full publication. One such topic was the Marine Mollusca which was carried over from a purely voluntary basis into a full dissertation at the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne (the individual gained the departmental prize for this dissertation).

To enable the `specialist' to fully understand contexts etc. The excavator - myself has to give full site/context details drawings, plans and photographs and frequently lengthy discussions to enable the `specialists' to evaluate and gain as full an understanding and `feel' of the site as possible.

UNAS Publication Policy

This is inextricably linked to the specialist reports and is an encouragement to the would-be specialist to see their hard work in print! Therefore the Society's publication policy is to produce its own series of Fascicules on specific studies of groups of material or related topics usually accompanied by a detailed up to date interim statement and plans of the site. This approach allows information on finds from the Society's excavation to be disseminated widely and used far earlier than having to wait for a final definitive report. In the case of Piddington, this will be a number of years away.

A year or two ago, I was talking to Robin Birley at Vindolanda in Northumberland about the problems of publishing large groups of finds, he was bemoaning the fact that he had thousands of objects to publish and he thought (rightly) that the final price of publishing his enormous collection as a single volume would be prohibitively expensive (rather like the recent British Museum Monograph by Tim Potter on his excavations at Stonea, Cambridgeshire, this was put on sale for about A3198.00 - I wonder how many copies they have sold or given away? I showed Robin our recently produced Mortaria Fascicule - he immediately liked our concept. And Lo and behold some 6 months or so later his first Fascicule appeared following the Piddington concept.

Finally, when the final and detailed report on the structures is eventually written, it is hoped that the finds will by then be written up and fully published. All that will then be necessary, will be a synthesised commentary of the finds which can be fully integrated into the final report

6.4 Design walk through

Publication

Towards Publication

How to produce an archaeological report

Towards publication

Peter Clayton

In CIA Newsletter 18, September 1995, after the last Sheffield Conference, I wrote an article entitled `To Publish - And Then be Lost and Buried?' I turn back from that to look at and enter caveats on the road to publication from long experience in the `trade' as Archaeological Editor at Thames and Hudson for over a decade and being the founding Managing Editor at British Museum Publications for over five years (and other senior publishing appointments).

The initial and essential caveat is `Look before you leap/publish', even if it is only a small booklet, let alone a larger monograph, interim report or final book size publication. Too many archaeological societies (including major county ones) have crucified themselves on the cost of ill-thought out publications, often of an inferior standard. First, amongst early discussions, identify one person to be in charge editorially and responsible for the various stages.

The whole project must be carefully thought out and parameters established what length of text; how many illustrations, what are they - colour, tone, line drawings, figures, maps, plans, etc. The latter especially must be thought through because of reduction problems that can arise when the drawing line is not appropriate for reduction. Foldouts and throw-clears for large plans are to be avoided like the plague - they are extremely costly, and usually unnecessary in that an alternative can be found.

Formulate a `Guide to Contributors' on house style, preferred spellings, etc - if in any doubt, contact the Publications Manager of the Society of Antiquaries and ask for a copy of their `Guide'. Consistency is a must, with a single author, let alone multiple contributors. An essential tool is a copy of Hart's Rules for Compositors and Readers..., OUP - it will give guidance on many problems and variant spellings, etc.

Once you have an idea of the eventual product, decide what your print run will be. Don't be supremely optimistic `every one will want one' - they won't! (In 1974 at the British Museum I had instances of copies of certain titles in stock which, on the analysis of sales, represented over 300 years' stock of sales!)

Then, proceed to getting printers' estimates. Do not be misled by mistaken loyalties to a local printer. Identify other printers who can or have produced similar work to your requirements - get at least two printers' estimates. Identify your preferred print number, but also ask for a `run on' quote, say, if you contemplate a run of 200 copies, ask for a `run on' cost for 300 - it will give you a good idea of the variations in unit cost. Do not be tempted into a long print run to achieve a lower unit cost, thus ending up with more copies than you can ever hope to sell (like the example of the BM quoted above).

The retail price (and make sure you put it on the publication), must be a multiple of your unit cost and recognise a one third discount for trade sales. When calculating your retail price, work out how many copies you need to sell at trade to recover your capital outlay - do not rely on retail sales to recover this, it rarely works.

Calculate your unit cost not on the full print run but on that figure less your `freebies', i.e. 6 Legal Deposit (see Newsletter 18), review copies, local worthies, etc. Don't make these too many, e.g. on a print run of 400, about 30 should be ample of a reasonable monograph (and pro rata less for a booklet).

Don't forget to get your ISBN, and lay out your title page and verso (back of it) properly incorporating your name and address as publisher, copyright line, and the printer's name (see Newsletter 18).

After all those `do's' and `don'ts', breathe a sigh of relief, fix your publication or launch date, and sit back with fingers crossed, and don't forget that publications do not sell themselves - you have to get the word out on the street that you are there.

How to produce an archaeological report

Andrew Selkirk

How should we produce excavation reports? The normal methods practised by professional archaeologists are, I think, wrong. The professional way to write an archaeological report is to rigidly separate out facts from theory. This produces the interesting result that archaeological reports become totally unintelligible. If you try to start from the beginning, you soon find that the `facts' are so dense that you will soon be lost in a morass of meaningless detail. If you then try to jump to the end and start with the conclusions, you soon find the conclusions can't be understood unless you have first read the description: the result is stalemate.

The stalemate can be broken only by realising that there is no such thing as a `fact' in archaeology. There is evidence, based on observations, and we must assess this evidence to see whether it is strong or weak and to see how far it coheres with other evidence.

In starting to write up an excavation, it is useful to begin with the 4 stages laid down in the famous Frere/Cunliffe report. Level 1 is the site itself and the objects recovered from it. Level 2 is the excavation notebooks and the other primary evidence accumulated in the course of an excavation. Level 3 is then the analysis of this evidence and it was the genius of Barry Cunliffe to recognise that this was a separate stage and one which takes longer than all the other stages put together. Level 4 is then the actual publication of the report, presenting results to the world.

It is here that my main strictures apply and we must look sceptically at the fact/interpretation model. The report should start off with the most important discovery. If it is a Roman Villa with a scattering of Mesolithic flints, then describe the Roman villa first and assign the flints to an appendix. Then comes the bulk of the report, a description of the site area by area, laying out the evidence and assessing its significance. It is important to bring out the vital aspects: if a thousand Roman coins are discovered but only two are in significant contexts then these two should be assessed in their contexts. If a crucial area was dug by an inexperienced digger in a rain storm, then say so. Where there is no evidence, say so: negative evidence can be as important as positive evidence and if you have looked for a feature and failed to find it, then say so.

Of course there is much that will have to be described in the appendices. Of those thousand coins, only two may be stratigraphically significant but the other 998, when considered en masse will certainly have an important story to tell us. Similarly the pottery, its types and its sources, whether it is the assemblage of a rich man purchasing foreign luxuries or that of a poor man buying from the local potter has its own fascinating story to add, and it is the art of the report writer to decide how far this should be woven in to the main account and how far it should be relegated to an appendix.

The internet

The internet is very good at two different extremes. It is good for very short messages, for the very rapid tasting of information - for what is called surfing. It is also excellent for providing detailed specialist information in the form of a database. It is in the middle that the problems lie. The internet is not suitable for what might be called serious reading - at least in its present form - which is why, incidentally, the official `establishment' response in the form of Internet Archaeology - simply transferring a traditionally unreadable academic journal to a new format - is a mistake.

But for databases it is marvellous. Detailed information can be produced often in searchable tabular form so that other researchers can find the information they require quickly, and will be able to down load information e.g. coin lists for integration into their own databases. This is something that cannot be done with a microfiche - or a printed appendix to a report.

But this means there will be more scope than ever before for `proper' excavation reports, that is short, readable accounts of excavations in a form which a comparatively wide number of readers can assimilate easily and quickly.

Who will publish such reports? I believe that the main publisher should continue to be the county archaeological society. There is a great advantage in serial publication: if you have a county society of a thousand members, and they all receive the journal, then that information will of necessity be widely disseminated. Similarly if the printing costs are spread over 1,000 members, then the printing will be cheap and cost-effective. I feel that it is the main duty of the county society to be the publisher - or the facilitator of archaeological publishing - in its area.

Thus I believe that the independent archaeologist - and the societies that he joins - have a major role to play in archaeological publishing. We must use our advantages of independence to experiment with new lay outs and fresh formats to pioneer a fresh look for archaeological publishing. I hope that the members of the CIA will be in the forefront.

(Return to Contents)