Dear All,

 

Now that some of the work-a-day aspects of dealing with ploughzone archaeology have been discussed, I’d like to return to the epistemological / methodological issues I raised last week.  I am reminded of the apocryphal statement of Mike Griffiths when asked if there was enough archaeology to warrant the employment of a county archaeologist and he responded that “every square metre of North Yorkshire has archaeology”.  Therein is the nub of the issue, the widely varying scale of the resource, from find spots to landscapes, and how to model the resource to get reliable information out of it as well as conserve it. 

 

There are relatively few projects that have got to grips with this issue.  Dominic Powlesland’s work over decades in the Vale of Pickering comes easily to mind.  Martin Green’s work on the Dorset – Hampshire downs is another.  There have been a number of major linear projects across the country which have provided valuable information on the relation between in situ archaeology and the archaeology in the upper disturbed layers of the soil.  And those studies on the strategy for, and distribution of, trial trenching to get the best results are also instructive.  But handling these big data sets are challenging for even the best resourced HERs.  Even where sufficient computing resources are available, there is often a limited theoretical or research framework in which to assess and investigate ploughzone archaeology.  And though I have in my previous work required interventions to provide some quantitative / qualitative assessment of the archaeology to be lost by large scale topsoil stripping, it is very challenging for contractors to pursue this with developers and to devise a cost-effective strategy for such work.  There was a debate some years ago regarding fieldwalking, as to whether or not finds should be collected or left in situ, the theory being that collection would skew the finds population and give us the wrong idea of what was left.  For the most part, archaeologists just don’t know what is in the ploughzone until it’s gone.

 

Soil scientists have some conceptual and theoretical tools to come to grips with the constantly varying characteristics of soil.  The concept of the pedon, a subtly varying, dynamic unit of soil that can be expanded to cover landscapes may be a idea that archaeologists might wish to adapt to their needs. We certainly need to have a framework that integrates finds into landscape processes.  Dominic Powlesland has used his knowledge of in situ and disturbed archaeology across a landscape to target specific locations and deposits as risk for conservation and investigation.  We need more large scale landscape studies and their feed back into HERs.  I also think that studies of an experimental or garbage archaeology approach might also contribute to our understanding of the resource.  We know that large parts of the earth’s surface now hold significant quantities of comminuted plastic rubbish.  Might we not get some idea of the processes of “sub-aerial” rubbish distribution by studying modern debris?  After all, the lithic scatters and pot sherds of the past are roughly equivalent to the ubiquitous plastic containers of today. I think we need to develop more robust theoretical models to properly understand, conserve, and research the archaeology of the top 30+ cms.

 

Cheers,

Neil Campling

 

 

Sarah MacLean MA MIfA

Heritage Information Partnerships Supervisor

English Heritage

Designations Department

Engine House

Firefly Avenue

Swindon

SN2 2EH

E-mail: [log in to unmask]

Telephone: 01793 414880