6.2: Surface Survey: Investigating Cultural Landscapes


Archaeological surface survey in progress, not a JCB or shovel in sight
The examination of cultural landscapes by surface survey arguably began in Britain and one of the influential proponents of this manner of research in its beginnings was O.G.S. Crawford. As this approach matured, fieldwalking developed as a method of rapidly covering areas about to be engulfed by redevelopment such as road construction in the 1970s and in the US as part of the development of the methodologies of Cultural Resource Management. It also had a use in archaeological research projects carried out abroad, for example in the Mediterranean region. Surface survey coupled with environmental sampling was a cost-effective means of gaining research data to answer a range of research questions. The development of this type of research in the Mediterranean region is discussed by Athanassopoulos and Wandsnider 2004.

The early field surveys (such as the Minnesota Messenia Expedition that started in the 1950s and continued until the mid 1970s), adopted a regional approach, and found archaeological sites and studied their environmental setting. The landscape history of the region, including the study of sites and settlements of all periods and ethnographic studies. The focus was on studying demographic and economic processes. Here the survey of material in the fields in this region is more than 'X marks the spot' single loose finds plotting, but proper gridded systematic surveys with controlled pickup, the results of which can be examined spatially (and in their full regional context) as well as quantitatively on the basis of systematically gathered data. These results can then be interpreted to tell us about changing landuse. In the early days, this approach tended however to concentrate on the 'productive' pottery-rich settlement sites and fuller understanding of the development of the rural landscapes in the Mediterranean was hampered by the often poorly preserved archaeological remains and the persistent research bias towards ‘central places’ and easily accessible landscape zones.

This period was followed by a "New Wave" of intensive surveys of the 1980s and 1990s. These began to study other issues such as change and stability over time, and attention began to be directed to intensity of use of the land, represented by pottery scatters from manuring and also questions of site visibility. This involved more sophisticated high-resolution surface collection strategies combined with other techniques to investigate both archaeological patterns and the site formation processes (such as slope processes) that have an effect on their detectability. An example of this kind of work is the paper Putting the Spotlight on Small Metal Age Pottery Scatters in Northern Calabria (Italy) This showed that instead of large-scale prospection, attention needs to be also focused on very local phenomena in order to reconstruct the bigger picture of ancient landscapes and recover details of the hidden landscapes that other methods will miss.

Fieldwalking results at Monte San Nicola.
The careful recording of pottery scatters produces information about the structure of the archaeological record, and provides information not only on the location of sites but also what was happening on different parts of them.

Some of this work includes the recording of "off-site" surface scatters to make inferences on land use. An example is Richard Jones's (2004) work  in north Buckinghamshire and south-west Northamptonshire on the use of pottery in manure scatters in the identification of Medieval arable farming regimes.
Richard Jones (2004) 
This work provides information on medieval manuring strategies, and how they have changed over time. The nature of the pottery scatters can be interpreted in terms of infield/outfield cultivation, open-field farming, demesne blocks, and assarts . In this way the careful collection and recording of off-site pottery scatters allows the detailed mapping of the location and extent of each component of the medieval arable zone, providing important information on the medieval rural landscape of a type not available from other sources.

 Jones (2011)
Another example of the value of offsite data is the study by Jones (2011) of Medieval food waste disposal, on the basis of the distribution and nature of the topsoil pottery assemblages related to manuring. Here it was shown that these patterns are very complex. An example discussed was the results of field survey at Wick Hamon in Northamptonshire. Here a concentration of high-status pottery initially interpreted as the site of the manor house itself, was later found to be the midden that was separated 300m from the house, and the extent and density of the pottery scatter around it showed where manuring had taken place. Jones' paper takes this evidence further and combines it with other sources of information to attempt to infer the Medieval worldview this behaviour reflects.

References:

 Wieke de Neef, Kayt Armstrong and Martijn van Leusen (2017) Putting theSpotlight on Small Metal Age Pottery Scatters in Northern Calabria (Italy), Journal of Field Archaeology, 42:4, 283-297,   ©

Athanassopoulos, E. E. and Wandsnider, L. 2004, 2004 Mediterranean Landscape Archaeology Past and Present. In Mediterranean Archaeological Landscapes: Current Issues, edited by E. Athanassopoulos and L. Wandsnider, pp. 1-14. University of Pennsylvania Museum Press, Philadelphia.  

 Richard Jones (2004) Signatures in the Soil: The Use of Pottery in Manure Scatters in the Identification of Medieval Arable Farming Regimes, Archaeological Journal, 161:1, 159-188, DOI: 10.1080/00665983.2004.11020574
Richard Jones 2011, 'Elemental theory in everyday practice: food disposal in the later medieval English countryside'  Ruralia (Processing, Storage, Distribution of Food: Food in the Medieval Rural Environment), Vol.8 pp 145-154.


Tamara Kroftova comments:
"People with metal detectors so often complain that they are mistreated by their critics, because 'metal detectors only remove material from the top few centimetres', and therefore they are not damaging the deeper stratification of archaeological sites. 
They are, however, (selectively) destroying the surface evidence of a site (see above) Again, given the amount of literature available to them and the accessibility of archaeological advice, there is no excuse for the exhibition of ignorance that we see on metal detecting forums and websites over this. There should be no bones at all being made about this, the way that collection-driven exploitation of the archaeological record is taking place in Britain today is simply irresponsibly ripping up history. Why British archaeologists are so spectacularly failing to get this idea across is very difficult for a European archaeologist to understand".  

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

2.1: What is archaeology?

Image
Archaeological research   as a process There are many possible ways to define the subject and object of study. This is the definition of archaeology used here: Archaeology is the study of aspects the human past through the documentation and analysis of physical remains and traces, their associations and contexts, by the methodology of archaeology and dissemination of the results and conclusions. 1) " The study of aspects of the human past ", The past might be very remote, from the Lower Palaeolithic, where it may intercalate with palaeontology (but archaeologists don't do dinosaurs), to almost the present day (periods when other but not all aspects of the past are amply documented by other sources), 2)  " aspects of the human past ", many areas of the human past are arguably beyond the reach of even the most creative of archaeological thought, 3) " through the documentation ", the archaeological evidence does not exist in a vacuum, curran...
Read more

3.3: Archaeological layers

Image
In talking about archaeological context we tend to think of it in terms of being composed of individual layers. These are discrete units of sediment, debris, rock, and other materials that form or accumulate as the result of natural processes, human activity, or both. In order to describe them and indicate their position on a site and in its sequence, these layers are generally numbered sequentially (with the lowest number being that removed first). An individual layer or deposit may be termed (following geological nomenclature) a stratum, and multiple layers are called strata. Therefore the study of their sequence is called stratigraphy (description of what we call the stratification). One of the simplest ways to depict layers is to depict them as a vertical sequence and this is frequently done in the form of a section (or 'profile') through them. Here is an explanation from Michigan State University 'Campus Archaeology' page "Archaeology 101: Reading strati...
Read more

4.1 What the archaeological record looks like in the Ground

Image
If the responsible artefact hunter is to  record the bits of the archaeological record destroyed in removing artefacts in collection-driven exploitation of a site, obviously they need to know what it is they are looking for, in other words, what the archaeological record looks like. At this point, many textbooks would show the reader a section or two showing the superimposed layers ("like a cake"). But that actually is not the way the stratification of a feature are actually encountered in the field. The suggestion that it is the section that is always paramount in the recording and interpretation of a site is a very damaging one. This is despite the prevalence of s ingle-context recording in the standard excavation methodical toolkit for over half a century. The main manner in which the stratigraphical units of a site are met is from above, from the working surface. The first point that this raises is that this should at all times be kept clean of loose soil, trample ...
Read more