6.3: The Characteristics of Surface Sites


Prospekcja powierzchniowa na węgierskich polach. Fot. S. Rzeźnik

The methodology and aims of the study of individual sites by means of a close examination of the characteristics of their surface exposures is not generally discussed in outreach to artefact hunters and other finders. Some supporters of liaison with the artefact hunting community even claim that the removal of diagnostic finds from them makes no difference because "in many cases they are only from the ploughsoil". The suggestion is motivated by several notions, as one artefact hunter wrote on his blog: 
How can we [artefact hunters] be slated for digging up finds that are in the plough soil and have been moved around for hundreds if not thousands of years.  They are not in their context, they haven't been since farmers used the land.  There is nothing that can be learnt except from the item itself. [...]  there is no [context] to record as the find has been dragged out of it by the plough for years [...].
It is not clear why such views have persisted in the artefact hunting community for so long. There is a huge literature much of it produced by British archaeologists on surface survey techniques to recover archaeological information from surface scatters, precisely on ploughed sites. A lot of it addresses in detail the aspect of the degree to which (and when) ploughing disrupts existing patterns of surface artefacts. The frequency with which surface archaeological survey (fieldwalking) has been used as a primary technique in landscape archaeology on almost all continents for the past several decades should be proof enough that most field archaeologists think the effects of ploughing are less significant than the views expressed above would imply (there is a select reading list on these questions in a subsequent post here).

The policy document 'Our Portable Past' makes the point clearly. The document says [p. 5] that fieldwork on surface sites is important because:
material in the ploughsoil [...] has the potential to provide valuable evidence of past human activity that may not survive in situ below cultivation levels [...]. This evidence could reveal information about processes and activities such as past land use, flint-working, middening and manuring, as well as structures or parts of structures (including occupation and floor levels) whose surviving remains have already been assimilated into the ploughsoil [...]. In the case of some sites, such as flint scatters, material in the ploughsoil may be the only evidence of occupation that did not leave structural remains. These are often termed ‘sites without structures’ (Historic England forthcoming). Material from the ploughsoil can also provide evidence for the loss and use of artefacts which, when systematically recorded, can potentially provide evidence of patterns of casual loss and deliberate deposition, thereby contributing to the study of past material culture. [...] The potential of all this evidence is realised through the identification of materials within the ploughsoil [...], and by the study of the association of these materials both with each other and with other archaeological, environmental and geomorphological evidence. In circumstances where the original close vertical association of material has been disrupted by cultivation or other processes, then the full realisation of this potential is dependent on the precise record of its location in the ploughsoil [...].
References:

Historic England 2018, 'Our Portable Past: Guidance for Good Practice' (3rd edition, 20 February 2018)

Adapted from two posts on the PACHI blog: Thursday, 6 March 2014,  Focus on UK Metal Detecting: What's this all about? UPDATE 7th March 2014:  Focus on UK Metal Detecting: Not Doing the Service to History People Say'.
















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