|
Issue 112May / Jun 2010newsRare prehistoric finds at major Carlisle dig Hammerwich hoard "saved" – but who for? Mary Rose studies query science of tracing migration Surprising age of new-found stone row on Dartmoor featuresUniversity archaeologyTHE BIG DIG: Discovering BosworthThe Buried Gods of GogmagogThree Men and a (Leaky) Boaton the webCaroline Wickham-Jones investigates the archaeological value of encyclopaedic websites and Stuart Jeffrey describes the Grey Lierature Library scienceA child's gift to science, the human remains debate lettersYour views and responses CBA CorrespondentMike Heyworth explores the great rewards and challenges of undersea archaeology
ISSN 1357-4442 Editor Mike Pitts |
newsNews is written by Mike Pitts Rare prehistoric finds at major Carlisle digJust before Christmas last year Oxford Archaeology North completed a seven-month excavation with up to 60 staff, at a site on the Carlisle northern development route (CNDR) that will link the A595 and the M6 west of Carlisle, Cumbria. Work focussed on a very large scatter of mesolithic flint artefacts, and an old channel, once part of the river Eden, that had preserved quantities of neolithic organic remains. Amongst these are the first British "tridents" found in modern times. A section of Hadrian's Wall was also excavated, where a new road bridge is to be built. The mesolithic site (c 8500–4000BC) was on a natural terrace above the river; the survival of an ancient land surface is described as "fortuitous". A sieving system developed by Dutch archaeologists was used, in which hundreds of tonnes of soil was washed by water pumped through wheelbarrows whose bottoms had been replaced with 2mm wire mesh. In this way over 200,000 flint artefacts were recovered, including many microliths, from a scatter spread over 800 square metres. OAN project manager Fraser Brown says there is no obvious pit house, despite stakeholes, charcoal-rich pits and a large hollow. It is possible the site was regularly visited for exploiting the salmon-rich estuary. Equally remarkable is the material from the palaeochannel, found in two dark layers separated by silt. The lower layer contained evidence for human activity and beaver-chewed timbers which may be contemporary with the flint scatter. In the higher were a variety of neolithic artefacts. These include two "tridents", wooden forks seen previously in 19th century finds from a bog in Armagh and in a well-known group of objects from Ehenside Tarn, also in Cumbria. The latter included stone axes, a polishing stone and a paddle: all of these are amongst the new finds, as well as a flint arrowhead with hafting mastic still attached. Withies held by stakes driven into the channel may be the remains of a disused fish trap. Radiocarbon dates for the "tridents", whose function is unknown, range from 3800 to 3370BC. Mark Brennand, senior historic environment officer at Cumbria county council, says the location was significant in neolithic times. The cropmark of a large henge-like ring (which may have been a palisade) has been recorded 150m from the river, with a smaller ring nearby. Brown tells British Archaeology that he is now working on the post-excavation assessment for the contractor, Birse Civils. "That's when the real story will come out", he says. Hammerwich hoard "saved" – but who for?News that funds have been raised to buy the Staffordshire Anglo-Saxon hoard for Birmingham and Stoke museums was greeted with delight in the West Midlands. As Birmingham Archaeology returns to the site for further excavation, work will enter a new phase with museum ownership assured. The goal now is to raise money for conservation and display. But in a bizarre twist, British Archaeology can reveal that Staffordshire county council is seeking to trademark the hoard name. Soon after the treasure committee valued the hoard at £3.285m last November, the Art Fund announced that it would lead the "battle" to save it for the West Midlands by April 17; it had been agreed from the outset that the British Museum would not seek to acquire it. While common in the art world (Titian's Diana and Actaeon was recently bought for the nation for £50m, to which the National Heritage Memorial Fund contributed £10m), such a figure has no precedent for the purchase of British archaeological artefacts. Yet no painting has attracted such a high level of interest and donations from so many people. The Portable Antiquities Scheme's Kevin Leahy, who is expanding the hoard catalogue (he has found an unexpected number of loose garnets, of great interest for future research), said "the general public are really interested – this is not an elite pastime". Household names stated their support for the appeal, among them Tony Robinson, David Starkey and Michael Wood, Judi Dench, Michael Palin and Frank Skinner, and Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg – though the Birmingham Mail noted that "none of the party leaders appeared to be backing up their words of support with donations". In February the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall viewed the hoard at the exhibition at the Potteries Museum and Art Gallery, Stoke-on-Trent (Birmingham council said the prince was descended from Anglo-Saxon Mercian kings). The exhibition drew 52,500 visitors in 24 days, averaging slightly more per day than the first one in Birmingham; both had four-hour queues (see News, Jan/Feb). Stoke Museum received £152,000 in public donations during the display. At the appeal launch in January, the Art Fund's new director Stephen Deuchar announced a £300,000 grant and Birmingham and Stoke councils each offered £100,000. The appeal passed £1m in late February, and on March 23 the NHMF announced a grant of £1.285m, bringing the fund to its first target. The money will be split equally between landowner and finder. The appeal continues with a new focus on raising £1.7m for the essential conservation, research and display. On March 7 the Art Fund brought nine-year-old Emily Bairstow from Devon to see the hoard: she had written to Tony Robinson and donated £10. Unknown to her and to most of the hoard partners, on January 13 Staffordshire county council had applied to trademark the phrase "Staffordshire hoard", saying later that in due course it would transfer the mark to the partnership. The goal is to control the name for business use, something that many archaeologists are uneasy with. There is a two-month notice of opposition period once the application is advertised in the Trade Marks Journal. Mary Rose studies query science of tracing migrationFor over a century human migration and mobility have been important issues in understanding the past. Traditionally these have been approached through artefact studies, often with considerable disagreement. Recently science has stepped in, with the analysis of tooth enamel – which traps signatures of local geology and climate – appearing to offer robust insights into ancient residency and movement. The science is still developing, and relies on the existence of detailed base maps against which variations in stable isotopes of lead, strontium and oxygen, preserved in excavated teeth, can be compared. There have been some spectacular surprises, one of the first being the claim in 2003 that the Amesbury Archer, a man buried near Stonehenge around 2300BC with exceptional grave goods, was born in central Europe. Other prehistoric people have been shown to have moved widely around Britain during their lives. In March it was announced that over 50 young men who had been brutally killed between 910 and 1030AD and buried in a pit near modern Weymouth, had been identified as Vikings. In 2009 a new theory was proposed for the sinking of the Mary Rose in 1545. Lynne Bell, Julia Lee-Thorp and Andrew Elkerton argued in the Journal of Archaeological Science that a high proportion of the crew were foreign mercenaries: unable to speak English, they failed to respond to orders when a manoeuvre went wrong. The oxygen isotope patterns in the teeth of 18 men from the ship, it was claimed, showed that as many as two thirds of them had grown up further south in Europe. Now in the newly-published issue of the same journal, Andrew Millard and Hannes Schroeder (at Durham and Oxford universities) say the study was flawed; Bell, Lee-Thorp and Elkerton (at Simon Fraser and Bradford universities, and the Mary Rose Trust respectively) defend their work. At the heart of the dispute is a disagreement about how such studies should be done. Millard and Schroeder compared the original teeth data to known geographical variations in phosphate values in drinking water, using an equation derived from a study comparing teeth and water. They conclude that only one of the analysed ship crew was definitely born abroad. Bell et al, by contrast, had compared their data with analyses of human and horse teeth from modern Britain. Millard and Schroeder say the modern sample (with nine human teeth) is too small, and does not represent the full variation of UK groundwater isotopes. Bell et al counter that comparing teeth directly with teeth – human or otherwise – is the better approach. Surprising age of new-found stone row on DartmoorOn 4 April 2004, Tom Greeves made the remarkable discovery of a major prehistoric monument on Cut Hill, one of the highest (at 600m OD) and remotest parts of Dartmoor. Survey that still continues has now revealed a total of nine megaliths, eight exposed by historic peat cutting and erosion, and one discovered within the peat by probing. The stones are 1.5–2.6m long, and between 19m and 34.5m apart over a total distance of 215m: in all respects, these statistics make the row distinctly large amongst some 80 previously known on the moor. All stones now lie flat, but what look like packing blocks at the end of one suggest the row may originally have been standing. Adding to the significance of the discovery is the blanket of peat, which has preserved a prehistoric land surface and made radiocarbon dating possible. Stone rows of this type in western Europe are traditionally thought to date from around 2100–1600BC, making them early bronze age. This argument has been criticised by some for a lack of solid evidence, and the Cut Hill row is the first to be directly dated. Carbon samples were obtained from the peat above and below one of the stones, and below another (described in the new Antiquity, March 2010). These suggest that one had fallen by 3600–3440BC and the other by 3350–3100BC; the latter was already covered in new peat by 2480–2240BC. In other words, the row is much older than expected, and was made by some of the region's first farmers in the early neolithic. Ralph Fyfe, of the School of Geography, University of Plymouth, has analysed pollen and other plant remains from the peat. These point to a heather-dominated heath in the late mesolithic (radiocarbon dated to 5980–5740BC), with a mostly wooded landscape at lower elevations; Elisabeth Greeves found a microlith at the site, which may have been lost by a hunter at that time. In the neolithic there was still no clear upland moorland, with the row likely built in a patch of open heath or bog in what was otherwise woodland. Fyfe and Greeves note that while unusual for Dartmoor, the Cut Hill row is echoed in form and scale by a few on Bodmin Moor in Cornwall. These too, they say, could be early in date. The straight, north-east/south-west alignment of the row is apparently all but identical to that of Stonehenge – that is, it seems to indicate the rising midsummer sun and setting midwinter sun. A similar orientation appears at another exceptional site at Drizzlecombe, where two or three long rows run for 75–150m; one ends with one of Dartmoor's largest standing stones, 4.3m high. This may be coincidence – studies of stone row alignments on the moor indicate an almost random pattern – but the story of the Cut Hill row is far from over. in the press![]() |
CBA web:British ArchaeologyJan/Feb 2005Mar/Apr 2005 May/Jun 2005 Jul/Aug 2005 Sep/Oct 2005 Nov/Dec 2005 Jan/Feb 2006 Mar/Apr 2006 May/Jun 2006 Jul/Aug 2006 Sep/Oct 2006 Nov/Dec 2006 Jan/Feb 2007 Mar/Apr 2007 May/Jun 2007 Jul/Aug 2007 Sep/Oct 2007 Nov/Dec 2007 Jan/Feb 2008 Mar/Apr 2008 May/Jun 2008 Jul/Aug 2008 Sep/Oct 2008 Nov/Dec 2008 Jan/Feb 2009 Mar/Apr 2009 May/Jun 2009 Jul/Aug 2009 Sep/Oct 2009 Nov/Dec 2009 Jan/Feb 2010 Mar/Apr 2010 May/Jun 2010 Jul/Aug 2010 Sep/Oct 2010 Nov/Dec 2010 Jan/Feb 2011 Mar/Apr 2011 May/Jun 2011 Jul/Aug 2011 Sep/Oct 2011 Nov/Dec 2011 Jan/Feb 2012 Mar/Apr 2012 CBA BriefingFieldwork CBA homepage |