You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Amateur archaeology’ category.
As we’ve said many times, and as the attendees at our megameets prove time and time again, we are (largely) a collection of ‘Ordinary people, caring for Extraordinary places‘. Very nice people, it has to be said, but in the main we’re not showered with professional archaeology qualifications. Luckily, we have access to several ‘tame’ archaeologists, who provide advice and help to steady the tiller when needed, and mostly so far we have avoided espousing what has become known as ‘Bad Archaeology‘
Over the years, we’ve had many submissions which we’ve had to turn down from often well-meaning but dare we say it, deluded, people espousing their own favourite pet theories as to why certain monuments are where they are, or proposing some outlandish original use, often based upon very little true science (other than half an hour scouring Wikipedia!) Where we have proposed daring new theories – and Dr. Sandy Gerrard’s preliminary work on stone rows is a good example here – they have been backed up by the scientific method, utilising the full range of available academic information. Information all too often denied to the amateur researcher due to academic firewalls, cost etc.
And yet these theories often see the light of day, and even get published as pseudo academic papers or books, without any proper scientific scrutiny. Even worse, they might illustrate their great discovery with quotes and images without context, referencing and copyright approval. It is therefore no wonder that academics and professionals have little enthusiasm for wading through offering after offering by such authors, convinced they have solved some unimaginable riddle connected with Stonehenge, Avebury or some other well-known and well researched site. The author may even ramp up attention by involving the media or the blogosphere in some self-serving paranoia, which will reign forever in the cyber world of amateur truth versus professional conspiracy. Thus the academic obliged by convention, cannot respond without facing a potentially long drawn out distraction of no value or interest other than to the originator.
With this in mind, we have drawn up the following basic guidelines for those who wish to give publicity to their pet theories in such ways, and without following the proper review process:
1. Be yourself, you are not [insert famous archaeologist’s name here] unless it states so on your birth certificate.
2. For whom or what are you writing? Yourself (likely)/ something the world needs to know (unlikely)?
3. Where did you get your information? Credit ideas, state origin, reference [insert famous archaeologist’s name here]’s books and papers in full.
4. No matter how fascinating you think you are, you aren’t, tell us your idea, give references, keep it short then shut up.
5. Take up another hobby, in our opinion writing amateur (pseudo-)archaeology is for self-obsessives and jerks!
Whilst preparing this article, I came upon a quote in Old Cornwall magazine, from 1934. Leiut.-Colonel F C Hirst, writing about ‘Elements of Cornish Archaeology’. He states:
…there is often a tendency to assume that probable incidents suggested by such (antiquarian) studies are facts on which we can rely. Archaeology only deals with that which can be proved to have occurred in the past, and anything that is based upon speculation is foreign to that science.
He goes on to conclude:
…facts and legends have become so mingled in Cornwall, that many quote the latter as archaeological facts. Such people do a great disservice to Cornish Archaeology. Only one kind of antiquary exists, and he is the orthodox type.
The more things change, the more they stay the same!
By Alan S.
I first visited Mulfra Vean courtyard house settlement in Penwith back in 2013, when CASPN were running a clear-up at the site. At that time the site was very overgrown and difficult to understand.
Since then, CASPN have continued their regular clear-ups, and these have recently been augmented by an additional volunteer team from the Penwith Landscape Partnership (PLP) as part of their Ancient Penwith project, one of 13 projects funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund with additional funding from Cornwall Council and other sources, running over a 5 year period.
My most recent visit to Mulfra Vean was prompted by my attendance in October last year at a one-day introductory course to archaeological surveying, held by PLP. The object of the day was to prepare volunteers to participate in producing surveys of sites in Penwith, starting with Mulfra Vean. Although ill-health at the time prevented me from committing to participate in the surveys themselves, I did volunteer to assist in the digitisation of any survey drawings. As I was aware that a significant effort had now been put into the survey, I visited the site to see what progress had been made.
I was met by Jeanette Ratcliffe, the current Ancient Penwith Project Officer, providing maternity cover for Laura Ratcliffe-Warren. Jeannette was kind enough to show me the current state of the survey plans drawn up by the volunteer team to date and gave me a short tour of the site.
The settlement is currently dissected by a footpath which ascends Mulfra Hill, and the current effort is focussed to the west of the path, where one courtyard house and the possible outline of another have been laid bare. This part of the settlement was excavated in 1954 by Rev. Crofts, who sadly passed away the following year without publishing his results. Luckily Charles Thomas obtained his notes, and the results were eventually published in the Cornwall Archaeology Society journal.
Survey by Mr. W. E. Griffiths, 1954 as published in Cornish Archaeology No. 2 1963.
The features to the east of the path have long been hidden beneath dense undergrowth, but the brushcutters have recently been put to good use here, and details of the site can now be seen. First is an enigmatic double bank earthwork, which may possibly be related to medieval mining activity. To the north is another courtyard house, and this will no doubt be investigated further once the western survey is completed.
The current plan is to commence digitisation of the survey drawings by the end of January, for inclusion in a planned web portal which will show the results of all 13 projects in due course. Keep an eye on the PLP website for updates on this and the other projects.
Back in 2013, we reported upon a project with the lofty ambition to conduct a full GPS survey of the Roman town of Verulamium (modern St Albans).
Here we are, three years on, and the survey has now been completed! (well not quite – all the magnetomentry is completed, but there is still some I’d like to do some more GPR and resistivity to go, along with the magnetic susceptibility survey)
How about some numbers? Well, Verulamium is the third biggest Roman town in Britain, after London and Cirencester. It is, however, the largest Roman town in Britain which doesn’t have a modern settlement built over most of it. We have surveyed 64.5ha of the total area of 81ha. It has taken us 83 working days starting in the summer of 2013, but we didn’t do much at Verulamium in 2014. It took 12,900,400 readings to cover those 64.5 ha. That, of course, doesn’t include the grids we did twice because of frozen sensors or other problems. People pushing the cart walked about 322km, not including having to go back to the start for partials, getting to the squares in the first place, or laying in the tapes and strings.
Hearty congratulations go to all the volunteers who gave up their time to learn how to use GPS equipment and then walk those 322km, and to the project lead, Kris Lockyer. It just goes to show what a dedicated group of people achieve, with the right leadership and training.
Although the walking may be completed for now, and the overall picture is very impressive (below) the work of interpreting the results will continue for some considerable time!
A second “Archaeology in Hertfordshire” conference is planned for November 26th to be held in Hitchin Town Hall, where no doubt the project will be presented at length.
Following our efforts to persuade the BM to stop portraying metal detectorists as “citizen archaeologists” we’ve been òffered the title of Citizen Conservationists! (Paul Barford, “Victory for reason”). We accept! Not for ourselves but for the tens of thousands of people who visit, research and study archaeological and historic sites and keep to the mantra “take only memories, leave only footprints”.
A number of such people will be at our Megameet at Avebury Stone Circle this weekend. Not for personal gain and without any supportive infrastructure – no media savvy Whitewashing Department, no Culture Secretary saying they’re heroes and no team of Liaison Officers tagging along, emphasising the positive and spinning the negative! There’ll be nothing to spin at Avebury. Those people don’t visit archaeological sites to take bits of them home in a bag. Nor do millions of others. Maybe the BM should start promoting them?
.
No spin zone.
.
__________________________________________
.
.
__________________________________________
“I am told there are people who do not care for maps, and I find it hard to believe.”
—Robert Louis Stevenson, Treasure Island
I have loved maps ever since I was a child. We are extremely fortunate in the UK to have access to some of the best maps in the world, those of the Ordnance Survey (O.S.). I recall learning the symbols used on the O.S. maps when I was a school – the deciduous and coniferous pictograms, the various dotted lines for different rights of way, those gothic script labels; ‘Tumulus’, ‘Stone Circle’ and the crossed swords of battle sites of old.
Through the years, many of these indicators have remained roughly similar, but the interpretation of some historical sites has changed as new information about them has come to light. Thanks to the wonders of the internet, we can compare some of the earliest maps from the O.S with today’s versions and see how those intrepretations have changed. One excellent resource for this is the National Library of Scotland (NLS) which, depending upon the region, allows full view of historical O.S. maps dating back in some cases to the early-mid 1800’s.
Indeed, preparing for my next Cornwall jaunt, and looking at an area in Cornwall that I’m familiar with on the OS 25 inch (1841-1852) map series, I was surprised to see up to seven stone circles referenced within a relatively small area of Truthwall Common in West Penwith on sheet ‘Cornwall LXVII.14‘ surveyed in 1875 and published in 1878.
The same were still marked as ‘stone circles’ on the 1906 6 inch series maps, sheet LXVII.SW. Even as late as the 1938 survey, the 6 inch series was still marking the same features as ‘stone circles’. On the One inch ‘New Popular Edition’ map of 1947, although the scale was much reduced, several stone circles were still marked in the area.
It is not until the One inch 7th Series map of 1961, which begin to look more like the LandRanger 1:50000 maps of today, that the ‘stone circles’ vanish at this scale – even the remaining Tregeseal Stone Circle is no longer shown.
However, moving in onto the 1:25000 scale map, published in 1959, the additional circles are still shown, but now suffixed ‘Site of‘, suggesting they are no longer extant. Interestingly, the second Tregeseal Circle is still shown at this date.
That takes us to the limits of availability on the NLS site, but moving onto the current map of the area, available via Bing Maps or the Ordnance Survey itself (paid subscription required), the 1:25000 scale map shows only the single Tregeseal circle remaining.
So what of those 6 other stone circles? We know from antiquarian reports that the remaining Tregeseal Circle was one of three originally, but what of the other 4 (or 5)?
Returning to the Cornwall Interactive Mapping Service, which we highlighted back in October, it’s possible to zoom in on the area to see what the Heritage Environment Record has to say about each site. And in this case we can see that the ‘stone circles’ of old have now been recorded as ‘hut circles’, enclosures, the kerb of a barrow, and remains of an Iron Age Round. So a real mixed bag, and not a stone circle to be seen!
It was an interesting exercise to compare the maps through the ages though, and is one I’ll have to repeat in other areas of the country to see if similar discrepancies occur. Why not take a look at your favourite area, and see what you can discover on the old maps?
An anonymous contributor writes:
“Sorry dear” I muttered quickly to my wife just after I entered the field at Castlerigg a few months back. My eye had caught the arc of a foreign teenager leaping from stone to stone. As I strode across the 50 or so yards to the circle, I took in the full visage; 15 or so teens with a couple of teachers, 7 or 8 of the teens climbing on several of the stone, having their photos taken, leaping up on the stones and then off them. The teachers chatting between themselves, obviously content to find something, anything to divert their charges attention enough so they could find 10 minutes respite. I shattered their peace fast and hard.
“WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE DOING? GET DOWN OFF THE F’ING STONE. THESE ARE NOT A PLAYGROUND, THEY ARE AN ANCIENT SITE, SHOW SOME F’ING RESPECT.”
The 3 closest too me looked shell-shocked and one almost fell off the stone he was perched on. I stood and glared as they cleared off and then pivoted looking for more offenders. 2 on the far side hadn’t heard me or the alarm calls of their compatriots and were lazily enjoying their day. I set off at a rate of knots, my gander well and truly up, however the teachers protective nature had kicked in and I was headed off at the pass by one whilst the other gathered the horde and led them away from the circle and the dishevelled manic hippy articulating wildly.
And that should have been that with the mumbled apologies of a shocked teacher disappearing into the distance, except, the day had a slightly bitter twist for me. A well dressed chap who’d been stood watching the debasement when I turned up, sidled over to me and said “I’m glad someone said something, disgraceful behaviour”. Well yes indeed, I’m very glad I said something. But I’d have been happier still if he’d said something first. if he’d stepped up out of his British reserve and said “Stop it. Your behaviour is unacceptable”.
That’s our takeaway. Don’t stand by and tut whilst people climb on stones, drop rubbish, draw on stones with chalk, leave offerings or even carve their name in a stone. Step forward, defend your heritage, be the person that stopped it today. There won’t always be an enraged hippy to do it for you.
A guest article by Heritage Action member Jamie Stone.
Several years ago with fatherhood looming on the horizon, I had the great fortune to have to move to the Peak District to be near family. It’s not that I was lacking in prehistory in Somerset where I lived, living fifteen minutes walk from a hillfort and ten mins from the second largest stone circle in the country as I did, but the Peaks is something else. The eastern moors have mostly escaped modern farming leaving a landscape of bronze age fields, with associated barrows, cairns and stone circles, whilst the white peak’s more intensively farmed and mined landscape, still has several long barrows and many round barrows, not to mention a henge or two.
Hatch-a-way cairn, 4 miles South East of Buxton.
After a couple of years getting properly acquainted with the Peaks by myself, I started to look about online for similar minded local types to go for walks with and to bounce ideas and potential sites off and found very little unfortunately so I decided to start a group on Facebook; Peak District Prehistory. With a stated aim of a “Group to discuss prehistory in the Peaks; Sites we’ve been to, can’t find and/or organise meet ups.”, a bit of shameless promotion on a few prehistory website forums and 2 years on, we are a motley crew of just over 100 members. We natter a bit, share weird carved rocks and unusual sites we’ve encountered, delight each other with great pictures of prehistory in the Peaks and generally promote and protect the scarce and precious resource we share with the wider community.
Two weeks ago saw the latest in a series of organised bimbles or leisurely walks, sorted out via the medium of Facebook using the group. This time around was Gardom’s Edge, or more precisely the shelf between Gardom’s Edge and Birchen Edge, an area used from the Neolithic to the Iron Age and beyond, with evidence of Bronze age fields, standing stones, rock art, hut circles, an enigmatic row of pits and an equally enigmatic bronze age/neolithic horse shoe shaped enclosure. The walk took in most of that and more, with us chewing the fat over a 3 mile walk which took about 5 hours to complete including a lunchtime picnic next to a replica of the most impressive piece of rock art in the peaks.
Rock art on Gardom’s Edge. Credit: Dean Thom
If you have an interest in Peak District prehistory and would like to talk about it with like-minded types, please feel free to join our Facebook group. We have plans for many more bimbles over the next few years which we would love to see you on.
If you’re here you probably like ancient sites and want to see them fully appreciated and preserved. The Journal is a community resource for everyone that feels that way so why not join in and add your voice or images??
We’re always looking for contributions – news, views, pictures, you name it – anything that helps raise the public profile of these places. If you’re out and about over Easter and visiting an ancient site or perhaps attending a related event (you can get some ideas from our Diary of Prehistory and Heritage Events ) and you feel you have something worth sharing why not get in touch?
Thanks! Enjoy the break. Most of us will be away but we’ll leave someone in charge of the shop for if you’d like to get in touch, particularly if you have any news.
Email: info@heritageaction.org.uk
Twitter: The Heritage Journal ….. @heritageaction
Facebook: Our Page
Telephone: 07542 258107
Diana Baur, (one of the Oswestry campaigners) sent us a comment yesterday that reminded us of The Story of Little Suck-a-Thumb….
Please, please, please click on our Events Diary to the left (or here). It lists upcoming Prehistory and Heritage Events and it’s just fantastic! (I can say that as it isn’t me who faithfully maintains it, it’s Alan and Sue!). Not on there yet, but soon, is a Seminar & Exhibition In Defence of Old Oswestry Hillfort, a week Saturday. WELL worth a visit if you can make it.
.
.
Ironically the Events Diary is showing this event in Cardiff on the same day …
Workshop: I Love Archaeology
When:Sat, 22 February, 11:00 – 16:00
Where:National Museum Cardiff, Cardiff, United Kingdom
Workshop: The Origins Gallery at National Museum Cardiff displays the archaeological treasures of Wales.In this workshop you’ll find out more about some of the collections and contribute to a piece of collaborative art. http://www.museumwales.ac.uk/en/whatson/?event_id=6847
.
The Heritage Journal 
The great tall tailor always comes
To little boys that suck their thumbs.
And ere they dream what he’s about
He takes his great sharp scissors
And cuts their thumbs clean off, – and then
You know, they never grow again.
Mamma had scarcely turn’d her back,
The thumb was in, alack! alack!
The door flew open, in he ran,
The great, long, red-legged scissorman.
Oh! children, see! the tailor’s come
And caught our little Suck-a-Thumb.
Snip! Snap! Snip! the scissors go;
And Conrad cries out – Oh! Oh! Oh!
Snip! Snap! Snip! They go so fast;
That both his thumbs are off at last.
Mamma comes home; there Conrad stands,
And looks quite sad, and shows his hands;-
“Ah!” said Mamma “I knew he’d come
To naughty little Suck-a-Thumb.”
It seems likely that if we all suck our thumbs the scissor man WILL cut off part of Oswestry Hill Fort’s setting. Snip snap snip! And it will never grow back. As Diana makes clear ….
________________________________________
The “Jaws” of development snapping all around us! Snapping everywhere unfettered in all directions because, as Owen Paterson [who is Oswestry’s MP and also Government’s Environment Secretary!] has again re-iterated in a second letter to me, in respect of the Old Oswestry Hillfort , and I quote: “I know just how important this issue is. I hope you will understand that neither Minister nor Government officials can intervene or comment on individual planning applications because of Ministers’ quasi-judicial role in the system”.
So what in heaven’s name actually IS his, or ARE ministers’ roles??
In respect of the Old Oswestry Hillfort we are not yet talking about a planning application, we are talking about whether or not the hillfort setting will be allowed to be desecrated in the SAMDEV process which involves satisfying Government targets on covering this land with ticky tacky 4 and 5 bedroom houses in prestigious places kick-starting the economy through the housing market and charging onwards into a housing boom bubble and bust that will mean first time buyers are even less likely to be able to afford to buy one.
We are now being invited by Shropshire Planning department to submit our views on the SAMDEV process a second time round via the Shropshire Council Website, but expressly to comment on the “soundness” of the idea of using the hillfort setting for housing development. It’s patently unsound on all fronts, but we are still waiting to hear what exactly they mean by “soundness” – it’s Alice in Wonderland talk where you will think you have answered the question, but will be hauled over the coals by the Red Queen for not so doing because you have no “understanding” of the question.
I looked up the definition of “sound” and the adjectives, of which there are many and include:
1. free from damage, injury, decay, etc
2. firm; solid; substantial: a sound basis
3. financially safe or stable: a sound investment
4. showing good judgment or reasoning; sensible; wise: sound advice
5. valid, logical, or justifiable: a sound argument
6. holding approved beliefs; ethically correct; upright; honest
7. (of sleep) deep; peaceful; unbroken
8. thorough; complete: a sound examination
9. informal ( Brit ) excellent
10. law (of a title, etc) free from defect; legally valid
11. constituting a valid and justifiable application of correct principles; orthodox: sound theology
12. logic
a. (of a deductive argument) valid
b. (of an inductive argument) according with whatever principles ensure the high probability of the truth of the conclusion given the truth of the premises
c. another word for consistent
From my point of view building on the setting of the Old Oswestry Hillfort is a completely unsound idea on all fronts.