English Archaeological Techniques?

[longshotgene]

On my venture into England this year, I was horrified by the English archaeological practices. I saw people ripping into earth with shovels. No one was on their knees brushing away dirt, or using a trowel, or any thing. It kind of scared me. Does any one know out there if this is a common practice? I haven't been on any digs in Italy, but I would hope other countries would be a little more advanced in their technique.

[Maladict]

On my venture into England this year, I was horrified by the English archaeological practices. I saw people ripping into earth with shovels. No one was on their knees brushing away dirt, or using a trowel, or any thing. It kind of scared me. Does any one know out there if this is a common practice? I haven't been on any digs in Italy, but I would hope other countries would be a little more advanced in their technique.

 

Sure it is common practice in a lot of countries, and it's as good a technique as any.

It all depends on what you're looking for, what kind of soil you're digging in, etc. etc.

Different excavations ask for different approaches, that's all.

Edited September 21, 2007 by Maladict

[longshotgene]

It just seems kind of primitive in the approach. I have excavated in numerous layers of strata and never once use a shovel to remove the dirt. It has always been hands and knees with hand tools. You cannot afford to damage anything of value.

[Leguleius]

I can assure you English archaeology is at the cutting edge (pun unintended but gleefully accepted). If spades were being used no doubt this was because top soil, or other recent material, was being removed.

 

As we've got rather more of a past than you Yanks, we're actually quite good at excavating it.

[longshotgene]

I don't know about the whole past thing being greater in the UK necessarily. If it wasn't for a bunch of europeans spreading disease, religion and many other pestilences across North America, there might be more 'History' around. By the way, is top soil really two feet think in northern England? The people I saw digging were digging deep.

[WotWotius]

I don't know about the whole past thing being greater in the UK necessarily. If it wasn't for a bunch of europeans spreading disease, religion and many other pestilences across North America, there might be more 'History' around. By the way, is top soil really two feet think in northern England? The people I saw digging were digging deep.

 

Yes, due to the USA only possessing just under 500 years of History, there is a greater need for archaeologists to unearth the nation's rich Prehistory.

 

I have been on digs in both America and in the UK, and the only real differences that I can see - apart from the fact that some sites in America have a tendency to over-complicate the recording of strata (although this may also be the case in Britain) - are dictated by climate. On the sites I visited in the USA, the climate was quite arid. As this was so, the removal of the topsoil in fresh squares could only really be done in two ways: via a JCB (and therefore potentially harmful), or through the slow and steady use of a trowel (which, for some reason, seem to be much larger in America). On the digs on which I participated in the UK, the wet & miserable nature of the climate meant that the topsoil was loose enough to be removed with a spade.

 

I am making sweeping and fairly inexpert generalisations, but I do not think that there is any harm in sharing one's experiences.

[Pertinax]

WW is most apposite here, the one unyielding horror of living in Britain (apart from the quality of transport) is the never-ending dampness, the sub-stratae are not so much a rich dust rather a wet pudding of gelatinous awfulness.All my visits to Hadrian's Wall have been (even in summer) a yomp through obscene clinging mud. Also given the depth and plenitude of Roman era finds (Eboracum is a good example) vigorous ejection of topsoil is not unseemly.

[Melvadius]

I don't know about the whole past thing being greater in the UK necessarily. If it wasn't for a bunch of europeans spreading disease, religion and many other pestilences across North America, there might be more 'History' around. By the way, is top soil really two feet think in northern England? The people I saw digging were digging deep.

 

In archaeology there is often limited time to carry out a site investigation and the ususal technique is to decide what will provide the maximum value in the form of site 'context'. The excavation is then targeted at specific areas which will provide the most evidence for a sites use and general history - only being extended as time allows and where there are unexplained features that need to be chased and documented.

 

I have worked on some sites where there was over three feet of soil and top soil that needed to be removed to get down to 13th century layers, while in other sites there was a layer of Roman material within a matter of a few inches of the surface.

 

It is becoming usual practice on large scale excavations to remove the top soil by machine, which a la Time Team is done in careful slices with an archaeologist observing who will stop the removal at the first sign of an occupation layer or in situ archaeological material.

 

Within an excavation trench it is usual to trowel down in layers to determine its use through a sample of finds - it is not always possible to catalogue, let alone store, everything that might be found on a site. If a thorough investigation has been made of one area and a suitable sample/ picture of use drawn it may have become a lot deeper than other parts of the site. in this circumstance a decision may be made to rapidly remove the overburden on unexcavated areas before the excavation continues down into an older occupation layer.

 

In these circumstances shovels (more likely the use of mattocks to take off a small spit of soil at a time followed by shovelling to remove the spoil) is the obvious method to remove the overburden. However this should always be done within a single 'context' (a singly identifiable soil composition; colour and texture as well as significant inclusions; mortar, wall, distribution of stones, etc.).

 

However if during this process something unexpected or of obvious archaeological (&/or intrinsic) value is discovered or a change in context becomes obvious, a return to careful excavation will immediatly occur while the feature is identified and a decision made on how it will affect further excavation in the trench.

 

Melvadius

Edited November 4, 2007 by Melvadius