Skip to main content
Read page text
page 10
Science Diary excavated ditches and invented a kind of acoustical geophysics ('bosing') to locate the lines of ditches. One technique he appears not to have explored was that of chemical analysis as he never sought, as far as I am aware, to obtain analyses of any of the artifacts he discovered although the indications are that he was aware of the work of others. Aitken FRS OUR congratulations go to Dr Martin Aitken on his election (see The Times, 9 March 1983) to Fellow of the Royal Society. FRS is a rare distinction, more especially in its conferment on those connected with archaeology. To the best of my knowledge the last archaeologist so honoured was Sir Mortimer Wheeler some 15 years ago, and Dr Aitken is the first career archaeologist scientist to join the hallowed ranks. I have used the word 'career' advisedly, because, of course, there are a number of fellows of the Royal Society who have made contributions to the study of the past by work in their own related fields—for example, Sir Harry Godwin (and his successor Professor Richard West), Professor Kendall and Professor Shotton. There was a time when many carried the double distinction of FRS and FSA, but this was in the younger days of both societies and different standards operated then. The possibility of an archaeologist being made a FRS was much reduced by the establishment of the British Academy in 1901 as the senior body for the humanities in distinction to th e Royal Society a s th e representative of the sciences. In a sense, Lord Snow's two cultures were born. What appeared to be an attempt to unify these (at least as far as archaeology was concerned) was the first of a series of joint symposia mounted by the Royal Society and the British Academy in December 1969 under the title, "The Impact of th e Natura l Science s o n Archaeology", and doubtless inspired by a Fellow of the British Academy who had recently been made FRS—Sir Mortimer Wheeler. Subsequent to this symposium one might have expected to see the occasional archaeologist, or at least archaeological scientist, elected FRS. It would seem that we have had to wait 15 years—which makes Dr Aitken's election all the more impressive. One assumes that Dr Aitken qualified for consideration on two counts—for the part he played, with Professor Teddy Hall, in setting up the Oxford Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, and for his own individual research. The Oxford Laboratory was set up in 1955 and the speed of its development can be gauged with the knowledge that by 1958 two X-ray fluorescence spectrometers had been built, optical spectroscopy had been used to analyse pre-historic bronzes, magnetic dating of ceramics was under way and neutron activation analysis was being tried as a new technique . Also , a proto n magnetometer had been designed thus providing a new geophysical surveying technique (one of the two principal methods now in common use ) an d a new journa l (Archaeometry) had been launched by the Laboratory to facilitate publication of its results. A veritable explosion of activity had occurred and archaeology was never going to be the same again. Dr Aitken's own personal contribution to this explosion has been considerable but probably his work on TL dating and magnetic dating and prospection, constitutes the most important elements. Edible samian STRANGE things happen in Ireland and one of the strangest (in archaeology that is) is that embodied in the proposal by Joh n Bradle y (Dept . o f Archaeology, Univ. College, Dublin) to explain the finds of samian in medieval Irish contexts and published by him in the current Ulster Journal of Archaeology (Vol. 44/45, pp. 196-7). He suggests that the clay composing samian ware or Terra Sigillata was in demand during the late middle ages as a medicinal substance to reduce swellings and in the treatment of hydrophobia and quotes early medical treatises in support (for example, the 13th century Chirugia Magna of Lanfrank). He infers that samian sherds were prized for this purpose, being both compact and portable in a medicine chest, and could be scraped or ground down as required, as only small amounts of the clay were needed per prescription. I imagine that then, as now, the caveat 'beware of imitations' applied! That's Life NATIONAL Slag Day—or at least the advertisement of it in CA 85—attracted the attention of television's light-hearted consumer affairs programme, 'That's Life', hosted by the ebullient Esther Rantzen. It appears that the fact that 'a fine collection of old slags' was to be 'on display at Fortress House' was thought to be amusing. At any rate I am told that around 100 archaeologists attended the event—despite the change of date from that shown in CA 85—and benefited greatly from it. As for 'That's Life', watch out because they are obviously watching you! 171
page 11
HENGISTBURY HEAD by Nick Barton and Peter James RENEWED excavations at Hengistbury Head in Dorset are uncovering one of the largest Upper Palaeolithic sites in Britain. Although the rich levels of flint artefacts there had already been examined twice before, the work was far from complete and left major problems outstanding about dating and stratigraphy. These difficulties have now been cleared up, and new on-site techniques, extensive laboratory study of the flint finds and a series of archaeological experiments are being combined to exploit the full potential of what may indeed be the largest unmixed assemblage from the Upper Palaeolithic in the whole of the British Isles. The work is now entering its third year, under the direction of Nick Barton from the Donald Baden-Powell Quaternary Research Centre, Oxford, and has been extended to include a valuable Mesolithic site close to the Palaeolithic area. Since the prehistoric deposits lie on a very unstable cliff-top on the Hengistbury promontory there is considerable urgency to complete the work (see cover photo). Some 45 metres of land have been lost to the sea over the last 75 years alone and the cliff-face has already been eroded away to within a couple of feet of the areas under excavation. Their exposed position is, in a way, central to the interest offered by the Hengistbury discoveries. Unlike the more famous covered sites like Gough's Cave near Cheddar, which have given us a somewhat one-sided picture of Palaeolithic man's use of rock shelters, Hengistbury is revealing much needed evidence of his activities in the open country. The site, apparently the remains of a short-term hunting camp, provides 172 us with a singular opportunity to broaden our understanding of flint technology and subsistence patterns in Britain around 12,000 years ago, during the closing phases of the last Ice Age. Earlier excavations The Upper Palaeolithic site was first explored by Angela Mace in 1957 after a local antiquarian, Herbert Druitt, had drawn attention to the rich surface finds of flint artefacts. Mace's excavation provided a splendid collection of worked flint and the debris resulting from stone tool manufacture—the most obvious traces of prehistoric activity at the site—and she dated the assemblage to the Upper Palaeolithic period exclusively. The later work (1968-9) of John Campbell, however, disputed her conclusions and distinguished a Mesolithic occupation above the Palaeolithic. In fact in his disagreement with Mace he went so far as to say: "I suspect that only a few of Mace's 2,263 finds (namely, 9 of her backed tools) .. . are possibly Later Upper Palaeolithic, whilst most are more likely Mesolithic or younger." Mace, however, and not Campbell, seems to have been correct in her assessment of the site. The Upper Palaeolithic date of the flint artefacts has been confirmed by new typological studies and supported with six thermoluminescence results from heated flint of around 12,500 ± 1,150 years BP. Ironically, conclusive evidence refuting the idea of a two-period occupation at the Mace-Campbell site was already available when Campbell wrote the above. As well as extending the excavated area, a large part of the current Hengistbury project has been concerned with "refitting " flin t fragment s uncovered by th e previou s excavations, as shown in the photos opposite. The exercise of reversing the ancient flint knappers' art by rejoining, where possible, several fragments to an original core, is a time consuming and laborious process akin to jigsaw puzzles—with no guarantee of a resulting picture!—but can often be very rewarding. For one thing, it has resolved the controversy between the original excavators. Despite differences in depth of as much as 30cm it has been possible to refit numerous fragments from both of Campbell's "levels"; in one case, 12 of Campbell's "Mesolithic" artefacts were fitted back onto a core which Campbell himself identified as being Upper Palaeolithic. It is quite clear that some vertical displacement has taken place over the millennia, heavier (and sometimes more recognisably Palaeolithic) artefacts having sunk through the wind-blown sands well below their original position. A new approach to this problem has recently been developed with the help of Chris Bergman, Institute of Archaeology, London. It concerns the monitoring of experimental flint scatters in nearby sand dunes over an extended period to provide more data on natural processes affecting site-formation. The refitting of flint fragments from Hengistbury has also provided us with invaluable evidence of the method s employed b y th e Palaeolithic stoneworker. In one instance as many as 63 flakes and blades were found to have been removed from a single core, clearly the handiwork of a highly skilled

Page Text

View plaintext

HENGISTBURY HEAD

by Nick Barton and Peter James

RENEWED excavations at Hengistbury Head in Dorset are uncovering one of the largest Upper Palaeolithic sites in Britain. Although the rich levels of flint artefacts there had already been examined twice before, the work was far from complete and left major problems outstanding about dating and stratigraphy. These difficulties have now been cleared up, and new on-site techniques, extensive laboratory study of the flint finds and a series of archaeological experiments are being combined to exploit the full potential of what may indeed be the largest unmixed assemblage from the Upper Palaeolithic in the whole of the British Isles. The work is now entering its third year, under the direction of Nick Barton from the Donald Baden-Powell Quaternary Research Centre, Oxford, and has been extended to include a valuable Mesolithic site close to the Palaeolithic area.

Since the prehistoric deposits lie on a very unstable cliff-top on the Hengistbury promontory there is considerable urgency to complete the work (see cover photo). Some 45 metres of land have been lost to the sea over the last 75 years alone and the cliff-face has already been eroded away to within a couple of feet of the areas under excavation. Their exposed position is, in a way, central to the interest offered by the Hengistbury discoveries. Unlike the more famous covered sites like Gough's Cave near Cheddar, which have given us a somewhat one-sided picture of Palaeolithic man's use of rock shelters, Hengistbury is revealing much needed evidence of his activities in the open country. The site, apparently the remains of a short-term hunting camp, provides

172

us with a singular opportunity to broaden our understanding of flint technology and subsistence patterns in Britain around 12,000 years ago, during the closing phases of the last Ice Age.

Earlier excavations

The Upper Palaeolithic site was first explored by Angela Mace in 1957 after a local antiquarian, Herbert Druitt, had drawn attention to the rich surface finds of flint artefacts. Mace's excavation provided a splendid collection of worked flint and the debris resulting from stone tool manufacture—the most obvious traces of prehistoric activity at the site—and she dated the assemblage to the Upper Palaeolithic period exclusively. The later work (1968-9) of John Campbell, however, disputed her conclusions and distinguished a Mesolithic occupation above the Palaeolithic. In fact in his disagreement with Mace he went so far as to say: "I suspect that only a few of Mace's 2,263 finds (namely, 9 of her backed tools) .. . are possibly Later Upper Palaeolithic, whilst most are more likely Mesolithic or younger." Mace, however, and not Campbell, seems to have been correct in her assessment of the site. The Upper Palaeolithic date of the flint artefacts has been confirmed by new typological studies and supported with six thermoluminescence results from heated flint of around 12,500 ± 1,150 years BP.

Ironically, conclusive evidence refuting the idea of a two-period occupation at the Mace-Campbell site was already available when Campbell wrote the above. As well as extending the excavated area, a large part of the current Hengistbury project has been concerned with "refitting " flin t fragment s uncovered by th e previou s excavations, as shown in the photos opposite. The exercise of reversing the ancient flint knappers' art by rejoining, where possible, several fragments to an original core, is a time consuming and laborious process akin to jigsaw puzzles—with no guarantee of a resulting picture!—but can often be very rewarding.

For one thing, it has resolved the controversy between the original excavators. Despite differences in depth of as much as 30cm it has been possible to refit numerous fragments from both of Campbell's "levels"; in one case, 12 of Campbell's "Mesolithic" artefacts were fitted back onto a core which Campbell himself identified as being Upper Palaeolithic. It is quite clear that some vertical displacement has taken place over the millennia, heavier (and sometimes more recognisably Palaeolithic) artefacts having sunk through the wind-blown sands well below their original position. A new approach to this problem has recently been developed with the help of Chris Bergman, Institute of Archaeology, London. It concerns the monitoring of experimental flint scatters in nearby sand dunes over an extended period to provide more data on natural processes affecting site-formation.

The refitting of flint fragments from Hengistbury has also provided us with invaluable evidence of the method s employed b y th e Palaeolithic stoneworker. In one instance as many as 63 flakes and blades were found to have been removed from a single core, clearly the handiwork of a highly skilled

read next page

My Bookmarks

Buy this Book
Skip to main content