InSitu (Issue No 1, Nov 2013)

InSitu

An Edinburgh University Archaeology Society Publication October/November 2013

Issue 1 October/November 2013 The Team in the Trenches Editor

Alex Westra

Co-Editor/Layout Editor Zack Higham

Contributors

David Blauvelt, Susie Dalton, Iona Diver, George Donaldson, Alexandra Elliott, Rachel Faulkner-Jones, Euan Foley, Tom Gardner, Zhen Guan, Ian Hill, Oliver Lim, Marta Lorenzon, Ross McKeown, Maddie O'neill, Pablo Pozo, Matilde Skram, DC Wheaton III, Sam Williamson, Ashleigh Wiseman, Alex Wood

Peer Reviewers

DC Wheaton Rachel Faulkner-Jones Tom Gardner David Blauvelt

Illustrators

Katie O'donnell, Zofia Guertin

N.B. All accompanying photographs courtesy of their respective article authors unless otherwise stated

Cover: Two medieval skeletons from the chapel graveyard site at the Poulton Project in Chester.

Courtesy Euan Foley, InSitu cover art contest winner.

Above: A llama

undermines attempted dissemination and protection of artefacts at the famous Incan site of Machu Pichu for the sake of a drink.

Courtesy Ross McKeown.

1 Issue 1 October/November 2013

Letter From the Editor What is InSitu?

A stage has been erected, in the 2nd floor of a building, past an alleyway, beyond the well-lit and bustling streets of the figurative Soho, or Broadway. It is brand new and shiny, but somehow it feels like it was always here. There is no admission charge, and nearly everyone is welcome to see or perform. This is the usual starting point of any new act in town. However, this stage (InSitu), will hopefully be full of a variety of individuals. From the illustrious to the amateur, from the professional to the hobbyist. This is how I see InSitu. A meeting place for those who are archaeological. There is no profit, except for a handful of ads posted to keep this project running, and there is little prestige. Diatribes, monologues and outbursts, vehement exclamations and sober apologetics, results and ideas, interesting research and innovative methods, that is what I hope will be the constitution of this journal.

What I wished to convey here is the feel for InSitu. This online journal will be open-access. Although, in the beginning our readers and contributors will mainly be students. Going forward, I hope to branch out and appeal to scholars, professionals, amateurs and enthusiasts to contribute.

It is a long road though, and perhaps this project will not reach full fruition in my days as Editor of this journal. However, I suspect that with the help of today’s mass media outlets that the journal’s readership and contributors will grow exceedingly quickly. In truth, this has been a great start already and shows how much enthusiasm there is for this type of publication to be available. There is always room for improvement and we will continue to move forward and improve. However, i hope this first cast will lure you in to our journal.

To cut this short, on behalf of the InSitu team, I am proud to give you the first ever issue of InSitu online archaeological journal, brought to you by the University of Edinburgh Archaeology Society. On a final note, I wish to thank our readers and our contributors and hope you come back for our next issue.

- Alex Westra

A word from the President of Archsoc I had the idea for InSitu back in February after reading so many other student journals, so why couldn’t Edinburgh University students have their own? After a rough patch of thinking the journal was never going to take off, we had a soar in article submission, and so many people interested in becoming involved in the editorial team.

The society has also gone from strength to strength this year with membership reaching record numbers. Our first lecture on Bioarchaeology boasted nearly 90 people, with our workshop series also off to a great start. We’ve been inundated with socials, pub nights, themed flat parties and field trips; we even got involved in an excavation during Fresher’s week allowing so many new students to come together and bond over dirt. As for the rest of the semester we have many treats planned for students, postgraduates and staff in the form of Oktoberfest (read page 16 to hear about Ian Hill’s work in Cyprus), a Halloween extravaganza, many more lectures, workshops and the infamous Christmas meal. Similarly, next semester is going to be an exciting one with our Fieldwork and Information Fair, a fantastic line of workshops and lectures and, of course, many more socials.

So on behalf of myself and Archsoc, I hope you enjoy this very first issue of InSitu.

- Ashleigh Wiseman 2 www.archsoc.co.uk/insitu

Contents Features 7 From One Disaster to Another

by Oliver Lim

16 Ancient Ales

by Ian Hill

21 Revealing the Language

Capabilities of Plio-Pleistocene Hominins

by Sam Williamson

29 The Role of V. Gordon Childe in Neo-Evolutionary Theory in Archaeology

by DC Wheaton III

Articles

4 From Scotland with Love: The

Experience of An Exchange Student in Edinburgh

by Pablo Camacho Pozo

19 A New Take On Souterrains

by George Donaldson

27. Amisfield Walled Garden Project

by Euan Foley

5 Column

Regulars

What lies Beneath

by Alexandra Elliott

12 The Student Context The Yadlee Stone Circle Project: The Untapped Resource of Undergraduate Archaeologists.

by Tom Gardner

25 Armchair Archaeology

Book Review by Marta Lorenzon

Standards of Archaeological Excavation; A Fieldguide by G. J. Tassie and L. S. Owens

33 Watching Briefs: New and Interest

Interview with Stuart Rathbone

by David Blauvelt Recession-era Archaeology

by Rachael Faulkner-Jones ArchSoc Aerial Photography

by Maddie O'Neill St. Joseph's Seminary and Church

by Zhen Guan Travels in Cappadocia

by Ashleigh Wiseman

39 Letters from The Trenches Tyler Mackie (Sedgeford) Matilde Skram (Cyprus) Susie Dalton (Turkey) Alex Wood (Edinburgh) Iona Diver (Romania)

3 Issue 1 October/November 2013

From Scotland with Love: The experience of an exchange student in Edinburgh “Are you sure you want to spend a whole year in the rainy and cold lands of Scotland?”

That was one of the most typical questions I was constantly asked when I chose Edinburgh as my destination for a year of study abroad. My answer was clear: YES! And time proved me right.

Leaving my small Andalusian town to study Medieval History in Madrid was a big challenge for me, but I ended up loving to live in a big city as the Spanish capital is. The next logical step was to continue my studies in a different country. But why pick out Scotland? Why Edinburgh? Well, is there a better place in this world to visit and enjoy Medieval and Early Modern heritage than in the legendary Alba? Surely not!

And how about taking courses in Witchcraft, Celtic Civilisation or Chivalry and Warfare in Medieval Scotland? Fantastic!

But Edinburgh resulted to be so much more! It is a wonderful city, where you can almost breathe culture, enjoy beautiful gardens and above all, is full of loveable inhabitants. The University of Edinburgh is an active part of the city, the university buildings are spread all around the town centre, students are a big part of the population and you can get special offers in nearly every shop by just showing your uni card.

Studying in a Scottish university is very different from studying at those in Spain. In enjoyed very much a system where students do not just sit and listen to lectures, but are also involved in the lessons, have to read and investigate before the lectures and are in close touch with the professors and scholars. This experience will definitely help me improve my results back in Spain.

But there is one thing that surprised me above all about the University of Edinburgh, and that was their student societies. The societies fair in freshers’ week just blew my mind - loads of societies about any possible topic you could imagine all run by students and for students. I was stunned by how well everything worked! And what can I say about EUSA’s buildings such as Teviot Row House? I was fascinated by the idea that being a student was so much more than learning for your future.

But a society enthralled my above all: Archaeology Society.

I first met the people from Archsoc on the trip they organized to Gilmerton Cove, a series of underground hand-carved caves in Edinburgh. Not only was the trip very interesting, but also I had the opportunity of meeting a lot of people that shared common interests with me. After that I tried not to miss any events organized by ArchSoc. Their lecture series was absorbing including Ice Age cave art by Dr. Paul Bahn, and Dr. Zena Kamash’s lecture on Roman latrines. The most diverse archaeological topics were present in their lectures, which always ended with some chatting and beers in the pub with the scholar. Field trips were also organized throughout the year, and thanks to them I had the possibility to visit the Appleton Tower, Linlithgow Palace and the Antonine Wall, guided by the world-recognized scholar David Breeze. We also went on a Rock Art hunt to Northumbria with Dr. Tertia Barnett and I had my first actual archaeological digging experience in Amisfield walled garden under the guidance of David Connolly, who runs the BAJR. But that was not all. The Archaeology Society does not only spend their time in academic matters. Quiz nights, flat parties, pub crawls, and more are celebrated nearly every weekend (always archaeologically themed!). And that Christmas dinner was simply marvellous.

ArchSoc is above all fun, their members start as fellow students and end up as friends. I could not think when I first put a step on Edinburgh that a year later I would be missing it so much. Thank you for everything!

- Pablo Camacho Pozo PS: The sun also shines in Scotland!

4 www.archsoc.co.uk/insitu

What Lies Beneath

Archaeology at the University of Edinburgh

by Alexandra Elliott The The University of Edinburgh is situated, as its name implies, in the heart of the Scottish capitol.

The campus is fragmented between two main centres. One centre has its buildings huddled around the historic George Square, and the other is situated on the fringes of the city at the King’s Buildings. Other campus buildings are randomly sprinkled throughout the closes and wynds that give Edinburgh its distinctive character, and this often surprises students who sometimes find themselves asked to attend a lecture or sit an exam in a location they’ve never even heard of before. The point here being; it is very difficult to define where the University ends, and where the city of Edinburgh begins. The two are inextricably connected at the hip, and this goes doubly so for the history and archaeology of Edinburgh which has a tendency to bleed onto, or more accurately, under the various parts of campus.

In the past few years, construction projects on University property have yielded up multiple opportunities for archaeological excavation.

One excavation was eagerly anticipated by the city’s archaeologists and historians for the fruit the site would undoubtedly yield. While the other took everyone by surprise.

5

Perhaps the most famous excavation took place at the beginning of the summer of 2013, when the grave of a medieval knight was found underneath a car park during the renovation of the old archaeology department building into the new Edinburgh Centre for Carbon Innovation. This find sparked quite a lot of public interest, even being featured in some international media. This might be because the find harkened back to another important discovery made during the spring of the same year; that of the remains of Richard III under the car park in Leicester.

The 13th century skeleton was found fantastically preserved under a sandstone grave marker elaborately carved with the motifs of an ornate cross and a sword. This lavish decoration of the gravestone led the archaeologists from Headland Archaeology, the team who conducted the excavation, to believe that the individual buried there was a knight or nobleman of equal stature.

The fantastic preservation of the skeleton is nigh on miraculous when one considers the fact that the site had been built over at least four times since the burial of the individual. When the knight

Issue 1 October/November 2013

died sometime in the 13th century, he was probably buried in the churchyard of the Blackfriars’ monastery which had been founded on the spot by King Alexander II in 1230, only to be eventually destroyed during the Protestant Reformation in 1558. The exact location of this monastery had been a mystery up until the discovery of this grave. This site has also been home to the Royal High School in the 16th century, and then the Old High School in the 18th, before it was eventually acquired by the University of Edinburgh and coincidentally had been used to house the archaeology department.

Further excavations in the car park have found eight additional skeletons to the original knight.

It was theorized that this was the remains of a family crypt. All of the skeleton have been exhumed and moved to Headland’s laboratories for study and preservation. They will be radiocarbon dated to pin point a clearer date for the burials, as well as tested to prove the hypothesis of possible familial ties between the individuals.

A few years prior to the discovery of the knight under the car park, plans for a renovation of the quad at the Old College building meant that archaeologists got the chance to clear up some of the questions that public records and archival research had left unanswered about that particular area. In 2010 Addyman Archaeology, one of Edinburgh’s contract archaeological teams, were called in to conduct the excavation once construction confirmed that there were artefacts of archaeological value at the site. Due to the historic nature of the space the area was well documented, so archaeologists had a good idea what structures had been present on the site at various periods.

A wide variety of remains were uncovered, including the foundations of Hamilton House, the 16th century home of the Duke of Chatelherault. Attached to this home along the northern edge of the quad, were the wall footings of the 1642 Edinburgh University Library. Heavy deposits of contaminated materials, as well as glass and ceramic laboratory apparatuses, were found in the lower levels of the foundations of the library. This may be the site of

www.archsoc.co.uk/insitu

a laboratory that can be associated with chemist Joseph Black, the Enlightenment chemist who discovered carbon dioxide. These laboratory instruments will be the subject of further publications from Addyman.

Along the southern edge of the quad, several buildings associated with the Collegiate Hospital of St. Mary in the Fields were uncovered. These buildings have possible connections to the murder of Mary Queen of Scots’ second husband, Lord Darnley, and therefore gained quite a bit of public interest. Also discovered in that area of the quad were outbuildings associated with the 13th century Kirk O’ Fields, along with the church’s cemetery. Sixty-six inhumations were excavated from that cemetery, all dating back to the 13th century, and forty-four were exhumed for analysis and preservation.

Large amounts of pottery, glass, and metalwork (mostly coins) were also discovered.

Due to the high-profile nature of some of the finds, the excavation generated quite a bit of public interest at the time. The informational boards that were placed in the Quad at the time of the excavation are still in place around the perimeter of the courtyard today, roughly three years after the excavations were completed.

People unfamiliar with archaeology are often shocked by how much there is to be found in their own hometown. Archaeology has a way of sometimes making familiar places seem foreign, with all that it can teach us about the past. It is sometimes hard to imagine that there is more to learn about a street you walk down every day; but when you look at Edinburgh’s history and when you absorb the fact that the spaces that make up modern Edinburgh have been inhabited in one form or another since the Neolithic, it’s not hard to imagine that sometimes that huge amount of history is going to break through the surface and make itself known. As I stated at the start, the University of Edinburgh is in the unique position of being scattered throughout the heart of Edinburgh’s most historic areas. So hopefully as the University continues to grow, and strive to improve itself, more and more previously unknown discoveries will be made; and if we’re all very lucky maybe we’ll be around to see the next big thing to be pulled out of the ground.

6

From One Disaster to Another How the Dust Veil Event of AD 536 probably caused the Justinianic Plague

by Oliver Lim

I

T WAS THE YEAR AD 541 when an epidemic broke out in the Byzantine Empire and by AD 543 reached the capital Constantinople (Keys 1999 and Horden 2005). This epidemic would come to be known as the Justinianic Plague as it occurred during the reign of the Emperor Justinian.

The historian Procopius blamed Justinian’s cruel ways during his reign for the plague and named it after him (Horden 2005). The Justinianic Plague devastated communities throughout the Mediterranean and Europe in the sixth century AD. The historian John of Ephesus recorded his observations in Constantinople, writing that as many as ‘16,000 of them departed [this world] in a single day’ and that the ‘city stank with corpses’ as burial places ran out (Keys 1999:9). This plague left such a large impact on the Mediterranean world that scholars today have become interested in its causes and implications, many have written about the Justinianic Plague (McNeill 1977, Keys 1999, Stathakopoulos 2000, Sarris 2002 and Horden 2005). Keys (1999), an environmental determinist, believed that the Justinianic Plague was cause by a massive dust veil event that was recorded in AD 536. This article aims to analyse evidence from historical, archaeological and palaeo-environmental sources to show why the Justinianic Plague might have had a climatic origin and why the Dust Veil Event of AD 536 might have caused it.

To be able to understand whether the Dust

Veil Event of AD 536 caused the Justinianic Plague, one must be able to understand what exactly it is, how it formed and what some of its impacts are. Only then will we be able to understand if it had led to the Justinianic Plague.

Historian Procopius describes the event when it arrived that ‘the sun gave forth its light without brightness, like the moon, during this whole year, and it seemed exceedingly like the sun in eclipse, for the beams it shed were not clear nor such as it is accustomed to shed’ (Arjava 2005:79).

Michael the Syrian, a Bishop wrote that the ‘sun became dark and its darkness lasted for one and a half years … each day it shone for about four hours, and still this light was only a feeble shadow’ (Arjava 2005:78). From the historical sources, it seemed that the Dust Veil Event of AD 536 was a huge dust cloud that blanketed the sky, preventing the sun from shining clearly. What might have caused this dust cloud so big that it could cover the sky and darken the sun?

Keys (1999) and Arjava (2005) both believe that the dust cloud probably had an origin from volcanoes or from outer space. They discuss the fact that the Dust Veil Event of AD 536 might have been caused by a massive volcanic eruption or from a comet impact.

Rigby et al (2004) believes that the cause of the dust cloud was probably from a comet impact. They believe that no volcanic eruption would be able to cause such a large cloud. Furthermore, as demonstrated later,

7 Issue 1 October/November 2013

evidence from around the world show that after the event of AD 536, there was a global decrease in temperature. No volcanic eruption could have been powerful enough to cause that. Moreover, data obtained from drilled up Greenland ice cores show that there was no sufficient acid layer during that period to show that a large volcanic eruption had occurred (Arjava 2005). Hence, most evidence point to the fact that the cause was most probably a comet impact. Rigby et al (2004) argues that the comet would have been destroyed in the airburst and ejected through a plume. The dust would have condensed and be deposited in the atmosphere. It would have also caused large fires which would add dust to the atmosphere. This probably led to a blanketing

of the atmosphere as Procopius and Michael the Syrian had seen and led to a global decrease in temperatures.

Palaeo-environmental evidence from tree rings taken around the world point to a sudden drop in temperatures in the period immediately after the year of AD 536. Baillie (1991) gives evidence of this decrease in temperature around the period of AD 540 from an unfinished dugout canoe and bog oaks from Loch Neagh, Ireland. After dating the wood pieces, Baillie (1999) concludes that the unfinished canoe was probably abandoned

during the event of AD 536. The likely cause for the abandonment was that the level of water from the Loch rose and submerged the canoe before it was finished. From Fig 1, it is observed that the bog oaks displayed a dramatic decrease in tree ring widths from the times of AD 536 to 545. This hence shows a shorter growing season for the oaks in that period of time. Lower temperatures brought about from the dust cloud probably led to increased precipitation and a shorter growing season, hence causing the level of water in the Loch to rise for the canoe to be abandoned. Equally it would have resulted in the growth of the oak bogs to be impeded, leading to the decrease in tree ring widths. This decrease of temperature was supported by other dendrochronological evidence from around the Northern Hemisphere. Arjava (2005) noted that tree ring growth slowed for ten years following AD 536 in Finnish Pines, European Oaks and even Foxtails from North America (Fig 2).

Furthermore, evidence from eastern central Sweden confirms that there was indeed a short growing season caused by a drop in temperatures and increased rainfall in the years following AD 536. Graslund and Price (2012) show evidence from excavated settlements in the Uppland Province in Sweden. In Fig 3, it can be seen that there was a dramatic decrease in the number of settlements in the Uppland Province.

Settlements were abandoned during the midsixth century AD and the new settlements built after were in much smaller numbers and on higher ground. Graslund and Price (2012) concluded that the Dust Veil Event of AD 536 led to a colder summers and colder winters.

Winters, which were more humid and stormier, contributed to increase rainfall. This probably 8

www.archsoc.co.uk/insitu

led to not only future settlements being built on high ground but also to a collapse of the low tech agrarian society in Sweden and hence the earlier settlement abandonment. Population would have also decrease leading to smaller settlements being built thereafter. Thus, these examples portray that the Dust Veil Event of AD 536 led to a global decrease in temperatures.

How then would a global drop in temperatures have caused a widespread epidemic? To

understand the connection, one must find out exactly what disease this plague was and where was its geographical origin. Narrowing down its place of origin would give us an understanding of how environmental factors might have caused it to start and how it eventually spread.

The historian Procopius describes the symptoms of the plague in his historical account. He recalls that victims would have a ‘sudden fever … a bubonic swelling developed; and this took place not only in the … “boubon” … but also inside the armpit’ and that in some cases ‘the body broke out with black pustules as large as a lentil’ (Horden 2005:140). According to the description of the symptoms of the Justinianic Plague scholars concluded that the disease was the bubonic

plague, Yersinia pestis (Keys 1999, Stathakopoulos 2000, Sarris 2002, Horden 2005 and Graslund and Price 2012). The disease was similar to the one responsible for the Black Death in Europe in the Middle Ages.

It is a disease of fleas carried by rats which infected humans through its bite and was further spread by person-to-person contact.

This was further confirmed from DNA testing of skeletal material from Southern Germany and France which was found to have been infected by the Yersinia pestis plague in the mid-sixth century AD (Graslund and Price 2012).

Now that the disease has been identified, the place of origin can be found. McNeill (1976), Keys (1999) and Sarris (2002) identified contemporary plaque basins where the disease is endemic to the rat population. Three basins were identified, the Himalayas, Central Africa and the Eurasian Steppe. Sarris (2002:170) excludes the Eurasian Steppe as a basin due to ‘chronological grounds’ and hence this leaves the Himalayas and Central Africa. However, both Keys (1999) and Sarris (2002) argues against the fact that the plague originated from the Himalayas as during the mid-sixth century AD, trading relations between China and India were stronger than between India and the Mediterranean but China did not record any infection of the plague till half a century after the Mediterranean did. Furthermore, the Middle Eastern power at the time, Persia succumbed to the disease quickly after the Byzantine Empire. Hence (Keys 1999:18) concludes that China was most probably ‘infected from the Mediterranean via the Middle East’. With that so, Central Africa was left as the most probable origin of the Justinianic Plague.

Central Africa would be a good geographic origin for the plague as ivory trade was thriving in the Byzantine Empire and Horden (2005:153) believes that this trade via the Red Sea brought ‘both seafarers and susceptible Mediterranean rats’. Both Keys (1999) and Horden (2005) believe that the cooler temperatures caused by the earlier dust veil event expanded the perimeter of the plague basin eastwards towards the trading port

9 Issue 1 October/November 2013

towns of East Africa at which Mediterranean ships would have come to dock. Fig 4 hence

about by the Dust Veil Event of AD 536 led to an increase in food from vegetation growth and hence a population explosion of rodents. This climate anomaly hence would have easily facilitated the spread of the Justinianic Plague in Constantinople and throughout the Mediterranean.

It can be seen how the Dust Veil Event of AD 536 would have led to the onset of the Justinianic Plague in AD 541. The change in climate and environment would have caused the disease to spread from Africa to the Mediterranean and subsequently to Europe, the Middle East and eventually to China. The dust cloud had caused decreasing temperatures and increased rainfall in regions experiencing warm, dry

demonstrates how the plague would have spread up from Africa and towards the city of Constantinople from Egypt where the plague was first recorded in the Byzantine Empire in AD 541.

These lower temperatures also facilitated the growth of rats and the spread of the plague in the M e d i t e r r a n e a n .

Dendrochronological series collected from pilings recovered from the excavations of the ‘Theodosian harbour’ at Yenikapi, Istanbul show a steady tree-ring growth pattern in Fig 5 (Pearson et al 2002). These patterns point that around the time of the Dust Veil Event of AD 536, vegetation growth increased. This would also support Arjava’s (2005:92) argument that the archaeological and inscriptional evidence he scrutinized did not help in assessing ‘the consequences of possible crop failure around 536’.

Climate in the Mediterranean is usually hot and dry and lower temperatures and rainfall brought 10 www.archsoc.co.uk/insitu

scientific evidence available today to show how climate calamities might have led to huge epidemics.

Although there is a possibility that the Dust Veil Event of AD 536 could have caused the Justinianic Plague – as shown in the essay – more specific and crucial evidence is needed to strengthen Keys’ (1999) argument.

climates. This would cause the disease to thrive and the rat population to boom and its spread facilitated by trade between Africa and the Byzantine Empire.

I disagree with Arjava’s (2005) conclusion when scrutinizing papyrological, archaeological and inscriptional evidence that it is hard to define the nature of the dust cloud and that it was unlikely to adversely affect the Byzantine Empire.

After researching the palaeoenvironmental, textual and historical evidences for the causes and consequences of both the Dust Veil Event of AD 536 and the Justinianic Plague, I would to a certain extent agree with Keys’ (1999) explanation that there might be a link between the two events and that the consequence of the dust cloud was probably the plague. However, I do agree with Stathakopoulos (2000:276) who claims that Keys’ (1999) argument that the Dust Veil Event of AD 536 could have caused the Justinianic Plague is a ’monocausal explanation of historical causation that does not do justice to the complex it appears to discuss’. The linkage between the two events seems too simplistic and coincidental. He also argues that Keys’ (1999) model ‘cannot explain why the plague broke out the moment it did; it provides a possible explanation, but not a certain one, as it concentrates on only one particular aspect of historical causation and leaves out many others’ (2000:276). There is also not enough

References Arjava A. (2005) The Mystery Cloud of 536 CE in the Mediterranean Sources, Dumbarton Oak Papers, 59: 73-94 Baillie M. G. L. (1991) Marking in Marker Dates: Towards an Archaeology with Historical Precision, World Archaeology 23 (2): 233-243 Graslund B. and Price N. (2012) Twilight of the gods? The ‘dust veil event’ of AD 536 in critical perspective, Antiquity, 86: 428-443 Horden P. (2005) Mediterranean Plague in the Age of Justinian, In: Mass M. (eds) The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian, 134-160, New York: Cambridge University Press Keys D. (1999) Catastrophe: An Investigation into the Origins of the Modern World, London: Century McNeill W. H. (1977) Plagues and People, New York: Anchor Press Pearson C. L., Griggs C. B., Kuniholm P. I., Brewer P. W., Wazny T. and Canady L. (2012) Dendroarchaeology of the mid-first millennium AD in Constantinople, Journal of Archaeological Science, 39: 3402-3414 Sarris P. (2002) The Justinianic Plague: Origins and Effects, Community and Change 17 (2): 169-182 Stathakopoulos D. (2000) The Justinianic Plague Revisited, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 24: 256-276 Rigby E., Symonds M. and Ward-Thompson D. (2004) A comet impact in AD536? Astronomy and Geophysics, 45 (1): 1.23-1.26

11 Issue 1 October/November 2013

The Student Context: Your Perspectives on Archaeological Issues The Yadlee Stone Circle Project: The Untapped Resource of Undergraduate Archaeologists.

by Tom Gardner, Co-Director Yadlee Stone Circle Project

hollow surrounded by a ridge of land varying between 290-361m above sea level. This creates the perfect landscape environment for the observation

Tom Gardner & Alex Wood undertaking panoramic photography from

Spartleton Hill in order to investigate any landscape correlations with Yadlee Stone Circle.

T

HE YADLEE STONE CIRCLE PROJECT was a recent project conducted by four Undergraduates of Edinburgh University in the Lammermuir Hills, South East Scotland. The Project aimed to analyse the purpose of Yadlee Stone Circle and its surrounding landscape, the relationship between site and landscape, and any connection with solar events. This site has been preliminary dated as Late Neolithic to Early Bronze Age. The circle sits in a

o f

solar cycles, which we hypothesise could be used to roughly time agricultural activities.

The initial purpose of the project was twofold; obviously the first aim was to gather, analyse and present information regarding a little studied area of the Scottish Borders. The second aim was more abstract, but also more rewarding. It was to prove that students and other ‘non-professionals’ could, with minimal budget and supervision, make a valid contribution to the archaeological record.

Essentially this work fell into a category, which may be classed as ‘guerrilla archaeology’.

12 www.archsoc.co.uk/insitu

Equally, as we worked through the project a third aim arose; this was to train ourselves as students, to conceptualise and carry out the whole process of an archaeological process. This is something which

tone Circle [Yellow] to Spartleton Hill [Blue]).

Stone Circle, and some of our findings. It is valuable to read this in the mind of a student, and consider the activities, which are unfortunately alien to most of us. Following this will be a discussion of the findings and a summary of the values and (Viewshed analysis of the area from Yadlee S empowering nature of an outlook such as this for amateur and student archaeologists.

The author and his colleagues are keen to prove that students can provide a viable and valuable contribution to the published archaeological record through projects such as this, and to enable students to take this initiative themselves.

Phase One – Initial planning and Research very few students have realised they can do. As a student in archaeology, one is often involved in only one or two phases of the process in a project (phases 2 and 3 illustrated below). These are the primary data collection (phase 2), and the interpretation of results (phase 3). Students are almost never involved in the actual development of a project from the beginning, or the dissemination of results (phases 1 and 4). Thus ‘The Yadlee Stone Circle Project’ trained us in, and enabled us to take part in all these experiences, which would otherwise have been denied.

The data for the landscape survey was based upon viewshed analysis software and landscape profiles

Landscape Profile from Yadlee

Below are the phases of our investigation at Yadlee Stone Circle [Yellow] to Spartleton Hill [Blue].

Working in the ‘Royal Commission for Ancient and Historic Monuments: Scotland’ the team gathered data of previous work on the landscape surrounding Yadlee, including cartographic sources, amateur investigations, CANMORE and a report by CFA for the construction of ‘Crystal Rig’ wind-farm. We were able to establish an approach to our field survey (Phase two) based on constructing a topographic plan of the Stone Circle and as such, subsequently implementing a targeted landscape survey of the surrounding horizon.

13 Issue 1 October/November 2013

of the area, the visibility of peaks and valleys, which solar movements. This may in turn imply that the true could be associated with contemporary function of the site is to reinforce decisions about archaeological remains and solar events were a agricultural timing, on a religious or purely focus. This targeted survey, Tailored to our research functional level. The outcome of our interpretation hypothesis, allowed us to focus our limited time on is, as one must bear in mind, only one third of the site to gain profitable conclusions. This of course is desired outcome of the full process as will be just one angle of research on the area, and as such highlighted below. does not offer complete Viewshed overlaid onto topography of studied area. Yadlee Stone Circle [Yellow] and sites of significance [Blue]) conclusions as to other research questions, which were not tackled.

Phase Two – Field Survey and Data Collection This phase began in March 2013 with the identification of all 25 stones in the stone circle itself, a sketch plan, fieldwalking of the immediate area, and the beginning of targeted landscape survey; investigating the potentially related site of ‘Witches Cairn’ (NT 66451 67239). Subsequent survey managed to find a possible connection between the circle and Spartleton Hill (shown above NT 6532 6554) where an alignment of 192.5 degrees may link the circle and the summit of Spartleton Hill with solar events. The survey itself lasted three nonconsecutive days in which our targeted survey covered a collection of 6-7 likely areas, and selected 4 of them for further study; the full list of these will appear in our subsequent publication (Gardner, Westra, Wood, Vogelaar; in press). The locations of these, however, appear below.

It should be noted that the areas of potential significance lie mainly at the compass points of West, South and East. These are associated with solar movements, especially that of the solstice/ equinox sun. The SW point is more tenuous and is still under debate within the project.

Phase Three – Interpretation We began to interpret the first of our data from Yadlee Stone Circle, and found several potential alignments between features of the stone circle, landscape features on the horizon, and subsequently significant solar motions. Although it is still early in our interpretation we are confident to state that our current hypothesis argues that they imply a connection between the site and seasonal

Phase Four – Dissemination of results This phase continues throughout the process of the project, by the updating of the project blog. After the completion of phases two and three, the dissemination of results included several lectures around Britain, visits into schools in the Edinburgh and Haddington areas, the entry of data into CANMORE, publication in local and student journals, and the publication of a report.

Project Outcomes Our preliminary interpretation of the landscape and the sites around suggest that there is a complex network of topographic and archaeological features which correlate with alignments and solar cycles, thus making Yadlee Stone Circle a site of regional importance for Bronze Age agricultural timing, and potentially a facet of a ritual landscape. That alignments within the stone circle itself correspond to those in the landscape, and that these landscape features subsequently have archaeological remains on them (usually cairns) which could be contemporary, indicates that Yadlee is situated within an intentionally constructed landscape. As these findings are up for debate, we intend to head back into the field in future to test some of our hypotheses. This study does, however, throw a light on an area of Scotland, which has undergone little archaeological investigation.

14 www.archsoc.co.uk/insitu

The archaeological interpretation of our results was, as stated above, only one of the objectives of the project’s study. The other two objectives were far more worthwhile in terms of experience and empowerment; providing those who undertook the project with experience in project conception, management, and the dissemination of results, and proving that students and other amateur archaeologists can make a viable contribution to the studied archaeological record.

‘Full-Project’ Experience As was mentioned in the introduction, as a student one is often denied the opportunity to take part in two out of the four phases of a project’s lifespan.

These are arguably the most important as they start and finish the process (conception and dissemination) and as such nothing can exist without them. Part of the purpose of ‘The Yadlee Stone Circle Project’ was to train ourselves (perhaps selfishly) in these two hidden aspects. Friend of the project, and our constant guide Mr David Connolly of BAJR highlighted the importance of this to us. He pointed out that as soon as we left the cushioned world of student archaeology we would be expected to carry out these two phases, and that to get ahead would provide us with valuable experience. Not much else can testify to the success of this for those involved other than that all members of the project are now involved in the running of other projects, some with even grander aims and achievements than those at Yadlee. The skill sets those involved gained by participating in this process were immediately applicable to a variety of other projects and benefited both the individual and the group immensely.

This subsequently moves neatly into the third aim of the project, to prove that students can make a viable addition to the written archaeological record. By undertaking a project like this, the individuals involved benefitted personally and provided an archaeological insight, albeit narrow, into a little studied area. In doing so, as I hope all above proves, they made a complimentary addition to the archaeological record based on hard primary evidence while still being undergraduate students.

Student Archaeology as a Valuable Resource If one could mentally quantify the number of undergraduate archaeology students in the UK

currently studying and imagine that every four of these individuals established and then ran a short term (3 weeks of work approximately) project like ‘The Yadlee Stone Circle Project’, then the true value of this untapped resource becomes truly apparent.

The number of small projects available in modern British archaeology seems almost unassailable, and most professional graduate archaeologists would not see the value in undertaking such a small-scale investigation for little academic or financial merit.

However, undergraduate students need to train themselves for the tasks they will be expected to do upon their entrance into archaeology proper, and as such should not be concerned with financial renumeration or academic credit.

We therefore have an issue. The number of small scale projects being overlooked by professional archaeologists, and a resource capable of nullifying said issue, the untapped undergraduate student body. We even have a motivation for this resource as highlighted above, the self-improvement in preparation for graduation. All that is needed to unlock this valuable resource is for undergraduate students to realise that they can make a valuable addition, and subsequently can learn valuable skills for their future employment in archaeology. It should be the priority therefore, as it is of this article and study, to prove to undergraduate individuals that they can be a part of this movement, as there seems to be no drawback at this stage.

The Yadlee Stone Circle Project had three aims, and it is hoped that this article proved the success of all three. Although not groundbreaking, the archaeological findings of the project highlighted an interesting development in a previously understudied area of the Scottish Borders. The implementation of the project trained four undergraduate students in the full corpus of skills involved in constructing and carrying out archaeological investigations on a small scale. This subsequently has been used above as a case study for which to argue for the importance of the undergraduate archaeological body as a resource for gathering data, again on a smaller scale. The only shortcoming is that this third aim is not yet widely known, which is the purpose of this article and those that will hopefully follow it.

For more Information please go to: http://yadleestonecircleproject.tumblr.com/

15 Issue 1 October/November 2013

Ancient Ales Ian Hill Investigates The Brews of Bronze Age Cyprus

I

N THE SUMMERS OF 2012 AND 2013 HARP ran an Experimental Archaeology Field School in the village of Kissonerga, Cyprus. The Field Schools recreated an installation that was likely used for beer production in the Middle Bronze Age. The original structure has been excavated as part of a research excavation run by Dr. Lindy Crewe of the University of Manchester since 2007. The site of Kissonerga-Skalia is an Early-Middle Cypriot settlement, abandoned at the beginning of the Late Cypriot period. Excavations have revealed a series of domestic dwellings that were superseded by a phase of monumental construction. The village of Kissonerga is incredibly rich in archaeological sites with some of the world’s oldest Neolithic wells, the Chalcolithic settlement of Kissonerga-Mosphillia, as well as the settlement of Skalia.

The installation uncovered at Skalia is believed to be a malting and drying kiln. It was constructed out of mud plaster and would have originally had a domed roof. The structure contained a series of pot-lined pits and a sunken fire pit that would have heated the main chamber of the structure. The heat acquired within the main chamber is believed to have been adequate to malt grains prior to using them to make beer. During beer production grains are germinated in order to help ‘soften’ the starches within the grain so that they can be converted into sugars, which are ultimately converted into alcohol during fermentation. The germinated grains are heated in order to halt the

germination process, this is known as malting. The resulting malted grains are added to water and heated to make a 'mash', this is where the starch molecules, softened during the germination process, are converted into sugars. This creates a sticky viscous liquid known as wort, which is then fermented to create beer.

Using experimental building techniques two kilns have been built in 2012 and 2013. The first kiln, constructed in 2012 replicated the installation to a working level in order to test its functionality and suitability for malting grain. The installation was built with a domed roof, a large entrance and a sunken pit near the entrance to house a large pot, used as the firebox of the kiln. The theory being that heat generated from the fire would rise and circulate around the dome, with the most intense heat remaining within the pot. Covering the entrance to the installation with temporary doors, and building a chimney into the domed roof could further control the temperatures and airflow within the dome.

The installation was built from mud, with stones mixed in to help bind the mixture together. The domed roof was built onto a lattice-work frame made from olive tree branches to provide support.

The original installation at Skalia does not show evidence of a lattice frame, however, our main purpose was to test the functionality of the installation, and the feasibility of it being used as a drying or malting kiln. The use of the frame allowed

16 www.archsoc.co.uk/insitu

a higher clay content and when mixed with water and chaff created a strong and malleable material that could be manipulated easily.

The material was built up in stages using everdecreasing coils bent inwards in order to create the dome.

This technique took longer than the lattice frame built in 2012 as enough time had to be left between the laying

us to complete the installation in the time that we had and still produce an accurate representation of the original installation, as the frame did not affect the function of the kiln.

Once the installation was built a fire was made in the bottom of the large storage pot to test the drying capabilities of the kiln. Temperature readings were taken at various points within the dome. With an outside air temperature of around 38 degrees Celsius, it was found that once the fire had been lit, the temperature at ground level within the installation was raised to between 50 and 60 degrees Celsius. This temperature remained constant whilst the fire was burning, and is within the temperature range for the initial phases of malting. Towards the top of the dome however there was a significant increase in the temperature, which reached up to 200 degrees Celsius, but on average was around 150 degrees Celsius. The different temperatures within the dome would be suitable for creating different types of malt, depending on where the grain was positioned within it.

17

The second kiln was constructed in 2013 in a similar fashion as the first kiln, however for the second kiln no latticework was built to support the roof, the roof was constructed out of a mud mixture obtained locally. The source of the material was the same that has been used by local villagers to construct traditional village ovens in the area. The Mud had

of the coils in order to allow them to dry, however, the second kiln likely forms a more accurate representation of the original installation. The second kiln was slightly taller than the first and rose to a height of 1.4m. Once the grains had been placed in the chamber of the kiln half of the opening to the kiln was closed up using fired mud bricks, helping to seal the kiln, but still be removable without damaging the main body of the kiln following the malting process. The right hand side of the opening was left open in order to allow access to the buried pithos (fire box), as with the 2012 kiln this was covered over with temporary

Issue 1 October/November 2013

doors during the malting process. A fire was again lit within the pithos and the doors placed in order to contain the heat within the dome.

The temperatures were again tested at various points inside the kiln, with an average temperature at floor level of 50-55 degrees Celsius, with temperatures at the top of the dome reaching 140 degrees Celsius. The temperatures at the top were slightly lower than in the first kiln, however this is likely due to a taller kiln, and ultimately larger chamber to heat up.

Both reconstructed kilns showed temperatures that would be suitable for malting grains further supporting the theory that the original installation at Skalia was used for beer production. The original installation may also have been used for other purposes such as drying fruit or even cooking.

Along with the reconstruction of the kiln, a series of experiments were carried out in order to try to produce beer in a similar way to how it would have been produced during the Bronze Age, using ingredients that would have been available at the time (and fruits that there is evidence for at Skalia).

Large batches of barley were germinated and malted using sun drying (possible in the summer months due to the high temperatures), and malting in the kilns, before different strengths of mash were produced and fermented using different strains of yeast. A control batch was fermented using modern brewers yeast and compared to batches

fermented using wild grapes and wild figs, which both have strains of wild yeast cultures growing on their skins.

The resulting beers were very different to the beer that we are accustomed to today, some of the batches had a slight acidic taste to them, which is more than likely due to the wild yeasts used to produce them. Brewers yeast has been developed over the years in order to have a well-controlled strain of yeast suitable for producing alcohol, however, the strains available back in the Bronze Age may not have been so reliable. Wild yeasts cannot be as 'controlled' as modern brewers yeast and can produce differing results. Whilst some of the beers produced had an acquired taste, the 2012 fig beers were a hit, and with a little tweaking to the recipe it may well prove to be an appropriate session ale! A third season is planned for 2013 where a further kiln will be constructed to further test building techniques, and a new series of beers will be brewed.

Further Reading Damerow, P. (2012) Sumerian beer: the origins of brewing technology in ancient Mesopotamia. Cuneiform Digital Library Journal 2012.2, 1–20.

Dineley, M. (2004) Barley, Malt and Ale in the Neolithic. British Archaeological Reports S1213. Oxford: Archaeopress.

18 www.archsoc.co.uk/insitu

Inside of the Souterrain at Claigan, Skye Courtesy: The Sky

e guide

A New Take On Souterrains George Donaldson sheds some new light on these enigmatic ancient structures

S

OUTERRAINS ARE UNDEGROUND MAN-MADE CHAMBERS that vary in shape and size; they can be found in Brittany, Cornwall, Ireland and Scotland, which would suggest a connection to the Celtic world. In Scotland they are also known as ‘Weems’ and ‘Earth houses’.

These underground structures have been dated from the Iron Age to the time of the Romans in Scotland. They were constructed by digging a deep broad curved trench into the subsoil at a high point in the landscape. The trenches would mostly have been lined with walls of stone that corbelled inwards to support a roof of sandstone slabs, with the cast from the trench utilised to cover the whole structure.

Many of the souterrains in Angus were partly built from glacial debris, which would have been gathered from the surrounding area, suggesting that the land had not yet been, or was in the process of being cleared for agriculture. The sandstone slabs on the roofs, and large square blocks at the entrances of some souterrains would also suggest that there was quarrying and transporting of stone at this time.

19

Being built on high ground, souterrains would have been well protected from flooding during

downpours; however, the atmospheric conditions inside them would have been anything but dry as moisture would have been drawn in through the stone walls from the surrounding subsoil.

It is still the subject of much debate exactly what purpose souterrains served. Places for keeping livestock, refuges in times of strife, sites of ritual activity, larders for storing dairy and meat foodstuffs, and granaries for the Roman army have all been suggested in the past and there does seem to be a link to the food chain, as they all seem to be located in areas of good agricultural land.

To take the first suggestion, the archaeological record at Carlungie souterrain reveals that it had indeed been a place for keeping livestock, but this evidence also shows that this occurred at a later date, when stone from the original building was reused to construct a livestock shelter. In their original forms, souterrains would also have had many features unfriendly to domestic animals and the people who had to tend to them; dark and damp interiors, the problems of bedding and mucking out a long narrow passage and the small downward sloping entrance that would have been impossible for animals to negotiate, would surely dismiss them as places for housing livestock.

The second suggestion that they were places of refuge at times of strife is also contentious, as the mound that would have covered the souterrain would have been highly visible to attackers, turning them into potential death traps.

The third suggestion that souterrains had to do with ancient religious beliefs is also problematic. The early Celtic religion of Britain revolved around Druidism, whose rituals took place in secluded sacred groves and whose beliefs were rooted in the natural world around them. It would therefore be highly unlikely that something as artificial as a souterrain was a place of worship.

Issue 1 October/November 2013

It is fairly obvious that souterrains were built with security in mind, as there does seem to be a horizontal beam slot for securing the entrance in many of them: so whatever the function of souterrains they must have had some connection to the wealth of those who used them. This then would surely suggest that they must have had something to do with the food supply chain of our early ancestors, who were farming the good agricultural land where souterrains are usually to be found.

The suggestion that they were food stores for the Roman army would then have some credibility if it was not for the fact that they were built before any Roman army entered Scotland. However, the most common pottery finds associated with souterrains do appear to be Roman, with sherds of amphorae being the most numerous. Could it then be that grain, meat and dairy products were being stored in souterrains to be sold to Roman merchants who were trading with Scotland earlier than any Roman military invasion? The amphorae that would have contained wine and oil to be traded for corn could have been used to keep the corn dry inside the damp souterrain during the time of storage. But why store grain underground when it would keep equally well unthreshed in a stack until such times as a merchant bought it? It would also be very doubtful if meat butter and cheese would have survived being stored for even a short time in the damp conditions inside a souterrain. It would certainly have made good economic sense to fill the amphorae with corn for their return journey on a Roman merchant ship, and there can be no doubt about a Roman connection with souterrains.

However, the large amounts of these underground chambers, the remoteness of some of them, and the conditions inside them, must rule them out as grain or food stores.

The finding of Roman pottery in East Scotland does tell us that there was a time when a certain amount of trade must have been taking place between the Celts of Scotland and the merchants of the Roman Empire. So what trading commodity could souterrains be used for if not foodstuffs? Could slaves be the answer? The growing of cereals more than 2,000 years ago would certainly have been labour intensive and both the Roman Empire and the Celtic world were renowned for their use of slave labour and the trading of slaves.

Slaves who would have been kept in souterrains must have been those who had limitations as to what work they could do; they certainly could not be given scythes or sickles which might be used as weapons against their oppressors. Souterrain class slaves could however have been used as an alternative to draught animals to draw some of the ploughs and heavy carts of the agricultural industry.

Possibly the profits that could be made from selling corn to Roman merchants had driven early farmers into cereal production to such an extent that too little pasture remained to support and breed enough oxen to do all this draught work.

Souterrains could then have been the places where slaves were kept at night, and they would have been of a size to contain enough slaves to make up at least one team for hauling a heavy cart or large wooden plough.

The concept of keeping slaves underground could have been adopted from the Roman practice of placing their most dangerous offenders in subterranean prisons. These would be the criminals condemned to a life of slavery by the law courts of Rome; most would be sold to slave traders after being sentenced, who would then sell them on to the agricultural, quarrying and mining industries.

These criminal slaves would have been permanently secured with chains, unlike those born into the slave class, who accepted their lowly position without question and would have been allowed a certain amount of freedom by their masters. It would be highly likely then, that souterrain class slaves were also dangerous individuals who had to be chained while working.

Souterrains served their communities well for many years, and the archaeological evidence from the few that have been excavated suggests that they survived the first Roman military invasion of Agricola in AD79/80. The same archaeological evidence also shows that many were deliberately dismantled and backfilled by the second half of the second century AD, the time when the Antonine Wall was built and then shortly afterwards abandoned.

Livestock shelters, refuges, temples, grain stores, slave containment - whatever function souterrains served and whatever fate befell them, it cannot be denied that they played a major role in the lives and deaths of many people two thousand years ago.

20 www.archsoc.co.uk/insitu

Revealing the Language Capabilities of Plio-Pleistocene Hominins

Sam Williamson delves into the mysteries of communication among our distant ancestors

T

HE SEARCH FOR LANGUAGE in early hominins is ‘one of the most critical questions posed by the whole of current research on the archaic/modern-human transition and inevitably the most difficult to approach from the archaeological record.’ (Mellars 1989: 363). Writing is the earliest direct evidence for language-possession – a tangible proof of transmitted abstract thoughts that can be understood through time and space, but this innovation occurs a mere six-thousand years ago (Postgate 1992: 22), whilst anatomically modern humans appear at least 300,000 years ago (Lewin & Foley 2004: 466 ). A vast range of evidence is available for interpretation, and thereby application to language theories – from fossilised skeletal remains, biological and

linguistic theory, and cognitive behaviour associated with tool and art manufacture. All of these contribute to our understanding of early hominin language capabilities. However, these kinds of evidence are of a fragile nature, and many of the different theories and assertions are debated and contested.

Fossil evidence for language is not always easy to ascertain. The vocal tract and associated structures, such as the larynx and pharynx, are soft-tissued and cartilaginous in constitution and, unlike bone, do not fossilise.

Important bones such as the hyoid are frequently lost in the archaeological record despite fossilisation (Laitman, Heimbuch and Crelin 1979: 15). Despite these difficulties, attempts have been made to link fossilised remains to language capabilities, some with

21 Issue 1 October/November 2013

more success than others.

Broca’s and Wernicke’s areas, traceable through studying the inside surface of the skull, are areas of the brain that have been linked respectively to the production of sound and the perception of sound (Lewin & Foley 2004 :465). Neville and colleagues found that not only were Broca’s and Wernicke’s areas activated in the users of vocal communication, but also in users of signed communication (Neville et al. 1998). Furthermore, they conclude that the activation of these areas is dependent on ‘the early acquisition of a fully grammatical, natural language’ (1998: 928).

The earliest evidence we have for both areas are in endocasts from Homo rudolfensis (Lewin & Foley 2004: 465), which suggests there is capacity for language in early Homo, but not in australopithecines, for which there is only slight evidence for Broca’s area, but not Wernicke’s (Tobias 1998:74).Thus, despite a lack of fossil evidence for vocal language in early Homo, we can postulate that a fully-grammatical gestural language may have been employed, at least by the time of Homo habilis.

As the larynx and pharynx are not themselves preserved in fossils, inferences on their locations are draw from skeletal indicators, which are open to misinterpretation, as shall be discussed later on. Basicranium flexion is thought to reflect the location of the larynx and pharynx, and studies have shown that early hominin basicranium flexion would have resulted in respiratory systems similar to modern primates, and the range and types of sounds made by the earlier hominins would have been similar in sound and range to these (Laitman & Heimbuch 1982).

The supralaryngeal vocal tract (SVT) is a flexible tract composed of the horizontal (SVTh) oral and vertical (SVTv) pharyngeal cavities. In modern adult humans, the cavities are of relatively equal length and lie at a 90° angle to one another. The 1:1 SVT proportion allows a greater space in which sounds can be manipulated by other speech apparatus (lips, tongue, larynx, etc.), and this is necessary for the production of the vowels ‘a’, ‘i’ and ‘u’,

which in turn allows for a greater variety of sounds and thereby a better ability to communicate (Lieberman and McCarthy 2007: 18). Hominin fossils have been examined in an effort to gauge the range of possible sounds, and to infer speech capabilities.

Australopithecines have been found to have a more obtuse angle of SVT, and a disproportionately short SVTv – similar to those of modern apes – which limits their producible sound range (Lieberman 1979, 101).

Lieberman and McCarthy (2007: 19) studied a Homo erectus individual, dating to 1.6mya, and while the entire SVT could not be determined due to a lack of cervical vertebrae, it was evident that the SVTh would be too long for a 1:1 proportion. Neanderthals also appear to have a disproportionately longer SVTh (Lieberman and McCarthy 2007: 19), and adult skulls resemble modern human infant skulls (Vlceke 1970: 150, cited in Lieberman 1979: 118). Up until the age of 6-8 years, human infants have a disproportionate SVT similar to Neanderthals and Homo erectus (Lieberman and McCarthy 2007: 19). After this age, the larynx descends into the throat, lengthening the SVTv and placing the entire SVT into the 1:1 proportion and thus full vowel production ability. It should be noted that some scholars disagree with Lieberman’s assertion that Neanderthal vertebrae were short (and hence the SVTv short), which in turn leads to an underestimated speech capacity within the species (Falk 1975; Houghton 1993: 140). Falk (1975: 123) suggests Lieberman misplaced the hyoid bone in his reconstruction, and that actually the Neanderthal vocal tract would have been similar, if not identical, to modern humans. The discovery of the Neanderthal Kebara hyoid bone, almost identical to that of humans, also supports this (Arensburg et al.

1990), although Lieberman has challenged it (1993). This has implications for a wider range of sounds, and also exemplifies the problems with fossil interpretations amongst scholars.

The 1:1 ratio has not always been present in anatomically modern humans, as a 100,000 year-old Homo sapiens specimen from Israel 22

www.archsoc.co.uk/insitu

was found to possess a shortened SVTv, and it was only in specimens dated to 50,000ya that a proportioned SVT could be fitted to (Lieberman & McCarthy 2007: 19-20). The proportionate 1:1 SVT, whilst necessary for a full range of vowel production, is not needed for most other sounds. We can hardly assume that language could not exist without the three vowels ‘i’, ‘a’ and ‘u’, therefore, this cannot be said to be an indicator of early language capabilities, but rather an evolution of preexisting ones, and is therefore a latecomer in terms of anatomically-inferred language capabilities.

McLarnon and Hewitt (1999) have demonstrated the importance of enhanced breath control for the production of verbal communication, and their studies of hominin vertebrae have concluded that it is only from 1.6mya onwards that vertebral allowances for increased breath control can be seen, meaning that hominins prior to this date, such as the australopithecines and Homo ergaster, did not have the necessary respiratory control required for lengthy vocal utterances.

Another problematic strand of evidence is the hypoglossal canal. Kay, Cartmill and Barlow proposed that hypoglossal canal evidence could take speech capabilities back to 400,000ya (1998: 5419). DeGusta et al. (1999) have contested this, arguing that many nonhuman primates have similar hypoglossal canals but do not speak, and that the hypoglossal canal itself cannot be taken as a reliable indicator of speech.

Genetic evidence, specifically the discovery of the FOXP2 gene, has been used to try and identify speech capabilities. The first hominins to have this mutated version of the gene, after the chimpanzee-hominin split, were allegedly Homo sapiens within the past 100,000 years (Corballis 2003: 215) The FOXP2 gene is linked to our perception of grammar, but it is also found in other species. Kraus et al. (2007) published work on the presence of the mutated FOXP2 gene in Neanderthals and used this as an argument for the presence of speech within Neanderthal populations, and

also within the common ancestor of Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens (Kraus et al. 2007: 4). This assertion has come under criticism by Coop et al. (2008) who claim more studies need to be done before this premise that Neanderthals had the FOXP2 gene, as the evidence Kraus et al. propose could be a result of contamination. Noonan (2010) has echoed these concerns, and discusses the likelihood of contamination in the Neanderthal DNA replication process. Again, this demonstrates the clashing opinions of those pursuing the question of language origins.

Tool making and art are the products of ‘culturally determined intentions’ (Davidson 2003: 144) and have been intrinsically linked with the formation of language as an expression of social complexity and the utilisation of symbols (Noble & Davidson 1996: 19; Lewin & Foley 2004: 470), and the level of intelligence required for such feats has thought to be indicative of a possession of language so that instruction can be imparted.

The oldest tools come from the Oldowan industries, made by Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis (though possibly also by Australopithecines ( Chase 2006: 102)). Wynn (1985) has built upon Piaget’s studies of language in modern human children, and the importance stressed upon concepts of symmetry and organisational thought. He argues that this kind of thought processing is only visible in the Acheulean onwards, and that it must be the makers of these tools who are capable of language. Although seemingly symmetrical hand axes arise in the older Oldowan industries, Wynn argues that these are not purposefully and meaningfully made with symmetry in mind, rather they are reflective of inspiration from elsewhere, such as leaves (1985: 40).

Although Wynn states that using Piaget’s psychological framework as a method of analysis is better than the ‘common sense interpretations employed by archaeologists’ (1985: 41), it is evident to my eyes at least that there is still ample room for error and misinterpretation, again underlining

23 Issue 1 October/November 2013

the tenuousness of this kind of indirect evidence for language capabilities.

Whilst tool production characterises the beginning of the Palaeolithic era, the production of art is a far more recent phenomenon, arguably only arising in the Upper Palaeolithic some 30,000 years ago (Lewin & Foley 2004: 471). It shares a similar basis for its association with language abilities – art represents forms and images that can be construed as understandable symbols transcending the here and now. It ‘speaks of a world created by introspective consciousness and complex language.’ (Lewin and Foley 2004: 271-2) Noble and Davidson (1991) omit earlier manifestations of what some have labelled ‘art’ as unmeaningful and unsymbolic.

Davidson (2003) has argued for a greater theoretical framework in which to study art and language, asking ‘do symbols appear before syntax?’ (Davidson 2003: 156). Nevertheless, the implications for both and social complexity are clear, and they suggest a presence of language in their formation, if not prove one (Lewin and Foley 2004: 470).

The multivariate kinds of evidence studied to identify language capabilities in PlioPleistocene hominins provide a broad spectrum of information, but an accompanying broad series of problems. The pursuit for the earliest speaking hominin has taken on a ‘missing link’-like fixation, and this is potentially biasing interpretations of evidence. The initial data collected by archaeologists and paleoanthropologists is easily manipulated by scholars in cases of confirmation-bias, twisting the evidence to fit their hypotheses and to suit their own agendas (d’Errico et al. 2003: 2). One just has to look at the fierce debates between different scholars over the fossil evidence to see that opinion of which hominins had speech first is hugely divided. As language itself does not fossilise, a conglomerate of approaches are not only necessary, but vital. Hypotheses need to be tested against a variety of evidence, and no one strain of half-convincing evidence

should be used alone to support arguments for the earliest hominins with language capabilities (d’Errico et al. 2003: 6), thus each kind of proof should be considered as important as the other.

References Arensburg, B. et al, 1990. A Reappraisal of the Anatomical Basis for Speech in Middle Paleolithic Hominids. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 83: 137-146.

Chase, P. 2006. The Emergence of Culture: The Evolution of a Uniquely Human Way of Life. New York: Springer.

Coop, G. et al. 2008. The Timing of Selection at the Human FOXP2 Gene. Molecular Biology and Evolution 25: 1257-1259.

Corballis, M. 2003. From Hand to Mouth: Gestural Origins of Language.

In M. Christiansen & Kirby, S. (ed.) 2003. Language Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 201-218.

Davidson, I. 2003. The Archaeological Evidence of Language Origins: States of Art. In Morten, C.H. & Kirby, S. (ed.) 2003. Language Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 140 – 157. d’Errico et al. 2003. Archaeological Evidence for the Emergence of Language, Symbolism, and Music – An Alternative Multidisciplinary Perspective. Journal of World Prehistory 17: 1-70.

Falk, D. 1975. Comparative Anatomy of the Larynx in Man and Chimpanzee: Implications for Language in Neanderthal. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 43: 123-132.

Houghton, P. 1993. Neanderthal Supralaryngeal Vocal Tract. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 90: 139-146 Kay, R., Cartmill, M. and Barlow, M. 1998. The Hypoglossal Canal and the Origin of Human Vocal Behaviour. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 95: 5417-5419.

Kraus, J. et al. 2007. The derived FOXP2 variant of modern humans was shared with Neandertals. Current Biology 17: 1-5.

Laitman, J T., Heimbuch, R C. and Crelin. S., 1979. The Basicranium of Fossil Hominids as an Indicator of Their Upper Respiratory Systems.

American Journal of Physical Anthropology 51: 15-34.

Lewin, R. and Foley, R A. 2004. Principles of Human Evolution. 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell Science Ltd. Lieberman, P. and McCarthy, R. 2007. Tracking the Evolution of Language Evolution: Comparing Vocal Tracts to Identify Speech Capabilities. Expedition 49: 15-20.

Lieberman, P. 1979. Hominid Evolution, Supralaryngeal Physiology, and the Fossil Evidence for Reconstructions. Brain and Language 7: 101-126.

Lieberman, P. 1993. On the Kebara KMH 2 Hyoid and Neanderthal Speech. Current Anthropology 34: 172-175.

MacLarnon, A. and Hewitt, G P. 1999. The Evolution of Human Speech: The Role of Enhanced Breathing Control. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, vol. 109: 341-363.

Neville, H J. et al. 1998. Cerebral Organization for Language in Deaf and Hearing Subjects: Biological Constraints and Effects of Experience.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 95: 922-929.

Mellars, P. 1989. Major Issues in the Emergence of Modern Humans.

Current Anthropology 30: 349-385.

Noble, W. & Davidson, I. 1996. Human Evolution, Language and Mind: A physiological and archaeological inquiry. Hong Kong: Cambridge University Press.

Noonan, J. 2010. Neanderthal Genomics and the Evolution of Modern Humans. Genome Research 20: 547-553.

Postgate, J.N. 1992, Early Mesopotamia: Society And Economy At The Dawn Of History, London And New York: Routeledge.

Tobias, P. 1998. Evidence for the Early Beginnings of Spoken Language.

Cambridge Archaeological Journal 8: 72-77.

Wynn, T. 1985. Stone Tools and the Evolution of Human Intelligence.

World Archaeology 17: 32-43.

24 www.archsoc.co.uk/insitu

Armchair Archaeology: Book Reviews by Marta Lorenzon

Standards of Archaeological Excavation; A Fieldguide

by G. J. Tassie and L. S. Owens

C

OULD A FIELDGUID WRITTEN with a clear geographical context in mind be used anywhere else? This review of the Standards of Archaeological Excavation by G.J. Tassie and L.S. Owens tries to answer this question. This field manual initially written for Egyptian archaeologists has been recommended as a resource for archaeologists working around the world, with particular attention to the Mediterranean region.

important in the archaeologists’ work and dedicated half of the book on how to record properly archaeological data. This is well stressed by the inclusion of a CD that contains recording forms and radius chart.

The authors have a comprehensive experience in the field that is well reflected in the book. This is particularly visible in the initial chapters where they deal with site evaluation, setting up a grid system or methods of excavation for different contexts. These descriptions are accurate, precise and fill with important details, like methodology employed and the quality of tools used, which are usually forgotten in the mainstream publications.

The book is an all-inclusive manual that describes and analyses not only the different phases of archaeological excavation and recording but goes as far as dealing with site management and lab processing.

Especially interesting is the amount of attention given to archaeological recordings with more than 200 forms, diagrams, photographs and tables. The authors recognise this aspect as one of the most

I have to admit that I found those parts of the manual (Chapters VII-XI) praiseworthy and quite adaptable to different contexts, even though there is unevenness in the quality of the forms. Some forms present fields that required a huge amount of details (e.g. mud brick arrangement, 23 pages) whereas more relevant forms as the ones recording architectural structures are too general or short to describe comprehensibly the complexity of those buildings.

Additionally some recording forms have been created clearly thinking about Egyptian contexts (e.g. obelisk number field), but I do not believe they can be as useful in other regions.

On the positive side those forms show some innovations from the ones I have seen previously used in the field (e.g. more space for instruments heights and skeletons analysis). These inclusiveness

25 Issue 1 October/November 2013

and attention to details are probably the aspects that I appreciate most (e.g. sampling for DNA, pp.

127-9). They clearly show how the book has been written by archaeologists who used to be knee-deep in the field and have a clearly understanding of what the work entitled.

As a bonus the authors added some examples on how the forms should be filled. I believe this would be truly welcome by everyone, from beginners to expert archaeologists, who dread the first day of a new excavation when a plethora of new forms are dump on you and you are expected to magically know how to fill them. Some good tips can be taken away from reading this book on how to deal with them.

Tassie and Owens have a unique way of making look simple and easily doable even the most obscure forms. I really enjoy this portion of the manual, so different from other publications, where it has been dealt in a way that I would described repetitive at the best and plain boring at the worst. The authors have dry wit that emerges in some of the stories told throughout the book on finds collecting. I appreciate how they personalized the manual and I wish there were more of these episodes. I credited them as being able to keep the manual professional, while they have enriched it with a personal touch.

Furthermore I like how they let their views filter through the text when describing the recording procedures. They stress how material culture can inform us about social behaviour and rituals. This was a subjective opinion, but I do not believe expressing it plainly in the text changes the manual objectivity or its archaeological effectiveness in the field. All archaeologists have personals views on material culture and other subjects and to say otherwise is a throughout lie. Moreover I am a bit sceptical of books or authors that proclaimed to be completely impartial just to feed the reader their views under the table.

“lot” used only related to materials and I have never encountered it in the field referred to some kind of stratigraphic unit.

These chapters were not as well structured as other sections of the book, but they constitute a minor portion in a more complex effort to describe an excavation in all its parts.

Would I recommend this manual to someone to understand stratigraphy? Probably not. But I would surely recommend it as a fieldguide to understand the archaeological excavation in its whole: from site selection to recording and lab analysis. Even though I find some aspects of the book could have been better presented, I still believe this is a manual that can be helpful when used critically in the field not only in Egypt but also in other contexts.

Marta Also Recommends: The Rape of Mesopotamia: Behind the Looting of the Iraq Museum

by Lawrence Rothfield The Archaeology of Death and Burial

by Mike Parker Pearson American Egyptologist. The life of James Henry Breasted and the creation of the Oriental Institute

by Jeffrey Abt Colonial Encounters in Ancient Iberia.

Phoenician, Greek, and Indigenous relations.

Edited by Michael Dietler and Carolina LópezRuiz

Finally I get to what is probably my only problem with the manual: the stratigraphic analysis. I have to admit that I found stratigraphy not as well explained as other part of the book (e.g. recording) and I was deeply baffled by some of the examples given (e.g. misattribution of terminus post quam and terminus ante quem). On this regard I believe there was additional confusion in the description of some archaeological terms, for instance “lot”. I have to admit, it could be my mistake, but I seen the term 26 www.archsoc.co.uk/insitu

Amisfield Walled Garden Project

by Euan Foley

A

MISFIELD WALLED GARDEN was once one of the grandest walled gardens in Scotland, where only the select and wealthy may have seen behind its intriguingly large walls. Built in the 1780’s on the estate that once belonged to the Gatsby-esque Francis Charteris, 7th Earl of Wemyss, a local man with a vast fortune and certain reputation for finding trouble wherever he went.

Since construction it has seen various stages of work and disrepair, and war and peace, providing a colourful history. Despite this, the four walls have held strong and provided a secure home to a 3.24 hectare garden that once grew some of the most valuable and status defining commodities of the Victorian era: pineapples. I and many other members of Archaeology Society were lucky enough to be invited to excavate a small section of this garden, but we weren’t looking for pineapples.

Instead, we were there to uncover the remains of the large greenhouses that once grew these luxurious fruits. Due to the fact that the greenhouse was only demolished in the 1960’s there was plenty of material to uncover for anyone who came along, making it the perfect site for an inexperienced archaeologist to break ground for the first time; however, the many structural modifications to the greenhouse created a complex stratigraphy to test even the most battle-hardened archaeologist’s mettle.

Led by local archaeologists David Connolly and Doug Rocks-Macqueen, members of ArchSoc and the general public were invited to help excavate the remains of the greenhouse in order to understand the history of the garden while providing experience in excavation, public archaeology, building surveying and context recording to name but a few aspects. The excavation has been running for a several weeks a year since 2011 and aims to teach the basics of fieldwork and recording to students and anyone

with an interest, while still unearthing new information about the walled garden and its history.

The main focus of the dig this year was to excavate the westernmost section of the greenhouse and to see underneath what would have been the floor of the greenhouse. Here we would be exposing the foundations of the greenhouses and the remains of two old heating systems as well as plenty of glass, pottery and china. The actual excavation process itself is something I was very familiar with but my experience primarily consists of excavating skeletons, so heavy artillery such as spades were a definite no-no. Being able to take large amounts of soil away without fear of destroying something delicate was a welcome change and slightly more reflective of what would be considered as commercial archaeology, which is important for student archaeologists such as myself to understand, as field schools may be informative but also very unrealistic in terms of timescale and pressure of work. As most of the finds in the trench were small bits of glass and plant pot fragments, I was lucky enough to be working in a corner of the trench where there were plenty finds including several completely intact plant pots of a decent size. However there were also large metal pieces from the greenhouse supports and even some of the original clay piping to be found, as well as numerous structural phases of the foundations.

Throughout the week we greatly expanded the trench, uncovering much more than we had bargained for, and I personally learned a great deal about different contexts and how complex stratigraphy can be for even the simplest looking structures.

Given the opportunity I opted to try my hand at digital building surveying, a slightly more obscure aspect of archaeology and something I had not done before. Myself and another ArchSoc member

27 Issue 1 October/November 2013

took a camera and tripod and photographed the entire western wall so that it could be reconstructed using a photographic mapping program. David and Doug would then eventually create a 3D computer simulation of each of the four walls so that they could be viewed from any angle on a computer, making recording and post excavation processing infinitely easier. The photography aspect is very simple but the computer-based procedure is a bit of a specialist field and usually requires specific training and experience, and as such was too technical to be taught in the field. The principles of this computer model were still well worth our understanding, however.

Digital reconstruction is a fairly modern approach to archaeology and not universally practiced due to expensive equipment costs and specialist knowledge. Despite this it is an aspect that I think will definitely become standard as time passes, and learning the basics of a skill while it is still in its infancy was more than worthwhile and an interesting process to be part of.

With help from Doug and “Professor” Alex Westra, through several visits from local schools and the Young Archaeologist Club (YACs) I was also able to do some public archaeology. When the children arrived they were split into 2 groups, each with a trench and a couple of ArchSoc members to teach them all they needed to know. While one group learned how to trowel the surface for finds, the other group were being taught how to use sieves to

The most rewarding aspect of my time at Amisfield, and what made it feel doubly worthwhile, was having some of the children from the school groups come back in their own time within the same week.

The parents of the children told us that they had been practically dragged to Amisfield to be shown what their children had been doing on their day out with their school. It was very encouraging and proved that archaeology is something that is still interesting and engaging to children in an age where computer games and mobile phones are far more accessible and hold a child’s attention much more easily. Additionally their parents are still pushing them to pursue an interest in archaeology, despite limited academic opportunities and the uncertainty of employment, proving that archaeology is still considered worthwhile and important by the general public.

The foundations of the westernmost section of the glasshouse at Amisfield

Archaeology would be a complete waste of time if we didn’t record and write up everything we had observed, otherwise 100 years from now a new group of archaeologists might come and needlessly excavate on the exact same spot. As such recording is arguably the most important part of the process. From every new layer of soil to entire structures, everything must be recorded for the sake of the poor archaeologist who has to write the site report long after you’ve backfilled all the trenches and the physical work is done. With this in mind, every detail helps him or her create a better sequence of events and more accurate work, making clarity and legibility of utmost importance when recording. We were taught to record everything as you find it, as is good practice, instead of leaving all the paperwork to the end of the season when motivation has left you and you curse yourself for not doing it bit by bit as you were excavating. Doug’s tutelage included trench photography and the accurate recording and editing of context sheets, which we constantly corrected and added to, always thinking of the person doing the post-excavation analysis because one day it will be you!

sift for them; once each group had perfected their discipline and found plenty of greenhouse pieces they swapped over and learned the other. It’s easy to forget that what might be the most trivial of finds for us is something that the children might be completely blown away by, and that our attitudes towards these situations play an important part in the whole experience for them. The aim of the game was to keep the children interested and to always be enthusiastic for the sake of the next generation, and to have a bit of fun too. The finds the children were unearthing hadn’t been planted and they were therefore just as likely to find something as any of the ArchSoc members working alongside them. This authenticated their experience and made them all “real archaeologists” for the afternoon which clearly meant something to them.

28 www.archsoc.co.uk/insitu

photo courtesy roebuckclasses.com

The Role of V. Gordon Childe in NeoEvolutionary Theory in Archaeology

by DC Wheaton III

T

HE CONCEPT OF NEOEVOLUTIONISM IN ARCHAEOLOGY is perhaps best described by Bruce Trigger, reflecting on Joseph Caldwell’s beliefs.

Trigger describes the idea that “behind the infinite variety of cultural facts and specific historical situations, is a finite number of historical processes” and further states, “not all cultural facts are of equal importance in bringing about change.” (Trigger, 1997).

However, this presumes a distinctly different view of evolution from the commonly embraced Darwinian theory of natural selection. Rather, such a perspective entails evolution of a social sort, a cultural evolution much akin to social-Darwinism. However antiquated its roots may be neo-evolutionism still underpins much of conventional archaeological thought. This is largely due to the work of V. Gordon Childe, whose theories on revolution in the Neolithic and on urbanisation entirely endorsed neoevolutionary theory. As the very concept of revolution is intrinsically linked to a subsystem of stages of development, and therefore cultural evolution, the widespread acceptance

of Childe’s theories for the majority of the middle twentieth century essentially made neo-evolutionary thought canon in archaeological practice.

This essay will endeavour to explain Childe’s role in and contributions to archaeological neoevolutionary theory. Firstly I will enumerate the principles, development, and famous examples of neo-evolutionary theory in archaeology. Secondly I will discuss V. Gordon Childe’s role in the creation of neoevolutionary thought and his theories of revolution. Finally I will analyse the issues with the application of Childe’s theories as examples of neo-evolutionism, and conclude with an assessment of the theory’s overall validity in an archaeological context.

Before assessing Childe’s contributions to neo-evolutionism in archaeology, one must first understand the nature of neo-evolutionary theory. The principle forces of evolution, in the archaeological context, tend to follow the

29 Issue 1 October/November 2013

sociocultural paradigm of organisational advancement, an increase in scale, and greater differentiation within society, be it through class, profession, or a similar factor (Trigger, 1998). Most of those who uphold this idea of evolutionism tend to view advancement as a product of environmental determinism, while others step away from the widest concept and view cultural evolution as a sum of the methods of change or indeed as “specifically linear and progressive patterns that can be detected within [the] totality of history.” (Trigger, 1998: 9). In essence, neo-evolutionism rose largely as a reaction to the “socialist” thinking of those such as Childe who proposed “revolution” as a driving force in history and the archaeological record during the more right-wing years of American politics of the middle twentieth century (Schiffer, 2000; Trigger, 1978). This, as Kerr remarks, is not an attempt to emulate biological evolution, but rather a method to “infer certain types of historical ‘logic’ and ‘pattern,’” largely in a unilinear fashion for most of its existence. (Kerr, 2002: 332). Such thinking built upon ecological models on evolution, with “culture, and more specifically technological development [as] the independent variable, and man the dependent one.” (Trigger, 1978: 70). However, the fundamental ideal of neo-evolutionary theory, in the modern sense, is one of multilinear development of human cultures determined largely by common factors present in varying degrees dependent upon a culture’s environment.

One cannot discuss the fundaments and development of neo-evolutionism without discourse on the academics who proposed, endorsed, and developed the theory. The first of these is Leslie White, an American ethnographer, who proposed “’culturology’ – literally the science of culture” and with it scientific baggage that included the concept of cultural evolution. (Lyman & O’Brien in Schiffer, 2000: 128). White proposed a unilinear theory of human history that presented culture in a series of five stages of evolution based upon the energy harnessed by a society, namely

manpower, domesticated animals, agricultural power, the power of natural resources such as coal and oil, and finally the exploitation of nuclear power (Schiffer, 2000; Trigger, 1998).

The next of the figures who argue for a cultural evolution, and perhaps the founder of neoevolutionism, is Julian Steward, writing from the same academic background as White.

Steward argues for multilinear evolution in the truest sense, where the environment of a culture determines first technological and economic factors, which then determine secondary features such as “religion, politics, ideologies,” and the like. (Trigger, 1998: 128).

This adopts a philosophy that common features of a culture should be emphasised, and then by tracing the evolution of a culture backwards from its extant point one can find commonalities within human history. Last of the major theorists of neo-evolution are Sahlins and Service, who maintained a difference between “general” and “specific” evolution, with general evolution as an expression of increasing complexity and specific evolution referring to environmental adaptations that differentiate cultures from a central standard (Schiffer, 2000; Trigger, 1998). Each of these is directly influenced by the writings of V. Gordon Childe, and to some degree can be seen as reactions to them.

There is no doubt that V. Gordon Childe is one of the most influential archaeologists of the twentieth century, if not all of archaeological history. His two most widely published, and arguably most influential, theories are those of a Neolithic Revolution, and of Urban Revolution. Though Childe began writing from the perspective of a Marxist, his views shifted and changed greatly as his career progressed.

Childe, most fundamentally, believed in diffusion as method of cultural exchange, but the speed and method of diffusion varies greatly depending on which of Childe’s works one consults. However, whether through diffusion or not, Childe viewed “progress as being either inevitable or automatic,” and he saw change in many societies as “leading to dead ends or annihilation.” (Trigger, 1978: 67).

30

www.archsoc.co.uk/insitu

Furthermore Childe believed severe ecology, specialised economies and classes, politics, religion, and ideology could inhibit a culture’s growth or diffusion (Trigger, 1978). It should be noted that all of these factors are those examined by later scholars, such as White, Steward, and most particularly Sahlins and Service, as indicators of a society’s stage in an evolutionary model. Therefore one can easily see the influence of Childe, even outside of his “revolution” theories, on later theorists, directly influencing the study of cultural evolution.

The importance of Childe is even more noticeable, however, when one examines his theories of Neolithic and Urban Revolution.

When first discussing the Neolithic Revolution in “Man Makes Himself,” Childe asserts that whatever the domesticates, the accession of the Neolithic in past societies occurred in the same fashion. He states “there was…no ‘Neolithic’ civilisation, only a multitude of concrete applications of a few very general principles and notions,” referring to the rise of agriculture.

(Childe, 1941: 98).

These principles and notions can be condensed to the domestication of plants, as well as herd animals, and the sedentism and ceramic culture associated with them. In other words, no matter where a society adopts farming or what foodstuffs they cultivate the development of their culture will follow the same pattern as every other that has undergone the same change. However, Childe believed that the Neolithic was spread through diffusion from a common origin, and societies would not begin farming independently (Childe, 1941). The theory of a Neolithic Revolution is, therefore, a unilinear theory that can be applied to any archaeological or even modern society.

Childe’s idea of an Urban Revolution departs slightly from his unilinear plan of the spread of agriculture in the Neolithic. While Childe expressed a belief that the spread of farming did occur in a distinct and universal pattern, he turns from this to state that urban societies arise from the “need for extensive public works

to drain and irrigate land and to protect settlement” along with the need to procure raw materials for building and tool-making, “tend[ing] to consolidate social organisation.” (Childe, 1941: 141). In simpler terms, Childe was theorising that state formation was advancing in a multilinear pattern, best exemplified by the six nuclei of Mesopotamia, the Indus River Valley, Nile River Valley, the Andes, Mesoamerica, and the Yellow River Valley (Smith 2009). All contained the ten markers Childe believed indicated an urban society and the formation of a statebased civilisation, namely cities, specialisation, agricultural surplus, monumental architecture, a ruling class, writing, sciences, sophisticated art, extensive trade, and a concept of a “state.” (Childe, 1950). However, Childe embraced the concept that each of the societies arising in these areas did not diffuse their cultures to the others, but rather developed independently of each other, that is to say in a parallel evolutionary fashion.

Thus, one could argue that Childe was one of the first of the neo-evolutionary theorists.

Much like White he proposed that a change in energy production, that of moving from hunting and gathering to the domestication of animals and plants, is a step toward civilisation, and that all cultures undergo the shift from gathering to farming in the same manner. The idea that the Neolithic spread from one common origin through cultural diffusion, though, has since been disproven by biological investigation and Childe’s ethnocentrism on Mesopotamian cultures is no longer valid (Wilson, 1974). Furthermore the idea that farming could not be conceived by cultures without the geographic assets of those in Mesopotamia is short-sighted at best, and a unilinear model simply fails to include cultures such as those of the western hemisphere and the far east, which relied on entirely different staples. However, this does not discredit Childe as a neo-evolutionary thinker, or at the very least a contributor, to the field of neoevolutionism. The Urban Revolution, however, shows a greater level of intellectual refinement,

31 Issue 1 October/November 2013

as does any multilinear theory. Childe better accounts for variable factors such as ecology in his second theory, placing the Urban Revolution in terms much more in line with Steward, and to an extent Sahlins and Service (Trigger, 1998; Smith, 2009). These similarities are not mere coincidence; it is plain to see that the acknowledged neo-evolutionary theorists of later years are building upon the works of Childe.

In summary, V. Gordon Childe is without a shadow of a doubt a forerunner of the neoevolutionary theorists of later years. His two most widely published theories, those of a Neolithic Revolution of agriculture and an Urban Revolution of state formation, are very plainly stages of a social “evolution.” Childe himself saw humanity’s transition from one form of society to another as a series of stages, each precipitated by a revolution, and therefore set the foundations for neoevolutionists to propose human society in an evolving state (Childe, 1941; Schiffer, 2000; Wilson, 1974). However, the idea that cultures progress from “gathering” to “Neolithic” to “Urban” is not unlike the Morgan’s system of savagery, barbarism, and civilisation, and carries with it social-Darwinian baggage (Trigger, 1998; Wilson, 1974). Childe himself uses these terms when introducing these theories (Childe, 1941). Despite this, Childe did not intend any demeaning connotation to be attached to his theories, rather he sought to better categorise the human past, prehistory especially, and in so doing bring archaeology to be viewed as a science. By using and expanding Childe’s principles, which are most definitely the roots of processual archaeology, the theorists following Childe brought the concept of neo-evolutionism into the canon of the New Archaeology. White’s five-stage theory incorporates quite readily the idea of a Neolithic Revolution, along with its unilinear form. Steward’s primary and secondary factors of evolution are almost identical to those Childe believes can hinder, and are therefore indicative of, a society. Last of all Sahlins and Service seemingly attempt to reconcile the

differing styles of Childe’s theories by differentiating between general and specific evolution, where certain cultural characteristics are unilinear or at the least incredibly parallel, and others are multilinear.

Whichever paradigm one chooses to accept, the influence of Childe is readily apparent, and therefore the role of Childe in neo-evolutionary theory becomes quite clear: he is the founder of neoevolutionary theory.

Further Reading Childe, V. Gordon. Social Evolution. London: Watts & Co., 1951 Childe, V. Gordon. “The Urban Revolution.” Town Planning Review 21.1 (1950): 3-17. JSTOR Arts & Sciences VI. 26 Nov. 2012.

Childe, V. Gordon. Man Makes Himself. London: Watts & Co., 1941 Kerr, Peter. “Saved from extinction: evolutionary theorising, politics and the state.” British Journal of Politics and International Relations 4.2 (2002): 330-58. Academic Search Elite. 26 Nov. 2012.

Schiffer, Michael B. Social Theory in Archaeology. Salt Lake City: University of Utah, 2000.

Smith, Michael E. “V. Gordon Childe and the Urban Revolution: a historical perspective on a revolution in urban studies.” Town Planning Review 80.1 (2009): 3-29. JSTOR Arts & Sciences VI. 26 Nov. 2012.

Trigger, Bruce G. A History of Archaeological Thought.

Cambridge: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, 1997.

Trigger, Bruce G. Sociocultural Evolution. Oxford: Blackwell, 1998.

Trigger, Bruce G. Time and Traditions: Essays in Archaeological Interpretation.

Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1978.

Wilson, David. The New Archaeology. New York: Knopf, 1974.

32 www.archsoc.co.uk/insitu

Watching Briefs: your archaeological news and interest in brief

Interview with Stuart Rathbone, field archaeologist and creator of the Campaign for Sensible Archaeology (CfSA) David: It was around 2009 that you created The Campaign for Sensible Archaeology?...The Facebook group now boasts 267 members, representing people from all over the archaeological world. ... what was your goal with

TheCcampaign for Sensible Archaeology and what are its main tenets?

Stuart: Well, the genesis of that group was quite simply that I lost my temper... I lost my temper because I got a letter... [from] an American academic who wanted to come and work on one of my projects. He wrote me a page long thing... and I couldn't understand a bl**dy word of it... I didn't understand what he was saying to me. I couldn’t understand what his areas of interest were. I couldn't understand anything in this letter!... So, I suppose that was the culmination of a lot of my frustration with the way that a lot of archaeologists tend to write things...

At the time I was working with student groups and I was spending an awful lot of time translating the archaeology from the literature into lecture forms that students with no background in Irish archeology could understand....It’s not that

33 Issue 1 October/November 2013

complicated, it has just been written in an incredibly complicated way... When I put the (CfSA) together I think the three things we kind of hooked on were that language should be used to communicate and it shouldn't be any more complicated than necessary to convey the ideas that you want...

The second bit was that behind all this language sometimes there is a lot of discussion/debate in the archaeological literature that has a very tenuous link to any evidence. One of the functions...of the complicated language is to cover the fact that these people are making things up. And it's fine to make things up, just say, “Oh, here's a bit of speculation for you.” ...that's fine. But to wrap it up in a complex verbal blanket and try to pass it off as fact is just...irritating.

The third thing was, that at that time there was a lot of coverage ...of contemporary archaeological projects ...that were linked into the art world. I couldn't see the relevance ...of a lot them to archaeology... If you're not doing archaeological methods don't call in an archaeologist. If you are studying something and you are trying to do it through archaeology, which is a terrible set of methods if you think about it.... If what you are doing is some sort of multimedia art project then it shouldn't be labeled up as an archaeology project.

Which is all a bit strict. It does sound a tremendously po-faced and serious but the whole point was to poke a bit of fun at some people and some archaeologists who do need a bit of the mickey taken out of them. This is a genuinely ridiculous subject. The idea of digging these little holes all over the place and trying to piece together the functions and ways that societies work from the crap that people throw away into a hole in the ground. It is an essentially ridiculous notion. So, we shouldn't take ourselves that seriously. The use of the term “sensible” was chosen because I knew it would get under the skin of people. The idea that there was a sensible archaeology which opposes to everything else that would be insensible, or as we labeled it early on “beyond sensible.” Which was just so I could write things were “BS” and I thought that I was incredibly witty. But you have got to understand that I am quite immature... If the subject isn't suitable for archaeological methods then you are wasting your own time and you are wasting your readers’ time. ...when you are doing the project design phase, of any project, you should be able to hit all three of those targets without even thinking about it.

David: What are your thoughts on the state of relations between archaeologists and the public?

Specifically, those who claim vested interest in your

discoveries.

Stuart: I think, it is a very complicated situation at the moment. What archeology has is, of all the sort of sciences, it’s got the one of the most interesting stories to tell and its one that affects everybody. I think the whole population of the world has an interest in archaeology... What's happened, I think, is that the archaeological world is very isolated from the public. Seeing as it's the history of people, we shouldn't be. But we are writing our stuff in a way that normal people can't understand. We only talk to each other... One of the problems there is that [the public] aren't reading our stuff but they are still interested in the past. So what are they reading? ...There is some very dubious literature out there. There is a lot of pseudo-science. There is a lot of ancient aliens stuff. The pagan stuff totally misrepresents what's happening in prehistory. I'm not comfortable with that material... But they're doing something that we are not. They're telling an interesting story. I'm sitting here in a pile of books and I'll tell you they'd bore the ass off of a donkey...

I think that is something [CfSA] has been accused of, that we are populist. As if that's a bad thing...

You know it yourself when you are going out and going to lectures or a conference. You can see the people who have a skill and a talent for communicating their ideas. They'll do a forty minute lecture and you're hanging on every word.

They've done it; they have made you laugh a few times. It's all been good lively entertainment and informative. Then you see the next person come and they are stuttering and they won't look at you and they've got no charisma or charm, and there is no difference in the quality of the work... I think we are wasting our time if we are not communicating this stuff to the widest possible audience.

This interview is an excerpt. To listen to the unabridged audio go to http://snd.sc/1g5ZY48

Recession-era archaeology: the background and consequences of the RCAHMS and Historic Scotland merger

by Rachel Faulkner-Jones

P

UBLIC SECTOR SPENDING has been drastically curtailed across all governmental

34 www.archsoc.co.uk/insitu

departments over the previous four years, with greater and lesser degrees of effect and efficiency.

One of the most far-reaching consequences of the difficulties entailed in the current economic climate is the merger between the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland (RCAHMS) and Historic Scotland (HS), as detailed by the Culture Secretary Fiona Hyslop. Due to be heard in Parliament over the coming months and expected to go into effect some time in 2014, the merger is the result of a year-long governmental appraisal, a public consultation, a stakeholders’ workshop, and a subsequent options appraisal by Historic Scotland.

In effect, the merger will create an entirely new organisation comprised of Historic Scotland and RCAHMS staff, which is likely to achieve charitable status early in 2014. The Culture Secretary has assured both organisations that there will be no redundancies as part of the merger, and that the core goal of the new organisation should be, as ever, to protect, promote and maintain Scotland’s historic environment.

Several bodies have already expressed disquiet with the process. RCAHMS’ executives were expecting the Culture Secretary to turn the Commission into a non-departmental public body (NDPB), which would in essence remove the Commission’s Royal Warrant and bring it in line with other National Collections, which would have safeguarded the Commission’s staff, collections and ethos. Alternatively, Historic Scotland could have subsumed RCAHMS into its existing framework. The merger as it stands will require a vast amount of oversight and a great deal of extra work for staff at every level in both organisations, which will invariably have a detrimental impact on on-going and forthcoming projects. Concerns have also been raised at current consequences of budgetary restraint and the dangers of short-term thinking. The Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland (RIAS) wrote a (publicly available) letter to Ms. Hyslop in response to the merger, wherein they detail issues such as: the end of a comprehensive review of listed buildings and restrictions on their maintenance; the existing lack of skills in heritage workers due to too few resources; the economic problem of not spending a little in the short-term on maintenance and upkeep to prevent costly issues occurring in coming years; increasing pressure on local authorities to maintain and protect the built environment; and the potential for local authorities to be overruled by elected officials with a political agenda on issues concerning the built and historic environments. Concern has also been voiced by the Tayside and Fife Archaeological Committee

that the stellar work currently undertaken by RCAHMS and Historic Scotland in community outreach and education programmes may be curtailed under increasing governmental pressure and a drastically limited budget.

Many such issues should be discussed and resolved when the bill proposing the merger goes before Parliament in the coming session. However, this is also the point at which many of the cornerstones of the merger can be discussed and amended, to the benefit and detriment alike of those who work in and care about Scotland’s heritage. Great care should also be taken to ensure that this does not become a political issue to be bandied about amid the independence referendum debates.

Scotland’s built and historical environments belong to all, and their cultural and economic value is of great importance and should not be diminished or unappreciated through short-term political bickering.

• RCAHMS was established by Royal Warrant in 1908 to enhance understanding and increase participation in the historic environment • Historic Scotland was established in 1991 to promote and protect Scotland’s historic environment • RCAHMS currently has 104 full-time staff, 14 trainees, and receives an average of 100 volunteer hours per week • Historic Scotland currently has 1,100 full-time staff • Historic Scotland cares for 345 buildings and sites • RCAHMS receives ~£6.5million per year, of which £4.6 million comes from baseline Scottish government funding • Historic Scotland receives £40.3million per year from the Scottish government • In 2011-2012, 3.4 million people visited Historic Scotland sites and buildings, generating £32million of income • The Scottish historic environment as a whole supports 41,000 full-time jobs and generates in excess of £2.3billion every year

35 Issue 1 October/November 2013

Aerial Photography Workshop – Let's Go Fly A Kite

I

by Maddie O'Neill

T WAS ON A WINDY SEPTEMBER AFTERNOON that the Archaeological Society decided to leave their shovels and trowels behind and exchange them for cameras and kites. A workshop hosted by the West Lothian Archaeological Trust gave members of ArchSoc the opportunity to expand their knowledge on methods used in taking aerial photographs in order to reveal sites in a given landscape.

The workshop started off with a minor detour to Saint Anthony’s Chapel before ultimately ending up in a clearing near the foot of Arthur’s Seat where it was safer to fly the kites. Trust Archaeologist and Secretary James Knowles and Trust Chairman Dr. John Wells, both passionate about aerial photography and promoting its use within the community, focused on the various methods and equipment that could be used to obtain revealing pictures of the landscape below.

Knowles started the workshop with demonstrating how the rigs on which the cameras were attached could range anywhere from a homemade contraption made out of metal rulers and bolts to an expensive ready-made with gyro stabilisation. In addition to the rigs, Dr. Wells explained how the camera is further stabilised by the Picavet suspension which allows the kite line to move freely without disrupting the position of the camera.

Society members were then given a chance to fly the incredibly powerful Power Sled kite with a camera suspended two-thirds of the way up the kite line. The shutter speed is what allows the camera to take multiple shots so that a clear and revealing image can be obtained and the usefulness of the pictures taken is determined by what filter the camera uses as well as what time of day the photos are taken. The best pictures are taken during the hours of dawn and dusk. The exceptionally high winds also made for a perfect demonstration as to why gloves are required when dealing with kite lines. For the first time in Dr. Wells’ and Knowles’ careers, the lines between the two kites became tangled and snapped. Although the remaining kite seemed unmanageable, Knowles was able to reel it in safely. After untangling the Gordian knot that

was the tangled kites, both the society and the experts decided to call it a day.

As is customary with archaeologists across the globe, the hard day’s work earned the society a round of pints.

St. Joseph's Seminary and Church

by Zhen Guan

S

T. JOSEPH'S SEMINARY AND CHURCH is a famous tourist destination in Macau, located at Largo de Santo Agostinho. The architecture has many features that are of historical and aesthetic value, and are thus worth looking into. This article will examine its construction and functions, some of its main features and its implicit meanings.

Construction and Purpose: In 1746 the Jesuits laid the first stone of the St. Joseph’s Church and completed this work in 1958.

In 1728 the seminary of St. Joseph was founded and later was run in different hands.

The seminary, according to some, serves a much more significant purpose than the church does.

From an etymological prospective, it is ‘a place where students nurture or cultivate the seeds of

Fig. 1

vocation.’

Students can choose between two majors, theology and commerce, which indicates two pivotal motives of western countries’ contact with China. They are required to master Cantonese, Portuguese French and Latin, and in the meantime take humanity and natural science courses. They can also be trained in sacred music here if they choose.

Others would argue that the church itself is more

36 www.archsoc.co.uk/insitu

important because there resides the relic of St. Francis Xavier, one of the founders of the Society of Jesus, or to be more specific, his left humerus arm.

Therefore St. Joseph’s Church ought to be held holy and of great historical significance as well.

However given the purpose of these Jesuits, to educate people, there seems no need to argue. A good education entails both the preservation and remembrance of the past and the preparation for the future for those involved.

The Church of St. Joseph is a baroque-style building with three main features: the façade, the arched vault and the spiral columns.

Firstly the exterior of the church (Figure 1) already suggests that it is a product of ‘the Roman Renaissance period of architecture’.

The broken pediment is a variant of pediments often seen in Greek and neo-classical architectures. The ellipses above the doors (Figure 2) are also indicators of Greek influence. What is curious about the façade is that the shape of windows is not consistent: two of them are arches while the others are rectangular. In other words, Greek and Roman impacts blend wonderfully here, which is why the architectures in Macau, St Joseph’s included, are so fascinating to many.

Figure 5

Dr. Cunich, are a revival of that style by baroque architects in the Renaissance. Although it is not yet clear why the Jesuits chose to adopt this style, this is not the only similarity Christianity inherited from Judaism. In one photo (Figure 6) a crucifix appears above a crown. In Jewish history it is usually the names of philosophers and commentators of the Talmud that are remembered, instead of kings and queens.

In the history of Christianity, though the supremacy of the Pope over the kings was questioned by the Renaissance and challenged by the Reformation, the Jesuits are strong advocators of clericalism.

This contextualises their belief that their religious leader possesses more power than any secular ruler. And because the Jesuits are often scholars, their emphasis on education when preaching demonstrates a vital function of colonial Christianity in Asia, which is to ‘civilise’ the

Figures 2, 3 & 4 from left

The Church of St. Joseph has the only ornamental arched vault (Figure 3) in Macau.

This design renders St. Joseph smaller than other churches because of the spacial limit. But an arched vault with a focus both as a physical and a metaphysical concentration reinforces a sense of involvement. The scuttles on the vault allow light inside, neither too bright nor too dark. The haziness exercises on the disciples a supernatural feeling of being summoned by God, and it seems as if true believers could rise to heaven through the ephemeral lighting of the vault.

St. Joseph’s Church is also unique in that it is decorated with spiral columns (Figures 4 & 5).

These spiral columns relate the church to the Jewish legacy; Solomonic Columns, according to

indigenous population.

Figure 6

The construction of the Church of St. Joseph is designed under baroque influence and it was built to impress people and eventually convert them to Christianity. The Baroque style was chosen presumably because it is a style of splendour and grandness. The colour of the exterior as well as the interior is light and refreshing, delivering both a feeling of tranquility and a sense of relief. At a time when the majority lived in great uncertainty and poor sanitation, they were able to envisage a life (afterlife) full of hope and grace by the spectacular appearance of the church, which was obviously

37 Issue 1 October/November 2013

more appealing to the uneducated majority than the catechisms.

St. Joseph’s Seminary and Church is the last destination of my whole trip, but it managed to leave great impression on me. There are other details that this article cannot examine explicitly but I believe it has covered the most important aspects. This article does not seek to evaluate the architecture exclusively from an aesthetic perspective. Instead, it tries to restore part of the ‘truth’ about St. Joseph’s Seminary and Church in the context of the early modern period.

Further Reading Clemens, John. Discovering Macau (Hong Kong: Macmillan, 1977) Ip, Keith. ‘A Two-face Coin: St. Joseph Seminary and Church, Macau’, Macau Daily Times, 25 July 2009. 16 March 2013 <http:// archive.macaudailytimes.com.mo/>.

‘Macau Heritages (6) St. Joseph’s Seminary and Church’, Cultural China, n.d. 16 March 2013 <http://history.cultural-china.com/ en/54History6833.html>.

Norman Solomon, Judaism: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 31-51.

Travels in Cappadocia

by Ashleigh Wiseman

Cappadocia has a rich history stretching back to the Bronze Age, through to the Persian Empire, to Byzantine times. In AD17 the province of Cappadocia fell under Roman control. In those early times before Constantine made the official religion of the Empire Christianity, early Christians sought refuge in the area. Here, they cut monasteries and churches into the mountains, and even built massive underground cities, fully fitted with wineries, a defence system and a clean water supply.

Walking through the open-air museum in Goreme you cannot help but marvel at the beautifully cut facades of the monasteries and the spectacular early Christian wall paintings – many surviving in a sublime condition today.

Unfortunately, many of the faces of the saints have fallen victim to Ottoman graffiti, but many still survive today.

The rich colours illuminate the rooms of the churches and one can find it near impossible to tear one’s eyes away.

Neveshir has much more to offer than these marvellous rock-cut monasteries; rock castles, old towns, naturally formed rocks that look as though they have little hats, treks across the wonderful landscapes and even the opportunity to fly over the area in a hot air balloon at sunrise – although this would leave your wallets pretty empty.

One of our excursions took us to village not far from Neveshir. Unfortunately an earthquake had destroyed much of the area in the 1950s – many lost their homes and lives. Our tour guide told us that he had once lived in the houses built into the mountains before the earthquake. He showed us around the houses. It is quite breath-taking to see into these houses; the beautiful architecture, the uniqueness and the jaw-dropping views from the windows.

The tour tested everyone’s claustrophobia and fear of heights – but it was worth it. Particularly when one member of the tour dropped his sunglasses down a small vertical whole that stretched down 15feet. And down went our tour guide after the sunglasses! He shimmed down the hole and crawled back up without any help of a ladder or rope. It was then that I realised that I must join a gym.

No trip to Cappadocia is complete without a stay in one of the cave hotels and a glass of wine on the balcony of a hotel overlooking the rock-cut churches at sunset after a long day of hiking. And what do I have to say about my trip to Cappadocia? Just how jealous I am of anyone who is able to excavate in the area!

O

N AN AIR-CONDITIONED BUS with free tea and biscuits, driving through Anatolia to a final destination, you cannot help but be overwhelmed by the majestic landscape. Dark red salt lakes, a volcano and a vast desert greet you as you make the final turns in Neveshir. Here, you are met with wonderful sites: houses, monasteries and churches cut into the mini mountains that formed naturally millions of years ago.

38 www.archsoc.co.uk/insitu

Letters From the Trenches Historical and Archaeological Research Project I have been involved in SHARP for nearly three years now and absolutely love it. The Sedgeford Historical and Archaeological Research Project (SHARP) was established in 1998 by marxist archaeologist Neil Faulkner to create a socio-political archaeological research project "by the people for the people" in the beautiful small village of Sedgeford, a small hamlet in West Norfolk. I started as a little fresher, stuck in a massive midden and I've been stuck in massive pits and ditches there since.

Over its 19 year growth (one of the longest running independent community field schools running) it has encompassed a multitude of different projects from its osteological research of the 250+ range of Anglo-Saxon skeletons from the cemetery site (of which Cambridge University hold in part of its analyses) to the actual AngloSaxon settlement in question; from Conflict Archaeology of WW1 (with a theoretical approach directed currently Faulkner) to investigations of a nearby Roman villa.

The ethos of community and public archaeology is their mindset for the running of the project. Not only does it have a reputable social side with lecture series to teach the public and weekly discussion groups, but also the academic.

I have been lucky enough to contribute to interim reports as a 17 year old first year and actually directly contribute to the research despite not being an 'academic' that other projects may prioritise. Therefore every year I go, I grow in terms of archaeological and practical skills. I am able to gain more confidence in my excavation, theoretical and academic abilities. I have been able to critically analyse the purpose of the site and in my second year was given a supervisory role; in my third I was voted in at their AGM as a trustee. The fluidity and flexibility of movement has been especially beneficial for me and other students to gain some skills in supervising and invaluable experience for our CV! The mini marxist hippie community of Sedgeford is an absolute blast. It's full of little quirks (such as Tie-Dye Friday, delicious vegan food and the infamous punch) and is a great dig to get involved in but I do give a warning: it gets incredibly addictive and you may get SHARP withdrawal symptoms!

If you want to read more about the site check out their website at http://www.sharp.org.uk .

- Tyler Mackie

HARP: Introduction to archaeology (Lemba, Cyprus) I attended HARPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s introduction to archaeology course in Cyprus last year. It takes place in Lemba, which is near

the city of Paphos. The program runs for two weeks over the Easter holiday. Accommodation is offered as camping on the roof of the Lemba Archaeological Research Centre and this is also where the course is run from. You are expected to bring your own tent and sleeping bag, but youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ll get a mattress so sleeping is comfy. The centre is also where you will cook your food, which you get from a supermarket only a few minutes away. There is also a restaurant that does take-away, so food is a good way to save money while you are there. Showers and toilets are also at the centre.

As for the actual course; the curriculum is focused on the practical aspects of archaeology and it overlaps somewhat with what you are expected to learn in Archaeology 1. The lecturers are Ian Hill from HARP and Dr. Paul Croft who is an honorary fellow at the University of Edinburgh (and who manages the centre), and during my visit Prof.

Peltenburg also stepped by for a visit. Throughout the course Cyprus is used as a case study and visits to sites in the region is included in the price. Although lectures on Cyprus are given, most of the time is spent outside, at Lemba Prehistoric village (remember the round houses that Dr. Gordon Thomas worked at?). Skills you will learn include surveying, recording artefacts, photography and reconstruction techniques used in experimental archaeology. There is also time spent pot washing and Dr Croft is on hand if anyone has questions regarding animal bones. As a second year I still found the course interesting and helpful, the other participants made the experience a great way to spend two weeks. The price is a little expensive for a poor student, but I am happy I went.

- Matilde Skram

39 Issue 1 October/November 2013

Archaeologists review their time in the field, the lab and the community Roman/Byzantine/Early Turkish assemblages at Ephesus, Turkey.

I completed work at the site of Ephesus, Turkey, during the summer of 2013. This project was undertaken by the Austrian Archaeological Institute (Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut), who have been excavating at Ephesus for over 100 years. I first heard about this excavation through a professor at the University of Leiden, where I studied for my year abroad.

Ephesus is an incredible site in terms of size, time-span and material culture. Its history extends from as far back as the Neolithic through its golden era as the most important Roman/Byzantine city in the near East throughout much of the 1st millennium AD, until it was eventually conquered in 1304 by Sasa Bey of Menteşoğullar and became part of the Ottoman Empire. The site has been excavated for over 125 years, but archaeologists predict that not more than 20% of the material has been uncovered.

During my time working on the project, I was involved in excavations at a 14th century Turkish bathhouse (hamam).

My work involved digging, processing, labelling and analysing finds, as well as completing site plans, wall and floor plans, and assisting in 3D scans of the rooms of the bathhouse. The finds were abundant and included beautiful, ornate pottery and glass, metal work, animal bones and decorative architectural features. I was also given the opportunity to gain experience in post-excavation processing, which involved archaeological drawing, measuring and recording, and also observation of some preservative techniques on delicate finds such as glass.

The Austrian Archaeological Institute have an incredible base set up a few kilometres from the main site of Ephesus, which includes bedrooms for the archaeologists, a canteen (where we were fed three times a day with delicious Turkish food), an extensive library, working rooms, the finds depot, post-excavational work spaces and a wash room (where you could leave your dirty, sandy clothes, and find them back a few days later washed and folded – yes, really). It was an extremely professional excavation and we had the opportunity to speak with many scholars and archaeologists on site who were experts in their field. Weekly talks and events were also organised, allowing insight into the happenings on other parts of the site, and into other disciplines in general – these included case studies on amphorae distribution in the Mediterranean, seminars on methods of preservation in museological contexts, and tours to other parts of the site.

The experience gained on this excavation was incredibly valuable and it was inspiring to be in the company of so many passionate and knowledgeable scholars. I thoroughly recommend it to anyone interested in Roman, Byzantine, Ottoman or Mediterranean archaeology in general. The workload is quite intense (6 days a week, 7am-5pm in 35-40 degree Celsius heat) but if that sounds like your cup of tea, it’s an excellent project to be a part of. Unfortunately you do have to undergo quite a lot of mundane bureaucracy in acquiring a Turkish visa and also you need to send your application to the Austrian Archaeological Institute already in November, but it’s definitely worth it once you’re there. Keep an eye on applications and scholarships http://www.oeai.at/index.php/ participation-and-application.html - Susie Dalton

40 www.archsoc.co.uk/insitu

University Internship This summer I was lucky enough to be the Archaeology Intern for the History, Classics and Archaeology department at the University of Edinburgh. Applications for the internship were open to 2nd and 3rd year students with an interest, and the accompanying knowledge, in archaeology. The intention of the internship was for curation of the Vere Gordon Childe Collection (the school’s artefact teaching collection) to take place over a 10 week period. Needless to say this provided fantastic experience; giving me skills for the future, and a valuable addition to my CV. One key experience worth noting was the application and interview process. I had never submitted an official CV before or completed a job application form of this manner, and as a result I feel more comfortable with the process for future job applications. The interview itself had a panel, made up of Jenni Dixon (coordinator of the Employ.ed on campus internship programme), Dr. Gordon Thomas and Margaret Forrest (the intern supervisors for HCA interns).

Part of the reason why such curation has been required in the collection is due to the relocation of the Archaeology department in 2010. As such, the cupboards holding the artefacts are no longer in their original order due to logistical issues. Additionally, there was a large amount of uncatalogued material, over 1000 artefacts, which are now included in the collection’s computer database. As a result I gained experience in physically labelling artefacts, working with collection databases such as Adlib and an improvement in my organisational skills (without which my contribution to the task would have been severely hampered). More work is still required to take place, as such it is likely there will be another Archaeology Internship for summer 2014, and if possible I suggest you apply. Applications should open in February, so watch this space!

Referring to the additional work, I ideally wanted to reorganise the entire collection with a system by period, which would then by sub-divided into geographic location. Unfortunately due to the time spent labelling artefacts, I was only able to make a proposal for a new organisation, rather than reorganising the collection myself. A new intern next year could easily make such a change happen, hopefully thereby making the collection more accessible and user-friendly, ultimately ensuring more frequent use within the department, to the benefit of the students... it is the Vere Gordon Childe Teaching Collection after all.

Another benefit of participating in the Employ.ed on campus internships is that every intern was paid. This in itself is an admirable part of the internship organisation, it would have been easy to have such placements be voluntary (students would likely have applied due to the valuable experience), as many internships across Britain currently are, sparking controversy and debate. It shows an awareness and appreciation that the work undertaken by the interns has value and acknowledgement that the work of interns provides real benefit to their relevant departments. Plus, £300 a week is nothing to be sniffed at (especially for archaeological experience)!

As I am now in my 4th year and taking the Archaeological Fieldwork Course, the internship was allowed to contribute towards my 'fieldwork' experience requirement. This further shows an awareness and appreciation of the work and experience provided from such an internship.

I will quickly mention the Edinburgh Award. The requirements for the internship (Such as blog entries and reflective log activities) cross over with many of the requirements with the Edinburgh Award, and as such as an Employ.ed on campus intern you would be eligible for it. The award is recognition of extracurricular work which benefits the university and due to the nature of the different tasks that each internship offers, your Edinburgh Award is tailored to your achievements. As a result it is a great talking point in job interviews to say what you gained from the internship programme and how the University of Edinburgh gave full recognition of that.

All in all, if the opportunity for you to apply for an Employ.ed on Campus presents itsself, throw yourself in. However far you get in the application process, whether to interview stage, or to doing the internship itself, is very educational. For more information on 2013’s internship experiences check out the Employ.ed on campus 2013 Case Studies page, where myself and other interns have presented our experiences > http://www.ed.ac.uk/ schools-departments/careers/ edinburgh-award/2.15029/casestudies-2013.

- Alex Wood

41 Issue 1 October/November 2013

Schela Cladovei, Romania During the summer break I participated in excavation at Schela Cladovei in Romania, directed jointly by University of Edinburgh and Institute of Archaeology in Bucharest staff. The excavation is primarily an educational one, with the main purpose being to train students in numerous skills employed in working in the field, as well as to give experience in finds processing for future excavation work undertaken. Schela Cladovei is one of many important Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites along the Iron Gates section of the Danube river in south-eastern Europe and excavations have been carried out almost annually at the site since 1968. The site is one of several open-air settlements dating to around 6200 BC, in the early post-glacial period of this area, uncovered during the construction of the Iron Gate dams and reinforcement of the eroding riverbank.

The project has been concerned with investigating the Danube Valley culture during the Mesolithic and Early Neolithic periods, in particular the transition between hunter-gatherer nomadic communities to sedentary agricultural society. Another key area the excavations aim to investigate is the gap between around 6300 BC and 6000 BC in settlement density and occupational patterns after the 8.2 event, or Younger Dryas as it is also known.

Schela Cladovei is one of the most prolific sites in the area in terms of the material found during excavation. There has been a great wealth of remains found at the site in the past including numerous burials, collapsed structures and hearths, a huge quantity of pottery and stones as well as worked stone tools and flint blades, bone tools and worked animal bone remains, small fish bones and teeth, disarticulated human remains, daub and brick material, beads and rings, and obsidian microliths. The sheer quantity and diversity of the finds from the site has contributed greatly to the archaeological record of the area and the understanding of the communities living in the Danube Valley in the Mesolithic and Neolithic period.

The original location of the site was closer to the Danube itself, on the banks that have now been reinforced with concrete blocks along with the construction of the dams to allow easier access for boats. The team of 10 students was joined partway through by a specialist in fish bones, who obviously dealt with the fish bones being excavated on the site as assisted students in sorting finds and identifying the smaller bones and which were particularly important.

The notable finds of the site included an infant jaw bone, a partial bone ring, two potential hearths and a bronze age pot sherd. Working on this site has taught me the essential skills for fieldwork and having the opportunity to undertake an excavation on such a prolific site with a prominent member of his field has been an incredibly rewarding one.

- Iona Diver

42 www.archsoc.co.uk/insitu

Pre-historiscopes: What's Your Future in Archaeology?

Aries

This week on excavation, your archaic throwback to a Schleimann-esque ‘Great Trench’ annihilates 17 contexts. Oh well, at least you can pretend you were approaching your work from a post-modern miasma of ironic historicism rather than that you actually just don’t care about the past.

Taurus As an undergraduate, you read an article in this very issue of InSitu and feel empowered to begin your own research project. You send the author of that article all of your worldly possessions in eternal gratitude.

Horoscopes by Tom Gardner. Illustrations by Zofia Guertin

Gemini While reading the myriad works of Vere Gordon Childe, you realise how close he comes to Social Darwinism in his early support of unilinear evolutionary theory.

But like an inherently racist grandparent, it’s somehow acceptable. How cute of him.

Cancer Whilst perusing through your context records, you notice some joker has changed every dimension of every cut to 0.69m. As you are single, this hurts just a little more.

Libra 0.69m? My my, you really are devious this week Libra!

Scorpio The undeniable fact that archaeology is simply a glorified hobby occupies your dejected mind until you just can’t take it. Or stop caring.

Whichever is more depressing.

Sagittarius Once again, your new research project is pushing back some date of some significance or other. Or at least it would be, if all the good archaeology wasn’t in the baulk. Obviously.

Capricorn Turning the ‘Three Age System’ on its stony head, you prove that a chronologically defining typology based upon morphology of pocketsquares is far more effective. However, you have trouble applying this to any period before the 1870s so its sheer brilliance is not quite grasped by the academic community. Bucolic Luddites.

Leo

Aquarius

This week you are a context in some fools ‘Great Trench’. Although incapable of independent thought due to being entirely arbitrary and inanimate, you still feel slightly wronged.

What if in the past, Druids were really just like ancient Jehovah’s Witnesses? You write a paper upon this theory and win international acclaim. (Actually that’s my idea, hands off).

Virgo This week you are Vere Gordon Childe.

Offended by the above mention of Social Darwinism, you write ‘Social Evolution’ (1951) which is slightly less ‘Gustav Kossinna’, and slightly more ‘multilinnear evolutionary theory.’ Everyone feels a bit better.

Pisces This week you try trepanning, and half way through the process forget why you though it was a good idea. In fact, you forget all things.