Archaeolog No 11 October 1979

ISSN: 0143-066

1

The Royal Photographic Society of Great Britain

nr,IJnttt~ttgfor~-:-· [ml fV'

Jrt4ntohtgitttl Qirottp

No11 OCTOBER 1979

Price

40 p

r

Contents Lincoln cathedral: enriched capital carved with head of Christ and censing angels.

Photograph by Clive Hicks.

Cover

A Columban noost?

3

Preparing a site for photography: some advice

4

Photoplanning - the use of vertical photography as an aid to on-site recording

6

The Museum of London

9

The New River

10

Photographing the Cathedrals and Churches of the Middle Ages

12

Reviews and notices

14

Editorial Congratulations to our parent public.ation, the Photographic Journal, on improved presentation and reversion to monthly publication, thanks to a deal with Penblade Publishers which even permits an editorial colour page, We were delighted to see in the section headed Round the Groups a 4" column devoted to archaeolog No 9, including a minireproduction of the cover photograph, a pat on the back ('very well produced') and a word of criticism - the published list of equipment in Betty Nagger's article is said to be so comprehensive as to be a possible deterrent to would-be site photographers 'at a time when so many site clirectors are crying out for really capable photographic assistance'.

Two points arise. An eyebrow or two was in fact lifted by Betty's list, particularly by her insistence on the use of a 5/4 technical camera, (a 'must'), at a time when, we suspect, the majority of site photographers are well-content with the 35mm format. Of this we would only say that articles express the views of their authors and not necessarily those of the Editor, still less those of the Royal Photographic Society. So if you disagree with the author's views write (politely) and say so. We will be happy to open a correspondence column.

Next point - are site directors really crying out for competent photgraphic assistance? We have not heard them and we have always secretly thought that directors were generally content with their own, sometimes rather uncertain efforts and that standards of site photography were often in consequence regrettably low - which is why we support the archaeological group of the RPS. But if we are honest we have to admit that this is no more than an ill-founded and probably out-of-date hunch. Evidence is, after all, hard to come by - the only photographs one actually sees at the end of an excavation are at best no more than a couple of plates in Cu"ent Archaeology and a few dozen in the published report, supplemented by a hundred or so slides displayed during the course of a lecture to an appropriate archaeolol§i.cal Society. The remainder of the photographic record, probably some hundreds of prints, disappears into the archive only to be seen by the interested research student.

Since therefore we largely cannot judge by results we are forced to fall back on other evidence. We believe that few ¡excavations employ professionally-trained photographers and that the amount of attention devoted to photographic training during the standard three years archaeological course is small. We have also noted on more than one occasion, when visiting otherwise well-run excavations, site photographers teetering on the top of hand-held ladders peering through hand-held 35 mm cameras. So we think that site directors may well have cause to scream and we hope that they are doing so - and that immediately thereafter they will join our group. We should like to hear of their problems and their solutions - because we believe, as we have already said, that no one has a monopoly of photographic wisdom and that everyone can contribute something useful to archaeolog, So contributions, please, to DrM R Apted 29 Cavendish Drive Claygate Esher Surrey KTlO OQE and note that the dead-line for our bumper Christmas edition is Saturday, November 10th.

ARCHAEOLOG is produced by the Royal Photographic Society Archaeological Group and printed by Wellington Bureau, 23/25 Craven Street, London WC2.

Address for subscriptions: 7 Ladbroke Walk, London WI I 3PW

z

A Columban Noost? byT.E.Gray Archaeological discovery, like scientific discovery of any kind today, is almost entirely the province of big organisations such as universiti_es, and the likelihood of a big find by a talented amateur in either field is probably less today than it has ever been. Nevertheless the individual observant amateur can make minor finds which give to him at least, a considerable sense of pleasure and satisfaction, even if it adds little to the wealth of current archaeological evidence. For example as a family we derived enormous personal satisfaction when by chance we noticed that a piece of Roman roofing tile, picked up by my son and I on an Antonine Wall site, had a fragment of fingerprint on the underside belonging, presumably, to the man who put the wet clay into the kiln nearly two thousand years ago.

Several years ago my wife and I were on holiday in Ardnamurchan, the fifty mile long peninsula west of Fort William.

We had looke4 at a couple of burial cairn sites, and then we decided to potter on a bit of the north shore east of Kilmory, where we found oyster catchers nests and some fine bands of fossil shells in the outcropping Jurassic limestone.

A "St. Columba's Cave" is marked here on the l" O.S. map, and although obviously the west coast has a lot of Columban associations, we tend to regard such caves with the same scepticism as we. look on beds in which Queen Elizabeth is alleged to have slept.

However on the shore beneath this particular cave we found the curious, very obviously man-made structure shown in my photo. It is a few yards above high water mark on a very bouldery beach a mile or so from the nearest habitation.

We speculated about it a good deal, I photographed it, and home we went. Later a good deal of searching through the usual literature revealed nothing on this admittedly minor feature Much later a Scandinavian friend of my sons, on looking at the photo, remarked that it looked to him like a noost. I immediately recalled the word as being used in Shetland¡ also. There the Shetlander digs a trench high up on the shore into which he can drag his boat, where it is protected from the high winds so common in the Islands.

Now if this is a noost, it is unlikely that it could have been used for a wooden boat.- It would have been extremely awkward for even two men to have lifted such a¡boat from this noost and then carried it over such a bouldery beach to the sea. The Scots who invaded Argyll from Ireland presumably came over in skin covered boats like the Brendan, as did Columba and his followers who, one imagin~s, would also have used smaller boats of the same type for coastal work, and I know of no reference to skin covered boats in the West Highlands in more recent times.

So we've started fantasizing - a non-scientific procedure abhorred by professional archaeologists, although Sir Mortimer Wheeler did it at Maiden Castle in Dorset, admittedly with more evidence than ours! Is our find really a noost? ¡ Did it once contain a skin coracle? Was it St. Columba's? We're never likely to know, and we've added little or nothing to the corpus of archaeological evidence. But if one day more noosts are found close to "St. Columba's Caves" on the west coast ... ?

Either way we enjoyed ourselves!

Photograph by T.E. Gray Mamiya.f!ex,Tri X 120

3

Preparing

a site for Photography

; some advice

by E ri c Houlder

LAPS

An archaeological photograph is a scientific record. It is also the principal objective record, since the site plans and drawings, produced by the human hand, are the result of the interpretative pro cesses of the brain . To achieve such objectivity in the photograph much ti me must be spent preparing the site, and it is this preparation which is discussed below, But first a few general points. It is as well to be prepared, and the following equipment is indispe nsable: well-worn gym shoes (to prevent damage to cleaned surfaces); a new 5" pointing trowel; an old one; nail scissors; one -hand ed grass shears; teaspoon; wallpapei:-scraper; whisk brush, and a set of dental probes. Most of these item s can be purch ased, but the dental probes may have to be begged from a sympathetic member of the relevant profession.

Then there are two common-sense rules which must be born in mind in addition to any directions from the sit e supervisor, i.e.

1. Always work from the highest point to be cleaned to the lowest.

2. Always aim to finish at the spot where the site can be safely left.

Now for the sites: 1. CLAY SITES. These are notoriously difficult to work, being rock-hard when dry, and waterlogged when wet. First rule is never use a brush on wet clay; it smears terribly. All cleaning must be done with the trowel. Particular care must be taken not to alter the shape or character of the feature being prepared. This can all too easily be done with the feet if the photographer turns quickly, or kneels with his toes pointed. Clay loses colour and cracks when dry, so be prepared to photograph immediately the site is ready, Unlike sand it cannot be freshened with a spray, and any attempt to do so will prove disastrous.

2. SAND SITES. In many ways the easiest to prepare, with a few hazards for the unwary, Sand cuts cleanly when wet but powders badly when dry, as a result deep sections tend to collapse (usually just as the camera is in place) and are best cut roughly, then trimmed at the last minute under a constant water-mist. Sand is colourless when dry and must be prepared wet and photographed damp. The difficulty is to provide an even degree of dampness which calls for some skill with the spray. Any shortcomings are immediately apparent in the print so it may be advisable to prepare the feature in the early morning whilst the dew is still around.

3. SECTIONS. Though somewhat out of fashion, soil-sections (called profiles in U.S. publications) still require to be recorded on many sites, Chief problems are hair-roots and stones. Use the shears to clip the grass at the top, and then work down cutting the roots with the scissors (never pull a root) and cleaning around the stones with a trowel. Where possible scrape in a direction parallel with the strata to prevent contamination from one layer to another. Opinions vary about whether the various layers should be emphasised or outlined by judicious trowel-work. I prefer merely to 'help' the existing texture of each stratum but this requires experience and should be left to the discretion of the supervisor.

Care should be taken to keep the section vertical; it helps to keep looking down on it from the baulk. The presence of large stones, walls or graves can add complications and the supervisor ,may wish these to be left standing on pillars.

The last task is carefully to remove the spoil, and then run the trowel with its blade flat along the base of the section to produce a neat line. With sections that are swathed in hair-roots the writer has often been tempted to try a flame gun and would be interested to hear from anyone who has actually done this! The camera must be set up facing the mid-point of the section and at right angles to it, and fitted with the longest focal length lens which will cover the section.

If necessary any texture can be emphasised by waiting for directional lighting (or creating it - not difficult nowadays) but generally very flat illumination is best. On building sites where machine-cut sections may have to be recorded in a hurry, camera mounted flash provides the best illumination to minimize irregularities .

4. SKELETONS. Skeletons can be found in all sorts of situations. Perhaps the easiest to clean and photograph are those on or just beneath the level being worked. The most difficult are those in deep, narrow graves where the problem becomes one of finding somewhere to put the two feet and the one hand not engaged in digging! Chief tools will be the trowel, whisk, hand-shovel, teaspoon, and patience. Often skeletons of tiny animals or birds require preparation, and the dental probes are ideal for this, in conjunction with a miniature brush and dustpan set, obtained from a toyshop or a small daughter! The aim should be to clean the bones without actually touching them. To achieve the high relief effect necessary for photography each bone should be supported by a thin pillar of soil which shoula be hidden from the camera by the bone itself , Photography is from vertically above: well equipped sites provide a proper rig or a scaffold t ower; others make do with a ladder and four ropes. Filtration problems are discussed in Cookson (1954).

5. MASONRY. Preparing a w_allto be photographed can be heartbreaking. It is essential that every scrap of dirt be removed from the stones and their interstices. Again start at the top, using the old trowel and the wallpaper scraper.

Remove the spoil from the foot of the wall frequently as otherwise it can be trampled in. Finally the director may wish the stones to be washed - from the top of course . Occasionally inscriptions may be revealed and the soil can be removed from these with a dental probe. Oblique lighting is best for the photography of inscriptions b?! now and then the detail may need a little emphasis, when a fine paintbrush and some french chalk can_~e used. Tr!ld1tlonally masonrr photography has been carried out during times of low lighting-con~ast, but Cookson ongmated the idea of photogra~hmg contra-jour. With well-preserved, well-fitted masonry this is most ~ffe~tive, but with cruder, badly weathered stones 1t is usually better to wait for a cloud , or perhaps use the early morning hght .

"'

4

In conclusion it must be realized t hat this article is in no way comprehensive and that there is no substitute for experience.

However real in conjunction with the three books listed below it should provide a useful starting point for the beginner.

Cookson, M.B. Simmons, H.C. Conlon, V.M.

Photography for Archaeolog ists , London , 1954. Still the best , though in many respects (chiefly equipment and materials) inevitably outda t ed.

Archaeological Photography, Londo ·n ; 1969. Usefu l if read with care. Ignore the site photographs which are not typical, but use the diagrams to suppleme nt Cookson's comments.

Camera Techniques in Archaeology, London , 1973 . More up-to-date with good pictures (especially some by Cookson).

In addition, for useful surveys of the scope of photography in archaeology see, 'Camera into_the Pas~•. b~ Eric Houlder, PHOTOGRAPHY, April 1971, 422-427, and the various papers which have appeared from time to time m the PHOTOGRAPHIC JOURNAL.

Bird's Eye View

by Eric Holilder LAPS

Infra Red Photograph~

at Sutton

Hoo

Sutton Hoo is in a part of Suffolk where the United States Air Force has several bases. During the excavalJUns at Sutton Hoo sections of FI00s frequently roared over the dig on daily patrols over Europe or the Western Approaches . Though passing at high speed , the crews must have noted the activity below, for on occasions they brought their wives to visit the site. On one such visit it was casually suggested that aerial photographs would be welcome. Next morning a large and noisy helicopter appeared over the ship-barrow and greeted us with "Hi there!" in deep southern tones. The following day a box of prints was duly delivered and eventually the USAF provided us with a set of infra-red slides - probably the first I.R. colour pictures ever taken for archaeological purposes! ·

Rattus

Rattus

KcaJcrs of _John Wa~her_'sbook Thtt Towns of Rom _,m IJmain will be familiar with his theory that ar~ epidemic disease w~s the ~aJo~ contnhutm~ fac~or m the collapse ot Roman Britain. Assuming that he is right, and there is a lot of ev1_denc 7 m h~s ~avour. which disease was the culprit '! Most historians of the period acknowledge that there was an ep1de~1c - difficult to deny when -:vntten sources say so -· but are cagey when asked to identify the actual disease.

Bubonic plague ( th~ Black Death ot 1349 and I 665) has been ruled out in the past as it has been commonly believed that the Black Rat , Its carrier , was not present in Britain until the later Middle Ages.

Now a !?aper in the latest issue of A111iquit_l'suggests that R.Rattus was present in late Roman times as remains or' several such animals have been found in a well in York. Since excavation at many town sites has shown that baths went out of use before the final stag.es of urban decay hegan , did fleas carry the plague from R. Ratcus to homo sapiens?

Note. Readers interested in this under-valued aspect of history should refer to : Howe, G. Melvyn Man, E11viro11me111a11tl /Ji.H'u.H' ;,, Britain, Pelican Books, London, J 976.

5

PhotoplanningPhotography

The use of Vertical

as an aid to On-Site Reeonling

by Terrence James

FIELD

OFFICER,

DYFED ARCHAEOLOGICAL

TRUST, LT

(This article to some extent duplicates Mr Renow's paper in our August issue. We are printing it in full , however, because the two contributions complement each other and because we believe the development of techniques for the rapid planning of archoeological sites to be of considerable importance. Ed.) Many Archaeological excavations are undertaken because of development threats caused by th e ever increasing demand for new motorways, pipelines, urban redevelopment, etc. This coupled with the high cost of excavation , has often meant that excavations are of a shorter duration than desirable. Speed in recording is therefore of paramount importance during an excavation, and methods other than traditional planning techniques have t_o be sought. Photograph y has of course been an essential tool in recording since the beginning of scientific excavation, but it has always been as a supplement to orthographically drawn plans. To record a site using vertical photography as an alternative to traditiona l surveying methods has obvious attractions, since it only takes a relatively short time to take a photograph. If a method of site recording using photography could be devised to construct orthographically drawn plans without loss of information or accuracy, then more time could be spent on the process of data retrieval.

There are both advantages and disadvantages in applying photography to the preparation of plans. The stage at which an excavation director decides to 'plan' a surface is based on subjective rather than objective considerations and the person actually doing the recording will inevitably emphasise certain features at the expense of others. These drawbacks are largely inevitable and photographs themselves may only be taken when the director decides. However the possibility of subjectivity creeping into the photographic record is less likely. Against this argument is the fact that photography may not record sufficient detail, especially when the subject is of low contrast, as is often the case.

Another major drawback with the use of photographs for drawing an orthographic plan is that fairly sophisticated equipment is needed to take stereoscopic vertical photographs and then convert the information on them into an accurate plan. The latter process can be performed without stereoscopic plotting instruments (which are not readily available to most excavators), but the graphical method is unfortunately cumbersome and slow. However, this work may be undertaken after the completion of excavations, thus allowing routine recording to be greatly speeded up.

Two methods of photographic 'planning' are briefly described here. The first is the construction of photomosaics whereby a series of overlapping stereoscopic photographs are cut up and assembled in sequence to form a single photograph.

The mosaic thus formed is not a true orthographic representation, but a series of perspective views of the excavated area in the form of one photograph. Such mosaics have sufficient ground reference points for controls on accuracy to be maintained, and in conditions where other methods of planning are not possible, plans of reasonable accuracy can be drawn from them. However their main drawback is image distortion due to perspective changes caused by alteration in -ground relief. Reasonable accuracy cannot therefore be attained using this method if the site is uneven or on sloping ground, although corrections for distortion caused by a sloping subject can in some cases be made at the enlarging stage by tilting the enlarger easel.

The second method is the construction of plans using photogrammetric techniques using the same negatives taken for the mosaic coverage. Since a stereoscopic camera is not used, the stereoscopic image is formed by photographing the subject from two (or more) camera stations, creating a series of overlapping images. The technique is similar to that employed by map-makers using overlapping stereoscopic aerial photographs.

EQUIPMENT The main item of equipment for taking the photographs apart from the camera, is a tower from which the camera can be accurate _ly positioned over the subject with the film plane level. Some archaeologists have developed towers with a long boom from which the camera is attached, which can be swung over the area to be photographed (Cook, et. al., 1970); another type is a bi-pod which supported by wires is swung over the subject area (Whittlesey, 1966). However, the tower used by the author is a quadripod constructed out of lightweight 'Handy-Angle' (see Fig.I). The tower has been designed in two units, the smallest is 4.8 metres high and covers an area of 92m. This unit can be fitted on to another which makes the tower 6.5 metres high and gives a coverage of 162m ( 4 x 4m). ¡ The tower is best constructed on level ground and tests carried out to check the position of the camera cradle so that the camera film plane is parallel to the lowest horizontal members of the tower. The tower is levelled by placing spirit levels on these horizontals, by adjusting the height of each extension leg. The use of a unit construction was decided upon to facilitate ease of assembly and mobility. Furthermore additional sections could be added if it was required to increase the area of coverage. The two units bolted together can be easily carried by four persons.

The main advantage of this type of tower is that it does not require specialised skills to construct it; it is made of readily available material; can be erected in a few hours; is stable in fairly high winds; and compact enough to be transported on a car roof-rack when dismantled. Its only serious drawback is that for photographs of publication quality the tower can only be used in overcast conditions, for in sunlight the framework casts a mass of shadows over the area to be photographed.

One way of overcoming this is to cover the framework with opaque material to cut out harsh sunlight - but this makes the tower unstable in windy conditions.

The camera is fixed to a cradle which is drawn up by means of a single bank of three pulleys. The cradle is held in position by the tension of the pulley cords, and the camera is fired with a long air release. Although motorised cameras with automatic exposure control have been used, in practice lowering the camera to advance the film, etc. is not much of a problem and is pr~ erred, especially since it is often necessary to change cameras so that transparencies can be taken of the same subject area. ¡

6

_ 50 \ sideways movement to new station

-..-

./\

I

f

I

I

Camera and pulleys

V•

/\

Angle of View

I

\ ,., _ ..\

\

;..,~.,.,. ,.,.

I E XC AVAT E D

c-~

Scale change due to alteration in ground relief

2 4m Tower

\

\ S UR F AC E

O

2

me t r e s

Fig. 1.

The photographic tower used by the Dyfed Archaeological Trust.

Fig. 2.

Isometric drawing of tower photographing an idealized flat archaeological site.

7

The choice of camera is normally dictated by what is available. My own preference is for large format cameras which undoubtledly record more detail. However an advantage of 35mm equipment is that with the narrower film there is Jess likelihood of the film buckling with consequent distortion of the image. (Ideally a 'metric' camera should be used which would overcome this problem). As with most things, in practice 1 compromise has to be made, and 35mm equipment can be used for transparencies and large format (ie 220) for monochrome.

The camera cradle was designed to take a Mamiya Press camera, and a crank-wind 6 x 7cm back found to be the most convenient with 220 film. (The knob-wind 6 x 6 back although having a more suitable image size proved to be impractical since tHe camera had to be removed from the cradle every time the film was advanced so that the film registration could be viewed). An advantage of the Mamiya Press, apart from its compact and simple construction, is that it has two tripod bushes which enables the camera to .be located firmly and accurately in the tower's camera cradle.

Choice of Jens focal length is dictated by the size of subject. Whilst lenses of normal focal length (i.e. 50mm on 135 and 100mm on 220) resolve better and contain more information within their subject area, their limited angle of view means that considerably more photographs have to be taken for any given area. Therefore medium side-angle lenses are preferred - 35mm on 135 and 65n:im on 220. Since only the central area of any given negative is used for photogrammetry due to the overlap of each stereo pair, problems caused by lens abberations at the edge of the frame are minimised. For vertical photographs of small subjects, however, the standard focal length lens is recommended.

TAKING THE PHOTOGRAPHS Ideally the grid system adopted for recording at the beginning of an excavation should he designed to fit in with the size of photographic tower to be used. Where practicable the sides of the excavated area should be pegged at no more than 2 metre intervals, with corresponding steel stakes placed on the level of the excavated surface along the sides of the sections. This enables reference points to he quickly surveyed into position prior to taking a series of vertical photographs.

Before commencing it is a good idea to have a plan at say I: I 00 scale on which the site grid and the position of the photographic 'stations' can be plotted so that the site director always knows what areas of the site have heen or need to be photographed. In this way a complete record of the site can be maintained.

When an area is ready to be photographed, it must first either be 'string-gridded ' into metre or two-metre squares (depending on the amount of detail) or a number of white crosses surveyed -in at grid intersections,which are used as reference points for both scale and controls for accurately positioning features when drawing plans. If the string-grid mode is adopted it may be necessary to take two photographs at each station. one with a two-metre ranging pole for scale.

This is necessary when¡ negatives need to be enlarged to a specific scale, since the string grid may not clearly be seen¡on the enlarger base-board.

This done, the excavated area can be photographed after the tower has been positoned and levelled. The second photograph is taken after the tower has been moved 50 per cent. of its width forward along the first 'lane. to the next station. (Lane width is dictated by the size of the tower in use). At the end of each Jane the tower returns, but with a 50 per cent sideways movement. By this method features are stereoscopically recorded from three positions. At the heginning and end of each Jane it is of course necessary to include 50 per cent. of the area beyond the excavation to complete the stereoscopic coverage. (See Figs. I and 2).

The resulting photographs are then printed to a specific scale, which depends on the size of photomosaic required. (On large areas 1: 50 ; on small 1: 20). The scale for photographs to be used for photogrammetry is not important as scale change can easily be accounted for by plotting equipment or with the use of proportional dividers. Where the site is level and with few or no deep features, it is quite a simple (if slow) procedure to construct accurate plans having found the principal points of adjacent stereo-pairs, by a method not dissimilar to plain-tabling. However this is the subject for a separate paper and has been well dealt with by McFadgen ( 1971) and Crone ( 1963).

CONCLUSION There are many drawbacks to the use of photoplanning techniques and the method, if advocates are not careful, can become an end in itself. Ideally it should be used to supplement and aid traditional planning methods, with the photographic material providing a superb alternative record and check. However, in some instances - the recording of large areas of small stone-spreads, or of large ephemeral features which are difficult to define, or in the field of marine archaeology photoplanning will be found to be not only quicker, but also more accurate.

Note The author is willing to enter into correspondence with other archaeologists interested in or working on the application of photography to site planning. Enquiries should be sent to him at The Old Palace, Abergwili, Carmarthen, Dyfed.

Bibliography and References Cook, F.B.M.& \Vacher, J.S. 'Photogrammetric Surveying at Wanborough, Wilts' Antiquity, 1970, pp. 2 I 4-6, pl. xxx-xxxii Elementary Photogrammetry, London, 1963 Crone, D.R. Green, J.N. et al.

'Simple Underwater Photogrammetric Techniques', Archaeometry, 13, 2, 197 I, pp.221-32.

McFadgen, B.G. 'An Application of Stereophotogrammetry to Archaeological Recording', Archaeometry, 13 I, 1971, pp. 71-81.

'Underwater Surveying and Draughting - a Technique', Antiquity, XXXVI, 1962, pp. 252-61, Ryan, E.J. & Bass, G.f. pl. xxxiii-xxxv.

Wittlesey, J. 'Photogrammetry for the Excavator', Archaeology, 19, 4, 1966, pp. 273- 76.

8

The Museum of London 路

by Geoffrey Toms

Education Officer 路

The Museum of London tells a路siinple and straightforward story - the developm ent of London and the life of the people 路 who through the 'ages have created it. But the very nature of this great and unique city is the comprehensive contribution of individuals, governments and public bodies to a centre of commerce, industry , administration, leisure, and culture, which has always been international both through its contacts and its settlers. This is the fascinating detail that the new museum displays through a wealth of direct archaeological and historic experience.

The new Museum of London was opened in December 1976 in a purpose-designed building as part of the ultra-modern Barbican complex - significantly London's largest totally planned development of the 1970s on th e very site of the historic city. The visitor enters the museum from the Barbican walkway and straight away walks through history, as each gallery unfolds the story in chronological order beginning with the first settlers in the Thames basin in prehistoric times and the foundation of the Roman London, from the very beginning a city of European dimension, importance and culture.

At once in the Roman gallery immediate contact is made with the reality of history, as one looks down on the existing Roman wall and bastion towers . Behind the spectator are the immediately recognisable artefacts of everyday Londoners - the tools of the carpenter, a stall of cutler's knives, a dressing table of jewellery, cosmetics and fashionable adornments, the counters and dice of games which seem timeless. The life-style of the Roman Londoner is portrayed in the carefully reconstructed rooms of a contemporary house, where Samian ware is laid out on the table ready for the meal, which has been prepared in the kitchen with its assortment of mortaria, amphorae , cooking pots, flagons and bowls. In front of these has been reset the mosaic from Bucklersbury House. On either side are the reminders of London as a capital and commercial city - statues, inscriptions, a cross-section of the Blackfriars boat, a reconstruction of the waterfront and the famous sculptures from the Mithraeum.

The theme is repeated in the succeeding galleries. Where new media of evidence are available through engravings , paintings , literature, even musi'Cand latterly through photography , posters and all the ephemera of the printed paper, so the setting of the artefacts is all the more dramatically and immediately displayed.

The top floor of the museum dimaxes with the end of the old London - the Great Fire Experience where with model and the spoken word of Samuel Pepys we see the city gradually reduced to a smouldering ruin in I 606, the third of the four devastations the city has known in its history. From there the visitor passes downstairs to the London which is our living visible environment. where the continuity is admirably brought out by the two expositions of St. Pauls - Wren's architectural elevation with the "new" Portland Stone and the famous photograph of the dome lit up by incendiary bomb fires of the 1940 blitz.

The responsibility for collection. curating and display of the record is in the hands of six departments : Prehistoric and Roman , Saxon and Medieval. Tudor and Stuart. Modern ( from 17 IS to the present day), Costumes and Textiles, and Prints and Drawings. The Department of Urban Archaeology promotes research and rescue excavation in the area of the City, and the archaeology of Greater London is the responsibility of a separate department. The museum possesses a library, conservation section and photographh: unit , and in the midst of the vast reserve collection administers a students' room. Public relations are in the hands of a separate department , and the interpretation of the display is organised by the EducatiQn department. Education is considered the prerogative of all ages who wish to visit the museum, and appropriate talks and lectures often combined with the handling of original material are given to schoolchildren, teachers and adult organisations of all types. The museum has established various series of lunchtime lectures open to the public in general on such London themes as current archaeology, Tudor palaces , riot and disorder , arts and letters , the work of London craftsmen , and the development of the village into the suburb. The lecture theatre is also a well-appointed cinema and concert hall, and has illustrated Dickensian London through full-length feature films and has demonstrated how the early film is an essential archive in its own right. The music of the Vauxhall Pleasure Gardens has been another aspect of experiencing London's history at first-hand.

The museum is indeed the place for all who have an interest or connection with London and therefore , to extend Dr. Johnson's observation , for all who have an interest in life. If you fall into this category yourself , a positive experience awaits you at the Museum of London.

2nd INTERNATIONAL

EXHIBITION

OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL

PHOTOGRAPHY

Pla~ning for the exhibi~ion is already under weigh, the objects being, of course, to demonstrate archaeological photogr~phy at 1t~best and to encourage competing photographers to put in just that little bit of extra effort which the stimulus of such an exhibition provides. There is talk of individual entries and panels of fiv~, with pri._z~ for the lucky fe~ and the opportunity to demonstrate the quality of ones work for the _remamd~r. So with Autumn drawmg on and the excavation season ending for the majority now 1s the time for site photographers to start planning for a worth-while entry which will contribute to the success of the exhibition. This means you (and just possibly us).

q

The New River by

.J. P . S tubb1 ngto n L. R.P. s.

There is ample archaeological evidence that the inhabitants of the great cities of classical anfiquity paid much attention to their supply of fresh water. Many traces remain of their pipes, ducts and cisterns. Things were, however, very different in the London of 1603, suffering the effects of yet another plagu,e. It was clear that before the ity could again progress and expand, something would have to be done about the hopelessly inadequa te water supply. The we were not equal to the demands made upon them and taking water from the polluted Thames was undesirable. The River Lea was chronically short of water and subject to constant litigation between the conflicting interests of mill owners, barge operators and fish-trappers. Action by the city authorities seemed to be restricted to discussion, lamenta ion and a great reluctance to pay for any necessary work.

Private enterprise came to the rescue when Hugh Myddleton, later Sir Hugh, took an interest in London's plight. He was a man of affairs, political and financial, M.P. for Denbigh, with interests in Cardiganshire coalfields ; he undertook to supervise and finance the cutting of a new river, the sole purpose of which would be to supply wholesome water to London.

It was cut some ten feet wide and three to four feet deep, and ran from the free-flowing springs at Chadwell and Amwell near Ware in Hertfordshire.

The work started in 1608, but with less than half its course completed there was a financial crisis. King James I steppe d in with monetary aid, with a profit-sharing agreement should the scheme prove successful. With 'The Wisest Foo l in Christendom' actually parting with money, London's Corporation and the city financiers began to take notice of the new river.

Myddleton pressed on steadily, coping with numerous problems practical and administrative, and in 1613 the full course was finished; about forty miles of flowing fresh water from Chadwell Springs to the terminal at Clerkenwell. In the years . which followed, about 400 miles of elm pipes were laid to convey the water all over London. They were joined on the push-fit principle, most being about five feet in length, though a few have been found about forty feet long. Diameters were from five to seven inches.

After completion of the work, Myddleton formed the New River Company fo 1619, on a basis of 36 shares to the King, and the same number issued to Adventurers. Some time later King James' successor, Charles I, cashed-in the Royal shares and these were also acquired by Adventurers. Before long, the general rise jn land prices increased the value of the New River Company's considerable holdings in property, and the shares climbed rapidly. By 1873, four-sixteenths of a King's share was sold for ÂŁ3,060; one-sixteenth produced a divident of ÂŁ112. In 1856 the Hampstead Water Company was bought out, and eventually the New River Company in turn was absorbed by the Thames Water Board, though the River continued to supply consumers until 1904. As a holding company, it paid its last dividend in 1969.

The New River Company has ceased to exist, but the River itself still flows on over much of its original length; its course has been altered a little , likewise its width in places, but basically it is the New River created by the enterprising and farsighted Sir Hugh, at the cost of so much of his wealth and energy. It forms part of the integrated system of the Thames Water Authority, and along its banks are many structures of interest to the industrial archaeologist. One such is the measuring gauge, the present one dating from 1856, to regulate the flow of water from the River Lea into the New River, the vast thirst of London having proved too much for the Chadwell and Amwell springs. Pumping stations powered by steam when built in the 19th century are lined along the river's course at Broadmead, Amwell, Rye 'Common, Hoddesdon, Broxbourne and Turnford. At Broadmead (see photograph) the pump was steam powered until 1967, and now pumps 1.5 million gallons per day by electricity.

The River, with two of its pumping stations, may easily be seen from the road connecting Hertford and Ware; it is crossed by a new flyover, its concrete supports sunk deeply into the marshy ground where centuries before Myddleton's men had struggled to create the first stage of his forty miles of waterway. By comparison his achievement may seem extremely modest until we discover the wealth of historical and archaeological detail connected with that thin ribbon of water. In its day, it contributed to the growth of the city which was to become the hub of an Empire.

View towards source of the New River at' Chadwell Springs. The piles supporting the fly-over are driven deep into wet ground where the springs rise.

JO

Photograph by Jo~n Stubbington.

... ~

The New River near Amwell pumping station.

The 19th century pumpmg station at Broadmead (originally steam-powered) Photograph by John Stubbington

PHOTOGRAPHING THE CATHEDRALS AND CHURCHES OF THE MIDDLE AGES

BY CLIVE HICKS,

B.ARCH, FRIBA,ARPS.

Mediaeval churches have been the inspiration of generations of photographers, with Fre derick Evans, Mark Oliver Dell and Edwin Smith spanning this century. The great cathedrals stand as perhaps the most pro found works of spacial art available for photographic interpretation. So vast is the subject, and so great the depth of human insight in its creation, that there need be no reservations that this is inferior photography, the imitation of the work of past artists.

Three main lines of approach emerge. Two are obvious in their polarity - the technical and the pictorial. The technical photography of architecture is traditionally expected to be clear and accurate, with creativity to some extent discounted, but recent books seem to show a reaction against clinical accuracy, which can often miss the essence of an artistic subject.

On the other hand, there has been much pictorial photography in churches which has merely used the location as an opportunity for expressive photography, an approach not fashionable now, but which in the past produced many attractive photographs, usually combining effectively chiaroscuro and sentiment, but not essentially portraying the arch itectur e.

The third approach seeks to employ the observing eye, technical skill, and expressive ability of the photographer in the service of the appreciation of the architecture. The history of art shows that art which has served a larger purpose has frequently attained a greater fulfilment than that art which has been more free (whatever that means!). Nothing demonstrates this better than Gothic architecture itself, where the dlajority of the masons and craftsmen were quite anonymous, and where "self expression" in the mean modern sense is absent.

In architectural photography the illustration of detail has enough in common with other fields of photography for a short essay to disregard it in favour of the portrayal of architectural form as a whole. In this there is an essential difference between exterior and interior photography -- externally a church stands as an assertive mass, while internally its surfaces enclose space. The former is in some ways the more difficult subject to approach, for the photographer needs to rely on the setting to provide elements to limit the scene and to give it unity, whereas the interior scene is framed naturally.

In formal photography, either external or internal, it is the accepted convention that the verticals should be rendered as vertical, and this, like other conventions, needs consideration and possibly defence. An upward view introduces upward perspective, and while it is quite true that the eye does see converging verticals, the eye covers only a small field in detail. and the overall impression is a composite of many sweeping scans, in which the brain compensates for the vertical perspective.

A photograph encompasses a synthesis of these views in a way in which the eye does not see, and frames it almost invariably in a rectangle, and te>most people it is not acceptable to freeze vertical perspective in a single formal view.

Dynamic upward views certainly can supplement formal views, and a good rule of thumb is to accept converging verticals when the floor is not included in the picture.

Parallel verticals require the camera axis to be horizontal, if we disregard the minor correction that can be made in an enlarger. A wide angle lens can help , but this will mean very special consideration to foreground composition, or, more frequently, the loss of about a third of the film area in blank floor. The alternative of obtaining access to a high viewpoint appears attractive , but the perspective of the interior is changed completely, and the effect of overpowering height above eye level is lost.

Serious photography in the tall Gothic churches calls for cameras or lenses with vertical movement. Until recently, this restricted the field to large format cameras , but now perspective control lenses are available for several 35mm cameras, including some lenses of superb quality, and these have opened the way to a new era of architectural photography.

Church interiors offer a number of options in viewpoints. The classic view is axial from west to east, the essential direction of the Mediaeval church, but there is a certain amount to be said for an angled eastward view which opens up the perspective of one wall to show more detail of the design. The internal design is the "face" of the great church, and contains the essential character of the whole building. Whatever it may be about these buildings that has remained an inspiration for so many centuries is embodied in the internal design, which must be the most significant aspect of the church to require illustration.

Such interiors pr~sent well Known problems of contrast. It is best to avoid direct views of windows as far as possible, but it is almost inevitable that the photograph will include bright highlight areas and some quite deep shade. In spite of this high contrast, the uniform colour of the walls, usually grey, produces low local contrast, which has to be maintaine d, or enhanced, to show detail clearly. The inevitable result is complexity in printing, with a great deal of holding back and burning in, and an exposure ratio of 1: 10 not exceptional.

The basilican, aisled, form of the Mediaeval church provides other exciting vistas, the views through arches enjoyed by so many photographers. The prospect of these great spaces seen from the constriction of the enclosed aisles, of light seen from darkness , can have deep symbolic and psychological significance , and it is often in this way that the photographer can best provide an insight into the real qualities of the building.

Most art is accessible to those with clear and innocent vision, but since most of us rarely reach thi s, we have to learn to understand the language of the art through study of the subject. This is certainly the case with Mediaeval architecture, and there is no doubt that the photographer approaching the subject will be helped by a measure of knowledge. The combination of the observant eye and growing knowledge leads the way to a widening understanding of this great realm of art, and an expanding opportunity to use photographic creativity to open the eyes of others.

Note :- All illustrations on FP4 film developed in Promicrol diluted I +3, 11 minutes at 24°, agitated once each minute , and all printed on llfospeed Multigrade with No. S filter using 50mm f4 EL Nikkor lens.

12

Photograph by Clive Hicks. 1 sec., f11, 28mm PC Nikkor lens, Nikon F2S

Exeter Cathedral: nave11from west.

One of two complete cathedrals (the other being Lichfield) in the Decorated Gothic style. A difficult print, with many units of exposure required and an exposure ratio of at least 1: 10 between different parts.

JJ

Review Davidson, Brian K.

The Observer's Boo k of Castles 12 plate~, 48 figs, 3 maps, 185 pp.

Frederick Warne , London , 1979. £ 1.25

Readers of Archaeolog are unlikely to require any introduction to the Observer 's series of handbooks which fit the pocket, contain the maximum amount of information in the minimum of space and are specifically designed for use in the field.

This volume, however, tioes not follow quite the usual pattern since although it is still designed for the field worker the bulk of the text (some 153 pages out of 185) is devoted to a general introduction to the subject to be read be fore setting out.

The key to the system thereafter is the gazeteer, a list of outstanding castles briefly described and divided geographically into three - England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland. Each castle has a number which is reproduced on tlie distr ibution maps at either end of the book. Furthermore there is a site list grouping the castles by their reference numbers und er special features such as, for example, Edwardian concentric castles or ringworks. Finally whenever details of interest are mentioned in the text (e.g. different forms of drawbridge) reference numbers in the margin indicate where such features are to be seen. Thus a photographer can easily discover what castles of interest are to be seen in his own neighbourhood, or where he has to go to find a square keep, a barbican or a screens passage. Data provided includes map references and details of ownership (D.O.E., National Trust etc.) and there is a glossary for anyone at a loss for words.

Primarily intended for children, but none the less recommended as a handy ready reckoner for castle buffs.

SPECIAL NOTICES

GROUPLECTURE& EXTRAORD INARY GENERAL MEETING Monday5th November,LONDON ~xtraordinary General Meeting to propose and approve new constit ution , RPS House, 6.30 p.m . Followed by Peru before Pizarro' - lecture by Roger Rawcliffe, MA, 7 .00 p.m.

CHRISTMAS SOCIAL Saturday1st December, LONDON ~istmas Social with buffet and wine, RPS House, 7 .00 p.m.

Tickets £2.50 each from Mary Mitchell, 3 Lorraine Court, Talbot Road, Wembley, Mddx, HAO4UF.

EXCURSION Wednesday24th January, LONDON Afternoon visit to Ancient Monuments Laboratory, Fortress House, Savile Row. Details to be announced.

ANNUALGENERALMEETING Monday4th February, WNDON EXHIBITIONOF ARCHAEOLOG ICALPHOTOG'RAPHY Thursday1st May, 1980 Closing date for submissions for 2nd International Exhibition of Archaeological Photography Further details to be announced shortly. ·

Harry Battye A Tribute from Erie Boulder Group ~embers wp.l b~ saddened to hear of the ~eath on September 24th of Harry Battye at the age of 49. Harry was the leadmg local historian of Pontefract, Yorkshire and frequently employed photography in his work . In his home town he devoted much time to writing the major part of a large volume of local history ( Wakefield District Architectural Heritage, Volume 11) which was published earlier this year. In addition, another recently published book on the neighbouring township owed the majority of its material to his generous help. Whenever a serious student asked for information Harry was ready with voluminous notes and a pile of prints. He also gave unstintingly of his time and was well-known on the West Yorkshire lecture circuit. His profession as lecturer at a College of Art brou ght him i~to contact with many personalities in the art world including on occasion Henry Moore.

When the Group held its first Congress at Wicken Bonhunt in 1975 Harry was recovering from a series of coronaries, but was persuaded to attend by his wife and friends in the hope that this would re-awaken his interest in academic work . He ertjoyed himself so much that he came to every subsequent Congress with the exception of Durham 197 8 which he was too ill to attend although he played an important part in its organisation.

At the time of his death Harry was working on the design for the Group's proposed Mortimer Wheeler Medal. Only a week before his death I discussed it with him and at his suggestion photographed the first stage in its production. At the same time he was involved with several local research projects and a major study of masons' marks about which he was a national authority.

Harry had an effervescent personality, a ready sense of humour and a generous nature. He devoted more energy and enthusiasm to each aspect of his work than most people put into their output as a whole. In every one of his fields of activity he will be sorely missed.

The Group extends its sympathy to his widow Joan and their two children, Richard, 16 and Kate, 9.

15

Hereford Cat hedral: t'Xterior from north-west.

Photograph

by Clive Hicks. I /60 ~et:.. f8, orange filter , 28mm PC Nikkor Jens, Nikon F.