Archaeolog No 14 April 1980 by Royal Photographic Society

Toe Royal Photographic Society of Great Britain

ISSN: 0143-0661

[

l J<\lf' m~

t:2)

ARCHAEOLOG ~

/1~~

No.14 April 1980

Price 50p

CONTENTS Beaker burial in earlier cairn, Cairnpapple, W. Lothian. Photograph M•.Sharp. Editorial Field Monuments of Lowland England Inside Megalithic Tombs Small Finds Photography The Old Telegraphs Letters

EDITORIAL A major problem for the fledgling Editor is learning to think at least two months ahead of everyone else. Thus at the moment we are about to write a paragraph or two of peerless prose about the group's forthcoming international exhibition, only to realise that although it is now but the middle of February and the closing date for submissions is May 1st we are none the less almost (but fortunately not quite) too late, since no one is going to read our P.P. until the beginning of April (if then). We believe that the exhibition is the most important of the group's activities this year, and that for a variety of reasons. For the individual photographer it is an opportunity and a spur to review work as a whole, to select the best and to devote skill and time not normally available to the production of the finest possible result. For the group it means active involvement in a worth-while project which will publicise its existence and its aims. For the RPS it is a demonstration of lively activity in one of its off-shoots leading perhaps to increase of membership at a time when it is up to its neck in the biggest gamble of its existence. For archaeology as a whole it directs a .spot-light on an area which by no means always receives the attention it deserves. Last and most important it enables the Editor of Archaeolog to contemplate a profusely illustrated Exhibition edition and to pin down potential contributors in an unguarded moment.

panel has already been appointe d, 1000 leaflets are in course of circulation so the foundation s have been well laid. We have even heard of photegraph ers who are actually thinking abou t their contributions . The precise venue is still uncertain - in Bath but probably not in the Octagon . Moving out along an Editorial limb we should like to suggest that the exhibition should be tour ed after its initial showing. We should like t0 see it in th e British Museum, the National Museum of Wales and the Museum of Antiquities, Edinburltli. Here again we may have almost missed the bus since for exhibitions in such hallowed places one has to think years, rather than months ahead . However we still think it 's a gooo idea and worth tryin g. Or something like it. We had meant to report on the A.G.M. but space does not permit. So here for information are the names and addresses of the people who really matter (if we may so express ourselves without giving offence):- Chairman: John Stubbington LRPS, 26 Beeches Close, Saffron Walden, Essex; Secretary: Mrs Jenny 0.rsmond LRPS, 29 Douglas Avenue, Wembley, Middx; Treasurer: (subscriptions other than RPS and back numbers of Archaeolog): Miss Mary MitcheU 3 Lorraine Court, Talbot Roau, Wembley, Middx. HAO 4UF. '?..olo'f7f Exhibition Secretary: Trevor Hurst ARPS, 40 Kildare Terrace London W.2.; Editor Archaeolog: Dr MR Apted, 29 Cavenish Drive, Claygate, Esher, Surrey KTl0 0QE, Phone Esher 65901.

1'i

All the above, of course, depends on good organisation, advance publicity, an appropriate venue, skilled selection and display and above all 'chiefly yourselves'. Organisation is in the hands of Trevor Hurst, a distinguished selection

P.S. We have just looked up 'fledgling' in our new Concise Oxford. It says 'Young bird, inexperienced person'. We are not the former.

Archaeolog is produced 4.>' the Archaeological Group of the Royal Photographic Society and printed by Wellington Bureau, 23/25 Craven Street, London W.C.2.

Subscriptions:- RPS members £3.00 p.a., Subscribers £3.25, Students £2.00. Overseas subscribers £4.00. Addresses for contributions and subscriptions as given above.

Field Monumentsin LowlandEngland What are field monuments? The word 'monument' conjures up a_picture of an obelisk, a statue, a folly - certainly something big, eye-catching and of stone. This meaning has unfortunately led to the idea that, to be of interest, a monument must look impressive. This is, however, not so at all. As far as archaeological sites are concerned, while many of the big ones are important, many of the most significant are difficult to see or are invisible. The most inconspicuous mound for example, could be of great archaeological interest, while an impressive 'earthwork' might be no more than a recent spoil-heap; the romantic ruins of a large building, actually, say, the remains of a 19th century rectory, could be of little interest compared with the humps and bumps in a neighbouring field which represent the forgotten site of a deserted 13th century village! A 'field monument' can be of any date, provided it is no longer in use and tells us something about the past. While a Second World War block-house is not by any stretch of the imagination 'ancient' or even of 'historic interest' in popular terms, it is now very much a field monument in the sense that it represents an outdated kind of warfare and a particular phase of England's history. It tells us the same sort of thing about England in the 1940s as a Norman castle or hill-fort built before the Romans does about the more distant past. What then is a 'field monument'?lt is firstly those visible, upstanding remains of Man's works, surviving now as banks, ditches, mounds, hollows, standing stones, Âˇand collapsed walls and other ruins of stone or brick. In Lowland England (see below), because the ancient use of building stone was uncommon, many 'field monuments' are called 'earthworks', since they appear to be mainly of soil mixed with whatever forms the local subsoil, eg chalk, clay or gravel. Many, however, originally included wooden Âˇ~tructures. ' Field monuments' also include sites which were originally flat and .sites which were once upstanding, but are now almost or completely flattened. They need not necessarily be visible at ground level. There is of course a contradiction here: how can a 'field monument' exist today if it has lost, or never had, a 'monumental' quality?The answer is that, even when flat, a site is unlikely to be completely destroyed: indeed, if it were a cemetery for example, it may still exist intact. Even if it is not normally visible from ground level, air photographs cannot only show it beneath the modern surface but also indicate its size and shape. In fact air photography has revealed that there are far more buried sites than upstanding ones - 100,000 is a minimal estimate - so it is highly likely that most rural landowners have a 'field monument' of some description somewhere on their property, even if they are unaware of this. 'Lowland England' is roughly England south and east of a line from Scarborough to Exmouth . To north and west is 'Highland Britain'. The difference is not merely one of height above sea level but also of soils, rocks, climate and indeed the whole natul al environment. By and large, the field m_onuments in these two broad divisions look different from each other - mainly because of the use of stone for building in the Highland areas - and each division possesses

by Peter Fowler certain types of monument absent from the other. Again broadly speaking, past and existing land-use in the two divisions differ too, so the present state and problems of preservation also differ. This broad division is therefore retained for the practical purposes of this article. a) Natural or man-made? The first question to ask is whether humps and bumps in a field, a mound or a bank and ditch, are natural or man-made. Distinguishing between a natural or artificial feature is possible only with a thorough understanding of local .conditions soils, subsoils, drainage and past land-use in.particular which is most likely to arise from working any particular area. In practice, it is the field archaeologist who looks to local knowledge for guidance on precisely this point. On the other hand, many a locally-known feature, assumed to be natural, is in fact man-made and of archaeological interest: an irregular area of depression, showing as dark patches in the plough-soil on ~e chalk downs, for example, is more likely to be a Roman or prehistoric settlement than anything else. Ideally, answers come from a combination of experience and special knowledge.

b) Mounds Mounds are one of the commonest archaeological sites though the date and use of any given Âˇexample can be difficult to decide. A mound is best preserved under grass, but can look very unimportant under scrub, its true shape and size disguised by undergrowth, bracken or bluebells, or by continuous ploughing. Any of these can hide a surrounding ditch, which can help identify and define the monument. A ditch can vary from several metres to just a few centimetres in superficial depth and from 2~10 metres in width. Round mounds also normally vary from a few centimetres to 5 metres high and from c 3 to perhaps as much as 30 metres in length but they can be much longer. Mariy mounds are burial places, particularly on the chalk downlands and the limestone uplands. Others exist in lower-lying areas like the New Forest, and there used to be hundreds, probably thousands, in East Anglia, and along the river valleys of the Midlands. In these areas, however, they have been almost completely worn down by centuries of ploughing, and they are now known mainly from air photographs. Burial mounds are usually called 'barrows'. They often occur in clusters and this is indeed one way of recognising them as 'archaeological mounds'. Long barrows date from c 4000 to 2000BC; round barrows date from c 2000BC to early medieval times. Many of both types, particularly in the Cotswolds and Yorkshire, were built of stone and contain burial chambers, now mostly robbed. Otherwise long barrows have proved to be very complicated structures of timber and earth. Most round barrows were first built c 2000-1500 BC, but in North Yorkshire examples surrounded by square ditches are of the last three centuries BC. In the Essex/Hertfordshire/ Cambridgeshire area, some large barrows are Roman, while elsewhere in the south east some small barrows are Saxon; but many barrows particularly the prehistoric ones, are not just of a single date for they were often used again and again for later burials and sometimes for other purposes.

]

the fate of most such sites, there might be nothing more than a .darkeningof the soil, or perhaps a multi-colour effect in it, though examination of the soil itself would probably show flecks of charcoal, burnt stones, building rubbish, animal bones and bits of pottery. Some prehistoric and Roman settlements still exist as illdefined earthworks on the Wessexand Sussex Downs, on the Northamptonshire Limestone, and on the Yor;kshire Wolds. They consist of slight platforms where buildings stood, with low banks around the yards or Âˇcloses and depressions where perhaps pits were dug. The most readily recognised of such earthworks are those of deserted medieval settlements. Such sites often have a more definite pattern, sometimes related to what may look like a ditch but is actually a hollow-way, the worn-down main street, with platforms for buildings spaced evenly along its sides. Other disturbances of the land surface could have been caused by former industr'ialactivity. Quarrying, for example, is usually identifiable, but when it was carried out by hand on a small scale its results are not now so obvious. Similarly, pottery-making produced small mounds from disused kilns and kiln waste. There are in fact many explanations, industrial and others, for disturbed areas': it is best to seek advice at the time of discovery, and certainly before damagingthem.

g) Ruins Where stone walls are visible, as standing structures or just sticking through the ground, the site may be more obvious but an explanation is not necessarilyeasy. So much depends

on what is visible and where it lies. Stone walls could be part of most of the types of site mentioned above; they could, on the other hand, be part of a forgotten 19th centuryÂˇbarn. 'Ruins', however, especially when some of the walls are still standing, are tra,ditionallythought of as medieval and to do with the many religiousbuildings of that time, ranging from the great abbeys and monasteries to humbler churches and chapels, which have since been abandoned. A fragment of a ruined church may be the clue to a 'lost' villagenearby, once flourishing but now forgotten. h) Standing stones It is unlikely that any counterpart to Stonehenge still remains undiscoYered,but prehistoric stone circles and other arrangements of stones exist infrequently in Lowland England and all standing stones, however innocent their appearance, may be significant. Many are isolated in the middle of fields and are used as rubbing-stonesby cattle; but even in such cases, some were perhaps there pefore the field.

The photographs accompanying this article have been chosen to illustrate some common but different types of archaeological site still existing as earthworks. They aiso demonstrate some of the problems of photographing such threedimensional features at ground level, earthworks being notoriously difficult to illustrate satisfactorily on film. All are Crown copyright and from the negatives of the Royal Commissionon lijstorical Monuments (England), held in the ArchaeologicalRecords Section of the National Monuments Record, itself part of the Commissionand located at Fortress House, 23 Savile Row, London WIX lAB (See Archaeolog No.13).

Inside Megalithic Tombs Note: All photographs illustrating this article are by the author. Ed.

Massivelybuilt stone chambers, constructed for funerary and religio-ritualpurposes are to be found in great numbers in the naturally stone-littered areas of Europe. The so-called Megalithicreligion which some associate with these and other large-stonemonuments, has left its traces in Malta, the Iberian Peninsular, Sicily, France (notably in Brittany), Britain (mainly in the West and Highland Zone), Ireland and Scandinavia.

Although there are many regional differences in both architectural style and ritual practice these megalithic tombs form a recognisable and cohesive group and were in use for a remarkable length of time within the European Neolithic. The earliest tombs dating, in calendar years, to approximately 4,500 BC occur in Iberia, whereas the British versions were still being used, and in a few cases constructed, up to around 2,500 BC when the Beaker expansion seems to have brought about a gradual, but major change in religiouspractice. They are well known for the remains of communal burial revealed by excavation, but recent research has shown them to be much more than simple repositories for the (j.ead. Although certainly associated with the physical remains of the dead they seem to have been utilised in various stages of a complex religion, fo~g the focus for a variety of religious and ritual activities and may reasonably be called neolithic cathedrals. For the past six years I have bee~ photographing the visually

by Mick Sharp dynamic and evocativemonuments of the Neolithic and Bronze Age in Britain and Brittany and hope that a few ;omments on the problems involved with megalithic interiors may be of interest. EQUIPMENT I use a 5" x 4", MPPMkVIII which is a British made micropress camera, having many of the front and back movements of a 'studio' monorail, with a bellows extension of 18" but contained within a rugged and compact metal body/case, the front of which hinges open to form the base for the lens panel which travels on a series of extension rails. It is a sturdy, well-made,good all-round camera which is relatively light and convenient to carry, takes a variety of lenses and 1ccessories(Polaroid and roll film back etc) and is simple to .ise assuming the principles of camera movements are understood. It was one of the standard press cameras used in conjunction with a flash gun and can be hand held, focussingvia a rangefinder or sports viewer. However, I use it on a tripod under all circumstances in the studio, on site and in the field and have a variety of techniques for attaching a tripod to rigidly constructed triangular frames of scaffolding and/or ladders when a high angle of view is required. With regard to the 35mm v 5" x 4" debate, suffice to say that I consider a large format camera to be more versatile,to give beJter quality results if properly used and afford

individual negative treatment all of which are basic to my approach to archaeological photography of all types. My tripod is a Gitzo whith a No.2 head which is stable enough for most conditions yet light enough to carry long distances - which I do. My 'working' lens which fits inside the camera when closed and is coupled to the rangefinder is a Schneider Xenar 1:4.5/1.50mm with press compur shutter. I also have a Super Angulon 1:8/90mm with a Copal shutter and a Rodenstock Sironar 1:5.6/150mm also with a Copal shutter; both of_ which, in my opinion , are better quality lenses than the Xenar but cannot be carried within the camera. The Super Angulon is indispensable in the often cramped conditions inside the chambers . My exposure meter is a Weston MasterV and with a mixture of this and experience I dÂˇetermine exposures in the dimly lit tombs. Possibly the more sensitive and expensive Luna six would be more appropria te if starting from scratch I use a National Panasonic PE 3550 electron ic flash gun with both a rechargeable nickle cadium and conventional battery pack. I carry both for convenience and economy as using an open shutter, multiple flash technique soon exhausts the batteries in the light hungry chambers. I use Ilford FP4 rated at 64ASA with a normal development of 7 minutes in Kodak D76 diluted 1: 1. I dish develop with constant agitation and for best results use the diluted developer once only. Zone system increments are + or - I minute, ie N + I = 8 mins, N-- 2 = 5 mins. Useful accessories are; a stop watch, ruler, spirit level, notebook containing reciprocity tables and zone system information etc, compass and of course a powerful tor ch. My initial approach to the monuments grew out of a response to what might be called the 'presence' of megalithic sites generally. I began photographing them in the American, west-coast landscape tradition, epitomised for me by Edward Weston and Minor White; treating the neolithic and bronzeage monuments as dynamic arrangements by man of the powers of nature expressed in large stones and in the landscape generally. This still concerns me, but as my involvement and interest in practical archaeology grew the techniques and possible beliefs of the builders and the architecture of the tombs increased in importance and my photographs became less abstract and I hope more honest. I now try to take photographs which are archaeologically relevant, yet retain a sense of the special atmosphere and sensory power of these monuments which must have contributed to their long period of use. If the photographs are taken to illustrate specific architectural or archaeological points -such as how well stones fit together or details of carving - sharpness, clarity and a good sense of composition should be combined to give a photograph which is both pleasing and informative. I should say at this point that I do not believe in the mythical record photo - you know the 'it doesn't really matter it's only a record shot' type. If a photograph is taken to store and transmit specific information every effort should be made to obtain the maximum amount of detail possible within the absolute limitations of the circumstahces and the photographic process itself. The higher the quality and composition of a photograph the better are the chances of its 'message' being perceived. I do not spend long searching the murky depths

of a badly exposed and composed, out-of-focus picture for that which caught the photographer's eye. So many Âˇ archaeological photographs are of such poor quality that all they succeed in doing is suggesting that the site may actually have existed! But having said this, I think with regard to chambers, there is no place for over-lit interiors, where the photographer has imposed his alien lighting system at the expense of the inherent character of the monument,just as there is equally no place for an unintelligible black mass in which floats the burnt-out highlight of the entrance passage. Light values in these conditions are often extreme, but exposure and development control and the use of subtle and sensitive supplementary lighting can satisfactorily overcome most problems. Some areas can be dealt with at the printing stage and often unavoidable highlights etc can be unobtrusively incorporated into the general composition. PRACTICAL Many of the chambers retain their original stone and earth covering or have D.O.E. concrete covers with and.without glass port holes, the only light being supplied in these circumstances by a rapidly weakening beam issuing through the often small entrance. As some of the passages are over 20' long and the stones greedily absorb the light my Weston meter does not respond and hardly anything can be seen through the camera. This is where a willing helper is indispensable as he or she can move about pointing a powerful torch towards the camera, the bulb of which can be focussed upon to establish picture area, depth of field and camera movements etc. Without help a long process of running between precariously positioned torch and camera is necessary. In situations where the meter responds I find that with keen eyes and practice the camera may be set up with available light and a dark cloth, but a torch is always useful. Space is in short supply, therefore a wide angle lens of good quality is a must, as is a high degree of manual dexterity and patience. Again assistance is most useful: I regularly become trapped behind the camera and tripod, wedged tightly in a cramped corner unable to reach dark slides etc. The problem of space may be overcome in certain instances by finding a suitable hole or crack between capping stones, and shooting into the chamber from outside or arranging the camera inside and looking onto the screen from outside; as I did at Bryn Celli Ddu. As the sites are well visited, when working inside the chambers it is wise to have someone outside to give warning and avoid disturbance, during long exposures etc. Wherever possible I try to use only available light within the chamber. In situations where the Weston meter fails to respond,hut after adjusting to the dim conditions my eyes can perceive the main features of the structure, I find exposures of at least one hour at fl 1 to fl 6 are required when using FP4 rated at 64 A.S.A. Sadly I cannot be more precise than this; becoming sensitive to the chamber light values has required a long process of trial and error. I am still learning and making mistakes and no amount of technical information is a substitute for practical experience and awareness .. Exposures are given in the captions to the photographs but I will run through my exposure determination for typical light conditions found in the tombs using the Weston V, a 150mm lens and Ilford FP4 rated at 64 ASA. Limit of important detail gives a reading of 3; highlight reading is 7. This is equivalent to a general reflected light reading of 5 which

Pierre Plattes, Locmariaquer, Brittany. Part of passage with chalked-in carvings. 90mm lens. 40 sees f 32 available light. Developed 5 mins (N-2).

Gavrinis, Golfe diJMorbihan, Brittany. Part of passage with carved orthostats. Light from entrance to right and 12 wax candles placed along passage floor. 90mm lens. 25 mins f22. Developed 8 mins (N + 1).

West Kennet Long Barrow, Wilts. Part of passage and northern chambers. 150mm lens, 20 mins f 45 with 21 fill-in flashes on manual full power. Developed 7 mins (N).

Bryn CelliDdu, Anglesey. Passagegrave with monolith, built over earlier henge monument A small chamber photographed from outside. 90mm lens. 10 mins f 45. 15 full power _flashes. Developed 8 mins (N + 1).

gives a basic exposure of 20 sees atf32. The required increase for bellows extension is calculated using the meter as a slide rule. The outer dial of the meter is rotated until the aperture number nearest to the focal length of the lens in inches lines up with the number of seconds given for the basic exposure. In other words in this instance 6.3 is set to 20 sees (150mm='6'', 90mm=3.5") The distance between the screen and the front of the lens is measured (bellows extension) and found to be 9". The number of seconds opposite to f9 then gives the corrected exposure; being in this case 40 sees. Due to the length of the exposure reciprocity failure has to be taken into account and I use the following table for FP4 rated at 65 A.S.A. 1-5 sees x 1Âź 5-15 sees x 1Â˝ 15-45 sees x 2 45 sees - 2 mins x 3 2 mins - 5 mins x 4 5 mins - 10 mins x 5 10 mins - 20 mins x 6 20 mins - 40 mins x 8 The final exposure in this hypothetical case is at least 100 sees - quite a difference from the original meter reading of 20 sees. Obviously as the exposures increase in length so does the discrepancy. The major problem apart from length of exposure is the extreme light range when the entrance passage or shafts of hard light from cracks and holes are included. Gaps causing flare into the camera may be temporarily blocked with stones etc (not some vital part of the monument!) and it is a matter of personal judgement as to which shafts of light are acceptable or can be accommodated with exposure/development control. The extreme brightness range can be reduced to a certain extent by exposing for the darkest area where detail is required and then cuttin g back development to avoid the excessive build-up of highlight densities in the negative. Conversely overall, soft-diffused light can be exposed normally and the development increased to sep arate and accentuate the available tones, and to increase general sharpness and contrast.

ship of tones in the negative and print, at the time of camera exposure. It also indicates if the subject brightness range is beyond the ability of the film to record even with drastic development reduction. A detailed description of the zone system is beyond the scope of this article and I can only recommend Ansell Adams's ownbook; The Negative, published by Morgan and Morgan Inc. of New York or The Time Life library of photography, Light and Film volume where an adequate explanation is given. Where there are completely unlit areas in which I wish to see detail I use a powerful diver's torch or an electronic flashgun to'fill-in'. This is done by establishing a basic exposure from the light available, opening the shutter and then 'painting' with the torch or firing several flashes from different positions into the required area during exposure. Needless to say experiment has proved at what apertures and times my torch will have an effect and the basic exposure is chosen with this or the flash guide numbers in mind, but without sacrificing too much depth of field. The West Kennet pictu re gives some idea of the number of flashes required ; it could have done with a few more and a negative including the full length of the passage was still on the thin side with 40 separate flashes on manual, full power! With dark, lightabsorbent stones the guide numbers should probabl y be halved and obviously the numb~r of flashes should be increased for distant objects with reference to the inverse square law. An expensive alternative to this is the use of a portable Tungsten halogen lamp, powered by a rechargeable battery pack, and used to light the chamber interior by the waving hand lamp technique. But this, I think, too easily destroys the individual 'feel' of the tombs. It is however most useful for showing up carving details etc as the most suitabl e lighting position can be more accurately chosen than with a flashgun.

The alternative light source I prefer and consider most appropriate is the humble wax candle, or to be more accurate about a dozen of them. I used them to good effect on the carved orthostats forming the entrance passage to Gavrinis, to supplement the failing daylight and to balance the exposure on the stones. I believe their warm, subtle lighting to be My exposures for all monochrome, large format photography ideal for this type of subject and the dimly lit chambers with are determined using the Zone System devised by the American their flickering carvings, suddenly alive and ever-changing, take landscape photographer, Ansell Adams. When correctly used on an appearance surely nearer to that intended by the people it enables a photographer to determine the range and relation- who committed so much time and effort to building them.

Photographing Small Finds by Sidney Renow In order to create a presentable photographic record of archaeological small finds considerable care has to be taken in setting up the objects, arranging the lighting, and introducing the necessary scale. The procedure described below has been evolved by the writer after much experimentation, and has been found to produce acceptable results quickly and easily, and with the minimum of equipment.

However, a plain stand, or cheaper still, an attachment used with an existing enlarger baseboard and column (Durst or Zenith from Polysales) may be used. It goes without saying that a set of extension tubes for the camera is essential. Another vital item is a small spirit level for levelling the camera (Woolworth's).

The basic piece of apparatus required is a copying stand, and one with rack and pini~n movements makes for greater ease of operation. Such stands are, however, expensive, but that used by the author is a fairly old Rowi acquired at a club auction for ÂŁ8 - not an event likely to be repeated very often!

Llghting gave a great deal of trouble during tests. The convention in small-finds photography is that the object should be lit from the top left, that the minimum shadow should be cast by the object, and that the lighting should be just contrasty enough to show relief without losing detail in the shadows. The best source has been found to be daylight

In determining correct exposure it will be obvious that TTL metering is inappropriate. For both colour and monochrome work the writer uses incident light readings utilizing a Weston V meter with needle lock. The meter is placed in the zone of the object with the incident light cone uppermost, the reading being retained when the meter is turned over. If the photographer does not possess a meter of this type, a Kodak grey card coul'd be used instead of an incident light cone. The reading will require adjustment in relation to the size of the extension tube being used, the factor usually being provided in tables supplied with the tubes. From practice the writer finds that the best way to do this is to change the film speed setting on the meter to match the factor of the tube being used so that direct exposure readings may be taken without error. It is important to remember that the factor will vary according to the focus setting of the lens. Usually, certainly with Minolta tubes, the tables give factors for both extremities of the focusing range. Focusing is naturally carried out with the lens at full aperture, and unless automatic tubes are used, one has to discipline oneself rigorously to stop down to the selected aperture before exposing ( usually f16 to secure adequate depth of focus). It is so easy to overlook this during a momentary lapse of concentration!

The author's ar,:angement for photographing small finds.

from a window near the stand which is placed so that the top left corner of the baseboard is nearest to the glass. The support for the objects consists of (a) a piece of white paper or card, (b) a sheet of plain glass, (c) a sheet of Permatrace (obtained from the drawing office), all about 12" x 9". The glass is supported along two opposite sides about 1" above the white paper, and the Permatrace is laid matt side up upon the glass. It will be found that an object placed on the Permatrace casts little or no shadow and appears to be floating in air. Also, the Permatrace has a grain-free surface giving a background without distracting texture. If the photographer wishes to have a coloured background to complement the colour of the object, a tinted paper may be placed under the glass. The writer uses a 12" x 9" pad of tinted lngres papers made by Daler.

Finally two tips. A mirror reflex camera perched at the end of the arm of the copying stand will vibrate during the lengthy exposure. â&#x20AC;˘Much of this movement will be absorbed if a forefinger supports the camera body with a slight upward pressure when the cable release is operated. The Permatrace Âˇ must be kept scrupulously clean - any dust or particles dropping from the objects will, if not removed, show as black spots on the transparencies or prints and will cause a great deal of irritation! So keep a blower brush at your fingertips whilst working.

When photographing at such close quarters, the depth of focus is very shallow and it is often necessary to support part of an irregular object to bring it wholly within the plane of focus. For this Blu-Tack is invaluable as it can be moulded into thin props which will not intrude into the field of view. The necessary scale to show the size of the object presents a problem. It must be clear at a glance yet unobtrusive. Handdrawn scales are apt to be clumsy particularly if the object is very small. The author uses the edge of a transparent ruler such as the "Helix" from Woolworth's. One with a narrow band of rnillimetre lines should be selected as there are numerous varieties of transparent ruler. The scale is laid on the Permatrace so that it appears along the lower edge of the frame, showing the millimetre and centimetre lines but not the figules - unless the object is large when more of the scale will be necessary for clarity. It is essential that the ruler should be supported at its ends by pieces of cardboard or other material to bring the lines into the plane of focus.

11111111111111111111 Bronze finger ring from Wroxeter

Visual telegraphy, the art of relaying intelligence from point to point over distances by exhibiting and repeating signs, had , already given its name to various sites in the south and east of England before the electric telegraph superseded it about the middle of the last century. Hence Telegraph Hills ( there are two in London alone, at Hampstead and New Cross), Telegraph or Semaphore Roads (as on Putney Heath and in Guildford) and so on. Some of these place-names are reminders of the shutter-type telegraph, by which the Admiralty kept in touch with the naval bases at Plymouth, Portsmouth, Deal, Sheerness and Great Yarmouth during the war路 with Revolutionary and Napoleonic France, the country that had perfected and developed the first practical visual telegraph. Others date from the later semaphore, or arm-type, telegraph, operated by the Admiralty between Whitehall and Portsmouth from 1823 to 1847, with an abortive offshoot to Plymouth. Little or nothing has survived of the wooden operating-huts of the shutter system, let alone of the large frames, housing centrally-pivoted shutters, that surmounted them, but there are substantial remains of the semaphore system in the form of several brick station houses in Surrey and West Sussex. In addition, the North Wales coast can show surviving station houses of the one-time semaphore telegraph operated by the Liverpool Dock Committee to give Liverpool shipowners intelligence of their vessels' landfall off Anglesey. Taking the southern stations first, the London-Portsmouth line, starting from the roof of the Admiralty building in Whitehall, had intermediate stations at Chelsea (Duke of York's School), Putney Heatn, Coombe, Hinchley Wood (Cooper's Hill), Cobham (Chatley Heath), Guildford (Pewley Hill), Witley (Bannicle Hill), Haslemere (Haste Hill), Older Hill, Beacon Hill, Compton, Bedhampton (Camp Down) and Southsea (Lumps Fort). Of these Cooper's Hill, Chatley Heath, Pewley, Older Hill and Compton remain. On the incomplete Plymouth line branching from Chatley Heath stations were erected at Worplesdon, Poyle, Binstead, Farringdoo Common, Merifield (Merryfield), Chestford Hill, Farley Chamberlayne and Sherfield English; Binstead (River Hill), Farringdon Common (near Four Marks), Farley Chamberlayne and Sherfield English survive. Fortunately the two lines taken together comprise examples of all three types of station built by the Admiralty ; bungalow,three-storey and tower. The bungalow at Fariey is ruinous, and the only tower, at Chatley is empty, though in the excellent c.are of Surrey County Council which has undertaken commendable repairs in recent years. The house at Pewley, long since part of Greater Guildford, is distinctive in sporting a glass cupola, not original, on its flat roof, making it particularly conspicuous on sunny days. All other stations, both 路bungalow and three-storey, as detailed below, are inhabited and statutorily protected. The Admiralty employed officers debarred by disabilities from further active service and, where necessary also, a midshipman who in those days of slow promotion was more likely to be a grizzled vet'eran, reasonably sober and -good with the glass (telescope), than a pink-faced youth. Letters have come down of complaints by the lieutenants on the

Portsmouth line of real or fancied grievances, and requests for this or that or the other amenity: blocked waterspouts; signal arms binding in windy weather; the need for a water butt and so on. 路Each station had an acre of land as a garden and kitchen garden, a useful amenity for the officer and his wife and their sometimes large brood. In some respects the billet cannot have been too bad for an officer no longer fit for shipboard service. He had to keep a watch by telescope every five minutes in each direction between 10 and 5 in summer and 10 and 3 in winter, that is when the weather allowed the sign路made by the next station to be distinguished, noted in the logbook and relayed. Visitors could arrange to view the London terminal station on the roof of the Admiralty, but it is unlikely that they were welcome at out-stations. Incidentally, the Admiralty telegraph records strike here and there a regrettably modern note of vandalism. Early in 1822, for example, Lieutenant James Robertson asked to be allowed to take early possession of the new Cooper's Hill station as the 'peasantry' had forced open the window shutters to see the inside of the unusual structure. Although in the south of England trees now obscure some sites and the views from them, excellent views are still to be had from others, so that one can picture in imagination the relaying of messages - often, alas, dully routine- .that passed to and from Portsmouth at remarkable speed. A particularly good example is the Older Hill station, north-west of Midhurst, on the edge of a scarp that slopes down over Woolbeding Common to the valley of the Rother towards the South Downs, site of the next station southwards, on Beacon Hill. In London the Admiralty building roof remains, though now topped by the paraphernalia of more complex modern communications. In Portsmouth Harbour the imposing Sail Loft and Rigging Tower, burnt down in 1913 but rebuilt to the original pattern, stands as a reminder of the final terminus there. On the Holyhead-Liverpool line two inhabited former signal houses remain in Anglesey, at Cefndu (Llanrhyddlad) and Point Lynas (Llaneilian), and on the North Wales mainland two also, at Llysfaen, behind old Colwyn, and Voel Nant, east of Prestatyn. In addition there is a fifth survivor on Hilbre Island at the mouth of the Dee. The lonely station on Puffin Island off the north-east tip of Anglesey was in ruins when last seen some years ago and there can now be little left of it. The Holyhead line stations were rebuilt in 1841 to a more or less standard bungalow design, with a prominent bowwindowed observation room jutting out on the seaward side, and a roof topped by high, double, cross-braced w.rought iron masts, each bearing two arms. An exception is the Hilbre station, where the living quarters and the observation room are distinct structures, perhaps because the best position for signal observation was rather windswept for a residence. The-North Wales stations, like those of the Admiralty, were built as houses for the operators, in this case civilian, and their families. Visiting the Holyhead line stations seems to have been

allowed. Old. guidebooks to Liverpool refer to the terminal installation on a building by the waterfront and the arrangements for inspecting it. A guidebook to Llandudno mentions a Mr and Mrs Jones of the Great Orme station where visitors could procure lemonade and other temperance beverages on fine summer days; Mr Jones was always ready to answer enquiries about the telegraph and let visitors watch him at work when convenient. In North Wales the slopes and summits of the coast hills remain little encumbered and on clear days the views to east and west are still splendid. Sad to say, no surviving telegraph station in England and Wales has preserved its semaphore mast and arms, although the five-storey., 60ft-high tower at Chatley still has the rodding, in a wooden casing, running up from what was the first floor operating room through the rooms above to the roof on which stood the mast. (Incidentally the Admiralty favoured spelling out messages, the various settings of the two pivoted arms representing letters, numbers or service phrases. On the Holyhead line the arm settings represented numbers referable to a very detailed codebook or vocabulary of words and phrases.) Photographic interest therefore centres on special design features of the remaining stations, their sites and the good views that some still command. In France, Germany, Sweden and Tasmania a typical visual telegraph station has been restored as a museum of a bygone form of communication that was accounted a wonder in its day. So far this country

MUSEUM,

No. 109,)

JOURNAL,

AND GAZETTE. [Price Id.

SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 11115,

n To l••utrlolu 1h111J b to M a1erlW the i•n•Uon •ad pnkclJoa of all Uluff arb wher;,by haaua lifeb eh·lllad 1 aallU..wo,11'1 euldntrtl wilh n•mbme,s ..,_ot\atlooa, oma... t-, 111141 !wuUtL All U.e ~IJ , th atately1 Utt pleuut, uni u-r•I worka,whidl .-, •iew wilh .i•llx't, or fllJll1witlaeoafort, lada1trJdWeantrin U,--.la1hutry 1114 ftuttllca."-Bnnir .

TIIE lW\f

l!f

SEMAPHORE,

U!IB UET\fEl!f

t.O~DOS

ASI> PUR~litot

TTff .

- .-. --,./

,·oi.. n· .

Top right: Pewley Hill, Guildford, 1826. Bottom right: Cooper's (or Telegraph) Hill, Hinchley Wood.

bas not followed suit, though it is hoped that the omission may be rectified before too long. A final word may be said about a Georgian house in West Square, Lambeth, close to the Imperial War Museum. Although not erected as a telegraph station it was taken over by the Admiralty when new and used as both an operating station and the residence of the superintendent of telegraphs. It is No.36, one of a terrace restored in recent years as p;ut of a conservation plan, and tenanted. From 1796 to 1814 it carried shutter apparatus on the roof as the first station from Whitehall on the shutter telegraph line to Deal and Sheerness. After that the shutter gave place to a semaphore on a trial line to Chatham that functioned until 1822 when the equipment was transferred to the new permanent line .to Portsmouth. The following list swnmarises relevant detail of the surviving stations in England and Wales, with notes-on their position, ownership and construction. The buildings are classified according to structural type, i.e. T: Tower, TS: Threestoried or B: Bungalow. Those wishing to photograph inside surviving houses used as private residences should of course request permission to enter. Chatley Heath and Hilbre Island stations being owned by local authorities are a different ·case and information about reaching and inspecting them is given separately.

Further reading Wilson, G. The Old Telegraph Phillimore, 1976 £7.50

,,..--

Name

Type Ht. a.s.l. Map Ref.

Remainin8_ Admiralti_ ~

Ownership

General

Stations

160

TQ157647

Chatley Heath (Surrey)

100

TQ087585 · Surrey County Council

On edge of Wisley Common. Best reached by tracks uphill from Pointers Road linking A3 Portsmouth Road and Cobham-Ockham Road. Former ruinous out-building removed. Otherwise intact. Five rooms one above the other, reached by inside wooden stairs also giving access to roof. Operating room was on first floor. Operating rodding in wooden casing still in position. Permission to view interior from Valuation Dept , Surrey CC, Surrey House, Eden Street, Kingston• upon-Thames.

Pewley Hill (Surrey)

350

TQ003493

Private

Corner of Semaphore and Pewley Down roads. Cupola on roof is later addition.

Oldei: Hill (West Sussex)

676

SU265873

Private

Reached by track from Henley Common on A286 (Haslemere-Midhurst road). Fine view S to South Downs and site of Beacon Hill station.

Compton (West Sussex)

534

SU148783

Private

Reached by track from Compton village on Petersfield-Emsworth road. Good views N towards Camp Down (neither station still exists).

490

SU414785

Private

1 mile E of Binstead . Reached by track from Binstead-A325 road.

Farringdon Common (Four Marks) (Hants)

700

SU346683

Private

In Telegraph Road running S from A3 I (Guildford-Winchester road) at Four Marks. Trees now obscure views.

Farley Chamberlayne (Hants)

500

SU293405

Empty, ruinous

Near Farley church and monument, 5 miles W of Winchester.

Sherfield English (Hants)

350

SU282248

Private

At Mount Pleasant, close to Hants/Wilts border 1½ miles N of Sherfield English on A27 (RomseySalisbury road). (Last station to be erected on abortive Plymouth line).

TQ791315

Private

Part of Georgian terrace in square off St.George's Road. Taken over when new as, first, shutter and later semaphore station and residence for telegraph superintendent.

Remaining Holyhead-Liverpool line station, Cefndu B 200 SH325898 (Gwynedd)

Private

At Craig-y-gwynt near Llanrhyddlad, Anglesey. Fine views W to Holyhead Mountain (station no longer exists), E to Point Lynas (see below)

Cooper's

(Surrey)

Elmbridge Council (Tenanted)

Reached from Claygate by Telegraph Lane or by wooded path from Manor Road South, off Kingston By-pass, Hinchley Wood

RiverHill (Binstead, Hants) I

36 West Square Southwark (London)

Point Lynas (Gwynedd)

·B

300

SH935479

Private

Overlooking sea above lighthouse E of Llaneilian. Fine views W towards Cefndu (see above), E towards Puffin Island (station ruinous).

Ilysfaen (Gwynedd)

470

SJ891774

Private

On hill behind Old Colwyn. Track from Semaphore Inn. Fine views W towards Gt.Orme (station no longer exists), E towards Voel Nant (see below)

Voel Nant (Prestatyn) (Clwyd)

300

SJ083829

Private

On hillside 1 mile E of Prestatyn. Reached by footpath from Prestatyn-Gronant road. Fine views W towards llysfaen (see above), E towards Hilbre (see below).

Hilbre Island (Cheshire)

SJ879185

Wirral Borough Council

On Great Hilbre at mouth of Dee. Reached on foot across sands from West Kirbyat low tide. Permission must be sought from Wirral Borough Council office, 6 Riverdale Road, West Kirby, Cheshire. Fine views W to Voel Nant (see above) and further along coast, E to Bidston Hill (station no longer exists ·but observatory marks approximate site)

• Each station bears a tablet inscribed ' ..... Telegraph. Built in 1841 by the trustees of the Liverpool Docks

LETTERS ..

Dear Sir, I read with interest the letter from Mick Sharp published in issue thirteen. He has obviously devoted much thought to the matter of Archaeolog and its general quality, and deserves a reply.

exposed, murky, confusing photographs. Is this because photography is left until the daylight or weather is to o poor to see to excavate? Even_in the most straightforward, technical 'record' shot, there is room for the aesthetic(= pleasing to the eye) rendering of tones and textures in photographs where the photographer can control the lighting (by selection). This is where the skill of the photographer comes in - selection of light, improvement of conditions (reflectors in dark corners etc.) and exposure/ development control of negative, so that the-very best print is possible.

The majority of the Committee and Members of our group would like to see Archaeolog achieve a higher standard in its production and content, and a resulting increase in its status; I think that over the period of its publication it has been improving steadily . Certainly a higher circulation would enable further progress to be made, and subjects at an advanced level could be given space relative to their importance Ken Osborne, and it is here where we come to the crux of the matter; ' London . money and the willingness of suitable people to write for the journal. Dear Sir It could be said that it is a 'chicken and egg' situation, no circulation increase without a higher content quality, and vice versa. This particular circle of confusion can be broken, when those who possess the qualities we need in our contributions start to submit material without waiting for someone else to first break the ice. There has been progress, and people of standing have written for the journal. More are needed particularly on the purely photographic aspect. The edit orial and production team contains people of the professional calibre whom Mr Sharp would like to see making contributions, but they can't do everything . The improved conten t can only be achieved by the action of readers who, unders tanding th e situat ion, respond by submitting art icles and pictu res which will uplift the standard. Others of high skill will thus be encouraged to follow their example, and lesser mortals will be inspired to improve their own work. Mr Sharp states that he is reluctant to submit work because, among other things, our photographic reproduction would not do justice to his pictures, which possess.great subtlety of tone, clarity and sharpness. Few journals have a really high score on this aspect , and we don't know how our general readership would respond to the great increase in cost which even a small improvement would demand. An increase in cover prices may do something for quality , but may also involve the journal in the law of diminishing returns. It may be that Mr Sharp can effect an immediate imp rovement by sending in some pictures, even our reproduction methods respond to originals of outstanding quality. Whatever its shortcomings, the journal provides valuable ~s between a scattered membership with widely differing interests and abilities. It will continue to do so only if it receives the full support of those who wish it well; Mr Sharp obviously does so, and I'm sure we can look forward to the first of his contributions before long. John Stubbington, Group Chairman, Saffron Walden. (The Chairman will not be disappointed - see Mr Sharp's contribution in this edition of Archaeolog. Ed:.)

... Dear Sir,

As a. photographer I disagree with Eric Houlder's view (Archaeolog 13, p.6) that 'Aesthetics have no place in archaeology'. Excavators seem to delight in taking under-

I was most interested to read P.A. Rahtz's article '50 Years of Cameras' in your December issue. One small point bothered me however . When was halfplate format photography taught at the Institute of Archaeology? Not for at least ten years I am quite sure . In fact the author's assurance sent me hot-foot to the equipment cupboard in the hope of finding a cache of unknown cameras. No such luck - I found only 5 x 4in, 6 x 9, 6 x 7, 6 x 6, 6 x 4 .5cm, and a toil-worn collection of 35mm bodies. There is even an obsolete aerial camera whic~ took the Sin film he mentioned , and a couple of beautiful brass-and-mahogany 5 x 4in Gandolfis which we are going to unload on to the antique market when things get desperate, but no half-plates. Incidentally , the article didn't mention what seems to me the greatest_advantage of wooden cameras; drop one down a trench and 1t can usually be mended with glue and wire. If you drop a modern large-format camera even a couole of feet it_will take months to repair, requiring the full:time att~nt1on of a team of space-engineers, and costing your entire budget for the year. Personally I would be delighted to get back to a half-plate, whole~plat~,,or ev~n 10 x 8in format . You can see what you are doing, 1t s possible to use really effective camera fl:lOVements,dust-spots on the negatives don't enlarge to the ~ize of ~olf-balls on the prints, and the negatives are almost 1mposs1bleto lose. But with 10 x Sin film costing more than 50 pence a sheet, and the University cuts being what they are, I don't think we'll get the chance. Peter G. Dorrell University of London Institute of Archaeology Dear Sir, In the August 1979 issue (No.10) ofArchaeolog . there was an article by Betty L. Naggar which mentions infra-red films. I should very much like to discuss with her a problem connected with a specific type 9f archaeological site and wonde{ed if you would forward this letter, or let me have her address to write . With many thanks, Beatrice Hopkinson, California, U.S.A. (Mission accomplished . Ed.)

COMMUNICATIONS

ANNUAL CONGRESS, BATH, 26-28

SEPTEMBER 1980

Plans for the Group's Annual Congress in September are taking shape on the following lines:Friday 26th: Visit to the stone mines near Corsham, starting at 2 p.m. and limited to the first 20 applicants. The approach to the shaft involves the descent (and ascent) of 200 steps at 1: 2 incline so that casual clothing, good shoes and sound health are necessary. Photography, including flash, will be permitted - indeed the owners are anxious to extend their archives so good quality 10" x 8" prints will be welcomed. Modern Sanson coal-cutting machines will be in action, and there will be a demonstration of old methods of stone extraction. There are also items of geological interest to be seen and some historic graffiti(!). Â§!i__!urdfq_ 27!]y It is hoped to arrange a visit to the Roman Baths excavation in the morning and possibly a canal trip in the afternoon. " ~'Âą...'!_d:f!yJ!!_th: lllustrated talk by Kenneth Hudson on the use of stone in the city, followed by a conducted tour of Bath. ENTER THE DATES IN YOUR DIARY NOW