Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T15:41:18.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Charting the effects of plough damage using metal-detected assemblages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 November 2010

D. Haldenby  and
Julian D. Richards
D. Haldenby
Affiliation:
Volunteer, Hull & East Riding Museum, 36 High Street, Hull, HU1 1NQ, UK
Julian D. Richards
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, University of York, King's Manor, York, YO1 7EP, UK (Email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many thousands of metal objects are retrieved from arable fields every year, by casual discovery or by treasure-seekers with metal-detectors. What is the status of this material? Here a senior archaeologist and a metal-detectorist get together to demonstrate scientifically the hostile context of the ploughsoil and the accelerating damage it is inflicting on the ancient material it contains. Their work raises some important questions about the ‘archive under the plough’: is it safer to leave the objects there, or to take advantage of a widespread hobby to locate and retrieve them?

Keywords

metal-detectingploughzoneAnglo-Saxon artefacts
Type
Method
Information
Antiquity , Volume 84 , Issue 326 , December 2010 , pp. 1151 - 1162
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barber, L. 1990. Metal detecting for archaeology. Unpublished BA dissertation, Institute of Archaeology, University College, London.Google Scholar
Biddle, M. 1990. Object and economy in medieval Winchester. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Boismier, W.A. 1997. Modelling the effects of tillage processes on artefact distributions in the ploughzone: a simulation study of tillage-induced pattern formation (British Archaeological Reports British series 259). Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
Chester-Kadwell, M. 2009. Early Anglo-Saxon communities in the landscape of Norfolk (British Archaeological Reports British series 481). Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
Crowther, D. 1981. Metal detectors at Maxey. Current Archaeology 77: 172–6.Google Scholar
Dobinson, C. & Denison, S.. 1995. Metal detecting and archaeology in England. London: English Heritage & Council for British Archaeology.Google Scholar
Evans, D.H. & Loveluck, C.. 2009. Life and economy at early medieval Flixborough, C. Ad 600–1000: the artefact evidence (Excavations at Flixborough 2). Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
Fjaestad, M., Nord, A.G. & Tronner, K.. 1997. The decay of archaeological copper-alloy artefacts in soil, in Macleod, I.D., Pennec, S.L. & Robbiola, L. (ed.) Metal 95, Proceedings of the International Conference on Metals Conservation: 32–5. London: James & James Science Publishers.Google Scholar
Garrett, C. 1991. Modern metal detectors. Dallas (TX): Ram.Google Scholar
Gerwin, W. & Baumhauser, R.. 2000. Effect of soil parameters on the corrosion of archaeological metal finds. Geoderma 96: 63–80.Google Scholar
Gregory, T. & Rogerson, A.J.G.. 1984. Metal– detecting in archaeological excavation. Antiquity 58: 179–84.Google Scholar
Haldenby, D. & Richards, J.D.. 2009. Settlement shift at Cottam, East Riding of Yorkshire, and the chronology of Anglo-Saxon copper-alloy pins. Medieval Archaeology 53: 309–315.Google Scholar
Harwood Long, W. 1969. A survey of the agriculture of Yorkshire (County Agricultural Surveys 6). London: Royal Agricultural Society of England.Google Scholar
Hinchliffe, J. & Schadla-Hall, T. (ed.). 1980. The past under the plough (Occasional Papers of the Directorate of Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings 3). London: Department of the Environment.Google Scholar
Hinton, D.A., 1996. The gold, silver and other non-ferrous alloy objects from Hamwic, and the non-ferrous metalworking evidence (Southampton Finds Volume 2/Southampton Archaeology Monograph 6). Stroud: Alan Sutton.Google Scholar
Lambrick, G. 1977. Archaeology and agriculture: a survey of modern cultivation methods and the problems of assessing plough damage to archaeological sites (Oxford Archaeological Unit Survey 4). London: Council for British Archaeology & Oxford Archaeological Unit.Google Scholar
Lambrick, G. 1980. The effects of modern cultivation equipment on archaeological sites, in Hinchliffe, J. & Schadla, T.-Hall (ed.) The past under the plough: 18–21. London: Department of the Environment.Google Scholar
Lambrick, G. 1984. Pitfalls and possibilities in Iron Age pottery studies: experiences in the Upper Thames Valley, in Cunliffe, B.W. & Miles, D. (ed.) Aspects of the Iron Age in central southern Britain (Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph 2): 162–77. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, Institute of Archaeology.Google Scholar
Lambrick, G. 2004. The management of archaeological sites in arable landscapes, in Nixon, T. (ed.) Preserving archaeological sites in situ? London: Museum of London Archaeological Service.Google Scholar
Leahy, K. 2000. Middle Anglo-Saxon metalwork from South Newbald and the ‘productive site’ phenomenon in Yorkshire, in Geake, H. & Kenny, J. (ed.) Early Deira: archaeological studies of the East Riding in the fourth to ninth centuries AD: 1–82. Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
Mclean, L. & Richardson, A.. 2007. Early Anglo-Saxon brooches in southern England: the contribution of the Portable Antiquities Scheme. Paper given at the Portable Antiquities Scheme conference, 17–18 April 2007, London.Google Scholar
Needham, S.P. & Spence, T.. 1996. Refuse and disposal at Area 16 East Runnymede, (Runnymede Bridge Research Excavations, Volume 2). London: British Museum Press.Google Scholar
Oxford Archaeology. 2006. Conservation of scheduled monuments in cultivation (DEFRA project No: BD1704). Available at: http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=12084# RelatedDocuments (accessed 19 August 2010).Google Scholar
Oxford Archaeology 2009. Nighthawks & nighthawking: damage to archaeological sites in the UK & Crown Dependencies caused by illegal searching and removal of antiquities. Available at: http://www.helm.org.uk/upload/pdf/NIGHTHAWKS2.pdf?1265982894 (accessed 19 August 2010).Google Scholar
Oxford Archaeology & Cranfield University. 2010 forthcoming. Trials to identify soil cultivation practices to minimise the impact on archaeological sites (DEFRA project No: BD1705) and Effects of arable cultivation on archaeology (EH Project number 3874). DEFRA & English Heritage due to be published at http://randd.defra.gov.uk.Google Scholar
Pestell, T. 2005. Using material culture to define holy space: the Bromholm Project, in Spicer, A. & Hamilton, S. (ed.) Defining the Holy: sacred space in medieval and early medieval Europe: 161–86. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Pollard, A.M., Wilson, A.S., Wilson, L., Hall, A.J., & Shiel, R.. 2004. Assessing the influence of agrochemicals on the rate of copper corrosion in the Vadose zone of arable land. Part 1: field experiment. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites 6: 363–75.Google Scholar
Reynolds, P. 1988. The ploughzone and prehistoric pottery. British Archaeology 12: 24–6.Google Scholar
Reynolds, P. 1989. Sherd movement in the ploughsoil. British Archaeology 13: 24–7.Google Scholar
Richards, J.D.et al. 1999. Cottam: an Anglian and Anglo-Scandinavian settlement on the Yorkshire Wolds. Archaeological Journal 156: 1–110.Google Scholar
Richards, J.D., Naylor, J. & Holas-Clark, C.. 2009. Anglo-Saxon landscape and economy: using portable antiquities to study Anglo-Saxon and Viking Age England. Internet Archaeology 25: http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue25/richards_index.html (accessed 19 August 2010).Google Scholar
Richards, J.D.et al. in prep. Cottam, Cowlam and environs: an Anglian estate on the Yorkshire Wolds.Google Scholar
Rogers, N.S.H. 1993. Anglian and other finds from Fishergate (The Archaeology of York 17/9). London: Council for British Archaeology.Google Scholar
Scharff, W. & Huesmann, I.A.. 1997. Accelerated decay of metal soil finds due to soil pollution: first report, in Macleod, I.D., Pennec, S.L. & Robbiola, L. (ed.) Metal 95, Proceedings of the International Conference on Metals Conservation: 17-20. London: James & James Science Publishers.Google Scholar
Schofield, A.J. (ed.) 1991. Interpreting artefact scatters: contributions to ploughzone archaeology (Oxbow Monographs in Archaeology 4). Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
Thomas, G. 2003. Late Anglo-Saxon and Viking-Age strap-ends 750-110. Part 1 (Finds Research Group Datasheet 32). Lincolnshire: Finds Research Group AD 700-1700.Google Scholar
Thomas, S. & Stone, P. (ed.). 2009. Metal detecting and archaeology. Woodbridge: Boydell.Google Scholar
Ullén, I, Nord, A.G., Fjaestad, M., Mattsson, E., Borg, G.Ch. & Tronner, K.. 2004. The degradation of archaeological bronzes underground: evidence from museum collections. Antiquity 78: 380–90.Google Scholar
Wagner, D., Dakoronia, F., Ferguson, C., Fischer, W.R., Hills, C., Kars, H. & Meijers, R.. 1997. Soil archive classification in terms of impacts of conservability of archaeological heritage, in Macleod, I.D., Pennec, S.L. & Robbiola, L. (ed.) Metal 95, Proceedings of the International Conference on Metals Conservation: 21–6. London: James & James Science Publishers.Google Scholar
Watt, M. 2006. Detector sites and settlement archaeology on Bornholm: a survey of ‘productive sites’ from the Iron Age and the Viking Age 1996–1999. Journal of Danish Archaeology 14: 139–67.Google Scholar