insitu (issue no 1, nov 2013)

InSituAn Edinburgh University Archaeology Society Publication

October/November 2013

1Issue 1 October/November 2013

Issue 1 October/November 2013

The Team in theTrenches

EditorAlex Westra

Co-Editor/LayoutEditor

Zack Higham

ContributorsDavid Blauvelt, Susie Dalton,Iona Diver, George Donaldson,

Alexandra Elliott, RachelFaulkner-Jones, Euan Foley,Tom Gardner, Zhen Guan, Ian

Hill, Oliver Lim, Marta Lorenzon,Ross McKeown, Maddie O'neill,Pablo Pozo, Matilde Skram, DCWheaton III, Sam Williamson,Ashleigh Wiseman, Alex Wood

Peer ReviewersDCWheaton

Rachel Faulkner-JonesTom GardnerDavid Blauvelt

IllustratorsKatie O'donnell, Zofia Guertin

N.B. All accompanying photographscourtesy of their respective article

authors unless otherwise stated

Cover: Two medievalskeletons from the chapelgraveyard site at thePoulton Project inChester.Courtesy Euan Foley,InSitu cover art contestwinner.

Above: A llamaundermines attempteddissemination andprotection of artefacts atthe famous Incan site ofMachu Pichu for the sakeof a drink.Courtesy Ross McKeown.

2www.archsoc.co.uk/insitu

Letter From the EditorWhat is InSitu?

A stage has been erected, in the 2nd floor of a building, past an alleyway, beyond the well-lit and bustlingstreetsof the figurativeSoho,orBroadway. It is brandnewandshiny, but somehow it feels like itwasalwayshere. There is no admission charge, and nearly everyone is welcome to see or perform. This is the usualstarting point of any new act in town. However, this stage (InSitu), will hopefully be full of a variety ofindividuals. From the illustrious to the amateur, from the professional to the hobbyist. This is how I seeInSitu. A meeting place for those who are archaeological. There is no profit, except for a handful of adsposted to keep this project running, and there is little prestige. Diatribes, monologues and outbursts,vehement exclamations and sober apologetics, results and ideas, interesting research and innovativemethods, that is what I hope will be the constitution of this journal.

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

It is a long road though, and perhaps this project will not reach full fruition in my days as Editor of thisjournal. However, I suspect that with the help of today’s mass media outlets that the journal’s readershipand contributors will grow exceedingly quickly. In truth, this has been a great start already and shows howmuchenthusiasm there is for this typeofpublication tobeavailable. There is always room for improvementand we will continue to move forward and improve. However, i hope this first cast will lure you in to ourjournal.

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

-Alex Westra

A word from the President of Archsoc

I had the idea for InSitu back in February after reading so many other student journals, so whycouldn’t EdinburghUniversity students have their own?After a roughpatchof thinking the journalwas never going to take off, we had a soar in article submission, and so many people interestedin becoming involved in the editorial team.

The society has also gone from strength to strength this year with membership reaching recordnumbers.Our first lecture onBioarchaeology boasted nearly 90 people, with ourworkshop seriesalso off to a great start. We’ve been inundated with socials, pub nights, themed flat parties andfield trips; we even got involved in an excavation during Fresher’s week allowing so many newstudents to come together andbondover dirt. As for the rest of the semesterwehavemany treatsplanned for students, postgraduates and staff in the form of Oktoberfest (read page 16 to hearabout Ian Hill’s work in Cyprus), a Halloween extravaganza, many more lectures, workshops andthe infamous Christmas meal. Similarly, next semester is going to be an exciting one with ourFieldwork and Information Fair, a fantastic line of workshops and lectures and, of course, manymore socials.

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

- Ashleigh Wiseman


Contents

Articles4 From Scotland with Love: The

Experience of An Exchange Student

in Edinburgh

by Pablo Camacho Pozo

19 A New Take On Souterrains

by George Donaldson

27. Amisfield Walled Garden

Project

by Euan Foley

Features7 From One Disaster to Another

by Oliver Lim

16 Ancient Alesby Ian Hill

21 Revealing the LanguageCapabilities of Plio-PleistoceneHominins

by Sam Williamson

29 The Role of V. Gordon Childein Neo-Evolutionary Theory inArchaeology

by DC Wheaton III

Regulars5Column

What lies Beneathby Alexandra Elliott

12The Student Context

The Yadlee Stone CircleProject: The Untapped Resource ofUndergraduate Archaeologists.

by Tom Gardner

25 Armchair Archaeology

Book Review by Marta LorenzonStandards of Archaeological

Excavation; A Fieldguide by G. J. Tassieand L. S. Owens

33 Watching Briefs: New andInterest

Interview with Stuart Rathboneby David Blauvelt

Recession-era Archaeologyby Rachael Faulkner-Jones

ArchSoc Aerial Photographyby Maddie O'Neill

St. Joseph's Seminary and Churchby Zhen Guan

Travels in Cappadociaby Ashleigh Wiseman

39 Letters from The Trenches

Tyler Mackie (Sedgeford)Matilde Skram (Cyprus)Susie Dalton (Turkey)Alex Wood (Edinburgh)Iona Diver (Romania)


“Are you sure you want to spend a whole year in the rainy and cold lands of Scotland?”

That was one of the most typical questions I was constantly asked when I chose Edinburgh as mydestination for a year of study abroad. My answer was clear: YES!

And time proved me right.

Leaving my small Andalusian town to study Medieval History in Madrid was a big challenge for me, butI ended up loving to live in a big city as the Spanish capital is. The next logical step was to continue mystudies in a different country. But why pick out Scotland? Why Edinburgh? Well, is there a better place inthis world to visit and enjoy Medieval and Early Modern heritage than in the legendary Alba? Surely not!And how about taking courses in Witchcraft, Celtic Civilisation or Chivalry and Warfare in MedievalScotland? Fantastic!

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

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

But there is one thing that surprised me above all about the University of Edinburgh, and that was theirstudent societies. The societies fair in freshers’ week just blew my mind - loads of societies about anypossible topic you could imagineall runby students and for students. I was stunnedbyhowwell everythingworked! And what can I say about EUSA’s buildings such as Teviot Row House? I was fascinated by theidea that being a student was so much more than learning for your future.

But a society enthralled my above all: Archaeology Society.

I first met the people fromArchsoc on the trip they organized to Gilmerton Cove, a series of undergroundhand-carved caves in Edinburgh. Not only was the trip very interesting, but also I had the opportunity ofmeeting a lot of people that shared common interests with me. After that I tried not to miss any eventsorganized by ArchSoc. Their lecture series was absorbing including Ice Age cave art by Dr. Paul Bahn, andDr. ZenaKamash’s lecture on Roman latrines. Themost diverse archaeological topicswere present in theirlectures, which always ended with some chatting and beers in the pub with the scholar. Field trips werealso organized throughout the year, and thanks to them I had the possibility to visit the Appleton Tower,Linlithgow Palace and the AntonineWall, guided by the world-recognized scholar David Breeze. We alsowent on a Rock Art hunt to Northumbria with Dr. Tertia Barnett and I had my first actual archaeologicaldigging experience inAmisfieldwalledgarden under theguidanceofDavidConnolly, who runs theBAJR.

But that was not all. The Archaeology Society does not only spend their time in academic matters. Quiznights, flat parties, pub crawls, and more are celebrated nearly every weekend (always archaeologicallythemed!). And that Christmas dinner was simply marvellous.

ArchSoc is above all fun, their members start as fellow students and end up as friends. I could not thinkwhen I first put a steponEdinburgh that a year later Iwouldbemissing it somuch.Thankyou foreverything!

- Pablo Camacho Pozo

PS: The sun also shines in Scotland!

From Scotland with Love: The experience of an exchangestudent in Edinburgh


The TheUniversity of Edinburgh is situated, as itsname implies, in the heart of the Scottish capitol.The campus is fragmented between two maincentres. One centre has its buildings huddledaround thehistoricGeorgeSquare, and theotheris situated on the fringes of the city at the King’sBuildings. Other campus buildings are randomlysprinkled throughout the closes and wynds thatgive Edinburgh its distinctive character, and thisoften surprises students who sometimes findthemselves asked to attend a lecture or sit anexam in a location they’ve never even heard ofbefore. The point here being; it is very difficult todefine where the University ends, and where thecityofEdinburghbegins. The twoare inextricablyconnected at the hip, and this goes doubly so forthe history and archaeology of Edinburgh whichhasa tendency tobleedonto,ormoreaccurately,under the various parts of campus.

In the past few years, construction projects onUniversity property have yielded up multipleopportunities for archaeological excavation.One excavation was eagerly anticipated by thecity’s archaeologists and historians for the fruitthe sitewouldundoubtedly yield.While theothertook everyone by surprise.

Perhaps the most famous excavation took placeat the beginning of the summer of 2013, whenthe grave of a medieval knight was foundunderneath a car park during the renovation ofthe old archaeology department building intothe new Edinburgh Centre for CarbonInnovation. This find sparked quite a lot of publicinterest, even being featured in someinternational media. This might be because thefind harkened back to another importantdiscovery made during the spring of the sameyear; that of the remains of Richard III under thecar park in Leicester.

The 13th century skeletonwas found fantasticallypreserved under a sandstone grave markerelaborately carved with the motifs of an ornatecross and a sword. This lavish decoration of thegravestone led the archaeologists fromHeadland Archaeology, the team whoconducted the excavation, to believe that theindividual buried there was a knight or noblemanof equal stature.

The fantastic preservation of the skeleton is nighon miraculous when one considers the fact thatthe site had been built over at least four timessince theburial of the individual.When the knight

by Alexandra Elliott

What Lies Beneath

Archaeology at the University ofEdinburgh


died sometime in the 13th century, he wasprobably buried in the churchyard of theBlackfriars’ monastery which had been foundedon the spot by King Alexander II in 1230, only tobe eventually destroyed during the ProtestantReformation in 1558. The exact location of thismonastery had been a mystery up until thediscovery of this grave. This site has also beenhome to the Royal High School in the 16thcentury, and then the Old High School in the18th, before it was eventually acquired by theUniversity of Edinburgh and coincidentally hadbeen used to house the archaeologydepartment.

Further excavations in the car park have foundeight additional skeletons to the original knight.It was theorized that this was the remains of afamily crypt. All of the skeleton have beenexhumed andmoved toHeadland’s laboratoriesfor study and preservation. They will beradiocarbon dated to pin point a clearer date forthe burials, as well as tested to prove thehypothesis of possible familial ties between theindividuals.

A few years prior to the discovery of the knightunder the car park, plans for a renovation of thequad at the Old College building meant thatarchaeologists got the chance to clear up someof the questions that public records and archivalresearch had left unanswered about thatparticular area. In 2010 Addyman Archaeology,one of Edinburgh’s contract archaeologicalteams, were called in to conduct the excavationonce construction confirmed that there wereartefacts of archaeological value at the site. Dueto the historic nature of the space the area waswell documented, so archaeologists had a goodideawhat structures hadbeenpresent on the siteat various periods.

A wide variety of remains were uncovered,including the foundations of Hamilton House,the 16th century home of the Duke ofChatelherault. Attached to this home along thenorthern edge of the quad, were the wallfootings of the 1642 Edinburgh UniversityLibrary. Heavy deposits of contaminatedmaterials, as well as glass and ceramic laboratoryapparatuses,were found in the lower levelsof thefoundations of the library. This may be the site of

a laboratory that can be associated with chemistJoseph Black, the Enlightenment chemist whodiscovered carbon dioxide. These laboratoryinstruments will be the subject of furtherpublications from Addyman.

Along the southern edge of the quad, severalbuildings associatedwith theCollegiateHospitalof St. Mary in the Fields were uncovered. Thesebuildings have possible connections to themurder of Mary Queen of Scots’ secondhusband, Lord Darnley, and therefore gainedquite a bit of public interest. Also discovered inthat area of the quad were outbuildingsassociated with the 13th century Kirk O’ Fields,along with the church’s cemetery. Sixty-sixinhumationswereexcavated fromthat cemetery,all dating back to the 13th century, and forty-fourwere exhumed for analysis and preservation.Large amounts of pottery, glass, and metalwork(mostly coins) were also discovered.

Due to the high-profile nature of some of thefinds, the excavation generated quite a bit ofpublic interest at the time. The informationalboards that were placed in the Quad at the timeof the excavation are still in place around theperimeter of the courtyard today, roughly threeyears after the excavations were completed.

People unfamiliar with archaeology are oftenshockedbyhowmuch there is tobe found in theirown hometown. Archaeology has a way ofsometimes making familiar places seem foreign,with all that it can teach us about the past. It issometimes hard to imagine that there is more tolearn about a street youwalkdowneveryday; butwhen you look at Edinburgh’s history and whenyou absorb the fact that the spaces that make upmodern Edinburgh have been inhabited in oneform or another since the Neolithic, it’s not hardto imagine that sometimes that huge amount ofhistory is going to break through the surface andmake itself known. As I stated at the start, theUniversity of Edinburgh is in the unique positionof being scattered throughout the heart ofEdinburgh’s most historic areas. So hopefully asthe University continues to grow, and strive toimprove itself, more and more previouslyunknown discoveries will be made; and if we’reall very lucky maybe we’ll be around to see thenext big thing to be pulled out of the ground.


From One Disasterto Another

How the Dust Veil Event of AD 536 probablycaused the Justinianic Plagueby Oliver Lim

T WAS THE YEAR AD 541 when anepidemic broke out in the Byzantine Empireand by AD 543 reached the capitalConstantinople (Keys 1999 and Horden2005). This epidemic would come to beknownas the Justinianic Plagueas it occurredduring the reign of the Emperor Justinian.The historian Procopius blamed Justinian’scruel ways during his reign for theplague andnamed it after him (Horden 2005). TheJustinianic Plague devastated communitiesthroughout theMediterraneanandEurope inthe sixth century AD. The historian John ofEphesus recorded his observations inConstantinople, writing that as many as‘16,000 of them departed [this world] in asingle day’ and that the ‘city stank withcorpses’ as burial places ran out (Keys1999:9). This plague left such a large impacton the Mediterranean world that scholarstoday have become interested in its causesand implications, many have written aboutthe Justinianic Plague (McNeill 1977, Keys1999, Stathakopoulos 2000, Sarris 2002 andHorden2005). Keys (1999), an environmentaldeterminist, believed that the JustinianicPlaguewas causebyamassivedust veil eventthatwas recorded inAD536. This article aimsto analyse evidence from historical,archaeological and palaeo-environmentalsources to show why the Justinianic Plaguemight have had a climatic origin and why theDust Veil Event of AD 536might have causedit.

To be able to understand whether the Dust

Veil Event of AD 536 caused the JustinianicPlague, onemust beable tounderstandwhatexactly it is, how it formed and what some ofits impacts are. Only then will we be able tounderstand if it had led to the JustinianicPlague.

Historian Procopius describes the eventwhen it arrived that ‘the sun gave forth itslight without brightness, like the moon,during this whole year, and it seemedexceedingly like the sun in eclipse, for thebeams it shed were not clear nor such as it isaccustomed to shed’ (Arjava 2005:79).Michael the Syrian, a Bishop wrote that the‘sun became dark and its darkness lasted forone and a half years … each day it shone forabout four hours, and still this light was onlya feeble shadow’ (Arjava 2005:78). From thehistorical sources, it seemed that the DustVeil Event of AD 536 was a huge dust cloudthat blanketed the sky, preventing the sunfromshiningclearly.Whatmight have causedthis dust cloud so big that it could cover thesky and darken the sun?

Keys (1999) and Arjava (2005) both believethat the dust cloud probably had an originfrom volcanoes or from outer space. Theydiscuss the fact that theDust Veil Event of AD536 might have been caused by a massivevolcanic eruption or from a comet impact.Rigby et al (2004) believes that the cause ofthe dust cloud was probably from a cometimpact. They believe that no volcaniceruption would be able to cause such a largecloud. Furthermore, as demonstrated later,

I


evidence fromaround theworld show that afterthe event of AD 536, there was a globaldecrease in temperature. No volcanic eruptioncould have been powerful enough to causethat. Moreover, data obtained from drilled upGreenland ice cores show that there was nosufficient acid layer during that period to showthat a large volcanic eruption had occurred(Arjava 2005). Hence, most evidence point tothe fact that the cause was most probably acomet impact. Rigby et al (2004) argues thatthe comet would have been destroyed in theairburst and ejected through aplume. Thedustwould have condensed and be deposited inthe atmosphere. It would have also causedlarge fires which would add dust to theatmosphere. This probably led to a blanketing

of the atmosphere as Procopius and Michaelthe Syrian had seen and led to a globaldecrease in temperatures.

Palaeo-environmental evidence fromtree ringstaken around the world point to a sudden dropin temperatures in theperiod immediately afterthe year of AD 536. Baillie (1991) givesevidence of this decrease in temperaturearound the period of AD 540 from anunfinished dugout canoe and bog oaks fromLoch Neagh, Ireland. After dating the woodpieces, Baillie (1999) concludes that theunfinished canoe was probably abandoned

during the event of AD536. The likely cause forthe abandonment was that the level of waterfrom the Loch rose and submerged the canoebefore itwas finished. FromFig1, it is observedthat the bog oaks displayed a dramaticdecrease in tree ring widths from the times ofAD 536 to 545. This hence shows a shortergrowing season for the oaks in that period oftime. Lower temperatures brought about fromthe dust cloud probably led to increasedprecipitation and a shorter growing season,hence causing the level of water in the Loch torise for the canoe to be abandoned. Equally itwould have resulted in the growth of the oakbogs tobe impeded, leading to thedecrease intree ring widths. This decrease of temperaturewas supported by other dendrochronological

evidence fromaround the NorthernHemisphere. Arjava(2005) noted that treering growth slowedfor ten yearsfollowing AD 536 inFinnish Pines,European Oaks andeven Foxtails fromNorth America (Fig2).

F u r t h e r m o r e ,evidence fromeastern centralSwedenconfirms thatthere was indeed ashort growing seasoncaused by a drop intemperatures andincreased rainfall in

the years followingAD536.Graslund and Price(2012) show evidence from excavatedsettlements in the Uppland Province inSweden. In Fig 3, it can be seen that there wasa dramatic decrease in the number ofsettlements in the Uppland Province.Settlements were abandoned during the mid-sixth century AD and the new settlements builtafter were in much smaller numbers and onhigher ground. Graslund and Price (2012)concluded that the Dust Veil Event of AD 536led to a colder summers and colder winters.Winters, which weremore humid and stormier,contributed to increase rainfall. This probably


led to not only future settlements being builton highgroundbut also to a collapseof the lowtech agrarian society in Sweden and hence theearlier settlement abandonment. Populationwould have also decrease leading to smallersettlements being built thereafter. Thus, theseexamples portray that the Dust Veil Event ofAD 536 led to a global decrease intemperatures.

How thenwould aglobal drop in temperatureshave caused a widespread epidemic? To

understand the connection, one must find outexactlywhatdisease thisplaguewasandwherewas its geographical origin. Narrowing downits place of origin would give us anunderstanding of how environmental factorsmight have caused it to start and how iteventually spread.

The historian Procopius describes thesymptoms of the plague in his historicalaccount. He recalls that victims would have a‘sudden fever … a bubonic swellingdeveloped; and this took place not only in the…“boubon”…but also inside the armpit’ andthat in some cases ‘the body broke out withblack pustules as large as a lentil’ (Horden2005:140). According to the description of thesymptoms of the Justinianic Plague scholarsconcluded that the disease was the bubonic

plague, Yersinia pestis (Keys 1999,Stathakopoulos 2000, Sarris 2002, Horden2005 and Graslund and Price 2012). Thedisease was similar to the one responsible forthe Black Death in Europe in the Middle Ages.It is a disease of fleas carried by rats whichinfected humans through its bite and wasfurther spread by person-to-person contact.Thiswas further confirmed fromDNAtestingofskeletal material from Southern Germany andFrance which was found to have been infectedby the Yersinia pestis plague in the mid-sixth

century AD (Graslund and Price 2012).Now that the disease has been

identified, the place of origin can befound.McNeill (1976), Keys (1999) andSarris (2002) identified contemporaryplaque basins where the disease isendemic to the rat population. Threebasins were identified, the Himalayas,Central Africa and the EurasianSteppe. Sarris (2002:170) excludes theEurasian Steppe as a basin due to‘chronological grounds’ andhence thisleaves the Himalayas and CentralAfrica. However, both Keys (1999) andSarris (2002) argues against the factthat the plague originated from theHimalayas as during the mid-sixthcentury AD, trading relations betweenChina and India were stronger thanbetween India and the Mediterraneanbut China did not record any infection

of the plague till half a century after theMediterranean did. Furthermore, the MiddleEastern power at the time, Persia succumbedto the disease quickly after the ByzantineEmpire. Hence (Keys 1999:18) concludes thatChina was most probably ‘infected from theMediterranean via the Middle East’. With thatso, Central Africawas left as themost probableorigin of the Justinianic Plague.

Central Africa would be a good geographicorigin for the plague as ivory tradewas thrivingin the Byzantine Empire and Horden(2005:153) believes that this trade via the RedSea brought ‘both seafarers and susceptibleMediterranean rats’. Both Keys (1999) andHorden (2005) believe that the coolertemperatures caused by the earlier dust veilevent expanded the perimeter of the plaguebasin eastwards towards the trading port


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

demonstrates how the plaguewould have spread up from Africaand towards the city ofConstantinople from Egypt wheretheplaguewas first recorded in theByzantine Empire in AD 541.

These lower temperatures alsofacilitated the growth of rats andthe spread of the plague in theM e d i t e r r a n e a n .Dendrochronological seriescollected from pilings recoveredfrom the excavations of the‘Theodosian harbour’ at Yenikapi,Istanbul show a steady tree-ringgrowth pattern in Fig 5 (Pearson etal 2002). These patterns point thataround the time of the Dust VeilEvent of AD 536, vegetationgrowth increased. This would alsosupport Arjava’s (2005:92)argument that the archaeologicaland inscriptional evidence hescrutinized did not help inassessing ‘the consequences ofpossible crop failure around 536’.Climate in the Mediterranean isusually hot and dry and lowertemperatures and rainfall brought

about by the Dust Veil Event of AD 536 led toan increase in food from vegetation growth

and hence a population explosion ofrodents. This climate anomaly hencewould have easily facilitated thespread of the Justinianic Plague inConstantinople and throughout theMediterranean.

It can be seen how the Dust VeilEvent of AD 536 would have led tothe onset of the Justinianic Plague inAD 541. The change in climate andenvironment would have caused thedisease to spread from Africa to theMediterranean and subsequently toEurope, the Middle East andeventually to China. The dust cloudhad caused decreasingtemperatures and increased rainfallin regions experiencing warm, dry


climates. Thiswould cause thedisease to thriveand the rat population to boom and its spreadfacilitated by trade between Africa and theByzantine Empire.

I disagreewithArjava’s (2005) conclusionwhenscrutinizing papyrological, archaeological andinscriptional evidence that it is hard to definethe nature of the dust cloud and that it wasunlikely to adversely affect the ByzantineEmpire. After researching thepalaeoenvironmental, textual and historicalevidences for the causes and consequences ofboth the Dust Veil Event of AD 536 and theJustinianic Plague, I would to a certain extentagree with Keys’ (1999) explanation that theremight be a link between the two events andthat the consequence of the dust cloud wasprobably the plague. However, I do agreewithStathakopoulos (2000:276) who claims thatKeys’ (1999) argument that the Dust Veil Eventof AD 536 could have caused the JustinianicPlague is a ’monocausal explanation ofhistorical causation that does not do justice tothe complex it appears to discuss’. The linkagebetween the two events seems too simplisticand coincidental. He also argues thatKeys’ (1999) model ‘cannot explain why theplaguebrokeout themoment it did; it providesa possible explanation, but not a certain one,as it concentrates on only oneparticular aspectof historical causation and leaves out manyothers’ (2000:276). There is also not enough

scientific evidenceavailable today to showhow climate calamitiesmight have led to hugeepidemics. Althoughthere is a possibility thatthe Dust Veil Event of AD536 could have caused theJustinianic Plague – asshown in the essay – morespecific and crucialevidence is needed tostrengthen Keys’ (1999)argument.

ReferencesArjava A. (2005) The Mystery Cloud of 536 CE in theMediterranean Sources, Dumbarton Oak Papers, 59:73-94

Baillie M. G. L. (1991) Marking in Marker Dates: Towardsan Archaeology with Historical Precision, WorldArchaeology 23 (2): 233-243

Graslund B. and Price N. (2012) Twilight of the gods? The‘dust veil event’ of AD 536 in critical perspective,Antiquity, 86: 428-443

Horden P. (2005) Mediterranean Plague in the Age ofJustinian, In: MassM. (eds) The Cambridge Companion tothe Age of Justinian, 134-160, New York: CambridgeUniversity Press

Keys D. (1999) Catastrophe: An Investigation into theOrigins of the Modern World, London: CenturyMcNeill W. H. (1977) Plagues and People, New York:Anchor Press

Pearson C. L., Griggs C. B., Kuniholm P. I., Brewer P. W.,Wazny T. and Canady L. (2012) Dendroarchaeology of themid-first millennium AD in Constantinople, Journal ofArchaeological Science, 39: 3402-3414

Sarris P. (2002) The Justinianic Plague: Origins andEffects, Community and Change 17 (2): 169-182Stathakopoulos D. (2000) The Justinianic PlagueRevisited, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 24:256-276

Rigby E., Symonds M. and Ward-Thompson D. (2004) Acomet impact in AD536? Astronomy and Geophysics, 45(1): 1.23-1.26


The Student Context: YourPerspectives on Archaeological

Issues

The Yadlee Stone Circ le Project: The UntappedResource of Undergraduate Archaeologists.

by Tom Gardner, Co-Director Yadlee Stone Circle Project

HE YADLEE STONECIRCLE PROJECT was arecent project conducted by four Undergraduatesof Edinburgh University in the Lammermuir Hills,South East Scotland. The Project aimed to analysethe purpose of Yadlee Stone Circle and itssurrounding landscape, the relationship betweensite and landscape, and any connection with solarevents. This site has been preliminary dated as LateNeolithic to Early Bronze Age. The circle sits in a

hollow surrounded by a ridge of land varyingbetween290-361mabove sea level. This creates theperfect landscape environment for the observation

o f

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

The initial purpose of the project was twofold;obviously the first aim was to gather, analyse andpresent information regardinga little studiedareaofthe Scottish Borders. The second aim was more

abstract, but also more rewarding. It was to provethat students and other ‘non-professionals’ could,with minimal budget and supervision, make a validcontribution to the archaeological record.Essentially this work fell into a category, which maybe classed as ‘guerrilla archaeology’.

TomGardner&

Alex

Wood

undertakingpanoram

icphotography

from

SpartletonHillin

ordertoinvestigate

anylandscape

correlationswith

YadleeStone

Circle.

T


Equally, as we worked through the project a thirdaim arose; this was to train ourselves as students, toconceptualise and carry out the whole process of anarchaeological process. This is something which

very few students have realised they can do. As astudent in archaeology, one is often involved in onlyoneor twophasesof theprocess in aproject (phases2 and 3 illustrated below). These are the primarydata collection (phase 2), and the interpretation ofresults (phase3). Students are almost never involvedin the actual development of a project from thebeginning, or the dissemination of results (phases 1and 4). Thus ‘The Yadlee Stone Circle Project’trained us in, and enabled us to take part in all theseexperiences, which would otherwise have beendenied.

Below are the phases of our investigation at Yadlee

Stone Circle, and some of our findings. It is valuableto read this in the mind of a student, and considerthe activities, which are unfortunately alien to mostof us. Following this will be a discussion of the

findings and a summaryof the values andempowering nature ofan outlook such as thisfor amateur and studentarchaeologists. Theauthor and hiscolleagues are keen toprove that students canprovide a viable andvaluable contribution tothe publishedarchaeological recordthrough projects such asthis, and to enablestudents to take thisinitiative themselves.

Phase One – Initialplanning and Research

Working in the ‘Royal Commission for Ancient andHistoric Monuments: Scotland’ the team gathereddata of previouswork on the landscape surroundingYadlee, including cartographic sources, amateurinvestigations, CANMORE and a report by CFA forthe construction of ‘Crystal Rig’ wind-farm.Wewereable to establish an approach to our field survey(Phase two) based on constructing a topographicplan of the Stone Circle and as such, subsequentlyimplementing a targeted landscape survey of thesurrounding horizon.

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

(Viewshed analysis of the area from Yadlee StoneCircle

[Yellow]to

SpartletonHill[Blue]).

Land

scap

eProfile

from

Yadlee

Stone Circle [Yellow] to Spartleton Hill [Blue].


of the area, the visibility of peaks and valleys, whichcould be associated with contemporaryarchaeological remains and solar events were afocus. This targeted survey, Tailored to our researchhypothesis, allowed us to focus our limited time onsite to gain profitable conclusions. This of course isjust one angle of research on the area, and as suchdoes not offer completeconclusions as to otherresearchquestions, whichwerenot tackled.

Phase Two – Field Survey andData Collection

This phase began in March2013 with the identification ofall 25 stones in the stone circleitself, a sketch plan, field-walking of the immediate area,and the beginning of targetedlandscape survey;investigating the potentially related site of ‘WitchesCairn’ (NT 66451 67239). Subsequent surveymanaged to find a possible connection between thecircle and Spartleton Hill (shown above NT 65326554) where an alignment of 192.5 degreesmay linkthe circle and the summit of SpartletonHill with solarevents. The survey itself lasted three non-consecutive days in which our targeted surveycovered a collection of 6-7 likely areas, and selected4 of them for further study; the full list of these willappear in our subsequent publication (Gardner,Westra, Wood, Vogelaar; in press). The locations ofthese, however, appear below.

It should be noted that the areas of potentialsignificance lie mainly at the compass points ofWest, South and East. These are associated withsolar movements, especially that of the solstice/equinox sun. The SW point is more tenuous and isstill under debate within the project.

Phase Three – Interpretation

We began to interpret the first of our data fromYadlee Stone Circle, and found several potentialalignments between features of the stone circle,landscape features on the horizon, andsubsequently significant solar motions. Although itis still early in our interpretation we are confident tostate that our current hypothesis argues that theyimply a connection between the site and seasonal

solarmovements. Thismay in turn imply that the truefunction of the site is to reinforce decisions aboutagricultural timing, on a religious or purelyfunctional level. The outcome of our interpretationis, as one must bear in mind, only one third of thedesired outcome of the full process as will behighlighted below.

Phase Four – Dissemination of results

This phase continues throughout the process of theproject, by the updating of the project blog. Afterthe completion of phases two and three, thedissemination of results included several lecturesaround Britain, visits into schools in the Edinburghand Haddington areas, the entry of data intoCANMORE, publication in local and studentjournals, and the publication of a report.

Project Outcomes

Our preliminary interpretation of the landscape andthe sites around suggest that there is a complexnetwork of topographic and archaeological featureswhich correlate with alignments and solar cycles,thus making Yadlee Stone Circle a site of regionalimportance for Bronze Age agricultural timing, andpotentially a facet of a ritual landscape. Thatalignments within the stone circle itself correspondto those in the landscape, and that these landscapefeatures subsequently have archaeological remainson them (usually cairns) which could becontemporary, indicates that Yadlee is situatedwithin an intentionally constructed landscape. Asthese findings are up for debate, we intend to headback into the field in future to test some of ourhypotheses. This study does, however, throw a lighton an area of Scotland, which has undergone littlearchaeological investigation.

Viewshed overlaid onto topography of studied area. Yadlee Stone Circle [Yellow] and sites of significance [Blue])


The archaeological interpretation of our results was,as stated above, only one of the objectives of theproject’s study. The other two objectives were farmore worthwhile in terms of experience andempowerment; providing those who undertook theproject with experience in project conception,management, and the dissemination of results, andproving that students and other amateurarchaeologists canmake a viable contribution to thestudied archaeological record.

‘Full-Project’ Experience

Aswasmentioned in the introduction, as a studentone is often denied the opportunity to take part intwo out of the four phases of a project’s lifespan.These are arguably the most important as they startand finish the process (conception anddissemination) andas suchnothing canexistwithoutthem. Part of the purpose of ‘The Yadlee StoneCircle Project’ was to train ourselves (perhapsselfishly) in these two hidden aspects. Friend of theproject, and our constant guide Mr David Connollyof BAJR highlighted the importance of this to us. Hepointed out that as soon as we left the cushionedworld of student archaeology we would beexpected to carry out these two phases, and that toget ahead would provide us with valuableexperience. Notmuch else can testify to the successof this for those involvedother than that allmembersof the project are now involved in the running ofother projects, some with even grander aims andachievements than those at Yadlee. The skill setsthose involved gained by participating in thisprocess were immediately applicable to a variety ofotherprojects andbenefitedboth the individual andthe group immensely.

This subsequentlymoves neatly into the third aimoftheproject, to prove that students canmake a viableaddition to the written archaeological record. Byundertaking a project like this, the individualsinvolved benefitted personally and provided anarchaeological insight, albeit narrow, into a littlestudied area. In doing so, as I hope all aboveproves,they made a complimentary addition to thearchaeological record based on hard primaryevidence while still being undergraduate students.

Student Archaeology as a Valuable Resource

If one could mentally quantify the number ofundergraduate archaeology students in the UK

currently studying and imagine that every four ofthese individuals established and then ran a shortterm (3 weeks of work approximately) project like‘TheYadleeStoneCircleProject’, then the truevalueof this untapped resource becomes truly apparent.The number of small projects available in modernBritish archaeology seems almost unassailable, andmost professional graduate archaeologists wouldnot see the value in undertaking such a small-scaleinvestigation for little academic or financial merit.However, undergraduate students need to trainthemselves for the tasks they will be expected to doupon their entrance into archaeologyproper, and assuch should not be concerned with financial re-numeration or academic credit.

We therefore have an issue. The number of smallscale projects being overlooked by professionalarchaeologists, and a resource capable of nullifyingsaid issue, the untapped undergraduate studentbody.Weevenhaveamotivation for this resourceashighlighted above, the self-improvement inpreparation for graduation. All that is needed tounlock this valuable resource is for undergraduatestudents to realise that they can make a valuableaddition, and subsequently can learn valuable skillsfor their future employment in archaeology. Itshould be the priority therefore, as it is of this articleand study, to prove to undergraduate individualsthat they can be a part of this movement, as thereseems to be no drawback at this stage.

The Yadlee StoneCircle Project had three aims, andit is hoped that this article proved the success of allthree. Although not groundbreaking, thearchaeological findings of the project highlightedan interesting development in a previouslyunderstudied area of the Scottish Borders. Theimplementation of the project trained fourundergraduate students in the full corpus of skillsinvolved in constructing and carrying outarchaeological investigations on a small scale. Thissubsequently has been used above as a case studyfor which to argue for the importance of theundergraduate archaeological body as a resourceforgatheringdata, againona smaller scale. Theonlyshortcoming is that this third aim is not yet widelyknown, which is the purpose of this article and thosethat will hopefully follow it.

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


Ancient AlesIan Hill Investigates The Brews ofBronze Age Cyprus

NTHESUMMERSOF 2012AND2013HARPran an Experimental Archaeology Field School inthe village of Kissonerga, Cyprus. The FieldSchools recreated an installation that was likelyused for beerproduction in theMiddleBronzeAge.The original structure has been excavated as partof a research excavation run by Dr. Lindy Crewe oftheUniversity ofManchester since2007. The site ofKissonerga-Skalia is an Early-Middle Cypriotsettlement, abandoned at the beginning of theLate Cypriot period. Excavations have revealed aseries of domestic dwellings that were supersededby a phase of monumental construction. Thevillage of Kissonerga is incredibly rich inarchaeological siteswith someof theworld’s oldestNeolithic wells, the Chalcolithic settlement ofKissonerga-Mosphillia, as well as the settlement ofSkalia.

The installation uncovered at Skalia is believed tobe amalting anddrying kiln. It was constructed outof mud plaster and would have originally had adomed roof. The structure contained a series ofpot-lined pits and a sunken fire pit that would haveheated themainchamberof the structure. Theheatacquired within the main chamber is believed tohave been adequate to malt grains prior to usingthem tomake beer. During beer production grainsare germinated in order to help ‘soften’ thestarches within the grain so that they can beconverted into sugars, which are ultimatelyconverted into alcohol during fermentation. Thegerminated grains are heated in order to halt the

germination process, this is known as malting. Theresulting malted grains are added to water andheated to make a 'mash', this is where the starchmolecules, softened during the germinationprocess, are converted into sugars. This creates asticky viscous liquid known as wort, which is thenfermented to create beer.

Using experimental building techniques two kilnshave been built in 2012 and 2013. The first kiln,constructed in 2012 replicated the installation to aworking level in order to test its functionality andsuitability for malting grain. The installation wasbuilt with a domed roof, a large entrance and asunken pit near the entrance to house a large pot,usedas the fireboxof thekiln. The theorybeing thatheat generated from the fire would rise andcirculate around the dome, with the most intenseheat remaining within the pot. Covering theentrance to the installation with temporary doors,and building a chimney into the domed roof couldfurther control the temperatures and airflow withinthe dome.

The installation was built from mud, with stonesmixed in to help bind the mixture together. Thedomed roof was built onto a lattice-work framemade from olive tree branches to provide support.The original installation at Skalia does not showevidence of a lattice frame, however, our mainpurpose was to test the functionality of theinstallation, and the feasibility of it being used as adryingormalting kiln. Theuseof the frameallowed

I


us to complete the installation in the time that wehad and still produce an accurate representationof the original installation, as the frame did notaffect the function of the kiln.

Once the installation was built a fire was made inthe bottom of the large storage pot to test thedrying capabilities of the kiln. Temperaturereadings were taken at various points within thedome. With an outside air temperature of around38 degrees Celsius, it was found that once the firehad been lit, the temperature at ground levelwithin the installation was raised to between 50and 60 degrees Celsius. This temperatureremainedconstantwhilst the firewasburning, andis within the temperature range for the initialphases of malting. Towards the top of the domehowever there was a significant increase in thetemperature, which reached up to 200 degreesCelsius, but on average was around 150 degreesCelsius. The different temperatures within thedomewouldbe suitable for creatingdifferent typesof malt, depending on where the grain waspositioned within it.

The second kiln was constructed in 2013 in a similarfashion as the first kiln, however for the second kilnno latticeworkwasbuilt to support the roof, the roofwas constructed out of a mud mixture obtainedlocally. The source of the material was the samethat has been used by local villagers to constructtraditional village ovens in the area. The Mud had

a higher claycontent and whenmixed with waterand chaff created astrong andmalleable materialthat could bemanipulated easily.The material wasbuilt up in stagesusing ever-decreasing coilsbent inwards inorder to create thedome. Thistechnique tooklonger than thelattice framebuilt in2012 as enoughtime had to be leftbetween the laying

of the coils in order to allow them to dry, however,the second kiln likely forms a more accuraterepresentation of the original installation. Thesecond kiln was slightly taller than the first and roseto a height of 1.4m. Once the grains had beenplaced in thechamberof thekilnhalf of theopeningto the kiln was closed up using fired mud bricks,helping to seal the kiln, but still be removablewithout damaging the main body of the kilnfollowing the malting process. The right hand sideof the opening was left open in order to allowaccess to the buried pithos (fire box), as with the2012 kiln this was covered over with temporary


doors during the malting process. A fire was againlit within thepithos and thedoors placed inorder tocontain the heat within the dome. Thetemperatures were again tested at various pointsinside the kiln,with an average temperature at floorlevel of 50-55 degrees Celsius, with temperaturesat the top of the dome reaching 140 degreesCelsius. The temperatures at the top were slightlylower than in the first kiln, however this is likely dueto a taller kiln, and ultimately larger chamber toheat up.

Both reconstructedkilns showed temperatures thatwould be suitable for malting grains furthersupporting the theory that the original installationat Skaliawasused for beerproduction. Theoriginalinstallation may also have been used for otherpurposes such as drying fruit or even cooking.

Alongwith the reconstruction of the kiln, a series ofexperiments were carried out in order to try toproduce beer in a similar way to how it would havebeen produced during the Bronze Age, usingingredients that would have been available at thetime (and fruits that there is evidence for at Skalia).Large batches of barley were germinated andmalted using sun drying (possible in the summermonths due to the high temperatures), andmaltingin the kilns, before different strengths ofmashwereproduced and fermented using different strains ofyeast. A control batch was fermented usingmodern brewers yeast and compared to batches

fermented using wild grapes and wild figs, whichboth have strains of wild yeast cultures growing ontheir skins.

The resulting beers were very different to the beerthat we are accustomed to today, some of thebatches had a slight acidic taste to them, which ismore than likely due to the wild yeasts used toproduce them. Brewers yeast has been developedover the years in order to have a well-controlledstrain of yeast suitable for producing alcohol,however, the strains available back in the BronzeAge may not have been so reliable. Wild yeastscannot be as 'controlled' as modern brewers yeastand can produce differing results. Whilst some ofthe beers produced had an acquired taste, the2012 fig beers were a hit, and with a little tweakingto the recipe itmaywell prove to be an appropriatesession ale! A third season is planned for 2013where a further kiln will be constructed to furthertest building techniques, and a new series of beerswill be brewed.

Further Reading

Damerow, P. (2012) Sumerian beer: the origins of brewingtechnology in ancient Mesopotamia. Cuneiform Digital LibraryJournal 2012.2, 1–20.

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


OUTERRAINS ARE UNDEGROUNDMAN-MADE CHAMBERS that vary in shape andsize; they canbe found inBrittany,Cornwall, IrelandandScotland,whichwould suggest a connection tothe Celtic world. In Scotland they are also known as‘Weems’ and ‘Earth houses’.

These underground structures have been datedfrom the Iron Age to the time of the Romans inScotland. They were constructed by digging adeep broad curved trench into the subsoil at a highpoint in the landscape. The trenches would mostlyhave been lined with walls of stone that corbelledinwards to support a roof of sandstone slabs, withthe cast from the trench utilised to cover the wholestructure.

Many of the souterrains in Angus were partly builtfrom glacial debris, which would have beengathered from the surrounding area, suggestingthat the landhadnot yetbeen, orwas in theprocessof being cleared for agriculture. The sandstoneslabs on the roofs, and large square blocks at theentrances of some souterrains would also suggestthat there was quarrying and transporting of stoneat this time.

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

downpours; however, theatmospheric conditions insidethem would have beenanything but dry as moisturewould have been drawn inthrough the stone walls fromthe surrounding subsoil.

It is still the subject of muchdebate exactly what purposesouterrains served. Places forkeeping livestock, refuges intimes of strife, sites of ritualactivity, larders for storing dairyand meat foodstuffs, andgranaries for the Roman armyhave all been suggested in thepast and there does seem to bea link to the food chain, as theyall seem to be located in areasof good agricultural land.

To take the first suggestion, the archaeologicalrecord at Carlungie souterrain reveals that it hadindeed been a place for keeping livestock, but thisevidence also shows that this occurred at a laterdate, when stone from the original building wasreused to construct a livestock shelter. In theiroriginal forms, souterrains would also have hadmany features unfriendly to domestic animals andthe people who had to tend to them; dark anddamp interiors, the problems of bedding andmucking out a long narrow passage and the smalldownward sloping entrance that would have beenimpossible for animals to negotiate, would surelydismiss them as places for housing livestock.

The second suggestion that they were places ofrefuge at times of strife is also contentious, as themound that would have covered the souterrainwould have been highly visible to attackers, turningthem into potential death traps.

The third suggestion that souterrains had todowithancient religious beliefs is also problematic. Theearly Celtic religion of Britain revolved aroundDruidism, whose rituals took place in secludedsacredgroves andwhosebeliefs were rooted in thenatural world around them. It would therefore behighly unlikely that something as artificial as asouterrain was a place of worship.

A New Take OnSouterrainsGeorge Donaldson sheds some newlight on these enigmatic ancientstructures

Inside

oftheSouterrainatClaigan,SkyeCourtesy:The

Skye guide

S


It is fairly obvious that souterrains were built withsecurity in mind, as there does seem to be ahorizontal beam slot for securing the entrance inmany of them: so whatever the function ofsouterrains theymust havehad someconnection tothewealthof thosewhoused them.This thenwouldsurely suggest that they must have had somethingto do with the food supply chain of our earlyancestors, who were farming the good agriculturalland where souterrains are usually to be found.

The suggestion that they were food stores for theRoman army would then have some credibility if itwas not for the fact that they were built before anyRoman army entered Scotland. However, themostcommon pottery finds associated with souterrainsdo appear to be Roman, with sherds of amphoraebeing the most numerous. Could it then be thatgrain,meat anddairyproductswerebeing stored insouterrains to be sold to Roman merchants whowere trading with Scotland earlier than any Romanmilitary invasion? The amphorae that would havecontained wine and oil to be traded for corn couldhave been used to keep the corn dry inside thedamp souterrain during the time of storage. Butwhy store grain underground when it would keepequallywell unthreshed ina stackuntil such timesasa merchant bought it? It would also be verydoubtful if meat butter and cheese would havesurvived being stored for even a short time in thedamp conditions inside a souterrain. It wouldcertainly have made good economic sense to fillthe amphorae with corn for their return journey ona Romanmerchant ship, and there can be no doubtabout a Roman connection with souterrains.However, the large amounts of these undergroundchambers, the remoteness of some of them, andthe conditions inside them, must rule them out asgrain or food stores.

The finding of Romanpottery in East Scotlanddoestell us that there was a time when a certain amountof trade must have been taking place between theCelts of Scotland and the merchants of the RomanEmpire. So what trading commodity couldsouterrains be used for if not foodstuffs? Couldslaves be the answer? The growing of cereals morethan 2,000 years ago would certainly have beenlabour intensive and both the Roman Empire andthe Celtic world were renowned for their use ofslave labour and the trading of slaves.

Slaves who would have been kept in souterrainsmust have been those who had limitations as towhat work they could do; they certainly could notbe given scythes or sickles which might be used asweapons against their oppressors. Souterrain classslaves could however have been used as analternative to draught animals to draw some of theploughs andheavy carts of the agricultural industry.Possibly the profits that could bemade from sellingcorn to Roman merchants had driven early farmersinto cereal production to such an extent that toolittle pasture remained to support and breedenough oxen to do all this draught work.Souterrains could then have been the places whereslaves were kept at night, and they would havebeen of a size to contain enough slaves to make upat least one team for hauling a heavy cart or largewooden plough.

The concept of keeping slaves underground couldhave been adopted from the Roman practice ofplacing their most dangerous offenders insubterraneanprisons. Thesewouldbe the criminalscondemned to a life of slavery by the law courts ofRome; most would be sold to slave traders afterbeing sentenced, who would then sell them on tothe agricultural, quarrying and mining industries.These criminal slaves would have beenpermanently securedwith chains, unlike thoseborninto the slave class, who accepted their lowlyposition without question and would have beenallowed a certain amount of freedom by theirmasters. It would be highly likely then, thatsouterrain class slaves were also dangerousindividuals who had to be chained while working.

Souterrains served their communities well formanyyears, and the archaeological evidence from thefew that have been excavated suggests that theysurvived the first Roman military invasion ofAgricola in AD79/80. The same archaeologicalevidence also shows that many were deliberatelydismantled and backfilled by the second half of thesecond century AD, the time when the AntonineWall was built and then shortly afterwardsabandoned.

Livestock shelters, refuges, temples, grain stores,slave containment - whatever function souterrainsserved and whatever fate befell them, it cannot bedenied that they played amajor role in the lives anddeaths of many people two thousand years ago.


Revealing the LanguageCapabilities of Plio-PleistoceneHominins

Sam Williamson delves into themysteries of communicationamong our distant ancestors

THE SEARCH FOR LANGUAGE in earlyhominins is ‘one of the most critical questionsposed by the whole of current research on thearchaic/modern-human transition andinevitably the most difficult to approach fromthe archaeological record.’ (Mellars 1989:363). Writing is the earliest direct evidence forlanguage-possession – a tangible proof oftransmitted abstract thoughts that can beunderstood through time and space, but thisinnovation occurs a mere six-thousand yearsago (Postgate 1992: 22), whilst anatomicallymodern humans appear at least 300,000 yearsago (Lewin & Foley 2004: 466 ). A vast range ofevidence is available for interpretation, andthereby application to language theories –from fossilised skeletal remains, biological and

linguistic theory, and cognitive behaviourassociatedwith tool andartmanufacture.All ofthese contribute to our understanding of earlyhominin language capabilities. However,these kinds of evidence are of a fragile nature,and many of the different theories andassertions are debated and contested.

Fossil evidence for language is not alwayseasy to ascertain. The vocal tract andassociated structures, such as the larynx andpharynx, are soft-tissued and cartilaginous inconstitution and, unlike bone, do not fossilise.Important bones such as the hyoid arefrequently lost in the archaeological recorddespite fossilisation (Laitman, Heimbuch andCrelin 1979: 15). Despite these difficulties,attempts have been made to link fossilisedremains to language capabilities, some with


more success than others.Broca’s and Wernicke’s areas, traceablethrough studying the inside surfaceof the skull,are areas of the brain that have been linkedrespectively to the production of sound andthe perception of sound (Lewin & Foley2004 :465). Neville and colleagues found thatnot only were Broca’s and Wernicke’s areasactivated in the users of vocal communication,but also in users of signed communication(Neville et al. 1998). Furthermore, theyconclude that the activation of these areas isdependent on ‘the early acquisition of a fullygrammatical, natural language’ (1998: 928).The earliest evidence we have for both areasare in endocasts fromHomo rudolfensis (Lewin& Foley 2004: 465), which suggests there iscapacity for language in early Homo, but not inaustralopithecines, forwhich there isonly slightevidence for Broca’s area, but not Wernicke’s(Tobias 1998:74).Thus, despite a lack of fossilevidence for vocal language in early Homo, wecan postulate that a fully-grammatical gesturallanguagemayhavebeenemployed, at leastbythe time of Homo habilis.As the larynx and pharynx are not themselvespreserved in fossils, inferences on theirlocations are draw from skeletal indicators,which areopen tomisinterpretation, as shall bediscussed later on. Basicranium flexion isthought to reflect the location of the larynx andpharynx, and studies have shown that earlyhominin basicranium flexion would haveresulted in respiratory systems similar tomodern primates, and the range and types ofsounds made by the earlier hominins wouldhave been similar in sound and range to these(Laitman & Heimbuch 1982).The supralaryngeal vocal tract (SVT) is a flexibletract composed of the horizontal (SVTh) oraland vertical (SVTv) pharyngeal cavities. Inmodern adult humans, the cavities are ofrelatively equal length and lie at a 90° angle toone another. The 1:1 SVT proportion allows agreater space in which sounds can bemanipulated by other speech apparatus (lips,tongue, larynx, etc.), and this is necessary forthe production of the vowels ‘a’, ‘i’ and ‘u’,

which in turn allows for a greater variety ofsounds and thereby a better ability tocommunicate (Lieberman andMcCarthy 2007:18). Hominin fossils have been examined in aneffort to gauge the range of possible sounds,and to infer speech capabilities.Australopithecines have been found to have amore obtuse angle of SVT, and adisproportionately short SVTv– similar to thoseof modern apes – which limits their produciblesound range (Lieberman 1979, 101).Lieberman and McCarthy (2007: 19) studied aHomo erectus individual, dating to 1.6mya,and while the entire SVT could not bedetermined due to a lack of cervical vertebrae,it was evident that the SVTh would be too longfor a 1:1 proportion. Neanderthals also appearto have a disproportionately longer SVTh(Lieberman andMcCarthy 2007: 19), and adultskulls resemble modern human infant skulls(Vlceke 1970: 150, cited in Lieberman 1979:118). Up until the age of 6-8 years, humaninfants have a disproportionate SVT similar toNeanderthals and Homo erectus (Liebermanand McCarthy 2007: 19). After this age, thelarynx descends into the throat, lengtheningtheSVTvandplacing theentireSVT into the1:1proportion and thus full vowel productionability. It should be noted that some scholarsdisagree with Lieberman’s assertion thatNeanderthal vertebrae were short (and hencethe SVTv short), which in turn leads to anunderestimated speech capacity within thespecies (Falk 1975; Houghton 1993: 140). Falk(1975: 123) suggests Liebermanmisplaced thehyoid bone in his reconstruction, and thatactually the Neanderthal vocal tract wouldhave been similar, if not identical, to modernhumans. The discovery of the NeanderthalKebara hyoid bone, almost identical to that ofhumans, also supports this (Arensburg et al.1990), although Lieberman has challenged it(1993). This has implications for a wider rangeof sounds, and also exemplifies the problemswith fossil interpretations amongst scholars.The 1:1 ratio has not always been present inanatomically modern humans, as a 100,000year-old Homo sapiens specimen from Israel


was found to possess a shortened SVTv, and itwas only in specimens dated to 50,000ya thata proportioned SVT could be fitted to(Lieberman & McCarthy 2007: 19-20). Theproportionate 1:1 SVT, whilst necessary for afull range of vowel production, is not neededfor most other sounds. We can hardly assumethat language could not exist without the threevowels ‘i’, ‘a’ and ‘u’, therefore, this cannot besaid to be an indicator of early languagecapabilities, but rather an evolution of pre-existing ones, and is therefore a latecomer interms of anatomically-inferred languagecapabilities.

McLarnon and Hewitt (1999) havedemonstrated the importance of enhancedbreath control for the production of verbalcommunication, and their studies of homininvertebrae have concluded that it is only from1.6mya onwards that vertebral allowances forincreasedbreath control canbe seen,meaningthat hominins prior to this date, such as theaustralopithecines andHomoergaster, did nothave the necessary respiratory controlrequired for lengthy vocal utterances.Another problematic strand of evidence is thehypoglossal canal. Kay, Cartmill and Barlowproposed that hypoglossal canal evidencecould take speech capabilities back to400,000ya (1998: 5419). DeGusta et al. (1999)have contested this, arguing that manynonhuman primates have similar hypoglossalcanals but do not speak, and that thehypoglossal canal itself cannot be taken as areliable indicator of speech.Genetic evidence, specifically the discovery

of the FOXP2 gene, has been used to try andidentify speech capabilities. The first homininsto have this mutated version of the gene, afterthe chimpanzee-hominin split, were allegedlyHomo sapiens within the past 100,000 years(Corballis 2003: 215) The FOXP2gene is linkedto our perception of grammar, but it is alsofound in other species. Kraus et al. (2007)published work on the presence of themutated FOXP2 gene in Neanderthals andused this as an argument for the presence ofspeech within Neanderthal populations, and

also within the common ancestor of Homoneanderthalensis and Homo sapiens (Kraus etal. 2007: 4). This assertion has come undercriticism by Coop et al. (2008) who claim morestudies need to be done before this premisethat Neanderthals had the FOXP2 gene, as theevidence Kraus et al. propose could be a resultof contamination. Noonan (2010) has echoedthese concerns, anddiscusses the likelihoodofcontamination in the Neanderthal DNAreplication process. Again, this demonstratesthe clashing opinions of those pursuing thequestion of language origins.

Tool making and art are the products of‘culturally determined intentions’ (Davidson2003: 144) and have been intrinsically linkedwith the formation of language as anexpression of social complexity and theutilisation of symbols (Noble&Davidson 1996:19; Lewin & Foley 2004: 470), and the level ofintelligence required for such feats has thoughtto be indicative of a possession of language sothat instruction can be imparted.The oldest tools come from the Oldowanindustries, made by Homo habilis and Homorudolfensis (though possibly also byAustralopithecines ( Chase 2006: 102)). Wynn(1985) has built upon Piaget’s studies oflanguage in modern human children, and theimportance stressed upon concepts ofsymmetry and organisational thought. Heargues that this kind of thought processing isonly visible in theAcheulean onwards, and thatit must be the makers of these tools who arecapable of language. Although seeminglysymmetrical hand axes arise in the olderOldowan industries, Wynn argues that theseare not purposefully and meaningfully madewith symmetry in mind, rather they arereflective of inspiration from elsewhere, suchas leaves (1985: 40).Although Wynn states that using Piaget’spsychological framework as a method ofanalysis is better than the ‘common senseinterpretations employed byarchaeologists’ (1985: 41), it is evident to myeyes at least that there is still ample room forerror and misinterpretation, again underlining


the tenuousness of this kind of indirectevidence for language capabilities.Whilst tool production characterises the

beginning of the Palaeolithic era, theproduction of art is a far more recentphenomenon, arguably only arising in theUpper Palaeolithic some 30,000 years ago(Lewin & Foley 2004: 471). It shares a similarbasis for its association with language abilities– art represents forms and images that can beconstrued as understandable symbolstranscending the here and now. It ‘speaks of aworld created by introspective consciousnessand complex language.’ (Lewin and Foley2004: 271-2) Noble and Davidson (1991) omitearlier manifestations of what some havelabelled ‘art’ as unmeaningful and un-symbolic.Davidson (2003) has argued for a greatertheoretical framework in which to study art andlanguage, asking ‘do symbols appear beforesyntax?’ (Davidson 2003: 156). Nevertheless,the implications for both and social complexityare clear, and they suggest a presence oflanguage in their formation, if not prove one(Lewin and Foley 2004: 470).

The multivariate kinds of evidence studied toidentify language capabilities in Plio-Pleistocene hominins provide a broadspectrumof information, but an accompanyingbroad series of problems. The pursuit for theearliest speaking hominin has taken on a‘missing link’-like fixation, and this is potentiallybiasing interpretations of evidence. The initialdata collected by archaeologists andpaleoanthropologists is easily manipulated byscholars in cases of confirmation-bias, twistingthe evidence to fit their hypotheses and to suittheir own agendas (d’Errico et al. 2003: 2). Onejust has to look at the fierce debates betweendifferent scholars over the fossil evidence tosee that opinion of which hominins had speechfirst is hugely divided. As language itself doesnot fossilise, a conglomerateof approachesarenot only necessary, but vital. Hypotheses needto be tested against a variety of evidence, andno one strain of half-convincing evidence

should be used alone to support arguments forthe earliest hominins with languagecapabilities (d’Errico et al. 2003: 6), thus eachkind of proof should be considered asimportant as the other.

ReferencesArensburg, B. et al, 1990. A Reappraisal of the Anatomical Basis forSpeech in Middle Paleolithic Hominids. American Journal of PhysicalAnthropology 83: 137-146.

Chase, P. 2006. The Emergence of Culture: The Evolution of a UniquelyHuman Way of Life. New York: Springer.Coop, G. et al. 2008. The Timing of Selection at the Human FOXP2Gene. Molecular Biology and Evolution 25: 1257-1259.

Corballis, M. 2003. From Hand to Mouth: Gestural Origins of Language.In M. Christiansen & Kirby, S. (ed.) 2003. Language Evolution. Oxford:Oxford University Press. 201-218.

Davidson, I. 2003. The Archaeological Evidence of Language Origins:States of Art. In Morten,C.H. & Kirby, S. (ed.) 2003. Language Evolution. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press. 140 – 157.

d’Errico et al. 2003. Archaeological Evidence for the Emergence ofLanguage, Symbolism, and Music – An Alternative MultidisciplinaryPerspective. Journal of World Prehistory 17: 1-70.

Falk, D. 1975. Comparative Anatomy of the Larynx in Man andChimpanzee: Implications for Language in Neanderthal. AmericanJournal of Physical Anthropology. 43: 123-132.

Houghton, P. 1993. Neanderthal Supralaryngeal Vocal Tract. AmericanJournal of Physical Anthropology 90: 139-146

Kay, R., Cartmill, M. and Barlow, M. 1998. The Hypoglossal Canal andthe Origin of Human Vocal Behaviour. Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences of the United States of America 95: 5417-5419.

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

Laitman, J T., Heimbuch, R C. and Crelin. S., 1979. The Basicranium ofFossil Hominids as an Indicator of Their Upper Respiratory Systems.American Journal of Physical Anthropology 51: 15-34.

Lewin, R. and Foley, R A. 2004. Principles of Human Evolution. 2ndedition. Oxford: Blackwell Science Ltd.

Lieberman, P. and McCarthy, R. 2007. Tracking the Evolution ofLanguage Evolution: Comparing Vocal Tracts to Identify SpeechCapabilities. Expedition 49: 15-20.

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

Lieberman, P. 1993. On the Kebara KMH 2 Hyoid and NeanderthalSpeech. Current Anthropology 34: 172-175.MacLarnon, A. and Hewitt, G P. 1999. The Evolution of Human Speech:The Role of Enhanced Breathing Control. American Journal of PhysicalAnthropology, vol. 109: 341-363.

Neville, H J. et al. 1998. Cerebral Organization for Language in Deaf andHearing Subjects: Biological Constraints and Effects of Experience.Proceedings of the National Academy ofSciences of the United States of America 95: 922-929.

Mellars, P. 1989. Major Issues in the Emergence of Modern Humans.Current Anthropology 30: 349-385.

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

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

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

Tobias, P. 1998. Evidence for the Early Beginnings of Spoken Language.Cambridge Archaeological Journal 8: 72-77.

Wynn, T. 1985. Stone Tools and the Evolution of Human Intelligence.World Archaeology 17: 32-43.


OULD A FIELDGUID WRITTEN with aclear geographical context in mind be usedanywhere else? This review of the Standards ofArchaeological Excavation by G.J. Tassie and L.S.Owens tries to answer this question. This fieldmanual initially written for Egyptian archaeologistshas been recommended as a resource forarchaeologists working around the world, withparticular attention to the Mediterranean region.

The authors have a comprehensive experience in thefield that is well reflected in the book. This isparticularly visible in the initial chapters where theydeal with site evaluation, setting up a grid system ormethods of excavation for different contexts. Thesedescriptions are accurate, precise and fill withimportant details, like methodology employed andthe quality of tools used,which are usually forgottenin the mainstream publications.The book is an all-inclusive manual that describesand analyses not only the different phases ofarchaeological excavation and recording but goes asfar as dealing with site management and labprocessing.Especially interesting is the amount of attentiongiven to archaeological recordings with more than200 forms, diagrams, photographs and tables. Theauthors recognise this aspect as one of the most

important in the archaeologists’ work and dedicatedhalf of the book on how to record properlyarchaeological data. This is well stressed by theinclusion of a CD that contains recording forms andradius chart.

I have to admit that I found those parts of themanual(Chapters VII-XI) praiseworthy and quite adaptableto different contexts, even though there isunevenness in the quality of the forms. Some formspresent fields that required a huge amount of details(e.g. mud brick arrangement, 23 pages) whereasmore relevant forms as the ones recordingarchitectural structures are too general or short todescribe comprehensibly the complexity of thosebuildings.Additionally some recording forms have beencreated clearly thinking about Egyptian contexts(e.g. obelisk number field), but I do not believe theycan be as useful in other regions.On the positive side those forms show someinnovations from the ones I have seen previouslyused in the field (e.g. more space for instrumentsheights and skeletons analysis). These inclusiveness

Armchair Archaeology:Book Reviews by MartaLorenzon

Standards ofArchaeologicalExcavation; AFieldguideby G. J. Tassie and L. S. Owens

C


and attention to details are probably the aspects thatI appreciate most (e.g. sampling for DNA, pp.127-9). They clearly show how the book has beenwritten by archaeologists who used to be knee-deepin the field and have a clearly understanding of whatthe work entitled.

As abonus the authors added someexamples onhowthe forms should be filled. I believe this would betruly welcome by everyone, from beginners toexpert archaeologists, who dread the first day of anew excavation when a plethora of new forms aredump on you and you are expected to magicallyknow how to fill them. Some good tips can be takenaway from reading this book on how to deal withthem.Tassie andOwenshave auniquewayofmaking looksimple and easily doable even the most obscureforms. I really enjoy this portion of the manual, sodifferent from other publications, where it has beendealt in away that I would described repetitive at thebest and plain boring at the worst. The authors havedry wit that emerges in some of the stories toldthroughout the book on finds collecting. I appreciatehow they personalized the manual and I wish thereweremoreof theseepisodes. I credited themasbeingable to keep the manual professional, while theyhave enriched it with a personal touch.

Furthermore I like how they let their views filterthrough the text when describing the recordingprocedures. They stress how material culture caninform us about social behaviour and rituals. Thiswas a subjective opinion, but I do not believeexpressing it plainly in the text changes the manualobjectivity or its archaeological effectiveness in thefield. All archaeologists have personals views onmaterial culture and other subjects and to sayotherwise is a throughout lie. Moreover I am a bitsceptical of books or authors that proclaimed to becompletely impartial just to feed the reader theirviews under the table.

Finally I get to what is probably my only problemwith themanual: the stratigraphic analysis. I have toadmit that I found stratigraphy not as well explainedas other part of the book (e.g. recording) and I wasdeeply baffled by some of the examples given (e.g.misattribution of terminus post quam and terminusante quem). On this regard I believe there wasadditional confusion in the description of somearchaeological terms, for instance “lot”. I have toadmit, it could be my mistake, but I seen the term

“lot” used only related to materials and I have neverencountered it in the field referred to some kind ofstratigraphic unit.These chapters were not as well structured as othersections of the book, but they constitute a minorportion in a more complex effort to describe anexcavation in all its parts.

Would I recommend this manual to someone tounderstand stratigraphy? Probably not. But I wouldsurely recommend it as a fieldguide to understandthe archaeological excavation in its whole: from siteselection to recording and lab analysis. Even thoughI find some aspects of the book could have beenbetter presented, I still believe this is a manual thatcan be helpful when used critically in the field notonly in Egypt but also in other contexts.

Marta AlsoRecommends:

The Rape of Mesopotamia: Behind the Looting ofthe Iraq Museumby Lawrence Rothfield

The Archaeology of Death and BurialbyMike Parker Pearson

American Egyptologist. The life of James HenryBreasted and the creation of the Oriental Instituteby Jeffrey Abt

Colonial Encounters in Ancient Iberia.Phoenician, Greek, and Indigenous relations.Edited byMichael Dietler and Carolina López-Ruiz


MISFIELD WALLED GARDEN was onceone of the grandest walled gardens in Scotland,where only the select and wealthy may have seenbehind its intriguingly large walls. Built in the1780’s on the estate that once belonged to theGatsby-esque Francis Charteris, 7th Earl ofWemyss, a localmanwith a vast fortune and certainreputation for finding trouble wherever he went.Since construction it has seen various stages ofwork and disrepair, and war and peace, providinga colourful history. Despite this, the four walls haveheld strong and provided a secure home to a 3.24hectare garden that once grew some of the mostvaluable and status defining commodities of theVictorian era: pineapples. I and many othermembers of Archaeology Society were luckyenough to be invited to excavate a small section ofthis garden, but weweren’t looking for pineapples.Instead, we were there to uncover the remains ofthe large greenhouses that once grew theseluxurious fruits. Due to the fact that thegreenhousewas only demolished in the 1960’s therewas plentyof material to uncover for anyone who came along,making it the perfect site for an inexperiencedarchaeologist to break ground for the first time;however, the many structural modifications to thegreenhouse created a complex stratigraphy to testeven the most battle-hardened archaeologist’smettle.

Led by local archaeologists David Connolly andDoug Rocks-Macqueen, members of ArchSoc andthe general public were invited to help excavatethe remains of the greenhouse in order tounderstand the history of the garden whileproviding experience in excavation, publicarchaeology, building surveying and contextrecording to name but a few aspects. Theexcavation has been running for a several weeks ayear since 2011 and aims to teach the basics offieldwork and recording to students and anyone

with an interest, while still unearthing newinformation about the walled garden and itshistory.

The main focus of the dig this year was to excavatethe westernmost section of the greenhouse and tosee underneath what would have been the floor ofthe greenhouse. Here we would be exposing thefoundations of the greenhouses and the remains oftwo old heating systems as well as plenty of glass,pottery and china. The actual excavation processitself is something I was very familiar with but myexperience primarily consists of excavatingskeletons, so heavy artillery such as spades were adefinite no-no. Being able to take large amounts ofsoil away without fear of destroying somethingdelicate was a welcome change and slightly morereflective of what would be considered ascommercial archaeology, which is important forstudent archaeologists such as myself tounderstand, as field schoolsmaybe informativebutalso very unrealistic in terms of timescale andpressure of work. Asmost of the finds in the trenchwere small bits of glass and plant pot fragments, Iwas lucky enough to be working in a corner of thetrench where there were plenty finds includingseveral completely intact plant pots of a decentsize. However there were also large metal piecesfrom the greenhouse supports and even some ofthe original clay piping to be found, as well asnumerous structural phases of the foundations.Throughout the week we greatly expanded thetrench, uncovering much more than we hadbargained for, and I personally learned agreat dealabout different contexts and how complexstratigraphy can be for even the simplest lookingstructures.

Given the opportunity I opted to try my hand atdigital building surveying, a slightly more obscureaspect of archaeology and something I had notdonebefore. Myself andanotherArchSocmember

Amisfield Walled Garden Projectby Euan Foley

A


took a camera and tripod and photographed theentirewesternwall so that it couldbe reconstructedusing a photographic mapping program. Davidand Doug would then eventually create a 3Dcomputer simulation of each of the four walls sothat they could be viewed from any angle on acomputer, making recording and post excavationprocessing infinitely easier. The photographyaspect is very simple but the computer-basedprocedure is a bit of a specialist field and usuallyrequires specific training and experience, and assuchwas too technical tobe taught in the field. Theprinciples of this computer model were still wellworth our understanding, however. Digitalreconstruction is a fairly modern approach toarchaeology and not universally practiced due toexpensive equipment costs and specialistknowledge. Despite this it is an aspect that I thinkwill definitely become standard as timepasses, andlearning the basics of a skill while it is still in itsinfancy was more than worthwhile and aninteresting process to be part of.

Archaeology would be a complete waste of time ifwe didn’t record and write up everything we hadobserved, otherwise 100 years from now a newgroup of archaeologists might come andneedlessly excavate on the exact same spot. Assuch recording is arguably themost important partof the process. From every new layer of soil toentire structures, everything must be recorded forthe sake of the poor archaeologist who has to writethe site report long after you’ve backfilled all thetrenches and the physical work is done. With this inmind, every detail helps him or her create a bettersequence of events and more accurate work,making clarity and legibility of utmost importancewhen recording. We were taught to recordeverything as you find it, as is good practice,instead of leaving all the paperwork to the end ofthe season when motivation has left you and youcurse yourself for not doing it bit by bit as you wereexcavating. Doug’s tutelage included trenchphotography and the accurate recording andediting of context sheets, which we constantlycorrected and added to, always thinking of thepersondoing thepost-excavation analysis becauseone day it will be you!

With help fromDoug and “Professor” AlexWestra,through several visits from local schools and theYoungArchaeologist Club (YACs) I was also able todo some public archaeology. When the childrenarrived they were split into 2 groups, each with atrench and a couple of ArchSoc members to teachthem all they needed to know. While one grouplearned how to trowel the surface for finds, theother groupwerebeing taught how touse sieves to

sift for them; once each group had perfected theirdiscipline and found plenty of greenhouse piecesthey swapped over and learned the other. It’s easyto forget that whatmight be themost trivial of findsfor us is something that the children might becompletely blown away by, and that our attitudestowards these situations play an important part inthe whole experience for them. The aim of thegame was to keep the children interested and toalways be enthusiastic for the sake of the nextgeneration, and to have a bit of fun too. The findsthe children were unearthing hadn’t been plantedand they were therefore just as likely to findsomething as anyof theArchSocmembersworkingalongside them. This authenticated theirexperience and made them all “realarchaeologists” for the afternoon which clearlymeant something to them.

Themost rewardingaspectofmy timeatAmisfield,and what made it feel doubly worthwhile, washaving someof the children from the school groupscome back in their own time within the same week.The parents of the children told us that they hadbeen practically dragged to Amisfield to be shownwhat their children hadbeendoingon their day outwith their school. It was very encouraging andproved that archaeology is something that is stillinteresting and engaging to children in an agewhere computer games andmobile phones are farmore accessible and hold a child’s attention muchmore easily. Additionally their parents are stillpushing them to pursue an interest in archaeology,despite limited academic opportunities and theuncertainty of employment, proving thatarchaeology is still considered worthwhile andimportant by the general public.

Thefoundations

ofthewesternm

ostsection

oftheglasshouse

atAmisfield


HE CONCEPT OF NEO-EVOLUTIONISM IN ARCHAEOLOGY isperhaps best described by Bruce Trigger,reflecting on Joseph Caldwell’s beliefs.Trigger describes the idea that “behind theinfinite variety of cultural facts and specifichistorical situations, is a finite number ofhistoricalprocesses”and further states, “notallcultural facts are of equal importance inbringing about change.” (Trigger, 1997).However, this presumes a distinctly differentview of evolution from the commonlyembraced Darwinian theory of naturalselection. Rather, such a perspective entailsevolution of a social sort, a cultural evolutionmuch akin to social-Darwinism. Howeverantiquated its roots may be neo-evolutionismstill underpins much of conventionalarchaeological thought. This is largely due tothe work of V. Gordon Childe, whose theorieson revolution in the Neolithic and onurbanisation entirely endorsed neo-evolutionary theory. As the very concept ofrevolution is intrinsically linked to a subsystemof stages of development, and thereforecultural evolution, the widespread acceptance

of Childe’s theories for the majority of themiddle twentieth century essentially madeneo-evolutionary thought canon inarchaeological practice. This essay willendeavour to explain Childe’s role in andcontributions to archaeological neo-evolutionary theory. Firstly Iwill enumerate theprinciples, development, and famousexamples of neo-evolutionary theory inarchaeology. Secondly I will discuss V.GordonChilde’s role in the creation of neo-evolutionary thought and his theories ofrevolution. Finally I will analyse the issues withthe application of Childe’s theories asexamples of neo-evolutionism, and concludewith an assessment of the theory’s overallvalidity in an archaeological context.Before assessing Childe’s contributions toneo-evolutionism in archaeology, one mustfirst understand the nature of neo-evolutionarytheory. Theprinciple forces of evolution, in thearchaeological context, tend to follow the

The Role of V.GordonChilde in Neo-EvolutionaryTheory inArchaeology

by DC Wheaton III

photocourtesy

roebuckclasses.com

T


sociocultural paradigm of organisationaladvancement, an increase in scale, andgreaterdifferentiation within society, be it throughclass, profession, or a similar factor (Trigger,1998). Most of those who uphold this idea ofevolutionism tend to view advancement as aproduct of environmental determinism, whileothers step away from the widest concept andview cultural evolution as a sumof themethodsof change or indeed as “specifically linear andprogressive patterns that can be detectedwithin [the] totality of history.” (Trigger, 1998:9). Inessence,neo-evolutionism rose largely asa reaction to the “socialist” thinking of thosesuch asChildewhoproposed “revolution” as adriving force in history and the archaeologicalrecord during the more right-wing years ofAmerican politics of the middle twentiethcentury (Schiffer, 2000; Trigger, 1978). This, asKerr remarks, is not an attempt to emulatebiological evolution, but rather a method to“infer certain types of historical ‘logic’ and‘pattern,’” largely in aunilinear fashion formostof its existence. (Kerr, 2002: 332). Suchthinking built upon ecological models onevolution, with “culture, and more specificallytechnological development [as] theindependent variable, andman thedependentone.” (Trigger, 1978: 70). However, thefundamental ideal of neo-evolutionary theory,in the modern sense, is one of multilineardevelopment of human cultures determinedlargely by common factors present in varyingdegrees dependent upon a culture’senvironment.One cannot discuss the fundaments anddevelopment of neo-evolutionism withoutdiscourse on the academics who proposed,endorsed, and developed the theory. The firstof these is Leslie White, an Americanethnographer, who proposed “’culturology’ –literally the science of culture” and with itscientificbaggage that included theconceptofcultural evolution. (Lyman&O’Brien in Schiffer,2000: 128). White proposed a unilinear theoryof human history that presented culture in aseries of five stages of evolution based uponthe energy harnessed by a society, namely

manpower, domesticated animals, agriculturalpower, the power of natural resources such ascoal and oil, and finally the exploitation ofnuclear power (Schiffer, 2000; Trigger, 1998).The next of the figures who argue for a culturalevolution, and perhaps the founder of neo-evolutionism, is Julian Steward, writing fromthe same academic background as White.Steward argues for multilinear evolution in thetruest sense, where the environment of aculture determines first technological andeconomic factors, which then determinesecondary features such as “religion, politics,ideologies,” and the like. (Trigger, 1998: 128).This adopts a philosophy that commonfeatures of a culture should be emphasised,and then by tracing the evolution of a culturebackwards from its extant point one can findcommonalities within human history. Last ofthemajor theorists of neo-evolution are Sahlinsand Service, who maintained a differencebetween “general” and “specific” evolution,with general evolution as an expression ofincreasing complexity and specific evolutionreferring to environmental adaptations thatdifferentiate cultures from a central standard(Schiffer, 2000; Trigger, 1998). Each of these isdirectly influencedby thewritings of V.GordonChilde, and to some degree can be seen asreactions to them.There is no doubt that V.GordonChilde is oneof the most influential archaeologists of thetwentieth century, if not all of archaeologicalhistory. His two most widely published, andarguably most influential, theories are those ofa Neolithic Revolution, and of UrbanRevolution. ThoughChildebeganwriting fromthe perspective of a Marxist, his views shiftedand changed greatly as his career progressed.Childe, most fundamentally, believed indiffusion as method of cultural exchange, butthe speed and method of diffusion variesgreatly depending on which of Childe’s worksone consults. However, whether throughdiffusion or not, Childe viewed “progress asbeing either inevitable or automatic,” and hesaw change in many societies as “leading todead ends or annihilation.” (Trigger, 1978: 67).


Furthermore Childe believed severe ecology,specialised economies and classes, politics,religion, and ideology could inhibit a culture’sgrowth or diffusion (Trigger, 1978). It shouldbe noted that all of these factors are thoseexamined by later scholars, such as White,Steward, and most particularly Sahlins andService, as indicators of a society’s stage in anevolutionary model. Therefore one can easilysee the influence of Childe, even outside of his“revolution” theories, on later theorists,directly influencing the study of culturalevolution.The importance of Childe is even morenoticeable, however, when one examines histheories of Neolithic and Urban Revolution.When first discussing the Neolithic Revolutionin “Man Makes Himself,” Childe asserts thatwhatever the domesticates, the accession ofthe Neolithic in past societies occurred in thesame fashion. He states “there was…no‘Neolithic’ civilisation, only a multitude ofconcrete applications of a few very generalprinciples and notions,” referring to the rise ofagriculture. (Childe, 1941: 98). Theseprinciples and notions can be condensed tothe domestication of plants, as well as herdanimals, and the sedentism and ceramicculture associated with them. In other words,no matter where a society adopts farming orwhat foodstuffs they cultivate thedevelopment of their culture will follow thesame pattern as every other that hasundergone the same change. However,Childe believed that the Neolithic was spreadthrough diffusion from a common origin, andsocieties would not begin farmingindependently (Childe, 1941). The theory of aNeolithic Revolution is, therefore, a unilineartheory that can be applied to anyarchaeological or even modern society.Childe’s idea of an Urban Revolution departsslightly from his unilinear plan of the spread ofagriculture in the Neolithic. While Childeexpressed a belief that the spread of farmingdid occur in a distinct and universal pattern, heturns from this to state that urban societiesarise from the “need for extensive publicworks

to drain and irrigate land and to protectsettlement” along with the need to procureraw materials for building and tool-making,“tend[ing] to consolidate socialorganisation.” (Childe, 1941: 141). In simplerterms, Childe was theorising that stateformation was advancing in a multilinearpattern, best exemplified by the six nuclei ofMesopotamia, the IndusRiverValley,NileRiverValley, the Andes, Mesoamerica, and theYellowRiverValley (Smith2009). All containedthe ten markers Childe believed indicated anurban society and the formation of a state-based civilisation, namely cities, specialisation,agricultural surplus, monumental architecture,a ruling class, writing, sciences, sophisticatedart, extensive trade, and a concept of a“state.” (Childe, 1950). However, Childeembraced the concept that each of thesocieties arising in these areas did not diffusetheir cultures to the others, but ratherdeveloped independently of eachother, that isto say in a parallel evolutionary fashion.Thus, one could argue that Childe was one ofthe first of the neo-evolutionary theorists.Much like White he proposed that a change inenergy production, that of moving fromhunting and gathering to the domestication ofanimals andplants, is a step toward civilisation,and that all cultures undergo the shift fromgathering to farming in the samemanner. Theidea that the Neolithic spread from onecommon origin through cultural diffusion,though,has sincebeendisprovenbybiologicalinvestigation and Childe’s ethnocentrism onMesopotamian cultures is no longer valid(Wilson, 1974). Furthermore the idea thatfarming could not be conceived by cultureswithout the geographic assets of those inMesopotamia is short-sighted at best, and aunilinear model simply fails to include culturessuch as those of the western hemisphere andthe far east, which relied on entirely differentstaples. However, this does not discreditChilde as a neo-evolutionary thinker, or at thevery least a contributor, to the field of neo-evolutionism. TheUrbanRevolution, however,showsagreater levelof intellectual refinement,


as does any multilinear theory. Childe betteraccounts for variable factors such as ecology inhis second theory, placing the UrbanRevolution in terms much more in line withSteward, and to an extent Sahlins and Service(Trigger, 1998; Smith, 2009). These similaritiesare not mere coincidence; it is plain to see thatthe acknowledged neo-evolutionary theoristsof later years are building upon the works ofChilde.In summary, V. Gordon Childe is without ashadow of a doubt a forerunner of the neo-evolutionary theorists of later years. His twomost widely published theories, those of aNeolithic Revolution of agriculture and anUrban Revolution of state formation, are veryplainly stages of a social “evolution.” Childehimself saw humanity’s transition from oneform of society to another as a series of stages,each precipitated by a revolution, andtherefore set the foundations for neo-evolutionists to propose human society in anevolving state (Childe, 1941; Schiffer, 2000;Wilson, 1974). However, the idea that culturesprogress from “gathering” to “Neolithic” to“Urban” is not unlike the Morgan’s system ofsavagery, barbarism, and civilisation, andcarries with it social-Darwinian baggage(Trigger, 1998; Wilson, 1974). Childe himselfuses these terms when introducing thesetheories (Childe, 1941). Despite this, Childedid not intend any demeaning connotation tobe attached to his theories, rather he sought tobetter categorise the human past, prehistoryespecially, and in so doing bring archaeologyto be viewed as a science. By using andexpanding Childe’s principles, which are mostdefinitely the roots of processual archaeology,the theorists following Childe brought theconcept of neo-evolutionism into the canon ofthe New Archaeology. White’s five-stagetheory incorporates quite readily the idea of aNeolithic Revolution, along with its unilinearform. Steward’s primary and secondary factorsof evolution are almost identical to thoseChilde believes can hinder, and are thereforeindicative of, a society. Last of all Sahlins andService seemingly attempt to reconcile the

differing styles of Childe’s theories bydifferentiating between general and specificevolution,wherecertain cultural characteristicsare unilinear or at the least incredibly parallel,and others are multilinear. Whicheverparadigmone chooses to accept, the influenceof Childe is readily apparent, and therefore therole of Childe in neo-evolutionary theorybecomes quite clear: he is the founder of neo-evolutionary theory.

Further Reading

Childe, V. Gordon. Social Evolution. London: Watts & Co.,1951

Childe, V. Gordon. “The Urban Revolution.” TownPlanning Review 21.1 (1950): 3-17. JSTOR Arts &Sciences VI. 26 Nov. 2012.

Childe, V. Gordon. Man Makes Himself. London: Watts &Co., 1941

Kerr, Peter. “Saved from extinction: evolutionarytheorising, politics and the state.” British Journalof Politics and International Relations 4.2 (2002):330-58. Academic Search Elite. 26 Nov. 2012.

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

Smith, Michael E. “V. Gordon Childe and the UrbanRevolution: a historical perspective on arevolution in urban studies.” Town PlanningReview 80.1 (2009): 3-29. JSTOR Arts & SciencesVI. 26 Nov. 2012.

Trigger, Bruce G. A History of Archaeological Thought.Cambridge: Press Syndicate of the University ofCambridge, 1997.

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

Trigger, Bruce G. Time and Traditions: Essays inArchaeological Interpretation. Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press, 1978.

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


David: It was around 2009 that you created TheCampaign for Sensible Archaeology?...TheFacebook group now boasts 267 members,representing people from all over thearchaeological world. ... what was your goal with

TheCcampaign for Sensible Archaeology andwhatare its main tenets?

Stuart: Well, the genesis of that group was quitesimply that I lost my temper... I lost my temperbecause I got a letter... [from] an Americanacademic whowanted to come andwork on one ofmy projects. He wrote me a page long thing... andI couldn't understand a bl**dy word of it... I didn'tunderstand what he was saying to me. I couldn’tunderstand what his areas of interest were. Icouldn't understand anything in this letter!... So, Isuppose that was the culmination of a lot of myfrustration with the way that a lot of archaeologiststend to write things...

At the time I was working with student groups andI was spending an awful lot of time translating thearchaeology from the literature into lecture formsthat students with no background in Irisharcheology could understand....It’s not that

Interview with StuartRathbone, fieldarchaeologist andcreator of theCampaign for SensibleArchaeology (CfSA)

Watching Briefs: yourarchaeological news and

interest in brief


complicated, it has justbeenwritten inan incrediblycomplicated way... When I put the (CfSA) togetherI think the three things we kind of hooked on werethat language should be used to communicate andit shouldn't be any more complicated thannecessary to convey the ideas that you want...

The second bit was that behind all this languagesometimes there is a lot of discussion/debate in thearchaeological literature that has a very tenuouslink to any evidence. One of the functions...of thecomplicated language is to cover the fact that thesepeople are making things up. And it's fine to makethings up, just say, “Oh, here's a bit of speculationfor you.” ...that's fine. But towrap it up in a complexverbal blanket and try to pass it off as fact isjust...irritating.

The third thing was, that at that time there was a lotof coverage ...of contemporary archaeologicalprojects ...that were linked into the art world. Icouldn't see the relevance ...of a lot them toarchaeology... If you're not doing archaeologicalmethods don't call in an archaeologist. If you arestudying something and you are trying to do itthrough archaeology, which is a terrible set ofmethods if you think about it.... If what you aredoing is some sort of multimedia art project then itshouldn't be labeled up as an archaeology project.Which is all abit strict. It does sounda tremendouslypo-faced and serious but the whole point was topoke a bit of fun at some people and somearchaeologists who do need a bit of the mickeytaken out of them. This is a genuinely ridiculoussubject. The idea of digging these little holes allover the place and trying to piece together thefunctions and ways that societies work from thecrap that people throw away into a hole in theground. It is an essentially ridiculous notion. So, weshouldn't take ourselves that seriously. The use ofthe term “sensible” was chosen because I knew itwould get under the skin of people. The idea thattherewas a sensible archaeologywhich opposes toeverything else that would be insensible, or as welabeled it early on “beyond sensible.” Which wasjust so I could write things were “BS” and I thoughtthat I was incredibly witty. But you have got tounderstand that I amquite immature... If the subjectisn't suitable for archaeological methods then youarewasting your own timeandyouarewasting yourreaders’ time. ...when you are doing the projectdesign phase, of any project, you should be able tohit all three of those targets without even thinkingabout it.

David: What are your thoughts on the state ofrelations between archaeologists and the public?Specifically, thosewho claim vested interest in your

discoveries.

Stuart: I think, it is a very complicated situation atthe moment. What archeology has is, of all the sortof sciences, it’s got the one of the most interestingstories to tell and its one that affects everybody. Ithink the whole population of the world has aninterest in archaeology...What's happened, I think,is that thearchaeologicalworld is very isolated fromthe public. Seeing as it's the history of people, weshouldn't be. But we are writing our stuff in a waythat normal people can't understand. We only talkto each other... One of the problems there is that[the public] aren't reading our stuff but they are stillinterested in the past. So what are theyreading? ...There is some very dubious literatureout there. There is a lot of pseudo-science. There isa lot of ancient aliens stuff. The pagan stuff totallymisrepresents what's happening in prehistory. I'mnot comfortable with that material... But they'redoing something that we are not. They're telling aninteresting story. I'm sitting here in a pile of booksand I'll tell you they'd bore the ass off of a donkey...I think that is something [CfSA] has been accusedof, that we are populist. As if that's a bad thing...You know it yourself when you are going out andgoing to lectures or a conference. You can see thepeople who have a skill and a talent forcommunicating their ideas. They'll do a fortyminute lecture and you're hanging on every word.They've done it; they have made you laugh a fewtimes. It's all been good lively entertainment andinformative. Then you see the next person comeand they are stuttering and they won't look at youand they've got no charisma or charm, and there isno difference in the quality of the work... I think weare wasting our time if we are not communicatingthis stuff to the widest possible audience.

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

UBLIC SECTOR SPENDING has beendrastically curtailed across all governmental

Recession-era archaeology:the background andconsequences of theRCAHMS and HistoricScotland merger

by Rachel Faulkner-Jones

P


departments over the previous four years, withgreater and lesser degrees of effect and efficiency.One of the most far-reaching consequences of thedifficulties entailed in the current economic climateis the merger between the Royal Commission onthe Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland(RCAHMS) and Historic Scotland (HS), as detailedby the Culture Secretary Fiona Hyslop. Due to beheard in Parliament over the coming months andexpected to go into effect some time in 2014, themerger is the result of a year-long governmentalappraisal, a public consultation, a stakeholders’workshop, and a subsequent options appraisal byHistoric Scotland.

In effect, the merger will create an entirely neworganisation comprised of Historic Scotland andRCAHMS staff, which is likely to achieve charitablestatus early in 2014. The Culture Secretary hasassured both organisations that there will be noredundancies as part of the merger, and that thecore goal of the new organisation should be, asever, to protect, promote and maintain Scotland’shistoric environment.

Several bodies have already expressed disquietwith the process. RCAHMS’ executives wereexpecting the Culture Secretary to turn theCommission into a non-departmental public body(NDPB), which would in essence remove theCommission’sRoyalWarrantandbring it in linewithother National Collections, which would havesafeguarded the Commission’s staff, collectionsand ethos. Alternatively, Historic Scotland couldhave subsumed RCAHMS into its existingframework. The merger as it stands will require avast amount of oversight and a great deal of extrawork for staff at every level in both organisations,which will invariably have a detrimental impact onon-going and forthcoming projects. Concernshave also been raised at current consequences ofbudgetary restraint and the dangers of short-termthinking. The Royal Incorporation of Architects inScotland (RIAS) wrote a (publicly available) letter toMs.Hyslop in response to themerger,wherein theydetail issues such as: the end of a comprehensivereview of listed buildings and restrictions on theirmaintenance; the existing lack of skills in heritageworkers due to too few resources; the economicproblemofnot spendinga little in theshort-termonmaintenance and upkeep to prevent costly issuesoccurring in coming years; increasing pressure onlocal authorities to maintain and protect the builtenvironment; and the potential for local authoritiesto be overruled by elected officials with a politicalagenda on issues concerning the built and historicenvironments. Concern has also been voiced bythe Tayside and Fife Archaeological Committee

that the stellar work currently undertaken byRCAHMS and Historic Scotland in communityoutreach and education programmes may becurtailed under increasing governmental pressureand a drastically limited budget.

Many such issues should be discussed andresolved when the bill proposing the merger goesbeforeParliament in the coming session. However,this is also the point at which many of thecornerstones of the merger can be discussed andamended, to the benefit and detriment alike ofthose who work in and care about Scotland’sheritage. Great care should alsobe taken toensurethat this does not become a political issue to bebandied about amid the independencereferendum debates. Scotland’s built andhistorical environments belong to all, and theircultural and economic value is of great importanceand should not be diminished or unappreciatedthrough short-term political bickering.

• RCAHMS was established by Royal Warrant in1908 to enhance understanding andincrease participation in the historicenvironment

• Historic Scotland was established in 1991 topromote and protect Scotland’s historicenvironment

• RCAHMS currently has 104 full-time staff, 14trainees, and receives an average of 100volunteer hours per week

• Historic Scotland currently has 1,100 full-timestaff

• Historic Scotland cares for 345 buildings andsites

• RCAHMS receives ~£6.5million per year, ofwhich £4.6 million comes from baselineScottish government funding

• Historic Scotland receives £40.3million per yearfrom the Scottish government

• In 2011-2012, 3.4 million people visited HistoricScotland sites and buildings, generating£32million of income

• The Scottish historic environment as a wholesupports 41,000 full-time jobs andgenerates in excess of £2.3billion everyyear


Aerial PhotographyWorkshop – Let'sGo Fly A Kite

by Maddie O'Neill

T WAS ON A WINDY SEPTEMBERAFTERNOON that the Archaeological Societydecided to leave their shovels and trowels behindand exchange them for cameras and kites. Aworkshop hosted by the West LothianArchaeological TrustgavemembersofArchSoc theopportunity to expand their knowledge onmethodsused in taking aerial photographs in orderto reveal sites in a given landscape.

The workshop started off with a minor detour toSaint Anthony’s Chapel before ultimately endingup in a clearing near the foot of Arthur’s Seat whereit was safer to fly the kites. Trust Archaeologist andSecretary James Knowles and Trust Chairman Dr.John Wells, both passionate about aerialphotography and promoting its use within thecommunity, focused on the various methods andequipment that could be used to obtain revealingpictures of the landscape below.

Knowles started the workshop with demonstratinghow the rigs on which the cameras were attachedcould range anywhere from a homemadecontraption made out of metal rulers and bolts toanexpensive ready-madewithgyro stabilisation. Inaddition to the rigs, Dr. Wells explained how thecamera is further stabilised by the Picavetsuspensionwhich allows the kite line tomove freelywithout disrupting the position of the camera.Society members were then given a chance to flythe incredibly powerful Power Sled kite with acamera suspended two-thirdsof thewayup thekiteline. The shutter speed iswhat allows the camera totake multiple shots so that a clear and revealingimage can be obtained and the usefulness of thepictures taken is determined by what filter thecamera uses as well as what time of day the photosare taken. The best pictures are taken during thehours of dawn and dusk. The exceptionally highwinds also made for a perfect demonstration as towhy gloves are required when dealing with kitelines. For the first time in Dr. Wells’ and Knowles’careers, the lines between the two kites becametangled and snapped. Although the remaining kiteseemedunmanageable, Knowleswas able to reel itin safely. After untangling the Gordian knot that

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

As is customary with archaeologists across theglobe, the hard day’s work earned the society around of pints.

St. Joseph'sSeminary andChurchby Zhen Guan

T. JOSEPH'S SEMINARYANDCHURCH isa famous tourist destination in Macau, located atLargo de Santo Agostinho. The architecture hasmany features that are of historical and aestheticvalue, and are thus worth looking into. This articlewill examine its construction and functions, someofits main features and its implicit meanings.

Construction and Purpose:In 1746 the Jesuits laid the first stone of the St.Joseph’s Church and completed this work in 1958.In 1728 the seminary of St. Joseph was foundedand later was run in different hands.The seminary, according to some, serves a muchmore significant purpose than the church does.From an etymological prospective, it is ‘a placewhere students nurture or cultivate the seeds of

vocation.’Students can choose between two majors,theology and commerce, which indicates twopivotal motives of western countries’ contact withChina. They are required to master Cantonese,Portuguese French and Latin, and in the meantimetake humanity and natural science courses. Theycan also be trained in sacred music here if theychoose.

Others would argue that the church itself is more

Fig. 1

IS


important because there resides the relic of St.Francis Xavier, oneof the founders of the Society ofJesus, or to bemore specific, his left humerus arm.Therefore St. Joseph’s Church ought to be heldholy and of great historical significance as well.However given the purpose of these Jesuits, toeducate people, there seems no need to argue. Agood education entails both the preservation andremembrance of the past and the preparation forthe future for those involved.

The Church of St. Joseph is a baroque-stylebuilding with three main features: the façade, thearched vault and the spiral columns.Firstly the exterior of the church (Figure 1) alreadysuggests that it is a product of ‘the RomanRenaissance period of architecture’.The broken pediment is a variant of pedimentsoften seen in Greek and neo-classicalarchitectures. The ellipses above the doors (Figure2) are also indicators of Greek influence. What iscurious about the façade is that the shape ofwindows is not consistent: two of them are archeswhile the others are rectangular. In other words,Greek andRoman impacts blendwonderfully here,which is why the architectures in Macau, StJoseph’s included, are so fascinating to many.

The Church of St. Joseph has the only ornamentalarched vault (Figure 3) in Macau.This design renders St. Joseph smaller than otherchurchesbecauseof the spacial limit. But anarchedvault with a focus both as a physical and ametaphysical concentration reinforces a sense ofinvolvement. The scuttles on the vault allow lightinside, neither toobrightnor toodark. Thehazinessexercises on the disciples a supernatural feeling ofbeing summoned by God, and it seems as if truebelievers could rise to heaven through theephemeral lighting of the vault.

St. Joseph’s Church is also unique in that it isdecorated with spiral columns (Figures 4 & 5).These spiral columns relate the church to theJewish legacy; Solomonic Columns, according to

Dr. Cunich, are a revival of that style by baroquearchitects in the Renaissance. Although it is not yetclear why the Jesuits chose to adopt this style, thisis not the only similarity Christianity inherited fromJudaism. In one photo (Figure 6) a crucifix appearsabove a crown. In Jewish history it is usually thenames of philosophers and commentators of theTalmud that are remembered, instead of kings andqueens.

In thehistory ofChristianity, though the supremacyof the Pope over the kings was questioned by theRenaissance and challenged by the Reformation,the Jesuits are strong advocators of clericalism.This contextualises their belief that their religiousleader possesses more power than any secularruler. And because the Jesuits are often scholars,their emphasis on education when preachingdemonstrates a vital function of colonialChristianity in Asia, which is to ‘civilise’ the

indigenous population.

The construction of the Church of St. Joseph isdesigned under baroque influence and it was builtto impress people and eventually convert them toChristianity. The Baroque style was chosenpresumably because it is a style of splendour andgrandness. The colour of the exterior as well as theinterior is light and refreshing, delivering both afeeling of tranquility and a sense of relief. At a timewhen the majority lived in great uncertainty andpoor sanitation, they were able to envisage a life(afterlife) full of hope and grace by the spectacularappearance of the church, which was obviously

Figure 5

Figures 2, 3 & 4 from left

Figure 6


more appealing to the uneducated majority thanthe catechisms.

St. Joseph’s Seminary and Church is the lastdestination of my whole trip, but it managed toleave great impression on me. There are otherdetails that this article cannot examine explicitlybut I believe it has covered the most importantaspects. This article does not seek to evaluate thearchitecture exclusively from an aestheticperspective. Instead, it tries to restore part of the‘truth’ about St. Joseph’s Seminary and Church inthe context of the early modern period.

Further Reading

Clemens, John. Discovering Macau (Hong Kong: Macmillan,1977)

Ip, Keith. ‘A Two-face Coin: St. Joseph Seminary and Church,Macau’, Macau Daily Times, 25 July 2009. 16 March 2013 <http://archive.macaudailytimes.com.mo/>.

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

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

Travels inCappadocia

by Ashleigh Wiseman

N AN AIR-CONDITIONED BUS with free teaand biscuits, driving through Anatolia to a final destination,you cannot help but be overwhelmed by the majesticlandscape. Dark red salt lakes, a volcano and a vast desertgreet you as you make the final turns in Neveshir. Here, youare met with wonderful sites: houses, monasteries andchurches cut into the mini mountains that formed naturallymillions of years ago.

Cappadocia has a rich history stretching back to the BronzeAge, through to the Persian Empire, to Byzantine times. InAD17 the province of Cappadocia fell under Romancontrol. In those early times before Constantine made theofficial religion of the Empire Christianity, early Christianssought refuge in the area. Here, they cut monasteries andchurches into the mountains, and even built massiveunderground cities, fully fitted with wineries, a defencesystem and a clean water supply.

Walking through the open-air museum in Goreme youcannot help but marvel at the beautifully cut facades of themonasteries and the spectacular early Christian wallpaintings – many surviving in a sublime condition today.Unfortunately, many of the faces of the saints have fallenvictim to Ottoman graffiti, but many still survive today.The rich colours illuminate the rooms of the churches andone can find it near impossible to tear one’s eyes away.

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

One of our excursions took us to village not far fromNeveshir. Unfortunately an earthquake had destroyedmuch of the area in the 1950s – many lost their homes andlives. Our tour guide told us that he had once lived in thehouses built into the mountains before the earthquake. Heshowed us around the houses. It is quite breath-taking tosee into these houses; the beautiful architecture, theuniqueness and the jaw-dropping views from the windows.The tour tested everyone’s claustrophobia and fear ofheights – but it was worth it. Particularly when onemember of the tour dropped his sunglasses down a smallvertical whole that stretched down 15feet. And down wentour tour guide after the sunglasses! He shimmed down thehole and crawled back up without any help of a ladder orrope. It was then that I realised that I must join a gym.

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

O


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

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

The ethos of community andpublic archaeology is theirmindset for the runningof theproject. Not only does it havea reputable social side with lecture series to teach the public and weekly discussion groups, but also the academic.I have been lucky enough to contribute to interim reports as a 17 year old first year and actually directly contributeto the research despite not being an 'academic' that other projects may prioritise. Therefore every year I go, I growin terms of archaeological and practical skills. I am able to gain more confidence in my excavation, theoretical andacademic abilities. I have been able to critically analyse the purpose of the site and in my second year was givena supervisory role; in my third I was voted in at their AGM as a trustee. The fluidity and flexibility of movement hasbeen especially beneficial for me and other students to gain some skills in supervising and invaluable experiencefor our CV!

Themini marxist hippie community of Sedgeford is an absolute blast. It's full of little quirks (such as Tie-Dye Friday,delicious vegan food and the infamous punch) and is a great dig to get involved in but I do give a warning: it getsincredibly addictive and you may get SHARP withdrawal symptoms!

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

- Tyler Mackie

HARP: Introduction to archaeology (Lemba, Cyprus)

I attended HARP’s introduction to archaeology course in Cyprus last year. It takes place in Lemba, which is nearthe city of Paphos. The program runs for twoweeks over the Easter holiday. Accommodation is offered as campingon the roof of the Lemba Archaeological Research Centre and this is also where the course is run from. You areexpected to bring your own tent and sleeping bag, but you’ll get amattress so sleeping is comfy. The centre is alsowhere youwill cook your food,which youget froma supermarket only a fewminutes away. There is also a restaurantthat does take-away, so food is a good way to save money while you are there. Showers and toilets are also at thecentre.

As for the actual course; the curriculum is focusedon thepractical aspects of archaeology and it overlaps somewhatwith what you are expected to learn in Archaeology 1. The lecturers are Ian Hill from HARP and Dr. Paul Croft whois an honorary fellow at the University of Edinburgh (and who manages the centre), and during my visit Prof.Peltenburg also stepped by for a visit. Throughout the course Cyprus is used as a case study and visits to sites inthe region is included in the price. Although lectures on Cyprus are given, most of the time is spent outside, atLemba Prehistoric village (remember the round houses that Dr. Gordon Thomas worked at?). Skills you will learninclude surveying, recording artefacts, photography and reconstruction techniques used in experimentalarchaeology. There is also time spent potwashing andDrCroft is on hand if anyone has questions regarding animalbones. As a second year I still found the course interesting and helpful, the other participantsmade the experiencea great way to spend two weeks. The price is a little expensive for a poor student, but I am happy I went.

- Matilde Skram


Archaeologists review their timein the field, the lab and the

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

Ephesus is an incredible site in terms of size, time-span and material culture. Its history extends from as far backas the Neolithic through its golden era as the most important Roman/Byzantine city in the near East throughoutmuchof the1stmillenniumAD,until itwaseventually conquered in1304bySasaBeyofMenteşoğullar andbecamepart of the Ottoman Empire. The site has been excavated for over 125 years, but archaeologists predict that notmore than 20% of the material has been uncovered.

Duringmy timeworking on the project, I was involved in excavations at a 14th century Turkish bathhouse (hamam).My work involved digging, processing, labelling and analysing finds, as well as completing site plans, wall andfloor plans, and assisting in 3D scans of the rooms of the bathhouse. The finds were abundant and includedbeautiful, ornate pottery and glass, metal work, animal bones and decorative architectural features. I was alsogiven the opportunity to gain experience in post-excavation processing, which involved archaeological drawing,measuring and recording, and also observation of some preservative techniques on delicate finds such as glass.

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

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

- Susie Dalton


University Internship

This summer I was lucky enough to be the Archaeology Intern for the History, Classics and Archaeology department at theUniversity of Edinburgh. Applications for the internship were open to 2nd and 3rd year students with an interest, and theaccompanying knowledge, in archaeology. The intention of the internship was for curation of the Vere Gordon ChildeCollection (the school’s artefact teaching collection) to take place over a 10 week period. Needless to say this providedfantastic experience; giving me skills for the future, and a valuable addition to my CV.

One key experience worth noting was the application and interview process. I had never submitted an official CV beforeor completed a job application form of this manner, and as a result I feel more comfortable with the process for future jobapplications. The interview itself had a panel, made up of Jenni Dixon (coordinator of the Employ.ed on campus internshipprogramme), Dr. Gordon Thomas and Margaret Forrest (the intern supervisors for HCA interns).

Part of the reason why such curation has been required in the collection is due to the relocation of the Archaeologydepartment in 2010. As such, the cupboards holding the artefacts are no longer in their original order due to logisticalissues. Additionally, there was a large amount of uncatalogued material, over 1000 artefacts, which are now included inthe collection’s computer database. As a result I gained experience in physically labelling artefacts, workingwith collectiondatabases such as Adlib and an improvement in my organisational skills (without which my contribution to the task wouldhavebeen severely hampered).Morework is still required to takeplace, as such it is likely therewill be anotherArchaeologyInternship for summer 2014, and if possible I suggest you apply. Applications should open in February, sowatch this space!

Referring to the additional work, I ideally wanted to reorganise the entire collection with a system by period, which wouldthen by sub-divided into geographic location. Unfortunately due to the time spent labelling artefacts, I was only able tomake a proposal for a new organisation, rather than reorganising the collectionmyself. A new intern next year could easilymake such a change happen, hopefully thereby making the collection more accessible and user-friendly, ultimatelyensuring more frequent use within the department, to the benefit of the students... it is the Vere Gordon Childe TeachingCollection after all.Another benefit of participating in the Employ.ed on campus internships is that every intern was paid. This in itself is anadmirable part of the internship organisation, it would have been easy to have such placements be voluntary (studentswould likely have applied due to the valuable experience), as many internships across Britain currently are, sparkingcontroversy and debate. It shows an awareness and appreciation that the work undertaken by the interns has value andacknowledgement that thework of interns provides real benefit to their relevant departments. Plus, £300 aweek is nothingto be sniffed at (especially for archaeological experience)!

As I am now in my 4th year and taking the Archaeological Fieldwork Course, the internship was allowed to contributetowards my 'fieldwork' experience requirement. This further shows an awareness and appreciation of the work andexperience provided from such an internship.I will quickly mention the Edinburgh Award. The requirements for the internship (Such as blog entries and reflective logactivities) cross over with many of the requirements with the Edinburgh Award, and as such as an Employ.ed on campusintern you would be eligible for it. The award is recognition of extracurricular work which benefits the university and dueto the nature of the different tasks that each internship offers, your Edinburgh Award is tailored to your achievements. Asa result it is a great talking point in job interviews to say what you gained from the internship programme and how theUniversity of Edinburgh gave full recognition of that.

All in all, if the opportunity for you to apply for an Employ.ed on Campus presents itsself, throw yourself in. However faryouget in the applicationprocess,whether to interview stage, or todoing the internship itself, is very educational. Formoreinformation on 2013’s internship experiences check out the Employ.ed on campus 2013 Case Studies page, where myself

and other interns have presented ourexperiences > http://www.ed.ac.uk/s c h o o l s - d e p a r tm e n t s / c a r e e r s /ed inbu rgh -awa rd /2 .15029/case -studies-2013.

- Alex Wood


Schela Cladovei, Romania

During the summer break I participated in excavation at Schela Cladovei in Romania, directed jointly by University of

Edinburgh and Institute of Archaeology in Bucharest staff. The excavation is primarily an educational one, with the

main purpose being to train students in numerous skills employed in working in the field, as well as to give

experience in finds processing for future excavation work undertaken. Schela Cladovei is one of many important

Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites along the Iron Gates section of the Danube river in south-eastern Europe and

excavations have been carried out almost annually at the site since 1968. The site is one of several open-air

settlements dating to around 6200 BC, in the early post-glacial period of this area, uncovered during the

construction of the Iron Gate dams and reinforcement of the eroding riverbank.

The project has been concerned with investigating the Danube Valley culture during the Mesolithic and Early

Neolithic periods, in particular the transition between hunter-gatherer nomadic communities to sedentary

agricultural society. Another key area the excavations aim to investigate is the gap between around 6300 BC and

6000 BC in settlement density and occupational patterns after the 8.2 event, or Younger Dryas as it is also known.

Schela Cladovei is one of the most prolific sites in the area in terms of the material found during excavation. There

has been a great wealth of remains found at the site in the past including numerous burials, collapsed structures and

hearths, a huge quantity of pottery and stones as well as worked stone tools and flint blades, bone tools and worked

animal bone remains, small fish bones and teeth, disarticulated human remains, daub and brick material, beads and

rings, and obsidian microliths. The sheer quantity and diversity of the finds from the site has contributed greatly to

the archaeological record of the area and the understanding of the communities living in the Danube Valley in the

Mesolithic and Neolithic period.

The original location of the site was closer to the Danube itself, on the banks that have now been reinforced with

concrete blocks along with the construction of the dams to allow easier access for boats. The team of 10 students

was joined partway through by a specialist in fish bones, who obviously dealt with the fish bones being excavated on

the site as assisted students in sorting finds and identifying the smaller bones and which were particularly important.

The notable finds of the site included an infant jaw bone, a partial bone ring, two potential hearths and a bronze age

pot sherd. Working on this site has taught me the essential skills for fieldwork and having the opportunity to

undertake an excavation on such a prolific site with a prominent member of his field has been an incredibly

rewarding one.

- Iona Diver

Pre-historiscopes: What'sYour Future inArchaeology?

Aries

This week on excavation, your archaicthrowback to a Schleimann-esque ‘GreatTrench’ annihilates 17 contexts. Oh well, atleast you canpretend youwere approachingyour work from a post-modern miasma ofironic historicism rather than that youactually just don’t care about the past.

Taurus

As an undergraduate, you read an article inthis very issue of InSitu and feel empoweredto begin your own research project. Yousend the author of that article all of yourworldly possessions in eternal gratitude.

Gemini

While reading the myriad works of VereGordon Childe, you realise how close hecomes to Social Darwinism in his earlysupport of unilinear evolutionary theory.But likean inherently racistgrandparent, it’ssomehow acceptable. How cute of him.

Cancer

Whilst perusing through your contextrecords, younotice some joker has changedevery dimension of every cut to 0.69m. Asyou are single, this hurts just a little more.

Leo

This week you are a context in some fools‘Great Trench’. Although incapable ofindependent thought due to being entirelyarbitrary and inanimate, you still feel slightlywronged.

Virgo

This week you are Vere Gordon Childe.Offended by the above mention of SocialDarwinism, you write ‘SocialEvolution’ (1951) which is slightly less‘Gustav Kossinna’, and slightly more‘multilinnear evolutionary theory.’ Everyonefeels a bit better.

Libra

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

Scorpio

The undeniable fact thatarchaeology is simply aglorified hobby occupies yourdejected mind until you justcan’t take it. Or stop caring.Whichever ismoredepressing.

Sagittarius

Once again, your new researchproject is pushing back somedate of some significance orother. Or at least it would be, ifall the good archaeologywasn’t in the baulk. Obviously.

CapricornTurning the ‘Three Age System’ on itsstony head, you prove that achronologically defining typologybased upon morphology of pocket-squares is far more effective. However,you have trouble applying this to anyperiod before the 1870s so its sheerbrilliance is not quite grasped by theacademic community. Bucolic Luddites.

Aquarius

What if in the past, Druids werereally just like ancient Jehovah’sWitnesses? You write a paperupon this theory and wininternational acclaim. (Actuallythat’s my idea, hands off).

Pisces

This week you try trepanning,and half way through theprocess forget why you thoughit was a good idea. In fact, youforget all things.

Horosco

pesby

Tom

Gardn

er. Illu

stratio

nsby

Zofia

Gue

rtin

insitu (issue no 1, nov 2013)

Documents

insitu team

stage insitu

insitu cover art contestwinner

courtesy euan foley

courtesy ross

project running

online journal

thepoulton project inchester