Methodologies and Questions

Digital data accumulation (Year 1):

An important and novel aspect of the project will be the development of methods by which to collate and analyse the mass of digital data required for this project. Large sources of data on landscapes and artefacts exist as outlined above, but they have never been brought together. The fact that this will be carried out by a single team with an explicit set of questions will allow for rigour and comparability of analyses.

The large amounts of existing digital data and the even larger amounts we will create will form the analytical basis of the project.  Taylor’s 28,000 sites for the Roman period give some sense of the scale. Manipulating large amounts of digital data is no trivial matter and we are carrying out a pilot project together with the Oxford eResearch Centre to develop a web application allowing a user to query and browse the data from many disparate archaeological data sets. These data would be combined and displayed along with mapping data within the web browser, utilising javascript software based on OpenLayers. In the course of the project we will make this software available through a website to allow others to carry out their own analyses.

Country-wide Study (Year 1):

Our work will be focused on England, on archaeological data and on rural settlement (we will only consider urban centres in terms of their impact on the wider landscape). No one scale is the best for understanding landscape histories and we need to work up and down from the whole of England to local regions to gain a full and nuanced picture of broad trends and local variety. We will work at a number of scales, starting with a country-wide consideration in the first year of our work.

Key questions here, which incorporate the themes set out above, will include –

1)    Both Roberts and Wrathmell (2000, 2002) and Taylor (2007) make a distinction between dispersed settlements and small fields in the southwest and the northwest from the Romano-British to Medieval periods and the rest of the country in which nucleated systems sit beside dispersed settlement. Does this distinction hold for the Bronze and Iron Ages? What forms of continuity and change can be seen in different areas?

2)    The midlands, south and southeast see a combination of ditch enclosures and trackway systems and less enclosed forms, either of the ‘pit cluster’ or ‘wandering settlement’ type, or small individual farmsteads. How far is it possible to distinguish between history and mode of occupation of these landscapes and what is the relationship between them?

3)    Do all the different landscape types sketched above have different distributions of artefacts? How do artefact distributions change through time in varied landscapes? What can we say about varied social ontologies on the basis of these patterns?

4)    Ditched enclosure and trackway systems seem to be laid out on four occasions (middle Bronze Age, late Iron Age/early Roman periods, the second century AD and the middle Anglo-Saxon period). How far is this a true pattern and how good is our dating? Do the various episodes differ in layout, scale and purpose? What is the historical relationship between features of different episodes? What can we say about patterns of practice within each episode?

5)    What can we say about the morphologies and histories of the northwest and southwest systems, given the considerable indications of continuity from the Bronze Age onwards?

Case Studies (Years 2 to 4):

These broad distinctions will be nuanced by developing 18 case studies, spread fairly evenly across England and aiming to take in areas of the north, Midlands and southwest that have not always been at the centre of archaeological thought (Figure 2). We have chosen areas with at least some (and often extensive) National Mapping Programme coverage and with other forms of survey or excavation. In each case study we will critique our sources, mapping areas of modern settlement and woodland that will mask landscape features or make metal detecting activity less likely, as well as looking at the patterns of developer-funded work. In order to undertake the spatial analysis of artefactual data we will explore a variety of trend surface analyses. Scale will be critical to these local investigations, so that we will look first at the broad distribution of settlement and land divisions across a region, paying special attention to blank areas. We will then focus in on various landscape clusters, looking at the nature of settlement and land divisions, as well as the distribution of finds within them.

An individual researcher will be responsible for a single region, but will draw on the period expertise of their colleagues in tackling aspects of the evidence they are less familiar with. This will allow about six months per researcher per region, allowing time to read the available evidence and collate information that exists in digital databases (principally the British Museum and the Portable Antiquities Scheme), as well as consult with HERs, local specialists and researchers in the National Mapping Programme. Material gathered in the first year will provide a partial basis for the case studies and on our visits to HERs in the first year of the project we will discuss and plan our approach to each case study, which will necessarily be responsive to the nature of local data and modes of recording.

Given regional variability it is somewhat difficult to specify single sets of questions for all cases. However, the following general issues will be of interest –

1)    Can we develop measures of dispersed and nucleated sites, or use those applied by others, principally Taylor (2007) and Roberts and Wrathmell (2002)? Does a greater degree of nucleation and formalization of the landscape indicate more intensive forms of land-use? How can we think about patterns of practice in terms of the use of arable and the movement of animals in systems of different forms?

2)    What are the spatial limits of various systems, where do fields and trackways end and what lies beyond? How far are we able positively to identify blank areas? This latter question is becoming more important given the realization that some areas are blank in some periods, with population returning later. The periodicity of landscape use is a key aspect of its history.

3)    Is metalwork deposited in the same places in the landscape across time? We know some areas (East Anglia for instance) seem to have denser concentrations of metalwork from the Bronze Age to the Medieval periods than other areas. How are such densities distributed across the landscape; are they correlated with particular human or natural features of the landscape? What is the relationship between the deposition in water and on land?

The regions we are working with are those of English Heritage, who also coordinate the National Mapping Programme (for more details see http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/research/landscapes-and-areas/national-mapping-programme/). The case studies we have chosen are as follows:

North West:

● Lake District (Fig. 2.1). This is a classic part of highland England with a range of sites of all periods. Some coverage by the National Mapping Programme and also the Solway Plain Survey (Bewley 1994).

● Cheshire  (Fig. 2.2). A more lowland area of the north west, with a number of aerial photographic and ground survey, such as that around Chester focusing on Roman material, and Meols, which has a post-Roman focus and a wetlands survey (Leah et al. 1997) with all periods.

North East:

● Northumberland (Fig. 2.3). Some coverage by National Mapping Programme, especially around Hadrian’s Wall and a survey of Northumberland National Park covering sites of all periods (Frodsham 2004).

● Durham (Fig. 2.4). This area has excellent National Mapping Programme coverage and a small number of regional syntheses.

Yorkshire:

● Yorkshire Wolds (Fig. 2.5). Excellent National Mapping Programme, with an accompanying synthetic volume (Stoertz 1997) which includes recommendations for further work, in addition to considerable excavation.

West Midlands:

● The Malverns (Fig. 2.6). Some National Mapping Project coverage and an excellent collation of the Grey Literature on line in the Worcester HER. Excellent Ph.D. on the Iron Age of the region (Wigley  2002).

● The Marches (Shropshire and Herefordshire - Fig. 2.7). National Mapping Programme coverage for the uplands, and work at Wroxeter. A wetlands survey is the most comprehensive synthesis.

East Midlands:

● Nottinghamshire (Fig. 2.19). Good NMP coverage. Has also been subject to a recent fieldwalking survey co-ordinated by EH. The landscape and artefactual data and GIS from this survey are available for download from ADS. The detailed work by Knight and Elliott (2008) on the Gonalston area shows the potential for investigating landscape continuity and change in this region with a strong focus on environmental changes and pressures. The additional layers of interpretation from the artefact analyses proposed in this project should provide a yet more refined and nuanced picture of this county that is often not given attention in syntheses.

● Peak District (Fig. 2.8). Some National Mapping Programme coverage. Survey work by Hodges and Smith (1991) and Barnatt and Smith (1997) showing the potential for more detailed landscape studies.

● Northants (Fig. 2.9). County-wide coverage of the National Mapping Programme, the potential of which is demonstrated in Deegan and Foard’s (2007) project.

East of England:

● Norfolk (Fig. 2.10). Current focus of National Mapping Programme and of our pilot study, large amounts of metalwork.  Large-scale excavations and publication of Fens; considerable concentrations of metalwork, with a number of works of synthesis and more in train.

● Suffolk (Fig. 2.12). The southern and coastal areas of Suffolk have NMP data. This is complemented by the recent Suffolk River Valleys Project whose data is downloadable from ADS. While this county is well known for impressive sites such as Sutton Hoo, there has been less focus on synthesising data from the wider landscape and more mundane, everyday sites, especially in the past 20 years.

South West:

● Mendips (Fig. 2.13). Somerset has been subject to several well-known excavations, such as Cadbury Castle, Gatcombe villa and the recently published Shapwick project. The Mendips provides an opportunity to carry out a detailed exploration of part of this complex landscape. The NMP coverage of the East Mendips and neighbouring areas has added 98 new HER records and amended 60 others. A recent resource assessment of Somerset has also highlighted the general lack of artefact studies in the area, so this case study will be able to contribute to the wider agendas set up for Somerset.

● Exmoor (Fig. 2.14). Has National Mapping Programme coverage and some synthesis, but little in the way of large excavations.

● Bodmin Moor (Cornwall – Fig. 2.15). Has National Mapping Project coverage, and excellent West Penwith project, but no work on relationship of artefacts to landscape.

South East:

● Kent (Fig. 2.16). The Straits of Dover and the Thames Estuary was a pilot-National Mapping Programme project; large strip of land covered in Channel Tunnel excavations; numerous other excavations; Novum inventorium sepulchrale database.

● South Downs (Hampshire and Sussex – Fig. 2.17). Have areas of National Mapping Programme coverage and considerable amount of artefactual data.

Central (not an English Heritage division):

● Thames Valley (Upper and Middle – Fig. 2.18). Surveyed prior to the National Mapping Programme and has large-scale and well-published developer-funded excavations on the gravels.