The Archaeological Potential of Secondary Contexts

Module 9 - Introduction

This module sought to assess current practice in the management of the secondary context archaeological resource, and propose generic recommendations for the future management of the resource. This is obviously with respect to continued PPG16-driven monitoring (watching briefs) of industrial extraction at aggregates sites which may contain sedimentary and/or artefactual evidence of archaeological interest. This assessment was therefore primarily concerned with:

1. The relative value of the secondary context archaeological resource, both as a whole and with respect to the different categories of new evidence (artefactual, biological, sedimentary, and dating samples) that can be potentially recovered from pre-excavated secondary context sediments.

2. Prioritisation of the different categories of evidence occurring within the secondary context archaeological resource, with respect to management strategies, logistics and archaeological requirements (both academic and commercial).

3. A review of current watching brief practise on aggregate sites, based on an analysis of strategy documents produced by professional archaeological units.

4. The recommendation of generic and specific strategies for the future management, protection and recording of the aggregate resource. These recommendations will focus upon the potential impact for the aggregates industry (financial and logistical), the relative value of the different components of the geoarchaeological record, strategy efficiency (in terms of time and geoarchaeological data output), and the potential for the ‘training’ of aggregates industry employees in the recognition of different sedimentary facies.

1. The Value of the Secondary Context Archaeology Resource

It is argued that the secondary context archaeological record has clear value with respect to the investigation of hominid behaviour during the Palaeolithic. This value stems from the unique spatio-temporal scales of the data, which are exploited by the new interpretive frameworks and models developed as part of this project (Module 8). These frameworks are dependent upon geochronological and process-driven geoarchaeological models, and emphasis was therefore not confined to the stone tool component of secondary context data. The value assessment therefore also highlighted the contextual geoarchaeological data from archaeological secondary contexts, with particular focus upon sedimentary facies modelling, geochronological frameworks and biological evidence.

2. Prioritisation of the Secondary Context Archaeological Resource

It is clear that prioritising the different categories of secondary context data (e.g. stone tools, biological data, sedimentary sequences etc) is a highly contextual activity. It is dependent both upon the location of the secondary contexts (e.g. in ‘blank’ archaeological regions, the highest priority will inevitably be attached to the recovery of stone tools – or the demonstration of their absence) and upon the interest group making the definition. For example, academic archaeologists may stress sediments and dating samples (reflecting regional research frameworks and issues of Quaternary Science), while local government archaeologists may be primarily concerned with the demonstration of Palaeolithic archaeology through the recovery of stone tools.

This discussion highlighted the importance of a widely-acceptance definition of Palaeolithic archaeology – as artefact-driven ‘archaeology’ or as Quaternary Science for whom the local demonstration of hominid presence through stone tools is not a necessity. In other words, when dealing with remote time periods, low density populations, and large regions, it must be acknowledged that i) artefacts will not be found everywhere; and ii) chronological, biological and sedimentological evidence is vital to our understanding of the Pleistocene world within which hominids lived and stone tools were manufactured. This is archaeological data.

Ultimately, stone tools are the building blocks of Palaeolithic archaeology – they are the commonest physical residue to hominid behaviour. However, it is vital to recognise that these data are currently vastly over-represented in the extant archives from the Pleistocene period, and ‘exist’ in an interpretive vacuum due to paucity of contextual evidence. Therefore, when prioritising categories of evidence with respect to future management and practice, we have to consider that in many cases the current need for contextual evidence is greater than the need for further assemblages of unprovenanced stone tools.

3. Current Watching Brief Practice

Review of watching brief practice indicated that it was highly variable. In some cases (e.g. at Squabb Wood – Cotswold Archaeological Trust 2000), project designs indicated a general awareness of the scope of the secondary context resource and the methodologies required for the preservation by record of those data. In other cases however (e.g. at Dunbridge – Harding 1998) the projects were characterised by an over-emphasis on the search for artefacts, both provenanced and unprovenanced, potentially at the expense of other data. In many cases, the impression was given that the secondary context was being recorded almost as a side-effect of ‘watching’ for in situ archaeology. We argue that the secondary context should be recorded as an archaeology in its own right. This shift of emphasis could also have the added benefit of indicating to the aggregates industry that watching briefs are not instigated with the primary goal of uncovering the next Boxgrove and Lynford – and therefore causing lengthy disruption to industrial production.

It is therefore apparent that fundamental education is required across the board with respect to the types of evidence that may be encountered within archaeological secondary contexts, their potential value to Quaternary research, and the methodologies and techniques which maximise the value of these data. The nature of this education is discussed below.

4. Recommendations for Future Practice

In light of the opportunities that the aggregates industry presents for Palaeolithic archaeology it is emphasised that any new strategy recommendations need to be mutually beneficial wherever possible, minimising disruption to the industry and maximising Quaternary data return. This is primarily achieved by downsizing the time spent in searching for artefacts, especially from reject heaps with provenancing data is extremely limited. These recommendations stress the importance of:

i. OSL-suitable sediments.
ii. Generic sedimentary sequences.
iii. Distinctive or unique (within individual sites) sedimentary units (e.g. palaeo-channel fills).
iv. In situ (not primary context but occurring within sections and not on reject heaps) artefacts (lithic and biological).

Time spent on site can also be reduced through the use of new recording techniques (e.g. GPS, digital photography) and small-scale sampling strategies (e.g. with respect to the documentation of generic sedimentary sequences). It is also proposed that the establishment of notification procedures between industry and archaeology could reduce the frequency of visits, on a ‘demand-response’ principle. Obviously this relies upon education and trust, but we see it as one of the few ways out of the current impasse.

In conclusion, this module has sought to stress the importance of all categories of data from archaeological secondary contexts. This has been guided by the underlying principle that Palaeolithic archaeology is about more than stone artefacts, and can be more profitably perceived of as Quaternary Science. Under this principle we can begin to reduce the continual loss of significant evidence, and set in place mechanisms that will support the meaningful interpretation of the extant artefact record, rather than simply adding to it.

Module 9 Outline

Module 9 Interm Report

References

Return to top