Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:00:56.416Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing the Contribution of Commercial Archaeology to the Study of the Roman Period in England, 1990–2004

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 June 2011

Michael Fulford  and
Neil Holbrook
Michael Fulford*
Affiliation:
Michael Fulford, FSA, Department of Archaeology, SHES, University of Reading, Whiteknights, PO Box 227, Reading RG6 6AB, UK. E-mail: m.g.fulford@reading.ac.uk
Neil Holbrook*
Affiliation:
Neil Holbrook, FSA, Cotswold Archaeology, Building 11, Kemble Enterprise Park, Cirencester GL7 6BQ, UK. E-mail: neil.holbrook@cotswoldarch.org.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper identifies the ways in which the enormous upsurge in the volume of commercial archaeology in England since the introduction of PPG 16 in 1990 has affected our knowledge and understanding of Roman Britain. The difficulties in establishing a comprehensive database of interventions are discussed, but overall it is estimated that around 6,600 separate interventions sampled Roman deposits between 1990 and 2004. While many important excavations have been published in conventional formats, a considerable amount of information resides only in grey literature. Commercial work has generated major advances in our understanding of non-villa rural settlement and its associated land use, while analyses of material culture and, to a lesser extent, biological remains have considerable potential for wider synthesis and inter-site comparison. Improvements in collection methodology and reporting standards are suggested, and the need to integrate the results of commercial investigations with data derived from other sources is stressed.

Résumé

Cette communication identifie comment la prodigieuse recrudescence du volume de l'archéologie commerciale en Angleterre depuis l'introduction de PPG 16 en 1990 a eu un effet sur nos connaissances et sur notre conception de la Grande-Bretagne romaine. Les difficultés liées à l’établissement d'une base de données complète des interventions sont discutées mais, dans l'ensemble, on estime qu'environ 6,600 interventions séparées ont échantillonné des dépôts romains entre 1990 et 2004. Bien que nombre d'importantes fouilles aient été publiées dans des formats traditionnels, une très grande quantité d'informations se trouve uniquement dans la littérature grise. Le travail commercial a engendré de grands progrès au niveau de notre conception du peuplement rural hors des villas et de l'utilisation des sols qui lui est associée, alors que les analyses de la culture matérielle et, à un moindre degré, des vestiges biologiques, offrent un grand potentiel pour une synthèse plus large et une comparaison entre les sites. Des améliorations au niveau de la méthodologie de recueil et des normes de consigne sont suggérées, et on souligne le besoin d'intégrer les résultats des investigations commerciales et les données provenant d'autres sources.

Zusammenfassung

Diese Abhandlung identifiziert die Auswirkungen, des enormen Aufschwungs der kommerziellen Archäologie in England seit der Einführung von PPG 16 (Regierungsrichtlinie 16) im Jahr 1990 auf unser Wissen über und Verständnis von Großbritannien in der Römerzeit. Die Schwierigkeiten einer umfassenden Datensammlung von Einschreitungen werden diskutiert, aber generell wird geschätzt, daß es im Zeitraum von 1990 bis 2004 ungefähr 6,600 separate Einschreitungen bei römischen Ablagerungen gegeben haben muss. Obwohl viele Ausgrabungen in konventionellem Format veröffentlicht wurden, gibt es seine beachtliche Menge von Informationen, die sich nur innerhalb der grauen Literatur befinden. Kommerzielle Arbeit hat zu einschneidenden Fortschritten im Verständnis von ländlichen, nicht einer Villa angehörenden, Siedlungen und deren Landnutzung geführt, wohingegen die Analyse von materieller Kultur und, in geringerem Ausmaß, die der umfangreichen biologischen Überreste noch beachtliches Potential zur weitergreifenden Synthese und standortübergreifenden Vergleichen haben. Verbesserungen in den Methoden der Fundbergung und Berichterstattung werden empfohlen und der Bedarf der Integration von Ergebnissen von kommerziellen Untersuchungen und anderen Quellen wird hervorgehoben.

Type
Articles
Information
The Antiquaries Journal , Volume 91 , September 2011 , pp. 323 - 345
Copyright
Copyright © The Society of Antiquaries of London 2011

Access options

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

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bateman, N, Cowan, C Wroe-Brown, R 2008. London's Roman Amphitheatre, MoLAS 35, London: Museum of LondonGoogle Scholar
Booth, P, Dodd, A, Robinson, M Smith, A 2007. The Thames through Time: the archaeology of the gravel terraces of the upper and middle Thames. The early historical period: AD 1–1000, Thames Valley Landscapes 27, Oxford: Oxford ArchaeologyGoogle Scholar
Booth, P, Simmonds, A, Boyle, A, Clough, S, Cool, H E M Poore, D 2010. The Late Roman Cemetery at Lankhills, Winchester, Excavations 2000–2005, Oxford Archaeol 10, Oxford: Oxford ArchaeologyGoogle Scholar
Bradley, R 2006. ‘Bridging the two cultures: commercial archaeology and the study of prehistoric Britain’, Antiq J, 86, 1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, R 2007. The Prehistory of Britain and Ireland, Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cool, H E M 2010. ‘Finding the foreigners’, in Eckardt (ed) 2010, 27–44Google Scholar
Cotswold Archaeology 2008. ‘Assessing the research potential of grey literature in the study of Roman England’, Archaeology Data Service, 〈http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/arch-811-1/preservation_dissemination/pdf/2205_Roman_Grey_Lit_Stage_1_Report_Jan_08_PDF.pdf〉 (31 December 2010)Google Scholar
Crummy, P 2008. ‘The Roman circus at Colchester’, Britannia, 39, 15–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunliffe, B 1986. ‘Publish or be damned’, Hist Archaeol Rev, 1, 31–35Google Scholar
Cunliffe, B 2008. The Danebury Environs Roman Programme: a Wessex landscape during the Roman era. Vol. 1: Overview, Oxford Univ Sch Archaeol 70, Oxford: Oxford University, School of ArchaeologyGoogle Scholar
Darvill, T Fulton, A 1998. MARS: The Monuments at Risk Survey of England, 1995. Main report, Bournemouth and London: English HeritageGoogle Scholar
Darvill, T Russell, B 2002. Archaeology after PPG16: archaeological investigations in England 1990–1999, Bournemouth Univ Sch Conserv Sci Res Rep 10, Bournemouth: Bournemouth UniversityGoogle Scholar
Drummond-Murray, J Thompson, P, with Cowan, C, 2002. Settlement in Roman Southwark. Archaeological excavations (1991–8) for the London Underground Limited Jubilee Line Extension Project, MoLAS 12, London: Museum of LondonGoogle Scholar
Eckardt, H 2006. ‘The character, chronology, and use of the late Roman pits: the Silchester finds assemblage’, in Life and Labour in Late Roman Silchester. Excavations in Insula IX since 1997 (eds M Fulford, A Clarke and H Eckardt), 221–45, Britannia Monogr ser 22, London: Society for the Promotion of Roman StudiesGoogle Scholar
Eckardt, H (ed) 2010. Roman Diasporas. Archaeological approaches to mobility and diversity in the Roman Empire, J Roman Archaeol suppl ser 78, Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman ArchaeologyGoogle Scholar
Eckardt, H, with Chenery, C, Leach, S, Lewis, M, Müldner, G Nimmo, E 2010. ‘A long way from home: diaspora communities in Roman Britain’, in Eckardt (ed) 2010, 99–130Google Scholar
Ford, S 1987. East Berkshire Archaeological Survey, Reading: Berkshire County CouncilGoogle Scholar
Framework Archaeology 2006. Landscape Evolution in the Middle Thames Valley: Heathrow Terminal 5 excavations. Volume 1: Perry Oaks, Framework Archaeol 1, Oxford and Salisbury: Framework ArchaeologyGoogle Scholar
Framework Archaeology 2008. From Hunter Gatherers to Huntsmen. A history of the Stansted landscape, Framework Archaeol 2, Oxford and Salisbury: Framework ArchaeologyGoogle Scholar
Framework Archaeology 2010. Landscape Evolution in the Middle Thames Valley: Heathrow Terminal 5 excavations. Volume 2, Framework Archaeol 3, Oxford and Salisbury: Framework ArchaeologyGoogle Scholar
Friendship-Taylor, R M Friendship-Taylor, D E (eds) 1997. From Round House to Villa, Northampton: Upper Nene Archaeological SocietyGoogle Scholar
Gaffney, V Tingle, M 1989. The Maddle Farm Project: an integrated survey of prehistoric and Romano-British landscapes on the Berkshire Downs, BAR Brit Ser 200, Oxford: British Archaeological ReportsGoogle Scholar
Gaffney, V L, White, R H Goodchild, H 2007. Wroxeter, the Cornovii and the Urban Process, J Roman Archaeol suppl ser 68, Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman ArchaeologyGoogle Scholar
Gardner, R 2004. Haverhill Business Park, Sturmer, Essex STBHB 03. A post-excavation assessment of the archaeological excavation 2003, SCCAS Rep 2003/117, Ipswich: Suffolk County CouncilGoogle Scholar
Germany, M, Buckley, D, Bedwin, O Glazebrook, J 2004. Excavations at Great Holts Farm, Boreham, Essex 1992–94, E Anglian Archaeol 105, Chelmsford: East Anglian ArchaeologyGoogle Scholar
Hingley, R 1989. Rural Settlement in Roman Britain, Braintree: BatsfordGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, N forthcoming a. ‘The contribution of commercial archaeology to the study of Roman South and West Yorkshire, 1990–2004’, Yorkshire Archaeol J, 84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, N forthcoming b. ‘The contribution of commercial archaeology to the study of Roman Warwickshire, 1990–2004’, Trans Birmingham Warwickshire Archaeol SocGoogle Scholar
Holbrook, N forthcoming a. ‘The contribution of commercial archaeology to the study of Roman Somerset, 1990–2004’, Proc Somerset Archaeol Natur Hist Soc, 154Google Scholar
Holbrook, N forthcoming b. ‘The contribution of commercial archaeology to the study of Roman Essex, 1990–2004’, Essex Archaeol Hist, 4th ser, iGoogle Scholar
Holbrook, N Morton, R 2010. ‘Assessing the research potential of grey literature in the study of Roman England’, Archaeology Data Service, 〈http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/archive/greylit_eh_2008/downloads.cfm〉 (31 December 2010)Google Scholar
Hollinrake, C Hollinrake, N 1995. Polden Villages Pipeline Project: Edington Holy Well, Rep 71, Glastonbury: C & N HollinrakeGoogle Scholar
Lucy, S, Evans, C Jefferies, R forthcoming. The Romano-British Settlement and Cemeteries at Mucking: excavations by Margaret and Tom Jones, 1965–1978, Cambridge: Cambridge Archaeological UnitGoogle Scholar
Mattingly, D 2006. An Imperial Possession. Britain in the Roman Empire, London: Allen LaneGoogle Scholar
Millett, M 2007. ‘Experiments in the analysis of finds deposition at Shiptonthorpe: a retrospect’, in Roman Finds: context and theory. Proceedings of a conference held at the University of Durham (eds R Hingley and S Willis), 100–105, Oxford: OxbowGoogle Scholar
Palmer, S C 2002. Ling Hall Quarry, Church Lawford, Warwickshire, Archaeological Excavations 1989–1999, Warwick: Warwickshire County CouncilGoogle Scholar
Phillips, T Bradley, R 2005. ‘Developer-funded fieldwork in Scotland, 1990–2003: an overview of the prehistoric evidence’, Proc Soc Antiq Scotl, 134, 17–51Google Scholar
Pitt Rivers, A H L E 1887. Excavations in Cranborne Chase, near Rushmore, on the Borders of Dorset and Wilts. Volume 1. Excavations in the Romano-British village on Woodcuts Common, and Romano-British antiquities in Rushmore Park, LondonGoogle Scholar
Pitt Rivers, A H L E 1888. Excavations in Cranborne Chase, near Rushmore, on the Borders of Dorset and Wilts. Volume 2. Excavations in barrows near Rushmore. Excavations in Romano-British village, Rotherley. Excavations in Winklebury Camp. Excavations in British barrows and Anglo-Saxon cemeteries, Winklebury Hill, LondonGoogle Scholar
Powell, A B, Booth, P, Fitzpatrick, A P Crockett, A D 2008. The Archaeology of the M6 Toll 2000–2003, Oxford Wessex Archaeol 2, Oxford and Salisbury: Oxford Wessex ArchaeologyGoogle Scholar
Price, E 2000. Frocester. A Romano-British Settlement, its Antecedents and Successors. Volumes 1 and 2, Stonehouse: Gloucester and District Archaeological Research GroupGoogle Scholar
Price, E 2010. Frocester. A Romano-British Settlement, its Antecedents and Successors. Volume 3, Stonehouse: Gloucester and District Archaeological Research GroupGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I, Burgess, A Berg, D (eds) 2001. A New Link to the Past: the archaeological landscape of the M1–A1 link road, Yorkshire Archaeol 7, Leeds: West Yorkshire Archaeology ServiceGoogle Scholar
Simmonds, A, Márquez-Grant, N Loe, L 2008. Life and Death in a Roman City. The excavation of a Roman cemetery with a mass grave at 120–122 London Road, Gloucester, Oxford Archaeol 6, Oxford: Oxford ArchaeologyGoogle Scholar
Simmonds, A, Cook, S, Biddulph, E Score, D 2009. Archaeology in the Park. Excavations at Jennet's Park Bracknell, Berkshire, Oxford Archaeol Occ Pap 18, Oxford: Oxford ArchaeologyGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J 2007. An Atlas of Roman Rural Settlement in England, CBA Res Rep 151, York: Council for British ArchaeologyGoogle Scholar
Thomas, R 1991. ‘Drowning in data’, Antiquity, 56, 822–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timby, J R 1999. ‘Roman pottery from Birdlip Quarry, Cowley’, in Excavations alongside Roman Ermin Street, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire: the archaeology of the A419/A417 Swindon to Gloucester road scheme (A Mudd, R J Williams and A Lupton), 339–365, Oxford: Oxford Archaeological UnitGoogle Scholar
Timby, J, Brown, R, Biddulph, E, Hardy, A Powell, A 2007. A Slice of Rural Essex: archaeological discoveries from the A120 between Stansted Airport and Braintree, Oxford Wessex Archaeol 1, Oxford and Salisbury: Oxford Wessex ArchaeologyGoogle Scholar
Tomber, R Dore, J 1998. The National Roman Fabric Reference Collection: a handbook, MoLAS 2, London: Museum of LondonGoogle Scholar
University of York 2004. ‘Environmental archaeology bibliography’, Archaeology Data Service, 〈http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/specColl/eab_eh_2004/index.cfm?CFID=4315470&CFTOKEN=82475009〉 (9 January 2011)Google Scholar
Van der Veen, M, Livarda, A Hill, A 2007. ‘The archaeobotany of Roman Britain: current state and identification of research priorities’, Britannia, 38, 181–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkes, J J 1989. ‘A prospect of Roman Britain’, in Research on Roman Britain (ed M Todd), 245–250, Britannia Monogr 11, London: Society for the Promotion of Roman StudiesGoogle Scholar
Williams, J H 2003. ‘New light on Roman Kent’, J Roman Archaeol, 16 (1), 219–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WYAS 2002. High Street, Shafton, South Yorkshire, WYAS Rep 993, Wakefield: West Yorkshire Archaeological ServicesGoogle Scholar