Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T06:54:31.205Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exploring morphological bias in metal-detected finds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 November 2016

H.E.M. Cool  and
M.J. Baxter
H.E.M. Cool*
Affiliation:
Barbican Research Associates, 16 Lady Bay Road, West Bridgford, Nottingham NG2 5BJ, UK
M.J. Baxter
Affiliation:
Nottingham Trent University (Emeritus), Burton Street, Nottingham NG1 4BU, UK
*
*Author for correspondence (Email: hilary@coolarchaeology.com)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Since the establishment of the Portable Antiquities Scheme, the systematic reporting of metal-detected finds in England and Wales has increased our knowledge of distribution patterns and complemented the evidence from assemblages uncovered by conventional excavation. The large number of Roman metal small finds documented, particularly brooches, now allows for a quantitative comparison between those recovered through excavation and those discovered by metal-detecting. This study shows that certain artefact morphologies are more easily detected than others, resulting in differential rates of representation in the archaeological record. It is suggested that similar biases can be seen in artefacts from other periods. This has important consequences for anyone wishing to use metal-detected material in synthetic studies.

Keywords

United KingdomRomanmetal-detectorrecovery biasmorphologybrooches
Type
Method
Information
Antiquity , Volume 90 , Issue 354 , December 2016 , pp. 1643 - 1653
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2016 

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

Allen, M., Blick, N., Brindle, T., Evans, T., Fulford, M., Holbrook, N., Richards, J.D. & Smith, A.. 2015. The rural settlement of Roman Britain: an online resource. York: Archaeological Data Service. http://dx.doi.org/10.5284/1030449 Google Scholar
Bevan, A. 2012. Spatial methods for analysing large-scale artefact inventories. Antiquity 86: 492–506. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X0006289X Google Scholar
Booth, A.L. 2014. Reassessing the long chronology of the penannular brooch in Britain: exploring changing styles, use and meaning across a millennium. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Leicester. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/2381/33157 (accessed 2 August 2016).Google Scholar
Brickstock, R.J., Cardwell, P.A., Busby, P.A., Cool, H.E.M., Huntley, J.P., Evans, J., Makey, P. & Wilson, P.R.. 2007. Catterick Metal Detecting project 1997–1999. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 79: 65–154.Google Scholar
Brindle, T. 2014. The Portable Antiquities Scheme and Roman Britain (Research Publication 196). London: British Museum Press.Google Scholar
Chester-Kadwell, M. 2009. Early Anglo-Saxon communities in the landscape of Norfolk (British Archaeological Reports British series 481). Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
Collins, R. 2010. Brooch use in the 4th to 5th century, in Collins, R. & Allason-Jones, L. (ed.) Finds from the frontier (Council for British Archaeology Research Reports 162): 64–77. York: Council for British Archaeology.Google Scholar
Cool, H.E.M. 2008. Objects and vessels of non-ferrous metal, fired clay and glass, in Booth, P., Bingham, A.-M. & Lawrence, S., The Roman roadside settlement at Westhawk Farm, Ashford, Kent, excavations 1998–9: 148–74. Oxford: Oxford Archaeology.Google Scholar
Cool, H.E.M. & Baxter, M.J.. 2016. Brooches and Britannia . Britannia 47: e1–e28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0068113X16000039 Google Scholar
Hattatt, R. 1989. Ancient brooches and other artefacts. Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
Mackreth, D.F. 2011. Brooches in Late Iron Age and Roman Britain. Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
McIntosh, F. 2014. The Wirral brooch: the form, distribution and role of a regional Romano-British brooch type. The Archaeological Journal 171: 111–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00665983.2014.11078264 Google Scholar
McLean, L. & Richardson, A.. 2010. Early Anglo-Saxon brooches in southern England: the contribution of the Portable Antiquities Scheme, in Worrell, S., Egan, G., Naylor, J., Leahy, K. & Lewis, M. (ed.) A decade of discovery: proceedings of the Portable Antiquities Scheme Conference 2007 (British Archaeological Reports British series 520): 156–67. Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
PAS Portable Antiquities Scheme. 2016. Portable Antiquities Scheme database. Available at: https://finds.org.uk/database (accessed 2 August 2016).Google Scholar
R Development Core Team. 2008. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: http://www.R-project.org (accessed 2 August 2016).Google Scholar
Robbins, K. 2014. Portable Antiquities Scheme: a guide for researchers. Available at: https://finds.org.uk/documents/guideforresearchers.pdf (accessed 2 August 2016).Google Scholar
Wilson, P.R. 2002a. Cataractonium: Roman Catterick and its hinterland. Excavations and research, 1958–1997. Part I (Council for British Archaeology Research Reports 128). York: Council for British Archaeology.Google Scholar
Wilson, P.R. 2002b. Cataractonium: Roman Catterick and its hinterland. Excavations and research, 1958–1997. Part II (Council for British Archaeology Research Reports 129). York: Council for British Archaeology.Google Scholar
Worrell, S. & Pierce, J.. 2014. Roman Britain in 2013. II. Finds reported under the Portable Antiquities Scheme. Britannia 45: 397–429. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0068113X14000427 Google Scholar