Mond the Gap: Charles McBurney Laboratory for Geoarchaeology, Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge

McBurney Laboratory

Integrating Soil Studies into Archaeological Practice and Theory: Minding the Gap

Saturday, May 6th, 2000 at the McDonald Institute, University of Cambridge

`...sediments (are) regarded by archaeologists solely as a medium containing cultural materials...It is generally thought that the sediment itself contains little information relevant to cultural archaeology...

Macphail, R. I., Courty, M. A. and Goldberg, P. 1990. Soil micromorphology in archaeology. Endeavour, New Series, 14 (4), 163

A perceived divide between ‘soil specialists’ and archaeologists is seen to exist in approach and interests as well as in subject of study. Soil specialists have been accused of not focusing on matters of direct archaeological relevance. It could be said that soil studies have failed to become part of mainstream archaeology partly because many practitioners do not regularly interact with the over-riding framework of contemporary archaeological practice and theory. On the other hand, soil studies are perceived by most archaeologists as providing information only on ancient environments and site formation processes. However, there is no conceptual reason why soil evidence cannot be viewed as being at least as informative and interesting as any other category of archaeological material, especially when it is approached from an explicitly archaeological point of view and used within an archaeological context. In addition, exploring archaeological issues through soil studies can provide a new perspective and create new research issues in archaeology. It is clear that there exists a certain communication gap, which has contributed to a marginalisation of soil-based lines of inquiry in archaeology – archaeologists, especially those using soil evidence, should be addressing this issue. In this one-day conference we intend to discuss issues of integrating soil evidence into archaeological practice and theory.

A CALL FOR PAPERS ON THE FOLLOWING THEMES:

The soil as material culture
The marginalisation of ‘soil specialists’
Perceptions of soil studies in landscape archaeology
Interpreting past perceptions of soil – cognitive archaeology?
The need for critical public dialogue regarding soil studies in archaeology
The perception, interpretation and application of soil evidence and methods in field archaeology
Approaches to soil studies in contract archaeology as compared to research archaeology
Issues of scale

Please note that case studies are not to be emphasised, and that the focus of the conference is on more informal discussion. All talks will be held to a 20 minute maximum length. However, we do aim to publish the proceedings, and thus also welcome submission of additional or longer papers for inclusion in the publication.

ABSTRACTS

Can archaeopedology learn from the extension drama in soil survey and cartography?

Roger Langohr

Archaeopedologists are aware that, given the nature of soils, archaeopedology can contribute positively to environmental research on archaeological sites, just as palynology, malacology, anthracology and many other disciplines can. Nevertheless, there are difficulties in integrating soil science as a necessary partner in archaeological research. About the same sequence of statements can be made when it comes to integrate soil science in numerous research projects dealing with topics such as plant ecology, forestry, ecosystem dynamics, nature reserve management, land reclamation etc.

Why does soil science integrate so badly? Several handicaps are related to the discipline itself. Other problems are rather related to the soil scientists themselves. We focus the attention first to the situation that we experienced along the "golden period" of the soil survey from the fifties to the seventies. In addition to these aspects related to the soil cartography, there is an additional, essential problem in soil science which deserves all our attention. The guidelines for soil survey and soil profile description, and even most of the laboratory analysis procedures, are still today very similar to those elaborated about half a century ago when the main focus was oriented towards collecting data related to crop production.

There exists a disinterest of at least some archaeologists for collaboration with soil scientists. In some countries there is even no collaboration at all between both orientations. Yet we know that archaeology is a discipline where soil science can contribute considerably in the understanding of the processes, natural or human related, that are or have been active. In order to improve this collaboration and to avoid misunderstandings and criticism, we consider that much can be learned from the extension

drama that resulted from the former soil survey activities. At least 8 topics are essential:

Public relations from the beginning of the collaboration on.
Clear explanations towards the archaeologists about the needs, methods, potentials and limitations of our discipline.
A need for clear agreements on the excavation program.
Agreements about the publication policy.
Field and laboratory manuals and a terminology adapted to the particular orientation in soil science.
Precision about the degree of confidence of the interpretations.
Special care for an excellent accessibility to the documents and information for the non-soil scientist readers.
Inclusion of the above topics in the education program of the soil scientists that are interested in this type of interdisciplinary research.

Archaeological sediments as material culture: perception and practice ‘at the trowel’s edge’

Wendy Matthews, British School of Archaeology at Ankara

In this paper I will review perceptions of archaeological sediments as material culture, and practices ‘at the trowel’s edge’ during excavation. I will consider archaeological practice generally, and integrative interdisciplinary approaches at the Neolithic settlement mound at Çatalhöyük, Turkey, directed by Professor Ian Hodder. I will also explore potential approaches to more reflexive and sensitive recording and interpreting of archaeological sediments during excavation.

Recording and integrating archaeopedology results in (Luxembourg-Belgian) contract archaeology: The stumbling blocks

Kai Fechner, Brussels University

The last 8 years of archaeopedological research of the Interdisciplinary Group for Palaeoenvironment Studies (GiEP) of Brussels University have mainly concerned the line of the high speed train from France to Germany (full time contract financed by the Wallon government), but also a highway from Lille to Brussels, a number of gas pipelines through Wallonia, the highway from Luxemburg city to Saarbrucken, a number of rescue excavations in Luxembourg, Belgium and Northern France. Accumulating data, contracts, reports, publications, poses the question of managing these data in a way that allows a synthesis that will interest both the archaeologist, the government and private companies who financed the archaeological and palaeoenvironmental studies, and the soil scientists. Quite a task. This made us look for solutions that fitted both these objectives and our limited amount of time for this extra effort of synthesis, in the particular context of permanent rescue excavations.

A lot of results on Holocene environments and human activities have been obtained, and different approaches have been used to present these results. The question was how to illustrate them, not between geo-archaeologists and archaeopedologists, but in front of field and more administrative archaeologists who, in Belgium, do not have any natural sciences background. One of the challenges was to convince them of the objectivity of using field soil characteristics as arguments. The other difficulty consisted in justifying the (sometimes expensive) analyses and micromorphology, among others for research domains which are very close to those usually handled by more classical archaeological means. These domains, we claim, can be enriched by soil science and the results can be readily compared and sometimes proven thanks to analytical approaches.

In this presentation we propose a few examples of the illustrations used and the reactions to them, in order to discuss the future solutions for a better understanding.

Soil the information highway: integrating soils research into archaeological research designs

Melissa Goodman, Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge

As with many specialised fields, soil researchers often feel marginalised in archaeological excavations. Although a number of fine literature surveys are available (e.g. on soil micromorphology) these have not effectively 'raised consciousness' on a practical level. Samples are frequently inexpertly recovered by non-specialists and sent off for post-excavation analysis. The expectations of site directors are often unreasonable regarding not only what the data can yield, but also the costs and times involved. This results in poorer quality results that could be obtained with proper support and a dispirited soils specialists.

In response to a random request to analyse soil from a project director I started an informal 'Excavator's Guide to Investigating Soils.' I appreciate that others have probably started similar projects. The Guide is aimed directly at weaving soils work into investigators' field plans while deepening the understanding of how these techniques can enrich interpretations. One of the key foci concerns preparing non-specialists to evaluate and integrate the work of soils specialists into their field plans and interpretations.

Scientific Soil or just dirt to be dug? A view of 'Soil Studies' from a 'Dirt archaeologist'

Craig Cessford, McDonald Institute, University of Cambridge

In common with many specialist areas soil studies often appear to occupy their own distinct academic 'ghetto' with most discussions apparently aimed at a small peer group and relatively little interaction with the larger archaeological community. Based on experience in both contract archaeology in Britain and research excavations at Çatalhöyük in Turkey I will seek to examine how soil studies are perceived by other archaeologists, particularly excavators.

Where standest thou? Problems and perspectives of working with anthropological archaeology and the natural sciences

Gillian Wallace, Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge

People generally approach geo-archaeology either as archaeologists who get trained in the natural sciences, or as natural scientists (geologist, pedologist, botanist, etc.) who cross over to archaeology. There are strengths and shortcomings to both backgrounds, but do these affect the use of soils as an interpretive tool in archaeology? This paper discusses this issue, taking account of how factors such as site organisation, communication, and scale impact the success or limitations of geo-archaeological studies.

The importance of soils evidence in landscape archaeology – perceptions and preconceptions

Helen Lewis, Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge

While ‘soil specialists’ in archaeology are happy to discuss issues of integrating concepts related to field practice, and definition of terms, very few appear to feel comfortable discussing their evidence from other archaeological perspectives. Matters such as how soils perspectives can contribute to and even define issues in mainstream archaeology are particularly avoided. Landscape archaeology is an area where soil and sedimentary evidence has a great deal to offer, not only regarding environmental reconstruction, but also as the most useful way of studying the key issue of land-use practices. Most landscape archaeologists focus on the architectural landscape, interpreting the use of space outside of structures from regional evidence only, coupled with models from ethnographic analogy. Archaeological approaches using soil data can and should provide the main means through which to redress this balance, and fill in the gaps in the architectural landscape.

Soils, time, money and ethics

Charles French, Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge

One way or another, I have been involved first as a snail specialist and then as a soil specialist on a contract-by-contract basis in the rescue world of England over the past 20 years. Without being directly involved in the sites as an excavator or team member, I have found it only rarely possible to call any agenda. Increasingly, I find that the soils work is responsive last minute rather than thought out and pro-active. Also very few units have an environmental/specialist co-ordinator on staff. This is generally left up to the project manager concerned and if they are not either interested or forced under the terms of the brief to conduct the work, as little as possible with soils is done.

Soil studies are often seen as poor value for the money, and slow in turn around. It is often more the case that micromorphology is in the brief and therefore some samples are taken. Do you oblige and charge, or say it is not worth it? Unit personnel are often unsure of what they want done, let alone why, and they rarely know what micromorphology and other basic soil tests can be expected to provide answers about. But this is probably our failure as professionals to inform archaeologists sufficiently and comprehensively, and to weave their work into a wider research perspective.

Nonetheless, there are positive signs. Good curators are asking what should be done and how, and trying to enforce that adequate work is done. Several things need to be done such as produce a decent short field guide to soils, and for English Heritage to strengthen its role in informing curators and units what is possible, reasonable costs that can be expected and who is available to do the work. Finally units must be persuaded of the benefits of doing good soils work and how it can contribute too much better overall results for a project.

Dishing the dirt on PPGs. Are archaeological science advisors the Missing Link?

Sue Stallibrass, University of Liverpool

Planning Policy Guidelines (PPGs) include PPG16, which refers specifically to the need to ensure that archaeology is paid due attention when a planning proposal is being considered. Most county planning departments employ an archaeologist to investigate planning proposals (usually amongst myriad other tasks and responsibilities). If (s)he considers that an archaeological investigation is needed to inform decisions regarding planning permission then (s)he issues a brief outlining the work required. Contract archaeologists then tender for the work outlined in the brief and submit a more detailed specification plus costing for the work. The tenders are usually considered by the developer (the ‘planning’ archaeologists do not always see the tenders) and the work is often awarded to the contractor submitting the cheapest costing.

Who in this scenario (which is the norm for England) has relevant knowledge of geoarchaeology? The ‘planning’ archaeologist? The contracting field archaeology project manager? The developer’s agent? If soils and/or sediment work are not mentioned in the brief, will they get a look in any of the tendered specifications? Has anybody thought about them? Are they regarded as a fundamental consideration or an expensive optional extra that might cause the unit to lose the contract?

Although the implementation of PPG16 has caused an overall increase in the amount of money available for archaeology, English Heritage (EH) has been dismayed by some of the side effects. In particular, there appears to be a serious shortfall between developments in archaeological science and the level of archaeological science work undertaken in developer-funded projects initiated through PPG16. Since April 1999, EH has set up nine posts for archaeological science advisors. There is one for each region of England. Their main role is to enhance the range, quality and amount of archaeological science work (including geoarchaeology) undertaken on PPG-related projects.

This talk will outline some of the possibilities and problems associated with this task. The non-integration of ‘specialists’ can be a major problem throughout all archaeology in Britain. ‘Specialists’ includes people whether they are working on-site or off-site, whether pre-, during or post-excavation. But laboratory-based off-site post-excavation specialist work is probably the most remote from the minds of project managers dealing with the logistical constraints of costs and time, and may also be relatively unfamiliar to people working in planning departments. Geoarchaeologists are ‘not alone in their isolation’. The frustration of being excluded that led to the setting up of this one day conference, with its themes of integration and ‘Mind the gap’, is symptomatic of archaeological science in general. Are the archaeological science advisors the ‘Missing Link’?

Should environmental archaeologists lose their identity? Thoughts on archaeology and its environment

Umberto Albarella, University of Birmingham

Environmental archaeologists have grumbled for years about their marginalization. Yet, apart from keeping grumbling, they seem to do little to integrate themselves more in archaeology. The reasons are obviously complex and any simplistic explanation is doomed to fail. It is perhaps inevitable that we should wonder about the very meaning of the expression "environmental archaeology", not because of a need to define it in absolute terms but because pondering over its meaning may help us in tackling the issue of our marginalization. There are historical and philosophical reasons that have prevented a full integration of the study of past environments with the rest of archaeology, but social and political conflicts within the archaeological profession may be regarded as equally responsible. As archaeologists, we should probably sort out some of the problems of the work environment we have created, before we can really understand past human societies in their environmental context.