With reference to one specific excavation of your choice, describe and illustrate the various components of the excavation process and the way in which the results of the work have

7/27/2019 With reference to one specific excavation of your choice, describe and illustrate the various components of the ex

1/8

With reference to one specific excavation of your choice, describe and illustratethe various components of the excavation process and the way in which theresults of the work have been published.

The excavation of the Romano-British town of Wroxeter has developed over a

course of over 100 years and has covered only a small section of the

archaeology of the civitas despite being the fourth largest Romano-British town.

Excavation is primarily the more physical approach to uncovering a site and it is

a destructive technique that is used. Even if trowelling is carefully pursued some

pre-excavation is needed, to identify not only the site itself but also the places of

interest where a trench could be dug. The most prominent non-destructive

technique to do this by is geophysical surveying which was used exceedingly in

the Wroxeter Hinterland Project (Renfrew et al. 2008: 102). Of course excavation

is obviously considered to just be about digging but without a range of

scientific approaches there is little evidence about the true identity of a site.

Also, without using stratigraphy we would not be able to read subtle changes

[to] study the human past (Stein 1993: 1) as the layers of sediment uncovers

where past life and environments lived simultaneously. The way in which results

are published is vast when it comes to looking at a site, the primary way being

through ways of an archaeological report but on site before results are published

a lot of work must be done through methods like planning grids or context

sheets. The excavation process draws upon various different methods to uncover

past human life and reveals how the past is directly linked to the present day.

The process of pre-excavation on a site is as important as excavation itself and

there are various different methods which are used and Barker (1986) puts the

non-destructive techniques into ten distinct steps, only some of which are

relevant to the excavation at Wroxeter.

Notably speaking the first step would be the reviewing of appropriate

documents. According to Barker (1986: 55) Documentary references to

archaeological sites may simply be a passing reference to an early

manuscript so exemplifying how documents are directly linked to the discovery

of a site. The more complete the documentation the more likely it is that site will

be dug (Barker 1986: 56). In Wroxeter, as highlighted by White et al. (2006: 13),

antiquarian accounts are very useful for looking at the Old Work and is referred

to by William Camden1 and in particular by Thomas Wright, the first antiquarian

to excavate the site. However, without drawings and maps there is little

evidence for sites.

1 William Camden was the Clarenceux King of Arms in the Court of Heralds to QueenElizabeth and refers briefly to Wroxeter in his book Britannia in 1586. White et al. 2006


2/8


Also, looking at drawings and maps gives us a direct correlation into its

observation and sites context (Barker 1986: 57). In particular at Wroxeter

there are three such productions spanning from 1721 to 1812 giving us insight

into what The Old Work looked like and the initial discovery of the baths (White

et al. 2006: 13-15). For Wroxeter itself there are very few maps dating before the

19th century (White et al. 2006). There has been much interest archaeologically

speaking for Wroxeter for over two centuries.

Barker (1986: 57-8) considers that even if the previous work on a site is wildly

inaccurate the results can be very informative. Most notable for the initial

excavations at Wroxeter is the work of Wright in the 18th century, Fox in the late

19th and early 20th century and Atkinson later in the early 20th century (Whiteet al. 2006). These men uncovered a major part of the Romano-British town for

modern excavations to follow on from.

The Wroxeter Hinterland Project illustrates the importance of Geophysical

surveying in revealing the size of a site, extent of occupation and Romanization

(Buteux et al., 2000). The Wroxeter Hinterland Project itself is very unique due to

its magnitude of study and the sampling of new geophysical surveying

techniques for example a new version of RATEAU (Dabas et al., 2000: 107) and

a recently introduced mobile resistivity multiplexing system (Walker, 2000:

119). Only the latter being successful which is due to problems with the RATEAU

technology technically and through saturation of soils via precipitation (Dabas et

al., 2000: 117). Though the most prominent method is obviously the results of

the gradiometer survey which covered 78 ha of land (Gaffney et al., 2000: 81)

and disproved the theory that Wroxeter was a garden city (Gaffney et al.,

2000: 81) as can be seen from various maps and interpretative colour maps in

Gaffney et al.. Evidently this technique has for the first time mapped an entireRoman city (White et al., 2006). Nishimura et al. (2000: 105) show that their

study through ground penetrating radar survey exemplifies that deeply

stratified sites can respond well to detailed surveys using GPR and time-slicing

software and it is clear that it successfully created extensive plans of

structures over the majority of the area of the site (2000: 101). It is clear that

survey based on GPS has matured into an important data collection technique

(Barratt et al., 2000: 134) and in particular to archaeological sites that appear

to have few obvious surface features or where techniques are too coarse


3/8


grained (Barratt et al., 2000: 134). It reveals the topography of the site

(Barratt et al., 2000: 133). GPS at Wroxeter is two-fold and these are Digital

Elevation Models (DEM) (Barratt et al., 2000: 141) and kinematic height

determination (Barratt et al., 2000: 141). This revolutionised differential GPS

[which] can be used to tie ground survey into a common co-ordinate system

(Barratt et al., 2000: 140-1). Wroxeters revolutionary use of Geophysics is

important because it is an integral part of a larger research project (Renfrew et

al., 2008: 103).

Of course the other methods of non-destructive surveying are useful but in

particular to this site they are not so much. Although, aerial photography and

diagrams are very useful as well and can be seen in Barker (1986) and White etal. (2006) in various places. Other methods that can be used are as follows field

walking, contour surveying, chemical analyses, metal detecting and dowsing.

The more destructive techniques (Barker 1986) are bore holes, trial trenches and

test pits. The most useful of these being the digging of trial trenches and test

pits which is the standard method of sampling a site (Barker 1986: 69) but

they still have many limitations (Barker 1986: 69). They are essentially the

deciders as to whether a site will be fully excavated.

The process of excavating a site is simplistically taken as just meaning the

physical act of digging though this is only one part of the process. When on

site drawings must be compiled, these are called plans and cross sections. Also,

when particular items or objects are found a different method of excavating must

be implemented, for example when digging up bones the excavator moves from

using trowels to smaller items like toothpicks. Excavating a site consists of many

different elements which work in correlation to each other to uncover the true

identity of the site.

Generally on site various different factors must be taken into consideration. On

every site it is split up into 5m by 5m grids according to the national grid system.

The type of excavation matters greatly, is it a rescue or a research excavation.

This matters greatly as in rescue excavations a trench is usually machine-dug

(Barker 1986: 69) or if time is not pressured then a half moon and shovel may be

used to remove the grass and a little of the top soil. According to Barker (1986:

89) an archaeological site should be dissected logically from the surface down,


4/8


layer by layer, feature by feature, down to the smallest feature and

beyond. A site is usually systematically dug, one centimetre at a time and you

are told where you shouldnt tread and to do this there are three separate

methods that can be implemented so that the archaeology is not damaged in

any way (Collis, 2001: 49). Whilst digging you use a trowel to define the features

you find and a brush to collect the soil (or sediment) in the bucket which

generalises the features as well. If a large stone is found this must be left in the

ground to make sure contexts do not get mixed up. Generally speaking on most

sites before soil is put on the spoil heap it is sieved to make sure no small items

have been missed whilst digging. When a section has been dug it needs to be

recorded by both planning and cross sections, which are drawn by hand to a

scale of 1:20 for plans and 1:10 for cross sections generally speaking, and use of

context numbers and finds drawings. Depending on the scale of the site, levels

need to be taken either manually or by use of the total station. These are the

general techniques used on archaeological sites across the world.

In terms of Wroxeter itself the excavations have uncovered a large amount of

highly important public buildings. There will be focus on some of the excavation

seasons at Wroxeter. According to Atkinson during the earlier excavations they

focused digging of the baths meaning that the excavations that he carried out in

1923-1927 were focused on the digging of the forum. From these excavations

many different items were found including the forum dedication slab, the

diploma, delicate glasswork, iron objects, Samian pottery amongst others

(Atkinson, 1942) showing the full extent of Romanization that had developed

from the civitas capital. From the photographs in Atkinson it looks like they used

either shovels or mattocks to dig the site though they probably used smaller

tools as well. The later excavations return to the baths, especially the basilica

where many thousands of animal bones were found and also a number of

skull fragments, the most important body of evidence found at this excavation

was that the basilica was destroyed, it could have possibly been because it was

unsafe due to evidence of later occupation (Barker, 1980: 15).

The results of an excavation or pre-excavation are usually published in a report,

journal or book and contain various diagrams to illustrate what has been found

on site, using the drawings and finds to reveal the identity of the site to the

academic and public community.


5/8


6/8


published and it shows us insight into how the site could have been occupied.

Wroxeter is an individual site, one that has uncovered many mysteries but still

has a lot that remain.

2181 words


7/8


Reference List

Atkinson, D. 1942. Report on Excavations at Wroxeter (the Roman City of

Viroconium) in the County of Salop 1923-1927 Oxford: The University Press.

Barker, P. (ed.) 1980. Wroxeter Roman City: Excavations 1966-1980 Essex: The

Department of the Environment.

Barker, P. 1986. Understanding Archaeological Excavation London: B.T. Batsford

Limited.

Barratt, G. Gaffney, V., Goodchild, H. and Wilkes, S. 2000. Survey at WroxeterUsing Carrier Phase, Differential GPS Surveying Techniques.Archaeological

Prospection. Vol. 7.2: 133-143.

Buteux, S., Gaffney, V., White, R. and Van Leusen, M. 2000. Wroxeter Hinterland

Project and Geophysical Survey at Wroxeter.Archaeological Prospection. Vol.

7.2: 69-80.

Collis, J. 2001. Digging up the Past: An Introduction to Archaeological Excavation

Gloucestershire: Sutton Publishing Limited.

Dabas, M., Hesse, A. and Tabbagh, J. 2000. Experimental Resistivity Survey at

Wroxeter Archaeological Site with a Fast and Light Recording Device.

Archaeological Prospection. Vol. 7.2: 107-118.

Gaffney, C.F., Gater, J.A., Linford, P., Gaffney, V.L. and White, R. 2000. Large-

scale Systematic Fluxgate Gradiometry at the Roman City of Wroxeter.

Archaeological Prospection. Vol. 7.2: 81-99.

Nishimura, Y. and Goodman, D. 2000. Ground Penetrating Radar Survey at

Wroxeter.Archaeological Prospection. Vol. 7.2: 101-105.

Renfrew, C. and Bahn, P. 2008.Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice

London: Thames and Hudson Ltd.

Stein, J.K. and Farrand, W.R. (eds) 2001. Sediments in Archaeological Context

Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press.


8/8


Walker, A.R. 2000. Multiplexed Resistivity Survey at the Roman Town of

Wroxeter.Archaeological Prospection. Vol. 7.2: 119-132.

White, R. and Barker, P. 2006. Wroxeter: Life and Death of a Roman City

Gloucestershire: Tempus Publishing Ltd.

Documents

With reference to one specific excavation of your choice, describe and illustrate the various components of the excavation process and the way in which the results of the work have