Artefacts from the Sea. Year Two Report (revised)

AGGREGATE LEVY SUSTAINABILITY FUND MARINE AGGREGATES AND THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT ARTEFACTS FROM THE SEA Wessex Archaeology Year Two Report Revised Ref: 51541.06 September 2004 AGGREGATE LEVY SUSTAINABILITY FUND MARINE AGGREGATES AND THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT ARTEFACTS FROM THE SEA YEAR TWO REPORT (REVISED) Ref: 51541.06 September 2004 prepared on behalf of English Heritage Fort Cumberland Fort Cumberland Road Eastney Portsmouth PO4 9EF by Wessex Archaeology Portway House Old Sarum Park Salisbury SP4 6EB ©The Trust for Wessex Archaeology Limited 2004 The Trust for Wessex Archaeology Limited is a Registered Charity No.287786 AGGREGATE LEVY SUSTAINABILITY FUND MARINE AGGREGATES AND THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT ARTEFACTS FROM THE SEA YEAR TWO REPORT (REVISED) Ref: 51541.06 Acknowledgements English Heritage (EH) commissioned this project through the Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund (ALSF). The assistance of their staff throughout the project is gratefully acknowledged. We gratefully acknowledge Michael White and Rodney Mackay for their personal contributions and the staff from all the Museums, Sites and Monuments Records and the County Archaeologists taking part in the project: Rebecca Loader – Isle of Wight Ruth Waller – Isle of Wight Bruce Howard – Hampshire CC Bob Edwards – Hampshire CC Ingrid Peckham – Southampton CC Jane Ellis – Southampton CC Jenny Stevens – Portsmouth CC Ruth Atkinson – Humber Archaeology Partnership Elizabeth Chamberlain – Humber Archaeology Partnership Neil Campling – North Yorkshire CC Nick Boldrini – North Yorkshire CC Graham Lee – North York Moors National Park Robin Daniels – Tees Archaeology Peter Rowe – Tees Archaeology Dr. Joanna Close-Brooks – St. Barbe Museum Steve Marshall – St Barbe Museum Craig Barclay – Hull and East Riding Museum David Gratey – NMR Kieran Byrne – NMR Dr Roger Bland – PAS Andy Russell – Southampton Archaeology Elizabeth Walker – National Museums and Galleries of Wales Ian Friel – Chichester Museum Andy Currant – Natural History Museum Garry Momber – Hampshire and Wight Trust for Maritime Archaeology Julie Satchell – Hampshire and Wight Trust for Maritime Archaeology Rotunda Museum Yorkshire Museum We would also like to acknowledge the advice and guidance given by the project steering group, who were: Dr. Ian Selby, Dr. Andy Bellamy, Mark Russell, Dr Gustav Milne, Dr Bryony Coles, Simon Thorpe, Veryan Heal and Mat Tanner. Hannah Steyne carried out the work for Year One. Mikkel Thomsen and Stephen Legg carried out the work for Year Two with assistance from Victoria Tomalin. Mikkel Thomsen compiled this report with contributions from Stephen Legg, Victoria Tomalin and Russel Gant. Phil Harding catalogued the Michael White collection. The project was managed for Wessex Archaeology by Stuart Leather. i AGGREGATE LEVY SUSTAINABILITY FUND MARINE AGGREGATES AND THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT ARTEFACTS FROM THE SEA YEAR TWO REPORT (REVISED) Ref: 51541.06 Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 2. PROJECT AIM AND OBJECTIVES ............................................................................. 2 2.1. PROJECT AIM .............................................................................................................. 2 2.2. PROJECT OBJECTIVES.................................................................................................. 2 3. STUDY AREAS ................................................................................................................. 2 3.2. HUMBER-TEES STUDY AREA ...................................................................................... 2 3.3. SOLENT STUDY AREA ................................................................................................. 3 4. SOURCES .......................................................................................................................... 3 4.1. NATIONAL DATA SOURCES ......................................................................................... 3 4.2. HUMBER-TEES STUDY AREA ...................................................................................... 3 4.3. SOLENT STUDY AREA ................................................................................................. 5 5. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................ 7 5.1. 5.2. 5.3. 5.4. 5.5. 5.6. DATABASE .................................................................................................................. 7 DIGITAL DATA ENTRY METHODOLOGY ...................................................................... 8 MANUAL DATA ENTRY METHODOLOGY..................................................................... 9 DATA VALIDATION ................................................................................................... 10 DATA POPULATION ................................................................................................... 11 DATA ENHANCEMENT............................................................................................... 11 6. RESULTS ......................................................................................................................... 13 6.1. 6.2. 6.3. 6.4. OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................ 13 NATIONAL DATASETS ............................................................................................... 15 HUMBER-TEES STUDY AREA .................................................................................... 16 SOLENT STUDY AREA ............................................................................................... 19 7. DISCUSSION................................................................................................................... 22 8. CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................. 23 9. BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................................................ 24 APPENDIX I: RECORDING GUIDELINES ..................................................................... 25 ii List of Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Location of the Study Areas showing SMR coastal coverage Interpretation of Michael White’s findspot areas based on place names and personal observation Enhanced data set (Humber-Tees) Enhanced data set (Solent) Comparison between a standard SMR search and search result through the database iii AGGREGATE LEVY SUSTAINABILITY FUND MARINE AGGREGATES AND THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT ARTEFACTS FROM THE SEA YEAR TWO REPORT (REVISED) Ref: 51541.05 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1.1. In 2002 Wessex Archaeology (WA) was commissioned by English Heritage (EH), funded through the Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund (ALSF), to undertake research into previously recovered archaeological artefacts from the sea. The purpose of the project was to enhance records of artefacts from the sea and inter-tidal areas, held by the National Monuments Records (NMR) and selected coastal Sites and Monuments Records (SMR) in England and to record artefacts held in museums or private collections for inclusion into these records. 1.1.2. The initial region identified for study covered the coastline between the western Solent and the River Tees. In Year One, two smaller areas within this general region were agreed for more detailed study, covering the Solent area in the south and the coastline between the River Humber and River Tees in the north (Figure 1). 1.1.3. The data collection phase of work included all sites and finds along the coastlines of the two selected regions dating from the Palaeolithic to the Medieval period. All undated material was also included to ensure the project identified the maximum number of sites and findspots relevant to the project aim. 1.1.4. Three reports have been produced comprising the Source Appraisal published in March 2003 (WA51541.01), the Year One report published in June 2003 (51541.02) and the Year Two report published in March 2004 (51541.04). 1.1.5. The source appraisal comprised the results from the initial literary search; the contents and standards of established datasets; the design of the project database; and the preliminary comments by SMRs when replying to the initial requests for participation in the project. 1.1.6. The Year One report set out the methodology and results of the work in Year One and outlined a proposed action plan for Year Two. 1.1.7. The Year Two report set out the methodological developments and the results of Year Two and discussed issues that arose in the course of the project. 1.1.8. This document is a revised version of the Year Two report produced to accompany the returned data following completion of the project. The report outlines the achievements of the project and provides useful information regarding the practical application of the Artefacts from the Sea database. 1 2. PROJECT AIM AND OBJECTIVES 2.1. PROJECT AIM 2.1.1. The project aim was to collate information arising from previous discoveries of artefacts from the sea in a manner that improves understanding, conservation and appreciation of the marine historic environment. 2.2. PROJECT OBJECTIVES 2.2.1. The project objectives were: • to enhance records of artefacts from the sea, to include data arising from artefacts held in museum, private and individuals’ collections; • to publish results from the project in an accessible format. • to initiate and maintain a dialogue with industry, regulators and contractors regarding the reporting and recording of artefacts from the sea; • to support the development of skills and experience in the archaeological profession; • to engage in academic debate nationally and internationally regarding the reporting and recording of artefacts from the sea; • to inform the public of the importance of reporting and recording artefacts from the sea. 3. STUDY AREAS 3.1.1. In Year One two smaller areas were selected from the initial larger region, covering the Solent area in the south and the coastline between the River Humber and River Tees in the north. Both areas have a close coincidence of marine aggregate dredging and contain previously identified early prehistoric remains and evidence of maritime activity since the later prehistoric period. 3.1.2. Equally, there are organisations within both areas that have a keen interest in the maritime record, i.e. shipping and wreck related artefacts, but have adopted different models for researching and archiving marine related archaeological artefacts. 3.1.3. By focusing on two areas with different geographic contexts, specific local issues and diverse policies, it was hoped that issues relevant to the whole study area could be highlighted and actively addressed. 3.2. HUMBER-TEES STUDY AREA 3.2.1. The Humber-Tees coastline was the most northerly part of the original study area and corresponds to dredging areas around the Humber Estuary and in the North Sea. For the purposes of this project, it was defined as the coastline between the River Humber and the River Tees (see Figure 1). 2 3.3. SOLENT STUDY AREA 3.3.1. The Solent study area was the most westerly part of the original study area and is of significance to the dredging areas to the southeast of the Isle of Wight. For the purposes of this project, the limits of the Solent area were defined as the coastline from Christchurch Bay in the west to the Hampshire/West Sussex border in the east (see Figure 1). 4. SOURCES 4.1. NATIONAL DATA SOURCES 4.1.1. Organisations contributing data to both Study Areas are listed below. The National Monuments Record 4.1.2. The National Monuments Record (NMR) is the national archive of archaeological data, historic buildings and aerial photography. The archive was originally created as part of the Royal Commission of Historic Monuments for England (RCHME) and is now funded and maintained by EH. The NMR holds 10 million items dealing with the archaeology, buildings, maritime archaeology and aerial photography of England. It includes modern and historic photography, almost total coverage of England in aerial photographs, a complete set of listed buildings descriptions, data on most known archaeological sites, survey reports on specific buildings and archaeological sites, measured drawings, and a specialist reference library. However, the information held in the NMR reflects the origins of the archive; archaeological data is focused on known sites, rather than finds or findspots, that have been surveyed either by the RCHME or EH. Moreover, the maritime data is focused on documented and reported shipping losses, rather than finds or artefacts. The Portable Antiquities Scheme 4.1.3. The Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) is a voluntary scheme to record archaeological artefacts found by the general public. The scheme has Finds Liaison Officers located around the country, each with regional databases. The regional databases are collated and a database maintained by a central unit based at the British Museum. 4.1.4. The PAS database records information about the artefact, the findspot, the finder, organisations and publications. The recording system was originally tailored to dealing with metal artefacts, particularly coins, but can also record information about artefacts made of other materials. The Scheme is currently preparing recording guidelines for flint objects, the reporting of which has been steadily increasing since the introduction of the scheme. 4.1.5. The data collected by the scheme will eventually be passed to Sites and Monuments once lines of communication have been firmly established. 4.2. HUMBER-TEES STUDY AREA 4.2.1. Organisations contributing data within study area one are listed below. 3 Humber Archaeology Partnership 4.2.2. The Humberside area SMR is held by the Humber Archaeology Partnership (HAP) and covers the coastline from the north side of the River Humber to the northern coast of Flamborough Head. The SMR is partially digitised. It has an index or catalogue, held in the ExeGesIS HBSMR, made up of skeletal information on all SMR records. All records created since 1998 have a fully digital record. However, pre-1998 records are held on paper record cards. Information was collated for the northern part of the Humber Estuary, from the parish of Sunk Island to the east of the city of Hull, and to the parish of Bempton on the north side of Flamborough Head. North Yorkshire County Council 4.2.3. The North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) SMR covers the coastline to the south of the North York Moors National Park. Their SMR is totally computerised using ExeGesIS HBSMR and an integrated GIS system. North York Moors National Park 4.2.4. The North York Moors National Park (NYMNP) holds records for an area that includes the coastline from Scarborough to Saltburn. All records are held digitally. The SMR officer highlighted that records had not been completed along the Park’s coastline, as the primary focus of their work has thus far been within the body of the Park. Tees Archaeology 4.2.5. Tees Archaeology SMR maintains archaeological records for the coastlines of both Redcar and Cleveland, and Hartlepool. Tees Archaeology holds a digitised system that indexes extensive paper archives. They have a proactive attitude to marine and coastal finds. Hull and East Riding Museum 4.2.6. The largest museum collection relevant to the project’s northern study area is the Hull and East Riding Museum (HERM). The present collection includes the Hasholm Boat (2300BP) and the boats from Ferriby (2030- 1680 BC. Relevant information was extracted from the museums paper file of entry forms and accession records. Rotunda Museum, Scarborough 4.2.7. The Rotunda Museum was set up at the turn of the 19th Century based on the model of the father of geology, William Smith. It holds a variety of archaeological records however only a few relate to the project remit. Rodney Mackey, Beverley 4.2.8. Mr. Rodney Mackey is an experienced amateur archaeologist and active member of the East Riding Archaeological Society. Though not holding any collections himself, he is extremely knowledgeable about the archaeological activity in the area. Humber Wetlands Project 4.2.9. The Humber Wetlands Project was commissioned in 1992 by EH to provide an assessment of the Humber wetlands (Van De Noort & Davies, 1993:2-4). The 1992/1993 archaeological assessment consisted of the archive collation of 4 archaeological and palaeo-ecological data generated by a large number of institutions and individuals active within the defined region (based upon the 10m OD contour of land within the Humber wetlands). This part of the study was therefore largely deskbased, drawing heavily on previously published material. The project was housed in the School of Geography and Earth Resources of the University of Hull. 4.2.10. An archaeological survey of the wetlands of Holderness was carried out between August 1994 and March 1995 and ran alongside a palaeo-environmental survey aimed at enhancing understanding of regional environmental change with particular reference to Human settlement and activity (Van de Noort & Ellis, 1995:151). The archaeological survey primarily took the form of field-walking with specific site visits to archaeological and geomorphological features, and a survey of the coastal and estuarine foreshores and adjacent areas. 4.2.11. Relevant data was obtained from the published reports: Wetland Heritage. An archaeological assessment of the Humber Wetlands by Robert Van de Noort and Paul Davies (edited by Stephen Ellis) (1993) and Wetland Heritage of Holderness. An Archaeological Survey edited by Robert Van de Noort and Stephen Ellis (1995). 4.3. SOLENT STUDY AREA 4.3.1. Organisations contributing data within study area two are listed below. Hampshire County Council 4.3.2. Hampshire County Council maintains archaeological records for the majority of the Hampshire coastline (excluding the coastlines of Portsmouth and Southampton, see Figure 1). Data has been supplied from the Hampshire Archaeology and Historic Buildings Record (AHBR). The majority of marine-related data for the Hampshire area is held under a term agreement from Hampshire County Council by the Hampshire and Wight Trust for Maritime Archaeology (HWTMA). This data was made available for use by the project. In order to respect the term agreement, existing data is not incorporated into the project database; only new and enhanced records have been included. 4.3.3. The AHBR is held on a database linked to a digital mapping system. The database is supplemented by archaeological reports, articles and photographs, including aerial photographs. Isle of Wight County Council 4.3.4. The Isle of Wight County Council holds digital records for the coastline and inshore waters of the Isle of Wight. Portsmouth City Council 4.3.5. Portsmouth City Council holds sites and monuments records for the area within the city limits, which includes the city’s coastline, from Southsea along to Eastney. 4.3.6. Portsmouth City Council SMR have a paper archival system. The SMR system uses a combination of paper record cards and maps. Each site or find is located on OS6” map sheets dating to c.1962, using a red pen cross and an associated identification number, which references a record card. 5 Southampton City Council 4.3.7. Southampton City Council SMR holds records of the archaeology within the city limits. Prior to January 2003, all of the records were held in a paper index system. In January 2003 a program was initiated to digitise new data and the existing paper index system in ExeGesIS HBSMR. 4.3.8. The ALSF project coincided with the start of the Southampton SMR digitisation program. Through discussions with the SMR officer in Year One, it was agreed that the process of digitisation would begin with those sites in coastal locations. The records were digitised with a view to participating in this project, hence all the information held within the paper records was put into HBSMR. This has produced a consistent, detailed and well-referenced set of SMR records. Langstone Harbour Project 4.3.9. The Langstone Harbour Project was a multidisciplinary project researching the archaeology and past environment of the extents of Langstone Harbour. The project included an extensive programme of fieldwalking and the recording of collections held by organisations and private individuals. Gardiner 1988 unpublished Ph.D. thesis: The composition and distribution of Neolithic surface flint assemblages in central southern England 4.3.10. This research project was undertaken in the 1980s and catalogued over 40 flint collections from Sussex, Hampshire, and Dorset. The study focused upon the Mesolithic – Neolithic transition and included sites and finds extending into the Bronze Age. The catalogue contains artefacts from all of these periods. Portsmouth City Museum 4.3.11. The Portsmouth City Museum has an archaeological archive. It contains a number of artefacts, an extensive digital archive and a few remaining paper records. Southampton Museum of Archaeology 4.3.12. The accessions of Southampton Museum of Archaeology have been digitised since 1963. Accessions prior to this date must be sought in paper accession books that are currently in the process of being digitised. St. Barbe Museum and Art Gallery, Lymington 4.3.13. This is a small museum opened nine years ago. The collections however were started earlier in 1988 and comprise local material. 4.3.14. Dr. Joanna Close-Brooks, a professional archaeologist provides archaeological assistance, on a voluntary basis, to the curator. Dr. Close Brookes searched the accession books, identifying three findspot monuments that fell within the remit of the project. Michael White, Pennington 4.3.15. Mr. Michael White (of Pennington, Hampshire) holds an extensive collection of Palaeolithic and Mesolithic flints, faunal remains and numerous other rarities. Mr. White has worked for approximately 20 years as an oyster and clam fisherman in the 6 Solent and Southampton Water (see Figure 2). He retired from fishing in 1982-3 and turned to decorating, whilst maintaining a keen interest in archaeology and collecting. His sons Stephen and Phillip, who were also fishermen, have also contributed to the collection. Mr. White has also become the depository for finds made by other oyster fishermen of the area. 4.3.16. The methods employed for oyster dredging enable the recovered artefacts to be positioned within the parameters governed by the fishing process. This gives a degree of provenance to the finds which is critical for any further interpretation and enables the collection, for the most part to be catalogued in a meaningful manner. 4.3.17. Mr. White’s passion for archaeological finds go beyond purely accidental artefact recovery whilst fishing, to purposefully fishing for artefacts within the peat beds of the Western Solent. He has begun to draw and record summary information of his findings. His interest in archaeology prompted him to extend his interests landward and he has now started collecting and metal detecting on land, with the result that he has a range of material from various sites. 5. METHODOLOGY 5.1. DATABASE 5.1.1. In Year One a database was developed to facilitate the collation and enhancement of data that would also enable enhanced records to be exported in formats suitable for re-incorporation into the SMRs and NMR. A detailed description of the database, with an outline of the data standards that governed the design, are set out in the Year One report. During Year Two a number of modifications were made to the database to improve its practical application and these are described in full in the Year Two report. 5.1.2. A large number of SMRs now use HBSMR, a MIDAS compliant, comprehensive database, GIS and photographic data management system developed by exeGesIS SDM in partnership with the NMR and the Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers. The project database, therefore, was designed around the Monument, Event, Source system advocated by MIDAS (MIDAS Data Standard) to facilitate direct transfer into HBSMR. 5.1.3. There are, however, several differences between the HBSMR and the Artefacts database, designed specifically for an artefact centred dataset drawing upon a wide range of predominantly primary sources. 5.1.4. The Artefacts database necessarily incorporates an emphasis on the recording of individual artefacts. For this reason, an additional table was created to record information about the dimensions, condition and completeness of the find, in addition to more specific detail for ceramic and flint artefacts, such as form, fabric and inclusions for ceramics. It is hoped that by recording these details further information can be gained from the artefacts. 5.1.5. Unlike HBSMR, the Artefacts database does not have a separate field for recording relationships (i.e. Parent/Child, Peer/Peer) between individual monuments. Instead, 7 these relationships are recorded in the description text allowing the nature of a particular relationship to be described in detail. 5.1.6. The Artefacts database has the provision to record a number of locations for a particular monument. This allows for different map projections and less accurate or historic locations to be recorded. While the HBSMR records grid references in the ‘TA 1695 6273’ format, the Artefacts database can hold any type of grid reference including Latitude and Longitude and 12-figure grid references. 5.1.7. The database also incorporates the facility to hold any number of records relating to the geology of a monument so that the description of a site’s stratigraphy can be standardised for use as search criteria. 5.1.8. In HBSMR each source is allocated a UID number. When links are created between monuments and sources the source name and UID will then be listed within individual monument records (and vice versa). Data from each source included in the description text is then referenced with another number (1, 2, 3 etc.), in the style of a footnote, which remains constant, even if the UID of a source changes. However, if these links are broken during the data entry process, for example during data transfer, through cutting and pasting or accidental deleting, then it is not always easy to identify which data come from which source. The Artefacts database references the data from each source solely by the UID. Numbers recorded within the description text can, therefore, always be identified by reference to the source table. 5.1.9. Finally, the Artefacts database requires the use of a username ID. This is used to identify the person responsible for any adjustments to the data within the database, including the creation and deletion of records. This information provides a level of accountability for the data within the database and is included as part of the returned dataset. 5.2. DIGITAL DATA ENTRY METHODOLOGY 5.2.1. Digital data received from different organisations was obtained in a variety of different digital formats. 5.2.2. For bulk data transfer, the ideal format is in a delimited structure and either selfdescriptive and/or accompanied by comprehensive documentation. Such data could be in the form of database tables, spreadsheets or comma-delimited files with meaningful table and column names. Information should be split into separate tables or files as appropriate to reflect referential table structure and should have a unique identifier for each record. Such a dataset may then be mapped across to the target database structure and then the process of data transfer can begin. 5.2.3. Whilst some data was received in such a fashion, much was not. Whilst not posing a great problem when dealing with small numbers of records, which might be processed manually, it did become an issue when handling large and very large datasets. 5.2.4. One of the greatest problems was data being sent in the form of reports, typically Word documents. Such documents lack the structure of properly delimited files and contain a great deal of extraneous information, such as formatting data and non 8 printing characters. In this instance, Word documents were saved out as text files and software was used to identify keywords or datahooks in the text and extract data to output in delimited format. However, sometimes the order in which data was displayed on screen was not necessarily the same order as it was held on file, so that the datahook (such as a label specifying ‘Ref No:’) might be separated from the item of data it was describing. In these circumstances, further processing had to be carried out to ‘fix’ the visual representation of the data into a digital version, which could then be used in the extract process. 5.2.5. Another issue that arose from data being sent in a report style was the lack of any textual datahook. If data occurred in a repeating pattern it might be extracted by horizontal position and relative line number. Failing that, the only means of identifying individual items of data within the text was by font size, colour or boldness. 5.2.6. The sheer size of some datasets posed problems when combined with such issues as outlined above. Whilst delimited data is easy to manipulate, large amounts of data stored within Word documents poses a problem. The VBA programming engine within Word ground to a halt under large chunks of data when attempting to extract information not readily accessible by normal means. 5.2.7. Where organisations sent data in a number of different formats, it was found useful to make use of them all. Typically, long descriptive fields might appear in one dataset but not in another. In such circumstances, it was vital that an identifier was present in both files to knit information together. 5.2.8. After dealing with the format of incoming data, the structure of it could still pose a problem. The project database is constructed around monuments, finds and events and has a fully relational framework. The structure of incoming datasets was sometimes at odds with this, containing finds, monument and event data all within one record. The result of this is that the data mapping phase of the import process becomes more drawn out, especially when the nature of input fields is rather ambiguous. 5.2.9. To enable the parsing of many and varied data formats into manageable delimited files, an internally developed software package called Reformation was sometimes utilised. Designed to be customisable, this Visual Basic application provided a way of turning what were essentially electronic paper records into truly digital data. 5.2.10. Once input data was converted to a delimited format, it was mapped to the appropriate fields within the project database. The data transfer was accomplished by building copies of the live project database tables and moving the input data to these temporary structures. Entries were set up in the audit table for the new records and then the contents of the temporary tables were copied into the live environment. 5.3. MANUAL DATA ENTRY METHODOLOGY 5.3.1. To maintain consistency in the data entry a set of recording guidelines were produced. The guidelines set out definitions of terms and procedures to follow when entering data (see Appendix I). 9 5.4. DATA VALIDATION 5.4.1. The project focused primarily on finds from the sea and the intertidal zone. This definition extended to the coastal limits defined by cliff boundaries. In practice, however, data from different organisations was provided using varying search parameters and therefore producing data from varying loci. 5.4.2. All the data received from each organisation was assessed to establish whether the records were located within the project bounds. Data falling outside the project bounds was deleted. The number of records relevant to the project was dependent on the search criteria used to select the records. Some organisations placed different emphasis on certain attributes, for example land use codes over a national grid reference, which may have been dependent on the circumstances of the find or the type of artefact. National Grid References (NGR) were recorded to several different levels of precision. This had an impact on the results of searches based solely on a geographical query. For example, if an NGR coordinate for a site was only recorded to the nearest one kilometre grid intersection, on a coastline orientated north-south, coastal finds may appear inland, and more critically not appear in the search results, even if there is a qualifier describing the record as a coastal find. 5.4.3. Searches in some SMR systems, were based solely on the land use qualifier code. In these cases searches were undertaken independently of grid references and therefore there was a high degree of confidence in the provenance of the finds. This type of search was however dependent on the land use qualifier code being utilised and on how the code was ascribed. 5.4.4. Once the records have been incorporated into the project database, duplicate record identification commenced. This was done by working through the different tiers of data, from the different institutions, within the database, from monuments through to the contact lists. The purpose of the identification of duplicates is twofold. It identifies unnecessary duplicate records and cross references, and it links data records within and across the different datasets e.g. in certain cases museum accession numbers are not cross referenced in the local SMR or NMR records resulting in a number of records existing for the same artefact. 5.4.5. The process of identifying duplicates starts with a search utilising a database query for matching co-ordinates in the location field of the monument table. This is a simple process, but it will only identify records that match exactly. If sources contain NGR co-ordinates quoted to different levels of accuracy they will not be identified in this query. 5.4.6. The next stage was to view the data using digital mapping software. Points can be assessed for their proximity and the description fields interrogated for similarity. The description field in all cases is consulted as this often holds the key information from which to make the final decision as to whether a point is a duplicate 5.4.7. In some cases it has been difficult to identify two point records as duplicates with certainty. These sites have been noted in the database description fields as possible duplicates. 5.4.8. The vast majority of received records contain source references from which the monument is often partially or wholly derived. These secondary sources generally 10 provide information that can be used to confirm and enhance the current records. Access to these secondary sources varies across the record. Its usefulness in determining duplication is balanced equally with its ability to provide indications of further monuments, which makes it an important part of the enhancement process. 5.5. DATA POPULATION 5.5.1. The original intention was to populate the database beginning with the largest and most comprehensive national datasets, proceeding through structured, but smaller local datasets to the most ephemeral and fragmented. In practice this would have taken the form of the NMR data being entered first, followed by SMR data and museums and private collections being added in the final stages of Year Two. The philosophy behind this approach was to maximise the time for digital data entry and to facilitate and start the process of the identification of duplicate records at an early stage. 5.5.2. There were, however, some difficulties encountered with the receipt of the NMR data. The delivery and format of the NMR data delayed population of the database with the result that the majority of the SMR data was entered into the database first. Information from museums and private collections was not entered into the database until the areas concerned had been fully populated with NMR and SMR data. 5.6. DATA ENHANCEMENT 5.6.1. Fields were checked to ensure that transfer from the original records to the project database had taken place without any data loss, and that the data had been transferred to the correct fields. Records were checked for their spatial and temporal relevance to the project. The text contained within the records was checked for spelling, abbreviations were eliminated where possible, and additional text added that may clarify the record. 5.6.2. The spatial and temporal relevance of records was evaluated and entries were deleted if they were found to lie outside the project bounds. 5.6.3. Records were checked for any additional information that could be expanded within the record e.g. the creation of an event record based on information previously contained in a ‘description’ field. 5.6.4. Records were additionally checked to ensure that they represented a single monument. According to MIDAS standards, discontinuous, multi-period monuments should not be recorded as single entries. Additional monuments were created in such cases. 5.6.5. Where possible, source references contained within the record were followed and relevant information was included. In several cases major additions and refinements were made, particularly relating to finds, events and source records. In some cases site locations could be clarified. 5.6.6. Two examples are given below that demonstrate the process of enhancement. 11 Example 1: Submerged Forest (Mon UID 11000: Tees SMR no. 1603). 5.6.7. Monument 11000 (as expressed by Tees SMR 1603) contained a limited explanation of the monument: ‘Remains of fens and birch and alder forest in peat bed. Area around Seaton Carew excavated in 1990 by C.C.A. prior to construction of sea defences (ref. 1)’. 5.6.8. Ref. 1 states ‘Report Forthcoming’. It also gives grid reference, district, parish, period, condition, notes SSSI designation, a site visit, location of some slides and refers to two excavations (1990 and 1995). 5.6.9. A number of other monuments from the peat beds are described under other SMR numbers, which relate directly to this monument (as do a number of associated sources). This enabled the limits of the monument to be redefined and provides information about its relation to yet more monuments. 5.6.10. In summary, one SMR source has lead to the creation of two additional monuments, four additional events and eight source references. The information pertaining to the original monument has been expanded to include a description, the extent and character of the submerged forest. This additional information greatly increases the understanding of the area that can be obtained directly from the SMR. Example 2: Rolled Palaeolithic Flake (Mon UID 10047: Portsmouth SMR no. SU 50 NE 2) 5.6.11. Monument 10047 (as expressed by Portsmouth SMR SU 50 NE 2) was originally described as ‘Rolled Palaeolithic Flakes’. The location and six figure grid reference, museum location and accession, and a reference to Hampshire SMR (SU 50 NE 23) were given. 5.6.12. Several different entries in archives referring to this monument have been identified during the enhancement process. They include two Hampshire SMR references, an additional reference in the Portsmouth SMR and references in the Southern Rivers Palaeolithic Project and the NMR. 5.6.13. Direct relationships between this findspot and other sites in the area were recognised as forming an ‘area of archaeological potential’. These relationships are defined through the collector and museum accession number. 5.6.14. The findspot, referred to by a single reference number at Portsmouth City Museum, contained a number of Palaeolithic finds collected from different areas in the vicinity. Each findspot was evaluated to identify the number of individual records that should be created. Individual finds were then cross-referenced to each other, and to the Parent monument designation. 5.6.15. On the basis of this information, a single monument for the findspot drawn from a number of SMRs, supported by museum accession lists detailing the find, was created. 5.6.16. The nature of the deposit from which the find was drawn is also clarified allowing wider comparison between different finds that may have originated from a particular context. For example, monument 10047 derives from the terrace gravel exposures in the area. During the enhancement process it was noted that several finds of this type 12 were also derived from similar gravel contexts. Grouping such finds together will facilitate research, not only connected with individual finds, but also of the deposits within which they were discovered. 6. RESULTS 6.1. OVERVIEW 6.1.1. The project has increased the number of recorded monuments in both study areas across the full range of periods within its remit (see Figure 3 and Figure 4). 6.1.2. Data has been drawn from a wide range of originating records, the most important numerically being SMRs. 6.1.3. A variety of methods were used in initially selecting records likely to be of relevance to this project. Further selectivity led to non-relevant records being discarded; monuments duplicated in more than one originating record were also identified. 6.1.4. The totals for types of information in the project database are set out below: Records Monuments Finds Events Sources Contacts Total 1786 2775 1411 926 411 6.1.5. Existing monument records were enhanced on the basis of information contained within the original record and through the use of secondary sources. Some new monument records were created directly from the original records, and other new monuments were created on the basis of secondary sources. Virtually all monument records were enhanced in some way. 6.1.6. The monument records are divided between a number of record types. ‘Find spots’ and ‘Monuments’ predominate, though a number of other types have been recorded also. These record types represent a wide range of periods, summarised below: Period (from) Prehistoric Palaeolithic Mesolithic Neolithic Bronze Age Iron Age Roman Early Medieval Medieval Post-Medieval Modern Unknown Area of Arch Potential Building 2 8 2 9 1 1 3 Find Spot Landscape 5 2 20 1 130 119 134 164 123 65 154 16 75 1 1 139 Listed Building Maritime 1 2 3 1 2 4 1 8 4 1 3 Monument Place 51 17 29 46 144 85 114 58 362 13 3 83 1 2 2 3 1 1 Grand Total 185 146 168 220 268 151 280 78 472 21 5 226 13 6.1.7. Within the broad periods, many monument records can be ascribed to more tightly defined periods. The effectiveness of the project in seeking more ready access to prehistoric periods that have a bearing on the assessment of archaeological potential in areas proposed for marine aggregate extraction is particularly evident: Period (from) Prehistoric Later Prehistoric Palaeolithic Lower Palaeolithic Middle Palaeolithic Upper Palaeolithic Mesolithic Early Mesolithic Late Mesolithic Neolithic Early Neolithic Middle Neolithic Late Neolithic Bronze Age Early Bronze Age Middle Bronze Age Late Bronze Age Iron Age Early Iron Age Middle Iron Age Late Iron Age Roman Early Medieval Medieval Post Medieval Modern Unknown 6.1.8. Total 148 25 77 64 3 14 151 12 5 186 5 4 25 201 10 18 39 113 4 1 33 280 78 473 21 5 226 The effectiveness in targeting contexts relevant to the assessment of marine areas is demonstrated by the following table of monument totals by land use type: Land Use Type Cliff and related features Coastal beach Coastal saltmarsh Coastland above high water Foreshore Inter-tidal Marine coastland Sea-bed Modern sea beach Other coastal features Lake deposit Gravel Built over Other landuse Total 183 140 28 321 92 169 35 77 9 64 2 4 165 218 14 6.1.9. The overall number of monuments, by period and by administrative area, is summarised below. Several individual records contain more than one monument type so the total is greater than that for the total number of individual records: Period (from) Durham Prehistoric Palaeolithic Mesolithic Neolithic Bronze Age Iron Age Roman Early Medieval Medieval Post-Medieval Modern Unknown Grand Total North Yorkshire 2 17 5 7 6 3 23 95 5 50 13 110 3 1 18 338 1 21 East Riding Hampshire Isle of Wight Grand Total of Yorkshire 63 89 1 172 13 117 27 157 18 124 18 168 75 114 1 220 67 100 268 66 80 151 87 141 279 22 43 78 193 170 473 2 16 21 1 3 5 154 50 1 223 761 1047 48 2215 6.1.10. The actual practice of enhancement was heavily influenced by the characteristics of the originating record, hence the experience resulting from this project is discussed source by source in the following sections. 6.2. NATIONAL DATASETS The National Monument Record 6.2.1. The NMR holds a large number of monument records, often comprising a number of smaller, often temporally distinct, monuments. These ‘parent’ monuments were divided into individual records, created for each temporally and spatially distinct ‘child’. Thus, where finds might include Lower and Upper Palaeolithic material, with Mesolithic and Neolithic components, a minimum of four records might be generated. These are all cross-referenced within the database. 6.2.2. Data from the NMR are often duplicates of ‘local’ sources, in particular within SMRs and regionally focused projects. The Southern Rivers Palaeolithic Project, for example, provides NMR references for many of its generated monuments. Data from the NMR, therefore, has been integrated with these other sources and duplicates have been removed. The Portable Antiquities Scheme 6.2.3. Apart from a number of references in the Humberside SMR, PAS data has not generally been incorporated within existing regional datasets. During this project, therefore, 15 new findspot records have been generated from the PAS data. The majority of these have been stray finds made by members of the public. 15 6.3. HUMBER-TEES STUDY AREA 6.3.1. The increase in sites in Study Area One is illustrated in Figure 3. The results from each participating organisation follow. Humber Archaeology Partnership, Humber SMR 6.3.2. The HAP SMR holds the original SMR map sheets (1:10,000 and 1:2,500). The maps are annotated with sites or findspots, coverage of aerial photographs, Scheduled Ancient Monuments and related Events. The total number of records received from HAP were 310, all from the paper archive. 6.3.3. These maps were used by project staff visiting HAP to identify suitable records for inclusion in the project. The search area was defined as the beaches, foreshore and inter-tidal areas, cliff tops and collapsed cliffs, as well as all records of unknown or approximate locations and relevant records up to 100m inland. 6.3.4. After the initial assessment for geographical relevance to the project, 49 records were rejected leaving a total of 261 records that were entered into the project database. 6.3.5. The data was collected as photocopied record cards with selected sections of associated sources. These included articles, letters, photographs and other documents. 6.3.6. The level of detail and type of information held within each site record varies considerably. Some site records solely contain references to published sources, with basic location and identification information. Other site records include detail about the archaeology and finds from a site, with information from excavation record cards and excerpts from publications, in addition to references to other source references. 6.3.7. Aerial photographs and details of events relating to a site are held in a separate filing system but are referenced within the site record. These additional records were at this point only referenced. 6.3.8. Among the records, there were also a number of individual sites where information was held on a number of different record cards, which resulted in a number of different site names and locations relating to the same site. These have been amalgamated or related to each other within the project database as appropriate. After this process the total number of monument records originating from HAP has been expanded from 261 to a total to date of 364 records. North Yorkshire County Council SMR 6.3.9. North Yorkshire County Council SMR used a map based search criteria to produce the data for this project. The search area was defined by a 1km buffer around the coastline (High Water Mark) under their jurisdiction. The search generated 268 records. 6.3.10. The data was received from North Yorkshire SMR as ExeGesIS HBSMR type tables which were relinked, and re-formatted to be integrated into the project database. Eight tables of core data about the monuments have been generated. Data was exported from the HBSMR using the standard Dublin Core queries within the programme. The query tables have provided summary information about the 16 monuments or sites, including the dating information, locations, descriptions, basic topographic and geological information, related reference numbers and sources. The comprehensiveness of the records varied, reflecting the nature of the sites in question. The records adhere to the MIDAS standard definitions. 6.3.11. Following data validation and record enhancement 147 individual monument records remain in the database. North York Moors National Park SMR 6.3.12. The NYMNP records were identified through a buffer search of unknown radius. The resulting monuments are not considered to be more than c. 250m inland from the High Water Mark. This implies loss of less accurately positioned coastal finds and potentially also offshore finds. 6.3.13. Forty-one records were provided as a single digital table with 115 fields of data. These records covered all periods, seven of which fall within the date specification of the project or were of unknown date, and these have been entered into the project database. 6.3.14. The fields included in the NYMNP database provided the potential to record a very high level of detail about sites. Inevitably, however, many fields were empty as only data recorded at the time of the find was entered into the SMR, including ‘land use’, which would have refined the search. Tees Archaeology SMR 6.3.15. The data from Tees Archaeology was received as a Microsoft Excel table with 250 records across 17 fields. The search parameters for the Tees coastline comprised a rectangular polygon defined by NGR coordinates. This included a large area offshore. Irrelevant inland finds were subsequently deleted using a 1km buffer inland of the high water mark. A total of 224 records were discarded, leaving 38 records that were entered in the project database. Included in this figure are twelve additonal records that were identified through cross-references in the received data. 6.3.16. The records supplied through Tees Archaeology were clear concise and consistent. Monuments are extensively cross-referenced, facilitating the enhancement procedure. 6.3.17. Following data validation and record enhancement the 38 original records have been expanded to 43 individual monuments in the project database. Rotunda Museum, Scarborough 6.3.18. A search of the Rotunda Museum archive was conducted with the help of the curator, based on place name. Seven records were identified one of which was found to be inland of the study area. As part of the enhancement process five of the remaining six sites were expanded to produce a total of 14 sites that were added to the project database. 6.3.19. The records within the archive are attributed with place name, location, events and contacts. The contacts include correspondence, which has identified and clarified other sources. 17 Hull and East Riding Museum 6.3.20. The core of Humberside SMR is derived from the Hull and East Riding Museum. Not all the museum archive however was included in the SMR. Finds of ‘marginal value’ and finds not attributable to parish were included in the SMR, which included finds from offshore and coastal areas. 6.3.21. The museum archive was searched using place names. Relevant index cards and entry forms were recorded in the project database. These are forms used when an artefact is presented to the museum, regardless of whether it is subsequently accessioned by the museum or returned to the finder. 6.3.22. Additionally the works of Thomas Sheppard were added. Sheppard’s work appeared in numerous volumes of the monthly Hull Museum Publications, most often in its Quarterly Record of Additions. They comprise largely stray finds with little contextual information, and constitute a good example of material that should be physically inspected to identify duplicates and note any additional information pertaining to the artefact. This, however, has not been possible within the present project. 6.3.23. The Hull Museum Publications is an important secondary source of material providing information on a wide range of archaeological artefacts and monuments. It appears to be a relevant source for archaeological details tailored to both professional and amateur alike, promoting a wider recognition of archaeological concerns amongst the local populace. 6.3.24. A total of 68 relevant records were derived from the museum search. These were matched against the SMR, NMR, PAS, the Humber Wetlands Project records and published sources to identify duplicate records. Where these existed, any new information was added to the record; where not, an entirely new record was created. As a result 179 records were created from references to the Hull and East Riding Museum. 6.3.25. The local public has a relatively high awareness of archaeology and the importance of reporting finds. This is partly due to the rich collections and the high-profile activities of the local museum. The museum has operated an open-door policy, where much effort has been put into servicing finders and many of the finds added to the project database originate from individual finders and other interested parties. Rodney Mackey, Beverley 6.3.26. Mr. Mackey was able to point to a site, excavated by him, containing two monuments not yet entered in the Humberside SMR. Humber Wetlands Project 6.3.27. The Humber Wetlands Project archaeological assessment (Van de Noort & Davies, 1993) was used to expand and check existing records and to identify possible additional records for coastal sites in Holderness that had not been obtained from SMRs and other sources. 18 6.3.28. Further records were created to incorporate findspots identified by fieldwalking and coastal survey as part of the Humber Wetlands Project archaeological survey (Van de Noort & Ellis, 1995). 6.4. SOLENT STUDY AREA 6.4.1. The increase in monuments in Study Area 2 after enhancement is illustrated in Figure 4. The results from each participating organisation follow. HWTMA /Hampshire County Council AHBR 6.4.2. Digital data was selected for inclusion in the project by defining a GIS polygon with a 500m buffer from the Mean High Water Mark along the Hampshire coast and a cut off to select only records dating earlier than 1540. 6.4.3. The HWTMA database, which holds the majority of marine-related data from the Hampshire SMR, contained 405 records and comprised summary information referring to paper archives or other sources. Of the 405 records received, 60 were relevant to the project, the remainder being modern installations or finds, wrecks, net fasteners or geophysical anomalies. 6.4.4. Another notable contribution of the HWTMA is the Bouldnor Cliff submerged Mesolithic landscape research project. Published information arising from the research has also been entered into the project database. 6.4.5. The main body of Hampshire County Council AHBR data consisted of field walking observations and records derived from museum accessions. This data added an impressive amount of new findspots to the project database. In total 521 records are referenced to Hampshire SMR. In many cases, however, further information was required to complete the records as only general details such as ‘Prehistoric Flints’ are recorded in the transferred data. Isle of Wight County Council SMR 6.4.6. The Isle of Wight County Council holds digital records for the coastline and inshore waters of the Isle of Wight. IWCC were prepared only to contribute existing monuments data recorded below the Mean Low Water. As this was not consistent with broader interpretation of coastal monuments as made available by other sources, the decision was taken not to include this dataset in the project. Portsmouth City Council SMR 6.4.7. The Portsmouth City Council data was manually selected from Ordnance Survey (OS) record cards. The search area was defined as the coastline, beaches, mud flats and sea. Records with accurate grid references, up to 50m inland, and those with approximate locations, up to a maximum of 100m inland, were included. All records of unknown location were included in the search. 6.4.8. Altogether, 140 records fell within the project bounds and were included in the project database. The record cards were completed to varying degrees; in some cases information was missing relating to site location and ground type. This is a reflection of the information available at various times during the SMR’s history. It was noted that some record cards relate to multi-period sites or collections of artefacts from a 19 number of locations. These were divided, where applicable, as part of the enhancement process. 6.4.9. From the information contained within the 140 records, 21 new records were created bringing the total to 161 records in the project database. Many of these are also duplicated within the Hampshire SMR. Southampton City Council SMR 6.4.10. Records were identified using a polygon around the River Itchen and River Test estuaries and the area of Southampton Water, up to the mean high water mark, and including any surviving cliffs or estuarine river banks where necessary. 6.4.11. The coastline included within the Southampton City Council limits has undergone many changes due to coastal erosion and particularly land reclamation. For the purposes of this project it was decided to use the current coastline as the reference for the search criteria. 6.4.12. The Southampton SMR has 38 findspots or sites in coastal locations. Attached to these sites are 51 individual artefact records. An assessment of the information held within the records suggests a high level of detail consistent with the high standards set within the SMR. 6.4.13. It was initially envisaged that this data would be exported from the HBSMR for use in the project database. However, it became apparent that to maintain the integrity of the information already entered by Southampton SMR, and to facilitate the return of data, it would be advantageous to work with the ExeGesIS tables in their entirety. The Langstone Harbour Project 6.4.14. The Langstone Harbour Project identified 157 findspots and other monuments of which 148 are relevant to the present project. Wessex Archaeology holds a digital version of the project gazetteer, from which records were entered into the project database. At the time of the publication of the Langstone Harbour Project 104 of the 157 records were recorded by Hampshire or Portsmouth SMR, and a further seven have subsequently been added to those records. The remaining 46 records have been entered as new sites which were then checked for duplication against other datasets. 6.4.15. The data is summary information compatible with the project database, the main contribution was the cross-referencing between SMR number and project site identification code, which referenced the project archive, and served to link the site to other sources. Gardiner 1988 unpublished Ph.D. thesis: The composition and distribution of Neolithic surface flint assemblages in central southern England 6.4.16. Included in Gardiner’s catalogue are 295 stray finds in Hampshire, 43 of which proved, through a 1km buffer search, to be coastal. 38 of these were relevant to the project and were entered as new findspot monuments or appended to existing monuments as appropriate. 6.4.17. In addition to stray finds relevant ‘sites’ from Gardiner’s catalogue were also entered. The sites are briefly described in terms of land use and geology, and a list of 20 artefacts, ordered by groups, is given. Eight ‘sites’ were entered as new monuments or appended to existing monuments as appropriate. Portsmouth City Museum 6.4.18. The accession books of Portsmouth City Museum are largely digitised. The selection of records was based on a series of key word queries. Place-names as well as topographic names (such as ‘harbour’, coast’ and ‘beach’) were combined with finds categories (such as ‘flint’, ‘bone’ and ‘coin’) to identify records relevant to the project. 6.4.19. A total of 40 records were identified. These records correlated with the accession records of the Portsmouth SMR, which is to be expected as they are maintained by the same organisation. Twenty-four of these records were discarded, as they did not fulfil the project criteria. 6.4.20. In the final database there are 258 records of finds accessioned in the Portsmouth City Museum. Southampton Museum of Archaeology 6.4.21. The museum runs an ambitious digitisation policy, and operates several databases: accession ‘book’ index; an excavation database (feeding into the SMR) and a finds database accessible to the public on the internet and containing finds from excavations as well as other identifiable accessioned objects. It is therefore possible to obtain site information through the SMR and finds information directly from the Internet, linked by museum accession number. 6.4.22. The sources were queried, using key word criteria, for provenance and date. The digital accession book produced a spreadsheet containing 2858 potentially relevant records including unprovenanced finds. From this initial data 2671 records were discarded leaving 187 records that were entered into the project database. 6.4.23. Following data validation and record enhancement there are 136 records of finds from Southampton Museums in the project database. St. Barbe Museum and Art Gallery, Lymington 6.4.24. The information from this museum appears in the Hampshire SMR and HWTMA records. On inspection however an extra findspot was identified that was recorded in the museum archive updating the project database and raising the total number of findspots from two to three. Michael White, Pennington 6.4.25. Mr White has provenanced his collection by place names. The locations of the place names were identified with the help of Stephen White, Michael White’s son, and manually plotted on large scale Admiralty charts. Artefact findspots that fell inside the project bounds were selected for inclusion in the database (see Figure 2). 6.4.26. A total of 298 artefacts relating to 59 findspot monuments, of which 56 were in the study area, were identified and recorded along with the associated depth of water to Ordnance Datum Newlyn (ODN). The majority of the finds were flint artefacts, 21 which were catalogued by Phil Harding of WA. The resulting catalogue (Wessex Archaeology March 2004, ref: 51541a and b) accompanies this report. 6.4.27. In consultation with Michael and Stephen White, further information and patterns in the artefact recovery were noted: • There are two patches of submerged forest in the area. • Most finds are in shallow water except in the area around Bourne Gap Buoy (up to c. 10m water depth) (see Figure 2). • The finds are made in distinctive zones separated by seemingly sterile areas (particularly along the Isle of Wight coast). This may, however, merely reflect the pattern of oyster dredging in the area (see Figure 2). • Many of the artefacts were found within peat deposits. The peat is ‘like gardening sphagnum’, with inclusions which have been described as ‘straw like’ possibly implying that the peat may contain phragmites. 7. DISCUSSION 7.1.1. The intention of this project is to enable previous records of artefacts found in or near the sea to be mobilised more readily in assessing, in particular, the effects of marine aggregate dredging on the historic environment. 7.1.2. In order to demonstrate the value of the project a comparison has been made between a search of the datasets that will become available through SMRs and the NMR as a result of this project, and the SMR search conducted for an earlier assessment of an aggregate licence application area. 7.1.3. An existing desk based assessment concerned with Palaeolithic and Mesolithic sites in Area 446: North West Rough was checked for the number of monuments that were obtained from the original SMR search. The same area was then queried in the project database. 7.1.4. The original SMR query produced 42 Palaeolithic and Mesolithic monument records in a polygon spanning an area 2-17km inland. Two of these monuments are within the 1km coastal buffer zone designated by this project (see Figure 5). 7.1.5. Within this buffer zone, the project database produced four monuments that are Mesolithic in date, and a further 27 monuments dated from 4000 BC or earlier, i.e. potentially dating from the Palaeolithic or Mesolithic (see Figure 5). 7.1.6. Only one monument record is shared by the two datasets, meaning that the present study has added 30 new records to the available data for coastal monuments in the study area examined in assessing the archaeological potential of North West Rough. 7.1.7. This example implies that the enhancement process has been highly effective and demonstrates the usefulness of the project to future marine aggregate-related assessments. 22 8. CONCLUSIONS 8.1.1. This project collated information arising from previous discoveries of artefacts from the sea and coast in two study areas, namely the Solent and Humber-Tees. The principal result of the project is the enhanced dataset which accompanies this report. 8.1.2. The degree to which original records have been enhanced is by no means a poor reflection of these records and their recorders. Rather, the process demonstrates how much is to be gained from a systematic comparison of variable but related resources in regard to sites, monuments and, in particular, to artefact recording. 8.1.3. The enhancement of the information contained within the dataset will improve understanding, conservation and appreciation of the marine historic environment. However, such improvements will mainly come about through people using the resulting data by consulting the SMRs and NMR, rather than through this project as such. 8.1.4. Among the people using the information collated by this project will be marine aggregate dredging companies and their archaeological contractors, together with the national and local curatorial authorities who are involved in considering aggregate dredging proposals. Clearly, the success of the project will depend on the degree to which the resulting data enables all parties to achieve extraction of marine aggregate that is sustainable in terms of its effects on the marine historic environment. Considerable benefits are to be gained in terms of both individual proposals and of wider strategic assessments of the relationship between marine aggregate dredging and the historic environment. 8.1.5. The benefits of the project are, however, likely to be much broader. The historic environment of coastal and marine areas has not generally received the same attention over the decades as its terrestrial counterparts. Changes over the past 10-15 years in particular have, however, prompted a reappraisal of the potential importance of coastal and marine archaeology to our understanding of the past. Inconsistent recording of the archaeological material targeted by this project is symptomatic of the lower priority afforded to the archaeology of the sea over the past century or so. The improvements arising from this exercise – accessed as an integral element of local and national historic environment records – may not simply redress an unfortunate imbalance. They may also enable a more fundamental reappraisal of England’s early history in which today’s coast need no longer be a boundary to understanding or proper management. 8.1.6. This project has not directly sought new reports of finds and monuments from the public. There is great potential, however, for using this renewed dataset, and the information gathered regarding inter-relationships between different records and institutions, to form the basis of subsequent projects designed to encourage reporting in the future. Moreover, the data collated during the course of this project emphasises the key role that the general public has played in bring artefacts to the attention of archaeologists. The Michael White collection, for example, is testament to the impact that individual members of the public can have on the data available to archaeologists in a given area. 8.1.7. The project has addressed two study areas that are key to both our understanding of England’s early history and to the sustainable use of marine aggregate resources. A 23 range of significant difficulties at all sorts of levels have been addressed and largely overcome, as reported here. The advances made in developing the dialogues and methodologies needed to enhance coastal and marine records are considerable. We would welcome the opportunity to extend these advances to artefacts from other coasts and seas around England. 9. BIBLIOGRAPHY Allen, M.J. & Gardiner, J. (eds.), 2000: Our Changing Coast. a survey of the intertidal archaeology of Langstone Harbour, Hampshire. York. Gardiner, J.P. 1988: The Composition and Distribution of Neolithic Surface Flint Assemblages in Central Southern England. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Reading. Van de Noort, R. & Davies, P. 1993: Wetland Heritage. An archaeological assessment of the Humber Wetlands (Ellis, S. ed.). Kingston upon Hull. Van de Noort, R. & Ellis, S. (eds.) 1995: Wetland Heritage of Holderness. An Archaeological Survey. Kingston upon Hull. Wessex Archaeology 2003a, Artefacts from the Sea. Source Appraisal, Ref. 51541.01, Unpublished Report. Wessex Archaeology 2003b, Artefacts from the Sea. Project Design, Ref. 51541, Unpublished Report. Wessex Archaeology 2003c, Artefacts from the Sea. Year 1 Report, Ref. 51541.02, Unpublished Report. Wessex Archaeology 2004a, Artefacts from the Sea. Catalogue of the Michael White Collection, Ref: 51541a and b, Unpublished Report. Wessex Archaeology 2004b, Artefacts from the Sea. Year 2 Report. Ref. 51541.04, Unpublished Report. 24 APPENDIX I: RECORDING GUIDELINES The following provides guidelines for using the WA ALSF Artefacts from the Sea project database (project code 51541). The database is loosely based on the ExeGesIS HBSMR used by many SMRs involved in the project, hence many of the Field descriptions given are based on their system of recording. By keeping to this format, it is hoped that information will be stored in similar locations to the participating SMR records, which will, hopefully, facilitate the data transfer process. Some field name labels on the forms visible to the user have, however, been changed for ease of use and some additional fields, not known from the ExeGesIS HBSMR design, have been added. Log-in Enter a username; used to track the changes you make to the database, and appears automatically in tick-boxes (see below); WA staff use ‘[initials]_wa’. Switchboard The main switchboard illustrates the divisions of data within the database into the Monument, Event, Archive (sources) and Contact. The finds data is held associated to the monument tables, and can only be accessed through its parent monument. Click on the table buttons to access each set of forms. Control panel (top left corner) Choose form A miniature of the switchboard, giving access to Monument, Event, Source and Contact (edit all…). Delete Deletes the current record in either Monument, Find, Event, Source or Contact. Undo Standard Windows™-operation Update linked Not to be used during normal use of the database. tables Linked table manager. Database management tool to link the tables in the backend (“Artefacts_DATA.mdb”) with the frontend (“Artefacts.mde”) Only used if the backend is moved to a new location. Exit / ❘ Close the database. [minimise-sign] Minimise window. Search panel (top right corner) AZĻ ZAĻ 2 FILTER Filter by Selection Filter by Form Sort ascending. Sort descending. Find; cursor must first be in the field you wish to search; will prompt for search parameters. Works only with fields in the main form (Monument/Name/Summary/Description). Searches in other fields, however, can be carried out within the Access tables (view by pressing F11). Place the cursor in the field you want to filter for. Filters the form by the current value of the selected field. Changes the form to “Filter View”. Allows entering multiple criteria. 25 Apply Filter Remove Filter Apply Filter/Sort Remove Filter/Sort Toggle button to apply or remove the filter. Applies the specified filter or sort order. Removes the filter and the sort order. Navigation buttons ž ⇐ Ÿ = = = = [door] = go to first go to previous go to next go to last exit this form (on switchboard = close database) Counters Shows record X of N, N being either: total number associated with the monument when in ‘edit associated…’ or: total number in the entire database when in ‘edit all…’. Tick-boxes (dark grey background). Used to indicate the date of ‘completion’ of the record and the person responsible for it. Monument A monument is a site of past human activity, defined spatially and temporally. A monument will represent a single phase of activity (although the interpretation of the length of the phase is left open, and may vary according to sites) at a specified location. Thus monument records have been assigned according to: i. Spatial discontinuity. Their presence as a number of discrete sites - such as Find spots. This implies that each Find spot, because it is ‘unproven’ in its relation to anything else, must be considered a monument in its own right. This is so even for Find spots that might conceivably be related to monuments. For instance, WA UID monument No. 10140 (‘Spes Bona’ Roman Villa) covers a large area extending over a number of possible locations towards one end of Langstone Avenue, Hayling Island. Find spots of similar material from other gardens in the vicinity, whilst conceivably coming from the Villa complex, must nevertheless be regarded as separate monuments because they have no proven relationship to the Villa monument. ii. Temporal discontinuity. Where monuments have a proven continuity of occupation they are considered to be a single monument. For instance: where an Iron Age site continues in occupation into the Roman period then it is recorded as one site. Where, however, there is a definite or inferred break in occupation between periods, then they are respectively more than one monument, for instance: early Iron Age settlement with a break in occupation until say the mid-2nd century AD and Roman occupation; these would then be recorded as two monuments. The same might also be true of a Roman site where residual prehistoric material was also recovered. In this case, it is the nature of occupation (temporally distinct) which determines the number of monuments generated. Because antiquarian databases operate on National Grid References (NGR) the accuracy is expressed by the number of co-ordinate digits, essentially providing a square in which the site is found, and denoting this square by the co-ordinates of its SW corner. Though this is not an ideal solution, it has been decided, in order to ensure consistency, to apply this method for the 26 positioning of most monuments created during the project. A higher accuracy has been achieved by allowing the resulting squares to be placed arbitrarily and not just on even 10m, 100m etc. NGR squares (see below). Some monuments were received from source with the qualifier ‘centred on’. These co-ordinates have been left untouched. A few ‘centred-on’ monuments have also been created anew: those where the position denotes the centre of a GIS polygon. Field Name Monument Description Automatically generated, unique WA project specific number for each monument. New monument Click for a blank form allocated a monument UID number. Record Type Describes the type of site e.g. Findspot, Building or Monument. The ‘Find spot’ category should only be used where the finds are not within a recognisably associated archaeological feature. Summary Non-technical up-to-date summary of the site and site history, including different interpretations through time summarised as ‘originally thought to be…’, or ’formerly known as...’; use only a few sentences. More detailed information should be included in the Description field. Description Technical details about the site. Include relationships between finds, other sites and features. Note that this field is for the monument only, not the finds. This field also contains: • Monument dating (incl. Scientific), finds analysis, C-14, TL, Historic records, etc. • Brief finder details, including date, and a description of where the Monument is located, also incorporating County, can be recorded here. • Where a site is, for instance, re-dated, descriptions of the original understanding followed by subsequent changes in interpretation should be detailed here. The same applies for function, identification and interpretation. • Often information detailing the lack of specific types of information is incorporated in this field, such as ‘current location of finds not recorded.’ Sub form ‘TYPE’ (more than one may be entered using Ź∗ if appropriate): A monument can contain a number of elements, which, separately, would normally constitute a monument in its own right. For instance: an occupation site might contain walls, floors, buildings (of differing types), pits, hearths, etc., all of which are monuments when encountered individually. Provision is therefore made to indicate this parent-child relationship between a monument and its ‘component monuments’ (and the peer-to-peer relationship between the ‘component monuments’) by entering them as multiple ‘monument types’ of the ‘main monument’. This is because not all of the participating SMRs operate databases capable of handling true parent-child relationships between records. The nature of relationships to other monuments (and finds etc.) should be detailed in the ‘Description’ field. Monument Type Term to describe the site. Use Ź∗ to add more than one term. Terms in capital letters are approved terms and should be used 27 wherever possible. Use the small blank box next to term to add ‘?’ if unsure of a monument type. From/To Broad Period allocations. Use small blank box to add ‘?’ if unsure or questionable date. For the monument, not the finds. Note Use to add detailed dating information, scientific dates for the monument as a whole, etc. Sub form ‘LOCATION’ (more than one may be entered using Ź∗ if appropriate; e.g. for a town wall). Topology Describes the nature of a site, e.g. Area, dispersed, line. Qualifier Broadly describes the quality of location information. Unknown Tick if site location is unknown. Grid Ref. NGR letters. e.g. TA. Easting/Northing Enter original (from SMR, NMR, PAS, literature, GIS object centroid etc.) location of site if known. If positioning an unprovenanced find on the basis of placename: 1. Identify the maximum extent of eastings and northings 2. Map the site on the minimum easting and northing rounded down to a multiple of 10m 3. Give the largest of either easting or northing range in ‘Precision’, rounded up to a multiple of 10m Update NGR Translates the NGR letters into 12-figure NGR + precision Height OD, if known. Projection/Source Use to add projection e.g. ‘WGS84’ and/or the source of the original location e.g. ‘PAS data’, ‘HAP SMR’ or to state if projection unknown. Latitude/Longitude Enter original location if in Lat./Long. Use: ‘[degrees][space][minutes],[decimal minutes]’[N/S/E/W]’ or: ‘[degrees][space][minutes]’[seconds]”[N/S/E/W]‘. NGR Give full 6 figures in each box (total 12-figure grid ref.). Easting/Northing Update Grid Translates 12-figure NGR into NGR letters + precision Precision Qualifies accuracy of position. E.g. if original NGR is TA 184547 NGR precision is 100m. Where 12-figure NGR is inherited from NGR letters or vice versa using the buttons, this updates automatically, but may still be entered manually, if a source states another specific precision. County County site is in e.g. Hampshire. Civil/Non-civil Choose parish status from drop-down and write parish name in parish box. Obtained from www.magic.gov.uk when not listed in SMR records Administrative Unitary authority or local planning authority, which is not region always the SMR holder. Obtained from www.magic.gov.uk when not listed in SMR records Sub form ‘REFERENCES’ (reference numbers; multiple references may be entered using Ź∗ if appropriate; e.g. one for SMR no., one for museum accession no., one for fig. no. in a publication, etc.). Status Nature of reference, e.g. Listed Building number, SMR 28 number or number given in a catalogue/publication e.g. McGrail’s logboat numbers. StatusRef The number/letter given. Note Put publication, SMR or Museum name. e.g. ‘Portsmouth SMR’. Sub form ‘TOPOGRAPHY’ (multiple references may be entered using Ź∗ if appropriate; e.g., and ideally, one for geology, one for land use and one for sub-soil; but it is also possible to indicate more than one feature of each class in the case of multiple strata). LandClass Which classification: Geology, Land Use, or Subsoil Type Type of geology, land use, or subsoil – from list. Notes Use to add/describe stratigraphic detail and relationships of a site, publication references etc. Finds Sub form Use to record all artefacts. Generally speaking find categories are attributed to individual finds where detailed descriptions and/or categorisations of the find occur. Otherwise find recording is done on the basis of simple groups. E.g.: • If a number of coins of various 1st and 2nd century AD date are indicated then only a single record necessarily needs to be provided with the date range given as Roman (more refined dating if provided could be given in description). • If an unspecified number of coins is recorded, but a specific coin is also described (Roman coins including an As of Nero) then two records would be provided; the first for the unspecified coins and the second for the specific coin. These can then also be generally associated within the ‘Description’ field of the Find record. • If, for instance, ‘a number of Mesolithic flints including 3 scrapers, a knife, a backed blade, and two cores – one of which is burnt – then 6 records would need creation. One for the unspecified flints, one for the 3 scrapers (they cannot be separated further without a more refined definition), one for the knife, one for the backed blade, one for a core, and one for a burnt core. • Some categories are less obvious than others. Pottery described as 1st century BC/AD might only require one record (non-specific identification). Pottery described as ‘1st century BC and 1st century AD pottery’ could however require two Find records as the processes may indicate a late iron age date for some of the pottery and an early Roman period for the rest. The uncertainty principle inherent within this ambiguous statement should be stated (and where possible clarified) within the ‘Description’ field. Click on ‘Edit Associated finds’ to add finds information to a monument record. New Find Type Material type From/To Click to allocate a find UID number linked to the monument number in red in top right box. Choose type of find from list (MDA archaeological objects). Terms in capital letters are approved terms. Do not use those terms in lower case letters, choose a similar term in capitals. Choose as appropriate from list. For composite finds enter primary material. Enter broad period range. 29 From Conf/To Conf Unknown Location Enter ‘?’ if unsure of date range allocated. Click if date of find is unknown. Current location of artefact – choose from list. A new location may be added through ‘contacts’ on the main switchboard, see below. LocationRef E.g. Museum accession number. EvUID Select an associated Event UID from the list. New events can not be added through this window. To add a new event, see below. Summary Short non-technical description/identification of a find. Use for scientific dates, notes on dating and notes on current/previous/unknown locations. Description Technical details of finds. Include all associations with other finds and other monuments. A brief synthesis of Finder, Find date and Find location (including County) can be recorded supplementary to the detailed information. Sub form ‘General Detail’ (more than one may be entered using Ź∗ in the case of simple groups described above). Length/Width/ As appropriate. Use the largest (e.g. max diameter of a conical Thickness/Diameter/ object) and detail in ‘description’. Ensure correct units used Weight (mm). Completeness/ According to WA finds description lists. Condition Ceramic Detail Use ‘agreed’ terminology where appropriate. E.g. Medieval Form/Fabric/Sherd Pottery Research Group word lists. Such word lists are not Type/Inclusions included in the database, but are available from the finds department or http://www.mda.org.uk/archobj/archcon.htm Flint/Stone Detail Select from drop-down word list. Flake type Sub form ‘REFERENCES’ (reference numbers; more than one may be entered using Ź∗ if appropriate). References As described for main monument form. Use for find specific Status/StatusRef/ references only. Some finds may have their own SMR number. Note Events An event is any activity, on- or off-site, related to the monument, and its associated artefacts, e.g. research, photographs, or excavation. Note that: • An event is not generally created for the deposition of the finds, except when a formal donation occurs or, occasionally, when moved from previous location. • Publication is not recorded as an event, as it would only duplicate the source record. • Where nothing is known about a site except, for example, a brief mention in the publication of another site, it is not considered necessary to create an empty event record (not even ‘discovery’-event though it logically took place). In this example the source record of the said publication covers all that is known. • Some SMRs (e.g. Kent) do not consider the interpretation of maps or Aerial Photographs a separate Event. Other SMRs (e.g. Southampton) do. Where these events occur separately from, or supplementary to, the ‘main’ Event(s) (e.g. excavation, DBA, etc.), then they 30 • should often be provided a separate Event record with an appropriate name such as ‘record enhancement’ or ‘research’. Where a change in identification/interpretation occurs (e.g. re-dating) a separate Event record may be required to account for this change, unless the new interpretation is a direct result/part of a named event such as ‘Continued excavation’ or ‘C-14 dating’. Separate Events can also occur where interpreters disagree over the interpretation, or where the situation is unclear. Click on Edit Associated events on main monument form to add event information to a monument record. (can also be reached through ‘Events’ on the main switchboard/control panel.) New Event Click to allocate an event UID number linked to the monument number in red in top right box. Name Name of event, e.g. ‘Excavation at …’ RecordType Type of event – from list. Location Address of site (including the county), site name or other appropriate description e.g. ‘Dogger Bank’ or ‘Skipsea Mere’. In case of off-site activities (e.g. C-14 dating) leave blank if ‘Organisation’ provides adequate information. Organisation Organisation responsible for event from list. Can be individual person (for stray finds). To add new organisation first go to ‘Contacts’ on switchboard. ExternalRef E.g. Excavation company project number for the event. Description Describe the event. If a stray find, describe the circumstances of find, if trawled up describe nature, depth, area covered etc. Note Other notes. From/To Exact dates of event where known (i.e. when artefact found, site excavated, etc.). Must be in 11/07/2003 format. Qualifier Use ‘?’ if unsure of dates, ‘btw’ for between, and ‘occ’ for occasional. DispDate Use for rough dates in any format; e.g. ‘1905’, ‘summer 1980’, ‘before 1. Oct. 2001’, etc. Original reference & Use where appropriate; enter as for Location information on ‘inherit co-ordinates main monument form. Where the event takes place on the site from monument’ of the monument it is possible to click button ‘inherit coordinates from monument’; this will prompt for the monument UID in question (as some events, e.g. fieldwalking, can cover many monuments). Here too it is possible to update NGR letters to 12-figure NGR if this is not already done on the parent monument. Linked to Select monUID to link an event to a monument – if not already Monument linked (i.e. accessed through main switchboard); the remaining fields will update automatically. Sources A source is any information relating to the monument. 31 Click on Edit Associated sources on Main Monument form to add source information to a monument record. (can also be reached through ‘Sources’ on the main switchboard/control panel.) New Source Type Read Title Originator OrigDate Location LocationRef Summary Publication/Des Link Monuments Click to allocate a source UID number. Choose type description of the source from the list. Not all of the many possible categories of sources are in the list; use the nearest match. Tick box to check sources used for enhancement. Of the paper, book, photograph, map, etc. Author, photographer, etc. as appropriate; person or institution Date of publication, date photo taken, etc. Location of source, e.g. Project archive, library name. Use ‘Contacts’ in main switchboard to add a new location. Library reference numbers (AF – Antony Firth) Use this field for ‘page from-to’ of articles (because of the many types of sources without pages, there is no specific page field). Describe ‘content’ of source. Use for publisher details including journal names etc. Choose a monument UID to link a source to that monument and give the pages of the source that refer specifically to the monument. Contacts Enter from the main switchboard/control panel. Include people, companies, libraries, museums etc. Add new contact Contact mode Name Allocates a unique UID for the contact record. Select from list where appropriate. Company or institution name. For people not associated with companies use: ‘Private Individual - [full name] or: ‘Private Individual - [initial(s) surname]’ or (where neither first name nor initials are known): ‘Private Individual – Mr./Mrs./etc. [surname] You can also choose ‘Private individual – unknown’. E.g. Curator, SMR officer. May also be used for longer titles. Choose from list or write e.g. ‘Rev.’, ‘Col.’ etc. As appropriate. Do not enter initials here. Contact Position Contact Title (Fore)Name/ Surname Address/Town/ As appropriate. County/Post code/ Tel/Fax/ Email. Notes As needed. Enter web-pages, museum opening hours etc. here. Linked events Updates automatically when the contact is entered in an event. General 32 Where feet and inches are recorded an effort to translate these into metric format must be undertaken. Generally speaking the rule of converting to inches first has been followed, then multiplying inches by a factor of 0.0254 for conversion to metres (based on 2.54cm to 1 inch). By this ratio 1 yard = 0.91 metres. These figures are invariably given to two decimal places (where inches are concerned) and less (if precision is not greatly required) in terms of feet and yards. Millimetre precision is only generally provided in Length, Width, Thickness, etc. on Find record. The original feet and inch measurements can be recorded in relevant ‘Description’ fields. The SMR card number in ‘Reference’ or as title of a source is to be made consistent; when map sheet based this should be in the format ‘SU_60_SE_5’ where ‘_’ stands for one character space. NMR referencing is similarly formatted. Capitalisation is to be minimised in respect to its usage. Some SMRs, such as Kent, only capitalise ‘Roman’ in reference to dating periods, with all other dates (except after a full stop) being in lower case throughout. In the project database original format used by the SMR in question is maintained. However, new records created during the project are using standard, CBA-recommended capitalisation. All finds categories are similarly lower case. Only formal names, location names, etc are readily capitalised. Record titles however should be appropriately capitalised, here period names can receive capital lettering; e.g. ‘Find Spot Discovery of Neolithic Flint from Baker’s Island, Langstone Harbour, Hampshire’. The use of abbreviations is discouraged throughout the database as it has been found that the usage and meaning of such abbreviations is subject to change. This also means that the initials alone of a person may not be appropriate and a surname at least provided. 33 Hartlepool Tees Archaeology SMR North York Moors National Park Scarborough North Yorkshire County Council SMR Humber Archaeological Partnership SMR Kingston Upon Hull 0 10 km Humber-Tees Study Area Southampton City Council SMR Portsmouth City Council SMR Hampshire County Council SMR 0 10 km Hampshire-Sussex Study Area Date: Wessex Archaeology Scale: Path: 27/01/04 Insets 1:1,000,000 Revision Number: Illustrator: 0 KMN W:\51541\Drawing Office\Report Figures\Year 2\04_01 Location of Study Areas showing SMR coastal coverage. Figure 1 39 41 40 Study area Michael White's findspot areas 38 43 53 36 34 30-1 27 29 54 68 28 49 26 24-5 69 Interpretation of Michael White's findspot areas based on place names and personal observation. Wessex Archaeology 37 42 Lymington 23 50 46 44 45 20 22 21 10 11 9 16 17 18 12 15 14 32 13 1 5 19 7 8 6 Digital data reproduced from Ordnance Survey data © Crown Copyright 2003 All rights reserved. Reference Number: 100020449. This material is for client report only © Wessex Archaeology. No unauthorised reproduction. 33 4 47 Southampton 51 48 52 3 35 2 W:\51541\Drawing Office\Report Figures\Year 2\04_01\ Path: Illustrator: Revision Number: 1:125,000 28/01/04 Scale: Date: Isle of Wight 0 KMN Figure 2 Portsmouth $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ Enhanced data set (February 2004) $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $$ $ $ $$ $$$$$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $$$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $$$$$ $$$ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $$$ $ $ $$ $ $$$ $$ $ $$$$ $ $$$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $$ $ $$ $$$ $ $ $$$ $$ $ $$ $$ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $$$ $$ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $$$ $$ $ $ $$ $ $$$ $ $$$ $ $ $ $$ $$ $$$ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $$$ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $$$ $$ $$$ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$$ $ $$$$ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $$$ $$ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $$ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $$$ $$ $ $$ $ # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # ## ## # # # # # # # # # ## ## # ## # # # # # ## # # ## ## ## # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # ## # ## ## # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # ## # ### # # # ## ## ### ### # # # # # # # # ## # # # ## # # # ### ### # # # # # # # # # # ## # # #### ### ## # # # # # ## # # # ## ## ## # ### ## # ## # ## ## # # # # # # # # # ## # # # ## # # ### ## # ## # ## # # # # # ## # # # ## ## # # # # # # ## # ## # # # ## # ## # ## # ## ## ## # ## ## # ## # # # ## # ## # # # #### ### ## # # # # # ## # # # ##### # # ##### # # # # ## ### # # # ## # # # ## # # # # ### # # ## # # # ## ## # # # # # # # # # ## ## ## # ##### # # ## # ## # ## # # # # # # # # ## # # # ## # # ## # # # # ## # # # ## # # # # # # # ## # # ## # # ### # # ## # ## # ## # # # # # ## ##### # # ## ## # ## # # ## # # ### # ## # # ## # ## # # # # # ### # ## ## # # # ## # # # # # # Figure 3 17/02/04 0 KMN W:\51541\Drawing Office\Report Figures 1:750,000 Reproduced from the Ordnance survey mapping with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationary Office © Crown copyright, Wessex Archaeology, Portway House, Old Sarum Park, Salisbury, Wiltshire. SP4 6EB. Licence Number:AL 100006861. Digital data reproduced from Ordnance Survey data © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Reference Number: 100020449. This material is for client report only © Wessex Archaeology. No unauthorised reproduction. Date: Revision Number: Illustrator: Path: Scale: Wessex Archaeology Mean High Water Mean Low Water Monuments by earliest date # Lower Palaeolithic # Middle Palaeolithic # Upper-Late Palaeolitic # Early Post-Glacial # Mesolithic # Early Neolithic # Late Neolithic # Early Bronze Age # Middle Bronze Age # Late Bronze Age # Early Iron Age # Middle Iron Age # Late Iron Age # Roman # Saxon # Medieval # Post-medieval # Modern # Undated Enhanced data $ Original data set $ Additional data # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # $ $ $$ $$ $$$ $ $$ $ Enhanced data set (February 2004) $ $ $ # $ ## $ $ # # $$ # ## # $ $$$ # # # # # # $ $ # # # # # ### # # # # # # # # ## $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ # # # # $ $ $$ $$ $ # # ## $ # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # ## # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ # $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ # # # # ## # # # # ## # # # # $ # # # ## # # # # # # $ $ $ # # # # # # # # # # # ## # $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $$$ $$ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ # # # # # ## # # # # # ## # # # # ## # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ # # # # $ $ $ $ $$ # ### # # # ## # ## # # # # ## # # ## # ## ### ### ## ## # # ## # # ## $ $ ## $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$$ $$$ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $$$ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $$$ $ $ $ $$$$ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$$$ $$ $ $$$ $ $$$ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $$$$ $$ $$$$ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ # # # # ## # # # # # # ## ## # # ## ## # ## # # ## # # #### ### # # # ## ### # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ # # ## # # # # # # # ## # # ## # # ## # # ## # # ## # # ## $ $ # $ # # # # # # # ## # ### # # ## # # # # ## ### # ## ### ## ## # #### # # ## # # # # # $ # ## # ## ## # ## ## # ### # $ # # ## # # $$ $ $ $ $ # # # # # # ## ### # # # ### # # ## ## # ## # # ## # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # ## # # # ## # # # # # ## # ## # # ## # ## # # # # # # # # # # # ## # $ ## # # # # # $ # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # #### # # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## ## # # # ## ### # # ## # # # # ## #### # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # ## # # ## # # # # ## # ## ## ## # ## # # # # ## ## # # ### ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # ## ### # ## ## ## # # ### # ## # # ## # # ## ## ## ## ### # # #### # # # ## ## ## # ## ## # # # # # # $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $$$$$ $ $$ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$$ $$ $$$$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $$$ $ $ $ $$ $$$$ $ $ $ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $$ $ $$$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $$ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$$ $ $$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $$ Figure 4 17/02/04 0 KMN W:\51541\Drawing Office\Report Figures 1:250,000 Reproduced from the Ordnance survey mapping with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationary Office © Crown copyright, Wessex Archaeology, Portway House, Old Sarum Park, Salisbury, Wiltshire. SP4 6EB. Licence Number:AL 100006861. Digital data reproduced from Ordnance Survey data © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Reference Number: 100020449. This material is for client report only © Wessex Archaeology. No unauthorised reproduction. Date: Revision Number: Illustrator: Path: Scale: Wessex Archaeology Mean High Water Mean Low Water Monuments by earliest date # Lower Palaeolithic # Middle Palaeolithic # Upper-Late Palaeolitic # Early Post-Glacial # Mesolithic # Early Neolithic # Late Neolithic # Early Bronze Age # Middle Bronze Age # Late Bronze Age # Early Iron Age # Middle Iron Age # Late Iron Age # Roman # Saxon # Medieval # Post-medieval # Modern # Undated Enhanced data $ Original data set $ Additional data Area 446 North West Rough Study Area (1km coastal buffer) Palaeolithic/Mesolithic (project data) Mesolithic (project data) SMR records from original desk-based assessment for Area 466 Wessex Archaeology Date: 16/02/04 Scale: 1:125,000 Path: 0 5 km Revision Number: Illustrator: 0 KMN W:\51541\Drawing Office\Report Figures\Year 2\04_01 Comparison between a standard SMR search and search results through the project database. Figure 5 THE TRUST FOR WESSEX ARCHAEOLOGY LTD. Portway House, Old Sarum Park, Salisbury, Wiltshire SP4 6EB Tel:(01722) 326867 Fax:(01722) 337562 E-mail:[email protected] www.wessexarch.co.uk Registered as an archaeological organisation with the Institute of Field Archaeologists Registered Charity No. 287786. A company with limited liability registered in England No. 1712772