| Entry: | Craig 20-4-99
Continuing in space 117. Various things removed and it looks like we are getting down to the very earliest deposits. Removed platform F.292 in the north-west corner, fairly mundane and boring. It seals floor (4165) which can probably be equated with (4168) and (4169) further east. These only survive in the northern part of the space, presumably they have been eroded away be heavier use further south. They indicate a phase prior to platform F.292. They may also well pre-date platform F.288. There is a north-south wall becoming clearer at the eastern end, is this the previous building showing up ? Despite removing three platforms F.292, F.288 and F.287 we haven’t come across any evidence of burials yet - hooray in terms of speed but why aren’t there any? Did none of the occupants of Building 2 die? Fairly unlkikely so presumably they were buried elsewhere but why? Did a single ‘burial’ group occupy more than one building with specific buildings linked to specific functions?
Preliminary notes on ‘Fire Installations’ in space 117.
There are nine F.I.’s in space 117, although two of them may be subsidiary structures related to larger F.I’s indicating seven main phases. As far as we can tell there is only ever one F.I. (sometimes plus subsidiary) in use at a time. In sequence from earliest to latest they are:
F.412 - almost central to space, deliberately demolished, rectangular aligned north-south, 0.64x0.54m. Not in major cut.
F.411 - almost central to space, deliberately demolished, circular, 0.3x0.34m. Not in major cut. Probably subsidiary to F.412.
F.409 - in south-west corner, probably oval, deliberately demolished, 0.62x0.28m, alligned north-south, not in major cut.
F.451 - in south-west corner, rectangular, alligned north-south, in substantial cut, deliberately demolished, 0.8x1.04m.
F.450 - in south-west corner, rectangular, alligned north-south, in substantail cut, deliberately demolished, 0.85x0.62m.
F.290 - on western side approximately central to north-south axis partly in niche, rectangular, west-east alligned, in cut, deliberately demolished, 0.84x0.56m.
F.269 - centrally placed on west-east axis on southern side of space, rectangular, north-south alligned, deliberately demolished, in substantial cut, 0.88x0.96m.
F.293 - centrally placed on west-east axis on southern side of space, circular, deliberately demolished, not in cut, 0.67x0.44m. Subsidiary to F.269.
F.268 - in south-west corner, rectangular, alligned north-south, infilled rather than demolished, in cut, 0.72x0.82m, complex but complexity probably due to it not being demolished rather than it being any more complex that the other F.I.’s.
Hope I got the sequence right.
So what does this all tell us? There is a complex sequence of F.I’s which definitely warrant detailed post-excavation study by both lab specialists and field staff. It suggests that Building 2 had quite a long life-span, possibly with seven phases although this needs to be tied in to the rest of the space. Why are there so many, does this relate to more general events in the space or do ovens simply need to be periodically replaced because the high temperatures damage them i.e. by cracking the base? The fact that there was apparently only ever a single F.I. suggests that their function relates to the occupants of Building 2 rather than serving some larger population. The various F.I’s seem to be fairly similar in size, ignoring those thought to be subsidiary, indicating that they may all have performed the same function or range of functions. The preferred locations were in the south western part of the space, they were deliberately demolished apart from the last F.I. and were aligned north-south. The exception appears to be F.290 which was placed further north and aligned west-east, why is this one a rogue? Is it genuinely different or merely an atypical example at one extreme of a range of possibilities?
Over half a month gone and I haven’t actually done anything in the ‘official’ excavation area which is slightly worrying in some respects. Overall things seem to be going fairly smoothly and have settled down into a form of routine quite quickly, I’m still fairly apprehensive about the future but as usual most of the problems are beyond my responsibility/power I might as well just try to enjoy myself excavating wonderful archaeology.
I have become increasingly convinced that the project should be aiming to dig each building in a maximum of two seasons, and preferably in one. The loss of information from long exposure to the elements, even with a shelter and backfilling, e.g. wall collapse, problems in distinguishing layers due to drying out and the ‘faultlines’ which occur between seasons in terms of remembering what is going on are in my opinion incredibly damaging. I am convinced that two seasons is feasible given the elimination of baulks and the use of experienced personnel, in the case on building 2 this would be three people, two in space 117 and one in space 116, whereas building 5 would probably need four or five. This of course presents a problem in terms of students as there is no way to prevent them slowing down the excavation process. Equally we have to accept students for a variety of reasons. Perhaps we need to think in terms of a separate training area under the supervision of a single experienced excavator, who will probably go mad, where it is simply accepted that very little progress will be made. In terms of a research excavation it is difficult to justify the damage done to the integrity of the excavation archive by digging too slowly. There are substantial problems with both buildings 1 and 2, the supposed ‘flagship’ buildings of the project so far which would not have occurred if they had been excavated in two seasons apiece solely by experienced staff. It can be argued that more rapid excavation itself leads to information loss, I would certainly agree but I believe that the this is miniscule compared to the information loss caused by slower excavation. It could be argued that we are only digging a small percentage of the mound so it doesn’t really matter. However, this ignores the fact that a lot of people, field staff and lab staff alike, put a lot of effort into the excavations and therefore deserve the best data possible. Also our interpretations are based on how we dig so we need to dig as well as possible otherwise we can’t possibly hope to understand the site as well as possible. Additionally the project needs to be ‘whiter than white’ to prevent criticism which it isn’t at the moment. Events this year have certainly not helped in this respect. Firstly there are certain large ditches which have been dug around the mound which have certainly destroyed some archaeology and which we are at least partly responsible for. Also there is the question of the acceptability of the location/extent of our excavation trenches this year. Whilst this is beyond our control they are de-contextualising, make no sense archaeologically and are at the very least morally questionable.Entered By: Craig Cessford |
