I can see it now…the long gin and tonic, the slice of lime, the sound of native birds hopping about a canopy of lush green native flora…

Yerrrkkkkk!!!!

Whats that?

There is an archaeological site in your land??!?!

What in earth is an archaeological site anyway?

In the New Zealand Archaeological Associations digital database ArchSite it is a small red dot usually with a large black rectangle attached to it, and a number next to it.

On the New Zealand Historic Places Trust register it is probably not there.

On your local district plan it might be a green dot with, a number  next to it.

A LINZ or PINZ report will show it as a small mark, like a dot, too.  With a larger shape attached encapsulating a larger area.

My dot, oh I meant point, is that archaeological sites are typically not as small as a single dot when seen in reality.  Very often you cant see them when driving your car for the hundredth time past your perfect bit of land… Very often they are invisible from the surface,

Archaeological sites are literally IN the earth.

They have the potential to be lurking anywhere just under the ground surface.  And reason they are in the earth… is because they were here before any of us.  They are the physical remains of peoples ancestors…real people, real New Zealanders.

Just like people today, when a family or a community decides to put down roots and build a house, or a village, or a swimming pool complex,

they spread out, some mess is made and sometimes that mess and rubbish is left behind after the building, or playing, or living is done….

well the same happened with people who left their mark in the earth many many moons ago.

In the scenario in my head…perhaps out came the tools, then came the wood, in went the windows, somebody cooked the lunch, and over there is where the rubbish went every day after lunch.  And no, like you, I don’t like sitting next to rotting rubbish while I eat my lunch…and I can’t imagine many others do either?

So, lets put that rubbish a few meters away in this hot summer sun, and then it doesn’t matter much if the birds come and help themselves to the left overs, the ants wont become bothersome, and my nose can retain the sweet smell of our beautiful nature and I can still enjoy the sound and vision of the waves gently crashing against the sand.

Ah, space!  The great kiwi outdoors!  Wide open spaces, lots of places to roam, many places to explore!  The best campground ever!  It has always been the same…

Our past heritage is more than just a drop in the ocean of time…sorry a dot in the landscape,

Archaeological sites make way more sense when you connect the dots and understand that nobody makes a single piece of mess in a lifetime, loose their possessions in one small defined place or has a house that they never leave; we and our ‘things’ have the potential to spread!  

The conclusion: New Zealands human past took place in one large camp site…across wide open spaces, with lots of places to roam.  But all of them connected in some way.

Moral: When the campground needs to develop and make additions, it is quite likely that the physical remains of earlier camp dwellers will be found in the earth, and not just where the council, the NZAA or the NZHPT have put their dot. This is no nasty trick, this is just what happens.

And that folks is archaeology.  More than just a dot in space and time….its a hidden landscape in the earth.

cin cin!

(the author is not responsible for the quality of her content…she has diminished responsibility on account of repetitive questioning regarding the existence and size of archaeological sites :)

(note: I am not referring to a real campground, this is a metaphor ;)

What has it all been about?  Richard the III of course!

The coolest thing about this?

Is that the use of a well know person or family can drag archaeology and heritage out of the past and into the future, and todays  reality.  The biggest curse of heritage is that people cant see the point of doing it, hearing about it, accommodating it in today’s society.  A story like Richard III cuts through all of that.

A story about a royal immediately gives flesh to the subject.  You see the paintings, read the text (even Shakespeare’s version), can visit the castles, the churches, and the carpark if you fancy it.  It is tangible.  On the outside it feels as though anybody, anytime, can make a discovery like this!

Most skeletons excavated in the UK never have a name.  The report reads “‘Joe or Jane Doe’, lived a long time ago…probably this time based on the ‘other’ information/features found during the excavation (he style of the pottery, the method and imagery on the painted glass windows, the direction of the burial etc).  Most of the time their statistics are recorded along with their probable age range, gender and any evidence of disease of lifestyle on the bone, and reburied.  In the past they were probably put in a box and taken to a storeroom for later study, maybe.

This story, with the science DNA analysis brings gives credibility to a story that really is just about people at the end of the day…ok a rich and powerful one, who may or may not have been really evil and murderous, with the appearance of a hunchback…but a story that connects many NZers back to the ‘motherland’ and its royal associations, and is all about the celebs or ‘it’ people of the past.  What girl has not wanted to marry a Prince, and be a Princess at some point?

This story at its heart is about a lot of people, all producing layers of information that can be brought together to tell a whole story, that society can relate to.  And like most projects there was probably a whole lot of leg work done by enthusiasts well before the archaeologists, University and tv companies got involved.

But once they did get involved…well this is my interpretation of the Royal scientific synthesis recipe used in the finding of King Rich:

Before you start the mixing:

Do your reading, know the story, further the research, then locate a skeleton from under a car park in Leicester;

PART 1:

1. record the size, profile and position of the grave cut

2. draw the position of the skeleton and any other burial elements (coffin nails, shrouds etc)

3. discuss the fit of the skeleton in the grave cut, and the condition (even neatness) of the grave itself

4. conclude on who did it and how the body would have been buried.

PART 2

1. Record the detail in the bones (were missing body parts contemporary with the life of the person or occur post burial, aging and gender evidence etc)

2. Record evidence of physical stress and disease/illness on the bone, like scoliosis

3. Compare the historic documents/images of potential candidates with the information from the skeleton

4. Discuss, discuss, discuss

5. Conclude on the person/family the skeleton is most likely to originate from

PART 3

1. Sample the skeleton, in this case the teeth and femur

2. Trace possible direct descendants, using peerage information, and the female lines (for the mitochondrial DNA)

3. Sample the DNA of the possible descendant

4. DNA analysis……

….Months later

PART 4

1. Report the findings….

2. Give a face to the person (through facial reconstruction techniques for example)

3. Allow time for critique, positive and negative to occur

4. Wait to see if there is an increase in funding available for DNA analysis to connect with people today, an increase in media attention given to archaeology and an increase in tourist visitors to the associated places.

….Months later

PART 5

Report the findings in a peer reviewed journal – confirmation to critics and peers the i’s were dotted and t’s crossed.

PART 6

Use the information and the story to maintain PART 4, point 4 above into the future.

If the story of Richard the III invigorates the interest of society, funders, institutions and next LOTTO winner in heritage projects then that makes for a very tasty outcome to me!

You can hear some of my thoughts on this on Radio NZ <iframe src=”http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/remote-player?id=2545744″ width=”100%” frameborder=”0″ height=”62px”></iframe> 

Instead of having to consolidate (or glue together) a fragile pot, urn, vessel, or block of loose soil,  with low concentrate adhesives, co-polymers, acrylics and the like,

And then slowly micro-excavate the contents inside by hand (with really small tools, a delicate hand and meticulous recording) with a 2-D x-ray image or CT-Scan at your side to guide the operation.

This extremely cool piece of kit designed by Nikon to check the condition of turbine blades for Rolls Royce airplane engines is now being used by archaeologists at the University of Southampton to blast not one, but multiple rays  at an object, subject or material from different angles….before it has been excavated. 

Image above: Courtesy of University of Southampton

The reason this is so great? 

A 3-D image is produced giving multitude amounts of new information on one photographic image.  It gives the person about to excavate or  conserve the vessel and its contents maximum information before going in. Information like;

1. What is in the soil block, urn, pot, basket, gourd, or skin?
2. How have the contents been arranged?  Have they been dumped randomly, perhaps quickly?  Or have they been methodically placed, with time available for their arrangement?
3. Is there more than one type of object, subject or material preserved?  Were they put in at the same time, or different times?  Are they in layers that show the order they were placed in the vessel? 
4. Is the excavation and conservation or restoration strategy being proposed the right one?  Will the contents fit through the mouth of the vessel, or will the side need to come down forst, and then be rebuilt?
5. Is this a genuine archaeological artefact, or a fake or a hoax?

The archaeologist or conservator can immediately see the true form of the contents,  its survival and condition…and in the case of this story the writing is on the wall…sorry, coins. The words and faces found on the Roman coins tell the date of the object…which gives the terminus post quem, or the date after which the object could have buried, hidden, or lost.

Above: Image of Coins 3-D X-rayed by the Nikon technology. Image courtesy of Southampton.

The use of these kinds of technologies are a great time and money saver, as well as allowing the experts to work out whether a vessel is worth opening…and this decision can take into account;

• the value or rareity of the contents,
• the cost for its conservation,
• the long term use, display or storage of the contents,
• the research potential the contents have (will they push forward our knowledge of past people and practises) and
• often most importantly consider the respect and dignity that should be given to the vessel and its contents.  

And super importantly;

Because the multiple rays create an image that non-specialists can actually see and often immediately recognise, the value of the artefact can also sky rocket.  Managers, funders or the public for instance can visualise and understand what they are looking at without heavy explanations and a series of photos that require piecing back together in their head.  Its the same reason I also love 3-D laser scanning. 

It makes the past way more accessible.

The Problem with CT Scans and Conventional X-ray?

Nothing at all….but

CT scans produce a highly informative 2-dimensional visual cross section through archaeological material or objects at high resolution.   

The problem can be that to build up the true and accurate picture of the object or subject, a single slice is not enough.  You need numerous slices to see the story in front of you in its entirety. Much like when we get put through the scan for medical reasons.   This also makes it expensive and sometimes more difficult to manipulate the data during the analysis phase of an archaeological investigation.

X-radiography (my favourite trade tool) also produces a 2- dimensional image which can be very informative, but you need to rely on the experience of the operator to set the right parameters to get the information required. 

Depending on the strength and exposure time of the x-ray information is seen, or not.  This is partially determined by the density or molecular structure of the material being x-rayed.  Too many kv’s, for too long often mean the rays go right through an object missing it altogether showing a very black image.  

It has the same effect of setting the depth of field on a photographic camera. An x-ray image is really a compression of 3-dimensional information into a 2-dimensional format, not a single slice of true data coming from a CT Scan.  The good thing is that with the advent of digital x-ray units, it is alot easier to try out different exposures in one session. Better than going off to the dark room to develop your film, and then find out there is no picture! And probably most importantly it is quite economical.

Why am I so excited about this?

I can’t remember the amount of times I have come away from an x-ray session and wished for just one more image from a slightly different angle, or a slightly different exposure,

And then looked at CT Scans and thought agh, too many cross sections!  My head hurts putting this altogether again. 

Technologies that make an object and their contents visible at high resolution mean maximum information to make more informed decisions and greater appreciation value…and that means there is lowered risk of damage, and heightened appreciation of archaeology in the future.

This is a slight exaggeration…but from my window last Friday, I could see a long low trail of ash from White Island spread above the horizon, and small billows of white changing form where another burst of steam spews forth.

I have been fighting the urge to go and buy a stronger set of binoculars in case I miss something. 

I have always been fascinated by volcanoes.  It started in earnest during 5^th form geography when my teacher Sally Brodie (I really should thank her!) picked up the phone in her office and rang eminent geologist Sir Les Kermode.

The conversation went something like this…

“I am with a student who feels that she cannot fulfil the requirements of her project on the Tongariro Volcanic Field because she cannot adequately explain the difference between andesitic and rhyolitic volcanoes”.

Hmmm, maybe I was a little precious?!

And so I was given this lesson over the course of the next minutes, and I went away a well informed school girl who felt able to finish her assignment.

It was an invaluable lesson, and demonstrated early on that asking the right people the right questions was key to my understanding of science.  Especially when understanding physical sciences where I needed, and still do, need to visualise processes.

But back to volcanoes…and leap forward a few years…what on earth is an archaeological bod doing reminiscing about a desire to be a volcanologist?

Volcanoes have had, and continue to have a huge impact on archaeology in term of;

1.  Site formation,
2. Site damage and destruction,
3. Site preservation and,
4. Site dating.

…And as a conservation specialist, which is all about understanding the condition and decay mechanisms at play between materials and the environment, volcanic activity is also really exciting;

One single volcanic event can result in site formation, damage, destruction and preservation to different degrees, with long term implications and management needs. 

Assessing and understanding the complex behaviour between the negative and positive effects of one natural disaster, or moment in time, is for me is really interesting because the myriad of problems and solutions that are generated.

Archaeological Examples

Pompeii in Italy has probably made its fame by the effects caused on the Roman town by the eruption of Mt Vesuvius in AD79.  Whilst ash and molten rock formed a covering over the town, its quick cooling resulted in a protective layer to be created taking the form of the object, structure or person it covered.  In many cases this created an air tight capsule in which food stuffs, plaster and paint, human skin and bone, bricks and mortar could be preserved in a relatively pristine manner. Without the preserving qualities of the ash layer, Pompeii it could be argued, would have gone the way of so many other Roman towns, and now be another deteriorating archaeological site in Italy that relies on the tourist dollar, and requires huge amounts of money to help it stay in a state of semi restoration.  Though this has been the very subject of some recent media coverage.

…Luckily for the Romans they built in brick and stone.

New Zealand’s equivalent may well be Te Wairoa in Rotorua. However, buildings and structures of New Zealands prehistoric and historic past have been traditionally made of plant and tree materials such as raupo, punga, kauri and pine.  Placed under the pressures of dense volcanic ash layers, and in combination with the low ignition point of these materials, hot ash and molten rock in many instances has meant fire and destruction, not preservation.

…which has meant loss to the archaeological record.

Though in saying that…should you get a chance to visit The Buried Village at Te Wairoa you would be in for a very nice surprise with some whare that have been carefully excavated and restored, following preservation by volcanic ash. 

This a good example of how volcanic activity has both destroyed and served to keep a site in stasis until rediscovery or excavation. 

A form of time capsule was created.

One of New Zealand’s other big preservation stories as far as archaeology goes is the Sunde site on Motutapu Island. Located in the Hauraki Gulf and joined to Rangitoto Island (Auckland’s youngest volcano, dated at c. 1400) by a land bridge at low tide, Motutapu boasts preserved footprints due to the blanketing effect of Rangitoto’s last volcanic eruption and ash cloud.

Human and dog footprints found side by side are an evocative reminder of real people and animals living in New Zealand some 550 years ago.  Dated at c. 1450AD the foot prints show at least 8 people, 3 of which are children walking with their dogs.  Eruptions and ash fall from Rangitoto sealed the footprints, preserving them like the Laetoli footprints found by palaeontologist Mary Leakey’s team in Tanzania in 1976, and dated to 3.6 million years. 

Discovered in 1981 by archaeologist Reg Nicol, at that time from Auckland University, the ash had a preserving quality for the footprints, but archaeologists believe that it was also responsible for the destruction of settlements, gardens and forests on the Island.  Archaeologist Andy Dodd wrote in his Heritage Assessment “Motutapu Archaeological and Historic Landscapes” for the Department of Conservation (2008);

“The eruption smothered Motutapu in ash and caused widespread deforestation, but also produced friable soils suitable for gardening [and therefore aid regeneration]”.

Once again the destructive and preservative qualities of ash has been recorded by archaeological investigation. 

Its a strange balance that exists between materials and the environment. 

Depending on the perspective or the question there is different degrees of formation, damage, destruction and preservation contained within one volcanic event and ash dispersal.  

And the unfortunate aspect of volcanism is that often scientists don’t know what the ratio will be until the top has blown! Including near Pompeii, where a super volcano has recently been reported.

Never the less, next week we are going on long anticipated family holiday to the Central Plateau.  Hopefully there will be a quiet period of sun and snow… and I will only have to imagine the alternative.  But I think I will pick up a good pair of binoculars on the way…just in case!

Refs:

Te Wairoa – The Buried Village

Motutapu archaeological and historic landscapes heritage assessment, DoC, 2008

The Motutapu Restoration Trust – Sunde Site

Pompeii online

 Note – this is a huge subject of which only a small portion has been considered here…and may be returned to in the future… 

On a site where archaeological remains are suspected,  archaeologists go equipped with information ranging from maps, plans and sketches, to remote sensing technology , specialist expertise and experience, but none can guarantee the survival, location or form of  human activity until the ground is dug.

Archaeologists get a true and accurate picture of time and place by gathering the evidence in the ground to understand past activities. Deciding which ground and how much of it is a fundamental decision for most archaeological projects due to value, time and cost pressures.

In this case Phil was referring to archaeology being excavated at Castle Howard in Yorkshire.  I remember this site fondly as it was the second shoot that I ever did with TT.  It is memorable equally for the stunning location, the novelty of a film shoot and the archaeology.

Castle Howard

On the surface this was a no-brainer of a site. Still in the ownership of one family, the Howards, who had held the land since the early 1700’s, they were in possession of plans and maps dating back almost that long suggesting any archaeological evidence remaining in the ground should be easily found.

 The Domesday book (1085AD) records the site as a Viking village called ‘Hildreschelf’.  The Time Team were able to access descriptions of the people and the village.  Again, the various elements of the village should have been easy to locate.

But when it came time to put in the trenches that would find the archaeological evidence of the original settlement on the estate, it proves difficult. 

The Techniques

The geophysical survey team used resistivity (measuring differences in ground density) and magnetometry (measuring changes in ground magnetics) to see if they could see evidence of structures and features in their results.   But the results were inconclusive showing lots of noise in areas and multiple targets for investigation in others.

The maps, plans and sketches were drawn at different scales also generating multiple targets on the ground.

The landscape topography didn’t give many clues because it was clear that during the development of Castle Howard the site had been literally levelled removing many tell tale signs of evidence remaining beneath the ground.

Target 1

During a search for the original church the different techniques came up with different ‘best’ targets. And so Phil says….I want to see the ‘physical evidence’.

Geophysical survey offered 4 good looking responses.  One response with 2 straight lines and square angles, and a concentration of noise was chosen as a good choice for a trench.  The map evidence also suggested the church was in this general area, within 20m…which is pretty good for a lawn as big as Castle Howards. 

David Thorne one of the field archaeologists at the time opens the trench…hotly anticipating the results.  Finds dating to the right time period or a structure would have been good.

….But nothing.  Orange-brown sandy loam by the looks of it on our tv.  Not a hint of a cut, fill, masonry, artefacts, or a stratigraphic profile…the layers of time under the ground.

Target 2

In the walled garden, once a place for growing plants and fruits of warm climates, the search continued for the remains of the homes of Hildreschelf villagers.  It was thought the central road to the village extended into the walled garden and homes lined the road.  This meant that any remains of the Viking village would be found below under the layers associated with the post 1700 garden.

Geophysics suggested a wall may survive which acted as the first target, but much of the garden was full of ‘noise’ – a jumble of unreadable responses.  This was to be expected as the ground has been heavily disturbed as a tropical garden.  Heated piping was run under the earth to warm it and hence encourage growth of such fruits as pineapple.

Myself and Kerry Ely started the trench, removing garden soil to find an edge to a road, and the likely position of any remaining houses – and so I decided to extend the trench.

Underneath the geophysical survey noise was the base of a building, a straggly row of wooden stakes and evidence of a door.  All that survived was the very bottom of many features that were only just holding on in the earth by a few centimetres – all the evidence that was left of a family home.  The rest had been destroyed from above. 

The remains were so slight that the responses in the geophysical survey data had masked the remaining archaeological evidence, hence maps and careful excavation were needed to re-discover them, and prevent them from remaining lost.

Reasons for Trenches

Phil was right, there is nothing like excavation to establish once and for all if something exists.  You cannot rely on the documentary evidence or survey evidence alone. 

And this is the thing…

1. Map scales and sketch plans are notorious for not translating well onto the actual ground.  There are big disparities between historic maps and actuality.  There wasn’t digital technology, satellites and lasers. There is inbuilt error to many historic documents using rulers, compass and pencil.  And the error increases with time as the maps are reused and translated. 
2. Documents are often simplistic and the information can be biased to the creators perspective.  They may also reference physical elements that no longer exist.
3. Modifications to the landscape and environment over time will either preserve or not the evidence of the past.  Massive changes to landscape occur with the laying out of large estates such as Castle Howard, taking away ‘lumps and bumps’, removing traces of previous uses and layouts.  As Mick Aston says at the episode end, this change was often used as a large stamp on the landscape to denote power and subjugation of a people.
4. Geophysical survey has its own inbuilt set of problems.  A main one being:

It is not a magic tool. You cannot wave the equipment over or into the ground and selectively see only archaeology.  The technique is non-selective, in that it picks up built structures, internal features…AND, natural geology and geomorphology for example.  It can also mask evidence that only just remains in the grounds, and requires excavation more careful in nature.

For a large part its reliability as a tool for decision making in archaeology is only as good as the person analysing and interpreting the data being generated.

Belief in the Archaeological Evidence

Phil Harding is not alone in the opinion that it is necessary to see the archaeological evidence in the ground to confirm its existence.  On most sites it is the only sure way of establishing if the assessment, analysis and interpretation is correct. The expertise of a field archaeologist is to bring together all of the information that the ground retains, and produce interpretations and conclusions grounded in science and fact. 

Sometimes it is called ‘Ground Truthing’, and the sentence speaks for itself. 

 This weekend I was seduced by a heritage museum website.  It reeled me in with ‘Family’,’ Hands On’ and ‘Re-created’– good graphics, pleasing colours, black and white photos of people from the past….

And so I dragged my family along. To be fair, I did not have to do much dragging…we are always pleased to find a new place to visit.  As far as we knew this museum had been closed, was now under new management in place, and had reopened, revitalised…with a new enticing website.

But why o why were we so disappointed?! Again!

Poor presentation. Poor communication.  Poor interpretation.  Again.

The bones were there, in fact they had a good chunk of muscle on them too.  But the volunteers of this community owned museum, who should have been the flesh on this really really nice collection of historic artefacts and paraphernalia on display let it down!

Instead of adding the colour, the texture, the elasticity to the flesh of this collection, we came away feeling tired , dehydrated and not inspired to return! 

While many may roll their eyes at the idea of visiting what they belief to be a collection of nik naks and collectables their parents and grandparents once used….they could be best serve as the storytellers of science for New Zealanders. 

The science of our human history – technology, industry, biology, physics, chemistry, arts and crafts.

There were stone toki (adzes), moa bones and gizzard stones, grammar phones and records, slide viewers and cameras, a bush walk and birds (unfortunately no sound), a fake cow that once passed milk, a telephone operators system, ye olde doctors bed, a re-created kitchen and all the tools and a tractor.

These are the raw ingredients for grizzly beastly magically science stories…the kind that kids and adults enjoy.

Who cannot resist horror stories from the original doctors bed, touching gizzard stones straight from the innards of moas and the magic of early film projection?

Grizzly Baby Bottle Science

A story with massive science potential for me had the baby (dolly) in its pram with a self warming glass water bottle beneath. 

-          The bottle itself was an interesting shape (they ranged from banjo or violin shape, with flat sides to the much safer banana shape in the early 20^th century),

-          The origins of the practise would have been interesting (the first in the United States was patented in 1841) though artificial feeders have been documented long before this.

-          The fact a baby sat on it in her pram fascinated my children ….

but the really gorey and sciency storey is the one about the rubber tube that the baby would have had to suck on to get the milk. 

The Baby Bottle Museum  in the UK says that only 2 out of every 10 children survived under the age of 2 in the late Victorian period in England due to the inability to clean the tubes and the point of attachment with the bottle adequately.  These banjo shaped bottles went from being known as ‘Mummies darling’ to ‘The Killer’.

Why?

The lack of sterilisation, bacteria build up, poor general hygiene, bottle reuse…Child health and hygiene is a great message to send out to the young, or young at heart.

Its history, its science and its relevant at the same time!

The message ‘isn’t it neat’ you too can keep your milk [milo] warm by lying on it through the day or night does not cut it…I kid you not!

And the reason we got to lift the baby and discover this story? Quite frankly it was apparent that our kids were beginning to annoy the woman…and so she showed them something!  Smack my brow with a rubber tube! 

Demonstrate, communicate and interprete for the client works!  They were immediately quiet and captivated – though heaven help the collections mangle under the enthusiastic arm of our 5 year old a little later.

The point of this dialogue is this:

-          That for a museum that advertises itself as one where you can handle the collections without the ‘evil eye’ of attendants upon them, we were closely monitored and not allowed to walk through the museum alone (even though the artefacts were stuck down, and the attendant unable to answer basic questions).

-          That appropriate presentation, communication and interpretation panels are fundamental. Select your stories, make them memorable.  A glass bottle made from molten sand that burns red hot like lava to make the shape is a lot more exciting than a rare bottle from Germany to 5 year old and a 35 ish year old.

-          That to get science across in a way that is generous and exciting, you need to have time to explore and be excited, not forced into a monotonous dialogue  by a volunteer security guard, masquerading as ‘passionate about our heritage’ .

-          That science and history intermingle  ALOT. It is time to give new meaning to old subjects, and science just might be a way to do this.  

It is not intended that this entry is a negative one, because the museum content we saw was very good with masses of potential.

But the overwhelming disappointment that the front face of the heritage was clearly not using the collection to stimulate the minds of society, and help heritage become relevant…meant that the renovation was only skin deep and is not likely to lead it into a more appreciated attraction.

I suspect that the use of science communication could be the answer to heritage communication problems.

And just a quick footnote from a lover of all things heritage… when did it become necessary to make the cafe and shop bigger than the whole museum, when surely the collection is the draw card.

Ask anybody today what the fundamental requirements of life are, and they will tell you….food, shelter, lighting, warmth, their iphone…

Ask anybody in prehistory what the fundamental requirements of life are, and they may tell you….food, shelter, lighting, warmth…

And for most of this, until recently, that meant fire. 

Fire to protect, Fire to cook, Fire to see, Fire to sustain. And at times, it was Fire to communicate.

Scientists and archaeologists have today released in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that humans, or rather hominids, our direct ancestors, were able to harness and control fire approximately 600,000 years before previously accepted dates.

New evidence is pointing to a new date of 1 million years ago (1Ma).

The article, here, goes on that it has generally been accepted that Homo erectus was cooking food at approximately 1.9Ma, however there has been little archaeological evidence to support the controlled use of fires to prepare food prior to consumption at this date.  The earliest confirmed site has been known at Qesem Cave in Israel, and dated at 0.4Ma, 400,000 years ago.

Until now…

In the ongoing academic debate of whose site is oldest, earliest and shows best evidence of, or similarity to, modern humans, Francesco Bernaa, Paul Goldberga, Liora Kolska Horwitz,  James Brink,  Sharon Holt,  Marion Bamford,

and Michael Chazang have offered up the latest method to better understand the inhabitants of the Early Acheulian (or Early Stone Age) period at Wonderwerk Cave in South Africa, and their manipulation of fire.

There have been other claims of controlled fires in the early Acheulian period in the recent past such as at Koobi Fora, Gadeb, Chesowanja in East Africa, and Gesher Benot Ya’akov in Israel, but todays authors suggest that the previous studies lack context that can be gained through morphological studies.

Using Fourier Transform Infra-red Micro-spectroscopy (mFTIR) and Micromorphological analysis the researchers have been able to observe and characterise sediments at the microscopic level, that until recently has not been possible. 

The result being that the presence and nature of burnt bone and plant ash in the cave site of Wonderwerk, translated as Miracle Cave, has enabled this staggering shift back in time.

The control and manipulation of fire is considered a major evolutionary step for humans, before which it is thought we used fire generated through naturally occurring events, such as lightening, scrub fires, and natural combustion due to chemical reaction, such as with the self ignition of guamo ( bird or bat droppings).

Wonderwerk Cave

Wonderwerk Cave in South Africa, seen above, is a natural solution cavity which in 2008 was celebrated as the earliest site in the world to reveal evidence of human occupation in a cave, dated to 2 million years by Professor Michael Chazin, see here.   Stone tools found at the base of the caves archaeological strata supported this and were attributed to the Acheulian period (or early Stone Age), approximately 1.7-0.8 Ma. 

The cave was extensively excavated by Peter Beaumont of McGregor Museum from 1978-1993, and rock art has been recorded at the entrance.

Inside Wonderwerk Cave.  Left,  Credit: Image of Wonderwerk Cave. (Image courtesy of M. Chazan.)

In the article released today, the researchers claim that the combined use of mFTIR and analysis of the micromorphology has revealed deposits from Stratum 10 that contain:

*  charred bone heated to at least 500 degrees C, and

*  angular/sharp edged, complete and incomplete bone that suggest deposits have not moved far

*  exceptionally preserved plant remains suggest deposits have not moved far, and

*  charring  or burning is most likely to have been caused by local combustion

Stratum 10 samples were studied macroscopically as well as microscopically, showing that:

*  in one area of the cave the frequency of burnt bone reached 80%,

* FTIR (Fourier Transform Infra-red spectroscopy) revealed burning occurred between 400 and 700 degrees C,

* artefact analysis supports controlled heating in one area of the cave with banded iron stone artefacts and manuports displaying pot lid fractures (an often thermally induced fracture which creates a shallow bowl shaped depression in the parent rock which occurs at temperatures in excess of 500 degrees C),

* heat affected clays that support localised in situ burning over a wide area within the cave

The Layers of Strata Inside Wonderwerk Cave.  Below, Credit: Image of Wonderwerk Cave. (Image courtesy of M. Chazan.)

In essence the researchers appear to demonstrate undisturbed archaeological contexts and deposits across a widespread area within the cave that contain evidence of ongoing, or repeated cycles of burning or fire making…but with no evidence of a fire surround, hearth structure or pit in which to contain the fire.

What’s to say that Stratum was not blown in by a mighty wind, washed in by a flood or heavy rain, or the product of an ancient ground disturbance which has affected the dates? 

Two reasons, from what the article says:

1. 1.  The micromorphological evidence, and the way the dateable materials and artefacts were laid down in the earth,
2. 2.  Crucially, the security of the layers seem to be intact, with Stratum 10 sandwiched between earlier and later Acheulian deposits that display no signs of heating, dispelling a possible counter argument for a later episode of combustion whose heat could have modified this Stratum.

Good Science Practise?

The article released today also highlights the importance of cross examining archaeological evidence, by more than one method of analysis, when attempting to establish dates that require microscopic and molecular level technologies. 

This includes using analytical techniques such as mFTIR, Thermoluminescence, Potassium-Argon (K-Ar) dating, and combining it with, for example:

-          Examination of the stratigraphy at the microscopic scale,

-          Establishing if the deposit is natural or anthropogenic in origin (the product of or affect by humans),

-          Establishing the past environment of the fire

-          Establishing the security of a site or deposit (that is to establish if the deposit has been contaminated or disturbed in some way through natural processes, chemical change and biological influence) is also considered by the authors as crucial, in setting the dates apart from other sites that have generated earlier dates than 0.4ma through other analytical methods.

Whatever the lesson is to be learnt regarding good scientific practise, the results of this latest study has big, and potentially exciting implications for the future.  By knocking 600,000 years off the closest confirmed date for cave dwelling fire users, It both opens up the race to re-examine past sites using different techniques, and holds the door wide open for future dating analysis.  

Lauded as a return to the original intent of museums, to care for and conduct research on its collections, there was a distinct feeling of change for the better amongst the speakers. 

Four eminent New Zealander’s who have dedicated of their lives to excellence in research and scholarship were recognised with all involved in some way in the furthering our understanding of the history and heritage of New Zealand.

Those honoured were:

-          the late Dame Judith Te Tomairangi o Te Aroha Binney, author and historian

-          Professor Russell Stone, historian and professor emeritus at Auckland University

-          the late Professor Roger Neich, ethnologist at the National Museum Wellington and lately of Auckland Museum

-          Dr Nigel Prickett, archaeologist, became an associate emeritus of Auckland War Memorial Museum

Each of these people have been major contributors to New Zealand’s science and humanity sectors, with the relationships, traditions and material manifestations of the Maori world and Pakeha central to their work. 

I was very honoured to be invited to see Dr Nigel Prickett receive his award.  He was the first person to take a punt on me as a 19 year old wannabe archaeologist when he took me on to volunteer in the archaeology department. This ultimately led onto the next 4 years with the collections, and my first job after graduation.  I know first hand from experience the value of working with and handling the museum’s amazing collections, as well as being surrounded by a wealth of knowledge from the different domains of science.  It has been inspirational, and confirmed for me the potential museum collections have with the right guidance and enthusiasm.

Equally fantastic was hearing the stories of the recipients, such as a rousing and passionate speech by Dame Judith Binney’s partner Sebastian Black, Professor Stone who played homage to New Zealand’s participation and loss of life in the World Wars of the 20^th century, and the wife of Roger Neich who focused on his love of family, rather than the respected scholar.

Sir Peter Gluckman was the key note speaker demonstrating his usual flare for communicating his vision for the future of science and  museums.  Whilst he continued his theme on the use and value of complex science, he advocated the advancement of science, in all its manifestations, defining it as a high value component to a world class city, to which Auckland should now be striving.

He also caused considerable thought around the inherent risks generated through decision making involved in the presentation of science and knowledge.  Using the concept developed by Funtowicz and Ravetz, his discussion on the principles of post-normal science where evaluation of value, evidence and relevance…including uncertainties…was thought provoking, and a paradigm that allows museums to create exciting research opportunities and best engage with communities through knowledge and display.

This is a recognisable quality of many of the physical sciences, including archaeology, geology and biology, where the assessment and evaluation of risk, probability and value are key components, but has at its foundation knowledge, facts and measured base line information.

Whilst it may appear that post normal science stems away from the notion that science is static with pre-determinable data, Gluckman was under no illusion that excellent research, scholarship and knowledge was at its heart; principles that were on exemplary display by the awardees.

In his final summation, to the effect that museums should be seen as repositories for the future, not the past.  That they are a place of life, not a mausoleum, Gluckman resonated the announcement later in the evening that the Auckland Museum is committed to launching a Research Centre in the near future. 

The Auckland Museum Research Centre has been heralded as a facility to underpin its renewed value placed on science and knowledge.  Once a bastion of research, the collections number into the 3 ½ million mark and Mr Clare was loud and clear in his desire to better utilise the collections available. 

     -   To use the collections to make new discoveries,

     -  Encourage new research such as that conducted at the Kermadec Islands last year to record marine and study its marine life, and Ahuahu in February this year by archaeologists with Auckland University,

     -  Use the collection to engage with Auckland and the global population

The Executive Summary of the Auckland Museums 2012-2013 Draft Annual Plan backs this up, and seen online here:

Establish a Research Centre in Partnership with other Educational and Cultural Institutions, adding strength to the stewardship of out collections and reinforcing the city’s positioning as a ‘learning and innovation cradle’.

Curator of Archaeology Louise Furey has said that ‘In essence it should provide a platform where the museum can work with external collaborators on research and will enhance the reputation of the museum and its collections… the museum and its board is recognising scholarship and research as an important part of the credibility of the museum.’

This is all good stuff, and I just hope it can deliver.

Archaeological fieldwork and excavation is integral as it provides the raw data for analysis,  but the process itself requires time to gain confidence to dig through the layers, and understand the significance and potential of each layer. 

This week and last, Otago and Auckland University students have been out experiencing excavation, for many the first time, with University staff and other archaeological professionals. The two field schools have been investigating two very different historical and cultural landscapes in the North Island – but each equally interesting for different reasons.

Unfortunately I have not had the opportunity to visit either of these excavations but like anybody else with access to the internet, I have been kept up to date and informed with team members producing regular updates on their blog sites.   

The fact that blog sites are being set up alongside normal recording systems definitely reflects changing dynamics within archaeology and the increasing desire and call to publicly share information and results.

Oihi Mission Station 1814-1832

The joint Otago University and Department of Conservation field school is sited on the Oihi Mission Station, located in the Marsden Cross Historic Reserve in the Bay of Islands.  On the western side of the harbour leading into Paihia, Russell (Kororareka) and Waitangi this is an immensely important site within New Zealand as our first permanent European settlement site.   The background to the reasons for the excavation, and what is hoped to be achieved is here.

The excavation blog that was produced by DoC archaeologist Andrew Blanshard ran from February 7th to 15th, and he writes that it is pertinent that the excavation began the day after Waitangi Day, an integral day in the marriage of Maori and Pakeha in New Zealand history. 

     The site of Oihi Mission Station  

          2.  The mission is home to New Zealands first European style school, which the archaeologists believe they have found.  Artefacts that support this include many slates and slate pencils.

Speaking to one of DoC’s archaeologists who had been on site for the first few days by phone, I was struck by the excitment in her voice at the structures and artefacts she had seen and was hearing about.  The stone foundations of two buildings plus their nails, an intact hearth from a once vibrant, warming fireplace inside one of the mission buildings, a toy cannon last played with by a child over a 150 years ago, flint used to fire muskets, and the possibility of earlier land modification on the site in the form of Maori terracing.  A bronze bracelet has also been discovered. 

To view pictures of some of these go here.

Being as this is the first settlement in New Zealand, it is not difficult to imagine the strange but wonderful mix of two cultures at this time.  A point at which modern New Zealand begins its journey with the site of these excavations being a pivotal transition point in New Zealands history.   The reserve is definitely worth a visit!   This is a site that I will want to read more about in the future as the post excavation analysis and subsequent stories of the people associated with the mission unfold. 

                                     And in a different landscape completely…

Ahuahu (Great Mercury Island), c. 1300′s? –

The Auckland University fieldschool is underway on Ahuahu (Great Mercury Island) off the Coromandel Peninsula, with Auckland Museum archaeologist Louise Furey and Ngati Hei  A pristine Island, there is a long recorded history and evidence of Maori gardening and settlement, including Pa. The aim of this fieldschool is to reveal more about gardening practises on the Island through New Zealand prehistory and archaeology that is eroding out of one of the dune systems.

What I really like about this blog, is the information about the excavation methodology and strategy are interwoven with the personal thoughts and activities of the writers, mainly of whom are students on the island to learn.  The reflexive quality of this type of archaeological recording adds an interesting perspective to the excavation process, and itself becomes data to be potentially considered later in the post excavation phase of analysis.  

Having worked within this method of archaeological recording while working at Catalhoyuk in Turkey, its advocate Prof. Ian Hodder of Stanford University, has  utilised this theoretical concept to both critically examine Catalhouyk which at its origin is Neolithic, some 9000 years old, and better integrate, or eliminate, the cultural or subjective perspective individual interpreters of archaeological information bring to the analysis and interpretation of sites…whilst maintaining excavation strategies founded in good scientific practise.

Excavation and discussion on Ahuahu this week                                Excavation and discussion at Catalhoyuk

Whilst the Ahuahu site is being dug over a week or 2, and Catalhoyuk has a 25 year working visa, the mention in the blog site of Ngati Hei representatives, Peter and Peter Johnson whom I met recently on an excavation in Hahei, brings to mind the positive and informative discourse and multivocality (lots of voices and opinions) that can occur between science and humanities through archaeology.  With, in the main, more reasoned and satisifying conclusions.

The blog also lists some fundementals in the science of archaeology which form the basis for the sites intepretation such as the;

          -  soil levels and its relationship with the gardening structures,

          -   stratigraphy, survey and the importance of scale and accuracy in drawings,

          -  the structures, housing platforms, stone alignments, pits, stone faced terraces…the features for analysis

What information comes along post excavation will be very interesting indeed…once again archaeological analysis, intepretations and stories, based on the evidence collected in the field, are what often bring alive the people and places of the past after the thrill of discovery is over.

UPDATE

Updated DoC blog: the second week of the Oihi Bay/Marsden Cross Mission Station excavation is now here…rain, an occupational hazard of archaeology has been causing problems and excitement.  Finding in situ wood, the remains of New Zealands first school house, is certainly a highlight!  Found in the foundations for the building, the archaeologists have been able to start piecing together the stratigraphy of the site….the order in which soils, buildings, their construction  and layers containing evidence of human occupation were laid down.