Timothy Darvill | Bournemouth University (original) (raw)

Articles by Timothy Darvill

Archaeology in …, Jan 1, 2009

Papers by Timothy Darvill

The researching, writing and production of this Framework was commissioned and partly funded by H... more The researching, writing and production of this Framework was commissioned and partly funded by Historic England. The project was undertaken by Wessex Archaeology, for whom it was successively managed by Paul White, Nikki Cook and Matt Leivers. At Historic England (then English Heritage), the project was managed by Kath Perrin until 2011, after which Helen Keeley assumed responsibility for it. Amanda Chadburn was instrumental in getting the project established and funded. In its final form it incorporates the contributions of many individuals, only some of whom wrote the words of which it ultimately consists. Everyone who contributed-either in a workshop or meeting or through comments on drafts-altered the shape the Framework finally took. Many of the authors of the resource assessments wrote in their own time, for no financial reward.

First and foremost ladies and gentlemen, we must start by saying congratulations to Gloucestershi... more First and foremost ladies and gentlemen, we must start by saying congratulations to Gloucestershire Archaeology, and its predecessor GADARG, on fifty years of successfully undertaking and promoting archaeological work in the lower Severn Valley and adjacent areas of the Cotswolds and Forest of Dean. A golden anniversary is something to be immensely proud of, and today we recognize the enthusiasm, dedication, and hard work of numerous officers, members, and supporters over many years.

Taylor & Francis eBooks, Feb 16, 2010

Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 1990

Excavations of sites spanning the Beaker to early Roman periods at Stackpole Warren, Dyfed, are d... more Excavations of sites spanning the Beaker to early Roman periods at Stackpole Warren, Dyfed, are described. The sites are in an area of blown sand which enhanced their preservation and led to the separation of several horizons. The earliest is a buried soil beneath the blown sand which contained Mesolithic to Bronze Age artefacts. At site A, there was a roundhouse associated with Early Bronze Age pottery and dated to 1620±70 and 1400±70 BC uncal., and two other roundhouses, one possibly of Beaker age. After a period of soil formation, a ritual complex of Later Bronze Age date was established, this contemporary with the earliest besanding of the area; it included a stone setting of more than 2000 small stones, an alignment of small water-worn stones and a standing stone. A cremation gave a latest date of 940±70 BC uncal. Other Later Bronze Age activity is recorded at site G/J in the form of a rectangular enclosure, possibly unfinished.Late Iron Age to early Romano-British settlement was present at sites A and B, consisting of scatters of occupation debris, burnt mounds, cooking pits, hearths and houses, some of stone, some of timber, all taking place in an area being intermittently besanded.Peripheral to the religious and domestic sites, a field system was excavated. The earliest phase was a linear earthwork from which a C14 date of 400±70 BC uncal. was obtained from charcoal in the ditch. After the decay of this, rectangular fields with stone walls were laid out, one along the line of the erstwhile earthwork, this taking place around the end of the Iron Age as dated by C14 of charcoal directly beneath a wall to 90±70 BC uncal. Some of the fields had been cultivated by a succession of cross- and one-way-ploughing, others used for cattle.An assemblage of 763 flints included a few Mesolithic artefacts but was mostly of Late Neolithic and Bronze Age date. A succession of ceramic assemblages included a small Middle Neolithic group (4 vessels), two distinct Beaker groups, one early (Lanting and van der Waals steps 1–3 (8 vessels), one late (steps 3–6) (45 vessels), an Early Bronze Age group of collared urns (43 vessels) and a Later Bronze Age group (26 vessels).Environmental data was not prolific but there was a small quantity of animal bone, mostly cattle and sheep, and cereal grain, mostly barley with some wheat. Marine molluscs were present but sparsely utilized and there was no other indication of the exploitation of the coastal resources such as seals, birds, fish andiseaweed. Land Mollusca indicated open country from the Iron Age onwards when the record begins.The importance of the site is in the ritual complex from site A, the succession of Iron Age/Romano-British occupation horizons, the succession of ceramic assemblages, the field system and the fact that blown sand horizons have allowed the preservation and separation of the sequence much of which would have been at best conflated in to a single horizon or at worst destroyed. Otherwise, there is no evidence that the site was in any way special with regard to the relationship of human activity and sand deposition until the Middle Ages when the area was used as a rabbit warren. Nor was the coastal location important, at least as could be determined by the results. This was a representative of a succession of later prehistoric farming communities and their various domestic, ritual and sepulchral activities in lowland Dyfed.

INTRODUCTION Archaeology in England Prehistory Romano-British Times After the Empire Visiting arc... more INTRODUCTION Archaeology in England Prehistory Romano-British Times After the Empire Visiting archaeological sites How to use this guide 1. Northumbria 2. Lake District and the North West 3. Yorkshire and the Humber Basin 4. East Midlands 5. The midlands Plain and Welsh Borders 6. East Anglia 7. The Chilterns and Northampton uplands 8. Cotswolds and upper Thames Valley 9. London 10. The Weald and Downlands of South-East England 11. Wessex and the West Country 12. The South - West Peninsular REFERENCE SECTION Chronological Summary Glossary of key terms, acronyms, and abbreviations Suggestions for further reading Museums and heritage interpretation centres Useful addresses and internet sites Sites listed by archaeological period Sites listed by region Alphabetical index of sites General index

As large scale landscape surveys continue to increase in commercial and research archaeogeophysic... more As large scale landscape surveys continue to increase in commercial and research archaeogeophysics, there is still a markedly low ability to geophysically detect and interpret archaeological and forensic inhumations in some instances. The aim of this ongoing research project is to improve data acquisition by implementing an interactive ad hoc workflow model for determining appropriate methodologies for ground-penetrating radar (GPR) surveys, to improve data processing speed, and reduce observer error. Can the confidence of manual interpretations of GPR data be improved by adapting machine learning libraries for automatic object extraction and classification to GPR data based on a training dataset comprised of ground-truthed real GPR data and simulated GPR data?

This work is the result of an EAA session exploring themes of unity and diversity in the way that... more This work is the result of an EAA session exploring themes of unity and diversity in the way that archaeologists have come to explore and understand elements of the land of Europe. The 17 papers (all expanded and re-worked since the Bournemouth meeting) in this volume were brought together in an attempt to answer such questions and concerns as how can new approaches to past and present landscapes be applied in the field? What methodologies are appropriate? Do we need to re-set the agenda so far as routine survey and recording work are concerned? Included are contributions on theoretical issues, sites:environment relationships, field survey and post-survey methodology, landscape interpretation, and regional heritage management and protection. With an emphasis on the Stone Age, the sites featured range from Russia and Poland, to Italy.

Archaeological Journal, 1993

This report outlines the results of excavations carried out at Sancton I (Humberside, formerly Ea... more This report outlines the results of excavations carried out at Sancton I (Humberside, formerly East Riding, Yorkshire), the most northerly of a group of large, well-known Anglo-Saxon cremation cemeteries in eastern England. The excavations, undertaken by N. M. Reynolds1 for the then Department of Environment (now English Heritage), between 1976–80, were designed to assess damage to the site by ploughing and to try to determine the extent and limits of the cemetery. The former objective was achieved all too clearly in that the area of the cemetery investigated had been severely affected by soil disturbances. Many of the cremations had either been totally destroyed or badly damaged. In all, c. 90–95 in situ cremations were recorded and one inhumation. Despite the drawbacks the analysis of the material recovered, particularly the human and animal bone, has provided valuable information about the site which shows some remarkable similarities to the roughly contemporary cremation cemetery at Spong Hill, Norfolk.

Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 1989

The report on partial rescue excavations of the Collfryn enclosure between 1980–82 presents a sum... more The report on partial rescue excavations of the Collfryn enclosure between 1980–82 presents a summary of the first large-scale investigation of one of the numerous semi-defensive cropmark and earthwork enclosure sites in the upper Severn valley in mid-Wales. Earlier prehistoric activity of an ephemeral nature is represented by a scattering of Mesolithic and Late Neolithic or early Bronze Age flintwork, and by a pit containing sherds of several different Beaker vessels. The first enclosed settlement, constructed in about the 3rd century bc probably consisted of three widely-spaced concentric ditches, associated with banks of simple dump construction, having a single gated entranceway on the downhill side. It covered an area of about 2.5 ha and appears to have been of a relatively high social status, and appropriate in size for a single extended-family group. This was subsequently reduced in about the 1st century bc to a double-ditched enclosure, by the recutting of the original inner...

Archaeology in …, Jan 1, 2009

The researching, writing and production of this Framework was commissioned and partly funded by H... more The researching, writing and production of this Framework was commissioned and partly funded by Historic England. The project was undertaken by Wessex Archaeology, for whom it was successively managed by Paul White, Nikki Cook and Matt Leivers. At Historic England (then English Heritage), the project was managed by Kath Perrin until 2011, after which Helen Keeley assumed responsibility for it. Amanda Chadburn was instrumental in getting the project established and funded. In its final form it incorporates the contributions of many individuals, only some of whom wrote the words of which it ultimately consists. Everyone who contributed-either in a workshop or meeting or through comments on drafts-altered the shape the Framework finally took. Many of the authors of the resource assessments wrote in their own time, for no financial reward.

First and foremost ladies and gentlemen, we must start by saying congratulations to Gloucestershi... more First and foremost ladies and gentlemen, we must start by saying congratulations to Gloucestershire Archaeology, and its predecessor GADARG, on fifty years of successfully undertaking and promoting archaeological work in the lower Severn Valley and adjacent areas of the Cotswolds and Forest of Dean. A golden anniversary is something to be immensely proud of, and today we recognize the enthusiasm, dedication, and hard work of numerous officers, members, and supporters over many years.

Taylor & Francis eBooks, Feb 16, 2010

Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 1990

Excavations of sites spanning the Beaker to early Roman periods at Stackpole Warren, Dyfed, are d... more Excavations of sites spanning the Beaker to early Roman periods at Stackpole Warren, Dyfed, are described. The sites are in an area of blown sand which enhanced their preservation and led to the separation of several horizons. The earliest is a buried soil beneath the blown sand which contained Mesolithic to Bronze Age artefacts. At site A, there was a roundhouse associated with Early Bronze Age pottery and dated to 1620±70 and 1400±70 BC uncal., and two other roundhouses, one possibly of Beaker age. After a period of soil formation, a ritual complex of Later Bronze Age date was established, this contemporary with the earliest besanding of the area; it included a stone setting of more than 2000 small stones, an alignment of small water-worn stones and a standing stone. A cremation gave a latest date of 940±70 BC uncal. Other Later Bronze Age activity is recorded at site G/J in the form of a rectangular enclosure, possibly unfinished.Late Iron Age to early Romano-British settlement was present at sites A and B, consisting of scatters of occupation debris, burnt mounds, cooking pits, hearths and houses, some of stone, some of timber, all taking place in an area being intermittently besanded.Peripheral to the religious and domestic sites, a field system was excavated. The earliest phase was a linear earthwork from which a C14 date of 400±70 BC uncal. was obtained from charcoal in the ditch. After the decay of this, rectangular fields with stone walls were laid out, one along the line of the erstwhile earthwork, this taking place around the end of the Iron Age as dated by C14 of charcoal directly beneath a wall to 90±70 BC uncal. Some of the fields had been cultivated by a succession of cross- and one-way-ploughing, others used for cattle.An assemblage of 763 flints included a few Mesolithic artefacts but was mostly of Late Neolithic and Bronze Age date. A succession of ceramic assemblages included a small Middle Neolithic group (4 vessels), two distinct Beaker groups, one early (Lanting and van der Waals steps 1–3 (8 vessels), one late (steps 3–6) (45 vessels), an Early Bronze Age group of collared urns (43 vessels) and a Later Bronze Age group (26 vessels).Environmental data was not prolific but there was a small quantity of animal bone, mostly cattle and sheep, and cereal grain, mostly barley with some wheat. Marine molluscs were present but sparsely utilized and there was no other indication of the exploitation of the coastal resources such as seals, birds, fish andiseaweed. Land Mollusca indicated open country from the Iron Age onwards when the record begins.The importance of the site is in the ritual complex from site A, the succession of Iron Age/Romano-British occupation horizons, the succession of ceramic assemblages, the field system and the fact that blown sand horizons have allowed the preservation and separation of the sequence much of which would have been at best conflated in to a single horizon or at worst destroyed. Otherwise, there is no evidence that the site was in any way special with regard to the relationship of human activity and sand deposition until the Middle Ages when the area was used as a rabbit warren. Nor was the coastal location important, at least as could be determined by the results. This was a representative of a succession of later prehistoric farming communities and their various domestic, ritual and sepulchral activities in lowland Dyfed.

INTRODUCTION Archaeology in England Prehistory Romano-British Times After the Empire Visiting arc... more INTRODUCTION Archaeology in England Prehistory Romano-British Times After the Empire Visiting archaeological sites How to use this guide 1. Northumbria 2. Lake District and the North West 3. Yorkshire and the Humber Basin 4. East Midlands 5. The midlands Plain and Welsh Borders 6. East Anglia 7. The Chilterns and Northampton uplands 8. Cotswolds and upper Thames Valley 9. London 10. The Weald and Downlands of South-East England 11. Wessex and the West Country 12. The South - West Peninsular REFERENCE SECTION Chronological Summary Glossary of key terms, acronyms, and abbreviations Suggestions for further reading Museums and heritage interpretation centres Useful addresses and internet sites Sites listed by archaeological period Sites listed by region Alphabetical index of sites General index

As large scale landscape surveys continue to increase in commercial and research archaeogeophysic... more As large scale landscape surveys continue to increase in commercial and research archaeogeophysics, there is still a markedly low ability to geophysically detect and interpret archaeological and forensic inhumations in some instances. The aim of this ongoing research project is to improve data acquisition by implementing an interactive ad hoc workflow model for determining appropriate methodologies for ground-penetrating radar (GPR) surveys, to improve data processing speed, and reduce observer error. Can the confidence of manual interpretations of GPR data be improved by adapting machine learning libraries for automatic object extraction and classification to GPR data based on a training dataset comprised of ground-truthed real GPR data and simulated GPR data?

This work is the result of an EAA session exploring themes of unity and diversity in the way that... more This work is the result of an EAA session exploring themes of unity and diversity in the way that archaeologists have come to explore and understand elements of the land of Europe. The 17 papers (all expanded and re-worked since the Bournemouth meeting) in this volume were brought together in an attempt to answer such questions and concerns as how can new approaches to past and present landscapes be applied in the field? What methodologies are appropriate? Do we need to re-set the agenda so far as routine survey and recording work are concerned? Included are contributions on theoretical issues, sites:environment relationships, field survey and post-survey methodology, landscape interpretation, and regional heritage management and protection. With an emphasis on the Stone Age, the sites featured range from Russia and Poland, to Italy.

Archaeological Journal, 1993

This report outlines the results of excavations carried out at Sancton I (Humberside, formerly Ea... more This report outlines the results of excavations carried out at Sancton I (Humberside, formerly East Riding, Yorkshire), the most northerly of a group of large, well-known Anglo-Saxon cremation cemeteries in eastern England. The excavations, undertaken by N. M. Reynolds1 for the then Department of Environment (now English Heritage), between 1976–80, were designed to assess damage to the site by ploughing and to try to determine the extent and limits of the cemetery. The former objective was achieved all too clearly in that the area of the cemetery investigated had been severely affected by soil disturbances. Many of the cremations had either been totally destroyed or badly damaged. In all, c. 90–95 in situ cremations were recorded and one inhumation. Despite the drawbacks the analysis of the material recovered, particularly the human and animal bone, has provided valuable information about the site which shows some remarkable similarities to the roughly contemporary cremation cemetery at Spong Hill, Norfolk.

Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 1989

The report on partial rescue excavations of the Collfryn enclosure between 1980–82 presents a sum... more The report on partial rescue excavations of the Collfryn enclosure between 1980–82 presents a summary of the first large-scale investigation of one of the numerous semi-defensive cropmark and earthwork enclosure sites in the upper Severn valley in mid-Wales. Earlier prehistoric activity of an ephemeral nature is represented by a scattering of Mesolithic and Late Neolithic or early Bronze Age flintwork, and by a pit containing sherds of several different Beaker vessels. The first enclosed settlement, constructed in about the 3rd century bc probably consisted of three widely-spaced concentric ditches, associated with banks of simple dump construction, having a single gated entranceway on the downhill side. It covered an area of about 2.5 ha and appears to have been of a relatively high social status, and appropriate in size for a single extended-family group. This was subsequently reduced in about the 1st century bc to a double-ditched enclosure, by the recutting of the original inner...

Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 2000

Excavations at the Glandy Cross monumental complex during 1991 and 1992 formed part of an integra... more Excavations at the Glandy Cross monumental complex during 1991 and 1992 formed part of an integrated programme of evaluation, rescue, and research by Dyfed Archaeological Trust (DAT). Enclosures, pit circles, standing stones, and cairns were excavated and their environs systematically surveyed. Radiocarbon dates show the monumental complex to have been constructed between c. 2190–1530 cal BC. However, the earliest activity at the site may date to c. 4470–4230 cal BC. A defended enclosure was constructed on the peripheries of the complex c. 830–510 cal BC.The 1991–92 excavation results are presented along with a summary of survey, salvage, and research spanning the period 1981 to 1992. This new data set is tentatively interpreted in terms of historical process and the social practice of monumental construction. A brief commentary on heritage management at Glandy Cross is also presented.A note on authorship: one of the authors (George Williams) directed the Glandy Cross excavations du...

ArchéoSciences, Jan 1, 2009

Peatland environments, in contrast to 'dry-land' sites, preserve organic material, including anth... more Peatland environments, in contrast to 'dry-land' sites, preserve organic material, including anthropogenic objects, because they are anaerobic, and are therefore of great importance to archaeology. Peat also preserves macro-and micro-paleoenvironmental evidence and is the primary resource for understanding past climates and ecology. Archaeological sites often lie within or at the base of wet, deep, homogenous peat rendering them invisible to surface observers. As a result, they most often come to light whilst being destroyed. Once located, they are difficult and time-consuming to excavate, leading to a bias towards small but detailed excavations. Furthermore, these sites and the environments they inhabit are very sensitive to localised smallscale environmental change, so invasive evaluation techniques are ruled out. There is a need for non-invasive techniques to detect, monitor, and situate peatland sites within their wider context. A research project to evaluate the use of geophysical prospection for this purpose is being undertaken at Bournemouth University. In the past it has been suggested that peat deposits are too wet, too deep, too homogenous or too similar to the target for traditional dry-land geophysical techniques to be of much use (English Heritage 2008).