Flying Archaeologist

[Polly]

Sorry I can't find the archaeology section! BBC 4 tonight 7.30

Broads Based.

[hazelgirl]

Ooooh this should be interesting, will set it to record  

[Timbo]

A fascinating film, highlighting much of the new work and thought centered upon the Broads. The Bronze Age finds at Ormesby St Michael another nail in the coffin of the Great Estuary Theory. Our Bronze Age ancestors would have found it difficult to build field systems, dwellings and ditches at the bottom of an estuary.

I think the program highlighted certain 'key' points many of which we all on the forum take as read, but some which are often missed partially as a result of the way history is taught. The Broads are artificial. Although we divide history into periods, Bronze Age, Iron Age, Roman, Anglo Saxon, these are not clear 'cuts' in the line of history. Our Iron age relatives didn't wake up in 55 BC as think 'that's it...were in the Roman Age now!'. Finally there is so much archaeology that we do not recognise or have misinterpreted.

I should point out that the drone footage of St Benet's was not the first time the abbey had been viewed like this. Take a look at some of the work of Lord Paul on YouTube. He got there first and the footage is of much better quality! 

I quite liked the point that unlike many interpretations of St Benet's being 'secluded in a wilderness' it's sat there on a prominent major trading route.

 

[TheQ]

All the great abbeys and monasteries though they are seen as remote now, were actually on major routes. Especially round the coast and up rivers, travel by boat was easier than land until the railways came.

[LizG]

My ex sister in law and her now husband are known archaeologists and she commented that if something significant was found and they didn't know why it was there they would say it was probably ritual and low and behold on a TV programme the other day, the person being interviewed said exactly that!

[Timbo]

1 hour ago, w-album said:

My ex sister in law and her now husband are known archaeologists and she commented that if something significant was found and they didn't know why it was there they would say it was probably ritual and low and behold on a TV programme the other day, the person being interviewed said exactly that!

R.... Ri....Rit....I just can't do it. Students using that word in any of my tutorials learned to duck...I tended to teach using the thrown chalk and board rubber technique.  I once had one 'herbert' say 'high status' at me so I had him excavating an ancient latrine and emptying our contemporary one for a week! 

[Polly]

I agree Lord Paul's footage is better. In future ages video clips of us lot holding up mobile phones to get a signal in Horning will probably be described as 'ritual' too.

[Timbo]

Did anyone see the mention of 'weaving' as an activity in the Bronze Age Broads? Just goes to show Monsieur Mynah has been visiting Norfolk hostelries for a longer period than he's been admitting to! 

[TheQ]

I've just watched this and found it very superficial, other than the recent Anglo Saxon finds near Caistor st Edmund, there was nothing I didn't know about. The lost broads are mostly marked on Fadens map  http://www.fadensmapofnorfolk.co.uk of which I have a reprint.

I'm not sure where the idea, written up above that this is "another nail in the great estuary" theory comes from anyone who has been to the Ormsby area can quite clearly see that this is higher land it's actually called Flegg island. Which until recently was cut off from the surrounding areas by the remains of the estuary with one exit for the rivers being north of Hemsby / Somerton across the Waxham marshes and of course the old exit for the Bure on the southern side to the south of Caistor on sea. Right from earliest times Until the railways and modern roads Flegg was very cut off, even  today there are just 5 roads off the island all across reclaimed marshes, sea and rivers surround it, except for where modern drainage and beach drift have joined it to the "mainland" Rivers were the most convienet way to travel until the mid 1800s..

[Timbo]

Sorry Q, brace yourself...I do go  on a bit! The whole Great Estuary Myth is one of my pet bugbears. Vaughan will testify how I can go on about it.  As an archaeologist for the past thirty odd years it has never sat well with me. Postulated By Cole's 1977 doctoral thesis the theory is dependant upon two assumptions. Firstly that sea level in the Roman period was significantly higher than today. Secondly that these high seas catastrophically destroyed the sandbar that Yarmouth sits on today.

Very quickly indeed...

According to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007), global sea level rose by 120m from the end of the last ice age (about 21,000 years ago) until some time in the first millennium BC. After that it did not change significantly until the late 19th century. Further to this the British Geological Survey Memoir for the area confirms that sea level was approximately one meter lower in the Roman period than today.

Sticking with geology, boreholes along the river valleys (1997) indicate sediments were not formed in estuarine conditions. Large quantities of sand from an alleged catastrophic breach of the barrier are not present either.

Archaeological finds on the sandbar at Yarmouth, allegedly under water according to the theory, are more numerous than for example at Gorleston. Finds over the last ten years also strongly indicate that the coastline was much further out than today.

The Roman garrison at Burgh Castle. Cavalry. On an island? This incongruity I read in my childhood from a guide book purchased at the site in the early 1970's and which set me on the route to becoming an archaeologist.

I'm not talking about 'dry land' here. Don't forget that 'right from the earliest times' as you put it, Norfolk was attached to continental Europe. What I'm talking about is wetland, just like that in the counties surrounding Norfolk and...exactly like that in Norfolk today. In warm weather the marsh would recede allowing land to be populated.

I'm currently collecting data and writing a paper, hopefully published next year, leading to a more detailed paper the year after. Of course I may be wrong. I often am...just ask my Mrs...and my postgrad students. But evidence does indicate that the two assumptions that the Great Estuary Theory is based upon to be incorrect. I think I would be on firm but damp land, a bit like those Romans, to go a little further and postulate the sandbar was essential to Roman communication and defence...get those horses off that island for one. Needs more research. A spot of funding wouldn't go amiss...

what's that you say...anything to shut you up Timbo? 

 

[BroadScot]

8 hours ago, Timbo said:

Sorry Q, brace yourself...I do go  on a bit! The whole Great Estuary Myth is one of my pet bugbears. Vaughan will testify how I can go on about it.  As an archaeologist for the past thirty odd years it has never sat well with me. Postulated By Cole's 1977 doctoral thesis the theory is dependant upon two assumptions. Firstly that sea level in the Roman period was significantly higher than today. Secondly that these high seas catastrophically destroyed the sandbar that Yarmouth sits on today.

Very quickly indeed...

According to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007), global sea level rose by 120m from the end of the last ice age (about 21,000 years ago) until some time in the first millennium BC. After that it did not change significantly until the late 19th century. Further to this the British Geological Survey Memoir for the area confirms that sea level was approximately one meter lower in the Roman period than today.

Sticking with geology, boreholes along the river valleys (1997) indicate sediments were not formed in estuarine conditions. Large quantities of sand from an alleged catastrophic breach of the barrier are not present either.

Archaeological finds on the sandbar at Yarmouth, allegedly under water according to the theory, are more numerous than for example at Gorleston. Finds over the last ten years also strongly indicate that the coastline was much further out than today.

The Roman garrison at Burgh Castle. Cavalry. On an island? This incongruity I read in my childhood from a guide book purchased at the site in the early 1970's and which set me on the route to becoming an archaeologist.

I'm not talking about 'dry land' here. Don't forget that 'right from the earliest times' as you put it, Norfolk was attached to continental Europe. What I'm talking about is wetland, just like that in the counties surrounding Norfolk and...exactly like that in Norfolk today. In warm weather the marsh would recede allowing land to be populated.

I'm currently collecting data and writing a paper, hopefully published next year, leading to a more detailed paper the year after. Of course I may be wrong. I often am...just ask my Mrs...and my postgrad students. But evidence does indicate that the two assumptions that the Great Estuary Theory is based upon to be incorrect. I think I would be on firm but damp land, a bit like those Romans, to go a little further and postulate the sandbar was essential to Roman communication and defence...get those horses off that island for one. Needs more research. A spot of funding wouldn't go amiss...

what's that you say...anything to shut you up Timbo? 

 

That is a short reply compared to our Roving "Rascal" Timbo !

Iain

 

[TheQ]

I hadn't realised how far that theory went, I've not read Coles report. It's certainly doesn't make sense to me.

I wanted to be an archaeologist, but 40 years ago living in the outer Hebridies (school in Inverness) degrees weren't encouraged let alone going for something as esoteric as an archaeologist. I had worked as a school boy on an Excavation In Wiltshire at Ludgershall. Anyway I ended up an electronics technician ( with a appropriate degree from later on..)

I'd agree that the water was lower back then, post glacial warming was and is still going on, even though the Roman period was warmer than it is now that was only for a comparatively short period.

I'd agree the coast line was much further out than it is now, I live within sight of Happisburgh!!, the village of Eccles once had over 2000 acres and now is down to less than a couple of hundred.

 I believe the main estuary for the Bure would have been through the Waxham area, But Further out to sea, What is land there now would have been a soggy fresh water marshy area. With a Salty sandy Estuary like Breydon beyond.

 Back before the romans the roads would have been of little interest to the Locals, Canoeing up the rivers and through the marshes would have got them to where that wanted, but few would have done much travelling from Flegg, they had no reason to.

Caistor on Sea, why was the Roman Fort there? Well there must have been a reason and it probably was to defend a navigable river Yare exit to the sea, partnering with Burgh Castle, how was the Fort Accessed? The Romans did use boats, but they were never the Romans Forte. So it is likely there was a road route and probably from Caistor St Edmund. Logically it could only have been via Potter Heighham Or Acle. If the Bure's exit was through the Waxham marshes then you'd expect the route to be via Acle. So if coastal drift had slowly blocked the Bure's exit, it would raised the water level on the Bure that would have cause it to  fill the marshes between Acle and Flegg until it cut a new route to the sea joining the Yare near Caister on Sea.

Where at Acle? looking at the ground levels I think the crossing could well be immediately to the south of the current bridge,   from there to either Bilockby or Possibly Stokesby Since there is no sign of a causeway to Stokeby ( though it could have been wiped out by river changes) it is likely to be buried beneath the current Billockby road.

 There is an outside possibility Road access could have been as far north as Wayford Bridge, where there are some maps showing a roman road on the mainland side of the river, but nothing on the Seaward, side this then would have had to go down through the Stalham area to and down to Potter that way. But the area between Hickiling and Barton broads was probably one big expanse of Marsh.

 There you  are now I understand where you are coming from, I'm agreeing with you, and looking at my thread contributions here and elsewhere, I'm as wordy as you!!

[quackers]

On ‎4‎/‎14‎/‎2016 at 2:00 AM, Timbo said:

Sticking with geology, boreholes along the river valleys (1997) indicate sediments were not formed in estuarine conditions. Large quantities of sand from an alleged catastrophic breach of the barrier are not present either.

This is pretty difficult to reconcile with all the established research into the stratigraphy of Broadland as summarised, for example, by Dr. Martin George in Chapter 2 of his magnum opus "The Land Use, Ecology and Conservation of Broadland". Within the deep deposits of peat formed when fresh water conditions prevailed in the river valleys, there are two thick, horizontal layers of clay, the Lower Clay, thought to have been laid down when estuarine conditions prevailed for a period about 4500 BC, and the Upper Clay, thought to have been laid down during the so-called Romano-British Transgression, when similar conditions prevailed from about 200 BC to 500 AD, These clay layers reach up the Yare valley as far as Brundall/Surlingham, up the Bure to Wroxham/Hoveton, up the Ant to Barton, up the Thurne to most of the Hickling/Horsey area, and up the Waveney {if I remember correctly) as far as Beccles.

Are you saying, Timbo, that this clay isn't actually estuarine in character?

I would agree absolutely that the Victorian concept of the "great estuary" was wildly exaggerated; they seemed to think that a great arm of the sea, navigable at all states of the tide, stretched inland almost to Norwich, with entrances through the Horsey Gap, the Caistor/Gorleston gap and probably through what is now Lake Lothing; Acle had a beach and Fishley was a fishing village.

My impression is that all the available evidence, subject of course to any new research of which I am ignorant, now points to  something like a huge edition of Breydon Water, with the only navigable outfall where Yarmouth now stands. There were vast areas of sandbanks, mudflats and salt marsh, covered only at high tide, the actual rivers forming quite narrow tidal channels between them.

This sort of scenario would account both for the location and function of the Roman town at Caistor-on-Sea, and also, curiously perhaps, for a cavalry regiment garrisoning  Burgh Castle on what was effectively an island.. With the prevailing wind then as now from the west, and then as now pretty strong tidal flows in the river channels, it would have been impossible for Roman merchant ships to navigate inland. (They had only a single, crude square rigged sail, no oar propulsion, and no centre-post rudder, only a steering oar on a stern quarter; in consequence they could not sail close to the wind and were notoriously difficult to steer accurately). Imports and exports from the Caistor St' Edmund area would have been transshipped from sea-going merchantmen onto smaller oar-powered boats for staged, tide assisted trips inland - hence the facilities at Caistor-on-Sea.

Saxon Shore forts like Burgh Castle were designed to provide a defence against raiders who relied on stealth and speed to nip up rivers to the wealthy Roman habitations inland, grab the loot and nip out again. Even in early versions of Viking long ships, with sail and oar power, nobody would be doing any nipping inland against the wind and tide, especially after a long sea trip to get here. They would have had to land on the coast, rest up and wait for the right conditions. Cavalry would have provided the mobile patrols along the sea coast of Lothingland, and, as Julius Caesar discovered when he first tried invading this country, a highly effective counter to infantry or anybody else struggling ashore. (The other Saxon Shore Fort with a cavalry garrison was Brancaster, where there was no river worth speaking of, but a long coast line).

So there you go. You and TheQ aren't the only ones who can bang on a bit,

Bill Saunders

[troutman62]

I thought the programme was a bit superficial too. I suppose that I was really hoping for  an aerial tour of the Norfolk Broads, to see all the places I've visited over the years and some I haven't, but alas, it wasn't to be.

I wish someone would could come up with one. 

[ranworthbreeze]

Hello Bill,

Welcome to the forum from Tan & myself.

Regards

Alan

[BroadScot]

Hi Bill,

Welcome to the NBN Forum 

Iain

[hazelgirl]

I watched this and thought it was ok, a little harsh with the editing making it really short at only 30 minutes so you didn't really see much. Interesting views about the area of St Bennets though I couldn't really work out the other buildings they thought they had found, at least time team give you a mock up animated pic on the site so you had an idea

[VetChugger]

The other Norfolk themed prog was "Normal For Norfolk" which was mildly interesting!

 

[Timbo]

Welcome to the forum Bill. And Q... you have the soul of a geographer. 

45 minutes ago, quackers said:

This is pretty difficult to reconcile with all the established research into the stratigraphy of Broadland as summarised, for example, by Dr. Martin George in Chapter 2 of his magnum opus "The Land Use, Ecology and Conservation of Broadland".

I'm afraid the summary contained in Martin George's book is no longer considered 'established' research. George's book published in 1994 is starkly at odds with the British Geographical Survey, twenty four years out of date and became obsolete in 1999 with the work of Wells and Wheeler on the Ant Valley. "Ol' Man River: Geo-archaeological Aspects of Rivers and River Plains" by Frank Vermeulen, Morgan de Dapper, Devi Taelman, and Sarah Deprez is the preferred repository of more recent and accurate research. 

The work of Wells and Wheeler in 1999 is exceedingly thorough, carbon dating the deposits from the numerous boreholes. The results are very interesting revealing that the deposits were all laid down together at the same time. Both 'clays'  filter into each other along with silty peat showing they existed together side by side in the Roman wetland. So to answer the question Bill I'm indeed saying no estuarine deposits, no estuary. 

The whole 'Roman forts on the Saxon Shore' issue is also undergoing a rethink. In the light of there being little or no evidence of a maritime threat to England in this period, the forts as a defence against intermittent piracy are a bit like employing a wrecking ball in a conker match. The amount of manpower, materials and supplies to keep the forts operational far surpass any possible losses.

There's also something 'hinky', I think the best way to describe the feeling I have, about the construction of the forts. As a defensive structure they are just plain wrong. They seem to be designed more to keep things 'in' than 'out'. I'm not alone in my thoughts on this subject. Many archaeologists are starting to look at the forts as more of a trading post than any defensive structure. More Lathems than castrum.

To be honest it's an exciting time for archaeology in Norfolk...which has the best small finds program in the country btw.

[quackers]

Thank you, Timbo, and everybody else, for the kind words of welcome.

I clearly have a bit of catching up to do on my reading, Timbo, but I still have difficulty with what you are saying, carbon dating or no carbon dating.

Peat accumulates at the rate of about 0.75mm a year (and only in freshwater conditions). The typical stratigraphy of the Broadland fen in the upper valleys (from the bottom up) is a layer of peat about three feet thick, a thick layer of clay, a layer of (mostly brushwood) peat about ten or twelve feet thick, another thick layer of clay, and then the surface layer of reed peat. I am most familiar with Lambert and Jennings' researches in to the origins of the Broads in the 1940s and 50s, but this basic picture cannot surely have been subject to radical change.

How can all these layers have possibly been deposited all at the same time? If the clay isn't estuarine clay, what is it and how and why did it get there?

I am all for radical rethinks, but not for chucking babies out with the bathwater.

PS  I am not sure that the Roman historian Vegetius would have agree that the Saxon raiders weren't much of a threat!