16th May 2008, 06:42 PM
Most ploughing in the UK is in the region of 300mm (about 1 foot) depth, although it does vary quite a lot. Deeper ploughing does occur, for instance where potatoes are to be grown, and in some cases the soil is 'improved' through the practice of 'subsoiling' - both of these practices are far more destructive than normal ploughing.
For much of our prehistory and history, the construction of settlements, burials, field systems and other features has included a substantial component of negative features (pits, ditches, etc) that are cut into subsoil. At least part of these features often survives ploughing, and most of our archaeological excavations in land that has been ploughed focuses on these sub-surface features. This does give us a strong bias in our evidence, but it also does give us something meaty to get our teeth into.
Although such sites often appear to be made up of individual, isolated features cut into natural subsoil, it is still possible to take an approach based on vertical stratigraphy, within the individual features (e.g. multiple fills of a ditch) and where the features intersect.
Methods vary according to specific project needs, but in most archaeological excavations in ploughed areas the ploughsoil is taken off by machine, and hand-excavation focuses solely on the sub-surface features. Under some circumstances, more attention may be paid to archaeology in the ploughsoil, but this is the exception rather than the rule.
It is often the case that archaeological sites that whose non-portable remains have been completely ploughed away will either not be recognised, or will be recorded as 'just another artefact scatter'. However, for certain periods of our prehistory (e.g. the Mesolithic) or in some other circumstances, we find ourselves in a situation similar to the one you describe in the US, and in those cases we focus more on what is to be found in the ploughsoil.
One way in which ploughsoil archaeology is taken more seriously here is through the practice of 'fieldwalking', i.e. the inspection of ploughed surfaces to identify artefact scatters. This practice is used principally as a method of prospecting for the possible presence of plough-truncated archaeological sites consisting of features cut into the subsoil, as outlined above.
I have personal experience of the sort of archaeology affected by forestry agriculture that you describe, albeit in Scotland rather than the south-eastern US. We found that it was possible to identify and excavate archaeological remains (prehistoric burial mounds in this case) with full attention to vertical stratigraphy, within the spaces between the forestry furrows (which were over 1m wide and up to 1m deep, separated by around 3-5m).
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
For much of our prehistory and history, the construction of settlements, burials, field systems and other features has included a substantial component of negative features (pits, ditches, etc) that are cut into subsoil. At least part of these features often survives ploughing, and most of our archaeological excavations in land that has been ploughed focuses on these sub-surface features. This does give us a strong bias in our evidence, but it also does give us something meaty to get our teeth into.
Although such sites often appear to be made up of individual, isolated features cut into natural subsoil, it is still possible to take an approach based on vertical stratigraphy, within the individual features (e.g. multiple fills of a ditch) and where the features intersect.
Methods vary according to specific project needs, but in most archaeological excavations in ploughed areas the ploughsoil is taken off by machine, and hand-excavation focuses solely on the sub-surface features. Under some circumstances, more attention may be paid to archaeology in the ploughsoil, but this is the exception rather than the rule.
It is often the case that archaeological sites that whose non-portable remains have been completely ploughed away will either not be recognised, or will be recorded as 'just another artefact scatter'. However, for certain periods of our prehistory (e.g. the Mesolithic) or in some other circumstances, we find ourselves in a situation similar to the one you describe in the US, and in those cases we focus more on what is to be found in the ploughsoil.
One way in which ploughsoil archaeology is taken more seriously here is through the practice of 'fieldwalking', i.e. the inspection of ploughed surfaces to identify artefact scatters. This practice is used principally as a method of prospecting for the possible presence of plough-truncated archaeological sites consisting of features cut into the subsoil, as outlined above.
I have personal experience of the sort of archaeology affected by forestry agriculture that you describe, albeit in Scotland rather than the south-eastern US. We found that it was possible to identify and excavate archaeological remains (prehistoric burial mounds in this case) with full attention to vertical stratigraphy, within the spaces between the forestry furrows (which were over 1m wide and up to 1m deep, separated by around 3-5m).
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished