Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T05:34:37.869Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

In situ preservation as a dynamic process: the example of Sutton Common, UK

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Robert Van De Noort ,
Henry P. Chapman  and
James L. Cheetham
Robert Van De Noort
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4QE, England
Henry P. Chapman
Affiliation:
Wetland Archaeology & Environments Research Centre, University of Hull, Hull HU6 7RX, England.
James L. Cheetham
Affiliation:
Wetland Archaeology & Environments Research Centre, University of Hull, Hull HU6 7RX, England.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In situ preservation is a complex and dynamic process, which requires an understanding of the nature and scale of the material to be preserved, an understanding of the context of the site in terms of managerial needs and a programme of scientific monitoring of changes within the burial environment. The example of a rural archaeological landscape in northeast England, which is undergoing a programme of hydrological management, is considered.

Keywords

In situ preservationwetland archaeologypalaeoenvironmentmonitoringSutton Common
Type
News & Notes
Information
Antiquity , Volume 75 , Issue 287 , March 2001 , pp. 94 - 100
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allcroft, A.H. 1908. Earthworks of England. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Biddle, M. 1994. What future for British archaeology? Oxford: Oxbow. Lecture series 1.Google Scholar
Brock, T.D., Madigan, M.T., Martinko, J.M. & Parker, J.. 1997. Biology of microorganisms. London: Prentice-Hall International. 8th edition.Google Scholar
Caple, C. 1996. Parameters for monitoring anoxic environments, in Corfield et al. (ed.): 113–23.Google Scholar
Caple, C. & Dungworth, D.. 1997. Investigations in waterlogged burial environments, in Sinclair et al. (ed.): 233–40.Google Scholar
Corfield, M., Hinton, P., Nixon, T. & Pollard, M. (ed.). 1996. Preserving archaeological remains in situ. London: Museum of London Archaeology Service/Bradford: University of Bradford.Google Scholar
Darvill, T.A. & Fulton, A.. 1998. MARS: The Monuments At Risk Survey of England, 1995. Main report. Bournemouth: School of Conservation Sciences, Bournemouth University/London: English Heritage.Google Scholar
Department of the Environment. 1990. Planning Policy Guidance 16, Archaeology and Planning’. London: Department of the Environment.Google Scholar
Fletcher, W., Chapman, H., Head, R., Fenwick, H., Noort, R. van de & Lillie, M. 1999. The archaeological survey of the Humber estuary, in Van de Noort & Ellis (ed.): 205–41.Google Scholar
French, C., Davis, M. & Heathcote, J.. 1999. Hydrological monitoring of an alluviated landscape in the Lower Great Ouse Valley, Cambridgeshire: interim results of the first three years, Environmental Archaeology 4.Google Scholar
Geomorphological Services Ltd. 1990. Hydrological appraisal of Sutton Common, Askern, South Yorkshire. Unpublished report for English Heritage.Google Scholar
Hopkins, D.W. 1996. The biology of the burial environment, in Corfield, M., Hinton, P., Nixon, T. & Pollard, M. (ed.), Preserving archaeological remains in situ. Proceedings of the conference 1–3 April 1996. London: Museum of London Archaeological Service/Bradford: University of Bradford.Google Scholar
Kenward, H. & Hall, A.. 2000. Decay of delicate organic remains in shallow urban deposits: are we at a watershed? Antiquity 74: 519–25.Google Scholar
Icomos. 1996. The ICOMOS charter on the protection and management of underwater cultural heritage. Sofia, www.international.icomos.org/under_e.htm Google Scholar
Parker Pearson, M. & Sydes, R.. 1997. The Iron Age enclosures and prehistoric landscape of Sutton Common, South Yorkshire, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 63: 221–59.Google Scholar
Purdy, B. (ed.). Forthcoming. Enduring records: the environmental and cultural heritage of wetlands. Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
Sinclair, A., Slater, E. & Gowlett, J. (ed.) 1997. Archaeological sciences 1995: Proceedings of a conference on the application of scientific techniques to the study of archaeology, Liverpool, July 1995. Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
Surtees, S.F. 1868. Footprints of Roman occupation in the southern parts of north Humber land. Leeds: Baines.Google Scholar
Van de Noort, R. & Chapman, H.. 1999. An archaeological assessment in preparation of a management plan at Sutton Common, Sutton, South Yorkshire. CWA unpublished report CWA/RES/EH-Sutton/99-1.Google Scholar
Van de Noort, R. & Chapman, H.. 2000. Sutton Common, Sutton, South Yorkshire — draft assessment report, part 1. CWA unpublished report CWA/ RES/EH/00–1.Google Scholar
Van de Noort, R., Chapman, H & Cheetham, J.. Forthcoming. Science-based conservation and management in wetland archaeology, in Purdy (ed.).Google Scholar
Van de Noort, R. & Ellis, S. (ed.). 1999. Wetland Heritage of the Vale of York; an archaeological survey. Hull: Humber Wetlands Project, University of Hull.Google Scholar
Whiting, C.E. 1936. Excavations on Sutton Common, 1933, 1934 and 1935, Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 33: 57–80.Google Scholar
Willems, W. 1998. The future of European Archaeology. Oxford: Oxbow. Lecture series 3.Google Scholar