 Welcome back to the third session, Contexts of Concern, or even Contexts of Concern and Opportunity. Just to remind you, same format as this morning, three short papers and if you can hold over questions for the panel discussion after the papers. And they are all the papers between 10 and 15 minutes. And with that, great pleasure to introduce on behalf of a number of colleagues, Dr Shantel Canella from the University of Manchester. So, we've been asked to talk about methodological lessons from mythic scatters. And I think I particularly like to really talk about the positives in terms of work that's happened in the last decade or so. And really the groundbreaking work and innovative practice we can all take inspiration from and with some that can be rolled out more broadly. And that's one of the things to think about, sort of taking good practice and how we share this and how we formalize this. I'm going to be speaking particularly about those upper palithic blady things, I'm afraid. And I think, which has played a bit of a cameo role so far, but does have very sort of distinctive context and requirements. And these are actually quite heterogeneous. So, long blade material, a context very similar to sort of mesolithic ones and rather different from issues relating to sort of pre-youngly dryus and pre-LGM scatters. So, I've canvassed opinion and case studies from my co-authors. So, I hope I don't make too many errors, but fortunately many of them are here to correct me if I get anything wrong. I think really what I'd like to say start off is, it's a very close close point, how much progress we have made in the last decade or so in issues surrounding apathic lithic scatters. And particularly I think for long blade material. And there's been really great work in new methods in terms of preparation and prediction of where we might find scatters. So, I'd like to really talk about some of these particularly through case studies and also how we understand our record in a way of sort of maximizing its potential. So, I think really advances have come in prediction of archaeological sites. So, innovative methods with geophysics and using a combination of coring, test pits, deposit modeling and a sort of realization that trial trenching has maybe is not really the way forward to understand past sediments and locate lithic scatters needs to be in combination with EC. And I think one thing that's also been clear in work over the last 10 years, a couple of decades, is there's actually been very little work on the apathic from academic context. So, it's really commercial archaeology which really driven these innovative methods to produce really good practice and really drive a prescription research agenda forward. I'd like to really give some really nice examples of how these work. So, first we'll talk about Oxford work at Bexhill. Here, we have a combination of geophysics to locate island-like features with the flood plain, combined with large number of boreholes, large number of evaluation trenches, test pits and augering, a way of sort of developing a deposit model and refining this. And what's I think really innovative is might sort of push to get to once these sediments are understood in more detail to really push for understripping of these areas. So, four and a half of six major lithic scatters sites were sort of understripped by about 20 centimetres. And this left these lithic scatters ready for further work with a grid system and test pitting and really excellent excavations. I think we can really see the importance of this work, the scale of the material that's been recovered by us bringing together the different methods and having this really sound understanding of the deposits and the likely locations of lithic scatters. So, a huge number of upper palithic and mesolithic lithic scatters and with the post excavation analysis of this, which is really going to push forward both the palithic and the mesolithic search agenda and understanding of both these periods. I think deposit model has been really important and particularly some things have been talked about with Agots Levy modelling, big developer funded projects and particularly in the sort of south-east there's a really good, some of the models round the Thames tributaries. Obviously these give us more of an understanding where we might find upper palithic sites, at least in certain periods. And I think it's really been important for increasing curatorial awareness of where we might find things and that sort of formalisation and understanding of where we might find particularly long-blade material has been really important and is a real advance. As we're sort of thinking of working towards the future, I think one of the things we need to be thinking about is how these may be picking out particular types of archaeology. So, the concentration in flood plains on archaeology of targeting little sand and gravel areas is maybe picking up certain types of settlement, for example. We don't know really enough about later palithic settlement systems to understand yet where we're picking up a very particular element of activity or settlement. And sort of the focus on this may also lead to less consideration of other contexts that might be equally important. So in areas we do know quite well here referring to particularly early mesolithic work in the Vale of Pickering, but also there's long-blade material here as well. We do see these little higher ground sand and gravel areas being used actually for settlement, but we see really important, the landscape is used in very particular ways. So you get very particular types of archaeology in particular areas. So most of Graham Clark site, the classic sarcastic stuff, was actually material deposited under water, something that might not be picked up as an area for investigation. And similarly we have very important activities happening on Fenn Carr and Petey areas, again which might not be expected if we're just targeting certain types of photography. Tim Shadlow Hall's work in the Vale of Pickering, digging test pits for over 30 years, he picked up off-site activity, so use of tools in the landscape. But we also get quite dense areas of activity, so a little axe making factory and also very specific instances. I think that's maybe one of the challenges for the future, understanding a bit more what different types of activity happen in the landscape and how we want to target particular areas. It may be that settlement is more important to target and it's very difficult to target some of these more off-site areas, but they shouldn't be entirely forgotten. And we can also see some of this happening with the long-blade upholithing material in the Vale of Pickering. So we have bigger sites, we've got small activity areas, and on Flix and Island in the middle of the lake we've got a horse butchery site, but that only has a couple of associated bits of flin. So we are likely to see these differential types of activity happening that we need to think about how we can pick up. We also need to think more about perhaps unexpected deposits and deposits we're learning, beginning to learn more about. So Lyndon Cooper and the Ulas work at Glaston in Rutland, this was the last week of excavation of a medieval village when they came across LRJ, lithic material and faunal remains which had been fortuitously preserved. And this has happened in this sort of upland ridge through sort of the collapse of plateau sediments into faults and fissures. Now this is stuff that wasn't expected that we'd have such a fortuitous five or we'd have these sort of capture points in the landscape. But I think as we're beginning to see that these are areas we should actually be beginning to look for. So very similar things going on at Beading's, where Colcott hypothesised very similar geomorphological context leading to the capture of the historically known Beading's collection which was then tested by geophysics which located these little fissures of capture points in this sort of upland plateau for the LRJ material. So there are certainly new and Colcott's hypotheses that we should be looking, these may be more widespread, these sort of little areas to look for some of the earlier pre-LGM archaeology that's rather more difficult to find and which is more rarely preserved. And it's also very interesting in terms of the LRJ and the historical records of the LRJ are very strong fluvial associations so having these upland sites again complements and helps us understand the way activities are happening in these past landscapes. The other thing we really need to do is maximising the potential of this record which is often very partial. And part of that is sort of understanding this record through very detailed study. So Lawrence Billington has reviewed, for example, East Anglia and he's drawn attention to the fact that most later philithic context are plows and sattas. So really thinking about how we can move away and understand this sort of more problematic and difficult record rather than hunting for sort of pristine sites is really important. Lawrence's work has sort of articulated how plows and sattas, depending on the cultivation history and depending on the collection history, some of them can be very valuable, though they do also have their problems. So here's an example of his from Oily Hall. The field walked scatter seemed to be early mess with it. Once he put test pits in all these very tiny microlists came up and it seems it's much more of a lake mess of effects site. Similarly another plows-owned scatter, Laverine and Jersey, which was discovered on this field here. Again this sort of combination of perspection methods, so geophysics, coring and digging lots and lots of test pits has allowed us to understand where this material is coming from and actually chase back this plows-owned material through an understanding of the slope processes that were going on to an area of more intact sediments further up where we found beginning to find the most exciting types of archaeology. A huge, Magdalenean site, including incised plaquettes. And similarly we shouldn't really discount the potential of sites in very unpromising areas. A little site at Lewcree Farm in Cambridge, a ffader messer site, which has been fortuously preserved in a little dip in the topography and we worked into a holocene buried soil. As you can see from the plot there's problems with this site, there's lots of size sorting things being washed in. But actually post-activation methods such as refitting really showed that actually most of the material was actually there, we could really use that to understand the activities that had gone on at the site even though it wasn't in primary context. And conversely refitting at the site flush as yes has shown that what seemed to be a perfectly beautiful in-situ site actually had one part of it had been quite heavily truncated. So we can use our post-activation methodologies really to get the most out of this method. So really just to sum up, I think they've been amazing work that's been going on in the last couple of decades. It's really increased awareness of the likely context of our panific archaeology particularly the later parts with long-blade material particularly in the south-east. And there's more of an understanding of, and a realisation we need to draw upon these innovations in perspective of excavation and that we need to do, that apathipathic sites are expensive in terms of the post-exervation that needs to be done. But there are still challenges in rolling out some of these innovations more widely and translating this sort of local expertise and good practice into standards so there have been some really good examples. So the Sussex psychological standards relating to lithic scatters really formalises a lot of the issues I've brought up. And really echoing points have been made before understanding our record, its partialness, its problems, its potentials and how we can think about what people are doing in different landscape contexts. And moving on, the next speaker is Andy Shaw, and he's also speaking I should say on behalf of Annalisa Revan, who is due to be with us today but has been sadly scuppered in her travel plans by various problems. So Andy, I think what was going to be a double hander is now a single hander. It is, yes, yes, you're stuck with me. Right, there we go. Well, as Rob says, this was supposed to be a full joint Anglo-French effort or Anglo-Breton effort but unfortunately because train strikes and problems of such Annalisa couldn't be here today so hopefully I'll try and do it all justice myself. So the title of what I'm supposed to be talking about is the Coastal and Intertidal Paleolithic Record of Northwest Europe. I'm not going to be doing the whole of Northwest in Europe in ten minutes, so what this is really talking about is our experiences working in Jersey and Annalisa's experiences working in Brittany and looking at some of the problems and potential of these environments in terms of the earlier Paleolithic record. So the first thing I'm going to talk about is the site of La Cote de Saint-Brelard. I'm not going to talk about the site in any detail really except to say it's a very important, internationally important Pleistocene site. It contains Pleistocene deposits which span the lake middle and upper Pleistocene and within that you've got at least 11 phases of human occupation within the site expanding both the lake middle Pleistocene and the upper Pleistocene. You've got human fossils and formal preservation. It's also a site which has an extensive excavation history dating back to the early part of the 20th century and that in itself has been a blessing and a curse for the site both in terms of the state of the site we have now and our understanding of the site because naturally it's patchy depending on which excavations you're dealing with. Now the key thing is this is a coastal location which is very much under threat. So this is a winter storm at the site where you can see the storm discharge is getting right into the west ravine at the site attacking the base of these sediments here, these upper Pleistocene sediments. So it's got a major problem in terms of coastal erosion. The processes that you have going on at the site you have water flow going through these upstanding sequences, material collapses, the sea comes in and scours it out. So it's a very difficult site to deal with. It's also one of the things that's protected the site and managed the site is that process of excavation. So for basically the best part of 80 years from 1910 to the 1980s the site was basically constantly being excavated with a gap of the Second World War. And what that meant was material two things that the site was being managed in the sense through excavations controlled recording of various levels of terms of legacy data what we've got now. But controlled excavations until that point in the early 1980s. Another part of this was the backfill from these excavations was being thrown out of the ravine. This was protecting these upstanding sections. So you get to the point where in the early 80s this all ceases. Protection measures were put in place at that point. So you've got this big deep sounding of the North ravine which was covered over. You have this concrete wall built up against these important early middle Pleistocene deposits in the North ravine. The famous bone heaps come from. So this created a perception within the site that it was being controlled through being protected. The problem with that was these things are only ever temporary in terms of protection in these contexts. So what the net result of this was for 30 years it stayed like that. And what the net result we have now is these protection measures have failed. You have material collections, sections collapsing. Even the concrete wall itself is changed is not protecting the site to the degree it was probably originally envisaged. Material has been shown to be coming out through those holes in that wall. So materials moving behind the wall. So in terms of the site itself through 30 years of it have not been excavated. You're left with quite a significant problem with collapsing sections like this. What I want to talk about here is the lessons that you can learn from this with Lacotte. The point we're at now with Lacotte is things are being done. Extensive engineering works are planned. Remedial works and removal of sediments in the controlled archaeological conditions are planned. Obviously that's going to be expensive. What the lesson is from Lacotte is you can't really protect locations like this. You can't protect them forever. What it's more of a case is managing the retreat of these deposits on the archaeological conditions. So a combination of engineered protection measures and regular maintenance and removal and response to coastal erosion. And this brings us to the site that Annalise works on as Minister of Gatun in Brittany. This is in many ways a very much parallel site to Lacotte. It's got a sequence of occupations that are earlier than Lacotte. The earliest occupations are stage 13. You've got repeated occupation of the site. It's famous for having hearts, some of the earliest hearts in Europe. And unlike Lacotte, it's a coastal cave system. The difference with Menace and Lacotte is that it's under a constant process now of excavation and management. Because once these deposits are exposed, this, like Lacotte, is next to the sea, it will be eroded away. So once you're exposed in deposits like this, you can't really protect them long-term. It's what you have as a combination of short-term protection and excavation. This is the wider area where Menace Dragan is, Gwendrez, and these deposits are along the foreshore. So there's a series of pycines as deposits in the Menace Dragan area that relate to the Menace sequence. The key thing about these is that these are protected against what's turned them into an English translation of the literal law. So basically it's illegal to build next to these cliffs or next to the beaches. So the main thing that's threatening the deposits in this area are coastal erosion. In terms of how the work's been managed at Menace Dragan, it's very much excavation and protection. So you've got these protection measures in place which have constant maintenance from the local people. It's very much a local involvement of a town of Clwinec. So it's a combination of protection with the local populists who are very much invested in the place and proud of this. So there's these coastal cave sites, these big sequences in coastal deposits and cliff sections. I think the lesson with those is you can't really ever protect them as such, you have to manage them. This is a different, looking now towards the foreshore, I'm going to talk about two areas. First of all, the Sugrio Bay in northern Brittany, where you've got these concentrations of early middle poetic sites. These are very important because unlike large parts of Brittany because of the physiology, you get formal preservations in these contexts through the preservation on calcareous gene systems in association with LERS. I'm going to talk briefly about two of these sites. The first one is Piyigou. This is a stage seven site and it's been subject to excavations in the 1980s. The second one is the site of Le Valais, which is nearby, which was found in the 1920s, but was subject to rescue activation in 2010. Now, the thing that I want to talk about in terms of this is that both sites are recorded in the regional services of archaeology and in theory this should protect them because there should be no building work without authorization. Except this has not proved the case in terms of both of these sites. At Le Valais, building work was carried out on the foreshore without authorization. The reason in this case was that there were mechanisms in place to deal with work on the foreshore, but there was confusion over responsibility. This is something that crops a lot in terms of how deposits in these foreshore contexts are managed because it's technically not under the remit of the regional archaeological surface, but the Office of Maritime Archaeology. Because of this confusion in terms of whose responsibility it was, construction work and coastal defences occurred on the seafront on where this known site was. The second example is Piyigou. Now, this site is, again, a very important site. It was originally excavated, rescued excavations in the 1980s and 1987, and this was done in advance of the construction of this road. Now, further construction work has occurred at the site since then, including the building of this concrete revetting wall and a building of a maritime centre and of a spa complex. Now, nothing happened when these were constructed, and the interesting thing within this, you've got systems which are in place to deal with this, and we sort of, in a way we sort of talk about the French system a lot of the time as much better, but it's like any system like our system itself is patching in various places. And I think the reason why this received the attention it did in the 1980s is because you had people actively interested in the deposits, then this next phase of work came across. The first construction was supposed to be built on stilts, and therefore it's supposed to have no archaeological impact, partly went straight into the cliff sections, but there was no real agitation or management for it. So, it just shows in these contexts, even when you put systems within place, they don't always function. And this brings me back to Jersey, to the work we've been doing recently. This is a foreshore site on Jersey. Now, when we started working and looking at the Pleistocene sequences on Jersey, we started off with Lacotte-Sombrillard, but we're also interested in these other fine spots which are around the coast. And our assumptions which we were making at this time following previous assumptions by other people was still this material was coming out of cliff sections. What we've discovered is that's not the case, where material including in situ early middle Pleistocene material has been found on the foreshore, in gullies within the bedrock filled with Pleistocene sediments, later sediments having been removed and truncated from these deposits in this area. And this is the south-west corner of Jersey, and these similar deposits occur all around this area, both onto the foreshore and into the intertidal zone. Because of the big tidal range in Jersey, you've got access to the intertidal zone quite frequently. For example, down at the bottom you've got mammoth teeth, which has come out of similar contexts at Seymour Tower, which as you can see is offshore, but at low sea level you can actually look out to these locations. So it created a realisation that in this corner of Jersey is the series of gully systems which you've had later material removed from the top of it, which are preserving sediments, preserving archaeology, and in certain cases preserving fauna. So we now have a model and an understanding of it, and because of the work we've been doing it's created interest locally, and from that point people have now started to find material everywhere along this coastline. And this, in a way, has brought us to a point where it creates what happens next, because how do you manage this landscape and what systems are in place to manage this landscape? It's unclear who's actually responsible for that, what happens when deposits are exposed through coastal erosion, who monitors these landscapes? It should this be a citizen-led system, because there are people that we work with in a similar way where Nick was talking about earlier, to monitor these who are active locally in the local society, who are interested in this and who would do this. But one of the things that's important, it needs to be a bit more than just mapping these fine spots, we need to understand the context that they're coming from, so it needs to be related in a way with Nick's work at Haysborough between people identifying material and fine spots, and also specialists engaging in understanding what context this material is coming from. So, just as a brief overview, in terms of these coastal sections and these foreshore deposits that we've been encountering, these provide immense problems and immense potential. Marine erosion is a big challenge, it exposes these places in archaeological sites, but of course it destroys them too. In terms of these cliff sections and big sites and extensive archaeological and geological sequences in these cliff sections, it's very difficult to ever protect them as such. It's more of a question of management and retreat under archaeological control. The key first stage to any of this in any particular block of landscape is understanding, as many people have said, a model in these coastal deposits and the erosion processes affecting them. Once you get to that point, it's a question of how these are managed, how do you take this to a point where you actually manage, understand and get maximum value from these unknown landscapes. One approach which I think is important is citizens capture. That's part of the story, but it can't be itself alone. It needs to be a joined approach between citizen capture and recording of where material is coming from and especially understanding the context of this material. Also, I think what it all comes down to at the end with all of this stuff is the creation and maintenance of joined up systems to mitigate against the destruction and exploit its potential. Jersey is an interesting case study for this in terms of this because it's pretty much starting from scratch in many respects. You've got a manageable block of land where we now understand what's going on with these deposits, but it has no systems in terms of dealing with what happens in terms of its management. But these systems could be put in place. I think one of the things that we see as cross-regional issues is legislation. I mean, who is actually responsible for these management of the intertidal zone? And there's a clear need to integrate strategies and responses. Thank you. Thanks for your journey. Just completing the journey from onshore to offshore, the final speaker of this session is Dr Rachel Bino, currently of Southampton, but shortly to be of the Natural History Museum. Hello. Thank you. Okay. Can everyone hear me? Okay. Was this here? I do tend to move about, so I stopped being audible to shout. So here today I'm going to be talking about the challenges and some of the future directions in the offshore zone. I work mostly academically, so I've been speaking to various people across the commercial sector. So thank you very much those people for their input, some of the names are on the screen and a couple of them are in the audience. So we have Louise Tisard from Whittex Archaeology and Kristin Himagi from Maritime Archaeology Trust. So any difficult questions I'm going to be pointing to then? Right, so what do we currently know about the offshore record? So the short answer to this question is actually, we know very little, increasing years have seen lots of data coming in from industry working in the offshore zone, but this is largely dominated by geophysical data sets. So predominantly talking about things like seismics or sub-bottom, things like multi-beam. But, and obviously we have these on a very broad scale I should say, with other smaller areas where we get patches of higher resolution, where we have things like cable routes and wind farm developments. But the problem with this picture is that there's very little actual direct sampling going on, which leads to a situation where our ground-true thing or our verification of the interpretations of the geophysics is not really very good. And if you look at this image here, so this is an image of the excavation index from England from the years 2000 to 2013, you can see that there's a massive amount of work ongoing in the onshore zone. And this is a massive discrepancy with that which we see offshore, but it has taken us a good part of 100 years to get to the situation where this amount of archaeology is happening in the terrestrial zone. So it's not really surprising that our knowledge about the offshore zone is so different, but hopefully what we can use is discussions like today and work coming out of it in order to try to push the research agenda so that we can bring our knowledge of the offshore zone to a commensurate level. Because at the moment really what we are dealing with, with these broad-scale pictures dominated by geophysics, is very much the landscape scale and also dominated by paleogeographies. So when it comes to actually engaging with the archaeology in these areas, we're not really doing very well. I have three sites on board, on the screen here, one of which is Mesolithic, and one obviously is a fine spot, so the middle one is Zealand ridges, and we have Aero 240 on the left. I should have also put Furmanville, which is in the channel off the north coast of France, and we have very, very few sites. And a key thing to note about these sites is that they're all found by chance. So if we want to move in a direction where we can start to actually understand the archaeology and the deposits in the offshore zone, we really need to try to move away from a reliance on chance finds and start to focus our efforts more clearly. And this is something that's been outlined as an objective by Historic England, by many people over recent years. It's the idea of targeting our work in the offshore zone. So these are a few of the projects I'm going at the moment. So the one on the left is the project by myself and colleagues at Southampton off the coast of Clacton. And on the right here you have the elusive Haysborough 5 site, which is becoming less elusive as time moves on. The key thing about these is that we're using things like dry fawn or remains, geophysical imagery, historic documents, oral histories, to try to bring them together to pinpoint areas on the seabed that we can then start to investigate in this sense by divers so that we can actually start to understand the integrity of anything coming out of the deposits and the nature of the deposits themselves. But this work is incredibly challenging, so we know it's difficult to pinpoint these areas terrestrially, and it's even more difficult to pinpoint these areas offshore. Oh, I had a point to make there if it's gone. Oh, no, leave it, sorry. So what are some of the issues that we are encountering when we're working in terms of research? I would say overwhelmingly it's a very positive experience, so we seem to be moving in the same direction as some of the guidelines from Historic England, and they're really pushing forth this work in the offshore zone. But one of the challenges that we have come up against is kind of an issue of methods. So probably everything we have in terms of finds and artifacts that come from the offshore zone comes out of inherently destructive means, so aggregate extraction or trawling, for example. But when we're working with them research projects, it's debatable how far these destructive methods should really be being used or being suggested. So I'm talking in particular about things like targeted trawling or the use of grab samples in areas where we already know plasticine deposits exist, because ultimately these are destructive and anything they bring up, they're bringing up out of context. So it kind of seems like the use of these methods in research projects is almost like going back to this kind of smashing grab approach to archaeology, or yes, we have finds, but we have no idea about that context. In the aforementioned projects, we're lucky enough to be able to dive, this isn't always the case, it's not always appropriate. So for example, sites like Area 240, you wouldn't have been able to dive that site, it wouldn't have been appropriate. So we do need to be thinking of other methodologies which maintain a level of that kind of stratigraphic integrity or the integrity of the artifacts that we find. But they don't necessarily need to be things like grab samples, so could we work towards things, for example, like this is an image of a boxcorer, so whilst you do get the kind of mobiles elements at the top, it also goes down further, so you're looking at the kind of top 40 centimetres depending on the deposit, or of outcropping deposits, but it maintains vertical integrity. So when we as archaeologists and curators, so Historic England, are thinking about methods we should be using, and are suggesting methods to be used, they need to be considered and they need to be appropriate to the work that we're trying to do. And this translates through to my first point of commercial challenges, I have three points here. So the first one is that consistency. So, as with teresrily, the work that goes on offshore is a constant dialogue between the archaeologists, Historic England, the clients or the developers, and also the contractors. For things to work well, obviously this needs to be consistent, it needs to be clear, everyone needs to know what they're doing and why they're doing it. But it doesn't always seem that this has been the case. So there have been examples where archaeological companies have proposed mitigation to clients offshore, but the clients have then been told by Historic England that actually you don't need to do that. But then in the future, when the same archaeologists in a similar situation have been working with the same clients, and they've rolled back mitigation based on previous experience, they've then been told by Historic England that you need to be pushing this. And this kind of inconsistency is really only undermining the archaeologists and confusing the clients who are unsure about what exactly it is they should be doing with archaeology and what is the value of it. The positive about this, of course, is that it's going from a situation where the value of the resource wasn't recognised or was being called back on to a situation where it's certainly being pushed. And that's brilliant, of course. And I think that's probably also coming out of the rapid development of your archaeology. So things are changing. Our understanding of the value of it is changing and the techniques we're using are changing. But perhaps it means that we do need to be sitting down and thinking about potentially updating guidelines a little bit more often so that we can present a united front about the value of the record. And I'm going to turn to this at the end. So my second point is one, again, of direct sampling. So the reason why we have so little direct sampling is usually to do with the fact that where engineers want to put their cause offshore is not necessarily the best place for archaeology. This, of course, then leads to very little analysis going on, which again leads to a very poor understanding of the actual deposits that we have offshore. There have been instances where archaeological companies have come in early and they've been able to get the clients to move the cause to areas that agree both with the engineer and with the archaeology, and that's fantastic. But we can't rely on it and it doesn't seem to happen very often. So it kind of seems like on those situations where we can't really get around it and we're just probably not going to have a very good record. But we could take the alternative approach with saying, why don't we stop being so apologetic about the work that we're trying to do as archaeologists? Stop being so apologetic about the money that it's going to cost and start trying, at least, to push the value of the work that we're doing and trying to, through conversations and presenting this united front, try to get developers to actually pay for cause to be taken for archaeological purposes so that we can do analysis and understand the record more. Because if we don't start doing this really, we're never really going to get anywhere, we're never going to understand the deposits that we actually have and the offshore record. And as was pointed out earlier by several people, I think it was Billy and also Francis, we can have this mapping and then you put one core in and it completely changes what you understand about the record. We need to start more direct sampling in the offshore zone. And my third point is one of watching wolves. So, with the discovery of Area 240, his Wessex archaeology, we're given funding to start watching the wolves in the surrounding area for archaeology that's coming up. So that's obviously brilliant and definitely a step in the right direction. But it then raises questions about how far this has been taken elsewhere and it kind of seems like archaeologists aren't really being given the support to watch wolves in other areas. Now this, of course, is this problem again that we have where if you're not finding stuff already coming out of a wolf, coming out of wherever, then you're not going to get the funding to watch it. But of course that's a vicious circle because we know if we're not looking for it, we're also not going to find it or we're very unlikely to find it. But as has already been outlined today by several people, we are well aware, terrestrially, of the value of, is that time? Oh, sorry. We're well aware of the value of the resource in Pleistocene terraces onshore. And we're well aware of that value in terms of secondary and primary contexts. So why, just because these terraces have now been submerged, should we be treating them any differently? They have exactly the same value to us. And if we want to get back to actually looking at the human scale and actually involving ourselves and engaging with the archaeology in the offshore zone, then this seems like a good place to start. And again, potentially coming back to this idea that if whichever developer is extracting from these deposits, if they're destroying the deposits, then they should also be the ones funding the work to watch them, similar to a kind of watching brief offshore. And if we think about it compared to the terrestrial zone, where we have developer funding to put cores in, to put tespits in, and I know that it's not a perfect situation onshore, and often that results in not finding very much. Why are we not doing the same thing? Why are we not applying the same principles offshore? And I think this is a kind of direction that we should be looking to move in. Okay, so my final point is one of dissemination. So again, this relates mostly to the commercial sector. And it's essentially just about moving away from a reliance on chunky, great literature reports and towards peer-reviewed journal articles, preferably open access, things like monographs, that are available to researchers, but also available to the general public. The thing is, is when you talk to, and it does happen occasionally, as you can see, by this, of course, Aero 240 published in JQS, and they've got a monograph out. Yes, so when you talk to archaeologists about this, the archaeologists involved, everybody is really pro-publishing. Everybody thinks that they should be publishing the results of any research they do, but their issues, of course, are time and money. Historic England also, in terms of their guidelines, are very much pushing for publication and definitely open access. So why aren't we seeing more publications, aside from the fact that very little analysis goes on? The two main problems seem to be data sensitivity. So, of course, if you're working offshore, some of the information you're working with is going to be sensitive. It's not going to be longer to become unsensitive. But also a main issue seems to be client interest. So there seems to be the problem where clients offshore, they're not really used to the idea of publishing research, so they're not really interested in funding for you, for your time to then go away and write these publications and to then publish them. So I think there are two things to this. The first is, as a developer, if you're exploiting the seabed, if you're going to be paying for course for analysis, then you also need to be paying for the dissemination or for the publication of this work. That kind of seems logical. Yeah, I know it's a simplistic thing to say. But in a less demanding way, it does seem like public engagement is a really good way to go. And if we're publishing things, then they are in the public sphere. Public interest in archaeology, particularly offshore, is something that developers seem to be interested in. So if you go on their websites, you find, you see archaeology we've found. So if we can kind of try to engage with developers in that sense, then potentially we can try to push for more funding to disseminate the results in open access journals. So how can we move forward? So I've presented several issues, but I would like to make the point that overall, through discussions with everyone I've talked to, it's very positive. So we're certainly moving in the right direction. I think we're moving towards kind of pushing the value of the record. And kind of the problems to do with consistency and clarity seem to possibly be coming out of that kind of positive situation and that we're moving very, very quickly and we're on quite a steep learning curve. So for example, the model clauses, one minute, the model clauses that we're working with were written back in 2010 and technology has moved massively since then, as has our understanding of the value of the record. So potentially what we need to do is update this sum of this guidance. As opposed to in the past where this has been tendered out to individual companies, what we need to be doing is having a wider-ranging discussion involving all of the archaeological companies, also involving historic England, clients and contractors. So we can start to bring a kind of more coherent idea of what's required in the offshore zone, why it's required and the value of this record and ultimately to push for increased developer funding for direct sampling, analysis and publication so that we can move this record up to the level of the offshore zone, onshore zone. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, thank you Rachel. Okay, we've now got just about 25 minutes for discussion. Just two quick reminders while I ask Andy and Chantal to come up. The first is that the theme for this discussion is what should our new priorities be. And secondly, just a reminder for questions and comments from the floor if you can state your name before your questions or comments. And with that, over to you. I just absolutely want to endorse what Rachel was most recently saying about the offshore record. It's essentially the same as the offshore record except it's under water. That's what I was saying, but it's just not as good as it is. I don't think that's what it is. It's not as good as it is. You have to come to the answer period and add that aside. But what the curatorial said is that in the Eastern Street similarly, so I suppose in terms of making the things you want to have done should happen, especially for the curatorial authorities and persuading them. After Francis agreed with what I said, I would also like to agree with what Francis did. Felly, os ydych chi'n gweld yr unrhyw hyd yn ymweld, ac oes unrhyw hwn o'r cyfrifod ar y mewn ysgolwedd? Byddai chi. Roedd ydych chi'n mynd i'r mwy a roeddu'r mynd i'r troent? Mae hyn o'r hystioedd yn hystioedgarau. Felly, os oedd ymweld hynny, yn nifer o fechafolau ar ôl, roeddano'r amser. Rhaid i ni'n ddweud yng Nghymru'r ddweud? Rhaid i ni'n ddweud yng nghymru? Mae'r ddweud yn ddweud y meddwl yn y fawr ffordd a oedd ymddangos gyda'i ddweud. Dyma'r hwn yn erioed o'r ddweud y lle o'r sgwrn yma'r bobl fel ei ddechrau? Mae'n ddweud o'r oedd eich ddweud o'r ddweud. Mae'n dweud sy'n ddweud... Wydwch chi'n gofynu ym mhwn yn rhoi'r argylwm yn gyngorol iawn. Felly fyddwn i chi'n gwneud mewn ffadaf ar gyllidol. Felly mae'n gwneud hynny yw'r ffordd yn ddechrau'r ddysgrifennu o'r ddysgrifennu'r Llandogol i'r gyllidol i'r Llandogol i'r ffordd. Felly efallai chi'n gwneud gwneud eich bodi'r bach i'r bobl yn cael eu bobl? Roedd oedd gen i'r problemau, erbyn yn oed o'r ddweud, y Ddech chi'n gwaelio'r llachawr mawr hormorgenus. Yn y gallwn o'r rhaid o'r hyn o'r ysgafoddau o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r blanky? Roedd oes oherwydd yr hyn yn oed o'r problemau, yna ceisio'r beth sy'n ei wneud i'r llachawr siwm. Mae'n ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r llachawr, ac mae angen i'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r llachawr, Does not see why not. I think excavation of it would be very difficult, obviously we have kind of a tybranffy ¶tibranffy, I do not know who to say actually, in Danish waters which is perfectly preserved and beautifully excavated. But in the North Sea or somewhere obviously we have very different conditions. But in terms of the potential for that actually to preserve. I do think that we could because it would depend on the initial burial conditions. If it has buried quickly and has been covered since and is now eroding then yes. I think there is potential for those deposits to have survived, but of course, I don't know if we can really answer those questions properly without a better understanding of the nature of the deposits we have, because at the moment it is mostly geophysically defined, and we just have these occasional areas where we have calls through it. I've possibly got quite a stupid question, so what actually happens when someone's doing offshore work, who's responsible for putting conditions of any sort? Are you talking commercially? Yeah, there's a development pipeline, or a cable, whatever, going in offshore, who's responsible for saying what conditions there should be, and where does that stop and become a terrestrial responsibility? I was going to say, so I could give you an answer, but I think a better answer would come from either Louise or Kristin, who both work in those sectors commercially, and my knowledge of that is more fuzzy. Would one of those two be able to answer that question better? Louise or Kristin? I'm sure archaeologists are kind of willing to work with us, but that's kind of what we've stuck. So we have to leave if there's any work done in this tidal cell, for example, because up in the papers come, I'm sure, as well, so it goes through sentiments. The responsibility for local planning authorities runs down to being low-winter, so there's always an overlap between what counts as marine development because it's a pie-winter, and the archaeological advisers for the marine environment are Historic England, and the local planning authorities down to the marine development. Just a question about that. How does that actually work? Does it function? Is that a function relationship? I'm just interested, that's all it is. I'm Chris Maynard, from Historic England, and I deal with marine development matters of priority. There is spatial overlap between terrestrial planning controls and what's known as the marine licensing system for fortresses of government, which is administered by another government agency called the Marine Management Organization. There's spatial overlap on the fortress one for any tidal estuary system. So, where you have that overlap, where you've seen the black and white of the legal obligations on the environment to do something, if it does fall within the remit of a local authority, the local authority will be directly stated as a relevant party to be a recipient of information that's produced correspondingly, whereas truly dead beyond any element of the tidal reef. Then it comes to Historic England as a sole advisor to the marine planning authority, which is the marine management organization, and with that situation we will be their primary advisors for the information that is then produced. Now you're taking your lives in your hands. You're inviting me to ask questions. Clive. Clive Campbell. I'm coming back to a point that John Lewis made before lunch about how the general public in the Paleolithic starts with Neolithic archaeologists. But we move very quickly because we still are perceived as having fairly recondite knowledge. I've been thinking about this over lunch and I'm not really so sure. I think I can be equally baffled by someone going on about the wonders of Sanyam or Brochetykes or whatever. I think I can get very lost too. But the point of the question is that what we've heard from all three speakers this afternoon and many this morning is this whole citizen science, Andy in particular was talking about it, and how there is a large engagement of people out there who have made these discoveries. And Danielle knows this very well through the National Ice Age Network. And I keep coming back to these phrases that we're getting that one is expected and unexpected. And Francis and I dealt with a site which just shouldn't have been there. This was red barns. And it shouldn't have been on any maps because there were no Pleistocene deposits on the BGS maps. And yet here was this wonderful Pleistocene site. And the only way we found out about that was an interested amateur archaeologist, Chris Drake. So I just wonder if the three speakers could talk a little bit more about the engagement of citizen science in helping us with the theme of this session, which is sort of understanding more about what we want to know. Who'd like to go first? Well, I think with the Jersey experience, the thing is, which is interesting is because we've created through our work the interest in this material, people with on Jersey have got interest in a very keen to find material on these beach fronts. And you've had people walking up and down and looking for material now for the first time. But the question then becomes what happens next? So in terms of people want to be and are engaged with the work that we do, and we collectively in terms of heritage management and also as a specialist should use that and be part of that. But the question is putting in systems in place to manage it. And at least on Jersey currently, those systems don't exist. So it's a question of creating the link between the discovery and giving it value through the systems that link it to heritage management. Yes, something I meant to mention and didn't really the importance of sort of amateur field workers and finding many of the sites that I mentioned. I think there's always going to be people like Roy who really engage with the archaeological community. But I think one of the key things for me experience is sort of visibility in the landscape. So at Starcar when we've been doing open days at Jersey when we've had quite, we're doing lots of open days and engagement, then you have lots of people who really interested in archaeology and be very keen to engage and finding lots of sites. That's when you get much more of a dialogue. So I think sort of higher presence and higher sort of visibility on the ground really encourages people to engage with you and you can then sort of feedback. Obviously not so many formal mechanisms in place, but at least sort of this sharing of knowledge and awareness is really important. Yeah, I think that's a good point, the kind of being visible. So I think one of the key things in terms of the offshore stuff, also the coastal stuff is what Nick was talking about earlier, which is the work they're doing, working with the volunteers who are going up and down the East Anglin coastline. I mean, I'm pretty sure that a lot of them kind of met through excavations at Haysborough 3, you're visible there and people come forward and show you stuff and have an interest. And from my experience as well, this whole kind of neolithic almost thing, I'm not so sure it's true. Whenever I talk to anyone about the kind of offshore stuff and the paleoed things, as long as you throw in somebody mammoth, everyone seems to be really, really interested in that. So I think, I've kind of forgotten the question, but I think that in terms of getting the public engaged with this stuff, there is a lot of scope with the paleolithic. But I do think that being present and actually having a dialogue with the people who are interested is really important. And also almost having a dialogue with them that isn't massively formal, because sometimes when you set up these huge schemes, they seem to be less human, less personable. They don't necessarily seem to work so well, but when you have, to kind of argue, I'm not doing so much, I suppose, having on a small scale, but when you can build relationships with the people and actually have discussions with them, then people seem to be very willing to get involved. I'm very interested in the paleolithic reasons, so I think there's a lot of scope for it. And just, I mean, Nicky Milner's real drive to sort of increase public engagement with Mesolithic, it turns out there is a lot of public interest in the Mesolithic even. So, as a paleolithic archaeologist with massive climate change, mammoths, neanderthals wanting to have an escape, I mean these are things that can make more of it. Nick at that committee. Hello, Nick Barton. I just, I'm wondering if you've forgotten about two to mention, I'm sure, is the heritage lottery funding and the fact that many big projects we're going on at the moment which are funded in this way and which bring out volunteers and train volunteers, become archaeologists and indeed engage in the field work, I'm involved in one of these projects with Daryl Darten who's here in the room. And I'm wondering whether Daryl would say one or two words, so I put one spot down. I think you're in charge of it. The schemes aren't great, but they need somebody to lead them. And that is, oh sorry, volunteer schemes are great. There are a lot of people out there with a lot of interest even in your flint plate, but they do need people to lead them. And it's not like leading a commercial team. You have to manage this interest incredibly carefully, it's very time consuming. But if they can, if the money can be found for the people to lead them, you'll get more work. But the volunteers are a very delicate resource. Catch them just as they retire and you'll get a wonderful workforce. But don't expect them to organise things. Expect them to come along, enjoy themselves and do what they want to do. The hard work of organisation planning has to be paid for by somebody else. At least two more questions to come from the floor, but do any of these three want to make a quick response to the last? From my experience, I completely agree. I think that's the thing is that people collecting data when we're around is fine, but I totally agree. It's the management of that process and the data which comes out of it, which is a tricky bit and requires money. Louise Tysdard, my sixth archaeology. Just on the engagement of short, some of the protocols that are now being actual aren't told necessarily at the moment the general public, but are targeting people who work within the industry, through the agriculture industry, the actual wind, and now try them also with fishermen. With the advent of the marine antiquities scheme that's currently being developed with the Crown Estate, this is involving a lot of people who wouldn't necessarily come into contact with archaeology, who are very interested in finding the interesting place for the brains. And they are adding to our image offshore. And yes, they are on the fine spots and as we say, yes, we do want to be looking more direct sampling. But it is actually adding greatly to our understanding of offshore and environmental lighting to the climate system too. Can I respond to that? No, I'd just like to say that I completely agree and that the direct sampling aspect of things, that the fine spots are really important and the chance fines are really important and all those schemes are brilliant because they can help us to then refine our efforts to where we're looking. I suppose there are two different things. The direct sampling is incredibly important, but I don't think it's an either or. And these projects which have been trialled and rolled out are definitely fantastically important and engaging people that we wouldn't otherwise. Just an appointment with many citizen sites and I think there's a huge amount of information out there but I just made an appeal of part of AGRs. If it's not reported to an AGR, it can't be taken into account in the sort of development management decisions that we're talking about. So we all have a responsibility to flag that to the local volunteers and the groups that we're working with to make sure that we're here. I'd just like to return to Jersey and draw to people's attention the fact that there is an opportunity to revise the environment law and the draft is going to be prepared for December and Jersey heritage and the states of Jersey are well aware of the difficulties and problems regarding the foreshore and they are actively engaged in trying to do something about that at the moment. Obviously, because I entirely agree with that, I think this is a big opportunity for Jersey in that regard with everything that's happening on Jersey now to put systems in place which can act as a model for other places to use and I entirely endorse that. Francis Griffith, I completely endorse what Hannah has said about the need for the AGRs to receive this information and we've touched a bit about the problems of the decimation of curatorial archaeology in the local authorities today. One area that is anything is getting sorted even faster than planning archaeologists is museum archaeologists. There are many museums where we should have had a curatorial archaeology for 50 or 100 years who now have one curatorate probably the finest person and this is still a natural place for any person finding a hand-ups in the field to want you off and report and that is probably an even weaker link in the chairman, the AGRs at the moment and we should be putting a lot of our ideas into trying to support this. I guess this kind of picks up on your point and if we are going to be more effective in becoming, you know, having a fully public dimension to our work and we've got lots of concerns about the archaeological record, we've got concerns about curation of artefacts the only way we're going to do this is if we make sure we have proper connections within the discipline right way through to museums identifying areas where there is no coverage there aren't any connections at all and that's got to be more effective networks Just to sort of follow on to that, you know, fieldwalking if we go to the terrestrial zone and the plough zone examples you gave were fieldwalked sites surface scatters, you know, they tend to be denigrated as a very poor record we can't designate them and protect them in that way but some, you know, do you think there's scope for reviewing surface scatters and how we treat them, how we process them? Yes definitely and I think once we have an understanding a really detailed understanding of what our record is in particular locations we can do a lot with it and I think Lawrence's work is really showing that some surface finds we know very little about and we can't do very much with it but others are really decent resolution sites where we can make important points about human action but it's again without assessing the record and without knowing landscape histories and histories of curation those are methodologies of fieldwalking and these are quite difficult to do so it's about putting money and effort into knowing this a slightly unknowable record they are really important and the majority of our material we can't dismiss them Just one thing, just because I was saying isn't really one of the things that underlines a lot of all of these things is networks and connections between people and groups are the things that need to be looped out because there's a lot of expertise in these elements of these things that people are doing but the connectivity between people is perhaps and where that connectivity isn't there needs to be reviewed and that would make things a lot more effective it seems to be the underlying thing Any perhaps one final question? This is our 7th Tech Council Council and in terms of our trend of localities we have a lot of very active quality archaeologists who are out of the field representing science in a very different context but they really discover how to get experts on the finds that they're discovering and I kind of echo Mark's point about networks but it's all very well having networks but they also are quite detailed and I think it's a great advice and expertise on the posts they're finding and I'm just wondering what kind of mechanism is really the place to provide that That sounds tricky I'd like to take that I think that sounds like a postee Some of the groups in Kent have been really good at these networks but they're sort of self-created at the moment and I think people are really keen to engage and give advice so I think it's maybe a way of sort of letting people know who they should be going to so getting names of people who are interested but in a slightly more formal way where people can go and get more expert advice people are finding very specific archaeology that they need to go beyond their region to get expertise on so something more formal would be really useful because it's just so piecemeal at the moment I'd like to say that there are flows there are fines liaisons of officers I don't know if there is one in Kent but there are certainly is one in the Oxfordshire area and they need months and months in the Ashmolean Museum with archaeologists who are on a hand there and these are publicising people bringing in their fines so maybe I don't know whether it's true but Kent has got a particular problem I'm not sure if I'm sorry I'm sorry, yeah so you can work with at least something heavy I think sort of increasing lithic expertise amongst the fines officers which is starting to happen I think sort of Nick Ashton's project has got training put in for that and I was hoping to get some mesolithic training but didn't get the grant I think that's really important sort of creating that sort of knowledge that sort of link between for directing people just for basic identification but if there's something that needs more would benefit for extra expertise sort of directing them where to go it would be really important yeah perhaps just a quick comment Liz I think we ought to give people a breather if possible I mean we can come back to this I think in the end of the discussion but I think we'll take a break there for 15 minutes if you can be back for 330 and just join me in thanking the three speakers