Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T08:44:11.419Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The state of large earthwork sites in the United Kingdom

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Kevin L. Jones
Kevin L. Jones*
Affiliation:
Department of Conservation, Conservation Sciences Centre, PO Box 10-420, Wellington, New Zealand. KJones@doc.govt.nz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The management of earthwork sites and their protection from erosion is a constant problem. Here Kevin Jones assesses methods and materials used on archaeological sites in Britain. It is essential to find compatible, economic land uses for most earthworks but this use should not lead to diminished expectations of good protection and historic interpretation.

Keywords

grass stabilizationhill-fortdykeBritainmonument management
Type
Papers
Information
Antiquity , Volume 72 , Issue 276 , June 1998 , pp. 293 - 307
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 1998

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

Alcock, L. 1972. ‘By South Cadbury is that Camelot ...’: the excavation of Cadbury Castle 1966–1970. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
Bell, M., Fowler, P.J. & Hillson, S.W. 1996. The Experimental Earthworks Project 1960–1992. London: Council for British Archaeology. Research report 10.Google Scholar
Berry, A.Q. & Brown, I.W. (ed.). 1994. Erosion on archaeological earthworks: its prevention, control and repair. Mold: Clwyd Archaeology Services.Google Scholar
(Ed.). 1995. Managing ancient monuments: an integrated approach. Mold: Clwyd Archaeology Services.Google Scholar
Berry, A.Q. 1994. Counting the cost... the sequel, in Berry, & Brown, 1994: 45–56.Google Scholar
Coles, J.M. 1987. The preservation of archaeological sites by environmental intervention, in Corzo, M.A. & Hodges, H.W.M. (ed). In situ archaeological conservation: Proceedings of Meetings April 6–13, 1986, Mexico: 32–55. Century City: Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia de Mexico/The Getty Conservation Institute.Google Scholar
Dwyer, J 1973. Southern England: an archaeological guide — the prehistoric and Roman remains. London: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar
Forde-Johnston, J. 1976. Hillforts of the Iron Age in England and Wales: a survey of the surface evidence. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.Google Scholar
Fry, R. & Lonsdale, D. (ed.). 1991. Habitat conservation for insects — a neglected green issue. The Amateur Entomologist 21.Google Scholar
Getty Conservation Institute. N.d. Geosynthetic products notebook.Google Scholar
Gingell, C. 1996. Avebury: striking a balance, Antiquity 70: 505–11.Google Scholar
Gosling, P.F. 1985. Archaeological conservation in practice, in Lambrick, (ed.) 1985: 45–50.Google Scholar
Hemsley, J.H. 1996. The vegetation of the Overton site 1969–1992, in Bell, et al. 1996: 13–26.Google Scholar
Hudson, K. & East, G.R.W. 1990. Geotextiles. Wellington:Transit New Zealand Research Report 6.Google Scholar
Hunter, J. & Ralston, I. (ed.). 1993. Archaeological Resource Management in the United Kingdom: an introduction. Stroud: Sutton/Institute of Field Archaeologists.Google Scholar
Jones, K.L. & Simpson, P.G. 1995. Archaeological site stabilisation and vegetation management, case studies I: Coromandel, Bay of Plenty and Hawkes Bay, Central Volcanic Plateau and Taranaki. Wellington: Department of Conservation. Science and Research Series 84.Google Scholar
Kirby, P. N.d. Habitat management for invertebrates: a practical handbook. Sandy: Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.Google Scholar
Lambrick, G. (ed.). 1985. Archaeology and nature conservation. Oxford: Oxford University Department for External Studies.Google Scholar
LEWIS, N. & Miles, D 1985. Archaeology and nature conservation: problems and potential at Cherbury Camp, Oxfordshire, in Lambrick, (ed.): 111–20.Google Scholar
Macinnes, L. 1993. Archaeology as land use, in Hunter, & Ralston, (ed.): 243–55.Google Scholar
Prior, F. 1990. The reluctant greening of archaeology, Antiquity 64: 147–50.Google Scholar
Rees, S.E. 1994. Erosion in Wales: the extent of the problem, in Berry, & Brown, (ed.): 29–36.Google Scholar
Thackray, D. 1994. The management of monuments and erosion control on National Trust properties, in Berry, & Brown, (ed): 103–10.Google Scholar
Thackray, D. & Hearn, K. 1985. Archaeology and nature conservation: the responsibility of the National Trust, in Lambrick, (ed.): 51–8.Google Scholar
Thackray, D., Jarman, R, & Burcon, J. 1995. The National Trust’s approach to integrated conservation management, in Berry, & Brown, (ed.): 37–47.Google Scholar
Thorne, R.M. 1990. Revegetation: the soft approach to archaeological site stabilization. Washington (DC): US National Park Service. Archaeological Assistance Program Technical Brief 8.Google Scholar
Wainwright, G.J. 1993. The management of change: archaeology and planning, Antiquity 67: 416–21.Google Scholar
Wells, T.C.E 1985. The botanical and ecological interest of ancient monuments, in Lambrick, (ed.): 1–10.Google Scholar
Wimble, A.W. 1994. Problems of wear and tear on English Heritage Sites, in Berry, & Brown, (ed.): 17–23.Google Scholar