Archaeologists split on big dig

Press, 6 December 1979, Page 21

Archaeologists split on big dig

An argument of crucial importance to British archaeology is raging over the future of the great Sutton Hoo ship burial site near Woodbridge in Suffolk — one of the most important and richest archaeological discoveries made in Europe. Only one of Sutton Hao's 14 or more mounds has been properly excavated, though the site was first explored in 1939 when a large Anglo-Saxon funeral ship and a staggering array of treasure from all over Europe was dug up and transferred to the British Museum. Now a group of four eminent British archaeologists has suggested that excavations should begin again and has proposed an ambitious 15-year programme of work. Far from being welcomed as an imaginative project, however, the idea has been greeted with doubt, disquiet, and distaste by many archaeological colleagues. The British Museum, whose support would be vital, is sitting on the fence. The arguments on both sides say much about the state of British archaeology today. The four people behind the Sutton Hoo plan—Professor Philip Rahtz of York University, Professor Rosemary Cramp of Durham, Barry Cunliffe, Professor of European Archaeology Oxford, and Dr Rupert Bruce-Mitford, who re-ex-cavated the ship mound in the 19605, first launched their plan in detail at a three-day symposium on Anglo-Saxon cemeteries attended by 80 archaeologists at the Department of Nuclear Physics at Oxford earlier last month. The atmosphere was des-

cribed as '‘academically restrained tension.” “The Group,” as they are now known, believe that after 1300 years the site is seriously threatened by burrowing rabbits and by treasure hunters with metal detectors. They propose that a long, slow, and detailed “research” operation should begin, lasting up to 15 years, and manned by experts such as paleobotanists and bone specialists to carry Out interpretative work, as well as by normal field workers. Much of the archaeological work of the 1950 s and 1960 s was concentrated on “rescue archae-

ology,” where brief opportunities to excavate sites threatened by construction work on new office blocks, for example, had to be seized in a limited amount of time. Sutton Hoo, says “the Group,” offers a new opportunity for longer appraisal. Professor Rahtz says: “Such an excavation would be an imaginative leap forward for British archaeology, and might be the envy of the world.” Opponents of the plan put forward two main objections. First, the cost: estimates vary between SIIO,OOO and $550,000 a year for up to 15 years. Such an outlay, they say, would inevitably damage the chances of a number of less spectacular but nevertheless important operations. "In times when archaeologists have their backs to the wall other projects would inevitably suffer,” says Dr Kate Pretty of New Hall, Cambridge. “The Group” retorts that the dig could be financed by public subscription and funds given by companies who would prefer to give money for a big project like Sutton Hoo than to a number of small ones.

The second argument is more complex. By disturbing the site now, say opponents, it mav be irreparably damaged. Scientific methods of dating, preservation, and interpretation are simply not Sufficiently advanced to cope with a site of such importance. For example, although some substances can be treated to prevent disintegration on exposure to the atmosphere, no foolproof method has yet

been devised for conserving ironwork. “To dig is to destroy,” says one expert who declined to be named. “What is the morality of the destruction of even part of a major European monument?” This argument claims that there has already been too much digging and too little evaluation of the results. This expert says that the “glamorous challenge” of Sutton Hoo has gained ground at the expense of “sober academic evaluation,” and that it would be better to protect the site against rabbits and treasure-hunters until such time as techniques

have been developed which can cope with the excavation.

This attitude is rejected by “the Group” who say that modern techniques are adequate. They point out that the team would make use of field X-rays and other devices alreadv available for giving a three-dimensional picture of buried objects; there would be automatic recording of data fed into a computer; adjustable cradles would be suspended above critical areas to allow excavators to work without damaging buried strata; important deposits would be frozen to allow their removal to laboratories; the site would be covered, and temperature and humidity would be controlled. They also point out that they propose a two-year preparatory phase to perfect techniques before starting on the main project. “It would be typically British of us to argue for the next 10 years while the treasure hunters moved in to loot the place,” says Dr W. J. Rodwell, director of the Committee for Rescue Archaeology in Avon, Gloucestershire, and Somerset, after the symposium on Sutton Hoo had ended.

“I was utterly dismayed by the negative attitude of the audience. With certain exceptions British archaeologists have the unfailing knack of missing the boat, so to speak.” The Anglo-Saxon boat is, of course, the main Sutton Hoo find. Archaeologists under Charles Phillips, a fellow and librarian of Selwyn College, Cambridge, found in 1939 the earth impression of an 89-foot vessel which could

not have been propelled by fewer than 30 oarsmen. It had been built of oak, had a 15ft beam, and a three-foot draught. A gabled cabin had been built amidships. Elaborate accoutrements of gold filigree and garnet suggested the burial of a high-ranking warrior and it is now believed that the vessel was the last resting place of King Redwald of East Anglia. A purse, decorated with seven gold plaques, contained gold coins of the Merovingian period of Continental history which narrowed the burial date to about AD 625. There was also elaborate armour (including helmet, shield, and chainmail), an iron lampstand, a whetstone, drinking horns, Byzantine silverware, cauldrons, and a quantity of weapons. Most of the Sutton Hoo treasures discovered so far are in the British Museum which is currently awaiting publication of the third and final volume of the long, detailed report on the earlier excavation. The museum sponsored the report which is compiled by a team led by Dr Bruce-Mitford. The museum’s director Dr David Wilson said: “We are very interested in Sutton Hoo and have a great sense of responsibility towards it. The view of the trustees, however, is that we should await the publication and digestion of the report.”

By

FRANK ENTWISTLE,

“Sunday Tinies,” London