Xander Bykowy
Trent’s Archaeological Field School has been a truly eye-opening experience for me. As a post-grad who had an interest in field archaeology but no practical experience, it has been a shot in the arm as to what I want to do with my life. Though there have been many wonderful moments throughout the course, there is one that really stands apart from the rest, and demonstrated to me what archaeology could do and the sense of accomplishment one can achieve. This moment was Emily and I’s discovery of a cobbled limestone feature in a 1m2 test unit, at site BcGn-15.
It happened over the course of several days, May 15 – 17 specifically. The two of us had surveyed and triangulated unit E665 N765. Then after digging less than 20cm down through an unscreenable layer of mud and clay, we began hitting rocks; rocks that we soon realized were limestone, spread across the entire test unit and were remarkably level. For us, this find was exhilarating. But it was from there that the questions began: What was this? Where did it come from? Was it natural or cultural? And how old? With these questions and some direction from James and Kate, we expanded the unit an additional metre2 southward and realized it continued throughout the expanded unit. From there, it was decided that the following day we would try to lift the limestone and see what was below.
The next day, after lifting the limestone, we found a layer of gravel. This lent credence to our working theory that the limestone feature was not natural. Though, we had to determine where the stones could have come from. With a tip from James, Emily and I went to check out the riverbank for limestone deposits, which we ultimately found a surplus of. This meant that whoever built the stone platform had access to materials less than a hundred paces away. It was at that point that we were able to begin putting the pieces together, and the conclusion we came to was that the limestone feature was cultural and was likely constructed at some point in the later part of the property’s history (circa 1950s-60s). Our conclusion was supported by the discovery of the gravel foundation, the fact that the limestone pieces are mostly small in size, and how close to the surface the feature was.
Ultimately, that was all we could discern from the site alone. But after telling James our findings and our conclusion, he came back the next day with information on what the feature was. It was a staging platform, built around 2010, by some construction workers who were working in the area. And that they did indeed pull their materials from the riverbank to construct it.
This was an incredible experience because it really demonstrated how interesting archaeology can be when you have an undocumented find. You look for clues, and have to interpret your findings to develop a hypothesis and conclusion. But it was combining the fieldwork with the info that James found that really clicked for me. As a history grad, the value of historical accounts and the use of the written word to record events is engrained in my being, and this one find showed me exactly how the two disciplines can work in tandem with one another. How they can both compliment and contradict each other, yet further our understanding regardless. If James had not gotten that info (which is oral history), the closest we would have gotten to the truth was that the limestone feature is likely cultural and was built in the mid-twentieth century. Yet, with the addition of an oral account, we got the exact truth of what the feature was. I hope to be able to use my own knowledge and abilities in both archaeology and history to solve these kinds of problems in my future endeavours.
Leave a comment