THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF WOODLAND LANDSCAPES: ISSUES FOR MANAGERS BASED ON THE CASE-STUDY OF SHEFFIELD, ENGLAND AND FOUR THOUSAND YEARS OF HUMAN IMPACT

Abstract

In Britain today not only is there a massive interest in wildlife and the natural world, but in history too. If anything the engagement of local people with history on their doorstep exceeds even that with wild nature. Coverage in the media such as Time Team and Spring Watch for example, reflects these trends. Indeed since Rackham's seminal works in 1980 and 1986, both research and public interest in landscape history have been growing. In which case you might expect that the emerging realisation that many ancient woods hold amazingly rich resources of archaeology and local history, along with their rich wildlife, would be welcomed by all. Surprisingly, many professional archaeologists have shown little interest in wooded landscapes, and in a number of cases were very dismissive of initial claims that these were rich and interesting historic landscapes. Clearly much archaeology is focused on specific fields and the built environment and built structures are for obvious reasons hugely important to them. This observation flags up a deeper problem though. A lack of effective research and recognition of archaeology in woods may mean that the resource is accidentally damaged by management when this could otherwise be avoided. Furthermore, the implications of a lack of understanding of fundamental drivers of woodland environments can result in misinformed management with serious consequences for future conservation. Of direct relevance to arboriculturists is the lack of recognition of the importance of ‘working’ and especially veteran ‘working’ trees. There is a strong case that many of these should be recognised in archaeological and heritage terms as ‘monuments’. So whilst ancient woodlands have been extensively researched and in many cases thoroughly documented (Rackham, 1980; Hart, 1993; Jones, 2003), and despite the enormous public and academic interest, there is a surprising lack of awareness of key issues. Some of these are fundamental influences in the contemporary landscape. Furthermore, the archaeological evidence for these factors and activities often remains enigmatic and under-appreciated. There is a dearth of collaborative research that considers both the ecology and archaeology of such sites. This paper addresses two major problems. The first relates to the fact that most woodland managers, foresters, arboriculturists and ecologists have little experience or training in the recognition or interpretation of archaeological features. Furthermore many (though not all) archaeologists are actively defensive and discourage ecologists from crossing the disciplinary divide. The second problem relates to the critically important issue of what is recognised as ‘archaeology’. As shown by this research and indeed by others before, the soil, the ground and surface features, and the trees and other vegetation may all hold clues to former management and to former landscapes. The history of human activity is deeply etched in these sites and their ecologies. Yet these aspects of wooded landscapes are often ignored by archaeologists, either more interested in ‘monuments and earthworks’ and ‘artefacts’ than earth and vegetation; or they are simply untrained to recognise or value these subtle landscape features. Trained archaeologists tend to recognise archaeology ‘in’ the woods, but not the archaeology ‘of’ the woods. Both a cause and a consequence of this situation is that there is presently almost no literature to guide the would-be field worker or to inform a site manager. This applies to both surveying and evaluating the archaeology of their woodland resource. One of the few workers to address these issues in detail is Nicola Bannister with her pioneering studies in the south-east of England (Bannister, 1996). Her work has included detailed site surveys and has provided conservation guidance for site managers. Research is presented from case-studies in South Yorkshire and North Derbyshire in England; with arguments supported by preliminary observations around Europe. Our main case-study sites are ancient woodlands; in some cases now in the heart of major urban areas, but even here holding landscape evidence over four millennia. Recent work has both raised the level of knowledge of these areas and also highlighted that much of the evidence yet to be formally recognised. Lack of awareness raises the serious need for cross-disciplinary collaboration with effective training and support for field-workers. Many of these ancient woodland landscapes are extremely vulnerable to inappropriate management or to intensive recreational disruption. Often unrecognised they may be lost or degraded very easily and very quickly.