Mark Dion Archaeology
Collecting
The collecting methodology for the first phase of the project was straightforward, and followed the established practice of fieldwalking in order to identify surface finds. Within archeology method, this is usually as a prelude to either a more detailed survey, or excavation; however in this case, the practice became the principle activity for the collection of objects, and reflected the conditions of the River, given that material occurred as a scatter, rather than a stratigraphy. Consequently, the two sites at Millbank and Bankside were selected, and all searching activity took place within identified boundaries. Permission was sought and granted from the Port of London Authority for the gathering to take place. This was agreed on the proviso that no digging below a depth of six inches would be allowed, principally in order to avoid any ecological disturbance in what is now a conservation area.
Prior to, and during the collection phase of the project, and in line with current archeological practice, advice was sought from specialists in a wide variety of different disciplines. Information was gathered from the Thames River Police, from ecologists monitoring the health of the river, historians who could offer insights into past uses of the sites, and from archeologists. In short, Dion, and the volunteers were well appraised of the environment for their activity, and prepared to be open minded about what they might find. This is an important point to make in view of the instructions for fieldwalking. Dion’s brief to the volunteer field work team asked them to adopt what he calls a ‘scatter-gun’ approach, to identify and collect anything that caught their attention – chasing the anomaly in the best tradition of classic archeological method. In this sense a democratic/collaborative process was reinforced, in that the act of collection reflected the individual faculties and interests of twenty five different people.
Because of the tidal patterns of the river, collecting could only take place during two hour time slots. Similarly, collecting times varied from early in the morning to late evening over the two week period of the ‘dig’. The conditions at each of the sites varied enormously, both in frequency and nature of found material, as well as in the changing landscape of the riverbank after each tide.
Prior to, and during the collection phase of the project, and in line with current archeological practice, advice was sought from specialists in a wide variety of different disciplines. Information was gathered from the Thames River Police, from ecologists monitoring the health of the river, historians who could offer insights into past uses of the sites, and from archeologists. In short, Dion, and the volunteers were well appraised of the environment for their activity, and prepared to be open minded about what they might find. This is an important point to make in view of the instructions for fieldwalking. Dion’s brief to the volunteer field work team asked them to adopt what he calls a ‘scatter-gun’ approach, to identify and collect anything that caught their attention – chasing the anomaly in the best tradition of classic archeological method. In this sense a democratic/collaborative process was reinforced, in that the act of collection reflected the individual faculties and interests of twenty five different people.
Because of the tidal patterns of the river, collecting could only take place during two hour time slots. Similarly, collecting times varied from early in the morning to late evening over the two week period of the ‘dig’. The conditions at each of the sites varied enormously, both in frequency and nature of found material, as well as in the changing landscape of the riverbank after each tide.
Robert Williams, Mark Dion Archaeology, Black Dog Publishing 1999