Buy my Book! Multiple Bodies, Multiple Dimensions: Digital Ontology and Archaeology by Alistair Galt

Multiple Bodies, Multiple Dimensions

Digital Ontology and Archaeology

This study seeks to understand the relationship between digital ontology and archaeology through a combination of computer sciences and anthropological approaches. Through such concepts as philosophical engineering and eccentric positionality, this study presents the digital realm as a tripartite system, with a reappraisal of the digital characteristics we take for granted in the modern age, particularly in relation to our own senses, which has consequences for how we see the totality of the universe around us. This is fed back into archaeological case studies to demonstrate the radical nature of the digital and how positive feedback loops make the digital so unique in relation to our current reality, and how we should come to understand the digital for future studies.

See link for book launch sale - https://www.morebooks.shop/shop-ui/shop/book-launch-offer/221937051ae3f7940dda20d19f25c4894d2600f3

Also see my Researchgate profile at www.researchgate.net/profile/Alistair-Galt

Hadrian's Wall Polyline v.1

For anyone who needs a polyline for Hadrian's Wall, here it is! Please use this link. I'm planning on refining it in the near future, which shouldn't take too long. As I wasn't able to access more refined information on the wall some of this is educated guesswork based on an OS 1:25,000 map and some Satellite imagery, as well as some other sources. Any students/practitioners of any subject that involves Hadrian's Wall are free to use it, although I would like you to reference where you got it from (i.e. this blog!!) and the problems with the dataset (not accurately referenced, should be used as a rough guide to the location of the wall etc.). It has a few attributes that can be filled in, depending on whether it is Hadrian's or Severan's Wall.

Running free?

In Running Free, Richard Askwith argues that running in a commercial event such as Tough Mudder or Rat Race is not the same as running in a traditional race in, say, an athletics meeting, a fun run or a charity event (I assume as much; he simply says "Big Running wants you to run in a rut (...) But don't let them tell you that's the only option", where Askwith states that Big Running has successfully created a whole new market for runners where the emphasis is on paying a lot of money on both the equipment and for the experience when really you could do all this for much less and possibly for more entertainment).

However, it occurred to me that despite my affiliation with a running club, not spending very much on running gear and nothing on gym fees (except the fell running essentials for about £40, minus trail shoes) and running for the sake of my own enjoyment and not necessarily for the times (except Parkrun), what I had just done today (see date of the article) ideologically amounted to the exact same end product of the antithesis of what Richard Askwith would like us runners to do. Bear with me. Today I ran in the Bamford Sheepdog Trials Fell Race. The race itself isn't important; it had a 300 metre ascent over a 1 mile stretch of a 4.5 miles race, with fantastic views of the Derwent Valley all round at the top. If it wasn't for the narrow path maybe I could've taken a few more runners on the uphill... but I digress. I paid £5 for that privilege. The problem I realised posthumously is that essentially any event you pay for could fall into this "Big running" category. Admittedly in Tough Mudder you pay upwards of £50 for the race itself without the extras, which is a lot more money and very limiting to those with a decent disposable income.

"Big Running" is seen as bad by Askwith as it implies that you are letting capitalism control every aspect of your running life by sanitising the experience into something marketable and "enjoyable" by making you think you are enjoying the countryside whereas really you are rather safe and not actually experiencing the environment. The entrance fee is the most problematic part of this. Askwith would say that Bamford is a charity and not a commercial venture so they are not making a profit out of the race. I would argue that if people are willing to pay for a Big Running experience, then fell runners are just as culpable in paying for an event run by a charity. Most races I attend are run by volunteers and charities, and with the exception of Parkrun, I pay for pretty much all of these. I could  have organised my own event but if I had charged for it surely I would have been culpable too!

However the other argument here is that a charity/volunteer event is much more likely to give back to the community. It gives the communities, often relatively isolated ones, a chance of making some much needed cash for their communities. The Bamford race I mentioned above explicitly states where the money from the fell race goes to, such as the local girl Guides (see here). But it is still within the confines of a capitalist system. It may not be as bad as the commercial ventures but it still legitimises the system and justifies paying for a race. This in itself isn't a bad thing - races can rarely be done for free. However in fell running a large portion of the races are locally grounded, in contrast to the Big Running events, which have little historical association with the areas they are hosted. Relations between locals and the events are not usually the reason why you go to a Big Running event, whereas the nostalgia of running in a fell race sometimes involves an entire village coming out to help organise a race (see the Burnsall Classic). So the simple act of paying for a race entry immediately blurs the community and commercial lines. At what point are you paying for the race organisation, the upkeep of the church, or just lining someone's pockets? This is a very cynical view, and certainly in the fell running scene is almost unheard of. However, I feel this is something that Mr. Askwith could address in a future article.

The second part of this is the branding/advertising of said events. In a similar vein, at what point does advertising an event become branding? Simply having your race on the Fellrunner website in itself may be grounds for branding as you are exposing yourself to market forces (there are a lot of adverts on the site from some big fell running names). However, this argument does fall down a bit as many fell races don't spend money on advertising and often rely on word of mouth more so than Big Running events.

Ultimately the Big Running events are mostly motivated by profit while the charity and local events are run for the locals (no pun intended). At a fundamental level comparing the paid aspect of these different types of events doesn't give us the ideological difference we are looking for. The way they are marketed is better, and Askwith does identify this as a factor. His other factors I don't have a problem with (sanitising the experience, selling merchandise and "the experience"), but a refinement of the differences should focus more on the community of who these races benefit would be a better starting point.

A Hitchhiker's (brief) Guide to the Ontology of the Digitisation of Archaeology

The digital world is one of representation that relies on the abstract use of binary numbers over a computer-based network. We treat the digital as we treat the real world, i.e. in a largely visually dominated environment, so perhaps we can phrase the question as an off-shoot of what is really real and not just visually there. Yet archaeology is uniquely placed to utilise the digital; namely to reconstruct the past. So what is the ontological difference between an interaction with an archaeological object in real life and one based in the digital domain? Are we addressing these challenges in archaeology? By using a philosophical framework I will analyse this question through Jos De Mul's four characteristics of the digital world, and by relating it to archaeology through photogrammetric models and photography.

<change slide>

Humans struggle to visualise the scale of the digital. To quote The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy; “Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space”. Traditional analogies do not work for the digital realm for a variety of reasons; Jos De Mul proposes that a better analogy for cyberspace is space travel as they both contain spatial and temporal characteristics that we don't experience on Earth. For example, if we are recording this session, you could watch this session from another planet and this session could be listened to in the future. However, this argument falls down because you can use analogue technologies to do some of these tasks, e.g. analogue radio. It is also difficult to comprehend digital space - space is an abstract notion of nothingness but also it is situated within our reality. It is possible to travel through space, but you are still subject to physical laws. Nonetheless, outer space is so large and the amount of information we can store in the digital realm is so large that we can perhaps compare the two in this respect. An object that can contain infinite representations can be any size you like, and yet it can contain more numbers than you could possibly count, like a dice with a digital display capable of outputting any number you program it to, while an analogue dice is limited to the number of sides it has. Much like when staring up into the night sky; you can visualise the stars easily enough, but could you count every known star out there? The digital makes it possible.

Thus we should approach digital archaeology similarly, particularly online. Archaeologists have already highlighted the importance of the digital image and its contribution compared to an analogue method, showing how important the professional illustrator is to capturing the complexities of a site. However, many studies focus on just the visual critique of the digital, not the underlying ontology. To balance this critique I propose De Mul's analysis of the digital, which provides four main characteristics; Multimediality, Interactivity, Virtuality and Connectivity.

<change slide>

Multimediality is the combination of words, sounds and (moving) images. Digital information is in its simplest form a binary code. The digital media can then be transported and replicated easily, which puts objects out of their original context. Everything on this screen can be translated into 8 binary numbers, which could then be coded into 256 different linguistic signs, which can then be used in any program which can read a binary code. How well it will work in subsequent programs is a different matter. Aden Evens sees multimediality as an abstraction as well as a manipulation; by capturing information in binary form you are also divorcing the processes of the digital from the temporal and spatial particularities of our reality. In fact, Evens goes so far as to say that it is THE defining feature of the digital as all digital information is superseded by and becomes either 1 or 0; everything or nothing.

Multimediality’s most common function is manipulation, which isn’t a purely digital characteristic. To illustrate my point, one of these images is the raw image, and the other was used in the first Picture Post Magazine in October 1938. Which of these images has been edited for publication? The raw image (on the left) has been “airbrushed” to spare the dignity of the young woman; an early example of an Photoshopped image! However, analogue technology cannot combine visual senses with audio and other senses without resorting to different media sources. The binary code makes the digital different; it allows all of the senses to be used in the same representational platform. In this respect multimediality creates an easier interface between digital computers and humans. I will come back to this point later.

The Picture Post image also demonstrates the media also becomes unstable as they are in flux. The analogue and digital photographs may look the same but they are not structurally identical, as photogrammetry encompasses both traditional photographic methods and digital imaging; yet these media are technologically and fundamentally different. This leads to a common criticism of digital archaeology; de-contextualisation. This is a serious ethical issue that concerns the ontology of the dataset. Multimediality allows us, or a computer, to “Photoshop” an image without us noticing the difference.

<change slide>

The second of De Mul's characteristics, Interactivity, focuses on the way in which the user navigates through the digital. If humans will interact with computers in new ways, then we should investigate how this might be an ontological issue. In this case, interactivity is best described by hypertext; a non-linear network of fragments through which the user can navigate. Unlike a book, where the author has put the words in a set order, you can intervene on a web page or digital medium, such as a computer game. A book in the digital requires no page number; you may navigate them as you please. Evens argues that this is a significant break from analogue media, as page numbers are considered secondary to the text in the book itself. The referents are the text themselves. In a computer game you can determine the actions and outcomes of the game much more so than a book; the player is free to determine the objective of the game. You are free to set the rules of what you are looking for in, say, a photogrammetric model, becoming your own author and creating an unique experience that may be shared with others. It is also possible to do this with board games too; as long as you are create your own rules. What this also shows is that the viewer in a sense becomes an “author” of the work. The original author becomes a creator of narrative spaces that allow multilinear paths to be taken.

Other definitions of interactivity only occur when the audience actively participates in the control of an artwork or representation. Such an example is crowd-sourcing; a photogrammetric model can have multiple contributions of photographs from a variety of users who are contributing to the final product. We see such active examples in Google Earth where models of existing structures have been crowd-sourced, but there is no rigourous way of checking whether a photograph is acceptable or assessing this data against the objectives of a grander strategy. Conceptual models are also used to fill in gaps in the model, which are entirely created in the digital medium, which are true proxies of our reality as there is no true basis in reality for them.

<change slide>

Now we must move on to virtuality. Here it is concerned with, to quote Heim, “an event or entity that is real in effect but not in fact”. In computer sciences reality and Virtuality are considered part of the same continuum. A virtual world is a simulation of a world which is not real in a physical sense but its effects come across as real; think of nausea from flight simulators, or the stories of PTSD effects from drone pilots in an army. Virtual reality takes multimediality one step further by becoming the interface that humans can use to access the digital. However, the consequences for archaeology are far-ranging. Western philosophy has traditionally made an hierarchical opposition between being and illusion, but the digital subverts this opposition. The digital image is created from its representation, which is then used to judge reality, creating a positive feedback cycle where the representation can gain more credence than the original it was based on. We may fall into this trap if we overly rely on the virtual.

What about virtual entities? Jeff Buechner argues that if we see reality as a purely phenomenological experience then augmented reality is any change in the totality of our sensory and cognitive experience that is produced by some form of technology, via addition, manipulation or deletion, thus augmenting reality, like wearing rose-tinted spectacles. This definition excludes hallucinations or illusions, of what is created by the mind but is not real. If virtual entities are modelled on people or objects, what happens is that you question whether the virtual entity is a different entity from the thing it is modelled on, or whether there is only one entity. If we believe the latter statement (there is one entity) then you accept that a recording of said entity is the actual entity, and the actions of the virtual entity are also the actions of the real entity, contradicting the idea that Augmented Reality is not reality but a change to the totality. If you believe the former statement (there are two distinct entities) then you encounter issues of what is natural; our reality or the virtual entity, especially if the latter does actions that may be considered “unnatural” to the former. For archaeology, it is particularly problematic as it is impossible to psychoanalyse the dead; how can you say the real person would have or not have done that action in the past when you have never observed them doing those actions yourself? There are no principles in defining what is considered more ontologically “natural”. This argument creates a form of scepticism which ultimately questions the basis of reality itself; something that Buechner ultimately denies as the image is simply a pictorial representation of an entity. Note however the creation of multiple identities in the digital realm (just look at how many overlapping or contradictory social media profiles you may have), so individuals may not necessarily see your actions in reality in the same way they do with your online presence, even if your actions in reality and the virtual are identical.

What about printing your digital model? A 3D printed model is based on the numerical representation of the object in a virtual environment, which is then converted into a model through a separate process. At what point can you accept the model as a true representation of an object or site? By creating a model you are creating an unique creation. In a certain sense every “copy” is an “original”. Therefore copies are not truly representative of the original work. But what does this mean for the biography of the original as well? Moreover, digital models are often made separate from their spatial and temporal environments, which are often full of human detritus, which may aid our interpretations of the site. This is not to devalue copies, as they can still enhance our understanding of archaeology. Nonetheless in the digital the manipulation of the image has taken precedence over the exhibition value or cultural value of an object, which are both central to how we display and interpret archaeology.

What about the consequences of all this digital data? If our aim is to record the world as it is, then we may reflect on Cripps's statement that “information that goes into databases is far too perfect and too often a perfect view of the world”. This is interpreted as our methodologies of data collection are flawed by being too representative; we are seeing what we want to see. This is difficult to quantify as we extrapolate from an incomplete datasets and this is difficult to scientifically test without having the whole dataset to work with; in archaeology this data is often destroyed before it can be recorded- a catch 22. However, by using the digital realm to record our world we are creating a new world, not just a copy. This is reflected somewhat in the modern/postmodern dialectic of the mimesis/poiesis; i.e. the idea of recreating an object against the idea of creating new ones. The computer is traditionally seen as a modernist ideal; Nelson Goodman argued that an analogue object is impossible to differentiate in a finite manner; it can only be absolute in a continuum, like a thermometer. A digital computer's strengths lie in giving definitive readings and repeatability. Can scientific methods, such as photogrammetry, be used to create new worlds, rather than just recording them? Archaeology's raison d'etre is being a steward of the past, which seems a modernist ideal. However, interpretations from archaeological features are often multilinear, even though we are only trying to record our supposedly unilinear world! This multilinearity is arguably a form of poesis. So not only is the digital realm giving us the space to record our world, but that this “recorded world” is a new world altogether.

<change slide>

The final characteristic, Connectivity, links everything we do within in the digital realm through the medium of the internet. This brief synopsis will highlight some further considerations. As mentioned before digital models are de-contextualised; with connectivity a scenario may arise when a group of schoolchildren are given a tour of a virtual excavation with inhumations in their classroom. Without proper supervision, education or advice from an informed person, the children could start reciting Hamlet with the skulls. Does it matter whether you use an unique model or a copy of the original? Should the digital models be given as much respect as analogue ones? What about virtually teleporting oneself into an archaeological site? Even if you were fully immersed in a simulator, your body is still not on the site, but you may feel the effects as if you were there. Furthermore, this positionality may allow the mind to occupy multiple bodies at once; excavating multiple sites, attending multiple conferences at the same time. A flight simulator isn't real, but the effects of it are. Could our minds cope with multiple spaces? Even today some of these scenarios are possible!

<change slide>

To conclude, is there an ontological difference between analogue and digital models? With apologies to Douglas Adams, The digital space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way to the computer but that's peanuts to digital space. The abstract is made possible and apparent. The digital doesn't work to our laws, and should be treated as such. All information is either everything or not-(everyt)hing. Although the digital is pure representation, the characteristics of multimediality decontextualise everything you record; interactivity makes the participant more of an author of the work. Using nothing more than human interaction the representation of reality becomes the yardstick we use to judge reality itself, creating a positive feedback cycle. It becomes difficult to believe historical characters in a virtual reality simulator. You can break out of your human limitations and experience the world in a trans-geographical and trans-historical arena that surpasses anything possible in the real world, although its effects are apparent. Perhaps the most devastating outcome of this question is whether we are actually using the digital to record the past, or, in using multiple interpretations of archaeology as an analogy, we are creating new worlds altogether that seek to enhance the human experience through the digital medium. This dichotomy of recreation versus creation is perhaps the question that will define digital archaeology in years to come. It all feels real, but that should not distract from the abstract nature of the digital.

An Open letter to Robot Wars

 

An open letter

To whom it may concern,    I am extremely concerned about your next series of robot wars (series 10 or 3, depending on your point of view). I will outline the reasons why I am not going to be watching your next season when it airs in October 2017. For one, you are changing the format of the show, with less robots being used in the upcoming series, thus leading to less fights. By contrast, you had upwards of nearly 100 competitors in a single series of Robot Wars before series 8 (or one, depending on your view) This not only denies spaces to budding entrants who want to spend time and money to enter your show but also limits the action in the arena. If you are looking to attract more people to fight in the arena, who may potentially bring a new weapon or tactic into the warzone, then surely you are limiting the talent pool? Next, and perhaps more criminally, a number of errors keep appearing in your websites and press releases. Behemoth was never a champion, strictly speaking, unless you count the Challenge trophy, which they started with without actually having to fight anyone. Even your website could not make its mind up as to whether you should continue calling it series 9 or series 2, depending on whether you looked at the tab or the actual web page itself. Typographical errors such as these really infuriate the passionate fan, who want grammatically correct sentences. It feels as if you are not employing staff who can sufficiently QA their own work. Either that, or you do not employ staff who are as committed to Robot Wars as perhaps they could be, which is clearly hindering the product. Additionally, your promotional material is not actually allowing me to enjoy your show any more than if I was actually watching it. This is not how promotional material is supposed to work. I cannot remember any of the promotional material from the original series, but currently you appear to be both hiding and revealing things at the same time. You say that there is a new arena threat, but there has been little explanation of it? At the same time your preview demonstrates a robot flying higher than any other robot may ever have done, and from the looks on the faces of the teams this was NOT due to the flipper. This leads me to conclude that either a team has a flipper capable of this (perhaps one we already know or don't know) OR you have lied to us about the arena changes. I suspect the former, which is fine, except that this is indicative of a style of programming that relies on being able to constantly deliver these big shocks, and unfortunately this leads to a certain amount of burnout if there are too many of these types of huge shocks. It may have been better to not show this clip at all, but rather focus on a new house robot or the new arena threat. Until you rectify these issues, I abhor the viewer who is willing to watch a show which contains fewer robots of overall lower quality, while turning the entire format into a parody of the original series 3. If this was your intention, well done. I feel that you are having something of an identity crisis which is ruining the show. In spite of your apparently successful series ratings, I fear you are dragging the show down into a spiralling descent of falling interest, until you realise what the show is all about. Is it a sport or entertainment? Is it going to be the UK Championships, as it used to be, or is it therre to showcase the achievements of schoolchildren alongside amateur and professional competitors? If you really want to hark back to the "good old days", why not employ some of the more unique aspects of the show, such as the non-gladiatorial games they used to do on series 1 and 2, such as the pinball, sumo, football or other games? Even better, attend one of the live, untelevised shows that occur all over the country, like Robots Live and Extreme Robots. This would level the playing field by increasing the emphasis on driver control. Swarm bots might get an advantage in some games but overall I feel this would appeal to many different fans. Yours sincerely, Ali

To whom it may concern,    I am delighted by the changes you have made to the show, and I will make it my mission to ensure that as many people as possible tune in to watch your show. Why do I feel it necessary to express these feelings? Your focus on fewer robots allows people such as myself to really get to know the robots we actually care about. To aid this, your press releases have been useful in allowing us to really get to know the new and returning competitors in a style that fits the tone of the show for the 21st century, while giving a nod towards the somewhat silly yet still dangerous antics of the old series. Although less robots might be seen as a bad thing for the competition if you want constant, no-stop fighting, it really can take you out of a show if all you want is a 60 minute clip of robots bashing each other. It can actually get quite numbing, so spending time in the pits, learning cool information about the world of robotics from the judges and having two of the most engaging presenters in the business really help to create an atmosphere that I can get behind. However, while I enjoy the promotional material, I have noticed a few errors on your website which could be rectified. Now, no one is perfect, but under the circumstances I am willing to accept the errors if you correct them in due course. I believe that the advertising has been very good in showing the current state of robot fighting in the UK. It is in rude health, with new teams, and a new winner of the heavyweight championship every year for at least the last 5 years, for the last 2 these have been brand new robots and teams. Furthermore, the variety of robots out there is arguably better than the US, with their Battlebots, which actually showcases a number of British teams who have also been on Robot Wars. Robot Wars has so far not mentioned Battlebots, and I feel any mention of foreign competition at this moment in time may be detrimental to the product until more time has been spent on any potential collaboration. So overall your advertising reflects the current state of robot fighting well in the UK. While some may bemoan that the show is no longer the original product, all products need to move on with the times. This might lead to the accusation of having an identity crisis but this is still a relatively new product. Top Gear managed about 20 series in the 00's and early 10's, of which a number of the earlier episodes had the same problem with trying to maintain it's earlier identity, ultimately changing into something that was presented differently but was fundamentally the same programme. I feel that Robot Wars is going through the same thing. Robot Wars has the advantage of a 15 year break, so the change can be more pronounced and more reflective of the present day.  Yours sincerely,   Ali

 

ICAP conference 2017: Talking 'bout my Generation

The Chartered Institute for Archaeologist’s New Generation group and Geophysics Special Interest Groups are working with ICAP (the International Conference of Archaeological Prospection) to facilitate a session aimed at Early Career Archaeological Geophysicists* at the 12th International Conference of Archaeological Prospection on Friday 15 September 2017 at Bradford University

.

GeoSIG and New Generation group are able to fund up to four Friday day delegate tickets for presenters for early career CIfA members, thanks to the support of the Institute.

The session will include an Equipment Trouble Shooting CPD training workshop and a number of short papers (approx. 5 mins each) given by Early Career Geophysicists, and intended for Early Career Geophysicists and those who are looking to enter the profession. We are keen to hear from you if you would like to present on the academic/career path that led you to your role, how you gain(ed) experience or what your current role entails. Following these papers, there will be an open discussion for new and experienced delegates to exchange views, ideas and knowledge.

If you have a topic you would like to present, please email your expression of interest using the proposal form to groups@archaeologists.net  by midday Monday 28 August 2017.

For full conference details please visit the website: www.ap2017.brad-vis.com

 *Early career geophysicist in this instance refers only to the time working as a geophysicist, not period since graduation. This is different to the ICAP definition for early career practitioner for the full conference reduced registration fee.

Wibbly, wobbly, timey, wimey ... stuff (Theoretical Archaeological Group conference, Cardiff, 18th-20th December 2017)

If you would like to present a paper at TAG Cardiff 2017 this year, why not apply to our session, Wibbly, wobbly, timey, wimey...stuff! Ask questions about the very nature of our consumerist and digital existence that will even have Tom Baker baffled!

For more information, please visit our session on the TAG website
http://tag2017cardiff.org/2017/07/31/wibbly-wobbly-timey-wimey-stuff/

Or you can listen to the podcast below for an audio version of our session abstract.

Paper abstracts to be submitted to caitlin.kitchener@york.ac.uk or alistairgalt@gmail.com before Friday 25th August 2017.

Festival of Archaeology 2017: Middleton Park Ice House dig

This year, for the Festival of Archaeology 2017, I have decided to talk about the community project I am involved in! The Leeds branch of the Young Archaeologists Club have been running an excavation over the weekend of the 15th-16th July 2017, with a huge turnout of over 40 children and adults!

We were approached by the South Leeds Archaeology Society about the prospect of excavating within the grounds of Middleton Park, where YAC Leeds are based. They had previously excavated the Ice House in Middleton Park to some extent in 2013, but left with more questions than answers (as always seems to be the case!). To the uninitiated an ice house is an old fashioned freezer; a place where owners could put ice before the advent of home freezing. Basically what it says on the tin! They are often found in high class estates, as they were not cheap to build for such a specific purpose! Therefore any entrance needed to not left any light or heat in or else the ice would melt! This ice house in Middleton Park was built by Charles Brandling in 1760, and the ice house existed until 1992. They left the top of the foundations of the interior of the ice house partially exposed but with a large area within the ice house itself not excavated (ice houses tend to be dug quite far into the soil to maintain a cool temperature).

Needless to say we were very excited at being able to run our first ever excavation in the local area, which would be accessible for the kids who come along to the dig. However, because excavations can be very physically tiring for people of all ages, we decided to split the weekend into 4 half-days, so we invited YAC groups from across Yorkshire to turn up for a half-day and contribute to our excavation.

The remains of the Ice House in Middleton Park are a series of brick foundations in  a circular fashion. We believe it dates to the 17th/18th century but there is little information to go on, in the history archives. Its location is actually quite hard to find in the woods, so no wonder there has been little work done to it!

On the first day we had set out the areas where we wanted to dig. We had an area stretching outside of the ice house to try to find the entrance, and a small area in the interior of the ice house, which may have been disturbed by animals, so we wanted to excavate it. We took the trenches to about a foot across the entire area, exposing a new wall that may be the entranceway. Meanwhile, a number of nails, glass bottle fragments and pottery were found across the site, mainly in the entranceway. We also found that the interior of the ice house might be sloping inwards, which would agree with the general shape of other known ice houses.

The second day focused on the possible entranceway, with the interior fill taken down to a lower level and the trenches inside the ice house taken very far down, so far in fact we had to get the adults to dig them! However, some very nice pieces of pottery came up and even some animal bones! This ice house also seems to now be sloping away from the centre; this seems unusual for an ice house. MAybe it has a bulbous shape? The kids helped with site recording, photography, finds washing and surveying after we downed tools. Some of the kids from the Leeds YAC did both days, which was a little bit of a surprise!

I can't say too much more as I'm not writing up the site but it is amazing how many sites there are that could be waiting to be researched and excavated. The aim of the site were to learn more about the ice house, and we know more about the location of the entrance and the shape of the ice house. More importantly, the kids learnt new skills in archaeology, from excavation to site photos, from finds washing to drawing plans and surveying with a total station. However, the story is unlikely to end there. Indeed, there is the possibility of a future dig on the site to uncover more parts of the ice house to further understand the shape and reasons for collapse!

Thanks go to South Leeds archaeology group for their knowledge to the site and CFA Archaeology and YAC for providing tools for the dig!

Terrible TV Review: Digging for Britain, series 5

...and as soon as I declare my hiatus, out comes an archaeology program on the TV that has me tearing my hair out so much that I want to dissect it in a blog post. So that hiatus will have to wait until after you've read this post! Digging for Britain has been going since 2011, and normally hosted by Professor Alice Roberts, sometimes with a co-presenter. They've moved away from site visits by the presenter to getting each dig team to film their own digs to get as many as they can inside an hour for each episode, splitting the country into North, Central and South (more on this later). I was actually in the first series at Binchester with my University course mates back in 2011! That bias aside, this first episode of the latest series had me pulling out my hair and stopping inches away from the remote as a good bit of archaeology was done. Why? Although  all the archaeological sites unto themselves have some amazing finds that are pretty much all unique in their own right, and could happily be expanded upon, sometimes the analysis and the interpretation (or lack of explanation in the interpretation) had me fuming. Or maybe I just misunderstood what they were saying...

One of the issues they had is, as hinted above, is that they are trying to squeeze as many sites into the show as possible. With 10 sites, that's about 5 minutes realistically for each site. There were 6 in this episode, BUT there were a lot of segments involving talking about collections in the National Museums Scotland, which reduced the overall amount of time spent on site. As a comparison, Time Team got one site for a whole hour to explain it in depth, usually over 3 days. Some of these sites had fantastic stratigraphy but I imagine they had to miss out a lot of it because they normally had 3 weeks of filming, which then had to be heavily edited to show the "juicy bits". don't get me wrong, these "juicy bits" are what attract the attention and lead to further investigations, but as an archaeologist, I do wonder how much of the wider picture had to be left out to fit all these sites in, so maybe more programs to fit in the same sites, so they get more time to talk about their sites and some of the other things they've found next time please. Burnswark could have done with more time (or possibly a GIS specialist); two Roman era camps (which could have dated to any period in the Roman era and not necessarily an aggressive military application e.g. a siege) surrounding a hillfort in southern Scotland (presumed early 1st century). They dug the camps (not the forts, interestingly) and found huge quantities of worked stone for slings. They assumed that the Romans made the stones without telling us the provenance of the stones, and simply stated that they must have been fired at the local besieged population in the fort. Why couldn't it be the locals also firing back? I'm aware that the evidence is limited for slings in Iron Age/ Romano-British Britain but it just seems too much like something else is at work here. That being said, they did find a nice stockpiles of sling shot, which probably indicates a reasonably long period of activity for the siege. That being said, the hillfort wasn't investigated at all, and there was no mention of excavating it in the past, or plans to do so in the future, although the area had been fieldwalked. The GIS wasn't used well here at all... there was no way of determining the direction of the shot without some serious assumptions (admittedly quite hard to do), and the map itself didn't differentiate between those shots that appeared to have been fired and those that had been left untouched (either in the stockpiles or otherwise). A bit of use wear analysis fed into the GIS could have gone a long way into making this a much more informed conclusion. Even then, the sheer quantity of sling shot in the area could have been a series of training rounds, as originally the camps were thought to be training bases. Instead, I nearly turned off the TV at this point as this one sites' very selective approach to the wider context of the area was unbearable!! Moral of the story here- assumptions make asses out of you and me. At least the camerawork was reasonable in showing off the sites they did dig, and the experimental archaeology was quite fun to watch on a slow motion camera while informing us that slings are dangerous in the right hands.

Other sites were not so reliant on a quick and dirty approach to interpretation, but probably still have a number of juicy finds that are being missed out for time constraints, as is normally the case with excavations. The hospital at Thornton Abbey could have had a quick map to illustrate the hospital layout on site, because the preservation of the walls and the skeletons are fantastic, but on a video you don't capture the scale of the building, or the position of the skeletons within the hospital. Perhaps even a 3D model? Even a relatively small site, like Loch Arnish in the Isle of Lewis, has only 3 minutes of footage dedicated to it. They spent a good 6-7 hours exploring the underwater landscape and they have probably barely scratched the surface of these island houses (crannogs). What annoyed me on these prehistoric sites is that they didn't even tell us how they could tell it was Neolithic pottery! Even just saying slipped ware (it's not, but as an archaeologist I can say that it is from its appearance) would give the general public a better understanding of these crannogs, which are basically middens (rubbish tips) that was deliberately made into a habitable piece of land. Such sites (including Tells), involving reusing materials to build these "monuments", are not as rare as you think in ancient civilisations, but most are found on land in Europe and the Middle East. Some more discussion on why they thought they built crannogs would have been good, although they did have a good discussion with Professor Alison Sheridan on trade and travel in the Neolithic. Otherwise, a nice showcase of Britain's small but growing underwater archaeology sector.

Lindisfarne, another coastal site, is given a going over by Durham University and Digventures, this time focusing on the famous monastery.  Not the one you can see but the earlier one it replaced. That much is nicely summarised. I won't focus on my worries of Digventures and Durham University cherry-picking Lindisfarne but as if to epitomise my previous argument, a monastery is a massive construction, likely to have a large network economically, socially and politically. Dr David Petts has been on this program before and his experience in summarising the site is evident. Again though, much like Thornton Abbey, I suspect only certain finds were not put on TV to form a particular story, just for time constraints. At least they managed to squeeze in the context of Lindisfarne into the wider history of Britain, with the Viking raids and continuity of Lindisfarne post-793AD.

It is difficult to cover the sheer variety of archaeology in northern Britain, but this program does try, but it is a Sisyphean task. That said, the Hunteston Brooch they describe is a great example of early christian art in British metalwork. Any site on Orkney is going to be unique, to both Britain and itself, as there is simply so much that remains standing. The South Ronaldsay Broch is hardly known outside of Orkney, so it is nice to see it, like Burnswark, getting some much needed attention. Especially as it also demonstrates the reuse of the site from a Broch into a sacred site (with only the bones as supporting evidence). But in discussing the emphasis on the transformation of the site (which apparently takes 17 days!) they have missed out talking about the Broch itself in any great detail. Again, the discovery of bones of various animals makes you wonder what else they found. Bone doesn't survive well on many sites so if bone is being found, what else could have been there? Especially to support such a tentative theory as a sacred site? Why not just a midden with comparatively few animals?

Little Carlton, the last site in this selection, focuses on the recent Saxon discoveries made by metal detectors, leading to a large scale excavation of the area. Here, they finally get it right, showing off the context of the site trenches (albeit by accident), some unique finds and more discussion on the context of the archaeology, in particular the skeletons. It should be said that east to west is a traditional christian practice in burial.The last skeleton they focus on is unusual and merits attention. It also shows us finally why Professor Alice Roberts is an academic, pointing out the knee joint in its incorrect position and this observation gives us a clue into who the skeleton might be. Again though, this is tentative, and relies on the skeleton being a christian to support the hypothesis. Little Carlton is rightly summed up as hard to decipher.

My final thoughts: The definition of north in this episode covers half of the country, from Orkney all the way to Lincolnshire! Even on the northern tip of the East Midlands, that still means that there is a huge amount of land that is covered in this program. This means that either there aren't enough sites to cover the program, which on the face of it is worrying, because it would imply that there is less emphasis on sites in the north. However a more realistic explanation is that there are simply less people. However, this rough guide encompasses 2 countries which have 2 slightly different agendas to archaeology, which weren't focused on in the program. the other problem appears to be that if there is a north, where are the boundaries for the other cardinal points? The previous episode focuses on the West of Britain, but doesn't include the West of Scotland. This also means that the East of Britain won't include a large amount of the east coast of Britain. However, this is covered by the North but also by another recent program from Channel 4 - Britain at Low Tide, which focused on coastal regions with archaeology at risk from the sea. These distinctions are rough guides but could have been better aligned as they don't seem to match current thinking on what the "North" is, in historical or contemporary terms. They could have titled the episode "North and Midlands" and it may have felt a bit more appropriate, but you would still be missing large swathes of Midland area, which are included in the next episode and the last episode. Interestingly, the south is amalgamated into the east and west regions; perhaps this is a deliberate attempt to shake up perceptions of what is east, west and north in Britain? They don't reflect on why they did this but its a nice idea.

Perhaps a little harsh saying it merits "Terrible TV" but sections could be improved as outlined above, particularly with the interpretations, which haven't either been explained fully or just didn't get any decent theoretical treatment, or even simply not stating how the archaeologist knows that it is Neolithic pottery!!. As much as I want to see as many sites as possible in a program, because at the end of the day they are all quite interesting and merit further work, this program demonstrates the difficulties in this program's approach, rather than an in-depth "Time-Team" style approach which has one site dug up for an hour on TV (or maybe longer) and gives you an impressively detailed perspective of a very small area. Other shows seem to fit somewhere between the two on the spectrum.

With that min-rant over now I can enjoy my hiatus... pop over to www.arc-robotics.org.uk for more information on my new joint project!

A Christmas hiatus

I am taking time off from this blog for the foreseeable future, so I can focus on one of my childhood passions, Robot Wars. I will be making blog posts for team ARC as the team's driver. Follow my progress at https://www.arc-robotics.org.uk/. With that, have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Heritage Theory and Practice Conference Summary, 5th November 2016

The Heritage Theory and Practice Conference was a one day event at Leeds City Hall, hosted by Leeds Beckett and Northumbria Universities. It focused on the practical applications of heritage theory (as the name suggests). I attended in my professional capacity; as a largely academic conference I hoped that there would be some commercial input, and that the practice element would contain elements that archaeologists and heritage practitioners at large could take away from the conference. As it was the first time this conference had been run, there was a wide variety of papers, focusing on a number of areas of theory and practices within the heritage sector.

Dr Bernadette Lynch provided the excellent keynote speech, reflecting on her time in Canadian institutions, opening her eyes to how different cultures perceive museum practices in positive and negative ways, but also how museums can be proactive in understanding different cultures. Sounds easy, but the reality of some of the issues museums face was demonstrated by her work as director of the Manchester Museum, where minority ethnic groups were openly invited to have their say on how museums work for them, which had some surprising results, particularly if you see museums as part of a "power-charged set of exchanges", which often manifest as political and social exchanges. She concluded that museums should be used as spaces for "friendly enemies", where you can have conflicting opinions and debate in a safe space, and criticising Scottish museums for not exploring Scottish-ness during the 2014 referendum.

The first session was titled Establishing Heritage, which had papers on the intangible heritage of women during the Upper Clyde Shipyards strikes in Glasgow (by Tara Beale), the Church Heritage Record (CHR) (by Rob Piggott), and the influence of heritage studies on designation practice for listed buildings and scheduled monuments (by Claire Price). This session was the one I was professionally most interested in as understanding the forces at work in defining our HERs allows you to think about what could be missed out- what about feminist heritage, for example? Often the HERs and the CHR (which both feeds into and uses the HERs but is used by the Church of England and the Church of Wales, some 16,000 entries to date) is biased towards the architectural records, rather the social significance of the entry; a hangover from when the first legislation for scheduled monuments was made in 1882 (The Ancient Monuments Act). There was also some discussion on to what extent the bureaucracy involved in church heritage records are dictated by the legality given to it by being a "servant of the state" (i.e. Historic England's position as a part of government).

The second session Participatory Approaches in Heritage Practice, with a presentation by the Bam! Sistahood project (by Rosie Lewis and project volunteers, The Angelou Centre), which looked at how a successful project focusing on ethnic minorities can be easily mishandled if it's done from a top-down approach. While museums can help with these projects, empowering minority communities by discovering their own heritage and presenting it in a unique manner that doesn't necessarily have to be recorded. The focus on training, sharing information and creating safe spaces for women have proved to be good ways of getting women from minority groups to come together and explore their own heritage in North East England. The other paper in this session was by Tara Beale on travelling show-people in Glasgow, and how their heritage has been preserved in a collaborative project with Glasgow museums, which also led to reinterpretation of a small number of the museums collections!

The third session, Rethinking Heritage, had a theory-heavy paper on the Museum as a deep map (by Adrian Evans). This explored architecture's relationship with landscape in the modern world (as a detached entity), and used this as an analogy with museum collections, with an implicit objectivity and variety of presentation and preservation techniques, including narrative. The most important aspect was how much you interpret an artefact- too much and you lose the mystery of the object. Too little and you risk  going into pataphysics and escapism (the science of imaginary solutions). The deep map allows a narrative to be built up as layers, thus you regain the identity of the object within it's locality. The other paper by Taras Nakonecznyj, focusing on his work with the Cockburn Association, Edinburgh's Civic Trust, and their attempts at promoting Edinburgh's architectural heritage to a wider audience using social media. With Edinburgh's cultural heritage being prioritised by the council, potentially threatening the historic aspect of Edinburgh and endangering it's World Heritage status, this could be an interesting case study for the rest of the UK.

The final session was Immersive heritage, which felt more like an outlet from the Annual Student Archaeology conference, with a mixed bag of quite fun and interesting papers, but with less of a critiquing theoretical focus. However, these works should be commended as they had no research frameworks to fall back on. There was a paper on ghosts by Alison Edwards, who argues that as a phenomena has been criticised too much for being a pseudo-science (with a top-down approach) and a number of valuable points can be taken away from her exercise (people who actively hunt ghosts themselves often do so as a reaction to feeling left out of mainstream heritage interpretations, much like minority ethnic groups) and the way ghost tours are marketed and organised could be used as a model for archaeology and heritage. However the statistical analysis of the tour was a little thin on the ground. Rhiannon Pickett presented her work in collaboration with the Nottingham County Gaol, where new research into the lives of the inmates and workers there allowed for an impressive overhaul of the interpretation of the museum, although there was conflict in what information should be on display to the public. The final talk of the day was given by Lisa Traynor, who looked at reconstructing the events of 28th June, 1914, when Archduke Franz Ferdinand was killed by a bullet. The question she sets out to answer is "Could the archduke have survived?" (with body armour available at the time). She isn't trying to re-imagine the historical events but to see if the silk body armour at the time could have stopped a bullet from the weapon it was fired from (at 2 metres). The results will be released on BBC 4 in January 2017.

Overall this conference (which was free to attend) provided a good platform for debating current heritage issues in the UK. It touched on a number of pressing concerns and I feel I can take away points that will feed into my own commercial projects. While it was overwhelmingly academic in outlook, there were commercial archaeologists who made the effort to go and make sure that our voices were heard, and that relations between University researchers and professionals are healthy.

Protecting Westminster Abbey and the Houses of Parliament

A couple of years ago the Right Honourable MP Chris Grayling stated that "if we ended up having a debate about alternative venues for this House, we would very proably find 650 different arguments being made". As it is being highly recommended that MPs have to now move out of Westminster Abbey, a number of alternatives are having to be looked at, and a location outside of the M25 isn't not completely out of the question. There is absolutely nothing in the constitution of the British government that says we can't have parliament being held anywhere else. They could debate in my back garden (all 5 metres of it) and if all the relevant people are present and the protocol is followed, then constitutionally any laws passed there and then would be as valid as they would be in Westminster.


What do we know of the history of Westminster Abbey and the site of the Houses of Parliament? This is a very quick rundown taken from the official westminster abbey website and the Houses of Parliament website. Founded by Edward the Confessor, who had it dedicated to St. Peter, near the site of a benedictine monastery. Previously there had also been a Saxon church on the benedictine site. It has been at the centre of British monarchy for almost a millennium, as Edward was buried there in 1065 and William the Conqueror was crowned there; only 2 kings haven't been crowned in Westminster abbey. It's called Westminster because St. Paul's was in the Eastminster. The original church was mostly replaced by a gothic structure under King Henry III. Subsequent additions by Henry VII and even later in the 18th century with Nicholas Hawksmoor.

Meanwhile, the Palace of Westminster (the current seat of the government) was established by King Cnut in the early 11th century. The layout of the palace, and in particular its relation to the abbey, has not changed dramatically over the years. For example, the placement of different courtyards. The old courtyard was also where Robert Catesby, Guy Fawkes and co. rented one of the houses which ran in a row across the centre of the yard and actually tried to tunnel through to the House of Lords through the Old Yard before discovering the cellar under the House of Lords!! The New Palace Yard was built by William Rufus and It now conceals a five-level underground car park with space for 450 cars, constructed in 1972-4. An archaeological investigation undertaken at that time yielded much information about the history of the Yard. In particular, it revealed the octagonal base of a large canopied fountain built in 1443 by Henry VI.

The old monastery was dissolved in 1540 by Henry VIII, who then erected Westminster into a cathedral. However the abbey was refounded by Elizabeth I, and these clergymen had important functions within the civil government of Westminster until the 20th century. The whole complex of Westmnister suffered partial damage during the Second World War but could have been much worse. This wasn't the first time fire had threatened the Abbey- in 1834 a fire in the Houses of Parliament gutted both houses of parliament but the Abbey was prioritised and also saved by the change of direction in the wind!

Today, the building is in a dire state, but not through lack of trying. Rodents have taken up residence (not good, particularly considering food is prepared on site), not to mention the antiquated heating, ventilation, water, drainage and electrical systems combined with extensive stonework decay, leaking roofs and the external fabric could collapse into the Thames if there's a big storm (disclaimer: this last fact based on its perilous position next to the Thames rather than any report information). And not forgetting the biggest risk in working inside old buildings-asbestos. Lots of it, in perilous and dangerous places near where people are working. Asbestos related cases are being reported from people who worked inside Westminster, who could now sue the government for allowing them to be exposed to asbestos (from an article in the Metro, 24th October 2016). Would you want to live and/or work in a place like this? If it wasn't for the history, architecture and cultural surroundings, of course...

The main source of contention (I suspect) is the cost of repairs. Much like any big project the final costs are yet to be worked out but it somewhere between £3.1bn to upwards of £7bn. Now, if they go for the cheaper option, all MPs and other residents (if there are any) would have to move out. But where to? Coming back to the Right Honourable Chris Grayling, he may have a point. Everyone could legitimately have a space that could be used in their constituencies.

So how to resolve this issue? Find a space that everyone agrees on? The Thames? There are genuine plans for a floating Houses of Parliament as a temporary space while restoration happens, connected to the Westminster banks. It should be said they are not confirmed at this stage, but the architects, Gensler, appear to have called it Project Poseidon. One wonders how this would fit into the setting of the central London character, which has been recently described as under threat from modern development. However, the advice given is just that, advice. It is up to the archaeologists, councillors, MPs, developers and other interested parties to create that dialogue to preserve our heritage in a suitable way. That said I'm not against a floating Parliament, it is forward thinking and flood proof (to a point). The National Assembly of Wales and Holyrood are modern buildings that are arguably more suited to modern democracy. My personal favourites for potential new locations are the St. George's National Football Centre, seeing how it is barely used (from my understanding), or one of the many empty mills in Bradford, to kill 2 birds with one stone (regeneration in Bradford and attract more income to the local area, badly needed). Or an abandoned mine shaft? Save on heating bills with underground heating... A lot of arguments for leaving London rest on the distance travelled by many MPs to London, and that a more central location in the UK would resolve this. However, there are just over 70 MPs in London out of 650 MPs. With this number set to decrease by the end of the decade, will it make a less London-centric location more feasible? Other major cities like the West Midlands region (Birmingham, Coventry, Wolverhampton etc.) (28) or Greater Manchester (26) enjoy less MPs, even when put together. So that's a large chunk of MPs who would all have to travel out of London to get to another destination. Or buy a second home...

Furthermore, its World Heritage Designation is great for highlighting its cultural value to the city of London, but this is not a barrier to funding or stopping maintainence. It is simply a sticker stating its importance in global culture as approved by UNESCO, the United Nation's education and culture sector. Therefore, any changes to the fabric of the building should be in keeping with its cultural value to the city of London, although this statement includes the setting of the buildings as well as their 

Another threat to consider are groups like ISIL, who are now a major threat to global cultural heritage, including Westminster. Supporters of ISIL seem to support the idea of "If you're not with us, you are by defintion against us". An interview with the BBC's Dan Cruickshank confirmed this, and this makes the Houses of Parliament, a symbol of democracy for western governments, arguably even more of a target than before the 7/7 attacks 10 years ago, when there were less organisations committing iconclastic acts. UNESCO has recently recognised this threat with the Unite for Heritage Coalition in Bonn, which is designed to strengthen the mobilisation of governments and heritage stakeholders in the face of deliberate damage to cultural heritage. So with this Westminster and the Houses of Parliament must evolve against these threats, either physically or through other means. However, other threats, such as the immediate condition of the Houses of Parliament, must be addressed first.

This is an excellent opportunity to answer a few research questions about the archaeology and history of Westminster. What about the site before the creation of the palace? The abbey was nearby but not directly underneath the palace. Was it chosen as a natural high point on the Thames bank? Get some archaeologists in and dig up a few mass graves while we're at it! However, we have to weigh up the cost of more people walking around Westminster while it is still functional, which would help in explaining how archaeology works to the users of Westminster and visitors, or going for the cheaper and quicker option and hope that the archaeologists get to explain their findings to the public. My gut feeling says the latter but for the sake of saving money (especially as it would look very bad on the current government); archaeologists should proactively seek ways of investigating and publishing their findings to the wider world while the repairs are being carried out.

Finally, it would be nice if Westminster Abbey was given some climate change resistant upgrades. Maybe a rising water barrier?

Robot Wars 2016 review, episode 6 (Final)

After 5 weeks of pure carnage and controversy, of audiences and announcers, of rising stars to fallen giants (ok, that was meant to rhyme, but if you pronounce the nt's as r's it works...), we are at the final of the revamped series of Robot Wars!! Now for my own text based commentary, one week late (because mainland Europe doesn't show the BBC).

The intro sequence, I'm fairly sure it's re-hashed from the previous intro sequences, with a bit of  extra voice over from Dara and Angela. Dara sums up the previous episodes nicely in one sentence! Although he misses out the spikes in summarising the perils of the arena.

So we have TR2, a thoroughly enjoyable robot to watch with the youngest driver. Carbide, probably the most popular! Apollo, with a very powerful flipper. Shockwave, who shocked us by beating Thor. And Shockwave, the controversial winner of the last episode after being beaten in the heats. Nonetheless, there is one spot left for the runners up. And the judges have gone for... Thor!  Good to see at least one former Robot Wars competitor. Now we see the format for the episode- group battles, followed by another set of head to heads.

Group battle 1: Pulsar, TR2 and Thor. Possibly the less destructive of the 2 group battles but could be tactically very interesting. TR2 seem a bit nervous about the fight. Thor has the experience but can it survive more flips and hits? Pulsar are possibly the weakest one in here, especially with their motor issues!

Judges get the first view of the night there just before the battle. Shropshire, Northampton and Gateshead, a distinctly midlands/northern battle we have here! Shhhhunt and Dead Metal, the brothers of brutality, take their positions in the arena. And off we go (with some odd gestures from the cockpit)!! A direct reference to the controversy fro Pulsar. Thor  moving round the most but currently no real damage being done, but Pulsar is already having problems with the motor. TR2 misses with the flipper! Second time lucky and Thor goes over! TR2 on top here, sending Thor to all sides of the arena.  Pulsar has been flipped and will be lucky to progress any further, but Thor is picking a fight with Shunt! Not a good idea... TR2 still not perfect on the flips but they constantly applying pressure onto Thor. Pulsar may have been counted out here, but not before causing some damage to Shunt's axe!!! TR2 very impressive overall, a slightly disappointing battle but TR2 demonstrating their credentials. Pulsar unlucky but I'm not sure what else they could do. Sounds like those flips Thor took have shifted bits inside it. Again those graphics aren't very clear. I can sort of tell that Pulsar is out...

Group battle 2: Carbide is worried about Apollo? They should be fine but they're not sure with Apollo in their heat. Apollo have a simple plan, but maybe they can just go for the house robots?? Shockwave maybe have a disadvantage in not having the most powerful weapon, but they have this worked out! They think they do anyway...

Again, Shunt is in, but now we have Sir Killalot. A challenge for Apollo? Will we have lift-off for the knight of the realm? And Carbide go for Shockwave! But Shockwave are able to get underneath Carbide and the power of Carbide's weapon TAKES OUT PART OF THE WALL!!! Typhoon 2-esque that is........ 2,500 rpm is less than Pussycat's circular saw but the momentum on that bar is so powerful, it's taken the wall clean out... meanwhile, the the camera just caught the moment Carbides hit Shockwave's side and hit the tyre and its protective cover, doing a ridiculous amount of damage, so much so that it would be almost impossible to repair in a day, never mind 2 hours!! Carbide, setting the "bar" (sorry) high there. Apollo did almost nothing  in the few seconds that fight happened. Turns out Professor-god Noel Sharkey likes his carnage the Typhoon 2 style.

Head to Head 1: Carbide v Thor. Some interesting modifications to try to counteract that incredible bar weapon, even adding his special axe. 

.... I'm sorry, I can't write and watch this match at the same time. This is incredible. Carbide just ripped Thor to shreds. Literally... That was MADNESS!!!! Every time Carbide hit Thor, whole bits came off Thor, even the defences added onto Thor came off fairly quickly. Can Thor be repaired in time??? That is so destructive, Thor may not be able to compete any more in this episode!

Head to Head 2: Apollo v TR2. Flipper v Flipper. I've vented my anger about flippers but these two have been the best flippers in this series and both of the teams are really enjoyable and have added a lot to the series. Who will fly? TR2 starts better,and  seems to have the better ground clearance, but once Apollo gets his mark, they almost send TR2 out of the arena! Instead, Dead Metal has some fun. But now, TR2 turns the tables and Apollo is forced to TRY TO FLIP DEAD METAL... but fail. Just!  This is very back and forth here. Neither has a clear advantage here, but they are both running out of power... but wait, TR2 is flipped on its backside and TR2 is struggling to self right!! It must have been counted out there. TR2 came so close here to finishing the fight... That was a great spectacle to watch! Great camaraderie between the teams, that could be one of the fights of the series.

Head to Head 3: Carbide v Apollo.

Jeeezz!! A massive hit on Carbide by Apollo. I think Apollo have a chance here.... but wait, they're not moving... oh no... they've taken too much damage in that ONE hit from Carbide! Carbide were flipped over but that was some hit, even only on half power. A cheap shot at the end from Carbide, but it looks like Apollo could still get to the final.

Head to Head 4: TR2 v Thor. Wow, Thor has been completely rebuilt! That's a fantastic job in under 2 hours. 

TR2 seems to have the measure of Thor here, forcing them around the arena. But that axe is a good schrimech. What a push and flip from TR2 to throw Thor at Dead Metal!! Nicely done. I really can't see Thor coming back from this. And now Matilda's tusk flip Thor! A rare piece of poor driving from Thor. You can actually hear the axe hitting TR2 at times. Thor seem to be getting back into this but they are hit by Matilda's flywheel!! That's a HUGE hit! Are they immobilised? No, Thor manages to restart itself. But it is taking flip after flip from TR2, the floor flipper and finally Matilda's tusks take Thor clean out the arena! Finally, nearly 20 years after her debut, those tusks show their potential. Well done TR2, a commendation from Professor Sethu! Surely the youngster from TR2 will do engineering at Uni? That is one fine robot he has there.

Head to Head 5: TR2 v Carbide. Surely Carbide don't need to do very much here? Can TR2 do any better. Some good insight from the dad of the team, maybe some good tactical advice. Oooof! TR2 take more hits than Apollo and are still moving, but Carbide and ripping that flipper apart! After Sir Killalot has a nip on TR2 they hit the pit release and Carbide have now lost power and the bar HAS STOPPED MOVING!! I am getting goosebumps, TR2 still have enough of a flipper to flip Carbide! The arena flipper gets Carbide. Shunt gets Carbide! The crowd is behind TR2 here! TR2 is struggling with its turning circle but Carbide is next to useless and without their bar their driving and control has been appalling! TR2 push Carbide into Shunt...and he has Carbide on its backside...but not long enough to not go to the judges. They almost certainly have at least 2 points, do TR2? That may well be the best match of the final, but how on earth did TR2 survive that incredible punishment? Angela sums it up nicely by starting with "Unbelieveable"! And she reveals that the 2 points go to TR2! If Apollo mess up, TR2 will have a rematch with Carbide. A good observation from Dr. Lucy Rogers showing how Carbide tried to use the floor flipper to overturn. Even Carbide took internal damage! Great underdog victory for TR2. At this point even I'm going for TR2!

Head to Head 6: Thor play for pride, Apollo for so much more. Hah, Zombie Thor... nice to see Dara getting support for Thor. A nice tribute from Apollo to Thor. Interesting that Dara and Angela are watching from the cockpit with TR2.

No mention of the house robots! However, the fight is very quick, with Thor being very quickly flipped around by Apollo, the back end came off and finally the floor flipper sends it onto its back. There isn't any power left in it and Apollo win with 3 points. After that slightly anti climatic match we now have....

Final: Carbide v Apollo. Arguably the most destructive robots (at least one of them has been the most entertaining). Carbide have the advantage, but how much damage has TR2 done to Carbide? I agree with Dara. This is reminiscent of my classic fight, Chaos 2 v . Hypno disc.

Ahh!! Carbide and Apollo hit front on. Anotehr HUGE hit, but this time, crucially, Apollo survive and something flies off the arena floor!! Carbide have the advantage, managing to knock plates off Apollo, but they're superficial, but not for very long!! Apollo manage to stop Carbide by getting behind it into the CPZ!  Carbide are in real trouble now!!! When they're flipped, the bar isn't working.... and Apollo has the advantage here, almost flipping Carbide out several times!! They eventually activate the pit, and Apollo start to run out of steam. Carbide manage to flip themselves over, but not before Shunt gets some hits in there. At the end Carbide are slowly eaten by Apollo's flipper while Shunt hit the armour with his axe. That's a close one... I think  Apollo have this but that damage may count against them. A special mention to the crowd, when they're their moment, you can almost feel their passion and enthusiasm for the fights! I've said before many of them are probably old enough to remember the old series, but now they aren't using stock footage of the crowds, it definitely adds something in the final.

The judges have to make the decision as it goes all the way... and it goes to.......

Apollo!! Much like Chaos 2, they overcome the incredible destructive power of their opponent by going flipping mental, being more aggressive and ultimately being the better robot (once it could withstand those hits). Congratulations. I would have preferred a Cassius v Panic Attack style finish with the underdog winning by beating the flipper bot, but one could argue Apollo was technically the underdog ther for losing in the head to head. I guess I'm just bitter about flippers, although Apollo is a deserving champion. Especially one that can take on anyone, even the house robots!!

So next year, we have to see even more powerful (and more reliable) weapons to take on those flippers! A flipper as champion will give them the glory but Carbide did well until those last 2 fights to show that destructive weaponry is definitely a viable alternative. Here's to next series!!