A history of Robot Wars and why the reboot could fail (as much as I want it to succeed)

12 years ago, Channel 5 showed the last episode of Robot Wars, which was a cult favourite among a large number of millenials and nerds/geeks. Repeats have occurred sporadically on various free to air tv channels, but no new official series has been on TV since then. With a huge amount of merchandising, it was in the mainstream conscience right through the millenium, it inspired kids to think that the future will be fun and all about large chunks of metal hitting each other really hard (alongside Techno-Games, which tried to be more about the sporting benefits of robots, but it had a couple of robot wars competitors in there too). It even inspired a small number of individual episodes from later TV series such as Phoenix Nights, where they decide to host a Robot Wars themed evening at the Phoenix! Now, the BBC, who originally made the series before 2002, are bringing it back, promising to be bigger and better than before. What made it so successful then? Will it be susccessful now?

To start with, the feel of Robot Wars has always been one of a dystopian, Mad-Max style future, where only the fittest robots survive. It doesn't matter if it's appropriate for kids or adults, they just want blood (or in this case, Diotoir on fire?). Just look at the first series and some of the challenges they had: a gauntlet that wouldn't look out of place in Smash TV from Total Recall, including a somewhat obsolete Sentinel (an unofficial house robot?), a tug of war against the house robots and finally a fight to the death between the competitor's robots. These are not dissimilar to some scenes in various post-apocalyptic films. Ok, not all the events were dark in their concept, there was a football themed and a bowling alley challenge, which were more harmless compared to the tug of war, although one couldn't help but think of the underlying overtones of the atmosphere while the robots were trying to do their thing. The atmosphere was enhanced by the intro sequence and music - all metallic and dark colours, music that is given a retro refit from the Mars-Bringer of War out Holst's Planets suite, in itself made during World War One. Very fitting, in one sense! Speaking of House Robots, they had a life of their own, from the almighty Sir Killalot to the wacky Cassius Chrome, who arguably made the show distinct from the USA counterpart, where there are no real comparisons to the house robots.

The presenters themselves contributed a lot to the show, with their wit and insight into the battle. How they came up with all those phrases at the start of the show before settling on "master of mayhem" I will never figure it out! Each presenter bought their own opinion to the show, although of course Craig Charles as a happy-go-lucky and enthusiastic presenter, along with Phillipa Forrester are the most memorable for being the longest serving hosts (and Jonathan Pearce as commentator, although the judges are harder to remember). In terms of technical knowledge I actually prefer Jayne Middlemiss over the other 2 presenters, since she was a bit more competitive than Julia or Phillipa, but that's personal preference. Their clothing was sometimes a little outlandish (Craig Charles's overcoat was a classic over-the-top look) but what got me thinking most about the comparison to Mad Max was Phillipa Forrester's slightly revealing corset in the Fifth Wars. Whether that was an inspired choice by herself or by the costume department to add to the atmosphere we may never know, but I think it added a deliciously dark (if slightly sexy) undercurrent that you only find in Mad-Max, where the only thing you are doing is surviving, and if you're not being killed, you are killing. If you think Phillipa was tame in her outfits though, look no further than the mighty Robo-Babe, who made live appearances and the official magazine but never actually made it into the TV series (possibly for the best, given that you can see some non-PG bits in that armour)! I'm not sure Robot Wars would have been shown on the 6:45 Friday evening slot if she was on it. She even had a single with Sir Killalot, you be the judge of how good/bad it is...it didn't make the top 50 when it was released back in the day. I have reservations about Jonathan Pearce, but he put the cherry on this very dystopian cake by having some memorable moments, such as Hypno-Disc's first filmed fight in the arena, his infectious cackling laughter as Hypno Disc made its name by eating the poor Robogeddon (but just listen to that spinning disc, how terrifying, how much it adds to the incredible atmosphere of the match!). However, there were a number of times when he would say something that didn't make sense, like a weapon that wasn't working when in fact it was, or if he failed to notice when a robot wasn't working. Nonetheless, all these factors together made for an excellent spectacle, even if the live performances and the televised stuff were not always in sync.

In terms of weaponry, I've always seen Robot Wars a bit like football- a tactical evolution between defence and attack, or in this case, destructive weaponry (spinning discs) versus flippers, with ram-bots pretty much all but outlawed now (you have needed at least one active weapon since the 6th series). As flippers got better (starting with Cassius, the Hades/Lucifer of all robots for beating Roadblock... carrying on with Chaos 2, Gravity, Thermidor etc.), other robots had to counter flippers with schrimechs or innovative designs. Alternatively, robots have had to counter the incredible destructive power of robots like Typhoon 2, 13 Black, Pussycat, Razer, etc. This battle looks set to continue into the new series, with some returning robots and new designs, but it looks like there may be more emphasis on complete destruction.

Was it/is it dangerous for the participants? The first series of Robot Wars was hosted by a bullish Jeremy Clarkson, who had a witty retort for every robot that came into the arena. However it turns out that the theme of the post-apocalypse memo was taken a  bit too literally by at least one house robot, whose weapon detached itself and nearly embedded itself in Jeremy Clarkson's head, despite him standing on the gantry!!  This theme of near death experiences seems to have carried on into the new series too. Start as you mean to go on... However the new arena has considerably more bullet proof glass, and given the power of these new robots that's probably for the best!

To my left, the old arena in gauntlet form.  To the right, the new one (credit to the robot wars website for the latter image).

So why do I worry for the new series? Until we see the new show in its entirety then it's hard to judge. However it might be trying too hard to be too many things. Let me explain. Does the new series want to be an exact copy of the original series? If so, they've done well to bring back a number of old competitors, keep the arena largely similar to the old one, with the spikes from the 1st series added to the flame pit, flipper and pit from the later series (with some much needed changes like a wall that stops opponents winning by flipping the robots out of most of the arena and a floor made of steel, not wood), keeping at least one of the original judges and having Jonathan Pearce as commentator. However, we live in a time where nothing can be forgotten, and any fault in the new series will be compared to the old series, particularly any controversies (can they top Tornado's anti-pit device?). If I'm going to be pendantic, I was surprised that they've decided to put Robot Wars on a sunday night 8pm slot, rather than the friday evening-prime-time-so-you-have-to-scoff-your-dinner-down-really-quickly-so-you-can-watch-robot-wars time of 6:30pm. To be original is actually one of the hardest things to do, so any new ideas that give the show a boost should be seen as a good thing if they work. But, with the new advancements in technology, a few considerations come to mind. For one, the technological differences from even just a decade ago are so great and the rules have changed so much (a new weight limit, limitations on weapons etc.) make it difficult at best to compare old with new. Even the returning competitiors have made significant alterations to their robots, and that's not even mentioning the house robots, who are all now a lot heavier, meaner and more dangerous! Further, we probably won't have any relatively weak robots like Granny's Revenge or Robogeddon, so will we see any one-sided carnage on that scale again? Will this make it less exiting for not having such memorable moments as the competition could be so tight that it will only appeal to those people who actually enjoy the tactical battle that was determined by the criteria of style, control, damage and aggression? Can the presenters bring their own unique style to the arena like the previous presenters did? 

That said, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Maybe the old ways have to be emulated because nothing is better than the original. However, Robot Wars was far from perfect, particularly some of those camera shots missing some of the action.

The new presenters, Dara O'Briain and Angela Scanlon, could be an excellent partnership, especially since Dara has a similar career path to Craig Charles before his run (comedy, with a bit of extra documentaries on the side), and judging by Angela's relative anonymity, she could well be an up and coming star. She has already made an appearance or two to talk about the new Robot Wars on talk shows. She seems to have the charisma needed to put people at ease before going into the arena, which is something that Phillipa and Julia arguably had (on screen anyway). It looks like it could work, but it's always hard to predict. With Jeremy Clarkson leaving after Series 1, history shows that nothing is set in stone in Robot Wars.

Ultimately the pros currently outweigh the cons- the build up has been largely focused on nostalgia but with such large technological developments, a lot of the newer competitors look like they could put on quite a show, so long as there aren't too many technical issues! The new arena should give us more action (and less flips out of the arena), and the presenters seem promising. Nostalgia could be the biggest weight around the neck of Robot Wars (see the revamped Top Gear, with falling ratings and presenters leaving).

Watch this space for a review on the new series after it has aired!

The EU: should British Archaeologists Vote to Stay In or Leave?

In June 2016, the UK public will get to vote whether we stay in or leave the EU. In my last topic on voting and archaeologists, I concluded that there are too few of us to have an impact on policy. However, what we stand for as a profession is something that affects everyone, namely the preservation of archaeology, informing and educating the public about its importance and how archaeology and heritage can contribute to wider society as a whole. Some of these topics look ike they're irrelevant for arhcaeology but I'll try to justify their inclusion.

Before I start I want to make a distinction between archaeology and heritage, as they overlap but are not the same. Archaeology is the study of past human activity while heritage is all inherited resources which people value for reasons beyond mere utility (or usefulness). Often these are used interchangably, particularly in the modern contexts. 

Immigration:

 How does archaeology and heritage come into this debate? This should be a moot point as archaeology has demonstrated time and time again that migrations are part of our human existence. Modern migrants are seemingly demonised to deflect away from a country's problems, particularly illegal migrants, who themselves may have a entirely moral and ethical justification for emigrating e.g. Syrians from ISIS, various African nationals from civil war in their own countries, Afghanistani migrants from Taliban etc. and yet have no way of proving that they are fleeing from a genuine threat e.g. no passport or id, no family in other countries etc.. The Palmyra arch erected in London in April 2016 should be evidence enough, as it demonstrates how globalised we have become. It is not only a symbol of defiance against a truly barbaric, Mad Max-style regime (ISIS, not Syria, although one could argue the case for both sides) but also (indirectly) that migrants affected by ISIS have been permanently uprooted from their homes. Although many would like to return to the Middle East (as I would expect many westerners would if a radical terrorist group associating itself with an atheist ideology started taking over capital cities across the world with a fancy social media campaign and armed guards, killing anyone who doesn't fit into their ideals of the "ubermensch" and forcing you out of your home by cutting off your power and water supplies. Yes, I just compared ISIS to the Nazis. So sue me), I could spill a lot more ink on the reactionary policies of the EU and the UK (i.e. waiting for the event to happen and then respond to it) but I would tangent from the main topic quite badly. Anyway, back to archaeology and heritage in migration. The law in the UK defines those who are stateless (very unlikely in the modern day), those are claiming asylum (can be both), amongst others (there are a lot of categories). We do have a points-based system but it is used for those who wish to live permanently. European law has the Schengen area, which allows free movement between various member states (including some countries outside the EU), which the UK hasn't been a part of since 2000.

International treaties, on the other hand, get a bit more fun. Anything to do with UNESCO, such as World Heritage Sites, The Hague Convention (1954), that makes signatories give a moral obligation to protecting cultural property in the event of armed conflict (Libya and Russia are signed up, just saying...); these wouldn't be affected. Interestingly we weren't part of the Hague Convention until recently, so no wonder the British Government doesn't share the same sympathy that the public does for the war with ISIS, it didn't have a moral obligation to protecting threatened heritage!! The Valetta Treaty (makes the conservation and enhancement of the archaeological heritage one of the goals of urban and regional planning policies) is part of the Council of Europe, not the EU, so this wouldn't be affected either. So we'd still be weighed down by moral responsibilities to World Heritage sites and to responsible planning which includes appropriate setting and character of a place, not destroying old buildings if you can help it (enshrined partly by the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, which covers listed buildings in the UK). However what might change is the opportunities provided for archaeologists and students in particular to participate in funded or volunteer schemes across Europe. The Erasmus + fund (previously the Leonardo da Vinci fund) supports students in 2 month placements through the EASE program at Grampus Heritage, excavating sites they would otherwise have to fund themselves, no easy thing when students and amateurs are often paying upwards of £1000 for 2 week's work in a soggy trench! This is also an amazing experience, meeting new friends, learning new techniques for excavation and site recording, which allow students to return to the UK with a broader knowledge of European archaeology as a whole. whether this funding would continue if we left the EU is unclear.

Economy:

Far too many rules to go through here, but I'll quickly go over my case. Again, it is somewhat moot as the economy is so globally linked and complex that it is difficult to generalise. Saying how archaeological sites have improved their profitability since joining the EU is partiularly pointless as we have so many tourists from around the world.Here's an interesting argument from Current Archaeology: "Every £1 spent in local government archaeology nets about £50. Compare that multiplier of 50 with the mere 1.6 or 1.7 brought in by investing in heritage visitor attractions. The latter is valuable and necessary; but at times like these, do we want public funds to support the teashop trade around the heritage honey-pots, or to protect and understand the locally-valued history of ordinary streets and villages? If bodies like English Heritage consider questions like that, then — cruelly cut though they are — they might prioritise support for the local over preserving expertise in the centre". This statement focuses attention away from Brexit into the more fundamental issue of archaeology's existence itself. While larger sites like Stonehenge and the British Museum will always have a fair amount of money going to them from tourism and central government, all archaeology requires some level of investment and there simply isn't enough being allocated (or more worryingly, there isn't enough). Nonetheless there is little way of verifying these figures and could include other factors , but I'm fairly confident that archaeology can be profitable without compromising on the social and environmental benefits.

The percieved loss of community/democracy:

This debate overlaps a lot with community, in particular with identity in rural and urban area, the housing crisis, preservation of listed and scheduled buildings, so I'l keep it short.

One of the most worrying things about staying in the EU is that we don't vote for the people who run the EU. Therefore, if we want to stay in, we have to fight against this bureaucracy. If you truly believe in your democratic rights then you could argue that either the EU is not going to change and it is better to leave. However, you could also say that, much like the soldiers of World War 1, you voted in this referendum so that others could have the choice of using their vote later on. Delaying the inevitable? Or waiting for the right time to establish a more democratic EU? Either way the EU looks like it is facing increasing pressure to change. Archaeology shows that cultures and empires ebb and flow, wax and wane, all the time, but the reasons and causes for these rises and collapses, instabilities and stabilities are things that sometimes so complicated that we may never understand why things happened. But in the here and now we have a choice, and no matter how complex the situation is with the EU, we at least have a clear choice, yes or no.

Again, this could be all moot, as a lot of laws are made by the English. There has been a lot of emphasis on communities in the last few years. Currently there is a worrying amount of legal changes that are being discussed, including potentially altering what can and can't be built on green belt land. However, there are some positives for preserving heritage. While the archaeological legislation of PPG16 has been replaced with guidance (not statutory), there are things like the Assets of Community Value (ACV). This means that the owner of a pub must apply for planning permission in order to change the the use of the building, which buys time for a community to campaign against it if it is not in the interest of the community. According to CAMRA (Campaign for Real Ale), only 600 pubs had been nominated as an ACV in April 2015, while there are about 18,000 pubs in the UK! This rule was introduced in 2015, although more work can be done in making archaeology and heritage sustainable for communities to benefit from. I don't know enough to say if pubs have to pay any taxes etc. due to EU legislation but I daresay this is not an exhaustive list.

All of our listed buildings and scheduled monuments are also designated in English law, and overseen by Historic England (formerly English Heritage). No EU interference here, although one could argue that it became more of a responsibility to maintain these lists under the Valetta Treaty. As an aside, there is no right to a view under English law! This means that you can't argue that you can have your neighbour trim a hedgerow because it's blocking your view. One wonders what Capability Brown would make of this law! Again this highlights that some arguably silly laws are made by the British government, not the EU. Also dont worry too much about the disruption caused by leaving the EU, if we do leave we get about 2 years before the change becomes permanent.


To conclude: most of our laws relating to heritage and commercial working hours are actually created and upheld by the UK government, not the EU. Many of the arguments I hold to be mute, but why would I be talking about EU and the Brexit debate if I don't think it matters? Ultimately a lot of these debates have an international impact and at this time of insecurity I would say that it is better for our heritage and archaeology that we stay in the EU but reform it from the inside to better preserve our identity, especially where the democratic element is concerned. Leaving it might help us find our identity but archaeology shows that we are in a constant state of flux and culture is a malleable element, so what we percieve to be a constant (e.g. being British by drinking a certain way, being very reserved and queueing) is actually the result of hundreds of years of minor modifications of our consciousness.

AutoCAD lt workaround: 3D orbit

I've been playing around with my old CAD model and wondered how you could get AutoCAD LT, which has less capability than the full AutoCAD, to do 3D orbits. Turns out this is why AutoCAD LT is much cheaper: it's only really designed for 2D applications (drawing plans etc.)!! However you can upload 3D models into LT, but you are left with a model you can do very little with. However, I have found a workaround in AutoCAD 3D that allows you to look around your model. It's not perfect but it's a start... N.B. this has all been done through AutoCAD LT 2013.

The original view of my model.

So all you have do is click on view in the top of the screen and you come across the Views tab directly to the left. From here you can quickly access the main views of your model (front, back, left, right, top, bottom, southwest, southeast, northwest, northeast). 

The "back view" of my model.

Furthermore, there is also the "view manager" where you can create new viewing angles too, although it's a bit unwieldly.

I admit it's nowhere near as flexible as your standard 3D orbit, but it saves having to download a piece of software for your CAD package. If you only need to view your model from some different angles and only have access to LT, this is a lifesaver! If you need to be more precise then it could take you a while to create those new angles...

If you are interested in the model itself then you can find the report it is based on via this link!

The problem with Strava

The other day I was racing in the final race of a certain cross-country league competition in northern England. At the post-race lunch/presentation ceremony, a team mate suggested to me that he would get me into using Strava. The reason? I assume something to do with comparing training sessions and personal bests up the several good training hills we have up here. However, Strava and related GPS or health devices (such a FitBit, Ithlete, etc.) aren't my cup of tea... (no company has endorsed me to write this article, it's just something that's been on my mind recently).

A lot of my reasoning follows with Richard Askwith's book, "Running Free", where he feels that "Big Running" (the commercialisation of the running industry) is forcing people to buy into a way of running that is not only financially unsustainable, but apparently can also lead to more injuries! Combined with the amount of money spent on treatments for running related injuries, this looks like something of a vicious downward fiscal cycle. However, he does tangent slightly when it comes to Strava, and other personal health and GPS devices, where his writing becomes a full on rant about the gamification of running, where the reward comes not from the act of running but the use of concepts of video games to incentivise real life. So for example, uploading the data into Strava gives you a target to then beat your old time. While this is essentially the "Parkrun" model (your time is posted online for free and the idea is that you beat it the next time on either the same 5Km course or on a new 5Km course elsewhere), it can be done anywhere, as long as you have satellite coverage. For something like Ithlete, it becomes a little different, since the health monitoring systems aren't deliberately gamifying your run, but the principle is similar; if you follow the various charts and rules imposed by the health monitor, you will be rewarded with (in theory) lower blood pressure, more fitness etc.

I'm not stopping anyone else from using these devices, especially if it is for health reasons, like some of my running partners, or even for the acquisition of PBs in local challenges. But in my position? I don't need to gamify my running regime (in spite of having written a paper on the gamification of archaeology for schoolkids!). I don't need other people following my routes on a virtual dashboard so they can beat my time on exactly the same course. Instead, I prefer to choose routes that offer sights, sounds and smells that you don't get on a road (when possible). Sometimes I'll go out to beat my raging hangover, so I need a nice route to avoid having to concentrate too much on distractions (cars, other people). It does help when you live less than a mile away from open moorland, and of course very few people get that opportunity. However, if you are using these devices as a way of motivating yourself to run then fine, that's your way of doing exercise and that's fair enough. However, if you enjoy running already, but don't want to be setting PB's for whatever reason (usually age), then it creates an artificial layer whereby you aren't necessarily engaging with your immeadiate environment, which I believe is a darned shame. For an analogy, I despair when I see people running with headphones on, especially in rural areas. There's a world of beautiful sound outdoors (even in urban spaces), you're not putting 100% into finding your proper running gait (which may help reduce injury) and you are acoustically blind to potential dangers e.g. passing cars!

My other point against using Strava personally is that in this modern age, all of our data is being used to analyse what we do, where we go and how we do things. This feeds back directly into our online lives- adverts, for example, are now so smart that they will be able to use your data about what websites you've been to, or even what you've talked about on social media, and then be able to target products at you related to those activities. You may not even like these products! But I've noticed a lot of adverts recently that have been rather too close for comfort. For example, I've been looking at applying for the new series of Robot Wars, and having done some research (and nostalgia) by looking at various robot wars related websites and articles, I'm now getting related Wikipedia pages about other things that were part of my 10 year old's life (war gaming, video games, etc.)! This is a part of me that I have, for the most part, left behind but not forgotten. And I'd like to keep it that way. What I'm getting at here is that your Strava (or Ithlete) data could feasibly be used by not just adverts to give you enticing offers on new running shoes and clothing, but also large companies who could be given that data by Strava without you even knowing!! 
... OK, hands up, sometimes I get it wrong. As of the 13th March, 2016, I found this little article on the BBC to do with Strava Insights, which looks like they're giving out their data for free. However, it still proves my point, in that it is still possible. It would just make no business sense to do so anymore! Nonetheless, I don't want to surrender all of my life over to the great panopticon of the internet, just as little as possible so that I can live my real life to the full (this blog post excepted).


To summarise: if you think that you need to use Strava, think hard about whether you are doing it for the right reasons. If it's to motivate you, then I don't have a problem with that, nor with health conditions that require monitoring. But if you enjoyed running in the first place, then I personally wouldn't recommend it. Most of us aren't going to become Olympians, and most of this gear is deliberately designed to get you into that mind-set, which requires a training regime that most people can't afford for time or money. Just go out there and run, enjoy the sights, sounds and smells of your local environment and enjoy yourself!

P.S. If you've been convinced to buy Richard Askwith's book, follow this link!

Best and Worst B+B's and hotels in the UK

This year, I have spent most of my time in bed and breakfasts and hotels across the country, plus a number of Travelodge’s and the like. Some are fairly forgettable, others are memorable for all the wrong reasons. Then there are some places which are heaven on earth (metaphorically speaking). Most places fall somewhere in between but generally I would happily stay in most of the hotels/B+B's I've been to.

This list shouldn't be taken as gospel for a number of reasons, mostly because of the nature of my work I don't really stay in towns and cities very often and it's mostly rural settings where I do my day job. I haven't worked in Scotland or Northern Ireland this year, just England and Wales (and it is balanced, one good and one bad for Wales). I often work in more southern parts of the UK (despite being based in Yorkshire), plus I don't often get to choose where I stay! However, all of these places were affordable at under £100/room/night, sometimes under half that price. I've stayed at each of these places for at least one night often for 3 nights or more (with the exception of one place on this list), and hopefully you'll have an even better (or at least passable) experience than I had at these destinations!

So the top 5 places I've stayed in this year are:

1. Trelough House, Herefordshire. Is this possibly the best thing in Herefordshire (maybe aside from the cathedral)? Everything was brilliant except for trying to find the house (it's tucked away on a parallel side road behind some trees)! There was even a full cookie jar on arrival to my room. A FULL COOKIE JAR. With actual cookies. Very welcoming and conversant host who even allowed us to use their downstairs TV to watch Bake-Off! Ideal for a mini break.

2.  Gable Lodge, Lynton, Devon. A close run thing between this and Twitchen Farm, this is situated just outside the heart of the village, but it doesn't feel like it as all facilities are seconds away! The bedroom was excellent and in spite of the lack of a cookie jar, everything else was there that you need for a great stay.

3. Twitchen Farm, Challacombe, Devon. While it doesn't look far from Lynton, the long winding roads means that it will feel like forever! However once you are here this is a fantastic little working farm, with (naturally) welcoming hosts and a lot of walks and things to do nearby. Don't forget the Black Sheep pub down the road! This only comes third because you really do need a car to get here and its location appeals mainly to those who want an active weekend away.

4. The Bell Inn, Frampton on Severn, Gloucestershire. If Carlsberg did pubs... this is probably the best pub, but between Gloucester and Stroud you are spoilt for choice for great pubs, each with their own distinct character. This one I recommend because it's based in a quiet village with the distinction of having the longest green in England and it's not far from the Severn, so if you want to go surfing this place is quite good for staying over then heading our early for the bore! The food and variety of ales is pleasant without being overbearing. Great as a base for the Cotswolds or for business (if you don't mind travelling for about 1/2 hour for Gloucester or Bristol).

5. Brandon House hotel, Brandon, Suffolk. This hotel stands out for being very accessible to both Brandon and Thetford Forest. The dinner is delightful, the breakfast was great and the staff were very helpful. However some of the rooms were at a bit of an angle (nothing serious) and strangely enough no bath towel was provided, although everything else was there, including some very nice shower cream! Ample parking too. Great for business/work trips. 

Special mentions go to:

Waverley Hotel, Workington. Although the rooms are sometimes small and the town itself is not great, the staff are brilliant, bath robes were provided (none of top 5 on this list did that!) and I enjoyed the rooms and the food (both breakfast and dinner). If you ever find yourself in this part of the world (i.e. west of Cockermouth), this is the place to stay on a budget.

And...

 The Hand Hotel, Llangollen, Denbighshire. What a location!!! While the rooms are somewhat cramped and the room extras were a bit limited. The breakfast was memorably delicious, but I remember this place more because of Fouzi's cafe and bar and pizzeria. This is the best Italian restaurant I have ever visited in the UK. Their pizzas are amazing! Afterwards I discovered Castel Dinas Bran by foot and some other brilliant walking routes around this very quaint little town. Come for the food, stay for the scenery and history. Recommended during the summer months.

The pretty little town of Llangollen from one of the many hills surrounding it.

And the bottom 5 (although it's only the bottom 3 that are REALLY bad):

5. Rowe's Farmhouse B+B, Berkshire. Actually not that bad, it had everything you would expect from a B+B. Breakfast was BYO (some frozen toast and conserves for the brave are available free of charge), and there are some nice places to eat nearby. However, I'm fairly sure the host had a vendetta against men (or might even be a misandrist)! They inspected everything when you left for the day, even what you put in the rubbish!! However this could be explained by the health centre being next door. Don't go on a Monday if you are of a nervous disposition because that's when the centre is open. However, they keep the noise down (but parking becomes a premium). I'd recommend it only for a business trip and even then I'd send your cleanest, nicest employees who can withstand the rigours of the half an hour long health and safety talk after work.

4. The Buck Inn, Northallerton, North Yorkshire. OK, hands up, I didn't actually stay here but I nearly did. Didn't look great on the inside, standard pub affair on the outside. But based on this extract of the conversation I had with the bartender, I think I dodged a bullet...maybe would have scored worse if I had stayed?...

Me: “Hi, we've got some rooms booked for X ltd."

Bartender: "Ok, let me check the book... no, I don't have you under here"

Me: "But I booked the rooms for today last Friday! I'm sure I spoke to one of your colleagues over the phone about this"

Bartender:(after consulting with manager)"Right, what's happened is that one of my colleagues put your booking that was meant to be for today in the entry for last week."

Me: “So we don't have any reservations then?"

Bartender: "Yeah. Sorry!  But we can still give you a room"

My colleague: "But we need 2 rooms."

Bartender: "Oh. Well let me check if we have some other rooms free"

[After this my colleague rang the office and discovered our other colleagues had found somewhere much better and we decided to leave as soon as politely possible]. 

What could have been...

3. Heritage Hotel, Narborough, Leicestershire. Simple hotel, according to Google. If by simple you mean basic! The rooms look like the builders had just been round and forgotten to apply the undercoats to the walls. The showers were not good. The TV was perhaps the only plus. The receptionist was not up to scratch if I recall correctly. We decided not to go the Indian restaurant next door in the end (I think it was too expensive for our budget, but it looked quite nice beyond the reception area).

2. Days Inn, Magor, Junction 23A, Monmouthshire. Only gets a stay of execution because it was a) near some pubs and b) at least the bedsheets were clean! Also not as near as you would think to a supermarket or major cities.

1. Days Inn, Watford Gap, Junction 17 of the M1, Northamptonshire. Hands down, this was one of the worst places you could imagine staying, even for one night. I'm not entirely sure the sheets had been changed and there was the smell of the motorway services coming through my window, and I wasn't even facing the motorway!! Very little on offer at the food court downstairs. Don't get me started on the outside lighting or the noise from the motorway! I recommend staying at the Travelodge on the A45 near Dunchurch if you can help it (at least there are pubs nearby and its only 10 miles away!).

Stanwick Oppidum revisited

The Tofts in the middle of Stanwick Oppidum, previously surveyed and excavated on numerous occaisions.

I spent this morning (5th December 2015) in the company of Professor Colin Haselgrove in Middlesbrough's Dorman museum (a highly recommended museum), thanks to the Teesside Archaeology Society's annual Elgee Memorial Lecture. His lecture, "The rise and Fall of the Royal Centre of Stanwick Oppidum" (the largest Oppidum in Britain), summarised his work over the last 30 years at the site. His talk has shown how far the theories have come in such a short space of time! It also rendered my undergraduate dissertation (from 2012) as null and void, but we'll let that slide...however it was very nice to meet one of the people who volunteered to help with my geophysical survey at the lecture (thank you Geraldine)! So rather than write an essay on what was said at the lecture, I'll summarise some of the key points (without giving away too much, Colin is releasing his book on Stanwick next year).

Stanwick, in North Yorkshire, is an Oppidum which is free to visit. Oppida are Iron Age ramparts that enclosure a large space, which often contain large amounts of settlement archaeology. They are traditionally seen as "proto-towns" as the Romans refer to them as such; the name comes from the Latin meaning "town". In Britain and the continent many have some features that make them seem like a "proto-town" but Stanwick is almost unique in the huge space that seems to be empty and not doing anything! Usually they lasted for about 100 years but not Stanwick. The most pressing question has been to investigate why Stanwick appeared to be abandoned after about 30 years. Was it built to fend off the Romans? Or to impress them? While there is no definite account of abandonment it is probable that the Romans moved into the area at about the time when Stanwick was abandoned. This was based on Mortimer Wheeler's conclusions when he excavated the ramparts and he reckoned that the Oppidum met a violent end and wasn't used afterwards. However, Colin's research and excavations have demonstrated that Stanwick was in use well before the building of the ramparts, probably about 100 years before. But, the structures at Stanwick at this time were unlikely to have been permanent structures because the excavations showed rapid construction and demolition phases. The structures would be rebuilt over a number of years when they were being used. This is being seen in a number of Iron Age sites in Britain, and it is likely to have a religious or ceremonial function. Having said this there are permanent structures but they only arrive with the ramparts. The site was also likely to have been used after the abandonment of the site for its original purpose as a ceremonial space. Stanwick may also be the crossing point between the west-east route for the Pennines and north-south, roughly following the modern A1.

Wheeler also believed that Stanwick was heavily occupied with lots of housing. However, this has been thoroughly proven to not be the case. Even at the height of Stanwick's life there were only a few permanent houses on site. These also seem to coincide with the first trading links with the Romans, perhaps suggesting high status contacts or at least middle men, with artefacts travelling far and wide; some artefacts come from Africa! The evidence for agriculture comes after the abandonment in 70 AD, and is likely to be medieval, although a number of prehistoric field boundaries and houses have been found as crop and soil marks around Stanwick. The space made by the ramparts/earthworks has been shown to have been a largely boggy area, roughly where the Mary Wild Beck is today. There is a lot of evidence for Iron Age groups using water as a sacred space, and there are a limited number of depositional offerings around Stanwick. But, the biggest development in terms of archaeological evidence is the burials. These seem to have been interred in ditches in both the houses and the large ramparts. In particular skulls with weapons are being found in the ramparts. It has been estimated that the ramparts (8 Kilometres/ 5 miles in total!) could contain up to 500 skulls based on current excavation statistics! So could Stanwick be a giant graveyard? Or more likely, the ramparts are on the highest parts of land in the area, so the emphasis is on displaying the importance of the site.

Incidentally it has also been estimated that the ramparts probably took about 3-4 million man hours of moving clay to create the ramparts! This requires a lot of manual labour. So where did they all live? They were likely to be from the local area, and the archaeology so far supports this idea- there are lots of contemporary settlements around Stanwick, leaving Stanwick as a large open space in the middle of several large villages. So if the Oppidum is not a town, is it perhaps a giant park-cum-graveyard and major highways running through it?

Map showing a distribution of archaeological settlement evidence near Stanwick. Note the emphasis near Roman roads(the A1 and A66), which could be an artefact of archaeological investigations near modern roads!

Finally, this also makes archaeologists think about how Stanwick came about in the first place. With so many settlements nearby, we think that there were several origins (bear with me) for Stanwick, in a theory borrowed from human geography called "poly-focal settlements". This is where 2 or more settlements merge to form one cohesive unit. Stanwick in this interpretation could be created out of a collective decision to place emphasis on the site, rather than an individual decision.

And yes, we still think it is the capital of the Brigantes!

The Origin of Archaeological Geophysics

Archaeology owes a lot of its traditions and working methods to military developments (and some civillian applications) on both sides of the Atlantic. In particular, more modern methods of recording archaeology have been passed down as ex-military hardware and software. Geofizz has since become a mainstay in archaeology, made famous by Time Team and other TV programs. I will outline the developments of the principles of archaeological geophysics (or geofizz), while looking at the development of geofizz and the links to developments in other fields. Geophysics (the seperate geological subject) can trace its origins to the principles of magnetism to before Newton (see here); the Chinese invented the compass before 1000AD, knowing that it pointed towards the north pole because of the earth's magnetic properties, which they may have used to help circumnavigate the earth before Columbus (this is a very contentious issue! See here for more information).

Today I will look at the history of geophysics in archaeology and its development particularly in relation to the UK, although many other parts of the world have their own traditions in archaeologcial prospection.

See the end of the article for suggested reading! The suggested reading is also my bibliography.

The recorded history of Geophysics in Archaeology

It is tricky to mark the start of geofizz before World War 2. Pitt-Rivers arguably was the first person to record his geophysical efforts by using bowsing at Cranbourne Chase from the 1880's until the start of the 20th century. This involved slamming the flat end of a pick on the ground and listening to the change in tone. Some methods previously used include random and systematic shovel tests, trenching, soundings, probing and nose-sensitive dogs. Augering is any method that makes sound travel through the ground and returns a response. As sound travels in waves, the frequency of the waves changes depending on the solids that are within the ground and reflect off different surfaces and different depths at varying frequencies (which will change the pitch and volume of the returning sound) . It's very simple- you can use a mallet and record the sound (in decibels or with a more subjective opinion) and then simply record where you hit the ground. Easy! Trouble is that augering is not very precise, and it hasn't been used by any serious archaeologists since at least World War 2. However it's a good way of explaining simple physical principles.

These approaches have been inaccurate, potentially destructive and not statistically representative, not to mention expensive. As a result many sites remained deeply buried or otherwise invisible and unstudied. A few rudimentary geophysical surveys that attempted to map buried cultural remains were carried out in Europe and America in the 1920's and 1930's,  using magnetic and resistance equipment that were developed for mining operations and often found geological anomalies rather than archaeological features but proved to be difficult to interpret.

A geophysical survey by Atkinson in 1946 at Dorchester-on-Thames is considered by many to be the starting point in modern archaeological geophysics. By using a wenner array, he could identify pits and ditches which were later verified by excavation. It was so successful (and ground-breaking, excuse the pun) that the results were published in French too. Others including Webster then went on to experiment with magnetic methods for investigating buried archaeological features in the 1950's and 1960's, most notably at Durobrivae near the A1 in the UK, where a Roman kiln was found with one of the first proton magnetometers developed for field use...

...But, the first accurately documented survey happened in Williamsberg, Virginia, where Mark Malamphy and Hans Lundberg used electromagnetic and inductive techniques from the 1920's onwards. Lundberg used an aeromagnetic survey from a hot air balloon in 1921 and may have completed the first electromagnetic survey from the air in the 1940's and he developed a vertical component magnetometer for use from a helicopter in the 1946. However, Malamphy gets the credit because Lundberg was involved in a car accident before the survey was due to take place.

By 1938 Marie Bauer Hall had set out a problem for the geophysicists at Williamsberg: a buried church that should have had a stone vault about 3 metres below the ground surface at the western end of the church. She engaged a geophysical company to investigate the site and the first technique they used was an "equipotential survey". By using grounded electrodes, a generator and a set of headphones (because the change in voltage was shown by changes in audio form an audio amplifier which was connected to two remote probes!). This was essentially a resistance survey! The survey was completed in 3rd November 1938 by Malamphy and an anomaly was found. Had they found the vault? Probably not; the anomaly was excavated and small fossil shells were found instead in a sandy sediment about 4 metres deep! Many other geophysicists carried out valuable early work but often went un-noticed because they were not based in the UK or US and hence rarely got published into English. Aktinson's work also had a far greater impact on archaeology and hence usually gets more credit.

Malamphy's results of the survey at Williamsburg. The lines in the top left are the direction of the electrical current in the ground based on a the acoustic response from the equipment.

The Start of Modern Archaeological Geophysics

During the 1950s modern archaeological geophysics began with crude but effective methods that could generate maps of buried sites, which piqued the interest of some archaeologists. Sometimes involved no more than a car battery a voltmeter and some wires and some were little more than sophisticated metal detectors! Nonetheless it paved the way for all future geophysics. Early collection was just data points on paper for later hand mapping. Some was recorded on magnetic tape for later digitisation, although this was exceptional. Sometimes field data, particularly radar, were printed on paper and could later be analysed for 3D, but this was time consuming and fraught with processing and interpretation problems. This was also very time consuming, limiting the areas that could be surveyed.

Relatively inexpensive computers in the 1980's helped increase the survey area hugely as data could be processed much more quickly by storing data in disks or on tape (in the field for the office later). The quality of the data was also improved as was the interpretations. Computer collection was quickly utilised by archaeological geophysicists and its expansion in the 1990's up to the present day.

Since Atkinson's surveys many institutes have been set up to study archaeological geophysics including MASCA in the USA and CRNS in France. One side effect was the influential journal Prospenzioni Archeologiche where many pioneering ideas and methods were tested, although many of the results were inconclusive, although this is down to the nature of the technology rather than the method itself. The UK had the Geophysics Section within the Ancient Monuments Laboratory, itself part of the Inspectorate of Ancient Monuments (now Historic England). The AM Lab was involved in the development of the fluxgate gradiometer, and they developed a way of continuously recording data for the first time. As a result this method dominated fluxgate surveys in the UK for 15 years from the 1970's, although coincidentally this coincided with a decline in advancement in archaeological geophysics globally. However many universities decided to teach geophysics as part of their curriculum by this point, starting with a postgraduate course at Bradford University in 1971 titled "Scientific Methods in Archaeology", followed by the undergraduate degree of Archaeological Sciences in 1975 and Bradford took over from Oxford as the leading UK archaeological geophysics centre, including developing the twin probe array for resistivity surveys, and creating software for the PC age in the 1980's, which is the mainstay for many resistance surveys today in the UK.

Today many countries have different ways of using geophyics within archaeology although many incorporate it into their archaeological strategy to identify features over a wide area. In the UK, the emphasis was on isolated sites until the late 1970's, when British Gas got the ball rolling by using geophysics in archaeological survey in a major pipeline survey across southern England as it would be buried in a known archaeologically sensitive area. Coinciding with this development was the introduction of more ubiquitous and cheaper technology, particularly GeoScan and Bartington equipment, which is still used today (albeit in improved forms). With instant data storage, less time was spent processing data, so the gratification of "instant results" was readily attainable. However, the sea-change came more completely with the change in legislation in the UK with the Planning Act and the introduction of PPG16, where the developer was made to pay for archaeological investigation in developments, leading to an unprecedented level of surveys. In 1980, barely 60 surveys were completed, mostly by the AM Lab. By 2003 over 250 surveys were completed, mostly by private firms for commercial puposes, although even today, as a guess, there are less than 500 people employed directly in archaeological geophysics, more likely closer to 250. Many amateur groups also have access to geophysical equipment. On a side note it has been argued that this legislation has made the archaeology merely a barrier to development, rather than a resource that can be used effectively to inform, entertain and educate the public, local groups and clients.

So while there are only a limited number of specialists today, geophysics in archaeology is considered an important part of the archaeologist's toolkit particularly in investigating and researching the landscape. There are many other areas of geophysics that are being explored today which I haven't touched on such as gravity for space, mineral and marine exploration among other fields. I've not even touched on the use of ground penetrating radar's contribution which has given us some amazing results! to give you an idea of a radar survey see the vidoe below. One day these other fields may provide archaeology with more mehods of searching for archaeology! However I could only find fleeting overlaps between geofizz and geophysics (excepting the geological principles), so perhaps my research hasn't been very thorough or archaeologists and geologists haven't spoken to each other enough! 

Suggested reading:

Bevan, B.W. 2000. An Early Geophysical Survey at Williamsburg, USA. Archaeological Prospection 7. Pp.51-58

Bevan, B.W and Kenyon 1975 MASCA Newsletter 11(2). Pp. 2-7, 

Conyers, L. B. 2013. Ground Penetrating Radar for Archaeology. Altamira Press, Plymouth. Pp.4-6

Conyers L.B, 1995 Geoarchaeology: An International Journal10 (4). Pp. 275-299

Gaffney, C and Gater. J. 2003. Revealing the Buried Past: Geophysics for Archaeologists. Tempus, Stroud. Pp.13-23

Van Leusen, 1998. Dowsing and Archaeology. Archaeological Prospection 5. Pp. 123-128

P.S. This is the second "tribute" post to Joe Raine!