Ask Chris the Archaeologist
Thanks for all your entries, we've posted the best questions and answers below. Pat Gannon-Leary of Whitley bay was our competition winner. Congratulations to Pat who won a day out exploring the Archaeology of the National Park plus a hamper full of local treats!
Click here to listen to Chris the Archaeologist
Northumberland National Park has a rich heritage left from the past for us to discover... and now's your chance to find out more! Have you ever wondered about how our Archaeology team works or have a question about the landscape of Northumberland National Park? Maybe you've made your own archaeological find!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions and Answers
Hi Chris
I am interested in the concept of 'intrusive artefacts' and how you archaeologists spot these in the first place and then go about verifying that they are not, in fact, the real thing.
Pat
Newcastle upon Tyne
Chris says:
Dear Pat'
Your question is a good one. The notion of artifacts being intrusive in archaeological contexts works at two levels. First there are what we term 'residual' artifacts that occur in archaeological deposits. As the name implies these are 'left over' implements, usually from earlier phases of occupation on the same site. So, for example, you might get what are clearly Bronze Age flint implements occurring in Roman occupation levels or, more commonly, especially in Urban excavations, you might get Roman pottery occurring in Medieval rubbish pits. This situation usually comes about when the later activity disturbs the lower (earlier) levels in an area. The medieval rubbish pits might cut through earlier Roman floor or settlement levels, incorporating the earlier material into the bottom layers of the pit infilling. These situations are usually fairly clear when you are digging. Site stratigraphy (the way the different layers on the site have built up) is the best guide to the relationship between earlier and later phases of activity on the site, and implement typology (that is the study of the form and shape of artifact types and the chronological implications of this work) are also another good guide to the nature of recovered artifacts.
At the second level, intrusive artifacts are those that, again as the name suggests, are 'intruded' into an archaeological sequence. By this we normally mean introduced from layers above those under excavation. Now this can happen in a variety of ways. Worm action on a site can move artifacts down through deposits. Worms mix the soil as they move through it and small flint artifacts like microliths (early prehistoric flint points) can fall down through worm cast holes and become incorporated into earlier deposits. Again, the action of larger burrowing animals like rabbits can mix later material into earlier contexts i.e. could bring medieval pottery down into Roman levels. The same thing can happen when humans dig things like garden plots and turn over the soil. Again, though, we would normally pick this fact up through detailed observation of stratigraphic relationships on site.
So this is what archaeologists generally mean when they talk about 'intrusive' artifacts - they are things that shouldn't really be in the contexts in which they were actually recovered! Hope that makes sense.
All the best
Chris Jones, Archaeologist, Northumberland National Park Authority
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Chris,
I was reading the article called "Kilham, Northumberland - An Archaeological and Historical Study of a Border Community." Nothing is mentioned of Storeys, but I'm sure there must be some records.
My surname was Storey and The Book "Storeys of Old", published in England in 1920, provides a history of early Storey families:
"There can be little doubt that the original home of the Storey family is Northumberland. The neighborhood of the Cheviot-Hill is the neighborhood wherein the "Storeys of Old" are to be first met with in early times. They had considerable landed property it is certain, and it is equally certain that owing to lnternecine wars they lost it. It is therefore not to be wondered at that they were described in an old 15th Century Border Chronicle as "A race of Storeys sore decayed".
At the end of 1583 Sir Thomas Musgrave treats at length of the Grames and Storeys In a report to Lord Burghley. He says:
"Here I will note unto your honor of the Grames and howe they did fyrst inhabit the water of the Eske, for within the memorye of man, yet being, they had no land there, but the Storeys had it, and the right thereof, for my Lord Daker having made a Warden rode, was by Englishman betrayed, and Scotland had Intelligence of his coming before he came, and was ready for him, so as he and all the country was in great perill. My Lord Daker, suspecting old Riche Grame, did apprehend him and thought to have executed him for that cause; it was his fortune to eskape out of the pryson and in a short time made himselfe cleare of that fact - for he did aprehend the deed doer, being a Storey. The Storeys fearing my Lord Daker's fury, fled and lefte the country and went into Northumberland to a place called Killum, where they yet dwell and are a great surname. They (the Storeys) beinge gone, Riche Grame, Fergus, his brother, and theire brethren did devyde theire (Storey's) groundes amongst them."
I would love to know more about this migration and any Storey settlement in "Killum" (Kilham), if it has turned up in any archaeological studies.
Leslie
Vancouver, Briitsh Columbia, Canada
Chris says
Dear Leslie
Many thanks for your query. I've done a bit of documentary research to find out more about recorded Storeys in the Kilham/Glendale area.
Towards the end of the sixteenth century several members of the Storey family are recorded as living in the township of Yeavering, which is just down the road from Kilham. In his will dated to Dec. 1589 Sir Thomas Grey of Chillingham left a life interest to John Storey and his wife in 'the fyrmett he hathe at Yeavering' and to his son Fergus for 21 years a tenant there, now in the occupation of his uncle Robert Storey, of the yearly rent of 26s. 8d.
In the Church at Kirknewton, there is an early seventeenth century grave slab commemorating 'Fergus Storey of Yeavering' (possibly the same man). He was an agent of the Duke of Northumberland and he was arrested after the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 against King James I. He was, however, released without charge.
Also in the sixteenth century a branch of the Storey clan was living in the township of Hethpool, again only a few miles from Kilham. The published 'Letters and Papers of King Henry VIII', vol. xiii, pt.i, 182 refer to a Sandy Storey of Hethpool in 1537, and at about the same time, of eleven residents recorded at Hethpool no less than seven bear the same surname. Towards the middle of the century c. 1550, there is a mention of Robert Storey of Hethpool and a Ralph Storey appears there in 1655.
The only other serious reference I came across to a Storey in the area is in relation to an incident recorded in the Northumberland County History, (1922) vol. 11, 302-303. This was an incident which happened on the Border but as the history says 'led to reprisals which disturbed the central government in London'. In August, 1595, some of the followers of Andrew Ker, laird of Cessford, entered Wooler and stole all of the parsons sheep and moveable goods.. The parson got no redress from the due process of law so he took matters into his own hands and with the aid of friends he stole an equivalent number of sheep from Cessford. The latter threatened the parson with death and he fled to Berwick for his own protection and Cessford rode to Wooler with 80 men 'with trompet sownding', and in the ensuing affray, killed two men there, one of whom was Will Storey. Storey was cut to pieces. The Storeys in due course avenged their brother in law's death by riding into Scotland and seizing Cessfords shepherd. They killed him and also cut him to pieces. Cessford complained to the English government and Lord Burleigh wrote to Sir John Carey, deputy governor of Berwick condemning the slaughter of the shepherd 'which facte her Majeste misliketh, taketh to be verie barbarous, and seldom used among the Turckes'. The County History says that Sir John was 'quite dismayed by this reproof, and retorted that if the government thought that the manifold misdeeds of the Scottish marauders did not outweigh any English reprisals, then he was willing to submit himself to any punishment which her majesty might inflict upon him'.
So there you have it....I hope that this has given you a bit more information for your family research… a tough lot the Storeys!
All the best
Chris Jones, Archaeologist, Northumberland National Park Authority
