English Landscapes and Identities:

Investigating Landscape Change from

1500 BC to AD 1086 Chris Gosden
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/english-landscapes-and-identities-investigating-lands
cape-change-from-1500-bc-to-ad-1086-chris-gosden/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Art, Science, and the Natural World in the Ancient

Mediterranean, 300 BC to AD 100 Joshua James Thomas

https://ebookmass.com/product/art-science-and-the-natural-world-
in-the-ancient-mediterranean-300-bc-to-ad-100-joshua-james-
thomas/

Traditions & Encounters Volume 1 From the Beginning to

1500 6th Edition

https://ebookmass.com/product/traditions-encounters-
volume-1-from-the-beginning-to-1500-6th-edition/

The Roman Emperor and His Court c. 30 BC-c. AD 300:

Volume 2, A Sourcebook Benjamin Kelly

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-roman-emperor-and-his-
court-c-30-bc-c-ad-300-volume-2-a-sourcebook-benjamin-kelly/

The Politics of U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO:

Continuity and Change From The Cold War to the Rise of
China Chris J. Dolan

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-politics-of-u-s-foreign-policy-
and-nato-continuity-and-change-from-the-cold-war-to-the-rise-of-
china-chris-j-dolan/
European Identities During Wars and Revolutions: Change
Under Crises in Georgia and Ukraine Salome Minesashvili

https://ebookmass.com/product/european-identities-during-wars-
and-revolutions-change-under-crises-in-georgia-and-ukraine-
salome-minesashvili/

Agents of Change : The problematic Landscape of

Pakistan's K-12 Education and the People Leading the
Change Amjad Noorani

https://ebookmass.com/product/agents-of-change-the-problematic-
landscape-of-pakistans-k-12-education-and-the-people-leading-the-
change-amjad-noorani/

Creativity and English Language Teaching: From

Inspiration to Implementation 1st Edition Alan Maley

https://ebookmass.com/product/creativity-and-english-language-
teaching-from-inspiration-to-implementation-1st-edition-alan-
maley/

Where Did the Universe Come From And Other Cosmic

Questions Our Universe, from the Quantum to the Cosmos
Chris Ferrie

https://ebookmass.com/product/where-did-the-universe-come-from-
and-other-cosmic-questions-our-universe-from-the-quantum-to-the-
cosmos-chris-ferrie/

The Oxford History of Poetry in English, Volume 3:

Medieval Poetry, 1400-1500 Julia Boffey

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-oxford-history-of-poetry-in-
english-volume-3-medieval-poetry-1400-1500-julia-boffey/
OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGEPROOF – FINAL, 06/02/21, SPi

English Landscapes and Identities

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGEPROOF – FINAL, 06/02/21, SPi
 OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGEPROOF – FINAL, 06/02/21, SPi

English Landscapes
and Identities
Investigating Landscape Change
from 1500 bc to ad 1086

EngLaId Team
A N W E N C O O P E R , M I R A N DA C R E S W E L L ,
V IC T O R IA D O N N E L LY, T Y L E R F R A N C O N I ,
R O G E R G LY D E , C H R I S G O SD E N , C H R I S G R E E N ,
Z E NA KA M A SH , S A R A H M A L L E T, L AU R A M O R L EY,
DA N I E L S TA N SB I E , A N D L E T T Y T E N HA R K E L

1
OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGEPROOF – FINAL, 06/02/21, SPi

1
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
© Anwen Cooper, Miranda Creswell, Victoria Donnelly, Tyler Franconi,
Roger Glyde, Chris Gosden, Chris Green, Zena Kamash, Sarah Mallet,
Laura Morley, Daniel Stansbie, and Letty ten Harkel 2021
The moral rights of the authors have been asserted
First Edition published in 2021
Impression: 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2020947354
ISBN 978–0–19–887062–3
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198870623.001.0001
Printed and bound by
CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and
for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials
contained in any third party website referenced in this work.
 OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGEPROOF – FINAL, 06/02/21, SPi

Preface and Acknowledgements

The English Landscapes and Identities project (known hereafter by its acronym EngLaId)
was a five-year project which ran between 1st August 2011 and 31st July 2016. It was funded
by an ERC Advanced Grant (269797) awarded to Chris Gosden and we are very happy to
acknowledge the support of the European Research Council. The researchers on the project
were Chris Gosden (principal applicant), Anwen Cooper (prehistory), Miranda Creswell
(artist), Tyler Franconi (Roman period), Chris Green (GIS), Letty ten Harkel (early medi­
eval), Zena Kamash (Roman period), and Laura Morley (research coordination). The pro-
ject looked at the long-term history of the English landscape from 1500 bc to ad 1086,
combining evidence on landscape features, such as track-ways, fields, and settlements, with
the distribution of metalwork. The project examined a crucial period of English landscape
history from the start of the settled agricultural landscape to the medieval world, which
was directly ancestral to that of modernity. Working from the Bronze Age to the early
medieval period revealed great evidence of change, but also surprising continuity in terms
of land divisions and forms of settlement. We were also interested in how this patterning
relates to the types of artefacts deposited and the places in which they were deposited over
this period. The project was not purely empirical and attempted to develop theory con-
cerning the relations between people and the material world.
The project attempted to synthesise all the major available data sets from English archae-
ology within a digital environment, making this a ‘Big Data’ project, eventually creating a
database of over 900,000 items. Three doctoral students joined the project in October 2012.
Victoria Donnelly examined the ‘grey literature’ from England since 1990 and through this
the practices of archaeology after PPG 16. Sarah Mallet gathered together and analysed the
major sets of isotopic data from humans, animals, and plants across England for the
EngLaId periods. Daniel Stansbie tackled the topic of food and attempted to pull together
evidence from pottery, animal bones, and plant remains for the Thames Valley and Kent for
the EngLaId periods. Each submitted and defended their theses. Roger Glyde was an
important member of the team throughout, carrying out a range of empirical work, as well
as commenting on, and contributing to, the written results. We feel that the project has
been productive, but it has also been really enjoyable, with the team forming a close group
within which people worked and socialized.
More information is given on the background to the project, our sources of data, and
modes of analysis in Chapters 1–3, together with an outline of this volume. Here we simply
provide a broad timetable of the project. As mentioned, the team started work in August
2011, although not everyone was able to join until January 2012 due to prior commitments.
Zena Kamash was offered a lectureship in 2014, left the project, and was replaced by Tyler
Franconi as the Roman specialist. The data-gathering phase of the project lasted until May
2013 and we were able to properly start analysis after that. The last year of the project was
spent writing up.
We are grateful to an enormous number of people and we hope we have not missed too
many out. The earliest phase of the project gathered data. We are very grateful to numerous
people in what was then English Heritage (and now Historic England (EH)) for the provi-
sion of data, including Simon Crutchley, Peter Horne, Lindsay Jones, Martin Newman, and
 OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGEPROOF – FINAL, 06/02/21, SPi

vi Preface and Acknowledgements

Barney Sloane, as well as Nick Davies, Gill Grayson, Sarah Maclean, David McOmish,
Sarah Poppy, and Poppy Starkie. The Portable Antiquity Scheme (PAS) was the main source
of data on artefacts and we would like to thank Roger Bland, Michael Lewis, Sam Moorhead,
Stephen Moon, Mary Chester-Cadwell, and Dan Pett. Catherine Hardman and Stuart
Jeffrey of the Archaeology Data Service (ADS) gave us important advice on the relevant
archives held by the ADS. Tim Evans (ADS) steered us towards the Excavation Index and
provided considerable advice. We also benefitted from advice and information from a
number of Finds Liaison Officers, including Frank Basford (Isle of Wight) and Tom Brindle.
Ehren Milner at the Archaeological Investigations Project (AIP) was an important source
of data and advice.
Our main source of data came from local archaeological officers. We would like to thank
all Historic Environment Record (HER) officers who provided us with data. These include
Christine Addison, Northamptonshire HER; Sarah Botfield, Peterborough HER; Stewart
Bryant, Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers (ALGAO); Giles Carey,
Shropshire HER; Jo Caruth, Suffolk HER; Rebecca Casa-Hatton, Peterborough HER; Sally
Croft, Cambridgeshire HER; Ben Croxford, Kent HER; Phillip de Jersey, States of Guernsey;
Lucie Dingwall, Herefordshire HER; Keith Elliott, Northumberland HER; Heather
Hamilton, Norfolk HER; Mike Hemblade, North Lincolnshire HER; Richard Hoggett,
Suffolk HER; Rebecca Loader, Isle of Wight HER; Fiona Maconald, ALGAO; Colin
Pendleton, Suffolk HER; Guy Salkeld, National Trust; Melissa Seddon, Herefordshire HER;
Graham Tait, ALGAO; Bryn Tapper, Emma Trevarthen, Jacky Nowakowski, and Andrew
Young, Cornwall and Scilly HER; Ben Wallace, ALGAO; Penny Ward, Shropshire HER;
Chris Webster, Somerset HER; Liz Williams, Northumberland HER; and Alison Yardy,
Norfolk HER. Keith Westcott at exeGesIS SDM Ltd helped develop a query which could
extract data from the HBSMR database system used by more than half of HERs.
In the middle stages of the project a great number of people gave us advice and shared
their knowledge of local archaeology or the situation across the country more broadly.
These include Martin Allen, Fitzwilliam Museum; John Baker, Stuart Brookes for medieval
data and discussions; Chris Evans for advice and critique; Graham Fairclough gave us
information on Historic Landscape Characterisation and other matters; Duncan Garrow
linked to the Celtic art database and gave advice on other matters; Ian Leins gave advice on
coinage; Katie Robbins shared her thoughts on modelling PAS data; Iona Robinson for
sharing unpublished material; Sarah Semple for general advice on the medieval period; Sue
Stallibrass for suggestions on how to incorporate environmental data; Fraser Sturt,
Southampton University, provided his modelling of sea levels; Pete Topping for general
thoughts and advice; Clive Waddington for sharing his knowledge of the northeast;
Philippa Walton for advice on Roman finds; and Ole Wiedenmann, History Data Service,
provided information on historic parishes and place names.
In Oxford, Jane Kershaw helped during the initial setting-up phase, John Pouncett and
Gary Lock provided advice on digital and other matters. Janice Kinory provided her data-
base of salt-making sites and Lisa Lodwick advised on plant remains and agricultural
regimes. Steve Hick and Jeremy Worth gave us financial and IT support, respectively. Chris
Gosden would like to thank Elizabeth Allen for organizing so much. We ran two successful
workshops and a conference. We are very grateful to all speakers, chairs, discussants, and
audience participants. We were assisted by volunteers who processed various forms of data
and provided informed discussion. We are grateful to Pat Day, Pam England, Paula Levick,
and Steve Northcott. Roger Glyde started as a volunteer and ended up a core member of
the team.
 OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGEPROOF – FINAL, 06/02/21, SPi

Preface and Acknowledgements vii

We are particularly grateful to our academic advisory committee—John Blair, Richard

Bradley, Barry Cunliffe, Mike Fulford, Helena Hamerow, Mark Pollard, Jeremy Taylor, and
Roger Thomas—for regular advice and guidance. Roger Thomas made detailed and helpful
criticisms of the text. We are also grateful to members of the Roman Rural Settlement pro-
ject for regular contact, discussions, and a sight of their first volume prior to publication,
and they include Mike Fulford, Neil Holbrook, Martyn Allen, Tom Brindle, Lisa Lodwick,
and Alex Smith.
Miranda Creswell ran a series of successful art projects in a variety of venues and com-
munities. These resulted in an exhibition, ‘Didcot Dog Mile’, of Miranda’s own work, as well
as that of local artists and archaeologists, at the Cornerstone Arts Centre, Didcot. Important
participants were Wendy Botto and Karen Leahy (from the local community), Kate
Woodley (from Oxford Archaeology), and Miranda Creswell, Letty ten Harkell, Chris
Green, Zena Kamash, and Anwen Cooper (from EngLaId). Miranda Creswell, together
with members of the team, undertook a project focused around ‘Horatio’s Garden’ at the
Salisbury Spinal Unit, allowing people who find it hard to access the landscape to gain
knowledge of it. Miranda has produced her own art in Cornwall, Cumbria, Derbyshire,
Devon, Hampshire, Northumbria, Norfolk, Buckinghamshire, Nottinghamshire, and
Oxfordshire, often in more than one location and is grateful to a range of people in those
places. Miranda and Laura Morley developed a project on the River Mersey engaging two
schools on either side of the river, St. Saviour’s Primary School, Birkenhead and St.
Christopher’s Primary School, Speke. We would like to thank staff and students of both
schools and Kathy Heywood of the Williamson Art Gallery where the artwork from this
project was displayed. More generally Miranda would like to thank Sarah Mossop and
Tamarin Norwood of Modern Art Oxford, Alice Oswald for discussions on Dartmoor and
other landscapes, as well as Helen Wickstead for thoughts on drawing and archaeology.
We are very grateful to three anonymous readers who made extensive and positively
critical comments which have helped us improve this manuscript. First Charlotte Loveridge
and then Karen Raith have been our commissioning editors at Oxford University Press and
we are very grateful to both of them for shepherding a tricky manuscript through the pro-
cess of publication. Jenny King, our editor at OUP oversaw the production process with
efficiency and grace. Ethiraju Saraswathi ensured the production process went smoothly.
We are very grateful to Charles Lauder for superb copy editing.
This volume is one of two outputs of the project, the other being a GIS website contain-
ing a simplified version of the main project database available at the time of publication:
http://englaid.arch.ox.ac.uk
The chapters in this volume feature different sets of authors from the project team,
reflecting those who participated extensively in the writing of those particular chapters.
However, the content of all chapters was discussed widely across the team and minor con-
tributions were made to various pieces of work by members of the team not necessarily
named as chapter authors.
The maps in this volume contain Ordnance Survey (OS) Open Data © Crown Copyright
and Database Right 2012.
OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGEPROOF – FINAL, 06/02/21, SPi
 OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGEPROOF – FINAL, 06/02/21, SPi

Contents

List of Figures xi
List of Tables xxiii
List of Abbreviations xxv
1. Introduction 1
Chris Gosden, Tyler Franconi, and Letty ten Harkel

I . T H E C R E AT IO N O F A R C HA E O L O G IC A L DATA ,
T H E M A K I N G O F O U R DATA BA SE , A N D T H E
F O R M O F O U R A NA LYSE S

2. Characterful Data: Its Character and Capacities 29

Anwen Cooper, Victoria Donnelly, Chris Green, and Letty ten Harkel
3. Patterns in the Data across England 55
Letty ten Harkel, Anwen Cooper, Victoria Donnelly, Chris Gosden,
Chris Green, Tyler Franconi, and Laura Morley

I I . T H E E X P L O R AT IO N O F B R OA D E R PAT T E R N S

4. Long-Term Interactions between Society and Ecology 107

Tyler Franconi and Chris Gosden
5. Movement 149
Tyler Franconi and Chris Green
6. Substances and Cycles 183
Sarah Mallet and Dan Stansbie
7. Field Systems, Orientation, and Cosmology 218
Chris Green and Chris Gosden
8. Identity, Naming, and Division 257
Letty ten Harkel and Chris Gosden

I I I . U N D E R S TA N D I N G R E G IO NA L A N D
L O C A L VA R IA B I L I T Y

9. Scale 301
Anwen Cooper, Chris Green, and Chris Gosden
10. Time 348
Anwen Cooper, Chris Green, and Laura Morley
 OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGEPROOF – FINAL, 06/02/21, SPi

x Contents

11. Landscapes and Identities: Conclusions and Reflections 399

Chris Gosden, Anwen Cooper, Miranda Creswell, Victoria Donnelly,
Tyler Franconi, Chris Green, Roger Glyde, Letty ten Harkel, Zena Kamash,
Sarah Mallet, Laura Morley, and Dan Stansbie

Appendix 1. RUSLE Model to Measure Soil Erosion 411

Appendix 2. Methodology for Assessing the Morphological Structure
of the Forty Field Systems 413

Bibliography 416
Index 448
 OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGEPROOF – FINAL, 06/02/21, SPi

List of Figures

1.1 Summed percentage probability of PAS records (excluding coins) falling within
century time-slices. 21
1.2 Percentage probability of PAS/EMC records (including coins) by century
time-slice, summed by hexagonal bins. 22
2.1 Example of a map produced using 3-km hexbins, showing presence/absence of
records for Roman villas (blue) over records for the Roman domestic and civil
category (red). 38
2.2 Map of the final case study areas and the 34 10 km × 10 km test squares. 39
2.3 Degrees of overlap between monument records (incl. findspots) in 35 HERs as
against some of our other major databases. Boxplots show minimum, median,
maximum, and quartile ranges for each set of values. Individual HER values
are shown by the circles. 40
2.4 Relative overlaps between HER data and AIP/NRHE data in the 34 10 km × 10 km
test squares. Upper case names indicate those within case study areas investigated
in more detail. The PAS was omitted as not all HERs include it. 40
2.5 Comparison of relative occurrence of monument types in the Northumberland
case study area (unclean data) compared to clean data for the whole case study
area and the 10 km × 10 km square. 41
2.6 Relative occurrence of the different periods per spatial bin (1 km × 1 km square)
in the case study regions and across England (records broadly assigned to prehistoric
were counted as both Bronze Age and Iron Age). This shows the broad distribution
of evidence across England. 43
2.7 Pottery usage for (a) later prehistory; (b) Roman—number of wares; and (c) early
medi­eval periods. 44
2.8 Comparison of the spatial distribution of the majority of archaeological
investigations for all five archaeological organizations with the highest output of
grey literature report production. Based on GLL, AIP, and EI data with density
surfaces created using the KDE tool in ArcGIS (after Donnelly 2016: Figure 18). 48
2.9 The 51 organisations in England which produced the most grey literature reports
in the period between 1990 and 2010. Based on the GLL, AIP, and EI datasets
(after Donnelly 2016: Figure 15). 49
2.10 Comparison of simplified EI and AIP investigation types for the EngLaId case
study areas (per square km), 1990–2010. 51
2.11 Monument affordance maps for (a) aerial photography; (b) excavation; and
(c) combined model. 52
2.12 PAS affordance: (a) map of combined model; and (b) graph showing the
relationship between findspot counts and affordance values. 53
3.1 Comparison between different regions developed to study English archaeology:
Roberts and Wrathmell, Fields of Britannia, and Roman Rural Settlement Project. 57
 OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGEPROOF – FINAL, 06/02/21, SPi

xii List of Figures

3.2 Kernel Density Estimate (KDE) of the number of EngLaId thesaurus types
represented across England (based on 1 km × 1 km spatial bins). 58
3.3 (a) Fifty-km KDE plots of presence/absence of thesaurus categories by 1 km × 1 km
grid square by period (unspecified prehistoric included in Bronze Age and Iron
Age time-slices at a 50/50 weighting). Data presented as z-scores (red values =
above average; white values = mean average; blue values = below average).
(b) Fifty-km KDE plots of presence/absence of thesaurus categories by 1 km × 1 km
grid square by period (unspecified prehistoric included in Bronze Age and Iron
Age time-slices at a 50/50 weighting). Data presented as z-scores (red values = above
average; white values = mean average; blue values = below average). 59
3.4 The number of investigations per square kilometre in various EngLaId case
study areas compared to the national pattern, using EI investigation types, 1990–2010.
The national distribution is seventh from the right, indicated in capital letters. 61
3.5 The relative importance of EI investigation types by EngLaId case study areas
compared to the national pattern, 1990–2010. The national distribution is sixth
from the right, indicated in capital letters. 61
3.6 The 10 km × 10 km squares used for cleaning and comparing data. 62
3.7 Representation of the different EngLaId periods across the fourteen test squares
within the case study areas (clean data). Test square names printed in capitals are
classed as ‘upland’. 63
3.8 Relative height of the fourteen 10 km × 10 km test squares. A (somewhat artificial)
line was drawn at 300 m OD to separate lowland from upland areas. Upland areas
are generally (but not always) characterized by relatively large numbers of generic
prehistoric and uncertainly dated records. 64
3.9 Representation of the EngLaId database categories across the time periods,
showing the nationwide and seven local distributions similar to the national pattern.
With the exception of Somerset (which is a borderline case) these are mostly lowland
areas (see inset for more arch­aeo­logic­al detail on Somerset). 65
3.10 Representation of the EngLaId database categories across time periods, showing
nationwide and seven distributions which differ from the national pattern.
With the exception of Cornwall and the London, these all include upland areas. 67
3.11 Distribution of the test squares similar to the national pattern (yellow) and
those that differ from it (red). 68
3.12 Graph of different monument types across case study areas compared to the
nationwide distribution (all periods). 69
3.13 Monument types across all case study areas compared to the nationwide
distribution for the Bronze Age. 70
3.14 Monument types for all case study areas compared to the nationwide
distribution for the Iron Age. 71
3.15 Monument types for the case study areas compared to the nationwide
distribution for the Roman period. 71
3.16 Monument types for the case study areas compared to the nationwide
distribution for the early medieval period. 72
3.17 The distribution of metalwork in the Bronze Age showing a broad divide
between the south and east and the rest of the country. Numbers of records are
relatively low and some of the larger numbers in the northwest are possibly due
 OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGEPROOF – FINAL, 06/02/21, SPi

List of Figures xiii

to individual detectorists and individual productive sites. The map shows the
number of records and not the number of objects (one PAS record can represent more
than one object), as this would be skewed by individual hoards. Data from the PAS. 78
3.18 The distribution of metal finds from the Iron Age showing the number of records
and not the number of objects, as this would be skewed by individual hoards.
The distribution includes coin finds. Data from the PAS. 79
3.19 The distribution of metalwork in the Roman period showing the number of
records and not the number of objects, as this would be skewed by individual hoards.
The distribution includes coin finds. Data from the PAS. 80
3.20 The distribution of metalwork in the early medieval period showing the number of
records and not the number of objects, as this would be skewed by individual hoards.
The distribution includes coin finds. Data from the PAS. 81
4.1 Elevation (left) and terrain ruggedness (right) of England. 110
4.2 Shallowest geology (left) and soil conditions (right) of England. 111
4.3 Average annual temperature (left) and precipitation (right) in England (derived
from WorldClim). 112
4.4 Surface wetness (a) and river basins (b), and stream lengths (c) in England. 112
4.5 Elevation within Fox’s highland and lowland zones. 113
4.6 Land use and environments in Fox’s highland and lowland zones. 114
4.7 Comparison of palaeoclimate series discussed in text, with lines indicating
period divisions. 115
4.8 Factors contributing to erosion in England: (a) R-factor (rainfall erosivity),
(b) K-factor (soil erodibility) corrected by stoniness rating, (c) L-S factor
(slope angle and length), and (d) wind erosion. 126
4.9 Erosion susceptibility in England. 127
4.10 Erosion models of Boardman and Evans (2006) and Morgan (1985) for comparison,
redrawn from Panagos et al. (2016). 128
4.11 The distribution of (a) lynchet fields and (b) all fields plotted against erosion
susceptibility.129
4.12 Lynchet fields compared with all EngLaId fields of different periods plotted
against soil erodibility (FS = field system). The differences are relatively subtle,
with many fields of all periods situated in areas of low erodibility as shown by
their medians, but some fields also placed in areas where soil is more likely to
erode, as is seen when all fields are looked at for the early medieval period. 130
4.13 Soil erosion susceptibility at the national level by EngLaId period. 131
4.14 Relative probability plot of UK ‘anthropogenic alluvium’ with key moments in
agricultural innovation (purple line = relative probability, blue bars = frequency).
Also includes periods of highlighted lacustrine sedimentation in yellow, and the
summed probability distribution of radiocarbon-dated cereal grains in orange
(redrawn from Macklin et al. 2014: Figure 2). Note that the temporal scale here is
in years before present. 131
4.15 Thames and Eden River basins with EngLaId case study outlines. 133
4.16 The Thames basin. 135
4.17 Soil types within the Thames basin. 136
 OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGEPROOF – FINAL, 06/02/21, SPi

xiv List of Figures

4.18 Soil wetness in the Thames basin. 137

4.19 Erosion susceptibility of the Thames basin. 138
4.20 Alluvial deposits within the Thames basin. 139
4.21 HER records in Thames basin, total = 18,022. 140
4.22 Distribution of EngLaId records on dry and seasonally wet soils in Thames basin. 140
4.23 EngLaId records by period and erosion susceptibility within Thames basin. 141
4.24 EngLaId records in alluvial areas, total = 1,454. 141
4.25 The Eden River basin (a) and the soils of the basin (b). 142
4.26 Soil wetness (a) and erosion susceptibility (b) in Eden basin. 143
4.27 Alluvial deposits within Eden basin. 144
4.28 HER records in Eden basin, total = 867. 145
4.29 EngLaId records by soil type in Eden basin. 145
4.30 EngLaId records by soil wetness in Eden basin. 145
4.31 EngLaId records by period and soil erosion susceptibility within Eden basin. 146
5.1 (a) Cumulative terrain-based cost surface generated by summing individual
cost surfaces created using each black dot as a starting point. (b) Flat-cost
cumulative cost surface used to normalize output like that shown in (a). 152
5.2 Terrain Ruggedness Index (TRI)-based cumulative cost surface, expressed
as z-scores of values above (red) or below (blue) the mean, in units of standard
deviations.154
5.3 Wetness-based cumulative cost surface, expressed as detailed in Figure 5.2’s caption. 155
5.4 Visibility-based cumulative cost surface, expressed as detailed in Figure 5.2’s caption. 156
5.5 Combined cumulative cost surface, based upon TRI (double weighted), wetness,
and visi­bil­ity, expressed as detailed in Figure 5.2’s caption. 157
5.6 Archaeological record density-based cumulative cost surface, expressed as
detailed in Figure 5.2’s caption—Bronze Age. 159
5.7 Archaeological record density-based cumulative cost surface, expressed as
detailed in Figure 5.2’s caption—Iron Age. 160
5.8 Archaeological record density-based cumulative cost surface, expressed as
detailed in Figure 5.2’s caption—Roman. 161
5.9 Archaeological record density-based cumulative cost surface, expressed as
detailed in Figure 5.2’s caption—early medieval. 162
5.10 Archaeological record density-based cumulative cost surfaces plotted against
transport networks: (a) Roman, including major Roman towns; (b) early medieval,
including major towns as of ad 1086 (after Reynolds 1977: 35). 163
5.11 Comparison of values by 1 km × 1 km grid square for each of the four
period-based movement models against the terrain-based movement model
(TRI × 2 + wetness + visi­bil­ity). Red lines are linear regressions. 164
5.12 The routes of the Antonine Itineraries marked (in network form) in orange
(after Rivet and Smith 1979) over the Roman road network within England. 165
5.13 Bronze Age (left) and Iron Age (right) evidence for communication and
transportation networks mapped against each period’s movement model.
Generically dated ‘prehistoric’ records shown in the background of each. 167
 OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGEPROOF – FINAL, 06/02/21, SPi

List of Figures xv

5.14 Prehistoric evidence for roads and river crossings mapped against (a) the Iron
Age movement model and (b) major river ways. On the maps, ‘crossings’ (points)
represent the intersection points between rivers and routeways, whereas
‘bridges’ (hexagons) represent anything recorded in one of our input datasets
as a bridge. 168
5.15 Horse gear from the (a) prehistoric period and (b) Roman period. 168
5.16 Roman roads, river crossings, and bridges mapped against (a) Roman
movement model and (b) major river ways. On the maps, ‘crossings’ (points)
represent the intersection points between rivers and routeways, whereas ‘bridges’
(hexagons) represent anything recorded in one of our input datasets as a bridge. 169
5.17 Early medieval roads, river crossings, and bridges mapped against (a) early
medieval movement model and (b) major river ways. Black lines represent
Roman roads still in use as evidenced by place names studied by Cole (2013);
red lines represent Roman roads probably still in use based on modern use of
the same routes. On the maps, ‘crossings’ (points) represent the intersection
points between rivers and routeways, whereas ‘bridges’ (hexagons) represent
anything recorded in one of our input datasets as a bridge. 170
5.18 Early medieval horse gear. 171
5.19 Schematic model of water transport in early medieval England with
impressionistic indications of relative traffic levels and direction of travel
(adapted from Blair 2007: Figure 5). 174
5.20 Evidence of prehistoric watercraft and harbour/quay installations mapped
against river basins (CEH hydrological areas) and major watercourses. 175
5.21 Evidence of Roman watercraft and harbour/quay installations mapped
against river basins (CEH hydrological areas) and major watercourses. 176
5.22 Evidence of early medieval watercraft and harbour/quay installations mapped
against river basins and major watercourses. Ship burials are indicated in blue. 177
5.23 Distribution of place name evidence from seven case studies. Data adapted
from Palmer (2010). 179
5.24 Comparisons between place name evidence and EngLaId data for (a) rivers,
(b) roads, (c) fords, and (d) bridges. 181
6.1 Proposed model of dynamic isotopic processes (illustration by Zoé Mallet). 187
6.2 The location of the case study areas used in the study of plants, animals, and pottery. 188
6.3 The frequency of cereal species by period and case study area. 189
6.4 Boxplot distribution of the charred grain and cattle ∂15N
values in the Iron Age.
All the data are from the Ceramic Phases 3 and 7 of Danebury and nearby
settlements of similar dates (Lightfoot and Stevens, 2012; Stevens et al. 2013a).
Barley ∂15N average: 3.82‰, wheat ∂15N average: 2.77‰. 191
6.5 ∂15N for charred barley and wheat from Danebury (from Lightfoot and
Stevens, 2012) compared with data from long-term field experiments from
England and Germany showing different levels of manuring (intensive, 35 t/ha per year;
moderate, 20 t/ha per year; data from Fraser et al. 2011 and Bogaard et al. 2007). 192
6.6 Major animal species (that is the percentage of the number of identified specimens
or NISP) by period and case study area. 193
6.7 Ceramic repertoires by period and case study area. 194
 OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGEPROOF – FINAL, 06/02/21, SPi

xvi List of Figures

6.8 Distribution of the cattle isotopic data by broad time period. 197
6.9 Boxplot comparison of the cattle data by broad period (Iron Age n = 206,
Roman n = 99, early medieval n = 138). 198
6.10 Boxplot distributions of cattle ∂13C (left) and ∂15N
(right) values across all
sub-periods (early Iron Age n = 74, middle Iron Age n = 53, late Iron Age n = 49,
latest Iron Age n = 16, late Iron Age/early Roman n = 3, early Roman n = 12,
middle Roman n = 56, late Roman n = 13, early Anglo-Saxon n = 61, middle
Anglo-Saxon n = 10, late Saxon/Norman n = 10). The less well-dated samples
have been excluded (Iron Age n = 14, Roman n = 15, Anglo-Saxon n = 57).
The red line is a LOESS regression, which is used to plot a smooth line through
a series of data points by weighted quadratic least squares regression. 199
6.11 Boxplots of the regional distribution of cattle ∂13C and ∂15N in the Iron Age. 200
6.12 Boxplots of the regional distribution of cattle ∂13C and ∂15N values in the
Roman period. 201
6.13 Boxplots of the regional distribution of cattle ∂13C and ∂15N values in the
early medieval period. 202
6.14 Boxplot comparisons of the sheep data by regions in the early medieval period
(Hampshire n = 80, Suffolk n = 76, Yorkshire n = 15). 203
6.15 Diachronic evolution of the human data (early Iron Age n = 20, middle
Iron Age n = 135, late Iron Age n = 62, early Roman n = 21, middle Roman n = 610,
late Roman n = 49, late Roman/early Anglo-Saxon n = 87, early Anglo-Saxon n = 651,
early Anglo-Saxon/middle Anglo-Saxon n = 12, middle Anglo Saxon n = 107,
late Saxon n = 68, late Saxon/Norman n = 51). Samples dated less precisely, i.e. dated
only to a broad period (‘Iron Age’ n = 79, ‘Roman’ n = 61, ‘Anglo-Saxon’ n = 111),
and also the single ‘latest Iron Age’ sample have been excluded. The red line is a
LOESS regression, which is used to plot a smooth line through a series of
data points. The left-hand side of the graph shows carbon values, those on the
right nitrogen. 204
6.16 Distribution of the data according to the different levels of enrichment. 205
6.17 The outline of the third-century walls of Roman London used to define sites
within and without the city for the late Iron Age–Roman and early medieval periods
(after Rowsome and Burch 2011). 207
6.18 The frequency of cereal species by period in the Middle Thames Valley within
and without the walls of third-century London. 208
6.19 Major animal species (% NISP) by period in the Middle Thames Valley within
and without the walls of third-century London. 208
6.20 Minor animal species (% NISP) by period in the Middle Thames Valley within
and without the walls of third-century London. 209
6.21 Boxplot distribution of the cattle ∂13C (a) and ∂15N (b) values in the rural (orange)
and urban (blue) data. 210
6.22 Boxplot distribution of the human (a) ∂15C and (b) ∂15 N values in the rural
(orange) and urban (blue) data. 211
6.23 ∂13C and ∂15N differences between cattle and humans from urban and rural sites. 211
7.1 Presence of records of field systems (in red) in the EngLaId database for:
(a) Bronze Age; (b) Iron Age; (c) Roman; and (d) early medieval. Non-specific
prehistoric records shown in pink in (a) and (b). Records based solely upon
place names or documentary sources have been excluded. 227
 OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGEPROOF – FINAL, 06/02/21, SPi

List of Figures xvii

7.2 Four areas of human ecology and field systems in the second and into the
first millennia bc.228
7.3 Field systems studied as part of this exercise, in ascending order of total enclosed
area (left to right, top to bottom). 230
7.4 Locations of field systems studied as part of this exercise, by apparent period.
Markers displaced from spatial location where necessary to show all values.
The numbers given are those found in Table 7.1. 231
7.5 Histograms of mean elevation of 1 km × 1 km cells nationally containing field
systems for: (a) Bronze Age; (b) unspecified prehistoric; (c) Iron Age–Roman;
and (d) early medieval. Red lines show the pattern for England as a whole. 235
7.6 Modern broad soil type, shallowest geology, and land use classification of field
systems studied as part of this exercise. 236
7.7 Schematic rendering of metrics used to define and measure ‘peaks’ in field
system orien­ta­tion. 237
7.8 Coaxiality against intravisibility. 238
7.9 Field system variation in orientation (0°–359°) (black) against variation in
aspect of the ground surface (0°–359°) (red). 239
7.10 Frequency/variation of each system’s two strongest orientation peaks (0°–179°)
as histogram and radial chart. 240
7.11 Density scatter plot of coaxiality against higher and lower bearing value of
orien­ta­tion peaks ranked 1 and 2. The point data mark the various values and
the shading shows a kernel density plot of their distribution. 240
7.12 (a) Density of areas of NMP ridge and furrow which had arrow lines showing
their direction, making them useful for automated extraction of orientation data;
(b) schematic showing an example of a ridge and furrow plot in the NMP. 241
7.13 Orientations (0°–359°) of field systems studied as part of this exercise,
prehistoric (inc. Bronze–Iron Ages) and Roman field systems subjected to
automated extraction of orientation data, and ridge and furrow subjected to
automated extraction of orientation data. Data binned into 100 km × 100 km
OS grid squares. 242
7.14 Density scatter plots comparing nodes per hectare, lines per hectare, and length
per hectare for field system studies as part of this study. 244
7.15 Density scatter plots comparing nodes, lines, and length per hectare against coaxiality. 244
7.16 Nodes, lines, and length per hectare, and coaxiality across England. Markers
displaced from spatial location where necessary to show all values. 245
7.17 Example of polygons included or excluded from plot area calculations (pink are
included, red excluded for being too small, and purple excluded for being
too large)—ID 1. 246
7.18 (a) Boxplots showing the distribution of plot enclosed areas (in hectares) for
21 of 40 field systems; (b) histogram of frequency of plot enclosed areas (in hectares)
for all 21 field systems. 247
7.19 Examples of field system orientation alignments on the solstices. Positive values
on the y-axis relate to sunrise and negative values to sunset. The left-hand vertical
line represents the declination of the midwinter sun and the right-hand vertical
line represents the declination of the sun at midsummer. Field systems shown are
IDs (clockwise from top right): 2, 10, 26, 14, 9, 1. 250
 OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGEPROOF – FINAL, 06/02/21, SPi

xviii List of Figures

7.20 Alignment of early Bronze Age linear round barrow cemeteries compared to
the solstices. Graph set out as described in Figure 7.17’s caption. 251
7.21 Orientation of house doorways in Wessex from the middle Bronze Age to the
middle Iron Age. Data taken from Sharples 2010 (Figure 4.5). 252
7.22 Bronze Age and Roman field systems at Perry Oaks/Terminal 5, alongside Bronze
Age waterholes (after Framework Archaeology 2011). 254
8.1 Line graph of the relative spatial occurrence of different categories of enclosure
(linear land divisions, field systems, enclosed settlement forms including hill forts,
and enclosures) by broad time period (with generic prehistoric records half-weighted
to the Bronze and Iron Ages). The data were collated on a presence/absence basis
in 1 km × 1 km squares; the y-axis depicts the presence of enclosure categories in
relation to all spatial units containing data of any kind (including undated records).
Dated records represent 67.8 per cent of all records for linear ditches,
70.2 per cent for field systems, 97.1 per cent for enclosed settlements and
63.2 per cent for enclosures. 264
8.2 As described in Figure 8.1’s caption, but for six selected case study regions.
Data mapped as presence/absence in 350-m hexbins. Dated records represent
variable percentages of all records for linear ditches (Northumberland:
47.2 per cent; Humber: 91.3 per cent; Kent: 47.8 per cent; Devon: 66.0 per cent;
Marches: 56.9 per cent; Cumbria: 56.4 per cent), field systems (Northumberland:
74.4 per cent; Humber: 72.9 per cent; Kent: 76.1 per cent; Devon: 88.7 per cent;
Marches: 53.4 per cent; Cumbria: 73.3 per cent), enclosed settlements
(Northumberland: 96.2 per cent; Humber: 96.8 per cent; Kent: 95.8 per cent;
Devon: 97.8 per cent; Marches: 96.6 per cent; Cumbria: 96.8 per cent) and
enclosures (Northumberland: 55.4 per cent; Humber: 64.7 per cent; Kent: 59.4 per cent;
Devon: 83.7 per cent; Marches: 64.0 per cent; Cumbria: 62.9 per cent). 265
8.3 KDE surfaces of the different categories of enclosure on a nationwide scale,
based on presence/absence in 1-km squares. Dark areas indicate greater density.
The shading of each KDE surface is numerically scaled relative to itself only (i.e. a specific
shade of grey on one map will not represent the same density on any other map). 266
8.4 Place names combining a personal name with –tun, –ham, –by, or –thorpe (in red)
in seven EngLaId case study areas, mapped against all Domesday place names
(in black). They represent just under 17 per cent. Data adapted from Palmer (2010). 271
8.5 The boundary of the estate in the South Hams in Devon mapped on the ground,
based on a ninth-century charter boundary clause (L298.0.00/Sawyer 298;
South Hams, Devon; ad 846). After Hooke (1994: 105–12). Blue lines represent
rivers; grey lines represent roads, and red dots represent Domesday estates that
fall within the enclosed area. Names in bold represent modern place names
(one river name and three Domesday estates), but in this case they all fall outside the
enclosed area. 273
8.6 An example of a charter boundary clause mapped on the ground
(L1033.1.000/Sawyer 1033; Ottery St Mary [2], Devon; ad 1061). Based on
Hooke (1994: 207–12) in conjunction with 1st edition OS maps (1:2500 County
Series 1st Edition (TIFF geospatial data), Scale 1:2500, Tiles: devo-06916-1 and
devo-07009-1, Updated: 30 November 2010, Historic, Using: EDINA Historic Digimap
Service, http://digimap.edina.ac.uk, Downloaded: 2016-07-25 14:39:39.932).
Blue lines represent rivers; thick grey lines represent former Roman roads, and
 OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGEPROOF – FINAL, 06/02/21, SPi

List of Figures xix

thin grey lines are other roads. Features drawn only in relation to the estate
boundary (red dashed line). Names in bold represent modern place names. 274
8.7 Total number of charter bounds per case study region, compared to the mean
number of structuring elements per charter boundary clause, reflecting the
preponderance of (the relatively simple) Type 1 charter bounds in Kent. 275
8.8 Relative distribution of structuring elements within charter bounds. 276
8.9 Relative distribution of structuring elements within place names. The high
peak in the buildings and settlement category results from the habit of including
an element describing the kind of settlement (such as –tun or –by) in
Old English naming practices. 277
8.10 A 200-m buffer zone around Bronze Age fields in Northumberland (in red)
and all HER records (small black dots). 283
8.11 Bronze Age fields in Northumberland and associated monument types. 284
8.12 A 200-m buffer zone around Bronze Age fields in Kent (in red) and all
HER records (small black dots). 285
8.13 Bronze Age fields in Kent and associated monument types. 286
8.14 A 200-m buffer zone around Iron Age enclosed settlement in Northumberland
(in red) and all HER records (small black dots). 287
8.15 Iron Age enclosed settlements in Northumberland and associated monument types. 288
8.16 A 200-m buffer zone around Iron Age enclosed settlement in Kent (in red)
and all HER records (small black dots). 289
8.17 Iron Age enclosed settlements in Kent and associated monument types. 290
9.1 A schematic rendering of the tension between space, time, and type in terms of
the reso­lution of analytical units. 304
9.2 Records of Roman villas plotted on a presence/absence basis using three different
reso­lutions of spatial bin. 305
9.3 The complexity of archaeological evidence (all periods) plotted as 5-km KDE. 307
9.4 Complexity of archaeological evidence (all periods) plotted as 50-km KDE. 308
9.5 (a) Input dot density, showing clear edge effects along coastlines, rescaled
numerically to vary between 0 and 1; (b) complexity (all periods) plotted as
50-km KDE, with edge effect corrected. 308
9.6 (a) Monument affordance model, smoothed using 5-km circular focal mean;
(b) complexity (all periods) plotted as 50-km KDE, with edge effect corrected
and adjusted to take into account monument affordance model. 309
9.7 Complexity (all periods) plotted as 5-km KDE: (a) global measure; (b) local
measure adjusted for regional variation and monument affordance. 309
9.8 Complexity (Bronze Age, including half-weighted prehistoric) plotted as
5-km KDE: (a) global measure; (b) local measure adjusted for regional variation
and monument affordance. 310
9.9 Complexity (Iron Age, including half-weighted prehistoric) plotted as
5-km KDE: (a) global measure; (b) local measure adjusted for regional variation
and monument affordance. 310
9.10 Complexity (Roman) plotted as 5-km KDE: (a) global measure; (b) local measure
adjusted for regional variation and monument affordance. 311
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 *** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK SOME
EMINENT VICTORIANS: PERSONAL RECOLLECTIONS IN THE
WORLD OF ART AND LETTERS ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions

will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright
in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and
distribute it in the United States without permission and without
paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General
Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and
distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the
PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if
you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the
trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the
Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such
as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and
printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in
the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright
law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially
commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
 PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the

free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this
work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase
“Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of
the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or
online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand,
agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual
property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to
abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using
and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for
obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms
of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only

be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by
people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.
There are a few things that you can do with most Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the
full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There
are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™
electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and
help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright
law in the United States and you are located in the United
States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying,
distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works
based on the work as long as all references to Project
Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will
support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free
access to electronic works by freely sharing Project
Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this
agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name
associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms
of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with
its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it
without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside
the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to
the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying,
displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works
based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The
Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright
status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project

Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project
Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed,
viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United

States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it
away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg
License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United
States, you will have to check the laws of the country where
you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to
anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges.
If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of
paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use
of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth
in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and
distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder.
Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™
License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright
holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files
containing a part of this work or any other work associated with
Project Gutenberg™.
 1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute
this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1
with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the
Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if
you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project
Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or
other format used in the official version posted on the official
Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at
no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a
means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other
form. Any alternate format must include the full Project
Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™
works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or

providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
 about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that
s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and
discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project
Gutenberg™ works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project

Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different
terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain
permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™
trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3
below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on,
transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright
law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite
these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the
medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,”
such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt
data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other
medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES -

Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in
paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic
work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for
damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU
AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE,
STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH
OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH
1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER
THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR
ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE
OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF
THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If

you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of
receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you
paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you
received the work from. If you received the work on a physical
medium, you must return the medium with your written
explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the
defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu
of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or
entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.
If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund
in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set

forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’,
WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR
ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this
agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this
agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the
maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable
state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of
this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the

Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless
from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that
arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project
Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or
deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect
you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of

Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new
computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of
volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project
Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™
collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In
2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was
created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project
Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your
efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the
Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-
profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the
laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by
the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal
tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax
deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and
your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500

West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact
links and up to date contact information can be found at the
Foundation’s website and official page at
www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to

the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission
of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works
that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form
accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated
equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly
important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws

regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of
the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform
and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many
fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not
solicit donations in locations where we have not received written
confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or
determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit
www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states

where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know
of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from
donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot

make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations
received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp
our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current

donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a
number of other ways including checks, online payments and
credit card donations. To donate, please visit:
www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project

Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could
be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose
network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several

printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by
copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus,
we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any
particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new
eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear
about new eBooks.
back
back
back
back
back