Their collections

The notes of collectors such as Layton, Gunn and Owles show that by the mid-19^th Century collectors were well aware of the types of species they were finding, and of their significance (Layton 1827; Davies 1878). It has been noted by Reid (1913, 39-42), for example, that the majority of fossils found off Happisburgh belong to Mammuthus meridionalis (an Early Pleistocene Mammuthus [Lister and Bahn 1995]), whereas those from the Dogger Bank appear to represent younger species from after the Elsterian Glaciation, which already indicates an acknowledgement that certain deposits outcropping in areas of the seabed were temporally distinct from one another. This is something that has also been noted by various historic labels on trawled specimens, which refer to ‘bonebeds’ and ‘graveyards’ offshore (Figure 3.12); people were clearly aware of defined locations where this material was exposed.

The collections accumulated by collectors were usually sold off to museums or, in some cases, to auction houses. As a result, the specimens sometimes became globally dispersed (e.g. New York Times 1906). This was usually around the time of death, by the collectors themselves, or later by members of the family. For example, records show that Reverend James Layton sold his collection to the British Museum/Natural History Museum in 1858, and died the following year (pers. comm. Ian Layton), whereas John Owles died in 1873 (www.greatyarmouthhistory.com) with his collection being registered in 1874, and J.J. Colman died in 1898, the same year as his specimens were acquisitioned to the Norwich Castle Museum.

Figure 3.12 Elephas sp. molar with a label noting ‘dredged from “Grave Yard”’ (Colchester Museums Service)

The collections have been held by museums since then, but nearly always with little attention, trawled material being seen as without location and therefore without value. With their respective collectors appearing to have been primarily interested in either ‘curiosities’ or natural history, there is a collection bias which affects the associated information. In the latter case it is more likely that there will be documentation about the finds, at least in a general sense (e.g. Layton 1827;

Williams 1878). However, in either case it is unlikely that there will be any exact account of provenance for the specimens as this level of information was simply not relevant to them, and labels are reduced to a very generalised location such as

‘off Lowestoft’ or even ‘North Sea’. In a few cases this might be more specific, for example ‘40miles E of Lowestoft’, or refer to specific locations such as ‘Hasbro Oyster Bed’. Unfortunately, however, these are rare examples and so a broader perspective must be taken with the vast majority of the material.

Knowing when a specimen was dredged from the seabed also has implications for potential groupings and locations. The vast majority of the specimens, however, provide only the date of acquisition, which as discussed generally correlates with the death of the collector and the sale or donation of their collections. These dates therefore provide a kind of terminus post quem for the specimens’ collection date, with only the occasional instance of being more precise (21% of the entire collection, 3% of the historic collection: this is an important distinction, as the recently-collected material has good provenance, whereas the locations of historic material rely on the trawling patterns).

3.4.3 Summary

Understanding the inspirations and locations of the antiquarians responsible for specimen curation helps to clarify the locations of their collections. Furthermore, the date of death often corresponds with the date of acquisition in the museums’

registers, which helps to explain what could appear to be prolific collection years in the recovery record (see Figures 3.9, 3.11) but which actually represent the purchase or donation of huge collections. Investigating these kinds of issues can therefore help to elucidate patterning in the record, drawing out biases and important relationships.

Discussion 3.5

The preceding sections have discussed the various strands of evidence that have significant bearings on the recovery and location of Pleistocene fossil material: the trawling grounds, the development of the fishing industry, the collectors and their collections, and the myriad social implications of this. Pulling all of this information together allows an assessment of how far we can refine the locations of these fossils and why they are derived from the fleets that they appear to be derived from.

Significant changes have occurred throughout the 200 years since the inception of the trawling industry, with the introduction of steam being arguably the most influential (Butcher 1980; Robinson 1996; Engelhard 2008). Throughout this time, great social changes were also at play, with the industrial revolution giving rise to

the modern capitalist economy. This in turn drove much of the development of the larger trawling businesses in the north-east, as well as Great Yarmouth (Section 3.2.1), and, at another level, the emergence of a more questioning and secular society pushing the boundaries of science. Furthermore, the increasing polarisation of amateur and professional roles throughout this time (McNabb 2012), in this case within the roles of natural historians and museums, meant that the numbers of specimens being both recovered and reported began to decline.

Figure 3.13 shows the combination of a timeline of the development of the trawling industry with the acquisition and collection of finds through the same period. Perhaps the broadest, yet most important, pattern is the changing frequencies of fossil recovery through time. As discussed, the majority of these dates act as a terminus ante quem for the specimens meaning that where peaks in numbers are seen, these could have been recovered at any point up to and including this date (with the exception of the BMAPA/Colchester peak, which is well constrained). The † symbol shown in Figure 3.13 shows the death of a major collector, which has had a dramatic effect on the numbers per decade. J. Owles, for example, whose collection numbers 207 specimens, died in 1873 and his collection was acquired in 1874. Interestingly, it was not only death that prompted donations of collections: J.J. Colman donated his collection of 34 specimens in 1877 but did not die until 1898. However, in 1878 he acquired a prolific library collection and began to invest heavily in its curation and expansion (Norfolk.gov.uk – special collections), which perhaps indicates that the sale or donation of his fossil collection was a tactical move and a precursor to this new literary passion.

Figure 3.13 Timeline of the development of the trawling industry in the North Sea against the frequency of specimens recovered. The red columns show the frequency of fossils by collection year (where known), with the blue showing the same information by acquisition year.

The discrepancies between the actual collection and acquisition dates do present a potential bias. Where we can investigate the lives of the collectors we can account

for this, but for the majority of the collectors this is not the case and some specimens that have been collected throughout the 19^th Century may have been kept in families for generations and donated much later. Unfortunately, with the level of detail available for most the specimens this is impossible to account for, but given the smaller sample sizes attributable to the majority of collectors it should not present a major bias.

The increase in numbers throughout the 19th Century correlates with the increase in trawler fishing in the southern North Sea and is likely to be due to the combination of this and the collecting mania of the Victorian era. Increasing polarisation between professionals and amateurs during the early-mid 20^th Century (McNabb 2012) may have played a part in the decline that we see throughout this later period, with fewer collectors interacting with museums and, potentially, fewer actual collectors. The mid-20^th Century saw a drastic decline in the British trawling industry, especially in the depleted stocks of the southern North Sea, with trawlers moving further afield to more northerly grounds around Greenland and Iceland from the late 1890s. European Union laws and regulations from the 1970s also massively curtailed the amount of trawling that could take place and, in consequence, the numbers of fossils collected.

One of the most significant points highlighted by Figure 3.13 is the abundance of fossil material still extant today. If it were not for the collections of the modern trawler off Clacton and the BMAPA material from the 1980s onwards, the picture would imply that the seabed resource was seriously depleted, if not eradicated.

However, the inclusion of these datasets presents an entirely different, far more positive, picture of the situation, with an abundance of fossil material. Recent work conducted by Dutch researchers in the same sea supports this assertion (van Kolfschoten and Laban 1995; Flemming 2004; Glimmerveen et al. 2006; Mol et al.

2006), and yet the reinvigoration of reporting and recording fossils from the UK sector is still embryonic and our relationships with the trawling and dredging industries relatively poor. Initiatives such as the BMAPA protocol and a recent project to engage with our dwindling trawling industry (Fishing Industry Protocol for Archaeological Discoveries) provide an opportunity to redress this problem and provide the details necessary to really get to grips with the extant resource on

the seabed. But since these initiatives do not specifically focus on this kind of material, the level of detail available at present is frustratingly low. The spatial patterns identified through this research, as well as projects aimed at engagement with current fossil collectors, take this a stage further. By focusing on species identifications as well as locations, Chapter Four will present these results.