Earthworks – deserted medieval villages (DMV)

By Isobel Curwen, Trainee Heritage Research Supervisor

Here in the Heritage Research team we’ve had a few sites recently which we’ve been getting very excited about, because they are located in areas with extensive earthworks and cropmarks. Earthwork remains usually means there are earthen banks, ditches, low walls and perhaps building platforms. These can either be upstanding archaeological remains or show up as features beneath the surface often visible because of variations in crop growth – commonly referred to as cropmarks.

Remains of a deserted medieval village in rural Lincolnshire

Remains of deserted medieval villages in rural Lincolnshire

Some of the earliest cropmarks we see date to the prehistoric period (think hill forts, barrows and henges) but some are much later and tell us about the medieval landscape in the form of ridge and furrow, mottes and deserted medieval villages (DMV). In previous blog posts we have looked at ridge and furrow and we’re now going to explore their counterpart, the deserted medieval village.

Many medieval settlements in midland Britain were first established in the 9^th and 10^th centuries. They often contained burgage plots, set back from the main road with a back lane linking them and a church and a manor house contained within larger plots at the end of the village (Stamper 2011). In the Middle Ages some settlements were abandoned because of the Black Death (1348-49), warfare and famine but also due to clearance to provide space to graze more profitable sheep. Some were abandoned due to the deliberate actions of their lords (White 2012), and the natural progression of the settlements saw that they contracted, expanded and gradually shifted, following regional and local trends of change and continuity (Stamper 2011).

Today, the remains of these medieval settlements can be recognised from the patterns of roughly rectangular tofts, sometimes with building platforms which are raised and enclose banks and ditches, and by holloways – worn down tracks that pass between the house platforms.

So with the summer fast approaching keep your eyes peeled for any unusual looking lumps and bumps in the landscape and you may find yourself walking within what used to be a medieval village!

Stamper. P, 2011, Medieval Settlements, Historic England Introduction to Heritage Assets

White. G. J, 2011, The landscape of rural settlement, In The Medieval English Landscape (1000-1540, London: Bloomsbury, 55-99

Find of the Month, May – Early Neolithic arrow head

By Cova Escandon, Archives Project Supervisor

This month we have chosen this beauty! It is an Early Neolithic leaf-shaped arrow head and it comes from a site we are currently working on in Grantham.

Early Neolithic leaf-shaped arrow head from a site in Grantham

Arrow heads were manufactured by using a small antler tine to push tiny pieces off a bigger stone; a technique known as pressure-flaking. They were then used as projectile points mounted on the tip of a wooden shaft. We are not sure if they were propelled by a bow or were part of a spear as wooden artefacts don’t survive very often.

These leaf-shaped arrow heads dominated the Early Neolithic era (4,000-3,200BC), becoming less common in the Mid Neolithic and scarce in Late Neolithic. Later arrow heads followed designs with ‘barbs’, that made them more effective, but these leaf-shaped ones were easier to make.

Some are incredibly thin and delicate, too fragile to be used for hunting or violence, and some scholars believe that they were status symbols, as they required an immense amount of skill to make. But it is not that simple, as some of these very delicate arrow heads show traces of having been used…

But why do these Early Neolithic groups start manufacturing these new arrow heads? The Neolithic Revolution had begun! The clearance of the woodland in order to get it ready for harvesting had drastically changed the environment, and it was more difficult for the hunter to get close to the prey. One theory suggests that this type of arrow head offered a more aerodynamic and effective killing tool with an increased range and penetration.

This alteration of the environment was already happening during the Mesolithic. But the Neolithic saw massive deforestation to make room for farmland, dramatically transforming the landscape.

This Neolithic Revolution not only brought economic and technological change, it also saw deep social transformation. Knapping tools changed from being a survival skill learnt by everyone, to an artisan trade done by specialists in the community. The groups settled in territories, and the foundations of new social hierarchies were established.

The attachment to the land brought an increase in violence as control of the territory was key in order to survive.

Examples of these bloody episodes have been seen at archaeological sites such as Belas Knap Long Barrow in Gloucestershire and Wayland’s Smithy in Oxfordshire, where there is evidence of blows to the head or arrow wounds in dead deposited there, and at Hambledon Hill in Dorset, there is evidence of the defensive palisades being burnt. Leaf-shaped arrow heads are the most commonly found artefact in British Neolithic tombs. As usual, we end up with more questions than answers. Why did society change? Farming requires much more work than hunting-gathering and one so why did they change their way of living?

Whilst Britain was still in the Late Mesolithic, a big part of Southern Europe was already embracing the Neolithic Revolution. Can we attribute the beginning of the Neolithic in the UK to sea-borne colonialists from continental Europe, or to the influence of locals who were in touch with the continent?

This is certainly a beautiful artefact, no doubt about that. But it is also a window to a fascinating and mysterious time of change.

Our digital era

By Isobel Curwen (Heritage Research Team)

For centuries we have been leaving a written record of our daily lives and when we find evidence of this it is very exciting. Recent excavations in London uncovered a significant collection of Roman waxed writing tablets, some of the earliest hand-written documents found in Britain (for more information visit the MOLA website), and we have even earlier records such as prehistoric cave art and runic writing systems.

Our Finds team are currently analysing some stamped Roman pottery found in Lincolnshire. Mortaria and Samian ware are the most common pottery types to be stamped, although other types of Roman pottery were occasionally stamped too. The stamp could be a name or a word, or sometimes a symbol, possibly suggesting that the potter was illiterate (Read our blog post by Alice for some examples of stamped pottery found in Lincoln). In order to create the impression on the pot, the stamp had to be created in relief and in reverse which requires considerable skill (see how quickly you can spell your own name backwards!).

Stamped mortaria found from Lincoln - see the range of potters marks from symbols to words

Stamped Mortaria found from Lincoln – see the range of potters markings including both symbols and words

Roman grey ware pot base with a pot firing ‘X’ graffito that has been trimmed to form a disc or counter (Photo Credit Hugh Fiske/Ian Rowlandson)

These lovely sherds of stamped pottery have survived for thousands of years and this got us thinking. In today’s digital world what record will we leave of our own lives? Handwritten letters have been replaced by emails and text messages. Digital mapping and GPS render paper maps obsolete, used only when technology fails us or when there is a lack of signal. In our on-site recording of archaeological sites we use a combination of physical and digital recording techniques. With recent advances in archaeological practice suggesting and implementing systems for entirely paperless recording systems (Roosevelt et al. 2015) we are heading in the direction of an almost entirely digital historic record.

It looks like the record we leave about our lives will be less tangible and physical than that of our predecessors. Read the following article for more information on our digital footprints.

Christopher H. Roosevelt, Peter Cobb, Emanuel Moss, Brandon R. Olson &
Sinan Ünlüsoy (2015) Excavation is Destruction Digitization: Advances in Archaeological Practice,
Journal of Field Archaeology, 40:3, 325-346

Preaching to the choir

By Harvey Tesseyman, Heritage Research Supervisor

We’re lucky enough to get to visit churches fairly often, whether it’s for building recording, heritage statements/ impact assessments, or just while we’re in the area after work. Quite often churches are the oldest building around, with surviving examples of Anglo-Saxon or Norman stonework visible all over the country but the form of churches differ greatly. Anglo-Saxon examples tend to be built along a simple ‘tower-nave’ design with a squat tower and a nave jutting out, but after that all bets are off with additions and subtractions enacted with wanton abandon (or as close to wanton abandon as one can get in church). What makes churches so interesting is the way bits get added here and there. A 13th century window might sit encased in brickwork installed during the Victorian Restoration – it’s a very Victorian attitude to look at a building that’s stood for hundreds of years and think, ‘you know what this needs? A complete redesign, by me!’, but that’s often exactly what happened. With that in mind, here are some of our favourites.

St Andrew’s, Calceby

This is the lovely Grade II Listed ruin of St. Andrew’s Church, Calceby, Lincolnshire (1063635, Grade II). Originally a Norman church, the only parts now surviving are sections of the chalk tower and nave, along with some herringbone-style masonry which is often thought of as a much older style of building, making the most of poor quality stone. It presides over the remains of a deserted medieval village on the Lincolnshire Wolds, and is believed to have been pillaged to build other structures in the local area.

St Leonard’s, South Ormsby

One of those structures is St. Leonard’s church at South Ormsby, Lincolnshire (1168707, Grade I), with at least parts of a Norman door from St. Andrews being incorporated into this (slightly) younger church down the road from Calceby. The oldest surviving fabric is mostly of 13th–15th century origin, with a significant amount of Victorian restoration (1871–1872). Inside this small church is an elegant wooden ceiling, with beautiful multi-coloured stonework on the arches.

Further afield (we do leave Lincolnshire!) is Chichester Cathedral, in Sussex (1354261, Grade I). The cathedral was consecrated in the 12th century, built to replace the Anglo-Saxon Selsey Abbey. Inside are the remains of a lovely Roman mosaic set beneath the church floor, and inscriptions dating back to at least the 17th century.

Chichester Cathedral, the mosaic and inscriptions

Also in Sussex is the 14th century Church of St Nicholas (1027914, Grade I). St Nicholas seems recent compared with the examples above, however inside are the remains of wall paintings. The survival of wall paintings is quite rare, due in part to the Reformation, and in part to the Victorian Restoration when many paintings were whitewashed, so it was a real thrill to see. Church wall paintings of this style date back to a time before literacy was widespread, and the pictures allowed church-goers access to biblical stories and imagery without having to read. Definitely not an everyday sight, unless you happen to be a local parishioner…

Wall paintings at St Nicolas

To find out more about the churches we’ve visited here, you can read their listing details using the links below:

Digital Past Conference Workshop

By Shoned Jones (Project Supervisor)

During this year’s Digital Past Conference in Aberystwyth, we were invited to attend and take part in a workshop discussing the management and archiving of digital datasets. A number of organisations were asked to attend the workshop and give short presentations on how they use digital data.

Along with Allen Archaeology the speakers were from; Archaeology Data Service, The Discovery Programme, DigVentures, Historic England, Wessex Archaeology and the University of Bradford.

Chris Casswell, the head of fieldwork at DigVentures and Li Sou, a PhD student from Bradford hosted the workshop.

While a number of topics, including storage space and metadata were covered, the one most affecting our sector was archiving. In commercial and field archaeology we are required by law to archive the data that we collect for clients as part of the planning process. If you are unfamiliar with this archiving method please follow the link here to our blog explaining archiving.

The main observation was of a blinkered understanding by research groups of the differing archiving requirements commercial units deal with on a daily basis. There is a lack of cohesion with regard to the physical archives and the proposed use of digital archiving with ADS.

Archiving requirements and field methodologies differ from county to county. Field methodologies are usually very similar with differences usually in the kind of cameras used and the specificity of the sampling method (how much we excavate and environmentally sample). However, archive requirements can differ greatly and with technology changing at such a rapid pace and companies working in all different parts of the country it is an issue that is becoming more and more important.

While in the past a small to medium archaeology companies may only work in one county and only deposit in one archive, the nature of commercial archaeology now enables companies to work all over the country. This is a wonderful opportunity for a company and for archaeologists to encounter all sorts of archaeology in their career without having to work the ‘archaeological circuit’ (working on temporary contracts from company to company). However, it does make the work of our post-excavation archiving teams difficult.

These differences are down to a number of reasons. Funding is foremost in this and it is not an easy fix. The issues that other groups brought in also include differences in storage requirements and having appropriate systems to store and process the metadata. These are also not easy fixes and require much collaboration between many different groups, including commercial archaeology units. This conference was one of the first to begin the conversation and in bringing together people from all sectors of archaeology I am optimistic that we will develop something that is more suited to both research groups and commercial companies.

3D image created by Shoned of a medieval ankle-boot found in Lincoln

P.S Some of the terms used in this blog are quite industry heavy, here for your perusal is a Glossary to give you a hand.

Archiving:

All of the information that we acquire on an archaeological site, context sheets, photographs, the final report and finds are all deposited within the local archive for the area of that site. In order for that data to be compatible with other data that other companies and research groups deposit, it must be submitted to conform with specific requirements which can be unique to each archive, .i.e. photograph formats (TIFF or JPEG), report formatted as pdf.

Digital vs Physical Archiving:

Physical archives are the finds themselves (pottery, animal bone etc) and the paper documents that were created on site, such as the context sheets, printed photographs (in the case of film photographs, slides and negatives), printed copies of the report and such.

Digital archiving are the photographs as digital media (JPEG, TIFF) archived using ADS (Archaeological Data Service), by uploading the files to a digital archive. This can include digital versions of the report, 3D models, GIS projects, CAD drawings, Geophysical data etc. I could go on and on.

Metadata: data that describes and gives information about other data e.g. a photograph that contains information regarding the date and time it was taken.

Digital Past Conference

By Shoned Jones, Project Supervisor

In February a colleague and I braved the trek into my homeland to deepest darkest Aberystwyth in Wales for a conference unlike any other in Europe, completely centred on digital archaeology and specifically 3D imaging and its use in Heritage.

The conference was held in the University, by the Royal Commission of Wales, presenting their flagship project, CHERISH. It was the 10^th anniversary of the conference and the keynote speakers were all heritage and field archaeology giants. We were invited by DigVentures, Head of Fieldwork and ex-Allen Project Officer Chris Casswell, and Bradford University PhD student Li Sou to participate in a workshop dedicated to the archiving of 3D and other digital data.

The conference itself was fascinating, especially to an innovative company like ourselves to see what’s happening on the other side of the archaeology spectrum (a.k.a research archaeology) and how developing technology is being used to further the study of groups such as English Heritage, Historical Scotland, National Trust and CADW.

From my perspective, having been entrenched in the commercial sector for the last few years and out of the research loop, seeing the development of this technology and how we aim to implement it further into our methodology was wonderful. While 3D imaging has been a mainstay when listing archaeological recording, its use and study for fieldwork has mainly been an addition (a pretty picture) for years. Its actual use as a replacement recording method was limited. However, times have certainly changed and now it appears to be a standard recording method, used either in conjunction with 3D laser imaging or as a stand alone recording method.

This is great news to companies like Allen Archaeology. Knowing that the research sector is using this method even more comprehensively than we previously thought indicated that we are on the right track. Conferring with other conference attendees about the more complete recording methods and the different outputs that can be created from this 3D model now presents us with new interpretation and recording possibilities.

In general, the conference was fascinating and informative, and we will be writing a secondary blog regarding the outcome of the workshop and a summary of the points raised.

If you would like to know more about our use of Structure from Motion or any 3D modelling please check out our youtube channel and the previous blog about Weston Park, Staffordshire, a Building Survey conducted with a mix of recording techniques.

Shoned Jones discussing her recent work using 3D imaging

https://www.allenarchaeology.co.uk/portfolio/weston-park-staffordshire/

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTqrx7nCdLBGM3U0oo6Q9sQ

Find of the Month, March – Soda Water Torpedo Bottle

By Cova Escandon (Project Supervisor Archives)

The find of the month for March is a Lee and Green Ltd. torpedo bottle. It is made of plain glass and you can read on its body ‘Sleaford’ and ‘Spalding’.

Lee and Green Ltd. Torpedo Bottle

Arthur Green and Ranyard Lee opened an aerated water bottling factory in Spalding in 1885. The factory was located on Albion St. and built by John Richard Carter in 1824. It was sold in 1846 to Henry Bugg the Younger and William Henry Bugg. A few years later, the premises were used temporarily as a guano store, before being sold to Lee and Green. They also had factories in Sleaford, Bourne, Boston and Skegness.

The first ‘torpedo bottles’ appeared at the end of the 18^th Century as a solution to the problem of containing gas in glass bottles. At this time, glass bottles were not strong enough to contain the gas so they would often explode. Glass capable to contain the gas was very expensive, so it was reserved for luxurious liquids such as champagne. Cheaper drinks like ginger beer were contained in stoneware bottles. The torpedo shape would stop any air leaking as it prevented the bottle from being stood up, keeping the cork moist as a result of being in contact with the soda, so it wouldn’t shrink (something still done today with other drinks such as wine). Pouring the drink would also be easier and it would be better adapted for packing carriage. It did present advantages for the merchant and the consumer too as the consumer would have to finish the drink before putting down the bottle! The bottles were also easy to transport via boat on flat shelves with holes on them so they wouldn’t fall over when the ship moved.

1914 marks the end of the torpedo bottle era. They are no longer necessary as they are replaced by Malenstrone’s 1901 patent that allows normal shaped bottles to contain gas.

‘The Story of Lee and Green’ Exhibition is currently on display at Sleaford Museum.

The Story of Lee & Green

The Woolly Spires of Lincolnshire

By Isobel Curwen (Heritage Research Supervisor)

A few weekends ago, whilst wandering round the small market town of Louth, I stumbled across these rather unusual knitted churches which are currently on display at St James’ Church. Originally commissioned by The Collection, Lincoln, these knitted masterpieces form part of a countrywide project entitled the ‘Woolly Spires’ project, managed by artsNK.

During the medieval period, Lincolnshire prospered as a wool producing county using wool from the iconic breed of sheep, the Lincoln Longwool (see our previous blog post for more details about the Lincolnshire wool trade!). The profits from this trade went mainly to a few wool merchants and wealthy landowners who in turn founded many of Lincolnshire’s churches (Vince 2003).

In order to reflect both the founding of many of Lincolnshire’s churches as a result of the wool trade, and their rural nature, residents and community groups were gathered from the six rural districts of Lincolnshire to created knitted versions of their churches using wool exclusively from the Lincoln Longwool breed. The churches created include St Deny’s Church, Sleaford, St Mary and St Nicholas’ Church, Spalding, St Botolph’s Church, Boston, St James’ Church, Louth, St Wulfram’s Church, Grantham, and St Mary’s Church (Stow Minster), Stow.

The knitted churches on display at St James’ Church, Louth

St Mary and St Nicolas, Spalding

Many of Lincolnshire’s churches can be found in rural settings which can be divided into distinct geographical areas (Jenkins 1999). The churches to south of the county, in the area around the Fens and The Wash, have their origins in the monastic houses of Norman England. St Botolph’s Church, Boston is a particularly nice example with its famous ‘Boston Stump’. To the west lie the coastal marshes and the Wolds, with St James’ Church steeple providing a focal point to the open landscape. Inland Lincolnshire is represented by both the Humber and Trent valleys with St Deny’s church, Sleaford providing a fine example of stained glass windows and the tower of St Wulfram’s Church, Grantham providing a visual masterpiece of early Gothic architecture.

The churches of Lincolnshire, and their associated land and settlements, are a fundamental component of the county’s history and as result play a key part in the work undertaken here at AAL whether this be as part of research for a desk-based assessment or as part of a building recording survey.

We think these woolly churches are great and they are currently doing a tour throughout Lincolnshire so do keep a lookout for them coming to a church near you!

Jenkins. S., 1999, ‘Lincolnshire’, In: England’s Thousand Best Churches (pp 363-400), Penguin Group, London

Vince. A., 2003, ‘The new town: Lincoln in the High Medieval Era (c.850-c.1350), in: Stocker. D. (ed) The City by the Pool (pp 159-249), Oxbow Books, Oxford

International Women’s Day 2018

This year for International Women’s Day we’ve been thinking about how women are represented in the archaeological record. The archaeology of gender has become a large part of our interpretation, where previously women’s lives were overlooked by antiquarians in favour of kings and emperors, work has been done to readdress this imbalance. We’ve picked three of our most interesting examples for discussion.

Recently excavated head pot, ‘Marion’

Neither face pots nor head pots are especially common, but have been found distributed widely across Britain including around 50 examples from York, a famous example of which depicts the Empress Julia Domna (York Museums Trust n.d). Head pots appear to be almost exclusively found in Roman Britain and North Africa, and are generally made of finer fabric than face pots (Braithwaite 2011). While researching this piece it seemed like a majority appear to be depictions of women. Our example, Marion, was found in Bourne, Lincolnshire. We chose the nickname Marion as we thought the frills around her face looked like a medieval headdress.

Saxon chatelaine

Chatelaines (sometimes referred to as chatelaine chains) were a popular item of women’s dress from around the 7^th century in Anglo-Saxon England, and are sometimes found in the burials of female individuals (Owen-Crocker 2004). The chatelaine itself was attached to a belt worn at the waist, with smaller objects hung from it and thought to be worn by the female head of the household, indicating a level of status. Common items carried during the period included functional items like keys and personal hygiene (metal picks, small spoons intended for the cleaning out of one’s ears, etc) (ibid). Later, Viking women’s fashion dictated one’s personal items were often hung from brooches which are themselves commonly (but not exclusively) associated with the burial of women (ibid).

The misidentifying of an individual’s gender in archaeology based on materials remains isn’t uncommon, prominent examples include the ‘Red Lady of Paviland’, identified as Roman female in 1823 due to the presence of ivory and rings (assumed to be female items) but later revealed to actually be a man from the Upper Palaeolithic period, and the Skaill boat burial in Orkney, which was assumed to be male based on the presence of finds believed to be associated with warriors (a sword, an axe, a spear etc.), but was later identified as female (Hedenstirna-Jonson et al 2017). The example in Orkney was still presumed to be a man even after osteological analysis in the 1970s identified the individual as a woman (Laskow 2017)!

19th century ribbon from the grave of a female adult

During excavations in a 19^th century burial ground a fashionable silk gauze ribbon with self-woven stripes was found in the burial of an adult female. Several other examples of fashion ribbons were also found, personal touches allowing those interred to retain elements of their identity after burial.

You can also find our previous blog posts for International Women’s Day here:

2017: https://www.allenarchaeology.co.uk/christina-colyer-lincolns-trowel-blazer/

2016: https://www.allenarchaeology.co.uk/international-womens-day/

References:

Braithwaite, G., 1984, Romano-British Face Pots and Head Pots, Britannia, 15, 99–131, accessed online 08.03.2018: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/britannia/article/romanobritish-face-pots-and-head-pots/0D323526CEF3BF9A4A7A500BABB1AC9D

Hedenstierna-Jonson C, Kjellström A, Zachrisson T, et al. A female Viking warrior confirmed by genomics. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2017;164:853–860, accessed online 08.03.2018: https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.23308

Laskow, S., 2017, Found: Evidence That a Lavish Burial Honored a Viking Warrior Woman, accessed online 08.03.2018: https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/viking-warrior-woman-burial-birka

Owen-Crocker, G.R., 2004, Dress in Anglo-Saxon England, 2^nd ed, Woodbridge: Boydell Press

York Museums Trust, n.d., accessed online 08.03.2018: http://www.historyofyork.org.uk/themes/roman/roman-head-pot