Author Archives: Natasha Powers

Find of the month: bricks need love too

I have been asked to write a post about January’s exciting Find of the Month, which is a small collection of bricks taken from one of our recent sites. I’m guessing they have been chosen as find of the month not because they’re nicer than anything else we found in January, but in order to give me a chance to write a follow up to my previous blog post about post-medieval archaeology.

Hand moulded 18th-19th century brick

The bricks in question cover a range of dates from the late 18th to the mid 20th century and so the techniques used for making the bricks change from hand moulding to machine pressing. This alone can be a good indicator of the date of brick structures, as machine moulded brick came to predominate in the second half of the 19th century. Among hand moulded bricks, the size of the brick can sometimes be helpful in suggesting how old the brick might be. For example, a brick tax was imposed in Britain in 1784, but was charged on the number of bricks, rather than by weight. The natural response of the brickmakers was to make larger bricks, charge more for them, and pay as little tax as possible! There is a tendency for hand pressed bricks to increase in size from the introduction of the brick tax until its repeal in 1850.

Dating of machine pressed bricks is of course helped by the fact that they are often stamped with the name of the manufacturer. Historical research into the brickworks itself, and the stamps used at different periods of its existence, can be used to indicate when and where the bricks were produced.

Handmade tapered header brick

Information can also be gleaned from the forms of bricks found on site. This is a handmade tapered header brick, a type of brick used in the construction of vaulted structures. Bricks like this would be an unusual find in a domestic context, and normally indicate the presence of structures such as drainage culverts or flues associated with industrial activity.

So, whilst it’s easy for all the prehistorians here to laugh at those of us who appreciate bricks, on a complex, multi-phase industrial site the bricks used in the construction of the buildings can be an invaluable resource, at least as important as all their pots and stones!

Islamic Palaces 1 – The Alhambra Royal Workshops Project

Over the past 6 months I have been working with universities in the south of Spain to investigate workshops and production areas within medieval Islamic palaces. This, the first of two blogs, will focus on trips taken earlier this summer to the Alhambra in Granada.

Arabesque and tiles

For those of you unfamiliar with the site, the Alhambra is a large palace and fortress complex situated on a promontory at the foothills of the Sierra Nevada, overlooking Granada. It was constructed in the 13^th century AD during the Nasrid dynasty, a late Muslim dynasty in the south of Spain, and the palace is best known for its highly ornate arabesque reliefs, glazed tiles, pottery, glass and of course the beautiful gardens; and it was these gardens that had attracted the attention of academics from the Universities of Bournemouth, Newcastle and Granada. The question they were all asking – where exactly were the tiles, pottery and glass produced when the site was initially constructed?

The current gardens are a relatively modern addition and much reconstruction work of existing structures had been done to tidy its appearance; however, upon closer inspection some of these structures formed ‘keyhole’ shapes in plan, typical of kilns or furnaces.

Keyhole kiln

Prof Kate Welham and Dr Derek Pitman from Bournemouth University took the lead in May, undertaking a non-invasive survey of an area of garden using a whole suite of geophysical techniques (fluxgate gradiometer, electromagnetic survey, magnetic susceptibility and ground penetrating radar (GPR)), plus portable X-ray fluorescence (p-XRF). This approach was taken because of the likely nature of deposits beneath the surface – the site had been occupied by Napoleon’s forces during the Peninsular War, but upon his retreat significant parts of the fortress were destroyed including, most probably, the area of garden under survey. As little or no archaeological work had been carried out before, no one knew quite what to expect.

Surveying

Now, my first piece of archaeological fieldwork took place in 2000, and I’ve been in and out of the field ever since, but until this moment I’d never performed a geophysical survey. I’d always been that guy who can dig and, in more recent years, the GIS geek, often working with geophysical data but never collecting it. So just to prove to everyone that it did actually happen I got someone to capture the moment…

Using GPR at the Alhambra

I’m afraid I’m not able to reproduce the results in this blog, but I can say that several areas indicated the presence of high temperature activities. These results informed the implementation of an excavation strategy, and a couple of months later, two trenches were opened to investigate various magnetic enhancements recorded during the geophysical survey. These were directed by Dr Chloe Duckworth from Newcastle University and Dr Alberto Garcia Porras from University of Granada, and I was invited along to survey their findings and introduced them to the use of SfM to reconstruct a 3-dimensional image of each trench.

A trench being excavated

It was their first digging field season and the main priority was to take the topsoil off and map the uppermost deposits and any structural remains. Once this had been achieved it became increasingly apparent that the site was more complex than first thought. It had been occupied on and off for the past 800 years and many of the remains date to later activity, including the modern reconstructions which now mask the true nature of the kilns.

I hope to return in 2017 when these remains can be investigated fully and the full extent of production within the Alhambra is likely to reveal itself.

Training in smaller companies – how and why we do it

Formal training is perhaps seen as the preserve of the larger, more established archaeological unit able to put considerable resources into training schemes and have staff specifically dedicated to implementing them. However, working for a smaller company can provide better opportunities for consistent mentoring and for a diverse training experience.

On Wednesday 20th April, AAL contributed to a session organised by the Diggers Forum at the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA) annual conference, entitled ‘The skills gap: training for competence in archaeology’.

AAL has undergone pretty rapid growth. In January 2014 there were 14 staff and by the end of last year we had 45 staff, including three trainees. Training plans are put in place for staff to progress and to change direction, for example into geophysics or archives, but this post focuses on our ‘entrance level’ training plan.

So why is training important? Well, with increasing workload and larger jobs we needed more people; not only did we need to increase capacity but also flexibility. Training gives us the chance to grow skills in-house which are tailored to company methods and needs. Like many archaeological companies out there we had recruitment problems – especially for fixed term roles. The problem wasn’t numbers of applicants but that very few had the experience we were after. Partly it was about need, and partly about gaining the confidence to do it. We’re involved in community archaeology projects, site open days, National Trust training days and short-term university teaching, so surely we ought to have the skills in-house to train other archaeologists? Most of all, training the next generation is, as one of our recent trainees put it, a good thing to do!

“A lot of companies want minimum experience that might be hard to get even with volunteer work and the like, so obviously a scheme that trains less experienced archaeologists is a good thing.”

It was important to us that we weren’t playing lip service to training as a way of paying people less, so we decided to keep the training plan short and sweet – 3 months should be enough to get a good grounding in commercial archaeology and to get people with some pre-exiting skills and experience to PCIfA level (Practitioner – the first level of competence defined by CIfA).

The training programme is aimed at people who have genuine interest and aptitude but no commercial experience, though we have found that applicants sometimes do have this, just not the amount most commercial jobs require, so they couldn’t get started on the job ladder. We wanted a way to get people on to that ladder and to keep them moving up through the company, gaining experience and moving to permanent roles over time.

Josh training the team in flint identification

The company ethos is very much that everyone should learn the basics of everything and that knowledge and skills are shared. We’re not heavily departmentalised so staff get to carry out GPS and TST survey, use GIS to produce illustrations for reports, assist with geophysical survey, take their own site photographs and so on – it is possible that this might go as we grow further, but we will try and hold on to this as much as is possible.

Trainees get a formal plan with tasks to sign off and each task has an appointed person to do the sign off. Over three months. The standard plan involves 20 days of fieldwork, 10 days in the finds and archives, eight days post-excavation work and five days survey training, plus time for an induction, basic introduction to standards, H&S and so on. The tasks are tied to National Occupational Standards.

It is not without its problems. The level of training dependant on and workload – one of our recent trainees didn’t dig on a ‘normal’ site for three months as we were working on the sampling of a the top of a paleosol for Mesolithic flints, and this meant that she hadn’t experienced stratigraphic recording. It’s vital to keep balance on site so there are enough experienced staff to support the trainees, and because we’re relatively small, the training experience is also dependent on the availability of particular staff. Good training also relies on good feedback from site supervisors – building on feedback from previous trainees, new posts will include a formal monthly meeting with an appointed mentor…but fieldwork programmes can make implementation of this tricky. Importantly all those involved need to understand the purpose of a training plan. It mustn’t become a race to complete sign off of tasks but be paced to enable time and a genuine understanding to develop.

Trainees work in the field for around 20 days in three months

Giving staff the chance to build on and share their experiences is vital (even if it is potentially a little scary for the management team) and our AAL Xmas lectures, where staff give presentations on aspects of their work throughout the year, are just one way in which we do this.

“You only need to look within the company to see that it’s working with a number of former trainees now in other roles.”

So is it working? Well, since January 2014 AAL have taken on 10 trainees (that isn’t including people like Feenagh who had started before this but were/are still progressing on training plans). Two of those trainees started with the company as short-term volunteers. Six were offered contracts as Project Archaeologist (PA) at the end of their training plans: two have now specialised in non-field areas within the company (archives and DBA), two are currently field PAs, and one left for a non-field promotion outside the company and one has taken a break from archaeology. One trainee could not be given a PA contract due to a downturn in work. Only one traineeship didn’t work out.

“There was a balanced mix of office-based and site-based work that allowed me to develop excavation skills on small-large scale excavations, whilst learning how to make the transition from site material to post-excavation reporting smoother for all involved. All in all, my experience was really quite rounded. I enjoyed it immensely and it gave me the skills to feel confident to work at any site, or in the office”

“I’m very grateful the trainee scheme exists as it allowed me to get into commercial archaeology when it might have otherwise been difficult”

“It gave me a proper view of what commercial archaeology really was and I didn’t feel like my lack of experience prevented me from going on any site or prevented any opportunities … The staff at Allen are all very friendly and helpful which made asking questions, help and generally becoming a part of the team so much easier.”

“I found my trainee programme very beneficial as I previously had no experience digging – either commercial or academic, so was a great opportunity to get into archaeology and be paid for it.”

The numbers we can take on are small – we’re not going to solve the skills shortage single handedly – and I’m not trying to claim we’re perfect, but with a little thought, it is possible for even small companies to create effective, useful and robust training programmes that benefit the trainee and the company in equal measure. The interest we have seen as a relatively new and less well-known company, with applications from across the UK and Europe, is pretty staggering and suggests that we need to find a much better way of serving the next generation.

We’re looking forward to welcoming our latest batch of trainees at the start of May and to building on and improving our training going forwards.