Category Archives: Directors

Getting cross in East Yorkshire

By Chris Clay, Director

Even after all these years in the job, every now and then you have the pleasant surprise of learning something new.

Recently I was writing a specification for a geophysical survey in East Yorkshire, just outside Beverley, and came across an HER entry for ‘site of a medieval cross’. Not that unusual you may think, but this is sat by the roadside, all on its own on the edge of an agricultural field outside the town.

The site of one of the sanctuary crosses outside Beverley

So, doing a bit more investigation, I found out that this a medieval ‘sanctuary cross’. Still none the wiser, I carried on my investigations.

Most people are familiar with the concept of sanctuary, a place of refuge offered by the church ‘no questions asked’, to someone who may have come to the attention of the local authorities, and popularised by the story of Quasimodo seeking sanctuary for Esmerelda in Notre Dame.

However, in almost all cases, the area of sanctuary is restricted to a cathedral, a church or its precinct. Beverley however, is in the most unusual circumstance of being able to offer this protection to anybody who sought sanctuary throughout the entire town.

*Quasimodo seeks sanctuary for Esmerelda in Notre Dame*

This unusual position was reportedly bestowed upon the town as a result of the benefaction of King Athelstan. A legend that surfaced in the 12^th century has it that he visited the town in 934 to pay his respects to the tomb of the 8^th century Bishop John of York. Athelstan is said to have attributed his victory over the Scots at the Battle of Brunanburh in 937 to Bishop John (later St. John of Beverley), and showered gifts upon the town and its minster, including the creation of a sanctuary extending for a mile around John’s tomb. Documentary references mention a total of five crosses, sited on the main roads out of Beverley, of which three now survive.

The developing cult of St. John brought pilgrims from all over the country, with the benefits of trade that this also brought turning Beverley into a prosperous market town. This allowed it to avoid much of the ill effects of the ‘harrying of the north’ after the Norman Conquest, and absolving the town of many other duties such as some forms of taxation, military service and attendance at court. St. John was later associated with numerous military victories, including Agincourt, and it was tradition that when the king requested militia from the shire of York, Beverley would send one man with the banner of St. John.

So, the cult of St. John brought many benefits to the town, but what was the effect of the grant of sanctuary across the whole town? Some records survive from the late 15^th century, recording that 132 men and women sought sanctuary between 1478 and 1499, mostly from surrounding counties, but with a handful from further afield. Of these, around 100 were accused of murder, and 20 fleeing debt. Men were often recruited to join the army; in 1303 Edward I pardoned ten men from Beverley who were accused of murder on condition that they join his army.

Sanctuary was supposed to last for only 30 days, while the church sought a pardon, but many settled for longer and became citizens of the town. However in 1460 a decree was passed that sanctuary men could not become burgesses of the town.

Sanctuary became less and less popular in the later Middle Ages, as the system was abused by criminal gangs repeatedly committing crimes and then returning to the safety of the church. It was also seen as a symbol of the power of the church and was further impacted by the Dissolution of the monasteries under Henry VIII. Gradually the number of crimes for which sanctuary could be sought declined, and by 1624 the practice was entirely abolished.

References

https://walkington-life.co.uk/home/the-walkington-sanctuary-stone/
https://irlsey.wordpress.com/2012/09/19/sanctuary-crosses-beverley-east-yorkshire/
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/yorks/east/vol6/pp2-11

Carillion collapse: lessons to be learnt for archaeology?

By Mark Allen, Director

The 15^th January 2018 was a momentous and shocking (though not surprising) day with the announcement that Carillion, the second largest construction company in the UK had gone into liquidation. The signs had been there, with three previous profit warnings over 2017, the share price plummeting, and indeed the markets even betting against their survival since 2013! This has of course led to questions over why public sector contracts continued to be awarded to the company throughout 2017, but that is for others to discuss…

Now I am not, of course, saying our company was in any way comparable with Carillion at the time they ceased to exist: they had 43,000 staff worldwide, literally a thousand times the number of staff at Allen Archaeology! However, commercial archaeology is intrinsically linked to the construction sector; indeed its format of tendering for work is based on that of the construction industry. In addition, many archaeological contractors are likely to have been subcontractors on Carillion schemes across the UK, and, unless their financial contract was with a third party (e.g. the public sector), then they are almost certainly going to receive no reimbursement for invoices submitted or work yet to be invoiced for. There will not only be a financial impact but also a loss to archaeology as projects are shut down part way through, potentially leaving significant volumes of new data that will not be assessed or analysed or published, making it practically meaningless.

It has been written that Carillion continued with the ‘recession mind-set’ that prevailed after the financial crash of 2008, when the construction industry, and indeed archaeology, were hit particularly hard. Although many companies have moved forward over the last decade, not all have done so, and Carillion’s continual pursuit of this strategy resulted in serious ‘suicidal’ pricing shortfalls to keep the order book growing, the staff working and supply chains intact, whatever the cost. They piled on too much debt, chasing new business to make up for the shortfalls of cash caused by losses from the high risks that they continued to take.

Carillion sites across the country shut down immediately on the 15^th January, and their once competitors have been quoted as saying they would only take on many of the contracts with a 20% uplift in price, such was the artificially low price that Carillion had offered to undertake the work.

So why was Carillion given so much work, when many insiders in the industry were particularly concerned with their practices? Simply put, money. Large public sector (and indeed many of the larger private sector) schemes usually require at least a Pre-Qualification Questionnaire (PQQ) to be prepared by the tenderer. A large portion of the PQQ is focussed on showing the company’s suitability and experience for undertaking the work but usually anything from 40-60% of the tender package is focused on the bottom line, i.e. the overall price the company is willing to do the work for. There has been further criticism that many of those in the public sector reviewing PQQs do not have sufficient training or experience to do this, so the bottom line cost has carried some weight with the rest of the PQQ. After all, the lower the construction budget the higher the chance the overall project will be completed, as the construction element is almost without question the largest portion of the project finances.

The high risk approach of slashing potential profit to the bone or accepting a ‘loss leader’ in the hope of further work, or even a loss just to keep staff busy, simply must stop if there is going to be a healthy construction industry moving forward.

Now to here I realise I have focussed solely on the construction sector; however all of the above relates to the commercial archaeology sector too, albeit the financial values are somewhat lower.

Far too many times in the past when a contract has been awarded to a competitor, and the client has provided the range of (anonymous) quotations for the work, it has been shocking to see how low the winning bid has been, often significantly lower than all other quotations. You may think that this is sour grapes, but far from it. We are never going to win every contract, but the alarm bells should ring when three tenders are almost identical and one is, for example, half the price. This means that the winning contractor has decided to take on a lot more risk than any of their competitors, i.e. that they hope that significantly less archaeology will be encountered than the other tenderers have predicted. This is not because they know anything different, all known information on the archaeology is provided in the tender package and the answers to any queries during the tender stage are made available to all interested companies. They may be lucky, but it is more likely that they will not be, so they either make a loss, push for compensation events to recover additional money from the client (resulting in an unhappy client), or the archaeology suffers.

Whatever the case, the practice perpetuates the race to the bottom mentality, as competitive tendering forces companies to try to match or beat their rivals. This also sustains the continuous concerns over the levels of wages within the industry, as wages can only be set at levels that the company can afford.

We are living in a time where there is serious investment in public infrastructure projects such as HS2 and the Thames Tideway Tunnel, as well as a good level of private sector work, so it should be seen as an opportunity for the industry to stay busy with a fair price for work of high standard, to be treated with respect by the construction industry and not just viewed as a hindrance, and most importantly to use this opportunity to improve our standing in the sector allowing us to provide more archaeologists jobs, job security and higher wages, in line with their qualifications and experiences.

Best site hut biscuit with Chris

Chris cracking the whip as Director (any resemblance to other archaeologists, living or dead, is purely coincidental)

What is your job role?

Director, for my sins

How long have you worked for Allen Archaeology?

Since the beginning…

How would describe your excavation technique?

Rusty

How long have you been working in archaeology?

20 years, there or thereabouts

How did you get into archaeology?

I would probably have to blame Indiana Jones for that one

What is the best thing about your job?

I get to see all the shiny things without having to dig them up

Specialist skills?

Remembering site codes

Best site hut biscuit?

Well it is quite obviously the Bourbon biscuit. No question

Find of the month: June – Why mend a mortaria ?

Director, Mark Allen discusses why anyone would pay good money to fix a broken pot

Our find of the month for June is rather intriguing. It is a Roman mortaria, the ancestor to the modern day pestle and mortar we use today for crushing seeds and spices, and was found during monitoring of groundworks for a housing development in Suffolk.

Mortaria are not particularly rare objects, and they often turn up on Roman sites. However, what is rather special about this example that it was made in the 1st century or early 2nd century AD and has clearly been dropped and broken into a number of pieces, before being repaired. The repairs consist of twin sets of holes drilled through the sherds with lengths of lead used to ‘staple’ the pieces together: no UHU (other brands of glue are available) or sticky tape existing at the time!

Roman mortaria, used for grinding food, which has been broken and mended using lead staples

This may in itself sound pretty unimpressive, but the mystery is that with the repairs the mortaria would have become far less useful and could not have been used for crushing or mixing liquids anymore. ‘How is this interesting ?’ I hear you cry! Well, it gives us an insight into the social activities and values of the Roman who owned this nearly 2,000 years ago, a rare opportunity without inventing a time machine and popping back to observe the people themselves.

If we examine the vessel more closely we see other clues: the spout (to right of the photo) is quite worn suggesting it had seen a lot of use. This is further confirmed when we look at the inside of the bowl. Mortaria were made by pressing small, hard grits into the soft clay before firing, producing a rough, jagged surface to help crush the food inside the bowl. Modern mortaria do not do this because the grits would occasionally pop out and end up in the food, which is not very good for your teeth! In this instance, the grits have been all but lost or worn down, again showing that the mortaria had been used for a long time.

The time, effort and expense required to repair the mortaria would have been considerable considering it was now next to useless as a household item and it’s much more common to see repairs on fancy vessels like Samian ware (Willis 2005, 11.4), so why on earth would you repair such a thing? The most plausible explanation is that it held some intrinsic value to the individual who had it repaired. The object itself was important, less so its functionality. We can never be sure, but perhaps it was a present or had been inherited from a deceased relative or friend, and just the presence of the vessel was a reminder of them.

Archaeology is not just about preparing a record of the physical remains of former activities, it is also the study of past behaviour. Through the physical objects we gain insights into past lives. At a time that A Level archaeology has been scrapped and fewer universities are offering degree courses in the subject than once did, we should remember that the study of the past is important, in that it gives us the opportunity to learn from the mistakes of our ancestors. Perhaps now, more than ever, this needs to be highlighted.

References:

Willis, S, 2005, Samian Pottery, a Resource for the Study of Roman Britain and Beyond: the results of the English Heritage funded Samian Project. An e-monograph. http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue17/1/11.4_5.html

Managing Archaeological Risk

Cost of change against project stage (after ICE 1996)

With profit margins becoming increasingly tight in the construction industry, developers are keen to manage and control risk and uncertainty, whether this be related to the cost and availability of materials, ground contamination, or archaeology. As a site’s archaeological potential is usually unknown, it is a case of moving the site from the unknown, to the known. It will usually be a staged process that is necessary, with each stage of work reducing the level of uncertainty, and therefore the level of risk. The earlier it is considered in a development program the better, as it allows more time to work out projected costs and incorporate any necessary changes to reduce these costs, into a design programme.

Example of Historic Environment Record data

For many projects, most commonly the first step is a desk-based assessment, a non-intrusive survey of known evidence using a range of sources such as historic maps, aerial photos, and the Historic Environment Record, the local authority’s database of sites and findspots. This will determine the likely archaeological potential for a site and is a relatively rapid and cost effective technique. This may not be necessary for small projects however – such as extensions, or one or two dwellings, but developers can seek advice from the local authority archaeologist on this at an early stage.

Deposit model prepared to consider likely depths of archaeological deposits

More and more often however, as a result of NPPF, planners are asking for much more site specific information concerning the likely impact of a development. In these instances the document required is variously called a heritage statement or heritage impact assessment, where a consideration has to be made of the precise nature and extent of the likely impacts of the development upon the identified archaeological resource, as well as putting forward proposals as to how to mitigate the effects of the development upon this archaeology. This relates to both the physical impacts on the below ground archaeology as well as on the setting of monuments in the wider landscape. The issue of setting is a much wider topic, particularly with relevance to wind turbines, which are visible for many miles.

Gathering such information at an early stage in the design programme, through minimal and often non intrusive archaeological intervention can save the time and costs of either redesigning a development plan to avoid the need for further archaeological works, or archaeological excavations further down the line causing added costs and delays. Another thing to consider is engaging an archaeologist to monitor any geotechnical works that are being undertaken, as this will give a good indication of the likely depths of archaeology, made ground or truncation across a site.

More often than not, a DBA may identify an archaeological potential for a site but cannot within certainty determine the precise nature of the archaeological resource that may be present, in which case, intrusive works may be necessary to further characterise the archaeology present within the site – usually, where ground conditions are appropriate, geophysics is a common starting point, followed by trial trenching. As well as providing information on the below ground archaeology, geophysics can help inform and also limit the extent and therefore cost of subsequent targeted trenching.

Evaluation trenching strategy based on geophysical survey results

This level of work should provide a planning authority with sufficient information upon the archaeological resource to allow for the determination of a planning application, and to establish appropriate measures, known as final mitigation, undertaken as a condition of planning. It may be the case that the trial trenching finds little or nothing of interest and that no archaeological condition is imposed. However, where this is not the case, developers will need to consider measures to either preserve the archaeological remains in situ, or to preserve by record, ie. dig it all up.

The concept of preserving the remains in the ground wherever possible, ie preservation in situ, is one of the prime considerations for archaeology and is considered preferable to excavation, ie preservation by record, as this is in itself a physically destructive process. Obviously it also reduces the developer’s bill for archaeology, and in purely financial terms, there is a consideration on such sites as to whether it would be cheaper to use a potentially more costly foundation design (eg piling) that preserves the archaeology, or fund an excavation that records the archaeology to the satisfaction of the planning authority, but allows a more cost effective foundation design to be used. Redesign of the development layout should also be considered, for example, relocating areas of public open space to protect areas of archaeological interest.

So there are ways to manage the archaeological risk, and the thing that we always try to stress to developers is to build in time to consider the likely archaeological issues that may affect a site. Most county councils employ archaeological officers whose role it is to advise planning officers and developers upon the likely implications of a development, and most archaeological contracting companies will also be happy to advise a client. It is sometimes possible to come up with ways to avoid or greatly reduce the need for archaeological investigations, and it is usually possible to manage the risks associated with the possibility of unforeseen costs or delays caused by unexpected findings. Archaeology is inherently unpredictable however, and we never know for certain what we are going to find. I am afraid that we as archaeologists can’t be held responsible for what the Romans did 2,000 years ago!

Merry Christmas!

We hope everyone has a wonderful break and keep an eye out for our 12 days of finds from the archive published everyday of the festive period!

Keep your eyes peeled for our 12 Days of Chirstmas

Heritage Research: engaging with landscape architects

At the beginning of the week the heritage team (Chris, Catriona and myself) met with the landscape architects at Influence®. We were interested in discussing the similarities and differences between their landscape and visual impact assessments and our own approaches to studying the impact on the setting and significance of heritage assets (discussed in this blog).

Landscape and visual impact assessment is often required as part of a planning application and helps to assess the effects of future development on the landscape. A report will help to inform design, in order to reduce and offset some of the adverse effects of development on the surrounding area. It will consider the existing character of the place, and potential changes to the available views. A study of the landscape can be applied to all urban and peri-urban landscapes, towns, villages and rural areas, coast and islands area; and the views can encompass a wide range of features including National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Nature Reserves, Listed Buildings, Scheduled Monuments, etc. Of course there is large overlap in the subject matter, although the principle difference between the approaches in that landscape and visual impact assessments attempt to establish and protect the landscape and views as experienced by current individuals. Our research seeks principally to outline the impact of development on understanding the past context of heritage assets and negate factors that might detract from how we comprehend the past, in essence to assess the likelihood for encountering subsurface archaeology and how developments will affect standing heritage assets.

Getting a chance to discuss the similarities and differences between our approaches helped us to appreciate the complexities of each other’s disciplines. We ended up being able to reflect on our own practices and in the future will be incorporating features from their approach to landscape and visual impact assessment into our own study of the impact future development of the setting and significance of heritage assets. It was a great opportunity and are very grateful to the staff at Influence in Newark for hosting us.

Lincolnshire Heritage Open Days

Heritage Open Days is a festival in England over four days in September. During these four days thousands of events across the country allow you to explore the history and culture sitting at your feet. Heritage Lincolnshire has co-ordinated Heritage Open Days in Lincolnshire since 1994 they provide free access to lots of interesting properties, tours, events and activities across the county. This weeks blog is a pick of the ones our staff plan to take advantage of!

Chris (Clay) and Al both plan to visit the Old Tile Works at Barton upon Humber. Chris because he led a community project to survey the site in 2010 before it was restored, and Al because he loves all things industrial!

Jesse is going to see Earth as a Natural Building Material, as it would be intriguing to see how buildings made of materials that rarely survive in the archaeological record are constructed, and to give you a bit of ‘real-life’ experience within that historical setting!

Josh would like to visit the Museum of Lincolnshire Life, as it has numerous objects, artefacts, and trinkets, from people’s everyday life in Lincolnshire from 1750 to the present day. It will be interesting to see how life has changed over the last few centuries and how different things would have been for all of us not that long ago.

Rachel hoping to go on the guided walk along the Ice Age route of the River Trent, between Lincoln and Newark. We would like to experience this lost river route as she’s really interested in how the landscape has changed over time; as an archaeologist she tends to concentrate on how people have affected the landscape, but this walk will help her to understand the natural phenomenon that has shaped the area she now call home.

Cat is keen to get to Gainsborough Old Hall as she loves a medieval interior.

Fee is a glutton for punishment and is going to visit All Saints’ Church in Winterton and St Peter’s Church in Barton Upon Humber following a watching brief at Winterton. (Cat might sneak along as well as she loves a medieval church!)

Nasha also has her eyes on a church; St Peter at Gowts Church in Lincoln, as the stories surrounding the building sound fascinating.

Rob is also following up on a job and is planning on visiting Belton House. He ran a geophysics project their recently and is hoping to return to have a look inside the building!

Jedlee and Duncan are interested in visiting Lincoln’s Oldest Church of St Mary le Wigford to see the Saxon Tower.

Ryan is planning on going to Gibraltar Point as the walk is nice and there is lots to see and do.

Dominika plans to visit the RAF Binbrook Heritage Centre.

Alice is going to try and get to the talk on the Submerged Forest at Cleethorpes’ as she was part of the team tracing the track erosion.

Debbie has an interest in stained glass and has always wanted to have a go so she’s going to check out the Heritage Craft Demonstrations at Strawberry Glass.

Calke Abbey Live Archaeology 2016

Over the last weekend a few members of the Allen Archaeology Team (including the eponymous Mr. Allen himself) volunteered their services to excavate at the nearby National Trust Property of Calke Abbey in Derbyshire, as part of Calke Abbey Live Archaeology weekend 2016. The dig was organised by the National Trust and headed up by their archaeologist, Rachael Hall (check her out on Twitter she’s great!), along with a host of eager volunteers from the property and from the Calke Abbey Family Archaeologist group.

Saturday began with “the professionals” setting out and de-turfing the areas for investigation, Trench 1 which was located to the front of the house in the lawn, and Trench 2 which was located to the northeast of the house and was targeted on some fragments of masonry that had been revealed during earlier groundworks in the area. It became obvious fairly quickly that it was not going to be easy digging in Trench 1; but Trench 2 looked promising, with more fragments of brick already popping up and a small gaggle of Young Archaeologists (and Big archaeologists!) excited to see what was going to happen.

The sun was shining and there was archaeology to uncover!

A slow start in Trench 1; There was no escaping the sunshine and the ground was so concreted that even the most enthusiastic and energetic volunteers were struggling to break ground!

It became clear almost immediately that Trench 2 contained some interesting archaeological remains, and very quickly the fragments of bricks that had prompted our investigations turned into a wall with a very awkward angle.

Promising beginnings in Trench 2!

By the end of the first day the trench was beginning to take shape, with hints of a possible octagonal building beginning to emerge, although quite what it was that we were revealing was still a bit of a mystery and everyone seemed to have different ideas as to what this structure was. We had suggestions ranging from a folly to a possible gravity fed water tank for the ornamental fountains in the garden below and even suggestions of aliens! But it was safe to say that all of the volunteers left site excited to see what tomorrow would bring.

The volunteers busily exposing the building on day 2.

The second day began in a similar way to the first, the sun was shining, Trench 1 had been abandoned due to unforgiving digging conditions (apparently there was still another meter to dig through before they reached the archaeology!) and all our efforts were concentrated on the exciting remains which were appearing in Trench 2.

By the end of the day the foundations of most of a large octagonal building had emerged (the full extent of it was of course hidden underneath our spoil heap!) and the Young archaeologists had revealed not only an outer wall, which appeared to be the remains of a garden wall with fancy stone plinths, but also the remains of a slightly more substantial inner wall which looked suspiciously like the foundations for a building.

Armed with this new information and looking specifically for an octagonal structure in the area to the northeast of the house, a quick scan of early Ordnance Survey (OS) maps of the area (check out www.old-maps.co.uk) revealed an indication of this building, as well as the extent of pathways leading up to and around the structure. One of the volunteers, Colin, also managed to locate a sketch from the 1840’s showing a summer house!

The top of the wall and a possible plinth.

After two days hard work, and a lot of exciting revelations the site has been put to bed again. But never fear, and Calke Abbey Live will be returning and planning has already begun for next year’s investigations.