Category Archives: Project Supervisors

A Day in the Life of…..Emily Doe (Project Supervisor, Fieldwork)

I’ve been working at Allen Archaeology for the best part of four years. I started as a bright-eyed and enthusiastic PA (Project Archaeologist) then worked my way up to the role of Project Supervisor. As you can imagine having such a role has its pros and cons. With highs of being the one who holds the power to allocate slots to reveal the secrets of the site, and lows including being the bearer of bad news when it’s time to go back to work when the lovely English weather is throwing its worst at us and we have deadlines to meet!

There is never a dull day as a supervisor, as it’s a very varied role and often keeps you on your toes depending on the site and how far along you are with it for. You could be machine stripping a site for days on end not finding anything or be on tender hooks as there is so much archaeology your eyes can’t keep up with it. Though on a more established site where you may be for months on end, days can take a more regular form. With starting each day afresh with your eager team ready to get their hands in mud. I would allocate slots for each of team member to dig, record and interpret. Sometimes help is needed with training new staff in recording/ excavating methods or interpreting what a section is telling us by looking at the wider picture and relating it to other features or slots within the same area. Lunch time and break times give everyone the chance to relax and refuel for the rest of the day ahead. If I’m lucky I may get the opportunity to dig features myself but if not then archive checking is a frequent and important task.

Emily machine watching — Emily watch the machine strip a site

Baku and Bifaces

By Rupert Birtwistle, Project Supervisor

Welcome to my first blog post, which considering I’ve been at the company 4 years now is probably a little overdue. Despite delays, it is now my pleasure to report on my current research trip in Azerbaijan. Over the next three months I will be taking you on a journey across Eastern Europe to the far away mountainous region of the Caucasus, for reasons which I assure you are (mostly) academic.

Rupert in his natural environment

In addition to being a Project Supervisor here at Allen Archaeology Ltd I live a double life as a PhD student at University of Leicester. As part of my PhD program I am turning my attention to Palaeolithic Azerbaijan, specifically the transition from the Lower to Middle Palaeolithic. ‘Why Azerbaijan?’ you may ask, and for that I should thank my old university lecturer Keith Wilkinson, University of Winchester, who taught me that the most important factor in determining a research area is not just the archaeology, but the quality of the local wine. Hence (mostly) academic.

My project is directed towards the transition between the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic and the development of Levallois techniques (prepared core technologies) in the region between 400,000 and 200,000 years ago. To do this I will be analysing material from four previously excavated sites, Azykh cave, Shish-guzey, Gadir-dere and Gayaly, the latter three all being open air sites.

The Caucasus is a mountainous region that stretches from the Black Sea Coast in the east and the Caspian Sea in the west. It was an important migratory corridor for hominins during Palaeolithic times as it offered a link between Africa, Asia, and Europe. The comparative absence of archaeologists working in Azerbaijan has left a large gap in the Palaeolithic record for the region, exacerbated by Azerbaijan being the least mountainous of all the Caucasian countries, which has left it out in the cold as researchers have favoured cave environments, specifically in Armenia. Together with disputes between the neighbouring countries, the Palaeolithic potential of Azerbaijan has never been explored by an international researcher.

The National Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan

So at the beginning of August I put away my work clothes and hung up my trowel (for now) to embark on a Palaeolithic journey across Europe to Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan, my new home. I was soon into my work at the Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences (pictured above). The assemblages and environment were tricky to get to grips with initially and I had to draw upon all my experience as an archaeologist when after my first visit to the bathroom I was faced with a squat toilet.

Hard at work assessing an assemblage

During August I have focused on analysing material from Shish-guzey (pictured above) and Azykh Layer V. Analysis of both assemblages has characterised the material as Late Acheulean, although I have also been able to identify elements of Levallois technology amongst the cores, tools and flaking habits of the hominins. This is very exciting news indeed. The stone tools from both assemblages are made from various types of volcanic rock, basalt and andesite, with the occasional exotic, non-local material thrown in, flint, chert and obsidian (see images below).

One interesting element is that although the assemblages are Late Acheulean, there appears to be a considerable lack of handaxes, the so-called hallmark of the Acheulean. It seems the hominins had already started to explore the use of prepared core methods as the tools kits evolved to become more reliant on flaked tools, rather than the Palaeolithic ‘Swiss army knife’ approach. Furthermore, and much to my complete surprise, I have discovered evidence that hominins were using bone to fashion tools. This is rare in the Lower Palaeolithic, and is an activity thought to represent behavioural modernity in Homo sapiens. Nonetheless, the evidence here is compelling and will be published during the coming year.

From top to bottom: 3 non-Levallois points, a small biface, Levallois core, and a retouched blade

It’s been busy, hectic at times, and a learning curve to some of the problems of studying or working in a foreign country. I have been attending Russian classes twice a week in the evenings, and have managed to expand my vocabulary by 6 words “where is the real toilet located”?

I must be doing something right as I managed to receive a decent haircut and the first time of asking, although I though 50 minutes for essentially a military short, back and sides was a little excessive, but I pleased I came through unscathed. Thankfully hairdressing technology has evolved somewhat since the Palaeolithic…

Editor’s note: We look forward to seeing the (unfermented) fruits of Rupert’s ongoing research.

Find of the Month, September

by Cova Escandon (Archive Supervisor)

An unusual set of jewellery was found from the grave of an adolescent individual from a Roman Necropolis in Lincolnshire, dated to the 4^th century AD. The grave good assemblage is made up of a group of copper-alloy, bone and iron bangles, along with a copper-alloy chain, glass beads and one copper-alloy ring.

Bracelets made of all types of materials were most common in Britain during the 4^th Century AD, and had been used by the Romano-British elite since early Roman times, often fabricated with precious metals. However, around the time of the 4^th Century AD, the use of these bangles became more common in the general population with materials such as bone or copper alloy used instead of precious metals. Such bangles were often worn with between six and sixteen bangles on both wrists. This practice would explain the large amount of fragments of metal bangles found in domestic contexts from the late Roman period. In the set found by Allen Archaeology, there were also several fragments of bone bangles which became very popular during the 4^th century.

Eight copper alloy bracelets were discovered within the grave, all in different styles, three of them decorated. Such decoration includes an incised decoration of a repeating pattern of III X III, and on other bangles motifs including a wavy line with associated dots, faint cross-hatching, and a ring and dot design can be seen. Interestingly, this ring and dot pattern is also present on one of the bone fragments, suggesting that this group of metal and bone bangles were designed to be worn together.

III X III decoration on copper alloy bangle

Ring and dot detail on the copper alloy bangle

Three of the bone fragments have holes drilled through one end and one fragment also has an iron rivet still attached. Two other fragments are joined together by a thin copper-alloy plate, suggesting that these bangles could have been made in sections and then attached together.

I always find curating these sort of finds a little bit bittersweet. On one hand they are very pretty and interesting artefacts, highly useful in being able to date the burial. But on the other side, they remind us that what we have in front of us is a human being, carefully buried with personal items.

Weekly Round-up

Following on from yesterday’s ‘Ask and Archaeologist’ day we thought we’d do a little office round up to give you an insight into what our staff have been working on this week!

Our Finds and Archive Department have been busy this week preparing finds for archive deposition and preparing material to go off to the relevant specialists. We have also had a number of volunteers come to work with us from the University of Lincoln over the past month and this week we welcomed Roksana and Louise who have been washing various finds from some of our recent sites and marking the pottery ready for archive deposition.

Roksana and Louise marking some pottery from a recent site

The head of our geophysics team, Rob, has been doing some digitisation for a large linear infrastructure site in Lincolnshire as well as doing a watching brief in a small village just outside Lincoln. Mia, one of our Project Supervisors, has been busy working on some building recording reports for a range of sites in Lancashire and Cambridgeshire.

Rob of our Geophysics team looking very studious!

The Heritage Research Team (affectionately known as Heritage HQ) have been working on a variety of desk-based assessments for sites in Nottinghamshire, Cambridgeshire, and Lancashire. Heritage team member Harvey has been out visiting sites in Cambridgeshire and Nottinghamshire and has discovered some interesting cropmarks just outside of the Cambridgeshire Archives at Shire Hall which relate to the site of the old county prison. He thought it might have been a Roman building associated with a known Roman settlement to the north. Better luck with your interpretation next time Harvey, it happens to the best of us! Thanks to the effect of the hot weather on the ground, a lot of cropmarks have now become clearly visible across the UK.

Possible cropmarks visible outside of the Cambridgeshire Archives

And of course, our field teams have been busy across the country! With sites in Lincolnshire, Leicestershire, Suffolk, and Cambridgeshire (amongst others!) our field archaeologists have been working hard to excavate and record an array of archaeological features. We’ve also had some great finds from our sites this week, including some complete Roman vessels from a site in Lincolnshire!

Our field team having fun on site in Leicestershire

So it has been a busy week for us all here at Allen Archaeology and with the food festival coming to Lincoln this weekend I’m sure a few of our staff will be visiting!

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

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 December: Clay Pipe Bowl

Decorated clay pipe bowl

By Cova Escandon, Finds Supervisor

On 27^th of July 1586, Sir Walter Raleigh brought back three unknown weeds from one of his trips to the New World. They were the plants of potato, maize and tobacco.

Although tobacco was most likely to have been known in England before this date through Spanish and Portuguese sailors, Raleigh was the first person to introduce smoking as a fashionable habit in the court of Elizabeth I. Imagine the first time these courtesans saw smoke coming out of someone’s nose and mouth! It is said that one of Raleigh’s servants threw water on him thinking he was on fire. Smoking soon became very popular, and it was even thought to be beneficial to health. It was highly recommended to heal conditions such as worms, halitosis and toothache. Even during the Great Plague (1665) it was thought to clean the air, so schoolboys at Eton College would smoke a pipe at breakfast. But at the beginning of the 17^th Century some voices started speaking against its use. One of them was King James I who wrote a famous text called ‘Counterblast to Tobacco’ where he condemned the use of the aforesaid plant. He also destroyed the crops existing in England and taxed severely the import from America. Despite this, the use of tobacco continued to grow until the 1930s. It was around this time that clay pipe use declined due to competition from cigarettes.

The pipe bowl that we bring to you today was found in Lincoln and made at the Watkinson Clay Pipe Factory in Market Rasen. This factory was founded in 1843 by George Spencer Watkinson and it was very successful until 1893 when wooden pipes started being more popular. Watkinson’s son, George Spencer Watkinson Junior, wrote a journal of his memories of the factory and drew sketches describing the process of making clay pipes. This source of information is priceless as not much is known about this type of factory.

Back in those days, each factory would produce their own designs incorporating the name of the manufacturer or place of production. Our pipe bowl is beautifully decorated with a trophy, possibly related to horse racing, and what appears to be thistles and roses in a laurel crown. On the rim of the bowl you can read MARKET RASEN. Interestingly, we know that the Watkinson Factory often used another design showing a chained slave on one side and the personification of Liberty on the other. This antislavery decoration is highly unusual in the tobacco industry, given its close relationship and dependence on the slavery system.

As you can see in the photograph, the stem of the pipe is missing. We actually often find them with short stems, or none at all, and one reason is that in the second half of the 19^th Century, pubs would provide pipes for their clients to smoke: the customer would break the end of the stem, fill the bowl with tobacco and smoke, returning it to the landlord once he had finished. The next client would break the stem and start again. This artefact not only is a beautiful piece of art, it is also a little window into our past.