Tag Archives: archaeology

Merely a mirror? Reflections from a conservator

Guest blogger Rebecca Plumbe, University of Lincoln Masters student

Objects can be very deceptive. Like people, most of them have secrets which stay hidden until you start questioning them. As a conservator, I am a nosey parker by nature. If I could, I would sit an object down under a blinding spotlight and interrogate it with endless questions: How old are you? What are you? What are you made from? And what were you used for? But I suppose that’s what I do when I conserve an object. Inanimate material things will not tell you anything and it is their silence which is the conservator’s challenge. What can I find out about this object to further our shared understanding of its purpose and its history? For the past three months, I have spent my time doing just this with an intriguing archaeological find excavated by Allen Archaeology that arrived disguised in the form of another object. But how can an object be misleading? Well, pull up a chair at the interrogation table as I reveal my findings . . . .

The suspected medieval mirror before conservation treatment

The object in question resembled a Medieval mirror case and had been found on a site close to a deserted medieval village. These kinds of mirrors were believed to be carried by Pilgrims, who thought that catching the reflection of a Saint would imbibe the mirror with their attributes. Initial observations and comparisons with other mirror cases from the period on the Portable Antiquities Scheme database revealed some striking similarities such as the circular recessed shape and the traces of a reflective metal inlay.

An 11th to 12th century mirror case (from Hinds 2010)

But all was not what it seemed! Underneath the layers of corrosion product hid a very different object all together. And one that was at least 900 years younger than was first thought!

Placing the object into the X-ray chamber for analysis

Cleaning the object

Analysis using XRF (X-ray Fluorescence) determined that the object was composed of a metal alloy (brass) as both copper and zinc were identified, the thinner, shinier metal inlay was nickel. But the real surprise came during the mechanical removal of corrosion product from the surface. Slowly but surely, small incised markings began to appear upon the nickel inlay, followed by a distinct horse-shoe shape bearing the letters ‘B_E_ A_ U_ C_ O’ stamped onto the main brass body.

Small incised markings in the nickel inlay

Stamped horseshoe-shaped makers mark

Markings such as these act as clues and allow us to do a little detective work. Although the lettering around the horseshoe was partially lost, due to the effects of corrosion, there was enough evidence to tie it to a French watch-makers, Pierre, Fritz and Louis Japy who manufactured under the name of ‘Beaucourt’. Time had finally caught up with the object’s true identity!

Beaucourt was the French town in which Japy Fréres (Japy Brothers) pioneered the mechanisation of time-piece manufacture, bringing the watch making process under one roof for the first time. Although Japy Fréres started making watches in 1770, the stamp located on this casing dates to around 1890-1900. Japy Fréres prided themselves on making time-pieces for ‘the common man’, so this particular pocket watch could be purchased at a reasonable price. The smaller incised markings appear to refer to the date at which the pocket watch was once repaired. The pocket-watch was nickel plated, which explained the presence of these thinner metal remnants along the lip of the casing.

Conservators tool kit and the watch case after conservation

The conservator’s tool kit. Mechanical removal of the disfiguring corrosion layers was achieved to stabilise and uncover the surface of the watch casing

So my time spent with a scalpel, dental tool pick and microscope was time well spent, as was the case (quite literally!) with this archaeological find. With the metal now stabilised and the maker’s marks once again visible, it can tell its true story. I like to think of objects as suspects: question everything until you discover the truth. Despite being inanimate, they can still pack a surprise or two!

References

Antique Horology, undated),Trademarks, Stamps & Signatures, [online] Available from http://www.antique-horology.org/Trademarks/default.asp [Accessed 1 March 2017].

Artclock, 2017, Japy Freres: Biography, History + Markings, Year, [online] Available from http://www.artclock.nl/horloges-pagina-2-info/11-japy-freres-history-marking-year-11a-kopie [Accessed 1 March 2017]

Artclock, 2017, Japy Freres: History + Mark, Year, Design Index, [online] Available from http://www.artclock.nl/11-japy-freres [Accessed 1 March 2017]

Hinds, K, 2010, WILT-F04EB6: A MEDIEVAL MIRROR CASE. [online] Available from https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/384545 [Accessed 17 Feb 2017].

Stephen-Smith, M, 2006, The Emergence of Modern Business Enterprise in France, 1800-1930. 1^st edition, USA: Harvard University Press

Christina Colyer – Lincoln’s Trowel Blazer

Christina Colyer, Lincoln’s first Field Archaeologist

Last year we celebrated the female archaeologists based at AAL and how they found their way into their careers. This year we have decided to highlight the work of Lincolns first City Archaeologist; Christina Colyer.

Christina Colyer was the Director of the Lincoln Archaeology Trust, the first ‘unit’ formed in Lincoln in 1972. It is under her leadership that the most prominent excavations in the city took place. The results of her work can be seen across the city and include the work at pivotal sites including the western defences of the lower town and St Paul-in-the-Bail.

She started working in Lincoln as the speed of post-war development was beginning to overwhelm the Lincoln Archaeological Research Committee’s ability to keep up. She herself described the problem as “of horrific proportions”. It has been difficult to track her down, no obituaries appear in local journals, and in a time before the internet her mark has been left in a series of tantalizing clues. She seems to have worked in Bedfordshire for the Department of the Environment before starting in Lincoln. Various correspondence indicate that she had a B.A. and was a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries.

People remember her as both charismatic and controversial. Perhaps this is why she is barely visible today. Those who worked for her suggest she was an outspoken woman and that this was not always popular.

A recent Appreciation of Margaret Jones, a leader of the Mucking excavations, suggested that women have been considered largely absent during the Rescue period of field archaeology of 1950s to 1970s. However, Christina (like Margaret) was one of a number of women who directed major excavations across the UK.

Scandalous, controversial or charismatic, archaeology in Lincoln would be a different place had Christina not paved the way for the current generation of archaeologists who continue her work.
For a detailed bibliography see here

Lecturing on the Roman remains

A huge thank you to Alastair MacIntosh at City of Lincoln Council for providing the photographs.

Archaeology is rubbish*

Natasha Powers, Senior Manager

We recently finished work on a site to the south of Lincoln. There were no Roman buildings or prehistoric flint scatters but a group (or assemblage) of objects was collected and brought back to the offices. Collections of material like this look familiar to us and they can show the processes we go through to interpret a site no matter its age, and the difficulties we face in doing so.

What was it for? A bottle is probably used for storing liquids, we know that because we have seen objects a similar shape and that’s what they were being used for (their function). Shape (or form) is one of the key ways in which we interpret objects. We have a helping hand here as many of the objects still have writing on them, so we can find out exactly what they were used for. We can use the characteristics of those objects to help us work out what the ones without labels might be. The base of no. 12 tells us that it was made to store Hartley’s jams or preserves. We can therefore work out that no. 11, which is not marked but looks very similar, was used for the same function but presumably by different a company. We work out what the objects are by comparing them with other, sometimes more complete, objects which have the same shape or characteristics.

Modern ‘rubbish’ but what can it tell us?

How old is it? Creating a typology (the classification of objects according to their characteristics) can also be key to establishing their date. Shapes and styles may change over time and if you have an object that you can give a secure date to, you can build up a pattern. Here, we can look at the ketchup bottle (no. 5) and see that it looks like those that were produced between 1914 and 1930. Research can help us work out how old other objects may be: Wiltshaw & Robinson (makers of Carlton Ware) produced over 1000 different shapes of Heraldic Souvenir China 1903–1926, including our yacht (no. 13). Bray & Co. Bus Company, changed their name to Lincolnshire Road Car in May 1930, so the ticket stub (no. 26) must be earlier than this. In fact the objects all seem to have been made before 1930, but not earlier than the start of the 20th century.

Typology of ketchup

When was it deposited? Production date doesn’t tell us when these objects were buried. Some objects stay in circulation longer than others because they have uses beyond their original purpose, because we find them aesthetically pleasing or because they become heirlooms. Stoneware jam pots were superseded by glass jam jars, but we have both here. Empty stoneware jars make excellent pencil pots or vases, so perhaps they were reused before being thrown away (I keep match boxes in one at home)?

What does it mean? Take away our knowledge of these objects from their history and how would we interpret them as a group? Why would someone have a small model house and a boat? Is there a religious significance to these items? Why do they have a coat of arms on them? Did the person who they belonged to own land in, or have family in Southport and Bedford? Perhaps they were just pretty objects picked up at a jumble sale? There is a glass pot marked ‘Spear’s Games’ – does that mean there are children involved in the creation of this rubbish? There is a pocket watch of a type that you would expect to belong to a man, but we need to be careful when we ‘engender’ objects: I own a watch much like that myself. Likewise, there is a pot of solid perfume that we might assume is a ‘female’ object. Did they smoke or need a stick to walk with? There are a lot of ink bottles, one of which even has a pen-nib still in it – is this rubbish from a school or an office? Is it from the home of a writer? All in all, there are storage containers, decorative items and practical ones (like the syrup of figs from a brand known as “the family laxative”!). Perhaps, sometime after 1930 someone had a clear-out and got rid of Aunt Agatha’s now unfashionable nick-nacks?

The truth is that we can’t ever know for certain. We can say that the objects were thrown away because they were no longer considered useful. The key to making our interpretation the best that it can be is to gather as much information together as is possible, compare our site with others and set the discovery in context…and that applies to a Roman farmstead as much as a 20th century rubbish dump.

(*with apologies to Tony Robinson and Mick Aston for borrowing the title of their book)

No.	Description
1	Glass storage jar
2	Robertson’s Scotch Marmalade jar with partial label and motif
3	Medicine or household chemical bottle, very incomplete label reads ‘methylated’. Moulded with horizontal divisions showing tablespoons
4	Glass bottle
5	Heinz ketchup bottle with partial label
6	?Champagne bottle
7	Moulded ‘Daddie’s’ sauce bottle
8	Lyons ?ink bottle with partial label
9	Glass bottle
10	Moulded California Fig Syrup Co. bottle
11	Stoneware preserves jar. No markings
12	Stoneware preserves jar. Base embossed ‘NOT genuine unless bearing Wm PH Hartley’s label’
13	Carlton Ware crested or heraldic china yacht (the Saucy Sue). Marked “Southport”
14	Bovril jar
15	Swan ink pot
16	Miniature vase
17	Lid with running dogs motif
18	Small jar
19	Willow Art crested china model of Paul Bunyan’s House with ‘The arms of ancient Bedford’
20	Bell’ Lyon’s ink tipper bottle with partial label and pen nib inside
21	Stoneware inkwell
22	Glass inkwell
23	Glass pot embossed ‘Spear’s Games’. Possibly a tiddlywinks container?
24	Clay pipe
25	Man’s pocket watched in tooled steel
26	Bray & Co. Bus Company
27	Skull of a small dog
28	Brass solid perfume pot with hinge and mirror in the lid. Perfume still present
29	?Bone/antler and brass walking stick handle in the shape of a duck’s head
30	Pocket watch winder (assoc. with 25)

Best site hut biscuit with Alice

What is your job role?
Senior Project Archaeologist

How long have you worked for Allen Archaeology?
3 years, 3 months and 13 days (approximately)

How would describe your excavation technique?
I attack things with gusto and hope for the best

How long have you been working in archaeology?
3 years, 3 months and 13 days (approximately)

Alice on a Sheffield University training dig at West Halton

At a Sheffield University training dig at West Halton

How did you get into archaeology?
Aged 10 I was dragged (whilst protesting) onto a field as part of a community project my mum was involved in. 5 minutes later I found a Neolithic leaf shaped arrowhead and after that I was hooked

What is the best thing about your job?
Digging big holes in the mud!

Specialist skills?
I can knit myself a nice brightly coloured site jumper that hides some of the mud. I’m in the early stages of training to be a Roman pottery specialist.

Best site hut biscuit?
I’m a big fan of the bourbon but if we are feeling fancy a Lotus caramelized biscuit hits the spot.

Running a large scale excavation

Dan Connor, Project Supervisor

In this blog I have been asked to try and describe what my experience running a large scale excavation was like. I have been a supervisor at Allen Archaeology since November 2014 and have worked here since October 2013. Prior to working at Market Harborough I ran several evaluation trenching sites, some open area excavations and helped supervise the large-scale North Killingholme site under the direction of Chris Casswell in the summer of 2015; this would be the largest site I have coordinated.

General shot of site on top of the spoil heap looking southeast

So, a quick description of the site, Market Harborough was an agricultural field, about 5.5 hectares in size that underwent a strip map and record, during the summer of 2016. This was done as a condition of planning consent to allow the building of over 100 houses on the site. Prior to us starting work the site a geophysical survey and evaluation trenching had been undertaken. This meant that there were known archaeological remains on the site consisting of field boundaries and enclosures, that were shown clearly on the geophysics. The nature of these results suggested that this site would have a mix of Romano-British field systems and some earlier Iron Age features.

The geophysics results for the site

Machines started opening the site up in early March, and after a few teething issues we were largely ready to go.

Pre-excavation survey of the site, showing the archaeology and other features.

One of the excavated ditches

It was daunting at first, a large tangle of intercutting ditches and discrete features over an area the size of four football fields; but breaking it down made it much easier to grasp. In the end I decided to have the team work through the site in a large group, breaking the site down into distinct parts and moving from one area to the next. It often feels like Roman archaeology leads itself to this approach as Romans loved squares and enclosures and like to keep things surrounded by big ditches. Difficulties arose however with the Romans love of maintaining said big ditches, then leaving them, before digging new ditches in exactly the same place. This results in features having multiple re-cuts and phases, and the key was to try and link these phases together. This is what makes Roman sites fascinating; distinct phases of activity and occupation can be observed, and in this case it emerged that there were five clear phases of activity, despite the complexity in the features.

The earliest period of occupation recorded on the site dated from the early Neolithic, with several pits that contained worked flint including a fragment of a leaf shaped arrowhead, and a piece of a Langdale stone axe in the northwest corner of the site. A prehistoric pit alignment was found oriented north to south and is similar to others found in Leicestershire. Also recorded were the remains of at least two Iron age drip gullies associated with round houses.

The majority of the site was, as expected, Romano-British field systems and enclosures. We had a number of stand out finds from this period including a partial sliver ring, a copper alloy make up tool, a brooch and multiple quern stones including a rotary and saddle quern.

The whole site with complete stratigraphic phasing, red being earlier and blue being later.

The whole site with complete stratigraphic phasing, red being earlier features and blue, more recent

However there was not just the archaeology to consider, a large-scale project like this meant public interest, I had had a little experience with this working at North Killingholme, but this was my first experience of being directly involved. An open day was organised and volunteer groups from local historical societies were invited to work a few days.

On the open day, just over 70 people turned up for a site tour and to look at some of the material we had found. I found that while people enjoyed their time most were expecting more of a traditional/research archaeological site and less of a “construction” image. I imagine not looking like a university professor did not match many people’s expectations, neither did the hard hats and high visibility vests everyone was wearing. Regardless many local people had real enthusiasm about the work we were doing and a genuine interest in the artefacts. Many were eager to add their own interpretations to what we had found and what could have been there.

Volunteers from local historical societies were invited to come onto site and excavate some of the features, specifically some of the pits in the pit alignment. A big difference that the volunteers noted themselves was the amount of work and the speed it was expected to be done at. It is a long time since my university field schools and I have only worked on commercial archaeological sites since, so having volunteers was a bit of an unknown quantity. I enjoyed having them on site though and I believe they learnt a bit about what digging for a company was like and the benefits of doing volunteer work.

Bees played a bigger part of my time then I thought they would, with a hive descending on to the site during July

Bees played a bigger part of my time than I thought they would, with a swarm descending on to the site during July!

Most people were working away from home on this job and that can be stressful. We seemed to avoid this, and I think it was because people got along socially as well as at work. Cooking together in the evening, playing board games and *a couple* of beers in the evening helped pass the time and brought people together. It created a good atmosphere and I felt everyone was enjoying working on the site.

Over 580 holes were excavated, over 3100 context numbers assigned and just under 1200 drawings were completed to investigate this part of a Romano-British settlement. It was a great site to work on; archaeologically it was interesting fitting the development of the site together alongside some nice finds, with evidence of extended occupation from the Neolithic to the 4th century AD. The group of people working on site really pulled it together. It made running what could have been a very stressful and complex site straight forward for me and resulted in a site I have found fascinating to record.

The team working hard

A cold week for archaeologists

It’s been a busy week and we’ve been up to all sorts of exciting things.

Aaron has been monitoring work at The Lawn in Lincoln.

On site at The Lawn

Damian has taken a team down to London

Monitoring works in London

Rob has been hunting the Loch Ness Monster in his magnetometry data

Finding monsters

Jesse has been undertaking and processing his first building survey

Setting up his first building survey

Alice has been working hard in the sleet

Team in the south of Lincolnshire

Reports are getting produced in the very tidy projects room

Working hard in the projects office

Finally we’ve had a team hard at it washing finds

Finds washers are going strong

Hope everyone else has had a busy week!

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!

Best site hut biscuit with Gavin

What is your job role?
Project Manager

How long have you worked for Allen Archaeology?
5 years

How would describe your excavation technique?
Pointing from a distance

How long have you been working in archaeology?
Since the mid 1990s.

How did you get into archaeology?
I got a lucky break after a friend was working on a site that needed more staff and I was looking for work. It was only supposed to be a temporary stop-gap whilst I found something different. I’m not sure I’ve ever forgiven him.

What is the best thing about your job?
The people that I work with. Their ability to surprise me on a weekly basis keeps things interesting but has aged me considerably.

Specialist skills?
I used to be able to balance a cricket bat upright on my forehead

Best site hut biscuit?
The Ginger Nut is the prince of biscuits in any situation as far as I’m concerned

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!