Tag Archives: archaeology

The Archaeological Toolbox

An Archaeologists toolbox

We all know that archaeologists own at least one trowel.

But there’s more to it than that, a menagerie of tools and pieces of equipment that are integral additions to the ‘tools of the trade’. But what makes up the elusive archeologist’s kit?

To start with the obvious; trowels, they are the universal (yet unofficial) symbol of Archaeology. A necessary part of the toolkit, and almost every archaeologist will own whether it gets used on a daily or yearly basis. I’ve spoken to people about their first trowel and they can always remember what happened if it is no longer with them. Fee fondly reminiscing about hers, which is likely now buried underneath concrete and tarmac from her first University Dig, and I can say that my first is still with me – gifted by my very proud grandparents.

Cat’s clearly identified, if rarely used, trowel

Gloves of both the waterproof and thermal kind are two things that are underestimated fairly frequently. General waterproof gloves that are necessary for health and safety, but thermal gloves are pieces of equipment that I admit that I have forgotten many times and consequently suffered…

Finds bags are a staple. While they’re provided by the company, they disappear fairly quickly and it’s a good idea to have a stash of them by your side when you carefully excavate that fantastic piece of Roman jewelry no one else noticed, or when the site’s storage is at a distance from where you are working.

Two that tie together (haha) are lines of string and nails. These two are important for creating section lines, creating plans, marking GPS points for small find locations, and bartering. For future reference, a nail is worth 5 biscuits or an extra cup of tea…

A notebook isn’t absolutely essential, but it’s highly recommended… Not just to track how many nails you’ve traded for other supplies, but to mark down important numbers and information that you’ll need while on site. If you’re digging a pit you’ll need to remember two numbers just for the cut and fill, and photo numbers & GPS points are also necessary for future reference. If one of your colleagues asks who dug a certain pit number, if you can’t remember if it was you or not… you’re able to go back and look. Unluckily, if it was excavated wrong, there’s proof that it was you. On the contrary, if it was you who’d dug it and found something amazing, like the Roman jewelry mentioned before, you can prove that it was yourself that first cast eyes upon the artefact.

A well organised pencil case is essential

A pencil case is also recommended. From drawing plans to writing on finds bags, a sharpie and sharpened pencil are important. Aside from the obvious, things like scale rulers and erasers and pencil sharpeners, pencils are somewhat different. They shouldn’t be HB. These pencils will smudge and blur on the permatrace, a bit like waterproof tracing paper, that is used for plans and section drawings, and as a result of this, 6H pencils are recommended to reduce this smudging.

Tape measures are, in essence, similar to the string and nails. They’re used to measure for planning, to map out the location and size of the feature, and for your unsuspecting colleagues to trip over. Surveyor tape, I should add, is also good for measuring as tape measures may not be the right length or maneuverable enough for general archaeological use. Clips of varying types are recommended to attach it to objects, to create a reliable measuring line for your plans and/or sections.

All sorts of strategy’s are employed to clearly identify kit

Line levels are important for when you start to plan the section of your feature. When drawing plans a straight line is needed as a base line for whatever you are drawing, and the line level would be used to make sure your string line is straight for finally drawing it out. Note that these are small and easily lost, and as a result your colleagues will ask to borrow them from you… and maybe give them back.

Finally I’ll be blunt – duplicates of everything. Archeologists enjoy ‘borrowing’ from each other for indeterminate amounts of time, and I think I can safely say that we’re all guilty of this…
In all seriousness, I started my traineeship with an entire tin of nails.

In conclusion, an archaeologist’s kit is varied and an amalgamation of tools that are the core essentials of any excavation and sometimes, they might even be the part of the original set that you bought.

Best site hut biscuit with Yvonne

Archives Supervisor Yvonne Rose

What is your job role?
Project Supervisor (Archives)

How long have you worked for Allen Archaeology?
Nearly 5 months

How would describe your excavation technique?
A distant memory!

How long have you been working in archaeology?
24 years

How did you get into archaeology?
Quite by accident! I’d been working as a wood machinist for a few years, and when I lost that job my partner (fellow archaeologist)’s boss took pity on me and took me on as a site assistant for a month. I obviously impressed them so much they kept me on for over 20 years!

What is the best thing about your job?
Getting to deal with all the artefacts, the variety of tasks, and working with a great bunch of people.

Specialist skills?
Archiving (of course!), getting lost, knitting.

Best site hut biscuit?
The dear departed McVities Jaspers (R.I.P.)

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.

The Virtual St. Stephen’s Project

In Spring 2016 we were subcontracted by University of York to convert a visual model of the pre-1834 House of Commons, St. Stephen’s Chapel Westminster to an acoustic model. The work was commissioned as part of the Virtual St Stephen’s Project, an AHRC-funded research project and was a collaboration between the departments of History (Dr John Cooper), and Electronics (Dr Damian Murphy).

One of the major elements of the project was the creation of a three dimensional computer model detailing St. Stephen’s chapel at various points in its lifetime. The three dimensional model was then used on a touch screen device to allow visitors to interact with the reconstruction. Creating these models not only provides a great opportunity for public engagement it also allows evidence from a range of sources to be brought together and used to create an interpretation of a lost space.

The Virtual St Stephen’s Interactive model

However, as beautiful and engaging as these models are they do not consider the soundscape of the space. In recent years archaeologists have started to explore the opportunities for applying acoustic technology. Catriona came to AAL following the completion of her PhD looking at this technique.

For the Virtual St Stephen’s project we started with the three dimensional mode produced by Dr. Anthony Masinton and simplified it to use as an acoustic model. Acoustic technology is not as sophisticated as the technology to produce visualisations; the models have to be less complex. They also use the same information in slightly different ways. Both models require the size and shape of a space to be accurate, however; where a visualisation needs information about how surfaces are coloured and textured, an acoustic model needs to understand how sound will reflect, or be absorbed by different materials.

The acoustic model of St. Stephen’s Chapel, Westminster

The resulting model can provide a series of numerical values which tell us about the space; how sound decays from various positions in the room, how clearly sounds can be heard. We can also create auralizations; acoustic reconstructions. Under the right conditions they allow a listener to experience sound from the modelled space. We hope to use these models to explore the experience of listening to speeches in the pre-1834 House of Commons.

The project featured on The Lost Chapel of Westminster on BBC Parliament on Sunday and is still available on iPlayer.

Heritage Research: What is the Desk-based Assessment

The initial stages of archaeological work can often be complex and differs greatly between sites depending on the individual peculiarities of the project. Often the first stage of work falls to the Heritage Research Department at AAL, consisting of Josh, Catriona and Jesse, and the writing of Desk-Based Assessments (DBAs).

Aerial photograph showing cropmakrs comprising circular enclosures

A DBA attempts to assess whether there is likely to be any archaeological remains on or near a planned development, and whether the development will affect the setting or significance of known (and usually designated) heritage assets, such as listed buildings. The DBA is in essence a short research project exploring all the aspects of the history and archaeology of a particular piece of land. These can be buildings due for renovation or demolition, planned housing schemes, solar farms, cable lines and a whole variety of other reasons.

The starting point for a report is usually the local Historic Environment Record (HER); previously known as Sites and Monuments Records (SMRs). They are databases of information relating to the historic environment and contain information about archaeological works, buildings, landscapes, finds and a whole range of other things associated with the human past. You can access a lot of the information from Heritage Gateway if you are undertaking personal research.

The results of a HER search will tell us what known archaeological and heritage assets are located within defined area. However, this record is not everything. A report can also include sifting through the local archives for historical documents; indicating land use of the site over time, or investigating cropmarks shown on aerial photographs, and analysing maps of the past for evidence of shrunken villages. Some sites require a closer understanding of the underlying geology to predict whether prehistoric activity is likely, and others need to check whether 20th century buildings are likely to have truncated the archaeological resource.

Ridge and Furrow spotted on a site visit

Yet, part of the job also involves getting out the office and into the field (as we are still archaeologists!). Our site visits might include visiting ancient monuments, exploring parks and gardens, inspecting and recording old buildings, and visually assessing seemingly innocuous land, searching for potential clues of archaeological remains that might lie beneath. Without visiting the site it can be impossible to know how it relates to the landscape surrounding it.

A DBA is often undertaken at the pre-planning stage in order to highlight the potential for archaeological remains in advance of construction taking place. This allows the developer to prevent damage to the archaeological resource and the associated costs of excavation by changing the specifics of the development. For instance, the developer might choose to leave open spaces for recreation on houses estates over areas of known archaeological interest in order to avoid disturbing underlying remains. You never know, your local park might be on the ground of a Roman villa or a medieval castle! In addition, DBAs allow the local planning authorities to make decisions about whether or not excavation is required for planning permission, in cases where it is not practical to change the nature of the development. That’s when archaeologists get their hands dirty!

Preparing DBAs can be really rewarding projects for people who want to expand their knowledge of British Archaeology. You have to know a little bit about everything, and know where to start looking for more information and when to spend more time exploring something.

Find of the month: September

October’s find of the month was found just this week; during works around the forthcoming Chadwick Centre, at the International Bomber Command Memorial Site. Several large pieces of waster pots were found in a pit near to where three kilns had already been excavated back in 2014. Hopefully we could find another one!

Find of the month: large pieces of waster pots

We started work at the site in 2014. During an excavation in 2014, the three kilns were uncovered and have all been dated to the Romano-British period: probably towards mid to late 3rd Century. They are all fairly small, indicating that they were more likely to have been small subsistence kiln’s filling the needs of the local area, rather than a business. Earlier work has shown that the area has generally been in agricultural use; with multiple corn dryers, which would link into the local use of the kilns in a rural area.

One of the kilns excavated this week

A pottery kiln normally consists of a dome shaped superstructure which keeps the heat in, and around, the pottery being fired. A long triangular or oval shaped stokehole pit lies in front of the circular oven , which was where the fire was originally started and also where the ashes would be pulled out of the kiln into. Stokeholes are often very distinguishable due to their black, charcoaly appearance.

Base of a pot which didn’t make the grade because of the small depression that weakens the pot

Throughout the kiln structure you can find wasters. Wasters are piece of pottery that have not made the grade for whatever reason; be it a deformity such as a crack, a poor firing reducing the integrity of the structure, or an air bubble within the clay. You are less likely to find a complete rim of a vessel, which is why the one seen here is particularly exciting You can see on the picture of the little base, a small depression which would have been an air bubble that was trapped in the clay but burst during the firing. This not only creates a poor finish but it weakens the pottery.

One kiln found during the excavation had very little pottery wasters near, or in it, which suggests that it might have been used for something other than pottery. It could have been a bread oven, or as the more imaginative of us like to think; a pizza oven!

Why bother with Geophysics?

In May we told you about what geophysics is. Apart from helping to keep me fit with sometimes ridiculous amounts of walking across fields, why else do we use geophysics as part of the archaeological investigations into a site?

Commercial archaeology is often about revealing and recording archaeological remains before new development takes place. Whilst sometimes the nature of the development can be altered or adjusted to allow preservation of the buried features, in many cases we are recording the archaeology before its destruction.

In order to reveal and record archaeological remains we first have to find them. No matter how much we might wish it, not every field has a buried Roman villa, or a medieval settlement just waiting for a keen archaeologist to come and dig it up. In many cases the most exciting hidden treasure within a field is a former field boundary and a few modern field drains.

This is where a geophysical survey can help provide the information necessary to evaluating the archaeological potential of an area and allowing the development of a suitable plan to gain as much information as possible before building work commences. The survey can allow specific pinpointing of trial trenches over the most interesting features. This is much like keyhole surgery, hopefully producing maximum results for minimum effort and cost.

So how effective can this keyhole approach to archaeological remains be? If we take as an example a site in northeast Lincolnshire near Grimsby, we can see how useful this approach can be. The entire site in question was approximately 19 hectares in size, of which 11 hectares was suitable for the geophysical survey. The remaining area was either too overgrown or flooded making it impossible to survey. Fortunately the 11 hectare area covered the entire area proposed for construction.

An assessment of the archaeological and historical background of the area had revealed possible prehistoric to Roman cropmarks to the northwest and west of the site, with medieval activity involving earthworks and find scatters located immediately to the southeast of the site. The geophysical survey revealed a lot lot more.

Results of the geophysical survey

Suddenly the archaeological potential of the site has increased markedly. Not only can we clearly see the modern system of land drains cutting across the site, but we can also see potential settlement and agricultural enclosures, as well as ridge and furrow cultivation practices. A large dipolar spike, the white circle with a black centre to the right of the centre of the site was also tentatively identified as a potential kiln.

So what happens next? Before geophysics was available, a number of trial trenches would likely have been placed within the field to attempt to reveal any archaeological remains. As you can see from the results however, there are large areas of the field where the geophysics has not revealed any archaeological features. Random trial trenches would be just as likely to miss the interesting areas as to hit them, and an incomplete picture of the archaeology would be more than likely obtained.

Now that a geophysical survey has been done, the trial trenches can be located to test the results. This is useful for two reasons, the first is that we can target archaeological features to gain a better understanding of what’s going on, and hopefully retrieve sufficient finds to allow us to comfortably and confidently date the features. The second reason is more for the benefit of the geophysicist. The results from the trial trenching can be used to validate the geophysical results. I was fortunate to be involved with the trial trenching and it was very satisfying to see how well the archaeological features within the trenches matched up with the geophysical results.

Trial trenches overlaying the geophysics

The yellow features within the trenches relate to archaeological features, whilst the black features represent furrows. Finds recovered from the features allowed us to date them from late Iron Age to the Roman period, with the furrows indicative of medieval farming practice. The large dipolar spike was revealed as hearth or kiln, although its precise date or function unfortunately remains unknown.

The results from the trial trenching correlated very well with the geophysical survey, and this allowed us to gain a much greater understanding into the archaeological potential within the site.

So why bother with geophysics? Hopefully I’ve managed to give you a window into just how useful it can be. I certainly think it’s worth all the walking I do, and although I don’t find something exciting every time I go out, I do feel I’m helping us to understand more about our buried past.

Best site hut biscuit with Rachel

Rachel with her beautifully excavated kiln

What is your job role?
Project Archaeologist

How long have you worked for Allen Archaeology?
One year and four months

How would describe your excavation technique?
I used to be very meticulous and it would take me ages to find the edges, now I’m much better with a shovel. So I’d go with fast and furious!

How long have you been working in archaeology?
I had one commercial job before this so it’s coming up to just over two years now

How did you get into archaeology?
One of my teachers at school used to be an archaeologist and I was inspired by the practical side of archaeology, rather than just the bookish nature of history. Having said that I enjoy the multidisciplinary nature of archaeology- there’s a lot to be said for the helpful nature of oral history, as I found out on a site a few weeks ago, when I found house foundations which were missing from the map I had but one of the construction workers had handily lived there a few decades before!

What is the best thing about your job?
It’s hard to pick just one thing, I suppose the initial attraction of the job was the chance of finding something spectacular. I’ve already had some amazing finds, including a Mesolithic flint axe on my first ever commercial site. But I’ve come to realise that I really enjoy learning more about the ordinary people who lived in the settlements that we tend to excavate fully. Seeing how the ditches and pits were a part of living landscape makes me feel like our job is worthwhile.

I also enjoy training people and seeing how even after a couple of days the progress they make; that’s another part of the job I really enjoy.

Specialist skills?
Speedy shovelling and I’m quite good at excavating kilns. I developed these skills working on a site in Norfolk, when I excavated a large percentage of the examples we found!

Best site hut biscuit?
Chocolate hobnobs – you can dunk them in tea/coffee but they’re still satisfying as a speedy snack before heading back out on site!

“We’ve Only Found Pieces of Plates…”

With the impending arrival of International Talk Like a Pirate Day 2016, and as one of the few people at AAL with an interest in anything as “modern” as the Golden Age of Piracy (c.1650-1730), I have been asked to write a short post about Pirate Archaeology.

AAL staff get piratical

Of course, everyone knows what pirates, and pirate ships look like-eyepatch, wooden leg, parrot, Jolly Roger, overflowing treasure chests, right? See, for example, the photos of Allen Archaeology pirates, above.

Unfortunately (at the risk of disappointing pirate fans) these stereotypes have entered the collective consciousness largely through fictionalised accounts, ranging from Treasure Island to Pirates of the Caribbean, dating to long after the Golden Age.

Of course, there’s no reason why some of the traits associated with pirates might not have been, to some extent, accurate. For instance, pirates may well have lost eyes, or limbs, in the course of their careers. But the same would be true of sailors serving on naval men-of-war, or on armed merchantmen. Similarly, the slang, songs and manner of dress used by pirates may have marked them as sailors, but not as buccaneers (advertising your criminal behaviour has never been considered a smart move, especially when capital punishment is involved). So, the big question is how, if at all, is it possible to identify the historical practice of piracy, archaeologically, either on land or at sea?

The Whydah bell (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whydah_Gally)

In very simple terms, the best way of identifying a type of archaeological site is to compare it with known examples of that type. Unfortunately for the archaeology of piracy, there is only one absolutely, categorically proven example of a ‘pirate site’, the wreck of the Whydah. The confidence in its attribution is possible because it was historically documented as being a pirate ship when it sank in a storm off Cape Cod, and because the ship’s bell, inscribed THE WHYDAH GALLY 1716 was recovered during an archaeological investigation of the wreck in 1985. There are other shipwreck sites for which there is less concrete evidence, for instance the suspected Queen Anne’s Revenge (Shipwreck Site 0003BU), believed to be the former naval frigate used by Edward ‘Blackbeard’ Teach as his flagship. More tenuously, what may be the wreck of Henry Morgan’s ship Satisfaction, lies at Lajas Reef off Panama.

Captain Kidd. Note lack of eyepatch, tricorn hat, parrot, etc…

The last example is helpful in illustrating the scale of the problem. Not only is the identification of the wreck uncertain, but if it is Morgan’s ship, another question arises: what is the difference between a pirate and a privateer? A privateer was a state sanctioned pirate, with a ‘letter of marque and reprisal’ from their government, giving a licence to attack the commerce of enemy powers, so long as the authorities got their share! Many famous “pirates” began their careers as privateers and, in at least one case, insisted that they always were. Captain William Kidd (incidentally the ONLY “pirate” for whom we there is evidence that they buried treasure) was hanged for piracy in 1701, largely for his capture of the Armenian vessel Quedagh Merchant, which was sailing under French passes, and was thus viewed by Kidd as a legitimate prize. Unfortunately for Kidd, her captain was English and this did little to aid his defence. Kidd had already been accused of turning to piracy on his current voyage. In fact, his crew, who only made money if they captured ships, had been on the verge of doing just that, and deserted Kidd to join the pirate Robert Culliford shortly after the Quedagh Merchant was taken.

All of this shows how fine the line could be between a crew of pirates and a crew of privateers. Added to this, the vessels they sailed would be virtually identical, and one could easily become the other. As Lawrence Babits observes, “an armed merchantman or a privateer would have many of the same attributes of pirate vessels” (Babits 1998), partly because they were designed for exactly the same type of conflict. And armed merchantmen were not uncommon – the English Armada of 1589 (strangely not as celebrated in the UK as the Spanish Armada of the previous year, perhaps because the expedition was an unmitigated disaster) had 10 armed merchantmen for every ship of the line.

The answer to the question of whether and how archaeologists can identify pirates then is that without good luck, backed up by historical documentation, it’s not really possible, but the discipline of the archaeology of piracy is in its infancy, and so many people are working on it. These people include Russell K. Skowronek and Charles Robin Ewen, who have co-edited two books, X Marks the Spot: The Archaeology of Piracy and Pieces of Eight: More Archaeology of Piracy about the subject. Although the first book admits that ‘any suggested pirate ship or pirate artefact model includes precisely those items that an armed merchantman would have’. These books represent the beginnings of the search for an answer to this problem, and are recommended to anyone who wants to know more about pirate arrrrrrrrrrrchaeology!

Babits, Lawrence E. I Just Know it’s a Pirate: Popular Imagery, Contemporary Details and Actual Fact in Underwater Archaeology 1998 (Lawrence E. Babits, Catherine Fach, Ryan Harris Editors)