Tag Archives: commercial archaeology

Best Site Hut Biscuit with Hazel

Introducing Hazel Taylor, Trainee Project Archaeologist

What is your job role?

Trainee Project Archaeologist

How long have you worked for Allen Archaeology?

6 weeks

How would describe your excavation technique?

I try to find an edge and work from there… although my sections definitely need work!

How long have you been working in archaeology?

6 weeks but I did two training excavations with my university whilst studying for my degree in History and Archaeology

How did you get into archaeology?

By watching a lot of TimeTeam and visiting Pompeii and Herculaneum as part of a Latin trip when I was at school

What is the best thing about your job?

Learning lots of different skills like using GIS

Specialist skills?

Being able to get mud all over my face and arms without even knowing how it got there…

Best site hut biscuit?

It’s hard to choose between a chocolate bourbon or a fruit shortcake!

Mental Health Awareness

By Craig Huddart, Senior Project Officer

The taboos surrounding mental health finally seem to be lifting but it is still a sensitive and deeply personal issue that people aren’t always comfortable about airing or even ‘admitting’ to. People can struggle with mental health issues on a daily basis or it can pop up out of nowhere and take you by surprise, manifesting in many different ways. With one in four people in the UK suffering from a mental health disorder, having an understanding employer and a network of sympathetic colleagues and friends can literally be lifesaving. Although big steps have been taken in the last few years, further measures can and should be taken to help people suffering with mental health disorders.

Mental health disorders appear to be particularly prevalent within archaeology and, as a large proportion of archaeologists are on fixed term and short-term contracts, they often slip through the cracks and don’t get the help that they need. There needs to be a major attitude shift within the industry and employers need to start recognising employees (temporary or not) as just that, employees. Having suffered with depression myself, I’m writing as someone who has had rather mixed experiences within archaeology, but on the whole I was lucky enough for my symptoms to be recognised for what they were and I was given help, understanding and time to be in a more ‘comfortable’ frame of mind.

I feel that staff with any type of supervisory responsibility, who manage people in the office, in the field or remotely, should be given some basic form of training to enable them to recognise certain signs, to be able to have a conversation with someone suffering from mental health issues and to know how obtain the relevant help. This kind of help can be genuinely lifesaving, so let’s try and make a change in someone’s life and be seen as a considerate profession. You never know, one day that person needing help could be you.

Here at Allen Archaeology we are trying to ‘buck the trend’ and make a tangible and positive difference in the lives of our staff. We have started the process of sending supervisors on Mental Health Awareness First Aid courses and arranging bespoke in-house training of all staff, hopefully within the next twelve months. Additionally, all staff (and in particular supervisors) are made aware of existing mental health guidance and are actively encouraged to be on the alert for any tell-tale signs amongst friends and colleagues. We understand that a happy and healthy team is the key to successfully moving forwards.

Find of the Month, June – Roman graffiti and stamped pottery

Written by Cova Escandon (Project Supervisor, Archives)

This month has brought us some very lovely finds including some stamped pottery and roman graffiti from a site in Staffordshire!

Graffiti was common in Roman times and was probably considered a type of self-expression. In Pompeii, more than eleven thousand examples have been unearthed. The graffiti covered all sorts of subjects, from mockery, poems, love declarations, puns, political propaganda, advertising for rent, and prostitutes… even announcements like a reward for returning a copper pot stolen from a shop! There are also numerous examples of what seems to be people practising alphabet letters or sentences in order to learn to write or improve their skills, a sensible idea considering paper was very expensive, and walls were free!

As well as graffiti, pottery was sometimes marked with a stamp. This was sometimes done as the pottery was loaded into the kiln, often as they were of communal use. Since the work was standardized and stylistically homogeneous, a record was kept of the number of ceramics loaded into the kiln. This could also be recorded on a plate baked with the rest of pottery. It is also possible that the ceramicist wanted to sign their work. Here are a few examples of stamped mortaria and stamped samian ware, recently excavated from a site in Staffordshire. The stamp on the mortarium sherd is an example of the work of the potter Brucius or Bruccius who is believed to have been based at Brockley Hill during the period AD 80-100 (Fiske 2018). It can be closely paralleled with an example from Gorse Stacks in Chester (Cuttler et al 2012, Fig. 2.22.61; M2).

The samian ware stamp is believed to read ‘AVSTRIM’.

Stamped mortaria from a site in Staffordshire

Stamped samain ware an excavation in Staffordshire

Stamped samian ware from a site in Staffordshire

In graffiti, the inscription was made by scratching into the wet clay with a pointed tool. It is written in Roman Cursive Script, the everyday form of handwriting. It would be used by merchants keeping business records, children learning to write, and quick informal text. It was most commonly used between the 1^st Century BC and the 3^rd Century AD and was often used to provide a description of the contents of the pot!

We think it possibly reads as ‘ulvia’ – what are you interpretations?

Roman amphora with grafito inscription from a site in Staffordshire

Many thanks to H. G. Fiske for providing a written interpretation of the stamped mortarium sherd (Fiske 2018).

Cuttler, R., Hepburn, S., Hewitson, C. and Krawiec, K., 2012, Gorse Stacks – 2000 Years of Quarrying and Waste Disposal in Chester, BAR British Series 563, Birmingham Archaeology Series No. 13

An introduction to finds processing and conservation

By Lucie (Volunteer from the University of Lincoln)

I’m currently studying for a degree in Conservation of Cultural Heritage at the University of Lincoln and have just finished my second year. As part of the course I have to do a six week work placement to gain some experience of working in the world of conservation, and as I hope to specialise in archaeological conservation when I graduate, I chose to come to Allen Archaeology. This seemed like a perfect opportunity to not only see how a commercial archaeology company works but also to get some hands-on experience.

I’ve been working in the finds department, processing the finds which involves cleaning bags and bags of objects that have come from the various sites that the company are excavating. So far this has mostly comprised sherds of pottery and animal bones along with a few iron nails and pieces of ceramic building material (CBM). Once the finds are clean and dry they are marked and repackaged in labelled bags ready to be archived.

However, it’s not all been bits of broken pottery. I was lucky enough to be given a large Iron Age bowl to work on that had been excavated from one of the sites and was still encased in the clay soil from which it had come from. I carefully removed the soil layer by layer using various tools from my conservation tool kit to ensure there was nothing else within the soil and also to ensure that I didn’t cause any damage.

Conservation of the Iron Age pot in progress

Details of the ‘slash-ware’ start to emerge!

Once as much of the soil as possible had been removed and the pot had had a chance to dry out a little I washed the remaining soil off it using a toothbrush and left it to dry thoroughly. After it had been cleaned there was a pattern visible on the outer surface which is apparently called slash-ware because it looks like it has been slashed. To be one of the first people to see it since it went into the ground is a real thrill and for me, part of the excitement of working with archaeological finds.

Pottery sherds after conservation

I’m really enjoying my time here, getting to be hands on with the finds is great and to be given objects that are thousands of years old to clean is a dream come true for me as this is a job I have wanted to do since I was young.

Best site hut biscuit with Ben

Introducing Ben Lang, Trainee Project Archaeologist

What is your job role?

Trainee Archaeologist

How long have you worked for Allen Archaeology?

2 ½ weeks

How would describe your excavation technique?

Methodical clearing of half the feature in question, followed by measuring and recording the feature.

How long have you been working in archaeology?

One-year commercial work plus I have volunteered on university lead excavations as early as 2011 when I was still doing my BSc (Hons) Archaeology degree.

How did you get into archaeology?

I first started Archaeology as one of my A levels in 2008 before doing a BSc (Hons) Archaeology degree while also volunteering with university lead project abroad. I also had prior experience doing volunteer work with an archaeologist friend in Switzerland helping to reconstruct metal smelting kilns and techniques from his excavation in Cyprus.

What is the best thing about your job?

All the experience I’m learning

Specialist skills?

3D laser scanning, good with computers

Best site hut biscuit?

Chocolate digestives

Why do we examine pottery?

By Alice Beasley, Project Archaeologist

Pottery is one of the most frequently found artefacts and it is used to determine the date, status and use of a site. Today I have chosen to write about 3 ceramic vessels found within graves from a site to the south of Lincoln to illustrate how artefacts both clarify and confuse the process of determining date. The excavated part of the cemetery consisted of 23 individuals buried in a variety of directions and positions but in rough rows expected of a cemetery. Other features uncovered included pits, ditches and pottery kilns dating from the 2^nd century AD and a large quarry pit with 4^th century AD finds. These vessels were the only ceramic grave goods and will be used to date the burials more accurately than the stratigraphy would allow because most of the graves are discrete features – they do not cut into nor are they disturbed by other features on site.

Pottery vessels found in graves from a site to the south of Lincoln

The first vessel has been painted with a cream slip in a double zig zag over a dark brown colour coat. It is a pear-shaped beaker very similar to vessels produced in the Nene Valley in the 4th century. Interestingly this pot has no rim. “Ritual killing” of vessels is when a pot is broken or pierced in such a way that its original function is removed. Beakers are presumed to be drinking vessels so by removing the rim it’s function has been taken away. The break is very jagged and fresh suggesting that it occurred around the time of burial.

The second vessel is also a colour coated beaker, again produced in the 4^th century. It is known as a slit folded beaker, about half of this vessel is missing and there are no signs of the purposeful damage seen on the first vessel as the breaks show signs of wear. Another example of this type of pot was found in Lincoln in a rubbish dump at The Park (Darling 1988, fig 39, 437).

These two vessels would lead us to believe the burials are of a 4^th century date, which stratigraphically makes sense assuming that all the bodies were buried within a short period of time as a small number of them cut into earlier ditches.

The third vessel is a complete carinated bowl in a local greyware fabric. This type of vessel is fairly common in Lincoln during the mid to late 2^nd century. Affectionately named the B334 this vessel is known to have been produced in Roxby, Newton-on-Trent and Market Rasen and presumably other locations that are yet to be identified (Darling et al. 2014, 136). The beakers suggest the graves are much later than the rest of the activity on site but the bowl suggests a contemporary date. Was the pot buried soon after it had been used? Has it been kept for over 100 years to later be buried with someone? Is this an earlier grave associated with the other features on site? The pot has been used, there is some damage to the rim that has been worn smooth over time so it is possible it was an heirloom, especially as the grave cut aligns with the rest in the row which would suggest it was of a similar date to the other two graves.

The production dates of these pots will be used in conjunction with the archaeological and osteological (skeleton) information, so the final interpretation is not reliant on these three vessels alone, but understanding them it goes a long way to help us tell their story.

References:

Darling, M J, 1988, The pottery in Darling, M J and Jones M J (ed), 9-37; 46-50

Darling M J and Precious B, 2014, A corpus of roman pottery from Lincoln, Lincoln archaeological studies 6, Oxford: Oxbow

Jones, M J (ed.), 1999, The defences of the lower city, excavations at the Park and West Parade 1970-2 and a discussion of other sites excavated up to 1994, The Archaeology of Lincoln, 7-2, York: CBA res rep, 114

Find of the Month, May – Early Neolithic arrow head

By Cova Escandon, Archives Project Supervisor

This month we have chosen this beauty! It is an Early Neolithic leaf-shaped arrow head and it comes from a site we are currently working on in Grantham.

Early Neolithic leaf-shaped arrow head from a site in Grantham

Arrow heads were manufactured by using a small antler tine to push tiny pieces off a bigger stone; a technique known as pressure-flaking. They were then used as projectile points mounted on the tip of a wooden shaft. We are not sure if they were propelled by a bow or were part of a spear as wooden artefacts don’t survive very often.

These leaf-shaped arrow heads dominated the Early Neolithic era (4,000-3,200BC), becoming less common in the Mid Neolithic and scarce in Late Neolithic. Later arrow heads followed designs with ‘barbs’, that made them more effective, but these leaf-shaped ones were easier to make.

Some are incredibly thin and delicate, too fragile to be used for hunting or violence, and some scholars believe that they were status symbols, as they required an immense amount of skill to make. But it is not that simple, as some of these very delicate arrow heads show traces of having been used…

But why do these Early Neolithic groups start manufacturing these new arrow heads? The Neolithic Revolution had begun! The clearance of the woodland in order to get it ready for harvesting had drastically changed the environment, and it was more difficult for the hunter to get close to the prey. One theory suggests that this type of arrow head offered a more aerodynamic and effective killing tool with an increased range and penetration.

This alteration of the environment was already happening during the Mesolithic. But the Neolithic saw massive deforestation to make room for farmland, dramatically transforming the landscape.

This Neolithic Revolution not only brought economic and technological change, it also saw deep social transformation. Knapping tools changed from being a survival skill learnt by everyone, to an artisan trade done by specialists in the community. The groups settled in territories, and the foundations of new social hierarchies were established.

The attachment to the land brought an increase in violence as control of the territory was key in order to survive.

Examples of these bloody episodes have been seen at archaeological sites such as Belas Knap Long Barrow in Gloucestershire and Wayland’s Smithy in Oxfordshire, where there is evidence of blows to the head or arrow wounds in dead deposited there, and at Hambledon Hill in Dorset, there is evidence of the defensive palisades being burnt. Leaf-shaped arrow heads are the most commonly found artefact in British Neolithic tombs. As usual, we end up with more questions than answers. Why did society change? Farming requires much more work than hunting-gathering and one so why did they change their way of living?

Whilst Britain was still in the Late Mesolithic, a big part of Southern Europe was already embracing the Neolithic Revolution. Can we attribute the beginning of the Neolithic in the UK to sea-borne colonialists from continental Europe, or to the influence of locals who were in touch with the continent?

This is certainly a beautiful artefact, no doubt about that. But it is also a window to a fascinating and mysterious time of change.

Our digital era

By Isobel Curwen (Heritage Research Team)

For centuries we have been leaving a written record of our daily lives and when we find evidence of this it is very exciting. Recent excavations in London uncovered a significant collection of Roman waxed writing tablets, some of the earliest hand-written documents found in Britain (for more information visit the MOLA website), and we have even earlier records such as prehistoric cave art and runic writing systems.

Our Finds team are currently analysing some stamped Roman pottery found in Lincolnshire. Mortaria and Samian ware are the most common pottery types to be stamped, although other types of Roman pottery were occasionally stamped too. The stamp could be a name or a word, or sometimes a symbol, possibly suggesting that the potter was illiterate (Read our blog post by Alice for some examples of stamped pottery found in Lincoln). In order to create the impression on the pot, the stamp had to be created in relief and in reverse which requires considerable skill (see how quickly you can spell your own name backwards!).

Stamped mortaria found from Lincoln - see the range of potters marks from symbols to words

Stamped Mortaria found from Lincoln – see the range of potters markings including both symbols and words

Roman grey ware pot base with a pot firing ‘X’ graffito that has been trimmed to form a disc or counter (Photo Credit Hugh Fiske/Ian Rowlandson)

These lovely sherds of stamped pottery have survived for thousands of years and this got us thinking. In today’s digital world what record will we leave of our own lives? Handwritten letters have been replaced by emails and text messages. Digital mapping and GPS render paper maps obsolete, used only when technology fails us or when there is a lack of signal. In our on-site recording of archaeological sites we use a combination of physical and digital recording techniques. With recent advances in archaeological practice suggesting and implementing systems for entirely paperless recording systems (Roosevelt et al. 2015) we are heading in the direction of an almost entirely digital historic record.

It looks like the record we leave about our lives will be less tangible and physical than that of our predecessors. Read the following article for more information on our digital footprints.

Christopher H. Roosevelt, Peter Cobb, Emanuel Moss, Brandon R. Olson &
Sinan Ünlüsoy (2015) Excavation is Destruction Digitization: Advances in Archaeological Practice,
Journal of Field Archaeology, 40:3, 325-346

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.