Tag Archives: commercial archaeology

Best site hut biscuit with Mia

What is your job role?
Project Officer

Loving life in 2008

How long have you worked for Allen Archaeology?
For nine years in September

How would describe your excavation technique?
Once upon a time I suppose it could have been described as fast and furious, but with a bun in the oven the spade has been put on a shelf for a while

How long have you been working in archaeology?
About ten years

How did you get into archaeology?
It has always interested me, but I never considered it an occupation until I somehow found myself with a degree in it and thought, why not? I started off in Ireland and a year later ended up at Allen Archaeology.

What is the best thing about your job?
Probably that I’m still learning new things with every job. In the beginning, everything was new and the learning curve steep and interesting. When I started it was a really small company with less than a handful of people and so I got to try everything almost in one go. As the years have gone by, different staff and people with different skills, have helped me deepen and broaden my own.

Specialist skills?
I don’t know about special, but I’ve done a few building surveys throughout the years. I believe I wrote a few clay tobacco pipe reports as well, but that only lasted for a short and sweet time; they’ve got someone much more skillful to do this these days.

Best site hut biscuit?
Well, any biscuit or cookie with a gooey nougat centre rates high on my list, although their lifespan tend to be quite short in my presence.

A roundup of the week

It’s been a busy week at AAL so this weeks blog is a little round-up of what we’ve been up to.

Warning: Images of human remains feature in this post

You might have already seen the excitement on our site at University of Lincoln. During monitoring works we uncovered human remains dating from the Roman period close to the River Witham.

Tobin has been visiting a site in Cumbria where we have been undertaking a Watching Brief

Rachel working on Damian's site near Peterborough

Damian has had a team out working on an evaluation near Peterborough.

The geophysics team enjoying a break in coastal Lincolnshire

Rob has been out with a team to start a large geophysics project on the Lincolnshire coast where they’ve been contending with a lot of weather but enjoying the location!

Fee’s been working hard in London

Al is dealing with challenging conditions in Brentford

Work is continuing on our “big” project in Market Harborough where the team are undertaking an open area excavation

Bryn has been working hard processing environmental samples

Yvonne has joined the archives team and is getting up to speed as Cova heads off on maternity leave

Nasha has been busy editing reports and dealing with publicity.

Josh has been analysing lithics for a specialist report

What is a watching brief?

Following on from our post “Evaluation by trial trenching” this weeks post is going to explain what a “watching brief” is.

A watching brief, scheme of works, or programme of monitoring and recording, is usually the final stage of archaeological investigation, and may follow on from desk-based studies, evaluation trenching or excavation. Usually one archaeologist works closely with the groundworkers, monitoring their excavations which might be for foundation trenches, services, drainage or landscaping. The archaeologist records any archaeological remains that are exposed.

A watching brief can be applied to a scheme of any size. For example, on a large linear scheme such as a pipeline, it can follow stages of non-intrusive and intrusive survey that have (hopefully) identified and investigated the areas of greatest archaeological interest. The watching brief is used as a ‘failsafe’ to double check stripped areas where little or no archaeology is likely to be present. This often requires a degree of patience – watching a machine strip topsoil for kilometre after kilometre without finding anything! It is also essential to take a good book, for any delays as spoil is moved and machines are repaired or refuelled.

A small team working on a watching brief for a linear scheme. A good book is essential!

Many small watching briefs are undertaken as the only stage of archaeological work on a site. For example they might take place during the groundworks for one or two new houses or an extension to an existing one. These clients may never have dealt with archaeology before and may never need to again, and so we are often asked ‘What happens if you find stuff? Will it stop the job?’ The answer is almost always no and on the rare occasions that unexpected or significant archaeology is exposed, additional staff can be deployed to site to limit delays.

Watching briefs can be interesting and challenging. Working on a busy construction site you need to keep your wits about you and have a keen understanding of health and safety. We inspect and clean the exposed sides and bases of the foundation trenches to piece together the evidence provided by these cross sections through the site, tying together fragments of field boundary ditches, pits, landscaping layers or other features to gain an understanding of the area. We will also recover dating evidence, such as pieces of pottery, whenever possible.

When the archaeological fieldwork is complete, the developer will carry on with their building programme and we still have plenty of work left to do, cleaning and analysing any finds from the site, preparing the report and depositing the project archive with the local museum to sign off the client’s archaeological condition and make the results publically accessible to this and future generations.

The AAL trainee scheme

I graduated from University of Bournemouth in the summer of 2015. I had worked on some research projects as part of my degree and had some experience of volunteering, but no commercial archaeological experience. Without experience it’s normally very hard to get into commercial archaeology, as some of my fellow graduates can attest to. I was lucky enough to apply to Allen Archaeology at just the right time and was offered a start as a trainee in November.

Working at Lincoln University

I started out in the office washing and marking finds. These are important skills but they can get a bit repetitive so I jumped at the opportunity to go out on site for the first time – to Whisby quarry. It was certainly a bit of a culture shock compared to the academic digs I’d been on before! Work was fast paced, colder, muddier and harder work. However, the site was fairly straightforward and with some help from my supervisor Damian Podlinski I got through it all right.

From there it was time to move into Lincoln, where the company was digging in preparation for construction to start on a new building for the university. The site was next to the river and fairly deep, which meant it was under water most of the time. So again, wet, muddy, cold. We had a great team though and halfway through the site we’d figured out a system that made light work of it.

“Work is fast paced” this site in Yorkshire demonstrated how quickly I could work given training

Perhaps one of the most informative parts of my traineeship was the last week; I was taught GIS in the office by the GIS guru Chris Casswell. Although I knew about the program, I’d never used it before and after some initial hiccups everything went smoothly. As an added bonus using GIS didn’t involve getting either wet, mud or cold in January!

At the end of the traineeship I went to broaden my range of experience by working for another archaeological company in London for 5 weeks before returning to AAL in March. Since then I’ve worked on a number of different sites and types of job; I’ve done watching briefs both alone and supervised, I’ve excavated Roman settlements and most recently I worked on a medieval building near Lincoln Cathedral. No doubt there will be more interesting sites to come – and some cold, wet and muddy ones but the trainee scheme has allowed me to get my foot in the door working in commercial archaeology.

A secondment to the Archives

I joined the company as a project archaeologist in June 2015. For the majority of my time here so far I have been out onsite digging, firstly working on the large Roman site at North Killingholme and since then a variety of other sites across the country. Every now and again, I’m posted in the office where I participate in post excavation tasks such as washing and marking finds, which I quite enjoy.

At the end of February there was an advert on the front desk advertising a temporary secondment as an archives assistant; I jumped at the opportunity to apply. I saw it as a good opportunity to learn valuable skills; develop my interest in post-excavation processes further and increase my knowledge of artefacts.

My application was successful and for the best part of March and April I undertook the secondment; temporarily becoming an archives assistant. During this time I had the opportunity to learn a variety of new skills and experience more of the processes that happen in post-ex, alongside getting to handle all the exciting artefacts that come back from site. I helped to package artefacts to be sent to the specialists, sort and catalogue skeletons, write inventories and help organise finds from incoming projects.

My primary role was to assist and prepare a number of site archives to be deposited to their corresponding museums across the country. In this I prepared both the written site archive, so all the registers, drawings, context sheets etc. and boxed the associated site artefacts. The whole process for each site had to adhere to their associated museum guidelines, each of which was different. I assisted with site collections from Leicestershire, Lincolnshire and Winchester. Some of the tasks within this were quite repetitive, such as numbering and labelling digital photographs to correspond to the photograph registers or writing accession numbers on all the documents. Nevertheless these repetitive aspects are quite necessary as without it the allotted archive wouldn’t adhere to the correct format and so would be at risk of being rejected by the museums.

I really enjoyed my time in archive department, it was great working with the Archive team and getting to know the ins and outs of what goes on downstairs. It was an enlightening experience, as I have now seen first-hand the full process to which each site and it’s artefacts and documents, takes before it finally it ends up in a museum. From being excavated in the field, then in post ex getting washed, dried, marked, sorted, catalogued, sent to a specialist, reports written, stored then finally boxed up with the related documents and deposited to a museum.

Evaluation by trial trenching

An evaluation by trial trenching is sometimes requested as a condition of planning consent, or more frequently since the advent of NPPF, on advice from the planning authority prior to the application being submitted or determined. The condition or advice is based on the likelihood that the site holds archaeological potential. The applications vary but could for instance concern a small or large scale development that involves any below ground impacts such as housing developments, industrial developments or landscaping.

Company director Chris Clay watching a trench being opened

Several factors play a part for allocating the trenches within the development area. Some may be based on geophysical survey results that target certain anomalies of archaeological potential, whilst others may be strategically placed within the area to try and determine the extent of any potential archaeology. How much of the site that will be sampled is usually down to the local authorities and their policies, but tends to vary between 2% and 5% of a development area GPS survey equipment allows us to target our trenches at agreed locations to centimetre accuracy.

The majority of trenches are excavated by a mechanical excavator fitted with a smooth ditching bucket. However, to everyone’s dread, there are those cases where hand dug trenches are the only way forward! In either case, it is up to the supervising archaeologist to decide on the appropriate depth. Either this will be on the first significant archaeological horizon or when the natural geology has been reached.

Once open, the trench is ready to be investigated and recorded. If there are any archaeological features, these will be excavated by hand. Any finds will be retained, bagged and labelled and soil samples may be taken to identify the feature’s function or to give information about the past surrounding landscape and environment. Plans, section drawings, descriptions of deposits and further photographs will also be taken.

When all the trenches have been recorded, they are backfilled and the post-excavation work can begin in the office. Finds are washed and marked and submitted to the relevant specialists for detailed analysis.

After all the data has been compiled and a report has been written and sent off to the client and the local planning authority, a decision will be made by the county or city archaeologist for that area, whether any further work is required. If the results show the potential for significant archaeology, or features of archaeological importance, the evaluation may be followed by an open area excavation, where a large part of the development area is stripped down to the archaeological horizon. If the evaluation shows some more limited archaeological presence that requires further investigation, but none that warrants an excavation, the evaluation may be followed by an archaeological watching brief. This work will be carried out during the actual development groundworks.

A secondment to the Geophysics team

Getting the hang of magenetometry

In February 2016 AAL opened internal applications for a Project Archaeologist to undertake a three month secondment with the Geophysics Project Officer, Rob Evershed. The secondment would give someone experience in basic geophysical survey including; undertaking the surveys, setting up surveys (gridding out and the use of GPS), data analysis and interpretations, the post-fieldwork reporting process and preparations of illustrations and preparing the archive.

I applied as I have always enjoyed taking part in geophysics projects; being able to create my own interpretations of the sites as my understanding of them develops, and the physical nature of the role which allows me to loose myself in the task at hand.

Still going

Prior to working with AAL I had experience of working on archaeological geophysics projects at another company. I hoped this role would allow me to develop my skills and put me in a position to specialise in archaeological geophysics.

GIS training with Rob

Rob has been a great (and patient!) tutor allowing me to get involved with all elements of the work. It has been challenging physically (Rob works at a very fast pace, sometimes completing 20-30 grids a day, almost twice as many as normal people), and mentally, as I have very limited experience with writing and producing reports.

Like everyone I have really enjoyed the sunny days on site, but I have also found I like seeing the project through to completion. Being able to put together background research with any topographic clues and finally seeing the processed results is a really engaging task. Equally the sites which provide us with complete surprises are great, as we are the first people to discover them; one site we uncovered evidence for a medieval settlement which had not been picked up in the background research.

I have come away feeling I know a lot more about what happens after the geophysical survey and a lot more confident in my abilities. I hope that following the completion of my secondment I might be able to start running my own, small, projects and processing my own data for producing reports.

Geophysics at Allen Archaeology

Archaeological excavation is by its very nature a destructive activity. In order to properly understand and record the archaeology it may necessary to actually remove any physical traces of the archaeology leaving behind only written records, drawn plans and photographs. Commercial archaeology is in a lot of cases an attempt to rescue or record archaeology before it’s destroyed by future building work. Part of the problem is that while historic records can often give an idea of what might be found within a development area, the actual nature of potential archaeological remains actually require some intrusive investigation…… or do they?

This is where the science (or some might argue the art) of geophysical surveying can allow a non-intrusive view into the past. If the location of archaeological remains can be identified without sticking random holes in the ground it can allow a much more targeted, and potentially less destructive, approach to be taken. This can also save a lot of time and money within the construction process. A geophysical survey can also allow the bigger picture of a site to be revealed.

Undertaking a magentometry survey

There are a number of different geophysical techniques used within the archaeological world, unfortunately none are perfect for all conditions and locations. There are a few main techniques that are widely used

• Resistivity. Resistivity involves an electrical current being fed into the ground and the resistance to this current being recorded. The usual approach being a two pronged machine placed into the ground at regular intervals across the required area with readings taken at each location. High resistance readings may suggest walls or rubble fills, whilst low resistance readings can indicate ditches or drains.
• GPR (Ground Penetrating Radar). GPR uses radio pulses transmitted vertically downwards and the reflection of these pulses from buried layers and structures to build up a picture of ground below. GPR has the ability to provide a three-dimensional view of a buried site.
• Magnetometry. Magnetometry relies on the ability of the magnetometer to measure very small magnetic fields associated with archaeological remains. These magnetic fields are either the result of thermoremanence or magnetic susceptibility. Thermorenanence occurs when weakly magnetic material is heated up and then cools. The material can then gain a permanent magnetisation associated with the direction of the earth’s magnetic field while it cools. The magnetic susceptibility of a material is related to the magnetism induced when the material is placed within a magnetic field. Since the earth’s magnetic field is always present, the magnetic susceptibility of buried material can be measured using the magnetometer.

There are other geophysical techniques used in the search for buried archaeology, seismic, microgravity, induced polarisation and metal detecting to name a few. However the three main techniques are resistivity, GPR and magnetometry.

Results of a survey showing a potential medieval settlement in Leicestershire

Within commercial archaeology the most widely used method is magnetometry. This is mainly due to the speed at which large areas can be covered and the impressive results that can be obtained. As with all methods however the site conditions will dictate how suitable the technique is. Within built-up urban locations magnetometry will be next to useless due to the interference of external magnetic fields from buildings, cars, modern services or modern rubbish. All these and more can mask the small magnetic fields generated by buried archaeology. In this situation GPR may well be a far better choice.
I’ve now been working for Allen Archaeology for 5 and half years and whilst these days I am allowed out to occasionally dig, my main duties are as a Geophysical Project Officer. This involves both the physical part- actual surveying, and the office based part- processing data and writing reports. I look upon the latter as a necessary evil which allows me to spend time on the much more enjoyable (mostly) former. Fortunately the majority of the sites we survey are not completely waterlogged, and despite the reputation the British weather has for rain, I do seem to manage to stay fairly dry. Except for my feet when I don’t realise my (non-metallic) boots have holes in them.

Iron Age/ Roman settlement in Nottingham

Geophysical surveying large sites can be very hard work. There is a lot of walking involved, both in setting out grids and in actually surveying. My legs and feet have suffered somewhat over the last few years; blisters are a not uncommon occurrence. However as an aid to fitness nothing beats walking 20-25km a day across fields. The exciting part is of course when I get to see the downloaded data for the first time. On many occasions there can be a little disappointment as all that is revealed is a former field boundary or in some cases nothing of interest at all. However every so often something far more exciting is revealed. I get to be the first person to see Romano-British field systems, forgotten medieval settlements, ploughed out ridge and furrow cultivation, or even outstanding modern drainage systems.

The practical side of the geophysical survey is that it can be done fairly swiftly, covering 2-3 hectares a day (all depending on site conditions of course). Then specific areas can be targeted for excavation if necessary. This can potentially allow a ‘key-hole surgery’ approach to the archaeological remains, limiting the destruction whilst maximising the information gathered through digging. Plus it can be very satisfying when an excavation reveals my geophysics results to be completely accurate.

Training in smaller companies – how and why we do it

Formal training is perhaps seen as the preserve of the larger, more established archaeological unit able to put considerable resources into training schemes and have staff specifically dedicated to implementing them. However, working for a smaller company can provide better opportunities for consistent mentoring and for a diverse training experience.

On Wednesday 20th April, AAL contributed to a session organised by the Diggers Forum at the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA) annual conference, entitled ‘The skills gap: training for competence in archaeology’.

AAL has undergone pretty rapid growth. In January 2014 there were 14 staff and by the end of last year we had 45 staff, including three trainees. Training plans are put in place for staff to progress and to change direction, for example into geophysics or archives, but this post focuses on our ‘entrance level’ training plan.

So why is training important? Well, with increasing workload and larger jobs we needed more people; not only did we need to increase capacity but also flexibility. Training gives us the chance to grow skills in-house which are tailored to company methods and needs. Like many archaeological companies out there we had recruitment problems – especially for fixed term roles. The problem wasn’t numbers of applicants but that very few had the experience we were after. Partly it was about need, and partly about gaining the confidence to do it. We’re involved in community archaeology projects, site open days, National Trust training days and short-term university teaching, so surely we ought to have the skills in-house to train other archaeologists? Most of all, training the next generation is, as one of our recent trainees put it, a good thing to do!

“A lot of companies want minimum experience that might be hard to get even with volunteer work and the like, so obviously a scheme that trains less experienced archaeologists is a good thing.”

It was important to us that we weren’t playing lip service to training as a way of paying people less, so we decided to keep the training plan short and sweet – 3 months should be enough to get a good grounding in commercial archaeology and to get people with some pre-exiting skills and experience to PCIfA level (Practitioner – the first level of competence defined by CIfA).

The training programme is aimed at people who have genuine interest and aptitude but no commercial experience, though we have found that applicants sometimes do have this, just not the amount most commercial jobs require, so they couldn’t get started on the job ladder. We wanted a way to get people on to that ladder and to keep them moving up through the company, gaining experience and moving to permanent roles over time.

Josh training the team in flint identification

The company ethos is very much that everyone should learn the basics of everything and that knowledge and skills are shared. We’re not heavily departmentalised so staff get to carry out GPS and TST survey, use GIS to produce illustrations for reports, assist with geophysical survey, take their own site photographs and so on – it is possible that this might go as we grow further, but we will try and hold on to this as much as is possible.

Trainees get a formal plan with tasks to sign off and each task has an appointed person to do the sign off. Over three months. The standard plan involves 20 days of fieldwork, 10 days in the finds and archives, eight days post-excavation work and five days survey training, plus time for an induction, basic introduction to standards, H&S and so on. The tasks are tied to National Occupational Standards.

It is not without its problems. The level of training dependant on and workload – one of our recent trainees didn’t dig on a ‘normal’ site for three months as we were working on the sampling of a the top of a paleosol for Mesolithic flints, and this meant that she hadn’t experienced stratigraphic recording. It’s vital to keep balance on site so there are enough experienced staff to support the trainees, and because we’re relatively small, the training experience is also dependent on the availability of particular staff. Good training also relies on good feedback from site supervisors – building on feedback from previous trainees, new posts will include a formal monthly meeting with an appointed mentor…but fieldwork programmes can make implementation of this tricky. Importantly all those involved need to understand the purpose of a training plan. It mustn’t become a race to complete sign off of tasks but be paced to enable time and a genuine understanding to develop.

Trainees work in the field for around 20 days in three months

Giving staff the chance to build on and share their experiences is vital (even if it is potentially a little scary for the management team) and our AAL Xmas lectures, where staff give presentations on aspects of their work throughout the year, are just one way in which we do this.

“You only need to look within the company to see that it’s working with a number of former trainees now in other roles.”

So is it working? Well, since January 2014 AAL have taken on 10 trainees (that isn’t including people like Feenagh who had started before this but were/are still progressing on training plans). Two of those trainees started with the company as short-term volunteers. Six were offered contracts as Project Archaeologist (PA) at the end of their training plans: two have now specialised in non-field areas within the company (archives and DBA), two are currently field PAs, and one left for a non-field promotion outside the company and one has taken a break from archaeology. One trainee could not be given a PA contract due to a downturn in work. Only one traineeship didn’t work out.

“There was a balanced mix of office-based and site-based work that allowed me to develop excavation skills on small-large scale excavations, whilst learning how to make the transition from site material to post-excavation reporting smoother for all involved. All in all, my experience was really quite rounded. I enjoyed it immensely and it gave me the skills to feel confident to work at any site, or in the office”

“I’m very grateful the trainee scheme exists as it allowed me to get into commercial archaeology when it might have otherwise been difficult”

“It gave me a proper view of what commercial archaeology really was and I didn’t feel like my lack of experience prevented me from going on any site or prevented any opportunities … The staff at Allen are all very friendly and helpful which made asking questions, help and generally becoming a part of the team so much easier.”

“I found my trainee programme very beneficial as I previously had no experience digging – either commercial or academic, so was a great opportunity to get into archaeology and be paid for it.”

The numbers we can take on are small – we’re not going to solve the skills shortage single handedly – and I’m not trying to claim we’re perfect, but with a little thought, it is possible for even small companies to create effective, useful and robust training programmes that benefit the trainee and the company in equal measure. The interest we have seen as a relatively new and less well-known company, with applications from across the UK and Europe, is pretty staggering and suggests that we need to find a much better way of serving the next generation.

We’re looking forward to welcoming our latest batch of trainees at the start of May and to building on and improving our training going forwards.