Tag Archives: Research

Getting cross in East Yorkshire

By Chris Clay, Director

Even after all these years in the job, every now and then you have the pleasant surprise of learning something new.

Recently I was writing a specification for a geophysical survey in East Yorkshire, just outside Beverley, and came across an HER entry for ‘site of a medieval cross’. Not that unusual you may think, but this is sat by the roadside, all on its own on the edge of an agricultural field outside the town.

The site of one of the sanctuary crosses outside Beverley

So, doing a bit more investigation, I found out that this a medieval ‘sanctuary cross’. Still none the wiser, I carried on my investigations.

Most people are familiar with the concept of sanctuary, a place of refuge offered by the church ‘no questions asked’, to someone who may have come to the attention of the local authorities, and popularised by the story of Quasimodo seeking sanctuary for Esmerelda in Notre Dame.

However, in almost all cases, the area of sanctuary is restricted to a cathedral, a church or its precinct. Beverley however, is in the most unusual circumstance of being able to offer this protection to anybody who sought sanctuary throughout the entire town.

*Quasimodo seeks sanctuary for Esmerelda in Notre Dame*

This unusual position was reportedly bestowed upon the town as a result of the benefaction of King Athelstan. A legend that surfaced in the 12^th century has it that he visited the town in 934 to pay his respects to the tomb of the 8^th century Bishop John of York. Athelstan is said to have attributed his victory over the Scots at the Battle of Brunanburh in 937 to Bishop John (later St. John of Beverley), and showered gifts upon the town and its minster, including the creation of a sanctuary extending for a mile around John’s tomb. Documentary references mention a total of five crosses, sited on the main roads out of Beverley, of which three now survive.

The developing cult of St. John brought pilgrims from all over the country, with the benefits of trade that this also brought turning Beverley into a prosperous market town. This allowed it to avoid much of the ill effects of the ‘harrying of the north’ after the Norman Conquest, and absolving the town of many other duties such as some forms of taxation, military service and attendance at court. St. John was later associated with numerous military victories, including Agincourt, and it was tradition that when the king requested militia from the shire of York, Beverley would send one man with the banner of St. John.

So, the cult of St. John brought many benefits to the town, but what was the effect of the grant of sanctuary across the whole town? Some records survive from the late 15^th century, recording that 132 men and women sought sanctuary between 1478 and 1499, mostly from surrounding counties, but with a handful from further afield. Of these, around 100 were accused of murder, and 20 fleeing debt. Men were often recruited to join the army; in 1303 Edward I pardoned ten men from Beverley who were accused of murder on condition that they join his army.

Sanctuary was supposed to last for only 30 days, while the church sought a pardon, but many settled for longer and became citizens of the town. However in 1460 a decree was passed that sanctuary men could not become burgesses of the town.

Sanctuary became less and less popular in the later Middle Ages, as the system was abused by criminal gangs repeatedly committing crimes and then returning to the safety of the church. It was also seen as a symbol of the power of the church and was further impacted by the Dissolution of the monasteries under Henry VIII. Gradually the number of crimes for which sanctuary could be sought declined, and by 1624 the practice was entirely abolished.

References

https://walkington-life.co.uk/home/the-walkington-sanctuary-stone/
https://irlsey.wordpress.com/2012/09/19/sanctuary-crosses-beverley-east-yorkshire/
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/yorks/east/vol6/pp2-11

Weekly Round-up

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

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

Roksana and Louise marking some pottery from a recent site

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

Rob of our Geophysics team looking very studious!

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

Possible cropmarks visible outside of the Cambridgeshire Archives

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

Our field team having fun on site in Leicestershire

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

Preaching to the choir

By Harvey Tesseyman, Heritage Research Supervisor

We’re lucky enough to get to visit churches fairly often, whether it’s for building recording, heritage statements/ impact assessments, or just while we’re in the area after work. Quite often churches are the oldest building around, with surviving examples of Anglo-Saxon or Norman stonework visible all over the country but the form of churches differ greatly. Anglo-Saxon examples tend to be built along a simple ‘tower-nave’ design with a squat tower and a nave jutting out, but after that all bets are off with additions and subtractions enacted with wanton abandon (or as close to wanton abandon as one can get in church). What makes churches so interesting is the way bits get added here and there. A 13th century window might sit encased in brickwork installed during the Victorian Restoration – it’s a very Victorian attitude to look at a building that’s stood for hundreds of years and think, ‘you know what this needs? A complete redesign, by me!’, but that’s often exactly what happened. With that in mind, here are some of our favourites.

St Andrew’s, Calceby

This is the lovely Grade II Listed ruin of St. Andrew’s Church, Calceby, Lincolnshire (1063635, Grade II). Originally a Norman church, the only parts now surviving are sections of the chalk tower and nave, along with some herringbone-style masonry which is often thought of as a much older style of building, making the most of poor quality stone. It presides over the remains of a deserted medieval village on the Lincolnshire Wolds, and is believed to have been pillaged to build other structures in the local area.

St Leonard’s, South Ormsby

One of those structures is St. Leonard’s church at South Ormsby, Lincolnshire (1168707, Grade I), with at least parts of a Norman door from St. Andrews being incorporated into this (slightly) younger church down the road from Calceby. The oldest surviving fabric is mostly of 13th–15th century origin, with a significant amount of Victorian restoration (1871–1872). Inside this small church is an elegant wooden ceiling, with beautiful multi-coloured stonework on the arches.

Further afield (we do leave Lincolnshire!) is Chichester Cathedral, in Sussex (1354261, Grade I). The cathedral was consecrated in the 12th century, built to replace the Anglo-Saxon Selsey Abbey. Inside are the remains of a lovely Roman mosaic set beneath the church floor, and inscriptions dating back to at least the 17th century.

Chichester Cathedral, the mosaic and inscriptions

Also in Sussex is the 14th century Church of St Nicholas (1027914, Grade I). St Nicholas seems recent compared with the examples above, however inside are the remains of wall paintings. The survival of wall paintings is quite rare, due in part to the Reformation, and in part to the Victorian Restoration when many paintings were whitewashed, so it was a real thrill to see. Church wall paintings of this style date back to a time before literacy was widespread, and the pictures allowed church-goers access to biblical stories and imagery without having to read. Definitely not an everyday sight, unless you happen to be a local parishioner…

Wall paintings at St Nicolas

To find out more about the churches we’ve visited here, you can read their listing details using the links below:

Digital Past Conference

By Shoned Jones, Project Supervisor

In February a colleague and I braved the trek into my homeland to deepest darkest Aberystwyth in Wales for a conference unlike any other in Europe, completely centred on digital archaeology and specifically 3D imaging and its use in Heritage.

The conference was held in the University, by the Royal Commission of Wales, presenting their flagship project, CHERISH. It was the 10^th anniversary of the conference and the keynote speakers were all heritage and field archaeology giants. We were invited by DigVentures, Head of Fieldwork and ex-Allen Project Officer Chris Casswell, and Bradford University PhD student Li Sou to participate in a workshop dedicated to the archiving of 3D and other digital data.

The conference itself was fascinating, especially to an innovative company like ourselves to see what’s happening on the other side of the archaeology spectrum (a.k.a research archaeology) and how developing technology is being used to further the study of groups such as English Heritage, Historical Scotland, National Trust and CADW.

From my perspective, having been entrenched in the commercial sector for the last few years and out of the research loop, seeing the development of this technology and how we aim to implement it further into our methodology was wonderful. While 3D imaging has been a mainstay when listing archaeological recording, its use and study for fieldwork has mainly been an addition (a pretty picture) for years. Its actual use as a replacement recording method was limited. However, times have certainly changed and now it appears to be a standard recording method, used either in conjunction with 3D laser imaging or as a stand alone recording method.

This is great news to companies like Allen Archaeology. Knowing that the research sector is using this method even more comprehensively than we previously thought indicated that we are on the right track. Conferring with other conference attendees about the more complete recording methods and the different outputs that can be created from this 3D model now presents us with new interpretation and recording possibilities.

In general, the conference was fascinating and informative, and we will be writing a secondary blog regarding the outcome of the workshop and a summary of the points raised.

If you would like to know more about our use of Structure from Motion or any 3D modelling please check out our youtube channel and the previous blog about Weston Park, Staffordshire, a Building Survey conducted with a mix of recording techniques.

Shoned Jones discussing her recent work using 3D imaging

https://www.allenarchaeology.co.uk/portfolio/weston-park-staffordshire/

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTqrx7nCdLBGM3U0oo6Q9sQ

‘The ploughman feeds us all’ – January is over

By Harvey Tesseyman, Heritage Research Supervisor

January is finally over, a month with five Mondays to kick the year off. Since we’ve spent January out in the field excavating, geophys-ing, and undertaking earthwork surveys, we’ve been thinking about what people in the medieval period would have been doing out in their fields this month.

The Julius Work Calendar was a twelve page book measuring just 200mm by 130mm and produced in c.1020 in Canterbury Cathedral. It was divided into the calendar year we recognise today, each page showing a zodiac sign, the holy days of that month, and an illustration of a particular task http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Cotton_MS_Julius_A_VI. This ‘Work Calendar’ was a religious text, likely produced to help young monks with their learning (Robert and Danziger 2003). It was rescued from destruction following the Dissolution of the Monasteries by a 17th century Member of Parliament, antiquarian, and book collector, Robert Cotton, from whose shelves the calendar gets its name: each of Cotton’s bookcases in Westminster library was topped with the bust of a notable figure of the classical world; Augustus, Caligula, Claudius, Cleopatra, Domotian, Faustina, Galba, Nero, Otho, Tiberius, Vespasian, Vitellius and, of course, Julius.

The calendar suggests that January’s task was ploughing. The ploughing season began in earnest on Plough Monday, the first Monday after Twelfth Night. Plough Monday may have had associations with rites surrounding fertility, whereby local young men would wear special badges and engage in ploughing competitions (Gilchrist 2012). We decline to pass comment on this aspect.

Ridge and furrow earthworks visible during an earthwork survey in Lincolnshire

The open field systems that dominated much of the medieval landscape comprised areas of arable land up to c.50ha big, divided into furlongs which in turn comprised a number of narrow, enclosed strips. Generally between two and four of these giant fields served a single settlement, with somewhere between one third and one half of the rural population living in places given over to this system (White 2002). Medieval ploughing was difficult work. Teams of people goaded and sung to their slow-moving oxen to drive them through the fields, whilst the plough was steered to deliver the perfect furrow within which to sow seeds; not too shallow nor too deep. It was a system that worked for hundreds of years before oxen were put out to pasture in favour of smaller teams of horses. A plough team could cover an acre a day, which would have involved walking something like 17.5km (Ochota 2016). Quite a distance even on level ground (our geophysicists walk up to 25km a day and that’s with just a magnetometry rig, not a team of oxen)! Unlike modern ploughs, medieval examples had a single blade, not unlike a spearhead in shape, or an archaeological trowel held at an angle. They were designed to cut a small trench into the earth and push the dislodged soil to one side and this created a characteristic set of linear earthworks, known as ridge and furrow (or furrow and ridge, respectively). Due to the wide turning circle on a team of oxen when compared to a modern tractor, ridge and furrow ploughing has a gentle ‘S’ or reverse ‘S’ curve to it to give the animals enough time to turn around and start another furrow, in an area referred to as headland.

With time, many examples of ridge and furrow ploughing were in turn ploughed out. Where evidence for these medieval field systems survives, often soilmarks showing where the old furrows used to be are the only trace but happily for archaeologists, these soilmarks and remaining earthworks can be quite easy to spot both by eye, and using LiDAR. They’re interesting to dig, and useful to identify during a desk-based assessment or heritage statement as they often indicate further activity nearby.

January was busy, and February is already off to a good start. Luckily for us according to the Julius Work Calendar we’ll be out in February clearing vines…

Ridge and furrow visible on LiDAR near a site in Leicestershire

References:

Gilchrist, R, 2012, Medieval Life: Archaeology and the Life Course, Suffolk: Boydell Press

Ochota, M., 2016, Hidden Histories: A Spotter’s Guide to the British Landscape, London: Frances Lincoln Ltd

Robert, L., and Danziger, D., 2003 (3rd ed), The Year 1000: What Life Was Like At The Turn of the First Millenium, London: Abacus

White, G.J., 2002, The Medieval English Landscape 1000–1540, London: Bloomsbury

Best site hut biscuit with Isobel

What is your job role?

Heritage Research Supervisor

How long have you worked for Allen Archaeology?

Just over three months – it’s gone very quickly!

How would you describe your excavation technique?

By now – probably a bit rusty! I used to take such pleasure in making a straight section…

How long have you been working in archaeology?

2 years and three months.

How did you get into archaeology?

I was studying geography at the University of Reading in 2011 and had the option to take some modules in Archaeology (up until then I wasn’t wholly sure what archaeology actually was). So I thought I’d give it a go (clearly I wasn’t finding my geography degree very stimulating…). The first archaeology module I took was entitled ‘Bones, bodies and burials’ and from then I was hooked. I found it fascinating! Once I finished my undergraduate I wanted to study archaeology in more detail, and in particular I wanted to specialise in human remains so I enrolled on an MSc in Bioarchaeology at the University of York. I absolutely loved it – lots of bones, mud and labs. When I finished this I got a job working in commercial archaeology and here I am!

The Heritage Research office in all its Christmas glory!

What is the best thing about your job?

I enjoy heritage research because it’s great fun to build up a historical picture of an area and combine all the elements of our research (i.e. HER searches, local histories, historic mapping etc) to make one (hopefully) cohesive timeline. I am a self-confessed map geek and I love going to the archives and looking at historic maps – as Harvey will tell you I get pretty excited about this…

Maps aside, I have recently learned how to use GIS programming to create illustrations and for map regression and am enjoying being able to create a nice set of figures!

Specialist skills?

Well I was going to say being able to read old handwriting but I’m still not great at this…

Best site hut biscuit?

Without doubt the chocolate digestive. It was also voted as the favourite site biscuit in our recent Christmas poll in 2017 so this gives me confidence that most of my colleagues agree with me on this matter!

More than just stuff and things: desk-based assessment

Harvey Tesseyman, Project Archaeologist (Heritage Research)

My job in the Heritage Research team mostly involves writing desk-based assessments (DBAs) to establish and record what might be damaged if construction or demolition was to go ahead on a particular site: I take thousands of years of archaeology and history and condense it into a report. There’s a real joy in the neatness of it (if you’re into that kind of thing). If you’ve ever stood back and looked at your newly tidied living room or desk, with everything in its place, it feels a bit like that. It’s about teasing a coherent and useful narrative out of a seemingly endless set of information to a strict deadline. Generally DBAs are made up map regression, place name analysis, and analysing HER (Historic Environment Record) data, accompanied by a visit to the site to see what is ‘on the ground’.

Harvey at work

Map regression refers to comparing a series of maps made over a period of time so you can see the changes and consistencies within a landscape. Some rural areas change very little, but as time goes on you often see huge spikes in the density of buildings. Medieval maps are often as artistic as they are utilitarian, drawn with an unusual perspective and often with hand painted illustrations. As the common land utilised by everyday folk was privatised and enclosed from the early 1600s, enclosure maps refer to prominent landowners and the winding medieval field boundaries give way to the authoritative grid-like structure that we still see today. Tithe maps keep track of what areas of land belonged to whom, and how much wealth that land was expected to render. Historic mapping is intrinsically linked to social and political history, what seem like simple changes to the borders of a field system or the establishment of a new settlement often represent huge societal changes.

Looking at place names also offers insight into the history of an area. Place names ending in “..chester”, or “..caster” often refer to Roman period occupation. Most people live near somewhere with the suffix “..ham”, which is derived from the Anglo-Saxon name for a farm or settlement. The “..thorpe” or “..by” suffix in a place name derives from the Old Norse “þorp” and “bȳ”, both meaning a small village or farmstead. A derivation alone isn’t enough to confirm settlement for a particular period, but it’s a good start. You’ll find lots of names like Kiln Street, Butchers Row, Mill Row, or Gallows Lane, which suggest how a particular street may have once been used. The history of Britain is quite literally written in its place names, although in typical fashion it isn’t usually written in modern English and requires some degree of translation.

HER data is a log of every important aspect of the historic environment. Artefacts, the location of settlement cores, listed buildings and anything else historic or archaeological are included and the data arrives spread across any number of PDF files and GIS shapefiles. First it needs sorting, then it gets categorised by period in a spreadsheet and imported into a GIS to get an idea of how it looks spatially. A strong concentration of Roman finds taking on a roughly straight distribution might indicate a ladder settlement belonging to a lost road, whilst medieval and post-medieval settlement cores often remain unchanged even into the modern period. The same goes for little villages centred around medieval churches. For the prehistoric period you can often see clusters of activity in particularly fertile areas, or along waterways.

I have more than a passing interest in landscape archaeology partly due to the ephemeral nature of early finds and the lack of maps for certain periods. The prevalence of barrows, trackways, and enclosures paints a reasonable picture of how the landscape was used. You can level a building, but it’s far harder to completely obliterate its place in landscape. My favourite thing by far about working in the team is the closeness to the historic environment; I can take a privileged look into the minutiae of someone else’s life, and the work goes a long way to arguing the point that the historic environment is something that needs protecting and preserving. Archaeology is more than just “stuff” and history is more than just “things”.

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

Islamic Palaces 1 – The Alhambra Royal Workshops Project

Over the past 6 months I have been working with universities in the south of Spain to investigate workshops and production areas within medieval Islamic palaces. This, the first of two blogs, will focus on trips taken earlier this summer to the Alhambra in Granada.

Arabesque and tiles

For those of you unfamiliar with the site, the Alhambra is a large palace and fortress complex situated on a promontory at the foothills of the Sierra Nevada, overlooking Granada. It was constructed in the 13^th century AD during the Nasrid dynasty, a late Muslim dynasty in the south of Spain, and the palace is best known for its highly ornate arabesque reliefs, glazed tiles, pottery, glass and of course the beautiful gardens; and it was these gardens that had attracted the attention of academics from the Universities of Bournemouth, Newcastle and Granada. The question they were all asking – where exactly were the tiles, pottery and glass produced when the site was initially constructed?

The current gardens are a relatively modern addition and much reconstruction work of existing structures had been done to tidy its appearance; however, upon closer inspection some of these structures formed ‘keyhole’ shapes in plan, typical of kilns or furnaces.

Keyhole kiln

Prof Kate Welham and Dr Derek Pitman from Bournemouth University took the lead in May, undertaking a non-invasive survey of an area of garden using a whole suite of geophysical techniques (fluxgate gradiometer, electromagnetic survey, magnetic susceptibility and ground penetrating radar (GPR)), plus portable X-ray fluorescence (p-XRF). This approach was taken because of the likely nature of deposits beneath the surface – the site had been occupied by Napoleon’s forces during the Peninsular War, but upon his retreat significant parts of the fortress were destroyed including, most probably, the area of garden under survey. As little or no archaeological work had been carried out before, no one knew quite what to expect.

Surveying

Now, my first piece of archaeological fieldwork took place in 2000, and I’ve been in and out of the field ever since, but until this moment I’d never performed a geophysical survey. I’d always been that guy who can dig and, in more recent years, the GIS geek, often working with geophysical data but never collecting it. So just to prove to everyone that it did actually happen I got someone to capture the moment…

Using GPR at the Alhambra

I’m afraid I’m not able to reproduce the results in this blog, but I can say that several areas indicated the presence of high temperature activities. These results informed the implementation of an excavation strategy, and a couple of months later, two trenches were opened to investigate various magnetic enhancements recorded during the geophysical survey. These were directed by Dr Chloe Duckworth from Newcastle University and Dr Alberto Garcia Porras from University of Granada, and I was invited along to survey their findings and introduced them to the use of SfM to reconstruct a 3-dimensional image of each trench.

A trench being excavated

It was their first digging field season and the main priority was to take the topsoil off and map the uppermost deposits and any structural remains. Once this had been achieved it became increasingly apparent that the site was more complex than first thought. It had been occupied on and off for the past 800 years and many of the remains date to later activity, including the modern reconstructions which now mask the true nature of the kilns.

I hope to return in 2017 when these remains can be investigated fully and the full extent of production within the Alhambra is likely to reveal itself.