Tag Archives: roman

Romans, Remembrance and Ritual

By Isobel Curwen, Heritage Research Supervisor (and osteologist on the side)

Warning: images of human remains feature in this post

Last month, we were invited by the International Bomber Command Centre (IBCC) to take part in their ‘Hands on History’ event as part of National Tourism Week. This event saw many attractions within Lincoln (and the UK) open their doors for free!

So on a sunny Saturday morning at the beginning of April I find myself arriving at the IBCC carrying a box containing the remains of a decapitated Roman individual (SK 1026). Luckily I didn’t get too many strange looks…

Wondering why? During 2014 – 2016 Allen Archaeology were involved in the excavation work prior to the IBCC and the memorial Spire being built. Early geophysical investigations had identified several anomalies within the area which were then investigated by a series of excavations in the location of the IBCC building and spire, the car park and the access road off Canwick Hill (Evershed, 2014).

During the course of the archaeological works on the site, the excavations revealed the remains of three Roman pottery kilns, two corn dryers, and 15 Roman burials, dated to the 2^nd to 3^rd centuries. Several possible quarry pits and linear ditches were also found. The final report is forthcoming, and will be published in due course, but preliminary analysis of the results of the archaeological investigations suggest that the site was formerly a self-sufficient Roman settlement complete with corn dryers and ditches marking the boundaries of the settlement. It is thought that the quarry pits were used to mine for limestone, a readily accessible resource which was used to build many parts of Roman Lincoln. The geographical location of the site, on high ground within close proximity to the city was also an important factor.

Interestingly, the graves were found on a variety of alignments and one individual was found with the head and some of the cervical vertebrae between the legs (suggesting they were decapitated), and another individual was found buried prone (face down). Burials of this type are occasionally found in Roman cemeteries and are referred to as ‘deviant’ burials.

So, bearing all this in mind, the event at the IBCC was Roman themed and I took along the individual that had been decapitated as well as plans and photographs of the site during the excavation. I laid out the individual in the way they were found in the grave and got many questions as to why I had put the head by the feet! I secretly enjoyed the look on people’s faces when I told them why…

It was a busy day and we had around 90 people visit. Personally, it was a great experience to be able to explain to people that the IBCC, now a focus for Bomber Command during WWII, was once a Roman settlement. Even more exciting was to be able to be showing an individual that was found beneath the building we were actually standing in!

Many thanks to Cova, Yvonne, Harvey and Chris for their help in the preparation of this exhibition and on the day itself too! Thanks also go to Emily from the IBCC for organising the event and for asking us to be involved.

Evershed, R., 2014, Archaeological Evaluation Report – Geophysical survey by magnetrometry for the proposed Bomber Command Memorial and Interpretation Centre, Canwick Hill, Canwick, Lincolnshire, Allen Archaeology Ltd

Find of the Month, September

by Cova Escandon (Archive Supervisor)

An unusual set of jewellery was found from the grave of an adolescent individual from a Roman Necropolis in Lincolnshire, dated to the 4^th century AD. The grave good assemblage is made up of a group of copper-alloy, bone and iron bangles, along with a copper-alloy chain, glass beads and one copper-alloy ring.

Bracelets made of all types of materials were most common in Britain during the 4^th Century AD, and had been used by the Romano-British elite since early Roman times, often fabricated with precious metals. However, around the time of the 4^th Century AD, the use of these bangles became more common in the general population with materials such as bone or copper alloy used instead of precious metals. Such bangles were often worn with between six and sixteen bangles on both wrists. This practice would explain the large amount of fragments of metal bangles found in domestic contexts from the late Roman period. In the set found by Allen Archaeology, there were also several fragments of bone bangles which became very popular during the 4^th century.

Eight copper alloy bracelets were discovered within the grave, all in different styles, three of them decorated. Such decoration includes an incised decoration of a repeating pattern of III X III, and on other bangles motifs including a wavy line with associated dots, faint cross-hatching, and a ring and dot design can be seen. Interestingly, this ring and dot pattern is also present on one of the bone fragments, suggesting that this group of metal and bone bangles were designed to be worn together.

III X III decoration on copper alloy bangle

Ring and dot detail on the copper alloy bangle

Three of the bone fragments have holes drilled through one end and one fragment also has an iron rivet still attached. Two other fragments are joined together by a thin copper-alloy plate, suggesting that these bangles could have been made in sections and then attached together.

I always find curating these sort of finds a little bit bittersweet. On one hand they are very pretty and interesting artefacts, highly useful in being able to date the burial. But on the other side, they remind us that what we have in front of us is a human being, carefully buried with personal items.

Kilns and kiln furniture!

By Kelly Corlett-Slater

I am a History and Archaeology student at Bishop Grosseteste University and I have been volunteering at Allen Archaeology for four weeks during the summer holidays. During my time here I have been doing post-excavation finds processing with Archive Supervisors Yvonne Rose and Cova Escandon; washing and marking finds from a late Roman kiln site in north Lincolnshire.

My favourite artefacts so far have been large fragments of ‘kiln furniture’ which now appear as very heavy, dark grey pieces of baked clay which would have formed part of the internal workings of a Roman kiln. These would have been in the form of kiln supports, a floor, and possible dividers or ‘wheels’ where the pottery was placed for firing. These were covered in powdery black silt which was easy to wash off. When these artefacts were clean and dry, the evidence as to how they were made becomes apparent. I was able to distinguish the folds in the clay, the fingerprints of the potter or kiln-maker, and the indent marks of straw and twigs that would have occurred when the clay was first used to line the kiln.

Kiln furniture from a site in North Lincolnshire

Allen Archaeology’s trainee Roman pottery specialist, Alice Beasley, explained how the kiln would have looked and functioned, describing how the repeated firing of the kiln would have melted the inclusions within the clay giving it an overall denser and darker appearance.

At least 4,500 sherds of pottery have been recovered surrounding the six kilns on site, with many pieces showing evidence of unsuccessful firing. These have bubbles on both the inner and outer surface that have expanded and exploded in the kiln during firing. To me these are more fascinating than successfully fired pieces of pottery! These unsuccessful broken sherds occur when the potter has not sufficiently beaten the clay to remove excess air bubbles or if sufficient temperatures have not been reached during the firing process.

Pottery sherds showing evidence of unsuccessful firing

Having just completed Antony Lee’s Roman Archaeology module at BGU, I learnt a lot about the different types of Roman pottery found in Lincolnshire and how they were made. Volunteering at Allen Archaeology has compounded this knowledge giving me the wonderful opportunity to have hands on experience with these artefacts and having experts answering my many questions. I have thoroughly enjoyed my time here and look forward to returning to do some more voluntary work in the future.

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

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

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

International Women’s Day 2018

This year for International Women’s Day we’ve been thinking about how women are represented in the archaeological record. The archaeology of gender has become a large part of our interpretation, where previously women’s lives were overlooked by antiquarians in favour of kings and emperors, work has been done to readdress this imbalance. We’ve picked three of our most interesting examples for discussion.

Recently excavated head pot, ‘Marion’

Neither face pots nor head pots are especially common, but have been found distributed widely across Britain including around 50 examples from York, a famous example of which depicts the Empress Julia Domna (York Museums Trust n.d). Head pots appear to be almost exclusively found in Roman Britain and North Africa, and are generally made of finer fabric than face pots (Braithwaite 2011). While researching this piece it seemed like a majority appear to be depictions of women. Our example, Marion, was found in Bourne, Lincolnshire. We chose the nickname Marion as we thought the frills around her face looked like a medieval headdress.

Saxon chatelaine

Chatelaines (sometimes referred to as chatelaine chains) were a popular item of women’s dress from around the 7^th century in Anglo-Saxon England, and are sometimes found in the burials of female individuals (Owen-Crocker 2004). The chatelaine itself was attached to a belt worn at the waist, with smaller objects hung from it and thought to be worn by the female head of the household, indicating a level of status. Common items carried during the period included functional items like keys and personal hygiene (metal picks, small spoons intended for the cleaning out of one’s ears, etc) (ibid). Later, Viking women’s fashion dictated one’s personal items were often hung from brooches which are themselves commonly (but not exclusively) associated with the burial of women (ibid).

The misidentifying of an individual’s gender in archaeology based on materials remains isn’t uncommon, prominent examples include the ‘Red Lady of Paviland’, identified as Roman female in 1823 due to the presence of ivory and rings (assumed to be female items) but later revealed to actually be a man from the Upper Palaeolithic period, and the Skaill boat burial in Orkney, which was assumed to be male based on the presence of finds believed to be associated with warriors (a sword, an axe, a spear etc.), but was later identified as female (Hedenstirna-Jonson et al 2017). The example in Orkney was still presumed to be a man even after osteological analysis in the 1970s identified the individual as a woman (Laskow 2017)!

19th century ribbon from the grave of a female adult

During excavations in a 19^th century burial ground a fashionable silk gauze ribbon with self-woven stripes was found in the burial of an adult female. Several other examples of fashion ribbons were also found, personal touches allowing those interred to retain elements of their identity after burial.

You can also find our previous blog posts for International Women’s Day here:

2017: https://www.allenarchaeology.co.uk/christina-colyer-lincolns-trowel-blazer/

2016: https://www.allenarchaeology.co.uk/international-womens-day/

References:

Braithwaite, G., 1984, Romano-British Face Pots and Head Pots, Britannia, 15, 99–131, accessed online 08.03.2018: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/britannia/article/romanobritish-face-pots-and-head-pots/0D323526CEF3BF9A4A7A500BABB1AC9D

Hedenstierna-Jonson C, Kjellström A, Zachrisson T, et al. A female Viking warrior confirmed by genomics. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2017;164:853–860, accessed online 08.03.2018: https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.23308

Laskow, S., 2017, Found: Evidence That a Lavish Burial Honored a Viking Warrior Woman, accessed online 08.03.2018: https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/viking-warrior-woman-burial-birka

Owen-Crocker, G.R., 2004, Dress in Anglo-Saxon England, 2^nd ed, Woodbridge: Boydell Press

York Museums Trust, n.d., accessed online 08.03.2018: http://www.historyofyork.org.uk/themes/roman/roman-head-pot

Find of the month March – a selection of finds chosen by our work experience student, Matt.

By Matt and Yvonne Rose (Archive Project Supervisor)

For February, just for a change, there’s a slight twist to “Find of the Month”. For the past three Thursdays the finds and archiving team has been joined by work experience student Matt. He’s been busy washing the usual assortment of pottery, tile and animal bone, so to make the days more interesting we’ve shown him an array of the more exciting finds from past excavations. We asked him to choose two of his favourite finds, along with a few other questions, so that we could find out a bit more about Matt and his interests. Here are the results:

How long have you been interested in archaeology?

Since I was around 7 years of age (10 years ago).

How did you become interested in archaeology?

I became interested in history by watching Time Team on the TV in my own time. It encouraged me to go outside and try it for myself. Ever since I started finding actual finds of importance I enjoyed it more and more, up to this day. Now I wish to continue further with a regular job in either archaeology or palaeontology.

What is your favourite period in history?

Probably Roman.

Which finds have you liked the most, and why?

The Roman face pot (nicknamed Marion) because it is a very nice pot from my favourite period in history. I would also like to do some research on it at some point in the future.

I like the Palaeolithic flint blade due to the fact that it is very old (around 10 000 years). I also like to think about the many different ways it could have been used. I love the history behind it.

Palaeolithic flint blade

The Roman face pot (Marion)

What would you like to find in the future?

A hoard of Roman coins or something gold!

We wish Matt well in his remaining weeks with us and hope he finds that gold one day!

From pipe-smoking to PPE!

By Isobel Curwen, Heritage Research Supervisor

Archaeologists excavating the Oseberg Ship in 1904 or 1905

As you can see from this photograph of an excavation in 1904 or 1905, some things have changed quite a lot in terms of what we wear during archaeological excavation today. Note the smartly dressed men in the centre of the photo (and also the slightly grubbier men to the left!). Suits, ties and bowler hats are a stark contrast to what we wear on archaeological excavations today.

However, as the fashions have changed, so has what we wear during our excavations. Today we have strict health and safety procedures in place to ensure that we are safe whilst on site. For this, we have Personal Protection Equipment (PPE) that includes an array of kit from hard hats, steel toe-capped and midsole boots, gloves, safety glasses, and hi-visibility clothing.

As we as field archaeologists are at the mercy of the Great British weather (see previous blog posts for some prime examples of this!) it is essential that we have good quality, warm and waterproof clothing. This not only means that we are kept warm and (hopefully) dry but that team morale during a particularly cold or wet day is kept high!

However, importantly, the main role of PPE is to keep us safe. The nature of our work means that we are often on construction sites with set rules and regulations that we need to abide by. This includes wearing hard hats where there is a risk of falling objects, safety glasses to protect eyes from flying sparks and dust, gloves to protect hands from sharp objects or hazardous chemicals, and safety footwear to protect our feet from falling objects. Hi-visibility clothing also keeps us seen (even through the layers of mud!). Obviously the type of PPE varies from site to site and is dependent on the nature of the site.

At Allen Archaeology, everyone is issued with PPE which we have in various sizes. Each site undergoes a risk assessment and toolbox talks are given as and when required which act as reminders as to the correct usage of our PPE.

So how times have changed! I wonder how our field staff would feel about swapping their PPE for a suit and tie?!

Some of our fieldwork team working on a site in rural Lincolnshire, complete with PPE!