22/9/14 — Features, Finds and Triangulation

Posted on 22/09/2014 by

Work on the site has been steadily progressing with a number of significant finds having been discovered. The team has maintained progress at the Hatcliffe site with individuals continuing to excavate a number of new features to help further our understanding of the site.

The various finds that have been discovered at Hatcliffe have made the site gradually more interesting. Some of the more unusual finds include a piece of Quern stone from the Roman era which will have been used for grinding corn, a decorated rim from a Mortarium (a mixing bowl; this particular type was made in Crambeck in Yorkshire and so has been traded across the river Humber), Roman tiles and several Roman coins which would have been the type of small change used in day to day life have also come to light. So far two Roman coins have been found in the trench. We have found that the Roman occupation at the site is very extensive but has been covered over during the medieval period by cultivation. this is apparent as we have rig and furrow ploughing features which are characteristic of medieval farming practice.

The painted rim that was found in one of the excavated furrows

The painted rim that was found in one of the excavated furrows

IMG_1463 (2)

The washed decorated mortarium rim

Excavation wasn’t the only work being carried out during the day with some of the undergraduates heading out into the field armed with a notebook, a pen and a 100 meter tape measure. Their aim, to triangulate the positions of surface finds across the field. Using two known points in the field two further points, A and B, were marked, allowing for the distance of the finds from each point to be measured and their positions later marked on a distribution map. The triangulation of finds is an important task as the spread of those finds in the field can help indicate areas of use during certain periods of time. In this case we have found that the distribution of finds on the ploughed surface of the field is closely consistent with the geophysical readings that were taken from across the field. Nowadays we could use our GPS equipment to pinpoint these finds however we are all learning the traditional methods of triangulation by recording the information in this manner; as a counterweight to allowing technology to do all the work for us. Both methods will have the same outcome.

Triangulation in practice.

Triangulation in practice.

Although a number of features have already have been excavated there are still numerous areas of interest which have yet to be explored. In the coming days this will be the teams aim as the more information that is gathered the more the understanding of the site increases.

Posted in Progress Update | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

20/9/14 — Spotlight: Fieldwalking

Posted on 20/09/2014 by

Ever wondered how much toil in the soil is needed to unearth an archaeological artefact? There are many different ways in which one can come across a find of archaeological value, and we have seen a few already during this project, from surface surveys to our first venture into the pits.

Walkover survey is one of the initial prespection methods of surface surveying that links the number of artefacts found in one area to a site’s potential for excavation. Walking over an area of ground, the archaeologist scans the ground visually for any finds atop the soil; in our case we did not pick them up. This technique was used in our fieldwork to judge whether an area could be fieldwalked or further examined if a large number or interesting types of finds were noted during the walkover survey.

Plastic bags of finds are left in the grid squares during fieldwalking, to keep track of which squares have been fieldwalked that day

Plastic bags of finds are left in the grid squares during fieldwalking, to keep track of which squares have been fieldwalked that day

Fieldwalking, by contrast, is organised by dividing the site into grid squares – our preference for this site is ten by ten metres – and walking over each square area while carefully examining the ground for items which either rest atop the surface, or are visible from the topsoil, then gathering them. In other words, one does not extract finds from beneath the soil at this point – this is to find what has worked its way to the surface by human means (such as ploughing or non-archaeological digging) or by natural means (like the washing-down or erosion of soil).

We take great care in grouping finds together in order of where they were found, throughout collection, transport, and cleaning. Of course, we have to wash the earth off of the finds — even if one is confident in the nature of a find on the field, we can learn much more about the item when it is cleaned!

Finds on the field -- is the soil concealing a layer of slip or colour on a potsherd?

Finds on the field — is the soil concealing a layer of slip or colour on a potsherd?

Fieldwalking works particularly well on the Binbrook site as a method of determining the site’s potential for excavation because, being arable land used for cultivation year after year, the topsoil is regularly ploughed by machine which brings soil from a deeper layer to the surface, and with it come archaeological artefacts. What we find on the surface, which may have originally resided far deeper below the earth, can directly correlate to the presence of features further down. In this case, fragments of homewares indicate evidence of settlement. Potsherds and roof tiles are numbering in their thousands as the most common finds during this project — and our daily finds are beginning to give shape to our final idea of what the settlement may be!

Posted in Spotlight | Tagged , | Leave a comment

17/9/14 — Digging begins at Hatcliffe

Posted on 17/09/2014 by

A change of scenery brought with it a change in pace. Our team of experts and undergraduates were brought to a more familiar site in Lincolnshire, near Hatcliffe, which has seen more diverse fieldwork techniques done on it than our fresh-faced Binbrook site!

Compared to Binbrook which was the first trench to be dug at the site, our first trench this month adds to a number already dug over the last few years since the beginning phase of the project at Hatcliffe in 2007. In fact, this new trench expands on an area we know to be rich in the type of remains we are looking for – although there’s quite a bit of weeding to do on the older trench in the meantime before the two trenches can meet.

Old trench meets new

First bite out of the new trench

Just like our progress at the other site, the work at Hatcliffe is split into using spades to cut out the shape of the trench, shovels for removing soil, barrowing, and a designated “spoil heap” – soil taken out of the ground while digging a trench – not too near the trench, so as not to encroach on our digging space! However, this trench is much wider and a square shape than the Binbrook trench, allowing more people to work in it at once; thus the ploughsoil was swiftly removed, and we are already in the stages of expanding the trench and trowelling down the layers bit by bit to reveal older features in the earth.

Using small trowels to cut away the surface -- a different skillset to prising away chunks with a spade!

Using small trowels to cut away the surface — a different skillset to prising away chunks with a spade!

As well as the usual NE Lincolnshire helpers, we have also had some metal detectorists offer their assistance with our excavation. When they aren’t using metal detectors in the field where coins and jewellery have been found in the past, they are kindly checking the spoil heaps for finds we may have missed while removing the soil. As it stands, several Roman coins have been discovered in the site beyond our trench. These are essentially the small-change coins of the time, as is normal for any Roman period site in Britain. It is fascinating for all of us to see images of the emperors and gods depicted.

Provisional identification in the field suggests this is a coin of Helena, mother of Constantine the Great, and dating to the 330s. (Photo by Elizabeth)

Provisional identification in the field suggests this is a coin of Helena, mother of Constantine the Great, and dating to the 330s. (Photo by Elizabeth Blanning)

Several possibly medieval plough-marks have been uncovered in the thick clay, and there is clear evidence of burning in the soil from Roman occupation at the site, from burn-marks and charcoal mottling the clay. Whittling down the layers bit by bit, we are hoping to uncover more details and possibly more finds!

Posted in Progress Update | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

15/9/14 — Artefact Facts

Posted on 15/09/2014 by

“Rim!” “Greyware!” “Boxflue!”

Those are the calls of our undergraduate team across the site as we search for surface finds. But how can we judge what they are just by sight without dating methods? Of course, part of it comes with practice, but categorisation of types of materials can help us to narrow down what we find straight away.

When gathering finds from surface surveying, we typically keep them in a container which is labelled with the site’s grid reference (we base ours on a map we created earlier for the site) for their respective origin. As long as they are kept within this organisation system, we can track down their precise location on the site for later reference!

Impressive handful of potsherds collected from the first day of the Hatcliffe excavation

Impressive handful of potsherds collected from the first day of the Hatcliffe excavation

A similar organisation system is in place when we come across finds while excavating. Rather than noting only the square area in which an item was found, we also record its context – the layer of soil in which the find lay. Whether an item is in ploughsoil, clay, or within a deeper feature of the earth is important in judging that item’s time period or situation of origin!

Finds are usually washed, as we cannot always clear the soil from them on the field itself – especially when the rainy weather turns all the dust to mud. This helps details to come to light, such as if an artefact has a painted decoration, or if an item’s nature was uncertain. Sadly we are still learning that vital difference between red chalk and terracotta…

Cleaned potsherds and fragments. The only time it's acceptable to have your crockery in pieces in the sink

Cleaned potsherds and fragments. The only time it’s acceptable to have your crockery in pieces in the sink

Our team of undergraduates have also had a little crash-course in different types of finds. The Binbrook site is very rich in Roman building roof-tiles, grey/black ceramics (greyware), and a range of red ceramics. These all came in various shapes and sizes:

  • sherds – This refers specifically to broken pieces of ceramics such as pots and bowls.
  • fragments – Pieces of CBM (ceramic building materials) are referred to as fragments. CBM includes roof tiles, floor tiles, bricks and boxflue (Roman central heating system) tiles.
  • tesserae – Plural of tessera, a single tile used in mosaics. Frequent in sites of Roman settlement!
  • shards – While this is a little more of an Americanisation, we differentiate between sherds of ceramics and shards of glass found on the site… Although the glass we find is often much more modern than late Roman!

In addition, ceramic housewares can be categorised as finewares, thinner and more brightly-coloured ceramics used for table service such as cups and bowls; coarsewares, typically coloured differently to finewares and used for food preparation; and amphoras, which are storage containers. Most of our finds have been coarsewares, with the occasional beautiful specimen of fineware. All three have great variation between types of clay, colour and shape, but cup or bowl bases, rims and lips have fairly typical shapes that have a tendency to remain intact in comparison to shattered potsherds!

A selection of surface finds.

A selection of surface finds.

In the picture above we are treated to a fragment of boxflue tile (far left); a greyware base (far right); Samian potsherds (centre); and a Roman squared iron nail (top right). This is just a snippet of the kinds of artefacts revealing themselves over the course of this project and over two different sites, and ever more are surfacing daily now that we are in the excavation phase!

Posted in Spotlight | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

14/09/14 — Getting stuck in!

Posted on 14/09/2014 by

Hello, weekend, and hello, digging! After having pieced together our impressive geophys results, including the magnetometry done later on part of the site to complement our fieldwalking, we were granted permission to open a trench in that part of the field. Mapping out the area using our geophysical survey essentially decided whether we would be allowed to investigate below the ploughsoil!

Previous knowledge of human activity in the area was based off of local surveys done on other similar sites by the University, and familiarity with the geology of the Lincolnshire wolds, but as there were no visible indications of features on the surface (such as crop markings that are visible in aerial photography), anything below the ploughsoil was a mystery to the landowners and to us. The site has a tremendous amount of potential for excavation as it is indicated that it is very well-preserved – we had earlier hoped to come across the foundations of a villa, and as we relied more on the clearer magnetometry results, other long, linear features came to light.

Spades versus shovels - gardeners have the advantage here

Spades versus shovels – gardeners have the advantage here

 

The importance of geophysical surveying and the value of archaeological technology really prove themselves as this week’s survey has in fact revealed what is clearly a very extensive settlement, from those line-like features mentioned. Factoring in the surface finds, which have been gathered through our methodical fieldwalking, we can see that this was a long-lived settlement through the Roman era with indications of wealth – generally the great volumes of roof tile and boxflue – presumably generated through agriculture, reflected in the successful cultivation of the land in recent times. Our team are interpreting some of the longer and larger features as possible roads running along the field but not parallel to the hedgerows, as well as some ditches closer to a water source.

Current plans for an evaluation trench are for 10 metres in length, a long narrow trench. The trench has been marked out so as to coincide with one of the linear features identified by magnetometry that we imagine to be a ditch. This is a positive development as it allows us to have a wider view than the proposed smaller test pits mentioned previously.

Starting off small...

Starting off small…

And on Saturday, we finally began, with a 1 by 5 metre trench. Even though many student volunteers are still learning to handle spades and shovels and adhere to the current spoil management strategy, a longer 1 by 10 metre trench was mostly dug by Sunday. We have been extremely fortunate with our weather recently – but the newcomers weren’t expecting the earth beneath the ploughsoil to be quite so tough, due to its density and moisture content. Roots and large pieces of flint were the main obstacles, but luckily, a handful of intriguing finds made the sweat all worth it. Have a look at these items found in one context of the ploughsoil!

Roman pottery found very early on in the dig - amazing that the pieces fit together!

Roman pottery found very early on in the dig – amazing that the pieces fit together!

We made good progress over a few days – neat as it is, we have gotten off to a good start. We’ll come back to this trench after our work on a different site at the beginning of the week!

1 x 10 metres - too narrow to fit all the volunteers in one go!

1 x 10 metres – too narrow to fit all the volunteers in one go!

Posted in Progress Update | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

13/9/14 – Spotlight: Magnetometry and Resistivity

Posted on 13/09/2014 by

In between our shorter updates we will also be posting some spotlight sections on the methods and equipment used throughout the project. Our first one focuses on the technical side of geophysical survey!

The magnetometer on standby

The magnetometer on standby

Magnetometry is part of non-intrusive surface surveying. The magnetometer itself (above) is the H-shaped device, as worn by Lloyd (below), which tests the magnetic fields above and below the surface. Magnetic fields differ between material types and natural materials in which human activity has occurred, such as burning or digging; as such, the differences logged by the magnetometer indicate evidence of activity rather than solid remains. On the one hand, it is light enough to transport as shown; on the other, the user cannot have any ferrous metals on their person while using it or they will interfere with the data collected. This includes anything in clothing and jewellery, no matter the scale – earrings, zips, shoelace eyelets, steel toe caps – so the technician in charge of magnetometry must always have a metal-free wardrobe for the day!

Lloyd taking the magnetometer out for a spin

Lloyd taking the magnetometer out for a spin

Resistivity is also part of surface geophysical surveying, and collects data based on the presence of physical features below the soil. Compared to magnetometry, resistivity is reliant on readings of the electrical resistance picked up by the resistivity meter’s sets of probes (below) – the meter itself is a frame complete with computer and two sets of spike-shaped probes which take individual readings.

The resistivity meter showing off its spike sensors

The resistivity meter showing off its spike sensors

This state-of-the-art equipment represents a considerable investment in archaeological studies by the University, and today, both machines are programmed to take readings over a certain pattern or distance; ours, for example, are set up to correlate to a snake-like walking pattern in a square grid which is marked out on the ground with ropes and pegs. A great feature of these machines is that their data can be translated from the bare numbers to a map-like image using specialist software in a matter of minutes – from a visual standpoint, this is the simplest way of comparing the results of resistivity, magnetometry, and fieldwalking finds over an area map. This has allowed us to direct the course of our project more efficiently, as we can see very quickly which areas have more features for us to investigate!

Posted in Spotlight | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

12/9/14 — Goodbye, geophys – hello, digging!

Posted on 12/09/2014 by

The end of the first week heralds the final touches to our main site’s geophysical survey. Friday saw Lloyd with the Total station and magnetometer following the fieldwalkers down to the foot of the hill, to chase the features being revealed in previous surveys, and fieldwalking extending further along that lower part of the field.

Finds are frequent and new interesting artefacts are popping up every day – Elizabeth and Lloyd has been uncovering Samian and Nene Valley potsherds left and right, including some stunning decorated pieces, while the rest of us students are still learning the difference between terracotta tiles and chunks of red chalk! The soil is rife with white chalk, flint (some worked specimens), and vast numbers of oyster shells, as well as some evidence of more modern agricultural practices, like ploughs, horseshoes, and pieces of scythe. For a beginner archaeologist, being able to make finds on one’s first dig is both encouraging and educational!

An assortiment of incidential finds at our tea break.

An assortiment of incidential finds at our tea break.

Fortune favours the brave (or, at least, those hauling equipment up and down a hill), and we have been granted permission to dig a trench – not only a test pit – in the lower part of the field, in which we have been fieldwalking for the majority of the week and which has yielded a great range of finds. The start of this dig will also coincide with the next wave of student volunteers joining the project. We look forward to every day’s discoveries, as well as a nice change in pace!

 

Posted in Progress Update | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

10/9/14 – Preliminary geophys

Posted on 10/09/2014 by

Geophysical surveying has taken the main stage in the fieldwork so far. Several high-tech machines have aided us in this; the Total station, which allows us to create a digital map of the site with incredible precision; the magnetometer, collecting data about the difference in magnetic fields of the materials below the surface (which can indicate disturbance in the soil from human activity such as a filled pit, wall foundations, or a bonfire site); and the resistivity meter, which pinpoints specific features of high density or materials of high electrical resistance.

We have permission to investigate with test pits in parts of the site and it is vital that we select where we dig these pits very carefully as this landscape is heavily used for agriculture, and there is a window in which we can use the site without interfering with the cultivation. The recent ploughing has, in fact, greatly aided our fieldwalking – looking along the surface of the soil for any artefacts that have made their way to the top. As the topsoil has been overturned by the plough, small fragments are visible all across the site, as well as in the lower reaches of the field.

Map digitally all we want -- we still have to stick pegs in the ground!

Map digitally all we want — we still have to stick pegs in the ground!

Systematic and scientific – many intriguing features are being shown by magnetometer and resistivity data through specialist imaging software. This is particularly useful in a landscape comprised of big fields with few surface indication of past activities, such as longbarrows. From the network of line-like features interpreted as wall foundations, our team imagine we may be seeing a Roman villa – but with the massive scale on which we are finding CBM (ceramic building materials) across the site, why not a more sophisticated villa? It could perhaps be a farming complex, such as a more sophisticated villa, not unlike modern farm estates!

Our archaeological technician Lloyd has been in charge of the geophysical surveying and instructing students in this field of specialist technology, while Steve leads the rest of the team in other surface surveys in other parts of the field. Yet even without intentional fieldwalking, all members working on the site this past week have been making finds from start to finish. So far, our finds have ranged from Neolithic worked flint to Victorian printed ceramic and glassware, including a clay smoking-pipe and box nails – with a great wealth in-between of Roman household ceramics, both building materials and domestic pottery. The presence of roof tiles in particular and pieces of box flue used in Roman central heating heavily suggest not just Roman settlement in the area, but well-designed architecture.

"Moonbase Alpha" - our purpose-built camp for seeing geophys results on the laptop

“Moonbase Alpha” – our purpose-built camp for seeing geophys results on the laptop

In-depth geophysical surveying comes to an end shortly with Lloyd’s departure (and subsequently, some of the equipment’s!), and may continue on a small-scale basis with the arrival of more Kent students – and with the results of the latest survey continuing to give us very strong indications of what lies below the ploughsoil, we hope to find ever more potential in this site.

Posted in Progress Update | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Welcome

Posted on 08/09/2014 by digthewolds

Hello and welcome to the official blog for the Lincolnshire Wolds fieldwork survey 2014. Here we will be tracking the progress of this project, in which members of the Classical & Archaeology department of Kent work with students and with local archaeologists to examine the record of human activity in this previously largely-untouched area of central Lincolnshire’s wolds.

Our project this year is in part thanks to previous surveys done by local residents, who drew attention to the number of finds in our particular site near Binbrook, and in turn have liased with the county council and local historical associations. As this part of Lincolnshire largely comprises of agricultural land, with few new constructions that could consequentially lead to further excavations if archaeological material is discovered, it is rarely excavated for research. However, our colleagues in the North Eastern Lincolnshire Archaeological and History Society then undertook surface surveys of the site in question in the spring of 2013, and made known their findings which indicate Roman and late Iron Age settlement in the area. The society continues to aid us in the fieldwork this September alongside student volunteers and Kent staff.

Kent students and staff have worked on this dig in the wolds many times in the past, but since Monday we have made considerable progress in geophysical surveys and mapping this particular site in order to more precisely direct our efforts towards pinpointing the date and nature of the site. We hope you look forward to our results as much as we do – and in the meantime, enjoy our updates, and leave us any questions or comments you may have!

Posted in Progress Update | Tagged , , | Leave a comment