Tag Archives: excavation

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

The Dark Art of Environmental Processing

Bryn Leadbetter, Project Archaeologist, Environmental Processing

In a far-flung corner of Whisby Lodge is a room visited by few. Room 4 (or 9) was once frequented by many. They came then, these folk, in search of tools, but now such utensils of mass earth removal are found elsewhere and there is no longer any reason to venture to this remote outpost. What takes place now in Room 4 (or 9), once likened to a cave, has been described as something akin to alchemy. I like this idea of my work being a dark art and I hesitate to discourage the thought, but in truth no such claim can be made.

In the simplest of terms environmental archaeology is the study of past people’s interaction with their natural environment – we use plant and animal remains to reconstruct ancient environments and farming practices and examine soils, sediments and other suitable deposits to explore how sites are formed. Pollen and isotopes are also studied, and much more still, but, sadly, nothing so wizard-y takes place in Room 4 (or 9).

Bryn floating

The samples of soil that we collect may contain minute/microscopic plant and animal remains that can tell us about the economy and diet of the people who occupied the site, and the natural environment in which they lived. Fragments of pottery, flint and other artefacts may also be present.

To extract these items from the ‘mud’ a water separation system is employed, in a process commonly referred to as flotation. This consists of a number of tanks and connecting pipes around which water is pumped on a continuous cycle, overflowing from one tank to the next. The sample is placed in the first tank onto a submerged 1mm mesh and agitated to break the sediment up and release any eco/arte-facts contained therein. Light material, such as grain, seed, charcoal and shell, will float to the top and is carried by the overflowing water through a 300 micron mesh (1000 micron = 1mm), where it is collected. This material is called the flot. The heavy fraction of bone, flint and pottery along with stones etc. will sink but is captured by the 1mm mesh. This is called the residue. The finest fraction of clay and silt will escape capture and settle to the bottom of the tank. Of course, the overflowing water is instantly dirty and the purpose of the other tanks is to allow as much silt/clay to settle before the as-clean-as-possible water is pumped from the final tank back into tank 1 and the cycle to continues. After drying and bagging the flot is sent to a specialist for analysis. I sort the residue and retrieve any bone, flint, pot and so-forth. A spreadsheet is kept for the documentation of all this activity – and that’s what I do in Room 4 (or 9).

Flot, residue and bagged flot

A Pietá from Lincoln

We have recently seen the return to our offices of a lovely piece of sculpture that we found in uphill Lincoln. This sculpture is a Pietá, a devotional depiction of the Virgin Mary holding the body of Christ after the crucifixion. The Pietá is one of the three main depictions of the Virgin Mary in art, the other two being Mater Dolorosa (Mother of Sorrows) and Stabat Mater (Standing Mother). This form of artwork originated in 13th Century Germany before spreading to France, Italy and Central Europe. Many early wooden examples emphases the wounds Christ suffered on the Cross, whereas the later stone sculptures carved outside Germany focus more on the purity of the Virgin rather than on their suffering. Probably the most famous Pietá was carved by Michelangelo and now rests in St Peter’s Basilica, Vatican City. It is the only artwork that he ever signed, allegedly due because he had overhead people attributing it to his competitor Cristoforo Solari.

The Pieta shows signs of having been deliberately damaged during the Reformation

We found this Pietá during the construction of new buildings for Lincoln’s University Technical College (UTC) back in 2014. It is more than half a metre wide and, when complete, would have stood nearly a metre tall. Similarity to other examples from France, suggests that it may have been made in the mid-15th century. It was probably originally placed on the outside of a building, over a portal but had been reused in a retaining wall, the plain parts facing outwards, hiding its true form.

The sculpture is largely intact but the heads and feet of both Christ and Mary are missing (as are their right hands and Christ’s left shoulder and right knee). The missing heads and the reuse of the statue as building material indicate that it was probably defaced during the Reformation of the 16th Century. Icons of Christ and the saints were present in all Catholic churches but the new Protestant faith saw them as worship of false gods. Excavations on the church neighbouring Lincoln Cathedral, St Peter-in-the-Bail, found evidence of iconoclastic destruction from this period. The heads and hands of saints, both in sculpture and in paintings, were the main targets during this religious vandalism. C. Pamela Graves suggests this was done to remove any power from the saints personification and as a test of the idol and its supposed sainthood. For example when a statue of St Katherine was thrown into a fire, it not burn and by it burning it proved the idol was a sham. There is also a tale from the Old Testament about an image of the Assyrian deity Dagon who was struck down by God by having his head and hands cut off. Removing the head and heads of an idol also mirrored the punishment that was inflicted on heretics.

References:

Graves, C P, 2008, ‘From an archaeology of iconoclasm to an anthropology of the body : images, punishment and personhood in England, 1500-1660’, Current Anthropology, 49 (1), 35-57

The Rt Revd Lord Harries, 2015, ‘The Pieta in Art’, [Transcript] https://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/the-pieta-in-art

Archaeology is rubbish*

Natasha Powers, Senior Manager

We recently finished work on a site to the south of Lincoln. There were no Roman buildings or prehistoric flint scatters but a group (or assemblage) of objects was collected and brought back to the offices. Collections of material like this look familiar to us and they can show the processes we go through to interpret a site no matter its age, and the difficulties we face in doing so.

What was it for? A bottle is probably used for storing liquids, we know that because we have seen objects a similar shape and that’s what they were being used for (their function). Shape (or form) is one of the key ways in which we interpret objects. We have a helping hand here as many of the objects still have writing on them, so we can find out exactly what they were used for. We can use the characteristics of those objects to help us work out what the ones without labels might be. The base of no. 12 tells us that it was made to store Hartley’s jams or preserves. We can therefore work out that no. 11, which is not marked but looks very similar, was used for the same function but presumably by different a company. We work out what the objects are by comparing them with other, sometimes more complete, objects which have the same shape or characteristics.

Modern ‘rubbish’ but what can it tell us?

How old is it? Creating a typology (the classification of objects according to their characteristics) can also be key to establishing their date. Shapes and styles may change over time and if you have an object that you can give a secure date to, you can build up a pattern. Here, we can look at the ketchup bottle (no. 5) and see that it looks like those that were produced between 1914 and 1930. Research can help us work out how old other objects may be: Wiltshaw & Robinson (makers of Carlton Ware) produced over 1000 different shapes of Heraldic Souvenir China 1903–1926, including our yacht (no. 13). Bray & Co. Bus Company, changed their name to Lincolnshire Road Car in May 1930, so the ticket stub (no. 26) must be earlier than this. In fact the objects all seem to have been made before 1930, but not earlier than the start of the 20th century.

Typology of ketchup

When was it deposited? Production date doesn’t tell us when these objects were buried. Some objects stay in circulation longer than others because they have uses beyond their original purpose, because we find them aesthetically pleasing or because they become heirlooms. Stoneware jam pots were superseded by glass jam jars, but we have both here. Empty stoneware jars make excellent pencil pots or vases, so perhaps they were reused before being thrown away (I keep match boxes in one at home)?

What does it mean? Take away our knowledge of these objects from their history and how would we interpret them as a group? Why would someone have a small model house and a boat? Is there a religious significance to these items? Why do they have a coat of arms on them? Did the person who they belonged to own land in, or have family in Southport and Bedford? Perhaps they were just pretty objects picked up at a jumble sale? There is a glass pot marked ‘Spear’s Games’ – does that mean there are children involved in the creation of this rubbish? There is a pocket watch of a type that you would expect to belong to a man, but we need to be careful when we ‘engender’ objects: I own a watch much like that myself. Likewise, there is a pot of solid perfume that we might assume is a ‘female’ object. Did they smoke or need a stick to walk with? There are a lot of ink bottles, one of which even has a pen-nib still in it – is this rubbish from a school or an office? Is it from the home of a writer? All in all, there are storage containers, decorative items and practical ones (like the syrup of figs from a brand known as “the family laxative”!). Perhaps, sometime after 1930 someone had a clear-out and got rid of Aunt Agatha’s now unfashionable nick-nacks?

The truth is that we can’t ever know for certain. We can say that the objects were thrown away because they were no longer considered useful. The key to making our interpretation the best that it can be is to gather as much information together as is possible, compare our site with others and set the discovery in context…and that applies to a Roman farmstead as much as a 20th century rubbish dump.

(*with apologies to Tony Robinson and Mick Aston for borrowing the title of their book)

No.	Description
1	Glass storage jar
2	Robertson’s Scotch Marmalade jar with partial label and motif
3	Medicine or household chemical bottle, very incomplete label reads ‘methylated’. Moulded with horizontal divisions showing tablespoons
4	Glass bottle
5	Heinz ketchup bottle with partial label
6	?Champagne bottle
7	Moulded ‘Daddie’s’ sauce bottle
8	Lyons ?ink bottle with partial label
9	Glass bottle
10	Moulded California Fig Syrup Co. bottle
11	Stoneware preserves jar. No markings
12	Stoneware preserves jar. Base embossed ‘NOT genuine unless bearing Wm PH Hartley’s label’
13	Carlton Ware crested or heraldic china yacht (the Saucy Sue). Marked “Southport”
14	Bovril jar
15	Swan ink pot
16	Miniature vase
17	Lid with running dogs motif
18	Small jar
19	Willow Art crested china model of Paul Bunyan’s House with ‘The arms of ancient Bedford’
20	Bell’ Lyon’s ink tipper bottle with partial label and pen nib inside
21	Stoneware inkwell
22	Glass inkwell
23	Glass pot embossed ‘Spear’s Games’. Possibly a tiddlywinks container?
24	Clay pipe
25	Man’s pocket watched in tooled steel
26	Bray & Co. Bus Company
27	Skull of a small dog
28	Brass solid perfume pot with hinge and mirror in the lid. Perfume still present
29	?Bone/antler and brass walking stick handle in the shape of a duck’s head
30	Pocket watch winder (assoc. with 25)

Best site hut biscuit with Alice

What is your job role?
Senior Project Archaeologist

How long have you worked for Allen Archaeology?
3 years, 3 months and 13 days (approximately)

How would describe your excavation technique?
I attack things with gusto and hope for the best

How long have you been working in archaeology?
3 years, 3 months and 13 days (approximately)

Alice on a Sheffield University training dig at West Halton

At a Sheffield University training dig at West Halton

How did you get into archaeology?
Aged 10 I was dragged (whilst protesting) onto a field as part of a community project my mum was involved in. 5 minutes later I found a Neolithic leaf shaped arrowhead and after that I was hooked

What is the best thing about your job?
Digging big holes in the mud!

Specialist skills?
I can knit myself a nice brightly coloured site jumper that hides some of the mud. I’m in the early stages of training to be a Roman pottery specialist.

Best site hut biscuit?
I’m a big fan of the bourbon but if we are feeling fancy a Lotus caramelized biscuit hits the spot.

Running a large scale excavation

Dan Connor, Project Supervisor

In this blog I have been asked to try and describe what my experience running a large scale excavation was like. I have been a supervisor at Allen Archaeology since November 2014 and have worked here since October 2013. Prior to working at Market Harborough I ran several evaluation trenching sites, some open area excavations and helped supervise the large-scale North Killingholme site under the direction of Chris Casswell in the summer of 2015; this would be the largest site I have coordinated.

General shot of site on top of the spoil heap looking southeast

So, a quick description of the site, Market Harborough was an agricultural field, about 5.5 hectares in size that underwent a strip map and record, during the summer of 2016. This was done as a condition of planning consent to allow the building of over 100 houses on the site. Prior to us starting work the site a geophysical survey and evaluation trenching had been undertaken. This meant that there were known archaeological remains on the site consisting of field boundaries and enclosures, that were shown clearly on the geophysics. The nature of these results suggested that this site would have a mix of Romano-British field systems and some earlier Iron Age features.

The geophysics results for the site

Machines started opening the site up in early March, and after a few teething issues we were largely ready to go.

Pre-excavation survey of the site, showing the archaeology and other features.

One of the excavated ditches

It was daunting at first, a large tangle of intercutting ditches and discrete features over an area the size of four football fields; but breaking it down made it much easier to grasp. In the end I decided to have the team work through the site in a large group, breaking the site down into distinct parts and moving from one area to the next. It often feels like Roman archaeology leads itself to this approach as Romans loved squares and enclosures and like to keep things surrounded by big ditches. Difficulties arose however with the Romans love of maintaining said big ditches, then leaving them, before digging new ditches in exactly the same place. This results in features having multiple re-cuts and phases, and the key was to try and link these phases together. This is what makes Roman sites fascinating; distinct phases of activity and occupation can be observed, and in this case it emerged that there were five clear phases of activity, despite the complexity in the features.

The earliest period of occupation recorded on the site dated from the early Neolithic, with several pits that contained worked flint including a fragment of a leaf shaped arrowhead, and a piece of a Langdale stone axe in the northwest corner of the site. A prehistoric pit alignment was found oriented north to south and is similar to others found in Leicestershire. Also recorded were the remains of at least two Iron age drip gullies associated with round houses.

The majority of the site was, as expected, Romano-British field systems and enclosures. We had a number of stand out finds from this period including a partial sliver ring, a copper alloy make up tool, a brooch and multiple quern stones including a rotary and saddle quern.

The whole site with complete stratigraphic phasing, red being earlier and blue being later.

The whole site with complete stratigraphic phasing, red being earlier features and blue, more recent

However there was not just the archaeology to consider, a large-scale project like this meant public interest, I had had a little experience with this working at North Killingholme, but this was my first experience of being directly involved. An open day was organised and volunteer groups from local historical societies were invited to work a few days.

On the open day, just over 70 people turned up for a site tour and to look at some of the material we had found. I found that while people enjoyed their time most were expecting more of a traditional/research archaeological site and less of a “construction” image. I imagine not looking like a university professor did not match many people’s expectations, neither did the hard hats and high visibility vests everyone was wearing. Regardless many local people had real enthusiasm about the work we were doing and a genuine interest in the artefacts. Many were eager to add their own interpretations to what we had found and what could have been there.

Volunteers from local historical societies were invited to come onto site and excavate some of the features, specifically some of the pits in the pit alignment. A big difference that the volunteers noted themselves was the amount of work and the speed it was expected to be done at. It is a long time since my university field schools and I have only worked on commercial archaeological sites since, so having volunteers was a bit of an unknown quantity. I enjoyed having them on site though and I believe they learnt a bit about what digging for a company was like and the benefits of doing volunteer work.

Bees played a bigger part of my time then I thought they would, with a hive descending on to the site during July

Bees played a bigger part of my time than I thought they would, with a swarm descending on to the site during July!

Most people were working away from home on this job and that can be stressful. We seemed to avoid this, and I think it was because people got along socially as well as at work. Cooking together in the evening, playing board games and *a couple* of beers in the evening helped pass the time and brought people together. It created a good atmosphere and I felt everyone was enjoying working on the site.

Over 580 holes were excavated, over 3100 context numbers assigned and just under 1200 drawings were completed to investigate this part of a Romano-British settlement. It was a great site to work on; archaeologically it was interesting fitting the development of the site together alongside some nice finds, with evidence of extended occupation from the Neolithic to the 4th century AD. The group of people working on site really pulled it together. It made running what could have been a very stressful and complex site straight forward for me and resulted in a site I have found fascinating to record.

The team working hard

A cold week for archaeologists

It’s been a busy week and we’ve been up to all sorts of exciting things.

Aaron has been monitoring work at The Lawn in Lincoln.

On site at The Lawn

Damian has taken a team down to London

Monitoring works in London

Rob has been hunting the Loch Ness Monster in his magnetometry data

Finding monsters

Jesse has been undertaking and processing his first building survey

Setting up his first building survey

Alice has been working hard in the sleet

Team in the south of Lincolnshire

Reports are getting produced in the very tidy projects room

Working hard in the projects office

Finally we’ve had a team hard at it washing finds

Finds washers are going strong

Hope everyone else has had a busy week!

From Volunteer to Project Archaeologist

My passion for history started with palaeontology. The very idea of uncovering the history of life before us, of being the one to help piece together the story of life in the UK, was always something that appealed to me greatly.

This then evolved into a healthy interest in general history, and I enjoyed history in school immensely because it allowed me to further understand just how we have gotten to where we are, how technology and culture has changed our lives and the way that our understanding of history has progressed from how it was before. Things are always changing—and Archaeology hopes to piece that together to form a comprehensive understanding; from how things were before, as opposed to now.

On site during my traineeship

My first venture into archaeology, however, was a week of Work Experience during my first year of 6th Form. I was lost, I had no idea what I wanted to do, I wasn’t allowed to go back to where I’d done my GCSE level Work Experience, and I raised my concerns with the School’s careers advisor. Allen Archaeology was, at that time, based in Branston and close to me, so it made sense for me to apply. So, for my work experience I was at Lindum Hill getting in people’s way and marvelling at how these people were, as a career, uncovering the history of the local area and piecing together the story of Lincoln—and I think after that week, there was no questioning what I wanted to do.

I wanted to be an Archaeologist.

I started with volunteering, in 6th Form I had Fridays with no lessons, and during that time I was in the office—cleaning the finds and getting to know the people there. It was an isolated job, while everyone else was finding fantastic things on site for me to later clean, it gave me an understanding of Archaeology and increased my knowledge of what was what— I started with almost no experience so I was unable to identify anything unless it was obvious. However, I caught on fairly quickly. CBM generally looks like this, Pottery looks like this, That’s not Archaeology… that’s a fossil.

I volunteered until I finished school, and I applied for a Traineeship which was swiftly answered with a ‘Yes’. Thinking back, I wonder if there was a reason I was thrown into work at the Transport Hub for my first official site; I thought I knew what I would be doing because I had been on sites beforehand and had done research on what to expect when asked to dig, record and draw what we were excavating… but everything was thrown out of the window with Single Context recording. It wasn’t like anything I’d done before, and I was once again getting in the way of those who actually did know what they were doing… it felt very familiar.

But the staff of Allen Archaeology are nothing if not patient, and have given me a comprehensive understanding of what Commercial Archaeology is like and I think I can safely say that I’m not just getting in peoples’ way anymore, i’m actively working on site.

Now, months later and beginning a new year with a job that I love as a Project Archaeologist, I know that I’ll have a bright future focusing on the past. Hopefully, I can continue my development and use the skills I have garnered over my traineeship and time volunteering to combine my passion for the past and personal interest in art.

Surveying with Fee (i’m in the undergrowth off to the right!)

Why post-medieval archaeology matters (to some of us)

As archaeologists, our job is to study the past through the analysis of material culture. But how far into the past does something have to be to warrant the attention of archaeology? Occasionally in the course of our work it is possible to encounter the view that whilst the significance of remains of the distant past is appreciated, the more recent the period being dealt with, the more people become baffled the remains are considered to merit study. This attitude is of course understandable – prehistoric, Roman and medieval sites have little or no documentary evidence relating to them, they do not appear on maps or photographs and very often their very existence is unknown until they are revealed by archaeologists. It is easy to assume that, for more recent sites, the historical record “tells us all we need to know”.

However, it must be remembered that in the future even the present will be really, really old. With our unprecedented appreciation of the value of heritage, I think that we must seize the opportunity to make sure that we have as full a record as possible of significant archaeological remains of more recent times, especially given that in some areas such sites are disappearing at an alarming rate.

In this post, then, I’ll (Al) give a couple of examples where I think that the archaeological study of more recent sites has proven its worth. I know not everyone will be convinced….

Figure 1: Women working in engineering, Manchester, 1916

Many years ago I carried out an evaluation on the site of an engineering works in Gateshead, Tyne and Wear, which had originated as part of the Gateshead Iron Works, founded by William Hawks in the 18th century. One of the trenches was targeted on an outbuilding identified on OS mapping as a fairly late addition to the site – a building which turned out to be a toilet block. So far, so very unglamorous. During post excavation, a search of building control documentation revealed that the toilets had been added to the works in 1917. At first this puzzled me. Why, with the most destructive war in human history in full flow in Europe, would an engineering works undoubtedly running at full capacity on Ministry of Defence contracts build a new toilet block, of all things? It occurred to me at that point that there was no evidence in the ground for a urinal, just individual cubicles, and a possible interpretation emerged.

It seems possible that the new toilets became a necessity at that time due to the replacement of the traditionally male workforce with women, as more and more men were conscripted into the armed forces. The work done by women during the First World War is often presented as a factor in the softening of the attitude of the powers that be to the idea of granting women suffrage, although the long struggle that it took to achieve this should not be dismissed. Although the interpretation is not certain, to me it provides an example of how archaeological and documentary evidence can be combined to add to understanding of the social history of not only the specific site, but the region and nation as a whole.

From another metalworking site on Tyneside, that of Spencer’s Steelworks in Newburn, there is further example of how archaeology can add to our understanding of the development of the site. Documentary records tell us that the works, which was founded in the early 19th century, expanded in the 1870s as new plant for bulk steel production was installed. Records have not survived, however, detailing the construction methods and materials used in this fairly late expansion. Archaeology revealed remains of some of the first commercially viable Siemen’s regenerative steel furnaces in England. Interestingly, it also revealed that the construction of the furnaces had necessitated the import of refractory bricks from Glenboig, near Glasgow.

Figure 2: Example of a Glenboig firebrick, because there had to be a brick…………

At this time the north east coalfield had many firebrick works, producing products which were nationally renowned, along with those from around Stourbridge. Indeed, many firebricks from West Durham brickworks were used at Spencer’s – unsurprisingly, as the freight charges would have been minimal. So, what the archaeology suggested was that, despite their excellent reputation, local refractory bricks were still not suitable for lining Siemens furnaces. The Glenboig brickworks, close to Coatbridge where Siemens plant had been built in the late 1860s, seem to have developed bricks especially for this task, and historical evidence shows that they made it a selling point. So the investigation of a site in Newburn informs us not only about industry there, but also about related industry in Scotland.

Although there’s only space to provide a couple of examples, I hope that I have manage to express why I believe that it is important to treat archaeology of more recent times as a significant and diminishing resource. The work AAL does continues to build our understanding of the post-medieval and modern eras, with recent work on the Crown Brewery and maltings in Lincoln, communal air-raid shelters from the Second World War in Sunderland, and this…

Figure 3: A lovely example of a Royal Observer Corps monitoring post dating from the Cold War period.

Image sources:

Figure 1: American Machinist, vol 44, issue 25, page 1060 via https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WW1_Churchills_Pendleton_women_at_work_1916.png
Figure 2: Image reproduced with Creative Commons License from https://www.flickr.com/photos/nottsexminer/6824143320
Figure 3: AAL’s archive