Finds Group Newsletter Summer 2015 Welcome to the latest edition of the Finds Group Newsletter. I hope you find something of interest. We have articles on a medieval cannonball from Fishbourne Roman Palace, life as an intern at the Headley Trust, a grant to support the study of Portable Antiquities Scheme finds from Cheshire, Clay Tobacco Pipe handling sessions, an archive project to catalogue and store finds from excavations in Suffolk and a short article on metal weights. Please keep the material coming! Best wishes. Stephen Brunning Editor. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A full trade set left behind Andrew Peachey Archaeological Solutions have recently been undertaking a wide-ranging excavation in north-east Suffolk, and the finds assemblage has weighed in with an intriguing set of medieval metal weights. Recovered from a single feature, this set of seven squat, cylindrical, lead or lead alloy weights includes denominations of, from top-to bottom, 145g, 138g, 100g, 96g, 75g, 17g & 16g. The four largest of the weights appear to have coins set into their tops, the next two preserving indentations of missing coins, and only the two smallest appearing unadorned. Presumably the coins related either to the value of a particular measure or commodity. Prior to conservation, the coins are not easily legible although the best-preserved may have been minted in the mid 11 th to early 12 th centuries in the reigns of William I or Henry I, although similar designs also appear on mid to late 9 th and 10 th century coins of the kings of East Anglia and remain a plausible alternative. Hopefully conservation and post-excavation analysis will provide further clues to identification, interpretation, and possibly relate the weights to one of the old English systems of troy, mercantlile or avoirdupois pounds/ounces. 1
Photo: Andrew Peachey ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Grant to support the study of PAS finds from Cheshire Gill Dunn Chester Archaeological Society wishes to encourage the study and publication of objects (or groups/types of object) reported to the Portable Antiquities Scheme from Cheshire and adjoining areas, to ensure that their potential contribution to the understanding of the archaeology and history of the county is realised. It is therefore offering a grant of 700 every two years to help suitable persons to undertake such research. It is a condition of the grant that the results of the research shall be offered for first publication as an article in the Journal of the Chester Archaeological Society. For more information and an application form see the society s website: http://www.chesterarchaeolsoc.org.uk/grants&awards.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2
Safeguarding Suffolk s Finds Sue Anderson Archaeological Collections Officer Archaeological fieldwork in Suffolk has produced a vast archive of finds and documents over the past few decades. Last year, a project was initiated to catalogue and repack these collections to keep them safe and accessible for the future. Suffolk County Council s Archaeological Conservation Team holds most of the archaeological archives from the county, predominantly a legacy of the work of the in-house field team since its formation in the 1970s. The field team have recently moved on to form a new company, Suffolk Archaeology, but the archives remain in the care of the county council. A team of five staff has been checking and recording the archive material, with two project assistants in particular being responsible for the finds stored in our warehouse in Unit 4. Many important sites are represented in the archive, particularly those relating to the Saxon period. For example, we have the large assemblage of finds from the Middle Saxon settlement at Brandon, recently published in the East Anglian Archaeology monograph series. These include quantities of pottery, animal bone, human remains and other finds relating to the everyday lives of the inhabitants, as well as some unique and beautiful examples of Anglo-Saxon metalwork. From the Roman period, we have the finds assemblages from small towns such as Scole and Pakenham, and from the large Roman villa at Whitton, just outside Ipswich. Medieval and later sites include several urban assemblages from Ipswich, Bury St Edmunds, and smaller towns in the county, as well as some large rural assemblages such as the late medieval kiln site at Rickinghall. Prehistoric finds include small and large groups of flints and pottery from excavations and surveys across the county. Middle Saxon pin heads from Staunch Meadow, Brandon Suffolk C C Archaeological Service We already encourage students to use our collections, and recently we have been able to help researchers enquiring about objects as diverse as Mesolithic flints, Roman intaglios, aurochs bones, a Bronze Age hoard, runic-inscribed items, and even carbonised bread rolls! Our collections of human remains are some of the most popular items with university students, and they have been used in a number of research projects in recent years. Objects are also available for display, and a number of items have been borrowed by museums within and outside the county. 3
The archive project is due to finish by the end of July, when all the objects currently in our collections will be catalogued. We will continue to accept new archives from fieldwork in Suffolk, as outlined in our guidelines (available online). Anyone is welcome to visit our stores by appointment during weekday office hours please contact us if there is something you would like to see. Guidelines (including contact details): http://www.suffolk.gov.uk/assets/suffolk.gov.uk/libraries%20and%20culture/archa eology/2014-06-01_archiveguidelines2014.pdf --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Life as a Headley Trust Intern Victoria Allnatt Since October 2014 I have been working with the Portable Antiquities Scheme in the West Midlands as a Finds Recording Assistant / Headley Trust Intern. The Headley Trust has funded internships for more than five years giving the chance for vocational training with finds specialists and supporting the work of the PAS nationally; every year there is a cohort of around eight interns with contracts spanning 3-6 months. I graduated from Worcester University last summer with a degree in Archaeology and Heritage and this post has given me the opportunity to continue to learn in a professional environment being the ideal transition between academic study and employment in the archaeological sector. During my internship I have gained experience identifying a wide range of finds, not necessarily solely metal objects. I have had the opportunity to attend specialist finds training days such as Roman and Post Medieval coin training and also a pottery identification workshop. These were co-ordinated either by regional finds specialists or National Finds Advisors for the scheme. Converted silver Sceat (AD 700-710) identified as being a find of note and deemed treasure due to modification through piercing to be worn as a pendant, it is therefore considered an object rather than a coin. PAS. See PAS record: https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/ 652742 My main role has been to record and identify archaeological objects from prehistoric flints through to material made in the late 17th and early 18th centuries. I have become proficient in image manipulation and also the small finds photography. As well as this I have also been involved in other activities such as meeting with finders and attending metal detectorist club meetings. It has been 4
great to work alongside three experienced Finds Liaison Officers learning from them and picking up invaluable working knowledge the stuff that isn t written about in the finds manuals and excavation reports. In addition to this I have also worked with a class of primary school children where I helped to deliver a session on prehistory in Britain for Year 3 (ages 7-8) as part of the new schools curriculum. Artefacts similar to this Early Bronze Age flat axe, dating to (c. 2000-1700 BC) were used as handling objects for the children. This example, discovered in Shropshire, is best described as coming from the Arreton type of long-flanged developed flat axes. PAS. See PAS record: http://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record /id/640651 As part of the internship I have also had experience of the Treasure Act (1996) and the administration of this at a local level. I have written and contributed to several treasure reports and understand the processes of the museum acquisition of treasure items. I have also co-ordinated a museum display of recent treasure finds and worked with the press to promote the display specifically this regionally important post Roman / Early Medieval gold ring decorated with six visible strands of beaded gold wire which are fixed to an inner hoop of gold acquired by Shropshire Museums and displayed at Ludlow Museum Resource Centre. Post Roman / Early Medieval ring. PAS. See PAS record: https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/i d/516447 Working within the PAS team I have had several opportunities to develop my writing skills including writing press releases and items for social media. I have put together 5
pieces for regional journals and archaeological societies and have also written a less formal monthly finds bulletin for the national metal detecting magazine - Treasure Hunting. One of the objects featured is this stunning gilded copper alloy Cloisonne enamelled brooch which dates to the 10th to 11th centuries AD. XRF analysis of the brooch indicated that the back contains: copper, tin, lead, gold, mercury, and iron. The green glass around the edge contained: copper, lead, and tin. Cloisonne enamelled brooch PAS. See PAS record: https://finds.org.uk/databas e/artefacts/record/id/65865 2 It is hoped these experiences have given me a number of new skills that will help me in the next stage of my new career within the heritage and archaeological sector. My time with the PAS, both as a volunteer and intern, has given me the confidence to apply for museum positions and also validated my wish to pursue a career that is archaeology or museum related. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cannonball from Fishbourne Roman Palace Kathryn Ward Fishbourne Roman Palace has been in occupation long before the Romans invaded Britain in AD43. Fishbourne is ideally situated as it is not far from the city of Chichester, where a military garrison was based, and from Chichester Harbour, where supplies were needed to be brought in for the garrison. Both of these sites would have been crucial in setting and maintaining a Roman military force in West Sussex. Once a military base was no longer needed at Fishbourne, a palace was built for the client king Cognidubnous who lived there from 80AD to the late third century AD, when the palace fell in to disrepair due to a fire. The city of Chichester grew under Roman control and kept on expanding. The fortunes of Chichester was soon to be tested during the English Civil War, when Chichester was laid siege to and several buildings were burnt down and destroyed. The site of Fishbourne Roman Palace was first used as a military site by the Romans in AD43, just after the invasion of Britain (Cunliffe 1971, 26). Right after the Romans 6
invaded England, Fishbourne was chosen as a site to house a military presence, due to its location. Fishbourne is near Chichester but most crucially it is in close proximity to a harbour with a wide inlet coming up near the site of what is now the palace. Before any construction work took place, two east west roads were built at Fishbourne and both of these crossed a stream which created fords (Cunliffe 1977, 9). The inlet has been altered with at least one of the channels being artificially widened and its sides lined with dry walling of large stone blocks (Cunliffe 1971, 26). Cunliffe (1971, 26), believes this would have allowed barges to travel up to the port at Fishbourne with a distance of 200 feet to the military building, which would have been used for storage. To the south of this inlet, in the main channel, there would have been unlimited deep water which would have been ideal for big ships to weigh anchor and be safe from storms (Cunliffe 1971, 26). It was between the two roads, on the east side of the stream that two buildings, which were granaries, would have been built soon after the Roman occupation (Cunliffe 1977, 9). There have also been stone buildings found at Fishbourne Roman Palace during the 1960s excavations. Cunliffe (1972, 49) believes these would have been used for the barges to load and unload their cargo. The remains of these harbours indicate that Fishbourne was a bustling port for various foods to be unloaded and ready to be transported to the troops stationed at Chichester. The obvious place for a legionary to camp would have been Chichester where the Romans built a city wall to help keep the city safe and to stop attackers attacking the city. There have been various artefacts found in conjunction of the early military camp at Fishbourne. One of the most impressive items was a bronze legionary helmet which was dredged up from Chichester Harbour. The helmet is well preserved and still has neck flaps that were used to protect the solder from sword slashes as well as a visor to deflect blows from the face. It is now housed in the British Museum (Cunliffe 1998, 29). Fishbourne Roman Palace was built in two stages: the first stage is the proto palace and the second stage is the Flavian palace. The proto palace was built in the early 60s AD when the timber buildings and outbuildings were pulled down. Major construction work begun on the southern road as well as diverting the stream to where it is today (Cunliffe, 1971, 39). Not much is known about the proto palace that was built and used between 65-75AD as most of the buildings are currently under modern housing and the A27 road. There has been trail trenches dug and these have revealed several rooms and a bath complex which laid to the south of the proto palace. The majority of the archaeological material has been robbed during the Roman period (Cunliffe 1971, 46.). One view of why these buildings were built is for a bathing complex that was built for the local community (Cunliffe 1971, 47). A few years after Vespasian became emperor in 69AD in Rome, the Flavian Palace was starting to be constructed between 75AD and 80AD (Cunliffe, 2002, 49). The palace was built for the client king Cognidubnous. The land had to be levelled as it sloped down to the old stream. Once this was done the foundation trenches were 7
dug for the building which consisted of four residential ranges that were arranged around a large central garden measuring 250 ft. by 320 ft. To the south of the palace was a second garden that leads down to the sea (Cunliffe 1971, 52). Behind the main palace to the west of the building, were the servant s quarters and other domestic appliances for example the kitchens. A spherical stone ball was found in the grass by the east wing of the palace, near the stream. David Bone (2014), a local geologist, believes it to be a white quartz sandstone ball, which is hard to date. The ball, weighs 1.35 kilograms and measures about 11 centimetres in length (Figure 1). It would be logical to assume that the stone ball found is a stone shot from an onager. Onagers were used by the Romans and were a large siege catapult (Pebble 1994, 95). They fired stone shots at a distance of 400 to 500 yards (Pebble, 1994, 980). No siege happened around Fishbourne and the local area due to Cognidubnous alliance to the Romans. Therefore I do not believe it to be an Onager stone shot. Despite the site of Fishbourne Roman Palace being Roman, I believe the ball that was found is an early civil war cannonball, which could have been used at the siege of Chichester in 1642. The ball could have been fired from a cannon and landed in the River Lavant resulting in it being washed downstream to Fishbourne Roman Palace. The River Lavant flows from East Dean to Chichester Harbour (Lower 1983, 15). Another theory as to how it got to Fishbourne is that on the way to the siege of Chichester it could have fallen from the pile of cannonballs that were being transported. The top thirty to forty percent of the ball seems to be covered in a black substance which could be an area of burnt residue from when the cannonball was fired during the siege of Chichester. This cannonball just like other cannonballs that have been found would have been worked as there are small tool marks on the stone. Figure 1. Top and side view of the stone cannonball found at Fishbourne Roman Palace (Photo taken by Rob Symmonds, curator at Fishbourne Roman Palace in 2014) 8
Another cannonball has been found in situ at Chichester in a ditch behind the city wall. Repairs were being made to the city wall near Market Road when the cannon ball was found. The cannon ball measures 8.5 cm in length which is just 2.5cm smaller than the cannonball found at Fishbourne Roman Palace, which is 11 cm in length. The lack of damage on the cannon ball suggest that it did not come into contact with any masonry in 1642, which was when the siege of Chichester took place in the English Civil War, and that the ditch was bound to protect the wall from any incoming fire from cannons. (Kenny, 2002, 1). This is shown in the map that was drawn by William Stukeley in 1723 of Chichester and its city walls. Just like everywhere else in England during the Civil War, the people of Chichester were divided on whom to support the king or parliament. The royalists were in control of the city but this did not stop the Parliamentary Army from marching on Chichester. On the 22 December Sir William Waller and the Parliamentary Army took up position to the north of the city walls (Westman, 2012, 89). The first part of the city wall that was damaged was the North Side as this saw the first attack during the civil war in Chichester. Both sides used guns to attack the enemy; it was the Parliamentary forces that managed to besiege the city and burnt the western areas of the city including St Bartholomew Church. However, the Royalists did burn down much of the east sectors of the city but left the Church of St Pancreas which the Parliamentary Army used to their advantage. The royalist never did manage to gain control of the city for the duration of the civil war (Westman, 2012, 89-90). While the royalists were in charge of the city, they dug a defensive ditch around the city walls and bastions. One idea of the ditch was to protect the city walls from cannon balls and mortars that would have been fired during the siege. A cannonball has been found in the city wall. It was recovered from the outer wall of the North Eastern sector of the wall (Westman, 2012, 91). There is no fixed date on to this cannonball found in the ditch as the ditch has been found to contain numerous objects from the 17th century, specifically the civil war period (Westman, 2012, 91). The cannonball is now on display at the Novium museum in Chichester (Figure 2). Figure 2. Acc 7620 The Civil War Cannonball on display at the Novium Museum in Chichester. The Novium Museum (a service supplied by Chichester District Council). 9
Another stone cannonball has been found at Portchester castle. This cannon ball is notably different from the one at Fishbourne. The main factor is its material. This cannonball is made out of pink granite not of sandstone material. Granite is a harder stone then sandstone and must have taken a lot of force against a stone wall at Portsmouth for a chunk to be missing (Figure 3). Shap pink granite can be found in the Lake District which is situated in north east England (Leeds University and University College London. 2004, 1). The ball is approximately the same size as the cannon ball found at Fishbourne Roman Palace, but the Portchester cannon ball is slightly heavier at 1.125kg (Roddick, P. 2014) Figure 3. The stone cannon ball found at Portchester Castle showing both front and back views. (Photo taken by Pam Roddick, Curator at Portchester Castle, 2014) Not much is known about Portchester Castle during the English Civil War of 1642 1655. What is known however is that in 1632, Sir William Uvedale, brought Portchester castle from Charles I. In 1666 the castle was turned in to a military prison (English Heritage, nd.) Depending on the allegiance of Sir Uvedale would depend on the fate of Portchester Castle. By early September, the city of Portsmouth was under attack from the parliamentarian canons that were stationed on the island and at Gosport. The guns at Southsea Castle were also used by the parliamentarians (Gunt 2014, 63). On the 7 September 1642 Portsmouth finally fell to the parliamentarians (Gunt 2014, 64). Due to the nature of the battle of Portsmouth and with the use of the naval ships, I believe that the canon ball found at Portchester Castle dates from the civil war period, and was washed up near to Portchester Castle and later used in the construction rubble during the many phrases of the building. A variety of cannons were used in the English Civil War, ranging from the cannon royal which was the largest of the siege cannons and could fire a ball of 63lbs a distance of 1500 yards, to the Robinet which was the smallest cannon and could fire a shot of 1lb a distance of 1000 yards (Mckenna 2012, 95). A Perrier was a large gun with a smaller bore powder chamber to fire stone shot, whereas a stone gun was used to fire stone projectiles (Henry 2006. 10 and Bull 2008, 200). They were 10
common in the sixteenth century, one of which was beech loading mounted on swivels. They were reused in the seventeenth century usually on castles and ships (Bull 2008, 196). According to Bull (2008, 188) in each artillery train in the English Civil War, there will be 13 cannons of varying sizes and eight mortars with 284 horses needed to pull the artillery. Each piece of artillery needed to have a ladle sponge and rammers along with two wedges. Ammunition for the cannons was also taken in the artillery train and the majority of these were iron cannonballs but in reserve they had 800 stone cannon balls of various sizes (Bull 2008, 188). It appears that stone cannonballs were only used when all the iron cannon balls were fired. Fishbourne was ideally chosen as a site for a Roman palace for a variety of reasons; the main one being the proximity to the harbour at Chichester for transportation of food and the short distance to Chichester, which was one of the main military bases in Southern England. I believe the stone that was found there is a cannonball due to the evidence of canons being used at the siege of Chichester and Portsmouth. During the English Civil War, Chichester was under siege, just like other major cities in England. As a consequence cannonballs were used and one was found in the grounds of Fishbourne Roman Palace, which the stream would have carried from Chichester to Fishbourne. Stone cannonballs have been found at a number of other sites in England that date to the Civil War period, for example the reused cannonball found at Portchester Castle. This shows that they were a common occurrence during the English Civil War. References Bone, D. 2014. Geological description of Stone cannonball found at Fishbourne Roman Palace. Unpublished. Bull, S. 2008. The Furie of the Ordnance: Artillery in the English Civil War. Suffolk. Boydell and Brewer Ltd. Cunliffe, B. 1971. Fishbourne: A Roman Palace and its Gardens. London. Thames and Hudson. Cunliffe, B. 1977. Fishbourne: A guide to the site. Chichester. St Richard s Press. English Heritage, nd. http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/daysout/properties/portchestercastle/history-and-research-portico/history/ (Accessed Thursday 9th October 2014). Gaunt, H. 2014. The English Civil War: A Military History. London. I.B. Tauris Ltd. Gaunt, P. 2003. The English Civil Wars: 1642-1651. Oxford. Osprey Publishing. Henry, C. 2004. English Civil War Artillery 1642-51. Oxford. Osprey Publishing. Kenny, J. 2002. Chichester City Wall Cannon ball. Unpublished. Lower, M, A. 1983. A compendious History of Sussex volume 2. Brighton. W.J.Smith. Leeds University. Nd. The Brantwood Musical Stones: where the rocks and aggregates came from. Leeds University. Leeds. McKenna, J. 2012 A Journal of the English Civil War: The letter book of Sir William Brereton, Spring 1646. United States of America. McFarland and Company Inc., Publishers. Peddle, J. 1994. The Roman War Machines. USA. Alan Sutton Publishing. Roddick, P. 2014. Portchester Castle Cannonball. Unpublished. English Heritage. University College London. 2004. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/earthsciences/impact/geology/london/glossary/rocks/igneous/granite (Wednesday 22nd October 2014) Westman, A. 2012. Chichester City Walls. London. Museum of London Archaeology. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11
On-site finds training: a slightly different approach? Chiz Harward At 100 Minories LP Archaeology are excavating a transect across London's City Ditch and the adjacent post-medieval Portsoken suburb. As part of our commitment to training and skills development we have been trying out different ways of training staff, developing skills, and increasing awareness of the various facets of the archaeology of London including artefact handling and identification sessions. At the start of site we ran a series of short handling sessions using an assemblage of unstratified clay tobacco pipes we had recovered during the watching brief phase. The collection of about 40 pipe bowls dated from the early 17th century to late 18th century and represented a good cross-section of undecorated pipe forms. Clay tobacco pipes ( CTP ) are a ubiquitous find on many post-medieval sites yet are often ignored by archaeologists focussing on earlier periods. The pipes are fairly fragile and regularly change form over time, which makes them a great dating tool as well as being intrinsically nice objects. Most of our site staff hadn t dug up many clay pipes previously, and were generally unaware of the great dating potential of pipe bowls in post-medieval deposits, as well as the subtle changes in form that indicate each pipe s date. Instead of simply running everyone through the changes in form and style of pipes that occur over the centuries, we asked groups of two or three archaeologists to sort through the pipes and develop their own rules and typology with (hopefully) no prior knowledge of the definitive pipe typology developed by Atkinson and Oswald in 1969! We wanted the groups to discuss what features they could see on each pipe and what they thought these meant; to look at the pipes in detail, identify the features they felt were important, and compare the different permutations of size, shape, spur/heel shape, and decoration. What we really wanted was for the site team to really inspect and discuss the artefacts and come up with their own ideas of what was important, rather than a more traditional 'top-down' handling session. By getting the team thinking about the pipes we hoped that they would be more engaged and the session would have a bigger impact. Clay tobacco pipe training at 100 Minories ( LP Archaeology) 12
The results over the five groups were very varied, a couple of staff already knew a bit about pipes such as that they generally get bigger over time, but generally the team had few pre-conceived ideas and came up with a range of interesting ideas such as that the smaller pipes were more expensive forms -as they seemed more finished and therefore harder to make, that smaller pipes could be for women -or even children, and that pipes might get smaller over time as the technical ability to mould pipes improved and the smaller pipes often had rouletting decoration whereas the larger ones were usually plain. Some suggested that all the pipes could be contemporary and different forms were intended for sale to different markets. All groups identified the main features of pipes and used these to identify specific groupings, and they all had a good stab at forming a coherent typology. At the end of each session their typology, and the discussions behind it, was discussed before the grand reveal when the correct typology was unveiled and the differences run through with the group. All the team were given a printed handout on clay tobacco pipes, which includes a typology of London pipes so staff could identify pipes out on site. Hopefully the session gave the team a good introduction to pipes, as well as a detailed awareness of the features to be found on pipes and the issues involved in archaeological seriation and the development of typologies. Interest in clay pipes has certainly increased since the sessions, and all the team can now see the differences between pipes of different forms and know what details to look at, which is a fantastic result. Site staff can also now identify broad date ranges for clay pipes as well as recognise interesting or exotic pipes such as Dutch imports. This short handling session is typical of the type of fairly ad hoc training we are trying to provide to the 100 Minories team, taking place whenever and wherever the opportunity or need arises. We are aiming to get training embedded in the working week, and to make learning and the consolidation of skills and knowledge part of the normal working day. Sorting the CTP reference collection at 100 Minories ( LP Archaeology) If you would like to view or download a copy of the Urban Archaeology Clay Tobacco Pipe Factsheet, you can do so here. Originally published on the Minories website: http://100minories.lparchaeology.com/ References Atkinson, D., Oswald, A., (1969). London Clay Tobacco Pipes. Journal of the British Archaeological Association 171 227. 13
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Many thanks to all the contributors for this issue. Please send material for the next newsletter to the editor Stephen Brunning. Email: stephen_0902@yahoo.co.uk The new CIfA Finds Group Committee elected at the AGM in Cardiff on 16 April 2015 are: Phil Mills (Chair) Matt Parker Wooding (Secretary) Louise Rayner (Treasurer) Duncan Brown (Ordinary Committee Member) Rowena Hart (Ordinary Committee Member) Kayt Marter-Brown (Ordinary Committee Member) If you are interested in joining the committee please email jen.wooding@archaeologists.net for further information. 14