Guidelines for the investigation of 17th- to 19th-century industries

On 1st April 2015 the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England changed its common name from English Heritage to Historic England. We are now re-branding all our documents. Although this document refers to English Heritage, it is still the Commission's current advice and guidance and will in due course be re-branded as Historic England.

Please see our website for up to date contact information, and further

advice.

We welcome feedback to help improve this document, which will be periodically revised. Please email comments to guidance@HistoricEngland.org.uk

We are the government's expert advisory service for England's historic environment. We give constructive advice to local authorities, owners and the public. We champion historic places helping people to understand, value and care for them, now and for the future.

HistoricEngland.org.uk/advice

Science for Historic IndustriesGuidelines for the investigation of 17th- to 19th-century industries

2006

2

Foreword

The English Heritage ArchaeologicalScience teams have issued multi-periodguidelines for particular topics – forexample Archaeometallurgy, EnvironmentalArchaeology and Geoarchaeology. With theincrease in archaeological work during theredevelopment of brownfield sites, and theresearch opportunities that these offer, itis appropriate to issue this guideline onthe potential of a wide range of scientificmethods to contribute to historic urbanarchaeology. Archaeology has much to tellus about how industrial processes wereactually carried out, even those ofrelatively recent date.

The English Heritage IndustrialArchaeology Panel has encouraged theprovision of this guidance. It is aware thatthe pressures of contract archaeologymake it crucial for both local authorityarchaeology officers and contractors toplan for the use of specialised methods,from the outset of a project right throughto publication. It is hoped that theseguidelines will assist them, not only byexplaining the techniques involved, butalso by using recent examples todemonstrate their worth.

David Crossley, Chair, English HeritageIndustrial Archaeology Panel

Contents

1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Case Study 1: Riverside Exchange, Sheffield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.1 Archaeological approaches to historic industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.2 The importance of science in understanding the industrial past . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.3 But doesn’t history tell us everything we need to know? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Case Study 2: Upper Forge, Coalbrookdale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3 Fieldwork and sampling for historic industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3.1 Project planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Case Study 3:The Beswick pottery, Barford Street, Stoke-on-Trent . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3.2 The scale of industrial sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Case Study 4: Steam-powered cotton-spinning mills in Ancoats, Manchester . . . . 10

3.3 Site formation processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3.4 Contaminated land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3.5 Historical sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Case Study 5: Leadmill, Sheffield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

3.6 Specialists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3.7 Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

4 Scientific analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Case Study 6: Percival,Vickers glassworks, Manchester . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

4.1 Locating historic industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Case Study 7: Rievaulx Abbey ironworking,Yorkshire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

4.2 Dating historic industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

4.3 The environmental impact of historic industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Case Study 8: Silkstone glassworks,Yorkshire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

4.4 Investigative conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

4.5 Understanding historic technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

4.5.1 Visual inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

4.5.2 Low-power microscopy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

4.5.3 High-power microscopy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

4.5.4 Elemental analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

4.5.5 Identifying compounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

4.5.6 Investigating process temperatures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

5 Historic archives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

5.2 Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

5.3 Public records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

5.4 Private records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

5.5 Legal papers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

5.6 Contemporary publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

5.7 Paintings and photographs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

6 Summaries of selected industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

6.1 Iron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

6.2 Glass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

6.3 Pottery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

6.4 Textiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

6.5 Tanning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

7 Where to get information and help . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

8 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

These guidelines are intended to aidarchaeologists working on sites of historicindustries.They provide examples of recentarchaeological investigations, whichillustrate current practice and show howmethodologies from several differentdisciplines are being combined to enrichour understanding of the industrial past.They also demonstrate the additionalinformation that can be obtained byapplying scientific techniques. For thepurpose of these guidelines ‘industries’ arenon-domestic manufacturing activities (butnot the production of foodstuffs) and‘historic’ covers the period from the early17th century to the late 19th century.Thebroader economic and social context ofthese industries is not addressed here.Some of the issues explored are particularlyrelevant to urban sites, but the principleshave wider application. Despite the crucialcontribution that scientific techniques canmake to archaeology, their application tothe post-medieval and later periods hasbeen rare (Crossley 1998).These guidelinesdescribe some of the techniques that arecommonly used and include examples ofthe ways in which they have been, or couldbe, applied to the archaeological remains ofhistoric industries.

1 Summary

The first section, ‘Fieldwork and samplingfor historic industries’, describes some of thedifficulties posed by sites of historicindustries – such as their size andcontamination – and summarises somesolutions to these problems.

The second section, on ‘Scientific analysis’,describes some of the scientific techniquesthat have been used on historic industrialsites and those with potential for future use.The application of scientific techniques tohistoric industries is still in its infancy.Nevertheless, there are recent examples thatshow how a variety of well-establishedtechniques can be used to investigate thetypes of raw materials consumed andfinished products manufactured at a site, aswell as the processes involved.

Many sources of ‘Historic archives’ arelikely to be unfamiliar to archaeologistswho do not normally work on sites ofhistoric industries. These sources canprovide detailed information about thelayout of a site and the function ofindividual buildings. Contemporaryliterature can also provide details ofspecific industries and processes.

3

To illustrate the points made in the text,‘Case studies’ are included throughout.These have been provided byarchaeologists active in this field anddemonstrate the quality and quantity ofdata recovery from recent fieldwork. Eachfocuses on a particular industry but theapproaches described can also be appliedto other types of industrial site.

The ‘Industrial summaries’ containinformation on five common industries,including three using high temperatures(iron, glass and pottery) and two lowtemperatures (tanning and textiles). Theseindustries were relatively widespread andlarge scale and so are likely to beencountered archaeologically.

The final section contains information on‘Where to get help’. The English HeritageRegional Science Advisors can provideadvice on the role of science in thearchaeological investigation of historicindustries. Their contact details can befound at the back of these guidelines,together with those for specialists withinthe English Heritage ArchaeologicalScience teams. Sources of information onhealth and safety issues relating tocontaminated land are also provided.

2 Introduction

‘The surface of the earth is covered and loaded with its own entrails, whichafford employment and livelihood forthousands of the human race.’John Britton 1850 Autobiography

These guidelines are intended primarilyfor curators (for example, local authorityarchaeological officers and historicbuildings officers) who advise on planningand listed buildings applications and writebriefs for archaeological investigations, aswell as for contractors who undertakesuch archaeological recording. Theguidelines provide useful information foranyone involved with the archaeology ofpost-medieval industrial sites.

This document is a response to theincreasing pace of redevelopment of urbanindustrial sites in recent years (Fig 1, CaseStudy 1). Large numbers of new houses arebeing planned and many of these will be inurban areas (DETR 2000). Urban areastargeted for redevelopment (often referredto as ‘brownfield’ sites) are frequently thesites of historic industries. Until quiterecently the post-medieval stratigraphy ofurban sites was often removed beforearchaeologists began their work (eg Barker1982, 128).The archaeological recordingof such sites is now, however, increasinglyaccommodated through the planningprocess owing to a greater awareness of theimportance of Britain’s industrial heritage(eg Symonds 2005).

When assessing whether a particularindustry is likely to be present, accountshould be taken of the regional nature ofmany historic industries. Many earlyindustries were located in rural locationswhere raw materials and sources of fueland water power were abundant. Manysecondary industries were located in urbancentres where there was a sufficient market.

Fig 1 Early stages of the excavation on the Riverside Exchange site in central Sheffield (see Case Study 1).The scale of many sites of historic industries can be daunting. (© ARCUS)

4

Case Study 1:Riverside Exchange, Sheffieldby James Symonds, Anna Badcock and Roderick Mackenzie

The extensive industrial remains at the Riverside Exchangeprovided an important opportunity to investigate the evolutionof the steel-making technology that made Sheffield one of thecapitals of the steel industry. The size of the site and the scale ofearth moving and deposition provided particular challenges, andthe lessons learnt in solving these problems can be applied toother archaeological sites (see Fig 1). The information providedby the excavation enabled some of the archaeological remains tobe preserved in situ. Numerous artefacts were recovered thatcould be sampled for metallography (section 4.5.3), whereas thisis often not possible with objects in museum collections.

This four-hectare site, in the centre of Sheffield, next to the RiverDon, was identified for redevelopment in the early 1990s, bywhich time there were no visible signs of former industrialactivities (Symonds 2005).There are numerous historical sourcesrelating to the site: of particular value are the surveys undertakenby four generations of Fairbanks during the late 18th and early19th centuries (Badcock and Crossley forthcoming) (see section5.2).The water-powered town mill had been established in the12th century, with a number of cutlery workshops set up in thepost-medieval period. In the 1760s John Marshall established oneof the earliest integrated steelworks, which included cementationand crucible steel furnaces (see section 6.1). His innovative use oftechnology helped to establish Sheffield as a steel and cutlerymaking centre, and his works attracted ‘spies’ who tried todiscover the secrets of his success.The site continued to developin the 19th century with the establishment of water-poweredrolling mills. Surrounding the steelworks were numerousworkshops where the knives and other items that made Sheffieldsteel famous were manufactured (Fig 2).

The archaeological evaluation of the site faced a number ofdifficulties related to the scale of past activities and the extensivereworking of archaeological deposits (Symonds 2001). The area

identified for redevelopment was large and, like many brownfieldsites, had had large quantities of mixed hardcore and domesticrefuse dumped on it at various times. While, in some cases,industrial features and structures survived immediately below themodern ground surface, in others they were buried under severalmetres of overburden, or truncated by 20th-century foundations.A flexible approach was necessary: as demolition contractorsrevealed deposits they were characterised by the archaeologists,and areas of archaeological significance were targeted fordetailed excavation. Owing to the scale of the industrial features,evaluation trenches could not provide sufficient information;instead, careful mechanical excavation of the upper layersidentified the extent and depth of archaeological features anddeposits over large areas. Greater emphasis was placed on theinterpretation of deposits, features and structures as they wereencountered, often with specialist input on-site. The developer’sbuilding plans were not finalised until after the archaeologicalevaluation, so important archaeological remains could bepreserved in situ.

The archaeological investigation uncovered the truncatedremains of three cementation furnaces, one of which had only asingle chest and appears to be a prototype. It is possible that thisfurnace is the one described and sketched by Frenchindustrialist Gabriel Jars after his 1765 visit to Sheffield. Theuncovering of the prototype furnace provides an opportunity tosee how steel-making technology evolved. The water channelsand wheel pits across the site provided many artefacts relating toindustrial activity, which were particularly useful incharacterising the activities in the smaller workshops.

Many metal artefacts were recovered, including finished andunfinished fragments of cutlery. X-radiography (section 4.4)revealed 18th-century cutlers’ marks on two of the knives.Theearlier of the two is a simple cross (+) and belonged to an

unrecorded cutler, while the second(+L) was registered in 1750 toJoseph Antt.The similaritiesbetween the cutlers’ marks suggestthat Joseph Antt had beenapprenticed to the earlier cutler.Metallography and hardness testing(section 4.5.3) revealed that theblade marked ‘+’ was made usingcementation, rather than crucible,steel.The number of layers withinthe blade suggests that the steel usedwas a type known as single shearsteel.The knife made by Joseph Anttwas more heterogeneous, withabundant slag inclusions andvariable carbon content, and wasperhaps made from recycled blades.While the differences in metalquality could reflect the skill levels of the two cutlers, it is more likelythat the lower-quality knife was froma cheaper range, deliberately madeto a price.

Fig 2 Excavation at the Riverside Exchange, Sheffield revealed wheel-pits and water channels.To the right is a wheel-pit; the area to thecentre-left shows the remains of a grinding shop with troughs. (© ARCUS)

very limited coverage. Records for a sitesometimes focus on a single process ortechnology and fail to mention thediversity of activities that took place (CaseStudy 2). Further, ‘even when industrieswere fully-fledged, surviving records aremore concerned with money, building-plans or specifications of large pieces ofequipment than with day-to-day details ofpeople and processes’ (Payne 2004).

2.3 The importance of science inunderstanding the industrial pastScientific techniques (Brothwell andPollard 2001) are routinely used toimprove our knowledge of the prehistoric,Roman and medieval periods.They providemeans of absolute dating, can helpreconstruct past environments and revealthe nature of artefacts and how they weremade (section 4). English Heritage hasissued guidelines on the use of variousscientific techniques in archaeology,including archaeometallurgy, environmentalarchaeology, human bones, geoarchaeology,geophysical survey and dating (Bayley et al2001; English Heritage 1995a; 2002;2004a; 2004b; 2004c; 2006a; Fell et al2006).The application of scientifictechniques to the study of post-medievaland later sites is showing that informationnot contained in historical accounts canalso be gained from these sites.

5

Starting in the 16th century, mostindustries succeeded in changing fromwood (or charcoal) as a fuel to coal. Theswitch to coal forced many of the ruralindustries (eg iron) to move fromtraditional wooded areas (eg the Weald) tothe coalfields. Starting in the 18thcentury, industries increasingly made useof steam power to drive machinery, whichallowed some industries to move awayfrom traditional river valley locations.The development of transport networks(especially canal and rail) allowedindustries to move even further afield.By the end of the 19th century someindustries were beginning to move tocoastal sites to enable easy access tointernational raw materials and markets.

Many industries also developedassociations with specific locations. Partsof the West Midlands developed areputation for producing high-qualitypuddled wrought iron and had a majorshare of the national industry. The flatglass industry flourished in Newcastleupon Tyne, in part because it hadexcellent trade links with London, theprincipal market for window glass. Fortransportation there, the uncut crownglass disks were often set into the cargo ofsmall ships carrying coal.

2.1 Archaeological approaches to historicindustriesThe sites of historic industries frequentlydiffer from conventional archaeologicalsites (Fig 3; Symonds 2001) in terms oftheir scale (section 3.2), formationprocesses (section 3.3), standing buildingsand contamination (section 3.4). Thesesites often yield large quantities ofmaterial deriving from the historicindustry, which can be divided into rawmaterials (eg ore, sand, limestone), tools(eg furnaces, crucibles, tongs, rakes), andwaste materials (slag, sandever, ‘soaper’swaste’). Such materials are here referredto collectively as ‘process residues’. Mostsites yield a high proportion of wastematerials and it can be difficult tosuccessfully identify raw materials or tools.The scale of many historic industries canmake it difficult to decide how muchprocess residue should be retained forfurther study, in particular for scientificanalysis (section 3.7).

Archaeologists working on sites of historicindustries have developed methods forovercoming some of the problemsoutlined above (Fig 3). In general,archaeologists are using methods from

several different disciplines, includingtraditional archaeological fieldwork(Barker 1982; Cranstone 1992; Roskams2001), standing buildings recording(English Heritage 2006b), post-medievalarchaeology (Crossley 1990), industrialarchaeology (Cossons 2000; Palmer andNeaverson 1998) and archaeologicalscience (Bayley and Crossley 2004; Bayleyand Williams 2005). Elements of each ofthese disciplines have contributed to formthe current range of methods employed(Cranstone 2004).

2.2 But doesn’t history tell us everythingwe need to know?Documentary sources for industries overthis period frequently survive and are aninvaluable source of information (section5). It is often difficult to make sense of theremains of an industry until it is placed inits historical context. Nevertheless,documentary sources sometimes omit orsimplify details, sometimes to keepindustrial secrets from competitors orbecause the writer did not fullyunderstand the industry. Conversely, thosewriters that were very familiar with theindustry often omitted details that theyconsidered unimportant, or failed toinclude routine information. Unsuccessfulexperiments were almost never recorded,and many successful ones have received

Fig 3 A mechanical excavatorclearing material from the siteof the boiler house atMurrays’ Mills, Ancoats,Manchester.The excavation ofmany urban sites offers anextreme contrast with mostrural sites. (© OxfordArchaeology North)

6

Case Study 2:Upper Forge, Coalbrookdaleby Paul Belford and Ronald A Ross

The archaeological excavation at the Upper Forge,Coalbrookdale, Shropshire was initiated to investigate the earliestphysical evidence for the production of cementation steel inEngland (section 6.1). However, it also yielded, from secondarycontexts, large quantities of raw materials and process residuesrelating to other industrial activities in the area. The evidence forcopper smelting is of particular importance because there is littlephysical evidence nationally for this industry.

The cementation process for the conversion of iron to steel isthought to have originated in Germany and the Low Countries,and spread to Britain through the efforts of Sir Basil Brooke c 1619. Documentary research strongly suggests that Brooke’sfirst successful steel furnace was located at the Upper Forge, inCoalbrookdale, and this has been confirmed by excavation(Belford 2003; Belford and Ross 2004). A selection of materialsand residues related to the operation of furnaces at the site arebeing studied as part of the post-excavation programme.

based largely on late-19th-century accounts (eg Percy 1861) and there is not much information on how these techniquesmight have changed over the preceding three centuries.Therefore the evidence from Coalbrookdale is potentially ofnational significance despite the fact that it was recovered from a secondary context.

Samples of both copper ore and smelting slag were examinedusing a SEM (section 4.5.3). The chemical compositions of the samples were determined using X-ray fluorescence(section 4.5.4). The ore is a sandstone with copper ore(chrysocolla) and barytes (Fig 4). The microstructure andchemical composition of the ore suggest that it comes fromthe Triassic sandstones of the Cheshire basin. The mostfamous copper mine in this area is Alderley Edge (Cheshire)but outcrops of similar copper ore were also exploited inShropshire just to the north of Shrewsbury, far closer toCoalbrookdale.

A wide range of process residues that appear to relate to otherhistoric industries were also recovered during the excavation,however. Examples of copper ore, copper slag, blast furnace slagand lead slag were found in many later (18th- and 19th-century)contexts; that is, from periods when the use of the site waslargely domestic. The examples of copper ore and slag areparticularly interesting as there is no documented coppersmelting industry in Coalbrookdale. Indeed, while there are gooddocumentary sources for the smelting of copper in Britain fromthe 16th century onwards (Day and Tylecote 1991), very fewcopper smelting sites have been excavated and there are noscientific studies of historic copper smelting residues. What littleis known about the technologies used by these industries is

The examination and analysis of the slag (Fig 5) confirms that it was produced by smelting copper ores. The slag containsenough barium to be consistent with smelting the ore describedabove. However, the presence of copper sulphides in the slagsuggests that other ores were also used. The ‘Welsh process’ ofcopper smelting (probably introduced at the beginning of the18th century) relied on mixed charges that contained coppersulphide and oxide ores (Percy 1861). The evidence for coppersmelting from Coalbrookdale comes from secondary contextsand almost certainly does not relate to industrial activities on the excavated site. Given the type of ore, however, it is likelythat this smelting took place within the area (and probablywithin Coalbrookdale).

FFiigg 44 SEM image of a sample of copper ore recovered from Upper Forge, Coalbrookdale,showing sandstone (silica), copper ore and barytes (scale bar = 0.1mm).

FFiigg 55 SEM image of a sample of copper slag from Upper Forge.The bright droplets are coppersulphide and indicate that the ore was smelted using a matte process (scale bar = 0.1mm).

7

3 Fieldwork and sampling forhistoric industries

3.1 Project planningMost archaeological projects are initiatedthrough the planning process when localauthority curatorial archaeologists identifythe need for work to be done and advise theirdevelopment control officer colleaguesaccordingly.The principles they follow arelaid out in PPG16 in England (with similararrangements in other parts of the UnitedKingdom). PPG16 requires that archaeo-

logical remains are, wherever possible,preserved in situ (Corfield et al 1998; Davis etal 2004; Nixon 2004).Where preservation insitu is not possible, it is essential that anadequate record of the archaeologicalremains is made.The process of recordingarchaeological sites depends on carefulplanning and implementation, whether theyare small watching briefs or more extensiveexcavations.The successful management ofarchaeological projects relies on identifyingand managing distinct stages (Table 1; seealso Lee 2006).

Having decided that a site needsevaluation, the development controlofficer produces a brief for the work andthe contractors (archaeological units)respond with a written scheme ofinvestigation. Alternatively, work issometimes commissioned by a statutorybody such as English Heritage, in whichcase the documentation is known as aproject design. In either case, a contractoris selected by the developer to undertakethe archaeological project.

Table 1 Archaeological science for historic industries: project planning guidance for specialists undertaking scientific work

project phases tasks and products

1 initiation phase ● Identify core team members and principal contacts.

● With Project Manager, identify the research aims relating to historic industries.

● With Project Manager, identify likely requirements (this will depend on factors such as

site type, size of excavation, specific needs of receiving organisation, etc). Establish the

nature and current state of knowledge of the historic industries likely to be present, in

order to inform project budgeting. Additional factors will have to be considered, such

as the degree and nature of contamination, likely volume of material to be examined,

necessity for soil sampling, etc.

● Estimate costs for scientific work based on above.

● Liaise over proposed timetabling.

● Prepare costed project design.

● Determine archiving arrangements.

● Determine mode(s) for the dissemination of results.

2 project execution: ● Assist with the identification of features and process residues (provide related training to

fieldwork site staff).

● Carry out on-site scientific analysis using portable instruments (where agreed at

planning stage).

● Take samples (eg soil and/or process residues, as agreed at planning stage).

3 project execution: ● Carry out initial examination of process residues (with scientific analysis where necessary)

assessment to identify the nature of the historic industries.

● Results of the initial examination to inform assessments and potential for analysis

contributions.

● Establish further scientific examination and analysis requirements through liaison of

appropriate specialists and core team members to inform updated project design and

additional project costs.

● Update records accordingly.

● If review of assessment report shows that an analysis phase is not required, transfer the

site archive.

4 project execution: ● Undertake additional scientific examination/analysis as agreed during the assessment,

analysis or for other requirements identified during analysis.

● Update records accordingly.

● Transfer the site archive.

5 project delivery: ● Contribute to site publication.

dissemination ● Advocacy of project through other agreed media.

8

Case Study 3:The Beswick pottery, Barford Street,Stoke-on-Trentby David Barker and Jonathan Goodwin

Stoke-on-Trent is famous for its pottery industry (Barker 2004)and, while some aspects have been recorded (eg Baker 1991),much more has been lost to redevelopment. Before 2002 onlyfive 19th-century or later ovens had been excavated. Since then the increasing pace of development has led to the recording of 14 more sites (Goodwin 2005). The excavation ofpottery ovens, and the ‘hovels’ (see below) that housed them, isproviding information that is often absent from historicalaccounts and cannot always be obtained from intact standingstructures (Fig 6).

The redevelopment of an area on Barford Street covering almost8000m2 led to an archaeological evaluation followed by awatching brief. Throughout the 20th century the site wasoccupied by the Beswick pottery, which produced a range ofdomestic wares and ornamental ceramics, including flying ducks!Previously, the site had been used by various 19th-centurypottery firms including Batkin and Deakin, Deakin and Son, andHannah and Mary Shubotham. All of the buildings on the sitehad been demolished in the past but three evaluation trenches,approximately 20m2, 200m2 and 400m2 respectively, located theremains of two circular pottery ovens, as well as a 20th-centurytunnel kiln. In certain areas the ovens had been partially orcompletely truncated by 20th-century activity but sometimesfloor surfaces and a few courses of brick walls survived.

The traditional, coal-fired oven consisted of a central ovenproper, surrounded by a cover building known as the ‘hovel’,which usually had a distinctive bottle shape. The hovel helpedinduce a strong and even draught through the oven, necessary to achieve the temperatures required for firing the pottery.Each oven would hold thousands of pieces of pottery in saggars(see section 6.3). At the Barford Street site, the brick floor

surfaces inside the hovels survived, at least in part, and in onecase four successive hovel floor surfaces had been laid one atopthe other (Fig 7).

The foundations of one of the ovens consisted of a mixture ofsandy loam, pottery and saggars, seemingly a wholly unsuitablematerial, but this sort of foundation has been found beneathmost of the pottery ovens excavated. Factory records arefrustratingly vague about oven construction and operation, but acareful examination of early-20th-century written accountssuggests that the use of this material, called the ‘cork’, for ovenfoundations was a deliberate policy. The high temperaturesachieved in a pottery oven could dry out the subsoil underneaththe furnace, leading it to contract, and so weaken thefoundations of the hovel wall and possibly causing collapse.The materials selected for the cork were intended to ensure that this did not happen. The existence of the cork would not beapparent from an examination of a standing hovel and oven; itcan only be seen in excavated examples.

The hovel floor surfaces were not associated with any closelydated artefacts. The approximate date at which some of the laterovens went out of use could be estimated by reference toOrdnance Survey maps but this left many structures with ratherbroad date ranges for their construction and use. More precisedates could have been obtained using scientific methods, such asarchaeomagnetic dating for the in situ fired floor surfaces andthermoluminescence dating for individual bricks (see section4.5.2). The dating of individual floor surfaces could be refined to within a decade or so by applying Bayesian statistical methodsto a series of date probability ranges from successive floors(Buck and Millard 2001). Such an approach would haveprovided a detailed chronology for the construction and use ofthe ovens and hovels that would not have been obtainable in any other way.

FFiigg 66 The distinctive traditional bottle-shaped ‘hovel’ that housed the pottery kiln. There were perhaps 2000 pottery ovens in the 19th century but the switch from coal tosmokeless fuels in the 1960s led to many being demolished, and there are now fewer than30 left. (© The Potteries Museum and Art Gallery, Stoke-on-Trent)

FFiigg 77 The excavated remains of a 19th-century pottery oven at Barford Street, Stoke-on-Trent showing multiple flues round the oven and the foundations of the hovel outside.(© Stoke-on-Trent Archaeology Service)

9

3.2 The scale of industrial sitesThe main difficulty posed by sites ofhistoric industries is one of scale: both ofthe original activities and of subsequentearth moving. Historic industries oftenused features and structures that weremuch larger than medieval and earliercounterparts (Fig 8). This can beillustrated by the changes in the furnacesused in the iron and steel industry. Latemedieval furnaces were usually simplecylinders built of clay, up to 1m indiameter and probably 1–2m high. Earlyblast furnaces of the 16th and 17thcenturies were square and were built ofstone, 4–6m wide and about 6m high. Bythe mid-19th century, blast furnaces wereagain cylindrical but were up to 20m high(see Fig 31). Therefore it can be difficult,

if not impossible, to recognise significantindustrial features in small evaluationtrenches. The evaluation of ‘greenfield’sites often uses long narrow trenches (2mby 30m) or 1m2 test-pits (Hey and Lacey2001). Such trenches on the site of anhistoric industry can easily fall whollywithin a tank or other large feature and sofail to identify it.

Recent work on many industrial sites hasshown that the trench size needs to reflectthe scale of the archaeology.This isparticularly important at the stage of siteevaluation, where trial trenching is mostcommonly used (Darvill and Russell 2002,32).Therefore, on the site of an historicindustry, the trenches used for evaluationare often larger than typical (Case Study 3).

FFiigg 88 Daisy Bank. A marl pit in Staffordshire used to dump waste material from the pottery ovens during the 19th and 20th centuries.The scale of dumping onindustrial sites can provide challenges for archaeologists. (© The Potteries Museum and Art Gallery, Stoke-on-Trent)

Given the size of many of these sites andthe scale of the archaeological features, it isnecessary to make use of machinery toexcavate many deposits (Fig 9).

FFiigg 99 The site of the Percival,Vickers glassworks, JerseyStreet, Manchester before excavation started.The scale ofmany industrial sites makes the use of mechanicalexcavators essential. (© Oxford Archaeology North)

10

Case Study 4:Steam-powered cotton-spinning mills in Ancoats,Manchesterby Ian Miller

Manchester experienced an explosion of factory building at theend of the 18th century, fuelled by a breakthrough in theapplication of steam power to textile-manufacturing (section6.4) and the cheap and reliable transport for goods offered bythe construction of canals. This led to the creation of a newgeneration of textile mills, which were built on an unprecedentedscale and employed developing techniques of structural andmechanical engineering.

Ancoats evolved as an early focus for these new mills, althoughthe sole survivor of the initial boom in factory building isMurrays’ Mills, which has been the subject of comprehensivearchaeological recording. The fabric of this mill complex retainsconsiderable evidence for all stages of its development, andanalysis has provided a valuable tool for interpreting the buriedremains of other mills in Ancoats. Several of these have beenexcavated recently, with the remains of the steam-power plantsproviding a focus for investigation (Fig 10).

An important stage in the transition from water power to steampower involved the use of a pumping engine to furnish awaterwheel with a regular and continuous supply of water.Excavation of New Islington Mill (Fig 11) revealed the keyelements of this system, including a narrow waterwheel pit,stone-block foundations for a pumping engine, and a network oflarge culverts. Excavation also exposed the footings of an engineroom that contained stone-block foundations for a beam engine,with square-section iron mounting rods typical of the early 19thcentury. The walls of the engine room contained sockets for theengine frame and abrasion scars, which helped to determine thesize of machinery housed there.

Buried remains demonstrate the evolution of power-plantstructures. The first working steam engines had chimneys whosedesign was based on domestic houses (Douet 1991, 8). Theintroduction of more powerful engines placed greater demandson the boiler’s steam-raising capacity, as well as on thefoundations of internal boiler houses and the very narrow fluestaking irregular routes to small, square-section chimneys, whichwere all typical of the late 18th century. Examples of thesestructures exposed at Waller’s Mill and Salvin’s Factory werebuilt largely from hand-moulded bricks, with only occasional useof refractory materials. The early 19th-century boiler house andflue at Moore’s Mill showed the increased use of refractorybricks within its build, while the late-19th-century detachedboiler house at Murrays’ Mills displayed extensive use ofrefractory bricks, many bearing makers’ stamps.

All of the excavated mills yielded large quantities of ash andclinker, which offered little potential for analysis, reflecting the lackof process residues generated from cotton-spinning.The 20th-century use of some sites created contaminated ground conditionsrequiring mitigation prior to excavation. Historic mapping, whenintegrated with digital records of the excavated features, hasconsistently proved crucial to the interpretation of sites.Theexcavations have clarified numerous aspects of the mills’development that were not clear from documentary sources,including structural details and information on power generation(for example waterwheels, boilers, engines and fuel economisers)during different phases, with implications for the machineryoperating within the mill. Social contexts could be establishedthrough assemblages of stamped mineral water and botanic beerbottles, which were traced through trades’ directories.

FFiigg 1100 The late 19th-century detached boiler house at Murrays’ Mills, with the circularfoundations of a stair tower to the right and the edge of the canal basin at the top of theimage. (© Oxford Archaeology North)

FFiigg 1111 A general view of the engine house for the steam returning-engine at New IslingtonMill, showing (on the left, horizontal) one of the iron pipes used to carry water from theunderground sump to the waterwheel (the wheel pit in the centre has been backfilled), andthe vertical iron restraining rods that tied down the engine. (© Oxford Archaeology North)

11

3.3 Site formation processesArchaeologists have recognised that somemovement of soil and other sediments hasalways occurred as features were dug andrefilled.The development of canals, thesteam engine and railways, however,opened up new possibilities for both theremoval and dumping of enormousquantities of material. Dumping was oftencarried out to level a site and raise it abovethe water table. Such dumped deposits areoften referred to as ‘made ground’ but thisterm needs to be used carefully as somenon-archaeological contractors use thisterm to refer to all archaeological deposits.Some sites were levelled by removingdeposits (truncation), while on others acombination of truncation and dumpingwas employed.

It should not be assumed, however, thatall made ground is of no archaeologicalvalue. These deposits can provideinformation about other sites which havebeen destroyed by later development. The‘made ground’ that buries many low-lyingsites in town centres often incorporatesmaterial from areas of slum housing thatno longer exist. In addition, where laterredevelopment has completely destroyedin situ evidence for an historic industry,information might still be obtained fromprocess residues dumped on other sites(Case Study 2). Where substantial ‘made-ground’ deposits are identified andassessed as of little archaeological value,however, they can be removedmechanically, thus saving scarce resourcesfor stratified archaeological remains (CaseStudy 1). This will work best whenarchaeologists maintain good links withothers on site, eg demolition contractors.

In many cases process residues wereremoved from sites of historic industries.A typical blast furnace at the end of the18th century was producing around 2000tonnes of cast iron a year and it is likelythat it would have been producing slag ata similar rate (depending on the quality ofthe ore). If this slag was not removed thenthe blast furnace would have completelyburied itself within a few years; and manyblast furnaces continued in use fordecades or longer (section 6.1). In somecases waste products were dumped intothe pits or quarries that had previouslybeen used to extract raw materials (see Fig8). In the case of metal smeltingindustries, slags could be used as roadmetalling, ‘ballast’ for railway lines (egCrossley 1995) or, if cast into blocks, asbuilding materials (Fig 12).

Process residues are sometime absentfrom a site because they could be reusedby another industry. A good example ofthis is bottle glass manufacture whichinitially used sand and a variety of plantashes as raw materials. However, cheaperingredients were sought and, during the18th century, glassmakers began to usewaste materials from other industries,including iron smelting slag and residuesfrom soap and gas manufacture. In itsturn, the glass industry regularly produceda waste material called sandever whichwas sold to brass casters for use as a flux(section 6.2). As a result the residues fromsome industrial processes are now ratherrare. In addition, it is not always certain ifthe process residues recovered are wasteby-products or raw materials.

In industries using organic materials, suchas textile production and tanning, sometypes of residue are rare because they donot survive, save in exceptionalcircumstances (Case Study 4).

3.4 Contaminated landThe sites of historic industries may becontaminated (Environment Agency2005) and excavation can pose significanthealth risks. Contamination was oftengenerated on site as a waste materialduring periods when environmentalcontrols were absent or less rigorous thantoday. Contamination can take manyforms, but the two commonest types are heavy metals (Case Study 5) andorganic compounds.

The problems of contamination may beaddressed through the planning process,although some remediation of contaminatedland is provided for by the EnvironmentalProtection Act – which does not includearchaeological recording. Before working onpotentially contaminated sites, it is essentialthat archaeologists seek professional adviceon the risks involved and appropriatemitigation strategies. Desk-basedassessments should identify the industriesthat were present on site, and so indicatethe forms of contamination that potentiallymight be present. Useful information canalso obtained where archaeologists (inparticular curators) liaise with LocalAuthority contaminated land teams andrelevant contractors, for examplegeotechnical contractors undertaking aborehole survey. Scientific analysis (section4) can characterise any on-sitecontamination, provide information aboutpast industrial activities at the site andestablish the existence of regionalpalaeoenvironmental data that can provideuseful information on the localenvironmental impact of the industry.

The information on the nature and severityof contamination should be used tocompile a site-specific risk assessment ofthe potential risk to the health and safety ofsite personnel before any site work isundertaken. Often other contractors willundertake chemical testing of sediments aspart of on-going assessments of the healthand safety risks posed by contaminationand, where possible, archaeologists shouldmake use of this information. Furtherinformation on contaminated land isincluded in section 7.5.

3.5 Historical sourcesThe study of sites of historical industriescan frequently benefit from non-archaeological sources of information(section 5).Where detailed maps exist for asite (section 5.1) these should be exploitedto help interpret archaeological features andstructures. Archaeological features can berecorded digitally using EDMs and theplans superimposed on historic maps usingCAD or GIS.While this approach has beenused to interpret features at a post-excavation stage (eg Krupa and Heawood2002) it is increasingly being applied duringfieldwork (Case Study 6).The use of GISallows the application of a wide range ofspatial analysis techniques to the samplingstrategy. GIS can also be used during post-excavation analysis to examine spatialpatterns in data from the scientific analysisof samples.

FFiigg 1122 The large quantities of slag produced by someindustries were occasionally disposed of by casting it intoregular shapes for use as a building material.These slagbricks were produced by the copper smelting industry inthe Bristol region. (© Justine Bayley)

12

Case Study 5:Leadmill, Sheffieldby Anna Badcock and Andrew Lines

The Leadmill site in Sheffield illustrates one of the mostsignificant problems inherent in investigating historic industrialsites: contaminated land. As is often the case, the historicindustry was the source of the contamination and the moderninvestigation of the site was only possible once the health andsafety risks were addressed. The excavation provided tangibleevidence for processes described in historical documents (Fig13) but also yielded artefacts and process residues that are notdescribed in these sources.

From 1759 until 1903 the Leadmill site was occupied by aworks producing pigments (white and red lead). Prior to this,the site was occupied by a cutler’s workshop, and in the 20thcentury it housed a bus and tram depot. During the 19thcentury, white lead (a hydrated lead carbonate) and red lead (a lead oxide) were used in paints, pigments, glasses and potteryglazes. Both compounds were made from metallic lead but used very different processes. White lead was produced byarranging strips of lead over pots of vinegar, surrounded withdung or spent bark from tanning works (Campbell 1971).Over a period of weeks, the vinegar reacted with the lead to form lead acetate and this was converted to white lead by thefermentation of the organic matter (Cossons 1972). Red leadwas produced by roasting metallic lead to form litharge (a leadoxide), which was then ground and roasted to red lead(Muspratt 1860, 476; Percy 1870).

The excavation of an archaeological site that is contaminatedwith toxic chemicals, such as lead, poses health and safetyproblems. A risk assessment was carried out before fieldworkstarted to determine safe working procedures. In order tominimise exposure to lead, everyone working on the Leadmillsite wore protective body suits and food and drink could not beconsumed on site. Staff received regular medical checks, withtwo blood tests (one before work started and one at the end ofthe fieldwork) and urine tests at the end of each week.

Deep features associated with the bus and tram depot hadtruncated much of the earlier stratigraphy. The featuresassociated with the lead works were overlain by 0.5–1.5m ofdemolition material and sealed by a layer of clay. The onlysubstantial features associated with the lead works that survivedwere some foundation walls, a series of flues and floor surfaces(Fig 14). The internal faces of the flues were covered in a sootydeposit. Subsequent analysis of soot samples showed that theycontained high levels of lead. The flues probably fed into achimney shown on the 1896 Goad insurance plan (section 5.2).

The excavation also yielded artefacts and materials associatedwith the production of the white and red lead: scrap lead,partially oxidised lead spillages, industrial pottery and fragmentsof furnace. The industrial pottery (unglazed bowls and internallyglazed jars) had powdery, lead-rich, white deposits on theirsurfaces. The glazed jars resemble those mentioned incontemporary accounts (eg Muspratt 1860), but none of theseaccounts describe the unglazed bowls. The fragments of furnaceconsisted of pieces of millstone grit that had reacted with leadoxide to variable extents. Some of the partially-oxidised leadcorresponded almost exactly with Percy’s description: ‘a damacross the floor of the oven . . . consists of the coarse particles ofintermixed lead and protoxide of lead’ (Percy 1870, 512).

The manufacture of lead pigments was confirmed by thescientific study of artefacts and residues recovered during theexcavation. XRF analysis (section 4.5.4) enabled inferences tobe drawn about the pigments being manufactured and about theoperating temperatures. A variety of other scientific techniquescould have been used to extract additional information. XRDanalysis (section 4.5.5) would have differentiated the leadcompounds present, for example oxides, acetates andcarbonates, whereas the XRF analysis could not. Such anapproach might also have uncovered the function of theunglazed bowls. Further sampling of the features associated withthe lead works could have provided information concerning thetypes of fuel used and environmental evidence for other rawmaterials or process indicators, such as spent tanning bark anddung (section 4.3). Integration of the scientific analyses into thefieldwork stage (eg portable XRF) might also have aided theinterpretation of archaeological features.

FFiigg 1133 Red lead manufacture in the 19th century.The molten lead was ‘rabbled’ toaccelerate its oxidation.

FFiigg 1144 Excavation in progress at the Leadmill, Sheffield.The curved brick wall to the left waspart of the flue that directed fumes towards the chimney.The white deposits inside the fluehad a high lead content. (© ARCUS)

13

The excavation of sites that have beenabandoned or that have undergone changeof use only recently can be facilitated byreferring to oral history records (Howarth1977), although such accounts are notobjective and are best used in conjunctionwith other sources of evidence. There arealso photographic (Stoyel and Williams2001) and even film records for someindustries (Linsley 2000, 123–4).

3.6 SpecialistsIn order to maximise the informationrecovered as a result of the excavation ofindustrial sites, the project team shouldinclude people with appropriate specialistknowledge, for example of the relevantindustrial processes and technologies,particular types of find, samplingtechniques and analytical methods. Suchspecialists can advise on the potentialimportance of a particular site, whatfeatures to expect, the process residues thatmight be found, what to sample, how muchmaterial to retain and what type of analysisis appropriate. Some prior knowledge isparticularly useful in instances where theresidues may not be easily discernible byeye, for example chemical traces in atanning pit or at the site of dye works, orparasites and seeds in deposits associatedwith textile sites. Specialists can providesome indication of the importance of thesite since, although some processes andtheir associated structures are well known,for certain industries and periods there aregaps in our knowledge. For example, severalcharcoal-fuelled blast furnaces have beenexcavated (eg Magilton 2003), but there arevery few excavations of coke-fuelled blastfurnaces, and no typical 19th-centuryexamples have survived as upstandingremains (Gale 1969, 140).

Generally, it benefits all parties if specialistsvisit the site during the excavation.Thesevisits provide an opportunity to discusspossible industrial uses for features, identifytypical finds and review the samplingstrategy, depending on what has beenrecovered. Some specialists will want to take their own samples, or will be able tocarry out analyses on site, for example usingportable geochemical testing or XRFequipment (sections 4.5.2 and 4.5.4).Many specialists can provide training inrecognising and interpreting industrialresidues and artefacts and have access tocollections of reference material fromdifferent industries.When visits are notpossible, specialists will need a detailedrecord of where samples have been takenfrom, including photographs and plans.

3.7 SamplingBefore excavation commences, a strategyshould be devised that considers how thedifferent types of evidence likely to bepresent will be recovered. Relevantinformation can be present as the remainsof structures, artefacts and/or processresidues (eg slag and crucibles) anddeposits containing remains that are toosmall to be individually recognised on site(eg environmental evidence orhammerscale). A sampling strategy shouldaim to recover sufficient material relevantto the historic industries to answer thequestions raised by the research aimsidentified in the project design. Samplingshould be done in conjunction withappropriate specialists so that sampling forenvironmental remains, process residuesand artefacts can be integrated (EnglishHeritage 2002, 17–23).

Material should be retained from eachspatially and chronologically distinctdeposit to ensure that any chronologicalor spatial changes in the use of the sitecan be investigated. The fills of flues,water courses, ditches and pits, ordestruction layers, are likely to contain thebulk of the material discarded on site.Some features, however, may be moreimportant than others, for example the fillof a tanning pit where anoxic conditionshave resulted in the survival of remainsthat are susceptible to decay, a discretedump of mould fragments in the corner ofa foundry, or a well-preserved workshopfloor. In addition, a specialist may requiresamples to be taken at regular intervals(eg a grid pattern to look at the spatialdistribution of material, such ashammerscale (Bayley et al 2001)). Furtherinformation on sampling is given in Orton(2000) and in the various EnglishHeritage guidelines (Bayley et al 2001;English Heritage 2002; 2004b).

A rapid visual examination (of aproportion if there are tonnes of waste)should be sufficient to determine howmany different types of material arepresent in a particular deposit (forexample some ceramic material, someblack slag, some green slag, somemagnetic lumps and a grey powderysubstance), and then a sample of each canbe retained. This will ensure that theoverall sample is representative of thatdeposit. The amount retained should besufficient for any analysis required andmust include examples that showdistinctive and diagnostic features, such asdetails and marks, dimensions, fabrics and

forms. Frequently the most informativeexamples show how different categories ofwaste were associated in the process (forexample a fragment of ceramic materialwith adhering black and green slag and agrey powdery coating).

It is not necessarily appropriate or possibleto retain all of the industrial residues from acontext, and the amount that needs to beretained is best decided by the relevantspecialist(s).The quantities of material to beretained will vary greatly depending onfactors such as the type and scale ofdeposit, its relationship with the industry,the current state of knowledge of thatindustry and the analysis planned. In theabsence of specialist advice, the guidanceabove (on which types of deposits to sampleand how to obtain a representative sample)will to some extent dictate the amount ofmaterial that needs to be retained.Wheredoubt exists, and only small quantities of aprocess residue are present, all of thematerial should be kept. However, wherelarge quantities of material are present(more than 1 tonne), it is likely that it willonly be possible to retain a proportion. It isessential that a record is made of theamount of material that is discarded, andalso useful to roughly estimate and recordthe relative amounts of different types ofresidue (for example, mainly black andgreen slag with about 10% total of otherresidues). Once post-excavation assessmentand/or analysis have taken place, aninformed decision can be made about howmuch material to retain for the archive.

Consideration should be given to howartefacts and samples are processed, so thatimportant information is not lost. Forexample, the washing of industrial vesselscontaining residues might be inappropriate.Also the need for risk assessments does notend with the completion of the fieldworkphase of a project; risk assessments shouldalso be carried out for post-excavationexamination of recovered process residues.

4 Scientific analysis

The historic archive (section 5) canprovide useful information for theinvestigation of historic industrial sites(such as the date and layout of the site,the raw materials used and the industrialprocesses carried out), but importantdetails may be lacking (section 2.2);scientific analysis can often fill these gaps.A variety of techniques has been appliedto archaeological problems, includinglocating sites, dating, reconstructing

14

Case Study 6:Percival,Vickers glassworks, Manchesterby Ian Miller

The excavations at the Percival, Vickers glassworks providedinformation on innovations in furnace design, and analysis of theglass recovered is providing information on the wares producedand the types of glass from which they were made, as well as thelikely raw materials and process conditions used. Methodologieswere developed using pen computers to facilitate the recordingand interpretation of the archaeological remains.

The Percival, Vickers and Co Ltd British and Foreign Flintglassworks on Jersey Street, Ancoats, Manchester was establishedin 1844 with two glass furnaces, an annealing house, andassociated buildings (Fig 15). The factory produced a wide rangeof high-quality tableware and homeware. During the 1860s, thefirm began to register designs for press-moulded wares (section6.2). By 1863, it had become the largest of the city’s glassfactories. The development of the site can be traced from a seriesof cartographic sources, particularly Ordnance Survey maps(section 5.2). The earliest map showing the works, published in1851, includes two furnaces; subsequent maps show that a thirdfurnace was added (Fig 16).

In the absence of company records, an eyewitness account of aguided tour of the works provides one of the best descriptions ofthe glassworks.This mentions the furnaces and various workshopsfor the storage and mixing of raw materials, the manufacture ofcrucibles and steel moulds, and the cutting and engraving of glassvessels. Six catalogues survive (see section 5.6), and the finalcatalogue includes an engraving of the glassworks showing thethree large chimneys of the glass furnaces (Fig 15).

Excavation started with five machine-dug trenches covering500m2, targeted on the furnaces and their associated flues.Thiswork led to more detailed excavation, exposing and recording an

area of approximately 2030m2. A total station (a surveyinginstrument that combines an electronic theodolite and anelectronic distance measuring device) was used during theexcavations to record all structures three-dimensionally on to apen computer (Fig 17).This computer was loaded with OrdnanceSurvey data that allowed archaeological detail to be overlaid on tohistoric maps, which proved valuable in interpreting features.Thesurvey data was used as the basis for a manually-drafted plan ofthe entire site.This ensured accuracy and dispensed with the needfor a site grid, as getting grid pegs into thick deposits of rubble isdifficult if accuracy is to be maintained.The total station was alsoused in reflectorless mode to record elements of the site that weredifficult to access, such as the underground flues, and to generateaccurate cross-sectional profiles.

The remains of all three furnaces, an annealing house andassociated workshops were revealed. The furnaces generallysurvived to the height of the siege foundations, and wereapproximately 6m in diameter. The flues were almost 3m deep.The furnace erected c 1881 was evidently of an improved design,and incorporated the latest technology, including a Frisbeefeeder for replenishing the fuel and an innovative system of airsupply. The fire chambers of two of the furnaces were filled withabundant fragments of glass and glassworking waste.More than 100kg of variously-coloured glass were recovered;some of it cut glass, but the majority press-moulded. Theassemblage was examined by eye and categorised typologically,with a view to identifying the working practices undertaken atthe site. The method of forming glass objects by press-mouldingwas developed in the early 19th century. The forms producedwere often intended to imitate the style of cut glass, but thepressing left a surface that was less brilliant. Press-moulding wasused to mass produce cheaper versions of cut glass vessels.

Samples of glass, including some of the working waste, wereanalysed using inductively coupled plasma spectrometry (ICPS)(section 4.5.4). The preliminary results suggest that there are sixbroad compositional groups, dominated by lead- (and potash-)rich types of glass and others that are soda-rich. The soda-richglass appears to have been used for the press-moulded vesselsand contained relatively low concentrations of lead, althoughthere was probably sufficient lead to influence the meltingproperties of the batch.

FFiigg 1155 (above) The Percival,Vickersglassworks from the north-east asshown in a 1902 trade catalogue.Thethree large chimneys can be seen onthe contemporary map (see Fig 16).

FFiigg 1166 (left) The 1891 Ordnance Surveymap showing the Percival,Vickersglassworks.The three circular featuresshown inside the buildings are thechimneys for the glass melting furnaces(see Fig 15).

FFiigg 1177 The foundations of an annealing furnace with ancillary structures behind. (© OxfordArchaeology North)

15

environments, identifying raw materialsand understanding how artefacts weremade. Sediments, materials and residuesadhering to features or artefacts can besampled for scientific analysis. Thissection includes brief summaries of thescientific methods commonly used toaddress these problems.

The single most important issue whenconsidering whether or not to use scientifictechniques is the nature of thearchaeological question (section 3). Limitedresources should be used to undertake themost appropriate scientific analysis with thebest prospect of succeeding. No onescientific technique can answer allquestions, and there are many issues toconsider before selecting an analyticalmethod. Important factors include the type,size, number and heterogeneity of theobjects or samples; whether it is acceptablefor objects to be sampled or for samples tobe destroyed; whether the technique can beused on site; and the speed and the cost.Analytical methods will vary in terms oftheir sensitivity for different elements andthe accuracy, reproducibility andpresentation of the results. Expertinterpretation of the analyses may also benecessary. If these issues are raised with theanalyst in advance, well-informed decisionscan be made about the best way to proceed.Further advice can be obtained from anumber of sources (section 7).

The finds and samples from historicindustrial sites will include a range ofmaterials, and advice on sampling (section3.3), assessing, analysing and reporting onthese is also available in the EH guidelinesseries (Bayley et al 2001; English Heritage2002; 2004a; 2004b and 2004c).

4.1 Locating historic industrial activitiesby Ken HamiltonGeophysical survey is a well-establishedtechnique for the exploration ofarchaeological remains on rural sites, butit has rarely been applied successfully tourban sites owing to the depth andcomplexity of the stratigraphy, andinterference from metallic objects, servicesand adjacent structures. Nevertheless,under favourable conditions geophysicalsurvey can provide useful indicationsabout the nature and location ofsubsurface features relating to historicindustries (English Heritage 1995a, andforthcoming; Gaffney and Gater 2003).

The use of earth resistance survey isdifficult on most urban sites, as the ground

cover (such as tarmac or rubble) usuallyprevents the insertion of the electrodes.Electromagnetic surveys can work well indetecting large features or those withsignificant contrasts between theirconductivity or magnetic susceptibility andthe surrounding deposit; however, theseinstruments are affected by the presence ofextraneous metal structures.

The performance of magnetometers isvariable: in some cases the response canbe related to historically known industrialstructures but in other cases thesignificant anomalies are obscured.Fluxgate gradiometers measure variationsin the Earth’s local magnetic field and arestrongly influenced by the presence of ironobjects. Historic industry sites frequentlycontain large numbers of iron objects thatcan mask the presence of archaeologicallysignificant features. Some urban sites alsocontain very large iron objects, which canproduce extreme anomalies that extendacross the entire site. Nevertheless, whereanomalies are produced by large ironobjects that are in situ remains (such asmachine bases and frames for buildings), alow sensitivity fluxgate gradiometer surveycan show the extent and location of suchfeatures.

Ground penetrating radar (GPR) surveyhas been applied to urban archaeologyusing individual transects and can imagetargets through a variety of surface layers,such as asphalt or concrete (Reynolds1996). A better approach is the collectionof data in closely spaced, parallel transects(certainly no coarser than 0.5m, for asampling interval of 0.1m), from which a

three dimensional block of data can becompiled. This can then be used to createamplitude ‘time slices’ (Figs 18 and 19)which provide a series of horizontal plansmapping the strength of GPR reflectors ata particular depth (eg Conyers 2004). Thesignal from GPR will be heavilyattenuated in high conductivity soils or bythe presence of ferrous reinforcement barswithin concrete, which may limit itsapplication on some sites.

Filters are used to process the geophysicalsurvey data from archaeological sites andmay suppress unwanted signals, such aslarge-scale trends due to geology or small-scale anomalies, especially those producedby near-surface iron objects. Data fromsites of historical industries, however,often require extensive processing and thismay also remove archaeologically-significant anomalies as well as theunwanted signals.

In contrast to geophysical survey,geochemical survey, which identifies andmaps the distribution of elements orcompounds, is at present not much usedin archaeology. There is, however,potential for its application to sites ofhistoric industries, for example to locateactivities by detecting increased levels of

FFiigg 1188 1838 map of Grove Mills, Keighley,West Yorkshire. Allof these buildings have been demolished but could bedetected using ground penetrating radar (see Fig 19). (©Keighley Public Libraries)

FFiigg 1199 Grove Mills GPR time slice (Hamilton 2002, 316),showing the 1794 and 1836 buildings recorded on thehistoric plan (see Fig 18). (© Ken Hamilton)

16

Case Study 7:Iron-working sites at Rievaulx and Bilsdale,North Yorkshireby Jane Wheeler

Iron-working sites have been located within the environs of theruins of Rievaulx Abbey in North Yorkshire and at a number oflocations throughout Bilsdale, immediately to the north. The aimof this project was to investigate the environmental effects ofhuman industrial activities and evidence for woodlandmanagement in relation to the fuel requirements of the ironindustry between the 12th and 17th centuries. This has beenachieved by using a variety of scientific techniques to extractdata from off-site core samples (English Heritage 2002). Thesites of interest are in a rural location and contemporary landuse is pastoral. As the study area is large (28 hectares), asystematic approach was used to locate the archaeologicalremains of furnaces for excavation, and to identify suitable sitesfor the retrieval of cores. This approach made use of a variety ofevidence, including surface scatters of slag, field name evidenceand the results of geophysical survey (Vernon et al 1998).

Using a Russian corer, pollen cores were taken at sites slightlydistant from the ironworking furnaces. The cores were assessedfor their pollutant content by ascertaining whether the sedimentsequences contained a magnetic record of airborne pollution(specifically iron and burnt charcoal) generated by the iron-smelting processes. This was done in a laboratory using aBartington dual-frequency magnetic susceptibility sensor (modelMS2B) to scan the cores. In each case, the preliminary magneticsusceptibility results appear to reflect the accumulation ofatmospheric pollutants in quantities that can be associated withphases of ironworking activity, and act as an environmentalmarker for iron smelting (Fig 20).

The ironworking sites included in the project date to differentperiods (according to the results of archaeomagnetic dating andhistorical records), and there is evidence that the technologydeveloped over time from bloomery furnace to blast furnace, withimplications for the utilisation of natural resources, fuel

consumption and metal output.When this study is complete, thedata from the cores will be linked in more detail to the resultsfrom the excavation, for example correlating the local pollen datawith the wood types found in the archaeological charcoalassemblages. It will also be possible to compare the environmentalimpact of the ironworking at different types of furnace site.

However, this case study focuses only on preliminary results fora core from the vicinity of the charcoal-fuelled blast furnace atRievaulx village, which operated from c 1570 to c 1647(McDonnell 1963; 1972; 1999). The site is contained within anarea designated a Scheduled Monument, and a licence wasobtained to conduct field-walking and environmental sampling,and to conduct an investigatory excavation in the refectorybuilding of the abbey ruins.

The preliminary results from the pollen core (Fig 20) taken fromthe meadow immediately west of the blast furnace site, show highcharcoal, spheroid (SCPs) (cf section 4.3) and magneticsusceptibility values between points 1 (0.58m) and 3 (1.22m).Thepollen data show the local arboreal pollen to be very low and adominance of grass and sedge reflects the pastoral nature of thesurroundings.The low counts for arboreal pollen suggest eitherthere were few trees present, or that the trees that had survived intothe late medieval and early modern period were being tightlymanaged using traditional strategies such as coppicing andpollarding.The correlated peaks for charcoal and spheroids havebeen interpreted as representing the period of blast furnaceoperations, beginning c 1570 until closure of the ironworks c 1647.Point 2 (0.9m) reveals a reduction in the output of spheroids and aslight decline in charcoal, yet relatively stable (elevated) magneticsusceptibility values.This decline in spheroidal output recordedbetween 0.98m and 0.74m may be indicative of reduced ironproduction, although the furnace continued to be operational, afact that is supported by the consistently high charcoal values.

FFiigg 2200 Selected taxa pollen diagram from Rievaulx Abbey, including spheroidal and microscopic charcoal data, and magnetic susceptibility values. (© Jane Wheeler)

chemicals associated with that activity. Inmost cases, samples of soil are taken forlater analysis in a laboratory (Wild andEastwood 1992), but recent improvementsin the accuracy and robustness of portableinstruments now enables on-site analysisof soils for some elements. The mostuseful elements in such situations are onesthat can be associated with particularhistoric industries (these will vary fromindustry to industry, and chronologically).Geochemical survey and testing has beenmost widely applied to metals industries.However, there has been some successfulapplication of geochemical testing to thetextile (Russell 2001) and tanningindustries (Shaw 1996), primarily tounderstand the function of excavatedfeatures (section 6 and below).

4.2 Dating historic industrieswith contributions by Derek Hamilton,Paul Linford and Cathy GrovesIt is often possible to obtain very precisedating for sites of historic industries fromdocumentary sources (section 5) or fromexcavated artefactual evidence (domesticpottery, clay pipes, etc). In some cases,however, scientific techniques may offer theonly way of dating a site, feature or artefact.The most widely used scientific datingtechnique in archaeology as a whole isradiocarbon dating, but this is of limited usefor the period 1650–1950,as there is aplateau in the calibration curve (Stuiver andPearson 1986), and so errors are generallylarger than can be obtained fromarchaeomagnetic or thermoluminescencedating (Aitken 1990).

Directional archaeomagnetic dating candate in situ fired features (typicallycomposed of baked clay or stone) thathave acquired a thermoremnantmagnetisation (Aitken 1990; EnglishHeritage 2006a). The technique is at itsmost precise for the post-medieval period,as direct observations of variations in thedirection of the Earth’s magnetic fieldhave been made in Britain since 1650.Furthermore, the change in field directionhas been rapid throughout this period.Hence, it is often possible to date the lastfiring of features at 95% confidence towithin 35 to 50 years, and possibly toabout 20 years for dates after 1700(English Heritage 2006a). Unfortunately,it is often not possible to date iron-working features because iron metal oriron-rich slag become strongly magnetisedas they cool. Any parts of the structurecooling in the vicinity will becomemagnetised in the direction of this strong

local field rather than in the direction ofthe Earth’s field.

Ceramic structures and artefacts can alsobe dated using thermoluminescence (TL),which is not limited to in situ firedfeatures (Aitken 1990). TL has greatpotential for dating artefacts or features ofhistoric industries, as the errors are apercentage (typically ±8–10 %) of thecentral date. Thus, a TL date indicatingthat a sample is 200 years old gives anerror of ±20 years. However, moisturecontent and burial history, which varyfrom site to site, can have a stronginfluence on both the central value andthe error.

Dendrochronology is an accurate andprecise dating method for wood (EnglishHeritage 2004c), which can be used todate some industrial structures. The typeand origins of the wood are importantfactors: in England oak is most commonlyused for dating purposes, but in the post-medieval period there was a noticeablerise in the use of native hardwood speciesother than oak and a dramatic escalationin the use of conifer timbers, the vastmajority of which are presumed to havebeen imported (Groves 2000). It is rarelypossible to produce a long chronology foreach species under consideration, butsome species, such as elm, have beendated by producing a site master curveand comparing this with native oakreference chronologies (English Heritage2004c). The ability to date conifer timbersrelies on the availability of reference datafrom the relevant source areas.

The rapid pace of technologicaldevelopment and changes in manymaterials in the 17th to 19th centuriesmeans that knowing the chemicalcomposition of a sample can occasionallyhelp to date it, providing similar materialsof known date have already been analysedfor comparison (Bowman 1991).Sometimes the date when a particularelement or compound was first isolated isknown, and this provides a terminus postquem for the manufacture of this material.

4.3 Environmental impact of historicindustriesby Gill Campbell

‘For several miles before they reachedMilton, they saw a deep lead-coloured cloudhanging over the horizon in the direction inwhich it lay.’North and South, Elizabeth Gaskell,1854–5 (Gaskell 1994)

This quote provides a reminder that oneof the major effects of industry on theenvironment is the pollution of air, earthand water, and that this pollution canspread well beyond industrial sites andaffect the wider environment. Wheninvestigating industrial sites it is importantto consider these effects at both alandscape and a local scale. Contaminatedground reflects local pollution of the soil,but increased concentrations of heavymetals are also found in sedimentsbordering industrial sites as a result ofairborne pollution (Mighall et al 2004).This evidence, along with the presence ofmicroscopic charcoal, sphericalcarbonaceous particles (SCPs) anddifferent types of fly ash (for exampleinorganic ash spheres – IAS), in suchsediments will reflect the location, typeand intensity of industrial activity (CaseStudy 7) (Smol 2002). SCPs, inparticular, are associated with the use ofcoal, and their appearance in apalaeoenvironmental sequence is oftentaken as marking the onset of theindustrial age (Renberg and Wik 1985).Studying pollen assemblages from thelevels where SCPs first appear gives animmediate insight into how vegetationcover was affected, especially as regardsthe extent of woodland. While in somecases decline in woodland cover is seen(Mighall et al 2004), it is argued thatindustrial use of woodland led to carefulmanagement and conservation (see Fig 30)rather than destruction (Rackham 1990).Here, one of the problems may be that theeffects of pollution causing vegetation todie out are difficult to distinguish fromexploitation for fuel.

Heavy metal pollution is also seen in riversediments. Lead levels in dated floodsediments in York have been shown torelate to lead working in the Yorkshiredales (Hudson-Edwards et al 1999), whileincreased levels of lead, arsenic, zinc andcopper in a palaeochannel at Sexton,Dartmoor, against a background of tincontamination, are thought to reflect theexploitation of silver-lead lodes atLoddiswell mine in the mid-19th century(Thorndycraft et al 2003).

Processing of textiles, tanning and hornworking are also highly polluting of thewater supply and tend to be situateddownstream and on the edges ofsettlements.Waste from these processesleads to oxygen depletion, and if anoxicconditions are maintained, fragile biologicalremains will be preserved.These remains

17

18

Case Study 8:Silkstone glassworks,Yorkshire by David Dungworth and Tom Cromwell

The investigation of the site of a glassworks at Silkstone was drivenby the need to identify the site and inform decisions aboutdesignation and preservation. However, the evaluation also providedthe opportunity to develop both field- and lab-based methodologiesfor industrial sites.The scientific examination was intensive andaimed to test which methods would be most effective.

Documentary evidence suggested that a glasshouse had operatedin the Yorkshire village of Silkstone from the middle of the 17thcentury into the early 18th century. A small evaluation trenchrevealed floor surfaces and dumped layers extending to a depthof about a metre. As the stratified sequence was finely dated byclay pipes, the assemblage provided a good opportunity to testvarious sampling strategies and scientific techniques forinvestigating post-medieval glasshouses. Soil samples (10 litres)from selected contexts were sieved to recover small fragments ofdebris normally missed during excavation, such as fine glassthreads (Fig 21). More than 400 of these small fragments ofglass and glass-working waste were analysed to determine thechemical composition of the glass produced and how thischanged over time (Dungworth and Cromwell 2006).

The detailed examination and analysis of a large number ofsamples from a single site has provided important informationabout the sorts of samples and scientific techniques that canprovide the most useful information. The scientific work hasshown that many categories of glassworking waste had beensubjected to transformations and reactions with other processresidues (eg clinker from the coal ash) and so provide onlylimited information about the types of glass that weremanufactured. However, some types of waste, in particular thefine threads (Fig 21), provided reliable information on thecomposition of the glass made at the site.

Prior to phase 4 (c 1680–c 1700) the glasshouse produced a darkgreen bottle glass (high-lime low-alkali type) and pale greenglass (mixed alkali type) probably used for tablewares (Fig 22).

This corresponds with the documentary evidence (section 5) fortwo glasshouses at the site: a ‘greenhouse’ and a ‘whitehouse’.The glass composition also indicates the raw materials used;the bottle glass composition is consistent with the use of plantashes, such as the rape ash recorded in a will as being part of the stock of the glasshouse. The composition of the pale green(mixed alkali) glass changed over time (Fig 22). During phase 1(c 1660–c 1670) it was probably made from kelp or seaweed ash(indicated by the high strontium content of the glass) and during phase 2 (c 1670–c 1680) it was perhaps made from theashes of a relatively soda-rich coastal plant such as glasswort.The low strontium content rules out seaweed.

About 1680 the glasshouse underwent major alterations,indicated by a thick layer of demolition rubble. The bottle glassproduction continued, but a clear lead glass replaced the mixedalkali glass. Lead crystal glass was developed in the 1670s inLondon and it displaced most other tableware glass recipes bythe end of the 17th century (Dungworth and Brain 2005). Theevidence from Silkstone shows that the new technology wasrapidly adopted outside London.

The intensive scientific study of glassworking process residuesfrom Silkstone has provided insights that are not available usingother approaches. The historic record for Silkstone gives noimpression of the ways in which glassmaking recipes changedover time. The scientific results show that at least some of theraw materials had been transported long distances; Silkstone ismore than 80km from the nearest source of seaweed. The quickadoption of lead crystal shows that this provincial glasshouse wasdynamic and open to new ideas.

The nature of the glass produced at such sites can only beunderstood by analysing a large number of samples and theseneed to be selected with reference to the stratigraphy. The small-scale excavation did not locate any structures associated withglassworking, such as a furnace. Nevertheless, the excavationshowed that c 0.5m of stratified deposits associated withglassworking survived and the site has since been scheduled asan Ancient Monument.

FFiigg 2222 Graph of the different soda and strontium oxide contents of some of theglassworking waste from Silkstone.The high strontium content of the phase 1 mixed alkaliglass suggests that it was made with kelp (seaweed).

FFiigg 2211 Glassworking waste: SEM image of a fine glass thread (see section 4.5.3) (scale bar =1 mm).Threads were produced as the glass was refined: by watching how a lump of moltenglass dripped off an iron bar, the glassworker could gauge if the glass was ready to blow.

can be used not only to elucidate the typesof activity that are taking place at a site butalso to investigate water quality.Cladocerans (water fleas) and chironomid(non-biting midge) larvae may proveparticularly useful for this purpose (Halland Kenward 2003; Ruiz et al 2006).However, diatoms (single-celled algae) andostracods (small crustaceans), which arefound in all types of water, are particularlysensitive to changes in water quality andwill survive in less favourable conditions;both deserve more attention. Samplingwater features, such as drains and culverts,for these remains should help in discoveringwhether these features contained cleanwater or effluent and thus establish functionand help in understanding site layout(English Heritage 2002).

Another aspect of industry in the past wasthe vast consumption of raw materials. Inaddition to studying the types of fuelused, from sources of coal (Smith 2005)to types of charcoal (Gale 2003), studiesof plant and insect remains from sites canalso provide information on the sources ofdifferent components, such as raw textilematerials. It has long been known thatcertain alien species arrived in thiscountry with imported wool. Nearly 350species were recorded in the early 20thcentury growing by the side of the riverTweed (Salisbury 1964, 138) but as yetfew archaeological deposits have beeninvestigated for evidence of this kind.

Waste deposits represent uniqueenvironments for plants. Plants that cantolerate contamination by heavy metals areknown as metallophytes and form adistinctive flora, more common in the northPennines than anywhere else in Britain(Buchannan 1992).Typical species arealpine pennycress (Thlaspi caerulescens),spring sandwort (Minuartia verna) andthrift (Armeria maritima) (Lunn 2004).Coal tips can also support distinctive floras.American cudweed (Anaphalismargaritacea), an early New World

introduction, is a common sight on Welshcoal tips, along with native colt’s-foot(Tussilago farfara) and birch trees. Onespectacular example of a waste deposit thathas developed a unique flora is a 1km-longridge known as the Spetchells, on the southside of the Tyne at Low Prudhoe (Fig 23).The site is a dump of calcium carbonateproduced as a by-product of the synthesisof ammonium sulphate fertiliser during theSecond World War.The dump was turfedover to make it less obvious to Germanbombers and now supports plants typical ofthe ungrazed chalk grassland of southernEngland (Lunn 2004, 191). Again, theseartificial environments, and theirdevelopment, could be investigated bysampling during archaeologicalinvestigations of industrial sites.

4.4 Investigative conservationInvestigative conservation uses a range of techniques (section 4.5) to understandhow materials are preserved or altered in the burial environment. Conservators canprovide advice and expertise that will ensure that the maximum informationis obtained from excavated artefacts andmaterials. In some cases, special techniques(eg X-radiography, see Fell et al 2006 andCase Study 1) can be used to understandartefacts and materials that have undergonesignificant post-depositional alteration. Inother cases, organic materials that havebeen preserved in anoxic burialenvironments require particular treatmentto prevent deterioration (English Heritage1995b; 1995c; 1999).The requirement topreserve archaeological remains in situ,wherever possible, has lead to increasingresearch by conservators and otherscientists into the burial environment(Corfield et al 1998; Nixon 2004).

4.5 Understanding historic technologiesA wide variety of scientific techniques canbe used to investigate the technologiesemployed in historic industries. Itimportant that the scientific techniquesselected are the most appropriate toanswer the archaeological questions.Common questions include:

● What were the industrial processes,conditions and environment?

● What materials were consumed in theprocess?

● Where did these materials come from?

● What products and wastes resulted?

The range of materials recovered fromhistoric industrial sites can include rawmaterials, fuel, fragments of structures (eg

furnaces, pit linings, cementation chests),industrial ceramics (eg crucibles, moulds,saggars), waste (eg slag, chemicalresidues) and products. Scientifictechniques can help identify thesematerials and link them with a particularindustrial process and/or environment.Occasionally they can be traced to aspecific source. Even when some of thematerials do not survive, they can often beinferred by analysing those productsand/or by-products that do survive.

The amount of material required forscientific examination or analysis variesdepending on the nature of the technique,but often this can be very small (eg <0.1g).In many cases, however, the heterogeneousnature of the materials being studied (egslag, crucibles with adhering glass) makeslarger samples advisable (eg 1–10g) in orderto obtain results that are representative.Thetechniques described below are grouped bythe method of investigation: visualinspection, low-power microscopy, high-power microscopy, elemental analysis,analysis of compounds and physical testing.

4.5.1 Visual inspectionThe first stage of any scientificexamination of archaeological material isits systematic visual examination andcomparison with reference collections.The size, shape, colour, density, textureand other properties of materials can beassessed without the need for complexinstruments.This approach formetalworking slags and other residues is detailed in the English HeritageArchaeometallurgy guidelines (Bayley et al 2001).

4.5.2 Low-power microscopyLow-power microscopes (magnification inthe range x4–x50) are frequently used toextend the range of visual examination.Low-power microscopes require nosample preparation and are used to detectfiner details on the surface of objects.

4.5.3 High-power microscopyAt magnifications greater than x50, opticalmicroscopes have a small depth of focusand so are usually used with polishedspecimens. These provide informationabout the small scale internal structure(microstructure) of materials (Fig 24). Toobtain a polished specimen it is necessaryto cut a sample from the object. High-power microscopy is routinely applied tostone, ceramic and soil samples(petrography) as well as specimens of slagand metal (metallography).

19

FFiigg 2233 The Spetchells; a dump of process residue (calciumcarbonate), which has provided an isolated example of chalkdownland in the North East. (© Jacqui Huntley)

Petrography is the study of the mineralspresent in geological materials andceramics. Sometimes the origins of thematerial can be determined by identifyingthe combination of minerals present. A slicefrom the sample is ground until it is thinenough to allow light to pass through(usually 30 microns).When these thinsections are examined using a suitablemicroscope, the minerals in them displayoptical properties that enable them to beidentified. As well as being widely applied togeological materials (eg stone and coal), thistechnique is routinely used to studyarchaeological ceramics (Whitbread 2001).It is more likely to be successful on coarseceramics, rather than on fine ones, as largemineral grains are easier to identify.

Metallography is the study of the structureof metals and slags on a microscopic scale(microstructure).The technique providesinformation on how the materials formedand also on the composition of alloys(Scott 1991). Samples are polished flat sothat they can be examined using a high-power microscope (Fig 24). The shape ofcrystals in the object will show whether ithas been cast or hammered into shape,and if it has been heat treated.Thecommon alloys of iron, such as steel andcast iron, contain different levels ofcarbon, which are hard to differentiatewith many analytical techniques. Crystalswith different carbon contents, however,can be distinguished by metallographicexamination. In addition weld lines andother features associated with fabricationcan be detected. The microstructure ofslags can be examined in a similar way, toobtain information about the ores smelted,the metal produced and the smeltingconditions used (such as furnacetemperature) (Bayley et al 2001).

When a specimen has been prepared formetallographic examination, the samesample can then be hardness tested.

A small, pyramid-shaped diamond ispressed into the sample surface and thehardness is calculated from the width ofthe impression. Hardness testing providesinformation about the strength of asample, which can reveal how an objecthas been fabricated and can helpdistinguish different iron alloys.

The scanning electron microscope (SEM)can be used to form images at much highermagnifications (up to x50,000) than can beachieved with an optical microscope, andhas a superior depth of focus (Fig 25; José-Yacamán and Ascencio 2000). SEMs canprovide many different sorts of images: thetwo commonest are secondary electron andback-scattered electron images. Secondaryelectron images provide a detailed picture ofthe surface topography of a sample (see Fig21) and are widely applied to therecognition of a range of materials, butespecially to organic ones (eg plantmacrofossils, pollen, bone, shell, wood andmineral-preserved organics). Back-scatteredelectron images are used to look at themicrostructure of a material and to obtainsome chemical information. Inorganicmaterials (eg slags, ores, metals, glasses andceramics) are often examined in this way(see Figs 4 and 5).When an X-rayspectrometer (section 4.5.4) is attached to aSEM, selected areas of a polished samplecan also be analysed. Overall, SEM,combined with X-ray spectrometry, is oneof the most useful analytical tools forarchaeological materials. It allows thedetermination of chemical composition, butthis can always be related back to aspects ofthe microstructure, which is particularlyuseful for heterogeneous or compositematerials (Freestone 1982) such as thesmelting slag analysed in Case Study 2.

4.5.4 Elemental analysisThe goal of elemental analysis is to deter-mine the proportion of different elementspresent in a material, and it is generally

used for characterising inorganic materials(eg metals, glasses and ceramics). Asorganic materials are mostly made ofcarbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen inproportions that vary only a little, elementalanalysis is of little value, and it is the natureof the compounds present that is important(section 4.5.5). Many different analyticaltechniques have been applied to archaeolog-ical material (Brothwell and Pollard 2001,Ciliberto and Spoto 2000; Pollard andHeron 1996) and only the most commonlyapplied techniques are described here:inductively coupled plasma spectroscopyand different types of X-ray spectrometry.

The inductively coupled plasmaspectrometer (ICPS) heats samples insolution to extremely high temperaturesuntil they emit radiation as visible light.Samples are destroyed by analysis and theresults are for the entire sample, rather thanfor specific parts of it.The proportion ofdifferent elements present can bedetermined from the wavelength andintensity of the emitted light.The mainadvantages of ICPS are that it is verysensitive (most elements can be detected inparts per million) and large numbers ofsamples can be analysed quickly (Pollardand Heron 1996, 31–6). However, it isuseful to already have a rough idea of whichelements are in the sample, because theanalyst has to choose the ones that are goingto be measured (usually about 20) inadvance of analysis. A disadvantage is that,although ICPS is commonly used for glassesand ceramics, the sample preparationprocedure removes silicon (a majorcomponent of these materials), which thencannot be measured. Consequently, theresults do not add up to 100% and so theanalytical total cannot be used as a checkthat nothing significant has been missed.

Another commonly used technique is X-rayspectrometry (Moens et al 2000; Pollardand Heron 1996, 36–53).There are varioustypes of X-ray spectrometer but in eachcase the sample is made to emit X-rays, andtheir energy and intensity are used to workout the composition of the sample (Fig 26).Some of these techniques, known as EDS(energy dispersive X-ray spectrometry),WDS (wavelength dispersive spectrometry)or EPMA (electron microprobe analysis)are used in conjunction with an electronmicroscope (section 4.5.3), which allowsthe user to analyse small features selectively,a few microns across, or to look at changesover a larger area or along a line.Weatheredareas can also be seen and avoided. Anotheradvantage is that even unexpected elements

20

FFiigg 2244 The high-power microscope can reveal themicrostructure of many materials.

FFiigg 2255 The scanning electron microscope (SEM) is a versatiletool for examining both the surface topography andmicrostructure of archaeological materials.

will usually be noticed. Analysis by EDS orWDS uses a sample removed from theobject and polished flat. EDS is faster thanWDS, whereas WDS is more sensitive(Pollard and Heron 1996). XRF (X-rayfluorescence analysis) is another commonlyused X-ray spectrometry method. It is avery fast technique and many XRFmachines are large enough to accommodateintact archaeological objects, so there is noneed to damage the object by taking asample. However, the technique onlyanalyses the surface of the object and, if thisis badly corroded or encrusted, it may benecessary to take a sample. XRF is the idealtechnique for a ‘quick look’ and portablemachines are available that can be used onsite, although they cannot detect as manyelements as laboratory-based instruments.

4.5.5 Identifying compoundsMany analytical methods will measure theamounts of different elements present in asample (section 4.5.4), but this is not alwaysenough to identify a material conclusively(Case Study 5). For example shell andlimestone are chemically the same (calciumcarbonate), but the atoms are arrangeddifferently in each. It would be difficult totell the materials apart using elementalanalysis. Some techniques, however, such aschromatography, Fourier transform infra-red (FTIR) spectroscopy, Ramanspectroscopy and X-ray diffraction (XRD),provide information on the way atoms arearranged in a sample.These techniques areable to distinguish different materials, evenwhen they are chemically similar.

Chromatography is a technique foridentifying organic compounds (Pollard andHeron 1996, 66–72).The sample is passedthrough a column as a gas (gas

chromatography) or a liquid (liquidchromatography).The various componentsof the sample are separated because theyflow through the column at different ratesdepending on their size; small ones morequickly than large ones. Chromatographycan be used to analyse very small samplesand is extremely sensitive. Gaschromatography can only be used onsamples that are both thermally stable andvolatile. However, liquid chromatography,and high-performance or high-pressureliquid chromatography (HPLC), can beused to analyse a wider range of materials.The chromatogram generated is comparedwith those of known reference materials. Inaddition, chromatography can be used incombination with a mass spectrometer(MS), which provides extra information tohelp identification (Evershed 2000).Chromatography is widely used to examinethe remains of foodstuffs in pottery but hasalso been applied to a variety of resins,waxes, dyes and other organic compounds.

Fourier transform infra-red (FTIR)spectroscopy provides information aboutthe chemical bonds in a sample, and theirmolecular environment (Bacci 2000;Cariati and Bruni 2000). Bonds betweendifferent types of atom can be distinguishedbecause they absorb in different regions ofthe infra-red spectrum. Ramanspectroscopy uses a laser beam, which isshone onto the sample and scattered by it.The resulting spectrum is matched againstones from reference materials. FTIR andRaman spectrometers can be combinedwith microscopes to analyse small samplesor to target a specific area.Thesetechniques have been applied to a range ofmaterials including paint binders, plastics,corrosion products and minerals.

In X-ray diffractometry (XRD), X-raysare passed through a sample at differentangles. The intensity of the emerging X-rays varies over the angle range, and isdependent on the spacing between theatoms of the sample. The results arecompared against reference XRD plots forknown materials to identify thecompounds present. XRD analysis isusually carried out on a powderedmaterial, and many machines can use verysmall samples. Any type of material(organic or inorganic) can be identifiedexcept non-crystalline ones, such as glass.The technique is commonly used forcorrosion products, minerals, pigments,efflorescent salts and chemical residues.

4.5.6 Investigating process temperaturesMany industries use heat to transform rawmaterials into finished products, and thereare a number of different methods fordetermining the temperatures achieved(Odlyha 2000). Sometimes samples of theproduct itself can be tested, for examplereheating a glass to see when it becomesfluid. The temperatures achieved duringthe production of a material can also beestimated from the composition of thematerial itself. Various different methodshave been used, including phase diagramsand models (Freestone 1988).Alternatively, replica materials can bemade up and their properties measured(Cable and Smedley 1987). There are alsoa number of methods for testing ceramicsto see what temperatures they have beenexposed to. These methods have beenused for domestic pottery but can also beused for industrial ceramics, for examplecrucibles and furnace linings.

Dilatometry measures the dimensionalchanges of a sample during heating andcooling: ceramics generally expand as theyare reheated but start to shrink as theprevious firing temperature is approached(Tite 1969). Changes to archaeologicalceramics over time, however, including theabsorption of water, can affect the results.The firing temperature of a ceramicmaterial can also be estimated by lookingfor microscopic changes in the structureof the ceramic after it has been reheated(Tite and Maniatis 1975; Dungworth andCromwell 2006). Samples are reheated toincrementally higher temperatures andthen examined using scanning electronmicroscopy. The structure alters little(compared to that of the sample prior toreheating) until the original firingtemperature is exceeded, at which pointchanges are observed.

21

FFiigg 2266 XRF spectrum: the positions of the peaks indicates which elements are present and the height of a peak indicates theabundance of that element.

5 Historic archivesby David Crossley

5.1 IntroductionHistoric archives can provide detailedinformation about the range of activitiesand structures that were present on aspecific historic industry site (see forexample Case Study 1 and Case Study 6).In addition, archives can provide genericinformation about the processes and by-products of historic industries. Thissection provides a guide to the mostcommonly-found classes of archivematerial, and those likely to give the bestyield to researchers, particularly thosewith little background in work onhistorical records.

5.2 MapsCartographic evidence provides the mosteffective starting-point, and it is usuallybest to work back from modern surveys,to seek indications of phases ofdevelopment that may correspond withstratigraphic and structural evidence(often referred to as ‘map regression’).The Ordnance Survey 6-inch and 25-inchto the mile maps (now 1:10000 and1:2500) are the essential starting point(Oliver 1993); the former appeared fromthe middle of the 19th century, the latterfrom about 1890, and both have gonethrough numerous editions (Case Study6). For the major conurbations there arealso large-scale plans (1:1056 and 1:500);the former start in the 1840s, the latter inthe last quarter of the 19th century. Theyare valuable for the precise establishmentof property boundaries and frequentlyindicate the uses to which land andbuildings were put (Fig 27).The 1 inch:mileOS maps are useful for the first half of the 19th century, but the recording ofdetail is apt to be selective, and not alwayspredictably so.

Before the 19th century, there are nationalor regional maps (Wallis and McConnell1994). These start late in the 16th centurywith county maps of England by Saxton,followed by Speed’s series early in the17th century, and continue in the 18thcentury with, for example, those ofBurdett for Derbyshire, Dury andAndrews for Hertfordshire, and Jefferysfor Yorkshire. Detailed maps were largelymade by local surveyors. Their skillsdeveloped over the 16th and 17thcenturies when active land-markets madeaccurate recording of boundaries essential.The convention of representing buildingsin bird’s-eye-view (Fig 28) was replaced

by the measured plan, and this becamestandard on maps by the second quarterof the 18th century (Fig 29). The earlierconvention, however, was much used forpanoramas, such as those of the Bucks intheir series of views of towns (eg Bristol orYork). With few exceptions, surveyors’output is to be found in the archives oftheir landowner-clients (Fig 30), ratherthan in those of the surveyor firmsthemselves, of which very few collectionssurvive, examples being Fairbank forSheffield, Bell for Tyneside or Kyle,Denniston and Frew for Glasgow(Crossley 1997). Some surveys werewidely circulated, particularly if theyaccompanied projects such as land-

enclosure, turnpike-road building or canalor railway construction, which requiredParliamentary authority in the form of aprivate Act. Many surveyors operated acommercial side-line in combininginformation from their property surveys tocompile town maps for sale.

There are non-Ordnance Survey mapsand plans, made in the 19th century forspecific uses, which are also worth seekingout, but whose universal compilation, orsurvival, cannot be assumed. Some PoorLaw Unions commissioned maps of theirterritories, frequently emphasisingproperties such as mills, factories andmines, which were properties with rating

22

FFiigg 2277 Late 19th-century Ordnance Survey map of part of Sheffield, with the products of some factories and workshops noted.

FFiigg 2288 Bird’s-eye view of Red Lane, Bristol c 1711 showing aglasshouse. (© Bristol’s Museums, Galleries & Archives)

FFiigg 2299 Plan view of Red Lane, Bristol c 1743 with the glasshouseshown as a circle. (© Bristol’s Museums, Galleries & Archives)

potential. Fire-insurance companiesrequired plans, and many towns weremapped for this purpose by the firm ofGoad, who recorded valuable details ofbuilding-use. Goad plans continued to beproduced well into the 20th century.Equally valuable are sale-plans, whichwere commonly made by local surveyorsfor auctioneers.

Mining for coal and iron ore is wellcovered by maps produced by the pre-nationalisation companies, often goingback to the 19th century. These werepreserved by the former National CoalBoard as a safety measure, showing wherepotentially hazardous workings lay, andmuch of this collection has beensafeguarded by deposit in record offices.Particularly important are AbandonmentPlans, which from 1872 were required tobe made and deposited under HomeOffice legislation when workings wereclosed down.

5.3 Public recordsPublic bodies, especially local and nationalgovernment, have made numerous recordsthat contain information relevant tounderstanding historic industries,

including Rate Books, Bye-laws, andParliamentary records. Local rates werepaid for maintenance of the parishfacilities; originally just the church butfrom the 17th century onwards the rateswere used to support the local poor andmaintain roads. Rate Books, which surviveto a varying extent for many urban areas,comprise assessments of property valueson which rates were charged to covergrowing municipal commitments. Theirdetail is variable, some assessors beingmeticulous in recording the purposes towhich buildings were put, for exampleshowing power generated by steamengines or by the fall of water over mill-wheels. Bye-laws concerning buildingstandards go back as far as London’sGreat Fire of 1666, but were commonlyintroduced over the middle quarters of the19th century. Survival of related materialis variable but, at best, plans andstructural descriptions can be found.

The records of central government canprovide information about historicindustries, especially from the early 19thcentury onwards. Private Acts ofParliament often dealt with land-enclosures, road, canal and railway

building and reservoirs for municipalwater supply. The proceedings themselvesinclude material such as maps andsurveys, and also descriptions of worksand, in particular, petitions for and againstsuch schemes and their proposed routes,which include contextual information,such as the industries that would beserved. In some cases, opposition wasconsiderable over long periods, forexample by mill owners against reservoirschemes. Royal Commissions reported onnumerous relevant topics, such as theHealth of Towns or Children’sEmployment. For example, the enquiryinto the ‘Sheffield Outrages’ of 1867contains witnesses’ statements that shedlight on local industries and theirprocesses, particularly where these wereinjurious to health. The RoyalCommission on the Board of Excisereported on the state of a number ofindustries, including the glass industry in1833 (Brown 1980).

5.4 Private recordsThe survival and availability of archivematerial from private records isunpredictable, although, at its best,rewarding. When assessing an archive

23

FFiigg 3300 Survey of woods, 1717, on the Ashburnham Estate, East Sussex, showing coppices divided into plots (lower right hand corner) for rotational cutting of wood, for charcoal supplied to the localiron industry. (East Sussex RO: ASH 4381) (see also section 4.3)

collection in a record office, the quality of cataloguing is all-important. The Accessto Archives project (www.a2a.org.uk)provides for on-line searching of morethan 300 archive repositories in theUnited Kingdom, as well as those of theNational Archives.

Directly-managed industry was rare ongreat landed estates after the middle of the18th century. Where this was the case,however, estate accounts include materialfor coal mines or ironworks along with thecorn mills and farms. Woodlandmanagement was apt to remain in estatehands, and long-term contracts forcharcoal with neighbouring ironworkswere often recorded. More usual weretenanted works, identified from lease-books and rentals. The former areimportant for construction, where thelandowner and tenant shared costs,sometimes by a rent-reduction over aninitial period. The rentals confirm identityand continuity of occupation.

During the 18th and 19th centuries,certain industries generated and preservedsignificant archives. The survival rate does not match papers of landed estates,where there was often a pride in thekeeping of long-term records. In manyindustries, changes of ownership havebeen the occasion for wholesaledestruction of papers. Many businessarchives have been catalogued by theNational Register of Archives of theHistorical Manuscripts Commission (now part of the National Archives).

5.5 Legal papersLegal documents are particularlysignificant for the immediate post-medieval period. In the 16th and 17thcenturies, in the absence of several keysources referred to above, court casesinvolving or peripheral to industrialactivities can be important. Access tojustice was a key policy of Tudorgovernment, and the records of thenational Equity Courts (Chancery,Requests, Star Chamber) are wellpreserved in the National Archives(formerly Public Record Office), althoughnot yet fully calendared or indexed. Thefacts of legal cases can be valuablecontributors to the history of industrialconcerns, but it is among the depositionsof witnesses that information can often befound, particularly where the witnessdigresses into the context of a dispute. Atthe local level, records of proceedings inQuarter Sessions or magistrates courts

can be relevant, where disputes ordisorder involved industries or thoseidentified as working within them.

The study of vernacular architecture hasproved the value of inventories of goodscompiled to secure probate of wills. It wascommon in the period 1550–1750 forappraisers to list goods on a room-by-room basis, their record thus comprisingan impression of houses and workshops,sometimes listing materials (Case Study8). Written evidence of ownership ofproperty comes from deeds, whosesurvival is variable. Private deeds cancontain descriptions of property, oftenconcealed within a conventional wording.In some cases Abstracts of Title have beencompiled by lawyers, listing andconsolidating past changes. These are amixed blessing, for although convenient,they have often accompanied thedestruction or dispersal of original deeds,with the loss of the valuable incidental

information that these can contain. Salesof lands generated significant records,whether new deeds, sale-plans, or, in casesof estates where there were long-termlegal restraints on disposal, private Acts ofParliament permitting this to happen.

5.6 Contemporary publicationsContemporary publications can bedivided into two categories: those thatprovide information about a specific siteand those that provide genericinformation about particular industries.

The investigation of a specific site canbenefit from the examination of a numberof local resources, such as streetdirectories and newspapers. Streetdirectories exist year-by-year for largetowns from late in the 18th century, andin many cases the publishers includedsurrounding rural townships. Earlydirectories may not be comprehensive, asthere was no obligation for the occupier of

24

FFiigg 3311 A mid-19th century blast furnace from Muspratt (1860).

property to be included. However, by the1820s most give a complete listing ofoccupants and uses of urban property.

Newspapers, such as the Penny Magazine,occasionally contain useful information,for example descriptions of factory tours(Case Study 6), but can be a frustratingsource, as local paper collections are rarelyindexed. External evidence of the date of akey event, such as the passing of a privateAct of Parliament, local agitations againstsuch schemes or bankruptcies ofprominent firms can lead to reports thatinclude descriptions of industrial premisesand activities. Advertisements andcatalogues are useful for their engravingsof works-views taken from firms’ bill-heads (Case Study 6), although suchillustrations are not always accurate.

In the 18th century, descriptions ofindustry in Britain were compiled byobservers from overseas. A recentlypublished example is Angerstein’s Diary(Berg and Berg 2001), which describesnumerous English industrial sites. Duringthe 18th and 19th centuries lists ofironworks were compiled and, althoughnot published at the time, have beenreviewed (Riden 1994; Riden and Owen1995). Forerunners were the lists ofWealden ironworks of 1574 and 1588,drawn up by Crown officers in the face ofa perceived threat of illegal export ofordnance to Spain. Another nationalrecord of an industry is Houghton’s list ofglassworks of 1696 (Vose 1980).

Accounts of specific industries can befound in various contemporaryencyclopaedias and textbooks. Particularlyuseful early accounts are Agricola’s 16th-century De Re Metallica (Hoover andHoover 1950) and Diderot’s Encyclopedia(Gillispie 1959). Technical textbooksbecame increasingly popular in the 19thcentury, from early examples such asRees’ Cyclopedia of 1819–20 (Cossons1972), and developed to rigorousdescriptive works such as Percy’sMetallurgy (1861; 1864; 1870). Thedictionaries compiled by Andrew Ure(1843) and James Muspratt (1860)contain much useful information (Fig 31)and were published in such large numbersthat they are both commonly available.In the 19th century technical journalsbecame important, examples being theJournal of the Iron and Steel Institute, theProceedings of the Institute of MechanicalEngineers and the Journal of the Society of Chemical Industry.

5.7 Paintings and photographsAn often-ignored source is the work oflandscape artists, from the 18th centuryonwards (Fig 32). Paintings need to betreated carefully, as composition orconvention could take precedence overstrict accuracy of detail and they shouldbe interpreted in their historical andartistic contexts (Klingender 1972). At the very least, the inclusion of a feature,however portrayed, seen to exist at aparticular time, has its value. Theattraction of railways to artists is wellknown, from the mid-19th centurypaintings and engravings of newly-builtrailways to the portrayals by FrenchImpressionist painters visiting England inthe 1870s. Architects’ drawings of suchschemes are important, although use ofthem should include verification thatbuildings were finished as projected.

The more modern counterpart is thephotographic collection, and the value ofthe widely-disseminated work ofcommercial photographers such as Frithof Reigate, Mottershaw of Sheffield orFrank Sutcliffe of Whitby cannot beoverstated. Many towns had firms whosework survives, and the recent interest inpublishing selections has emphasised thevalue of such sources.

6 Industrial summariesThe primary aims of an archaeologicalinvestigation into a site of past industrialactivity include identifying the processesand human activities that took place,and when and where on the site theyoccurred (Badcock and Malaws 2004;Cranstone 2001). These aims can bedifficult to achieve, even at sites wherebuildings survive and the industrial activity ceased relatively recently. Someprior knowledge of the processes that tookplace is essential in order to develop themost appropriate strategy for investigatingthe site, and to interpret the results to their full potential.

Numerous significant industries have not been included in this summary forreasons of space, notably the non-ferrousindustries (eg lead and copper), chemicalindustries (eg acids, alkalis and organicchemicals), industries producing gas,tar and coke from coal, and so on.Although the sites of these historicindustries have great potential forarchaeological investigation, as yet thereare few examples where this potential has been realised. However, generalinformation on these, and on otherindustries, can be found in Buchanan(1972), Campbell (1971), Cossons(1972), Crossley (1990), Jones (1996),Newman (2001), Raistrick (1972) andRussell (2000). Case Studies 2 and 5also describe archaeological evidence of non-ferrous industries.

The five tables in this section cover theiron, glass, pottery, textile and tanningindustries. Each table includes a briefsummary of the processes and achronology of developments in thatindustry (17th to 19th centuries), thetypes of materials, structures and wasteinvolved (any of which might beencountered archaeologically), theanalytical techniques that potentiallycould be employed and, finally, sources offurther information. These industries havebeen chosen because they were relativelywidespread and large scale and so theremains are likely to be encountered byarchaeologists. This selection alsoencompasses relatively low temperatureindustries using organic materials as wellas high temperature industries usinglargely inorganic materials. Therefore,although this list is far fromcomprehensive, many of the sameprinciples, in terms of the types ofarchaeological evidence likely to surviveand the scientific techniques that might be used, are likely to apply for otherindustries. The case studies relevant toeach industry are highlighted at the top of each table.

The analysis section of each industry table is intended as a guide to the types of deposit and feature that might have the most potential for analysis, and thetechniques that could be applied toaddress certain questions. Not all of thetechniques will be necessary or practicablein every situation. More information onanalytical techniques and sampling,including sample sizes, is provided insection 4, as well as details of the relevantEnglish Heritage guidelines.

25

FFiigg 3322 Buildings housing a cutlery grinding wheel, Endcliffe,Sheffield, by C T Dixon, 1868.

26

ProcessesIron ore was reduced to iron metal by smelting. The product ofblast furnace smelting was molten cast iron (a carbon-rich ironalloy). A limestone flux was used in the process, resulting in alime-rich slag by-product. The iron could be cast in a castinghouse next to the blast furnace, using moulding sand (eg for ‘pig’ingots) or clay moulds (eg for vessels and cauldrons). Foundriesspecialised in casting and could be separate from blast furnaces.They used reverberatory furnaces to re-melt cast iron.

Plain (or ‘wrought’) iron was shaped by smithing. Plain iron, steeland cast iron have different properties and applications, so avariety of processes were used to convert one to another. Cast

iron was refined to make plain iron using the fining process.Cast iron from coke-fuelled blast furnaces was more difficultto refine, and a number of processes were developed to do it,including potting and stamping; but the reverberatory puddlingfurnace method was more common. There were also a numberof methods for converting plain iron into steel. The cementationprocess resulted in heterogeneous steel bars, known as blistersteel. The Huntsman crucible steel-making method, however,produced more homogenous steel ingots by melting the steel.The Bessemer converter and Siemens regenerative open hearthfurnace also produced steel ingots, but with fewer impurities.

Chronological summaryBlast furnaces were introduced in Britain from the 15th centuryonwards. Early ones had water-powered bellows and werecharcoal-fuelled. Coke was used from the beginning of the 18thcentury but was not widely adopted until the later 18th century.Leather and wood bellows were replaced with cast iron blowingcylinders, and pumping engines were used to return water to millponds. From the late 18th into the 19th century waterwheelswere superseded by steam engines, and stoves preheated the airblasted into the furnace, allowing different ores and fuels, forexample anthracite and coal, to be used.

Before the late 17th century a large amount of steel wasimported. This changed when cementation steel was developed,followed by Huntsman crucible steel in the 18th century. TheBessemer converter was used for steel production from the mid-19th century, followed by the Siemens regenerative open hearthfurnace. From the end of the 18th century, with the invention of

the cupola furnace, cast iron was used directly in moreapplications, such as bridges, architectural components andindustrial machinery. Until the end of the 18th century, a largeproportion of cast iron was converted to plain or ‘wrought’ iron,using refining, potting, stamping and, from the 18th century,Cort’s puddling process. An increasing amount of puddledwrought iron was used in civil engineering and railway work. Thepuddled iron was hammered and rolled through grooves to formbars, which could subsequently be shaped into sheet, rods andrails. Steam hammers were widespread by the second half of the19th century, and continuous mills were also introduced.

Ironworking processes were increasingly mechanised over time.Water was used to power mills for slitting, drawing wire, makingsheet, grinding blades and reaming or boring. Later, pumpingengines and, in the 18th century, steam power were introduced.In some ‘hand trades’, however, power was rarely used.

MaterialsOre, fuel (charcoal/coke), flux (limestone), iron alloys, clay, sand and stone (eg for moulds, casting floor, furnaces, crucibles).

StructuresBuilding foundations, furnaces (smelting and foundry), timber, orstone-lined casting pits (foundry), anvil and hammer foundations(smithing), wheel-pits, culverts, dams, mill ponds, gear pits andshafts, engine houses, boiler houses, flues and chimneys,

placements for machinery (engines, stoves) and pipe work, guncarriages (gun boring), and grindstones and troughs for them(blade production).

WasteSlag, including hammerscale (smelting and smithing), furnacematerials, moulds (foundry), pots (potting), crucibles (crucible

steel), cementation chests (cementation steel) and metal (egspills, offcuts, turnings, failed castings).

Sampling and analysisSpecialist examination of slag, crucibles, etc (see Waste). Analysisof raw materials, slag, metal etc (eg by EDS/XRF/metallography)to identify processes, raw materials and products. Investigateprocess temperatures by testing associated ceramics, such ascrucibles (eg SEM/EDS/reheating). Sample deposits of materials(eg clay, casting sand) for analysis (eg by XRD/ICPS) and

identification. Sample preserved working surfaces and test forevidence of processes eg magnetic hammerscale from smithing,turnings from gun boring. Sample fuel for identification. Off-sitesampling for environmental and chemical evidence of pollutionand land use. TL dating of ceramic materials.

InformationBarraclough 1984; Cranstone 1997; Crossley 1995; Day and Tylecote 1991; Gale 1969; Hayman 2005; Riden 1994.

6.1 Iron alloys (see also Case Studies 1, 2 and 7)

27

ProcessesTo make glass, a source of silica, such as sand, flint or quartzpebbles, was combined with fluxes, for example lead oxide oralkalis (soda/potash). Before the development of synthetic soda,alkali fluxes were commonly derived from the ashes of plants suchas bracken, kelp or beech. Glass was made in a variety of colours,opaque or transparent, by controlling the production conditionsand adding colorants or opacifiers. Colourless glass was madeusing pure raw materials and/or by adding de-colourisers.

The raw materials (batch) were ‘fritted’ at ~700ºC then melted athigher temperatures (1200–1300ºC) in the furnace. Generally theglass was contained in crucibles, situated on platforms (sieges) in

the furnace. In contrast, in tank furnaces raw materials werecharged (added) at one end and melted glass taken from theother. Siemens’ regenerative furnace incorporated a method ofpreheating air and gas before they were used.

The shaping of glass mostly took place at production sites.Windows were made from crown glass, in which a blown glassbubble was opened out and spun to produce a circular ‘table’ ofglass, or from broad or cylinder glass, in which a glass bubble waselongated to form a cylinder and then cut open and laid flat.Tablewares and bottles could be ‘free-blown’, blown into moulds,or press moulded. Tablewares were often cut and engraved.

Chronological summaryEarlier furnaces comprised a long fuel trench flanked by parallelsieges, where the crucibles holding the glass were placed. Coalwas used from the early 17th century and glass furnaces wererapidly adapted to incorporate underground flues, ash pits andgrates. The characteristic conical cover building first appears inthe late 17th century (see Fig 28) and, during the 18th century,some furnaces used a circular hearth with six or eight cruciblessurrounding it. Nineteenth-century developments included thetransition to gas fuel and the use of large tank furnaces, and laterSiemens’ regenerative furnace.

Both crown glass and broad glass were used for windows up tothe mid-18th century. Subsequently crown glass was favoureduntil the mid 19th century, when broad glass (or German sheetglass) was reintroduced, and ground and polished to improve thefinish (patent plate). Initially the glass used for windows had ahigh-lime, low-alkali (HLLA) composition, made from plantashes. Kelp ashes were widely used through the 18th century and,

from the 1830s, synthetic soda (saltcake) was commerciallyproduced and commonly used in window glass.

In the 17th century, tableware was mainly free-blown, generallyfrom ‘ordinary’ HLLA-type glass or a colourless, purer alkali glassknown as crystal. Crystal glass was revolutionised in the later17th century by the development of lead crystal (flint glass) madewith lead oxide. In the 19th century, some tablewares wereproduced by blowing glass into moulds and later press mouldingtechniques were widely used.

Container bottles, such as wine bottles, were made from about themid-17th century, initially free-blown but, during the 18th century,they were increasingly mould-blown in two-part moulds. In 1821 athree-part mould for bottles was patented. The earliest bottles weremade from ordinary (HLLA) glass but from the mid-18th century,other, often cheaper, ingredients were added, for example blastfurnace slag, kelp ash, soapers’ waste, bricks, clay and stone.

MaterialsSand/flint/quartz, potash/plant ashes (and plants from whichpotash derived, eg kelp), lime/slag/lead oxide (red lead),

colorants, clay, sand and stone (eg for crucibles, furnaces), metal(eg moulds), fuel (eg coal).

StructuresBuilding foundations, furnaces (eg sieges, foundation of cone,tank, swing pits), fritting oven, annealing oven or channels,flues, regenerative gas complexes, engine and boiler houses,

pipes and chimneys, ash pit, fuel grates and fuel delivery systems(eg Frisbee feeder).

WasteGlass (working waste, fragments of products, devitrified glass),crucibles, moulds, furnace materials, sandever (scum from

surface of glass), tools (eg blowing iron, shears, wooden tools).

Sampling and analysisSpecialist examination of glass, crucibles, etc (see Waste). Sievesamples from working surfaces to recover small glass fragments iflittle survives otherwise. Analysis of glass to identify types madeand probable raw materials (eg EDS/ICPS). Sample deposits ofmaterial (eg clay for crucibles, glass raw materials – see Materials)for identification (eg by XRD/ICPS). Sample fuel for

identification. Off-site sampling for environmental and chemicalevidence of pollution and land use. Investigate processtemperatures by testing glass or associated materials (egcrucibles, furnace materials). TL dating of ceramic materials orarchaeomagnetic dating of furnaces.

InformationCrossley 1990; 2003; Douglas and Frank 1972; Vose 1980; Krupa and Heawood 2002.

6.2 Glass (see also Case Studies 6 and 8)

28

ProcessesThe raw materials for ceramics were prepared, for example, byweathering, levigation, working, milling, mixing and sieving.Materials were often combined, for example different clays,temper (a non-plastic material added to clay to modify itsproperties) and fluxes (to modify the fusing temperature).Strongly-coloured ceramic bodies were made by addingcolourants (eg Wedgwood Jasper ware) or by using materials witha naturally high concentration of colourants. ‘Hard-paste’porcelain bodies were made using china clay and china stone.Bone china was produced using bone ash.

Pottery was formed by a variety of methods, including handforming, throwing, slip casting in moulds, press moulding andlathe turning. After drying, objects were fired in kilns using fuels,depending on availability, although coal was used increasingly.The firing temperature depended on the ceramic: for earthenwareclays 800–1100°C, and higher for stoneware and porcelain. Oftenpottery underwent more than one firing; for example an initialbiscuit firing, after which the decoration and glaze were applied,

followed by a glost firing. Wares could be protected in the kiln bystacking them in sealed ceramic vessels (saggars), with varioustypes of divider supporting them (spurs, stilts, etc). The firingatmosphere (oxidising/reducing) also influenced the resultingappearance of the ceramic, glaze and decoration.

Types of decoration include slips (coloured, fine claysuspensions), which were applied to vessels before they werefired. Glaze raw materials could be fritted and ground beforeapplication, or applied in the raw state. Glaze mixtures wereapplied as a powder, or from a suspension in water, by pouring,dipping, splashing, etc. Glaze compositions were tailored to ‘fit’ the ceramic body and for decorative effect. Salt glazing wasused on stonewares; the salt decomposed at high temperaturesand reacted with the ceramic to form a thin glaze layer.Delftware was earthenware covered with a white glaze, opacifiedwith tin oxide. Decoration could be painted on top of the glaze(overglaze) using pigments.

Chronological summaryAlthough single-flue and double-flue kilns are known from small-scale production sites in the 17th century, kilns with three ormore stokeholes were the common form, being better suited tocoal fuel. Brick-built kilns with a permanent structure werestandard by the early 18th century in major pottery-producingcentres and the characteristic, large, conical chimneys developedover the late 17th and early 18th centuries. These kilns werepermanent and brick-built with a bottle-shaped casing andmultiple flues. Rectangular continental-style kilns were used forproducing some wares (eg delft and stoneware). From the 18thcentury, steam engines were used, for example for flint mills,grinding ceramic colours and mixing clays.

Delftwares were produced in England from the early 17thcentury, or a little earlier, declining towards the end of the

18th century. Large-scale production of English stonewares beganin the late 17th century, together with salt-glazing. In the mid 18thcentury, the scale and specialisation of English ceramic productionincreased significantly, together with the exploitation of white-firing clays for refined earthenwares and stonewares (significantlyball clay from Devon and Dorset). Coloured earthenware bodieswere popular in the mid-18th century but less so throughout the19th century, whereas coloured stoneware bodies becameincreasingly important from the mid-18th century onwards.

Transfer-printed earthenwares were produced on a significant scalefrom the late 18th century. Hard-paste porcelain was produced fromthe mid-18th century, although types of soft-paste porcelain werepreviously made in England. Bone china was made from the early19th century.

WastePot wasters, kiln furniture (saggars, strips or wads of clay forsealing saggars, bars or pegs for supporting wares, stilts, spurs,cranks, placing rings, re-used wasters), kiln fragments, kiln bats,coal, ash and slag, miscellaneous small coarse

vessels containing residues of glazes and pigments, moulds (fired clay and plaster of Paris), ribs and profiles for shapingwares (usually ceramic, sometimes slate), other tools (eg frombone or wood).

MaterialsClay, sand, bone, flint, glaze materials (eg lead oxide, tin oxide, salt, colouring pigments), fuel (eg wood, coal).

StructuresBuilding foundations, kilns, fireboxes, hovels, flues, stoking pits,stoves or hearths (eg pot drying), engine house, flues,

chimney (eg for steam-powered flint mill), troughs, pits, tanks.

Sampling and analysisSpecialist examination of wasters, moulds, etc (see Waste).Analysis of wasters at different stages of production to identifythe raw materials and firing regimes (eg SEM/EDS/reheating).Analysis (eg by XRD/EDS/XRF) of residues in coarse vessels andsaggars to identify origins and function eg glaze and pigment

preparation/flow powder for transfer printing. Sample tanks andpits for evidence of function and also sample distinct deposits (egclay, glaze raw materials – see Materials) for identification (eg byXRD/ICPS). Sample fuel for identification. TL dating of ceramicsor archaeomagnetic dating of furnaces.

InformationCrossley 1990; Cossons 1975; Green 1999; Baker 1991; Barker 2004; Freestone and Gaimster 1997.

6.3 Pottery (see also Case Study 3)

29

ProcessesMany similar processes were involved in textile production,whether of silk, cotton, hemp, wool or flax. The material wascleaned and prepared by carding (aligning the fibres). Short wool fibres were separated from long ones by combing, and the latter were made into fine yarn for ‘worsted’ cloth whereas the short fibres were used for ‘woollens’. The fibres were spuninto thread.

Woven fabrics were produced on a loom. The longitudinal warp threads were held on a frame and the horizontal weft threads

were passed over and under these. The threads were often coatedin a mixture called a ‘size’.

The finishing of woven cloths included ‘fulling’, where the fabricwas pounded in water with fuller’s earth and stretched out to dryon tenter hooks. Bleaching and dyeing required large amounts ofwater. The alkaline solutions used in bleaching were derived fromplant ashes and the fabric was pegged out in the sun for up toseveral weeks. Dyes were also plant-based. Later, faster-actingchlorine bleaches and synthetic dyes were used.

Chronological summaryThe development of powered machines for many textileprocesses, particularly in the 18th and 19th centuries, had aprofound impact on the organisation and output of the industry.The evidence for textile industries prior to these developments isoften scant.

Carding was mechanised from the later 18th century whereascombing was the last section of the process to be mechanised.

In the second half of the 18th century, the introduction of thehand-driven ‘spinning jenny’, with multiple spindles,revolutionised the spinning process. This was followed by thedevelopment of a ‘water frame’ for spinning cotton, driven byhorse- then water-power. The ‘spinning mule’ incorporated theattributes of both inventions and was water-driven by the end ofthe 18th century. Ultimately spinning machines with more than1000 spindles were employed.

Textile mills were erected from around the mid-18th century.Mills had multiple storeys and bays accommodating rows ofmachines drawing power from a waterwheel or, later, a steam

engine. Wooden shafts and gears were replaced by iron ones andthen, in the second half of the 19th century, with a system ofropes attached to the flywheel of a steam engine. Catastrophicfires stimulated the development of fire-proofing measures, suchas cast iron beams in place of timber ones.

Handlooms were located in the weavers’ homes. Powered loomsincreased in use from the end of the 18th century, becomingwidely employed in the first part of the 19th century. Theprocesses for producing knitted fabrics, hosiery and lace were alsomechanised over this period. Powered weaving frames weregenerally heavy, with a strong reciprocating action, and werehoused in single story weaving sheds.

The hammers of fulling mills were water-powered from an earlydate. Before the Industrial Revolution, bleaching and dyeingprocesses probably made use of wooden- or stone-lined troughsand pits, vats and cauldrons. Later, heated dyeing houses wereemployed and the processes used massive equipment housed insheds. In the late 18th century, chlorine bleaches were used,and in the 19th century, synthetic dyes were developed.

MaterialsSilk, cotton, hemp, wool, flax, fibre sizing materials(flour/tallow/china clay), fulling materials (eg fuller’s earth, fuller’steasel: Dipsacus sativus), bleaching materials (eg alkalis from plant

ashes, chlorine bleaches), dyeing materials (eg dyers greenweed,synthetic aniline dyes), mordants (eg alum), water.

StructuresBuilding foundations, vat bases, pits and drains (dyeing), engineroom, boiler house, machine bases and restraining rods, culverts,

flues, chimneys and pipe work (all textile mills), wheel-pit (fullingmills, textile mills).

WasteFibres, propagules or, for flax, seed capsules and flax field weedsin waterlain deposits (water-retting of hemp and flax), sheepkeds, lice and possibly types of dung beetle (wool cleaning),remains of plants used in dyeing and mordanting, for example

dyers’ greenweed, or chemicals used in these processes,clinker/ash from engine/boiler houses, artefacts (eg bobbin, loomweight, cauldron, weaving reed, pegs and pins).

Sampling and analysisGeneral industry: Sample waterlain and waterlogged deposits,preserved working surfaces and cut features near to structures forevidence of the textile processes taking place and raw materialsused. Identify environmental evidence (plant and insect indicators– see Waste, and Materials). Specialist examination of survivingtextiles.

Textile mills: Sample at intervals across excavated area or structure(to locate activity), or in water features and sediments (to investigatepollution and water quality). Analyse for high levels of organicchemicals, such as synthetic dyes (eg test for toluene solublematerial), and other elements (eg aluminium/tin/lead) that might beassociated with bleaches, dyes or mordants for the period in question.

InformationCossons 1975; Hall and Kenward 2003; Schelvis 2003; Crossley 1990; Calladine and Fricker 1993; Baines 1966.

6.4 Textiles (see also Case Study 4)

30

ProcessesCattle hides were tanned in a time-consuming, multiple-stageprocess. The horns, upper part of the skull, feet and tail, whichwere varyingly left attached to the hide as received by the tanner,were later removed and the hides were washed. The removal offlesh and hair was accelerated using a lime or ash suspension(liming), or urine. In the mastering process, hides were immersedin an alkaline mixture made from bird droppings, dog faeces, orvegetable matter (eg barley, rye or ash bark). Hides were tannedin pits, sandwiched between layers of oak bark, filled with wateror oak bark solution for between nine months and several years.The tanned hides were rinsed, smoothed, dried and sometimeshammered or rolled.

The skins of other animals, such as goats, sheep and horses, werealso used, some ‘casualty’ animals and others butchered. Althoughtraditionally these skins were processed using mixtures based onalum or oils, known as tawing, in this period these animal skins werealso tanned, often at the same site as hides.The skins were softenedby working and cut to the desired thickness before being dyed.

Skinners or furriers prepared the skins of animals such as catsand squirrels. The hair was retained and the skin was preservedby tawing methods. Fellmongers removed and sold wool fromsheep skins and sold the pelt on to whittawyers (or glovers).Curriers dressed leather, producing a uniform and flexiblematerial with an appropriate thickness.

Chronological summaryIndustries became increasingly centralised in the post-medievalperiod. The first aspect to be powered was grinding the tanningbark, then powered stocks, mills or kickers were introduced for re-hydrating dried hides or impregnating skins with oils.In the 18th century, machines were developed for splitting

hides to the desired thickness. In the 19th century, a revolvingdrum system was widely adopted to speed up the penetration oftanning solutions into light leathers. Also in the 19th century,a process using chromium salts for tanning was developed.

MaterialsCattle hides, skins or carcasses of other animals (eg sheep, goats,horses, cats), oak bark (tanning), lime/ash/urine (liming), bird

droppings/dog faeces or barley/rye/ash bark (mastering), water.

StructuresBuilding foundations, numerous large pits (eg 0.7–2m diameter),predominantly round but some rectangular, generally lined with

clay and wooden staves, also ditches, troughs, drains and wells.

WasteBone (typically from only one or two species), cattle horncorescommon and abundant, sheep and goat horncores and sheep footbones also common, horse bones from all parts of the skeleton,deposits of cat paw bones known, regular or consistent sharp cut

or chop marks, particularly at extremities of skeleton), oak bark,bark scleroids, increased number of scarabaeid beetle T. Scaber,leather, residues (lime, ash, tannins), tools (eg knives).

Sampling and analysisSampling from pits, water features, waterlain deposits andpreserved working surfaces to identify function of features andmaterials used. Test for residues (eg phosphate and uric acid frommastering stage, carbonates from liming stage and humic acids

and tannins from tanning stage). Identify environmental evidencefor nature of activity and water quality (plant and insectindicators – see Waste, and Materials). Specialist examination ofbone assemblages and surviving leather.

InformationAlbarella 2003; Thomson 1981; 1982; Shaw 1996; Ervynck et al 2003; Luff and García 1995; Serjeanston 1989; Hall and Kenward 2003.

6.5 Tanning (also tawing and fellmongering)

7 Where to get information and help

7.1 Monuments Protection Programme reportsInformation about historic industries canbe obtained from a number of sources. Aspart of English Heritage’s MonumentsProtection Programme (English Heritage2000) surveys of major historic industrieswere undertaken and a series of ‘step’reports compiled. The step 1 reportscontain overviews of each industry whilethe step 3 reports include a list of all sitesthat are potentially of national importance,in order of significance. The completed step1 and step 3 reports (see Table 2) areavailable for consultation at the NationalMonuments Record (Swindon), theCouncil for British Archaeology (York),Leicester University and the Institute forIndustrial Archaeology (Ironbridge).

Table 2. Details of completed MPP reports

Step 1 3

ALUM + +

ARSENIC + +

BRASS + +

CHEMICALS + –

CLAY + –

COAL + +

COPPER + +

DOVECOTES + +

ELECTRICITY + +

GAS + –

GLASS + +

GUNPOWDER + +

ICEHOUSES + +

IRON/STEEL + +

LEAD + +

LIME + +

MINOR METALS + +

OIL + –

SALT + –

STONE + +

TIN + +

WATER SUPPLY + +

ZINC + +

7.2 Department of the EnvironmentIndustry ProfilesFurther information about particularindustries can be found in the Department of the Environment Industry Profiles (www.environment-agency.gov.uk).The primaryaim of these reports is to identify the range of possible contaminants on sites of historicindustries, but in so doing they provideinformation on the processes, materials andwastes associated with individuals industries.

7.3 Regional Science AdvisorsThe English Heritage Regional ScienceAdvisors can provide advice on the role of science in the archaeologicalinvestigation of an historic industry.The nine regional advisors are available toprovide independent non-commercialadvice on aspects of archaeologicalscience. They are based in universities orin the English Heritage regional offices.

East of England(Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Essex,Hertfordshire, Norfolk, Suffolk)

Dr Jen HeathcoteEnglish Heritage Regional Office24 Brooklands AvenueCambridge CB2 2BUtel: 01223 582700e-mail: jen.heathcote@english-heritage.org.uk

East Midlands(Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Rutland,Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire,Northamptonshire)

Dr Jim WilliamsEnglish Heritage Regional Office44 Derngate, Northampton NN1 1UHtel: 01604 735400e-mail: jim.williams@english-heritage.org.uk

LondonDr Jane SidellUniversity College LondonInstitute of Archaeology31–34 Gordon SquareLondon WC1H 0PYtel: 0207 679 4928e-mail: j.sidell@ucl.ac.uk

North East(Northumberland, Durham, Tyne & Wear,all of Hadrian’s Wall)

Mrs Jacqui HuntleyDepartment of ArchaeologyUniversity of Durham Science LaboratoriesSouth RoadDurham DH1 3LEtel: 0191 334 1137e-mail: j.p.huntley@durham.ac.uk

North West(Cheshire, former Greater Manchester,former Merseyside, Lancashire, Cumbria(excluding Hadrian’s Wall: see North East)

Dr Sue StallibrassUniversity of Liverpool

School of Archaeology, Classics andOriental Studies (SACOS)William Hartley BuildingBrownlow StreetLiverpool L69 3GStel: 0151 794 5046e-mail: sue.stallibrass@liv.ac.uk

South East(Kent, Surrey, Sussex, Berkshire,Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire,Hampshire, Isle of Wight)

Dr Dominique de MoulinsUniversity College LondonInstitute of Archaeology 31–34 Gordon SquareLondon WC1H 0PYtel: 0207 679 1539e-mail: d.moulins@ucl.ac.uk

South West(Cornwall, Isles of Scilly, Devon,Somerset, Dorset, Wiltshire,Gloucestershire, Bath and NE Somerset,Bristol, South Gloucestershire, NorthSomerset)

Ms Vanessa StrakerEnglish Heritage Regional Office24 Queen SquareBristolBS1 4NDtel: 0117 975 2289e-mail: Vanessa.straker@english-heritage.org.uk

West Midlands(Herefordshire, Worcestershire,Shropshire, Staffordshire, former WestMidlands, Warwickshire)

Ms Lisa Moffett English Heritage Regional Office112 Colmore RowBirmingham B3 3AGtel: 0121 625 6875e-mail: lisa.moffett@english-heritage.org.uk

Yorkshire Region(North Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, WestYorkshire and former Humberside)

Dr Andrew HammonEnglish Heritage37 Tanner RowYork Y01 6WPtel: 01904 601983e-mail: andy.hammon@english-heritage.org.uk

31

7.4 English Heritage ArchaeologicalScience teamsFurther advice can be obtained from theEnglish Heritage Archaeological Scienceteams.

Scientific dating co-ordinator:Dr Alex Bayliss1 Waterhouse Square138–142 HolbornLondon EC1N 2STtel: 020 7973 3299e-mail: alex.bayliss@english-heritage.org.uk

Archaeomagnetic dating:Dr Paul Linford Fort Cumberland,Fort Cumberland Road,Eastney,Portsmouth PO4 9LDtel: 02392 856700e-mail: paul.linford@english-heritage.org.uk

Environmental science:Mrs Gill CampbellFort Cumberland (see details above)e-mail: gill.campbell@english-heritage.org.uk

Investigative conservation:Mrs Jacqui WatsonFort Cumberland (see details above)e-mail: jacqui.watson@english-heritage.org.uk

Technology:Dr Justine BayleyFort Cumberland (see details above)e-mail: justine.bayley@english-heritage.org.uk

Geophysics:Dr Paul LinfordFort Cumberland (see details above)e-mail: paul.linford@english-heritage.org.uk

7.5 Health and safety issues relating tocontaminated landThe investigation of sites of historicindustries poses many potential risks tothe health and safety of the personnelinvolved. Before any fieldwork begins it isessential that a site-specific riskassessment is drawn up. This should setout the risks in terms of the likelihoodthat personnel will be exposed to a hazardas well as the outcome of that exposure.Desk-based assessments, site evaluationsand data from non-archaeologicalcontractors will all provide information

about potential hazards. Risk assessmentsshould be carried out with reference toappropriate legislation, for example theHealth and Safety at Work Act (1974), theManagement of Health and Safety atWork Regulations (1999), the Control ofSubstances Hazardous to Health(COSHH) Regulations 2002, and thePersonal Protective Equipment at WorkRegulations (2002).

More detailed information on the hazardsposed, and how to carry out riskassessments, can be obtained from anumber of sources, in particular the Healthand Safety Executive (www.hse.gov.uk), aswell as local authority health and safetyteams. Further guidance is available fromthe Department of the Environment, Foodand Rural Affairs (www.defra.gov.uk) andfrom the Environment Agency(www.environment-agency.gov.uk). Specificguidance for land contamination andarchaeology can be obtained from theInstitute of Field Archaeologists(www.archaeologists.net), the ConstructionIndustry Research and InformationAssociation (www.contaminated-land.org)and the Association of Geotechnical andGeoenvironmental Specialists(www.ags.org.uk).

8 ReferencesAitken, M J 1990 Science-Based Dating inArchaeology. Longman: London

Albarella, U 2003 ‘Tawyers, tanners, horntrade and the mystery of the missinggoat’, in Murphy, P and Wiltshire, P E J(eds) The Environmental Archaeology ofIndustry. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 71–83

Bacci, M 2000 ‘UV–VIS–NIR, FT–IR,and FORS spectroscopies’, in Ciliberto,E and Spoto, G (eds) Modern AnalyticalMethods in Art and Archaeology.Chichester: Wiley, 321–62

Badcock, A and Crossley, D forthcoming‘Archives and urban archaeology: theFairbank surveyors papers and work onbrown-field sites in Sheffield’, inMartinon-Torres, M and Rehren, Th (eds)Scientific and Textual Studies in Archaeology:contrasting complementary evidence.London: UCL Press

Badcock, A and Malaws, B 2004‘Recording people and processes at largeindustrial structures’, in Barker, D andCranstone, D (eds) The Archaeology ofIndustrialization. Leeds: Maney, 269–90

Baines, E 1966 History of CottonManufacture in Great Britain. London:Frank Cass Publishers

Baker, D 1991 Potworks: the industrialarchitecture of the Staffordshire potteries.London: RCHME

Barker, D 2004 ‘The industrialization ofthe Staffordshire potteries’, in Barker, Dand Cranstone, D (eds) The Archaeology ofIndustrialization. Leeds: Maney, 203–22

Barker, P 1982 Techniques of ArchaeologicalExcavation. London: BatsfordBarraclough, K C 1984 Steel BeforeBessemer, (2 volumes). London: MetalsSociety

Bayley, J, Dungworth, D and Paynter,S 2001 Archaeometallurgy. Centre forArchaeology Guidelines 2001/01. London:English Heritage

Bayley, J and Crossley, D 2004‘Archaeological science as an aid to thestudy of post-medieval industrialization’,in Barker, D and Cranstone, D (eds) The Archaeology of Industrialization. Leeds:Maney, 15–23

Bayley, J and Williams, J 2005 ‘Archaeo-logical science and industrial archaeology:manufacturing, landscape and socialcontext’. Ind Archaeol Rev 27, 33–40

Belford, P 2003 ‘Forging ahead inCoalbrookdale: historical archaeology atthe Upper Forge’. Ind Archaeol Rev 25,59–63

Belford, P and Ross, R A 2004 ‘Industryand domesticity: exploring historicalarchaeology in the Ironbridge Gorge’.Post-Medieval Archaeol 38, 215–225

Berg, T and Berg, P (eds) 2001 R RAngerstein’s Illustrated Travel Diary1753–1755. London: Science Museum

Bowman, S (ed) 1991 Science and the Past.London: British Museum Press

Britton, J 1850 The Autobiography of JohnBritton. London: privately printed

Brothwell, D R and Pollard, A M (eds)2001 Handbook of Archaeological Sciences.Chichester: Wiley

Brown, C M 1980 ‘The glass industry in the eighteen-thirties’. Glass Technol 21,184–9

32

Buchanan, R A 1972 Industrial Archaeologyin Britain. Harmondsworth: Pelican

Buchannan, P T 1992 ‘Metalliferous plantcommunities: the flora of lead smelting inthe upper Nent valley’, in L Willies and D Cranstone (eds) Boles and Smeltmills.London: Historical Metallurgy Society,58–61

Buck, C E and Millard, A R (eds) 2001Tools for Constructing Chronologies. CrossingDisciplinary Boundaries. London: Springer

Cable, M and Smedley, J W 1987‘Liquidus temperatures and meltingcharacteristics of some early containerglasses’. Glass Technol 28, 94–8

Calladine, A and Fricker, J 1993 EastCheshire Textile Mills. London: RCHME

Campbell, W A 1971 The ChemicalIndustry. London: Longman

Cariati, F and Bruni, S 2000 ‘Ramanspectroscopy’, in Ciliberto, E and Spoto,G (eds) Modern Analytical Methods in Artand Archaeology. Chichester: Wiley,255–78

Ciliberto, E and Spoto, G (eds) ModernAnalytical Methods in Art and Archaeology.Chichester: Wiley, 279–320

Conyers, L B 2004 Ground PenetratingRadar for Archaeology. Walnut Creek, CA:AltaMira Press

Corfield, M, Hinton, P, Nixon, T, andPollard, M (eds) 1998 Preserving Archaeo-logical Remains In Situ: Proceedings of theconference of 1st–3rd April, 1996. London:Museum of London Archaeology Service

Cossons, N 1975 The BP Book ofIndustrial Archaeology. Newton Abbot:David and Charles

— 2000 ‘Perspective’, in Cossons, N (ed)Perspectives on Industrial Archaeology.London: Science Museum, 9–17

Cossons, N (ed) 1972 Rees’s Manu-facturing Industry (1819–20), (5 volumes).Newton Abbot: David and Charles

Cranstone, D 1992 ‘Excavation: the role ofarchaeology’. Ind Archaeol Rev 14, 119–25

— 1997 Derwentcote Steel Furnace: anindustrial monument in County Durham.Bailrigg: Lancaster University Press

— 2001 ‘Industrial Archaeology — manu-facturing a new society’, in Newman, RThe Historical Archaeology of Britain,c 1540–1900. Stroud: Sutton, 183–210

— 2004 ‘The archaeology ofIndustrialization — new directions’, inBarker, D and Cranstone, D (eds) The Archaeology of Industrialization. Leeds:Maney, 313–20

Crossley, D 1990 Post-MedievalArchaeology in Britain. Leicester: LeicesterUniversity Press

— 1995 ‘The blast furnace at Rockley,South Yorkshire’. Archaeol J 152, 381–421

— 1997 ‘The Fairbanks of Sheffield:Surveyors’ records as a source for thestudy of regional economic developmentin the eighteenth and nineteenthcenturies’. Ind Archaeol Rev 19, 5–20

— 1998 ‘The archaeologist and evidencefrom field sampling for medieval and post-medieval technological innovation’, inBayley, J (ed) Science in Archaeology: anagenda for the future. London: EnglishHeritage, 219–23

— 2003 ‘The archaeology of the coal-fuelled glass industry in England’.Archaeol J 160, 160–199

Darvill, T and Russell, B 2002 Archaeologyafter PPG16: archaeological investigations inEngland 1990–1999. Bournemouth:Bournemouth University School ofConservation Sciences

Davis, M J, Gdaniec, K L A, Brice, M andWhite, L 2004 Mitigation of ConstructionImpact on Archaeological Remains. London:Museum of London

Day, J and Tylecote, R F 1991 TheIndustrial Revolution in Metals. London:The Institute of Metals

DETR 2000 Our Towns and Cities: theFuture. Delivering an urban renaissance. UKGovernment White Paper. London: HMSO

Douet, J 1991 Going Up in Smoke – thehistory of the industrial chimney. London:The Victorian Society

Douglas, R W and Frank, S 1972 AHistory of Glassmaking. Henley: Foulis

Dungworth, D and Brain, C 2005Investigation of Late 17th-century Crystal

Glass. Unpublished Centre forArchaeology Report 21/2005. London:English Heritage

Dungworth, D B and Cromwell, T 2006‘Glass and pottery production atSilkstone,Yorkshire’. Post-MedievalArchaeol 40

English Heritage 1995a GeophysicalSurvey in Archaeological Field Evaluation.London: English Heritage

English Heritage 1995b Waterlogged Wood.guidelines on the recording, sampling,conservation, and curation of waterloggedwood. London: English Heritage

English Heritage 1995c Guidelines for theCare of Waterlogged Archaeological Leather.London: English Heritage

English Heritage 1999. Guidelines for theConservation of Textiles. London: EnglishHeritage

English Heritage 2000 MPP 2000. AReview of the Monuments ProtectionProgramme, 1986–2000. London: EnglishHeritage

English Heritage 2002 EnvironmentalArchaeology. Centre for ArchaeologyGuidelines 2002/01. Swindon: EnglishHeritage

English Heritage 2004a Human Bones from Archaeological Sites. Centre forArchaeology Guidelines. Swindon:English Heritage

English Heritage 2004b Geoarchaeology.Swindon: English Heritage

English Heritage 2004c Dendrochronology.London: English Heritage

English Heritage 2006a ArchaeomagneticDating. Swindon: English Heritage

English Heritage 2006b UnderstandingHistoric Buildings. A guide to good recordingpractice. Swindon: English Heritage

English Heritage forthcoming GeophysicalSurvey in Archaeological Field Evaluation.Second edition.

Environment Agency 2005 Guidance onAssessing the Risk Posed by LandContamination and its Remediation onArchaeological Resource Management.Bristol: Environment Agency

33

Ervynck, A, Hillewaert, B, Maes, A andVan Strydonck, M 2003 ‘Tanning andhorn-working at late- and post-medievalBruges: the organic evidence’, in Murphy,P and Wiltshire, P E J (eds.) TheEnvironmental Archaeology of Industry.Oxford: Oxbow Books, 60–70

Evershed, R 2000 ‘Biomolecular analysisby organic mass spectrometry’, inCiliberto, E and Spoto, G (eds) ModernAnalytical Methods in Art and Archaeology.Chichester: Wiley, 177–240

Fell, V, Mould, Q and White, R 2006Guidelines on the X-radiography ofArchaeological Metalwork. Swindon:English Heritage

Freestone, I C 1982 ‘Applications andpotential of electron probe micro-analysisin technological and provenanceinvestigations of ancient ceramics’.Archaeometry 24, 99–116

Freestone, I C 1988 ‘Melting points andviscosities of ancient slags: a contributionto the discussion’. Historical Metallurgy 22,49–51

Freestone I and Gaimster D (eds) 1997Pottery in the Making,World CeramicTraditions. London: British Museum Press

Gaffney, C and Gater, J 2003 Revealing theBuried Past: geophysical survey techniques inarchaeology. Stroud: Tempus

Gale, R 2003 ‘Wood-based industrial fuelsand their environmental impact in lowlandBritain, in Murphy, P and Wiltshire, P E J(eds) The Environmental Archaeology ofIndustry. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 30–47

Gale, W K V 1969 Iron and steel. London:Longmans

Gillispie, C C (ed) 1959 A DiderotPictorial Encyclopedia of Trades andIndustry. New York: Dover

Gaskell, E 1994 North and South. Oxford:Oxford University Press (originallypublished in serial form 1854–1855)

Goodwin, J 2005 ‘Piecing together thePotteries’. British Archaeol 82, 47–51

Green, C 1999 John Dwight’s FulhamPottery: Excavations 1971–79. London:English Heritage

Groves, C 2000 ‘Belarus to Bexley and

beyond: dendrochronology anddendroprovenancing of conifer timbers’.Vernacular Architecture 31, 59–66

Hall, A and Kenward, H 2003 ‘Can weidentify biological indicator groups forcraft, industry and other activities?’, inMurphy, P and Wiltshire, P E J (eds) TheEnvironmental Archaeology of Industry.Oxford: Oxbow Books, 114–30

Hamilton, K 2002 ‘Archaeologicalassessment of Urban and Brown field sitesby geophysical prospection’. University ofBradford unpublished PhD thesis

Hayman, R 2005 Ironmaking: the historyand archaeology of the iron industry. Stroud:Tempus

Hey, G and Lacey, M 2001 Evaluation ofArchaeological Decision-making Processesand Sampling Strategies. Maidstone: KentCounty Council

Hoover, H C and Hoover, L H 1950Georgicus Agricola. De Re Metallica. NewYork: Dover

Howarth, K 1977 ‘Oral history. an aid tothe industrial archaeologist’. Ind ArchaeolRev 2, 94–7

Hudson- Edwards, K A, Macklin, M G,Finlayson, R and Passmore, D G 1999‘Medieval lead pollution in the River Ouseat York, England’. J Archaeol Sci 26,809–19

José-Yacamán, M and Ascencio, J A 2000‘Electron microscopy and its applicationto the study of archaeological materialsand art preservation’, in Ciliberto, E andSpoto, G (eds) Modern Analytical Methodsin Art and Archaeology. Chichester: Wiley,405–44

Jones, W R 1996 Dictionary of IndustrialArchaeology. Stroud: Sutton

Klingender, F D 1972 Art and theIndustrial Revolution. Edited and revisedby A Elton. London: Paladin

Krupa, M and Heawood, R 2002 ‘TheHotties’. Excavation and building survey atPilkingtons No 9 Tank House, St Helens,Merseyside. Lancaster: Oxford ArchaeologyNorth

Lee, E 2006 MoRPHE: Management ofResearch Projects in the Historic Environment

the Project Managers Guide. London:English Heritage

Linsley, S M 2000 ‘Industrial archaeologyin the North East of England,1852–2000’, in Cossons, N (ed)Perspectives on Industrial Archaeology.London: Science Museum, 115–38

Luff, R M and García, M M 1995 ‘Killingcats in the medieval period. An unusualepisode in the history of Cambridge,England’. Archaeofauna 4, 93–114

Lunn, A 2004 Northumberland. London:Collins

Magilton, J 2003 Fernhurst Furnace andOther Industrial Sites in the Western Weald.Chichester: Chichester District Council

McDonnell, J G 1972 ‘An account of theiron industry in upper Ryedale andBilsdale, c1150–1650’. Ryedale Historian 6,23–49

— 1999 ‘Monks and miners: the ironindustry of Bilsdale and Rievaulx Abbey’.Medieval Life 11, 16–22

McDonnell, J G (ed) 1963 A History ofHelmsley, Rievaulx and District.York: TheStonegate Press

Mighall, T, M, Dumayne-Peaty, L,Cranstone, P 2004 ‘A record ofatmospheric pollution and vegetationchange as recorded in three peat bogsfrom the Northern Penines Pb-Znorefield’. Environmental Archaeol 9, 13–38

Moens, J-C, Calligaro, T and Salomon, J2000 ‘X-ray fluorescence’, in Ciliberto, Eand Spoto, G (eds) Modern AnalyticalMethods in Art and Archaeology.Chichester: Wiley, 55–80

Muspratt, S 1860 Chemistry.Theoretical,Practical and Analytical. Glasgow: Mackenzie

Newman, R 2001 The HistoricalArchaeology of Britain, c1540–1900. Stroud:Sutton

Nixon, T 2004 Preserving ArchaeologicalRemains In Situ? Proceedings of the 2ndconference 12–14 September 2001. London:Museum of London

Odlyha, M 2000 ‘Thermal analysis’, inCiliberto, E and Spoto, G (eds) ModernAnalytical Methods in Art and Archaeology.Chichester: Wiley, 279–320

34

Oliver, R 1993 Ordnance Survey Maps —a concise guide for historians. London:Historical Association

Orton, C 2000 Sampling in Archaeology.Cambridge and New York: University Press

Palmer, M and Neaverson, P 1998Industrial Archaeology: principles andpractice. London: Routledge

Payne, S 2004 ‘Contaminated land orhuman history?’. British Archaeol 79, 32

Percy, J 1861 Metallurgy. Fuel; Fire-clays;Copper; zinc; Brass, Etc. London: JohnMurray

— 1864 Metallurgy. Iron and steel. London:John Murray

— 1870 Metallurgy. Lead, including theextraction of silver from lead. London: JohnMurray

Pollard, A M and Heron, C 1996Archaeological Chemistry. Cambridge: TheRoyal Society of Chemistry

Rackham, O 1990 (rev edn) Trees andWoodland in the British Landscape.London: Dent

Raistrick, A 1972 Industrial Archaeology.An Historical Survey. London: Methuen

Renburg, I and Wik, M 1985 ‘Sootparticle counting in recent lake sediments:an indirect dating method’. Ecological Bull37, 53–7

Reynolds, J M 1996 An Introduction toApplied and Environmental Geophysics.Chichester: Wiley

Riden P 1994 ‘The final phase of charcoaliron-smelting in Britain, 1660–1800’.Historical Metallurgy 28, 14–26

Riden, P and Owen, J G 1995 British BlastFurnace Statistics 1790–1980. Cardiff:Merton Press

Roskams, S 2001 Excavation. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press

Ruiz, Z, Brown, A G and Langdon,P G 2006 ‘The potential of chironomid(Insecta: Diptera) larvae in archaeologicalinvestigations of floodplain and lakesettlements’. J Archaeol Sci 33, 14–33

Russell, C A 2000 Chemistry, Society and

Environment: a new history of the Britishchemical industry. Cambridge: RoyalSociety of Chemistry

— 2001 ‘The centrality of the ‘ChemicalRevolution’ for later industrial change:a challenge for industrial archaeology’,in Palmer, M and Neaverson, P (eds)From Industrial Revolution to ConsumerRevolution: international perspectives on thearchaeology of industrialisation. London:The Association for IndustrialArchaeology, 65–73

Salisbury, E 1964 Weeds and Aliens.London: Collins

Schelvis, J 2003 ‘Archaeologicalanthropod faunas as indicators of pastindustrial activities. Species composition,appearance and body-part representation’,in Murphy, P and Wiltshire, P E J (eds)The Environmental Archaeology of Industry.Oxford: Oxbow Books, 131–4

Scott, D A 1991 Metallography andMicrostructure of Ancient and HistoricMetals. Los Angeles: Getty ConservationInstitute

Serjeanston, D 1989 ‘Animal remains andthe tanning trade’ in Serjeanston, D andWaldron, T (eds) Diet and Crafts in Towns.British Series 199. Oxford: BritishArchaeological Reports, 129–46

Shaw, M 1996 ‘The excavation of a late15th to 17th-century tanning complex atThe Green, Northampton’. Post-MedievalArchaeol 30, 63–128

Smith, A H V 2005 ‘Coal microscopy inthe service of archaeology’. InternationalJournal of Coal Geology 62, 49–59

Smol, J 2002 Pollution of Lakes and Rivers:a paleoenvironmental perspective. Oxford:Oxford University Press

Stoyel, A and Williams, P 2001 Images ofCornish Tin. Ashbourne: Landmark

Stuiver, M and Pearson, G W 1986 ‘High-precision calibration of theradiocarbon time scale, AD 1950–500BC‘. Radiocarbon 28, 805–38

Symonds, J 2001 ‘Archaeology from thebrown earth: the challenge of urbanrenaissance’. The Institute of FieldArchaeologists Yearbook and Directory 2001.Reading: Institute of Field Archaeologists,31–32

— ‘Tales from the city: brownfieldarchaeology — a worthwhile challenge’,in Leech, R H and Green, A (eds) Cities in the world, 1500–2000. London: Societyfor Post-Medieval Archaeology

Thomson, R 1981 ’Leather manufacturein the post-medieval period with specialreference to Northamptonshire’.Post-Medieval Archaeol 15, 161–75

Thomson, R S 1982 ‘Tanning: Man’s first manufacturing process?’. TransNewcomen Soc 53, 139–55

Thorndycraft, V, Pirrie, D and Brown,A G 2003 ‘An environmental approach to the archaeology of tin mining onDartmoor’, in Murphy, P and Wiltshire,P E J (eds) 2003 The EnvironmentalArchaeology of Industry. Oxford: OxbowBooks, 19–29

Tite, M S 1969 ‘Determination of thefiring temperature of ancient ceramics bymeasurement of thermal expansion: areassessment’. Archaeometry 11, 131–143

Tite, M S and Maniatis,Y 1975 ‘Scanningelectron microscopy of fired calcareousclays’. Trans and J Brit Ceramic Soc 74,19–22

Ure, A 1843 A Dictionary of Arts,Manufacturers and Mines; containing a clearexposition of their principles and practice.Longman, Brown, Green and Longman

Vose 1980 Glass. London: CollinsVernon, R W, McDonnell, G and Schmidt,A 1998 ‘The geophysical evaluation of aniron-working complex: Rievaulx andenvirons, North Yorkshire’. ArchaeolProspection 5, 181–201

Wallis, H M and McConnell, A 1994Historians’ Guide to Early British Maps.London: Royal Historical Society

Whitbread, I K 2001 ‘Ceramic petrology,clay geochemistry and ceramic production — from technology to themind of the potter’, in Brothwell, D R and Pollard, A M (eds) 2001 Handbook of Archaeological Sciences. Chichester:Wiley, 449–60

Wild, M and Eastwood I 1992 ‘Soilcontamination and smelting sites’, inWillies, L and Cranstone, D (eds) Bolesand Smeltmills. London: HistoricalMetallurgy Society, 54–7

35

Published November 2006

© English Heritage 2006-08-11 Edited andbrought to press by David M Jones, English Heritage PublishingDesigned by Mark SimmonsPrinted by Wyndeham Westway

Product Code 51262

These Guidelines were written andcompiled by David Dungworth and SarahPaynter, with contributions by AnnaBadcock, David Barker, Justine Bayley,Alex Bayliss, Paul Belford, Gill Campbell,Tom Cromwell, David Crossley, JonathonGoodwin, Cathy Groves, Derek Hamilton,Ken Hamilton, Andrew Lines, Paul Linford,Roderick Mackenzie, Ian Miller, RonaldRoss, James Symonds and Jane Wheeler.

AcknowledgementsWe are very grateful to all those whocommented on previous drafts of theseGuidelines, including contributors and alsoJon Brett, Jon Cattell,Wayne Cocroft,Andrew David, Dominique de Moulins,Keith Falconer, Shane Gould, KarlaGraham, Andy Hammon, Jen Heathcote,Jon Hoyle, Jacqui Huntley, Bob Jones, IanPanter, Jane Sidell, Sue Stallibrass,VanessaStraker, Jim Williams, Mike Williams andJan Wills.

CCoovveerr ffiigguurreeThe cover was designed by John Vallender and shows (top left to bottom right): 19th-century bottle kilns in Staffordshire;applying glaze to ceramic plates in the 19th century (Muspratt 1860, 484); an early 20th-century photograph of DaisyBank marl pit in Staffordshire (© The Potteries Museum and Art Gallery, Stoke-on-Trent); the Red Lane glasshouse,Bristol, shown by Millerd in c.1711 (© Bristol Museums, Galleries & Archives); an excavator on the site of the boilerhouse at Murrays’ Mills, Manchester (© Oxford Archaeology North); excavating at the Leadmill, Sheffield (© ARCUS);furnace 3 during excavation at Percival,Vickers glassworks, Manchester (© Oxford Archaeology North); mechanicalexcavation at Portwall Lane glasshouse, Bristol (© David Dungworth); reflected light microscopy; SEM image of a fineglass thread from Silkstone glasshouse,Yorkshire; an early 18th-century glass bottle waster from Lime Kiln Lane, Bristoland an SEM image of the head of the scarabaeid beetle Trox Scaber (© Harry Kenward).

English Heritage is theGovernment’s statutory advisor onthe historic environment. EnglishHeritage provides expert advice tothe Government about all mattersrelating to the historic environmentand its conservation.

For further information and copiesof this leaflet, quoting the ProductCode, please contact:

English HeritageCustomer Services DepartmentPO Box 569Swindon SN2 2YP

telephone: 0870 333 1181fax: 01793 414926e-mail: customer@english-heritage.org.uk