Continued Excavation of Roman Armour: Problems with Corrosion 21 October 2011 This blog entry discusses the third section of the large soil block to be excavated: for ease of identification and documentation I have called this area ‘Feature 3’. This label will be important in the future, after I have deconstructed the block and need to be able to keep track of the position of groups of artefacts within this large assemblage. This instalment discusses a relatively small area of the block, with the main focus resting not so much on the lorica plates present, but on the corroded remains of fittings attached to them.As here we are chiefly looking at vague shapes, I felt that it was important for this entry to include both annotated and un-annotated versions of photographs, so readers can come to conclusions without my interference. The first photograph is an image of this third part overall, and the second photograph includes arrows and boxes indicating particular areas of interest examined in this entry. The third photograph has been included to give the reader an idea of the depth of the archaeological artefacts, the thickness of the iron plate, and an impression of the poor condition of the remains.In order to introduce the ‘fittings’, a short note on the corrosion processes that have taken place in these blocks is most definitely necessary. The more I excavate and study this block the more I realise that the different components of the lorica segmentata have corroded in dissimilar ways. The exposed plate has a firm, dark magnetite surface, on top of which are localised areas of powdery, orange corrosion. I believe this second, more disruptive type of corrosion product (an iron oxide), are the remains of iron rivets and fittings.I think there are two reasons for the fittings to have corroded in a different way to the iron plate: firstly, as a result of being in contact with the leather strap which would have run vertically the length of the inside of the cuirass- the release of acetic acid by the leather could have jumpstarted corrosion. Secondly, the fittings could have corroded more quickly than iron plate, given the greater amount of working and energy required to create there more complicated shapes. The fourth photograph I think illustrates my theory quite clearly: here we are looking at rivets, belonging to two overlapping plates (which could well be in this position because they were neighbouring plates on the cuirass when in use, and at the time of deposition), that have corroded more drastically than the plate. I believe, given their shape and positioning these were rivets and washers holding the leather straps, and we are looking at the interior side of the plate.Working on the above theory, the fifth photograph shows a detail photograph of the area enclosed within the dashed red box and marked with a ‘1’ on the main annotated overview. I believe this lumpy feature, clearly different in colour and texture to the plate underneath, is again the remains of rivets and washers holding the internal leather straps in place. You can see here how an iron component can corrode in such a way as to increase in physical size: the resulting ‘object’ is larger than the item really was in antiquity.The sixth and seventh photographs show another area of plate with corroded fittings (and in the corner, a copper alloy rivet).Here we can see a rectangular feature (outlined in the seventh photograph), which I believe is essentially iron corrosion, holding the shape of a now non-existent leather strap.An x-ray will hopefully provide more information about these ephemeral features, though detecting areas of corroded and degraded material (which will have a low density) on a background of denser archaeological artefacts and burial deposit, could be difficult.
Taking stock Sara Huws, 14 October 2011 What a season it's been. Thanks to the presence of the 'Making History 1500-1700' exhibition, we've been able to push the boat out a little bit for our Tudor and Stuart events, aided by a small army (and an actual Regiment) of re-enactors, social historians and volunteers. Our volunteers! Not really, it's the Winchester Regiment of the English Civil War Society... We've been visited by pipers, skinners, barber-surgeons, nurses, herbalists, musketeers, pikemen, a Tudor beauty expert, an Elizabethan noblewoman and her maid, timber trebuchet-testers, longbowmen, feasters, revellers, rebels, preachers and even children suffering from plague! Some had never been to St Fagans before, and so I hope we'll see them again. I'm absolutely shattered but delighted to have learned so much during such a busy time of year. The Tudor Tailors busy at work My favourite sessions of the season were 'Tudor Tastes', in which social historians Sally Pointer, Suzanne Churchill and I tried out some bona fide 1500s recipes, on the hearth in Hendre'r Ywydd Uchaf. We ate very well but I must admit I'm glad we didn't get round to cooking the Turnip Pudding this time around. See, from some angles, and when obscured by a basket-handle, even a pig's bladder can be beautiful Close second to our 'Tudor Tastes' session were my foray into sporting history, exploring all sorts of extinct and frankly lethal sport with young people from Wales, Poland, Germany and France. The sessions were simultaneously translated into three languages - having been a linguist in a previous life, I was amazed at how we managed to share so much with each other as a group. Unfortunately, my Welsh wrestling demonstration skills weren't quite up to scratch; but helpfully, the pig's bladder ball gave us plenty to talk about. See, from some angles, and when obscured by a basket-handle, even a pig's bladder can be beautiful There are so many other sessions I'd love to put on my podium - but there's not a lot of time to dwell on them. This afternoon, we prepare to start the whole process again, as we fill the calendar for 2012 and 2013. I've got a few ideas up my sleeve - I'll let you know if they make the grade!
Continued excavation and investigation of blocklifted lorica segmentata 13 October 2011 Just a short blog entry today, describing the completed excavation of another area of the soil block, and some of the interesting features that have cropped up.This section of the block is composed of what appears to be two flat lorica plates, one lying at a 45 degree angle to the other. Note the length of the straight edge of plate; I believe that this plate will be one of the large plates that came across the middle of the cuirass. I have included annotations indicating small areas of potential importance, such as the corroded remains of fittings (see red arrows), which stand proud to the surface of the plates. The gap between the plates, which shows how damaged and broken the edges of the lorica set really are, can be seen in the second picture.I have found another fragment of plate with a rolled edge (see third photograph), though the roll itself is much narrower in comparison with that exposed within the girth hoop (refer to previous blog entry). The fragment itself is also a little too small to detect any curvature or to easily extrapolate a larger shape, but could this fragment be part of a plate (the breast or backplate) that would have been in contact with the wearer’s neck? All comments and opinions regarding this little hypothesis are welcome.I have included a macro shot of a small cylindrical item: whilst this may be physically unimpressive, I believe that this could be the iron pin that would have been drawn through a lobate hinge, holding the shoulder plates together.As mentioned above, obvious fittings that are immediately identifiable still haven’t been found, and careful excavation has only managed to produce vague shapes of what is essentially metal corrosion. I have included in the last photograph a view of an area of probable lorica attachments and fittings, though only a very good quality x-ray will be able to make any sense of these lumpy features.As a last aside, I thought I should provide a brief explanation for the condition of the buried lorica segmentata. Readers may have noticed how exposed finds lack the thick crusts of rust and voluminous corrosion products typical of a lot of archaeological iron objects: this is most likely because the thin iron plates corroded extremely quickly, with the iron leeching into the soil. Whilst this does mean that I will not have to spend hours removing powdery iron corrosion in order to reach a more certain surface on the iron, it also indicates that the remaining ‘object’ is more of a pseudomorph lying on top of the soil: this is why the ‘plate’ most often does not respond to the pull of a magnet. This level of deterioration will have implications for the eventual conservation treatment of the armour, as I may be unable to extract the iron plates (which have very little physical integrity), from the soil.
Archaeopteryx – the missing link between dinosaurs and birds? Cindy Howells and Caroline Buttler, 13 October 2011 Archaeopteryx is an iconic fossil, often thought of as the ‘missing link’ between dinosaurs and birds. It was first described in 1861 by the German palaeontologist Hermann von Meyer (1801–1869). Since then Archaeopteryx has been the focus of controversy surrounding the origin of birds and their links with dinosaurs.Only eleven specimens and an isolated feather have so far been found, all coming from a few quarries near the Bavarian town of Solnhofen in southern Germany.Almost all of the specimens are from the Solnhofen Limestone, fine muddy limestones deposited in tropical lagoons about 150 million years ago near the end of the Jurassic Period. One was found in the overlying Mörnsheim Formation and is younger by perhaps half a million years. Archaeopteryx specimen (Museum für Naturkunde, Berlin, Germany) DiscoveryIn 1861 Hermann von Meyer published a description of a single fossil feather found in the Solnhofen Limestone and named it Archaeopteryx lithographica.Archaeopteryx means ‘ancient wing’. Von Meyer also mentioned that ‘an almost complete skeleton of an animal covered in feathers’ had been found. After competition from other museums this skeleton was eventually bought by the British Museum along with other Solnhofen fossils for £700, then a huge sum of money.In 1863 Richard Owen, Superintendent of the natural history collections at the British Museum, described and illustrated the specimen, declaring it be a bird with ‘rare peculiarities indicative of a distinct order’. The discovery of this remarkable fossil came just two years after the publication of Charles Darwin's book On the Origin of Species, which changed people’s perception of the natural world.Archaeopteryx seemed to fit well with Darwin’s theory as it showed features of both birds and reptiles.What did Archaeopteryx look like?Archaeopteryx was a primitive bird with feathers, but its fossilised skeleton looks more like that of a small dinosaur. It was about the size of a magpie.Unlike modern birds it had a full set of teeth, a long bony tail and three claws on its wing which may have been used for grasping branches. It lacked the fully reversed toes which enable many modern birds to perch. However, Archaeopteryx did have a wishbone, wings and asymmetrical ‘flight’ feathers, like a bird. It is likely that Archaeopteryx could fly, although perhaps not strongly. Reconstruction of Archaeopteryx (© J. Sibbick) The world of ArchaeopteryxArchaeopteryx lived on land near a series of stagnant and salty lagoons within a shallow tropical sea. Life in the lagoons was concentrated in the surface waters, as most of the lower levels were extremely toxic. It is possible that the only animals living in the lagoons were small floating crinoids (sea-lilies) and some fish.Ammonites, shrimps, lobsters and starfish lived in the open sea nearby and were occasionally washed into the lagoons during storms. They did not survive for long in the lagoon waters. Horseshoe crabs have been found preserved at the end of a short trail of their own footprints. Very occasionally marine reptiles, such as ichthyosaurs and crocodiles, were also washed in.Flying over the sea were pterosaurs and large insects such as dragonflies. These were blown into the lagoonal waters during these storms. A juvenile specimen of a small theropod dinosaur called Compsognathus has also been discovered in the same deposit, which must have been washed in from the land. Reconstruction of Archaeopteryx (© J. Sibbick) How did Archaeopteryx die and become preserved?Although Archaeopteryx lived on land, occasionally some would have been caught up in storms as they flew or glided over the water. Waterlogged and unable to take off again, they would have drowned and sunk to the floor of the lagoon.All of the known specimens display various characteristics of immaturity, indicating that none of the specimens was fully adult. This may have been the reason for their inability to survive storm events.The carcasses were quickly buried by fine lime muds deposited on the lagoon floors. It is thought that one metre of rock today represents 5,000 years of deposition. The fossils of Solnhofen are exceptionally well preserved, due to the lack of disturbance from both predators and water movement. Within the fine-grained limestones, delicate features such as dragonfly wings or the feathers of Archaeopteryx can be found.Further readingWellnhofer, P. 2009. Archaeopteryx the icon of evolution. Pfeil Verlag, Munich, 208 ppArticle by: Cindy Howells, Collections Manager (Palaeontology) and Caroline Buttler, Head of Palaeontology
Katheryn of Berain 10 October 2011 The life of Katheryn of Berain is laden with intrigue. This wealthy heiress from Denbighshire had Tudor blood in her veins, and was a distant relative to Queen Elizabeth I. The story of her and her many husbands has become one of the chief romances of north Wales. She had six children and over thirty grandchildren who all went on to form some of the country's richest families, earning her the title 'the Mother of Wales'. In Katheryn's age people married for money, land and power, not love. As a wealthy heiress of royal descent, Katheryn was considered a bit of a catch! She married four times to high-profile Welshmen, and became related to the richest, most important families of north Wales. Wealthy sitters would often have their portraits painted to flaunt their richness and social status. But in this religious time it was just as important to appear humble in front of God. The portrait is attributed to the Dutch artist Adriaen van Cronenburgh, who often painted portraits of the Friesian nobility. His work demonstrates the sophisticated Netherlandish oil painting technique of the time. Explore the Painting Click on the links below to find out what Katheryn's portrait reveals about her, the fashions of the time, and the tradition of portraiture in the sixteenth century. Head-dress Facial features Jewellery Background Inscription Velvet Dress Prayer Book Chain belt Skull Head-dress Married women traditionally covered their hair with a head-dress. These were often decorated with jewels to draw attention to the forehead, which was considered an area of beauty. Facial features Katheryn's pale skin was seen to be a sign of nobility and delicacy – only the poor who worked in the sun all day had tanned skin. Smiling was equated with foolishness, which explains Katheryn’s solemn expression. Jewellery Jewellery was worn for personal decoration, much like today, but was also a sign of wealth, and some were tokens of loyalty and love. Background By using a flat area of dark colour as a background, the artist has made sure that nothing detracts our attention from Katheryn. She is our main object of focus, and her luminous skin and the rich gold of her costume stand out against this plain backdrop. Inscription This faint inscription reads ‘Katherine Tudor of Beren’. Such inscriptions were often added after the portrait was painted, and not necessarily by the artist. Multiple spellings of Katheryn’s name exist. She herself has spelt her name Katherin, Katryn then eventually Katheryn. This was a common peculiarity of the period. Beren (or Berain) was the name of her home in Denbighshire. Velvet Dress Katheryn's long black velvet dress may seem sombre to us, but in 1568 this was the latest in Spanish-style fashion. Black costumes considered formal, dignified - and very expensive, as black dye was difficult to find. Katheryn's dress is enlivened by intricate embroidery on her sleeves and ruff. Prayer Book Legend has it that this is a casket containing the ashes of her second husband, Richard Clough. But he was alive in 1568 when this was painted, and the pair had recently married. It is more likely to be a prayer-book, which Katheryn holds to portray herself as a devoted Christian woman. Chain belt Katheryn wears a fashionable chain belt, looping it up to show us what looks like a locket at the bottom, but could be a pomander or some valued possession. The antiquarian Thomas Pennant wrote 'I was told that in the locket... was the hair of her second and favourite husband,' while Art Historians have said that the chain around her waist symbolized her obedience as a wife. Skull Folklore says that Katheryn murdered her many lovers. But this skull is not one of theirs! The skull was a familiar prop in early portraiture. It is known as a memento mori device, an object symbolic of human destiny. It is an acknowledgement of the fleeting nature of life, and a statement of humility before God. When Katheryn's second husband died abroad, she returned to Denbighshire with this portrait, where it remained for almost four hundred years. Just before the Second World War it was sold and taken to the Netherlands. From there it was sold to a collector who brought the work back to Britain. Finally, it was purchased by the Friends of National Museum Wales who presented it to the Museum in 1957. Kathryn of Berain can be seen in the Historic Art galleries at National Museum Cardiff
