
New: Document downloads (reports, newsletters)
Updated 26 Feb 2008
Following the publication of Marine Aggregate Dredging and the Historic Environment: Guidance Note, the British Marine Aggregate Producers Association (BMAPA) and English Heritage (EH) have co-operated in developing a Protocol for Reporting Finds of Archaeological Interest. Wessex Archaeology has been commissioned to provide an Implementation Service to facilitate use of the Protocol by the marine aggregate industry.
English Heritage is planning to carry out a Protocol Awareness Programme, supported by the Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund, to raise awareness of the BMAPA/EH Protocol among industry staff, and to encourage its use.
Details of the Marine Aggregate Dredging and the Historic Environment: Guidance Note, the BMAPA/EH Protocol, the Implementation Service, and the Protocol Awareness Programme, can be found by following the navigation.
BMAPA and English Heritage collaborated in the preparation of a Guidance Note on Marine Aggregate Dredging and the Historic Environment, which was published in April 2003. The Guidance Note aims to provide practical guidelines on assessing, evaluating, mitigating and monitoring archaeological impacts of marine aggregate dredging in English marine waters. The guidance is targeted at marine aggregate developers, archaeological consultants, curators and contractors, and at regulators.
Marine Aggregate Dredging and the Historic Environment
In 2002 Francis Wenban-Smith produced a report looking at Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Archaeology on the Seabed which was the precursor to the guidance note. The report consists of a review of the potential for Palaeolithic and Mesolithic archaeological remains in seabed sediments suitable for use as aggregates. In addition a series of characterisation maps were produced. The maps and the report can be downloaded below.
Guidance Note April 2003 (PDF)
In 2002 Francis Wenban-Smith produced a report looking at Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Archaeology on the Seabed which was the precursor to the guidance note. The report consists of a review of the potential for Palaeolithic and Mesolithic archaeological remains in seabed sediments suitable for use as aggregates. In addition a series of characterisation maps were produced. The maps and the report can be downloaded below.
Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Archaeology on the Seabed (PDF, 6.64MB)
Recorded casualties in the English Channel and North Sea (PDF, 431KB)
Charted hazards and destinations in the English Channel and the North Sea (PDF, 499KB)
Late Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic sites with contemporary coastlines in the English Channel and North Sea (PDF, 419KB)
In August 2005, BMAPA and EH published a Protocol for reporting finds of archaeological interest that will apply to all BMAPA members. The Protocol was prepared by Wessex Archaeology.
The Protocol provides for finds being made by members of staff employed by aggregate dredging companies (‘Companies’) on the seabed, on board dredging vessels, and at wharves. Under the Protocol, staff will report to a local ‘Site Champion’ on the vessel or at the wharf, and the Site Champion will compile a preliminary report. The Site Champion will pass the report on to the ‘Nominated Contact’, which is a single identified person within each Company.
The role of the Nominated Contact within each Company is to inform English Heritage of the find as soon as possible, and to pass on the reported details. With the introduction of the Implementation Service, Nominated Contacts will initially contact Wessex Archaeology, who will provide initial advice and pass on reports to English Heritage.
The Nominated Contact is also required to advise other dredgers operating in the same area to keep a particular watch for finds and, if the seabed position of the find is reasonably certain, to implement a Temporary Exclusion Zone (TEZ) until archaeological advice has been obtained.
The Implementation Service covers the elements of English Heritage’s role in the Protocol that are concerned with recording and passing on information about reported finds, and limited decision-making about reports that are clearly uncontentious.
The Implementation Service does not cover decision-making where a higher level of curatorial involvement is clearly required. These elements of the Protocol are serviced directly by English Heritage.
As a guide, the following types of reports are likely to be uncontentious:
reports of single, apparently isolated, finds;
reports that are not sufficiently-well positioned to result in implementation of a Temporary Exclusion Zone.
The following types of reports are expected to require the direct involvement of English Heritage:
reports resulting in Temporary Exclusion Zones that are likely to warrant further investigation;
reports resulting in Temporary Exclusion Zones that are likely to be formalised as Archaeological Exclusion Zones;
reports of multiple finds from the same area;
reports indicating the presence of a wreck or other structural remains;
reports of peat.
The objectives of the implementation service are as follows:
To provide an easy-to-use mechanism for reports to be made by Nominated Contacts.
In uncontentious cases, to respond promptly to Nominated Contacts and provide advice on such further actions, if any, that are required. Details of uncontentious reports, and the advice given, will be passed promptly to English Heritage.
In cases requiring a higher level of curatorial involvement, to quickly pass on details of the report to English Heritage and to provide such support as may be required to facilitate a prompt response to Nominated Contacts by English Heritage.
To facilitate the provisions in the Protocol regarding liaison by English Heritage.
To facilitate the transfer of details of the find, and subsequent data, to the National Monuments Record (NMR) and appropriate local Historic Environment Record(s) (HERs).
To facilitate arrangements by Companies to hold recovered finds in their possession, including – in the case of finds that are wreck – agreement with the Receiver of Wreck.
To provide initial advice on any additional work required to stabilise, conserve or record recovered finds.
To provide initial advice on the implementation of procedures for resolving ownership and disposing of finds.
At the core of the Implementation Service is a web-based reporting system. Nominated Contacts have secure access to web pages on which they can record details of finds made by Company Staff, and from which they can receive advice. The system enables summary information about reported finds to be sent to English Heritage and BMAPA, and copied to the Receiver of Wreck, local government Archaeological Officers, Portable Antiquities Officers, and the Ministry of Defence, as relevant.
BMAPA/EH Protocol Awareness Programme English Heritage funded Wessex Archaeology, through the Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund (ALSF), to conduct the BMAPA/EH Protocol Awareness programme during 2006 and 2007. The programme comprised:
Visits to wharves and vessels;
3 regional workshops on the recognition of finds and their potential importance for Nominated Contacts, Site Champions and wharf staff as well as local and County Archaeologists;
A pilot newsletter;
A remote learning package on DVD.
The project was a great success, and details can be downloaded below:
Final Report (PDF, 888Kb)
As a result, English Heritage, again through the ALSF, has commissioned an extension to the Awareness programme through to February 2008. The scheme will include further site visits, including to wharves on the continent that receive UK aggregate. Two more editions of the newsletter have been approved, as has another DVD package and a further industry workshop will also be held in Salisbury in September 2007.
Examples of the kinds of finds made by the marine aggregate industry, which were reported prior to formal introduction of the Protocol, are shown on the pages linked on the right.
In July 1999 a roughly spherical stone with a hole through it was recovered from the reject stone pile at CEMEX’s Leamouth Wharf in Southampton. The wharf is used for processing aggregate from off the Isle of Wight, but it was not possible to establish its position on the seabed more precisely.
The stone was reported to, and later delivered to Wessex Archaeology, where it was described and photographed.
The stone is Greensand, which outcrops at the coast at Swanage in Dorset, Eastbourne in Sussex, Folkestone in Kent, and on the Isle of Wight. Upper Greensand outcrops at Culver Cliff and around Ventnor on the Isle of Wight.
The stone is about 170mm by 230mm, and the hole is about 15mm in diameter and extends right through the centre of the stone. Although the surface of the stone is abraded, there are no obvious toolmarks. Both the spherical shape and the hole could be the result of human handiwork, though it is conceivable that the stone is entirely natural in origin.
On balance, the stone seems to have been fashioned from a block, possibly to serve as a weight for a fishing net, line or lobster pot. Alternatively, it may have been a naturally shaped stone selected opportunistically for such a purpose. A third alternative is that the stone is both natural in origin, and came to be on the seabed through natural processes.
Even if the object was fashioned, selected and/or deposited by people, there is no way of gauging when this might have happened.
The attentiveness of the staff at Leamouth Wharf, and the willingness of CEMEX to seek archaeological advice, helped to show that a voluntary, industry-based reporting protocol could be effective.
Stone with hole. Photograph © Wessex Archaeology.
In 2002, UMA reported a collection of animal remains found off East Anglia. Wessex Archaeology sought advice from the Natural History Museum, initially on the basis of photographs and then by sending the remains to be examined. The remains were identified as follows:
an upper molar from a small woolly mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius);
a fragment of mammoth tusk;
a fragment of scapula (shoulder bone), also probably from a mammoth;
a tine (point) from a red deer (Cervus elaphus) antler;
part of a whale vertebra.
The red deer antler was from quite a large individual, but the mammoth remains are all from quite small individuals. The mammoth molar is most typical of Middle Devensian populations, and mammoth and red deer occur together in some stages of the Middle Devensian, when individual red deer can be extremely large.
A mid Devensian date would fit with the suspected date of the aggregates being dredged, but the whale vertebra is a puzzle as the area would have been dry land at the time the aggregates were laid down.
Tusk
Mammoth's Tooth
Red deer tine.
Whale vertebra
Photographs © Wessex Archaeology.
In February 2003, UMA reported an animal jaw fragment found on the rejects pile at its Erith wharf and thought to have come from aggregates dredged off the east coast. The fragment was sent to the Natural History Museum, where it was identified as belonging to an extinct giant deer, most likely Megaloceros giganteus or one of its immediate ancestors. The fragment was of the bottom left jaw. The teeth were considered to be small for later Pleistocene examples of the species, but matched specimens from several Middle Pleistocene contexts.
It looked as though the fragment was originally buried in fine grained sediment but had been eroded and deposited into coarser sediment. The fragment had been quite heavily mineralised before being abraded and marked in the course of reworking.
Although giant deer remains are known from dredging in the North Sea, they are less commonly found than other large mammal fossils.
Photo of jaw fragment. Photograph courtesy of UMA.
In December 2004, UMA recovered four cannonballs and two pins from aggregates dredged to the west of the Isle of Wight.
Two sizes of shot were apparent, interpreted from photographs as being from a 6-8 pounder and from a much smaller gun (such as a swivel gun) respectively. The ‘pins’ appeared to be relatively small iron fastenings, probably from a ship’s structure or fittings. As they had been found together, it was thought likely that they indicated the presence of a wreck in the vicinity. Only a broad date range, from the fifteenth to the nineteenth century, could be offered.
UMA and Hanson (who were engaged in joint dredging of the area) reviewed recent sidescan data from the area where the aggregate had been dredged, but did not see any obvious trace of a wreck. Nevertheless, they established a 1km by 250m exclusion zone and commissioned a high resolution geophysical survey.
The results of the geophysical survey, which included both sidescan and magnetometer data, were passed to WA for review. The review confirmed that there was no clear trace of a wreck in the survey area. The only features of any note were a series of areas of what appear to be boulders. These seemed most likely to be natural in origin (rather than ballast from a wreck), but might have served to trap items of wreckage that would otherwise have been dispersed. The large exclusion zone was removed, but a smaller one put in place over the boulders, as a precautionary measure.
Photograph of the cannonballs. Photograph courtesy of UMA.
In May 2005, Hanson Aggregates Marine reported a metal object found on a dredger off Great Yarmouth. The best interpretation that WA were able to offer for the object was that it was the remains of an explosive harpoon, as used for whaling from the mid-nineteenth century. The object looks like part of the ‘knuckle’ of such a harpoon, which lies behind the explosive tip and houses the harpoon’s barbs. It is not clear why such a find would be made off Great Yarmouth.
Harpoon Photograph courtesy of Hanson Aggregates Marine.
In 2005 two pieces of aircraft wreckage were spotted on board the Hanson Aggregates Marine dredger ‘Arco Dart’ within sand and gravel dredged off the coast of Worthing, Sussex. The parts were kept on board the vessel for over a year before being passed to WA staff during a site visit as part of the Awareness Programme.
The RAF museum at Duxford was able to match a serial number identified on one of the two parts to a rear wing spar from a plane developed by Supermarine at the end of the Second World War, the Spiteful, an intended replacement for the Spitfire. However, very few of this type of plane were manufactured after the design was rejected by the RAF in favour of the new jet powered Gloster Meteor and de Havilland Vampire.
Supermarine’s first attempt at a jet powered fighter, the Attacker, kept the same wing as the Spiteful and, although the design was rejected by the RAF, 143 were built for the Royal Navy. The Attacker entered service as the first jet fighter of the Fleet Air Arm and several were lost at sea.
The most likely match for the parts found on the Arco Dart is the Attacker WP275 which crashed into the sea on the 6th July 1956 after taking off from Royal Naval Air Station Ford, in Sussex when the wing tip folded and the pilot ejected. The pilot, Sub-Lieutenant J. F. Yeates of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, survived unharmed.
Crashed aircraft are important to archaeologists because in many cases they offer a unique form of evidence for the historic development of flight. If surviving examples of a particular type of craft do exist they are often only the later models of a particular type or they have been heavily refurbished. Moreover, all crashed military aircraft are protected by law under the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986. The discovery of aircraft remains is thus incredibly important, particularly as aircraft crash sites may contain human remains.
Pieces of wreckage recovered from the site
Subscribe to the discoveries by RSS
![]()
UMA_0192 consists of an antler, an animal humerus and an iron plate, the lettering on which reads ‘Simpson Lawrence and Co Glasgow Tarbert Pump’. These finds were discovered in material dredged from licence area 123/3 in October 2008. This licence area and those around it have yielded a wealth of archaeological artefacts found through dredging activity over recent years. Jessica Grimm from Wessex Archaeology identified the other animal bone as a humerus or upper front limb bone. It is hard to tell which species of animal it is from as the ends are badly eroded but it is of the correct size and shape to have come from cattle. The Iron Plate bears the lettering ‘Simpson Lawrence and Co Glasgow Tarbert Pump’. Simpson Lawrence was a well known manufacturer of marine equipment, including windlasses and toilets, until they were bought by Lewmar Ltd. in 1995. It is thought that area 123/3 and those around it contain a spread of refuse material which was deposited after WW2 and which extends for several square kilometres. This has been reported by UMA, Cemex and Hanson and is evidenced by the high quantity of diverse archaeological discoveries reported from these areas. Intriguingly Diana Gregg at Portsmouth City Museum and Records Office notes that there is no record of such a spread having been deposited and that the standard practice within post-war Portsmouth was to dump waste material inland or reuse it for various military projects. These finds are likely to be part of this spread, though the antler may date to the last ice age, some 12,000 years ago, when the area around the Isle of Wight was not inundated with water.
Hanson_0191 is not immediately diagnostic. Images of the item were sent to the National Maritime Museum in Cornwall where Liza Verity, Information Specialist at the Museum, showed them to colleagues. The Ship Model Curator believed that this item was probably used on a vessel as ballast or as an anchor for nets or lobster pots. It has been cut using oxy-acetylene gas giving it the ‘ridged’ appearance along several of its edges and around the hole in the top of the item. This would support the latter suggestion that this has served as a net or pot weight. The item appears to have been created by cutting a section of steel with oxyacetylene gas and adding the hole in the top in the same way. The hole would have allowed the attachment of ropes or nets in order to secure Hanson_0191 to the things it was intended to anchor. As this item would have been routinely lowered to the seabed during its use it may have been accidently lost or it may have been deliberately discarded when no longer required. However, since it would have been transported on board a vessel there is still the possibility that this find originated from a wreck site, though no wrecks are known in the dregded regions of this licence area.
This find is part of a patent or self-recording ship’s log, a device used in the past to gauge vessel speed. This type of log was introduced in order to provide ships’ crews with a more accurate and easier method of calculating speed and thus distance travelled than the common log which preceded it. A patent log operated by measuring the rotations of a finned rotator towed behind the vessel to calculate speed. The egg-shaped item pictured above is part of the mechanism allowing the rotator to be attached to an instrument head and to the vessel itself. Rather than securing the tow line directly to the rotator, which was likely to cause knots during operation, the tow line would have been fastened inside this item. The hole in the body allowed the line to be knotted and the rotator would have been securely affixed to the ring seen on the right of the photo above. This allowed the device to spin freely on the tow line. This example compares favourably with those produced by Thomas Walker around the turn of the last century though it is difficult to date it exactly. The artefact appears to be an isolated find, and as logs were streamed behind vessels whilst underway it could have been lost in use. Nevertheless, logs have been found on wreck sites, and any further finds from the area should be reported, as they may have the potential to determine the location of a previously unknown wreck site.
![]()
This item is a ship’s badge bearing the name Cavendish. Jenny Wraight from the Royal College of Arms in Portsmouth studied images of the badge and identified that it was designed in 1945 for a Destroyer. During the Second World War, Jenny states, there was an embargo on producing ships’ badges apart from a single screen badge which was reduced to 12” in size. This would indicate that Cemex_0195, which measures approximately 12”, is the Cavendish’s wartime badge. The embargo was lifted in 1946 and the ship was modernised and re-commissioned in 1955. It is entirely possible that the ship’s wartime badge was removed during the modernisation, though no records could be found to confirm this. The badge shows a rope ring with a serpent knotted about the base. The serpent is described in heraldry as a ‘serpent proper, nowed at the base of the ring’. Proper refers to the natural colour of the serpent, which is normally interpreted as being green and nowed describes its knotted form. The nowed serpent is taken from the crest of the Dukes of Devonshire, the Cavendish family, from whom the ship took her name and motto – ‘Cavendo tutus’ - meaning ‘Secure by Caution’. The gold ring alludes to Thomas Cavendish (b. 1555 – d. 1592), for whom the ship was named, and particularly to his circumnavigation of the globe. The crown atop the badge is the naval crown and has adorned all ships’ badges since the establishment of the Ships Names and Mottoes Committee in 1918. The Cavendish had a productive life after WW2 until she was eventually retired. She arrived under tow in Blyth in Northumberland on the 7th August 1967 where she was to be scrapped.
This artefact was found by Mr O’Neill on board the Arco Humber. It was reported to Hanson on the 1st September 2008 having been found with material dredged from licence area 106C, approximately 24km North-east of Skegness, Lincolnshire. Bob Davis from Wessex Archaeology’s heritage department studied the find and confirmed that it was a fire or refractory brick which could have been used to line kilns, ovens and boilers. It has an inscription on one side which ends ‘…son’. It is common for factories to stamp their produce with their name, though Bob could not identify any likely manufacturer who uses or has used the suffix ‘son’. It is unlikely that the brick would have been big enough to hold more than another three letters in addition to the ‘son’. The script, which is fairly ornate, may suggest a late 19th century date for this item. Many fire brick factories flourished in Lanarkshire in the latter half of the 19th century and it may be that Hanson_0190 originated in this region. Lanarkshire is rich in clay deposits ideal for manufacturing this type of brick and is still home to fire brick factories today, though the industry is a shadow of its former self.
![]()
These finds were found by D. Davies at Hanson’s Southampton wharf. They were found in material dredged on the 22nd June 2008 from licence area 127, in the Isle of Wight dredging region. Through an assessment of the photographs, the larger of these finds appears to measure 9cm in diameter, and the smaller approximately 4cm in diameter. The finds are each inscribed with text. The larger is inscribed with the text ‘PATT 7071’ and the smaller with the text ‘PATENT C???RAL GUN-FILL ‘TEEL TALET??ERS’. These objects were described by wharf staff as being possible shell casing lids. Photographs of the finds and their inscriptions were sent to Phil Magrath, the Curator of Artillery at the Royal Armouries Museum. Unfortunately Phil was unable to confirm this identification and could not provide an alternative identification for the objects. Through examining the objects first hand, the wharf staff observed that the objects appeared as though they had been subject to an explosion. Considering this alongside the inscriptions on the finds, it is quite possible that they represent the remains of munitions.
![]()
This find was discovered by Lee Hepworth from Hanson’s Humber Sand and Gravel Wharf on the 30th August 2008. It was found in material dredged from licence area 408, approximately 106km east of the Humber estuary. Through an assessment of the photograph, the metal object appears to be a blade shaped iron object, measuring approximately 18cm in length. The tip of the blade appears to have been worn and is blunt and slightly asymmetrical in appearance. Photographs of the object were sent to Jörn Schuster (Archaeological Artefacts Specialist, Wessex Archaeology). Unfortunately Jörn was not able to provide a more detailed explanation without undertaking an in-hand examination of the blade. It has been noted that the blade shares some distinct similarities with a blade reported through the EH/BMAPA protocol which was discovered at Cemex’s Northfleet wharf in April 2007. The blade was slightly longer than that shown here, and had a more defined tip. Through examining the photographs of the previous blade, Jörn suggested that it may have been part of an agricultural tool such as a plough. It was further suggested by Phil Andrews, Wessex Archaeology’s post medieval specialist, that the previous blade was not particularly old and appeared to be post medieval in date. However, as the shape of farming and agricultural tools has not evolved significantly in the last 2500 years, it is possible that the blade was made as early as the Iron Age. It is quite possible that this blade provided a similar agricultural function as that suggested for the blade reported through the protocol in 2007.
This bone was discovered at Northfleet Wharf by Roger Burnham. It was recovered from material dredged by Sand Fulmar in Licence Area 113/1, approximately 32km south-east of Clacton-on-Sea. Photographs of the bone were analysed by specialists Jessica Grimm at Wessex Archaeology and Andy Currant at the National History Museum. They determined that the bone was a radius from a young animal, possibly a horse or a bovid.
The Full text of the Protocol can be downloaded here:
Shortened texts, serving as notes for Site Champions on Vessels and Wharves, can be downloaded here:
Aggregate industry staff will be able to find the name and contact details of their Site Champion on a poster which is being displayed on every BMAPA wharf and vessel. A copy of the Poster can be downloaded here: