Download - AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF MILESTONE GROUND …€¦ · Worcestershire Archaeology Archive and Archaeology Service The Hive, Sawmill Walk, The Butts, Worcester WR1 3PD Date:

AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF

MILESTONE GROUND BROADWAY

WORCESTERSHIRE

© Worcestershire County Council

Worcestershire Archaeology Archive and Archaeology Service

The Hive, Sawmill Walk, The Butts, Worcester

WR1 3PD

Date: 22 July 2014

Status Revision 1 Author: Elizabeth Connolly, Andrew Walsh and Simon Woodiwiss

Contributors: Laura Griffin and Elizabeth Pearson Illustrator: Carolyn Hunt

Project reference: P4304 Report reference: 2127

HER reference: WSM57125

Contents Summary 1 Report 1 Background ............................................................................... 3 1.1 Reasons for the project ....................................................................................... 3

2 The application site .................................................................. 3 2.1 Topography, geology and archaeological context ............................................... 3 2.2 Current land-use ................................................................................................. 4

3 Aims and objectives ................................................................. 4

4 Methods ..................................................................................... 4 4.1 Personnel ............................................................................................................ 4 4.2 Collection of existing information ........................................................................ 5 4.3 Fieldwork strategy ............................................................................................... 5 4.4 Structural analysis ............................................................................................... 6 4.5 Artefact methodology, by Laura Griffin ................................................................ 6

4.5.1 Artefact recovery policy ................................................................................ 6 4.5.2 Method of analysis ........................................................................................ 6

4.6 Environmental archaeology methodology, by Elizabeth Pearson ....................... 6 4.6.1 Sampling policy ............................................................................................ 7 4.6.2 Processing and analysis ............................................................................... 7 4.6.3 Discard policy ............................................................................................... 8

4.7 Statement of confidence in the methods and results .......................................... 8

5 Structural analysis .................................................................... 8 5.1 Phase 1: Natural deposits ................................................................................... 8 5.2 Phase 2: Earlier prehistoric ................................................................................. 8 5.3 Phase 3: Iron Age deposits ................................................................................. 8 5.4 Phase 4: Roman deposits ................................................................................... 9 5.5 Phase 5: Medieval to modern deposits ............................................................. 10

6 Artefact analysis, by Laura Griffin ........................................ 10 6.1 The artefact assemblage ................................................................................... 10 6.2 Pottery ............................................................................................................... 11

6.2.1 Iron Age ...................................................................................................... 11 6.2.2 Roman ........................................................................................................ 11

6.3 Other finds ......................................................................................................... 11 6.3.1 Earlier prehistoric ........................................................................................ 11 6.3.2 Iron Age ...................................................................................................... 11 6.3.3 Roman ........................................................................................................ 11 6.3.4 Post-medieval ............................................................................................. 11

6.4 Overview of artefactual evidence ...................................................................... 12 6.5 Discussion ......................................................................................................... 13

7 Environmental analysis, by Elizabeth Pearson .................... 13 7.1 Animal bone ...................................................................................................... 13 7.2 Macrofossil remains .......................................................................................... 13 7.3 Phase 2: Earlier prehistoric ............................................................................... 14 7.4 Phase 4: Roman ............................................................................................... 14 7.5 Synthesis ........................................................................................................... 14

8 Synthesis ................................................................................. 15 8.1 General ............................................................................................................. 15 8.2 Prehistoric ......................................................................................................... 15 8.3 Roman ............................................................................................................... 16 8.4 Anglo-Saxon ...................................................................................................... 18

8.5 Medieval to modern ........................................................................................... 18

9 Research frameworks ............................................................. 18

10 Significance .......................................................................... 20 10.1 Nature of the archaeological interest in the site ............................................. 20 10.2 Relative importance of the archaeological interest in the site ........................ 20 10.3 Physical extent of the archaeological interest in the site ............................... 21

11 The impact of the development .......................................... 22 11.1 Impacts during construction ........................................................................... 22 11.2 Impacts on sustainability ................................................................................ 22

12 Recommendations ............................................................... 23

13 Publication summary ........................................................... 24

14 Acknowledgements .............................................................. 25

15 Bibliography ......................................................................... 25

Worcestershire Archaeology Worcestershire County Council

Page 1

An archaeological evaluation at Milestone Ground, Broadway, Worcestershire

Elizabeth Connolly, Andrew Walsh and Simon Woodiwiss

With contributions by Laura Griffin and Elizabeth Pearson

Summary An archaeological evaluation was undertaken at Milestone Ground, Broadway, Worcestershire (National Grid reference SP 0892 3784) on behalf of Wychavon District Council who are preparing an application for mixed use development of the site.

The archaeological significance of the site has been known at least from the first half of the 20th century when at least two phases of excavation were undertaken ahead of gravel extraction to the immediate south-east and north-west of the site. The result of one archaeological investigation published in 1946, recorded pits, ditches, stone paving or foundations and burnt daub from a possible hut. Finds included Roman and "native" pottery; at least three Roman bronze brooches, a limestone phallus, and the bones of an infant burial. At least seven unpublished inhumations were also recorded at the quarry. Sherds of late Neolithic Grooved Ware and a single Anglo-Saxon sherd were recorded from an earlier excavation. Interestingly this site was one of the first instances in which "Grooved Ware" was identified by Stuart Piggott, and plays a part in the early development of prehistoric studies.

More recently the area of the cropmarks has been subject to fieldwalking which yielded assemblages of Romano-British pottery and Mesolithic flints indicating that human activity was taking place on the site in this period.

A series of cropmarks identified on aerial photographs show settlement features on the site including a pit alignment, two groups of pits to the west, and a series of enclosures indicative of Iron Age and Romano-British activity. Within the main group of enclosures there were a number of rectangular and circular features, which may be buildings, roundhouses and more pits. An irregular shaped enclosure was visible to the east of the main complex and various linear features including an alignment of pits.

Evaluation of the site comprised the excavation of nineteen trenches, designed to test the survival and nature of features identified from cropmarks and to test the archaeological potential of other areas of the site, using a grid array pattern. The evaluation demonstrated the good survival of the features represented by the cropmarks, which survive largely as negative features cut into the natural substrate generally at a shallow depth. The most complex archaeology was in the centre of the site where several phases of an enclosed farmstead survive. Most of the features relating to the enclosures were dated as Roman, although Iron Age pottery was often residual in these contexts, suggesting that the settlement may have been founded during the Iron Age but continued after the Roman invasion.

A large cluster of pits, identified as storage pits, survived immediately to the south-west of the enclosures. Building material and burnt clay suggests that a building, possibly with an oven, was located in this area. The irregular enclosure was shown to comprise at least two wide re-cut ditches containing Roman pottery, and an inhumation was identified within it. The pit alignment survived well and extends further than was suggested by the cropmarks. No datable finds were recovered from the sampled pits, although elsewhere in the region these features are typically Iron Age in date.

The artefact assemblage was typical of Roman rural settlement in this region consisting of largely local forms with some regional imports. The most notable find was the base of an Iron Age pot.

Milestone Ground, Broadway, Worcestershire

Page 2


Page 3

Report

1 Background 1.1 Reasons for the project

An archaeological evaluation was undertaken at Milestone Ground, Broadway, Worcestershire (NGR SP 0892 3784). It was commissioned by Wychavon District Council, in advance of proposed development for which a planning application will be submitted to Wychavon District Council (pre-application WAAS reference number CWR9683). The proposed development site is considered to include heritage assets and potential heritage assets, the significance of which may be affected by the application (WSM 36370).

The project conforms to a brief prepared by the archaeological advisor to Wychavon District Council (Glyde 2014) for which a project proposal (including detailed specification) was produced (WA 2014). The project also conforms to the Standard and guidance for archaeological field evaluation (IfA 2008) and the Standards and guidelines for archaeological projects in Worcestershire (WCC 2010). The event reference for this project, given by the HER is WSM 57125.

2 The application site 2.1 Topography, geology and archaeological context

The proposed development site is located approximately 0.5km north-west of Broadway and covers an area of 9.6 hectares (Fig 1). The site is bounded to the north-east by the Station Road, to the south-east by residential properties fronting onto the B4632 Cheltenham Road, to the south-west by Childswick Road and to the north-west by a small nature reserve and caravan site. The site is located on a gentle west facing slope with the elevation falling from 75m above Ordnance Datum (OD) in the east to 70m OD to the west. The underlying geology of the site is mapped as Charmouth Mudstone Formation, overlain by superficial head deposits of sand, gravel, silt and clay (BGS 2014).

The proposed development site is located in an area of intense archaeological activity. Aerial photographs reveal extensive cropmarks in the north-western half of the site. These show a pit alignment in the northern part of the site, two apparently separate groups of pits to the west, and a series of enclosures indicative of multi-phase prehistoric and Romano-British activity in the centre of the site. Within the main group of enclosures there are a number of rectangular and circular features, which may be buildings and roundhouses, and more pits. To the east is an irregular shaped enclosure.

The cropmarks appear to extend towards the south-eastern part of site, into an area which was extensively quarried in the early to mid-20th century. The result of one archaeological investigation at this quarry was published in 1946 (Smith 1946; WSM 10943), although it is clear that archaeological activity at the pit had taken place over a number of years revealing evidence of activity from the Neolithic (Piggott 1936), through until the Anglo Saxon period. Smith reported that "objects" had been found "from time to time" and at "least three circular hut sites" had already been excavated in the quarry (Smith 1946, 58-59). A triangular loomweight plus a quantity of "native" pottery (later lost) were recovered from one of the hut sites, which was also reported to have had a beaten clay floor.

The excavation carried out by Smith revealed pits, ditches, stone paving or foundations and burnt daub from a possible hut. Finds included Roman and "native" pottery; at least three Roman bronze brooches, a limestone phallus, and the bones of an infant burial (Smith 1946). However, although plans were created and submitted (now unlocated), due to post-war cost savings they were not included in the publication and the exact location of the features within the site has not been identified.


Page 4

More recently the area of the cropmarks has been subject to fieldwalking (WSM 34400 and 38546). This has yielded an assemblage of Romano-British pottery, which indicates that the Roman activity at the site appears to broadly follow the overall pattern of settlement in the region with a distinct pattern of expansion in the 2nd and 3rd centuries followed by retraction in the late 3rd and 4th centuries. The fieldwalking also yielded an assemblage of Mesolithic flints indicating a temporary occupation.

An assemblage of artefacts, presumably from this site, has also recently come to light as local person was clearing an outbuilding for renovation. These artefacts were collected by this person's grandfather. There is a tantalising reference in Smith (1946, 59) to pottery which "fell into the hands of a local person and was subsequently lost", though whether this is the material has not been established. The material also includes human remains, animal bone, a single piece of moulded stone, ceramic roofing material, and box flue tile. There is evidence that the human remains, at least, have received specialist attention as the boxes included a label addressed to the Royal College of Surgeons.

The inclosure map of 1771 indicates the whole of the site to lie within a field owned by the Earl of Coventry.

The origin of the site name Milestone Ground is unknown but a milestone is marked on the first edition Ordnance Survey (1884-5, on the south-western side of the road), though this is well to the north of the present northern boundary of the site (though then within the same field). A milepost then appears slightly further south, presumably due to the construction of the railway (as shown on maps dated 1923) and to the north-eastern side of the road.

2.2 Current land-use

The north-western half of the proposed development site is arable farmland. The south-eastern half of the site is currently in various uses, including a public car park, football pitch and club house, and waste ground.

3 Aims and objectives The aims and objectives of the project conformed to those set out in the brief (Glyde 2014) which were as follows.

Establish as far as reasonably possible, the full chronological range of heritage assets within the area of interest.

Establish the palaeoenvironmental potential of the site.

Establish the significance of remains present on a national, regional and local level.

Provide an appraisal of the historic archives of the adjacent mineral sites in order to further understand the significance and potential of the area of interest.

Address relevant local and national research objectives.

Provide a risk and opportunity plan of the area of interest.

From the evidence gathered discuss mitigation options for the area of interest.

4 Methods 4.1 Personnel

The fieldwork was led by Andrew Walsh (BSc MSc FSA Scot AIfA) who joined Worcestershire Archaeology in 2013 and has been practicing archaeology since 2004. He was assisted in the field by Graham Arnold and Richard Groves. The report preparation was led Elizabeth Connolly (MA) assisted by Andrew Walsh. The Project Manager responsible for the quality of the report was Tom Rogers (MSc). Illustrations were prepared by Carolyn Hunt (BSc MIfA). Laura Griffin (BA AIfA) contributed the finds report and Elizabeth Pearson (MSc AIfA) contributed the environmental


Page 5

remains report. Simon Woodiwiss (MIfA) reviewed the report and amended it after a meeting with the client.

4.2 Collection of existing information

Aside from the references cited in the bibliography, a search was made for relevant records at the Worcestershire Archive and Archaeology Service. The index for Broadway was searched and the following records consulted.

Inclosure map, 1771, A map of the several allotments… within the manor of Broadway in the County of Worcester. BA368, r264.72

Though some reference to quarries was made in the index, these records did not relate to the site in question.

In addition the County Council's planning section was requested to produce any records they had relating to the site. As the quarry predates modern planning requirements any records would be held by the Archive and Archaeology Service. The site is however identified as landfill, though the area marked extends well beyond the known areas of quarrying to the east and west of the surviving archaeological site and incorporates it (though no evidence of landfill was located in any of the evaluation trenches).

In addition Wychavon District Council kindly provided two ground investigation reports (HWCC 1994 and IFA 2013), on the quarry area.

A 1940s aerial photograph is also viewable via this link http://www1.getmapping.com/Webshop/Web/CommonPages/Main/preview.aspx?srid=27700&x=407951&y=238288&searchType, but does not appear to add materially to the extent of the quarry indicated elsewhere (HWCC 1994, fig 4).

4.3 Fieldwork strategy

A detailed specification was prepared by Worcestershire Archaeology (WA 2014). On the basis of the cropmark evidence the site was divided into three zones (Figs 1 and 2).

1. The main concentrations of cropmarks in the central and western part of the proposed site. The trenches within this zone provided a sample of just over 2% of this zone, and targeted a representative range of features showing on the aerial photographs. Within this area the trenches were located specifically to test the following.

a) The state of preservation of features and the density of finds generally for all trenches within this zone.

b) The nature of the irregular enclosure to the east (Trench 6, 50m by 1.8m).

c) The sequence and dating of the principal elements of the superimposed enclosure sequence (Trenches 2, 3 and 5)

d) The circular and rectangular features within the enclosures (Trenches 2, 3, 4 and 5, each 50m by 1.8m).

e) The pits to the west (Trench 1, 50m by 1.8m with larger areas of 5m by 5m at each end). This trench also examined the gap between the two clusters of pits (which possibly marks the line of a palaeochannel). The aerial photographs showed a greener area in the southern corner of this zone, which was interpreted as alluvium covering more deeply buried features. The two larger areas at either end of the trench were to ensure that at least one of the features showing on the aerial photographs could be tested. This area is also the most likely (being the lowest and


Page 6

close to a watercourse) to be subject to periodic flooding and was selected for its potential for environmental evidence.

2. An area of fewer cropmarks to the north of the site. Here trenches consisted of a 4% grid array (twelve trenches each 50m by 1.8m) which was designed to ensure that any cropmarks in this area were tested as well as the apparent negative areas. Linear cropmarks were tested by Trenches 14-17. Trench 12 (5m by 8m) was located over the pit alignment and was designed to ensure that at least one of the pits could be tested.

3. The south-eastern part of the site, where the former quarry pit was located, was not sampled as part of this evaluation. It is anticipated that existing information will indicate the likely continuation of significant deposits.

Deposits considered not to be significant were removed using a 360º tracked excavator, employing a toothless bucket and under archaeological supervision. Subsequent excavation was undertaken by hand. Clean surfaces were inspected and selected deposits were excavated to retrieve artefactual material and environmental samples, as well as to determine their nature.

Following a site visit from the curator, it was advised that Trench 3 be extended to test the existence of a suspected Saxon sunken floored house and Trench 6 be extended to get a better profile of the large enclosure ditch. In the event the sunken floored house was in fact a Roman ditch.

Deposits were recorded according to standard Worcestershire Archaeology practice (WA 2012). On completion of excavation, trenches were reinstated by replacing the excavated material. Fieldwork was undertaken between 2 and 12 June 2014. The site reference number and site code is WSM 57125.

4.4 Structural analysis

All fieldwork records were checked and cross-referenced. Analysis was effected through a combination of structural, artefactual and ecofactual evidence, allied to the information derived from other sources.

4.5 Artefact methodology, by Laura Griffin

4.5.1 Artefact recovery policy

The artefact recovery policy conformed to standard Service practice (CAS 1995, appendix 4).

4.5.2 Method of analysis

All hand-retrieved finds were examined and a primary record was made on a Microsoft Access 2007 database. They were identified, quantified and dated to period. A terminus post quem date was produced for each stratified context. All information was recorded on pro forma Microsoft Access 2000 database.

The pottery was examined under x20 magnification and recorded by fabric type and form according to the fabric reference series maintained by the service (Hurst and Rees 1992 and www.worcestershireceramics.org).

Artefacts from environmental samples were examined and are included in the discussion of the finds and the Table 3 quantification.

4.6 Environmental archaeology methodology, by Elizabeth Pearson

The environmental project conforms to relevant sections of guidance from the IfA (2012), English Heritage (2010), and the AEA (1995).


Page 7

4.6.1 Sampling policy

Samples were taken according to standard Worcestershire Archaeology practice (2012a). A total of four samples (each of 10 litres) were taken from the site (Table 1).

Context Sample Feature type

Fill of

Position of fill

Period Phase Sample volume (L)

Volume processed (L)

Residue assessed

Flot assessed

102 4 Layer Roman 3 10 10 Yes Yes 403 4 Ditch 304 Primary Roman 3 0 10 Yes Yes 664 8 Ditch 665 Primary Roman 3 10 10 Yes Yes 1303 2 Pit 1304 Primary Prehistoric 1 10 10 Yes Yes

Table 1 List of environmental samples

4.6.2 Processing and analysis

The samples were processed by flotation using a Siraf tank. The flots were collected on a 300m sieve and the residue retained on a 1mm mesh. This allows for the recovery of items such as small animal bones, molluscs and seeds.

The residues were scanned by eye and the abundance of each category of environmental remains estimated. A magnet was also used to test for the presence of hammerscale. The flots were scanned using a low power MEIJI stereo light microscope and plant remains identified using modern reference collections maintained by Worcestershire Archaeology, and a seed identification manual (Cappers et al 2012). Nomenclature for the plant remains follows Stace (2010).

Animal bone was quantified according to count and weight (g) for each context (Table 2) with notes on condition, species, age and butchery marks where relevant. The cell structure of all the non-oak wood identification samples for radiocarbon dating was examined in three planes under a high power microscope and identifications were carried out using reference texts (Schweingruber 1978, Brazier and Franklin 1961, and Hather 2000) and reference slides housed at Worcestershire Archaeology.

Context Count Weight(g) Feature type

Period Phase

102 6 30 Layer Roman 3 207 24 378 Ditch 209 10 102 ERB 2 211 44 550 LIA/ERB 2 212 13 414 Ditch 213 1 24 Ditch Iron Age 2 216 27 458 Ditch LIA/ERB 2 217 4 144 Ditch prehistoric 2 237 3 20 LIA/ERB 2 247 2 14 Roman 3 309 1 4 Pit 313 3 6 Ditch Roman 3 317 2 42 Ditch 319 1 16 Ditch Roman 3 327 3 38 Pit Roman 3 327 2 10 Pit Roman 3 403 17 338 Ditch 405 1 58 Ditch Roman 3 407 1 18 Ditch 418 1 24 Ditch434 2 10 Pit Roman 3 517 3 10 Ditch prehistoric 2


Page 8

Context Count Weight(g) Feature type

Period Phase

631 2 6 Roman 3 655 11 4 Ditch Roman 3 660 4 8 Ditch LIA/ERB 2 662 11 170 Ditch ERB 1517 3 90 Ditch 1803 28 1.2 Pit TOTAL 230 2987.2 Table 2 Hand-collected animal bone

LIA = Late Iron Age ERB = Early Romano British

4.6.3 Discard policy

Residues will be discarded after a period of 6 months after the submission of this report.

4.7 Statement of confidence in the methods and results

The methods adopted allow a high degree of confidence that the aims of the project have been achieved.

5 Structural analysis The trenches and features recorded are shown in Figures 3-4. The results of the structural analysis are presented in Appendix 1.

5.1 Phase 1: Natural deposits

The natural substrate across the majority of the site was mostly compact light brownish gravel with frequent irregular patches of reddish brown slightly sandy clay, overlain by soft brownish red clay silt subsoil. In the south-western half of Trench 1, limestone gravel within an orange/yellow coarse sand was present. In the north east of the trench, this was overlain by a buff silty clay alluvium, overlain by olive brown silty clay subsoil. This probably represents a former palaeochannel whose presence is suggested by a light green line visible on aerial photographs.

5.2 Phase 2: Earlier prehistoric

Ten pieces of flint were recovered during the evaluation, one of which was worked (R Hedge pers comm). Flint was recovered from the upper fill of pit 1710, a circular or ovoid pit which was not fully revealed by excavation, and which contained several pieces of fired ceramic. Flint was also recovered from 1304, a small pit, sub-circular in plan (0.52m in diameter). Charred hazelnuts and a small amount of animal bone were found in the fill of this pit as well as some burned stone.

Flints were found but considered to be residual in the following contexts; dirty alluvium occupation layer, 131, from which some Roman pot was recovered; and ditch 333, which cuts pit 327, from which seven sherds of Roman pottery were recovered.

5.3 Phase 3: Iron Age deposits

A pit alignment visible as cropmarks in the northern part of the site was investigated by Trenches 11 and 12 (Figs 1 and 2). In Trench 12 five pits were recorded (Plate 1); they were each roughly circular in plan, with pit 1206 measuring just over 1.5m in diameter. Pit 1206 was excavated and found to have a highly compacted fill of gravel and sand (Fig 4, Plate 2) and measured 0.70m in depth with three very similar fills. No finds were recorded from this feature.

A concentration of pits visible as cropmarks to the west of the enclosures was targeted by Trenches 1, 2 and 3. Five were revealed in Trench 1 (Plate 3); one of which, 105, was excavated (Fig 4, Plate 4), and found to be 0.80m deep with a sterile fill, steep sides and a flat base implying


Page 9

it was a storage pit, of the kind often found at Iron Age sites although their use is likely to have continued into the Roman period.

Seven pits were recorded in Trench 2, six of them in the south-east of the trench, as well as one posthole with a similar fill. Three smaller pits or postholes with similar fills were recorded separately, one to the east of the large enclosure ditch and two together several metres further to the north east. Five were found in the western part of Trench 3.

Ditch 208, with re-cut 214 (Fig 4, Plate 7), were evident as cropmarks. A possible Iron Age loomweight and an Iron Age ceramic pot were recovered from the fill of 214.

Iron Age pottery was found in other deposits across the site in contexts in association with Roman pottery and was therefore residual in these contexts.

5.4 Phase 4: Roman deposits

The main complex of enclosures and internal features was targeted by Trenches 1-4.

On the western side of the complex two main enclosure ditches have been identified by cropmarks. The outermost ditch was crossed in Trench 2 and recorded as ditch 238 and was exposed and planned but not sampled. Immediately east of this, between the enclosure ditches, was a gravel spread, 251, which was interpreted as a possible bank. A section was excavated across the inner ditch which was at least 3m wide and 1m deep though the base was not reached for reasons of safety. This ditch was cut to the south-west by a less substantial ditch (222; Fig 4).

To the east, also in Trench 2, ditches 240, 214 and 208 were thought to be the remains of one of the curved cropmarks thought to represent the base of a roundhouse. A section was excavated across ditch 214, cut by a later ditch 208 revealing a steep sided, flat bottomed profile, 0.7m wide and 0.5m deep. Bone and pottery were recovered from these features.

Several ditches and a possible pit were recorded in the location of another curvilinear cropmark, in the north-eastern portion of Trench 2. Pit 248 contained pottery and ceramic material and gully, or small ditch 250 yielded pottery and fragments of mortaria. A layer of stones, a mix of sandstone and limestone, 203 lay at the north-eastern end of the trench. It is thought that this may represent the remains of a building and a burnt layer, 204, beneath may have been a hearth. Pottery recovered from the stones indicates a 4th century date.

The irregular enclosure in the south-eastern part of the site was investigated by Trench 6. The trench contained a series of pits and postholes (613, 617, 619, 623, 625, 638, 640, 648, 650) and a large linear feature was revealed once the trench had been extended. A section across this revealed an early U-shaped enclosure ditch (665) with three fills, and cut by a wider enclosure ditch (661) with an irregular base (Fig 4). Together, the width of these two features was approximately 5m with a maximum depth of 1.5m. Roman pottery was retrieved from the fills of these ditches.

Just within the irregular enclosure, a grave (634) containing the remains of possibly two individuals, semi-articulated or disturbed, was cut by later Roman ditch 632, which also cut the large enclosure ditch. The bones were recorded but left in situ.

Several ditches visible as cropmarks were recorded in Trench 3 which targeted the northern part of the enclosure complex, and yielded finds of Roman pottery, and one of which (314), contained finds of Roman tile and possibly human bone. A large pit (328) investigated in the extension of Trench 3, contained surface finds of early Romano British pottery. Numerous smaller ditches within Trench 3 (314, 316, 318, 320, 326, 324, 332) were not investigated.

Trench 4 was placed to cross what appear to be sub-square divisions within the enclosure. Here was the densest concentration of features encountered in the evaluation particularly to the north eastern end where only small patches of natural substrate survived between numerous gullies and pits (420, 428, 430, 432, 436, 440, 444), amply demonstrating the high density of archaeological features that will exist over a wider area. Excavation of ditch 408 in the centre of the trench had a


Page 10

wide profile, which had been re-cut twice, by U-shaped 406 and by V-shaped 404 from which 3rd-4th century pottery was retrieved. This feature aligned with one of the smaller divisions within the enclosures.

A narrow linear cropmark defining a probable enclosure to the east of the main complex was targeted by Trench 5. This was recorded as ditch 518, which was not excavated, although the surface yielded burnt bone and ceramic fragments broadly categorised as prehistoric. The same feature, however recorded as ditch 1604 in Trench 16, contained Roman pottery.

A curving ditch extending to the east of this possible enclosure was crossed by Trench 17, where it was recorded as ditch 1705, containing two fills. This ditch is likely to be the same as ditch 1904 within Trench 19 at the eastern edge of the site demonstrating that, in this case the ditch extended further than the cropmark suggested. This was 0.65m wide and 0.1m deep though no dateable material was retrieved.

5.5 Phase 5: Medieval to modern deposits

Topsoil throughout most the site was soft greyish brown sandy silt; towards the south-western area of the site it was a dark brown clay loam.

Cultivation furrows, some of which cut earlier features, were found in Trenches 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 19. Deposit 521 found at the western end of Trench 5 probably represents a headland from ploughing downhill to the east. Ditch 504, which cuts this, possibly represents a field boundary. A modern ditch recorded in Trench 1, was interpreted as being related to market gardening activity.

6 Artefact analysis, by Laura Griffin 6.1 The artefact assemblage

A fairly substantial finds assemblage totalling 270 artefacts was recovered from the site. Pottery formed the largest group amounting to 197 sherds weighing 3247g. This quantification excludes a large number of friable fragments from a complete pottery base found in context 629 which has yet to be processed due to potential for environmental sampling at the next stage of analysis.

The material was predominantly late Iron Age and Roman in date with earlier material consisting of 10 pieces of flint. Later material took the form of small amounts of post-medieval pottery which came from topsoil layers (see Table 1). Level of preservation was variable with some artefacts highly abraded and others displaying good surface preservation.

Material class Material subtype Total Weight (g)

ceramic Iron Age pottery 44 382

ceramic Roman pottery 150 2687

ceramic Post-medieval pottery 3 178

ceramic Roman tile 3 412

ceramic ?loomweight 2 143

ceramic fired clay 44 1273

metal iron 4 34

slag 9 67

stone 1 32

Stone flint 10 49

Total 270 5257

Table 1: Quantification of the artefactual assemblage


Page 11

6.2 Pottery

All sherds have been spot-dated and quantified. For the purposes of this assessment, sherds have not been quantified by specific fabric or form type, but general composition of the group has been noted and is discussed below.

A total of 197 sherds weighing 3247g were retrieved from the site. The mainly Iron Age/Roman assemblage was dominated by the latter period with the only other sherds consisting of highly abraded post-medieval fragments retrieved from the plough-soil.

6.2.1 Iron Age

The Iron Age pottery assemblage was reminiscent of that from excavations at nearby Childswickham, in both the range of fabric and form types present (Timby 2004). As seen at Childswickham, the group consists primarily of small, highly abraded sherds from jar forms with a high proportion of Palaeozoic limestone-tempered ware present. Remaining sherds included examples with shell-, sand- or oolitic limestone inclusions. The small number of diagnostic sherds within this group indicated a later Iron Age date, although the majority of sherds were residual in a Roman context (see Table 3).

The most notable find of Iron Age date was the base of a large vessel (broken into many fragments) found lying in the base of a ditch in Trench 6 (context 629). Due to the absence of a significant proportion of the vessel, it is not diagnostic enough to identify or date with any degree of precision but the fabric is consistent with the later Iron Age date indicated by the rest of the assemblage (D Hurst pers comm).

6.2.2 Roman

The Roman pottery indicated occupation throughout the period with examples of mid-1st–early 2nd century forms, as well as diagnostic sherds from Severn Valley ware wide-mouthed jars and Black-burnished ware type 1 (BB1) jars with obtuse lattice indicative of a 3rd –4th century date.

The fabrics were typical of rural occupation, consisting largely of locally-produced wares supplemented by small amounts of non-regional and imported wares in the form of BB1, Oxfordshire mortaria, and samian ware. Likewise the forms present were also consistent with a lower order settlement being narrow in range and dominated by jars.

6.3 Other finds

6.3.1 Earlier prehistoric

A total of 10 pieces of flint were retrieved from the site but only one appeared to have been worked (R Hedge pers comm).

6.3.2 Iron Age

Two fragments of distinctive fired clay are thought to be pieces of a loomweight of similar date to the pottery.

6.3.3 Roman

Non-pottery finds of Roman date formed a small proportion of the assemblage and included fragments of fired clay, and ceramic building material. The most notable fired clay came from an ?oven structure (Trench 2), perhaps similar to that found at Childswickham (D Hurst pers comm). The ceramic building material consisted of tile/tegula fragments (all from Trench 2).

6.3.4 Post-medieval

All remaining datable finds came from topsoil and consisted of small sherds of pottery dating from the post-medieval period onwards (see Table 2).


Page 12

6.4 Overview of artefactual evidence

Context

Material class

Object specific type

Total

Weight(g)

Start date

End date

Context terminus post quem

0 Ceramic pot 3 73 Roman 100 Ceramic pot 3 12 Roman 131 Ceramic pot 1 23 Roman

131 Stone flint 5 19 200 Ceramic pot 2 23

Roman 200 Ceramic pot 2 55 200 Ceramic tegula 1 225 203 ceramic pot 6 138 3C 4C 4th century 204 ceramic pot 2 40 Iron Age 209 ceramic pot 26 511 Early Roman

209 ceramic pot 2 19 211 ceramic pot 10 89 Late Iron Age/Early

Roman

211 slag 1 35 211 stone 1 32 213 ceramic pot 2 45

Iron Age 213 ceramic ?loomweight 2 143

216 ceramic pot 2 2 Late Iron Age/Early Roman

217 ceramic pot 1 6 Iron Age 237 ceramic pot 3 17

Roman 237 ceramic pot 4 8


247 ceramic pot 1 3 AD120

AD120+ 247 ceramic tile 1 154 247 ceramic fired clay 13 1116 249 ceramic pot 6 319 3C 3rd century 313 ceramic pot 3 8

Roman 313 ceramic tile 1 33 319 ceramic pot 1 5 Roman 321 ceramic pot 2 30 Iron Age 327 ceramic pot 7 46 Roman 333 stone flint 1 2 400 ceramic pot 1 212 2C 3C 3rd century 403 ceramic pot 21 173 3C 4C

3rd–4th century

403 ceramic pot 1 2 L1C E2C 403 metal iron 1 14 403 slag 7 31 405 ceramic pot 1 3 Roman 407 ceramic pot 1 7 Roman 434 ceramic pot 1 82 Roman

440 ceramic pot 2 24AD120+ AD120+

503 ceramic pot 1 41 18C 18th century 517 ceramic pot 1 1 prehistoric 521 ceramic pot 6 32 Roman 600 ceramic pot 1 11 Roman

600 metal iron nail 1 12


Page 13

Context

Material class

Object specific type

Total

Weight(g)

Start date

End date

Context terminus post quem

603 ceramic pot 7 102 Roman 606 ceramic pot 4 23 LIA/ERB

606 ceramic 1 15 620 ceramic pot 2 27 Roman 629 ceramic pot

Roman 629 ceramic pot 2 25 631 ceramic pot 14 444 3C 4C

3rd century 631 ceramic pot 4 75 L2C 3C 631 metal iron nail 2 8 635 ceramic pot 2 29 M1C L2C Late 2nd century 641 ceramic pot 1 2 Roman 647 ceramic pot 1 6 Iron Age 649 ceramic pot 2 12 Roman 651 ceramic pot 2 11 Roman 655 ceramic pot 4 10

Roman 655 ceramic pot 3 49 655 ceramic pot 7 18 659 ceramic pot 1 10 Roman

659 slag 1 1


662 ceramic pot 7 152 Mid-2nd century 665 ceramic fired clay 2 30 1300 ceramic pot 1 4 18C post-medieval 1303 ceramic fired clay 9 52 1303 stone flint 2 15 1405 ceramic pot 1 133 18C post-medieval 1603 ceramic pot 1 33 Roman 1708 ceramic fired clay 19 60 1708 stone flint 2 13

Table 4 Summary of context dating based on artefacts

6.5 Discussion

The artefactual assemblage from this site is typical of a lower order rural settlement. The Iron Age and Roman pottery appears consistent in both form and fabric type with assemblages from other local sites such as Childswickham (cf Timby 2004), and indicates continuous settlement from the later Iron Age through to the 4th century AD. Further work on this assemblage with full analysis of pottery fabric and forms could further refine this dating.

7 Environmental analysis, by Elizabeth Pearson 7.1 Animal bone

A well preserved assemblage of hand-collected animal bone totalling 230 fragments (2.9 kg) was recovered. The assemblage was dominated by cattle/horse size bone with occasional fragments of sheep/goat bone and teeth. Dog mandibles were also noted in contexts 209, and 211. The assemblage has potential for analysis of metrical and age data and butchery practices. No further work was carried out on this assemblage.

7.2 Macrofossil remains

Results are summarised in Tables 5 to 6.


Page 14

Context Large mammal

Small mammal

Mollusc Charcoal Charred plant

Uncharred plant remains

Comment

102 occ occ abt occ 403 occ occ occ occ fired

clay, glass 664 occ occ occ occ 1303 mod mod occ occ pot,

?burnt stone

Table 5: Summary of environmental remains

Occ= occasional; mod = moderate; abt = abundant Latin name Family Common name Habitat 403 1303Uncharred plant remains Atriplex sp Amaranthaceae orache AB + Charred plant remains cf Avena sp + Triticum dicoccum/spelta grain Poaceae emmer/spelt wheat F + Triticum sp grain Poaceae wheat F + Corylus avellana shell fragment Betulaceae hazelnut C + + Eleocharis sp Cyperaceae spike-rush E + cf Bromus sp grain Poaceae brome grass AF +

Table 6: Plant remains

7.3 Phase 2: Earlier prehistoric

Only occasional animal bone and charred hazelnut shell were recorded from a possible prehistoric pit (1303), along with burnt stone from which little interpretation could be made.

7.4 Phase 4: Roman

Abundant mollusc remains were recovered (predominantly Pupilla muscorum with small numbers of Valonia sp and Caryichium sp) from a layer above natural (102), indicating sort turfed open grassland in the vicinity. Although poorly preserved, a small assemblage of charred cereal crop remains from ditch fill 403 demonstrated processing or storage of emmer or spelt wheat (Triticum diccocum/spelta) and free-threshing wheat (Triticum sp free-threshing sp). The former is typical a Roman date whereas free-threshing wheat grain tends only to be found occasionally.

7.5 Synthesis

The evaluation has shown some potential for recovery of charred plant remains which can provide information on the distribution of cereal crop processing or storage, although the preservation may be poor and interpretive value limited.

Well preserved mollusc remains have survived, however as a result of calcareous soil conditions and may provide information on taphonomy of deposits and the nature of the surrounding environment.

Animal bone preservation is good and demonstrates the potential to recover assemblages of sufficient size for interpretation of livestock economy of the site.


Page 15

8 Synthesis 8.1 General

The evaluation has demonstrated that cropmarks identified previously are a fairly accurate indicator of the extent of the survival of archaeological features within the site. Some features such as the pit alignment and ditch 1904 clearly extended further than expected, but in general, trenches placed in areas where no cropmarks occurred had significantly fewer or no archaeological features and the trenches which targeted the most complex area of cropmarks yielded the most complex archaeology. Archaeological features were well preserved at a relatively shallow depth beneath the current ground level.

Cropmarks which suggest Iron Age and Roman settlement are common in this area, particularly to the north and north-west of Broadway including WSM 25255, WSM 06743 and WSM 01860 on the southern side of the Childswickham Road. Furthermore cropmarks are known fairly commonly on the gravel terraces of the Avon and Carrant valleys and sites have been excavated at Wyre Piddle (Hurst 2011), Beckford (Evans forthcoming), Pershore (Mann et al 2013) and Bengeworth (Walsh and Lovett 2013) amongst others. Some comparison may also be drawn with the settlement excavated in advance of the Cotswold Spring Supply Trunk Main (Patrick and Hurst 2004) at nearby Childswickham where the remains of substantial stone buildings were recorded (and suggested by the presence of box flue tile from the newly rediscovered archive).

8.2 Prehistoric

The site is located in an area (WSM 56936) identified on the HER as an Area of Palaeolithic Potential, due to head deposits which may conceal and preserve earlier land surfaces and may also contain unstratified/reworked artefactual remains. The deposits are dated to Marine Isotope Stage 12 to Stage 1. No Palaeolithic remains were found during either the present or previous work.

The earliest evidence of activity on the site comes from fieldwalking at this location carried out by Worcestershire Young Archaeologists Club (Mora-Ottamano in Jacobs 2006) in which Mesolithic flint finds of 38 flakes, 2 blades, 10 bladelets, and 18 cores were identified. The distribution of the flint has been plotted (Fig 8) and indicates a wide spread of material but an increased concentration over the main density of cropmarks, which whilst unrelated (it is very rare for Mesolithic spreads of flint to be associated with structural features) is of interest. While a large number of the worked flint seemed to come from local secondary geological drift deposits, it is suggested by the homogenous industry represented by the flints that initial preparation of the cores took place elsewhere. The scatter of artefacts dateable to the Mesolithic period at this site was not enough to give a clear idea of the purpose to which this particular location was put. The absence of projectile points and the site's location suggest it was not a short-term hunting ground or a base camp. There is a possibility that some of the flints may have come from slippage from uphill.

While most of the flints found during the evaluation are considered to be residual within later features, two small pits in the north and north-east of the site (in Trenches 17 and 13) which yielded finds are considered to be prehistoric in date.

Excavations associated with quarrying in Area 3 (Piggott 1936), revealed Grooved Ware from a pit interpreted as an "occupation hole", indicating activity during the late Neolithic; this is one of the first documented identifications of "Grooved Ware" in British archaeology. Smith (1946) makes reference to a Grooved Ware site at Bourton-on-the Water, which she says is linked with Broadway by the prehistoric trackway known as Buckle Street.

The pit alignment, identified by cropmark and tested by Trench 12, was found to be more extensive than previously supposed, with a pit recorded to the west-south-west in Trench 9. This alignment runs roughly east-north-east by west-south-west for at least 100m. Pit alignments are generally thought to be Bronze Age/Iron Age and often form a boundary between two geological zones, although that does not appear to be the case here. An alignment of 22 pits excavated at Hindlip to


Page 16

the north of Worcester (Wainwright 2010) contained slag and hammerscale, both by-products of metal industry, in the pit fills, which supported an Iron Age date for this feature. Although several of these monuments are known from cropmarks in the region, the Hindlip pit alignment is the only example known to have been excavated within the county.

There is some indication that Iron Age features survive within the enclosures. Ditch 208, re-cut by 214, represented by a circular cropmark, contained Iron Age pottery.

The large enclosure ditch 210, re-cut by 222, contained pottery dating from the late Iron Age and early Romano British periods in several of its fills. Some of the layers containing late Iron Age pottery overlie fills dateable to the early Roman period, but this might be explained by the effects of ploughing. It seems likely that the co-existence of late Iron Age and early Roman finds in this feature is due to its long-term use as an enclosing element, with re-cuts along a similar alignment to the original testifying to its continuation.

The area of storage pits investigated by Trench 1 indicated a cluster of pits of fairly uniform size in plan, and with a uniform fill. Pit 105, found almost at the south-western extent of the site, contained a sterile sandy clay, which suggests that it may have been a storage pit that was purposefully backfilled after use. In section this pit was flat bottomed, with no evidence of clay or wattle lining. The storage pits cover a larger area of the site than is suggested by the cropmarks extending, at least in the location of Trench 1, almost to the boundary with the Childswickham Road.

8.3 Roman

The 1946 report

The surviving Roman/Iron Age site forms one part of a formerly larger settlement including the area excavated by Smith (1946). These excavations took place during quarrying, and much of what she recorded was in section. Her earliest findings from the site include a surface find of a barbed and tanged flint arrowhead, and she refers to a "tripartite Bronze Age urn, containing a tumbler-shaped vessel more than half its own height", which had been found some years earlier (Smith, 1946, 58). The person who had found the urn had been engaged in gravel extraction by hand, and from his descriptions Smith postulates that "there have been at least three circular hut sites destroyed in the area excavated" (ibid, 58-59). A triangular clay loomweight had been recovered from one of these sites and at the time of Smith's report was in Worcester Museum. The hut had a beaten clay floor and contained "native" pottery similar to pottery Smith would recover from her "Site A" (described below).

Smith's findings included Site A (Fig 5); a large enclosure ditch, comprising "Ditch I" and "Ditch II", which converged with a natural bank of gravel in between; Ditch I producing "Native Ware" and the remains of a wattle and daub hut. The fill of Ditch II was homogenous, and from pottery evidence appeared to date from the Roman period (from between AD 120-140). These features resemble the wide enclosure ditch visible as cropmarks, with the remains of a possible gravel bank and another, unexcavated ditch immediately west of this (238, 251, 210/222; Fig 3).

Associated with Ditch II, was the stone foundation of a building from which several sherds of Romano British pottery were recovered as well as a phallus idol, carved in oolitic limestone on which "there is carved the crude representation of a human face", interpreted by Hawkes in his note to (Smith 1946), as something, which on the face of it might appear to have a Roman influence, but may well carry more of a pre-Roman religious reference.

"Site B" (Fig 8) was a series of pits and/or ditches which were recorded in section, "Site C" a deep ditch or pit recorded in section in the quarry face, yielding pottery comparable to Site A (Roman). "Site F", another large pit or ditch section which yielded Romano British pottery. "Site H" was a large wide, shallow depression, in which an infant's skeleton was recorded, although it could not be established whether there had been a cut for the grave.

Archaeological investigation has shown that the area of former quarrying was probably strongly linked to the areas being evaluated as part of this project; large enclosure ditches, dating from the


Page 17

Iron Age to the Romano British periods, with evidence of buildings, storage and even burial represented in both sites.

It is stated above Smith's article that it was not possible to include plans and photographs in her article in the Transactions of the Worcestershire Archaeological Society due to the "present need for stringent economy" and notes that excavation archives were placed at the Worcester Public Library. It is known (R Hedge pers comm) that the archive was then moved to the Almonry Museum in Evesham. This archive was scanned as part of the Unlocking the Past (Williams 2008, 5-7) project funded by the aggregates levy scheme, and included a pencil sketch (Fig 6) of excavations in 1937.

The pencil sketch shows archaeological remains scattered across the south-eastern part of the site (Zone 3 as defined in the Written Scheme of Investigation) including two areas of inhumations, one of which is labelled "skeletons beads boots", a double trench, a fireplace, some "very deep holes" the locations of earthenware jars, Grooved Ware and a knife. Less activity is shown in the western part of this area except for a wide linear feature marked "flatstones like road" heading in the direction of the complex of enclosures. No surface fitting this description was recorded in the evaluation. The extent to which this area was quarried remains unknown, but the likelihood is that removal of gravel, to a depth of 20 feet, as noted by Smith, was quite comprehensive.

The field evaluation

The central part of the site comprises a series of sub-rectangular enclosures enclosing round houses and smaller internal divisions with a fringe of storage pits along the south-western edge and an irregular enclosure to the south-east. The ditches defining the enclosure and internal divisions are substantial and there is evidence of a bank between the enclosure ditches on the south western side. It is not clear whether enclosure ditches were open contemporaneously. It is notable that this sequence of enclosure ditches with a possible bank between is mirrored in sections D-C and a drawing labelled 20.004.85 which survive from the Smith notes (Plates 12 and 13) where stones are depicted forming some sort of bank between enclosure ditches.

Successive phases of enclosure, however, suggesting long occupation of the site is borne out by artefactual evidence, which suggests occupation from the Iron Age to the 4th century. This ties into a general pattern for the county as a whole, with rural settlement reaching a peak by the late 2nd to mid-3rd centuries, before an apparent abandonment in the 4th century (Jackson and Dalwood, 2007). Moore (2006) suggests that enclosures may have moved across small areas as they were successively being rebuilt.

The ditches which most closely matched the locations of the round ditches, interpreted as roundhouses (240, 214 and 208) were shallower as would be expected for the foundations or possible drip gullies of round houses. Roman pottery recovered from these ditches suggested that this kind of building was still being used after the conquest, emphasising that the settlement was a "Romanised" farmstead in which Iron Age building customs continued into the Roman period. The foundations of a stone building at the north-eastern end of Trench 2 was interspersed with pottery including 4th century types and it is possible that this type of building was a late phase. All of the tile and tegula fragments recovered during the evaluation were recovered from this trench suggesting that the building had a tile roof.

Evidence for processing of wheat was recovered from the fill of ditch 402. The sample of pits showing as cropmarks excavated both outside and inside the enclosures, all had the classic storage pit profile, which suggests the storage of crops on a large scale. It is likely that the settlement, when extant, lay within a well ordered and productive agricultural landscape. The presence of animal bones indicates animal husbandry.

The nature of the irregular enclosure to the east of the site was shown by investigation to be very complex. A wide enclosure ditch, which had been recut, contained finds of late Iron Age and Roman pottery, and appeared to have been cut by another wide ditch to the north, which contained


Page 18

the intact base of a pot of Iron Age date which may be residual within the Roman context. In addition this area contained a fair proportion of the total artefact assemblage.

The cut of a grave containing the disarticulated remains of two individuals lay just within the irregular enclosure. No further burials were found when a larger area was opened out around but the potential remains for the survival of other burials within the enclosure. Burials are shown on the sketch plan of Smith's excavations in the eastern part of the site, but these are over 100m distant from the grave in Trench 6.

8.4 Anglo-Saxon

An Anglo-Saxon sherd was found in Site A of the Smith excavation and was interpreted as a fragment of a cinerary urn of the third quarter of the 6th century. There is potential for the survival of post-Roman settlement features within the site but the archaeology of this period tends to be less visible than Iron Age or Roman.

8.5 Medieval to modern

Aside from ridge and furrow features and sherds of post-medieval pottery recovered from the topsoil, which were likely to have been spread during manuring for cultivation, there is not much further of interest until the more recent land use which has an impact on the extents of significant archaeological deposits.

The archaeological report of works in the 1930s has established that a quarry existed to the south-east of the evaluation area. The extent of the quarry is also indicated in a ground investigation report (HWCC 1994, fig 2). This appears to conform broadly with a 1940s aerial photograph. The photograph also shows the evaluation area as allotments, confirmed by the "market garden ground" indicated on the 1930s archive sketch (Fig 6; previously a characteristic field form for the Vale of Evesham, and still surviving in places). There is also a later ground investigation report (IFA 2013) though most of the test pitting and boreholes are focussed on the same area as the archaeological evaluation (and establish the absence of a quarry in this area, though it is interesting to note the recording of 'fired clay fragments' (WS3) and 'brick fragments and bone' (TP04), from below the topsoil, which presumably are prehistoric or Roman deposits). The earlier report (HWCC 1994) indicates a depth of the quarry of 1.7m-4.0m, and the two boreholes in the quarry area of the later report (IFA 2013) also fall within this range of depths. Boreholes 3 and 4 (HWCC 1994) and the drawing (fig 3) indicate that the quarry did not extend up to the edge of either Evesham Road or Childswickham Road, and that significant deposits are likely to survive in this area.

The origins of the present pond the north-east of the site are unknown, but it is marked on Ordnance Survey maps as a pit, presumably another gravel quarry. It is likely to be short-lived and post-date the quarry in the south-eastern part of the site.

The full extent of the southern quarry is shown in Figure 7 and is based on a drawing prepared by Evesham Rural District Council and borehole information (see HWCC 1994, fig 2; and here used to indicate the extent of the quarry).

9 Research frameworks The Iron Age and Roman settlement at Milestone Ground has the potential to address some key objectives identified as part of the West Midlands Regional Research Framework. For the purposes of discussion of research frameworks these are focussed on the Roman period. There are remains that relate to the Mesolithic and these can also be considered. There are also remains and deposits relating to the Neolithic and Bronze Age from this site but, as these were not in any great quantity, meaningful discussion of their research potential requires a level of knowledge that may only appear as the result of further fieldwork.

Simon Esmonde Cleary (2011) draws attention to the west midlands as straddling two characteristic areas of Roman Britain, "the south and east with its archaeology of towns, villas,


Page 19

temples, burials, multitudinous artefacts, and the north and west with its forts, vici, and native settlements, and a low level of artefacts" (2011, 127). Broadway, being just off the Cotswold scarp, is placed right on the boundary between these two areas. Esmonde Cleary then goes on to describe four themes; resource mobilisation, assessing the evidence, assessing the gaps and tradition and innovation (2011, 129).

The main resource associated with the site is agricultural produce and it will be important to establish the basis of the agriculture happening at the site (arable or pastoral, or a combination). The plant remains from the site are not particularly abundant, though every opportunity should be taken where suitable samples exist, and they will exist (for instance a "fireplace" is mentioned from the 1930s excavations). The storage pits (not so common elsewhere in Worcestershire, as their distribution does not favour the geology of the north and west) suggest arable activity, but the well-preserved animal bone, and molluscan evidence of grassland, suggest pasture.

It is suspected that supply of the army was important market for agriculture in the west midlands (ibid, 132) and isotope analysis of bone and teeth is one technique that has a high potential to contribute to research questions. Roman sculpture is very rare in Worcestershire and the phallus from the 1930s excavations a remarkable item, which relates to a number detailed subjects in the "assessing the evidence" theme (ibid 133-7).

The site contains rectilinear enclosures, identified by Esmonde Cleary as characteristic of the eastern part of the west midlands (2011, 139; though the zone of transition is rather broader than Esmonde Cleary suggests with the transition being one from more complex in the east to less complex in the west, Robin Jackson pers comm). He also draws attention to the gaps in our understanding due to there not being much evidence of their date, status, agricultural regime or social structure, as earlier excavations were not sophisticated enough. Though the record of earlier excavation may not be complete for Milestone Ground, the archive is still available for future research, and modern excavation presents an opportunity to address some of these issues.

The site has at least Iron Age origins and at Milestone Ground there is the continuity of Iron Age traditions into the Roman period seen at many other sites. With the nearby (but contrasting) site at Childswickham (Patrick and Hurst 2004) there is beginning to emerge a modern corpus of sites who's character has been established. Less easy to see, the site does contain some Anglo-Saxon evidence and this period of transition is also of considerable interest, the Broadway also being known for its cemeteries.

As part of the preparation for the research framework publication a series of period based seminars were held and these also contain useful research questions.

In Seminar 3, Peter Guest (nd) suggests that knowledge of the interaction and transition of the Iron Age and early Romano-British period in the West Midlands is 'murky'. This site has the potential to address some of these issues. Questions remaining to be answered, with particular reference to the transition from the Iron Age to Roman-Britain, include the following.

What impact did the introduction of Roman customs and practices have on different people in the region?

Did communities actively accept or resist Roman material culture?

Was the change from Iron Age to Roman gradual or sudden?

Were these archaeologically visible changes economically or socially driven?

How localised were responses to the Roman occupation?

Guest suggests that research priorities in order to answer some of these questions might include the following.

Maintaining awareness that the rural landscape has an important role to play in identifying social and economic change.


Page 20

Identifying more rural sites and disentangling the local settlement pattern; improvement of absolute dating.

Recognising when the use of Iron Age pottery switched to Roman.

Excavating enough of a site to be representative.

As regards the Mesolithic scatter of flints, these are likely to reflect the location of a temporary camp by hunter gatherers. Such sites are notoriously difficult to identify, especially on the heavy soils of much of the west midlands. Not that this site should necessarily be considered a rarity, this probably being a function of being more difficult to find. From the available evidence it would be difficult to see this site as having much meaningful to add to national research themes (as expressed by Paul Garwood (2011, 25). Garwood does, however, outline a strategy for the west midlands (ie at a regional level; ibid, 30-31), which includes the collection of more data, and taking opportunities when they are presented.

10 Significance 10.1 Nature of the archaeological interest in the site

The site comprises the remains of ditches, pits and structural features surviving beneath the plough soil, cut into the natural substrate. In the centre of the site the ditches form a series of superimposed sub-rectangular enclosures surrounding other ditches including circular ditches, likely to represent the foundations of roundhouses, and smaller sub-square divisions, which may represent paddocks. A less regular partial enclosure survives to the south-east within which an inhumation was recorded. A marked cluster of pits, probably for storage, exist to the south-west of the enclosures, and an alignment of pits survives to the north-east. The site forms one part of a once larger settlement the remains of which extended to the south-east until the mid-20th century. Preservation of the site is good and elements revealed in the evaluation tally well with a series of recorded cropmarks, implying that the remainder of the settlement survives equally well but the former areas of settlement to the south and north have been compromised by quarrying.

Artefacts recovered during the evaluation were typical of a lower order rural settlement and have the potential to reveal significant data about trade links during this period as well as further define the dating of the settlement, as has been particularly identified as a research question (see above).

The evaluation showed some potential for recovery of charred plant remains although the preservation may be generally poor and well preserved mollusc remains may provide information on taphonomy of deposits and the nature of the surrounding environment. Animal bone preservation is good and demonstrates the potential to recover assemblages of sufficient size for interpretation of livestock economy of the site.

Although there is evidence for earlier activity in the form of Mesolithic tools, records of Neolithic/Bronze Age Grooved Ware pottery (from the 1030s excavation), an early Bronze Age Collared Urn, and worked flint from the evaluation, the majority of archaeological features sampled during the evaluation were Roman in date with some Iron Age material included, implying that the site was first permanently settled in the Iron Age. An Anglo-Saxon sherd was recorded in earlier excavations to the south-east, implying at least some form of continuity of settlement.

10.2 Relative importance of the archaeological interest in the site

There are 22 scheduled ancient monuments registered with the Worcestershire HER which include Roman settlement. Of these 11 are not strictly comparable, being for example forts, villas, or industrial areas, and a further 3 were scheduled for other reasons but include Roman settlement as a minor element. There are then 8 scheduled Roman settlements, comparable to Milestone Ground, most, if not all of which, are likely to have been scheduled primarily on the basis of aerial photographic evidence only. On the basis of a very rapid examination of the aerial photographs, some (at least three) appear to be similar in terms of their complexity (density, extent, being of more than one phase, and with several feature types) to Milestone Ground.


Page 21

The evidence for Iron Age and Roman settlement is relatively common in the area. The good preservation at Milestone Ground, its long chronology, association with earlier excavations (for which there is an archive), and its potential to contribute to a number of research themes, however, does add to its significance. The site has considerable potential to broaden knowledge of rural life in the Roman and Iron Age in this area, to yield information about the Iron Age and Roman transition and to provide information about agricultural practice and trade links. Counter to this the site is already compromised through its partial removal.

There are similar sites that are already scheduled and Milestone Ground represents a well-preserved Iron Age and Roman settlement, which is likely to have the potential to yield valuable information especially about the transition from Iron Age to Roman life and the development of the Roman economy. There is a long chronology of activity on the site and a good association with former excavations undertaken to the south-east, during which well-preserved structural and artefactual evidence was recorded. It is considered for these reasons that it may be appropriate to treat the site as equivalent to a "designated asset" as described in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF; DCLG 2012 section 139), and important at a national level; but the erosion of the site through quarrying should be recognised as having diminished its significance to a degree.

Pit alignments are a relatively rare monument type and only one is known to have been excavated within the county. Their function is unknown and the paucity of finds recovered from excavated examples means that they are not well dated. The pit alignment within the site therefore has the potential to yield significant information and is therefore considered to be important in a regional context.

10.3 Physical extent of the archaeological interest in the site

It is difficult, if not impossible, to draw a line that defines "the site" at Milestone Ground, in the sense that the fields that any agrarian settlement are associated with, are every bit as important as the settlement itself, nevertheless the effective management of the historic environment means that lines are drawn. The area of importance indicated on Figure 7 seeks to identify a core area that contains the main focus of interest. It does not seek to aim to preserve all of the features that may make the site important, but to contain within the core area sufficient to retain the current level of significance of the site, assuming that should any areas outside of this area be developed, that they are recorded at an appropriate level (so that the value of the core area is not diminished, but augmented by information gained). The core area is also not intended to mean that limited works within it should not be undertaken, in that these will provide further information to add to that from the evaluation to characterise in broad terms the core area. Outside of the core area there are more dispersed, but no less interesting deposits.

There is sufficient evidence to show that the archive of the 1930s excavations, includes aspects of the site that are unlikely to be repeated in the surviving area (for example the phallus is likely to be a unique item of sculpture, and the cemetery). For this reason application of modern techniques that were not available in the 1930s to the old archive material (with the consent of the curating museum) would add importance to the core area, given that they address the research questions outlined above. Techniques that aim to give geographic origins to skeletal remains, would be of particular relevance here.

The evaluation has shown that, with some exceptions, archaeological features in the site survive as the cropmarks suggest, from a shallow depth immediately below the plough soil. Archaeological features in the central area of enclosures are denser than the cropmarks suggest, to the extent that in the north-eastern part of Trench 1, very little natural ground was apparent. To the west of the main complex of enclosures is a line of alluvium, but the evaluation has shown that this layer includes archaeologically significant deposits. To the west of the complex, as indicated by findings from Trench 1, the line of probable storage pits extends further than indicated by the cropmarks, almost to the south-western edge of the field and it is reasonable to assume that archaeological deposits continue to the Childswickham Road.


Page 22

The pit alignment also survives as the cropmarks suggested but also continues c25m to the south-west as far as the location of Trench 9.

The grid array trenches in the north-eastern part of the field have demonstrated that, with the exception of the pit alignment, archaeological features are far less dense in this area, giving an edge to Roman settlement activity to the east although ditches such as cut 1904 continue into this area. Trenches 13 and 17 indicate a potential for a sparse distribution of prehistoric features in this area.

To the north-west where a pool represents former gravel extraction, and to the south-east in an area described as having been removed of gravel to a depth of 20 feet (Smith 1946, 57), and as confirmed by the evidence from more recent geotechnical investigation (HWCC 1994 and IFA 2013), the archaeological potential has been negated by 20th century quarrying (aside possibly from strips to both the Evesham and Childswickham roads).

The depths at which significant archaeological deposits exist varies across the site in the core area and to the west top and sub-soils extend to a depth of 500mm or more, whereas over the rest of the site depths are approximately 350mm or more.

11 The impact of the development The details of the proposed development have not been formalised at the time of writing and therefore this section can only refer to development of the site in general terms.

11.1 Impacts during construction

Archaeological deposits within the site largely comprise negative features cut into the natural substrate from a relatively shallow depth. These features are therefore vulnerable to damage or destruction from groundworks related to development including excavation for strip foundations, service runs, drainage and landscaping. During the construction phase they are also vulnerable to the movement of heavy machinery and if left in situ as part of the development, areas of archaeological significance should be clearly marked out and fenced off.

A required element of the design for any development will be the provision of public open space and it is anticipated this will be located on the core archaeological area. The use of this area should not include any activity (including avoiding the planting of trees) that requires more than superficial disturbance below the ground surface.

The topography of the site is such that the ground level slopes gradually from the east to the western corner with Childswickham Road and a drainage pipe running east to west may be anticipated. Ponds for attenuation purposes, may also be anticipated. Design of these features may provide scope to avoid impact on significant buried remains, which in the western part of the site would give a depth of approximately 400mm as a specification for groundworks which would not damage significant deposits and 250mm elsewhere, from the present ground surface.

11.2 Impacts on sustainability

The NPPF emphasises the importance of sustainability (DCLG 2012, section 131) and notes:

The desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation.

The positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality.

The desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.

The historic environment is a non-renewable resource and therefore cannot be directly replaced. However mitigation through recording and investigation also produces an important research


Page 23

dividend that can be used for the better understanding of the area’s history and contribute to local and regional research agendas (cf NPPF, DCLG 2012, section 141).

12 Recommendations Where the preservation of significant deposits is considered the following aspects may be addressed.

Design of groundwork impacts to minimise damage.

Protection from accidental damage during construction through fencing and communication with workforce.

Consideration may be given to the removal of permitted development rights within the core area or the covenanting of land use to exclude damaging activities.

Where the excavation of significant deposits is considered as mitigation for their removal the following aspects may be addressed.

Investigation of the Mesolithic flint scatter adopting appropriate methods as outlined in Myers (2007). Test pitting and sieving may not be justifiable and practicable on these heavy soils, particularly as there is little to indicate any especial significance for this site, but an appropriate attempt to increase the artefact retrieval for the purposes of its characterisation, may be considered.

Neolithic, Bronze Age, Anglo-Saxon, and perhaps Iron Age deposits are likely to be spread over a greater area and the stripping of larger areas in order to locate them is likely to be justifiable, their significance not being dependant on their density.

In order to gain realise the potential for remains (especially those of Iron Age and Roman date) excavated as part of any development this may reasonably include further examination of the archive of earlier work. In particular the scientific testing of human remains to aid the identification of origins, the analysis of pottery to determine if the development of the enclosure system has a time dimension.

That excavation of Roman deposits will include the environmental sampling of deposits which are likely to contain significant quantities of plant macrofossils. Also that column samples are taken from deposits for analysis of molluscs, and that these cover the whole range of periods represented on the site (prehistoric to Anglo-Saxon; at least one from each period and one from each Roman phase of activity).

The brief (Glyde 2014) required the identification of opportunities in relation to any further archaeological works should planning permission be given, which may add value to the archaeological site.

Consideration may be given to, at least in part, undertaking archaeological works with community involvement. This could increase the likelihood of the community viewing the development positively, with greater community buy-in. The nature of the archaeological site is suitable for community involvement, and it may be possible to plan a programme of involvement over a longer period (depending on the development's own programme). As exemplified by the work of Smith and the grandfather of the person who reported the latest rediscovery of archive material from Broadway, any community programme already has an established pedigree.

The sustainability of any archaeological works may be enhanced though raising the profile of this important archaeological site, through the use of interpretation panels, and naming of streets or buildings making reference to the site. Should the development include any form of public or community building (eg health centre) this could incorporate a long-term display of the results of the archaeological work. Though it would be appropriate to conserve any artefacts in a museum, it may be possible to arrange for their loan for display purposes.


Page 24

The archaeological features themselves will not be suitable for display insitu, their conservation being impractical. The resources for this form of infrastructure should be eligible for support through the Community Infrastructure Levy administered by Wychavon District Council.

13 Publication summary Worcestershire Archaeology has a professional obligation to publish the results of archaeological projects within a reasonable period of time. To this end, Worcestershire Archaeology intends to use this summary as the basis for publication through local or regional journals. The client is requested to consider the content of this section as being acceptable for such publication.

An archaeological evaluation was undertaken at Milestone Ground, Broadway, Worcestershire (National Grid reference SP 0892 3784) on behalf of Wychavon District Council who are preparing an application for mixed use development of the site.

The archaeological significance of the site has been known at least from the mid-20th Century when at least two phases of excavation were undertaken ahead of gravel extraction to the immediate south-east and north-west of the site. The result of one archaeological investigation published in 1946, recorded pits, ditches, stone paving or foundations and burnt daub from a possible hut. Finds included Roman and "native" pottery; at least three Roman bronze brooches, a limestone phallus carving, and the bones of an infant burial. At least seven unpublished inhumations were also recorded at the quarry. Sherds of early Bronze Age Grooved Ware and a single Anglo-Saxon sherd were recorded from an earlier excavation.

More recently the area of the cropmarks has been subject to field walking which yielded assemblages of Romano-British pottery and Mesolithic flints indicating that human activity was taking place on the site in this period.

A series of cropmarks identified on aerial photographs show settlement features on the site including a pit alignment, two groups of pits to the west, and a series of enclosures indicative of Iron Age and Romano-British activity. Within the main group of enclosures there are a number of rectangular and circular features, which may be buildings, roundhouses and more pits. An irregular shaped enclosure was visible to the east of the main complex and various linear features including an alignment of pits.

Evaluation of the site comprised the excavation of nineteen trenches, designed to test the survival and nature of features identified from cropmarks and to test the archaeological potential of other areas of the site, using a grid array pattern. The evaluation demonstrated the good survival of the features represented by the cropmarks which survive largely as negative features cut into the natural substrate generally at a shallow depth. The most complex archaeology was in the centre of the site where several phases of an enclosed farmstead survive. Most of the features relating to the enclosures were dated as Roman although Iron Age pottery was often residual in these contexts, suggesting that the settlement may have been founded during the Iron Age but continued after the Roman invasion.

A large cluster of pits, identified as storage pits survives immediately to the south-west of the enclosures. Building material and burnt clay suggests that a building, possibly with an oven, was located in this area. The irregular enclosure was shown to comprise at least two wide re-cut ditches containing Roman pottery and an inhumation was identified within it. The pit alignment survives well and extends further than was suggested by the cropmarks. No datable finds were recovered from the sampled pits although elsewhere in the region these features are typically Iron Age in date.

The artefact assemblage was typical of Roman rural settlement in this region consisting of largely local forms with some regional imports. The most notable find was the base of an Iron Age pot.


Page 25

14 Acknowledgements Worcestershire Archaeology would like to thank the following for their kind assistance in the successful conclusion of this project, Chris Torbett and Brad Faulks, Wychavon District Council and Mike Glyde Historic Environment Planning Officer.

15 Bibliography AEA 1995 Environmental archaeology and archaeological evaluations. Recommendations concerning the environmental component of archaeological evaluations in England, Working Papers of the Association for Environmental Archaeology, 2

BGS 2014 Geology of Britain viewer, http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html, British Geological Survey, accessed 27 May 2014

Cappers, T R J, Bekker, R M, and Jans, J E A, 2012 Digitale zadenatlas van Nederland: Digital seed atlas of the Netherlands, Groningen Archaeological Studies, 4, Barkhuis Publishing and Groningen University Library: Groningen

CAS 1995 (as amended) Manual of Service practice: fieldwork recording manual, County Archaeological Service, Hereford and Worcester County Council, report 399

Esmond Cleary, S, 2011 The Romano-British period: an assessment, in S, Watt The archaeology of the west midlands, a framework for research, Oxbow, 127-149

English Heritage 2010 Environmental archaeology: a guide to the theory and practice of methods, from sampling and recovery to post-excavation, Centre for Archaeology Guidelines

Garwood, P, 2011 The earlier prehistory of the west midlands, in S, Watt The archaeology of the west midlands, a framework for research, Oxbow, 9-99

Glyde, M, 2014 Requirements for an archaeological evaluation at Milestone Ground Site, Station Road, Broadway, Worcestershire, Archive and Archaeology Service, Worcestershire County Council, document dated 21 February 2014

Guest, P, nd The Iron Age-Roman interface, paper available at http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/schools/historycultures/departments/caha/research/arch-research/wmrrfa/seminar3.aspx, accessed on 21 July 2014

HWCC 1994 Report of investigation for landfill gas, former waste disposal site, Milestone Ground, Broadway, Trading Standards and Scientific Services, Waste Regulation Division, Hereford and Worcester County Council, unpublished report

Hurst, J D, and Rees, H, 1992 Pottery fabrics; a multi-period series for the county of Hereford and Worcester, in S Woodiwiss (ed), Iron Age and Roman salt production and the medieval town of Droitwich. CBA Res Rep 81, 200–209

Hurst, D, 2011 Excavation at George Lane, Wyre Piddle, Worcestershire, Historic Environment and Archaeological Service, Worcestershire County Council, Archive report

IFA 2013 Wychavon District Council, Milestone Ground Broadway WR12 7NT, ground investigation report, Ian Farmer Associates, contract 21044, unpublished report

IfA 2008 Standard and guidance for archaeological field evaluation, Institute for Archaeologists

Jacobs, A, 2006 Fieldwalking at Peter's Farm, Middlehill, Broadway, Worcestershire, Historic Environment and Archaeology Service, unpublished report dated 11 August 1006, Report number 1465, WSM 34400

Mann, A, Lovett, P, and Rogers, T, 2013 Archaeological excavation and watching brief at Three Springs Road, Pershore, Worcestershire, Worcestershire Archaeology report 2002


Page 26

Moore, T, 2006 Iron Age societies in the Severn-Cotswolds: developing narratives of social and landscape change, Brit Archaeol Rep (Brit. Ser.) 421. Oxford.

Myers, P, 2007 The Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic archaeology of the west midlands region, in P Garwood (ed) The undiscovered country: the earlier prehistory of the west midlands, Oxford, 23-38

Patrick, C, and Hurst, J D, 2004 Archaeological survey and excavation along the Cotswold Spring Supply Trunk Main: archive report, Worcestershire County Archaeological Service rep, 1140

Piggott, S, 1936 Part III: The Pottery from the submerged surface, in Hazzledine, Archaeology of the submerged land surface of the Essex coast, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 2, 178-210

Smith, C N S, 1946 A prehistoric and Roman site at Broadway, Transactions of the Worcestershire Archaeological Society, 23, 57-74

Stace, C, 2010 New flora of the British Isles, Cambridge University Press, (3rd edition)

Timby, J, 2004 Later prehistoric and Romano-British pottery in C Patrick and J D Hurst, Archaeological survey and excavation along the Cotswold Spring Supply Trunk Main: archive report, Worcestershire County Archaeological Service unpublished internal report, 1140. Available on-line at http://public.worcestershire.gov.uk/sites/archaeology/Reports/wr9752.pdf

WA 2012 Manual of service practice, recording manual, Worcestershire Archaeology, Worcestershire County Council, report 1842

WA 2014 Written scheme of investigation for an archaeological evaluation at Milestone Ground Site, Station Road, Broadway, Worcestershire, Worcestershire Archaeology, Worcestershire County Council, document dated 21 May 2014, P4304

Walsh, A, and Lovett, P, 2013 Archaeological excavation and watching brief at land off King's Road, Bengeworth, Evesham, Worcestershire. Worcestershire Archaeology report 1977

Wainwright, J, 2010 Archaeological investigations at West Mercia Police HQ, Hindlip, Worcestershire, Historic Environment and Archaeology Service, Worcestershire County Council, Unpublished report 1755, dated 26 March 2010

WCC 2010 Standards and guidelines for archaeological projects in Worcestershire, Planning Advisory Section, Worcestershire Archive and Archaeology Service, Worcestershire County Council unpublished report 604, amended July 2012 http://worcestershirearchives.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/treasures-from-worcestershires-past.html, accessed 24 June 2014

Williams, D, 2008 Collections from the Almonry Museum, in C J Evans, J Timby, D Williams, R Jackson, and D Hurst 2008 Unlocking the past (south Worcestershire collections), stage 3 report and HER enhancement, Historic Environment and Archaeology Service, Worcestershire County Council, report 1591


Figures

Pit

Football Ground

Pond

Trac

k

Works

Rickfield

Vicarage

Pavilion

Court

Car Park

Bank

Quiet Place

Old Bakery

Bredon Court

Path (um)

Spring

Russell House

Pegasus Court

Russell

Corners

Westfield

(disused)

Sycamore

Highgate

Briardene

Oakholm

Stoneyroyd

PRY LANE El Sub Sta

Lower Mill

Fairwater

Staddlestones

Derby House

Potter's Way

The Old Mill

Brompton House

Wythen House

CHILDSWICKHAM

ROAD

CHELTENHAM

ROAD

Bloxham Lodge

Blakeman Cottage

STATION

RO

AD

GA

RD

EN

S

El Sub Sta

The

B 4632

Court

B 4632

Cottage

House

Highgate

408600 408800 409000 409200

237600237800

238000

Trac

k

LIFFORD

Ridgeway Farm

Garage

Disman

tled

Railway

Pear Tree

Arran House

Cottage

238200

0 200m

Worcester

Figure 1Location of the site

© Crown copyright and database rights 2014 Ordnance Survey 100024230

BROADWAY

Worcestershire

AREA 2Grid Array

AREA 3Former Quarry

site

AREA 1Targeted Trenches

Tr1

Tr4Tr2

Tr3

Tr16

Tr15

Tr5

Tr14Tr10

Tr9

Tr8

Tr11

Tr12

Tr7

Tr13

Tr18

Tr17

Tr19

Tr6

Figure 2Location of Trenches and Cropmarks


1206

105

208/214

210/222

661

408800 409000

237800238000

0 100m

AREA 3Former Quarry

AREA 1Targeted Trenches

AREA 2Grid Array

0 5m

239

240

natural

natural

natural

242

244

255 246

245

202

248

247

249

250

206

203

202

40m

35m

30m

25m

20m

15m

10m

5m

0m

44m

49m

Figure 3Plan of Trench 2

214

208

253

251

238

236

234

228

230

224

226

210/222

gravel spread

232

0 3m

104

129105

128

baulk

PIT 105

104129

105

SECTION SE NW

72.295m AOD

213

200

208

DITCH 208-214: SECTION

SW NE

214

207215

201

202

PIT 1206

12061203

1202

1200

E W

12041206

1203

1201

SECTION

1205

200

SW NE

222

201

DITCH 210 and 222: SECTION

210

209211

216 212219220

221 217 218

202

600

W E

664

601

DITCH 661/665: SECTION

658

655

656657

663

660

661

602 659

662

661

666natural

Figure 4Plans and sections

665

Figure 5Location of Smith’s sites

Figure 6Sketch plan of features excavated by C.N.S. Smith in 1937

0 30m

Tr4Tr2

Tr3

Tr16

Tr15

Tr5

Tr14Tr10

Tr9

Tr8

Tr11

Tr12

Tr7

Tr13

Tr18

Tr17

Tr19

Tr6

Figure 7Risk and opportunity plan of development


408800 409000

237800238000

Tr1

KEY

Core Area of Complex Archaeology

Area of Simpler, Dispersed Archaeology

0 100m

Former Quarry

0 50m

408700 408800 408900 409000

237800237900disused quarry


Flint from fieldwalking (based upon data from Jacobs 2006) Figure 8

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

1

2

3

0

4

5

6

7

KEY

1 item

2 items

3 items

4 items

5+ items

cropmark


Plates

Plate 1 Pit alignment in Trench 12, from north

Plate 2 Pit 1206, from south-west


Plate 3 Trench 1, from south-west

Plate 4 Pit 105, from north-east


Plate 5 Base of pot, in ditch 630, from north-east

Plate 6 Ditch, 210, 222 from north-west


Plate 7 Ditch 208, 214, from south-east

Plate 8 Demolition rubble, 203, from north-east


Plate 9 Trench 6, from north-west

Plate 10 Enclosure ditch, 605, from south-west


Plate 11 Enclosure ditch, 408 ,from north-west

Plate 12 Section D-C from Smith's archive


Plate 13 Section 20.004.85 from Smith's archive


Appendix 1 Trench descriptions

Context Feature

type Context

type Description Height/Depth Interpretation Trench

100 Topsoil Layer 0.36m Dark brown clay loam. Firm and moderately cohesive. Forms blocky texture. Frequent small to medium angular limestone. Frequent roots.

1

101 Subsoil Layer 0.3m Mid olive brown silty clay. Firm and cohesive. Stonier to east. Occasional small angular limestone.

1

102 Layer Layer 0.69m Mid-buff brown, silty clay. Firm and cohesive. Very sterile, the top third contains occasional small angular stones. Possible colluvium.

103 Natural Layer Frequent small to medium angular limestone gravel within a greenish orange-yellow coarse sand. Contains occasional clay patches. Very sterile. Firm and compact.

1

104 Pit Fill Firm mid orangey brown sandy clay

0.76m Frequent small to medium angular limestone (25%). The sterile nature of the fill, including no charcoal suggests the pit was not used for rubbish disposal. The uniform fill containing frequent stone throughout without tip lines suggests it may have been purposefully backfilled.

105 Pit Cut 0.76m Circular in plan; sharp BFS; vertical sides; moderate to sharp BTB, flat base. Shape would suggest it is a Late Iron Age storage (grain) pit that has been purposefully back filled after use. No evidence for clay lining or wattle work.

106 Pit Fill Circular pit, not excavated. Iron Age storage pit. 1

107 Pit Cut Iron Age storage pit. 1

108 Pit Fill Fill same as 104. Circular pit, not excavated. Iron Age storage pit.

109 Pit Cut Circular pit, not excavated. Iron Age storage pit. 1

110 Pit Fill Circular pit (diameter 1.05m), not excavated. Fill - same as 104, but with occasional bone and occasional fire cracked quartz stone.

1

111 Pit Cut Circular pit (diameter 1.05m), not excavated. Iron Age storage pit.

1

112 Posthole Fill Group of intercutting postholes. Possibly 3-4 in a row. Not excavated. Possible group of unknown function.

113 Posthole Cut Posthole group of unknown function. 1

114 Pit Fill Same as 104. Circular pit, not excavated. Iron Age storage pit, diameter 1m.

115 Pit Cut Circular pit, not excavated. Iron Age storage pit. Diameter 1m.

1

116 Posthole Fill Circular posthole, not excavated. Same as 104. Diameter 0.45m.

117 Posthole Cut Circular posthole, not excavated. Diameter 0.45m.

118 Posthole Fill Firm mid brownish brown sandy clay

Posthole, circular in plan. Diameter 0.50m. Not excavated.

1


Context Feature

type Context


119 Posthole Cut Posthole, circular in plan. Diameter 0.50m. Not excavated.

1

120 Posthole Fill Posthole; lozenge-shaped in plan, (width 0.65m; length 0.30m). Not excavated. Fill same as 118.

1

121 Cut Posthole, lozenge-shaped in plan. (width 0.65m; length 0.30m)

1

122 Posthole Fill Posthole. Circular in plan (diameter 0.54m). Fill same as 118. Not excavated.

1

123 Posthole Cut Posthole, circular in plan (diameter 0.54m). Not excavated.

124 Ditch Fill Moderately Compact clayey sand

Fill contains moderate small to medium angular limestone (15%). Sterile. Not excavated. Ditch related to market gardening activity?

1

125 Ditch Cut North-west by south-east aligned ditch cut. Straight, linear in plan. Not excavated. (Width 1.25m)

126 Ditch Fill Same as 104. 1

127 Ditch Cut North-south aligned linear ditch. Not excavated. 1

128 Ditch Fill Firm dark brown sandy clay

Fill contains a moderate amount of small to medium angular limestone (15-20%) and occasional bone. Fill of north-east by south-west aligned ditch. Not excavated.

1

129 Ditch Cut North-east by south-west aligned ditch. Not excavated. May have some postholes on its northern edge. (Width 1.52m)

1

130 Layer Layer occupation/activity layer; Dirty alluvium layer. Areas of charcoal smearing, occasional. Fired clay patches. No obvious cuts seen. Generally dirty alluvium (102)

1

131 Layer Layer Occupation/activity layer; Dirty alluvium layer. Areas of charcoal smearing, occasional. Fired clay patches. No obvious cuts seen. Generally dirty alluvium (102)

1

200 Topsoil Layer 0.22m Same as 100 2

201 Subsoil Layer 0.28m 2

202 Natural Layer Same as 103 2

203 Unknown Layer 2m Small to large angular and subangular stone, includes sandstone and limestone. Does not appear coarsed. Thought to be a demolition rubble spread. Has moderate amounts of Roman pottery mix within and beneath. Some stone appears heat affected. Interpreted as the demolition rubble of a nearby building. The pottery indicates a Roman date. (Width 2m)

2

204 Layer Layer Mid to light brown sandy clay, soft but moderately cohesive. Contains frequent soft fired clay patches, it is unclear if these are in situ. Burning layer, possibly resulting from a building fire associated with the demolition rubble (203)

2

205 Ditch Fill Friable mid orangey brown clayey sand

Fill of ditch, north-south aligned. Not excavated. 2


Context Feature

type Context


206 Ditch Cut Cut of north-south aligned ditch, width 0.8m. Not excavated.

2

207 Ditch Fill Firm mid reddish brown sandy clay

Occasional charcoal flecking, occasional burnt stone; even distribution throughout the fill. Occasional rooting.

2

208 Ditch Cut Linear ditch; sharp clear definition to top break of slope; steep even sides; sharp, clear definition to base break of slope; orientated north-west by south-east.

2

209 Layer 0.24m Moderate grey-brown sandy loam, with moderate to abundant gravel and rare charcoal flecking. Interpreted as a rather stony spread of material sitting on top of 210 and 222. The latest of the sequence and most probably representative of material ploughed into hollow over subsided/settled main fill sequence in the 2 ditches; 210 and 222.

2

210 Ditch Cut North-west by south-east orientated ditch. Well-defined north-eastern side; less so south west, where cut by 222. Steep sloping sides. Break to base and base not observed. Substantial boundary ditch; cropmark indicates this is part of an enclosure. Fill 217 suggests a bank to the south west, fill 218 is silting. This feature not fully excavated for health and safety reasons.

2

211 Fill Moderately Compact dark greyish brown silt loam

0.20m Dark soily layer/fill with few inclusions (rare stone medium to large, and rare charcoal flecking). Has appearance of a topsoil or ploughsoil. A similar fill (215) was present in the other feature excavated in this trench. It may represent earlier ploughsoil preserved in hollows over deep features.

2

212 Ditch Fill Moderately Compact mid greyish brown sandy loam

0.90m Contains abundant small to medium gravel and rare charcoal flecks. This is a substantial deposit of largely redeposited natural gravel located to the north east side of ditch 210. It is unclear whether this is a slipped bank or dumped material.

2

213 Ditch Fill Firm mid reddish brown sandy clay

1.40m Significant stone inclusions (30-50mm); occasional burnt stone, evenly distributed through fill. Occasional charcoal flecking. Occasional rooting. Width 1.2m. Both pot and bone found.

2

214 Ditch Cut Linear ditch, clear definition to the sharp top break of slope; steep, even sides; sharp clear base break of slope; flat, even base. Notable for having very steep sides.

2

215 Ditch Fill Loose dark brown sandy loam

0.2m Upper fill, possibly a later fill to 213, or a separate feature. (Width 1.15m)

2

216 Ditch Fill Moderately Compact mid brown silty clay loam

0.44 Noticeably more clay content than other fills but also stones in it. Not silting, probably a dump/infill deposit.

2


Context Feature

type Context


217 Ditch Fill Compact sandy loam

0.30m Silty loam matrix, but very abundant medium to large stone dominant. On south west side of 210 towards base of excavated sequence. Looks like slumped bank material. Not fully excavated.

2

218 Ditch Fill Moderately Compact brown

Loose to moderately compact brown sandy silt. Occasional small stones and rare charcoal flecking. Very silty sandy fill at base of excavated sequence in ditch 210; may be a primary fill, but not fully excavated. Clearly a silting deposit on the north east side of the ditch.

2

219 Ditch Fill Moderately Compact mid greyish brown silt loam

0.40m Occasional small to large stone. Rare charcoal flecking. Fill of ditch 222. Possibly an upper fill, silting or dumping.

2

220 Ditch Fill Moderately Compact sandy silt

0.15m Moderately comapct coarse sandy silt with abundant small to medium gravel and rare charcoal flecking. Interpreted as slumping or weathered material on the south west side of ditch 222.

2

221 Ditch Fill Compact Compact gravel fill on west side of 210, only seen in plan and not excavated. Possibly a slump or dump.

2

222 Ditch Cut Linear. Gentle break to steep sloping side especially on the west. Moderate break to concave base over unexcavated fill 221 in 210. Interpreted as a re-cut on the west side of ditch 210. Smaller, couple be a separate feature, but seems to follow the same alignment as the above.

2

223 Pit Fill reddish brown sandy silt

Not excavated 2

224 Pit Cut 2

225 Pit Fill Same as 223 2

226 Pit Cut 2


228 Pit Cut 2


230 Pit Cut 2


232 Pit Fill 2


234 Pit Cut 2

235 Ditch Fill dark greyish brown sandy silt

Occasional gravel, very occasional charcoal flecks and burnt stone. Not excavated.

2

238 Ditch Cut Cut of large ditch 2

239 Ditch Fill mid greyish brown

Moderate gravel inclusions 2

240 Ditch Cut Cut of possible curving linear part of circular feature shown on cropmarks. Could be 2 features.

2


Context Feature

type Context


241 Posthole Fill mid greyish brown sandy silt

Moderate gravel, occasional burnt bone. 2

242 Posthole Cut 2

243 Pit Fill mid reddish brown sandy silt

Moderate gravel and occasional burnt bone. Not excavated.

2

244 Pit Cut 2

245 gully Fill greyish brown sandy silt

Moderate gravel. Not excavated. 2

246 Gully Cut 2

247 pit Fill mid greyish brown sandy silt

Moderate stone inclusion. Yielded pot and ceramic material. Not excavated.

2

248 Pit Cut Cut of possible pit in edge of trench. 2

249 Gully Fill light greyish brown sandy silt

Frequent gravel inclusions. Yielded mortaria and pot. Not excavated.

2

251 deposit Layer Light grey gravel between enclosure ditches 238 and 210/222. Appears fairly sterile but is clearly not natural. Part of bank?

2

252 Posthole Fill reddish brown sandy silt

Occasional gravel inclusions and flecks. Not excavated.

2

253 Posthole Cut 2

254 Pit Fill light yellowish brown sandy silt

Sandy silty gravel. Not excavated. 2

255 Pit Cut 2


Mid reddish brown sandy silt with frequent gravel inclusions. Fill of 304. No surface finds. Not excavated.

3

304 Pit Cut Cut of pit. 3


Mid reddish brown sandy silt with frequent gravel inclusions. (same description as 303). Fill of 306. No surface finds. Not excavated.

3

306 Pit Cut Cut of pit. Not excavated. 3

307 Pit Fill dark greyish brown sandy silt

Dark greyish brown sandy silt with occasional gravel and snail shell inclusions and occasional charcoal flecking. Not excavated. Fill of 308.

3

308 Pit Cut Cut of small pit or posthole. 3


Mid reddish brown sandy silt with frequent gravel inclusions (same description as 303). Fill of 310. No surface finds. Not excavated.

3

310 Pit Cut Cut of pit. 3


Mid reddish brown sandy silt with frequent gravel inclusions (same description as 303). Fill of 312. No surface finds. Not excavated.

3

312 Pit Cut Cut of possible pit. Appears rectilinear in plan, but only partially visible in trench so edge unclear.

3


Context Feature

type Context


313 Ditch Fill mid brown sandy silt

Mid brown sandy silt with occasional gravel and snail shell inclusions. Yielded surface finds of pottery, bone (1 piece possibly human) and ceramic. Not excavated. Fill of 314.

3

314 Ditch Cut Cut of ditch. Cuts 315 3


Dark slightly greyish brown sandy silt with moderate gravel inclusions. Not excavated.

3

316 Ditch Cut Cut of ditch. 3

317 Ditch Fill mid greyish brown sandy silt

Mid greyish brown sandy silt with moderate gravel inclusions. Not excavated.

3

318 Ditch Cut 3

319 Ditch Fill light yellowish brown

Light yellowish brown with frequent gravel. Not excavated.

3

320 Ditch Cut Cut of ditch . 3


Mid greyish brown sandy silt with moderate gravel inclusions. Surface finds of pottery. Not excavated.

3

322 Ditch Cut Cut of ditch 3

323 Ditch Fill light greyish brown sandy silt

Occasional gravel inclusions. Not excavated. 3

324 Ditch Cut Cut of irregular linear feature which cuts 325. 3


Contains moderate to frequent gravel and occasional charcoal. Not excavated.

3

326 Ditch Cut Cut of feature, unclear in plan but may be a large ditch.

3

327 Pit Fill mid greyish brown sandy silt

Contains moderate gravel and very occasional burnt stone inclusions. Not excavated. Surface finds of pottery and bone.

3

328 Pit Cut Cut of a large pit? Possibly cut by large linear along southern edge, although this was not clear in plan.

3

329 Ditch Fill mid reddish brown sandy silt

Moderate gravel inclusions. Not excavated. Southern edge is very unclear. No surface finds.

3

330 Ditch Cut Cut of possible ditch. Southern edge is unclear. 3


Moderate gravel and occasional pieces of burnt stone. Not excavated.

3

332 Ditch Cut Cut of ditch. Cuts 327. Relationship with 343 etc unclear.

3


Moderate gravel inclusions. Not excavated. 3

334 Ditch Cut Cut of ditch/gully. Cuts deposit 341? Relationship with 343 and 338 unclear.

3

335 Ditch Fill mid greyish brown sandy

Occasional gravel and snail shell inclusions. Not excavated.

3


Context Feature

type Context


silt

336 Ditch Cut Cut of ditch/gully. Cuts gully, 338.Relationship with 343 unclear.

3

337 Gully Fill mid greyish brown sandy silt

Same description as 333. Not excavated. 3

339 Posthole Fill mid greyish brown

Frequent pea grit. Not excavated. No surface finds.

3

340 Posthole Cut Cut of post hone. Sub square in plan; truncated? 3

341 Layer Layer Reddish brown sandy silt deposit with moderate gravel inclusions. No excavated, no surface finds.

3


Moderate gravel inclusions. Not excavated. 3

343 Ditch Cut Unclear relationships with 332; 334 and 336. 3

400 Topsoil Layer 0.44-0.55m Same as 100 4

401 Subsoil Layer 0.14m Same as 101 4


403 Ditch Fill Friable dark blackish brown clay silt

0.96m Humic fill of V-shaped enclosure ditch. Contains frequent small stones, moderate large limestone cobbles and burnt stone, occasional bone (good preservation) pottery, and slag and iron nail at base.

4

404 Ditch Cut Linear, sharp steep top break of slope; 45 degree angle to sides, giving V-shaped profile; sharp break of slope to base; base is narrow, angular and sharp; truncates 406.

4

405 Ditch Fill Moderately Compact mid orangey brown silty clay

1m Silty clay with frequent gravel; and moderate large stones, bone and small fragments of pottery. Gravelly fill of U-shaped ditch.

4

406 Ditch Cut 1m Linear, orientated north-west by south-east. At north east side the top break of slope is truncated by ditch 404. On the south west side the top break of slope is sharp, almost 90 degrees. Sides are nearly vertical. Base is flat at centre, with a concave dip at the south west side. Width 1.25m. This is a U-shaped ditch, oriented NW-SE. It cuts 407 and is later cut by 404. Interpreted as various re-cuts to an enclosure ditch.

4

407 Ditch Fill Moderately Compact dark yellowish brown sandy clay

0.60m Fill of shallow ditch with flat base. Dark yellow brown sandy gravel and clay, contains more stone than 403. Rare pottery and bone, frequent gravels. Cut by later ditch, and pottery may be from this fill, as it is only found in the top of the fill. This fill is found in the south-western corner of wider ditch activity. There are deeper ditches cut to the north east.

4

408 Ditch Cut 0.60m Linear ditch, cut by other ditches. Only the south-west side is now visible; it has a very steep side

4


Context Feature

type Context


with a sharp base break of slope and flat bottom. The ditch is truncated to the north-east by 406. This is the earliest ditch in a line of three. Deeper re-cuts to the north east are filled with darker, more humic material.

409 Ditch Fill dark brown Dark humic fill of linear. 4

410 Ditch Cut 3m wide ditch, oriented NE-SW 4

411 Pit Fill mid brown Mid brown stony . Not excavated. 4

412 Pit Cut Circular pit. 4

413 Pit Fill Pit fill. Not excavated. 4

414 Pit Cut Ovoid pit. 4

415 Ditch Fill dark Dark humic fill of ditch. Not excavated. 4

416 Ditch Cut Terminus of ditch, orientated N-S. 4

417 Ditch Fill dark brown silt Dark brown silt and stone fill, including animal teeth. Not excavated.

4

418 Ditch Cut Curvilinear ditch or gully. 4

419 Ditch Fill dark blackish brown

Dark blackish brown fill of ditch. 4

420 Ditch Cut 4

421 Ditch Fill Fill of gully with some charcoal. 4

422 Ditch Cut Narrow gully 4

423 Posthole Fill mid brown Mid brown fill of posthole. 4

424 Posthole Cut Posthole, 0.20m diameter. 4

425 Ditch Fill Fill of very large ditch 4

426 Ditch Cut Linear feature with possible terminus at SW end. 4

427 Ditch Fill reddish brown 4

428 Ditch Cut 4

429 Ditch Fill dark blackish brown

4

430 Ditch Cut East-West oriented ditch 4

431 Ditch Fill 4

432 Ditch Cut 4

433 Pit Fill Fill of pit containing charcoal and Roman pottery. Not excavated.

4

434 Pit Cut Circular pit cut into 432. 4

435 Ditch Fill light brown 4

436 Ditch Cut Narrow E-W ditch, cutting terminus 438. 4

437 Ditch Fill 4

438 Ditch Cut Ditch oriented N-S, terminating in the S. 4

439 Ditch Fill 4

440 Ditch Cut 4

441 Ditch Fill mid brown 4

442 Ditch Cut 4

443 Ditch Fill mid reddish brown

Mid reddish brown stony. 4

444 Ditch Cut Ditch adjacent to 442. Re-cut? Cut by 440 and 442??

4


Context Feature

type Context


445 Pit Fill dark brown silt Fill of large pit or curvilinear. 4

446 Pit Cut 4


501 Subsoil Layer Same as 1301 5


503 Ditch Fill light greyish brown sandy silt

Occasional gravel inclusions. Not excavated. Yielded 1 piece possible CBM.

504 Ditch Cut Cut of possible ditch. Possibly field boundary. 5


Frequent gravel inclusions. Not excavated. No surface finds.

5

506 Ditch Cut Cut of ditch. Visible as crop mark. 5

507 Furrow Fill dark greyish brown sandy silt

Frequent gravel inclusions. 5

508 Furrow Cut Cut of furrow. Oriented NE-SW. 5




511 Furrow Fill mid greyish brown sandy silt









517 Ditch Fill dark reddish brown sandy silt

Frequent gravel. Surface yielded bone, burnt bone and possible ceramic fragments. Not excavated.

5

518 Ditch Cut Cut of large ditch. Visible as cropmark. 5


Frequent gravel and occasional burnt stone. Not excavated, no surface finds.

5

520 Ditch Cut Cut of ditch, probably linear cropmark located just to south of proposed trench location.

5

521 Layer Layer Dark slightly grey brown sandy silt deposit at western end of trench. Probably headland from ploughing downhill to east. Presumably masks cropmark feature recorded in this area. Yielded a few sherds of pottery. Not excavated.

5


601 Subsoil Layer 0.10m-0.15m Same as 1600 6

602 Subsoil Layer Compact Gravel and sand. 6


Context Feature

type Context


orangey yellow sand

603 Ditch Fill Upper fill of ditch. Very dark humic. 0.30m sondage dug. Pottery found.

6

604 Ditch Fill Light brown gravelly fill of ditch. 6

605 Ditch Cut 6

606 Pit Fill 6

607 Ditch Cut 6

608 Furrow Fill greyish brown 6

609 Furrow Cut 6

610 Furrow Fill mid reddish brown

6

611 Furrow Cut 6

612 Pit Fill greyish brown silty clay

Associated with 615, 617 and 619 6


615 Pit Cut Cut of subcircular posthole/pit; 0.40m diameter. 6

616 Pit Fill 6

617 Pit Cut Subcircular pit or posthole. 0.40m diameter. 6

618 Pit Fill 6

619 Pit Cut Sub rectangular pit, associated with 617, 615 and 613.

6

620 Ditch Fill dark greyish brown

6

621 Ditch Cut Ditch, oriented E-W. Truncated by furrow at centre. 3m wide. Unexcavated.

6

622 Pit Fill mid reddish brown silty clay

6

623 Pit Cut Elongated ovoid aligned NE-SW. Close to 621 and 625.

6


625 Pit Cut Same as 623 but oriented NW-SE. 6

626 Furrow Fill mid reddish orange silt

6

627 Furrow Cut 6

628 Ditch Fill light brown Stony. 6

629 Ditch Fill dark blackish grey

Contains intact base of pot. 6

630 Ditch Cut Cut of wide enclosure ditch, aligned E-W. 6

631 Ditch Fill Dark fill of ditch with pot and bone. 6

632 Ditch Cut Ditch running E-W. Possibly terminates. 6

633 Grave Fill Unexcavated. Fill of grave. A skull, vertrebrae, a scapula and possible clavicle were recorded close to the subsoil. The bones possibly represent the remains of two individuals, semi articulated or disturbed. Cut by later Roman ditch, 632. Bones left in situ.

6

634 Grave Cut Cut of grave with possible multiple semi-articulated individuals. Unexcavated and left in

6


Context Feature

type Context


situ.


Limestone inclusions. 6

636 Ditch Cut NW-SE, possible flare for entrance to enclosure? 6

637 Posthole Fill Very natural looking fill. 6

639 Nothing on sheet about this context 6

640 posthole Cut Presumably filled with 639 6

641 Furrow Fill 6

642 furrow Cut 6

643 Furrow Fill 6

644 Furrow Cut 6

645 furrow? 6

646 furrow? 6

647 Grave Fill dark greyish brown

6

648 Grave Cut Ovoid feature, possibly grave 6

649 Same as 647 6

650 Ovoid feature, possible juvenile grave 6

651 No info on sheet 6

652 Interpreted as natural variation after weathering. 6

653 Gully Fill mid brown sandy silt

6

654 Gully Cut 6

655 Ditch Fill Compact dark greyish brown sandy clay

0.30m Compact, dark brown with grey sandy clay, with pale limestone fragments (20-40mm). Some rooting. A tertiary fill of wide V-shaped enclosure ditch. Width-4.2m

6

656 Ditch Fill Moderately Compact light brownish yellow silty clay

0.55m Moderately compact with loose stone, light brownish yellow silty clay with limestone gravels. The limestone gravels are abundant; redepositednatural, with occasional large sub-angular limestone pieces. There are two blueish grey patches of soft wet clay and charcoal fragments; 657 and 658, as pockets within the fill. Interpreted as backfill or redeposited natural, a tertiary fill of ditch 661.

6

657 Ditch Fill Soft dark blueish grey clay

0.08m Soft, cohesive, dark blueish grey clay, with occasional charcoal fragments. Pocket of clay within ditch fill 656. Similar in composition to 658, but lower in fill. Depth 0.08m; width 0.16m.

6

658 Ditch Fill Soft dark blueish grey clay

0.10m Soft, cohesive, dark blueish grey clay, with moderate charcoal flecking. Pocket of clay with charcoal flecking within the backfill of ditch 661. Similar to 657 but at a different height and location. (both within same context; 656)

6

659 Ditch Fill Compact mid orangey brown sandy clay

0.70m Compact mid-orange brown sandy clay. Contains moderate small angular pebbles; fewer than the deposits above and below, with more clay.

6


Context Feature

type Context


660 Ditch Fill Compact light greenish yellow clayey sand

0.3m Compacted, highly consolidated light greenish yellow clayey sand and gravel. Frequent small gravel, occasional charcoal, occasional bone and pot. Dirty at bottom, with a high moisture content making it sticky. Could be a natural interface. Interpreted as the primary fill of ditch 661. Contains fragments of animal bone and rare charcoal flecking

6

661 Ditch Cut Very large wide linear visible on aerial photographs pre-excavation. Sharp top break of slope, steep sloping sides (45 degree angle), to v-shaped base. Sharp break of slope to base. Truncated ditch 665 to the east. Possibly excavated close to an entrance as the alignment changes; flares out to south on SW alignment. Interpreted as a re-cut of large enclosure ditch. It is a later V-shaped wide ditch that cuts the U-shaped ditch to the east. Has multiple fills.

6

662 , 158-160 Fill Compact reddish brown clay

0.8m Highly compact reddish brown; dominant limestone fragments with clay; (stone 20-50mm). Some rooting. Top fill of early U-shaped ditch, 665, cut by wide V-shaped ditch 661. Width 1.4m

6

663 Ditch Fill Firm reddish brown sandy clay

0.5m Firm, compact red-brown sandy clay with significant limestone fragments (20-40mm). Secondary fill of U-shaped ditch

6

664 Ditch Fill Compact mid reddish brown clay

0.3m Highly compact reddish mid-brown clay with stone. (limestone fragments less than 50mm) High moisture content with few charcoal inclusions. Primary fill of U-shaped ditch, 665.

6

665 Ditch Cut Linear ditch, sharp definition to top break of slope, steep, near vertical sides, curved break of slope to bottom, clear definition. Descending, undulating base. Interpreted as the cut of an early U-shaped enclosure ditch, cut by wider V-shaped enclosure ditch 661.

6




703 Furrow Fill 7

704 Furrow Cut 7

705 Pit Fill greyish brown clay silt

Occasional flecks of charcoal. No surface finds. Not excavated.

7

706 Pit Cut 7

707 Pit Fill Same as 705 but with moderate gravel (pebbles) in fill. No finds. Not excavated.

7

708 Pit Cut 7



802 Natural Layer Same as 1302. 8

803 Pit Fill greyish brown clay silt

Slightly clay silt. Occasional charcoal flecking. Not excavated, no surface finds.

8

900 Topsoil Layer Same as 1300 9


Context Feature

type Context




903 Furrow Fill 9

904 Furrow Cut 9

905 Furrow Fill greyish brown sandy silt

9

906 Furrow Cut 9

907 Furrow Fill 9

908 Furrow Cut 9

909 Pit Fill greyish brown sandy silt

Moderate gravel, no charcoal flecking. No surface finds, not excavated.

9

910 Pit Cut Cut of pit. Part of pit alignment across northern part of site.

9

911 Furrow Fill 9

912 Furrow Cut 9

913 Furrow Fill 9

914 Furrow Cut 9




1100 Topsoil Layer Same as 1300 11



1103 Furrow Fill Fill of furrow 11

1104 Furrow Cut 11

1105 Pit Fill Same as 1203. Not excavated. No finds on surface.

11

1106 Pit Cut Cut of pit. Part of pit alignment. 11

1107 Pit Fill Same as 1203. No surface finds, not excavated. 11

1108 Pit Cut Cut of pit, part of pit alignment. 11

1109 Furrow Fill 11

1110 Furrow Cut 11

1111 Ditch Fill dark reddish brown sandy silt

Occasional gravel. Not excavated. 11

1112 Ditch Cut Cut of ditch, or possible furrow. Does not follow the same orientation as the other furrows.

11

1113 Furrow Fill 11

1114 Furrow Cut 11

1115 Furrow Fill 11

1116 Furrow Cut 11

1117 Furrow Fill 11

1118 Furrow Cut 11

1200 Topsoil Layer 0.25m 12

1201 Subsoil Layer 12

1202 Natural Layer 12


Context Feature

type Context


1203 Pit Fill Firm mid reddish brown sandy clay

0.30m Firm but friable reddish to mid brown clay with sand. Occasional limestone gravel (20-50mm), occasional rooting. Upper fill of circular pit, 1206.

12

1204 Pit Fill Firm mid reddish brown sandy clay

0.3m Significant limestone gravel inclusions (20-50mm) distributed throughout fill but more concentrated in central (lower) area. Secondary fill of circular pit, 1206, distinct from 1205 due to greater soil content and from 1203 due to greater stone content. Deposit was lower toward the centre of the pit, possibly due to settling of stone?

12

1205 Pit Fill Compact mid brown clay

0.10m Highly compacted mid brown soil with yellow stone (yellow-orange limestone gravel). Includes some deep red-orange sand. Highly mixed and compacted layer of materials coinciding with a natural lens of sand as recorded in section. Primary fill of cut 1206. Highly mixed aggregrate of sand, clay and limestone gravel. Extremely compacted.

12

1206 Pit Cut Circular in plan (1.4m diameter). Sharp, defined top break of slope, sides steep, tapering inwards slightly. Sharp defined base break of slope. Flat base, circular in plan. Cut of circular pit, part of linear pit alignment; together with 1208; 1210; 1212; and 1214.

12

1207 Pit Fill 12

1208 Pit Cut Same as 1206 (part of pit alignment) 12

1209 Pit Fill 12


1211 Pit Fill 12


1213 Pit Fill 12


1215 Furrow Fill 12

1216 Furrow Cut 12

1217 Furrow Fill 12

1218 Furrow Cut 12

1300 Topsoil Layer 0.23m Soft greyish brown sandy silt. 13

1301 Subsoil Layer 0.30m Soft brownish red clayey silt. 13

1302 Natural Layer Compact light brownish yellow gravel with frequent yellow patches of reddish brown slightly sandy clay.

13

1303 Pit Fill Firm mid brownish grey clay silt

Frequent charcoal flecking, occasional pieces throughout. Occasional small pieces of burnt bone. Fill of small pit 1304. Contained flint and ceramic material, possibly pottery or fired clay. Unclear relationship with the subsoil.

13

1304 Cut Sub-circular (diameter 0.52m) cut of small pit. Moderate top break of slope; steep sides, moderate base break of slope, flat base. Probably prehistoric (Neolithic/Bronze Age).

13


Context Feature

type Context



1306 Furrow Cut 13

1307 Furrow Fill Fill of furrow. 13

1308 Furrow Cut Cut of furrow 13


1310 Furrow Cut Cut of furrow. 13




1403 Ditch Fill mid brown sandy silt

Moderate gravel inclusions. Not excavated. Cut by furrow.

14

1404 Ditch Cut Cut of ditch, cut by 1406 14

1405 Furrow Fill mid greyish brown sandy silt

Occasional gravel inclusions. Fill of furrow. Large piece of pot recovered. Not excavated.

14

1406 Furrow Cut 14


1501 Subsoil Layer 0.28m Same as 1301. 15


1503 Furrow Fill 15

1504 Furrow Cut 15

1505 Furrow Fill 15

1506 Furrow Cut 15

1507 Furrow Fill 15

1508 Furrow Cut 15

1509 Pit Fill 15

1510 Pit Cut 15

1511 Furrow Fill 15

1512 Furrow Cut 15

1513 Furrow Fill 15

1514 Furrow Cut 15

1515 Furrow Fill 15

1516 Furrow Cut All furrows filled with a dark greyish brown sandy silt, with occasional gravel inclusions.

15


Occasional gravel. I large piece of bone recovered. Not excavated.

15

1518 Ditch Cut 15

1519 Furrow Fill 15

1520 Furrow Cut 15

1600 Topsoil Layer Soft greyish brown sandy silt. 16

1601 Subsoil Layer Soft brownish red clay silt

0.20m 16

1602 Natural Layer Compact light yellow

Light yellow copmact gravel. 16

1603 Ditch Fill dark blackish grey silt

16


Context Feature

type Context


1604 Ditch Cut Ditch, oriented NW-SE; 2.5m wide. 16

1605 Pit Fill mid reddish brown silty sand

Reddish brown subsoil-like fill of posthole or small pit.

16

1606 Pit Cut Cut of posthole or small pit 16

1607 Furrow Fill mid reddish brown sandy silt

Fill of furrow, moderate stone inclusions. 16

1608 furrow Cut 16

1609 Pit Fill 16

1610 Pit Cut Cut of ovoid feature/subsoil spread. 16

1611 Ditch Fill Subsoil-like fill of N-S oriented ditch. 16

1612 Ditch Cut 16




1703 Ditch Fill Southern fill of 1705. 17

1704 Ditch Fill Northern fill of 1705 17

1705 Ditch Cut E-W aligned ditch, with two fills. 17

1706 Ditch Fill 17

1707 Ditch Cut E-W aligned ditch. 17

1708 Pit Fill Friable dark greyish brown clay silt

0.21m Contains moderate sub-angular stone occasional pottery, rare flint, moderate charcoal pieces. Secondary fill of prehistoric pit containing flint and pottery and burnt stone/fired clay.

17

1709 Pit Fill Compact mid orangey brown sandy clay

0.05m Primary fill of prehistoric pit. Possible slumping? 17

1710 Pit Cut Ovoid/circular in plan (only partially revealed in evaluation trench). Sharp top break of slope, concave sides; gradual base break of slope and concave base. If ovoid, oriented NW-SE. Truncated by some plough action close to subsoil/surface. Prehistoric sub-circular pit, contains pot, flint and burnt stone. Depth 0.24m; width 0.70m; length, 0.50m plus.

17


1801 Subsoil Layer 0.20 Same as 1301 18

1802 Natural Layer Same as 1302 except at 5m at NE end where it is a reddish brown slightly gravelly clay.

18

1803 Pit Fill Friable greyish brown clay silt

0.19m Contains frequent charcoal flecking and occasional small fragments of burnt stone. Fill of small pit, 1804. Contained small fragments of bone, some of which may have been burnt. Interpreted as prehistoric, no dateable finds recovered, however.

18

1804 Pit Cut Sub-circular in plan. Sharp break of slope at the top, steep sides and rounded break of slope at base. Concave base. Cut of small, possibly prehistoric, pit.

18


Context Feature

type Context


1900 Pit Fill Fill of very shallow pit. 13

1903 Ditch Fill Moderately Compact mid greyish brown sandy silt

0.09m Contains occasional small sub-rounded gravel. Sterile fill of drainage gully. Very shallow.

19

1904 Ditch Cut 0.10m Linear feature, slight top break of slope, shallow gradual sides, gradual curved base break of slope, flat base. Oriented E-W. Possibly truncated by ploughing. Shallow gully adjacent to ditch 1906 on same E-W alignment.

19

1905 Ditch Fill Moderately Compact mid greyish brown clay silt

0.20m Frequent gravels, rare charcoal flecks. 19

1906 Ditch Cut Linear of same width all along (0.50m); Sharp top break of slope, steep sides, sharp base break of slope, concave narrow base. Oriented E-W. Cut of boundary ditch. Seems to merge with 1904.

19

1907 Ditch Fill dark reddish brown sandy clay

19

1908 Ditch Cut Ditch/gully terminus 19

1909 Ditch Fill mid brown silt Stony silt. 19

1910 Ditch Cut Narrow drainage ditch/gully. 19

1911 Ditch Fill Very dark brown fill of ditch. 19

1912 Ditch Cut Cut of 5m wide enclosure ditch. Unexcavated. 19

1913 Furrow Fill 19

1914 Furrow Cut 19

1915 Furrow Fill 19

1916 furrow Cut 19

1917 Furrow Fill 19

1918 Furrow Cut 19


Appendix 2 Technical information

The archive (site code: WSM57125) The archive consists of:

69 Context records AS1

1 Field progress reports AS2

3 Photographic records AS3

174 Digital photographs

1 Drawing number catalogues AS4

11 Scale drawings

4 Sample records AS17

1 Sample number catalogues AS18

4 Flot records AS21

24 Trench record sheets AS41

2 Boxes of finds

1 Box of animal bone and sorted remains from samples

1 CD-Rom/DVDs

1 Copy of this report (bound hard copy)

The project archive is intended to be placed at:

Worcestershire County Museum

Museums Worcestershire

Hartlebury Castle

Hartlebury

Near Kidderminster

Worcestershire DY11 7XZ

Tel Hartlebury (01299) 250416


Summary of data for Worcestershire HER

WSM 57125 (event HER number)

P4304 Methods of retrieval

Yes/No

Hand retrieval Yes Bulk sample Yes Spot sample Auger Monolith Observed

Type Preservation Date

(note 1) Specialist report? Y/N (note 2)

Key assemblage? Y/N (note 3)

Bone – large mammal

Not decayed prehistoric N N


Not decayed Early Romano British

N N

Bone - large mammal

Not decayed Late Iron Age N N


Not decayed Roman N N

Bone – small mammal

Not decayed Roman N N

Plant remains – macrofossils

Charred Prehistoric Y N

Plant remains - macrofossils

Charred Roman Y N

Shell – mollusc Not decayed Roman N N Period From To Mesolithic 10000 BC 4001 BC Neolithic 4000 BC 2351 BC Bronze Age 2350 BC 801 BC Iron Age 800 BC 42 AD Roman 43 409 Post-Roman 410 1065 Medieval 1066 1539

Post-medieval

1540 1900

Modern 1901 2050 Period Specific From ToEarly Neolithic 4000 3501 Middle Neolithic 3500 2701 Early Bronze Age 2350 1601