1

AN EXCAVATION STRATEGY FOR CASTLESHAW ROMAN FORTS

PREPARED IN MARCH 2013 Introduction This document presents a range of archaeological investigations to progress our understanding of the Roman Fort and its environs in accordance with the recommendations of the Castleshaw Conservation Plan (2012). This strategy is supported by a plan showing the location of potential investigation sites, with red being within the Scheduled Monument area and blue outside. A copy of Thompson’s excavation plan of 1964 is also attached for reference, together with the 1892 OS 25” map, GMAU old excavation plan, and 1997 aerial view. Background In 2012 the Castleshaw Working Party commissioned Northern Archaeological Associates to produce a Conservation Management Plan (CMP) to provide an understanding of the significance of the Scheduled remains of the Roman Forts and associated features and to inform future research, management and presentation of the Monuments. The CMP can be found at http://www.castleshawarchaeology.co.uk/documents.htm along with a range of other reports relating to the archaeology of the Roman Forts. The CMP concluded that a priority for the site is to present the site of the earlier, larger, Agricolan fort in the same way that the later, smaller, fortlet was presented in the 1980s. At the moment the remains of the fort are difficult to interpret and are poorly understood. A scheme of targeted excavation followed by landscaping and interpretation are desirable, and these should have a strong focus on community engagement and education. The hinterland of the fort is also poorly understood, and this is another objective for research investigations at Castleshaw. A Friends of Castleshaw Roman Forts group has been established to take forward fund raising and community participation. The group are looking initially at a possible Heritage Lottery grant-aided scheme (Our Heritage) which, if successful, could lead to a larger project to consolidate and present the fort site. Any archaeological investigations must be informed by a research strategy and, within the Scheduled Monument area, official consent from the Secretary of State will be required under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act of 1979. The strategy set out below therefore falls into two parts; targeted areas outside the Scheduled Monument and those inside. The areas outside the Scheduled site require equal archaeological rigour but present an opportunity for volunteers to learn about archaeological techniques through participation in small scale evaluation exercises. Research Framework In reviewing previous archaeological investigations and current understanding, the CMP identified several gaps in our archaeological knowledge for Castleshaw: PREHISTORY The transition between periods: there is some evidence of a continuation of use at Castleshaw, potentially from the Mesolithic onwards. However little is known about how the use and function of the site changed through the prehistoric period and whether there was any legacy or continuity between phases. There may even have been symbolic as well as strategic reasons for placing the fort in this location, perhaps some continuity of association or occupation. Such discussion points may not have an answer but comparative studies across the country could yield interesting results.

2

A re-assessment of existing dating evidence (including artefact assemblages) might also advance our understanding of the transition and continuity between periods. Similarly, a re-assessment of the Castleshaw and Piethorne aerial survey material (Arrowsmith et al 2006) together with new LiDAR data could produce interesting and important results, particularly with regards to identifying later Iron Age and Romano-British settlement. Looking at the nature of transition across all periods is one of the overall regional research aims identified in the North West Archaeological Research Framework. Research Objective 1. Problems with dating: apart from material from the more recent GMAU excavation, much of the dating evidence from the site is based on comparative artefact analysis. The application of more ‘absolute’ scientific dating techniques could considerably illuminate the early (and later) development of the site. A re-assessment of the lithic assemblages would also be recommended. This is one of the overall regional research aims identified in the North West Archaeological Research Framework. Research Objective 2. The nature and form of settlement: the nature and form of prehistoric activity at Castleshaw is unknown although the focus of finds, especially when compared with surrounding areas, would indicate that the site was in use potentially from the Mesolithic period onwards. However, such conclusions have to be seen against the extent of excavation at the fortlet when compared to other sites in the area, and the possible bias this creates in archaeological record. Research Objective 3. Understanding the prehistoric landscape: more information is needed to place prehistoric Castleshaw within its wider landscape context, in particular any evidence of associated field systems as well as the pattern of settlement, ritual sites and prehistoric trade routes. Both the Saddleworth Historical Society and Archaeological Society, as well as other academic institutions such as the University of Manchester have undertaken an excellent programme of survey over the years but this work might be consolidated and augmented by the implementation of modern remote sensing technologies including LiDAR and possibly further geophysical investigation. The acid soils of the site limit the success of both magnetometry and resistivity surveys, exacerbated by the considerable depths of the Roman deposits, but ground-penetrating radar (GPR) might be an option worth exploring. All of this work would need to be considered in the light of wider research aims, projects and strategies in place across the central Pennines. Research Objective 4. Understanding the palaeo-environment: palaeo-environment evidence from the site is limited to the samples taken during the GMAU excavations which revealed a considerable amount of information on the nature of the 2nd century environment of the fortlet, expanding our understanding of the local economy, and the subsequent abandonment of the outpost. A more comprehensive programme might be considered including material sealed from below the Roman deposits, as well as a more comprehensive sampling strategy across the site and its hinterland. A programme of sampling beneath the Roman road at High Moor produced very important results in terms of understanding the pre-Roman landscape (GMAU 1995). However, poor pollen preservation might be a significant factor in determining a successful programme of sampling and would need careful consideration. This is one of the overall regional research aims identified in the North West Archaeological ResearchFramework. Research Objective 5. FORT Dating the foundation of the fort: there is now mounting evidence for a pre-Agricolan foundation date for Castleshaw and the trans-Pennine road (Margary 712) but, as yet, no absolute dating evidence has been established at the fort. Although this might be difficult to obtain, particularly given the problems of preservation related to the acid soils, modern scientific dating techniques (including dendrochronology (tree ring dating) could provide a better understanding of the early foundation and development of both the fort and road. This could have a significant impact on our understanding of the development of military infrastructure across the region as a whole. A similar programme of radio-carbon dating and bore hole testing was recommended following the excavation of a section

3

of the route at High Moor, Saddleworth, and produced valuable dating evidence. Looking at the nature of transition across all periods is one of the overall regional research aims identified in the North West Archaeological Research Framework. Research Objective 6. The internal layout of the fort: there are still a number of key buildings which have not been located namely stables, storerooms, latrines and workshops, as well as the apparent absence of any ditches on the eastern side of the site and the absence, so far, of an identified parade ground. This is unsurprising given that only 35% of the fort has been excavated. Unfortunately the scattering of the earlier excavations may have destroyed or obscured the possibility of a comprehensive understanding of some areas; although the 1984-88 excavations have proved that much information can still be gathered from re-excavating the old trenches. Research Objective 7. Understanding how the fort functioned: connected with the above, there is a general scarcity of information about how the fort functioned from day to day: what the garrison ate, how water was brought into the site and how human waste and other rubbish was moved out or stored. However, the impact of the acid soils on the preservation of material like bones, and even coarse-ware domestic pottery, could have a considerable impact on our understanding of some of these aspects. The absence of a bath house is also perplexing given the size of the garrison and would warrant further study of the surrounding area, although investigations at Water’s Clough and Daycroft Field have already been undertaken with the aim of targeting potential bath house sites. Similarly, the issue of a related cemetery also warrants investigation. Research Objective 8. Understanding the road network: it is a priority to understand more about the course of the road Margary 712 where it runs adjacent to the fort. Currently, the course of the road is unknown, given the absence of any evidence of the feature during the Daycroft Field excavations to the south of the fort and fortlet. Targeted excavation to the east and north of the fort might help identify the course of the road. Similarly, the road alignment from the north gate is also not properly understood. A combination of high resolution LiDAR survey and field survey might allow the course of this to be established at least to the point where it disappears beneath the reservoirs. Further investigation is also needed to define the course of the roads leading out of the east and west gates as well, and confirm whether they do join back with the main road. Research Objective 9. Additional to these comments in the CMP, it is felt that it would be worth examining Waters Clough to the west of the fort where the road must have crossed. The banks of the clough may contain important archaeological information on the structure of the bridge crossing; if there are waterlogged/anaerobic soil conditions then there is potential for timbers to survive in situ. Understanding the immediate hinterland: little work has taken place outside the interior of the fort. The question of a possible 1st century vicus remains an important issue for further investigation. Currently there is only evidence of a settlement associated with the 2nd century fortlet and, as yet, no sign of a 1st century precursor. This is quite unusual given that most auxiliary forts did have associated civilian communities, drawn by the attraction of a permanent garrison of troops keen to spend their pay. However, investigations of the surrounding area have so far been limited. Research Objective 10. Understanding the wider landscape: there is potential for a better understanding of how Castleshaw functioned with the wider landscape. This partially ties in with those issues raised in terms of understanding the distribution of Iron Age settlement in the area and how the forts interacted, if at all, with existing native settlements. This again raises the issue of whether there was a civilian settlement (vicus) related to the Flavian period fort and whether food was being produced locally in order to augment the garrison supplies. Palaeo-environmental samples associated with the fortlet show managed pastureland surrounding the site in the 2nd century AD but little evidence so far of arable production. However, it is uncertain if a similar situation prevailed in the earlier period. A more comprehensive sampling strategy – covering material from both inside and outside the site – could reveal a great deal about the activities and infrastructure supporting fort life. A study

4

of a broader finds assemblage may also provide information on the nature of materials being brought into the site ie. those materials that could not be provided locally. However, once more, preservation in terms of both the archaeological and palaeo-environmental evidence could have a considerable impact on the potential to advance an understanding in these areas. This is one of the overall regional research aims identified in the North West Archaeological Research Framework. Research Objective 11. How the fort was abandoned: exactly why the fort was abandoned at the end of 1st century may remain a mystery but further evidence might be gained about the nature of its abandonment. It was common practice for forts to be slighted so they could not be used by the enemy and so that materials could be utilised elsewhere. Was material from Castleshaw sent to Manchester or Slack? The possibility of a phase of later re-use, following the decline of both the fort and later fortlet, is also worthy of further investigation. Further research, excavation and wide area survey could provide interesting new information. Research Objective 12. Understanding the broader national and international context of the site: considerable work has been undertaken by GMAU in terms of looking at how the fortlet layout relates to the broader national context of military fortlet design. This has resulted in an interesting and far reaching discussion on the form and role of the 2nd century site. A similar exercise has the potential to expand our understanding of the earlier Flavian fort, once some of the gaps in our understanding of the complex have been addressed. Research Objective 13. FORTLET

The transition from fort to fortlet: questions remain about the relationship of the old fort to the new fortlet. Presumably the fort was slighted when it was first abandoned, although the extent of the destruction, and whether it was dismantled or destroyed, remains unclear. The GMAU excavations found little evidence for re-use of earlier foundations or material. Is there any evidence of use during the intervening period or was the site completely abandoned? Potentially the area of the fort outside of the fortlet might have been re-used either for extra-mural settlement or as an annex for protecting extra stores or accommodating troops and convoys in transit, Looking at the nature of transition across all periods is one of the overall regional research aims identified in the North West Archaeological Research Framework. Research Objective 14. Understanding how the fortlet functioned on a day to day basis: although much is known about the internal layout of the fortlet, questions still remain about how water was brought into the site and how human waste and other rubbish was moved out or stored. Answers may lie in the areas immediately outside the ramparts, including within the footprint of the fort. Whether or not there was a bath house is also unknown. Bath houses were not standard in fortlets but given the unusual function of Castleshaw and the presence of the associated vicus, a bath house may have been present. Similarly, as with the fort, the location of a related cemetery is a subject warranting further research, particularly given the presence of a possible civilian population in addition to the garrison. The identification of a cemetery could reveal considerable amounts about the nature of the Castleshaw community although the site may well lie under the current hamlet. Again, the preservation of materials in the acid soils is a factor which could potentially limit and understanding of these areas. Research Objective 15. Understanding the immediate hinterland: the work carried out in Daycroft Field has illustrated the enormous potential for information from an examination of the area outside the fortlet. Further work on the civilian settlement could reveal considerable information about the nature and function of the community, its relationship with the fortlet, and whether there was a 1st century precursor, or even a pre-Roman Iron Age settlement; although current dating evidence would indicate the vicus only relates to the 2nd century. Research Objective 16. Understanding the wider landscape: there is the potential for a better understanding of how the

5

fortlet and vicus functioned within the wider landscape, in particular, evidence of economic production (field systems etc.), together with any evidence of wider settlement distribution. This would have a particular relevance with regards to the interpretation of the fortlet as a hybrid commissary and base fortlet, possibly acting as a supply depot and local policing unit. During the 1st and early 2nd century AD, this area is still frontier territory and there are questions relating to the nature of the surrounding area and the degree of assimilation and integration with the native tribes. Is the fortlet evidence that the Romans were in the process of trying to establish self-supporting ‘Romanised’ settlements as they had done successfully in the south? Whilst there may have been a need for a strong security presence in order to protect supplies being brought in and moved along the trans-Pennine route, the fortlet may also have acted as an important local trading centre dealing with the supply and distribution of both ‘imported’ and locally produced goods for both the military, civilian and native population. In particular, extraction industries, like iron working may have potentially been undertaken in the area and brought to the fortlet for working. Evidence of medieval iron smelting sites have been found close to the site at but equally ore may have been gained and worked in the earlier, Roman, period using similar bloomery technology. A study of the wider environment, using the existing Castleshaw and Piethorne survey as a baseline but with the addition of further palaeo-environmental sampling, LiDAR transcription and targeted geophysical survey, might provide further information on these issues. Understanding the broader physical, cultural and economic landscape of a site is one of the overall regional research aims identified in the North West Archaeological Research Framework. Research Objective 17. Understanding the decline of the fortlet: Evidence of burning and deliberate destruction dating to the abandonment of the fort was found during the Daycroft Field excavations. In addition, within the fortlet, the barrack block also appears to have been burnt at around this time. Both indicate that the fortlet and vicus were slighted. The palaeo-environmental record further confirms that the vicus fell out of use very soon after the fortlet was deserted. However, there could potentially be phases of re-use in the later Roman and post-Roman periods. Although there was not the same continuity of use until the end of the Roman period which is found at other fort sites, particularly those along Hadrian’s Wall, Castleshaw might have remained a visually important element in the landscape for some time after it fell out of use. In addition, there is also the question of what happened to the road both following the abandonment of the fortlet and after the withdrawal of Roman troops in the early 5th century, as well as the relationship of the later medieval settlement to both the forts and roads. Research Objective 18. EARLY MEDIEVAL PERIOD The nature of post-Roman occupation: there is currently no evidence of the continued occupation of the Castleshaw forts following the abandonment of the fortlet c. AD 120. Palaeo-environmental evidence suggests that the cultivation associated with the vicus also fell out of use around this time. However, only a small percentage of the fort site has been excavated, and much of that before the large scale identification of Anglo-Saxon settlement sites in the wider archaeological record. Evidence for a later phase of Early Medieval re-use (or even 2nd to 4th century occupation) might still be preserved in the northern half of the fort, outside the fortlet area or within the vicus. Research Objective 19. The foundations of medieval Castle Shaw: the absence of evidence of any post 2nd century use imply the site was completely deserted by the Early Medieval period or could indicate that the settlement focus shifted further east and that the current hamlet of Castleshaw may have Early Medieval foundations. Research Objective 20. Understanding the broader landscape during the post-Roman period: as with the other periods, a broader survey of the landscape might reveal information about the changing nature of settlement, agriculture and development across the landscape during this rather elusive period of history. In particular, any evidence of the continuity of land use across the upland during the Early Medieval period and of use, or re-use, of Roman infrastructure like the road system. Did medieval

6

Castleshaw develop as an Anglo-Saxon roadside settlement immediately outside the fort? If so, are there any parallels to be drawn between the nature of post-Roman development on the trans-Pennine route and that further north along the Stainmore Pass? Research Objective 21. MEDIEVAL PERIOD Nature of the medieval grange: little is known about the operation of the medieval grange in the Castleshaw Valley. Documentary evidence would indicate the grange might have been operating primarily as a vaccary - a large medieval cattle farm - and it would be interesting to understand how this fitted in with the broader infrastructure of the abbey. A wide area survey may identity features that survive in the landscape and which relate to this period of use. In particular, there may be further evidence of agricultural and industrial activity, including additional smelting sites and evidence of mineral ore extraction and quarrying. Research Objective 22. The growth of the medieval hamlet: across the region, settlement study has largely focused on nucleated villages and moated sites rather than the origins of more dispersed sites like Castle Shaw. The exact nature of any medieval settlement adjacent to the site remains unknown. Documentary evidence, and the echoes of settlement layout preserved on later maps, would seem to indicate Castleshaw grew up around the road junction and there is no evidence to suggest a more nucleated settlement at this time. However, as yet there is no archaeological dating evidence for the foundation of the settlement. In particular, whether there was an Early Medieval or Medieval precursor of the settlement or whether the hamlet only comes into existence in the 17th century. Research Objective 23. Do elements of the medieval hamlet survive? Further investigation of the hamlet might help identify the extent and layout of the original settlement, and if any earlier fabric still survives associated with the extant or demolished buildings. Research Objective 24. POST MEDIEVAL PERIOD Understanding the medieval/post medieval field system: A mixed farming economy operated across Castleshaw in the 18th century, with some arable production on the valley floor, pasture on the upper slopes, and some summer grazing across parts of the upland. However, it remains unclear how this pattern may have altered over time, potentially influenced by changes in demand, fluctuations in climate and advances in agricultural practice. A closer look at the surviving physical evidence of the various boundaries still extant across the Scheduled area might provide a better understanding of the existing documentary material. In particular, recording and targeted excavation might help establish when they were constructed and confirm whether these are medieval or post medieval in date. In addition, further palaeo-environmental work might shed light on the nature of the agricultural economy. This in turn could have a considerable impact on our understanding of the nature and development of the area. Research Objective 25. General Principles The proposed excavations fall into two distinct areas: the Scheduled area encompassing remains of the forts, sections of road and the vicus, and the hinterland area beyond the fence that defines the Scheduled site. For the former it is intended to undertake investigations as part of a large scale funded project within a discrete period of time, whilst the hinterland area can be the focus of an ongoing project led by the Friends Group using providing opportunities for experienced volunteers to train up new volunteers. A range of archaeological evaluation techniques could be used for the hinterland survey, including geophysical survey, earthwork survey, and evaluation through test pitting and trenching.

7

The Research Objectives set out above are related to the following excavation strategy as appropriate, although it should be recognised that a degree of flexibility is require as new research questions will arise as the project moves forward. Area within Scheduled Monument Boundary 1. Re-excavate Thompson’s Trench 9 from 1963 across eastern rampart and area of potential ditches to record section through rampart and re-investigate area he defined as ‘uninterrupted clay’ where fort ditches should be. This trench also ran through northern half of fort interior and the part that crosses the north east quadrant as far as the via principia should be re-excavated to examine features identified and recorded by Thompson. Special regard should be given to evidence for phasing and post-fort activity. Backfill will be removed and edges cut back to create a straight section for recording and interpretation. The base of the trench will be cleaned and planned. Length = 80 metres. In order to ensure the edges of the old excavation trench are properly defined and to better understand archaeological features/deposits revealed in the trench sections and floor, it is intended to reveal, clean and record the top of Roman archaeology up to one metre back from the trench edge. Several trenches ran off at right angles to Thompson Trench 9. Former Trenches 7 and 8, to the north, and 18, to the south, should be re-excavated to allow a north to south section through the north-east quadrant. This will link the intervallum road inside the northern rampart to a road beside the fortlet ditch to the south described by Thompson as ?via praetoria. This is more likely to be the ‘loop’ road defined on Bruton’s plan, as the via praetoria was found in GMAU’s 1980s excavations to be lying under the fortlet’s north rampart and acting as its foundation. Methodology as for re-excavation of Trench 9. Length = 20 metres for northern spur and 25 metres for southern spur. Research Objectives 5,6,7,8,12,13,14,15. 2. Open up a trench 10 metres square incorporating the Bronze Age beaker pit indicated as ‘beakers’ on Thompson’s plan (Trench 6). The adjacent area will be examined to establish the potential and record any other evidence for prehistoric activity to shed light on the nature of Bronze Age occupation. The trench will also provide the opportunity to review features identified as belonging to a granary. Research Objectives 2,3,5,7,8,14. 3. A 10 metre by 20 metre trench, orientated north to south, will be opened up over the site of Rosser’s late 1950s box trenches. Records of these excavations are almost non-existent so this will give an opportunity to recover evidence for excavated building slots and other features, and to record sections of surviving baulks between trenches. This will allow for the first time an interpretation of this key area in the north west quadrant of the fort interior, relating to the granaries and potential structures north of the headquarters building. Research Objectives 5,6,9,10,11,13. 4. Open up a former trench of unrecorded origin north of the north gate and extend it laterally west and east to allow recording of right angle section through the road exiting the north gate, to determine its character and alignment. If necessary, excavate a second trench at right angles to the road alignment but further north to inform proper understanding of its alignment and character. Both trenches would be a maximum of 25 metres long. Research Objectives 5,6,9,10,11,13. 5. A 10 metre square trench across north gate to re-expose old excavation trenches (unrecorded and of uncertain origin) to facilitate plan/section recording and interpretation of the remains.

8

Research Objectives 5,6,8,9,12,13. 6. A 10 metres square trench across east gate to re-open Bruton trenches and allow recording in plan and section and modern interpretation. Follow line of Bruton trench eastwards to determine location and character of ditches and the nature of the road crossing (bridge or causeway). Widen as necessary to record straight sections and extend two of Bruton’s lateral trenches to record alignment and character of Roman road exiting east gate. This will allow confirmation or re-interpretation of Bruton’s plan in relation to the ‘loop’ road arrangement. Research Objectives 5,6,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,18,19,25. 7. Re-excavate a still visible but unrecorded (and of uncertain origin) trench running west to east across southern part of the fort’s west rampart and continuing across expected course of defensive ditches. Research Objectives 5,6,12,13. 8. A 10 metre square trench sited on former barn footprint but south of former GMAU’s 1980s excavation compound. This will reveal and record remains of the barn which will help our understanding of the character and evolution of Castleshaw settlement. Selective excavation will examine potential for Roman deposits beneath and adjacent to the barn site. Research Objectives 5,10,11,16,17,23,24,25. Area outside the Scheduled boundary A. There is a squarish depression located at SD99760971 and c 10 m across lying just outside the Scheduled area a little north-west of the north-west corner of the fort defences. The depression is defined by an area of weeds and possibly surrounded by a broad, low bank. This could be the result of previous farming activity or quarrying and infill, but if so it is not of recent origin as the feature appears on all aerial photographs including the 1960s and 70s series. This is a good potential position for the bath house site – having similarities to the attested bath house locations at Slack and Melandra Roman forts. This potential site should be investigated by 1 metre square test pits. If the results are promising then evaluation trenching should be used to confirm the extent and character of the remains. This could in turn lead to a more extensive excavation project in the future. (This area was evaluated by test pitting on 6th November 2012 and found to be of 19th/20th century origin - the results are set out in a report on the Castleshaw Friend’s website). Research Objectives 8,10. B. Trench located on west to east alignment across earthen bank which is probably an early field boundary. Record a section across the feature to understand character and possibly the date. This will enhance our understanding of the typology and sequence of field boundaries in the Castleshaw valley. It will also help establish the potential for early buried soils to be sealed under earthwork field boundaries. Research Objective 25 C. Trench running south to north on opposite side of Dirty Lane to the north-east corner of the fort rampart to see if defensive ditches survive this far out. Research Objectives 6,8,10,11,12,13.

9

D. Area of relatively flat, higher ground running along southern edge of Dirty Lane and opposite Castleshaw hamlet. This area should be test pitted for evidence of potential bath house, burials, funerary monuments, shines, and mausolea alongside the main Roman highway just to east of fort site. Also, there is an opportunity to establish the character and location of the Roman road in this area. There was a post medieval building complex shown here on the 1892 OS 25 inch map, located at SE00040967, consisting of a rectangular structure divided into 3 and enclosed by a rectangular yard. A late 19th century photo suggests these were weaving cottages. Some fragmentary remains are visible beside the road and it is likely that further remains will be encountered below-ground to indicate the character, date and function of this site. Test pitting will establish the extent of the remains and in form future investigation and recording strategy. This will help us understand the form and evolution of Castleshaw settlement. Research Objectives 3,5,9,10,11,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25. E. Test pit strip of higher land immediately north of the existing Castleshaw property boundaries to assess potential for ‘loop’ road and other Roman activity. Research Objectives 3,5,9,10,11,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25. F. Test pit in the two private residences’ gardens to assess potential for remains of the main Roman highway and associated features, together with a series of buildings shown on the 1892 OS map to help us understand the form and evolution of Castleshaw settlement. A late 19th century photograph indicates that these buildings were weaving cottages and outbuildings. This work will depend on owners’ permissions. Research Objectives 3,5,9,10,11,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25. G. Evaluation through geophysical survey, test pitting and possibly trial trenching. This is to test for the potential Roman road side activity close to the fort, such as burials, shrines, settlement etc. Again, this work requires the owner’s permission. Research Objectives 9,10,11,16,17. H. Excavate section across Roman road line to determine character and level of survival. Evaluate through test pits\geophysics alongside road to look for Roman burial potential and other features. Research Objectives 3,9,10,11,16,17. I. Test pits to determine level of survival and character of the remains relating to the 19th century farmhouse and associated outbuildings shown on 1892 OS map and located to the north east of Castleshaw settlement. This work will establish the extent of the remains and inform future investigation and recording strategy. This will help us understand the form and evolution of Castleshaw settlement. Research Objectives 20,21,23,24,25. J. Trench located across the site of former farmstead known as Harbour but also examining the projected line of the Roman road from the north gate. Research Objectives 5,9,10,11,25

10

Excavation Methodology i) Test and trial trenches will be hand excavated. Archaeological deposits and features will be cleaned and recorded before sample excavation is undertaken. ii) Section drawings will be at 1:10 scale, or if a very long section (of over 5 metres) at 1:20 scale. iii) Plans will drawn at 1:20 scale for evaluation trenches and open areas. Test pits will be planned at 1:10 scale but only if significant archaeology is encountered; otherwise a written description and digital photographic record will suffice. iv) A site grid will be re-established for the fort area, ideally tying in to the one established by GMAU in 1984. Elsewhere trenches and test pits will be surveyed into to current landscape mapping. Ordnance Datum levels will be provided for the top and bottom of archaeological deposits and features, and for section lines. v) Context numbers will be assigned for evaluation trench layers and features, and a matrix provided for complex stratigraphy. A site notebook will be kept to record daily observations. vi) A risk assessment form will be completed for each evaluation/excavation exercise and explained to and signed by participants. A day book will be kept of volunteer names and hours contributed. Welfare facilities are available at the Castleshaw Centre. However, larger projects will look at the need for onsite cabins and portaloos. vii) Finds will be carefully cleaned and catalogued and assessed for deterioration. It may be necessary to chemically treat certain finds to stop them powdering when dry. All finds will be marked and bagged according to context and a special finds book and recording form will be used. viii) An ordered excavation archive including finds, paper records, digital photos etc will be deposited with Saddleworth Museum. ix)The results of the archaeological investigations will be produced as technical reports. A copy will lodged with the Greater Manchester Historic Environment Record, Saddleworth Museum and English Heritage (as appropriate). Digital copies will be uploaded to the Friends of Caltleshaw Roman Forts website. x) Publication will be commensurate with the significance of the results. Prepared by: Norman Redhead Heritage Management Director (Archaeology) Greater Manchester Archaeological Advisory Service 26th March 2013 Amended 7th May 2013

11

Illustrations

Location of proposed excavation trenches and areas of investigation. Red are within the Scheduled Monument area, blue outside.

Thompson’s excavation plan

12

GMAU’s plot of previous excavation trenches, with Thompsons shown in bold

OS 25 inch map of 1892 overlaid onto modern Mastermap

13

Aerial Photo of Castleshaw Forts and settlement 1997