Horseworld Staunton Lane, Whitchurch Bath and North-East … · Horseworld, Staunton Lane,...

Horseworld Staunton Lane, Whitchurch

Bath and North-East Somerset

Archaeological Evaluation

August 2013

for

on behalf of

CgMs Consulting Ltd.

Horseworld

CA Project: 4455 CA Report: 13486

Horseworld

Staunton Lane, Whitchurch Bath and North-East Somerset

Archaeological Evaluation

CA Project: 4455 CA Report: 13486

prepared by Tim Havard, Project Officer

date 9 August 2013

checked by Richard Greatorex, Principal Fieldwork Manager

date 12 August 2013

approved by Simon Cox, Head of Fieldwork

signed

date 29 August 2013

issue 01

This report is confidential to the client. Cotswold Archaeology accepts no responsibility or liability to any third party to whom this report, or any part of it, is made known. Any such party relies upon this report entirely

at their own risk. No part of this report may be reproduced by any means without permission.

© Cotswold Archaeology

Cirencester Milton Keynes Andover

Building 11 Unit 4 Office 49

Kemble Enterprise Park Cromwell Business Centre Basepoint Business Centre

Kemble, Cirencester Howard Way, Newport Pagnell Caxton Close, Andover

Gloucestershire, GL7 6BQ MK16 9QS Hampshire, SP10 3FG t. 01285 771022 t. 01908 218320 t. 01264 326549 f. 01285 771033

e. [email protected]


1

Horseworld, Staunton Lane, Whitchurch, Bath and North-East Somerset: Archaeological Evaluation

CONTENTS

SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 2

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 3

2. RESULTS (FIGS 2-6) ......................................................................................... 5

3. DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................... 11

4. CA PROJECT TEAM .......................................................................................... 11

5. REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 12

APPENDIX A: CONTEXT DESCRIPTIONS .................................................................... 13

APPENDIX B: THE FINDS .............................................................................................. 16

APPENDIX C: LEVELS OF PRINCIPAL DEPOSITS AND STRUCTURES ..................... 18

APPENDIX D: OASIS REPORT FORM .......................................................................... 19

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Fig. 1 Site location plan (1:25,000)

Fig. 2 Trench location plan showing archaeological features and geophysical survey

results (1:2000)

Fig. 3 Trenches 5-8 showing archaeological features and geophysical survey results

(1:500)

Fig. 4 Trenches 2, 3 and 5; sections (1:20) and photographs

Fig. 5 Trench 6; section (1:20) and photographs

Fig. 6 Trenches 7 and 8; sections (1:20) and photographs


2


SUMMARY

Project Name: Horseworld

Location: Staunton Lane, Whitchurch, Bath and North-East Somerset

NGR: ST 62221 67532

Type: Evaluation

Date: 22-29 July 2013

Location of Archive: Roman Baths and Pump Room Museum Accession Number: BATRM 2013.22

Site Code: HOS 13

An archaeological evaluation was undertaken by Cotswold Archaeology in July 2013 at

Horseworld, Staunton Lane, Whitchurch, Bath and North-East Somerset. Thirteen trenches

were excavated.

The evaluation identified ditches forming small paddocks or enclosures of a Late Iron

Age/Early Roman probable farmstead. In addition two metalled trackways (aligned at a right

angle to one another) and a posthole of similar date were identified.

Two other ditches (undated) were also recorded.


3


1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 In July 2013 Cotswold Archaeology (CA) carried out an archaeological evaluation for

CgMs Consulting Ltd at Horseworld, Whitchurch, Bath and North-East Somerset

(centred on NGR: ST 62221 67532; Fig. 1). The evaluation was undertaken to

inform a planning application made for a new visitor centre complex at HorseWorld.

1.2 The evaluation was carried out in accordance with a detailed Written Scheme of

Investigation (WSI) produced by CA (2013) for archaeological evaluation and

approved by Richard Sermon, Senior Archaeological Officer, Bath and North-East

Somerset Council. The fieldwork also followed the Standard and Guidance for

Archaeological Field Evaluation (IfA 2009), the Management of Archaeological

Projects (English Heritage 1991) and the Management of Research Projects in the

Historic Environment (MORPHE): Project Manager’s Guide (English Heritage 2006). It

was monitored by Richard Sermon, including a site visit on 25 July 2013.

The site

1.3 The area of proposed development encloses an area of approximately 5ha, and

comprises a series of flat grassed paddocks lying at around 88m above Ordnance

Datum (aOD).

1.4 The underlying bedrock geology of the area is mapped as Rugby Limestone

Member – Inter-bedded Limestone and Mudstone, Sedimentary Bedrock of the

Jurassic Period (BGS 2013). These deposits were encountered in each of the

trenches.

Archaeological background

1.5 Following the results of a Desk-based Assessment (CgMs 2013) and a geophysical

survey (Stratascan 2013) and in support of a detailed planning application to the

Local Planning Authority for development of the 5ha area, a programme of

archaeological investigation was undertaken within the north-west and western

sectors of the development footprint.


4


1.7 The predominant activity on the Site is likely to be Romano-British as indicated by

the recent geophysical survey. Other investigations in the environs of the Site have

highlighted building material, Roman coins of the 2nd and 3rd centuries and at least

two Roman coin hoards within a radius of 1km. The recorded evidence within the

environs of the Site indicates that it lies within a landscape that was both settled and

exploited in the Romano-British period. The apparent buildings indicated by the

geophysics are likely therefore to belong to settlement of this period.

1.8 There is limited evidence for Anglo-Saxon or later medieval activity within the vicinity

of the Site, but the land (i.e. Whitchurch) is thought to have once been part of

holdings belonging to Keynsham Abbey. A public footpath, known locally as the

Priests Path, crosses through the centre of the Site leading from Whitchurch to

Queen Charlton and delineates, in part, the historic parish boundary of Keynsham

and Whitchurch.

Archaeological objectives

1.9 The objectives of the evaluation are to provide information about the archaeological

resource within the site, including its presence/absence, character, extent, date,

integrity, state of preservation and quality. In accordance with the Standard and

Guidance for Archaeological Field Evaluation (IfA 2009), the evaluation has been

designed to be minimally intrusive and minimally destructive to archaeological

remains. The information gathered will enable the BANES Senior Archaeological

Officer to identify and assess the particular significance of the heritage assets,

consider the impact of the proposed development upon it, and to avoid or minimise

conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the

development proposal, in line with the National Planning Policy Framework (DCLG

2012).

Methodology

1.10 The fieldwork comprised the excavation of 13 trenches in the locations shown on the

attached plan (Figure 2). The locations of Trenches 1, 2 and 10 were altered

slightly in the field to avoid live services. All trenches measured 1.6m in width.

Trenches were set out on OS National Grid (NGR) co-ordinates using Leica GPS

and surveyed in accordance with CA Technical Manual 4 Survey Manual (2012).


5


1.11 Trenches 1-4 were located along the proposed line of a new access road,

Trenches 5-8 were located in the proposed new parking area whilst Trenches 9-13

were located over the site of proposed new buildings. Excavation in Trenches 5-8

was limited to providing dating evidence and providing information about the depth

of archaeologically significant features below the existing ground surface.

1.12 All trenches were excavated by mechanical excavator equipped with a toothless

grading bucket. All machine excavation was undertaken under constant

archaeological supervision to the top of the first significant archaeological horizon or

the natural substrate, whichever was encountered first. Where archaeological

deposits were encountered they were excavated by hand in accordance with CA

Technical Manual 1: Fieldwork Recording Manual (2007).

1.13 Deposits were assessed for their palaeoenvironmental potential in accordance with

CA Technical Manual 2: The Taking and Processing of Environmental and Other

Samples from Archaeological Sites (2003) and no deposits were identified that

required sampling. All artefacts recovered were processed in accordance with

Technical Manual 3 Treatment of Finds Immediately after Excavation (1995).

1.14 The archive and artefacts from the evaluation are currently held by CA at their

offices in Kemble. The landowner has expressed a wish to retain the limited artefact

archive as an archaeological/educational resource for the Charity and their wishes

will be forwarded to the Roman Bath and Pump Room Heritage Services. A

summary of information from this project, set out within Appendix D, will be entered

onto the OASIS online database of archaeological projects in Britain.

2. RESULTS (FIGS 2-6)

2.1 This section provides an overview of the evaluation results; detailed summaries of

the recorded contexts and finds are to be found in Appendices A and B

respectively. Details of the relative heights of the principal deposits and features

expressed as metres above Ordnance Datum (m aOD) appear in Appendix C.

2.2 The natural substrate was observed in all trenches and was, with the exception of

Trench 1, sealed either by subsoil or the existing topsoil. In Trench 1 however the

natural substrate was sealed by a modern dumped deposit. No archaeological


6


features were identified in Trenches 1 and 4 and 10-13. A geophysical anomaly,

over which Trench 11 (see Figure 2) was positioned, was shown to be of geological

origin.

Trench 2 (Figures 2 & 4)

2.3 A shallow ditch, 202, whose location corresponded to a linear anomaly identified by

the geophysical survey, lay towards the south-eastern end of Trench 2 on a north-

east/south-west alignment. It contained a single, sandy clay fill, 203, from which, no

artefactual material was recovered.

Trench 3 (Figures 2 & 4)

2.4 Ditch 305 lay centrally within Trench 3 and contained a primary silting fill, 303, from

which a single sherd of Roman pottery and a single animal bone fragment was

recovered. This was sealed by a second fill, 304, which appeared to have been

deliberately dumped into the open ditch and from which no artefactual material was

recovered. The location and alignment of ditch 305 corresponded to a linear

anomaly identified during the geophysical survey.

Trench 5 (Figures 2-4)

2.5 Ditch 505 lay towards the north-western end of Trench 5 on an approximate

east/west alignment and its location correlated with a linear anomaly identified by

the geophysical survey. It contained a primary, silty clay fill, 507, from which no

artefactual material was recovered. This was sealed by a second fill 508 which

contained a large quantity of irregularly sized limestone pieces in a silty clay matrix

and from which 34 sherds of Late Iron Age to 1st-century AD pottery were

recovered. This was sealed by a similar fill, 509, which contained large pieces of

limestone up to 0.36m by 0.22m by 0.11m and from which 32 sherds of mid to late

1st-century AD pottery were recovered. The proportion of limestone in both fills 508

and 509 indicate that they were likely to have derived from deliberate backfilling. The

similarity of the final fill, 506, suggested it derived from the overlying topsoil settling

into the top of the ditch.

2.6 A shallow ditch, 503, lay at the southern extent of Trench 5 and contained a single

sandy clay fill from which no artefactual material was recovered. The location of this

feature did not correspond to any anomaly identified by geophysical survey.


7


Trench 6 (Figures 2, 3 & 5)

2.7 An unexcavated ditch 608, whose location did not correspond to any anomaly

identified by geophysical survey, lay towards the eastern end of Trench 6 on a

north-east/south-west alignment and contained a single unexcavated fill 609.

2.8 Ditch 610 lay towards the centre of Trench 6 on an approximate north-east/south-

west alignment and contained a single sandy clay fill, 611, from which a small

quantity of animal bone and a nail of probable post-medieval date were recovered.

Ditch 603 lay immediately adjacent on a similar alignment and contained a single

silty clay fill, 612, with frequent limestone inclusions and from which no artefactual

material was recovered. No relationship was established between ditch 603 and the

adjacent surface 605. Ditches, 603 and 610 were sealed by similar deposits, 604

and 613 respectively, whose limestone inclusions indicated they were derived from

plough damage to the adjacent surface 605. Both deposits were cut by a narrow

ditch 606, which contained a single fill, 607, from which, a single sherd of 2nd-

century AD pottery was recovered.

2.9 A possible stone surface 605 consisting of irregularly sized pieces of flat limestone

in a sandy clay matrix lay immediately to the west of ditch 603, although no

relationship was established between the two features. Although the surface was not

excavated, eight sherds of Iron Age pottery and a small quantity of animal bone

were recovered from the top of the context.

2.10 The location and alignment of possible surface 605 and ditches 603 and 610

correlated to several linear anomalies identified by geophysical survey.

Trench 7 (Figs 2, 3 & 6)

2.11 Ditch 713 lay centrally within the north-east/south-west aligned arm of Trench 7 and

corresponded to a linear anomaly identified by geophysical survey. It contained a

primary sandy silt fill, 717, which derived from gradual silting and weathering from

which no artefactual material was recovered. This was sealed by a second fill, 714,

whose limestone inclusions indicated it likely derived from deliberate backfilling, and

from which nine sherds of mid-1st to 2nd-century AD pottery were recovered.


8


2.12 Posthole 716 was located centrally within the north-west/south-east aligned arm of

the trench and contained single fill, 715, from which four sherds of Roman pottery

and a small quantity of animal bone were recovered.

2.13 The location and alignment of two unexcavated ditches, 703 and 709, corresponded

to linear anomalies identified by geophysical survey. Three further unexcavated

ditches, 705, 707 and 711 were identified but did not correspond to any such

anomalies.

Trench 8 (Figs 2, 3 & 6)

2.14 Ditch 814 lay towards the northern end of Trench 8 and correlated with an anomaly

identified by geophysical survey. It contained a primary silting fill 813 from which two

sherds of Roman pottery were recovered and which was sealed by a second fill 812.

The frequent limestone inclusions in this fill, including several larger pieces up to

0.2m x 0.15m x 0.1m, suggested the fill derived from deliberate backfilling of the

ditch. Ten sherds of Late Iron Age to 1st-century AD pottery and a large quantity of

animal bone were recovered from this fill which was sealed by two further fills, 811

and 810, which also appeared to derive from deliberate backfilling. Seven sherds of

Roman pottery were recovered from 811 and 13 sherds of Late Iron Age to 1st-

century AD pottery were recovered from 810.

2.15 A possible stone trackway, 809, identified in the southern half of the trench, was not

excavated but was hand cleaned sufficiently to characterize it. It appeared to

comprise closely packed flat limestone pieces, up to 0.3m x 0.25m x 0.08m, in a silty

clay matrix and exhibited a slight camber towards the centre. Six small sherds of

Roman pottery were recovered from the top of the surface. Two less dense stone

spreads, 803 and 804, identified immediately to the south and north appeared to

represent plough damage to 809. Two ditches, 806 and 808, lying to the south and

north of the stone deposits 803 and 804 respectively, were defined in plan but not

excavated. The location and alignment of possible surface 809 and ditches 803 and

804 corresponded to two linear anomalies identified by geophysical survey.

Trench 9 (Fig. 2)

2.16 Ditch 902 lay towards the centre of the trench and was aligned along the top of a

slight natural ridge on an approximate north/south alignment. It contained two similar

fills, 903 and 904, which appeared very similar in character to the overlying topsoil.

The uneven sides and base of the ditch were very suggestive of a former hedge line.


9


The location and alignment of this ditch did not correspond to any anomaly identified

by geophysical survey.

The finds

2.17 Finds recovered from evaluation include pottery, ceramic building material, clay

pipe, and iron and lead objects. Codings for Roman fabrics correspond to those

defined in the National Roman Fabric Reference Collection (Tomber and Dore

1998).

Pottery: Iron Age

2.18 A total of 67 sherds of Late Iron Age pottery in a limestone tempered fabric (Ware A)

were recovered from ditch fills 508 and 509 (both ditch 505), and possible surface

605. Limestone-tempered/calcitic fabrics are a common feature of late prehistoric

assemblages in the region. Those recorded compare with groups from Budbury

(Wainwright 1970). Those from fills 509 and 605 were featureless body sherds.

Forms identified from the sherds in ditch fill 508 included: two joining sherds

representing a necked bowl with a cordon; a jar with an angular profile and a short,

upright rim; an everted rim jar; and a jar with a straight or everted rim. Similar forms

have been recovered from the Middle to Late Iron Age phase at Henbury School,

Bristol (McSloy 2006, 29-32).

2.19 Ditch fills 810 and 812 (both from ditch 814) produced a total of five sherds of Late

Iron Age pottery in a limestone or calcitic tempered fabric. A rim sherd from ditch fill

812 was identified as part of a high shouldered jar with a bead rim.

Pottery: Roman

2.20 One sherd of Catalan amphora (CAT AM) was recovered from ditch fill 509 (ditch

505). These amphorae were produced near Barcelona and exported to Britain

around the time of the Roman conquest (Tomber and Dore 1998, 91).

2.21 Ditch fills 604 (ditch 603), 607 (ditch 606) and 708 (unexcavated ditch 707) each

produced one featureless body sherd of Samian ware (LEZ SA). These were all

manufactured in central Gaul and the vessels would have been exported to Britain

between c. AD 120 and 200 (Webster 1996, 3).


10


2.22 A total of five sherds of Black-burnished ware (DOR BB 1) were recovered from

ditch fill 604 (ditch 603), ditch fill 714 (ditch 713) and posthole fill 715 (posthole 716).

These included two joining sherds from an everted rim jar from posthole fill 715. The

rim sherd featured a lead repair. Black-burnished ware was produced near Poole in

Dorset: when found outside Dorset it typically dates to the second to fourth centuries

(Davies et al. 107, 1994).

2.23 One sherd of a variant of Severn Valley ware was recovered from topsoil layer 700.

Severn Valley ware is very commonly found in Gloucestershire and neighbouring

counties, and was produced throughout the Roman period (Webster 1976).

2.24 A total of 33 sherds of Roman pottery in a black firing, quartz sand tempered fabric

were recovered from topsoil layer 700, fill 708 (unexcavated ditch 707), ditch fill 714

(ditch 713), posthole fill 715 (posthole 716), stone spreads 803 and 804, and ditch

fills 810, 812 and 813 (all ditch from 814). The forms represented by these sherds

included a necked jar with a squared rim (from topsoil 700) and a jar with an upright

rim (from ditch fill 714). A spindlewhorl formed from a sherd of pottery in a black

sandy fabric was also recovered from fill 704 (unexcavated ditch 703). These items

cannot be dated any more precisely than to the Romano-British period.

Ceramic Building Material

2.25 Five fragments of post-medieval ceramic building material were recovered from

topsoil 700. These were all pieces of tile and included a fragment of a flanged roof

tile.

2.26 A large fragment of modern brick was recovered from made ground layer 101.

Metal objects

2.27 The majority of iron objects recovered were post-medieval or modern: a nail from

ditch fill 611 (ditch 610); a perforated disc or washer from the top of unexcavated fill

706 (ditch 705); and a sheet fragment and four nails recovered were unstratified. A

Roman shoe cleat was also recovered unstratified.

2.28 One fragment of lead waste was recovered unstratified.


11


Conclusions

2.29 The finds recovered during the evaluation demonstrate activity on the site beginning

in the Iron Age, continuing through the transitional period and into the second

century.

3. DISCUSSION

3.1 The evaluation has identified activity from the Late Iron Age/Early Roman period,

particularly in Trenches 5-8, and several undated features.

Late Iron Age/Early Roman

3.2 Anomalies interpreted by the recent geophysical survey as representing filled cut

features indicating possible settlement activity of archaeological origin were shown

to in all likelihood represent small ditched paddocks or enclosures in all likelihood

from a farmstead. No structural remains were encountered in the limited excavation

undertaken in Trenches 5-8.

3.3 The linear surfaces identified in Trenches 6 and 8 are indicative of metalled

trackways running to the west and south of the enclosures outlined above. Surface

809 was more substantial and, given the slight camber and ditches either side, could

be interpreted as a road.

3.4 The dating evidence recovered, albeit from limited excavation in Trenches 5-8,

suggests activity from the transition period from the Late Iron Age into the Early

Roman period.

Undated

3.5 The location and alignment of ditch 902 approximately corresponds to a former field

boundary displayed on a 1903-1905 Ordnance Survey Map (CgMs, Fig. 5). Little

further interpretation can be offered for the undated ditch 202.

4. CA PROJECT TEAM

Fieldwork was undertaken by Tim Havard, assisted by Noel Boothroyd, Eddie

Dougherty and Andy Loader. The report was written by Tim Havard. The illustrations

were prepared by Lorna Gray. The archive has been compiled by Lorna Gray, and

prepared for deposition by James Johnson. The project was managed for CA by

Richard Greatorex.


12


5. REFERENCES

BGS (British Geological Survey) 2013 Geology of Britain Viewer

http://maps.bgs.ac.uk/geology viewer_google/googleviewer.html Accessed 31 July

2013

CA (Cotswold Archaeology) 2013 Horseworld, Staunton Lane, Whitchurch, Bath and North-

East Somerset: Written Scheme of Investigation for an Archaeological Evaluation

CgMs (CgMs Consulting Ltd) 2013 Horseworld, Staunton Lane, Whitchurch, Bristol:

Archaeological Desk Based Assessment

Davies, B., Richardson, B. and Tomber, R. 1994. The archaeology of Roman London

Volume 5: A dated corpus of early Roman pottery from the City of London. CBA

Research Report 98. London. Museum of London and Council for British

Archaeology

Evans, D., Holbrook, N. and McSloy, E. R. A Later Iron Age Cemetery and Toman

Settlement at Henbury School, Bristol: Excavations in 2004. Bristol and

Gloucestershire Archaeological Report No. 4. Cirencester. Cotswold Archaeology

McSloy, E. R. 2006. ‘The Finds’. In Evans et al. 2006, 28-36.

Stratascan. 2013. Geophysical Survey Report. HorseWorld, Whitchurch, near Bristol. J3376

Tomber. R. and Dore. J. 1998. The National Roman Fabric Reference Collection: A

Handbook. MOLaS Monograph 2. London

Wainwright, Geoffrey J. 1970 ‘An Iron Age promontory fort at Budbury, Bradford-on-Avon,

Wiltshire’ Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine. 65, 108-166

Webster, P. 1996. Roman Samian Pottery in Britain. Practical Handbook in Archaeology 13.

York. Council for British Archaeology

http://maps.bgs.ac.uk/geology%20viewer_google/googleviewer.html


13


APPENDIX A: CONTEXT DESCRIPTIONS

Trench No.

Context No.

Type Fill of Context interpretation

Description L (m) W (m)

Depth/thickness (m)

Spot-date

1 100 Layer Topsoil dark brown sandy clay with frequent irregular limestone inclusions

>15 >1.8 0.17

1 101 Layer Dumped deposit mid grey brown clay with limestone >15 >1.8 0.28 P-Med/Mod

1 102 Layer Natural light brown sandy clay with frequent limestone

>15 >1.8 >0.1

2 200 Layer Topsoil As 100 >14 >1.8 0.18

2 201 Layer Natural light brown sandy clay with limestone brash

>14 >1.8 >0.1

2 202 Cut Ditch linear, gently sloped sides, concave base

>1.8 0.8 0.08

2 203 Fill 202 Single ditch fill dark red brown sandy clay >1.8 0.8 0.08

3 300 Layer Topsoil As 100 >15 >1.8 0.23

3 301 Layer Subsoil grey brown silty clay >15 >1.8 0.2

3 302 Layer Natural bands of plated limestone and coarse brown silty clay

>15 >1.8 >0.26

3 303 Fill 305 second fill of ditch

grey brown silty clay >1.8 1.2 0.16 RB

3 304 Fill 305 first fill of ditch grey brown silty clay >1.8 0.89 0.15

3 305 Cut Ditch linear, moderately sloped sides, flat base

>1.8 1.2 0.31

5 500 Layer Topsoil As 100 >30 >1.6 0.12

5 501 Layer Subsoil mid brown silty clay >30 >1.6 0.1

5 502 Layer Natural light brown sandy clay with limestone outcrops

>30 >1.6 >0.56

5 503 Cut Ditch linear, shallow sloped sides, slightly concave base

>2 0.44 0.09

5 504 Fill 503 Single ditch fill dark brown sandy clay with frequent irregular limestone inclusions

>2 0.44 0.09

5 505 Cut Ditch linear, irregular sloped sides, flat base

>1.7 1.48 0.56

5 506 Fill 505 fourth ditch fill mid brown silty clay with 20% irregular limestone inclusions

>1.7 1.48 0.12

5 507 Fill 505 first ditch fill light brown silty clay >1.7 >0.27

0.07

5 508 Fill 505 second ditch fill 60% limestone pieces, 40% mid grey brown silty clay

>1.7 >0.49

0.16 LIA/C1

5 509 Fill 505 third ditch fill 60% drak brown silty clay, 40% irregular limestone inclusions

>1.7 1.44 0.2 MC1-LC1

6 600 Layer Topsoil As 100 >30 >1.6 0.17


6 602 Layer Natural light brown sandy clay with frequent limestone gravel

>30 >1.6 >0.5

6 603 Cut Ditch linear, moderately sloped sides, concave base

>1.6 >1.6 0.58

6 604 Fill 603 second ditch fill dark brown slightly silty clay with frequent limestone gravel

>1.6 >1.6 0.3 C2

6 605 Layer surface/bank irregular limestone pieces in dark brown sandy clay matrix

>1.6 2.2 unexc IA

6 606 Cut Ditch linear, steep sides, concave base >1.6 0.45 0.23

6 607 Fill 606 Single ditch fill Irregular limestone inclusions in a grey brown silty clay matrix

>1.6 0.45 0.23 C2


14


Trench No.

Context No.



Depth/thickness (m)

Spot-date

6 608 Cut Ditch linear, unexcavated >1.8 0.65 unexc

6 609 Fill 608 Single ditch fill dark grey brown sandy clay >1.8 0.65 unexc

6 610 Cut Ditch linear, shallow irregular sides, uneven base

>1.6 1.2 0.26

6 611 Fill 610 Single ditch fill dark brown sandy clay with frequent irregular limestone inclusions

>1.6 1.2 0.26 P-med

6 612 Fill 603 first ditch fill mid grey clay with frequent limestone inclusions

>1.6 >1.5 0.22

6 613 Layer ploughed out 605

dark brown sandy clay with frequent limestone gravel

>1.6 1.7 0.1

7 700 Layer Topsoil As 100 >60 >1.6 0.15 P-Med


7 702 Layer Natural limestone bedrock with patches of brown clay

>60 >1.6 >0.8


7 704 Fill 703 unexcavated ditch fill

dark brown sandy clay with frequent irregular limestone inclusions

>1.7 2.6 unexc RB

7 705 Cut Ditch linear, unexcavated >1.7 2 unexc



>1.7 2 unexc Mod?




>1.7 0.4 unexc C2



dark grey brown silty clay >1.6 1.72 unexc

7 711 Cut Ditch linear, unexcavated >2 0.73 unexc


dark grey brown silty clay >2 0.73 unexc

7 713 Cut Ditch linear, steep irregular sides, flat base

>1.6 1.55 0.81

7 714 Fill 713 second ditch fill 60% mid brown grey silty clay, 40% irregular limestone pieces

>1.6 1.55 0.57 MC1-C2

7 715 Fill 716 single posthole fill

grey brown silty clay 0.79 0.6 0.13 RB

7 716 Cut posthole oval, steep concave sides, flat base 0.79 0.6 0.13

7 717 Fill 713 first ditch fill light brown grey sandy silt >1.6 0.59 0.3

8 800 Layer Topsoil As 100 >30 >1.6 0.25

8 801 Layer Subsoil mid yellow brown silty clay, intermittent

>30 >1.6 0.05

8 802 Layer Natural plated limestone bedrock and brash >30 >1.6 >0.6

8 803 Deposit

ploughed out 809

irregular limestone pieces in dark grey brown sandy clay matrix

>1.6 1.2 unexc RB

8 804 Deposit

ploughed out 809

irregular limestone pieces in dark grey brown sandy clay matrix

>1.6 0.84 unexc RB


mid grey brown silty clay >1.6 1.65 unexc


8 807 Fill 808 Unexcavated ditch fill

mid grey brown silty clay >1.6 >0.4 unexc


15


Trench No.

Context No.



Depth/thickness (m)

Spot-date

8 808 Cut Ditch linear, unexcavated

>1.6 >0.4 unexc

8 809 Deposit

trackway surface

flat limestone pieces in a silty clay matrix

>1.6 0.8 unexc RB

8 810 Fill 814 fourth ditch fill dark grey brown clay silt with rare limestone inclusions

>1.6 1.25 0.2 RB

8 811 Fill 814 third ditch fill mid grey brown clay silt >1.6 0.42 0.1 RB

8 812 Fill 814 second ditch fill dark grey brown sandy silt with 30% irregular limestone inclusions

>1.6 0.93 0.29 LIA/C1

8 813 Fill 814 first ditch fill mid brown sandy silt >1.6 0.74 0.16 RB

8 814 Cut Ditch linear, steep irregular sides, flat base

>1.6 1.25 0.64

9 900 Layer Topsoil As 100 >30 >1.6 0.17

9 901 Layer Natural mid brown sandy clay with limestone outcrops

>30 >1.6 >0.3

9 902 Cut Ditch linear, shallow irregular sides, uneven base

>1.7 0.87 0.13

9 903 Fill 902 first ditch fill dark brown sandy clay >1.7 0.87 0.08

9 904 Fill 902 second ditch fill mid brown sandy clay >1.7 0.7 0.05

10 1000 Layer Topsoil As 100 >20 >1.6 0.25

10 1001 Layer Subsoil mid yellow brown silty clay >20 >1.6 0.09

10 1002 Layer Natural mid yellow white limestone brash and bedrock

>20 >1.6 >0.1

11 1100 Layer Topsoil As 100 >30 >1.6 0.2

11 1101 Layer Natural mid yellow white limestone brash and bedrock

>30 >1.6 >0.1

12 1200 Layer Topsoil as 100 >30 >1.6 0.24

12 1201 Layer Natural as 1101 >30 >1.6 >0.1

13 1300 Layer Topsoil as 100 >30 >1.6 0.24

13 1301 Layer Natural as 1101 >30 >1.6 >0.1


16


APPENDIX B: THE FINDS

Context Description Count Weight(g) Spot-date

u/s Post-medieval pottery: mottled brown glazed ware 2 43 C17-C18 Post-medieval pottery: yellow slip ware 1 Clay pipe 15 35 Lead waste 1 12 Iron object: Roman shoe cleat 1 112 Iron object: sheet fragment 1 Iron object: nail 4 Iron object: unclassifiable 1

101 Post-medieval pottery: glazed earthenware 1 69 Post-medieval/ Post-medieval pottery: unglazed earthenware 4 Modern Modern CBM: brick 1 827

303 Roman pottery: grey ware 1 7 RB Animal bone 1 6

508 Late Iron Age pottery: limestone tempered fabric 34 300 LIA-C1

509 Iron age pottery: limestone tempered fabric 32 170 MC1-LC1 Roman pottery: Catalan amphora 1 Roman pottery: grey ware 7 Animal bone 9 36

604 Roman pottery: Samian ware 1 2 C2 Roman pottery: Black-burnished ware 2 18 Roman pottery: limestone (leached out) tempered fabric 3 Animal bone 15 81

605 Iron Age pottery: limestone tempered fabric 1 37 IA Iron Age pottery: quartz temper 7 Animal bone 3 41

607 Roman pottery: Samian ware 1 1 C2

611 Iron nail 1 15 Post-medieval Animal bone 6 10 Shell 2 4

700 Roman pottery: Severn Valley ware variant 1 71 Post-medieval Roman pottery: oxidised flagon fabric 2 Roman pottery: black sand tempered fabric 1 Roman pottery: reduced sand tempered fabric 1 Post-medieval pottery: glazed earthenware 1 32 Post-medieval CBM: tile 5 278

704 Ceramic spindle whorl: black sand tempered fabric 1 10 RB

706 Iron object: perforated disc/washer 1 6 Modern?

708 Roman pottery: Samian ware 1 5 C2 Roman pottery: black sand tempered fabric 1 4

714 Roman pottery: Black-burnished ware 1 25 MC1-C2 Roman pottery: black sand tempered fabric 6 Roman pottery: oxidised fabric 1 Roman pottery: buff sand tempered fabric 1 Fired clay 1 1 Animal bone 8 31

715 Roman pottery: Black-burnished ware 2 18 RB Roman pottery: black sand tempered fabric 1 Roman pottery: fine, grog tempered fabric 1 Fired clay 1 1 Animal bone 3 7

803 Roman pottery: black sand tempered fabric 1 22 RB Roman pottery: oxidised fabric 2

804 Roman pottery: black sand tempered fabric 3 3 RB

809 Roman pottery: oxidised fabric 3 11 RB Roman pottery: handmade quartz tempered fabric 3

810 Late Iron Age pottery: coarse handmade limestone/ calcitic tempered fabric

3 79 LIA-C1

Roman pottery: black sand tempered fabric 10 Roman pottery: grog tempered fabric 1 Animal bone 18 70 Burnt bone 2 3


17


Context Description Count Weight(g) Spot-date

811 Roman pottery: fine white ware 7 7 RB

812 Late Iron Age pottery: limestone/calcitic tempered fabric 2 28 LIA-C1 Roman pottery: black sand tempered 8 Animal bone 38 336 Burnt bone 5 4

813 Roman pottery: black sand tempered 2 23 RB


18


APPENDIX C: LEVELS OF PRINCIPAL DEPOSITS AND STRUCTURES

Levels are expressed as metres below current ground level and as metres Above Ordnance Datum (AOD), calculated using differential GPS. Only trenches containing features of archaeological significance are detailed below.

Trench 2 Trench 3 Trench 5 Trench 6 Trench 7 Trench 8 Trench 9

Current ground level 0.00m (93.69m)

0.00m (90.16m)

0.00m (87.44m)

0.00m (88.42m)

0.00m (87.87m)

0.00m (88.44m)

0.00m (88.59m)

Top of Roman surfaces _

_

_

0.20m (88.22m)

_ 0.24m (88.20m)

_

Top of Roman ditches _ 0.29m (89.87m)

0.27m (87.17m)

0.26m (88.16m)

0.15m (87.62m)

0.27m (88.17m)

_

Top of undated features 0.23m (93.46m)

_ 0.17m (87.27m)

0.50m (87.92m)

0.16m (87.72m)

_ 0.15m (88.44m)

Top of natural 0.23m (93.46m)

0.29m (89.87m)

0.24m (87.20m)

0.35m (88.07m)

0.22m (87.65m)

0.43m (88.01m)

0.15m (88.44m)

Limit of excavation 0.35 (93.34m)

0.67m (89.49m)

0.79m (86.65m)

0.90m (87.52m)

0.97m (86.90m)

1.01m (87.43m)

0.26m (88.33m)

Upper figures are depth below modern ground level; lower figures in parentheses are metres AOD.


19


APPENDIX D: OASIS REPORT FORM

PROJECT DETAILS

Project Name Horseworld, Staunton Lane, Whitchurch, Bath and North-East Somerset: Archaeoloigcal Evaluation

Short description

The evaluation identified ditches forming small paddocks or enclosures of a Late Iron Age/Early Roman probable farmstead. In addition two metalled trackways and a posthole of similar date were identified. Two undated ditches were also recorded.

Project dates 22-29 July 2013

Project type Archaeological Evaluation

Previous work Geophysics (Bartlett-Clark Consultancy) 2010

Future work Unknown

PROJECT LOCATION

Site Location Horseworld, Staunton Lane, Whitchurch, Bath and North-East Somerset

Study area (M2/ha) Evaluation area 5ha of total 72 ha site

Site co-ordinates (8 Fig Grid Reference) ST 62221 67532

PROJECT CREATORS

Name of organisation Cotswold Archaeology

Project Brief originator None

Project Design (WSI) originator Cotswold Archaeology

Project Manager Richard Greatorex

Project Supervisor Tim Havard

MONUMENT TYPE None

SIGNIFICANT FINDS None

PROJECT ARCHIVES Roman Baths and Pump Room Museum

BATRM 2013.22

Content

Physical Ceramics, animal bone etc

Paper Context sheets, trench recording sheets, permatrace drawings.

Digital Digital photos, survey data

BIBLIOGRAPHY

CA (Cotswold Archaeology) 2013 Horseworld, Whitchurch, Staunton Lane, Bath and North-East Somerset: Archaeological Evaluation. CA typescript report 13486

Bath and North EastSomerset

CotswoldArchaeology

Cirencester 01285 771022

Milton Keynes 01908 218320

Andover 01264 326549

w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk

e [email protected]

PROJECT TITLE

FIGURE TITLE

FIGURE NO.DATEREVISIONSCALE@A4

PROJECT NO.DRAWN BYAPPROVED BY

N

0 1km

Site location plan

Horseworld, Staunton Lane, WhitchurchBath and North East Somerset

01-08-2013001:25,000

4455LGPJM 1

Reproduced from the 2004 Ordnance Survey Explorer map with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of The Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Crown copyright Cotswold Archaeology Ltd 100002109

c

View of ditch 305, looking north (scale 1m) View of ditch 505, looking south-east (scales 1m and 0.4m)

NE SW87.3mAOD

506

509

508

507

ditch505

stone

W E90mAOD

SE NW93.5mAOD

203

ditch202

topsoil300

subsoil301

303

304

ditch305

CotswoldArchaeology

PROJECT TITLE

FIGURE TITLE



0 1m

Trenches 2, 3 and 5; sections and photographs


01-08-2013001:20

4455LGPJM 4



Andover 01264 326549


e [email protected]

Trench 2; section AA Trench 3; section BB Trench 5; section CC

View of ditch 603, looking north (scale 1m) View of stone surface 605 and ditch 603 unexcavated, looking north-west (scale 1m)

W E88.5mAOD

topsoil600

607604

612

604subsoil 601

subsoil 601

611

ditch603

drain606

ditch610

CotswoldArchaeology

PROJECT TITLE

FIGURE TITLE



0 1m

Trench 6; section and photographs


01-08-2013001:20

4455LGPJM 5



Andover 01264 326549


e [email protected]

Trench 6; section DD

View of ditch 713, looking north-west (scale 1m) View of posthole 716, looking north (scale 0.4m) View of ditch 814, looking south-east (scale 1m)

View of stone surface 809, looking south-east (scale 1m)

NE SW88.2mAOD

topsoil800

810

811

812

813ditch814

W E87.9mAOD

715

posthole716

S N87.9mAOD

topsoil700

subsoil 701

714

717ditch713

CotswoldArchaeology

PROJECT TITLE

FIGURE TITLE



0 1m

Trenches 7 and 8; sections and photographs


01-08-2013001:20

4455LGPJM 6



Andover 01264 326549


e [email protected]

Trench 7; section EE Trench 7; section FF

Trench 8; section GG

Horseworld Staunton Lane, Whitchurch Bath and North-East … · Horseworld, Staunton Lane,...

Documents

Transcript of Horseworld Staunton Lane, Whitchurch Bath and North-East … · Horseworld, Staunton Lane,...