Wilbees Solar Farm Arlington

East Sussex

Archaeological Evaluation

January 2015

for Hive Energy Ltd.

CA Project: 770170 CA Report: 15053

Wilbees Solar Farm

Arlington East Sussex

Archaeological Evaluation

CA Project: 770170 CA Report: 15053

prepared by Sam Wilson (Archaeologist)

date 18 December 2014 (Text only)

checked by Matt Nichol

date 28.01.15

approved by Richard Greatorex (Principal Fieldwork Manager)

signed

date 30.01.15

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 41 Burners Lane South Stanley House Kemble Enterprise Park Kiln Farm Walworth Road Kemble, Cirencester Milton Keynes Andover, Hampshire Gloucestershire, GL7 6BQ MK11 3HA SP10 5LH t. 01285 771022 t. 01908 564660 t. 01264 347630 f. 01285 771033

e. enquiries@cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk

3

CONTENTS

SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 4

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 5

The site .............................................................................................................. 6

Archaeological background ................................................................................ 8

Archaeological objectives ................................................................................... 11

Methodology ....................................................................................................... 11

2. RESULTS (FIGURE 2) ....................................................................................... 12

3. DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................... 14

4. CA PROJECT TEAM .......................................................................................... 14

5. REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 15

APPENDIX A: CONTEXT DESCRIPTIONS ................................................................... 16

APPENDIX B. FINDS ..................................................................................................... 17

APPENDIX C: OASIS REPORT FORM .......................................................................... 18

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure 1 Site location plan (1:25,000)

Figure 2 Trench location plan showing geophysical survey results

Figure 3 Detail of trench location plan showing geophysical survey results

Figure 4 West facing view of Trench 6

Figure 5 South east facing view of Trench 5/General south facing view of site and

Trench 3

Figure 6 General site view facing east

4

SUMMARY

Project Name: Wilbees Solar Farm

Location: Arlington, East Sussex

NGR: 554441 106648

Type: Trial Trench Evaluation

Date: 16-17 December 2014

Planning Reference: WD/2014/1838/MEA/FULL

Location of Archive: Cotswold Archaeology Andover Offices

Site Code: WILB14

An archaeological evaluation was undertaken by Cotswold Archaeology (CA) in December

2014 on the site of a proposed solar farm by Hive Energy Ltd on land at Wilbees Farm,

Arlington, East Sussex. Six trenches were excavated.

The trenches targeted a series of geophysical anomalies and the projected line of a known

Roman road; however no archaeological features were identified. Finds recovered from the

evaluation include ceramic building material, worked flint and an iron object. All were

recovered from topsoil and will be discarded. The ceramic building material recovered dated

to the medieval and post-medieval periods. Two fragments of burnt flint were recovered and

one small, Late Mesolithic/Early Neolithic blade, the tip of which was broken.

5

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 In December 2014 Cotswold Archaeology (CA) carried out an archaeological

evaluation for Hive Energy Limited at Wilbees Farm, Arlington, East Sussex (centred

on National Grid Reference (NGR): 554441 106648; Figure 1).

1.2 The evaluation was carried out in accordance with the methodology contained within

a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) produced by CA for the evaluation of the

proposed development area (CA 2014). The fieldwork also followed the Standard

and Guidance for archaeological field evaluation (IfA 2009), the Management of

Archaeological Projects 2 (English Heritage 1991), the Management of Research

Projects in the Historic Environment (MORPHE): Project Manager’s Guide (EH

2006) and Standards for archaeological fieldwork, recording, and post-excavation

work in East Sussex (Johnson 2008, ESCC).

1.3 The Site has been granted planning permission (WD/2014/1838/MEA/FULL) as a

location for a solar farm, subject to fulfilling the archaeological condition as set out

below:

a) No development shall commence until the developer has secured the

implementation of a programme of archaeological work (including archaeological

evaluation), in accordance with a Written Scheme of Archaeological Investigation

which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning

Authority.

b) The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the

archaeological site investigation and post investigation assessment (including

provision for analysis, publication and dissemination of results and archive

deposition) has been completed in accordance with the programme set out in the

Written Scheme of Investigation approved under Part a) of this condition, and

confirmed in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the County

Planning Authority. REASON: To ensure that the archaeological and historical

interest of the site is safeguarded and recorded, having regard to Spatial Objective

SPO2 and Policy WCS14 of the adopted Wealden Core Strategy Local Plan (2013),

and paragraphs 129, 131 and 132 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

6

1.4 In October 2013 Cotswold Archaeology was commissioned by the Pegasus Group,

acting on behalf of their client, to carry out a Heritage Desk-Based Assessment at

the Site. The objective of the assessment was to identify the nature and extent of the

heritage resource both within the Site and its immediate environs. The Assistant

County Archaeologist (ACA), archaeological advisor to Wealden District Council

(WDC) had initially advised that a heritage assessment would be required. He

subsequently identified that a geophysical survey and a trial trench evaluation would

also be needed in order to fully inform WDC as to the Site’s archaeological potential.

The geophysical report was undertaken and reported on in November 2013 (PCG

2013). The detailed gradiometry survey was conducted over approximately 15

hectares of grassland. The survey further defined a Roman road with flanking

ditches and associated settlement focussed in the western part of the development

footprint. The intention is that this area will be preserved in situ (to be confirmed by

design etc) with the solar array being supported on concrete shoe/bases. In the

eastern half of the development footprint the archaeological potential appeared to

reduce drastically but there were a number of anomalies which might be either

archaeological or natural in origin and it was the objective of the trial trenching to

test and assess these. The trenching also assessed whether the Roman road

continued/survives further to the east. The current works will inform the ACA

whether any further intrusive mitigation will be required. It is likely that some form of

further monitoring will be necessary during construction if only to assess/approve the

array installation where it is constructed supported on concrete shoes/bases.

The site 1.5 The 15ha site is located on farmland in the southern part of the Low Weald, a broad

low-lying clay vale which runs around three sides of the High Weald through Kent,

Sussex and Surrey. The Site is situated on a relatively level plateau of land

overlooked by low hills to the south and east, a part of the east side of the broad,

uneven valley of the River Cuckmere which is located approximately 320m west of

the Site. The highest part of the Site is located on the south side at approximately

25m aOD. The lowest part of the Site is at the north-west corner at approximately

15m aOD. The Low Weald has a wooded character with numerous copses, shaws

and remnants of woodland. The Site is bounded on its east side by woodland and an

extensive area of woodland, Abbots Wood, is located approximately 900m to the

north-east. The local landscape is well settled, characterized by dispersed

farmsteads and small villages several of which are in close vicinity to the site.

7

Water courses and ponds are abundant features of the landscape and a large

modern reservoir, Arlington Reservoir, lies approximately 550m to the north-west. To

the south the dominant feature of the wider landscape are the hills at the eastern

end of the South Downs which lie approximately 2.5km to the south.

1.6 The Site consists of two regular, roughly rectangular fields. The two western fields

are under arable cultivation, and the field to the east is currently used as pasture.

The site is surrounded by further fields of both pasture and arable that vary

considerably in size and shape. Most boundaries are heavily wooded. To the

immediate west is an area of small woodland and a pumping station associated with

Arlington Reservoir. Several farms and cottages are located within a few hundred

meters of the Site and the small village of Arlington, which dates to at least the

medieval period, is located approximately 550m to the north.

1.7 The Site’s boundaries are defined by mature trees and dense hedgerows with lanes

skirting the site to the south, west and east. Internal boundaries between fields are

also defined by mature trees. Views from the site are limited as, due to the low

topography, the site does not overlook any surrounding countryside nor is it

overlooked, and views are blocked by the substantial hedgerows. A view of the

South Downs is possible to the south of the Site.

Soils and geology

1.8 The solid geology within the Site comprises Mudstone of the Weald Clay Formation.

This sedimentary bedrock was formed approximately 121-132 million years ago in

the Cretaceous Period within a local environment dominated by swamps, estuaries

and deltas (BGS, 2014).

1.9 Superficial deposits at the Site vary. On the west side of the site deposits consist of

head deposits of clay, silt, sand and gravel. The deposits formed during the previous

2 million years by material accumulating through down slope movements such as hill

wash. At the north of the Site are river gravel terraces deposited by the River

Cuckmere. The river terrace gravels could potentially contain palaeo-environmental

remains however no such remains have been recorded and the potential for such

remains is considered to be very low.

8

Archaeological background Prehistoric (pre AD 43) and Romano-British (AD 43 – AD 410) 1.10 The Weald was historically a densely wooded area ‘se micla wuda’ or The Great

Wood called Silva-Anderida by the Romans (Bannister, 2010). The woodland

originated during the climatic warming at the end of the last ice age and the area has

continued to be partially wooded until the present day. There is some evidence of

low level settlement on the Weald from the late Bronze Age (Hamilton in Rudling

(ed.), 2003, 73) but significant inroads were not made until the early medieval period

(Gardiner in ibid, 154).

1.11 The Weald was the source of many important resources for prehistoric and Roman

period peoples. For example the woodland provided a source of game for early

hunter gatherers and the area has produced a wealth of Palaeolithic and Mesolithic

sites and stray finds (Holgate in ibid, 29). Within the Site’s immediate environs there

are several find spots of early prehistoric flint tools including the find of an undated

tool immediately adjacent to the Site. These finds suggest that prehistoric hunters

were active in the area, albeit sparsely distributed.

1.12 The Weald continued to provide a source of game throughout the Neolithic. This

importance is reflected in the archaeological record within the immediate Site

environs with several finds of Neolithic flint tools recorded. Settlement and

monumental sites from the Neolithic are known from the Cuckmere valley and South

Downs (Drewett in ibid, 44-5) but are located to the south of the Site environs. Aside

from occasional hunting camps Neolithic settlement or monumental remains are not

found in the Wealden areas and it is therefore not considered likely that any such

remains will be encountered on the Site.

Roman Road and Settlement

1.13 The Roman road crosses the western half of the Site from west to east. It originally

linked the settlement, port and Saxon shore fort at Pevensey to the wider road

network meeting in the Ouse valley near Lewes (Chuter, 2007, 10). The road’s route

through the Site was postulated by Margary in 1942 but the exact route was

confirmed through excavations between 2003 and 2008 (Chuter, 2007).

9

The excavations within the Site sectioned the road in three places providing a very

accurate alignment for the road across this area revealing a flint metaled surface

between 10cm and 30cm thick. (ibid, 11). The road is thought to date from the 1st-

2nd century AD.

1.14 The 2003-08 investigations recorded the remains of a part of a roadside settlement

focused on the crossing of the Cuckmere by the Roman road in the area directly

east of Polhills Farm. The actual crossing point and focus of settlement was heavily

disturbed by the construction of the Arlington Reservoir during the late 1960s. In

1966 buried remains of walls were recorded at the Site of the current location of the

reservoir pumping station however the results were never published. A visit by an

archaeologist to the pumping station during construction in the 1960s observed a

well and a number of flint walls which were subsequently destroyed (Chuter, 2007,

20).

1.15 Further Roman remains have been recorded within the wider Site environs. For

example community projects in 2008 and 2009 recorded the remains of a possible

Roman period mausoleum and cemetery site located beside the road approximately

380m south-east of the Site. This consisted of open area excavation which recorded

a substantial flint building foundation and a plough damaged cemetery containing at

least two urned cremations and three un-urned cremations. Various surface finds of

Roman period material have been made within the immediate environs of the Site.

Such finds reflect a generally high level of Roman period activity in the area. Finds

have mostly been made near the Cuckmere or in the vicinity of the Roman road

suggesting a focus on these communication routes in a landscape that would have

been still heavily wooded. Pottery scatters found near Raylands farm approximately

730m north of the Site suggest the presence of another possible Roman settlement

situated on the eastern slopes of the Cuckmere valley.

1.16 The 2003-08 investigations which comprised geophysical survey, field walking and

excavation, recorded the eastern end of the Roman settlement in the western part of

the proposed development site. The excavations recorded a series of ditches and

evidence for at least two roadside post built structures, and a possible flint structure.

10

Pottery analysis showed that the settlement had a potential life span from the early

1st century AD to the 4th century AD, was fairly wealthy and due to a proliferation of

imported wares was probably a key local trading site with continental imports coming

in possibly via the River Cuckmere (ibid, 39). The neighbouring Weald provided a

source of iron and clay which would also have been tradable commodities. Greg

Chuter describes a small market town set around the road and river which declined

during the 4th century AD possibly due to a shifting of the market in the area to

Pevensey (ibid, 44). The geophysical survey discovered a T-junction with a

previously unknown second Roman road, of similar dimensions to the first, leading

to the north, although only a short stretch appears to have survived. The results of

the geophysical survey indicated that Roman settlement is largely restricted within

the north-western part of the Site.

Early Medieval (AD 410 – 1066) and Medieval (1066 – 1539)

1.17 The early medieval period witnessed an increasing colonisation of the Weald

(Gardiner in Rudling, 2003, 154) however there are no recorded early medieval

features within the Site or its immediate environs. The Site is located within the

parish of Arlington. Arlington parish is recorded in Domesday Book (AD 1086) as

‘Allington’ a part of the borough or ‘rape’ of Lewes. The village of Arlington lies

approximately 550m north of the Site. The village has medieval origins and has

visibly shrunk, with a shift in settlement to higher ground to the east of the church.

Scheduled earthwork remains comprising a street pattern, house platforms and two

dry fishponds are located in a field to the immediate west of the parish church of St

Pancras. The church is a Grade I Listed building, a flint built structure with a Saxon

nave but mostly dating from the 12th century that allegedly replaced an earlier

wooden Anglo-Saxon church. The village and settlement earthworks are located

within an Archaeological Notification Area.

1.18 Colonisation of the Weald typically involved the assarting of small plots from

woodland or waste occurring most intensively during the 12th and 13th centuries

(Bannister, 2010, 26). This resulted in a settlement pattern of small dispersed

settlements generally occupying the higher, drier sandstone outcrops. The

settlement pattern within the immediate environs of the Site is no exception with

small irregular fields and scattered farmsteads with medieval origins including the

earthwork remains of two moated sites. Most of these sites are still the location of

present day farmsteads for example at Hayreed, Monkyn Pyn and Wilbees.

11

Others have disappeared entirely such as the manor house at Endlewick which was

once an important manorial centre (Chuter, 2007, 9). The area around Endlewick is

defined as an Archaeological Notification Area. Although there are no known

medieval archaeological remains within the Site, a concentration of medieval pottery

has been found (Chuter, 2013: Pers. comm.). This evidence suggests that there is a

low possibility of the presence of buried remains dating to the medieval period at the

site.

Archaeological objectives 1.19 The objectives of the evaluation were 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 Greg Chuter, the ACA

for ESCC and archaeological advisor to WDC, to identify and assess the particular

significance of any heritage asset, consider the impact of the proposed development

upon it, and to advise on measures 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).

1.20 In terms of specific objectives, the evaluation will seek to establish whether there is

evidence within the Site’s footprint of further Romano-British

settlement/infrastructure activity.

Methodology 1.21 The evaluation comprised 6no. x 30m x 2m trial trenches (TTs) targeted on

geophysical anomalies. Trenches were set out on OS National Grid (NGR) co-

ordinates using Leica GPS, and scanned for live services by trained Cotswold

Archaeology staff using CAT and Genny equipment in accordance with the Cotswold

Archaeology Safe System of Work for avoiding underground services. The final ‘as

dug’ trench plan was recorded with GPS. The trench locations are shown in Figure 2.

12

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

ditching 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 (2013).

1.23 The fieldwork was monitored by Greg Chuter during a site visit on 17 December

2014.

1.24 Deposits were assessed for their palaeo-environmental potential in accordance with

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

Samples from Archaeological Sites (2003). No such deposits were identified. All

artefacts recovered were processed in accordance with Technical Manual 3

Treatment of Finds Immediately after Excavation (1995).

1.25 The archive from the evaluation is currently held by CA at their offices in Andover.

The archive will be held there until suitable county museum storage is provided. A

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

onto the OASIS online database of archaeological projects in Britain.

2. RESULTS (FIGURE 2)

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

the recorded contexts are to be found in Appendix A. No archaeological features or

deposits were recorded in any of the Trenches. The alignment of Trench 3 was

modified to take account of a water trough and water pipe which formed an

obstruction to its original planned location.

2.2 A series of post medieval land drains were identified in Trench 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.

The need for a large number of land drains was made evident by the high level of

surface and ground water during excavation. Numerous parallel land drains were

identified by the geophysical survey (PCG 2013), although they were less evident in

the eastern field. It is therefore unsurprising that the trial trenches located a

significant number.

13

2.3 The geophysical anomalies targeted by the trenches were not evident as

archaeological features after machining and can subsequently be attributed to the

geological variation which was noted across the site. A number of small geological

deposits were investigated and confirmed as such.

2.4 The evaluation did not identify any further remains associated with the Roman road

or nearby Roman settlement.

2.5 Trench 2 was extended to the south at the request of Greg Chuter, to try and locate

the edge of the palaeochannel identified by the geophysics. Only a minor geological

anomaly was located.

Finds 2.6 Finds recovered from the evaluation include ceramic building material, worked flint

and an iron object. All were recovered from topsoil and not secure contexts and will

therefore be discarded.

Ceramic building material

2.7 A fragment of tile from topsoil 500, which is thick (32mm) and has one chamfered

edge, may be floor tile of medieval date. Its upper surface is heavily worn/damage

and no trace of glaze remains.

2.8 A total of 12 fragments of post-medieval ceramic building material were recorded in

three deposits, including several fragments identifiable as flat roof tile or brick (see

Appendix B).

Metal object

2.9 Topsoil 200 produced an iron nail of uncertain date.

Worked flint

2.10 A flint blade was recovered from topsoil 200, in addition to two fragments of burnt

flint from two deposits (weighing a total of 45g). The blade was made of good

quality, fine-grained flint and was broken at the tip. Although clearly a residual find,

this item is dateable to the Mesolithic or Early Neolithic periods.

14

3. DISCUSSION

3.1 None of the trial trenches identified any further remains associated with a

continuation of the Roman road or related settlement. It seems possible that in the

eastern part of the site targeted by the evaluation, the road became less substantial,

perhaps with more ephemeral road side ditches, all of which may have been

subsequently destroyed by ploughing. Had there still been any remnant of the road

in situ then, given the alignment between previously excavated stretches, it would

have certainly been identified in Trenches 1, 2 or 3.

3.2 Topsoil layers did not yield any evidence of large numbers of flint cobbles which

made up the identified road surface in the western field. This suggests that perhaps

the road was not so significantly metalled in the eastern portion of the site. The

geophysics identified an adjoining north-south road to the main east-west road in the

far west of the site. The flanking ditches of this portion of road appear to peter out a

short distance to the north, still within the western field. It is possible that a similar

petering-out occurred to the east-west road as it headed towards the eastern field.

Such an occurrence would explain the apparent lack of roadside ditches identified in

the trial trenches.

3.3 The geophysical anomalies targeted during the evaluation can now be understood to

be the result of geological variation across the site. The anomaly targeted by Trench 5 can be seen to broadly correspond with terracing still visible as a slight earthwork

on the ground.

3.4 The recovery of a Late Mesolithic/Early Neolithic flint blade from the topsoil is

indicative of the temporary, perhaps seasonal occupation of the area, by hunters

following the end of the Ice Age.

4. CA PROJECT TEAM

Fieldwork was undertaken by Sam Wilson, assisted by Tony Brown and Steve Bush.

The report was written by Sam Wilson. The illustrations were prepared by Leo

Heatley. The archive has been compiled by Sam Wilson, and prepared for

deposition by Andrew Donald. The project was managed for CA by Richard

Greatorex, Principal Fieldwork Manage, who also edited this report.

15

5. REFERENCES

Bannister, N. 2010 Sussex Historic Landscape Characterisation. West and East Sussex

County Councils

BGS (British Geological Survey) 2013 Geology of Britain Viewer

http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html Accessed 18 December 2014

CA (Cotswold Archaeology) 2013 Land at Wilbees Farm, Arlington, East Sussex: ES

Cultural Heritage Chapter

CA (Cotswold Archaeology) 2014 Wilbees Solar Farm, Arlington, East Sussex: Written

Scheme of Investigation for an Archaeological Evaluation

Chuter, G. 2007, A Roman Roadside Settlement at Arlington, East Sussex and its Wider

Landscape. Unpublished

Department for Communities and Local Government. 2012 The National Planning

Policy Framework.

PCG (Pre-Construct Geophysics) 2013 Archaeological Geophysical Survey, Land at Wilbees

Farm, Arlington, East Sussex

Rudling, D. (Ed) The Archaeology of Sussex to AD2000. Heritage Marketing and

Publications

16

APPENDIX A: CONTEXT DESCRIPTIONS

Trench

No. Context

No. Type Context

interpretation Description L (m) W (m) Depth/

thickness (m)

1 100 Layer Topsoil Dark greyish brown loamy clay >29.7 >1.85 0-0.25 1 101 Layer Natural Light yellowish brown mottled clay

with manganese patches >29.7 >1.85 0.25+

2 200 Layer Topsoil Dark greyish brown loamy clay >41.5 >1.85 0-0.25 2 201 Layer Natural Light yellowish brown mottled clay

with manganese patches >41.5 >1.85 0.25+

2 202 Deposit Natural Grey red silty clay with occasional sub angular flint

>1.85 1.3 0.2

3 300 Layer Topsoil Dark greyish brown loamy clay >25.8 >1.85 0-0.23 3 301 Layer Natural Light yellowish brown clay with

occasional greenish grey mottling >25.8 >1.85 0.23+

4 400 Layer Topsoil Dark greyish brown loamy clay >30.3 >1.85 0-0.2 4 401 Layer Natural Dark greenish brown clay with

yellow mottling >30.3 >1.85 0.2+

4 402 Deposit Natural Dark greenish brown clay patches within 401 with yellow mottling and abundant manganese

4 403 Deposit Natural Light greyish yellow clay patches within 401

5 500 Layer Topsoil Mid greyish brown loamy clay >30.5 >2 0-0.41 5 501 Layer Natural Light yellowish grey clay >30.5 >2 0.41+ 6 600 Layer Topsoil Mid greyish brown loamy clay >30.9 >1.9 0-0.26 6 601 Layer Natural Light yellowish grey clay >30.9 >1.9 0.36+ 6 602 Deposit Natural Mid greyish yellow silty clay >30.9 >1.9 0.26-0.36

17

APPENDIX B. FINDS

Project 770170: Finds by Jacky Sommerville

Finds recovered from evaluation include ceramic building material, worked flint and an iron

object. All were recovered from topsoil and will be discarded.

Ceramic building material

A fragment of tile from topsoil 500, which is thick (32mm) and has one chamfered edge, may

be floor tile of medieval date. Its upper surface is heavily worn/damage and no trace of glaze

remains.

A total of 12 fragments of post-medieval ceramic building material were recorded in three

deposits, including several fragments identifiable as flat roof tile or brick (see Appendix B).

Metal object

Topsoil 200 produced an iron nail of uncertain date.

Worked flint

A flint blade was recovered from topsoil 200, in addition to two fragments of burnt flint from

two deposits (weighing a total of 45g). The blade was made of good quality, fine-grained flint

and was broken at the tip. Although clearly a residual find, this item is dateable to the

Mesolithic or Early Neolithic periods.

Table 1: Finds concordance Context Description Count Weight(g) Spot-date 200 Post-medieval ceramic building material: flat roof tile 5 74 Post-medieval Iron nail 1 5 Worked flint: blade 1 2 Burnt flint 1 15 400 Post-medieval ceramic building material: flat roof tile, brick 2 149 Post-medieval 500 Medieval? ceramic building material: floor tile 1 99 Post-medieval Post-medieval ceramic building material: flat roof tile 5 142 600 Burnt flint 1 30 -

18

APPENDIX C: OASIS REPORT FORM

PROJECT DETAILS Project Name Wilbees Solar Farm, Arlington, East Sussex

Short description

An archaeological evaluation was undertaken by Cotswold Archaeology (CA) in December 2014 on the site of a proposed solar farm by Hive Energy Ltd on land at Wilbees Farm, Arlington, East Sussex. Six trenches were excavated. No archaeological features were identified.

Project dates 16-17 December 2014 Project type Evaluation Previous work Geophysical Survey (PCG 2013), ES Cultural Heritage Chapter (CA 2013) Future work Unknown

PROJECT LOCATION Site Location Wilbees Farm, Arlington, East Sussex Study area (M2/ha) 15ha Site co-ordinates 554441 106648 PROJECT CREATORS Name of organisation Cotswold Archaeology Project Design (WSI) originator Cotswold Archaeology Project Manager Richard Greatorex Project Supervisor Sam Wilson MONUMENT TYPE None SIGNIFICANT FINDS None PROJECT ARCHIVES Intended final location of archive

(museum/Accession no.) Content

Physical N/A N/A Paper Trench recording forms, site

drawings (A4), photographic registers

Digital Digital photos, survey data, report BIBLIOGRAPHY

CA (Cotswold Archaeology) 2014 Wilbees Solar Farm, Arlington, East Sussex: Archaeological Evaluation. CA typescript report

East Sussex

CotswoldArchaeology

N

PROJECT TITLE

FIGURE TITLE

FIGURE NO.DATEREVISIONSCALE@A4

PROJECT NO.DRAWN BYAPPROVED BY

0 1km

Reproduced from the 2014 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

22/12/2014001:25,000 1

Wilbees Farm, Arlington, East Sussex

Site location plan

Cirencester 01285 771022

Milton Keynes 01908 564660

Andover 01264 347630

w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk

e enquiries@cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk

770170LJHJB

CotswoldArchaeology

Cirencester 01285 771022

Milton Keynes 01908 564660

Andover 01264 347630

w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk

e enquiries@cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk

PROJECT TITLE

FIGURE TITLE

FIGURE NO.DATEREVISIONSCALE@A4

PROJECT NO.DRAWN BYAPPROVED BY

4

04/02/201501N/A

770170LJHJB 4

Wilbees Farm, Arlington, East Sussex

Photograph

4 West facing view of Trench 6 (scale 1m x 2)

CotswoldArchaeology

PROJECT TITLE

FIGURE TITLE

FIGURE NOsDATEREVISIONSCALE@A4

PROJECT NO.DRAWN BYAPPROVED BY

6

5

04/02/201501N/A 5 & 6

Wilbees Farm, Arlington, East Sussex

Photographs

5 South east facing view of Trench 5 (1m scale x 2)

6 General south facing view of site and Trench 3

Cirencester 01285 771022

Milton Keynes 01908 564660

Andover 01264 347630

w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk

e enquiries@cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk

770170LJHJB

CotswoldArchaeology

PROJECT TITLE

FIGURE TITLE

FIGURE NO.DATEREVISIONSCALE@A4

PROJECT NO.DRAWN BYAPPROVED BY

7

04/02/201501N/A 7

Wilbees Farm, Arlington, East Sussex

Photograph

7 General site view facing east

Cirencester 01285 771022

Milton Keynes 01908 564660

Andover 01264 347630

w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk

e enquiries@cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk

770170LJHJB