Wessex Archaeology

Dowd's Farm Hedge End, Hampshire
Archaeological Post-excavation Assessment Report

Ref: 62352.01

DOWD’S FARM, HEDGE END, HAMPSHIRE Archaeological Post-excavation Assessment Report
Prepared on behalf of Bovis Homes Limited (South East Region) South East Region The Manor House North Ash Road New Ash Green Longfield Kent DA3 8HQ and

George Wimpey Taylor Wimpey West London Stratfield House, Station Road, Hook, Hampshire, RG27 9PQ

by Wessex Archaeology Portway House Old Sarum Park Salisbury Wiltshire SP4 6EB

Report Reference: 62352.01 July 2008

© Copyright Wessex Archaeology Limited 2008 Wessex Archaeology Limited is a Registered Charity No. 28778

DOWD’S FARM, HEDGE END, HAMPSHIRE Archaeological Post-excavation Assessment Report
Contents Summary……………………………………………………………...………………iv Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………..…….vi TABLE 18: TASK LIST AND RESOURCES (INCLUDING MEDIEVAL IRON BOWL RECOVERED DURING EVALUATION OF URBAN PARK).............. III 1 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................1 1.1 Introduction..................................................................................................1 1.2 The Site: location, topology, land-use and geology.....................................2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND .........................................................2 2.1 Desk-based assessment ................................................................................2 2.2 Evaluation ....................................................................................................3 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES.................................................................................3 3.1 Archaeological mitigation: general..............................................................3 3.2 Site specific aims .........................................................................................3 METHODOLOGY ..............................................................................................4 4.1 Introduction..................................................................................................4 RESULTS.............................................................................................................4 5.1 Presentation of the results ............................................................................4 5.2 Excavation Area A .......................................................................................4 5.3 Excavation Area B .......................................................................................9 5.4 Excavation Area C .....................................................................................10 5.5 Excavation Area E and Paddock/Area S....................................................15 5.6 Excavation Area G (Parcels D and G1/2/3) ...............................................18 5.7 Urban Park Area.........................................................................................21 FINDS .................................................................................................................23 6.1 Introduction................................................................................................23 6.2 Pottery ........................................................................................................24 6.3 Ceramic building material..........................................................................27 6.4 Fired clay....................................................................................................27 6.5 Stone ..........................................................................................................27 6.6 Worked flint ...............................................................................................28 6.7 Burnt flint...................................................................................................29 6.8 Slag ............................................................................................................29 6.9 Metalwork ..................................................................................................29 6.10 Animal bone...............................................................................................29 6.11 Other finds..................................................................................................30 PALAEO-ENVIRONMANTAL ASSESSMENT ...........................................31 7.1 Introduction and environmental samples taken .........................................31 7.2 Assessment results: methods and data .......................................................31 7.3 Charred plant remains ................................................................................32

2

3

4 5

6

7

i

7.4 7.5 7.6 8 9

Wood charcoal ...........................................................................................33 Pollen .........................................................................................................34 Sediments ...................................................................................................38

DISCUSSION.....................................................................................................42 8.1 Overview of findings .................................................................................42 STATEMENT OF POTENTIAL.....................................................................44 9.2 Finds potential............................................................................................44 9.3 Palaeo-environmental potential..................................................................44 PROPOSALS FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS AND PUBLICATION ...........46 10.1 Aims and objectives ...................................................................................46 10.2 Proposals for further work .........................................................................47 10.3 Report structure..........................................................................................49 PROVISIONAL TASK LIST, RESOURCES AND PROGRAMME ..........50 11.1 Task List.....................................................................................................50

10

11

TABLE 18: TASK LIST AND RESOURCES (INCLUDING MEDIEVAL IRON BOWL RECOVERED DURING EVALUATION OF URBAN PARK)...............50 11.2 Personnel....................................................................................................51 11.3 Wessex Archaeology quality standards .....................................................51 12 STORAGE AND CURATION .........................................................................51 12.1 Museum......................................................................................................51 12.2 Conservation ..............................................................................................52 12.3 Storage .......................................................................................................52 12.4 Discard policy ............................................................................................52 12.5 Archive.......................................................................................................52 12.6 Copyright ...................................................................................................52 12.7 Security copy..............................................................................................52

REFERENCES............................................................................................................53 APPENDIX 1: PALAEO-ENVIRONMENTAL TABLES .....................................56 List of Figures Figure 1: Site location and construction plots Figure 2: Area location showing phased archaeological features Figure 3: Area A Figure 4: Area B Figure 5: Area C Figure 6: Area C Figure 7: Areas E, and paddock/Area S Figure 8: Area G Figure 9: Urban Park Area

ii

List of Plates: Front Cover: Excavating hearth 12102 Area A Back Cover: Recording Area A Plate 1: Area A, view from the south Plate 2: Four-post structure 10081 Plate 3: Hearth 12102 Plate 4: Pit 10121, view from north Plate 5: Excavation of Pit 14236, view from east Plate 6: Northeast facing section 14301, Enclosure 14137 Plate 7: Excavation of terminus 13507, Enclosure 13593 Plate 8: Pit 14155, view from south Plate 9: Terminus 10063, view from southwest Plate 10: Southeast facing section, Storage Pit 13679 Plate 11: The Paddock/Area S Plate 12: Northwest facing section, Pit 13876 Plate 13: Pit 12699 Plate 14: Southwest facing section 10374, Ditch 10489

List of Tables in Appendix: Table 1: Finds totals by material type Table 2: Pottery totals by ware type Table 3: Breakdown of flint assemblage by type Table 4: Animal bone condition and potential Table 5: Summary of palaeoenvironmental samples Table 6: Assessment of the charred plant remains and charcoal Table 7: List of pollen samples selected for assessment Table 8: Sediment descriptions and sub-samples monolith 24 Table 9: Sediment descriptions and sub-samples monolith 41 Table 10: Sediment descriptions and sub-samples monolith 87 Table 11: Sediment descriptions and sub-samples monolith 143 Table 12: Sediment descriptions and sub-samples monolith 162 Table 13: Sediment descriptions and sub- samples monoliths 170 and 171 Table 14: Sediment descriptions and sub-samples monolith 187 Table 15: Sediment descriptions and sub-samples monolith 201 Table 16: Sediment descriptions and sub- samples monolith 213 Table 17: List of proposed radiocarbon samples Table 18: Task list and resources (Including medieval iron bowl recovered during evaluation of Urban Park). Table 19: Archive List

iii

DOWD’S FARM, HEDGE END, HAMPSHIRE Archaeological Post-excavation Assessment Report
Summary Wessex Archaeology (WA) was commissioned by Bovis Homes Limited and George Wimpey Taylor Wimpey to undertake a programme of archaeological mitigation on land proposed as for mixed residential and community development at Dowd’s Farm, Hedge End, Hampshire, centred on National Grid reference (NGR) 448960 114691. Previous archaeological evaluation undertaken in late February and March 2006 had identified significant prehistoric, Romano-British and medieval/post-medieval remains within the 25ha Site. In consultation with Hampshire County Council, an agreed programme of archaeological Strip, Map and Record was undertaken between April 2006 and June 2007 on seven main areas (Area A, Area B, Area C, Area E, Area G, Paddock/Area S and the Urban Park). The fieldwork produced extensive evidence of significant and multi-period activity within the Site. The main elements of the activity comprised: Residual Neolithic and Bronze Age worked flint assemblages and Bronze Age features, largely focused in areas along the western fringes of the Site (A and Area B). Finds included an Early Neolithic polished axe (Urban Park Area) Widespread evidence for Late Iron Age/early Romano-British activity, including small-scale industrial activity (Area A) and two large ditched enclosures (Area C), together with a network of drainage, boundary and droveway ditches Early medieval settlement activity focused on an area to the north of the existing farmhouse, together with an extensive pattern of field and land drainage systems throughout the Site, which continued into the post-medieval and modern periods. The Site at Dowd’s Farm comprises a remarkable sequence of surviving landscape and occupational features spanning a significantly long period. Much of the Site has suffered to some degree from previous ploughing, such as the interior of the two Late Iron Age/early Romano-British ditched enclosures. However, isolated pockets of wellpreserved features and finds have identified activity and settlement areas within the northern part of the Site, dating from the early prehistoric period. Of particular significance is the system of field boundaries and other landscape features throughout the Site, which show a significant degree of continuity, though to the modern period. This is evident in the medieval/post-medieval reuse/recutting of the larger Late Iron Age/early Romano-British field boundaries in Areas A, E and the Urban Park Area and the general orientation of the later medieval and post-medieval pens, field and drainage systems, which closely mirror those of earlier periods. These features have provided a range of environmental material, which will enable the reconstruction of the differing environmental landscapes, which have existed throughout the long use of the iv

Site. The results of the excavations at Dowd’s Farm are significant, given the relative scarcity of known archaeological sites within the wider Eastleigh District of Hampshire and will make an important contribution to our historical understanding, both locally and regionally.

v

DOWD’S FARM, HEDGE END, HAMPSHIRE Archaeological Post-excavation Assessment Report
Acknowledgements Wessex Archaeology was commissioned by Bovis Homes Limited (South East Region) and George Wimpey Taylor Wimpey West London. Wessex Archaeology would like to thank Graeme Humphrey, Nik Sharpe and, in particular, Robin Gray (Bovis Homes Limited) and Nigel Phillips (George Wimpey Taylor Wimpey West London) for their help and support during the fieldwork programme. Wessex Archaeology would also like to gratefully acknowledge the help and advice of Stephen Appleby (Senior Archaeologist-Hampshire County Council), who monitored the fieldwork. Andrew Manning managed the project on behalf of Wessex Archaeology. The excavation was directed by Susan Clelland, with the assistance of Rebecca Fitzpatrick, Laura Cassie, Neil Fitzpatrick, Andrew Armstrong, Andrew Baines, Steve Beech, Elina Brook, Laura Catlin, Hayley Clarke, Patrice De Rijk, Steve George, Oliver Good, Gareth Griffiths, Naomi Hall, Barry Hennessy, Brian Hession, Cheralynne Hyde, Jon Martin, Angela McCall, Susan Nelson, Lucy Oglesbee, Piotr Orczewski, Lucy Parker, David Parry, Derek Pitman, Simon Reames, Sian Reynolds, Andrew Sole, Ben Stuckey, Daniel Tarrant, Elaine Simpson, Jon Smith, Mark Stewart, Megan Stoakley, Vasilis Tsamis and Gemma White. This report was prepared by Susan Clelland and Andrew Manning with contributions from Lorraine Mepham (finds), Dr Cathie Barnett and Dr Chris Stevens (environmental). The report illustrations were prepared by Linda Coleman and Karen Nichols. The samples were processed under the supervision of Sarah F Wyles and the charred plant remains were assessed by Dr Chris Stevens. The wood/charcoal assessment was carried out by Dr Catherine Barnett. Geoarchaeology, soils and sediments were assessed by David Norcott and pollen and diatom assessment was carried out by Dr. R. J. Scaife.

vi

DOWD’S FARM, HEDGE END, HAMPSHIRE Archaeological Post-excavation Assessment Report
1 1.1 1.1.1 INTRODUCTION Introduction Wessex Archaeology (WA) was commissioned by Bovis Homes Limited and George Wimpey Taylor Wimpey West London to undertake a programme of archaeological mitigation on a 25ha parcel of land at Dowd’s Farm, Hedge End, Hampshire, centred on NGR 448960 114691 and hereafter referred to as ‘the Site’ (Figure 1). The proposed development comprises residential housing, a school and a community centre (based in the existing Dowd’s Farmhouse) and the establishment of an urban park within the northern section of the Site. An archaeological desk-based assessment of the Site (WA 2004) had previously highlighted the presence of significant archaeological monuments (Bronze Age barrows and an Iron Age hillfort) close to the Site. The assessment concluded that there was a moderate potential for the presence of significant archaeological remains within the Site (WA 2004). In early 2006, approximately 13ha of the Site was subject to an archaeological evaluation. The remaining 12ha of the Site includes an urban park and existing woodland parcels, where there was no proposed impact from the development (Figure 1). The evaluation identified an extensive multi-period system of field and boundary/drainage ditches across the Site and several foci of concentrated prehistoric, Romano-British and medieval activity (WA 2006a). A Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) was prepared (WA 2006b), detailing the strategy and methodology for a programme of archaeological mitigation to be undertaken on those elements of the development scheme identified as having a potential archaeological impact. The WSI was submitted to, and approved by, Hampshire County Council in advance of the commencement of fieldwork. The fieldwork was undertaken from April 2006 to June 2007. This report is an assessment of mitigation results and proposals for further postexcavation analysis and publication. During the final preparation of this assessment report, small scale archaeological trial trenching (nine trenches, each 20m by 1.6m) was undertaken within the southern and eastern sections of the Urban Park to assess the impact of proposed tree-planting areas. A short summery of the results is included within this report and the location and results of this work will be included in the final publication.

1.1.2

1.1.3

1.1.4

1.1.5

1.1.6 1.1.7

1

1.2 1.2.1

The Site: location, topology, land-use and geology The Site comprises an irregular block of land north of the modern town of Hedge End in the borough of Eastleigh. It is bounded to the north, east and south by recent housing developments and to the west by the B3342 (Tollbar Way) (Figure 1). At the time of the fieldwork, Dowd’s Farm was unoccupied with the land mainly under pasture. The land lies at a height of approximately 30m above Ordnance Datum (aOD) at Dowd’s Farmhouse, gently rising to between 34m and 36m aOD at high points within the northern and southern areas of the Site, respectively. The underlying solid geology of the area comprises Eocene Bracklesham Beds, Bagshot Sands and London Clay locally overlain with clay-with-flints (Geological Survey of Great Britain 1973). ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND Desk-based assessment The desk-based assessment considered recorded evidence both for the Site and for a Study Area extending up to 1.5km from the Site boundary. No evidence for archaeological remains was found within the Site. Prehistoric activity was recorded 1-2km to the west and south-west of the Site, including two prehistoric Scheduled Monuments – Moorgreen Bronze Age round barrow and Hickley Wood Iron Age hillfort. A Neolithic flint end-scraper was known from the same general area, as are presumed additional round barrow sites, some of which are close to the Moorgreen barrow. No evidence dating from the Romano-British or Saxon periods was identified within either the Site or the Study Area. However, the Study Area had a number of place-names, which are known to be of medieval origin, although no physical remains of this date have been recorded. The place-name ‘Hedge End’ was first recorded on maps in 1759 as ‘Cutt Hedge End’ and in 1826 as ‘Hedge Ends’. The earlier reference is thought to refer to ‘a hedge trained, or laid, as a boundary’ (Coates 1989). The site of Botley Grange was shown on maps dating to 1759 as being located approximately 1.5km to the southeast of the Site. From 1791 onwards, Botley Grange appears to have been associated with an extensive area of woodland. Dowd’s Farm was first noted on the 1845 South Stoneham tithe map. To the south of the farmhouse, Little Bury Wood Farm (written as Berrywood on later maps) also lay within the Site, its buildings still visible in 1909/10 but appear to have been demolished by 1940. With the exception of the loss of Little Berrywood Farm, the landscape and features within the Site appear to remain largely unchanged from the late 19th century through to the present day.

1.2.2

1.2.3

2 2.1 2.1.1

2.1.2

2.1.3

2

2.2 2.2.1

Evaluation The evaluation, undertaken in late February and March 2006, identified significant archaeological remains and finds within 55 of the 88 excavated trial trenches, dating from the Neolithic/Bronze Age, Late Iron Age, early RomanoBritish and the medieval/post-medieval periods (WA 2006). The earliest activity was represented by small quantities of Neolithic/Bronze Age worked flint and pottery found in later features. While some elements of the extensive ditched field systems recorded across the Site may be prehistoric in date, significant concentrations of Iron Age and early Romano-British ditches, pits and postholes, indicating occupation and land division, were identified in three areas within the southern and western parts of the Site (Figure 1): The north-west and western edge of the Site (Parcels A1/A2, B1a, B1c, The School Site and the Urban Park); The eastern edge of the Site (Parcel G2), and The southeastern area of the Site (Parcels C1, C2 and F).

2.2.2

2.2.3

Evidence for medieval occupation was found within The Paddock to the north of Dowd’s Farmhouse, where a concentration of pits, postholes and ditches was recorded. Evidence for an extensive field system covering most of the evaluation area was also found, and although many of its elements were undated, it is likely that much of it dates to the medieval and post-medieval periods. The evaluation concluded that, given the limited number of recorded sites in the vicinity of the Site, the evidence from the Site of later prehistoric/early Romano-British settlement and landscape division was likely to be of regional importance. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES Archaeological mitigation: general The principal aim of the archaeological programme was to mitigate the threat posed by the proposed development by recording and sampling all archaeological remains within the specified areas and thereby ensuring preservation by record of the archaeological resource. Site specific aims To determine the date, function and character of the archaeological features recorded during the archaeological mitigation. To determine the date, extent, nature and duration of habitation of the Site.

2.2.4

3 3.1 3.1.1

3.2

3

To characterise any evidence for Bronze Age occupation of the Site that could provide a context for the nearby burial monuments. To place the Iron Age and early Romano-British occupation evidence within its wider context. To ascertain whether specific agricultural activities can be determined from the excavated evidence, specifically in relation to potential medieval precursor of Dowd’s Farm. 4 4.1 4.1.1 4.1.2 METHODOLOGY Introduction In consultation with Hampshire County Council, areas requiring archaeological mitigation were defined (Figure 1). The methodology for all mitigation works (Strip, Map and Record on the main defined areas of archaeological potential and watching brief on minor works) was set out in detail in the Written Scheme of Investigation (Wessex Archaeology 2006b). RESULTS Presentation of the results The results of the fieldwork are presented below by excavation area (Figure 2). Each area comprises one or more land parcels (Figure 1). The findings for each area are described by main chronological period, accompanied by a phase plan and concluding with an area summary. Excavation Area A This area, in the north-west of the Site, comprised a 1.25ha sub-triangular area with a narrow 0.3ha sub-rectangular extension projecting eastwards from the northeast corner to include a 6.7m wide haul road (Figure 3). The area comprised a shallow, northwest-southeast running dry valley, the base of which lies within the centre of the excavation. The sides of the dry valley slope dropped notably from the northern edge of the area (from 33.7m aOD to 32.4m aOD in the centre), rising again towards the southern section of the area (35.7m aOD). The soil sequence consisted of a 0.15-0.3m thick layer of dark grey brown sandy loam forming a colluvial brown earth topsoil. Apart from at the south where it overlay solid geology, the topsoil overlay a 0.1-0.2m thick layer of mid yellow brown sandy loam colluvial. In the base of the valley, archaeological features were sealed by a heavily weathered green sand, between 0.1 and 0.3m thick. 4

5 5.1 5.1.1

5.2 5.2.1

5.2.2

5.2.3

5.2.4

During the evaluation, prehistoric and Late Iron Age/early Romano-British activity was noted in this part of the Site with recorded features comprising boundary and field ditches, a posthole, a hearth and several small irregular possible pits, together with residual Neolithic/Bronze flint debitage. Neolithic to Late Bronze Age (4000-700 BC)

5.2.5

No features of Neolithic date were recorded, however residual Neolithic/Bronze Age flint material was recovered from later features. Late Iron Age/early Romano-British (100BC –AD 1st century)

5.2.6

This period is represented by a series of drove-way/boundary ditches associated with the wider organisation of the landscape. Although a large number of isolated pits, postholes, a possible small structure and hearths were recorded throughout the area, of particular interest is a concentration of features in the base of a dry valley, centred round a hearth located towards the valley bottom. Boundary ditches 12224, 12227, 12229, 11528, 11581 and 11644 and fenceline The Area A is crossed by a series of boundary ditches, which clearly relate to the topography of the area. Two large ditches 12224 and 12227 run along the upper slopes of the dry valley, with a series of smaller eroded ditches 12229, 11528, 11581 and 11644 running at right-angles to the line of the dry valley. Ditch 12224 running along the southern edge of the dry valley was 1.7-2.3m wide and up to 0.8m deep with moderate stepped sides. A notable quantity of pottery and fired clay fragments was recovered from secondary ditch fills. On the edge of the northern slopes, curvilinear ditch 12227 ran approximately 20m south from the northern limit of the area before turning to the southeast and extending beyond the eastern limits of the area into Area S. At the north end, the ditch was truncated by two sub-circular postholes (11562 and 11565). Late Iron Age/early Romano-British pottery was recovered from secondary, colluvially-derived material. A sherd of Saxon gritware recovered from the ditch is likely to be intrusive. Ditch 12229 comprised a poorly defined, east/ west aligned ditch located at the west of the area. It had a rounded eastern terminal, but the western end was indiscernible through truncation. The ditch was 0.9-1.1m wide and 0.1-0.4m deep with moderate concave sides. Down the northern slope of the dry valley were three fragmentary narrow ditches (11528, 11581 and 11644). These shallow ditches were between 1.2 – 1.4m in width and less than0.30m in depth and contained fired clay, burnt flint and a sherd of carinated pottery, which may be derived from upslope activity located beyond the limit of excavation. A north-west/south-east line of postholes, probably forming a short section of fence-line, was recorded to the northeast of a large concentration of features (Central Activity Area- see below). The postholes measured between 0.5 - 1.0m

5.2.7

5.2.8

5.2.9

5.2.10

5.2.11

5.2.12

5

wide and 0.1-0.2m in depth. A possible continuation of the same fence-line was investigated adjacent to ring ditch 12018/12000, although the features here appeared to be of natural origin. 5.2.13 Ring gully (12018, 12000 and 10998) Located at the east edge of Area A, a possible segmented/truncated ring gully 12000/12018 with a posthole 10998 may represent a small truncated structure. Measuring at least 4.5m in internal diameter, the remains may represent an animal pen. Discrete features Spread throughout the Area A were a series of isolated pits, postholes, hearths. These features included two large sub-rectangular pits (12063 and 10884), postholes (10779, 10781, 10819, 10821, 10862, 10905, 10907, 10910, 10912, 11508, 11520, 11585 and 11588) and a series of small shallow hearths (11641, 10710, 10708, 11637 and 12023), all between 1m – 1.7 m in diameter and 0.2m in depth. Central Activity Area (Figure 3- inset) Hollow 12218 Within the sheltered base of the dry valley, at the centre of Area A, a number of clusters of features were noted. One group of features at the southern edge of this area were contained within a shallow hollow 12218 (c. 5m by 4m and 0.2m deep) (Figure 3- inset). The area incorporated three small circular pit/postholes at the edges of the hollow (12108, 12181, 12184 - between 0.4m - 0.8m in diameter and 0.06m – 0.30m in depth). A circular hearth (12102, 1.1m in diameter and 0.3m in depth) was positioned in the north-west corner. Hollow 12218 was surrounded by a series of hearth rake-out pits and a fourpost structure 10881. The hollow was partly truncated by a 3.5m diameter tree hollow (12162) with two further large irregular tree hollows (12221 and 12190) to the north. Hearth 12102 comprised a sub-square pit containing frequent charcoal in the base and a layer of burnt stones. It is likely that successive hearths were constructed and cleaned out, resulting in the considerable quantities of rake-out material identified within the surrounding pits. Substantial quantities of pottery sherds and briquetage were also recovered (Plate 3: Figure 3). Pit 12181 contained a gleyed, waterlogged material derived from eroded natural with rare charcoal inclusions. Waterlogging was less evident in pit 12184, which contained a series of sterile eroded natural deposits. It is unclear whether these pits represent earlier cleaned out hearth pits or were constructed for a separate function associated with the activity area. Given the fragments of briquetage recovered from hearth 12102, it is possible the pits were for holding water for salt production. An occupation/abandonment layer (12214), which sealed hearth 12102 and pit 12184, extended beyond the edges of activity area 12218 and contained

5.2.14

5.2.15

5.2.16

5.2.17

5.2.18

5.2.19

5.2.20

6

charcoal and manganese inclusions and pottery. This topsoil-derived deposit was truncated during modern ploughing. 5.2.21 Four-post structure 10881 A four-post structure (comprising postholes 10872, 10874, 10876 and 10878) was located to the north of hollow 12218 (Plate 2: Figure 3). The structure measured approximately 1.5m (east to west) by 2m (north to south), the postholes averaging 0.4m in diameter and 0.22m deep with steep concave sides and a concave base. Posthole 10878 contained a compact deposit (10880) of burnt material, including high quality charcoal and charred grain. Pottery was recovered from well-sorted primary fill (10877) of posthole 10876, and a large sherd of flinttempered pottery was recovered from southeastern posthole 10872. Inter-cutting pits 10904 A series of inter-cutting hearths and rake-out pits (10809, 10810, 10817, 10860 and 10861), between 2.20 – 1.80m in diameter and 0.30 – 0.70m in depth, were located to the west of activity area 12218 and south-east of four-post structure 10881 (Figure 3). Pottery recovered from these features was usually associated with burnt flint. Posthole 10817 was c. 0.43m in diameter and 0.49m deep with steep convex sides and a flat base. It fill of reworked topsoil contained no finds and its function is unknown, although it predated pit 10809 which almost entirely truncated it. The entire group of features were sealed by spread 10902, a light grey brown clay silt, containing no finds, derived from the overlying plough horizon. Discrete features Several pits, postholes and re-used tree hollows surrounded hollow 12218, and further isolated features were recorded throughout this excavation area (Figure 3). Features included sub-circular pits (10785, 10791, 12080, 10793 and 10995), measuring between 1 - 2m in diameter and 0.10 – 0.40m in depth. The pits were generally filled with a backfill deposit of hearth rake-out material containing pottery, fired clay, burnt flint and fragments of loom-weight. Located between hollow 12218 and four-post structure 10881 a lozenge shaped pit 12049, recut by two small circular pits 12072 and 12082, which contained hearth rake-out material and ironworking slag. Medieval (AD 1066-1500) 5.2.28 Medieval occupation of the area is principally represented by field drainage and probable drove-way ditches (Figure 3). Drove-way ditches 11620 and 12226 A possible drove-way formed from two curvilinear ditches 11620 and 12226, between 0.6 - 1m wide and 0.2-0.4m deep with moderate concave sides was identified in the north-eastern corner of the area. The drove-way runs broadly

5.2.22

5.2.23

5.2.24

5.2.25

5.2.26

5.2.27

5.2.29

7

southwards before leaving the southern limit of excavation. One of the ditches (11620) was traced within Area S. Medieval pottery was recovered from the eastern ditch (11620), while a notable quantity of burnt flint and abraded, residual Late Iron Age/early Romano-British pottery was found in the westernmost ditch (12226). 5.2.30 Field ditches 11625, 12029 and 12225 Three parallel northwest-southeast running ditches 11625 (c. 32m long, c. 0.55m wide and 0.2m deep), 12029 (37m by c. 0.4m by 0.05m) and 12225 (50m by c. 0.55m by 0.2m) approximately 40m to 45m apart and running parallel with each other across the lower slopes and base of the dry valley. Mid 13th to mid 14th century pottery was recovered from near southeastern end of the ditch 12225, together with a residual sherd of oxidised Romano-British ware and burnt flint. Post-medieval - Modern (AD 1500-present) 5.2.32 Field boundary ditch 10751 This substantial field boundary ditch (50m long, 4.6m wide and 0.92m deep) was located at the southeastern edge of the excavation area and turned to the southeast, continuing beyond the excavation area towards the existing farmhouse (Figure 3). The ditch contained a series of sterile primary deposits, which were overlain by several episodes of secondary infill from which residual artefacts were recovered, including prehistoric flint flakes, Late Iron Age/early Romano-British pottery fragments, Romano-British and medieval roof tiles and occasional fragments of burnt flint. Evidence of tree root disturbance was noted within the concave ditch profile, and the undulating profile at the intersection of the two arms was suggestive of maintenance. The ditch appears to be directly associated with the existing field boundary ditch, which at the time of the excavation was enclosing the Paddock (Area S). Summary 5.2.34 5.2.35 A scatter of residual Neolithic-Bronze Age worked flint was recovered, although all from later features. An area of small-scale, Late Iron Age/early Romano-British activity lay within a system of boundary ditches at the base of the dry valley. This activity was focused on a central hearth and numerous rake-out pits, together with a fourpost structure and possible animal pen or small structure. Further hearths, pits and postholes were situated mainly on the lower slopes and base of the dry valley, although may of these features were badly eroded/truncated by later activity. The pattern of Late Iron Age/early Romano-British boundary/drainage ditches is echoed by the medieval ditches, implying some degree of continuity in the layout of the landscape. The drove-way and substantial post-medieval enclosure ditch (10751) related to activity associated with occupation focused

5.2.31

5.2.33

5.2.36

8

around the present farmhouse, which lies to the southeast of the excavation area. 5.3 5.3.1 Excavation Area B This sub-rectangular area, located in the south-west corner of the Site, covered 0.79ha, including a 6.7m wide haul road projecting southwards (Figure 4). The ground dropped east to west across the Site from 34m to 29m aOD. The soil sequence consisted of a 0.15-0.3m thick layer of dark grey brown sandy loam topsoil, overlying at the south and west a 0.2-0.3m thick layer of mid grey brown to orange brown sandy clay. This area lies within 2km of the previously identified group of Early Bronze Age round barrows. During the evaluation, prehistoric and Late Iron Age/early Romano-British activity was noted in this part of the Site with recorded features comprising a boundary ditch, a possible curvilinear gully, postholes and a small undated pit cluster suggesting Late Iron Age activity. Residual Neolithic/Bronze age flint debitage was also recovered and post-medieval landscape management was represented through a track-way and associated hedge-line and boundary ditches. Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age (1100-400 BC) 5.3.4 In the north of the area an oval pit (10121), measuring 0.96m by 1.62m and 0.65m in depth, produced a Late Bronze Age finger-impressed rim sherd along with dumped hearth debris and burnt flint (Plate 4: Figure 4). Two similar pits (10133 and 10137), and a large tree hollow (10182) measuring 1.76m by 1.93m by 0.53m, also contained dumped hearth debris and burnt flint, as well as undiagnostic abraded pottery of either Late Bronze Age or the Late Iron Age/early Romano-British date. To the north of ditch 10225 were two sections (10136 and 10226) of a shallow northwest-southeast running ditch, approximately 67m by 0.55 - 0.70m in width and 0.08 -0.23m in depth (Figure 4). Burnt flint and undiagnostic Late Bronze Age or Late Iron Age/early Romano-British pottery were recovered from the primary and secondary fills of both ditch sections. These features may indicate the transient use of woodland. Further sherds of undiagnostic abraded pottery were also recovered from a drainage gully (10226). Late Iron Age/early Romano-British (100BC –AD 1st century) 5.3.7 This phase saw a considerable investment in, and organisation of, the landscape across the Site and is represented by a 106m long, northwest-southeast aligned ditch 10225 (Figure 4), which lay parallel to and 220m south-west of a similar ditch 12224 in Area A (see Section 5.2) (Figure 3). Ditch 10225 appears to have divided an area of iron rich sand to the north from one of organically stained, diffusely defined tree hollows to the south.

5.3.2

5.3.3

5.3.5

5.3.6

9

5.3.8

Ditch 10225 was 1.05-3.5m wide and 0.6-1.1m deep with moderate concave sides and a narrow, steep sided concave base. Primary deposits and secondary deposits indicated a gradual accumulation and included occasional charcoal flecking, burnt flint fragments, abraded Late Iron Age/early Romano-British pottery fragments and a small quantity of possible Late Bronze Age date. A shallow pit (10104) was cut into the upper fill of the ditch. Post-medieval - Modern (AD 1500-present)

5.3.9

Three post-medieval to modern field boundary ditches (10068, 10073 and 10075) were recorded aligned northwest-southeast within the haul road extension at the south of the area (Figure 4). At least two of these ditches (10068 and 10075) appear to be associated with hedge lines/field boundaries recorded on the 1845 Tithe map. Ditch 10075 is aligned with an existing hedgeline. Undated and natural features

5.3.10

An irregular, truncated linear feature (10190), 9m long, towards the east of the area, was 0.35-1.3m wide and 0.03-0.06m in depth, and might have been the remains of a possible hedgeline. It may be associated with a slightly curved possible hedge line recorded during the evaluation (7405 in Trench 74). A posthole 7403 was also noted in Trench 74, although subsequent stripping of the area did not identify any further features in the immediate area beyond two postholes (10085 and 10087), 0.30 – 0.60m in diameter and 0.3m in depth. The postholes lay 2m apart at the northern end of the haul road (Figure 4). A cluster of three truncated small postholes (10146, 10148 and 10150) and an undated pit (10144) was located at the northern limit of the Site. A small circular hearth 10090, 0.8m by 0.6m and 0.08m in depth, comprising in situ fired clay overlain by a topsoil-derived deposit, was located at the eastern edge of the area. Summary

5.3.11

5.3.12

Late Bronze Age activity in the area is attested by at least one pit and the occurrence of residual worked flint and pottery within later features. A substantial boundary ditch and two sections of a truncated shallow drainage ditch with a small spread of pits, hearths and postholes represent Late Iron Age/early Romano-British activity. Three post-medieval field boundaries were also recorded, which have a common alignment with the earlier boundaries. Excavation Area C This area, located towards the south of the Site on a high plateau between 37.6m aOD at the west and 35.6m aOD at the east, comprised a 2.2ha area (Figure 5). The soil sequence consisted of a 0.15-0.30m thick layer of dark grey brown sandy loam topsoil, overlying a 0.10-0.20m thick sandy loam subsoil.

5.4 5.4.1

5.4.2

10

5.4.3

During the evaluation, Late Bronze Age, Late Iron Age/early Romano-British, medieval, post-medieval and modern activity was noted in this area with recorded features comprising two enclosures, boundary and field ditches. Late Bronze Age (1100-700BC)

5.4.4

Close to the northwestern corner of the area, a tree hollow 13590 contained a charcoal-rich deposit and a notable quantity of Late Bronze Age pottery. No further features of this date were identified. Late Iron Age/early Romano-British (100BC –AD 1st century)

5.4.5

Activity in this period was represented by two enclosures, within which lay several internal hearths/ovens, small pits and a possible truncated flue and several boundary/drainage ditches. Main enclosure This enclosure, located on a plateau in the west of the area, was bounded by ditch 13593, and measured approximately 130m by 70m (0.91ha) with a 30m wide entrance within the western side of the enclosure. The northern end of the enclosure lay beyond the northern edge of the excavation area, although the extent of the enclosure was traced within Area G and within the adjacent roadline. The profile of the enclosure ditch 13593 on the eastern side of the enclosure was shallow and flat-based, 2.48m wide and 0.38m deep. The ditch gradually become wider and deeper along the western side towards the entrance, where it was 3.97m wide and 1.5m in depth (Plates 7 and 9: Figure 6). The fill sequence of the enclosure ditch 13593 comprised a substantial primary deposit derived from the initial erosion of the feature sides, overlain by sequence of secondary deposits derived from the weathering of the exposed feature sides and surrounding topsoil. The secondary fills contained most of the finds, the highest percentage and range of these coming from the entrance terminals. Finds included sherds from storage jars, amphorae and pedestal base fragments, a loomweight and a cordoned jar with evidence of possible graffiti. A majority of the finer variant bead rimmed jars and flint-tempered wares were recovered from the southern terminus of the enclosure ditch. Seven Saxon pottery sherds assigned to the primary fill in the southern terminal are likely to derive from the very diffuse interface between that fill, which extended the full height of the ditch sides, and the final infilling of the ditch. Three small undated circular, shallow hearths (13445, 14120, 12626), each comprising a diffuse heat-affected cut overlain by a thin, dense deposit of charcoal, were recorded within the tertiary ditch fills and may be related to Saxon reuse of the enclosure ditch. A series of undated hearths (13377 and 13387) and postholes (13301, 13405, 13407 and 13425) were situated immediately to the northwest of the southern terminus (Figure 5).

5.4.6

5.4.7

5.4.8

5.4.9

5.4.10

11

5.4.11

Excavation of the interior of the enclosure revealed relatively few features, due in part to the level of truncation by later ploughing (Figure 5). Three similar hearths (13427, 14155 and 14181) each comprising a sub-square feature, 1.2m by 1.2m and up to 0.14m in depth, with steep straight sides, a flat base and rounded corners. The hearths contained similar fill sequences, comprising a thin basal lining of heat-affected clay partly covering the base, overlain by layers of charcoal and fired clay debris. A spindle whorl was among pottery recovered from hearth 13427. A possible truncated pit or tree hollow 13372, towards the south-west corner also contained pottery fragments dating to this period. Three adjacent truncated postholes, 13553, 13555 and 13560 were recorded in the northwestern half of enclosure 13593 within an area of small natural and animal derived hollows. A number of undated features, likely to date to this period were recorded within the interior of the enclosure. These features included posthole 13477, a possible hearth 14169 and pit 14193. Further features were located outside the enclosure included shallow hearths (13219, 13261, 13293, 13314,), 0.75 - 1.5m in diameter and 0.17-0.26m deep and a lozenge-shaped feature of unknown function (13239), orientated broadly east-west, was recorded in the south-east of the area. It was 4.4m long, 0.7m wide and 0.25m deep with rounded concave terminals and a concave base. It was filled with weathered natural and topsoilderived silts (Figure 5). Boundary ditch 13264 This approximately north-south aligned ditch runs along the western edge of the excavation area, parallel with the enclosure. The ditch, at least 130m in length and between 1 - 1.5m in width and 0.3-0.5m in depth. Its profile varied between broad, shallow and flat-based, and more standard ‘U-shaped’. Where the ditch passed the southern terminal of the enclosure entrance, it turned slightly towards the northeast, following a change in the orientation of the enclosure ditch (Figure 5). A fairly consistent fill sequence comprised some primary erosion, but with a majority of the ditch filled by secondary deposits partly derived from the upcast from the ditch on alternate sides of the ditch. The upper tertiary deposit contained relatively high amounts of charcoal. Pottery and burnt flint were mainly recovered mainly from the secondary fills, including a collapsed pottery vessel (Object 25) found at the southern end. Boundary ditch 13437 This northwest-southeast aligned shallow ditch, 37m in length, 0.7 - 1.3m wide and 0.2-0.4m in depth, was located immediately to the southeast of the main enclosure ditch 13593 (Figure 5). Its primary fill was overlain by a gradually accumulated topsoil-derived secondary fill, which contained pottery including storage jar fragments. Environmental samples indicated that the primary and secondary fills showed evidence for intermittent waterlogging. Sub-circular enclosure Within the northeastern corner of the area, the southern third of an enclosure was uncovered during stripping, bounded by an enclosure ditch 14317.

5.4.12

5.4.13

5.4.14

5.4.15

5.4.16

5.4.17

12

Stripping of the roadline, further to the north, traced the continuation of the ditch, which formed a sub-circular enclosure, approximately 29m in diameter, with an entrance on the eastern side (Figure 5). 5.4.18 The excavated southern third half of this hilltop enclosure covered an area of approximately 60m (north-south) by 47m (east to west). The enclosure ditch 14317 averaged 1.5m wide and up to 0.50m in depth (Plate 6: Figure 5). The ditch had moderate-steep concave sides and a concave base and contained primary deposits of eroded natural overlain by several deliberately dumps of occupation debris, including charcoal-rich rake-out material, pottery, briquetage, fired clay and burnt flint within a charcoal rich silty clay. The majority of artefacts came from dumps along the western side of the enclosure. Modern plough scarring was evident across the enclosure and it is likely that a majority of possible features inside the enclosure have been truncated. Only two internal contemporary features (pits 14236 and 14259) were identified, both located towards the western side. The sub-rectangular rake-out pit 14236, 1.70m by 1.20m and 0.43m in depth (Plate 5: Figure 5) was filled with a mixed dump of organic material, charcoal inclusions, fired clay, burnt flint and pottery fragments, and was sealed by a deposit of up-cast natural capping. Three metres further to the north, was a heavily truncated pit 14259, 0.30m in diameter and 0.05m in depth. An undated hearth 14224 was also recorded. Possible Kiln/corn dryer A possible recut sub-rectangular kiln/corn dryer (14127) was recorded at the between the two enclosures. The feature was 4.25m long with rounded terminals, its eastern end truncated by a post-medieval ditch (Figure 5). The feature had moderate-steep straight sides and a concave base dropping c. 0.24m from east to west. It was c. 1m wide at its eastern end, and 1.6m wide at its widest bulbous point near the 0.8m wide western end. A primary deposit of eroded natural with occasional charcoal inclusions, pottery and fired clay filled most of the western and central part of the feature. A deliberate dump of charcoal rake-out material filled the central part of the feature, containing a concentration of pottery fragments and a loomweight, similar to those found in the adjacent section of the enclosure ditch (14317). Medieval (AD 1066-1500) 5.4.22 Field system A probable medieval field system is represented by Ditch 10030 and undated ditches 14117, 14118 and 14119 (Figure 5). Ditch 10030 was at least 132m long and between 1.15-1.3m wide and 0.4-0.8m in depth and ran northwestsoutheast across the center of the excavation area. The ditch had a single gradually accumulated fill containing occasional charcoal flecking and burnt flint fragments along with a fragment of mid 13th and 14th century pottery. Ditch 14118 (also recorded in Area G as 12716), ran parallel to, and approximately 66m east of, ditch 10030, and was between 0.5 - 1.45m wide and averaged 0.3m deep with a moderate concave profile. Projecting broadly perpendicular from it were two northeast-southwest aligned ditches 14117

5.4.19

5.4.20

5.4.21

5.4.23

13

(0.7m wide and 0.1m deep) and 14119 (0.9m wide and 0.3m deep) to form a rectilinear field pattern. The ditches were filled predominately with compact ferruginous primary eroded natural. 5.4.24 Other features A large oval hollow (10061) recorded in the north-west corner of the area, produced a sherd of pottery from its tertiary deposit derived from a gradual accumulation of waterborne silts. The deposit was cut by a circular hearth (10010), 1.25m in diameter and 0.14m deep, containing a charcoal based fill and producing a residual sherd of Late Iron Age/early Romano-British pottery. An oval hollow (14264) south of ditch 14117 contained a secondary deposit with notable charcoal inclusions and sherds of medieval pottery. Post-medieval (AD 1500-1800) 5.4.26 Post-medieval activity in the area was represented mainly by numerous ceramic land drains and a drainage ditch 12717 which ran northwest-southeast across the area, almost parallel to medieval ditch 14118 (Figure 5). Draining into it from the northeast was a second shallow ditch (14116) from which a residual sherd of medieval jar rim was recovered. The similar locations, profiles and alignments of the medieval and post-medieval ditches point to a degree of continuity in terms of field organisation and drainage patterns. Modern (AD 1800 to present) 5.4.27 A large rectangular pit (10040) in the north-west corner of the area incorporated four cardinal postholes, several charred beams and intense in situ burning (Figure 5). The pit was 5.3m long and 2.3m wide, with a very uniform construction and fill from which significant quantities of charcoal, residual pottery, metalwork and animal bone were recovered. Its high plateau location within a reasonable proximity to Southampton and its dockyards lends weight to its interpretation as a possible World War II bombing decoy installation. Summary 5.4.28 A prehistoric presence is inferred through the recovery of residual flint artefacts within later contexts. The area, however, is dominated by two Late Iron Age/early Romano-British enclosures, associated boundary ditches and a collection of hearths and rake-out pits. Most of the Late Iron Age/early Romano-British artefacts from the Site, and the greatest diversity of pottery types, came from the enclosure ditches. Medieval activity/occupation in the general area is indicated by a series of field drainage ditches, although the general paucity of artefacts dating to this period reflects the broad, site-wide division between field and settlement during this period. Post-medieval activity is represented by a large boundary ditch and the numerous ceramic land drains. There was also a possible World War II decoy installation.

5.4.25

5.4.29

5.4.30

14

5.5 5.5.1

Excavation Area E and Paddock/Area S Excavation Areas E and Paddock/Area S within the central part of the Site consisted of four adjacent irregular blocks of land, covering a total of 1.2ha, between 33m aOD in the south to 30m aOD in the north. A further 0.2ha block of land was subject to a watching brief during stripping (Figure 7). The soil sequence consisted of a 0.2 - 0.4m thick sandy loam topsoil, overlying a 0.1-0.3m thick layer of sandy loam colluvium. Features were either sealed by, or cut into the base of the colluvium. During the evaluation, a dense pattern of medieval pits, postholes and ditches were recorded, indicating a significant focus of medieval activity. Late Iron Age/early Romano-British (100BC –AD 1st century)

5.5.2

5.5.3

Relatively few features of this date survived within Areas E and Paddock/Area S, which probably reflects the significant degree of truncation from later medieval activity. The Iron Age/early Romano-British remains largely consisted of fragments of field/drainage systems, together with isolated pit/posthole groups. A considerable quantity of residual pottery was recovered from the later medieval features in the eastern half of Area E. Ditches 12227, 13266, 13267 and 13645 Ditch (13266), at least 23m in length, 1m wide and 0.45m in depth ran eastwest along the southern edge of Area E. This ditch cut the southern end of a similarly sized ditch 13267, which ran at right angles to ditch 13266 (Figure 7). Both ditches contained substantial quantities of Late Iron Age/early RomanoBritish pottery and fired clay. A third ditch section (13645) was recorded within the watching brief area to the northwest of Area E, although largely truncated by a later post-medieval ditch 10488, which continued northeast, into the Urban Park area. In the northern section of Area S, a short section of a curvilinear ditch 12227, which extends from Area A was uncovered. Other features Towards the south of Area E there was a well defined U-shaped pit (13000), 1.1m in diameter and 0.85m in depth. The fills showed evidence of prolonged waterlogging. A fragment of a rounded jar was recovered from primary deposit and an amphora fragment from a secondary deposit. The pit may originally have been for storage, but was sealed by the base of a sub-circular hearth 12888, 2.2m by 2m and 0.58m in depth, which contained pottery, charcoal, slag and burnt flint. Two features were located within the southern half of Area E, a pit/beam slot 13696, 2m by 0.3m wide and a flat-based oval storage pit 13679, 2m by 1.08m and 0.73m deep (Plate 10: Figure 7). At the northern edge of Area E, diffuse spreads of sandy clay (deposits 13030 and 13033) were recorded within a shallow undulation in the natural. Truncated by a later ditch and two burnt tree hollows, the shallow spreads measured 9.4m by 8.4m in total and was up to

5.5.4

5.5.5

5.5.6

5.5.7

15

0.1m deep. Forty metres to the southwest of the spreads was an irregular burnt out tree throw 12936, which contained residual pottery sherds. 5.5.8 Within the northern half of Area S, four similar postholes (13600, 13602, 13605 and 13611), each measuring 0.2-0.3m in diameter and 0.08m in depth, were identified. Posthole 13611 and posthole 13602 contained fired clay and pottery. Medieval (AD 1066-1500) 5.5.9 Field system A system of rectangular and trapezoidal fields was located throughout the excavation area, incorporating ditches (Area E: east to west) 13015, 13265, 13016, 13018, 13020, 13021, 13727 and 13019 and (Area S: southeast to northwest) ditches 14112, 13019, 14111, 14115, 14114, 14110 and 11620. (Figure 7). Three main phases of field ditches were identified. Phase 1 In Area E this was dominated by northeast-southwest aligned ditch 13018 (71m long, c. 1.4m wide and c. 0.6m deep) from which smaller ditches 13015 and 13016 projected, with a short parallel ditch 13265 running south-west from the northern end of 13015. Ditches 13015, 13016 and 13265 were 0.6-1.1m wide and 0.1-0.3m deep with moderate straight sides and flat bases. All were filled with fills showing evidence of prolonged waterlogging. Another northeast-southwest aligned ditch (13019), running from the west side of Area E to the southwest edge of the Paddock area, was 1m wide and 0.30.5m deep. Projecting northwest from the southern end of 13019 was ditch 14115, which was 1.3m wide and 0.55m deep and contained concentrations of early medieval pottery and ceramic building material. This ditch ran for 54m to the northwest between four rectangular fields, which were bounded by further ditches. Running south from ditch 13019 in the Paddock Area was a curvilinear ditch (14112) with a wide concave profile at the north and a steep V-shaped profile at its southern end (Figure 7, Inset B). The curvilinear ditch incorporated two successive overflow drainage pits (13758 and 13759). Finds recovered from these ditches, including jars and bowls, and roof, floor and hearth tiles, were predominately from the early medieval period, with the greatest concentrations deriving from the southwestern end of ditch 13019. At the northwest of Area S, ditch 11620 was the continuation for a further 34m of the eastern droveway ditch recorded in Area A. It was 1m wide and up to 0.4m deep. An undated parallel ditch 14319 also extended into Area S from the adjacent Area A. Phase 2 Three heavily truncated segments of gully (13020), south of and parallel to ditch 13018 at the south-west of Area E, may have formed a stock pen/enclosure with northeastern and northwestern facing entrances (Figure 7). The gully was 0.6-0.7m wide and 0.08-0.3m deep, with a moderate concave

5.5.10

5.5.11

5.5.12

5.5.13

5.5.14

16

profile and a flat slightly pitted base overlain by a topsoil-derived secondary fill. A second enclosure ditch (14111), 30m by at least 10m, was uncovered within Area S. At its southeastern end the ditch was filled with charcoal-rich domestic debris similar to that found in a number of forked gullies, which feed into it. The enclosure ditch truncated a pit 13876, 2.8m by 2.4m and 1.23m in depth (Plate 12: Figure 7) and ditch 13019. 5.5.15 Phase 3 A double ditch 13021 ran northwest-southeast across the eastern part of Area S, cutting across ditches 13018 and 13019 and curving slightly to the south in Area E. Both ditch cuts were 1.3-2.2m wide and 0.3-0.55m deep. The primary deposits were overlain by a secondary fills of mid grey-brown silty loam, which infilled and sealed both ditches. Residual pottery, predominately of Late Iron Age/early Romano-British date, was recovered throughout the length of the ditches. Running south-west from the double ditch was a small drainage gully 13727. Posthole group 14088 Five postholes (Figure 7 Inset A; 13939, 13941, 13943, 13945 and 13947), forming a 5.3m wide south-west facing arc and representing some form of structure or wind break, were located within the angle of enclosure ditch 14111. The postholes averaged 0.6m in diameter and 0.26m deep with steep straight sides and flat bases. Other features Two pits 13969 and 13986 located at the northern limit of the Paddock/Area S between ditches 14111 and 14113 were found to contain a medieval rim jar and a hearth rake-out dump, respectively ((Figure 7 Inset A). Running across the northern watching brief area was a short section of medieval ditch 10489. This ditch extended further to the northeast into the Urban park Area (see section 5.7). Post-medieval (AD 1500-1800) 5.5.18 5.5.19 A 16m long, east-west orientated field boundary ditch (13666) measuring 1.4m wide and 0.5m deep, was recorded at the southeastern edge of Area S. At the north of Area E, ditch 10488 ran northeast-southwest, extending into the Urban Park area (see 5.7 below) Undated and natural features 5.5.20 Two segments of ditch (12806 and 12815) were identified in the far eastern section of Area E. Each ditch was approximately 0.46m wide and 0.08m deep and filled with waterlogged silty sand. Their location and orientation suggest they form part of the Phase 1 field system, identified to the west and which appears to extending into the surrounding areas. A scatter of 12 postholes were recorded within the Paddock/ Area S (13757, 13766, 13768, 13770, 13809, 13841, 13843, 13954, 13956, 13974, 13989 and

5.5.16

5.5.17

5.5.21

17

14068). The features were all between 0.3-0.6m in diameter 0.1-0.4m deep (Figure 7). 5.5.22 A further three pairs of postholes (12821/12823, 12825/12827, 12829/12831) measuring 0.3-0.45m in diameter and 0.1-0.2m deep were located within the centre of Area E. Adjacent to the double curvilinear ditch 13021, a further three postholes, 12916, 12819, 12927 were recorded. A single isolated posthole (13031) measuring 0.36m in diameter and 0.19m deep, was recorded in the north of the area. These features may comprising traces of internal divisions within the general field system. A shallow square feature 13801, 1.6m by 1.6m with steep concave sides, a flat base and filled with a single loose deposit of topsoil-derived silts, was recorded in the north-west of the Paddock/Area S. It regular profile suggests a fairly modern date, perhaps the base of a tank. Two shallow root disturbed pits (13813 and 13815) were located immediately north-west and south-west of the feature 13801. A large number of tree hollows were recorded and were truncated by the medieval field system, indicating a degree of earlier clearance. Summary 5.5.24 A number of Late Iron Age/early Romano-British pits and ditches were recorded within the south and north of the Area E and eastern extent of the Paddock/Area S. These are likely to reflect patterns of activity, which are evident throughout the Site. Tree clearance and construction/use of the medieval field system and other activities are likely to have truncated many of the Late Iron Age/Early Romano British features, although residual Late Iron Age/early Romano-British artefacts in many of the later medieval features, indicate significant activity took place within this area. An extensive medieval rectilinear field system dominated Areas E and Paddock/ Area S, with several successive phases of field organisation being identified. The importance of field drainage remained fundamental through to the present day. The increase in the type range and concentrations of pottery towards the west (and higher ground) implies that the main focus of occupation must lie close to or on the site of the existing Dowd’s Farmhouse. Excavation Area G (Parcels D and G1/2/3) This 2.2ha area is located in the eastern half of the Site, with the land lying at a height of 34.8m aOD at the eastern edge of the area, sloping gently downwards to 31.2m aOD at the west (Figure 8). The soil sequence consisted of a 0.20-0.30m thick sandy loam topsoil, overlying a 0.10-0.35m thick layer of mid yellow to orange sandy loam colluvial. Features were found to be either sealed by, or cut within the base of, the colluvium. During the evaluation, a number of posthole alignments and occasional pits were noted within the northeastern half of Area G, and field boundary/drainage ditches and narrow gullies were recorded in the southwestern half.

5.5.23

5.5.25

5.6 5.6.1

5.6.2

5.6.3

18

Late Iron Age/early Romano-British (100BC –AD 1st century) 5.6.4 This period of occupation was represented by a drove-way, formed from four associated ditches, the northern part of the large enclosure ditch 13593 (see 5.4.6) and two postholes. Drove-way ditches 12712, 12713, 12714 and 12715 The drove-way (eastern ditch 12712 and western ditch 12713/12714 and northern ditch 12715) ran from the southern edge of Area G before splitting into two sections, which continued to the northwest and northeast, extending beyond the limits of the excavation area. The drove-way was approximately 6m in width and ran for a minimum distance of 210m. A slight kink noted at the northeastern end of the droveway together with considerable bioturbation at various point along the edge of the drove-way may indicate an associated hedge or tree line. The drove-way ditches in general had moderate to steep sides and contained few finds although fragments of oxidised Romano-British pottery were recovered from ditch 12712 and the western extent of ditch 12714. Postholes (12535 and 12537) Two postholes, 13m apart, were identified towards the eastern side of the excavation area. The eastern posthole (12535), 0.45m in diameter and 0.15m deep, contained burnt flint and pottery fragments within the primary fill. Posthole 12537, which was 1m by 0.58m and 0.35m deep produced burnt and worked flint, pottery, charcoal and small fired clay flecks from a deliberately backfilled deposit. The pottery from both features comprised Late Iron Age/early Romano-British flint-tempered ware and the worked flint included eight flakes and a core. Medieval (AD 1066-1500) 5.6.8 Pit 12699 This circular, tapered pit, at the eastern end of the area, cut an undated ditch 12718 (Plate 13: Figure 8). The pit was the subject of at least two further recuts (12706 and 12710) and contained a series of dumps incorporating animal bone, mid-13th to mid-14th century pottery (including jug rims), ceramic building material and iron artefacts. Ditch 12581 A short 10m section of a medieval field boundary 12581 was identified extending into the northwestern part of the excavation area from Area E. Post-medieval - Modern (AD 1500-present) 5.6.10 Drove-way ditches 12716 and 12617 A second drove-way of post-medieval date, 8-11m in width, was formed by two parallel ditches 12716 and 12717, which ran northwest-southeast for 60m before continuing across Area C (Figures 5 and 8).

5.6.5

5.6.6

5.6.7

5.6.9

19

5.6.11

The two flanking ditches 12716 and 12717, 0.5-0.7m in width and 0.25-0.3m deep, had steep, concave side and a flat base. Undated features

5.6.12

Ditch 12718 This undated 35m long ditch, aligned northeast-southwest, was located at the eastern edge of the excavation area (Figure 8). The ditch averaged 1.15m wide and 0.4m deep, with moderate to steep concave to convex sides and a flat base and had been completely in-filled prior to truncation by the medieval pit 12699. A narrow southeast running extension was noted. Possible structure 12719 A group of 11 postholes (12646, 12654, 12656, 12658, 12660, 12662, 12664, 12667, 12670, 12673 and 12675), covering a total area of 14m (north-south) by 17m (east-west) in the centre of the excavation area, lay immediately east of the southern section of the droveway ditch 12712 (Figure 8 Inset). Four postholes at the east edge of this group (12654, 12656, 12658, 12660) averaging 0.35m in diameter and 0.15m deep may have formed a small four-post structure measuring 0.8m wide (north-south) and 2.3m in length (east-west). The remaining postholes formed a possible windbreak/structure and fenceline, although the full extent and nature of the possible structure is unclear. Hearths Two adjacent hearths (12570 and 12572) were located approximately 3m apart towards the northwestern edge of the excavation area. Both features, between 0.57 – 0.98m in diameter and less than 0.11m in depth, had fired clay bases overlain by charcoal-rich silt with sparse burnt flint fragments. A possible stake hole (12575) was recorded 1.1m south of hearth 12570. Two further circular hearths (12548 and 12551), between 0.3 – 0.70m in diameter and 0.1m in depth, were identified in the southwestern part of the excavation area. Both features had fired clay bases overlain by charcoal-rich silts. Two large flint nodules were recovered from the centre of hearth 12551. A fifth, kidney-shaped, hearth (12626) was cut into the upper fill of the Late Iron Age/early Romano-British enclosure ditch 13593. The hearth measured 1.04m by 0.47m and 0.06m deep with moderate straight sides and a flat base of fired clay overlain by a dense charcoal deposit. A sixth, shallow sub-circular, hearth (12543) was found in the northeast of the area and measured 1.1m by 0.95m and was 0.03m deep, with a fired clay base overlain by a loose charcoal-rich silt. Postholes Three isolated postholes (12502, 14321 and 12648) measuring approximately 0.5m in diameter and 0.13 - 0.36m in depth were located in the southeast and centre, respectively, of the excavation area.

5.6.13

5.6.14

5.6.15

5.6.16

5.6.17

5.6.18

20

Summary 5.6.19 This area appeared to have been the least densely wooded area of the Site. With the exception of the isolated hearths, postholes and possible structure 12719, there was little surviving evidence of prehistoric occupation. Late Iron Age/early Romano-British and post-medieval drove-ways were identified, but there was little evidence, beyond a few isolated boundaries 12581 and 12718, for the well-laid out field systems evident elsewhere. Urban Park Area This 0.5ha sub-rectangular area at the northeastern corner of the Site encompassed a shallow broad valley, running approximately southwest to northeast, sloping from 29.5m aOD to 28.1m aOD at the northern edge of the Site (Figure 9). The valley is the lowest point in the Site, and prior to the excavation, the area was noticeably wet and marshy. The soil sequence consisted of a 0.15 - 0.35m thick layer of sandy loam topsoil, overlying 0.1 - 0.35m thick layer of gleyed sandy loam colluvium, which sealed the archaeological features. During the evaluation, a post-medieval ditch and medieval or earlier pits and possible drainage gullies were recorded. Early Neolithic to Late Bronze Age (4000-700 BC) 5.7.4 An Early Neolithic polished axe was recovered from tree hollow 13022 (Figure 9). A small quantity of residual Neolithic/Bronze worked flint was also recovered from medieval ditch fills. Middle Iron Age/early Romano-British (400BC –AD 1st century) 5.7.5 A Middle Iron Age saucepan pot and rounded jar were recovered from the waterlogged primary fill of waterhole 10503 in the centre of the area. The full extent of the waterhole was difficult to define due to waterlogging and the fact that it was heavily recut by a section of medieval ditch 10489/10412 (see below) (Figure 9). The quantity of residual pottery from the recut medieval ditch suggests that the waterhole was in use throughout the Middle Iron Age/Early Romano British. Medieval (AD 1066-1500) 5.7.7 Two sections of a slightly curved ditch (10495 – northern section and 10489 – southern section), averaged 0.9m wide and 0.4m deep, with steep straight sides and concave bases were aligned approximately northeast-southwest along the western side of the valley base, separated by a narrow gap. The southern ditch (10489) incorporated at least two deep elongated pits/waterholes (10374, 10503). Ditch 10489 contained a primary fill of laminated water borne sands sealed by secondary humic silts and clay silts,

5.7 5.7.1

5.7.2

5.7.3

5.7.6

5.7.8

21

which are indicative of a marshy environment, but one, which became increasingly more humic, possibly represent a degree of stasis. 5.7.9 A colluvial tertiary layer derived from the upper western slopes sealed the features and suggests a change in landscape use possibly clearance and tillage. A complete medieval water jug was recovered from the base of one of the elongated pits (10374). Post-medieval (AD 1500-1800) 5.7.10 Running largely parallel to the medieval ditches (10489 and 10495) was a continuous ditch (10488), 2m wide and 0.40m in depth. This ditch crosses the medieval ditch 10489 and continued beyond the southwestern edge of the Urban Park Area into the Area E excavation area and adjacent watching brief area. Undated and natural features 5.7.11 A pattern of shallow ditches, orientated northwest-southeast and northeastsouthwest (10487, 10490 and 10491) lay either side of the medieval ditch 10489 at right-angles. The ditches were 0.4m - 1.3m in width and less than 0.05m in depth. Charcoal flecking and occasional burnt flint fragments were noted throughout ditch 10487. Although no datable artefacts were recovered from these features they may form part of a medieval field system. A sub-square, flat-based pit (10380) in the north-west corner of the area, contained a dump of burnt flint and charcoal, but no evidence of in situ burning. The pit was 0.6m wide and 0.3m deep. At the southern edge of the valley bottom, the geology changed from yellow orange sandy loam to clay and greensand and was marked by a shallow eastwest arc of tree hollows (10308, 10322, 10325, 10329, 10334, 10343, 10345 and 10349). Close to the tree hollows were three undated hearths (10302, 10304 and 10320). Hearth 10302 measured 1.4m by 1.07m and 0.3m deep and hearth 10304 measured 0.64m in diameter and 0.27m deep. The third hearth (10320), measured 1.2m in diameter and 0.13m deep, lay 17m further to the west. The hearths contained loose deposits of charcoal and burnt flint, although there was no evidence of intense in situ burning. A small, isolated undated pit (10319), 0.63m in diameter and 0.16m deep with a regular concave profile, was recorded south of ditch 10487. Trial trench evaluation in Urban Park (Late September 2008) 5.7.16 Just prior to the completion of this assessment report, nine archaeological trenches (All 20m by 1.60m in size) were excavated within the location of proposed tree planting areas (Wessex Archaeology 2008). The evaluation was intended to assess the impact of the landscaping.

5.7.12

5.7.13

5.7.14

5.7.15

22

5.7.17

Only one trench (Trench 93) contained archaeological features, which comprised two early medieval field boundaries (Ditches 9303 and 9306). Both ditches appear to be continuations of early medieval ditches 12226 or 11625 and 11620, which were investigated within the northern section of Area A. One of the evaluation ditches (9303) contained a small iron bowl, deposited within the basal fill of the ditch. Summary

5.7.18

5.7.19

A significant prehistoric presence in the area is inferred through the recovery of residual flint artefacts including an Early Neolithic polished axe, while Iron Age/early Romano-British use of the area is indicated by the construction of a probable water hole in the centre of the area. From at least the late prehistoric period to medieval periods this area appears to have comprised a rich marshland environment bounded by trees, and a medieval drainage system and adjacent field system, which followed the natural curve at the base of the western valley slope. The presence of a complete water jug suggests the proximity of domestic activity. A parallel ditch containing a ceramic land drain indicates continuity of water management throughout the post-medieval period. FINDS Introduction This section discusses the finds from all stages of fieldwork on the Site. The assemblage recovered is of moderate size, and ranges in date from early prehistoric to post-medieval, with a focus on the Late Iron Age/early RomanoBritish period. Most finds came from areas in the south and north-west of the Site (Areas A and C); the distribution in other areas was sparser, with very little material coming from the south-west of the Site. All finds have been quantified by material type within each context; Table 1 gives the totals by material type for both evaluation and excavation. Ceramic finds (pottery, ceramic building material, fired clay) and burnt, unworked flint were the most commonly encountered material types. Table 2 gives the pottery totals by ware type.

5.7.20

6 6.1 6.1.1

6.1.2

23

Table 1: Finds totals by material type (number and weight in grammes)
Material Pottery Later prehistoric LIA/Romano-British Saxon Medieval Post-medieval Undated Ceramic building mat. Fired clay Clay pipe Stone Burnt stone Flint Burnt flint Glass Slag Metalwork Copper alloy Iron Lead Animal bone EVALUATION Wt. No. 565 11783 2 6 363 10,374 197 1318 3 85 11,914 28 572 31 391 8 9089 251 27 46,612 18 1 394 145 EXCAVATION Wt. No. 3818 42,920 41 219 3310 37,680 9 38 384 4582 6 219 68 182 6183 59 11,709 122 4 2 39,442 10 1344 4445 104 64,032 864 16 567 8 52 51 1 1189 86 TOTAL Wt. No. 4383 54,703 43 225 3673 48,054 9 38 581 5900 9 304 68 182 18,097 87 122,81 153 4 2 19,833 18 10,433 4696 131 - 110,644 864 16 567 8 70 1 68 1 1583 231

6.1.3

The condition of the assemblage is variable. The pottery in particular has been affected by aggressive post-depositional soil conditions, and has suffered a high degree of abrasion, which has in some instances hampered identification and dating. Following quantification, all finds have been subjected at least to visual scanning, in order to determine their nature, potential date range and condition, and on this is based an assessment of their archaeological potential. Pottery and worked flint have been divided into broad types, and animal bone has been recorded by species. Spot dates have been recorded for datable finds (pottery, ceramic building material). All data are held on the project database (Access). Pottery Prehistoric

6.1.4

6.2

6.2.1

Flint-tempered sherds from three contexts were dated as Late Bronze Age. This includes two diagnostic, finger-impressed rim sherds from pit 10121 and tree hollow 13590. The possibility that further Late Bronze Age (and possibly Middle Bronze Age) sherds may remain unidentified amongst the larger flinttempered assemblage (see below) cannot be ruled out, but no further diagnostic sherds were observed. Four sherds from one context (primary fill of waterhole 10503), in well sorted and well finished flint-tempered fabrics, include two rims, one from a rounded jar and one from a ‘saucepan’ pot, both of Middle Iron Age date.

6.2.2

24

Table 2: Pottery totals by ware type (number of sherds and weight in grammes)
Date Range Later prehistoric Late Iron Age/Romano-British Ware Type Flint-tempered Flint-tempered Grog-tempered ware Sandy Black Burnished ware Greyware Oxidised ware Whiteware Samian Amphora sub-total LIA/Roman Mixed grit ware Anglo-Norman coarsewares High medieval sandy wares High medieval coarsewares High medieval imports sub-total medieval Redware Verwood type earthenware Stoneware Refined whiteware sub-total post-medieval Sandy Flint-tempered sub-total undated OVERALL TOTAL No. sherds 43 2822 50 607 14 132 37 2 1 8 3673 9 402 89 89 1 581 3 4 1 1 9 3 65 68 4383 Weight 225 42,830 229 3747 58 504 141 8 11 526 48,054 38 3087 1866 946 1 5900 49 125 124 6 304 3 179 182 54,703

Late Saxon Medieval

Post Medieval

Undated

Late Iron Age/Romano-British 6.2.3 By far the greatest proportion of the pottery assemblage is of Late Iron Age to Romano-British date, and this is made-up largely of sherds in flint-tempered fabrics, generally coarse but also including finer variants. These wares are used exclusively for handmade jar forms, with either beaded or everted rims, and ranging in size up to very large, thick-walled examples. Alongside these are sandy and, less commonly, grog-tempered wares, which also occur in small to medium sized bead rim vessel forms, but the sandy wares also include necked and cordoned jars, pedestal base jars, and one carinated cup; some of these vessels may be wheelthrown. These three ware types represent indigenous Late Iron Age ceramic traditions, found widely over central southern England, which survived into the early Romano-British period; their date range is generally considered to span the 1st century BC to 1st century AD. Comparable assemblages have been recorded from, for example, Twyford Down near Winchester (Seager Smith 2000), and at Bitterne (Clausentum) (Cotton and Gathercole 1958). At the latter site, flinttempered bead rim jars occurred in stratified groups dated AD 70-85. At Dowd’s Farm, close dating for these wares is difficult in the absence of more closely datable finewares, but at least some ‘Romanised’ wheelthrown greywares, oxidised and whitewares are present, as well as amphora (Dressel 1 or 2-4), one sherd of samian, and some Black Burnished ware (BB1) from south Dorset. This suggests that the end date for the assemblage, with the possible exception of a few contexts, lies somewhere in the latter part of the 1st

6.2.4

25

century or very early 2nd century AD. It is more difficult to establish the start date within the broad range of 1st century BC to 1st century AD, although further analysis may help to elucidate this. 6.2.5 More than half of this chronological group (in terms of sherd numbers) came from Area C, and this included a substantial group (374 sherds) from the southern terminal of the enclosure ditch 13593 (segment 13507). This is an interesting group, containing a higher proportion of sandy wares than observed across most of the Site (27% by sherd count, compared with an overall proportion of 16%). This includes one pedestal base and a necked, cordoned jar, the latter with some possible deliberate post-firing diagonal incisions inside the rim. There are also two amphora sherds. The pottery from the primary fill (13515) is in noticeably poor condition, including a number of badly spalled sherds; this group has the appearance of having been burnt, or possibly overfired. One possibility is that these sherds represent waste from pottery manufacture, although there is no other evidence to support this suggestion. Elsewhere on the Site, there are possible examples of the deliberate placement of large parts of single vessels (e.g. pit 12102, section 13251 of boundary ditch 13264, section 13463 of enclosure ditch 13593). Saxon 6.2.7 Nine sherds, from two contexts (terminal 13507 of enclosure ditch 13593, section 13640 of gully 12227) are in a ‘mixed grit’ fabric, containing inclusions of flint, quartz and ?chalk (the latter have entirely leached out, leaving voids). This includes one rim sherd. Both fabric and form place these sherds within the Middle Saxon ceramic tradition of the area, as seen, for example, at a number of sites within Hamwic; some mixed grit wares survived into the Late Saxon period (Timby 1988, 114). It is possible, therefore, that there may be some chronological overlap with the Anglo-Norman wares found. The occurrence of sherds in enclosure ditch terminal 13507, however, is somewhat problematic, since they came from the primary fill (13515) which also contained (along with other fills of the terminal), quantities of Late Iron Age/early Romano-British pottery (see above). Medieval 6.2.8 Medieval wares fall into two chronological subdivisions, based on the known ceramic sequence from Southampton (Brown 2002): Anglo-Norman (late 11th to mid 13th century) and High Medieval (mid 13th to mid 14th century). Anglo-Norman wares comprise coarse, sandy/flint-tempered fabrics, which include types defined in Southampton as Scratch-marked ware (SMK) and Early Medieval Flint-tempered ware (EMFT). Vessel forms consist largely of jars but there is at least one bowl. High Medieval wares are also largely sandy/flint-tempered, although visibly finer; these are likely to consist largely of Southampton Coarseware (STCW). Also present are finer sandy wares, including Southampton Whiteware (SWW), Local Pink Sandy ware (LOPS) and possibly South Hampshire redware (SHR).

6.2.6

6.2.9

26

Vessel forms include coarseware jars and finer sandy jugs, some partially glazed (although there are apparently no decorated examples). 6.2.10 6.2.11 One tiny green-glazed whiteware sherd (pit 13876) has been provisionally identified as an imported ware, possibly North French. Most of this chronological group came from the Paddock/Area S plot, immediately to the north of Dowd’s Farmhouse, and the range of wares suggests that these derive from a settlement with some pretensions to status. Post-medieval 6.2.12 Very little post-medieval pottery was recovered; this is limited to a few sherds of coarse redwares, Verwood-type earthenwares from east Dorset, one sherd of Raeren stoneware, and one sherd of modern refined whiteware. Ceramic building material The small assemblage of ceramic building material (CBM) recovered includes a few fragments of Romano-British brick/tile (mostly from evaluation trenches 15 and 16), medieval roof tile, hearth tile and possible plain floor tile, and postmedieval roof tile, brick and field drain. The field drain (mostly from trench 83) has not been retained. Most of the CBM came from the Paddock/Area S, where the medieval material provides further evidence of a settlement of some status, incorporating substantial buildings. Fired clay The fired clay is probably also largely of structural origin, from hearth/pit linings or from upstanding structures. One large group came from fire pit 10040 in Area C. Four examples of triangular loomweights (pits 10785, 14129, 13679; terminal 13507 of enclosure ditch 13593) are certainly of Late Iron Age/early Romano-British date. There are also 34 small, abraded fragments of probable salt-working briquetage, in organic-tempered fabrics, a not unexpected occurrence given the known extent of salt production along this part of the south coast in the Late Iron Age and Romano-British periods (e.g. Bradley 1992). Stone This category includes both worked and burnt (unworked) stone, both recovered in very small quantities. The worked stone includes one definite rotary quern fragment (terminal 13507 of enclosure ditch 13593) and possible fragments from two others, one greensand (water channel 11644) and one quartz conglomerate (evaluation trench 12). In addition, a large, apparently unshaped stone found unstratified has a worn hollow in the upper surface, and was associated with a smooth, rounded pebble, presumably utilised as a rubber. A whetstone fragment came from the subsoil in Area S. There were also a few small fragments of roofing slate, none from dated features, but presumably of post-medieval date.

6.3 6.3.1

6.4 6.4.1

6.5 6.5.1

27

6.6 6.6.1

Worked flint Most pieces of struck flint (Table 3) were residual in later features, although the condition of much suggests that they need not have moved far from their original locations. Only a very small number of pieces have obvious damage, wear or colouration indicating prolonged exposure or inclusion in plough soils. Table 3: Breakdown of flint assemblage by type
Flake Cores Core Fragments Blades (including broken) Flakes (including broken) Rejuvenation Total unretouched Scrapers Projectiles Axes Rods Piercers Knives Notch Miscellaneous Retouch Total retouched Total Number 3 2 5 82 3 95 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 15 110 % 2.73 1.82 4.54 74.54 2.73 86.36 5.45 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 2.73 13.64 100

6.6.2

The assemblage consists of a mixture of pieces in variously coloured flints (many with cherty inclusions), with either worn cortex typical of pieces from a gravel source or fresher, thicker cortex which appears to have come directly from chalk. The axe is likely to have been mined. The 95 pieces of unretouched debitage are mostly flakes, which tend not to be susceptible to dating. Undated in situ knapping is indicated by five pieces (from evaluation ditch 6703) from the same nodule, two of which refit. Some of the debitage has features suggesting that it is likely to date from the Neolithic or Bronze Age. Some pieces have carefully prepared platforms, abraded platform edges, and regular, uni-directional flake scars: these could be either Mesolithic or Neolithic (as are the very few true blades and trimming flakes removed from blade cores). A number of classic triangular core platform rejuvenation flakes suggest Mesolithic industries, while a polished flint axe and a chisel arrowhead indicate Neolithic activity. Debitage with regular bi- or multi-directional flake scars is more probably later Neolithic or Early Bronze Age. There are only a very few pieces to suggest later use of flint: one core (from tree hollow 12162) had been re-used after its original surfaces had patinated, and the later work is of a much poorer quality, with numerous incipient cones of percussion littering the platform. These traits are generally indicative of Late Bronze or Early Iron Age lithic technologies. Formal tools are few in number, although there are a reasonably large number of types. Most are scrapers, all of which are probably not earlier than the Late Neolithic. The projectile is a chisel arrowhead (from subsoil 13006 Area E), broadly of Middle to Late Neolithic date. One (from evaluation ditch 803) is an edge-flaked knife with a low angle retouch on both lateral margins and the

6.6.3

6.6.4

28

distal end, most probably Early Bronze Age. The piercer (from section 10726 ditch 10751) is not a certain identification (the piece is very worn) but may be a ‘spurred’ type, normally ascribed to the Late Neolithic. Alternatively, it may be a flake with an irregular coarse truncating retouch to the distal end. A substantial portion of a lenticular cross-sectioned Early Neolithic polished axe came from tree hollow 10322. This implement was polished on all surfaces, but not to the extent that all of the original flake scars were removed. The blade is very much damaged, to the extent that very little if any of its original edge survives, and it seems that the axe was either re-used, or used as a core with the blade forming the platform. Other tool forms are limited to a notched flake, a rod-like piece with a battered end, and three flakes with miscellaneous retouch. 6.7 6.7.1 Burnt flint Burnt, unworked flint was recovered in some quantity from the Site – over 100kg. Just over one-third of the total (c. 40kg) came from contexts in Area A, including 21.7kg from tree hollow 12162, but other large deposits were encountered elsewhere on the Site, for example in ditch 5809 (evaluation trench 58, Area C) and pit 3103 (evaluation trench 31, Area D). Burnt flint is an undatable material type, but is often associated with prehistoric activity. In this instance, the majority of the burnt flint appears to come from Late Iron Age/Romano-British contexts, although much still remains undated. Slag A small amount of ironworking slag was recovered. This includes one possible hearth bottom (pit 12082 Area A), and a small quantity from a possible hearth dump in re-cut hearth/pit 12888, pit 13000 Area E; both these features are of Late Iron Age or early Romano-British date. Quantities are not sufficient to postulate on-site ironworking. Metalwork The metalwork comprises objects of copper alloy (1), iron (68) and lead (1). The copper alloy object is a small sheet fragment of unknown date and function. The iron consists largely of nails and other structural items, with two horseshoe fragments. The lead object is a piece of waste. None of these objects are closely datable, although the horseshoes are probably late medieval or later. A small iron bowl was recovered during the additional evaluation in the Urban Park. The badly corroded bowl was deposited within the basal fill of the ditch 9303. The find is not included within the finds quantification as part of this report, but provision has been made for the conservation, analysis and publication of this find. Animal bone The potential of the animal bone assemblage to provide information about husbandry patterns, population structures and consumption practices was ascertained from the number of bones that could give information on the age

6.7.2

6.8 6.8.1

6.9 6.9.1

6.9.2

6.10 6.10.1

29

and sex of animals, butchery, burning and breakage patterns. The number of bones that could provide metrical information was also counted. Conjoining fragments that were demonstrably from the same bone were counted as one bone in order to minimise distortion. No fragments were recorded as ‘medium mammal’ or ‘large mammal’; these were instead consigned to the unidentified category. The extent of mechanical or chemical attrition to the bone surface was recorded, with 1 indicating very poor condition, 2 poor, 3 fair, 4 good and 5 very good. The numbers of gnawed bone were also noted. Marks from chopping, sawing, knife cuts and fractures made when the bone was fresh were recorded as butchery marks. 6.10.2 A total of 712 bones were hand-recovered or came from samples. As almost none of it could be identified; the two categories were not separated. All bones derive from mammals. No bones from birds, fish or amphibians were present. Thirty-nine bones come from a Romano-British context; the rest of the assemblage is undated. The assemblage is made up mainly of very small (burnt) fragments, and only 79 fragments could be identified to species. Approximately 17% of the bone fragments were in poor or very poor condition, and only 11% were identifiable to species (Table 4), these deriving from horse (1), cattle (61), sheep/goat (3) and pig (14). Very little, therefore, can be said about animal husbandry. The poor and fragmented condition of the material can account for the little evidence of butchery found. The pig bones from pit 3202 and a butchered tibia from the subsoil in Area C could be of wild boar. Table 4: Animal bone condition and potential (NISP)
Context Roman Multiperiod Unidentified 36 597 Loose teeth 4 Burnt 39 376 Measurable 1 Ageable Butchered 1 15 2 Total number of fragments 39 673

6.10.3

6.10.4

Most of the remains (58%) were burnt (carbonised and calcined) and derived from a modern burnt feature. Only when bone actually comes into contact with fire does it change its colour. This does not normally happen during cooking, and it is possible in this instance that bone refuse was thrown into a hearth. Other finds Other finds comprise a few fragments of clay tobacco pipe and vessel glass, all post-medieval.

6.11 6.11.1

30

7 7.1 7.1.1

PALAEO-ENVIRONMANTAL ASSESSMENT Introduction and environmental samples taken One hundred and ninety-four bulk samples were taken from a range of features across the Site within each phase and processed for the recovery and assessment of charred plant remains and charcoals (Table 5). Ten monoliths samples, from nine interventions, were also taken from a range of features and phases. The bulk samples have been summarised and break down into the following phase groups:
Area A No 0 25 4 3 1 2 0 0 17 52 Vol 0 344.9 51 52 10 29 0 0 171.5 658.4 Area B No 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 14 Vol 96 82 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 206 Area C No 0 43 0 1 0 0 0 7 20 71 Vol 0 527 0 10 0 0 0 130 311 978 Area E No 0 6 6 4 0 0 0 0 1 17 Vol 0 80 93 61 0 0 0 0 10 244 Area G No 0 2 1 2 0 0 1 0 6 12 Vol 0 60 20 26 0 0 20 0 58 184 Area S No 0 1 0 13 4 2 0 0 1 21 Vol 0 18 0 137 23 20 0 0 18 216 Urban Park No Vol 0 0 2 36 0 0 2 38 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 20 7 103 Total Vol 96 1147.9 164 324 42 49 20 130 616.5 2589.4

Table 5: Summary of palaeoenvironmental samples
Phase

LBA or LIA? LIA/ERB RB Med ?Med Late-Post-med ?Post-med 20th C Undated Total

7.1.2

The palaeo-environmental information obtainable from these samples has the potential to contribute to both the economic and land use history of the Site, in particular in understanding the nature and function of the Late Iron Age/early Romano-British enclosures (ditches 13593 and 14317), and also the medieval drainage management systems. The large quantities of wood charcoal, especially in the Late Iron Age/early Romano-British period, suggest some off site activity perhaps associated with clearance or specialist activities. Assessment results: methods and data Bulk samples were processed by standard flotation methods; the flot retained on a 0.5 mm mesh, residues fractionated into 5.6 mm, 2mm and 1mm fractions and dried. The coarse fractions (>5.6 mm) were sorted, weighed and discarded. Flots were scanned under a x10 – x40 stereo-binocular microscope and the presence of charred remains quantified to record the preservation and nature of the charred plant and charcoal remains (Appendix 1: Table 6). Preliminary identifications of dominant or important taxa are noted below, following the nomenclature of Stace (1997). The flots were varied in size, and 15 were exceptionally large. The quantity of rooty material varied considerably through the samples, with some flots containing little to no such material while others contained up to 95% with high numbers of modern seeds that may be indicative of stratigraphic movement, reworking or the degree of contamination by later intrusive elements. In particular the seeds of goosefoot (Chenopodium spp.) and elder (Sambucus nigra) recovered from many of the flots may all be modern examples. Charred 31

7.2 7.2.1

7.2.2

material comprised varying degrees of preservation, with plant remains generally being sparse, while wood charcoal was much more abundant 7.3 Charred plant remains Area A 7.3.1 7.3.2 The 52 samples from this area generally produced sparse quantities of charred plant remains. The flots from six features of Late Iron Age/early Romano-British date, together with that from an undated posthole, contained small numbers of charred grain and chaff fragments. The grain fragments identified were mainly of hulled wheat, emmer or spelt (Triticum dicoccum/spelta) and barley (Hordeum sl) with a single grain of free-threshing wheat (Triticum aestivum sl). The chaff fragments were mainly hulled wheat glumes with a few barley rachis fragments. Hazelnut fragments (Corylus avellana) were observed in four of the samples. Amongst the small assemblages, the predominant weed seeds retrieved were brome grass (Bromus spp.) and wild oats (Avena). Few charred plant remains were recorded in the samples of Romano-British, medieval and late post-medieval date. The recovered remains were mainly hazelnut fragments. The 17 samples from undated features contained very low levels of charred plant remains and these were generally hazelnut fragments. Area B 7.3.5 Very sparse quantities of charred plant remains were recovered from the 14 samples taken from this area. No cereal remains were recorded and the other charred remains were dominated by hazelnut fragments. Area C 7.3.6 The majority of the 43 samples of Late Iron Age/early Romano-British date were taken from the large enclosure ditch (13593) and internal features and the small circular enclosure ditch (14317) and internal features. These samples contained most of the charred plant remains recovered from this phase. Low numbers of barley and hulled wheat grains and glume fragments were observed in three samples from enclosure ditch 13593 and in seven samples from enclosure ditch 14317. Hazelnut fragments were also present in four samples, possible sloe (Prunus spinosa) in one sample and hawthorn (Crataegus cf. monogyna) in another. No charred remains were recorded in the single sample from medieval ditch 10030 (section 10028). Seven samples were examined from the firepit 10040 and contained coal, charred rachises of free-threshing wheat, and tar covered straw and partially burnt wood all suggesting the feature is probably less than 100 years old and

7.3.3

7.3.4

7.3.7 7.3.8

32

may represent a modern decoy firepit. A few weed seeds of bramble (Rubus sp.) and wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) were also present. 7.3.9 Hazelnut and hawthorn fragments were observed in five of the undated samples. Area E 7.3.10 The five samples from features of Late Iron Age/early Romano-British date from this area contained only a very few charred plant remains. Single samples produced fragments of grain and hulled wheat glumes, while hazelnut fragments were noted in two samples. Seeds of wild oat/brome grass were recovered from hearth 11641. The Romano-British and medieval samples were very poor, containing only probable modern goosefoot seeds, whereas the sample from undated pit 12959 produced seeds of goosefoot and knot grass (Polygonaceae). Area G 7.3.12 The 12 samples from this area produced very small numbers of charred plant remains, mainly hazelnut fragments, small grass seeds (Lolium/Poaceae) and probable curled leaved dock (Rumex cf. crispus). Area S 7.3.13 7.3.14 The single sample of Late Iron Age date from this area produced only a few grain fragments. Ten of the 19 samples from medieval and late post-medieval features produced small amounts of cereal remains. These included barley, free-threshing wheat and probable rye grain fragments. Hazelnut fragments were only present in a single sample. The two samples from recut field boundary ditch 14115 and two of the samples from the drainage pit group 14114 were rich in charred weed seeds. These assemblages were dominated by seeds of wild oats and brome grass, with seeds of meadow grass (Poa sp.), wild radish, scentless mayweed (Tripleurospermum inodorum) and vetches (Vicia/Lathyrus spp.) observed. Urban Park 7.3.15 Small quantities of charred plant remains were retrieved from two of the seven samples taken from this area. The seeds recorded were hazelnut fragments, wild oats and vetches. Wood charcoal Wood charcoal was noted from the flots of the bulk samples and is recorded in Appendix 1: Table 6. The samples were generally rich in charcoal, mainly comprising heartwood fragments but with some round wood fragments present. Some pieces of bark were also observed. A number of buds, catkins and Rosaceae thorns were retrieved, as well as the hazelnut, sloe and hawthorn fragments discussed above. 33

7.3.11

7.4 7.4.1

7.4.2

Two Late Iron Age/early Romano-British features, pit 10830 and hearth 12102, and two undated hearths, 11637 and 12023, from Area A produced large quantities of charcoal, as did two features from Area B, tree hollow 10182 and pit 8207 (evaluation). From Area C, high numbers of charcoal fragments were retrieved from eight samples of Late Iron Age/early Romano-British date, six of which were recovered from enclosure ditches 13593 and 14317. All seven samples taken from the possible 20th century decoy firepit 10040 contained vast amounts of charcoal fragments as did a further eight undated hearths and pits. Only three samples from Area E comprised significant amounts of charcoal, one from the Late Iron Age/early Romano-British tree hollow 12936, another from the Romano-British pit 12888 and the third from the undated pit 12959. The two undated hearths (3103 (evaluation) and 12570) and an undated tree hollow (12529) from Area G also produced large amounts of charcoal. Only small quantities of charcoal fragments were recovered from the samples taken from Area S. A single sample from an undated tree hollow (10345) in the Urban Park contained a significant number of charcoal fragments. Pollen A total of 58 samples were taken from the stratified sediment samples (monoliths 24, 87, and 201) as listed in the sediment descriptions, see Appendix 1: Tables 8, 10 and 15. Twelve samples (Appendix 1: Table 7) were selected for assessment by the pollen specialist and processed using standard procedure (Moore and Webb 1978; Moore et al. 1991), with nomenclature according to Stace (1997) and Bennett (et al. 1994). Table 7: List of pollen samples selected for assessment
Monolith sample no. 87 87 87 87 87 87 201 201 201 201 201 201 Depth 0.34-0.35 0.46-0.47 0.56-0.57 0.62-0.63 0.68-0.69 0.72-0.73 0.23-0.24 0.39-0.40 0.47-0.48 0.53-0.54 0.57-0.58 0.61-0.62 Context 10415 10429 10494 10494 10494 10493 14220 14218 14218 14217 14217 14215 Unit/summary description Fill Secondary fill with washed in clay laminae Waterlogged fill Waterlogged fill Waterlogged fill ‘natural’ greensand geology Likely slight stasis horizon Stasis horizon Stasis horizon Secondary fill/ base of gley soil Gleyed secondary fill Primary fill

7.5 7.5.1

7.5.2

Introduction 7.5.3 Pollen analysis has been carried out on two profiles taken from this site. These comprise the fills of enclosure ditch 13445 (section 14214) in Area C, sequence/monolith 201 and the partially waterlogged fills of drainage ditch/waterhole 10412/10503 in the Urban Park, sequence/monolith 87 (Figure 9). Both sequences are likely to be of Late Iron Age to early Romano-British date, although the drainage ditch 10412 may well be medieval in date. A 34

preliminary pollen analysis has been carried out to establish if sub-fossil pollen and spores are present in these sediments and if so, to provide preliminary information on the vegetation and local environment of the Site. Pollen has been recovered from all samples examined, which has allowed the construction of two pollen diagrams, and some useful preliminary palaeo-environmental interpretation. The pollen data 7.5.4 Analysis has been carried out on two profiles. Pollen was abundant and well preserved in the sequence from 10412, monolith/sequence 87 - the partially waterlogged waterhole fills - whilst the pollen in ditch section 14214, sequence/monolith 201 is less abundant but remains in sufficient numbers to enable valid counts to be made. The palynological characteristics of these two profiles are described. Monolith/Sequence 201 (Enclosure Ditch 13445 – section 14214) Overall, the pollen spectra are broadly homogeneous throughout the profile and as such, no pollen assemblage zones have been defined. However, there is some minor variation between the primary fill of the ditch (14215) and above (14217) at 62-52cm (see below). Trees and shrubs: Trees and shrubs are dominant throughout with Corylus avellana type (probably hazel but may include bog myrtle) being dominant (to 80%). Values are slightly higher in the basal contexts and decline upwards. Quercus (oak) is important throughout but increases upwards, as Corylus is declining (to 25%). There are sporadic occurrences of Betula (birch), Pinus (pine) and Alnus glutinosa (alder; to 7%). These taxa are all produce large quantities of anemophilous pollen and are not considered to be from near/local growth. Ilex aquifolium (holly) is, however, occasionally present and is in contrast, markedly under represented in pollen spectra. As such the numbers here have a greater significance. There is a peak of Calluna (ling; to 4%) in the basal fills. Herbs: Although pollen is well preserved, herbs are notably few considering the possible Iron Age/Romano-British date of this profile. Poaceae (grasses) are most important (to 10%) and become more important in the upper contexts from ca. 52cm (14217), (14218) and (14220). Other taxa include occasional Plantago lanceolata (ribwort plantain) in the basal context (14215). Asteraceae types include Bidens type, Aster type (daisy types) and Lactucoideae (dandelion types). Cereal pollen is present in small numbers from 58cm (14217) and (14218). Pteridophytes: Spores of ferns are important with Pteridium aquilinum (bracken; to 30% sum+spores). Monolete spore forms, Dryopteris type (typical ferns) and Polypodium vulgare (common polypody fern) are also present. These latter are slightly more abundant in the primary fill and may be derived from inwash. There is also indicated by a small numbers of derived geological palynomorphs.

7.5.5

7.5.6

7.5.7

7.5.8

35

7.5.9

Monolith/Sequence 87 (Waterhole 1350/Drainage ditch 10412 section 10412) This sequence is suggested as being of at least Late Iron Age to RomanoBritish age. Trees and shrubs are dominant although there are also substantially greater numbers of herbs and a greater diversity than observed in profile Ditch 14214, monolith/sequence 201. The pollen assemblages are broadly homogeneous throughout the profile and as such, no local pollen assemblage zones have been designated. The floral/palynological characteristics are as follows. Trees and shrubs: Quercus (to 18%), Corylus avellana type (to 40%) and Alnus glutinosa (25%) are the dominant type. However, other taxa include Tilia cf. cordata (small leaved lime; to 2%) and Ilex aquifolium (holly) are also present and are usually very substantially underrepresented in pollen spectra (Andersen 1970, 1973) suggesting that they may have been locally present at this site. Corylus avellana type (to 38%) is the dominant shrub. Dwarf shrubs/acidophilous communities: Erica (heather) and Calluna (ling) occur in the lower half of the profile (below 52cm) and may be associated with Sphagnum (bog moss) which peaks at 68cm (10494). These reflect the acid soils developed in Cretaceous, Lower Greensand lithology. Herbs: There is a moderately diverse assemblage of herb taxa which are dominated by Poaceae (grasses; to 28%). Small numbers of cereal pollen are present throughout. ‘Large Poaceae’ (i.e. .45u) are of thin walled taxa which may be wild grasses such as Glyceria fluitans (and not cereals). Other taxa include Plantago lanceolata (ribwort plantain) which has highest values in the uppermost sample at 34cm (10415). Pteridophytes: Pteridium aquilinum (bracken) is most important (to 17%). Dryopteris type and Polypodium vulgare are present throughout. A peak of Sphagnum at 68cm has been noted and there are occasional occurrences above. Discussion; the inferred vegetation and environment The most notable characteristic of both of these profiles is the apparent importance of trees and shrubs and relatively less importance of herbs. Whilst there is evidence of arable activity (cereal pollen) and grassland/pasture (Poaceae and Plantago lanceolata), it is apparent that the local environment was wooded or at least, consisted of hazel scrub in the case of the sequence from ditch 14214 (monolith 201). This is also the case seen with the fills of drainage pit 10412 (sequence/monolith 87), which also had lime/linden (Tilia). Pollen evidence for woodland within features of Iron Age/Romano-British sites is unusual, although localised pollen evidence from the New Forest region has shown evidence for continuous woodland (Grant 2005), as would appear to be the case here. Summary of monolith/Sequence 201 (Enclosure Ditch 13445 – section 14214) Pollen analysis shows that the local environment of the Late Iron Age was dominated by hazel woodland (scrub?) with oak. Small numbers of holly pollen

7.5.10

7.5.11

7.5.12

7.5.13

7.5.14

7.5.15

7.5.16

36

are also of importance since it is very poorly represented in pollen spectra and as such, holly probably formed an important component, such as seen in the New Forest today. The small numbers of alder, birch and pine pollen are regarded as non-local, longer distance transport from the region. The former will have come from river valley associations. There is, however, some evidence in the upper contexts for increasingly open ground indicated by increasing grasses and small numbers of cereal pollen. Bracken has relatively high percentage values, which may be interpreted as the ground flora of the suggested hazel scrub. Summary of monolith/Sequence 87 (Waterhole 1350/Drainage ditch 10412 section 10412) Although there is evidence of local grassland and some cereal cultivation, the pollen data suggest that the local environment comprised a mosaic of woodland types. Preliminary analysis suggests this consisted of oak and hazel with some lime and holly. Alder is of greater importance than in profile/sequence 201 (ditch 14214) being common in lower-lying valleys probably as part of floodplain carr-woodland and as such is reflective of the local environment. This point is enhanced by that the pollen catchment of pit and ditch features is restricted to the very local, surrounding area (Dimbleby 1985). There is also evidence for some areas of open ground within the suggested woodland habitat. In the lower contexts (10494) there is some evidence for acid, heathland plants (heather, ling and Sphagnum bog moss). These taxa reflect the acidity of the local geology and soils. Grasses are, however, dominant and with some ribwort plantain indicates areas of grassland, possibly pasture. Similarly, small numbers of cereal pollen (usually not so well represented in pollen spectra) indicate growth of cereals. However, the possibility of this being of secondary origin from crop processing activities (threshing and winnowing) or from domestic waste cannot be ruled out. Pollen summary 7.5.19 The following essential points have been made: Pollen has been recovered from all 120 samples examined. It is especially abundant in sequence/monolith 87 (drainage pit 10412). That in sequence/monolith 201 (ditch 14214) is less abundant, but still in numbers which would facilitate full pollen counts. Both profiles show substantial importance of trees and shrubs. Sequence/monolith 87 (10412) has evidence of a mixed woodland dominated by oak and hazel but possibly with lime and certainly holly on adjacent drier land. Alder may have been growing on nearby wetland-river floodplains. Sequence/monolith 201 (14214) shows clear local dominance of oak and hazel woodland but with local areas bracken scrub. Herbs are of greater importance in profile 87 (10412) with evidence of grassland/pasture? in clearings and also some cereal cultivation. Profile 201 (14214) similarly has some evidence of grassland and cereal

7.5.17

7.5.18

37

cultivation. This is, however, subordinate to the local dominance of woodland and scrub. 7.6 7.6.1 Sediments The monoliths were cleaned prior to recording and standard descriptions used, (following Hodgson 1976) including Munsell colour, texture, structure and nature of boundaries, as given below in Appendix 1: Tables 8-16. Monolith samples from nine sections were described; four from a Late Iron Age/early Romano-British enclosure ditch 13593 (Area C); one from a Late Iron Age/early Romano-British curvilinear enclosure ditch 14317 (Area C), one from a Late Iron Age/early Romano-British waterhole (Urban Park), two from medieval ?field and drainage system ditches (Area S and Urban Park Area) and one from a medieval pit (Area S). The results are presented and interpreted by phase / feature below. Monolith descriptions are presented in Appendix 1: Tables 8-16. Late Iron Age/early Romano-British enclosure ditch 13593 7.6.4 7.6.5 Four sections were sampled from this feature. Section 10021, monolith <24> (terminal) The earliest deposit is a primary fill composed of coarsely layered sands and silt/clay sized material, washed from the exposed geology of the ditch sides by rain and settling in standing water. This was overlain by a fine-grained secondary fill showing characteristics of gleying, upon which a shallow gleyed soil has formed indicating a period of stasis. This soil was then buried by sandy tertiary fills, which likely represent agriculturally disturbed colluvial (or directly ploughed-in) material. Section 13469, monolith <143> A primary fill of fine grained sediments containing microscopic charcoal (likely originating from contemporary ground surface) was overlain by a layer of sand washed from the exposed geology of the ditch sides. This was overlain by a fine-grained gleyed secondary fill, with evidence of weathering/pedogenesis towards its top but with no preserved palaeosol as such. This secondary fill was contained a thin but distinct inwash layer of predominantly oak charcoal (interpreted as an inwash rather than a dump due to the well-sorted and oriented nature of the charcoal pieces). This material was likely washed in from an adjacent surface feature, or from a nearby charcoally dump in the enclosure ditch itself, and provides a potential source for 14C dating. The ditch was sealed by a colluvial tertiary fill. Section 13508, monolith <162> (terminal) A primary fill of sand interleaved with fine silty clay lamina represents material washed from the exposed geology of the feature sides and surrounding ground surface. Fine interval sampling of these laminae could potentially provide feature contemporary pollen evidence; although with a significant risk that topsoil-derived pre-feature pollen may be included. A generally fine grained

7.6.2

7.6.3

7.6.6

7.6.7

38

gleyed secondary fill was punctuated with several well sorted sandy/fine inwash events; these are likely the product of heavy rainwater run off from disturbed ground. There is some indication of pedogenesis in places throughout this secondary fill although no sealed palaeosol as such is present. The wellsorted sandy tertiary fill likely represents material washed in by flooding/erosion events from an ?agriculturally disturbed ground surface. 7.6.8 Section 14214, monolith <201> A primary fill of unsorted gravely material originating from the immediate geology represents side-collapse of the feature soon after excavation - a dark band at the top of this layer could be due to a slight stasis, but most likely originates from the collapse into the feature of existing topsoil material. Above this was a gleyed secondary fill which became increasingly organic up profile, indicating a wet, well vegetated ditch environment. A stasis horizon formed in the top of this layer contained occasional charcoal lumps - these represent a good potential source for 14C dating. This palaeosol was sealed by a poorly sorted relatively rapidly deposited fill (possibly colluvial) over which was a quite charcoal rich fill, displaying some characteristics of a further stasis horizon. The unsorted tertiary fill above this represents ploughed in or colluvial material. This sequence has been sub-sampled for assessment of palynological potential. Summary of sediments from Late Iron Age/early Romano-British enclosure ditch Primary fills: The earliest deposits in the enclosure ditch profile are primary fills of sands and finer sediments (occasionally coarsely laminated) eroded from the geology by the action of rainwater on the freshly cut unvegetated and unstable feature sides. Significant side collapse is evidenced in one section (14214, <201>). On unstable geology such as this these fills would have been laid down over a duration of the order of months or years. Secondary fills and stasis horizons: After the ditch profile had stabilised to some degree and become colonised with (at least patchy) vegetation, finer grained secondary fills were laid down. In all cases some degree of gleying was evident, indicating intermittently waterlogged conditions. These fills would have been formed by continued gradual weathering back of the ditch sides and surrounding ground surface, and represent a likely time span of the order of decades to low centuries. In some sections, particularly 14214 (monolith <201>) the secondary fills became increasingly organic; this is indicative of a wet, highly vegetated ditch environment. In one terminal (13508, monolith <162>) the secondary fill was punctuated by well sorted inwash events of sand and finer sediments; these represent much more rapid relatively high-energy erosion / deposition events, likely caused by the action of heavy rainfall upon disturbed ground. In all sections evidence of pedogenesis was observed towards the top of the secondary fill to some degree, indicating that the rate of accumulation had slowed to the extent that a stable soil horizon could start to develop. This stasis horizon was most pronounced in interventions 10021 <24> and 14214 <201>.

7.6.9

7.6.10

7.6.11

39

7.6.12

Tertiary fills: Tertiary fills ranged from unsorted colluvial or ploughed-in material to well-sorted sandy fills, probably washed in during heavy rain events after disturbance of the surrounding ground surface (most likely by agriculture). Late Iron Age/early Romano-British enclosure ditch 14317

7.6.13 7.6.14

One section was sampled from this ditch; section 14309, monolith <213> A rapidly deposited probable primary fill (sample did not reach the feature base) of side-collapsed material was overlain by a gleyed secondary fill in which had developed a moderately well developed stasis horizon, and which incorporated a dump(s) of abundant charcoal pieces (mostly of Betula pendula/pubescens but also some Pomoideae). This horizon was imperfectly sealed by a sandy silt layer (possibly a product of disturbed ground in the immediate vicinity of the enclosure entrance). A ploughed-in or colluvial tertiary fill topped the sequence. The charcoal rich layer provides a potential source for 14C dating, which may prove useful to correlate activity phases between the two enclosures if pottery evidence proves insufficient (NB a better 14C sample has been taken from the primary fill of this feature from an intervention during the evaluation phase of the project – 62350 <11>). Late Iron Age/early Romano-British – waterhole 13503/10412

7.6.15

7.6.16

A single section was sampled from this pit group, which have been interpreted as drainage features. The Urban Park Area of the Site was noticeably lower and wetter than the surrounding terrain. Section 10412, monolith <87> (Urban Park Area) This monolith was distinguished by its having what appeared to be a waterlogged stake surviving in cross-section; this was not visible during excavation and was included by chance. The surviving length of the stake was 0.23m, which penetrated into the ‘natural’ greensand geology. The top of the ?stake was fragmented and probably rotted away rather than being snapped off. Above the ?stake was a waterlogged fill containing common wood and bark fragments, with the remainder of the feature consisting of alternating pale and dark sandy fills; these represent organic secondary fills (indicative of wet highly vegetated conditions) punctuated by inwashes of cleaner material washed into the ditch from the surrounding area during heavy rain events. It should be noted that this feature was interpreted on site as two intercutting features; in fact only one feature is present in the monolith, with a halo effect giving the impression of an underlying pit. The wooden stake provides an ideal source for 14C dating. The sequence was sampled for assessment of palynological potential.

7.6.17

7.6.18

40

Medieval ditches 7.6.19 Two monolith samples were taken from medieval ditch sequences; one from the Urban Park Area and one from Area S. The Urban Park Area of the Site was noticeably lower and wetter than the surrounding terrain. Section 10374, monolith <41> (drainage ditch 10489, Urban Park Area) A primary fill of interleaved sands and fine sediments represents material washed from the freshly cut ditch sides (fine interval sampling of these laminae could potentially provide feature contemporary pollen evidence; although with a significant risk that topsoil-derived pre-feature pollen may be included). Above this, an increasingly dark organic secondary fill is indicative of wet, highly vegetated marshy conditions within the feature. This layer has undergone some pedogenesis but is not a buried soil per se. It is sealed by a less organic secondary or tertiary fill. Section 13994, monolith <187> (boundary ditch 14115, Area S) A probable primary fill (sample stops short of geology) is composed of fine material probably settled out in standing water within the ditch. Above this a thick gleyed secondary fill build up, in the middle of which was a weakly developed stasis horizon. This indicates a period of relative stability and reduced sediment input. Quite common charcoal lumps throughout the secondary fills may indicate continued archaeological activity nearby (although it is possible that the charcoal may have been introduced to the adjacent ground surface via manuring). Medieval pit 7.6.22 Section 13876, monolith <170 and 171> Except for episodes of side collapse, the bulk of the feature was filled with dark organic rich secondary fills (not dumps - no tip lines, boundaries not sharp, not artefact rich). These fills would have been built up in a wet, highly vegetated pit environment, and indicate that the pit was left open to fill naturally for a significant length of time (probably on a decadal scale). Examination of plant macrofossils may elucidate feature function, although it is quite possible that the feature would have been cleaned out during its use and thus the sediments may relate to a period of disuse. There were thought to be two inter-cutting pits in this intervention during excavation; however from the section drawings/photographs it appears that the lower feature is actually just a halo effect due to the translocation of material leeched from the upper pit.

7.6.20

7.6.21

7.6.23

41

8 8.1 8.1.1

DISCUSSION Overview of findings The excavation at Dowd’s Farm has produced widespread evidence of significant and multi-period activity on the Site. This activity can be characterised as: Residual Neolithic and Bronze Age worked flint assemblages and a very small number of Bronze Age features, largely focused in areas along the western fringes of the Site (Areas A and B). Finds included an Early Neolithic polished axe located within a tree hollow (Urban Park Area) Widespread evidence for Late Iron Age/early Romano-British activity, including small-scale industrial activity (Area A) and two large ditched enclosures (Area C), together with a network of drainage, field boundary and droveway ditches Intensive early medieval settlement activity within an area to the north of the existing farmhouse, together with an extensive pattern of field and land drainage systems throughout the Site, which continued into the post-medieval and modern periods.

8.1.2

The residual nature and minimal quantities of early prehistoric diagnostic material has made it difficult at this stage to separate early prehistoric and later prehistoric in situ activity within the Site. The flint assemblage provides evidence of probable Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Age industries (including an Early Neolithic polished flint axe), but much of this material occurred residually. Although a small quantity of early prehistoric pottery has been identified within Areas B and A, it has proved difficult to distinguish this material from the Late Iron Age/early Romano-British material and to accurately distinguish the earlier and later prehistoric activity. At the very least, the presence of the residual earlier prehistoric material within the base of the shallow valley does highlight the high potential for earlier prehistoric features within the undeveloped Urban park Area, further to the north. The pattern of field boundaries throughout the Site shows a significant degree of continuity. This is evident in the medieval/post-medieval reuse/recutting of the larger Late Iron Age/early Romano-British field boundaries in Areas A, E and the Urban Park Area and the general orientation of the later medieval and post-medieval pens, field and drainage systems, which mirror closely those of earlier periods. The charred plant remains and pollen samples from sequences taken from the field boundaries, enclosure ditches and other selected features indicate that there is abundant material to reconstruct the range of environmental landscapes, which existed throughout the long use of the Site.

8.1.3

8.1.4

8.1.5

42

8.1.6

Within the wider Eastleigh District, the results of the excavation are significant in that relatively few prehistoric or Romano-British sites are recorded. With the exception of Bronze Age barrow groups (including the Moorgreen Barrow Scheduled Monument), which lie approximately 1km to the west and southwest of the Site, few other early prehistoric sites are known. A small cluster of worked flint scatters, dating from the Mesolithic to late Bronze Age have been located approximately 5km to the northeast of the Site at East Horton Farm. Elsewhere, a dispersed group of four burnt mound sites of a likely Bronze Age are located approximately 3 - 4km to the south of the Site, together with a large pit containing loomweights and other domestic material indicating a possible settlement was found at the Bursledon Brick Company Works. A similar picture is evident in the Iron Age record. With the exception of the Hickley Wood Hillfort, which lies approximately 1.5km to the southwest of the Site, the only remains recorded on the Hampshire Sites and Monuments Record are small groups of pits or other small features, located along the line of the M27 or close to Southampton, at least 4 - 5km from the Site. The overall picture for the Romano-British period is also similar, with relatively little archaeological investigation within large areas surrounding the Site. Sections of the east-west running Bitterne to Chichester Roman Road have been recorded, running approximately 3km to the south of the Site. One significant section lies approximately 4km to the southeast of the Site (to the south of Botley) where a group of five Romano-British brick and tile kilns, a small settlement and a Scheduled Monument (Curdridge Roman Villa) are located. A sixth brick and tile kiln was found near Long Common, 2.5km to the east of the Site. Fieldwork at Fair Oak, 3.5 - 4km to the northeast of the Site has uncovered sections of an early Romano-British field system and associated field systems, which appear to be similar in nature to that found within the Site. Two further Romano-British Villas are recorded 4km to the northwest of the Site, on the edge of Eastleigh and within Southampton Airport.

8.1.7

8.1.8

8.1.9

8.1.10

43

9 9.1.1

STATEMENT OF POTENTIAL The results of the excavation, combined with specific areas of further analysis, have the potential to make a significant contribute to an understanding of late prehistoric, early Romano-British and medieval activity, both locally and regionally, by examining: the nature of agricultural practices on the Site; the function and relationship of the two Late Iron Age/early RomanoBritish enclosures in Area C; the nature and extent of Late Iron Age/early Romano-British activities in Areas A, E and G; and the development of the medieval occupation and agriculture in Areas A, E and the Paddock/Area S and the Urban Park.

9.2 9.2.1

Finds potential The finds assemblage has provided preliminary dating evidence for the Site, and further analysis is unlikely to refine that dating to any significant extent. Functional evidence is limited – minimal evidence for in situ (but undated) flint knapping, a few loomweights and quern fragments, a little ironworking slag, and some evidence for hearths. The flint assemblage provides evidence of probable Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Age industries, but much of this material occurred residually. The significance (and date) of large quantities of burnt, unworked flint remains enigmatic. The range of pottery is well paralleled on other sites in the area. Of the animal bone, almost no fragments could be identified to species. The further potential of the finds assemblage is therefore relatively limited. Palaeo-environmental potential Charred plant remains

9.3

9.3.1

Detailed analysis of a targeted selection of samples has the potential to elucidate details about the nature of the Site and its economy and the exploitation and agricultural use of the surrounding landscape during the Late Iron Age/early Romano-British period. Other Iron Age sites in Hampshire have commonly produced charred evidence for both spelt wheat and barley (Campbell 2000; Caruthers 1991), associated with settlement activities. The general paucity of such material may infer that occupation was short-lived settlement with low levels of activity. It is notable that another early RomanoBritish site in Southampton associated with the settlement at Dairy Lane, was also very poor in the number of charred plant remains recovered (Hinton 1997), although a later Romano-British site to the east at Crookhorn, Portsmouth, did produce quite rich assemblages (Murphy 1989).

44

9.3.2

The plant remains recovered from the medieval features appear to be typical of other assemblages in the area from outlying field and drainage systems. The presence of free-threshing wheat and barley has been noted on a number of sites in the area from the Saxon period onwards and rye has also been noted on Late Saxon sites in the area as well as rarely from earlier and middle Saxon sites (Green 1984, Green 1991; Stevens 2007). Differences between the two major periods in agricultural techniques and site usage as reflected in the charred plant assemblages should be discernable. Charcoal

9.3.3

9.3.4

The quantity of charcoal retrieved was generally high and the detailed analysis of the wood charcoal from a selection of features from the Late Iron Age/early Romano-British period across the Site has the potential to address questions concerning local woodland exploitation and management, such as coppicing and pollarding, and whether any species selection was taking place. The quantities of charcoal recovered may be indicative of some specialist activities requiring burning or possibly just clearance. Further examination of a number of the smaller assemblages from the medieval period will provide information concerning both the environmental and anthropogenic changes in the woodland and differences in the nature of the settlement and land use between the two major periods represented on the Site. The charcoal rich assemblages from a limited number of undated hearths, tree hollows and pits should be studied to provide a comparison with the other assemblages, including those from other sites in the region (e.g. Gale 1997) and to ascertain whether these charcoal assemblages are likely to represent single events. Additionally in light of the pollen evidence and in conjunction with further pollen analysis such information can together provide a detailed picture of the management, exploitation and use of woodland resources. Pollen

9.3.5

9.3.6

9.3.7

The potential of the assessed sequences is good, and indicates further potential for other sequences from the site. Additionally as discussed above in conjunction with the outstanding charcoal evidence discussed above it has the potential to examine the nature of human activity in what appears a highly wooded environment. The relatively small amount of variation between samples from the same sequence in the assessment leaves little further potential for further analysis of those sequences already examined. Late Iron Age / Romano-British Initial results from a sequence in the large late Iron Age / Romano-British enclosure ditch (group 13593, monolith <201>) indicate the domination of hazel woodland with oak. Given the largely homogenous nature of the ditch fills, it is proposed that small numbers of samples (2-4 samples) from the bottom of the features will be adequate to characterise the local vegetation.

9.3.8

45

9.3.9

Examination of 2-3 pollen samples from the smaller, probably contemporary enclosure (group 14317, monolith <213>) should be examined and will help provide an indication of the extent of such woodland. Medieval Taking into account the apparently still wooded local environment in the early historic period, and the establishment of Dowd’s Farm at some point possibly quite early in the medieval period, it is of value to ascertain if the medieval ditches on site were excavated in an area clear of woodland. Examination of sequences from two of these ditches should elucidate this (monoliths <41 and 187>). Sediments

9.3.10

9.3.11

The sediments have no further potential per se and are recommended for discard once any need for further sub-sampling has been addressed. PROPOSALS FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS AND PUBLICATION Aims and objectives General aims

10 10.1

10.1.1

Initial assessment has allowed the compilation of an outline narrative of the Site’s development. It is proposed to conduct further analysis on a wide range of palaeo-environmental material, as well as on a limited range of finds, the results of which will be correlated with the stratigraphic and structural data enabling a review of the preliminary phasing. This analysis, combined with comparison to other sites in the surrounding area, has potential to refine understanding of aspects of this sequence and to place the Site in its local and regional context. The aims for the analysis and publication phase are: to carry out an agreed programme of post-excavation analysis and reporting following the procedures set out in MAP2; to place the results into their local and regional context to produce a report on the findings, and an interpretation and discussion of them, for dissemination as an academic publication commensurate with the significance of the data; to ensure the long-term curation of the data recovered and its dissemination in a form appropriate to its significance and academic value.

10.1.2

46

Research aims 10.1.3 Few sites of this kind have been excavated within this area and therefore the multi-phase nature of this Site is of particular importance. The site at Dowd’s Farm provides an opportunity to investigate the following: Using environmental landscape reconstruction consider the early prehistoric occupation in terms of the flint assemblage and its spatial distribution Considering the development of the Late Iron Age/Romano-British and later landscape, within a local and regional context 10.1.4 It should be noted that expansive research potential is limited due to the lack of internal/discrete features within the presumed settlement enclosures to develop functional interpretations. Also there are severe limitations in further analysis of finds assemblage to provide a more targeted chronological framework. Proposals for further work Stratigraphic and structural analysis 10.2.1 The stratigraphic sequence provides a framework for understanding the development of the Site, and while the basic phased stratigraphic narrative outlined above is unlikely to change greatly as a result of further analysis. More detailed study of the stratigraphic sequence may provide closer dating for some features and enable the remains to be put into their local and regional historical context. It would also be intended that further historical research would be carried out on the known history, ownership and historical development of the Site, which would focus on the identification of historical elements of this well-preserved landscape. Finds analysis 10.2.3 Further analysis is proposed only for the pottery assemblage. For other finds categories, information gathered during the assessment phase may be utilised for any proposed publication. None of these finds warrants illustration, although the ground axe fragment should be photographed for publication The pottery assemblage (with the exception of post-medieval sherds) will be subjected to detailed fabric and form analysis, following the standard Wessex Archaeology recording system for pottery (Morris 1994), which fulfil nationally recommended minimum archive standards for prehistoric, RomanoBritish and medieval pottery (PCRG 1997; SGRP 1994; MPRG 2001). Medieval fabrics will be correlated where possible with the regional type series held by Southampton City Museum. The iron bowl found during the evaluation of the tree-planting areas in the Urban Park will be conserved and included with the material for analysis and publication.

10.2

10.2.2

10.2.4

10.2.5

47

10.2.6

The assemblage will be described and discussed, within chronological groups and with supporting tabulated data, with reference to potential sources, and any implications for site function and economic status. A limited selection of vessel forms will be illustrated, as a representative type series (maximum 20 vessels). Environmental analysis

10.2.7

Charred plant remains It is proposed to analyse in detail 10 samples of Late Iron Age/early RomanoBritish date from a range of features and Areas, but in particular from Area A and Area C. A further six samples from a selection of medieval features from the concentration of features in the Paddock/Area S should also be analysed. This data will be augmented by discussion of the assessment results of the remaining bulk samples. Charcoal The detailed analysis of the wood charcoal from 25 selected samples from a range of Late Iron Age/early Romano-British, medieval and, to a lesser extent, undated features across the Site is proposed to provide information concerning the exploitation and management of the local woodland resource and any specialist activities taking place on the Site. Pollen Three further sequences should be examined, although it is proposed to examine a small number of samples from each: Entrance terminal of small Late Iron Age/early Romano-British enclosure ditch (14317), monolith <213> Medieval drainage ditch 14089, monolith <41> Medieval boundary ditch 14115, monolith <187>

10.2.8

10.2.9

Sediments 10.2.10 No further analysis of the sediments is proposed although they will be retained in case further samples are required for the pollen analysis or radiocarbon dating; after that they will be discarded. Radiocarbon dating 10.2.11 Nine samples are recommended for radiocarbon dating. The samples are selected from a selection of the charcoal-rich hearths, pits and tree hollows to assist in dating activities represented during different phases of the Site. 10.2.12 Further dates may be required where there is any question on dating for the further four sequences. One of these will be dated as outlined above. The remaining three, ditch group 13593, 14089 and 14115 should be dated according to the degree of confidence regarding their respective Late Iron Age/Romano-British (13593) and medieval dates.

48

Table 17: List of proposed radiocarbon samples
Group 10081 10904 Feature posthole 10878 pit/reused tree hollow 10861 Reused tree hollow 12197 hearth 12102 Context 10880 10867 12194 12164 Sample Area A 45 46 72 93 Area C 200/201 23 11 17 Urban Park 87 charcoal rich deposit, southern most group large enclosure (From monolith 201) large enclosure terminus small enclosure small enclosure wooden stake (from monolith 87) Comments Four-post feature Charcoal rich intercutting pit/tree hollow

13593 13593 14317 14317 13265

ditch 14214 ditch 10021 ditch 5809 (evaluation) ditch 14244 Waterhole/drainage feature 10412

14220 10024 5803 14246 n/a

10.3 10.3.1

Report structure It is proposed that the publication text will take the form of an integrated and synthesised report, comprising a description of the stratigraphic/structural evidence combined with the results of the further analyses and a discussion of the Site’s wider regional context. It is proposed to publish the report in Hampshire Studies. Supporting detailed specialist data would be published separately on the web.
Report section Summary INTRODUCTION Project background Geology topography and land-use Historical period background Archaeological background Project aims Excavation methodology RESULTS Integrated stratigraphic narrative and phasing scheme with assemblage/stratigraphy-based pottery and environmental report Specialist data Selected methodologies and tabulated data CONCLUSIONS References Figures Acknowledgements TOTAL Word length 200 150 150 250 250 250

10.3.2

6000

3000 3000 600 7 pages 100 13,950 words

49

11.2 11.2.1

Personnel It is currently proposed that the following Wessex Archaeology core staff will be involved in the programme of post-excavation analyses. Wessex Archaeology reserved the right to make changes to project personnel, during the course of the project. Project Manager Andrew Manning MA, BSc, MIFA Reports Manager Julie Gardiner, BA, PhD, MIFA, FSA Senior Project Officer/Main author Susan Clelland, BA Environmental Officer/Charred Plant remains Chris Stevens, BSc, PhD Environmental Officer/Charcoal Cathie Barnett, BSc, MSc, PhD, MIFA Pollen Michael Grant BSc, MSc, PhD Senior Project Officer/Pottery/Other finds Rachael Seager Smith, BA, MIFA/ Kayt Brown BA, Lorraine Mepham, BA, MIFA and Grace Jones, BA, MA Project Officer/Animal Bone Jessica Grimm MA Environmental Officer Sarah Wyles, BA, PIFA, MAEA Project Officer/Photographer Elaine Wakefield, HND, MAHFAP

11.3 11.3.1

Wessex Archaeology quality standards Wessex Archaeology operates an integrated project management system. Projects are assigned to individual Project Managers who monitor their progress and quality and control budgets from inception to completion, in all aspects including Health and Safety. Projects are managed in accordance with English Heritage guidelines outlined in the document Management of Archaeological Projects 2 (English Heritage 1991). At all stages, the Project Manager will carefully assess and monitor performance of staff and adherence to objectives, timetables and budgets. The performance of the Project Manager is monitored in turn by the Section Head who will ensure that the project meets Wessex Archaeology's quality standards and is adequately programmed and resourced within Wessex Archaeology's portfolio of project commitments. A formal written report is made to the Section once a month by the Project Manager. STORAGE AND CURATION Museum It is recommended that the project archive resulting from the excavation be deposited with Hampshire County Museums Service. The Museum has agreed in principle to accept the project archive on completion of the project, under the accession code A2006.67. Deposition of the finds with the Museum will only be carried out with the full agreement of the landowner.

11.3.2

12 12.1 12.1.1

51

12.2 12.2.1

Conservation Metal objects have been X-radiographed as part of the assessment phase, as a basic record and also to aid identification. On the basis of the X-rays, the range of objects present and their provenance on the Site, none have been selected for further conservation treatment with the one exception of the iron bowl found during the evaluation of the Urban Park. Storage The finds are currently stored in perforated polythene bags in 24 cardboard or airtight plastic boxes, ordered by material type, following nationally recommended guidelines (Walker 1990). Discard policy Wessex Archaeology follows the guidelines set out in Selection, Retention and Dispersal (Society of Museum Archaeologists 1993), which allows for the discard of selected artefact and ecofact categories, which are not considered to warrant any future analysis. In this instance, burnt, unworked flint has already been discarded; any further discard could target the undiagnostic fired clay. The discard policy for the Site will be fully documented. The discard of environmental remains and samples follows the guidelines laid out in Wessex Archaeology’s ‘Archive and Dispersal Policy for Environmental Remains and Samples’. The archive policy conforms to nationally recommended guidelines (SMA 1993; 1995; English Heritage 2002) and is available upon request. Archive The complete site archive, which includes paper records, photographic records, graphics, artefacts and ecofacts (as summarised in Table 19), will be prepared following the ‘Procedures governing the deposition of archaeological archives’ with Hampshire County Museum Service, and in general following nationally recommended guidelines (SMA 1995). Copyright The full copyright of the written/illustrative archive relating to the Site will be retained by Wessex Archaeology Ltd under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 with all rights reserved. The recipient museum, however, will be granted an exclusive licence for the use of the archive for educational purposes, including academic research, providing that such use shall be non-profit making, and conforms with the Copyright and Related Rights regulations 2003. Security copy In line with current best practice, on completion of the project a security copy of the paper records will be prepared, in the form of microfilm. The master jackets and one diazo copy of the microfilm will be submitted to the National Monuments Record Centre (English Heritage), a second diazo copy will be 52

12.3 12.3.1

12.4 12.4.1

12.4.2

12.5 12.5.1

12.6 12.6.1

12.7 12.7.1

deposited with the paper records, and a third diazo copy will be retained by Wessex Archaeology. REFERENCES Bennett, K.D., Whittington, G. and Edwards, K.J. 1994, 'Recent plant nomenclatural changes and pollen morphology in the British Isles'. Quaternary Newsletter 73, 1-6 Bradley, R.J., 1992, ‘Roman salt production in Chichester Harbour: rescue excavations at Chidham, West Sussex’, Britannia 23, 27-44 British Geological Survey, 1973, Southampton, Sheet 315, Drift 1:50000 Brown, D.H., 2002, Pottery in Medieval Southampton c.1066-1590, Southampton Archaeol. Monograph 8 / Counc. Brit. Archaeol. Res. Rep. 133 Campbell, G., 2000, ‘Plant utilisation: the evidence from charred plant remains', in Cunliffe, B., The Danebury Environs Programme The prehistory of a Wessex Landscape Volume 1: Introduction (English Heritage and Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph 48), Oxford: Institute of Archaeology, 4559 Caruthers, W., 1991, in Fasham, P. J. and Whinney, R. J. B. (eds) ‘Archaeology and the M3’, Hampshire Field Club Monograph 7, Salisbury, Trust for Wessex Archaeology Coates 1989, The Place-names of Hampshire, Batsford Local History Series Cotton, M.A. and Gathercole, P.W., 1958, Excavations at Clausentum, Southampton, 1951-1954, Ministry of Works Archaeol. Rep. 2 Dimbleby, G. W., 1985, The Palynology of Archaeological Sites. London: Academic Press English Heritage, 2002, Environmental Archaeology; a guide to theory and practice of methods, from sampling and recovery to post-excavation, Swindon: Centre for Archaeology Guidelines Gale, R., 1997, Charcoal, in Adam, N J, Seager-Smith, R., and Smith, R J C, An early Romano-British settlement and prehistoric field boundaries at Dairy Lane, Nursling, Southampton, Proceedings of Hampshire Field Club and Archaeological Society, 52, 1-58. Grant, M. J. 2005 The Palaeoecology of Human Impact in the New Forest, Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, University of Southampton Greig J., 1991, The British Isles, in W. van Zeist, K. Wasylikowa, K-E. Behre (eds) Progress in Old World Palaeoethnobotany, Rotterdam, 229-334 Green, F. J., 1984, The archaeological and documentary evidence for plants from the Medieval period in England, in: van Zeist, W. and Casparie W. A. (eds) Plants and

53

ancient man: studies in palaeoethnobotany, Proceedings of the 6th Symposium of the IWGP, Rotterdam, Balkema Green, F.J., 199, Landscape archaeology in Hampshire; the Saxon plant remains, in Renfrew, J.M. (ed.), New Light on Early Farming; recent developments in palaeoethnobotany, Edinburgh University Press Hinton, P., 1997, Charred plant remains, in Adam, N J, Seager-Smith, R., and Smith, R J C, An Early Romano-British settlement and prehistoric field boundaries at Dairy Lane, Nursling, Southampton, Proceedings of Hampshire Field Club and Archaeological Society, 52, 1-58 Hodgson, J.M., 1976, Soil Survey Field Handbook. Harpenden, Soil Survey Technical Monograph No. 5 Kerney, M.P., 1999, Atlas of the Land and Freshwater Molluscs of Britain and Ireland. Colchester, Harley Books Moore, P.D. and Webb, J.A., 1978, An illustrated guide to pollen analysis. London, Hodder and Stoughton Moore, P.D., Webb, J.A. and Collinson, M.E., 1991, Pollen analysis Second edition. Oxford, Blackwell Scientific. Morris, E.L., 1994, The Analysis of Pottery, Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology Guideline 4 Murphy P. 1989, Carbonised cereals and crop weeds from the corn drying oven. 96-9. In: Soffe G, Nicholls J and Moore G. The Roman tilery and aisled buildings at Crookhorn, Hants, excavations 1974-5, Proc. Hampshire Field Club Archaeol. Soc. 45, 43-112 Seager Smith, R.H., 2000, ‘Late Iron Age and Roman pottery assemblages’ in Walker, K.E. and Farwell, D.E., Twyford Down, Hampshire: archaeological investigations on the M3 Motorway from Bar End to Compton, 1990-93, Hampshire Field Club Monogr. 9, 74-8 SGRP, 1994, Guidelines for the Archiving of Roman Pottery, SGRP Guidelines Advisory Document 1 SMA, 1993, Selection, Retention and Dispersal of Archaeological Collections, Society of Museum Archaeologists SMA, 1995, Towards an Accessible Archaeological Archive, Society of Museum Archaeologists Stace, C., 1997, New flora of the British Isles, 2nd Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Stevens, C. J., 2007 Appendix 2: Plant Remains, 62-66, in Mepham, L. and Brown, L. The Broughton to Timsbury Pipeline, Part 1: A Late Saxon Pottery Kiln and the production centre at Michelmersh, Hampshire, Proceedings of the Hampshire Field Club and Archaeological Society (Hampshire Studies), 62, 35-68

54

Walker, K., 1990, Guidelines for the Preparation of Excavation Archives for Long-Term Storage, UKIC Archaeology Section Wessex Archaeology, 2004, Dowd’s Farm, Hedge End, Hampshire: Archaeological Desk-based Assessment, Unpublished Client Report, Ref. 57880.01, October 2004 Wessex Archaeology, 2006a, Dowd’s Farm, Hedge End, Hampshire: Archaeological Evaluation Report, Unpublished Client Report, Ref. 62350.01, April 2006 Wessex Archaeology, 2006b, Project Design for Archaeological Evaluation, Unpublished, Ref T9862.01, February 2006 Wessex Archaeology, 2008, Dowd’s Farm, Urban Park, Hedge End, Hampshire: Archaeological Evaluation Report, Unpublished Client Report, Ref. 62353.03

55

APPENDIX 1: PALAEO-ENVIRONMENTAL TABLES

Table 6. Assessment of the charred plant remains and charcoal
Charred Notes other Charcoal 4mm/2mm Res. Char

Feature

Context Sample Vol.

Flot % Grain Chaff Cereal notes size Roots

20 2

Area A Late Iron Age/early Romano-British 4-Post structure 10081 10876 10877 44 20 10878 10880 45 2 C cereal grain indet. Cf. barley?x 2. C 2x Bromus sp. 1x Carex (flat)
95 95

30 230

1/1ml 40/25ml

-

68 69 C(h) 90

18 16

300 100

2 small frgs of coal 1x Corylus avellana

0.5/0.5ml 0.2/0.2ml

-

91
90 2 3 90 95 95

17 C C C 1x hulled barley 1 hulled tw barley. 2 cf. barley. 1 cereal indet.1?glume base C(h) C B(h)

240

Field boundary 12224 12198 12199 12198 12200 Track/Drove way 12227 11590 11594 Pit group 10904 10830 10831 10861 10867 10861 10901 10861 10869 10810 10814 10812 10816

49 46 47 48 42 43

20 16 5 5 20 20

100 250 50 20 240 165

1x bud/catkin thing twig wood 1x Corylus avellana, 1x rootlet. 1x small grass seed. 2x Odontites/ Euphrasia

90/80ml 15/20ml 0/1ml 1/1ml 0.2/0.1ml

-

Pit 10995
20

10994
50

54 C -

38

200

C

C

20/20ml 1/1ml some water rolled charcoal. some twig. 0.3/0.3ml

-

12071
90

12072 Hearth 12102

60

19

20

spelt grain and glume base x1. Small fragment of grain

3x Corylus avellana, 2x buds, catkin type things -

12087

70

4

50

56

Feature

Context Sample Vol.

12102 12102

12164 12164

71 93

0.9 10

Charcoal 4mm/2mm 4/3ml 80/70ml

Res. Char 20ml

94 98 99
0

16 4 4 C C C -

Flot % Grain Chaff Cereal notes size Roots 20 20 5 500 C C 1x barley, 3x wheat, 1x f-t wheat, 3x cereal. 1x cf. spelt glume. 1x gb 95 95 95 50 10 250 1/1ml 2/2ml 60/15ml

Charred Notes other charred bark A(h) 8 Corylus avellana+ 1 inner kernal. Some twig wood. 4 Avena/Bromus. 8 Bromus, 1 Eleocharis, 1 Rumex sp. 1 Polygonum sp. C 1x Atriplex possibly bark

40ml 0.1/0.1ml 1/0ml 0.1/0.1 ml 5/4ml 4/5ml 0.2/0.3ml C -

65
80 80

18

1

82 83
20

12102 12087 12102 12164 12102 12164 Occupation layer 12214 12107 12180 Posthole 12131 12132 12134 12133 Tree hollow 12197 12194
5

7 8

45 70

72

19

100

12197
60

12195

73

20

20

79
90 90

18

90

twig wood, oak, Rosaeceae thorn, 3 bud, 2 odd rodent things? Rosaeceae thorn, some twig wood, small frags of coal 2x tuber/catin/bud type

50 51
50 40

2 20 -

42 45

-

-

-

C C(h) C(h)

1 bud 1 Corylus avellana 1x Corylus avellana

0/1ml 0/1ml 2/2ml 5/7ml

-

63 90
75 85

10 19

45 55

88 84
85

17 16 -

40 110

-

-

-

C(h) C -

1x Corylus avellana. 4x rootlets. 1x stem fragment. 1x Medicago/Lotus type -

0.1/0.1ml -

-

10827 10824 Romano-British Boundary ditch 11581 11528 11529 11577 11578 Tree hollow 12149 15151 11557 11559 Medieval Field boundary 12226 10971 10972 10914 10915 Field boundary 12225 12158 12159 Late - post-medieval

77

19

160

57

Feature
5

Context Sample Vol.

Flot % Grain Chaff Cereal notes size Roots 80

Charred Notes other C C 1x stem 1 bud 40/25ml -

Charcoal 4mm/2mm

Res. Char -

52 -

10

100

-

-

89

19

92
90

10

20

-

-

-

C

1x tuber (Cyperaceae?) cf. Mentha type

0.1/0.1

-

74
15 10 10 5 5 90 80

Field boundary 10751 12013 12016 Track/Drove way 11620 11630 11632 ?Medieval Field boundary 11625 11598 11599 Undated Ditch 12083 12085 Hearth 11637 11638 12023 12024 12023 12025 12023 12025 12023 12026 12023 12052 12080 12157 C 1 fragment wheat? C(h) C(h) B(h) C C rose stone? 1x stems 4x Corylus avellana. 1x bud. Twig wood 3x Corylus avellana 9x Corylus avellana conglomerated charcoal & 2 small bits of coal. cf. Galium type x1
60 30 75 30 90 20

20

120

1/1ml 50/60ml 5/5ml 80/100ml 80/40ml 40/20ml 1/1ml

-

97 58 55 57 56 59 67

10 5 10 5 5 10 10

350 80 500 200 100 20 45

10782 10820 10826 12156 12182 12205
40

80 81 78 66 64 75 C C 1 wheat 3-4 spelt gb

9 9 20 0.5 18 9

10 20 40 1 20 200

-

-

-

C C(h) -

Prunus stone? 1x Corylus avellana -

0/0.5 3/1ml 0.1/0.1ml 0/0ml 0.2/0.3ml 1/1ml 0.2/0.2ml 2/2ml

-

12104
50 30

Pit 10791 10819 10825 12080 12181 12204 Posthole 12103 Tree hollow 12119 12215

61

4

35

-

12122 12209

76 96

17 10

20 40

58

Feature

Context Sample Vol.

Flot % Grain Chaff Cereal notes size Roots

Charred Notes other

Charcoal 4mm/2mm

Res. Char

30 80 50

Area B Late Iron Age/early Romano-British Field Boundary 10225 7603 7606 1 18 7506 7507 2 18 10222 10218 31 18 C(h) 2x Corylus avellana C(h) C
30 30

30 60 120

1ml/1ml 1ml/1ml 8/15ml 2/2ml 1/1ml 1ml/4ml

-

20 20
20

1x Corylus avellana 1x tuber bark, some clomerated charred material. 2x rodent things -

120
20

40
50 20

10222 10219 32 10 10222 10220 33 10 Pit 7511 7512 3 8 Late Bronze Age or Late Iron Age? Hearth 10133 10134 34 6 Tree hollow 10137 10138 27 20 10182 10183 28 20 A 80 50

6/1ml 10/8ml 50/50ml

A A -

60 500

10184 10184
20

29 30 -

20 20

40 40

-

-

-

C -

cf. grass tuber/rodent /catkins droppings 100+, Rubus sp. 1 - 2 sloe, 3x Apiaceae stem odd single tuber/dropping -

1/1ml 0/0ml 6/5ml

A -

10117
5 40

10182 10182 Pit 10121 Undated Pit 8207 11003 -

26

10

100

8208 11004

4 35

10 18

1500 220

C(h) C

2x Corylus avellana bud, 2x rodent/catkin things

750ml/ 400ml 20/30ml

B

59

Feature

Context Sample Vol.

Flot % Grain Chaff Cereal notes size Roots

Charred Notes other

Charcoal 4mm/2mm

Res. Char

80 10 25 35 30 15

Area C Late Iron Age/early Romano-British Large enclosure ditch 13593 13447 13450 140 10 13447 13453 141 10 13469 13473 144 10 13413 13420 165 10 13518 13522 148 10 10021 10024 23 20 C C C(h)
75 50 35 50 30

3 150 50 3 20 650 C C C Hulled wheat grain fragment C C A B C(h) C(h)

5/20ml 5/5ml 0/1ml 0/1ml 250/200 0/1ml 1/3ml 1/2ml 1/1ml 30/20ml 0/1ml

1ml -

13507 13507 13507 13507 13507
80

13509 13511 13512 13513 13514

149 151 152 153 154

20 20 20 20 20

25 30 15 10 200

13507

13515

155

20

5

Chenopodium (probably modern) Chenopodium (probably modern) uncharred catkins lots of twig wood some buds. Corylus avellana Chenopodium (probably modern) Corylus avellana fragments Corylus avellana fragments, Prunus spp fragments Crataegus, fungal scelortia ++ Chenopodium (Probably modern) Chenopodium (probably modern) -

75 14214 14220 200 10 80 Large enclosure internal features - hearth and ovens 50 14155 14156 196 1.5 60 50 14155 14158 197 17 450 50 13427 13441 139 10 60 70

5/5ml 10/5ml 60/50ml 10/8ml 5/3ml 2/2ml 2/3ml

3ml 3ml -

13427
40 75

13428

142

10

25

13427 13427

13428 13440

156 157

10 20

30 60

indeterminate grain fragment indeterminate grain fragment -

60

Feature 1x Trifoliums sp. branch wood

Context Sample Vol.

Flot % Grain Chaff Cereal notes size Roots 50 60 75 60 70 15 70 15 60

13427 13441 158 10 13427 13589 159 30 13427 13589 160 10 13427 13589 161 10 Small circular enclosure ditch 14317 5809 5802 10 20 C C C
10 65

Charred other -

Notes

Charcoal 4mm/2mm 7/5ml 3/2ml 1/1ml 1/1ml 10ml/20ml

Res. Char -

300

5809 14272
20

5803 14274

11 208

8 10

700 100

B

C

C

Chenopodium (Probably modern)

150ml/100ml 7/5ml

1ml

14272
80 20

14276 B C C B

209

10

250

C

-

C

bud fungal scelortia ++ Vicia/Lathyrus, Poacae

80/50ml 5/3ml 100/100ml]

-

14289 14244
40

14312 14246

210 211

5 17

50 350

14244
30

14248 C -

212

1

40

C

-

-

-

3/3ml 65/40ml 3/3ml

5ml -

14301
35

14303

214

9

130

10
75 50 65 70

1x 6-row barley rachis. 3x hulled wheat grains. cereal indet. Barley grain fragments and hulled wheat grain and glume fragments Hulled wheat grain fragment glume fragments Barley grain fragments and hulled wheat grain and glume fragments indeterminate grain fragment indeterminate grain fragment C C(h) Chenopodium (Probably modern) Corylus avellana fragments

50 20 10 15
70 25

-

-

5/5ml 3/3ml 1/1ml 1/1ml 8/3ml 60/40ml

1ml -

14228 14229 207 1 Internal features - pits and postholes 14236 14235 202 8 14236 14235 203 0.5 14259 14260 204 0.5 14259 14260 205 0.5 Field boundary 13264 13235 13238 129 20 13259 13260 130 10 Field boundary 13437

50 150

61

Feature

Context Sample Vol.

13206
50 100

126 v. little twig wood seen C Crataegus x1 -

20

Flot % Grain Chaff Cereal notes size Roots 75 10 -

Charred Notes other -

Charcoal 4mm/2mm 0/1ml 10ml/5ml 50/150

Res. Char ?

6104 6105
50

12 13

20 17

60 20

13462
15

166

1

2

10011
85

13204 Ditch 6103 6103 Pot fill 29 Hearth 10010 Medieval Ditch 10028 twig wood bits of bark

15

20

500

10029

25

10

100

2/1ml

-

20th CenturyFirepit Hearth 10040 10007
30

17
30

20 B B B B B C C C C C B C

800

-

B

C

Rubus sp., Raphanus Rubus sp., Raphanus Rubus sp., Raphanus Rubus sp., Raphanus Rubus sp., Raphanus Rubus sp., Raphanus Rubus sp., Raphanus

200/200 200/200 200/200 200/200 200/200 200/200 200/200

A** ?

10040
90

10013

18

20

500

10040
5

10015

19

20

125

10040
2

10020

20

20

1150

10040
30

10014

21

10

1750

10040
30

10016

22

20

1000

10040

10004

16

20

500

Straw and free-threshing chaff (some covered in tar!) Straw and free-threshing chaff (some covered in tar!) Straw and free-threshing chaff (some covered in tar!) Straw and free-threshing chaff (some covered in tar!) Straw and free-threshing chaff (some covered in tar!) Straw and free-threshing chaff (some covered in tar!) Straw and free-threshing chaff (some covered in tar!)

Undated Hearth 13261
40

13262

131

10

250

-

-

-

C(h)

Corylus avellana fragments, bud fragment

40/50ml

-

62

Feature

Context Sample Vol.

Notes

13293 13314 13377
70 1 20

13294 13316 13378 C C C(h)

132 136 137

10 10 20

Flot % Grain Chaff Cereal notes size Roots 50 140 5 900 15 650 Chenopodium (probably modern), bud fragment Chenopodium (probably modern) Chenopodium (probably modern) Corylus avellana fragments, Crataegus

Charred other C

Charcoal 4mm/2mm 5/10ml 300/200ml 150/150ml 10/5ml 800/800ml 30/50ml

Res. Char -

13388 13446 13533
5 20 80 5 5 5 10

138 145 168 C(h) C C(h) B C C C

20 20 9

60 3000 200

13220 13221 13331 14130 14137 14170 14123
30 35

127 128 133 194 195 198 199

10 10 10 19 27 16 20

725 5 2 1400 1400 700 2000

Corylus avellana fragments, bud fragment Chenopodium (Probably modern) Chenopodium (Probably modern) Chenopodium (Probably modern) bud Chenopodium (probably modern) -

250/125ml 1/2ml 0/1ml 550/400ml 550/400ml 200/200ml 750/500ml 5/3ml 0/1ml 5/8ml

2ml 40ml -

13479 13479
10

13387 13445 13531 Pit 13219 13219 13329 14129 14136 14169 14122 Posthole 13477 13477 Tree hollow 13323
8 60 70

146 147

30 10

40 3

13325 C C -

134

20

60

230 10 80

Corylus avellana fragments, Chenopodium (probably modern) Crataegus Chenopodium (probably modern) fungal scelortia +++

20/80ml 1/1ml 8/5ml

8ml

13323 13326 135 20 13429 13430 167 10 14283 14285 206 10 Area E Late Iron Age/early Romano-British Field boundary 13018 12911 12915 114 10
80

50
80

C -

-

C C(h)

Chenopodium (probably modern) Corylus avellana fragments

0/2ml 0/1ml 40/10ml

-

20
40

12911 12914 115 Possible Trackway 13019 12946 12956 112

20

indeterminate grain fragment -

9

100

63

Feature
50

Context Sample Vol.

Flot % Grain Chaff Cereal notes size Roots B glume fragments B(h) Corylus avellana fragments, Avena/Bromus, Chenopodium (probably modern) 30/10ml

Charred Notes other

Charcoal 4mm/2mm

Res. Char 5ml

Hearth 11641
3

11642

102

20

175

-

-

-

-

175/40

-

75

-

-

-

-

-

0/2ml

-

50 10 40 35 20 50

-

-

-

C C -

Chenopodium (probably modern) Chenopodium (probably modern) fungal scelortia ++

3/5ml 175/75ml 5/3ml 10/5ml -

20ml -

80 80

-

-

-

C B

Chenopodium (probably modern) Chenopodium (probably modern) -

0/1ml 0/1ml 0/1ml 2/5ml

-

30 70

Tree hollow 12936 12938 108 1 250 ?Late Iron Age / early Romano-British Field boundary 13015 12977 12978 116 20 40 Romano-British Pit 13000 12888 12992 120 10 40 12888 12992 121 30 450 12888 12993 122 20 20 13000 12995 123 20 80 13000 12296 124 10 1 13000 12997 125 3 5 Medieval Double ring gully 13021 12983 12984 118 20 50 12986 12987 119 20 40 Field boundary 13016 12812 12814 107 1 10 12979 12980 117 20 50 Undated Pit 12959 12958 111 10 450
8

-

-

-

C

Polygonaceae, Chenopodium (probably modern)

175/100ml

-

Area G Late Iron Age/early Romano-British Large Enclosure 13593 12603 12607 113 40 Track/Droveway 12714
75

40

-

-

-

-

-

1/1ml

-

64

Feature

Context Sample Vol.

20
80

Flot % Grain Chaff Cereal notes size Roots 80 100 -

Charred Notes other C Chenopodium (probably modern)

Charcoal 4mm/2mm 2/2ml

Res. Char -

20
7

12596 12598 103 Romano-British Possible Trackway 12712 12652 12653 105 Medieval Shaft pit 12699 12710 12700 109 fungal scelortia +++ C(h)
40

150

0/5ml

-

17

125

30/25ml

-

12706

12701

110

9

30

-

-

-

C

Corylus avellana fragments, bud fragment, uncharred Sambucus +++, small frags of coal Lolium/Poaceae, small unident seed, uncharred Sambucus ++, small frags of coal

5/3ml

-

8
5

20

170

80

-

-

-

C

1x Rumex crispus

0ml/0ml

-

7
3

5

500

-

-

-

-

-

320ml/ 80ml

-

101
50

?Post-medieval Animal burial 3203 3204 Undated Hearth 3103 3104 (evaluatio n) 12570 12571 Pit 4204 4205 50 2 10

2

225

80/70ml 5ml/10ml

-

9

20

400

Tree hollow 12559 12560 100 10 12626 12627 104 1 12529 12531 106 20 Area S Late Iron Age/early Romano-British Pit -

80 180 450

C C(h)

Bud fragment Corylus avellana fragments

20/10ml 40/50ml 250/100ml

40ml

65

Feature

Context Sample Vol.

13867

13868

180

18

Flot % Grain Chaff Cereal notes size Roots 85 150 C indeterminate grain fragment
70

Charred Notes other -

Charcoal 4mm/2mm 0/3ml

Res. Char -

1
80 75

Medieval Arc of Postholes 14088 13941 13942 185 Drainage system- grp 14112 13758 14025 193 13743 13745 182 C C C(h) Barley grain fragment C Chenopodium (Probably modern) Chenopodium (Probably modern) Corylus avellana fragments, fungal scelortia +++
75

10

0/1ml 0/1ml 5/5ml

-

20 18

60 150

Field boundary 14115 13824 13845 B ?Rye grain fragments A**
40

186

10

225

5/10ml

-

13994
80

13995 -

188

1

10

C

-

?Rye grain fragments

A*

1/1ml 1/2ml 5/5ml

1ml -

178
70

18

60

Avena/Bromus, Poaceae, Raphanus raphanistrum, Tripleurospermum maritimum Avena/Bromus, Poaceae, Tripleurospermum maritimum fungal scelortia ++

181
80 75 75 50 60

20 C C C C indeterminate grain fragments 1x f-t threshing wheat grain Barley grain Barley grain, rye grain -

140

6 172 174 175 176
20

13804 13806 Field boundary 14133 14064 14065 Pit 1623 1624 13897 13898 13876 13877 13876 13879 13876 13880 Tree hollow 13986 13987 -

8 10 10 10 10

400 60 40 5 2

4x twig wood fungal scelortia ++ fungal scelortia +

1ml/ 2/10ml 2/2ml 1/1ml 1/0ml 5/5ml

1ml 1ml 3ml

184

1

40

70 75

Late-post-medieval Drainage ditch 14111 13960 13961 13899 13900 C Barley grain

183 173

10 10

120 140

C -

Vicia/Lathyrus, coal fragments some coal

5/5ml 5/5ml

1ml 1ml

66

Feature

Context Sample Vol.

Flot % Grain Chaff Cereal notes size Roots

Charred Notes other

Charcoal 4mm/2mm

Res. Char

?Medieval Drainage pits 14114 13996 13998
25

189
25

1 C A C C A*

10

C

-

?Rye grain fragments

A*

1/2ml 1/1ml 0/1ml 0/1ml

-

13999
40 50

14002

190

1

10

2 10
85

?Rye grain fragments, awn fragment -

Avena/Bromus, Tripleurospermum maritimum Avena/Bromus, Tripleurospermum maritimum Avena/Bromus Avena/Bromus

250

-

-

-

-

?coal fossil

1/1ml

-

90 95

13999 14003 191 1 14035 14037 192 20 Undated Field boundary 14110 13874 13875 179 18 Urban Park Late Iron Age/early Romano-British Drainage 10412 10412 10415 85 17 10412 10429 86 19 C(h) 1cf. Corylus avellana -

80 130

0.1/0.1 ml -

-

80 70

38 40
50

Medieval Drainage ditch 14089 10350 10351 10374 10378 Buried soil 8912 fungal scelerotia -

18 20

40 60

fungal scelerotia fungal scelerotia +++ -

0/0 ml -

-

14

9

125

39
5

Undated Hearth 10302 10303 Tree hollow 10345 10346
40

10 -

60

-

-

-

C -

1 stem, 1 Avena, 1?bud/seed, 1 Vicia 1 stem

3/3ml 500/500ml

A

37

10

1800

KEY: A** = exceptional, A* = 30+ items, A = 10 items, B = 9 - 5 items, C = < 5 items, (h) =

67

Table 8: Sediment descriptions and sub-samples monolith 24
Feature 10021 Dwg# 10021A, monolith 24 0cm= 36.73m aOD [1 is used to denote when top of monolith taken as 0cm] Context Full sediment description Interpretation Depth (m)1 Pollen samples taken 0-0.30 10022 10YR 5/6 yellowish brown sand (some silt, almost Tertiary fill – loamy sand), mixed with 20-30% mottles (elongated ploughed in and mainly vertical) of 2.5Y 6/3 light yellowish brown. material. Fe staining around oxygenated rootholes. Stonefree. Sparse v small specks of magnesium oxide precipitated in the darker/oxygenated areas. Some indication of blocky structure. Diffuse boundary. 0.30-0.82 0.67-0.68 10023 60-70% 10YR 6/3 light yellowish brown, 30-40% ?Ploughed in 0.71-0.72 10YR 5/6 yellowish brown sand (as above on cusp of 0.75-0.76 loamy). Rare charcoal lumps <10mm, nearly all of it 0.79-0.80 from 70-80cm. Sparse flints <40mm (@67cm). Clear to abrupt boundary. 0.83-0.93 0.83-0.84 10024 2.5Y light olive brown clay loam. C.15% thin Stabilization 0.85-0.86 (<10mm) mostly near vertical iron stain mottling horizon / 0.87-0.88 (yellowish brown). Macropores. Occ charcoal lumps Buried soil 0.89-0.90 (<4mm) Definite structure - ?quite well developed 0.91-0.92 large granular or fine to medium blocky structure. Clear boundary. 0.93-0.97 0.93-0.94 10024 80% 10yr 5/6 yellowish brown loamy sand, 20% light Iron staining yellowish brown as elsewhere. Iron stained layer at at base of was of palaeosol, aerated via rooting. Clear boundary. palaeosol / ?Bfe Not a Bfe as such. 0.97-1.14 0.97-0.98 10031 10yr 5/4 light olive brown (towards light yellowish fill 1.00-1.01 brown but closest match). C. 10% yellowish brown Fe 1.09-1.10 mottling, 2% at top & increasing to base. 50mm stone @ 108cm. Clear to abrupt horizon. 1.14-1.25 1.17-1.18 10032 80% 10yr 5/6 yellowish brown, occ dark yell brown, Side collapse / 20% light yellowish brown as elsewhere. Sand (quite washed in fine and with a little silt/clay but not enough for material loamy). Also contains fine (<5mm) and intermittent horizontal laminal inclusions of brown clay, representing trickling in of finer material in water. Clear boundary 1.25-1.33+ 1.25-1.26 10032 10yr 5/6 yell brown mottled with light yellowish Fine material brown, all silty clay. No clear laminae but will be washed out of washed out of natural. natural and deposited by/in water.

68

Table 9: Sediment descriptions and sub-samples monolith 41
Feature 10374 Dwg# 10374, monolith 41 0cm= 28.40m aOD [1 is used to denote when top of monolith taken as 0cm] Depth (m)1 Context Full sediment description Interpretation 0-0.10 10379 10YR 4/3 brown loamy sand (sand component fine), rare Secondary or tertiary very small to small stones, sub ang to rounded, some iron fill staining in near vertical root casts. Occ fine fleshy rootlets, med to large blocky structure. Clear boundary 0.10-0.34 10378 10YR 3/2 very dark greyish brown loamy sand (sand Organic rich secondary 10379 component fine), rare very small to small stones to top fill – wet & highly (worm sorted down from modern soil profile). Rare vegetated environment charcoal lumps <10mm (@0.27m). 1-2% very fine to fine macropores, ?med ?blocky structure. Fine faint clear mottles of lighter grey – looks bioturbative rather than gleyey. Clear boundary. 0.34- 0.55 10376 10YR 4/2 dark greyish brown loamy sand (sand component Secondary fill fine), rare charcoal lumps, occ FFRs, medium blocky structure. 1% v fine to fine macropores, occ v small stone to 0.55m. 0.55-0.61 10375 0.55-0.57m is band of 5YR olive silty clay loam, and Primary fill with several laminations of this same material at base of fills 0.6- laminated fine material 0.61m. In between is similar to above layer. Represents fine material washed into feature soon after construction. Potentially interesting for sampling.

69

Table 10: Sediment descriptions and sub-samples monolith 87
Feature 10412 Dwg# 10412, monolith 87, 0cm= 27.97m aOD [1 is used to denote when top of monolith taken as 0cm] Depth ( m)1 Pollen Context Full sediment description Interpretation samples taken 0-0.07 10414 10yr 3/2 very dark greyish brown sand (some silt but fill not enough to form ball). Small mottles (5-10mm) of 2.5y 6/2 light browning grey (as context below) 5% at top 40% to base. Clear boundary 0.07-0.13 0.08-0.09 10414 2.5y 6/2 light brownish grey sand. Occ fine fleshy Washed in sand rootlets. Pale but not a podzolic Eb. Looks very similar to greensand at base. Redeposited natural? 0.13-0.16
0.14-0.15

10414

0.16-0.33

0.33-0.37

0.18-0.19 0.22-0.23 0.26-0.27 0.30-0.31 0.34-0.35

10414

10415

0.37-0.40

0.38-0.39

10415

0.4-0.53

0.42-0.43 0.46-0.47 0.50-0.51 0.54-0.55 0.56-0.57 0.58-0.59 0.60-0.61 0.62-0.63 0.64-0.65 0.66-0.67 0.68-0.69 0.70-0.71

10429

0.53-0.72

10494

2.5y 5//2 greyish brown sandy clay loam, c.5% dark & also yellowish brown mottles – manganese and iron oxide precipitations around rootholes. Clear boundary 5y 5/2 olive grey loamy sand/sandy clay loam. Occ small flints from 25cm +. Clear boundary. Very similar looking to ‘natural’ greensand beneath. 2.5y 4/2 dark greyish brown sandy loam, occ charcoal. Abrupt horizon with a little mixing of below context. 2.5y 7/2 light grey sand – looks like an Eb but pretty sure it isn’t – different texture & no illuviated horizons beneath. Sharp horizon. NB resembles nat greensand but apparently without glauconite. On inspection under microscope this is borne out – same material apparently but with glauconite removed. 5y 5/2 olive grey sandy clay loam. Occ laminae of clay, same colour. Sparse charcoal flecks, occ flint <20mm @46-50 5y 4/1 dark grey (slightly olive) sandy clay loam. Waterlogged, common wood fragments, roots & rootlets, bark (sampled for 14C @ 60cm). clear horizon onto top of stake which is fragmented and ‘bitty’ at top

fill

Fill - ?redep ‘natural’ Fill

Washed in sand

Secondary fill with washed in clay laminae Waterlogged fill

0.72-0.95

0.72-1.22+

0.72-0.73 0.76-0.77 0.80-0.81 0.88-0.89 1.04-1.05

10493

?STAKE – waterlogged wooden ?stake, driven through into ‘natural’ greensand below. See photo. Looked like deformed sediments around base of stake but on inspection is ‘halo’ of sesquioxides precipitating out from stake. Gley 1 6/1 greenish gray sand, slightly darker/more organic at top under stake. Glauconite observed under microscope. Is a geological deposit, mistaken for fill by excavators due to the differential colouring of deposits by ?vivianite etc in anaerobic areas (see section photo). Was bright blue on excavation, oxidising to present colour on exposure

Possible stake, insitu

‘natural’ greensand geology

70

Table 11: Sediment descriptions and sub-samples monolith 143
Feature 13469 Dwg# 13469, monolith 143, 0cm= 36.96m aOD [1 is used to denote when top of monolith taken as 0cm] Depth (m) 1 Context Full sediment description Interpretation 0-0.16 13475 10yr 4/4 dark yellowish brown silty clay loam, rare Ploughed in or colluvial small rounded flints <15mm, quite common charcoal material (tertiary fill) / base lumps <5mm from 0.06-0.13m. Occ FFR. ?Medium / of modern soil large blocky/prismatic structure, abrupt to clear boundary. 0.16-0.28 13475 / 10yr 5/4 yellowish brown silty clay loam, stonefree, Ploughed in or colluvial 13474 common small macropores, clear well developed material / tertiary fill blocky or prismatic structure (can’t tell in monolith). Vertical worm burrows filled with material above. Clear horizon Secondary fill, wet and 0.28- 0.47 13474 / 5y 5/3 olive silty clay loam with many (20-40%) 13473 medium (5-15mm) distinct & clear mottles of anaerobic for much of time 7.5YR strong brown. Rare small sub angular flints. as gleyed with oxygenation Med ?blocky structure. Occ to q com. macropores. around rootholes. General Clear boundary. Gleyed with oxidation around indications of rootholes. weathering/pedogensis but no preserved palaeosol as such. Inwash event with oak 0.47- 0.52 13473 10YR 5/3 light olive brown silty clay loam, with charcoal c.20% 7.5YR 5/8 strong brown. Band of oak charcoal @ 0.5-0.52m diagonally across mono, lumps <10mm, flat-ish fragments laid horizontally. Stonefree, clear – abrupt boundary. Thin patch of grey sand beneath. Represents washing in of charcoal & ?nat derived sand – c/c could be from hearth near feature, or from material dumped in ditch already 0.52- 0.95 13473, 5Y 6/2 light olive grey SILTY CLAY with very Secondary fill of washed in 13472, many (50%) medium distinct clear mottles of 10YR fine material, some rooting 13462 5/8 yellowish brown. Few small angular flints to top, throughout, again wet as rare larger subrounded <30mm @c.0.85m. Very gleyed with oxygenated small charcoal flecks in macropores to 0.65m, occ areas around roots. charcoal lumps <3mm @ 0.87-0.92m and very small flecks again in pores from 0.82-0.95m. Blocky/prismatic structure. Clear boundary 0.95- 1.06 13471 2.5Y 7/2 light grey fine to medium sand, few very Inundation event – likely small flint frags to base, rare small charcoal lumps just heavy rain eroding <3mm. Abrupt boundary. Could represent dump of feature side / ground surface redeposited natural sand, but almost certainly is but could represent product of inundation event washing material from overbank flooding feature sides and possibly ground surface – sand settles first, then finer material above. 1.06- 1.14 13470 7.5YR 5/8 strong brown silty clay loam with Likely primary fill with common (c.10%) distinct clear medium (5-15mm) some indication of stasis. mottles of 5Y 6/2 light olive grey. Stonefree, medium ?blocky structure. Some microscopic charcoal (visible under x10 hand lens). Likely short hiatus with some pedogenesis before filling starts in earnest under conditions.

71

Table 12: Sediment descriptions and sub-samples monolith 162
Feature 13507 Dwg# 13508, monolith 162, 0cm= 36.65m aOD [1 is used to denote when top of monolith taken as 0cm] Depth (m) 1 Context Full sediment description 0-0.46 13508, 2.5Y 6/3 light yellowish brown sand (fine) with mottles 13509, of 7.5Y 5/6 strong brown (common to top 0.12m and 13510 0.35m+, few to common in between), mottles medium to coarse, clear, distinct. Quite well sorted. Some FFRs. Large block/prismatic structure, abrupt boundary. Basal 10cm very slightly darker than above, possibly slight stasis but not a well preserved stasis horizon as such. Layer beneath strengthens this hypothesis. 0.46- 0.54 13511 2.5Y 6/3 light yellowish brown sandy silt loam, with many fine to medium prominent sharp mottles of 7.5yr 5/8 strong brown. Mottles are rootholes willed with finer material (clay/silty clay) with iron staining and some solid ferric precipitate in places also. Occ v small charcoal flecks. Abrupt to sharp boundary. Layer has been wet/dry, gleyed but quite well oxidised. 0.54- 0.62 13511 10yr 5/8 yellowish brown clay loam with many medium to coarse, distinct, clear to diffuse mottles of 2.5y 6/2 light brownish grey. Stonefree, clear boundary. Has been wet/dry, quite well oxidised. 0.62- 0.84 13512 2.5y 6/2 light brownish grey sandy sily loam with common medium distinct to prominent sharp and clear mottles of 7.5yr 5/8 strong brown. Rare sub rounded flints <20mm. gleyed with oxidation around rootholes. Clear boundary. Very slight darkening may indicate slight stastis event (organics), or possibly indicate microscopic comminuted charcoal content. Not a well developed palaeosol either way. 0.84- 0.95 13513 Alternate layers of fines/sand layers. 2.5 y 6/2 light greyish brown clays/silty clays c.10mm thick with 6/3 light yellowish brown fine sand beneath (x3). Inwash/settling/fining upwards sequences. Some ironstain mottleing c 5% 0.95- 1.25 13513- 50/50 2.5y 6/2 light brownish grey and 7.5y 5/8 strong 13514 brown medium distinct to prominent clear mottles. Silty clay loam. @1.17-1.12 layer of fine sand inwash (2.5y 7/2 light grey). Abrupt boundary 1.25- 1.36 13515 2.5y 7/2 light grey fine sand, with fine laminae (1-3mm with similar thickness of fine sand between) of 2.5y 5/4 light olive brown clay/silty clay. Laminae from 1.261.29 & 1.33+. Represent well preserved small inwashes of fine material – if anything archaeologically interesting were occurring could be potential for fine interval sampling. Shame the core did not extend to feature base as could potentially represent primary fills and give fine detailed info about period of initial feature construction.

Interpretation Tertiary fill – quite well sorted, likely washed in by flooding/erosion events after ploughing has disturbed local ground surface. Possible slight stasis horizon at base. Secondary fill – has been repeated wet/drier. May represent the basal horizon of a weakly developed groundwater gley paleosol. Secondary fill

Secondary fill, possibly with slight stasis event

Inwashes of material settling out in water

Secondary fill with inwash event

Possibly primary fill – shame core did not extend into geology.

72

Table 13: Sediment descriptions and sub- samples monoliths 170 and 171
Feature 13876 Dwg# 13876, monolith 170 & 171 0cm= 31.65m aOD [1 is used to denote when top of monolith taken as 0cm] Depth (m) 1 Context Full sediment description Interpretation 0- 0.19 13877 10YR 4/3 brown silty clay loam coarse ?blocky structure, Tertiary fill / base of occasional fine fleshy rootlets, few small stones, c.1% modern topsoil fine macropores. Clear boundary. 0.19-0.63 13860 2.5Y 4/2 dark greyish brown fine sandy silt loam, ?Weak ?med blocky structure, 2% fine to very fine macropores, common fine faint clear mottles of strong brown. (redox and rooting). Occ bit of charcoal. Abrupt horizon NB @ x100 some organics visible as well as occasional microscopic charcoal 10YR 4/6 dark yellowish brown sandy silt loam, with a little mixing of above deposit. Few small pieces charcoal. Clear horizon. Redeposited ‘natural’ – likely side collapse. 2.5Y 4/2 dark greyish brown fine sandy silt loam, quite common charcoal <15mm, mottled with 10YR 3/3 dark brown. Fine to medium faint to clear mottles. Few to common small to medium stones. Clear boundary. 5Y 5/2 olive grey mottled 50/50 with dark yellowish to strong brown silty clay loam, few small stones. Looks like geology or redeposited geology – as the monolith doesn’t extend to the base of the pit is impossible to say Organic rich secondary fill built up in wet heavily vegetated pit (could be a dump)

0.63-0.69

13878

Side collapse

0.69- 1.10

13879 13880

Organic rich secondary fill built up in wet heavily vegetated pit Geology or side collapse (primary fill) – monolith doesn’t extend down far enough to ascertain,.

1.10-1.35+ 13881

Table 14: Sediment descriptions and sub-samples monolith 187
Feature 13994 Dwg# 13994, monolith 187, 0cm= 32.21m aOD [1 is used to denote when top of monolith taken as 0cm] Depth (m) 1 Context Full sediment description 0-0.26 13995 10YR 5/4 yellowish brown silty clay loam, rare to sparse small charcoal lumps <2mm, coarse blocky (looks subangular) structure clearly visible in monolith. Clear boundary. 0.26- 0.48 13998 2.5Y 5/3 light olive brown silty clay loam, rare charcoal lumps <5mm, most to top. Common (c.10%) medium faint to distinct clear to diffuse mottles of 7.5Y 4/6 strong brown (REDOX). Clear to abrupt boundary 0.48-0.56 14002 2.5Y 5/3 light olive brown (nearest match, although distinctly darker than above or below deposits) silty clay loam. Occ to quite common charcoal up to 10mm. c.2% very fine to fine macropores. Some slight redox mottling, faint <5%. Clear boundary. 0.56-0.86 14003 2.5Y 6/3 light yellowish brown very fine sandy silt loam. To 0.72m mottled with many medium prominent strong brown mottles. Rare charcoal <10mm. 1-2% fine macropores down to 0.77. 0.86-0.94 2.5Y 5/3 light olive brown clay loam, with common medium distinct strong brown mottles (redox). Fine material likely settling in standing water.

Interpretation Tertiary fill / base of modern soil profile

Secondary fill

Weakly developed stasis horizon

Secondary fill with rooting from above stasis Could be top of primary fill – mono doesn’t extend to base

73

Table 15: Sediment descriptions and sub-samples monolith 201 Enclosure Ditch 13445, section 14214 Dwg# 14214A, monolith 201
0cm= 36.98m aOD [1 is used to denote when top of monolith taken as 0cm] Context Full sediment description Interpretation Depth (m) Pollen 1 samples taken 0 – 0.20 0.13-0.14 14221 10YR 5/6 yellowish brown sandy loam, very slightly Ploughed in stony (1-5%) with very small to small rounded and tertiary fill subangular stones (2-20mm). Darkens slightly to base. Occasional FFRs (fine fleshy rootlets), visible root/worm channels. ?blocky structure (tricky in mono). Unsorted. Abrupt boundary 0.20- 0.27 0.21-0.22 14220 2.5Y 4/2 dark greyish brown sandy loam, few stones Likely slight 0.23-0.24 (single broken flint pebble c.25mm), 2-5% charcoal stasis horizon 0.25-0.26 lumps <3mm, occasional FFRs, common fine to although much medium faint clear to diffuse mottles of 10YR 5/6 of dark colouration yellowish brown (?looks like likely bioturbative physical mixing rather than product of gleying). C.1% due to very fine macropores. Possible v weak small ?blocky charcoal or crumb/gran structure. Abrupt to clear boundary. content Possible statis horizon, although colouration may be due largely to charcoal content. 0.27- 0.38 0.27-0.28 14219 10YR 4/6 dark yellowish brown sandy clay loam / Fill – 0.29-0.30 sandy silt loam with common to many fine to medium relatively 0.33-0.34 distinct to clear mottles of 2.5Y 4/2 dark greyish rapid 0.37-0.38 brown. Rare charcoal flecks <1mm. Occasional FFRs. deposition Few very small to small subrounded stones. Abrupt to clear boundary. Toward base mixing apparent – worm/root holes filled with darker material from below. 0.38- 0.49 0.39-0.40 14218 2.5Y 3/2 very dark greyish brown clay loam/sandy Stasis horizon, 0.41-0.42 clay loam. Few very small to small subrounded to quite organic 0.43-0.44 subangular stones. C.1% very fine to fine macropores, (‘A’ horizon 0.45-0.46 occasional FFRs, some wormholes containing material of 0.47-0.48 from both above and below contexts. Abrupt boundary. groundwater Occasional charcoal <3mm. Structure tricky – possibly gley soil) some but very strong & cohesive. @100x magnification shows fair amount of microscopic comminuted charcoal, in part at least giving dark colouration 0.49- 0.54 0.49-0.50 14217 10YR 4/6 dark yellowish brown clay loam, mottled secondary fill / 0.53-0.54 with common (c.20%) 2.5Y 5/3 light olive brown & base of gley also containing some (5%) 2.5Y 3/2 very dark greyish soil brown (in worm/rootholes). One or two small flints, occasional FFRs. 2% very fine to fine macropores, medium blocky structure. Rooted partially oxidised, basal horizon of groundwater gley soil 0.54-0.61 0.57-0.58 14217 2.5Y 5/3 light olive brown sandy clay loam, with gleyed sparse small iron stained mottles to top. Medium secondary fill blocky structure, c.1% very fine to fine macropores, occ small stone, occasional tiny charcoal fleck. Abrupt to sharp boundary.

74

0.61- 0.68 0.61-0.62 14215 0.65-0.66

0.680.77+

0.69-0.70

Primary fill – Rapidly deposited unsorted sidederived gravely material, with band of likely topsoil derived material also. 10YR 4/6 dark yellowish brown sandy clay loam - top ‘Natural’ few cm are slightly ‘dirty’ – (10YR 4/6 dark yellowish geology with mixed/dirty brown clay/sandy clay, mixed with 2.5Y 4/3 olive brown). Looks like maybe trampled/physically mixed upper surface upper surface of ‘natural’ geology. NB if feature of particular interest may be worth closer examination of top of this layer – possibly some inwashes of fine material (although this may be in geology rather than fill)

2.5Y 4/2 dark greyish brown sandy clay loam, few strong brown medium distinct clear mottles. Few to common stones, small, subangular. ?weak ?blocky structure, occasional FFRs, c.1% fine macropores. Abrupt to clear boundary. Looks like gravely material likely derived from sides – primary fill. Narrow diffuse dark band @0.61-0.63– possibly stasis event or topsoil derived material contributing organic/colour?

Table 16: Sediment descriptions and sub- samples monolith 213
Feature 14307 Dwg#14307, monolith 213 0cm= 36.92m aOD [1 is used to denote when top of monolith taken as 0cm] Depth (m)1 Context Full sediment description 0-0.21 14309 10YR 5/6 yellowish brown loamy sand, common medium faint clear mottles of 2.5Y 6/3 light yellowish brown. Rare charcoal <4mm, common rounded stones to base, up to 50mm. Clear to diffuse boundary. Un/poorly sorted, likely ploughed in. 0.21-0.39 14390 10YR 5/6 yellowish brown sandy silt loam. Very many medium to coarse distinct clear mottles, 2.5Y 5/3 light olive brown, occasional charcoal <10mm, fine fleshy rootlets. 1% very fine to fine macropores, few very small rounded stones. No observed structure. Clear boundary 0.39-0.51 14310 2.5Y 5/2 greyish brown clay loam with common (5-10%) distinct clear medium 10YR 5/6 yellowish brown mottles. ?medium ?blocky structure, weakly to moderately developed (tricky to distinguish in monolith). Common fine fleshy rootlets, c.1-2% macropores (fine to v fine), abundant charcoal lumps up to 10mm (mostly birch – Betula pendula/pubescens, but also some Pomoideae). Charcoal lumps have reddish ferruginous clay coatings in places, likely translocation down profile of clay (lessivage) as result of pedogenesis. No coatings observed on peds however (although very difficult to make peds out in any case). 0.51-0.70 14311 2.5Y 6/3 light yellowish brown sandy clay loam with very many clear distinct medium mottles of 10YR 5/6 yellowish brown. Smallish patch (c.2%) 5YR 4/6 yellowish red (iron rich clayey). Occasional fine fleshy rootlets. 1% v fine macropores. Poorly sorted but with fair bit of clay in it.

Interpretation Ploughed-in tertiary fill

Secondary fill

Likely stasis with dumping of charcoally material incorporated

Possible primary fill, no lamination. Sample doesn’t reach geology.

75

Table 19: Archive contents Dowd’s Farm, Hedge End FILE 1 FILE 2 FILE 3 FILE 4 FILE 5 FILE 6 All site All site Area A Area A Compound B/Haul Rd B SMR Urban Park Area D Area E Area G HCPS Area S Area S Area C Area C A B, HCPS, Area D, Compound, B Haul Rd, Urban Park Area’s E & G Area S Area C Background Groups Camera Register Sheets Enviro + Object Sheets 10,700-10,999 12000-12230 10000-10067 10068-10089 10090-10228 10300-10486 11000-11013 12800-13083 12500-12718 11500-11646 13600-13859 13660-14099 13200-13565 13566-13593 14100-14333 A4/A3 dwgs A4/A3 dwgs

FILE 7 FILE 8 FILE 9 FILE 10 FILE 11 FILE 12 FILE 13 FILE 14 FILE 15

FILE 16 FILE 17 FILE 18 FILE 19 FILE 20

A4/A3 dwgs A4/A3 dwgs A4/A3 dwgs

76

448600

448700

448800 448900

449000

449100

449200

449300

Area A

Urban Park Area

114800

Area S
Watching Brief Area

Area E Area E

?

Watching Brief Area
?

PH?

114700

Paddock/Area S

TT

Area G

PIT

114600

Area B

Tr34

Area C

114500

0

100 m

Late Bronze Age Modern Undated

Post-medieval
This material is for client report only © Wessex Archaeology. No unauthorised reproduction.

Late Bronze Age/Late Iron Age-early Romano-British

Late Iron Age-early Romano-British

Date: Scale:

30/07/08 1:2000

Revision Number: Illustrator:

0 KMN

Wessex Archaeology

Medieval

Tree hollows

Path:

Y:\PROJECTS\62352\DO\Rep Figs\Assessment\08_02_29

Area location showing phased archaeological features

Figure 2

448800 448900

Area A

11637 11557 11554 11585 11565 12227 11520 11625 10781 10854 114800 10884 12029 12103 12053 12088 12063 12023 INSET 10998 10708 12225 12224 12018/12000 10876 Structure 10881 10878 10751 10861 10860 10810 Pits 10904 10809 10710 10817 Tree hollow 12221 12212 12197 114700 10988 Hearth 12102 Tree hollow 12162 12009 10872 10874 12050 12149 10862 12229 10779 10912 10910 10819 10821 12226 10905 10907 11620 11581 11644 11508 11588 11562

11528

11641

Plate 1: Area A, view from the south

12131 12133 12129 12135 INSET

12103

12049 12082 12072

Plate 2: Four-post structure 10081

12193 Tree hollow 12190 12207 10793 10995

12111 12108 12181 10785 Hollow 12218 12080

0

50 m

12184 10791

0

5m

Plate 3: Hearth 12102

Late Bronze Age Modern Undated

Post-medieval
This material is for client report only © Wessex Archaeology. No unauthorised reproduction.

Late Bronze Age/Late Iron Age-early Romano-British

Late Iron Age-early Romano-British

Date: Scale:

30/07/08 1:1000 INSET 1:200

Revision Number: Illustrator:

0 KMN

Wessex Archaeology

Medieval

Tree hollows

Path:

Y:\PROJECTS\62352\DO\Rep Figs\Assessment\08_02_29\62352_figs.dwg

Area A

Figure 3

448700

Area B
114600 Ditch 10225 10146 10150 10148 10121 10144 10104 10136 10133 10137 10087 10085 7405 10182 10226 10090
Section

448800

Plate 4: Pit 10121, view from north

7403 10190 10075

Tr34

Ditch 10225
SW

29.95 m O.D.

NE

10103 114500 10068

10105 10073

10104

10106

10107

10108

0

1m

0

50 m

Late Bronze Age Modern Undated

Post-medieval
This material is for client report only © Wessex Archaeology. No unauthorised reproduction.

Late Bronze Age/Late Iron Age-early Romano-British

Late Iron Age-early Romano-British

Date: Scale:

30/07/08 1:1000 SECTION 1:20

Revision Number: Illustrator:

0 KMN

Wessex Archaeology

Medieval

Tree hollows

Path:

Y:\PROJECTS\62352\DO\Rep Figs\Assessment\08_02_29

Area B

Figure 4

448900

449000

Area G

114600

12626

Plate 5: Excavation of Pit 14236, view from east

Enclosure ditch 13593 Enclosure ditch 14317

Area C
10040 10061 10010 13425 13407 13405 14127 14193 14318 14236 14118 14169 14120 12717 13507 13555 13553 13560 14259 10063

13387 13377 13590 13301 13429

14224 14116 14117

13427

14264

Plate 6: Northeast facing section 14301, Enclosure 14317
13477 14181

Enclosure ditch 13593
13239

Enclosure ditch 14317

114500 14155 13372 13261

14119 10030 13445 13264 13437 13293 13219 13314

0

50 m

Late Bronze Age Modern Undated

Post-medieval
This material is for client report only © Wessex Archaeology. No unauthorised reproduction.

Late Bronze Age/Late Iron Age-early Romano-British

Late Iron Age-early Romano-British

Date: Scale:

30/07/08 1:1000 SECTION 1:20

Revision Number: Illustrator:

0 KMN

Wessex Archaeology

Medieval

Tree hollows

Path:

Y:\PROJECTS\62352\DO\Rep Figs\Assessment\08_02_29\62352_figs.dwg

Area C

Figure 5

448950

114600

Plate 7: Excavation of terminus 13507, Enclosure 13593

Plate 8: Pit 14155, view from south

10063

Section

13507

Enclosure ditch 13593
NW 14155

36.81 m O.D. NE

SW SE

13508

13510

13509

13511

13515

13512

13513

13514

13507
Enclosure ditch 13593

13515

Plate 9: Terminus 10063, view from southwest
0 50 m

0

1m

Late Bronze Age Modern Undated

Post-medieval
This material is for client report only © Wessex Archaeology. No unauthorised reproduction.

Late Bronze Age/Late Iron Age-early Romano-British

Late Iron Age-early Romano-British

Date: Scale:

30/07/08 1:1000 SECTIONS 1:50

Revision Number: Illustrator:

0 KMN

Wessex Archaeology

Medieval

Tree hollows

Path:

Y:\PROJECTS\62352\DO\Rep Figs\Assessment\08_02_29\62352_figs.dwg

Area C

Figure 6

448900

449000

Area A
14319 10488 10489 Watching Brief Area 13030 12227 10488 13024 11620 13031 13033 13015 13611 13265 12815 12806 12936 Watching Brief Area 12831 12829 12825 12827 Watching Brief Area 13016 13813 13989 INSET A 12823 12821 13019 12888 13018 13876 13712 13267 12819 12927 13020 13015 114700 13020 13865 13727 13696 13679 13266 13666 13952 14115 14112 13841 13843 12916 14111 13974 13954 13000 14068 14114 13809 13956 14113 13815 13801 13021 13600 13602 13605 13022 114800 13645

Area S Area E

449100

Area E

Plate 10: Southeast facing section, Storage Pit 13679
14110

Paddock/Area S
13019 INSET B

0

50 m

Plate 11: The Paddock/Area S

13986 13835 14113 13969 13766 13768 13760 13941 13770 13943 13757 14088 13945 14111 14112 13947 13939
Section

INSET A

INSET B

13834 SW 13758 32.15 m O.D. NE SE NW

13759
14031 14025 14026 13759 14029

14033 14030 14028 14027

14032 14034

13760 13758

Plate 12: Northwest facing section, Pit 13876
0

5m

0

5m

0

1m

Late Bronze Age Modern Undated

Post-medieval
This material is for client report only © Wessex Archaeology. No unauthorised reproduction.

Late Bronze Age/Late Iron Age-early Romano-British

Late Iron Age-early Romano-British

Date: Scale:

30/07/08 1:1000 INSETS 1:200 SECTION 1:50

Revision Number: Illustrator:

0 KMN

Wessex Archaeology

Medieval

Tree hollows

Path:

Y:\PROJECTS\62352\DO\Rep Figs\Assessment\08_02_29\62352_figs.dwg

Area E, and Paddock/Area S

Figure 7

449100 449200

?

12543

?

114700 12648

12712
PH?

Plate 13: Pit 12699
12715
TT

449000 12714 INSET 12713 12535 12537
PIT

12572

12712

12581

12716

12570 12575

12548

Area G
12718 12502
Section

12717

12716

Enclosure ditch 13593
0 50 m

14321

12699

114600

12626

12551

NE

SW

INSET 12667 12646

33.10 m O.D.

12700

12675

12710
12709 12701 12708 12707 12719

Structure 12719
12654

12658

12656

12660

Area C

12706

12699
12711 12673 12712 12664 12662

0

1m

0

5m

12670

Late Bronze Age Modern Undated

Post-medieval
This material is for client report only © Wessex Archaeology. No unauthorised reproduction.

Late Bronze Age/Late Iron Age-early Romano-British

Late Iron Age-early Romano-British

Date: Scale:

30/07/08 1:1000 INSETS 1:200 SECTION 1:50

Revision Number: Illustrator:

0 KMN

Wessex Archaeology

Medieval

Tree hollows

Path:

Y:\PROJECTS\62352\DO\Rep Figs\Assessment\08_02_29\62352_figs.dwg

Area G

Figure 8

449000 449100

10495

Urban Park Area
10380

10488

10503 10491 10490 10374
Section

Plate 14: Southwest facing section, 10374 & Ditch 10489

Area E
10345 10334 10343 Early Neolithic polished axe 10322 10304 10325 10349 10329 10308 10319 10320 10302 10487 114800

10489

Watching Brief Area

0

50 m

27.97 m O.D. 10413 10499

SE

NW

10502

10501

10498

10506

10500
10484 10504

10497

10505

10412
10484

10494 10448

10429

10503
10493

0
Sample 87

1m

Late Bronze Age Modern Undated

Post-medieval
This material is for client report only © Wessex Archaeology. No unauthorised reproduction.

Late Bronze Age/Late Iron Age-early Romano-British

Late Iron Age-early Romano-British

Date: Scale:

30/07/08 1:1000 SECTION 1:20

Revision Number: Illustrator:

0 KMN

Wessex Archaeology

Medieval

Tree hollows

Path:

Y:\PROJECTS\62352\DO\Rep Figs\Assessment\08_02_29\62352_figs.dwg

Urban Park Area

Figure 9

WESSEX ARCHAEOLOGY LIMITED. Registered Head Office: Portway House, Old Sarum Park, Salisbury, Wiltshire SP4 6EB. Tel: 01722 326867 Fax: 01722 337562 info@wessexarch.co.uk www.wessexarch.co.uk London Office: Unit 113, The Chandlery, 50 Westminster Bridge Road, London SE1 7QY.
Tel: 020 7953 7494 Fax: 020 7953 7499 london-info@wessexarch.co.uk

www.wessexarch.co.uk

Registered Charity No. 287786. A company with limited liability registered in England No. 1712772.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful