Dig Report 1 (Part 1)
Interim Report No.1.
Archaeology
study of: -
The Glebe Field Dig no.
SGF 21
Credit J. McMahon Plate: 01.
Author: David .W. Savage BA Honours Humanities with History (Open University) MA Archaeology (University of Bristol) Certificate Humanities (Open University)
Email :- Glebefield@outlook.com
Interim
report no.1 collates information gained through archaeological investigation
and prospecting within the Glebe Field during the 2021 season.
1. Summary
With two HER numbers indicating medieval field platforms, the ‘Glebe Field’ is ripe for investigation, research had found no previous archaeological works.
Geophysical surveys commenced and a small evaluation trench was dug during 2019. Delayed by the Corona Virus Pandemic, a community based dig recommenced May 2021 and continued to November 2021; resistivity surveying continued until December2021.
At present a long chronological multi layered use is
envisaged. Finds have been dated by
Bristol Museum with a date range from 100AD to 1350AD, after which, there
appears to be a long gap to early 19th Century finds. There are rectilinear
responses orientated east to west on the site’s Resistivity Survey, considerable
amounts of metal working waste including furnace slag has been found in Trench
02.
Contents Page
1.
Summary 2
2.
Introduction 4
3.
History 4
4.
Long term objectives 5
5.
Methodology 5
6.
Research Questions 6
7.
Results incl. 7
7.1
Fieldwork
7.2 Trenches
7.3 Artefacts
7.4 Discussion
8.
Conclusions 12
9.
2022 Objectives 13
10.
Acknowledgements 14
11.
Appendices 15
11.2 Geology
report
11.3 Resistivity technical details
11.4 Detailed trench context and
stratigraphy information
List
of Figure Page
01 Resistivity Survey
grey scale results 6
02 TR02 plan and section 8
03 TR03 Contexts 18
04 TR04 Contexts 21
05 TR02 and TR05 22
06 TR02 section 23
07 TR05 and part of TR02
plan 24
08 TR06 Contexts 27
List
of Plates
01 Glebe Field looking
eastwards 1
02 TR03 bedrock feature 22
03 TR04 plan view 24
04 TR05 fire hearth kerb 28
05 TR05 possible hearth 29
06 TR06 test pit 31
07 Context 01 finds
common to all trenches 32
08 Sandstone common to
all trenches 33
09 Possible top of loom
weight 34
10 Fossilised bivalves 35
11Friable courseware 36
12 Possible Oxford ware 37
13 Rouletted potsherd 37
14 Combed ware 38
15 Ham Green ware 39
16 Wrought iron
assemblage 41
17 Saxo Norman Spurs 41
18 Knife blades and handle 42
19 Copper Alloy finds 44
20 Copper Alloy stud 45
21 Second World War
shrapnel 46
22 TR02 Complete Tibia
and Fibula 47
23 Possible Postholes 48
24 Site of hot poured
smelting waste 49
25 Packing stones to possible
posthole 49
2. Introduction
For security reasons no location is given other the
‘The Glebe Field’.
This interim report deals with the 2021 dig season at
the Glebe Field. Detailed site information such as topography, geology,
historical background and the like, is available in the Desk Based Assessment
(BDA) prepared between 2017 and 2020.
Also available within the BDA is a brief report and images of the
evaluation trench no. SGF 19.
Archaeological investigations recommenced 28th
May 2021 as Covid restrictions were relaxed. The cessation of digging was 1st
October, with backfilling and tidying taking place as weather permitted during
October. With four resistivity surveys
taking place from 11th October to 4th December completing
a total of twenty-four 20x20mt grids.
The work force consisted of local community and other
interested volunteers. It warrants being noted; the restorative and therapeutic
effect, which an archaeological dig can provide should not be
underestimated.
3.
History
The Glebe Field’s name gives away passed
ecclesiastical ownership and the 1840 Tithe Apportionments shows the Reverend
Francis Pelly owned the Glebe Fields. However, they were at this time called
‘Flints’, it is not totally clear why, differing opinions include; passed
owners name and the ground being very flinty or stony; this subject will be put
to one side for future discussion.
It is not clear yet when occupancy of the site
commenced, however, our earliest dateable artifact of any certainty is from the
1st to 3rd century. Siston is mentioned in the 1086
Doomsday Book indicating ‘pre conquest’ occupation. . It does appear it
possibly ceased about 1350AD and was returned to pasture, a long gap is evident
with 19th Century finds within a field dressing stratification at a shallow
plough line level. At some point in the
20th Century platforms in the Glebe were recorded however, with no
explanation available in the HER.
4. Long term Objectives
Desired On Going Project Targets
1.To understand the pre history and history of Siston
habitation.
2. It is our intention to have an informal group of
like-minded people. A formal group with a constitution, committee and the like,
is not our ambition.
2. Imperative to the ethos of the group is:
a. Include all the Siston community who wish to be
involved.
b. Utilise other volunteer groups and individuals who
can give expert advice and help.
c. Include inexperienced volunteers who wish to be
involved as democratically as possible.
d. It is desired that all relevant dig and research documents,
artifacts and records of the Glebe Field Project to eventually become the
property of the Parish of Siston. For use by anyone who has permission to do so
by the custodians appointed; currently Bristol Museum have expressed a wish to
be overseers of certain artifacts.
5. Methodology
The Glebe Field Dig is the catalyst, but is just one element of this project. To fully understand the layers of archaeology within its boundary we must look further afield.
So the following disciplines will be incorporated.
a. Complete as
possible understanding of the surrounding landscape and it features; for
example; the multiple weir system downstream from Siston.
b. A thorough historical research programme
undertaken. Utilising local, regional and national resources.
c. A properly recorded excavation programme carried
out within the Glebe Field.
d. Correct recording and where necessary conservation
of artefacts.
e. Publication of updates and interim reports of the
findings carried out by ‘Siston Archaeology Group’ (SAG). However, timing for
publication is always to be taken into account for the security of the Glebe
Field archaeology.
f. Use all methods available to produce as thorough a
record as possible.
6.
Research Questions
1. What is the occupation
timeline of the site?
-
When and why were the streams and waterways altered?
-
The majority of finds span the Saxo- Norman period; does this mean the site was
only occupied during this period?
- Artifacts demonstrate a long gap in
occupation from AD 1350 to the 1800s. Why is this?
2. What was the site used
for?
-How
many layer of occupation are there?
-Are
the rectilinear resistivity responses ecclesiastical?
-
Is the curvilinear response the remains of a stone enclosure surrounding an
early church?
-
With evidence of occupation and of metalworking, was this before or after it’s
possible ecclesiastical use. Was it
occupied then became a workshop?
3. Numerous features shown by the drone survey, lidar, geophysical surveys and the like not mentioned in questions 1 and 2 also require investigation .
7.
Results
7.1Fieldworks
Resistivity geophysics was carried
out in the field west of the brook during 2019 and recommenced 2021. During 2019 5 x 20 x 20mt grids were
completed, the 2021 season covered the majority of the West Glebe, see figure
02 below, expanding from 5 grids to 23 grids. See Appendix 3 for method and
equipment details. Three evaluation trenches and two test pits were dug.
Numerous finds included approximately 150 metal objects 1400 potsherds 700
animal bone fragments including small bone tools; plus 7 possibly postholes and
a fire hearth.
For details of Artifacts and Trenches please also see
Appendices.
Credit: YaDAG Figure: 01.
7.2 Trenches
Summary
Three evaluation trenches dug as shown on figure 02 include TR02, TR03 and TR05. Combined, this was the largest trench of SGF21 season across high resistance responses. Large amounts of redeposited rubble and some building stone was scattered throughout the trench however, the spread of the rubble permeates from a centreline along an east west axis. However, possible structures appear in the form of postholes, one of which had a knife blade near its base stone. Also possible stone hearth was uncovered in TR 05.
Trench TR04 was started as a test pit in a low
resistance response hollow. Expanded, exposed 10 % to 15% portion of a medium
size courseware pot. Also redeposited rubble and stone were found in most
contexts and stratigraphic layers.
Test Pit TR06. This 1mt. square test pit was dug in
the northwest corner of a rectilinear anomaly shown on the resistivity survey,
see figure 02, test pit marked in red. This was to investigate the dark, or a
high resistance response, on each corner of this rectilinear shape is. More
rubble and possible building stone was found.
In all trenches a similar spread of ceramic, metal and
bone artifacts were found and although there appears to be redeposited building
stone and possibly infill rubble there is a notable complete lack of mortar.
Context
and Stratigraphic Layers
Note 1: The Glebe Field hasn’t been modern ‘deep’
ploughed.
Note 2: Stratigraphic layers are numbered ‘layer 1’
being the ‘ground level surface’ then ‘Layer 2’ below Layer 1 etc.
Note 3: Due to oxidisation all Munsell codes below are
for guidance only. Soil samples have been taken for each context.
Note 4. Datum height above Sea Level to follow
Evaluation
Trench 02
See
also appendix 3 for further context and stratigraphical details.
The natural substrate (2.5Y 6/6 olive yellow) in
Context 11 was identified at the west end of the trench at D- 1.105mts. Also
natural substrate was found at the base of Contexts 06 and 09(2.5Y5/4 Light
olive brown) at D- 675mm and 10,12&13(2.5Y6/6 olive yellow) at D-900mm,
mainly bedrock with signs of possible use as a floor in the centre and east of
the trench. Context 04 and 08 are
redeposited subsoil and stone (2.5Y 5/4 light olive brown) at D- 640mm at the
western end of the trench. Context03 is morphologically altered redeposited
subsoil and stone (2.5Y 4/2 dark grey brown) spanning the whole trench at D-
520mm. Context 02 top soil (10Y3/1 very dark grey) with small indigenous
limestone fragment spanning whole trench at D- 415mm. Context 01 top soil
(10YR2/1 black) with an assumed ancient plough line defined by field dressing
at D - 295mm. See figure 02 below.
TR02 contexts Scale
= 1metre Figure:
02.
Evaluation Trench TR03
TR03 is a continuation of TR02 on the same west to
east alignment. Due to investigating a section of unusually worked bedrock, was
extended to 3.8mts east to west by 1.5mts south to north then a north dogleg
was dug 1.4mts x 1.4mts.
The natural substrate (2.5Y 6/6 olive yellow) at the
base of Context 04 was identified at D - 940mm at the east side of the trench
abutting the base of natural bedrock which appears to have been quarried to a
battered edge in the centre of the trench see Plate 02 and figure 04. Context 04
is redeposited natural with many fragments of charcoal and bone (2.5Y 4/2 dark
grey brown) at D- 845mm.
Context 03 is also Re deposited natural but is a
lighter material (2.5Y 5/4 light olive brown) at D-665mm. Context 01 and 02 are
essentially the same as TR02 confirming a uniformity, so far, within the Glebe
Field’s field dressing, ploughing and morphology from D- 580 to ground level.
Evaluation trench TR04.
Trench 04 was primarily excavated as the responses of
the geophysical survey response of very low resistance. This 1 sq. mt. test pit was gradually
expanded to 2.0mts east to west and 1.3mts north to south. Reason for the
expansion of the trench was this uncovered a large portion of a broken where it
rested crudely made black pot, also possible postholes and an area of stone in
context 4, which was largely left in place’. Other significant finds included
an 8th to 10th century strap end a large wrought iron nail/tool and a possible
slingshot stone.
Due to time constraints and a desire not to disturb a
possible structure at this stage, the natural stratum was not conclusively
reached. However, the base of context 4 (2.5Y 5/4 light olive brown) at D -
1.080mts had similarities with TR02 at a similar depth taking into account the
west to east slope of the field. Also different shades of the soil are visible
at D-1080mts. Overlaid by darker redeposit layer (2.5Y 4/2 dark grey brown) at
D-1.010mm. Context 02 and 01 are of similar composition as TR02 and TR03
reiterating uniformity at this level.
Evaluation Trench TR05
TR05 Was a small excavation 3.4mts west to east from
the furthest eastern edge of TR02 and was initially 1.4 mt. east to west and 1
mt. south to north. This was carried out mainly to investigate a possible cut
showing in the east section of TR02 approx. 4mts. east from west most extent
TR02 see 06 figure in Appendix . However, a possibly fire hearth was found with
large hearth edge stones. A 1mt x .550mt extension to the trench was excavated
eastwards see. See context 4 for description.
Although not conclusive context 04 is natural bedrock
appears to have been reddened due to heat at D-560mm however, it is surrounded
by context 03 to its sides and above by redeposited natural with inclusions
(2.5Y 5/4 light olive brown). As with TR02, 03 and 04 at D-410mm Context 02 and
01 the subsoil and topsoil have uniform compositions.
Test Pit TR06
1mt. square test pit was dug in the northwest corner of a rectilinear anomaly shown on the resistivity survey, see figure 02, test pit marked in red.
This was to
investigate the high resistance responses that are on each corner of this
rectilinear shape. This is the deepest trench to date at approx. 940 mm below
ground level or D- 1.630mts (2.5Y 4/2 dark grey brown. However, at this depth
we were not at natural strata level, due to flooding and the very large amount
of stone within the trench and the desire not to disturb possible postholes no
further digging took place. Sitting upon this at D- 1.530Mts. (2.5Y 4/2 dark
grey brown) but with more charcoal and bone is context 03. Context 02 at D- 1.090Mts (10Y3/1 very dark
grey) in this trench is similar subsoil but more stony of about 70mm down. Topsoil is the same as all other trenches in
this report.
7.3
Artifacts
Summary
See
Appendix 5 for further detail.
The SGF21 finds have been large in number considering
only 25sqmts have been dug. In round numbers we have, 1400 potsherds, 130
wrought iron pieces, 5 copper alloy pieces, 500 animal bone fragments, numerous
uncounted charcoal fragment, numerous pieces of furnace waste or slag ranging
in size from 80 mm to less than 5mm. Plus two quartz crystals, three pieces of
oyster shell and a few possible flint fragments.
The earliest datable artefact is a British Romano
enamelled stud (see appendix) dated as 100 AD to 300A, the timeline extends to 19th
century detritus left from field dressing, plus 20th century metal
objects including Second World War ‘Ack Ack’ shrapnel.
Numerous possible pre-historic to early 20th
century potsherds have been found; the majority of which are medieval.
To date we have approximately 500 bone fragments. All
those examined have been identified as animal bone mainly Bovine, Porcine,
Ovine and a few very small poultry bones.
One long bone, a bovine Tibia and Fibula stood out
from the others. It was complete and only broken post burial. It had one small
butchery mark alone to the distal end of the tibia.
To date we have 5no possible postholes in TR02 2no in
trench TR04 and 1no in TR06. Most of
these are speculative however, possible posthole bases within TR02 measure
within millimetres of being perfectly level.
7.4
Results Discussion
From 25square metres of trench a large number of
artifacts have been found. Huge amounts of local stone material, some still in its
natural bed, some suitable for building, some waste rubble, mixed with alluvial
sandy clay loam soil makes it a very difficult 25 sq. mts. to interpret and to
draw any conclusions of passed times use. Over 1300 potsherds, 180 pieces of
metal, 500 bone fragments and numerous other artefacts are prove of occupation
but the timeline is unclear.
8. Conclusion
We have impressive curvilinear responses from the resistivity survey. The largest possible structure is an enclosure, however, there are numerous other possible structures and ditches. Within the enclosure is a rectilinear shape approximately 8mts X 11mts orientated east to west. The finds uncovered so far give a wide timeline from possibly Bronze or Iron Age to Late Medieval. But taking into account the following: -
-The dating of the majority of artefacts i.e.
Saxo-Norman
- The information given by the Resistivity Survey
- Lack of mortar to any stonework
- Possible Postholes
- Location near Siston Brook
The current working hypothesis is it has been the
subject of multi-layered occupation.
Water has been diverted from springs for example to
give more reliable water supplies. These could be prehistoric in origin.
The enclosure and rectilinear shape give the
impression of an early Saxon ecclesiastical or high status use.
There are records of two abandoned churches in Siston
Parish. See Rudder’s 1796 History of the
County of Gloucestershire.
As so much of the stone material on site appears to be
redeposited; it is possible the site was reused or repurposed. One possible use
due to artifacts such a wide variety of metal objects and evidence of hot
works, it may once have been used as a metal workshop site.
9.
2022 Objectives
1. Investigate possibility of early ecclesiastical or
high status followed by artisan metalwork use.
a. Digging new trenches, locations to be agreed, but
generally within the rectilinear responses of the Res. Survey.
b. Complete recording of artifacts recovered to date.
c. Carry out off-site historical research.
d. Continue resistivity Survey, east of the brook with
in the Glebe Field.
2. Conservation
of finds as required.
3. Inclusive approach to volunteers involved.
10. Acknowledgements
-
Avon Archaeology Ltd.
Contact: Dr.Nick
Corcas https://www.avonarchaeology.co.uk/
Services: Drone Survey and Period advise
- Community
Archaeology on the Mendip Plateau (CAMP)
Contact: Pip Osbourne
https://www.camp-plateau.co.uk/home
Services: Pottery typology, artifact dating, and group
digging
-Ken
and Diana Wardle
Contact: via Birmingham University
Services: Period and Saxo - Viking textiles advice.
-Potable
Antiquities Scheme
Contact: Kurt Adams https://www.bristolmuseums.org.uk
Service: Artifact Dating
-
Shared Past
Contact: Penny Lock https://sharedpast.org/
Services: Community group organisation and technical
advice.
-
Siston Archaeology Group
Contact: David and Zillah Savage d_z_savage@hotmail.com
- Yate and
District Archaeology Group (YADAG)
Contact Mary Lennox http://www.yateheritage.co.uk/about/yadag-yate-district-archaeology-group.htm
Service: Geophysical Surveying.
- CARD
Carbon
dating
Contact: Luke Parker
Dr.
Carol Lewis and Prof. Stephen Hill
For kindly
critiquing and proof reading
11.Appendices
Appendix
1
Glebe
Field Geology report by Kay Borland
I was intrigued by the
fossil bivalves, which I think are one of the Pecten or Chlamys types. It may
be possible to tie them down to a specific geological stratum. So first I
looked at the 1:10560 scale geology map, an extract of which is attached. Maybe
telling you things you already know, but you might not have this detailed
mapping. (Its BGS copyright, but we have the map for work and using an
extract for private research is not a problem). The map is from 1959,
using the 1947 base survey, so it uses the older names for geological strata
which I grew up with. The names have been updated in recent years and I’ve
given both on the annotated extract, though probably unnecessarily confusing.
There should be an
article written on ‘Predicting archaeological sites based on the early
Jurassic geological outcrops’ because your Siston site has the same
underlying geology and setting as not only our Chewton Mendip site, but also
the Iron Age hillfort that Andy Mayes was telling us about on Sunday….
While its obvious that good springs attracted settlement and exploitation
wherever they occur, its amusing that all 3 sites are the same!
The attached shows the
south facing slope is a sequence of clays/mudstones and limestones that give
rise to several likely spring lines as groundwater is ‘held up’ on more
impermeable clay/mudstone beds and issues out as overflow from overlying
permeable and fractured limestones. The overall dip of the strata and
topography is down to the south, so springs will issue and drain southwards.
There is also gentle folding of the strata on an east-west axis (shown as the
hatched lines of diamonds and X’s in the SE corner of map) that has helped
create the westward draining section of the upper Siston Brook. There may
be locations in Primrose Wood downslope of the Saltford Shale (LLi Lower Lias
Clay) where small seepages/springs occur (and encourage the primroses).
Two springs are mapped
downslope southeast of your site on the Saltford Shale and Wilmcote Limestones
(WBL White Lias Limestone). The northern higher length of the Brook that passes
through your land is obviously straightened further north, which suggests (very
early?) control to exploit it (or maybe to supplement a spring already on the
site even).
I also looked at the
lidar, which I know you already have, but wanted to see which features could be
tied into the geology. Have included this in the Powerpoint file. Most of
the ‘circular enclosure’ area is Wilmcote Limestone, so good drained calcareous
soils. The southern boundary of the enclosure is where the suggested boundary
with the underlying Rhaetic Penarth Group mudstones is mapped, which will be
less well drained and potentially quite muddy/sticky slopes alongside the
brook. It’s good to use the contours over lidar to visualise the slopes.
The fossil bivalves you
have are moulds of the original shell in filled by calcareous mud, with a
little white shell remaining on the surface. Unfortunately Prof Desmond
Donovan who would probably have instantly identified them precisely died a
couple of years ago, but if you want I can do a bit of research on likely
Rhaetic or Liassic strata they could come from. I’m sure they’re very local to
the site, simply collected as attractive objects, or used as tokens. You may
have already seen the attached article. We have one fossil sea urchin
from Chewton, which is far from its Chalk origin in Wiltshire, but a beautiful
tactile object.
Note: Illustrations
etc. mentioned are available via Author.
Appendix 2
Resistivity
Survey Methodology
The resistance survey was undertaken using a Geoscan RM15
with multiplexer MPX15 using two pairs of electrodes each at a 0.5 metre
separation. The 20 x 20 metre grids were used for the resistivity survey, with
the traverse interval kept at 1 metre but the sample interval increased to 0.5
metres. Again, the survey was undertaken in a zigzag manner, recording the data
in ohms with the inbuilt data logger. Data was downloaded to the laptop and
analysed with Geoplot.
Appendix
3
Further
Context and Stratigraphical Details by Trench (as prepared for Carbon Dating
application).
TR02
Contexts
01
Layer 1, including turf and topsoil
is between 150 and 180mm deep, the bottom of which consists of a 19th
century field-dressing layer within 40 mm of topsoil; Colour 10YR2/1 black.
Context
02 Layer
2 is 50mm to 100 mm of stone (possibly from demolition) and poorer quality
clay/sandy loam. Few finds in this layer dating medieval or earlier but mainly
19th century waste included in field dressing, for example, clay
pipe and pottery fragments; Colour 10Y3/1 very dark grey.
Context
03 Layer
3, is between 60 and 120mm, the ‘pin
beater’ tool was found in this context 675mm below site datum. When trowelled
is full of slightly sandy heavy clay and stone however, pleasingly large
amounts of potsherds, bone, stone subjected to heat and metal finds including a
British Romano stud, but mainly medieval; Colour 2.5Y 4/2 dark grey brown.
Context
04
Layer 4, of 100mm to 120mm consisting of redeposited clay and small to large
stones with a few artefacts: Colour2.5Y
5/4 light olive brown.
Context
05 Layers
2,3&4, possible posthole with two separate poured metalwork slag lumps on
the southwest rim of the hole. Also found, a 90mm long knife blade in typical
Saxon shape and section in the lower part of the hole near a base stone.
See contexts 2,3,and 4 for soil colours etc.
Context06
Layer
3 to 4, where the large whole bone was found is up to 350mm in depth. The
proximal end of the bone was at the bottom at 750mm below site datum. Made up
of suspected demolition stone rubble, size from 150mm to 5mm, with no mortar
present, but additionally including slightly sandy heavy clay.
Including numerous medieval potsherds and 10th
to 12th century prick spurs; Colour 2.5Y5/4 Light olive brown
Context
07 Layer
3 Potsherd removed from north
section located in Layer 3. See Context 03 above for soil type, nature of
context and Stratigraphical information.
Context
8 Layer
4, same as context 4,taken as a shallow sondage prior to west section of
context 4 was dug, 100mm to 120mm consisting of redeposited clay and small to
large stones with a few artefacts: Colour 2.5Y 5/4 light olive brown.
Context
9 Layer
4 Made up of suspected demolition
stone rubble, size from 150mm to 5mm, with no mortar present, but additionally
including slightly sandy heavy clay. Including numerous medieval potsherds and
byzantine shape bowl handle and loop. Colour 2.5Y5/4 Light olive brown
Context 10 Layer 4 is immediately below context 06 and approx. 100mm deep. Containing a few medieval artefacts and is redeposited natural silt/sandy clay and small stones on mainly undisturbed natural clay and friable mudstone, but some of the natural bedrock does appear to have unnatural colour for a possible heat source, and possible human disturbance. This was the maximum extent of the depth in this part of trench O2; Colour 2.5Y6/6 olive yellow.
Context 11 Layer 5, are 350mm to 400mm deep sondage trenches to expose the depth of unnatural fill. Dig composed of redeposited natural layer of stone clay and friable mudstone, down to natural bedrock; containing mainly small animal bone fragments a few medieval potsherds and some burnt mudstone. Colour 2.5Y 6/6 olive yellow.
Context
12
Layer 5 in the furthest northeast corner of TR02, soil unnatural backfill with
unusual metal find flat plate with hook, probably originally two hooks but one
broken off, stored drawer 2. Colour 2.5Y
5/4 light olive brown.
Context
13 Layer
4 is a shallow layer of sandy clay. Redeposited natural with potsherds and slag
or daub. This layer is sitting on the natural bedrock. Soil sample and shreds
stored drawer 6. Colour 2.5Y 6/6 Olive
yellow.
TR03
Context
1
Stratigraphical layer including turf and topsoil is between 150 and 180mm deep,
the bottom of which consists of a 19th century field-dressing layer
within 40 mm of topsoil, Colour 10YR2/1 black.
Context
02 Layer
2 is 50mm to 70 mm of stony poorer quality clay/sandy loam. No posthole cuts or
the like visible Few finds in this layer dating medieval or earlier but mainly
19th century waste included in field dressing and pottery fragments.
The stony scatter is similar to TR02, however, it feathers out going eastward
and is about 80% less at the east most section of TR03. In this context a strong stone bedrock
feature first appeared. An unusual
boar’s tusk was found in this context possibly shaped as a stylus, Colour
10Y3/1 very dark grey.
Context
03 Layer
3 is between 75 and 200mm in depth consisting redeposited stones from 150mm to
5mm with possibly alluvial silt /clay with a few medieval potsherds, bone and
wrought iron artefacts. In this context an edge to the bedrock was apparent
where the layers of bedrock had been removed. Some of the top layer seemed to
be left in place and folded downward where it had been undermined. It seems
very odd if simple quarrying was taking place why perfectly well formed
limestone was left. One area appeared
like a turtles back, this was left in place and reburied, Colour 2.5Y 5/4 light
olive brown.
Context
4
Stratigraphical Layer 4, this context of 100mm to 150mm depth, and was to
ascertain the natural base level going down the edge of natural stone feature
on it south face. The natural appeared to be a thin layer of very soft solid
material on a sandy clay layer; this in turn appears to go under the 400mm
layer of bedrock going northwards. Context 4 is evidently redeposited and
darker in colour than the layer above. Very few potsherds found but evidence of
charcoal and animal bone fragments. One large metallic lump was recovered in
the southeast corner of the trench at this depth, Colour 2.5Y 4/2 dark grey
brown.
TR03 contexts Scale=200mm Figure: 03.
TR03 East corner and north trench extension to expose Bedrock feature Plate: 02.
TR04
Contexts 01 Layer 1 including turf and topsoil is between 150 and 180mm deep, the bottom of which consists of a 19th century field-dressing layer within 40 mm of topsoil, Colour 10YR2/1 black.
Context 02 Layer 2 is 50mm to 70 mm of poorer quality clay/sandy loam. No posthole cuts or the like visible Few finds in this layer dating medieval or earlier but mainly 19th century waste included in field dressing, for example, clay pipe and pottery fragments, Colour 10Y3/1 very dark grey.
Context 03 Layer 3 is between 75 and 100mm in depth consisting redeposited stones from 70mm to 5mm with possibly alluvial silt /clay with a few medieval potsherds, bone and wrought iron artefacts, Colour 2.5Y 4/2 dark grey brown.
Context 04 Layer 4, of 100mm to 120mm consisting of redeposited clay and small (25mm) to large stones (200mm) with a few artefacts, including animal bones and wrought iron objects, however in th eastern portion of this the broken in situ black pot fragments, Colour 2.5Y 5/4 light olive brown.
Context 05 Stratigraphical Layers 1,2,3&4, this is a trench extension and covers the four previous context/layers. However, in addition this exposed between 60mm and100mm in depth with redeposited large stones from 200mm down to 15mm included in silt /clay This context, in the eastern portion is where the artefacts including animal bones and wrought iron objects, but also a copper alloy 8th to10th Century strap end, Colour 2.5Y 4/2 dark grey brown. This trench did not reach natural soil or bedrock.
Context 06 Stratigraphical Layers 1 2,3, & 4 This is another small extension of the trench north and east, to expose possible postholes, see plate 03, clear signs of redeposited stone in the east portion of this trench. A possible slingshot stone was found on the near the edge of context 5 and six in the layer 4.
TR04 by Contexts Scale =200mm Figure:04.
TR 04 Plan view Plate: 03.
TR05
Contexts 01 Layer 1 including turf and topsoil is between 150 and 180mm deep, the bottom of which consists of a 19th century field-dressing layer within 40 mm of topsoil, Colour 10YR2/1 black.
Context 02 Layer 2 is 50mm to 70 mm of stony poorer quality clay/sandy loam. No posthole cuts or the like visible. Few finds in this layer dating medieval or earlier but mainly 19th century waste included in field dressing, for example, hand made square section nails and pottery fragments, Colour 10Y3/1 very dark grey.
Context 03 Layer 3, is between 60 and 120mm, slightly sandy heavy clay and extremely stony however, pleasingly large amounts of potsherds, bone, stone subjected to heat and metal finds including a British Romano stud mount found in the spoil heap from this trench, finds are mainly medieval. An attempt was made to take a sondage on the north half of this trench to create sections to ascertain if the cut as shown on Figure 5 above followed through from south to north. This was not possible due to the nature of the redeposited stone and so it is not clear if a ditch filled with stone was carrying on northwards or an artifact of process. However the sondage revelled a 400mm x 200mm hearth edge stone laid flat, see Figure 07 above and plate 04 above. Due to this find a further extension to TR05 was dug. Colour 2.5Y 4/2 dark grey brown.
Context 4 Same stratigraphy as context 3, however, at a further 50 to 100mm depth there is a possibly small trench filled with softer material, which might be the edge of a structure, as two postholes also seem apparent in a north to south direction also extending in to TR02 see Figure 09 in Dig Report Part 2.