A Rapid Assessment of Q-Pits Ecclesall Woods, Sheffield Archaeological Survey

Non-Technical Summary: ASE Ltd was commissioned to carry out an archaeological survey of the Q- pits in EcclesaU Woods, Sheffield. The survey was undertaken between January 2003 and September 2003 and constituted the second stage of a community-based project funded by a Local Heritage Initiative grant It was carried out by a group of volunteers from the Friends of EcclesaU Woods under the supervision of a consultant archaeologist Training in recording archaeological earthworks was delivered during the course of the survey. Not aU of the features identified during the course of previous work at EcclesaU Woods could be identified as part of the rapid survey. In most instances these features were thought to have been obscured by dense ground cover. The rapid survey of the Q-pits has greatly improved our understanding of the nature and variability in form of Q-pits. Each of the Q-Pits was classified on the basis of its morphology as either simple or complex features, further differentiating between typical, tongued, leated or double variants. Although analysis of the physical atbibutes and distribution of the resultant classes of Q-Pit was carried out, further investigation is required in order to understand the purpose(s) for which these features were used

ASE Ltd. ASO3-O2 @ An:haeological Survey and Evaluation Ltd 2003 Archaeological Survey Contents Ecclesall Woods, Sheffield

Contents

Non-Technical Summary Cnn~nts

1 Introduction 1 1.1 Location,Geology and Topography 1 1.2 ProjectBackground 1 1.3 ArchaeologicalBackground 2

2 Methodology MethodsAims and StatementObjectives 3 3 3.1 3.2 Sampling Strategy 3 3.3 Recording System 3 3.4 Collation and Analysis 4 4 Results 4 4.1 Simple 6 4.2 Complex ' ' ' 6 5 Discussion 7 6 Recommendations 8 7 Project Archive 11 R References , 11

Figure 1. LocationMap. Figure 2. Woodland1. Figure 3. Woodland2. Figure 4. Woodland3. Figure 5. Q Pit Typology. Figure 6. DEM. Figure 7. Topography- Sb'eams. Figure 8. Topography- Paths.

Table 1. Q-Pits included in the rapid survey. Table 2. Distribution of Q-Pits by woodland.

. Appendix A: Gazetteer of Q-Pits in Ecclesall Woods Appendix B: Monument Record Sheet Guidance Notes Appendix C: Attributes of Typical Q-Pits

Sheffield City (')uncil

A~~,~ ~~ Local Heritage initiative A Rapid Assessment of Q-Pits Ecclesall Woods, Sheffield Archaeological Survey

1 Introduction 1.1 Location, Geology and Topography Ecclesall Woods (centred on NGR SK 324825) are located approximately 1km to the south east of Whirlow, Sheffield, South Yorkshire (Figure 1). The woods are situated on the steep slope above Abbeydale Road South, at a height of between 110 and 175mOD. They comprise three areas of woodland (Woodlands 1, 2 and 3), separated by Abbey Lane and Whirlowdale Road, each of which is subdivided into a series of discrete compartments (Compartments A to K) for management purposes. Ecclesall Woods are cross cut by a series of streams that flow into the River Sheaf, one of which, the Limb Brook, corresponds to the historic boundary between the Counties of Yorkshire and Derbyshire. The solid geology of the woods lies within the Lower Coal Measures and is characterised by a series of alternating layers of mudstone and flaggy sandstone (Eden, Stevenson et al. 1957). These deposits are bisected by the Ganister and Forty Yards Hard Bed Coal Seams, which outcrop in Woodlands 2 and 3 respectively. With the exception of localised deposits of alluvium along the course of Limb Brook, the overlying drift geology and soils have not been characterised.

1.2 Project Background Survey work by Sheffield Hallam University (SHU) and a desk-based assessment by the University of Manchester Archaeological Unit (UMAU) have gathered a great deal of evidence for the antiquity and preservation of features of archaeological importance in Ecclesall Woods. The Friends of Ecclesall Woods (FEW) were awarded a Millennium Festival Award for All Committees to enable the collation of this evidence in order to produce material for interpretative and educational purposes. A professional archaeologist was employed to produce a concordance report, comparing the results of the SHU survey and the UMAU desk-based assessment (Bevan 2001). This report made a series of recommendations for the management, monitoring and interpretation of the archaeological features within Ecclesall Woods and highlighted a series of priorities for further research. These priorities included a detailed survey of a hilltop enclosure and field system, and a rapid survey of approximately 100 Q-Pits within the woodland. FEW submitted a successful application to the Local Heritage Initiative for a grant to carry out both of these pieces of work. One of the conditions of the grant was that a significant part of the work would be carried out using volunteers and comniunity involvement. This report outlines the results of the rapid survey of the Q-Pits.

Sheffield City Council

A~FIJrl FEW Local Heritageinitiative Archaeological Survey Page2 Ecclesall Woods, Sheffield

1.3 Archaeological Background The historical and archaeological significance of Ecclesall Woods is well documented (Hart 1990; Hart 1993). Until recently little attempt has been made to draw together documentary sources and archaeological evidence for the antiquity of the woodlands. A walkover survey of the woodlands was carried out by Sheffield Hallam University during the 1980s and 1990s (Ardron and Rotherham 2001). Independently, an archaeological desk-top study was carried out by the University of Manchester Archaeological Unit in order to assess the potential impact of management practices on archaeological features within the woods (Arrowsmith 1999). These surveys identified 768 and 173 sites respectively, including the series of Q-Pits that form the basis of this report. The discrepancy in the number of features identified in each instance reflects the differences in the nature/ scope of the projects and the recording strategies that were employed (Bevan 2001).

Evidence for prehistoric activity at Ecclesall Woods includes a Mesolithic scraper (Hart 1993) and an example of cup and ring rock art (Barnatt and Firth 1983). Romano-British activity has been recorded at a number of sites, the most notable of which is a curvilinear earthwork and counterscarp bank forming part of a hilltop enclosure. Ecclesall Woods lie on the former boundary between the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms of Mercia and Northumbria (parker 1985). Whilst a number of linear earthworks within the woodland

have been associated with this boundary I these earthworks are more likely to be associated with the Mediaeval deer park created by Robert de Ecclesall in 1319. Coppice with standards management is thought to have taken place at Ecclesall Woods from the sixteenth century onwards. Features associated with allied industries such as charcoal burning and white coal production have been identified within the woods. Two water mills are also recorded at Ecclesall Woods, once of which was recorded as a lead smelting mill in a document dated 1674 (Crossley 1989). In 1752 Ecclesall Woods were subsumed into the estates of the Marquis of Rockingham. Subsequently, the woods were exploited for their mineral resources and extensive evidence for coal mining and ganister quarrying has been recorded.

2 Aims and Objectives The aims and objectives of the project were to conduct a rapid survey, of the Q-pits within the woodlands in order to provide basic data to allow the study of form and function and, if possible, identify a representative example of a Q- pit for excavation at a later date. Page 3 Archaeological Survey Ecclesall Woods, Sheffield 2002) that was prepared in response to a brief generated by the South Yorkshire Archaeology Service (McNeil 2002).It was carried out by a group of community volunteers under the supervision of a consultant archaeologist. Basic training in field monument recording, site photography and offset survey was provided in the field at the beginning of the survey. Since the availability of volunteers was sporadic, archaeological supervision after the initial period of training was intermittent with a small number of site visits to provide support and ensure quality control.

Table 1. Q-Pits included in the rapid survey.

- - - - Woodland 1 36.01 20 7 27 Woodland 2 25.01 25 3 28 Woodland 3 78.79 49 6 55 Total 139.80 94 16 110

3.2 Sampling Strategy Ninety-four Q-pits were identified in Ecclesall Woods during the course of the

Sheffield Hallam University (SHU) surveyI many of which were noted in the desk-based assessment carried out by the University of Manchester Archaeology Unit (UMAU). The catalogue of these features supplied by the South Yorkshire Archaeology Service Sites and Monuments Record formed the basis of the rapid survey. This list was supplemented by a further 16 features identified as Q-pits in the UMAU desk-based assessment but described as charcoal hearths in the concordance of the results of the SHU and UMAU surveys (Table 1). A gazetteer of the Q-pits included in the rapid survey is included in Appendix A.

?J.?J RecordingSystem A written record of the survey was compiled using a pro fonna recording system. Each Q-pit was assigneda unique identifier and recorded using an individual record sheet. Guidance notes for the completion of the record sheetswere issued to each group of volunteers. A copy of the record sheet and associatednotes is included in Appendix B. The attributes recorded for eachQ-Pit are summarisedbelow:

Summary - Project Code, SHU/UMAU/Site Number, Woodland, Monument Class/Type . and Period; ,

Location - Grid Reference, Accuracy, Height, Topographic Position and Associated Features; Character - Olaracter, Visibility, Completeness, Importance, Land Use and Disturbance; . Form - Pit (fype/Shape/Profile/Dimensions/Depth), Bank (Width/Height) and Entrance (Form/Position); . Deposits- Deposit, Description and Depth Below Surface; Sheffield City Council

ASELtd FEW Page 4 Archaeological Survey Ecclesall Woods, Sheffield Additional notes and a provisional interpretation were also noted on the record sheet. Measured drawings were produced for each Q-Pit, either by offset surveyor by superimposing a regular grid over the feature. It was intended to compile a full photographic record of the survey. However, dense vegetation cover precluded the photographing of most of the Q-Pits.

3.4 Collation and Analysis The results of the survey were collated in Maplnfo Professional 7.5: Oassification of the Q-Pits was based on analysis of the physical attributes of the pit itself, the form of the entrance and the associated bank of upcast earth. The distribution of the resultant classes of Q-Pit was plotted on a base map generated from Landline Plus and Landform Panorama data supplied by Sheffield City Council. Analysis of the topographic position of the Q-pits was subsequently undertaken using Vertical Mapper. Associated Table (.tab), Workspaces (.wor) and grid (.grd) can be viewed using ProViewerl; available free of charge from www.maQinfo.co.uk.

4 Results A total of 67 features were surveyed during the course of the survey (Figures 2,3 and 4). However, one of these features was not a Q-Pit and a further three represented part of a double Q-Pit. These features were omitted from the analysis below. The remainder of the Q-Pits could not be identified or were too heavily overgrown to permit detailed recording. Notably, the highest incidence of unidentified features occurred in Woodlands 2 and 3, which were surveyed during the summer period when the vegetation was at its highest. The surveyed Q-Pits have been classified as either simple or complex features. Each of these categories is further sub-divided on the basis of the form of the pit, its shape in plan/ profile and the character of its entrance (Figure 5). These classes of feature are described in turn below and a summary of the distribution of these features by woodland is given in Table 2.

Table 2. Distribution of Q-Pits by woodland.

Typical Tongued Leafed Double Woodland 1 17 0 1 3 23 Woodland 2 11 0 3 0 14 Woodland 3 18 4 2 4 27 Total 46 4 6 7 63

4.1 Simple 4.1.1 Typical Forty-six of the features were classified as typical Q-pits, representingover two-thirds of the total number of surveyed features. Thesefeatures are the only classof Q-Pit for which detailed analysisof earthwork morphology and Sheffield City Council

ASEJ.td FEW Archaeological Survey Page 5 Ecclesall Woods, Sheffield topographic position can be attempted. A summary of the analysis of the attributes of typical Q-Pits is included in Appendix C.

Typical Q-Pits were generally circular or sub-circular in form, with variable sides and a flat or slightly concave base (Figure 5). Whilst a number of sub- rectangular Q-Pits were identified, for example Pit 23 in Woodland 2, the shape of the feature was thought to have resulted from slumping rather than the insertion of a later feature or structure into the upper levels of the Q-Pit. The presence of large concentrations of stone was noted in a number of instances; either incorporated into the bank of upcast earth or dumped at the base of the feature. No evidence for in situ structural remains was identified during the course of the rapid survey of Q-Pits. This class of Q-Pit was characteristically between 3m and 5.5m in diameter and survived to an average depth of O.6m*. They were associated with a bank of upcast earth, between 1.25m and 3.25m wide and up to O.75mhigh, dipped or interrupted at its lowest point. The dip or interruption in the bank was frequently exaggerated. Whilst a number of the typical Q-Pits are described as having a 'leated' entrance, these features can clearly be differentiated from the complex 'leated' class below.

Typical Q-Pits were identified in all three woodlands, however were more frequent in Woodlands 1 and 3. They were predominantly situated on shallow, south-east facing slopes at an altitude of between 112m and 176m aD (Figure 6). The prevailing direction of the slope was largely coincident with the orientation of the feature suggested by the dip or interruption in the bank of upcast earth, confirming the assertion that the 'entrance' to the Q-Pit was typically located downslope. Whilst this correlation may suggest that the dip or interruption in the bank was associated with drainage, the base of the Q-Pit was typically lower than the 'entrance' and would have retained any water. No direct correlation could be made between topographic features and the distribution of this feature class. However, a row of five typical Q-Pits was recorded along the line of one of the streams in Woodland 3 (Figure 7), These Q-pits, interspersed with two double Q-Pits, were all located within 5Omof a known footpath or trackway (Figure 8).

4.1.2 Tongued Four of the features were classified as tongued Q-Pits. These features thought to represent a variant of the typical Q-Pits. They were sub-circular in form with variable sides and a flat base (Figure 5). Each of the tongued Q-Pits was between 4.5 and 5m and was associated with a bank of upcast earth, approximately 25m wide, dipped or interrupted at its lowest point. Whilst none of the features was particularly well preserved, all were associated with a spur or discrete mound of earth towards the rear of the pit. It is thought

.~nth r~lative to ground surface Sheffield City Council

ASELtd Archaeological Survey Page 6 Ecclesall Woods, Sheffield that this 'tongue' is likely to be the product of slumping or deliberate dumping rather than being integral to the structure of the feature.

Tongued Q-Pits were confined to Woodland 3. Insufficient features were identified to allow detailed analysis of their spatial distribution. However, they were generally situated on shallow to moderate east or south-east facing slopes, at an altitude of between 127m and 159m OD (Figure 6). These observations are consistent with the topographic position of the typical Q-Pits, with one exception where the orientation of the feature suggested by the dip or interruption of the bank was perpendicular to the prevailing direction of the slope.

4.2 Complex 4.21 Leated Six of the features were classified as leated Q-Pits. These features, broadly comparable with the typical Q-Pits, were elaborated with a pronounced gully, flanked by banks of upcast earth, downslope (Figure 5). They were generally circular or sub-circular in form with moderate to steep sloping sides and a flat or slightly concave base. The leated Q-Pits were between 3.5m and 5m in diameter and survived to a maximum depth of O.6m. They were associated with a bank of upcast earth, approximately 2m wide and O.3m high, interrupted at the point where the gully or 'leat' began.

Leated Q-Pits were identified in all three woodlands, however were more frequent in Woodlands 2 and 3. Insufficient features were identified to allow detailed analysis of their spatial distribution. However, they were generally situated on level to shallow east or south-east facing slopes, at an altitude of between 130m and 154m OD (Figure 6). No distinct pattern could be identified in the distribution of this feature class. One of the leated Q-Pits in Woodland 2 (pit 42) was located at the head of a stream (Figure 7). In this instance, it is likely that the teat was associated with water management. The prevalence of these features on level ground or shallow slopes may indicate a need for artificial drainage.

4.2.2 Double Seven of the features were classified as double Q-Pits. Although these features were variable in form, occurring as either adjacent, conjoined or leated pairs, they were unified by the presence of two Q-Pits in immediate proximity to one another (Figure 5). Differentiation within this class, within the surveyed sample, would result in a proliferation of Q-Pit classes, each containing a single feature. This class of feature was generally sub-circular in form with variable side and a flat or slightly concave base. The double Q-Pits were generally between 3.5m and 5m in diameter and survived to a depth of up to 0.75. They were associated with a bank of upcast earth, approximately 2.75m wide and OAm high, with a dip or interruption at its lowest point. In

Sheffield City Council

ASELtd fEW Local Heritage initiative Page 7 Archaeological Survey Ecclesall Woods, Sheffield three instances, the interruption was elaborated and coincided with a pronounced gully or 'leat'.

Double Q-Pits were found in both Woodlands 1 and 3. They were most frequent in Woodland 1. Insufficient features were identified to allow detailed analysis of their spatial distribution. They were generally situated on level to shallow east facing slopes, at an altitude of between 148m and 171m aD (Figure 6). This class of Q-Pit tends to occur at higher altitudes, an observation consistent with their distribution in Woodlands 1 and 3. In two instances, the orientation of the feature suggested by the dip or interruption is perpendicular to the prevailing direction of the slope. Both of these pits are located on very shallow slopes. Again, the prevalence of leated variants of this class of feature on level or gently sloping ground may suggest the need for artificial drainage.

5 Discussion On the basis of the rapid survey of the Q-Pits in Ecclesa11Woods, it has been possible to differentiate between both simple and complex forms. Each of the forms can in turn be further subdivided into two discrete classes of Q-Pit, resulting in the classification of these features as either typical, tongued, leated or double Q-Pits. This classification corresponds closely with the types of white-coal hearths identified by Ardron and Rotherham (1999). The majority of the surveyed features were comprised of a single circular or sub- circular pit, between 3m and 5m in diameter and approximately O.6m deep, associated with a bank of upcast earth, approximately 1.75m wide and O.4m high, with a dip or interruption at its lowest point. Variability, either in the form of a spur of earth towards the rear of the pit, an elaborate entrance, or two Q-pits in close proximity to one another, was noted in a number of instances. Interpretation of these earthworks on the basis of their morphology alone is perilous.

The derivation of the term Q-Pit is apocryphal. Its origin is either attributed to the resemblance between the dip or interruption in the bank of the feature and the tail of the letter 'Q' or to the abbreviation of a series of features that could not be readily interpreted and were consequently designated as 'Query' pits. A general consensus has nevertheless been reached that these features are the remnants of white-coal hearths - kilns used for drying wood for the purposes of smelting lead ore - dating from the late sixteenth century until the advent of the coke furnace in the middle of the eighteenth century(Crossley 1993). Coke or charcoal has been found in association with a number of Q- pits, leading to suggestions that they may also have been used, or indeed re- used, for other purposes such as the manufacture of coke (Smyllie 1990). The 'mechanics' of Q-pits are not understood. Based on the assumption that they are used for drying wood, two possibilities arise. Either:

Sheffield City Council

A-"FTM FEW Archaeological Survey Page 8 Ecclesall Woods, Sheffield 1 Woodis placed on a platform or structure above a fire lit in the base of the pit, or; 2. Wood is placed in the pit and covered (perhaps with turf) before a fire is built.

Both alternatives involve separation of the wood from the fire to prevent roasting and the subsequent production of charcoal. Whilst there is insufficient evidence to determine which of these alternatives is the most plausible, a number of general observations can be made. In the first instance, evidence of post settings, in-situ structural remains or foundation trenches would be anticipated. No such features were identified during the course of the survey. A number of the typical Q-Pits were sub-rectangular in plan and could potentially have been associated with some form of structure. In the second instance, evidence of burning would be anticipated in the upper levels of the pit and the base of the feature would need to be well drained. Whilst discrete layers of charcoal have been noted in Q-Pits in Buck Wood and Carr Wood (Pouncett 2001), no such deposits were noted during the course of the rapid survey of Q-Pits in EcclesaII Wood. Possible evidence of drainage was noted in a number of instances. Further investigation is required to resolve these issues.

6 Recommendations Whilst the size and shape of the surveyed Q-Pits are comparable,there is sufficient variability in form to render the excavation of a single Q-Pit meaningless. Any subsequent investigation should therefore consider:

Excavation of representative features from the different classesof Q-Pits, combined with both geophysical and geochemical survey over a wider area, to clarify the purpose(s) for which they were used; . Excavation of a tongued Q-Pit to determine whether the spur of earth towards the rear of these features is a contemporary feature, is dumped after use of the feature or is a much later addition;

Micro-contour survey of a small sample of Q-Pits, including the leated Q-Pit at the head of the stream in Woodland 2, to establish whether the entrance could have been associated with drainage;

Sample excavation of one or more double Q-pits to determine the relationship between adjacent and conjoined features, where possible obtaining samples for absolute dating of the individual Q-Pits.

7 Project Archive The project archive for the survey will be lodged with Sheffield City Museum, and will include:

Sheffield Cltv Cnllnril

ASE Ltd fEW Local Heritageinitiative Archaeological Survey Page 9 Ecclesall Woods, Sheffield Copies of the project design and survey report;

Primary survey data, including both record sheetsand measureddrawings;

Copies of the survey report will also be supplied to the South Yorkshire Archaeology Service, along with a CD containing the report text and illustrations in industry standard formats e.g. .txt, .doc, .tab and .wor.

Sheffield City Council

ASELtd FEW Page 10 Archaeological Survey Ecclesall Woods, Sheffield

8 References Armon, P. and I. Rotherham(1999). "Types of CharcoalHearth and the Impact of Charcoal and White Coal Production on Woodland Vegetation." Peak District Tournal of Natural Historx and Archaeolo2V2: 35-47.

Ardron, P. and I. Rotherham (2001). EcclesaIl Woods Millennium Archaeology Project Report. Sheffield, The Cenb'e for Environmental Conservation and Outdoor Leisure, Sheffield Hallam University.

Arrowsmith, P. (1999). Ecclesall Woods, Sheffield: An Archaeological Desk-top Study. Manchester, University of Manchester Archaeological Unit

Barnatt, J. and P. Firth (1983)."A Newly Discovered'Cup and Ring' Carving in Ecclesall Wood, Sheffield."Derbyshire Archaeoloeical Tourna1103: 41-42.

Bevan, B. (2001). Ecclesall Woods, Sheffield: Concordance and Sampling of Archaeological Surveys by University of Manchester Archaeological 1999 and Sheffield Hallam University 2001.Bakewell, Peak District National Park Archaeology Service.

Crossley, D. (1989).Water Power on the Sheffield Rivers. Sheffield.

Crossley, D. (1993). White Coal and Charcoal in the Woodlands of North Derbyshire and the Sheffield Area. Ancient Woodlands. Their Archaeolo2V and Ecolo2V: A Coincidence of Interest. I. Rotherham. Sheffield, Landscape Conservation Forum. 1: 49-66.

Eden,R. A., I. P. Stevenson,et al. (1957).Geology of the County Around Sheffield.London, HMSO.

Hart, C. (1990). The Ancient Woodland of Ecclesall Woods. The Natural Histo~ of Ecclesall Woods. D. Whiteley. Sheffield, Sorby Natural History Society. 27: 2-24.

Hart, C. (1993). The Ancient Woodland of Ecclesall Woods, Sheffield. Ancient Woodlands, Their Archaeology and Ecoloev: A Coincidence of Interest I. Rotherham. Sheffield, Landscape Conservation Forum. 1.

McNeil, J. (2002). Brief for Archaeological Field Survey. Sheffield, South Yorkshire ArchaeologyService.

Parker, M. (1985). "Ecclesall: A Que to the Topography of Early Hal1amshire." Transactions of the Hunter ArchaeoloP.icalSociety 13: 10-23.

Pouncett,J. (2001).Fuelling the Revolution: The Woods that Founded the Steel Country Sheffield Archaeological Surveys Volume 1. Barnard Castle, Northern Archaeological Associates:44-SO.

Pouncett, J. (2002). Ecclesall Woods, Sheffield: Archaeological Survey Project Design. Oxford, Archaeological Survey and Evaluation Ltd.

Smyllie, W. (1990). 'Q' Pits m EcclesaIl Woods: Coke Producers. The Natural Histo!'Y of EcclesaIl Woods. D. Whiteley. Sheffield, Sorby Natural History Society: 25-28.

Sheffield City Council

ASELtd fEW Archaeological Survey Appendices Ecclesall Woods, Sheffield

Gazetteer of Q-Pits in EcclesaI1Woods

- --- - Woodlandl 1 SK324833 Simple Typical 300 - - 2 SK324833 Simple Typical 3Ol 3 SK325829 Complex Double 302 Adjacent 4 SK325828 Complex Leated 303 5 SK324831 Simple Typical 304 J6 6 SK325831 Simple Typical 305 7 SK326831 Simple Typical 306 ?Jll 8 SK326831 Simple Typical 307 9 SK"324 831 308 10 SK325831 Simple Typical 3fJ} J7 11 SK322830 Simple Typical 310 12 SK322830 Simple Typical 311 13 SK324829 Simple Typical 312 16 14 SK325829 Complex Double 313 16 Part of 3 15 SK325831 314 16 SK322833 Complex Double 315 K6 Adjacent 17 SK322833 Complex Double 316 Part of 16 18 SK323833 Simple Typical 317 19 SK323834 Simple Typical 318 20 SK323834 Sim'Jle TVtJical- - 319 Woodland 2 21 SK 322 826 Simple Typical 1300 22 SK323826 Simple Typical 1301 G3 23 SK 323 826 Simple Typical 1302 G4 24 SK 328 824 1303 25 SK 329 825 Simple Typical 1304 26 SK327828 1305 HI2 27 SK 326 827 13lKi 28 SK 327 826 Simple Typical 1307 H9 29 SK327828 1308 30 SK329827 1309 ?H6 31 SK 329 826 Simple Typical 1310 H7 32 SK 328 826 Simple Typical 1311 H8 33 SK329825 1312 34 SK 328 825 Simple Typical 1313 35 SK 327 825 Simple Typical 1314 36 SK 327 825 Simple Typical 1315 37 SK327826 1316 HI 3B SK 327 826 1317 HI 39 SK327826 1318 ?HI 40 SK 326 827 Complex Leated 1320 H16 41 SK329826 1321 42 SK 324 824 Complex Leated 132'3 43 SK329826 1324 44 SK329826 1325 45 SK329826 1327 Woodland 3 46 SK 323 824 - - 23lXJ - 47 SK321822 Simple Typical 2302 F4 48 SK321822 Complex Double 2303 F3 Conjoined 49 SK 320 822 Complex Double 2304 D4 Conjoined 50 SK319822 2305 D7

Sheffield City Council

ASE TM FlOW Local Herita2e initiative Archaeological Survey Appendices Ecclesall Woods, Sheffield

--" Woodland 3 51 SK 318 822 Simple Tongued ~ - - 52 SK316822 Simple Typical 2307 D28 53 SK322822 Simple Typical 2308 54 SK323819 Complex Leated 2309 E3 55 SK 320 822 Simple Typical 2310 D5 56 SK324819 Simple Tongued 2311 E5 57 SK323816 Simple Typical 2312 58 SK315821 Simple Typical 2313 59 SK 315 821 Simple Typical 2314 60 SK 316 820 Simple Tongued 2315 - 61 SK315820 Simple Typical 2316 62 SK316819 2317 63 SK316819 Simple Typical 2318 64 SK316819 2319 65 SK316820 Simple Tongued 2320 B4 66 SK317822 Simple Typical 2322 D12 67 SK318821 2323 ?D23 68 SK 318 821 Complex Double 2326 D20 Leated 69 SK318820 2327 D21 70 SK313824 2328 71 SK317819 Simple Typical 2329 82 72 SK 318 823 Simple Typical 2330 D11 73 SK 318 821 Complex Double 2331 D19 Part of 68 74 SK319818 Simple Typical 2332 CIS 75 SK319818 Simple Typical 2333 CI6 76 SK320817 2334 08 77 SK320816 2335 78 SK323816 2336 79 SK323819 Complex Leated 2337 E3 80 SK321818 2338 00 81 SK321818 2339 C9 82 SK 323 822 2340 B3 SK 321824 2341 F9 84 SK 321824 Simple Typical 2342 85 SK 322 823 Simple Typical 2343 86 SK 316 822 Complex Double 2344 89 Conjoined 87 SK 321822 2345 88 SK 321822 2346 89 SK320822 - - 2347 D4 90 SK319822 Simple Typical 2348 D8 91 SK 316 823 Simple Typical 2349 DID 92 SK316820 2321 D26 93 SK318821 2324 94 SK318821 2325 Woodland 1 (Extra) 95 SK 326 829 - - 714 /5 - 96 SK324831 Simple Typical }4 97 SK 326 830 Simple Typical }8 98 SK 326 830 Simple Typical }9 99 SK 323 831 Complex Double K3 Adjacent 100 SK 322 833 Simple Typical 116 K5 101 SK 322 833 n/a n/a 315 K6 Duolicate WoodJand2 (Extra) 102 SK 323 825 Simple Typical G2 103 SK 323 826 Complex Leated GS 104 SK 327 827 n/a nla 1r:rzf' H11 WoodJand 3 (Extra) la5 SK316819 2537 A2O llKi SK319818 07 107 SK320821 D3 108 SK 321821 F6 109 SK 322 821 F7 110 SK321824 FlO

Entries in Italics were not found or not surveyed. Entries in red were not included in the assessment.

Sheffield City Council

ASELtd FEW Archaeological Survey Appendices Ecclesall Woods, Sheffield

Monument Record Sheet Guidance Notes This document contains guidelines for completion of the monument record sheet. The sh"ucture of this document follows that of the record sheet, for example Paragraph 1.1 below refers to Section 1 (Summary) Field 1 (Project code) on the record sheet. Each paragraph gives a brief description of the corresponding field on the record sheet and specifies how the field should be completed. Standard terms or entries are capitalised. Before beginning to complete the record sheet the site name (ECCLESALL WOODS, S~¥lliLD) should be entered in the header at the top of the sheet.

Summary This sectionof the recordsheet contains basic information about the monument It should be completedprior to the commencementof fieldwork.

1.1 Project code - This field contains the code used to identify all record sheets pertajnjng to the current project It is comprised of a combination of letters and numbers that denote the site name and the year in which the project was carried out The project code for this survey is EWS03.

1.2 SHU - This field containsthe record number assignedto the monument during the courseof the survey carried out by SheffieldHallam University. It should be taken from the gazetteerof Q-pits provided by the SouthYorkshire Archaeology Service.

1.3 UMAU - This field contajns the record number assigned to the monument during the course of the desk- based assessmentcarried out by the University of Manchester Archaeological Unit. It should be taken from the gazetteer of Q-pits provided by South Yorkshire Archaeology Service.

1.4 Site - This field contains the number assigned to the monument for the purposes of this survey and will be used to cross reference all related records. It should be taken from the gazetteer of Q-pits provided by South Yorkshire Archaeology Service.

1.5 Woodland - This field containsan indication of the part of the woodland within which the monument is located. It should be takenfrom the gazetteerof Q-pits provided by SouthYorkshire Archaeology Service.

1.6 Monument - This field contains a brief description of the monument using standard terms outlined in the Thesaurus of Monument Types compiled by English Heritage. It comprises two elements, namely a monument class and a monument type. The term ' Q-pit' has not yet been added to the thesaurus and the closest standard term is an INDUSTRIAL (class) WOOD DRYING KILN (type).

1.7 Period - This field contains an estimated date for the monument. Q-pits are dated to the POST- MEDIAEVAL period.

Location This section of the record sheet contains information pertammg to the location of the monument.

2.1 Grid reference - This field contains the Ordnance Survey grid reference for the monument It is comprised of three elements, namely two letters that identify the 100km grid square, an4-tlOvosets of five numbers that record the 'Easting' and 'Northing' respectively to the nearest metre e.g. SE 32511 83128. The grid reference is obtained from the handheld GPS unit and is given at the bottom of the display. If the status bar indicates that the GPS unit is receiving a differential signal tick the box marked' differential' on the record sheet

2.2 Accuracy - This field contains an estimate of the accuracy of the reamng obtained by the handheld GPS unit It is obtained from the top right hand comer of the display.

2.3 Height - This field contains an estimate of the height of the monument above sea level It is obtained from the handheld GPS unit and is given at the top of the display. Sheffield City Council

ASF TIYf J'fW Local Herita~e initiative Archaeological Survey Appendices Ecclesall Woods, Sheffield

2.4 Topographic position - This field contains a summary of the topographic position of the monumenL It is used to characterise the location of the monument in relation to the gradient of slope. The topographic position should be classified as either SfEEP (45° or greater), MODERATE (approximately 000), SHALLOW (less than 15°) or CRFSf (on the crest of the slope).

2.5 Assocjated features - This field contains a summary of any natural or archaeological features within the immediate vicinity of the monument. Typically it will contain entries such as STREAM, TRACKWAY, FOOTPATH, CHARCOAL PLATFORM, EXTRACfIVE Pff, BANK, OffCH or MOUND. The field may contain more than one entry where necessary.

Otaracter This section contains information relating to recording conditions and the state of preservation of the monument

3.1 Character - This field contajns an assessmentof the preservation of the monument It is classified as VERY GOOD, GOOD, MODERATE, POOR or VERY POOR.

3.2 Visibility - This field contains an assessmentof the visibility of the monument and takes into account factors such as ground cover and poor light Visibility should be classified as VERY GOOD, GOOD, MODERATE, POOR, VERY POOR.

3.3 Completeness - This field contains an assessmentof the completeness of the monument It is classified as COMPLETE, GOOD, PARnAL, BAD or TRACE.

3.4 Importance - This field contains an assessmentof the significance and preservation of the monument. It is classified on a three point scale - I (a feature of archaeological importance), II (a feature of lesser archaeological importance) and ill (an archaeological feature which has been completely destroyed). Level I and II features should be further differentiated on the basis of preservation with Level IA or IrA monuments being those that are well preserved and LevellB and LevelllB being monuments that have been badly damaged. All of the Q-pits will be classified as Level II (i.e. monuments of lesser archaeological importance). Particularly good examples should be highlighted by means of an asterisk, e.g. llA* or llB*.

3.5 Land Use - This field contains a description of the land use of the monument. It is taken from a list of codes supplied by the South Yorkshire Archaeology Service Sites and Monuments Record. The code for deciduous woodland is WL3.

3.6 Disturbance - This field contains a record of any damage or disturbance to the monument. Where damage is visible, the nature (for example UrrERING, FOOTPATH EROSION or WHEEL TRACKS) and extent (LOCAIJSED, WIDFBPREAD, OVER ALL) of the disturbance should be noted along with an assessment(NONE, WW, MEDIUM or HIGH) of the threat posed to the monument.

Form This sectioncontains information relating to the physical form of the monument The monumentwill be split into discretecomponents for the purposesof description,namely the pit, the bank and the entrance.

4.1 Type - This field contains a description of the form of the monument. It is classified as SINGLE, DOUBLE or CONJOINED.

4.2 Shape - This field contains a description of the shape of the pit in plan. It should be described as CIRCULAR, SUB-CIRCULAR, SUB-RECTANGULAR, RECTANGULAR or IRREGULAR. Where two pits are identified, two entries should be given. separated by a forward slash. coo""

4.3 Profile - This field contains a description of the shape of the pit in cross-section. It comprises two elements, namely descriptions of the sides and base of the pit. The sides of the pit should be described as VERTICAL, SI'EEP (greater than 45°), MODERATE (approximately 45°), SHALLOW (less than 45°) or STEPPED. The base of the pit should be described as FLAT, CONCAVE (bowl-shaped), CONVEX (domed) or UNEVEN. Archaeological Survey Appendices Ecclesall Woods, Sheffield The width of the pit is measured at right angle to the length. Both dimensions should be the maximum length or width and should be given to the nearest lOcm.

4.5 Depth - This field contains measurements of the depths of the pit at the back and the front of the feature. Both depths should be given to the nearest centimetre and should be measured in relation to the old ground surface. The old ground surface can be reconsb"ucted by running a string or tape measure between the ground surface at the back of the pit and the ground surface beyond the entrance at the front of the pit. Measurements can then be obtained using a ranging rod.

4.6 Bank- This field contains measurements of the average width and height of the bank. The height of the bank can again be obtained using a ranging rod.

4-7 Entrance - This field contains a description of the entrance to the monument It contains two elements, namely a classification of the type (form) and orientation (position) of the entrance. The form of the entrance should be described as either INTERRUPI'ED, DIPPED, LEA TED (gully) or ABSENT. The position of the entrance should be recorded as being to the N, NE, E, SE, 5, SW, W or NW of the pit and can be obtained using a compass.

Deposits This sectioncontains a summaryof any depositsor layersexposed in the side of the pit.

5.: Deposit - This field contains a reference number assigned to the deposit or layer. The uppermost deposit in each pit will be designated as Deposit 1, each underlying layer will be numbered in sequence.

5.2 Description - This field contains a brief description of each deposit or layer. It comprises three elements, namely descriptions of the compaction, colour and composition of the layer or deposit. . The compaction of each deposit should be described as either LOOSE (easily disturbed and prone to slumping) or COMPACT (firm and unlikely to collapse easily). . The colour of each layer should be described as ORANGE, RED, BLACK, BROWN or GREY, or a combination of the above, e.g. RED-BROWN. Shadessuch as liGHT or DARK may also be used. . The composition of each deposit should be described as CLAY (forms a ball when rolled in the palms of your hand), SILT (stains your skin when rubbed between your fingers), SAND or WAM (a mixture of all of the above). Again combinations of these terms may also be used. Layers of ASH, CHARCOAL or PEAT may also be identified. The compaction of these deposits is usually not described. Typical deposit descriptions include COMPACT RED-BROWN CLAY LOAM and liGHT GREY ASH.

5.3 Depth below surface - This field contains the average depth of the top and bottom of the deposit in relation to the ground surface. These measurements are obtained using a hand tape as are expressed as a range, for example O.OO-O.25m.

Description This section contains a brief description and/ or interpretation of the monument. It is also used to record attributes that do not conform exactly to, or, are not included by fields or entries on the record sheet, for example drystone walls or stone linings. Where an interpretation is suggested reasons for the interpretation should be given. Comments can be continued on the reverse of the record sheet if necessary. A note to the effect (CONTINUED OVERLEAF) should be made in the bottom right hand comer of the field. Notes on the extent and preservation of the bank and entrance should also be given.

Photographs This section contains an index of any photographs taken of the monument It includes the 6m and frame numbers of colour transparencies and black and white negatives relating to the monument in the project archive. All photographs will be taken in one session towards the end of the survey, once an appropriate sampling strategy has been formulated and agreed with the South Yorkshire Archaeology Service.

Personnel This section contains the initials of the people who completed and checked the record sheet and the date on which the sheet was completed or checked. It is used to create an audit bial and allow monitoring of the accuracy and consistency of the survey.

Sheffield CitY Council

ASETJrl FEW Monument Record Sheet

1. Project code: 2.SHU: 3. UMAU: 4. Site:

5. Woodland: 6. Monument 7. Period: Class Tvve

1. Grid reference: 2. Accuracy: 3. Height: DiHerentialO 4. Topographic 5. Associated features: Dosition: .- 1. Character: 2. Visibility: 3. Completeness: 4. Importance:

5. Land Use: 6. Disturbance: Nature Extent Risk

1. Type: 2. Shape: 3. Proille: Sides Base 4. Dimensions: 5. Depth: Len~ Width Back Front 6. Bank: 7. Entrance: Width Hei~ht Form Position

1. Deoosit '2. Descriotion -, 3. Depth below surface

-- 1. Notesand interpretationwith reason:

[

1. Colour transparency: 2. B/W negative: Film Frame Film Frame

1. Recorded by 2. Checked by Initials Date Initials Date

c: \ Projects\ EWS(B\ A9J3-m.doc C) A5E Ltd. 2003 Archaeological Survey Appendices Ecclesall Woods, Sheffield

Attributes of Typical Q-Pits

Shape in Plan

5 0 --r--j~~~:J r .. , , Circular Sub-CircuIar InoeguIar Sub-Rectangular Rectangular

Shape in Profile -Sides

:LV 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

Shallow Moderate Moderate/Steep Steep

Shape in Profile - Base

r---, , rI , r---w .. Flat Convex Concave Uneven Stone r

Sheffield City Council

ASELtd

~ Archaeological Survey A ppendkes Ecclesall Woods, Sheffield

Dimensions of Pit

1 . 6 .

~ 4 ~ 3 .. 2

0 1 -r --r- ,~"i... . , 0 1 2 S 4 5 6 7

Length

Depth of Pit . . . .

0.2 0.4 1.2

Steepnessof Slope

5 01 rI , r-, -=- Unclassified Level Very Shallow Shallow Moderate SteeD t

Sheffield City Council

ASELtd fEW Local Heritageinitiative Archaeological Survey Appendices Ecclesall Woods, Sheffield

Topographic Position -Aspect N

NW NE 10:f ,5

SW'" 'SE

Orientation of Entrance

HIE

"IN

-I '--

Form of Enb"ance

0 Dipped Interupted Leated \

Sheffield City Council

- ASELtd FEW Local Heritage initiative

C/) ~ ~ ":: 0 ~ 0 . ~ "::

>N~ :E ~QjtU """"~- ~ """"bO~ :3 to g "': II I """"~~~ ~ U u U 0 UJ -'

r tI) ~ ~ ~ ":: 0 N ~ ":: 0 . "0 "" ~ "- ~~fa GI I bQ .-I~-.-I 00"0 f5 "1: to... 8 GI I ~~$: .-I -ra u u U 0 ~ -I

r f/} "rj 0 0 (1) ~ ~ - ] ~ "'ta a 0 f/} ~ 0 Q) - ~ u u ~

r (/) ~.., "'I;j .~ ~ o~ :s:8 . 0~ Lt)- :§ ~ 0 -"'~ ~ ~ "'ta ~ r;t.' 0': (/)Q) ~ .~ GI - p... I ""iU u 0- u 0 u ~ t1.J

[ (/) ~ ~ "T;j ~ .~ 0 ~ 0 0 .~ >-0 I :g ~ Q) >, OJ -"'~ tIO ~ "'ta ~~ ~- ";: OJ (/)~OD Q) 0 I - ~ ""iU U 0 U t-o ..9 t.I.J tl) (/) ~ s 0 !U 0 ~ >t-.:C/) ~ ~ I ~ >- to ~-&!U gj~bb 0 U Po U 0 UJ f-.. cn ~ "?j .:S ":: 0 tU ~ 0 p.., ":: >cxj I ~ Q) >. :E .-4""'!:; ~ :g .-4~~ .1: cO... ~ GI cn~oo Q) 0 I .-4 ~ "iU U 0 u U E-- 9 ~