Land at Wasing Lane, Aldermaston, West Berkshire

T H A M E S V A L L E Y AARRCCHHAAEEOOLLOOGGIICCAALL S E R V I C E S

An archaeological desk-based assessment

by Steve Ford

Site Code WLA11/69

(SU 5800 6600)

Land at Wasing Lane, Aldermaston, West Berkshire

An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment

For Marley Eternit and Lafarge Aggregates

by Steve Ford

Thames Valley Archaeological

Services Ltd

Site Code WLA11/69

August 2011 Summary

Site name: Land at Wasing Lane, Aldermaston, West Berkshire

Grid reference: SU 5800 6500

Site activity: Desk-based assessment

Project manager: Steve Ford

Site supervisor: Steve Ford

Site code: WLA11/69

Area of site: Site A: c. 19.3ha. Site B: c. 16.5ha. Site C: c. 14.8ha

Summary of results: The proposal sites lie in an area of archaeological potential, with finds and features from the Neolithic period onwards being recorded close by though none recorded for the sites themselves. It is considered likely that it will be necessary to provide further information about the potential of the sites from field observations, in order to draw up a scheme to mitigate the impact of development on any below-ground archaeological deposits.

This report may be copied for bona fide research or planning purposes without the explicit permission of the copyright holder

Report edited/checked by: Steve Preston9 01.08.11

Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd, 47–49 De Beauvoir Road, Reading RG1 5NR Tel. (0118) 926 0552; Fax (0118) 926 0553; email [email protected]; website : www.tvas.co.uk

Land at Wasing Lane, Aldermaston, West Berkshire An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment

by Steve Ford

Report 11/69 Introduction

This desk-based study is an assessment of the archaeological potential of three irregular parcels of land located to the north of Wasing Lane, and variously in the parishes of Wasing, Aldermaston and Woolhampton, West

Berkshire (Fig. 1). The project was commissioned by Mr Doug Symes of D K Symes Associates, Appletree

Farmhouse, 39 Main Road, Middleton Cheney, Banbury, Oxfordshire, OX17 2ND on behalf of Marley Eternit and Lafarge Aggregates and comprises the first stage of a process to determine the presence/absence, extent, character, quality and date of any archaeological remains which may be affected by redevelopment of the areas.

Site description, location and geology

The proposed development areas are centred on SU 580 650, and consist of three irregular parcels of land to the north of Wasing Lane (Fig. 1). The proposal also includes for an access road to the A340 to the east and a weighbridge/office area. The three sites are referred to as A B and C. According to the British Geological

Survey, the underlying geology for area A is valley gravel. For area B the site lies mostly on alluvium but with valley gravel to the west. For area C it is alluvium (BGS 1946). It is possible that some of the alluvium for area

C is a product of the use of the area as water meadows in post-medieval times. As the areas are located on the floor of the valley they are generally quite flat. Area A lies at a height of c. 60m above Ordnance Datum, whereas B and C, located on the floodplain are lower and at a height of 55m. A site visit was carried out on 1st

August 2011 (Pls 1–2).

Planning background and development proposals

Planning permission is to be sought from West Berkshire Council to extract mineral from three parcels of land along with haul roads, a weighbridge/site office and main road access. Restoration of one parcel of land (A) is to high quality agricultural land, another to a wetland conservation area (B) and the third (C) to a series of angling lakes.

The Department for Communities and Local Government’s Planning Policy Statement, Planning for the

Historic Environment (PPS5 2010) sets out policies relating to archaeology, and other aspects of the historic

environment, within the planning process. It requires an applicant for planning consent to provide, as part of any application, sufficient information to enable the local planning authority to assess the significance of any heritage assets that may be affected by the proposal. Policy HE6.1 states that

‘Local planning authorities should require an applicant to provide a description of the significance of the heritage assets affected and the contribution of their setting to that significance. The level of detail should be proportionate to the importance of the heritage asset and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on the significance of the heritage asset. As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets themselves should have been assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary given the application’s impact. Where an application site includes, or is considered to have the potential to include, heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where desk-based research is insufficient to properly assess the interest, a field evaluation.’ [on which, see below].

PPS5 makes the significance of any ‘heritage asset’ a material consideration in the planning process, regardless of whether that asset is ‘designated’ or not, and places on local planning authorities the responsibility to weigh the benefits of a proposed development against any loss of significance in a heritage asset. Designated assets include World Heritage Sites, Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Protected Wreck Sites, Registered

Battlefields, Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings and Registered Parks and Gardens.

Policy HE9.1:

There should be a presumption in favour of the conservation of designated heritage assets and the more significant the designated heritage asset, the greater the presumption in favour of its conservation should be. Once lost, heritage assets cannot be replaced and their loss has a cultural, environmental, economic and social impact. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. Loss affecting any designated heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, including scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings and grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional.’

Policy HE9.6

‘HE9.6 There are many heritage assets with archaeological interest that are not currently designated as scheduled monuments, but which are demonstrably of equivalent significance. These include heritage assets: ‘• that have yet to be formally assessed for designation ‘• that have been assessed as being designatable, but which the Secretary of State has decided not to designate; or ‘• that are incapable of being designated by virtue of being outside the scope of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. ‘The absence of designation for such heritage assets does not indicate lower significance and they should be considered subject to the policies in HE9.1 to HE9.4 and HE10.’

Proposals for development which would have an adverse impact on assets not so designated must be weighed against the significance of the asset.

Policy HE10 states:

‘When considering applications for development that affect the setting of a heritage asset, local planning authorities should treat favourably applications that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the asset. When considering applications that do not do this, local planning authorities should weigh any such harm against the wider benefits of the application. The greater the negative impact on the significance of the heritage asset, the greater the benefits that will be needed to justify approval.’ The accompanying Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide (DCLG et al. 2010) clarifies what is meant by field evaluation: paragraph 62 states:

‘Where a desk-based assessment does not provide sufficient evidence for confident prediction of the impact of the proposal, it may be necessary to establish the extent, nature and importance of the asset’s significance through on-site evaluation. This may be achieved through a number of techniques, some of which may potentially be harmful to the asset and will need careful consideration. These include ground-penetrating radar, trial-trenching, test-pitting, field-walking, x-ray and other forms of remote-sensing, geo-archaeological borehole investigation, opening-up and building analysis and recording…Evaluation is normally a rapid operation. It is designed to inform the decision-making process.’ Early consultation between the applicant and the local planning authority is stressed as important in the process in paragraphs 63–6.

Paragraph 130: ‘Where development will lead to loss of a material part of the significance of a heritage asset, policy HE12.3 requires local planning authorities to ensure that developers take advantage of the opportunity to advance our understanding of the past before the asset or the relevant part is irretrievably lost. As this is the only opportunity to do this it is important that: ‘1. Any investigation, including recording and sampling, is carried out to professional standards and to an appropriate level of detail proportionate to the asset’s likely significance, by an organisation or individual with appropriate expertise. ‘2. The resultant records, artefacts and samples are analysed and where necessary conserved. ‘3. The understanding gained is made publicly available. ‘4. An archive is created, and deposited for future research.’

Berkshire Structure Plan policies relating to the historic environment, and to archaeology specifically, were largely duplicated by the West Berkshire Council Local Plan 1991–2006 (WBLP 1991). Many of the policies in the Local Plan were deemed to duplicate national guidance and so were not saved when the local plan was reviewed in 2007, and the provisions of PPS5 are now generally applicable, this having replaced the earlier

Planning Policy Guidance Archaeology and Planning (PPG16 1990) from March 2010. The only Local Plan policies relating to the historic environment which were saved were ENV33 (Development in Conservation

Areas) and ENV38 (Management of Scheduled Ancient Monuments and Areas of Archaeological Significance).

Various other guidance papers are available which relate to specific development impacts of this project such as

Mineral Extraction and Archaeology: a Practice Guide (MHEF 2009).

Methodology

The assessment of the site was carried out by the examination of pre-existing information from a number of sources recommended by the Institute for Archaeologists paper ‘Standards in British Archaeology’ covering desk-based studies. These sources include historic and modern maps, the West Berkshire Historic Environment

Record, geological maps and any relevant publications or reports.

Archaeological background

General background

The Kennet Valley is an archaeologically rich area, displaying finds and features from all periods and it has been well studied previously (Gates 1975; Lobb and Rose 1996). The river’s headwaters well to the west in Wiltshire include the World Heritage complex at Avebury, but closer to the site, the valley floor between Thatcham and

Hungerford is particularly well known for its dense Mesolithic settlement (Froom 1971; Chisham 2006). Several important Mesolithic sites (and a number of Upper Palaeolithic sites) have been examined as at Thatcham

(Wymer 1962; Healy et al. 1992; Ellis et al. 2003), Wawcott (Froom 1976) and Avington (Barton and Froom

1986).

Later prehistoric activity is no less intense though, curiously, the earlier Neolithic is under represented for the lower stretch of the valley in which the proposal site lies (Ford 2006). Roman activity is more-or-less ubiquitous, with an extensive Roman roadside settlement recorded to the west at Thatcham (Harris 1937; Pine

2010) and various high status settlements such as at Aldermaston Wharf to the north-east (Cowell et al. 1978).

Saxon settlement, as for many regions, is little known but Thatcham is considered to be an important late Saxon settlement (Pine 2010) and some early Saxon occupation is recorded as at Ufton Nervet and Brimpton (Manning

1964; Lobb 1980).

The presence of peat and alluvial deposits on the valley floor which span the whole of the post-glacial period have also enabled detailed knowledge of the past environment and its change through time to be determined relative to the archaeological evidence (Keith-Lucas 2002).

Despite this background, archaeological monitoring of mineral extraction sites located on the valley floor to the west of the proposal site, has not revealed dense and complex archaeological deposits (BUFAU 1998), though many of these projects are on-going.

Detailed survey information is available for parts of the proposal site as it lay within the study area of the

Kennet Valley Survey (Lobb and Rose 1996). This study included systematic fieldwalking of arable farmland

and many of the entries in the West Berkshire Historic Environment Record refer to individual or groups of artefactual finds recovered.

West Berkshire Historic Environment Record

A search was made on the West Berkshire Historic Environment Record (WBHER) on 22nd July 2011 for a search area of c. 500 ha centred on the proposal sites. This revealed numerous entries, including several relating to Listed Buildings. The majority of entries are for finds recovered from systematic fieldwalking. After collating the HER data this was reduced to some 56 locations for entries of archaeological significance. These are summarized as Appendix 1 and their locations are plotted on Figure 2. It should be noted that for fieldwalking finds, some locations may be given from the centroids for fields rather than precise locations of the actual finds.

Palaeolithic and Mesolithic There are no entries within the HER for the study area relating to the Palaeolithic or Mesolithic periods. There is no possibility of in-situ lower or middle Palaeolithic archaeology on this site as the valley floor formed after the end of these periods.

Neolithic and Bronze Age There are no entries in the study area unambiguously of Neolithic date though it is likely that some of the struck flint recovered from fieldwalking is exclusively of Neolithic date. It is assumed though that most of the flint work is only broadly datable to the later Neolithic or Bronze Age periods [Fig.1: 1–3, 5–7, 10, 12, 14, 33, 40,

43–7]. Most of the flintwork has been recovered by fieldwalking, or during the monitoring of a pipeline easement. Some of the flintwork clusters sufficiently that it is possible to consider that they represent occupation sites [6, 10, 12, perhaps 47]. One of these [6] coincides with finds of Bronze Age pottery.

The same field surveys have also recovered the vast majority of the prehistoric pottery, a material not noted for its survival in the ploughsoil environment. Some of the sherds are confidently ascribed a Bronze Age or Late

Bronze Age date whereas most are simply ‘prehistoric’ which could include Iron Age material. Apart from the suspicion that in order for it to survive at all on the ploughed surface, prehistoric pottery must have been recently derived from a sealed deposit, most sherds occur singly or in very small groups, and their significance is unclear

[3, 5–7, 14, 20, 31, 43, 45, 47].

Just one cluster of Late Bronze Age pottery is described which may represent an occupation site [32]. This is within Area C.

Iron Age There were very few HER entries specifically relating to the Iron Age period. A single silver coin find is recorded [7] and it is possible there are Iron Age coins among another metal-detecting find [15F].

Prehistoric There are several entries within the HER mostly relating to cropmarks visible from the air which are likely or possibly of prehistoric in date. These include various enclosures and linear features which could belong to any period, but two circular cropmarks [21, 26] are possibly ring ditches; one of these is close to, but not within, site

B. Ring ditches are usually the remains of levelled round barrows of Bronze Age date but some could be of

Neolithic date or represent house sites of Iron Age date.

Roman As above, field survey and metal detecting have led to numerous entries within the HER relating to the Roman period. These again mainly comprise isolated, or small groups of pottery [1, 3–5, 7, 11, 13, 15, 22, 31–2, 43–4,

46, 49] some tile [7, 15, 50] copper alloy brooches [9, 11] and occasional coins [8, 41 and possibly 15]. These finds might be no more than a manuring scatter. Some of these minor finds are within the site boundaries [46 in

Site A; 5 in Site B; 32 in Site C].

Of more significance are three more substantial pottery scatters recorded by fieldwalking which might reflect the presence of occupation deposits [27, 30, 33]. The last of these [33] is within Site A but in fact consists of two clusters of 12 and 22 sherds of pottery of mixed dates, both with quite a wide dispersal. A collection of urns, discovered in Box Meadow during the 19th century, may have possibly been part of a cremation cemetery

[42]. Details of the find are unfortunately, scant. The location given for this is within Site C, and the HER entry raises doubts as to the accuracy of this; it is no more closely resolved than within ‘Box Meadow’ and in 1814,

Box Meadow was a very large area (Site C was indeed within it, see fig. 2). One more substantial Roman occupation site is suggested by the presence of a scatter of masonry as well as some Roman pottery [7]. One

HER entry [15] covers metal-detected coin finds from five locations, two of which are within and one is near

Site B, and one other at least close to Site A if not within it. Coin finds from the period do not always represent settlements, however, as they can come from hoards buried well away from settlement for safety in times of war or other stress.

The Roman road from Silchester to Cirencester via Spinae traverses the study area [18] to the immediate south-west of site A, with flanking ditches clearly visible as well-defined cropmarks [21].

Saxon The only HER entry for the Saxon period relates to documentary references to the village of Aldermaston being a possible Late Saxon town, or at least a settlement with proto-urban status (Astill 1978) [34]. However, the original Saxon settlement is likely to be close to the parish church which lies just beyond the study area to the south-east and well away from the proposal sites.

Medieval Excavation on the line of the Brimpton-Aldermaston pipeline (to the south of Forsters Farm) examined an area of medieval activity where a natural hollow was found to contain a large volume of medieval pottery. It is considered that represents part of a medieval occupation site (Torrance 1997) [40].

The documentary references to the village of Aldermaston being a possible Late Saxon town have been noted above, and this status continued into medieval times. However, the settlement did not become a major urban centre and the village was relocated to its current position in the 17th century as a part of the creation of

Aldermaston Park (Astill 1978) [34]. Documentary and place name sources suggest a moated site lies close to

Wasing Lower Farm and a rectilinear cropmark visible on air photographs is likely to be the same feature [17].

As for the earlier periods, most entries for this period relate to stray finds of pottery or tile from fieldwalking [5–7, 11, 27, 39, 43–4, 46, 48] or coin finds from metal detecting [16]. It is likely that most, if not all of this material was accidentally incorporated into manure spread onto farmland. Two of these minor finds are within the sites [5 within Site B; 46 in Site A].

Post-medieval A modest number of entries for this period are recorded within the study area. These include the Kennet and

Avon Canal , built between 1718 and 1723 and associated features [37], the relocated village at Aldermaston

[34], Wasing Park [38] and the building complex at Lower Wasing Farm [51]. Archaeological evaluation at a site along Wasing Lane revealed a post-medieval pit [14]. For the areas closer to the rivers aerial photographs show the presence of former water meadow systems [52].

Modern The notable modern features within the study area refer to two pill boxes [35, 36] forming part of the defensive stop lines that follow the Kennet Valley as a part of the Defence of Britain in World War II (Wills 1985). The stop line locally utilises the natural line of defence afforded by the canal and river Kennet to the north of the site. There are no known additional related features on the proposal site such as anti-glider or anti-tank ditches.

Undated There are several entries within the HER which relate to cropmarks most of which cannot be dated from their morphology alone and some of which may even be of geological origin. These include various enclosures [19–

20, 22–4] and linear features [25, 27–9]. which could belong to any period, but as noted above, two circular cropmarks [21, 26] are possibly ring ditches. Ring ditches are usually the remains of levelled round barrows of

Bronze Age date but some could be of Neolithic date or other representing house sites of Iron Age date.

Cartographic and documentary sources

The proposal site straddles parts of three parishes namely Aldermaston, Wasing and Woolhampton.

Aldermaston is an Old English (Anglo-Saxon) place name, first recorded in Domesday Book (AD 1086), variously spelt Ǽldremanestone, Eldremanestune and Heldremanestone. By the 14th century it was being referred to as Aldermanneston Achard, the suffix deriving from its grant (centuries earlier) to Robert Achard by

Henry I, whose charter was used as the crucial evidence in a 13th-century dispute over the Achard lands with the

Abbot of Reading (VCH 1923, 386). The original name simply means the ‘nobleman’s farm’, from ealdormann and -tun (Mills 1998, 5). In 1086, Aldermaston was a manor in Reading hundred which belonged to the King

(Williams and Martin 2002, 136, 140). It had previously been King Harold’s, and in his time was assessed at 15 hides; in 1086 it was assessed at nothing, yet it remained a large estate, with arable land for 30 ploughs, 124 acres of meadow and woodland for 30 pigs. The manor contained a mill, two fisheries and a church and housed forty-eight tenant households and two slaves, and was worth £20 10s. Aldermaston was also one of the many rural estates numbered as including plots of land in Wallingford, in this case, seven closes held by six lords

(including King William).

By the 13th century ten inhabitants of Aldermaston were being described as burgesses, but although borough status has been suspected for the town, there is no other substantial evidence of it (VCH 1923). There was certainly a market by 1292, and probably earlier. This seems to have continued throughout the medieval period and beyond, but probably ceased not long after its last mention in 1799. The mill mentioned in Domesday

Book probably survived until the 14th century; by the 17th century there were four. At the time of writing of the

VCH (1923) only one of these remained, and it is impossible to tell if that was on the site of the Norman mill.

The parish church retains elements of a 12th-century nave and presumably stands on the site of the Domesday church. The restoration of 1896 (supervised and paid for by Charles Keyser) seems to have been unusually

sympathetic and uncovered much medieval and early-post-medieval work. Keyser was then owner of the manor, a significant local benefactor (and an early archaeologist).

The place name Wasing is certainly in part Old English (Anglo-Saxon) but of uncertain extraction. It was called Walsince in Domesday Book; the first element may derive from a river name (Mills 1998, 367), which might be Celtic, perhaps something like Walsa, while the -ing is a common place name element meaning no more than ‘named after’ or ‘associated with’. Another possibility is that Wals- or Walh- derives from the usual

OE word for the British (walh = Welsh: walas=Wales) also much used in place names (Cameron 1996, 44–5), but the compound use appears unusual. The name has been spelt in at least nine ways through the centuries

(VCH 1924, 114).

Wasing (Williams and Martin (2002, 158) unfortunately render it Washing, making a tenth recorded spelling) was a small manor held by Bernard the falconer from Matthew of Mortagne, which had previously been freehold within the royal domain. It had been assessed at one hide under Edward the Confessor, but just half a hide under the Conqueror. It had arable land for four ploughs, and a mill. Just six tenant families and one slave worked this land, which was worth £3.

The subsequent history of Wasing is obscure. After Domesday Book there is no mention of a mill. The parish church has nothing that need be older than the 13th century, although some of the nave could be late 12th.

As usual, most of what remains is from the 19th-century restoration.

Woolhampton, into which parish the proposal site also just strays, was known as Ollavintone in 1086. This is again Old English and means the ‘estate named after Wulflaf’ (Mills 1998, 390), combining the common elements -ing, -tun and a personal name, though the precise form of the name is somewhat speculative, due to the trouble the scribes of Domesday Book had with Latin transliteration of sounds such as wulf, which unfortunately was very common in Saxon men’s names, and finds many different renderings in the survey. The name has been transformed over the years through Wllamnton (13th century), Wolavyngton (14th), Wolhampton

(14th) to Woulhampton (16th century) (VCH 1923, 444).

Only Upper Woolhampton has an entry in Domesday Book, when it was one of the extensive holdings of

Henry de Ferrers. Like most of Henry’s lands in Berkshire, the manor was not sub-let, which was unusual for other lords. It was assessed at three hides, with land for five ploughs, 40 acres of meadow, and a mill. Sixteen tenants are listed and four slaves and the estate was valued at £4.

In the 12th century Woolhampton, other than one small holding which seems to have belonged to Wasing manor, was held by the Knights of St John of Jerusalem (Hospitallers). A second manor of Woolhampton, not

noted in Domesday Book, is first mentioned in the 13th century when it was held by William Revel from Robert

Achard (see above), but was either claimed by, or perhaps simply mis-attributed to, the Abbot of Reading (VCH

1923).

Nothing in the parish church gives the impression of pre-dating 1857. The claim of a 12th-century font buried beneath the nave (VCH 1923) has not been verified. Woolhampton again has little history of note, being perhaps best known for Douai Abbey, which has housed a Benedictine community since their expulsion from

France in 1903.

A range of Ordnance Survey and other historical maps of the area were consulted at the Berkshire Records

Office and on line in order to ascertain what activity had been taking place throughout the site’s later history and whether this may have affected any possible archaeological deposits within the proposal area (see Appendix 2).

The earliest map available of the area is Saxton’s 1574 map of Berkshire (not illustrated), which clearly shows Aldermaston and Wasing along with the confluence of the Kennet and Enbourne, but little else. The same is true of Speed’s map of 1610 (not illustrated). Rocque’s map from 1761 (Fig. 3) shows far more detail, though there is little correspondence between the field boundaries shown and the modern plans. The site can be approximately located relative to the road network, but the rivers are depicted schematically without their complex meanders. The fields to the south are shown as arable land whereas those to the north as meadow(?).

There is no woodland.

The next map available is the Aldermaston enclosure map of 1814 (not illustrated). This only covers the eastern portion of the site (Area C and the proposed weighbridge zone) and no similar map is available for

Wasing. The map is also only partial in its extent, presumably with other areas of the parish having already been enclosed by local agreement. Area C lies wholly within a large field called Box Meadow. A footpath currently traversing the south-west corner of area C is also shown on this map.

The Aldermaston tithe map of 1842 shows little change from the enclosure map but does include most of area B. Both areas B and C are depicted as open land within large fields. For area A, the Wasing tithe map of

1849 shows Wasing Lower (under) Farm and the surrounding fields. This area is also open farmland but with several field subdivisions. The Woolhampton tithe map of 1842 shows area C as open farmland also.

The First Edition of the Ordnance Survey of 1873 (Fig. 4) shows few changes for the site from that indicated on the tithe maps and subsequent editions also show very few changes. A selection of the latter is

illustrated (Figs 5–6). For area C, internal subdivisions appear to represent traces of the former water meadow system.

Listed buildings

There are a small number of Listed Buildings within the study area, with many just beyond, in Aldermaston

Village. The listed building lie at Wasing Lower Farm and comprise the farmhouse, another house and a granary

[Fig. 2; 51]. They are all listed grade II. The building complex is located some distance from the proposed site

(300m+) and the development would be screened with neat soil bunds during extraction before eventual restoration. It is most unlikely that the buildings or their settings will be adversely affected by the proposed developments.

Registered Parks and Gardens; Registered Battlefields

There is one historic park within the study area, that at Wasing [Fig. 2; 38] Parts of this park are registered but the latter are not close to the study area. There are no registered battlefield sites within the study area.

Historic Hedgerows

None of the three proposed extraction areas include hedgerows , historic or otherwise. Creation of the haul road from Area A needs to traverse the parish boundary between Wasing and Aldermaston but this is not currently marked by a hedgerow. Similarly, the haul road from Area C to the weighbridge and A340 traverses boundaries present on the Aldermaston Enclosure map of 1814; again there are no hedges here.

Historic Landscape Characterisation Zones

The proposal site lies within the Kennet Valley East Zone which is characterised by nucleated villages on the valley bottom surrounded by open fields with little woodland present (WBCAS 2008). The fields in the vicinity of the site had mostly been enclosed by the 18th century and appeared to have been irregularly shaped probably representing piecemeal enclosure. Further 19th century Parliamentary enclosure produced more regular fields.

The proposed extraction areas lie within three Historic Landscape Characterisation Zones. Area A lies within an area of amalgamated fields, previously irregular fields, Area C lies within re-organised fields, previously enclosure and previously meadow. Area B mostly lies with amalgamated fields, previously enclosure and

previously meadow but one small portion lies within post-Parliamentary enclosure, previously meadow. The main site access and weighbridge/office complex traverse an area of Parliamentary enclosure and enclosed meadow.

Scheduled Ancient Monuments

There are no Scheduled Ancient Monuments within the study area.

Aerial Photographs

The aerial photographic record of the area was previously studied by Gates (1975) as a part of widespread study of the Middle Thames Valley and its major tributaries (Kennet, Loddon). A search was made on 13th July 2011 of the National Monuments Record index for a rectangular search area encompassing the site for any additional coverage since 1996, but no new photographs were available. The whole collection contained both vertical and specialist (oblique) photographs which were consulted for this study. There were 101 vertical photographs taken from 20 sorties carried out between 1946 and 1991. There were also 47 oblique photographs from 22 sorties taken from between 1970 and 1995.

Inspection of these photographs revealed no major new discoveries to add to what has already been recorded but did add minor clarifications to existing features. Most of the cropmarks visible, in fact, lie beyond the three areas of proposed extraction but one main area of cropmarks is traversed by the proposed haul road between areas A and C (Fig. 8). Areas of former post-medieval water meadow systems both within and beyond the proposed extraction areas are visible on several aerial photographs.

Geotechnical data

Figure 7 presents a summary of the geotechnical data for the sites and environs. For all three areas there is no differentiation in the composition of the overburden, which is most likely to contain the horizons of archaeological interest. There is no differentiation either to correspond to differences shown on the geological map between gravel terrace areas (A) and alluvial areas (B and C) though the overburden is deeper for the latter.

The one exception to this overview is on area B where two sample points record peat, presumably infilling a palaeo- river channel.

Discussion

In considering the archaeological potential of the study area, various factors must be taken into account, including previously recorded archaeological sites, previous land-use and disturbance and future land-use including the proposed development.

The general environs of the site can be considered as of high archaeological potential with the exception of the Palaeolithic period. The proposed development occupies a sizeable area of land and this alone serves to increase the probability of some remains of some period being present, purely as a random sample of an archaeologically rich landscape.

It is fortunate that the site has been previously subject to field study (both systematic archaeological and casual metal detecting) and aerial photographic survey, and that parts of the site are suitable for the formation of cropmarks. There is therefore a moderate volume of data available for the sites themselves as well as adjacent areas. Many entries within the West Berkshire Historic Environment Record relate to individual find spots from the field survey, and their individual significance may be no more than an indication of manured farmland at many times in the past. Indeed, interpretation of the cropmark data (for areas adjacent to the proposed extraction areas) shows the presence of field boundaries and a farming landscape. Yet several of the entries record clusters of material, some associated with building material, and which are likely to indicate the presence of buried occupation deposits on the proposed extraction sites. This is no great revelation in an area that may have been densely settled (e.g., in Roman times). There must therefore be moderate potential for settlement, probably farms, of Roman or medieval dates, and perhaps also other periods. There is the possibility of a Roman cemetery on Site C; in a rural setting this would typically be most likely to be a very minor site, little more than a family plot in use for a couple of generations.

It will be necessary to provide further information about the potential of the site from field observations in order to draw up a scheme to mitigate the impact of development on any below-ground archaeological deposits if necessary. A scheme for this evaluation will need to be drawn up and approved by the archaeological advisers to the Mineral Planning Authority and implemented by a competent archaeological contractor.

References

Barton, R N E and Froom, F R, 1986, ‘The long blade assemblage from Avington VI, Berkshire’, in S N Collcutt (ed), The Palaeolithic of Britain and its Nearest Neighbours: Recent Trends, Sheffield, 80–4 BGS, 1946, British Geological Survey, Sheet 268, Solid and Drift Edition, 1:63360, Chessington BUFAU 1998, Woolhampton Quarry, Berkshire An Interim Report on Archaeological Works, Birmingham University Field Archaeology Unit, Birmingham, report 546 Cameron, K, 1996, English Place Names, London Chisham, C, 2006, ‘Solent-Thames Research Framework: the Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic of Berkshire’, http://thehumanjourney.net/pdf Cowell, R W, Fulford M G and Lobb, S, 1978, ‘Excavations of prehistoric and Roman settlement at Aldermaston Wharf’, Berkshire Archaeol J 69, 1–35 Ellis, C, Allen, M, Gardiner, J, Harding, P, Ingrem, C, Powell, A and Scaife, R, 2003, ‘An early Mesolithic seasonal hunting site in the Kennet Valley, Southern England’, Proc Prehist Soc 69, 107-36 Ford, S, 2006, ‘Solent-Thames Research Framework: the Neolithic and Bronze Age of Berkshire’, http://thehumanjourney.net/pdf Froom, F R, 1971, ‘Some Mesolithic sites in south west Berkshire’, Berkshire Archaeol J 66, 11–22 Froom, F R, 1976, Wawcott 111: A Stratified Mesolithic Succession, BAR 27, Oxford Harris, W E, 1937, ‘Romano-British settlement at Thatcham-Newtown, Berks’, Trans Newbury Dist Fld Club 7, 219–55 Healy, F, Heaton, M and Lobb, S, 1992, ‘Excavations of a Mesolithic site at Thatcham, Berkshire’, Proc Prehist Soc 58, 41–76 Keith-Lucas, M, 2002, ‘Pollen Analysis’ in S Ford, Charnham Lane, Hungerford, Berkshire, archaeological investigations 1988–97, TVAS Monogr 1, Reading, 63-72 Lobb, S J, 1990, ‘Excavations and observations of Bronze Age and Saxon deposits at Brimpton, 1978–9’, Berkshire Archaeol J 73 (for 1986–90), 43–53 Lobb, S J and Rose, P G, 1996, Archaeological Survey of the Lower Kennet Valley, Berkshire, Wessex Archaeol Rep 9, Salisbury Manning, W H, 1974, ‘Excavations on the late Iron Age, Roman and Saxon sites at Ufton Nervet, Berkshire in 1961–1963’, Berkshire Archaeol J 67, 24–39 MHEF 2009, Mineral Extraction and Archaeology: a Practice Guide, The Minerals and Historic Environment Forum/English Heritage, London Mills, A D, 1993, Dictionary of English Place-Names, Oxford Pine, J, 2010b, ‘Excavation of the Silchester to Cirencester Roman road, and adjacent Roman occupation deposits, at 69, 71A and 73 Bath Road Thatcham, 2007’, in S Preston (ed), Archaeological investigations along the line of Ermin Street, in West Berkshire, 1992-2008, Exploring Prehistoric, Roman and medieval settlement, TVAS monograph 12, Reading, 19–32 PPS5, 2010, Planning for the Historic Environment, The Stationery Office, Norwich Torrance, L, 1997, ‘Brimpton–Aldermaston pipeline, Berkshire, archaeological watching brief and excavation’, Berkshire Archaeol J 75 (for 1994–7), 35–9 VCH, 1923, A History of the County of Berkshire (Victoria County Histories series) vol 3, London VCH, 1924, A History of the County of Berkshire (Victoria County Histories series) vol 4, London WBLP, 1991, West Berkshire Local Plan 1991-2006, Newbury WBCAS 2008, Kennet Valley Historic Environment Character Zones, West Berkshire Council Archaeology Service, Newbury Williams, A and Martin, G H, 2002, Domesday Book, A complete Translation, London Wills, H, 1985, Pillboxes - a study of UK defences 1940, Trowbridge Wymer, J J, 1962, ‘Excavations at the Maglemosean site of Thatcham, Berkshire, England’, Proc Prehist Soc 28, 329-361

APPENDIX 1: Historic Environment Records within the environs of the development areas

No HER Ref NGR (SU) Type Period Comment 1 MWB11103 58500 65090 Flint flake Prehistoric MWB11104 Pottery Roman 2 MWB11528 57320 65660 Flint flake Prehistoric 3 MWB11725 57250 64820 Flint flake Prehistoric MWB11726 Pottery Roman 4 MWB11731 57680 64800 Pottery Roman 5 MWB11737 57840 66180 Flint flake Prehistoric Pottery Roman Medieval 6 MWB14625 58450 64700 Flint scatter Prehistoric on line of Brimpton-Aldermaston pipeline MWB6348 Pottery Bronze Age Medieval 7 MWB1486 57900 65700 Flint flake Prehistoric Iron Age silver coin, Suggested site of a building, possibly MWB16039 57928 65667 Coin Iron Age Roman, based on field observation of masonry; prehistoric MWB9520 57980 65620 Building? Roman flints and pottery; Roman and medieval pottery Pottery Medieval 8 MWB14817 57700 65900 Coins and finds Roman 9 MWB14926 58900 64900 Finds Roman 2 bronze brooches 10 MWB14957 57400 64700 Flint scatter Prehistoric on line of Brimpton-Aldermaston pipeline 11 MWB15002 57000 66000 Pottery and brooch Roman Location approximate Medieval 12 MWB15005 57900 64700 Flint scatter Prehistoric 13 MWB15008 58200 64700 Pottery Roman 14 MWB15652 58776 65326 Struck flint Prehistoric Evaluation MWB6311 58780 65330 Pottery Undated Gullies Post-medieval Pit 15A MWB16041 57800 65900 200 Coins, pottery, Roman tile 15B MWB16041 57900 66000 50 Coins, pottery, Roman 15C MWB16041 57600 66100 30 Coins, pottery, Roman tile 15D MWB16041 57900 65600 50 Coins, pottery, Roman tile 15E MWB16041 57600 65000 10 Coins, pottery, Roman 15F MWB16040 57647 65670 Coins, Pottery Iron Age 57799 65567 Roman 16 MWB16276 58598 65372 Jetton and coins Medieval 17 MWB16277 57899 65100 Moat? Medieval Place name and documentary evidence suggesting the existence MWB3724 57950 65120 of a moat. Light and dark rectilinear soil marks, possibly a moat 18 MWB2073 54000 66400 Road Roman Roman road from Calleva Atrebatum (Silchester) to Spinae 19 MWB2420 57250 66020 Cropmark Undated Cropmark of a large rectangular building or enclosure 20 MWB9551 58300 65700 Pottery Prehistoric Burnt flint 21 MWB2421 57240 65130 Cropmarks Bronze Age? Single ring ditch within side ditches of Roman road. Many MWB2422 Ring ditch Roman features including enclosures on alluvium and river gravels 22 MWB2423 57310 65170 Cropmarks Undated Cropmark of possible incomplete ?rectangular enclosure 23 MWB2424 58100 65500 Cropmarks Undated Complex of irregular linear cropmarks forming incomplete enclosures, some probably of modern origin 24 MWB2425 57960 65520 Cropmark Undated Small irregular enclosure seen as a cropmark in aerial photographs 25 MWB2426 57750 65650 Cropmarks Undated/modern? Linear features seen as cropmarks, possibly old field boundaries 26 MWB2427 57920 65850 Cropmark Prehistoric? Cropmark of very indistinct incomplete ring ditch 27 MWB2428 57800 65900 Cropmark Modern? Angled linear feature seen in aerial photographs but of probable MWB2441 57850 65850 Pottery scatter Roman modern origin. Roman and medieval pottery. MWB9525 57870 65870 Medieval 28 MWB2429 57820 65330 Cropmark Undated Double linear feature visible as a cropmark on aerial photographs 29 MWB2436 57900 66300 Cropmark Undated Intersecting linear features visible on aerial photographs 30 MWB2437 57900 65500 Pottery scatter Roman 31 MWB2438 58000 65600 Pottery Prehistoric Pottery Roman 32 MWB2439 58300 65800 Pottery scatter Late Bronze Age MWB9547 Roman MWB9524 33 MWB2442 57570 65380 Flint flake Prehistoric Fieldwalking finds MWB2443 Pottery scatter Roman MWB9529 34 MWB3727 59340 65145 Village/Town? Saxon Aldermaston village. A probable late Saxon urban centre, a

No HER Ref NGR (SU) Type Period Comment Medieval Domesday royal manor and a 13th century borough, later Post Medieval affected by the creation of Aldermaston Park 35 MWB5603 58010 66500 Pill box Modern 36 MWB5605 57250 66440 Pill box Modern 37 MWB5807 58500 66400 Canal Post-Medieval Canal constructed between 1718 and 1723. MWB5810 58100 66480 Canal swing bridge MWB5811 Canal sign 38 MWB6301 57724 63987 Park Post-Medieval Wasing Park A 18th century landscape park with informal gardens, a walled kitchen garden, avenues, woodland and lakes, part of which is registered 39 MWB6524 58000 64800 Pottery Medieval 40 MWB6525 58700 64700 Midden? Medieval on line of Brimpton-Aldermaston pipeline MWB6530 Struck flint Prehistoric Ditch 41 MWB9506 58940 65630 Coin Roman 42 MWB9507 58300 65880 Pottery Roman urns 43 MWB9513 58300 65500 Struck flint Prehistoric Pottery Roman Medieval 44 MWB9526 58770 65430 Struck flint Prehistoric Pottery Roman Medieval 45 MWB9536 58520 65180 Struck flint Prehistoric Pottery 46 MWB9538 57817 65445 Struck flint Prehistoric Pottery Roman Medieval 47 MWB9549 57250 65050 Burnt flint Undated MWB9550 57250 65025 Pottery sherd Late Bronze Age 48 MWB9554 58300 65400 Tile Medieval 49 MWB9555 57370 65120 Pottery Roman 50 MWB9556 57400 65000 Tile Roman 51 MWB16098 57991 64980 Waterwheel Post-Medieval Waterwheel with gearing and overhead shaft inside barn. Cart MWB16107 58001 65026 Building shed with storage loft, constructed between 1849 and 1877 52 58300 65800 Water meadows Post-medieval Levelled by cultivation but visible on aerial photographs in 1970

APPENDIX 2: Historic and modern maps consulted

1574 Saxton’s map of Berkshire 1610 Speed’s map of Berkshire 1761 Rocque’s map of Berkshire (Fig.3) 1814 Aldermaston Enclosure map 1842 Aldermaston tithe map 1849 Wasing tithe map 1873 First Edition Ordnance Survey (Fig. 4) 1898 Second Edition Ordnance Survey 1913 Ordnance Survey (Fig. 5) 1956 Ordnance Survey (Fig. 6) 1972 Ordnance Survey 1992 Ordnance Survey 2002 Ordnance Survey – Explorer 158, 1:25000 (Fig. 1) 2011 Ordnance Survey Digital Mapping, 1:2500 (Fig. 2)

APPENDIX 3: Aerial photographs consulted.

A> Oblique (specialist)

Sortie Ref Frame (s) Date flown NGR (SU) Notes NMR 204 157–71, 178–81 25 JUN 1970 571 649 NMR 489 60–4 07 JUN 1973 578 656 NMR 705 94–6 15 MAY 1974 571 661 NMR 727 65–72 20 JUL 1974 568 652 NMR 1256 10–12 14 JUN 1978 565 653 NMR 15115 26–7 30 JUN 1994 588 652 NMR 15312 9–13 19 JUL 1995 573 651 NMR 15350 7–10 19 JUL 1995 574 650

B> Vertical

Sortie number Frame (s) NGR (SU) Date Notes RAF/AC33/T119 24–5 571 659 16 APR 1942 US/7PH/GP/LOC35 5033–4, 5036 592 655 19 AUG 1943 US/7PH/GP/LOC90 5005–6 573 689 02 DEC 1943 US/7PH/GP/LOC230 3039–40, 4007–8, 4033–5 584 668 15 MAR 1944 RAF/106G/LA/309 2060 579 663 16 MAY 1945 RAF/106G/UK/1406 3291, 4290–1 580 647 11 APR 1946 RAF/106G/UK/1646 3169, 4081–2 575 664 10 JUL 1946 RAF/58/1472 56–7 575 650 24 JUN 1954 RAF/543/1426 252–3 578 650 28 AUG 1961 Not available to view RAF/58/5225 69–71 568 657 27 JUN 1962 OS/64152 59–62 585 651 23 AUG 1964 mostly obscured by cloud OS/64153 41–3 573 662 23 AUG 1964 mostly obscured by cloud RAF/543/3859 842–3 571 658 13 JUN 1967 OS/83118 25–7, 38–9 584 651 03 JUL 1983 OS/86152 1–3 570 654 01 JUL 1986 OS/88108 124–5, 134–6 573 666 17 MAY 1988 EA/AF/91C/026 2857–64 587 666 01 MAR 1991 EA/AF/91C/029 3057–65, 3099–107, 3260–8 566 662 01 MAR 1991 frames 3059, 3060, not available to view EA/AF/91C/030 3311–18 588 648 01 MAR 1991 OS/98570 257–60, 339–42 584 665 16 MAY 1998

NB: Grid reference is for first frame in run, multiple frames may offer wider coverage.

18 Slough

READING Maidenhead

Windsor

Hungerford Thatcham Bracknell Newbury Wokingham 67000 SITE

B 66000 C

SITE A

65000

64000

63000

SU56000 57000 58000 59000 WLA11/69 N Land at Wasing Lane, Aldermaston, West Berkshire 2011 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

Figure 1. Location of site in West Berkshire and Wasing and showing HER entries Reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital mapping under licence. Crown copyright reserved. Scale: 1:25000 35 37 36

5 B

15C 19 11 66000 15B

15A 8 42 27 26 C 52 32 ‘Box Meadow’ on Tithe map Weighbridge

7 20 2 15F 25 31 41

23 43 15D 24 30 A SITE 46 48 44 33

28 14 16

34 22 45 21 49 17 Roman road 1 47 15E 65000 50 51 18

3 39 4

40 10 12 13 6 38 SU58000 59000