Cirencester Road Tetbury Gloucestershire

Home , Cirencester, Tetbury

Excavation Report

for Lioncourt Homes Ltd

CA Project: 9250 CA Report: 17353

August 2017

Cirencester Road Tetbury Gloucestershire

Excavation Report

CA Project: 9250 CA Report: 17353

Document Control Grid Revision Date Authors Checked by Status Reasons for Approved revision by A 24th Greg Crees Jonathan Hart Internal QA MAW August and review 2017 Jonathan Hart

This report is confidential to the client. Cotswold Archaeology accepts no responsibility or liability to any third party to whom this report, or any part of it, is made known. Any such party relies upon this report entirely at their own risk. No part of this report may be reproduced by any means without permission.

CONTENTS

SUMMARY ...... 2

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 3

2. ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND ...... 4

3. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES ...... 5

4. METHODOLOGY ...... 5

5. RESULTS (FIGS 2–7) ...... 6

6. THE FINDS ...... 9

7. THE BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE ...... 10

8. DISCUSSION ...... 11

9. CA PROJECT TEAM ...... 13

10. STORAGE AND CURATION ...... 13

11. REFERENCES ...... 14

APPENDIX A: CONTEXT DESCRIPTIONS ...... 16 APPENDIX B: POTTERY ...... 18 APPENDIX C: WORKED FLINT ...... 21 APPENDIX D: METAL ITEMS ...... 23 APPENDIX E: ANIMAL BONE ...... 24 APPENDIX F: THE PALAEOENVIRONMENTAL EVIDENCE ...... 25 APPENDIX G: OASIS REPORT FORM ...... 29

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Fig. 1 Site Location Plan (1:25,000) Fig. 2 Phased site plan (1:250) Fig. 3 Pit 10082: south-east facing section (1:20) and photograph Fig. 4 Photograph: the site, looking south (no scale) Fig. 5 Ditch A: north-west facing section (1:20) and photograph

1 © Cotswold Archaeology Cirencester Road, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Archaeological Excavation

Summary Project Name: Cirencester Road Location: Tetbury, Gloucestershire NGR: 389985, 194079 Type: Excavation Date: 22 May to 7 June 2017 Planning Reference: 15/04291/OUT Location of Archive: To be deposited with Corinium Museum Site Code: CRDT 17

An archaeological excavation was undertaken by Cotswold Archaeology in May and June 2017 at Cirencester Road, Tetbury, Gloucestershire. The excavation was located in the north-eastern part of the development area and targeted a Roman ditch identified during a previous evaluation.

The earliest evidence comprised a moderate assemblage of residual flints which, where closely dateable, were Mesolithic or Mesolithic to Early Neolithic in date. A single Middle Iron Age grain storage pit was also identified that had been used to store barley and, perhaps, emmer/spelt wheat.

Two boundary and/or drainage ditches probably formed part of a Roman agricultural field system and produced pottery dating to the 2nd to 4th centuries AD. A small assemblage of residual Roman pottery recovered from later deposits included Late Iron Age/Roman transitional material, and sherds dating to the later Roman period.

Several pits relating to small-scale sand/gravel extraction were also found and produced a few medieval and post-medieval pottery sherds.

2 © Cotswold Archaeology Cirencester Road, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Archaeological Excavation

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 In May and June 2017, Cotswold Archaeology (CA) carried out an archaeological investigation on behalf of Lioncourt Homes Ltd, at Cirencester Road, Tetbury, Gloucestershire (centred at NGR: 389985 194079; Fig. 1).

1.2 Planning permission (Planning ref: 15/04291/OUT) for the construction of up to 39 dwellings was granted by Cotswold District Council (CDC) conditional (Condition 18) on a programme of archaeological work. The archaeological work was requested by Mr Charles Parry, Senior Archaeological Officer, Gloucestershire County Council (GCC), the archaeological advisor to CDC.

1.3 The excavation was undertaken in accordance with a detailed Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) produced by CA (2017) and approved by Charles Parry. The fieldwork also followed Standard and Guidance: Archaeological Excavation issued by the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (2014); the Statement of Standards and Practices Appropriate for Archaeological Fieldwork in Gloucestershire issued by GCC (1995), and the Management of Research Projects in the Historic Environment (MORPHE): Project Manager’s Guide and accompanying PPN3: Archaeological Excavation issued by Historic England (2015). It was monitored by Charles Parry, including site visits on 26 May and 6 June.

The site 1.4 The development area was 1.5ha in extent and comprised a field on the north- western edge of Tetbury, bounded to the north by an industrial unit, to the east by Cirencester Road, to the south by a new residential development and to the west by agricultural land (Fig. 1). It lies at approximately 125m AOD at its north-western extent, sloping down to approximately 121m AOD at its south-eastern edge. The excavation area, henceforth ‘the site’, was targeted on a ditch identified during an earlier evaluation (ALI 2015) and comprised an area 1470m² in extent within the north-eastern part of the development area (Fig. 1).

1.5 The underlying geology is mapped as Forest Marble Formation (Mudstone) of the Jurassic period, with no superficial deposits recorded (BGS 2017). In the event, excavation showed that the mudstone was overlain by silty clay and silty sand deposits across the site and these formed the natural substrate into which the

3 © Cotswold Archaeology Cirencester Road, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Archaeological Excavation

archaeological features were cut. Forest Marble mudstone was encountered within deeper features (quarry pits) located in the south-eastern part of the site.

2. ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND

2.1 No desk-based assessment was undertaken for the site, but the Gloucestershire Historic Environment Record (GHER) was used in the preparation of the WSI (CA 2017) and pertinent data from that search are included below. Prior to the development, no archaeological remains were known within the development area. The GHER does, however, provide a record of a small number of sites in the vicinity.

2.2 The earliest of these nearby sites comprise a large number of flints, including Mesolithic worked flints and Neolithic handaxe fragments, recovered as surface finds during field walking at Boldridge Farm, 2.2km south-east of the site (GHER 3877; Fig. 1). Other sites include a prehistoric bowl barrow located 270m north of the site (GHER 3882, SAM: 32343; Fig. 1), which lies east of a series of sub- rectangular enclosures (GHER 21397; Fig. 1) identified through aerial photography.

2.3 An archaeological evaluation undertaken in 2010 at Highfield Farm, 0.5km west of the site, revealed later prehistoric/Early Roman pits and ditches dating to the 1st century AD, along with quarry pits producing pottery from the 3rd to 4th centuries AD (CA 2010; Fig. 1). Further later prehistoric/Early Roman remains comprising ditches, postholes and pits were found in 2012 during an evaluation 200m south-west of the site (FA 2012; Fig. 1) but that location has subsequently been built on with no further archaeological recording having taken place. Overall, the history of Tetbury before the medieval period is poorly understood.

2.4 Tetbury itself is recorded as Tetta’s Minster within a charter of AD 681 (Finberg 1961). The town is listed in the Domesday Book as Tetberie and developed further with the establishment of a Cistercian abbey in the 12th century. The site lay outside the medieval town, and was probably part of the surrounding farmland until the present development.

2.5 Archaeological work undertaken within the development area began with a geophysical survey undertaken by Archaeological Surveys (AS 2015). This identified a small number of anomalies, of which two were interpreted as possible ditches and

4 © Cotswold Archaeology Cirencester Road, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Archaeological Excavation

a third as a possible pit. Excavation demonstrated that these interpretations were correct and that the suggestion that the majority of the other anomalies were non- archaeological was also correct.

2.6 An archaeological evaluation was subsequently undertaken by Archaeological Landscape Investigations (ALI 2015). Many of the anomalies identified within the preceding geophysical survey were proved to be of geological origin. However, one of the possible ditches was investigated and was shown to be a Roman ditch.

2.7 Based on these preliminary works, Charles Parry requested an archaeological excavation that targeted the Roman ditch, and which included a buffer zone around this in order to expose any further archaeological features that might be present.

3. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

3.1 The objectives of the archaeological mitigation were to:- • record the nature of the main stratigraphic units encountered; • assess the overall presence, survival and potential of the remains; and • assess the overall presence, survival, condition, and potential of artefactual and ecofactual remains.

3.2 The specific aims of the work were to:- • record any evidence of past settlement or other land use; • recover artefactual evidence to date any evidence of past activity; and • sample and analyse environmental remains to create a better understanding of past land use and economy.

4. METHODOLOGY

4.1 The fieldwork followed the methodology set out within the WSI (CA 2017). The location of the excavation area was agreed with Charles Parry (GCC), informed by the results of the evaluation (ALI 2015). Once the site had been machined to the archaeological horizon, and following a site monitoring visit by Charles Parry on 26th May, the site was extended slightly to the east because of the presence of further archaeological features. The limit of this eastern extension was defined by a safe buffer zone for overhead cables. The final excavation area was 1470m² in extent

5 © Cotswold Archaeology Cirencester Road, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Archaeological Excavation

and was set out on OS National Grid (NGR) co-ordinates using Leica GPS and surveyed in accordance with CA Technical Manual 4: Survey Manual.

4.2 Fieldwork commenced with the removal of the topsoil and subsoil from the site by a mechanical excavator with a toothless grading bucket, under archaeological supervision.

4.3 The archaeological features thus exposed were hand-excavated to the bottom of archaeological stratigraphy. All features were planned and recorded in accordance with CA Technical Manual 1: Fieldwork Recording Manual. All discrete features were sampled by hand excavation, with the excepthion of a number of natural features, other examples of which were investigated. All ditches were sampled by hand excavation to a minimum of 20% of their length.

4.4 Deposits were assessed for their environmental potential and two features considered to have potential for characterising the earlier phases of activity were sampled in accordance with CA Technical Manual 2: The Taking and Processing of Environmental and Other Samples from Archaeological Sites.

4.5 All artefacts recovered from the excavation were retained in accordance with CA Technical Manual 3: Treatment of finds immediately after excavation.

5. RESULTS (FIGS 2–7)

5.1 This section provides an overview of the excavation results; detailed summaries of the contexts, finds and environmental samples (biological evidence) are to be found in Appendices A–F.

5.2 The archaeological remains comprised unstratified flints as well as a small number of Iron Age, Roman, post-Roman and undated features cut into the natural substrate (Fig. 2). The visibility of features was generally good, but some of the quarry pits and smaller discrete features were less obvious in plan.

5.3 Analysis has revealed four identifiable phases of activity: • Period 1: Mesolithic to Early Neolithic (10th–4th centuries BC) • Period 2: Middle Iron Age (4th–2nd centuries BC)

6 © Cotswold Archaeology Cirencester Road, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Archaeological Excavation

• Period 3: Roman (1st–4th centuries AD) • Phase 4: medieval and post-medieval (11th–18th centuries AD)

Period 1: Mesolithic to Early Neolithic (10th–4th centuries BC) 5.4 An assemblage of 103 flints was recovered. The flints were retrieved primarily from Roman or later deposits and most or all were probably residual, with no contemporary features having been identified. The flints were evenly distributed across the site, with no clusters present. Some 10% of the assemblage is dateable to the Mesolithic period, including two flint cores used to manufacture bladelets, an obliquely pointed microlith point and a backed bladelet.

5.5 A further 20% of the flint assemblage is Mesolithic or Early Neolithic in date, amongst which are blades, bladelets, flakes and a burin. The remainder of the assemblage is not closely dateable. The majority of the flints are in a fresh condition, with little damage, suggesting that, although residual, they were found close to where they had been originally discarded.

Period 2: Middle Iron Age (4th–2nd centuries BC) 5.6 The earliest feature was pit 10082 located in the south-western part of the site (Figs 2, 3 and 4), which corresponds to the possible pit identified during the geophysical survey (AS 2015). The pit was circular in plan and was 1.5m wide and 0.6m deep with vertical sides and a flat base (Fig. 3). It contained four fills, the lowest of which, 10083, was a sandy silt backfill containing charcoal, fragmented animal bone and late prehistoric pottery, including a sherd in a shell-tempered fabric dateable to the Middle Iron Age. The only identifiable animal bone fragments comprised three cattle molars whilst a sample from the fill produced a moderate assemblage of charred cereal grains, mainly from barley, but with some emmer/spelt wheat remains present, along with charcoal and weeds seeds from species indicative of disturbed and arable ground.

5.7 The lower pit fill was sealed by a series of backfills, the uppermost of which, fill 10086, contained a few sherds of Iron Age pottery. Roman pottery attributed to this fill was in fact retrieved as a surface find and was more probably from the nearby Roman ditch.

7 © Cotswold Archaeology Cirencester Road, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Archaeological Excavation

Period 3: Roman (1st–4th centuries AD) 5.8 Roman remains consisted of two ditches (A and B) and a small assemblage of pottery recovered as residual finds from later quarry pits (Figs 2, 4 and 5). The pottery found within the Roman ditches dates to the 2nd to 4th centuries AD, whilst the residual material includes wheelthrown grog-tempered sherds dateable to the Late Iron Age/Roman transition period (1st century AD) and sherds of New Forest Colour-coated ware indicative of activity into the later 3rd or 4th centuries. The assemblage is dominated by local coarsewares and the sherds from the Roman features are in good condition, with little abrasion. Other finds comprised a few nails and small fragments of animal bone from cattle and sheep/goat.

5.9 Ditches A and B correspond to the two ditches identified during the geophysical survey (AS 2015). Ditch A was north-west/south-east aligned and ran through the site (Figs 2 and 4). It consisted of a U-profiled cut 1.3m wide and 0.5m deep and had been re-cut up to three times in a piecemeal fashion along its length (Fig. 5). Ditch B adjoined the eastern side of Ditch A almost at a right angle and consisted of a single cut up to 1.2m wide and 0.4m deep. Both ditches contained sandy silt and clay silt fills that had probably accumulated naturally and it is probable that Ditch B was contemporary with the earliest cut of Ditch A, although it had been truncated by a re-cut of Ditch A. There were no tip lines within the fils of Ditches A and B suggestive of slumping from adjacent banks, although this may reflect the fairly shallow depth of the ditches. The fills produced small quantities of residual prehistoric flints and late prehistoric pottery alongside Roman pottery and small quantities of animal bone. A sample from the lowest fill of Ditch A (fill 10047) produced a few charred plant remains from barley and emmer/spelt wheat, as well as charred hazelnut shells, charred weed seeds and charcoal.

5.10 Ditches C and D were short linear cuts attached to Ditches A and B respectively and were on a similar alignment to one another. A single flint was recovered from Ditch C whilst Ditch D contained no finds, but their location in plan, and the fact that Ditch C truncated an early cut of Ditch A but would have adjoined one of its re-cuts at ground level, suggest that they were associated with the Roman ditches.

Period 4: medieval to post-medieval (11th–18th centuries AD; Fig 2) 5.11 Four large pits were identified in the south-eastern part of the site. They varied in size, with the largest (10111) being 7m wide and 1.3m deep. These pits contained backfill deposits derived from the natural substrate and which included fragments of

8 © Cotswold Archaeology Cirencester Road, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Archaeological Excavation

mudstone as well as residual flints and residual abraded Iron Age and Roman pottery. In addition, pits 10107 and 10111 contained a few sherds of moderately abraded medieval pottery dateable to the 11th/12th to 15th centuries AD, whilst pit 10107 also contained an abraded glazed earthenware sherd of the mid 16th to 18th centuries. The pits had been excavated into the underlying mudstone and were probably for small-scale extraction of this stone, which would have been useful for construction or repair work to buildings, walls or roads.

Period 5: Undated (Fig. 2) 5.12 A small number of remains were undated. These comprised 11 small features, circular to oval in plan, 0.2m to 1.75m wide and 0.05 to 0.25m deep. Most were fairly irregular and poorly defined and they have been interpreted as the results of bioturbation, including tree-throws, although it remains possible that at least some were pits or postholes. Together, they produced a very small assemblage of flints, a sherd of Roman pottery and a possible medieval horseshoe nail, but all of these finds might be intrusive and two of these features truncated one of the medieval or later quarry pits.

6. THE FINDS

6.1 Finds recovered are listed in the table below. Details are to be found in Appendices B, C and D.

Type Category Count Weight (g) Pottery Late prehistoric 71 322 Roman 48 508 Medieval 20 102 Post-medieval 1 <1 Total 140 932 Worked flint 103 - Metalwork Fe nails 5 27

Flint 6.2 A moderately large flint assemblage was recovered, with all items either residual within Roman or later deposits, or having come from areas of bioturbation. Some 30% of the assemblage is closely dateable to the Mesolithic and Mesolithic to Early Neolithic periods. The remaining flints are not closely dateable. The assemblage includes debitage and was evenly distributed across the site. Although no features of this date were identified, the assemblage does indicate that the site was used

9 © Cotswold Archaeology Cirencester Road, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Archaeological Excavation

during the earlier prehistoric period, although aside from some knapping work the nature, duration and intensity of this use are not apparent.

Pottery 6.3 The site produced a small assemblage of pottery. Late prehistoric sherds came from Iron Age pit 10082, and as residual finds within later deposits. The only closely dateable sherd is in a shell-tempered fabric dateable to the Middle Iron Age and was recovered from the pit. 6.4 Roman pottery came from Ditches A and B and from later deposits where the Roman sherds were residual. Most of the assemblage comprises local wares, dateable to the 2nd to 4th centuries AD, although transitional Late Iron Age and later Roman material is also present, as are a few imports from Warwickshire, Dorset and the New Forest, and a single sherd of central Gaulish samian ware.

6.5 The medieval pottery assemblage is also dominated by local wares and is typical of medieval assemblages of the 11th/12th to 15th centuries from the Gloucestershire/ North Wiltshire area. A single sherd of glazed earthenware dates to the mid 16th to 18th centuries.

Metalwork 6.6 The metalwork assemblage comprises five iron nails, four of which came from Roman deposits. Of these, two are Roman hobnails and a third is a structural nail not closely dateable. A possible horseshoe nail of medieval date came from an area of bioturbation.

7. THE BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

7.1 Biological evidence recovered is listed in the table below. Details are to be found in Appendices E and F.

Type Category Count Animal bone Fragments 137 Samples Environmental 2

Animal bone 7.2 A small assemblage of animal bone was recovered from the Iron Age pit, the Roman ditches and the medieval or later quarry pits. Most fragments were poorly preserved

10 © Cotswold Archaeology Cirencester Road, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Archaeological Excavation

and were not identifiable to species. The Iron Age remains include cattle molars and bones from mammals of sheep-size or larger. Identifiable Roman material came from cattle and sheep/goat, whilst sheep/goat, horse and cattle came from the medieval or post-medieval quarry pits.

Charred plant remains and charcoal 7.3 Two samples were taken from the site for the recovery of palaeoenvironmental material that might provide information on the site’s economy and the local environment. The sample from Iron Age pit 10082 contained charred cereals, confirming its use as a grain store. Weed seeds and wood charcoal were also present. The sample from Roman Ditch A produced only a small assemblage of charred remains, amongst which were a few charred cereals, as well as hazelnut shells, wood charcoal and a weed seed.

8. DISCUSSION

8.1 The excavation confirmed the results of the geophysical survey and evaluation (AS 2015; ALI 2015), which together suggested the presence of a single pit and Roman ditches.

Mesolithic to Early Neolithic 8.2 The flint assemblage from the site was moderately large and, although residual, is characterised by flints that are fairly fresh and so most probably derived from activities undertaken on or near the site. Both tools and debitage (knapping debris) are represented, with all of those items which could be closely dated belonging to the Mesolithic and Mesolithic to Early Neolithic periods. However, this represents a very broad time span and it is not known whether the flints reflect one or two uses or the site, or many. The presence of debitage does point to some longevity of occupation, although this could as easily have been an overnight stay, as of a longer duration.

Middle to late Iron Age 8.3 The single pit in the south-western part of the site is comparable to storage pits seen on many Iron Age sites, with examples having been excavated recently within Gloucestershire at Greystones Farm, Bourton-on-the Water (Cobain, forthcoming) and Salter’s Hill, Hailes (Cobain 2016, 82). In this case, the pit seems to have been used to store barley, although emmer/spelt wheat may also have been stored,

11 © Cotswold Archaeology Cirencester Road, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Archaeological Excavation

perhaps on earlier occasions. The charcoal within the pit may indicate that it was fired for re-use, a practice which sterilised the pit and which was also noted at Greystones Farm and Salter’s Hill. The weed seeds represent accidental inclusions imported with the cereals, and so are not reliable indicators of the local environment around the pit.

8.4 Grain storage pits dating to this period, often occurring as pit clusters, have been found alongside field boundary ditches associated with long-lived Iron Age settlement, for example on sites along the upper terraces of the Thames Valley (Lambrick 2009). In this case however, there was little sign, aside from the few abraded Iron Age pottery sherds, that the Roman ditch had Iron Age origins, although an Iron Age phase entirely truncated by Roman re-cuts cannot be discounted. The finds and environmental material from the backfills of the pit, taken with the presence of residual Iron Age pottery, suggests proximity to settlement however. No certain Iron Age settlement is known in the vicinity, although the remains found to the south-west at Quercus Road may have been one such focus of settlement during this period (FA 2012; Figs 1 and 4). The absence of pits to the north and west of pit 10082, as demonstrated by geophysical survey and excavation, suggests that any associated Iron Age settlement would have lain to the south or east of the site.

8.5 Disused Iron Age grain storage pits often display evidence for structured deposition, in other words, special deposits placed to mark the closure of the pit. This practice was observed at Granna Wood, Sudeley, Gloucestershire, where of twenty exposed grain storage pits, three contained horse skulls and one contained a cow skull, whilst other pits produced items such as large pottery rim sherds, bone needles, a flint and copper-alloy items (Hart 2016). Whilst some of these may have been accidental inclusions, the skulls are convincing examples of the ritual deposition of selected items during the decommissioning of these pit,. It is possible therefore, that the cattle molars within pit 10082 reflect this practice, the remainder of the skull having been lost to decomposition.

Roman 8.6 The Roman ditches contained few finds and were probably field boundaries. Evidence for accompanying banks was absent but the fairly shallow nature of the ditches suggests that they would have been accompanied by a bank or hedge. With their few finds, the ditches must have lain outside any settlement, and the location of

12 © Cotswold Archaeology Cirencester Road, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Archaeological Excavation

the nearest Roman settlement may have been to the south, around Quercus Road (FA 2012; Figs 1 and 4).

Medieval and post-medieval 8.7 There is no certain dating for the quarrying. Two of the quarry pits contained medieval pottery, and one of these also contained post-medieval pottery. In addition, one of the quarry pits clearly truncated Roman Ditch B. This suggests that the quarries were excavated during the medieval and/or post-medieval periods, either simultaneously, but more probably, on an opportunistic basis, with the mudstone, which is a poor quality building stone, perhaps having been used for repairs of roads or boundary walls.

9. CA PROJECT TEAM

9.1 Fieldwork was undertaken by Greg Crees, assisted by Luke Brannlund, Matt Coman, Nathan Chinchen, Franco Vartuca, Sara-Jane Boughton, Noel Boothroyd and Jess Stevens. This report was written by Greg Crees and Jonathan Hart. The pottery and flint reports were written by Jacky Sommerville, the metalwork report by Katie Marsden, the faunal remains report by Andrew Clarke and the plant macrofossils and charcoal report by Sarah Cobain. The illustrations were prepared by Esther Escudero. The archive has been compiled and prepared for deposition by Hazel O’Neill. The fieldwork was managed for CA by Richard Young and the post- excavation work was managed by Jonathan Hart.

10. STORAGE AND CURATION

10.1 The archive is currently held at CA offices in Kemble whilst post-excavation work proceeds. Upon completion of the project, and with the agreement of the legal landowners, the site archive and artefactual collection will be deposited with Corinium Museum, Cirencester, which has agreed in principle to accept the complete archive upon completion of the project. A summary of information from this project, set out within Appendix G, will be entered onto the OASIS online database of archaeological projects in Britain.

13 © Cotswold Archaeology Cirencester Road, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Archaeological Excavation

11. REFERENCES

ALI (Archaeological Landscape Investigation) 2015 Report on an Archaeological Evaluation at: ‘Land on Cirencester Road’, Tetbury, Gloucestershire ALI Report 15162

AS (Archaeological Surveys) 2015 Land west of Cirencester Road, Tetbury, Gloucestershire, Magnetometer Survey Report Unpublished survey report

BGS (British Geological Survey) 2017 Geology of Britain Viewer http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html Accessed 9 May 2015

Cobain, S. 2016 ‘Plant macrofossils and charcoal’, in Hart et al. 2016, 78–82

Cobain S. forthcoming ‘Plant macrofossils and charcoal’, in Cotswold Archaeology forthcoming Greystones Farm (Parlour Building), Bourton-on-the-Water, Gloucestershire: Archaeological Excavation CA Report 15752

CA (Cotswold Archaeology) 2017 Cirencester Road, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Written Scheme of Investigation for an Archaeological Excavation

CA (Cotswold Archaeology) 2010 Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Archaeological Evaluation CA Report 10124

FA (Foundations Archaeology) 2012 Land South of Quercus Road, Tetbury, Gloucestershire FA Report 779

Finberg, H.P.R. 1961 The Early Charters of the West Midlands in Studies in Early English History Leicester, Leicester University Press

Hart, J. 2016 ‘Site 6: Granna Wood, Sudeley (SP 0535 2307)’, in Hart et al. 2016, 63–67

Hart, J., Mudd, A., McSloy, E.R. and Brett, M. 2016 Living Near the Edge. Archaeological Investigations in the Western Cotswolds along the route of the Wormington to Sapperton Gas Pipeline, 2006–2010. Cotswold Archaeology Monograph No. 9. Cirencester, Cotswold Archaeology

14 © Cotswold Archaeology Cirencester Road, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Archaeological Excavation

Lambrick, G. 2009 The Thames Through Time. The Archaeology of the Gravel Terraces of the Upper and Middle Thames. The Thames Valley in Late Prehistory: 1500 BC–AD 50 Oxford Archaeology, Thames Valley Landscapes Monograph No. 29

15 © Cotswold Archaeology Cirencester Road, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Archaeological Excavation

APPENDIX A: CONTEXT DESCRIPTIONS

Context Context Fill of Context Description Length Width Depth Feature Label Number Type (m) (m) (m) 10000 Deposit Topsoil 0.4 10001 Deposit Subsoil. 0.35 10002 Deposit Natural substrate n/a 10003 Deposit Bioturbation 1.3 0.4 0.1 10004 Cut Pit/posthole 0.6 0.3 0.15 10005 Fill 10004 Fill of pit/posthole 0.6 0.3 0.15 10006 Cut Cut of pit 1.3 0.5 0.24 10007 Fill 10006 Fill of pit 1.3 0.57 0.24 10008 Cut Modern 0.57 0.7 0.3 10009 Deposit Bioturbation 1.13 0.3 0.09 10010 Cut Pit/posthole 0.3 0.15 0.1 10011 Fill 10010 Fill of pit/posthole 0.3 0.15 0.1 10012 Deposit Treethrow pit/Bioturbation 0.7 0.1 0.12 10013 Void 10014 Deposit Treethrowpit/ Bioturbation 0.88 0.3 0.11 10015 Cut Pit/posthole 0.67 0.24 0.1 10016 Fill 10015 Fill of pit/posthole 0.67 0.24 0.1 10017 Fill 10008 Backfill of 10008 0.57 0.7 0.3 10018 Deposit Natural variation 2 0.56 0.16 10019 Cut Pit/posthole 0.38 0.22 0.05 10020 Fill 10019 Fill of pit/posthole 0.38 0.22 0.05 10021 Cut Treethrow pit/Bioturbation 0.7 0.3 0.08 10022 Fill 10021 Treethrow pit/Bioturbation 0.7 0.3 0.08 10023 Void 10024 Void 10025 Cut Treethrow pit/Bioturbation 1.4 0.67 0.4 10026 deposit 10025 Tree throw pit/ 1.4 0.67 0.4 Bioturbation 10027 Cut Cut of ditch >3 2.04 0.31 Ditch A re-cut 10028 Fill 10027 Fill of ditch >3 2.04 0.31 Ditch A re-cut 10029 Cut Cut of ditch >3 0.76 0.18 Ditch A 10030 Fill 10029 Fill of ditch >3 0.76 0.18 Ditch A 10031 Cut Cut of Ditch >3 1.18 0.48 Ditch A 10032 Fill 10031 Fill of ditch >3 1.18 0.48 Ditch A 10033 Fill 10034 Fill of ditch 1 0.39 0.2 10034 Cut Cut of pit 1 0.39 0.2 10035 Cut Cut of ditch. >1.1 1.5 0.51 Ditch A 10036 Fill 10035 2nd fill of ditch >1 1.5 0.39 Ditch A 10037 Cut Cut of Ditch. >1 1.2 0.4 Ditch B 10038 Fill 10037 2nd fill of ditch >1 1.2 0.3 Ditch B 10039 Fill 10037 1st fill of ditch >1 1.2 0.1 Ditch B 10040 Cut Cut of Ditch. >0.5 0.65 0.3 Ditch D 10041 Fill 10040 Fill of ditch >0.5 0.65 0.3 Ditch D 10042 Cut Cut of ditch. >3 1.1 0.44 Ditch A 10043 Fill 10042 1st fill of ditch >3 0.84 0.08 Ditch A 10044 Fill 10042 2nd fill of ditch >3 1.13 0.38 Ditch A 10045 Cut Cut of ditch. >3 1.43 0.2 Ditch A re-cut 10046 Fill 10045 Fill of ditch. >3 1.43 0.2 Ditch A re-cut 10047 Fill 10035 1st fill of ditch. >1 0.67 0.13 Ditch A 10048 - Void 10057 10058 Cut Cut of ditch. >1.03 0.4 0.18 Ditch C 10059 Fill 10058 Fill of ditch >1.03 0.4 0.18 Ditch C 10060 Cut Cut of ditch. >3 0.4 0.16 Ditch C 10061 Fill 10060 Fill of ditch >0.92 0.4 0.16 Ditch C 10062 Cut Cut of ditch. >1.1 0.52 0.22 Ditch A 10063 Fill 10062 Fill of ditch >1.1 0.52 >0.22 Ditch A 10064 Cut Cut of ditch. >1.1 1.14 0.36 Ditch A re-cut

16 © Cotswold Archaeology Cirencester Road, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Archaeological Excavation

10065 Fill 10064 Fill of ditch >1.1 1.14 0.36 Ditch A re-cut 10066 Cut Pit/posthole 0.7 0.7 0.17 10067 Fill 10066 Fill of pit/posthole 0.7 0.7 0.17 10068 Deposit Treethrowpit/ Bioturbation 3.9 >1.83 0.32 10069 Deposit Treethrowpit/ Bioturbation 2.78 0.6 0.4 10070 Fill 10071 Fill of ditch >1 0.25 0.3 Ditch D 10071 Cut Cut of ditch. >1 0.25 0.3 Ditch D 10072 Cut Cut of Pit/posthole 0.67 0.47 0.15 10073 Fill 10072 Fill 0.67 0.47 0.15 10074 Cut Pit 1.57 0.15 10075 Fill 10074 Fill of pit 1.57 0.90 0.15 10076 Cut Cut of pit 1.25 0.78 0.19 10077 Fill 10076 Fill of pit 1.25 0.78 0.19 10078 Cut Pit/posthole. 0.69 0.65 0.13 10079 Fill 10078 Fill of pit/posthole 0.69 0.65 0.13 10080 Void 10081 Void 10082 Cut Cut of pit 1.52 1.39 0.6 10083 Fill 10082 1st fill of pit 1.52 1.39 0.27 10084 Fill 10082 2nd fill of pit 1.22 1.35 0.39 10085 Fill 10082 3rd fill of pit. 1.5 1.5 0.3 10086 Fill 10082 4th fill of pit 1.31 1.3 0.23 10087 Fill 10088 Fill of ditch >1.01 0.74 0.31 Ditch A 10088 Cut Cut of ditch >1.01 0.74 0.31 Ditch A 10089 Fill 10091 2nd fill of ditch >0.98 0.85 0.32 Ditch B 10090 Fill 10091 1st fill of ditch >1.18 0.58 0.25 Ditch B 10091 Cut Cut of ditch >1.18 >0.85 0.47 Ditch B 10092 Fill 10093 2nd fill of ditch >1 1.72 0.27 Ditch A 10093 Cut Cut of ditch >1 1.72 0.27 Ditch A 10094 Fill 10094 Fill of ditch >1 2.17 0.26 Ditch A re-cut 10095 Cut Cut of ditch >1 2.17 0.26 Ditch A re-cut 10096 Void 10097 Fill 10093 1st fill of ditch >1 1.52 0.09 Ditch A 10098 Cut Cut of ditch >1 1.12 0.27 Ditch B 10099 Fill 10098 Fill of ditch >1 1.12 0.27 Ditch B 10100 Fill 10107 7th fill of quarry pit. 3.5 2.7 0.26 10101 Fill 10107 6th fill of quarry pit. 3.5 0.9 0.22 10102 Fill 10107 5th fill of quarry pit. 3.1 2 0.32 10103 Fill 10107 4th fill of quarry pit. 4.1 5.5 0.3 10104 Fill 10107 3rd fill of quarry pit. 0.95 0.8 0.4 10105 Fill 10107 2nd fill of quarry pit. 2.2 0.8 0.05 10106 Fill 10107 1st fill of quarry pit. 2.4 0.8 0.3 10107 Cut Cut of quarry pit. 5.9 4.2 1.1 10108 Fill 10110 2nd fill of quarry pit. 2.3 1.75 0.55 10109 Fill 10110 1st fill of quarry pit. 2.3 0.75 0.26 10110 Cut Cut of quarry pit. 2.3 1.75 0.84 10111 Cut Cut of quarry pit. 7 6.4 0.75 10112 Fill 10115 3rd fill of quarry pit. >2.04 >1.82 0.94 10113 Fill 10115 2nd fill of quarry pit. >1.81 >1.1 0.25 10114 Fill 10115 1st fill of quarry pit. >2 >1.46 0.38 10115 Cut Cut of quarry pit. >2.04 >1.82 1.3 10116 Fill 10111 1st fill of quarry pit. 2.9 >0.6 0.52 10117 Fill 10111 2nd fill of quarry pit. 3.5 >0.6 0.2 10118 Fill 10111 3rd fill of quarry pit. 2.1 >0.6 0.28 10119 Fill 10111 4th fill of quarry pit. 5 >0.6 >0.34 10120 Fill 10111 5th fill of quarry pit. 4.1 >0.6 >0.32 10121 Fill 10122 Fill of ditch >1 1.84 0.18 Ditch A 10122 Cut Cut of ditch >1 1.84 0.18 Ditch A

17 © Cotswold Archaeology Cirencester Road, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Archaeological Excavation

APPENDIX B: POTTERY

By Jacky Sommerville

Introduction and methodology A total of 140 sherds (932g) was retrieved from 25 separate deposits. Of these, 15 sherds were recovered from bulk soil sampling of pit fill 10083; the remainder was hand recovered. The pottery has been sorted by fabric (within context), and quantified according to sherd count/weight and rim EVEs. Where identifiable, vessel form and rim morphology were recorded. Pottery fabric codings, given in parenthesis in the text, are defined in summary in Table 1. Where possible these are matched with the Cirencester type series as defined by Rigby (1982, prefixed with CT) and Ireland (1998, prefixed with F). National Roman Fabric Reference Collection codes (Tomber and Dore 1998) are also given, where applicable.

Assemblage composition Late prehistoric Pottery of late prehistoric date totals 71 sherds (322g). The average sherd weight is low, at 4.5g, indicating a well broken-up assemblage. Most sherds (97%) derive from pit 10082 and are in good condition. The two residual sherds (from Roman Ditch A and medieval quarry pit 10110) are heavily abraded. Represented fabrics consist of shell (SHC, SHF) and/or limestone-tempered types (MAL LS, SHLS), which are likely to have been of local manufacture. The sherd from Ditch A presents in a vesicular fabric (VES), likely to have resulted from the leaching out of calcareous inclusions.

The only identifiable form is a barrel-shaped vessel in the coarse shell-tempered fabric (SHC) from fill 1083 of pit 1082. This form is most typical of the Middle Iron Age. Similar vessels, in shell- or limestone-tempered fabrics of Middle Iron Age date are known from sites including Totterdown Lane, Horcott, Gloucestershire (Timby and Harrison 2004, 55–9, fig. 4.1), Salter’s Hill, Gloucestershire (McSloy 2016, 69–70), and Groundwell West, Wiltshire (Timby 2001, 21).

Roman Roman pottery comprises the largest part of the assemblage by weight (48 sherds, 508g). The average sherd weight (11g) suggests a moderate amount of fragmentation. Most sherds exhibit moderate to slight edge abrasion, with sherds from Ditch A in particularly good condition. A proportion (25%) was redeposited in medieval/post-medieval quarry pits or in the subsoil. Coarsewares of relatively local manufacture are most common. These include North Wiltshire oxidised and reduced wares (CT98) and Severn Valley oxidised and reduced wares (CT106). Several regional imports are represented – Mancetter-Hartshill whiteware mortaria (CT91) from north Warwickshire, southeast Dorset Black-burnished ware (CT74) and New Forest Colour-coated ware (CT82). The only continental import is central Gaulish samian (CT154B).

A small number of forms are identifiable, all in the imported fabrics. Mortaria are represented by two sherds, both in Mancetter-Hartshill whiteware. These include a rimsherd from a ‘hammerhead’ type. Also present are an indented beaker in New Forest Colour-coated ware and a plain rim dish (Type 20) in Southeast Dorset Black- burnished ware (Seager Smith and Davies 1993, 232–3). A rim from a central Gaulish samian vessel came from a dish, although its precise form is unclear.

18 © Cotswold Archaeology Cirencester Road, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Archaeological Excavation

This is a very small assemblage with broad compositional similarities with larger Roman groups from the area. The majority derive from Ditch A (65%) and Ditch B (13%) – this material suggesting dating from the late 2nd to 4th century for both features. The presence amongst the assemblage of sherds in wheelthrown grog-tempered fabrics (GR, CT6) is suggestive of some ‘transitional’ or Early Roman activity and types including New Forest Colour-coated ware (CT82) of activity into the later 3rd or 4th century.

Medieval Pottery of medieval date totals 20 sherds (102g), represented by four fabric types. Included are Cotswold oolitic limestone-tempered ware (F202) and Minety ware (F200) – the latter manufactured in north-east Wiltshire. Also present are Malvernian unglazed ware (F203), which was produced in the area of the Malvern Hills to the north, and a quartz-and-limestone tempered fabric, possibly originating in the north Cotswolds. The medieval pottery has been moderately abraded and fragmented (the average sherd weight was 20g). It was retrieved from quarry pits (52%) or as unstratified finds from the subsoil or from bioturbation deposits (43%). One sherd recovered from Roman Ditch A is considered intrusive.

The identifiable forms are typical of the represented ware types. Jars, including one with a simple, everted rim, occurred in fabric (F202). Fabric (F200) presented as a vessel with a thickened, everted rim from quarry pit 10111. The medieval pottery recovered is typical of that found in the Gloucestershire/north Wiltshire area. Dating apparent from this small group is broad, with the types represented in use across the 11th/12th to 15th centuries.

Post-medieval An abraded bodysherd of glazed earthenware (F243), dating to the mid 16th to 18th centuries, was recorded from quarry pit 10107.

References Hart, J., Mudd, A., McSloy, E.R. and Brett, M. 2016 Living Near the Edge: Archaeological Investigations in the Western Cotswolds along the route of the Wormington to Sapperton Gas Pipeline, 2006–2010. Cirencester. Cotswold Archaeology Monograph 9 Ireland, C.A. 1998 ‘The Pottery’, in Wilkinson and McWhirr 1988, 98–140 McSloy, E.R. 2016 ‘Pottery’, in Hart, J. et al. 2016, 68–73 Pine, J. and Preston, S. 2004 Iron Age and Roman settlement and landscape at Totterdown Lane, Horcott near Fairford, Gloucestershire. Monograph 6. Reading. Thames Valley Archaeological Services Rigby, V. 1982 ‘The Coarse Pottery’, in Wacher and McWhirr 1982, 153–200 Seager Smith, R. and Davies, S.M. 1993 ‘Roman Pottery’, in Woodward et al. 1993, 202–14 Timby J. 2001 ‘The Pottery’, in Walker et al. 2001, 19–26 Timby, J. and Harrison, E. 2004 ‘Pottery’, in Pine, J. and Preston, S. 2004, 55–68 Tomber. R. and Dore. J. 1998 The National Roman Fabric Reference Collection: A Handbook. London. MOLaS Monograph 2 Wacher, J. and McWhirr. A. 1982 Early Roman Ocupation at Cirencester. Cirencester Excavations I. Cirencester. Cirencester Excavation Committee Walker, G., Langton, B. and Oakey, N. 2001 An Iron Age Site at Groundwell West, Wiltshire: Excavations in 1996. Cirencester, Cotswold Archaeological Trust Wilkinson, D. and McWhirr, A. 1998 Cirencester Anglo-Saxon Church and Medieval Abbey. Cirencester, Cotswold Archaeological Trust

19 © Cotswold Archaeology Cirencester Road, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Archaeological Excavation

Woodward, P.J., Davies, S.M. and Graham, A.H. 1993 Excavations at Greyhound Yard, Dorchester 1981–4. Dorchester. Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society

Table 1: Summary of pottery by fabric Period Fabric code NRFRC Description Count Weight (Cirencester Code* (g) code in bold) Late prehistoric MAL Malvernian limestone-tempered fabric 2 7 SHC Coarse shell-tempered fabric 66 313 SHF Fine shell-tempered fabric 1 <1 SHLS Shell-and-limestone tempered fabric 1 <1 VES Vesicular fabric 1 2 Subtotal 71 322 Roman 5 Black-firing, sand-tempered fabric 3 22 74 DOR BB1 Southeast Dorset Black-burnished 13 58 ware GR Grog-tempered fabric 2 4 GWF Fine greyware 2 6 98 North Wiltshire reduced ware 9 90 GWMI Micaceous greyware 1 5 154B LEZ SA Central Gaulish samian 1 3 91 MAH WH Mancetter-Hartshill whiteware 2 151 82 NFO CC New Forest Colour-coated ware 1 13 98 North Wiltshire oxidised wares 4 52 6 SAV GT Savernake Grog-tempered ware 1 28 106 SVW OX2 Severn Valley (oxidised) ware 5 45 106 Severn Valley (reduced) ware 2 20 10 Severn Valley (oxidised) ware 2 11 charcoal-tempered variant Subtotal 48 508 Medieval 202 Cotswold oolitic limestone-tempered 13 67 ware 203 Malvernian unglazed ware 1 2 200 Minety ware 5 28 QZLS Quartz-and-limestone tempered 1 5 fabric Subtotal 20 102 Post-medieval 243 Glazed earthenware 1 <1 Total 140 932 * National Roman Fabric Reference Collection

20 © Cotswold Archaeology Cirencester Road, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Archaeological Excavation

APPENDIX C: WORKED FLINT

By Jacky Sommerville

A total of 103 lithics (551g) was hand recovered from 23 separate deposits. Lithics were recorded according to broad artefact/debitage type and catalogued directly onto a Microsoft Access database. Attributes recorded included dimensions, weight, colour, cortex description (the outer surface of a flint nodule or pebble), degree of edge damage (micro-flaking), rolling (abrasion), breakage, burning and recortication. The latter presents as a white or blueish surface discoloration resulting from chemical change within the burial environment (Shepherd 1972, 109). For flakes and blades, butt and termination types and knapping stage were also recorded unless breakage prevented this.

Raw material, provenance and condition The raw material was flint, much of which was relatively fine-grained but featured some coarser cherty inclusions. The colour was mostly brown (45%) or grey/black (33%). Almost a quarter (24%) displayed a degree of white discoloration due to recortication. Cortex was present on 49 items – chalky cortex predominated (74%), suggesting a reliance mainly on primary sources such as chalk or clay-with flints. Secondary flints (such as those from river gravels) were also exploited, as indicated by abraded cortex on 18% of the total. The assemblage may be entirely redeposited – 37% was recovered from deposits dated to the Roman period or later, 18% was from undated pits/postholes, 31% from the subsoil and 10% from bioturbation deposits. The condition of subsoil finds was not recorded. However, for the remaining flints a minimal degree of edge damage (none or slight) was recorded on 81% and minimal rolling on 87%, although the degree of breakage was high, with 67% of debitage and 57% of tools broken. Four worked items had also been burnt. Moderate to heavy recortication was noted on 20% of the flints.

Assemblage composition The assemblage comprised 85 items of debitage, 11 cores/core fragments and 7 retouched tools (Table 2).

Primary technology Of the 85 items of debitage, 19% comprised blades and bladelets. In Mesolithic and Early Neolithic assemblages, items of blade-like proportions would be expected to make up 15 to 44% of the debitage, whereas Later Neolithic assemblages tend to feature less than 13% (Ford 1987, 79). Other technological aspects were observed which are suggestive of Mesolithic/Early Neolithic flintworking. Only 24 flakes were unbroken, with average dimensions of 27 x 20 x 7mm. The breadth/length index was recorded (Pitts 1978) and a figure between 0.4 and 0.8 was produced for 63% of the flakes. This is in keeping with Later Mesolithic/Early Neolithic figures (ibid. 194). During these periods the greater portion of flakes (59%) had a breadth/length index of 0.4 to 0.8. Attributes suggestive of soft hammer percussion, which was used during the Mesolithic and Early Neolithic periods and is characterised by features such as a ‘lipped’ or punctiform butt and/or a diffuse bulb of percussion (Ohnuma and Bergman 1982, 166; Inizan et al. 1992, 80), were recorded on 18 (35%) of the 52 items of debitage which retained the proximal end. During the Mesolithic and Early Neolithic periods rejuvenation of the striking platform was also practised, to maximise the productivity of the core (Butler 2005, 84, 121). Two core rejuvenation flakes were recorded, one from Phase 3 (Roman) Ditch A and one from the subsoil.

The ten cores comprised two single-platform, two dual-platform (both with opposed platforms), five multi-platform and one discoidal type, most of which had been used to manufacture flakes. The discoidal core had been made

21 © Cotswold Archaeology Cirencester Road, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Archaeological Excavation

using a flake blank. One single-platform core (from fill 10097 of Ditch A) and one dual-platform type (from subsoil 10001) had been used for the production of bladelets, indicating a Mesolithic date for these items.

Secondary technology A microlith was retrieved from fill 10073 of pit/posthole 10072. The base may have been broken and the very tip was missing. It is an obliquely blunted point, a microlith type which was in use throughout the Mesolithic period (Clark 1934, 56). Also of Mesolithic date is a backed bladelet, with the tip missing, from Roman Ditch A. A burin made on a blade blank was recovered as a residual item in fill 10028 of Ditch A. Burins are relatively common finds in Mesolithic assemblages and continued into the Early Neolithic (Butler 2005, 108, 131–2). Scrapers are typically the most common tool type found but only one was recorded from this site. It is an end scraper, made on a distal flake fragment, from fill 10038 of Roman Ditch B. It is not a closely dateable type.

Discussion Although most or all of the lithics were redeposited, at least 10% can be dated to the Mesolithic period. A further 20% can be attributed to either the Mesolithic or Early Neolithic. This material does not present in clusters but is scattered across the excavated area. the remaining flints are not closely dateable.

References Brown, A.G. and Edmonds, M.R. (eds) 1987 Lithic Analysis and Later British Prehistory: Some problems and approaches. Reading Studies in Archaeology No. 2. BAR Brit. Ser. 162. Oxford Butler, C. 2005 Prehistoric Flintwork. Stroud, Tempus Clark, J.G.D. 1934 ‘The Classification of a Microlithic Culture: The Tardenoisian of Horsham’. Arch. J. 90, 52–77 Ford, S. 1987 ‘Chronological and Functional Aspects of Flint Assemblages’ in Brown and Edmonds 1987, 67–85 Inizan, M-L, Roche, H and Tixier, J. 1992 Technology of Knapped Stone. Meudon, France. Cercle de Recherces et d’Etudes Préhistoriques Ohnuma, K. and Bergman, C. 1982 ‘Experimental Studies in the Determination of Flaking Mode’. Univ. London Inst. Archaeol. Bull. 19, 161–70 Pitts, M.W. 1978 ‘Towards an understanding of Flint Industries in Post-Glacial England’. Univ. London Inst. Archaeol. Bull. 15, 179–97 Shepherd, W. 1972 Flint: Its Origin, Properties and Uses. London, Faber and Faber

Table 2: Breakdown of the lithic assemblage Type Count Primary technology Blade 10 Bladelet 6 Core 10 Core fragment 1 Core rejuvenation flake 2 Flake 67 Secondary technology Backed bladelet 1 Burin 1 Microlith 1 Misc retouched 1 Retouched flake 1 Scraper (end) 1 Spurred piece 1 Total 103

22 © Cotswold Archaeology Cirencester Road, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Archaeological Excavation

APPENDIX D: METAL ITEMS

By Katie Marsden

Five metal items, all iron nails, were recovered from four separate deposits (Table 3). They include two Roman hobnails with short, round shanks and domed heads recovered from Ditch B and Ditch A. A nail from Ditch A is probably structural and features a square shank and flat, circular head. Hand-forged nails of these types were in use from the Roman period to industrialisation in the post-medieval period and are not precisely dateable. A nail recovered from tree-throw pit/bioturbation deposit 10068 is more slender, with a rectangular shank and slightly expanded square head. The form is similar to horseshoe nails of Goodall Form C, of late 13th to 14th-century date, and form D, of 15th and 16th-century date (Goodall 2011, fig. 13.1).

References Goodall, I.H. 2011 Ironwork in Medieval Britain: An Archaeological Study Soc. Med. Arch. Monog. 31, London

Table 3: Breakdown of the metalwork assemblage Context Material Feature Label Fill off Type Date Count Wt. (g) 10089 Iron Ditch B 10091 Hobnail Roman 1 2 10068 Iron Bioturbation ? horseshoe nail Medieval 1 4 10028 Iron Ditch A recut 10027 Nail 1 16 10094 Iron Ditch A recut 10095 Hobnail Roman 2 5

23 © Cotswold Archaeology Cirencester Road, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Archaeological Excavation

APPENDIX E: ANIMAL BONE

By Andrew Clarke Animal bone amounting to 137 fragments (232g) was recovered during hand excavation and bulk soil sampling from eight deposits dating to Periods 2, 3 and 4 (Table 4). The material is on the whole poorly preserved and highly fragmented, although it is possible to identify the remains of cattle (Bos taurus), sheep/goat (Ovis aries/Capra hircus) and horse (Equus callabus), all commonly found from rural settlements from the Iron Age onwards (Baker and Worley 2014). The small size of the assemblage precludes further observations from being drawn about husbandry practices

Period 2: Middle Iron Age A total of 124 fragments (78g) was recovered from fill 10083 of pit 10082. These included three heavily abraded cattle molar teeth. The remaining 121 fragments (71g) were unidentifiable to species but came from cattle or sheep-sized mammals.

Period 3: Roman Ten fragments (108g) were recovered from Ditch A fills 10028, 10036, 10047 and 10094 and Ditch B fill 10038. Cattle and sheep/goat remains were recovered. Cattle remains included a molar from fill 10028 and a fragmented horn core from fill 10094. Sheep/goat remains included four fragmented molar teeth from fills 10047 and 10038. The remaining fragments were only identifiable as belonging to cattle or sheep-sized mammals. No cut marks relating either to butchery or craft were present.

Period 4: Medieval to post-medieval Three fragments (46g) were recovered from fills 10102 and 10117 of quarry pits 10107 and 10111. A partial sheep/goat humerus shaft was recovered from fill 10102 together with a horse incisor; a fragment of a cow metatarsal was recovered from fill 10117. No cut or chop marks were present.

References Baker, P. and Worley, F. 2014 Animal bones and archaeology: Guidelines for best practice English Heritage

Table 4: Identified animal species by fragment count (NISP) and weight and context.

Cut Fill BOS O/C EQ LM MM un-id SS Total Weight (g) Period 2: Middle Iron Age 10082 10083 3 3 14 104 124 78 Period 3: Roman 10027 10028 1 1 17 10035 10036 1 1 7 10035 10047 2 3 5 1 10037 10038 2 2 5 10095 10094 1 1 78 Subtotal 2 4 1 3 10 108 Period 4: Medieval to post-medieval 10107 10102 1 1 2 11 10111 10117 1 1 35 Subtotal 1 1 1 3 46 Total count 6 5 1 3 15 107 137 Weight 137 9 8 17 28 33 232 BOS = Cattle; O/C = sheep/goat; EQ = horse; LM= large sized mammal; MM = medium sized mammal; un-id SS = unidentifiable fragments from bulk soil samples

APPENDIX F: THE PALAEOENVIRONMENTAL EVIDENCE

By Sarah Cobain

Introduction Two bulk soil samples taken for plant macrofossil and charcoal analysis were recovered from the Period 2 Middle Iron Age pit and Period 3 Roman Ditch A. The aim of this report is to provide assess any evidence provided by the palaeoenvironmental remains for socio-economic activities undertaken on the site and the composition of the local flora.

Methodology Following flotation (CA Technical Manual No 2), the residue was dried and sorted by eye, the floated material scanned and seeds identified using a low power stereo-microscope (Brunel MX1) at magnifications of x10 to x40. Identifications were carried out with reference to images and descriptions by Cappers et al. (2006) and Neef et al. (2012). Up to 100 charcoal fragments were fractured by hand to reveal the wood anatomy on radial, tangential and transverse planes. The pieces were then supported in a sand bath and identified under an epi-illuminating microscope (Brunel SP400) at magnifications from x40 to x400. Identifications were carried out with reference to images and descriptions by Gale and Cutler (2000), Schoch et al. (2004) and Wheeler et al. (1989). Nomenclature of species follows Stace (1997).

Results and Discussion The carbonised plant macrofossils and charcoal were recovered in small to moderate quantities and were generally moderately well preserved. The results are presented in Tables 5–6. Taxa have been identified as one of two possibilities (for example alder/hazel - Alnus glutinosa/Corylus avellana) where the two species exhibit similar morphology but the species are not sufficiently well-preserved for full identification.

Period 1 Middle to Late Iron Age Sample 1 was recovered from lower fill 10083 of pit 10082. The sample contained a moderate number of moderately well preserved charred plant remains, including barley (Hordeum vulgare) and emmer/spelt wheat (Triticum dicoccum/spelta) cereal grains and weeds indicative of arable and disturbed ground identified as goosefoot (chenopodium), black-bindweed (Fallopia convolvulus), bromes (Bromus) and vetches/peas (Vicia/Lathyrus). Charcoal was abundant and identified as oak (Quercus), hazel (Corylus avellana), maple (Acer campestre), ash (Fraxinus excelsior), cherry species (Prunus) and holly (Ilex aquifolium).

After the initial threshing and winnowing of crops, semi-processed cereal grains were often stored within pits until required for use. The charred material within pit 10082 probably represents the remaining fragments of semi- processed grains stored within the pit, along with fuel used to fire and re-sterilise the pit for continued use. The absence of any evidence of in situ burning means this interpretation cannot be confirmed, although any firing may not have been of sufficient intensity to scorch the natural substrate. Although only a small number of identifiable grains were recorded, it appears that barley may have been stored within this particular pit. The charcoal identifications undertaken indicate that fuel was mostly sought from small stands of woodland or hedgerows consisting of oak, maple, ash, hazel, cherry species and holly.

Period 3 Roman Sample 2 was recovered from Ditch A (cut 10035) and contained a small assemblage of charred plant remains identified as barley and emmer/spelt wheat grains, spelt and emmer/spelt wheat glume bases, hazelnut shells (Corylus avellana) and a black-bindweed seed. Charcoal was rare and identified as hawthorn/rowan/crab apple (Crataegus monogyna/Sorbus/Malus sylvestris), cherry species, maple and hazel. These remains may suggest crop processing taking was place nearby but, given the small quantity of charred material, it has most likely accumulated in the ditch from wind-blown hearth debris.

References Cappers, R.T.J., Bekker, R.M. and Jans, J.E.A. 2006 Digital seed atlas of the Netherlands. Groningen Archaeological Studies 4 Eelde, Barkhuis http://dzn.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/ accessed 06 July 2017 Gale, R. and Cutler, D.F. 2000 Plants in archaeology; identification manual of artefacts of plant origin from Europe and the Mediterranean Otley, Westbury and the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew Neef, R., Cappers, R.T.J., and Bekker, R.M. 2012 Digital atlas of economic plants in archaeology, Groningen Archaeological Studies 17 Eelde, Barkhuis, http://depa.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/ accessed 06 July 2017 Schoch, W., Heller, I., Schweingruber, F.H. and Kienast, F. 2004 Wood anatomy of Central European species, http://www.woodanatomy.ch/ accessed 06 July 2017 Stace, C. 1997 New flora of the British Isles Cambridge, Cambridge University Press Wheeler, E.A., Baas, P. and Gasson, P.E. 1989 ‘IAWA list of microscopic features for hardwood identification’, IAWA Bulletin ns 10, 219–332

Table 5: Plant macrofossil identifications Context number 10083 10047 Feature number 10082 10035 Feature Label Ditch A Sample number (SS) 1 2 Flot volume (ml) 81 12 Sample volume processed (l) 40 40 Soil remaining (l) 0 0 Period 2 3 Plant macrofossil preservation Moderate Moderate Habitat Family Species Common Name Code D/A Amaranthaceae Chenopodium L. (Blitum L.) Goosefoots 1 HSW Betulaceae Corylus avellana L. Hazelnut shells 3 D/A/P Fabaceae Vicia L./Lathyrus L. Vetches/Peas 1 A/D Poaceae Bromus L. Bromes 1 E Hordeum vulgare L. Barley grain 6 1 E Triticum spelta Spelt wheat glume base 1 E Triticum dicoccum/Triticum spelta Emmer/spelt wheat grain 1 1 Emmer/spelt wheat glume E Triticum dicoccum/Triticum spelta 1 base E Poaceae Indet. cereal grain (whole) 3 E Poaceae Indet. cereal grain (fragment) 12 3 D/A Polygonaceae Fallopia convolvulus (L.) Á. Löve Black-bindweed 3 1 D Persicaria Mill. Knotweeds 1 D/A/P Rumex L. Docks 5 A/D Rubiaceae Galium aparine L. Cleavers 11 Total 48 8

Table 6: Charcoal identifications Context number 10083 10047 Feature number 10082 10035 Feature Label Ditch A Sample number (SS) 1 2 Feature type Pit Ditch Primary/secondary/tertiary 1o 1o Flot volume (ml) 81 12 Sample volume processed (l) 40 40 Soil remaining (l) 0 0 Period 2 3 Charcoal quantity >2mm +++++ ++ Charcoal preservation Good Good Family Species Common Name Aceraceae Acer campestre L. Field maple 15 2 Acer campestre L. Field maple r/w 3 1 Aquifoliaceae Ilex aquifolium L. Holly 2 Betulaceae Corylus avellana L. Hazel 20 2 Corylus avellana L. Hazel r/w 25 2 Quercus petraea (Matt.) Sessile Oak/Pedunculate Fagaceae 20 Liebl./Quercus robur L. Oak Oleaceae Fraxinus excelsior L. Ash 9 Crataegus monogyna Jacq./Sorbus Hawthorn/Rowans/Crab Rosaceae 1 L./Malus sylvestris (L.) Mill. apple Prunus L. Cherries r/w 4 1 Prunus L. Cherries 2 1 Total 100 10

Key + = 1–4 items; ++ = 5–20 items; +++ = 21–40 items; ++++ = 40–99 items; +++++ = 100–500 items; indet. = indeterminate r/w = roundwood fragments

A = arable weeds; D = weeds indicative of disturbed environments (opportunistic species); HSW = hedgerow/scrub/woodland species; P = grassland species; E = economic species. Where for example A/P are indicated is acknowledge that whilst these species tend to establish in arable/grassland environments, they will also grow opportunistically if conditions allow.

All plant remains are carbonised

APPENDIX G: OASIS REPORT FORM

PROJECT DETAILS

Project Name Land at Cirencester Road, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Archaeological Excavation Short description An archaeological excavation was undertaken by Cotswold Archaeology in May and June 2017 at Cirencester Road, Tetbury, Gloucestershire. The excavation area was located in the north- eastern part of the development area, and targeted a Roman ditch identified during a previous evaluation.

The earliest evidence for activity comprised small quantities of residual flints including parts of four flint cores, suggestive of transient hunter-gatherer activity during the Late Mesolithic/Early Neolithic period.

A single Middle to Late Iron Age grain storage pit was identified. (sample evidence if any, e.g. Plant macrofossils recovered from the ditches indicate that processing of cereals…).

Two boundary and/or drainage ditches identified probably formed part of a Roman agricultural field system.

A number of small discrete features may represent pit and/or posthole bases but cannot be ascribed with certainty to a particular period. Evidence of Roman or later quarrying was also identified, although close dating of the quarrying is not possible. Project dates May 22 to June 7 Project type Excavation Previous work Geophysical Survey (AS 2015) Field evaluation (CA 2015) Future work None PROJECT LOCATION Site Location Cirencester Road, Tetbury, Gloucestershire Study area (M2/ha) 1470m² Site co-ordinates 389985, 194079 PROJECT CREATORS Name of organisation Cotswold Archaeology Project Brief originator Gloucestershire County Council Project Design (WSI) originator Cotswold Archaeology Project Manager Richard Young Project Supervisor Greg Crees MONUMENT TYPE Storage Pit, Boundary ditch SIGNIFICANT FINDS None PROJECT ARCHIVES Intended final location of archive Content

Physical Corinium Museum Ceramics, animal bone Paper Corinium Museum Proforma recording sheets, permatrace drawings Digital Corinium Museum Raw survey data, database, digital photos BIBLIOGRAPHY

CA (Cotswold Archaeology) 2017 Land at Cirencester Road, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Archaeological Excavation. CA typescript report 17353

29 3 388000 3 390000 3 392000 8 9 9 8 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

119600096000

GGHERHER 3882/3882/ GGHERHER SAMSAM 3234332343 2139721397

CCAA 22010010

119400094000

FFAA 20122012

GGHERHER 33877877

119200092000

N COUNTY OF N Andover 01264 347630 HEREFORDSHIRE Cirencester 01285 771022 Cotswold Exeter 01392 826185 Archaeology Milton Keynes 01908 564660 w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk M GLOUCESTERSHIRE ONMOUTHSHIRE e [email protected]

TORFAEN OXFORDSHIRE PROJECT TITLE The site Cirencester Road, Tetbury, Development area Gloucestershire NEWPORT SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE FIGURE TITLE CITY OF WEST BRISTOL NORTH BOUROUGH OF BERKSHIRE Site location plan SOMERSET SWINDON BATH AND 0 1km NE SOMERSET WILTSHIRE FIGURE NO. Reproduced from the digital Ordnance Survey Explorer map with DRAWN BY EE PROJECT NO. 9250 the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of The Controller CHECKED BY DJB DATE 10/08/2017 of Her Majesty's Stationery Office c Crown copyright SOMERSET HAMPSHIRE Cotswold Archaeology Ltd 100002109 APPROVED BY JH SCALE@A4 1:25,000 1 3 390000 9 3 390020 3 390040 0 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 0

119413094130

DITCH C

119411094110

DITCH A

pit 10107

DITCH B

DITCH D

119409094090

A pit 10082

Andover 01264 347630 N Cirencester 01285 771022 Middle Iron Age Cotswold Exeter 01392 826185 Milton Keynes 01908 564660 Site boundary (excavated/unexcavated) Archaeology w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk Roman e [email protected] Evaluation trench (excavated/unexcavated) PROJECT TITLE Medieval to post-medieval Cirencester Road, Tetbury, HV cable (excavated/unexcavated) Modern Gloucestershire Safe buffer zone for overhead FIGURE TITLE cables Undated (excavated/unexcavated) Phased site plan A A Section location

1:250 010mDRAWN BY EE PROJECT NO. 9250 FIGURE NO. CHECKED BY DJB DATE 10/08/2017 APPROVED BY JH SCALE@A4 1:250 2 Section AA

SW NE 120.6m AOD

10086 10085

10084

10083

pit 10082

01m1:20

Pit 10082, looking north-west (1m scale)

Andover 01264 347630 Cirencester 01285 771022 Cotswold Exeter 01392 826185 Archaeology Milton Keynes 01908 564660 w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk e [email protected]

PROJECT TITLE Cirencester Road, Tetbury, Gloucestershire FIGURE TITLE Pit 10082: south-east facing section (1:20) and photograph

DRAWN BY EE PROJECT NO. 9250 FIGURE NO. CHECKED BY DJB DATE 10/08/2017 APPROVED BY JH SCALE@A4 1:20 3 Land South of Quercus Road (FA 2012)

ppitit 1008210082 DDITCHITCH B DDITCHITCH A

The site, looking south (no scale)

Andover 01264 347630 Cirencester 01285 771022 Cotswold Exeter 01392 826185 Archaeology Milton Keynes 01908 564660 w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk e [email protected]

PROJECT TITLE Cirencester Road, Tetbury, Gloucestershire FIGURE TITLE Photograph

DRAWN BY EE PROJECT NO. 9250 FIGURE NO. CHECKED BY DJB DATE 10/08/2017 APPROVED BY JH SCALE@A4 NA 4 Section BB

NE SW 122.1m AOD 10030

10028 ditch 10029 10032 ditch 10027

ditch 10031

0 1:20 1m

Ditch A, excavated ditch cuts 10027, 10029 and 10031, looking south-east (1m scale)

Andover 01264 347630 Cirencester 01285 771022 Cotswold Exeter 01392 826185 Archaeology Milton Keynes 01908 564660 w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk e [email protected]

PROJECT TITLE Cirencester Road, Tetbury, Gloucestershire FIGURE TITLE Ditch A: north-west facing section (1:20) and photograph

DRAWN BY EE PROJECT NO. 9250 FIGURE NO. CHECKED BY DJB DATE 10/08/2017 APPROVED BY JH SCALE@A4 1:20 5