Durley Hall Farm, Durley

Home , River Chelmer

FYFIELD BUSINESS PARK FYFIELD ROAD FYFIELD, ESSEX

ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVALUATION BY TRIAL TRENCHING

ASE Project No: 160563 Site Code: ONFB16

ASE Report No: 2016365

October 2016

Archaeological Evaluation Fyfield Business Park Chipping Ongar Essex

NGR: TL 55734 05014 Planning Ref: EPF/3006/14

ASE Project No: 160563 Event Code: ONFB16

ASE Report No: 2016365 OASIS id: 261524

Mark Germany With contributions by Gemma Ayton, Luke Barber, Isa Benedetti Whitton, Trista Clifford, Karine Le Hégerat, Mariangela Vitolo and Helen Walker

Illustrations by Andrew Lewsey

Prepared by: Mark Germany Archaeologist

Reviewed and Andy Margetts Project approved by: Manager

Date of Issue: October 2016

Revision:

Archaeology South-East 27 Eastways Witham Essex CM8 3YQ

Tel: 01376 331470 Email: [email protected] www.ucl.ac.uk/archaologyse Archaeology South-East Fyfield Business Park, Chipping Ongar ASE Report No. 2016365

Abstract

This report presents the results of an archaeological evaluation carried out by Archaeology South-East in advance of redevelopment of Fyfield Business Park, Chipping Ongar, Essex. The evaluation was conducted in relation to a planning condition. It was commissioned by Bovis Homes and it was carried out from 5/9/16 to 19/9/16.

The evaluation consisted of twenty-one trenches deployed across the accessible areas of the c.4.6ha site.

Archaeological remains were encountered only in trenches 7 and 8. These trenches lay close to the site entranceway on Fyfield Road, and uncovered remains relating to a farm mapped in 1862. Features dating to the 19th century were encountered alongside features incorporating medieval and early post-medieval period material.

The recorded remains included four ditches, four pits and numerous artefacts, most of which consisted of pieces of ceramic building material and 14th to 16th century pottery. Some of the pits may in fact have been large post-holes; however, these are currently undated.

Other findings included the recovery of seven pieces of Mesolithic/Early Neolithic struck flint and a single sherd of 11th to 13th century pottery, all of which were discovered as residual items in later features. It is suggested that the flints relate to hunter-gatherer activity encouraged by the proximity of the Cripsey Brook and River Roding. The 11th to 13th century sherd may have related to settlement within Shelley in general during the earlier part of the medieval period.

The remains of the post-medieval farm site have some limited potential to contribute to a number of research objectives, as identified in Brown and Glazebrook (2000), including 'the development of the farmstead 1750-1914', and 'the origins and development of field systems; their change and continuity'.

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Archaeological Background

3.0 Archaeological Methodology

4.0 Results

5.0 Finds

6.0 Environmental Samples

7.0 Discussion and Conclusions

Bibliography Acknowledgements

HER Summary OASIS Form Appendices

FIGURES

Front Cover Image: Trench 7, looking west

Figure 1: Site location Figure 2: Trench locations and service constraints Figure 3: Trenches 7 and 8 Figure 4: Sections 1 to 4 Figure 5: Evaluation trenches with a map extract from the 1862 sale catalogue of the Forest Hall Estate

TABLES

Table 1: Quantification of the site archive Table 2: Trench 7, list of recorded contexts Table 3: Trench 8, list of recorded contexts Table 4: Finds quantification Table 5: The pottery by ware, sherd count and weight, shown in approximate chronological order Table 6: Ceramic building material fabric descriptions Table 7: Animal bone NISP (Number of Identifiable Specimens) Table 8: Site phasing Table 9: Archaeologically negative trenches: list of recorded contexts Table 10: Environmental sample residue quantification Table 11: Environmental sample flot quantification

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Site Background

1.1.1 An archaeological evaluation by trial trenching was carried out at Fyfield Business Park, Chipping Ongar, Essex. It was undertaken in advance of redevelopment of the site. The archaeological work was commissioned by Bovis Homes and undertaken by Archaeology South-East (ASE) during September 2016.

1.1.2 The Fyfield Business Park site is located c.1 mile north of the town of Chipping Ongar in Epping Forest District, Essex (TL 55734 05014), separated by the A414. It is located on the east side of Fyfield Road and occupies a roughly square plot of c.4.6ha extent bounded by hedgerows (Figure 1).

1.1.3 The centre and east of the site is occupied by numerous buildings of the Business and Research Park, along with hard-surfaced access roads and car parks. The site peripheries are generally grassed with some areas of trees and shrubs. Information provided by the client indicates that the site is crossed by numerous services (Figure 2).

1.2 Geology and Topography

1.2.1 The geology of the site comprises chalky till with outwash sands and gravels, silts and clays, above a bedrock of London Clay (www.bgs.ac.uk). The overlying topsoil is mid to dark greyish brown friable to firm sandy silt clay.

1.2.2 The wider topography of the site consists of low rolling hills, ranging in height from 0.45m to 0.65m OD. The surrounding landscape is rural and composed of arable farmland, hedgerows and occasional small copses of trees.

1.2.3 Fyfield Business Park occupies a ridge of high ground, flanked by the Cripsey Brook and River Roding to the west and east respectively, both of which flow southwards towards Chipping Ongar and Brentwood. Access to the site is via the business park entranceway on Fyfield Road (B184).

1.3 Planning Background

1.3.1 Epping Forest District Council granted outline planning permission (EPF/3006/14) for Fyfield Business Park to be redeveloped. The redevelopment will include part retention of the business park, erection of 105 residential dwellings, and provision of playing fields and recreational facilities.

1.3.2 Attached condition 17 relates to archaeology and states:

‘No development or preliminary groundworks of any kind shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the local planning authority. The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details © Archaeology South-East UCL 1 Archaeology South-East Fyfield Business Park, Chipping Ongar ASE Report No. 2016365

Reason: To ensure the suitable recording and protection of heritage assets in accordance with policy HC1 of the Adopted Local Plan and Alterations and the aims and objectives of the NPPF.’

1.3.3 A brief for the archaeological work was issued by Maria Medlycott, Historic Environment Advisor for Essex County Council (ECC/Place Services 2016). A Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) designed to meet the requirements of that brief was subsequently submitted and approved by ECC/Place Services (ASE 2016).

1.4 Scope of Report

1.4.1 This report describes and discusses the results of a first phase of archaeological evaluation by trial-trenching, undertaken on available, open land in advance of mixed development at Fyfield Business Park, Chipping Ongar, Essex. The north-eastern extremity of the site was not evaluated as this has been identified as a wildlife/conservation area within the development plan and already has high ecological value. The archaeological work was recommended and monitored by Essex County Council/Place Services, and was undertaken by ASE on behalf of Bovis Homes between 5/9/16 to 12/9/16.

2.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND

2.1 Introduction

2.1.1 The site and its vicinity are known to contain seven listed buildings and the archaeological remains of a Roman bath house (Acanthus Architects 2014; Allen in archive). The settlement of Shelley is recorded in the Domesday Book and is therefore at least c.1000 years old.

2.1.2 According to the Essex HER, known archaeological sites and findspots in the vicinity of the site are sparse. No archaeological investigation has previously taken place within the site.

2.2 Roman

2.2.1 The Roman bath house was discovered within arable land, c.600m north-east of Fyfield Business Park, in September 1992. It had flint foundations and is likely to have been part of a Roman villa, although no other in situ structural remains have been found to confirm this. Artefacts accompanied the remains of the bath house and suggested it to have been in use during the mid-2nd to early 3rd century AD (Allen in archive).

2.2.2 Surface concentrations of Late Iron Age to late 4th century pot sherds have been found roughly 60m east of the bath house, making it possible that the Roman villa either arose from or occupied the site of an Iron Age farm (Allen in archive).

2.3 Medieval to Modern

2.3.1 The site forms part of the rural parish of Shelley, a small settlement of scattered houses between the River Roding and the Cripsey Brook.

2.3.2 Shelley is recorded in the Domesday Book and has been in existence since at least the Late Saxon period. In 1086, its households comprised five villagers, five small holders and three slaves. Its arable land was sufficient for three plough teams, and its woodland sustained 150 pigs. Twenty acres of meadow were also present. The lord of the manor was Reginald, and the tenant in chief was Geoffrey de Mandeville (opendomesday.org/place/TL5505/shelley).

2.3.3 The parish church of St Peter is situated west of Fyfield Road. Little remains of its medieval fabric, since it was largely rebuilt in 1811 and the 1880s. Shelley Hall, to the west of the church, is a 14th century timber framed hall house, faced with 'modern' brick. Its garden contains a possible Neolithic to Bronze Age bowl barrow (Essex Sites and Monuments Record 4179).

2.3.4 Other surviving buildings in the immediate area indicate settlement in the 16th century or earlier (Church Lane Cottages, on the opposite side of the B184), 16th/17th century (Fisherman’s Hill, on the opposite side of the B184), and 17th century (Boarded Barn farmhouse, immediately to the west of the site). All of these buildings are listed at Grade II, as are ranges of 18th-early 19th-century farm buildings associated with Boarded Barn Farm. One of these (a timber- framed stable block) has been converted into laboratory buildings and is within the eastern part of the site.

2.3.5 Chemical manufacturer Baker and May purchased the site in 1936 and used much of its north half to construct an agricultural research station. In the 1990s, the site was sold and was used to erect Fyfield Business Park (Acanthus Architects LW 2014).

2.3.6 The current access road through the site to the buildings at the current Boarded Barn Farm has followed the same course since the earliest surviving maps. A map of the Forest Hall Estate dated to 1862 show that most of the site south of the access road was a single road, whilst the area to the north was divided into irregularly-shaped hedged enclosures occupied by an unnamed farm at the entrance to the site. The farm consisted of three ranges of buildings and a large pond (Figure 5). A small enclosure lay immediately east of the plot, but was no longer extant by 1896 (Figure 5; Acanthus Architects LW 2014, figs. 1 and 13). This farm complex occupied a previous building plot labelled Boarded Barns Farm on Chapman and André‘s map of Essex (1777) (the current Boarded Barn Farm was then labelled as New Barns Farm).

2.3.7 Prior to modern agriculture, the field pattern of Shelley is likely to have consisted of 'block holdings', groups of hedged fields belonging to one owner or tenant (Christie and Stamper 2012, fig. 14.2).

2.3.8 The nearby town of Chipping Ongar to the south is recorded in the Domesday Book. It appears to have originated as a plantation attached to its castle, and it probably served as a significant staging point for travellers during the early post- medieval period. The first reference to its post-hundredal market dates to 1287 (Medlycott 1998).

2.4 Previous investigation

2.4.1 Geotechnical work took place during 2015 at the site. Fourteen trial pits and twenty window sample boreholes were excavated and, in summary, topsoil was 0.20-0.40m thick, where it occurred, “made ground” was 0.20 – 1.00 m thick (RSK 2015). No “made ground” was recorded in those areas to be evaluated north of the access road, and was localised to the south.

2.5 Project Aims and Objectives

2.5.1 The aims of the project, as stated in the Written Scheme of Investigation, were to determine the presence or absence of any archaeological remains and to establish their character, location, extent, date, quality and significance (ASE 2016).

2.5.2 The evaluation was considered to have potential to partly address a number of research themes and aims, as previously identified by Brown and Glazebrook (2000) and Medlycott (2011). These included:

 What was the derivation and extent of the medieval settlement of Shelley and its impact upon land-use in the immediate locality? Was the nearby parish church part of a larger and more focussed settlement in the medieval and post-medieval periods than its scattered modern counterpart?

 What was the position of Shelley in the local settlement hierarchy? Do the layout of associated fields and communications indicate changing agricultural regimes and patterns of land holding?

3.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHODOLOGY

3.1 Fieldwork Methodology

3.1.1 The site was investigated by twenty-one trenches (1-15, 18-21 and 23-24) each measuring 2.2m wide and between 15 and 40m long (Figure 2). Three further trenches were left unexcavated because they were either inaccessible (16 and 17) or traversed by underground electricity cables (22). Trench positions and sizes were significantly constrained by on-site conditions. Altogether, the trenching investigated a 1342m2 area, equivalent to a c.1.5% sample of the business park.

3.1.2 The central part of the business park was in use and almost entirely occupied by hard standing and standing buildings. In addition the north-eastern extremity of the site was not evaluated as this has high ecological value and will be retained as a wildlife/conservation area within the development. The trenches were therefore mainly restricted to green field areas on the northern and south-western sides of the site. Trenches 23 and 24 were an exception as they cut the tarmac surface of a small carpark in the site's southern corner.

3.1.3 The intended positions and/or lengths of trenches 1, 5, 7, 9 and 21 were adjusted on site in order to avoid unforeseen obstacles in the form of wider than expected hedgerows, small trees and a live electricity cable.

3.1.4 Standard ASE trench and context sheets were used to record the trenches and features. Discrete archaeological features were half-sectioned and slots were excavated across linear features, with their resulting sections hand- drawn on drawing film sheets. All exposed remains were planned and spot heighted by using a Digital Global Positioning System (DGPS).

3.1.5 A full photographic record comprising colour digital images was made. All trenches were photographed from each end (trench shots) and all excavated contexts were photographed (context shots). In addition, a number of representative photographs of the general work on site were taken (working shots). The photographic register includes the shot number, location of shot, direction of shot and a brief description of the subject photographed.

3.1.6 Finds, where present, were retrieved from all investigated features/deposits. These were securely bagged and labelled with the appropriate site code and context number on site, and retained for specialist identification and study.

3.1.7 Taking of bulk samples for wet sieving and possible retrieval of small animal bones and carbonised plant macrofossils was recorded on pro-forma sheets and restricted to datable contexts with visible potential for environmental survival.

3.2 Archive

3.2.1 The preparation of the archive for museum deposition will follow guidelines contained in the CIfA Standard and guidance for the creation, compilation, transfer and deposition of archaeological archives (2014). © Archaeology South-East UCL 6 Archaeology South-East Fyfield Business Park, Chipping Ongar ASE Report No. 2016365

3.2.2 Finds from the archaeological fieldwork will be kept with the archival material.

3.2.3 Subject to agreement with the legal landowner, ASE will arrange for the archive and artefact collection to be deposited with Epping Forest District Museum.

Number of Contexts 76 No. of files/paper record 24 Plan and sections sheets 7 Digital photos 56 Permatrace sheets 7 Trench Record Forms 24

Table 1: Quantification of site archive

4.0 RESULTS

4.1 Introduction

4.1.1 The only trenches to reveal archaeological remains were 7 and 8, near the site's north-west corner. The remains comprised two ditches (G1 and G2) and four pits (G4) in Trench 7, and a single ditch (G3) in Trench 8. Artefacts were also present, but not in all features. The features lay beneath single layers of subsoil and the natural horizon had been truncated by ploughing. Feature fill deposits were generally greyish brown in colour and relatively easy to identify against the surrounding natural of brownish orange silt clay.

4.1.2 Trenches 7 and 8 are described individually below. Negative trenches 1-6, 9- 15, 18-19, 23 and 24 are summarised in section 4.4.

4.2 Trench 7

Length Width Depth m Height Context Type Interpretation m m m AOD 7/001 Layer Topsoil 27.7 2.2 0.18-0.27 59.36-59.68 7/002 Layer Subsoil 27.7 2.2 0.20-0.28 7/003 Layer Natural 27.7 2.2 Not exc. 59.14-59.2 7/004 Fill Latest 1.7 1.0 0.50 7/005 Fill Secondary 0.7 1.0 0.30 7/006 Fill ?Primary 0.6 1.0 0.1+ 7/007 Cut Ditch 1.0 1.7 0.8+ 7/009 Artefacts Bricks 7/010 Fill Single 0.87 0.87 0.45 7/011 Cut Pit 0.87 0.87 0.45 7/012 Fill Single 1.2 1.17+ 0.55 7/013 Cut Pit 1.2 1.17+ 0.55 7/014 Fill Single 0.92 0.9 0.3 7/015 Cut Pit 0.92 0.9 0.3 7/016 Fill Latest 0.5 0.49 0.29 7/017 Fill Primary 1.07 0.3+ 0.3 7/018 Cut Pit 0.5+ 1.49 0.44 7/019 Fill Single 1.0 1.33 0.37 7/020 Cut Ditch 1.0 1.33 0.37 7/021 Fill Single 1.0 1.60 0.25 7/022 Cut Ditch 1.0 1.60 0.25 7/023 Fill Single 1.0 0.75 0.18 7/024 Cut Cut-feature 1.0 0.75 0.18 7/025 Fill Latest 1.1 1.10 0.3 7/026 Fill Primary 1.2 0.65 0.32 7/027 Cut Ditch 1.2 1.0 0.65 7/028 Cut Mole drain 1.0 0.25 0.38 7/029 Fill Single 1.0 0.25 0.38

Table 2: Trench 7 list of recorded contexts

4.2.1 The cut features in Trench 7 comprised three ditches (G1: 7/007, 7/024 and 7/027), (G2: 7022) and (G3: 7/020), and a loose cluster of four pits (G5: pits 7/011, 7/013, 7/015 and 7/018) (Figure 3).

4.2.2 Ditches G1 and G2 ran north-south and north-east south-west respectively, and therefore had slightly different alignments.

4.2.3 Ditch G1 was not fully excavated. It was at least 0.8m deep and its base was not exposed. Its profile had gradual and steep sloping sides and its fill sequence consisted of five deposits, all of silt clay, the colour of which was either dark brownish grey [7/004, 7/006, 7/025] or yellowish grey [7/004 and 7/026] (Figure 4, sections 1 and 2).

4.2.4 Fills [7/004, 7/005, 7/023 and 7/025] contained artefacts and these mainly comprised pieces of pottery, ceramic building material, and animal bone. The artefactual dating evidence for the ditch suggests that it was in use during the 14th to 16th century, and that it finally infilled during the 17th century.

4.2.5 Ditch G2 to the south-east was a broad shallow 0.16m deep feature with a splayed V-shaped profile (Figures 3 and 4, section 3). Its single fill consisted of brown silt clay [7/021]. Inclusions comprised shards of wine bottle glass dating to the 18th to mid-19th century or later.

4.2.6 The north-east side of G2 was cut by its replacement G3; a 0.37m deep ditch with a concave profile (Figures 3 and 4, section 3). It contained a single fill [7/019] from which nine pieces of residual 16th century brick and six pieces of animal bone were retrieved.

4.2.7 Two of the G5 pits [7/011 and 7/013] were similar in plan and size, and therefore perhaps paired (Figure 3). They were mainly steep sided and they measured 0.45m and 0.55m deep respectively. The only artefact recovered from them was a small fragment of baked clay from [7/013]. It could be the case from their placement, regular form and similarity that these pits were in fact post-holes, making it possible that they were part of a building.

4.2.8 The other two pits [7/015 and 7/018] were more irregular in form, in both plan and section. They were each filled by homogenous single deposits, although only one of them contained artefacts. These were recovered from pit [7/018] and comprised two small pieces of brick.

4.2.9 Two other features in Trench 7 were two post-medieval/modern mole drains, only one of which was excavated and recorded [7/028].

4.3 Trench 8

Length m Width Depth m Height Context Type Interpretation m m AOD 8/001 Layer Topsoil 30 2.2 0.3-0.5 59.79-60.57 8/002 Layer Natural 30 2.2 Not exc. 59.51-60.28 8/003 Fill Latest 0.9 1.20 0.08 8/004 Fill Primary 0.9 2.15 0.6 8/005 Cut Ditch 0.9 2.15 0.68

Table 3: Trench 8 list of recorded contexts

4.3.1 Ditch [8/005] extended across the central part of Trench 8 (Figure 3). It was

concave in profile and it measured 2.5m wide and 0.68m deep (Figure 4, section 4). It contained two fills and these consisted of bulk and minor fills of yellowish brown [8/004] and dark greyish brown silt clay [8/003] respectively. Both fills contained artefacts including pieces of medieval/post-medieval brick, and shards of mid-18th to mid-19th century wine bottle glass. Other retrieved finds included prehistoric struck flints, an iron strap hinge and fragments of 19th-20th century stoneware, all from latest fill [8/003]. A further item was a medieval nail with a rosette head.

4.4 Archaeologically negative trenches

4.4.1 Apart from ploughing, Trenches 1-6, 9-15, 18-19, 23 and 24 were relatively undisturbed and mostly comprised natural directly overlain by topsoil. Despite this no archaeological deposits, pre-modern finds or features were encountered (Appendix Table 9). The thickness of the topsoil varied within and between trenches, from 0.2-0.4m.

4.4.2 Only two of these trenches (20 and 21) contained an intervening layer of subsoil. In both cases it consisted of brownish orange sandy silt clay and it measured 0.15 to 0.3m thick.

4.4.3 The excavation of Trench 18 revealed a layer of modern-made ground [18/002] overlying natural [18/003]. The natural contained intrusive pieces of modern building rubble and had been previously exposed during construction work.

4.4.4 Other signs of modern disturbance revealed by the trenching included trenches for live electricity cables (Trenches 21 and 22), and a complete absence of topsoil and subsoil in Trenches 23 and 24.

5.0 THE FINDS

5.1 Summary

5.1.1 A moderate-sized assemblage of finds was recovered during the evaluation at Fyfield Business Park. All finds were washed and dried or air dried as appropriate. They were subsequently quantified by count and weight and were bagged by material and context (Table 4). All finds have been packed and stored following CIfA guidelines (2014). Two of the finds have been given registered finds numbers.

Context Lithics (g) Weight Pottery (g) Weight CBM (g) Weight Stone (g) Weight Slag (g) Weight Iron (g) Weight Metal (g) Weight Bone (g) Weight Pipe Tobacco Clay (g) Weight Fired Clay (g) Weight Glass (g) Weight Shell (g) Weight

7/004 78 1506 27 4144 2 31 23 624 2 8 1 2 12 132

7/005 17 156 5 92

7/012 1 6

7/016 1 2 3 124 1 18

7/017 2 38

7/019 9 492 6 134

7/021 3 244

7/023 22 268 1 8 12 212

7/025 47 574 79 866 1 60 2 48 10 82 2 8 1 2 3 22

7/029 2 34 3 86 1 10

8/003 2 12 5 14 7 230 2 42

8/004 1 4 2 80 26 3118 2 30 4 280 1 430

Total 3 16 174 2634 157 9106 1 10 1 60 7 121 2 48 60 1424 4 16 1 6 6 678 15 154

Table 4: Finds quantification

5.2 Flintwork by Karine Le Hégarat

5.2.1 Seven pieces of worked flint weighing 12g were recovered during the evaluation. This small assemblage comes from trenches 7 (context 7/025) and 8 (contexts [8/003 and 8/004]) and it consists of five flakes, a blade-like flake and a chip. The broken blade-like flake from fill [7/025] displays parallel ridges and edges and is probably Mesolithic or Early Neolithic. The remaining pieces of flint débitage are poorly dated, but nonetheless probably prehistoric. A small amount (782g) of burnt unworked flint was also recovered including a slightly burnt elongated nodule from fill [7/025].

5.3 Pottery by Helen Walker

5.3.1 A total of 181 sherds of pottery weighing 2670g was excavated from eight contexts and has been catalogued according to Cunningham’s typology of post-Roman pottery in Essex (Cunningham 1985a, 1-16; expanded by Drury et al.1993 and Cotter 2000). The pottery data has been entered onto an Excel spreadsheet and the pottery is tabulated by ware in Table 5. © Archaeology South-East UCL 11 Archaeology South-East Fyfield Business Park, Chipping Ongar ASE Report No. 2016365

Pottery by ware Sherd Wt Nos (g) Shell-tempered ware 1 1 Late medieval sandy orange ware 93 1490 Late medieval sandy orange ware with sparse chalk inclusions 18 299 Tudor red earthenware 48 567 Post-medieval red earthenware 12 253 Black-glazed ware 1 3 English tin-glazed earthenware 3 34 Buff coloured earthenware 2 5 Creamware 2 4 Modern stoneware 1 14 Total 181 2670

Table 5: The pottery by ware, sherd count and weight, shown in approximate chronological order

5.3.2 The earliest pottery is a single sherd of shell-tempered ware dating from the 11th to early 13th centuries, residual in the primary fill [8/004] of ditch G3 intervention [8/005]. Otherwise the bulk of the pottery is late medieval with a small amount of post-medieval and modern pottery. Ditch G1 interventions [7/007, 7/027 and 7/024] all produced very similar assemblages and may have been deposited at the same time. This pottery mainly consists of late medieval sandy orange ware, spanning the later 14th to 16th centuries and the finer, smoother Tudor red earthenware, spanning the later 15th to 16th centuries. Some of the late medieval sandy orange ware sherds also contain sparse chalk inclusions which may indicate they are products of the Harlow pottery industry (Davey and Walker 2009, 25-6). All the sandy orange ware may have a Harlow origin but the Tudor red earthenware could also have been manufactured at the potting village of Stock, to the east of Ongar (Cunningham 1985b).

5.3.3 The pottery is rather fragmented, but identifiable vessel forms in these wares comprise mainly jugs and cisterns, some of which are slip-painted indicating a date no later than mid-16th century. There are also two jar rims, the neck of a possible costrel (a portable drinking vessel) and a possible cup. The ?cup, in sandy orange ware, has an upright rim with a pronounced carination below, and is perhaps of Cunningham's form E3; standing cups with pedestal bases (cf. Cunningham 1985a, fig.9.60). It shows an all over decomposed yellowish powdery glaze, the result either of a firing fault or post-depositional weathering. In addition, there is the base and sides of a small, squat, bi- conical vessel in the sandy orange ware fabric with sparse chalk inclusions. It shows a sparse decomposed glaze above the carination and could be from a small jug, a money box, or perhaps most likely, a bi-conical bottle, the latter form also manufactured by the Colchester ware industry (cf. Cotter 2000, fig.216-8). One sherd in Tudor red earthenware shows a post-firing scratch mark in the form of three parallel incised horizontal lines, with the remains of a possible intersecting vertical incised line. Such marks are known as merchant’s marks and were used to denote ownership.

5.3.4 While some vessels such as the possible bi-conical bottle could be later 14th to earlier 15th century, the presence of Tudor red earthenware and vessels such as the possible standing cup, indicate a date not before the later 15th to © Archaeology South-East UCL 12 Archaeology South-East Fyfield Business Park, Chipping Ongar ASE Report No. 2016365

16th centuries. In addition, the fill of G1 segment [7/027] also contained sherds of glazed post-medieval red earthenware, including sherds from a probable drinking vessel, which may be 16th century and therefore current with the rest of the assemblage. However there is also a thick-walled sherd in this ware with an all over glaze which is later, spanning the late 16th to 18th centuries.

5.3.5 The top fill of ditch [7/007], fill [7/004], also produced a small amount of post- medieval pottery comprising further sherds of glazed post-medieval red earthenware, a single sherd of black glazed ware and three sherds of Anglo- Netherlands tin-glazed earthenware comprising fragments from an Albarello (a concave-sided drug jar), decorated with blue-painted bands, and a plain sherd from a rounded vessel, most likely a rounded jug. All of which are datable to the 17th century.

5.3.6 The only find in pit [7/018] was a sherd of creamware from single fill [7/016], it’s almost white glaze indicating a date of late 18th century to c.1830. The primary fill of ditch [8/005], fill [8/004], contained a large horizontal handle in post-medieval red earthenware, most likely from a storage jar or bread crock which could easily be as late as 19th century. None of the pottery from the top fill of this feature, fill [8/003], is demonstrably later than that from the primary fill, the most recent being another sherd of creamware, most likely a mug, showing a mottled olive green glaze, which cannot be later than c.1830. A sherd from a modern stoneware bottle from the top fill of mole drain-drain [7/028], fill [8/003], provides a 19th to early 20th century date for this feature.

Discussion

5.3.7 The bulk of the pottery spans the later 14th to 16th centuries, but does not form a homogenous group, with some vessels belonging to the earlier part of this date range and some to the later. The pottery seems domestic in function and includes jugs, jars, ?cups and cisterns, the latter were used for the brewing and storage of beer (Cunningham 1985a, 4,14) and are a ubiquitous vessel form in late medieval assemblages when brewing was carried out on a domestic basis. The only specialised vessel form is the possible bi-conical bottle, its small size suggesting it was used to contain precious liquids such as honey or oil (Cotter 2000, 155). The scratch-mark sherd is of some interest and in spite of the term ‘merchant’s mark’ they are most commonly encountered in assemblages from religious institutions. The pottery from the upper fill of ditch [7/007] shows limited evidence of activity in the 17th century and the presence of the drug jar could indicate there was an apothecary here, but such vessels are also found in domestic contexts. The remaining features, pit [7/018], drain-pipe [7/028] and ditch G4 [8/005] are post-1750. The late medieval and post-medieval pottery supply is entirely local, although the tin-glazed earthenware is likely to be from London, or, as the name suggests, from the Netherlands.

5.4 Ceramic Building Material by Isa Benedetti-Whitton

5.4.1 A total of 118 pieces of ceramic building material (CBM) weighing 8968g were collected from nine contexts: [7/004, 7/012, 7/012, 7/017, 7/019, 7/025, 7/029, 8/003, and 8/004]. This figure includes the forty fragments weighing © Archaeology South-East UCL 13 Archaeology South-East Fyfield Business Park, Chipping Ongar ASE Report No. 2016365

581g that were extracted from bulk sample <2>, from [8/004]. There was a variety of both forms and fabrics present, with material dating to the medieval or early post medieval period, and the later post-medieval period. A fragment of early 20th century breeze block is also present, but is probably intrusive.

5.4.2 Three tile fabrics were identified (Table 6) of which T1 was the most common representing thirty-four of the forty-one tile fragments. These tiles were all very similar in terms of form; peg holes, when present, were round and the tiles were formed using a very fine, nearly indistinguishable moulding sand. Organic impressions were present on a few tiles, including one well-defined imprint of a leaf skeleton on a tile from [7/004]. Remnants of lime mortar were present on several tile fragments, including on the broken edges of small tile fragments from [7/004], probably implying that they were used as hard core, foundation rubble or similar.

5.4.3 The bulk of the roof tile was identifiable as flat peg tile, which is difficult to date. However, a piece of 's' shaped pantile was amongst the T1 tile from [7/004]. Pantile dates from the mid-17th century, although some of the brick found alongside the pantile is of an earlier form. A much abraded piece of ?ridge tile was also recovered from [7/025], but, as with the peg tile, cannot be dated with accuracy.

5.4.4 Although four brick fabrics were distinguished, they were more similar to each other than the roof tile fabrics. It is likely they all share a local source which accounts for the common texture of the clay, with the other variations perhaps related to the initial refinement and ultimate firing process. Three pieces of B3 brick were recovered from [7/004] and [8/003]. These were thicker and far more thoroughly and evenly fired than the bricks in the other fabrics, with sharper edges, all of which are characteristics of the later post- medieval period, although no frogging was present. An 18th century date is suggested for the B3 brick.

5.4.5 Only one example of B1 was identified, from [7/004], and it was particularly distinctive being not extensively fired but with a core reduced to black. This is possibly a ‘Thorrington’ type medieval brick, characterised by this dark reduced core, although with only one example and no sample for comparison it is difficult to be certain. The majority B2 fragments were also underfired and a large number of very abraded and fragmentary spall pieces were found alongside the more intact bricks composed of this fabric type. Only two brick pieces were intact enough for thickness to be taken (respectively 55mm and 66mm), and this absence of uniformity alongside the under-firing is suggestive of an earlier date, c.15th-16th century. B2 bricks were collected from [7/004, 7/017, 7/025, 7/029 and 8/004].

5.4.6 The B4 brick is probably early post-medieval as well, c.16th century. Generally it is more evenly fired (occasionally overfired), and it has surviving widths of 105->110mm and thicknesses of 40-55mm. The surfaces and faces of the B4 bricks are all highly abraded, although in the case of one example from [8/004] it appears to have been intentionally worn down in order to create a chamfered form. A brick piece measuring 30mm in thickness from the same context may be another worn-down brick or a floor tile. B4 brick was collected from [7/004, 7/019 and 8/004]. © Archaeology South-East UCL 14 Archaeology South-East Fyfield Business Park, Chipping Ongar ASE Report No. 2016365

Fabric Description T1 Orange fabric with common fine-medium quartz and possible shell fragments creating a finely gritty texture. Sparse medium mica. T2 Dense and laminated hard-fired fabric. Nearly sterile with exception of calcareous deposits up to 2mm. T3 Marbled fabric, orange and pale orange. Similar to T1 but less gritty. B1 Underfired brown-orange matrix, with clusters of medium and coarse unsorted quartz. B2 Similar 'gritty' texture as T1 with common fine and medium quartz, sparse- moderate cream marbling and iron rich deposits up to 4mm. B3 Similar to B2/T1 but no streaking and very evenly fired. Common medium quartz and moderate mica. B4 Orange fabric with moderate iron rich inclusions up to 4mm and black oxides up to 3mm. Micaceous.

Table 6. Ceramic building material fabric descriptions

5.5 Fired Clay by Isa Benedetti-Whitton

5.5.1 Twenty pieces of fired clay weighing a total of 110g were recovered from three contexts: [7/004, 7/023 and 7/025]. Fifteen of these come from bulk sample <1>, from context [7/025]. Some of the fragments have flat surfaces, but are generally undiagnostic, although many of them are clearly burnt and several are reduced to black. None of the remaining five fragments are any more diagnostic, the only evidence of human utilisation being the flat surface present on the fragment from [7/025]. Nonetheless, some of the pieces look faintly burnt. It is possible that the fragments with a flattened surface represent broken pieces of daub.

5.5.2 All the fired clay is made of the same fabric. It ranges in colour from pink to brown and it has moderate to common small pieces of chalk.

5.6 Clay Tobacco Pipe by Luke Barber

5.6.1 Clay tobacco pipe was present in context [7/004] only. It consists of two stem fragments, and the earliest of these is a slightly abraded 30mm long fragment with 2.6mm diameter bore, best placed between c.1650 and 1700. The other is fresher and longer. It is 37mm long and it has a 2mm bore. Its date is not known, although it may have been made during the late 17th to mid-18th century.

5.7 Glass by Luke Barber

5.7.1 Glass was recovered from three different contexts during the evaluation. Context [7/004] produced the earliest: a 2g fragment of pale / mid green glass from a wine bottle of indeterminate form. The piece is heavily corroded and exhibits heavy surface flaking. A late 17th to mid-18th century date is suspected.

5.7.2 Context [7/021] produced five shards (246g) from the base of a cylindrical dark green wine bottle with high domed kicked base. The vessel shows no significant surface corrosion beyond some dulling and a mid-18th to 19th century date is likely.

5.7.3 Context [8/004] produced a 432g base from another dark green cylindrical wine bottle. This vessel has a 107mm diameter base with high conical kick and similar corrosion levels to that seen in context [7/021]. A date between c.1750 and 1850 is probable. The environmental residue from the same deposit produced two shards (6g) from the upper section of a wine bottle, possibly deriving from the same vessel as the base.

5.8 Geological Material by Luke Barber

5.8.1 The only stone recovered from the site consists of pieces of coal, presumably of post-medieval date. Context [7/029] contained a flaggy fragment with partial burning while the residue from context [8/004] contained seventeen tiny granules.

5.9 Metallurgical Remains by Luke Barber

5.9.1 Context [7/025] produced a 60g fragment of quite dense but aerated grey iron slag. Although strictly speaking this piece is undiagnostic of process, it is suspected of being smithing waste. The residue from context [8/004] produced under 1g of magnetic material. This all proved to consist of burnt pieces of clay and ferruginous stone and no slag was present.

5.10 Bulk Metalwork by Trista Clifford

5.10.1 Seven iron objects weighing a total of 121g were recovered from four separate contexts. The assemblage includes three complete general purpose nails with rosette heads from [7/004], [7/016] and [8/004]. These are probably medieval in date. Context [8/003] contained two rod fragments, and a strip fragment was found in [7/004].

5.10.2 Two fragments of copper alloy sheet weighing 48g were recovered from context [7/025]. The largest measures c.160mm long. It is roughly crescent shaped and it has a nail hole in its centre. The smaller piece is bent into a V shape. These may be repair pieces or scrap.

5.11 Animal Bone by Gemma Ayton

5.11.1 A small assemblage containing fifty-seven fragments of animal bone was hand-collected from six individually numbered contexts (Table 7). A further thirty-five fragments were recovered from bulk soil samples <1> and <2>. The assemblage is in a moderate state of preservation with some large but no complete bones remaining.

Species / context 7/004 7/005 7/019 7/023 7/025 8/004 Cattle 2 1 2 1 Sheep / Goat 1 Pig 1 2 Large Mammal 5 4 1 9 3 1 Medium Mammal 2 Frog / toad 10 Unidentifiable 15 4 25 3 Total 22 5 6 11 43 5

Table 7: NISP (Number of Identifiable Specimens) counts by context; including hand-collected material and animal bones from bulk samples <1 and 2>

5.11.2 The assemblage contains both meat-bearing and non-meat bearing elements. It is at least partly comprised of butchery waste as it includes a sliced cattle acetabulum from context [8/004] and a large-mammal rib with cut marks from [7/004]. Canid gnawing was noted on the proximal end of a cattle tibia recovered from context [7/004]. The material from bulk sample <2> was highly fragmented and unidentifiable whilst sample <1> contained ten fragments of frog or toad bones.

5.12 Shell by Trista Clifford

5.12.1 Marine mollusc weighing a total of 155g was hand collected from two contexts: [7/004] and [7/025]. The assemblage predominantly consists of Ostrea edulis, edible oyster, together with a single Mytilus edulis valve. Bulk environmental sample <1> also produced edible oyster.

5.12.2 Unidentified land snail was recovered from bulk samples <1 and 2>. Sample <2> also produced fossil marine oyster (Genus Gryphaea) commonly found in gravel deposits.

5.13 Registered Finds by Trista Clifford

5.13.1 A small whittle tanged knife, RF<1>, was recovered from context [7/004]. The knife is straight-backed and conforms to Goodhall’s type C (Goodhall 2011). A small strap hinge was also recovered from context [8/003] (RF<2>). Both are of medieval to post-medieval date.

6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLES by Mariangela Vitolo

6.1 Introduction

6.1.1 Bulk soil samples were taken from latest fill [7/025] of G1 ditch segment [7/027] (<1>), and primary fill [8/004] of G4 ditch segment [8/005] (<2>) to recover environmental material such as charred plant macrofossils, wood charcoal, fauna and mollusca as well as to assist finds recovery. The purpose of the sampling was to obtain past information regarding diet, agrarian economy, vegetation environment and fuel selection and use.

6.2 Methodology

6.2.1 The samples were processed in their entirety in a flotation tank and the residues and flots were retained on 500µm and 250µm meshes respectively before being air dried. The residues were passed through graded sieves of 8, 4 and 2mm and each fraction sorted for environmental and artefactual remains (Appendix, Table 10). The flots were scanned under a stereozoom microscope at 7-45x magnifications and their contents recorded (Appendix, Table 11). Preliminary identifications of macrobotanical remains were made with reference to modern comparative material and published reference atlases (Cappers et al. 2006, Jacomet 2006, NIAB 2004). Nomenclature used follows Stace (1997).

6.2.2 Charcoal fragments were fractured along three planes (transverse, radial and tangential) according to standardised procedures (Gale and Cutler 2000). Specimens were viewed under a stereozoom microscope for initial grouping, and an incident light microscope at magnifications up to 400x to facilitate identification of the woody taxa present. Taxonomic identifications were assigned by comparing suites of anatomical characteristics visible with those documented in reference atlases (Hather 2000; Schoch et al. 2004; Schweingruber 1990). Genera, family or group names have been given where anatomical differences between taxa are not significant enough to permit more detailed identification. Nomenclature used follows Stace (1997), and taxonomic identifications of charcoal are recorded in Appendix, Table 10.

6.3 Results

6.3.1 Both samples contained a large amount of uncharred vegetative matter, such as twigs, rootlets and seeds of goosefoots (Chenopodium sp.), elder (Sambucus sp.) and mints (Mentha sp.). This material indicates low level disturbance across the site and is likely to have infiltrated the deposits through root action. Flot <2> also contained a very large amount of land snail shells.

6.3.2 Charred plant remains were recovered from both features, but they were particularly abundant in ditch segment [7/027]. Caryopses of wheat (Triticum sp.), mostly displaying the rounded appearance typical of free-threshing wheats (Triticum cf aestivum sl), as well as caryopses of barley (Hordeum sp.), some hulled, were recorded alongside a small amount of oat (Avena sp.) grains. It is not possible to identify oat grains as belonging to a wild or cultivated species, without the floret bases. © Archaeology South-East UCL 18 Archaeology South-East Fyfield Business Park, Chipping Ongar ASE Report No. 2016365

6.3.3 Charcoal was recorded from both features, but particularly from ditch [7/027]. Identified taxa included: field maple (Acer campestre), oaks (Quercus sp.), possible hazel (cf Corylus avellana) and the Maloideae subfamily. The latter includes taxa that are not distinguishable on grounds of anatomic characteristics, such as pear, apple, rowan and hawthorn, among others. All the charcoal fragments present evidence of post depositional sediment encrustations, caused by fluctuations in the ground water level. A small number of fragments were distorted and either unidentifiable, or were tentatively identified.

6.3.4 The heavy residues contained a small amount of bone, including fish bones, marine and terrestrial shells and finds, including flint, pottery, mortar, CBM, glass, coal and magnetic material.

6.4 Discussion

6.4.1 The bulk soil samples from Fyfield Business Park have yielded an interesting amount of charred plant macrofossils and charcoal. The archaeobotanical data suggest that free-threshing wheats and hulled barley were in use at the site in the medieval period. It was not possible to ascertain whether the oats recorded were also a crop, or a weed. The charcoal data suggests the presence of a variety of vegetation environments, such as deciduous woodland, shrubs and hedgerows. However, because ditches tend to fill slowly, the information from this charcoal assemblage does not directly reflect fuel selection at a certain time. Ditches tend to be better indicators of long term vegetation changes.

6.4.2 These samples show that there is potential for nearby deposits to also preserve plant macrofossils and charcoal and any future work at the site should continue to include sampling, targeting primary deposits.

7.0 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

7.1 Overview of stratigraphic sequence

7.1.1 The results of the archaeological evaluation by trial-trenching suggest that the site contains few archaeological remains and that those present are located near the site entranceway on Fyfield Road (in the area of trenches 7 and 8). A further finding is that the small green fields that form the south-west edge of the site contain indications of having been previously disturbed by construction work and/or laying of underground cables (Trenches 18, 20, 21, 23 and 24).

7.1.2 The archaeological remains are concentrated in trenches 7 and 8, in an area which was formerly occupied by a small farm complex (Figure 5). They consist of ditches and pits with associated fill deposits and artefacts. Through a combination of spot dates and stratigraphic and spatial relationships the remains can perhaps be separated into four phases of identified land use.

7.1.3 All of the features lie beneath topsoil and subsoil and have therefore been truncated by c.0.4m.

7.1.4 The trenching revealed no Roman remains, even though a Roman bath house is known to have been present c.600m to the north-east, perhaps implying that during that period Fyfield Business park consisted of woodland, farmland or scrub.

Phase Date Represented by

0 Undated Pits 7/011, 7/013, 7/015 and 7/018

1 Mesolithic/Early Neolithic Residual artefacts

2 11th-13th century Residual artefact

3 14th-17th century Ditch G1 and artefacts

4 Post-medieval/modern Ditches G2 to G4 and artefacts

Table 8: Site phasing

7.2 Phase 1: Mesolithic/Neolithic

7.2.1 The pieces of worked flint from trenches 7 and 8 indicate activity of Mesolithic/Early Neolithic date, overlooking the valleys of the Cripsey Brook and/or the River Roding. The discovery of the flints is perhaps not unexpected since river valleys and estuaries are generally rich in natural making them attractive to hunter-gatherers moving between different resource areas. Examples of Mesolithic/Early Neolithic resource sites have been discovered at Boreham and Hullbridge alongside the River Chelmer and are associated with large quantities of Mesolithic and Neolithic struck flint (Wilkinson and Murphy 1995; Germany 2014). If the mound within the garden of Shelley Hall relates to a Neolithic - Bronze Age bowl barrow, then it is © Archaeology South-East UCL 20 Archaeology South-East Fyfield Business Park, Chipping Ongar ASE Report No. 2016365

further evidence for the Cripsey Brook having been an attractive locale during prehistory (Essex Sites and Monuments Record 4179).

7.3 Phase 2: 11th to 13th century

7.3.1 The remains of Phase 2 consist of a single small sherd of 11th to 13th century pottery, which was discovered as a residual item in Phase 3 ditch (G1). It probably relates to nearby occupation or else agricultural manuring of the site.

7.4 Phase 3: 14th to 17th century

7.4.1 The remains of Phase 3 possibly relate to the small unnamed farm recorded on the Forest Hall Estate map of 1862 (Figure 5). The foundation date of this farm is not known; however, finds of pottery, ceramic building material and nails with rosette heads, point towards later medieval/early post-medieval occupation at the site. Ditch G1 incorporates 14th to 16th century material with a suggested decommissioning date during the 17th century. It is possible, however, that this ditch relates to a field boundary shown on Figure 5. This would indicate that the feature was still in existence during the 19th century and deposits of this date may have been lost due to truncation. An alternative explanation would be that the ditch was backfilled and levelled prior to the construction of a building shown at this location on the Forest Hall Estate map of 1862 (Figure 5).

7.4.2 Most of the finds from ditch G1 relate to domestic occupation. Activities indicated by artefactual evidence include food consumption, storage, and home brewing of beer. The 60g fragment of aerated slag possibly points towards smithing activity in the vicinity. These might all be expected on a farmstead site.

7.4.3 The environmental remains from ditch G1 include grains of wheat, barley and oats, alongside pieces of wood charcoal. They represent an arable farming economy.

7.4.4 No in situ building remains dated to this phase were obvious in the trenches; however, possible undated postholes were recorded within Trench 7 (see below). This perhaps implies that any contemporary building remains were located alongside Fyfield Road to the immediate west (as is the case on the 1862 map; Figure. 5) or that they had been truncated or demolished by later activity at the site. The majority of the ceramic building material consists of pieces of peg tile; however, brick suggestive of a c.15th-16th century date was also recovered.

7.5 Phase 4: Post-medieval/modern

7.5.1 The latest features are ditch (G2) and its recut (G3) in Trench 7, and ditch (G4) in Trench 8. One of these (G4) appears on the Forest Hall estate map of 1862 and is recorded as having been part of the north side of the small rectangular, hedged enclosure, which continued to exist until the late 19th century. The artefactual dating evidence from ditch G4 includes pieces of mid-18th to mid-19th century bottle glass and 19th to 20th century stoneware © Archaeology South-East UCL 21 Archaeology South-East Fyfield Business Park, Chipping Ongar ASE Report No. 2016365

and therefore accords with the cartographic record.

7.5.2 Ditch (G2) and its recut (G3) are both 17th to 18th century or later in date, but were probably no longer extant by the second half of the 19th century since neither appears on the Forest Hall Estate map of 1862 (Figure 5). It could be case that the rectangular field to the east of the farm was originally subdivided and that ditch G2/G3 was no longer present by the second half of the 19th century.

7.6 Undated

7.6.1 Pits [7/011, 7/013, 7/015 and 7/018] are presently considered undated since apart from [7/018] they contained no datable finds. The fill of [7/018], however, contained fragments of early post-medieval brick suggesting the feature could have originated during Phase 3 at the site. The function of these features remain uncertain, although they may have served as rubbish pits or post-holes.

7.7 Potential impact on archaeological remains

7.7.1 The archaeological features are located close to Fyfield Road (within trenches 7 and 8), c.50m north of the site entranceway. They are overlain and protected by layers of subsoil and topsoil and therefore protected from groundworks less than c.0.4m deep. If extensive groundworks deeper than that take place within its area then they are likely to be severely detrimental to the underlying archaeological resource.

7.7.8 The remainder of sampled locations at the site were devoid of archaeological features and it is unlikely that development will have a detrimental impact here.

7.8 Consideration of research aims

7.8.1 The archaeological background information and the results of the evaluation partly address the research aims listed in section 2.5. They suggest that Shelley formed during the late Saxon/Early Norman period and that since then it has had a non-nucleated settlement pattern consisting of a church/hall complex, and a small number of farms, houses and cottages. Individual buildings are likely to have come and gone during the settlement's existence, and a clear datable example of that is provided by the unnamed farm which used to be present to the immediate north of the of the site entranceway.

7.8.2 The nature of the relationship between Shelley and Chipping Ongar only a mile or so to the south remains to be established, but is likely to have been fairly significant, both in terms of trade and social interaction, since Chipping Ongar had its own market and was located on one of the major routes (A133) into London.

7.8.3 The landscape of the evaluation site and its surrounding area prior to modern agriculture is likely to have consisted of 'block holdings', each consisting of groups of hedged fields belonging to an individual owner or tenant (Christie and Stamper 2012, fig.14.2). One such example of this is The Forest Hall © Archaeology South-East UCL 22 Archaeology South-East Fyfield Business Park, Chipping Ongar ASE Report No. 2016365

Estate. Its outline broadly underlies Fyfield Business Park and in 1919, prior to modern agriculture, it consisted of a single block of eighteen small fields (Acanthus Architects LW 2014, fig.12). The evaluation has found no ditches predating the 14th to 16th century, so it remains possible that the business park was first divided by ditches during that period. The form of its landscape prior to then is not currently known.

7.8.4 The 16th and 17th centuries appear to be a period of relatively intensive activity in the vicinity of the site with Church Lane Cottages, Fisherman’s Hill and Boarded Barn farmhouse (immediately to the west of the site) dating to this period (or before). The presence of contemporary remains at the site are not therefore completely unexpected.

7.9 Conclusions

7.9.1 The evaluation suggests that the majority of the Fyfield Business Park site contains few archaeological remains and that these are concentrated to the north of the site entranceway in the area of trenches 7 and 8.

7.9.2 It is notable that no remains that relate to the Boarded Barns Farm Roman bath house (and posited villa) site were found in the evaluated areas of the Business Park site.

7.9.2 The recorded archaeological features in Trenches 7 and 8 represent the remains of a small post-medieval farmstead that is depicted on mid-19th century mapping. However, it is possible that some of the features and artefactual evidence relates to earlier, medieval/early post-medieval, activity at the site.

7.9.2 The date of the farmstead’s foundation remains has not been established, and its nature and chronology of development over time are unclear. Nevertheless, the encountered remains have some modest potential to further contribute towards previously identified research objectives focusing on post-medieval rural settlement (Brown and Glazebrook 2000, 45).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Acanthus Architects LW. 2014. Fyfield Business Park. Heritage Assessment

Allen, P. in archive, Site East of Fyfield Business and Research Park (Former Boarded Barns Farm), Fyfield Road, Fyfield, Essex.

ASE, 2016. Written Scheme of Investigation for an Archaeological Evaluation: Fyfield Business and Research Park, Fyfield Road, Chipping Ongar, Essex, CM5 0GZ. Archaeology South-East.

Brown, N. and Glazebrook, J. 2000. Research and Archaeology: a Framework for the Eastern Counties, 2. Research Agenda and Strategy. E. Anglian Archaeol. Occ. Paper 8

Cappers, R.T.J, Bekker, R.M. and Jans, J.E.A. 2006. Digital Seed Atlas of the Netherlands. Groningen Archaeological Series 4. Netherlands: Barkhuis.

Christie, N. and Stamper, P. 2012. Medieval Rural Settlement. Britain and Ireland, AD 800-1600. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

CIfA. 2014. Standard and Guidance for the Collection, Documentation, Conservation and Research of Archaeological Materials

Cotter, J, 2000, The Post-Roman Pottery from Excavations in Colchester 1971-85, Colchester Archaeol. Rep. 7

Cunningham, C. M. 1985a, The pottery, in Cunningham, C. M. and Drury, P. J., Post-medieval sites and their pottery: Moulsham Street, Chelmsford, Chelmsford Archaeol. Trust Rep.5, Counc. Brit. Archaeol. Res. Rep.54, 63-78

Cunningham, C. M. 1985b, 'The Stock pottery', in Cunningham, C. M. and Drury, P. J., Post-medieval Sites and their Pottery: Moulsham Street, Chelmsford, Chelmsford Archaeol. Trust Rep.5, Counc. Brit. Archaeol. Res. Rep.54, 83-8

Davey, W. and Walker, H. 2009, The Harlow Pottery Industries, Medieval Pottery Research Group Occasional Paper 3

Drury, P. J., Cunningham, C. M., Kilmurry, K and Walker, J. S. F. 1993, The Later Saxon, Medieval and Post-medieval Pottery, in Rodwell, W. J. and Rodwell, K. A., Rivenhall: Investigations of a Villa, Church and Village, 1950 - 1977, Chelmsford Archaeol. Trust Rep. 4.2. Counc Brit. Archaeol. Rep. 80, 78 – 95

ECC/Place Services 2016. Brief for Archaeological Trial Trenching at Fyfield Business and Research Park, Fyfield Road, Chipping Ongar. ECC unpublished document

Gale, R. and Cutler, D. 2000. Plants in Archaeology. Otley/London: Westbury/Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.

Germany, M. 2014. 'Continuity and Change in the Mid Chelmer Valley. Archaeological Excavations at Old Hall and Generals Farm, Boreham, 2007. Essex © Archaeology South-East UCL 24 Archaeology South-East Fyfield Business Park, Chipping Ongar ASE Report No. 2016365

Archaeol Hist. 5 (Fourth Series)

Goodhall, I.H. 2011. Ironwork in medieval Britain: An archaeological study. Society for Medieval Archaeology monograph 31

Hather, J. G. 2000. The Identification of the Northern European Woods: A Guide for archaeologists and conservators. London: Archetype.

Jacomet, S. 2006. Identification of Cereal Remains from Archaeological Sites. 2nd edition. Unpublished manuscript: Archaeobotany Laboratory, IPAS, Basel University.

Medlycott, M. 1998. Chipping Ongar. Historic Towns Project Assessment Report. Essex County Council Planning

Medlycott, M. 2011, Research and Archaeology Revisited: a Revised Framework for the East of England. E. Anglian Archaeol. Occ. Paper 24

NIAB. 2004. Seed Identification Handbook: Agriculture, Horticulture and Weeds. 2nd edition. Cambridge: National Institute of Agricultural Botany.

RSK 2015. Fyfield Research and Business Park, Chipping Ongar, Essex. Supplementary geo-environmental assessment

Schoch, W., Heller, I., Schweingruber, F. H., and Kienast, F. 2004. Wood anatomy of central European Species. Online version: www.woodanatomy.ch

Schweingruber, F.H. 1990. Microscopic Wood Anatomy. 3rd edition Birmensdorf: Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research

Stace, C. 1997. New Flora of the British Isles. Cambridge: University Press

Wilkinson, T.J. and Murphy, P.L. 1995. The Archaeology of the Essex coast, Volume 1: The Hullbridge Survey. East Anglian Archaeol. 71

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Archaeology South-East thanks Bovis Homes and David Ivell in particular for commissioning the archaeological work and for their help and co-operation. Thanks are due to Essex County Council/Place Services for their guidance and monitoring. The fieldwork was managed by Niall Oakey and Andy Leonard, and the post- excavation work was overseen by Mark Atkinson and Andy Margetts. The fieldwork was supervised by Mark Germany and carried out by Mike Bazley, Adam Tuffey and Lorna Webb. The site surveyors were Paolo Clemente and Samara King. The figures were drawn by Andy Lewsey, and the finds and environmental analysis was carried out by Gemma Ayton, Luke Barber, Isa Benedetti Whitton, Trista Clifford, Karine Le Hégerat, Mariangela Vitolo and Helen Walker.

HER Summary

Site name/Address: Fyfield Business Park Parish: Ongar District: Epping Forest NGR: TL 55734 05014 Site Code: ONFB16 Type of Work: Evaluation by trial-trenching Site Director/Group: Mark Germany/ASE Date of Work: 5/9/16 to 12/9/16 Size of Area Investigated: Location of Finds/Curating Museum: Funding source: Bovis Homes

Further Seasons Anticipated?: Not known Related HER No’s: Final Report: Essex Archaeology and OASIS No: 260372 History (summary) Periods Represented: Prehistoric, medieval and post-medieval

SUMMARY OF FIELDWORK RESULTS:

This report presents the results of an archaeological evaluation carried out by Archaeology South-East in advance of redevelopment of Fyfield Business Park.

It consisted of twenty-one trenches.

No archaeological remains were encountered apart from in trenches 7 and 8. These lay close to the site entranceway on Fyfield Road, and uncovered remains relating to a farm mapped in 1862. Features dating to the 19th century were encountered alongside features incorporating medieval and early post-medieval period material.

The remains included four ditches, four pits and numerous artefacts, most of which consisted of pieces of ceramic building material and 14th to 16th century pottery. Some of the pits may relate to large post-holes rather than pits, however, these are currently undated.

Other findings of the archaeological evaluation were seven pieces of Mesolithic/Early Neolithic struck flint and a single sherd of 11th to 13th century pottery, all of which were discovered as residual items in later features. It is suggested that the flints relate to hunter-gatherer activity encouraged by the proximity of the Cripsey Brook and River Roding. The 11th to 13th century sherd may have been related to settlement within Shelley in general during the earlier part of the medieval period.

No remains relating to the bath house site and its posited villa to the east, at Boarded Barns Farm, were encountered.

Previous Summaries/Reports: None

Author of Summary: Mark Germany Date of Summary: October 2016

Finds summary

Find type Material Period Quantity Struck flint Flint Mesolithic/ 7 pieces (12g) Early Neolithic Pottery Ceramic Medieval and post- 181 sherds (2670g) medieval Brick and roof tile Ceramic Medieval and post- 118 pieces (8968g) medieval Stone Coal Undated 1 piece (10g) Slag Slag Undated 1 piece (60g) Nails Iron Medieval 4 Rod Iron Undated 2 fragments Strip Iron Undated 1 fragment Sheet Copper-alloy Undated 2 fragments Animal bone Bone Undated 4 pieces (280g) Tobacco pipe Ceramic 17th to mid-18th 2 pieces (16g) century Fired clay Ceramic Undated 1 piece (6g) Bottle glass Glass Mid 18th to mid-19th 6 pieces (678g) century Sea shell Calcium carbonate Undated 15 pieces (154g)

OASIS Form

OASIS ID: 261524 Project details

Project name Fyfield Business Park An archaeological evaluation by trial trenching in advance of residential development at Fyfield Business Park, Fyfield, Essex in advance of residential development revealed Mesolithic/Early Neolithic struck flints Short description and remains of an un-named farm which was mapped in 1862 and was of the project probably in use from the 14th to 16th to late 19th century. The remains consisted of ditches, pits and artefacts and these included sherds of later medieval and post-medieval pottery, ceramic building material, bottle glass and clay tobacco pipe. Project dates Start: 05-09-2016 End: 19-09-2016 Previous/future No / Not known work ONFB16 - Sitecode Associated project 160563 - Contracting Unit No. reference codes EPF/3006/14 - Planning Application No. Type of project Field evaluation Site status None Cultivated Land 3 - Operations to a depth more than 0.25m Current Land use Industry and Commerce 2 - Offices Monument type FARM Post Medieval Significant Finds POTTERY Post Medieval Methods & '''Sample Trenches''' techniques Prompt National Planning Policy Framework - NPPF Position in the After full determination (eg. As a condition) planning process Project location

Country England Site location ESSEX EPPING FOREST FYFIELD Fyfield Business Park Postcode CM5 0GZ Study area 4.6 Hectares TL 55734 05014 51.721704528676 0.254903698947 51 43 18 N 000 15 Site coordinates 17 E Point Height OD / Depth Min: 59.14m Max: 59.2m Project creators

Name of Archaeology South East Organisation Project brief Essex County Council Place Services originator Project design Archaeology South-East © Archaeology South-East UCL 28 Archaeology South-East Fyfield Business Park, Chipping Ongar ASE Report No. 2016365 originator Project Niall Oakey director/manager Project supervisor Mark Germany Type of sponsor/funding Developer body Name of sponsor/funding Bovis Homes Ltd body Project archives

Physical Archive Epping Forest recipient ''Animal Physical Contents Bones'',''Ceramics'',''Environmental'',''Glass'',''Industrial'',''Metal'',''Worked stone/lithics'' Digital Archive Epping Museum recipient ''Animal Digital Contents Bones'',''Ceramics'',''Environmental'',''Glass'',''Metal'',''Stratigraphic'',''Surv ey'',''Worked stone/lithics'' Digital Media ''Images raster / digital photography'',''Images available vector'',''Spreadsheets'',''Survey'',''Text'' Paper Archive Epping Museum recipient ''Animal Paper Contents Bones'',''Ceramics'',''Environmental'',''Glass'',''Metal'',''Stratigraphic'',''Surv ey'',''Worked stone/lithics'' Paper Media ''Context available sheet'',''Drawing'',''Photograph'',''Plan'',''Report'',''Section'',''Survey '' Project bibliography Publication type Grey literature (unpublished document/manuscript) Archaeological evaluation by trial trenching. Fyfield Business Park, Title Chipping Ongar, Essex Author(s)/Editor(s) Germany, M. Other biblio details 2016124 Date 2016 Issuer or publisher Archaeology South-East Place of issue or 27 Eastways, Witham, Essex publication Description 34 pages of text and tables. 5 illustrations

Entered by Mark Germany ([email protected]) Entered on 14 October 2016

Appendices

Depth m Height Trench Context Type Interpretation m AOD 1 1/001 Layer Topsoil 0.40 61.32-62.01 1 1/002 Layer Natural 61.05-61.72 2 2/001 Layer Topsoil 0.30-0.40 60.75-61.47 2 2/002 Layer Natural 60.36-61.13 3 3/001 Layer Topsoil 0.30-0.35 61.00-61.23 3 3/002 Layer Natural 60.68-60.87 4 3/001 Layer Topsoil 0.40 59.95-61.22 4 3/002 Layer Natural 59.63-60.94 5 5/001 Layer Topsoil 0.30-0.40 60.38-60.71 5 5/002 Layer Natural 60.17-60.44 6 6/001 Layer Topsoil 0.35-0.40 60.51-61.29 6 6/002 Layer Natural 60.21-60.93 9 9/001 Layer Topsoil 0.35-0.60 59.80-59.84 9 9/002 Layer Natural 59.34-59.51 10 10/001 Layer Topsoil 0.40-0.50 59.46-59.53 10 10/002 Layer Natural 59.15 11 11/001 Layer Topsoil 0.20-0.35 59.22-59.54 11 11/002 Layer Natural 58.93-59.33 12 12/001 Layer Topsoil 0.30-0.40 58.51-59.23 12 12/002 Layer Natural 58.31-59.00 13 13/001 Layer Topsoil 0.30-0.35 57.92-58.40 13 13/002 Layer Natural 57.65-58.16 14 14/001 Layer Topsoil 0.30-0.40 57.37-58.38 14 14/002 Layer Natural 57.06-58.05 15 15/001 Layer Topsoil 0.30-0.40 57.30-57.50 15 15/002 Layer Natural 56.98-57.25 18 18/001 Layer Topsoil 0.40-0.50 55.43-55.89 18 18/002 Layer Natural 54.87-55.48 19 19/001 Layer Topsoil 0.30-0.40 55.02-55.63 19 19/002 Layer Natural 54.71-54.99 20 20/001 Layer Topsoil 0.15-0.30 54.75 20 20/002 Layer Subsoil 0.15-0.25 20 20/003 Layer Natural 54.34 21 21/001 Layer Topsoil 0.30 54.10-54.71 21 21/002 Layer Subsoil 0.15-0.20 21 21/003 Layer Natural 53.76-54.18 23 23/001 Layer Limex 0.04 23 23/002 Layer Tarmac 0.07 53.97-54.58 23 23/003 Layer Natural 54.02-54.13 24 24/001 Layer Tarmac 0.05-0.12 53.87 24 24/002 Layer Natural 53.57

Table 9: Archaeologically negative trenches: list of recorded contexts

shells

Identifications

Sample Volume - Sample Number Context Context / deposit type Sample Volume litres Sub litres Charcoal >4mm Weight (g) Charcoal <4mm Weight (g) Charcoal Charred botanicals (other charcoal)than Weight (g) Bone and Teeth Weight (g) Burnt bone >8mm Weight (g) Fishbone and microfauna Weight (g) Marine Molluscs Weight (g) Land Snail Weight (g) Other (eg ind, pot, cbm) Acer campestre 3, Quercus sp. 2, Maloideae 1, cf Maloideae 2(distorted), cf Flint * <1g, Pot ** 60g, Corylus avellana 1, FCF * 776g, Mortar ** 1 7/025 Ditch 40 40 *** 24 *** 7 Indeterminate 1 ** 24 * 1 * <1 * 23 * <1 79g. Flint * <1g, Pot * 8g, CBM ** 745g, Coal ** <1g, Glass * 7g, Magnetic Material ** 2 8/004 Ditch 40 40 * <1 * <1 * <1 ** 18 <1g.

Table 10: Residue quantification (* = 1-10, ** = 11-50, *** = 51-250, **** = >250) and weights in grams.

Sample Number Context Weight g Flot volume ml Volume scanned Uncharred % Sediment % Seeds uncharred Charcoal >4mm Charcoal <4mm Charcoal <2mm Crop seeds charred Identifications Preservation Weed seeds charred Identifications Preservation Land Snail Shells

*** Sambucus nigra, Triticum sp., Triticum cf Avena 1 7/025 9 50 50 60 10 Mentha sp. * ** *** ** aestivum sl, Hordeum sp., +/++ * sp. ++

*** Sambucus nigra, 2 8/004 10 65 65 80 10 Chenopodium sp. ** * Triticum sp. ++ ****

Table 11: Flot quantification (* = 1-10, ** = 11-50, *** = 51-250, **** = >250) and preservation (+ = poor, ++ = moderate, +++ = good)

206000

205500

Roman bath house

205000 The Site

204500

204000

203500

0 400 m Contains Ordnance Survey data Crown copyright and database right 2015 555000 555500 556000 556500

Sussex Office Essex Office London Office Units 1& 2 27 Eastways Centre for Applied Archaeology 2 Chapel Place Witham UCL Institute of Archaeology Portslade Essex 31-34 Gordon Square East Sussex BN41 1DR CM8 3YQ London WC1H 0PY tel: +44(0)1273 426830 tel: +44(0)1376 331470 tel: +44(0)20 7679 4778 email: [email protected] email: [email protected] email: [email protected] web: www.archaeologyse.co.uk web: www.archaeologyse.co.uk web: www.ucl.ac.uk/caa