Tattingstone Solar Farm Valley Farm Tattingstone Suffolk Metal Detecting

Tattingstone Solar Farm Valley Farm Tattingstone Suffolk

Metal Detecting Survey and Archaeological Evaluation

Suffolk HER Number: pending

for Pegasus Planning Group

CA Project: 660228 CA Report: 14156

April 2014

Tattingstone Solar Farm Valley Farm Tattingstone Suffolk

Metal Detecting Survey and Archaeological Evaluation

CA Project: 660228 CA Report: 14156

Mo Muldowney, Project Officer prepared by and Sam Wilson, Archaeologist date 23 April 2014

checked by Derek Evans, Project Manager

date 23 April 2014

issue 01

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.

Cirencester Milton Keynes Andover Building 11 Unit 4 Stanley House Kemble Enterprise Park Cromwell Business Centre Walworth Road Kemble, Cirencester Howard Way, Newport Pagnell Andover, Hampshire Gloucestershire, GL7 6BQ MK16 9QS SP10 5LH t. 01285 771022 t. 01908 218320 t. 01264 347630 f. 01285 771033 e. [email protected] © Cotswold Archaeology Tattingstone Solar Farm, Suffolk: Metal Detecting Survey and Archaeological Evaluation

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 4

The site ...... 4 Archaeological background ...... 5 Archaeological objectives ...... 5 Methodology: metal detecting survey ...... 6 Methodology: evaluation ...... 7

2. RESULTS ...... 8

Metal detecting survey ...... 8 Evaluation ...... 10

3. DISCUSSION ...... 12

4. CA PROJECT TEAM ...... 13

5. REFERENCES ...... 13

APPENDIX A: METAL DETECTING SURVEY FINDS ...... 15 APPENDIX B: EVALUATION CONTEXT DESCRIPTIONS ...... 17 APPENDIX C: EVALUATION FINDS ...... 19 APPENDIX D: OASIS REPORT FORM ...... 21

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Fig. 1 Site location plan (1:25,000) Fig. 2 Trench location plan showing archaeological features, cropmarks and geophysical survey (1:3000) Fig. 3 Areas B and C, showing recorded features, cropmarks and geophysical survey (1:1000) Fig. 4 Area A, showing recorded features, cropmarks and geophysical survey (1:1000) Fig. 5 Trench 1: plan, sections and photographs (1:200 & 1:20) Fig. 6 Trench 2: plan, section and photograph (1:200 & 1:20) Fig. 7 Trench 4: plan, sections and photographs (1:200 & 1:20) Fig. 8 Trench 7: plan, sections and photographs (1:200 & 1:20) Fig. 9 Trench 8: plan, section and photograph (1:200 & 1:20) Fig. 10 Trench 9: plan, section and photograph (1:200 & 1:20) Fig. 11 Trench 11: plan, section and photograph (1:200 & 1:20)

1 © Cotswold Archaeology Tattingstone Solar Farm, Suffolk: Metal Detecting Survey and Archaeological Evaluation

Fig. 12 Metal detecting survey results Area A (1:750) Fig. 13 Metal detecting survey results: Area B (1:750) Fig. 14 Metal detecting survey results; Area C (1:750)

2 © Cotswold Archaeology Tattingstone Solar Farm, Suffolk: Metal Detecting Survey and Archaeological Evaluation

Summary

Project Name: Tattingstone Solar Farm, Valley Farm Location: Tattingstone, Suffolk NGR: TL 7820 6990 Type: Metal detecting survey and evaluation Date: Metal detecting survey: 24–27 March 2014 Evaluation: 07–11 April 2014 Planning Reference: B/12/01279 Location of Archive: To be deposited with the Suffolk County Museum Service Site Code: VFT14

In March and April 2014, Cotswold Archaeology (CA) carried out a metal detecting survey and an archaeological evaluation at the proposed site of Tattingstone Solar Farm, Valley Farm, Tattingstone, Suffolk.

A number of features are visible as cropmarks visible on aerial photographs of the site. A previous geophysical survey, however, recorded only a limited number of features which corresponded closely to the cropmarks, including a possible round barrow.

The metal detecting survey recorded a general spread of artefacts throughout the survey areas. Where dateable, the vast majority of the artefacts were post-medieval in date. No meaningful clustering by artefact date or material was observed.

The evaluation identified a series of ditches and pits at the site. Where dateable, these were mainly prehistoric and post-medieval in date. A ditch which may relate to the possible round barrow recorded previously as a cropmark contained 78 sherds of Beaker pottery; a sandy clay layer may represent disturbed mound material associated with the putative barrow.

3 © Cotswold Archaeology Tattingstone Solar Farm, Suffolk: Metal Detecting Survey and Archaeological Evaluation

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 In March and April 2014, Cotswold Archaeology (CA) carried out a metal detecting survey and an archaeological evaluation at the proposed site of Tattingstone Solar Farm, Valley Farm, Tattingstone, Suffolk (centred on NGR: TL 7820 6990; Fig. 1). This work was commissioned by the Pegasus Planning Group.

1.2 A planning application (ref: B/12/01279) has been submitted to Babergh District Council (BDC; the local planning authority) for the construction of an electricity- generating solar park at the site. Jess Tipper, Archaeological Officer for Suffolk County Council Archaeological Service (SCCAS; the archaeological advisors to BDC), recommended that the metal detecting survey and archaeological evaluation be undertaken in order to inform determination of the planning application.

1.3 The archaeological works were carried out in accordance with a written scheme of investigation (WSI; i.e. a detailed project design) produced by CA (2014) and approved by Jess Tipper. The fieldwork also followed the Requirements for a Trenched Archaeological Evaluation (SCCAS 2011), the Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Field Evaluation (IfA 2009), the Management of Archaeological Projects (English Heritage 1991) and the Management of Research Projects in the Historic Environment (MORPHE): Project Manager’s Guide (English Heritage 2006). It was monitored by Jess Tipper, who visited the site on 10 April 2014.

The site 1.4 The proposed development site encloses an area of approximately 39ha. It lies some 4km south of Ipswich, in the Babergh District of Suffolk. At the time of the archaeological fieldwork, the site comprised two large adjoining fields immediately north of Coxhall Road and south of Freston and Cutler’s Woods. The site sits within a gently undulating agricultural landscape of arable fields, dispersed farmsteads and patches of woodland.

1.5 The underlying bedrock geology of the site is mapped as Red Crag Formation sand. The site’s superficial deposits are not recorded (BGS 2014).

1.6 Within the site, the western field is largely flat, with some minor undulations to the west and a gentle overall slope to the south. The eastern field is also largely flat, but

4 © Cotswold Archaeology Tattingstone Solar Farm, Suffolk: Metal Detecting Survey and Archaeological Evaluation

with a slight decline at the north-eastern corner, a central depression resulting from a palaeochannel (ancient watercourse) running north-east/south-west, and a low hillock to the south-east. The overall height AOD (Above Ordnance Datum) drops gently within the site from c.40m in the north to c.35m in the south

Archaeological background 1.7 The proposed development site has been the subject of a heritage desk-based assessment (CA 2012) and a geophysical survey (PCG 2013). The following section is summarised from these sources.

1.8 A number of features are visible as cropmarks visible on aerial photographs of the site (Fig. 2). These features comprise a series of enclosures and ring ditches. The geophysical survey, however, recorded only a limited number of features which corresponded closely to the cropmarks. These included a linear anomaly that aligned with a putative former field boundary in the western field (Area C on Fig. 2), a further linear anomaly in the north-eastern part of the eastern field (Area A on Fig. 2) and the ring ditch in the south-western corner of the eastern field (Area B on Fig. 2). The ring ditch included a central pit, suggesting that it might be a prehistoric round barrow burial.

1.9 No anomalies corresponded to the pair of cropmark ring ditches in Area C, although the survey recorded a number of potential pits and ditches in this region of the site. Furthermore, dense groups of linear and discrete anomalies in the southern part of the eastern field exhibited some potential as ditches and pits. Fewer, though similar, anomalies were also detected in the north and north-east parts of the eastern field.

Archaeological objectives 1.10 The objectives of the archaeological investigations were to provide information about the archaeological resource within the site, including its presence/absence, character, extent, date, integrity, state of preservation and quality, in accordance with the Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Field Evaluation (IfA 2009). This information will enable BDC to identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset within the site, consider the impact of the proposed development upon that significance, and avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the development proposal, in line with the National Planning Policy Framework (DCLG 2012).

5 © Cotswold Archaeology Tattingstone Solar Farm, Suffolk: Metal Detecting Survey and Archaeological Evaluation

Methodology: metal detecting survey 1.11 The metal detecting survey was undertaken in the three areas of highest archaeological potential identified by Jess Tipper (Areas A, B and C on Fig. 2). In total, these three areas enclosed approximately 7ha.

1.12 The equipment used to carry out the survey was a Whites Classic III Blue Max 950 metal detector, and GPS survey equipment.

1.13 The three survey areas were split into a series of parallel transects set out 10m apart across the three areas, ensuring approximately 10% coverage of the ground surface. The transects were set out using GPS. Transects were marked on the ground using temporary markers in order to ensure that the detectorist did not deviate from the determined transect.

1.14 Metal detecting was undertaken along each transect by sweeping the search head as close to the surface as possible and allowing for approximately 30% overlap in order to produce a consistent sample. Each sweep covered a width of c.2m (1m to each side of the centre of the transect).

1.15 Ground conditions for the survey were good, with a short crop and few undulations across the fields. This maximised the effectiveness of the detector, as the head could be brought very close to the ground surface. No obstructions, such as fences, trees or pylons were encountered.

1.16 The survey targeted non-ferrous metals only, due to the potential for a large number of ferrous metal signals across most land.

1.17 Artefacts were removed from the ground using a small spade and trowel. Care was taken to fill in and level all holes after the removal of material. No artefacts were removed from a depth greater than the ploughsoil (c.300mm). All metal-detected finds were plotted using a GPS.

1.18 Recovered artefacts were labelled with a unique ID number. They were stored in breathable plastic bags or wrapped in acid-free tissue, as appropriate. Artefacts of undoubted modern date were collected and bagged together by transect and a single ID number. This was done to gauge the ‘background noise’ within each transect and to determine if there were any factors which may be affecting artefact

6 © Cotswold Archaeology Tattingstone Solar Farm, Suffolk: Metal Detecting Survey and Archaeological Evaluation

recovery rates. Only minimal ‘background noise’ was encountered and it is deemed that this would not have negatively affected artefact recovery.

Methodology: evaluation 1.19 The evaluation comprised the excavation of 12 trenches in the locations shown on Fig. 2. The trenches were sited to sample the three main concentrations of cropmark features.

• Trench 2 (T2) was 70m long; • T3 was 50m long; • T1 and T7 were 40m long; • T4 was extended from 20m in length to 22m to fully expose a feature therein; • the remaining trenches were 20m long.

1.20 All of the trenches were 2m wide. Trenches were set out on OS National Grid (NGR) co-ordinates using Leica GPS and surveyed in accordance with CA Technical Manual 4: Survey Manual (2012).

1.21 All trenches were excavated by a mechanical excavator equipped with a toothless grading bucket. All machine excavation was undertaken under constant archaeological supervision to the top of the first significant archaeological horizon or the natural substrate, whichever was encountered first. Where archaeological deposits were encountered, they were excavated by hand in accordance with CA Technical Manual 1: Fieldwork Recording Manual (2013).

1.22 Deposits were assessed for their palaeoenvironmental potential and samples were taken in accordance with CA Technical Manual 2: The Taking and Processing of Environmental and Other Samples from Archaeological Sites (2003). All recovered artefacts were processed in accordance with CA Technical Manual 3: Treatment of Finds Immediately after Excavation (1995).

1.23 The archive and artefacts from the evaluation are currently held by CA at their offices in Milton Keynes. Subject to the agreement of the legal landowner, archive and artefacts will be deposited with the Suffolk County Museum Service. A summary of information from this project, as set out within Appendix D, will be entered onto the OASIS online database of archaeological projects in Britain.

7 © Cotswold Archaeology Tattingstone Solar Farm, Suffolk: Metal Detecting Survey and Archaeological Evaluation

2. RESULTS

Metal detecting survey 2.1 A total of 107 items of metal and a single sherd of pottery were recorded from the survey. The distribution of these artefacts is plotted on Figs. 12-14. The majority of the metal finds (75 items), together with the single pottery sherd, were ascribed registered artefact numbers and are described individually in Appendix A. The remainder comprises metal objects considered to be of limited intrinsic interest. This material has been omitted from the distribution figures and is described in summary only.

Survey results 2.2 The collection strategy excluded the recovery of ferrous artefacts and the assemblage comprises items of copper alloy (51 items) or lead/lead alloy (22 items). Preservation of the metal finds tended to be moderately good; few items were very heavily corroded, although a proportion of the (copper alloy or silver) coins were worn to the extent that they were not identifiable.

Coins/tokens 2.3 A total of 15 coins or tokens was recorded, the majority of copper alloy (13) and two of silver. The earliest dateable (Ra. 66) is a worn silver longcross penny of Edward I or Edward II (Canterbury mint) and dateable c.1279–1327. A second silver coin (Ra. 67) is very heavily worn and unidentifiable. Based on its size, it dates to the medieval of early post-medieval period.

2.4 The remaining coins/tokens are all of copper alloy and are dateable to the post- medieval or early modern periods. Worn low denominations of William III, George II, George IV and Victoria were identifiable. A single non-English coin was recorded: a Canadian (Quebec) halfpenny, which is dated 1837 (Ra. 51). Two jetons (reckoning counters; Ras. 49 and 65) could not be fully identified, although they probably date to the 16th or 17th centuries and are almost certainly of continental origin. An advertising token (Ra. 59) records the Sunderland-based clothier and supplier “D. Hill and co; West of England House” and proclaims “The cheapest goods in all England.” It probably dates to the 1860s or later.

Copper alloy objects

8 © Cotswold Archaeology Tattingstone Solar Farm, Suffolk: Metal Detecting Survey and Archaeological Evaluation

2.5 A total of 38 items of copper alloy (excluding coins) was recorded among the registered artefacts. A single item – harness pendent Ra. 70 – can with certainty be dated to the medieval period. Ra. 70 is small and circular with a raised floral design which preserves traces of gilding. It probably dates to the 13th or 14th centuries (Griffiths 1995, 62). Three further items – cast metal vessel fragments Ras. 57 and 76, and ‘crotal bell’ Ra. 48 – might date as early as the later medieval period, or as late as the 17th century.

2.6 Of the remaining items where dating can be suggested by the form of the object, most belong to the post-medieval/early modern periods. Included are nine buttons of varying forms, an elaborately-cast buckle fragment (Ra. 2) and pipe tamper (Ra. 25) cast in the form of a booted human leg. The latter object is representative of a class of novelty objects popular in the 18th and earlier 19th centuries.

Lead/lead alloy 2.7 A total of 22 lead items was recorded among the registered artefacts. The majority – those comprising fragmentary or irregular items and objects recorded as sheet or strip – are undateable. Objects described as weights (Ras. 7, 11, 12, 15, 39, 40, 54 and 56) occur in three forms: flat discs, plano-convex or tubular. None are dateable with certainty, although a medieval or post-medieval date is most likely. Three lead shot of post-medieval/early modern type were recorded. One example (Ra. 42) is of large (17mm) size and is reminiscent of 17th-century musket balls. The other examples are smaller and typical of shot used with fowling pieces into the 19th century.

2.8 The most noteworthy item among the lead/lead alloy is a model horse (Ra. 60). It is crudely cast, seemingly posed rearing on its hind legs and mounted on a roughly square base allowing it to stand upright. It may represent a child’s toy and as such would belong to a tradition of manufacture of small base metal novelties known from the late medieval and post-medieval periods (Egan 1988). Alternatively, and more persuasively, it may be a chess piece (knight); other such examples in lead are known, dating to the medieval and post-medieval periods.

Pottery 2.9 One abraded sherd of Roman pottery weighing 8g was recorded (Ra. 53). The fabric is a reduced (dark grey) firing type with abundant quartz sand inclusions. The vessel

9 © Cotswold Archaeology Tattingstone Solar Farm, Suffolk: Metal Detecting Survey and Archaeological Evaluation

form is not identifiable and the sherd is broadly dateable across the 1st to 4th centuries AD.

Distribution 2.10 The majority of the registered artefacts (61 items) were recorded in the western survey area (Area A). Recovered from this area were all of the items of Roman (Ra. 38 and 53) and medieval (or medieval/post-medieval) date (Ras. 48, 60, 66, 67 and 70). This generalised tendency aside, meaningful clustering by artefact date or material was not observed.

Evaluation 2.11 This section provides an overview of the evaluation results; detailed summaries of the recorded contexts and finds are to be found in Appendices B and C, respectively. All features are shown on Figs. 2–4.

2.12 The underlying natural substrate comprised the anticipated Red Crag formation sands with gravels. It varied in colour and consistency across the three evaluated areas, but was predominantly light brown-yellow sand with common sub-rounded stones. It was exposed at an average depth of 0.35m below the present ground level and was directly overlain by the ploughsoil. A series of pits and ditches were cut into the natural substrate, and are described below.

Prehistoric 2.13 Ditch 7005 (T7; Fig. 8) was oriented approximately east/west. It was 2.33m wide by 0.56m deep and contained two main fills. The lower fill (7006) contained a small lens of dark silty sand (7011), around which were sherds of Beaker pottery. This ditch was in the broad location of the northern part of the circular cropmark which might represent a prehistoric round barrow burial. Trench 7 also featured a sandy clay layer (7013) between the natural substrate and the ploughsoil. Although undated artefactually, it is possible that this layer represents displaced mound material associated with the putative round barrow.

2.14 Three ditches contained pottery sherds dateable to the late prehistoric period. Ditch 102 (T1; Fig. 5) was oriented east/west and was 0.7m wide by 0.35m deep. This ditch corresponded closely to the northern side of a D-shaped cropmark. Ditch 1102 (T11; Fig. 11) was south-west/north-east oriented and was 1.81m wide by 0.65m deep. This ditch corresponded with a linear cropmark. Curvilinear ditch 8002 (T8;

10 © Cotswold Archaeology Tattingstone Solar Farm, Suffolk: Metal Detecting Survey and Archaeological Evaluation

Fig. 9) was oriented approximately north-east/south-west, turning to the east at its southern end to the east. This ditch was 0.74m wide by 0.21m deep, and was on a different alignment to the linear cropmark recorded in this area of the site.

2.15 Pit 408 (T4; Fig. 7) was sub-rounded in plan and was 1.72m wide by 0.34m deep. A worked flint flake was recovered its single fill. No cropmarks corresponded to this feature.

2.16 Ditch 1202 (T12) was oriented north/south and was 1.81m wide by 0.65m deep. It yielded a single worked flint flake. This ditch aligned closely with the curvilinear cropmark noted here.

Medieval 2.17 Pit/ditch terminus 108 (T1; Fig. 5) was 1.38m wide and 0.25m deep. It contained a single fill, from which two sherds of medieval pottery and four small fragments of lava quernstone were recovered. There were no cropmarks corresponding to this feature.

Post-medieval 2.18 Ditch 105 (T1; Fig. 5) was oriented north-east/south-west. It was 2.55m wide by 0.52m deep and contained a sherd of late 17th/18th century pottery. This ditch truncated the northern edge of prehistoric ditch 102.

2.19 Ditch 7008 (T7; Fig. 8) was oriented north-west/south-east and was 0.64m wide by 0.67m deep. Its fills contained a fragment of tile and an iron nail, as well as a fragment of unidentified ironwork. There were no cropmarks corresponding to this ditch.

2.20 Ditch 9002 (T9; Fig. 10) was oriented north-east/south-west. It was 2.07m wide by 0.50m deep and yielded three sherds of post-medieval pottery, nine fragments of brick and tile and an iron nail. It is possibly this ditch represents the post-medieval field boundary seen as a cropmark and on historic Ordnance Survey mapping in this area of the site, despite a slight mismatch of alignment and position.

2.21 T4 (Fig. 7) contained two ditches which were undated artefactually, but which were considered likely to be post-medieval in origin. Ditch 402 was oriented north- east/south-west and was 0.87m wide by 0.46m deep. It corresponded in location to

11 © Cotswold Archaeology Tattingstone Solar Farm, Suffolk: Metal Detecting Survey and Archaeological Evaluation

a cropmark representing a former field boundary visible on historic Ordnance Survey mapping. Ditch 405 was oriented north-east/south-west and was 2.11m wide by 0.69m deep. Although it yielded no artefacts, this ditch is considered likely to have been a post-medieval feature, as its fills were similar in character to the dated post- medieval ditches discussed above.

Undated 2.22 A series of undated features was identified across the evaluation areas. Ditch 110 (T1; Fig. 5) was oriented north-west/south-east and was 0.78m wide by 0.39m deep. It contained a single fill, from which fired clay was recovered. Ditch 502 (T5) was oriented north/south and was 0.84m wide by 0.23m deep. Pit/ditch terminus 7002 (T7; Fig. 8) was 1.29m long by 1.10m wide and 0.37m deep. No cropmarks corresponded to any of these features.

2.23 Pit 202 (T2; Fig. 6) was 0.55m in diameter by 0.09 deep. It contained a single fill with abundant heat-affected stones. No cropmarks corresponded to this feature, although it lay very close to the location of one of the undetected cropmark ring ditches.

2.24 Three undated intercutting features were identified in T8 (Fig. 9). All three were oriented north-west/south-east, and did not correspond in location to any cropmarks. Ditch 8004 was the earliest of the ditches, and was at least 0.55m wide by more than 0.23m deep. Ditch 8004 was truncated by ditch 8007, which was 2.83m wide and 0.31m deep. Ditch 8007 was truncated in turn by ditch 8010, which was 0.79m wide and 0.52m deep.

3. DISCUSSION

3.1 The metal detecting survey recorded a general spread of artefacts throughout the survey areas. Where dateable, the vast majority of the artefacts were post-medieval in date, although there were also a limited number of medieval artefacts and a single sherd of Roman pottery. No meaningful clustering by artefact date or material was observed.

3.2 The evaluation identified a series of ditches and pits at the site. Where dateable, these were mainly prehistoric and post-medieval in date, although there was also a single medieval feature.

12 © Cotswold Archaeology Tattingstone Solar Farm, Suffolk: Metal Detecting Survey and Archaeological Evaluation

3.3 Of especial note is ditch 7005 (T7), which contained 78 sherds of Beaker pottery, which may relate to the possible prehistoric round barrow recorded previously by the geophysical survey and as a cropmark. Sandy clay layer 7015 was also recorded in T7, and may represent disturbed mound material associated with the putative barrow.

3.4 The evaluation results did not generally display a strong correspondence to the cropmarks, with many of the cropmarks having no matching below-ground feature and several of the features recorded by the evaluation not being visible as cropmarks. In this, the evaluation results are similar to those of the geophysical survey, which recorded only a limited number of features corresponding closely to the cropmarks. The reason for this discrepancy is unclear. It is possible that variations in the site’s geology, which comprises sands and gravels with bands and patches of silt, is causing some of the cropmarks. It is also possible that some of the archaeological features represented by the cropmarks have since been removed by intensified agricultural practices in the later 20th century.

4. CA PROJECT TEAM

The metal detecting survey was undertaken by Sam Wilson, assisted by Chris Ellis. The evaluation was undertaken by Mo Muldowney, assisted by Chris Gerontinis, Dan Riley, Rob Scott and Juan Talens-Bou. The report was written by Mo Muldowney and Sam Wilson. The illustrations were prepared by Jonathan Bennett. The archive has been compiled by Mo Muldowney and prepared for deposition by Nicola Powell. The project was managed for CA by Derek Evans.

5. REFERENCES

BGS (British Geological Survey) 2014 Geology of Britain Viewer http://maps.bgs.ac.uk/geology viewer_google/googleviewer.html Accessed 13 March 2014

CA (Cotswold Archaeology) 2012 Valley Farm Solar Farm, Suffolk: Heritage Desk-Based Assessment CA Report No. 12272

13 © Cotswold Archaeology Tattingstone Solar Farm, Suffolk: Metal Detecting Survey and Archaeological Evaluation

CA (Cotswold Archaeology) 2014 Tattingstone Solar Farm, Valley Farm, Tattingstone, Suffolk: Written Scheme of Investigation for an Archaeological Metal Detecting Survey and Evaluation

Clark, J. (ed.) 1995 ‘The Medieval Horse and its Equipment c.1150–c.1450’ in Medieval finds from Excavations in London 5, London: Museum of London

DCLG (Department of Communities and Local Government) 2012 National Planning Policy Framework

Edmonds, M. 1995 Stone Tools and Society: Working Stone in Neolithic and Bronze Age Britain London: B T Batsford Ltd

Egan, G. 1988 ‘Datasheet 10: Base-metal Toys’, Finds Research Group 700–1700

Gibson, A. and Woods, A. 1997 Prehistoric Pottery for the Archaeologist Leicester University Press

Griffiths, N. 1995 ‘Harness Pendants and associated fittings’, in Clark (ed.) 1995, 53–81

Pre-Construct Geophysics (PCG) 2013 Valley Farm Solar Farm, Tattingstone, Suffolk: Archaeological Geophysical Survey

14 © Cotswold Archaeology Tattingstone Solar Farm, Suffolk: Metal Detecting Survey and Archaeological Evaluation

APPENDIX A: METAL DETECTING SURVEY FINDS

Ra no material Class Description Remarks Date 1 cu al object button - plain flat with loop to back pmed/modern 2 cu al object buckle elaborately cast rect. pmed frame fragment with iron axis bar 3 pb al fragment irregular Unkwn 4 pb al object cast - forms rt. angle with deep same obj as Ra. 5 modern grooves to one surface 5 pb al object cast - forms rt. angle with deep same obj as Ra. 4 modern grooves to one surface 6 cu al coin farthing - illeg no details pmed 6 cu al object badge star-shaped; lauriate pmed/modern ?military? 7 pb al object weight plaino-convex (rough) Unkwn 8 cu al object cast; strip-like with flat rib to back same obj as Ra. 29 modern 9 cu al coin George II 1754 farthing Pmed 10 pb al fragment sheet - folded Unkwn 11 pb al object disc/weight unmarked Unkwn 12 pb al object weight plano-convex Unkwn 13 cu al object button - plain flat with loop to back pmed/modern 14 cu al coin Victoria penny (1860-95) date illeg but 'bun head' modern type 15 pb al object weight - cylindrical perforated longitudinally Unkwn 16 cu al object strip Unkwn 17 cu al object T-shaped with round-section Unkwn shaft and sheet-like top 18 cu al object button - livery livery button with radiating pmed/modern sun (domed with loop at back) 19 cu al object strip broad strip - v. regular modern 20 pb al waste irregular - spill? Unkwn 21 cu al object rolled sheet tightly rolled with modern paper/fabric inset 22 cu al waste runnel Unkwn 23 cu al object stud domed head from large pmed/modern furniture stud 24 cu al object button (plain) domed; broken loop to pmed/modern back. Poss tinned 25 cu al object pipe tamper in form of booded leg - pmed/modern prob C18-eC19 26 cu al object eyelet/ring pmed/modern 27 cu al object strip narrow - c. 6mm Unkwn 28 pb al object shot small - c. 15mm pmed/modern 28 pb al object shot small - c. 10mm pmed/modern 29 cu al fragment strip-like, cast same obj as Ra. 8 modern 30 cu al object strip Unkwn 31 pb al fragment rod-like Unkwn 32 cu al fragment sheet Unkwn 33 cu al coin halfpenny - William III (1694- v. worn pmed/modern 1702) 34 cu al coin illeg halfpenny? pmed/modern 35 cu al coin halfpenny - illeg male portrait facing rt pmed 36 cu al object furniture fitting - reel-shaped pmed/modern 37 cu al object reel-shaped with fe staining Unkwn 38 cu al coin illeg thick - RB as? RB 39 pb al object weight disc-like; dished on each Unkwn face 40 pb al object weight plano-convex, perforated Unkwn 41 cu al object stud domed (head only) Pmed/modern 42 pb al object shot musket-sized? - c. 17mm pmed

15 © Cotswold Archaeology Tattingstone Solar Farm, Suffolk: Metal Detecting Survey and Archaeological Evaluation

Ra no material Class Description Remarks Date 43 cu al object button - plain flat with loop to back; pmed/modern poss tinned 44 cu al object vessel fragment? - rilled ext and pmed/modern threaded internally 45 cu al object button - plain flat with loop to back pmed/modern 46 cu al object button - plain domed; broken loop to pmed/modern back. Poss tinned 47 pb al object sheet cut to square Unkwn 48 cu al object animal bell 'crotal' bell med/Pmed 49 cu al coin small token or Royal farthing v. worn - poss small token pmed/modern (James I/Charles I) 50 cu al coin illeg farthing-sized pmed 51 cu al coin Quebec half penny dated 1837 Province du bas Canada modern bank token 52 cu al object cast fitting modern 53 pottery sherd base sherd black sandy fabric RB 54 pb al object disc/weight qtr segment from plano- Unkwn convex disc 55 cu al object stud flat head Pmed/modern 56 pb al object weight/disc Unkwn 57 cu al object foot from cast vessel med/Pmed 59 cu al object token D Hill & co - 'West of modern England House' est. 1825 60 pb al object model/chesspiece in form of crudely modelled med/pmed rearing horse 62 pb al object fitting/handle pmed/modern 63 cu al fragment Unkwn 64 cu al coin George IV farthing dated 1825 modern 65 cu al coin illeg. small jeton French? pmed 66 Ag coin longcross Edward I-II Canturbury mint; details medieval uncertain 67 Ag coin worn/illeg. Groat? med/pmed 68 cu al object button flat with bevelled edge; pmed/modern tinned 69 pb al object cylinder collar/ferrule Unkwn 70 cu al object harness pendent (gilded) small sexofoil flower with medieval central pelleted cross 71 cu al object modern fitting modern 72 pb al object conical Unkwn 73 cu al object button flat with bevelled edge pmed/modern 74 cu al object strip med/Pmed 75 cu al coin fragment from penny or similar pmed/modern 76 cu al fragment poss from cast vessel Unkwn

16 © Cotswold Archaeology Tattingstone Solar Farm, Suffolk: Metal Detecting Survey and Archaeological Evaluation

APPENDIX B: EVALUATION CONTEXT DESCRIPTIONS

Trench Context Type Fill of Context Description L (m) W Depth Spot-date No. No. interpretation (m) /thick ness (m) 1 100 Layer Topsoil Mid grey brown clay sand 0.35 1 101 Layer Natural Light yellow brown sand with common stones 1 102 Cut Ditch U-shaped ditch, SE/NW oriented >1.8 0.7 0.35 1 103 Fill 102 Lower fill Mid yellowish brown silty sand 0.09 1 104 Fill 102 Upper fill Mid grey brown sandy silt 0.35 Late prehistoric 1 105 Cut Ditch Wide, asymmetrical U-shaped ditch, >1.8 2.55 0.52 SW-NE oriented 1 106 Fill 105 Lower fill Light brown grey silty sand 0.33 1 107 Fill 105 Upper fill Mid grey brown sandy silt 0.19 LC17-C18 1 108 Cut Pit/ditch Asymmetrical U-shaped ditch, >1.8 1.38 0.25 SW/NE oriented 1 109 Fill 108 Single fill Mid brown grey silty sand 0.25 C12-C14 1 110 Cut Ditch U-shaped profile with ‘step’ on SW >1.0 0.78 0.39 side 1 111 Fill 110 Single fill Dark brown grey sandy clay 0.39 2 200 Layer Topsoil Mid brown grey clay silt 0.38 2 201 Layer Natural Light yellow brown sand with common stones 2 202 Cut Pit Sub-circular, irregular profile 0.55 0.09 2 203 Fill 202 Single fill Mid brown grey clay silt 0.09 3 3001 Layer Topsoil Dark yellow brown silty sand 0.36 3 3002 Layer Natural Varied mid orange sandy silt and gravels 4 400 Layer Topsoil Mid brown grey clay silt 0.34 4 401 Layer Natural Light brown yellow sand with common stones 4 402 Cut Ditch V-shaped ditch with rounded base >1.8 0.87 0.46 4 403 Fill 402 Lower fill Light grey brown silty sand 0.15 4 404 Fill 402 Upper fill Mid grey brown sandy silt 0.31 4 405 Cut Ditch Asymmetrical V-shaped ditch with >1.8 2.11 0.69 rounded base 4 406 Fill 405 Lower fill Mid yellow brown silty sand 0.13 4 407 Fill 405 Upper fill Mid grey brown clay sand 0.56 4 408 Cut Pit Sub-circular, irregular rounded profile 1.72 1.0 0.34 4 409 Fill 408 Single fill Dark grey brown with yellow mottling 0.34 5 500 Layer Topsoil Mid brown grey loose sand with 0.32 abundant stone 5 501 Layer Natural Light brown red loose clay sand with abundant stone 5 502 Cut Ditch Shallow , rounded profile >4.0 0.84 0.23 5 503 Single fill Mid red brown clay sand 0.23 6 6001 Layer Topsoil Mid orange brown silty sand 0.38 6 6002 Layer Natural Varied mid orange sands and gravels with manganese staining 7 7000 Layer Topsoil Mid grey brown silty sand 0.31 7 7001 Layer Natural Mid brown orange loose sand and gravels 7 7002 Cut Pit Oval with asymmetrical rounded 1.29 1.10 0.37 profile 7 7003 Fill 7002 Lower fill Mid yellow grey silty sand 0.18 7 7004 Fill 7002 Upper fill Mid orange grey silty sand 0.19

17 © Cotswold Archaeology Tattingstone Solar Farm, Suffolk: Metal Detecting Survey and Archaeological Evaluation

Trench Context Type Fill of Context Description L (m) W Depth Spot-date No. No. interpretation (m) /thick ness (m) 7 7005 Cut Ditch Wide U-shaped profile 2.33 0.56 7 7006 Fill 7005 Lower fill Mid grey brown silty sand 0.32 EBA 7 7007 Layer Mound Mid red brown sandy clay 0.52 material 7 7008 Cut Ditch Irregular U-shaped profile with flat 0.69 0.67 base 7 7009 Fill 7008 Upper fill Dark grey brown clayey sand 0.26 7 7010 Fill 7008 Lower fill Dark brown grey clayey sand 0.48 Post- medieval 7 7011 Fill 7005 Lens within Dark brown grey silty sand 0.4 0.15 7006 7 7012 Fill 7005 Upper fill Mid orange brown silty sand 0.24 7 7013 Layer Mound Mid red brown sandy clay 0.30 material 7 7014 Layer Mound Mid red brown sandy clay 0.27 material 7 7015 Layer Mound Mid red brown sandy clay 0.37 material? 8 8000 Layer Topsoil Mid grey brown silty sand 0.31 8 8001 Layer Natural Mid brown orange loose sand and gravels 8 8002 Cut Gully V-shaped with flat base >8 0.74 0.21 8 8003 Fill 8002 Single fill Mid grey brown clayey sand 0.21 Late prehistoric 8 8004 Cut Ditch V-shaped profile, NW/SE oriented >1.8 0.55 0.23 8 8005 Fill 8004 Lower fill Light yellow brown sand 0.08 8 8006 Fill 8004 Upper fill Mid grey brown silty sand 0.20 8 8007 Cut Ditch Wide, U-shaped profile, NW/SE >1.8 2.83 0.31 oriented 8 8008 Fill 8007 Lower fill Mid red brown silty sand 0.13 8 8009 Fill 8007 Upper fill Mid greyish brown sandy silt 0.31 8 8010 Cut Ditch U-shaped profile, NW/SE oriented >1.8 0.79 0.52 8 8011 Fill 8010 Single fill Mid grey brown silty sand 0.52 9 9000 Layer Topsoil Mid grey brown silty sand 0.36 9 9001 Layer Natural Mid brown orange loose sand and gravels 9 9002 Cut Ditch Wide, asymmetrical U-shaped profile, >1.8 2.07 0.5 NE/SW oriented 9 9003 Fill 9002 Single fill Mid grey brown silty sand 0.5 C18-C19 10 1000 Layer Topsoil Mid grey brown clay silt 0.35 10 1001 Layer Natural Light brown yellow sandy silt with common sub-rounded stones 11 1100 Layer Topsoil Mid grey brown clay silt 0.36 11 1101 Layer Natural Light brown yellow sandy silt with common sub-rounded stones 11 1102 Cut Ditch V-shaped profile with concave base, >1.8 1.21 0.46 SW/NE oriented 11 1104 Fill 1102 Upper fill Mid brown grey clay silt 0.41 Late prehistoric 12 1200 Layer Topsoil Mid grey brown clay silt 0.38 12 1201 Layer Natural Mid yellow brown sandy silt with common sub-rounded stones 12 1202 Cut Ditch V-shaped profile with concave base, >1.8 1.81 0.65 NW/SE oriented 12 1203 Fill 1202 Lower fill Mid grey brown sandy silt 0.48 12 1204 Fill 1202 Upper fill Mid red brown clay silt 0.17

18 © Cotswold Archaeology Tattingstone Solar Farm, Suffolk: Metal Detecting Survey and Archaeological Evaluation

APPENDIX C: EVALUATION FINDS

By Jacky Sommerville, CA

Finds recovered from evaluation included pottery, ceramic building material, metal objects and worked flint.

Pottery: prehistoric Ditch fill 7006 produced 78 sherds of Beaker coarseware, tempered with quartz and finely-crushed, calcined flint. Grog also appears to be present in some sherds. The majority of the sherds derived from a single vessel which displayed fingernail-impressed rustication extending as far as the rim. The six rimsherds present were flat-topped and featured internal expansion. Ten of the sherds, apparently from a separate vessel, had been decorated with small circular stabs from a bird bone or similar tool. Beaker coarseware is considered to be domestic in nature and fingernail-impressed decoration is typical on these vessels. It is found less commonly than the finewares which are usually recovered from funerary contexts (Gibson 1997, 100–1).

A total of six unfeatured bodysherds of pottery recovered from ditch fills 104 and 1104, and gully fill 8003 were broadly dated to the Late Prehistoric period (Late Bronze Age to Iron Age) on the basis on fabric and firing characteristics. Fabrics represented were sand-tempered, organic-and-sand tempered and quartz-tempered.

Medieval Pit/ditch fill 109 produced two rimsherds from different vessels with developed, everted rims in a sandy coarseware fabric dateable to the 12th to 14th centuries. One sherd featured combed, wavy decoration to its upper rim.

Post-medieval Ditch fill 107 produced one bodysherd of Westerwald stoneware. This German stoneware was exported to Britain during the late-17th and 18th centuries.

Two joining rimsherds from a plate or shallow dish in white salt-glazed stoneware (dateable to c. 1720-1780), were recorded in ditch fill 9003. Fill 9003 also produced one sherd of black-glazed earthenware, which dates to the 18th to 19th centuries.

Ceramic building material A total of 18 fragments of ceramic building material of post-medieval date were recovered from ditch fills 7010 and 9003. Of these, one was identified as brick and eight as tile: the remainder were too fragmentary for classification.

Metal objects Ditch fill 7009 produced two heavily corroded fragments of an unclassifiable iron object. Single iron nails were recovered from ditch fills 7010 and 9003.

Worked stone Four fragments of Niedermendig lava quern, imported from the Mayen region of Germany, were recovered from pit/ditch fill 109. This was used during the Roman, Late Saxon and medieval periods, and is a particularly common find on the east coast.

Worked flint A total of 16 pieces of worked flint were recovered from eight deposits (see Table C1). The majority of items featured a degree of breakage, edge damage and rolling (abrasion) consistent with redeposition. One broken flake from topsoil 7000 displayed evidence of utilisation along the right dorsal edge. The flakes from 8009 included a core rejuvenation flake, which is a product of Mesolithic and Early Neolithic flint-working (Edmonds 1995, 191).

Fresher flints (more likely to be in situ) include two thin, regular flakes from pit fill 409, one of which features platform preparation: these suggest a Mesolithic or Early Neolithic date. The four flints from gully fill 8003 include a chunky, irregular flake on an old, corticated piece of flint and a dual-platform flake core with unprepared platforms and a large number of mis-hits visible. The latter suggest a Bronze Age date, when reuse of older items was typical and flint-knapping was generally less careful than in earlier periods. A D-shaped thumbnail scraper, recovered from ditch fill 7006, has not been particularly finely worked but is in keeping with the Beaker date for the pottery from this deposit.

19 © Cotswold Archaeology Tattingstone Solar Farm, Suffolk: Metal Detecting Survey and Archaeological Evaluation

Table C1: Finds concordance Context Description Count Weight(g) Spot-date 104 Late Prehistoric pottery: sand-tempered fabric 1 9 Late Worked flint: flake 1 5 Prehistoric 107 Post-medieval pottery: Westerwald stoneware 1 3 LC17-C18 109 Medieval pottery: sandy coarseware 2 23 C12-C14 Worked stone: Lava quern 4 49 111 Fired clay 3 7 - 409 Worked flint: flake 2 3 - 1104 Late Prehistoric pottery: sand-tempered fabric 1 3 Late Prehistoric 1203 Worked flint: flake 2 18 - 7000 Worked flint: flake 2 11 - 7006 Early Prehistoric pottery: Beaker coarseware 78 845 EBA Worked flint: thumbnail scraper 1 6 7009 Iron object: fragment 2 145 - 7010 Post-medieval ceramic building material: tile 9 120 Post-medieval Iron object: nail 1 9 8000 Worked flint: flake 1 13 - 8003 Late Prehistoric pottery: quartz-tempered fabric; organic- 4 52 Late Prehistoric and-sand tempered fabric Worked flint: flake, core 4 51 8009 Worked flint: flake 3 18 - 9003 Post-medieval pottery: white salt-glazed stoneware; black- 3 244 C18-C19 glazed earthenware Post-medieval ceramic building material: brick, tile 9 542 Iron object: nail 1 15

20 © Cotswold Archaeology Tattingstone Solar Farm, Suffolk: Metal Detecting Survey and Archaeological Evaluation

APPENDIX D: OASIS REPORT FORM

PROJECT DETAILS

Project Name Tattingstone Solar Farm, Valley Farm, Tattingstone, Suffolk Short description (250 words maximum) In March and April 2014, Cotswold Archaeology (CA) carried out a metal detecting survey and an archaeological evaluation at the proposed site of Tattingstone Solar Farm, Valley Farm, Tattingstone, Suffolk.

The evaluation results did not generally display a strong correspondence to the cropmarks. The reason for this discrepancy is unclear. It is possible that variations in the site’s geology, which comprises sands and gravels with bands and patches of silt, is causing some of the cropmarks. It is also possible that some of the archaeological features represented by the cropmarks have since been removed by intensified agricultural practices in the later 20th century. Project dates 24–27 March 2014; 7–11 April 2014 Project type Metal detecting survey and field evaluation (e.g. desk-based, field evaluation etc) Previous work Heritage Desk-based Assessment (CA 2012) (reference to organisation or SMR Geophysical Survey (PCG 2013) numbers etc)

Future work Unconfirmed PROJECT LOCATION Site Location Valley Farm, Cox Hall Road, Tattingstone Suffolk IP9 2NF

Study area (M2/ha) Site co-ordinates (8 Fig Grid Reference) TL7820 6990

PROJECT CREATORS Name of organisation Cotswold Archaeology Project Brief originator Suffolk County Council Project Design (WSI) originator Cotswold Archaeology

Project Manager Derek Evans Project Supervisor Sam Wilson and Mo Muldowney MONUMENT TYPE None SIGNIFICANT FINDS Beaker pottery PROJECT ARCHIVES Intended final location of archive Content (e.g. pottery, (museum/Accession no.) animal bone etc)

21 © Cotswold Archaeology Tattingstone Solar Farm, Suffolk: Metal Detecting Survey and Archaeological Evaluation

Physical Pottery, flint, brick, tile, iron objects Paper Context sheets, section Suffolk County Museum Service drawings, maps Digital Database, digital photos, illustrations BIBLIOGRAPHY Cotswold Archaeology 2014 Tattingstone Solar Farm, Valley Farm, Tattingstone, Suffolk: Metal Detecting Survey and Archaeological Evaluation CA typescript report 14156

22 N Cirencester 01285 771022 Milton Keynes 01908 218320 Cotswold Andover 01264 347630 Archaeology w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk e [email protected]

PROJECT TITLE Tattingstone Solar Farm, Valley farm Tattingstone, Suffolk

Suffolk FIGURE TITLE Site location plan

0 1km

FIGURE NO. Reproduced from the 2006 Ordnance Survey Explorer map with PROJECT NO. 660228 DATE 15-04-2014 the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of The Controller DRAWN BY JB REVISION 00 of Her Majesty's Stationery Office c Crown copyright Cotswold Archaeology Ltd 100002109 APPROVED BY LM SCALE@A4 1:25,000 1

Section AA plan

SE NW 39.5m N AOD

109

ditch 108

01m A ditch terminus 108

Section BB

100 S 39.5m N AOD 107 104

103

106 ditch ditch ditch 105 105 B 102

01m

B ditch 102

ditch 110

Cirencester 01285 771022 Cotswold Milton Keynes 01908 218320 0 10m Andover 01264 347630 Archaeology w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk e [email protected]

PROJECT TITLE Ditches 102 & 105, looking north-east (scale 1m) Pit 108, looking south-west (scale 1m) Tattingstone Solar Farm, Valley farm, Tattingstone, Suffolk

FIGURE TITLE Trench 1: plan, sections and photographs

PROJECT NO. 660228 DATE 15-04-2014 FIGURE NO. DRAWN BY JB REVISION 00 APPROVED BY LM SCALE@A4 1:200 & 1:20 5 plan

C C N pit 202

0 10m

Section CC

39m 203 AOD pit 202

01m

Cirencester 01285 771022 Milton Keynes 01908 218320 Cotswold Andover 01264 347630 Archaeology w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk e [email protected]

PROJECT TITLE Pit 202....(missing photo) Tattingstone Solar Farm, Valley farm, Tattingstone, Suffolk

FIGURE TITLE Trench 2: plan, section and photograph

PROJECT NO. 660228 DATE 15-04-2014 FIGURE NO. DRAWN BY JB REVISION 00 APPROVED BY LM SCALE@A4 1:200 & 1:20 6 Section DD plan

N 400

D D ditch NW SE 405 38m 404 ditch AOD 402 modern

403 pit ditch E 408 402 E 01m 0 10m

Section EE

SE NW 38m AOD

409

pit 408 01m

Cirencester 01285 771022 Milton Keynes 01908 218320 Cotswold Andover 01264 347630 Archaeology w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk e [email protected]

PROJECT TITLE Tattingstone Solar Farm, Valley farm, Tattingstone, Suffolk Ditch 402...(missing photo) Pit 408, looking south (scale 1m) FIGURE TITLE Trench 4: plan, sections and photographs

PROJECT NO. 660228 DATE 15-04-2014 FIGURE NO. DRAWN BY JB REVISION 00 APPROVED BY LM SCALE@A4 1:200 & 1:20 7 N plan Section FF

ditch 7008

F NE 7000 SW 37m AOD F

7012

7006 7011 ditch 7005

01m

Section GG

7000 G 7013 NE SW 37m AOD 7013

01m ditch terminus 7002

ditch 7005

0 10m

Cirencester 01285 771022 Milton Keynes 01908 218320 Cotswold Andover 01264 347630 Archaeology w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk e [email protected]

PROJECT TITLE Tattingstone Solar Farm, Valley farm, Tattingstone, Suffolk

FIGURE TITLE Trench 7: plan, sections and Ditch 7005, looking south-east (scale 1m) Sondage through 7013, looking south-east (scale 1m) photographs

PROJECT NO. 660228 DATE 15-04-2014 FIGURE NO. DRAWN BY JB REVISION 00 APPROVED BY LM SCALE@A4 1:200 & 1:20 8 Section HH

plan 8000 N NE SW

8009 8009 ditch 8011 8002 8008 ditch 8007 8008 8006

ditch 8005 ditch 8010 8004

01m

ditch 8007

ditch 8010 ditch 8004

0 10m

Cirencester 01285 771022 Ditches 8004/8007/8010, looking south-east (scale 2m) Milton Keynes 01908 218320 Cotswold Andover 01264 347630 Archaeology w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk e [email protected]

PROJECT TITLE Tattingstone Solar Farm, Valley farm, Tattingstone, Suffolk

FIGURE TITLE Trench 8: plan, sections and photographs

PROJECT NO. 660228 DATE 15-04-2014 FIGURE NO. DRAWN BY JB REVISION 00 APPROVED BY LM SCALE@A4 1:200 & 1:20 9 Section II plan SE NW 36.5m 9000 N AOD

I ditch 9002 9003

ditch 9002

01m

0 10m

Cirencester 01285 771022 Ditch 9002, looking south-west (scale 1m) Milton Keynes 01908 218320 Cotswold Andover 01264 347630 Archaeology w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk e [email protected]

PROJECT TITLE Tattingstone Solar Farm, Valley farm, Tattingstone, Suffolk

FIGURE TITLE Trench 9: plan, section and photograph

PROJECT NO. 660228 DATE 15-04-2014 FIGURE NO. DRAWN BY JB REVISION 00 APPROVED BY LM SCALE@A4 1:200 & 1:20 10 plan

Section JJ

J N ditch 1100 1102 NW SE 37.5m AOD

1104

ditch 1102 1103

0 10m 01m

Ditch 1102, looking south-west (scale 1m)

Cirencester 01285 771022 Milton Keynes 01908 218320 Cotswold Andover 01264 347630 Archaeology w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk e [email protected]

PROJECT TITLE Tattingstone Solar Farm, Valley farm, Tattingstone, Suffolk

FIGURE TITLE Trench 11: plan, section and photograph

PROJECT NO. 660228 DATE 15-04-2014 FIGURE NO. DRAWN BY JB REVISION 00 APPROVED BY LM SCALE@A4 1:200 & 1:20 11 Fig. 12

site metal detecting survey areas evaluation trench

metal detecting finds: 4 ") period 5 T11 ") Roman T12 medieval/post-medieval medieval post-medieval 6 1 post-medieval/modern (! ") modern 2 ") undated 3 ") type 8 ") object/sherd T10 Area A coin

7 ")

035m

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Digital mapping with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of The Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright Cotswold Archaeological Trust 100002109.

Cirencester 01285 771022 Milton Keynes 01908 218320 Andover 01264 326549 9 w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk (! e [email protected] PROJECT TITLE Tattingstone Solar Farm, Valley farm Tattingstone, Suffolk FIGURE TITLE Metal detecting survey results: Area A

PROJECT NO. 660228 DATE 15-04-2014 FIGURE NO. DRAWN BY JB REVISION 00 APPROVED BY LM SCALE@A3 1:750 12 Fig. 13

T7 site metal detecting survey areas evaluation trench

metal detecting finds: 11 ") ") 10 period

Roman medieval/post-medieval medieval post-medieval post-medieval/modern modern Area B undated

type

object/sherd 13 ") coin

12 ")

T8 T9

(! 020m 14 ") Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Digital mapping with the permission 15 of Ordnance Survey on behalf of The Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright Cotswold Archaeological Trust 100002109.

Cirencester 01285 771022 Milton Keynes 01908 218320 Andover 01264 326549 w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk e [email protected]

PROJECT TITLE Tattingstone Solar Farm, Valley farm Tattingstone, Suffolk FIGURE TITLE Metal detecting survey results: Area B

PROJECT NO. 660228 DATE 15-04-2014 FIGURE NO. DRAWN BY JB REVISION 00 APPROVED BY LM SCALE@A3 1:500 13 16 ") 19 ") Fig. 14 20 ") 21 22 17 18 ") ") ") 28 27 ") ") ") 26 ") 25 ") 24 23 ") 31 ") ") 30 ") 29 ")

32 ") T6 site 33 34 metal detecting survey areas (! (! 36 evaluation trench 35 ") (! T1 metal detecting finds: 37 38 ") (! period 44 ") 43 42 Roman ") ")") 40 41 ") medieval/post-medieval 39 45 T5 ") medieval ") post-medieval 46 47 ") ") post-medieval/modern 48 49 ") (! modern undated 51 (! 50 (! type Area C object/sherd 52 ") coin

54 53 ") ")

57 56 ") ") 55 ") 59 ")

035m 60 ") 69 Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Digital mapping with the permission ") 68 of Ordnance Survey on behalf of The Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery ") Office © Crown copyright Cotswold Archaeological Trust 100002109. T4 62 63 64 ") ") (! 67 T3 (! 66 Cirencester 01285 771022 65 (! Milton Keynes 01908 218320 (! Andover 01264 326549 70 w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk ") e [email protected] 71 ") PROJECT TITLE Tattingstone Solar Farm, Valley farm 72 Tattingstone, Suffolk ") FIGURE TITLE Metal detecting survey results: Area C

76 (! )" 74 ") 75 ") 73 PROJECT NO. 660228 DATE 15-04-2014 FIGURE NO. DRAWN BY JB REVISION 00 APPROVED BY LM SCALE@A3 1:750 14