Kempsford Quarry Extension, Kempsford,

An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment

for Aggregate Industries

by Heather Hopkins

Thames Valley Archaeological

Services Ltd

Site Code KEW07/152

January 2008

Summary

Site name: Kempsford Quarry Extension, Kempsford, Gloucestershire

Grid reference: SU 1767 9850

Site activity: Desk based assessment

Project manager: Steve Ford

Site supervisor: Heather Hopkins

Site code: KEG 07/152

Area of site: c. 87ha

Summary of results: The site lies in an general area of archaeological potential with a wide range of sites, sometimes extensive and complex, of prehistoric and Roman date present in the study area. Aerial photography, though, has not recorded any deposits for the proposal site visible from the air. Recent and on-going fieldwork immediately to the south of the proposal area has recorded the presence of a Roman field system and this is expected to extend northwards into the proposal site. It is considered that it will be necessary to provide further information about the potential of the site from field observations in order to draw up a scheme to mitigate the impact of development on any below-ground archaeological deposits if necessary.

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

Report edited/checked by: Steve Ford9 21.12.07 Steve Preston9 19.12.07

1

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

Kempsford Quarry Extension, Kempsford, Gloucestershire An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment

by Heather Hopkins Report 07/152 Introduction

This desk-based study is an assessment of the archaeological potential of the area of a proposed extension to

Kempsford Quarry, located at Kempsford, Gloucestershire, (SU 1767 9850) (Fig. 1). The project was commissioned by Mr Robert Westell of Aggregate Industries, Callow Rock Quarry, Shipham Gorge, Cheddar,

Somerset, BS27 3DQ and comprises the first stage of a process to determine the presence/absence, extent, character, quality and date of any archaeological remains which may be affected by mineral extraction from the area.

Site description, location and geology

The site currently consists of farmland. The land is relatively flat and (in December 2007) waterlogged. The area is a mixture of grass pasture and arable land. There is no obvious extant ridge and furrow present. The fields are separated by hedgerows. The development area is located on both First and Second Thames terrace gravel, with a band of alluvium overlying the first terrace to the north-east (BGS 1974) along the line of the Rive Coln The site is at an average height of 75m above Ordnance Datum. The area of the site is approximately 87ha.

Planning background and development proposals

Planning permission is to be sought for the extension of the existing quarry at Kempsford. The extension lies to the north and east of the current quarry on land bordering Whelford, surrounding Jenner’s Farm and west of the

River Coln. The site is designated as a preferred site for mineral extraction in the Gloucestershire Minerals Local

Plan (GMLP 2003).

Archaeology and Planning (PPG 16 1990) provides guidance relating to archaeology within the planning process. It points out that where a desk-based assessment has shown that there is a strong possibility of significant archaeological deposits in a development area it is reasonable to provide more detailed information from a field evaluation so that an appropriate strategy to mitigate the effects of development on archaeology can be devised:

Paragraph 21 states:

‘Where early discussions with local planning authorities or the developer’s own research indicate

that important archaeological remains may exist, it is reasonable for the planning authority to

1

request the prospective developer to arrange for an archaeological field evaluation to be carried

out...’

Should the presence of archaeological deposits be confirmed further guidance is provided. Archaeology and

Planning stresses preservation in situ of archaeological deposits as a first consideration as in paragraphs 8 and

18.

Paragraph 8 states:

‘...Where nationally important archaeological remains, whether scheduled or not, and their

settings, are affected by proposed development there should be a presumption in favour of their

physical preservation...’

Paragraph 18 states:

‘The desirability of preserving an ancient monument and its setting is a material consideration in

determining planning applications whether that monument is scheduled or unscheduled...’

However, for archaeological deposits that are not of such significance it is appropriate for them to be ‘preserved by record’ (i.e., fully excavated and recorded by a competent archaeological contractor) prior to their destruction or damage.

Paragraph 25 states:

‘Where planning authorities decide that the physical preservation in situ of archaeological remains

is not justified in the circumstances of the development and that development resulting in the

destruction of the archaeological remains should proceed, it would be entirely reasonable for the

planning authority to satisfy itself ... that the developer has made appropriate and satisfactory

provision for the excavation and recording of remains.’

Gloucestershire Minerals Local Plan (GMLP 2003) also contains relevant policies:

‘Policy E4 ‘Proposed mineral development will not be permitted where it would involve significant alteration or cause damage to nationally important archaeological remains (whether scheduled or not) or would have a significant impact on the setting of visible remains; unless the effects can be adequately mitigated.’

‘The Historic Environment ‘2.2.20 There are a range of historic sites, landscapes and other archaeological sites, parks and gardens, which together contribute to the interest and cultural heritage of Gloucestershire. The MPA will carefully consider the loss or damage of such areas, which may result from future

2

mineral development. In addition the MPA will favour mineral development which safeguards and/or enhances the overall historic environment of particular areas of the County.’

‘The Historic Environment ‘2.2.22 It may not always be possible to preserve all nationally and locally significant archaeological sites and their settings in situ. In the past, the extraction of minerals in Gloucestershire has resulted in the loss of archaeological remains … Where it is not possible to preserve remains in situ the MPA will ensure that adequate measures are taken to record archaeological remains. PPG16 states that preservation by record may be an acceptable alternative but the preservation in situ of important remains is always to be preferred.’

‘Policy E8 ‘Proposals for minerals development which are likely to have a significant adverse effect on the following locally and regionally important areas must, where appropriate, make provision to safeguard or satisfactorily mitigate those impacts and, where possible, enhance their attributes in the long-term: … 1 7. Locally Important Archaeological Sites and Settings, and other features of the historic environment’

Specific mention is made of the area around the proposal site: ‘Archaeology - Cropmarks in the area indicate an extensive landscape of Prehistoric and Roman settlement with two areas of particular complexity. The whole is of high archaeological potential with the two areas potentially of national importance in the vicinity of Kempsford which will be considered for scheduling as ancient monuments by English Heritage. The range of periods represented in this area suggests that further land in this area may also merit scheduling. Outside areas of national importance [which are to be safeguarded from mineral working] applications for mineral extraction must be accompanied by an archaeological evaluation to identify fully any archaeological constraints present, and indicate how, either by in situ preservation, or by a programme of archaeological investigation for remains of lesser significance, the impact of mineral extraction on the archaeological remains will be mitigated. ‘

Methodology

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

Monuments Record, geological maps and any relevant publications or reports.

Archaeological background

General background

The county of Gloucestershire and adjoining areas of Wiltshire, is regarded as archaeologically rich and the site lies within a topographic zone (the valley floor of the ) which is regarded as of great archaeological interest in both prehistoric and historic times. Arising from both the suitability of the underlying geology for the formation of cropmarks, and the scale of archaeologically-monitored mineral extraction, a great density of archaeological deposits has been recorded, which provides a widespread view of settlement and land-use, especially in Iron Age and Roman times (Benson and Miles 1974; Fulford 1992; Hingley and Miles 1984). The

3

perception of the Upper Thames gravels in these periods is that of a densely packed, highly organized, subdivided landscape with sites spaced at roughly one every 0.5–1km in places. The environs of Kempsford is typical of this overview with a complex of sites recorded from the air and extensive archaeological excavations to the north in the - area. Recent and on-going fieldwork work in advance of the current

Kempsford Quarry extraction has revealed extensive landscape development of Roman date. (Hammond et al. forthcoming; Hammond et. al. in prep).

Gloucestershire Sites and Monuments Record

A search was made on the Gloucestershire Sites and Monuments Record (SMR) on 10th December 2007 for a radius of 2.5km around the proposal site. This revealed 42 entries within the search radius. These are summarized as Appendix 1 and their locations are plotted on Figure 1.

Mesolithic Just a single entry is made for this period, that of a core from Manor Farm [1].

Neolithic There are no certain examples within the SMR for this period though several of the stuck flint finds recorded on many of the excavated sites [1, 15] could be of Neolithic date.

Bronze Age

Several entries are for this period. A small number of entries are for individual finds such as a barbed and tanged arrowhead at Manor Farm [1] and a spearhead or rapier from the [4]. Several ring ditches have been recorded from the air. These are usually the remains of levelled Bronze Age round barrows [2,3,34].

Iron Age

Many of the entries within the study area include an Iron Age component and some extensive deposits have been excavated in advance of mineral extraction. The deposits recorded include for a wide range of occupation and landscape features. Several of the cropmark complexes visible from the air, almost certainly contain Iron

Age components.

Extensive excavations have been carried out in advance of mineral extraction and construction work to the north and north west of the proposal site as at RAF Fairford [15] Thornhill Farm (part of which is preserved as a scheduled monument (Jennings, et al 2004) [6], and at various locations in the Fairford/Lechlade section of the

4

Cotswold Water Park at Claydon Pike (Miles et al, draft), namely Longdoles Lake [7] and Warren Cross Lake

[8].

Further cropmark complexes, as yet unexcavated, are likely to include for an Iron Age component and continue

into Roman times [5, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 20, 28, 31]. One of these complexes [13] has been destroyed without

record. A small number of other entries recorded isolated finds of Iron Age pottery [1,5, 11].

Roman

The excavated sites with Iron Age components (above) all contain further activity which extends into Roman

times and beyond [6, 7, 8,15]. The cropmark complexes within the study area, as yet unexcavated, are most

likely to include for a Roman component [5, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 20, 28, 31]. In addition, a probable villa site is

recorded from the air [18] and a settlement complex has been excavated at Whelford [19].

Extensive excavations to the south of the proposal site at Stubbs Farm [11] and Manor Farm, Kempsford

(Hammond et al. forthcoming; Hammond et. al. in prep) [1] have revealed landscape features comprising

extensive field systems but without any associated occupation deposits. The latter site at Manor Farm, shares a

common boundary with the proposal site and elements of the Roman field system recorded appear to continue

northwards and extend into the proposal site.

The excavations at Thornhill Farm [6] also revealed two late Roman cemeteries and an isolate inhumation

burial was recorded in a field ditch at Manor Farm, Kempsford [1].

Several stray finds of Roman date are record with Roman pottery a lead plaque, roll rivets and weights

discovered at Whelford [16] and pottery from the topsoil above a cropmark complex at Kempsford [31].

Saxon

By contrast, Saxon evidence from the area is sparse. The only entry is for two late Saxon coins found in a quarry

dug into a Roman building on the excavation site at Warrens Cross Lake[8].

Medieval

A small number of medieval entries are present within the study area though relatively few are a product of the

excavations in advance of gravel extraction.

Evidence of Medieval hay production and a 15th-century silver coin were discovered at Warrens Cross Lake [8]

and medieval pottery has been discovered during excavations at RAF Fairford[15]. Traces of ridge and furrow

fields systems are widespread within the study area.

5

Evidence of early medieval water meadow management, has been discovered in a former area of Roman settlement and field systems north of Whelford [19]. An enclosure visible from the air is either of medieval or post-medieval date [21].

Two mills, described as Whelford Mill, dating to 1258, were combined by 1532 [22].

Possible medieval or post medieval gravel pits have been identified on enclosure maps and aerial photographs

[2, 23].

St Anne’s Church, Whelford is a Grade II listed building [38]. The present day settlements of Kempsford and

Whelford have medieval and possibly late Saxon origins.

Post medieval

Deposits of this period revealed by excavation are few and comprise a small number of boundary ditches [1,15].

A sherd of 18th century pottery was also recorded during a watching brief [25]. Other sites include an 18th century canal feeder linking the river Coln with the at Kempsford [14]. A 19th century pound [24] and two windmills [26,27]. Possible medieval or post medieval gravel pits have been identified on enclosure maps and aerial photographs [2, 23].

Modern, undated

The remaining entries, refer to cropmark sites which are not closely dated [29,30, 32,33,35,36].

Scheduled Ancient Monuments

There are no Scheduled Ancient Monuments on the site or in immediately adjacent areas.

Cartographic and documentary sources

Kempsford is named after the ford through the Thames whilst Whelford takes its name from the crossing of the river Coln by the road from Lechlade to Kempsford (VCH 1981, 97). In AD800, the alderman of the Hwicce and his men crossed at Kempsford and fought a battle with the men of Wiltshire (VCH 1981, 97). The name

Kempsford is first recorded during the 9th century as Cynemaeres forda, from the Old English meaning ‘ford of a man called Cynemaer’ (Mills 1998). At the time of Domesday Book (1086) it was called Chenemeresforde.

Kempsford was held by Ernulf de Hesdin. It was assessed at 21 hides paying geld with land for 24 ploughs.

There were 38 villans, 9 bordars, 14 slaves and a radknight (a knight’s retainer) present. There were 4 mills,

6

rendering 40s and 40d and meadows worth 39s. There was pasture for oxen and a sheep-fold with 120 weys of cheese.

The parish of Kempsford was drained by a network of ditches, some of which was probably in existence by 1133 (VCH 1981, 96). A mill had been built at Whelford by the 12th century and a bridge by 1283 (VCH

1981, 97). There was a common myth of a castle being built at Kempsford. However, this is untrue and stems from the moated manor house that was constructed by 1258, close to the river on the south side of the church.

The moat was still visible in 1976 (VCH 1981, 99). In 1258 Kempsford Manor had 832 acres of arable land, 156 acres meadow. At its largest it was more than 1000 acres. In 1327 74 inhabitants were assessed for subsidy. By

1381 this had risen to 157 inhabitants assessed for poll tax and by 1775 there were 493 people in 104 houses

(VCH 1981, 98–100).

The shape of Kempsford Village shows that the Cirencester – Highworth Road was a more significant factor in its development than the ford (VCH 1981, 97) This road crossed the Thames 1.5 km downstream of

Kempsford. The bridge at Kempsford was built before 1439 (VCH 1981, 97). Besides farming, the only trades or professions mentioned at this time are fishermen in 1327 (VCH 1981, 103). Of the four mills recorded at

Domesday, two were combined by 1532 and a third had disappeared by 1556 (VCH 1981, 102).

In 1608 farming still supported the majority of Kempsford, but there was a weaver, tailors and local craftsmen listed (VCH 1981, 103). A new manor house was built between the church and the river at Kempsford before 1639 but it was demolished before 1784 (VCH 1981, 99).

The ditch system used to drain farmland at Kempsford was also used to flood the meadow every winter

(VCH 1981, 96). From 1707 the meadows were ‘drowned’ in the winter, to warm them and bring on early grass

(VCH 1981, 101). The Thames and Severn Canal opened in 1789. The vast common meadow was subject to an

Act of Inclosure in 1801 (VCH 1981, 96). Following inclosure several large farms were formed. Two on the manor estate were of 653 and 628 acres in 1815 (VCH 1981, 102). An 18th century house south of the village street later became known as the Manor House, but in 1846 Sir Gilbert East built Manor Farm as the new manor house adding to an older building present (VCH 1981, 99).

A range of Ordnance Survey and other historical maps of the area were consulted at Gloucestershire Record

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

Kempsford, Whelford and Lechlade are all depicted on Saxton’s map of Gloucestershire, 1575 (Fig. 2).

Both Kempsford and Whelford are shown as relatively small settlements, but Lechlade is a much larger, more important settlement. Following this date only a limited number of maps were available. The next map available

7

was the Enclosure Map of Kempsford and Driffield of 1802 (not illustrated). This map shows that the site had been enclosed by this time with the field boundaries and water courses depicted along with the owners, The pattern of land division visible on the later Ordnance Survey maps had more or less been established by that time. The field pattern surrounding a farm towards the centre of site shown on the first edition of the Ordnance

Survey map (Fig. 3) has been established by 1802 but no structures are shown. No other locations of possible archaeological interest are shown for the site. The Ordnance Survey first edition of 1876 (Fig. 3) shows that the site continues to comprise enclosed farmland with the only distinctive features comprising a trackway to the west, various drains, a small coppice and the farm (?) towards the centre of the site (excluded from the development area). Compared to the earlier enclosure map there are one or two new field boundaries and a few having been removed. There is in fact little change from this time until the present day as indicated by the

Ordnance Survey second edition of 1900 (not illustrated), the 1923 edition (Fig. 4) and 1960 edition (Fig. 5).

Listed buildings

There is just one listed building within the study are but is located at some distance from the site. The development proposal will not impact this building.

Registered Parks and Gardens; Registered Battlefields

There are no registered parks and gardens or registered battlefields within close proximity of the site.

Historic Hedgerows

The hedgerows on the site appear to be relatively diverse, but do not have sufficient species within them or form the historic boundaries necessary to qualify as ‘important’ as defined by Schedule 1 of the Hedgerows

Regulations 1997.

Aerial Photographs

The air photographic evidence from this part of the county was plotted as part of the National Mapping

Programme in the early 1990s (and is also on the SMR), and is therefore relatively well-known (Fig. 6). The wider area contains several notably complex concentrations of such marks (as discussed above). Very little was plotted in the vicinity of the site area and nothing on the site itself. No ridge and furrow was noted. However, it was possible that new evidence could have come to light since this mapping programme was completed, so the catalogue of the National Monuments Record was searched on 21st November 2007 for a radius of 2.5km

8

around the site. This revealed over 300 images from sorties flown from 1934 to 2006 (Appendix 3), a large proportion of which were specialist oblique views, and 13 of the sorties would probably not have been available to the plotting programme.

All of the new images and a large collection of the earlier photographs, including all of those showing the site itself, were viewed in Swindon on 30th November 2007.

For all of the extension area, there were no new cropmarks suggesting the presence of archaeological features. Only those marks already plotted were visible; this included none on the site itself.

Discussion

In considering the archaeological potential of the study area, various factors must be taken into account, including previously recorded archaeological sites, previous land-use and disturbance and future land-use including the proposed development. The proposal site occupies a large parcel or land (170ha) and on the basis of chance alone it should be anticipated that archaeological deposits, perhaps even extensive and complex ones will be present on the site. Indeed some deposits of archaeological interest are already guaranteed to be present, with a ditched field system of Roman date already present to the south (Hammond et. al. forthcoming) and extending northwards into the proposal site. This field system, though, is less extensive to its north east and its limit in this direction may have, more or less, been reached at the boundary of the study area (Hammond et al in prep).

Despite the extensive aerial photographic coverage of the study area and its acknowledged productiveness, these aerial surveys have failed to reveal any deposits for the proposal site itself (Fig. 6) though the formation of cropmarks is a complex matter relating to soil type water retention and the presence of overburden such as alluvium (which is certainly present for small parts of the site) and absence of evidence cannot be taken as evidence of absence.

It is considered that it will be necessary to provide further information about the potential of the site from field observations in order to draw up a scheme to mitigate the impact of development on any below-ground archaeological deposits if necessary. A scheme for such an evaluation would need to be drawn up and approved by the archaeological officer of the county mineral authority and implemented by a competent archaeological contractor, such as an organization registered with the Institute of Field Archaeologists.

References

Benson, D and Miles, D, 1974, The Upper Thames Valley: an archaeological survey of the river gravels, Oxfordshire Archaeol Unit Survey 2, Oxford BGS, 1974, British Geological Survey, Sheet 252, Drift/Solid Edition, Scale 1:50,000

9

Fulford, M, 1992, ‘Iron Age to Roman: a period of radical change on the gravels’, in (eds) M Fulford and E Nicols, Developing landscapes of lowland Britain: the archaeology of the British gravels: a review, Soc Antiq London Occas Pap 14, 23–38 GMLP 2003, Gloucestershire County Council Minerals Local Plan, adopted April 2003, Gloucester Hammond, S, Havard, T, Hindmarch, E, Preston, S and Taylor, A, forthcoming, ‘Roman landscape features at Manor Farm Quarry, Kempsford, Gloucestershire’, Thames Valley Archaeological Services, Reading Hammond, S, Lewis, J and Preston, S, in prep, ‘Roman landscape features at Manor Farm Quarry Areas D, E and F, Kempsford, Gloucestershire’, Thames Valley Archaeological Services, Reading Hingley, R and Miles, D, 1984, ‘Aspects of Iron Age settlement in the Upper Thames Valley’, in B Cunliffe and D Miles (eds), Aspects of the Iron Age in central southern Britain, Oxford Univ Comm Archaeol Monogr 2, 52–71 Jennings, D, Muir, J, Palmer, S and Smith, A, 2004, Thornhill Farm, Fairford, Gloucestershire; an Iron Age and Roman pastoral site in the Upper Thames Valley, Oxford Archaeology Thames Valley Landscapes Monogr 23, Oxford Miles, D, Palmer, S, Smith, A and Edgeley-Long, G, (draft), ‘Iron Age and Roman settlement in the Upper Thames Valley: excavations at Claydon Pike and other sites in the Cotswolds Water Park’, Oxford Archaeology Thames Valley Landscapes Monogr Mills, A D, 1998, Dictionary of English Place-Names, Oxford Pine, J and Preston, S, 2004, Iron Age and Roman Settlement ad Landscape at Totterdown Lane, Horcott near Fairford, Gloucestershire, Thames Valley Archaeological Services, Monograph 6 PPG16, 1990, Dept of the Environment Planning Policy Guidance 16, Archaeology and Planning, HMSO VCH, 1981, Victoria History of the Counties of : Gloucestershire, vii, Oxford Williams, A and Martin, G H, 2002, Domesday Book, A complete Translation, London

10

APPENDIX 1: Sites and Monuments Records within a 2.5 km search radius of the development site

No SMR Ref Grid Ref (SU) Type Period Comment 1 AREA 14656 17000 97500 Field system Roman Manor Farm, Kempsford. Excavated Pottery, Iron Age Arrowhead Early Bronze Age Barbed and tanged arrowhead Flint core Mesolithic Struck flint Neolithic/Bronze Age 2 AREA 3182 18210 97780 Ring ditch, Bronze Age Cropmark. 18270 97770 Enclosure Undated Cropmark AREA 26670 18120 97730 Gravel pit Medieval, Post Cropmark pre- 1799 (Enclosure map medieval Kempsford and Driffield) 3 AREA 3052 16030 97380 ring ditch Bronze Age? 4 AREA 3140 19000 98000 Spearhead or rapier Middle Bronze Age 5 AREA 2429 18300 97800 Enclosure complex, Undated cropmarks pottery Iron Age 6 AREA 324 18314 99823 Enclosure Iron Age, Roman Thornhill Farm Part excavated complex Part schedueld ancient monument (SAM459) 7 Area 4871 19024 99823 Settlement complex Iron Age, Roman Longdoles Lake. Excavated 8 AREA 4872 19267 99712 Settlement Iron Age, Roman, Warrens Cross Lake. complex, Extensive settlement complex. Excavated cemeteries, Finds Saxon, medieval 9 AREA 20342 18500 99500 Settlements Iron Age, Roman Claydon Pike, Lechlade. 10 AREA 21065 18000 99800 Settlement complex Iron Age, Roman Coln River Gravel Quarry, Fairford 11 AREA 29724 16700 97000 Field system, and Iron Age, Roman Stubbs Farm, Kempsford. Excavation. Roman enclosure, complex field system and enclosures. AREA 29725 16700 97000 Field system, Iron Age, Roman enclosure complex, Pottery Iron Age 12 AREA 3164 16370 97210 Enclosure Prehistoric or Cropmarks Roman? 13 AREA 3175 17450 99900 Enclsoure complex Prehistoric or Cropmarks. Destroyed by mineral extraction Roman 14 AREA 21800 16240 99410 Enclosure, Prehistoric, Fields Roman, ditch Medieval Canal feeder Post-medieval 18thC 15 AREA 28237 16328 99291 Enclosure, Prehistoric, Roman, RAF Fairford. Excavation of settlement complex Medieval, Post- medieval 16 AREA 3354 17700 99100 Finds Roman Pottery and lead plaque roll, rivets and weights AREA 3273 Enclosure complex Undated Cropmarks 17 AREA 14655 17000 97000 Field system Roman Stubbs Farm, Kempsford. Roman field system. Excavated. 18 AREA 26680 16390 97000 Villa? Roman Cropmark 19 AREA 3059 17180 99600 Enclosure complex, Roman, Medieval Cropmarks. Roman settlement, Watching Brief 20 AREA 2431 18000 99300 Enclosure complex Roman, Undated Cropmarks and Roman finds 21 AREA 3004 17350 98900 Enclosures Medieval or post- Cropmark medieval 22 AREA 3218 17100 99200 Mill Medieval, post- Whelford Mill, Kempsford. Two Whelford Mills medieval on Kempsford manor estate 1258 and two under one roof in 1532. Remodelled mid 20th century 23 AREA 26685 16630 97110 Gravel pit? Medieval, post Cropmarks. Before 1799 (Enclosure map medieval Kempsford and Driffield). 24 AREA 2420 16710 98780 Pound Post medieval 19th On OS 6" map of 1885 C 25 AREA 2424 16100 97400 Sherd Post medieval Watching Brief 18th C 26 AREA 3132 17130 99130 Windmill Post medieval Windmill, Whelford. On early 19th century print 19th C 27 AREA 3222 19000 99000 Windmill Post medieval West Mill, Lechlade, ruin 1527. Dwelling in 16th C 1627. 28 AREA 2425 16800 99500 Enclosure complex Undated Cropmarks 29 AREA 2430 19200 97150 Circular enclosure Undated Cropmark 30 AREA 3036 18030 98040 Rectangular Undated Cropmark (source unknown, not on NMP plot) enclosure 31 AREA 3163 16170 97250 Enclosure complex Iron Age/ Roman? Cropmarks and surface finds of Roman pottery 32 AREA 3375 18680 97090 Enclsoures Undated Cropmarks 33 AREA 3376 19300 97200 Trackway Undated Cropmark 34 AREA 17058 17690 97660 Ring ditch Bronze Age? Cropmark 35 AREA 26676 17660 97520 Enclosure Undated Cropmark 36 AREA 26677 19280 97240 Trackway? field Undated Cropmarks boundary? 37 16870 98890 Church Medieval St Anne's Church, Whelford, Listed grade II

1

APPENDIX 2: Historic and modern maps consulted

1575 Saxton’s map of Gloucestershire (fig 2) 1802 Kempsford and Driffield Enclosure 1875 Ordnance Survey, First Edition (fig 3) 1900 Ordnance Survey, Second Edition 1924 Ordnance Survey (fig 4) 1960 Ordnance Survey (fig 5) 2006 Ordnance Survey, Pathfinder 169, 1:25,000 (fig 1)

2

APPENDIX 3: Aerial Photographs consulted

A> Verticals Sortie Date Flown Frame (s) NGR (SU) US/7PH/GP/LOC93 02-Dec-1943 5013–15, 5019 140 975 US/7PH/GP/LOC95 04-Dec-1943 5026–7 153 986 US/7PH/GP/LOC219 13-Mar-1944 5016 178 976 US/7PH/GP/LOC234 15-Mar-1944 5013–16 181 975 RAF/106G/UK/1395 10-Apr-1946 3168–74, 3261–6 145 977 RAF/106G/UK/1395 10-Apr-1946 4167–74 139 962 RAF/106G/UK/1721 06-Sep-1946 1264–70, 4061–8, 5063–8 182 977 RAF/540/958 01-Dec-1952 3439–45 179 980 RAF/58/3612 20-Jun-1960 30–3, 88–92 167 964 RAF/58/8308 21-Sep-1967 106–7 180 947 OS/70342 16-Sep-1970 32–3, 47–52, 68–73 156 987 OS/70354 20-Sep-1970 90–5, 110–14, 137–8 146 965 FSL/71223 06-Oct-1971 223079 151 985 FSL/71224 05-Oct-1971 224150–1, 224165–8, 224271–3 188 956 FSL/71227 26-Oct-1971 227095–7 171 965 OS/82102 10-May-1982 85–9 176 981 OS/82103 11-May-1982 134–7 159 979 OS/96126 06-Jun-1996 38–43, 87–90, 99–102, 146–51 179 956 B> Specialist obliques Accession No. Date Flown Frame (s) NGR (SU) CAP 8393 - 10–12, 14 148 954 RCA 11405 - 11–16 149 955 ACA 7081 - 681–4 178 965 CCC 8485 - 679 161 969 RCA 11407 - 18–16 183 977 ACA 7199 02-Sep-1934 273 150 956 HAW 9426 19-Apr-1952 16–17 152 965 CAP 8121 27-Jun-1953 86–7 183 977 WAB 11635 01-Jan-1961 1875 149 955 WAB 11655 01-Jan-1964 3373–5, 3377–8 184 967 NMR 129 18-Jul-1969 412–32 157 963 NMR 131 25-Jul-1969 421–7 148 955 NMR 1302 11-Aug-1978 135-137 184 964 WAB 216 13-Jul-1970 34–5 166 956 NMR 312 26-Jul-1971 223-227 183 966 NMR 727 20-Jul-1974 1–59 152 955 NMR 10835 20-Jul-1974 35 149 955 NMR 823 01-Jul-1975 31–47 145 970 NMR 883 27-Jul-1975 85–6, 98–119 140 957 NMR 973 24-Jul-1976 137–45, 198–200, 204–7, 252–5 142 965 NMR 11023 24-Jul-1976 260–70 143 961 NMR 1302 11-Aug-1978 145–50 157 956 NMR 2265 10-Aug-1979 880–90 162 958 NMR 1764 29-May-1980 143–4 179 967 NMR 2160 20-Jun-1984 1030–44 179 965 TCD 3979 19-Jul-1986 2, 6–9 148 954 TCD 3990 19-Jul-1986 13–14 159 949 NMR 3117 23-Jul-1986 2251–6 148 954 NMR 4462 04-Jul-1989 57–79, 80–3, 85 148 965 NMR 4512 20-Jun-1989 19–21, 23–5 147 954 NMR 4452 20-Jun-1989 41–56, 59 148 961 NMR 4522 04-Jul-1989 12–16 145 962 NMR 4762 17-Jul-1992 25–6 147 953 NMR 4761 17-Jul-1992 2–15 142 959 NMR 15321 13-Jul-1995 25–31 178 959 NMR 15328 13-Jul-1995 11–24 168 970 NMR 15493 15-Jul-1996 14–15 184 967 NMR 15452 15-Jul-1996 5 183 967 NMR 15798 04-Sep-1997 8 153 983 NMR 21347 25-Jul-2001 12–16 148 955 NMR 21302 25-Jul-2001 6–9 148 954 NMR 23132 24-Jun-2003 12–17 148 955 NMR 23094 24-Jun-2003 9–12 147 954 NMR 24272 16-Jun-2006 29–31, 34 147 954 NMR 24542 04-Jul-2006 21–44 147 954 NMR 24248 16-Jun-2006 15–18 150 955 NMR 24272 16-Jun-2006 32–3 150 955

C> Military Obliques Accession No. Date Flown Frame NGR (SU) RAF 30172 25-Jan-1967 PSFO-0015–24 141 976

3 01000

SITE SP 00000 13

10 6 7 8 19 28 9 14 22 20 15 26 16 99000 21 27 37 24

4

98000 30 Site 2 5 1 25 34 35 3 12 36 33 31 23 32 29 97000 18 11 17

SU16000 17000 18000 19000 KEG 07/152 Kempsford Quarry Extension, Gloucestershire, 2007. An archaeological desk-based assessment Figure 1. Location of the site within Kempsford and Gloucestershire

Reproduced from Ordnance Survey Explorer 169 at 1:25000 Ordnance Survey Licence 100025880 Approximate location of Site

KEG 07/152 Kempsford Quarry Extension, Gloucestershire, 2007. An archaeological desk-based assessment Figure 2. Location of the site on Saxton’s map of Gloucestershire, 1575 SITE

KEG07/152 Kempsford Quarry Extension, Gloucestershire, 2007. An archaeological desk-based assessment

Figure 3. Ordnance Survey, 1876 SITE

KEG07/152 Kempsford Quarry Extension, Gloucestershire, 2007. An archaeological desk-based assessment

Figure 4. Ordnance Survey, 1923 SITE

KEG07/152 Kempsford Quarry Extension, Gloucestershire, 2007. An archaeological desk-based assessment

Figure 5. Ordnance Survey, 1960 SITE

KEG 07/152 Kempsford Quarry Extension, Gloucestershire, 2007. An archaeological desk-based assessment

Figure 6. Ordnance Survey Explorer 169 with NMP cropmark plot overlaid at 1:12,500 Crown Copyright reserved.