Highlands Farm Henley-On-Thames Oxfordshire
Highlands Farm Henley-on-Thames
Oxfordshire
Palaeolithic Test Pit Evaluation (Phase 2)
for CgMs Consulting
CA Project: 770382
CA Report: 16823
June 2016
Highlands Farm Henley-on-Thames Oxfordshire
Palaeolithic Test Pit Evaluation (Phase 2)
CA Project: 770382 CA Report: 16823
Document Control Grid Revision Date Author Checked by Status Reasons for Approved revision by A 26.05.16 Dr. Francis R. Greatorex Internal General first R. Wenban Smith review draft Greatorex B 01.06.16 Dr. Francis Duncan Client Revised draft R. Wenban Smith Hawkins review with more Greatorex (CgMs/RPS) detailed results C 07.06.16 Dr. Francis R. Greatorex, Final Revision R. Wenban Smith Duncan internal following new Greatorex Hawkins and client info on impact review
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.
© Cotswold Archaeology
© Cotswold Archaeology Highland’s Farm, Henley-Upon-Thames: Archaeological Evaluation
CONTENTS
SUMMARY ...... 2
1. INTRODUCTION ...... 3
2. ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND ...... 5
3. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES ...... 7
4. METHODOLOGY ...... 8
5. RESULTS...... 11
6. THE FINDS ...... 14
7. DISCUSSION ...... 16
8. CA PROJECT TEAM ...... 22
9. REFERENCES ...... 22
APPENDIX A: TEST PIT SUMMARIES AND CONTEXT DESCRIPTIONS ...... 25 APPENDIX B: THE FINDS ...... 26 APPENDIX C: PALAEOLITHIC AREAS OF POTENTIAL ...... 28 APPENDIX D: OASIS REPORT FORM ...... 30
APPENDIX E: SM/SSSI STRATEGY……………………………………………………… 32
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Fig. 1 Test pit layout plan Fig. 2 Test pit 23 Fig. 3 Handaxes from Black Park Gravel, TP 17 context 1703 Fig. 4 Site layout, showing Palaeolithic evaluation test pits 1-23, areas of Palaeolithic potential 1-3 and 5, and distribution of artefact recovery
1 © Cotswold Archaeology Highland’s Farm, Henley-Upon-Thames: Archaeological Evaluation
SUMMARY
Project Name: Highlands Farm Location: Henley-on-Thames NGR: SU 7424 8133 Type: Evaluation Date: 9th to 18th of May Planning Reference: P16/S0077/O SMC: Location of Archive: To be deposited with Oxfordshire Museums Service Accession Number: TBC Site Code: HHUT16
An archaeological evaluation was undertaken by Cotswold Archaeology in May 2016 at Highlands Farm, Henley-on-Thames, Oxfordshire, to investigate the Palaeolithic importance of the site. Fifteen deep test pits were excavated (TPs 9-23). These confirmed the presence of undisturbed Black Park Gravel deposits across much of the site, representing the Caversham-Henley Ancient Channel of the Thames, laid down late in the Anglian ice age c. 500,000 BP [years Before Present]. Flint artefacts were found to be moderately abundant in the deposits, and concentrated in localised areas/horizons. Two handaxes and more than 20 flakes were recovered in this phase of work, adding to the 26 artefacts recovered in the phase 1 evaluation. The artefacts are in a range of conditions, from quite fresh to well- abraded.
2 © Cotswold Archaeology Highland’s Farm, Henley-Upon-Thames: Archaeological Evaluation
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 In May 2016 Cotswold Archaeology (CA) and Southampton University (Dr. Francis Wenban Smith, Department of Archaeology) carried out "Phase 2" of Palaeolithic Test Pit Evaluation for CgMs Consulting Limited at Highlands Farm, Henley-on- Thames, Oxfordshire centred on National Grid Reference (NGR) SU 7424 8133 (Figure 1). The work was undertaken to accompany a planning application (P16/S0077/O) which has been submitted to the South Oxford District Council (SODC) the local planning authority for the residential redevelopment of the site.
1.2 Following consultation by SODC with their archaeological planning advisor, Richard Oram, Planning Archaeologist for the Historic and Natural Environment Team (HNET) at Oxfordshire County Council (OCC), a design brief for a programme of archaeological field evaluation (OCC 2012) was prepared which required that a Borehole Survey followed by Palaeolithic Test Pits across the un-quarried section of the site along with very limited investigation in the quarried area should be undertaken. The recommendation for this work was due to the site being located in an area of considerable potential immediately south of the Scheduled Monument and Site of Special Scientific Interest of Highlands Farm Palaeolithic Site (SM 254) (PRN 2182). The Borehole Survey was undertaken by ARCA in August 2015 at the request of Cotswold Archaeology acting on behalf of their client CgMs Consulting Limited (ARCA/CgMs 2015). The Borehole Survey informed the scope of the Phase 1 Test Pit Evaluation, which subsequently took place in November 2015 (CgMs/Cotswold Archaeology 2015).
1.3 The results of the phase 1 test pit evaluation led to division of the site into six areas 1, 2, 2a, 3, 4, and 5 of differing deposit character and Palaeolithic potential. Following consideration of the Phase 1 results by the curatorial authorities - SODC and Historic England - and in light of the proximity of the site to the nationally important Palaeolithic Scheduled Monument of Highlands Farm, further evaluation was requested for areas 2a, 3 and 4. This report presents results of excavation of fifteen further test pits (TPs 9-23) in these areas.
1.4 Following further discussion with Richard Oram (PA for the OCC HNET) a WSI was produced (CA 2016) for fourteen further (Phase 2) Palaeolithic test pits - TPs 9-22 - in order to further define the Palaeolithic potential of the site. The WSI was guided in
3 © Cotswold Archaeology Highland’s Farm, Henley-Upon-Thames: Archaeological Evaluation
its composition by Standard and guidance: Archaeological field evaluation (CIfA 2014), the Management of Archaeological Projects 2 (English Heritage 1991), the Management of Research Projects in the Historic Environment (MORPHE): Project Manager’s Guide (EH 2006) and any other relevant standards or guidance contained within Appendix B. The design of the works was also informed by the combined knowledge and experience of the Palaeolithic specialist Dr. Francis Wenban Smith (Southampton University) and Richard Greatorex (Cotswold Archaeology) on many similar joint venture Palaeolithic projects in the south-east of England. Following a site meeting on Monday 16th May 2016 during the monitoring of the test pits it was agreed with the PA (OCC) for the HNET and the Assistant Inspector for Ancient Monuments for Historic England (Eliza Alqassar), that an upstanding section of undisturbed deposits close to the designated SM and SSSI should be cleaned and recorded. This work, designated as test pit 23, was then carried out on Wednesday 18th May, and the results are included in this report.
1.5 The site was monitored on 16th May by Richard Oram PA for OCC’s HNET, Eliza Alqassar, Assistant Inspector for Ancient Monuments for Historic England and Robert Masefield of CgMs Consulting Limited, with Richard Greatorex and Francis Wenban-Smith also present.
The site
1.6 The site is approximately 7.3ha in area and is located on the plateau of a spur of the Chiltern Hills about 2 km west of the River Thames (Figure 1). A belt of arable land separates the site from the urban conurbation of Henley-on-Thames. The site is mostly a brownfield site on and around the old workings of a gravel extraction quarry, with an open green space to the south. The quarry itself has been partially backfilled and levelled, with an internal ground surface at c. 75m OD. The surrounding hard standing, landscaped verges and green space are slightly-higher- lying at c. 77m OD, and partly occupied by brick buildings of the farm and old quarry, and wooden cabins. The topography dips to the west and south of the site boundary, into a dry valley that curves around the site, feeding down eastward past the southern side of the site towards the present Thames floodplain. Otherwise most of the site is fairly flat-lying, other than the lower ground of the partly-infilled quarry footprint.
4 © Cotswold Archaeology Highland’s Farm, Henley-Upon-Thames: Archaeological Evaluation
1.7 The British Geological Survey (BGS) map the site - Solid and Drift 50,00 sheet 254 for Henley-on-Thames - as lying on superficial deposits of the Black Park Gravel Member (BPGM) laid down in the Anglian stage of the Middle Pleistocene between 480,000-425,000 BP. The lithology of the gravel member is described as “Horizontally stratified, matrix-supported gravel with thin tabular cross-bedded sand channels. Gravel assemblage is characterised by abundant angular flint (75-89%), sparse rounded flint (3-9%), sparse vein quartz (4-10%) and sparse quartzite (1- 6%)” (BGS 2015). The thickness of the gravel is described to range from one to six metres with an average of three. The deposits at the site are attributed to Terrace 5 of the BGS sequence for the Thames valley in this area, and specifically the lowest/youngest sub-unit T5c the Black Park Gravel.
1.8 The outcrop under the site forms part of a stretch of Black Park Gravel filling a broadly south-west to north-east trending depression in the Chalk bedrock, that stretches for about 10km between Caversham and Henley-on-Thames. It has been recognised since the late 19th century that this depression and its infill represents an early course of the Thames, known as the Caversham-Henley Ancient Channel.
1.9 The underlying bedrock is undifferentiated Chalk of the Lewes Nodular Chalk Formation, Seaford Formation and Newhaven Formation and form part of the White Chalk Subgroup. These formations date from Turonian to Campanian Ages 93.9- 73.1 my BP of the Late Cretaceous Epoch (BGS 2015).
1.10 BGS mapping shows a western edge of the Black Park Gravel outcrop running approximately parallel to the western margin of the entrance road onto the site. This corresponds to the dip in slope towards the western boundary caused by a re- entrant dry valley cutting through the BPGM deposits down to the Chalk bedrock. Further west, the BPGM continues on the far side of the bifurcated valley head.
2. ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND
2.1 It has been recognised since late in the 19th century (White 1895) that the Caversham-Henley Ancient Channel contains Palaeolithic artefacts, abundantly at some localities. The most abundant locality has been Highlands Farm itself, and the site has consequently been designated as a Scheduled Monument (old county
5 © Cotswold Archaeology Highland’s Farm, Henley-Upon-Thames: Archaeological Evaluation
number OX 254, new list entry number LEN 1004855), as well as a Quaternary Site of Special Scientific Interest. The designated parts of the site bound the development area to the north and north-east (Figure 1).
2.2 Major lithic artefact collections were made at Highlands Farm in the mid-20th century from deposits exposed by gravel extraction in the northern part of the site, in the pits immediately to the south of the designated SM and SSSI (Treacher et al. 1948: 131; Wymer 1961; Wymer 1968: 190-198). The artefacts were probably made by our Middle Pleistocene antecedent Homo heidelbergensis, and represent activity in and around the braided gravel floodplain that would have constituted the landscape at the presumed time of occupation in the later part of the Anglian glaciation (approximately 450,000 years old). The site is one of the most prolific in the county, and one of the 3 or 4 most prolific sites in Britain. It is also a rare example of occupation in this early period, being contemporary with the other famous site of this period, namely Boxgrove, in Sussex (Roberts & Parfitt 1999). Over 4000 artefacts have been recovered from the site, mostly flint flakes and cores, although more than 250 handaxes have also been found. Many of the artefacts were recovered in situ from the gravel deposits. There have also been scarce remains of large mammal fossils reported (Wymer 1964: 96), which is of particular importance as this is the only Black Park Gravel locality where faunal remains are known. The current area designated as SM and/or SSSI only includes the former quarry face and deposits a short distance back from it, and equally significant deposits are likely to extend beyond the designated area into the site, as well as beyond it.
2.4 Evidence of the continuation of the Ancient Channel, and of artefact-bearing deposits within it, is indicated by further recovery of Palaeolithic flints from Hernes Farm Pit (PRN 12904), 450m north of the Highlands Farm application site. A further 11 handaxes, 3 un-retouched flakes, 3 cores, 2 worked fragments and 11 retouched flakes were recorded during gravel workings on this site. Numerous other findspots of Palaeolithic flints have also been recorded from the general stretch of ancient Channel deposits between Caversham and Henley.
2.5 The Highlands Farm application site includes the area of the former gravel quarry, and the upper part of the Black Park Gravel has been removed from within the old pit footprint, although the lower parts still survive in places within the quarry footprint, and these lower parts have previously been reported as containing abundant Palaeolithic finds in places (Wymer 1961; Wymer 1968: 190-198). However the
6 © Cotswold Archaeology Highland’s Farm, Henley-Upon-Thames: Archaeological Evaluation
south and SW part of the site, close to and around the current farm buildings, has not been previously quarried, and the borehole and phase 1 test pit investigations have confirmed that undisturbed Black Park Gravel deposits with Palaeolithic remains are present.
2.6 Evidence from the Palaeolithic period is rare, particularly so for this early part of it, and therefore this development has the potential to impact upon a site of Palaeolithic significance. Conversely, there is great benefit to be derived from carrying out mitigating investigations in conjunction with development, that allow the site to be understood and appreciated better, both in its own right (as a rare example of late Anglian occupation) and as an exemplar of a type of site (artefacts in river gravels of varying ages from 600,000 to 250,000 BP) that is common across southern England, but currently poorly understood.
2.7 The Black Park Gravel Member at the application site has previously been assessed as being of high archaeological potential and low palaeo- environmental potential. This has been confirmed by the phase 1 test pit investigation, which confirmed the survival of undisturbed gravel deposits across much of the site, and recovered abundant artefacts in some parts of the surviving deposits. No faunal remains were found in the phase 1 work, nor any deposits with palaeo-environmental potential. However, there is a sparse history of large mammal fossil recovery, so the potential for this needs to be remembered in the course of further future investigations.
3. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
3.1 The objectives of the further, Phase 2, test pit evaluation were to gather additional information to establish the presence/absence, extent, condition, character, quality and date of any Palaeolithic remains within areas 2a, 3 and 4 of the site, as defined following the Phase 1 test pits. This new additional work will provide further information on the character and significance of the deposits under review, leading to a revised and improved recognition of areas of deposit character and Palaeolithic potential, which will form the basis for planning decision-making and any proposals for appropriate further archaeological action. The evaluation will also aim to define any research priorities that may be relevant should further field investigation be required.
7 © Cotswold Archaeology Highland’s Farm, Henley-Upon-Thames: Archaeological Evaluation
Specific aims of the work will be to; • To monitor the removal of the topsoil/subsoil and subsequent backfilling of the test pits • To identify and record the general nature of any remains (regardless of period) that might be present • Should any post-Palaeolithic archaeological features and/or horizons be exposed during the overburden removal, to identify their extent, nature and approximate date and ensure their preservation by record. • To determine the degree of complexity of the horizontal and/or vertical stratigraphy present within the Pleistocene deposits • To determine the potential of the site to provide palaeoenvironmental and or economic evidence and the forms in which such evidence may be present • To recover/record and Palaeolithic remains encountered, following the advice of the appointed Palaeolithic specialist • To determine the presence/absence, nature and distribution of any other Pleistocene deposits as well as any Palaeolithic artefacts that might be present • Determine the level of modern disturbance that may have occurred as a result of quarrying in those areas previously identified and in those areas of the site not identified as previously having been impacted upon. • Determine the level of modern disturbance that may have occurred as a result of the current usage of the site • Identify the presence and depth of the Black Park Gravel Member, from which the site wide potential for Lower Palaeolithic evidence can be evaluated. • Consideration will be given to the suitability of any sediment units encountered for optically stimulated luminescence dating (OSL) – sampling for this will be undertaken on site where appropriate.
4. METHODOLOGY
4.1 The further (Phase 2) Palaeolithic evaluation initially comprised the excavation of fourteen Palaeolithic test pits (TPs 9-22) in the locations shown on the attached plan (Figure 1). A fifteenth test pit (TP 23) was subsequently added to the project following the monitoring meeting of Monday 16th May. All test pits were approximately 4m long and 2m wide. The test pits were set out on OS National Grid (NGR) co-ordinates using Leica GPS, and scanned for live services by trained
8 © Cotswold Archaeology Highland’s Farm, Henley-Upon-Thames: Archaeological Evaluation
Cotswold Archaeology staff using CAT and Genny equipment in accordance with the Cotswold Archaeology Safe System of Work for avoiding underground services. The position of the test pits were adjusted on site to account for services and other constraints (as and when required), with the approval of the Planning Archaeologist for OCC (archaeological advisor) to SODC. The final ‘as dug’ test pit locations were recorded with GPS (Figure 1). In addition to the fourteen test pits, an upstanding section of gravel, designated as TP 23, and located immediately east of the old concrete gravel grading bins at NGR 474274 181333 (Figure 1). The upstanding south-facing face (Figure 2a) was carefully machined back, cleaned, photographed, recorded (Figure 2b-f), and any lithics present noted and retained. TP 23 was located in the surviving spur of gravel between the east and west ends of the old gravel pit footprint, close to the south of the SM and SSSI areas, and afforded an excellent opportunity to assess the surviving gravels nearest to the location of previous rich finds, and specifically how well ‘bedded’ they are and what level of lithic find density they contain.
4.2 All test pits were excavated by a tracked 360º excavator equipped with a toothless grading bucket under direction of the Palaeolithic specialist who was always present during work. All machining was conducted under archaeological supervision. Topsoil and subsoil were initially stripped down to the top of natural sediments, monitoring for any post-Palaeolithic features, and a photographic record of the exposed deposits was made. Subsequently the natural sediment was taken down in shallow spits and relevant deposits sampled and sieved on the recommendation of the Palaeolithic archaeologist. Topsoil and subsoil were stored separately adjacent to each trench for subsequent reinstatement. Machine excavation ceased when the pre-Quaternary Chalk bedrock was revealed, typically between 2 and 3 m below ground surface.
4.3 Machine excavation was undertaken in c. 10cm spits and monitored for features and/or artefacts. Gravel samples of 100L were taken at regular intervals down through the deposits encountered, and sieved on site through a mesh of c. 10-12mm to determine the level of lithic artefact presence/frequency, and to evaluate for the presence of mammalian fossil faunal remains.
4.4 Excavation continued to a maximum depth of 3m below the current ground surface, or ceased earlier if/when Chalk bedrock was encountered. The lower parts of test pits were generally excavated with a narrower width bucket, to reduce the chances
9 © Cotswold Archaeology Highland’s Farm, Henley-Upon-Thames: Archaeological Evaluation
of the collapse of trench sides, both during excavation and then subsequently during the period of up to 7 days pending the site visit by the curatorial authorities on Monday 16th May. Sections and surfaces were recorded, photographed, surveyed, and mapped. Any artefacts were recovered and assigned relevant context/spit numbers.
4.5 Test pits were entered at the maximum safe depth (typically between 1m and 1.20m) and the revealed deposit sequence was cleaned and recorded. After that, deeper-lying deposits were recorded from the top of the test pit as excavation progressed. At the request of SODC, and contrary to usual H&S practice, test pits were left open after excavation for examination during the site visit of Monday 16th May. All trenches were fenced off with HERAS fencing, for later inspection by the PA for OCC and archaeological advisor to SODC and the Assistant Inspector for Ancient Monuments (Historic England). The test pit area had clear signage warning of deep excavations.
4.6 Following machining, any post-Palaeolithic archaeological features revealed were planned and recorded in accordance with Technical Manual 1 Fieldwork Recording Manual. Each context was recorded on a pro-forma context sheet by written and measured description; principal deposits were recorded by drawn plans (scale 1:20 or 1:50, or electronically using Leica GPS or Total Station (TST) as appropriate) and drawn sections (scale 1:10 or 1:20 as appropriate). Photographs (digital colour); B&W colour slide were taken as appropriate. All finds and samples were bagged separately and related to the context record. All artefacts were recovered and retained for processing and analysis in accordance with Technical Manual 3 Treatment of Finds immediately after excavation.
4.7 Sample excavation of archaeological deposits was limited and minimally intrusive, sufficient to achieve the aims and objectives identified in Section 3 above, and at this stage there is no requirement to sample all archaeological deposits encountered.
4.8 Artefacts from topsoil and subsoil and un-stratified contexts were noted but not retained unless they were of intrinsic interest (e.g. worked flint or flint debitage, featured pottery sherds, and other potential ‘registered artefacts’). All artefacts were collected from recorded deposits.
10 © Cotswold Archaeology Highland’s Farm, Henley-Upon-Thames: Archaeological Evaluation
4.10 No deposits were encountered that warranted environmental sampling.
4.11 CA will comply fully with the provisions of the Treasure Act 1996 and the Code of Practice referred to therein.
5. RESULTS
Overview
5.1 Undisturbed (sediment group I) or slightly-disturbed (sediment group II) Black Park Gravel deposits were present across much of the site (test pits 13-21 and 23). In several of these test pits (12, 13, 19, 20, 22 and 23) the upper part of the sequence comprised slightly-disturbed deposits (group II), ranging from a shallow veneer down to 50cm below the ground surface in TP 23, to almost the full thickness of deposit down to >2m below the ground surface in TP 13. However in several test pits (eg. TPs 15-18 and 23) almost the full sequence of deposit was thought to be undisturbed Black Park Gravel, with the clayey/sandy upper part reflecting a changing, and quieter, depositional regime, rather than indicating a substantial stratigraphic hiatus between undisturbed and more-disturbed deposits. However this is a provisional conclusion and examination of longer continuous orthogonal sections would be required to establish these interpretations more securely. The sediments were often heavily affected by underlying solution and frost-heaving, which has caused a loss of sedimentary structure and led to a very disturbed appearance of the sediments, without there being any significant lateral displacement. The Black Park Gravel deposits produced moderately abundant flint artefacts, with most test pits producing 1-4 artefacts, and greater concentrations at three locations (test pits 17 and 23 from the phase 2 evaluation, and test pit 3 from the phase 1 evaluation). These deposits are therefore of high importance, containing well-provenanced and un-reworked archaeological remains that can be regarded as contemporary with the gravel formation.
5.2 Heavily disturbed and reworked Black Park Gravel deposits (sediment group III) were present in the southwest part of the site (test pits 9-11 and 22). One small flake was recovered from test pit 9, but otherwise these deposits produced no artefacts. Even if they had, they would not be of high significance considering their presumed- reworked depositional history, and the consequent poor provenance of any archaeological remains.
11 © Cotswold Archaeology Highland’s Farm, Henley-Upon-Thames: Archaeological Evaluation
Stratigraphy, distribution of sediments and depositional environments (Appendix A)
5.3 Three main groups of Pleistocene sediment were recognised, sediment groups I, II and III. These are summarised below (Table 1), and Table 1 also identifies the test pits where sediment groups were present. A detailed report of the sequence in each test pit is provided as an appendix (Appendix A), and this appendix also identifies for each test pit the depth within the sequence of deposits attributed to each deposit group, and provides a photo of the fully-excavated sequence.
Test Test Sediment pits - pits - Group Deposit + description Period Interpretive notes Ph 1 Ph 2 To TOPSOIL. Current topsoil, capped Recent - 1, 4 9-20, 22 by turf M MADE GROUND. Varied Recent Probably mostly resulting 2-3, 5-6, 11-12, clay/silt/sand/gravel, often with from quarry decommissioning 7-8 21-22 hydrocarbon contamination and and landscaping in the waste such as metalwork, bricks 1960s-1970s and concrete III POST-BLACK PARK GRAVEL Middle-Late Deposits that mostly originate 2, 5 9-11, 22 DEPOSITS. Variably Pleistocene from the Black Park Gravel, clayey/silty/gravelly deposits, but have been significantly generally well-consolidated and reworked/disturbed by post- lacking structure, and depositional processes, and incorporating flint and quartzite probably also incorporate clasts of all sizes, as well as chalk- later aeolian/colluvial rich patches elements II BLACK PARK TERRACE, Middle Black Park Gravel deposits of 4 12-13, DISTURBED. Generally Pleistocene fluvial origin that are not quite 18-20, clayey/silty sand/gravel-rich in situ, and have been 23 deposits with faint remnants of moderately disturbed, bedding structures, often reworked or de-structured by incorporating flint nodules and post-depositional processes chalk-rich patches, and with such as slopewash, intruding chalk-rich diapirs underlying solution hollows and internal frost-heaving. I BLACK PARK GRAVEL. Soft, Middle Undisturbed (or minimally 1, 3-4, 13-21, loose and clean, silty/sandy Pleistocene disturbed) fluvial 6-8 23 flint/quartzite gravel, often with sands/gravels, from clear bedding and wavy sand-rich Caversham Ancient Channel, lenses, with its base at c. 74m OD; thought to date c. 500,000 to often affected by post-depositional 400,000 BP slumping into underlying solution features [includes chalk diamict where the disturbed surface of the Chalk underlies Black Park Gravel, for example in TP 1]. Ch CHALK Cretaceous Ancient bedrock, >65,000,000 1, 3-8 9-20, 22 years old Table 1. Major sediment groups (stratigraphic order, from base). [This table supersedes the similar Table 1 in the Phase 1 test pit report, CgMs/Cotswold Archaeology 2015]
12 © Cotswold Archaeology Highland’s Farm, Henley-Upon-Thames: Archaeological Evaluation
Sieve-sampling and Palaeolithic finds (Appendix B; Fig 3)
5.4 Full details of the sieve-sampling and finds recovery are given in the finds appendix (Appendix B), and a full discussion of the technological and typological characteristics of the finds, which were all lithic artefacts, and of their provenance and post-depositional history, is provided further below (Section 6). In summary, lithic artefacts were moderately abundant in the Black Park Gravel deposits at the site, with some areas seemingly of greater concentration. In total, 2500 litres of gravel was sieved from deposits of sediment groups I and II, and 19 artefacts were recovered, making an average recovery of less than 10 artefacts per m3. However this was considerably higher at some locations/horizons, for instance with an artefact density of 25 per m3 in context 1703 at TP 17, a horizon that also produced both the handaxes recovered during the project (Figure 3). Artefacts were also very abundant at TP 23, the location within the old pit footprint nearest to the SM and SSSI, with an average density of 30 per m3, as well as one flake recovered in situ from the section face (Figure 2c).
5.5 The greatest artefact density identified at the site was in test pit 3, from the phase 1 evaluation, where 6 flakes were found from sieving 200 litres of context 303 (30 per m3), directly below the ground surface, rising to 70 per m3 (7 artefacts from sieving 100 litres of gravel) in the lower-lying context 305, 1.5-2.5m below the ground surface. This is comparable to some of the richest and most important river gravel sites in the country, such as the hominin skull horizon (the "Lower Middle Gravel") at Swanscombe - see Wenban-Smith & Bridgland (2001) for comparative data on find density in the Swanscombe Lower Middle Gravel at the Swanscombe Community School. This latter site incidentally provides a good example of appropriate mitigation of a nationally important Palaeolithic river gravel site in conjunction with a development that made a significant impact on the archaeologically rich gravel resource within the site area, but with significant areas of the gravel extending and preserved beyond the development plot (see further discussion below, paras 7.5- 7.6).
5.6 Generally, the lower deposits were more productive across the site, although this pattern of recovery also reflects that less-disturbed Black Park Gravel deposits were generally more deeply buried, and sieve-sampling was focused upon these less- disturbed deposits. The top surfaces of the richest horizons identified, in TPs 3, 17 and 23 were respectively 1.4m, 0.80m and 0.70m below the current ground surface
13 © Cotswold Archaeology Highland’s Farm, Henley-Upon-Thames: Archaeological Evaluation
at these locations. However, productive deposits were also present close below the ground surface in some places in Area 3 (in TPs 3, 12 and 13).
Faunal and other palaeo-environmental remains
5.7 No faunal remains were found, nor any deposits with palaeo-environmental potential.
Clast lithological analysis
5.8 A clast lithological report has now been received (T. White, May 2016) from sample <8> in test pit 3 from the phase 1 evaluation, from presumed Black Park Gravel (context 303). This report confirmed this presumption based on the fluvial origin of this horizon based on the angularity/roundness profile of the stone clasts, as well as its post-Anglian or late Anglian date, on the basis of the presence of the exotic Rhaxella chert, a lithology only introduced into the Thames basin by the ice advances of the Anglian glaciation.
Dating and optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) sampling
5.9 The dating attribution of the site is based on the recognition of the Black Park Gravel as (a) an early Thames fluvial deposit based on its position in the middle of the "staircase" of terrace deposits that flank the Thames valley, and (b) an intra-Anglian or post-Anglian deposit, based on the presence of Rhaxella chert, as explained above (para 5.8). Based on downstream correlation of the Middle Thames terrace staircase with well-dated Lower Thames post-Anglian MIS 11 sites such as Swanscombe, the Black Park Gravel can confidently be dated to within the later part of the Anglian glaciation, or during deglaciation at the very end of MIS 12, thus in the broad period 500,000 - 430,000 BP [years Before Present]. This is beyond the range of effective OSL dating, so it was not thought worth taking any OSL samples, although some potentially suitable sand-rich deposits were encountered.
6. THE FINDS
6.1 The only category of finds recovered during the project was lithic artefacts, all made of flint. This raw material would have been locally abundant at the river banks (as relatively fresh nodular flint) and on the braided floodplain (as relatively abraded
14 © Cotswold Archaeology Highland’s Farm, Henley-Upon-Thames: Archaeological Evaluation
nodular and broken pieces of flint) as the river channel cut through this region of chalk bedrock.
Lithics (Figure 3) 6.2 Full details of the lithic finds are provided as an appendix (Appendix B, Tables B1 and B2). Most of the lithic finds were recovered from undisturbed deposits of the Black Park Gravel (Caversham-Henley Ancient Channel), sediment group I of the site stratigraphic sequence (see Table 1). A few were recovered from slightly disturbed parts of the same deposit - sediment group II - in test pits 12 and 13, and one small broken flake was recovered from mixed/reworked Black Park Gravel deposits of sediment group III in test pit 9. All the finds (except possibly the small flake from TP 9) originate from the Ancient Channel gravel, and are thus of Lower Palaeolithic age, dating to the late Anglian c. 450,000 BP, or perhaps even earlier for any thought to be reworked on the basis of their abraded condition. The finds are in a variety of conditions, mostly moderately to well-abraded, although a few of them are fresh or slightly-abraded. This could be taken by some to reflect a greater degree of post-depositional transport for the more-abraded specimens. However, it is more likely that abrasion has been caused by battering of relatively static artefacts by smaller and more mobile clasts being transported by the river flow, and in situ crushing by frost-heaving and sediment flexing during the long period of post- depositional burial. Therefore it is regarded that (a) degree of abrasion cannot be taken as a proxy for degree of disturbance and distance of lateral transport, and (b) that even well-abraded artefacts - particularly larger ones such as handaxes that would not have been very mobile in a flowing river - have probably not moved far from their location of deposition. Therefore the concentration of abraded artefacts at Highlands Farm can be regarded as reflecting a concentration of activity at the locale broadly contemporary with formation of the Ancient Channel gravel, and needs to be considered in that light.
6.3 The finds include two handaxes (Figure 3), one of them a well-abraded and medium-sized specimen of a crude pointed handaxe (Figure 3a), and the other a curious small plano-convex bifacially-worked tool (Figure 3b) that is perhaps more functionally akin to a bi-convex side-scraper. Both were found in conjunction with some waste debitage in the same gravel horizon in test pit 17, between 80cm and 1.25m below the present ground surface [between c. 76 and 76.5 m OD]. This is therefore a location/horizon containing a concentration of artefacts that merits further mitigating investigation, if affected by development plans.
15 © Cotswold Archaeology Highland’s Farm, Henley-Upon-Thames: Archaeological Evaluation
6.4 One very simple core was found, from slightly-disturbed Black Park Gravel deposits (sediment group II) in test pit 13. It had a few flake removals from one platform caused by a single removal across the top of a small piece of flint. Interestingly, it seems to retain evidence of two separate phases of similar reduction, with well- abraded scars from an early phase of working, and then moderately-abraded scars from a later phase.
6.5 The waste flakes were of a variety of sizes from c. 3cm to nearly 10cm, although some of the broken flakes represent original removals >10cm. Almost all were chunky and technologically undiagnostic, although a few of them showed features such as opposing dorsal scars and thin-ness that are possibly indicative of handaxe thinning/shaping. A few flakes had clear points of percussion, well-developed cones and tight rings of conchoidal ripples indicating hard-hammer percussion. None of them showed features indicative of soft-hammer percussion. The flakes ranged from 100% cortical flakes from initial flaking of a piece of raw material through to flakes with no cortex from later in a reduction sequence. As can be seen from the scars on the pointed handaxe (Figure 3a), most flakes from handaxe manufacture would not be recognisable as such, so most of the debitage could well be from handaxe manufacture despite the lack of recognisable handaxe manufacturing features in the flake collection. However, the recovery of the simple core confirms that knapping activity represented in the Black Park Gravel at the site includes both handaxe manufacture and core reduction. The site - like most sites of the Palaeolithic - does not afford the resolution to establish whether these represent contemporary variations of knapping approach, or different phases of occupation by hominins with different lithic manufacturing traditions. Recovery of considerably greater quantities of well-provenanced material under controlled conditions could perhaps begin to address this.
7. DISCUSSION
Areas of Palaeolithic potential (Fig 4)
7.1 The phase 2 work has led to a revision of the areas of Palaeolithic potential that were identified following the preliminary phase 1 test pit programme. The revised areas are shown (Figure 4) and a detailed explanation of their deposit character,
16 © Cotswold Archaeology Highland’s Farm, Henley-Upon-Thames: Archaeological Evaluation
Palaeolithic remains and importance is provided as an appendix (Appendix C). This appendix also provides an outline of appropriate mitigation strategies for each area.
7.2 Key revisions are:
7.2.1 - The previous area 1 has been slightly reduced (at its western end) to exclude the part of the development site west of the entrance road and north of the old pit entrance. This area has been re-allocated to area 3. The new area 1 thus consists entirely of designated sediments that form the SM and SSSI, and a small area of immediately adjacent sediments that protrudes southward into the old pit footprint, where TP 23 was located, and that have been shown to be of similar importance to the designated sediments. Area 1 is of HIGH potential, and it is recommended that consideration is given to preserving at least a representative part of the small area of southward-protruding sediments, in conjunction with some investigation to tidy it up and understand it better, and development of a management plan to address plant growth and animal burrowing. This area could perhaps form the focus of a standing section and interpretation board, that promotes understanding and appreciation of the Highlands Farm heritage asset.
7.2.2 - The previous area 2a has been dispensed with, and amalgamated into area 2. There was some uncertainty over whether this area was virgin ground, or previously quarried and reinstated. The latter has proved to be the case, based on the newly-dug TP 21.
7.2.3 - The overall potential of Area 2 has been revised from "MODERATE" to "Varied LOW/HIGH". This reflects the character of deposits in the area, from which gravel has previously been extracted across much of the area, but the lower part of which was not fully extracted and persists in places. The unextracted basal parts of the gravel were reported (Treacher et al. 1948; Wymer 1961; Wymer 1968:190- 198) to have been one of the richest horizons for Palaeolithic remains, and to have contained fresher condition handaxes. Thus, while much of area 2 consists of chalk bedrock and backfilled pits full of decaying industrial machinery, and is of LOW or ZERO potential, other parts are of HIGH potential, and would merit mitigation. It will be impossible to predict where areas of HIGH potential occur, so these would have to be mitigated by a Watching Brief, followed by allowing for suitable investigation if/when identified during development.
17 © Cotswold Archaeology Highland’s Farm, Henley-Upon-Thames: Archaeological Evaluation
7.2.4 - The previous area 4 has been dispensed with. This was an area about which little was known. The new phase of work involved several test pits in this area, allowing it to be divided into area 3 (HIGH potential) and area 5 (LOW potential).
7.2.5 - Area 3 (HIGH potential) consists of presumed-similar deposits to the designated parts of the site, and produced abundant artefacts from in situ Black Park Gravel (sediment group I) in the phase 1 evaluation in TP 3. Area 3 has now been reduced at its southwest side, but extended southeastward, to include the open space to the south of the east end of the old pit. This latter area, previously uninvestigated but now investigated by several test pits (TPs 16-20), has been shown to contain locally-concentrated areas/horizons of Palaeolithic artefacts (in TP 17 context 1703, which was between 75cm and 1.7m below the current ground surface (between 75.65 and 76.55 m OD). This is therefore a key area for further investigation, to understand better how/whether artefacts are concentrated in specific areas/horizons, and how artefact-rich locales/horizons across the site (for instance, those now proven at TP 3, TP 17 and TP 23) fit into a wider stratigraphic framework for the Black Park Gravel at Highlands Farm, and how they relate to each other.
7.2.6 - Area 5 (LOW potential) has been expanded to the northeast, to include the area of TPs 9-11 and 22. The new phase 2 work has shown that this area contains mixed/reworked deposits (sediment group III), that are of little Palaeolithic potential.
Priorities for further investigation and future management of the site
7.3 Following from the combined results of the phase 1 work (preliminary test pit evaluation) and the phase 2 work (further targeted test pit evaluation), we now have a good understanding of the deposit character and Palaeolithic potential in different parts of the site. However it has also become clear that we know relatively little about the designated assets of the SM and SSSI, and that there should be some concerns about the current condition of these assets in terms of the lack of any visible exposures, the build up against of them of made ground and industrial waste, the implications of continuing uncontrolled plant and tree growth and the effects of animal burrowing.
18 © Cotswold Archaeology Highland’s Farm, Henley-Upon-Thames: Archaeological Evaluation
7.4 The following priorities can be established for further investigation and future management of the site:
7.4.1 - cleaning/recording and recovering artefacts from the standing sections of the SM and SSSI
7.4.2 - carrying out a review of the plant/tree growth and animal burrowing at the site, considering any implications for its future condition and long-term survival, and establishing a suitable management plan
7.4.3 - developing and implementing a strategy to promote understanding and appreciation of the site in the local/regional community as an important national heritage asset, representing scarce evidence of a very early phase of occupation of the British Isles
7.4.4 - developing a more detailed stratigraphic framework across the site, recovering larger assemblages of well-provenanced artefacts tied in with this framework, and inferring depositional environments from the geometry and sedimentological character of the identified horizons
7.4.5 - investigating the distribution and condition of artefacts in different horizons across the site, and developing a better understanding where, and whether, there are localised concentrations of artefacts in particular horizons, and of the post- depositional history and degree of disturbance.
7.4.6 - establishing, from larger assemblages of well-provenanced artefacts, whether there are patterns of technological and typological change that can be observed through the stratigraphic sequence, and perhaps spatially in different parts of the site
Development impact and approaches to mitigation
7.5 There is currently some uncertainty over the engineering approach to development of the site, its services/housing layout and groundworks plan. A particular problem is posed by the uneven base of the Black Park Gravel, and the development at its base of numerous major solution features, that extend in some places to considerable depths, maybe 10-20m. For the most part these are stable and of
19 © Cotswold Archaeology Highland’s Farm, Henley-Upon-Thames: Archaeological Evaluation
ancient origin, and infilled with slumped gravel, but in the longer-term some of these features may continue to develop dynamically and pose a problem for the stability of overlying development. However, it is currently proposed to develop the site with an engineering solution involving piling and/or slot beam foundations, although the distribution and depth of these proposals remains to be finalised, and therefore the likely consequent impact upon Black Park Gravel deposits cannot yet be established/fully assessed.
7.6 The development will clearly have some impact on the Black Park Gravel in areas where work is planned, and areas of high Palaeolithic potential would be affected by any development in areas 1, 2 and 3. However, despite a possible initial presumption that this impact would affect deposits of equivalent importance to the designated SM and SSSI, and thus should not be permitted, there are various considerations to justify that this presumption in favour of preservation be reconsidered, and be replaced by development permitted in conjunction with an appropriately detailed programme of archaeological mitigation (as outlined in Appendix C):
7.6.1 - The designated assets, and adjacent areas of presumed/possible equivalence, are currently very poorly understood. Even if there was not the possibility of carrying out investigations in conjunction with a development, there would be significant benefits in carrying out field investigations to develop an improved understanding of the heritage assets at the site, and in developing and implementing a management plan that both ensures the longer-term preservation of the designated assets, and involves developing appreciation and understanding of the site as a heritage asset.
7.6.2 - No development is proposed for area 1, representing the designated assets and non-designated areas of equivalently important sediment immediately adjacent to them. It is however proposed that some mitigating work be carried out to understand deposits of area 1 better, cleaning/recording sections where possible, collecting artefacts and situating them within an improved stratigraphic framework, tidying up the deposit faces, developing a management plan for them, and perhaps creating witness sections for subsequent educational purposes.
7.6.2 - The area of Black Park Gravel affected by the proposed development does not cover the whole site, but only a part of it, and (in the areas affected by development) the greatest impact would be on its upper parts, which current information suggests
20 © Cotswold Archaeology Highland’s Farm, Henley-Upon-Thames: Archaeological Evaluation
do not contain the richest horizons for Palaeolithic remains. The proposals for mitigation would involve a combination of (as outlined in Appendix C): (a) excavation of major orthogonal stepped trenches in areas of the site affected by development, which would permit detailed stratigraphic recording, recovery of large and well-provenanced artefact collections, and which would transform our understanding of the site, and also, crucially, (b) smaller-scale pro-active investigations targeted at full sampling through the entire sequence in the areas/depths of gravel shown by evaluation work to be most productive, which would so-far-as possible otherwise be avoided by development impact, but by which we would thus greatly improve our wider understanding of the site.
7.6.3 - The site itself forms only a very small proportion of the wider area of the part of the Black Park Gravel that forms the Caversham-Henley Ancient Channel. This deposit extends over a distance of 10km, represented as numerous major outcrops, ranging in size from a few hectares to several km2. While all this resource cannot be regarded as an equivalent heritage asset to the site, the particular outcrop around Highlands Farm (which extends west for 300m, north for 750m and east for 2km) covers maybe 400ha, and the development area of the site would thus form a very small proportion of this particular outcrop. The deposits of the SM and SSSI would be unaffected by the proposed development, as would the virgin ground immediately to their north, which might reasonably be expected to preserve a continuation of equivalently important deposits.
7.6.4 - The small southward-protruding spur of ground (at TP 23) immediately adjacent to the SM and SSSI could be excluded from the proposed development, and preserved in situ.
7.6.5 - Archaeological investigations at the Swanscombe Community School in 1997 to 2001 (Wenban-Smith & Bridgland 2001) provide a good comparative model for a previous instance of permitted development in conjunction with a major impact on a nationally important Palaeolithic river gravel. The gravel resource here was even richer in artefacts than at Highlands Farm, with some horizons having a density of 100 per m3, and with some preservation of mammalian fossils, such as elephant, deer and bovid remains. This gravel resource was a lateral continuation of the Swanscombe Lower Middle Gravel, which produced the Swanscombe skull, and a nearby part of which is protected as the designated heritage asset "The Swanscombe Skull Site National Nature Reserve". There was a major impact on this
21 © Cotswold Archaeology Highland’s Farm, Henley-Upon-Thames: Archaeological Evaluation
resource within the school site area, with construction of a major drainage system that involved total removal of gravel from maybe 20% of the site, coupled with ground reduction and slot beam foundations that had a significant impact on the gravel over about 40% of the site. Development was permitted, in conjunction with a major mitigating programme of section recording and controlled archaeological sampling, on the basis of (a) the benefits of improved understanding of the otherwise-little-investigated deposits in this area, and (b) recognition of the fact that extensive areas of equivalent deposits extended beyond the site area, and remained unaffected by the development. The curator involved for Kent County Council (Lis Dyson, Heritage Conservation Manager) is willing to discuss her thinking on this type of site if anyone wishes to consult her, and on the curatorial principles concerning when/whether to preserve in situ or allow development in conjunction with mitigation.
8. CA PROJECT TEAM
Fieldwork was undertaken by Adam Howard and Dr Francis Wenban-Smith, assisted by Tony Brown. The report was written by Adam Howard and Dr Francis Wenban-Smith. The lithics finds report was written by Dr Francis Wenban-Smith. The archive has been compiled by Andrew Donald, and prepared for deposition by Hazel O’Neill. The project was managed for CA by Richard Greatorex.
9. REFERENCES
BGS (British Geological Survey) 2015 Geology of Britain Viewer http://maps.bgs.ac.uk/geology viewer_google/googleviewer.html Accessed 9 May 2016
ARCA Geoarchaeology (with CA) 2015 Highlands Farm, Henley - Upon –Thames, Oxfordshire: Geoarchaeological Borehole Survey
22 © Cotswold Archaeology Highland’s Farm, Henley-Upon-Thames: Archaeological Evaluation
BGS (British Geological Survey) 2011 Geology of Britain Viewer http://maps.bgs.ac.uk/geology viewer_google/googleviewer.html Accessed 12 June 2015 CgMs Consulting [with Cotswold Archaeology and Francis Wenban-Smith], 2015. Preliminary Palaeolithic and Geo-archaeological Test Pit Evaluation. Unpublished client report prepared in December 2015.
Cotswold Archaeology 2011. Highlands Farm, Harpsden Henley-on-Thames Oxfordshire. CA Project: 3448; CA Report: 11126
Cotswold Archaeology (2015) Highlands Farm Henley-on-Thames Oxfordshire Written Scheme of Investigation for a borehole survey. Unpublished document. CA Project 770252. Cotswold Archaeology, Cirencester.
Gibbard, P.L. (1985) The Pleistocene History of the Middle Thames Valley. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Hey,G. and Hind,J. (2014) Solent-Thames Research Framework for the Historic Environment. Resource assessments and Research Agendas. Oxford Wessex Archaeology.
Jones, A.P., Tucker, M.E. and Hart, J.K. (1999) ‘Guidelines and recommendations’. In Jones, A.P., Tucker, M.E. and Hart, J.K. (Eds.) The description and analysis of Quaternary stratigraphic field sections. Quaternary Research Association technical guide 7, London, 27-76.
Munsell Color (2000) Munsell soil color charts. Munsell Color, New Windsor (NY).
Planning Policy Team (2011) Henley Site Capacity Assessment. South Oxfordshire District Council.
Roberts, M.B. & Parfitt, S.A., (ed's). 1999a. Boxgrove: a Middle Pleistocene Hominid Site. English Heritage, London.
Treacher MS, Arkell WJ, Oakley KP, 1948. On the Ancient Channel between Caversham and Henley, Oxfordshire, and its contained Flint Implements. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 27: 126-154.
23 © Cotswold Archaeology Highland’s Farm, Henley-Upon-Thames: Archaeological Evaluation
Tucker, M.E. (2011) Sedimentary rocks in the field. Wiley, Chichester.
Warrington, L. (2013) Groundwater Risk Assessment at HighlandsFarm, Henley-on-Thames. Final Report. Unpublished report for Crest Nicholson.
Wenban-Smith, F.F. & Bridgland, D.R. 2001. Palaeolithic archaeology at the Swan Valley Community School, Swanscombe, Kent. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 67: 219–259.
Wymer JJ, 1961. The Lower Palaeolithic Succession in the Thames Valley and the date of the Ancient Channel Between Caversham and Henley, Oxon. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 27: 1-27.
Wymer JJ, 1964. Archaeological notes from Reading Museum: "Rotherfield Peppard, Oxon". Berkshire Archaeological Journal 61 (for 1963-1964): 96-109.
Wymer, J.J. 1968. Lower Palaeolithic Archaeology in Britain as represented by the Thames Valley. John Baker, London.
24 © Cotswold Archaeology Highland’s Farm, Henley-Upon-Thames: Archaeological Evaluation
APPENDIX A: TEST PIT SUMMARIES AND CONTEXT DESCRIPTIONS
25 APPENDIX A. TEST PIT SUMMARIES AND CONTEXT DESCRIPTIONS
Glossary for sediment description terms and abbreviations
Some common terms Clast - Coarser pebbles/cobbles or other larger items in an otherwise fine-grained sediment Cobbles - Clasts from 6.4cm to 25.6cm Diamict - A densely-packed mixture of clasts (usually chalk) of widely-varying sizes, in a matrix of clay/sand/silt Diapir - Wedge of sediment that is generally sub-vertically oriented and intrusive from lower horizons into upper ones, formed by ground heaving and pressure of overburden leading to upward-squeezing/distortion of a soft/plastic water-saturated sediment; can finish in a pointed taper or a mushroom-shaped cap Gravel - Sediment, typically matrix-supported with combination of pebbles, cobbles and finer- grained matrix (sand/clay/silt), can be "clast-supported" and lacking in finer-grained matrix Pebble - Clasts from 2mm up to 6.4cm Matrix - The finer-grained part of a sediment that contains clasts Sand - Sediment grains from 0.0625mm up to 2mm, uncohesive unless in combination with finer clay/silt particles
Sand/gravel/cobble particle-size grades Sediment Size Abbreviation Size-grade (Wentworth) SAND Very fine VF 0.0625 - 0.125 mm Fine F 0.125 - 0.25 mm Medium M 0.25 - 0.50 mm Coarse C 0.5 - 1.0 mm Very coarse VC 1 - 2 mm GRAVEL Very fine VF 2 - 4 mm Fine F 4 - 8 mm Medium M 8 - 16 mm Coarse C 16 - 32 mm Very coarse VC 32 - 64 mm COBBLES Small Sm 6.4 - 12.8 cm Large Lg 12.8 - 25.6 cm
Site: Highlands Farm Test-pit 9 Site-code (CA): 770382 CAHO-C code: -088 Site sub-div: Phase 2 Palaeolithic test pit evaluation Date: 12th May 2016 Dimensions: Length (m) 4.0 Co-ords East: 474182 Ground level, Width (m) 1.95 (NGR) North: 181197 m OD: 75.18 Depth (m) 2.40
Sed Depth Depth Samples Vol. Lithic Enviro group Context Description - top - base <> (lit.) finds remains To 900 TOPSOIL/TURF. 0.0 0.27 - - - - 901 GRAVEL. Soft, loose, moderately-sorted, 0.27 0.60 <35> 100 1 small None M-C flint gravel in F-M sand matrix; clasts flake gen. angular to sub-angular, moderately/well-abraded, gen. yellowish- brown. Variably sharp/diffuse uneven sub- horizontal basal junction 902 CLAYEY/SANDY GRAVEL. Well- 0.60 2.40 - - - - consolidated, very poorly sorted M-VC flint and quartz/quartzite pebbles/ cobbles densely-packed in strong brown clay- silt/sand (M-C) matrix, incorporating very III uneven patches/diapirs of chalk-rich sediment (context 903). Sharp and very uneven basal junction, including not-bottomed solution hollows 903 CHALK-RICH PATCHES/DIAPIRS. 0.60 2.10 - - - - Moderately-firm, friable, cream/ very pale brown chalk silt with VF-VC chalk clasts and moderately common pieces of nodular flint, often broken. Occurs as very contorted patches or sub- vertical diapirs within context 902, sometimes with a diffuse basal junction with the underlying chalk rubble (context 904) 904 CHALK. Dry white chalk rubble, grading 2.00 2.40 - - - - Ch down to Chalk bedrock.
Test pit 9, looking E
Site: Highlands Farm Test-pit 10 Site-code (CA): 770382 CAHO-C code: -088 Site sub-div: Phase 2 Palaeolithic test pit evaluation Date: 12th May 2016 Dimensions: Length (m) 3.0 Co-ords East: 474197 Ground level, Width (m) 1.95 (NGR) North: 181221 m OD: 75.65 Depth (m) 2.30
Sed Depth Depth Samples Vol. Lithic Enviro group Context Description - top - base <> (lit.) finds remains To 1000 TOPSOIL/ TURF. 0.0 0.26 - - - - 1001 CLAYEY SAND/ GRAVEL. Moderately 0.26 1.10 - - - - consolidated and moderately cohesive, strong brown (slightly reddish) very poorly sorted, C- VC gravel in clay-silt/ sand (M-C) matrix, clasts gen. broken nodular flint, angular flint pebbles (moderately to well abraded), and moderately rounded quartz/quartzite pebbles and cobbles. Sharp, regular, undulating basal junction 1002 SAND/ GRAVEL. Moderately soft, uncohesive, 0.60 2.30 - - - - strong brown (slightly yellowish-orange) M-C sand with very common flint/ quartzite pebbles; III becomes coarser downward, with clayey/silty patches, more common larger clasts; contains patches and intrusive diapirs of chalk diamict (context 1003). Very uneven/contorted basal junction, infilling major solution features, not-bottomed 1003 CHALK DIAMICT. Very contorted patches of 1.10 1.90 - - - - cream/ very pale brown chalk silt with C-VC chalk clasts and occasional moderately-fresh pieces of nodular flint Occurs as patches and upward-intrusive diapirs within, and at the base of, context 1002 1004 CHALK. Dry white crumbly chalk rubble with 1.90 2.30 - - - - Ch fresh flint nodules, grading down to Chalk bedrock.
Test pit 10, looking S
Site: Highlands Farm Test-pit 11 Site-code (CA): 770382 CAHO-C code: -088 Site sub-div: Phase 2 Palaeolithic test pit evaluation Date: 11th May 2016 Dimensions: Length (m) 5.0 Co-ords East: 474211 Ground level, Width (m) 1.95 (NGR) North: 181244 m OD: 76.16 Depth (m) 2.35
Sed Depth Depth Samples Vol. Enviro group Context Description - top - base <> (lit.) Lithic finds remains To 1100 TOPSOIL/ TURF. 0.0 0.16 - - - - 1101 SUBSOIL/ MADE GROUND. Dark 0.16 0.40 - - - - greyish-brown clay/silt/sand with flint/ quartzite pebbles/cobbles up to 15cm and M occasional red bricks, asphalt lumps and pieces of old metal. Sharp, horizontal basal junction 1102 CLAY/SILT/SAND/GRAVEL. 0.40 1.90 - - ∆.2 - found to - Structureless, moderately well- be a natural consolidated, moderately cohesive, very piece of flint, poorly sorted flint/quartz/quartzite gravel after cleaning with common cobbles of fresh to moderately abraded nodular flint in variable matrix of clay-silt/ clay-silty F-M III sand, generally strong brown; including quite a few large, quite sharp frost- fractured flint clasts. Uneven, contorted basal junction, infilling solution features and involution pockets in underlying Chalk, with some upward intruding diapirs 1103 CHALK. Dry white chalk rubble, grading 1.90 2.35 - - - - Ch down to Chalk bedrock.
Test pit 11, looking NE
Site: Highlands Farm Test-pit 12 Site-code (CA): 770382 CAHO-C code: -088 Site sub-div: Phase 2 Palaeolithic test pit evaluation Date: 11th May 2016 Dimensions: Length (m) 4.0 Co-ords East: 474240 Ground Width (m) 1.95 (NGR) North: 181253 level, m OD: 76.34 Depth (m) 2.60
Sed Depth Depth Samples Vol. Lithic Enviro group Context Description - top - base <> (lit.) finds remains 1200 TOPSOIL/ MADE GROUND. Dark greyish- 0.0 0.20 - - - - To brown silt/sand with red bricks, topped by turf. Sharp horizontal basal junction 1201 SUBSOIL. Gravel (F-VC flint/quartzite pebbles/ 0.20 0.35 - - - - cobbles)in matrix of dark greyish-brown slightly clayey silt/sand. Sharp horizontal basal junction 1202 SANDY GRAVEL. Soft/loose moderately 0.45 1.40 <34> 100 1 flake None sorted F-C flint/quartzite/quartz gravel in F-M sand matrix, flint clasts generally angular to sub-angular, moderately to well abraded, quartzite clasts more rounded, brown (and often up to 12cm), quartzite clasts cream and well- rounded, generally 2-5cm; gen. colour of deposit is yellowish-brown. Diffuse, indistinct and uneven basal junction 1203 CLAYEY/ SANDY GRAVEL. Moderately 0.45 1.00 - - - - consolidated, poorly sorted, F-VC flint and II quartz/quartzite gravel in dark greyish-brown slightly clayey/ silty/ sandy (F-M) matrix. Diffuse, indistinct and very uneven basal junction, merges into contexts 1202 (above) and 1204 (below) 1204 SILTY/SANDY GRAVEL. Weakly 0.45 2.60 - - - - consolidated, very poorly sorted, strong brown/ reddish brown (with contorted black Mn oxidation bands) F-VC flint/ quartz/ quartzite gravel in silt/ F-M sand matrix, clasts generally angular – moderately rounded and moderately – very abraded. Sharp, very uneven basal junction, fills involution pockets and solution features in underlying chalk 1205 CHALK. Dry white crumbly chalk rubble, 2.20 2.60 - - - - Ch grading down to degraded Chalk bedrock.
Test pit 12, looking NNE
Site: Highlands Farm Test-pit 13 Site-code (CA): 770382 CAHO-C code: -088 Site sub-div: Phase 2 Palaeolithic test pit evaluation Date: 11th May 2016 Dimensions: Length (m) 4.0 Co-ords East: 474284 Ground level, Width (m) 1.95 (NGR) North: 181271 m OD: 76.66 Depth (m) 2.30
Sed Depth Depth Samples Vol. Lithic Enviro group Context Description - top - base <> (lit.) finds remains To 1300 TOPSOIL/ TURF. 0.0 0.30 - - - - 1301 CLAYEY/ SILTY SAND. Moderately soft, very 0.30 0.80 - - - - slightly cohesive, yellowish/ strong brown, slightly clayey, silty F-M sand. Fills occasional pockets in top of 1302 1302 CLAYEY/SILTY/SANDY GRAVEL. 0.30 2.30 <32> 100 1 simple None Moderately firm, variably consolidated very core poorly sorted VF-VC flint/quartz/quartzite gravel with common cobbles of nodular flint and brown <33> 100 1 flake None quartzite in varying clayey/silty/sandy matrix, II with some clast-supported gravel patches, and including sub-vertical contorted diapirs of chalk diamict (context 1303). Uneven base, grading down in places to undisturbed sandy gravel (context 1304) and infilling involutions and solution features 1303 CHALK DIAMICT. Moderately firm, friable, 0.65 2.30 - - - - very pale brown/ yellowish-cream chalk silt with moderately-rounded F-VC chalk pebbles. Moderately-diffuse basal junction 1304 SANDY GRAVEL. Soft/loose, moderately well- 2.00 2.30 - - - - sorted, strong brown/ yellowish-brown M-VC gravel in silty sand matrix I Sharp, uneven/contorted basal junction, forming involutions and solution features in underlying chalk 1305 CHALK. Dry white chalk rubble, grading down 2.20 2.30 - - - - Ch to Chalk bedrock.
Test pit 13, looking NNE
Site: Highlands Farm Test-pit 14 Site-code (CA): 770382 CAHO-C code: -088 Site sub-div: Phase 2 Palaeolithic test pit evaluation Date: 11th May 2016 Dimensions: Length (m) 4.0 Co-ords East: 474313 Ground level, Width (m) 1.95 (NGR) North: 181267 m OD: 76.77 Depth (m) 2.60
Sed Depth Depth Samples Vol. Lithic Enviro group Context Description - top - base <> (lit.) finds remains To 1400 TOPSOIL / TURF. 0.0 0.30 - - - - 1401 "CUT" allocated for context 1402. 0.35 2.00 - - - - Vertical junction in east end of section between context 1402 and contexts 1403/1404/1405 [This junction reflects collapse of the sequence into a deep underlying sinkhole or solution feature] 1402 SANDY/ CLAYEY SILT. Firm, slightly cohesive, 0.35 2.00 - - - - II sandy/clayey silt, appears in SE corner of trench. Vertical junction at north side of deposit, extending down from just below topsoil to >2m below ground- surface [This deposit infills a sinkhole or major solution feature - it thus represents a rare survival of what must once have been a wider spread of overlying fine-grained deposits] 1403 MIXED SILT/ SAND/ GRAVEL. Moderately soft, - - - - weakly-consolidated, dark yellowish-brown silt/sand with very common M-VC flint/quartz/quartzite pebbles. Diffuse junction, dipping east 1404 GRAVEL. Moderately soft/loose, well-sorted F-M 0.30 0.80 <29> 100 None None flint gravel in C-VC sand matrix, gen. yellowish brown, clasts angular/sub-angular, moderately to well-abraded. Moderately-sharp undulating sub-horizontal I junction 1405 GRAVEL. Moderately soft/loose, moderately-sorted 0.80 2.10 <30> 100 None None M-C flint/quartz/quartzite gravel in slightly silty F- C sand matrix with occasional wavy strong brown <31> 100 2 flakes None lens of M-C sand, especially at top of deposit; deposit gen. coarser in bottom half, with common cobbles of nodular flint (well-abraded, frost- fractured) up to 35cm and common well-rounded brown quartzite cobbles. Sharp, undulating sub-horizontal junction, interspersed with deep solution features 1406 CHALK. Dry white chalk rubble, grading down to 2.10 2.60 - - - - Ch Chalk bedrock.
Test pit Test pit 14, 14, looking looking E NE
Site: Highlands Farm Test-pit 15 Site-code (CA): 770382 CAHO-C code: -088 Site sub-div: Phase 2 Palaeolithic test pit evaluation Date: 10th May 2016 Dimensions: Length (m) 3.50 Co-ords East: 474372 Ground level, Width (m) 1.95 (NGR) North: 181251 m OD: 77.25 Depth (m) 2.30
Sed Depth Depth Samples Vol. Lithic Enviro group Context Description - top - base <> (lit.) finds remains To 1500 TOPSOIL / TURF. 0.0 0.12 - - - - 1501 CLAYEY/ SILTY/ SANDY/ GRAVEL. Well 0.12 0.44 - - - - consolidated, brown clayey/ silty/ sandy/ gravel M with common brick pieces, asphalt lumps and exotic lithic clasts. Sharp horizontal junction 1502 GRAVELLY/ CLAYEY SILT. Well-consolidated 0.44 0.60 - - - - pale yellowish-brown clayey silt, with abundant F-C flint pebbles, generally angular to moderately rounded and fresh to well-abraded. Deposit restricted to small pocket, moderately- sharp junction dipping shallowly W with 1503 II forming bottom part of pocket 1503 CLAYEY GRAVEL. Well-consolidated, 0.60 1.06 - - - - yellowish-brown clayey gravel, VF-C flint/quartz clasts (mostly angular, slightly to well-abraded) in slightly sandy/silty clay matrix. Moderately-sharp junction forming small pocket in surface of 1504 1504 SAND/ GRAVEL. Moderately soft, strong brown 0.44 1.70 <21> 100 1 flake None / yellowish red M-C sand with very common pebbles (mostly flint, but also quartz/quartzite), <22> 100 None None with faint/disrupted remnant wavy bedding of sub-horizontal pebble-rich lenses. Moderately-sharp even junction, dipping shallowly east I 1505 COARSE GRAVEL. Moderately soft, moderately 1.70 2.10 <23> 100 None None well-sorted, VC flint and quartz/quartzite gravel, in strong brown M-VC sand matrix with some slightly clayey/ silty patches; flint clasts are generally angular to moderately rounded and moderately to well abraded, quartz/quartzite clasts mostly well-rounded Sharp undulating sub-horizontal basal junction 1506 CHALK. Dry white chalk rubble, grading down to 2.10 2.30 - - - - Ch Chalk bedrock.
Test pit 15, looking NW
Site: Highlands Farm Test-pit 16 Site-code (CA): 770382 CAHO-C code: -088 Site sub-div: Phase 2 Palaeolithic test pit evaluation Date: 9th May 2016 Dimensions: Length (m) 3.50 Co-ords East: 474401 Ground level, Width (m) 1.95 (NGR) North: 181219 m OD: 77.46 Depth (m) 2.25
Sed Depth Depth Samples Vol. Lithic Enviro group Context Description - top - base <> (lit.) finds remains To 1600 TOPSOIL/ TURF. 0.0 0.20 - - - - 1601 SANDY GRAVEL. Moderately soft, moderately 0.20 0.45 - - - - poorly sorted, M-VC flint/quartz/quartzite gravel, II in silty VF-M sand matrix; gen. yellowish-brown. Diffuse, even sub-horizontal junction 1602 SANDY GRAVEL. Loose, moderately poorly 0.45 1.20 <18> 100 None None sorted, VF-C flint/quartz/quartzite gravel in <19> 100 None None sand/silt matrix, gen. yellowish brown; clasts are angular to moderately-well rounded, slightly to well-abraded; flint pebbles generally more angular, and smaller/less-abraded than the quartz/quartzite pebbles, which are mostly well- rounded. Moderately-sharp, uneven sub-horizontal junction 1603 CLAYEY SILT/SAND. Moderately firm, slightly 0.60 0.90 - - - - cohesive, yellowish-brown silt/ slightly-clayey VF sand. Deposit occurs as a wedge-shaped lens I interdigitating with the bottom part of 1602, possibly reflection injection/distortion by lateral pressure, or a remnant of fluvial bedding 1604 SAND. Moderately soft, uncohesive, strong 0.90 1.20 - - - - brown/ yellowish-red F-M sand. Wavy, slightly uneven sub-horizontal junction 1605 SANDY GRAVEL. Moderately soft, moderately 1.20 2.12 <20> 100 None None sorted, C-VC flint/quartz/quartzite gravel in F-C sand matrix, generally strong brown; has some patches of well-sorted VF-M gravel in upper parts, but becomes generally coarser downward, although with some slightly more clayey/silty patches in bottom part. Sharp, undulating sub-horizontal junction 1606 CHALK. Dry white chalk rubble, grading down to 2.12 2.25 - - - - Ch Chalk bedrock.
Test pit 16, looking SW
Site: Highlands Farm Test-pit 17 Site-code (CA): 770382 CAHO-C code: -088 Site sub-div: Phase 2 Palaeolithic test pit evaluation Date: 9th May 2016 Dimensions: Length (m) 4.0 Co-ords East: 474430 Ground level, Width (m) 1.95 (NGR) North: 181213 m OD: 77.30 Depth (m) 2.60
Sed Depth Depth Samples Vol. Enviro group Context Description - top - base <> (lit.) Lithic finds remains To 1700 TOPSOIL/ TURF. 0.0 0.25 - - - - 1701 GRAVELLY SUBSOIL. Poorly sorted 0.25 0.40 - - - - flint/quartz/quartzite gravel in greyish-brown II silt/sand matrix. Moderately sharp horizontal junction 1702 SANDY GRAVEL. Loose, moderately-sorted, 0.40 0.75 <14> 100 None None yellowish-brown M-VC flint/quartz/quartzite gravel and mod. common cobbles in F-M sand matrix. Moderately-sharp, uneven sub-horizontal junction 1703 CLAY-SILTY/ SANDY GRAVEL. Moderately 0.75 1.65 <15> 100 1 crude None consolidated, poorly sorted, C-VC pointed flint/quartz/quartzite gravel and some cobbles, in handaxe moderately clay-silty F-C sand matrix, general and 2 colour is orange/ reddish-brown; clasts mostly flakes moderately to well-abraded, and include frost- <16> 100 1 small None I fractured nodular flint cobbles up to 30cm and plano- well-rounded brown quartzite cobbles up to convex 15cm. handaxe Diffuse, even sub-horizontal junction and 1 flake 1704 GRAVEL. Soft/loose, moderately-sorted C-VC 1.65 2.50 <17> 100 None None flint/quartz/quartzite gravel with common cobbles of nodular flint and well-rounded brown quartzite, in matrix of yellowish-brown F-VC sand; upper part (1.65-2.00m) is more sandy, then lower part (2.00-2.50m) is almost matrix-free. Sharp, even sub-horizontal junction 1705 CHALK. Dry white chalk rubble, grading down 2.50 2.60 - - - - Ch to Chalk bedrock.
Test pit 17, looking NW
Site: Highlands Farm Test-pit 18 Site-code (CA): 770382 CAHO-C code: -088 Site sub-div: Phase 2 Palaeolithic test pit evaluation Date: 9th May 2016 Dimensions: Length (m) 4.70 Co-ords East: 474459 Ground level, Width (m) 1.95 (NGR) North: 181205 m OD: 77.29 Depth (m) 2.35
Sed Depth Depth Samples Vol. Lithic Enviro group Context Description - top - base <> (lit.) finds remains To 1801 TOPSOIL/TURF. 0.0 0.15 - - - - 1802 GRAVELLY SUBSOIL. Soft/loose M-VC 0.15 0.35 - - - - flint/quartz/quartzite gravel in mid-brown silt/sand (F-M) matrix; flint clasts gen. sub- II angular to mod. rounded, and moderately to well-abraded, quartz/quartzite clasts gen. well- rounded. Moderately diffuse, even sub-horizontal junction 1803 SILTY/SANDY GRAVEL. Moderately 0.35 0.80 <11> 100 None None soft/loose, moderately-sorted M-VC flint (+ some quartz/quartzite) gravel with common cobbles 8-15cm of well-abraded nodular flint in slightly silty VF-F sand matrix, with some less- gravelly silt/sand patches. Diffuse, uneven (but sub-horizontal) junction 1804 SILTY/SANDY GRAVEL. Soft/loose, poorly- 0.80 2.20 <12> 100 None None sorted M-VC flint (+ some quartz/quartzite) <13> 100 None None I gravel, with some brown well-rounded quartzite cobbles up to 15cm, in silt/sand matrix, with some patches of clayey/silty sand; includes occasional patches of very pale brown silty/sandy/gravelly chalk silt/pebbles in its bottom part, at junction with underlying 1805. Very uneven sub-horizontal junction, characterised by deep involutions and solution hollows 1805 CHALK. Dry white chalk rubble, grading down 2.20 2.35 - - - - Ch to Chalk bedrock.
Test pit 18, looking NW
Site: Highlands Farm Test-pit 19 Site-code (CA): 770382 CAHO-C code: -088 Site sub-div: Phase 2 Palaeolithic test pit evaluation Date: 11th May 2016 Dimensions: Length (m) 4.0 Co-ords East: 474419 Ground level, Width (m) 1.95 (NGR) North: 181181 m OD: 76.95 Depth (m) 2.50
Sed Depth Depth Samples Vol. Lithic Enviro group Context Description - top - base <> (lit.) finds remains To 1900 TOPSOIL/TURF. 0.0 0.30 - - - - 1901 CLAYEY/SILTY SAND/GRAVEL. Mod. soft, 0.30 1.00 - - - - weakly consolidated in places, strong brown with yellowish-red and pale reddish/yellowish-brown patches, mixed sand/gravel and gravelly sand, with variable clay/silt content; sand is generally VF-M, occasionally M-C in patches; some patches of well- sorted clast-supported F-C gravel, otherwise gravel II is very poorly sorted, with flint/quartz/quartzite clasts from 5mm to 15cm, with flint clasts generally more angular (moderately to well-abraded), and the quartz/quartzite clasts generally well-rounded. Upper surface has WSW-ENE trending gullies infilled with sand/silt, and lower junction forms deep pockets/hollows in underlying 1902 1902 CLAYEY/SILTY/SANDY GRAVEL. Moderately 1.00 2.40 <27> 100 None None soft/loose, poorly-sorted C-VC flint/quartz/quartzite I gravel, in matrix of variably clayey/silty F-C sand, <28> 100 1 flake None generally strong brown/ dark yellowish-brown. Sharp, undulating sub-horizontal junction 1903 CHALK. Dry white chalk rubble, grading down to 2.40 2.50 - - - - Ch Chalk bedrock.
Test pit 19, looking NNW
Site: Highlands Farm Test-pit 20 Site-code (CA): 770382 CAHO-C code: -088 Site sub-div: Phase 2 Palaeolithic test pit evaluation Date: 10th May 2016 Dimensions: Length (m) 3.50 Co-ords East: 474453 Ground level, Width (m) 1.95 (NGR) North: 181163 m OD: 76.75 Depth (m) 2.90
Sed Depth Depth Samples Vol. Lithic Enviro group Context Description - top - base <> (lit.) finds remains To 2000 TOPSOIL/TURF. 0.0 0.32 - - - - 2001 GRAVELLY CLAY-SILT. Moderately- 0.32 1.20 - - - - consolidated, slightly cohesive, pale (slightly greyish) brown clayey silt with common F-VC flint pebbles, and some quartz/quartzite pebbles. Very uneven base, forming pockets/hollows in 2002 2002 CLAYEY/SILTY SAND/GRAVEL. Moderately 0.32 1.70 <24> 100 None None soft, and weakly consolidated in places, strong brown/yellowish-brown (with yellowish-red patches) mixed sand/gravel and gravelly-sand, with some firmer clay/silt-rich patches; clasts gen II range from VF-C flint/quartz pebbles to VC flint/quartzite pebbles and cobbles; flint clasts gen. angular to mod. rounded and moderately to well-abraded, quartz/quartzite clasts generally well-rounded. Diffuse, wavy sub-horizontal basal junction with 2004 2003 CHALK DIAMICT. Patches of moderately firm 0.75 1.70 - - - - very pale brown chalk silt with VF chalk pebbles and occasional flint/quartz/quartzite pebbles Occurs as patches within 2002, and at its basal junction with 2004 2004 GRAVEL. Moderately-consolidated, poorly- 1.70 2.90 <25> 100 None None sorted C-VC flint/quartz/quartzite gravel in <26> 100 2 flakes None clayey/silty F-M sand matrix with common I flint/quartzite cobbles, generally strong brown. Very uneven basal junction, forming pockets and deep solution hollows in underlying chalk 2005 CHALK. Dry white chalk rubble, grading down to 2.40 2.90 - - - - Ch Chalk bedrock.
Test pit 20, looking NW
Site: Highlands Farm Test-pit 21 Site-code (CA): 770382 CAHO-C code: -088 Site sub-div: Phase 2 Palaeolithic test pit evaluation Date: 13th May 2016 Dimensions: Length (m) 3.50 Co-ords East: 474242 Ground level, Width (m) 1.95 (NGR) North: 181324 m OD: 76.70 Depth (m) 2.30
Sed Depth Depth Samples Vol. Lithic Enviro group Context Description - top - base <> (lit.) finds remains 2100 Sequence of quarry backfill/make-up 0.00 2.30 - - - - deposits, capped by 20cm thick layer of dark grey asphalt, and then varying layers of gravel-rich sand/clay/silt, asphalt pieces, red bricks and concrete lumps, old tangled metalwork and large concrete chunks, with dark brown black layer at base, probably formed of industrial hydro-carbon M contaminants and/or rotted organic matter; deposit is formed of layers dipping steeply (c. 45o) to north, suggesting tip-lines from dumping over the quarry face a short distance to the south of the test pit. Sharp, even basal junction with 2101, dipping shallowly to the north, but rising steeply to the south, suggesting old quarry edge a short distance away to the south 2101 GRAVEL. Soft/loose, well-sorted, pale 1.60 2.30 - - - - greyish/yellowish-brown M-C I flint/quartz/quartzite gravel in silt/sand matrix.
Test pit 21, looking SE
Site: Highlands Farm Test-pit 22 Site-code (CA): 770382 CAHO-C code: -088 Site sub-div: Phase 2 Palaeolithic test pit evaluation Date: 13th May 2016 Dimensions: Length (m) 4.00 Co-ords East: 474140 Ground level, Width (m) 1.95 (NGR) North: 181244 m OD: 75.82 Depth (m) 2.10
Sed Depth Depth Samples Vol. Lithic Enviro group Context Description - top - base <> (lit.) finds remains To 2200 TOPSOIL/TURF. 0.0 0.25 - - - - 2201 SUB-SOIL/MADE GROUND. Dark 0.25 0.70 - - - - greyish/yellowish-brown silt/sand with very M common flint pebbles, and common pieces of red brick, lumps of concrete and old ironwork. Sharp, even sub-horizontal junction 2202 SAND/GRAVEL. Moderately consolidated, poorly 0.70 1.00 - - - - sorted F-VC flint/quartz/quartzite gravel in silty F- M sand matrix, with some soft/loose clast-supported patches Diffuse (locally sharp) very uneven junction, dipping shallowly east in logged section 2203 CLAYEY GRAVEL. Well-consolidated, very 1.00 2.10 - - - - poorly sorted, densely-packed F-VC flint/quartz/quartzite pebbles and quartzite/nodular III flint cobbles in clay/silt/sand matrix, generally strong brown. Very uneven basal junction, forming deep pockets and solution features in underlying 2205 2204 CHALK DIAMICT. Diapir of moderately firm very 1.20 2.10 - - - - pale brown chalk silt with VF chalk pebbles and occasional flint/quartz/quartzite pebbles Occurs as mushroom-shaped patch intrusive into 2203, rising from basal junction with 2205 2205 CHALK. Dry white chalk rubble, grading down to 1.80 2.10 - - - - Ch Chalk bedrock.
Test pit 22, looking SE
Site: Highlands Farm Test-pit 23 Site-code (CA): 770382 CAHO-C code: -088 Site sub-div: Phase 2 Palaeolithic test pit evaluation Date: 18th May 2016 Dimensions: Length (m) 3.65 Co-ords East: 474274 Ground level, Width (m) 2.50 (NGR) North: 181334 m OD: 76.47 Depth (m) 2.20
Sed Depth Depth Samples Vol. Enviro group Context Description - top - base <> (lit.) Lithic finds remains 2300 CHALKY GRAVEL. Brown 0.00 1.60 - - - - flint/quartz/quartzite gravel in clay-silt/sand matrix with chalk lumps and small pieces of red brick. M Sharp even basal junction (cut 2301) dipping steeply to west 2301 CUT FOR 2300. 0.00 1.60 - - - - Sharp junction, dips steeply (75o) to west 2302 GRAVEL. Soft/loose, poorly sorted F-VC 0.00 0.40 - - - - flint/quartz/quartzite gravel in VC sand to VF II/III gravel matrix. Sharp, unconformable horizontal junction 2303 CLAY-SILTY/SANDY GRAVEL. Well- 0.40 2.20 - - - - consolidated, very poorly sorted F-VC flint/quartz/quartzite gravel in clay-silt/sand (VF-M) matrix, gen. strong brown. Sharp, unconformable junction dipping near- vertically (80+o) to west [presumed infill of deeper-lying solution feature] 2304 CLAY-SILTY GRAVEL. Well-consolidated, 0.40 0.95 - - - - very poorly sorted F-VC flint/quartz/quartzite gravel in slightly sandy (VF-M) clay-silt matrix, gen.yellowish-brown. 2305, SAND/GRAVEL BEDS. Parallel undulating 0.45 1.55 - - - - 2306, bands of well-sorted VF-F flint/quartzite gravel in clay-silty VF-M sand matrix (contexts 2305 2307 & and 2307), and soft, strong brown/yellowish-red 2308 M-C sand (contexts 2306 and 2308); basal sand bed 2308 is mostly 15-20cm thick, the other I contexts in this group are mostly c. 10cm thick. Sharp, undulating conformable junctions below each context, dipping west in section 2309 GRAVEL. Generally soft/loose, undulating beds 0.70 2.20 <36>* 100 3 flakes from None dipping to west conformably with overlying the sample; 1 contexts 2304-2308 of very poorly sorted M- flake (∆.3) VC flint/quartz/quartzite gravel with common found in situ flint/quartzite cobbles in clay-silty sand matrix, in the well-sorted clast-supported VF-M gravel, and section; 4 clay-silty sand with occasional pebbles. flakes found Moderately diffuse basal junction with 2310 in freshly- dug spoil 2310 GRAVEL (SLIGHTLY CHALKY). Soft/loose, 1.70 2.20 - - - - poorly sorted M-VC flint/quartz/quartzite gravel with common chalk pebbles and flint/quartzite cobbles in clay-silty sand matrix. Sharp, very uneven junction, filling hollows and solution features in underlying chalk 2311 CHALK. Dry white chalk rubble, grading down 2.00 2.20 - - - - Ch to Chalk bedrock. * This sample was not sieved, but 3 flakes were found by sorting through with a shovel;
See Main Report, Figure 2, for photos of TP 23
© Cotswold Archaeology Highland’s Farm, Henley-Upon-Thames: Archaeological Evaluation
APPENDIX B: THE FINDS
Test Sediment Sample/s Lithic finds [flake sizes: chips <2cm, small 2-5cm, medium 5-10cm pit group Context [all of 100 lit] and large ≥10cm] 9 III 901 <35> One small broken flake (moderately-abraded) 10 - - - - 11 - - - - 12 II 1202 <34> One small broken flake (well-abraded) 13 II 1302 <32> One very simple core with an early phase of reduction (well- abraded scars) followed by a later phase of reduction (moderately- abraded scars); one flake (fresh condition) <33> One small flake, clear hard-hammer point of percussion (moderately-abraded); one medium flake (moderately-abraded) 14 I 1404 <29> - 1405 <30> - <31> Two flakes, one small and one medium (both well-abraded) 15 I 1504 <21> One small broken flake (slightly-abraded) 1504- <22> - 1505 1505 <23> - 16 I 1602 <18> - <19> - 1605 <20> - 17 I 1702 <14> - 1703 <15> Crude pointed handaxe with thick partly-worked butt (well- abraded); two flakes, one large and one medium (both well- abraded) <16> One small plano-convex bifacially-worked core-tool (moderately- abraded); one small waste flake (well-abraded) 1704 <17> - 18 I 1803 <11> - 1804 <12> - <13> - 19 I 1902 <27> - <28> One medium broken flake (slightly-abraded) 20 I 2002 <24> - 2004 <25> - <26> Two small flakes (both slightly-abraded) 21 - - - - 22 - - - - 23 I 2309 <36> Three medium-sized flakes (one of them in fresh condition, the other two well-abraded) ∆.3 One medium flake, found in situ in section (slightly-abraded) not in - Four medium-sized flakes (two of them slightly-abraded, one of situ them moderately-abraded, and the other well-abraded); one of the fresh condition flakes has dorsal scars from opposing directions, possibly reflecting bifacial shaping/thinning Table B1. Sieve-sampling and lithic finds recovery, by test pit.
26 © Cotswold Archaeology Highland’s Farm, Henley-Upon-Thames: Archaeological Evaluation
Volume sieved Handaxe, Total no. Sediment group Test pit [litres] core-tool Core Debitage artefacts III - Black Park Gravel 9 100 - - 1 1 (disturbed/reworked) II - Black Park Gravel 12 100 - - 1 1 (slightly disturbed) 13 200 - 1 3 4 20 100 - - - - I - Black Park Gravel 14 300 - - 2 2 (undisturbed) 15 300 - - 1 1 16 300 - - - - 17 400 2 - 3 5 18 300 - - - - 19 200 - - 1 1 20 200 - - 2 2 23 100* - - 3 3 I - general spoil 23 - - - 4 4 I - found in situ in section 23 - - - 1 1
TOTAL 2500 2 1 22 25 Table B2. Quantified summary of Palaeolithic artefact recovery and sieved sediment volume for the phase 2 test pit evaluation, by sediment group and test pit. [* The sample of Black Park Gravel from TP 23 was sorted by hand, rather than sieved]
27 © Cotswold Archaeology Highland’s Farm, Henley-Upon-Thames: Archaeological Evaluation
APPENDIX C: PALAEOLITHIC AREAS OF POTENTIAL
Palaeolithic Area potential Description of area Palaeolithic remains (proven/likely) Approaches to further investigation and mitigation 1 HIGH Unquarried ground (undisturbed Black Abundant remains are likely within these It is suggested (see Appendix B of the Phase 1 test pit report, Park Gravel terrace deposits, sediment deposits, on the basis (a) that they are a Wenban-Smith 2016, in CgMs/Cotswold Archaeology 2015) that a group I) along N side of site, including direct continuation of the extracted valuable contribution to understanding and interpreting the site, and the SSSI and Scheduled Monument, deposits to the south [Area 2] that in particular the protected SSSI and SM, would be to clean and and the adjacent south-protruding spur previously produced abundant remains, record (as far as possible, with due consideration for protected trees of ground between the two old pit and (b) the abundant remains recovered and for maintaining the stability of the face) representative logs along footprints. during excavation of TP 23. the east-west section along the N side of Area 2, and the north-south section at its east side, recovering well-provenanced artefacts from the cleaned section and taking larger samples of the deposits for sieving, if feasible. Consideration should be given to preserving the south-protruding spur of ground between the two old pit footprints, as it represents the best proven remnant of the archaeologically rich deposits that were previously present in the extracted pits. Failing that, it would require complete excavation, with exposure of its faces, section recording, and then excavation by hand to recover archaeological remains under controlled conditions from known stratigraphic horizons. 2 Varied The footprint of the old gravel quarry; Gravel from within the quarried area A watching brief on development activity would be a suitable LOW/HIGH this contains thin basal remnants of produced numerous handaxes, many in approach to recovering further artefacts from remnant gravel deposits undisturbed gravel (sediment group I) fresh condition. Although few were well- on the old quarry floor. If/when patches of undisturbed and artefact- in many places, sometimes filling deep provenanced, these seemed to be more rich gravel are encountered, provision should be made to make solution hollows/pipes. There are also abundant in the basal more sandy stratigraphic records and recover controlled samples for sieving. areas of built-up made ground, as well gravel, the lower part of which remains in as depressions infilled with made many places in the floor of the pit ground and industrial waste and footprint. There are also reports of rare metalwork. mammalian fossils in the gravels, so recovery of further fossils is possible.
28 © Cotswold Archaeology Highland’s Farm, Henley-Upon-Thames: Archaeological Evaluation
3 HIGH Unquarried ground to the south and The archaeological and geo-technical The most recent information received (as of Wednesday 8th June northwest of the old pit footprint, investigations carried out to-date indicate 2016) is that the development proposal will involve a combination of formed predominantly of in situ Black the presence of fluvial sand/gravel up to piling and slot beam foundations, as well as (in restricted places) a Park Gravel (sediment group I), 3m deep across the area, with deeper impact caused by services. Thus the greatest impact will be although slightly disturbed Black Park Palaeolithic flint artefacts widely on the upper parts of the Black Park Gravel, with restricted areas of Gravel deposits (sediment group II) distributed, and concentrated abundantly deeper impact. It is therefore proposed to carry out a substantial form the upper part of the sequence in some areas and horizons. The richest mitigation project, involving the excavation of deep stepped trenches across much of the area, with the horizons are generally more deeply on a large orthogonal grid to create stable sections for stratigraphic junction between sediment groups I buried, more than 70cm below the recording, accompanied by controlled recovery of artefacts by sieving and II ranging widely from close ground surface. However productive of substantial volumes of sediment from known stratigraphic horizons. beneath the ground surface to 2m horizons also occur close beneath the The locations of the grid of stepped trenches should be informed by down. There are some buildings and ground surface in some places. (a) areas of development impact and (b) areas of proven services in this area, which affect the archaeological richness, such as in the vicinity of test pits 3 and 17. upper surviving deposits, but deeper This work will be supplemented by targeted areas of pro-active deposits survive undisturbed, and most investigation and full sampling through the gravel sequence, in of the area is virgin terrain. areas/horizons of proven richness that would not otherwise be investigated by the main stepped trenches. If substantial mitigation is carried out along these lines, this would provide substantial benefit in terms of increasing understanding of the site, which would offset the loss of some parts of Black Park Gravel, a major spread of which would continue to be preserved around the margins of the developed area, within the designated SM and SSSI, and beyond the designated area. 4 - There is no Area 4 in this revised - - Palaeolithic framework. The area previously (in the Phase 1 test pit report, CgMs/Cotswold Archaeology 2015) designated as Area 4, has now been re-attributed to Area 3 or Area 5. 5 LOW This is an area of unquarried ground at The geo-archaeological and No further work is suggested for this area. the west side of the site, bending round geotechnical work to-date suggests that to form its southwest corner. It is the deposits here are formed of mostly covered by existing buildings. reworked Black Park Gravel deposits The ground surface here is lower than (deposit group II), dipping/mobilising the rest of the site, dipping down into down into the dry valley system. No the head of a dry valley system that artefacts were found in geo-arch TP 2, feeds east past the southern side of and the deposits encountered there the site. seemed of low Palaeolithic potential. Table C1. Revised areas of Palaeolithic potential, and approaches to further investigation. [This table supersedes the similar Table 6 in the Phase 1 test pit report, CgMs/Cotswold Archaeology 2015]
29 © Cotswold Archaeology Highland’s Farm, Henley-Upon-Thames: Archaeological Evaluation
APPENDIX D: OASIS REPORT FORM
PROJECT DETAILS
Project Name Henley-on-Thames Short description 15 Palaeolithic test pits were excavated, with sieve-sampling of natural gravel deposits of the Caversham-Henley Ancient Channel of the Thames (Black Park Gravel, Terrace 5c) for lithic artefacts. The test pits confirmed the presence of undisturbed Caversham- Henley Ancient Channel deposits across much of the site, laid down late in the Anglian ice age c. 500,000 BP [years Before Present]. Flint artefacts were found to be moderately abundant in the deposits, with two handaxes and more than 20 flakes recovered in this phase of work (phase 2 Palaeolithic evaluation), supplementing the c. 25 flakes recovered in the previous phase of work (phase 1 Palaeolithic evaluation). Project dates 9th to 18th of May Project type Palaeolithic Test pits
Previous work ARCA Geoarchaeology (with CA) 2015 Highlands Farm, Henley - Upon –Thames, Oxfordshire: Geoarchaeological Borehole Survey
CgMs Consulting [with Cotswold Archaeology and Francis Wenban-Smith], 2015. Preliminary Palaeolithic and Geo- archaeological Test Pit Evaluation. Unpublished client report prepared in December 2015.
Cotswold Archaeology 2011. Highlands Farm, Harpsden Henley- on-Thames Oxfordshire. CA Project: 3448; CA Report: 11126
Future work Unknown PROJECT LOCATION Site Location Highland’s Farm, Henley-on-Thames, Oxfordshire Study area (M2/ha) 7.3ha Site co-ordinates SU 7424 8133
PROJECT CREATORS Name of organisation Cotswold Archaeology Project Brief originator Cotswold Archaeology Project Design (WSI) originator Cotswold Archaeology
Project Manager Richard Greatorex Project Supervisor Adam Howard MONUMENT TYPE Palaeolithic sediments SIGNIFICANT FINDS Two Palaeolithic hand axes, and >20 flint waste flakes, in range of conditions, from quite fresh to well-abraded PROJECT ARCHIVES Intended final location of archive Content
Physical Flint hand axes and flakes Paper Context sheets, Trench sheets photographic register Digital digital photos gps survey BIBLIOGRAPHY
30 © Cotswold Archaeology Highland’s Farm, Henley-Upon-Thames: Archaeological Evaluation
CA 2016 Highland Farm, Henley-on-Thames, Oxfordshire – Palaeolithic Test Pit Evaluation WSI
CA 2016 Highland Farm, Henley-on-Thames, Oxfordshire – Palaeolithic Test Pit Evaluation Report
31 N
LANE
HIGHLANDS
site boundary test pit (CA 2015) previous quarrying
Highlands Farm Playing Field
0 50m
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey digital mapping with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of The Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office &URZQFRS\ULJKW&RWVZROG$UFKDHRORJ\/WG
Cirencester 01285 771022 Milton Keynes 01908 564660 Andover 01264 347630 w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk e [email protected]
PROJECT TITLE Highlands Farm, Harpsden Henley-on-Thames, Oxfordshire
FIGURE TITLE Test pit layout plan
DRAWN BY LD PROJECT NO. 770382 FIGURE NO. CHECKED BY FFWS DATE 02/06/2016 APPROVED BY RG SCALE@A3 1:1500 1 P:\770382 Highlands Farm, Henley-Upon -Thames, Bucks Eval TPs\Geomatics\CAD\current\770382_2d Master_160518.dwg a d
b e
c f
Figure 2. Test pit 23: (a) before excavation [looking NW]; (b) start of excavation [looking W]; (c) cleaned face part-way through excavation, white tag marking location of flake ∆.3 [looking NE]; (d) south-facing section at full excavation depth, dashed red line marks section datum at 75.87m OD [looking NE]; (e) upper part of section at full depth [looking NW]; (f) lower part of section at full depth [looking NW].
cm
a
cm
b
Figure 3. Handaxes from Black Park Gravel, TP 17 context 1703: (a) crude pointed handaxe from sample <15>, 90cm below ground surface; (b) small plano-convex bifacial tool from sample <16>, 1.20m below ground surface. Palaeolithic evaluation test pits with SSSI, Highlands Farm Pit [GCR undisturbed Black Park Gravel 453] deposits - TPs 1, 3-8 and 13-21
Scheduled Monument, Highlands Palaeolithic evaluation test pits Farm Palaeolithic site [list entry with slightly disturbed Black 1004855, Ox 254] Park Gravel deposits - TP 12
SSSI buffer zone Palaeolithic evaluation test pits with heavily reworked Black Park Gravel deposits - TPs 2, 9-11 and 22
2 Areas of Palaeolithic Test pits with ≥5 artefacts - TPs 3, 17 3 character/potential * and 23 + Other test pits with 1-4 artefacts - TPs 1, 4, 7-9, 12-15 and 19-20
Figure 4. Site layout, showing Palaeolithic evaluation test pits 1-23, areas of Palaeolithic potential 1-3 and 5, and distribution of artefact recovery. F Wenban-Smith (160610): Archaeological Strategy for SM and SSSI
APPENDIX E
Highlands Farm SM and SSSI: Archaeological Strategy for Scheduled Monument and Site of Special Scientific Interest
Version 2.1
Prepared by: Francis Wenban-Smith Department of Archaeology University of Southampton Southampton SO17 1BF
Tel (direct): 02380-596 864 Tel (mobile): 07771-623 096 Email: [email protected]
in conjunction with: Duncan Hawkins CgMs Consulting
F Wenban-Smith (160610): Archaeological Strategy for SM and SSSI
Document control grid
Version Date Author Comments 1.1 12-Feb-2016 Francis Wenban- First draft to Duncan Hawkins, CgMs Smith Consulting 1.2 19-Feb-2016 Francis Wenban- Revised following new info on plot Smith locations wrt SM and SSSI, and the extent of the SSSI buffer zone 2.1 10-Jun-2016 Francis Wenban- Revised following additional info from Smith phase 2 test pit evaluation, and feedback from NE on the need to avoid wholesale devegetation along the SM and SSSI faces
F Wenban-Smith (160610): Archaeological Strategy for SM and SSSI
Contents Summary ...... i
1. Introduction ...... 1
2. Background 2.1. Site location and layout ...... 1 2.2. Planning context ...... 1 2.3. Palaeolithic research frameworks and importance ...... 4 2.4. Geological and Palaeolithic archaeological background ...... 6 2.5. The Scheduled Monument: Highlands Farm Palaeolithic site ...... 8 2.6. The Site of Special Scientific Interest: Highlands Farm Pit ...... 9
3. Archaeological impact of the proposed development 3.1. Overview of the proposed development ...... 10 3.2. General site-wide impact ...... 10 3.3. Impact upon the SM and SSSI ...... 11
4. Archaeological mitigation of the wider development ...... 12
5. Mitigation strategy for the SM and SSSI 5.1. Overview of SM and SSSI mitigation strategy ...... 12 5.2. Benefits of the SM and SSSI strategy ...... 13 5.3. Integration of the SM and SSSI strategy with the wider archaeological work ...... 14 5.4. Particular considerations ...... 14
References ...... 14
Tables Table E1. Criteria for Palaeolithic remains of national importance (English Heritage 1998) ...... 6 Table E2. Main Palaeolithic sites of the Caversham-Henley Ancient Channel ...... 7
Figures Figure E1. Site layout, showing Palaeolithic evaluation test pits 1-23, areas of Palaeolithic potential 1-3 and 5, distribution of artefact recovery and proposed areas of SM/SSSI investigation. Figure E2. Current condition of the south side of the SSSI, made ground banked against the old pit face. Figure E3. Spur of unquarried ground extending south from the SSSI into the old pit footprint; as shown by TP 23 (main report, Figure 2), undisturbed gravel of the Ancient Channel is present under the asphalted foreground area.
F Wenban-Smith (160212): Archaeological Strategy for SM and SSSI
Summary This appendix presents an overview of a strategy for mitigating the archaeological impact of the proposed re-development of the Highlands Farm industrial site and business complex upon the Scheduled Monument and Site of Special Scientific Interest that border its north side.
These heritage assets are presently poorly understood. Although regarded as in stable and favourable condition by the statutory bodies - Historic England and Natural England respectively - the natural Pleistocene deposits that form the heritage assets are not visible, and there are no records of the preserved sequences or any archaeological contents thereof. The basis of their designation is that they represent a continuation of the extracted sand/gravel deposits in the old Highlands Farm Pit to the south of the SM and SSSI. These deposits represent an early Thames course of c. 500,000 years ago - the Caversham-Henley Ancient Channel - and produced abundant Palaeolithic artefacts reflecting the activity and tool-making preferences of some of the earliest inhabitants of Britain. However, it has not yet been confirmed that the preserved designated deposits retain the same scientific interest in terms of deposit character and Palaeolithic artefact content as the previously-extracted deposits. The precise extent of survival of the natural deposits is also currently uncertain, the previous quarry face having subsequently had material banked against it. Furthermore, the designated deposits form only a very small part of the wider sediment body of the Caversham-Henley Ancient Channel, undisturbed deposits of which continue for a substantial distance - several hundred metres at least - to the north and east of the SM and SSSI, as well as being represented by several other wide spreads between Caversham and Henley.
It is therefore suggested that the these heritage assets do not present a bar to the proposed development, but conversely that there would be great benefit from a heritage perspective in investigating them further in conjunction with the proposed development. It is proposed to carry out selective exposure and recording of the faces of the SM and SSSI [Figure E1, sections Arch1-Arch5], accompanied by systematic and controlled recovery of lithic artefacts and (if present) large vertebrate fossils and micro-faunal remains. This would be complemented by exposure and recording (as well as controlled artefact recovery) at a shorter north-south face [Arch6] in the undisturbed deposits to the south of the SSSI, and by further excavation in the vicinity of TP 23 in this area, after which the spur of surviving deposits here would be left preserved in situ. This work would be complemented by substantial mitigating archaeological work in the wider development area, as described in the main report.
This archaeological work would have the following benefits:
- it will have a small impact upon the designated heritage assets, but will not substantively diminish them, nor compromise their longer-term preservation - the statutory bodies will have a greatly-improved understanding of the designated heritage assets - the work will make a major contribution to recognised national and regional archaeological research priorities - the results will feed into a community programme of dissemination and/or an on- site display [tbc with the statutory bodies and planning authority] aimed at promoting understanding and appreciation of these heritage assets to the local community, and feeding into the already-valued local sense of the place as an important prehistoric locality
i F Wenban-Smith (160212): Archaeological Strategy for SM and SSSI
1. Introduction This appendix forms part [Appendix E] of the report on the phase 2 Palaeolithic test pit evaluation at Highlands Farm, Harpsden, Henley-on-Thames in conjunction with submission of a planning application for the site to South Oxfordshire District Council. This appendix therefore supersedes the previous SM and SSSI strategy, that was previously submitted as Appendix B of the phase 1 report (CgMs Consulting 2015).
Based on the previous phases of test pitting and geoarchaeological work, four differing areas of Palaeolithic character and potential were recognised, Areas 1, 2, 3 and 5 (main report, Appendix C and Figure 4). The main report also provides an outline of suitable approaches to further archaeological evaluation and mitigation (Section 7, Appendix C). All of this information is not repeated in detail here, although reference is made to some key aspects.
This appendix focuses in more detail upon the parts of the site that are statutorily designated as nationally important heritage and scientific assets (Figure E1). A Site of Special Scientific Interest - SSSI - has been designated along the northern side of the site, continuing around its northeast corner. And a part of the SSSI is also designated as an archaeological Scheduled Monument. This appendix identifies the impact of the proposed development upon these designated areas, and then considers the implications of this in terms of balancing a presumption in favour of preservation against the importance of the designated deposits and the benefits of appropriate mitigation.
This appendix was prepared on instruction from CgMs Consulting by the Palaeolithic and Pleistocene geo-archaeological specialist Francis Wenban-Smith (Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton).
2. Background 2.1. Site location and layout The site comprises land in and around the old Highlands Farm gravel pit, in the parish of Harpsden, and on the south side of the road from Henley-on-Thames to Rotherfield Greys. The overall development site is approximately 7.3ha in size, and centred on NGR 474200 18130. The site is located on the plateau of a spur of the Chiltern Hills about 2 km west of the Thames. The site is mostly a brownfield site with an array of brick buildings and more-temporary porta-cabins, although substantial parts of it have not been subject to any previous human disturbance below the ground surface. The footprint of the old quarry itself contains some industrial workshops, and has been partially backfilled and is covered in asphalt hard-standing with a surface level of c. 75m OD. The surrounding ground likewise is mostly covered in buildings and asphalt or other hard-standing with a surface level between 76 and 77 m OD. The surface topography dips sharply to the west along the western site boundary but is otherwise fairly flat.
2.2. Planning context The planning context is reviewed in detail in the desk-based assessment previously prepared by CgMs Consulting on behalf of Crest Strategic Projects (CgMs 2014, Section 2: Planning Background and Development Plan Framework). In summary, planning applications for the site are considered in conjunction with both national and regional planning policy frameworks.
1 F Wenban-Smith (160212): Archaeological Strategy for SM and SSSI
2.2.1 National planning context: the National Planning Policy Framework At a national level, the main policy guidance is provided by the National Planning Policy Framework - NPPF (Department of Communities and Local Government 2012). This addresses all aspects of the environmental and social impact of development plans, but it is only the heritage and historic environment aspects that are relevant here, covered in Section 12 of the NPPF.
As reviewed in the CgMs desk-based Assessment (CgMs 2014, para 2.8), the NPPF provides a framework that:
- protects nationally important designated Heritage Assets (which include World Heritage Sites, Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Listed Buildings, Protected Wreck Sites, Registered Parks and Gardens, Registered Battlefields or Conservation Areas - which in this instance includes the SSSI at the northern edge of, and in part within, the proposed development site) - protects the settings of such designations - in appropriate circumstances seeks adequate information (from desk- based assessment and field evaluation where necessary) to enable informed decisions - provides for the excavation and investigation of sites not significant enough to merit in situ preservation
Certain other parts of the NPPF guidance for considering the impact of development proposals upon the historic environment, and determining applications that affect designated heritage assets, are of particular relevance here, where designated heritage assets are present adjacent to, and in part within, the proposed development site. These designated assets are an archaeological Scheduled Monument (the Highlands Farm Palaeolithic site) and a Site of Special Scientific Interest (the Highlands Farm Pit). The details of these are discussed below (Sections 2.5 and 2.6).
In this context, the other significant and particularly relevant parts of the NPPF are:
Para 131. In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of:
- the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation - the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality - the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.
Para 134. Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.
Para 137. Local planning authorities should look for opportunities for new development within Conservation Areas and World Heritage Sites and within the
2 F Wenban-Smith (160212): Archaeological Strategy for SM and SSSI setting of heritage assets to enhance or better reveal their significance. Proposals that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the asset should be treated favourably.
2.2.2 Regional planning context: the South Oxfordshire Core Strategy Planning applications are typically determined within the context of the national policy guidance at the regional level by the Local Planning Authority which is typically organised at a County or District level, although there are also numerous unitary Authorities covering certain urban areas across the country. In this instance, the site falls within the South Oxfordshire district of Oxfordshire, and within the South Oxfordshire Core Strategy.
This is also reviewed in detail in the desk-based assessment (CgMs 2014). In summary, the following are the key points concerning determining applications that will impact upon nationally important designated heritage assets, or non-designated assets of equivalent importance:
- the settings of designated assets will be conserved and enhanced for their historic significance and their important contribution to local distinctiveness, character and sense of place - there will be a presumption in favour of physically preserving nationally important archaeological remains
Preliminary discussions with the archaeological officer of the Local Planning Authority [Richard Oram] have suggested that much of the non-designated part of the site would be viewed as of equivalent high importance to the designated parts, and that on this basis there would be a presumption in favour of physical preservation.
The test pit programme has allowed a more-detailed model of Palaeolithic character and potential of the site to be developed (this report, Figure 4, Appendix C). This has confirmed that much of the site - Areas 1 and 3 - has high potential for important Palaeolithic remains, and that another part - Area 2 - has varied low/high potential. Area 5, in the west and southwest part of the site is however of low potential. However it remains to be considered:
- whether the impact of the proposed development upon the important remains at the site, including the designated and non-designated assets, is so great as to require the development not to be permitted - whether the heritage conservation, community appreciation and research benefits of appropriate archaeological investigation in advance of the development outweigh the loss of part of the site's heritage assets - for the designated assets of the SM and SSSI in particular, what is the scale of the impact of the proposed development upon them and their setting, and whether the heritage conservation, community appreciation and research benefits of appropriate archaeological investigation outweigh any impact
The remainder of this appendix provides background information on the nature and importance of the heritage assets at the site - and in particular the designated assets of the SM and SSSI - within the context of current Palaeolithic research frameworks. It considers the likely impact of the proposed development. And it proposes a mitigating strategy that:
3 F Wenban-Smith (160212): Archaeological Strategy for SM and SSSI
(a) - provides for appropriate investigation and reporting in conjunction with unavoidable impact upon the designated and non-designated heritage assets (b) - leads to enhanced academic understanding and better information on which to base long-term curatorial management of the designated heritage assets (c) - enhances local and community appreciation and understanding of designated and non-designated heritage assets at the site
2.3. Palaeolithic research frameworks and importance 2.3.1 National research frameworks The main national research framework for the Palaeolithic is provided by policy document Research and Conservation Framework for the British Palaeolithic (English Heritage 2008). This identifies four primary research themes and eight cross-cutting strategic research and conservation themes.
Primary themes are:
1 - hominin environments and climate drivers 2 - hominin demographies: the palaeoecology of hominin colonisation and the settlement process 3 - how we became human: social, cultural and economic change 4 - sharing human origins, developing new audiences
Strategic research and conservation themes are:
i - areas ii - understanding the record iii - dating frameworks iv - curation and conservation v - dealing with development vi - professional training vii - education viii - collections and records enhancement
Within the context of the Highlands Farm development proposal, certain relevant points within this national framework are:
Primary theme 1, p10 - What were the environmental and climatic tolerances of hominins in Britain? Were there cold-adapted cultures? Primary theme 3, p11 - Cultural change and the connectedness of British groups with those on continental Europe Primary theme 4, p12 - possibilities for developing and engaging new audiences should be explored, and we need to think about how this can be achieved without obvious surviving monuments
4 F Wenban-Smith (160212): Archaeological Strategy for SM and SSSI
Strategic theme i, p13 - The archaeology of the routes of pre-glacial rivers requires more investigation Strategic theme ii, p3 - "Fluvial sequences and Archaeology": the importance of understanding the taphonomic history of artefacts from within fluvial deposits, and the utility of artefact assemblages from terrace deposits in providing a broad sample of archaeological material from the period represented by the episode of fluvial aggradation
2.3.2 Regional Palaeolithic research framework: Solent-Thames For Oxfordshire, the main and most up-to-date regional research framework is provided by the recently-issued Solent-Thames Research Framework (Hey & Hind, eds, 2014). This provides a regional research framework - including a resource review and research agenda - for five counties defining the Solent Thames region: Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Berkshire, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. This volume includes separate chapters for different archaeological periods, including two chapters for the Palaeolithic (Wenban-Smith et al. 2014a, b).
For the Palaeolithic, three broad landscape character zones are defined for Oxfordshire, and Highlands Farm (which is situated in the far southeast corner of the county) is located in zone OX3 "chalk downs" (Wenban-Smith et al. 2014a: 32). Pleistocene sediments in this zone are dominated by Thames terrace fluvial deposits (including Anglian and pre-Anglian terraces such as the Winter Hill gravel, the Black Park Gravel, and the Caversham-Henley Ancient Channel), high-level plateau gravels and residual Clay-with-flints spreads. The Caversham-Henley Ancient Channel is specified as one of the key areas within this zone, and two specific sites within this deposit spread are identified as of particular importance, Highlands Farm Pit and Kennylands Pit (ibid. 2014a: 37).
The importance of the Highlands Farm site relates to the great presumed age of the fluvial gravel that contains them, the abundance of artefacts, their typological range, and the evidence for localised concentrations of artefacts within the spread of the gravel that constitutes the Ancient Channel. Details of the site and its importance within the context of Palaeolithic research are given further below (Sections 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6)
2.3.3 Palaeolithic importance Generally, the importance of a Palaeolithic site relates to the nature of the remains present - including artefacts, ecofacts and deposits themselves - and their potential to contribute to addressing national and regional research priorities. Supplementing this general principle, English Heritage (1998) have produced a useful list of criteria for the identification of remains that can be regarded as of national importance.
A statutorily designated site such as Highlands Farm has clearly already been deemed to meet the criteria for national importance, but for the sake of completeness the recognised criteria are given below (Table E1), any of which are specified as sufficient for a site to be regarded as of national importance. Table E1 also shows how Highlands Farm matches two of the criteria, with both abundant artefacts and also representing a rare period. It has additional group value, as being part of the classic Middle Thames terrace sequence that contains a much-studied and well- dated record of Palaeolithic development in the region, often taken as a framework for the country as a whole (Wymer 1968; Gibbard 1985; Bridgland 1994).
5 F Wenban-Smith (160212): Archaeological Strategy for SM and SSSI
Criterion Present Comments Human bone No - Primary undisturbed context No - Period/area rare Yes The Highlands Farm site is thought to date to late in the Anglian glaciation, or an interglacial within the Anglian, perhaps 500,000 years BP. Archaeological evidence from this period (contemporary with the Sussex site of Boxgrove) is exceptionally rare in the UK Organic artefacts No - Well-preserved associated bio- No - evidence Evidence of lifestyle No - Stratigraphic relationships No - between different archaeological horizons Artistic evidence No - Evidence of hearths or structures No - Resource exploitation No - Artefacts are abundant Yes More than 250 handaxes and 250 cores are known from the site, and >3000 flakes (Wessex Archaeology 1996: 45). Very high concentrations of artefacts have been reported, up to hundred per cubic yard in places (Wymer 1961: 10). Table E1. Criteria for Palaeolithic remains of national importance (English Heritage 1998)
2.4. Geological and Palaeolithic archaeological background The site is located in the area of geological sheet 254 of the BGS Solid and Drift 1:50,000 series, Henley-on-Thames. This shows that the Solid bedrock at the site is Chalk, and that the site is situated on an outcrop of Pleistocene river gravel attributed to Terrace 5, and specifically the lowest/youngest sub-unit of T5c the Black Park Gravel.
The outcrop under the site forms part of a stretch of Black Park Gravel filling a broadly south-west to north-east trending depression in the Solid Chalk bedrock, that stretches for about 10km between Caversham and Henley-on-Thames. It has been recognised since the late 19th century that this depression represents an early course of the Thames, known as the Caversham-Henley Ancient channel, and the deposit is now well-dated to late in the Anglian glaciation, c. 500,000 BP (Gibbard 1985: 23-25; Bridgland 1994: 142).
It has also been recognised since late in the 19th century (White 1895) that the Ancient Channel contains Palaeolithic artefacts, abundantly at some localities. A full listing of known sites is given in the English Rivers Project (Wessex Archaeology 1996, map MTV1). The main sites are given below (Table E2).
6 F Wenban-Smith (160212): Archaeological Strategy for SM and SSSI
English Rivers map Site and site reference NGR Finds summary Reference/s Hernes Pit MTV1, site 6 SU 743 11 handaxes, 3 cores, Treacher et al. 816 and 18 debitage, 1948: 131; Wymer "retouched" and misc; a 1968: 194-198 very small pit, so probably rich despite low finds count Highlands MTV1, site 7 SU 742 250 handaxes, 250 Treacher et al. Farm Pit 813 cores, >3000 debitage, 1948: 131; Wymer "retouched" and misc; 1961; Wymer >500 of artefacts found 1968: 190-198 in situ; scarce large mammal fossils Kennylands MTV1, site 13 SU 716 91 handaxes, 1 core Treacher et al. Pit 790 and 30 debitage, 1948: 131; Wymer "retouched" and misc; 1968: 189 very variable find density in different parts of pit Farthingworth MTV1A, site 9 SU 700 70 handaxes, 12 Treacher et al. Green 766 debitage and misc; also 1948: 130-131; very variable find Wymer 1968: density in different parts 132-133 of pit Tanner's MTV1A, site 1 SU 712 3-4 ovoid handaxes; the Treacher et al. Farm 774 finest, best-stratified 1948: 131 and most sandy example of the Ancient Channel [acc Treacher et al.] Table E2. Main Palaeolithic sites of the Caversham-Henley Ancient Channel
Foremost among these is Highlands Farm Pit, for which full reports of the finds and geological sequence are given by Treacher et al. (1948) and Wymer (1961; and 1968: 194-198). A variety of handaxe types have been found, mostly ovates (including many very nicely-made and tranchet-sharpened examples), but also numerous crude and blunt-pointed forms, often small. There are also very numerous small crude flakes and simple cores, broadly characterised as "of Clactonian type", although this is an inappropriate term for material of this pre-Hoxnian age, especially when found in conjunction with handaxes. The lithic artefacts are reported as found in a wide range of condition from mint to very rolled, and (for those examples of good provenance) from a range of depths within the Ancient Channel gravel. However the provenance of the lithic remains would benefit from a systematic review of the known finds and their provenance records. A brief review of the literature indicates that there are good records of ovate handaxes in fresh condition being found from the bottom and more-sandy part of the Ancient Channel gravel at Highlands Farm, but provenance records for other handaxe forms, and for the so-called Clactonian material, are less apparent.
The typological range of handaxes presented a conundrum for workers such as Wymer (1961) in the mid-late 20th century. It was pretty certain on geological grounds that the Ancient Channel was indeed ancient, but the presence of nicely-made ovate handaxes suggested to him a young and relatively advanced phase of the Acheulian,
7 F Wenban-Smith (160212): Archaeological Strategy for SM and SSSI only otherwise known in the UK from late Hoxnian deposits at sites such as Swanscombe, probably 100,000 years younger than the presumed age of the Ancient Channel. He therefore struggled with complicated geological mechanisms and invoked substantial fluvial mixing and reworking to explain the apparent presence of handaxes of post-Anglian types in an apparent fluvial deposit of pre- Anglian age. However the discovery of the well-dated pre-Anglian site of Boxgrove in the 1980s (Roberts 1986; Roberts & Parfitt 1999) established that nicely-made ovates such as typical of the Highlands Farm assemblage were entirely characteristic of the pre-Anglian, removing Wymer's difficulty, and allowing the cultural remains to fit more easily in with the presumed age of the Ancient Channel.
However, too few handaxes and debitage have been found in situ to be able to investigate whether there is any pattern of typological or technological change associated with different horizons of the Ancient Channel. The deposit is widely- reported as consistently having a lower and more sandy basal bed with well-defined fluvial current-bedding (from which there are several reports of in situ ovate handaxes), and then a higher more-clayey gravel, often without clear fluvial bedding and separated from the lower sandy beds by an unconformable junction. Then there is an upper very-contorted bed that is thought to be formed by solifluction. An important part of further work at the site would be to investigate the stratigraphy more carefully, and to carry out systematic and controlled sieving to try and recover larger samples of well-provenanced artefacts, to try and resolve whether different horizons of the deposit do, or don't, have distinct associated material cultural remains.
A further note by Wymer (1964: 96) also records the recovery of large vertebrate fossil remains from the site, comprising a damaged horse tooth and part of an elephant tooth. Despite their scarcity and poor condition, these finds reinforce the site's importance as they are the only biological remains from anywhere in the Ancient Channel (and perhaps also from anywhere in the wider Black Park Gravel), and even a small new assemblage of large vertebrate fossils would have the potential to aid in bio-stratigraphic dating of the Ancient Channel and to give some information on the climate and local environment during deposition of the fluvial deposits.
2.5. The Scheduled Monument: Highlands Farm Palaeolithic site The current legal framework for scheduling of nationally important archaeological sites and monuments is provided by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act (1979). The Highlands Farm site is one of very few open-air Palaeolithic Scheduled Monuments in England, and was probably scheduled in the mid-late 1980s. The Old County monument number - OCN - for the site is OX-254, although this designation has recently been replaced by a new List Entry Number system, under which the site is designated as LEN 1004855. Due to the antiquity of the scheduling event, there is very little information about the scheduling available on the on-line Historic England database, other than the footprint of the scheduled area, in the unquarried ground to the immediate north of the more easterly part of the previously-quarried area (Figure E1).
On further enquiry to HE, the full range of information made available is that the file reference for the site is AA63318, it was visited 30th October 1984, and the site information held by HE is "This is one of the 3 or 4 most prolific Palaeolithic sites in Britain, yielding some 600 artefacts per cubic yard of the Clactonian period. First discovered in 1895. Proposed for scheduling is the northern edge of a disused gravel pit (an ancient channel of the Thames) 500' x 80' (150m x 24m)" (information
8 F Wenban-Smith (160212): Archaeological Strategy for SM and SSSI provided by HE data support team by email to FWS on 11th February 2016). The size and location of this scheduling proposal corresponds with the currently-scheduled area.
Key points to note about the SM are:
- it preserves a continuation of unknown character of the general Ancient Channel deposits - there is no indication that the adjacent extracted deposits to the immediate south of the SM were notable in any way, for instance in their sediment character, or in the abundance/nature of nearby finds - there is also no record of the sediment sequence from any part of the scheduled area, or from any of the extracted deposits near to it
This does not mean that the SM is unjustified. It preserves a part of the Ancient Channel in proximity to a pit that has produced abundant and important archaeological remains, although most of these are poorly provenanced in terms of both spatial location and stratigraphic context. However it does mean that there is a current lack of accurate knowledge about the character of the deposits in the designated SM, and of their archaeological contents.
2.6. The Site of Special Scientific Interest: Highlands Farm Pit The current legal framework for SSSIs is provided in England and Wales by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Section 28), amended in 1985 and further substantially amended in 2000 (by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000). The Highlands Farm Pit SSSI was designated in 1986 under the 1981 Act. The designated area (Figure E1) is substantially larger than the Scheduled Monument area, which is entirely contained within the SSSI. The SSSI extends in a strip c. 15m wide for a further c. 150m to the west of the SM. And it also extends in a strip c. 20m wide to the south of the east end of the SM for a distance of c. 60m, including most of the east face of the old pit. Therefore the SSSI area contains the full east-west section stretching almost 300m along the north face of the old pit, and most of the north-south section at its east side. The total area of the SSSI is 0.6ha.
The Natural England description of the site and the reasons for its designation are: "This site is the last available exposure of the gravel flooring the abandoned channel of the Thames between Caversham and Henley (the 'Ancient Channel'), which existed in this area during the Ice Ages, although its relationship to the Thames Terrace sequence is uncertain. It has recently been assigned to the Black Park Terrace which is of Late Anglian age. Palaeolithic flints discovered in large numbers at this site over the last century must therefore be some of the earliest artefacts of their kind known. The uncertainty of the Terrace stratigraphy in the Ancient Channel, and the considerable historical importance of this pit, the most extensively studied and prolific of the Palaeolithic gravel exposures in the Ancient Channel, make this a crucial site."
As with the SM, it is important to note the following points:
- it merely preserves a continuation of general Ancient Channel deposits
9 F Wenban-Smith (160212): Archaeological Strategy for SM and SSSI
- these are not limited in extent, but continue northwards for at least 500m, being the southern part of an outcrop mapped by the BGS (sheet 254) as being c. 200ha in overall size - the designated deposits are of unknown character, there being no records of their nature or archaeological content - the natural sequence is not exposed at any point along the SSSI; rather, modern made ground has been banked against the old pit face (Figure E2), and in some stretches (at the east end of the SSSI, where the SM is also located) this seems to include substantial industrial waste such metal, concrete pieces and other rubbish - there is no indication that the adjacent deposits in the quarry immediately to the south were notable in their sediment character, or in the abundance/nature of nearby finds
As with the SM, these points do not undermine the designation. The designation of a greater length of the old pit face is of particular value in protecting a representative cross-section of the wider Ancient Channel sequence. Any particular part of that might for instance contain a concentration of Palaeolithic artefacts, is preserved within the wider context of an overall transect transverse to the presumed broadly SW-NE flow direction of the Ancient Channel. A shorter transect more-parallel to the presumed flow is also preserved at the east end of the old pit. However there is nonetheless a current lack of accurate knowledge about the character of the deposits in the designated SSSI, and of their archaeological contents.
3. Archaeological impact of the proposed development 3.1. Overview of the proposed development The general layout of the proposed development site is shown in relation to the SM and SSSI (Figure E1). The development has been parcelled into 10 plots, with a projected total of c. 200 dwellings. Figure E1 also shows the layout of the four identified Areas 1-3 and 5 of Palaeolithic character/potential (see main report, Appendix C). A c. 10m buffer zone (shaded yellow in Figure E1) has been defined between the development plots and the SM/SSSI. This zone will not be subject to development, but will be tidied up and laid to grass.
3.2. General site-wide impact For development plots (or parts of plots) in the unquarried ground of Palaeolithic Area 3 to the south of the old pits, construction work, and in particular deeper groundworks such as for waste water, surface water run-off and other services, will have an impact on underlying Ancient Channel deposits of HIGH archaeological potential.
Development plots on the unquarried ground at the west and southwest of the site, where they are located in Palaeolithic Area 5, will impact deposits thought to be of LOW potential.
For plots (or parts of plots) situated within the main part of the old pit footprint (Palaeolithic Area 2), the impact of the construction work is regarded as "varied
10 F Wenban-Smith (160212): Archaeological Strategy for SM and SSSI
LOW/HIGH". Sand/gravel deposits of the Ancient Channel are known to survive in places, and these may contain Palaeolithic remains.
For plots in the old pit footprint, the development leaves a buffer zone of c. 10m between the south side of the designated SM/SSSI and any area of building construction and associated works. This ensures future accessibility to the designated deposits, and the ground within the buffer zone will be tidied and laid to grass. However, as shown in Figure E1 and confirmed by TP 23 (main report, Figure 2), unquarried ground with proven rich Palaeolithic remains extends southward as a spur from the SSSI into the proposed development area (Figure E3). This unquarried ground is part of Palaeolithic Area 1 (HIGH potential), and can be regarded for planning purposes as of equivalent importance to the adjacent designated SSSI asset, although not technically within the designated area. It is suggested here that the majority of this spur should be preserved in situ, after some investigation around its periphery (Figure E1, sections Arch6 and Arch7).
It is accepted that a programme of targeted evaluation and mitigation will be required in advance of the construction programme. An outline strategy for this is provided in the main report (Section 7, Appendix C), and further details are provided below (Section 4).
The remainder of this appendix focuses more-specifically on the impact of the proposed development upon the designated SM and SSSI, and equivalent deposits, and outlines a suitable archaeological strategy to mitigate this impact.
3. 3. Impact upon the SM and SSSI
Through use of the buffer zone, the proposed development has very little direct impact upon the designated SSSI and SM areas. The 10m width of the buffer zone is intended to ensure future access to the SSSI/SM for small plant such as a back- acting JCB in the event of a desire to expose the deposits for study. As shown (Figure E1), the buffer zone is often 15-20m wide, so there is no anticipated practical difficulty with future access. However, besides the practical viability of access to the natural deposits, an additional problem for future access could also be if it was dependent upon permission. Consideration to this factor will have to be provided in the various conditions attached to transfer of ownership of land abutting the SSSI and SM, and of land which needs to be crossed to gain access.
The proposal to tidy up within the buffer zone may entail removal of material banked against natural deposits, and in so doing lead to their exposure.
The previously-proposed development included an access road that passed through area 1 to the north of test pit 23, and involved encroachment of a housing plot onto the location of this test pit. As confirmed by results from this test pit, reported on in this main report, this area preserves natural deposits rich in Palaeolithic artefacts and of high importance. The previously-proposed development would thus have a direct impact here upon natural deposits that are a direct continuation of those within the SSSI, grouped as Area 1 for Palaeolithic character, and of high potential (main report, Table 6). It is therefore suggested that this particular aspect of the proposed development could be revised, to allow for preservation of the undisturbed deposits to the north of test pit 23.
11 F Wenban-Smith (160212): Archaeological Strategy for SM and SSSI
Although not directly contiguous with the deposits of the SSSI and SM, the deposits of the unquarried ground of Palaeolithic Area 3 can be regarded as of broadly equivalent nature and importance, as shown by the results of the phase 2 test pit evaluation. The proposed development will have a moderately high impact upon Area 3 in places, although the proposed combination of slot beam foundations and piling will avoid having a substantial impact upon deeper-lying gravel deposits.
The remainder of this appendix outlines an integrated strategy for mitigation that treats the surviving natural deposits at the site as a single heritage asset. A mitigation strategy is presented that involves both targeted and pro-active work in the wider undesignated areas of construction impact (Section 4), and also some work at the edges of the designated SM/SSSI area (Section 5). Taken as a whole, the package of mitigation work will provide a greatly enhanced understanding of the designated assets that will remain along the north side of the development.
4. Archaeological mitigation of the wider development The two phases of evaluation test pits allow the site to be divided with confidence into 4 areas of varying Palaeolithic character and potential (main report Figure 4; Figure E1). Outline approaches to further evaluation and mitigation of the wider development are outlined for each Palaeolithic character area in the accompanying appendix (Appendix C).
In summary, a mitigation strategy will be applied that will involve - targeting areas of maximum development impact - excavation and recording of continuous deposit exposures in a selection of stepped trenches distributed across the site to contribute to constructing two main orthogonal deposit transects, one broadly north-south and the other broadly east-west. Excavation of these trenches, and of selected additional trenches focused on areas of impact or proven high potential, will be accompanied by controlled sieving for lithic artefacts and faunal remains through the gravel sequence. Suitable sampling will also take place for clast lithological analysis, and for palaeo- environmental remains if any suitable deposits are encountered.
Sampling for optically-stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating may also take place if suitable sand-rich sediments are encountered. Although the main body of the Ancient Channel is of a presumed age too old for OSL to be a viable technique, one important part of work at the site will be to establish whether the upper part of the preserved deposit sequence contains significantly younger deposits in places. OSL work can address this question.
5. Mitigation strategy for the SM and SSSI 5.1. Overview of SM and SSSI mitigation strategy These heritage assets are presently poorly understood. Although regarded as in stable and favourable condition by the statutory bodies - Historic England and Natural England respectively - the Pleistocene deposits that form the basis of their designation are not visible, and no records exist of the preserved sequences or any archaeological contents thereof. The basis of their preservation is that they represent a continuation of the extracted deposits in the old Highlands Farm Pit to the south of the SM and SSSI. It has not however been confirmed that the preserved deposits retain the same scientific interest in terms of deposit character and Palaeolithic artefact content as the
12 F Wenban-Smith (160212): Archaeological Strategy for SM and SSSI previously-extracted deposits. The precise extent of survival of the natural deposits is also currently uncertain, the previous quarry face having subsequently had deposits banked against it. Furthermore, they form only a very small part of the wider sediment body of the Caversham-Henley Ancient Channel, undisturbed deposits of which continue for a substantial distance - several hundred metres at least - on the north site of the SM and SSSI, as well as being represented by several other wide spreads of several hundred hectares between Caversham and Henley.
On this basis, it is suggested that the presence of these heritage assets at the north side of the proposed development area do not present a bar to the proposed development, but conversely that there would be great positive benefit from a heritage perspective in investigating them further in conjunction with the proposed development.
It is proposed to carry out selective exposure and recording of the faces of the SM and SSSI [Figure E1, sections Arch1-Arch5], accompanied by systematic and controlled recovery of lithic artefacts and (if present) large vertebrate fossils and micro-faunal remains. This would be complemented by excavation and recording (and controlled artefact recovery) at the west face of the southward-protruding spur of deposits at TP 23 [Arch6], and by wider excavation and controlled artefact recovery in the area of TP 23 [Arch7].
It is recognised that it is necessary to avoid interfering with the mature deciduous trees that line much of the SM and SSSI face, and that wholesale vegetation clearance that could de-stabilise the surviving face should be avoided. However it is anticipated that it will be possible to clear narrow logs and some longer sections at regular intervals, covering up to c. 25% of the length of the face, to build up an overall stratigraphic framework and carry out sufficient investigations to improve our understanding of the surviving deposits.
This work would be complemented by the substantial mitigating archaeological work in the wider development area.
5.2. Benefits of the SM and SSSI strategy This archaeological work would have the following benefits:
- it will have a small impact upon the designated heritage assets, but will not substantively diminish them, nor compromise their longer-term preservation - the statutory bodies will have a greatly-improved understanding of the designated heritage assets, the SM and the SSSI - the work will make a major contribution to recognised national and regional archaeological research priorities, both in terms of the site itself, and in the broader terms of understanding how to investigate Palaeolithic gravels most effectively - the results will feed into a community programme of dissemination and/or an on- site display [tbc with the statutory bodies and planning authority] aimed at promoting understanding and appreciation of these heritage assets to the local community, and feeding into the already-valued local sense of the place as an important prehistoric locality
13 F Wenban-Smith (160212): Archaeological Strategy for SM and SSSI
5.3. Integration of the SM and SSSI strategy with the wider archaeological work The proposed archaeological work in and around the SM and SSSI area complements that proposed for the rest of the site. Taken together, the proposed work would be ground-breaking in improving understanding of the varying nature and stratigraphy of the Ancient Channel and other Pleistocene deposits across this nationally important site. It would create a substantial assemblage of stratigraphically well-provenanced and accurately located lithic artefacts. This would not only provide important information about the site itself, but it would also be a benchmark study for the investigation of the Palaeolithic gravel deposits in general.
5.4. Particular considerations There are various specific considerations that will need to be taken account in taking the proposed work forward:
- there are various trees around the site, particularly in the SM and SSSI along the edge of the old pit footprint, where it is proposed to clean/record the archaeological sections Arch1-Arch5. Care will have to be taken to avoid damaging these, so some of the proposed archaeological sections may not continuous, but will be formed of shorter stretches where ground is available for study in between trees. - it is uncertain where the south edge of the old pit face occurs in the vicinity of the proposed section Arch3. If it occurs further south than shown, then the section should be recorded further south, rather than digging away substantial quantities of natural sediment to reach the location shown here. - it is uncertain whether the proposed section cleaning/recording (Arch5) at the east side of the old pit will be possible, without affecting land beyond the development plot. This part of the proposed archaeological work may need to be reduced in scope. - all work in and around the SM and SSSI will need to be planned in conjunction with the relevant statutory bodies (Historic England and Natural England respectively) and then undertaken in conjunction with the necessary consents.
References Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act (1979).
Bridgland DR, 1994. Northfleet (Ebbsfleet Valley): Baker’s Hole Complex. In (DR Bridgland, ed) Quaternary of the Thames: 262-274. Geological Conservation Review Series No. 7, Chapman and Hall, London.
British Geological Survey. 1980. Henley-on-Thames: England and Wales Sheet 254, Solid and Drift Edition, 1:50,000 Series. British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham.
CgMs Consulting [with Cotswold Archaeology and Francis Wenban-Smith], 2015. Preliminary Palaeolithic and Geo-archaeological Test Pit Evaluation. Unpublished client report prepared in December 2015.
14 F Wenban-Smith (160212): Archaeological Strategy for SM and SSSI
CgMs Consulting, 2014. Archaeological Desk-based Assessment: Land at Highlands Farm, Henley-on-Thames, South Oxfordshire, Oxfordshire, RG9 4PR. Unpublished client report prepared in January 2014.
Cotswold Archaeology, 2011. Highlands Farm, Harpsden, Henley-on-Thames, Oxfordshire: Heritage Desk-based Assessment. Unpublished client report for Pegasus Planning Group on behalf of English Care Villages and Associated Properties prepared in July 2011 [CA project 3448, report reference 11126].
Department for Communities and Local Government. 2012. National Planning Policy Framework. Department for Communities and Local Government, London.
English Heritage, 1998. Identifying and Protecting Palaeolithic Remains: Archaeological Guidance for Planning Authorities and Developers. English Heritage, London.
English Heritage, 2008. Research and Conservation Framework for the British Palaeolithic. English Heritage, London
Gibbard, P.L. 1985. Pleistocene History of the Middle Thames Valley. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Hey G, Hind J, 2014 (eds). Solent-Thames Research Framework for the Historic Environment: Resource Assessments and Research Agendas. Oxford Wessex Monograph 6, Oxford Archaeology, Oxford.
Roberts, M.B. 1986. Excavation of the Lower Palaeolithic site at Amey's Eartham Pit, Boxgrove, West Sussex: a preliminary report. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 52: 215-245.
Roberts, M.B. & Parfitt, S.A., (ed's). 1999a. Boxgrove: a Middle Pleistocene Hominid Site. English Heritage, London.
Treacher MS, Arkell WJ, Oakley KP, 1948. On the Ancient Channel between Caversham and Henley, Oxfordshire, and its contained Flint Implements. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 27: 126-154.
Wenban-Smith FF, Hardaker T, Hosfield RT, Loader R, Silva B, Wilkinson K, Bridgland D, Cramp K, 2014a. The Lower/Middle Palaeolithic Resource Assessment and Research Agenda. In (G Hey and J Hind, eds) Solent-Thames Research Framework for the Historic Environment: Resource Assessments and Research Agendas: 21-51. Oxford Wessex Monograph 6, Oxford Archaeology, Oxford.
Wenban-Smith FF, Hardaker T, Hosfield RT, Loader R, Silva B, Wilkinson K, 2014b. The Lower/Middle Palaeolithic: Research Agenda. In (G Hey and J Hind, eds) Solent- Thames Research Framework for the Historic Environment: Resource Assessments and Research Agendas: 53-59. Oxford Wessex Monograph 6, Oxford Archaeology, Oxford.
Wessex Archaeology. 1996. English Rivers Palaeolithic Project, Report No. 1: The Thames Valley and the Warwickshire Avon. Wessex Archaeology, Salisbury.
White HJO, 1895. On the distribution and relations of the Westleton and Glacial gravels in parts of Oxfordshire and Berkshire. Proceedings of the Geologists' Association 14: 11.
15 F Wenban-Smith (160212): Archaeological Strategy for SM and SSSI
Wymer JJ, 1961. The Lower Palaeolithic Succession in the Thames Valley and the date of the Ancient Channel Between Caversham and Henley, Oxon. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 27: 1-27.
Wymer JJ, 1964. Archaeological notes from Reading Museum: "Rotherfield Peppard, Oxon". Berkshire Archaeological Journal 61 (for 1963-1964): 96-109.
Wymer JJ, 1968. Lower Palaeolithic Archaeology in Britain as represented by the Thames Valley. John Baker, London.
16 SSSI, Highlands Farm Pit [GCR Palaeolithic evaluation test pits with 453] undisturbed Black Park Gravel Scheduled Monument, Highlands deposits - TPs 1, 3-8 and 13-21 Farm Palaeolithic site [list entry 1004855, Ox 254] Palaeolithic evaluation test pits with slightly disturbed Black SSSI buffer zone Park Gravel deposits - TP 12
Palaeolithic evaluation test pits with 2 Areas of Palaeolithic heavily reworked Black Park Gravel 3 character/potential deposits - TPs 2, 9-11 and 22
Arch1-5 - Selective clearance of vegetation Test pits with ≥5 artefacts - TPs 3, 17 [25%, subject to tree preservation and * and 23 retaining ground stability], section Other test pits with 1-4 artefacts - TPs cleaning/recording and artefact recovery + 1, 4, 7-9, 12-15 and 19-20 Arch6-7 - Excavation and recording of section, controlled artefact recovery
Figure E1. Site layout, showing Palaeolithic evaluation test pits 1-23, areas of Palaeolithic potential 1-3 and 5, distribution of artefact recovery and proposed areas of SM/SSSI investigation. Figure E2. Current condition of the south side of the SSSI, made ground banked against the old pit face [photo 6th August 2015, looking north-east].
Figure E3. Spur of unquarried ground extending south from the SSSI into the old pit footprint; as shown by TP 23 (main report, Figure 2), undisturbed gravel of the Ancient Channel is present under the asphalted foreground area [photo 6th August 2015, looking north-west].
32