Gildridge Farm, New Road, Magham Down, Hailsham, East Sussex

TVAS SOUTH Gildridge Farm, New Road, Magham Down, Hailsham, East Sussex Archaeological Watching Brief by Odile Rouard Site Code: GFH18/203 (TQ 6131 1091) Gildridge Farm, New Road, Magham Down, Hailsham, East Sussex An Archaeological Watching Brief For Mr Edward Wheeler by Odile Rouard Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd Site Code GFH18/203 May 2019 Summary Site name: Gildridge Farm, New Road, Magham Down, Hailsham, East Sussex Grid reference: TQ 6131 1091 Planning reference: WD/2018/1334/MAJ Site activity: Watching Brief Date and duration of project: 29th April – 1st May 2019 Area of Site: 0.3ha Project manager: Sean Wallis Site supervisor: Odile Rouard Site code: GFH 18/203 Summary of results: The watching brief successfully investigated those parts of the site which were to be most affected by the construction of a new agricultural building. The only feature observed was a post-medieval ditch, which was recorded in the central part of the site. Several pottery sherds, dated to the medieval period, were recovered from the subsoil, as well as a few pieces of struck flint. Metal detecting of the site yielded two bronze buckles, one bronze hook and a silver coin. Location and reference of archive: The archive is presently held at Thames Valley Archaeological Services, Brighton, and will be deposited with Eastbourne museum in due course. This report may be copied for bona fide research or planning purposes without the explicit permission of the copyright holder Report edited/checked by: Steve Ford 10.05.19 Steve Preston 10.05.19 i TVAS South, 77a Hollingdean Terrace, Brighton, BN1 7HB Tel. (01273) 554198; email [email protected]; website : www.tvas.co.uk Gildridge Farm, New Road, Magham Down, Hailsham, East Sussex An Archaeological Watching Brief by Odile Rouard Report 18/203 Introduction This report documents the results of an archaeological watching brief carried out at Gildridge Farm, Magham Down, East Sussex (TQ 6131 1091) (Figs 1 and 2). The project was commissioned by Mrs Julie Warden of Pump House Designs Ltd, Pump House Yard, Sedlescombe, East Sussex, TN33 0QA, on behalf of the property's owner, Mr Edward Wheeler. Planning permission (WD/2018/1334/MAJ) had been gained from Wealden District Council for the construction of a new agricultural building. The permission was subject to standard planning conditions (1 and 2) relating to archaeology and the historic environment, in line with the National Planning Policy Framework as revised in 2018 (NPPF 2018) and the District Council's policies on archaeology and the historic environment.. As a consequence of the possibility of archaeological deposits on site which may be damaged or destroyed by the planned building work, it was proposed to carry out a watching brie. The watching brief was carried out in accordance with a written scheme of investigation approved by the East Sussex County Council Archaeological Officer (Mr Chris Greatorex), who advises the council on archaeological matters. The fieldwork was undertaken by Odile Rouard between 29th of April and 1st of May 2019, and the site code is GFH 18/203. The archive is currently held at TVAS Brighton and will be deposited with Eastbourne Museum in due course. Location, topography and geology The site is located immediately east of the existing farm buildings at Gildridge Farm, approximately 600m south- east of the historic core of Magham Down. The area sloped gently from the north-western part of the site down to the south-eastern end, from 15.70m above Ordnance Datum to 13.30m aOD. According to the British Geological Survey, the underlying geology consists of the Tunbridge Wells Sand Formation (BGS 2006). This was recorded across the site as a light greyish yellow sandy clay, with varying amounts of sandstone and iron stone inclusions. 1 Archaeological background The archaeological potential of the site largely stems from its location within an Archaeological Notification Area relating to a post-medieval farm complex (Gildridge Farm) and Mesolithic activity, as detailed in the Historic Environment Record and a brief issued by the East Sussex County Council Archaeological Officer. Gildridge Farm is a post-medieval farmstead, with partially extant 19th-century redevelopment, characterized by its dispersed plan and multiple yards. The farmhouse is thought to have 17th-century origins, and is a Grade II Listed Building. Medieval finds were recovered during metal detecting and fieldwalking exercises immediately east of the farm complex, along with over two hundred struck flints of probable Mesolithic date. Objectives and methodology The primary aim of the watching brief was to excavate and record any archaeological deposits affected by the groundworks. Where archaeological deposits which may warrant preservation in-situ were encountered, their treatment was to be discussed in consultation with the client and the East Sussex County Council Archaeological Officer. Where it was not possible or practicable to preserve archaeological remains in-situ the features were to be excavated by hand and fully recorded, to ensure their preservation by record. The watching brief was to be carried out in accordance with the relevant sections of Sussex Archaeological Standards (ESCC 2017). Results The development plans required that the entire footprint of the new agricultural building be reduced by approximately 0.40m to expose the natural Tunbridge Wells Sand Formation geology. It was therefore decided that archaeological monitoring of the ground reduction would take place to expose the top of the natural geology or relevant archaeological level, if higher, so that any archaeological features could be appropriately dealt with. Further ground reduction could then take place without an archaeologist being present, if necessary. An area of c. 0.3ha was stripped down to the top of the natural geology (Figs 2 and 3; Pls 1 and 2), which consisted of light greyish yellow sandy clay, with varying amounts of sandstone and iron stone inclusions. The natural geology was generally encountered about 0.33m (Fig. 4; Pl. 3) below the original ground surface. The only feature recorded was a post-medieval ditch (1). It was located towards the middle of the site and was aligned south-west to north-east, with a width of 0.95m and a depth of 0.22m (Pl. 4). Its fill of light grey brown sandy clay yielded some small fragments of brick and tile. The ditch appeared to run along the same alignment as a hedge which could be seen immediately south-west of the excavation area. 2 It was clear that the site had been heavily ploughed in the past, as numerous plough scars were visible within the stripped area. Although no other archaeological features were visible, a small assemblage of pottery dating from the medieval period was recovered from the subsoil (51), as well as a four pieces of struck flint. The western part of the site had been heavily disturbed as it is closest to the existing farm buildings and had acted as a farm yard and track (Pl. 5). Metal detecting of the site yielded two belt buckles, a bronze hook, and a silver coin dated to 1350-1550. These items were found on the surface of the stripped area, but were not within any archaeological features. Finds The Pottery by Luke Barber The archaeological work recovered 20 sherds of pottery, weighing 114g, all from subsoil 51 (Appendix 1). Medieval fabrics have been allocated the Eastbourne fabric code (Barber forthcoming) as well as a common/ descriptive name. Overall the pottery consists of small to medium-sized sherds (up to c. 50mm across) with moderate to heavy signs of abrasion. As such the material appears to not only have been affected by an acidic subsoil but subjected to notable reworking. Considering the context this is hardly surprising. The earliest pottery consists of the SN 1e sherds that, considering the rim type, are likely to be of 11th- to mid-12th-century date. The Abbot’s wood type SN 1c sherds can be placed in a 12th to mid-13th-century date range suggesting. The remaining sherds are of typical local types of the 13th to 14th centuries though nothing need post-date c. 1350. No later pottery was recovered. Overall the assemblage suggests the moderate manuring of arable land, probably spanning the later 11th to mid 14th centuries. The pottery assemblage is small, mixed and of types well known of in the area. Ceramic Building Material by Danielle Milbank Ditch 1 (52) contained three fragments of brick and tile with a total weight of 448g. These comprised a tile fragment 12mm thick, in a fairly fine, evenly-fired clay with a neat finish, an orange red colour and a likely post- medieval date. The brick fragments are a hard, fairly fine fabric with sparse sand inclusions and a dark red colour. One of the examples is vitrified on both the upper and lower surface showing high temperature firing. Neither of the brick fragments have the full thickness present, but the fabric and finish of both is suggestive of a broadly post-medieval date. 3 The Struck Flint by Steve Ford Four struck flints were recovered from the subsoil during stripping of the site. Three pieces were simple flakes unpatinated, and in black and brown flint. The fourth was a segment of broken blade (narrow flake) which was patinated across the breaks. The flakes are not closely datable but probably of Neolithic or Bronze Age date, whereas the blade segment is probably of Mesolithic date. Metal by Danielle Milbank and Pierre Manisse A total of four metal objects including one coin were recovered, all from the subsoil layer 51. Object 1 comprises a small copper alloy bar 72mm long, 7mm wide and flattened in section, with a central rivet hole 2mm diameter.

Load more