ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVALUATION REPORT ______

NORTH FACE, QUARRY (SINKS PIT), Planning Application No. C/97/1501 (SMR No. BEL 026)

commissioned by RMC AGGREGATES (UK) LIMITED

CONTENTS

Summary 1. Introduction 2. Methodology 3. Results 4. The Finds, by Edward Martin and Sue Anderson 5. Discussion 6. Recommendations for Further Work

Figures figure 1: Site Location Plan figure 2: Trench Location Plan figure 3: Feature Location Plan figure 4: Feature Plans figure 5: Sections

Appendices Appendix I: Context Numbers and Finds List Appendix II: Brief and Specification

Suffolk County Council Archaeological Service Field Projects Team PJ Thompson MSc CEng FICE County Director of Environment and Transport St Edmund House, County Hall, . IP4 1LZ.

REPORT No. 99/5

Evaluation: Kesgrave Quarry, Little Bealings Report No. 99/5

Summary

An archaeological evaluation was undertaken to assess the extent of surviving archaeology within the area of a proposed extension to Kesgrave Quarry (Sinks Pit), in the parish of Little Bealings, . The area proposed for expansion lies immediately to the North of the existing quarry. The OS grid reference for the approximate centre of the proposed quarry expansion is TM 2245 4655.

On-site evaluation consisted of a series of linear trenches mechanically excavated to the depth of the natural subsoil. The exposed surface was then examined for cut features. A small pit containing Early Bronze Age pottery, four other pits and four ditches, from which no dating evidence was recovered, were located within the excavated trenches. No other significant archaeological features were identified within the evaluation area.

1. Introduction

As a result of an application (C/97/1501), to extract sand and gravel from beneath a parcel of land to the North of Kesgrave Quarry (Sinks Pit), an archaeological evaluation was carried out on site by members of the Suffolk County Council Archaeological Service, Field Projects Team. The quarry and the evaluation area are situated in the parish of Little Bealings, Suffolk. The Ordnance Survey map reference for the approximate centre of the evaluation area is TM 2245 4655 (see figure 1: Site Location Plan).

The proposed quarry expansion would involve large scale excavation of the area and result in the complete destruction of any archaeological deposits that may be present. At the time of the application the level of archaeology surviving on the site was unknown and the evaluation was commissioned in order to ascertain the extent, nature and depth of any buried archaeological deposits within the area proposed for extraction. The information gained from the evaluation could then be used to formulate a strategy for dealing with any archaeological remains that may be present.

At the time of the evaluation (January 1999), the evaluation area was under untended grassland with gorse bushes, small shrubs and an occasional mature tree. The site was also littered with a small number of tree stumps and felled tree trunks, particularly within the western half of the site. A line of mature pine trees, protected by Tree Preservation Orders, were located on the eastern edge of the site. The area had been the garden to an adjacent derelict house. The house had been unoccupied for c.9 years. Prior to the house being solely residential, the area and house had been the site of a poultry farm, and had been so since at least the 1940s. The evaluation area, and the surrounding land, is flat and level to the North, East and West. To the South, previous to the quarry, the land would have sloped down to a small stream in the valley bottom.

Kesgrave Quarry, situated on the North side of an East - West valley, has been worked since at least the 1950s. Over the years, as the quarry slowly expanded, a number of archaeological sites and artefacts have been discovered. These are recorded

1 Evaluation: Kesgrave Quarry, Little Bealings Report No. 99/5

on the County Sites and Monuments Record (SMR), with each individual site being allocated a unique reference number.

Within the area of the existing quarry, or immediately adjacent, five sites are listed on the County SMR. The closest recorded site is BEL 007, situated about 350m Southeast of the proposed expansion area. It is an Iron Age settlement site with associated hearths and a burnt flint scatter. It was partially excavated in 1957. Sherds of Early Iron Age pottery and a quantity of waste flint flakes were recovered from the site and the surrounding area. One hundred metres to the Northeast of BEL 007, four hundred metres East of the proposed expansion area, is BEL 006, an ‘urnfield’ containing c.25 cremation burials and dated to the Bronze Age period. This site was also excavated in 1957. Three possible Saxon hut sites, which lay over the urnfield, were also excavated at this time.

Three further sites, BEL 010, BEL 018 and BEL 022, lying between 400m to 1000m to the East of the proposed quarry expansion, are recorded on the County SMR. The site recorded as BEL 010, consists of a finds scatter of Early Saxon artefacts and was recorded in 1966. The scatter included a shield boss, two spears, one javelin, fragments of pottery and cremated bone. Finds such as these, are indicative of a Saxon cemetery although unfortunately no actual burials were found in situ.

BEL 018 is a multi-period site discovered in 1987 during a watching brief on the topsoil stripping of an earlier quarry extension. Various stray finds and features were recorded, indicating ancient occupation from the Mesolithic period through to the Roman period. BEL 022 records further multi-period artefacts and features recovered during excavations in 1992 within an area immediately to the Northeast of BEL 018.

The large number of artefacts and features recorded over the last 40 years, from within the area of gravel extraction, indicate that the sand and gravel ridge, worked by the quarry, supported a succession of shifting settlements dating from the Neolithic period onwards. The area proposed for expansion, which is along the same ridge, was considered to have the potential to yield further evidence of ancient settlement. A ‘PPG 16, paragraph 30 type condition’, to secure an agreed programme of archaeological works, was put on the above application. This evaluation is the first stage of the agreed programme.

The evaluation was commissioned and funded by the quarry owners, RMC Aggregates (UK) Limited, and was carried out in accordance to a Brief and Specification prepared by the County Council Conservation Team (reproduced in Appendix II). The evaluation archive is lodged with the Suffolk County Council Archaeological Service at Shire Hall, Bury St. Edmunds.

2. Methodology

To evaluate the area a series of linear test trenches were machine excavated down to the level of the natural subsoil using a the back ‘arm’ of a JCB fitted with a 1.5m wide, toothless, ditching bucket. A trenching plan was agreed with the County Conservation Team although this was slightly modified to avoid trees and dense areas

2 Evaluation: Kesgrave Quarry, Little Bealings Report No. 99/5

of gorse (see figure 2: Trench Location Plan). Initially the topsoil was removed and the machined surface examined for archaeological features which, if present, were recorded. Following this any colluvial or other masking deposits, such windblown sand, were removed in order to expose the underlying natural subsoil, again the machined surface was examined for archaeological features.

Any archaeological features identified within the trenches were hand excavated. Potential postholes and pits were half sectioned whilst linear features were sectioned perpendicular across their width. The location of each feature was recorded (see figure 3: Feature Location Plan) and a surface plan of each feature was drawn at a scale of 1:50 (see figures 4). Upon excavation the cross-section of each feature was drawn at a scale of 1:20 (see figure 5). The machined surfaces and the resultant spoil was systematically surveyed with a metal detector. Consecutive context numbers commencing at 0002 (0001 being reserved for unstratified finds) were allocated to each feature as located. All artefacts recovered during the evaluation were retained for further analysis.

3. Results

A total of five, 1.5m wide, linear trenches, of varying lengths, were excavated, giving a total length of 160m (numbered as trenches 1-5, see figure 2: Trench Location Plan). This length of trench equates to an area of approximately 160m2 (computed on the nominal basis of a 1m wide trench, see the Brief and Specification), and is approximately 2% of the total evaluation area (c.6000m2).

In all trenches the topsoil was approximately 0.15m thick. Its removal revealed a layer of reddish brown sand which varied in thickness from 0.5m to 0.65m. Beneath this the underlying natural consisted of yellow and orange sands and gravels with occasional rounded flints.

Archaeological features were identified in all the trenches excavated. In all the features tree root disturbance was encountered, although this only caused minor excavation problems in trench 1. Despite the use of a metal detector, no significant metal artefacts were recovered during the evaluation.

A brief description of each feature now follows:

Trench 1:

0002 - A small feature located on the edge of the trench. Probably an oval shaped pit, although this was not possible to positively determine as only a portion of the feature was visible. The fill consisted of mixed mid brown sand. The visible portion measured 0.75m by 0.6m, and had a depth of 0.35m. No finds were recovered from this feature.

0003 - A small, sub-rectangular feature with a mid reddish to dark brown sand fill. It measured 0.75m across the short axis, 1m across the long axis and had a depth of

3 Evaluation: Kesgrave Quarry, Little Bealings Report No. 99/5

0.3m. A large number of pottery sherds dated to the Bronze Age were recovered from this feature.

0004 - A linear feature, aligned North - South, with a mid brown sand fill. It measured 1m in width and had a depth of 0.35m. No finds were recovered from this feature.

Trench 2:

0005 - A linear feature, aligned East - West, with a mid brown sand fill. It measured 0.8m in width and had a depth of 0.18m. No finds were recovered from this feature.

0006 - A small, shallow, circular feature with a pale grey/brown sand fill. It measured 0.22m in diameter and had a depth of 0.1m. No finds were recovered from this feature.

Trench 3:

0007 - A linear feature, aligned East - West, with a pale brown sand fill. It measured 1.2m in width and had a depth of 0.17m. This feature had an uneven bottom indicating that it may have been re-cut. No finds were recovered from this feature.

0008 - A linear feature, aligned East - West, with a pale brown sand fill. It measured 0.6m in width and had a depth of 0.17m. No finds were recovered from this feature.

0009 - A linear feature, aligned East - West, with a mid brown sand fill. It measured 1.4m in width and had a depth of 0.27m. No finds were recovered from this feature.

0010 - A small feature located on the edge of the trench. Probably an oval shaped pit, although this was not possible to positively determine as only a portion of the feature was visible. The fill consisted of mid brown sand. The visible portion measured 1m by 0.3m, and had a depth of 0.2m. No finds were recovered from this feature.

0011 - A small feature located on the edge of the trench. Probably an oval shaped pit or the butt end of a narrow gully. It was not possible to positively determine the exact shape and type of feature as only a portion was visible. The fill consisted of mid brown sand. The visible portion measured 0.7m by 0.5m, and had a depth of 0.2m. No finds were recovered from this feature.

Trench 4:

0012 - A linear feature, aligned North - South, with a mid brown sand fill. It measured 1m in width and had a depth of 0.35m. No finds were recovered from this feature.

Trench 5:

0013 - A small, shallow, circular feature with a pale mid brown sand fill. It measured 0.6m in diameter and had a depth of 0.15m. No finds were recovered from this feature.

4 Evaluation: Kesgrave Quarry, Little Bealings Report No. 99/5

0014 - A linear feature, aligned East - West, with a mid brown sand fill. It measured 1.4m in width and had a depth of 0.45m. This feature had an uneven bottom indicating that it may have been re-cut. No finds were recovered from this feature.

0015 - A feature located on the edge of the trench. Possibly an oval shaped pit, although this was not possible to positively determine as only a portion of the feature was visible. The fill consisted of mid brown sand. The visible portion measured 1.5m by 0.8m, and had a depth of 0.24m. No finds were recovered from this feature.

4. The Finds Edward Martin and Sue Anderson, January 1999.

The pottery A total of 27 sherds weighing 250g was collected from a single pit (0003). The sherds were all Beaker (Early Bronze Age), representing fragments of probably four vessels as follows:

1. Two rims (one broken into 3+ sherds), 13 body sherds, 1 base? Moderate burnt flint and grog inclusions, decorated with a double row of incised chevrons on the shoulder, with a broad zone of fingernail impressions below. 2. Two body sherds. Similar fabric to above, decorated with horizontal incised lines with a lozengy lattice below, also incised. 3. One body sherd. Sparse burnt flint and moderate grog, decorated with two double rows of stab marks separated by a broad plain zone. 4. Two body sherds, 1 base (now in 3 pieces). Abundant burnt flint, decorated with rows of finger nail impressions.

Miscellaneous Two unpatinated flint flakes were recovered from the same pit as the pottery. Other finds consisted of two iron nails and one unidentified iron bar fragment, all unstratified.

Discussion of the artefactual evidence The presence of fragments of several vessels in association with possible contemporary flint flakes indicates Bronze Age activity in the vicinity.

5. Discussion

All the features identified during the evaluation, other than one small pit (numbered 0003), contained no artefacts. Consequently obtaining a positive date for these features is not possible although a very broad date can be implied through stratigraphy. The thick layer of reddish brown sand below the modern topsoil covered all the features identified. This layer was probably laid down through the deposition of windblown sand over a period of many years and indicates that none of the features were modern. At what point in history the windblown sand started to be deposited is unknown, it is generally associated with the clearance of vegetation from the land,

5 Evaluation: Kesgrave Quarry, Little Bealings Report No. 99/5

either by man, or particularly on heathland, by rabbits, and is thought to be an early Post-medieval phenomenon.

The linear features all represent ditches, and are probably boundary marks rather than drainage ditches, which, on the freely draining sandy soil, would not be required. The ditch sections, 0004 in trench 1, and 0012 in trench 4, align perfectly, have similar fills, and are of similar shape, suggesting that these two particular sections are through the same ditch. The ditch sections 0014 in trench 5, 0005 in trench 2 and 0007 in trench 3 are all on a similar alignment to each other and are also likely to represent a single ditch. The uneven bottoms of 0007 and 0014 imply that this ditch was recut at some time, although this cannot be seen in section. It is not possible to see a clear recut in 0005, this could imply that that this particular stretch was not recut, or that the recutting was deeper and destroyed all trace of the original cut. The ditches located are probably the remnants of field systems and date from, at the latest, the Medieval period.

The single pit containing Early Bronze Age pottery (0003) is of interest, but not altogether unexpected given the amount of prehistoric material that has been recovered from the area in the past. It is not possible to say with any confidence whether this is just an isolated feature, away from any settlement or part of a settlement site and associated occupation. Little can be inferred from the other pits identified during the evaluation, there are undoubtedly archaeological but their purpose is, at present, unknown.

5. Recommendations for Further Work

Based on the level of archaeology recovered from the evaluation trenches, the Field Team would recommend supervised stripping of the area, using a back-acting machine, fitted with a toothless ditching bucket, down to the level of the undisturbed natural. It is possible that further isolated features may be revealed and a contingency should be allowed for their rapid excavation and recording. It would also be of great benefit to record and plot any potential field systems that may be revealed.

M. Sommers 21st January 1999 Field Projects Team, Suffolk County Council, Archaeological Service.

Any opinions expressed in this report about the need for further archaeological work are those of the Field Projects Team alone. The need for further work will be determined by the Local Planning Authority and its archaeological advisors. Suffolk County Council’s archaeological contracting service cannot accept responsibility for inconvenience caused to clients should the Planning Authority take a different view to that expressed in the report.

6 ------

Reproduced from Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of HMSO (c)Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes FIGURE 1: SITE LOCATION PLAN Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution. Suffolk County Council1999 Licence No. LA076864 ------A NORTH Q

Q

Q fiJj

---~-~------

' / I TRENCHJ ' \ TRENCH2

.. ...-- ......

\ \ \ \ - _...-­ ./' --

I SCALE 1:1000 I

FIGURE 2: TRENCH LOCATION PLAN ------

NORTH

~ ~ TRENCH 3 ~ .. ~ ~ ~ ' ' ' ' TRENCH 2 ' ' ' '.. ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~· ~ ~ TRENCH 5 ~

TRENCH 1

~ I SCALE 1:500 I '~ FIGURE 3: FEATURE LOCATION PLAN ------

TRENCH 1

-.~~·-·-·-·-·-

0004 26mTO +--1 6.5mTO ~·~ END OF TRENCH -. =R~NCH • L12 0~03 . -

TRENCH 2

L._

I SCALE 1 :50 I

FIGURE 4: FEATURE PLANS I I I TRENCH 3 I l 0011 I I __ a_ ffi___._= ___ ---L- __ -~ _ --L.- ~ __ ----J---'-- __• 1 I I I TRENCH 4 ~ I "o'~», I 12o5mTO ~ ENDOF I TRENCH I I

I I TRENCH 5 Lo----~-....------o-o_o_o_o _____ o_O_o_.J ~ ,__ I 0013 0015 0014 I - /'//A_: I r--o-0 ,-" '0 0 0~- -'------~- -0, I I I I SCALE 1 :50 I I FIGURE 4: FEATURE PLANS (CONT.) 1- I I 0004 I w ~ it * i "' ·t-4~ 1 ~ ~ E _L.J ~ ._UO~S~ILo l•.:-1 ~ ~- •_h

1 I 0003 PALE REDDISH BROWN SAND · ooo2 o I 0 1 .. ~ - ' I ' - 0005 0006 I N I s N s ·~ ~0 0 - I PALE GREY/BROWN . ) r SAND MIXED MID REDDISH TO MID BROWN SAND WITH MIXED MID BROWN SAND DARK BROWN SAND WITH OCCASIONAL FLINTS OCCASIONAL FLINTS I PALE/MID RED-BROWN SAND WITH OCCASIONAL FLINTS I I 0007 0008 0009 0010 0011

N s N s N s E s I w N • """ a 0< .- 0 "' t PALE BROWN SAND ~-o-_:·_07 MID BROWN SAND PALE BROWN SAND MID BROWN SAND AND FLINTS

0014

N T s I [ I TOPSOIJ ---

0

0 0 I 0 0012 0013 0015 w E 0 I SE 'NW . . . . 0 . 0 - • 0 . . . ~ "' , 0 0 I . 0 MID BROWN SAND c. 0 0 0 '\27 0 MID BROWN SAND r Q oo 0 PALE/MID RED-BROWN SAND 0 I WITH OCCASIONAL FLINTS I MID BROWN SAND I SCALE 1 :20 ] I I FIGURE 5: SECTIONS I I I I APPENDIX I KESGRAVE QUARRY (SINKS PIT), ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVALUATION I I CONTEXT LIST I I 0003 1 0004

I 2 I I 0011 3 I 0012 N-S, pale to mid red-brown sand fill. 4 the same as 0004. 0013 5

I 0014 5

0015 shaped feature, uniform mid brown sand fill, 5 I natural. I

I FINDS LIST (Identification by S. Anderson and Edward Martin) I I I I I I Appendix 11

I SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCU. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICE- CONSERVATION TEAM I Brief and Specification for an Archaeological Evaluation I NORTH FACE, KESGRAVE QUARRY (SINKS PIT), LITTLE BEALINGS 1. Background I 1.1 An application (C/9711501) has been made to extract sand and gravel from, inter alia, the 'North Face' area of Sinks Pit, adjacent to Pine Hills Bungalow. 1.2 In order to establish the full archaeological implications of this application the I planning authority has been advised that an archaeological evaluation of the application area should be required of the applicant. I 1.3 The site lies within 400m of an Iron Age settlement site (County Sites and Monuments Record No BEL 007) and occupies the same ridge as a succession of shifting settlement sites dating from the Neolithic period onwards (SMR Nos BEL 006, 007, I 010, 018, 022 and 024). 1.4 All arrangements for the field evaluation of the site, the timing of the work, and I access to the site, are to be negotiated with the commissioning body. 2. Brief for the Archaeological Evaluation. I The object of the evaluation is to: 2.1 Establish whether any archaeological sites exist in the area, with particular regard to I any which are of sufficient importance to require preservation in situ. 2.2 Identify the date, approximate form and purpose of any archaeological sites within the I application area. 2.3 Evaluate the likely impact of past land uses, the possibility of masking colluviall I alluvial deposits, and of waterlogged organic deposits. 2.4 Provide sufficient information to construct an archaeological conservation strategy, dealing with preservation, the recording of archaeological deposits, working practices, I timetables and orders of cost. 2.5 It is recommended that the desk-based evaluation precedes the field evaluation. The results of the desk-based work should be used to inform the trenching design. There I is a possibility that some aspect of the site history may even indicate that further evaluation is not necessary. I 3. Specification A: Desk-Based Assessment 3.1 Consult the County Sites and Monuments Record, both the computerised record and I any backup files. 3.2 Ascertain whether there are other constraints on the site (e.g. SSSI, County Wildlife I Site, AONB, Tree Preservation Order, etc). I I I n

I 4. Specification B: Field .Evaluation 4.1 Examine the area for earth works. If present these are to be recorded in plan at 1:2500, I with appropriate sections. A record should be made of the topographic setting of the site (e.g. slope, plateau etc). The Conservation Team of SCC Archaeological Service must be consulted if earthworks are present and before proceeding to the excavation of I any trial trenches. 4.2 Trial trenches should be excavated to cover a minimum 2% of the site area and be positioned to sample all areas of the site. Linear trenches are thought to be the most I appropriate sampling method. Trenches should be a minimum of 1m wide; the length of trench to fulfil the percentage requirement should be computed on the nominal basis of 1m wide trenches. In practice trench width will be determined by I machine bucket size; a 'ditching bucket' of at least 1.40m width is expected unless special circumstances can be demonstrated. The trench design should be approved by the Archaeological Service Conservation Team before field work begins (see 2.5). I 4.6 The topsoil may be mechanically removed using an appropriate machine (fitted with a toothless bucket) and other equipment. All machine excavation is to be under the direct control and supervision of an archaeologist. The topsoil should be examined for I archaeological material. 4. 7 The top of the first archaeological deposit may be cleared by machine, but must then be cleaned off by hand. The decision as to the proper method of further excavation I will be made by the senior project archaeologist with regard to the nature of the deposit; there is a presumption that excavation of archaeological deposits will be done by hand unless it can be shown that there will not be a loss of evidence by using a I machine. 4.8 In all evaluation excavation there is a presumption of the need to cause the minimum I disturbance to the site consistent with adequate evaluation; that significant archaeological features e.g. solid or bonded structural remains, building slots or post­ holes, should be preserved intact even if fills are sampled. I 4.9 There must be sufficient excavation to give clear evidence for the period, depth and nature of an archaeological deposit. The depth and nature of colluvial or other I masking deposits must be established across the site. 4.10 Any natural subsoil surface revealed should be hand cleaned and examined for archaeological deposits and artefacts. Sample excavation of any archaeological I features revealed may be necessary in order to gauge their date and character. 4.11 Metal detector searches should take place at all stages of the excavation by an I experienced detector user. 4.12 All finds will be collected and processed (unless variations in this principle are agreed with the Conservation Team of SCC Archaeological Service during the course of the I evaluation). 4.13 Human remains should be left in situ except in those cases where damage or desecration are to be expected, or in the event that analysis of the remains is shown to I be a requirement of satisfactory evaluation of the site. However, the excavator should be aware of, and comply with, the provisions of Section 25 of the Burial Act 1857. I 4.14 Plans of the archaeological features on the site should be drawn at 1:20 or 1:50, depending on the complexity of the data to be recorded. Sections should be drawn at 1:10 or 1:20 again depending on the complexity to be recorded. Any variations from - I this will need to be agreed with the Conservation Team. I I I 3

I 4.15 A photographic record of the work is to be made, consisting of both monochrome photographs and colour transparencies. I 4.16 Topsoil, subsoil and archaeological deposit to be kept separate during excavation to allow sequential back:filling of excavations. I 5. General Management 5.1 A timetable for all stages of the project must be agreed before the first stage of work commences, including monitoring by the Conservation Team of Suffolk County I Council Archaeological Service. 5.2 The composition of the project staff must be detailed and agreed (this is to include any I sub-contractors). 5.3 A general Health and Safety Policy must be provided, with detailed risk assessment I and management strategy for this particular site. 5.4 No initial survey to detect public utility or other services has taken place. The I responsibility for this rests with the archaeological contractor. 5.5 The Institute of Field Archaeologists' Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Desk-based Assessments and for Field Evaluations should be used for additional I guidance in the execution of the project and in drawing up the report. 6. Report requirements I 6.1 An archive of all records and finds must be prepared consistent with the principle of Management of Archaeological Projects, English Heritage 1991 (particularly I Appendix 3.1 and Appendix 4.1). 6.2 The data recording methods and conventions used must be consistent with, and approved by, the County Sites and Monuments Record. I 6.3 The objective account of the archaeological evidence must be clearly distinguished from its archaeological interpretation. The conclusion should include a statement of I the archaeological potential of the site. 6.4 An opinion as to the necessity for further evaluation and its scope should be given. A second phase will not be embarked upon until the primary fieldwork results are I assessed and the need for further work is established. A second-phase cannot be developed in detail at this stage.

6.5 Finds should be appropriately conserved and stored in accordance with UK Institute of I Conservators Guidelines. The finds, as an indissoluble part of the site archive, should be deposited with the County SMR if the landowner can be persuaded to agree to this. If this is not possible for all or any part of the finds archive, then provision must be I made for additional recording (e.g. photography, illustration, analysis) as appropriate. 6.6 The site archive is to be deposited with the County Sites and Monuments Record I within three months of the completion of work. It will then become publicly accessible.

6. 7 Where positive conclusions are drawn from a project (whether it be evaluation or I excavation) a summary report, in the established format, suitable for inclusion in the annual 'Archaeology in Suffolk' section of the Proceedings of the Suffolk Institute for Archaeology, should be prepared and included in the project report or submitted to the I Conservation Team by the end of calendar year in which the evaluation work takes place, whichever is the sooner. I I I 4 I 6.8 County Sites and Monuments Record sheets should be completed, as per the county I SMR manual, for all sites where archaeological finds and/or features are located. Specification by: E Martin I Suffolk County Council Archaeological Service Conservation Team Environment and Transport Department Shire Hall I Suffolk IP33 2AR Tel: 01284 352442

I Date: 5 June 1998 Reference: /ltbeal06 I This brief and specification remains valid for 12 months from the above date. If work is not carried out in full within that time this document will lapse; the I authority should be notified and a revised brief and specification may be issued. I

I The results of this evaluation, if they are to be used as part of a planning application, will need to be considered by the Conservation Team of the Archaeology Service of Suffolk County Council, who have the responsibility for advising the I appropriate Planning Authority. I I I I I I I I I I