T H A M E S V A L L E Y ARCHAEOLOGICAL S E R V I C E S

Roman occupation on land off Orchard Way, Harwell, Oxfordshire

Archaeological Excavation

by Pierre-Damien Manisse

Site Code: OWH19/62

(SU 4881 8915 ) Roman occupation on land off Orchard Way, Harwell, Oxfordshire

An Archaeological Excavation

For Heritage Plan

by Pierre-Damien Manisse

Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd

Site Code OWH 19/62

November 2019 Summary

Site name: Land off Orchard Way, Harwell, Oxfordshire

Grid reference: SU 4881 8915

Site activity: Archaeological Excavation

Date and duration of project: 15th July to 2nd August 2019

Project coordinator: Tim Dawson

Site supervisor: Pierre-Damien Manisse

Site code: OWH 19/62

Area of site: 2300 sq. m.

Summary of results: A number of cut features (ditch, gullies, pit) were revealed spanning Late Iron Age/Early Roman to Later Roman times. They included a refuse pit, possible well or water hole, parts of enclosures, several parallel gullies that could be traces of land exploitation and two other perpendicular gullies that might have defined a pathway. A cremation unurned but contained within a container of perishable material, such as a casket, had been highly decorated with nails.

Location and reference of archive: The archive is presently held at Thames Valley Archaeological Services, Reading and will be deposited at Oxfordshire Museum Service in due course.

This report may be copied for bona fide research or planning purposes without the explicit permission of the copyright holder. All TVAS unpublished fieldwork reports are available on our website: www.tvas.co.uk/reports/reports.asp.

Report edited/checked by: Steve Ford 24.11.19 Steve Preston 21.11.19

i Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd, 47–49 De Beauvoir Road, Reading RG1 5NR Tel. (0118) 926 0552; email [email protected]; website: www.tvas.co.uk Roman occupation on land off Orchard Way, Harwell, Oxfordshire An Archaeological Excavation

by Pierre-Damien Manisse

Report 19/62

Introduction

This report documents the results of an archaeological excavation carried out on land off Orchard Way, Harwell,

Oxfordshire (centred on NGR SU 4881 8915) (Fig. 1). The work was commissioned by Ms Sam Driscoll, of

Heritage Plan Ltd, 53 Marshfield Road, Chippenham, Wiltshire, SN15 1JS on behalf of Feltham Properties Ltd,

42 London Road, Newbury, Berkshire, RG14 1LA.

Planning permission (P14/V2286/O) has been granted by the Vale of White Horse District Council for a residential development on the site. The consent was subject to two conditions (9, 10) relating to archaeology which required the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in advance of the development.

This is in accordance with the Department for Communities and Local Government’s National Planning

Policy Framework (NPPF 2012) and the District’s policies on archaeology. The field investigation was carried out to a specification approved by Mr Hugh Coddington, Archaeology Team Leader with Oxfordshire County

Council and adviser to the District on matters relating to archaeology. The fieldwork was undertaken by Pierre-

Damien Manisse, assisted by Richard Dewhurst and Anne-Michelle Huvig, between 15th July and 2nd August

2019. The site code is OWH 19/62.

The archive is presently held at Thames Valley Archaeological Services, 47-49 de Beauvoir Road,

Reading, RG1 5NR and will be deposited at Oxfordshire Museum Service in due course.

Location, topography and geology

The site is located off Orchard Way on the western edge of Harwell, Oxfordshire (Fig. 1). It is accessed through a narrow path, between residential properties. It is bordered to the south and north by the back gardens of those houses and to the west by a meadow (Fig. 2). At the time of the excavation it was a derelict garden which had been cleared of vegetation prior to the beginning of the excavation. It is a flat plot of land, roughly 50m square, lying at a height of approximately 83m aOD (above Ordnance Datum). The underlying geology is Upper

Greensand formation (BGS 1971. Head deposits were recorded on the site.

1 Archaeological background

The archaeological potential of the site was addressed in a desk-based assessment (CgMs 2014) and confirmed in an evaluation (JMHS 2014). Stray finds and sites of the Iron Age, Roman and Saxon periods are known in the vicinity. Some 250m to the north-east, an extensive Iron Age occupation had been discovered at Grove Road

(Thompson 2018), where the excavation also revealed some Roman and Saxon presence. Further east two nearby excavations unearthed a similar chronological range of finds and features (Taylor 2017; Taylor and

Preston 2017). The evaluation of the site itself in 2014 consisted of two trenches, which revealed that the site held traces of Roman activity interpreted as an extension of the Grove Road settlement (JMHS 2014).

Objectives and methodology

Based on the evaluation results the site was to be excavated in order to investigate the nature of the Roman occupation. The purpose of the excavation was to:

record and, if necessary, excavate and record all archaeological deposits and features within the areas threatened by the proposed development; produce relative and absolute dating and phasing for deposits and features recorded on the site; establish the character of these deposits in attempt to define functional areas on the site such as industrial, domestic, etc.; and to produce information on the economy and local environment and compare and contrast this with the results of other excavations in the region. Specific research objectives were to attempt to answer the following questions:

When was the site first utilised and when was it abandoned? Is the Roman use of the site simply part of a wider enclosed landscape or is it near the centre of a settlement complex? How do the deposits here relate to other Roman settlement recorded further to the north? What is the palaeoenvironmental setting of the area?

Due to the limited space available for spoil, given that the entire site area was to be excavated, the project was divided into two phases, each half of the site in turn serving for topsoil and subsoil (kept separate) storage while the other was stripped and excavated.

Topsoil was to be removed under continuous archaeological supervision by a digger fitted with a toothless bucket to expose the uppermost surface of archaeological deposits. Where appropriate and necessary, hand cleaning of the stripped surface would then take place. All archaeological features were to be planned and sectioned as a minimum objective, with full excavation or sampling of features according to an agreed sampling strategy depending on the nature and significance of the feature(s).

2 Results

The excavation was carried out as planned. A 360o tracked excavator, equipped with a toothless grading bucket,

1.84m wide, was used throughout the project. A metal detector (Fischer F70) was used to enhance metal finds recovery, both on site and on subsoil, but with meagre results. A small area of grass was left preserved along the site’s western edge but otherwise the entire site was stripped as close as possible to the edges (Fig. 2).

Some geotechnical test pits had previously been dug (location marked in grey on Figs 2 and 3): nothing of archaeological interest was visible in these.

The stratigraphy across the site was topsoil (50), a dark grey silt, 0.25-0.35m in thickness, overlying a 0.25-

0.35m thick subsoil, (51), best described as a pale brown-grey silt with scarce small sub-angular limestones

(0.01-0.10m). The lower deposit encountered, (52), was a very light greenish grey silty clay, with nodular limestones in places.

A moderate amount of archaeological features (ditch, gullies, pits) (Fig. 3), were directly cut into the natural geology, with no palaeo-horizon being preserved.

Roman features Except for two pits, most of the other dated features presented a mixed assemblage of pottery, with dates spanning from the Late Iron Age to the Late Roman period. Although some individual sherds could be dated to either the 1st, 2nd or 3rd/4th centuries, feature assemblages were so tiny, and often so mixed, that no strong reliance could be placed on such fine-grained chronology. The Late Iron Age sherds in particular were almost always associated with late Roman wares. The pottery evidence rather suggested a long period of use for all features, or the filling of features only after long periods of middening. As a consequence it seems preferable not to attempt to phase periods of occupation more precisely than broadly Roman, although features are discussed below in an approximate chronological order. Gully 118 and waterhole 42 were dated by stratigraphic means.

Gully 122 was undated but its similarity to other gullies and shape in plan makes it likely to be contemporary with them.

Towards the south-west corner was isolated oval pit 6 (Fig. 4; Pl. 2). It measured 1.70m x 1.52m and was

0.43m deep. It had irregular steep slopes and a flattish base. Fill 58 was a firm mid to pale brown grey clayey silt with rare limestone lumps, up to 0.20m. A large quantity of disarticulated animal bones from at least two cows were found within as well as two Late Iron Age (LIA) to early Roman (ER) pottery sherds. On this modest dating evidence, this appears to be the earliest feature on site.

3 A small oval pit (1) (Fig. 4; Pl. 1) located just outside the west corner of enclosure 111, contained a charcoal-rich deposit. It represents an unurned cremation burial as just over 300g of burnt human bones were collected. The bones were accompanied by numerous handmade iron nails of various sizes which suggest that the human remains had been buried in a perishable container. No trace of it survived, even in negative. The quantity of nails and the absence of any fittings suggests some of the nails themselves served a decorative purpose. The pit was 0.62m x 0.40m and 0.22m deep. It was fully excavated in six spits of approximately 3-4cm each. It had steep sides and concave base. Fill 53 was a single deposit of compact homogeneous mid to dark grey clayey silt with frequent charcoal flecks and scarce small stones (<0.10m). Small sherds of pottery, recovered from the samples, suggest a 1st century AD date, but as they clearly did not form grave goods, but were rather accidental inclusions in the backfill, need not date the burial quite so specifically.

Cut 42 (Fig. 4) was a circular feature that can be interpreted as a waterhole or a well. It was about 1.92m in diameter and was excavated up to 1.29m deep. For safety reasons, it was then augered to estimate its potential depth. Solid rock was encountered at 2.40m deep but it is unsure whether it was the actual bottom or just a stone blocking the path of the auger. It had sub-vertical sides for 0.63m then a step and the diameter reduced to 0.77m.

It resumed its course down with near vertical sides. It was cut by trackway gully 116 and thus could possibly date from the earlier Roman period. No finds were recovered from any of its fills (94–97).

Two partial enclosures (113 and 114) could be seen side by side, possibly rectangular in shape, both appearing as L-shaped ditches continuing beyond the excavation limits. Where they met both were so shallow that no relationship could be discerned but in plan they appear likely to be contemporary. Enclosure ditch or gully 114 was observed through five slots (2, 3, 4, 7 and 35) and a relationship slot (11) with a plough mark. It had moderate slopes, to a flattish base, with a width of 1.50m and a depth of 0.35m, though it became more narrow (0.84m) and more shallow (0.08m) as it neared enclosure 113. If the latter is considered as the eastern limit of 114, then this feature encompassed an area about 29m by at least 14m. It is possible that the ditch became almost non existent here as it was eroded by a passage defined by two parallel gullies, 115 and 116. The ditch contained few finds, just five sherds of pottery (including some samian ware) and rare bones were collected within its homogeneous fill, a firm mid brownish grey clayey silt with very rare small stones (<0.05m) and charcoal flecks. A 2nd century date could only be very tentatively advanced and it seems more likely to be the same date as 113.

Similar ditch 113 was investigated through 6 relationship slots (25, 29 (Fig. 4), 48, 105, 110 and 111) and 3 full-width slots (33, 34 and 100). This feature was cut by five parallel plough marks/gullies while its relation to

4 gully 115 remained unclear. Where it was best preserved it measured up to 1.25m wide and 0.45m deep with a concave base and moderate sides but became very shallow where it approached 114. Its single fill (identical to that of 114) yielded only seven Roman potsherds, whose dates span the entire period. Assuming the latest sherds date it, a 3rd or 4th century date is suggested.

Possibly defining a pathway between those two enclosures, but with an unclear relation to them, were gullies or small ditches 115 and 116. They were 3.1-3.3m apart, aligned SSW-NNE. Gully 115 was examined through slots 13 (Fig. 4), 15, 17, 36 and 109. It had a concave profile with a maximum breadth of 0.55 and a depth of 0.15m and a single fill throughout, which was indistinguishable from enclosures’ fill. Gully 116 had previously been investigated during the evaluation phase (cuts [2/05], [2/07], [2/09], [2/17], [2/11] and [2/13] in trench 2 and [1/05] in trench 1). This was supplemented by extra slots in the excavation (14, 41 (Fig. 4) and 107.

Its continuation north-east was unclear as it ran into (possibly cutting) ditch 117. It truncated waterhole 42 and was itself cut by several furrows south-west of enclosures 113 and 114, and by several gullies or plough marks north-east of the same enclosures. This feature was a shallow concave cut, up to 0.65m wide and 0.30m deep maximum (measure provided by the evaluation as it truncated less the archaeological level).

Ditch 117 followed the same orientation as the previously discussed features, that is NNE-SSW. It might have been a continuation of 116 but its width suggests a totally different ditch. It seemed to be formed by the merging of both 116 and another ditch composed of cuts 103, 104 and 108. It appeared to be cut by gully 116 and so could have been an earlier attempt of defining an enclosure, prior to 114, but it was far from clear if the ditch that 116 cut was in fact part of 117. Slot 26 offered the best appreciation of this feature. It was 2.25m wide but only 0.12m deep. It had very moderate sides and a flat base. Sterile fill (78) was a firm light to mid grey silty clay with very rare small limestones. Just three sherds of pottery were retrieved, one of them suggesting a late

Roman (3rd/4th century) date.

A short, shallow gully, 118, was parallel to gullies 115 and 116, situated within enclosure 113. It had a rounded end (37) (Fig. 4) and was observed through another full-width slot (43), while three other slots served to establish its relation with the perpendicular gullies 119, 120 and 121. It was truncated by each of the series of

NW-SE gullies, suggesting a Roman date at the latest. Its average width was 0.52m and its depth about 0.10-

0.15m. It was not seen continuing the other side of 121 but it night have been just very shallow past it.

One of the most noticeable features were a series of parallel NW-SE gullies that could have been ancient plough marks rather than dividing features as they sometimes were quite close together and shallow. They seemed limited by the South-West side of enclosure ditches 114 and 115 as none was seen beyond it. But

5 although clearly influenced by the orientation of the enclosures, they were not contemporary with those enclosures as they truncated the trackway ditches and some were seen going further North-West than enclosure ditch 114. Some were examined through several slots and thus were attributed a group number (119, 120, 121 and 122) while others were only afforded a single slot (9, 10, 24). These straight gullies were sometimes very diffuse and ephemeral, barely visible and reappear only several metres further the first place they were spotted.

Certain very faint and shallow traces could not be excavated. They appeared as not regularly spaced (breadth between those varied from 0.50m to 2.5m but in certain places, such as 121 in the south-east, no less than 3 gullies side by side were seen) but that might just be due to some being more shallow than others and having been truncated. A very few sherds of pottery came from these features, with 121 illustrating the difficulties, providing single LIA/ER sherds in two slots and a single late Roman sherd in a third.

The southernmost gully was 119, quite large towards the SE edge of the site with a width about 0.80m, it shrunk down to 0.38m as it went NW. Its course was obliterated by a test pit near enclosure 114 and could not be seen further. Its depth varied between 0.17m and 0.30m. It had a concave profile. It had been spotted during the evaluation phase as [1/09]. Located just 1.7m north-east was gully 120. Two other gullies had been observed in enclosure 114 in between but proved too indistinct to excavate. Gully 120 was very shallow, between 0.08-

0.13m. It was about 0.48m wide at best. 2.2m further North-East was 121. Until it crossed 116 it was quite large compared to the others but investigation revealed that it was in fact three shallow gullies side by side, 19, 20 and

21. Beyond 116, only a single gully was seen (slots 8, 101 on Fig. 4). Their posteriority to the enclosures was confirmed in relationship slots (12 truncating 11, 49 cutting 48).

Their fill was always a firm mid grey clayey silt with rare small limestones inclusions and very rare charcoal flecks. Less than half a metre north again was another gully, 122. As the former gullies it truncated ditches 113 and 114. Slot 18 (Fig. 4) revealed that it had a concave profile with moderate slopes and a flattish base. It was 0.60m wide and 0.14m deep. On a higher ground a width of 1.02m was estimated in slot 27 (Fig. 4), for a similar depth (0.16m). With a slightly diverging orientation (NW-SE instead of WNW-ESE) was unclear gully 24. It was only observed for 5m. It cut through ditch 113. It was 0.45m wide and 0.05m deep. Close to the baulk and nearing ditch 114 gullies 9 and 10, were very faint, about 0.20-0.25m wide for a few centimetres deep.

All those probably corresponded to evidence of agricultural activity during the late Roman period, though they could be later if all the pottery is redeposited.

6 Medieval or later features Probably to be assigned to the Medieval period was a series of WNW-ESE linear features, interpreted as possible furrows and cut within the subsoil. At the south-west, partially under the baulk, was furrow 5, at least 1.55m wide and 0.07m deep. This shallow feature was filled by a firm mid grey silty clay (57) with rare small stones. A dozen or so metres north lay a parallel one, only examined through a relationship slot, 16, it was about 2.20m wide and at least 0.12m deep. Fill 68 was the same as 57. 2m further north was another one and during the evaluation phase another had been spotted at the north end of trench 2. They were barely visible at the level of stripping, truncating trackway 115 and 116, which testified to a date later than the late Roman period.

Finds

Pottery by Jane Timby The archaeological work resulted in the recovery of a small group of 32 sherds of pottery weighing 187.5g and with 0.18 EVE (Appendix 2). The assemblage largely dates to the Roman period accompanied by single prehistoric, medieval and post-medieval sherds.

The pottery was recorded using the recommendations outlined in Pottery Standards (Barclay et al. 2016).

To this end it was examined macroscopically and sorted into fabrics based on inclusions present, the frequency and grade of the inclusions and the firing colour. The sorted fabrics were quantified by sherd count and weight by recorded context. Freshly broken sherds were counted as single pieces. Rims were additionally coded to general form and measured for the diameter and the estimation of rim equivalence (EVE) (cf. Orton et al. 1993).

Known, traded wares are coded using the National Roman fabric reference collection (Tomber and Dore 1998); other wares are coded more generically based on firing colour and inclusion type.

Pottery was recovered from 19 defined cuts with the quantities ranging from single sherds up to a maximum of three pieces for each recorded context. This is not sufficient material to allow a very detailed chronology. In addition the assemblage is in fairly poor condition with an overall average sherd weight of 6g.

Surfaces finishes have been lost in most cases.

Later prehistoric One small handmade sherd with common, fine, calcined flint-tempering came from gully 121 slot 8 (60) which is probably of Iron Age date although the ware may persist into the early Roman period. Other pottery from this gully was later Roman. A few other unfeatured pieces also chronologically span the later Iron Age into the early

Roman period.

7 Roman Most of the assemblage dates to the Roman period with a mixture of wares hinting at quite a prolonged period of use from the 1st to 4th centuries AD. The earlier wares include three grog-tempered sherds from pit 1 and gully

121 (32) which are likely to date the 1st century AD. These are the only sherds from these features. Wares dating to the 2nd century include three sherds of Central Gaulish samian (LEZ SA), two from bowls Dragendorff 38, and an acute lattice decorated Dorset black burnished ware jar. Later Roman products are reflected in

Oxfordshire colour-coated wares including a bowl, Young (1977) C75, dating to the 4th century; a dish Young

C45) and oxidized Hadham ware. Other products of the Oxfordshire industry are present in the form of four sherds of grey ware. Accompanying wares are of local origin including sandy ware, sand and limestone- tempered ware, sand and flint-tempered ware and two sherds of black sandy ware. There are only three rimsherds present: one jar, one bowl and one dish.

Post-Roman One very small sherd from gully 122 (30) may be of medieval date whilst a post-medieval glazed red earthenware bowl rim came from the subsoil (51).

Summary The pottery recovered from Harwell is a very small assemblage which hints at an extended level of low intensive activity in the area. The calibre of the material appears low suggesting fairly rural activity although the sample is small.

Struck flint by Steve Ford

A small collection of two prehistoric struck flints were recovered during the fieldwork They comprised a flake from the subsoil and a burnt spall (piece less than 20x20mm) from cremation burial 1 (53, spit 4). Neither piece is chronologically diagnostic

Metalwork by Aidan Colyer

A total of 530 metal objects were recovered from excavations and are recorded under 243 catalogue numbers. Of these there is a single copper alloy piece with all the rest being ferrous nails.

Copper Alloy catch A single copper alloy catch was recovered from the subsoil. This piece is in a good state of preservation showing only wear from use. The piece is 20mm in width and 26mm in length with an object thickness of 1mm. The hook is still present and does not have a blunted end. The base of the object has a clear bar for a piece of cloth or

8 leather to be threaded through securing this to a dress, bag, or other object. The design is common during the early post-medieval period i.e. the 16th to 17th centuries. This design is a trefoil Hungerford knot with numerous other examples from across the country. This is a Class E subtype 5 as per Read 2008. With the commonality of the design it is more likely to be of the earlier date than a modern replica although the condition suggests it has not been in the soil for very long.

Ferrous objects – Nails The remainder of the objects recovered from the site were nails or parts thereof, all recovered from the excavation and sieving of a cremation 1 deposit (53) (sample 1). It was divided by spit into 6 spits of 20mm each. All of the nails were analysed together although they were kept within their spits for recording purposes.

There were no discernible differences between spits. Of the nails recovered there are 242 catalogue numbers.

Five of these numbers are assigned to groups of fine fragments from each spit. This brings the total number of nails and fragments up to 529. The state of preservation of the nails varies markedly with all corroded to a certain extent. Of these only 33 were complete. These can be divided into smaller tacks and larger nails. The smaller tacks are commonly 25mm in length with shafts of between 2 and 3mm in width although corrosion has expanded some to 4mm. There are several that are smaller but these may be missing parts of their points. The larger forms have shaft widths of around 4-5mm with some being 6mm. These are commonly twice the length of the tacks. There is also a mix of head types. Circular heads are evident on a handful of the tacks with many being sub-square. The corrosion and damage to the heads makes all but the circular heads clear. When the non- complete nails are added in the two groups are more evident as per shaft width. The small fragments are commonly parts of broken tacks showing an even split between the groups. There is an estimated minimum of

172 individual nails although this total could be higher. The minimum was calculated by count the number of nail heads (details of measurements and head types are in the archive).

The large quantity of nails recovered suggests that the cremated individual was placed within a coffin on the pyre or, more plausibly, that the cremated remains were placed within a box for subsequent burial. The distinct lack of slag would point towards the latter option. The burial has been dated to the Roman period allowing us to use Manning’s typology for the nails. The two nail groups are broadly his Type 7 and Type 1b.

The Type 1b nails are general nails and would have been used to connect planks for the coffin. The Type 7 nails are used for decoration. These nails are abundant in the assemblage and suggest a high level of decoration. The shorter length of the nails in the 1b section is not abnormal for a coffin as the wood would have been thinner than that used in construction.

9 The quantity of nails is unusual but not unique in the archaeological record. The Butt Road cemetery in

Colchester (Crummy et al. 1993) revealed a number of wooden coffins that were held together by nails. It was suggested that some of the nails were used to reinforce the coffins due to their construction. Interestingly the largest number of nails recorded were from grave 621. The coffin in that grave was abnormally large, which was attributed to the larger stature of the individual, thus necessitating extra nails to reinforce the coffin. The decoration on the coffins on that site was of lead rather than decorative iron nails, but did include certain beaded designs which would be easily emulated with the type 7 tacks that were recovered from the cremation.

The other possibility is that they were buried within a box rather than an urn. The nails are mixed in with the cremated material which suggests that the burial was disturbed if buried in this manner. The dark nature of the soil that was recorded could come from the organic residue of the wood used. Examples of box burials can be found at cemeteries such as Mucking (Lucy et al. 2016.). The burials described within the Mucking volume, as well as those that they reference, contain large numbers of nails and decorative fittings from boxes that contained cremations. This style of burial is known from the 1st century to the 3rd century which covers the date of this burial. While this assemblage does not contain any fittings, the abundance of decorative tacks suggests that it would likely have been of that type. As such the nails recovered point towards an early Roman box burial.

Human Bones by Ceri Falys A single human cremation burial was identified within the investigated area. The deposit of burnt bone was whole-earth recovered in a series of six, 0.02m thick spits. During post-excavation processing, the bone and surrounding soil were floated and wet-sieved to a 1mm mesh size, with all burnt bone collected for analysis.

The bone from each spit was sorted using a sieve stack comprising 10mm, 5mm, and 2mm mesh sizes, and weighed. The weight from each of the sieves has been recorded, along with information regarding the maximum post-excavation fragment sizes of both cranial and post-cranial elements (Appendix 3). The overall preservation of the fragments is generally good, with few areas of cortical bone damage and the pieces of bone have dense textures. Much of the bone (41.7%) measured less than 5mm in size. Cranial remains were limited to the first and second spits, and had maximum post-excavation fragment sizes of 27.5mm (a portion of mandible in spit 1) and 15.1mm (a piece of cranial vault in spit 2). Long bone shaft fragments were generally larger, with maximum fragment sizes ranging between 24.3mm (spits 1 and 6) and 33.1 (spit 4).

The colour of bone also varied within each spit. Although the majority of fragments were primarily white in colour, several fragments in each spit are blue-grey. The identifiable blue fragments originate from the lower

10 arms and legs, and the smaller bones of the hands and feet. Variations in colour of burnt bone reflects the degree of oxidation of the organic components within the bone. The level of oxidation of bone relies on factors such as the quantity of fuel used to build the pyre, the temperate attained in various parts of the pyre, length of time over which the cremation was undertaken and the oxidising/reducing conditions in various parts of the pyre

(McKinley 2004:11). Holden et al. (1995a, b) suggest that temperatures above 600°C are required to fully oxidize the organic components and produce white bone, and produce white coloured fragments, as predominately observed in this cremation burial.

Osteological Analysis All bone fragments were subjected to osteological analysis following the procedures suggested by McKinley

(2000), and Brickley and McKinley (2004). Initial osteological analysis divided fragments into five main areas of the body: cranial, axial, upper limb, lower limb and non-descript long bone (unidentifiable to specific limb). A more detailed identification of fragments to specific skeletal element and side was undertaken where possible.

Identified fragments include one piece of cranial vault, the ascending mandibular ramus, tooth roots, the body of a cervical vertebra, rib shaft fragments, a portion of a proximal ulna (lunate surface), and several fragments of the hands (left fourth and fifth metacarpals, proximal ends; tarsal fragments; and several pieces of phalanges. The most frequently preserved fragments in the deposits were non-descript midshaft portions of the elements of the upper and lower limbs. The lack of skeletal element duplication or identifiable differences in skeletal development suggest the presence of a single individual in this cremation burial.

Due to the lack of necessary skeletal elements, it was not possible to fully assess the demographic profile of the individual. It was not possible to identify or suggest the biological sex of the individual, and the estimation of age-at-death was limited to a broad designation of “adult” (20+ years), as all identifiable skeletal elements demonstrated skeletal maturity (i.e. fused epiphyses). As a result, the remains have been determined to be of an adult individual of indeterminate sex.

No pathological were identified during osteological analyses, and no further information could be retrieved from this cremation burial of an adult individual of indeterminate sex.

Animal Bones by Ceri Falys A small assemblage of animal bone was recovered from 11 features within the excavated area. A total of 348 fragments of non-human bone were present for analysis, weighing 2694g (Appendix 4). The overall preservation of the remains is poor, with the majority of pieces displaying significant fragmentation. A minimal number of

11 complete skeletal elements are present for analysis. The surface preservation is generally good, with few fragments displaying damage to the cortical bone surface.

Initial osteological analyses roughly sorted elements based on size, not by species, into one of three categories: “large”, “medium”, and “small”. Horse and cow are represented by the large size category, sheep/goat, deer and pigs are represented in the medium size category, and no smaller animal (e.g. dog, cat etc.) was identified. Wherever possible, a more specific identification to species and side of origin was made. The minimum number of individuals both within and between the species was determined based on duplication of skeletal elements or differences in the stages of skeletal development.

Just 6.0% (n=21) of fragments were not identifiable to species or element of origin (Appendix 4). Of the identifiable fragments, the minimum number of animals represented is estimated to be four: three large animals

(one horse and two cows), and a single medium-sized animal (one sheep/goat).

The majority of fragments (93.7%, n=326 pieces of bone) derived from "large-sized" animals. A single horse individual is suggested by the presence of a portion of right distal tibia in ditch 25 (77).

Evidence for cattle was found in three features, ditches 3 (55) (right scapula and distal radius-ulna) and 34

(86) (left distal humerus), as well as pit 6 (58). Pit 6 (58) contained 279 fragments of cattle skeletons

(fragmented crania, including three horn core bases, 20 loose teeth, upper neck vertebrae, right distal humerus, and the distal end of a proximal phalanx). The presence of at least two cows has been determined due to the identification of three horn core bases in pit 6.

The only evidence for butchery is visible on a portion of "large animal" (possible horse) mandible in gully

43 (98), as multiple cutmarks are visible on the mandibular condyle and coronoid process.

A single "medium sized" loose tooth in ditch 2 (54) is the only evidence for the presence of an animal smaller than a horse or cow, likely originating from a sheep/goat.

In summary, the small assemblage of poorly preserved animal bone contains the remains of a minimum of four animal individuals (one horse, 2 cows, and 1 sheep/goat). Evidence of butchery practices was limited to the mandibular condyle and coronoid process of a possible horse mandible in gully 43 (98). No further information could be retrieved from this small assemblage of highly fragmented animal bone.

Burnt (non-human) Bone by Ceri Falys A single fragment of burnt bone was recovered from ditch slot 100 (155). Coloured blue-grey, and weighing just

2g and measuring a maximum of 10.2mm wide, the fragment is unidentifiable to animal or element of origin.

12 The blue-grey colouring suggests the bone was subjected to temperatures up to 600ºC during the burning process

(Holden et al. 1995a, b), which has led to the incomplete oxidation of the organic components within the bone.

No further information could be retrieved from this single piece of burnt bone.

Conclusion

The excavation confirmed most of the hypothesis suggested by the evaluation. Rare amendments had to be made to its results (1/13 being a natural disturbance, 1/09 going straight instead of curving).

From the evidence recovered it appears that the site was first utilized during the start of the Roman period.

The few prehistoric struck flints found, are undiagnostic and scattered and represent no more than casual loss or discard. Similarly the Late Iron Age pottery recovered was always associated with Roman material and the kind of coarse local ware represented could be produced either prior to or after the Conquest. No specific feature can be properly assigned to the Late Iron Age, and even recognizing early Roman features was also problematical.

The site seems to be part of a wider enclosed landscape with at least two enclosures identified. Yet features that could suggest a more intensive landuse are scarce with a single refuse pit in the south west corner, itself distant from the rest of the features.

The series of parallel gullies forming a trackway that leads to the south west add to the view that the fieldwork here has investigated but a part of a much larger agricultural complex site mostly beyond the north eastern boundary.

There was no trace of any Saxon activity and the site was overlain by Medieval or post-Medieval furrows, retaining its former use as a farming plot. Strangely enough the furrows seemed to have respected the Roman enclosure limits as they were not found north of it.

References

Barclay A, Knight D, Booth P, Evans, H, Brown D and Wood ,I 2016, A Standard for Pottery Studies in Archaeology, Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group, Study Group for Roman Pottery and Medieval Pottery Research Group http://romanpotterystudy.org/new/wpcontent/uploads/2016/06/ Standard_for_Pottery_Studies_in_Archaeology.pdf Brickley, M and McKinley, J (eds), 2004, Guidelines to the Standards for Recording Human Remains, IFA Pap 7, Reading Crummy, N, Crummy, P, and Crossan, C, 1993, Excavations of Roman and later cemeteries, churches and monastic sites in Colchester, 1971-88. Colchester Archaeol Rep 9, Colchester Holden, J L, Phakley, P P and Clement, J G, 1995, ‘Scanning electron microscope observations of incinerated human femoral bone: a case study’, Forensic Science International, 74, 17–28 Holden, J L, Phakley, P P and Clement, J G, 1995, ‘Scanning electron microscope observations of heat-treated human bone’, Forensic Science International, 74, 29–45

13 JMHS, 2014, ‘An archaeological evaluation at land off Orchaerd Way, Harwell, Oxfordshire’, John Moore Heritage Services, unpubl rep 3180, Beckley Lucy, S and Evans, C, 2016, Romano-British Settlement and Cemeteries: Mucking Excavations by Margaret and Tom Jones, 1965–1978, Oxford Manning, W H, 1976, Catalogue of Roman-British Ironwork in the Museum of Antiquities, Newcastle-upon- Tyne, Newcastle McKinley, J I, 2000, ‘The Analysis of Cremated Bone’, in M Cox and S Mays (eds), Human Osteology, London, 403–21 McKinley, J I, 2004, ‘Compiling a skeletal inventory: cremated human bone’, in M Brickley and J McKinley (eds) Guidelines to the standards for recording human remains, IFA pap 7, Reading, 9–13 NPPF 2012, National Planning Policy Framework, Dept Communities and Local Govt, London Orton, C, Tyers, P, and Vince, A, 1993: Pottery in Archaeology, Cambridge Read, B, 2008. Hooked-Clasps and Eyes, Langport Taylor, A, 2017, ‘More Roman Enclosures and Saxon burials at Kilnwood, Blenheim Hill, Harwell, Oxfordshire’ in J Pine, S Preston and A Taylor, Archaeological Excavations on Roman, Saxon and Medieval Sites in Harwell and Longcot, Oxfordshire, TVAS Occas Pap 26, Reading, 61-85 Taylor, A and Preston, S, 2017, ‘Roman enclosures at Blenheim Hill, Harwell, Oxfordshire’ in J Pine, S Preston and A Taylor, Archaeological Excavations on Roman, Saxon and Medieval Sites in Harwell and Longcot, Oxfordshire, TVAS Occas Pap 26, Reading, 1-58 Thompson, S, 2018, ‘Early to Middle Iron Age and later settlement at Grove Road, Harwell’, Oxoniensia, 83, 139–96 Tomber, R and Dore, J, 1998: The National Roman fabric reference collection: a handbook, Museum of London / English Heritage/ British Museum (http://www.romanpotterystudy.org/) Young, C, 1977: The Roman pottery industry of the Oxford region, BAR Brit Ser 43, Oxford

14 APPENDIX 1: Feature details (includes summary of evaluation features)

Group Cut Fill (s) Type Date Dating evidence 50 Topsoil 51 Subsoil 52 Geology 116 1/05 1/06 Gully Roman association 1/07 1/08 Pit Roman (C2-C4) pottery 119 1/09 1/10 Gully Roman association 116 2/07 2/08 Gully Roman association 116 2/09 2/10 Gully Roman (C2) pottery 2/15 2/16 Furrow Medieval? Stratigraphy 116 2/17 2/18 Gully Roman association 116 2/11 2/12 Gully Roman (C2-C4) pottery 116 2/13 2/14 Gully Roman (C2-C4) pottery 1 53 Cremation LIA/Roman pottery 114 2 54 Ditch Roman (mid-late C2) pottery 114 3 55 Ditch Roman pottery 114 4 56 Ditch Unknown 5 57 Furrow Medieval? 6 58 Pit Roman (?C1) pottery 114 7 59 Ditch Roman (?C1) pottery 121 8 60 Gully Roman (IA/ER) pottery 9 61 Gully Unknown 10 62 Gully Unknown 114 11 63 Ditch Roman Association 121 12 64 Gully Unknown pottery 115 13 65 Gully Roman Association 116 14 66 Gully Roman Association 115 15 67 Gully Roman Association 16 68 Furrow Medieval? 115 17 69 Gully Roman Association 122 18 70 Gully Roman pottery 121 19 71 Gully Roman Association 121 20 72 Gully Roman (C3/C4) pottery 121 21 73 Gully Roman Association 120 22 74 Gully Roman or later Association 119 23 75 Gully Roman Association 24 76 Gully Roman or later stratigraphy 113 25 77 Ditch Roman Association 117 26 78 Ditch Roman (C3-C4) pottery 122 27 79 Gully Roman association 122 28 80 Gully Roman (?C3-C4) pottery 113 29 81 Ditch Roman Association 122 30 82 Gully Roman (C3-C4-med) pottery 117 31 83 Ditch Roman Association 121 32 84 Gully Roman (LIA/ER) pottery 113 33 85 Ditch Roman pottery 113 34 86 Ditch Roman (mid C3/C4) pottery 114 35 87 Ditch Roman Association 115 36 88 Gully Roman pottery 118 37 89 Gully Roman or before stratigraphy 119 38 90 Gully Roman (mid C3-C4) pottery 118 39 91 Gully Roman or before stratigraphy 119 40 92 Gully Roman Association 116 41 93 Gully Roman (LIA/ER - C2) pottery 42 94-97 Waterhole Roman or earlier Stratigraphy 118 43 98 Gully Roman or before stratigraphy 118 44 99 Gully Roman or before association 120 45 150 Gully Roman or later Association 118 46 151 Gully Roman or before stratigraphy 121 47 152 Gully Roman Association 113 48 153 Ditch Roman Association 121 49 154 Gully Roman Association 113 100 155 Ditch Roman pottery 121 101 156 Gully Roman Association 120 102 157 Gully Roman or later Association 117 103 158 Ditch Unknown 117 104 159 Ditch Unknown

15 Group Cut Fill (s) Type Date Dating evidence 113 105 160 Ditch Roman pottery 120 106 161 Gully Roman or later stratigraphy 116 107 162 Gully Roman Association 117 108 163 Ditch Unknown 115 109 164 Gully Roman Association 113 110 165 Ditch Roman (C2) Pottery 113 111 166 Ditch Roman Pottery 119 112 167 Gully Roman Pottery

16 APPENDIX 2: Catalogue of pottery

Cut Fill Group Type LIA-ER C2 C3/C4 Roman Med Pmed Total Wt (g) 51 subsoil - - - - - 1 1 26 1 53 pit 2 - - - - - 2 1.5 6 58 pit 3 - - - - - 3 11 34 86 113 ditch - - 1 2 - - 3 24 36 85 113 ditch - - - 2 - - 2 20 165 110 113 ditch - 1 - - - - 1 9 166 111 113 ditch - - - 1 - - 1 0.5 2 54 114 ditch - 2 - - - - 2 41 3 55 114 ditch - - - 2 - - 2 12 7 59 114 ditch 1 - - - - - 1 3 41 93 116 gully - 1 - - - - 1 3 41 93 116 gully 1 - - - - - 1 4 26 78 117 ditch - - 1 - - - 1 1 38 90 119 gully - - 1 - - - 1 0.5 112 167 119 ditch - - - 1 - - 1 4 8 60 121 gully 1 - - - - - 1 3 20 72 121 gully - - 1 - - - 1 1 32 84 121 gully 1 - - - - - 1 1 18 70 122 gully - - - 1 - - 1 3 28 80 122 gully 1 1 1 - - - 3 9.5 30 82 122 gully - - 2 - 1 - 3 15.5 TOTAL 10 5 7 9 1 1 33 193.5

17 APPENDIX 3: Summary of burnt human bone and post-excavation fragmentation from 1 (53). Key: MFS = maximum fragment size, LBSF = long bone shaft fragment

MFS (mm) 10mm 5mm 2mm Total Spit Cranial LBSF (g) (%) (g) (%) (g) (%) (g) 1 27.5 24.3 29.0 27.4 22.0 20.8 55.0 51.9 106.0 2 15.1 32.1 18.0 35.3 9.0 17.6 24.0 47.1 51.0 3 - 30.1 16.0 40.0 13.0 32.5 11.0 27.5 40.0 4 - 33.1 22.0 38.6 12.0 21.1 23.0 40.4 57.0 5 - 27.8 20.0 41.7 13.0 27.1 15.0 31.3 48.0 6 - 24.3 15.0 51.7 4.0 13.8 10.0 34.5 29.0 Total 27.5 33.1 120.0 36.2 73.0 22.1 138 41.7 331.0

18 APPENDIX 4: Inventory of animal bone

Cut Fill No Wt (g) Horse Cow Large Sheep Unident Comments frags goat 2 54 1 5 - 1 - Sheep/goat sized loose tooth 3 55 27 201 27 - - - Fragmented right scapula and right distal radius- ulna articular surface 6 58 284 2067 279 - - 5 Fragmented cow cranium, 3 horn cores, 20 loose teeth, C1/C2, distal end of proximal phalanx, and right distal humerus, MNI=2 14 67 4 5 - - 4 23 75 3 10 2 - 1 Long bone shaft frags and tooth frag 25 77 4 182 2 - - 2 Right distal 1/2 tibia (horse) 33 85 3 5 - - 3 34 86 2 90 2 - - - cow left distal humerus 42 94 1 6 - - 1 42 97 2 2 - - 2 43 98 14 116 14 - - - Fragmented mandible (?horse), cutmarks on coronoid process 49 154 3 3 - - 3

19 OS 1:25k HD Great Britain 2016. Copyright © 201648 Crown Copyright; OS, Licence Number 100034184 49 www.memory-map.com50

Banbury

Bicester

Witney

Thame Abingdon OXFORD

Didcot Wallingford 90

90 90000 Wantage Henley-on -Thames SITE

SITE 89

89 89000

SU48000 49000 88 88 OWH 19/62 Land at Orchard Way, Harwell, Oxfordshire, 2019 Archaeological Excavation Figure 1. Location of site within Harwell and Oxfordshire.

Reproduced under licence from Ordnance Survey Explorer Digital mapping at 1:12500 Crown Copyright reserved

48 49 50

9 1

El Sub Sta

89200

3 4

4

9

10

11 12

8

26

2 1 117 33

101 3 25

31 30 32 24 107 29 28 108 27

104 49 114 48 E 103 V 102 122 Tr1 7 46 47 121

105 106 118 18

19 42 44 41 45 43 120 21 20 111 112 38 39 40

37

100 119 35 22

110 109 113

23

3 36 34 2

2 r T V 6 E 116 17

115

15d-16furrow Y 5 A

W

D

14 R A 13 H C 1 R 3 O

24a

24

89100

1 2

SU48800 OWH 19/62

N Land at Orchard Way, Harwell, Oxfordshire, 2019 Archaeological Excavation

Figure 2. Location of area.

0 50m 89200

4 9 89180 10 12 11 8

2 26

1 (cremation) 117 33 31 25 101 30 24 107 29 108 32 27 3 JM 104 28 HS 49 Tr 103 48 1 1/09 1/07 102 122 1/05 114 106 118 18 105 4647 7 41 44 45 19 89160 42 43 121 20 111 112 39 21 38 40 100 37 120 35 22 110 109 119 fu rr 23 ow 36 113 2/13 34

2/11 89150 2 r T S H M 6 J 17 2/17 2/15 fu rr ow 15 16 89140 fu 5 rr 2/09 ow 116 2/07 115

14

13

SU48780 48800 48820

OWH 19/62

N Land at Orchard Way, Harwell, Oxfordshire, 2019 Archaeological Excavation

Figure 3. Detail of area.

0 10m Enclosure 114 NW SE NW SE SW NE 54 55 50 2 3 SSW NNE SSW NNE 51

59 87 35 56 7 4

Enclosure 113

SSW NNE E W SSW NNE 81 80 86 85 29 28 34 33

NW SE E W WNW ESE 65 53 58 52 (geology) 13 1

6

SSW NNE NNE SSW NW SE NNE SSW 70 79 89 156 18 27 37 101

WSW ENE ESE WNW 93 94 93 41 96 95 41 96 95

97

42

OWH 19/62 Land at Orchard Way, Harwell, Oxfordshire, 2019 Archaeological Excavation

Figure 4. Sections.

0 1m Plate 1. Possible cremation [1], looking NE, Scales: 0.5m Plate 2. Pit [6], looking SSE, Scales: 1m and 0.5m. and 0.20m.

Plate 3. Ditch 114, slot [2], looking NE, Scales: 1m and Plate 4. Ditch 115, slot [33], looking SSW, Scales: 1m 0.20m. and 0.40m.

OWH 19/62 Land at Orchard Way, Harwell, Oxfordshire, 2019 Archaeological Excavation Plates 1 to 4. TIME CHART

Calendar Years

Modern AD 1901

Victorian AD 1837

Post Medieval AD 1500

Medieval AD 1066

Saxon AD 410

Roman AD 43 AD 0 BC Iron Age 750 BC

Bronze Age: Late 1300 BC

Bronze Age: Middle 1700 BC

Bronze Age: Early 2100 BC

Neolithic: Late 3300 BC

Neolithic: Early 4300 BC

Mesolithic: Late 6000 BC

Mesolithic: Early 10000 BC

Palaeolithic: Upper 30000 BC

Palaeolithic: Middle 70000 BC

Palaeolithic: Lower 2,000,000 BC Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd, 47-49 De Beauvoir Road, Reading RG1 5NR

Tel: 0118 9260552 Email: [email protected] Web: www.tvas.co.uk

Offices in: Brighton, Taunton, Stoke-on-Trent and Ennis (Ireland)