I I I ARCHAEOLOGICAL I SERVICE I

I Archaeological Monitoring I Report (No. 99/7) Willisham Tye I (MS/29/97, WLS00S) I I I I I I I I

I County Council P. J. Thompson Msc CEng FICE, County Director of Environment & Transport St Edmund House, County Hall, Suffolk I IP41LZ Tel. (01473) 583000 � I I r 1 I I I I I

I Archaeological Monitoring I Report (No. 99/7) Willisham Tye I (MS/29/97, WLS00S) I I

I Contents: ! .. Summary I 2. Background 3. Site monitoring I 4. Conclusion Fig. 1 Site location I Fig. 2 Monitored house plots

I Appendix I Pottery quantification

I J.Newman&S.Anderson (findsreport) Field Team, I Archaeological Service, Environment&Transport Dept., I SuffolkC.C. I I 11 I I I I Iye Lane, Willisham Record of archaeological monitoring

I (MS/29/97. WLS005. Report No99/7) I 1. Summary Tye Lane, Willisham (WLS005,TM06265102) Monitoring of groundwork's for a small residential development to the south of I Tye Lane, Willisham, revealed evidence for medieval activity of 11th-14th century date with a marked concentration of finds and features close to the tye edge as I indicated on late 18th century maps of the area. While most of the pottery finds were unstratified, two or three features were identified indicating the possible site of a tye I edge house or cottage site. 2. Background

I Following a planning application (MS/29/97) to develop a 0.6 hectare parcel of land to the south ofTye Lane, Willisham, for residential use the Conservation Team within the Archaeological Service at Suffolk C.C. advised the local planning authority I that consent should be conditional on the implementation of a programme of works designed to record any evidence of past activity on the site. Interest in the site being generated by it's position straddling the southern edge of the tye, or area of common I grazing and landuse, where evidence for medieval activity might be expected. The site is centred at TM 0626 5102 on heavy boulder clay in an area of flat topography. This I monitoring work was funded by the site developers, V.A.Marriott Ltd with the full and close co-operation of their site agent. For the location of the site see Fig. I. The initial stage in the programme of archaeological works was a desk based I assessment (Field Projects Report no 97/32 by C.Abbott) which examined the map sources available in the Suffolk Record Office. This study confirmed the presence of the tye on a late 18th century map but noted that the area of common grazing had been I enclosed and new field boundaries established by the time of the tithe map in 1839. The assessment concluded that the tye edge ran in a north-west to south-east direction across the proposed development area with the greatest potential for medievalactivity I being in plots 5 to 7 where building work might affect the boundary and plots 3 andA where the line of the tye edge would cross back gardens. Following the submission of the assessment report the Conservation Team at Suffolk C. C. advised the site I developers that the programme of archaeological works should be completed by I monitoring of groundwork's and the Field Team was commissioned to do this work. I I I I I 3. Site Monitoring Monitoring of groundwork's was carried out between July and September, 1998, and in all a total of ten visits were made as each house plot was stripped of topsoil I using a wheeled machine equipped with a toothed bucket on it's back-acter. In general surface visibility was fair to good and it is unlikely that any major deposits were missed. Over each house plot the scraped subsoil surface, which was under some I 300/350mm of topsoil, was examined for archaeological features and finds. In addition spoil from the site was examined for finds. In order to record the features and finds that were observed and collected a single continuous numbering system was I used where features were allocated a unique number as were discrete house plots as the latter were usually examined on separate visits. The county sites and monuments I record number, WLS 005, was given to the site. 3.1 Monitoring record I At the eastern end of the site, which would have been well onto the medieval tye, house plots 1,2 and 3 (see Fig.2 for plot location) produced very few finds with only two pottery sherds from plots 1 and 3 and none from plot 2 (see table below for I quantified summary). As the site work moved closer to the line of the tye edge the number of finds increased with 7 sherds from the surface of plot 4; 15 sherds from a possible pit (0005) towards the rear of this plot and 9 sherds (0006) from around the I pit. A number of baked clay fragments and oyster shells were also noted at the southern end of plot 4 which are likely to be associated with medieval activity on the site. I On the adjacent plot 5, and still within the predicted tye edge, a shallow but definite ditch or gully (0008) was located running east-west before it's latter end turned north and disappeared in an area of machine scrape. Plot 5 produced 30 sherds I as surface finds with a further 18 sherds coming from the small ditch. This ditch (0008) was some 400mm wide and 250mm deep and it is noteworthy that the 18 I sherds from this context came to a greater weight (173g) than the 30 sherds from the surface of plot 5. The area of plot Swould appear to be the focus for medieval activity along this part of the tye edge notwithstanding the factthat the recorded ditch and I associated concentration of pottery sherds, fired clay fragments and 1ava quem fragment all lie inside the line of the tye edge as recreated from later map sources. To the west of plot 5 the adjacent plot 6 did not produce any finds or features I while plots 7 (13 sherds) and 9 (6 sherds) produced relatively small quantities of increasingly abraded.material with plots 8 and 10revealing no evidence for past activity at all. Finally a pipe trench (00 11) along the northern side of plots 5-8 was I examined and 6 sherds were recovered. I (contd.) I I I I I

I 3.2 Table of results

OP Description Pottery Fired clay Lava quern I No. WtJg. No. WtJg No. WtJg I 0002 Plot 1 2 7 0003 Plot 3 2 11 0004 Plot4 7 40 I 0005 ?Pit at rear of plot 4 15 52 0006 Scatter at rear of plot 4 9 27 0007 Plot 5 30 114 2 8 1 41 I 0008 Ditch on plot 5 18 173 4 55 0009 Plot 7 13 69 0010 Plot 9 6 19 I 0011 Pipe trench adj. plots 5-8 6 42 I Total 108 554 6 63 1 41 The finds I S.Anderson Finds were collected from ten contexts, as shown in the table above. All were I surface finds from house plots, except 0005 (?pit) and 0008 (ditch). Pottery I Most of the material was locally produced sandy and/or sparse shell tempered early and high medieval wares (11th-14th centuries). Some was attributable to production sites at Melton and Hollesley. However, there was also material similar to pottery I from Cedar's Farm, , and it seems likely that there was another, as yet unidentified, source close to the town. Little earlier or later pottery was identified , but there was a single small abraded sherd of possible Roman date (0006), and a fine Late I Medieval sherd with a spot of glaze on the outer surface (00 10). Most identified vessels were jars or cooking pots, some with signs of sooting. One Hollesley-type rim from a bowl was found. I The identified features can be dated to the late 13th.. 14th century (0005) and the I 12th-13th century (0008). Other finds A small fragment of abraded lava quem was found in 0007, and fired clayI daub I fragments were collected from 0007 and 0008. Discussion I The majority of material in this assemblage is of early medieval and medieval date and suggests a peak of activity in these periods. Most of the pottery was probably I I I I

I produced around the Stowmarket and Hollesley areas, perhaps suggesting distribution via Stowmarket and Ipswich.

I 4. Conclusion

The monitoring results confirmed the high potential that the tye edge was seen to I have with the clear indication outlined above for a house or cottage site of late 11th to 14th century date on the site. While the monitoring did not record any evidence for structures on the site the two identified features and quantity of finds recovered from I plots 4 and 5 are significant indicators of settled occupation with over 500g of pottery from the site in general. The lack of structural evidence for a house or cottage of this date, and of probable low to medium status, being unsurprising given the medieval I peasant building tradition which relied on simple timber framing with little reliance on earth-fast foundation posts, beams or other solid foundations. However it is I surprising that the focus of medieval activity on plots 4 and 5 appears to lie just inside the tye edge where settlement would have been restricted and it may be that the postulated edge created from Post medieval map sources is too generalised for I detailed plotting on this scale. No evidence was seen for a tye edge ditch or bank.

J.Newman February 1999 I Field Team, Archaeological Service, Environment&Transport Dept., I Suffolk C. C. I I I I I I I I I I I

z I --·----~- ~ I I

I ,,. I The site I I I I :z: 8 I -~-

Suffolk County Council WILLISHAM TYE NORllt . , d lran:1port Grid North Environnumt cln Reproduced from Ordnance Survey mapping with the No. permission ol the Controller ol HMSO (c)Crown P. J. Thompton, MSc. CEng. FICE copyright Unauthorised reproduction lnlrlnges County Director of Environment & Transport Crown and may lead to prosecution. Fig. 1 Site location DATE St Edmund House. County H•ll,lpawlch. Suffotlc Suffolk 1999 Licence No. LA076864 I I I I I I I I I I I I

.--...... Pit(0005) I ~ ~ ---...... I I ---- Tye edge as shown on early maps I I I I

I Fig.2 Monitored house plots, scale 1 :400 (north to top) ll Id Tye Lane, Willisham (WLS 005): pottery 03-Sep-98

I OPNo Fabric FabNo No Wt/g Notes Spotdate 0002 EMW 3.10 2 7 1 rim. 11th-12th c. I 0003 MCW 3.20 2 11 Stowmarket type. L.12th-14th c. 0004 EMW 3.10 1 4 Abraded. 11th-12th c. EMWS 3.14 1 1 Abraded. 11th-12th c. I MCW 3.20 4 27 1 overtired? L.12th-14th c. SBW 3.45 1 8 Or HOLG (unglazed sherd). 13th-14th c. 0005 MCW 3.20 14 51 2 vessels. L.12th-14th c. I HOLG 4.32 1 1 Abraded. L.13th-E.14th c. 0006 RBGW 1.10 1 1 V. abraded. RB I .THET 2.50 5 15 Incl. 1 rim. 10th-11th c. EMW 3.10 3 11 1 rim, abraded. 11th-12th c. 0007 MSHW 3.50 24 98 Mainly 1 vessel, incl. rim. 12th-13th c. I MCW 3.20 5 12 L.l2th-14th c. EMW 3.10 4 Abraded. 11th-12th c. 0008 MCW 3.20 5 46 1 vessel, incl. rim. L.l2th-14th c. I MCWG 3.21 1 23 Base. L.11th-13th c? MSHW 3.50 9 61 12th-13th c. I BMSW 3.53 3 43 Finer shell than MSHW. L.11th-13th? 0009 EMW 3.10 2 11 Incl. rim. 11th-12th c. MTN1 3.54 3 17 12th-13th c. I ·Mew 3.20 6 25 L.12th-14th c. HOLL 3.42 2 16 Incl. rim. L.13th-14th c. 0010 MCW 3.20 5 17 L.l2th-l4th c. I LMT 5.10 2 15th-L.16th c. 0011 MSHW 3.50 1 17 12th-13th c. MCW 3.20 4 16 3 of one redware vessel, fme. L.12th-14th c. I MTN1 3.54 9 12th-13th c.

I 108 554 I I I I I I I 1

,•! i ··,~ ~:. ';J.'~~.::"l. ·,;' -~""-·· __ ._,, I I I Brief and Specification for Archaeological Monitoring PART OS 2400, TYE LANE, WILLISHAM I 1. Background 1.1 Planning consent (MS 29/97) to develop this site has been granted conditional upon an acceptable programme of archaeological work being carried out. To achieve this areas I directly affected by development should be recorded by archaeological monitoring.

1.2 The application area spans a c.100m length of the medieval 'Tye' (village green) I edge, as marked upon Hodkinson's 1783 Survey. It is to be expected that a significant ditch with a bank to the south would have marked the Tye edge. There is a high probability that there would have been medieval tenements (house, garden plot and I ancillary buildings within an enclosure) along the Tye edge. 2. Brief for archaeological monitoring I 2.1 To provide a record of archaeological deposits which are damaged or rerrioved by any development, including services and landscaping, permitted by the current planning I consent. 2.2 The main objective will centre upon the potential of this site to produce evidence for medieval occupation of the Tye edge, its form and date range. I 2.3 In order to give some direction to the monitoring of the development a desk-based assessment should be conducted before development begins. It is hoped that this will indicate areas of sensitivity or high potential and minimise unnecessary attendance on I site. 3. Arrangements for Monitoring

I 3.1 To carry out the monitoring work the developer will appoint an archaeologist (the 'observing archaeologist') who must be approved by the Planning Authority's archaeological adviser (the Suffolk County Archaeological Service Conservation I Team).

3.2 The developer will give the Conservation Team archaeologist (R D Carr, Environment I and Transport Department, Archaeological Service, Shire Hall, Bury St · Edmunds IP33 2AR. Telephone 0_1284 352441) 48 hours notice of the commencement of site works.

I 3.3 Adequate provision to fulfil the programme of archaeological work will be the developer's responsibility. The cost of the archaeological works specified should be I estimated by the approved archaeological observer. Until the qontractor's work programme andfoundation· designs ·are available; and a desk-bdsedassessment is complete, __ it -is no(possibl{! to estimate the archaeological I mpn-day _reqZ:Lirement of this -brief_ For the purposes of bUdgeting I offer the advice that up to 10 archaeological man days may be- required to carry out tliis brief I I I ', I I I 4. Specification- ·- The --methodology~- is to ne agreed in detail before the •- project commences, certain minimum criteria will be required: I .4.1 Desk-Based. Assessment:·· Examine any relevant and readily available maps and surveys. Record evidence ·for the earfy -history of-the site, e.g. ·exact location- of the Tye and any settlement at· this -location and the history__ of the previous land use. I Where possible photocopies or tracings should be included in the report. 4.2 Site Monitoring: the developer shall afford access at all reasonable times to both the I specifying archaeologist and the 'observing archaeologist' to allow archaeological observation of building and engineering operations. - 4.3 Opportunity should- be given to the 'observing archaeologist' to hand excavate any I --discrete- archaeological features; which ··appear during· earth moving operations, retrieve finds and make-measured records as necessary.- I 4.4 The 'observing archaeologist' will not be entitled to enforce specific delays and .hold ups to the work of the contractor other than for the reasonable periods of time required to retrieve finds or make adequate records. Any longer delays should be arranged by mutual agreement with the contractor and developer (the developer's I architect may be approached as an arbitrator).

4.5 Record in plan at a scale of 1:50 or greater all archaeological features pre-dating I c.1700 exposed in building trenches or road formation levels, e.g. buildings, yards, property boundaries, rubbish deposits and the Tye ditch. I 4. 6 All features should be sufficiently examined to characterise function and date. 4. 7 All finds from stratified deposits will be collected and processed. All contexts should be numbered and finds recorded by context. No discard policy will be considered I until the whole body of finds has been evaluated.

4.8 N .B. No assessment has been made of non-archaeological underground hazards and I constraints, e.g. services. I 5. Report requirements 5 .1 An ·archive of all records and finds to be prepared consistent with the principle of 'Management of Archaeological Projects', English Heritage 1991 (particularly I Appendix 3 and Appendix 4). 5. 2 The data recording methods and conventions used must be consistent with, and approved by, the County Sites and Monuments Record. I -- 5 .3 The objective account of the archaeological evidence must be clearly distinguished from its archaeological interpretation.

I 5 .4 It -is not envisaged that publication beyond a short note in the Proceedings of the Suffolk Institute of Archaeology will be necessary.

I 5.5 An important element of the report will be a description of the methodology. I I --- ______...-- .-. I­ .• ··.:. -.. _ .•. I

5. 6 The site archive should be deposited with- the ·county Sites and Monuments Record I within 12 months of the completion of work. It will then become publicly accessible. Finds should be appropriately conserved and.,.stored [in accordance with .. UK Institute of_Conservators Guidelines]. Every effort should be made to get the agreement of the _ landowner/dey_eloper t.o tl).e deposition -of__ th_e fmds with the County- SMR as an I integnl-part-of the--site-archive. - - -· --- - ' 5.7 Where positive conclusions are drawn from a_project (whether it be eval1,1ation or I -excavation} a·sum,mary rep()rt, .. in the established format, suitable for inclusion _in the _aimual 'Archaeology"fu"Suffolk" sectiori~ofthe Proceedings of the Suff.olk·Jnstituie:oj I Archaeology, should be· prepared and inCluded -iri the project report. 5. 8 County -sites and Momimeiits' Re.cord··sheets ·should be completed, as--per the county I SMRmanual, for·all sites_~liei:e archaeologicalfinds and/or features are located. Specification by:- R Carr -

I Suffolk County Council Archaeological Service Conservation Tearri ·Environment and-Transport 'Department . I Shire Hall Suffolk IP33 2AR

I Date: 5 March 1997 Reference: /willish03 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 briefand specification may be issued. I I I I I