East End Farm Cholsey Oxfordshire
Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design
for Environmental Dimension Partnership
on behalf of Bellway Homes Limited (Thames Valley)
CA Project: 779047 CA Report: 18742
March, 2019
East End Farm Cholsey Oxfordshire
Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design
CA Project: 779047 CA Report: 18742
prepared by Sam Wilson, Project Supervisor
date
checked by Richard Massey, Post-Excavation Manager
date
approved by Alistair Barclay, Principal Post-Excavation Manager
signed
date
issue 02
This report is confidential to the client. Cotswold Archaeology accepts no responsibility or liability to any third party to whom this report, or any part of it, is made known. Any such party relies upon this report entirely at their own risk. No part of this report may be reproduced by any means without permission.
1 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
CONTENTS
SUMMARY ...... 1
1 INTRODUCTION ...... 2
Location, topography and geology ...... 2 Archaeological background ...... 3 Previous work ...... 7
2 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES ...... 7
3 METHODOLOGY ...... 8
4 RESULTS ...... 9
Evaluation 9 Fieldwork summary: Area 1 ...... 11 Area 2 ...... 20
5 FACTUAL DATA AND STATEMENTS OF POTENTIAL ...... 25
Stratigraphic Record: factual data ...... 25 Stratigraphic record: statement of potential...... 27 Artefactual record: factual data ...... 27 Artefactual record: statements of potential ...... 30 Biological record: factual data ...... 31 Biological record: statements of potential ...... 32
6 SUMMARY STATEMENT OF POTENTIAL ...... 33
7 DISCUSSION ...... 35
8 STORAGE AND CURATION ...... 34
9 UPDATED AIMS AND OBJECTIVES ...... 40
10 PUBLICATION ...... 40
Synopsis of Proposed Report ...... 40
11 PROJECT TEAM ...... 41
12 TIMETABLE ...... 42
2 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
13 REFERENCES ...... 44
APPENDIX A: STRATIGRAPHIC ASSESSEMENT ...... 51
APPENDIX B: LITHICS by Jacky Sommerville 52 APPENDIX C: POTTERY by Ioannis Smyrnaios 53 APPENDIX D: MIXED FINDS by Katie Marsden 63 APPENDIX E: METALWORK by Katie Marsden 65 APPENDIX F: ANIMAL BONE by Matilda Holmes 67 APPENDIX G: CHARCOAL AND CHARRED PLANT REMAINS by Sheila Boardman 68 APPENDIX H: OASIS REPORT FORM 74
3 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Fig. 1 Site location plan (1:25,000) Fig. 2 Site Plan, showing locations of Areas 1 and 2, and evaluation trenches (1:1500) Fig. 3 Area 1: plan of excavated features (1:250) Fig. 4 Area 1: Ditch 10011: section and photograph Fig. 5 Area 1; Ditch 10020: section and photograph Fig. 6 Area 1: Ditch 10080: section and photograph Fig. 7 Area 1: Ditch 10051: section and photograph Fig. 8 Area 1: north-west terminal of Ditch 10020: section and photograph Fig. 9 Area 1: sunken-featured building 10158: sections and photographs Fig. 10 Area 1: sunken-featured building 10158: photograph Fig. 11 Area 2: Plan of excavated features (1:200) Fig. 12 Area 2: pit 20003: section and photograph Fig. 13 Area 2: bone deposit at base of pit 20003 Fig. 14 Area 2: Ditch 20009: section and photograph Fig. 15 Area 2: pit 20027: section and photograph Fig. 16 Area 2: Ditches 20009 and 20018: section and photograph Fig. 17 Photograph: working shot across Area 1
4 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Quantification of site records Table 2: Quantification of Finds Table 3: Quantification of Biological Material Table 4: Task List Table 5: Breakdown of the Lithics assemblage Table 6: Quantification of pottery by chronological groups Table 7: Fabric distribution by chronological groups Table 8: Distribution of pottery by feature type Table 9: Summary of metalwork items Table 10: Preservation and bone modification observed for each context Table 11: Number of fragments recorded for the major domesticates, birds, and other taxa (hand collection) Table 12: Number of bones identified to taxa, or having been burnt, from samples Table 13: Number of bones and teeth likely to provide ageing and metrical data for the major domesticates Table 14: Charcoal identifications Table 15: Charred Plant Remains identifications.
5 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
SUMMARY
Site Name: East End Farm Location: Cholsey, Oxfordshire NGR: 459173 186756 Type: Trial Trench Evaluation and Excavation Date: June – July 2018 Planning Reference: APP/Q3115/W/17/3179191 Location of archive: Oxfordshire County Museums Service Accession Number: OXCMS: 2018.55 Site Code: EEC18 Archaeological excavation was undertaken by Cotswold Archaeology, in June and July, 2018, at the request of the Environmental Development Partnership (EDP), at East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire. Two excavation areas, totalling 2,950m2, were excavated across the development area, together with five evaluation trenches.
Within Excavation Area 1, ditched features representing elements of a Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age field system included a trackway with subsidiary field boundaries, with evidence of phased development. An Early Saxon sunken-featured building (SFB) cut a late prehistoric ditch, and was the only confirmed feature of this date. Its fills contained metalwork and items of worked bone, together with environmental evidence. Area 2 of the excavation contained boundary ditches of Middle/Late Iron Age date, together with three Iron Age storage pits, one of which contained a recut feature of Early Roman date. A placed deposit of animal bone under large stones was found at the base of one pit. A single medieval gully partly extended into Area 2, and may represent a field boundary of 11th-12th- century date. Five evaluation trenches contained only a few archaeological features, of probable post-medieval date.
The East End Farm site recorded elements of a later prehistoric farming landscape and land division, which complement examples recorded elsewhere in the middle Thames valley. The Iron Age pits and Saxon SFB were spatially and chronologically discrete features, and suggested wider patterns of activity of these periods within the vicinity of the site. The SFB is a locally rare, but notable, addition to the regional record of Early Saxon settlement.
This document presents a quantification and assessment of the evidence recovered from the excavation. It considers the evidence collectively in its local, regional and national context, and presents an updated project design for a programme of post-excavation analysis to bring the results to appropriate publication.
1 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 During June and July, 2018, Cotswold Archaeology (CA) carried out an archaeological excavation on land at East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire, (centred on NGR 459173 186756; Fig. 1). This investigation was required by Condition 19 of the planning permission for the development of the site (ref: APP/Q3115/W/17/3179191).
1.2 The excavation was undertaken at the request of the Environmental Dimension Partnership (EDP), on behalf of Bellway Homes Limited (Thames Valley), and was in accordance with a brief for archaeological recording prepared by Richard Oram (Oxford County Council), the archaeological advisors to South Oxford District Council (SODC), the Local Planning Authority. It also followed a detailed Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) produced by EDP (2018), and a Method Statement produced by CA (2018). These were approved by SODC, acting on the advice of Richard Oram. The fieldwork also followed Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Excavation (CIfA 2014); the Management of Research Projects in the Historic Environment (MORPHE): Project Manager’s Guide (Historic England 2015a) and accompanying PPN3: Archaeological Excavation (Historic England 2015b). It was monitored by Richard Oram, including site visits made on June 13 and 28, 2018.
Location, topography and geology 1.3 The site is situated on the northern outskirts of Cholsey village, and encloses an irregular parcel of land of approximately 26ha in area (Fig. 1). At the time of excavation this comprised two fields of unmanaged pasture, together with a group of farm buildings, including a bungalow, stables and barns (Fig. 2), which were demolished during the course of fieldwork. The site is bordered to the north and east by agricultural fields, and to the west and south by recent residential development. Much of the site lies at an elevation of c.46m above Ordnance Datum (aOD), with land rising gently to the south-east, to a maximum elevation of 55m aOD.
1.4 The underlying geology of the area is mapped as West Melbury Marly Chalk Formation, a sedimentary bedrock formed 94 to 101 million years ago, in the Cretaceous Period. Overlying superficial deposits of Northmoor Sand and Gravel Member, of Quarternary date, were also recorded (BGS 2018). The mapped geology is consistent with that encountered during the excavation.
2 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
Archaeological background 1.5 The following archaeological background of the East End Farm site is derived from a previous assessment (Foundations Archaeology (FA) 2012; 2016), and has been augmented with data held bythe Oxfordshire Historic Environment Record (OHER), and from the published and unpublished archaeological record.
Earlier Prehistory
1.6 Evidence for the Palaeolithic period within the vicinity of the site comprises a hand- axe (OHER 8874), recorded 240m to the east, and a mammoth bone, found 250m to the south (OHER 7629). A further hand-axe of this period was recorded 560m to the north-west (OHER 15447).
1.7 A single Mesolithic or Early Neolithic worked flint was recorded by evaluation, 500m to the south-west (TVAS 2010), and large-scale evaluation, at Reading Road, Cholsey, (SU 5942 8626), c.150m to the south, recorded six pits of Neolithic date (MOLA 2016; Fig. 1). These were associated with pottery, worked flint and debitage. This evaluation also recorded Iron Age and Roman-period features (see below).
1.8 Neighbouring eastern and western banks of the neighbouring River Thames are associated with extensive flint scatters of principally Neolithic date. Of recorded examples, those around Crowmarsh (SU 612 868 and SU 611 866) and North Stoke may be particularly significant (Holgate 1988, 236; Ford 1986).
Bronze Age
1.9 The East End Farm site is located within a landscape characterised by a rich record of later prehistoric, and notably Bronze Age, activity, which reflects proximity to the River Thames and its valley corridor (Lambrick and Robinson 2009, 321). The location of a significant funerary or ceremonial centre at North Stoke (SU 611 858, centred; Fig. 1), where cropmark evidence of numerous barrow ring ditches and an associated bank barrow and possible henge monument, demonstrates the importance of this part of the Thames valley in the Early Bronze Age period (Case 1982, 60-75; Leeds 1936). Numerous items of Bronze Age metalwork have been recovered from the neighbouring stretch of the River Thames, between Cholsey and Wallingford, and within the village of Cholsey itself (Peake 1932, 51; 187; Thomas 1984).
3 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
1.10 A circular cropmark, visible on remote aerial photographic imagery, 550m to the north-east, probably represents a Bronze Age barrow. A further probable barrow cropmark is visible 1.3km to the south-west (GoogleEarth, 2005, 2009). Extensive geophysical survey, undertaken 980m to the north-east, identified multiple anomalies representing as many as four additional barrows, although this survey failed to locate a barrow recorded by Historic England and OHER data (Abingdon Archaeological Geophysics (AAG) 2016; OHER 28322).
1.11 Evaluation at the former Fairmile Hospital site, Cholsey, 630m to the south-east, identified a Bronze Age enclosure ditch, along with residual worked flints of broad prehistoric date (FA 2010a; Fig. 1). A small cluster of pits and postholes were associated with Beaker pottery (OHER 27466). A subsequent watching brief identified a later prehistoric or medieval ditch, together with a prehistoric ditch dated by worked flint. A Neolithic or Bronze Age pit, containing worked flints, was recorded at Whitecross, Winterbrook (SU 604 881), c. 2km to the north-east (John Moore Heritage Service (JMHS) 2001; OHER 16420; Fig. 1).
1.12 Excavation in 1986-92, at Whitecross Farm, on the west bank of the River Thames, c.2km to the north-east, identified a significant Late Bronze Age and Iron Age riverside settlement (Cromarty et al. 2006; Thomas et al. 1986; Fig. 1). The settlement was located on a long eyot (river island), between the present course of the River Thames and a silted palaeo-channel. Surviving timber features represented a jetty, waterfront or bridge, together with numerous structures on the eyot itself. A rich finds assemblage, including metalwork, indicated a settlement of considerable status.
1.13 A Bronze Age pit with associated flint-work, was recorded c. 2.2km to the north- east (Birmingham University Field Archaeology Unit (BUFAU) 1998), and a ditch and worked flints pre-dating a Late Iron Age settlement were recorded at Winterbrook, c. 2.3km to the north-east (TVAS 2009; 2010; Fig. 1).
1.14 Evaluation trenches excavated in 1992, at Bradford’s Brook, Cholsey, c. 2.2km NNE of East End Farm, revealed a multi-period site, including evidence of Late Bronze Age activity (Boyle and Cromarty 2006; Fig. 1). Recorded evidence of this date included a waterhole, elements of a ditched field system, pits and a circular post-built structure. Evidence of later Roman and Saxon activity was also recorded.
4 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
Iron Age and Roman 1.15 Evidence of Middle Iron Age activity within the environs of the East End Farm site includes pits to the west of Reading Road, Cholsey (SU 604 886) (Wessex Archaeology 2009; OHER 26339; Fig. 1), and abundant Iron Age pottery recorded within a gas-main trench, at SU 600 886) c. 2.2km from the site (OHER 2991). Aerial survey has identified evidence of later Iron Age settlement, including a ‘banjo’ enclosure and linear features, at SU 578 849, c. 2.2km to the south-west (RCHME 1993; OHER 15254; Fig. 1).
1.16 A small hillfort or hilltop enclosure is suggested by early aerial photographic evidence on Silsbury Hill, Cholsey (SU 586 851), c. 2km south of the site (OHER 2679; Peake 1931,187; Fig. 1), although this remains speculative. An undated but substantial linear ditch recorded by evaluation at SU 601 878 (JMHS 2015), is of possible Iron Age date. Evaluation at Reading Road, Cholsey (SU 5942 8626), c. 750m to the south-east, identified part of a Middle/Late iron Age field system, together with undated linear features and a trackway, and a few Roman features (MOLA 2016; Fig. 1).
1.17 Evidence of scattered Roman-period activity within and around the East End Farm site includes pottery scatters at Hillingdon Farm (SU 585 872) (OHER 2680; Peake 1931, 187), and at SU 585 879 (OHER 2681). The agger of the Silchester- Dorchester Roman road was investigated at Honey Lane, Cholsey (JMHS 2012; Margary 1973, 165), and linear field or paddock boundaries at Station Road, Cholsey were tentatively dated to the Roman period, although pottery of this date may have been residual in Saxon or medieval ditch fills (TVAS 2010; OHER 26469).
1.18 Evaluation, c.750m south-east of the site, identified a Middle/Late Iron Age field system and a small number of Roman features in the form of field boundary ditches and a probable trackway. The latter may be linked to a postulated villa site further to the south (MOLA 2016; Fig. 1). The villa and complex of surrounding features, identified by aerial survey, is located 530m to the south of the site (OHER 9770; Fig. 1). The villa buildings have not been subject to detailed investigation, although evaluation within the surrounding area has revealed evidence of enclosures, droveways and possible formal gardens. (A. Hood, Foundations Archaeology, pers comm; report forthcoming, but site plan in FA 2018; Fig. 1).
5 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
1.19 Geophysical survey undertaken 550m to the north-east identified a substantial late prehistoric or Roman-period settlement, of approximately 3ha extent, located alongside a trackway, with associated evidence of enclosures, possible roundhouse ring gullies and pits (AAG 2016).
Saxon 1.20 Evidence of Early Saxon activity within the wider environs of Cholsey is scattered and inconclusive. Evaluation at Wallingford Rowing Club (OAU 1998; 1999; Fig. 1) recorded gullies and other features associated with pottery, together with a sunken- featured building. Recorded pottery scatters suggest widespread settlement around both banks of the neighbouring Thames (SU 606857, OHER 25489; SU 607 858, OHER 15643; Ford and Hazell 1989; Fig. 1). Random finds of this date in Cholsey, include a glass bead (OHER 7637) and a spearhead (OHER 7494).
1.21 The earliest documentary reference to Cholsey is in a charter of c. 895, whereby Denewulf, Bishop of Winchester (879–908) exchanged 100 hides here for King Alfred's lands at 'Ciseldenu.' The charter is considered spurious by some sources, but was defended by Finberg (1964). The place-name means ‘Ceol’s Island’, and refers to dry ground above the Thames floodplain. St Mary’s Church, Cholsey, retains considerable pre-Conquest fabric of 10th and 11th-century date, and may represent the site of a monastery church of earlier foundation (Blair 1994, 114). King Aethelred founded a monastery at Cholsey in c.986, which was subsequently destroyed by the Danes, in 1006 (Peake 1931, 164). The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for this year records that the Danes burnt Wallingford to the ground, and then spent the night at Cholsey (Swanton 1996).
1.22 Late Saxon/medieval pits were recorded west of Reading Road, Cholsey (Wessex Archaeology 2009; OHER 26339). During this period, Cholsey lay within the hinterland of the extensive burh of Wallingford, founded in the ninth century (Blair 1994; Booth et al. 2007, 136-9).
1.23 Ditches and a posthole, of probable medieval date, were recorded during a watching brief, c.530m south-west of the site (TVAS 2012a), and a further large ditch, of probable medieval date, was identified during archaeological work, at 10 Amwell Place, Cholsey (HER 16158/EOX 248). Two medieval ditches, representing a possible enclosure, were identified at 2-4 Paternoster Lane (HER 16485/EOX 862), 280m north-west of the site. A number of medieval features, identified as
6 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
probable field boundaries, were also identified at 27 Station Road, Cholsey (HER 27607/EOX 3263), 400m north-west of the site (TVAS 2010).
1.24 The East End Farm site is situated on what is likely to have been the periphery of the medieval village, and as part of its common fields probably remained in agricultural use throughout the medieval and post-medieval periods. Numerous recorded finds of medieval and post-medieval material around Cholsey may reflect manuring or other sporadic agricultural activity.
Previous Work 1.25 A geophysical survey conducted by Archaeological Surveys (AS), in September 2016, identified a number of positive linear, curvilinear and discrete anomalies that were interpreted as representing backfilled ditches and pits (AS 2016).
1.26 This survey was followed, in October 2016, by a trial trench evaluation conducted by Foundations Archaeology (FA 2016), which identified two concentrations of later prehistoric features at either end of the site that corresponded with geophysical anomalies. The evaluation also investigated substantial linear anomalies, seen on Lidar images of the site, and concluded that these represented either ploughed-out boundary banks, or down-slope accumulations of subsoil resulting from long-term cultivation.
1.27 Evaluated features at the north-western end of the site (Excavation Area 2) comprised a single ditch and a small shallow pit. The former contained Late Bronze Age pottery.
1.28 A second, and larger, concentration of features was located towards the south- eastern end of the site (Excavation Area 1). This comprised a small number of ditches and pits which were dated, on the basis of pottery evidence, to the Later Bronze Age (FA 2016). The two concentrations of archaeological features identified in the evaluation were targeted by the two excavation areas, whereas the five concurrent trial trenches investigated areas of the site which were inaccessible at the time of the earlier evaluation.
2 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
2.1 The aims of the excavation were to establish the character, quality, date, significance and extent of surviving archaeological remains or deposits within the
7 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
site. The aims of the evaluation trenching were to test for the presence of significant archaeological remains within areas of the site inaccessible at the time of the earlier evaluation.
2.2 The objectives of the excavation were laid out in the WSI produced by EDP (2018), in accordance with the brief specification, and are summarised as follows:
• To record the nature of the main stratigraphic units encountered;
• To assess the overall presence, survival and potential of archaeological features; and
• To assess the overall presence, survival, condition and potential of artefactual and ecofactual remains.
2.3 The specific aims of the excavation were to:
• Record evidence of past occupation or land use;
• Recover artefactual evidence to date any remains of past occupation or other identified activity; and
• Sample and analyse environmental remains, to create a better understanding of past land use and economy.
2.4 The aims and objectives of excavation and evaluation were in accordance with the relevant period research objectives (Lambrick 2014; Dodd and Crawford 2014), outlined in the Thames Solent regional research agenda (Hey and Hind (eds) 2014).
3 METHODOLOGY
3.1 Fieldwork commenced with the removal, under archaeological supervision, of topsoil and subsoil from the excavation areas by mechanical excavator with a toothless grading bucket.
3.2 A total of five additional evaluation trenches (Nos. 10-14, Fig. 2) were excavated in those north-western parts of the site which were inaccessible during the previous phase of evaluation, in 2016. These varied between 40m and 12m in length,
8 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
depending on location. The position and lengths of all trenches had to be slightly modified, with the agreement of Richard Oram, and according to the presence of various above-ground obstacles and buried services.
3.3 Two larger areas, totalling 2,950m2, were excavated. Area 1 was the largest, measuring 2,130m², and was located in the south-eastern end of the site, while Area 2 measured 820m² and was located c.160m to the north-west (Fig. 2). A small contingency extension at the north-western end of Area 1, measuring 20m², was undertaken at the request of Richard Oram (Fig. 3).
3.4 The archaeological features thus exposed were hand-excavated to the bottom of archaeological stratigraphy. As outlined in the Method Statement (CA 2018), all domestic deposits were 100% excavated, while approximately 50% of discrete features were sampled, along with approximately 10% of all linear features. Features were planned and recorded in accordance with CA Technical Manual 1: Fieldwork Recording Manual (CA 2013). Deposits were assessed for their environmental potential, in accordance with CA Technical Manual 2: The taking and processing of environmental and other samples from archaeological sites (CA 2012), and a total of 33 environmental samples was taken. All artefacts recovered from the excavation were retained, in accordance with CA Technical Manual 3: Treatment of finds immediately after excavation (CA 1995).
4 RESULTS OF EXCAVATION
4.1 This section provides an overview of the excavation results; detailed summaries of the recorded contexts, finds and environmental samples (biological evidence) are to be found in Appendices A-G, respectively.
Fieldwork summary – evaluation trenches
4.2 Five evaluation trenches (10-14) were excavated, in addition to those excavated in 2016 (FA 2016; Fig. 2). Of these, trenches 10 (16.5 x 2.1m) and 13 (29.8 x 2.3m) contained no archaeological features.
The 2016 Evaluation
4.3 Evaluation in 2016 (FA 2016) identified the presence of late prehistoric pits, ditches and other features, some of which were identified as Late Bronze Age in date.
9 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
Limited evidence suggested that more than one phase of prehistoric activity was present. The majority of the identified features were located towards the south- eastern end of the site, on slightly higher ground (Trenches 8 and 9), although a ditch and pit were also present in Trench 1, on lower ground to the north-west. There was a distinct lack of features and finds within Trenches 3-6, located on sloping ground (FA 2016).
4.4 Partial investigation of two linear earthworks, identified as Lidar features, recorded a slight thickening of subsoil, which formed relatively wide and low-ridged profiles. These earthworks were demonstrably later than the later prehistoric features, and a fragment of possible Roman tile suggested that they may represent activity of this, or later, date. The small finds assemblage recovered from the evaluation included Bronze Age, Iron Age, medieval and post-medieval pottery, prehistoric worked flints, Roman tile and animal bone (FA 2016).
The 2018 Evaluation (Fig. 2)
4.5 Within Trench 11 (13.5 x 2.1m), a natural substrate of mid-brown/yellow sandy gravel and sand, 1101, was encountered at a depth of 0.33m, directly beneath modern made ground, 1100. The natural substrate was cut by a heavily-truncated ditch, 1102, which measured 0.95m in width and 0.15m in depth, and contained a single, black/brown sandy silt fill, 1103 (Fig. 2). The friable texture of 1103 suggested that the ditch was probably of relatively recent date, possibly representing an historical field boundary.
4.6 Trench 12 (38 x 2.4m) contained recent made-ground deposits 1201, 1202, 1203, 1204, which were associated with the construction of the farm buildings and modern bungalow. These overlay a natural geology, 1205, of mid-red/brown silty sand, which was encountered at a depth of 0.97m. A possible posthole, 1206, of uncertain date, cut the natural, 1205, to a depth of 0.08m (Fig. 2).
4.7 In Trench 14 (39.6 x 1.95m), subsoil 1401 and a colluvial layer, 1402, were recorded below topsoil 1400. Colluvial layer 1402 comprised a mid-orange/brown clayey silt, which was absent at the south-eastern end of the trench but increased in thickness downslope, to a maximum thickness of 0.9m. This overlay the natural geology, 1403, to a maximum depth of 1.35m, but was much shallower in the south- east. An undated gully, 1404, cut 1403, and measured 0.32m in width and 0.08m in depth (Fig. 2). It contained a single, mid-red/brown clayey silt fill, 1405.
10 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
4.8 With the agreement of Richard Oram, none of the features found within the 2018 trial trenches required further investigation.
Phasing
4.9 The assessment of dateable material and stratigraphic relationships has identified five phases of archaeological activity on site:
• Period 1: earlier prehistoric (c.4000-2000 BC), represented by redeposited worked flint of Mesolithic or Neolithic date;
• Period 2: Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age (c.1000-400BC), represented by remains of field system ditches in Area 1;
• Period 3: Middle/Late Iron Age to Early Roman (c.400BC – AD 100), represented by boundary ditches and storage pits in Area 2, and a small number of ditched features in Area 1;
• Period 4: Early Saxon (c.AD 400-600), represented by a sunken-featured building in Area 1; and
• Period 5: medieval (c. 1100-1300), represented by a short length of ditch or gully in Area 2.
4.8 Areas 1 and 2 were chronologically discrete, with Period 2 and 4 features confined to the former, and Period 3 features largely to the latter. A small number of features within each excavation area contained no dateable material but were assigned to period on the basis of spatial or stratigraphic relationships. Only a small number of minor features, including root and tree-throw hollows, remain unphased.
Results of Excavation: Area 1 (Figures 3 – 10, and 17)
4.9 Area 1 was elongated and irregular in plan, and in maximum dimensions measured 84m north-west/south-east and 27m south-west/north-east, close to the south- eastern extremity of the site (Figs. 2, 3 and 17). It targeted features identified in evaluation Trenches 8 and 9. Recorded archaeological features in Area 1 were dominated by a Period 2 layout of predominantly north-west/south-east aligned ditches, of Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age date, which appeared to represent field boundaries and a probably integrated trackway. A number of subsidiary ditches, aligned in a perpendicular manner to these, are mostly of this date, although some
11 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
contained Period 3, Middle/Late Iron Age/Roman material (Fig. 3). The remains of a sunken-featured building, of Early Saxon date, cut a Period 2, north-west/south-east aligned ditch (Fig. 3).
Period 1: earlier prehistoric (4000-2000 BC)
4.10 A total of 62 items of worked flint was recovered from Area 1 features, including 14 from fills of Ditch 10111 (Appendix B, Table 5). Although none were closely dateable, a significant proportion was considered to be redeposited, and to therefore represent transient activity on or around the site during earlier prehistoric periods.
Period 2: Middle Bronze Age – Early Iron Age
Ditch 10011
4.11 Ditch 10011 comprised a principal, north-west/south-east aligned linear feature, which extended for 47m from the north-western edge of Area 1, and cut similarly- aligned ditch 10020, with which it appeared to form a continuous linear feature. This extended along the entire length of Area 1 and may define the edge of a trackway (Fig. 3). Three corresponding lengths of ditch, 10012, 10014 and 10061, ran parallel to Ditches 10011 and 10020, on their north-eastern side, and at a consistent distance of c. 3m. At intervention 10025, Ditch 10011 measured 0.87m in width and 0.33m in depth, with gently-sloping sides and flat base. A primary fill, 10026, of friable, mid-orange/brown silt, contained sub-rounded flint inclusions, but no finds. Secondary fill 10027, of dark, grey/brown silt, contained sub-angular flints and charcoal, but no finds.
4.12 Ditch 10011 was irregular in profile and dimensions. Intervention 10055 was located c. 5m north-west of the intersection of Ditch 10011 with Ditch 10020 and measured 1.14m in width and 0.35m in depth, with moderately-sloping, slightly stepped sides and a concave base (Figs. 3 and 4, section AA). A single fill, 10056, of friable, brown/yellow sandy silt, contained sub-angular flint, with charcoal-rich concentrations and Period 2 pottery. By contrast, intervention 10141, c.3.5m from the north-western edge of Area 1, displayed a width of only 0.42m and depth of 0.11m, with moderate sides and a concave base. A single fill, 10142, of compact, dark-grey/red clay silt, contained sub-rounded flint and charcoal flecks, but no finds. Sample 7, from fill 10058, of intervention 10057, contained wood charcoal of oak,
12 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
blackthorn, alder, ash and holly, together with charred grains of barley, oats and indeterminate cereals.
Ditch 10020
4.13 Ditch 10020 ran for 54m, on a north-west/south-east alignment, from the south- eastern edge of Area 1, and was cut by Ditch 10011 towards its north-western terminal (Figs. 3 and 5). Compared to Ditch 10011, it was notably straight in its alignment, and of more regular profile. Intervention 10093, located 16m from the south-eastern edge of Area 1, measured 0.8m in width and 0.12m in depth, with asymmetrical, concave sides and a sharply tapered, concave base. A lower fill, 10095, of compact, yellow/brown sandy silt, contained angular flint and sherds of Period 2 pottery. The extent of this fill, and its interface with the underlying natural, were partly obscured by an area of local bioturbation. An upper fill, 10094, of compact, dark grey/black silt, contained angular flint, but no finds.
4.14 At intervention 10067, located 2m from the south-eastern edge of Area 1, Ditch 10022 measured 0.54m in width and 0.18m in depth, with concave sides and base (Fig. 5, section BB). A single fill, 10068, of firm, orange/grey/brown sandy silt, contained poorly-sorted flints and charcoal, but no finds. Sample 14, from fill 10089, of intervention 10087, contained sparse wood charcoal of blackthorn, hawthorn, oak and field maple, with charred plant remains comprising grains of hulled barley, oats and emmer and spelt wheats, and crop-processing waste. The north-west terminal, 10062, of Ditch 10020, (Fig. 8, section EE) displayed steep sides and a concave base, and measured 0.53m in width and 0.22m in depth. A single secondary fill, 10063, of yellow/brown sandy silt, contained burnt flint and rare charcoal, but no finds.
Ditch 10019
4.15 Ditch 10019 ran parallel to Ditch 10020 for a distance of 11.5m, from an offset at the edge of Area 1, to its south-east (Fig. 3). It ran at a broadly consistent distance, of 3m to 3.5m, from Ditch 10020, and may represent part of a corresponding ditch, defining the north-eastern edge of a trackway. At Intervention 10139, it measured 0.72m in width by 0.29m depth, with steep, slightly concave sides and a concave base. A single fill, 10140, of hard, dark-red/brown sandy silt, contained sparse sub- angular flint and charcoal flecks, but no finds. This feature was attributed a Period 2
13 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
date on the basis of its spatial relationship with neighbouring, securely-dated Period 2 features.
Ditch 10014
4.16 Ditch 10014 was an isolated linear feature, measuring 15.5m in length, which was aligned north-west/south-east, and ran parallel to Ditches 10011/10020, located c. 3m to the south-west. Like Ditch 10019, which terminated 13.25m to its south-east, it appeared to comprise a truncated element of the north-eastern side of a double- ditched trackway. At intervention 10053, c. 9m south of its northern terminal, Ditch 10014 measured 0.71m in width and 0.19m in depth, with moderately-sloping sides and a concave base. A single fill, 10054, of compact grey/brown clay silt, contained sub-angular flint/chert, but no dateable material.
4.17 Ditch 10014 diminished notably towards its north-western terminal, 10047, where it tapered to a width of 0.2m and depth of 0.03m. Ditch 10014 displayed the same north-east/south-east alignment as Ditch 10012, c.8m further to the north-west, and the same parallel relationship with Ditch 10011, to its south-west. It is therefore reasonable to suggest that Ditches 10012 and 10014 originally formed a single continuous feature which had been separated by the effects of plough truncation. The red/brown clay silt fill, 1048, of ditch terminal 10047, contained no dateable material.
Ditch 10012
4.18 Ditch 10012 extended in a south-east direction for 15m, from the north-western edge of Area 1, before terminating to the south-east. Like Ditch 10014, above, it appeared to represent a surviving part of a formerly continuous trackway boundary ditch, which ran directly parallel to Ditches 10011 and 10020, to the south-west. Ditch 10012 was cut, almost halfway along its exposed length, by Period 3 Ditch 10003, which was aligned in directly perpendicular fashion to it. However, a precise stratigraphic relationship (10007/10009) at this intervention was difficult to determine. At intervention 10145, Ditch 10012 measured 0.65m in width and 0.09m in depth, with steep sides and flat base. A single fill, 10046, of compact, grey/brown sandy silt, contained inclusions of flint gravel and charcoal flecks, but no finds. However, the orange/grey/brown silty fill, 10004, of south-eastern terminal 10003, contained Period 2 sherds.
Ditch 10008
14 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
4.19 Ditch 10008 extended for 7m, on a south-west/north-east alignment, from the north- eastern edge of Area 1, and at its south-eastern limit was cut by Ditch 10011, with which it displayed a precisely perpendicular relationship (Fig. 3). It did not extend beyond Ditch 10011. At intervention 10030, at the north-eastern edge of Area 1, Ditch 10013 measured 1.1m in width and 0.39m in depth, with moderately-sloping, concave sides and a flat base (Fig. 6, section CC). A single orange/brown silty fill, 10032, contained sub-angular flint and charcoal, but no finds. The stratigraphic relationship with Ditch 10011 was evident at relationship slot 10057/10059 (Fig. 3), where an orange/brown sandy silt, 10060, contained poorly-sorted flint, but no finds. Ditch 10008 was interpreted as a subsidiary field boundary ditch which displayed a clear perpendicular relationship with principal, north-west/south-east aligned ‘trackway’ features. It extended beyond the line of the suggested trackway boundary represented by Ditches 10012, 10014 and 10019 and, in common with Ditch 10015, may therefore represent a later sub-phase of field system development.
Ditch 10015
4.20 Ditch 10015 was a 7.5m-long, isolated feature, which displayed a broadly perpendicular alignment to the prevailing north-west/south-east trend of Ditches 10012, 10013 and 10019, towards the north-eastern margins of Area 1 (Fig. 3). At intervention 10115, Ditch 10015 measured 0.59m in width and 0.26m in width, with irregular, concave sides and an uneven base. A single, distinctive fill, 10116, of compact, red/brown sandy gravel, contained sub-angular flint inclusions but no dateable material. North-eastern terminal 10090 contained a charcoal-rich yellow/grey clay sand fill (10091), and a dark-grey, sandy silt upper fill (10092), which contained Period 2 pottery. In terms of its profile and the character of its fills (10116), Ditch 10015 differed from surrounding Period 2 ditches and, along with Ditch 10013, may represent a later sub-phase in the development of a ditched field system. This was further suggested by the south-western terminals of Ditches 10013 and 10015, which extended beyond the line of the suggested trackway boundary represented by Ditches 10012, 10014 and 10019.
Ditch 10052 4.21 Ditch 10052 extended for 9m from the north-western edge of Area, and was cut at its south-eastern extent by Period 4 Sunken-Featured Building (SFB) 10158 (Fig. 3). It closely followed the north-west/south-east alignment of Ditch 10011, located c. 6m to the north-east, and no doubt originally formed a continuous linear ditched
15 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
feature with Ditch 10044, before the intervening cut of SFB 10158. At intervention 10143, Ditch 10052 measured 0.44m in width and 0.16m depth, with moderately sloping sides and a concave base. A single fill, 10044, of compact, dark-grey/red clay silt, contained flint gravel and charcoal flecks, with Period 2 pottery.
Ditch 10044
4.22 Ditch 10044 was 10m in length, and terminated to the south-east. It was cut at its north-western extent by SFB 10158, but originally is likely to have formed a continuous ditched feature with Ditch 10052, to the north-west, with which it was closely aligned (see 4.21). At intervention 10044, this feature measured 0.64m in width and 0.14m in depth, with gently-sloping, almost imperceptible sides, and a concave base. A single fill, 10147, of compact, grey/brown silty sand, contained angular flint, but no dateable material. At intervention 10065, at its intersection with SFB 10158, Ditch 10044, displayed a width of 0.65m and depth of 0.9m, with a closely- comparable fill (Fig. 3).
Ditch 10043
4.23 Ditch 10043 extended for 6m on a south-west/north-east alignment, from the south-western edge of Area 1, and terminated at its north-eastern extent (Fig. 3). It was aligned perpendicularly in relation to Ditch 10044, which was located 6m to the north-east of the terminal, 10137, of 10043, at its closest extent. At intervention 10135, Ditch 10043 measured 0.21m in width and 0.15m in depth, with straight, moderately-sloping sides and a concave base. A single fill, 10136, of compact, grey/brown sandy silt, contained angular flint, but no dateable material. At terminal 10137, Ditch 10043 measured 0.5m in width and 0.04m in depth, with a fill comparable to that of intervention 10135. This feature, arguably more of a gully than a ditch, was interpreted as a truncated, north-east/south-west aligned field boundary, comparable with Ditches 10013 and 10015 to the north, and was consequently assigned a Period 2 date.
Feature 10049
4.24 Feature 10049 comprised an elongated pit, or possibly a short, surviving length of ditch, situated 3m south-west of Ditch 10044 and 5m north-west of the terminal of Ditch 10043 (Fig. 3). It was oval in plan, with a length of 2.3m, width of 0.96m and depth of 0.35m, with moderate to steeply-sloping concave sides, and an irregular base. A lower fill, 10077, comprised mixed orange/brown clay sand, with sub-
16 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
angular flint and charcoal, but no finds. An upper, secondary fill, 10078, of firm, mid-grey/brown clay sand, contained similar inclusions, together with Period 2 pottery. Feature 10049 appeared to be broadly contemporary with surrounding Period 2 field boundaries, but was otherwise difficult to relate to surrounding ditched elements of a Period 2 field system, and may simply represent an isolated refuse pit.
Ditch 10038
4.25 Ditch 10038 comprised a 7.3m-long, isolated gully, which was located slightly to the south-west of intercut Ditches 10020 and 10011, but on a different north- west/south-east alignment (Fig. 3). At intervention 10112, it measured 0.43m in width and 0.14m in depth, with moderately-sloping, concave sides and base. A single fill, 10113, of dark, black/brown sandy silt, contained common charcoal and flint, but no finds. The south-eastern terminal, 10120, contained a similar fill (10121), with Period 2 pottery. Ditch 10038 appears to represent a surviving, truncated element of the Period 2 field system, and while its relationship to closely adjacent Ditch 10020 was not apparent, its alignment suggested a truncated, earlier phase of Ditch 10011.
Ditch 10036
4.26 Ditch 10036 was 11m in length, and was located close to the south-western edge of Area 1 (Fig. 3). It was aligned north-west/south-east, on the same alignment as, and closely parallel to, Ditch 10020, located 8.5m to the north-east. It terminated to the north-west and south-east, and cut Period 2 Ditch 10037, at a point c. 4m from its south-eastern terminal. At relationship slot 10101/10099 (Fig. 3), Ditch 10036 measured 0.52m in width and 0.14m in depth, with gently-sloping, irregular sides and a flat base. A single fill, 10102, of firm, grey/brown silt, contained poorly- sorted flints, but no dateable material.
Ditch 10037
4.27 Ditch 10037 extended for 4.8m, on a south-west/north-east alignment, from the south-western edge of Area 1, and terminated at its north-eastern extent. It was cut, in perpendicular fashion, by Ditch 10036, at a point 2.5m south-west from its north-eastern terminal. At relationship slot 10101/10099, Ditch 10036 measured 0.49m in width and 0.15m in depth, with straight, gently-sloping sides and a flat base. A single fill, 10100, of firm grey/brown silt, contained poorly-sorted flints, but
17 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
no dateable material. The alignment of Ditch 10037 and its stratigraphic relationship with 10036 suggest that it comprised part of an earlier phase of subsidiary field boundaries, comparable with Ditches 10013 and 10015, to the north.
Period 3: Middle/Late Iron Age/Early Roman
4.28 A limited number of Period 3 features in Area 1 comprised isolated lengths of ditched field boundaries, which appear to suggest the continued use and adaptation of the Period 2 field system. Ditch 10003 ran for 3.5m on a north- east/south-west alignment, from the north-eastern edge of Area 1, close to its northern corner. It appeared to cut Ditch 10012 at a point 7.5m north-west of the latter’s south-eastern terminal, but any stratigraphic relationship between the two features could not be accurately determined. Ditch 10003 did not extend further to the south-west, beyond the line of Ditch 10012. At intervention 10003, this feature measured 0.53m in width and 0.48m in depth, with straight, moderately-sloping sides and a concave base. A single fill, 10004, of friable, mottled orange/grey/brown silt, contained poorly-sorted flint, charcoal and Period 3 pottery.
Ditch 10051 and feature 10106
4.29 Ditch 10051, of which isolated feature 10106, immediately to the north-west, appeared to comprise an isolated remnant, extended on a curving, south- west/north-east alignment for 11m from the south-western edge of Area 1, c.7m from its western corner (Fig. 3). At intervention 10124, it measured 0.96m in width and 0.38m in depth, with steep sides and an irregular, concave base (Fig. 7, section DD). A lower fill, 10126, of firm, red/brown sandy clay, contained flint gravel, charcoal flecks and Period 3 pottery. Upper fill 10125, of firm, grey/brown sandy silt, contained flint gravel, rare charcoal flecks and burnt flint, together with Period 3 pottery. Pit or gully 10106 represented an isolated continuation of Ditch 10051, immediately to its south-west, and measured 1m in length, 0.68m in width and 0.16m in depth. A single fill, 10107, of compact grey/brown sandy silt, was closely comparable with upper fill 10125, of adjacent Ditch 10051, but contained no dateable material.
18 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
Gully 10021
4.30 Isolated gully 10021 extended for 3.5m on a south-west/north-east alignment, towards the southern corner of Area 1, and terminated to the south-west and north-east (Fig. 3). At intervention 10071 it measured c. 0.4m in width and 0.1m in depth, although the form of the ditch terminal at this point was obscured by a later tree-throw hollow. A single fill, of firm orange/brown sandy silt, contained poorly- sorted flints, but no dateable material.
Period 4: Early Saxon Sunken-Featured Building 10158 (Figs. 8. 9 and 10)
4.31 Conspicuous by the absence of other Period 4 features on this site, a single Early Saxon sunken-featured building (SFB), 10158, was recorded towards the north- western edge of Area 1 (Figs. 3, 9 and 10). This cut Period 2 Ditches 10052 and 10044, in a manner which suggested that these originally comprised a single linear feature (Fig. 3). Aligned approximately north-west/south-east, SFB 10158 measured 4.3m in maximum length by 3.76m in width. Although heavily truncated, its fills survived to a maximum depth of 0.3m. The SFB was excavated as four individual quadrants, 10083, 10046, 10150 and 10155. At the southern quadrant, 10046, the SFB displayed moderately-sloping, straight sides, with a gradual break of slope, before a flat base (Fig. 9, sections FF and GG; Fig. 10). It contained a fill, 10064, of compact, dark-grey/brown clay silt, with inclusions of sub-angular flint/chert, charcoal flecks, animal bone and Early Saxon pottery.
4.32 Quadrant 10083 contained a lower fill, 10085, of dark-red/brown clay silt, directly comparable with the lower fills of other quadrants, with pottery, animal bone, fragmentary ceramic building material (CBM), of probable Roman date, and glass (Fig. 9, sections FF and GG; Fig. 10). An upper grey/brown clay silt fill, 10084, contained Period 4 pottery, together with a worked bone awl (Ra. 2), a ceramic spindlewhorl/weight (Ra. 3), and a worked bone pin (Ra. 4). Sample 12 from this fill contained wood charcoal of blackthorn, hawthorn, oak and hazel, with charred plant remains comprising grains of hulled barley and an indeterminate cereal (Boardman, this report, Appendix F).
4.33 Eastern quadrant 10150 also contained two comparable fills. A lower fill, 10152, of compact, dark-red/brown clay silt, contained no finds, while upper fill 10051, of dark-grey/brown clay silt, contained pottery and animal bone, but was not
19 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
sampled. The lower fill 10156, of western quadrant 10155, also comprised a comparable dark-red/brown clay silt, with pottery and animal bone. An upper fill, 10157, of dark-grey/brown clay silt, contained pottery and animal bone, together with copper alloy objects (Ra. 7 and Ra. 8).
4.34 Two substantial structural postholes, 10148 and 10153, were respectively located at the south-eastern and north-western ends of SFB 10158 (Fig. 3, inset). Posthole 10148 was oval in plan, measured 0.48m in maximum diameter, and was cut to a depth of 0.42m below the base of the SFB. Posthole 10153, also oval in plan, measured 0.4m in maximum diameter, with a depth of 0.43m below the base of the SFB. Posthole 10153 contained a fill, 10154, of dark-red/brown sandy silt, comparable with the lower fills recorded in the respective SFB quadrants. This contained sparse sub-angular flints and charcoal flecks, with a fragment of ironworking residue, but no other finds. Fill 10149, of posthole 10148, was closely comparable in character, but contained no finds.
Period 5: Medieval
4.35 Although no features in Area 1 were of Period 5 date, medieval sherds were present as intrusive items within the upper fills of some Period 2/3 features, and may represent agricultural and waste disposal activities around the margins of Cholsey village.
Undated features
4.36 Small pit or posthole 10018 was located close to the north-eastern edge of Area 1, and 6m north-east of the north-western terminal of Ditch 10019 (Fig 3). It was sub- circular in plan, with a maximum diameter of 0.76m and depth of 0.09m, with moderately-sloping, concave sides and an uneven base. A single fill, 10028, of friable yellow/brown silty sand, contained common angular flint, but no dateable material.
4.37 A number of undated tree-throw hollows and areas of bioturbation were recorded in Area 1, including closely-adjacent features 10023 and 10024, close to its south- western end (Fig. 3).
Area 2: Results of Excavation (Figures 11 – 16)
4.38 Area 2 measured 820m² and was located c.160m to the north-west of Area 1 (Figs. 2 and 11). Below topsoil 20000, a subsoil/colluvial layer, 20001, of mid-
20 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
red/brown sandy silt and flint gravel, thickened progressively downslope, from 0.2m on the eastern edge of Area 2, to a maximum thickness of 0.4m on the west. This overlay a natural geology, 20002, of light-brown/yellow and white silty chalk, with patches of colluvially-derived red/ brown sandy silt, which were recorded at a depth of 0.8m below present ground level.
4.39 Area 2 was targeted on the archaeological features identified in evaluation Trench 1, which contained a small, shallow pit, and a broadly east/west-aligned ditch (Figs. 2 and 11). The pit was undated, although the ditch contained pottery of Late Bronze Age date (FA 2016). Despite being sited directly over the intersection of the two features (20023/20025), the evaluation trench failed to identify an abutting north- east/south-west aligned ditch, which was identified at excavation stage as 20018 (Fig. 11).
Period 1: earlier prehistoric (4000-2000 BC)
4.40 A total of 25 items of worked flint was recovered from Area 2 features (Appendix B, Table 5). Although these were not closely dateable, a large proportion are considered to be redeposited, and to represent transient activity on or around the site during earlier prehistoric periods.
Period 3: Middle/Late Iron Age/Early Roman
Ditch 20009
4.41 Ditch 20009 was broadly aligned north-west/south-east and extended on a somewhat irregular course for an excavated distance of c. 42m, along the entire length of Area 2 (Fig. 11). It cut Ditch 20018, at a point 18m from the south-eastern edge of Area 2 (Fig. 16, section KK). Reflecting the effects of historical plough truncation, Ditch 20021 displayed considerable variations in profile and dimensions along its excavated length. At intervention 20021, c.8m from the south-eastern edge of Area 2, it measured 0.7m in width and 0.1m in depth, with gently-sloping, concave sides and a flat base. A single secondary fill, 20022, of firm dark- grey/brown clay silt, contained stony inclusions, with animal bone and Period 3 pottery.
4.42 At intervention 20009, located 11m from the north-western edge of Area 2, Ditch 20021 measured 0.94m in width and 0.45m in depth, with slightly convex, steeply- sloping sides and a concave, U-profile base (Fig. 14, section II). A lower, primary
21 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
fill, 20010, of yellow/brown sandy silt, contained flint-pebble inclusions and occasional charcoal, with animal bone. Secondary fill 2011, of brown/grey sandy silt, contained flint and charcoal, with animal bone and Period 3 pottery. Sample 24 from this fill contained wood charcoal of broom/gorse, hawthorn, oak and hazel, together with charred plant remains comprising grains of hulled barley, oats/brome grass, emmer and spelt wheats, and limited crop processing waste (Boardman, this report, Appendix F).
Ditch 20018
4.43 Ditch 20018 ran for c.6m, on a north-east/south-west alignment, from the north- eastern edge of Area 2, and was cut at its south-western extent by Ditch 20021 (Figs. 11 and 16, section KK). The two ditches represented elements of an Iron Age scheme of land boundaries which appeared to follow different alignments than the Period 2 boundaries in Area 1, to the south. At intervention 20018, 2.5m from the north-eastern edge of Area 2, this ditch measured 0.74m in width and 0.33m in depth, with concave sides and base. A single secondary fill, of friable, orange/brown sandy silt, contained poorly-sorted flint, together with Period 3 pottery and animal bone. The stratigraphic relationship with Ditch 20021 was evident at relationship slot 20023/20025, where profiles suggested that Ditch 20021 may represent a recut, rather than a strictly later feature (Fig. 11).
Pit 20035
4.44 Pit 20035 was located c.0.5m south-west of Ditch 20021, and 1.5m from the south- eastern edge of Area 2 (Fig. 11). It was sub-circular in plan, measuring 0.96m in maximum diameter and 0.07m in depth, with gently-sloping, irregular sides and base. A somewhat indistinct single fill, 20036, of mottled orange/grey/brown clay silt, contained sub-angular flint and Period 3 pottery.
Pit 20003
4.45 Pit 20003 was the southernmost of three closely-adjacent Middle/Late Iron Age pits, located towards the northern corner of Area 2 (Fig. 11). It was of circular plan, and undercut profile, regionally typical of Iron Age storage pits, and measured 1.76m in diameter at the opening and 2.23m at the base, with a depth of 1.05m (Fig. 12, section HH). The pit appears to have been subject to secondary use for the disposal of domestic refuse; it contained three fills. A lower primary fill, 20004, of yellow/brown silty sand, contained occasional charcoal, animal bone and Period 3
22 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
pottery of Middle Iron Age character. Fill 20004 appeared to represent the silting and weathering of pit sides, presumably during its period of secondary use. Within this fill, and positioned on the base of pit 20003, a deliberately-placed deposit (Ra. 5) comprised an assemblage of animal bone (36g), placed beneath a number of large stones. The animal bone represented the articulated remains of the hindquarters of a young pig (Holmes, Appendix E) (Figs. 12 and 13).
4.46 Fill 20004 was sealed below a lower secondary fill, 20005, which suggested episodic backfilling and silting (Fig. 12, section HH). This fill, of 0.45m depth, comprised mid-yellow/brown silty sand, with common charcoal and sub-rounded flint, animal bone and Period 3 pottery. A final fill, 20006, of firm, dark-brown/grey silty sand, was 0.3m in depth, and represented a dump of domestic and hearth material. This fill also contained lenses of light-brown/yellow chalky sand, possibly representing intermittent weathering of pits sides. Inclusions comprised Middle/Late Iron Age sherds and animal bone, together with common charcoal and sub-rounded flint pebbles.
Pit 20012
4.47 Pit 20012 was located between pits 20003 and 20027, towards the north-western corner of Area 2 (Fig. 11). It was of unusual, sub-rectangular plan, measuring 2.17m in length (north-west/south-east) and 1.38m in width, with rounded corners on the northern and eastern sides. Pit 20012 measured 0.84m in depth, with a single homogenous fill, 20013, of mottled orange/grey/brown sandy silt, with poorly- sorted flint. In contrast with those of adjacent pits 20003 and 20027, this fill contained only limited pottery of Middle/Late Iron Age date, and animal bone.
Pit 20027
4.48 A further pit with an undercut profile, 20027, was located 0.3m to the north of pit 20003, and was only partly exposed at the northern edge of Area 2 (Fig. 11). Slightly larger than 20003, and apparently of sub-circular plan, it measured 1.91m in width at its opening, and was incompletely excavated, to a depth of 0.94m (Fig. 15, section JJ). This feature was not bottomed, due to the working restrictions imposed by additional depth against the edge of the excavation area. It displayed steeply- sloping, undercut sides. The lowest exposed fill, 20028, of friable red/brown sandy silt, of minimum depth of 0.43m, contained rare charcoal with sub-rounded flint/chert, Period 3 pottery and animal bone. This fill may represent primary silting
23 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
or weathering, although it was only partially exposed in section. A secondary fill, 20029, of soft, black/brown sandy silt, with common charcoal, possibly representing multiple episodes of domestic waste deposition and the in-washing of colluvial material. Fill 20029 was sealed in turn by tertiary fill 20030, a friable mid- yellow/brown sandy silt, of 0.58m depth, with inclusions of sub-rounded flint and rare charcoal, but no finds. This fill appeared to represent a silting deposit.
Pit 20031
4.49 Pit 20031 represented a recut of pit 20027, made entirely within its silted upper fill, 20030 (Fig. 15, section JJ). This re-cut was only recorded in section, and appeared to also partly cut overlying subsoil 20001, suggesting that the latter had partly formed over fill 20030 at the time of the re-cut. Recut pit 20031 measured 1.36m in length, 0.81m in width and 0.6m in depth, with steep, concave sides and rounded base. It contained two secondary fills, of which the lower, 20032, of yellow/brown sandy silt, of maximum 0.6m depth, was more pronounced on the south-east side, suggesting infilling from that direction. This fill contained sub-angular flint/chert and rare charcoal, together with Period 3 Late Iron Age/Early Roman pottery and animal bone. Upper secondary fill 20034, of friable, black/brown sandy silt, contained common charcoal and burnt flint, together with similar, ‘transitional’ Late Iron Age/Roman pottery, and animal bone. This fill appeared to represent a dump of domestic/hearth waste; the interface between fills 20032 and 20034 was marked by a deposit of large, burnt stones.
Period 5: Medieval
Gully 20007
4.50 Gully 20007 was a slight feature, which extended for a distance of 2.7m, on a north- west/south-east alignment from the north-eastern edge of Area 2, close to its northern corner (Fig. 11). At its terminal, this feature measured 0.5m in width and 0.2m in depth, with steeply-sloping, concave sides and base. A single fill, 20008, of yellow/brown sandy silt, contained flint pebble inclusions and sherds of medieval pottery, whose common fabric suggested the presence of a single vessel of 11th- 12th-century date. The excavator interpreted this fill as the result of gradual silting, and it appears likely that gully 20007 represents a field or property boundary.
Undated Features
24 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
4.51 Pit 2014 was located 2m south of Ditch 20019, close to the north-western edge of Area 2 (Fig. 11). It was sub-circular in plan, and measured 1m in maximum diameter and 0.53m in depth, with very steep sides and a concave base. A single secondary fill, 20015, of yellow/brown sandy silt, contained flint pebbles, animal bone and common charcoal, but no finds.
4.52 A small, shallow pit, 20016, was located 0.6m north-east of pit 20012 (Fig. 11). It was circular in plan, with a diameter of 0.5m and depth of 0.06m, and had steep sides and flat base. A single fill, 20017, of firm, grey/green clay silt, contained no dateable material. Irregular feature 20037 was located 1.4m north of Ditch 20019, and was interpreted as a tree-throw hollow (Fig. 11). It measured 1.82m in maximum length, 1.32m in width and 0.52m in depth, with concave sides and an irregular base. A single fill, 20038, of dark-grey/brown clay silt, contained no dateable material.
The 2018 Evaluation Trenches
4.53 In addition to the nine evaluation trenches (1-9) excavated by Foundations Archaeology in 2016 (FA 2016), five further trenches (10-14) were excavated by Cotswold Archaeology, concurrent with the excavation of Areas 1 and 2 (Fig. 2). These were intended to evaluate a previously uninvestigated area within the north- east part of the site, to the north of Area 2. Trench size and distribution were constrained by a number of obstacles in this part of the site, with trench lengths ranging from 13.5m (Trench 11) to 40m (Trench 14).
4.54 The evaluation trenches identified no evidence of occupation relating to Period 2 and 3 features on the site, although archaeological features were recorded in Trenches 11, 12 and 14. These were few in number, and undated, and appeared to indicate that no archaeological activity associated with the features recorded in Areas 1 and 2 extended within other parts if the site. Within Trench 11, a ditch of probable post-medieval date ran on a WNW/ESE alignment but contained no dateable material. An undated posthole was recorded in Trench 12, and an undated gully in Trench 14.
25 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
5 FACTUAL DATA AND STATEMENTS OF POTENTIAL
Stratigraphic Record: factual data 5.1 Following completion of the fieldwork, an ordered, indexed, and internally consistent site archive was compiled, in accordance with the guidelines stated in the Management of Research Projects in the Historic Environment (MORPHE): Project Manager’s Guide (Historic England 2015a). A database of all contextual and artefactual evidence, and a site matrix, was also compiled and cross- referenced to spot-dating. The fieldwork record comprises the following:
Table 1: Quantification of site records
Document No.
Context sheets 187 Plans (1:10, 1:20, 1:100) - Sections (1:10, 1:20) 66 Sample sheets 32 Digital photographs 371 Matrices 2
5.2 The survival and intelligibility of site stratigraphy was reasonably good, with archaeological remains surviving as negative features. Despite a relative lack of stratigraphic relationships, most features have been assigned a preliminary period, based on context dates and/or spatial associations.
5.3 Within Area 1, a complex of partly intercutting ditched features represented part of a Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age field system, incorporating a central trackway, with subsidiary field and enclosure ditches. Despite the effects of truncation, which appeared to have removed a number of shallower interconnecting ditches, at least two possible phases of development were observed. A single Saxon sunken- featured building (SFB) cut a late prehistoric ditch. Area 2 contained two boundary ditches of Middle/Late Iron Age date, together with three Iron Age storage pits, the upper fill of one of which contained evidence of Early Roman activity. A single medieval gully partly extended into Area 2, and may represent a boundary ditch of 11th-12th-century date. The evaluation trenches contained very limited archaeological evidence which, where present, was determined to be of post- medieval date.
26 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
5.4 Within Area 1, features towards the north-western end of the excavation area displayed evidence of increasing truncation. This appeared to correspond to higher ground within the site, and a significant diminution in the depth of overlying subsoil, which was thickest in the central and eastern parts of Area 1. This variation in subsoil thickness corresponded with the linear features observed on Lidar plots, which appeared to represent headland accumulations of ploughsoil.
5.5 Features in Area 2 were generally less truncated, with some fills surviving to a considerable depth. This may reflect their location on a downward slope, where they appear to have been partly buffered against the effects of plough truncation by the depth of overlying colluvial deposits.
Stratigraphic record: statement of potential 5.6 A secure stratigraphic sequence is essential to elucidating the form, purpose, date, organisation and development of the various phases of activity represented. This can be achieved through detailed analysis of the sequence, and further integration of the artefactual dating evidence. The refined sequence will then serve as the spatial and temporal framework within which other artefactual and biological evidence can be understood.
5.7 While the stratigraphic record forms a complete record of the archaeological features uncovered, the limited inter-relationships between these features, and between the two excavation areas, limits the potential for fully elucidating the development of the site. Excavation has provided evidence of activity on and around the site, extending from the Neolithic to the post-medieval period, although the two excavation areas are chronologically discrete, with few archaeological associations between them. With the notable exception of the Early Saxon SFB, recorded features relate largely to agricultural landscapes, rather than domestic occupation. Periods 2 and 3 can only be broadly defined in terms of available pottery evidence, and relate to landscape features whose periods of use may have been of relatively long duration.
Artefactual record: factual data 5.8 All finds collected during the excavation have been cleaned, marked, quantified and catalogued by context. These are quantified in Table 2, below:
27 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
Table 2: Quantification of finds
Type Category Count Weight (g)
Pottery Prehistoric 337 3950 Roman 3 12 Anglo-Saxon 41 571 Medieval 101 1777 Total 482 6310 Flint Worked 73 187 Burnt 27 279 Fired Clay Fragments 7 42 Brick/tile All 4 60 Glass Vessel Metals Iron 1 5 Copper alloy 3 3 Residues 2 227 Worked bone All 2 7 Stone Objects 1 38
5.9 The finds assemblage was relatively limited in quantity, and overwhelmingly comprised pottery, of which Period 2 material was considerably the most represented. Sunken-featured building 10158 produced a small assemblage (41 sherds, 571g) of Early Saxon pottery. A total of 87 items of worked flint was recorded from 21 deposits, much of which is assumed to be redeposited, although the assemblage as a whole is not particularly diagnostic of period. In addition to pottery, the fills of SFB 10158 produced a small group of mixed finds, including two items of worked bone, three copper alloy objects, together with possible metalworking residues.
Worked flint 5.11 A total of 73 items of worked flint, and 27 pieces of burnt, unworked flint, were recovered from 21 separate deposits (Appendix B, Table 5). Of these, 38 items from Period 2 deposits in Area 1 potentially represent stratified items. Eleven flakes from both Area 1 and 2 contexts displayed proportions typical of Late Neolithic or Bronze Age debitage, and residual bladelets from Period 3 features may represent Mesolithic debitage. An assemblage of 14 flints, from Period 2 Ditch 10011, may be associated with Bronze Age pottery, and possibly represent stratified items. While
28 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
these were not closely-dateable types, they did not feature attributes incompatible with a Bronze Age date.
Pottery 5.12 The site produced 482 sherds of pottery, weighing 6,310g in total (Appendix C. Table 6-8). The assemblage derived from 45 contexts, including five soil samples, and mostly consists of medium-sized fragments in fair to good condition. However, the material from those contexts which produced the richest assemblages is highly fragmented. The pottery from Area 1 dates principally to later prehistoric periods (ie. Periods 2 and 3), although several sherds of possibly earlier prehistoric date were also noted, and Saxon and medieval sherds were also present. Material from Area 2 was predominantly later, with a significant proportion of later Iron Age and Early Roman date. The pottery is described and discussed in detail in Appendix C.
5.13 The later prehistoric pottery retains potential for future publication and further analysis of the site, particularly in relation to its spatial and chronological distribution. Such pottery is primarily divided in two groups: the Period 2 Late Bronze Age-Early Iron Age material, and that of the Period 3, Late Iron Age and Early Roman ‘transitional’ phases. A major publication on the pottery from the Wallingford Bypass project (Cromarty et al. 2006) has discussed a substantial assemblage of Late Bronze Age material; however, further study of the continuity of such pottery in the Early Iron Age could be supplemented by the material from the present excavation. Finally, the Late Iron Age and Roman transitional pottery, which has been briefly discussed in relation to the Wallingford Bypass project (Booth 2006, 212-4), could be further analysed and discussed in relation to additional material from the current site. To assist in this discussion, twelve late prehistoric vessels were selected for illustration.
Miscellaneous Finds 5.14 An unfinished ceramic object, fashioned from a Roman base-sherd, and possibly representing a spindlewhorl or gaming counter, was recovered from fill 10084, of sunken feature building 10158. Two items of worked bone were recovered from the same context, comprising a pin beater (Ra. 8) and a circular-headed pin (Ra. 4). In addition, six fragments of CBM, of possible Roman date, and two fragments of ironworking slag or residue, were recovered from four features. These items are described in further detail in Appendix D of this report.
29 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
Metal Items 5.15 A small assemblage of metal items includes a copper alloy dress pin and sheet fragments, from fills of Period 4 SFB 10158, together with a small number of fragmentary, indeterminate iron objects from the same feature (Appendix E, Table 9). Some of these may possibly represent ironworking waste. A double-spiked loop, from Period 3 pit 20012, is of probable Roman date.
Artefactual record: statements of potential
Worked flint 5.16 The worked flint assemblage from East End Farm is small, and almost half is demonstrably residual. Flake proportions are most suggestive of Late Neolithic or Bronze Age technology for at least a proportion of the lithics, although most items cannot be closely dated. The assemblage is therefore of local significance in potentially including some stratified Bronze Age material. Lithic assemblages have been recorded from several Bronze Age sites around Wallingford, including 537 worked flints from the Late Bronze Age site at Whitecross Farm, Cholsey (c. 2km to the north-east). The recorded flints there were mostly unretouched, with retouched flakes comprising 2% of the worked assemblage, and there were no formal tools (Brown and Bradley 2006). Another small assemblage (13 flints) was retrieved from Late-Middle to Late Bronze Age pits/postholes at the CABI Headquarters site, Wallingford, c. 3km north-east of East End Farm (Sommerville 2018, 30–1). A report on the lithic assemblage should be prepared for publication, which would be an amended version of the assessment report presented in Appendix B. The lithics have been fully recorded for the purpose of assessment, and no further analysis is required. Illustrations will not be necessary.
Pottery 5.17 This material retains potential for further study and analysis; however, the pottery needs to be summarised if a full article is published, and further analysis and discussion will be required in relation to its chronological distribution and local/regional context. A single early medieval vessel has been suggested for illustration.
Miscellaneous finds
Glass
30 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
5.18 The glass assemblage is limited to a single residual piece of Roman glass. No further work is recommended.
Fired Clay and Ceramic Objects
5.19 The group of fired clay fragments is small and, in retaining little evidence of original function, of little use for informing overall site function or date. The ceramic object, however, provides evidence of Early Saxon craft activity, and should be drawn or photographed, and accompanied by a short report based on the description given here..
Worked Bone 5.20 While the worked bone assemblage is small, it does provide evidence for craft activity (textile manufacture), dating evidence and the use of the SFB. Both items should be drawn or photographed, catalogued and accompanied by a short report based on the description given here..
Ceramic Building Material 5.21 The CBM group is small, and is mostly residual. At least some of this represents collected material of Roman date. Recording is considered sufficient for the purposes of the archive, and no further work is recommended.
Industrial Waste 5.20 The industrial waste group provides limited evidence for site activity, specifically ironworking, and it is recommended that an industrial waste specialist prepares a short report for publication.
5.21 As a dated assemblage within the fill of the SFB, the pottery, spindlewhorl, items of worked bone and copper alloy objects collectively merit a comparative assessment with locally-recorded domestic assemblages of similar date.
Metalwork
5.22 The metalwork group is small and mostly highly fragmented, and its ability to inform site activity and dating is limited. The copper alloy pin (Ra. 7) is of some interest as a dress fastening of probable Early Saxon date, and should be included and
31 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
illustrated in the publication report. The remainder of the metalwork can be summarized, drawing on this report.
Biological record: factual data 5.23 All ecofacts recovered from the excavation have been cleaned, marked, quantified and catalogued by context. A total of 33 bulk samples were taken for the recovery of environmental remains, of which nine were subsequently assessed for wood charcoal and charred plant remains.
Table 3: Quantification of Biological Material
Type Category Count
Animal bone Fragments 704
Samples Environmental 33
Animal bone 5.24 A small sample of animal bone, totalling 704 fragments, was in in good to fair condition (Appendix F, Tables 10-13). Very little bone was recovered from Period 2 and 3 features, with by far the largest sample (563 fragments) of Period 4, Early Saxon date. Sheep/goat was the most common taxon, with cattle and pig also present, and several associated bone groups were recorded. The absence of bones of other taxa is consistent with results from other Saxon sites. Few ageing or metrical data were available from such a small sample. An interesting bone deposit comprised the articulated hindquarters of a young pig, within a basal fill of a Period 3 pit, which appears to have been deliberately placed.
Plant macrofossils and charcoal 5.25 Nine bulk samples were assessed for wood charcoal and charred plant remains, and produced small to moderate quantities of both categories of biological material (Appendix G, Tables 14-15). Of these, the four most productive samples, from Period 2 and 3 ditches and the Period 4 SFB, were selected for analysis (Appendix F). None of the samples were rich in wood charcoal, and the taxon composition in each case indicated little change in sources of wood fuel over the periods concerned. Cereal remains were more numerous in Period 2 and 3 samples. The range of cereal and weed seed taxa present broadly conform to the regional record for the periods concerned.
32 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
Biological record: statements of potential
Animal bone 5.26 Overall, the animal bone sample is too small and fragmented to justify detailed analysis, although the Early Saxon assemblage from the fills of SFB 10158 should be recorded in full, and basic analysis undertaken, to investigate species representation, carcass parts and mortality profiles, to better understand diet, food- ways and the animal economy of this period. The placed deposit of bone at the base of pit 20003 is of interest, and warrants detailed description and appropriate illustration in a publication article.
Charcoal and Charred Plant Remains
5.27 The charcoal and charred plant remains recovered are regionally typical of the periods represented, but are too small in quantity to warrant further analysis. The results of assessment presented in Appendix F are considered sufficient for the purposes of the archive, and no further work is required. An amended version of the Charcoal and Charred Plant Remains assessment reports should be included, together with tabulated data, in a future publication article for this site.
6 SUMMARY STATEMENT OF POTENTIAL
6.1 Recorded archaeological features and finds in Areas 1 and 2 retain little overall potential for further analysis and enquiry. The East End Farm site contained evidence of long-term, but discontinuous activity between the Neolithic and the medieval periods. In Area 1, the truncated evidence of Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age field ditches appear to incorporate a trackway. These features suggested at least two phases of development, including Period 3 ditches, and complement excavated evidence of co-axial field systems elsewhere in the Thames Valley (Framework Archaeology 2006, 103, fig. 3.8; Lambrick and Robinson 2009, 78, fig. 3.13). However, the Period 3 ditches in Area 2 appeared to bear no relation to the elements of field system in Area 1, and thus represent a later scheme of land division. There is therefore some potential for using comparator regional evidence to refine understanding of the chronological development of agricultural landscapes across the site.
33 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
6.2 The profiles of the Period 3 pits in Area 2, of probable Middle-Late Iron Age date, strongly suggest an association with crop storage (Cunliffe 2005, 412, fig. 16.2), although recorded fills provided no evidence of primary use, and otherwise retain limited potential for analysis. The pits are unlikely to be isolated features, although there was no evidence of associated settlement of this date within the site. A comparable small group of broadly contemporary, Middle Iron Age pits was recorded to the west of Reading Road, Cholsey (SU 604 886; Fig. 1) (Wessex Archaeology 2009).
6.3 The single SFB in Area 1 cut Period ditches, and represented the most significant feature on the site. Its fills contained a small assemblage of finds and palaeoenvironmental material, which complements that from other sub-regional examples, and will provide information on domestic occupation, rural economy and food-ways during this period. Although an apparently rare feature within the environs of the site, this SFB may represent a southerly outlier of a significant concentration of Early Saxon settlement around Abingdon and Dorchester, to the north. A short, exposed length of medieval ditch in Area 2 may be associated with more widespread evidence of agricultural landscapes and activity around the margins of Cholsey village.
6.4 The original objectives of excavation have been substantially addressed, and recorded stratigraphy, finds and biological material have been assessed as retaining little potential for further analysis and enquiry. The truncated condition of ditches has not in most cases obscured stratigraphic relationships, but there are no areas of stratigraphic depth or complexity which require further analysis.Therefore, some further aspects of analysis and enquiry are indicated:
• Further analysis and discussion will be required to place the pottery more fully within its chronological distribution and regional context;
• The small assemblage of finds from the fill of SFB 10158 are of some interest as a group and, along with associated pottery and environmental evidence, merit comparative analysis with contemporary groups from the Thames Valley;
• The truncated condition of Period 2 field ditches in Area 1 precludes firm conclusions, although tentative evidence of phased development merits comparison with excavated regional examples, and possibly a comparative analysis of pottery from respective fills. Any assumption that these features may
34 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
comprise part of a larger block of co-axial fields (cf. Yates 2006, 37) is difficult to sustain, in that these features do not appear to extend to Area 2, only 160m to the north-west. Evidence of contemporary field blocks elsewhere in the Thames Valley (see Lambrick and Robinson 2009, 73-80), would suggest a more extensive layout of field boundaries of this date, an anomaly which is compounded by the higher levels of archaeological survival evident in Area 2.
• The fill sequences of the Period 3 pits in Area 2 are largely unexceptional, and appear to represent successive deposits of domestic waste and backfill. However, the placed deposit of animal bone and large stones at the base of pit 20003 is of some interest, and merits detailed assessment of the bone concerned, together with comparative assessment with contemporary regional examples of deliberately-placed deposits incorporating animal remains.
• The small assemblages of recovered biological material, principally charred plant remains and charcoal, are of limited potential, and require no further analysis. However, any associated bone groups (ABGs) from the fills of SFB 10158 have potential to add to knowledge of regional diet and agricultural economy in the Early Saxon period, and therefore warrant full recording and analysis.
7 DISCUSSION
7.1 The East End Farm site may comprise part of a wider agrarian hinterland of the high-status Late Bronze Age centres based on the neighbouring Thames Valley. Of particular relevance here is the riverside site at Whitecross Farm, Moulsford (Cromarty et al. 2006a; Thomas et al. 1986; Fig. 1), located c. 2.3km to the north- east. Environmental evidence from Whitecross Farm indicated the progressive clearance of a partially wooded landscape at this time (Robinson 2006). Excavation on the site of Grim’s Ditch, on the opposite, eastern bank of the Thames, identified evidence of clearance and cultivation of broad Bronze Age date (Comarty et al. 2006b, 163; Fig. 1), whereas elements of ditched field systems were recorded at Bradford’s Brook (Boyle and Cromarty 2006, 2002-3, fig. 6.1; Fig.1), and at Reading Road, Cholsey (MOLA 2016; Wessex Archaeology 2009). At Bradford’s Brook, segments of perpendicularly-aligned ditches, of broad Bronze Age date, conformed to cropmark evidence of a wider field system (RCHME 1993), and suggest comparability and possible contemporaneity with features in Area 1 of this site.
35 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
Scattered evidence of later Bronze Age activity has been recorded to the west of the River Thames, notably at the former Fairmile Hospital site, 1km to the south- east (FA 2010a; Fig.1), at Winterbrook, 2.2km to the north-east (TVAS 2009; 2010), and at the CABI Headquarters site, Wallingford, 2.5km to the north-east (CA 2018). Evidence of field systems at a number of neighbouring sites may relate to the wider system of co-axial field blocks which appear to have covered large areas of the Thames Valley north of the Goring Gap from the Middle Bronze Age onwards (cf. Yates 2007, 37-8; Fowler 1983, 49-52; Ruben and Ford 1992), and thus provide a sub-regional context for the Period 2 features in Area 1.
7.2 The evidence for a Period 2 layout of field boundaries was not repeated in Area 2, only 160m to the north-west, where the form and alignment of Period 3 ditches appeared to indicate an altogether different scheme of land division. This apparent disparity does not reflect differentials in archaeological survival between different parts of the site, and must qualify assumptions that the Area 1 layout necessarily represents part of any larger field block. Regionally, there is widespread evidence that Late Iron Age and Early Roman field boundaries respect Bronze Age co-axial layouts (cf. Booth and Simmonds 2008, 40-41), although many Late Iron Age field and paddocks appear, as here, to display irregular, apparently organic, layouts. Evaluation at Reading Road, Cholsey (SU 5942 8626) (MOLA 2016) produced evidence of a Middle/Late Iron Age field system, broadly contemporary with Period 3 at this site, which did not appear to relate to earlier layouts.
7.3 The base of pit 20003, in Area 2, contained a deposit of animal bone (Fig. 12, section HH; Fig. 13), the majority of which represented the hindquarters of a young pig (Holmes, Appendix F, Table 11). The bones were in good condition, with no signs of butchery or gnawing. The presence of small bones, such as the lateral phalanges from the sieved samples, further suggests that the bones were in articulation when placed in the ground. The nearly complete skeleton of a large adult field vole (Microtus agrestis) was recovered from the same context, and this too may have been deliberately placed at the base of the pit, as this species does not burrow. This bone deposit was covered by carefully-placed, large stones (Fig. 12, section HH; Fig. 13), and clearly conformed to the definition of late prehistoric structured depositional practice observed by Hill (1995, 39-40), inter alia. Such deposits are defined by the presence of exceptional items which are clearly distinct from those deposits of mixed and relatively homogenous character which comprise many secondary and tertiary pit fills. As excavated, the fills of the group of storage
36 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
pits in Area 2 appear to reflect the secondary use of pits originally dug for agricultural storage (Whittle 1984, 136-7). Comparable animal deposits are well- attested in former storage pits of Iron Age date, most notably at Danebury (see Cunliffe 1995, 80-8; 2005, 570). More locally, at Gravelly Guy, Stanton Harcourt, no fewer than 18 distinct categories of ‘special’, or deliberately-placed, human, animal and artefact pit deposits were identified (Lambrick and Allen 2004, 489-90). Such deposits are commonly interpreted as propitiatory offerings, possibly associated with the former storage function of the pits concerned, and embodying preoccupations with agricultural fertility and the perpetuation of the cyclical farming year (Bradley 2005, 169; Lambrick and Robinson 2009, 283-6). Hill (1995, 25) has drawn attention to the distinctions apparent between the disposal of those animal carcasses resulting from butchery processes, and those which were deposited prior to their intended consumption. The meat-bearing hindquarters of young pigs would appear to fall into the latter category (cf Grant 1984a; 1984b), and no doubt represented a particularly significant offering (cf. Davies 2018, 384; Allen and Robinson 1993).
7.4 A single Period 4 feature, comprising an Early Saxon sunken-featured building (SFB) of Grübenhaus type, cut Period 2 ditches in Area 1. The lack of any other evidence for Period 4 activity, at both evaluation and excavation stages, is striking, and may suggest that this is an isolated example. Evidence of SFBs elsewhere in the middle and upper Thames valley, including at Barrow Hills, Radley (Chambers and McAdam 2007), and Barton Farm, Abingdon (Miles et al. 1986), strongly suggest the establishment of coherent settlement groups around the upper Thames valley in the Early Saxon period (Blair 1994, 14-16; Hey 2004, 85). Evidence of Early Saxon activity elsewhere around Cholsey is scattered and inconclusive, and does not suggest extensive settlement within, or immediately surrounding, the village. While Late Saxon/medieval pits were recorded west of Reading Road, Cholsey (Wessex Archaeology 2009; Fig. 1), these cannot relate to the earlier Saxon period principally associated with SFB construction (Higham and Ryan 2013, 91-5). A single SFB was recorded at Wallingford Rowing Club, c. 3km to the north- east, (OAU 1999; Fig. 1), and a number of broadly contemporary pottery scatters represent widespread evidence of Early Saxon settlement along neighbouring stretches of the Thames (Ford and Hazel 1989; Fig. 1). Further single examples of SFBs were recorded at Gravelly Guy, Stanton Harcourt (Lambrick and Allen 2004, 217-9), and at Eynsham (Hardy et al. 2003, 67-9, fig. 14.1). At Yarnton, c.20km to the north-west, four SFBs were recorded, along with possibly contemporary post-
37 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
built structures and pits (Booth et al. 2007, 84-5). Most of these buildings appeared to be short-lived structures, which may have comprised part of a larger area of dispersed settlement (Hey 2004, 41, 116-25, fig. 6.16). The area between the Thames/Ock confluence at Abingdon and the Thames/Thame confluence at Dorchester contains a particularly high concentration of Early Saxon sites, including notable groups of SFBs at The Vineyard (Allen 1990), and Audlett Drive, Abingdon (Keevil 1992). At Barton Court Farm, Abingdon, a group of seven SFBs, associated with pottery of 5th/6th-century date, together with post-built structures, were grouped on the site of a modest Roman villa (Miles 1986, fig. 6.16). A particularly large 5th-7th-century settlement at Barrow Hills, Radley, was grouped around a Bronze Age barrow cemetery and a Late Roman cemetery. Along with some 22 post-built structures, a group of 45 SFBs was recorded (Chambers and McAdam 2007, fig. 3.24; Booth et al. 2007, fig. 3.24). It may be possible to regard the apparently isolated examples of SFBs at both Wallingford and Cholsey as peripheral to this notable concentration of Early Saxon settlement (cf. Hey 2004, 85).
7.5 The small group of three Period 3 storage pits in Area 2 are apparently isolated features, and not components of a larger cluster (cf. Lambrick and Allen 2004, 106- 13; Parrington 1978). It is therefore probable that any evidence of any associated, and possibly unenclosed, settlement is located beyond the confines of the site. The size and profile of the three closely-associated pits is typical of those dug on non- chalk geologies, in that they are somewhat shallower and less undercut than many chalkland examples, including those at Danebury (Whittle, 194, 137-48, figs. 4.92-8; Cunliffe 2005, 411-2; Harding 1972, 39). Regional evidence suggests that, within the Upper and Middle Thames valley, the larger, deeper pits associated with agricultural storage are principally located on the higher gravel terraces, and other well-drained soils (Lambrick and Robinson 2009, 277; Harding ibid.). While pottery in primary and secondary fills suggested a later Middle to Late Iron Age date, such distinctively undercut pits are regionally more characteristic of Early and Middle Iron Age settlement (see Lambrick and Allen 2004, 183-4), and it is possible that a somewhat earlier date of primary use may be indicated here. Storage pits, and indeed pits in general, appear to be a less conspicuous aspect of Iron Age settlement in the Middle Thames Valley, and cast doubt on the extent to which Middle and later Iron Age communities may have been engaged in grain production (Lambrick and Robinson 2009, 277). However, a possibly contemporary group of
38 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
Middle/Late Iron Age pits was recorded c.600m to the south-east, at Reading Road, Cholsey (SU 5942 8626) (MOLA 2016).
The upper fill, 20030, of pit 20027, was recut in the Early Roman period, inferring that the pit remained as a visible feature at this time, despite the accumulation of three fills, although the recut also appeared to partly cut overlying subsoil.
8 STORAGE AND CURATION
8.1 The archive is currently held at CA offices, Andover, while post-excavation work proceeds. Upon completion of the project and with the agreement of the legal landowners, the site archive and artefactual collection will be deposited with Oxfordshire County Museums Service (accession number: OXCMS 2018.55), which has agreed in principle to accept the complete archive upon completion of the project.
9 UPDATED AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
9.1 To fulfil the potential of the site data, the following updated objectives have been set out to provide a framework for the proposed further analysis:
Objective 1: to establish a clearer chronology and regional context for pottery 9.2 Further comparative analysis and discussion will be required to place the pottery, most particularly the Iron Age and Early Saxon fabrics, more fully within their chronological distribution and regional context;
Objective 2: to characterise and establish a chronology for the Bronze Age field boundaries in Area 1
9.3 The Middle-Late Bronze Age field ditches in Area 1 display tentative evidence of phased development, which may correspond with other regional examples. In addition, the apparently localised distribution of these features within Area 1 appears anomalous in view of recorded evidence elsewhere. The recorded Area 1 layout merits comparative analysis with excavated regional examples, together with possible analysis of pottery from respective fills to establish evidence for a broad developmental chronology. The use of published aerial photographic transcriptions (ie, Benson and Miles 1974; RCHM(E)1994) may be of assistance in understanding the extent and location of contemporary field systems in this area.
39 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
Objective 3: establishing regional comparators for the placed deposit in Iron Age pit 20003
9.4 The placed deposit of articulated animal bone, beneath large stones at the base of pit 20003 (fill 20004), is of interest, and merits further analysis of the bone concerned, together with a comparative assessment with contemporary, regional examples. The group of Period 3 pits infers the nearby presence of an associated settlement, and while the limited scope of evaluation and excavation provided no indication of this, a detailed assessment of the archaeological record and aerial photographic archives could assist in placing the pits within a settlement or landscape context. Further assessment of pottery may also enhance understanding of relationships between the pits and adjacent boundary ditches in Area 2.
Objective 4: Enhancing understanding of the character of Period 4 settlement and economy
9.5 The small assemblage of finds from the fill of SFB 10158 are of interest and, along with associated pottery and environmental remains, merit comparative analysis with contemporary groups from the Thames valley. Associated bone groups (ABG) from the fills of SFB 10158 have potential to add to knowledge of regional diet and agricultural economy in the Early Saxon period, and therefore warrant full recording and analysis.
10 PUBLICATION
10.1 The results from the investigations at East End Farm, Cholsey are largely of local significance, and merit brief publication. This site has provided further comparative evidence of later prehistoric landscapes in this part of the Thames valley, together with evidence of Early Saxon settlement activity. It is proposed that a report on the results of the excavation is published in the county journal - Oxoniensia.
Synopsis of Proposed Report
Later prehistoric features and Early Saxon occupation, at East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire by Richard Massey and Sam Wilson with contributions by Sheila Boardman, Matilda Holmes, Katie Marsden, Ioannis Smyrnaios, and Jacky Sommerville
40 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
Words Acknowledgements 150 Abstract 300 Introduction Location, topography and geology 200 Archaeological background 400 Project background 100 Excavation Results Chronological discussion of the major phases and features of the site Excavated features and phases 1500 Pottery (Ioannis Smyrrnaios) 1000 Metal and worked bone (Katie Marsden) 200 Animal Bone (Matilda Holmes) 500 Plant macrofossils and charcoal (Sheila Boardman) 500
Discussion Late prehistoric field systems and land division 400 The Iron Age pits 500 Early Saxon settlement and economy 500 Conclusion 300 Bibliography 800 Appendices
Total words 6350 Approximate pages @ 800 words/page 8
Pages Tables Pottery 2
Animal bone 1 Plant macrofossil and charcoal 2
Illustrations
Site plan with phasing 1 Plan of Area 1 1 Ditch sections: 1 SFB Plan and sections: 1 Plan of Area 2: 1 Area 2 pit sections: 1
Total publication estimate 19 pages
41 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
11 PROJECT TEAM
11.1 The analysis and publication programme will be quality assured Karen Walker MCIfA (Principal Post-Excavation Manager) and managed by Richard Massey MCIfA; (Post-excavation Manager: PXM), who will contribute to the discussion as senior author and co-ordinate the work of the following personnel:
Sam Wilson (Project Supervisor): Post-excavation phasing, draft report preparation, research and archive
Katie Marsden (Finds Officer: FO): Specialist report preparation and liaison.
Ioannis Smyrnaios (Finds Manager: FM) Specialist report preparation and liaison, post-excavation phasing
Aleksandra Osinka ACIfA (Senior Illustrator: ILL): Production of all site plans, sections and artefact drawings (exc. pottery)
11.2 Contributions by the following external consultants will be managed by the Environmental Officer:
• Dr Matilda Holmes (Consultant) – Zooarchaeologist • Sheila Boardman (consultant) – Charcoal and Charred Plant Remains
11.3 The final publication report will be edited and internally refereed by CA senior project management, and externally refereed by referees appointed by the county journal.
Table 4: Task List
TASK PERSONNEL DURATION/ COST Project Management PXM 1 day
Stratigraphic Analysis PO 0.5 day
Research, comparanda PXM 1 day
Lithics report FO 0.25 day
42 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
Pottery Analysis and report FM 3 days Illustration SI 2 days Worked bone Report preparation FO 0.5 day Illustration SI 1 day Charcoal and charred plant remains Analysis and report Specialist fee Animal Bone Recording, analysis and report Specialist fee Metalwork Report FO 0.25 day Illustration SI 0.5 day Preparation of publication report Abstract and introduction PXM 0.5 day Excavation results PO/PXM 1 day Illustrations SI 2 days Compilation of specialist reports, tables etc. PXM 1 day Discussion, conclusions PXM 1 day Acknowledgements, bibliography PXM 0.5 day Submission to external referees Editing PPXM 0.5 day Revisions PXM 0.5 day SUBMISSION OF PUBLICATION TEXT Archive Research archive completion FS 0.5 day Pottery and bone labelling FO 2 days Deposition FEE Publication Printing Oxoniensia FEE
12 TIMETABLE
12.1 For a publication project, CA would normally aim to complete a publication draft within a maximum of six months following approval of the Updated Project Design. A detailed programme can be produced, if desired, on approval of the updated publication project design.
43 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
13 REFERENCES
Abingdon Archaeological Geophysics (AAG) 2016, Land east of Wallingford Road, Cholsey, Oxon., Short Report no. 2016-12R.
Allen, T. 1990 ‘Notes on Abingdon Vineyard’, South Midlands Archaeology 20, 73-8.
Allen, T.G. and Robinson, M. 1993 The Prehistoric Landscape and Iron Age Enclosed Settlement at Mingies Ditch, Oxford, Thames Valley Landscapes Monograph 2.
Archaeological Surveys (AS) 2016 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire – Magnetometry Survey, Unpublished AS Report.
Baker, P. and Worley, F. 2014 Animal Bones and Archaeology: Guidelines for Best Practice, Portsmouth, English Heritage.
Barclay, A., Knight, D., Booth, P., Evans, J., Brown, D.H. and Wood, I. 2016 A Standard for Pottery Studies in Archaeology, Portsmouth, Historic England.
Barclay, A. and Doherty, C. 2006 ‘Late Bronze Age pottery’ in Cromarty et al. (eds.) 2006, 73-102.
Benson & Miles, 1974, The Upper Thames Valley, An Archaeological Survey of the River Gravels, Oxford, Oxford Archaeology Unit Survey No. 2.
Blair, J. 1994 Anglo-Saxon Oxfordshire, Stroud, Sutton.
Blinkhorn, P. 2012 The Ipswich Ware Project: Ceramics, Trade and Society in Middle Saxon England, Medieval Pottery Research Group Occasional Paper 7.
Booth, P. 2006 ‘Late Iron Age and Roman pottery’, in Cromarty et al. (eds.) 2006, 212-4.
Booth, P., Dodd, A., Robinson, M. and Smith, A. 2007 The Thames Through Time. The Archaeology of the Gravel Terraces of the Upper and Middle Thames: The Early Historical Period: AD 1-1000, Oxford Archaeology, Thames Valley Landscapes Monograph 27.
Booth, P. and Simmonds, A. 2008 Appleford’s Earliest Farmers,: Archaeological Work at Appleford Sidings, Oxfordshire, Oxford, Oxford Archaeology Occasional Papers 17.
Boyle, A. and Cromarty, A. 2006 ‘A multi-period settlement at Bradford’s Brook, Cholsey,’ in Cromarty, A. et al. 2006, 201-224.
Bradley, R. 2005 Ritual and Domestic Life in Prehistoric Europe, Abingdon, Routledge.
British Geological Survey (BGS) 2018, Geology of Britain Viewer http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html, Accessed 3 July, 2018.
44 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
Brown, A. and Bradley, P. 2006 ‘Worked Flint’, in Cromarty, A. M. et al. 2006, 58–70.
CA (Cotswold Archaeology) 1995 Treatment of finds immediately after excavation: Technical Manual No. 3
CA (Cotswold Archaeology) 2012 The taking and processing of environmental and other samples from archaeological sites: Technical Manual No. 2
CA (Cotswold Archaeology) 2014 Fieldwork Recording Manual Technical Manual No. 1
CA (Cotswold Archaeology) 2018 Land at CABI Headquarters, Nosworthy Way, Wallingford, Oxfordshire: Archaeological Excavation, Unpublished CA report No. 18327.
Case, H. 1982 ‘The Linear Ditches and Southern Enclosure, North Stoke’, in Case, H.J. and Whittle, A. Settlement Patterns in the Oxford Region: excavations at the Abingdon Causewayed Enclosure and other sites, London, Council for British Archaeology Research Report 44, 60-75.
Chambers, R. A. and McAdam, E. 2007 Excavations at Barrow Hills Radley, Oxfordshire, 1983-5. Vol. 2: The Romano-British Cemetery and Anglo-Saxon Settlement, Oxford, Thames Valley Landscapes Monograph 25.
CIfA (Chartered Institute of Archaeologists) 2014 Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Excavation.
Cleal, R.M. 1995 ‘Pottery fabrics in Wessex in the fourth to second millennia BC’, in Kinnes, I. and Varndell, G. (eds.) 1995, 185-94.
Cromarty, A.M., Barclay, A., Lambrick, G. and Robinson, M. 2006a Late Bronze Age Ritual and Habitation on a Thames Eyot at Whitecross Farm, Wallingford. The Archaeology of the Wallingford Bypass, 1986-92, Oxford Archaeology, Thames Valley Monograph 22
Cromarty, A.M., Barclay, A. and Lambrick, G. 2006b ‘Grim’s Ditch’, in Cromarty et al. 2006a, 157-200.
Cunliffe, B. 1995 Danebury: An Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire. Vol. 6: A Hillfort Community in Perspective, York, Council for British Archaeology Research Report 102.
Cunliffe, B. 2005 Iron Age Communities in Britain, (4th Ed.), Oxford, Routledge.
Davies, A. 2018 Creating Society and Constructing the Past. Social change in the Thames Valley from the Late Bronze Age to the Middle Iron Age, Oxford, BAR Br.Ser. 637.
45 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
De Roche, C.D. and Lambrick, G.H, 1980 ‘The Iron Age pottery’ in Hinchliffe, J. and Thomas, R. 1980, 45-59.
Dodd, A. and Crawford, S. 2014 ‘The Early Medieval Period: Research Agenda’, in Hey, G. and Hind, J. (eds.) 2014, 227-234.
Dungworth, D. and Wilkes, R. 2007 An Investigation of Hammerscale, Portsmouth, English Heritage Research Department Report 26.
Edmonds, M. 1995 Stone Tools and Society. Working Stone in Neolithic and Bronze Age Britain, London, Batsford.
Evison, V. I. 1987 Dover: Buckland Anglo-Saxon Cemetery, English Heritage Archaeological Report 3.
Finberg, H.P.R. 1964 The Early Charters of Wessex, Leicester, Leicester University Press.
Ford, S. and Hazell, A. 1989 ‘Prehistoric, Roman and Anglo-Saxon Settlement Patterns at North Stoke, Oxfordshire’, Oxoniensia 55, 7-23.
Foundations Archaeology (FA) 2010, Fair Mile Hospital, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Archaeological Evaluation, Unpublished FA Report No. 710.
Foundations Archaeology (FA) 2011, Fair Mile Hospital, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Archaeological Watching Brief, Unpublished FA Report No. 732.
Foundations Archaeology (FA) 2012 Land to the North of 12, Celsea Place, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Archaeological Assessment, Unpublished FA report No. 801.
Foundations Archaeology (FA) 2016, East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Archaeological Evaluation, Unpublished FA Report No. 1157.
Fowler, P.J. 1983 The Farming of Prehistoric Britain, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Framework Archaeology 2006 Landscape Evolution in the Middle Thames Valley. Heathrow Terminal 5 Excavations. Volume 1: Perry Oaks, Oxford/Salisbury, Framework Archaeology Monograph 1.
Gale, R. and Cutler, D. 2000 Plants in Archaeology: Identification manual of vegetative plant materials used in Europe and the southern Mediterranean to c.1500, Westbury and Kew.
Gibson, A. and Woods, A. 1997 Prehistoric Pottery for the Archaeologist, (2nd Ed.), Leicester, Leicester University Press.
46 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
Goodall, I. H. 2011 Ironwork in Medieval Britain: An Archaeological Study, London, Soc. Med. Arch Monog. 31.
Grant, A. 1984a ‘Animal Husbandry’, in Cunliffe, B. (ed) Danebury: An Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire, vol. 2, London, Council for British Archaeology Research Report 52, 496- 547.
Grant, A. 1984b ‘Survival or Sacrifice ? A critical appraisal of animal burials in Britain in the Iron Age’, in Grigson, C. and Clutton-Brock, J. (eds) Animals and Archaeology, Oxford, BAR Int. Ser. 227, 221-7.
Greig, J. 1991 ‘The British Isles’ in van Zeist, W., Wasylikowa, K. and Behre, K-E. (eds.) 1991, 229-334.
Harding, D.W. 1972 The Iron Age in the Upper Thames Basin, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Hardy, A., Dodd, A. and Keevil, G., 2003 Excavations at Eynsham Abbey, 1989-1992, Oxford, Thames Valley Landscapes Monograph 16.
Haslam, J. 1984 Medieval Pottery in Britain, (2nd Ed.), Aylesbury, Shire.
Hather, J. G. 2000 The Identification of Northern European Woods: A Guide for Archaeologists and Conservators, London, Archetype Publications.
Hawkes, C.F.C. and Hull, M.R. 1947 Camulodunum: First Report on the Excavations at Colchester, 1930-1939, Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquarians of London 14, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Hey, G. 2004 Yarnton: Saxon and Medieval Settlement and Landscape. Results of Excavations, 1990-96, Oxford, Thames Valley Landscapes Monograph 20.
Hey, G. and Hind, J. (eds) 2014 Solent-Thames Research Framework for the Historic Environment: Resource Assessments and Research Agendas, Oxford, Oxford Wessex Monograph 6.
Higham, N. and Ryan, M. J. 2013 The Anglo-Saxon World, New Haven/London, Yale University Press.
Hill, J. D. 1995 Ritual and Rubbish in the Iron Age of Wessex. A study on the formation of a specific archaeological record, Oxford, BAR Br. Ser. 242.
Hinchliffe, J. 1975 ‘Excavations at Grim’s Ditch, Mongewell, 1974’, Oxoniensia 40, 9-111.
47 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
Hinchliffe, J. and Thomas, R. 1980 ‘Archaeological investigations at Appleford’, Oxoniensia 45, 9-111.
Historic England 2015a The Management of Research Projects in the Historic Environment: The MORPHE Project Manager’s Guide.
Historic England 2015b Management of Research Projects in the Historic Environment. PPN 3: Archaeological Excavation.
Holgate, R. 1988 Neolithic Settlement in the Thames Basin, Oxford, British Archaeological Reports Br. Ser. 194.
John Moore Heritage Services (JMHS) 2012, An Archaeological Watching Brief at 34A Honey Lane, Cholsey, Oxfordshire, Unpublished JMHS Report.
John Moore Heritage Services (JMHS) 2015, Archaeological Evaluation at Land West of Reading Road, Cholsey, Oxfordshire, Unpublished JMHS report No. 2450.
Keevil, G. 1992 ‘An Anglo-Saxon site at Audlett Drive, Abingdon, Oxfordshire’, Oxoniensia 57, 55-79.
Kinnes, I. and Varndell, G. (eds.) 1995 ‘Unbaked Urns of Rudely Shape’. Essays on British and Irish Pottery for Ian Longworth, Oxford, Oxbow Monograph 55.
Lambrick, G. 2014 ‘The Later Bronze Age and Iron Age Research Agenda’, in Hey, G. and Hind, J. (eds.) 2014, 149-154.
Lambrick, G. and Allen, T. 2004 Gravelly Guy, Stanton Harcourt, Oxfordshire: the Development of a Prehistoric and Romano-British Community, Oxford, Thames Valley Landscapes Monograph 21.
Lambrick, G. and Robinson, M. 2009 The Thames Through Time. The Archaeology of the Gravel Terraces of the Upper and Middle Thames: The Thames Valley in Late Prehistory: 1500 BC –AD 50, Oxford, Thames Valley Landscapes Monograph 29.
Leeds, E.T 1936 ‘Round barrows and Ring Ditches in Berkshire and Oxfordshire’, Oxoniensia 1, 7-23.
Lyne, M. 2015 Late Roman Handmade Grog-tempered Ware Producing Industries in South- East Britain, Oxford, Archaeopress Archaeology.
Manning, W.H. 1982 Catalogue of the Romano-British Iron Tools, Fittings and Weapons in the British Museum, London, British Museum Publications Ltd.
Margary, I. D. 1973 Roman Roads in Britain (3rd Ed.), London, John Baker.
48 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
McCarthy, M.R. and Brooks, C.M. 1988 Medieval Pottery in Britain, AD 900-1600, Leicester, Leicester University Press.
Medieval Pottery Research Group 2001 Minimum Standards for the Processing, Recording, Analysis and Publication of Post-Roman Ceramics, Medieval Pottery Research Group Occasional Paper 2
Mellor, M. 1994 ‘A Synthesis of Middle and Late Saxon, medieval and early post-medieval pottery in the Oxford region’ Oxoniensia 57, 17-217.
Miles, D. 1986 Archaeology at Barton Court Farm, Abingdon, Oxon: an investigation into the Late Neolithic, Iron Age, Romano-British and Saxon settlements, Oxford/London, Oxford Archaeology Unit Report 3, Council for British Archaeology Research Report 50.
Museum of London Archaeology (MOLA) 2016, Archaeological evaluation at Reading Road, Cholsey, Oxfordshire, Unpublished MOLA Report no. 16/127.
Oxford Archaeology Unit (OAU) 1999 Wallingford Rowing Club, Mongewell, Oxfordshire: Archaeological Evaluation Report, Unpublished OAU Report.
Parrington, M. 1978 The Excavation of an Iron Age Settlement, Bronze Age Ring-Ditches, and Roman Features at Ashville Trading Estate, Abingdon (Oxfordshire), 1974-76, Oxford Archaeology Unit Report 1, CBA Research Report 28, London.
Peake, H. 1931, The Archaeology of Berkshire, London, Methuen.
Pitts, M. W. 1978 ‘Towards an understanding of Flint Industries in Post-Glacial England’, Univ. London Inst. Archaeol. Bull. 15, 179–97.
Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group 2010 The study of Prehistoric Pottery: General Policies and Guidelines for Analysis and Publication, Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group Occasional Papers 1 & 2, (3rd Ed)
Royal Commission on Historic Monuments (England) (RCHME) 1993 Thames Gravels Survey, (Map).
Robinson, M. 2006 ‘Macroscopic Plant and Invertebrate Remains’, in Cromarty, A. et al. 2006, 110-141.
Ruben, I. and Ford, S. 1992 ‘Archaeological Excavations at Wallingford Road, Didcot, South Oxfordshire, 1991’, Oxoniensia 57, 1-28.
Schweingruber, F. H. 1990 Microscopic wood anatomy, (3rd Ed), Birmensdorf, Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research.
Stace, C. 2010 New Flora of the British Isles, (3rd Ed), Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
49 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
Swanton, M. 1996 The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, New York, Routledge.
RCHM(E) 1994 The Thames Valley Project. A Report for the National Mapping Programme, Swindon.
Thames Valley Archaeological Services (TVAS) 2010, 25 Station Road, Cholsey, Oxfordshire. an Archaeological Evaluation, Unpublished TVAS Report No. 10/119.
Thames Valley Archaeological Services (TVAS), 2009, Land at Winterbrook, Wallingford, Oxfordshire: Archaeological Evaluation, Unpublished TVAS report.
Thames Valley Archaeological Services (TVAS) 2010. Land at Winterbrook Lane, Wallingford, Oxfordshire: Archaeological Evaluation, Unpublished TVAS report.
Thames Valley Archaeological Services (TVAS) 2012a Land to the rear of 27 Station Road, Cholsey, Oxfordshire, an Archaeological Watching Brief, Unpublished TVAS Report No. 11/102.
Thames Valley Archaeological Services (TVAS) 2012b Land between 14-16 Amwell Place, Cholsey, Oxfordshire, an Archaeological Watching Brief, Unpublished TVAS Report No. 12/15.
Thomas, R. 1984 ‘Bronze Age Metalwork from the Thames at Wallingford’, Oxoniensia 49, 9-18.
Thomas, R., Robinson, M., Barrett, J. and Wilson, R. 1986 ‘A Late Bronze Age riverside settlement at Wallingford, Oxfordshire, Archaeol. Journ. 143, 174-200.
Thompson, I. 1982 Grog-tempered 'Belgic' Pottery of South-eastern England, Oxford, British Archaeological Reports, Br. Ser. 108.
Tomber, R. and Dore, J. 1998 The National Roman Fabric Reference Collection: a Handbook, Museum of London Archaeology Service Monograph 2, London, MoLAS.
van Zeist, W., Wasylikowa, K. and Behre, K-E (eds.) 1991 Progress in old World Palaeoethnobotany. Rotterdam, Balkema.
Wessex Archaeology 2009 Land West of Reading Road, Winterbrook, Wallingford: Archaeological Evaluation Report, Unpublished WA report.
West, S. 1985 West Stow: The Anglo-Saxon Village: Volumes I and II, East Anglian Archaeology 24.
West, S.. 1963 ‘Excavations at Cox Lane (1958) and at the Town Defences, Shire Hall Lane, Ipswich, 1959’, Proc. Suffolk Instit. Archaeol. 29(3), 233-303.
50 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
Whittingham, L. 2006a ‘Post-Roman pottery’, in Cromarty et al. (eds.) 2006, 102.
Whittingham, L. 2016b ‘Medieval pottery’, in Cromarty et al. (eds.) 2006, 190-2.
Whittle, A. 1984 ‘The pits’, in Cunliffe, B. (ed.) Danebury, an Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire, London, Council for British Archaeology Research Report 52, 128-45.
Yates, D. T. 2007 Land, Power and Prestige: Bronze Age Field Systems in Southern England, Oxford, Oxbow Books.
Zohary, D., Hopf, M. and Weiss, E. 2012 Domestication of plants in the Old World: the origin and spread of cultivated plants in West Asia, Europe, and the Nile Valley, 4th edition, Oxford, Clarendon Press.
51 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
APPENDIX A: STRATIGRAPHIC ASSESSEMENT
A total of 243 archaeological contexts were recorded during both evaluations and excavation, as detailed below: • 2016 Evaluation: 50 contexts; • 2018 Evaluation: 6 contexts; • 2018 Excavation: 187 contexts.
A total of 38 individual negative features were recorded in Areas 1 and 2 of the excavation. While the survival and intelligibility of site stratigraphy was relatively good, truncation had resulted in the differential survival of archaeological features, depending on their relationship to slope and depths of covering subsoil. No horizontal stratigraphy, spreads or surfaces had survived. Areas 1 and 2 were chronologically discrete, with Period 2 and 4 features confined to Area 1, and Period 3 features largely, but not wholly, represented in Area 2. Stratigraphic relationships were limited, but most evident between Period 2 ditches in Area 1, where at least two developmental phases may be apparent. However, the character of Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age pottery permitted only a loose dating for these features which are likely in any case to represent long-term patterns of use and adaptation. Most features have been assigned to a period on the basis of context dates and/or spatial associations, or stratigraphic relationships.
A single Early Saxon sunken-featured building (SFB 10158) clearly cut a Period 2 field boundary, and was the only evidence of Period 4 activity. Despite the effects of truncation, fills survived to some depth. Area 2 contained a group of three storage pits, of distinctly Middle Iron Age character, although there was no evidence to indicate whether these comprised part of a larger pit cluster, or were associated with a contemporary settlement. A recut within the upper fill of one of these pits contained evidence of Early Roman activity. A single medieval gully partly extended into Area 2, and represented the only confirmed Period 5 feature, although intrusive medieval material was recorded from some Period 2/3 ditch fills. The five additional evaluation trenches contained surprisingly few archaeological features which, where present, were of probable post-medieval date.
1 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
APPENDIX B: LITHICS
Worked Flint by Jacky Sommerville
Introduction and methodology A total of 87 worked lithics (187g), and 27 pieces (279g) of burnt, unworked flint, was recovered from 21 separate deposits. Bulk soil sampling produced 58 worked lithics (including all of the chips), and nine pieces of burnt flint; the remainder was hand-excavated.
Raw material, provenance and condition All the lithic items were made using flint. This is mostly grey in colour, and of moderate quality, but included some (c. 20%) which is dark-brown and particularly fine-grained. Cortex is present on 16 items; it is chalky on ten (62%) and abraded on six (38%), indicating a mixture of chalk and river gravel sources. The site is located within the North Wessex Downs, and the River Thames is located c. 2km to the east, so flint from both sources would have been readily available. Limited evidence for the re-working of items knapped in an earlier period is also present as seven pieces (10%), with working partially removing previously recorticated (and worked) surfaces. This raw material procurement policy is most typical of the Bronze Age period (Edmonds 1995, 175–6). Thirty-eight worked flints, and 13 burnt flints (51% by count), were retrieved from deposits assigned to Period 2 (Bronze Age to Early Iron Age). Most of the remainder (46%) were residual, in features belonging to Periods 3 (Middle/Late Iron Age to Early Roman) and 4 (Early Saxon). Two items came from an unphased tree hollow. Eleven flints are broken. Those in the least-damaged condition are from Period 2 features, so are most likely to be stratified or minimally disturbed.
Range and variety Primary technology The debitage mostly comprises flakes and chips (Table 5), in addition to two bladelets and one piece of shatter. Bladelets are defined as blades measuring less than 12mm in width. They typically represent Mesolithic debitage, and these residual examples are from Period 3 ditch 20009 and Period 4 sunken-featured building 10158. Only 11 intact flakes were recovered, including six from Area 1 and five from Area 2. Average measurements are 26 x 25 x 9mm from Area 1, and 26 x 27 x 8mm from Area 2. These dimensions demonstrate that flake lengths and widths are almost the same. Such proportions are most typical of Late Neolithic and Bronze Age debitage (Pitts 1978, 186–7).
2 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
The three cores comprise a dual-platform type, a multi-platform type and a tested nodule. All had been used for the production of flakes. The platforms on the dual-platform core were at right-angles to one another, and only one flake had been removed from the tested nodule.
Secondary technology Only two retouched tools were retrieved: a notched flake from Period 3 pit 20027, and a notched/retouched flake, from Period 3 pit 20003. These are not chronologically diagnostic.
Lithics from Ditch 10011 Four fills of Ditch 10011 produced 14 flints (Table 5). Those from fill 10056 were associated with Bronze Age pottery (Appendix C). Like much of the assemblage, the flints from this ditch are not closely dateable types, although they do not feature any attributes which would be inconsistent with Bronze Age dating, and all but two are in an unrolled, or minimally rolled, condition
Table 5: Breakdown of lithics assemblage Type Count Area 1 Area 2 Ditch 10111 (Burnt flint 24 3 4) Primary technology Bladelet 1 1 Chip 25 11 3 Core 1 2 1 Flake 20 9 10 Shatter 1 Secondary technology Notched flake 1 Notched/retouched flake 1 Total 48 25 14
APPENDIX C: POTTERY
The Pottery by Ioannis Smyrnaios
Introduction
3 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
The site produced 482 fragments of pottery, weighing 6,310g in total. The assemblage derived from forty-five contexts, including five bulk samples. Most of the assemblage consists of medium-sized fragments in fair to good condition, although the material from the contexts which produced the richest assemblages is highly fragmented. Over 52% of the pottery by sherd count consists of fragments with mean weights of over 10g per sherd per context, and represents a substantial mass to be examined in full detail. Large sherds were derived from all chronological periods encountered in this report. Roughly 32% of the pottery by sherd-count consists of fragments with mean weights of between 5g and 10g per sherd per context, and are again associated with all chronological periods. The remaining 16% of the assemblage by sherd-count consists of small sherds, with mean weights below 5g per contexts. These are considered to be primarily of later prehistoric and Early Saxon date, although such assumed dates should be treated with caution. In general, the close resemblance of many Late Iron Age and Early Saxon fabrics tempered with organic inclusions is likely to produce confusion in the identification of some sherds.
Methodology The assemblage was recorded directly on an Access database, following the guidelines set by Historic England for prehistoric, Roman and medieval pottery (Barclay et al. 2016). The recording of prehistoric fabrics and sherd types followed the abbreviations set by the Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group (2010); for consistency, the same recording of sherd types was followed for all other chronological groups. Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age vessel forms were identified according to the groups discussed by Barrett (1980) and Davies (2018). The identification of Late Iron Age ‘Aylesford-Swarling’-type pottery (ie. ‘Belgic’ forms) was based on Thompson (1982), while Late Iron Age and Roman transitional forms were correlated with the Camulodunum series, where possible (Hawkes and Hull 1947). Roman fabrics, when available, were assigned fabric codes according to the Roman National Fabric Reference Collection (Tomber and Dore 1998). The recording of post- Roman pottery followed the standards set by the Medieval Pottery Research Group (2001) and the identification of medieval forms, where available, followed McCarty and Brooks (1988) and Haslam (1984).
The pottery catalogue, which forms the archive, includes the following: context information with feature types and descriptions; broader chronological periods; fabric groups; generic and specific vessel forms; manufacture methods (handmade, wheelmade, wheel-finished); decoration and surface modifications; sherd types; sherd counts; sherd weights in grams, mean weights per sherd, per context; mean sherd thicknesses; estimated numbers of
54 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
vessels (ENVs); estimated vessel equivalents (EVEs); rim diameters in mm, when available; condition of shreds, cross-fitting; suggested illustrations, if applicable; general comments; suggested fabric dates; suggested pottery dates when identification was possible; and finally, residues information (soot, burnt food residues, lime or other), when available. Due to the limited number of rim sherds, the recording included minimum numbers of vessels (MNVs), based on distinct fabrics per context.
Quantification and chronology Table 6 presents the quantification of the assemblage by chronological periods. The assemblage dates between the broader Bronze Age and the medieval periods, and suggests relatively long-term, but probably not continuous, activity within the site, spanning approximately three millennia. The largest proportion of the assemblage, and more specifically 64.3% by sherd count or 52% by weight, dates to the later prehistoric period. As it will be explained further below, this material dates either to the LBA-EIA, or to the Late Iron Age and the early Roman transition. Table 6 also shows that the highest number of estimated vessels (ENV=69) and estimated vessel equivalents (EVE=2.58) associated with the same chronological group.
Fabrics Table 7 presents the distribution of ceramic fabrics by chronological period. The assemblage consists of twenty-three fabrics, eleven of which date to the later prehistoric period. As will be explained below, some of the fabrics noted on Table 7 display close affiliations with fabrics that date to other chronological periods. For example, some possibly early Saxon micaceous and organic-tempered fabrics (ESOM?) could be coarser variants of later prehistoric sandy vesicular fabrics (QVM). Furthermore, some rare prehistoric fabrics, such as FCM and FMV, could date to the LBA-EIA (Period 2), but could also be Early Saxon (Period 4). Possibly early medieval chalk-tempered fabrics, such as EMWC, could also date to the Late Saxon period, and two unknown fabrics noted in the report, UN1 and UN2, could be either medieval or Middle to Late Saxon in date. Finally, 19.1% of the assemblage by sherd count is formed by two fine sandy fabrics with rare organic tempers, which can often be micaceous (Q and QVM). Both fabrics date to the Late Iron Age, but also extend into the earlier Roman period (Period 3). The chronological borderline between later prehistoric and Early Roman pottery is generally unclear. In this report, the latest date for later prehistoric pottery is set at the Late Iron Age period, and relates to handmade forms, in sandy fabrics bearing similarities with typical Middle Iron Age or earlier traditions (e.g. sand tempering). By contrast, fabrics that are noted as Roman in this report are those exclusively mentioned in the National Roman Fabric Reference Collection.
55 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
Earlier prehistoric Fabric range The earliest fabrics in the assemblage, BF and F2G, date to the broader Bronze Age period, and comprise 5.6% of the pottery by sherd count, or 10.6% by weight. Such fabrics are noted in sherds with no distinct features, the identification and precise dating of which is unclear. Fabric BF, which is tempered with large-sized, coarse and angular burnt flint, could date from any time between the Middle and Late Bronze Age, but could also be earlier. Such sherds tend to be considerably heavier, compared to fragments from later periods. By contrast, F2G is a fabric of unclear date, which resembles the later prehistoric fabric F2, and is additionally tempered with fine argillaceous inclusions; these are recorded as ‘grog’, although they may also be fragments of argillaceous limestone. Such tempers are usually characteristic of Late Neolithic/-Early Bronze Age urn production, or other Bronze Age ceramic traditions (Cleal 1995); however, the typical use of argillaceous/grog tempers is normally noted during the Late Iron Age and Roman transition (Thompson 1982; Gibson and Woods 1997), and also during the late Roman period for the production of handmade wares (Lyne 2015). The Bronze Age date of F2G in the present assemblage should therefore be treated with caution.
Ceramic forms, decoration and stylistic affiliations Earlier prehistoric fragments derive from a minimum of six vessels, recovered from three separate contexts. Most sherds preserve no identifiable features; however, ditch/linear fill 10058 produced two joining base-fragments made from fabric BF. Although the shape of the pot could not be determined, the diameter of the vessel base (220mm) suggests a large form, most probably a large jar or urn.
Later prehistoric Fabric range Later prehistoric pottery accounts 64.3% of the assemblage by sherd count, or 52% by weight. The pottery consists of eleven fabrics, which can be subdivided into two chronological groups. The first group, formed by fabrics F1, FQ, FCV and FMV, is associated with the Late Bronze Age/-Early Iron Age period (Period 2); however, the latter two fabrics, which are fairly vesicular, could also be of Saxon date. They were both recovered from ditch/linear fill 10089, and their date was decided based on their association with distinctive, bucket-shaped jars of the ultimate Deverel-Rimbury tradition and other biconical post-Deverel-Rimbury forms recovered from the same context, which were all produced in the typical LBA-EIA fabric F1. The second group dates between the Middle and
56 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
Late Iron Age. It consists of fabrics F3, F2, QC, QF, G, QVM and Q. Although fabric F3 is noted on a MIA-LIA straight-sided jar, from ditch/linear fill 10104, all other fabrics date firmly to the Late Iron Age. Furthermore, fabrics Q and QVM, which are the finest sand-tempered fabrics in this assemblage, are noted in both handmade and wheel-finished ceramic forms, often matching vessels of the Camulodunum sequence (Hawkes and Hull 1947); therefore, both fabrics span a period between the Late Iron Age and the Early Roman period (Period 3). F2 is probably the most diverse later prehistoric fabric in the assemblage. It is fairly coarsely flint-tempered, and can only be compared to the earlier prehistoric fabric F1. It is likely to represent Period 2, LBA-EIA fabrication; however, it is noted in a variety of forms, such as handmade jars and bowls of ‘Belgic’ inspiration (Thompson 1982), and early Romanising wheel-finished vessels of the Camulodunum series (Hawkes and Hull 1947). In general, the use of coarse, flint-tempered fabrics for the production of later prehistoric forms is common within this part of Oxfordshire (see Barclay and Doherty 2006, 75-77).
Ceramic forms, decoration and stylistic affiliations Later prehistoric sherds derived from a minimum of 69 vessels (2.58 EVE), recovered from 35 contexts. Ditch/linear fill 10089 produced a rim fragment in fabric F1, from an undecorated bucket-shaped vessel of the Deverel-Rimbury tradition (Barrett 1980, 298), most likely dating to the 12th-11th century BC (Davies 2018, 277, fig.A1.1, no.4). Such bucket-shaped vessels were the predecessors of biconical forms, dating to the 9th-6th century BC (Davies 2018, fig.A.1.1, nos.20, 22, 40, 41, 50). A typical post-Deverel-Rimbury rim, made from fabric F1 and decorated with thin cuts or nail-marks along its lip, was recovered from ditch/linear fill 10144 (Barrett 1980, 305, fig.6, no.1). Ditch/linear fill 10089 also produced a shoulder fragment from another possible biconical form of the post-Deverel- Rimbury tradition, made from fabric F1, and a decorated vessel-wall fragment with fingertip marks made in the same fabric, which could either be associated with the Deverel-Rimbury tradition, or with later post-Deverel-Rimbury styles (e.g. Bradley et al. 1980, fig.43, De Roche and Lambrick 1980, fig.21).
Despite the presence of Late Bronze Age and earlier Iron Age forms, the majority of the identified pottery consists of Late Iron Age and Early Roman types. Deposit 1050 produced a rim fragment from a handmade vessel with almost beaded rim, which is made from fabric Q, and dates to the Late Iron Age. Ditch fill 10130 produced a rim fragment from a straight- sided bowl with rounded rim, made from fabric Q, which is again of Late Iron Age date. Other identified forms include wheel-finished vessels of Thompson’s (1982) forms D2-1, B1 and B5, made from fabrics Q, G and QVM. Such vessels were recovered from pit fills 2006 and 20032, dumped secondary fill 20011, and ditch/linear fill 20019. Two bowl-rims of possible
57 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology sub-‘Belgic’ forms, with smoothed surfaces (Hawkes and Hull 1947, pl.L) made from fabrics F2 and Q, were recovered respectively from ditch/linear fills 10130 and 10157. A wheel- finished Cam.220 type bowl, made from fabric QVM, was recovered from pit fill 2006. Finally, three jars identified as Cam.221, 219 and 105 types, made from fabrics Q, G and F2 respectively, were recovered from the dump of domestic waste in secondary fill 20011 (Ditch 20009), and ditch fill 20022. The later prehistoric assemblage also includes a variety of corrugated sherds, probably associated with Gallo-Belgic ceramic traditions of the Late Iron Age.
Roman Fabric range Roman, and possibly Roman, pottery is limited to three fabrics, represented by three sherds from three different contexts. This pottery forms only 0.6% of the total assemblage by sherd count or 0.2% by weight. Deposit layer 1050 produced a small handmade fragment of possible Black-Burnished 1 ware (BB1), which is likely to date to the 1st century AD. Unfortunately, the sherd is small, and its fabric could also match a variety of prehistoric, or even Period 4, Saxon sandy wares. Structural feature 10157 produced a ring-base fragment from an Oxford red-slipped ware vessel (OX RS), dating to the 4th century AD. Finally, pit fill 20013 produced a fragment of Roman wheel-made colour-coated ware (CC), the date and provenance of which could not be established. With exception of the Oxford red-slipped ware, which is characterised by a distinct light-grey core and an orange-red slip coating, no other Roman sherds permit positive identification.
Saxon Fabric range Saxon, and possibly Saxon, pottery accounts 8.5% of the total assemblage by sherd count, or 9% by weight. The site produced three distinct Saxon fabrics, which derived from nine contexts, mostly associated with structural features. All fabrics are of Early Saxon date, and the most common is heavily tempered with organic and micaceous inclusions (ESOM). In its finer version, this fabric resembles the late prehistoric fabric QVM and in two occasions, sherds from structural fills 10085 and 10156 could have been either Early Saxon or Late Iron Age in date. A single sherd was noted in an Early Saxon chalk-tempered variant (ESCO), recovered from fill 10084, of SFB 10158. Finally, distinct Early Saxon sandy fabrics with Quartzite (ESQZ) were recovered from three features: structural fills 10064 and 10157, and ditch/linear fill 10074.
58 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
Ceramic forms, decoration and stylistic affiliations The Saxon material from the site is limited, and is present as small to medium-sized body sherds which offer little information. The only identifiable fragment is a small, pointy rim, recovered from structural fill 10064. The vessel is a partly-burnished jar, measuring 140mm in rim diameter (0.08 EVE), and its exact form cannot be determined. Early Anglo-Saxon activity has been previously been recorded at the cemetery at Wally Corner, Berinsfield, Oxon (Booth et al. 2007, 164-71), and the excavation at Whitecross Farm, Wallingford, produced sparse Early Saxon pottery (Whittingham 2006a, 102).
Medieval Fabric range Medieval, and possibly medieval, fabrics account for 21% of the total assemblage by sherd count, or 28.2% by weight. The material derived from eight contexts, which were associated with a variety of features, such as structural cuts, ditch or linear cuts, a tree-throw hollow and two pits. In general, the largest quantity of medieval pottery derived from ditch/linear fill 20008, and in particular from a single and highly-fragmented vessel. The principal fabric encountered in the assemblage is typical of sandy early medieval wares (EMW), dating to the 11th-12th century AD. Two sherds, recovered from pit fills 20004 and 20013 respectively, have been made from a chalk-tempered coarseware fabric that could either be early medieval (EMWC?), or Late Saxon in date. The assignment of an early medieval date for such sherds was based on their associations with MCW sandy fabrics. Finally, two unknown fabrics, UN1 and UN2, were recorded as possibly of early medieval date, although they could also date between the Middle and Late Saxon period. UN1 is a fine sandy fabric with crushed sandstone and larger chalk particles, which dislays some affiliations with the early medieval fabric EMWC. UN2 is a vesicular sandy fabric, tempered with large quartzite pebbles; although oxidised, it shows a small resemblance to the typical Middle Saxon sandy fabric associated with the production of Ipswich Wares (West 1963; Blinkhorn 2012).
Ceramic forms, decoration and stylistic affiliations Most of the medieval pottery from the site derived from ditch fill 2008, and was associated with a typical, early medieval wheel-finished cooking pot, decorated with scoring on the upper body, and vertical stabs in rows, on the lower body. Its rim, which is 240mm in diameter (0.55 EVE), is decorated with incised cuts or denticulations, running along the top of its flat lip. This decorative pattern is common in Oxfordshire Late Saxon/early medieval spouted pitchers, dating to the 10th-11th century AD (e.g. McCarthy and Brooks 1988, 173, fig.91, no. 294). Furthermore, the decorative incisions and stabs on this specific shape match the patterns noted in the Abington and Banbury Wares from Oxfordshire (Mellor 1994,
59 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
75, fig.25, 81, fig.28, 82, fig.29), which date between the years 1080 and 1250. The same fill produced a small rim fragment with rounded tip, coming from a typical shallow bowl, which is probably wheel-made. As with the previous vessel, this shape is a typical Late Saxon-early medieval Banbury bowl (Mellor 1994, 82, fig.29, no.3), which was also popular in Northamptonshire (e.g. McCarthy and Brooks 1988, 175, fig.92, no.308) during the same period. The vessel’s fabric and manufacture technique suggest an early medieval date, perhaps closer to the 12th century AD. Medieval activity within the surrounding area appears widespread. The Grim’s Ditch excavation at Wallingford, for example, produced large quantities of pottery dating between the mid-11th and 14th centuries (Whittingham 2006b, 191-2).
Distribution of the assemblage Table 8 presents the distribution of the assemblage by feature. According to the table, 66.2% of the pottery by sherd count, or 68.7% by weight, derived from ditches/linear features. This proportion comprises over two-thirds of the total assemblage. Furthermore, over a quarter of the total weight of the assemblage is derived from a single feature, ditch/linear 20007.
Statement of significance and potential for further analysis The only identifiable fragment in the present assemblage is a small, pointy rim, recovered from structural fill 10064. The vessel is from a partly-burnished jar of 140mm in rim diameter (0.08 EVE), and its exact form could not be determined.
Late prehistoric pottery The late prehistoric pottery is the only material which retains significant potential for future publication and further analysis of the site, particularly in relation to its spatial and chronological distribution. Such pottery is primarily divided in two groups: the Period 2, LBA- EIA material, and that of the Period 3, Late Iron Age and Roman-transitional phases. A major publication on the pottery from the Wallingford Bypass project (Cromarty et al. 2006) has discussed a substantial assemblage of Late Bronze Age material; however, further study of the continuity of such pottery in the Early Iron Age period, and the circulation of the Ivinghoe-Sandy style in the vicinity could be supplemented by the material from the present excavation. Finally, the Late Iron Age and Roman transitional pottery, which has been briefly discussed in relation to the Wallingford Bypass project (Booth 2006, 212-4), could be further analysed and discussed in relation to additional material from the current site. To assist in this discussion, twelve late prehistoric vessels were selected for illustration.
60 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
Pottery Tables Table 6: Quantification of pottery by chronological groups
Count Weight Weight Period Count % (g) % ENV EVE EP 26 5.4 661 10.5 6 LP 311 64.5 3289 52.1 69 2.58 Rom 2 0.4 11 0.2 2.0 Rom? 1 0.2 1 0.0 1.0 Sax 39 8.1 541 8.6 14.0 0.1 Sax? 2 0.4 30 0.5 2.0 Med 96 19.9 1731 27.4 4 0.64 Med? 5 1.0 46 0.7 4
Total 482 100.0 6310 100.0 102 3.3
Table 7: Fabric distribution by chronological groups
Fabric Count Weight Fabric Fabric description by period date Count % (g) Weight % Early Prehistoric (subtotal) 27 5.6 670 10.6
Abundant coarse and large-sized angular flint in BA or BF a dense silty matrix earlier 14 2.9 455 7.2
Common to moderate medium and small-sized flint in a dense sandy matrix with moderate to F2G sparse fine 'grog' BA? 13 2.7 215 3.4 Late Prehistoric (subtotal) 310 64.3 3280 52.0
Common large and medium-sized angular flint in F1 a medium sandy matrix LBA-EIA 37 7.7 851 13.5
Moderate fine angular flint, sparse medium-sized quartz and argillaceous inclusions in a fine silty FQ matrix LBA-EIA 6 1.2 126 2.0
Moderate flint and chalk of various sizes in a FCV dense and fine vesicular silty matrix LBA-EIA? 4 0.8 120 1.9
Moderate coarse to medium flint in a coarse FMV vesicular and micaceous matrix LBA-EIA? 1 0.2 15 0.2
Abundant to common small and relatively fine- F3 crushed flint in a dense sandy matric MIA-LIA 30 6.2 211 3.3
Common to moderate medium and small-sized moderately crushed flint in a dense sandy matrix F2 with rare organic impurities mainly LIA 103 21.4 718 11.4 QC Fine sandy fabric with sparse fine chalk LIA 1 0.2 10 0.2
Fine sandy fabric with sparse fine small-sized QF angular flint LIA 7 1.5 20 0.3 G Fine grog-tempered and sandy fabric LIA 29 6.0 488 7.7
61 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
Fabric Count Weight Fabric Fabric description by period date Count % (g) Weight %
Fine sandy and micaceous fabric with moderate LIA- QVM fine voids from burnt organic tempers e.Rom 43 8.9 236 3.7
Fine sandy fabric with rare organic impurities, LIA- Q often micaceous e.Rom 49 10.2 485 7.7 Roman (subtotal) 3 0.6 12 0.2
BB1? Black Burnished 1 1st c. AD? 1 0.2 1 0.0
CC Miscellaneous Roman colour coated wares Rom 1 0.2 7 0.1 OX RS Oxfordshire red-slipped ware 4th c. 1 0.2 4 0.1 Saxon 41 8.5 571 9.0
ESCO Early Saxon chalk and organic-tempered Esax 1 0.2 10 0.2
ESOM Early Saxon organic-tempered, micaceous Esax? 34 7.1 519 8.2 ESQZ Early Saxon quartzite tempered Esax 6 1.2 42 0.7 Medieval 101 21.0 1777 28.2
11th-12th EMWC? Early medieval chalk-tempered ware c? 2 0.4 26 0.4
11th-12th EMW Early medieval ware c. 96 19.9 1731 27.4
Sparse large to medium-sized chalk and rare coarse crushed sandstone grains in a soft UN1 medium to fine sandy matrix Med? 2 0.4 17 0.3
Common medium-sized rounded quartz and larges quartzite pebbles of various colours in a UN2 coarse and vesicular sandy matrix Med? 1 0.2 3 0.0 Grand Total 482 100.0 6310 100.0
Table 8: Distribution of pottery by feature type
Count Weight Features Count % (g) Weight % Deposit layer 2 0.4 6 0.1 10105 2 0.4 6 0.1 Destruction debris 46 9.5 680 10.8 20009 46 9.5 680 10.8 Ditch/linear 319 66.2 4338 68.7 10003 1 0.2 3 0.0 10005 2 0.4 4 0.1 10013 4 0.8 29 0.5 10025 16 3.3 235 3.7 10055 2 0.4 15 0.2 10057 49 10.2 936 14.8
62 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
Count Weight Features Count % (g) Weight % 10059 13 2.7 63 1.0 10062 1 0.2 3 0.0 10073 10 2.1 73 1.2 10087 27 5.6 681 10.8 10090 1 0.2 9 0.1 10093 1 0.2 2 0.0 10108 3 0.6 18 0.3 10120 2 0.4 5 0.1 10124 5 1.0 9 0.1 10129 1 0.2 3 0.0 10143 6 1.2 148 2.3 20007 93 19.3 1675 26.5 20018 16 3.3 87 1.4 20021 66 13.7 340 5.4 Non-structural 1 0.2 88 1.4 10096 1 0.2 88 1.4 Pit 40 8.3 390 6.2 10049 1 0.2 16 0.3 20003 15 3.1 180 2.9 20012 2 0.4 20 0.3 20027 12 2.5 58 0.9 20031 10 2.1 116 1.8 Structural cut 38 7.9 602 9.5 10046 14 2.9 148 2.3 10083 10 2.1 92 1.5 10150 2 0.4 95 1.5 10155 12 2.5 267 4.2 Tree hole/bowl 12 2.5 43 0.7 10079 2 0.4 5 0.1 10095 2 0.4 17 0.3 20035 8 1.7 21 0.3 Unknown 24 5.0 163 2.6 1050 24 5.0 163 2.6 Grand Total 482 100.0 6310 100.0
APPENDIX D: MISCELLANEOUS FINDS
Miscellaneous Finds by Katie Marsden
Glass
63 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
A single fragment of glass, weighing 7g, was recovered from Period 4 sunken featured building (SFB) 10158 (fill 10085). The fragment, of ‘natural’ blue/green glass, is 5mm thick, and has one matt-textured surface, features consistent with window glass of Roman date.
Fired clay and ceramic objects A small group, comprising two fragments of fired clay (weighing 25g), was recovered from Period 3 pit 20027 (fill 20028). Both pieces are amorphous, retaining no surfaces or indicators of their original function. They cannot be closely dated.
An unfinished object, possibly a spindlewhorl or gaming counter (Ra. 3) was recovered from Period 4 sunken featured building (SFB) 10158 (fill 10084). It is circular in plan, cut from a flat-bottomed base-sherd of a probable Alice Holt ware vessel. An off-centre indentation has been made on the exterior side, possibly the beginning of a hole, or to mark one side for gaming. The pottery itself is of Roman date, but the reuse of such material in the early medieval period is well established, and ceramic evidence dates the feature to the latter period.
Worked bone Two worked bone items were recovered, both from Period 4 sunken featured building (SFB) 10158 (fill 10084). Ra. 2 is a double-ended pin-beater, used in loom weaving, and is of 5th to 9th century date (Leahy 2003). Pin-beaters, alternatively called weaving picks, are found in both cemetery and settlement sites, including domestic contexts at Sutton Courtenay, Oxfordshire (Evison 1987).
Ra. 4 is a pin, featuring a circular shank narrowing to a point at one end. The form is unusual, with a ‘wheel’-shaped terminal; circular in plan with flat, undecorated faces. A similar pin, of copper alloy, was recovered from SFB 3 at West Stow, described as a ‘cheese-headed’ pin, and dated to the early 7th century (West 1985, c.f. fig. 36, no. 1). This form is also present in graves at the Buckland cemetery, Dover, described as ‘disc-headed’ and also of copper alloy. The position of these pins within graves suggests that the form was used to secure fabric, as wrapping around spearheads or bags (Evison 1987, c.f. fig. 62, no. 158/3). Although Ra. 2 occurs in bone rather than copper alloy, it is likely to be contemporary with those excavated in West Stow and Buckland, and possibly connected with textile production.
Ceramic Building Material
64 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
A small group, comprising seven fragments of ceramic building material (CBM), was recovered from four features. Period 4 SFB 10158 produced three fragments of flat tile, recovered from fill 10151, and a fragment of curved roof tile (imbrex) from fill 10086. All are of probable Roman date, and probably residual. The same feature also produced fragments from fills 10085 and 10086, which do not retain enough surfaces to identify form or date. The remaining fragment, recovered from Period 4 sunken featured building (SFB) 10158 (fill 10064), is similarly abraded, and cannot be closely dated.
Industrial waste A small quantity of industrial waste was recovered by hand collection and bulk soil sampling. The group comprises one piece of slag, one of indeterminate industrial waste and a combined total of 3g of hammerscale. The indeterminate waste, which weighed 5g, was recovered from unphased tree-throw hollow 20035 (fill 20036). The single item of indeterminate ironworking slag (221g) was recovered from Period 4 SFB 10158 (fill 10155). Flake hammerscale was recovered by bulk soil sampling of three deposits; Period 2 ditches 10062 (fill 10063) and 10087 (fill 10089), and Period 3 pit 20003 (fill 20004). Hammerscale is a by-product of hot ironworking, and indicates that smithing was taking place nearby (Dungworth and Wilkes 2007).
APPENDIX E: METALWORK
Metalwork by Katie Marsden
A total of seven items of metal, with a collective weight of 46g, was recovered from six deposits. The assemblage comprises three items of copper alloy and four of iron. All metalwork has been recorded directly to an MS Access database and identifications are summarised in Table 9, below.
The items are stored in airtight, plastic containers, with humidity control as appropriate. The assemblage has been examined by a specialist conservator (Pieta Greaves), and items subjected to X-radiography. The extent of corrosion is variable, with the copper alloy objects in generally better condition than the iron, despite heavy chalk material adhering to some of the copper alloy coins. Recommendations for conservation are given in Table 9, below.
Range and Variety
65 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
The majority of items (72%) were recovered from ditches. One item was recovered from a Period 4 Sunken Featured Building, and one from a pit. The group is fragmentary and corroded, making assessment of the date difficult.
Copper Alloy Three items of copper alloy were recovered, all from Period 4 SFB cut 10155 (fill 10157). The function of Ra. 8, which consists of two sheet fragments, is unknown. Traces of possible decoration are visible on the X-ray only, but do not aid in dating the object. Ra. 7 is a pin with round, knopped head and slender shank, tapering to a break. It measures 36mm in length and the slender construction and tapering shaft suggest a complete length of not much more than this. Consequently, it is likely to be a dress pin, rather than a hairpin which would measure around 70mm for similar forms (Crummy 1983, Type 3, fig. 28, no. 480). Despite its similarities with Roman hairpins, the form is of simple construction, and a later (Anglo-Saxon or medieval date) cannot be dismissed.
Iron Four items of iron were recovered from three deposits. Period 4 SFB cut 10155 produced a possible nail tip (fill 10157), and a heavily-corroded fragment, possibly waste material (fill 10156). Neither are closely datable. Period 4 SFB 10158 (fill 10064) produced a fragmentary object (Ra. 1), which comprises a triangular point most probably the tip of a larger object such as an awl or similar pointed implement, or large nail. The item is too fragmentary to identify to form, or date with certainty.
Ra. 6, a double-spiked loop or staple, used in construction, was recovered from Period 3 pit 20012 (fill 20013). Objects of this form are known from Roman deposits (cf. Manning 1982, Pl. 61, R36-47), and into the medieval period (Goodall 2011, fig. 9.7, H127-150).
Table 9: Summary of metalwork items
Context Material Ra. No. Classification Type Ct. Wt (g) 10157 copper alloy 7 pin textile 1 1 10157 copper alloy 8 sheet 2 2 10064 iron 1 fragment 1 5 20013 iron 6 Staple Construction 1 32 10157 iron 0 ?nail tip Construction 1 3 10156 iron 0 waste 1 3
66 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
APPENDIX F: ANIMAL BONE
Animal Bone by Matilda Holmes
Background A small assemblage of animal bone was recovered from the East End Farm site, the majority from a Period 4, Early Saxon feature. Sample sizes are small, but the Saxon material is worth further analysis.
Methods
All bones and teeth were recorded, although for some elements a restricted count was employed to reduce fragmentation bias: vertebrae were recorded when the vertebral body was present, and maxilla, zygomatic arch and occipital areas of the skull were identified from skull fragments. A basic recording method was employed to assess the potential of the animal bone assemblage. The number of bones and teeth that could be identified to taxa were noted, as well as those used to age the major domesticates (tooth wear and bone fusion). The quantity of bones likely to be useful for metrical data were also recorded. Other information included condition and the incidence of burning, gnawing and butchery marks. All fragments were recorded by context, including those that could not be identified to taxa. Recording methods and analysis are based on guidelines from Baker and Worley (2014).
Summary of Findings Bones were in good to fair condition, but highly fragmentary (Table 10). Evidence of processing came from burnt and butchered bones, and a few gnawed bones are indicative of delayed burial. Very few identifiable bones were recovered for Period 2 and 3 features, the largest sample coming from the Period 4 Saxon phase (Table 11). Sheep/ goat were most commonly recorded, followed by cattle and pig. The absence of bones of other taxa is consistent with trends at other Saxon sites, and finds of birds and fish were also absent from the samples (Table 12), although a number of micro-mammals such as vole were recorded. Unsurprisingly, there were few ageing and metrical data available in such a small overall sample (Table 13).
67 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
There were no obvious deposits of butchery, craft working or skin-processing waste, although several associated bone groups were recorded. Bones from piglet and lamb hind- legs came from Period 3, Late Iron Age to Early Roman primary fill 20004, of pit 20003; and cattle tarsals from context 10084, and a pair of cattle first phalanges, from context 10064, were both dated to the Saxon period.
Table 10: Preservation and bone modifications observed on the bones for each context Preservation Bone Modification Phase Good Good-fair Fair Poor Good-poor Gnawed Butchered Burnt 2- Bronze Age-Early Iron Age 1 3- Late Iron Age- Early Roman 10 1 1 4 4 4- Saxon 3 1 3 1 3 3 5 Un-phased 2 2 Total N contexts 15 2 6 1 1 7 3 9 Proportion (%) of all contexts 60 8 24 4 4 28 12 36
Table 11: Number of fragments recorded for the major domesticates, birds and other taxa (hand collection)
Phase Total Cattle Sheep Pig B F O Total Other i i t taxa r s h d h e r Unidentif Bones Teeth Bones Teeth Bones Teeth Identifi ied ed 2- Bronze 4 0 Age-Early Iron Age 3- Late Iron 91 10 4 6 2 3 2 2 1 41 Frog/ toad, Age- Early 2 equid, red Roman deer, passerine 4- Saxon 563 28 9 28 23 15 3 106 Unphased 46 3 2 1 1 7 Total 704 41 15 35 26 18 5 2 0 1 154 2
Table 12: Number of bones identified to taxa, or having been burnt from samples
Phase Context Burnt Micro- Sheep/ Pig Other mammal goat taxa 2 10089 5 3 20004 32 9 Vole 3 20011 1
68 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
Table 13: Number of bones and teeth likely to provide ageing and metrical data for the major domesticates.
MWS= mandibular wear stage; TWS= wear from individual teeth; fusion= bone fusion; meas= metrical data
Cattle Sheep/ goat Pig Phase MWS TWS Fusion Meas MWS TWS Fusion Meas MWS TWS Fusion Meas 2- Bronze Age- Early Iron Age 3- Late Iron 1 9 7 8 5 4 2 Age- Early Roman 4- Saxon 1 21 9 6 1 28 20 10 Unphased 1 2 1 2 Total 2 1 32 16 7 1 38 25 0 0 14 2
APPENDIX G: CHARCOAL AND CHARRED PLANT REMAINS
Wood charcoal and charred plant remains by Sheila Boardman
Introduction Nine soil samples (9-20 litres in volume), from features assigned to four broad excavation phases (earlier prehistoric, Bronze Age, Iron Age/Roman and Saxon periods) were assessed for wood charcoal and charred plant remains. The samples produced small or moderate quantities of both material types. Of these, the four most productive samples, representing features from each assessed phase, were selected for analysis. These came from Period 2, Late Bronze Age ditched features, Period 3 Iron Age/Roman features (samples 7, 14 and 24 respectively), and the Period 4 Early Saxon sunken feature building (SFB 10158) (sample 12).
Methods The samples were processed at Cotswold Archaeology, with flots collected in sieves with mesh sizes of 1 mm and 0.25 mm, with the residues on 0.5 mm meshes. The flots were sorted for all charred plant remains (cereals, seeds, nut shells, etc), and where these were not readily identifiable, they were compared to modern reference materials and keys. The residues were pre-sorted by Cotswold Archaeology staff, and any extracted plant material
69 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
was submitted for investigation. Nomenclature follows Zohary et al. (2012) for the cereals, and Stace (2010) for the other species.
For the charcoal analysis, each flot was gently dry-sieved at 2 mm, and all potentially identifiable fragments (greater than 2 mm in size) were extracted. Individual charcoal fragments (from the flots and residues) were fractured by hand, and sorted into groups, based on features observed in transverse section at magnifications of x10 - x40. Fragments were then fractured along their radial and tangential planes, and examined at magnifications of up to x400, using a Lomo Biolam-Metam P1 metallurgical microscope. Identifications were made using keys in Hather (2000), Gale and Cutler (2000) and Schweingruber (1990), and by comparison with modern slide reference material.
Results Wood charcoal Based on anatomical features, the following taxa were identified in the East End Farm, Cholsey, samples. The full results are listed by sample in Table 14, below.
Fabaceae Cytisus sp./Ulex sp., broom/gorse. Rosaceae Subfamily Pomoideae - includes Crataegus spp., hawthorn, Malus sp. apple, Pyrus sp., pear and Sorbus spp., rowan, whitebeam and/service. One or more of these anatomically similar taxa may be represented. Subfamily Prunoideae – Prunus spinosa type, blackthorn type; Prunus sp., blackthorn/cherry. Fagaceae Quercus spp., oak (either Q. robur L., Q. petraea, or their hybrids). Betulaceae Corylus avellana L., hazel; Alnus glutinosa/Corylus avellana, alder/hazel. Sapindaceae Acer campestre L., field maple. Oleaceae Fraxinus excelsior L., ash. Aquifolieceae Ilex aquifolium L., holly.
Charred plant remains
70 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
The charred plant remains are listed in Table 15, below. They included barley (Hordeum vulgare), hulled wheat (emmer and/or spelt (Triticum dicoccum/spelta)) grains and chaff (spikelet forks, glumes bases), some oat (Avena sp.) grains, and a small quantity of seeds and fruits of wild species which may have grown as weeds of the cereals. Wild edible species are represented by a few hazelnut (Corylus avellana) shell fragments.
Discussion and Conclusions Wood charcoal None of the samples were rich in wood charcoal, and the results and interpretations below remain necessarily tentative. Oak (Quercus) and hawthorn group (Pomoideae) charcoal was present in all four samples.
Sample 7, from fill 10058 of Bronze Age ditch 10057, contained mostly oak (sapwood) and blackthorn/cherry (Prunus) fragments. The main Prunus species appears to be blackthorn (P. spinosa). Seven different taxa were present in this sample, although just 33 charcoal fragments were examined. The other taxa in sample 7 were ash (Fraxinus excelsior), hawthorn group, hazel and holly (Ilex aquifolium). Sample 14 from fill 10089, of Period 2 Ditch 10020, contained mostly oak (heartwood and sapwood) and holly (roundwood) charcoal. The other taxa in sample 14, each represented by single fragments, comprised blackthorn, hawthorn group and field maple (Acer campestre). Sample 24, from fill 20011 of Period 2 ditch 20009, was also dominated by oak, with one to two fragments of hazel, hawthorn group and broom/gorse (Cytisus/Ulex). Sample 12, from fill 10084 of the Saxon sunken feature building (10158), although poor in charcoal remains, had a more even mix, of oak, blackthorn/cherry, hazel and ash.
Thus, while variations are evident between samples, many (particularly the prehistoric ones) appear quite similar. This suggests that the principal sources of wood fuels did not change greatly over extended periods. In the absence of evidence for industrial activities, it is presumed that most of this charcoal represents domestic fuel waste that was dumped in the ditches and the sunken feature building.
Charred plant remains Most of the charred plant remains from the site came from the samples from Period 2 ditch fills. Cereal remains, including grains and various chaff fragments, were the generally the most numerous in the Bronze Age and Iron Age samples. Emmer (Triticum dicoccum) appears to be the main cultivated species, although a single glume base of probable spelt (Triticum cf.
71 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
spelta) was present in sample 24, and grains and/or chaff remains (spikelet forks and glume bases) of emmer or spelt (Triticum dicoccum/ spelta) were present in all three samples. Small to moderate quantities of hulled barley (Hordeum vulgare) grains were also present. Very little barley chaff was recovered, although asymmetric grains point to the presence of six-row barley. The other cereal was oats, represented solely by grains. Many of the latter were small and poorly preserved, so were difficult to distinguish from brome (Bromus sp.) and other large grasses. While it cannot be confirmed without oat chaff, the oat grains in later prehistoric deposits at East End Farm are most likely to represent the wild species (Avena fatua), a widespread weed of other cereals at this time. Cultivated oats (A. sativa) are not widely encountered until the post-Roman period (Greig 1991), but may have been cultivated locally by the time the sunken-featured building was in use.
Many of the wild species in the ditch fill samples from East End Farm can be found today in a wide range of disturbed conditions, including cultivated fields. Their presence in the samples here, together with hulled wheat grains and chaff, indicates partially-processed crops. The parching of whole spikelets appears to be one of the main methods used in the past to aid removal of the tightly-enclosing glumes of emmer and spelt. This process apparently resulted in widespread accidents associated with small, piecemeal crop processing operations, as would seem to be the case here. There is no evidence for large- scale crop processing operations (or accidents), as is seen at some Late Iron Age or Roman period sites in the region.
The remains in both of the Saxon-period samples assessed (samples 12 and 13, from fills of SFB 10158) were very dispersed. In sample 12 (Table 15), these comprised a handful of cereal (hulled barley, oat/brome and indeterminate) grains, a couple of nutshell fragments and one or two smaller seeds. Wheat remains were not present. This limited range of material offers very little scope for further interpretation.
72 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
Table 14: Charcoal identifications
Feature type Ditch Ditch Ditch SFB Feature label 10011 10158 Cut No. 10057 10087 20009 10083 Context No. 10058 10089 20011 10084 Sample No. 7 14 24 12 Period BA IA Prehistoric Saxon Volume 9 10 20 19 Fabaceae Cytisus/Ulex broom/gorse - - 1r - Rosaceae Prunus spinosa type blackthorn type 4 1 - - Prunus blackthorn/cherry 8 - - 1 Pomoideae* hawthorn group 2 1 2r 7 cf. Pomoideae cf. hawthorn group - - - 1 Fagaceae Quercus oak 7s 18hs 52sh 8s Betulaceae Corylus avellana L. hazel - - 4 6r Alnus/Corylus alder/hazel 1 - - - Sapindaceae Acer campestre L. field maple - 1 - - Oleaceae Fraxinus excelsior L. ash 3r - - 6 Aquifoliaceae Ilex aquifolium L. holly 1 8r - - Indet. charcoal 7r 4b 1 5 Fragments analysed 33 33 60 34 KEY: *Pomoideae may include Malus (apple), Crataegus (hawthorn) & Sorbus (rowan, service, whitebeam) species. Counts include: h - heartwood; s - sapwood; r - roundwood; b- bark.
Table 15: Charred plant remains identifications
Feature type Ditch Ditch Ditch SFB Feature label 10011 10158 Cut No. 10057 10087 20009 10083 Context No. 10058 10089 20011 10084 Sample No. 7 14 24 12 Period BA IA Prehistoric Saxon Volume 9 10 20 19 Cereal grain Hordeum vulgare L. barley, hulled 7 35 9+F 5+F Avena sp. oats 0.5 3 1F - cf. Avena sp. cf. oats - 7 3F - Avena sp./Bromus sp. oat/brome grass - - 1+Fs 1 Triticum cf. dicoccum cf. emmer wheat - 5 1 - Triticum dicoccum/spelta emmer/spelt wheat - 3 2+F - cf. Triticum sp. cf. wheat 2F - 3F - Cerealia indet. cereal 6 - 3+Fs 1.5 Cerealia/Poaceae cereal/large grass 1 3+F 1 - Chaff & straw cf. Hordeum sp. cf. barley, rachis internode - 1F - - Triticum dicoccum Schubl. emmer, spikelet fork - 4 - - Triticum dicoccum Schubl. emmer, glume base 1 2 1 - Triticum cf. dicoccum cf. emmer, spikelet fork - 2 - - Triticum cf. dicoccum cf. emmer, glume base - 6 1 - Triticum cf. spelta cf. spelt, glume base - - 1 - Triticum dicoccum/spelta emmer/spelt, spikelet fork 1+Fs 6+Fs 1F - Triticum dicoccum/spelta emmer/spelt, glume base 2+Fs 10 5 -
73 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
Feature type Ditch Ditch Ditch SFB Feature label 10011 10158 Cut No. 10057 10087 20009 10083 Context No. 10058 10089 20011 10084 Sample No. 7 14 24 12 Period BA IA Prehistoric Saxon Volume 9 10 20 19 Cerealia cereal, rachis internode - 2F - - Cerealia basal rachis internode - 1 - - Cerealia/Poaceae cereal/grass, culm node - - - - Wild species Vicia sp./Lathyrus sp. vetch/wild pea 0.5 6.5 0.5 - Melilotus sp./Medicago sp./Trifolium sp. melillot/medick/clover 1+F - - - Corylus avellana L. hazel, nut shell fragment 1F 1F - 2F Brassica sp. cabbage, rape, etc. - 1 - - Persicaria sp. persicaria 1 - - - Fallopia convolvulus (L.) A. Love black bindweed - 1+2F - - Rumex acetosella L. sheep's sorrel - - 1 1 cf. Rumex sp. cf. dock 1 1 - - Polygonaceae knotgrass family 1 - - - Chenopodium album L. fat hen - - 2 - Galium aparine L. goose grass, cleavers 1 - - - Veronica hederafolia L. ivy-leaved speedwell 1 - - - Festuca sp./Lolium sp. type rye-grass/fescue 1 - - - Poa sp. type meadow-grass 1 - - - Bromus sp. brome grass - 1 - - Poaceae grass family 1 3F 3 1 Poaceae grass family, culm node - - - 1 Indeterminate seed/fruit 2 - Fs 2 KEY: F - fragment(s)
74 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
APPENDIX H: OASIS REPORT FORM
PROJECT DETAILS
Project Name East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire Short description Within Area 1 ditched features representing a Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age field system were recorded, comprising a possible trackway with flanking field and enclosure ditches. These displayed at least two possible phases of development. A Saxon sunken-featured building (SFB) cut late prehistoric field boundaries, but was the only feature of this date within the site. The fills of the SFB were rich in artefactual evidence, including pottery and items of worked bone. Area 2 contained no evidence of the earlier field system recorded in Area 1, but did include boundary ditches of Middle/Late Iron Age date, together with three Iron Age storage pits, one of which contained evidence of Early Roman activity. The base of one pit was associated with an interesting example of ritual deposition. A single medieval gully partly extended into Area 2, and may represent a boundary ditch of 11th-12th-century date. The evaluation trenches contained limited archaeological evidence which, where present ,was determined to be of post-medieval date.
Project dates 4 June – 2 July 2018 Project type Excavation and trial trench evaluation
Previous work Field evaluation (Foundations Archaeology, 2016)
Future work Unknown PROJECT LOCATION Site Location East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire Study area (M2/ha) 26ha Site co-ordinates 459173 186756
PROJECT CREATORS Name of organisation Cotswold Archaeology Project Brief originator Oxfordshire County Council Project Design (WSI) originator EDP (WSI)/Cotswold Archaeology (Method Statement)
Project Manager Olly Good Project Supervisor Sam Wilson MONUMENT TYPE Late Bronze Age ditched field boundaries, Iron Age storage pits and boundary ditches, Early Saxon sunken-featured building, and a medieval ditch
SIGNIFICANT FINDS Pottery, copper alloy and worked bone items from Saxon SFB. Placed bone deposit from base of Iron Age storage pit 20003. PROJECT ARCHIVES Intended final location of archive Content (e.g. pottery, animal bone etc) Oxfordshire County Museums Service
Physical Ceramics, animal bone, worked bone, metal
75 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
objects, etc Paper Context sheets, registers etc Digital Database, digital photos etc BIBLIOGRAPHY
Cotswold Archaeology (CA) 2018 East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design. CA typescript report 18742
76 458000 460000
Wallingford Rowing Club (OA 2006) Bradford’s Brook (OA 2006)
Middle Iron Age Settlement (WA 2009)
Winterbrook (JMHS 2001)
188000 Whitecross Farm Cromarty et al. 2006
Linear Ditch (JMHS 2015)
Iron Age Field System (MOLA 2016)
Suggested Roman Villa North Stoke Prehistoric Complex
186000
Fairmile Hospital A-S (FA 2010) Pottery Scatter
Possible Iron Age hilltop enclosure
Cropmark of Iron Age settlement
184000
BUCKINGHAMSHIRE N Andover 01264 347630 Cirencester 01285 771022 Cotswold Exeter 01392 826185 Archaeology Milton Keynes 01908 564660 w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk OXFORDSHIRE e [email protected]
PROJECT TITLE Site boundary East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire
London WEST Archaeological site BERKSHIRE FIGURE TITLE
WINDSOR AND Site location plan WILTSHIRE WOKINGHAM MAIDENHEAD BRACKNELL 0 1km FOREST SURREY DRAWN BY AO PROJECT NO. 779047 FIGURE NO. © Crown copyright and database rights 2018 CHECKED BY DJB DATE 04/09/2018 HAMPSHIRE Ordnance Survey 0100031673 APPROVED BY RWM SCALE@A4 1:25,000 1 N 2 FIGURE NO. 01908 564660 50m cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk @ 01392 826185 Ordnance Survey 0100031673 Ordnance Survey www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk 779047 17/09/2018 1:1500 01264 347630 Andover Cirencester 01285 771022 Exeter Milton Keynes w e enquiries 1:1500 PROJECT NO. DATE SCALE@A3 Site boundary area Excavation trench Evaluation trench evaluation Previous Archaeological feature Layer/deposit Treethrow Modern Field drain 0 AO DJB RWM Cotswold Archaeology Larkmead © Crown copyright and database rights copyright 2018 © Crown PROJECT TITLE Oxfordshire East End Farm, Cholsey, FIGURE TITLE Areas 1 Site Plan, showing locations of and 2, evaluation trenches DRAWN BY DRAWN CHECKED BY APPROVED BY
459400 Fig. 3 Fig. T9 Area 1 T8
459300 T7 Gardens Allotment T6 T4
459200 T5 Farm T3 East End T14 T1 Area 2 T2 Fig. 11 Fig. T12 T11
459100 Slade Road Slade
Rothwells Close T13 T10
LANE Wallingford Road Wallingford
Cross Road
459000 Goldfinch Lane
Ilges Lane 186900 186800 186700 186600 ta pg C 459350 N 186700
Ditch 10012 Ditch 10003
10145 10009
10141 10007
Ditch Ditch 10011 10052
inset Area 1 10005 C 10030 C Site boundary 10143 T8 10083 10025 Ditch Excavation area 10008 Previous evaluation trench 10053 10148 10059 (excavated/unexcavated) Period 2: Late Bronze sunken featured 10057 10047 10129 10065 building 10158 Age/Early Iron Age
10124 Period 3: Middle/Late Iron 10044 10053 Ditch D Ditch Age - Roman 10051 10011 Ditch 10055 10044 Period 4: Early Saxon D 10106 pit 10062 10049 Ditch Undated E E 10014 10117 10090 10073 Treethrow 10137 Bioturbation 10135 10075 10115 B 10133 Ditch 10015 Ditch Modern 10043 10087 posthole B T9 10017
Ditch 10020
10108 Ditch pit 10038 10018
10112 10110
Ditch 10103 10019 10120
10096 10139 A Ditch 10101 10036 10099 Ditch 10011 A
Ditch 10025 Gully 10052 10037 10083 10093 pit G 186650 10034 0 1:250 10m
F © Crown copyright and database rights 2018 Ordnance Survey 0100031673
posthole 10053 Andover 01264 347630 Cirencester 01285 771022 10069 Exeter 01392 826185 posthole Cotswold 10148 10067 Archaeology Milton Keynes 01908 564660 Gully w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk 10021 e [email protected] pit F 10024 PROJECT TITLE 10071 G East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire 10023 sunken featured building 10158 FIGURE TITLE 10129 10065 Ditch Area 1: plan of excavated features 10044
DRAWN BY AO PROJECT NO. 779047 FIGURE NO. 051:100 m CHECKED BY DJB DATE 17/09/2018 APPROVED BY RWM SCALE@A3 1:250 & 1:100 3 Section AA
SW NE 54.5m AOD 10027
10026
ditch 10011 (cut 10025)
011:20 m
Ditch 10011 (cut 10025), looking north-east (1m scale)
Andover 01264 347630 Cirencester 01285 771022 Cotswold Exeter 01392 826185 Archaeology Milton Keynes 01908 564660 w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk e [email protected]
PROJECT TITLE East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire
FIGURE TITLE Area 1: Ditch 10011: section and photograph
DRAWN BY AO PROJECT NO. 779047 FIGURE NO. CHECKED BY DJB DATE 17/09/2018 APPROVED BY RWM SCALE@A4 1:20 4 Section BB
NE SW 54.6m AOD 10089
10088
ditch 10020 (cut 10087)
011:20 m
Ditch 10020 (cut 10087), looking south-east (1m scale)
Andover 01264 347630 Cirencester 01285 771022 Cotswold Exeter 01392 826185 Archaeology Milton Keynes 01908 564660 w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk e [email protected]
PROJECT TITLE East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire
FIGURE TITLE Area 1: Ditch 10020: section and photograph
DRAWN BY AO PROJECT NO. 779047 FIGURE NO. CHECKED BY DJB DATE 17/09/2018 APPROVED BY RWM SCALE@A4 1:20 5 Section CC
NW SE 54.9m AOD
10000
10001
10031
ditch 10008 (cut 10030)
011:20 m
Ditch 10008 (cut 10030), looking north-east (0.5m scale)
Andover 01264 347630 Cirencester 01285 771022 Cotswold Exeter 01392 826185 Archaeology Milton Keynes 01908 564660 w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk e [email protected]
PROJECT TITLE East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire
FIGURE TITLE Area 1: Ditch 10008: section and photograph
DRAWN BY AO PROJECT NO. 779047 FIGURE NO. CHECKED BY DJB DATE 17/09/2018 APPROVED BY RWM SCALE@A4 1:20 6 Section DD
SE NW 54.5m AOD 10125
10126
ditch 10051 (cut 10124)
011:20 m
Ditch 10051 (cut 10124), looking south-west (1m scale)
Andover 01264 347630 Cirencester 01285 771022 Cotswold Exeter 01392 826185 Archaeology Milton Keynes 01908 564660 w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk e [email protected]
PROJECT TITLE East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire
FIGURE TITLE Area 1: Ditch 10051: section and photograph
DRAWN BY AO PROJECT NO. 779047 FIGURE NO. CHECKED BY DJB DATE 17/09/2018 APPROVED BY RWM SCALE@A4 1:20 7 Section EE
NESW SE NW 54.6m AOD 10063
ditch terminus 10062
011:20 m
North-west terminal of ditch 10020 (cut 10062), looking south-east (0.5m scale)
Andover 01264 347630 Cirencester 01285 771022 Cotswold Exeter 01392 826185 Archaeology Milton Keynes 01908 564660 w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk e [email protected]
PROJECT TITLE East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire
FIGURE TITLE Area 1: north-west terminal of Ditch 10020: section and photograph
DRAWN BY AO PROJECT NO. 779047 FIGURE NO. CHECKED BY DJB DATE 17/09/2018 APPROVED BY RWM SCALE@A4 1:20 8 Section FF
SE NW 54.4m AOD 10086 10064 10084 10085
10046 sunken-featured 10083 building 10158
011:20 m
Section GG
SW NE 00.0m AOD
10064 10084
10083 10046 sunken-featured building 10158
Andover 01264 347630 Cirencester 01285 771022 Cotswold Exeter 01392 826185 Archaeology Milton Keynes 01908 564660 w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk e [email protected]
PROJECT TITLE East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire
FIGURE TITLE Area 1: sunken-featured building Sunken-featured building 10158, and gully 10065, looking north-west (1m scales) Sunken-featured building 10158, looking north-west (1m scales) 10158: sections and photographs
DRAWN BY AO PROJECT NO. 779047 FIGURE NO. CHECKED BY DJB DATE 17/09/2018 APPROVED BY RWM SCALE@A3 1:250 9 General photograph of sunken featured building 10158, showing north and south excavated quadrants, looking north-west (1m scales)
Andover 01264 347630 Cirencester 01285 771022 Cotswold Exeter 01392 826185 Archaeology Milton Keynes 01908 564660 w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk e [email protected]
PROJECT TITLE East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire
FIGURE TITLE Area 1: sunken-featured building 10158: photograph
DRAWN BY AO PROJECT NO. 779047 FIGURE NO. CHECKED BY DJB DATE 17/09/2018 APPROVED BY RWM SCALE@A4 NA 10 459140 459160 459180 N 186800
T14
Excavation area pit J 20027 Previous evaluation trench
J ditch 20007 (excavated/unexcavated) pit 20012 Period 3: Middle/Late Iron pit H 20016 Age - Roman
pit Period 5: Medieval 20003 Undated H 186780 Treethrow ditch 20009 ditch Modern 20018 I
I 20023 pit 20014 K K
T1 20025
20021
pit 20035
Area 2
186760
0 1:200 10m
© Crown copyright and database rights 2018 Ordnance Survey 0100031673
Andover 01264 347630 Cirencester 01285 771022 Cotswold Exeter 01392 826185 Archaeology Milton Keynes 01908 564660 w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk e [email protected]
PROJECT TITLE East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire T2
FIGURE TITLE Area 2: plan of excavated features
DRAWN BY AO PROJECT NO. 779047 FIGURE NO. CHECKED BY DJB DATE 17/09/2018 APPROVED BY RWM SCALE@A3 1:200 11 Section HH
N S 48.8m AOD
20006
20005
20004
pit 20003
011:20 m
Pit 20003, looking east (1m scale)
Andover 01264 347630 Cirencester 01285 771022 Cotswold Exeter 01392 826185 Archaeology Milton Keynes 01908 564660 w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk e [email protected]
PROJECT TITLE East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire
FIGURE TITLE Area 2: pit 20003: section and photograph
DRAWN BY AO PROJECT NO. 779047 FIGURE NO. CHECKED BY DJB DATE 17/09/2018 APPROVED BY RWM SCALE@A4 1:20 12 Bone deposit at base of pit 20003, looking east (0.15m scale)
Andover 01264 347630 Cirencester 01285 771022 Cotswold Exeter 01392 826185 Archaeology Milton Keynes 01908 564660 w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk e [email protected]
PROJECT TITLE East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire
FIGURE TITLE Area 2: bone deposit at base of pit 20003
DRAWN BY AO PROJECT NO. 779047 FIGURE NO. CHECKED BY DJB DATE 17/09/2018 APPROVED BY RWM SCALE@A4 NA 13 Section II
NE SW 49.75 AOD
20011
20010
ditch 20009
011:20 m
Ditch 20009, looking south-east (1m scale)
Andover 01264 347630 Cirencester 01285 771022 Cotswold Exeter 01392 826185 Archaeology Milton Keynes 01908 564660 w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk e [email protected]
PROJECT TITLE East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire
FIGURE TITLE Area 2: Ditch 20009: section and photograph
DRAWN BY AO PROJECT NO. 779047 FIGURE NO. CHECKED BY DJB DATE 18/09/2018 APPROVED BY RWM SCALE@A4 1:20 14 Section JJ
NW SE 49.5 AOD
20000
20001
20020 20020
20034
20032
20033 20031
20030
20029 20028
pit 20027
011:20 m
Pit 20027, looking north-east (1m scale)
Andover 01264 347630 Cirencester 01285 771022 Cotswold Exeter 01392 826185 Archaeology Milton Keynes 01908 564660 w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk e [email protected]
PROJECT TITLE East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire
FIGURE TITLE Area 2: pit 20027: section and photograph
DRAWN BY AO PROJECT NO. 779047 FIGURE NO. CHECKED BY DJB DATE 18/09/2018 APPROVED BY RWM SCALE@A4 1:20 15 Section KK
NE SW SE NW SW NE NW SE 39.6m AOD
20026 20024 cut 20025 (ditch 20009)
cut 20023 (ditch 20018)
011:20 m
Ditch 20009 and 20018, looking north-west (0.3m and 0.5m scales)
Andover 01264 347630 Cirencester 01285 771022 Cotswold Exeter 01392 826185 Archaeology Milton Keynes 01908 564660 w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk e [email protected]
PROJECT TITLE East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire
FIGURE TITLE Area 2: Ditches 20009 and 20018: section and photograph
DRAWN BY AO PROJECT NO. 779047 FIGURE NO. CHECKED BY DJB DATE 18/09/2018 APPROVED BY RWM SCALE@A4 1:20 16 Working shot across Area 1, looking north-west
Andover 01264 347630 Cirencester 01285 771022 Cotswold Exeter 01392 826185 Archaeology Milton Keynes 01908 564660 w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk e [email protected]
PROJECT TITLE East End Farm, Cholsey, Oxfordshire
FIGURE TITLE Photograph: working shot across Area 1
DRAWN BY AO PROJECT NO. 779047 FIGURE NO. CHECKED BY DJB DATE 18/09/2018 APPROVED BY RWM SCALE@A4 N/A 17
77