Institute of Archaeology, Ucl

INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY, UCL

ARCL 0027: Archaeological Surveying

2018-19

Year 2/3 Option, 15 credit module

Topographic survey of a newly discovered burnt mound complex in Charlton Forest, East Dean, West Sussex.

Co-ordinator and designer: Mark Roberts [email protected] Rm: 307. 0207 679 7535

Turnitin Code 3884042

Teachers: Mark Roberts and Alec Walker Contents

1/. Background 3

2/. The Survey Course (Specific) 25

3/. The Survey Course (General) 31

4/. Reading List and Bibliography 36

Appendix 1 Setting up the total station 41

Appendix 2 An example of an Historic Environment Record and scheduling description [The Waltham Down Barrow Group] 43

Appendix 3 Students attending the surveying course 44

Appendix 4 Useful telephone numbers and contacts 45

Appendix 5 Acknowledgements 45

Cover Page. The Downland block between the Cocking Gap and the head of the River Lavant, looking SW. Note the steep South Downs’ escarpment and the southern edge of the Weald, to the right of the image. Charlton Forest is located in the centre of the photograph.

Rear Cover. Digital Terrain Model of Burnt Mound 2 on Bow Hill, made by students on the 2013 Surveying Course.

1/. Background The 2018 surveying course will take place in November, on land within the demesne of and owned by the Goodwood Estate, in West Sussex. This land 500m west of the East Dean and Upwaltham parishes, within Charlton Forest, is leased to the Forestry Commission. The survey area is situated at the eastern boundary of the estate, some 2km ENE of East Dean village and 0.9km south of the Downland scarp crest (Fig.1). The course will involve surveying the topography of, and monuments on, a c. 500 x 500m block of woodland on the dipslope of the South Downs, overlooking the valley of the River Lavant to the south and south-east (Fig. 2). An atypical burnt mound complex, marling pits, and field boundary banks and ditches are located in the survey area (Figs. 3, 4). Immediately around and within the survey area are located the lynchets of the late prehistoric/Romano-British field systems. These and a host of other features were revealed in their entirety by a Lidar survey, as part of the South Downs National Park “Secrets of the High Woods Project” (Manley 2016).

Fig. 1. Charlton Forest in the area of Upwaltham. Blue square = 1km2. Red dot = site.

Fig. 2. Digital Terrain Model and location map East Dean Woods and major barrow groups in the study area. The three main geographical/geological provinces are also shown.

As well as the academic teaching aims of the course (see below), the research aim is to provide an up to date topographic survey of the target monument, subsidiary monuments, and the immediate landscape setting. The data generated will be sent to the District Archaeologist, James Kenny, to be drawn up into a new Historic Environment Record, which may then be combined with that already compiled for the Waltham Down Barrow Group (HER) (Appendix 2). These data will then form part of a complete, integrated, topographic and monument survey of the downland block between Fairmile Bottom and the western margins of Bow Hill, which is an overarching aim of Survey Course in general.

The survey area An area of flint burning is visible on the ground which is more extensive than, and not restricted to, the depression (Fig. 5). Usually, the burnt area is disposed in a concentric arc of comminuted burnt flint nodules around part of the depression’s perimeter (Fig. 6). The Lidar image (Fig. 3), also shows the burnt mound to be part of an expanded feature rather than a stand-alone mound such as those on Bow Hill (Bliss 2015). The Lidar data also show the relationship of the burnt area to other archaeological and topographical features, such as those mentioned above. The aims of the work will be to carry out a detailed survey of the features to enhance and improve upon the data provided by Lidar, and to attempt to define the temporal and spatial relationship between the burnt mound complex and the field, and field systems, within which it sits, again through non-invasive detailed topographical investigation and analysis. The features surveyed will also be tied into the plans produced by the National Mapping Programme (NMP) (Figs. 7, 8) (Carpenter 2016), which overprinted and attempted interpretation of the features shown by Lidar.

Fig. 3. LRM Lidar image of the area to the NW of the “Fiveways” crossroads. The burnt mound complex is in the southernmost of the fields in the field system (North to the top).

Fig. 4. Close up of the burnt mound complex shown in Fig. 3 The uppermost depression is a marling pit.

Fig. 5. The main depression in the mound complex (see Figs. 3 & 4).

Fig. 6. Burnt Mound 1 on Bow Hill, note the crescentic mound composed of burnt flint.

Fig. 7. NMP interpretation of the Lidar data, raised features in red, depressions in green.

Fig. 8. OS 1:25k map overlain by the Historic England’s interpretive feature mapping.

The features to be surveyed are located within the Parish of East Dean, some 12.5km NNE of Chichester, the county town of West Sussex (Fig. 2) and 17.5km north of the current coastline of the English Channel at Bognor Regis. The survey area is on the gently southwards inclined dipslope of the South Downs, to the north over the scarp crest and face lies the Weald, and to the south the fertile flatlands of the Coastal Plain (Fig. 9).

The burnt mound complex is situated on the Seaford Chalk Member, which constitutes part of the eroded Cretaceous Chalk surface of the southern limb of the Weald-Artois Anticlinorum (Figs. 10): this lithology intermixed with the Pleistocene loess mantle produces a Brown Rendzina soil (343i), which although thin on the higher ground and slopes, thickens considerably, as a consequence of gravitational slope movement into the dry valley systems. At and within the late prehistoric/Romano-British lynchets, remnants of the original Pleistocene loess cover are found; usually in a condition altered by prolonged cultivation (Macphail and Crowther 2016; pers comm). On this part of the downland block, the solid geology comprises the White Chalk sub-group of the Chalk Group that, with minor structural exceptions, young and dip southwards forming the downland dip slope (Aldiss 2002). In the Lavant feeder coombes such as Deep Coombe, Malecomb and Limekiln Bottom (Fig. 1),

Fig. 9. Digital terrain model of the downland block of the study area, looking NW.

and in the Lavant itself, to the south of the study area, the older Chalks of the White Chalk sub- group, the Lewes, New Pit and Holywell Chalks, are exposed. To the north in the scarp face, at the junction of the South Downs and the Weald, a fuller range of the White and Grey Chalk sub-groups is exposed in a downward aging profile. At the base of the scarp, the older deposits of the Selbourne and Lower Greensand Groups exhibit a parallel disposition to the scarp face (Fig. 10). Younger deposits overlying the Chalk are the reworked Palaeogene cover known as “Clay-with-flints”; the aforementioned loess; valley sediments associated with the River Lavant, dry valleys and their feeders/tributaries; and mixed Head deposits which are preserved at the heads of some of the dipslope coombes, such as the Limekiln Bottom, a northern/right bank feeder of the Lavant Valley (Figs. 1, 2). These superficial head deposits are also found, albeit at a fraction of the volume of the dipslope material, at the base of the downland scarp slope extending out northwards onto the lithologies of the Selbourne Group.

Fig. 10. Geological map, showing structural features, drainage and the location of barrows on the South Downs and Folkestone Beds.

The extant topography of the landscape across the South Downs, is largely the result of subaerial weathering on the gently uplifting solid geology (Figs. 9, 10). Initial uplift and exposure of the Chalk probably predated the major episodes of tectonism but it is the latter, orogenetically driven, events that are associated with the formation of the major anticlinal and synclinal structures of the region. Subsequent to these major tectonic pulses, the anticlinorum was breached and the sub-Chalk Cretaceous geology of the Weald exposed. During the Pleistocene Epoch, the final shaping of the downs took place, with most landscape contouring occurring at the end of glacial periods when snow and ice field melt carried vast amounts of material off the Downs and over the scarp and dip slopes (Figs. 9, 10). This process occurred as a result of blanket mass movement deposition and also sediment discharge through valley systems both fluvial and dry (coombes).

It is upon the post-Devensian Glacial Stage surface of the Downs, that the archaeological monuments of the past twelve thousand years were constructed and remain to this day, largely unaffected by natural processes (but see below) but greatly affected by anthropogenic activity, especially over the last hundred years. In the study area (Fig. 11), the Waltham Down spur is delineated by coombes to the north and south, Limekiln Bottom and Malecomb respectively; with the topographically impressive Deep Coombe immediately to the south, creating with Malecomb the spur of Oxen Down. Deep Coombe and Malecomb feed directly into the Lavant, whereas Limekiln Bottom is confluent with Stonepit Bottom, Brockhurst Bottom and the East Dean Woods’ coombe in the open fields at Lamb Lea (Fig. 1).

Fig. 11. Overhead view of the Downs and the downland escarpment in the vicinity of the study area. Note the position of the fiveways crossroad just below caption Waltham Down.

Under temperate conditions, such as the present day, the coombes carry little surface water, especially higher up the dipslope; however, as the aquifer rises the lower reaches of the coombes carry water, adding to the discharge from the springs that are present along the valley sides. The River Lavant is a seasonal river known as winterbourne, which is dependent upon the rising aquifer, fed by winter rain, for its source. The river begins to flow in the early Spring and has normally run dry by mid-Summer. The Lavant is an underfit river, in that the size of its valley is far greater than the present ephemeral stream, this is because, as mentioned above,

11 the Lavant is primarily a snow melt carrier during and at the end of cold stages (Fig. 12). During these episodes a very high energy braided river system would have flowed through the current valley.

Fig. 12. A braided river system carrying snow melt discharge.

The burnt mound complex sits on the upper part of the spur some 500m below the summit of Waltham Down at a heights between 195 and 200m OD (Fig. 1). The view-shed from the burnt mound looks up the spur to the six barrows of the Waltham Down Group (Fig. 13); down the axis of the spur into the East Dean Valley, and westwards across the dipslope and along the valley to Court Hill; southwards the view is into the valley of the Lavant and up at the bisected downland that comprises the south bank of the river valley; northwards the site looks down into the coombe of Limekiln Bottom and then up the slope to the scarp crest some 1.3km away. It is not known whether the elevation is high enough to see across the downs to the sea but this is certainly the case at the summit of Waltham Down where the two uppermost barrows are located (Fig. 13). The location of burnt mounds on the South Downs was an unexpected discovery, back in 2010 and 2012, when the Bow Hill Burnt Mounds were discovered (Figs. 2, 10), burnt mounds being intimately associated with a water source or reservoir. However, on Bow Hill, geological investigation demonstrated that the cap of Clay-with-flints that runs along the spine of the hill was able to both provide the flint raw material and hold water (Fig. 10). On the downs at 12

Waltham Down there is no mapped Clay-with-flints (Aldiss 2002), although during the survey of the barrows in 2017 it was clear from the investigation of tree throws and animal burrowing that the barrows largely comprised either Cwf, the original loessic cover, or a combination of both. There are many different explanations in the literature on the function and uses of burnt mounds (Bliss 2015; Brown et al. 2016; and references therein). It is most

Fig. 13. Enhanced Local Relief Model Lidar (LRM) of the eastern area of Charlton Forest, showing the six barrows of the Waltham Down Group. Note the “Fiveways” crossroads to the NW of the image (North to top). likely that burnt mounds had a variety of uses, which might have been location specific. It is also entirely possible that the quotidian use of the features was linked to occasional ritual utilisation. On the downs there is a supply of raw material for creating the fire, flint for heating, and sporadic water retaining sediments, which means that the location of the features is going to be largely geologically determined. At Bow Hill only a few sherds of pottery were recovered from either mound, there were no faunal remains although this might have been a function of the burial medium, but there was a large amount of flintwork especially rounded end scrapers. These tools are associated with hide preparation and thus it is possible that the Bow Hill burnt mounds were related to an activity associated with hides and or fleeces. Both these burnt mounds were radio carbon dated to 1500 Cal BC and thus might well predate the field systems.

Participants on the course will be expected to carry out a significant amount of background reading on burnt mounds.

The Lidar survey revealed a wealth of archaeological features in its mapping of downland woodland between Arundel in West Sussex and Queen Elizabeth Country Park in Hampshire (Carpenter et al. 2016; Manley 2016). The most striking of these are the extensive field systems that mantle the upper half of the dipslope. The fields in the study area are based on a co-axial system and are orientated for the most part NE-SW (Figs. 3, 7, 8) (Bradley 1977; Fleming 1987). It is considered likely that the fields would have been worked on a rotational basis and that a transhumance based system of field manuring would have taken place; as always on the Chalk, whenever livestock are brought into the equation, a consideration of the availability of water must be made. This point notwithstanding there are a small number of fields and features that appear related to stock management rather than arable farming (Fig. 14). The fields close to the burnt mound complex will be examined and the boundaries close to the feature will be surveyed as part of this course.

Fig. 14. Field designed for the management of livestock 200m NW of the East Dean Woods.

The field systems would have to have been designed and laid out prior to construction, what is not clear is whether this was a system that was accretional i.e. the system grew gradually or whether it was part of a widespread clearance and planned agricultural/economic event, although co-axial systems are thought to fall into the latter group (Bradley 1977; Fleming 1987). Close analysis of the Lidar images illustrates that there are multi phases of construction, with older field systems underlying newer ones, implying that the system was redesigned at various times. The excavations carried out at the East Dean Woods field systems, under the direction of the author in 2015 and 2016, revealed that over 90% of the large fields were down to the bare Chalk, with a thin covering (100mm) of topsoil and leaf litter. However at the field boundaries up to 0.75m of loessic ploughsoil and flints were evident (Favis-Mortlock et al. 1997) (Fig. 15).

Fig. 15. Section through a lynchet/field boundary in East Dean Woods

To form the field boundaries it would have been necessary to either leave strips of uncultivated ground between the fields or, more likely, introduce hedges of both growing and cut material, thus allowing the fields to eventually become stock proof (Fowler 1983; Pollard et al. 1996; Pryor 1996). Flints removed from the soil during cultivation were added to the hedgerow forming the lynchets visible today (Fig. 15). Ultimately, however the upland fields were abandoned, and the limited evidence available to date (Fig. 13), suggests that this occurred at some time during the Roman period. It might have been that the ploughing technology reached

15 an efficiency such that soils were quickly removed from the main bodies of the fields, or perhaps a combination of this and economic factors, such as alternative sources of grain becoming available to the Empire. Additionally, it is clear that fields on slopes with an angle of inclination such as that of the downland dipslope, would have been subject to soil movement through natural process such as gravitational creep, which would have been exacerbated by rainfall and the melt-out of winter snow. In other areas where extensive agricultural terracing is employed, the aim is always to cut back as near as possible to a flat surface such as the vineyard “restanques” in the Luberon in southern France. These effects must then be considered alongside technological and economic factors when considering the demise of the late Prehistoric agricultural systems of the South Downs. At Waltham Down the area occupied by the burnt mound complex, as opposed to that of the barrows, is located in the corner of one of the fields (Figs. 3, 4), and there exists the possibility of a cross-cutting spatial relationship in the with the most westerly lynchet. It should therefore be possible to elucidate the temporal relationship between the two features. The dating of the lynchets is at present based on a pottery sequence that runs vertically up through the lynchets from the Late Bronze Age through to the Roman period (Fig. 16) (Busby 2016; Hooper 2016).

Fig 16. Ceramic and burnt material from the 2016 lynchet excavation. Prehistoric pottery, middle row, from the base of the lynchet and Roman, bottom row, from the upper part. 16

There is also a single radio carbon date from a piece of charcoal found at the base of the lynchet shown in Fig. 15, it gives a date of 1017 CAL BC.

It is clear that the field systems would have contained the loessic soils on the spurs and gentler valley sides; lessening the downslope and intra valley build-up seen on other parts of the Downs (Bell 1977, 1983, 1992) but containment at the field edges was a product of stripping the main body of the field. Also present across the fields are flint cairns, sometimes built into the lynchets but in other examples standing as isolated piles in the middle of a field. How the cairns derived from the agricultural system is less clear, the large numbers of flint nodules in the lynchets and cairns are not present in the wind-blown loessic cover but could have been present in a veneer of Clay-with–flints, beneath the aeolian sediment blanket, although no traces of such a cover are recorded in Charlton Forest (see above). Alternatively, they could have been produced by direct ploughing of the Chalk, as they are at the present day, when new areas of downland upland are cultivated (Fig. 17).

Fig. 17. A recently ploughed field on the Seaford Chalk at Sutton Down, 4km ESE of East Dean Woods. Note the huge quantities of flint that pose no problem for modern machinery.

As stated above the cairns do not appear to respect the lay-out of the fields, they occur within them and also at points along the lynchets themselves. It is difficult without excavation to elucidate the temporal relationship between the cairns and the field systems, although if the loess blanket was intact as the forest was cleared then the flints cannot have been produced until the fields were cultivated. Accordingly, the cairns might simply be clearance cairns, where it was easier to place unwanted nodules centrally and lose part of the field rather than taking them to the field boundaries; there appears to be no correlation between field size and presence of cairns. However, some of the cairns are large >30m low mounds of flints, which

Fig. 18. A partially robbed-out flint cairn in East Dean Woods. resemble barrows (Fig. 18). If they were merely clearance cairns it would be more efficacious to build them higher with a reduced base diameter, thus taking up less of the field. It is probably safer to say at this stage of the project that they might be a combination of burial monuments and discard heaps. The cairn surveyed in the Scrubs just to the east of East Dean Woods during the 2016 survey course is almost certainly a barrow and lies in an area outside the main complex of fields, which are present to the west, south and east of the monument (Fig. 19).

Fig. 16. LRM of the East Dean Woods, the Scrubs barrow sits above the field systems in the right centre of the image.

The survival of the field systems, cairns and other archaeological features over a period of approximately 3500 years is probably due to the fact that upon abandonment of the agricultural system the downs reverted to woodland, interspersed with pasture (plains) for sheep grazing. Much of the woodland in the 11th century probably fell within the greater estate of Earl Godwin father of Harold II, in turn after the Conquest the land was granted to Roger de Montgomery, whose seat was at Arundel. Eventually, in the 13th century the estate came to the Fitzalans, when they became earls of Arundel. The downland and woods of Overholt were part of a huge hunting area (par force de chiens) the free chase or Forest of Arundel, running from Angmering in the east to North Marden in the west (Figs. 17, 18). Parts of the forest passed into private hands after the break-up and sale of the western part of the Arundel estate from 1580 but the area of Charlton Forest that comprises part of the Manor of East Dean forest passed into the hands of the Duke of Richmond and Gordon in the late C18th and has remained so ever since. It is important to consider the development of the woodland cover when considering the degree of preservation of all the archaeological features in Charlton Forest. In 1924, the forest was

Fig. 17. The bounds of the Forest of Arundel drawn over a 1:50k OS base map, from the Fitzalan Surveys (Clough 1969)

Fig. 18. Hunting red deer in the forest (From the Livre de la Chasse by Gaston Phoebus).

20 described in a paper by A.S. Wyatt as climax beech woodland, which on the Chalk downland follows the vegetation cover cycle: grassland; scrub; ash and oak dominant mix; beech dominant mix; and finally beech dominant. Most of the Charlton Forest beech was felled and sold to pay death duties after 1924, and then in the 1930s began the gradual leasing out of blocks of the forest to the Forestry Commission.

Fig. 19. A chestnut coppice stool amongst the beech plantation.

Coppice stools of chestnut found amongst the plantation beeches suggest a short period of regeneration between the felling of the natural beech and plantation (Fig. 19). The natural tree cover is now restricted to the edges of the forest close to land boundaries, elsewhere there is a predominance of planted beech and some softwoods.

Two old maps, the Allin Map of 1597 and the Featherstonhaugh map of 1756 show the area under survey very clearly with many of the boundaries still extant on the present day OS 1:25k map (Figs. 1, 20, 21). It is clear from looking at the older map that the ditch excavated at Lamb Lea Lodge during the summer of 2017, demarcates the separation of the East Dean common from the forest, although no such boundary appears to exist to the east. The church/cathedral land (prebend) that surrounds the wood to the north and east is also clearly marked on this map,

Fig. 20. The Allin Map of 1597 showing the common of East Dean between Charlton Wood and the wood above Oxen Downe.

Fig. 21. The Featherstonhaugh map of 1756, the location of the barrows is recorded.

22 as it is on the Harris and Dawbis Arundel map (1570). A common feature shared by both map is the right angle of the East Dean and Upwaltham parish boundaries, which is clearly shown on the Lidar image (Fig. 13). The Featherstonhaugh map is interesting because it illustrates both change and stasis over a hundred and sixty year period, the common is gone and the sheep pasture between the arable fields and the scarp crest is recorded as Lamb-Lee Plain. Workhouse Bottom the C18th name for Limekiln Bottom suggests that much of the labour associated with stone picking, marling and lime pit digging was carried out by itinerant workers. Also shown on the later map is a representation of a barrow just above the caption of The Burrow, whether this is meant to portray just the large south-easterly barrow, in isolation, is not known. A consideration of how Medieval and post-Medieval people viewed the multitude of earthworks in the survey course landscape will form part of the post-survey analysis.

Aims and objectives

The combined topographic and geophysical survey is designed to:-

 Produce a very high resolution model of the burnt mound complex.  Identify the precise number of areas of burning.  Identify the size of the complex more accurately.  Elucidate the spatial and temporal relationships of the burnt mound complex to the lynchets, trackways, and other features associated with the field systems.  Establish the chronological and spatial relationship between the field systems and the burnt mound complex.  Identify other features within and outside the main monument group.  Link the monuments into the topography of the downland block.  Provide information germane to an excavation of the burnt mound complex in August 2019.  Formulate recommendations for future research and management at the sites. All the features to be surveyed, are under managed forestry.

The latter point is of the utmost importance, given the mechanised nature and procedure for thinning and clear felling. In Charlton Forest, MBR has worked with the Forestry Commission

23 during thinning operations at the Scrubbs and around Stonepit Bottom (Fig. 1), to ensure that contractors treat the preserved field systems as present day entities, with single access and egress points (Mills et al. 2017).

2/. The Survey Course (Specific) A major aim of the course is to produce an accurate digital map of the topography of a burnt mound complex within a Prehistoric field system on the spur of Waltham Down at the eastern edge of Charlton Forest. The results will be similar to and build upon those generated during the 2008 - 2017 survey courses and the 2009 - 18 field courses (Figs. 22 - 28).

Fig. 22. Devil’s Humps postmap SC2009, showing location of all recorded heights, taken as spot heights and strings.

Fig. 23. QGIS generated contour model of Barrow 5 made during SC2017. (Frame dimensions 40x40m, North to the top)

At the beginning of the course, the site will be walked to establish the parameters and features of the monuments that will be surveyed. This exercise will be followed by an attempt to locate any other features not marked up on the NMP map (Figs. 7, 8, Appendix 2), and to link the monuments to the broader topography (Fig. 24).

Fig. 24. Google Earth image of the downland block in the survey area. The southern edge of the Weald is visible in the foreground, with the northern Coastal Plain in the background.

Having established the features to be surveyed, a series of benchmarks will be set up across the site. The source of the 2018 survey course benchmarks will be established by GPS (Global Positioning Satellites), which provide 3D co-ordinates; these comprise an Easting, Northing and height above sea-level. The co-ordinates will be measured to a set of permanent master bench marks set up on the first morning of the course; from these benchmarks each group will transfer co-ordinates into temporary bench marks (TBM) in their own survey area. Following this process, which will be taught as a single group exercise, the group shall split into three separate teams, each of which will survey a specific part of the area shown in figure 4. The accumulated data will be ‘drawn-up’ during the late afternoon and evening, at Goodwood: during periods of very inclement weather the same resource will be utilised. Each group will survey their features using a combination of spot heights and strings, to produce a basic but complete coverage of their allotted features (Figs. 22, 23). At the end of the course the initial

26 drawing will have been completed, and the data generated to create this drawing will be utilised by other software packages such as SURFER and QGIS to create a rendered model that illustrates the monuments in their topographic context (Figs 25, 27-30).

Fig. 25. DTM of the Stonehill Clump barrow, showing damage on in the vicinity of the barrow from tree throws generated by the 1987 storm (SC2015).

In addition to the Total Station survey, the course will also consider other methods of recording, such as those utilised by Dave McOmish at the Bow Hill ‘British Camp’, which include the use of the plane table and alidade (Fig. 26).

Fig. 26. Plane table drawing of Bowhill/British Camp.

In the field, students will also be asked to consider and evince the setting, chronology and possible future excavation of the monuments and adjacent features, and ascertain how the survey can be tailored and used to facilitate these objectives. Back at the Institute, group tutorials will examine further manipulation of the survey data, including image enhancement and draping the monuments on the downland topography (Figs. 9, 27-30).

Fig. 27. Digital terrain model of Goosehill Camp looking SW, showing the relationship of the monument to the valley side relief. Colour scale in m OD.

Fig. 28. Surface relief model of the Heyshott Down Barrow Group.

Fig. 29. Final plan of the Charlton Down/Goodwood Racecourse Barrow Group, produced in QGIS format (SC2015).

Fig. 30. Lamb Lea looking NE, showing lynchets, common/forest boundary ditch & back wall of the hunting lodge. (SC 2016).

3/. The Survey Course (General) Aims of the course The course seeks to provide students with an understanding of the principal surveying techniques employed by field archaeologists and provide training in undertaking a detailed survey of archaeological remains using a Total Station and GNSS Rover; together with writing- up and interpreting the resultant survey in a broader archaeological context.

Objectives of the course

This course is designed to give students

1. An overview of the issues involved in archaeological surveying. 2. Practical understanding and experience in topographical surveying. 3. The opportunity to develop teamwork skills along with the ability to prioritise and structure tasks within a set time period. 4. The ability to download data from the total stations and undertake preliminary analysis. 5. The ability to undertake the production of maps and images of the topographic survey. 6. Experience of combining other archaeological information with the survey to produce a written report and discussion of the site. 7. The basic knowledge from which to critically assess the applicability of individual methods to specific survey situations, and assess survey data presented by others. 8. A sharpened awareness of the processes involved in presenting the results of an archaeological survey, through the completion of a written report.

Course Information This handbook contains the core information about the content and administration of the course. Further information on coursework guidelines is available at http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/administration/students/handbook and should be read prior to coming on the course and during the production of the course work. Additional information regarding the area to be surveyed, surveying techniques and instruments to be used will be provided during the course and via the reading list. If students have queries about the objectives, structure, content, assessment or organisation of the course, they should consult the Course Teachers, one of whom is the course co-ordinator.

Teaching Methods The Course will be taught by Mark Roberts and Alec Walker. The greater part of the course will be taught during a five-day field course on the Goodwood Estate, with the students staying in the racehorse stable complex at Goodwood. The first day will be spent introducing the course, undertaking an initial review of the area to be surveyed and discussing the equipment to be used. The majority of the following four days will be spent in the field undertaking a detailed survey. The students will be divided into small groups, each with its own total station. In the late afternoons students will return to Goodwood to download that day’s survey data and discuss the results. There will also be de-briefing meetings to distribute the raw data and discuss the assessment exercise that will be undertaken in the weeks following the course, back at the Institute of Archaeology. For general points of interest or enquiry during the course, students should approach Mark Roberts who is the course co- ordinator.

Teaching Schedule Teaching will take place from 08.30 to 16.00 and 18.00 to 19.00 each day with short breaks in the morning (10.30) and afternoon (14.30), in addition to a lunch break of 45 minutes (12.15- 13.00). This timetable will require students to have prepared their lunch and be ready to leave Goodwood at 08.00 each morning, in order to make best use of the available daylight: you will return to Goodwood around 16.40, when it gets dark. The last part of the working day will be used to download the survey data and discuss results.

Prerequisites There is no formal requirement to take another course or courses before taking this course, but it is assumed that most students will have taken part in the first-year field archaeology course at Downley and will thus already have had some introduction to the survey area landscape and use of the total station.

Workload The initial five-day field-course (c. 50 hours) is complemented by four hours of class discussion and computing practicals. You are expected to undertake more extensive background reading, research and computing work to complete your assignment, and you should allow around 90 hours for this. 32

Method of Assessment This course is assessed by a single 4000 word illustrated report based on the survey you undertook.

The report should be in three parts.

1. An introduction to the burnt mounds of the East Dean and Charlton Forest survey area including discussion of any other evidence for the prehistory and history of the area that may be relevant to understanding the survey (e.g. previous research; previous survey courses data; maps; data from the South Downs National Park Lidar Survey; Historic Environment Record – (HER); Archaeology Data Service – (ADS); Historic England’s Pastscape etc.). (30%).

2. The main body of the report should consist of work pertaining to the survey methods undertaken, which will include; description of the equipment used; methodologies employed during the survey; the aims and objectives of the survey; an assessment of the suitability of the methodology used; and technical and practical difficulties potentially affecting the results of the survey. (40%).

3. The final part of the report concerns the processing of the master survey data (which you will each be supplied with after the field course). This work will involve the production of plans; a discussion of those plans based on your observations during the survey course; integration of the plans and survey data with other lines of evidence (e.g. landscape survey) relevant to our understanding of the monuments on the downland dip slope, and the environment within which they are located. You might also wish to briefly discuss your recommendations for further research and by what methods (30%).

The report should be fully illustrated with location maps and survey drawings produced to publication standard, the usual use of references and a bibliography:- http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/administration/students/handbook/referencing The size of each component of the report should reflect the marking weighting, although some leeway is permissible.

Submission of the report The deadline for submission has been set for 17.00 on Wednesday 19th of December 2018. Turnitin Code:- 3884042. Please see http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/administration/students/handbook for further details concerning the marking system, return of coursework etc. Any questions then please come and see me in my office or e-mail me at [email protected]

Health and safety Everyone attending the course must have filled in a health and safety/personal details form before the start of the course. The Institute has a Health and Safety policy and code of practice that provides guidance on field and laboratory and work etc. All work undertaken in the Institute is governed by these guidelines and students have a duty to be aware of them and to adhere to them at all times. This is particularly important in the context of this practical field course. A copy of the completed risk assessment for this course will be available for consultation both in the field and at the Institute. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/administration/common/fieldwork/safety (Fieldwork section). Please ensure that you are up to date with your tetanus injections. a) You will need clothing to cope with all weathers but mainly the cold and wet. A complete set of waterproofs and strong waterproof shoes or boots are advisable. Staff shall refuse to allow inadequately equipped students to participate in the course. b) Make yourself aware of the location of the First Aid Kit (there is always one kit in MBR’s vehicle). Any accident must be reported to the responsible member of staff at once and an Accident Report Form completed following any accident. If you become aware of a hazard, inform one of the course teachers or another responsible member of staff immediately. c) All tools and equipment must be used as instructed. When not in use they should be stacked as instructed so as not to cause hazards. d) Do not walk off on your own, please advise a member of staff if you need to leave the survey area or the Goodwood accommodation. e) In general follow the relevant sections of the Country Code: Guard against all risks of fire.

Fasten all gates. Keep to paths across farmland. Avoid damaging fences, hedges and walls. Leave no litter. Safeguard water supplies. Protect wildlife, wild plants and trees. Go carefully on country roads. Respect the life of the countryside. f) Take particular care on country lanes. Keep to edge of the road facing oncoming traffic. Carry a torch and wear bright clothing after dark and do not walk alone after nightfall. You are required to comply with all instructions contained in the UCL Fieldwork Approved Code of Practice available from the fieldwork section at:- http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/administration/common/fieldwork

Food and Drink Those staying at Goodwood will be provided with materials to make their own packed lunch; breakfast and a hot evening meal will be provided each day (see preliminary information sheet circulated on Moodle on 1/9/18). You should make sure that you take an adequate supply of drinking water up to the site each day. A flask for carrying hot drinks would also be beneficial. Please note that NO ALCOHOL is allowed on site and none should be consumed off-site during working hours. This is a health and safety regulation, and any infringement of this rule will result in expulsion from the course. There will be opportunities for sociable drinking in the evenings, please do this in moderation, return to Goodwood in good time and take care not to disturb the residents or other students who may be resting. Please note that the Goodwood stable block is a NON-SMOKING area. Anyone smoking during the survey course should do so with consideration for others and make sure there is no risk of fire.

4/. Reading List and Bibliography

Aldiss, D.T., 2002. Geology of the Chichester and Bognor District. Sheet description of the British Geological Survey, 1:50,000 Sheet 317 and Sheet 332 (England and Wales). Keyworth: British Geological Survey.

Allcroft, A.H., 1916. Some earthworks of West Sussex. Sussex Archaeological Collections 58, 65-90.

Archaeology Data Service., 2017. Bowl Barrows [ADS] Import RCN- NMR_NATINV- 249666. http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archsearch/record.jsf?titleId=10365867

Bell, M., 1977. Excavations at Bishopstone. Sussex Archaeological Collections 115, 299pp.

Bell, M., 1983. Valley Sediments as Evidence of Prehistoric Land-use on the South Downs. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 49, 119–150.

Bell, M., 1992. The Prehistory of Soil Erosion, In: Past and Present Soil Erosion : Archaeological and Geographical Perspectives, eds. M. Bell and J. Boardman (Oxbow Monograph 22). Oxford: Oxbow Books, 21–35.

Bettess, F., 1998. Surveying for Archaeologists. Durham: University of Durham. [ARCH AL 12 BET; TEACHING COLLN ARCH 2518]

Bowden M. (ed.), 1999. Unravelling the Landscape: an inquisitive approach to Archaeology. Stroud: RCHME Tempus. [INST ARCH AH BOW]

Bowden, M., 2002. With alidade and tape: graphical and plane table survey of archaeological earthworks. Swindon: English Heritage. (Free download from EH website.

Bradley, R., 1977. Prehistoric field systems in Britain and north‐west Europe ‐ A review of some recent work. World Archaeology 9(3), 265–80.

Brown, T.G., Davis, S.R., Hatton, J, O’Brien, C., Reilly, F., Taylor, K., Emer Dennehy, K., O’Donnell, L., Bermingham, N., Mighall, T., Timpany, S., Tetlow, E., Wheeler, J. and Wynne, S., 2016. The environmental context and functions of burnt mounds: new studies of Irish Fulachtaí Fiadh. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 82, 259-290.

Brück, J., 2000. Settlement, landscape and social identity: the Early-Middle Bronze Age transition in Wessex, Sussex and the Thames Valley. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 19(3), 273-300.

Busby, P., 2016 The “Secrets of the High Woods” Project East Dean Woods, West Sussex: Archaeological Excavation, CA Report 16372. Milton Keynes: Cotswold Archaeology.

Carpenter, E., Small, F, Truscoe K. and Royall, C., 2016. South Downs National Park: the High Woods from Above NMP. Swindon: Historic England

Clough, M., (ed) 1969 Two Estate Surveys of the Fitzalan Earls of Arundel. Sussex Record Society Volume LXVII. Lewes: SRS.

Curwen, E.C., 1918. Covered Ways on the Sussex Downs. Sussex Archaeological Collections 59, 35-75.

Curwen, E.C., 1929. Prehistoric Sussex. London: The Homeland Association Ltd.

Curwen, E.C., 1939. The Iron Age in Sussex. Sussex Archaeological Collections 80, 214- 216.

Drewett, P.L., 2003. Field Archaeology: an introduction. London: UCL Press.

Dunkin, D., 2001. Metalwork, burnt mounds and settlement in the West Sussex Coastal Plain: a contextual study. Antiquity 75 (288), 261-262.

English Heritage. 2008. Geophysical survey in archaeological field evaluation. Swindon: English Heritage.

Favis-Mortlock, D., Boardman, J. and Bell, M., 1997. Modelling long-term anthropogenic erosion of a loess cover: South Downs, UK. The Holocene 7(1), 79–89.

Fleming, A., 1987. Coaxial field systems: some questions of time and space. Antiquity 61(232), 188–202.

Fowler, P.J., 1983. The Farming of Prehistoric Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Franks, A.W., 1853. Proceedings at the meetings of the Archaeological Institute. The Archaeological Journal of the Royal Archaeological Institute 10, 355-357

Garwood, P., 2003. Round Barrows and Funerary Traditions in Late Neolithic and Bronze Age Sussex. In D. Rudling (ed.), The Archaeology of Sussex to AD 2000, 47-68. King's Lynn: Heritage Marketing and Publication Ltd.

Ghilani, C. D. & Wolf, P. R., 2008. Elementary Surveying: An introduction to Geomatics. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Grinsell, L.V., 1931. Sussex in the Bronze Age. Sussex Archaeological Collections 72, 30- 68.

Grinsell, L.V., 1934. Sussex barrows. Sussex Archaeological Collections 75, 217-275.

Grinsell, L.V., 1941. Sussex barrows: supplement no. II. Sussex Archaeological Collections 82, 115-123.

Harcourt, L.V., 1847. Celtic Antiquities near Chichester. Sussex Archaeological Collections 1, 149-155.

Harding, A.F., 2000. European Societies in the Bronze Age. Cambridge: CUP. [see Chapter 3 Burial pp 73-123].

Harris, R and Dawbis, J., 1570 A survey of the Honor of Arundel. Arundel Castle Archives MD 535: Fo. 26v-27r.

Hooper, F., 2016 Analysis of field systems revealed by LiDAR in Charlton Forest, West Sussex, UK. Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the Degree of BSc Archaeology of University College London.

Howard, P., 2007. Archaeological Surveying and Mapping: recording and depicting the landscape. London: Routledge.

Macphail, R. and Crowther, J., 2016. Charlton Forest (TP1): Soil Micromorphology, Chemistry and Magnetic Susceptibility. Unpublished Report for M.B. Roberts.

Manley, J., (ed.) 2016. Secrets of the High Woods: revealing hidden landscapes. London: Trident.

McKinley, J., 1997. Bronze Age ‘barrows’ and funerary rites and rituals of cremation. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 63, 129-45.

Marsden, B.M., 1999. Early Barrow Diggers. Stroud: Tempus.

Mills, C., Brown G., Rocks-Macqueen, D. and Huff, Q., 2017. Secrets of the High Woods Project, South Downs National Park: guidelines for the stewardship of heritage assets in forestry management. SDNPA: Landward Research Ltd.

Musson, R.C., 1954. An illustrated catalogue of Sussex Beaker and Bronze Age Pottery. Sussex Archaeological Collections 92, 106-24.

Pasquinucci, M. and Trément, F. (eds), 2000. Non-Destructive Techniques Applied to Landscape Archaeology. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Peters, F., 2002. Bronze Age Barrows: factors influencing their survival and destruction. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 18 (3), 255-264.

Pollard, J., Fryer, V., Murphy, P. Taylor M. and Wiltshire, O., 1996. Iron Age Riverside Pit Alignments at St Ives, Cambridgeshire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 62, 93–115.

Pryor, F., 1996. Sheep, stockyards and field systems: Bronze Age livestock populations in the Fenlands of eastern England. Antiquity 70(268), 313–24.

Roskams, S.P., 2001. Excavation. Cambridge: CUP.

Seager-Thomas, M., 2008. From potsherds to people: Sussex prehistoric pottery. Sussex Archaeological Collections, 146, 19-52.

Smith, H., 1870. Note on Prehistoric burial in Sussex. Sussex Archaeological Collections 22, 57-76.

Subramanian, R., 2007. Surveying and Levelling. Oxford: OUP.

Tilley, C., 2004. Round Barrows and Dykes as landscape Metaphors. Cambridge Archaeological Journal. 14 (2), 185-203.

Tilley, C., 2010. Interpreting landscapes: geologies, topographies, identities. Walnut Creek CA: Left Coast Press.

Uren, J. & Price, W. F., 2006. Surveying for Engineers. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Woodward, A., 2000. British Barrows: a matter of life and death. Stroud: Tempus.

Wyatt, A.S., 1927. The development and structure of beech comunities on the Sussex Downs. Journal of Ecology 12(2), 145.-154.

Yates, D.T., 2007. Land, Power and Prestige: Bronze Age Field Systems in Southern England. Oxford: Oxbow.

Yates, D.T. and Bradley, R., 2010. The siting of metalwork hoards in the Bronze Age of South-East England. The Antiquaries Journal 90, 41-72. 40

Appendix 1 Setting up the Total Station

1. Place the tripod over the survey control point; try to get the centre of the tripod top approximately over the centre of the survey control point.

2. Set the tripod up so that it is roughly level; the height of the plate should be as high as the shortest operator’s shoulder. This setting enables everybody present to use the total station.

3. Place the total station on top of the tripod. Hold it very carefully and try to keep two hands on the machine at all times. There is a screw under the tribrach of the total station that attaches to the tripod. The 1200, 800 and 700 series total stations have a laser plummet. Once the machine is attached to the tripod turn the machine on. It should default to a levelling and laser plummet screen (this action will depend on internal settings). The laser plummet will appear as a red dot beneath the total station. Carefully move the tripod until the laser plummet is located over the control point. Turn the thumbscrews until the plummet is central over the survey point/nail. Heel the tripod in so that it is stable (it does not to be underground)

4. Centre the laser plummet again; turning the thumbscrews does this.

5. Now use the spirit level on the tribrach to level the tripod. Level the tripod by adjusting the legs. The thumbscrews should be used for fine adjustment only.

6. Once you have it level, the laser plummet will have moved away from the survey point. Use the thumbscrews to re-centre the plummet. The tripod will need levelling again (with the tripod legs) but should need to make smaller adjustments.

7. Eventually you will have the tripod level with the plummet nearly directly over the survey point. To make the final adjustment then loosen the screw that holds the tribrach to the tripod. You should only have to move the plate a small

distance to centre the plummet. Re-level with the thumbscrews (this action should only involve a small adjustment).

8. Finally level the machine using the electronic level. This will appear as a horizontal and vertical bar or as a pictorial representation of a bulls eye spirit level (depending upon the machine used).

9. Exit out of the levelling screen.

10. The height of the total station must now be measured. The height should be from the ground to a mark on the side of the total station that corresponds to the centre of the telescope. Keep the tape measure as straight as possible. The height should be recorded to the nearest millimetre. Record the height in your notebook.

11. The total station is now ready to work. We shall learn how to use the system programmes in the field.

Appendix 2. Example of a Chichester District Historic Environment Record (HER):

DISTRICT HER NUMBER: CD2621 Name: Bowl barrow – Waltham Down, East Dean Monument Type: BOWL BARROW Period from: Bronze Age

Narrow Type: Period to:

Status: Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM) Grade/Ref: 20060 Prev Grade/Ref: 203a Parish: East Dean Map Sheet: SU91SW NGRX: 492740 NGRY: 114550

Remarks: Grinsell lists three bowl barrows on Waltham Down. Barrow A was 14 paces in diameter and 4ft high, and was tree-covered {1}. In 1971 they were within a young beech plantation and none showed any trace of a ditch. Barrow A was 14m in diameter and 0.8 and overgrown with young trees, otherwise in good condition {2}. CD2621 is one of two bowl barrows situated on the crest of a chalk ridge running west from Waltham Down forming part of the Waltham Down round barrow cemetery. This is a linear cemetery aligned approximately NW - SE consisting of five bowl barrows spread over a distance of 350m. CD2621 is the westernmost barrow with a central mound 14m in diameter and 1.2m high. Surrounding the mound is a ditch which has become infilled over time and is no longer visible at ground level, but survives as a buried feature c.3m wide. Scheduling revised {3}.

{1} Sussex Barrows Date: 1934 Author: Grinsell, L.V. Journal/Serial: Sussex Archaeological Collections Volume/part: 75 Specific Ref: p.246

{2} SU91SW1 (OS record card) Date: 1971 Author: OS Field Investigator

{3} EH Scheduling Order Author: English Heritage

Fig. 31. Scheduling information for the Upwaltham Barrow Group.

Appendix 3 Students attending the surveying course

Group A Group B Issie Willcocks Sophia Robinson Sam Stewart Caragh Murphy-Collinson Louise Prior David Faddoul Finn Stileman

Group C Caitlin Nathan-Meister Max Debowski Alexandra Qu Jakov Mlinarevic

Appendix 4 Useful telephone numbers and contacts

Mark Roberts Mobile. – 07803 500321 Alec Walker Mobile. – 0707757 081420 Darren Norris: Goodwood Forestry. – 01730 812325 Rob Thurlow: Forestry Commission. – 07771 667140 Ciara Williams: Goodwood Land Agent. – 01243 755000 – 07860 752703 Penny Morris: Stable Dormitory. – 01243 755036 – 07713 502688 Johno Newton: Gamekeeper Goodwood Estate. – 01243 535248 – 07977 441874 Goodwood Education Office. – 01243 755157 James Peill: Archivist Goodwood Estate. – 01243 818253 St. Richard’s Hospital Chichester. – 01243 788122 Doctor: Lavant Surgery. – 01243 527624

Appendix 5 Acknowledgements The compilation of this handbook has been greatly facilitated by James Kenny at Chichester District Council HER department, and Charlotte Frearson and Sandra Bond at the Institute of Archaeology. I am most grateful to their Graces the Duke and Duchess of Richmond for their support and encouragement. At the Forestry Commission I would like to thank Rob Thurlow, Simon James and Tim Yarnell for supporting and facilitating this and other projects in the forest. The following have all been instrumental in helping to set up the course: Darren Norris the Head Forester; Ciara Williams, Land Agent; Johno Newton, Gamekeeper; together with James Peill, Penny and Alan Morris, and Sarah Stewart, of the Goodwood Estate.

Rear Cover. Digital Terrain Model of Burnt Mound 2 on Bow Hill, made by students on the 2013 Surveying Course.