ORE Open Research

TITLE Roman Settlement and Salt Production on the Coast: The Work of Sam Nash

AUTHORS Rippon, Stephen

JOURNAL Somerset and Natural History: Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeological and Natural History Society

DEPOSITED IN ORE 21 April 2008

This version available at

http://hdl.handle.net/10036/23872

COPYRIGHT AND REUSE

Open Research Exeter makes this work available in accordance with publisher policies.

A NOTE ON VERSIONS

The version presented here may differ from the published version. If citing, you are advised to consult the published version for pagination, volume/issue and date of publication ROMAI{ SE,TTLE,ME,I{TAI\D SALT PRODI-ICTIOI{Oi{ THE SOMERStrTCOAST: THE, WORK OF SAMIJE,LNASH

STEPHEIVRIPPON

SUMMARY

This paper describessome of the work of the Somersetarchaeoiogist and local historian Samuel Nash (i913-1985) relating to the coastalalluvial areasof the SomersetLevels between1956 and 1978.His various archives have become scattered befween several libraries, museums and private coilections, and one aim of this paper is to provide a handlist of the records that survive. The second aim is to use Nash's own data to reconstruct the Roman landscapearound Burnham-on-Sea and where a varietll of settlementswere discovered, some asiociated with salt production.

NrRoDicrrow

Archaeologically, the Somersetpeat iandshave seensome of the most intensiveresearch of any area in Britain. Work by Bulleid and Gray, Godwin, and John and Bryony Coles,along with many others, has provided a wealth of information with regard io the prehistoric sequence of the inland bogs. Towards the coastthese peat depositsare buried under later alluvium, and this area of the SomersetLevels, in cbntrastto the peat lands, has received very 1itt1eattention. However, between 1956 and 1978the locai amateurarchaeolo- gist Samuel Nash was quietly recording the archaeologyof this area as it was steadily destroyedby development.He amassedahuge amountof informationwh-ich tu. rr"u",.been given the attention that it deserves. This paper is an attemptto highlight Nash's achievements.After a shorrbiography of his life, the important work that Nash carried out on the Roman landscapeof t-tre' will be considered(Fig. 1), I{ash also collecteda large amountof medievalmaterial; that work is summarisedelse#here (Rippon 1994; Iggl). T;houghmuch of the information is available in typescnpt reports, depositedin SomersetCourity Museum, T'aunton,and Burnham Public Library, extensiveuie has been made of a collection of letters written to StephenDewar, a former Somersetarchaeologist who had moved to Dorchester.These letters are referred to by date, but are at presentstill in private hands;I would like to thank Mury Kempson,Nash's daughter,for allow.ingme to consultthem.

SAMIJE,LNASH 1913_1985

Samuel George Nash, son of a postman, was born rr 1913 at Leatherhead,Surrey, and.went to Dorking High School. In 1928 he starred work as a clerk at an insurance firm in London,

99 r00 Sornerset,\rchaeology and liatw'al l{istoryi, 1995

o

Fis. 1 The SomersetLevels.

leaving in L932 to attend Birbeck College, London. IJnforfunately he had to leave after a year as his sister had fallen ill and Nash had to eam a wage to help pay for her treatment; During the war he served in North Africa and Italy, and upon returning he briefly went back to the world of insurance, but soon decided he preferred the outdoor life, becoming a gar- dener. in 1955 he moved to Highbridge, near Burnham-on-Sea in Somerset, working as a clerk at the Sealed Motor Company in until his retirement n 1911. He died in 1985 For the whole of his time in Highbridge,Nash actively investigated its past.In particular, he recordedthe archaeologicalexposures on every building site he could visit, and com- pleted an impressive amount of documentaryresearch. He was a tounder member of the Burnham-on-SeaArchaeological and Natural History Society, with whom he undertook a seriesof small-scaleexcavations. In L91I he was recruitedby Dr (now Professor)Peter Fowler, then of Bristoi Universify,to carry out archaeologicalrecording in advanceof the M5 motorwa\zconstructi.on to the east of Brent Knoil. Rontan Settlementon the Somerset Coast 101 TIiE EARLY YEARS: ARCHAEOLOGICAIOBSERVATION 'Sam o' rhe moors', as the late Stephen Dewar called Nash, observedbu dhg work, sewice trenches,quarrying and road construction in some roo ,il.-i" e";;;a?j'*ourra^ :oo sites on the coastar aluvium of the somerset Levels u, u *rrJ, Hi, o"rgir*. uu'v Kempson remembersthat,'wierever a_building was being built or demoiished,Dad was there rooting about in the holes, trowel in rran[.'usuary he simpiy collected any sherds, but in some casessubstantia-l amountsof material *"." r".ou"r"d and sectionsthrough .y"d the ourseverat sma.l1-scate excavarions, sometimes single handed *:tT::::?:a:1.\seeAppend'* 1). -gjHe also observed severalmajor developmentswhere he recovered,no materialdespire deep intewentions; such negative.uid*;" ;; o"- usefur in reconsrruchngpast settlement pattems (Fig.2; seebenw1. "."i,,r"iv It is also worth stressing - the attentionfrash paid to medievarand post_medieval a time when it was sitesat the Romandiscoveries that athactedmost attention.In 196; visitedby Norman ffi;J euinnen of the o.rdnancesurvey, who marked;;; fifty R"man sites on his maps'However, just two .because medievalsites were added the headof the offlce wasnor very nterestedin medieval,(Nash letter 29.k.64). Nashwas extremely werl.read,and not onryrecorJed what he saw,but tried to it. He did not like ,I rnterpret eivins talks but commentei thnlk they are g"oa r* on" _ clarifu one's ideas-and one hasto ie srue one can sulstantiate,with examplesor statementif questioned evidence,every afterwards'(Nash letter g.viii.64).rr" *u, i".y *"ri."J, ticularlyinterested andpar_ in thework of georogistsrioson anaHeyworth from wereabre ger Aberystwyth.They to severalsamples from an excavationsamplei f"; i";;;ii;'uy of the same t_r,uuyo", -university;Nash,v^ery-much uppr""iut"J th" lmportanceof palaeo-environmental evidence letter 14.xii.69). Q'{ash He was'f,articurarlypleased when otherstook an in his work, and was 'most interest honoured'uy ttreordnance Survey,s interest and the fact two of his siteswould be 'Map that marke.don the of RomanBdtain, (Nashletter s.n.la). IL 1972 he told Dewar .i, I hale giu* up excavatingand now devote leisureto doctments'(Nash F?, ^short my letter 8.x.72).ffis fiJ !""ututor was in 1974, vau{ c..-!l]o-was when a brick 9f openedin Berrow church anJ he was askedto take ctrarge emptyrng(Nash letter of rts 26j.74). Meanwhile,he had startedto transcribe,rr"p*ri. wrote a hisiory of records, Bumham church and monthly articles for th" prrirh ;"#;;.

TiIE LATER YEARS:GENERATING AN A:RCHIVE

Laten 19'71Nash had started 'some to showan increasedconcem over the archivesof his work _ thirty fiIes, each 1-2 inches thick on 62Roman srtesand some200 medievarand post-medieval'(Nash letter 10'xii.71).He-finally produced three lists of unstratifiedmaterial excavarionreporrs. Copies of tt"r",'*J-n, ffiLffi: finds,went to i.,n"rr", Co*ry, Nashkept mericulousur::T,. of his work, gomp'ing numerousrists and rcporrs. unfor- tunately,these records have become scattered,and many are not easily accessible.The materialis consideredir detailelsewhere 1993), otherworks (Nash -(Rippon andfru, U""" ,Jl"tl""f], exptoited l1."I"lul 1e72_3; nippo"igsi,-lisi-leiiiiiaii,rouo*, i, mtendedin part as a guide to the ,1?7a; availabre,out"rrut, including th"'nomeious tfrescript and manuscriptreports- A tun rist of Nash's sites,inctuainj *Appenaix d";;;;;'#ii",,,* una post-medievalmateriar is. to 'found be in Rippon 1993, 2.8.T^;;r- Ietrers Dewar contain much information, to se"tions, not included in his archives;where they are -inctuoing"sketJ ,Nash other usedhere they aret""r".*""a ry date(i.e. retter In one of his last lenersto [date],). Stephenn"**, r.lurt ,"ui"*"J rriJ*orl, *i"*iii'u' ou."r_ 102 Si;mersetArchaeologlt and l,latural flistorlt, ]995 'Archaeology vation that all archaeologistsshould heed: I f'ear,plays a very smal1part in my Life at present.but I am hoping it is not the end and that I shal1be able to do a little more yet. Is it not curious that so much was uncoveredduring the years I was busy in the field and that nothing has been since. Such a contrast, viewed on a country wide scale, makes one wonder whether our archaeologicaimaps, with their concentrationshere and empty spacesthere, are hopelessiymisleading' (Nash letter 19.vi.75).

THE ROMAN TOPOGRAPHYOF TI{E BI,T.NIIAM AREA 'A In 19723 Nash publi.shedin theseProceed,ings a very brief accountof Deep Water Idet 'magnum at Highbridge' Q.{ashi972-3). That paper (reducedfrom his opus' of some 12,000 words) is a who1lyinadequate summary of Nash's impertant observationsaround Sandyway Farm (formerly Huish) in llighbridge, near Bumham-on-Sea.More detail of those obser- vations is provided below, including the critical stratigraphic detail, and suggestionsare made concernilg the nature of the Roman landscapein this area during the Roman period. A number of additionalmanuscdpt and typescriptreports written by Nash are also used (see Appendix 2 below). These are cited in this paper by file number br date, Where Nash's referencesto tithe map fie1d-names,tithe map plot numbers, or his own site numbers can be correlated,this information is also given in citations. A-11measurements have been con- verted to metric. The pottery dating was carried out by Roger Leech as part of his doctoral research(Leech 1977a).I would like to thaak Dr Leech for allowine me to use this infor- mation. Nash quite rightly postulated the existenceof a substantial tidai creek to the south of llighbridge and anotherto the south of Brent Kno11(Fig. 2; Nash I9j2-3, Fig. 1; Rippon 'proto-Brue', 1991, 63). The former can be termed the as it predatesthe presentRiver Brue which is a medieval creation (Rippon 1997, 213). The broad corridor of this channel com- plex lay between the village of Highbridge to the north, and the gravel island at Alstone to the south (Fig. 1; based on Fhdlay 1965). This isiand is now parrly buried by alluvium, though Nash observedits submergednorthem edgejust to the south of the presentcanalised Brue (Fig. 2; basedon Nash nd., Fig. 2). 'proto-Brue' There are tracesof the jn the presentlandscape. The modem is a medieval that cut into the naturally meandering course of the Westhill , which formed the Bumham parish boundary (Fig. 2); this appearsto have been the last surviving 'proto-Brue'. remnant of the Apart from the pattem of fieid-boundaries,_the slightly lower- lying nature of this areais suggestedby the medieval name Broad Wharf for the area south of Bridge. Deep finds of Roman material in this area also suggestthe presenceof a substantialchannel (seebelow). The other substantial palaeochannel lies aiong the Bumham-Berrodsouth Brent parish boundary. This river, known as the siger, marked the southem edge of the 7th century Brent estategranted to GlastonburyAbbey, but has almost totally silted up Gig. 2; Rippon 1994). It is now only perceptibleas a slight depressionunder flood conditions (Aston 1985, Fig. 54). Nash observedthe construction of a housing estateover the line of the chanriel,close to where the Bumham to Berow road dips slightly as it crossesthe old river course. He 'probiems noted with drainagein an east-westoriented depressionwith clay risi-ngon each side and a great dep{h of sand Qetween' (Nash letter 9.v.66). To the south of Brent Knoll, the Siger tumed south, though a tributary continued eastwards. The southem continuation of the Siger can be traced through a detailed contor[ survey carried out in advanceof the (information from R.ogerLeech). This shows it continuing as far as Isleport Farm, and then bearing east towards Bumharn Moor Lane; another tributarv flowed west towards Edithmead. -_-__-_l

Roman Settlementon the SomersetCoast 103 The position.of the Roman coastlineis unknown,but may have been severalhundred metresto the west of its present position, as this part of the S"u-* Estuaryseems to have experiencedconsiderable coastal erosionover the past two mrilennia (Allen 1990; Fulford et ai' 1994)' The date of the belt of sand d.unesthit currentlyprotects this srretchof coast is not known. None of Nash's excavations here went d.ownin1, turther than medievalhor_ izons (see Appendix 1)' though further up the coast at Weston-rup.r-Marerecent obser- vations of building work have revealedtwo layers of stratifledRoman occupation,seaiing and seaiedby blown sand,suggesting that here at least the duneswere in eiistence by the Roman period (information from PeterBerridge of WoodspringMuseum). The Roman sites around - Highbridg. at Marine Drive, woiston and Highbrid-eeitself - appearto have lain on a levee 'proto-Brue,. by the northernbank of the rn" area might also have been siightly higher and drier becauseof localiseddeposits of blown/waterlain fonning a continuation :3d of the belt of coastalsand dunes (Fig. 2). The road between Highbridge and Burnham ran along this possible1evee, and was known as ,Sandyway,. Deposits of sand were recorded by: Nash in various locations aiong this road, and at the Fairford Road sites(Fig- 3; Nash oct: 1915;Nash letter 9.v.66).The LighthouseInn site near Marine Drive (seebetow) was 'Hoidbeaches', once called possibly derived ftom old Beaches'Roman materiaiwas recoveredfrom a depthr of- 0.6 * fro* the vicinity of a sand- fil1edchannel (lrlash lener 2Z.vti.69).

ROMAN occuPATIoN oi{ THE BAi\rKs oF A TIDAL PILL (Fies 2 and 3)

Sandyway Lane (Huish) In the Roman period, the northern edge 'proto-Brue' of the channel complex appearsto have lain roughly along the line of Sandyway Line. A 60 m section,oriented north-west/south-east, alongside this road by sandyway Farm (formerly Huish) showeda layer of redepositedRoman matenai in an unevenlyeroded ciay/silt, sloprng down into this channelfrom a depthof 0.g4to 7.3-lm(Fig. 4; Nash nd' site C1, Fig' 5)' West of this, worn Romanmaterial was found to a depthof l.2l-1.45 nd, Fig. 5). m (Nash Justto the north of thesesections' Nash excavatedan occupationdeposit, mound (Nash or possiblya briquetage nd' C4). This sectionis worth describingin somedetail. 1' -2'33 m: black peaty loam 'rufous with staining'. contained a lias slab and near compiete Roman vesselshattered into large unabradedsherar. rn, soundslike the basalfilI of a channel. 2' 2'09-2'33 m: 'yellow-brown ciiy/siit'. Foraminiferasuggest an estuarineintertidal environment, near MHWST, but with direct tidal access (report by Dr Haynes,Aberystwyth University, in Nash nd' AppendixB). some Roman 'blue/black' material.This ii suggestiveof the fiil of a tidal creek. 3' 1'93-2'09m: iayer (0-13 m thuck);suggestiu" or an organic-richdeposit forming in the lar_eelysilted up remnantof the channel. 'tenacious 4' 1'80-1'93m: yeilow-brown clay with blue ciay intrusions'(0.13 m thick); v_eryciean interfacewith layer below. This may be importedclay depositedas a made surface. 5' r'61-L 80 m: very compactlayer oi finely irushed briquetagewith localisedareas of ash. stones,pottery, animal Lias bone, charcoaland pebbles(38 -- *,i.k). This deposit local is typical of the Romansait productionsites, known is briqueiug"-o,rrror.'' 6' r'51-1'67 m: thunlayer of blue clay (0.1'0m thick) *i"tr, very little Romanmateriai; presumably a flood horizon. 'dark 1' 1'49-1'57m: biue-grey siit' (c. 8 mm) with someRoman matenal; possibiy indicative of renewedoccupation in the vicinify. 8-9' 0'61-1'49 m: brown-biue 9.1uv;'ih.foru-inifera agaia suggesta saltmarshenvironment near MHwsr' Ths probably indicates a sustainedperioiof inundationseen elsewhere in the coastal zone of the somersetLevels in the late/post-Romanperiod (Rippon 1gg1; lgg-7,123-1). 10' 0--0'61m: disturbedbrown clay containingRoman, iredieval and post-medievalmaterial. 104 SomersetArchaeology and l)idtural Ilistortl, 1995

r!,r.

\ \ o o

\t,u.l l/ O deep linds

! other Roman material i"i / Edithmead I .,.'l | ''" t ,' I' o F-/

ol

@/ 9', a I WORSTON I

\ lt)

- recorded by Nash I Broad Wharf \ttgsttxll I Rhyr," I Alstone :::'r \ )) ,r \yRr* ! ""'.':,';. I .... o_ ' t --.---_* t r.. qf \. j''"' .. BasonBrilse ,z 1 o 2km \ .'^

'proto-Brue Ftg.2 Major Roman sites around Bumham, including the River Siger and the

The Roman ground surface (layer 4) at Huish lay 1.9 m below the modern surtace, though there appears.to have been c. 0.6 m of post-medieval soils dumped here. This is far deeper than at other sites in the area. At site D4, c. 180 m to the north, there was 0.9 m of post-Roman alluvium, and 'proto- c. 1.1 m at the Burnham Brewery/King.Alfred's School sites c. 1.1 km along the banks of the Bruel to the nofih-west of Huish. A buned soi1, c. 0.6 m below the surface,probably Roman in date, is recorded at the Bristol Bridge Clay Pit c. 0.6 km to the east. These sites are all described in more detail below. The Roman occupation horizon at Huish C1 sloped from north to south (Fig. 4), in keeprng with the presence of a water channel ito thb south. A water main trench running down the road past Huish 'blue uncovered sand for a depth of 1.4 m' (Nash letter I6.v.71), suggestrnga palaeochannel.Despite observations on a large number of sites, very little Roman material was recovered to the south of 'saunders SandywayLane (Nash Jan. 1975,3: Site 47,'Coronation Road', Plot 468; Site 99I{, Acre', Plot 469; both sites are c. 200 m to the south of Huish). Roman Settlementon the SomersetCoast i05

n

R ^

I '-d{

q ul cc ; fr< a 1) E ut v mL ct n -d ! J 3 d - F n E.

tr F n -9 'o z -n0) n n .; F 'L n 1 cc LU !c ,.6 frl LL ON = a o >- E t-Ll O- da v\v I 7l- oai-T LU uAd\ o' -vs co I ilr_c 'r1 r tr uEtA I c Fzr= Fr gA'.\U -\ :: a Al-w 6 :==er C o:(u;i :i:od r I t6'2r3 IA = ,./ -.t 4 -,---' I Lr

\j:.o 71 0) t- ff'

d U) J ->fi C I j-g a o z +< o O'--- O i tz tr.. ta rE v) -l

-l

co rh lr

z#

.= Y, E LL trJ. 'l- /fl i. \ 'lrli3, X n \\4 \\c tr x \\'l o' a .\\rn (. n 6 c o -o L '- iE d = ll- o I 1Ll6 SomersetArchcteologv attd N anu'al l{istor^t, lgg5 EENTH

'J r?l \l'l /r1 \w / \ vvL O ONd(g C o:ta = -lv-1 an!a

co vv A *v lrI U c6 ;T o-r a -1

LJ

c r( r-

CE i< --.

tr t< =lE

d. t-t fT. ll o I I .l-: d ||F 'r3>t -1 il d O il q :E I O (t) z I iT1 LIl E. F tlI I il a ll cc f ll Lu aa 5 H= a) IH .o t lcn li LL il =\r-r -c ll -r- o c li t ll z c1 = ll E ,9 (n ll = d. o lco (.) z (n a w I li F. I I t 6l

a' ---l , c t'l\

= z rri z Roman settlement on the somerset Coast 101 B urnham Brewert Nash carriedout a number of small excavationsat the site of the former (Figs 3 and Burnham Brewerizin 1g71 4; Nash Jan. 1976,5: Site Ho*" cto*a,, plot was along ?sr-q,'x4-tu 376). The major obsewarion the ditch besidethe former railwalifue t o* uigrruriag" pottery rromthe cteaning orthis dirch to Bumham. wasrecovered in 1e6eove* 'iit;.io ;il;, ffiffi;"#H# a c. 12 stretch (Nash letter 2.xi.6g). I,' 1g71 four m trenches,t:. rqou'" were excavated.every 3 m, giving ar intermittentsection 14 m 10ng;trench n *^ ,utr"qo*uy extendedto 2.g m. A layer of cobbles was uncoveredat a depthof 1.4 m, and extending for 6.7 m io the south o"""il e. iii, ,^ ,"a"a by alluvium Above this was^a secondfloor, "t coisisting of_cobbres and pebbres,lying directiy upon clean arluvium, at a deDrhof c- 1.2 m. tt roi 5-a rn. This was overiail by a ,dirry clay' containingRoman material. "xt"na"J brown 'ri, -"rg"a *itn u iit. gr.y-uiu"t ciayey peat, dch in artefactsinciudine 0.1-0.3 m thick, Dottery(rst to +trri""tqr), *i-ul 00ne,bumt clay, wasa widJrange nails, oysterand mussel :111r:I1"." tf briquetaget*r,'tii", u.J *ssels(Leech 1977a, Fig.19). .l_his honzonwas seared by a steriieb'ow; dark a uvium.In trencho r" ,1",""rr,^ri" 0;;-#; darkgreyi ::x*":":J$::::"1?$'J:'i",1ff:"trvoo ultuuium, uf-u a"ptn or r.+',m-nris *u, Ju",ruiouy u Leech (1977a.40-1) iaisesthe thar q:sslbtty the peary deposirnored here may haveresurred from mixing of flood-depositedclay with fue'-ash denvJJ fr'om making. However, a similar peaty deposit has been found on a number of Roman $t ,it"" o., trr" somersetL"""i, ,*"i*i to sart pro_ duction (e g. EastendFarm, Tickenham,in tre Nortrt io*"rro Levels) (usher 1967).Thrs suggests layers might repre:ent [t11,tne1e-neatv a waterlogged organic deposit which formed at the latehost-Romanmarine transgression start of the rhat urr""tJJ oi tne sevem Estuary 1997, 123J).In .;;;Jdecayed"runi I_"u"i, iilppo., rvrr; 1972 Nash ioted a 0.2 ;-ril vegetabre at the samedepth maner 45 m from, and [c. 1.2-1.5m] as the Rurnhame*ir".y ,it",, issociated letter 11.vi.72); *iti, noman -uterial (Nash unforhrnatelviis rocation oo, giu"".'e" immediately by Nash post_Romanpeat was noted overlying a briquetagemound seen" - tri" o"tioo.r_the Two Huntspill River (Nashletter 3.i.65). thin bandsbf peat wers nored ,l ;l[iiorrg 1.d"."p w...rtoo lane; a briquetage mound was sectioned as wel1, though unfollr.nllelv Nash'does o.t git! either its depth or its relationship to tle peat horizonsfr{ash iefter 4.w_.72).However,.taken 'peat' togeiier, it wourd appearas if therewas loca}ised waierlogging and formation during the tut"/p?ri,no** period, presumably pre_dating the marine inundation that sealed the sites witi alluviuml At Bumham Brewery, the wtrore sequence was truncatedby a ditch, cut from a horizon betow the surface(Fig. 4). The.rower c.0.7 m Rli of this r*0. conraininga This may have been "".ptirJ few tgth cenrurysherds. deliberatety backfiled *hJ#;;il;;y was builr. A number of otier observationshelp to define th" u"ril of this site, concenfated around Marhe yzo$observei in Dit,.. So- ," theeast 3lli-{lq:sm ar occupatron 1|."u'$ine of themain excavation, found a deposit,though the areato the southwas ,Turf prot-377)t. sterile(Nash Jan . 7g.75,5:site ggc, House Ground-', To_thenorth, oo th" ri;";i th; Lighthousekn, large amountsof potterywere also recovered fNash Jan. .bay's Roman 19i5, 5: site sge-g, c.ila;, p%;i;; io Dewarhe notedthe aepthas 0.g u t"u", to T *a a"itir" ,it" *uJufru".n to a sand-fiiledchannel (Nash 22'vi'69)' This scafteiextended into letter m" l? the aa3acentfie1d, the resrof whlch devoidof Romanmateriar (Nash Jan. "^i"rr "o-"r ,s, was r9'r5,3: stt" ::,-.*tgrto" , prot 372),as were fierds northas far asthe coastarsand dunes.(Nasit-oa, ,parsonage, ro the rig 1;'N"rr, Nov, 1975: sites,plots 363)' Developmentsto the west of the 362, tuit*uv lii", ,oci as pillsmouth Farm and the Hollimarine complex,similarly fa ed to find anyRoman -ut".iJ o".i rv*. 1975,1; Nashretter 9.v.66). King Alfred s Schoot (Fis..T of arailageitrannTllwas.d_u.e P"l^i_.-*:, in the schootplaying fietds at King ALFred,sSchooi, m'ee concentrationsof Romandebris and Liis stonerubbre were discovered,spread over c. 4 G'{ashnd, 11; NashJan. 1975, s, acres sit"_ss, trotlsi;;.'ffi; wereassociated with a occupatrondeposit, at O"nth_:lj.-9{ c.025 m_rhick 0:8 m, muchcrushed briquetage. Inepresence of a series" of lo "#q** Thrssuggests briquetagelroundsonce again arsociated *ith ,".g;;;;'bi;jJo.ii.""r. Fairford Road (Fig. 3) of deveropments_tothe north of this road, i.,,']:r:anytnrng c. 0.3 krn norrh-eastof Huish,failed to produce morethan a handfurof isolatedsherds, suggesting that ttris *J;;ilJ;" ffi eageof the 108 SomersetArchaeology and f,latural Histor r-,, 1995

Rornanoccupation (Nash Jan. 1975, 3: Sites 45 and 78, Plor 500; Sites 81 and 87A, Plots 497-9). However,just to the south.an undated'thin black horizon' was noted,containing one undatedsherd and severalpieces of briquetage,at a depth of 0.8 m (Nash Jan. 1975,3; Oct. 1975,2: Site 44, Plots 488-9). To the west, a Roman occupationhorizon up to 0.3 m thick containingpottery and briquetage,was found in a service trench at a depth of c. 0.9 m extendingfor c. 9 m (Nash nd, 11: D4; Nash Jan. 1975, 6: Site 99lvl,Plot 482). Finds included compieteRoman briquetagebars, lias stoneand pennant sandstoneroofing slates,one with a piercedhole (f{ash Letrer2.vi.72). Overall,this evidencesuggests a briquetage mound; the location is an unlikely one for a reasonably substantialbuilding as suggested by- the roof siate; perhaps this was imported to the site along with the Lias rubble simply to create a stable working area. The site was surrounded by a sterile area, suggesting that this area of activity was distinct from that at Huish c. 200 m to the south-west(Nash nd, 11: D2; Nash Jan. 1975,5: Site 99M. Plot 486).

Bristol Bridge and Deep Finds of Roman Material (Figs 2-3) A large clay pit by Bristol Bridge (Nash Jan. 1975, 3; Site 34; Plot 9241'Nash May 1976) appearsto have lain on the line of a northembranch of the 'proto-Brue' 2). Here, Romar pottery (?1st to 'in ffig. 4th cenfury) was found quantity' in the bottom of the pir, c. 2.1 m deep. This material must presumably have been deposited in a substantial natural charurel. To the north-west, traces of a buried soil were found. Nash recordsan 'old turf the', containingfragments of bone and bumt clay, c. 70- 80 mm thick, at a depth of c. 0.8 m. Above this lay an'occupation layer', containingpottery, at a depthof c. 0.6 m. This site is one of a number of deep finds, suggestive of material having fallen into a watercourse. At Pitt's Brick Pit to the south,a Sarnianvessel is recordedfrom a depth of 7 m (Nash nd., Fig. 2). Unstratified Roman material from the Apex Brick pit (Fig. 3; SMR 10266) iS recorded from an unknown depth, though Nash failed to flnd any buried soil or occupation deposit (Nash nd,24). Dredging of the River Brue has alsoproduced Roman material (SMR 10956).

Hastings (Fig. 3) One of the most important excavations that Nash carried out was at Hastings, where a substantial Roman building was uncovered(Nash Jan, 1975,4: Site 73, Plot 513; Nash April 1976;photographs at Somerset County Museum). Roman material was scattered over an area of at least c. 200 m by 50 m, and shatified at a depth of 1.2 m. The building had a well- constructedfloor of carefuily-laid Iimestoneslabs and cobbles.This was once again sealedby a dark grey/blackdeposit c.40 mm ttrick; 'decayilg Nash consideredthis to be vegetation' (NashApril 1916,6). The finds assemblageincluded a piece of glass ware, the only site in the area at which this seemsto have been the case.Pottery was 2nd to 4th centuryin date (note in Nash File F.108). At Clarke's Two Acres,just to the north of Hastings,a 'dark gritty layer' containingmuch Roman material was found at c. 1.5 rn below the presentsurface (Nash Jan. 1975, 3; Sites 48 and 99D; Plot 511). Slight peat layers were noted at 0.5 m and 0.6 m below the surface.At OId WaIs, c. 460 m north of Hastings just two Roman sherds were recovered, though the trenches only reached 1.2 m deep (Nash lan. 1976). This probably defines the limit of the site to the north.

ROMAN SALT PRODUCTION ON TIE SOMERSET LEVELS

The Bumham sites that Nash investigated are pan of a much wider distribution of Roman saltems in the SomersetLevels and il particularthe Brue Va1ley(see Rippon 1991,65-:74).They arebest known il the form of a series of rnoundsrof bumt clay and Roman ponery around the margins of the former 'briquetage raisedpeat-bog. A total of 167 mounds' have been identified,mostly in the areaof Gold Comer and the Cripps River, at the eastem edge of Huntspill parish (Rippon 1993, Appendix 2.C.I., *$t33; Lt.?;, lv"r" firstrecorded in theearty 19th cenrury. Two 'potteries'were noted in 1804,at the Old Brue cutting near Bason Bridge (Fig. 2; Hawkins 1913,15). William Stradling (1850, 56) dug into a mound north of the Poldens, finding Roman pottery, 'rude bricks bearing the marks of Roman Settlementon t/te ScmersetCoast 109 straw'. and a square clay platform beside the mound. From the generai area. and jri some cases it seems from the mounds themselves,numerous moulds for counterfeit coins, and several coin/pewter hoards were found (Stradling 1850, 58). These discoveies formed the basis of Haverfi.eld's (1906) description, though further work had been carrled out by Bulleid and Moriand in i889 but not yet published; they excavatedone mound, and surveyed forty others (Bulleid 1914). In 1913, Bulleid dug into another three mounds, and surveyed a further ten. Finds included pottery, briquetage (Stradling's 'rude bricks'), and ash. There were no wasters, and no kiins. In comments on Bulleid's paper, Bushe- Foxe stressedthis lack of evidencefor pottery production (Bulieid 1914, 52). During 793515, the cutting of the Huntspill River revealed numerous further mounds, buried by alluvium (Godwin 1943). Nash observed several of these in 1964-5 (see Appendix 1). Apart from Nash's work, only three recent excavationshave occurred. At Lilac Farm near in 1960 (SMR S.10983)no structurewas uncovered,but finds included a 3rd century por waster, and.pottery-kiin-type debris. At (Leech lgllb), ditch cleaning cut through a buried mound.,the iection of which was cleaned. It dated to the late /ear1y Roman period. Finally, an excavation took place at in 1978 (Leech et al. 1983) where another mound cut by ditch-cleaning was recorded in section. Chemical analysis of the bnquetage proved for the first time that it was used to boil sait water. With regard to the function of the mounds, there is no doubt that they were involved in salt pro- duction. Around Cripps River, Leech (1977a,,40) suggeststhat the mounds are simply dumps of waste material, with the actual working sites on the adjacent flat ground: hence the clay floor identified by Stradling. The cobbled floors at Burnham Brewery, clay floor at Huish and spreads of stone rubble at sites such as King Alfred's School and Fairford Road D4 may also have served this function. Eise- where, sites Lie on peat hummocks surrounded by bare alluvium. Here, working may have occurred. on the mounds themseives, surrounded by a saltmarsh. This is confirmed by the East Huntspill exca- vation, which found hearths and floors stratified within the mound. Leech (7971a, 421) was in no doubt that these sites were involved in pottery production. The evidence for this is as follows: the sheer quantity sherds, the very limited range of fabrics, and the presenceof oxidiseb,fused and.crumblingsherds. Theresults of the 1960 excavation(SMR S.10983), 'possible when a pot waster and kiln funriture' were found, supports this. Leech argues that the lack of any acfual kilns from any of these sites is because bonfire firing would have been used, possibly in the areas in between mounds. Petrological anaiysis of the pottery from these mounds supports the argument for local production (Williams 1971, 192-3). The BB1 found at several sites was made in , but two out of three local $ey wares used tempering that couid have come from iocal Burtle Beds.

FIELDWORKN ADVANCE,OF THE M5 MOToRwAy (Fig. 5)

Though Nash carried out most of his work around Burnham and Highbridge, one of his most important discoveries was in . Nash was recruited by Peter Fowler of the M5 Research Committee to be a local recorder during the mototway's construction. Initially Nash was not too enthusiastic; he 'I commented to Dewar think the archaeologicalpotential of the M5, at least on these Moors, is being 'I hrghly over-rated' (Nash letter 6.xii.69). In March the following year he told Dewar am on the inspection committee for the M5 motorway when it comes through, but I am inclined to treat it as a lot of thunder with no iightning. However, I'11 go out and duly inspect' (Nash letter 8.iii.70). He later wrote to Dewar with some excitement,as Roman hypocaust tiles had been found (Nash letter 1.v.70). 'a The site at Lakehouse Farm produced vast quantity of building debns extending for c. 300 ft [c. 'fragments 90 m]' and included stone walls, sandstoneroofing slates,combed hypocaust box tiles, of brick presumably the coiumns supporting the floor', fragments of tegulae and imbrices, painted wall plaster and one fragment of window glass; he specifically states that there were no tesserae and.no coins (Nash letters tl .v.70;25.v.70). \ The areas of stone roof tiles were associated with fragments of painted wall plaster; ceramic roof tiles r,verefound in an immediately aciiacentarea along with hypocaust debris suggesting a bath house. These spreads of material lay c. 2 ft 0.6 m] below the surface. There was also iron 'burnt [c. sia-{ from a patch'. By the end of May hrisnew-found enthusiasm for the motorwav is reflected bv the 110 SomersetArchaeoloRy and l,latural If istorv, 1995

n M5 motorway N stratiiied occupation depoits rr unstratified Roman material ffi buried soil horizon W relict watercourse

Wentlooge Soils LJrl ,/"/ n Allerton Soils lt

,l 1,, EDINGWORTH Ms/A38 junction ;l I

\ \ CHAPEL FARM

..'/;;'

0-t 1km

Fig. 5. Roman sites along the M5 at East Brent. Roman Settlementon the SontersetCoctst 11i 'I comment remaln addicted to the motorwav. in the belief that it has not yet yieided ai1 its secretsbv any means' (Nash letter 27.vt.70) Unfortunately, Nash did not retain copies of the reports he sent to the VI5 Research Committee. Howevet, during research for his doctoral thesis, Roger Leech (1977a) made a photocopy of a typescript reporl concerning work along the iine of ttre VtS in Eding'worth, and manuscnpt notes on three reports relating to the Lakehouse Farm sites. These formed the basis of a very bnef and - iraccurate q1u:?s published note (Fowler and Walthew Igl O). Dr Leech krndly made his records available for this research; copies have now been deposited with Somerset County Museum. The location of Nash's 12 sites is shown on a series a maps, recently discovered in his daughter,s attic. The evidence from 'site' each site is listed below. Each acfually corresponds to a fleld aiong the iine of the motorway. Pottery dating is derived from Leech 79JJa,Fig. 19.

Site1: Lakehouse Farm, ST 35605075-35555063.Buried soii recorded over J4 m (Nash First Report).Two sherds. Site 1,{: Lakehouse Farm, ST 35555063-35505055.Field to southof Field 1 and to north of Field 6; material found over the fuli length of the field (Nash SecondReport); finds included 107 sherds of lst to 4th cenfurypottery including Samian,coal and iron slag (Leech mss notes). Also, a possibie whetstone,a fragment of undecoratedbox-flue tlle, 12 fragments of briquetageand 3 piecesof slag.Associated with a buriecisoil hori zon,c. 0.5 m below the surface. Site 2: SmithfieldCottage, ST 35005023.Several patches of Lias stones.Roman and medievalpot- tery. The Roman materialtended to concentratesiightly to the south of the medieval (Nash ietter6.ix.70). Site 3: Chapel Fnrm, ST 35805L45-35805130.A moundof Romanoccupation debris. A greatcieal of potteryand occasionaistones (Nash Second Report). Leech does not appearto haveexam- ined this pottery, but there arc 129sherds in the Bristot Museum collection.Aiso a fragment of paintedwal1 plaster, several nails, and g piecesof daub. Site 4: Lakehouse Farm, ST 35655068.The Bristol Museum collectionincludes 10 sherdsalong with two piecesof comb-decoratedbox-flue tile and a fragmentof Romanwindow glass. Site 4A.:Lakehouse Farm, ST 35605055.In extremesouth of Field 4 (Nash SecondReport); finds were four 2nd to 4th century sherds(Leech mss notes). Srte): Lakehouse Farm, ST 35685063.This locationproduced" 229 sherds,2 piecesof ceramictile and 19 fragmentsof fired clay of which 3 might be briquetage.Many pi".", of box-flue tile were found accordingto Nash'sletters to Dewar (1.v.70; 23,t.70). Site 6: Lakehouse Farm, ST 35455050.Material found along the fuli lengrh of fieid (Nash Second Report); fi-ndsinclude 19 sherd.sof 2nd to 4th .-.rirry pottery, including 2 fragmentsof Samian,and possibiebriquetage or daub. Site 7: chapel Farm,opposite to site 3, sT 35885i59-35885128.Ar leasr24 sherdsfrom between two droveways 5T-359513], [c- and two sherdsfrorn north of the northeriy drove tST 3595151.Pottery is 1stto 4th centuryand includes1 fragmentof Samian; alsosome possible briquetagethough inspectionby the authorindicates thii might be normal daub. Site8: SmithfieldCottage, ST 34805010.Lias blocksand 1 Romansherd from'deep, down (Ir{ash Third Report). Site9: (see Ftg. 2): BurnhamMoor Lane,ST 342478(Nash Site 99n); yery local scatterof briquet- age (Nash Third Reporr). Site10: SomersetCourt, ST 344i94. Romansherd.s.

Several of these sites were associated with what appears to have been a buried sorl horizon. At Lakehouse Farm Nash d-escribedit as'r'a biack layeiot ?p"ut and/or old turf line and/or occuparion debris' (Nash First Report). It varied from 6-12 in. thich(0.15-0.3 m). At Edingworth york Farm, irlash described the horizon ra as level band of grey-brown clay, approx. 25 cms thick, 50-60 cm below ground level'; this ,a marked,a continuation of an'occupation horizon'described as layer of very dark clayey soil.. - wrth charcoal, potsherd,s,burnt clay and bones' (Nash fyp"rl'pt Report). The extent of these horizons is shown of Fis. 4. II2 SomersetArchaeology and tr{atttralHistory, lg95

DISCUSSIONOF TI{E LAKEHOUSE.FARIVI SiTE,

Thoughthere is no evidence.formosaic pavementsftom Farm,the under-floorheating suggestsa substantialresidential building -Lakehouse of somewealth. other wel1-builtstone s..uctu'es are known from the Levels rmmediatelyaround Erent Knorl, at Rooxsbridge(Russett 19g9) and south (Broomhead 199_,. of Nashrecorded Roman material from severallocations at thejunction of BrentKnoll andthe Levels (Nashletter 25 -v -66),and on the ailuvium to ,rr" o] s"st Brentvillage (at a depthof 1.2 5; Nashletter i5.in.70). This pattem '-edge' "uri m; Fig. ,"ttt"-".rt l, fpical of an theSevem but so is a trend for settlements EstuaryLevels, to be locabJon the a1lwium, a few hundredmetres bedrock.The substantiar from much drier bu ding at LakehouseFa-;; the Levelsin an exceptionaly locarion.is a fine example. low_lying This part of the LeVelsis exceptionaity .an row-1ying.It was areathat within iiving memory annu_ ally becamea lake in winter' (Nashlett* r: iil.iojhrl r" r *" arsounusual; they areof the A.ilerron serfs whlc{rjorms in particularlylow-lying locatio"r eiti""v i965, 114-5).For therero havebeen a substantialRoman bu dine.ry a iod-lying 1ryh to"ution-*"uo, thatthe areahad to havebeen free lrom flooding.By analogvriith Weston-sup"1fi;;;;;"s fine may havebeen protecred by sand dunes'but the musthave been contaiaed *itn" noJu*s.-{.'o"to-nro", The salt productionsites south of the salt water,so the,rivers ,siger.required -a must havebeen tidai. The north bank of the river siger musthave !u", u1"1 to'protectthe LakehouseFarm and other aroundBrent' Thus, part of the coastal "1t1.*ga sites ciay belt of the s'omersetLevels was reclaimed in period,whereas the rest wa.s the Roman opentidal saltmarshtn+p.o I SSf ; :f/gl, 65JT.

CONCLUSION

It is becoming increasingly clear trrat an around the (Rippon 1997, chapter 3) and in other coastal . ,o"h u. Fenland lHayes and Lme D92) Roman occupation concentrates around the mouths and banks of tidai channers. The sites investigated by Sam Nash are,good *;;1"; and appear to lie on the northem bank of a substantiai narrual channer-*n*rr t Ji*gery siited up before the the present, artificiat, cutting of River Brue in the medieval At the Lighthouse just to the neriod. Inn site, north of the Bumham Brewery, u ,*utr creek Romanoccupation actually associatedwith the wasnored by Nash,*rril" ui'oirtr (trenchcii, roui"riJ-upp"*, be tipping jnto another channel. ,o Thereare three obviousreasons for the locationof settlementson the channeis.Firstly, banksof thesetidal river *r::: hgh.lgr"und rn such the Highbridge f::g" lh areas.Secondly, many of sitesappear to havebeen associareJ *irh r"i;;;;ri"".T", of tidal water is *r"ir, a source esseniial.Thirdly, th"." urt-a"a an easy cation; the "h;;il-rr*- meansof communi_ importanceof rivers ior transportr.u, .".""try beengraphicaily discoveryof a inustratedby the Romanboat on the GwggtI-.u"f.-CNuVl_ g et al. 1994). The Roman- occupationhorizons rn trighbndgag"i"ruuy ke presentground at c.0.60-{.g m belowthe surface.As describedabove. these iit., .nuy .rieon the Romanground a levee,suggesting that surfaceshourd farl u*uy'to-trr" *ii Hastings , ,rri. ;;;;#; b" ,""o u, andclarke's Two Acres.e"rioq" i"unJu,io-o,""rrt ,"pr.r"nted and occuparion. by intercalatedalluvium is evidentat a numberof sites,i""ru-iog t{uish All ana'su;;ii"."ry. of thesesites appear to havebeen involved in srrt production. h": Leech(197ia,3g_9) a typoio-gyof 'briquetage,-*irr rLi", forms moulds9:r::ib:d(?), of evaporatingvessers, salr bars,and tiles. oniy ainnrL primaryp.oJo"t o'sites of.briquetage haveso far producedthis lll 3q: a19fac1s,such as tlr" dfiil; Brewery;;;. ih" #;;ceptlonal slte appearsto have been Hastings, where the well-constructedfloor and finds assemblage suggest a slightly higher status seitlement. An additional activity is that of iron workins. for Roman Settlement 1 1.'l on the SomersetCoast r 1J slag was found at.Hastitgs and Huish (Nash letter 26.x.69).Slag was also found ar the LakehouseFarm site. The landscapenorth of the Siger was totally different. A number of substantialstone buildings must have been in flood-free landscap",i*plying that the coastlineand tidal rivers were protected by nafural and/or man-madebarri"tr. Th.re must also have been a system of drainageditches and sluice gatesthrough which freshwaterrun-off was dischargedinto the tidal rivers at low tide. luch major Roman drainageschemes are known eisewhere, notably on the Weish side of the SevernEsfuary, where Roman legionary involvementis suspected(Fuiford et al- 1994).There is no evidenceof who was responsiblein Somerset, though a clear decision had been taken concerninghow the landscapewas to be managed and exploited' To the soutl of the Siger, salt was the priority and graz1ngcould only have been seasonal'To the north of the Siger, theseresources were sacrificedin order to drain the land, to provlde improved pasture or even arable land. However, the flood defences failed, and theselandscapes now lie under more than 0.5 m of alluvium; it is only because of the careful fieldwork of Sam Nash that the landscape'scomplexities have emerged.

APPENDICES:THE LEGACY oF SAM I\IASH

Sam Nash was a meticuious recorder of ail his research.His records, which have been deposited in various locations, provide a rich resource for archaeologistsand histcrians. In ttus paper and elsewhere (Rippon 199i: 1993; 1994; 1991) I have oniy been abG to touch upon rhe wealrh of information thar Nash has left us' Appendix 1 contains a chronology of Nash's major excavations and observations. Appendices 2-4 provide lists- his publicly-avaiiute 9f archiv"r, bri.f notes on their contents, and where they can be found. Nash's important series of letters to Stephen Dewar (items from which are referred to in this papet 'Nash as letier') are held by h]s daughter Mary Kempson.

APPENDIX 1: CHROI{OLOGY OF MAJOR EXCAVATIoNS AND OBSERVATIoNS

Nash's letters and archives show that he visited over 212 sites (Rippon lgg3,Appendix major 2A). The sites and discoveries are listed chronologically below. 1957: observations and excavations at the Bristol Bridge Clay pit (Nash May I916).

1958-60: involved with excavations on the kon Age site at A-lstone (Nash letter 9.v.65; Miies Miles 1969). and

1960: excavation of a substantial Roman building at Hastings (Nash April Ig76).

1962-L969: observations on the Fairford Road housing developments (lr{ash Oct. Ig:,;). Spring 1963: starts excavations 'Huish' by his own house, (Sandyway Farm) in Highbridge (Nash letters19.w.64; 24.xr.6l). The firsi deepexcavationwas in 1969 (Nash letters 26.x.69). 7.tx.69: is.".oq; 2d.x.9:

June-Aug. 1964: excavatesa parsonage medieval cottage site called (Nash April 19j5).

Autumn 1964: observes Roman briquetage mound in the side of the Hunrspill River at Newbridge (Nash letters 29.ix.64. 8.xi.64).

Jan' 1965: observes severalmore briquetagemounds in the side of the Huntspill vington River betweenwoola- Bridge and Gold corner (Nish letter 3.i.65). 114 SomersetArchaeology and l{atural If isrory. 1995

NIay 1965: observes development of the Hollimarine compiex to south of Bumham, which yrelds virtuaily no archaeological materiai, apart from Roman and medieval sites to the extrerne eastern edge near the site of the Burnham Brewery (Nash letter 9.v.65).

NIay 1965: buiiding site to the east of Burnham Lighthouse reveals substanrial sand-fllied paiaeo- channei on the line of the documentedRiver Siger (Nash letter 9.v.65).

Muy 1965: small excavation at Berrow church reveals 14th century material under 4 ft[1.2 m] of sand (Nash letter 9.v.65).

Sep, 1966: su.rveysearthworks of moated site at Walrow (Nash ietter 2.x.66)"

Aprii 1961: grip diggrng reveals a c. 4 acre Roman site on playing fie1dsto the west of King Alfred's School Q{ash letter 11.iv.67).

Juiy 1961 excavation of medieval site at Old Wal1s, Worston (Nash Jan. 1916).

Nov. 1969: discoversRoman occupation deposit 40 ft [12 m] acrossnear the Burnham Brewery (Nash letter 2.xi.69).

Nov. 1969: discovers further briquetage mounds in the sr.de of the Huntspill River (Nash letter 23 .xt.69\.

7910: observationsalong the line of the M5 motorway.

April-July I911: excavationsin Berrow churchyard(Nash letters 13.w.lI;23.v.11;6.vt.11). In Nov- ember he observed a sandcliff created during earthmoving, with a wall under 20 ft. [6.1 m] of sand (Nash letter 2l .xt.71).

Sept.I911: excavationsat Romansite near Burnham Brewery (Nash letter 10.x.71;Nash Feb. I975).

April l9l2: briquetagemound recorded during drain cuftingalong Worston Lane (Nashletter 4.w.72).

Ian. I9l4: openeda bnck vault of c. 1750at Berrow church(Nash letter 26.i.14).

APPENDIX 2. NASH'S ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORDS

BURI{HAM PUBLIC LIBRARY

Manuscript Files 'Excavations E.69: and Materials'.Includes typescript reports (see below), and a manuscriptlist of every site in Burnhamto have producedmedieval or post-medievalmaterial, along with a copy of a 'Twenty letter dated Oct. I9l2 regarding Six Medieval Sites rn the Burnham Area' 'Roman F.108: '.Includes notes of a visit to briquetagemounds, a seriesof stratigraphic sections(from Shapwick,Combwich, Bnstol Bridge, Aper Clay Pit, Berrow, and.South Bieni;, a manuscript list of sites from which Roman materiai has been found (including a map), and several letters from G. Boon regardingthe'date of pottery from severalsites.

Site lrlotes The following files containNash's original site notes on a seriesof major excavations.E,ach has a fuii typescipt report in fi1eE69 and/or at SomersetCounty Museum (see below) 8.111: Hastings; 8.112 BurnhamBrewery; E.113: Old Walls;E.114: Parsonage; E.117: Huish House. Roman Settlementon the Somerset Coast 115 TypescriptRoports In addition to the two manuscnpt lists, of Roman (in File Fi08) and med.ieval and post-medievai material from Burnham pansh (in File E69), there are several rypescipt reports. 'Notes nd: on the Coastal Area of the Vliddle Moor of Somerset. Evidence for the Former Existence of a deep Water Channel at Highbndge' (Paper deposited with Somerset Archaeological and Natural History Society, ; appears to be the only.opy.For published.summary see Nash lglz-3.) 'List Feb' I9l5: of Locations of Romano-British (and Early Iron Age) material, mainlll from the Middle Moor of Somerset, L957 to 79J2'. lrlotes on a large number of findspots. 'Medievai April 1g15: and Post Medievai Material from Various Locations on or Aojoining the Middle Moor of somerset (but Excluding Burnham and Highbridge)'. 'Minor Sept. 1915: Locations in BurntramA{ighbridge frorn which Medievai/post_Medieval Materiai has been Recovered'' (The manuscript gog paper in g*"t far more sites; the typescnpt paper d.escribes only that material retained and deposited-at Somerset County Museum.)

The following fl1es at Burnham Library also have archaeoiogical material. B20: includes Edithmead (Newspaper cutting); E42: includes ,Geology Histings (Newspaper cunins); E91: file titled of the SomersetLeveis', includ.ing some archaeoiogy

SOMERSET COTINTY MUSEUM

The ongurai rypescript reports on Nash's main excavations are at the Somerset County Museum, complete with jllustrations, and in some cases photographs. Copies of the reports, except Burnham Brewery, are in File E69 atBurnham Library uul tact illustrations. Some copies are also in 's sites and Monuments Record (sMR). 'An Feb' I915: Excavation of an R-B Structure at Burnham-On-Sea' [Burnham Brewery]. 'Notes Oct' 1975: Concerning 2 Medieval Sites on rhe North Side of Fairford Road, Highbridge,.

1916:'l'lotes on a Medieval Site on a Plot of Ground Called parsonage,Burnham-On-Sea,. 'Old Ian. 1916: Walls, Highbridge, Somerset,.

Aptil 1976:'A Romano-Bntish, Medieval and Post-Medieval Site at Hastings, Highbridge,. 'Brisrol June 1916: Bridge Clay pit, Highbridge'. 'Huish, July 1978: Old Burnham Road, Highbridge,.

APPENDIX3: NASH'S REPORTSRELATING To THE M5 MoToRwAY

All the reports are from copies made by Dr RogerLeech, now depositedin somersetcounty Taunton. Museum.

Nash Typescript Report: describesthe site at Edingworrh york - Farm and the M5iA3g Juncrion;it includes a sketch plan and section.

Nash F[st Report: Leech's manuscript notes, on a manuscript report written by Nash for the M5 Research committee; there are no accompanying plans or section,---- urnongst--- -^^o"'Leech,s notes. Relates to sites at Lakehouse Farm. 116 somersetArchaeology and r,raturarIristot-y, lgg5 Nash SecondReport: as above, but deahng wtth sites 1A to 7.

Nash Third Reporr: as above. but dealin_ewith sites g and 9.

APPEI{DIX 4: I{OTES RELATNG TO DOCUMENTARYRESEARCH

Nash carried out detailed researchinto the parish of Burnham,and the surrounding of this remainsunpubiished, 'o1d areas.Almost a1l apart from a brief note on Auster, tenure (Nash archiveswere deposited rglD).Nash,s at Burnham Public Library, where they fill is intended two fiIing cabinets.what follows as a rough guide to this greatlocar history resource. There are 83 files of bound loose-treafmanuscript notes.The majority are transcriptsand analysis of post-medievalsources, relating to Burnhamparish. A detaiiedlisi has been wrigley (copy at Burnham complied by v.J. Libra:!); what foilowi is a thematicsummary. Parishregisters: .41-6 Waywardensaccounts: A7_g .F;62 Churchrates: .49-10, 4.63 Poorrates: A11-12, A64 Miscellaneouschurch records: A13 Tithes/Assessments: A30_3I, E32,E5g, E79*g1 Families C46-56 Miscellaneous referencesin chronologicalorder: A20-,2g,F109_10 Drainage/sea-wa11s: 826, El4, E IJ , i6l u, Fjgt Old Austers:El7-8 Huish: E117r-b (and othermaterial scaftered in abovefiIes) Maly other parisheshave fi1es,with materiar arrangedroughly in chronological order. tends to be transcriptsfrom published This material primary mate,ial such asthe archives. Berrow and :D3g, D45 Brent: D36-31 Glastonbury:859 Huntspill: D33-4, D44 Mark: D35, D45 Pawiett:D40, D45 : D45 Wells: E60

ACKI\TOWLEDGEMENTS

This paper couid not have been written without the help of ail those whole kindly notably Sam Nash's daughterl*v sent information, Kempson. I wouid also like to thank assistancein this the following for their research:S- Berry (SomersetRecord office), Library)''Madge David Bromwich (somersetstudies Langdon (somersetArchaeological and N.urya stephen History society), colin Clements, Minnin (somerset county Museum; ana pudner Robert (Bumham pubiic Library). Roger Leech kindly gaveme accessto his notes on severalof Nash's reportsthat have since gone Dr Leech also kindly supplied copies asftay. of the M5 survey. I would ilso like to that thank for I trict down Nash's archives,*a ni, subsequenr H:j:f;gesting encouragementwith all my Roman Settlementon the Somerset Coast rI7 REFERE}'ICES

The referencescited here are suppiementedby the sourcesreferred" to in the appendicesabove.

Allen, J'R'L', 1990''The Severn Estuaryrn South West Britain: its RetreatUnder Marine Trans- gression and Fine SedimentRegime' , sedimentaryGeology 66, 13_28. Aston, M-, 1985.Interpreting the Land,scape. Batsford. Broomhead,D', l99L 'Archaeological observationson the LympsharnSewage Treatment Works ElimrnationScheme'. Unpublished report, AC Archaeology,Shaftesbury. Bul1eid,A', 19I4.'Romano-British Potterilsin Mid-Somerseti,Proc. Soc.Antiq.26, 131-54. Findlay, D'C', 1965' Soils of the Mendip Districtof Somerser.Memoirs of the Soil Surveyof Great Britain. Harpenden. Fowler,P'J', and Waithew, C.V., 1910'M5, M4 andArchaeology' , Archaeological Review,s 5-10. Fulford,M', Alien', J'R.L',and Rippon,S., 1gg4.'settlementand Drainage on the WentloogeLevei: Suwey and Excavationat RumneyGreat Wharf, Cardiff, !9g2', Britannia,25. Godwin,H', 1943-'Coastal Peatof ttreBritish Isles and North Sea', J. of Ecology,31, 199-.246. Haverfield, 'Romano-British F.J., 1906. Somerset',h VCH Somerset,l,2AJ4iI. Hawkins, A'B', 1973.'Sea Level Changesaround South West ',in D.L. Blackman(ed.), Marine Archaeology;corston papers, 23, 67-g7. Bristol. Hayes,P'P" and Lane,T.W., Ig92- The FenlandProject 5; LincolnshireSnrvey, The SouthWest . East Anglian Archaeology,55. Leech, R', r9'7la''Romano-British Rural Settlementin South Somersetand North Dorset,.Unpub- lished PhD thesis,. 'Late Leech, R" 1977b' Iron Age and Romano-BritishBriquetage Sites at euarrylandsLane, Badg- worth', SAIIH, LZl, 89-96. Leech',R', Bell, M', andEvanS, J., 'The_sectioning 1983. of a Romano-BritishSaitmaking Mound at East Huntspill', SomersetLevels paperJ, 9, 11_g. Miles, H', and Miles, T.J., 7969.'settlementSites of the Late Pre-RomanIron Age in the Somerset Levels',SANH, 113, li-55 Nash, S', 1912-3--A DeepWater Inlet at paper', 'Old Highbridge:A Pr6cisof a SAy'y'H,LL,l ,9l-I01. Nash,S-, 1974- Auster', Somersetand, Dorset Notesand eueries,\g, tSl--St. Nayling,N', Maynard, 'Barlands S., and'McGrail, S., 1gg4. Farm, Magor, Gwent:A Romano-British Boat Find', Antiquity,6g,596_603. 'The Rippon, S', 1991. Somerset ' Levelsin the RomanPeriod"' , tn SevernE,stuary Research Committee AnnualReport for 1991, 434. Rippon, S', 7993' ' Reclamationand l.andscapeEvolution Around the Severn Estuary., unpublished PhD thesis,.university of Reading. Rippon, S', 1994' 'Medieval'Wetland Reclamationli ttreSomerset Levels', in M. Aston and (eds), C. Lewis The Medieval Landscapeof ,239-51 oxbow, oxford. Rippon, S', 1997' The Severn Estuary: LandscapeEvolution and WetlandReclamation. Leicester University Press. 'A Russett,V', 1989' Romano-British Site at Rooksbridge', Archaeological and Local His- tory Sociee Journal.,3J49. 'Turbaries', Stradling,W., 1850. ,SAy'/Iy',I, 4g_62. 'Some Usher, G', 1967' Observations on the Archaeologyof the North SomersetLevels,, Cleved.on and District Archaeol.Soc. I,{ewsletter. 26, 34. WilliamS,D', 1911''The Romano-British Black BurnishedIndustry: An Essayon Characterisationby Heavy Metal Analysis', in D.P.J. Peacock(ed.), Pottery and Early Commerce,163-220. Aca- demic Press,London.

AUTHOR

Dr StephenRippon, Departm"lt of History and Archaeology,university of Exeter, eueen,s Building, The Queen'sDrive, Exeter,EX4 4eH.