Longstanton, Cambridgeshire a Village Hinterland (II)

Longstanton, Cambridgeshire A Village Hinterland (II)

Christopher Evans, Grahame Appleby, Duncan Mackay and Nick Armour

CAMBRIDGE ARCHAEOLOGICAL UNIT Longstanton, Cambridgeshire - A Village Hinterland (II) - The 2005 Evaluation

Christopher Evans, Grahame Appleby, Duncan Mackay & Nick Armour with M. Brudenell, D. Garrow and M. Knight

With contributions by Katie Anderson, Emma Beadsmore, Matthew Brudenell, Anne de Vareilles, Andrew Hall, and Chris Swaysland

and illustrations by J. Matthews and A. Hall

INTRODUCTION 1

FIELDWORK RESULTS Section One – Surface Surveys Part 1) Geophysical Survey 7 Part 2) Fieldwalking (Field 2) 13 Part 3) Aerial Photography 13

Section Two – The Infrastructure Route Part 4) Sites XIV, XIII, XXV and XXXI (Fields 3, 4, 6, 7-12 & 31) 19 Discussion 34 Part 5) Site XII (Fields 1 & 13) 35 Discussion 54 Part 6) Sites XXVI, XXVII, XXVIII, XXIX and XXX (Fields 15-20, 23 & 24) 57 Discussion 86 Specialists Studies Lithics (E. Beadsmore) 90 Prehistoric Pottery (M. Brudenell) 91 Roman Pottery (K. Anderson) 95 Roman Tile (K. Anderson) 99 Burnt Clay (K. Anderson) 101 Metalwork (A. Hall and M. Brudenell) 101 Miscellaneous Finds (G. Appleby) 108 Faunal Remains (C. Swaysland) 109 Environmental Samples (A. de Vareilles) 113

Section Three – Airfield Investigations Part 7) Field P (2 & 3) 118 Discussion 127 Part 8) Sites XV and XVIII 127 Discussion 152 Part 9) Site XVI 157 Discussion 159 Specialists Studies Lithics (E. Beadsmore) 159 Prehistoric Pottery (M. Brudenell) 160 Roman Pottery (K. Anderson) 163 Roman Tile (K. Anderson) 166 Burnt Clay (K. Anderson) 167 Metalwork (A. Hall and G. Appleby) 168 Miscellaneous Finds (G. Appleby) 169 Faunal Remains (C. Swaysland) 170 Environmental Samples (A. de Vareilles) 174

Section Four – Site XIX/IX Part 10) Field J 178 Discussion 183 Specialists Studies Prehistoric Pottery (M. Brudenell) 184 Roman Pottery (K. Anderson) 184 Metalwork (A. Hall and G. Appleby) 184 Miscellaneous Finds (G. Appleby) 185 Faunal Remains (C. Swaysland) 185 Environmental Samples (A. de Vareilles) 186

DISCUSSION 188

BIBLIOGRAPHY 194 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. The proposed new town and infrastructure routes, geology and cropmarks 5 Figure 2. 2005 evaluation and geophysical survey areas and sites identified during the 6 2004 programme Figure 3. 2005 Geophysical survey; Fields 8, 9, 20, 21, 23 and 31 8 Figure 4. Areas targeted for detailed magnetometry geophysical survey 9 Figure 5. Area of Field 23 targeted for detailed magnetometry geophysical survey 10 Figure 6. Stratoscan magnetometry survey of Fields 1B & 13 conducted in 2004 11 Figure 7. Archaeological features identified in fields adjacent to Field 20 15 Figure 8. Luftwaffe aerial photograph taken August 1940 revealing the presence of 16 potential archaeology as a series of cropmarks Figure 9. Luftwaffe aerial photograph taken August 1940 revealing the presence of 17 archaeology within the airfield perimeter Figure 10. Field and trench locations for the 2005 evaluation programme within the 18 proposed infrastructure route and settlement clusters identified from aerial photographs Figure 11. Field locations and trench numbers; Fields 3, 4, 6, 7-12 & 31 21 Figure 12. Field 3 trench plan 22 Figure 13. Site XXXI, Field 4B, excavated features and projected alignments 23 Figure 14. Site XIV, Field 7, excavated features and projected alignments 28 Figure 15. Selected feature sections from Sites XIII, XIV and XXV 29 Figure 16. Site XXV, Field 8, excavated features and projected alignment of F.804 32 Figure 17. Excavated features, Site XII and Site XXV 33 Figure 18. Field locations and trench numbers, Fields 1, 13, 15-20 and 23-24 37 Figure 19. Site XII trench location, cropmarks and features from the 2004 and 2005 38 evaluations Figure 20. Site XII, Field 1B, correlation of cropmark evidence and exposed and 39 excavated features Figure 21. Site XII, Field 1B, correlation of cropmark evidence and exposed and 40 excavated features Figure 22. Selected excavated Iron Age features, Site XII 48 Figure 23. Selected Iron Age enclosure, boundary and possible roadway ditches from 49 Site XII Figure 24. Settlement phases at Site XII 56 Figure 25. Site XXVI, Fields 16 and 17, excavated features and projected alignment 59 Figure 26. Projected alignments from excavated features, possibly relating to either Site 60 XXVI (Field 16) or Site XXVII (Field 18) Figure 27. Site XXVII, Field 18, excavated features and projected alignments 66 Figure 28. Selected feature sections from Site XXVII, the ‘villa’ site 67 Figure 29. Site XXVII, Field 18, geophysical survey results with trench and feature 74 locations Figure 30. Field 19, projected boundary ditch possibly relating to an as yet unconfirmed 76 ‘new’ Roman site Figure 31. Site XXIX Field 20, excavated features and projected alignments 78 Figure 32. Field 23, excavated features and projected alignments 80 Figure 33. Site XXX, Field 24, excavated features 85 Figure 34. Site XXVII projected building plan compared to the Arbury villa and 88 Godmanchester mansio sites; to the same scale Figure 35. Selected finds from Site XXVII, the ‘villa’ site 105 Figure 36. Location of metal artefacts from Field 18 106 Figure 37. Distribution of sheep/goat tooth-wear 112 Figure 38. Field J and Field P trench plan 119 Figure 39. Fields P2 and P3, trenches with exposed archaeology and modern features 122 Figure 40. Field P3, excavated features and projected alignmentss 123 Figure 41. Site XVIII and XV, trenches against geophysics plot 128 Figure 42. Site XV, interpretation of geophysical survey results and exposed 129 archaeology Figure 43. Site XVIII, Field P1, the northern-most trenches 132 Figure 44. Site XVIII, Field P1, the central trenches 133 Figure 45. Site XVIII, Field P1, the eastern-most trenches 134 Figure 46. Site XVIII, Field P1, the southern-most trenches, and probable settlement 135 focus Figure 47. F.900, Trench 332, Site XVIII 141 Figure 48. Building materials recovered from F.900, Site XVIII, Field P 142 Figure 49. Site XVIII, Field P1, Trenches 353-355 149 Figure 50. Site XVIII cropmarks, geophysics interpretation, projected features and later 155 Iron Age settlement area Figure 51. Sections of selected features in Field P1 156 Figure 52. Site XVI, Field P, Trench 38 with interpretation of geophysics 158 Figure 53. Romano-British sheep/goat mandibular wear data 173 Figure 54. Sites IX and XIX, Field J 179 Figure 55. F.990 and F.991, Trench 362, Site IX 180 Figure 56. 2004/2005 Site areas 190 INTRODUCTION

This report provides a detailed account of the fieldwork undertaken by the Cambridge Archaeological Unit (CAU) between late August and October 2005, within the environs of the villages of Longstanton and Oakington between Hatton’s Road, Dry Drayton Road and Longstanton Road, and the former World War II airfield at Oakington, Cambs, as part of the evaluation exercise ahead of the anticipated proposed new town of Northstowe. Thirty evaluation areas were investigated, divided between fields inside (and adjacent to) the former airfield perimeter, and also along the proposed infrastructure routes (figs. 1 & 2). The archaeological, geological, geographical and historical background of the area has been the subject of a comprehensive desktop study in 2002 (Evans & Dickens 2002) and is thus not repeated in detail here. The 2005 fieldwork directly follows and builds upon the earlier phase of fieldwork completed in 2004 (Evans & Mackay 2004), which enabled an informed assessment of the density and distribution of archaeology within the boundaries of the proposed new town and its infrastructure requirements to be made. In addition, further geophysical survey and analysis of the 1940 Luftwaffe aerial photographs has identified previously unknown archaeological features within the southeastern area of the proposed infrastructure route, adjacent to or near to the Dry Drayton Road.

Because the current fieldwork programme had to occur to a tight schedule, and the required scanning of trench locations for uncleared ordnance prior to initial machine- excavation where these fell within the airfield’s earlier boundary, fields were surveyed and excavated as a series of discrete field blocks. The use of this approach minimised the number machine-excavator movements, thus reducing disruption to the agricultural scheduling of landowners, and also permitted a high degree of flexibility within the programme. Fields within immediate airfield environs were distinguished alpha-numerically during fieldwork (J, P1-P3), with those along the roadway corridor enumerated (1B-31). Field numbering and new sites identified during the current fieldwork programme continue the numbering system established during the 2004 fieldwork programme (Evans & Mackay 2004). This nomenclature is retained throughout this report.

Archaeological Context

The current evaluation has already been the subject of a desktop assessment (Evans & Dickens 2002), including CAU-commissioned aerial photographic and geophysical surveys (Palmer in ibid; Johnson 2004), earlier evaluation phases, for example the RTS Guided Bus Route (Cessford & Mackay 2004), Striplands Farm (Patten 2004; Patten & Evans 2005), and the extensive report on fieldwork conducted in 2004 (Evans & Mackay 2004), and are thus not repeated in detail here. Nonetheless, aerial and geophysical surveys conducted as part of these earlier surveys revealed extensive crop marks in the southwest area of the proposed development area, adjacent to New Close Farm (Site XII), the northwest of the roadway (Site XIV), and within the airfield perimeter, and have been essential to interpreting the prehistoric and historic nature of the Longstanton landscape (Evans & Dickens 2002; Evans & Mackay 2004), to which the reader is directed for the broader archaeological and landscape context of

1 the area. The presence of cropmarks along the proposed infrastructure route and the airfield and the results of aerial photographic and geophysical survey and field walking conducted by the Cotswold Archaeological Trust (Gerrard 1989) suggested a high potential for surviving archaeology would be encountered within evaluation areas.

Prehistoric activity is attested across the broader landscape, notably at Site XII, where the extensive cropmarks noted on aerial photographs have been interpreted as Iron Age and Romano-British field boundaries, settlement-related activity and at least one enclosure, and was trial-trenched as part of the 2004 evaluation programme (Evans & Mackay 2004). The cropmark observed at Site XIV was identified as a probable Iron Age enclosure and attests to the extent of prehistoric settlement activity in the area.

Roman archaeology is known within the wider Longstanton environs, and from in and around the villages of Longstanton and Oakington themselves (Evans & Dickens 2002). Following the Roman conquest in 43AD a road was constructed connecting Colchester to Lincoln, via Cambridge, Godmanchester and Longthorpe (Peterborough). The present A14 is considered to follow this alignment. One possible consequence of the construction of the road was a reconfiguration of the fieldsystems, with these being orientated to the road. The Roman period also saw a major ‘reconfiguration and regularisation’ (ibid: 16) of later Iron settlements, most notably those located to the immediate northeast of Longstanton itself, and Site XII. However, the presence of crop marks on the northeastern edge of the evaluation area in Field 7 (Site XIV), and to the southwest in Fields 1B and 13 (Site XII; Evans & Dickens 2002: Fig. 3), needs to be highlighted as this attests to significant human activity within the Longstanton environs, dating from the Iron Age to 4th century AD.

Evidence of Saxon settlement activity within the proposed development area is lacking, but this is a distinct possibility following the evaluation at Striplands Farm (Patten 2004), situated immediately to the northwest of the Northstowe development area. The early Medieval origins of Longstanton and Oakington are sufficiently attested with fields within the proposed infrastructure route recorded in Medieval and later documents, and which provide a comprehensive history of the area, the use of the open-fieldsystem, and of the manorial estates. Aerial photographs of the fields falling within the scope of this evaluation show ridge-and-furrow, further adding to the understanding of the development and changing land use of the area.

Post-Medieval and modern development of the area is characterised by the ribbon development of Longstanton during the 19th and early 20th centuries, and the construction of the World War II airfield at Oakington. The airfield straddles the parish boundaries of Longstanton and Oakington, but following operational downgrading the southern end of the runway, dispersals and outworks were demolished or removed, with these areas reverting to agricultural use. The north and east of the area is characterised by the village of Longstanton and the former RAF airfield at Oakington (Evans & Dickens 2002: 8). The underlying geology is Ampthill dark grey clays (British Geological Survey 1993).

2 Methodology and Coverage

The evaluation outlined in this report covers 98.63ha of the proposed infrastructure route, and 39.5ha within the former airfield and the adjacent Field J. Trenches were initially machine-excavated under archaeological supervision by a 3600 tracked excavator with a 2m wide toothless ditching bucket. A total of 13,183.29m of trial trench was excavated (26,366.58m2); 10565.29m within the proposed infrastructure route and 2618m within the former airfield. Trench plans were produced to locate trenches taking into account the aerial and geophysical surveys, as well as known services, and any required machine clearance. The CAU modified version of the MoLAS recording system was employed, with excavated features assigned individual feature numbers (F#) with cuts and fills assigned individual context numbers ([###]). Trenches and base plans were recorded at 1:50 and sections at 1:10 or 1:20. Levels were surveyed a using Leica GPS system. Bulk environmental samples were taken from a specifically selected features.

Due to the tight schedule for completion of the archaeological evaluation a sampling strategy was adopted with features only excavated where these were positively identified, and would provide suitable information on the nature of the exposed archaeology. Generally, the governing trial trenching policy was that, augmented by fieldwalking and geophysical survey (Fields 18, 21 & 23 and part of Field P within the airfield), a 2.5% area sample would suffice, with additional features excavated only where this would elucidate the nature and phasing of the archaeology. Under this strategy trenches which contained archaeology, but were not excavated further, were planned, soil profiles recorded and backfilled. Trenches which did not contain any archaeology, or only rubble and surviving detritus from the airfield, were backfilled after the recording of soil profiles.

Field Length Field Length Field Length 1B 414.05 12 525 Field J 226 3 299.47 13 525.74 P1 1185 4A 70 15 180 P2 547 4B 344.75 16 675.64 P3 440 6B 435.19 17 550.13 Compound 87 6C 66.21 18 1283.54 Site XVIII 109 6D 350.53 19 710.06 Site XVI 25 7 851.98 20 281.95 Total 8 816.91 23 648.35 2618.00m 9 100 24 136.72 10 100 31 950 11 250 Total 10565.29m

Table 1 Total trenching on proposed Table 2 Total trenching on infrastructure route the airfield

3 Fields inside the airfield perimeter, and high risk areas within the infrastructure route (Fields 8 to 12, and Field 31) were surveyed by ordnance disposal technicians prior to initial machine excavation. This resulted in the discovery of unexploded air-delivered bombs (500 and 1000lbs) within the northern perimeter of the airfield, with the result that 14 trenches within this area could not be initially machine-excavated or investigated further due to the obvious risk posed. With the northern part of the airfield declared ‘off-limits’ by the RAF, halting further investigation within the airfield midway through this phase of the evaluation programme, modification of the proposed trial trenching strategy was necessary. 14 trenches were thus located beside the runway and near to its southern perimeter to investigate cropmarks identified from earlier aerial photographic and geophysical survey. A further proposed 3895m of evaluation trenches in fields that are yet to be released or cropped remain to be excavated. Tables 1 and 2 provide details of the total trench lengths excavated for the proposed infrastructure route and airfield.

For ease of reference and to add a degree of coherent structure to the sheer quantity of data thus far generated, this report is sub-divided into four parts (each having its own specialist reportage). The first outlines the surface survey results obtained from fields within the infrastructure corridor, with the second part detailing the results of the trial trenching along those routes. Section 3 is concerned with trial trenching within the airfield perimeter; the final section being given to trenching within Field J, the market garden plot immediately northwest of the airfield entrance and the eastern end of the Site IX/XIX complex (Evans & Mackay 2004).

It should be noted from the outset that while the work in Field J and much of airfield trenching was dedicated to investigating sites identified last year (Sites XV & XVIII), whereas within the infrastructure corridor only Site XII (Iron Age/Romano-British) and XIV (Iron Age) were previously known (and the adjacent Site I Mesolithic scatter; see Evans & Mackay 2004). Sites XXV-XXXI along those routes are entirely new discoveries arising from the 2005 fieldwork.

Acknowledgements

Albeit daunting in its scale, working in the Longstanton landscape continues to be a challenging pleasure. The CAU are grateful for the generous support and co-operation of David Hunt of Gallagher’s Ltd, and also acknowledge the logistical and creative input of their archaeological consultant, Sally Randell of WSP. The area’s many much-pressed farmers put up with our intrusions with good grace, and we are particularly grateful for the assistance of Mr Steve Wright. Equally, the ‘event’ of the airfield bombs made us appreciate all the more the admirable professionalism of the BACTEC ordnance disposal team, and we owe much to Kevin Kneebone and Chas Reid of that company. The fieldwork programme was monitored throughout by Andy Thomas of Cambridgeshire County Council, and we are grateful for his continuing support and advice.

The skills and perseverance of the many CAU staff involved with the project shone throughout for what proved to be something of a marathon fieldwork season in the autumn of 2005. The project’s artefacts were processed with the now customary efficiency of Gwladys Monteil and her staff;, aided by Marcus Abbott and Andy Hall, the graphics in this report well demonstrate the rare expertise of Jane Matthews. The Site Directors, Nick Armour, Matthew Brudenell, Duncan Garrow, Mark Knight and Duncan Mackay, are also to be thanked for working across multiple sites in tandem, thus enabling this programme to be rapidly and expertly completed.

4 538100/268500

0 1 kilometres

242000/262650

Alluvium 4th Terrace Gravel Boulder Clay Cropmark; ridge and furrow

Alluvium on 2nd Terrace Gravel Greensand Gault Cropmark; quarry

2nd Terrace Gravel Ampthill Clay Cropmark; ditch Cropmark; 20th century airbase

3rd Terrace Gravel Kimmeridge Clay Cropmark; bank

Figure 1. The proposed new town and infrastructure routes, geology and cropmarks XXIII

XXI V

XXII X VIII

Current evaluation area XIX VII XI Area of geophysical investigation in 2005 P2 Previous evaluation area IX III J Proposed Development Area VI P3 Cropmark; ditch IV

Cropmark; bank

Interpretation of 2004 geophysics P1 XV Site identified from 2004 evaluation I Site number 3 Field number XXIV

XVIII

XIV XVII 7 4B

4A XVI

3 6D

6C 12

9 29 II XIII 6A 30 28B 2 8 11 6B 27B 10 27A 28A 31 26 1A 1B 25

XII 24 13

23 14

15 21 I 22 20 16

19 17

33 0 1 kilometres

Figure 2. The 2005 evaluation and geophysical survey areas, and sites identified during the 2004 programme FIELDWORK RESULTS

Section One - Surface Surveys

This section is only concerned with ‘superficial’ survey results. The first part relates both the results of commissioned geophysical trials in two field blocks along the infrastructure routes (see Section Two), and also outlines Stratascan’s survey of the Site XII complex (Sabin 2004). Otherwise, the information presented here is piecemeal and should perhaps only be considered at the level of ‘observations’. The fieldwalked material from Field 21 was only informally gathered and not part of an overall fieldwork strategy. However, its mention is certainly warranted as it resulted in the identification of Site XXVIII (see Part 2). Similarly, variously falling outside of the development area and, otherwise, consisting of further wartime images of the airfield, the aerial photographic data presented in Part 3 has not been formally rectified. For reasons outlined below, those portions of the airfield which the latter images cover will shortly be formally surveyed. Whereas the extra-development area photograph has major implications for the understanding of Site XXIX found along the southeastern infrastructure route and, also, potentially the organisation of the larger Roman landscape. Therefore, in both cases, the discussion of these ‘causal’ sources is warranted.

Part 1) Geophysical Survey

Continuing to employ the investigative techniques of the 2004 programme (Evans & Mackay 2004), prior to trial trenching, magnetic susceptibility surveys were undertaken across the area of Fields 8, 9 and 31 (16.5ha) and also 20, 21 and 23 (fig. 3) (15.68ha; Oxford Archaeotech. 2005). As a result of this, within the former field block three areas were targeted for detailed magnetometry survey:

1) 0.36ha over a suspected cropmark along the northwest side of Field 31; the results of this proved entirely negative (fig. 4: A1).

2) 0.36ha in the north half of Field 8 where there were subtlety enhanced magnetic susceptibility readings. The results here were again negative, with only two recent drainage-related features identified. A fragment of aircraft metal was recovered in the course of this work and, leading to the suspicion of airplane crash sites, as a result all of the trenches within this area had to scanned for ordnance beforehand (fig. 4: A2).

3) 0.18ha to confirm the origin of a strong magnetic signal in the south-centre of Field 31; this proved to relate to the traces of a WWII trackway (fig. 4: A3).

Of the results of the trial trenching subsequently undertaken across this area, it warrants notice that no trace whatsoever of the Site XXV boundary system was identified in the geophysical surveys.

Within the Fields 20-23 land block, two other areas were targeted for magnetometry trials:

7 2

Figure 3. 2005 geophysical survey; Fields 8, 9, 20, 21, 23 and 31 Area 1 Area 2 Area 3

0 50 metres

Area 5

Figure 4. Areas targeted for detailed magnetometry geophysical survey Area 4

0 50 metres

Figure 5. Area of Field 23 targeted for detailed magnetometry geophysical survey Figure 6. Stratascan magnetometry survey of Fields 1B and 13, conducted 2004 4) 0.81ha in the north-centre of Field 23 to investigate a swathe of increased magnetic susceptibility values. Aside from ‘highs’ of obviously modern origin and lineations apparently relating to recent agriculture, this produced both a few linear anomalies whose alignments seem independent of the agricultural landscape and also a series of possible pit-like features (fig. 5). Whilst no evidence of the latter was forthcoming upon trial trenching, the existence of the earlier fieldsystem in this area was verified.

5) 0.51ha in the west-central part of Field 21 was sited entirely due to the recovery of a surface flint scatter (see below). Again, aside from traces of modern agriculture (and a few pit-suggestive anomalies), the magnetometry identified a slightly curving linear boundary on a northeast-southwest alignment, and which seems of early origin (fig 4: A5). Whilst due to the agricultural schedule we were unable to trench this field during this season, in all likelihood this suspect linear relates to either a continuation of the fieldsystem in Field 23 or a north-westward extension of Site XXIX in Field 20. This being said, no trace of the latter Iron Age settlement was distinguished in the magnetic susceptibility survey across Field 20.

A sixth area (c. 0.80ha) was also surveyed by magnetometry in the northwestern corner of Field 18. Specifically conducted to elucidate the plan of Site XXVII, its results will best be considered with the presentation of the trial trenching in that field (see below).

As part of the A14 Improvement Scheme studies, in 2004 WS Atkins (Heritage) commissioned Stratascan to undertaken a geophysical survey (magnetometry) right the way across the area of Fields 1 and 13 (the former also including the grassed plot immediately in front of New Close Farm). Fortunately we have been given access to their results (Sabin 2004). As shown in Figure 6, in many respects their plots complement that from the aerial photographs and shows the same basic layout, and in neither do the features found last year extending along the western margin of the field in Trench 142 register (Evans & Mackay 2004: fig. 62; nor does even the full circuit of the double-ditched Iron Age enclosure show in the geophysics on that side). The geophysics clearly confirms the southern end of the site (just south of the Fields 1/13 divide). Less accountable is why no archaeology registers in the grass-covered plot before the farm, as the plan of the site shows that it must extend in that direction (northward) and, for which, either some factor of extraordinary enhancement or disturbance/eradication must be responsible.

Otherwise, the geophysical plot also shows the curvilinear network of Iron Age ditches across its southern half being overlain by a more extensive, rectilinear ‘grid’ of paddocks that are obviously of Roman attribution. What is, however, noteworthy in the Stratscan plan is the straight double-ditch system that flanks the settlement’s eastern side, and what seems to be a second curvilinear focus in the north of the complex. The latter appears to include what are probably the eavesgully-circles of roundhouses and, therefore, suggest still another Iron Age component. The double- ditch line that borders the site may, in fact, mark a road or trackway. If so, it highlights the ditched ‘way’ that seems to conjoin it and continue westward (at right- angles) across the circuit of the bivallate Iron Age enclosure, and which suggests a junction of routes.

12 Part 2) Fieldwalking (Field 2)

As discussed above, in the course of the magnetometry survey in Field 21, a cluster of worked flint (six pieces) was recovered in the area of Survey Area 5. Largely of later Mesolithic/Early Neolithic date, although this was not markedly dense, given the paucity of prehistoric flint otherwise recovered during the evaluation work to date, this has subsequently been designated as Site XXVIII.

Of this material, Beadsmoore reports that it includes a core, a core rejuvenation flake, a waste blade and three waste flakes. The core was systematically worked-off of a series of platforms until it was exhausted, producing predominantly small and narrow flakes towards the end of its use life; it was then burnt. The core rejuvenation flake provides further evidence for systematic and controlled flake production/core reduction; a section of an opposed platform blade core was removed in order to extend the use life of the core. This type of systematic flake production is a common feature of Late Mesolithic/Early Neolithic assemblages. Further evidence for Late Mesolithic/Early Neolithic flake production/core reduction strategies is provided by a waste blade and potentially also a flake fragment and a small narrow flake. The final flake is the product of slightly different technology, and is morphologically more compatible with later Neolithic material.

Immediately following the geophysical survey in this field we attempted to conduct more formalised grid collection across the area. Unfortunately, however, immediately thereafter the field was limed and harrowed, and so this did not prove possible.

Part 3) Aerial Photography

Falling immediately southwest of the infrastructure corridor along the Dry Drayton Road (opposite Fields 18-20), close scrutiny of Gallagher’s’ own vertical colour photograph of the larger Longstanton environs reveals two groups of cropmarks, whose recognition has implications for the understanding of Site XXIX and the larger Roman landscape. As shown in Figure 7, ‘A’ indicates a network of small sub- rectangular/-circular enclosures and conjoining ditches can be distinguished. Resonating with the discovery of an Iron Age settlement in Field 20 opposite (see Part 6 below), this suggests the existence of a larger Iron Age and, possibly, Roman settlement complex, whose small sub-rectangular settings could, in fact, be square barrows. This cropmark will be referred to as the Poplar Farm Group.

East of this a rectilinear fieldsystem is also apparent (fig. 7: B), which obviously pre- dates the recent agricultural layout and is probably Romano-British (though based on morphology alone, a prehistoric attribution cannot be entirely dismissed). Passing through its boundaries (i.e. associated with it) is what is clearly a double-ditch road/trackway, whose line seems to continue southwest into the next field (and perhaps ‘ghost’ still further in the two fields beyond). If of Roman attribution, then it becomes difficult to see how, given its route/recognition, the putative line of the Cambridge/Godmanchester road could relate to the local landscape of this period, unless it ran under or south of the A14.

13 Closer scrutiny of the Luftwaffe photograph obtained last year also sheds further light upon the archaeology of the infrastructure corridors. In the field east of Field 19, there are further hints of features that include a possible sub-circular enclosure and also a rectilinear ditch system (fig. 8), and that both may well relate to the Poplar Farm group outlined above. In fact, the latter of these might account for the seemingly isolated Romano-British ditch that was exposed within Field 19 (Trenches 232 & 305). Equally, on this photograph, within the area of Field 20 and Site XXIX, a northwest-southeast oriented ditch can be distinguished that appears to actually correlate with F.750 in Trench 300. Perhaps even more importantly, in a field on the higher ground immediately southwest of Field 21, the traces of what seems to be series of interlinked sub-ovoid enclosures are just apparent on this image and which may indicate the location of still another settlement site (Iron Age?). This hereafter, will be referred to as the Slate Hall North group. The location of Site XXVII is also shown on this figure in order to demonstrate that really nothing shows of it from the air (see Part 6 below). The whitened inverted ‘L’-shaped linear that continues in the field north of it (and which also shows on other photographs of the area) would seem to be a plough-parcel line, such as are also visible elsewhere on this photograph.

Further north on the Luftwaffe images, just beyond the gun emplacement beside Longstanton Road (and north of Field 5), a large circular cropmark can just be distinguished and which presumably either marks another Iron Age settlement compound or else a barrow (fig. 8).

Over the last year, the CAU has managed to obtain another series of vertical aerial photographs of the airfield which were not available at the time of Palmer’s study (in Evans & Dickens 2002). Taken over the course of WWII, these essentially document the development of the airbase. However on one, taken in August 1940, a number of archaeological features are visible. Duly highlighted on Figure 9, these include a swathe of cropmarks relating to the northern end of Site XVIII (A), and also the white ‘square’/knoll along the southern third of the complex (B; see Part 8 below). At the extreme southern end of the airfield (just south of the Site XVI Iron Age enclosure; see Part 9 below), an ‘early’ northwest-southeast oriented ditch boundary with associated sub-square compounds can be distinguished (fig. 9: C). With extreme enhancement, similar features are hinted at in the field immediate north and east of Site XVI (fig. 9: D). Therefore, in all probability, a larger settlement must lie within this vicinity.

At the time of writing, the entire remaining area of the airfield (filling in the 2004 transect survey) is being geophysically surveyed, which will verify both the existence of this larger site and detail the Site XVIII plan. With this information forthcoming, it has been decided to leave aside the rectification of these cropmarks awaiting their full geophysical plots.

14 A

Field 20 IronAge / Roman settlement

Road / Track

Fieldsystem

Figure 7. Archaeological features identified in fields adjacent to Field 20 (photograph courtesy of Gallaghers) SITE?

DITCH

SUB-CIRCLE

SITE XXVII ‘ARCHAEOLOGY’

Field 18

CIRCLE

Field 5 Figure 8. Luftwaffe aerial photograph, taken August 1940, revealing the presence of potential archaeology as a series of cropmarks B A B

Figure 9. Luftwaffe aerial photograph, taken August 1940, revealing the presence of archaeology within the airfield perimeter Evaluated area 5 Proposed Development Area 2005 evaluation trench

2004 evaluation trench

3 Field number Cropmark settlement cluster 4B 7 Cropmark enclosure

3 12

6D 6C

6A 8 2 6B 11 10 31

1A 1B

13 24

15 Slate Hall North

20 16

18 Poplar Farm

0 500 metres

Figure 10. Field and trench locations for the 2005 evaluation programme within the proposed infrastructure route, and settlement clusters identified from aerial photographs Section Two - The Infrastructure Routes

This section details the trial trenching along the routes of the infrastructure corridors running south from the village and airfield to, and alongside, the A14. Only very limited fieldwork could be undertaken within this area during the 2004 season, with trial trenching confined to Fields 1 (A; western margin only), 2, 5 and 6 (A; then confined to only a very narrow corridor which has since been expanded to include sub-field sections B-D). Aside from the Site I flint scatter, the only sites known within this swathe prior to 2004 were the cropmarks of Site XIV and the Site XII Iron Age/Roman complex (the latter also having been fieldwalked during the 1989 Cotswold Archaeological Trust survey; Gerrard 1989), with a ‘new’ Iron Age site discovered during the course of the 2005 trenching programme (Site XIII; Evans & Mackay 2004). Otherwise totally ‘unannounced’, within these areas Sites XXV-XXXI were only discovered during the 2005 trenching.

Note that due to constraints of the agricultural calendar, we were unable to investigate all of the intended fields, with work in Fields, 14, 21, 22 and 25-33 having to be left until 2006. (As a result of recently planted tree cover, it now looks as if any trenching within Field 22 will have to be abandoned.)

Part 4) Sites XIV, XIII, XXV and XXXI (Fields 3, 4, 6, 7-12 & 31; with Matt Brudenell and Mark Knight)

The fieldwork outlined in this section covers 40.11ha, divided between twelve fields (fig. 11). Fields 3, 4A-4B, 6B to 6D, 7 to 12 and 31 are currently agricultural land, and lie between 10m and 15m OD. Fields 3, 4A and 4B are bounded on the west by Hatton’s Road; Fields 6B to 6D and 7 are located further to the east, with Fields 6B and 6C adjacent to Wilson’s Road. Fields 8 to 12, and 31 are centrally located in the zone of the proposed infrastructure access, adjacent to Wilson’s Road, and traverse the landscape in a narrow swathe, with a curving northeasterly trajectory towards Longstanton Road. The landscape gently slopes away from Wilson’s Road at approximately 20m OD, with a headland in Fields 8 and 31, oriented northwest- southeast. The north and east of the area is characterised by the village of Longstanton and the former RAF airfield at Oakington (Evans & Dickens 2002: 8). The underlying geology is Ampthill dark grey clays (British Geological Survey 1993).

As outlined above, the only site known beforehand within this immediate area was the Site XIV cropmark enclosure in Field 7; Sites XXV and XXXI are new discoveries, respectively a later prehistoric ‘open-type’ settlement (Fields 4B & 7) and an early boundary ditch in Field 8.

Field 3

Five trenches (295-299) were machine-excavated under archaeological supervision, divided into two zones and separated by a small dyke, totalling approximately 299.47m in length. In the more southerly zone was located an 11Kw electricity sub- station, and was also bisected by overhead transmission lines. The location of these

19 lines required the re-orientation of the two trenches machine-excavated here (Trenches 295 & 296). Topsoil in this zone was between 0.30m and 0.25m thick, and the subsoil was between 0.70m and 0.10m deep. One archaeological feature was identified in Trench 295, F.802. The alignment and ‘appearance’ of this feature was similar to three features found in Trench 297 and was thus unexcavated. Both trenches were backfilled following recording of soil profiles.

Three trenches, Trenches 297-299, were located in the northerly zone of Field 3. Topsoil was 0.30m in depth, with subsoil varying between 0.70m and 0.10m deep. Three features in Trench 297, F.800, F.801 and F.802, were investigated (fig. 12). All were on the same northwest-southeast alignment, with similar fill characteristics and widths, although F.801 was slightly narrower. The orientation, nature of the fills and paucity of artefacts suggest these features are either Medieval or post-Medieval field boundaries, possibly relating to earlier ‘open-fields’. In addition, extensive quarrying was identified in Field 3, running in a northeast–southwest direction, affecting the eastern half of both zones. The presence of quarrying on the eastern edge of Field 3 would account for the significant differences observed in subsoil depths in Trenches 296, 298 and 299 (note that extensive traces of ridge-and-furrow were also observed in Field 6D).

Trench 297

Trench 297 was 125m long on a north-south alignment. The topsoil was between 0.30m and 0.25m deep, with subsoil between 0.20m and 0.10m deep. This trench contained three features, F.800, F.801, F.802, orientated northwest-southeast. F.800 was located towards the southern end of the trench, with F.801 more centrally placed, and F.802 situated toward the northern end of the trench. Although post-Medieval pottery was recovered from only F.800, the orientation, profiles and fills of all three ditches (see fig. 15: 1) suggest these are Medieval or post-Medieval field boundaries.

F.800 Ditch. NW-SE orientation. Cut: [2201] width 1.40m, depth 0.40m. Steep convex side with concave break of slope to flat base. Single fill: [2201], firm compact grey orange silty clay with rare small stone inclusions. Finds: pottery.

F.801 Ditch. NW-SE orientation. Cut: [2200] width 1.10m, depth 0.28m. ‘U’-shaped profile with steep concave slope on southwestern edge with slightly irregular slope on northeastern side. Single fill [2200], firm compact light brown clayey silt with infrequent rounded and angular flint inclusions. No finds.

F.802 Ditch. NW-SE orientation. Cut: [2204] width 1.38m, depth 0.48m. Steep slope observed on southwestern edge, with concave base. Two fills [2202], firm compact light brown clayey silt with infrequent small rounded and angular flint inclusions, [2203], a moderately compact light brown clayey silt with frequent small, <50mm, rounded and angular flint inclusions. No finds.

Field 4A

One trench (179) was machine-excavated, approximately 70m in length. Topsoil was between 0.28m thick to 0.26m deep, with subsoil varying between 0.33m and 0.25m deep; no archaeological features were observed in this trench.

20 Evaluated area

Proposed Development Area

2005 evaluation trench

2004 evaluation trench 5

266 Trench number 168 166 3 Field number 167 170 169 190

191 176 7 4B 171 178 175 173 193 177

172 171

297 179 299 180 3 298 181

295 183 182 6D 12 285 296 284 184 286 6C 283

282 287 268 9 281 280 29 192 279 30 260 6A 278 269 277 270 288 185 261 267 275 276 28B 2 189 266 370 289 8 11 272 274 6B 290 262 187 186 265 273 27B 371 10 271 373 28A 188 263 264 27A 374 372 377 375 31 26

376

0 500 metres

Figure 11. Field locations and trench numbers; Fields 3, 4, 6, 7-12 and 31 538741/265247

Current evaluation trench F. 802 Archaeological feature

Excavated slot

F.801

F. 800

Trench 297

Trench 295

F. 803

0 50 metres

Figure 12. Field 3 trench plan 538883/265050 538942/265629

Current evaluation trench Archaeological feature

Excavated slot

Projection of feature

Trench 191

Trench 176 F.662

F.660 F.661

F.655 F.657 F.663 F.664 F.656

Trench 178

Trench 177 Trench 193

0 50 metres

Figure 13. Site XXXI, Field 4B, excavated features and projected alignments 539139/265487 Field 4B

Five trenches (176-178, 191 & 193) were machine-excavated in this field, totalling 344.75m, and revealed seven archaeological features in Trenches 178 and 191 (fig. 13). None contained datable artefacts. The nature of the fills and orientation of the ditches suggest these are prehistoric in date, possibly dating to the Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age. Designated as relating to Site XXXI, they actually should be considered as being associated with the ‘open settlement-type’ features found in Field 7. This interrelationship was not, however, proven as such.

Trench 178

Trench 178 was 75.5m long on a northwest-southeast alignment. The topsoil was between 0.32m and 0.30m deep, and the subsoil between 0.15m and 0.10m deep. This trench contained three features, F.655, F.656, and F.657, at the southwestern end. F.655 was orientated east-west and possibly cut or was cut by the ditch, F.656, orientated northwest-southeast (fig 15: 2). Similarly, pit F.657 may have cut both of these features. All three features contained similar fills, suggesting these may have been contemporaneous, although no finds were recovered during excavation.

F.655 Ditch. NE-SW orientation. Cut: [1561] length 1.00m, width 1.39m, depth 0.35m. ‘U’-shaped ditch with near-vertical sides on the southern edge and steep slope on the northern side, with clear break of slope to slight concave base. Possibly cutting or cut by F.656 and F.657. Single fill: [1560], firm compact orange-grey brown clay silt, with rare pea-grit and small sized stones. Frequent iron- panning, possibly from decayed plant matter. No Finds.

F.656 Ditch. NW-SE orientation. Cut: [1563] width 1.05m, depth 0.30m. ‘U’-shaped profile with steep sides and gentle break of slope to concave base. Single fill: [1562], firm compact mid orange-grey brown clay silt with rare pea-grit and small sized stones, with diffuse boundary with basal layer. Possibly cutting or cut by F.655 and F.657. No finds.

F.657 Pit. Cut: [1565] width 1.45m, depth 0.62m. Oval, steep sides and concave base. Possibly cutting or cut by F.655 and F.656. Four fills: [1564], a firm compacted light orange-brown clay silt with rare small sized stones, [1601], firm compacted orange clay silt with frequent pea-grit, diffuse boundary, [1602], hard orange-grey clay silt with rare pea-grit and diffuse boundary, [1603], a firm compact mid grey-blue clay, rare pea-grit. No finds.

Trench 191

Trench 191 was 42.1m long on a northwest-southeast alignment. The topsoil was between 0.30m and 0.31m deep, and the subsoil between 0.16m and 0.12m deep. This trench contained two ditch terminals, F.661 and F.662, a small ditch, F.663, one small stake or posthole, F.660, and a small pit, F.664. F.662 and F.663 appeared to be on the same alignment and thus may be part of the same fieldsystem. The nature of fills and orientation of these features suggest these may have been either Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age in date. The ditch terminal F.661 was oriented at right-angles to the other two ditches in this trench. This trench was excavated to trace field boundaries identified in Trench 178. It is possible F.662 represents a continuation of F.655.

24 F.660 Posthole. Cut [1605]. Single fill: [1604] pale brownish grey sandy silt with pea-grit and gravel. Length 0.23m, width 0.21m, depth 0.24m. Oval, with steep near vertical sides with concave base. Cuts ditch F.661. No finds.

F.661 Ditch terminal. N-S orientation. Cut: [1607] width 0.80m, depth 0.14m. Gentle shallow slope with break of slope to slightly concave base. Cut by posthole F.660. Single fill: [1606], pale orange- brown slightly sandy silt with moderate to frequent pea-grit around the base. No finds.

F.662 Ditch terminal. Cut: [1609] width 1.00m, depth 0.21m. ‘U’-shaped profile, with gentle shallow sides and concave base. Single fill: [1608], pale orange-brown sandy silt with frequent poorly sorted pea-grit and angular gravel. No finds.

F.663 Ditch. E-W orientation. Cut: [1611] width 0.94m, depth 0.27m. ‘U’-shaped with moderately sloping sides with uneven concave base. Cuts pit F.664. Single fill: [1610], a mid to light grey brown clayey silt with occasional to rare gravel inclusions. No finds.

F.664 Pit. Cut: [1613] width 0.98m, depth 0.0.26m. Circular, with straight moderately shallow slopes and concave base. Cut by F.663. Single fill: [1612], mid grey brown clayey silt with occasional to rare gravel inclusions. No finds.

Fields 6B-D

Eleven trenches were initially machine-excavated under archaeological supervision, totalling approximately 851.93m in length. Topsoil was between 0.35m thick to 0.22m deep, with subsoil varying between 0.33m and 0.12m deep. No archaeological features were observed in Fields 6B and 6D, although remnants of ridge-and-furrow were observed in trenches in Field 6D. These features were on a similar alignment and of similar nature to the ridge-and-furrow investigated in Field 3 and thus recorded in plan only (see also Field 5 findings; Evans & Mackay 2004). Following recording of soil depths, trenches in these three fields were backfilled. It should be noted that the absence of archaeology in this area, especially in the case of Field 6B was surprising, given the discovery in 2004 of an Iron Age site (XIII) immediately north of its western quarter (see Evans & Mackay 2004).

Field 7

Ten trenches (166-175) were initially machine-excavated under archaeological supervision, totalling 851.98m in length. Those in the northeast corner were laid-out to cut a small ‘organic-type’ sub-/multi-circular cropmark compound that was thought be of Iron Age attribution (fig. 14) (Site XIV; Evans & Mackay 2004). Topsoil was between 0.36m deep and 0.23m deep. Subsoil depth varied from 0.25m deep to 0.08m deep. Five trenches, Trenches 166, 167, 169, 170 and Trench 190 contained between them eight features, with a headland clearly traceable in Trench 170. Evidence of apparently ‘open’ settlement was found within Trenches 166, 167 and 169. Thought possibly to relate to similar features in Field 4B, these could also be a part of Site XXXI. Trenches 168, 171-175 contained no archaeological features, and were backfilled following recording of top- and subsoil depths. Notable in Field 7 was the absence of archaeological features to the east of the headland, which bisected the site on a northeast to southwest alignment, and marked a clear transition between the gravels to the west and heavier clay soils immediately to the east.

25 Trench 166

Trench 166 was 98.4m long on a north-south alignment. The topsoil was between 0.32m and 0.34m deep, and the subsoil 0.17m deep. This trench contained two ditches, F.658, F.665, and a small pit, F.659. These two features are identifiable on the aerial photo of the site as part of a substantial Iron Age enclosure ditch, and the same as F.658 excavated in Trench 167 (fig. 15: 3). The stratigraphic sequence in F.665 suggests this was an enclosure ditch that was either totally or partially backfilled and later re-cut, followed by a second episode of backfilling.

F.653 Small pit. Cut: [1557] length 1.01m, width 0.91m, depth 0.11m. Oval, with steep sides on northern edge with clear break of slope to flat base, and short steep slope on southern edge with break of slope top small ledge and further gradual convex break of slope to base. Single fill: [1556], a compact dark brown sandy silt with occasional small stones. 0.424 kg of Middle Iron Age pottery was recovered from this feature (see Brudenell below).

F.658 Ditch. NW-SE orientation. Cut: [1570] width 2.58m, depth 1.06m. Concave base with steep slope on southwestern side with near vertical slope on northeastern side with break of slope to narrow concave ledge with further convex break of slope to base. Seven fills: [1566], firm to compact light brown grey silty clay with moderate to frequent small gravel, occasional large stones and charcoal, [1567], a very compact mid brown grey silty clay with frequent small gravel (up to 40%) and occasionally large stones., with some pottery and bone, [1568], mid grey clay with frequent small gravel inclusions, [1569] dark to mid brown/orange sandy gravel (re-deposited natural), [1571] orange sand with frequent gravel, [1572], a mixed grey clay, [1573], a dark brown silt with significant bioturbation/root disturbance. Finds: pottery, bone.

F.665 Ditch. E-W orientation. Cut: [1622] width 2.33m, depth 0.97m. Steep near vertical slopes on northern side with concave break of slope to base with steep near vertical slope on southern side with sharp break of slope to small horizontal ledge with further concave gradual break of slope onto a further small step, before small gentle slope to base with slight concave break. Eight fills:[1614], a firm to compact mid brown sandy silt with very occasional small, C50mm, rounded and sub-angular pebble inclusions and occasional charcoal flecks, [1615], firm compact mid brown grey sandy silt with 10% pea-grit with occasional small, C30mm, rounded and sub-angular pebbles, [1616], a loose light brown orange sand (re-deposited natural), [1617], a very compact mixed mid grey brown sandy silt with clay component, with patches of pea-grit and occasional small, C60mm, rounded and sub-angular pebbles flecks of charcoal. Some pottery and bone, [1618], compact mid brown sandy silt with pea-grit and occasional small, C30mm, rounded and sub-angular pebbles and flecks of charcoal, environmental sample number <67>, some pottery and bone, [1619], a mixed orange yellow sandy gravel (re- deposited natural), [1620], a grey green clay with occasional small, C20mm, rounded and sub-angular pebbles (re-deposited natural), [1621] grey green clay (re-deposited natural). Finds: pottery, bone.

Trench 167

Trench 167 was 51.7m long on an east-west alignment, adjoining Trench 166. The topsoil was between 0.32m and 0.30m deep, and the subsoil 0.13m deep. This trench was orientated to intersect the ditch of the cropmark enclosure observed on the aerial photograph of the site. The trench contained one ditch, F.659, which appears to be similar in general profile and size to the ditches excavated in Trench 166, and thus forms part of a single enclosure ditch with F.658 and F.665.

F.659 Ditch. E-W orientation. Cut: [1594] length 1.10m (slot), width 3.60m, depth 0.90m. Uneven, moderate to steep sided ditch, stepped on eastern side, more uniform on western side with steep convex slope with gradual break of slope to concave base. Five fills: [1595], a brown silty clay with occasional small stones, [1596], brown grey clay with occasional small to very small gravel, [1597], a very compact grey clay with very small to small stones and occasional bone, [1598], gravel (re-deposited

26 natural). [1599] gravel flume (re-deposited natural), [1600], disturbed gravel (re-deposited natural). Finds: bone.

Trench 169

Trench 169 was 78.5m long on a northwest-southeast alignment. The topsoil was between 0.31m and 0.30m deep, and the subsoil between 0.20m and 0.13m deep. One archaeological feature was found in the trench, ditch F.652; the nature of the fill, profile and orientation suggests a probable Iron Age date.

F.652 Ditch. N-S orientation. Cut: [1556] length 1.60m, width 1.33m, depth 0.27m. Oval, with near vertical slightly concave sides and small depression at centre. Single fill: [1554], a firmly compact yellow/orange silty clay with rare stones. No finds.

Trench 170

Trench 170 was 92.5m long on a northwest-southeast alignment. The topsoil was 0.30m deep, and the subsoil between 0.08m and 0.10m deep. Two small pits were found, F.650 and F.651. The latter of these was lined with clay and may have been used as a cooking-pit (a number of burnt stones were recovered from the feature). F.650 is interpreted as a probable posthole, and Middle Iron Age in date.

F.650 Posthole. Cut: [1551] width 0.31m, depth 0.11m. Circular in plan with steep near vertical sides and flat base. Single fill: [1550], mid grey silty sand with frequent small gravel (<30mm). This produced 0.165kg of Middle Iron Age pottery (see Brudenell below).

F.651 Posthole. Cut: [1553] length 0.50m, width 0.33m, depth 0.18m. Circular, v-shape in profile, with steep near vertical sides and concave base. Single fill: [1552], black fill with very frequent charcoal, with a more compact burnt clay towards the top with ashy lower fill. No finds, although sides lined with clay to approximately 7cm thickness with burnt stones recovered from the feature. Possible small cooking pit or posthole.

Trench 190

Trench 190 was 30m long on a northwest-southeast alignment. The topsoil was between 0.35m and 0.25m deep, and the subsoil between 0.20m and 0.15m deep. This trench was judgementally located to determine if features identified in Field 7 extended in a generally west to southwesterly direction. One archaeological feature was found in the trench, a small shallow pit, F.652. No datable finds were recovered from the feature, although the nature of the fill indicates a possible prehistoric date.

F.654 Small pit. Cut: [1559] width 0.65m, depth 0.75m. Shallow, circular feature with gentle slopes and flat base. Fill Single fill: [1558], a compact brown yellow silty sand with rare small stones. No finds.

Field 3 1 Trench 297 NE SW

TOPSOIL

SUBSOIL

[2202]

[2219] [2203]

F. 802

Field 4B 2 Trench 178 SW NE

[1562]

[1563] [1564] F. 656

[1602]

[1601] [1565]

[1603]

F. 657

Field 7 3 Trench 166 SW NE

[1566]

[1567]

[1569]

[1568] [1570]

[1571] [1572]

[1573]

F. 658

Field 8 4 Trench 269 SE NW

[2211]

[2212] [2213]

[2214] [2215] F. 804

0 1 metre Figure 15. Selected feature sections from Sites XIII, XIV and XXV Field 8

Initially twelve trenches (260-267, 270, 288-290) were machine-excavated, totalling 816.91m, revealing seven features confined to Trenches 265, 269, 270, 288 and 289. One large segmented boundary or enclosure ditch, F.804, was identified in these trenches, in addition to a posthole, F.805, and two small postholes left unexcavated, an elongated charcoal spread, a pit, F.806 (cut by the ditch), and a small portion of a pit, in Trench 288, planned but not excavated. Due to the scheduling and sampling strategy adopted for the evaluation, only selected elements of ditch F.804, posthole F.805 and pit F.806 were investigated further. Interpreting these features is problematic due to the very small number of finds; two flint flakes from F.804 in Trench 265-269, and an isolated flake from the surface of Trench 269. Nonetheless, these flakes and the dense spread of burnt stones and charcoal from the fill of the ditch attest to settlement activity in the general locale, dating to from the Late Bronze Age; these features are thus designated as Site XXV. Significantly, the spread of burnt stones consists of differing size pebbles and clearly represent a deliberate depositional event towards the terminal of the ditch segment (fig. 17). It is of note that, apart from F.804 and the portion of a pit in Trench 288, no other archaeological features were found in Field 8.

Trenches 265 and 269

Trench 265 was 200m long on a northwest-southeast alignment. A box-extension, Trench 269, was machine-excavated on the northern edge of Trench 265, with a smaller side-ways extension on the southern edge, to further expose ditch F.804 (fig. 16), located in the northern half of the trench. The topsoil in both trenches was between 0.35m and 0.20m deep, and the subsoil between 0.20m and 0.25m deep. In addition to F.804, a small pit, F.806, and three small postholes were exposed. One posthole, F.805, was half-sectioned. A small elongated spread of charcoal was also identified, but only recorded in plan. The terminal of F.804 also cut pit F.806, providing a clear stratigraphic relationship between these two features. Two flint flakes were recovered from F.804, and another from the surface of Trench 269. The recovery of the flints, orientation of the ditch and nature of the fills suggest a probable Bronze Age date for these features.

F.804 Ditch, NE-SW orientation. Cut: [2210] width 1.24m, depth 0.57m. Steep near vertical slope on southeast edge with clear break of slope to a flat base. North-western slope less steep with concave break of slope to base. Single fill: [2209], mid grey clay with orange streaks and patches, with occasional charcoal flecks and small, <1mm, pieces and infrequent isolated pieces of burnt stone and moderate small, <50mm, to medium, <100mm, sized flint inclusions. No Finds.

F.804 Ditch terminal. NE-SW orientation. Fill [2211, 2212, 2213, 2214], Cut: [2215] length 3.10m, depth 0.60m. Steep near vertical side (where observed) with sharp break of slope to a flat base. Cut F.806. Four fills: [2211], a firm compact orange brown silty clay, [2212], a firm compact dark brown silty clay with frequent small stone inclusions and very frequent charcoal; flint flakes, burnt stone, [2213], firm compact dark brown silty clay with very frequent small and large stone inclusions, many burnt, [2214], a firm compact orange grey clay with rare stone inclusions. Finds: flint, burnt stones. Environmental sample <85>.

F.805 Posthole. Cut: [2208] width 0.25m, depth 0.10m. Circular, with short steep sides and concave base. Single fill: [2207], firm compact olive brown clayey silt with orange patches and streaks with frequent charcoal inclusions.

30 F.806 Pit. Cut: [2218] width 0.55m, depth 0.5m. Ovoid in plan (where surviving), with steep near vertical sides with clear break of slope to irregular slope to limit of excavation. Two fills: [2216], a mid reddish grey mottled silty clay with occasional small stones and occasional charcoal flecking; flint, [2217], a dark grey mottled clay with occasional charcoal flecks. Finds: flint.

Field 9

Located immediately to the northwest of Field 8, one 100m trench, on a similar alignment to Trench 265 in Field 8, was machine-excavated under archaeological supervision in this field. Topsoil was between 0.30m and 0.25m thick, and the subsoil between 0.20m and 0.15m deep. No archaeological features were found in this trench, and following recording of soil depths was backfilled.

Fields 10-12

Fields 10 to 12 traversed the landscape in a curving band from the eastern edge of Field 8 to a widening funnel-shaped area adjacent to Longstanton Road. Seventeen trenches were initially machine-excavated under archaeological supervision, totalling 875m in length, after initial surveying for ordnance due to the close proximity of former airfield installations (dispersal points and main runway). Topsoil was between 0.35m thick to 0.18m deep, with subsoil varying between 0.48m deep and 0.14m thick, or totally absent (two trenches in Field 12). No archaeological features were observed in any of the trenches in these three fields, although lumps of concrete, presumably from the World War II airfield runway, were found in Field 12. Accordingly, following recording of soil depths, these were backfilled.

Field 31

Field 31 is the most centrally located of the fields within the proposed infrastructure route, bounded on its western and southern edge by Wilson’s Road, and to the north by Field 8, and is bisected by a very distinct ridge or headland, orientated northwest- southeast, which continues into Field 8. With a slightly northern off-set from the centre of the field a small brick building is located that was formerly an out-building (radio-control) of RAF Oakington, used to aid aircraft landing and taking-off. On the eastern edge of the field is a small electricity sub-station which presumably provided power to the small building. Initial ordnance scanning of the field revealed an underground defunct electricity cable, but no unexploded ordnance, or trace of an allegedly crashed Wellington aircraft located in this field. Eight trenches were machine-excavated (370-377), totalling 950m. No archaeological features were exposed in any; despite its clear northwest-southeast direction, the segmented boundary ditch identified in Field 8 did not continue this far south. After recording soil profiles these trenches were backfilled.

31 539379/264820

Trench 265 Current evaluation trench Archaeological feature

Excavated slot Modern feature

Projection of feature

Trench 269 F. 805

F. 806 F. 804

0 25 metres

Figure 16. Site XXV, Field 8, excavated features and projected alignment of F. 804 539472/264734 A: F. 804, Trench 265, Site XXV, burnt stone deposit

B: F. 118, Trench 200, Site XII Figure 17. Excavated features, Site XII and XXV Discussion

Prehistoric activity in this area of the proposed roadway route is confined to Fields 4B/7 (Sites XXXI & XIV) and 8 (Site XXV). The nature of the evidence at Site XXV is intriguing, consisting of a segmented field boundary and three postholes that are probably Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age in origin. Interestingly enough, this boundary is on the same alignment as the headland that bisects both Fields 8 and 31 in a northeast-southwest direction. The boundary ditch may denote a re-organisation and division of the landscape, but the absence of any clearly associated settlement evidence or activity could suggest areas of higher ground, dominated by clay soils, were principally used for pasture, with possible seasonal occupation. Attempts to locate a continuation of this or similar features in Field 31 were ultimately unsuccessful. Whilst possibly due to the truncation of features when ancillary buildings and facilities were constructed (associated with the airfield located immediately to the northeast), it may also simply be the case that what we are seeing here is only a dispersed boundary system and not a ‘developed’ or ‘field’ fieldsystem as such.

The ‘organic-type’ compound in Field 7 (Site XIV) is, based on its plan morphology, comparable to the Site VII, VIII and XVI enclosures (Evans & Mackay 2004) and the fieldwork confirmed its Middle/later Iron Age attribution - as indeed, are all the others (XVII may also be of this date). Given the broad ‘type’ similarity of these sites and also their frequency within the landscape, it could be argued that, in contrast to more complex/larger Iron Age site configurations (e.g. Site XII, see below), rather than being permanent year-round settlements these were only seasonal, pastoral-based enclosures. Although its assemblages were by no means prolific, and nor can its function yet be ascribed with certainty, sufficient finds were recovered from Site XIV to suggest that there is no particular reason to see its occupation as seasonal.

Trenches in Fields 4B and 7 revealed the presence of dispersed settlement features, possibly associated with the fieldsystem elements within the former. Although the recovery of Middle Iron Age (c.400-100 BC) pottery from the posthole, F.650, and small pit, F.653, strongly suggest these features are Iron Age in date, a Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age date cannot be entirely excluded, particularly the ditches identified in Field 4B. (Though if these dispersed settlement features are actually continuous between the two fields is, in fact, unknown; potentially those in Field 7 should rather be associated with the Site XIV enclosure.) The presence of dispersed single or small clusters of pits of unknown function or purpose, such as F.653, is a recognised feature of Iron Age sites in the Cambridge region, for example those identified at Granta Park, Wandlebury and Clay Farm (Brudenell 2004; Webley 2004; Evans et al 2006) they attest to exploitation of these areas and provide insight into the distribution of settlement activity during this period. The location of the features in Fields 4B and 7 also highlights the apparent preference in distribution of archaeology towards the gravels, as opposed to the heavier clay soils. This distribution was further demarcated by a headland, with the implication that settlement activity was located along the transitional zone between the gravel and clay soils. This may suggest clay soils were initially of secondary importance during the Early to Middle Iron Ages, probably due their poor drainage and level of energy and input required to provide a reasonable agricultural yield. Nonetheless, during the latter Iron Age heavier clay

34 soils were brought into cultivation, and may reflect technological innovations in agriculture and population increase.

It warrants mention that the fact no features associated with the Iron Age ditch system in Fields 2 and 6A (Site XIII) were uncovered in Field 6B indicates that its limits have now been established on its eastern and southern sides (nor does it extend as far north as Field 3).

There is a marked lack of evidence for Roman and early Medieval activity in this part of the proposed development zone; later Medieval evidence is limited to the presence of traces of ridge-and-furrow in Fields 3, 4B and 7 (see Palmer’s plot of these in Evans & Dickens 2002: fig. 4). The evidence from Trench 297 in Field 3 is more equivocal, possibly representing field boundaries of Medieval manorial estates or farms and their associated outfields. The construction of Hatton’s Road as a private access to the manor house situated in Longstanton during the 18th century (Elrington 1989: 221) and closely dated enclosure of open fields resulted in these boundaries becoming redundant or obsolete as the fieldsystem was remodelled, with the quarrying evidenced on the eastern edge of Field 3 truncating these features.

The modern landscape is dominated by the 20th century developments in Longstanton and Oakington, and the A14 duel carriage-way to the south. At the start of World War II the airfield at RAF Oakington was a fully operational airfield used initially by Wellington bombers and operational conversion units. In 1941 a concrete runway and dispersal points were constructed for the heavier Short Stirling and later Lancaster bombers based at the station. Concrete rubble and remnants of the runway, dispersal points and ancillary buildings were encountered in Fields 12 and 31, highlighting the disturbed nature of the landscape, and the detrimental impact the construction and removal of these installations may have had on any archaeology present.

Part 5) Site XII (Fields 1 & 13)

The fieldwork outlined in this section covers 8.56ha, divided between two fields (fig. 18). Fields 1B, and 13 are currently agricultural land, and lie between 15m and 20m OD. They are bounded on the east by a drainage dyke, on the west by Hatton’s Road, and Field 13 to the south by the A14, and are located in the extreme southwest zone of the proposed infrastructure route. In 2004, two evaluation trenches were excavated in an area designated Field 1A (Williams in Evans & Mackay 2004). The results of the 2004 evaluation phase are summarised below to provide a sense of unity to the archaeology of Site XII. Equally, the results of Stratascan’s subsequent geophysical survey of this site have been outlined above (Part 1).

The underlying geology consists of both Greensands and Kimmeridge clay (British Geological Survey 1993). Equally, it warrants mention from the outset that in Trenches 195, 201 and 202, the flattened and dispersed remnants of enclosure banks were observed and may have been damaged through plough action. The identification of a buried soil or possible surface of Early Romano-British date at the southern end of Trench 203 suggests that preservation is good where the subsoil is deep. However, in places, particularly the relatively higher central settlement area, the plough soil now caps underlying deposits directly suggesting the destruction of subsoil and bank

35 features and preliminary impact into the site strata. Nonetheless, despite plough damage the preservation of possible roadway side ditches and banks in Trenches 195, 201 (fig. 22: A) and 202, as opposed to these being ploughed-out enclosure banks, on the eastern side of the settlement is worth further consideration as this would explain the parallel nature and orientation of the cropmarks observed in this part of Site XII.

Summary of the 2004 Trenching Programme

In 2004, two evaluation trenches, Trenches 142 and 143, were cut across the western edge of the Romano-British field boundaries and through the middle of the Iron Age enclosure (Williams in Evans & Mackay 2004). The excavation of 17 features within these trenches largely confirmed earlier tentative interpretation and phasing: a moderately expansive Iron Age presence overlain by a rectilinear Romano-British field pattern with a broad span of dating from the Middle to Late Iron Age to the Early Romano-British period, approximately 400 BC–120 AD. The apparent Iron Age/Roman continuity of settlement - from Iron Age through the Conquest period and into, at least, the early 2nd century AD - seems particularly at odds with other sites in the Longstanton area which show a movement and reorganisation of the local population with Romanization. However, due to the abraded and fragmentary nature of the Romano-British potsherds recovered in the evaluation, it was suggested that settlement at Site XII may have been modest in scale at this time.

Two trenches measuring a total of 165m were initially machine-excavated in the southwest limit of the site and had been specifically targeted over an area of well defined cropmarks, which included a possible ‘ringwork-type’ enclosure (fig. 20). The results of the 2004 fieldwork are summarised below

Trench 142

There were 16 features in this trench, (F.501, F.510, F.517, F.518, F.520, F.521, F.522, F.524, F.525, F.526, F.527, F.528, F.529, F.530, F.531 and F.533). Four of these (F.517, F.518, F.528 and F.531) were pits, the remaining features being linears. The four pits were concentrated towards the middle of the trench. The three abutted its western baulk, whilst F.531 was against the eastern side and, although unexcavated, it may have represented a possible butt end of a ditch. The other three features were relatively shallow and produced no dating evidence.

The linears were dispersed throughout the trench and represented three separate alignments belonging to the Iron Age and Roman periods. The alignments were as follows: F.501 north-northwest to south- southeast; F.527, F.510, F.533, F.524 and F529 northwest-southeast; F.521, F.522, F.525, F.526, F.502, F.520 and F.531 west-northwest-east-southeast.

Trench 143

This trench contained five features (F.500, F.502, F.511, F.512 and F.519). All were of a linear nature, F.500 and F.511 running east-west, F.502 westnorthwest-eastsoutheast, F.519 northeast-southwest and F.512 northwest-southeast, the latter feature having an unclear relationship with F.519. All the features encountered within this trench, with the exception of F.512, seemed to correspond with the cropmarks, with F.500 and F.511 corresponding with the inner and outer ditches of the possible ‘ringwork-type’ enclosure. The inner ditch produced a mixed pottery assemblage dating from the Middle/Late Iron Age and 1st century AD; the outer ditch produced no finds. A large ditch F.502, just south of F.500 also produced a mixed assemblage of similar dates, whereas F.519 had pottery dating to the 1st century AD only. The small gully F.512 produced no finds.

36 374 1A 376 25 1B 377

200 201

202

205 388 204 13 203

207 206 24 387

390

208

209 210 386

383 14 23

384 379 389 385 380 378 254 382

21 15 381

253 22 303

252 251 250 300 20 248 302 16 234 301 245 249 258 233

247 235 259 232 237 300 246 19 257 230

238 226 240 211 255 227 256 214 212 231 239 241 225 Investigated area 243 229 17 220 228 Proposed Development Area 258 2005 evaluation trench 244 215 213 216 18 2004 evaluation trench 266 Trench number 219 224

217 3 Field number 218 223 0 500 221 222 32 metres

Figure 18. Field locations and trench numbers, Fields 1, 13, 15-20 and 23-24 Trench 200

Trench 201

Current evaluation trench Archaeological feature

Phase Trench 142 Previous phase of evaluation

Trench 143 Trench 202

Trench 200

Trench 205

Trench 195

Trench 204

Trench 203

0 500 metres

Figure 19. Site XIV trench location, cropmarks and features from the 2004 and 2005 evaluations 538419/264445

Trench 200

F. 715 F. 732

F. 735

F. 688 F. 722

Current evaluation trench F. 687 Archaeological feature

F. 686 Excavated slot Archaeological cropmark

F. 708 Geophysics plot

Modern feature

F. 685 Previous phase of evaluation Trench 201

F. 730 F. 731 F. 707 F. 709 F. 701

F. 704 F. 705 F. 703

F. 684

F. 716 Field drain F. 683

F. 682

F. 511 F. 681

F. 724

F. 500

F. 680 F. 679 F. 712

F. 713 F. 725

F. 677 F. 711 Trench 142 F. 676 F. 678

F. 674 Trench 143 F. 675 Trench 202 F. 673 0 25 F. 671 F. 670 metres F. 690 F. 669

Figure 20. Site XII, Field 1B, correlation of cropmark and geophysical evidence and exposed and excavated features F. 538604/264341 538419/264340

F. 717 F. 733 F.726 Trench 205 F. 734

Trench 202 F.718

F. 400 Trench 200

Current evaluation trench Archaeological feature

F. 720 Excavated slot F. 719 Archaeological cropmark

F. 721 Geophysics plot Modern feature

Trench 203 Trench 195

F. 714

Trench 204 F. 706 F. 710

F. 728

F. 729

[2033]

0 25 metres

Figure 21. Site XII, Field 1B, correlation of cropmark and geophysical evidence and exposed and excavated features 538604/264234 Field 1B

Three trenches (200-202) were excavated with a combined length of 213m (fig. 19). A total of 42 discrete archaeological features were recorded within these, the majority located within Trench 200 (133m in length). Topsoil averaged 0.25m thick over an average 0.23m of subsoil. The natural ‘soft’ geology was predominantly sand and gravel, with clay lenses or solid clay with distinct edges where these interfaced with the sand/gravel deposits. A significant number of archaeological features were revealed, notably in Trench 200, with two and possibly more phases of occupation denoted by a number of large enclosure ditches; these features largely date to the later Iron Age and the Conquest/Early Romano-British period, though occupation also occurred into Late Roman times.

Trench 200

This was 133m long; the topsoil was between 0.29m and 0.18m deep, and the subsoil c. 0.24m deep. Trench 200 contained a minimum 38 features, primarily ditches, of which F.700, F.703-705, F.707-709, F.711-713, F.715, F.716, F.718, F.722, F.724- 727, and F.732 were test-excavated. A further 19 features were identified and planned but not excavated; F.666- 688 (figs. 19 & 20). Eight of the unexcavated features were ditches, with a general northwest-southeast orientation, with a further five oriented east-west. The latter were located in the northern half of the trench.

The trench was sited across the dense middle swathe of the features identified through both aerial photography and geophysical survey. Initial identification of 36, often large, intercutting features recommended the implementation of a selective sampling strategy to obtain maximum results for the least amount of disturbance to the exposed deposits. To this end, features were targeted for excavation where they appeared to display a simple or single stratigraphy, seemed to represent in situ occupation or structures and did not appear clearly on the aerial photographs or geophysical plots. Slots were occasionally placed across features identifiable from the aerial photographs in order to test the tentative phases assigned to settlement enclosures or boundary alignments.

None of the features excavated in Trench 200 could be dated firmly to the Middle Iron Age phase identified in the 2004 evaluation to the west of the trench. However, a cluster of features located approximately 100 meters from the northern end of the trench were assigned Late Iron Age date through finds study and stratigraphic sequencing. These were: F.711-713, F.715 and F.724, two ditches and three pits. Ditch F.711 does not appear to be identified on the aerial photograph, although it may be part of a curvilinear boundary ditch seen in the geophysical plots. F.711 appeared to have been backfilled deliberately and this could be due to a re-organisation of boundaries leading to the superimposition of F.724 over the earlier feature. This feature is also not specifically identifiable from the aerial photograph, but may relate to a semi-circular ditch seen on the geophysical plot, perhaps suggesting an enclosure ditch. Features 712, 713 and 725 appeared as a series of pits devoid of finds, but truncated by F.711, and suggestive of possible local settlement activity. Two other Late Iron Age features were also ditches, one to the north of the trench and the other to the south. The southern ditch, F.718, was rich in finds, particularly animal bone,

41 suggesting nearby occupation and it may be the northern boundary of a possible large enclosure seen to the south on both the geophysical plots and as cropmarks. The northern ditch, F.732, was insubstantial and seems to be related to a possible further settlement focus situated to the north of the trench, although finds recovery suggested very low-key occupation in this area. Furthermore, the feature that F.732 appears to have been associated with was a large enclosure ditch, F.727, of the Romano-British period (2nd - 3rd centuries AD), that appears as the large enclosure feature on both the aerial and geophysical plots. This suggests that either the pottery from F.732 was residual or that an earlier boundary was re-established on a much larger scale at a later period.

The earlier Romano-British period is represented by potsherds recovered from F.722, a substantial curving ditch not previously identified on aerial or geophysical plots located towards the northern end of Trench 200. This feature will need further examination to make any more detailed analysis of form or function, as it currently stands apart from other features within the trench.

Other Romano-British period features are dated from the 2nd to the 4th centuries AD and these include a group of features with structural attributes located approximately 50 meters from the northern end of the trench. These elements comprised F.704, F.709 and F.707; two post pits and a foundation slot that shared the characteristic of having large ‘cobbles’ within the fills. From the general arrangement and ‘style’ of these features one could tentatively assume the possible presence of an aisled building consisting of upright posts supporting walls of wattle and daub erected on timber sill beams (see fig. 24). The placing of F.709 may suggest internal uprights forming an aisled structure. A piece of burnt daub and some tile fragments were recovered from F.704, and in all three features the large ‘cobbles’ appear to have been used as packing and foundation support. It should be noted that the possible wall foundation, F.707, lies on an unusual north-south alignment that appears distinct from others on the site as a whole, but which does have some similar parallels evident predominantly on the aerial photographs rather than the geophysics plots. These could be seen as a separate phase and may indicate a later realignment in the heart of the earlier settlement. F.708, an enclosure ditch, lies just to the north of this building cluster on an east-west alignment that suggests it is a part of this system, possibly directly related to the building itself. It was noted by the pottery specialist (Anderson, below) as being particularly rich in Nene Valley Ware sherds and also contained a good assemblage of animal bones, suggesting slightly more intensive nearby occupation of the 3rd to 4th centuries AD.

These structural features were cut into F.703, a small pit, and were next to, but not on, the same alignment as F.705, an insubstantial ditch. Both these features contained Romano-British pottery of the 2nd to 3rd centuries AD, although F.705 was on the more common southwest–northeast alignment and may be identified with a linear feature mapped on the geophysical plot. This is also true of F.700, a large enclosure ditch located at the southern end of Trench 200 which may correlate to features on both the aerial photographs and the geophysical plot, but clearly follows the same alignment. Also on this alignment was F.716, which was interpreted as a possible structural slot for a timber building constructed of upright posts set edge-on-edge, although further investigation would be needed to ascertain this interpretation.

42 F.666 Ditch terminal or pit? 1.10m diameter; located at extreme southern end of trench and cut by F.700.

F.667 Ditch? NE-SW orientation. c. 0.45m visible along trench edge, cut by F.700 and F.718; located at southern end of trench.

F.668 Ditch. NW-SE orientation. 2.00m wide; located approximately 10m from southern end of trench, and on parallel alignment to F.670, c. 11.2m to the north.

F.669 Small pit or posthole, 0.50m in diameter.

F.670 Ditch. NW-SE orientation. 1.60m wide, located 24m from southern end of trench.

F.671 Lozenge-shaped pit? 1.00m long x 0.35m wide.

F.673 Ditch. NW-SE orientation. 1.10m wide. Abutting F.674; possible double or parallel ditch located approximately 30m from southern end of trench.

F.674 Ditch. NW-SE orientation. 1.20m wide. Abutting F.673; possible double or parallel ditch located approximately 30m from southern end of trench.

F.675 Curvilinear ditch. NNW-SSE orientation. 0.40m wide. Possibly cutting or cut by F.676.

F.676, Ditch. NNW-SSE orientation. 2.30m wide at widest point. Possibly cuts F.676. Cuts F.677. Possibly cut by F.725.

F.677 Small pit or ditch terminal? Cut by F.676. 0.60m wide x 0.40m long.

F.678 Ditch. NW-SE orientation. 0.75m wide. Cuts F.725.

F.679 Ditch/Spread? NW-SE orientation. 3.00m wide. Cut by F.712, F.713 and F.725, and possibly by F.676 and F.677.

F.680 Ditch. E-W orientation, although possibly large curvilinear ditch, 3.20m wide. Cuts F.725.

F.681 Ditch? NW-SE orientation. 3.80m wide located at mid-point of the trench. Possibly cuts or is cut by F.682 and possibly the same or continuation of F.683.

F.682 Ditch junction? E-W/N-S orientation. 1.20m wide on E-W axis, 1.50m wide on N-S axis. Cut by or cutting F.681 and F.683.

F.683 Ditch. NE-SW orientation. 0.80m wide. Cut by F.682. Possibly branch of or contiguous with F.681.

F.684 Ditch. WNW-ESE orientation. 1.10m wide. Located 58m from northern end of trench.

F.685 Ditch. WNW-ESE orientation. 2.90m wide. Located 39m from northern end of trench.

F.686 Ditch, WNW-ESE orientation. Slightly bulbous in shape; 1.10m wide located 21m from northern end of trench.

F.687 Ditch. E-W orientation. 1.50m wide. Parallel to F.688, located 6m to the north.

F.688 Ditch. NW-SE orientation. 1.10m wide.

F.700 Ditch. WNW-ESE orientation. Cut: [2003] width 2.70m, depth 1.10m. Roughly ‘V’-shaped in section with steep straight sides leading to a rounded base with defined breaks of slope. Two fills: [2000], upper fill consisting of mid to dark grey sandy silt with frequent gravel and small rounded stones. [2001], middle fill of greenish grey sandy clay silt with common inclusions of small to medium rounded and angular stones with frequent instances of a fine white grit. [2002], primary fill consisting

43 of re-deposited sand and gravel slumping derived from the feature sides. A substantial ditch that can be identified with one seen on both the aerial photographs and geophysical survey plots. Appears to have been left open and silted slowly. Potsherds dating to the Romano-British period, 2nd–3rd centuries AD, were recovered from all fills along with various domestic animal bones and fragments of a pudding- stone quern (see Anderson below).

F.703 Small pit/gully terminal. WNW-ESE orientation. Cut: [2016] width 0.87m, depth 0.27m. In section an open U – shaped cut with imperceptible breaks of slope leading to a flattened uneven base. Two fills: [2014], upper fill, an olive-grey sandy silt of medium compaction with frequent inclusions of gravel, dark oxidisation/organic staining and occasional instances of small charcoal flecks. [2015], lower fill, consisting of mottled orange brown sandy silt of medium compaction with occasional gravel and large ‘cobble’ stones (50-100mm radius). This feature was truncated by F. 704 and F.705. Interpretation was uncertain due to limited exposure and extensive truncation but the nature and arrangement of the fills suggested a possible structural element, particularly the near vertical relationship between fills and the ‘cobble’ stone inclusions of Fill [2015], possible packing material. This corresponds well with surrounding features F.704, F.707 and F.709 which share some similar elements. Dating from potsherds was to the Romano-British period, 2nd–3rd centuries AD, although some residual Late Bronze Age sherds were also recovered.

F.704 Post Pit. Cut: [2019] length 1.48m, width 1.23m, depth 0.56m. Oval in plan with steep concave sides leading to a rounded base through imperceptible breaks of slope, truncates F.703 and F.707 (fig. 23: 2). Two fills: [2017], upper fill consisting of a dark brown sandy silt of medium compaction with frequent pieces of angular flint and more rounded gravel. Numerous large ‘cobbles’, 50% rounded sandstone and 50% flint nodules (50-250mm radius). [2018], lower fill, a dark brown sandy silt of hard compaction with frequent small flint and gravel, some ‘cobbles’. This feature was interpreted as a post pit with remnants of ‘cobble’ packing, dated to the Romano-British period, 2nd–3rd centuries AD but with some residual Iron Age sherds and a possible earlier Romano-British date to the lower fill [2018]. Other finds included domestic animal bones, some tile fragments and a piece of possible daub.

F.705 Small Ditch. WNW-ESE orientation. Cut: [2021] width 0.71m, depth 0.28m. Linear ‘U’-shaped cut with straight sides leading to a rounded base through gradual breaks of slope, truncates F.703. Filled by: [2020] a deposit of mid greyish brown sandy silt with occasional angular gravel. [2028] was a light brown silty clay with rare small gravel. Interpreted as an unsubstantial ditch or large gully with potsherds dated to the Romano-British period, 2nd–3rd centuries AD, residual Iron Age sherds and domestic animal bones.

F.707 Foundation Slot. NW-SE orientation. Cut: [2025] length 2.14m+ long, 0.38-0.42m wide, depth 0.14m. A linear shape in plan with steep sides leading to a rounded base with gradual breaks of slope. Single fill: [2024], a dark grey silty sand of medium compaction with frequent inclusions of flint gravel and numerous smooth and angular ‘cobbles’, predominantly 50-100mm radius. This feature was interpreted as a foundation slot for a small wall, probably of timber and daub type, the ‘cobble’ packing being load bearing for a sill. No finds were recovered.

F.708 Ditch. NE-SW orientation. Cut: [2026], width 0.85m, 0.30m deep. In plan a linear cut with steep straight sides, slightly steeper to north, leading to a flat narrow base through sharp breaks of slope. Single fill: [2027], a rich black silty deposit that felt ‘greasy’ when damp with some lenses of loose gravely material. The deposit was finds rich with 40 Nene Valley Ware potsherds from more than one vessel recovered and also a large number of animal bones representing sheep/goat, cow and horse (see Anderson below). The sherds dated the feature to the 2nd–3rd centuries AD and it appears that this small ditch was backfilled primarily with organic waste and rubbish, perhaps indicating a special function.

F.709 Post Pit. Cut: [2030] 0.84m long, width 0.74m, depth 0.21m. A shallow feature, sub-circular in plan, with concave sides leading to a rounded base through gradual breaks of slope. Single fill: [2029] which was a light brown sandy silt of loose to firm compaction with inclusions of numerous ‘cobbles’ from 100mm to 200mm diameter. This feature was interpreted as a post pit with ‘cobble’ packing, probably associated with F.703, F.704 and F.707. Two potsherds were recovered and were dated to the Romano-British period (see Anderson below).

F.711 Ditch. Cut: [2036] linear in plan, aligned NNE-SSW but curving to the south at the southwestern end within Trench 200. Steep sides lead to a rounded undulating base through gradual breaks of slope.