Land Off Turnpike Road and Green Lane, Red Lodge, Suffolk RDL 001

ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVALUATION REPORT

SCCAS REPORT No. 2010/171

Land off Turnpike Road and Green Lane, Red Lodge, Suffolk RDL 001

J. A. Craven © September 2010 www.suffolk.gov.uk/environment/archaeology

Lucy Robinson, County Director of Economy, Skills and Environment Endeavour House, Russel Road, Ipswich, IP1 2BX.

HER Information

Planning Application No: F/2007/0716

Date of Fieldwork: 6th-8th September 2010

Grid Reference: TL 694 698

Funding Body: Bloor Homes

Curatorial Officer: Edward Martin

Project Officer: J. A. Craven

Oasis Reference: Suffolkc1-81429

Digital report submitted to Archaeological Data Service: http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/library/greylit

Contents

Summary Page 1. Introduction 1

2. Geology and topography 1

3. Archaeological and historical background 1

4. Methodology 2

5 Results 6

6. Finds and environmental evidence 13 6.1. Introduction 13 6.2. Pottery 13 6.3. Worked flint 14 6.4. Burnt flint 14 6.5. Environmental evidence 14 6.6. Conclusion 16

7. Discussion 17

8. Conclusions and recommendations for further work 18

9. Archive deposition 19

10. Contributors and acknowledgements 19

11. Bibliography 19 Disclaimer 19

List of Figures 1. Site location 4 2. Trench location 5 3. Trench 5, plan and section 9 4. Trench 8, plan and section 10 5. Trench 9, plan and section 11 6. Trench 13, plan and sections 12

List of Tables 1. Trench list 6 2. Finds quantities 13 3. Plant macrofossils 16

List of Appendices 1. Context list 2. Flint 3. Brief and specification

Summary

An archaeological evaluation was carried out on 2.9ha of vacant land off of Turnpike Road, Red Lodge, Suffolk, in advance of residential development. Trenching showed the natural subsoil and archaeological horizon to lie at a shallow depth below modern topsoil deposits. A small assemblage of prehistoric struck flint was recovered from four possible features and unstratified contexts, with one further, well-defined, pit containing an assemblage of Middle Bronze Age pottery and environmental remains suggesting domestic activity. The results indicate a phase of low-level prehistoric occupation in the vicinity with features being isolated and widespread. The shallow nature of the trenching suggests that some archaeological deposits may have been lost to medieval and post- medieval agriculture or warrening.

1. Introduction

An archaeological evaluation was carried out in advance of development on land off of Turnpike Road and Green Lane, Red Lodge, Suffolk (Fig. 1). The evaluation was required by a condition placed upon planning applications F/2007/0716, in order to assess the archaeological potential of the site and was carried out to a Brief and Specification issued by Edward Martin (Suffolk County Council Archaeological Service, Conservation Team – Appendix 3). The project was funded by the developer, Bloor Homes.

2. Geology and topography

The site, an area of 2.93ha, consisted of vacant open land interspersed with mature trees, areas of scrub and the grounds of two derelict and recently demolished houses, lies c.80m to the north-east of the River Kennet and the county boundary with Cambridgeshire in the parish of Red Lodge at TL 694 698. The site lies on broadly level ground at a height of 17m-19m AOD.

The site geology is of deep sandy soils overlying glacialfluvial drift (Ordnance Survey 1983).

3. Archaeological and historical background

The condition was placed upon the development as the site was a large area, not previously subjected to any systematic archaeological survey, in a location with general archaeological potential.

An enclosure, FRK 050, that may relate to the Warrener’s Lodge which formerly stood on the site of the Red Lodge Inn, FRK 073, lies immediately to the north. To the south earthwork banks, FRK 093, possibly also relating to the warren, have been recorded along either side of Green Lane. In the wider area two undated rectangular enclosures (FRK 036 and 049) are recorded 600m to the north in the area of Red Lodge Warren

1 and extensive evaluations prior to housing development to the east and north have identified minimal and dispersed evidence of prehistoric activity (FRK 078, FRK 095).

The 1st Edition Ordnance Survey of 1885 shows the site as being heathland set amongst a series of open fields. Situated alongside the road the Red Lodge Inn is an isolated building with only scattered farmsteads lying within 1km of the site.

4. Methodology

The twenty trenches (Fig. 2) were marked out by hand or RTK GPS following a layout detailed in the project WSI, with several amendments being made as parts of the site had been cleared of obstructions. The trenches were excavated by a mechanical digger, equipped with a ditching bucket, to the top of the subsoil surface or archaeological levels, under the supervision of an archaeologist.

An area of 0.126ha to the south, a former coal yard, could not be investigated due to contaminated ground issues and substantial parts of the site were unavailable due to the presence of existing trees and overhead cables. An additional area of 870sqm to the north was also monitored during the soil strip for the development’s site compound, prior to the evaluation. Measuring 708m in total length and 1.8m wide the trenching amounted to 1275sqm, or 4.7% of the total site minus the contaminated ground and monitored areas.

The depth of the trenching generally varied from 0.3m to 0.6m, largely depending upon the thickness of a layer of brown sands, 0001, which underlaid a thin modern topsoil. The natural subsoil consisted of mixed yellow and orange sand/gravels. Trenches and spoilheaps were thoroughly examined for archaeological material both during the machining and subsequent hand-excavation of features.

Archaeological features or deposits were normally clearly visible cutting the natural subsoil and were cleaned and excavated by hand as required. The site was recorded using a single context continuous numbering system. Trench and feature positions were recorded by RTK GPS. Feature sections and trench profiles were drawn by hand on A3

2 gridded permatrace at a scale of 1:20, feature plans at 1:50. Site levels were recorded using an RTK GPS. Digital colour and black and white print photographs were taken of all stages of the fieldwork, and are included in the digital and physical archives respectively. Bulk environmental samples were taken from three contexts.

Site data has been input onto an MS Access database and recorded using the County HER code RDL 001. Bulk finds were washed, marked and quantified.

An OASIS form has been initiated for the project (reference no. suffolkc1-81429) and a digital copy of the report will be submitted for inclusion on the Archaeology Data Service database (http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/library/greylit) upon completion of the project.

The site archives are kept in the main store of Suffolk County Council Archaeological Service at Bury St Edmunds under HER Nos. RDL 001.

3 A Norfolk

SUFFOLK B

Essex

0 25 km 0 10 km 5

5 5 5 ELMS ROAD

90 89 90 89 El Sub Sta

Def

Pit 500

500 000 000 TrackTrack Redlodge Warren (dis) A 11 2 000 Und A 11 ED & Ward 71 A 11 Bdy 17.2m FRK 078

A 11 El Sub Sta 46 40 11 59 1 15 27 47

34 B ELMS ROAD 5 23 ELDERBERRY 21 Drain 64

B 1085

39 45

58 6 2 48 ROAD

1 8 29 28

2 ACORN WAY Red Lodge Landfill Site

DAMSON

5 19 Und 47

Track Pit 11 8

Track 12 N

(disused) 15

11 Drain CLOSE 20

Def 1

24 Def

NEWMARKET ROAD ED & Ward Bdy 23

2 to 12 El Sub Sta 46 39 Drain 21 15 29

Und 5 1 RUSSETDRIVE HUNDRED ACRE WAY FRK 049 SCOTTS

ED & Ward Bdy 49

63 to Sir William's Belt PINE 1 ED & Ward Bdy

Drain

COURT 43

3 Longview 13 17 BERGAMOT CLOSE

42 5 65

B 1085 9 44

1 2 34 6 36 Elms Road 42 Reservoir

Track 38 40

RUSSETT DRIVE 25 B 1085 41 17 71

15 54 Newmarket Road 48 34 52

3 27 The Conifers FRK 036 60 2 11 46

Vehicle Dismantlers 49

Def JUNIPER ROAD

4 HORSESHOE 4 DR 18 Track 3 33

Dromgarth 37 HAREBELL ROAD

Boundary Road 9

43 2 Shelter 1

1 13

18.6m 6 1a

BRIDGE END ROAD 2

12 Hazel Walk

4 BOUNDARY ROAD

JUNIPER ROAD 29 2 23 Sir William's Garter

1 THISTLE

Church 49

21 1c 8

8 21 10

55 14 3 THYME CLOSE 51

WAY

10a 12

Track 3a LB 71

Ponderosa 1 14 3 1 45 Pine Court 3 1

16 5 18 GP 2

Hall Hollyhock Walk

20 9

36 1 26 83 32 7 77

2 2

5a 67

11 18 1

39 Hollyhock Court

7 33 40

1 16 36 36 to 14

6 TAYBERRY 10

Lephanta Track 23 30

Track 50

9 44 3 11 35 1 1a

Playground 8

32 1.22m CB 2 CLOSE 15 2a 6

2a Redlodge 11 PIPPIN COURT

2a 11 to 23

28 16 12 14 Redlodge Warren 12a 1 El Sub Sta

Warren 7

16 49 to 59

LARKSPUR 12 12 25 to 35 to 25

37 to 47 to 37 16

16 TCB 15 CLOSE

8 CLOVER WAY 27 16

LABURNUM CLOSE Track 37 1

15 Red Lodge 6 41 WAY 9 2 500 2

9 4 2

LARKSPUR CLOSE 1 17

70 WARREN ROAD HEATHERSET

46 1

7 30 7 11

El Sub Sta 1 2

1 2 10 51

Und

ED & Ward Bdy 6

38a BROOMHILL

SANFOIN CLOSE 14

38b CLOSE

40 FRK 095 14 Track CLOSE 24 Heath 7

Masts 4 6

24a

Farm 19

7 24b 20 Surgery 7

Sandholm MAGNOLIA 21 20a 1

LAVENDER 57 e 26 21 3

Track 10 34 21a 1

9 29 CLOSE

5 8 22

Def 11 h

34 34

11 22a BLACKBERRY WAY 34

TURNPIKE ROAD 23

30 23

27 1.22m RH 25

El 6

25 23a Sub Sta

HAWTHORNE CLOSE HAWTHORNE

29 24

CLOSE 20

15 1 CR 7

Millennium Centre 12

17.6m 22 20

35 Ivy Court 38 MAGNOLIA

3 7

36 2

7 Wheels Manor 13

26 1 1 HEATHERSET FB

36a 23 41 3

25 12 13

1 Lay-by 6

24a

27 61 PLANTATION WAY PLANTATION

40 9

28 WAY 24 25 Red Lodge 18

29 2 TCB 16

24 30

Track 1 23

44 22 Tk R ROSEMARY CLOSE

21 PO 71

20 31 2 23 19 14 12 32 40 16 12 26 Tk D 18 14 LB 17 1 34

16 BENNETT ROAD 21 15 CROCUS CLOSE

14 36 12

1 81 7

37 2

13 Path (um) 11 51 21 CR 22 12 18 39 52 16a Scrap Yard Willoway11 Caravan Tk R 10 A 11 CR Track 9 CLEMATIS 8 CLOSE 16 Path (um) 91 Park 7 Pond 6

6 HEATH FARM ROAD 40 1 1.22m CB

5 59

CR 18 13 1 4 4

40a 10 Track 3

Tk R 11a 1 GORSE CLOSE Depot Track 14 Track

5 12 9 13

12 8

14 93 8

11 The Bungalow

HEATHERSET WAY 17 ORCHID LUCERNE CLOSE El Sub Sta Octobriana CLOSE

62 DRIVE

A 11 9 68

1 4

101

6 46

6 15 9

12 PO 1 5 8 CHERRY COURT 5

LB BAYBERRY

103

1 109 5

LAUREL CLOSE 14 52

CR 17 2 Hundred Acre Farm

14a

26 3 28 Wheels House 15 111 to 123 Track 8

8 FRK 050 1 Path (um) 14b

Def HOLLY CLOSE

61 Ford 1

Def

Track

2 B 1085 1 14c

Def 10 Track

54 2 19.8m 20 El

Co Const Bdy 67

56 Sub CR HEATHERSET WAY 12 FRK 078 Sta Def (PH) A 11 TURNPIKELANE Posts Red Lodge 2 000 Posts CR 4 20.1m 42 32 HEATH FARM 34 A 11 Red Lodge 70 28 (PH) B 1085 ROAD CARNATION WAY 11

CR FRK 073

33 27 18

10 HONEYSUCKLE CLOSE Track 25

10 TURNPIKE LANE Path (um) Stone 12

49 14 The Clearings 43

14B

Beaufort 112 20 8 4 2 6 128 Def 2 Stone

CARNATION WAY Track

28 28a 1 Track Drain

Def 1

30 5

44 48 4

7 Foxglove Close 3 Path (um) 62 58 FRK 008 13 Site 56 50 1

MARIGOLD DRIVE

Track MARIGOLD DRIVE

69 THE BIRCHES 5

Tk D 27

Dugmore 55 Conifers 53

Coal Yard Drain 1 Def 41 Def (Track) 1.22m RH CR GREEN LANE Pumping Station 1.22m RH Def Def The Briars 1.22m RH GREEN LANE

Und 1.22m RH 17.8m The Oaks Greenhays Farm 1.22m CB Beech Belt Nursery (Childrens) FRK 093 Pit The White House Stud (disused)

Stones FF Track

Co Const Bdy

Tk R

Pit (disused) Scrap Yard

Und

River Kennett Turnpike Road WARREN ROAD

Ford The Carrops

2 500 (Track) 19.9m Grange Farm 69 Ella's Plantation

Pond Greensleevs

Track

Track Pit (disused) Warren Farm Cromwell Cottage

22.7m Stone

Warren Beeches

Stone

Def Waste Transfer Station

Stone

B 1085

Pit B 1085 (disused) Stone L Col

1.22m CB

Def

L Col 1.22m Stone E Wood

1.22m CB

Stone

Def

Def 23.3m Timber Yard Stone Sand Pit Und (disused)

Def Saw Mill

THE CARROPS (Track)

Sand Pit Stone (disused) Boundary Stone Co Const Bdy Def Track Stone

The Spinney 1.22m CB

Stone Stone Pit Carrops Plantation (disused) Track Track Track 2 000 A 11 B 1085 (dis)Pit Track 11 Stone A 11 B 1085 Stone 69 WARREN ROAD THE CARROPS (Track) Sand Pit

(disused) 10 Crossways

Stone Track Carrops Plantation FOREST END Stone 22 19 El 1.22m CB Carrops Plantation Sub Sta GP

21 Lilac Park 24.2m 1 20 Track 25

Stone 2 Stone

The Lilacs 12

Stone Toshir Stone

Figure 1. Site location with Historic Environment entries mentioned in the text 4 N

2626

2727

2828

2525 370370

2322322929

231231

369369

368368228228

3030

230230

367367

3131

165165

167167 168168

3232 166166

366366

229229 235235 234234

237237236236 233233 365365

282282

3333

280280 279279 173173 364364

283283

363363

360360 362362

34 361361

170170 171171

172172 359359

281281 278278 169169 240240 239239 3737

241241

238238

4646 34

162162

289289288288294294 290290287287 161161 3636 291291295295 285285286286 292292293293

160160 358358

163163 242242 4747 298298297297 299299 296296312312 300300 311311 301301 310310 354354 3023024545 248248 303303 308308 313313304304305305306306307307 11 284284

S.3 355355 0008

3838 265265

8787

0014 S.4 267267 268268 8888 245245 8989

243243 266266 8686 244244

246246

4444

S.1 357357 0002 8383

356356

8585 8484

273273 3939 13 8282

253253 270270

272272

271271

269269 5

5151 225225 184184 4848 224224 223223 183183 182182

226226 10 185185

277277 164164 158158

159159 275275 274274 276276 5 15 16 252252 249249 260260 258258 4343

251251 261261 250250

259259 8181 12 186186 4040

5252 5050

4242

123123 4

126126 125125 187187

124124 262262 6 127127

4141 9696 4949

9898 9797

20 353353 9595

257257 263263

256256 264264 19 S.2

0006 157157 195195 154154

156156 155155 3 194194 14 140140 193193 8080 129129 189189 128128 190190 192192 227227 7878 141141 191191 7777 7979 188188

7272 7373

7474 7171

2121 337 7575 338338 7676 2424 6868 6969 9 2323 7070

2222

336336

147147

339339 5353 149149 150150 7

148148

1818

331331 330330 314314 329329 315315 328328 316316 332332327327 317317333333 326326 318318 1717 325325 319319 1616 324324 320320 323323322322321321

1919

340340

151151

Site area compound 146146 152152 153153

145145

5454

142142 341341 2 181181

6262 18 S.5 390390

6363 178178 179179

Tr.8 389389 180180 0011

177177 385385378378

175175 174174 17 176176

5555

8 342342 2020 388388 130130

131131 139139

138138

395 387387

132132 57575656 6464 Areas unavailable for excavation 137137 1

133133 136136

335335

196196 334334

343343 199199 198198

204204 197197 201201

6161 203203

143143 200200

134134

135135 348348

144144

1515 66 347347 1212 1313

1414 55

344344 6565 88

213213 33 77 6767 207207 44

99 Coal yard, comtaminated ground 216216

346346

5858

345345 221221 11 349349 214214

1010 222222 11

215215 22

5959

6666

350350 351351 6060

Overhead cable exclusion zone 0 100m

Plan Scale 1:2000

Figure 2. Trench location 5. Results

Basic trench descriptions are given in the table below. A full context list is given in Appendix 1.

Trench Length Orientation Depth Description Features No 01 32m W-E 0.3m-0.4m Topsoil removed. Layer 0001 over - 0.1m layer 0017. 02 31m N-S 0.4m Topsoil removed. Layer 0001 over - 0.15m layer 0017. 03 40m W-E 0.45m Topsoil removed. Layer 0001 over - 0.15m layer 0017. 04 33m N-S 0.5m Topsoil removed. Layer 0001 over - 0.2m layer 0017. 05 40m W-E 0.45m Topsoil removed. Layer 0001 over 0002 0.2m layer 0017. 06 42m W-E 0.5m 0.05m topsoil over 0.3m layer 0001 - and 0.15m layer 0017. 07 41m N-S 0.48m 0.05m topsoil over 0.25m layer 0001 - and 0.1m layer 0017. 08 25m W-E 0.3m-0.4m 0.05m topsoil over 0.2m-0.3m layer 0011 0001 and 0.05m layer 0017. 09 40m NW-SE 0.3m-0.5m 0.1m topsoil over 0.2m-0.3m layer 0006 0001 and 0.1m layer 0017. 10 46m N-S 0.5m 0.1m topsoil over 0.3m layer 0001 - and 0.1m layer 0017. 11 47m NW-SE 0.3m 0.05m topsoil over 0.2m layer 0001 - and 0.05m layer 0017. 12 27m NE-SW 0.4m 0.1m topsoil over 0.2m layer 0001 and 0.1m layer 0017. 13 26m NE-SW 0.45m 0.2m topsoil over 0.15m layer 0001 0008, and 0.1m layer 0017. 0013 14 21m NW-SE 0.5m 0.2m topsoil over 0.2m layer 0001 and 0.1m layer 0017. 15 40m NW-SE 0.45m 0.05m topsoil over 0.35m layer 0001 and 0.05m layer 0017. 16 45m W-E 0.5m 0.05m topsoil over 0.25m layer 0001 and 0.2m layer 0017. 17 15m NE-SW 0.4m-0.6m 0.25m topsoil over 0.15m-0.35m layer 0001. 18 25m W-E 0.4m 0.2m topsoil over 0.1m layer 0001 and 0.1m layer 0017. 19 45m N-S 0.4m-1m 0.3m topsoil over up to 0.55m of - layer 0001 and 0.2m of layer 0017. 20 47m N-S 0.45m- 0.3m topsoil over up to 0.4m layer - 0.8m 0001 and 0.15m layer 0017. Table 1. Trench list

6 Monitoring of groundworks for the site compound in the northern corner of the site saw an area of c.700 sqm stripped to a depth of 0.60m. The connecting access route to Turnpike Road was only stripped to a depth of 0.10m. The natural sand/gravel subsoil was only seen in the south-east corner of the area. To the north and west it lay under increasingly thick topsoil and subsoil layers and was not exposed. No archaeological features were identified and no finds recovered.

A uniform soil profile was seen throughout the trenching across the site. A thin modern topsoil overlaid a layer of mid brown sands with occasional flints, 0001, which varied in thickness. The base of layer 0001 had a mixed interface with the underlying natural subsoil, resulting from natural weathering, the extensive rabbit and tree root disturbance apparent across the site and, in the central trenches, relatively modern plough disturbance. This mixed interface formed an irregular layer, 0017, lying above the natural sand/gravels.

Unstratified material was recorded under four contexts. 0004 was a single worked flint on the ground surface to the north of Trench 5, 0005 was a single worked flint from Trench 9, 0010 consisted of two worked flints collected from the Trench 7 spoilheap and 0016 was another single worked flint from Trench 19.

A total of five possible features were recorded within four of the trenches, with the remaining majority of the trenches being devoid of archaeological features.

0002 was a possible oval pit in Trench 5, aligned east to west and measuring 2m by 1.15m and 0.45m deep. Possibly two separate cuts or a natural feature it had a fill, 0003, of mid brown silty sand, with frequent flints and root disturbance, from which two worked flints were collected.

0006 was an irregular, circular pit in Trench 9 measuring 1.1m in diameter and 0.2m deep. Its fill, 0007, a dark grey silty sand with frequent small flints changing to mid brown/grey sands towards its edge, was heavily affected by root and animal disturbance. A single worked flint and a bulk environmental soil sample (01) were collected from the fill.

7 0008 was a small circular pit in Trench 13 measuring 0.4m in diameter and 0.14m deep. Its fill, 0009, was a dark grey/brown silty sand with frequent small flints. A bulk environmental soil sample (02) collected.

0011 was a possible natural feature or irregular oval pit or ditch terminus in Trench 8, measuring 1.2m wide and 0.4m deep. Its fill, 0012, was a mid brown silt/sand with occasional flints and frequent roots, from which two worked flints and a burnt flint were collected.

0013 was an oval pit in Trench 13, aligned north-east to south-west and measuring 0.85m by 1.1m and 0.3m deep. The feature was 100% excavated. Its basal fill, 0014, was a very dark grey silty sand with frequent small flints, charcoal, and occasional root or animal disturbance. An assemblage of forty sherds of Middle Bronze Age pottery and two worked flints was recovered from this deposit, together with a bulk environmental sample (03).The upper fill of the pit, 0015, was a mid grey/brown silty sand with frequent small flints. A further two sherds of Middle Bronze Age pottery and a worked flint were recovered from this final fill.

8 N

Tr.5

0 100m

Tr.5

118117116 9 115114 Trench continues for 15m 119 113112 no archaeology S.1 120 122111 99121 110 1071080002109 100 105106 101 103104 102 40

S.2 E W 18.86m OD

0003

0002 Overcut into natural

0 1.00m 0 5m

Section Scale 1:20 Plan Scale 1:100

Figure 3 . Trench 5, plan and section N

Tr.8

0 100m

Tr.8 S.5

0011 1 0

S.5 S N T/S

0001

0017 19.2m OD

0012

0011 0 1.00m 0 5m

Section Scale 1:20 Plan Scale 1:100

Figure 4. Trench 8, plan and section N

Tr.9

Tr.9 0 100m

118117116 1 115114 119 113112 120 122111 99121 110 S.2 107108109 100 105106 101 103104 102 40 0006

41 Trench continues for 18m with no archaeology

S.2 W E 19.60m OD

0007

0006

0 5m 0 1.00m Plan Scale 1:100 Section Scale 1:20

Figure 5 . Trench 9, plan and section N

Tr.13

0 100m

Tr.13

S.3 SW NE 19.40m OD 0009 0008

S.3

117 118 116115114 0008 119 113112 120 122111 99121 110 109 100 106107108 104105 101102103

S.4 0013 S.4 NE SW Trench continues for 10m 19.22m OD with no archaeology 0015

0014

0013

Pottery

Figure X. Figure Caption

0 5m 0 1.00m Plan Scale 1:100 Section Scale 1:20

Figure 6. Trench 13, plan and sections

12 6. Finds and environmental evidence

Andy Fawcett

6.1. Introduction A total of 56 finds with a weight of 691g was retrieved from nine contexts, as shown in the table below.

Context Pottery Worked flint Burnt flint Spotdate No. Wt/g No. Wt/g No. Wt/g 0003 2 24 Neolithic to Bronze Age 0004 1 2 ?Neolithic 0005 1 24 Later prehistoric 0007 1 1 Later prehistoric 0010 2 4 Later prehistoric ?Neolithic 0012 2 6 1 25 Later prehistoric 0014 40 388 2 3 c Middle Bronze Age 0015 2 1 1 183 c Middle Bronze Age 0016 1 30 Later prehistoric Total 42 389 13 277 1 25 Table 2. Finds quantities

6.2. Pottery With Edward Martin

Pottery is present in two contexts, pit fill 0014 (40 fragments @ 388g) and pit fill 0015 (2 fragment @ 1g). All of the pottery is hand-made, low fired and suffers from variable amounts of abrasion. The pottery has been examined at x20 vision and the larger assemblage has been split into three fabric groups, all of which are dated around the Middle Bronze Age period. A full breakdown of these fabric divisions forms part of the site archive.

The first group is made up of nine (109g) grog-tempered body sherds (HMG). This fabric is comparable to a number of those present at Wangford Quarry (WNF 023) which are in the ‘Ardleigh’ tradition, for instance context numbers relating to cremation vessels 4002, 4029, 4096, 4124 and 4173. The second collection is also made up of nine hand-made grog-tempered (HMG) sherds (154g). However the grog is not as frequent within this fabric as noted in the previous example, as this version also has a significant ill-sorted sand element to it. The final fabric (also hand-made) contains small common to sparse flint (HMF) in a thinner, harder and partly reduced fabric (5

13 fragments @ 76g). Nevertheless the fabric still contains sparse to common grey ill- sorted grog, but overall, it has more of sandy, rather than soapy feel. This fabric appears to have more in common with earlier Iron Age types, as well as its surviving rim fragment. However a similar fabric (Q) and rim types, were noted at Ardleigh (Brown 1999, 76 & 98-99; figs 63-64), all of which are dated to the Middle Bronze Age.

6.3. Worked flint Colin Pendleton

In total 13 pieces of worked flint with a combined weight of 277g are present in nine contexts as Table 2 demonstrates. A full contextual breakdown of flint types can be seen in Appendix 2. This small assemblage is made up of eight flakes, three blades and two cores and represents two or more phases of activity. Two patinated blades, both of which are in unstratified contexts 0004 and 0010, are dated to the Neolithic period. An unpatinated blade in pit 0012 and thin flakes in pit 0014 for instance, also suggest a Neolithic date. However, it is not possible to ascertain if these are contemporary with the unstratified blades. The remainder of the assemblage is unpatinated and dated to the later prehistoric period. Nonetheless the workmanship of these flakes and cores suggests that a Bronze Age date is more likely.

6.4. Burnt flint A single piece of burnt flint is located in pit fill 0012 (25g). It occurs alongside worked flint dated to the later prehistoric period. This small fragment is coloured white and may relate to the ‘pot boiling’ process.

6.5. Environmental evidence Val Fryer Introduction and method statement

Evaluation excavations at Red Lodge, undertaken by the Suffolk County Council Archaeological Service (SCCAS) recorded a small number of features of probable later prehistoric date. Samples for the evaluation of the content and preservation of the plant macrofossil assemblages were taken from three pit fills.

14 The samples were bulk floated by SCCAS and the flots were collected in a 300 micron mesh sieve. The dried flots were scanned under a binocular microscope at magnifications up to x 16 and the plant macrofossils and other remains noted are listed in Table 1. Nomenclature within the table follows Stace (1997). All plant remains were charred. Modern fibrous roots, seeds and fungal sclerotia were present throughout.

Results

The assemblage from sample 1 (context 0007) was largely composed of modern roots and seeds. Charred macrofossils were exceedingly scarce, although a low density of charcoal/charred wood fragments was recorded. The assemblage from sample 2 (context 0009) was somewhat more substantial, containing a moderate to high density of charcoal fragments and a number of pieces of hazel (Corylus avellana) nutshell. The black porous and tarry residues within this assemblage were almost certainly residues of the high temperature combustion of the organic remains, whilst the ferrous globule and the coal fragments were probably intrusive. Sample 3 (from context 0014) was of particular note as it was large (circa 0.5 litres in volume) and almost totally composed of hazel nutshell fragments. Other remains were scarce, but did include a number of apple or pear (Malus/Pyrus sp.) type ‘pips’ and indeterminate fragments of heavily burnt fruits or nuts.

Conclusions and recommendations for further work

In summary, the assemblages from samples 1 and 2 are small and relatively sparse and are almost certainly partly or wholly derived from scattered or wind-dispersed refuse, which was accidentally incorporated within the pit fills. As the assemblage from sample 3 is relatively large, it would appear most likely that it is derived from materials which were deliberately deposited within the fill of the Middle Bronze Age pit. Hazel nutshell fragments, many of which are large, are abundant, and as soft fruit ‘pips’ and possible pieces of charred fruit are also present, it is perhaps most likely that this deposit is derived from either a catastrophic fire, in which stored fruits and nuts were destroyed (possibly during drying) or from a domestic hearth context. It is also possible that this deposit may have some ritual significance, although there is currently little corroborative evidence to support this hypothesis.

15 Although two of the three current assemblages are small, it is clear that well-preserved plant remains are present within the archaeological horizon at Red Lodge, some of which may be of considerable local significance. Therefore, if further interventions are planned within the immediate area, it is strongly recommended that additional plant macrofossil samples of approximately 40 – 60 litres in volume are taken from all dated contexts recorded during excavation. Within the current assemblages, the nutshell fragments from samples 2 and 3 are suitable for AMS dating and can be separated if required.

Sample No. 1 2 3 Context No. 0007 0009 0014 Date L.Prehis. Mid BA Plant macrofossils Corylus avellana L. xx xxxx Malus/Pyrus sp. x Charcoal <2mm x xxx x Charcoal >2mm x xx Charred root/stem x Indet.charred fruit/nut frags. xx Indet.seeds x Other remains Black porous 'cokey' material x x Black tarry material x xx x Burnt/fired clay x Ferrous globule x Small coal frags. x xx Sample volume (litres) 20 4 30 Volume of flot (litres) <0.1 <0.1 0.5 % flot sorted 100% 100% 25% Table 3. Plant macrofossils x =1 – 10 specimens xx = 11 – 50 specimens xxx = 51 – 100 specimens xxxx = 100+ specimens

6.6. Conclusion A number of archaeological excavations have been undertaken in the immediate area but have yielded few finds dating to the prehistoric period. However the current site’s close proximity to the River Kennett is considered a prime reason as to why prehistoric artefacts have been recovered on this occasion (Colin Pendleton pers.comm.) This small finds assemblage therefore can be considered important within a local context. The HER has two prehistoric find spots listed on its records. These are Neolithic sherds at Swales Tumulus (WGN 003), as well as Bronze Age and Iron Age pottery and flint at Bay Farm (WGN 028).

16 7. Discussion

The evaluation has shown that the site, which lies on broadly level ground, has a fairly consistent soil profile of a thin modern ploughsoil overlying a buried soil and then a mixed interface with the natural sand/gravel subsoil. This disturbance to the upper surface of the subsoil has evidently been caused by trees, past agricultural activity and animal disturbance, of both modern date and possibly deriving from the activities of the nearby Warrener’s Lodge, which has resulted in a possible truncation of archaeological deposits.

Despite the apparent truncation of the site a total of five features were identified and, although most are not certain to be man-made and may simply be areas of natural disturbance, they indicate some past activity on the site, particularly pit 0013 which contained a sizeable assemblage of Middle Bronze age pottery and environmental evidence of domestic activity.

This pit appeared to be an isolated feature and there was no other evidence to suggest that the site was a focus for activity in the prehistoric or any other period. This however is still more than has been identified on the large evaluations to the east and north-east (FRK 078), suggesting that there may be an increase in activity towards the course of the River Kennett.

17 8. Conclusions and recommendations for further work

The evaluation has identified scattered evidence of low-level prehistoric activity, from the Neolithic to Bronze Age periods. Archaeological deposits are at a shallow depth, and may have been affected by past phases of natural and man-made disturbance.

Although the proposed development will have a substantial and detrimental impact on the archaeological horizon, the sparse and scattered nature of deposits means that the development will generally cause little or no disturbance to archaeological evidence and no further work is thought necessary across the majority of the site to mitigate the development’s impact. The area in the vicinity of pit 0013 could be targeted, through the monitoring of groundworks for building plots 9-13 (as numbered on development plan A06/BP39/001 Rev R/ April 2008), to see if the feature is part of a small focus of activity.

18 9. Archive deposition

Paper and photographic archive: SCCAS Bury St Edmunds Digital archive: SCCAS Bury St Edmunds T:arc\archive field proj\Red Lodge\RDL 001 Finds and environmental archive: SCCAS Bury St Edmunds.

10. List of contributors and acknowledgements

The project was directed by John Craven and managed by Jo Caruth. The evaluation fieldwork was carried out by Robert Brooks, John Craven and Mo Muldowney from Suffolk County Council Archaeological Service, Field Team.

The post-excavation was managed by Richenda Goffin. Finds processing was carried out by Jonathan Van Jennians and soil sample processing by Anna West. The production of digital site plans and sections was carried out by Ellie Hillen. The specialist finds report by was produced by Andy Fawcett. Other specialist identification and advice was provided by Val Fryer (freelance), Edward Martin and Colin Pendleton. The report was checked by Richenda Goffin.

11. Bibliography

Brown, N.,1999, ‘Prehistoric pottery’ in The Archaeology of Ardleigh, Essex 1955-1980, EAA Report No 90, 76-116. Ordnance Survey, 1983, ‘Soils of England and Wales': Soil survey of England and Wales, sheet 4 Eastern England 1:250,000. Harpenden. Stace, C., 1997, New Flora of the British Isles. Second edition. Cambridge University Press.

Disclaimer

Any opinions expressed in this report about the need for further archaeological work are those of the Field Projects Team alone. Ultimately the need for further work will be determined by the Local Planning Authority and its Archaeological Advisors when a planning application is registered. Suffolk County Council’s archaeological contracting services cannot accept responsibility for inconvenience caused to the clients should the Planning Authority take a different view to that expressed in the report.

19 Appendix 1. Context list

Context Feature Trench no Type Category Description over under

0001 0001 Subsoil Layer Layer of mid brown sands with occasional flints. Former topsoil. 0017 Topsoil

0002 0002 05 Pit Cut Possible oval pit, aligned east to west, measuring 2m by 1.15m and 0.45m deep. Moderate concave sides, 0003 flattish base. Possibly two separate cuts or a natural feature. 0003 0002 05 Pit Fill Mid brown silty sand with frequent flints and root disturbance. 0017

0004 0004 05 Unstratifie Unstratified surface find from north of Trench 5.

0005 0005 09 Unstratifie Unstratified finds from Trench 9.

0006 0006 09 Pit Cut Irregular circular pit, 1.1m diameter and 0.2m deep. Heavy root and animal disturbance. Moderate sloping 0007 sides and concave base. 0007 0006 09 Pit Fill Dark grey silty sand changing to mid brown/grey towars edges of feature. Frequent small flints. Bulk 0006 0017 environmental sample 01 collected. 0008 0008 13 Pit Cut Circular pit, 0.4m diameter and 0.14m deep. Moderate concave sides and base. 0009

0009 0008 13 Pit Fill Dark grey/brown silty sand with frequent small flints. Bulk environmental sample 02 collected. 0008 0017

0010 0010 07 Unstratifie Unstratified finds from Trench 7.

0011 0011 08 Pit Cut Nastural feature or an irregular oval pit or ditch terminus, probably the former. 1.2m wide and 0.4m deep. 0012 Irregular sides and base. 0012 0011 08 Pit Fill Mid brown silt/sand with occasional flints and frequent roots. 0011 0017

0013 0013 13 Pit Cut Oval pit, aligned north-east to south-west. 0.85m by 1.1m and 0.3m deep. 100% excavated. Moderate 0014 concave sides and concave base. 0014 0013 13 Pit Fill Very dark grey silty sand with frequent small flints. Basal fill, some root and animal disturbance.Some burnt 0013 0015 material but not in situ. Bulk environmental sample 3 collected. 0015 0013 13 Pit Fill Upper fill, mid grey/brown silty sand with frequent small lfints 0014 0017

0016 0015 01 Unstratifie Unstratified finds from Trench 19.

0017 0017 Subsoil Layer Mixed layer between 0001 and natural subsoil, comprised of both deposists and deriving from various 0001 disturbances, natural weathering etc.

Page 1 of 1 Appendix 2. Flint

OP No Type No Pat Notes Date

0003 Flake 1 U With parallel long flake scars on the dorsal face as well as 50% cortex on the dorsal face. Neo to BA

0003 Flake 1 U Squt with natural striking platform with similar squat flake removed from the dorsal face. Later Preh

0004 Blade 1 P Lightly patinated, small with hinge fracture and likely retouch/use wear along one edge. Parallel blade scars on d Later Preh

0005 Core 1 P Lightly patinated. A fragment of flake core with 25% cortex. Later Preh

0007 Flake 1 U Small and squat with hinge fracture, a small amount of cortex and parallel flake scars on dorsal face. Later Preh

0010 Blade 1 P Lightly patinated, small with parallel blade scars on dorsal face with a small amount of cortex. Probably Neolithic

0010 Flake 1 P Small, thin with parallel flake scars on the dorsal face. Later Preh, possibly Neolithic

0012 Blade 1 U Parallel blade scars on the dorsal face. Sme cortex and slightly irregular. Later Preh

0012 Flake 1 P Lightly patinated, small and thin with natural striking platform, parallel flake scars on the dorsal face. Later Preh, possibly Neolithic

0014 Flake 1 U Squat, thin with parallel flake scars on distal face with some cortex. Later Preh, possibly Neolithic

0014 Flake 1 U Irregular, thin with parallel flake scars on the dorsal face. Later Preh, possibly Neolithic

0015 Core 1 U Multi-platformed flake core, squat and hinge flakes produced from this core, it has 20% cortex. Later Prehistoric

0016 Flake 1 U Irregular, squat, thick type with an obtuse strking platform and some cortex. Later Prehistoric Economy, Skills and Environment ______

The Archaeological Service 9-10 The Churchyard, Shire Hall Bury St Edmunds Suffolk IP33 2AR

Brief and Specification for an Archaeological Evaluation

LAND OFF TURNPIKE ROAD, THE CARROPS AND GREEN LANE, RED LODGE TL 694 698 (planning consent F/2007/0716)

The commissioning body should be aware that it may have Health & Safety responsibilities.

1. The nature of the development and archaeological requirements

1.1 Planning permission has been given by Forest Heath District Council (consent F/2007/0716) for a housing development on land off Turnpike Road in Red Lodge (formerly in Freckenham parish)

1.2 The consent has a condition (no. 20) requiring the implementation of an agreed programme of archaeological work before the development begins.

1.3 The site measures 2.92 hectares and is located on the east side of the River Kennett on former heathland (1885) on deep sandy soils of the Newport 4 series, developed from glaciofluvial drift.

1.4 The site includes a corner of an enclosure recorded as site FRK 050 in the Suffolk Historic Environment Record (HER). This is undated, but is shown on 19 th- and early 20 th -century maps and may have originated as a rabbit warren enclosure associated with a warrener’s lodge on the site of the Red Lodge Inn. The southern side of the site, adjoining Green Lane Lane, has earthwork banks recorded as site FRK 093 in the HER, which might also be associated with rabbit warrening. The site also has a general archaeological potential for early settlement by being located close to the River Kennet.

1.5 In order to inform the archaeological mitigation strategy, the following work will be required:

• A linear trenched evaluation is required of the development area.

1.6 The results of this evaluation will enable the archaeological resource, both in quality and extent, to be accurately quantified. Decisions on the need for and scope of any further mitigation measures, should there be any archaeological finds of significance, will be based upon the results of the evaluation and will be the subject of an additional specification.

1.7 All arrangements for the field evaluation of the site, the timing of the work, access to the site, the definition of the precise area of landholding and area for proposed development are to be defined and negotiated with the commissioning body.

1.8 Detailed standards, information and advice to supplement this brief are to be found in Standards for Field Archaeology in the East of England , East Anglian Archaeology Occasional Papers 14, 2003. 2

1.9 In accordance with the standards and guidance produced by the Institute for Archaeologists (IfA) this brief should not be considered sufficient to enable the total execution of the project. A Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) based upon this brief and the accompanying outline specification of minimum requirements, is an essential requirement. This must be submitted by the developers, or their agent, to the Conservation Team of the Archaeological Service of Suffolk County Council (Shire Hall, Bury St Edmunds IP33 2AR; telephone/fax: 01284 352443) for approval. The work must not commence until this office has approved both the archaeological contractor as suitable to undertake the work, and the WSI as satisfactory. The WSI will provide the basis for measurable standards and will be used to satisfy the requirements of the planning condition.

The WSI should be compiled with a knowledge of the Regional Research Framework ( East Anglian Archaeology Occasional Paper 3, 1997, 'Research and Archaeology: A Framework for the Eastern Counties, 1. resource assessment'; Occasional Paper 8, 2000, 'Research and Archaeology: A Framework for the Eastern Counties, 2. research agenda and strategy'; and the Revised Research Framework for the Eastern Region , 2008, available online at http://www.eaareports.org.uk/ , sub ALGOA East).

1.10 Before any archaeological site work can commence it is the responsibility of the developer to provide the archaeological contractor with either the contaminated land report for the site or a written statement that there is no contamination. The developer should be aware that investigative sampling to test for contamination is likely to have an impact on any archaeological deposit which exists; proposals for sampling should be discussed with the Conservation Team of the Archaeological Service of SCC (SCCAS/CT) before execution.

1.11 The responsibility for identifying any constraints on field-work, e.g. Scheduled Monument status, Listed Building status, public utilities or other services, tree preservation orders, SSSIs, wildlife sites &c., ecological considerations rests with the commissioning body and its archaeological contractor. The existence and content of the archaeological brief does not over-ride such constraints or imply that the target area is freely available.

1.12 Any changes to the specifications that the project archaeologist may wish to make after approval by this office should be communicated directly to SCCAS/CT and the client for approval.

2. Brief for the Archaeological Evaluation

2.1 Establish whether any archaeological deposit exists in the area, with particular regard to any which are of sufficient importance to merit preservation in situ .

2.2 Identify the date, approximate form and purpose of any archaeological deposit within the application area, together with its likely extent, localised depth and quality of preservation.

2.3 Evaluate the likely impact of past land uses, and the possible presence of masking colluvial/alluvial deposits.

2.4 Establish the potential for the survival of environmental evidence.

2.5 Provide sufficient information to construct an archaeological conservation strategy, dealing with preservation, the recording of archaeological deposits, working practices, timetables and orders of cost.

2.6 This project will be carried through in a manner broadly consistent with English Heritage's Management of Archaeological Projects, 1991 ( MAP2 ), all stages will follow a process of assessment and justification before proceeding to the next phase of the project. Field evaluation is to be followed by the preparation of a full archive, and an assessment of 3

potential. Any further excavation required as mitigation is to be followed by the preparation of a full archive, and an assessment of potential, analysis and final report preparation may follow. Each stage will be the subject of a further brief and updated project design; this document covers only the evaluation stage.

2.7 The developer or his archaeologist will give SCCAS/CT (address as above) five working days notice of the commencement of ground works on the site, in order that the work of the archaeological contractor may be monitored.

2.8 If the approved evaluation design is not carried through in its entirety (particularly in the instance of trenching being incomplete) the evaluation report may be rejected. Alternatively the presence of an archaeological deposit may be presumed, and untested areas included on this basis when defining the final mitigation strategy.

2.9 An outline specification, which defines certain minimum criteria, is set out below.

3. Specification: Trenched Evaluation

3.1 Trial trenches are to be excavated to cover 5% by area of the development area – please contact the applicant for a recent and accurate plan of the site. These trenches shall be positioned to sample all parts of the site. Linear trenches are thought to be the most appropriate sampling method.

3.2 If excavation is mechanised a toothless ‘ditching bucket’ at least 1.80m wide must be used. A scale plan showing the proposed locations of the trial trenches should be included in the WSI and the detailed trench design must be approved by SCCAS/CT before field work begins.

3.3 The topsoil may be mechanically removed using an appropriate machine with a back-acting arm and fitted with a toothless bucket, down to the interface layer between topsoil and subsoil or other visible archaeological surface. All machine excavation is to be under the direct control and supervision of an archaeologist. The topsoil should be examined for archaeological material.

3.4 The top of the first archaeological deposit may be cleared by machine, but must then be cleaned off by hand. There is a presumption that excavation of all archaeological deposits will be done by hand unless it can be shown there will not be a loss of evidence by using a machine. The decision as to the proper method of excavation will be made by the senior project archaeologist with regard to the nature of the deposit.

3.5 In all evaluation excavation there is a presumption of the need to cause the minimum disturbance to the site consistent with adequate evaluation; that significant archaeological features, e.g. solid or bonded structural remains, building slots or post-holes, should be preserved intact even if fills are sampled. For guidance:

For linear features, 1.00m wide slots (min.) should be excavated across their width;

For discrete features, such as pits, 50% of their fills should be sampled (in some instances 100% may be requested).

3.6 There must be sufficient excavation to give clear evidence for the period, depth and nature of any archaeological deposit. The depth and nature of colluvial or other masking deposits must be established across the site.

3.7 Archaeological contexts should, where possible, be sampled for palaeoenvironmental remains. Best practice should allow for sampling of interpretable and datable archaeological deposits and provision should be made for this. The contractor shall show what provision has been made for environmental assessment of the site and must provide details of the sampling 4

strategies for retrieving artefacts, biological remains (for palaeoenvironmental and palaeoeconomic investigations), and samples of sediments and/or soils (for micromorphological and other pedological/sedimentological analyses. Advice on the appropriateness of the proposed strategies will be sought from the English Heritage Regional Adviser for Archaeological Science (East of England). A guide to sampling archaeological deposits (Murphy, P.L. and Wiltshire, P.E.J., 1994, A guide to sampling archaeological deposits for environmental analysis ) is available for viewing from SCCAS.

3.8 Any natural subsoil surface revealed should be hand cleaned and examined for archaeological deposits and artefacts. Sample excavation of any archaeological features revealed may be necessary in order to gauge their date and character.

3.9 Metal detector searches must take place at all stages of the excavation by an experienced metal detector user.

3.10 All finds will be collected and processed (unless variations in this principle are agreed SCCAS/CT during the course of the evaluation).

3.11 Human remains must be left in situ except in those cases where damage or desecration are to be expected, or in the event that analysis of the remains is shown to be a requirement of satisfactory evaluation of the site. However, the excavator should be aware of, and comply with, the provisions of Section 25 of the Burial Act 1857.

3.12 Plans of any archaeological features on the site are to be drawn at 1:20 or 1:50, depending on the complexity of the data to be recorded. Sections should be drawn at 1:10 or 1:20 again depending on the complexity to be recorded. All levels should relate to Ordnance Datum. Any variations from this must be agreed with SCCAS/CT.

3.13 A photographic record of the work is to be made, consisting of both monochrome photographs and colour transparencies and/or high resolution digital images.

3.14 Topsoil, subsoil and archaeological deposit to be kept separate during excavation to allow sequential backfilling of excavations.

3.15 Trenches should not be backfilled without the approval of SCCAS/CT.

4. General Management

4.1 A timetable for all stages of the project must be agreed before the first stage of work commences, including monitoring by SCCAS/CT. The archaeological contractor will give not less than five days written notice of the commencement of the work so that arrangements for monitoring the project can be made.

4.2 The composition of the archaeology contractor staff must be detailed and agreed by this office, including any subcontractors/specialists. For the site director and other staff likely to have a major responsibility for the post-excavation processing of this evaluation there must also be a statement of their responsibilities or a CV for post-excavation work on other archaeological sites and publication record. Ceramic specialists, in particular, must have relevant experience from this region, including knowledge of local ceramic sequences.

4.3 It is the archaeological contractor’s responsibility to ensure that adequate resources are available to fulfil the Brief.

4.4 A detailed risk assessment must be provided for this particular site.

4.5 No initial survey to detect public utility or other services has taken place. The responsibility for this rests with the archaeological contractor. 5

4.6 The Institute of Field Archaeologists’ Standard and Guidance for archaeological field evaluation (revised 2001) should be used for additional guidance in the execution of the project and in drawing up the report.

5. Report Requirements

5.1 An archive of all records and finds must be prepared consistent with the principles of English Heritage's Management of Archaeological Projects , 1991 (particularly Appendix 3.1 and Appendix 4.1).

5.2 The report should reflect the aims of the WSI.

5.3 The objective account of the archaeological evidence must be clearly distinguished from its archaeological interpretation.

5.4 An opinion as to the necessity for further evaluation and its scope may be given. No further site work should be embarked upon until the primary fieldwork results are assessed and the need for further work is established.

5.5 Reports on specific areas of specialist study must include sufficient detail to permit assessment of potential for analysis, including tabulation of data by context, and must include non-technical summaries.

5.6 The Report must include a discussion and an assessment of the archaeological evidence, including an assessment of palaeoenvironmental remains recovered from palaeosols and cut features. Its conclusions must include a clear statement of the archaeological potential of the site, and the significance of that potential in the context of the Regional Research Framework ( East Anglian Archaeology , Occasional Papers 3 & 8, 1997 and 2000) and the Revised Research Framework for the Eastern Region , 2008, available online at http://www.eaareports.org.uk/ , sub ALGOA East).

5.7 The results of the surveys should be related to the relevant known archaeological information held in the County Historic Environment Record (HER).

5.8 A copy of the Specification should be included as an appendix to the report.

5.9 The project manager must consult the County HER Officer (Dr Colin Pendleton) to obtain an HER number for the work. This number will be unique for each project or site and must be clearly marked on any documentation relating to the work.

5.10 Finds must be appropriately conserved and stored in accordance with UK Institute of Conservators Guidelines .

5.11 The project manager should consult the SCC Archive Guidelines 2008 and also the County HER Officer regarding the requirements for the deposition of the archive (conservation, ordering, organisation, labelling, marking and storage) of excavated material and the archive.

5.12 The WSI should state proposals for the deposition of the digital archive relating to this project with the Archaeology Data Service (ADS), and allowance should be made for costs incurred to ensure the proper deposition ( http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/project/policy.html ).

5.13 Every effort must be made to get the agreement of the landowner/developer to the deposition of the finds with the County HER or a museum in Suffolk which satisfies Museum and Galleries Commission requirements, as an indissoluble part of the full site archive. If this is not achievable for all or parts of the finds archive then provision must be made for additional recording (e.g. photography, illustration, analysis) as appropriate. If the County HER is the 6

repository for finds there will be a charge made for storage, and it is presumed that this will also be true for storage of the archive in a museum.

5.14 The site archive is to be deposited with the County HER within three months of the completion of fieldwork. It will then become publicly accessible.

5.15 Where positive conclusions are drawn from a project (whether it be evaluation or excavation) a summary report, in the established format, suitable for inclusion in the annual ‘Archaeology in Suffolk’ section of the Proceedings of the Suffolk Institute for Archaeology , must be prepared. It should be included in the project report, or submitted to SCCAS/CT, by the end of the calendar year in which the evaluation work takes place, whichever is the sooner.

5.16 County HER sheets must be completed, as per the County HER manual, for all sites where archaeological finds and/or features are located.

5.17 An unbound copy of the evaluation report, clearly marked DRAFT, must be presented to SCCAS/CT for approval within six months of the completion of fieldwork unless other arrangements are negotiated with the project sponsor and SCCAS/CT.

Following acceptance, two copies of the report should be submitted to SCCAS/CT together with a digital .pdf version.

5.18 Where appropriate, a digital vector trench plan should be included with the report, which must be compatible with MapInfo GIS software, for integration in the County HER. AutoCAD files should be also exported and saved into a format that can be can be imported into MapInfo (for example, as a Drawing Interchange File or .dxf) or already transferred to .TAB files.

5.19 At the start of work (immediately before fieldwork commences) an OASIS online record http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/project/oasis/ must be initiated and key fields completed on Details, Location and Creators forms.

5.20 All parts of the OASIS online form must be completed for submission to the County HER. This should include an uploaded .pdf version of the entire report (a paper copy should also be included with the archive).

Specification by: Edward Martin

Suffolk County Council Archaeological Service Conservation Team Environment and Transport Service Delivery 9-10 The Churchyard, Shire Hall Bury St Edmunds Suffolk IP33 2AR Tel: 01284 352442 Email: [email protected]

Date: 8 June 2010 Reference: SpecEval(EM)_TurnpikeRd_RedLodge_0716_07

This brief and specification remains valid for six months from the above date. If work is not carried out in full within that time this document will lapse; the authority should be notified and a revised brief and specification may be issued.

If the work defined by this brief forms a part of a programme of archaeological work required by a Planning Condition, the results must be considered by the Conservation Team of the Archaeological Service of Suffolk County Council, who have the responsibility for advising the appropriate Planning Authority.