An Archaeological Watching Brief Duncan Mackay Cambridgeshire Archaeology Unit Report 781

Northstowe, Longstanton, Cambridgeshire: An Archaeological Watching Brief Duncan Mackay Cambridgeshire Archaeology Unit Report 781

A watching brief was carried out by the Cambridge Archaeological Unit at Longstanton between the 4th May and 22nd June 2007. This brief consisted of monitoring the investigation of magnetic anomalies by Bactec, and also the excavation of geotechnical test pits by WSP Environmental. The investigation work was observed by an archaeologist, and halted when necessary to excavate/record possible archaeological features. Both of these surveys took place across Oakington Airfield (Areas C and D) and on land adjacent to Longstanton Golf Course (Area A; fig. 1). Given the extensive nature of both surveys, and the limited size (and often depth) of the excavations, the brief concentrated on monitoring test pits within the vicinity of known sites. Additional excavations in non-archaeologically sensitive areas were monitored only as and when the opportunity arose.

The Bactec survey consisted of 206 investigations within the vicinity of areas of archaeological interest (117 from Sites XVI and XXXIII, 51 from Site XVIII, 25 from Site XXXIV and 13 from Site XXXIX). The majority of these entailed hand-digging within the topsoil, and were of no archaeological interest. Deeper or more elusive signals were investigated by a 360° machine with a 1.80m wide toothless ditching bucket, resulting in an excavation approximately 2 metres square, although most of these excavations likewise failed to reach the surface of the natural geology. Of the seven investigations to impact significantly on the natural geology, only one contained a possible feature, TP 39 in Area A (fig. 2). This revealed a rather amorphous feature 2.00m x 1.10m and 0.25m deep, roughly an elongated rectangle in plan with a V-shaped profile. Although this feature contained some charcoal flecking, it was not conclusively archaeological in character and contained no artefacts. A natural origin for this feature is likely, but it coincidentally fell within the putative prehistoric ‘site’ (Site XXXIX) in Area A (fig. 2) which itself contained an amorphous but genuine pit (Evans and Mackay 2004).

The geotechnical test pits were excavated by a JCB with a 0.60m wide ditching bucket, and tended to be c. 3.00m long and c. 3.00m deep. Only the uppermost metre or so was normally of any potential archaeological interest. Of the 79 pits monitored, only two exposed any deposits of potential archaeological interest. These occurred in TPB 66, within Site XVIII, and TPC 50B on the south-eastern periphery of Sites XVIII and XV (fig. 3). TPB 66 contained a 0.35m thick layer of dark grey-black silt clay containing five sherds of 2nd-4th century Roman pottery, including a Nene Valley colour-coated sherd and three sandy greyware sherds (K. Anderson pers. com). This was sealed by 0.60m of mixed topsoil and subsoil, seemingly a 20th century levelling episode associated with the construction of the airfield. The Roman layer could, therefore, form part of a horizontal occupation layer, or the base of a shallow feature truncated by the levelling activity. TPC 50B exposed a small ditch, 0.80m wide and 0.27m deep, lying on a southeast by northwest alignment (fig. 4). This was excavated by hand, but no artefacts were uncovered. All that could be said was that the feature appeared to be sealed by the subsoil, making a pre-Medieval date likely. Iron Age and Roman ditch systems were found on a broadly similar alignment on Sites XVIII and XV, and this feature may be an outlier to one of these systems. No archaeological features were encountered in Area D (fig. 5).

The test pit survey did indicate areas of truncation, particularly around the main hangers and to the north of them, TPC 5 to 14 inclusive showing truncation and WWII period rubbish dumping, which was indicated by the one trench put through that area in 2005 (Evans et al. 2006), to the point that little archaeology would be likely to survive within that swathe. Although other pits did show disturbance, these tended to be more isolated, and did not identify ‘zones’ of truncation.

References

Evans, C. and Mackay, D. 2004 Longstanton, Cambridgeshire, A village Hinterland. CAU Report No. 696.

Evans, C., Appleby, G., Mackay, D. and Armour, N. 2006 Longstanton, Cambridgeshire, A village Hinterland (II). CAU Report No. 711. 539363/268135

Area A

TP 39

XXXIX

B 1050

1 0 5 0

IDE KS OOKSIDEOO BR

PRENTICEP

CLOSEC L O S E

SSPIGGOT P IG G O T S CLOSEC L O S E

T IF R D N DRIFT O T P M A RAMPTOR

D E OA C MAGDALENEM CLO R HATTON'SH PARK LACELA N A P A ONO ROA T L G PT T IL D M O H A A N RAMPTR N R L 'S O E P H N A THORNHILLT P E R C K L XXXVI O SSE E

MAGDM A G D AALEN L E N E CLOSE

C SE L CLO D O NE LDL ALE E S GD I E MAGDALENEMA CLOSE F S E L O HIGHH STR COLESFIEC IG H S T R EETE E T

THORNHILLT P H O R N H IL L P LLACE A C E

HADDOWH A D D O W 'S'S CLOSE C L O S E

N NETHER N L NETHER

C E

RY CLOS E T

O T H

CT H E

RECTORRE E R LLEE R A D E H GROVEG TTHE DA R O V E TPB 66

LONGL LAN D O OA N R G N L OON ROA A PT N M E RAMPTRA SSTOKES T O K E S CLOSEC L O S E

WWOO

O O DDSID S I D E

TPC 50B

E AN L OL HO SCHOOLSC LANE

E NEN A L S L IL MILLSM LA

D O WOODSIDEW O E O N WWOO O A S D L R S EERS THATCHERST WOOD S L H H ID ELSE LANE C A E A T T H A C C H H I THATCHT E M R T S STS MICHA W O O D

D OOOD XVIII W S EERSR WO CH THATCT T CCLIV H A H L A THATCHT I T V C E HHERS E HALLH D R A S L W L

OOOD D O RIVER I D V

O O OLIVE OLIVE L

TTHATCH L

H I V

A V E

T E C H EERS HHALL R A S L WWO L O OOD DRD D R D OODO W S ERSER WO CH AT TTHATCHH

E NEN LA S EL AELSA LA H IC M STST MICH Area C

SST MICHAE T M IC H A E LSL S

D A OADO R 'S N O S IL WILSON'SW R

y a iw x a TTaxiway C

D A O ROADR 'S N O S L Area D I WILSON'SW Trial Pit containing archaeology XXXIV

y d BBdy rd BACTEC Trial Pit a WardW WSP Trial Pit - significantly truncated

d n UndU ) ck raack) T (Tr( D A O ROADR 'S N O S IL WILSON'SW WSP Trial Pit - not significantly truncated XVI Archaeological site (Evans et al 2005)

ef DDef

LONGSTAL O N G S T A NTONN ROA T O N R O A D

XXXIII

ef DefD dy BBdy d ar WWard

f DefDe

LONGSTAL 0 1000 O N G ST A NTONN T O N

ROADR O A metres D

NNTT SCE CRESCCRE RRYY BU W LOWBULO 541892/264599 Figure 1. Watching Brief Areas TP 39

XXXIX

Trial Pit with archaeology

BACTEC Trial Pit WSP Trial Pit - not significantly truncated

0 200 Archaeological site (Evans et al 2005) metres

Figure 2. Area A XXXVI

TPB 66

XVIII

TPC 50B Trial Pit with archaeology

BACTEC Trial Pit WSP Trial Pit - significantly truncated

WSP Trial Pit - not significantly truncated

Archaeological site (Evans et al 2005)

0 500 metres

Figure 3. Area C SW NE

Topsoil

Subsoil

(3300)

(3301) F. 1350

F. 1350 [3301]

0 1 metres

Figure 4. Plan and section of Test Pit TPC 50B XXXIV

BACTEC Trial Pit WSP Trial Pit - significantly truncated

WSP Trial Pit - not significantly truncated

Archaeological site (Evans et al 2005)

XVI

XXXIII

0 200 metres

Figure 5. Area D Cambridge Archaeological Unit/UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE

Northstowe, Longstanton, Cambridgeshire: An Archaeological Watching Brief (Phase 2) Nick Armour

From the 12th to the 14th September, 2007, an archaeological watching brief on 24 geotechnical test pits was undertaken by Cambridge Archaeological Unit (CAU) on behalf of WSP Environmental. The test pits were excavated by a JCB with a 0.45m toothed bucket, to a depth of between 2.50m and 3.00m. The work was observed by an archaeologist, and halted when necessary to excavate and record possible archaeological features. Only the upper deposits, particularly the interface between subsoil and natural formations, were of potential archaeological interest. Two areas were examined to the south of the proposed Northstowe development area; a field south of New Close Farm and two fields lying between Slate Hall Farm and Phypers Farm. The field and site numbers referenced below are taken from the 2006 CAU evaluation report (Evans et al. 2006).

Results

Field 14

Two areas were targeted for testing. The first area tested lay around the periphery of Field 14, which is centred approximately 300m southeast of Site XII: NGR TL 386 641. This field had previously been subject to prospective archaeological investigations, these revealing little of archaeological interest (ibid.) suggesting there was no southern continuation of the Iron Age and Romano-British enclosures of Site XII.

Four test pits were excavated around the southern edges of Field 14: TPD 47, TPD 48, TPD 49 and TPD 50. None of these test pits revealed deposits of archaeological interest. Test pit 50 did, however, cut into a post-Medieval field boundary indicating an original depth of just over 2.00 metres for this feature. The basal fill, 0.20m thick, was of coarse sand and gravel mixed with dark grey silts suggesting water-lain deposition. The upper fills were of a compacted orange silty sand, a backfilling deposit derived from the local natural geology. Some sherds of 20th century porcelain found within the deposit indicated a relatively modern date for the backfilling episode.

Field 21

The main area for geotechnical investigations lay within Field 21, approximately 400m to the south west of Phypers Farm: centred on NGR TL 400 638. This field was the subject of a fieldwalking investigation which located a Mesolithic flint scatter (designated Site XXVIII) and a geophysical survey in 2005 which failed to locate any archaeological features (ibid.). In addition, a field to the northwest of Field 21, centred NGR TL 396 641, was also sampled. This field had not previously been archaeologically investigated. Cambridge Archaeological Unit/UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE

Twenty test pits were excavated: TPD 80 – TPD 88 and TPD 88 A – TPD 88 J (fig. 1) No archaeological features were identified within the test pits; however, the southeast half of the field seems to overlie a post-glacial Palaeochannel, perhaps giving an environmental basis for the Mesolithic flint scatter (site XXVIII) identified in this area. Furthermore, test pit TPD 82 appeared to have identified an undated later channel which seems to have been cut, or eroded, into the top of this Palaeochannel.

The upper deposit, a mid greenish brown sandy clay approximately 0.85m thick, appears to have been a natural accumulation. This deposit overlay dark grey interleaved silts and sands in a clay matrix with some charcoal inclusion. The presence of layered organic remnants attest to the water-logged and fluvial origin of this deposit. No finds were recovered except for the single horn core of a sheep/goat. The basal deposit was of a silvery blue silty clay. There was a clear depression visible in the field where this channel had once been. This appeared, on casual exploration, to be a relict channel of the Oakington Brook.

Metal Detecting

Given the wartime activities of the adjacent RAF Oakington it was decided to metal detect the localities of each test pit. This was prompted by the discovery of aircraft fragments by the geophysical team in Field 8 (ibid.), approximately 400m to the north. In all, ten metal fragments were recovered and one fragment of Perspex, these being predominantly from the north-western half of the area under investigation, ie that part closest to end of the runway. Little can be concluded from these fragments, detailed below, except that they represent the detritus of an operational airbase in wartime.

Summary

No clearly identified archaeological deposits or features were identified during this watching brief. The Palaeochannel identified in the Site XVII trenching evaluation (Evans et al. 2006) was seen to continue northeast from Field 18, and a possible later channel relating to Oakington Brook was observed in Field 21.

References

Evans, C., Appleby, G., Mackay, D. and Armour, N. 2006. Longstanton, Cambridgeshire, A village Hinterland (II). CAU Report No. 711.

Tebbutt, R. 2005. .303 Service Cartridge. In ‘The Dropzone’ magazine, volume 3 issue 1. Harrington Aviation Museums.

Cambridge Archaeological Unit/UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE

Appendix 1 – Metal-detecting and Surface Finds

TPD 86:

One piece of Perspex, triangular (100 x 70 x 94mm; 8mm thick), one edge charred/melted, black paint adhering.

One piece of aluminium sheet (40 x 44 x 50mm), two rivet holes.

One .303 cal. cartridge case, Imperial Chemical Industries Kynoch factory, Kidderminster in 1942. Armour piercing round (Tebbutt 2005). Unfired, shoulder and bullet missing. Not kept.

One small nut – 8mm (anodised?)

TPD 88

One flattened fragment (30 x 45 mm) aluminium container/cartridge with rolled rim – flare cartridge?

TPD 88A

One twisted copper fragment – bullet jacket?

One copper penny, heavily corroded.

TPD 88B

One fragment of steel? Rounded, finely cast, in excellent condition – modern?

TPD 88D

Two fragments of thin aluminium sheet, one folded, one crumpled.

One fragment of iron (25 x 15 x 5mm) with remnants of fine internal thread and external flat band surface. Jagged edges. Probable AA shell cone shrapnel.

Appendix 2 - Test Pit Summary

Archaeological Test Pit Topsoil Subsoil Underlying Geology Notes: Deposits Orange clay banded with TPD 47 0.40m 0.30m No grey/white sand and gravel Orange clay banded with TPD 48 0.40m 0.25m No grey/white sand and gravel Chalk marl with sand and TPD 49 0.40m 0.20m No gravel Test Pit cuts post - TPD 50 0.35m / Post-Medieval Blue-Grey Gault Clay Medieval field boundary ditch. Orange sandy clay over Test pit cuts TPD 80 0.30m 0.50m No green sand over banded Palaeochannel sands and degraded organics Orange sandy clay over Test pit cuts TPD 81 0.30m 0.50m No green sand over banded Palaeochannel sands and degraded organics Potential man- Potential - Green/Black silts and sands TPD 82 0.25m 0.30m made channel over undated with layered organics Palaeochannel Cambridge Archaeological Unit/UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE

Archaeological Test Pit Topsoil Subsoil Underlying Geology Notes: Deposits Orange clayey sand over TPD 82A 0.45m 0.30m No banded sands and gravel Orange and greenish yellow fine sands – with slight silty TPD 83 0.30m 0.30m No component over green sand and clay Orange sands mottled TPD 84 0.38m 0.44m No blue/grey through clay and sand lensing. Orange silty sand with TPD 85 0.35 0.40m No greenish yellow sand lenses Metal detector and TPD 86 0.50m / No Mid orange silty sand surface finds TPD 87 0.50m / No Mid orange silty sand Blue grey clay with orange TPD 88 0.30m 0.25m No Metal detector find and brown sandy lenses Blue grey clay with orange Metal detector TPD 88A 0.30m 0.20m No and brown sandy lenses finds Orange silty sand with TPD 88B 0.40m 0.40m No Metal detector find greenish yellow sand lenses Blocky mixed interleaved TPD 88C 0.30m 0.10m No sands and clay; a mottled orange/brown/grey Blue grey clay with fine Metal detector TPD 88D 0.30m / No veins of yellow/orange finds sands and clays Orange sandy clay over grey TPD 88E 0.25m 0.35m No clay with orange sandy lenses Orange brown silty sand with veins of white and TPD 88F 0.35m 0.10m No yellow/white coarse sand and gravel Blue grey clay with fine TPD 88G 0.25m / No veins of yellow/orange sands and clays Blue grey clay with fine TPD 88H 0.30m 0.20m No lenses of yellow/orange sand Orange brown silty sand with veins of white and TPD 88 I 0.30m 0.30m No yellow/white coarse sand and gravel over grey clay Orange brown silty sand with veins of white and TPD 88 J No yellow/white coarse sand and gravel over grey clay

XXV

New Close Farm

XII Oakington Phypers Farm XXX

Field 14 Field 21 XXVIII

Slate Hall Farm XXIX

XXVII

Areas of Geotechnical Investigations

Bar Hill XXX Archaeological Sites

0 1 Kilometres

TPD88I

TPD88J TPD88H

TPD88G TPD88E

Phypers Farm TPD88F TPD88D XXX

TPD88 TPD88C TPD88A Northern edge of Palaeochannel TPD88B TPD86 TPD87

TPD82A TPD85 TPD83 Relict Channel

TPD84 XXVIII TPD81 TPD82 Slate Hall Farm TPD80

XXIX

Oakington Brook Geotechnical Testpits

Metal Detector Finds XXVII 0 500 metres

Figure 1. Site and Testpit Locations Cambridge Archaeological Unit/UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE

Northstowe, Longstanton, Cambridgeshire An Archaeological Watching Brief (Phase 3) Catherine Ranson

An archaeological watching brief was undertaken by Cambridge Archaeological Unit (CAU) on behalf of WSP Environmental over the two days of the 2nd and the 3rd of October 2007. The excavation of 30 test pits, dug by BACTEC to investigate the presence of magnetic anomalies, was observed by an archaeologist, who could halt work where necessary, and excavate and record any possible archaeological features. Only the upper deposits, particularly the interface between subsoil and natural formations, were of any potential archaeological interest.

The test pits were excavated by a JCB with a 0.45m toothed bucket, to a depth of between 2m and 2.5m. The survey took place within Oakington Airfield south of Brookfield Farm in Fields P1, P2 and P3 (as referenced as in 2006 CAU evaluation report; Evans et al. 2006).

No archaeological deposits or features were identified during the watching brief.

References

Evans, C., Appleby, G., Mackay, D. and Armour, N. 2006 Longstanton, Cambridgeshire, A Village Hinterland (II). CAU Report No. 711.