E X C a V a Tio N R E P O Rt

Excavation Report July 2009 Client: Francis Flower OA East Report No: 1085 OASIS No: oxfordar3-53977 NGR: TL 5470 7240 Excavation Report Neolithic to Early Roman Archaeology at Dimmock's Cote, Wicken, Cambridgeshire Neolithic to Early Roman Archaeology at Dimmock's Cote, Wicken, Cambridgeshire

Archaeological Excavation

By Nick Gilmour MA PIFA

With contributions by; Katie Anderson MA, Barry Bishop MA, Matt Brudenell MA, Nina Crummy BA FSA, Natasha Dodwell MA, Chris Faine MA Msc , Rachel Fosberry HNC AEA, Mark Knight BA, Rob Law Phd

Editor: Richard Mortimer MIFA

Illustrator: Gillian Greer Bsc MAAIS

Report Date: July 2009

Summary...... 6

1 Introduction...... 7 1.1 Location and scope of work...... 7 1.2 Geology and topography...... 7 1.3 Archaeological and historical background...... 7 1.4 Acknowledgements...... 11

2 Aims and Methodology...... 12 2.1 Aims...... 12 2.2 Methodology...... 12

3 Results...... 13 3.1 Introduction ...... 13 3.2 Natural Features...... 13 3.3 Earlier Neolithic...... 13 3.4 Early - Middle Bronze Age...... 14 3.5 Middle - Later Bronze Age...... 14 3.6 Middle – Later Iron Age...... 15 3.7 Later Iron Age – Earlier Roman...... 15 3.8 Undated Cremations...... 17 3.9 Finds Summary...... 18 3.10 Environmental Summary...... 18

4 Discussion and Conclusions...... 20 4.1 Earlier Neolithic Pits...... 20 4.2 Bronze Age Field System...... 20 4.3 Bronze Age Burial...... 21 4.4 Later Iron Age Crouch Burial...... 21 4.5 Later Iron Age/ Early Roman Field System...... 22 4.6 Later Iron Age/ Early Roman Structures or Enclosures...... 23 4.7 Medieval Agricultural System...... 24 4.8 Site development...... 24

Appendix A. Context Descriptions...... 26

Appendix B. Finds Quantification...... 30

Appendix C. Finds Reports...... 33 C.1 Metal finds...... 33 C.2 The Lithic Assemblage...... 34 C.3 Neolithic and Bronze Age Pottery...... 39 C.4 The Collared Urn...... 42 C.5 The Later Middle Iron Age Bowl...... 44 C.6 Roman Pottery...... 45

Appendix D. Environmental Reports...... 49 D.1 Human Bone...... 49 D.2 Faunal Remains...... 51 D.3 Environmental samples...... 52

Appendix E. Radiocarbon Dating Certificates...... 55

Appendix F. Bibliography ...... 59

Appendix G. OASIS Report Form...... 63

© Oxford Archaeology East Page 4 of 64 Report Number 1085 List of Figures Fig. 1 Site location map Fig. 2 Site location showing previous archaeological excavations in the quarry Fig. 3 Site plan Fig. 4 Phased site Plan Fig. 5 Plan of enclosure 839 Fig. 6 Plan of Enclosure 937 Fig. 7 Plan of Mildenhall Pottery deposit in pit 936 and pit profile Fig. 8 Plan of burial 802 Fig. 9 Plan of burial 918 Fig. 10 Sections Fig. 11 Sketch reconstruction of the Collared Urn (1997 excavation)

List of Plates Plate 1 Areal photograph of field to the west of the quarry (taken by Ben Robinson) Plate 2 Crouch Burial 802 (looking north) Plate 3 The Later Middle Iron Age bowl from grave 802 Plate 4 The Bronze Age Burial Plate 5 Enclosure 839 (looking north) Plate 6 Enclosure 937 (looking west) Plate 7 Barrow (looking west) (1997 excavation) Plate 8 The Collared Urn in-situ in base of barrow ditch (1997 excavation)

List of Tables Table 1 Finds recovered from Neolithic Pits Table 2 Quantification of Lithic Material from the Site Table 3 Quantification of Struck Flint from the Early Neolithic Pits Table 4 Quantification of Retouched Pieces from the Neolithic Pit Clusters Table 5 Neolithic and Bronze Age pottery assemblage breakdown Table 6 The Collared Urn assemblage breakdown Table 7 All diagnostic Late Iron Age and Roman pottery by form Table 8 All Late Iron Age and Roman pottery by fabric Table 9 All Late Iron Age and Roman pottery by Context Table 10 Summary of human bone Table 11 Summary of environmental samples

Between 1st and 19th September 2008, an open area excavation was carried out by Oxford Archaeology East in advance of the extension of a lime quarry at Dimmock's Cote, Wicken. The excavation located several pits of Early Neolithic date, some containing pottery of Mildenhall type and struck flints including a single piece sickle. A Middle-Later Bronze Age pit, containing pottery of Deverel-Rimbury type, was also excavated. A tightly crouched burial radiocarbon dated to the Late Bronze Age was adjacent to, and slightly on top of, this pit. Another crouch burial, with a complete pottery vessel, was radiocarbon dated to the Later Iron Age. Two undated, unurned cremations were also deposited on the site. A Late Iron Age and Early Roman field system was recorded along with two small enclosures. Neither of these has an obvious function and it is possible that at least one of them relates in some way to mortuary practices. This work followed on from several previous phases of excavation in the quarry and taken together these excavations provide a picture of the changing use of the land on a limestone promontory in the Southern Cambridgeshire Fenlands.

1.1 Location and scope of work 1.1.1 An archaeological excavation was carried out by Oxford Archaeology East (OA East) at Dimmock's Cote Quarry, Wicken, Cambridgeshire, between 1st and 19th September 2008. 1.1.2 This archaeological excavation was undertaken in advance of quarrying, in accordance with a Brief issued by And Thomas of Cambridgeshire County Council , supplemented by a Specification prepared by OA East (formerly Cambridgeshire County Council's CAM ARC). 1.1.3 The work was designed to preserve by record any archaeological remains within the proposed development area, in accordance with the guidelines set out in Planning and Policy Guidance 16 - Archaeology and Planning (Department of the Environment 1990). 1.1.4 The site archive is currently held by OA East and will be deposited with the appropriate county stores in due course.

1.2 Geology and topography 1.2.1 The lime quarry at Dimmock's Cote lies 2km to the west of the village of Wicken and 8km to the south of Ely. Five hundred metres to the west of the quarry lies the River Cam, while Wicken Fen lies some 2km to the southwest and Soham Lode 2.5km to the north. The quarry lies on the northern side of the A1123 that runs between Stretham and Wicken. In the immediate vicinity of the site lie the farms of Red Barn and High Fen. 1.2.2 In this area, the Jurassic Upware Limestone forms a promontory rising to about 5m OD that reaches out into the Fens (BGS 188). The promontory is surrounded on its north- eastern, western and south-eastern borders by Padney, Stretham, North, Adventurers and Wicken Sedge Fens. To the northeast and west lie the infilled lake basins of Soham and Stretham Mere. Many of these fenland meres survived into the historic period, having once formed significant wetland habitats in the prehistoric and later landscape. 1.2.3 Analysis of the coastal evolution of the Fenlands by Shennan suggests that the Wicken promontory has lain enclosed by fen since at least 4000BP (Shennan 1994: 70). The upland freshwater junction lay at about -lm OD in around 3800BP (Early Bronze Age). Marine and brackish water sediments were deposited less than 10km to the north of the Wicken promontory (Shennan 1994: 71). The surrounding fenland area has been influenced by peat formation since the prehistoric period whilst other areas within the Fens have been affected by recurrent marine incursions.

1.3 Archaeological and historical background

Prehistoric 1.3.1 As well as the Neolithic finds from earlier phases of archaeological investigation in the quarry, several flint scatters and isolated finds of Mesolithic and Neolithic date have been reported in the area around the quarry (e.g. HER 07032, HER 07040). 1.3.2 Later Neolithic and Early Bronze Age activity in the area is suggested by two ring ditches, visible on aerial photographs of the site (plate 1). One of these lies in the field to the west of the site and the other in the field to the south west. These may represent

© Oxford Archaeology East Page 7 of 64 Report Number 1085 prehistoric features or, due to their association with rectangular enclosures, be the result of later activity. 1.3.3 Two further ring ditches and a possible barrow, (HER 07035) have been identified by aerial photography, around 2km to the northeast of the quarry. A flint dagger of the type often associated with Beaker burials was found c.2km to the east (HER 07061a). Further Neolithic activity was identified during excavations in advance of the construction of the Fordham bypass, c.6km to the east (Mortimer and Connor forthcoming) 1.3.4 Middle and Later Bronze Age and Iron Age activity is less well represented, although a Late Bronze Age weapon hoard was recovered from Wicken Fen (HER 07029). A Middle to Late Iron Age farmstead has also been identified c.4km to the west of the site at Wilberton (Haines 2007). Further evidence of Iron Age activity, including a burial of this date, was excavated on the Fordham bypass route (Mortimer and Connor forthcoming)

Roman 1.3.5 A scatter of Roman finds, associated with crop marks (HER 06981), is recorded in the field to the south of the A1123 adjacent to the current excavations. A Roman villa (HER 10525) has also been reported 400m to the west of the site, although only from aerial photographic evidence, and a scatter of Roman finds. Further afield, a Roman farmstead was also uncovered at Wilberton (Haines 2007). 1.3.6 Four skeletons were found within the quarry in 1951 (HER 06973), unfortunately these were bulldozed and could not be excavated. However, a sherd of Roman pottery was found near to one of the disturbed burials and on this basis they are recorded as possibly of Roman date.

Previous Archaeological Excavations (see Fig. 2) 1.3.7 Several excavations have previously taken place within the quarry, in the area immediately to the west of the current investigation. These have revealed features of Neolithic to Medieval date (Bray 1992, Schlee 1993, Kemp 2002, Kemp & Kenney 2003). Of particular note is the probable barrow excavated in an area immediately adjacent to the current excavations (Kemp & Kenney 2003; 27) and two large groups of inter-cutting Bronze Age pits.

1992 Excavations 1.3.8 In 1992 two trenches (Trenches I and II) 2m wide and 275m long were opened before Phase 1 of quarrying began (Bray 1992; 4). Archaeological remains encountered during these excavations included two parallel ditches, one of which had a series of postholes cut into its base. These ditches were initially believed to be of Bronze Age date; however, following further work in 1993, they were re-interpreted as the boundary ditches to a Roman trackway (Bray 1993). The only other archaeological feature found during this phase of work was a sub-rectangular pit measuring 4m long by 3m wide, however, the feature was not completely exposed (Bray 1992; 9). This work suggested that there was a significant quantity of Bronze Age archaeology in the vicinity to warrant further archaeological excavations.

July 1993 Excavations 1.3.9 In July 1993, Trench III, 10m wide and 272m long was opened (Bray 1993; 6). Excavated features consisted of a series of postholes, subcircular and square pits and

© Oxford Archaeology East Page 8 of 64 Report Number 1085 a complex of intercutting pits. The two parallel ditches recorded in 1992 continued into this area. Three areas of Bronze Age activity were defined: 1. A series of postholes believed to represent a circular hut and a curvilinear fence lying close to the parallel Roman ditches. These were uncovered within the area of surviving buried soil (Bray 1993; 6).

2. A pit containing fired clay, animal bone and a crucible was interpreted as remains from a funerary or industrial site. This pit lay to the south of the remnants of a buried soil and the main complex of Neolithic and Bronze Age features (Bray 1993; 6).

3. A pit complex which Bray suggests may have been associated with a storage function lay at the southern end of Trench III (Bray 1993; 6).

1.3.10 The two parallel ditches continued across the area enclosed by the circular hut and were therefore presumed to be of a more recent date, possibly Roman. Two undated rectangular pits were also excavated; these were believed to have been overlain by the buried soil and were assumed to be Neolithic in date (Bray 1993; 5). 1.3.11 Apart from the crucible mentioned above, other artefacts recovered during this excavation included animal bone, pottery, flint tools, flint knapping waste and a loom weight. These artefacts are likely to indicate the presence of Neolithic and Bronze Age settlement nearby. A phosphate survey was undertaken across the buried soil that identified high concentrations of phosphates within the ancient soil; high phosphate levels are commonly indicative of domestic or agricultural waste and therefore could indicate the presence of an adjacent settlement. 1.3.12 Bray suggests that artefacts recovered during these excavations were largely retained within archaeological features, and the site, at least where it is overlain by a medieval headland, was in a relatively undisturbed condition (Bray 1994; 5). This headland not only protected archaeological deposits, but also the Bw soil horizon of a buried soil which had formed near the base of the original post-glacial soil profile (French 1993; 9). This Bw horizon is referred to as "the Bronze Age buried soil" by Bray on the presumption that it formed between the late Neolithic, which is the presumed date of the two pits which it seals, and the Bronze Age, when a number of pits were cut in to this layer (Bray 1993:4).

September 1993 Excavations 1.3.13 Trench IV, opened in September 1993, was an open area 35m wide and 280m long (Schlee 1993). This work continued the analysis of features recorded in Trench III. Three types of Bronze Age arrangements were defined in addition to the continuation of the pit complex in Trench III: 1. Six adjacent pits or postholes that lay to the south of the pit alignment were interpreted as a square structure (Schlee 1993; 2). 2. A semi-circular arrangement of pits that lay within the buried soil was suggested to be the remnants of a small roundhouse (Schlee 1993; 4). 3. Linear pit alignments within the buried soil were interpreted as a fence (Schlee 1993; 4).

© Oxford Archaeology East Page 9 of 64 Report Number 1085 1.3.14 The parallel ditches were found to contain Roman as well as Bronze Age pottery, probably indicating a historic but pre-medieval date for the excavation and infilling of these features. Rectangular pits similar to those found in Trench III, although on a different orientation, were found to contain medieval pottery. 1.3.15 Excavation of the buried soil was carried out within eighteen 1m square test pits. Bronze Age pottery was recovered from a depth of up to 0.25m within the buried soil, although the majority of the finds came from the upper 0.05m. Schlee suggests that the Bronze Age buried soil had been disturbed by a combination of bioturbation and later ploughing, and it would seem that the buried soil was preserved and largely incorporated in the headland (Schlee 1993:4). This would suggest that earlier phosphate readings may be misleading and the dating of pits to the Neolithic based on their perceived stratigraphic relationship with the ‘buried soil’ may be erroneous.

1994, 1996 and 1997 Excavations 1.3.16 Trenches V and VI were excavated in December 1994, October 1996 and May 1997. (Kemp and Kenney 2003). This lead to a re-interpretation of the 'buried soil' found across part of the site. It was shown t that much of what had originally been referred to as the 'buried soil' was in fact disturbed by medieval and later ploughing and only a small area, under the Medieval headland was preserved. This area of buried soil was seen as likely to be the original post-glacial soil (Kemp and Kenney 2003; 24). In addition several prehistoric features were identified: 1. Two pits were found adjacent to each other, one contained a significant quantity of Earlier Neolithic pottery (Kemp and Kenney 2003;12). 2. Two pit complexes, of Neolithic or Bronze Age date (Kemp and Kenney 2003; 8) were thought likely to be related to other pit complexes identified in 1993, although their function remained enigmatic (Kemp and Kenney 2003, 25). 3. An irregular ring ditch was though to be the remains of a ploughed out barrow or possibly a stock enclosure or roundhouse (Kemp and Kenney 2003; 27). Given the presence of a near complete collared urn in the base of the ditch, the former interpretation seems most plausible. 4. Four postholes forming an L shape, were interpreted as potentially the remains of a six post structure of Bronze Age date (Kemp and Kenney 2003;26) 5. A very large shallow pit was interpreted as evidence for Bronze age quarrying activity (Kemp and Kenney 2003;27). 1.3.17 In addition one of the two ditches first identified in 1992 as a possible Roman trackway was found to continue into this area (Kemp and Kenney 2003; 29). 1.3.18 Medieval activity was represented by the remains of a cultivation system; furrows and a headland. On the ridge between two of these furrows, six sub-rectangular pits were recorded. These were seen to have performed a number of functions, including acting as markers within the Medieval field system. This function was later taken on a by a row of posts (Kemp and Kenney 2003;30).

© Oxford Archaeology East Page 10 of 64 Report Number 1085 1.4 Acknowledgements 1.4.1 The author would like to thank Jay Wiegand of Francis Flower, who commissioned and funded the work, and Andy Josephs their consultant. Thanks are also due to Frank Morrell, the site foreman, for his assistance and interest throughout. The project was managed by Richard Mortimer. Nick Gilmour directed the fieldwork, with the assistance of Hazel Butler, Graeme Clarke, Ben Davenport, Liz Jefferies and Dawn Mooney. Taleyna Fletcher surveyed the site and Steve Wadeson was responsible for the finds assemblages. The excavation was monitored for CAPCA by Andy Thomas.

2.1 Aims 2.1.1 The main aim of the project was to preserve the archaeological evidence contained within the excavation area by record and to attempt a reconstruction of the history and use of the site.

2.2 Methodology 2.2.1 The Brief required that an area of just under 0.5ha be stripped of topsoil and subsoil and any archaeological features within it excavated and recorded. 2.2.2 Machine excavation was carried out under constant archaeological supervision with a tracked 20 ton excavator using a toothless ditching bucket. 2.2.3 Spoil, exposed surfaces and features were scanned with a metal detector. All metal- detected and hand-collected finds were retained for inspection, other than those which were obviously modern. 2.2.4 All archaeological features and deposits were recorded using OA East's pro-forma sheets. Trench locations, plans and sections were recorded at appropriate scales and colour and monochrome photographs were taken of all relevant features and deposits. 2.2.5 Environmental samples were taken from a wide variety of features including graves. In addition all cremations were 100% sampled. Potentially Neolithic pits were also 100% sampled, to assure the recovery of all finds and flint micro-debitage within them. 2.2.6 Site conditions were generally good, although there was heavy rain on one day. The fact that the edge of excavation to the north and west were also the edge of the current quarry, resulted in drops of several meters on both these sides. This made excavation close to these edges impossible due to the unacceptable risk they posed.

3.1 Introduction 3.1.1 The excavation revealed evidence of activity over a long period of time, from the Neolithic to Roman periods, which could be broken down into distinct phases. The features identified are described below by phase; feature dimensions are given in Appendix A.

3.2 Natural Features 3.2.1 The site lies on an outcrop of Upware limestone of the Corallian group, part of the Upper Jurassic period strata that form a promontory that extends out from the mainland at Soham (BGS 188). In addition the excavation has shown the natural geology has been significantly affected by periglacial activity. The upper surface of the limestone was found to be covered by numerous areas of regular and irregular cracking (e.g. see plate 5 for crack running through Enclosure 839). Excavation found these to have irregular, undercutting edges and uneven bases. Filled by a mid orange-brown firm, sterile sandy silt with "pockets" of small-medium (<20mm) stones. No artefacts were recovered from any of these features. 3.2.2 In addition there were many irregular circular and crescent shaped features which contained similar fills; some of these may have been related to periglacial activity, but most were probably caused by tree roots and tree falls. Very many of these features were excavated, principally as they showed, in plan, similarities to grave pits. No artefacts or ecofacts were recovered from any of the excavated features.

3.3 Earlier Neolithic 3.3.1 Two groups of three pits were identified that were earlier Neolithic in date, as well as a scatter of flint of this date from other, later, features on the site.

Pit group 1 3.3.2 Three pits ( 930 filled by 929, 932 filled by 931, 934 filled by 933) were located just to the west of the centre of the excavated area. They were circular in plan and had diameters between 0.47m and 0.60m, with depths between 0.08m and 0.12m. The bases of these pits were flat and they had steep sides. Each was filled with a soft, pale brown, silty sand with occasional chalk gravel. They contained few finds, however, a small fragment of pottery was recovered from pit 932 and small quantities of flint, typologically of Early Neolithic date, was recovered from all three pits (see Table 1).

Pit group 2 3.3.3 Three further pits (752 filled by 751, 936 filled by 935 and 955 filled by 954) were located to the south west of pit group 1. Pit 752 was excavated during the evaluation (WIC DC 02), while the others were recorded during this excavation. They were sub- circular in plan and had lengths of 0.80m, widths of 0.70m and depths between 0.21m and 0.28m. They were filled by a mid orangey grey-brown clayey silt. Pit 752 contained several sherds of Early Neolithic pottery, while pit 955 contained over 50 struck flints. Over 1.5kg of Early Neolithic pottery was recovered from Pit 936 (fig. 7), together with an assemblage of struck flint including a single piece sickle or knife and other flint tools.

© Oxford Archaeology East Page 13 of 64 Report Number 1085 Flint Pottery Pit Group 1 930 1g 0 932 71g 7g 934 3g 0 Pit Group 2 752 0g 100g 936 184g 1502g 955 94g 5g Table 1: Finds recovered from Neolithic pits

3.4 Early - Middle Bronze Age 3.4.1 In spite of the presence of the probable barrow just to the west of the current excavation area, few further features of this date were identified.

Ditch 941 3.4.2 Only a single ditch, 941 (filled by 940), was identified which belonged to this phase. This ditch contained no datable finds, but was stratigraphically beneath burial 918 and pit 939 (fig.10, S.54), the latter containing sherds of Deverel-Rimbury type pottery. The ditch ran from the northern edge of excavation for five metres before terminating. It was 0.74m wide and 0.30m deep, with gently sloping sides and a concave base. It was filled by 940, a loose orangey brown, sandy silt with occasional gravel. A small piece of (undateable) prehistoric pottery and a small fragment of animal bone were recovered from this ditch.

3.5 Middle - Later Bronze Age 3.5.1 Only two small features were identified during the excavation of Middle-Later Bronze Age date. This was in spite of features of this date being identified in previous phases of excavation and in the evaluation to the northeast of the current excavation.

Pit 939 3.5.2 Pit 939 (filled by 938) was on the northern limit of excavation. It was sub-square in plan with a length of 1.40m, a width of 1.35m and a depth of 0.22m. It was filled by a loose, mid orangey brown, sandy silt with occasional charcoal. This contained 77 sherds of pottery from Deverel-Rimbury type vessels, together with 11 (possibly contemporary) pieces of worked flint and some animal bone. Pit 939 cut ditch 941 which ran just to the east of the pit.

Burial 918 3.5.3 A circular pit 918 (filled by 916 and 917) with gently sloping sides, a flat base and a diameter of 0.65m, contained the remains of a single individual. The fill of the pit (916) was a loose, pale brown sandy silt with occasional chalk gravel. The individual contained within the pit (917, plate 4, fig. 9) was poorly preserved and had been buried in an extremely tightly crouched position. Bone from this individual returned a calibrated radiocarbon date of 1130 – 900BC (95% probability SUERC-21616 (GU-17876) 1060- 920BC 68%). Pit 918 was cut over the top of ditch 941 and pit 939 .

© Oxford Archaeology East Page 14 of 64 Report Number 1085 3.6 Middle – Later Iron Age 3.6.1 Although few features were dated to this phase, there were 14 sherds of Middle Iron Age pottery recovered from the site (Appendix C.6). There was a distinct concentration of this pottery in the south west corner of the site, with 10 sherds coming from ditch 897 (see 3.7.12 below).

Crouch burial 802 3.6.2 Grave 802 (filled by 800, 801, 803 and 804) was located towards the west of the site and was originally identified in Trench 12 during the 2002 evaluation. The grave cut was sub rectangular, 1.10m long, 0.76m wide and 0.46m deep, with near-vertical sides and a flat base. The skeleton (801) was in a crouched position (Fig. 8), lying on its left side facing east, and was in good condition (Appendix D.1). Bone from this individual returned a calibrated radiocarbon date of 350 – 30 BC (95% probability SUERC-21615 (GU-17875). A complete pottery vessel (Appendix C.5) was placed very close to the individual's face (Plates 2 and 3). This pot contained two different fills, 803 and 804, both a pale greyish brown clayey silt. Fill 804, towards the base of the pot contained a far greater proportion of pea grit. In spite of carrying out flotation on these fills, no artefacts or ecofacts were recovered from the residue or flot.

Pits 822 and 824 3.6.3 Pit 824 (filled by 823) was located towards the western edge of the site. It was oval in plan with gently sloping sides leading to a concave base. It was filled by 823, a mid orangey brown sandy silt with occasional gravel, which contained a single sherd of Later Iron Age pottery. 3.6.4 This pit was cut by pit 822 (filled by 819, 820 and 821), which was sub-circular in plan with gently sloping sides and a concave base. It contained three distinct fills: 821 extended around the western side of the pit, it was a loose, mid orangey brown, slightly sandy silt with occasional gravel inclusions; 820 was a dark greyish reddish brown, ashy sandy silt with frequent charcoal inclusions, which was located on the base towards the middle of the pit. These fills were overlain by 819, a loose, mid greyish brown, sandy silt with occasional gravel and charcoal inclusions.

3.7 Later Iron Age – Earlier Roman 3.7.1 The majority of the archaeological activity recorded on the site occurred during this period. Two small enclosures, or structures, and several field boundary ditches were identified, with a large amount of pottery found in one of the enclosures.

Enclosure 839 3.7.2 At the north of the excavated area and partially removed by previous quarrying was rectangular enclosure 839 (Plate 5, Fig.5). The ditch which formed enclosure 839 was between 0.73m and 0.34m wide and had a depth of between 0.35m and 0.08m. It was filled by a pale brown, slightly silty sand with occasional gravel inclusions (fills 849 – 863). Finds included three very small fragments of probably prehistoric and Roman pottery, a whelk shell and a fragment of a Medieval horse shoe (almost certainly intrusive). 3.7.3 This ditch enclosed an area with a maximum width of 6.86m and length, before truncation, of 12.96m, within which were ten post holes ( 866 - 872, 907 - 915 and 964 ). These appeared to have originally formed three lines of evenly spaced posts. The post holes were circular, with diameters between 0.35m and 0.19m and depths of between

© Oxford Archaeology East Page 15 of 64 Report Number 1085 0.17m and 0.05m. They were filled by a pale brown, slightly silty sand with occasional gravel inclusions. One very small fragment of, not closely datable, prehistoric pottery was recovered from post hole 872 .

Oval enclosure 937 3.7.4 Towards the south west corner of the excavated area was a small oval enclosure (Plate 6, Fig. 6).This ditch varied in width between 1.2m and 0.4m and was between 0.39m and 0.12m deep. In places the profile indicated that the ditch had been cut at least three times, chiefly around the eastern end of the enclosure (Fig 10 S.33). However, there was no obvious difference in fills and in the majority of slots only one cut and fill could be identified. 3.7.5 The enclosure ditch was filled by a moderately compact, mid greyish brown, clayey silt. A significant amount of pottery (over 4kg) of Late Iron Age to Early Roman date was recovered from this fill (see Appendix C6). Inside of the enclosure ditch no definite features were identified. One possible feature 878 was recorded, but this was only 0.04m deep, contained no finds, and had an irregular shape, it probably represents tree rooting, but could be a truncated pit.

Ditch 816 3.7.6 Ditch 816 ran east to west for 65m across the south of the site, before turning a sharp corner to run south, where it was cut by ditch 897 (see below). This ditch was heavily truncated and the point at which it terminated to the east, with base gently rising, is unlikely to have been the point at which the ditch originally stopped. 3.7.7 Ditch 816 was between 1.4m and 0.4m wide and between 0.20m and 0.08m deep. It was filled by a pale brown sandy silt with occasional small charcoal flecks. Finds included pottery of Middle Iron Age date (3 sherds) and a greater quantity of pottery of Late Iron Age/Early Roman date (17 sherds).

Ditch 836 3.7.8 Ditch 836 (filled by 835 and 837) was a short length of ditch which ran north to south for c.7m, just to the east of enclosure 937 . This ditch was again heavily truncated and was, almost certainly, originally longer. It had gently sloping sides and a flat base and was filled by a mid greyish brown clayey silt with occasional fine chalk gravel. A small piece of weathered lava quern and a single sherds of Late Iron Age/Early Roman pottery were recovered from the fills.

Ditch 881 3.7.9 Ditch 881 (Fig. 10, S.56) ran north to south, at the centre of the area, for c.21m. It was between 0.60m and 0.50m wide, with a depth of between 0.18m and 0.05m, although it was completely truncated for c.2m of its length. The northern terminal of the ditch also, almost certainly, is not the original end of the ditch, but the point at which it becomes completely truncated. It had gently sloping sides and a flat base, and was filled by a moderately compact, mid greyish brown silty clay with occasional chalk gravel (880, 882, 919, 921 and 944). It contained a single sherd of Late Iron Age or Early Roman pottery. 3.7.10 A 4m length of heavily truncated ditch ( 924 filled by 923) ran parallel to ditch 881 and may represent either an earlier line, or later re-cut, of the same ditch, it contained no finds.

© Oxford Archaeology East Page 16 of 64 Report Number 1085 Pit 895 3.7.11 At the point where ditch 881 was truncated was a deep pit 895 (filled by 894). this pit was the same width as the ditch at this point, 0.50m and had a depth of 0.45m. It had near vertical sides and a flat base with a U shaped profile. It was filled by an identical deposit to that of the ditch; a moderately compact, mid greyish brown silty clay with occasional chalk gravel.

Ditch 897 3.7.12 A short length of ditch ( 897 , filled by 896, 925 and 927 Fig. 10, S.58) ran from the western edge of excavation for c.11m, parallel to ditch 815 . It was between 1.60m and 1.70m wide and had a depth of between 0.30m and 0.34m. It had gradually sloping sides with a flat base and was filled by a firm, mid greyish brown, clayey silt with moderate chalk gravel inclusions. Pottery of Middle Iron Age date, together with that of Late Iron Age to Early Roman date was recovered from this ditch. This almost certainly represent the termination of ditch M450 which was identified in several previous phases of archaeological work in the quarry (Kemp & Kenney 2003).

Ditch 962 3.7.13 A short section of ditch ( 962 filled by 961) was revealed in the southeast corner of the excavation. This ditch was 1.22m wide and 0.09m deep, with gently sloping sides and a flat base, it was clearly heavily truncated. Ditch 962 was filled by a mid brown slightly clayey sandy silt, with occasional rounded grit inclusions. It contained no finds and has been dated to the Late Iron Age/Early Roman period based on the similarity of its form and alignment to other ditches of this period.

3.8 Undated Cremations 3.8.1 Two heavily truncated cremations were recorded c.50m apart on the site. These contained very little bone and no datable finds. Given the degree of truncation and the small quantity of bone recovered, it is impossible to positively categorise these features as true cremation burials although the small quantity of charcoal recovered suggests that they are not deposits of pyre debris.

Cremation 807 3.8.2 Cremation 807 (filled by 811 and 812) was sub-circular in plan with near vertical sides and a flat base. It had a maximum width of 0.70m and depth of 0.15m, and was clearly severely truncated. The upper fill, 811, was a soft, dark brownish grey, silty sand with very frequent charcoal inclusions. The lower fill, 812, was a moderately compact mid greyish brown clayey silt with occasional chalk gravel and rare charcoal inclusions. In total 25g of cremated bone was recovered from this feature (Appendix D.1).

Cremation 808 3.8.3 Cremation 808 (filled by 809 and 810) was circular in plan, had gently sloping sides and an uneven concave base. It had a diameter of 0.44m and a maximum depth of 0.06m. The upper fill, 809, was a loose, mid grey sandy silt with occasional charcoal and cremated bone inclusions. The lower fill was a loose, mid brown, sandy silt with occasional fragments of cremated bone. In total this feature contained only 60g of cremated bone.

© Oxford Archaeology East Page 17 of 64 Report Number 1085 3.9 Finds Summary 3.9.1 Although the finds assemblage from this excavation was not large, it contained a variety of artefacts, many of which are highly informative.

Pottery 3.9.2 Pottery of Earlier Neolithic to Early Roman date was recovered from the site. This included a large deposit of Mildenhall type pottery (1502g from one pit), and sherds of Deverel-Rimbury type vessels. A complete later Middle Iron Age bowl was recovered from burial 802 and an assemblage of 863 sherds of Late Iron Age to Early Roman pottery, weighing 4371g, mainly from enclosure 937.

Flint 3.9.3 The excavations at the site resulted in the recovery of 221 pieces of struck flint. The majority came from two discrete clusters of pits, but small quantities were also present in a number of other features that were scattered across the site. The material from within the discrete pit clusters can be dated on typological and technological criteria, as well as by associated pottery, to the Early Neolithic period and pieces of a similar tradition were also present in small quantities within later features, where they were likely to have been residually deposited. Some of the other features, of Bronze Age or later date, also contained small numbers of flakes, cores and retouched pieces that were technologically later than those from the pits and which may be contemporary with the features from which they were recovered.

Iron Objects 3.9.4 Three iron objects were recovered from the site, two of these are Medieval in date and were intrusive, while the other was not closely datable.

Other materials 3.9.5 A piece of weathered lava quern (512g in total), with no worked surfaces remaining, was recovered from ditch 836 . This was undiagnostic and as lava quern was in use from the Roman through to Medieval periods, does not acurately date the feature. 3.9.6 A whelk shell was recovered from the fill of enclosure 839 . This is the remains of an edible marine mollusc.

3.10 Environmental Summary

Human bone 3.10.1 Two crouched inhumation burials, one dated to the late Bronze Age, the other to the later Middle Iron Age, and two undated cremation burials were identified during the investigations.

Animal bone 3.10.2 A very limited faunal assemblage of just 6 countable bones was recovered from the Dimmock's Cote quarry excavation, with 17 fragments not identifiable to species. Identifiable material was recovered from three contexts. Fill 938 (of Middle bronze Age pit 939 ) contained shattered portions of cattle mandible and maxilla from an animal of around 5-6 years of age. Fill 931 (of Earlier Neolithic pit 932 ) contained a deciduous pig 3rd molar. A portion of butchered sheep/goat tibia was recovered from fill 857 (of Late Iron Age to Early Roman enclosure 839 ).

© Oxford Archaeology East Page 18 of 64 Report Number 1085 Environmental Samples 3.10.3 Thirty-nine bulk samples were taken for assessment of plant remains and for the complete retrieval of human bone from the grave of an inhumation (Cut number 802) and two cremations (Cut numbers 807 and 808). The samples showed only a very low abundance of charred material. However, those from one of the two cremations did provide identifiable remains of A. elatius ( False oat grass ). This is commonly found in Bronze Age cremations and is thought to originate from the uprooting of the plant to provide either fuel for the pyre or the creation of a wind-break around the pyre (Stevens, 1998)

4.1 Earlier Neolithic Pits 4.1.1 The two groups of three pits identified during this phase of excavation, together with a pair identified during previous excavations (Kemp and Kenney 2003;12), have similarities to other Early Neolithic pit groups. There have been many such sites identified, perhaps the best known being that of Hurst Fen, Norfolk, where over 200 pits were recorded(Clark et al. 1960). 4.1.2 More recent excavations at Kilverstone, also in Norfolk, revealed comparable pits, containing similar pottery (Garrow et. al. 2006). These were found in a far greater concentration and in structured groups which in some cases were seen to have been dug over a period of time (Garrow et. al. 2006, 75-6). While both of these sites contained far larger numbers of pits, the deposits within them show similarities to those from Wicken. All three sites are also located just off of the south-eastern fen-edge. 4.1.3 The function of Neolithic pits has been much debated, but the consensus of recent opinion is that these features were frequently dug for the purpose of receiving the deposits placed within them. These deposits may well have been derived from middens, explaining re-fits between pottery sherds being in differing condition within a single pit (Knight 2006a, 31,32). Such pits are often seen as related to the leaving of temporary settlements (for summary see Garrow et al 2006, 11). 4.1.4 The pits found on this site form two distinct groups, those within each having similar shapes, sizes and profiles. Pit group 1 contained far fewer finds; small quantities of worked flint and a pig molar. These pits may well have originally also contained organic remains, as may those in pit group 2. In pit group 2, pit 936 contained over 1.5kg of Mildenhall type pottery representing parts of at least three vessels, and a large assemblage of flint. The other pits in the group also, while containing less material, still held larger assemblages than those in Group 1. These two groups, with different finds and morphology, could be seen to represent different visits to the site by the same group, or possibly two different groups or individuals visiting the area at the same or different times.

4.2 Bronze Age Field System 4.2.1 Although only one short length of Bronze Age ditch ( 941 ) was excavated during this phase of excavation, it seems likely that this is a part of a wider Bronze Age field system. There were several, undated, small ditches identified during evaluation of the area around the current excavation (Kemp 2002). Perhaps the most relevant of these are ditches 768 and 770 , recorded in trench 11 (Kemp 2002; 20). These two opposing ditch terminals are on a similar alignment to ditch 941 and potentially represent a continuation of it. 4.2.2 That this ditch was cut by pit 939 , which contained Middle-Later Bronze Age pottery, would suggest that this system would be Middle Bronze Age in date. A potential field system of this date would not be unexpected, given the presence of Earlier Bronze Age activity and a probable barrow on the site, with other possible barrows, identified from aerial photographs, on adjacent fields. However, with so little of this system as yet excavated, close dating remains problematic. 4.2.3 It has previously been suggested that three areas of inter-cutting Bronze Age pitting, identified during earlier phases of excavation, serve in some way to 'delineate Bronze

© Oxford Archaeology East Page 20 of 64 Report Number 1085 Age activity areas' (Kemp and Kenney 2003;25). It is possible that these pits were dug up against existing, archaeologically invisible, boundaries. In the case of a line of irregular pits excavated in 1993 (Bray 1993, 5), these may actually represent a hedge line, with tree bowls and roots producing the irregularly shaped features which were observed.

4.3 Bronze Age Burial 4.3.1 The single, very tightly crouched burial 918 returned a radiocarbon date of 1130 – 900BC (95% probability SUERC-21616 (GU-17876)) which is further supported by the fact that this burial cut pit 939 which is Middle-Later Bronze Age in date. 4.3.2 Burials of this date and type are not common in the surrounding area, or indeed anywhere in Britain (Harding 2000; 75). However, While burials of this date are, at the moment, still very unusual, as more individuals are carbon-dated it is likely that more will be shown to have been buried in this period. 4.3.3 A further similar burial was recovered from a large posthole that formed part of a four post structure at Bradley Fen, Whittlesey, Cambridgeshire (Gibson and Knight 2006). This individual was in a better state of preservation and appeared to have been 'contorted into a ball' to make them fit into their undersized burial place ( ibid ; 34). However, pottery from associated features dates this burial to the Middle Iron Age. 4.3.4 The significance of such a burial is far from clear. That at Bradley Fen appeared to be a closing deposit, related to a four post structure going out of use ( ibid ; 34,35). Burial 918 was located right at the terminal of an earlier ditch that may have still been an active boundary of some form, however, there was no indication that the pit in which the burial was placed had served a different function prior to the burial. 4.3.5 The location of the burial in this area, close to a probable Early Bronze Age barrow and near to several other burials of prehistoric date is probably not coincidental. Although those who buried this individual may not have known that this was a place associated with burial, it may well have been a place of some significance.

4.4 Later Iron Age Crouch Burial 4.4.1 Inhumation burial has traditionally been seen as extremely rare in large parts of Iron Age Britain (eg. Hodson 1964). However, such a simplistic view is becoming increasingly difficult to support as the radiocarbon dating of individuals becomes more common (Haselgrove 2001; 5). The inhumation from Wicken, dated 350 – 30 BC (95% probability; 190 – 50 BC at 68% probability SUERC-21615 (GU-17875)), can be included with this increasing number of Iron Age inhumation burials. 4.4.2 There are several examples of radiocarbon dated Iron Age crouch burials from the region. These include the burial of an older female at Linton, Cambridgeshire, excavated during works in advance of buildings at Linton Village College, which has been radiocarbon dated to 360-160BC (95% probability) (Clarke R, pers. comm.). Another was found at Biddenham Loop, Bedfordshire dated to 415-170 cal BC (95% probability) (Luke 2008; 173). This individual, as with that at Wicken, was placed on their left side facing east. 4.4.3 Closer to Wicken, at West Fen road in Ely, two Iron Age Burials and a scatter of human bone was found (Mortimer et. al 2005 ;17). One of these was heavily disturbed, while the other was a crouch burial of a mature adult ?male, interred on his left side ( ibid ;89). Although neither burial had any grave goods and no radiocarbon dates have been obtained they were associated with well dated Later Iron Age features.

© Oxford Archaeology East Page 21 of 64 Report Number 1085 4.4.4 Also in Ely, at Prickwillow Road, two crouch burials, dated as Early Iron Age (5 th to 3 rd century BC), by associated pottery sherds, were recorded (Atkins and Mudd 2003). One of these individuals was a mature female, while the other was young adult male; both were buried on their left side facing east (Atkins and Mudd 2003, 10). At Fordham a further 3 inhumations were found, also probably crouched, together with Iron Age pottery (Whimster 1981; 228). 4.4.5 In spite of these examples, together with others from Cambridgeshire (e.g at Trumpington and St. Neots (Hinman pers. comm.)), no instances of Iron Age crouch burials with complete pottery vessels, could be identified. However, other general similarities are apparent. The majority of individuals buried during this period appear to have been older adults, and they are frequently buried lying on their left side. The Wicken burial, therefore, appears to be a slight variation within this group of Later Iron Age crouch burials. 4.4.6 Parallels to the pottery vessel include a complete pot recovered from Manor Farm, Newton Bromswold, Northamptonshire (Upson-Smith 2006) which is of an identical form. This was recovered from the base of an enclosure ditch of likely 1 st century BC to mid 1 st century AD date. A chalk spindle whorl was recovered from the same fill (Upton- Smith 2006, 7) and together these may represent a deliberate act of deposition close the a potential entrance to the enclosure. 4.4.7 At Wanlip, Leicestershire, a further similar vessel, although with a slightly different form where the wall meets the base, was recovered (Beamish 1998). This vessel was found in a pit associated with a potential four post structure, in the middle of which a cremation had been deposited (Beamish 1998, 28). The fact that both of these parallels, as with the example from Wicken, were found in unusual situations is not surprising in that without deliberate deposition such complete vessels would be unlikely to survive.

4.5 Later Iron Age/ Early Roman Field System 4.5.1 Several ditches of Later Iron Age/Early Roman date were identified, which appear to have been part of a wider field system of this date. 4.5.2 Ditch 897 is a continuation of one of the double ditches found across every phase of excavation so far, referred to as M450 in the 1996/7 excavation report (Kemp and Kenney 2003). These ditches were originally believed to be prehistoric (Bray 1992, 8,14) but were later re-interpreted as Roman features. 4.5.3 The presence of prehistoric pottery in ditch 897 is not surprising given the areas of prehistoric activity it cut through. However, this pottery can still be informative, towards the terminal of ditch 897 there was a concentration of Middle Iron Age pottery, in spite of no features of this date being identified in the vicinity. Potentially, therefore, this ditch cut through an area of Middle Iron Age activity was no longer archaeologically visible. This would be further supported by the presence of crouch burial 802 , recent excavations, at trumpington Park and Ride site, showing that Middle Iron Age burials were frequently located close to settlements (Hinman pers. comm). 4.5.4 Ditch 815 is on the same alignment as ditch 897 and has two ditches coming off it at right angles. All three of these ditches are heavily truncated and it is likely that these are the remnants of a more extensive system of fields. 4.5.5 This field system almost certainly relates to the potential area of Roman habitation to the west of the quarry. There are clearly cropmarks on this field (plate 1) as well as frequent finds of Roman material. While on site, the farmer of this field visited to

© Oxford Archaeology East Page 22 of 64 Report Number 1085 complain about the frequent visits of metal detectorists to this field damaging his crop. These frequent visits could also be a reflection of this being an area of Roman activity.

4.6 Later Iron Age/ Early Roman Structures or Enclosures 4.6.1 The oval enclosure 937 , as with all other features on the site, had clearly been truncated by Medieval and modern agriculture. Assuming the ditches continued with a similar profile for their original depth, the dimensions of the area enclosed would have been considerably smaller than the 7.5m by 5m of the excavated enclosure. This ditch, from the abraded state of the pottery (Appendix C.6) and the profile in some places (Fig. 10, S.33), appear to have been re-cut over a period of time spanning the Late Iron Age to Early Roman periods. The pottery recovered from the fills of the ditch is also significant in its quantity. It would appear that several broken vessel are represented, while there is very little pottery of the same date from anywhere else on this site or recovered from the previous excavations. 4.6.2 There was no obvious entrance to the enclosure, although it did shallow out on its eastern side and potentially a small entrance could have been located on this edge. It is also possible that any entrance was only narrow and marked by a shallowing and narrowing of the ditch. This situation would potentially allow people to cross, but not large animals. Thus keeping the area free from livestock while still allowing access. 4.6.3 The function of such a small enclosure is not easily determined. It may have been dug around a small building, such as a shepherd's hut, all traces of which have since been lost to truncation. However, it seems difficult to appreciate why such a substantial feature would be dug around so small a building and why there was not a significant break in the ditch to allow entrance to the building. 4.6.4 The ditch may also have been dug, not to form an enclosure, but rather to provide the material necessary to construct a mound. This could have formed a monument of some form, potentially an Early Roman barrow, positioned in a similar location to a probable Early Bronze Age barrow. However, this explanation does not account either for the large pottery assemblage or the re-cuts of the ditch over time; the lack of any associated burial would also argue against it. 4.6.5 The feature could potentially have had an agricultural function, perhaps acting as a hayrick. With hay piled inside the enclosure any rain could drain off into the ditch. However, not only are such features usually more circular, but also the ditch is very substantial for such a use, especially given the position of the feature at the top of a relatively well drained area. 4.6.6 There appear to be factors arguing against all of the potential interpretations which have so far been advanced to explain the function of this feature. It is possible that it was constructed for a purpose that is no longer understood. The lifespan of the feature, with several re-cuts and pottery spanning the Late Iron Age and Early Roman periods, would seem to have been long, perhaps over 200 years, so whatever the function it was not a one off event that resulted in it's construction. 4.6.7 The rectangular enclosure 839 is no less enigmatic. There is a distinct lack of dating evidence from any of the fills, with the only finds being a whelk shell, part of a Medieval horseshoe and three small (less than 1g each) fragments of pottery. The alignment of the enclosure is the same as that of the Late Iron Age/Early Roman field system, however this is also similar to the remnants of Medieval ridge and furrow, and thus the Medieval field system.

© Oxford Archaeology East Page 23 of 64 Report Number 1085 4.6.8 It could be argued from this evidence that this enclosure and the postholes within it represent a Medieval structure. However, several factors argue against this. The fill of the ditch and postholes was very pale and leached; paler than that of enclosure 937 , suggesting it is unlikely to be more recent. Also, if it were a medieval structure, in the middle of the fields and with no associated finds, other than the horseshoe fragment, it would have to be an agricultural structure. It would be very unusual to construct a small post-built agricultural structure surrounded by a rectangular ditch at this date. The potential for the surrounding ditch to represent a beamslot is considered unlikely, partly due to its rounded profile (Fig. 10 S.21) - If it were a beamslot the cut would be expected to be more square, especially as it is dug into chalk, and large amounts of weathering infill would not be expected. 4.6.9 The horseshoe fragment is small and heavy and could easily have found its way into the shallow ditch through bioturbation or ploughing, and if it is regarded as intrusive the remaining finds are of little help in providing at date. Two of the fragments of pottery appear prehistoric, while the third is potentially Roman. However, fragments this small and weathered can not be used to provide accurate dating. The only other find was a whelk shell ( buccinum undatum) , a species of marine snail. 4.6.10 The function of the enclosure, with few finds and no archaeobotanical evidence, is equally problematic. However, if the enclosure is seen as being part of the Later Iron Age/Early Roman activity on the site, then its plan does bear similarities to several Iron Age structures, often referred to as shrines or mortuary enclosures (e.g Wait 1985, 154- 78, Fitzpatrick 1997; 229). Given the location of this feature on the crest of a limestone ridge, in close proximity to potential funerary features of Early Bronze Age to Later Iron Age date, it would seem plausible to suggest that this enclosure served a mortuary function.

4.7 Medieval Agricultural System 4.7.1 Extensive evidence of the Medieval agricultural system in this area has been identified during previous phases of excavation, including the remains of ridge and furrow and a headland (Kemp and Kenney 2003). However, no evidence of the ridge and furrow cultivation system was recorded during the current excavations. This is potentially because the current area of excavation was outside the area of cultivation. It is also possible that the remains of this system have been removed by modern ploughing; the thin soils which covered this area and the relatively heavy truncation of earlier features may be indications of this.

4.8 Site development 4.8.1 The limestone ridge, on which this site sits, is an area which has experienced human activity from at least the Earlier Neolithic period onwards. This is not surprising given its location as an area that would have remained dry, near to a river and the resources of the wet Fens. 4.8.2 The nature of this activity, however, changed over time. During the Earlier Neolithic it is likely that people were visiting the site and potentially living there for short periods, as part of a semi-nomadic lifestyle. During the Bronze Age, settlement became more permanent, with field systems being laid out in some parts with formal ditches, in others with hedges and other archaeologically invisible boundaries. A more substantial system of ditches was created in the Late Iron Age/Early Roman period, probably related to a settlement in the adjoining field to the west of the site. This system was replaced during the Medieval period by a system of ridge and furrow cultivation.

© Oxford Archaeology East Page 24 of 64 Report Number 1085 4.8.3 During the Early Bronze Age a shallow ring ditch was dug, probably creating a barrow on the site along with others on the surrounding fields. This feature then appears to have acted as a focus for later interments of the dead. During the Later Bronze Age a single individual was chosen for burial in a small pit and placed in the ground in a very tightly crouched position. Again, during the Iron Age, a mature adult female was chosen for burial close to the site of the probable barrow. She was buried in a crouched position together with a pottery vessel. It also seems likely that during prehistory at least two further individuals were cremated and interred in this location. Whether those that carried out each of these burials knew that other burials had taken place in this area before is a matter for speculation, but it seems likely that the Early Bronze Age ring ditch provided a focus for this activity. It is also probable that the unusual Later Iron Age/Early Roman enclosures created on the site were situated with reference to this barrow 4.8.4 Definitive evidence for habitation on the site was not recorded during this phase of excavation, but potential Bronze Age structures have been identified previously. The quantity of Bronze Age pottery from the site as a whole, and the presence of Iron age pottery suggests the site may well have been occupied for some time during these periods.

4.9 Conclusions 4.9.1 This excavation has added to our understanding of the use of this limestone promontory in the Fen. Together with the previous excavations a pattern of varying land use from the Earlier Neolithic to the present day has been demonstrated. From probable occasional habitation in the early Neolithic, to an organised Medieval agricultural system the area has seen almost continuous human activity. 4.9.2 With further expansion of the quarry expected, there may be the opportunity to add further to this increasing body of archaeological evidence.

Context Cut Category Feature Type Length Width Depth Master Number 800 802 fill grave 1.1 0.76 0.46 802 801 802 Adult skeleton 0 802 802 802 cut grave 1.1 0.76 0.46 802 803 802 fill Pot 0 802 804 802 fill Pot 0 802 805 806 fill natural 0 9999 806806cut natural 0.8 0.4 0.1 9999 807 807 cut cremation 0.7 0.65 0.19 807 808 808 cut cremation 0.44 0.4 0.06 808 809 808 fill cremation 0 808 810 808 fill cremation 0 808 811 807 fill cremation 0 807 812 807 fill cremation 0 807 813 814 fill natural 2 1.75 0.19 9999 814 814 cut natural 2 1.75 0.19 9999 815 816 fill ditch 0 1 0.1 816 816816cut ditch 0 1 0.1 816 817 818 fill ditch 0 1 0.1 816 818818cut ditch 0 1 0.1 816 819 822 fill pit 0 822 820 822 fill pit 0 822 821 822 fill pit 0 822 822 822 cut pit 2.7 1.9 0.24 822 823 824 fill pit 0 1.5 0.2 824 824 824 cut pit 1.5 1.5 0.2 824 825 826 fill ditch 0 1 0.08 816 826826cut ditch 0 1 0.08 816 827 828 fill ditch 0 1 0.08 816 828828cut ditch 0 1 0.08 816 829 830 fill ditch 0 1.2 0.37 937 830830cut ditch 0 1.2 0.37 937 831 832 fill ditch 0 0.04 0.14 816 832 832 cut ditch 0 0.04 0.14 816 833 834 fill ditch 0 2.23 0.39 937 834 834 cut ditch 0 2.23 0.39 937 835 836 fill ditch 0.7 0.65 0.1 836 836 836 cut ditch 0.7 0.65 0.1 836 837 838 fill ditch 0 836 838 838 cut ditch 0.6 0.85 0.2 836

© Oxford Archaeology East Page 26 of 64 Report Number 1085 Context Cut Category Feature Type Length Width Depth Master Number 839 0master No enclosure 0 839 840 841 fill ditch 0 0.4 0.14 937 841841cut ditch 0 0.4 0.14 937 842 843 fill ditch 0 0.73 0.08 937 843 843 cut ditch 0 0.73 0.08 937 844 845 fill natural 0 9999 845 845 cut natural 0.6 0.25 0.18 9999 846 847 fill natural 0 9999 847 847 cut natural 0 9999 848 847 fill natural 0 9999 849 850 fill gully 1.1 0.72 0.12 839 850 850 cut gully 1.1 0.72 0.12 839 851852fill gully 1 0.62 0.1 839 852 852 cut gully 1 0.62 0.1 839 853854fill gully 1 0.34 0.06 839 854 854 cut gully 1 0.34 0.06 839 855856fill gully 1 0.52 0.09 839 856 856 cut gully 1 0.52 0.09 839 857858fill gully 1 0.47 0.09 839 858 858 cut gully 1 0.47 0.09 839 859860fill gully 0 0.51 0.1 839 860 860 cut gully 0 0.51 0.1 839 861862fill gully 0 0.73 0.25 839 862 862 cut gully 0 0.73 0.25 839 863864fill gully 0 0.35 839 864 864 cut gully 0 0.35 839 865 866 fill post hole 0.29 0.25 0.13 839 866 866 cut post hole 0.29 0.25 0.13 839 867 868 fill post hole 0.22 0.22 0.17 839 868 868 cut post hole 0.22 0.22 0.17 839 869 870 fill post hole 0.22 0.22 0.1 839 870 870 cut post hole 0.22 0.22 0.1 839 871 872 fill post hole 0.38 0.35 0.14 839 872 872 cut post hole 0.38 0.35 0.14 839 873 874 fill ditch 1 0.9 0.28 937 874874cut ditch 1 0.9 0.28 937 875 876 fill post hole 0.22 0.23 0.27 937 876 876 cut post hole 0.22 0.23 0.27 937 877 878 fill pit 1.2 1 0.04 937 878 878 cut pit 1.2 1 0.04 937 880 881 fill ditch 1 0.6 0.06 881 881881cut ditch 1 0.6 0.06 881

© Oxford Archaeology East Page 27 of 64 Report Number 1085 Context Cut Category Feature Type Length Width Depth Master Number 882 883 fill ditch 1 0.6 0.18 881 883883cut ditch 1 0.6 0.18 881 884 885 fill ditch 0.75 0.25 0.05 937 885885cut ditch 0.75 0.25 0.05 937 886 887 fill ditch 0.3 0.4 0.12 937 887 887 cut ditch 0.25 0.4 0.12 937 888 889 fill ditch 1 0.7 0.19 937 889889cut ditch 1 0.7 0.19 937 890 891 fill ditch 1 1.15 0.17 937 891 891 cut ditch 1 1.15 0.17 937 892 893 fill natural 0 0.4 0.16 9999 893893cut natural 0 0.4 0.16 9999 894 895 fill pit 0 0.5 0.45 895 895 895 cut pit 0 0.5 0.45 895 896 897 fill ditch 1.8 1.7 0.4 897 897897cut ditch 1.8 1.7 0.3 897 898 899 fill ditch 1 0.9 0.3 937 899 899 cut ditch 1 0.9 0.3 937 900 901 fill tree bowl 1.7 0.95 0.29 9999 901 901 cut tree bowl 1.7 0.95 0.29 9999 902 903 fill natural 1.3 0.95 0.13 9999 903 903 cut natural 1.3 0.95 0.13 9999 904 905 fill ditch 1 0.6 0.25 937 905905cut ditch 1 0.6 0.25 937 906 907 fill post hole 0.25 0.25 0.05 839 907 907 cut post hole 0.25 0.25 0.05 839 908 909 fill post hole 0.25 0.25 0.08 839 909 909 cut post hole 0.25 0.25 0.08 839 910 911 fill post hole 0.22 0.22 0.08 839 911 911 cut post hole 0.22 0.22 0.08 839 912 913 fill post hole 0.19 0.19 0.05 839 913 913 cut post hole 0.19 0.19 0.05 839 914 915 fill post hole 0.18 0.18 0.06 839 915 915 cut post hole 0.18 0.18 0.06 839 916 918 fill grave 0.65 0.56 0.05 918 917 918 skeleton grave 0 918 918 918 cut grave 0.65 0.56 0.05 918 919 920 fill ditch 1 0.54 0.05 881 920 920 cut ditch 0 0.54 0.05 881 921 922 fill ditch 1 0.5 0.05 881 922922cut ditch 0 0.5 0.05 881 923 924 fill furrow 1 0.5 0.05 881

© Oxford Archaeology East Page 28 of 64 Report Number 1085 Context Cut Category Feature Type Length Width Depth Master Number 924 924 cut furrow 0 0.5 0.05 881 925 926 fill ditch 0 897 926 926 cut ditch 1 897 927 928 fill ditch 1 1.6 0.34 897 928928cut ditch 0 1.6 0.34 897 929 930 fill pit 0.8 0.6 0.12 930 930 930 cut pit 0.8 0.6 0.12 930 931 932 fill pit 0.64 0.58 0.11 930 932 932 cut pit 0.64 0.58 0.11 930 933 934 fill pit 0.49 0.47 0.08 930 934 934 cut pit 0.49 0.47 0.08 930 935 936 fill pit 0.8 0.7 0.21 936 936 936 cut pit 0.8 0.7 0.21 936 937 master no 0 937 938 939 fill pit 1.4 1.35 0.22 939 939 939 cut pit 1.4 1.35 0.22 939 940 941 fill ditch 1.65 0.74 0.3 941 941941cut ditch 1.65 0.74 0.3 941 942 943 fill ditch 5 1.6 0.15 816 943943cut ditch 5 1.6 0.15 816 944 945 fill ditch 0.6 0.59 0.12 881 945 945 cut ditch 0.6 0.59 0.12 881 946 947 fill ditch 3 1.5 0.39 937 947947cut ditch 3 1.5 0.39 937 948 949 fill natural 1.5 1.15 0.06 9999 949 949 cut natural 1.5 1.15 0.06 9999 950 951 fill natural 1 1.28 0.13 9999 951 951 cut natural 1 1.28 0.13 9999 952 953 fill ditch 1 1.6 0.2 816 953 953 cut ditch 1 1.6 0.2 816 954 955 fill pit 0.8 0.7 0.28 936 955 955 cut pit 0.8 0.7 0.28 936 956 956 finds unit finds unit 0 937 957 958 fill ditch 1 0.4 0.14 816 958 957 cut ditch 1 0.4 0.1 816 959 960 fill ditch 1 0.4 0.14 816 960960cut ditch 1 0.3 0.08 816 961 962 fill ditch 1 1.22 0.09 962 962 962 cut ditch 1 1.22 0.09 962 963 964 fill post hole 0 0.18 0.04 839 964 964 cut post hole 0 0.18 0.04 839

© Oxford Archaeology East Page 29 of 64 Report Number 1085 APPENDIX B. F INDS Q UANTIFICATION Context Material Object Name Weight in kg 819 Flint Flint 0.03 820CeramicFired clay 0.00 820 Organic Charcoal 0.02 823 Ceramic Vessel 0.01 823 Flint Flint 0.00 829 Organic Shell 0.00 829 Ceramic Vessel 0.14 829 Organic Bone 0.00 829 Flint Flint 0.00 833 Ceramic Vessel 1.28 835Lava Formless fragment 0.51 837 Ceramic Vessel 0.01 840 Ceramic Vessel 0.07 845 Flint 0.00 845CeramicFired clay 0.01 845 Ceramic Vessel 0.00 846 Ceramic Vessel 0.00 846 Flint 0.00 846 Flint Flint 0.00 848 Bone Bone 0.00 848 Bone Bone 0.00 853 Ceramic Vessel 0.00 855 Flint 0.00 855 Bone Bone 0.00 855 Bone Bone 0.00 857 Bone Bone 0.01 861 Shell 0.02 861 Ceramic Vessel 0.00 863 Ceramic Vessel 0.00 863 Flint 0.03 871 Ceramic Vessel 0.00 873 Ceramic Vessel 0.02 882 Ceramic Vessel 0.00 890 Ceramic Vessel 0.42 890 Ceramic Vessel 0.41 890 Organic Shell 0.02 894 Ceramic Vessel 0.00 896 Flint Flint 0.08 896 Organic Bone 0.02 896 Ceramic Vessel 0.02

© Oxford Archaeology East Page 30 of 64 Report Number 1085 Context Material Object Name Weight in kg 896CeramicFired clay 0.00 898 Ceramic Vessel 0.08 904 Ceramic Vessel 0.09 916 Bone HSR 0.31 916 Ceramic Vessel 0.01 923 Ceramic Vessel 0.02 925 Ceramic Vessel 0.01 927 Organic Bone 0.00 927 Ceramic Vessel 0.00 927 Ceramic Vessel 0.01 927 Flint Flint 0.02 929 Flint Flint 0.00 929 Organic Bone 0.00 931 Flint Flint 0.07 931 Bone Bone 0.01 931 Ceramic Vessel 0.00 931 Ceramic Vessel 0.01 931 Flint 0.00 933 Flint Flint 0.00 935 Ceramic Vessel 0.16 935 Ceramic Vessel 0.15 935 Ceramic Vessel 0.19 935 Ceramic Vessel 0.16 935 Flint 0.00 935 Ceramic Vessel 0.00 935 Organic Bone 0.00 935 Ceramic Vessel 0.14 935 Ceramic Vessel 0.04 935 Ceramic Vessel 0.18 935 Stone Stone 0.07 935 Flint Flint 0.18 935 Ceramic Vessel 0.34 938 Ceramic Vessel 0.04 938 Stone Stone 0.02 938 Ceramic Vessel 0.02 938 Ceramic Vessel 0.12 938 Flint Flint 0.12 938 Organic Bone 0.37 938 Ceramic Vessel 0.05 938 Lava 0.05 938 Ceramic Vessel 0.07 940 Bone Bone 0.01

© Oxford Archaeology East Page 31 of 64 Report Number 1085 Context Material Object Name Weight in kg 940 Ceramic Vessel 0.00 941 Organic Bone 0.01 942 Flint Flint 0.02 942 Ceramic Vessel 0.07 946 Flint 0.00 946 Ceramic Vessel 0.29 946 Bone Bone 0.00 946 Flint 0.03 946 Bone Bone 0.00 946 Shell 0.03 946 Ceramic Vessel 0.01 946 Ceramic Vessel 1.42 946 Bone Bone 0.00 952 Ceramic Vessel 0.00 954CeramicFired clay 0.00 954 Ceramic Vessel 0.00 954 Flint 0.40 954 Ceramic Vessel 0.00 954 Flint 0.04 956 Ceramic Vessel 0.08 957 Ceramic Vessel 0.00 99999 Ceramic Vessel 0.00

C.1 Metal finds

By Nina Crummy

Introduction C.1.1 The objects consist of an iron nail, an iron horseshoe fragment and a horseshoe nail. Two, probably all three, items postdate the archaeological features found on the site and probably derive from medieval agricultural activity.

Discussion C.1.2 Too little of the horseshoe remains for it to be dated, but the narrow tip is turned up to form a right-angle calkin similar to those on Saxo-Norman and later medieval horseshoes (Clark 1995, fig. 80, 96, fig. 81, 100, 106 and 111, and fig. 87, 230). An medieval date for this fragment would match that of the horseshoe nail, which is of a type that appeared in the 13 th century ( ibid. , 87). The iron nail cannot be closely dated with certainty, but the majority of nails with small square heads are of medieval and later date.

SF 2, (863). Fill of gully 864. The heel of an iron horseshoe with a right-angle calkin at the tip, which retains the mark of a clinching tool on the inside of the bend. The upper end has broken across a rectangular nail hole set close to the outer edge. Length 62 mm, maximum width 24 mm.

SF 3. Unstratified. Iron horseshoe nail with blunt-ended expanded head and side ears to allow it to fit closely within a countersunk nail hole. Length (incomplete) 24 mm.

(829). Fill of ditch 830. Iron nail with small square slightly convex head. Length 108 mm.

By Barry John Bishop

Introduction C.2.1 The excavations at the site resulted in the recovery of 221 pieces of struck flint (Table 2). The majority came from two discrete clusters of pits, but small quantities were also present in a number of other features that were scattered across the site. The material from within the discrete pits clusters can be dated on typological and technological criteria, as well as by associated pottery, to the Early Neolithic period and pieces of a similar tradition were also present in small quantities within later features, where they were likely to have been residually deposited. Some of the other features, of Bronze Age or later date, also contained small numbers of flakes, cores and retouched pieces that were technologically later than those from the pits and which may be contemporary with the features from which they were recovered.

Methodology C.2.2 Each piece of struck flint was examined by eye and X10 magnification and catalogued by context according to a basic typological/technological scheme (see Appendix 1). All retouched implements and complete cores were further examined and described in greater detail (see Appendix 2 and 3). All metrical descriptions follow the methodology of Saville (1980).

Quantification Cores Flakes Flakes Flakes Blades struck flakes Unsystematic Decortication Chips (Flakes BrokenBlades Irregularmis- or Flake Fragments Blade-likeflakes SystematicBlades CoreRejuvenation Conchoidal Chunks Utilised/Retouched <15mmmax. diam.) Number 14 1 47 38 30 5 14 18 14 2 4 9 25 % 6.3 0.5 21.3 17.2 13.6 2.3 6.3 8.1 6.3 0.9 1.8 4.1 11.3 Table 2: Quantification of Lithic Material from the Site

C.2.3 The 221 pieces of struck flint were recovered from 20 separate contexts, the majority originating from two Neolithic pit clusters, [930]/[962]/[934] and [751]/[936]/[955], which supplied 174 out of the 221 pieces of struck flint that were recovered. Five pieces were recovered from the fills of a barrow feature of Early Bronze Age date whilst the remaining pieces came from the fills of various ditches, gullies and pits of Middle Bronze Age or later date.

Raw Material C.2.4 The raw materials used for all of the assemblage consisted of a recorticated fine- grained flint that retained a variably thick rough to smooth-rolled cortex and exhibited occasional thermal surfaces and flaws. Recent breaks reveal the flint to be translucent and black in colour. The raw materials appeared to comprise mostly small rounded pebbles and small nodular cobble fragments that were likely to have been locally obtained from alluvial terrace and mass-weathered superficial chalk deposits.

© Oxford Archaeology East Page 34 of 64 Report Number 1085 Complementing the small size of the raw materials, the majority of flakes measured less than 40mm in maximum dimension and the extant cores averaged only 28g in weight. A few of the retouched pieces from the pit clusters were notably larger, however, attaining a length of 70 - 80mm, and must have been knapped from substantially larger pieces of raw materials which may have been obtained from further afield.

The Neolithic Pit Clusters C.2.5 All of the pits in the two clusters produced struck flint with the exception of pit [751]. The largest quantities came from the southern cluster ([751]/[936]/[955]) as, whilst pit [751] did not contain any, pit [955] contributed 92 pieces and pit [936] a further 62 pieces. The pits in the northern cluster ([930]/[962]/[934]) all provided struck flint of similar technological characteristic to the two flint-rich pits in the southern cluster but in noticeably smaller quantities (see Table 3). Cores flakes Flakes Feature Context Pit Total Pit max.diam.) Broken Broken Blades FlakeFragments Blade-like flakes Systematic Blades ConchoidalChunks Utilised/Retouched DecorticationFlakes UnsystematicBlades Chips(Flakes <15mm Irregular mis-struck or Core Rejuvenation Core Flakes 929 P930 (N cluster) 2 2 931 P932 (N cluster) 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 13 933 P934 (N cluster) 2 1 1 1 5 935 P936 (S cluster) 3 7 11 7 4 6 5 7 1 2 9 62 954 P955 (S cluster) 4 1 32 10 13 1 6 10 5 10 92 Table 3: Quantification of Struck Flint from the Early Neolithic Pits

C.2.6 The assemblages from all of these pits were technologically and typologically homogeneous and can be firmly placed within the Early Neolithic period. The assemblages were clearly the product of blade-based reduction strategies, with unretouched blades contributing around a quarter of the overall assemblage from the pits. All stages in the reduction sequence were represented, from decortication flakes to used and worn-out tools. Nevertheless, only a small fraction of the material that would have been generated from the knapping activities was present and the assemblages within the pits must have represented a selection of pieces from a larger accumulation, perhaps middened material. There was nothing to indicate that the material was knapped into or dumped wholesale directly into the pits. Knapping waste, in the form of decortication, irregular and mis-struck flakes, chips, small trimming flakes, broken flakes and blades and conchoidal chunks, were all represented and formed a high proportion of the total. Chips (flakes less than 15mm in maximum dimension) were particularly well-represented in pit [955] where they formed over a third of its assemblage. C.2.7 As well as the blades, around a half of which could be considered systematically produced (these having parallel lateral margins and dorsal scars indicative of the repetitive manufacture of standardized blanks), the flakes were also predominantly thin and narrow and showed traits of skilled and considered production, such as narrow and carefully trimmed and occasionally abraded striking platforms, diffuse bulbs of percussion and feathered distal terminations. C.2.8 Also well-represented were retouched and evidently utilized pieces, which contributed nearly 13% of the total assemblage from the pits (Table 4). This proportion is notably

© Oxford Archaeology East Page 35 of 64 Report Number 1085 high and may be contrasted with other Early Neolithic sites in the region, where the retouched proportion rarely exceeds around 5-6% (eg see Bishop 2007, table 10).

Type Form Number Piercer Minimally modified 5 Arrowhead Leaf-shaped 1 Burin On break 1 Edge trimmed/worn Cutting implement 9 Scraper Long-end 1 Serrate 4 Sickle Single piece 1 Table 4: Quantification of Retouched Pieces from the Neolithic Pit Clusters

C.2.9 A wide range of retouched implements was present but blades dominated them or narrow flakes with light edge-retouching and probably relating to these were the serrated pieces. Both of these types varied considerably in size and shape but all appeared to have been used for cutting. Piercers were also well represented, these all being made on blades or narrow flakes with minimal retouch accentuating their converging distal ends or, in one case, an oblique snap. Surprisingly, only a single scraper, a notably thick blade with steep convex retouch on its distal end, was recovered, as along with serrates and edge-trimmed implements these often form the largest proportion of Neolithic tool inventories. A broken leaf-shaped arrowhead, a cultural marker of Early Neolithic industries, was recovered from pit [932]. This was a slender type (Green 1980) that had been competently made using pressure flaking that covered all of its dorsal face but was limited to around its tip on its ventral face, possibly as it may have snapped during manufacture. C.2.10 Perhaps the most notable piece, however, was the single-piece sickle or knife recovered from pit [936]. This was not particularly large for a sickle, only having a length of 85mm, and it did not exhibit all-over pressure flaking, but it consist of a characteristic large curved blade that had been bifacially thinned and blunted along its convex side and bulbar end, and serrated along its concave margin. The thinning and blunting may have aided handling or hafting, whilst small patches of gloss were present along its concave serrated side. These types form a characteristic, if somewhat rare, component of Neolithic assemblages and although initially regarded as primarily Later Neolithic implements (Clark 1932), they can now be firmly placed within the Early Neolithic period (eg Healy 1982). Further examples have been found within the Fens, such as at Fengate (Pryor 1974; 1980) and very similar examples, albeit termed knives, were recovered at Hurst Fen on the Fen edge (Clark et al. 1960, figs 51, 52). Also of interest was the burin which was a particularly delicate example and made on the bulbar end of a small laterally snapped flake C.2.11 Only a single core was present, a thermally fractured angular pebble with a handful of narrow flakes removed from two thermal surfaces, which was recovered from pit [932]. This apparent under-representation of cores may indicate either different discard practices, with cores being excluded from deposition within pits, or that the cores were taken from the site for continued use elsewhere.

Discussion of the Neolithic Pit Groups C.2.12 The two groups of pits produced the largest quantities of struck flint from the site and this consisted of a ‘classic’ Early Neolithic assemblage, which included a number of retouched blades, a leaf-shaped arrowhead and a single-piece sickle or knife. The assemblages are technologically comparable with similarly-dated assemblages from

© Oxford Archaeology East Page 36 of 64 Report Number 1085 other sites in the vicinity, such as the Early Neolithic material from Fordham (Mortimer and Connor forthcoming), Soham (Edmonds et al . 1999), Stow cum Quy (Bishop 2007) or the Great Wilbraham causewayed-enclosure (Edmonds 2006). The assemblages and their depositional circumstances, within small clusters of pits, can also be closely compared to the much larger Early Neolithic ‘pit’ sites in the region such as Hurst Fen (Clark et al. 1960) or Kilverstone (Beadsmoore 2006), which have been interpreted as periodically-occupied settlement sites. C.2.13 The depositional history of the material may also be comparable to that at Kilverstone; whilst the assemblages within each pit contained some refittable pieces and others were likely to have been knapped from the same nodules, it was clear that the pits only contained a small proportion of what must have been produced, and the presence of slightly abraded, burnt and broken pieces suggests that the material had spent some time within a primary depositional context, such as a midden or other accumulation of refuse, before finally being deposited into the pits. The number of pieces within each pit varied considerably but there was little evidence that the pits’ contents represented specifically selected assemblages; all of the pits contained primarily knapping waste, only a single core was present whilst the proportions of retouched pieces within all of flint-rich pits remained high, varying between 10% and 20%. Likewise, although the types and proportions of retouched implements did vary within individual pits, there was no evidence to indicate that specific implements were being concentrated within particular pits. C.2.14 The wide range of retouched types present does indicate that a variety of activities were conducted, but it was notable that there was a paucity of scrapers, which often form the principal implement type present within Early Neolithic assemblages. Instead, the assemblage was dominated by edge-trimmed pieces and serrates. Along with the presence of the sickle, which may have fulfilled a similar function to the serrates and edge trimmed implements, these may signify an importance during the occupation of cutting tasks, possibly including the processing of plant materials, which may include cereals although the processing of other plant materials, such as rushes, bracken or green wood, would also be plausible (eg Levi-Sala 1992). In this respect the assemblage is perhaps more comparable to the Early Neolithic assemblage from the hollow at Stow cum Quy, the retouched component of which was to an even greater degree dominated by serrates and edge trimmed or utilized pieces (Bishop 2007). The high proportions of retouched pieces and the dominance of cutting implements may indicate that, although a variety of range activities were undertaken, there was an emphasis on particular types of activities. This would accord well with Ashwin’s observations made during his survey of Neolithic sites in Norfolk, where he suggests, “at least some of these sites were specialized or seasonally occupied elements in a diverse settlement and economic regime ” (Ashwin 1996, 47), and suggests that the assemblage here may indicate a relatively mobile inhabitation of the whole landscape, where particular activities were undertaken where deemed appropriate and when and as needed.

The Barrow C.2.15 The encircling ditch of this feature produced two flakes and three conchoidally fractured chunks, the latter having all been burnt and which may have constituted a disintegrated core. Dating these pieces was problematic but there was nothing to suggest that they could not at least broadly contemporary with the initial use of the feature. Bearing in mind that mundane items were often incorporated into ritual or funerary practices, it is possible that these were directly associated with activities directly associated with the

Other Features C.2.16 The remainder of the assemblage was generally rather non-descript and recovered in small quantities from a variety of features, most of which dated to the Bronze Age or later. The struck flints from these features often exhibited similar technological traits to the pieces from the Neolithic pits and were likely to have been residually deposited from earlier activity at the site. Some flintwork that was possibly contemporary with the features included the assemblage from pit [939]. Eleven pieces were present in total, and included a number of thick or mis-struck flakes, a thick hard-hammer struck flake with light retouching or heavy use-wear along both of its margins, and four conchoidally fractured chunks that represented shattered minimally worked cores. Similarly, ditch [897] produced nine struck flints, some comparable to the material from the Neolithic pits, but these also included four hard-hammer struck thick and squat flakes that exhibited a distinctive bluish recortication and which technologically were most comparable with later second or first millennium industries (eg Young and Humphrey 1999). Also probably dating to within this range was a fragmented decortication flake recovered from ditch [928] which had a series of disparate and shallow flakes removed from one edge and which appeared to have been used as a crude chopping or cutting tool. A few other thick and crudely struck pieces were present amongst the material from the remaining features, suggesting that occasionally flintworking may have occurred within the later settlement. These included the remaining three cores that were found at the site, but there was little in the way of firmly dateable pieces or anything to suggest direct associations with the features. Taken together these pieces suggest that low-key and sporadic flintworking and use may have continued into the late second or first millennia BC. There was, however, no evidence that flintworking was being routinely practiced or that it formed an important aspect of material culture during these periods

By Mark Knight

Introduction and methodology C.3.1 Pottery from three phases of excavation was examined (1997, 2002 and 2008). The assemblage comprised 445 pieces (weighing 1904g) derived from ten different contexts. The condition of the material was reasonable with the collection being made up of mostly small crumbling pieces (MSW 4.3g). Some larger, diagnostic pieces were also present and feature sherds included 27 rim, 8 neck, 3 shoulder, 5 base and 15 decorated fragments. Six main fabric types were identified although one in particular (Fabric 1) constituted the greatest part of the assemblage (84.1% by weight).

No. of Contexts No. of Sherds Weight (g) Fabric Types MSW WIC DIC ‘97 1 4 4 5 1.0g WIC DIC ‘02 1 14 100 1 7.1g WIC DIC ‘08 8 427 1800 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 4.2g Totals: 10 445 1904g 6 (total) 4.3g Table 5: Assemblage Breakdown

C.3.2 The bulk of the material came from the 2008 excavation and from two contexts, [935] and [938], and it was these that produced almost all of the larger diagnostic or recognisable pieces. The first of these contexts contained pieces from several different Mildenhall vessels whilst the latter held parts of a diminutive Deverel-Rimbury type urn. Essentially, based on fabric and form, the assemblage can be separated into two distinct periods: Early Neolithic or later Bronze Age.

Mildenhall C.3.3 Context [935] produced 333 sherds of Mildenhall pottery weighing 1502g (MSW 4.5g). Much of the assemblage was made up of plain body sherds made in a very hard flint- rich fabric with frequent sand. The flint inclusions were poorly sorted and ranged in size between very small to occasionally very large chunks. The majority of the pieces shared the same very pale ochre colour with little definition between the external, core or internal surfaces. Occasionally however sherds had retained their colour and some of these displayed an assortment of internal and external slips. These slips transformed the surface textures of the sherds making them either less abrasive or even sometimes ‘soapy’. C.3.4 Diagnostic attributes included recognizable rim forms (simple, out-turned, externally thickened and expanded), familiar vessel forms (simple, carinated and S-profiled pots all with hemispherical bases) and occasionally archetypal decorative schemes (incised line and dot-motifs). Decoration was restricted to the finer carinated forms and to the rim, neck (vertical incised lines) and shoulder zones (rows of dots). One particular attribute that made the assemblage positively Mildenhall was three rim sherds belonging to a simple ‘bag-shaped’ vessel with a slight out-turned rim. This vessel was embellished with a single row of perforations (made before the pot was fired) which did not penetrate right through the pots wall. On the inside of the vessel the ‘perforations’ were revealed as a series raised bumps or protuberances (for a similar example see Pot M from the Mildenhall pit site at Kilverstone, Norfolk; Knight 2006a).

© Oxford Archaeology East Page 39 of 64 Report Number 1085 C.3.5 The 14 plain body sherds from [751] (Site Code WIC DIC 02) shared exactly the same fabric and appearance as the pale ochre pieces from [935] and must also be Mildenhall. C.3.6 A combination of fabric, form, and decoration situate the assemblage in the Early Neolithic and firmly within the Mildenhall tradition. Equivalent assemblages but of greater scale were found at the type-site Hurst Fen, Norfolk (Clark, Higgs & Longworth 1960), Kilverstone (Knight 2006a), and at Great Wilbraham, Cambridgeshire (Knight 2006b). The assemblages from Hurst Fen and Kilverstone came exclusively from small pits whilst the Great Wilbraham material was found within the ditch segments of a causewayed enclosure. Geographically the sites shared similar locations, with them all being situated just off of the south-eastern fen-edge. C.3.7 It appears that pit [935] yielded the fragmented remains of at least three Mildenhall vessels (a fine decorated carinated bowl, a coarse ‘perforated’ simple bowl and at least one plain and slightly S-shaped profiled vessel with a rolled-over out-turned rim). Combined these fragments weighed 1502g. Out the 138 pits excavated at Kilverstone that contained pottery only six produced more than 1000g. Of these six three pits held the fragmented remains of three vessels whilst two held more than five. Importantly, none of the 138 pits contained ‘complete’ vessels and many vessels were represented by just one or two pieces. Frequently parts of the same vessel were found distributed amongst adjacent pits and occasionally refitting pieces were found to have different post-breakage histories (i.e. fresh, burnt and weathered sherds could be conjoined to each other; Garrow, Beadsmoore & Knight 2005). Through the pattern of refits and post-breakage histories it was established that the sherds had been ‘stored’ or accumulated along with other materials prior to being buried in pits. There was, it seems, a delay between the pot breaking and its remains being deposited in the ground. Although less evident, it would appear that the pieces from [935] shared a similar trajectory with fresh sherds (those retaining their slips and differential colours between the external core and internal surfaces) being buried alongside burnt or weathered pieces (those without their original surfaces and of a uniform pale ochre colour). A search for refits between these different types of sherds would help to confirm this possibility.

Deverel-Rimbury and Late Bronze Age C.3.8 Context [938] produced 77 sherds weighing 280g (MSW 3.6g). The sherds could be divided into three different fabrics (F2, F3 and F6). Diagnostic pieces included an internally bevelled rim sherd from a diminutive barrel-shaped ‘urn’ that was ‘decorated’ with a single row of small diameter perforations that had been made prior to the vessel being fired. The perforations were located just below the rim and formed a characteristic cordon common on Deverel-Rimbury type vessels (see Longworth, Ellison and Rigby 1988 for multiple examples). C.3.9 A bevelled rim sherd from an even smaller urn of similar form was also present in [938] and it too had a pre-firing perforation. Small base angle fragments of the same fabric probably belonged to this vessel. C.3.10 As well as fragments of small urns the context also produced a tiny pinched-out rim and a single extremely thin-walled body sherd made in a very compact and well made fabric (F6). It is possible that the thin-walled piece is intrusive although pieces of delicate cups of a comparable fabric have been found in Late Bronze Age or Post Deverel-Rimbury assemblage elsewhere in Cambridgeshire (Brudenell 2008; Needham 1996). C.3.11 The combination of Deverel-Rimbury (traditionally seen as a Middle Bronze Age ware) and Post Deverel-Rimbury ceramics within the same assemblage might seem

© Oxford Archaeology East Page 40 of 64 Report Number 1085 somewhat problematic. Increasingly however, Deverel-Rimbury forms are being found in features with unambiguous Late Bronze Age radiocarbon determinations (Knight 2002). C.3.12 The small fragments and crumb from contexts [931], [916] and [871] were made in fabrics also present within [938]. Context [580] (Site Code WIC DIC 02) contained 4 sherds (weighing 4g) that made up part of a base angle with a slight pinched out foot. Its fabric (F5) could be seen to be consistent with the other later Bronze Age ceramics.

Fabric Series:

F1 – hard with common to frequent small-medium, poorly sorted flint and common sand. Mildenhall

F2 - hard with common medium grog, moderate flint and frequent sand. Deverel-Rimbury

F3 - very hard with frequent small (well crushed flint) and common to frequent sand. LBA

F4 - Medium with common small grog and small rounded chalk. LBA

F5 - Hard with frequent small grog and moderate sand. LBA

F6 – Very hard and compact with common small sand. LBA

By Rob Law

Introduction and methodology C.4.1 A complete base, several body sherds and half the circumference of the collar is what remained of this small, partially reconstructable, Collared Urn, recovered during the 1997 excavation. The vessel appeared to be rather crudely formed, having an uneven rounded rim and slightly distorted mouth. The outer surface of the vessel, close to the base, appeared to have indentations caused by the potter’s thumb pinching the sides of the vessel during construction; something which also occurred on part of the base. The urn is likely to have originally been bipartite (see discussion below).

Dimensions: Diameter of base: 5.8cm Diameter of mouth (upper rim – external measurement): 9.0cm Diameter of the lower rim of collar (external measurement): c. 10cm Depth of collar: 5.0cm Estimated height: c. 10.5cm (see discussion below).

Fabric: Hard sandy fabric containing numerous grog inclusions: some up to 8mm in length. Natural inclusions include a small stone, 6mm in length, and a small fossil (crinoid?).

Decoration: Collar - vertical rows of small circular impressions resembling fine tooth comb decoration, but appearing to have been made individually with a rounded point. Up to 10 dots per row: each row approximately 8-10mm apart. There is no decoration visible on any other areas of the vessel.

Context Number Weight MSW 573 19 143g 7.5g Table 6: Assemblage Breakdown Discussion C.4.2 As part of my recent PhD research (Law 2008), 59 complete/ semi-complete Collared Urns, recovered from funerary contexts in Cambridgeshire, were divided into three groups (A, B and C) based on their base to mouth ratio and height. Vessels within each group were found to share certain traits/characteristics, particularly in terms of their shape and form, the type and range of decorative motifs they carried, the range and types of techniques used to create their decoration, and the areas of the vessel that were decorated. Although detailed contextual evidence was often lacking, particularly for smaller vessels - an indication perhaps of the ways and places in which they were deposited – there were similarities in the way in which vessels had been used and/ or deposited. C.4.3 The vessel from Wicken fits comfortably within Group A: vessels measuring under 20cm tall, with a base to mouth ratio of 1:2 and under. The vessel has a base to mouth ratio of 1:1.5 and, based on its extant height and comparison to other Group A vessels, is estimated to have been around 10.5cm tall and of a bipartite form (see the reconstruction below). While both bipartite (body and collar) and tripartite (body, neck and collar) forms are present within Group A, the necks of tripartite vessels are rarely well defined. The majority of Group A vessels also tend to be quite small and rather squat: simple forms, sparsely decorated – often created using just one decorative technique and applied to one or two zones. While twisted cord decoration predominates, the use of combs (or comb-like decoration) and other tools, is also common. Vessels possessing comb-point decoration, or decoration resembling comb-

© Oxford Archaeology East Page 42 of 64 Report Number 1085 point, do not occur in Group B and Group C. Undecorated vessels are also more common in Group A. From the available evidence, it would seem that most Group A vessels were recovered from barrow contexts, though a small number were found in other burial contexts including a cemetery, cremation pit and flat grave. While nine of the 28 vessels belonging to Group A were found associated with a cremation burial, six were found with no burial association (vessels often described as having been empty). While two of the ten vessels in Group B were also found to have been empty, none of the 21 vessels from Group C were. C.4.4 Interestingly, a number of Group A vessels appear distorted, something which may have been caused by having been fired to very high temperatures. It has been suggested that one of the vessels in Group A, a vessel from Melbourn, may have been re-fired - perhaps on a funerary pyre (Barclay 2002: 93-95). Group A vessels appear to have been used in rituals that were not directly associated with the burial of cremated remains. The fact that this vessel appears to have been recovered in a fragmentary state, with no apparent association with human remains, fits well with the use of these small vessels in rituals not associated with burial.

Figure 12: Sketch reconstruction of the WIC DIC ’97 Collared Urn (Height: c. 10.5cm; Collar diameter: c. 10.0cm)

By Matt Brudenell

Introduction and methodology C.5.1 A complete later Middle Iron Age bowl was recovered from grave cut [802]. The bowls was found in association which a crouched inhumation, which has been radiocarbon dated to 350-30 BC (95% confidence; SUERC-21615 2110 ± 40 BP). The handmade vessel is intact, but has a single vertical crack which runs from the rim to the foot (occurring after deposition). The pot weighs 1007g, and is 14cm high with a mouth diameter of 13cm, and base diameter of 9cm. It displays a slightly globular, bi-conical profile with a low rounded-shoulder and in-sloped neck. The rim is essentially where the vessel wall ends, and is not treated as a distinct entity. It has, however, been flattened, causing the clay to lip externally in places. Overall, the form of this bowl is not very typical of later first millennium BC ceramics. Typologically, it can be assigned to either JD Hill’s Form K or M groups, though it fits awkwardly into both these categories. The dense sand-tempered fabric is more characteristic of the period, and contemporary assemblages from the south-western fen-edge, the Isle of Ely and southern Cambridegshire tended to be dominated by plain sandy wares such as this (Hill & Horne 2003). The external surface of the bowl has been carefully smoothed, and is predominantly dark brown in colour. Slight traces of sooting on the exterior surface imply that it was used prior to deposition. There is also a chip on the internal edge of the rim which suggests use-ware. C.5.2 Outside of Late Iron Age cremation contexts, complete Iron Age vessels are extremely rare. The vessel requires illustration and should also be photographed.

By Katie Anderson

Introduction and methodology C.6.1 An assemblage totalling 863 sherds of pottery, weighing 4371g and representing 7.37 EVEs, was recovered from the site. All of the material was examined and details of fabric, form, EVE (Estimated Vessel Equivalent) and date were recorded, along with any other information considered important, such as decoration and usewear evidence. The vast majority of the material is Late Iron Age and early Roman in date, although there was evidence of earlier activity in the form of residual sherds, including several Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age flint-tempered sherds, some Middle Iron Age vegetable- tempered sherds and one possible Bronze Age sherd (Brudenell pers comm.)

Assemblage Composition C.6.2 The assemblage primarily comprised small to very small sherds (up to 5cm), which were often heavily abraded, reflected in the low mean weight of just 5g. This therefore meant much of the assemblage was non-diagnostic, and even when sherds from a single vessel were recovered, the number of refits possible was greatly reduced due to the level of abrasion. However, as Table 7 shows, some vessel forms were identified. Jars were the most frequently occurring form, thus fitting a typical pattern of Late Iron Age/Roman assemblages. Within this category there was a range of jar types, which includes Iron Age and Roman forms, as well as those which can be classed as ‘Romanising’, comprising a combination of Roman form but with a fabric/production techniques more commonly associated with Late Iron Age traditions. There were a number of handmade Late Iron Age jars, which tended to comprise plain rims and slightly everted rim types. The Romanising and early Roman forms were dominated by necked, beaded rim types, which came in a variety of sizes, from wide mouth jars, up to 22cm in diameter, to some very small jars.

Form No. Wt(g) EVEs Beaker 105 250 0.72 Beaker/Jar 17 68 0.15 Bowl 18 84 0.15 Jar 134 1196 3.45 Base (form unclear) 39 592 2.33 Rim (form unclear) 16 44 0.57 TOTAL 329 2234 7.37 Table 7: All diagnostic pottery by form

C.6.3 Beakers were fairly well represented in terms of number of sherds, although this figure may be slightly misleading since the colour-coated vessels of which there was a minimum of three vessels represented, accounted for most of this total. This included one indented beaker with rouletted decoration and one short beaded beaker. Other vessel forms were poorly represented, including just 18 bowl sherds and 17 beaker/jar sherds, although this included two beaded bowls, dating 2 nd -3 rd century AD, which are some of the latest dating sherds. This is in large likely to be due to the poor condition of the assemblage. However, it is also probable that the date of the assemblage affected the composition, as although there are a small number of later Roman sherds, the

© Oxford Archaeology East Page 45 of 64 Report Number 1085 majority of the material dates to the mid 1 st century AD, at a time when Cambridgeshire did not tend to get much material from the early pottery industries such as Verulamium, which would have provided many of the new Roman vessel forms such as flagons, platters and mortaria. It should also be considered however, that the absence of these vessels may be related to the status/wealth of the site. C.6.4 Decoration on sherds was minimal and with the exception of the colour-coated sherds, was restricted to combing and rilling on coarseware jars, although a number of sherds were burnished, including a small number of Late Iron Age sherds which were burnished to create a ‘polished’ finish.. This is not unexpected from an assemblage of this date. Very little evidence for usewear was identified, although this is due in large, to the condition of the assemblage. C.6.5 A variety of fabrics were present in the assemblage (see Table 8), of which sandy reduced wares were the most commonly occurring, followed by sandy greywares and black-slipped wares. That sandy wares dominated the assemblage is not unexpected in this area. Other tempers were less frequent, with just 29 shell-tempered sherds and 18 grog-tempered sherds. It is likely that most of the vessel fabrics would have been produced locally, although few sources are identifiable. The early Colchester colour- coated sherds were well represented, although as discussed above, the sherds have come from a small number of vessels, although the condition of the sherds meant few refits were possible. The lack of wares from established sites is not uncommon in Cambridgeshire in the early Roman period, as the big local industries such as the Nene Valley and Horningsea had yet to be established and pottery production was on a much more local basis. The lack of Samian is not unusual given the date of the assemblage, although this may also relate to the local trade networks, or the relative wealth of the site.

Fabric No. Wt(g) EVEs Black-slipped 111 665 0.45 Buff sandy 1 2 0 Early Colchester Colour-coat 95 228 1.22 Coarse sandy greyware 125 879 1.3 Coarse sandy reduced 4 23 0 Fine sandy greyware 39 149 0.51 Fine sandy oxidized 1 2 0 Grey-slipped 2 40 0.1 Grog-tempered 18 188 0.17 Red-slipped 1 3 0 Micaceous greyware 4 28 0.09 Micaceous sandy ware 20 96 0 Oxidised sandy 46 243 0.31 Reduced sandy ware 316 1548 2.85 Sandwich-fired black-slip 20 85 0.17 Shell-tempered 29 137 0.2 TOTAL 832 4316 7.37 Table 8: All Late Iron Age and Roman pottery by fabric Feature Analysis C.6.6 Table 9 shows the total quantities of material by context. Within this three contexts stand out as containing larger than average quantities of material (833 with 227 sherds, 890 containing 167 sherds and 946 containing 335 sherds). All three of these contexts

© Oxford Archaeology East Page 46 of 64 Report Number 1085 came from a single feature, the large oval enclosure, which also produced pottery from further slots, totalling 95% of the total assemblage. Interestingly the three contexts containing the largest quantities of material were all located at the eastern end of the enclosure. C.6.7 There were a number of cross-context refits; or at least sherds which were certainly from the same vessels, and had the material not been so worn and abraded, it is probable that the sherds from this feature would have comprised a smaller number of semi-complete vessels, as opposed to a large number of different vessels. This is of particular interest when combined with the poor condition and small size of the sherds, which on its own could be interpreted as being a result of the sherds lying on the surface for a period of time before being deposited. However the occurrence of sherds from the same small number of vessels contradicts this view and instead suggests secondary deposition, perhaps as a result of a number of re-cuts of the feature, since the pottery seems unlikely to have travelled far, unless there was a single ‘cleaning out’ event. The vast majority of sherds from this feature date to the Late Iron Age and early Roman period, with the exception of two Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age sherds, which are likely to be residual.

Context No. Wt(g) EVEs 823 1 9 0 829 45 142 0.26 833 227 1278 3.15 837 1 5 0 863 1 1 0 873 1 17 0 882 1 2 0 890 167 834 1.1 896 4 19 0 898 22 88 0.44 904 27 81 0.3 925 7 14 0 927 4 14 0 942 5 73 0.1 946 335 1707 1.8 952 1 2 0 956 8 81 0.22 957 6 4 0 TOTAL 863 4371 7.37 Table 9: All pottery by Context

C.6.8 The remaining sherds came from a number of features, although the quantities were much smaller, with most containing fewer than five sherds, with the exception of two further ditches. One ditch contained 15 sherds and while one of the contexts produced Late Iron Age/early Roman material (896), one produced three Middle Iron Age sherds, alongside an early Roman sherd (927), while the third produced solely Middle Iron Age pottery, albeit only seven sherds (925). C.6.9 20 sherds were recovered from slots through another ditch, of which three contexts contained Late Iron Age and Early Roman pottery (942, 952, 956), while the fourth (957) contained one early Roman sherd alongside three Middle Iron Age sherds (Brudenell pers comm.).

© Oxford Archaeology East Page 47 of 64 Report Number 1085 Discussion C.6.10 The pottery suggests the main period of occupation in this area of the site was the Late Iron Age and early Roman period. Most of the pottery is likely to have been made locally. C.6.11 One of the most interesting elements of this assemblage is that the pottery primarily dates to the transition from the Late Iron Age to the early Roman period, with handmade Iron Age forms occurring alongside ‘Romanising’ sherds. This is not unusual in Cambridgeshire, and there are examples of similar assemblages from sites such as Addenbrooke’s in southern Cambridgeshire (Anderson in Evans: 2008) and Longstanton to the north of Cambridge (Anderson in Evans 2006), amongst others, that show pottery in the Late Iron Age tradition occurring alongside the earliest Roman pottery. It is suggested therefore that the probable peak in this assemblage was between c. AD30-60, before any of the large, local pottery industries began. The lack of imports is therefore most likely to be a reflection of the date of the site. C.6.12 The pottery suggests a short but intensive period of occupation in the Late Iron Age and early Roman period, although residual Bronze Age and Early Iron Age sherds, suggest there was activity prior to this. The beaded bowl sherds were the latest dating sherds in the assemblage, broadly dating 2 nd -3 rd century AD, although given the nature of the remained of the assemblage a date towards the earlier end of this scale seems appropriate. The lack of any definite later material suggests a terminus post quem of early-mid 2 nd Century AD.

D.1 Human Bone

By Natasha Dodwell

Introduction D.1.1 Two crouched inhumation burials, one dated to the late Bronze Age, the other to the later Middle Iron Age, and two undated cremation burials were identified during archaeological investigations at Dimmock's Cote, Wicken. The results of the osteological analysis are presented below and summarised in the table at the end of the report.

Preservation of the material D.1.2 The preservation of the inhumations is poor to moderate, which inhibits the information that can be gleaned. Skeleton [801] is moderately preserved with just over 50% of the skeleton surviving. All of the limb bones survive but without the articulating ends, the skull is well preserved although the face, including the maxilla is missing, only a fragment of the left pelvis could be examined and the thoracic region and extremities survive predominantly as splinters and small fragments. Skeleton [917] is far less well preserved with c. 25% of bones surviving. All of the limbs survive but are extremely fragmented and without joint surfaces. The skull is represented only by 23 loose teeth and a fragment of the frontal bone. Insects/small roots have etched the cortical bone of both skeletons. D.1.3 Both deposits containing cremated bone were truncated and the surviving burnt bone fragments are predominantly small, the majority being between 5 and10mm.

Methodology D.1.4 Osteological analysis followed standard procedures (Brickley and McKinley 2004). An inventory was made of all of the bones and teeth recovered from the two inhumation burials. The age of each individual was determined, where possible from the stage of dental eruption and the degree of molar attrition (Ubelaker 1989, Brothwell 1981), and an estimate of sex from sexual dimorphic characteristics of the skull and pelvis. Each of the deposits containing cremated human bone was 100% sampled on site and this bulk sample was then wet sieved and passed through a stack of graded sieves (10mm, 5mm and 2mm). Bone was separated from the gravels and pea-grits, weighed and analysed.

Results D.1.5 Skeleton [801] is a mature adult female with osteoarthritic changes on her neck and lower spine. She had lost a minimum of four teeth before she died and, slight to moderate deposits of mineralised plaque were recorded on the surviving dentition. D.1.6 Skeleton [917] is a middle adult and with the exception of the three caries that were recorded, no pathological changes were observed. D.1.7 Radiocarbon dates have been obtained for both of the skeletons. Skeleton [801], who was buried crouched on her left side with a pot beside her head has been dated to 210- 30 BC (88.6% confidence). The grave is seemingly isolated in the landscape, but this is not an uncommon tradition in the later Iron Age e.g. the crouched ?female burial at Linton (Clarke forthcoming). Skeleton [917], had been buried in a very tightly crouched

© Oxford Archaeology East Page 49 of 64 Report Number 1085 position in a small pit, and has been dated to 1130-900BC (95.4% confidence). The size of the pit and the position of the body is reminiscent of the mature male excavated at Bradley Fen which was found tightly crammed into a large posthole measuring between 0.4-0.67m diameter (Gibson and Knight 2006). D.1.8 The two deposits of cremated bone were identified approximately 50m from each other and are of unknown date. Both features are shallow and have been heavily truncated, meaning that an unknown quantity of bone is likely to have been lost. Cut [807] contained 25g of bone <5mm, cut [808] contained 60g. In both cases the majority of the bone was recovered from the upper fill, which also contained small charcoal fragments. The bone fragments in cut [808] are buff white in colour, whereas about half of those in cut [807] are black suggesting lower temperatures and/or a poorly managed pyre. In both cases the bone fragments are small, the largest being only 33mm but limb shafts, skull fragments and teeth are identifiable. Given the degree of truncation and the small quantity of bone recovered it is impossible to positively categorise these features as true cremation burials although the small quantity of charcoal recovered suggests that they are not deposits of pyre debris.

Skeleton Cremati Depth of Position of body Weight of bone Age & Sex comments No. on grave >5mm * [801] 0.46m Crouched on left Mature adult female OA in spine, AMTL, side (45yrs+) calculus Pot beside head [917] 0.05m Tightly crouched Middle]adult (35-45yrs caries Cut 0.15m 25g (41g) Older Frequent poorly [807] subadult/adult fired bone frags. Cut 0.06m 60g (81g) Older Small quantity of [808] subadult/adult charcoal *Weights in brackets include the cremated bone from the 2mm sieved fraction Table 10: Summary of human bone

By Chris Faine

D.2.1 Only 6 countable bones were recovered from the Dimmock's Coate quarry excavation, with 17 fragments not identifiable to species. Identifiable material was recovered from three contexts. Contexts 829 , 848 , 896 , 927 , 929 , 935 , 940 & 946 contained no identifiable elements. Context 938 contained shattered portions of cattle mandible and maxilla from an animal of around 5-6 years of age. Context 931 contained a deciduous pig 3 rd molar. A portion of butchered sheep/goat tibia was recovered from context 857 .

By Rachel Fosberry.

Introduction D.3.1 Thirty-nine bulk samples were taken for assessment of plant remains and for the complete the retrieval of human bone from the grave of an inhumation (Cut number 802) and two cremations (Cut numbers 807 and 808) D.3.2 Features sampled include secure archaeological contexts within pits, ditches and cremations dating primarily from the Neolithic through to the Roman period.

Methodology D.3.3 The volume of bulk soil samples collected was between 5 to 110L. The total volume of each sample were processed by water flotation for the recovery of charred plant remains, dating evidence and any other artefactual evidence that might be present. The flots were collected in a 0.5mm nylon mesh and the residues were washed through a 1mm mesh. Both flot and residue were allowed to air dry. The dried residues were passed through 5mm and 2mm sieves and a magnet was dragged through each resulting fraction prior to sorting for ecofacts (e.g. animal bone, fish bone, charcoal, shell, etc..) and artefacts. Any artefacts present were noted and reintegrated with the hand-excavated finds. The flot was examined under a binocular microscope at x16 magnification. Identifications were made by the author without comparison to the OA East reference collection and should be seen as provisional. Nomenclature for the plant classification follows Stace (1997).Dimmock's Cote, Wicken, Cambridgeshire

Quantification D.3.4 Table 11 summarises the results obtained

Results

Preservation D.3.5 The plant remains were preserved by carbonisation.

Plant Remains

Cereals D.3.6 Charred cereal grains are present in quantities of one or two specimens in three samples. Preservation is poor.

Other plant remains D.3.7 A single charred tuber of Arrhenatherum elatius (False oat grass) was recovered from Sample 9 from cremation 808.

Charcoal D.3.8 The majority of the flots were devoid of charcoal. The three notable exceptions are from the cremation samples. Cremation 807 contained a total of approximately 500ml charcoal fragments measuring up to 3cm. The second cremation contained far less charcoal (approximately 10ml). Eight of the residues contained charcoal fragments

Ecofacts and Artefacts

Bone D.3.9 Three samples contained fragments of animal bone.

Pottery D.3.10 Small sherds of pottery were recovered from nine of the residues.

Flint D.3.11 Flint debitage was present in eight of the samples. Sample 38 taken from a Neolithic pit was notably rich in worked flints.

Contamination D.3.12 Modern roots were present in most of the samples

Discussion D.3.13 A. elatius i s commonly found in Bronze Age cremations and is thought to originate from the uprooting of the plant to provide either fuel for the pyre or the creation of a wind- break around the pyre (Stevens, 1998) D.3.14 The few charred cereal grains in this assemblage have been tentatively indentified as prehistoric wheat. Their morphology suggests that they are either Emmer ( Triticum dicoccum ) or Spelt ( T. spelta ) wheat.

Conclusions and recommendations D.3.15 The samples showed only a low abundance of charred material. D.3.16 The charcoal recovered from cremation 807 could be could be useful for dating purposes for which species id would be necessary. Further analysis of this material could potentially provide information on pyre technology. The variation between the charcoal content of the two cremations may be significant and could indicate different funerary practice.

© Oxford Archaeology East Page 53 of 64 Report Number 1085 v.draft Charcoal > 2mmCharcoal Sample Size (L) Flot Volume (ml) Charcoal <2mmCharcoal Feature TypeFeature Flint debitage Large animalLarge Context No.Context Sample No. Cereals Cut No.Cut Pottery bones CBM

Comments Flot comments Residue comments 1 800 802 Grave fill Sample from around head area 1 0 0 0No cpr 0 0 0 0 2 800 802 Grave fill Sample from thorax 1000No cpr 0000 3 800 802 Grave fill Sample from below legs/ feet 1 0 0 0No cpr 0 0 0 0 4 800 802 Grave fill 10 Around hand on East side of cut 1 000No cpr 0000 5 800 802 Grave fill 10 Soil under body 1000No cpr 0000 Grave pot 6 803 802fill Top fill of pot vessel in grave 1 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 Grave pot 7 804 802fill Basel fill of pot vessel in grave 1 0 0 0No cpr 0 0 0 0 Cremation 8 809 808fill 5 Upper fill of cremation containing some burnt bone 10 0 ++ ++ charcoal up to 1cm 0 0 0 0 Cremation 9 810 808fill 5 Low er fill of cremation containing some burnt bone 1 0 0 0Tuber - A.elatis? 0 0 0 0 Cremation 10 811 807fill 8 Upper fill of cremation contains cremation bone 250 0 ++ +++ charcoal up to 2cm 0 0 0 0 Cremation 11 812 807Fill 30 Low er fill of cremation, small amount of bone 300 0 ++ +++ charcoal up to 3cm 0 0 0 0 12 819 822 Pit fill 10 Burnt material, pos. cremation pit, charcoal 1 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 no charcoal in residue 13 820 822 Pit fill 20 burnt material, base of upper fill of crem. 1 0 ++ + 0 0 + 0 frequent charcoal (not removed) posthole 14 844 845fill 20 100 0No cpr 0++0+ 15 846 847 pit fill 10 1 0 0 0No cpr 0 + 0 + some charcoal (not removed) 16 848 847 pit fill 20 1 0 0 0No cpr + 0 0 0 some charcoal (not removed) 17 927 928 ditch fill 20 pos. late iron age, early roman. 1 + 0 0 half a grain 0 + 0 0 18 929 930 pit fill 30 1000No cpr 0000 19 931 932 pit fill 30 1 0 0 0No cpr + + 0 + some charcoal (not removed) 20 933 934 pit fill 30 1 0 0 0No cpr 0 0 0 + some charcoal (not removed) 21 894 895 pit fill 20 pos. prehistoric pit 1000No cpr 0+00 probable HSR, small fragments 22 916 918 grave fill 20 Fill from pit w ith HSR 1 0 0 0No cpr ++++ 0 0 0 <5mm not removed 23 946 947 948 20 Fill of oval ditch, IA, Roman pottery, shell, bone 1 0 + 0 sparse charcoal + +++ 0 + 24 938 939 pit fill 20 Fill of pit w ith pot and bone 1 + + ++ 2 grains 0 0 0 0 lots of charcoal (not removed) some charcoal (not removed), lots of tiny fragments of pottery not 25 935 936 pit fill 110 Fill of pit, w ith pot, flint and bone 1 0 0 0No cpr 0 ++++ 0 ++ removed 26 853 854 gully 20 gully fill from rectangular enclosure 1000No cpr 0+00 27 849 850 gully 20 gully fill from rectangular enclosure 1000No cpr 0000 28 855 856 gully 20 gully fill from rectangular enclosure 1 0 0 0No cpr + 0 0 + burnt bone 29 859 860 gully 20 gully fill from rectangular enclosure 0000No cpr 0000 30 906 907 post hole 5 post fill from structure 1000No cpr 0000 31 871 872 post hole 10 post fill from structure 1000No cpr 0000 32 869 870 post hole 5 post fill from structure 1000No cpr 0000 33 867 868 post hole 5 post fill from structure 1000No cpr 0000 34 908 909 post hole 5 post fill from structure 1000No cpr 0000 35 910 911 post hole 5 post fill from structure 1000No cpr 0000 36 865 866 post hole 10 post fill in structure [839] 1000No cpr 0000 37 912 913 post hole 10 post fill in structure [839] 1000No cpr 0000 38 954 955 pit fill 120 fill of neopit, look for flint w orking debris 1 0 0 0No cpr 0 ++ + ++++ some charcoal (not removed) 39 963 964 post hole 5 fill of post in structure [839]. 1 000No cpr 0000 Table 11: Summary of environmental samples, Key: += 1-10, ++ = 11-50, ### = 51+ specimens

RADIOCARBON DATING CERTIFICATE

19 December 2008

4.10 Laboratory Code SUERC-21615 (GU-17875)

Submitter Richard Mortimer Oxford Archaeology East 15 Trafalgar Way Bar Hill Cambridgeshire CB23 8SQ

Site Reference Dimmock's Cote, Wicken Sample Reference WIC DIC 08 801

Material Bone : Left ulna

13 C relative to VPDB -20.3 ‰

4.11 Radiocarbon Age 2110 ± 40 BP

N.B. 1. The above 14 C age is quoted in conventional years BP (before 1950 AD). The error, which is expressed at the one sigma level of confidence, includes components from the counting statistics on the sample, modern reference standard and blank and the random machine error.

2. The calibrated age ranges are determined from the University of Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit calibration program (OxCal3).

3. Samples with a SUERC coding are measured at the Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre AMS Facility and should be quoted as such in any reports within the scientific literature. Any questions directed to the Radiocarbon Laboratory should also quote the GU coding given in parentheses after the SUERC code. The contact details for the laboratory are email [email protected] or Telephone 01355 270136 direct line .

Checked and signed off by :- Date :-

Calibration Plot

Atmospheric data from Reimer et al (2004);OxCal v3.10 Bronk Ramsey (2005); cub r:5 sd:12 prob usp[chron] 2400BP SUERC-21615 : 2110±40BP 68.2% probability 2300BP 190BC (68.2%) 50BC 95.4% probability 2200BP 350BC ( 6.8%) 300BC 210BC (88.6%) 30BC 2100BP

2000BP

Radiocarbondetermination 1900BP

1800BP

400CalBC 200CalBC CalBC/CalAD 200CalAD Calibrated date

19 December 2008

4.12 Laboratory Code SUERC-21616 (GU-17876)

Submitter Richard Mortimer Oxford Archaeology East 15 Trafalgar Way Bar Hill Cambridgeshire CB23 8SQ

Site Reference Dimmock's Cote, Wicken Sample Reference WIC DIC 08 917

Material Bone : Femur shaft

13 C relative to VPDB -19.5 ‰

4.13 Radiocarbon Age 2845 ± 40 BP

2. The calibrated age ranges are determined from the University of Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit calibration program (OxCal3).

Conventional age and calibration age ranges calculated by :- Date :-

Checked and signed off by :- Date :-

Atmospheric data from Reimer et al (2004);OxCal v3.10 Bronk Ramsey (2005); cub r:5 sd:12 prob usp[chron] 3200BP SUERC-21616 : 2845±40BP 3100BP 68.2% probability 1060BC (68.2%) 920BC 3000BP 95.4% probability 2900BP 1130BC (95.4%) 900BC

2800BP

2700BP

2600BP Radiocarbondetermination 2500BP

1400CalBC 1200CalBC 1000CalBC 800CalBC Calibrated date

Atmospheric data from Reimer et al (2004);OxCal v3.10 Bronk Ramsey (2005); cub r:5 sd:12 prob usp[chron] SUERC-21615 2110±40BP

SUERC-21616 2845±40BP

2000CalBC 1500CalBC 1000CalBC 500CalBC CalBC/CalAD Calibrated date

© Oxford Archaeology East Page 58 of 64 Report Number 1085 APPENDIX F. B IBLIOGRAPHY Anderson. K, in Evans, C 2008. Borderlands: The archaeology of the Addenbrooke's environs, South Cambridge. CAU Landscape Archives: New Archaeologies of the Cambridge Region (1). (Cambridge Archaeological Unit) Anderson. K. in Evans, C and Mackay, D. 2006. Longstanton, Cambridgeshire: A Village Hinterland . Cambridge Archaeological Unit. University of Cambridge. Report No. 696. Ashwin, T. 1996 Neolithic and Bronze Age Norfolk. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 62, 41 – 62. Atkins, R. and Mudd, A. 2003: An iron Age and Romano-British settlement at Prickwillow Road, Ely, Cambridgeshire: Excavations 1999-2000. Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society XCII, 5-55. Barclay, A. 2002 Ceramic Lives. In: A. Woodward and J.D. Hill (eds) Prehistoric Britain. The Ceramic Basis, 85-95. Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group: Occasional Publication No. 3. Oxford: Oxbow. Beadsmoore, E. 2006 Earlier Neolithic Flint. In: D. Garrow, S. Lucy and D. Gibson, Excavations at Kilverstone, Norfolk: an episodic landscape history , 53 - 70. East Anglian Archaeology113. Beamish, M. 1998; a Middle Iron Age Site at Wanlip, Leicestershire. Transcations of the Leicestershire Archaeological and Historical Society. 72, 1-64. Bray, S. 1992; Bronze Age features at Dimmock's Cote Road, Wicken . Cambridgeshire County Council Archaeological Field Unit unpublished report no.67 Bray, S. 1993; Bronze-Age features at Dimmocks' Cote Road Wicken, Cambridgeshire, Preliminary report . Cambridgeshire county council archaeological field unit unpublished report. Bishop, B.J. 2007; Lithic Report, In Thatcher, C. Neolithic Flint and pottery at Main Street, Stow cum Quy, Cambridgeshire . Cambridgeshire County Council Archaeological Field Unit Report no 899. Brickley, M. and Mckinley, J.I. (eds.) 2004 Guidelines to the Standards for Recording Human Remains IFA Paper No. 7 Brothwell, D. 1981 Digging Up Bones British Museum (Natural History) London Brudenell, M. 2008; ‘Late Bronze Age Pottery’ in Evans, C. with Mackay, D. & Webley, L. Borderlands: The archaeology of the Addembrooke’s Environs, South Cambridge . Clark, G. 1932. The curved flint sickle blades of Britain. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society of East Anglia 7, 37 - 81. Clark, J.G.D., Higgs, E.S. and Longworth, I.H. 1960 Excavations at the Neolithic Site at Hurst Fen, Mildenhall, Suffolk (1954, 1957 and 1958). Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 26, 202 – 245. Clark, J., 1995; The medieval horse and its equipment , Medieval Finds from Excavations in London 5 (London) Clarke, R. Forthcoming; Prehistoric and Romano-British Land-use in the Granta Valley: Excavations at Linton Village College, Cambridgeshire 2004-5 . CAM ARC report no. 1022.

© Oxford Archaeology East Page 59 of 64 Report Number 1085 Edmonds, M. 2006 The Lithics. In: C. Evans, M. Edmonds and S. Boreham, 'Total Archaeology' and Model Landscapes: excavations of the Great Wilbraham Causewayed Enclosure, Cambridgeshire, 1975-76. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 72, 130-134. Edmonds, M., Evans, C. and Gibson, D. 1999 Assemblage and Collection – Lithic Complexes in the Cambridgeshire Fenlands. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 65, 47 - 82. Fitzpatrick, A.P. 1997: Archaeological Excavations on the Route of the A27 Westhampnett Bypass, West Sussex, 1992 volume 2: the Cemeteries . Wessex Archaeology report no 12. French, C., 1993. Dimmock's Cote Road Quarry, Wicken (WICDC93): Initial Assessment of the Buried Soil. In Bray, S. 1993; Bronze Age features at Dimmock's Cote Road, Wicken . Cambridgeshire: Preliminary Report. Cambridgeshire Archaeology Unpublished summary. Garrow, D., Beadsmoore, E. and Knight, M. 2005 Pit Clusters and the Temporality of Occupation: an Earlier Neolithic Site at Kilverstone, Thetford, Norfolk. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society . Volume 71 Garrow, D., S. Lucy and D. Gibson. 2006; Excavations at Kilverstone, Norfolk 2000-02: an episodic landscape history . Cambridge: East Anglian Archaeology Monograph 113.

Gibson, D and Knight, M. 2006; Bradley Fen Excavation 2001-2004. CAU report no. 733 unpublished Green, H.S. 1980 The Flint Arrowheads of the British Isles: a detailed study of material from England and Wales with comparanda from Scotland and Ireland: Part I . British Archaeological Reports (British Series) 75. Haines, T. 2007; Land at Wilberton Cambridgeshire (Mereham new community); an Archaeological Evaluation . OA south unpublished report. Harding, A.F. 2000; European Societies in the Bronze Age . Cambridge University Press. Haselgrove, C. 2001; Understanding the British Iron Age an Agenda for Action . The trust for Wessex Archaeology. Healy, F. 1982; Single-piece flint sickles in Britain. Antiquity 56, 214 – 216 Hodson, F.R. 1964; Cultural groupings within the pre-Roman British Iron Age. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 30, 99-110. Hill, J. D, & Horne, L. 2003. ‘Iron Age and Early Roman Pottery’. In Evans, C. Power and Island Communities: Excavations at the Wardy Hill Ringwork, Coveney, Ely . East Anglian Archaeology 103. pp 145-84. Kemp, S. 2002; A rchaeological Evaluation of Prehistoric archaeology at Dimmock's Cote Wicken . Cambridgeshire County Council Archaeological Field unit unpublished report no. A205 Kemp, S. and Kenney, S. 2003; Prehistoric Excavations at Dimmock's Cote Quarry, Wicken: Trenches V and VI . Cambridgeshire County Council Archaeological field Unit unpublished report no. 207 Knight, D. 2002 ‘A Regional Ceramic Sequence: Pottery of the First Millennium BC between the Humber and the Nene’ in Woodward, A. & Hill, J.D. Prehistoric Britain: the Ceramic Basis.

Knight, M. 2006a ‘Mildenhall Pottery’ in Garrow, D., S. Lucy & D. Gibson. Excavations at Kilverstone, Norfolk 2000-02: an episodic landscape history . Cambridge: East Anglian

Knight, M. 2006b ‘Prehistoric Pottery’ in Evans, C., Edmonds, M. & Boreham, S. ‘Total Archaeology’ and Model Landscapes: Excavations of the Great Wilbraham Causewayed Enclosure, Cambridgeshire, 1975-76. Law, R. 2008 The Development and Perpetuation of a Ceramic Tradition: The Significance of Collared Urns in Early Bronze Age Social Life . Unpublished PhD thesis: University of Cambridge. Levi-Sala, I. 1992 Functional Analysis and Post-Depositional Alterations of Microdenticulates. In: R.N.E. Barton, Heng istbury Head Dorset Volume 2: the Late Upper Palaeolithic and Early Mesolithic sites , 238-246. Oxford University Committee For Archaeology Monograph 34. Longworth, I., Ellison, A. & Rigby, V. 1988 Excavations at Grime Graves Norfolk 1972-1976 Fascicule 2 The Neolithic, Bronze Age and Later Pottery. London. Luke, M. 2008; Life in the Loop: Investigation of a Prehistoric and Romano-British Landscape at Biddenham Loop, Bedfordshire . East Anglian Archaeology Rep. No. 125. Mortimer, R. Roderick, R and Lucy, S. 2005; The Saxon and Medieval settlement at West Fen Road, Ely: The Ashwell Site . East Anglian Archaeology report no. 110. Mortimer, R. and Connor, A. (forthcoming) Prehistoric and Roman occupation from Fordham Bypass, Cambridgeshire. East Anglian Archaeology Occasional Papers. Needham, S. 1996 ‘Post Deverel-Rimbury Pottery’ in Jackson, R.P.J. & Potter, T.W. Excavations at Stonea, Cambridgeshire 1980-85. Pryor, F. 1974 Excavation at Fengate, Peterborough, England: the first report. Royal Ontario Museum Archaeology Monograph 3. Pryor, F. 1980 Excavations at Fengate, Peterborough, England: the third report . Northamptonshire Archaeological Society Monograph 1 / Royal Ontario Museum Archaeology Monograph 6. Saville, A. 1980 On the Measurement of Struck Flakes and Flake Tools. Lithics 1, 16-20. Schlee, D. 1993; P reliminary Report on Excavations of Bronze Age Features at Dimmocks' Cote Road, Cambridgeshire . Cambridgeshire County Council Archaeological Field Unit unpublished report no. 67 Shennan, I. 1994; Coastal Evolution. In Waller, M. The Fenland Project, Number 9: Flandrian Environmental Change in Fenland. East Anglian Archaeology 70, 47-84. Stace, C., 1997; New Flora of the British Isles . Second edition. Cambridge University Press Stevens, C., 1998; 'Archaeobotanical Remains' in Evans, C. and M. Knight 1998. The Butcher's Rise Ring-ditches: Excavations at Barleycroft Farm, Cambridgeshire, 1996. CAU Report 283. Ubelaker, D.H.1989 Human Skeletal Remains: Excavation, Analysis, and Interpretation Taraxacum Press, Washington, D.C Upson-Smith, T, 2006 A late Iron Age settlement at Manor Farm, Newton Bromswold, Northamptonshire. Northamptonshire Archaeology , 34, 5-18 Wait, G. A. 1985, Ritual and Religion in Iron Age Britain. British Archaeological Reports 149. Whimster, R. 1981; Burial Practices in Iron Age Britain; A Discussion and Gazetteer of the Evidence c. 700 B.C. - A.D. 43 . British Archaeological Reports, British Series 90.

© Oxford Archaeology East Page 61 of 64 Report Number 1085 Young, R. and Humphrey, J. 1999 Flint Use in England after the Bronze Age: time for a re- evaluation? Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 65, 231-242.

Project Name Dimmock's Cote, Wicken, Cambridgeshire

Project Dates (fieldwork) Start 01-09-2008 Finish 19-09-2008

Previous Work (by OA East) Yes Future Work Yes

Project Reference Codes

Site Code WICDIC08 Planning App. No. N/A

HER No. ECB 3025 Related HER/OASIS No. HER 11187

Type of Project/Techniques Used Prompt Direction from Local Planning Authority - PPG16

Please select all techniques used:

Field Observation (periodic visits) Part Excavation Salvage Record

Full Excavation (100%) Part Survey Systematic Field Walking

Full Survey Recorded Observation Systematic Metal Detector Survey

Geophysical Survey Remote Operated Vehicle Survey Test Pit Survey

Open-Area Excavation Salvage Excavation Watching Brief

Monument Types/Significant Finds & Their Periods List feature types using the NMR Monument Type Thesaurus and significant finds using the MDA Object type Thesaurus together with their respective periods. If no features/finds were found, please state “none”. Monument Period Object Period

Crouched inhumation Iron Age -800 to 43 pot Neolithic -4k to -2k

pits Neolithic -4k to -2k pot Bronze Age -2.5k to -700

enclosure Iron Age -800 to 43 pot Iron Age -800 to 43

Crouched inhumation Bronze Age -2.5k to -700 pot Roman 43 to 410

Cremation Late Prehistoric -4k to 43 flint Late Prehistoric -4k to 43

County Cambridgeshire Site Address (including postcode if possible) Francis Flower (Eastern) District East Cambridgeshire Dimmocks Cote Quarry Wicken, Cambs, CB7 5XL Parish Wicken

HER Cambridgeshire

Study Area 0.5ha National Grid Reference TL 5470 7240 Project Originators

Organisation OA EAST

Project Brief Originator CACPA

Project Design Originator Richard Mortimer

Project Manager Richard Mortimer

Supervisor Nick Gilmour Project Archives

Physical Archive Digital Archive Paper Archive

Cambridgeshire County store OA east offices Cambridgeshire County Store

WIC DIC 08 WIC DIC 08 WIC DIC 08 Archive Contents/Media

Physical Digital Paper Digital Media Paper Media Contents Contents Contents

Animal Bones Database Aerial Photos Ceramics GIS Context Sheet Environmental Geophysics Correspondence Glass Images Diary Human Bones Illustrations Drawing Industrial Moving Image Manuscript Leather Spreadsheets Map Metal Survey Matrices Stratigraphic Text Microfilm Survey Virtual Reality Misc. Textiles Research/Notes Wood Photos Worked Bone Plans Worked Stone/Lithic Report None Sections Other Survey

Notes:

The Fens King's Lynn

ne R.Ne

Peterborough B

Ely Huntingdon R.O A use

m O.D. 160 140 120 .Cam Cambridge 100 R 80 60 40 20 0 25 km 0 2 km 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 600 800 400 300 500 700 900 B 272 700 High Fen Road

272 600

272 500

272 400 Lime quarry

272 300

Dimmock’s Cote Road

272 200

Upware Road

272 100

0 300m

2002 1996/7 1993 1994 1992

Tr.9

Tr.11

Tr.12 Tr.10

Tr.13

2008

Tr.8

Lime Quarry

Tr.7

Tr.6 Tr.14

Tr.15 Tr.5

Tr.16 Tr.4

Tr.17

Tr.3 Tr. I Tr. II Furrows

Tr. 2 Archaeological Trenches Tr. 1 Tr. III Tr. IV Tr. V Tr. VI Archaeological Features Dimmock’s Cote Road 0 100m Based upon Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. (Cambridgeshire County Council licence No. 100023205 2009)

Figure 2: Site Location showing previous archaeological excavations in the quarry

quarry edge

939 913 S.54 864 918 S.21 862 941 866

964 911 909 915 854 868 S.24 533 907 860 872 870 852 858 S.16 586 576 850 856

511 808

518 575 535 606 525 922 934 932 930

802 601 505/507 822 824

936 895 955 807 513/515 596 920 924 752

901 836 903 905 841 883

S.33 843 899 891 885 947 838 893 881

S.29 830 834 S.56 945 828 826 832 958 817 960 815 897 928 926 943 953 S.58

962

quarry edge 0 10m

Figure 3: Site plan

Enclosure 839

Cremation 808

Pit Group 1

Pit 822 Burial 802

Pit Group 2 Cremation 807

Enclosure 937

Ditch 836 Ditch 881

Ditch 815

Earlier Neolithic Ditch 897 Early-Mid Bronze Age Ditch 962 Mid-Late Bronze Age

Mid-Late Iron Age

Late Iron Age-Early Roman

Undated cremation 0 10m quarry edge

Figure 4: Phased site plan

© Oxford Archaeology East Report Number 1085 N S.21 862 860 858 913 S.24 866 856 909 915 868 870 0 5m Enclosure 839 911 872 S.22 964 864 907 Glacial Feature 864 S.16 854 Ditch 941 852 Pot Bone Pit 939 Burial 918 S.54 Figure 5 Plan of enclosure 839 (Scale 1:50)

905 841 899

Ditch 836 843

S.33

885 889 891

887 838 893 947

Enclosure 937

947 878 Limit of excavation

874 876 834 830

S.29

Ditch 815 832

Ditch 816

0 5m Ditch 897

Figure 6: Plan of enclosure 918 (Scale 1:50)

936

pot

flint sickle

pot

Profile 62

SSW 4.6m OD NNE

0.25m

936

0 0.5m 0

Figure 7: Plan of Mildenhall pottery deposit in pit 936

pot

802 801

0 0.50 1.00m

Figure 8: Plan of burial 802

918

0 0.50 1.00m

Figure 9: Plan of burial 918

W 851 E W E W E

852 861 869

868

862

Section 29 Section 33 Enclosure 937 4.43m OD Enclosure 937 4.75m OD

S N NE 886 888 SW 890

873 859 891 889

874

Section 54

Pit 939 Ditch 941 Enclosure 839 4.51mOD

W 938 940 863 E

864

939

941

Section 56 Section 58 0.50m Ditch 895 04.60m OD Ditch 897 4.81mOD

W E 944 SW NE 945 927

928

0 0.50 1.00m 0

Figure 10: Selected sections (Scale 1:10)

Plate 2: Crouch burial 802

Plate 3: The MIA bowl from burial 802

Plate 4: Bronze Age burial 918

Plate 6: Enclosure 937, looking west

t : + 4 4 ( 0 ) 1 8 6 5 2 6 3 8 0 0 f : + 4 4 ( 0 ) 1 8 6 5 7 9 3 4 9 6 e: [email protected] w:http://thehumanjourney.net

O A N o r t h M i l l 3 M o o r L a n e L a n c a s t e r L A 1 1 G F

t : + 4 4 ( 0 ) 1 5 2 4 5 4 1 0 0 0 f : + 4 4 ( 0 ) 1 5 2 4 8 4 8 6 0 6 e: [email protected] w:http://thehumanjourney.net

O A E a s t 1 5 Tr a f a l g a r Wa y B a r H i l l Cambridgeshire C B 2 3 8 S Q

t : + 4 4 ( 0 ) 1 2 2 3 8 5 0 5 0 0 f : + 4 4 ( 0 ) 1 2 2 3 8 5 0 5 9 9 e: [email protected] w:http://thehumanjourney.net/oaeast

O A M é d i t e r r a n é e 1 1 5 R u e M e r l o t Z A C L a L o u v a d e 3 4 1 3 0 M a u g u i o F r a n c e

t : + 3 3 ( 0 ) 4 . 6 7 . 5 7 . 8 6 . 9 2 f : + 3 3 ( 0 ) 4 . 6 7 . 4 2 . 6 5 . 9 3 e: [email protected] w: http://oamed.fr/

Director: D a v i d J e n n i n g s , B A M I FA F S A

O x f o r d A r c h a e o l o g i c a l U n i t i s a P r i v a t e L i m i t e d C o m p a n y , N o : 1 6 1 8 5 9 7 a n d a R e g i s t e r e d C h a r i t y , N o : 2 8 5 6 2 7