Wilburton Solar Farm Wilburton East Cambridgeshire Archaeological

Wilburton Solar Farm Wilburton East Cambridgeshire

Archaeological Evaluation and Mitigation Report

for Pegasus Planning Group Ltd on behalf of Abbey Renewables Ltd

CA Project: 3418 CA Report: 11095

April 2011

Wilburton Solar Farm Wilburton East Cambridgeshire

Archaeological Evaluation and Mitigation Report

NGR: TL 4741 7378 CCC HER Event No.: ECB3566

CA Project: 3418 CA Report: 11095

prepared by Stuart Joyce, Project Officer; Alexandra Wilkinson, Supervisor

date 12 May 2011

checked by Tom Wilson, Project Manager

date 20 May 2011

approved by Simon Cox, Head of Fieldwork

signed

date 23d May 2011

issue 01

This report is confidential to the client. Cotswold Archaeology accepts no responsibility or liability to any third party to whom this report, or any part of it, is made known. Any such party relies upon this report entirely at their own risk. No part of this report may be reproduced by any means without permission.

© Cotswold Archaeology Building 11, Kemble Enterprise Park, Kemble, Cirencester, Gloucestershire, GL7 6BQ t. 01285 771022 f. 01285 771033 e. [email protected] © Cotswold Archaeology Wilburton Solar Farm, East Cambridgeshire: Archaeological Evaluation and Mitigation

CONTENTS

SUMMARY...... 2

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 3

2. RESULTS (FIGS. 2-4) ...... 8

3. DISCUSSION...... 12

4. CA PROJECT TEAM ...... 14

5. REFERENCES ...... 15

APPENDIX A: CONTEXT DESCRIPTIONS...... 16 APPENDIX B: THE FINDS...... 19 APPENDIX C: ARTEFACT RECOVERY SAMPLES...... 20 APPENDIX D: PALAEOENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLES ...... 21 APPENDIX E: OASIS REPORT FORM ...... 23

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Fig. 1 Site location plan (1:25,000) Fig. 2 Excavation areas and test pit location plan (1:3000) Fig. 3 Area 2; plan, sections and photographs (1:20 and 1:100) Fig. 4 Area 3 and test pit 10; plans, sections and photographs (1:20, 1:50 and 1:100)

1 © Cotswold Archaeology Wilburton Solar Farm, East Cambridgeshire: Archaeological Evaluation and Mitigation

SUMMARY

Project Name: Wilburton Solar Farm Location: Wilburton Solar Farm, East Cambridgeshire Parish: Wilburton NGR: TL 4741 7378 Type: Evaluation Date: 4 to 7 April, 3 and 10 May 2011 Location of Archive: To be deposited with the County Archaeology Store CCC HER Event No.: ECB 3566 Site Code: WSF 11

A programme of archaeological evaluation, mitigation and further works was undertaken by Cotswold Archaeology at the site of the planned Wilburton Solar Farm, Wilburton, East Cambridgeshire. Evaluation and mitigation took place in April 2011, with further works carried out in May 2011.

The evaluation comprised five excavation areas and ten test pits. Mitigation comprised excavation of additional areas and further sampling of features in areas found to contain archaeological remains. Further works comprised excavation under archaeological control of the lines of two cable trenches within 20m of Excavation Area 2.

The earliest archaeological feature encountered consisted of a single, circular pit, dated to the Iron Age. Two further, undated, pits may be contemporary.

Within Excavation Area 2, a north-south oriented ditch and two north-west/south-east oriented ditches were identified. The north-south oriented ditch was stratigraphically older than one of the others, but otherwise remained undated. The north-west/south-east oriented ditches were perpendicular to the parish boundary and other boundaries within the existing field system. A 2m length of a fourth, curvilinear undated ditch was located in Test Pit 10, in the northern part of the site.

2 © Cotswold Archaeology Wilburton Solar Farm, East Cambridgeshire: Archaeological Evaluation and Mitigation

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 In April 2011, Cotswold Archaeology (CA) carried out an archaeological evaluation, for Pegasus Planning Group Ltd on behalf of Abbey Renewables Ltd, on land at the site of the planned Wilburton Solar Farm in East Cambridgeshire (centred on NGR: TL 4741 7378; Fig. 1). During the evaluation, further mitigation works were agreed with Cambridgeshire County Council (CCC) and these were carried out in April and May 2011. The aims, methodology and results for both the mitigation and evaluation are reported below. This work followed an archaeological desk-based assessment report into the impacts of the planned development (CA 2011a).

1.2 Planning permission has been granted for a solar farm to be constructed across an entire field. The evaluation and mitigation works were undertaken to fulfil a planning condition that required a scheme of archaeological work be undertaken prior to construction of the solar farm. The planned development will include installation of photovoltaic arrays, which have been assessed as having no significant impact on any archaeological remains that may be present. The development will also include a series of service and security trenches that will not impact below the ploughsoil. For this reason, the evaluation included a series of test pits and programme of artefact sampling to assess the archaeological potential of the ploughsoil. The development will also include creation of five substations. To assess, and subsequently mitigate, the archaeological impact of the substations, their entire development footprints were investigated as excavation areas.

1.3 The evaluation was carried out in accordance with a brief for archaeological evaluation (Design Brief for Archaeological Evaluation; CCC 2011) prepared by Ms Kasia Gdaniec, Senior Archaeologist for Cambridgeshire County Council’s Historic Environment Team and archaeological advisor to East Cambridgeshire District Council. The evaluation was also carried out in accordance with a detailed Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) produced by CA (2011b) and approved by Ms Gdaniec. The fieldwork followed the Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Field Evaluation (IfA 2008), the Standards for Field Archaeology in the East of England (EAA Occasional Paper 14), Research and Archaeology: A Framework for the Eastern Counties 1. Resource Assessment and 2. Research Agenda and Strategy documents (EAA Occasional Papers 3 and 8), Management of Archaeological Projects (English Heritage 1991) and Management of Research Projects in the

3 © Cotswold Archaeology Wilburton Solar Farm, East Cambridgeshire: Archaeological Evaluation and Mitigation

Historic Environment (MORPHE): Project Manager’s Guide (EH 2006). The evaluation and mitigation were monitored by Ms Gdaniec, including a site visit on 8 April 2011.

The site 1.4 The site comprises a single field located approximately 1km south-west of the town of Wilburton, and is bounded on all sides by agricultural land (Fig. 2). The site is trapezoidal, measuring approximately 900m by 200m, slopes gently downwards from 5m AOD in the north to 0m AOD in the south, and currently is utilised for arable cultivation.

1.5 The site is located at the interface of river terrace gravels overlying the rising Kimmeridge Clay (BGS 2011). Sandy clay natural deposits were identified within all of the excavation areas and test pits.

Archaeological background 1.6 The site is low-lying, situated on an area of Kimmeridge Clay on the edge of the Cambridgeshire Fens, a location potentially attractive to early settlement. A desk- based assessment of the potential effects of the development on heritage has been carried out (CA 2011a), and its conclusions are summarised below.

1.7 During the late 19th century, a late Bronze Age metalwork hoard containing 163 artefacts was found, approximately 170m south-east of the site. Study of this hoard led to development of the chronological framework for southern British Bronzes (CHER ref: MCB6958). Spot finds of prehistoric material (mainly Bronze Age in date) have been recorded elsewhere in the wider vicinity of the site.

1.8 Evidence of prehistoric and Romano-British settlement has been recorded in the local area. Archaeological investigations carried out in advance of the development of the Mereham eco-town, 450m east of the solar farm, recorded evidence of a Middle Iron Age/Roman settlement.

1.9 The site of a medieval battlefield has been suggested as lying to the south-west of the site. The battle between Hereward, a king’s thegn, and the Normans is thought to have taken place in the fields to the west and south-west of the development area (CHER). However, the extent of the battle or any possible associated cemetery locations remains unknown.

4 © Cotswold Archaeology Wilburton Solar Farm, East Cambridgeshire: Archaeological Evaluation and Mitigation

1.10 The hedgerow that forms the eastern edge of the site is also the parish boundary between Wilburton and Haddenham. As such, it is likely to be medieval in origin, and has statutory protection under the Archaeology and History Criteria of the Hedgerow Regulations, 1997.

1.11 This background indicates that there is potential for as-yet unrecorded remains of archaeological interest from the prehistoric, Roman and medieval periods to be present within the site.

Archaeological objectives 1.12 The general objectives of the evaluation were to establish the character, quality, date and extent of any archaeological remains or deposits surviving within the site. This information was collected to assist East Cambridgeshire District Council in making an informed judgement on the significance of the archaeological resource, and the likely impact upon it of the development.

1.13 The evaluation aimed to determine the presence or absence of ‘B’ horizons (including colluvium or other, similar palaeosols) or peat, the preservation of deposits within negative features, and to characterise site formation processes.

1.14 The evaluation also included on-site assessment by a suitably qualified specialist of the site’s environmental potential, through examination of suitable deposits. Attention was paid to:  retrieval of charred plant macrofossils and land molluscs from former dry-land palaeosols and cut features, and to soil pollen analysis  retrieval of plant macrofossils, insect, molluscs and pollen from any waterlogged deposits  survival of faunal evidence

5 © Cotswold Archaeology Wilburton Solar Farm, East Cambridgeshire: Archaeological Evaluation and Mitigation

1.15 Following the identification of archaeological remains (within Areas 2 and 3, and Test Pit 10) further works were carried out to understand better the nature and importance of the discovered remains. These further works were agreed with Ms Gdaniec during a site meeting of 8 April 2011. The further works comprised:  enlarging the area of excavation at Area 2 (see Fig. 3): o to further establish the extent of discovered archaeological remains (cut and in-filled pits and ditches)  Additional sampling (full excavation) of two pits in Area 2: o pit 1214 (known to be prehistoric) for additional artefacts o pit 1212 (of unknown date) to recover datable artefacts  Additional sampling (further excavation) of ditches in Areas 2 & 3 and test pit 10: o all of unknown date, to recover datable artefacts

Methodology 1.16 Archaeological works were located in five excavation areas and ten test pits, in the locations shown on the attached plan (Fig. 2). The excavation areas correspond to the footprints of development impacts; each measured 12m long and 4m wide. The test pits were evenly spaced along the site and each measured 3m square. These test pits were carried out primarily to assess the presence of artefacts in the ploughsoils. The works areas were set out on OS National Grid (NGR) co-ordinates using a Leica 1200 series SmartRover GPS and surveyed in accordance with CA Technical Manual 4 Survey Manual (2009). On 3 and 10 May 2011, further work was undertaken during the excavation of two service trenches. These each measured c. 40m in length (Fig. 2).

1.17 All archaeological works areas were excavated by mechanical excavator equipped with a toothless grading bucket. All machine excavation was undertaken under constant archaeological supervision to the top of the first significant archaeological horizon or the natural substrate, whichever was encountered first. Where archaeological deposits were encountered they were excavated by hand in accordance with CA Technical Manual 1: Fieldwork Recording Manual (2007).

1.18 Deposits were assessed for their palaeoenvironmental potential in accordance with CA Technical Manual 2: The Taking and Processing of Environmental and Other Samples from Archaeological Sites (2003) and were sampled and processed. All

6 © Cotswold Archaeology Wilburton Solar Farm, East Cambridgeshire: Archaeological Evaluation and Mitigation

artefacts recovered were processed in accordance with Technical Manual 3 Treatment of Finds Immediately after Excavation (2010).

1.19 A programme of bulk soil sampling for artefact recovery was undertaken as part of the archaeological programme of works. This was undertaken to assess the potential for significant artefact assemblages in the ploughsoil that may be impacted by installation of the solar farm. A bulk soil sample of three buckets (~45 litres) was taken from the topsoil, and also from any subsoil or other deposits (e.g. colluvium) in each of the archaeological investigation trenches and test pits. The samples were taken from the south-west corner in each case, and were processed for artefact recovery but not recovery of environmental remains. The agreed methodology (CA2011b) required that these samples be hand-sorted on site for artefact retrieval; however, the soil was extremely tenacious, making it difficult (and time-consuming) to break up enough to be confident that any artefacts would be recovered. In response, to avoid the sampling process being of insufficient quality, it was necessary to remove the samples from the site and wet sieve them through a 10mm mesh.

1.20 In order to investigate the nature of the gravelly deposits located in the geotechnical survey (HGE 2010), in particular, to investigate whether they are colluvium, a sondage was excavated in the south-west corner of several archaeological investigation trenches and test pits.

1.21 During the further works on 10 May, there was an opportunity to observe excavation of other service trenches, which were outside the scope of archaeological works as they had been judged to be of no impact to archaeological remains. It was confirmed on 10 May that those works did not extend in depth beyond the ploughsoil.

1.22 The archive and artefacts from the evaluation are currently held by CA at their offices in Kemble. Subject to the agreement of the legal landowner, the artefacts will be deposited with the County Archaeology Store (CCC HER Event Number: ECB 3566), along with the site archive. A summary of information from this project, set out within Appendix E, will be entered onto the OASIS online database of archaeological projects in Britain.

7 © Cotswold Archaeology Wilburton Solar Farm, East Cambridgeshire: Archaeological Evaluation and Mitigation

2. RESULTS (FIGS. 2-4)

2.1 This section provides an overview of the evaluation and mitigation results. Detailed summaries of the recorded contexts, finds, artefact recovery samples and environmental samples (palaeoenvironmental evidence) are to be found in Appendices A, B, C and D, respectively.

General Stratigraphy 2.2 The earliest deposits encountered (within sondages excavated in the south-west corner of selected excavation areas and test pits) comprised the solid geological substrate of mudstone, overlain by blue-grey clay. This was overlain by mottled yellowish grey sandy clay, which was identified within all excavation areas and test pits. This was in turn overlain by topsoil c. 0.3m to 0.4m in thickness. All identified archaeological features cut the natural substrate.

2.3 Initially, discrete features were half-sectioned and 1m long sections were excavated through all ditches, which were then recorded fully. Subsequently, 100 percent of pits and a further 1m section through ditches were excavated in an attempt to recover finds.

2.4 No features or deposits of archaeological significance were identified within Excavation Areas 1, 4 and 5, and Test Pits 1 to 9.

Excavation area 2 (Figs. 2 & 3) 2.5 Circular pit 1214 was located towards the western edge of the excavation area. The lower fill, 1216, contained 18 body sherds of pottery, attributed to the Middle to Late Iron Age. The upper fill 1215 did not contain any dating evidence.

2.6 A small assemblage of animal bone was recovered from fills 1215 and 1216. Fragments of sheep/goat were identified as well as undiagnostic animal bone fragments. An environmental soil sample (number 22 from fill 1216), produced a single fragment of fish and one fragment of small mammal bone.

2.7 Pit 1209 was located in the north-west corner of the excavation area. An environmental sample recovered from upper fill 1210 contained charcoal (oak, alder/hazel), uncarbonised modern plant macrofossils (fat hen) and flint. Pit 1209

8 © Cotswold Archaeology Wilburton Solar Farm, East Cambridgeshire: Archaeological Evaluation and Mitigation

was cut by later pit 1212. An environmental sample retrieved from its single fill 1213, contained charcoal (oak, alder/hazel and hawthorn/rowan/crab apple). No dating evidence was recovered from pits 1209 and 1212 but they might be broadly contemporary with pit 1214, based on their proximity and similar fills. Pits 1209 and 1212 extended west of the excavation area, and were completely revealed within an extension projecting westwards that was excavated as mitigation.

2.8 North/south oriented ditch 1207 was located within the centre of the excavation area. No artefacts were recovered from its single fill, 1208.

2.9 Undated ditch terminus 1222 was located at the south-eastern edge of the excavation area. The south-western side of the ditch had a vertical profile; the primary fill was derived from redeposited natural. No finds were recovered from the two fills, 1205 and 1206. The uppermost fill 1205 was cut by north-west/south-east oriented ditch 1203. Ditch 1203 is stratigraphically later than ditch 1207, and its fill 1204 contained two fragments of slate and three fragments of ceramic building material (CBM).

2.10 Ditch 1226 was identified within a northerly extension to Area 2, dug for mitigation purposes. This feature is thought to be a continuation of ditch 1203. A parallel ditch, 1224, was identified within this extension. Ditch 1224 is interpreted as probably contemporary with ditch 1203, based on similarity of form, fills and spatial relationship.

2.11 During further works a single undated ditch, 1702, was identified. It ran east/west and may be a continuation of ditch 1224. No other archaeological features were identified during this phase of works.

Excavation area 3 (Figs. 2 & 4) 2.12 A single north-east/south-west oriented ditch, 1304, was identified in the eastern half of the excavation area, cutting the natural geological substrate and sealed by topsoil. No finds were recovered from its single fill, 1305.

Test pit 10 (Figs. 2 & 4) 2.13 Slightly curving, east/west oriented ditch 1003 was identified cutting the natural substrate within Test Pit 10. No artefactual material was recovered from the fills (1004 and 1005) of this ditch.

9 © Cotswold Archaeology Wilburton Solar Farm, East Cambridgeshire: Archaeological Evaluation and Mitigation

The Finds and Palaeoenvironmental Evidence

Artefactual Evidence 2.14 A small quantity of artefactual material, comprising prehistoric pottery, fired clay, CBM and slate, and 49 animal bone fragments, was recovered from three deposits. The artefact samples comprised 45 litres of soil from each layer (samples 1-18; total 1575 litres). Finds were also retrieved from environmental bulk soil samples (samples 19-22) (Appendix B).

Pottery 2.15 Pottery body sherds of late prehistoric type were hand-collected from deposit 1216 (pit 1214) and also retrieved from environmental soil sample 22, from the same deposit. The fabrics identified were hand-made medium-coarse shell-tempered (similar to SH2), and vesicular/organic-tempered (similar to V2) and are attributed to the Middle to Late Iron Age. None of the recovered sherds exhibit any characteristic features to identify the vessel form. No decoration, such as scoring patterns was present. Considering the size and the thickness of the fragments they were probably part of cooking or storage jars.

2.16 The clay and inclusions for the recovered pottery could have been obtained locally, and this pottery tradition is proven to have been popular in the Ely and Cambridge regions, as shown from other assemblages recovered from late prehistoric sites in the same area. These fabric types compare with material from Wardy Hill, Coveney, Ely (Hill and Horne 2003, 145–84) and from Cambourne, west of Cambridge (Leivers 2009, 74–78).

2.17 A single sherd of Roman pottery was retrieved from topsoil 800, soil sample 10. It is of a white fabric, possibly Oxfordshire whiteware. The portion preserved of the vessel is a flange, possibly from a mortarium bowl that dates to the 3rd to 4th centuries AD.

Ceramic Building Material (CBM) 2.18 CBM was recovered from two archaeologically significant deposits (totalling four fragments) and from six topsoil samples (totalling 10 fragments). The pieces are not identifiable or closely dateable, due to their small sizes. In some cases (e.g. that from topsoil 301 sample 36 and from topsoil 700 sample 38), the CBM fragments

10 © Cotswold Archaeology Wilburton Solar Farm, East Cambridgeshire: Archaeological Evaluation and Mitigation

are of a ‘soapy’ fabric with clay pellet inclusions, which could indicate a Romano- British date.

Worked Stone 2.19 Prehistoric worked flints were retrieved from environmental soil sample 22, from fill 1216 of pit 1214. This small group consists of four un-utilized flakes.

Palaeoenvironmental Evidence 2.20 Samples 19-22 (77 litres of soil) were retrieved from four archaeological deposits to recover evidence of industrial or domestic activity and, if necessary, material for radiocarbon dating. These samples were processed by standard flotation procedures (CA Technical Manual No. 2) and the results are presented in Appendix C. Note that samples 1-18 and 23-24 were taken for artefactual retrieval rather than environmental remains, and their results are discussed in the finds sections above.

Animal Bone 2.21 A small assemblage of animal bone was recovered from two fills (1215 & 1216) of pit 1214, which dates to the Middle to Late Iron Age. The bone, while in a good state of preservation, is highly fragmented. Environmental sampling also produced bone that had been burnt to such a degree that it cannot be identified even to species size.

2.22 The only species that could be identified with any confidence was sheep/goat, a common domesticate in assemblages of the Iron Age period. Environmental soil sample 22 from fill 1216 also produced a single fragment each of fish and small mammal bone. The site therefore has limited potential to yield further faunal remains.

Plant Remains 2.23 Samples 21 and 22 were retrieved from the top fill 1215 and primary fill 1216 (respectively) of pit 1214 dating to the Middle to Late Iron Age. The material recovered consisted of charcoal (ash, oak, alder/hazel, cherry species, hawthorn/rowan/crab apple), carbonised plant macrofossil (oat, barley cereal grains and wheat glume base), uncarbonised modern plant macrofossil (fat hen and common orache), animal bone, burnt bone, pottery, flint, fired clay and magnetic material. There was also a single carbonised barley cereal grain impregnated into a piece of fired clay from context 1216. The small size of this moderately preserved

11 © Cotswold Archaeology Wilburton Solar Farm, East Cambridgeshire: Archaeological Evaluation and Mitigation

carbonised cereal assemblage means it is not possible to ascertain whether the burning relates to crop processing or domestic activities; however, the identification of oat and barley is consistent with the range of crops cultivated during the Iron Age (Cunliffe 2005, 432).

2.24 Sample 19 was retrieved from the top fill 1210 of undated pit 1209 of undated period. The material recovered consisted of charcoal (oak, alder/hazel), uncarbonised modern plant macrofossils (fat hen) and flint.

2.25 Sample 20 was retrieved from the single fill 1213 of undated pit 1212. The material recovered consisted of charcoal (oak, alder/hazel and hawthorn/rowan/crab apple).

2.26 The ash, oak, cherry species, alder/hazel and hawthorn/rowan/crab apple charcoal recovered is typical of fuels used during the Iron Age (Cutler and Gale 2000, 34, 88, 120, 183, 204-205) and is indicative of discarded firing debris from burning activities on site. The charcoal was poorly preserved and any further work would require the recovery of large quantities of better quality charcoal to ensure sufficient material for analysis. The magnetic material is derived from natural iron oxide within the soil that has become magnetised by heating. The modern fat hen and common orache seeds indicate contamination, possibly through bioturbation or modern agricultural practices. Any of the carbonised plant macrofossil material and any of the charcoal (with the exception of oak) would be suitable for radiocarbon dating, although the possibility that individual fragments may be redeposited or intrusive should be considered. No radiocarbon dating has taken place, but the samples are retained in the archive.

3. DISCUSSION

Mid to late Iron Age 3.1 The earliest feature encountered within the site consisted of an isolated, circular pit within excavation Area 2. Pit 1214 contained two fills. The primary fill contained 18 sherds of handmade medium-coarse shell-tempered and vesicular/organic- tempered pottery, attributed to the Middle to Late Iron Age. The un-abraded nature of the pottery suggests that the pit is its primary depositional context. Similar pottery assemblages have been identified within the region at Wardy Hill, Coveney, Ely and from Cambourne, west of Cambridge.

12 © Cotswold Archaeology Wilburton Solar Farm, East Cambridgeshire: Archaeological Evaluation and Mitigation

3.2 Samples retrieved from pit 1214, consisted of charcoal, carbonised plant macrofossil, animal bone, burnt bone, pottery, flint and fired clay. This material is indicative of discarded firing debris from burning activities on site and is suggestive of domestic cooking activities. The small size of the carbonised cereal assemblage means it is not possible to be certain of the scale of crop processing taking place.

3.3 Two undated pits (1209 and 1212) were also identified, which based on proximity and similarity of fills may be broadly contemporary with pit 1214. Samples retrieved from their single fills contained similar assemblages of burnt material.

3.4 Small amounts of heat-affected flint were identified as surface finds towards the north-western part of the site.

Romano-British 3.5 Little evidence for Romano activity was identified. The mitigation and evaluation has identified no areas of Roman activity, and only a single unstratified sherd of Roman pottery was discovered (from topsoil deposit 800). A further three fragments of possible Roman brick and/or tile were recovered from topsoil and subsoil deposits 700 and 301, respectively. There may have been activity within the site during this period; however; it is likely to have been transient in nature as it has left almost no archaeological evidence.

Undated 3.6 North/south ditch 1207 is earlier than ditch 1203 and, given its differing alignment to the current field boundaries, may pre-date existing landscape.

3.7 South-east/north-west oriented ditch 1203 in Area 2 is on a similar orientation to the existing field system approximately regular orientation to the extant field boundaries. Given that the western site boundary is also the parish boundary, if their perpendicular orientation indicates that they were at some time contemporary, ditch 1203 would be medieval or later in date. Ditches 1224 and 1702 are adjacent and parallel to 1203 and may also be related to the existing landscape at some time since the medieval period. There is, however, no dating evidence to indicate whether 1203, 1224 and 1702 were contemporary.

13 © Cotswold Archaeology Wilburton Solar Farm, East Cambridgeshire: Archaeological Evaluation and Mitigation

3.8 Curving undated ditch 1003 may have been part of a field or drainage system, or surrounding an enclosure, structure or building. Given the lack of evidence and limited area investigated, no firm interpretation can be offered.

Confidence Rating 3.9 The weather conditions (dry, overcast and bright days) and the soil conditions were conducive to observation of all archaeological remains present. The Archaeological Works areas include the entire footprint of the planned substations, so no extrapolation of their results to assess the potential of the rest of the field is required.

3.10 Although the artefact sampling obtained an almost null result, this is interpreted as an accurate sample of the ploughsoil’s archaeological assemblage. The increased scope of the methodology (wet sieving) eliminated any doubt that might have arisen as to whether the tenacity of the soil prevented an accurate sample of the site assemblage being taken.

4. CA PROJECT TEAM

Fieldwork was undertaken by Stuart Joyce, assisted by Jay Wood and Lucy Maynard. Further work was undertaken by Alexandra Wilkinson. The report was written by Stuart Joyce and Alexandra Wilkinson. Specialist reports were written by Angela Aggujaro (artefacts), Andy Clarke (animal bone) and Sarah Cobain (palaeoenvironmental remains). The illustrations were prepared by Jon Bennett. The archive has been compiled by Stuart Joyce, and prepared for deposition by James Johnson. The project was managed for CA by Tom Wilson.

14 © Cotswold Archaeology Wilburton Solar Farm, East Cambridgeshire: Archaeological Evaluation and Mitigation

5. REFERENCES

BGS (British Geological Survey) 2011 Geology of Britain Viewer (online resource at http://maps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyviewer_google/googleviewer.html viewed 29th March 2011)

Cotswold Archaeology (CA), 2011a Wilburton Solar Farm, East Cambridgeshire, Cambridgeshire, Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment and Heritage Statement (CA Report: 10196, unpublished report for The Abbey Group)

CA, 2011b Wilburton Solar Farm, East Cambridgeshire, Cambridgeshire, Written Scheme of Investigation for an Archaeological Evaluation (unpublished report for The Abbey Group)

Cutler, D.F. & Gale, R. 2000 Plants in Archaeology – Identification Manual of Artefacts of plant origin from Europe and the Mediterranean (Kew, Westbury Scientific Publishing)

Cunliffe, B. 2005 Iron Age Communities in Britain (Oxford, Routledge)

Evans, C. 2003 ‘Power and Island Communities. Excavations at the Wardy Hill Ringwork, Convey, Ely’, East Anglian Archaeology, 103

Harrison Geotechnical Engineering 2010, A Report on a Site Investigation at the Proposed Warburton Solar Park, Cambridgeshire, (SI Report EN15301_SI_WB, unpublished report for The Abbey Group)

Hill, J.D. & Horne, L. 2003 ‘Iron Age and Early Roman pottery’, in C. Evans, pp. 145–84

Leivers, M. 2009 ‘Later prehistoric material culture’, in J. Wright et al, pp. 74–78

Wright, J., Leivers, M., Seager Smith, R. and Stevens, C.J. 2009 Cambourne New Settlement, Iron Age and Romano-British settlement on the clay uplands of west Cambridgeshire Wessex Archaeology Report 23

APPENDIX A: CONTEXT DESCRIPTIONS

Excavation area 1 No. Type Description Length Widt Depth Spot- (m) h (m) (m) date 1100 Layer Topsoil: Dark grey-brown silty clay 0.4 1101 Layer Natural: Mottled orange-blue, grey clay 0.5 1102 Layer Natural: Blue grey clay, brash deposit 0.6 1103 Layer Natural: Underlying grey-yellow mudstone bedrock

Excavation area 2 No. Type Description Length Width Depth Spot- (m) (m) (m) date 1200 Layer Topsoil: Dark grey-brown silty clay 0.38 1201 Layer Natural: Mottled orange-yellow sandy clay 1202 VOID VOID 1203 Cut Cut of ditch 1.34 0.34 1204 Fill Fill of 1203: Dark grey-brown sandy clay 0.71 0.17 1205 Fill Fill of 1203: Light grey-brown sandy clay 0.86 0.14 1206 Fill Fill of 1203: Greyish orange brown sandy clay 0.62 0.24 1207 Cut Cut of ditch 1.07 0.2 1208 Fill Fill of 1207: Mid blueish grey clay 1.07 0.2 1209 Cut Cut of pit 0.63 0.7 0.14 1210 Fill Fill of 1209: Dark grey brown sandy clay 0.54 0.45 0.08 1211 Fill Fill of 1209: Mid orangey brown sandy clay 0.58 0.7 0.07 1212 Cut Cut of pit 0.32 0.26 0.04 1213 Fill Fill of 1212: Light grey-brown sandy clay 0.32 0.26 0.04 1214 Cut Cut of pit 0.6 0.34 1215 Fill Fill of 1214: Light grey sandy clay 0.37 0.05 1216 Fill Fill of 1214: Dark blackish grey sandy clay 0.6 0.34 1217 Fill Fill of 1214: Mid orange-yellow sandy clay 0.27 0.1 1218 Cut Cut of possible stakehole 0.17 0.15 0.12 1219 Fill Fill of 1218: Dark grey-brown sandy clay 0.17 0.15 0.12 1220 Cut Cut of field drain 0.19 0.3 1221 Fill Fill of 1220: Mixed dark grey-brown and dark 0.19 0.3 orange-brown sandy clay 1222 Cut Cut of ditch terminus 1223 Fill Fill of 1222 1224 Cut Cut of ditch terminus 1225 Fill Fill of 1224

Excavation area 3 No. Type Description Length Width Depth Spot- (m) (m) (m) date 1300 Layer Topsoil: Mid grey-brown silty clay 0.35 1301 Layer Natural: Mottled grey-yellow sandy clay 0.4 1302 Layer Natural: Blue-grey clay, brash inclusions 1 1303 Layer Natural: Blue-grey mudstone 1304 Cut Cut of ditch 0.68 0.37 1305 Fill Fill of 1304: Mid Blue-grey clay 0.68 0.37

Excavation area 4 No. Type Description Length Width Depth Spot- (m) (m) (m) date 1401 Layer Topsoil: Mid grey-brown silty clay 0.35 1402 Layer Natural: Mottled yellow-grey sandy clay

Excavation area 5 No. Type Description Length Width Depth Spot- (m) (m) (m) date 1500 Layer Topsoil: Mid to light grey brown silty clay 0.3 1501 Layer Natural: Yellow-grey mottled sandy clay 0.3 1502 Layer Natural: Blue-grey clay 0.7 1503 Layer Natural: Degraded mudstone

Test pit 1 No. Type Description Length Width Depth Spot- (m) (m) (m) date 100 Layer Topsoil: Dark grey-brown clay silt 0.37 101 Layer Natural: Grey with yellow mottling sandy clay 0.3 102 Layer Natural: White yellow-brown chalky-clay natural

Test pit 2 No. Type Description Length Width Depth Spot- (m) (m) (m) date 200 Layer Topsoil: Dark grey-brown clay silt 0.35 201 Layer Natural: Grey with yellow mottling sandy clay 0.1 202 Layer Natural: Yellow-grey mottled sandy clay 0.35 203 Layer Natural: Blue-grey clay

Test pit 3 No. Type Description Length Width Depth Spot- (m) (m) (m) date 300 Layer Topsoil: Mid to dark grey-brown clay silt 0.3 301 Layer Natural: Mottled yellow-grey sandy clay

Test pit 4 No. Type Description Length Width Depth Spot- (m) (m) (m) date 400 Layer Topsoil: Mid to dark grey-brown clay silt 0.3 401 Layer Natural: Yellow-grey clay 0.3 402 Layer Natural: Degraded grey-blue mudstone

Test pit 5 No. Type Description Length Width Depth Spot- (m) (m) (m) date 500 Layer Topsoil: Mid to dark grey-brown clay silt 0.3 501 Layer Natural: Yellow-grey clay

Test pit 6 No. Type Description Length Width Depth Spot- (m) (m) (m) date 600 Layer Topsoil: Mid grey-brown clay silt 0.3 601 Layer Natural: Yellow and grey mottled sandy clay

Test pit 7 No. Type Description Length Width Depth Spot- (m) (m) (m) date 700 Layer Topsoil: Mid grey-brown clay silt 0.3 701 Layer Natural: Yellow and grey mottled clay

Test pit 8 No. Type Description Length Width Depth Spot- (m) (m) (m) date 800 Layer Topsoil: Mid to light grey-brown clay silt 0.3 801 Layer Natural: Yellow and grey mottled sandy clay 0.25 802 Layer Natural: Blue-grey clay

Test pit 9 No. Type Description Length Width Depth Spot- (m) (m) (m) date 900 Layer Topsoil: Mid to light grey-brown clay silt 0.3 901 Layer Natural: Yellow and grey mottled sandy clay 0.3 902 Layer Natural: Blue-grey clay

Test pit 10 No. Type Description Length Width Depth Spot- (m) (m) (m) date 1000 Layer Topsoil: Mid to light grey-brown clay silt 0.3 1001 Layer Natural: Yellow and grey mottled sandy clay 0.3 1002 Layer Natural: Blue-grey clay 1003 Cut Cut of ditch 0.92 0.28 1004 Fill Fill of 1003: Mid blue-brown silt clay 0.92 0.28 1005 Fill Fill of 1003:Mid yellow-brown silt clay 0.92 0.16 1006 Deposit Possible remnant bank material

Watching Brief area 1 No. Type Description Length Width Depth Spot- (m) (m) (m) date 1600 Layer Topsoil: Mid to light grey-brown clay silt 0.25 1601 Layer Natural: Orange and brown mottled sandy clay 1602 Cut Cut of geological banding 1.75 0.39 1603 Deposit Natural orangey grey sandy clay banding 1.75 0.39

Watching Brief area 2 No. Type Description Length Width Depth Spot- (m) (m) (m) date 1700 Layer Topsoil: Mid to light grey-brown clay silt 0.33 1701 Layer Natural: Orange and brown mottled sandy clay 1702 Cut Cut of ditch 0.6 0.1 1703 Fill Fill of 1702: Mid to dark orangey brown silty clay 0.6 0.1

APPENDIX B: THE FINDS

Context Description Ct. Wt. Date 301 <36> Ceramic building material 1 3 RB? 501 <37> Modern green glass 1 3 MOD 700 <38> Ceramic building material 2 15 RB? 800 <10> Roman pottery: whiteware 1 14 C3-C4 1000 <12> Ceramic building material 1 3 - 1204 Slate 2 24 MOD

Ceramic building material 3 4 1216 Prehistoric pottery: hand-made shell-tempered (SH2) and MLIA vesicular/organic-tempered fabric (V2) 18 112 Fired clay 9 70 Animal bone sheep/goat, sheep-size 49 62 1215 <21>* Burnt bone 7 1 1216 <22>* Prehistoric pottery: hand-made shell-tempered and vesicular/organic- MLIA tempered fabric 11 8 Animal bone 200+ 84 Worked flint: un-utilized flake 4 9 Fired clay 20 40 10-

Burnt animal bone 2 Fish bone 1 - Small animal bone 1 - 1221 Ceramic building material 1 1 - 1300 <17> Ceramic building material 1 4 - 1400 <23> Ceramic building material 4 3 - 1500 <25> Ceramic building material 1 1 -

* artefacts from environmental bulk soil samples Prehistoric pottery fabric description referred to from Leivers, M. 2009. SH2: abundant and well-sorted shell, sparse mica V2: linear voids (probably calcareous and organic), sparse mica.

APPENDIX C: ARTEFACT RECOVERY SAMPLES

Table showing artefact retrieval from topsoil/subsoil samples.

Sample Context Description Volume % of sample Material recovered No. No. (L) processed 1 101 Topsoil 45 100% Nil 2 102 Subsoil 45 100% Nil 3 100 Topsoil 45 100% Nil 4 200 Topsoil 45 100% Nil 5 300 Topsoil 45 100% Nil 6 400 Topsoil 45 100% Nil 7 500 Topsoil 45 100% Nil 8 600 Topsoil 45 100% Nil 9 700 Topsoil 45 100% Nil 10 800 Topsoil 45 100% Roman pottery: whiteware 11 900 Topsoil 45 100% Nil 12 1000 Topsoil 45 100% Ceramic building material 13 1200 Topsoil 45 100% Nil 14 1201 Subsoil 45 100% Nil 15 1103 Clay layer 45 100% Nil 16 1301 Clay layer 45 100% Nil 17 1300 Topsoil 45 100% Ceramic building material 18 1302 Clay layer 45 100% Nil 23 1400 Topsoil 45 100% Ceramic building material 24 1401 Subsoil 45 100% Nil 25 1500 Topsoil 45 100% Ceramic building material 26 1501 Subsoil 45 100% Nil 27 1502 Clay layer 45 100% Nil 28 1001 Subsoil 45 100% Nil 29 801 Subsoil 45 100% Nil 30 601 Subsoil 45 100% Nil 31 401 Subsoil 45 100% Nil 32 402 Clay layer 45 100% Nil 33 201 Subsoil 45 100% Nil 34 101 Subsoil 45 100% Nil 35 102 Clay layer 45 100% Nil 36 301 Subsoil 45 100% Ceramic building material 37 501 Subsoil 45 100% Modern green glass 38 701 Subsoil 45 100% Ceramic building material 39 901 Subsoil 45 100% Nil

APPENDIX D: PALAEOENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLES

Table showing ecofact and artefact retrieval from environmental samples.

Sample Context Volume % Material Weight Quantity Identification (where No. No. (L) of sample (g) applicable) processed 19 1210 10 100% Flot 0.5mm 11 and 0.25mm Charcoal 5 + flot C Alnus glutinosa/ Corylus avellana (Alder/Hazel) Quercus robur/ petraea (Oak) Carbonised N/A(in E Chenopodium album (Fat Plant flot) hen) Macrofossils 20 1213 2 100% Flot 0.5mm 1 and 0.25mm Charcoal 2 + flot D Alnus glutinosa/ Corylus avellana (Alder/Hazel) Maloideae spp. – Crateagus monogyna, Sorbus spp./ Malus sylvestris) (Hawthorn/rowan/crab apple) Quercus robur/ petraea (Oak) 21 1215 20 100% Flot 0.5mm 10 and 0.25mm Charcoal 16 B Alnus glutinosa/ Corylus + flot avellana (Alder/Hazel) Fraxinus excelsior (Ash) Maloideae spp. – Crateagus monogyna, Sorbus spp./ Malus sylvestris) (Hawthorn/rowan/crab apple) Quercus robur/ petraea (Oak) Plant N/A (in E Chenopodium album (Fat Macrofossils flot) hen) Hordeum vulgare (Barley)

Animal Bone 1 E

Magnetic 2 C Material

Sample Context Volume Percentage Material Weight Quantity Identification (where No. No. (L) of sample (g) applicable) processed 22 1216 45 100% Flot 0.5mm 36 and 0.25mm Charcoal 17 A Maloideae spp. – + flot Crateagus monogyna, Sorbus spp./ Malus sylvestris) (Hawthorn/rowan/crab apple) Prunus spp. (Cherry spp.) Quercus robur/ petraea (Oak) Plant N/A (in D Atriplex patula (Common Macrofossils flot) orache) Avena spp. (Oat) Chenopodium album (Fat hen) Hordeum vulgare (Barley) Poaceae (Indeterminate cereal grain) Triticum spp. (Wheat glume base) Burnt Bone 2 D Fired Clay 40 D Flint 9 E Large Animal 84 A Bone Magnetic 2 C Material Pottery 8 D

Quantity Codes: A = 200+ fragments, B = 100–200 fragments, C = 50–100 fragments, D = 10-50 fragments, E = 1–10

APPENDIX E: OASIS REPORT FORM

PROJECT DETAILS

Project Name Wilburton Solar Farm, Cambridgeshire Short description A programme of archaeological evaluation, mitigation and further works was undertaken by Cotswold Archaeology at the site of the planned Wilburton Solar Farm, Wilburton, East Cambridgeshire. Evaluation and mitigation took place in April 2011, with further works carried out in May 2011. The evaluation comprised five excavation areas and ten test pits. Mitigation comprised excavation of additional areas and further sampling of features in areas found to contain archaeological remains. Further works comprised excavation under archaeological control of the lines of two cable trenches within 20m of Excavation Area 2.

The earliest archaeological feature encountered consisted of a single, circular pit, dated to the Iron Age. Two further, undated, pits may be contemporary.

Within Excavation Area 2, a north-south oriented ditch and two north-west/south-east oriented ditches were identified. The north- south oriented ditch was stratigraphically older than one of the others, but otherwise remained undated. The north-west/south-east oriented ditches were perpendicular to the parish boundary and other boundaries within the existing field system. A 2m length of a fourth, curvilinear undated ditch was located in Test Pit 10, in the northern part of the site.

Project dates 4 April – 10 May 2011 Project type Field Evaluation Previous work DBA: Cotswold Archaeology (CA), 2011 Future work Unknown PROJECT LOCATION Site Location Wilburton Solar Farm, East Cambridgeshire, Cambridgeshire Study area (M2/ha) 20 Ha Site co-ordinates (8 Fig. Grid Reference) TL 4741 7378 PROJECT CREATORS Name of organisation Cotswold Archaeology Project Brief originator Cambridge County Council Project Design (WSI) originator Cotswold Archaeology Project Manager Tom Wilson Project Supervisor Stuart Joyce and Alexandra Wilkinson MONUMENT TYPE none SIGNIFICANT FINDS none PROJECT ARCHIVES Intended final location of archive Content (e.g. pottery, (museum/Accession no.) animal bone etc) Physical County Archaeology Store ceramics, animal bone etc Paper County Archaeology Store Context sheets, trench sheets, registers etc Digital County Archaeology Store Database, digital photos etc BIBLIOGRAPHY CA (Cotswold Archaeology) 2011 Wilburton Solar Farm, Wilburton Parish, East Cambridgeshire, Cambridgeshire: Archaeological Evaluation. CA typescript report 11095