Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire
Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design
for CgMs Consulting Ltd
on behalf of Miller Homes
CA Project: 9234 CA Report: 17031
Month (in words) Year
Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire
Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design
CA Project: 9234 CA Report: 17031
prepared by Nicky Garland – Publications Officer
date 2 February 2017
checked by Dan Stansbie - Project Manager
date 8 February 2017
approved by Martin Watts – Head of Publications
signed
date 17 February 2017
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.
1
Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
CONTENTS
SUMMARY ...... 5
1 INTRODUCTION ...... 6
Location, topography and geology ...... 6 Archaeological background ...... 6
2 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES ...... 8
3 METHODOLOGY ...... 9
4 RESULTS ...... 9
Fieldwork summary ...... 9 Natural substrate ...... 10 Period 1: Late Iron Age to Early Roman (100 BC-AD 200) (Figs 3&4) ... 10 Period 2: Medieval (1066-1539) ...... 14 Period 3: Post-Medieval (1540-1800) (Figs 2, 3 & 4) ...... 15
5 FACTUAL DATA AND STATEMENTS OF POTENTIAL ...... 16
Stratigraphic Record: factual data ...... 16 Stratigraphic record: statement of potential...... 16 Artefactual record: factual data ...... 17 Artefactual record: statements of potential ...... 19 Biological record: factual data ...... 20 Biological record: statements of potential ...... 22
6 SUMMARY STATEMENT OF POTENTIAL ...... 23
7 STORAGE AND CURATION ...... 25
8 UPDATED AIMS AND OBJECTIVES ...... 25
Objective 1: Investigate the wider landscape context and function of the Late Iron Age/Early Roman enclosures ...... 26 Objective 2: Establish the wider social and economic context of the Late Iron Age/Early Roman and medieval and later ceramic assemblages ...... 26 Objective 3: Establish the wider economic and agricultural context of the evidence for medieval and post-medieval agriculture ...... 26
2 Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
9 PUBLICATION ...... 27
Synopsis of Proposed Summary Publication ...... 28
10 PROJECT TEAM ...... 29
11 TASK LIST ...... 30
12 TIMETABLE ...... 30
13 REFERENCES ...... 31
APPENDIX 1: STRATIGRAPHIC ASSESSEMENT BY NICKY GARLAND ...... 33
APPENDIX 2: LITHICS BY E.R. MCSLOY ...... 34
APPENDIX 3: LATE IRON AGE TO ROMAN POTTERY BY E.R. MCSLOY ...... 35
APPENDIX 4: MEDIEVAL AND LATER POTTERY BY E.R. MCSLOY ...... 38
APPENDIX 5: MIXED FINDS BY KATIE MARSDEN ...... 39
APPENDIX 6: ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE ASSESSMENT BY SARAH F. WYLES ...... 40
APPENDIX 7: ANIMAL BONE BY BY ANDY CLARKE ...... 44
APPENDIX 8: OASIS REPORT FORM ...... 46
3 Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Fig. 1 Site location plan (1:25,000) Fig. 2 Excavation, evaluation trench and geophysical survey location plan showing archaeological features (1:1500) Fig. 3 Areas A and C Phase Plan (1:1000) Fig. 4 Area A phase plan (1:500) Fig. 5 Enclosure 50005: sections and photographs (1:20) Fig. 6 Ditches 50131 and 50107: sections and photographs (1:20)
4 Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
SUMMARY
Site Name: Highfield Farm, Tetbury Location: Gloucestershire NGR: ST 8941 9418 Type: Excavation Date: April 2015 to September 2016 Planning Reference: 13/02391/OUT Location of archive: CA Offices - Andover Site Code: HFF 15
A phased programme of archaeological investigation was undertaken by Cotswold Archaeology between April 2015 and September 2016 at the request of CgMs Consulting Ltd (on behalf of Miller Homes) at Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire. A total area of 1.22ha was excavated across the development area.
The excavation provided a window on part of a Late Iron Age/Early Roman (c. 100 BC – AD 200) and medieval to post-medieval (1066 – 1800) agricultural landscape (Figs 2 and 3). The earliest activity for which the excavation provided evidence was the construction and use of three enclosures, which probably dated to the Late Iron Age/Roman transition. These enclosures were largely devoid of evidence for occupation, or other activity, suggesting their use as stock enclosures peripheral to an area of settlement, with small quantities of pottery, animal bone and wind-blown charred plant remains recovered from the ditch fills, suggesting contemporary settlement in the near vicinity. Ceramic dating evidence suggests that the enclosures had gone out of use by the Late Roman period and the presence of medieval or post-medieval plough furrows, medieval quarry pits and a post medieval boundary ditch suggests that the area was ploughed from the medieval period and continued in agricultural use until the present day.
This document presents a quantification and assessment of the evidence recovered from the excavation. It considers the evidence collectively in its local, regional and national context, and presents an updated project design for a programme of post-excavation analysis to bring the results to appropriate publication.
5 Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Between April 2015 and September 2016 Cotswold Archaeology (CA) carried out a phased archaeological excavation at Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire (centred on NGR: ST 8941 9418; Fig. 1). The work was undertaken at the request of CgMs Consulting Ltd on behalf of Miller Homes in accordance with a brief for archaeological mitigation (13/02391/OUT) prepared by Charles Parry, Senior Archaeological Officer, Gloucestershire County Council, the archaeological advisors to the Local Planning Authority (LPA), and with a subsequent detailed WSI produced by CA (2015) and approved by the LPA acting on the advice of Mr Parry. The fieldwork also followed Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Excavation (CIfA 2014); the Statement of Standards and Practices Appropriate for Archaeological Fieldwork in Gloucestershire (GCC 1995), the Management of Research Projects in the Historic Environment (MORPHE): Project Manager’s Guide (Historic England 2015a) and accompanying PPN3: Archaeological Excavation (Historic England 2015b). The fieldwork was monitored by Mr Parry.
Location, topography and geology 1.2 The site lies to the north of the town of Tetbury and prior to development was occupied by several fields of pasture, subdivided by hedgerows and drainage ditches. The site is bounded by the A433 London Road to the east, an area of residential development to the south, school playing fields to the west and arable fields to the north (Fig. 2). The site lies at approximately 128m AOD, and gently slopes from the west down towards the eastern boundary.
1.3 The underlying geology of the area is mapped as Forest Marble Formation (Limestone), with a band of mudstone running across the site from north to south. This is a sedimentary bedrock formed approximately 165 to 168 million years ago in the Jurassic Period (BGS 2017). No superficial deposits are mapped for this area.
Archaeological background 1.4 An archaeological desk based assessment (DBA) of the site was undertaken in 2002 (GCCAS 2002). The DBA highlighted the presence of prehistoric and Romano-British activity within the vicinity of the site, including the presence of a probable prehistoric bowl barrow, located c .600m to the north-east. Undated cropmarks have been identified from aerial photographs of the area surrounding the site, including a number identified c. 400m to the west (SMR ref. 4281) and c.
6 Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
700m to the north-east (SMR ref. 4219). Moreover, a large subrectangular enclosure has been identified in the area to the north-east of Highfield Farm. Although currently undated, the enclosure is probably later prehistoric or Roman in date, based upon its general morphology. The remains of ridge-and-furrow earthworks were also noted in the north-eastern part of the site and aerial photographs suggest that similar earthworks survived elsewhere within the site until relatively recently.
1.5 A geophysical survey of the site was conducted in 2010 (PCG 2011). The survey identified a number of possible archaeological features, including a possible enclosure in the central part of the site (Fig. 2). A number of pits, possibly representing areas of burning (each circled in red), were identified within the enclosure and in the eastern and northern areas of the site. Furthermore, a number of broadly north/south and east/west linear features were identified during the survey and interpreted to represent the remains of ridge-and-furrow agriculture.
1.6 A trial trench evaluation of the site was undertaken by Cotswold Archaeology in 2010 (CA 2010), targeting the results of the geophysical survey. The evaluation, undertaken in July and August 2010, consisted of the excavation of 39 trenches and identified a number of archaeological features, including ditches and pits, correlating well with the results of the preceding geophysical survey. The archaeological features encountered dated to either the Late Iron Age or Roman periods and appeared to confirm the existence the small enclosure that was identified from the geophysical survey. Furthermore, a large possible quarry pit, in the eastern part of the site contained pottery dating to the 3rd to 4th centuries AD. A small number of undated pits and post-medieval and modern agricultural features (including furrows) were also uncovered across the site.
1.7 Although investigation of the area surrounding the site has revealed limited archaeological evidence, a number of small archaeological evaluations have revealed evidence for later prehistoric and Roman occupation of the wider landscape. An archaeological evaluation undertaken c. 75m to the south-east of the site revealed no archaeological features, however, a number of pottery sherds dating to both the Roman and medieval periods were recovered (CAT 1997). Furthermore, investigations in 2012 c. 100m to the south-east revealed part of a well preserved later prehistoric/early Roman settlement, which comprised a number ditches gullies postholes and possible limestone quarries. Along with a
7 Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
moderate assemblage of later prehistoric and Early Roman pottery, part of a contemporary copper-alloy brooch was recovered from the fill of a probable quarry pit (FA 2012).
1.8 The archaeological investigation of the site comprised the excavation of three areas (A, B and C) and two trenches (43 and 44 - Fig. 2). Area A measured approximately 100m square and was positioned to investigate the probable enclosure as identified during the geophysical survey and evaluation of the site. A central band aligned north-south across Area A and thus splitting the area into an eastern and western parts was designated a ‘green corridor’ not subject to development and therefore remained unexcavated. Area B measured approximately 45m by 21m and was centred upon a possible pit alignment uncovered within Trench 6 of the evaluation. Area C measured approximately 35m by 32m and was centred on a number of pits uncovered within Trenches 8 and 9 during the evaluation. Trenches 43 and 44 along the northern boundary of the site were two small areas of additional excavation (each measuring c. 25m by c. 15m) located, specifically on the footprints of two large ponds, and replaced a planned small area of excavation (D) as outlined in the WSI (CA 2015).
1.9
2 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
2.1 The aims of the excavation, laid out in a project design produced by CA (2015) and in accordance with a brief produced by Charles Parry were as follows:
record the nature of the main stratigraphic units encountered;
assess the overall presence, survival and potential of structural and industrial remains;
assess the overall presence, survival, condition, and potential of artefactual and ecofactual remains.
2.2 The project design (CA 2015) also outlined a number of objectives, which related to specific areas of the site. They were as follows:
Area A is centred on Trenches 16 and 17 from the evaluation phase. This investigation will better define the nature and of the Roman activity in this
8 Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
part of the site and confirm (or otherwise) the anticipated 1st/3rd and 4th century AD date of the remains;
The remaining three further areas (B, C, and D) will be focussed on Trenches 5, 8, 9, and 35 respectively, with the objective of defining and dating a series of as yet undated pits and ditches
.
3 METHODOLOGY
3.1 Fieldwork commenced with the removal of topsoil and subsoil from the excavation area by mechanical excavator with a toothless grading bucket, under archaeological supervision.
3.2 The archaeological features thus exposed were hand-excavated to the bottom of archaeological stratigraphy. All features were planned and recorded in accordance with CA Technical Manual 1: Fieldwork Recording Manual (CA 2014). Deposits were assessed for their environmental potential in accordance with CA Technical Manual 2: The taking and processing of environmental and other samples from archaeological sites (CA 2012) and 13 were deemed suitable for environmental sampling. All artefacts recovered from the excavation were retained in accordance with CA Technical Manual 3: Treatment of finds immediately after excavation (CA 1995).
4 RESULTS
Fieldwork summary 4.1 The total area of the four excavation areas was c. 1.22ha. The archaeological remains were confined to Areas A and C, with no archaeological remains uncovered during the excavation of Area B, or Trenches 43 and 44 (Figs 2 and 3). The impact of medieval and post-medieval agriculture had resulted in the truncation of the generally shallow archaeological remains. This section provides an overview of the excavation results; detailed summaries of the recorded contexts, finds and environmental samples (biological evidence) are to be found in Appendices 1-5 and 6-7, respectively.
9 Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
4.2 The features uncovered during the excavation have been assigned to three provisional periods (Figs 3 and 4). The provisional phasing is based on artefact dating (where present) recovered from the fills of identified features, and/or on defined stratigraphic sequences. The finds assemblage recovered from across the three areas of excavation was limited, making definitive phasing difficult. A number of features contained no artefactual evidence or had no stratigraphic relationship to other features, but have been assigned to a period based upon morphological characteristics and/or spatial relationships to other features. The identified periods were:
Period 1: Late Iron Age to Early Roman (100 BC-AD 200)
Period 2: Medieval (1066-1539)
Period 3: Post-Medieval (1539-1800)
Natural substrate 4.3 The natural substrate across all of the excavation areas comprised limestone bedrock with patches of mid greyish yellow clay. The natural horizon was overlain by a layer of subsoil, generally a yellow brown silty clay with common limestone inclusions, which measured between 0.2–0.25m in thickness. The subsoil was in turn covered by a greyish brown clayey silty topsoil, with a thickness of approximately 0.3m across the site.
Period 1: Late Iron Age to Early Roman (100 BC-AD 200) (Figs 3&4) 4.4 The earliest phase of activity on the site was presented by a small sub-rectangular enclosure (50005) of Late Iron Age to early Roman date, and a series of boundary ditches (50107, 50130, 50131, 50132 and 50133) probably representing the western limits of two slightly larger enclosures to its north-west, which were broadly contemporary with it. The lack of evidence for structures or any other related occupation features suggests that the site was used for keeping livestock and lay peripheral to the main area of occupation in this area during this period, although it should be borne in mind that ploughing during later periods could have removed shallow gullies, postholes and beam-slots.
Enclosure 50005 4.5 A small enclosure (50005), measuring approximately 30m in length and 28m in width, was uncovered in the eastern half of Area A. The enclosure, which lay partially underneath the central band dividing the excavation area, comprised
10 Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
three ditch segments, with an opening at the south-eastern corner. Nine interventions were excavated across the enclosure ditch, each of which had a steep-sided concave profile, between 0.95m–1.33m in width and 0.46m–0.73m in depth (Fig. 5). Six interventions were excavated through the northern and eastern segment of the enclosure, which extended from the western edge of the central band in a broadly south-east direction before turning to the south-west. Two interventions were excavated though the southern boundary ditch, which was orientated broadly north-west/south-east, while a separate and smaller segment (50016); 3.62m in length, lay immediately to its east. Ditch 50016, which was slightly smaller in size than the rest of the enclosure ditch, was 0.85m in width and 0.35m in depth, and therefore may represent a separate phase of activity, possibly a later addition. An entrance to the enclosure consisted of a small gap, approximately 5m in width, between ditch 50016 and the terminal of the northern and eastern boundary in the south-eastern corner (50003). In general the enclosure ditch fills comprised clay silts with infrequent limestone inclusions; however, In one intervention (50006) (Fig. 5, Section BB) they consisted of layers of clay silt alternating with bands of silty clay and limestone rubble, suggesting periods of gradual silting interspersed with deliberate backfilling.
4.6 A moderate assemblage of pottery (55 sherds) and other finds was recovered from the fills of the enclosure ditch and suggest it was constructed and utilised in the mid or later 1st century AD. Only one (50053) of the nine interventions through the enclosure ditch contained no pottery, and in four of the interventions pottery was recovered from the initial deposits within the ditch (fill 50010 in intervention 50006; fill 50013 in intervention 50012, fill 50017 in intervention 50016; fill 50030 in intervention 50029). Although the pottery is mostly of a local and regional origin, imported continental wares are represented by a single amphora sherd from Southern Gaul recovered from the latest fill (50007) of intervention 50006. The small quantities of pottery recovered from these contexts suggest that the enclosure was peripheral to more densely occupied areas of activity. Animal bone, fired clay and worked flint was also recovered from the fills of the enclosure ditch. A single sherd of medieval pottery and two fragments of medieval ceramic building material (CBM) was recovered from the final fill within intervention 50029. This material may be represent the latest period of infilling of the enclosure ditch, or more likely, is the result of later medieval truncation in this area.
11 Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
4.7 Very few features were uncovered within enclosure 50005. Two small ditches (50024/50028, 50022/50026) were uncovered in the northern part of the enclosure, although each was only partially exposed as they ran under the central band dividing Area A. No finds were recovered from either feature, and truncation by pit (50040/50055 – see below) meant that it was not possible to determine the stratigraphic relationship between these ditches and the main enclosure ditch to the north. It is possible, based on their orientation that they formed internal divisions to the enclosure, or related to an enclosure defined by ditches 50130, 50131 and 50132 to the west; however, there is limited available evidence to be certain. Pit 50040/50055 was sub-circular in shape and measured 0.55m in width and 0.39m in depth. No finds were recovered from the fills of the pit; however, it was truncated by part of the enclosure ditch (50053) and therefore may represent a slightly earlier phase of activity. The lack of evidence for any internal structures, pits and/or occupation debris within the confines of the enclosure ditch, suggests that it was probably used as a stock enclosure.
Possible Enclosure Boundary Ditches 4.8 Five linear ditches (50107, 50130, 50131, 50132 and 50133) located to the west of Enclosure 50005 possibly represent the western and southern limits of two further broadly contemporary sub-rectangular/rectilinear enclosures. Both enclosures were orientated north-east/south-west, with the enclosure represented by ditches 50107 and 50133 being the larger and more regular of the two, and seemingly having been constructed in a single phase without subsequent alteration; while the enclosure represented by ditches 50130, 50131 and 50132 was less regular in plan and consisted, in places, of two parallel ditches, probably representing distinct sub-phases, rather than a single contemporary boundary.
Ditches 50130, 50131 and 50132 (Figs 3, 4 & 6) 4.9 Ditch 50131 represented the western limit of the smaller of the two possible enclosures. The ditch was aligned broadly north-east/south-west and extended for 32m, after which it turned to the south-east and continued for a further 15m. It was broadly concave in profile and measured between 0.42m–0.82m in width and 0.04m–0.31m in depth. A single sherd of Roman pottery, dating to the 1st century AD, was recovered from the single fill (50129) of intervention 50128 through the ditch. Very small quantities of animal bone were also recovered from the fills (50059, 50070 and 50109) of three interventions through the ditch (50058, 50071 and 50110 respectively).
12 Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
4.10 Ditch 50130 lay parallel to ditch 50131 at a distance of 0.5m to its west. The ditch was c. 24m in length, 0.38m–0.55m in width and 0.08m–0.16m in depth. Ditch 50132 was located c. 4.5m to the south of ditch 50130 and measured 13m in length, 0.34m–0.61m in width and 0.06m–0.12m in depth. Ditch 50132 lay parallel to the southern section of ditch 50131 at a distance of 0.8m to its north-east and at its northern end was demonstrably stratigraphically later than ditch 50131. A single piece of worked flint, recovered from the fill (50111) of intervention 50112, is suggested to be of Mesolithic date and therefore is likely to represent redeposited material. No other dateable finds were recovered from the fills of ditches 50130 or 50132. However, based on the proximity and stratigraphic relationship (where apparent) of these features to ditch 50131, it is probable that both represent the renewal of the possible enclosure boundary ditch over time.
Ditches 50107 and 50133 (Figs 3, 4 & 6) 4.11 Ditch 50107 was aligned broadly north-east/south-west, and extended for c. 80m, running beyond the limit of excavation to the north. After c. 45m the ditch dog- legged for c. 10m to the south-east, before returning to the south-west. The ditch was broadly concave in profile and measured 0.37m–0.5m in width and 0.15m– 0.2m in depth. Dating evidence from the ditch comprised 21 sherds of later prehistoric/Late Iron Age pottery from the single fill (50094) of ditch intervention 50093. This may indicate that this boundary ditch was established in the Late Iron Age and was slightly earlier than the construction of enclosure 50005. In addition, a single sherd of later prehistoric/Late Iron Age pottery was recovered from the upper fill (50067) of intervention 50065, along with a very small assemblage of animal bone.
4.12 Ditch 50133 extended from the dog-leg of ditch 50107 to the south-east, leaving a short gap of under 1m, possibly representing an entrance to the putative enclosure. Although the ditch extended beyond the western limit of the central band, it measured (as observed) c. 11m in length, 0.26m–0.39m in width and 0.09m–0.34m in depth. The ditch had a concave profile and contained a single clayey silt fill. Three sherds of later prehistoric pottery were recovered from the fill (50116) of ditch intervention 50115.
4.13 As the area between enclosures 50005 and ditches 50107, 50130, 50131, 50132, and 50133 was unexcavated, it is not possible to definitively understand the relationship between these separate elements of the archaeological remains,
13 Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
however, it is likely, based upon the similar dating evidence recovered from the fills all the ditches, that they were broadly contemporary in date.
Discrete features (Figs 3 & 4) 4.14 Three small discrete features were uncovered to the east of ditch 50131. These include two small postholes (50077, 50079), located at a distance of 2.6m from one another. Both of the postholes measured 0.21m in dimeter and 0.13m in depth. A small gully (50081/50083) was located c. 3m to the west of the postholes. The gully measured 3.1m in length, 0.37m in width and 0.1m in depth. It was truncated by ditch 50130 and therefore pre-dated it. A single piece of animal bone was recovered from the fill (500082) of gully 50081/50083. No dating evidence was recovered from the fills of any of these features, however, they have been dated to this period based on their proximity to the enclosure ditches to the west and enclosure 50005 to the east.
Period 2: Medieval (1066-1539) 4.15 Activity dating to the medieval period was represented by three large quarry pits uncovered within Area C (Fig. 3). The largest quarry pit (41005) measured approximately 25m in length, 13m in width and c. 1m in depth. The feature extended beyond the western edge of the excavation area and consequently the full extent has not been uncovered. The lower fill (41004) of the pit comprised a 0.6m thick layer of limestone rubble, which was covered by a brown clayey silt (41003), 0.4m in thickness. Two sherds of probable medieval pottery and three shells were recovered from fill 41003. Quarry pit 41005 was truncated by a later quarry pit (41010), which measured 10m in length, 5m in width and 0.4m in depth. The pit contained a single clayey silt fill (41009), from which no finds were recovered. Although undated, the stratigraphic relationship to the earlier feature suggests it was of a medieval or post-medieval date.
4.16 Quarry pit 41008 was located immediately to the north-east of quarry pit 41010. The pit measured 9.5m in length, 2.3m in width and 0.7m in depth and contained two fills. The lower fill (41007) comprised a deposit of limestone rubble, measuring 0.3m in thickness, and was overlain by a brown clayey silt (41006), measuring 0.5m in thickness. No finds were recovered from either fill. Although this feature remains undated its proximity to the features described above suggests that it is broadly contemporary in date.
14 Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
Period 3: Post-Medieval (1540-1800) (Figs 2, 3 & 4) 4.17 A number of features of probable post-medieval date were uncovered across Area A. These features are likely to represent agricultural activities, including boundary ditches and ridge and furrow.
Furrows 4.18 A number of broadly north/south agricultural furrows were uncovered during excavation of Area A. The furrows, although absent in places, stretched across both sides of Area A for a maximum distance of approximately 60m. The furrows were stratigraphically later than the Late Iron Age/Early Roman enclosure 50005.
Field Boundary 4.19 A single east/west field boundary ditch (50060) ran across the western side of Area A (Fig. 4). The ditch had a gently sloping concave profile and measured 34m in length, 1.26m in width and 0.15m in depth. A single yellowish brown silty clay fill (50061) was deposited within the ditch, from which animal bone, clay tobacco pipe, coal, and a fragment of iron was recovered. Although the stratigraphic relationship between this ditch and Late Iron Age/Early Roman enclosure ditches 50107, 50130 and 50131 was not tested during this investigation, it is assumed, based on the finds recovered from the ditch fills, that ditch 50060 represents a field boundary of post-medieval date. This interpretation is supported by the parallel orientation of boundary ditch 50060 to the pre-existing modern field boundary to its north.
Wall 4.20 A small stretch of wall (50074) was uncovered along the northern edge of Area A, extending beyond the limit of excavation to the north. The wall extended 2m to the south before turning to the east and stretching for another 5m. The wall comprised unmortared limestone rubble, measuring approximately 0.2m in depth. A layer of clearance material (50075) lay to the north of the wall, from which clay tobacco pipe and medieval and post-medieval pottery was recovered. Although there was no dating evidence associated with the construction of the wall, it is probably post- medieval in date, based on the material recovered from layer 50075 and the proximity of field boundary 50060, located c. 5m to the south.
Gully 4.21 A gully (50047) was uncovered close to the northern boundary of Area A. The gully was linear in plan and measured 4.93m in length, 1.05m in width and 0.12m
15 Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
in depth. The single fill (50048) of the feature comprised a mid greyish brown silty clay from which a single sherd of post-medieval pottery was recovered.
5 FACTUAL DATA AND STATEMENTS OF POTENTIAL
Stratigraphic Record: factual data 5.1 Following the completion of the fieldwork an ordered, indexed, and internally consistent site archive was compiled in accordance with specifications presented in the Management of Research Projects in the Historic Environment (MORPHE): Project Manager’s Guide (Historic England 2015a). A database of all contextual and artefactual evidence and a site matrix was also compiled and cross- referenced to spot-dating. The fieldwork comprises the following records:
Context sheets 152 Digital Survey (CAD) 1 Sections (1:10, 1:20) 44 Sample sheets 13 Digital photographs 196
5.2 The survival and intelligibility of the site stratigraphy was good with archaeological remains having survived as negative features despite later medieval and post- medieval agricultural activities. There were few stratigraphic relationships between features, apart from that between later prehistoric/Roman features and the later post-medieval field boundaries/drainage ditches. Despite a relative paucity of stratigraphic relationships, most features have been assigned a preliminary period based on dating from recovered artefacts and/or spatial association (see Appendix 1).
Stratigraphic record: statement of potential 5.3 A secure stratigraphic sequence is essential to elucidating the form, purpose, date, organisation and development of the various phases of activity represented. The site stratigraphy has been analysed as far as the evidence allows and features have been dated by associated finds, stratigraphic relationships and spatial logic where possible.
5.4 The stratigraphic record forms a complete record of the archaeological features uncovered, however, the relative lack of inter-relationships between features, and
16 Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
the limited amount of dating evidence recovered, limits the potential for fully understanding the functioning and development of the site.
Artefactual record: factual data 5.5 All finds collected during the excavation have been cleaned, marked, quantified and catalogued by context. All metalwork has been x-rayed and stabilised where appropriate.
Type Category Count Weight (g) Pottery Late Iron Age to Roman 88 429 Medieval 5 25 Post-medieval/modern 23 409 Total 116 863 Flint Worked/burnt 4 18 Fired Clay All 28 21 Metals Iron 3 23 Clay Tobacco Pipe 14 29 Coal 2 4
5.6 The finds assemblage consists of a small assemblage of later prehistoric (probably Late Iron Age) and Late Iron Age/Early Roman ceramics, along with a small assemblage of medieval and post-medieval sherds. The majority of the Late Iron Age and Roman material is of local manufacture and made in a wheel-thrown grog-tempered fabric characteristic of the so-called ‘Belgic’ industries of Late Iron Age South East England. However, sherds in handmade calcareous fabrics and in rock-tempered fabrics from the Malvern Hills/May Hill are also present, along with Roman grey wares and a single sherd of South Gaulish Amphora. One sherd in a micaceous reduced fabric to the Late Roman period. The medieval material mostly consists of body sherds in coarse wares of local origin, although there is one glazed sherd from further afield. The post-medieval ceramics consist of utilitarian glazed earthern wares, along with some imports including a sherd of continental stone ware. In addition to ceramics, the assemblage comprises a small number of residual worked flints, fragments of fired clay, three iron nails, fragments of clay tobacco pipe and coal from a post-medieval boundary ditch and demolition layer.
Worked flint 5.7 Worked flint amounting to four pieces (18g) was recorded. A flake from fill 50017 of Period 1 Ditch 50132 was associated with a small quantity of late prehistoric pottery. The remaining pieces are from Period 1 ditch fill 50111, also from Ditch 50132 and subsoil deposit 42001. All pieces show edge damage (or breakage) which is consistent with secondary deposition.
17 Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
Later Prehistoric/Late Iron Age and Early Roman Pottery 5.8 Pottery amounting to 88 sherds (429g) was recorded from 22 individual deposits. The majority of this small assemblage (82 sherds or 93%) was recovered from Area A, with the remaining six sherds from layer deposits in Area C. Of the Area A group some 55 sherds (63% of the total) was derived from fills associated with Area A ditched Enclosure 50005. Handmade, calcareous fabrics, all present as unfeatured sherds, are likely to be of local origin. Dating across the Iron Age is possible, although occurrence in most instances with grog-tempered and other ‘transitional’ types suggests that most is of similar dating. Handmade type MAL LI is a regionally traded type manufactured in the Malvern Hills/May Hill of North Gloucestershire/Worcestershire. Rim sherds from Enclosure ditch 50005 (fills 50119, 50124) are typical of jar forms known in the area from deposits dating to the 1st centuries BC/AD and including examples from ‘The Ditches’ (Trow et al. 2009, 104) and Frocester (Timby 2000, 127). Sherds in wheelthrown grog- tempered fabrics, make up the majority of the reminder of this group. Fabrics of this type have their origins with the ‘Belgic’ pottery first recorded from southeast England in the 1st century BC. Sherds in typically harder, grey-fired grog- tempered fabrics are identifiable as Savernake type wares, manufactured at sites across north Wiltshire. Reduced types are representative of wheelthrown Romano- British coarsewares. Micaceous greyware, which is represented by a single small sherd from subsoil deposit 41001 in Area C, is representative of a type common from the Severn Vale south of Gloucester and typically dating to the 3rd and 4th centuries. As such it is the only evidence for later Roman activity from the site. The material from Enclosure 50005 and other features in Area A is consistent in its character and suggests dating in the mid or later 1st century AD.
Medieval and later pottery 5.9 A total of 28 sherds weighing 434g was recorded. Of this group, 5 sherds (25g), were dated to the medieval period, and the remaining 23 sherds to the post- medieval and modern periods. Most among the small medieval assemblage consist of body sherds in long-lived coarseware types of local origin. An abraded jug sherd which is seemingly intrusive within fill 50029 of Period 1 Enclosure ditch 50005, occurs in a fine oxidised fabric with a yellowish green glaze. The source for this type is unknown. Later material comes mostly from unphased Area B subsoil layer 42001 (5 sherds) and Period 3 layer 50075 to the north of wall 50074 (14 sherds). Utilitarian glazed earthenwares, some probably from the north Wiltshire Ashton Keynes kilns date to the period c. 1550-1750/1800. A yellow slipware
18 Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
sherd is an 18th century Bristol or Staffordshire product. A Rhennish stoneware sherd and a Cistercian type sherd both date to the 16th or 17th centuries. The remainder (mainly from layer 50075) comprises refined white-fired types all dating after c. 1750.
Fired Clay 5.10 A total of 28 fragments of fired clay (21g) was recovered, by hand and from bulk soil sample residues, from five deposits. The fragments occur in a sandy, partially oxidised fabric. No forms or identifiable features are preserved and close dating is not possible.
Clay Tobacco Pipe 5.11 A total of 14 fragments of clay tobacco pipe (29g) was recovered from four deposits. The majority (9) comprising stem fragments, with one small bowl fragment, was recorded from Period 3 layer 50075. The assemblage is too fragmentary to be more tightly dated than from the late 16th to late 19th centuries. None of the items display any maker’s marks or decoration.
Metal 5.12 Three iron items (23g) all comprising forged, flat-headed, nails were recorded from three deposits: Area C subsoil layer 41001, Area A plough furrow 50045 and Area A ditch 50060. Nails sharing such characteristics persist across the Roman, medieval and later periods and none of the recovered items can be confidently dated.
Coal 5.13 Two small (4g) fragments of coal were recorded; from Period 3 furrow 50045 (fill 50046) and fill 50061 of Period 3 ditch 50060. Coal was in use as a fuel source from the Roman to post-medieval periods.
Artefactual record: statements of potential Worked Flint 5.14 The worked flint assemblage is small and is of no significance. Further analysis or reporting is not warranted.
Later Prehistoric/Late Iron Age and Early Roman pottery 5.15 The primary significance of this group is as dating evidence for Enclosure 50005 and other features. In addition it provides further evidence for a pattern of supply characteristic in this area for the period spanning the Late Iron Age to Early
19 Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
Roman transition. A short report characterising this group should be included with any publication of the site. This may take the form of an adapted version of the report presented here, updated to reference the finalised phasing.
Medieval and Later pottery 5.16 The medieval and later pottery assemblage provides some evidence for activity of this period at this site. Beyond its use as dating evidence, this small group is of no significance and further analysis or reporting is not warranted.
Fired Clay 5.17 The fired clay is very heavily fragmented and is of no interpretative value contributory to the understanding of the site. Further analysis or reporting relating to this material is unnecessary.
Clay Tobacco Pipe 5.18 The clay tobacco pipe represents a small and well-fragmented group. It provides some, broad dating evidence for late activity at the site which is complimentary to that of the pottery. Beyond this the significance of this material is minimal and no further analysis is required.
Metal 5.19 The recovered metalwork is of minimal significance and does not merit further analysis or reporting.
Coal 5.20 The small quantities of coal recorded are of very minimal archaeological significance and further analysis is unnecessary.
Biological record: factual data 5.21 All ecofacts recovered from the excavation have been cleaned, marked, quantified and catalogued by context. A total of 13 bulk samples were taken for the recovery of environmental remains.
Type Category Count Animal bone Fragments 104 Samples Environmental 13
5.22 A series of 13 environmental samples (94 litres of soil) were selected from a range of ditches of Late Iron Age to Early Roman date (mainly from Period 1 Enclosure ditch 50005), with the intention of recovering environmental evidence of domestic
20 Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
or industrial activity on the site; and examining whether any change in the local landscape could be discerned, from the sequences of samples through the enclosure ditch. The flots were relatively small with low to high numbers of rooty material and uncharred weed seeds. The charred remains were generally rather poorly preserved. Charred plant remains included hulled wheat (emmer or spelt), possible free-threshing wheat, unidentified grain, oats, chaff and barley; there were also weed seeds of brome grass and vetch/wild pea, along with fragments of charcoal and hazel nut. A small assemblage of mollusc shells comprised those of open country species, shade loving species and intermediate species. Animal bone amounting to 104 fragments (743.1g) was recovered from 19 deposits dating from the Late Iron Age/Early Roman transition and the post-medieval period. Although 82% of the assemblage was unidentifiable to species it was possible to confirm the presence of cattle, sheep/goat, pig and horse.
Animal bone 5.23 A total of 96 fragments (682.1g) were recovered from 16 deposits associated with Period 1 enclosure 50005 and ditch 50131.The majority of the assemblage was unidentifiable, but horse, cattle, sheep/goat and pig were all identified. Eight fragments (61g) were also recovered from three Period 3 deposits. Once again the bone was poorly preserved with cattle and sheep/goat being identified from single fragments of skull.
Plant macrofossil and charcoal 5.24 Very few charred remains were recovered from fill 50066 (sample 3) of ditch section 50065 of Period 1 ditch 50107. These included indeterminate grain fragments and a small quantity of charcoal fragments greater than 2mm. This assemblage is likely to represent wind-blown domestic settlement material.
5.25 Fill 50011 (sample 1) of ditch section 50003 of Period 1 enclosure ditch 50005 contained a moderately small plant assemblage. The cereal remains included hulled wheat, emmer or spelt, indeterminate grain, indeterminate spikelet forks and glume base fragments, and barley grain fragments. The weed seeds included seeds of brome grass and vetch/wild pea. There were also a few fragments of charcoal greater than 2mm. The very small amounts of charred material recovered from fills 50007 (sample 10), 50008 (sample 11), 50009 (sample 12) and 50010 (sample 13) of ditch section 50006, of enclosure ditch 50005 included barley grain fragments, wheat grain fragments and charcoal pieces. The few mollusc shells included those of open country species and shade-loving species. Fills 50017
21 Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
(sample 6), 50018 (sample 7), 50019 (sample 8) and 50020 (sample 9) of ditch section 50016, also of enclosure 50005 produced moderately small quantities of charred plant remains and sparse amounts of charcoal. The cereal remains included hulled wheat chaff, barley grain and possible free-threshing wheat. There were also seeds of vetch/wild pea, oats and oats/brome grass and fragments of hazelnut shell. The low numbers of mollusc shells included those of open country species and intermediate species. No charred plant remains and only a sparse amount of charcoal fragments were recorded from fill 50094 (sample 4) of ditch section 50093 and from fill 50104 (sample 5) of ditch section 50103, both of Period 1 ditch 50107. No mollusc shells were observed in these samples.
Biological record: statements of potential
Animal bone 5.26 The amount of potential data that can be obtained from such a small assemblage is extremely low. The poor preservation and level of fragmentation has almost entirely removed the osteological landmarks that aid species identification and provide interpretative information. No cut and/or chop marks that would suggest an origin in butchery waste were present and each of the species that could be identified were commonly exploited as domestic animals in each period, and as such their presence is to be expected (Baker and Worley, 2014). No information beyond species identification could be obtained. With this being the case no further work is recommended.
Plant macrofossil and charcoal 5.27 There is no potential for further analysis of the charred plant assemblages to provide detailed information on the nature of the enclosures, surrounding landscape, the range of crops and local crop processing activities or any specific activities due to the small quantities of material recovered.
5.28 There is no potential for the analysis of the charcoal assemblages to provide detailed information on species composition and the management and exploitation of the local woodland resource due to the small quantities of charcoal present.
5.29 Detailed analysis of the mollusc assemblages would not augment the picture of the local landscape further, due to the low number of shells recovered in these samples.
22 Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
5.30 It is recommended that no further work is carried out on these samples.
6 SUMMARY STATEMENT OF POTENTIAL
6.1 The potential for further analysis and understanding of the site is low. There is little potential for further refinement of the ceramic dating, or for further analysis of the stratigraphic sequence, which mostly comprises discrete plough truncated enclosure ditches. There is also little potential for refinement of our understanding of the chronology of the site through scientific dating of charred plant, charcoal or animal bone, none of which was present in large quantities. There was little structural evidence or evidence for occupation within the Late Iron Age/Early Roman enclosures, which may have functioned as stock enclosures peripheral to a settlement focus, and there is therefore little potential to refine our understanding of their function. In addition the paucity of material culture and biological assemblages from the site means that there is little scope to enhance our understanding of social organisation, agricultural regimes or daily life through further analysis.
6.2 All areas of the site had a moderate survival of archaeological deposits. The amount of vertical truncation by medieval and modern agriculture cannot be reliably estimated, but is probably average for rural sites in the region. However, the presence of plough furrows which cut across the Late Iron Age/Early Roman enclosures in places, suggests that there could have been some loss of structural and occupation evidence, and possibly of shallow boundaries. The stratigraphic potential of the archive is therefore moderate.
6.3 The earliest activity on site comprised a group of three broadly contemporary enclosures probably all dating to the Late Iron Age to Early Roman period, but probably representing successive sub-phases of activity within this period. The precise stratigraphic order of enclosure construction could not be established, however, because of the presence of the central band dividing Area A. The lack of evidence for structures, or other occupation within the enclosures, suggests that they were probably stock enclosures. The excavation of these enclosures provides potential to enhance our understanding of the Late Iron Age/Early Roman use of the landscape in a local context; however, there is little potential for further
23 Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
elucidating their chronological sequence or the precise nature of activities that took place inside them.
6.4 Following the abandonment of the enclosures, probably at the end of the Early Roman Period it appears that no significant activity occurred on the site until the medieval period, when three large quarry pits were dug in Area C, possibly for the extraction of building stone. The largely sterile nature of the fills of these features means that they have low potential for further analysis.
6.5 Plough furrows indicated by the geophysical survey across the site and recorded during the excavation of Area A, may have been contemporary with the medieval activity and/or belonged to the late post-medieval period. However, beyond establishing the use of the local landscape for agrarian activity they have little potential for further analysis.
6.6 The final period of activity recorded on site consisted of post-medieval activity, including possible ridge-and-furrow cultivation. In addition, an agricultural boundary ditch in the north of Area A and a small unbonded masonry structure extending beyond the limits of excavation to the north of Area A, which probably represented an agricultural building of some sort, also dated to this period. Other post-medieval activity included a short gully, also in Area A. All of these features are indicative of post-medieval agricultural activity, but none have any potential for further analysis.
6.7 The original objectives of the excavation were to: record the nature of the main stratigraphic units encountered, assess the overall presence, survival and potential of structural and industrial remains and assess the overall presence, survival, condition, and potential of artefactual and ecofactual remains (see section 2.1). All three of these objectives have been achieved: a complete record of the features encountered during the excavation has been created, including a record of their stratigraphic relationships to one another. No evidence for structural or industrial remains was encountered. In addition, small assemblages of ceramics, fired clay, metal, clay tobacco pipe and coal have been recovered and assessed, along with very small and poorly preserved assemblages of charred plants, charcoal and molluscs.
6.8 The original specific aims of the excavation were to: better define the nature of the Roman activity in Area A (centred on evaluation trenches 16 and 17) and confirm
24 Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
(or otherwise) the anticipated 1st/3rd and 4th-century date of the remains; and to define and date a series of as yet undated pits and ditches in Areas B, C and D. Again both of these aims have been met. The excavation confirmed the nature of activity in Area A, as well as refining the dating of the enclosures encountered in this area. The excavation was also able to date the pits encountered in Area C to the medieval period, although the features in Area B remain undated.
6.9 It is proposed that a report describing the stratigraphic sequence, artefact and biological data, and interpreting the site in its regional and national context is published in summary form in a suitable academic journal, such as Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society.
7 STORAGE AND CURATION
7.1 The archive is currently held at CA offices, Andover, whilst post-excavation work proceeds. Upon completion of the project and with the agreement of the legal landowners, the site archive and artefactual collection will be deposited with Corinium Museum, Cirencester (accession number: TBC), which has agreed in principle to accept the complete archive upon completion of the project.
8 UPDATED AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
8.1 The archaeological sequence at Highfield Farm is primarily of local and regional significance and the following updated aims and objectives have therefore largely been defined by reference to the South West archaeological research framework: Research strategy 2012-2017 (Grove and Croft 2012) and The archaeology of South West England: South West Archaeological Research Framework (Webster 2007). A smaller number of updated aims and objectives relating to the wider national context of the site sequence have been defined with reference to New visions of the countryside of Roman Britain, volume 1: The rural settlement of Roman Britain (Smith et al. 2016). To fulfil the potential of the site data, the following updated objectives have been set out to provide a framework for the proposed further analysis:
25 Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
Objective 1: Investigate the wider landscape context and function of the Late Iron Age/Early Roman enclosures 8.2 The assessment of the archaeological sequence at Highfield Farm has established that the Late Iron Age/Early Roman enclosures are likely to have had an agricultural function, however, their relationship to the wider regional sequence and to any nearby settlement remains unclear. The South West archaeological research framework identifies two research aims relevant to understanding this wider landscape context; Research Aim 10 (Theme A) seeks to: “address lack of understanding of key transitional periods” such as the Late Iron Age to Early Roman period, and Research Aim 21a (Theme C): “development of field systems and intensification of agriculture in the Bronze and Iron Ages” seeks to further our understanding of the development of agricultural systems, and the relationship of fields and agricultural production to settlement. Both of these aims could be addressed through a literature review focused on The Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society (TBGAS) and other regional literature, putting the enclosures from Highfield Farm in their local and regional context. More specifically by comparing of the size and form of the enclosures to the results of the recent Rural Settlement in Roman Britain project (Smith et al. 2016), it may be possible to determine the general rarity and typical function of such enclosures within the wider area and Roman Britain as a whole.
Objective 2: Establish the wider social and economic context of the Late Iron Age/Early Roman and medieval and later ceramic assemblages 8.3 A comparison of the composition of ceramic assemblages can help to establish the nature of social and economic activities at archaeological sites (Evans 2001, 27). To this end a comparison of the Late Iron Age/Early Roman and medieval/post-medieval ceramic assemblages to other similar assemblages in the region, could be carried out through a literature review focused on TBGAS and other regional literature.
Objective 3: Establish the wider economic and agricultural context of the evidence for medieval and post-medieval agriculture 8.4 The South West archaeological research framework identifies understanding medieval and post-medieval agriculture as a research aim (Theme C, Research Aim 21b). A literature review focused on TBGAS and other regional literature, placing the medieval/post-medieval ridge and furrow, medieval quarrying and post-
26 Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
medieval structure in their wider local and regional context would help to address this aim.
9 PUBLICATION
9.1 The results from the investigations at Highfield Farm, Tetbury are of local and regional significance and merit summary publication. While the excavation of Late Iron Age/Roman agricultural enclosures and medieval/post-medieval agricultural activity is not highly significant in itself, understanding the geographical context of such enclosures within the wider landscape and settlement pattern adds to our understanding of the periods concerned. It is proposed that a summary account is published in The Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society.
27 Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
Synopsis of Proposed Summary Publication
Late Iron Age to Early Roman stock enclosures and medieval to post- medieval agriculture at Highfield Farm, Tetbury by Nicky Garland and Dan Stansbie
Introduction 150 Late Iron Age/Early Roman enclosures and medieval/post-medieval agriculture 400 The finds and environmental evidence 500 Discussion 400 Acknowledgements 50 Total Words 1500 3 pages References ½ page
Illustrations
Location plan, phased site plan photgraphs 2 pages
28 Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
10 PROJECT TEAM
10.1 The analysis and publication programme will be quality assured by Martin Watts MCIfA FSA (Head of Publications) and managed by Dan Stansbie ACIfA (Post- Excavation Manager: PXM), who will contribute to the discussion as senior author and co-ordinate the work of the following personnel:
Nicky Garland (Publications Officer: PO): Post-excavation phasing, draft report preparation, research and archive
Dan Bashford ACIfA (Senior Illustrator: ILL): Production of all site plans, sections and artefact drawings (exc. pottery)
Jon Bennett ACIfA (Geomatics Officer: GO): GIS applications
10.2 The final publication report will be edited and refereed internally by CA senior management.
29 Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
11 TASK LIST
TASK PERSONNEL DURATION/ COST Project Management SPM 2 Stratigraphic Analysis PO 1.5 Research, comparanda PO 1 Pottery Report Preparation FM 0.5 Lithics Report Preparation FM 0.13 Mixed Finds Report Preparation AFO 0.4 Environmental Evidence Report preparation SEO 0.4 Animal Bone Report preparation PXArch 0.13 Preparation of publication report Abstract and introduction PO 0.27 SI 0.13 Excavation results PO 1 SI 0.27 Compilation of specialist reports, tables etc. PO 0.27 Discussion, conclusions PO 0.5 SI 0.27 Acknowledgements, bibliography PO 0.13 Submission to external referees Editing SPM 1 Revisions PO 1 SUBMISSION OF PUBLICATION TEXT Archive Research archive completion PO 0.8 Microfilm FEE Deposition FEE Publication Printing TBGAS FEE
12 TIMETABLE
12.1 For a summary publication project, CA would normally aim to have completed a summary publication draft within three months of approval of the updated publication project design. A detailed programme can be produced if desired on approval of the updated publication project design.
30 Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
13 REFERENCES
BGS (British Geological Survey) 2017 Geology of Britain Viewer http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html Accessed 17 January 2017
CA (Cotswold Archaeology) 1995 Treatment of finds immediately after excavation: Technical Manual No. 3
CA (Cotswold Archaeology) 2010 Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Archaeological evaluation CA Report 10124
CA (Cotswold Archaeology) 2012 The taking and processing of environmental and other samples from archaeological sites: Technical Manual No. 2
CA (Cotswold Archaeology) 2014 Fieldwork Recording Manual Technical Manual No. 1
CA (Cotswold Archaeology) 2015 Highfield Farm, Tetbury Gloucestershire: Written Scheme of Investigation for an Archaeological Excavation.
CAT (Cotswold Archaeological Trust) 1997 Land at London Road, Tetbury, Gloucestershire; Archaeological Evaluation. CAT typescript report 97459.
CIfA (Chartered Institute of Archaeologists) 2014 Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Excavation
Evans, J. 2001 ‘Material approaches to the identification of different Romano-British site types’. In James, S., and Millett, M. (eds) Britons and Romans: advancing an archaeological agenda, CBA Research Report, 26–35 York: Council for British Archaeology, 26-35
FA (Foundations Archaeology) 2012 Land South of Quercus Road, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Archaeological Evaluation Typescript Report No. 779
GCCAS (Gloucestershire County Council Archaeology Service) 1995 Statement of Standards and Practices Appropriate for Archaeological Fieldwork in Gloucestershire
31 Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
GCCAS (Gloucestershire County Council Archaeology Service) 2002 An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment of land at Highfield Farm, London Road, Tetbury Upton,
Grove, J., and Croft, B. (eds) 2012 The archaeology of South West England: South West archaeological research framework research strategy 2012-2017 Taunton, Somerset County Council
Historic England 2015a The Management of Research Projects in the Historic Environment: The MORPHE Project Manager’s Guide
Historic England 2015b Management of Research Projects in the Historic Environment. PPN 3: Archaeological Excavation
PCG (Pre-Construct Geophysics) 2010 Geophysical Survey, Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire
Parry, C. 2014 13/02391/OUT: Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire - Brief for archaeological mitigation.
Smith, A., Allen, M., Brindle, T. and Fulford, M. 2016: New visions of the countryside of Roman Britain: The rural settlement of Roman Britain volume 1 London, Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies, Britannia Monograph Series, 29
Webster, C. J., 2007 The archaeology of South West England: South West archaeological research framework, resource assessment and research agenda Taunton, Somerset County Council
32 Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
APPENDIX 1: STRATIGRAPHIC ASSESSEMENT BY NICKY GARLAND
A total of 147 contexts was recorded during the excavation at Highfield Farm, Tetbury, as detailed below:
Period No. of Contexts Natural 19 1 – Late Iron Age/Early Roman 110 2 – Medieval 8 3 – Post-Medieval 8
The most significant contexts relate to Period 1 (110 contexts) representing approximately 75% of the total records. Contexts from Period 1 mainly represent enclosure ditches of Late Iron Age to Early Roman date. These features require further cross comparison to other similar sites within the Gloucestershire area. Contexts from Periods 2 and 3 represent medieval quarrying and post-medieval agricultural activities activity.
While the stratigraphic record forms a complete record of the archaeological features uncovered during the archaeological investigation, the limited amount of dating evidence limits the potential for fully understanding the function and development of the site. Any complex stratigraphic relationships between earlier and later phases of occupation have been identified and analysed as part of the assessment phase. Any further work should be restricted to phasing checks as part of the final analysis/publication of the site.
33 Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
APPENDIX 2: LITHICS BY E.R. MCSLOY
Worked flint amounting to four pieces was recorded (18g).
Raw material consists of flint, in all instances exhibiting white or blue-ish surface discolouration (re-cortication), as the result of burial in a calcareous soil. Where cortex is present (on three pieces), this is moderately thick and unabraded and hints at derivation from chalk or chalky soils.
A flake from fill 50017 of Period 1 Ditch 50132 was associated with a small quantity of late prehistoric pottery. The remaining pieces are from Period 1 fill 50111 of ditch 50132 and undated subsoil deposit 42001. All pieces show edge damage (or breakage) which is consistent with secondary deposition.
All recovered pieces consist of flakes, none with retouch or indications for utilisation. A flake from deposit 50017 and, probably, a broken flake from 50111 are blade-like (with length/breadth ratio greater than 2:1). The second flake from deposit 50111 exhibits evidence for platform preparation. The latter feature and the blade-like character of two pieces are possible hints at Mesolithic dating.
Potential and recommendations
The assemblage is very small and has no potential for further analysis; therefore no further work is recommended.
34 Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
APPENDIX 3: LATE IRON AGE TO ROMAN POTTERY BY E.R. MCSLOY
Pottery amounting to 88 sherds (429g) was recorded from 22 individual deposits. Most was hand collected, with 30 well-fragmented sherds retrieved from bulk soil samples. The condition of the hand-collected group is mixed, however overall the assemblage is well broken-up and exhibits moderate levels of abrasion.
The assemblage, its dating and comparison with sites in the wider area are described below. Fabric codings utilised for recording are also set out; where applicable for some Roman types, codes match those of the National Roman Fabric Reference Collection (Tomber and Dore 1998).
The majority of this small assemblage (82 sherds or 93%) was recorded from Area A, with the remaining six sherds from layer deposits in Area C. Of the Area A group some 55 sherds (63% of the total ) was derived from fills associated with Area A ditched Enclosure 50005 (Table 1).
Range and Variety: fabrics (Types in bold equate to NRFRC fabrics (Tomber and Dore 1998)
LI Handmade; with abundant moderately-sorted oolitic limestone (0.5-2mm). VES Handmade; common sub-angular voids (1-2mm) probably from leached calcareous inclusions. SH Handmade; common or abundant moderately sorted fossil shell (0.3-2mm). MAL LI Handmade; common well-sorted angular palaeozoic limestone (0.5-1.5mm). Equivalent to Peacock’s Group 1B fabrics (Peacock 1968).
GR Common, well-sorted fine/medium grog (0.5-1mm) and sparse limestone/voids (0.5-1mm). GRq Common grog well-sorted grog (0.5-1mm) and sparse clear, sub-rounded quartz LOC BS Dark grey/black-firing, with common sub-rounded quartz. Probably equivalent to Cirencester fabric 5 (Rigby 1982, 153). LOC BSf Dark grey/black-firing. Soft/silty with sparse sub-rounded voids. LOC GW Pale grey-firing. Abundant fine, angular quartz (0.1-0.2mm) MIC GW Grey brown throughout. Abundant medium, angular quartz (0.2-0.3mm); common white mica. LOC OX Orange surfaces with grey core. Abundant fine, angular quartz (0.1-0.2mm)
SAV GT Savernake ware (Tomber and Dore 1998, 191). GAL AM Gaulish amphora fabric (Tomber and Dore 1998, 93-95).
Handmade, calcareous fabrics (LI and SH), all present as unfeatured sherds, are likely to be of local origin. Dating across the Iron Age is possible, although occurrence in most instances with grog-tempered and other ‘transitional’ types suggests that most is of similar dating. Handmade type MAL LI is a regionally traded type manufactured in the Malvern Hills/May Hill of North Gloucestershire/Worcestershire. The majority of material from sites located at distance from this source dates in the Late Iron Age and as late as the later 1st century AD. Rim sherds from Enclosure 50005 (fills 50119, 50124) are typical of jar forms known in the area from deposits dating to the 1st centuries BC/AD and including examples from ‘The Ditches’ (Trow et al. 2009, 104) and Frocester (Timby 2000, 127).
35 Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
Sherds in wheelthrown grog-tempered fabrics (GR; GRq), make up the majority of the reminder of this group. Fabrics of this type have their origins with the ‘Belgic’ pottery first recorded from southeast England in the 1st century BC. The date for their appearance in western counties including Gloucestershire remains uncertain, although its abundance from sites including ‘The Ditches’, South Cerney (Trow et al. 2009) and Bagendon (Clifford 1961) suggests it was common at the time of the conquest. Sherds in typically harder, grey-fired grog- tempered fabrics are identifiable as Savernake type wares (SAV GT), manufactured at sites across north Wiltshire, probably in the period just before the conquest to the early mid 2nd century. Identifiable vessel forms in this type, consist of a neckless jar with bead rim (41001) and a necked/shouldered bowl (Enclosure 50005).
Reduced types LOC GW and LOC BS/LOC BSf are representative of wheelthrown Romano-British coarsewares. In the absence of identifiable forms they are broadly dateable, although type LOC BS compares to darker fired fabrics known from Cirencester and elsewhere in the region (Rigby 1982) and dating in the mid 1st to 2nd centuries range. Micaceous greyware type MIC GW, which is represented by a single small sherd from Area C layer 41001, is representative of a type common from the Severn Vale south of Gloucester and typically dating to the 3rd and 4th centuries. As such it is the only evidence for later Roman activity from the site.
Imported continental wares are present as a single amphora sherd from Enclosure 50005, fill 50007. The fine buff-fired and micaceous fabric is identified as of southern Gaulish type GAL AM, which is associated with flat- based wine-carrying vessels and common in Britain from the mid 1st and on into the 3rd century AD.
Dating summary and discussion The material from Enclosure 50005 (table 1) and other features in Area A is consistent in its character and suggests dating in the mid or later 1st century AD. Although small, the assemblage compares with other groups from the period in the wider area, notably in its inclusion of types from a range of local, regional and continental sources. The small quantities of pottery and its poor condition are suggestive of activity of low intensity, most likely peripheral to areas of occupation.
Statement of potential and recommendations for further analysis
The primary significance of this group is as dating evidence for Enclosure 50005 and other features. In addition, it provides further evidence for a pattern of supply characteristic in this area for the period spanning the Late Iron Age to Early Roman transition.
A short report characterising this group should be included with any publication of the site. This may take the form of an adapted version of the report presented here, updated to reference the finalised phasing.
Summary
Report revision 0.5 day
36 Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
References
Clifford, E.M. 1961 Bagendon – a Belgic oppidum, Cambridge.
Peacock, D.P.S. 1968 ‘A petrological study of certain Iron Age pottery from western England’, Proc. Prehist. Soc. 34, 414–26
Price, E. 2000 Frocester: A Romano-British Settlement, its Antecedents and Successors Gloucester, Gloucester and District Archaeological Research Group
Rigby, V. 1982 ‘The coarse pottery’, in Wacher and McWhirr 1982, 153–209
Timby, J. 2000 ‘Pottery’, in Price 2000, 125–62
Tomber, R. and Dore, J. 1998 The National Roman Fabric Reference Collection: a handbook London: Museum of London Archaeology Service
Trow, S., James, S. and Moore, T. 2009 Becoming Roman, being Gallic, staying British: Research and Excavations at Ditches ‘Hillfort’ and villa 1984–2006 Oxford, Oxbow Books
Wacher, J. and McWhirr, A. 1982 Cirencester Excavations I: Early Roman Occupation at Cirencester Cirencester Excavation Committee, Gloucester, Alan Sutton
Table 1: Summary quantification (Prehistoric and Roman) pottery by feature Feature> Enclosure 50005 Ditch 50107 Ditch 50131 Ditch 50133 Other Totals fabric Ct. Wt.(g) Ct. Wt.(g) Ct. Wt.(g) Ct. Wt.(g) Ct. Wt.(g) Ct. Wt.(g) LI 11 49 1 16 12 65 VES 12 20 20 4 2 1 34 25 SH 5 4 5 4 MAL LI 10 47 10 47 CAD AM 1 93 1 93 GR 7 31 1 4 1 1 1 2 1 3 11 41 GRq 1 12 1 12 SAV GT 4 67 2 33 6 100 LOC BS 1 2 1 4 2 6 LOC BSf 3 6 3 6 LOC GW 1 2 1 2 LOC GWm 1 3 1 3 LOC OX 1 25 1 25 Totals 55 331 22 24 1 1 3 3 7 70 88 429
37 Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
APPENDIX 4: MEDIEVAL AND LATER POTTERY BY E.R. MCSLOY
A total of 28 sherds weighing 434g was recorded. Of this group, 5 sherds (25g) were dated to the medieval period, and the remaining 23 sherds to the post-medieval and modern periods.
The composition (range by fabric) of the medieval and later group is set out in table 1. Most among the small medieval assemblage consists of body sherds in long-lived coarseware types (COTS; MINE) of local origin. An abraded jug sherd, which is seemingly intrusive within deposit 50029 (part of Period 1 Enclosure 50005) occurs in a fine oxidised fabric (OXF GL) with a yellowish green glaze. The source for this type is unknown, although comparable material occurs from sites in the Gloucester/Stroud area (Ireland 2007). A small handle sherd in fabric TUD GR from Area C pit fill 41003 is the only certainly non-local type represented, a product of the Hampshire/Surrey borders industry. It probably dates c. 1400–1500/1550.
Later material comes mostly from layers; Area A deposit 50075 (14 sherds) and Area C subsoil 42001 (5 sherds). Utilitarian glazed earthenwares, some probably from the north Wiltshire Ashton Keynes kilns date to the period c. 1550-1750/1800. A yellow slipware sherd from a press-moulded vessel (Area C layer 42001) is an 18th century Bristol or Staffordshire product. A Rhennish stoneware sherd from Area A furrow 50045 (fabric FRECH) and a Cistercian type sherd (fabric CIST) from Area A linear 50047 both date to the 16th or 17th centuries. The remainder (mainly from Area A layer 50075) comprises refined white-fired types (fabrics CREAM; PEARL; REFWH) all dating after c. 1750.
Statement of potential and recommendations for further analysis
The medieval and later pottery assemblage provides some evidence for activity of this period at this site. Beyond its use as dating evidence, this small group is of no significance and further analysis or reporting is not warranted.
References
Heighway, C. (ed.) 2007 Excavations at King’s Stanley, Gloucestershire: an account of excavations near St George’s Church, King’s Stanley, Gloucestershire Stonehouse, Past Historic Ireland, C. 2007 ‘The Medieval Pottery’, in Heighway 2007, 18–28
Table 1: Medieval and later pottery summary Period Code Summary description Ct. Wt.(g) Medieval COTSLI Cotswolds type limestone-tempered 1 2 MINE Minety type wares 2 10 OXFGL oxidised jug fabric 1 12 TUD GR ‘Tudor Green’ 1 1 Sub-total 5 25 Post-med/ CIST Cistercian type wares 1 6 modern FRECH Frechen stoneware 1 12 GRE Glazed earthenwares 9 292 YSW Yellow slipware 1 29 CREAM Creamware 3 32 PEARL Pearlware 2 12 REFWH Indet. refined whitewares 6 26 Sub-total 23 409 Total 28 434
38 Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
APPENDIX 5: MIXED FINDS BY KATIE MARSDEN
Clay Tobacco Pipe A total of 14 fragments of clay tobacco pipe (29g) was recovered from four deposits. The majority (9) comprising stem fragments, with a small bowl fragment was recorded from Period 3 layer 50075. The assemblage is too fragmentary to be more tightly dated than from the late 16th to late 19th centuries. None of the items display any maker’s marks or decoration.
Statement of potential and recommendations for further analysis The clay tobacco pipe represents a small and well-fragmented group. It provides some, broad dating evidence for late activity at the site which is complimentary to that of the pottery. Beyond this the significance of this material is minimal and no further analysis is required.
Fired Clay A total of 28 fragments of fired clay (21g) was recovered, by hand and from bulk soil sample residues, from five deposits. The fragments occur in a sandy, partially oxidised fabric. No forms or identifiable features are preserved and close dating is not possible.
Statement of potential and recommendations for further analysis The fired clay is very heavily fragmented and can contribute little of value to the understanding of the site. Further analysis or reporting relating to this material is unnecessary.
Coal Two small (4g) fragments of coal were recorded; from post-medieval dated furrow 50045 (50046) and ditch 50061. Coal was in use as a fuel source from the Roman to post-medieval periods.
Statement of potential and recommendations for further analysis The small quantities of coal recorded are of very minimal archaeological significance and further analysis is unnecessary.
Metal Three iron items (23g) all comprising forged, flat-headed, nails were recorded from three deposits: subsoil layer 41001 and Period 3 furrow 50045 and ditch 50060. Nails sharing such characteristics persist across the Roman, medieval and later periods and none of the recovered items can be confidently dated.
Statement of potential and recommendations for further analysis The recovered metalwork is of minimal significance and does not merit further analysis or reporting.
39 Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
APPENDIX 6: ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE ASSESSMENT BY SARAH F. WYLES
A series of 13 environmental samples (94 litres of soil) were selected from a range of ditches of late prehistoric and Romano-British date (mainly from enclosure 50005), a ditch of possible Romano-British date and an undated posthole/natural feature with the intention of recovering environmental evidence of domestic or industrial activity on the site and examining whether any change in the local landscape could be discerned from the assemblages from the sequences of samples through enclosure ditch 50005. The samples were processed by standard flotation procedures (CA Technical Manual No. 2).
Preliminary identifications of plant macrofossils are noted in Table 1, following nomenclature of Stace (1997) for wild plants, and traditional nomenclature, as provided by Zohary et al (2012) for cereals. The presence of mollusc shells has also been recorded in a number of these samples and these are recorded in Table 2. Nomenclature is according to Anderson (2005) and habitat preferences according to Kerney (1999) and Davies (2008).
The flots were relatively small with low to high numbers of rooty material and uncharred weed seeds. The charred remains were generally rather poorly preserved.
Late Iron Age/Early Roman Very few charred remains were recovered from fill 50066 (sample 3) of ditch 50107. These included indeterminate grain fragments and a small quantity of charcoal fragments greater than 2mm. This assemblage is likely to represent wind-blown domestic settlement material.
Enclosure ditch 50005 Fill 50011 (sample 1) of ditch section 50003 (Enclosure 50005) contained a moderately small plant assemblage. The cereal remains included hulled wheat, emmer or spelt (Triticum dicoccum/spelta), grain, spikelet forks and glume base fragments, and barley (Hordeum vulgare) grain fragments. The weed seeds included seeds of brome grass (Bromus sp.) and vetch/wild pea (Vicia/Lathyrus sp.). There were also a few fragments of charcoal greater than 2mm noted.
The very small amounts of charred material recovered from fills 50007 (sample 10), 50008 (sample 11), 50009 (sample 12) and 50010 (sample 13) of ditch section 50006 (Enclosure 50005) included barley grain fragments, wheat (Triticum sp.) grain fragments and charcoal pieces. The few mollusc shells included those of the open country species Vallonia excentrica and the shade-loving species Aegopinella nitidula.
Fills 50017 (sample 6), 50018 (sample 7), 50019 (sample 8) and 50020 (sample 9) of ditch section 50016 (Enclosure 50005) produced moderately small quantities of charred plant remains and sparse amounts of charcoal. The cereal remains included hulled wheat grain and glume fragments, barley grain fragments and possible free-threshing wheat (Triticum turgidum/aestivum type) grain fragments. There were also seeds of vetch/wild pea, oats (Avena sp.) and oats/brome grass (Avena/Bromus sp.), and fragments of hazelnut (Corylus avellana) shell. The low numbers of mollusc shells included those of the open country species Vertigo pygmaea, Vallonia costata, Vallonia excentrica and Pupilla muscorum, and the intermediate species Trochulus hispidus.
These assemblages may be representative of dispersed settlement waste and be indicative of crop processing activity taking place in the vicinity. The weed seeds are all of species typical of grassland, field margins and
40 Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
arable environments and are common in charred assemblages. There is an indication of the possible exploitation of the wild food resource.
The small mollusc assemblages appear to be indicative of a well-established open downland. The assemblages are too small to discern any detailed changes in the local landscape from the sequences through enclosure ditch 50005.
Ditch 50107 No charred plant remains and only a sparse amount of charcoal fragments were recorded from fill 50094 (sample 4) of ditch section 50095 and from fill 50104 (sample 5) of ditch section 50103, both of ditch 50107. No mollusc shells were observed in these samples.
Undated Sample 2 from fill 50104 of posthole/natural feature 50105 contained no charred remains or mollusc shells. This deposit may well be from a natural depression rather than an archaeological feature.
Potential There is no potential for further analysis of the charred plant assemblages to provide detailed information on the nature of the enclosures, surrounding landscape, the range of crops and local crop processing activities and any specific activities due to the small quantities of material recovered.
There is no potential for the analysis of the charcoal assemblages to provide detailed information on the species composition and the management and exploitation of the local woodland resource due to the small quantities of charcoal present.
Detailed analysis of the mollusc assemblages would not augment the picture of the local landscape further due to the low number of shells recovered in these samples.
It is recommended that no further work is carried out on these samples.
References
Anderson, R. 2005 ‘An annotated list of the non-marine Mollusca of Britain and Ireland’, Journal of Conchology 38, 607-637
Davies, P. 2008 Snails Archaeology and Landscape Change, Oxford, Oxbow Books
Kerney, M.P. 1999 Atlas of the Land and Freshwater Molluscs of Britain and Ireland, Colchester, Harley Books
Stace, C. 1997 New flora of the British Isles (2nd edition), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zohary, D., Hopf, M. and Weiss, E. 2012 Domestication of plants in the Old World: the origin and spread of cultivated plants in West Asia, Europe, and the Nile Valley, 4th edition, Oxford, Clarendon Press
41 Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
Table 1 Assessment table of the palaeoenvironmental remains. Flot Vol size Roots Charred Charcoal Analysis Feature Context Sample (L) (ml) % Grain Chaff Cereal Notes Other Notes for Table > 4/2mm Other Late Prehistoric Ditch 50130 50065 50066 3 7 15 70 * - Indet. grain frags - - -/* - - Romano-British Enclosure ditch 50005 Hulled wheat + barley grain frags, glume 50003 50011 1 9 25 30 ** * base + spikelet fork frags * Bromus, Vicia/Lathyrus */* - - 50007 10 8 5 70 * - Barley grain frags - - - - - 50008 11 9 10 60 * - Barley grain frags - - -/* Moll-t (*) - 50006 50009 12 7 5 40 ------/* Moll-t (*) - 50010 13 6 10 35 * - Wheat grain frag - - -/* Moll-t (*) - Hulled wheat grain frags + glume base 50017 6 6 5 10 * * frags * Bromus - Moll-t (*) -
50016 Hulled wheat, ?f-t wheat + barley grain Vicia/Lathyrus, Avena/Bromus, 50018 7 7 20 15 ** * frags, glume base frags ** Corylus avellana shell frags -/* Moll-t (*) - 50019 8 8 5 25 * - Hulled wheat + barley grain frags * Corylus avellana shell frag - Moll-t (**) - 50020 9 9 10 40 ** - Barley grain frags * Avena, Vicia/Lathyrus */* Moll-t (**) - ?Romano-British Ditch 50107 50095 50094 4 8 15 70 ------/* - - 50103 50104 5 6 50 75 ------/* - - Undated Posthole/natural feature 50105 50104 2 4 50 75 ------
42 Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
Table 2: Molluscan remains.
Phase Late Prehistoric Romano-British ?Romano-British Undated Posthole/natu Feature Type Ditch 50130 Enclosure ditch 50005 Ditch 50107 ral feature Feature 50065 50003 50006 50016 50095 50103 50105 Context 50066 50011 50007 50008 50009 50010 50017 50018 50019 50020 50094 50104 50104 Sample 3 1 10 11 12 13 6 7 8 9 4 5 2 Vol (L) 7 9 8 9 7 6 6 7 8 9 8 6 4 Land Snails Vertigo pygmaea (Draparnaud) ------2 - 1 4 - - - Pupilla muscorum (Linnaeus) ------1 - - - - Vallonia costata (Müller) ------1 1 2 - - - Vallonia excentrica Sterki - - - 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 - - - Aegopinella nitidula (Draparnaud) - - - 1 ------Trochulus hispidus (Linnaeus) ------1 - - - - Total 0 0 0 2 1 1 3 2 6 8 0 0 0
43 Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
APPENDIX 7: ANIMAL BONE BY BY ANDY CLARKE
Animal bone amounting to 104 fragments (743.1g) was recovered via hand excavation and bulk soil sampling from 19 deposits dating from the Late Iron Age/Early Roman transition and the post-medieval period. The material was poorly preserved, displaying a high degree of surface erosion and both modern and historic damage. This combination of factors has removed many of the osteological landmarks that aid identification and rendered 82% of the assemblage unidentifiable to species. However, it was possible to confirm the presence of Cattle (Bos taurus), sheep/goat (Ovis aries/Capra hircus), pig (Sus scrofa sp.) and horse (Equus callabus).
Period 1: Late Iron Age/Early Roman
A total of 96 fragments (682.1g) were recovered from 16 deposits associated with enclosure 50005 and ditch 50131. As stated, the majority of the assemblage was unidentifiable but cattle, sheep/goat and pig were all identified from fragments of meat-poor skeletal elements such as the skull or bones of the lower limbs. Horse was also identified represented in the main by isolated molar teeth.
Period 3: Post-Medieval
Eight fragments (61g) were recovered from three deposits. Once again the bone was poorly preserved with cattle and sheep/goat being identified from single fragments of skull.
Statement of Potential
The amount of potential data that can be obtained from such a small assemblage is extremely low. The poor preservation and level of fragmentation has almost entirely removed the osteological landmarks that aid species identification and provide interpretative information. No cut and/or chop marks that would suggest an origin in butchery waste were present and each of the species that could be identified were commonly exploited as domestic animals in each period, and as such their presence is to be expected (Baker and Worley, 2014). No information beyond species identification could be obtained, with this being the case no further work is recommended.
References
Baker, P. and Worley, F. 2014 Animal bones and archaeology: Guidelines for best practice Swindon, English Heritage
44 Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
Table 1: Identified animal species by fragment count (NISP) and weight and context.
Cut Fill BOS O/C SUS EQ LM MM Ind un-id SS Total Weight (g) Period 1 - Late Iron Age/Early Roman 50003 50011 1 19 20 3 50006 50007 11 11 4 50006 50010 2 2 4 4 50012 50015 1 1 7 9 49 50016 50017 2 2 0.1 50016 50018 8 8 0.5 50016 50020 2 3 19 24 5.5 50029 50031 1 1 4 50044 50043 1 1 117 50058 50059 1 1 2 20 50065 50067 4 4 11 50071 50070 4 4 200 50083 50082 1 1 10 50110 50109 1 1 2 34 50117 50119 1 1 164 50121 50125 2 2 56 Subtotal 6 3 2 5 1 1 17 61 96 682.1 Period 3 – post-medieval 50045 50046 1 1 10 50060 50061 1 2 3 6 36 50075 1 1 15 1 1 2 3 1 8 61 Total 7 4 2 5 3 4 18 61 104 Weight 231 16 0.5 364 37 7 78 9.6 743.1 Bos = cattle; O/C = sheep/goat; SUS = pig; MM = sheep size mammal
45 Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
APPENDIX 8: OASIS REPORT FORM
PROJECT DETAILS
Project Name Highfields Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire Short description The excavation provided a window on part of a Late Iron Age/Early Roman and medieval to post-medieval (c. 100BC-AD200 and
AD1066-AD1800) agricultural landscape (Figs. 2 and 3). The earliest activity for which the excavation provided evidence was the construction and use of three enclosures, which probably dated to the Late Iron Age/Roman transition and probably functioned as stock enclosures peripheral to an area of settlement. These enclosures were largely devoid of evidence for occupation or other activity, suggesting their use as stock enclosures; although small quantities of pottery, animal bone and wind-blown charred plant remains were recovered from the ditch fills, suggesting contemporary settlement in the near vicinity. Ceramic dating evidence suggests that the enclosures had gone out of use by the Late Roman period and the presence of medieval or post-medieval plough furrows, medieval quarry pits and a post medieval boundary ditch suggests that the area was ploughed from the medieval period and continued in agricultural use until the present day. Project dates 13 April 2015 – 30 September 2016 Project type Excavation Previous work Desk based assessment (GCC 2002) Geophysical survey (PCG 2011)
Field evaluation (CA 2010) Future work Unknown PROJECT LOCATION Site Location Tetbury, Gloucestershire Study area (M2/ha) 1.22ha Site co-ordinates ST 8941 9418
PROJECT CREATORS Name of organisation Cotswold Archaeology Project Brief originator Gloucestershire County Council Project Design (WSI) originator Cotswold Archaeology
Project Manager Richard Greatorex Project Supervisor Tom Weavill, Joe Whelan MONUMENT TYPE PADDOCK, STRIP FIELD SIGNIFICANT FINDS None PROJECT ARCHIVES Intended final location of archive Content (e.g. pottery, animal (museum/Accession no.) bone etc)
Physical Corinum Museum/Accession no. Ceramics, animal bone, shell, TBC iron objects, clay pipe, worked flint, CBM, slag, stone Paper Corinum Museum/Accession no. Context sheets, matrices, TBC section drawings, photo registers, sample record sheets Digital Archaeology Data Service Database, digital photos, digital survey BIBLIOGRAPHY
46 Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design © Cotswold Archaeology
CA (Cotswold Archaeology) 2017 Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design. CA typescript report 17031
47 8 89000 9 90000 9 91000 8 88000 9 0 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9960006000
9950005000
9940004000
9930003000
9920002000
STST WO RC ES WARWICKSHIRE A Andover 01264 347630 T N E H R T Cirencester 01285 771022 S R H O Cotswold Exeter 01392 826185 COUNTY OF I R N Archaeology Milton Keynes 01908 564660 HEREFORDSHIRE E w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk
Site location PROJECT TITLE
MONM GLOUCESTERSHIRE Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire
TORF O UTHSHIRE OXFORDSHIRE
AEN FIGURE TITLE
Y Site location plan NEWPORT SOUTH READIN GLOUCESTERSHIRE FF 0 1km CITY OF BRISTOL WEST BOUROUGH OF DRAWN BY EE PROJECT NO. 9234 FIGURE NO. NORTH BERKSHIRE Reproduced from the digital Ordnance Survey Explorer map with SOMERSET SWINDON the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of The Controller CHECKED BY DJB DATE 02/02/2017 of Her Majesty's Stationery Office c Crown copyright BATH AND Cotswold Archaeology Ltd 100002109 APPROVED BY DS SCALE@A4 1:25,000 1 NE SOMERSET WILTSHIRE WOKINGHA 894 896 N
Pond
T40 site boundary evaluation trench T37 excavation area
T35 watching brief area 2015 archaeological feature Mews Cottages layer/deposit 943 geological feature
The Cottage T39 1 T34 T33 furrow field drain T38
Pond 5 Highfield Farm
T32 T25
Pond T15 T1 Geophysics Key T24
T23 T14 T16 T31 T7 T26 T6 T4
T30 T5 T22 T17 T13
T27 T18 T28
T29 T21 T12 T9 10 12 T19
14 22 941 T20
0 50m
3 1
23 T3 T10 5 Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey digital mapping with the permission
1 7 of Ordnance Survey on behalf of The Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery 2IILFH©©©&URZQ©FRS\ULJKW©&RWVZROG©$UFKDHRORJ\©/WG©
15 T11 14
14 15 El 7
11 10 Sub Cirencester 01285 771022 16 Sta Milton Keynes 01908 564660
9
16 Andover 01264 347630 14 w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk
1 1
12 12 PROJECT TITLE
8 48 Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire
FIGURE TITLE 6
6 Excavation, evaluation trench and
4 7 geophysical survey location plan Works 50 showing archaeological features
DRAWN BY EE PROJECT NO. 9234 FIGURE NO. CHECKED BY DJB DATE 02/02/2017 APPROVED BY DS SCALE@A3 1:1,500 2 P:\9234 Highfield Farm PXA\Illustration\Drafts\working files\5234_Fig2-editions february AOedits.dwg N 3 FIGURE NO. 01908 564660 cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk 01285 771022 @ 01264 347630 01392 826185 www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk 9234 02/02/2017 1:1000
enquiries Andover Cirencester Exeter Milton Keynes w e PROJECT NO. DATE SCALE@A3 Site boundary area Excavation 1 - Late Iron Age to Roman Period 2 - Medieval Period 3 - Post-medieval Period Modern field drain Section location EE DJB DS
Cotswold Archaeology E 0 50m
E c Reproduced from the digital Ordnance Survey Explorer map with the permissionReproduced from the digital Ordnance Survey The Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office on behalf of of Ordnance Survey Archaeology Ltd 100002109 Cotswold copyright Crown
PROJECT TITLE Gloucestershire Tetbury, Highfield Farm, FIGURE TITLE and C, phase plan A Area DRAWN BY DRAWN CHECKED BY APPROVED BY A 433 A
QUERCUS ROAD
3389608960 LONDON ROAD LONDON AREA B pit 41005 pit 41008 AREA C d pit 41010 iel f rm h a g F i H 3389508950 ) 4
A
g i A F
E e R e A AREA s ( (see Fig 4) es s g w . . Me 3389408940 otta C 0 0 0 1 3 2 4 4 4 9 9 9 1 19410 1 19430 1 19420 N
llayerayer 5500750075 wwallall 5500740074 ditchditch E E 5006050060 5500650065 Site boundary Excavation area
furrowfurrow 5500580058 5004550045 5500560056 D Period 1 - Late Iron Age to Roman ditchditch D 5004750047 5010750107 dditchitch Period 3 - Post-medieval 5013150131 pitpit 50040/50040/ 5500530053 5005550055
5500710071 dditchitch 50022/50022/ 5013050130 5002650026 Modern field drain
5500810081 550024/0024/ E E Section location /50083/50083 5002850028 postholeposthole 5007750077 5002950029 5500930093
5011750117 19420 5501100110 5011250112 ppostholeosthole 5500790079
ditchditch 5500060006 B 5013250132 enclosureenclosure B 5000550005 5501210121
C 5500120012 5501280128 5500440044 Highfield 5501150115 C dditchitch 5001650016 A Farm 5013350133 A
5500030003
AAREAREA A
5010350103 0 25m
Reproduced from the digital Ordnance Survey Explorer map with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of The Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office c Crown copyright Cotswold Archaeology Ltd 100002109
Andover 01264 347630 Cirencester 01285 771022 Cotswold Exeter 01392 826185 Archaeology Milton Keynes 01908 564660 w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk e [email protected]
PROJECT TITLE Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire
FIGURE TITLE AREA C Area A, phase plan
DRAWN BY AO PROJECT NO. 9234 FIGURE NO. CHECKED BY DJB DATE 20/02/2017 APPROVED BY DS SCALE@A3 1:500 4 Section AA
NW SE 127.0m AOD
50004
50011
enclosure ditch 50003
01m1:20
EEnclosurenclosure 5500050005 (intervention(intervention 50003),50003), lookinglooking north-eastnorth-east (0.4m)(0.4m)
Section BB
E W 127.3m AOD 50007
50008
50009
50010
enclosure ditch 50006
01m1:20
EEnclosurenclosure 5500050005 (intervention(intervention 50006),50006), lookinglooking southsouth (0.4m)(0.4m)
Section CC
50000 S N 127.1m AOD 50001
50008 Andover 01264 347630 50015 Cirencester 01285 771022 Cotswold Exeter 01392 826185 50014 Archaeology Milton Keynes 01908 564660 50013 w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk e [email protected]
PROJECT TITLE enclosure ditch 50012 Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire
1:20 01m FIGURE TITLE Enclosure 50005: sections and photographs (1:20)
DRAWN BY EE PROJECT NO. 9234 FIGURE NO. EEnclosurenclosure 5500050005 (intervention(intervention 50012),50012), lookinglooking westwest (1m)(1m) CHECKED BY DJB DATE 20/02/2017 APPROVED BY DS SCALE@A3 1:20 5 Section DD
E W 128.2m AOD 50059 50057
ditch ditch 50058 50056
01m1:20
DDitchesitches 5501310131 (intervention(intervention 50058)50058) andand 5013050130 (intervention(intervention 50056),50056), lookinglooking southsouth (1m(1m scale)scale)
Section EE
50000
W E 128.7m 50001 AOD
50067 50066 Mixed area: Natural + 50002
ditch 50065
01m1:20 Andover 01264 347630 Cirencester 01285 771022 Cotswold Exeter 01392 826185 Archaeology Milton Keynes 01908 564660 w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk e [email protected]
PROJECT TITLE Highfield Farm, Tetbury, Gloucestershire
FIGURE TITLE Ditches 50131 and 50107 : sections and photographs (1:20)
DDitchitch 5501070107 (0.4m(0.4m scale)scale) DRAWN BY EE PROJECT NO. 9234 FIGURE NO. CHECKED BY DJB DATE 20/02/2017 APPROVED BY DS SCALE@A3 1:20 6
48