Publication Report

Home , Winchcombe, Winchcombe Abbey

Medieval Backyards at Cowl Lane, Winchcombe Excavations in 2011

Publication Report

for

CgMs

on behalf of

N.J. Smith Builders

CA Project: 9119 CA Report: 14195

July 2014

Medieval Backyards at Cowl Lane, Winchcombe Excavations in 2011

PUBLICATION

CA PROJECT: 9119 CA REPORT: 14195

prepared by Alan Hardy

date 3 July 2014

checked by Mary Alexander, Post-excavation Manager

date

approved by Martin Watts, Head of Publications

signed

date

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.

Cirencester Milton Keynes Andover Building 11 Unit 4 Stanley House Kemble Enterprise Park Cromwell Business Centre Walworth Road Kemble, Cirencester Howard Way, Newport Pagnell Andover, Hampshire Gloucestershire, GL7 6BQ MK16 9QS SP10 5LH t. 01285 771022 t. 01908 218320 t. 01264 347630 f. 01285 771033 e. [email protected]

Medieval Backyards at Cowl Lane, Winchcombe: Excavations in 2011

By ALAN HARDY

With contributions by NIGEL BAKER, SARAH COBAIN, MATILDA HOLMES and E.R. MCSLOY

INTRODUCTION

Between April and June 2011, Cotswold Archaeology carried out targeted excavation on land beside the Parish Hall, Cowl Lane, Winchcombe (OS Nat. Grid 40249 22833; Fig. 1). The work was undertaken for CgMs on behalf of N.J. Smith Builders as a condition of Planning Consent for three residential units. The site encloses an area of approximately 0.12 ha between Cowl Lane and the High Street, close to the centre of the Anglo-Saxon and medieval settlement of Winchcombe, and lies at around 90 m OD. Winchcombe lies at the foot of the Cotswolds north-east of Cheltenham on the north side of the valley of the River Isbourne, and at a height of between 85 m and 115 m OD. The geology is alluvium and Lower Lias clays, overlain in part by compacted calciferous gravel (BGS 2000).

HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND

Winchcombe may have been the site of a minster as early as the 7th century, as it was an important settlement in the kingdom of the Hwicce, although it first came to real prominence as a Mercian royal minster and palace in the 8th century, during the reigns of Coenwulf and Offa, and as such is argued to represent one of the first post-Roman combinations of strategic royal citadel and important church (Blair 2005, 289).

The abbey, founded in AD 811, ensured Winchcombe’s prominence in the late Anglo- Saxon and Norman periods, and was the burial site for Coenwulf himself. The flourishing cult of St Cynhelm added to its importance, and briefly in the early 11th century Winchcombe was the centre of its own shire: Winchcombeshire. From this high point, and despite the wealth of the abbey’s estates, the town itself steadily declined in regional importance through the medieval period (Tilley et al. 2007). After the Dissolution, apart from a short-lived boost provided by an embryonic tobacco growing industry (Hart 1981, 104–105), Winchcombe remained as a modest agricultural market town.

There is archaeological evidence of substantial Roman occupation in the vicinity of the historic centre, in the form of pottery scatters and coins, but as yet no structural evidence (Tilley et al. 2007, 19). The possibility that there could be continuity between such occupation and the mid-Saxon settlement remains unproven. Most archaeological investigation has focussed on the abbey buildings and other areas within the precinct (Loftus Brook 1893; Bassett 1985). Partly through lack of development, the centre of the medieval town has not been examined to a similar degree. However, a small rescue excavation in 1977 in a plot behind a North Street frontage revealed six inhumations surviving amid later medieval rubbish pits (Fig. 5). Two of the three radiocarbon dates suggested a late Anglo-Saxon cemetery, possibly associated with the minster or the early Benedictine abbey successor (Saville 1985).

When a planning application for residential development of the site was submitted toTewkesbury Borough Council (TBC) (ref: no. 09/01290/FUL), Gloucestershire County Council Archaeological Services (GCC) recommended that the applicant commission a desk-based assessment and evaluation of the impact of the proposed development on any archaeology preserved within the development area. The desk-based assessment concluded that there was moderate potential for evidence from the Roman period, and a higher potential for archaeological deposits relating to the Anglo-Saxon and medieval settlement to survive in the parts of the site not previously developed (Pugh 2010). An archaeological evaluation of the site (Fig. 1, trenches T1-T3) revealed four partially exposed features which were interpreted as medieval and post-medieval refuse pits associated with the occupation of tenement properties (CgMs 2010), and concluded that these remains were likely to be affected by the development.

In the light of these preliminary investigations, planning permission was granted by TBC, conditional on a programme of archaeological work being carried out ahead of development. The excavation was undertaken in accordance with a detailed Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) by Cotswold Archaeology (CA 2011), approved by TBC acting on the advice of the GCC Archaeological Services, who also monitored both the fieldwork and the post-excavation analysis.

METHODOLOGY

Three discrete areas (Trenches 5, 7 and 8), were located where residential units would impact significant archaeological deposits (Fig. 1). These were mechanically stripped of overburden, and all the revealed features were sample-excavated by hand (20% of linear features, 50–100% of discrete features). Suitable deposits within features were sampled for macrofossil and/or charcoal remains. All recording followed standard CA procedures, details of which can be found in the archive. The site records and artefacts are currently held by CA at their offices in Kemble. Subject to the agreement of the legal landowner, the artifacts will be deposited with Cheltenham Art Gallery and Museum, along with the site records, under accession number CAGM 2011.50.

EXCAVATION RESULTS

General The depth of overburden removed to reveal the undisturbed archaeological features varied across the site from 0.8 m to 1.2 m. Below this level, features and deposits survived in good condition except for the truncation of a few deep modern foundations.

The phasing of the features and deposits was based upon stratigraphic relationships and artefactual dating evidence. Four periods were identified:

Period 1: pre-12th century Period 2: 12th to 13th centuries

Period 3: 14th to 18th centuries Period 4: 19th to 21st centuries

Period 1: pre-12th century Six residual Roman pottery fragments found in Period 2 pits 5005, 5014, 5042, 7084 and 7035 suggest Roman activity of this date in the area, although no features of this date were found on the site.

The earliest activity on the site was represented by the truncated remains of a north- west/south-east ditch crossing Trench 7 (7032/7045, Fig. 2), cut by several Period 2 pits. The ditch averaged 0.5 m wide by 0.6 m deep, with steep sides and a V-shaped profile. The single fill, a compacted silty clay and gravel, suggests that the feature was backfilled rather than allowed to silt naturally. The absence of any finds apart from a few fragments of animal bone and a small piece of flattened lead suggests this ditch was open at a time when the immediate area was not intensively occupied. The dating of this feature, and its implications are considered further below.

Period 2: 12th to 13th centuries This phase was characterised by intense pit-digging, particularly evident in Trenches 5 and 7, characteristic of backyard rubbish disposal. Most of the pits were subcircular in plan, many with near-vertical sides and flat bases. None showed evidence of rapid erosion of the sides, but this does not necessarily imply that any were sheltered from the elements (that is, roofed over), or that they were filled rapidly. The compacted gravel natural was clearly stable when exposed, and not prone to collapse.

Given the profile of most of the pits (steep to vertical sides with flattish bases) the evidence suggests that their primary use was as refuse pits, the larger ones for prolonged use, the smaller ones possibly for ‘single-event’ rubbish disposal. Only one large feature (pit 818) displayed the wide and shallow amorphous shape more characteristic of a gravel extraction pit. This pit contained a possible Roman roof tile (tegula) fragment.

Trench 5 The trench revealed a spread of intercutting pits and, within the sequence, a single east- north-east/west-south-west oriented ditch (5094). This was a broad and flat-bottomed ditch, probably representing at one time a plot boundary, against which pits such as 5087 (on its south side) were excavated. The single compact silty clay fill of ditch 5094 contained 12th and 13th-century pottery, suggesting that the area was occupied and active when the ditch was in use. Collectively, the pits seemed to display a consistency of alignment, either similar to the ditch or at right-angles to it; an example being pits 5042, 5047, and 5102. Two postholes (5003 and 5032) conformed to the alignment of the ditch. One of the earliest features, pit 5082, was cut by ditch 5094, and was filled with a series of silty clay layers and gravel lenses. Its earliest fill 5083, was sampled for environmental remains and produced a quantity of free-threshing wheat.

All of the pits in the trench were characteristic of rubbish pits of a variety of sizes, the largest being pit 5015, partly revealed against the western side of the trench, and truncating both an earlier pit (5058, not shown), and the ditch 5094. Pit 5015 measured at least 5 m long by 3 m wide and was up to 1.23 m deep, and filled with dumped midden layers, some containing small quantities of burnt clay and/or charcoal, interspersed with layers of relatively clean gravel, possibly intended to suppress noxious smells.

Trench 7 The side of a large and possibly linear feature (7057) was exposed along the south-west side of the trench, cutting Period 1 ditch 7045. The steeply sloping side and compact fill could indicate this was also a boundary ditch, conceivably a redefinition of ditch 7045, as it appeared to cut that feature. A small assemblage of 12th to13th-century pottery was recovered from the fill, along with a single residual sherd of 1st to 3rd-century AD pottery and a residual prehistoric flint blade.

The size of the pits across Trench 7 was more varied than in Trench 5, with diameters ranging from 1.19 m to 2.35 m, and depths varying from just 0.3 m to 1.7 m. The largest features were in the northern part of the trench, and included vertically-sided round pit 7007, measuring 2.35 m in diameter by 1.7 m deep. The section (Fig. 3) displayed a sequence of fills consistent with its use as a rubbish pit, including substantial deposits of

5 probable midden clearance, interspersed with dumps of ash and spreads of natural gravel. Artefactual material from the pit included animal bone and 12th to 13th-century pottery. A lower ashy silt deposit (7025), produced a quantity of cereal-processing waste and charcoal, and fragments of iron slag were recovered from its upper full (7008). Two other relatively small pits nearby (7037 and 7084) also produced quantities of cereal- processing waste. Fills 7016 and 7017 of pit 7084 were also notable for a large assemblage of cattle bones from the head and lower legs, of which many had been burnt. A fragment of dark green medieval glass from a rim or base, broadly dated to the 11th to 16th centuries, was also found in fill 7017. Fragments of fired clay from the fill of 7037 featured wattle impressions. A medieval iron hook/hanger was also recovered from pit 7020, and small quantity of iron slag and a number of iron nails were found in the fill of several pits in Trench 7.

Alongside pit 7007 was a stone-lined shaft-built well (7003), with an internal shaft diameter of 0.6 m at the top, increasing to 0.8 m at the limit of excavation. While the upper few courses had been robbed, the lower intact courses of limestone blocks were exposed to a depth of 1.3 m, and clearly extended beyond that level. Pottery of a 13th/14th century date was recovered from the backfill (7005) of the construction cut of the well shaft, suggesting a later medieval date for its construction. The lowest infill (7104) exposed within the shaft produced 19th/20th century pottery, which indicates that the well-shaft was empty (if not necessarily in use) throughout the post-medieval lull in activity in the area (Period 3).

Trench 8 A single, large, flat-bottomed sub-circular pit (818) was identified, measuring approximately 3.9 m in diameter by 0.3 m deep. The single fill (819) was a mix of redeposited natural gravel and silty clay, and contained fragments of animal bone and 12th to 13th-century pottery. Cut into the fill along the western edge of the trench were three small intercutting rubbish pits (814, 816 and 820), aligned along the boundary with Cowl Lane. Each contained a dark grey silty gravel fill, and produced 12th to 13th- century pottery and animal bone finds.

Period 3: 14th to 18th centuries No features survived across the site from this Period, and only very few pottery sherds from this period were retrieved, all from the overburden, suggesting that the area was unoccupied for a considerable time. However, the depth of disturbed overburden could disguise the possibility that lightly-founded structures, or shallow pits and/or ditches, could have existed.

Period 4: 19th to 21st centuries Vestigial stone footings of an insubstantial structure (5121) in Trench 5 were revealed. Elsewhere in this trench, and in Trench 7, robbed footings (5028 and 7014) of annexes to the Parish Hall were located, along with modern drain runs in Trench 5. Trench 8 revealed a modern soakaway and a few pits and postholes. A copper-alloy wick feed, probably from a late post-medieval oil lamp, was recovered in the fill of the robbed footings 7014.

THE FINDS

Pottery by E.R. McSloy

Pottery amounting to 773 sherds (12.2 kg) was recorded. The majority of the assemblage was hand-recovered with a further 36 sherds (76 g) retrieved from bulk soil samples. With the exception of six sherds of Roman pottery and a single probable early or middle Anglo-Saxon sherd, the assemblage dates to the medieval period. The stratified medieval group forms the focus for this report.

The pottery was scanned by context and sorted by type macroscopically or with the aid of a binocular (x20) microscope. Quantification is by sherd count and weight by fabric. Vessel forms were recorded with reference to Medieval Pottery Research Group’s classification scheme (MPRG 1998).

Medieval Condition of the medieval assemblage was good, as reflected in mean sherd weight (16.5 g for the hand-recovered group) and surface preservation. Evidence for pottery

7 use was preserved in the form of sooting (92 sh) and internal limey residues (3 sh) from the heating of water.

The overall assemblage composition is set out in Table 1. The large bulk of material comprises unglazed coarsewares, the largest proportion (45% of the total) comprising Winchcombe type oolitic limestone wares (fabric C1) comparable with material previously recorded from the town (Ellis 1986). Fabric C2 may represent a variant local type distinguished by scarcer limestone and some quartz inclusions. Of the remaining unglazed fabrics, most (239 sherds or 31%) comprise sandy types Q1/Q2, the likely source for which is the Worcester area. Malvern Chase type unglazed wares (type MU) amount to 76 sherds or 10% of the assemblage.

Glazed types amount to 75 sherds or 9.8% of the assemblage. Regional sources including north Wiltshire, Worcester, Bristol and the Oxford area are represented. A small group of unsourced fabrics (grouped as type UGL) might derive from either Worcester, the West Midlands or Oxfordshire. Continental imports are not present.

Identifiable vessel forms among the medieval group comprise mainly jars (a minimum 88 vessels, or 79%). Few vessels are sufficiently complete to determine their full profile, although it is clear that straight-sided and more globular forms are present. Some simple/‘clubbed’ rim forms were recorded among the oolitic limestone-tempered fabrics (six vessels). The majority of jar rims are ‘developed’ classes; everted with thickened rim tops and sometimes with an internal channel or ledge for lid seating.

Non-jar forms among the unglazed coarsewares are confined to five dishes of in-turned ‘west country’ type (see MPRG 1998, 5.3.1) in fabrics C2 (4 vessels) and Q1. The function of this class of vessel, which is known primarily from sites across the Cotswolds, South Gloucestershire and north Somerset, is not fully understood, though use in dairying/cheese making processes seems most likely (Duncan Brown, pers comm.).

Forms among the glazed pottery comprise mainly pitchers/jugs with a very few jars or bowl-like vessels. Featured sherds amongst the north Wiltshire/Minety type MTY, including footed-base sherds, handles (Fig. 4) and tubular spouts, were identifiable as tripod pitchers (a minimum five vessels). Identified forms amongst the Late Saxon-

8 medieval Oxford ware (OXY) include two pitchers (pits 5087 and 7007) which are close in form to examples from Oxford (Mellor 1994, fig. 21, no. 6; fig. 22, no. 8). Two probable bowl sherds in this type with deep-scored wavy decoration (from pits 7007 and 7020) also compare to examples illustrated by Mellor (ibid., figs. 19–20). A single pitcher was identified among the Worcester glazed ware from pit 5082. Jugs are largely absent from the assemblage, limited to probable examples in Brill/Boarstall ware (pit 7088) and in Worcester glazed ware (pit 7100), the latter a vessel with ribbed neck and repeated impressed decoration similar to 13th-century examples from Gloucester (Vince 1986, fig. 33, no. 45).

Stratigraphy/dating Almost the entire assemblage (737 sherds or 96.2%) was recovered from pit fills. The largest groups (56–111 sherds) are those from pits 5015, 7007, 7035 and 7084, most of which were located in Trench 7. Roman sherds, all of which were redeposited, were recorded from medieval pits 5005, 5014, 5042, 7084 and 7035. The one probable early/middle Anglo-Saxon sherd was recorded from pit 816 and was also residual within a medieval feature.

Compositions for larger pit groups are largely consistent from pit to pit, suggesting broad contemporaneity. The overall composition is close to that described for 12th to early/mid 13th-century assemblages from the north Gloucestershire area (Vince 1984, 255–6). Clubbed-rim forms among the limestone-tempered types (pits 5009, 5047, 5087, 7009, 7035) are usually regarded as early in the range for the ware type, no later than the earlier 13th century (ibid., 253). Similarly, incidence of West Country-type vessels is mainly 12th century or a little later (Jope 1952, 65). Forms among the glazed types are also fully consistent with such dating, most notably the Minety-type tripod pitchers and corresponding forms in Oxford Late Saxon-medieval wares.

Illustration catalogue

Fig. 4: Minety ware pitcher. U-shaped handle with central rod. Fabric MTY. Pit 7007 (fill 7008).

Other artefacts identified by E.R. McSloy

Single finds of iron, glass, Roman roof tile and flint are noted in the text above. Full details are available in the archive.

The mammal, bird and fish bone by Matilda Holmes

Animal bone totalling 1169 fragments was recovered from a number of features dated to Periods 1 (pre-12th century) and 2 (12th–13th centuries), as well as of post- medieval/Modern date (Periods 3 and 4) (Table 2). Most was recovered from Period 2 contexts (997 fragments), which will be considered in depth; sample sizes were too small from other periods to warrant detailed analysis, though bone from Periods 1 and 2 is considered together for some statistical analyses.

Methodology Bones were identified using the author’s reference collection, and all fragments were recorded. Due to anatomical similarities between sheep and goat, bones of this type were assigned to the category ‘sheep/goat’ (Prummel and Frisch 1986; Payne 1985). Bones that could not be identified to species were, where possible, categorised according to the relative size of the animal represented (small: rodent/rabbit size; medium: sheep/pig/dog size; or large: cattle/horse size).

Tooth wear and eruption were recorded using guidelines from Grant (1982) and Silver (1969), as were bone fusion (Silver 1969), metrical data (von den Driesch 1976), anatomy, side, zone (Serjeantson 1996) and any evidence of pathological changes, butchery (Lauwerier 1988; Sykes 2007) and working. The condition of bones was noted on a scale of 1–5, where 1 is fresh bone and 5 is badly degraded (Lyman 1994, 355). Bone fragments recovered from sieved samples were recorded only if they could be identified to species and/or element, or showed signs of taphonomic processes. Further details of the analytical methodology are available in the archive.

Discussion Taphonomy and Condition Bones from Periods 2 to 4 were in good condition; those from Period 1 were badly preserved. Bones from Period 2 exhibited little evidence of delayed burial or post- depositional movement. The bones were not highly processed prior to deposition, although butchery marks were fairly common. The relatively high amount of canid gnawing suggests that some bones were made available for dogs to chew prior to burial. In general, this is consistent with the disposal of refuse in pits, soon after being discarded.

Carcass Representation and Butchery Bones were recorded from all parts of the carcass of cattle and sheep, which suggests that these animals were slaughtered and butchered on site, or that sides of meat were brought in. The prevalence of pig head and forelimb elements suggests that pork was provided as specific joints of meat, while the absence of head and extremities from domestic fowl and goose carcasses is consistent with the buying in of dressed birds.

The diversity of anatomical elements meant that a full range of butchery techniques could be observed. Consumption of brawn was evident from the splitting of cattle, pig and sheep skulls, and the use of cheek meats from a butchered cattle mandible. Cattle and sheep horn cores had been removed from the skull, or showed signs of the horn sheath having been removed.

Butchery of vertebrae was varied, with evidence of both median (centrally) and para- median (off-centre) splitting of cattle and sheep carcasses into sides of meat, as well as the portioning of joints through transverse chop marks. The skinning of cattle and sheep carcasses was reflected in knife marks to phalanges and metapodials. Disarticulation and jointing of the carcass was the most prevalent form of butchery recorded. A number of butchery marks were also observed on the bones of domestic fowl and goose, relating to the disarticulation of the carcass.

Although the assemblage was fairly homogenous throughout the excavated area, one outstanding deposit came from pit 7084 (contexts 7016 and 7017). This was a group of cattle bones comprising head and lower legs, deriving from a minimum of four animals. It

11 is possible they represent butchery waste but a number of the bones had also been burnt to varying degrees.

Species Representation and Diet Very few bones were recovered from pre 12th-century contexts (Table 2), but those that were identified came from a range of taxa including cattle, sheep/goat, pig and horse.

Cattle and sheep dominated the assemblage from Periods 1 and 2 combined, with only 9% coming from pigs, and 5% and 4% of domestic fowl (chicken) and goose respectively. The assemblage as a whole is typical of early-high medieval domestic refuse, made up largely of the remains of food waste, as implied by the butchery evidence. However, the relatively small quantities of of game species, combined with low numbers of pigs, suggests that this was not waste left by high-status households (Sykes 2009b, 355). Remains of rabbit/hare from phalanges are likely to be waste from primary butchery of the carcass. In addition, a small number of fish remains were recorded, including cod, herring and eel.

A number of juvenile domestic fowl bones (9 out of 35) reflect a breeding population of chickens, which is not unusual at contemporary urban sites, and contrasts with the mature geese bones, consistent with the driving of geese to town from specialist producer sites (Serjeantson 2006, 141).

Provisioning The abundance of cattle at the site, relative paucity of wild taxa, and presence of similar proportions of domestic birds is a trend reflected at the nearby North Street site in Winchcombe (Saville 1985), as well as contemporary sites in Gloucester (Levitan 1985; Maltby 1979, 1983; Sykes 2009). This pattern is common at other urban sites in the southern region (Holmes forthcoming) and contrasts with a number of rural sites in the region, such as Eckweek (Davis 1991) Harry Stoke, Stoke Gifford (Serjeantson 1995) and Upton (Yealland and Higgs 1966), at which sheep were most commonly recorded, implying that sheep were kept in the countryside to provide wool for the emerging cloth trade.

The role of rural sites as producers for the urban market is also reflected in the mortality profiles of cattle and sheep, with a range of ages present at Eckweek, comprising breeding mortalities, i.e. animals of meat age and older animals important for secondary products such as wool, milk and traction (Davis 1991). Animals within Gloucester and Winchcombe, however, were more likely to have been culled at prime meat age, or even a little younger, representing the production of animals specifically for their meat.

Conclusion The majority of faunal data indicates that the inhabitants of this area of the town enjoyed a diet based largely on beef, but also lamb, with the occasional addition of pork, chicken, goose, game and fish. They were able to procure good cuts of tender meat from the urban market; it is probable that cattle and sheep were bought in as sides of meat, while pork was purchased as joints, and birds as dressed carcasses.

Plant macrofossil and charcoal by Sarah Cobain

Eight bulk soil samples were processed and assessed for plant macrofossil and charcoal remains, and four were deemed suitable for plant macrofossil analysis and broad characterisation of charcoal. All four samples were from Period 2 pits. This evidence was examined for information regarding the function of features sampled, socio-economic activities, and the composition of the local woodlands and flora.

Methodology Plant macrofossil and charcoal remains were retrieved by standard flotation procedures (CA Technical Manual 2). The seeds were identified with reference to Cappers et al. (2006), Neef et al. (2012), Berggren (1981) and Anderberg (1994). Up to 20 charcoal fragments (>2mm) were identified with reference to Gale and Cutler (2000), Schoch et al. (2004) and Wheeler et al. (1989). Nomenclature of seeds and charcoal species, and habitat information follows Stace (1997). Full methodological details are available in the archive.

Results The samples analysed were well preserved, with 22 plant species and eight tree/shrub species identified. These are listed in Tables 4 and 5.

Discussion: Period 2 The plant macrofossils from pits 5082, 7007, 7037 and 7084 were dominated by free- threshing wheat cereal grains (Triticum) with smaller numbers of barley (Hordeum vulgare), oats (Avena) and emmer/spelt wheat (Triticum dicoccum/Triticum spelta) also identified. Cereal chaff included the identification of 37 bread wheat (hexaploid) (Triticum aestivum) and two durum wheat (tetraploid) (Triticum turgidum/durum) rachis, suggesting the cultivation of both types of wheat, although bread wheat may have been the dominant crop. In addition, awns, paleas, indeterminate wheat rachis, culm nodes and bases, and straw were identified. No floret bases were recovered, therefore it was not possible to deduce whether the oats were cultivated or wild, although the relatively large numbers recorded may indicate their deliberate cultivation. The small number of barley grains identified means it is not possible to say whether barley was being cultivated, or may represent germination of relic barley grains within the wheat fields. Emmer/spelt wheat was not a typical crop during the medieval period and is likely to be a weed intrusion. Free-threshing wheat was a more typical medieval cultivar and the dominance of this type of cereal in the assemblage from the nearby site at Stoke Road, Bishop’s Cleeve (Jones and Smith 2002, 53), suggests it was widely cultivated in the region.

The mixture of cereal grains, light (awns, paleas, rachis) and heavy (culm nodes and bases, straw) chaff fractions, and low growing (1m or less) herbaceous taxa indicative of arable and disturbed environments suggests that crops were harvested low on the stalk or uprooted. The assemblage as a whole represents discarded crop-processing waste from threshing, winnowing and sieving, from a source nearby. The straw would have been separated for use as thatch, flooring, and bedding for animals, and it is likely the remaining chaff would have been used for fuel, fodder and temper for pottery (Hillman 1981, 134–5). The high concentration of cereal grains compared to chaff or weeds may be attributed to the denser nature of grain relative to cereal chaff, which makes it more likely to survive exposure to fire. It is also possible that a spoiled crop was being used as fuel, although there is no direct evidence of spoiling (sprouting grain). Once cleaned and

14 processed, free-threshing wheat would have been used to produce bread and oats for bread, pottage, porridges and fodder (Stone 2006, 13).

Other remains of economic importance include vetches/peas and bromes, which may have been cultivated as a fodder crop (Stone 2006, 11). In addition, farmers would benefit from the nitrogen-fixing abilities of vetches/peas to improve the fertility of the soil (Zohary et al. 2013, 75). In times of poor harvest they are also known to have been added to stews and pottages, and milled alongside wheat/barley/oat flour to make bread.

Herbaceous taxa include weeds such as bromes (Bromus spp), corncockle (Agrostemma githago), red bartsia (Odontites vernus) and stinking chamomile (Anthemis cotula) suggesting that part of the landscape was arable. Opportunistic species including goosefoots (Chenopodium), campion (Silene) and knotweeds (Persicaria) most likely established in marginal areas surrounding the fields or within newly ploughed soil. The majority of these species prefer fertile soil, and stinking chamomile is indicative of a heavier clay soil, both of which would be expected on the alluvium and clay geology of the area. There was also evidence of field maple (Acer campestre), elder seeds (Sambucus nigra) and hazelnut shells (Corylus avellana), most likely originating from the fuel wood used, although it is possible elder and hazelnut were exploited as wild foods.

Charcoal was present in small quantities and was moderately to poorly preserved, consisting of oak species (Quercus robur/petraea), alder/hazel (Alnus glutinosa/Corylus avellana), hazel and hawthorn/rowan/crab apple (Crataegus monogyna/Sorbus/Malus sylvestris) which appeared to originate from small roundwood branches or twigs collected from local scrub woodland or hedgerows, and has been characterised as waste firing debris from cereal processing activities.

Documentary evidence by Nigel Baker

The site lies at the core of the historic settlement of Winchcombe, within an area identified by the extensive urban survey of the 1990s as one characterised by medieval burgages (area 22: Tilley et al. 2007), immediately east of the precinct of Winchcombe Abbey. The excavation can be shown to lie within the area that was built up before the

Norman Conquest and which, it will be argued, owes its genesis to an episode of late pre-Conquest planned urban development.

The form of the historic built-up area of Winchcombe is (ignoring, for a moment, its religious institutions) that of a roadside settlement, the pre-20th-century built-up area forming an anchor shape (Fig. 5), the curving cross-bar formed by Gloucester Street, Abbey Terrace, High Street and Hailes Street, being part of a long-distance route between Gloucester to the south-west and Stratford-upon-Avon to the north-east, locally following the north bank of the River Isbourne. The vertical arm of the anchor is formed by North Street, offering routes to Evesham. A less significant and largely undeveloped route starting with Castle Street heads south-east from High Street, just west of the North Street junction, over the river and towards Northleach, connecting with one of the Droitwich salt ways via St Kenelm’s Well, one of the cult sites associated with the abbey’s patron saint.

This is not the context in which to reiterate the extensive literature that now exists on Winchcombe, its religious institutions and Anglo-Saxon defences, but a few salient points require summarising to contextualise the excavated evidence. Winchcombe Abbey appears to have begun life as an early and important royal minster: its existence can be traced with certainty back to a Mercian charter of 796–821, though a local monastic source places the foundation earlier, with a nunnery founded by Offa in 787 and a monastery founded by Coenwulf (who was buried there) in 798. Modern scholarship now suggests that the earliest foundation may in fact have been a century earlier, when it was a central place of the Hwiccian sub-kingdom. Having been a secular minster, the house was reformed in or after 969 by Bishop Oswald, becoming one of the largest Benedictine houses in the country (Tilley et al. 2007, 20).

The minster was no isolated retreat. The meeting of the witenagemot in Winchcombe in 941 clearly points to the presence of a royal palace. The existence of a mint, operating between the mid-10th and early 11th centuries, corroborates the archaeological evidence that the place was, by then, defended. Winchcombe was head of its own shire briefly in the early 11th century and by 1066 was accorded borough status, with at least 140 burgesses rendering an annual fee farm of £6, increased to £28 by 1086, with three mills (Moore 1982, DB 162v; Tilley et al. 2007, 20–2).

Where were the 140 or more Domesday-period Winchcombe burgesses located? So far, archaeological evidence does not suggest that the area north of the abbey, between the truncated former Peticrueslane and Back Lane, was densely occupied before the relative decline in Winchcombe’s urban fortunes from the 12th century onwards: it is most likely that the pre-Conquest burgages lie within the built-up area and its plots as surveyed by the Ordnance Survey in 1884 (Fig. 5). In narrowing down the possible extent of the pre- Conquest occupied area, the former existence of a church and parish of St Nicholas is a helpful guide. The church is thought to have stood on the corner of Chandos Street and Bull Lane (Tilley et al. 2007, 25). St Nicholas dedications are typically (in, for example, Hereford, Gloucester and Worcester) of late 11th or 12th-century date and point to areas of early post-Conquest development and ecclesiastical provision. In Winchcombe, the implication is probably that, away from the major through-route trading streets, the Bull Lane/Chandos Street area was not developed before the Conquest. The pre-Conquest burgages should, it seems, be sought along the main streets of the medieval town.

In the remaining streets and plots there are many unresolved topographical complexities but a fairly sure sign of ‘higher-order decision making’ in the townscape (i.e. town planning) is the provision of common back lanes to service a newly-created, or envisioned, series of plots. Two streets only have this provision in Winchcombe: Hailes Street, and North Street.

An identical pattern can be found in the late pre-Conquest period on the south and east sides of St Peter’s Abbey in Gloucester, where a newly-established precinct boundary, post-dating the destruction of the old Roman fortress west wall, served as the line for common back lanes to external plot series: King Edward Street, behind the plots facing Westgate Street, and St John’s/Grass Lane, servicing the rear of the plots facing Northgate Street (Baker and Holt 2004). An association with the Benedictine reforms of the 960s or later is certainly possible, given the common train of concomitant sequential processes: reform, new liturgy, new buildings, new expenditure, demand for increased revenue from estates (Slater 1998).

DISCUSSION by Alan Hardy and Nigel Baker

Pre-medieval activity Just six small Romano-British pot fragments were recovered from all three trenches, and no features could be confidently phased to this period. However, there is significant evidence of a substantial 2nd to 3rd-century AD presence in the area of the abbey precinct and the northern part of the historic centre (Tilley et al. 2007), even though no structural remains have yet been found. The importance of the Roman presence is considered further below.

The fact that a single residual Anglo-Saxon sherd came from Trench 8 supports the contention that the area was open and undeveloped at this time, although it seems likely that it lay within the confines of the minster enclosure.

Medieval activity Features identified as plot boundary ditches were encountered in Trenches 5 and 7. Those in Trench 7 were on an north-west/south-east alignment, consistent with being a longitudinal boundary between plots facing the High Street. The ditches contained a distinctly compact and finds-free silty clay fill, adding weight to the suggestion that they could represent an early division of the land. The wider ditch (5090/5094) found in Trench 5 was on an east-north-east/west-south-west alignment. This is likely to have represented the rear of a High Street plot, probably a boundary with a parcel of land accessed from Cowl Lane: the Trench 5 ditch alignment continued eastwards that of the south side of the Parish Hall on Cowl Lane, and was inconsistent with the ruling alignment of the North Street plots. In contrast to the Trench 7 ditches, ditch 5090/5094 appeared to cut at least two pits, suggesting that this feature might be more of a re-cut of an existing plot, rather than an initial laying out of the landscape.

The character of the medieval archaeology found in the three trenches is similar and characteristic of urban medieval domestic refuse disposal. From the pottery dating, this activity is seen to be concentrated within the 12th to late 13th centuries, and the assemblage is dominated by local coarsewares (mainly jars), suggestive of households of fairly modest status. While the stratigraphy showed localised sequences of intercutting pits, it is not possible to suggest any subtle evolution of the site as a whole within this

18 period; each property appeared to maintain its own regime of rubbish disposal, although there are some trends common to all. While a few of the soil deposits within the pits were recorded as having a ‘greenish’ tinge, suggestive of cess, none of the pits appeared from their shape or contents to have been dedicated latrines. Either such constructions were located closer to the dwellings, or the routine was to use in-house receptacles for human waste, which would be subsequently disposed of in whatever refuse pit was open at the time.

The environmental evidence within the pits shows a predominance of cereal-processing waste, probably undertaken close by with inclusions of weeds typical of the local heavier clay soil and alluvium, along with evidence of field maple and elder seeds, and charcoal deriving from fuel wood brought onto the site.

The animal bone dumped in the pits showed little sign of weathering in later phases of activity, indicating a disciplined regime of disposal, generally after butchery (and periodic burial), although a number of fragments showed gnaw marks, presumably scraps given to household animals. There was a predominance of cattle and sheep consumption, and in the form of joints or prepared sections of a carcass, but there was no evidence of on- site butchery, with the exception of the assemblage of partially burnt cattle bones in one pit (7084). The remains of a single feasting event might possibly be an explanation for this. Domestic fowl also contributed to the diet, and there was evidence a breeding population, but very few game bones support the contention that these were not high- status households.

The finds from the pits across the three trenches do not suggest that this area was the focus for industrial activity. The small amount of slag waste from the upper fill (7008) of large pit 7007 is characteristic of small-scale, ad hoc metalworking, but nothing more. Small quantities of fired clay from Trenches 5 and 7, some vitrified, and two pieces displaying wattle marks, indicate the possibility of a hearth or an oven nearby. The absence of significant quantities of ceramic building material or constructional stone or tiles in the medieval deposits suggests that this was not an area subject to repeated rebuilding or architectural development.

The absence of archaeological activity after the 14th century is marked, and is almost certainly related to the economic decline of the town and concomitant abandonment of once-active plots fronting onto the less important streets away from the main thoroughfares, of which Cowl Lane was an example. The abbey, though always rich in estates, was poor in entrepreneurial initiative and this, plus the fact that the Winchcombe area lacked the resources of water, fulling supplies, and easy access to attract the new cloth manufactories, which were much better suited to the valleys around Stroud, meant that Winchcombe steadily declined through the later medieval period (Adlard, 1939).

As for the post-Dissolution fortunes of the area, there was virtually no significant archaeological evidence, and it is likely the area remained as gardens or waste ground until the 19th century. The footings of a lightly-founded post-medieval building in Trench 5 suggest an outbuilding to the Parish Hall of some sort, but the fact that these footings were on a very different alignment to the earlier (and indeed later) boundaries is significant, suggesting that the immediate area was open and not closely demarcated. The present Parish Hall, immediately north of the site, reputedly stands on the site of the principal warehouse of a short-lived tobacco industry of the 17th century (Adlard 1939, 70), although no related material evidence was found.

The local context Two excavations are specifically relevant to the Cowl Lane investigations. In 1962, excavations took place on the west side of Cowl Lane about 60 m north-west of Trench 5. The excavations, in the form of two parallel east/west trenches, found a V-shaped ditch (F50), interpreted as a pre-Conquest monastic boundary, running north-west/south- east parallel to Cowl Lane. This was replaced much later by a wall footing slightly further to the west, with an outer boundary ditch running parallel; the wall was interpreted as a precinct wall built not earlier than the 13th century (Ellis 1986). Ellis suggested that the north/south ditch F50 was most likely to have been a monastic boundary, possibly of the reform period, and possibly associated with the laying out of North Street in the 10th or 11th century; a consolidation, perhaps, of a more diffuse monastic presence represented by the middle and late Anglo-Saxon burials at 12 North Street (Ellis 1986, 105).

When the results from these three trenches are compared to those of the 12 North Street excavation (Saville 1985), some significant aspects become apparent. Trench 5

20 lay less than 5 m to the west of the 1977 salvage excavation (see Fig. 5), yet the character of the archaeological remains was markedly different. Most obviously, no burials (or even disarticulated human bone) were revealed in Trench 5 (or indeed in Trenches 7 and 8), suggesting that the boundary of the Anglo-Saxon cemetery lay between the two areas, conceivably on the line where later the medieval plot boundary was situated, which can still be traced on modern OS maps as marking the back ends of North Street gardens. So it can be reasoned with some confidence that the western boundary of the cemetery lay between Trench 5 and the 1977 North Street excavation.

It is plausible to suggest that the minster enclosure originally extended to the line of North Street. In keeping with the tradition of mid and late Anglo-Saxon houses, there is likely to have been, within the enclosure, at least two churches (and possibly more) arranged along a precise axis (Blair 2005, 197–8), so the association of the cemetery with the minster is plausible. In addition, no later burials were found, implying that the cemetery was associated with the minster. In the late Anglo-Saxon period the precinct was remodelled, a new eastern boundary established (ditch F50 in the Cowl Lane 1962 excavation; Ellis, 1986, 105), and new tenement plots laid out along the west side of North Street, suppressing the cemetery. It seems unlikely that it is pure coincidence that this also marks the line of the western ends of the medieval property boundaries, and suggests that the line of the western cemetery boundary was used as a primary plot boundary when the North Street properties were being laid out.

It is possible that the ancestry of this boundary is older still. The distribution of Roman pottery in the two excavations is striking. Only six sherds of Roman pottery were recovered from Trenches 5, 7, and 8, whereas 47 Roman sherds were recovered from the 12 North Street excavations (Saville 1985, 112–3). This might suggest, therefore, that the Anglo-Saxon cemetery boundary was itself based upon an earlier Roman boundary, perhaps part of the land division within a Roman settlement. This would have implications for the understanding of the origins of the town, if it could be confirmed by further investigation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

CA would like to thank N.J. Smith Builders for funding the fieldwork and reporting, and in particular to Greg Pugh, Divisional Director and Hannah Smalley, Senior Archaeological Consultant for CgMs, for facilitating this project. CA would also like to thank Charles Parry, Senior Archaeological Officer, Gloucestershire County Council, for his guidance during the course of the project. Fieldwork was managed by Mark Collard and the excavation was led by Kelly Saunders and Charlotte Haines. The assistance of all CA field staff involved in the fieldwork and post-excavation work is gratefully acknowledged. Post-excavation work was managed by Joern Schuster and Mary Alexander. The illustrations were produced by Lucy Martin, Jon Bennett and Lorna Gray.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adlard, E., 1939. Winchcombe Cavalcade, or Sidelights on Winchcombe History, London: Ed J. Burrow and Co. Ltd.

Anderberg A-L., 1994. Atlas of seeds: Part 4, Swedish Museum of Natural History, Risbergs. Trycheri AB, Sweden .

Baker, N. and Holt, R., 2004. Urban growth and the medieval church, Gloucester and Worcester, Aldershot: Ashgate Press.

Bassett S.R., 1985. ‘A Probable Mercian Royal Mausoleum at Winchcombe, Gloucestershire’, Antiq J. 65, 82–100.

Berggren, G., 1981. Atlas of seeds: Part 3 Swedish Museum of Natural History, Berlings: Arlöv.

Blair, J., 2005. The Church in Anglo-Saxon Society, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bryant, V., 2004. ‘Medieval and early post-medieval pottery’, in H. Dalwood, and R. Edwards, 2004. Excavations at Deansway, Worcestershire 1988-89: Romano- British small town to late medieval city. York, CBA Research Report 139, 281–339.

Cappers, R.T.J., Bekker, R.M. and Jans, J.E.A., 2006. Digital seed atlas of the Netherlands. Groningen Archaeological Studies 4 Eelde: Barkhuis Publishing, , Available: http://seeds.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/. Accessed: May 2014.

CA (Cotswold Archaeology) 2003. The taking and processing of environmental and other samples from archaeological sites, CA Technical Manual No. 2.

CgMs (CgMs Consulting) 2010. ‘Parish Hall Cowl Lane, Winchcombe, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire: Archaeological Evaluation’,(unpublished report by CgMs Ltd.).

Egan, G., 1996. Medieval Finds from Excavations in London 6: The Medieval Household. Daily Living c. 1150–1450 London: Museum of London and Stationery Office.

Ellis, P. 1986 ‘Excavations in Winchcombe, Gloucestershire, 1962–1972: a report on excavations and fieldwork by B.K.Davison and J. Hinchliffe at Cowl Lane and Back Lane’, TBGAS 104, 95–138.

Gale, R. and Cutler, D. F., 2000. Plants in Archaeology – Identification Manual of Artefacts of Plant Origin from Europe and the Mediterranean, Westbury Scientific Publishing and the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, Otley.

Grant, A. ,1982. 'The use of toothwear as a guide to the age of domestic ungulates', in Wilson, B., Grigson, C. and Payne, S. (eds.), 91–108.

Hart, G., 1981. A History of Cheltenham, Gloucester: Alan Sutton.

Hillman, G., 1981. ‘Reconstructing crop husbandry practices from charred remains of crops’ in Mercer, R. Farming Practice in British Prehistory, , Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 123–162.

Holmes, M., forthcoming. Southern England: A review of animal remains from Saxon, medieval and post-medieval archaeological sites, London, English Heritage Res. Rep.

Hurst, H.R., (ed.) 1986. Gloucester, the Roman and later defences: excavations on the Eastern Defences and a Reassessment of the Defensive Sequence, Gloucester Archaeol. Report Vol.2.

Jones, J. and Smith, D., 2002. ‘The ecofactual evidence’, in Enright, D. and Watts, M. A Romano-British and medieval settlement site at Stoke Road, Bishop’s Cleeve, Gloucestershire, BAGAR 1, 49–67.

Keys, L., 1996. ‘Glass Vessels Catalogue’, in Egan 1996, 226–34.

Lauwerier, R., 1988. Animals in Roman times in the Dutch eastern river area, Amersfoort, ROB Nederlandse Oudheden.

Loftus Brook, E.P., 1893. ‘Excavation on the site of Winchcombe Abbey, Gloucestershire’ Journal of the British Archaeological Association 4, 163–172.

Lyman, L., 1994. Vertebrate taphonomy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mellor, M., 1994. ‘A Synthesis of Middle and Late Saxon, Medieval and Early Post- medieval Pottery in the Oxford Region’, Oxoniensia 59, 17–218.

Moore J. S., 1982. Domesday Book: Gloucestershire, Chichester: Phillimore.

MPRG (Medieval Pottery Research Group) 1998. ‘A Guide to the Classification of Medieval Ceramic Forms’, Medieval Pottery Research Group Occasional Paper 1.

Payne, S., 1985. 'Morphological distinctions between the mandibular teeth of young sheep and goats', J. Archaeol. Sci. 12, 139–147.

Prummel, W. and Frisch, H., 1986. 'A guide for the distinction of species, sex and body side in bones of sheep and goat', J. Archaeol. Sci. 13, 567–577.

Pugh, G., 2010. Cultural Desk-based Assessment: Parish Hall Cowl Lane, Winchcombe, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire,.(unpublished report by CgMs Ltd.).

Saville, A., 1985. ‘Salvage Recording of Romano-British, Saxon, Medieval and Post- medieval remains at North Street, Winchcombe’, TBGAS 103, 101–139.

Schoch, W., Heller, I., Schweingruber, F. H. and Kienast, F., 2004. Wood anatomy of Central European species. Available: www.woodanatomy.ch. Accessed: May 2014.

Serjeantson, D., 1996. 'The animal bones' in Needham, S. and Spence, T. (eds), Refuse and Disposal at Area 16 East Runnymede London, Runnymede Bridge Research Excavation Vol 2, London: British Museum Press , 194–223.

Serjeantson, D., 2006. 'Birds: Food and a mark of status' in Woolgar, C., Serjeantson, D.

and Waldron, T. (eds.), Food in Medieval England: Diet and Nutrition, Oxford: Oxford University Press,131–147.

Silver, I.A.,1969. 'The ageing of domestic animals' in Brothwell, D.R. and Higgs, E.S. (eds.), Science in Archaeology, London: Thames and Hudson , 283–302.

Slater, T.R., 1998. ‘Benedictine town planning in medieval England: evidence from St Alban’s’ in Slater, T R and Rosser, G (eds.), The Church in the medieval town, Aldershot: Ashgate Press.

Stace, C., 1997. New Flora of the British Isles Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Stone, D.J., 2006. ‘The consumption of field crops in late medieval England’ in Woolgar, C.M., Serjeantson, D. and Waldron, T. (eds.) Food in medieval England: diet and nutrition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 11–26.

Sykes, N., 2007. The Norman Conquest: A zooarchaeological perspective, Oxford, BAR Int. Ser. 1656.

Tilley M., Douthwaite, A. and Devine, V. 2007. Gloucestershire Historic Towns Survey: Tewkesbury Borough Archaeological Assessments: Winchcombe (updated), Gloucestershire County Council Archaeology Service, Gloucestershire.

Vince, A.G., 1984. ‘Late Saxon and medieval pottery in Gloucestershire’, in Saville (ed.) 1984, 248–275.

Vince, A.G., 1986. ‘The Medieval and Post-Medieval pottery’, in Hurst (ed.) 1986, 72–80.

Wheeler, E.A., Baas, P. and Gasson, P.E., 1989. ‘IAWA list of microscopic features for hardwood identification’, IAWA Bulletin ns 10, 219–332.

Wilson, R, Grigson, C, and Payne, S., 1982. Ageing and Sexing Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. BAR, British Series 109.

Zohary, D., Hopf, M. and Weiss, E. 2013. Domestication of plants in the Old World. The origin and spread of domesticated plants in south-west Asia, Europe, and the Mediterranean Basin, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cartographic Sources Ordnance Survey first edition 6”: 1 mile map of 1884

Table 1: Pottery summary quantification Date/class Fabric Description Count Weight Romano-British GW1 Unsourced sandy greyware 2 15 DORBB1 South-east Dorset Black-burnished ware 2 17 SVW RE Reduced Severn Valley ware 1 7 OXFRS Oxfordshire red-slipped ware 1 19 Early/Middle Saxon ORG Limestone and organic-tempered 1 37 Medieval (unglazed) C1 Cotswolds oolitic limestone-tempered 350 3687 C2 Cotswolds oolitic limestone-tempered with quartz 25 552 MU Malvern Chase unglazed (Bryant 2004, 298) 76 1601 Q1 Worcester type unglazed wares (Bryant 2004, 281) 229 3349 Q2 Finer, typically buff-firing unglazed coarsewares. 10 89 S1 Fossiliferous (shelly) limestone-tempered 1 47 Medieval BBOR Brill/Boarstall type glazed (Mellor 1994, 111–140)) 1 31 (glazed) MTY South-east Wilts (Minety-type) wares (Mellor 1994, 96–100) 46 2038 OXY Late Saxon/medieval Oxford war. (Mellor 1994, 63–71) 8 328 WORG Worcester type glazed ware (Bryant 2004, 290–91) 9 197 HG Ham Green 1 11 UGL Unsourced glazed wares: mostly buff or grey firing sandy 10 176 fabrics; good pale green or rarely speckled (coppery) glaze Total 773 12201

Table 2: Animal bone Periods Period 1 Period 2 Periods 3-4 1–2 Pre-12th 12th-13th Post med/ Species % century century modern Cattle 4 262 43 19 Sheep/ goat 3 208 34 17 Sheep - 14 - 2 Pig 1 54 9 3 Horse 1 1 - - Dog - 2 - 1 Cat - 2 - - Fallow deer - - - 1 Rabbit/hare - 2 - - Rodent - 2 - - Amphibian - 1 - - Domestic fowl - 30 5 - Goose - 28 4 - Pigeon/ dove - 1 - 1 Crow - - - 1 Woodcock - 1 - - Cod - 1 - - Herring 13 2 - Eel 2 - - Total identified 9 624 - 45 Large mammal 1 167 - 20 Unidentified mammal 1 60 - 3 Medium mammal 21 181 - 22 Unidentified bird - 16 - - Total 32 1048 - 90 Grand total 1170 Table 3: Plant macrofossil identifications

Key: + = 1-4 items; ++ = 5-20 items; +++ = 21-39 items; ++++ = 40+ items. (s) = charcoal highly fragmented and mostly unidentifiable . h/w = heartwood (tyloses present). HSW = hedgerow/scrub/woodland; A = arable weed; D = opportunistic weed; P = grassland species; M = marshland species; E = economic plant Context number 5083 7025 7063 7016 Feature number 5082 7007 7037 7084 Sample number 9 2 1 5 Flot volume (ml) 33 43 639 129 Sample volume (l) 10 10 10 6 Period 2 2 2 2 Plant macrofossil preservation Good Good Good Good Habitat Family Species Common Name Code HSW Aceraceae Acer campestre L. Field maple - - - 1 HSW Adoxaceae Sambucus nigra L. Elder - - 3 - D/A Amaranthaceae Chenopodium L. (Blitum L.) Goosefoots 1 1 45 3 A/D Asteraceae Anthemis cotula L. Stinking Chamomile - - 38 - D/P Cirsium Mill./Carduus L. Thistles - - 1 - HSW Betulaceae Corylus avellana L. Hazelnut - 2 - 1 A Caryophyllaceae Agrostemma githago L. Corncockle (fragment) - - 1 - D Silene L. Campions - - - 1 A/D Stellaria media (L.) Vill. Common Chickweed - 2 - - M/D Cyperaceae Carex L. Sedges 1 1 9 - D/A/P Vicia L./Lathyrus L. Vetches/Peas 5 2 10 91 A Orobanchaceae Odontites vernus (Bellardi) Dumort. Red bartsia - - - 125 A/D Papaveraceae Papaver L. Poppies - - 1 - E Poaceae Avena L. Oats grain 6 4 33 135 A/D Bromus L. Bromes 1 - 3 - E Hordeum vulgare L. Barley grain - 2 10 15 Triticum aestivum L. /Triticum E Free-threshing wheat 41 47 1482 183 turgidum L. /Triticum durum Desf. Triticum aestivum L. /Triticum Free-threshing wheat E - - 23 - turgidum L. /Triticum durum Desf. (rachis) Bread wheat – E Triticum aestivum - - 37 - rachis (hexaploid) Durum wheat – E Triticum turgidum/durum - - 2 - rachis (tetraploid) E Triticum dicoccum/Triticum spelta Emmer wheat/spelt wheat - - - 4 Indeterminate cereal E Poaceae 14 16 297 117 grain whole Indeterminate cereal E Poaceae ++ ++ ++++ +++ fragments <2mm E Poaceae Awn fragments - - ++++ ++++ E Poaceae Culm node - - 50 6 E Poaceae Culm base - 1 4 - E Poaceae Palea - - - 2 E Poaceae Straw - - 3 - D Polygonaceae Persicaria Mill. Knotweeds - - 1 3 M/D Persicaria amphiba (L.) Gray Amphibious Bistort - - 1 - D/A/M Persicaria lapathifolia (L.) Gray Pale Persicaria - 1 - - D/A/P/M Rumex L. Docks 1 - 4 56 P/D/A Ranunculaceae Ranunculus L. Buttercups - 1 - A/D Rubiaceae Galium aparine L. Cleavers 1 - - 1 Thorn - blackthorn/ 1 - - - gorse/bramble Total: 72 79 2059 744

Table 4: Charcoal identifications (for Key see Table 3)

Context number 5083 7025 7063 7016 Feature number 5082 7007 7037 7084 Sample number 92 1 5 Flot volume (ml) 33 43 639 129 Sample volume (l) 10 10 10 6 Period 22 2 2 Charcoal quantity +++ (s) ++++ (s) 0 ++++ (+) Charcoal preservation Poor Good N/A Moderate Family Species Common Name Alnus glutinosa (L.) Betulaceae Alder/hazel - 2 - - Gaertn./Corylus avellana L. Corylus avellana L. Hazel 1 1 - - Quercus petraea (Matt.) Fagaceae Sessile Oak/Pedunculate Oak 2 4 - 14 Liebl./Quercus robur L. Quercus petraea (Matt.) Sessile Oak/Pedunculate Oak (h/w) - 2 - - Liebl./Quercus robur L. (h/w) Crataegus monogyna Rosaceae Jacq./Sorbus L./Malus sylvestris Hawthorn/Rowans/Crab apple 3 1 - - (L.) Mill. Number of Fragments: 6 10 0 14

Site Gloucestershire

om Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of T 025 Ordnance Survey on behalf of The Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office c Crown copyright and database rights 2013 Ordnance Survey 0100031673

COWL LANE

Trench 5 Parish Hall T1

T2 Trench 7

283 Trench 8

HIGH STREET

site excavation area evaluation trench Hotel SP 0 50m Fig. 1 Site location plan (scale 1:500) N

Trench 5 5005 Parish Hall 5042

5047 drain 5009 5032 Trench 7 5003 5102 drain foundation trench 5014 5051 Trench 8

5117 5094

5015 5028 5087 5082 5015 modern demolition 5121 spread Trench 5

excavation area Period 1

Period 2 section shown in Figure 3 Period 4 7009 7007

well 7045 7003 7037

7057 7014 7084

7015 7129 7020 7018

803 7032 7022 7098 7135

7088/ 7117 811 7035

soakaway 806 7094 818 Trench 7

814

816

820 0 10m Trench 8 1:200

Fig. 2 Trenches 5, 7 and 8, showing archaeological features (scale 1:200) SWNE

7008 7078 7066

7024

7068 7067 7072 7075 7070 7021 7073 7076 7074 7077 7025 7026

7077 pit 7007

silty clay midden clearance redeposited gravel ash / silty ash

0 1.5m 1:40

Fig. 3 Section of pit 7007 (scale 1:40) 0 150mm 1:4

Fig. 4 Pottery tripod pitcher (scale 1:4) 1962 excavations (Ellis 1986) t ree St dos C han

l l

a t

n e

e e r t S

N s C o e o r il w th a l S H L t 1963 excavations a re n e (Ellis 1986) e t

Abbey Precinct et tre 12 North Street 1972 excavations Back Lane S igh excavations (Ellis 1986) H (Saville 1985)

St. Peter’s Church ce rra Te astle St ey C reet Abb

t Stree ster uce Glo e rn ou Isb er Riv

site previous archaeological works line of possible cemetery boundary probable line of defences (after Ellis 1968, fig.1) line of Peticrueslane (after Basset 1985, 86-87) Abbey Precinct (after Basset 1985, 86-87) 0 100m 1:2500

Fig. 5 1884 OS map of Winchcombe showing historical features and key excavations. Layout of Abbey is hypothetical (after Ellis 1986, fig. 2)