Mount Pleasant, Taylors Lane, St Leonards, Bucks, HP23 6LQ: Archaeological Evaluation

Report 132 Mount Pleasant, Taylors Lane, St Leonards, Bucks, HP23 6LQ: Archaeological evaluation

Dr Jill Eyers Chiltern Archaeology Report 132 1

Mount Pleasant, Taylors Lane St Leonards, Bucks, HP23 6LQ

Archaeological Evaluation

CONTENTS List of Figures 3

List of photographs 4

1. Summary 5

2. Introduction and context of the project 6

3. Background 7 3.1 Site location 3.2 Geology, topography and present land use 3.3 Archaeological background

4. Objectives 11

5. Procedures 11 5.1 Standards 5.2 Site code 5.3 Excavation methods 5.4 Metal detector survey

6. Results and interpretation 16 6.1 Stratigraphy & features 6.1.1 Grim’s Ditch (Trench 1) 6.1.2 The 19th C cottages (Trench 2) 6.1.3 Exploratory Trench 3 6.1.4 Exploratory Trench 4 6.2 Artefacts 6.3 Environmental samples 6.4 Geoarchaeology

7. Conclusions 24

8. Assessment of impact 24

9. Archive deposition 25

10. Documentary sources and bibliography 25

Acknowledgments 28

2 Appendices 29 Appendix 1 Figures Appendix 2 Photographs Appendix 3 Context inventory Appendix 4 Site Plan Appendix 5 Geological samples summary Appendix 6 Environmental & geological samples record

List of Figures Figure 1 Location of St Leonards to the east of Wendover. Figure 2 Location of the site in relation to the surrounding landscape. Figure 3 Location of Mount Pleasant with site boundary marked within the solid black line. Figure 4 1878 County 1st edition map, Scale 1:2500. Figure 5 Extract of the 1878 map above, showing the detail of the Mount Pleasant site with cottages in place. Figure 6 The 1899 County map 1st Revision. Scale 1:2500. Figure 7 Extract from the 1899 map above showing the detail of the Mount Pleasant site and development into 4 small terraced cottages with two outhouses. Figure 8 The 1975 OS map Scale 1:2500. Figure 9 Extract of the 1975 map of Fig. 8 showing the 19th C cottages with new buildings – a very large workshop put in 1940-50s (NE corner) and a shed and workshop (in the NW corner early 1970s) aligned with the cottages. Figure 10 Section 1, Trench 1. Section across Grim’s Ditch NW-SE. Drawn at scale 1.:20. July 2015. Figure 11 Section 2, Trench 1. Grim’s Ditch section, facing west. June 2015. Figure 12 Plan 1 Brick coursing Context [1008] at the western edge of Trench 1. Figure 13 Plan 2: Layout of the brick coursing for the basal walls of the 19th century cottages. 1:50. Figure 14 The two brick coursing styles used for the cottage wall structure: Monk Bond and Stack Bond. Not to scale.

3 List of photographs

Photograph 1 The site Dec 2014 facing northeast showing the shed built during the 1940s to 50s (over Grim’s Ditch). The red bus is parked over the location of Trenches 1 and 2 and the site of Grim’s Ditch.

Photograph 2 Location for Trench 1 before the hard-standing was removed, looking NNE. December 2014

Photograph 3 The shed and coach shelter erected over the 19th century cottages, looking north. December 2014.

Photograph 4 (a) Trench 1 Grim’s Ditch SE-NW section. June 2015

(b) Trench 1 Grim’s Ditch close up of the NW end of excavation and overcut into the geological ‘fine sand’ (1002&1003). June 2015

Photograph 5 Trench 1 Grim’s Ditch: central ditch showing six ditch fills and two cuts.

Photograph 6 (a) Trench 1 Grim’s Ditch NW-SE section, July 2015. (b) Trench 1 Grim’s Ditch NW-SE section, close up of SE end.

Photograph 7 Brick coursing [1008]. January 2015

Photograph 8 Trench 2; Context 2003. Base course of bricks for cottages looking north. June 2015

Photograph 9 Trench 2; Context 2003. Cottage foundation brick layer looking northeast.

Photograph 10 Trench 2; Context 2003. Cottage foundation brick layer looking south.

Photograph 11 Trench 2; Context 2003. The southwest corner junction; division of two cottages. June 2015

Photograph 12 Vitrifine drains. Drainage pipe manufacturer: John Knowles and Company of London.

Photograph 13 View looking SW from Grim’s Ditch (Trench 1) to Trench 2 and the cottage brick foundations (Context 2003) with C19th drains cutting Grim’s Ditch fill 1012.

4 Mount Pleasant, Taylors Lane, St Leonards: Archaeological evaluation

1. Summary The development site proposed for Mount Pleasant in Taylors Lane is on the line of the prehistoric feature known as Grim’s Ditch. The work during this evaluation sought to locate and confirm of the presence of the ditch (as the banks were already known to have been levelled) and to confirm the dimensions and profile of the ditch. Dating evidence for the feature was rated as high importance during the work. The impact of the proposed development on the monument was considered here along with mitigation measures. The 107.9 square metres of excavation and recording work also incorporated an investigation of 19th century cottages known to have been built at this location, along with additional lengths of trench designed to investigate the potential for associated archaeology over the remainder of the site.

The work successfully located Grim’s Ditch and proved a wide ditch with the bank destroyed along the excavated section. The dimensions of the ditch were 4.0 to 4.6 m wide and 1.76 m depth with six fills. The 19th century cottages were located and two main buildings with a possible outhouse were excavated and recorded. Trial trenching in the yard (beneath the previous tarmac area) proved no surviving soil, but the presence of thick deposits of levelling debris (20th century) lay directly on natural (Clay-with-flints). The total trenching undertaken was 108 square metres.

Date of fieldwork: From 7th January 2015 to 12th June 2015 (work was halted Feb to May for various technical issues relating to planning)

Planning Applications (withdrawn): CH/2013/0880/OA & CH/2014/0572/OA

Planning application (current): CH/2014/1248/OA.

Status of application: currently being considered; shortly to be renewed/replaced with a new application submitted with mitigation already taken into consideration, and submitted with this report.

Buckinghamshire County Archaeology Service Case officer: Eliza Alqassar; CAS Brief issued 28/10/2013.

Written Scheme of Investigation provided by Chiltern Archaeology December 2013; amended January 2014.

Report writer: Dr Jill Eyers (Chiltern Archaeology) MCIfA-level mentor: Martin Wilson MCIfA (Souterrain Archaeological Services Ltd).

Nature/description of proposal: demolition of offices and vehicle shelters, uplift of tarmac surface and construction of three detached houses with parking and driveways.

5 2. Introduction and context of the project

The proposed redevelopment of the site (previously a coach company called J&L Coaches, which was covered with concrete, tarmac and other hard standing for parking, ancillary buildings and offices) was to provide an area for originally four, but now three detached dwellings with associated driveways and parking. The communal access is to be served by altering the existing access point from Taylors Lane.

There have been two previous submissions as Chiltern District Council's planning application ref: 2004/1181/CH, August/September 2004, and applications CH/2013/0880/OA and CH/20140572/OA, both of which were withdrawn whilst plans were slightly amended and re-submitted for outline planning. The new submission is currently CH/2014/1248/OA (about to be re-submitted with this report) which refers to the WSI of January 2014. The Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) covered the intended work for investigating the archaeology of the site ahead of the new development.

The objective of the archaeological work was to locate and evaluate any features of interest, to interpret these in the light of present knowledge and to enable informed decisions to be made about appropriate levels of mitigation. The features anticipated to be on the site were the prehistoric earthwork ditch known as Grim’s Ditch (of which the bank was already known to have been destroyed along most of this section) and the foundations for two 19th century cottages. The potential for related archaeology or other features was explored during the excavation via 108 square metres of trenching.

Paragraph 128 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that where a site has potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, field evaluation. Field evaluation can involve a wide range of survey and investigative techniques, including for example field-walking and geophysical survey. For this project trial trenching was considered the most appropriate approach, alongside a desk-based assessment and augering if required and appropriate. The recording and interpretation of the findings resulted in an impact assessment of the proposed development on the landscape area and setting of the monument.

6 3. Background

3.1 Site location The site is within the rural location of St Leonards, Buckinghamshire roughly 3 km to the east of Wendover (Figures 1 and 2).

Address: J & L Travel Ltd, Taylors Lane, St Leonards, HP23 6 QL. Nat Grid Ref: SP 9037 0747.

3.2 Geology, topography and present land use The site lies on high ground within the Chiltern Hills AONB at 234.7 mOD. There is higher ground to the north and northwest (up to 265 mOD). The surrounding landscape is gently undulating hills and generally lower topography lies to the south and east (down to c. 150 mOD) in the shallow dry valleys. There is no natural water source from rivers, streams or springs in the surrounding area.

The geology consists of Clay-with-flint Formation over Upper Chalk (Lewes Nodular and Seaford Chalk Formation). The soil is Batcombe Series consisting of a loamy clay with angular flints and rounded flint pebbles. However, in this small area, and not of a mappable size is an additional geological layer over Clay-with-flints. This additional and unmapped unit is a medium to fine pure sand. The precise age could not be proved during the excavation, but it is post-Clay-with-flints. This places it as either sands of the Reading Formation (Tertiary age) or glacially transported sand. The character more closely resembles the former.

The previous land use for the site was as a coach business with hard standing and sheds for coaches, office and substantial storage buildings. There is also an air-raid shelter in the far northeast side of the site against the south wall of the large workshop. Water supply facilities occur along the west and east boundaries. The site has housing to the east and west, an arable field to the north and a conifer plantation to the south (across Taylors Lane). There is a public footpath along the west boundary and this used to cut diagonally across the site until officially moved for security reasons on becoming a coach company. The path cuts through the low bank of Grim’s Ditch and therefore may be a crossing point for the cottages, or pre-dating the cottages.

3.3 Archaeological background Grim’s Ditch defines the north boundary of the Parish of Cholesbury and St Leonards. The many linear sections of this feature form a series running along the Chilterns. The feature is variously called Grim’s Ditch, Grim’s Dyke or Gryme’s Dyke. The name ‘Grim’ being applied most likely during Anglo-Saxon times as there are early records of its application to this feature. The name Grim’s Ditch is recorded as part of the Missenden Abbey records of 1170 as a land boundary (pers. comm. Missenden Abbey staff). It is named ‘Grymes Ditch’ in the 1291 Charter granted by the Earl of Cornwall to the monastery of Bonhommes at Ashridge in Hertfordshire. This describes the section of earthworks on Berkhamsted Common (Cal Cart Rot 1257-1300, p. 385; quoted in Sheahan 1862, p.26).

7 Subsequent studies of the ditch include Allcroft (1908), Crawford (1931) and Hughes (1931) all believed the ditch to be Anglo-Saxon in date, no doubt influenced by the name and inferring that the namer and user were the same. Hughes was the most pecise and linked the ditch to a defensive action after an invasion by Cuthwulf in 571 AD, despite no evidence for the connection of the two. Sections of the ditch found at Ivinghoe and Pitstone were described by Dyer and Hales (1962) and Dyer (1963). Dyer described that the earthwork sections followed the topography close to hill tops, and were divided at rivers.

Dyer also placed a tentative Iron Age date to the feature based on two sherds of Iron Age pottery from adjacent topsoil, and the fact that the ditch was cut by a road believed to be Roman in age. The Iron Age date was subsequently supported by Farley (1973) for a section of the ditch at Hastoe which is c. 2.2 km northeast of the St Leonards section excavated and under consideration in this report. The line of the ditch can be traced between the two locations and indeed extends further on in both directions (to the NE as well as SW of the St Leonard’s site). The dating evidence was based on undiagnostic pottery, which was assigned as possibly Iron Age or early Romano-British in date, and providing a terminus post-quem for the digging of the ditch.

Davis (1981) reported another section at Berkhamsted, which remained unpublished from the site work also undertaken in 1973, but Davis recorded four fragments of Iron Age pottery from this excavation.

Davis (1981) described another section through the ditch in 1980 between Pitstone Hill and Ivinghoe Beacon. He reported that the profile was very different to the Hastoe section. At Pitstone the section excavated south of Incombe Hole proved a ditch of 2.5 m width with a V-shaped profile reaching a 1.3 m depth. The bank was on the north (lower) side of the ditch. Davis assigned both sections to being part of the Grim’s Ditch network, the differences being due to the geology being dug.

A subsequent excavation nearby in 1980 proved to be larger and deeper than those previously seen, but with a similar profile (Davis and Evans, 1984).

In an attempt to try to understand the earthwork, the 1986 unpublished manuscript by H. B. Eaton provides some suggestions for the line of Grim’s Ditch between known sections. However, it is not based on sound archaeological evidence. Indeed it omits some important sections known at the time.

The feature can be seen to lie within four separated sections of the Chilterns today running from Walters Ash in the south to Ivinghoe and Berkhamsted in the north. The entire 27.5 km length running through the Chilterns was mentioned in the Solent Thames Research Framework document (BCAS 2007 and specifically by Kidd 2007 ibid. pp.4-5 in his chapter on the Iron Age).

There are gaps in the line of the earthworks where no topographic expression occurs, as during time the feature has been ploughed out by agricultural activity or built on. However, in some places continuation can be seen as cropmarks due to the ditch remaining below the surface and retaining water preferentially. It can also be traced as a continuation via pathways, roads or field boundaries today. Clearly such a feature of

8 considerably size remained a useful feature for marking boundaries or assisting pathway locations for ease of wayfinding.

The Buckinghamshire sections are registered in the HER record as CAS0140 and CAS4704 (the former being the length running past the excavation site at St Leonards. It is believed by archaeologists (e.g. Eaton 1986) that the separated sections linked together to form a united length, but as it takes a varied path across the Chilterns sometimes not straight and sometimes taking sharp turns in direction, this cannot be confirmed. Indeed subsequent studies disagree (e.g. Network Archaeology 1999). A firm dating for the feature in several sections and further study would assist in the interpretation.

Scheduling covers many lengths of the bank and ditch. Where the feature has been surveyed or excavated it is seen to consist mostly of a single bank and ditch, although the Pitstone section displays two parallel banks and ditches. The length of ditch running across the Ashridge Estate is also a pair of banks and ditches (Wainwright et al. 2009). At Ashridge each bank with ditch can be seen to measure a total of 13.5 m in width with the ditch being 1.5 m in depth. There is a 30 m separation of each bank- ditch. The section continues as a double bank-ditch to Steps Hill and Incombe Hole.

The excavation site at St Leonard’s lies upon the projected line of Grim’s Ditch as determined from adjacent sections of this feature (Figures 1 to 3). Grim’s Ditch is a nationally important Iron Age earthwork. A scheduled section of Grim’s Ditch runs up to the eastern boundary of this site (EH Monument No. 35342). The St Leonard’s site is not scheduled as it lies in a gap in the monument, but with a 2 metre buffer zone within the northeast end of the site where it joins the scheduled lengths beyond. There was no topographic expression present on the site during the first site visit by Chiltern Archaeology (of either the bank or the ditch, although it is debateable if a vestigial portion of bank remains in the far northeast end of the site). The lack of topographic expression of the feature was due to the area having been levelled firstly for 19th century cottages, subsequently for building a large shed over the ditch (at the northeast end) during the 1940s or 50s, and finally on laying the hard standing and buildings for the current coach business during the 1970s. However, as seen elsewhere in the scheduled sections, the ditch lies on the southern side of the rampart which, if the line is projected, was predicted to run across the northerly end of the site.

Grim’s Ditch has also been the subject of a detailed condition survey (Thorn, 1997; Network Archaeology, 1998, 1999). This involved geophysical survey (magnetometry and resistivity), profile surveying and small-scale excavation. The work concluded that geophysics was not always successful at locating sections of ditch that showed no topographic expression. Resistivity was fairly successful, but the earthwork did not always follow a projected line, and magnetometry generally showed little or no response (probably largely due to the fill having similar magnetic properties to the surrounding geology). However, the three surveys did confirm several sections of earthwork, a large number of profiles were recorded, and several sections of double bank and ditch were explored, amongst other research and conclusions.

Intrusive works into Grim’s Ditch such as Davis, 1981; Davis and Evans, 1984; Network Archaeology, 1999, 2003; and Chiltern Archaeology 2005, 2007, 2015 have produced little in the way of datable finds. Artefacts proved post-Medieval in the top

9 fills and then no dating evidence up to a 2.7 metre depth in Lacey Green for instance. However, the earlier excavations did produce a small amount of Iron Age pottery suggestive of an early Iron Age date.

Excavations by TVAS (2002; 2004) at Honor End Lane in Prestwood and Stocken Farm, Lacey Green, by Wessex Archaeology (2004) at RAF Bradenham, by Oxford Archaeology (2001; 2007; 2009) all at the RAF base near Bradenham, by ASC (2005) at 76 West Street, Aston Clinton and 41 Aylesbury Street, Aston Clinton, all revealed no archaeological deposits or dating evidence.

The recovery of dating and environmental evidence in any intrusive works into Grim’s Ditch is therefore of great importance to inform more about this intriguing feature.

In addition to the prehistoric ditch, two 19th century cottages have been identified as having been present on site until 1988. These may relate to parts of the post-enclosure settlement of St Leonard’s Common. These cottages had a demolition order approved in the 1950s, although not actually demolished until the 1980s.

Historical maps There is no notable information gained from the 1770 Jeffrey’s or 1825 Bryant maps which simply show an area of woodland with the occasional field dotted in the surrounding area.

The 1878 map (Figure 4 and close up of the site Figure 5) clearly shows the line of ‘Grimmes Ditch’ along the Oaken Grove section to the southwest, but it is not shown nearer to the site. This infers no notable topography at this date in time, the bank already being very low or having no profile. The cottages run NE-SW. There are two full size cottages with a small building added to the western end of these, with a smaller structure at the eastern end (an outhouse, toilet, shed?). These cottages lie over the projected line of Grim’s Ditch at the northern end of the site boundary. It is likely that the bank was flattened at the time of building the cottages with their gardens, if not beforehand.

The 1899 map (Figure 6 and enlargement of the site area Figure 7) show some alterations had been made to the cottages which had enlarged the small westernmost building with a division of the other two thus producing a new terraced line of four cottages, with two outhouses.

The 1975 map (Figure 8) shows four terraced cottages remain on site (the demolition order dating to the 1950s had still not been carried out). There are two additional buildings shown on site:

1. To the far northeastern boundary a large workshop has been erected (date of build said to be during the 1940s to 50s, pers comm.. site owner Ian Smith). Photograph 1. NB not seen on the map, but visible on the ground is the entrance to an air-raid shelter which hints that the large workshop was contemporary with that structure;

10 2. To the far northwestern boundary another large structure has been erected, with a gap between it and the western end of the terraced cottages.

At the end of the 1970s and in subsequent years the cottages were demolished and various buildings for offices were added. The whole site was levelled with a significant depth removed to make a security bund all around the site. Subsequently the hard-standing was laid down over the entire yard (Photographs 1, 2 and 3) for parking and maintenance of the coach vehicles.

4. Objectives

The main objectives of the work were to:

 Identify the heritage assets potentially affected by development and assess their archaeological, architectural, artistic and historic interest and significance.  Assess the likely impact of the development on significant heritage assets insofar as this is possible and suggest potential means to minimise or mitigate negative impacts and reflect the area’s historic character in new design.  Gather sufficient information by trial trenching to generate a reliable predictive model of the extent, character, date, state of preservation and depth of burial of important archaeological remains within the area of study.  Establish the depth and profile of Grim’s Ditch by a programme of excavation, augering, processing excavated/augered samples for environmental and dating evidence.  Establish the location of the southern extent of the Grim’s Ditch, paying particular attention to the potential for features related to Grim’s Ditch.  Recover environmental and dating evidence where this is available.  Establish the date and character of post-medieval settlement in this vicinity.

5. Procedures

5.1 Standards The project conformed to current health and safety legislation and work was undertaken in line with professional standards and in accordance with:

Brown, D. H. 2007. Archaeological Archives – A guide to best practice in creation, compilation, transfer and curation, Archaeological Archives Forum.

BCM. 2013. Documentation manual. Buckinghamshire County Museum.

DCMS. 2003. The Treasure Act. Information for finders of Treasure (England and Wales). Including the Treasure Act 1996 Code of Practice.

English Heritage. 1991. MAP2, Management of Archaeological Projects.

English Heritage. 2008. Our Portable Past. Statement of English Heritage policy and good practice for Portable Antiquities. EH website Feb 2008.

English Heritage. 2010. Waterlogged wood. Guidelines on the recording, sampling, conservation and curation of waterlogged wood (3rd ed.)

English Heritage, 2011. Environmental archaeology: a guide to the theory and practice of methods from sampling and recovery to post-excavation.

Ferguson, L. and Murray, D. 1997. The Preparation, Curation and Storage of Archaeological Documentary Archives. IfA

CIfA. 2014. Standard and guidance for archaeological field evaluation

CIfA. 2014. Standards and guidance for the collection, documentation, conservation and research of archaeological materials

CIfA, 2014. Standard and guidance for archaeological excavation

CIfA. 2014. Code of Conduct

CIfA. 2014. Code of approved practice for the regulation of contractual arrangements in field archaeology

CIfA. 2014. Guidelines to the standards for recording human remains.

CIfA. 2014. Standard and guidance for the creation, compilation, transfer and deposition of archaeological archives. October 2009.

CIfA. 2014. Standard and Guidance for historic environment desk-based assessment.

Museums and Galleries Commission (MGC). 1992. Standards in the Museum Care of Archaeological Collections.

Slowikowski, A. Nenk, B. & Pearce, J. 2001. Minimum standards for the processing. Recording, analysis and publication of post-Roman ceramics. Medieval Pottery Research Group, Occasional Paper No. 2.

Society of Museum Archaeologists (SMA). 1993. Selection, Retention and Dispersal of Archaeological Collections.

Society of Museum Archaeologists (SMA). 1995. Towards an Accessible Archaeological Archive

Watkinson, D. (ed.). 1987. First Aid for Finds, 2nd edn. UKIC.

5.2 Site code: The site code is StL15. This will be on documentation within the site archive. Museum accession code is AYBCM:2015.26. The project will be archived with OASIS (Online Access to the Index of Archaeological Investigations: www.oasis.ac.uk).

12 5.3 Excavation methods

5.3.1 Surveying The trench locations were surveyed and planned to the National Grid Coordinate system by Souterrain Archaeological Services Ltd. All levels were recorded relative to an Ordnance Survey datum level supplied by Chiltern Surveys Ltd.

5.3.2 Machine stripping Trial trenches were between 1.5 and 1.8 metres wide, dependant on the precise area on site and the anticipated potential of the trench and type of archaeology subsequently found. The length of each varied dependant on the expectations of features, some known to be present.

Trench 1: 7 x 1.7 metres (11.9 sq.m) Trench 2: c. 10 x 6 metres (61.93 sq.m) Trench 3: 4.8 x 1 metres (4.96 sq.m) Trench 4: 11 x 1.5 & 7 x 1.8 (29.1.sq.m)

Total = 107.89 sq. m

Machinery was used to remove the tarmac/concrete surface (there was no topsoil beneath) and the overburden levelling layer was then removed by machine under watching brief, to reveal the significant archaeological deposits. The excavation continued in level spits using a JCB and toothless bucket. The machine stripping was under archaeological supervision throughout (J. Eyers, Chiltern Archaeology). The first trench investigated the potential line of Grim’s Ditch by this method (Trench 1). Cleaning and sample taking was by hand. At a site meeting with the BCC planning archaeologist, it was agreed that we could machine-excavate a substantial section to determine the full profile of the ditch, and that would settle the potential for survival of the ditch elsewhere on the site. The JCB was used so that the profile and depth to base could be investigated fully.

Trench 2 (a large, open area trench) was emplaced to investigate the 19th century cottages that were demolished in c. 1988. Once archaeological deposits were uncovered excavation continued of the cottage brick coursing by hand. Trenches 3 and 4 both of which explored the yard, were dug by JCB under watching brief and then cleaned back by hand.

5.3.3 Cleaning and recording in plan form Each trench was cleaned by hand to allow the identification and planning of archaeological features and initially scanned with a metal-detector (and spoil heaps also scanned). Trenches were planned at 1:50. Spot levels were taken as appropriate. The site plan is shown in Appendix 4. Plans of the cottage structures are figured and referred to within the results and discussion sections.

5.3.4 Recording sections Sections were drawn of the ditch to show the stratigraphy and other archaeological information, and levelled to ordnance datum (at a scale of 1:20).

5.3.5 Sampling Sampling was undertaken by hand excavation to achieve the project objectives. Samples of the following fills were taken from the ditch for geological and/or environmental analysis: Context 1002, 1003, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1009. Brickwork for cottage footings were cleaned, recorded, brick samples taken for ID and dating, and all features were left in situ.

5.3.6 Context recording (i) Each context was recorded individually on proforma records (Appendix 3 is the context inventory with full descriptions recorded below in Section 6). Record sheets commented on the character; contextual relationships; detailed description (dimensions and shape; soil components, colour, texture and consistency); associated finds; interpretation and phasing as well as cross-references to the drawn, photographic and finds registers.

(ii) A full digital archive was provided with the site archive (Site StL15) showing all features, the site and working conditions. Also in the site archive is an annotated black and white photographic record which includes photos of all significant features and overall photos of each area and trench.

5.3.7 Artefact and ecofact collection and recording (i) No datable finds, no waterlogged wood, bone, molluscs or other artefacts were located within the ditch contexts (except for 20th century finds in the topmost fill 1005). All 20th century finds were recorded by context, but not retained.

(ii) Environmental sampling followed advice from Environmental Archaeology: A guide to the theory and practice of methods from sampling and recovery to post excavation (English Heritage, 2011). Samples taken for environmental processing and analysis were:

Environmental: Contexts 1003 and 1007 (40 litres of each) January 2015 Geological: 1002, 1003, 1005, 1006, 1007 (c. 200-300 g sample each) January 2015. Environmental: 1007, 1009 (10 and 20 litres resp.) June 2015 Pollen: 1009, June 2015.

These samples represented the prehistoric ditch fills; no palaeosol was found in place and no bank.

14 The environmental samples were processed for flot and residues as below:  A sub-sample removed for pollen analysis  >2 mm residues sorted by eye for larger molluscs, bone, coins, pot fragments, industrial residues or any other archaeological fragments;  flotation method for charred and mineral-replaced plant remains, very small molluscs, industrial residues;  coarse sieving (2 mm) and then fine (1 mm) wet sieving for further bone fragments, grain, seeds, insects, and other environmental finds.

Clay-rich deposits were processed by gentle agitation/stirring to disperse contents prior to sieving, without chemical dispersants.

When the first environmental samples proved barren of finds after processing by Chiltern Archaeology, a second batch was sent to Archaeological Solutions.

5.4 Metal detector survey The model used was the Garratt Ace 150. The metal detector was used during the excavation process to inform of potential targets and their depth ahead of trowelling or digging. It was also used over the spoil heap. No archaeological metal finds were located. Any such potential signal was swamped by modern metal items littering the site in huge amounts. The surveys were therefore discontinued.

15 6. Results and interpretation

6.1 Stratigraphy

6.1.1 Grim’s Ditch (Trench 1) Eleven contexts were identified over the natural deposit of Clay-with-flints. Two of these (1002 and 1003) were subsequently shown to be geological and not the bank of this prehistoric feature as first assumed. They were very light and friable in comparison to the heavy, compact Clay-with-flints and hence were mistaken for the bank on the north side. As the cut on the north side was very faint and the south side of the ditch had been removed by 19th and 20th century levelling during development of the site, the relationships only became apparent later in the excavation work. This explains the overcut into these sandy geological layers which are assumed to be Quaternary or the Reading Beds sands overlying Clay-with-flint. The remaining contexts include the soil layer, two ditch cuts and six fills.

A further context of brick coursing [1008] was exposed at the western edge of the stripped area for Trench 1 and was recorded with trench 1, but the feature is related to the cottages [2003].

The field relationships of the following contexts can be seen in Sections 1 and 2 (Figures 10 and 11). Both sides of the trench were drawn as they differed.

Context 1001 22 to 25 cm thick, dark brown, loamy, friable soil with scattered small flint pebbles. Pottery (mostly 20th century) and brick fragments patchily abundant.

Interpretation: Loamy soil typical of local arable fields, Batcombe series type, slightly less clay than usual.

Context 1002 60 cm thick, brown, friable, firm to compact, silty clay. Orange-brown mottling evidence of tree root penetration. This context is the same colour, but a paler shade than underlying 1003. Rounded flint pebbles occurred at the top, fairly abundant on the south side. Sparse pebbles at the base which were angular and small. Other than the pebbles the whole unit is very homogeneous. It contained no finds. The character is almost identical to underlying 1003 and similar to ditch fill 1006.

Interpretation: this layer was initially misinterpreted during the early fieldwork to be part of a residual bank. It is very similar to the underlying deposit 1003 and for this reason samples were taken for retrieval of finds (for dating) and paleoenvironmental material. Neither finds nor any environmental samples were retrieved from the samples. There is a distinct colour mottling at the boundary between 1002 and 1003 (due to iron mobilisation, deposited as Fe oxide at this level). For these reasons and during the geological assessment (Appendix 5) it was concluded that this was a geological layer originally in place immediately overlying the Clay-with-flints Formation. It is interpreted as potentially Quaternary in age or Tertiary (Reading Beds sands). It is also lithologically very similar to the upper ditch fill 1006 and the conclusion is that 1006 represents filling up of the ditch sides involving part of layers 1002 and 1003.

16 Context 1003 36 cm thick, friable, orange-brown, compact, slightly silty clay. Colour same as, but darker than 1002. Mottled colouring as for 1002, including the iron-enriched layer at the boundary between 1002 and 1003. Virtually no inclusions except for the occasional small flint pebble.

Interpretation: As for 1002 this was initially interpreted as being part of the bank of the earthwork. However, on the evidence gained from the geological assessment of samples, along with the boundary relationship with natural Clay-with-flints, this was concluded as a geological layer. The boundary of this fine sand with the Clay-with- flints is sharp, horizontal and with no soil horizon. The boundary with overlying 1002 is dispersed, along with an iron oxide-enriched horizon. The minimal differences between 1002 and 1003 are concluded as diagenetic due to deeper burial of 1003 and iron migration due to pedogenic processes. This is possibly a Quaternary or Tertiary deposit, as for 1002.

Context 1004 Cut for the ditch known as Grim’s Ditch. 1.76 m at the maximum depth remaining and 4.0 to 4.6 metres in width. However, this section is truncated and by looking at the cut as it continues up to the field at the northern boundary of the site, the original depth of the ditch must be nearer 2.5 metres. (Figures 10 and 11; Photos 5 and 6).

The profile shows a fairly steep sided, slightly pointed ditch base. The ditch is orientated at 040 degrees (NE-SW). The top has been truncated due to levelling during development of the area during firstly the 19th century (cottages), secondly during the 1940s-50s for the erection of a large workshop immediately east and thirdly during the 1970s as hard standing for a coach company was emplaced. The ditch was bottomed and revealed 10 contexts. Two of these, contexts 1002 and 1003, were later determined to be geological (natural) layers. The final profiles (Figs 10 and 11) shows the original cut for the ditch [1004] with six ditch fills (1005, 1006, 1007, 1009, 1010, 1012) with the soil layer and two geological contexts over natural (Clay- with-flints).

Interpretation: a substantial ditch showing four early fills (1012, 1010, 1009, 1007, dates not proved). Fill 1006 is related to/contemporary with, the drain cuts of Trench 2 (Contexts 2003 and 1008) and is 19th century. The upper levelling fill (1005) is 20th century. Based on other sections of Grim’s Ditch elsewhere in the County it is assumed to have been cut during the Iron Age and continued to fill over and up to the mid-20th C.

Context 1005 30 to 43 cm thick, dark brown, fairly friable silty clay with some sparse, scattered, small flint fragments. Contains abundant pottery sherds including several ‘blue-and white’ pottery forms and one whole ceramic pot (marmalade jar). Also contains abundant brick fragments and flecks throughout. Larger brick fragments mark the base of 1005. The CBM is of the 19th C type, but mixed with 20th C finds. (Figures 10 and 11; Photo 5). Level for top of 1005: 235.58 (the ground level for most of the yard, beneath tarmac.

Interpretation: final fill of the ditch concurrent with final levelling during the mid-20th century.

17 Context 1006 30-45 cm thick, orange-brown, fairly consolidated but remains slightly friable, very fine sand and slightly silty with a clay content. Minor paler blotches of colour throughout. Nearly free of inclusions except for a minor and occasional flint scatter, notably nearer the base where a cluster of larger flints occur (flints up to 8 cm length). These flints mark the base of this fill and appear to be a slip of larger items into the ditch, but just a small patch (it is not matched on the other side of the trench). Following the flint marker along to the edge of the ditch at the north end, the cut becomes indistinct as it is similar to adjacent deposits – the 1002 and 1003 geological layers, Figures 10 and 11). Contexts 1002 and 1003 are very similar to 1006, although with minor inclusion differences (Appendix 5). See Figs 10 and 11; Photos 5 and 6.

Interpretation: the penultimate fill of the ditch formed in some part from the geological deposits 1002 and 1003.

Context 1007 Up to 52 cm thick, dark orange-brown, compact clay with minimal silt component. The colour is similar to overlying 1006 (but darker) and exactly the same tone and shade as the clay within the Clay-with-flints natural layer beneath. It is very distinctly different to the overlying 1006 due to the greatly increased clay content. There are no flints, no other inclusions, no finds nor traces of plant or other materials that would prove useful for dating and palaeoenvironmental purposes. None-the-less a 40 litre sample was taken for palaeoenvironmental analysis as these elements are not always easily visible to the eye during fieldwork (Results Section 6.4). See Figs 10 and 11; Photos 5 and 6.

Interpretation: An early fill of the ditch, deposited over fill 1009, from re-mobilised clay and with minor silt washed in. The ditch would have flooded in wet conditions and so it is surprising not to have some plant or other residues for analysis. It is slightly acidic and so potentially any snails that may have been present may not have been preserved for this reason. Environmental results are in Section 6.4.

Context 1008 This context (a brick structure) was encountered whilst stripping the area for the planning and sectioning of the ditch in January 2015. It lies immediately over the ditch (into Context 1006), on the west edge of Trench 1. It is described here as it occurs in Trench 1 work and hence recorded there, but was exhumed further and discussed more fully with subsequent Trench 2 work exploring the nature of the 19th century cottages.

It is a small, possibly originally square or rectangular piece of brick coursing for a structure with 14 bricks remaining (Figure 12; Photo 7). The remnant size is 98 cm by 80 cm at the longest lengths. They are embedded directly into the fill and with a concrete mortar visible between some of the bricks, but no foundation layer.. The brick dimensions are: width 105 mm; length 230 mm; depth 70 mm. The brick fabric is reddish-brown (2.5YR 4/3 to 4/4) and it has abundant coarse inclusions including iron oxide, sand and some small pale inclusions. A number of the bricks have a black highly shiny glaze on the outer surface. This style is very typical of the local Chesham/Cholesbury brick derived from the Reading Beds clays. There was concrete mortar adhering to some bricks which is a cream-beige to orange-pale brown colour with numerous coarse inclusions (up to 11 mm in size). Inclusions were

18 predominantly angular flint and CBM fragments with lesser amounts of quartz sand and iron oxide.

Interpretation: Local bricks made to a traditional Bucks style. The bricks are laid in a pattern indicative of Monk Bond. This is a load-bearing style which lends itself to making patterns such as diamonds or other decorative brickwork. Monk Bond is a common style of brick-laying for the Chilterns. This is highly likely to be a part of the outhouse for the eastern end of the terrace of cottages, and potentially a store, outside toilet or base for a lean-to. (There is a verbal record of a lean-to revealed by the current owner, Mr Ian Smith, pers comm. This was seen prior to the demolition in 1988).

Context 1009 A thickness of up to 60 cm of silty clay, compact, orange-brown in colour with small flint fragments up to a few centimetres in size and flecks of flint also present. Environmental samples reported in Section 6.4. See Figures 10 and 11; Photos 5 & 6.

Interpretation: third fill of ditch [1004] emplaced after the bank collapse or rapid debris fill of context (1010).

Context 1010 Maximum thickness of 95 cm over a 2.7 m length of ditch on the south edge. It is composed of very coarse flint rubble in a clay matrix in an irregular form (chaotic) relationship within ditch 1004. It lies on primary fill 1012 (Sections 1 and 2, Figs 10 &. 11 and Photo 5). It is truncated at the junction with overlying 1006.

Interpretation: this is interpreted as a slope collapse and/or flood wash in from the ditch top edge. This observation is supported by large flints washing down these Chiltern roads today and rapidly filling up depressions or lying strewn over surfaces. It is not thought that there was a bank on this south side, as on other sections in this area the bank is proven on the north side. There is no dating evidence, but it is assumed that this likely to be an early date. Hence it is possibly thought to date to within the Iron Age. This date is only supported by previous excavations elsewhere (described under the Archaeological Background section earlier) as there was no dateable evidence. The top is truncated at 1006 (19th century) along with older (primary) ditch deposit 1012 and the ditch cut [1004].

Context 1012 A compact, orange-brown silty clay with large to medium irregular flints. The thickness is variable but c. 30-35 cm. It forms the first layer above the cut [1004] for a length of 2.10 metres. It abruptly terminates, along with context 1010, at layer 1006 and the drain associated with the 19th century cottages (Figure 11 and Photo 6). It is overlain on the south side by slump deposit 1010.

Interpretation: the primary fill of Grim’s Ditch (cut [1004]).

19 6.1.2 The 19th Century cottages (Trench 2) Only three contexts present in this shallow but large (10 x 6 metre) trench. These were soil (north side only), levelling layer and brick coursing for the cottages.

Context 2001 A dark brown loamy, friable and crumbly soil with scattered pebbles, some rounded and abundant ceramic and other objects the majority 20th to 21st century, along with 19th century CBM.

Interpretation: topsoil showing much disturbance.

Context 2002 A 30 to 60 cm layer of rubble in a mix of clay and silt. The rubble was a mix of brick, concrete, drain pipe, window and other glass, and other hardcore materials.

Interpretation: A layer resulting from the demolition of the 19th century cottages and levelling the ground surface in the mid-late 1970s. A hard standing was emplaced on this for the coach parking area.

Context 2003 Levels: top of remaining walls (NW) 235.81 mOD; foundation ground level: 235.50. This context consisted of lengths of brick wall foundations and remnants of floor surfaces of two cottages with a possible outhouse (1008). Context 1008 (brick coursing is part of the 2003 structure, but lay outside the Trench 2 area being uncovered during Trench 1 (Grim’s Ditch) stripping work. The remaining walls (Figure 13, Plan 2) show the structure to be of brick with poor quality mortar and a rendered concrete finish on the outer north wall. The south wall had indications that flint may have been part of the design for the wall facing Taylors Lane as three pieces of flint were found along this edge with potential poor quality mortar on them. The bricks were a mix of local, hand-made forms typical of the Chesham works (using Reading Beds clay), but of a cheap and inferior kind. Several different types of brick were used together in the same wall. Some were of a type loosely known as ‘Bucks multis’ which have one dark grey to blue-black shiny, glazed surface. This type of brick is usually used in a decorative pattern and was a prestigious feature. However, this style was definitely not selected for these cottages as many of the bricks were inter-mixed in a random way and the glazed surface was often in place face down or face inwards. These bricks must therefore be re-used from an earlier building (elsewhere) and indicate the basic, inexpensive nature of these small cottages.

The brick coursing for the inner (east-west) wall was as a Stack Bond. The outer walls were all Monk Bond (Figure 14).

Despite the bricks being a mix of various types, re-used in this structure with poor mortar quality, the drains are a quality stoneware type known as ‘Vitrifine’ and the manufacturer was John Knowles of London (Photograph 12). The company was founded in 1849 at the Mount Pleasant works in Woodville, Derbyshire. Their Vitrifine range of salt-glazed stoneware pipes were for the sanitation industry. The office in London was not opened until 1863 and pipes of this type still appear in the 1954 catalogues (Archaeological Investigations Ltd website sourced June 2015). The

20 pipes could have been put in at any time 1863 to before 1950, given the demolition order was gained in 1955.

Context 2004 This cut is for the emplacement of the vitrifine drain pipes. It runs along the northern (rear) wall of the cottages and continues northeastwards just cutting into the edge of Grim’s Ditch. The cut into fill 1012 can be seen in Section 2, Figure 11.

The cut is 32 cm deep at Trench 1 deepening to c. 40 cm past the cottages. It is approximately 55 cm wide although this is difficult to measure due to the amount of ground disturbance in this area. It runs for the entire width of Grim’s Ditch (Trench 1) and across the rear of Trench 2 to disappear beneath the zone with tarmac still remaining. Interpretation: cut for drains with drainage towards SW.

Context 2005 Fill of 2004 comprising a friable silty clay with some sparse, scattered, small flint fragments and pottery. Pottery fragments and CBM were 19th century types with some early 20th century implying the drains were early 20th century.

6.1.3 Exploratory Trench 3 This exploratory trench was aligned NW-SE (bearing 140o) and measured 6 metres x 1.5 metres. Beneath the tarmac was 50 to 55 cm of hardcore (Context 3001). At the southern end a pit was explored to a depth of 1.65 metres. The fill was similar to the hardcore layer and contained a variety of bricks, concrete and other building materials including iron and plastics, all 20th century. The pit measured 1.60 x 1.25 x 1.65 metres. Although not bottomed this was not explored further as it was interpreted as a 20th century soakaway with a 20th century levelling layer for the yard. No other finds or features were found with hardcore lying over natural Clay-with-flints. Level: ground south end 235.54 mOD.

6.1.4 Exploratory Trench 4) A second exploratory trench was emplaced to explore the footprint of two of the proposed houses and hence made a ‘dog-leg’ of 11 metres and then 7 metres in length with a maximum width of 1.80 metres. The 11 metre stretch ran E-W (bearing 080o) and the 7 metre length ran due N-S. Similar to Trench 3 this was a hardcore layer, this time of 35 to 40 cm depth with a little more ‘soil’ character mixed with the hardcore brick and cement as for Trench 3. No features or finds; hardcore lay over natural Clay-with-flints. Level: ground SE 235.48 mOD.

6.2 Artefacts Trench 1: Grim’s Ditch provided no artefacts in the basal layers for dating and these lower contexts were exceptionally ‘clean’ or finds or organics. The only artefacts were found in the uppermost fill of the ditch (Context 1005) and these were 19th century brick rubble with much late 19th to 20th century pottery sherds (such as blue and white fragments and ceramic marmalade jars, no manufacturer’s marks) as well as 20th century brick and metalwork.

21 Trench 2: The 19th century cottages provided ample brick samples of the local 19th century types produced locally, notably the Chesham kilns using the Reading Formation clays (Lambeth Group, Tertiary deposits). The variety of colours and textures found in the bricks on site can all be matches with local varieties seen in the Chilterns Open Air museum, Bucks County Museum and Matthews Works in Chesham who still manufacture traditional hand-made bricks. The forms on site range from deep orange-red with red inclusions, to orange-brown with darker inclusions to orange-brown with brown-black inclusions and a vitreous blue-black coating to one or two sides. The most abundant brick type is a red-brown form (Munsell 2.5YR 4.3 to 4/4) with flint, sand and iron-oxide and grog temper. Dimensions: L = 23 m; W = 10.5 cm; D = 7 cm. The bricks are frogged and frog depth = 1.5 cm. The mortar where still present is a pale whitish-beige to an orangey-beige colour with aggregates of CBM, sand, iron oxide and flint up to 11 mm. The flint is the major aggregate component of the mortar.

The floor tiles and bricks from the cottages were taken by the previous owner of the site, Mr Ian Smith, who sold them for use in a nearby property in 1988.

Trench 3: exploratory trench - no finds or features.

Trench 4: exploratory trench - no finds or features.

6.3 Samples A number of sediment samples were taken from Trench 1 (Grim’s Ditch). The samples were for three purposes: environmental, pollen and geological analysis. The contexts sampled were:

Context number Amount (ltr) Purpose/notes 1002 0.25 Geological 1003 40 and 0.25 Environmental and geological 1005 0.25 Geological 1006 0.5 Geological 1007 40 Environmental (Jan 2015) processed CA 1007 20 Environmental (June 2015) processed ArchSol 1007 0.5 Geological 1009 10 Environmental (June 2015) processed ArchSol 1009 0.25 Pollen (R. Scaife)

The geological samples are discussed under 6.4 below.

The environmental samples (1003, 1007 and 1009) were first sampled and processed by Chiltern Archaeology. The samples proved almost totally clean with only tiny fragments of very sparse charcoal. Subsequently, a second batch of samples was taken during the continuation work of June 2015. These samples were sent to Archaeological Solutions for processing and analysis and the results are in Appendix 6 which summarised that snails were unlikely due to the acidic nature of the sandier deposits and that the bulk samples from 1007 and 1009 showed very limited preservation of carbonised plant remains. This is probably to be expected for a monument which is unlikely to have had any close association with domestic activity.

22 Soil conditions have prevented the preservation of either uncharred plant macrofossils or terrestrial mollusc shells. This means that there is little potential for developing a palaeoenvironmental or palaeoeconomic context for Grim's Ditch from these samples.

The pollen analysis was carried out by Rob Scaife who reproted negligible pollen even from a 6 ml sample. There were a couple of grass pollen grains and a single fern spore (Dryopteris type) which were insufficient to interpret. The may well have been transported downwards by root penetration. The samples were almost devoid of any organic material. This was due to the sediment being very highly oxidised and very calcareous. Both of these factors are poor for pollen preservation

6.5 Geoarchaeology Chiltern Archaeology takes geological sediment samples as a normal part of the investigations. This proved useful for Trench 1 as contexts 1002 and 1003 were at first believed to be part of the bank to Grim’s Ditch as they appeared on the north side of the ditch only and at about the level expected for a bank. The geological assessment appears as Appendix 5. The nature of the sediment, as well as the relation of the basal boundary with the recorded and expected natural deposit (Clay-with- flints), proved this layer to be another natural (geological) deposit. These fine sands with a minor silt and clay content bear most resemblance to Reading Formation sands, but might also be Quaternary in age, but not loess. This deposit would originally have spread across the entire St Leonard’s site, but subsequent building and levelling activities have removed it. The activities include the ditch digging (Iron Age?), cottage building and landscaping (19th century) and building of workshops plus coach company works and tarmac laying in the 20th century. The bund formation seems to have had the most impact on reducing the level and has removed all traces of this sandy natural layer plus the soil layer across the site.

Upper ditch fills (1005 and 1006) show most influence of input from the sandy natural layer, whilst earlier fills (1007 and 1009) are clay-rich with minor silt and appear to be a general wash from the Clay-with-flints. Ditch fills 1010 and 1012 are much more highly flinty, with large flints included in the deposit. These layers are interpreted as a rapid fill either by slope collapse and/or wash after heavy rainstorms.

23 7. Conclusions The excavation work proved the location, depth and width of Grim’s Ditch which was shown to be 1.76 metres deep (probably c. 2.5 m originally) and 4.0 to 4.6 metres wide. The six fills were recorded and sampled, and showed a number of clear deposition episodes. The lower fills record early collapse or wash in, followed by a recut and then a gradual clay fill occurring during rainwater collection within the impermeable Clay-with-flints lined ditch. The uppermost two fills (1006 and 1005) are 19th and 20th century respectively.

The environmental samples from Grim’s Ditch revealed no datable finds and proved that molluscs and plant macro samples would be poorly preserved, if preserved at all where the natural geology is Clay-with-flints. The oxidising and calcareous nature of the lowermost deposits also results in poor preservation potential for pollen. This is likely to be similar in other sections of Grim’s Ditch which are cut into Clay-with- flints. However, the ditch is cut into large areas of Buckinghamshire and neighbouring Counties, which exhibits a different geology and where potential better quality environmental sampling might be undertaken.

The excavations also proved the location and age of a series of cottages which form part of the post-enclosure landscape of St Leonard’s parish. There were 2 cottages and one outhouse present by 1878 which became four cottages and two outhouses, by extending and subdividing the extant buildings, by 1899. This layout remained until 1988 when they were demolished.

The remaining trenching and research indicates that there is no other archaeological interest for the site.

8. Assessment of impact

Mitigation statement: The archaeology has been completely assessed and the footprints for the development have negligible impact on the archaeology (Table 2 below).

The southern edge of the ditch is 5.5m from the post and wire fence (Laxton’s legal boundary to the north). There is to be a 'buffer' of 2 metres from the southern edge of Grim’s Ditch to the plot 3 house with the exception of the area where the large shed is sited as this has clearly intruded in to the 2 metre buffer already and possibly in to the ditch itself. In this area no buffer would be required.

Grim’s Ditch on the Laxton boundary side is not scheduled however the adjacent scheduled section 'buffer' intrudes into the site by approximately 2 metres and therefore they cannot build within that area. Laxton’s and their architect are aware of this requirement. The scheduled 'buffer' includes the eastern edge of the existing large shed and therefore will require SMC to demolish it.

Patios, garden landscaping and fences or other garden works must not penetrate below into the ditch. Importing topsoil to build up the site would help to preserve the ditch at depth, and would mitigate the impact of landscaping.

Table 2 Impact assessment StL15 Feature Impact type Mitigation measure Change Location of the Further damage to the Houses are located and orientated to Negligable development, house archaeology via avoid the archaeological interest. footprints, access, footings, etc infrastructure

Land restoration ahead Removing hardcore or Professional company removing Positive of, and following, the soil excess hardcore, but soil already development removed and will be added to build up the ground surface and act as a buffer.

Roadway, paths As above and All access routes away from Negligable compaction over time archaeology

Landscape character Altering views or The development is already within an Negligable landscape character area where the feature has been levelled

9. Archive deposition The site archive has been prepared according to the Procedures for deposit of archaeological archives Buckinghamshire County Museum (version 1.4, 2003) and will be deposited with the BCM. The archive will be the paper record (context sheets and section) and the final report. The accession number is AYBCM: 2015.26. A storage grant has been provided.

Copies of the report will be distributed to the developers Laxton Properties Ltd, the HER (one hard copy and one digital) and the local planning authority.

A copy will be archived with OASIS along with summary results distributed by publication through Records of Bucks, CBA and information sheets for the general public to be distributed locally.

10. Documentary sources and bibliography

Allcroft, A. H. 1908. The Earthworks of England.

Archaeological Services and Consultancy (ASC). 2005. Archaeological evaluation of land to the rear of 76 Weston Road, Aston Clinton.

Archaeological Services and Consultancy (ASC). 2005. Archaeological test pitting 41 Aylesbury Road, Aston Clinton.

BCAS 2007. Solent Thames Research Framework. County Resource Assesment papers. Buckinghamshire County Seminar publication 3rd March 2007 and on-line:

Bryant, A. 1825. Map of the County of Buckinghamshire from actual survey in the year 1824. Scale 1½ inches = 1 mile.

Chiltern Archaeology. 2005. Archaeological investigation on land between Kiln Lodge and Kiln Barn, Lacey Green. Report 101, April 2005.

Chiltern Archaeology. 2007.Watching brief on Charmonix, Lacey Green, Buckinghamshire. Report 114. Hune 2007.

Chiltern Archaeology 2014. Mount Pleasant, Taylors Lane, St Leonards, Bucks, HP23 6QL. Written Scheme of Investigation for an archaeological assessment and evaluation. January 2014.

Chiltern Archaeology 2015. Excavation of Grim’s Ditch in Lambridge Woods, near Henley, Oxfordshire. In prep.

Crawford, O. G. S. 1931. The Chiltern Grim’s Ditches. Antiquity, 5, 161-171.

Davis, J. 1981. Grim’s Ditch in Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire. Records of Buckinghamshire 23, 23-31.

Davis, J. and Evans, J. G. 1984. Grim’s Ditch, Ivinghoe. Records of Buckinghamshire 26, 1-10.

Dyer, J. F and Hales, A. J. 1962. Pitstone Hill – a study in field archaeology. Records of Buckinghamshire, 17, 49-54.

Dyer, J. F. 1963. The Chiltern Grim’s Ditch. Antiquity 37, 46-49.

Eaton, H. B. 1986. Grim’s Ditch: A description of the ancient earthwork in Buckinghamshire. Unpublished manuscript held at the Buckinghamshire County Museum. CAS 0140).

Farley, M. E. 1973. Archaeological notes from the Buckinghamshire County Museum. Records of Buckinghamshire 19, 344-351.

Hughes. M. W. 1931. Grimsditch and Cuthwulf’s expedition to the Chilterns in AD 571. Antiquity 5, 291-314.

Jeffreys, T, 1770. Map of the County of Buckinghamshire surveyed in 1766-1768, Scale 1 inch to 1 mile.

Kidd, S. 2007. See BCAS 2007 above: Iron Age. http://www.buckscc.gov.uk/media/130456/A_ST_Bucks_3_Bucks_Iron_Age_FINAL .pdf accessed 11th January 2014.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) March 2012. Department for Communities and Local Government. ISBN: 978-1-4098-3413-7. Accessed from:

26 http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/wp-content/themes/planningguidance/assets/NPPF.pdf Jan 2015.

Network Archaeology. 1998. Grim’s Ditch: archaeological and management survey Phase II Report 201. April 1998. Network Archaeology Ltd for Chiltern Countryside service.

Network Archaeology. Timescape Archaeological Surveys and Chiltern Countryside Management Team. 1999. Grim’s Ditch: archaeological and management survey Phase III Report 212. May 1999.

Network Archaeology 1999. Highwood, Kiln Lane, Lacey Green: a watching brief. Report 218.

Network Archaeology. 2003. Land between Kiln Lodge and Kiln Barn, Lacey Green, Buckinghamshire. Archaeological evaluation. Report 293, January 2003.

Oxford Archaeology 2001 Archaeological evaluation: F-block, RAF base Bradenham, High Wycombe.

Oxford Archaeology 2007. Archaeological Watching brief: new car park RAF, Bradenham, High Wycombe.

Oxford Archaeology 2009a. Archaeological evaluation: Site 2 RAF, Bradenham, Bucks.

Oxford Archaeology 2009b. Archaeological watching brief: Site 2 RAF, Bradenham, Bucks

Page, W. (ed.) 1927. The Victoria History of the counties of England: Buckingham. Vol 2.

Sheahan, J. J. 1862. History and topography of Buckinghamshire London.

Thorn, B. 1997. An archaeological and management survey of Grim’s Ditch, Buckinghamshire. Report No. 395. Bucks County Museum Archaeological Service January 1997.

TVAS 2002. Archaeological watching brief: Honor End Lane, Preswood, Bucks

TVAS 2004. Archaeological evaluation at Stocken Farm, Lacey Green, Bucks.

Wainwright, A. P., Marshall, G. and Salkeld, G. 2009. Archaeological survey of the Ashridge Estate (Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire). Vol. II – Area A: Ivinghoe Beacon, Steps Hill and Incombe Hole. National Trust.

Wessex Archaeology 2004. Archaeological evaluation: RAF Bradenham, High Wycombe.

Acknowledgments Many thanks to Brian and Dave the JCB drivers for careful removal of the hard standing and work on the trenches. Thanks are also due to John Lawrence who was able to stand in at short notice to assist in Trench 1. We are grateful for the advice provided by Eliza Alquassar (County Archaeologist) and Julia Wise in the HER office.

28 Appendix 1 Figures

Figure 1 Location of St Leonards to the east of Wendover. The site is marked by the arrow. Note the location of Boddington hillfort (2 km west) and Cholesbury Hillfort (2.5 km east). © Crown copyright. All right reserved. Licence: 100051837

Figure 2 Location of the site in relation to the surrounding landscape. (Site marked by arrow.)

29 Grims Ditch

Figure 3 Location of Mount Pleasant with site boundary marked within the solid black line. Dashed red line indicates the predicted line of Grim’s Ditch as deduced from topographically visible sections to the NE and SW.

Figure 4 1878 County 1st edition, Scale 1:2500.

Figure 5 Extract of the 1878 map above, showing the detail of the Mount Pleasant site with cottages in place (marked by red arrow).

Figure 6 The 1899 County map 1st Revision. Scale 1:2500.

Figure 7 Extract from the 1899 map above showing the detail of the Mount Pleasant site and development into 4 small terraced cottages with two outhouses.

Figure 8 The 1975 OS map Scale 1:2500

Figure 9 Extract of the 1975 map of Fig. 8 showing the 19th C cottages with new buildings – a very large workshop put in 1940-50s (NE corner) and a shed and workshop (in the NW corner early 1970s) aligned with the cottages.

Figure 10 Section 1, Trench 1. Section across Grim’s Ditch NW-SE. Drawn at scale 1.:20. July 2015. Cf = Clay-with-flints; Fe = iron oxide horizon; C = CBM; P = pottery. The opposite section is drawn as Figure 11 as they are slightly different.

Figure 11 Section 2, Trench 1. Section across Grim’s Ditch facing southwest. June 2015.

Figure 12 Plan 1 Brick coursing Context [1008] at the western edge of Trench 1. This brickwork, uncovered during Trench 1 work, lay just NE of the area drawn in Figure 13. See Photograph 7 for this feature.

Figure 13 Plan 2: Layout of the brick coursing for the basal walls of the 19th century cottages. The cottage originally continued eastwards but this section has been totally destroyed during the 1970s demolition and site levelling.

Levels = 6: top brick coursing 235.81 mOD; 10: ground foundation level 235.50 mOD .

Figure 14 The two brick coursing styles used for the cottage wall structure: Monk Bond and Stack Bond. Not to scale.

38 Appendix 2 Photographs

Photograph 2 Location for Trench 1 before the hard-standing was removed, looking NNE. December 2014.

Photograph 3 The shed and coach shelter erected over the 19th century cottages, looking northwest. December 2014.

Photograph 4 (a) Trench 1 Grim’s Ditch view towards NW end. June 2015.

40 Soil

1002

1003

Photograph 4(b) Trench 1 Grim’s Ditch close up of the NW end of excavation and overcut into the geological ‘fine sand’ (1002&1003). June 2015.

The section is drawn as Figure 11.

SE NW

Photograph 5 Trench 1 Grim’s Ditch: central ditch showing six ditch fills within cut 1004. June 2015.

NW SE

Photograph 6 (a) Trench 1 Grim’s Ditch NW-SE section, July 2015. Section is drawn as Figure 10.

NW SE

Photograph 6 (b) Trench 1 Grim’s Ditch NW-SE section, close up of SE end. July 2015

43 N

Photograph 7 Brick coursing [1008]. See Figure 12 for the plan of this feature. The cottage buildings of Trench 2 [2003] are immediately SW of this feature, but the structure between this and [2003] had been destroyed. January 2015.

Photograph 8 Trench 2; Context 2003. Base course of bricks for cottages looking north. The east wall has been totally destroyed with all other building structure removed although the drains continue eastwards as evidence of further building originally on that side. The drains cut through Grim’s Ditch, truncating part of the southern end, which can just be seen to the northeast corner with a board covering part of it. June 2015.

Photograph 9 Trench 2; Context 2003. Cottage foundation brick layer looking northeast. Grim’s Ditch (Trench 1) can just be seen in the NE corner with a board covering some of this feature.

Photograph 10 Trench 2; Context 2003. Cottage foundation brick layer looking south. Drains can be seen emerging from the north wall (see Photo 12).

Photograph 11 Trench 2; Context 2003. The southwest corner junction; division of two cottages. The cottage to the west runs beneath the levelling layer (2002) with tarmac still in place. June 2015.

Photograph 12 Vitrifine drains. Drainage pipe manufacturer: John Knowles and company of London. Drainage flow is to the west along the north wall of the cottages.

Photograph 13 View looking SW from Grim’s Ditch (Trench 1) to Trench 2 and the cottage brick foundations (Context 2003). The ranging pole is lined up with the drainage pipes emerging from the north (rear) wall of the cottage.

This can be seen to coincide with a cut into the Clay-with flints adjacent to the ranging pole in the foreground. This is the SE end of Grim’s Ditch and the cut is shown on Section 2 as removing part of fill 1012. July 2015.

47 Appendix 3 Context inventory

Context Type Width Length Thickness Finds Interpretation & Date No (m) (m) (m) comments 1000 Natural - Clay-with-flints 1001 Soil 0.25 CBM; Disturbed soil C19th, pottery, C20th metal C21st 1002 Natural 0.60 - Reading Beds or Quaternary? 1003 Natural 0.36 - Reading Beds or Quaternary? 1004 Cut 4 to 4.6 2 m seen 1.76 - Ditch IA? 1005 Deposit c. 2.0 2 m seen 0.41 Pottery, Final fill 1004 19th and CBM 20th C 1006 Deposit c. 4.0 2 m seen 0..45 none Post- cottage C19th drains 1007 Deposit 1.4 2 m seen 0.52 none Fill of 1004 Pre- C19th (Iron Age?)* 1008 Structure 0.80 0.95 0.07 Pottery Brick coursing. 19th & CBM Part of 2003 20th C 1009 Deposit 1.60 2 m seen 0.60 none Second fill of ditch Iron 1004, after bank Age?* collapse 1010 and recut 1011 1010 Deposit 2.7 2 m seen 0.95 none Bank collapse? Or Iron natural infill from Age?* natural? 1012 Deposit 2.10 2 m seen 0.35 none Primary deposit Iron 1004 Age?* 2000 Natural - Clay-with-flints 2001 Soil c. 2 c. 10 0.25 Pot, Only at north end 19th & CBM of trench 20th C metal 2002 Levelling 6 10 0.60 CBM Mostly debris from 19th & layer metal house demolition 20th C for levelling 2003 Structure 5.5 6 0.07 to CBM Brick walls, 19th & 0.25 pottery cottages & drains 20th C 3000 Natural - Clay-with-flint 3001 Levelling 1.5 6 0.55 & CBM, Directly on natural 19th & layer (1.65) concrete, (soakaway) 20th C metal, plastic 4000 Natural - Clay-with-flints 4001 Levelling 1.5 to 18 0.40 CBM, Directly on natural 19th & layer 1.8 concrete, 20th C metal, plastic

*There is no dating evidence and this date suggestion for lowermost layers is assuming tentative dating of this feature elsewhere as Iron Age is correct.

48 Appendix 4 Site plan with development overlay

Plan 3

49 Appendix 5 Geological assessment of samples

Context no. 1002 1003 1005 1006 1007 Deposit Natural Natural Upper fill Middle fill Primary fill type Munsell 7.5YR 4/4 7.5YR 5/6 7.5YR 3/2 7.5YR 4/4 10YR 4/6 Colour Brown Strong Dark Brown Brown Dark brown yellowish brown Grain size, Fine sand with Fine sand Fine sand, silt, Fine sand Clay with description silt and clay with silt, clay with silt and minor silt clay clay Grain size 63-187 63-187 63-187 63-187 63-125 (μm) Composition Quartz 99%; Quartz 99%; Quartz 95%, Quartz 95%, Quartz silt rock fragments rock rock fragments rock plus clay 1%; clay matrix fragments 3%, CBM and fragments 99%; rock 1% and clay other particles 5%, clay fragments matrix 2%, clay matrix <1% Surface Glassy Glassy Glassy Glassy n/a texture (qtz) Rounding Rounded Rounded Rounded Rounded n/a Sorting Well sorted Well sorted Well sorted Well sorted Well sorted Sphericity Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate n/a Finds None None CBM, pottery None None Notes More clay 20th century More clay than 1002 than 1002

Note: observations from fieldwork and 250g samples using a binocular microscope and x20 to x40 objectives. Munsell colour observations were on moist samples.

50 Appendix 6 Environmental samples: 1007 & 1009

Potential - Charcoal Potential - CPR

Other remains

- -

Earthworm capsules

- -

Insects

- -

Modern seeds

- X

Molluscs

- Contaminants

Roots

XXX XX

Notes

- Molluscs

Molluscs

- -

Notes

- Charcoal

Charcoal>2mm

X X

Hazelnut shell

- -

Notes

- -

Non-cerealtaxa Seeds

- -

Notes

- -

Cereals Cereal chaff

- -

Cereal grains

- -

% processed

100% 100%

Volume processed (litres)

20 10

Volume taken (litres)

20 10

Description

Primary Fill of Grim's Ditch of Grim's Fill Primary Low er Fill of Grim's Ditch of LowGrim's erFill

Context

1009 1007

Sample number

2 1

Site code

StL15 StL15

51 GRIM'S DITCH, ST LEONARDS (StL15) The Environmental Samples

Dr John Summers

Introduction

Two bulk samples for environmental archaeological assessment were taken from Grim's Ditch, St Leonards. The two samples were from primary fill L1009 and another lower fill L1007. This report presents the results from the assessment of the bulk sample light fractions and discusses the significance and potential of any remains recovered.

Methods

Samples were processed at the Archaeological Solutions Ltd facilities in Bury St. Edmunds using standard flotation methods. The light fractions were washed onto a mesh of 500μm (microns), while the heavy fractions were sieved to 1mm. The dried light fractions were scanned under a low power stereomicroscope (x10-x30 magnification). Any remains were identified and recorded using a semi-quantitative scale (X = present; XX = common; XXX = abundant). Potential contaminants, such as modern roots, seeds and invertebrate fauna were also recorded in order to gain an insight into possible disturbance of the deposits.

Results

The assessment data from the bulk sample light fractions are presented in Table 1. No identifiable plant macrofossils were present in either of the samples. The only carbonised material was a small number of charcoal fragments, which may indicate low-level burning activity in the vicinity of the ditch. However, the concentration of charcoal remains was far too low to merit any kind of detailed investigation. No other remains of potential palaeoenvironmental interest (e.g. uncharred macrofossils or terrestrial molluscs) were encountered in either the light or heavy fractions from the bulk samples.

Conclusions and statement of potential

The bulk samples from L1007 and L1009 showed very limited preservation of carbonised plant remains. This is probably to be expected for a monument which is unlikely to have had any close association with domestic activity. Soil conditions have prevented the preservation of either uncharred plant macrofossils or terrestrial mollusc shells. This means that there is little potential for developing a palaeoenvironmental or palaeoeconomic context for Grim's Ditch from these samples.

52 Other remains - -

Earthworm capsules - -

Insects - -

Modern seeds X -

Molluscs - - Contaminants

Roots XX XX X

Notes - - Molluscs

Molluscs - -

Notes - - Charcoal

Charcoal>2mm X X

Hazelnut shell - -

cereal taxa cereal Notes - - - Non Seeds - -

Notes - - Cereals Cereal chaff - -

Cereal grains - -

% processed 100 % 100 %

Volume processed (litres) 10 20 om the assessment of bulk sample light fractions from Grim's St Leonards.Ditch, lightGrim's from the fractions of bulk assessment om sample

Volume taken (litres) 10 20

Table 1: Results frTable Results 1: Description Lower Fill of Grim's FillGrim's of Lower Ditch Grim's of Fill Primary Ditch

Context 100 7 100 9

Sample number 1 2

Site code StL1 5 StL1 5