T H A M E S V A L L E Y

S E R V I C E S

AAAARRRRCCCCHHHHAAAAEEEEOOOOLLLLOOOOGGGGIIIICCCCAAAALLLL

South Downs Quarry Proposed Extension, Langton Matravers, Swanage, Dorset

Archaeological Evaluation

by Andrew Weale and Joanna Pine

Site Code: SQLM10/65

(SY 9775 7925)

South Downs Quarry Proposed Extension, Langton Matravers, Swanage, Dorset

An Archaeological Evaluation

for D and P Lovell Ltd

by Andrew Weale and Jo Pine

Thames Valley Archaeological Services

Ltd

Site Code SQLM10/65

September 2010

i

Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd, 47–49 De Beauvoir Road, Reading RG1 5NR

Tel. (0118) 926 0552; Fax (0118) 926 0553; email tvas@tvas.co.uk; website: www.tvas.co.uk

Summary

Site name: South Downs Quarry Proposed Extension, Langton Matravers, Swanage, Dorset Grid reference: SY 9775 7925 Site activity: Evaluation Date and duration of project: 23rd–25th August 2010 Project manager: Jo Pine Site supervisor: Andrew Weale Site code: SQLM 10/65 Area of site: c. 1.3ha Summary of results: Three drystone walls and two linear features were identified by the trenching, presumably representing field boundaries. No dating evidence was recovered. Apart from a single fragment of worked shale and some animal bone, no other artefacts, datable or otherwise were retrieved during the evaluation. Monuments identified: Undated field boundaries. Location and reference of archive: The archive is presently held at Thames Valley Archaeological Services, Reading and will be deposited at Dorset County Museum in due course. This report may be copied for bona fide research or planning purposes without the explicit permission of the copyright holder. All TVAS unpublished fieldwork reports are available on our website: www.tvas.co.uk/reports/reports.asp. Report edited/checked by: Steve Ford 07.09.10 Steve Preston 07.09.10

1

South Downs Quarry Proposed Extension, Langton Matravers, Swanage, Dorset An Archaeological Evaluation

by Andrew Weale and Jo Pine

Report 10/65

Introduction

This report documents the results of an archaeological field evaluation carried out at South Downs Quarry

Proposed Extension, Langton Matravers, Swanage, Dorset (SY 9775 7925) (Fig. 1). The work was

commissioned by Mr Nick Dunn, of Land and Mineral Management Ltd, The Roundhouse Cottages, Bridge

Street, Frome, Somerset BA11 1BE on behalf of Lovell Purbeck Ltd, Downs Quarry, Kingston Road, Langton

Matravers, Swanage, Dorset, BH19 3JP. The address of the quarry is in Langton Matravers but the site itself

lies in the adjacent parish of Worth Matravers.

Planning permission to extend the current quarry for the extraction of limestone is to be sought from

Dorset County Council. As a consequence of the possibility of archaeological deposits on the site field

evaluation is required in order to draw up a scheme to mitigate the impacts of development on archaeology if

necessary.

This is in accordance with the Department for Communities and Local Government’s Planning Policy

Statement, Planning for the Historic Environment (PPS5 2010), and the County Council’s policies on

archaeology and mineral extraction. The field investigation was carried out to a specification approved by Mr

Steve Wallis, Senior Archaeological Officer with Dorset County Council. The fieldwork was supervised by

Andrew Weale who was assisted in the field by David Platt and Joanna Pine between 23rd–25th of August

2010 and the site code is SQLM 10/65. The archive is presently held at Thames Valley Archaeological

Services, Reading and will be deposited at Dorset County Museum.

Location, topography and geology

The site is located on a north-facing slope in the Pubeck Hills to the west of Langton Matravers, with Kingston

to the west, Worth Matravers to the south and Harman’s Cross to the north (Fig. 1). The address of the quarry

is in Langton Matravers but the site itself lies in the adjacent parish of Worth Matravers. The site is an irregular

parcel of land currently used as rough pasture. It slopes down from the south to the north with a drop from

approximately 130m above Ordnance Datum to 118m above Ordnance datum. To the east and west the site is

surrounded by fields with Downshay Wood forming the northern boundary and the site of the current quarry to

2

the south. The underlying geology is the Stair Hole member of the Lower Cretaceous Purbeck Group (BGS

2001); limestone slate and clay bands were encountered within the trenches with some colluvial deposits.

Archaeological background

The archaeological potential of the site is that the general area is one of high archaeological potential for

almost all periods with finds and deposits from the Bronze Age to the medieval period having been recorded

(Calkin 1948). Late Iron Age and Roman sites have been recorded to the south and elsewhere during quarrying

activity in the 1930s and 1940s (Calkin and Piggott 1938; Calkin 1947) including several burials, the

production of shale objects, together with cobbled surfaces and stone-lined pits. Roman shale-working,

drystone walls and storage pits were uncovered with pottery ranging from the 1st to 4th centuries. To the east

of the main site at Gallows Gore was a similar site containing an infant inhumation in a cist, shale-working

debris drystone walls and evidence of leather working (Calkin 1953). To the north, down-slope from the site

are the remains of Dunshay Manor (RCHME 1970) which provided Purbeck Marble for the construction of

Salisbury Cathedral. To the north-west of the site, also down-slope are the locations of possible Roman

Purbeck Marble quarries at Dunshay Lane and Primrose Hill.

More recently to the south of the proposal site, archaeological evaluation and excavation uncovered the

remains of two linear stone structures and related deposits, possibly revetment walls of Iron Age/Roman date

(Tatler and Bellamy 2006). However an evaluation to the north-east of the current proposal area did not reveal

any archaeological features although finds of Neolithic and Bronze Age flint and Iron Age pottery came from a

colluvial (hill wash) deposit (Tatler and Bellamy 2008). More recently still, evaluation adjacent to that of 2008

also did not reveal any archaeological features although a few prehistoric flints were recovered from the topsoil

(Pine and Weale 2010).

Objectives and methodology

The purpose of the evaluation was to determine the presence/ absence, extent, condition, character, quality and

date of any archaeological or palaeoenvironmental deposits within the area of development.

The specific research aims of this project are:

to determine if archaeologically relevant levels have survived on this site;

to determine if archaeological deposits of any period are present; and

to determine if deposits of Iron Age and Roman date are present.

3

It was proposed to dig seven trenches, each 30m long and 2m wide. Topsoil and other overburden were

removed by a 3600 machine fitted with a ditching bucket under constant archaeological supervision. Topsoil

and subsoil spoil were stored separately. Where archaeological features were certainly or probably present, the

stripped areas were to be cleaned using appropriate hand tools. All discrete features of medieval or earlier date

were to be investigated by hand and at least 50% of the volume of each pit or posthole was to be excavated. A

25% sample of each linear feature were excavated (a minimum of a 1m wide slot per feature). The topsoil and

subsoil heaps were monitored for finds. This work was to be carried out in a manner which would not

compromise the integrity of archaeological features or deposits which might warrant preservation in situ, or

might better be excavated under conditions pertaining to full excavation.

The potential and significance of any such deposits located will be assessed according to national and

regional research priorities (e.g., English Heritage 2005, Webster 2007).

Results

All the trenches were dug as intended. They ranged in length from 27.80m to 33.10m and in depth from 0.29m

to 0.61m; all were 2m wide. A complete list of trenches giving lengths, breadths, depths and a description of

sections and geology is given in Appendix 1. A complete list of features excavated is given as Appendix 2.

Trench 1 (Fig. 3) Trench 1 was aligned W–E and was 30.8m long with a maximum depth of 0.30m. The stratigraphy within

Trench 1 comprised 0.19m of reddish brown humic clay topsoil with moderate pieces of limestone beneath

which was 0.11m of pale yellowish brown clay subsoil with moderate to frequent limestone. Beneath this was

the natural geology which comprised hard limestone blocks and slabs with occasional patches of clean yellow

clay. No archaeological features were present.

Trench 2 (Figs 4 and 5 and Pls 2, 3 and 4) Trench 2 was aligned NW–SE and was 27.8m long with a maximum depth of 0.29m. The stratigraphy within

the trench comprised 0.17m of topsoil with moderate pieces of limestone beneath which was 0.12m of pale

yellowish brown clay subsoil with moderate to frequent limestone. Beneath the subsoil, between 13m and 20m

from the north-west end was a layer of mixed yellow and red brown clay (57) with moderate to frequent

limestone fragments and blocks, up to a maximum of 0.16m thick. Beneath 57 was dark red brown to black

humic clay (58) up to a maximum of 0.22m thick. This layer was located to the west of walls 56 and 59 and to

4

the south sealed a deposit of tumbled limestone fragments (62) sealing a layer of dark red brown humic clay

(63). Layers 58 and 63 partially covered wall 56 and may be the remains of a lynchet formed against that wall.

A small fragment of worked shale was retrieved from deposit (58).

Wall 56 was the remains of a drystone wall, roughly aligned north–south. The wall was constructed of

large limestone blocks and slabs with occasional voids. Between two and three courses of horizontally laid

slabs remained. The southern end of wall 56 returned as wall 59 which was aligned almost due west–east and

of a similar construction. Within the angle of the return was a spread of rubble which may have been collapse

of the wall, which was removed during cleaning. Walls 56 and 59 were set within construction cuts 5 and 6

respectively which were cut into the underlying limestone natural and only seen in plan.

Approximately 8m from the north-west end of Trench 2 beneath the topsoil was construction cut 4. This

was 1.6m wide, 0.34m deep and roughly aligned NNW-SSE (NE–SW). It was filled with mid red brown clay

(60) with occasional limestone fragments. Beneath 60 were the remains of wall 55, a rough drystone wall with

what appeared to be two courses of limestone slabs and blocks laid horizontally, similar to walls 56 and 59 to

its north.

It appeared that these walls (55, 56 and 59) were the remains of boundaries rather than part of a structure.

Trench 3 (Fig. 3) Trench 3 was aligned W–E and was 30.60m long with a maximum depth of 0.47m. The stratigraphy comprised

0.20m of topsoil sealing 0.12m of clay subsoil. This in turn sealed the natural geology, a combination of hard

limestone blocks and slabs with patches of clean yellow clay. The depth of the trench increased from 0.30m at

the west end to 0.47m at the east end. No archaeological features were present.

Trench 4 (Figs 3 and 4) Trench 4 was aligned SW–NE and was 33.1m long with a maximum depth of 0.30m. The stratigraphy within

the trench comprised 0.20m topsoil beneath which was 0.10m of subsoil which sealed the natural geology, a

combination of hard limestone slabs with patches of clean yellow clay. A shallow ditch (1) was excavated,

crossing the trench on a NW–SE alignment. This was 0.90m wide and 0.18m deep and contained a mid

brownish grey clay fill (52) which contained tiny fragments of poorly preserved animal bone.

Trench 5 (Figs 3 and 4 and Pl. 1) Trench 5 was aligned SE–NW and was 30.5m long with a maximum depth of 0.40m. The stratigraphy

comprised 0.27m of topsoil, beneath which was 0.13m of clay subsoil. This sealed the natural geology, a

5

combination of hard limestone blocks and slabs with patches of clean yellow clay. A shallow ditch (2) was

excavated, crossing the trench on an east-west alignment. This was 1.80m wide and 0.18m deep and contained

a mid reddish brownish clay fill (53) which contained no finds. An undated shallow gully (3) was also

recorded, aligned along the trench from its north end, on a NW-SE alignment and terminating after c.3m. This

was 0.76m wide and 0.18m deep and contained a mid reddish clay (54).

Trench 6 (Fig. 3) Trench 6 was aligned E–W and was 28.60m long with a maximum depth of 0.61m. The stratigraphy within this

trench comprised 0.22m of topsoil beneath which was 0.39m of colluvial subsoil which sealed the natural

geology of hard limestone blocks and slabs with patches of clean yellow clay. No archaeological features were

present.

Trench 7 Trench 7 was aligned S–N and was 28.50m long with a maximum depth of 0.45m. The stratigraphy within

Trench 7 comprised 0.23m of topsoil overlying 0.12m of clay subsoil. This sealed the natural geology hard

limestone blocks and slabs with patches of clean yellow clay. No archaeological features were present.

Finds

Shale

A single featureless piece of shale was recovered from Trench 2 deposit (58) weighing 3g.

Animal Bone by Ceri Falys

Animal bone was recovered from a single context (52) within the evaluated area. A total of 55 fragments were

present for analysis, weighing 62g. The overall preservation of the remains is poor with frequent surface

damage, cortical exfoliation and a high degree of fragmentation. Identification of species of origin was not

possible, although the presence of unfused epiphyses indicate the animal was not skeletally mature at the time

of death. No further information could be determined from these poorly preserved remains.

6

Conclusion

Three of the seven evaluation trenches contained a low density of features, with three cut linear features and

three drystone walls. These are considered to be land division boundaries. Unfortunately, none of these were

dated and thus it is impossible to state with any certainty that they have any great antiquity. Similar drystone

wall together with rubble spreads identified c.70m to the south-west during an earlier evaluation were

associated with pottery of Iron Age and Roman date, and similarly thought to be boundaries rather than

structures (Tatler and Bellamy 2008). Absence of boundaries on maps from the 18th century onwards

reinforces the likelihood that the walls could be Iron Age or Roman. Drystone walling techniques, of course,

continue in use to the present day, so associating the undated walls here with the dated remains to the south

would be speculative but not implausible.

References

BGS, 2001, British Geological Survey, 1:50,000, Sheet 343, Solid and Drift Edition, Keyworth Calkin, J B, 1947, ‘Romano-British Jugs from Gallows Gore, Worth Matravers, Dorset’, Proc Dorset Natur

Hist Archaeol Soc 69, 42–4 Calkin, J B, 1948, ‘The Isle of Purbeck in the Iron Age, Proc Dorset Natur Hist Archaeol Soc 70, 29-59 Calkin, J B, 1953, ‘Kimmeridge Coal Money, The Roman-British Shale Armlet Industry’, Proc Dorset Natur

Hist Archaeol Soc 75, 45-71 Calkin, J B and Piggott, S, 1938, ‘Iron Age A habitation site at Langton Matravers’, Proc Dorset Natur Hist

Archaeol Soc 60, 66-72 English Heritage, 2005, Research Agenda, English Heritage, London. PPS5, 2010, Planning for the Historic Environment, The Department for Communities and Local

Government’s Planning Policy Statement 5, HMSO Pine J and Weale A, 2010, ‘Downs Quarry Proposed Extension, Langton Matravers, Swanage, Dorset,

archaeological evaluation’, Thames Valley Archaeological Services unpubl rep 10/65, Reading RCHME, 1970, An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in the country of Dorset 2, South–East, Roy Comm

HistMonuments England, HMSO Tatler, S and Bellamy, P, 2006, ‘Downs Quarry, Worth Matravers, Dorset: Archaeological Evaluation’, Terrain

Archaeol unpubl rep 53239/2/2, Dorchester Tatler, S and Bellamy, P, 2008, ‘Downs Quarry Extension, Worth Matravers, Dorset: Archaeological

Evaluation’, Terrain Archaeology unpubl rep 53282/2/1, Dorchester Webster, C J (ed) 2007, The archaeology of South-West England. South West Archaeological Research

Framework. Resource Assessment and Research Agenda, Somerset County Council, Taunton

7

APPENDIX 1: Trench details

Trench Length (m) Breadth (m) Depth (m) Comment 1 30.80 2.0 0.30 0–0.19m reddish brown humic clay topsoil; 0.19-0.30m pale

yellowish brown clay subsoil deposit; 0.30m+ natural yellow clay with limestone slabs.

2 27.80 2.0 0.29 0–0.17m reddish brown humic clay topsoil; 0.17-0.29m pale yellowish brown clay subsoil deposit; 0.29m+ natural geology yellow clay with limestone slabs. Walls 4, 5 and 6 [Plates 2,3 and 4]

3 30.60 2.0 0.32(W)- 0.47 (E)

0–0.20m reddish brown humic clay topsoil; 0.20-0.32m pale yellowish brown clay subsoil; 0.50m+ natural geology yellow clay and limestone. Ditch 1

4 33.10 2.0 0.30 0–0.20m reddish brown humic clay topsoil; 0.20-0.30m pale yellowish brown clay subsoil; 0.30m+ natural geology yellow clay and limestone slabs.

5 30.50 2.0 0.40 0–0.27m reddish brown humic clay topsoil; 0.27-0.40m pale yellowish brown clay subsoil; 0.50m+ natural geology yellow clay and limestone slabs. Gullies 2 and 3 [Plate 1]

6 28.60 2.0 0.61 0–0.22m reddish brown humic clay topsoil; 0.22-0.61m pale yellowish brown clay subsoil/colluvial deposit; 0.61m+ natural geology yellow clay and limestone.

7 28.50 2.0 0.45 0–0.23m reddish brown humic clay topsoil; 0.23-0.45m pale yellowish brown clay subsoil deposit; 0.45m+ natural geology yellow clay with limestone slabs.

8

APPENDIX 2: Feature details

Trench Cut Fill (s) Type Date 1-7 50 Topsoil Undated 1-7 51 Subsoil/hill wash Undated 4 1 52 Ditch Undated 5 2 53 Ditch Undated 5 3 54 Gully Undated 2 4 55 and 60 Construction cut for wall 55 Undated 2 5 56 Construction cut for wall 56 Undated 2 57 Colluvium Undated 2 58 Buried soil Undated 2 6 59 Wall (return) Undated 2 61 layer Undated 2 62 layer Undated 2 63 Buried soil Undated

77000

79000

80000

SY97000 98000 99000 SZ00000

SITE

SITE

Wareham

South Downs Quarry Extension, Langton Matravers, Swanage, Dorset, 2010

Archaeological EvaluationFigure 1. Location of site in relation to Langton Matravers and

within Dorset

SQLM 10/65

Reproduced from Ordnance Survey OL series 15 at 1:25000Ordnance Survey Licence 100025880

Dorchester

POOLE

BOURNEMOUTH

Blandford Forum

Bridport

Lyme Regis

Weymouth Swanage

78000

81000

82000

South Downs Quarry Extension, Langton Matravers,Swanage, Dorset, 2010

Archaeological EvaluationFigure 2. Detailed location of site.

SQLM 10/65

Reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital mapping under licence.Crown copyright reserved. Scale: 1:2500

79100

79200

79300 SITE

79400

SY97600 97700 97800 97900

2007 extension(Tatler and Bellamy 2007)

N

Downshay Wood

Quarry

SY97700 97800

79200

79300

57

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

SQLM 10/65

Figure 3. Layout of trenches.

0 50m

South Downs Quarry Extension, Langton Matravers,Swanage, Dorset, 2010

Archaeological Evaluation

SQLM 10/65

Figure 4. Trench plans.

South Downs Quarry Extension, Langton Matravers,Swanage, Dorset, 2010

Archaeological Evaluation

0 5m

57

58

63

56

59

13m 21m

Trench 2

4

60

55

21m 25m

Trench 2 (continued)

16m 19m1

52

Trench 4

N

N

N

5

6

0m 3m

53

Trench 5

3

2

19m 23m

54

SQLM 10/65

Figure 5. Sections.

0 1m

South Downs Quarry Extension, Langton Matravers,Swanage, Dorset, 2010

Archaeological Evaluation

1

52

NE SW

2

53

S N

3

54

SW NE

4

50

51

60

55

E W

6

50

51

57

62 58

58

63

SE NW

5758

50

61

58

56

Wall

SW NE 126.34m

126.5m

128.1mAOD

121.3m

121.3m

126.5m

Plate 1. Gully 3, looking west, horizontal scale 0.5m, vertical 0.2m.

Plate 2. Wall 4 (55), looking north-west. Horizontal scales 2m and 1m, vertical 0.5m.

South Downs Quarry Proposed Extension, Langton Matravers, Swanage, Dorset 2010

Archaeological Evaluation Plates 1 and 2

SQLW10/65

Plate 3. Walls 5 and 6, looking east. Scales, 2m (2 near) and 1m (2 distant).

Plate 4. Close up of walls 56 and 59 showing deposit 58, lookingeast. Scales 2m, 2m curtailed.

Plates 3 and 4

SQLM10/65

South Downs Quarry Proposed Extension, Langton Matravers, Swanage, Dorset 2010

Archaeological Evaluation

TIME CHART

Calendar Years

Modern AD 1901

Victorian AD 1837

Post Medieval AD 1500

Medieval AD 1066

Saxon AD 410

Roman AD 43BC/AD

Iron Age 750 BC

Bronze Age: Late 1300 BC

Bronze Age: Middle 1700 BC

Bronze Age: Early 2100 BC

Neolithic: Late 3300 BC

Neolithic: Early 4300 BC

Mesolithic: Late 6000 BC

Mesolithic: Early 10000 BC

Palaeolithic: Upper 30000 BC

Palaeolithic: Middle 70000 BC

Palaeolithic: Lower 2,000,000 BC

Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd,47-49 De Beauvoir Road, Reading,

Berkshire, RG1 5NR

Tel: 0118 9260552Fax: 0118 9260553

Email: tvas@tvas.co.ukWeb: www.tvas.co.uk