Site Code. OAKLANDS14Site

identification

and address

Pestalozzi, Sedlescombe

County, district

and / or

borough

East Sussex

O.S. grid ref. TQ785176 Geology. ManyProject number. SNUFFLER1502Fieldwork type. ExcavationSite type.Date of

fieldwork.2014

Sponsor/client. IHRGProject

manager.David Staveley

Project

supervisor.Period

summaryRoman

Project

summary.

(100 word max)

Excavation on the site of the industrial scale Roman iron working site at Oaklands Park, Sedlescombe.

Excavation on the site of the industrial scaleRoman iron working site at Oaklands Park,

Sedlescombe.

By David Staveley

Contents

IntroductionAcknowledgementsTrench LocationsPositioningTrench ATrench BTrench CTrench ETrench FTrench GNon Pottery FindsSummaryReferencesPottery Report by Malcolm Lyne

Introduction

In 2013, a very successful geophysics survey (Staveley 2013) of the Roman period iron-workingsite at Oaklands Park, Sedlescombe, took place. This excavation report should be read inconjunction with that report. The owners of the site, Pestalozzi, were approached to allow anexcavation to take place. The main research question to be answered by this excavation waswhether or not the site was run by the Classis Britannica, by finding CL:BR stamped tiles. There arethree factors which would suggest it was. First, the site is industrial scale. Second, the site is on anavigable river. Third, the site is connected by a slag metalled road to known Classis sites atBeauport Park, Bodiam and Little Farningham. Secondary research questions are the function of therectangular building found on the geophysics and the date of the site. Three trenches, A, B and Cwere planned at the start of the excavation and a further three, E, F and G were opened after theexcavation began.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Pestalozzi for allowing this excavation to go ahead, RobinHodgkinson of IHRG for organising everything, Brian Powell for his expert advice, Cameron Rossfor his digger and his drawing, Malcolm Lyne for looking at the pottery, Luke Barber for looking atthe other finds and all the diggers for taking part.

Trench Locations

Positioning

The geophysics and excavation are recorded on an arbitrary grid with two resection points using atotal station.

Position North EastResection 1: C of SE face of NE gatepost of gate NW corner of field 551.37 379.15Resection 2: C of south face of E gatepost of gate N centre of field 610.89 649.97Trench A, West branch, SW corner 561.08 559.53Trench A, West branch, NW corner 562.48 559.38Trench A, NW inside join of two branches 562.83 561.93Trench A, North branch, NW corner 568.05 561.81Trench A, North branch, NE corner 568.01 563.98Trench A, SE outside join of two branches 561.09 563.89Trench B West, SW corner 554.15 540.31Trench B West, NW corner 555.22 540.47Trench B West, NE corner 555.07 541.67Trench B West, SE corner 553.89 541.47Trench B East, SW corner 553.86 541.70Trench B East, NW corner 555.04 541.87Trench B East, NE corner 554.41 544.58Trench B East, SE corner 553.40 544.36Trench C, SW corner 578.10 553.36Trench C, NW corner 579.29 553.56Trench C, NE corner 579.14 554.71Trench C, SE corner 577.98 554.56Trench E, SW corner 594.13 589.44Trench E, NW corner 595.25 589.47Trench E, NE corner 595.25 590.73Trench E, SE corner 594.08 590.73Trench G, SW corner 567.29 473.11Trench G, NW corner 568.45 472.90Trench G, NE corner 568.63 474.05Trench G, SE corner 567.50 474.31

Trench A

This trench targets the main building identified by the geophysics survey. The feature showedstrongly on both magnetometry and radar, suggesting a foundation of iron slag. The building isroughly 14m x 6.5m with a further outer northern wall. Before excavation, the central feature wasoriginally thought to be the foundation for a central support. This was the main target for theexcavation, with the expectation that the building would have a tile roof, potentially with theCL:BR tiles that the project sought. The function of the building was originally expected to beadministration of the iron workings. A slot towards the eastern side of the north wall was chosen asthe radar indicated better survival towards that end of the building.

While the walls were indeed a foundation of iron slag, presumably supporting a wooden super-structure, the rest of the assumptions proved wrong. The roof was not tiled. The central support(1004) was in fact a trample layer containing a substantial amount of hammer scale. This suggests asmith stood here next to an anvil and the function of the building is a smithy. The outer north 'wall'(1007) is less substantial than the inner wall (1003), and is either a lean-to on the front of thebuilding or a smithy entrance designed to keep out light so the smith can gauge the temperature ofwhat he is working with. This feature does not extend all of the way across the front of the building,with a terminal present in the trench, making the smithy entrance the more likely explanation. Thefloor layer has been ploughed away, with the building closer to the surface than much of the otherarchaeology on the site. Now the building is known to be a smithy, strongly magnetic features onthe geophysics against the south and east walls may possibly be identified as the site of forges.

The date of the building from the pottery in the two walls excavated seems to be much later than therest of the iron workings, perhaps even from the sub-Roman period. The dating is problematicbecause the floor layer has been ploughed away and most of the topsoil was removed with a digger.While there was still a some material removed by trowel, little pot was found. If the building reallyis sub-Roman, that would be expected. Though a single piece of later Roman pottery may indicate alate Roman building occupied in the sub-Roman period, a sub-Roman date is more likely.

Context Description1000 Topsoil. Mostly removed by a digger. The remaining overburden contained little pottery,

with a few sherds of early Roman and post medieval, plus a single sherd of late Roman.1002 Cut of inner north wall1003 Fill of 1002. A single piece of post Roman pottery was found in the fill. Only a small

part was sectioned (section 2) and the iron slag visible here on the plan are what was leftafter the rest in the centre had been removed. The remains of the part of the feature cutby the plough could be seen slightly to the north of its original location. The moreshallow cut on the south side was not as obvious on the surface, so the feature may belarger to the east of the section than what is shown on the plan. A broken piece of tuyerewas found in this context, probably introduced with the slag foundation.

1004 Cut of trample layer1005 Fill of 1004. A sample of this feature was taken, which contained a substantial amount of

hammer scale.1006 Cut of outer north wall1007 Fill of 1006. A further two pieces of post Roman pottery were found in this fill. There

was much less slag (about 10%) in the foundation layer of this feature compared to 1003.

Trench A Plan

Trench A photo collage

Inner Wall

Outer Wall

Trench A Section 1

Trench A Section 2

Trench A Section 3

Trench B

This trench targeted an area to the west of the main building, with undefined strong readings onboth the magnetometry and radar. Initially, a 1.2m square test pit was opened, followed by a largerarea to the east when the test pit turned out to be finds rich. The original reason for targeting thisarea is that on the radar, the area seemed to contain a mound of rubbish. It was suspected that thiswas a pile of material stripped from the main building to the east once it had been robbed. In fact,the area turned out to contain its own building, or perhaps multiple buildings on the same spot indifferent periods, though these were less substantial than the building to the east, having no solidfoundation.

In reverse chronological order, Trench B is described as follows. The natural clay is very disturbedand undulating in this area, with possible stakeholes, especially towards the western end. Theremains of four posts (2006,2007), or at least where they sat are visible in the corners of the westerntest pit. Three of them (2007) are just gleyed natural, where the post have sat and have beenremoved, allowing standing water to gley the underlying clay. The forth (2006) has the natural clayburned orange, as the post here was burned. Some time after this, the top soil was stripped, leavingno post pipes for 2006 or 2007. On top of the remaining natural is the remains of a plank of woodburnt in-situ (2018) with burnt clay around it. There is no cut for this plank, it was simply discardedand was not part of a structure. On top of all this, a mottled mix of redeposited topsoil and clay,probably including some of what was stripped, was built up to provide a level surface (2004,2014).A beam slot (2016) for a timber building was then cut into this layer and a charcoal and pottery richoccupation layer (2003,2005) formed, into which further pit features (2009, 2011, 2013) were cut.After the site went out of use, the area was covered in clay rich colluvium (2002) from upslopeagriculture and the modern topsoil formed (2000). The pottery suggests the building was in usefrom the late first to the early second century. A single unstratified Roman minim was found in thespoil heap with no identifying surface features.

Context Description2000 Topsoil. Some medieval and post medieval pottery and tile.2002 Subsoil/colluvium. A small amount of Roman and post medieval pottery.2003/2005 Occupation layer containing a substantial amount of charcoal and Roman pottery

dated from the late first to early second century.2004/2014 Mottled mix of redeposited clay and topsoil2006 Natural clay burnt orange, most likely from a burning post2007 Natural clay gleyed grey, most likely from the removal of a post and pooling of water2008 Post hole cut, filled by 20092009 Fill of posthole 2008 with slag packing. First century pottery.2010 Pit cut, filled by 2011 containing 50% slag.2011 Fill of 2010. First century pottery2012 Pit cut, filled by 20132013 Fill of 2012 containing charcoal and slag. First century pottery.2015 Cut of beam slot2016 Fill of beam slot, with decayed wooden beam still present. First century pottery.2018 Burnt plant resting on natural, no cut.

Trench B East Section Partially Excavated

Trench B Plan Fully Excavated

Trench B West Sections Trench B East Sections

Trench B West, Almost Complete Pot From 2003

Trench B East, Beam Slot In 2016

Trench B East Section Fully Excavated

Trench C

This trench targeted a pit on the other side of the east-west track to the building in Trench A. The pitis very large, approximately 30m x10m on the magnetometry and 1.6m deep according to the radar.It was thought that some of the tiles from the building to the south may have made their waydownslope into this pit, so Trench C was dug to sample it. The placement of the trench is slightly tothe south of the centre of the pit, hence the slight downward slope in the layers.

The bottom of the pit was found to be an undulating but feature free cut into a clean clay that hadbeen gleyed white. Some silting then occurred during the Roman period (3009) followed by anumber of thin Roman dump layers containing slag and charcoal (3006), burnt clay (3007) andcharcoal (3008) forming a lens of anthropogenic material within the pit. Above this was a finds freelayer of alluvium (3005), where the pit had become filled with water possibly shortly after the sitehad gone out of use. Above this was a layer of clay colluvium (3002), probably from thecommencement of arable agriculture further up the slope. The purpose of the pit seems to be toprovide clay for the building of the Roman bloomeries and seems to have been dug in the firstcentury.

Context Description3000 Ploughsoil containing post-medieval tile and a piece of clay pipe.3002 Light clay colluvium from later agricultural activity upslope. A few sherds of abraded

residual Roman pottery3003 Cut for a land drain, filled by 30043004 No land drain present in cut made for it. Upper part indistinct as it merges into 3002.

Residual Roman pottery3005 Darker alluvial layer with flecks of charcoal and burnt clay from when the pit had filled

to become a pond. A single curved body piece of a glass vessel, 1mm thick and pottery dating from the 1st & 2nd centuries were present. This alluvial silting probably started during the Roman period and continued after the site went out of use. While there are two layers shown here on the plan, they look quite similar and the context change was not noticed until the drawing was done, hence the finds from the two layers are lumped together.

3006 Dump layer of iron slag and some charcoal.3007 Layer containing mostly orange burnt clay with a small amount of roasted ore

suggesting the remains of a spent bloomery furnace had been dumped in the pit.3008 A layer of almost pure charcoal dumped into the pit.3009 A dark silt layer with some charcoal probably represents the first colluvial activity after

the pit was dug and while the site was still in use. The few sherds of pottery suggest a first century date for this layer.

Trench C Plan, partially excavated

Trench C Sections

Trench C, East Facing, West Section

Trench C, North Facing, South Section

Trench E

Trench E was targeted at the northern end of another very large pit, similar to trench C, only this time it was approximately 20m x 8m, 1.3m deep and peanut shaped. As with trench C, it was hoped that some tile had been dumped into the pit and made up part of the relatively solid lens of material at the bottom. Unfortunately, no tile was recovered.

In reverse chronological order, Trench C is described as follows. 5003 is a layer of gleyed claycolluvium containing flecks of charcoal. It was not bottomed out. Though this layer containsanthropogenic material it was otherwise finds free and it is likely that it pre-dates the pit, which wascut into it. On the boundary of 5003 and the first layer of the pit itself, 5002, there was a layer ofpottery dated late 1st to early 2nd century. Above this, the bulk of 5002 consisted of some slag and alot of burnt clay fragments, no doubt the discarded remains of a bloomery. Above this layer was athick layer of clay colluvium (5000). Unlike the pit at trench C, this pit was not filled by water afterit went out of use.

Context Description5000 Ploughsoil and orange clay colluvium containing a few residual sherds of Roman and

post-medieval pottery washed down into the pit by later agricultural activity.5002 Layer of burnt clay, iron slag and late 1st early 2nd century pottery. This thin layer of

rubbish was dumped at what is probably the bottom of the pit before it went out of use. The plan shows the burnt clay in black.

5003 Though almost pure clay, this layer contains a few specks of charcoal, suggesting this is actually colluvium. This layer most likely pre-dates the Roman period. The depth of the layer is not known as it was not bottomed out.

Trench E Section 1

Trench E Plan 1

Trench E, Top of 5002

Trench F

The purpose of trench was to target the slag bank. It has been mentioned that tile was found duringextraction of the slag bank (Straker 1931 p.329), so a sampling of this bank might produce theCL:BR tiles we were looking for. Pottery, coins, brick and tile had previously been found when thebulk of the slag was removed for road making. A single 1x1m test pit was opened. Afterapproximately 80cm of colluvium, a layer of almost solid slag was found. This layer was notbottomed out due to the depth of the test pit and the lack of finds.

Trench F Section 1

Context Description6000 Ploughsoil and colluvium containing Post-medieval tile. As the slag below has probably

been partly removed, it is likely that this layer formed after the slag was removed for road building.

6002 Solid slag layer. Only a single sherd of RB pottery was found. Other parts of the slag heap would probably be more productive.

Trench G

Finding a lack of Roman tile elsewhere on the site, the final test pit, Trench G, sampled a differentfeature type on a different part of the site. The geophysics appeared to show a pit feature of somekind, and it was hoped that this would contain tile thrown in as rubbish. A 2x1m test pit wasopened, half-sectioning the feature. The excavations were rather hurried and at the end of the week,so the record of this feature is not ideal. The plan below is not at a level, but of the fully excavatedfeature and reflects the level reached in the section. Context 7004 was revealed but not excavated.The full extent of the pit was not revealed, but would have been 2-3m wide.

In reverse chronological order, the cut of the pit occurred in the Roman period (7002). The functionof the pit is not clear. It was originally thought to be an ore roasting pit, but there was no sign ofburning of the natural. The lowest layer of fill (7005) was very charcoal rich and contained a lot ofRoman pottery, dated from the 1st to 2nd centuries. A further dump of burnt clay (7004), presumablyold bloomery lining, was dumped on the south side of the pit. Above those contexts, a further layerof silting and dumping (7003) contained pottery from the same period. Near the top of this context,several blocks of unroasted iron ore were placed in the centre of the pit The topsoil (7000)contained a lot of post-medieval tile, reflecting its proximity to the modern occupation adjacent tothe road to the west.

Context Description7000 Ploughsoil and colluvium containing Post-medieval tile and other finds of that period.7002 The cut of the pit7003 Silting and dumping during the Roman period. The fill contains flecks of charcoal, burnt

clay, small pieces of slag, significant amounts of Romano-British pottery and large, seemingly placed, slabs of unroasted iron ore.

7004 A dump of burnt clay dumped on the south side of the pit7005 A charcoal and pottery rich dump layer at the bottom of the pit.

Trench G Plan 1

Trench G Section 1

Trench G, Partially excavated

Trench G, Mostly excavated

Non-Pottery Finds

Trench Context FindsA 1000 17 tile (18th-19th C), 3 glass (16th-19th C), 3 nails, 1 clay pipe (19th C)A 1003 Tuyere pieceB Unstrat Roman minim coin, no featuresB 2000 15 tile, 2 brick, 1 glass. All 18th-19th CB 2002 2 nails, 1 whetstone?B 2005 3 nails, 1 flint flake, 2 daubC 3005 1 glass, 1mm thick, from fine curved Roman vesselE 5000 5 tile (18th-19th C), 1 nailE 5002 1 nailF 6000 7 tile (18th-19th C)G 7000 8 tile (18th-19th C), 1 iron bar (carrying handle)G 7003 1 nail, 2 glass (strap handle of Roman glass flagon), 7 tile (18th-19th C)G 7005 1 nail, 1 piece of lead (pottery repair, repaired pot found), 2 bone

References

Staveley, D. 2013. Geophysics at Oaklands Park & the Roman Road South. Unpublished report

Summary

The answers to the research questions are as follows. There were no CL:BR stamped tiles found, sothe site was not proven to be run by the Classis Britannica. In fact, there was not a single piece ofRoman tile from any of the trenches, which may be significant in itself. The function of the buildingwas found to be for smithing. The date of the site from the 6 trenches was 1st 2nd C Roman, withadditional 5th C sub-Roman material from the smithy in trench A. While the building cannot bedefinitely dated to the sub-Roman period, it can be said there was sub-Roman activity at thebuilding's location.

Trench B was found to contain part of a timber building. Trenches C and E were massive pits forclay extraction, presumably used for bloomery construction. Trench F showed a significant depth ofthe slag bank still exists. Trench G is a rubbish pit associated with the iron industry.

The secondary research questions have been answered. The primary research question isunanswered, and given the lack of any Roman tile found on site, is unlikely to be answered in thepositive with further excavation, so no further excavations are planned.

THE POTTERY FROM OAKLANDS PARK IRON-WORKING SITE, EAST

SUSSEX (OP14)

By

Malcolm Lyne

1. Introduction

The seven trenches on this site yielded 474 sherds (7083 g.) of pottery from 27 contexts. Thebulk of this material is 1st-to-2nd c. in date, with just a few medieval and post-medieval sherds coming from the topsoil. Trench A, however, yielded a few late Roman and Early Saxon sherds as well.

2. Methodology

All of the pottery assemblages were quantified by numbers of sherds and their weights per fabric. These fabrics were classified using a x8 magnification lens with built-in metric graticule in order to identify the natures, sizes, forms and frequencies of added filler inclusions, as well as those naturally present in the clay. Six numbered fabric series were drawn up, with the prefixes P, C, F, S, M and PM for Prehistoric, Coarse Roman, Fine Roman, Sub-Roman-to-Middle Saxon, Medieval and Post-Medieval respectively (Appendix 1).

None of the pottery assemblages are large enough for further quantification by Estimated Vessel Equivalents (EVEs) based on rim sherds (Orton 1975).

3. The Assemblages

3.1. Early Roman

Assemblage 1. From the occupation on the floor of the building in Trench B (Contexts 2003 and 2005).

The 187 sherds (3253 g.) of pottery recovered from this occupation were quantified by numbers of sherds and their weights per fabric:

Table

Fabric No.of sherds % Weight in gm. %C1A/BC1EC2F1AF4AF6AMISC

159 7 1 7 6 1 6

85.0 3.8 0.5 3.8 3.2 0.5 3.2

3101 83 4 18 16 25 6

95.3 2.6 0.1 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.2

187 3253

As might be expected on an Early Roman Wealden iron-working site, there is an overwhelming predominance of handmade East Sussex Ware sherds. These make up 89% of the assemblage by sherd count, 98% by weight and are mostly from small slack-profiled jars similar to c.AD.50-100 dated examples from Meeching School, Newhaven and elsewhere (Green

1976,Figs.21 and 22, 9,12,13 and 24). Fragments from a butt-beaker copy can be similarly dated butothers from a large neck-cordoned jar with girth groove could push occupation within in the building into the early 2nd century.

Minority wares comprise fragments from a South Gaulish Samian Dr.27 cup (c.AD.43-110),small jars of Monaghans class 3A1 and type 3B1.1 in North Kent Fineware (1987, c.AD.43-70 and c.50/70-100 respectively) and a Gauloise 5 wine amphora (c.AD.50-100). The last-mentioned is somewhat abraded and the attribution not entirely certain. Nevertheless, the building seems to have been in use during the period c.AD.43/50-100/150.

Assemblage 2. From the fills of rubbish-pit 7002 in Trench G (Contexts 7003 and 7005).

The 114 sherds (2167g.) of pottery from this feature also have a predominance of East Sussex Ware sherds (89%), including some from slack-profiled jars similar to those in Assemblage 1. Two of these are particularly poorly made in the vesicular East Sussex Ware variant C1B with external linear burnished latticing and of similar form to plain examples from the Mayfield and Oaky Wood bloomeries and other iron-working sites in the Weald (Green 1981,Fig.2,5 and 7). Other East Sussex Ware forms include a well-made cavetto-rim jar in fabric variant C1C with tracesof black resin on its neck, similar to an early-second-century example from Meeching School, Newhaven (Green 1976,Fig.29,127): this jar is different in appearance to other East Sussex Ware vessels in the assemblage, with the resin on the neck suggesting that it may have been used as packaging for some commodity originating in the Newhaven area.

Minority wares include two rim fragments from a c.AD.70-200 dated jar in distinctive whitefabric C4 fired blue-grey to black, thought to originate in a pottery industry based in the Barcombe area and a predecessor of the late Roman Wickham Barn kilns (Butler and Lyne 2001). All this indicates an early-2nd-century date for the pit.

Assemblage 3. From the fills of the clay pit in Trench E (Contexts 5002 and 5003).

This feature was not bottomed but the lower dumped-clay fill (5003) yielded 30 fresh sherds. Twenty-five of the fragments were from East Sussex Ware jars, one from a beaker in Hardham London Ware (c.AD.43-150) and four from a Verulamium Region Whiteware flagon (c.AD.50-150). A late 1st-to-early 2nd c. date is suggested for the back-filling of this clay-pit but a lack of rims and other diagnostic sherds makes more precise dating difficult.

The 17 potsherds from burnt clay layer in the top of the pit do, however, include three more fresh sherds from the same Verulamium Region Whiteware flagon as was in the clay below, indicating that the two fills went into the pit as part of one operation. The 13 East Sussex Ware fragments include a fragment from a lid-seated bowl unlikely to be earlier than c.AD.150 (Lyne 1994, Form 5B.10) and paralleled at Beauport Park. The presence of this fragment pushes the backfilling of the clay pit on into the late 2nd century.

3.2. Late Roman-to-5th century

Assemblage 4. From the rectangular building sectioned in Trench A (Contexts 1000, 1003 and 1007).

This trench was the largest in the excavation but only produced 13 sherds (66 g.) of pottery. Ten of these sherds came from the topsoil (1000) and include two Late Roman fragments from an open form in Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat fabric F8 (c.AD.240-400+) and an everted-rim jar in coarse-sanded greyware from an indeterminate source: these are the only Late Roman sherds from the entire site.

More significantly, the cut through the inner north wall of the building (1003) yielded a single handmade jar sherd in grass-tempered greyware of post-Roman date and a similar fabric to that encountered on 5th-to-6th c. sites in western Britain and in 5th c. contexts at Pevensey (Lyne 2009, Fabric M1,p.123).

The cut through the outer north wall of the lean-to addition to the building yielded a further three sherds: one of these was a slightly abraded, residual East Sussex Ware sherd but the other two came from the same tiny handmade vessel with simple near vertical rim measuring a mere 10 centimetres in diameter, fired to a low-temperature carbon-soaked black with grog, sand and black ironstone filler and some external chaff impressions. This fabric is also paralleled at Pevensey in 5th c. contexts (Ibid. Fabric A8,p.97) and the form approaches that of an example from there (Ibid.Fig.32,7)

A 5th c. date would go some way to explaining the small quantity of pottery associated with a building constructed at a time when very little was in use.

Bibliography

Butler.C, Lyne.M. 2001 The Roman Pottery Production Site at Wickham Barn, Chiltington, East Sussex, BAR Brit Ser 323Green,C.M. 1976 The coarse pottery, in Bell,M.,The Excavation of an early Romano-British site and Pleistocene landforms at Newhaven, Sussex, Sussex Archaeol Collect 114, 256-287.Green,C.M. 1981 Pottery Report, in Tebbutt,C.F.,Wealden Bloomery Iron Smelting Furnaces, Sussex Archaeol Collect 119, 61Lyne,M. 1994 Late Roman Handmade Wares in South-East Britain, Unpublished PhD thesis University of Reading.Lyne,M. 2009 Excavations at Pevensey Castle 1936 to 1964, BAR Brit Ser 503.Monaghan,J. 1987 Upchurch and Thameside Roman Pottery, BAR Brit Ser 173.Orton,C.J. 1975 Quantitative Pottery Studies, Some Progress,Problems and Prospects, Science and Archaeology 16, 30-35.

APPENDIX 1

Fabrics

Prehistoric

P1. Handmade rough black-cored pink fabric with profuse ill-sorted 0.50

APPENDIX 2

Catalogue

Context Fabric Form Date-range No of sherds Wt in gm CommentsA1000 C1A

C1BC4F6BF8PM1PM2PM3

JarEv rim jar

Open form

Open form

c.170-250c.50-150c.240-400

c.1500-1700c.1650-1750

2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

8 22 2 5 6 1 1 3

Residual 9 48g TopsoilA1003 S1 Closed c.450-650 1 3g Abraded. Inner north

wallA1007 C1A

S2JarCrude jar c.450-650

1 2

3 12

Sl abradedFresh

c.450-650 3 15g Outer north wallB U/S C1C Necked jar

Lid 2 33gB2000 C1

F1AM1PM2

JugPipkin

c.1350-1500c.1500-1600

5 2 1 3

87 8 30 25

Residual 11 150g TopsoilB2002 C1

F1A

PM1

JarsDr29Dr36Closed

c.43-85c.70-110?16th c.

9

4 1

92

22 4

AbradedAbradedAbradedSl abraded

Residual 14 118g SubsoilB2003 C1A

C1BC2F1AF4A

F6AMISC

Necked jarsx2Butt beakerNeck-cordon jarJarDr273A1 jarBeakerGaul 5 amphora

c.50BC-AD100c.30-100c.25BC-AD150c.50-250c.43-110c.43-70c.45-150c.50-100

54 1 1 1 2 1 2

1941 4 4 4 2 23 3

FreshFreshFreshAbradedSl abradedSl abradedFreshAbradedAbraded

c.50-100/150 62 1981g Occ layer below 2002=2005

B2004 C1D Jar Early Roman 1 15g Redeposited clay and soil below 2003. =2014

B2005 C1AC1EF1AF4AMISC

Jarsx7Asham potDr27BeakerPipeclay figurineMisc

c.50BC-AD.100c.43-200c.43-70c.43-250

105 7 6 3 2 4

1160 83 14 10 5 3

FreshFresh

Sl abradedAbradedAbraded

c.43-100 127 1275g Occupation =2003B2009 C1A

C1FNecked jarJar

c.50BC-AD.70 2 1

10 41 Sl abraded

3 51g PH 2008 fill sealed by 2005

B2011 C1CC1D

Jar with bl paintAsham potJar

c.50BC-AD.70c.43-200

c.43-70

11 107g Fill of Pit 2010cut through 2014 and sealed by 2005

B2013 C1AC3F2F4A

F4B

JarsFlagonBeaker2G1 biconicalBeaker Closed

c.50-150c.43-70c.70-100

5 1 1

2 1

29 6 1

3 1

FreshAbradedAbradedFreshFreshFresh

c.70-100 10 40g Fill of Pit 2012 cut through 2014 and sealed by 2005

B2014 P1C1CF4B

JarJars?Flagon

c.500BC-AD.0c.50BC-AD.250c.43-250

1 3 1

6 34 1

FreshAbradedSl abraded

c.500BC-AD.43+ 5 41g Redeposited clay = 2004

B2016 C1A Open form 1 6 Abraded

Jar 1 13 AbradedEarly Roman 2 19g Beam slot 2015 fill

cut into 2014. below 2005

C3002 C1CC1GC3

Jar 6 2 1

42 13 4

V abradedV abradedAbraded

Residual 9 59g SubsoilC3004 C1A Jar Residual 1 22g Abraded. Fill of land

drain 3003C3005 C1A

C1EC3

JarsJarsClosed

c.50BC-AD250

c.50-150

13 7 2

100 53 4

AbradedAbradedAbraded

22 157g Alluvial fill below 3002, 3003

C3009 C1AC1BF1A c.43-110

1 1 1

10 5 5

FreshFreshSl abraded

1st c 3 20g Lowest fill below 3007

E5000 C1PM2MISC

Jars 9 1 2

141 3 29

Residual 12 173g TopsoilE5002 C1C

C1EF4AF7

Ev rim store-jarJarIncip b+fl bowlJar base4J1 bowlFlagon

c.100-250c.70-200c.150-300

c.43-120c.50-150

12 1 1 3

187 33 8 21

FreshFreshFreshFreshFreshFresh

c.70-200 17 249g Burnt clay layer below topsoil

E5003 C1AF3F7

Inc furrowed jarBeakerFlagon

c.50BC-AD70c.43-150c.50-150

25 1 4

253 2 93

FreshFreshFresh

c.50BC-AD150 30 348g Redeposited clay etc below 5002

F6000 C1 Residual 2 12g Topsoil F6002 C4 Jar base c.50-200 1 7g Iron slag below

topsoilG U/S F1A Dr 27 c.43-110 1 5gG7000 C4

Tile Fir clayIron fitting

Jar basePeg tile

Late Romanc.1500-1900

1 7 1

20 195 10

Residual 9 225g TopsoilG7003 C1C

C1EC2C4M1

Necked jarsx4Butt-beakerNeck cordoned jarBeakerJarJug

c.43-150c.43-100c.70-200c.70-250

c.1350-1550

54 8 2 1 1

854 114 6 5 3

c.1350+ 66 982g Clay fill of cut 7002G7005 C1A

C1BC1C

C1EF4AF6BLead item

Necked jarGB platter copySlack jarsx2Cavetto-rim jarLid-seated jarJarBeaker

c.50BC-AD70c.43-70c.50BC-AD50c.70-200

c.43-250c.50-150

35 4 1 8 1

1106 66 3 10

c.43-150 49 1185g Charcoal fill of cut 7002 below 7003 and7004