Four Sites in Cambridgeshire: Excavations at Pode Hole Farm, Paston, Longstanton and Bassingbourn, 1996-7 9781841712352, 9781407319599

Citation preview

BAR 322 2001  ELLIS ET AL.  

Birmingham University Field Archaeology Unit Monograph Series 4

Four Sites in Cambridgeshire Excavations at Pode Hole Farm, Paston, Longstanton and Bassingbourn, 1996-7

FOUR SITES IN CAMBRIDGESHIRE

Peter Ellis Gary Coates Richard Cuttler Catharine Mould

BAR British Series 322 B A R

2001

Birmingham University Field Archaeology Unit Monograph Series 4

Four Sites in Cambridgeshire Excavations at Pode Hole Farm, Paston, Longstanton and Bassingboum, 1996-7

Peter Ellis, Gary Coates, Richard Cuttler and Catharine Mould

BAR British Series 322 2001

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR British Series 322 Birmingham University Field Archaeology Unit Monograph Series 4 Four Sites in Cambridgeshire © BUFAU and the Publisher 2001 The authors' moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781841712352 paperback ISBN 9781407319599 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841712352 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2001. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from: BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK E MAIL [email protected] P HONE +44 (0)1865 310431 F AX +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

Four Sites in Cambridgeshire: Excavations at Pode Hole Farm, Paston, Longstanton and Bassingbourn, 1996-7 Contents List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................................................... List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................................................. List of Plates ..................................................................................................................................................................................

Page iv v v

INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Background to the excavations ........................................................................................................................................ 1 Summaries of the results of the four excavations ................................................................................................... :......... 1 Review of results .............................................................................................................................................................. 2 A BRONZE AGE BARROW AND ROMANO-BRITISH FEATURES AT PODE HOLE FARM, CAMBRIDGESHIRE, 1996 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................... 5 Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................................. 7 THE SITE ........................................................................................................................................................................ 8 Period 1: Pre-mound ................................................................................................................................................ 8 Period 2: The barrow ............................................................................................................................................... 9 Period 3: Iron Age and Romano-British field system ............................................................................................ 13 Period 4: Post-Roman ............................................................................................................................................ 13 THE FINDS ................................................................................................................................................................... 15 Flint ...................................................................................................................................................................... 15 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 15 Composition of the assemblage ..................................................................................................................... 15 Discussion ..................................................................................................................................................... 17 Prehistoric pottery .................................................................................................................................................. 17 Fabrics ........................................................................................................................................................... 18 Forms ............................................................................................................................................................ 19 Conclusions and discussion ........................................................................................................................... 20 ECOFACTUAL EVIDENCE ........................................................................................................................................ 21 Charred plant remains ............................................................................................................................................ 21 The charcoal .......................................................................................................................................................... 21 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 21 Results ........................................................................................................................................................... 21 Discussion ..................................................................................................................................................... 23 Radiocarbon dates ................................................................................................................................................. 23 DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................................................ 24 Period 1.................................................................................................................................................................. 24 Period 2 .................................................................................................................................................................. 24 Periods 3 and 4 ...................................................................................................................................................... 25 A ROMANO-BRITISH RURAL SITE AT PASTON, PETERBOROUGH: ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS 1996-7 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................................... 27 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................................... 28 THE EXCAVATIONS .................................................................................................................................................. 31 Period 1: Late 2nd to early 3rd century ................................................................................................................. 31 Period 2: Late 3rd to early 4th century .................................................................................................................. 33 THE FINDS ................................................................................................................................................................... 35 General finds ......................................................................................................................................................... 35 The Romano-British Pottery ................................................................................................................................. 36 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 36

Methods ......................................................................................................................................................... The ware groups ............................................................................................................................................ Fabrics ........................................................................................................................................................... Samian ........................................................................................................................................................... Samian stamp ................................................................................................................................................ Key groups .................................................................................................................................................... Discussion ..................................................................................................................................................... Brick and Tile ........................................................................................................................................................ Introduction and methodology ...................................................................................................................... Discussion ..................................................................................................................................................... THE ECOFACTUAL EVIDENCE ................................................................................................................................ The animal bones ................................................................................................................................................... Introduction and methods .............................................................................................................................. Provenance and preservation ......................................................................................................................... Overview ....................................................................................................................................................... Summary and conclusions ............................................................................................................................. The charred plant remains ..................................................................................................................................... Introduction and methods .............................................................................................................................. Results .......................................................................................................................................................... Discussion ..................................................................................................................................................... Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................... DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................................................ APPENDIX TABLES .................................................................................................................................................... 1. Roman pottery: codes for vessel classes represented .................................................................................. 2. Roman pottery, occurrence of form by fabric .............................................................................................. 3. Animal bone: post-cranial measurements .................................................................................................... 4. Animal bone: mandibular tooth measurements ...........................................................................................

36 36 39 42 42 42 43 46 46 46 47 47 47 47 47 49 53 53 53 55 55 56 59 59 59 60 61

LATE SAXON AND MEDIEVAL VILLAGE REMAINS AT LONGSTANTON, CAMBRIDGESHIRE: ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATIONS AT HOME FARM 1997 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................................... Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................................... HISTORICAL AND DOCUMENTARY BACKGROUND ......................................................................................... THE SITE ...................................................................................................................................................................... Period 1: Iron Age ................................................................................................................................................. Period 2: Saxo-Norman ......................................................................................................................................... Period 3: 12th-14th century ................................................................................................................................... Period 4: Late medieval ......................................................................................................................................... Period 5: Late medieval/early post-medieval ........................................................................................................ Period 6: Later post-medieval ................................................................................................................................ THE FINDS ................................................................................................................................................................... Prehistoric flint ...................................................................................................................................................... Miscellaneous medieval and post-medieval finds ................................................................................................. The Pottery ........................................................................................................................................................... Methodology ................................................................................................................................................. Fabrics and Forms ......................................................................................................................................... Chronology .................................................................................................................................................... Discussion ..................................................................................................................................................... ECOF ACTUAL REMAINS .......................................................................................................................................... The charred plant remains ..................................................................................................................................... Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... Results ........................................................................................................................................................... Discussion ..................................................................................................................................................... Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................... The animal bone .................................................................................................................................................... Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... Overview ....................................................................................................................................................... Summary and Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................................................................. Function and Chronology .................................................................................................................................... Medieval village economy ................................................................................................................................... The excavations in their wider context.. ..............................................................................................................

63 65 67 69 69 69 72 75 77 78 79 79 79 81 81 81 88 90 92 92 92 92 92 96 97 97 97 99 101 101 102 103

ii

SAXON AND MEDIEVAL OCCUPATION IN BASSINGBOURN, CAMBRIDGESHIRE: ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS IN CHURCH CLOSE, 1997 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................... Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................................. HISTORICAL AND DOCUMENTARY BACKGROUND ....................................................................................... THE SITE .................................................................................................................................................................... Period I: Early/middle Saxon .............................................................................................................................. Period 2: Saxo-Norman ....................................................................................................................................... Phase I ........................................................................................................................................................ Phase 2 ........................................................................................................................................................ Period 3: Medieval .............................................................................................................................................. Period 4: Post-medieval ....................................................................................................................................... THE FINDS ................................................................................................................................................................. The Pottery .......................................................................................................................................................... ECOFACTUAL REMAINS ........................................................................................................................................ Animal bone ........................................................................................................................................................ Charred plant remains .......................................................................................................................................... DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................................................................. Saxon period ........................................................................................................................................................ Medieval and post-medieval activity ................................................................................................................... Village origins and development .........................................................................................................................

I 05 I 06 107 111 111 111 111 115 118 118 120 120 122 122 122 123 123 123 123

BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................................................................................

125

PLATES .....................................................................................................................................................................................

129

iii

List of Figures

Figure 1

Page Location map of the four sites in Cambridgeshire and in relation to the geology .................................................. vi

Pode Hole Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11

Location of the Study Area, showing cropmarked features on aerial photographs ................................................. Areas examined by excavation and trenching with principal Period 1-3 features .................................................. Period 1: pre-barrow features .................................................................................................................................. Period 1 feature profiles; scale 1:20 ........................................................................................................................ Period 2: the barrow and associated features ......................................................................................................... Barrow profiles; scale 1:100 .................................................................................................................................. Period 2 feature profiles; scale 1:20 ...................................................................................................................... Period 3 feature profiles; scale 1:40 ...................................................................................................................... Flint; scale 1: 1 ....................................................................................................................................................... Pottery; scale 1:2 ...................................................................................................................................................

4 6 8 9 10 11 12 14 16 19

Pasion Figure 12A Figure 12B Figure 12C Figure 13 Figure 14 Figure 15 Figure 16 Figure 17 Figure 18 Figure 19 Figure 20 Figure 21 Figure 22

Location map ......................................................................................................................................................... Area of investigation ............................................................................................................................................. Excavation area and location of associated work .................................................................................................. Plan of excavated features; scale 1:400 ................................................................................................................. Simplified plan of Period 1 and Period 2 features; scale as shown ....................................................................... Sections of ditches; scale 1:40 ............................................................................................................................... Sections of ditches, gullies and pits; scale 1:40 ..................................................................................................... Quemstone, scale 1:2 ............................................................................................................................................. Romano-British pottery; scale 1:4 ......................................................................................................................... Animal bone, inter-site comparison of cattle metatarsals ...................................................................................... Animal bone, inter-site comparison of Roman cattle M3 (SS) .............................................................................. Animal bone, inter-site comparison of sheep M3 (SS) width ................................................................................ Plant remains: breakdown of types ........................................................................................................................

26 26 26 29 30 31 32 33 38 50 51 52 53

Longstanton Figure 23 Figure 24 Figure 25 Figure 26 Figure 27 Figure 28 Figure 29 Figure 30 Figure 31 Figure 32 Figure 33 Figure 34 Figure 35 Figure 36 Figure 37 Figure 38 Figure 39 Figure 40 Figure 41

Location maps; scales as shown ............................................................................................................................ Medieval landscape remains plotted from air photographs (not to scale) .............................................................. Longstanton from 19th-century maps .................................................................................................................... Area 1: plan of all excavated features; scale 1:500 ................................................................................................ Area 2: plan of all excavated features; scale 1:500 ................................................................................................ Area 2: Periods 1-3; scale 1:1000 .......................................................................................................................... Area 1: Sections; scale 1:40 ................................................................................................................................... Area 2: ditch sections; scale 1:40 .......................................................................................................................... Area 2: pit sections; scale 1:40 .............................................................................................................................. Area 2: Periods 4-6; scale 1:1000 .......................................................................................................................... Area 2: Periods 4-6 sections scale 1:40 ................................................................................................................. Small finds; scale 1:2 ............................................................................................................................................. Medieval pottery; scale 1:4 ................................................................................................................................... Medieval pottery; scale 1:4 .................................................................................................................................... Medieval pottery; scale 1:4 .................................................................................................................................... Medieval pottery; scale 1:4 .................................................................................................................................... Plant remains: breakdown of plant categories ....................................................................................................... Animal bone: relative proportions of main species from Norwich and Thetford .................................................. Development sequence, Areas 1 and 2; scale 1:2500 ..........................................................................................

62 64 66 68 70 71 72 73 74 76 77 79 84 85 86 87 95 98 100

Bassingbourn Figure 42 Figure 43 Figure 44 Figure 45 Figure 46 Figure 4 7 Figure 48 Figure 49 Figure 50 Figure 51 Figure 52

Location maps; scales as shown .......................................................................................................................... Bassingboum - from the 1st edition Ordnance Survey map, 1886; scale as shown ............................................. Excavated features; scale 1:600 ........................................................................................................................... Period 1; scale 1: 1250 ......................................................................................................................................... Sections; scale 1:40 ............................................................................................................................................. Period 2 Phase 1; scale 1:1250 ............................................................................................................................ Period 2, Phases 1 and 2 Pits; scale 1:80 ............................................................................................................. Period 2 Phase 2; scale 1: 1250 ............................................................................................................................ Period 3; scale 1:1250 ......................................................................................................................................... Period 4; scale 1:1250 ......................................................................................................................................... Pottery; scale 1:2.................................................................................................................................................

104 108 109 110 112 113 114 116 117 119 121

lV

List of Tables

Page Pode Hole Table I Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5

Flint artefacts ......................................................................................................................................................... Prehistoric pottery: occurrence of forms and average sherd weights (avsw) in grams .......................................... The charred plant remains ..................................................................................................................................... Occurrence of identified charcoals ........................................................................................................................ Radiocarbon dates .................................................................................................................................................

15 18 21 22 23

Paston Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Table 12 Table 13 Table 14 Table 15 Table 16 Table 17

Roman pottery: occurrence of pottery in features and average sherd weights (avsw) in grams ............................ Roman pottery: fabrics represented ....................................................................................................................... Roman pottery: occurrence of samian (MNI) forms and production sites ............................................................. Roman pottery: occurrence of local wares ............................................................................................................. Roman pottery: occurrence of main vessel forms .................................................................................................. Roman pottery: occurrence of main forms (%) ..................................................................................................... Roman pottery: average sherd weights from ditches ............................................................................................. Brick and tile: quantification of tile by fabric, quantity and weight ...................................................................... Brick and tile: quantification of form pieces of tegula, imbrex and tubulus by fabric .......................................... Animal bone: number of identified specimens (NISP) by taxon ........................................................................... Animal bone, number of identified specimens (NISP) of the major domesticates ................................................ Plant remains, list of taxa .......................................................................................................................................

36 37 42 44 44 44 44 46 46 48 48 54

Longstanton Table 18 Table 19 Table 20 Table 21 Table 22 Table 23 Table 24 Table 25 Table 26 Table 27 Table 28 Table 29

Pottery: fabric codes used, common names ........................................................................................................... 81 Pottery: occurrence of vessel forms by fabric types (minimum vessels by rim count) .......................................... 81 Occurrence of pottery by period (quantification by sherd count) .......................................................................... 88 Occurrence of pottery by period (quantification by sherd weight) ........................................................................ 88 Pottery: Occurrence of wares in Period 2 ............................................................................................................. 89 Pottery: suggested seriation of Period 3 and 4 features containing >50 sherds (by% sherd weight) .................... 89 Pottery: occurrence of vessel forms by fabric types in pit Fl 17 (minimum vessels by rim count) ....................... 90 Pottery: occurrence of fabrics in F267 (by count/weight) ..................................................................................... 90 Pottery: occurrence of vessel forms ....................................................................................................................... 91 Plant remains: taxa identified ............................................................................................................................. 93-4 Animal bone: relative abundance (NISP) of major domesticates by group .......................................................... 97 Live weight ratios of principal domesticates by Group (using Manching data set) ............................................... 97

Bassingbourn Table 30 The Pottery: quantification for the whole assemblage ......................................................................................... 120 Table 31 The Pottery: occurrence by period (quantification by sherd count and sherd weight in grammes) ..................... 121 List of Plates

Pode Hole Plate 1 Plate 2 Plate 3

Phase I Structural feature F9 ............................................................................................................................... Phase 2 barrow under excavation, high level view .............................................................................................. Phase 2 cremation, F23 ........................................................................................................................................

129 129 130

Paston Plate 4 Plate 5 Plate 6 Plate 7 Plate 8 Plate 9

General view of site, looking west. ...................................................................................................................... Ditch FI00/Fl41, view west ................................................................................................................................ Detail ofFI00/Fl41, view east ............................................................................................................................ Period 2 stone surface Fl 14................................................................................................................................. Worked animal bone (Cat. no. 1)......................................................................................................................... Worked animal bone (Cat. no. 2) .........................................................................................................................

130 131 132 132 133 133

Longstanton Phase 2, pit F204, looking north .......................................................................................................................... Plate 10 Phase 3, pit F210, looking north .......................................................................................................................... Plate 11 Cattle skull in F205 (2005) .................................................................................................................................. Plate 12

134 134 135

Bassingbourn Plate 13 Access road, surfaces cleaned before excavation of features; view north ........................................................... 136 Plate 14 Pits F515, F516 (Period 2, Phase 2 and Phase I respectively); view southeast... ................................................ 136 Plate 15 Ditch F410, Period 2, Phase 2; view east ............................................................................................................ 137 V

□

Silt

[::::::::::):::j Limestone

D

AlluvialGravel

□

Clay

Q

Peat Chalk

RomanRoads

0

Fig. I: Location map of the four sites in Cambridgeshire and in relation to the geology Vl

20km

FOUR SITES IN CAMBRIDGESHIRE EXCAVATIONS AT PODE HOLE FARM, PASTON, LONGSTANTON AND BASSINGBOURN, 1996-7 edited and compiled by Peter Ellis

INTRODUCTION Background to the excavations In the latter part of the 1990s the Birmingham University Field Archaeology Unit found itself working on a number of projects in Cambridgeshire. In the present era of developer funding and competitive tendering an Archaeological Unit has little control over where it works or what particular aspects of archaeology it might specialise in - whether certain types or periods of sites - so it was surprising to have such a geographically concentrated commitment. The county of Cambridgeshire and East Anglia in general was not, however, new terrain. Under the directorship of Martin Carver, its founder, the University Unit had undertaken research excavations at Sutton Hoo, Suffolk, (Carver 1993), and in addition had made a major commitment to archaeological work in response to gravel quarrying at Little Paxton, an important type site for Late Saxon archaeology (Addyman 1965), but in this case involving extensive areas of Iron Age and Romano-British field systems, burials and settlements (Jones and Ferris 1994). The Unit's diverse projects in Cambridgeshire in the 1990s was also, of course, a reflection of the impact of major development proposals on the county-principally housing and the upgrading of communications systems. Archaeological work in the county has correspondingly expanded in recent years involving more organisations. In particular an increase of gravel quarrying has taken place in part to service road construction. Quarrying at Pode Hole was thus connected with the upgrading of the A 1(M) and the archaeological aspects of this latter formed another major Cambridgeshire project for the Unit in 1996, in addition to those published here. The Unit's excavations on a number of sites in advance of and during work on this major thoroughfare, still in use two millennia after the establishment of the Roman Ermine Street, have been published separately (Ellis et al. 1998). Further work, at Peterborough, Godmanchester and Fordham is currently being brought to publication. The four sites published here were excavated in response to different commercial activities: Pode Hole, as has been seen, in advance of gravel quarrying, Paston and Bassingboum prior to housing development, and Longstanton before housing development (Fig. 1). At Pode Hole and Longstanton the archaeological work was only part of larger schemes which will require further work in the future. Although none have any connection with each other apart from the fact that they were excavated by the Unit, they nevertheless represent sites that each illuminate a different aspect of Cambridgeshire's past. Pode Hole for example

dealt principally with an Early Bronze Age barrow, one which it transpired overlay and protected a rich and interesting Late Neolithic level with evidence of activities over at least half a millennium. Paston was concerned with a type of site, the poor rural farmstead, which must have been a dominant feature of the Romano-British landscape, but which has generally been little considered by historians and archaeologists. Bassingbourn and Longstanton are excavations within villages of known medieval origins and both illuminate the earlier origins of these villages and provide data for building a picture of their development. The latter two sites are particularly important because Cambridgeshire's villages have been so well studied by the Royal Commission in terms of their plan forms, and in doing so have been fortunate in having the attention of the doyen of landscape archaeologists, Christopher Taylor, but have very little supporting excavation data. The archaeology of East Anglia has been well served by practitioners over the years. In particular, research objectives rather than straightforward rescue work, have always been a feature of the archaeology of the region. The impact of Romanisation, particularly in the Fens, and that of the Anglo-Saxons, particularly expressed in their cemeteries, are good examples. Recently, detailed frameworks have been set for all periods and all types of sites, and it is interesting to note that the excavations reported in this volume, with the exception of Pode Hole, provide data, not for the major areas of archaeology such as prehistoric ritual sites, Roman forts, Roman and medieval towns, and Anglo-Saxon burial sites, but on those areas where experts have pinpointed lacunae in the database, such as Romano-British rural settlement and the origins of the region's villages, as well as the need for more environmental data (Going 1997; Wade 1997).

Summaries of the results of the four excavations Pode Hole An extensive area was examined by area excavation, trial trenching and a watching brief. The area was known from aerial photographs as overlying in part an ancient field system, and also for the presence of what appeared to be two barrows. A buried soil indicative of a former flood deposit sealing the natural gravel was found to have survived beneath a Bronze Age barrow, the other supposed barrow being demonstrably a natural mound. Late Neolithic or Early Bronze Age features cut into this horizon indicated a long timeframe of pre-barrow activity, suggested by the presence of Peterborough and Beaker pottery, the latter supported by a radiocarbon date from the outset of the second millennium

Saxon occupation was located on either side of a holloway. This activity was suggested by ditches and pits with accompanying finds of large potsherds but could not be characterised more clearly in the absence of any definite structures. Further phases of activity through to the 14th century were recorded, with a possible break in the immediate post-Conquest period suggested by a change in the pottery sources used. Vessel forms were very limited throughout the period of occupation suggesting a relatively impoverished peasant economy in contrast to the more prosperous Midlands villages of central England. Both the animal bone and the plant remains analyses agreed in suggesting very few changes in the exploitation of resources through the period of occupation. Sheep was the dominant species but not used for food, while cereals were processed in a similar fashion on or near the site from the Saxon period to the 14th century. The area examined was outside the core areas of the polyfocal village and may have been abandoned because of flooding in the 14th century - only drainage ditches occurring thereafter. This expansion of the village away from core areas in the Late Saxon and earlier medieval periods has important implications not just for unravelling the history of Longstanton but for other Cambridgeshire villages as well.

BC. At least in part this act1V1ty,possibly represented by structures, was of a ritual nature since hazelnuts were found, material commonly occurring in ritual contexts. No central inhumation was found in the Early Bronze Age barrow, although a centrally-placed robbing pit seems likely to indicate a 19th-century excavation. The barrow was without a ditch. An associated cremation burial was found. A nearby pit and gully, the first filled with burnt stone and Bronze Age pottery - also accompanied by a radiocarbon date, lay beneath a burnt area, suggesting an area dedicated to pyres. At a later date, argued to have been in the Iron Age, the area was divided into a number of small fields and farm enclosures by ditches holding a common axis which, despite the lack of dating evidence. indicated that the barrow and others nearby had been maintained as visible monuments in the later ancient fields and through to the recent past. A temporally wide-ranging collection of prehistoric pottery included sherds from prehistoric vessels used in ritual contexts. Flint tools attested a range of activities across a long timespan. Charcoals from cremations and from within features indicated a preference for oak. Other wood and scrub species were represented and there was also some evidence for grassland and cereal growing. Paston A site of Romano-British act1v1ty was located by trial trenching of an extensive area and by selective geophysical survey, and was then the subject of an area excavation. Two phases of Romano-British enclosure ditches, one dated to the 2nd/3rd century and the second to the 3rd/4th century, were excavated. Considerable quantities of pottery, much of it in the form of large unabraded sherds, and of roofing tile strongly indicated domestic occupation. No structural evidence was found although some of the pits might have been used as clay quarries for daub. It was not certain whether the putative house sites occurred within or alongside the enclosures, which may, if not house enclosures, have been used for sorting stock. The enclosure ditches were recut on a number of occasions, the layout becoming a simpler one in the second phase. The Roman Car Dyke nearby, seen as a distinctive boundary to different areas of land use, did not appear to have had an influence on the site occupation, although the site did come into existence after the dyke's construction and was thus connected with development of the higher ground to its west. The occupation could be paralleled by the 2nd-century expansion of activity onto the Fens and may have been associated with it. The absence of coins and of the small finds commonly found on urban sites suggested a low level of subsistence and an economy that was, perhaps, largely self sufficient. The pottery profile was also consistent with a basic rural farmstead but revealed some contact with neighbouring markets. Plant remains indicated evidence for both cultivation and grassland, and also for wetland nearby. The animal bones gave some evidence for an overall improvement of stock suggesting that the farmstead was not entirely cut off from Roman agrarian changes. The settlement came to an end in the 4th century.

Bassingbourn Excavations took place in an area, thought to have lain within a moat, just north of what seems likely to have been the core of the medieval village focused on its church. No evidence of a moat and only slight indications of medieval occupation were, however, found, but instead three earlier, Saxon, phases were excavated. Early/Middle Saxon activity was indicated by ditches and patchy evidence of possible structures which were associated with a small collection of pottery. Later, two phases of Saxo-Norman domestic occupation occurred in which a radical change in ditch layouts took place. There was also an area of pits, with some of the ditches and pits again dated by pottery, others having no dating evidence. A Late Saxon origin can therefore be suggested for village formation and for land allotment divisions which have survived until today. The Early Saxon evidence, although insufficient to characterise in detail, may suggest an estate centre perhaps with a Romano-British origin. The slightness of medieval activity may have been because the area examined was set too far back from roadside houses to intercept activity to their rear, or possibly because the area was never one of peasant dwellings perhaps lying within the confines of a manor estate. A Late Saxon origin for Bassingbourn, set out on a north-south running street, seems likely. Subsequently some planned development can be seen on the east-west street, but what is most striking is the persistence of the manorial estates in the village plan.

Review of results These excavations were united by a commitment to maximising the environmental evidence. At Pode Hole and Bassingbourn this evidence was patchy while at Paston and Longstanton both animal bone and plant remains assemblages were collected which have yielded important interpretative

Longstanton An area excavation outside the core of the village presumed to have been occupied in medieval times took place on a site indicated by geophysical survey and trial trenching. Late 2

particularly noted by Stephanie Ratkai with special reference to the Longstanton pottery and her remarks follow:

material. The reconstruction of contemporary landscapes and their levels of exploitation enhances the value of the excavation evidence. It becomes possible to use the environmental data with the excavation data to tease out information on the status of settlements, on the economy, and on the interrelationship of site, locality, and region which can be used in syntheses of the data by archaeologists and historians. Another factor uniting these excavations is that their preparatory processes have been marked by important contributions by other agencies whether in the form of preliminary fieldwork (the Cotswold Archaeological Trust at Paston and the Fenland Archaeological Trust at Pode Hole) or of research (the Cambridgeshire Archaeological Field Unit at Bassingboum). A considerable level of professional cooperation is attested here. In addition all have been the subject of prepared specifications and briefs and also of monitoring during their progress and through the post-excavation process. This structure of management and decision-making on the resources to be committed to any project is relatively new.

'Despite the reasonable size of the Longstanton assemblage and a number of good-sized groups the study of the pottery suffered a major drawback in addition to the commonly encountered high levels of residuality. This stems from the excavation strategy which meant that no features were fully excavated. This in tum made interpretation of the pottery more difficult, since it was not possible, for example, to work out exactly how many vessels were present in some of the larger closed feature fills nor the degree of brokenness of the vessels present. Another large amount of information was lost through the machine stripping of the site to natural prior to excavation. This strategy, adopted by many field archaeologists, although allowing a larger view of the site, produces ceramic islands, i.e. pottery from feature fills, which make spatial and functional analysis largely impossible or unreliable, especially when the features themselves may not be fully excavated. In the case of Longstanton the lack of excavated layers above natural has effectively removed any chance of understanding the nature of the pre-Conquest occupation e.g. whether the pottery which occurred residually was indeed from dispersed middens. Although it is probably not feasible to avoid machine stripping for most rural sites, it would be helpful if one or two islands above natural were left and excavated by spits. This would at least give some indication of the nature of the site e.g. sherd density and fabric range with which to compare the feature fills.'

In this regard, the process of undertaking excavations within the management and development systems of today is worth reviewing. Each of these sites was approached with a multiplicity of techniques before area excavation was arrived at. It is worth noting that geophysical survey was generally effective, the exception being at Bassingboum where there was too much background interference from modem sources. Fieldwalking on the other hand was of little effect at Longstanton in the only circumstance where it was used. There it gave no indication of the richness of the surviving archaeology below the topsoil within cut features protected from the plough. In all cases trial trenching preceded excavation and was uniformly successful in suggesting the core areas for further excavation. The exception here was at Pode Hole where a careful plotting of air photographs was exceptionally accurate. Air photographs were in general of great value at Pode Hole and Longstanton.

The first point, namely that features are generally only sampled, has an important cost implication. It may be the case that the complete excavation of all features would be impractical and might not advance the information achieved appreciably. Nevertheless it might be suggested that a target number, say half a dozen, of fully excavated features should be set which might act as a control for those sampled. The second point, that the stripping of sites removes important data on the artefactual content of the soil cover, might be satisfied by a further target being set of a small number of representative hand-dug test pits to be excavated in advance of topsoil stripping or concurrently with trial trenching. It is certainly the case that setting a brief within a research framework need not add to the cost and will allow more secure conclusions from the evidence.

Maintaining a balance between research requirements and the obvious constraints imposed by the areas of development impact is difficult. At Bassingboum the excavation of the individual footprints of house sites and garages made good sense in terms of recording what was to be destroyed but proved less effective in terms of setting what was recorded in a comprehensible framework. In retrospect a more flexible response would clearly have been more effective, in, for example, excavating the area of Late Saxon pitting or solving obvious problems thrown up by the small scale excavations by judiciously sited further excavations. Elsewhere the balance was more successfully maintained and both research and development objectives were satisfied although an approach that is capable of being altered as excavation data is recovered could be used, as is suggested for Bassingbourn, for solving specific problems. It is a moot point whether this would add appreciably to costs.

The following, then, are reports on four pieces of fieldwork undertaken in Cambridgeshire in 1996 and 1997. Each has a similar format and layout, starting with a review of the processes which led up to the fieldwork and an outline of the methods used followed by acknowledgements. In the case of three of the excavations a historical and documentary section follows which summarises the known data before excavation began and provides a necessary historical background. The next two sections look at the structural evidence from the site and then at the finds evidence with the artefacts and ecofacts considered separately. Finally, in a general discussion, some points are considered from the excavations and the results are set within their county context.

One aspect of the now almost universal technique of topsoil stripping by machine in advance of area excavation was

3

:

,. -'

j: ,,...

~

-':.'" ,.....•z"'-• ~ ( "-v .'-': 'v .(

, " ,

'-.

.

I

-

~i

,....,

I

✓'

,"-.!ft-;.?" r:--: up_¼.' I ' ~ ..... j'-;5/t , , '

•.

/-

I

--, I

17

r-.

,-.1

r' -

;:

r_

'°)\

Pode Hole

_

0

Farm

/

kr;" /

-

1r:J

- /.---, ¼'7'....

A47

"

,---,~-

\

I

( /

r{J. _/

, 1·t·o~·•

.~ ,,.,.__ "'''".'

I' 1;;

,, '~'-0 I ...

i ·hl-- - ... -..J'~{-K---....

)

~.,(·,.,.

')~

-~

£1,...,7

')

,~--~~1

y \_ --;_

~ik!:)

~,_J

v.;-- ..

(.f . er

~

I

"

J /

?'··

\ . t. --J..':, 1 1 7•-y,,Barrow Group

Study Area

,,

'

.i:,.

I

I I /.', ..,_r • ✓,·W' ..,,>'h .

, i/ I ,i..... ' •

, ,, , r-:.

"'

--l

'"' I

,~ •

·'

/

,

__

·;;:_...

>--r ,:;:cftf t:'

r-

.,,,... ....

A--

.

\ -

....___ ',,

c.. I

"

a

1km

Fig. 2: Location of the Study Area, showing cropmarked features on aerial photographs

A BRONZE AGE BARROW AND ROMANO-BRITISH FEATURES AT PODE HOLE FARM, CAMBRIDGESHIRE, 1996 by Richard Cuttler and Peter Ellis with contributions by Lynne Bevan, Rowena Gale, Darden Hood, Angela Monckton and Ann Woodward

INTRODUCTION upstanding earthworks (Fig. 2). The western side of this field system extends into the Study Area. A second complex, identified by soil-marks, lies to the west of the Study Area and has been interpreted as representing a farmstead with small adjacent paddocks and fields. A third field and enclosure complex lies to the south. One of the enclosures associated with this complex partly lies within the Study Area.

Archaeological investigations were undertaken in 1996 at Pode Hole Farm, near Thomey, Cambridgeshire (centred on NGR TF 260036) by Birmingham University Field Archaeology Unit, following a commission from Chris Blandford Associates acting on behalf of RMG Construction JV (Fig. 2). The work was occasioned by a programme of gravel extraction run concurrently with the upgrading of the A I (M), and comprised an area excavation, an associated programme of trenching, and a watching brief. The Study Area comprised two fields to the south and west of Pode Hole Farm. This area was approximately 650m by 700m and was bounded to the north by the A47.

The original name for Thomey - Ancarig - was recorded in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for 656 and refers to the presence there of an anchorite. Thornige - or thorn island occurs from the late 10th century. The monastery on the island was founded in 972 and dissolved in 1539. Most of the zone around the Study Area would have been dry land until flooding in the medieval period. Peat formation occurred principally then, although some prehistoric formations would have occurred to the south-east of the Study Area. Flood drainage was by way of the Cats Water, a probably artificial channel in origin that may have been blocked by weirs.

The work followed an earlier survey which assessed the archaeological impact of proposals for gravel extraction from a much wider area (French 1991). Much of the information for this earlier survey originated from the Fenland Survey (French 1991, 4; Hall 1987). The Study Area lies on a ridge of gravels between the Eye Peninsula to the west and Thomey Island to the east. Geologically the pre-Flandrian material comprises March gravels with some Boulder Clay till present. In many areas this is overlain by fen deposits that are generally thin but with some deeper areas. The earliest site known in the vicinity of the Study Area, a wooden trackway, is dated to the Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age. The trackway appeared to have been constructed at a specific point of salt-marsh fen encroachment. Bronze Age activity was marked by round barrows, of which 26 have been recognised on the Eye/Thomey gravels.

Part of the wider survey undertaken in 1990 included a geophysical survey by Geophysical Surveys of Bradford. One of the areas surveyed was sited on the Bronze Age barrow in the south-eastern part of the Study Area. This revealed what appeared to be four parallel drainage features crossing the area from north to south, together with evidence of ploughing on an east-west alignment. In addition there were local anomalies suggestive of archaeological pit-like features.

The main focus of the 1996 investigations was a gravel mound in the south-eastern comer of the Study Area. This was thought to be the remains of an Early Bronze Age barrow. A conjoined feature was originally thought to have been a second barrow. However, no trace of this second mound was recorded during the excavation although a natural mound-like feature was noted nearby. It is possible that a second mound had been totally destroyed by ploughing. A cluster of four further barrows lay just to the east of the Study Area (Fig. 2). These comprised gravel mounds and associated ring ditches visible as soil marks. It is possible that these barrows were associated with further features to the south and formed part of a linear cemetery.

A large number of trial trenches was excavated in 1990, including a number within the Study Area. In the western field part of a ditched enclosure was located in two trenches (Fig. 3: Trenches 26 and 27), its peaty fill suggesting a postmedieval date. While the other trenches were negative it was noticeable that in the ditch between the two fields were several small gully and pit-like features, all filled with greybrown silty loam, that were thought to be prehistoric in date. In the eastern field evidence for features associated with an enclosure was located at the southernmost edge of the field (in Trenches 31 to 33). However, the greater part of this enclosure complex lay outside the study area. In general the trial trenching revealed a thin topsoil, 0.25-0.35m deep. This was seen to overlie a heavily plough-damaged subsoil. The low water table (2m below ground surface) promised little hope of survival of organic remains.

There is extensive evidence for Romano-British farmsteads and associated field systems in and around the Study Area. One field complex lies to the east and south of Pode Hole Farm, covering an area of3ha, much of it surviving as

5

A 47

I CJ

12I

l

CJ

-

_J

Pode Hole Farm

Extent of Overou-denStrwe