Report 2015/1230AUPD

nps archaeology

Archaeological Strip, Map and Sample Excavation ofLand off Long Lane, Stoke Holy Cross, NorfolkAssessment Report and Updated Project Design

ENF133848

Prepared for:

Hopkins Homes Ltd

John Ames MCIfA

April 2015

PROJECT PROGRESS

Overview Jayne Bown

First draft John Ames 23/09/2014

Graphics John Ames and David Dobson 23/09/2014

Edit Andrew Crowson 08/10/2014

Second draft John Ames 17/10/2014

Graphics revision David Dobson 24/02/2015

Review David Adams 04/03/2015

Revision Andrew Crowson 13/04/2015

Review Jayne Bown 15/04/2015

Issue 1

NPS ArchaeologyScandic House85 Mountergate

NorwichNR1 1PY

T 01603 756150 F 01603 756190 E nau.mail@nps.co.uk W http://nau.nps.co.uk

01-04-14-2-1230AUPD © NPS Archaeology

ContentsSummary ........................................................................................................1

1.0 Introduction .....................................................................................................21.1 Report content ........................................................................................21.2 Project background.................................................................................21.3 Site location............................................................................................3

2.0 Geology and Topography ...............................................................................53.0 Archaeological and Historical Background......................................................6

3.1 Desk-based assessment ........................................................................63.2 Cartographic and photographic evidence ...............................................63.3 Archaeological evidence.........................................................................6

4.0 Methodology ...................................................................................................85.0 Summary of Results......................................................................................10

5.1 Evaluation results .................................................................................105.2 Excavation results ................................................................................13

6.0 Summaries and Statements of Potential .......................................................266.1 Stratigraphic data .................................................................................266.2 Archaeological finds .............................................................................286.3 Pottery ..................................................................................................296.4 Ceramic building material and fired clay...............................................326.5 Metalwork .............................................................................................346.6 Metal-working waste.............................................................................366.7 Stone ....................................................................................................376.8 Flint.......................................................................................................386.9 Animal bone .........................................................................................396.10 Environmental evidence .......................................................................41

7.0 Updated Project Design ................................................................................437.1 Introduction...........................................................................................437.2 Original aims ........................................................................................437.3 Original objectives ................................................................................437.4 Revised research objectives.................................................................437.5 Context and stratigraphic analysis........................................................447.6 Archaeological finds analysis ...............................................................457.7 Environmental analysis.........................................................................467.8 Publication proposal .............................................................................46

7.9 Storage, curation and conservation ..................................................... 477.10 Resources and programming .............................................................. 48Acknowledgements ...................................................................................... 50Bibliography and Sources ............................................................................ 51

Appendix 1: Context Summary..................................................................... 53Appendix 2a: Finds by Context .................................................................... 60Appendix 2b: Finds Summary ...................................................................... 64Appendix 3: Pottery Assessment ................................................................. 65Appendix 4: Ceramic Building Material Assessment .................................... 72Appendix 5: Fired Clay Assessment ............................................................ 74Appendix 6: Animal Bone Assessment ........................................................ 75Appendix 7: Environmental data .................................................................. 77Appendix 8: OASIS Report Summary .......................................................... 78

FiguresFigure 1 Site locationFigure 2 Trial trench locations and plan of excavated featuresFigure 3 Location of site plan figuresFigure 4 East side ditch [279], [282], [286], overlying deposits (285), (289),

and cobbled surface [56]Figure 5 West side ditch [119], [122], [134], [218], [221], [225], [293] [296],

natural feature [238], pit [228], sondage [240], cobbled surface [54],flint platform [52]

Figure 6 West side ditch [35], bank [108], flint platform [50]=[51], sub-circularfeature [60], [75], [77], [85], [204], and beam slot [107]

Figure 7 Rectangular pit [31], ditch [9], cobbled surface [53] and flint platform[55]

PlatesPlate 1 Site prior to excavation, looking northPlate 2 South end of excavation area, looking southeastPlate 3 West side ditch and features in early stage of excavation, looking

northPlate 4 Inter-connected features on the west side of the site during

excavation, looking north

TablesTable 1 Types of samples taken during the excavationsTable 2 Summary of environmental samplesTable 3 Site record quantificationTable 4 Quantification of artefactsTable 5 Pottery quantification by fabricTable 6 Pottery by feature typeTable 7 Ceramic building material by type and formTable 8 Ceramic building material by context typeTable 9 Metalwork by feature typeTable 10 Iron by object type and contextTable 11 Quantification of animal bone by context, species and NISPTable 12 Staff listTable 13 Analysis tasks description

1

Client: Hopkins Homes LtdLocation: Land off Long Lane, Stoke Holy Cross, NorfolkDistrict: South NorfolkGrid Ref.: TG 2410 0181HER No.: ENF133848OASIS Ref.: norfolka1-191421Dates of Fieldwork: 10 March–18 August 2014

SummaryBetween 2011 and 2014 NPS Archaeology was commissioned by Hopkins HomesLtd to undertake fieldwork on land off Long Lane, east of Stoke Holy Cross,Norfolk ahead of construction at the site to develop it for residential purposes.Although the site lies within an area of high archaeological potential, no previouslyknown archaeological assets were identified in the area to be investigated.The development site was first explored via geophysical survey. Subsequently,trial trenches were excavated in 2013 to examine an area of potentialarchaeological interest interpreted from the geophysical data. This was followed bystrip, map and sample excavation of part of the development area in 2014.The strip, map and sample excavations revealed a relatively well-preserved arrayof archaeological features and deposits. Ditch-like features, associated structuralremains, pits, and cobbled surfaces provided evidence of occupation that mayrepresent the west limit of linear settlement on Long Lane. The regular pattern offeatures suggests some degree of organised land arrangement. It is suggestedthat settlement evidence may relate to activity at a toft, a family holding within aplot perhaps defined by ditches or other form of boundary.The pottery assemblage from the excavation is dominated by material of 11th–12th-century date, corresponding to the peak of activity at the site, with this activityseeming to have ceased in the late 13th–14th centuries. It is possible thatactivities or processes at the site were influenced by the water-retentive nature ofthe underlying geology. Occupations requiring water, such as textile preparation,are considered to be among possible activities carried out.This report forms an assessment of the excavated data and contains an UpdatedProject Design that details the methodology and resource requirements needed tobring the project to its completion. The analytical programme outlined below willinvolve the comprehensive description of the stratigraphic sequence and theintegration of artefactual analyses. Historical and archaeological sources relatingto Stoke Holy Cross and its environs have been researched and these results willbe used to inform the site’s interpretation. Where possible, local, regional andnational parallels will be used to place the site within a wider setting.

2

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Report contentThis report has been prepared in accordance with guidelines set out in thedocument Management of Research Projects in the Historic Environment (EnglishHeritage 2006). The assessment has been compiled from reports produced byNPS Archaeology staff and external specialists. The various categories of materialrecovered by the programme of archaeological work at the site are assessed withsummary results and methodologies presented in the relevant Sections of thereport.The report begins by summarising the background to the project and the sitelocation (Section 1.0). The introductory Section is followed by a description of thegeology and topography at the site (Section 2.0), and a discussion of the site’sarchaeological and historical background (Section 3.0). Section 4.0 describes themethodologies employed during the work.Section 5.0 presents a summary of results from the evaluation phase of the work(geophysical survey and trial trenching), and thereafter of the excavation (strip,map and sample). Section 6.0 is an assessment of the stratigraphic data, theartefacts and the environmental evidence recovered from the excavations. Eachdata set has been assessed to determine its potential to yield further informationand to identify aspects that are of wider significance.Section 7.0 comprises an Updated Project Design, which describes the researchobjectives that will underpin subsequent work, details the nature of the additionaltasks to be undertaken and contains a proposal to publish the findings of thearchaeological project.

1.2 Project backgroundA proposal to construct residences and service roads on land off Long Lane in theparish of Stoke Holy Cross led Norfolk Historic Environment Service (NHES) tostipulate a programme of archaeological works be undertaken prior to submissionof formal application for planning permission, in accordance with guidelines set outin Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment (Departmentfor Communities and Local Government 2010).A desk-based assessment was undertaken in October 2012 (Page 2012), whichconcluded that the site is situated in an area of high archaeological potential(Section 3.1).A geophysical (magnetometer) survey of the site was undertaken in March 2013(Harrison 2013), (Section 5.1.1). Interpretations of the geophysical data identifiedlinear magnetic anomalies around the periphery of the site in several locations.The anomalies were aligned north–south and may represent traces of ridge andfurrow cultivation; a characteristic element of the open field system of medievaldate. A small cluster of discrete magnetic anomalies recorded in the northeast ofthe field became the focal point for trial trench evaluation in September 2013.The trial trenching was undertaken in accordance with a Project Design andMethod Statement issued by NPS Archaeology (Page 2013a), and approved byNHES. Event number ENF132284 was issued by NHES for the trial trench

3

evaluation. Three trenches were excavated revealing potentially in situ flintplatforms, large linear features and pits or post-holes. Based on the results of theevaluation work, it was determined by NHES that a report should not be producedfor the trial trench evaluation as a strip, map and sample excavation would follow.This Assessment report includes summaries of the earlier phases of the overallprogrammes of work i.e. geophysical survey and trial trench evaluation and theresults are presented in Sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 respectively.The strip, map and sample excavation was carried out between March and August2014. The location and size of the excavation area was stipulated by NHES andmeasured 55m x 30m. This phase of work was undertaken in accordance with aProject Design and Method Statement issued by NPS Archaeology (Page 2013b)and approved by NHES. The work was commissioned and funded by HopkinsHomes Ltd.The site archive is currently held at the offices of NPS Archaeology and oncompletion of the project will be deposited with Norfolk Museums Service.

1.3 Site locationPlate 1, Figure 1The site is situated to the east of the village of Stoke Holy Cross, approximately7.00km south of Norwich and 2.50km west of Poringland. The excavationencompassed an area of c. 0.165 ha (0.40 acres). The site is bounded by LongLane to the north, by field boundaries of open farmland to the east and south, andby fields and village settlement to the west.

Plate 1. Site prior to excavation, looking north

4

FIGURE 1

5

2.0 GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHYThe solid geology of the area of the site consists of Crag Group – Sand andGravel, sedimentary bedrock formed up to 5 million years ago in the Quaternaryand Neogene periods. This is indicative of a local environment previouslydominated by shallow seas (http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html). Overlying the solid geology are superficial deposits belonging to theLowestoft Formation, formed up to 2 million years ago in the Quaternary Period. Atthat time, the local environment was dominated by Ice Ae conditions(http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/ home.html). Lowestoft Till boulder clayis also present across the site, occasionally capped by a relatively thin layer ofsand and gravel.The site lies at 41.26m OD at its highest (southwest) point. It is situated on a west-facing slope overlooking the Tas Valley and to the west of an unnamed shallowvalley/watershed. The watershed drains into the river Tas via Stoke Holy Cross (tothe west) and south of Caistor St Edmund (to the northwest).Land use is currently permanent pasture and the site is surrounded by a ditchedhedgerow with mature trees bordering Long Lane. A ditch with mature treesdemarcates the east boundary and the south and west limits are defined bymature trees and field boundaries.

6

3.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

3.1 Desk-based assessmentThe archaeological and historical background to the site was appraised in a desk-based assessment (Page 2012) prepared in advance of field evaluation. Asummary of that evidence and any additional records generated since 2012 ispresented below. References in the following text with the prefix NHER are citedfrom Norfolk Historic Environment Record (NHER); all NHER data are copyright ofNorfolk Historic Environment Service/Norfolk County Council.Overall, it was considered that the archaeological potential of the excavation sitewas likely to be high, with a series of earthwork banks, ponds and possiblebuilding platforms, which may represent the remains of a settlement of medievaldate, recorded a short distance to the east.

3.2 Cartographic and photographic evidenceHistorical maps show continuity of the current boundaries of the excavation siteand adjacent areas from the time the parish tithe map was drawn in 1844, throughOrdnance Survey map editions of 1882 and up to the present day. Aerialphotographs of the area reveal extensive crop marks of field systems, enclosuresand trackways in the close proximity to the excavation area. It was noted in thedesk-based assessment (Page 2012) that many of the crop marks were ondifferent alignments to the current field boundaries, suggesting traces of earlierlandscapes and land divisions.

3.3 Archaeological evidenceThe NHER data from within a 1km radius of the development area encompassevidence from the prehistoric to the modern period.3.3.1 Prehistoric evidencePrehistoric activity includes a possible Neolithic long barrow or mortuary enclosure(NHER 60215), crop marks of a probable Bronze Age round barrow (NHER60215), field systems of probable late prehistoric or Iron Age date (NHER 59184),and a rectangular enclosure and field boundaries of probable Iron Age date(NHER 60217). The prehistoric sites appear to be confined to the lower valleymargins to the west of the site and the higher grounds to the east.3.3.2 Roman evidenceThe Roman period is represented by a number of significant sites, including that ofa Roman villa (NHER 9732), crop marks of a length of Roman road (NHER30288), and crop marks of rectangular field systems alongside the Roman roadradiating from the Roman town at Caistor St Edmund (NHER 60216). A Romanbuilding known from aerial photography was confirmed by excavation (NHER43199), whilst to its west crop marks of a rectangular enclosure and fieldboundaries (NHER 60233) may be associated with the structure. The majority ofthe Roman sites are located on higher ground to the east of the site at Long Lane.

7

3.3.3 Anglo-Saxon evidenceThere are two records of Anglo-Saxon activity; one of which details a Ringerike-style cast mount (NHER 23778) recovered during metal-detecting, and the other aprobable Early Saxon inhumation burial (NHER 46528). Both find spots werelocated along the eastern uplands of the Tas valley.3.3.4 Medieval evidenceThere is evidence for medieval activity in and around Stoke Holy Cross in the formof earth banks and crop marks. Earthworks and crop marks associated with themedieval moated site of Blackford Hall (NHER 9908), and a series of earthworkbanks, ponds and a possible building platform (NHER 9769), indicate settlement oflikely medieval date on the south side of Long Lane. To the north, and potentiallyassociated with NHER 9769, are earthworks and crop marks of enclosures,boundaries and trackways of medieval and/or post-medieval date (NHER 60224).To the east of enclosures NHER 9769 and 60224, and also located off Long Lane,is site NHER 60226, which comprises earthworks and soil marks of bank-and-ditchboundaries of probable medieval date.The location and date range of the three sites NHER 9769, 60224 and 60226 havethe most direct relevance to the evidence from the development area in that theyshare similar features - banks, ditches and enclosures - to those identified andrecorded during the excavation. South of the roadside are two further sites (NHER60227 and 60231) with similarly dated earthwork platforms and enclosures.The three-trench evaluation (ENF 132284) of the land off Long Lane identifiedmedieval flint platforms and probable pits or post-holes.3.3.5 Post-medieval evidenceThe post-medieval period is represented by evidence of a former brick kiln (NHER33105) and a lime kiln (NHER 16697). Several buildings are also recorded: TheRummer Inn (NHER 5413) is a former 17th- or 18th-century public house, theTythe Barn (NHER 57158) is a former barn of possible 17th-century origin, and theOld School House (NHER 57157) is a 19th-century school building.3.3.6 Modern evidenceThe modern period is represented by Second World War military installations(NHER 5093) including a pillbox, gun emplacements and trenches.

8

4.0 METHODOLOGYThe objective of the excavation was to determine as far as reasonably possible thepresence or absence, location, nature, extent, date, quality, condition andsignificance of any surviving archaeological deposits within the development area.It was agreed between NHES, Hopkins Homes Ltd and NPS Archaeology that thearea of excavation would focus on the more significant of the remains identified bythe geophysical survey and trial trench evaluation.The excavation trench and survey grid points were located using a LeicaGPS9000 surveying system. Temporary survey stations were linked to theOrdnance Survey National Grid with height values ranging between 40.20m OD(north) and 41.31m OD (south).Machine excavation of the trench was carried out under constant archaeologicalsupervision and direction by a tracked hydraulic 360˚ excavator equipped with atoothless ditching bucket. Spoil from the excavations was stored close by. Spoil,exposed surfaces and features were scanned with a metal-detector. All metal-detected and hand-collected finds other than those that were obviously modernwere retained for inspection.Environmental soil samples for plant macrofossils and charred remains were takenfrom a wide range of archaeological features. Bulk samples were taken to addressspecific questions relating to the function and use of particular features and torecover more general evidence concerning past environments and economies.Table 1 summarises the samples taken from the site by type.

Sample type NoBulk environmental 57

Table 1. Types of samples taken during the excavations

Two of the samples taken for recovery of environmental remains were processedand analysed as part of this assessment. Table 2 shows the type of features anddeposits assessed.

Sample no Context no Description/comments1 61 ‘Dark deposit’ in feature [60]2 153 Upper fill of ditch [152]

Table 2. Summary of environmental samples

Site recording was undertaken using NPS Archaeology pro forma context sheetsand sample sheets. The photographic record comprised black and white film anddigital photographs. Hand-drawn plans were recorded at 1:20 and 1:50 scale andsections were drawn at 1:10 and 1:20 scale.Topsoil stripping revealed a range of good quality archaeological features anddeposits requiring a systematic approach to investigation and recording. A 5.00m x5.00m grid system was set out to plan feature edges and their excavated portions,archaeologically significant deposits, flint platforms and cobbled surfaces. Thesouthwest corner of each grid square was used as a location point for anyunstratified finds recovered in that square.

9

Site access was good at all times during the excavations. Weather conditions werevariable throughout the project. In dry periods, the natural clays, redeposited claysand archaeologically significant deposits contracted and cracked, which causedsome problems of identification of deposit sequences. In wet periods the saturatedclay hindered excavation. Groundwater collected in the base of excavated featuresfor up to two weeks after heavy downpours.During and upon completion of the excavations, all written and drawn recordswere checked and cross-referenced. Spreadsheets and tables of context, drawingand sample registers were created. Context information and finds data werecombined in a single spreadsheet. The finds were washed, dried, labelled andbagged to aid analysis and for ultimate inclusion in the site archive.

10

5.0 SUMMARY OF RESULTS

5.1 Evaluation results5.1.1 Geophysical surveyA geophysical survey of the proposed development area took place in February2013 (Harrison 2013). The survey recorded dipolar anomalies interpreted asresidue from agricultural activity, with likely causes cited as discarded ferrousmaterial (magnetic debris) such as nails, horseshoes or other iron implements andobjects. Linear anomalies were also identified, which were predominately alignedparallel with the north–south axis of the field and may have been produced by thehistoric practice of ridge-and-furrow ploughing.A further cluster of anomalies was identified in the northeast of the field. Nointerpretation could be put forward confidently for these anomalies, except to saythat an archaeological origin for them could not be dismissed. The subsequent trialtrenching and strip, map and sample excavations demonstrated that the cluster ofanomalies were archaeological in nature.5.1.2 Trial trenches ENF 132284Figure 2Three trial trenches were excavated in September 2013 at the proposeddevelopment site. The trenches were positioned to test interpretations made fromthe geophysical survey evidence (Harrison 2013). The three trenches containedarchaeological features, and demonstrated that flint cobbling possibly formingplatforms, ditches, pits or post-holes were present along with modern field drains.Following discussion with NHES, it was determined that archaeological worksshould proceed to a phase of excavation and that no evaluation report wasrequired before a strip, map and sample excavation was undertaken; informationto be summarised in an Assessment Report and Updated Project Design.The overlay of the trial trench locations with the subsequent excavations (Figure 2)shows that Trench 1 overlay the south extent of an elongate north–south alignedfeature, and also revealed a probable cobbled surface further to the east. Trench 2was L-shaped, with its north–south arm positioned over a rectangular feature,whilst its east–west arm located potential post-holes, a mortar-filled pit and a sub-circular feature at the west end. Trench 3, the north-most of the three trencheslocated a cobbled surface.

11

FIGURE 2 A3

12

FIGURE 2 A3

13

5.2 Excavation resultsThis part of the report provides a descriptive narrative of the quantity, range andcharacteristics of archaeological features associated with each period of activity onthe site.5.2.1 SummaryFigure 3As the geophysical survey and trial trenching demonstrated a range ofarchaeological features and deposits in the northeast corner of the proposeddevelopment area, a strip, map and sample excavation was stipulated by NHES.The excavation was rectangular and covered an area of 1,650m² (0.165ha)measuring 55.00m x 30.00m. Following topsoil and subsoil stripping, the site wassubdivided into 5.00m x 5.00m squares with each square allocated a unique gridreference tied in to national grid references.In the later stages of the excavations, evidence was discovered that smallerfeatures, such as post-holes, were occasionally masked by natural-looking claydeposits. Following discussion with NHES and communication with HopkinsHomes Ltd, additional machining took place in the affected areas to revealfeatures that may have been masked by this material.One of the agreed locations for re-machining was the west part of a pond-like pitor hollow (see 5.2.2.2 below). Four slots were machine-dug into post-medieval/modern deposits filling the hollow, revealing a linear feature. This featureprobably represents the limit eastwards of archaeological features and deposits.

14

FIGURE 3

15

5.2.2 ResultsTopsoil varied between 0.15m and 0.35m in depth across the site and wasexcavated by mechanical excavator under constant archaeological supervision.The resulting spoil was removed from the excavation area by a 10-tonne dumptruck and stockpiled on the west side of the site away from the stripped area.Subsoil deposits, measuring c. 0.20m deep, were present in the north part of theexcavation adjacent to Long Lane.The subsoil consisted of stiff dark greyish brown clay which had high waterretention during periods of rain and became solid when dry. The soil conditionspresented difficulties during machining with the possibility for damage tovulnerable cobbled areas and structural remains lying at shallow depths; suchdamage was avoided by stringent monitoring.

Plate 2. South end of excavation area, looking southeast

5.2.2.1 Clay pit

Figure 4The field to the east of the site was known in the 19th century as Clay Pit EightAcres (Page 2013), which may explain a large pond-like hollow located in thenortheast of the development site. This hollow was also identified during thegeophysical survey (Harrison, 2013).The additional machining undertaken in hollow [298] (see 5.2.1 above) revealeddeposits 0.20–0.40m deep from the originally stripped surface. The fills (280),(285) and (289) consisted of very compact mid-brown clay mixed with flint andvery fragmentary brick or tile. Eight fragments of post-medieval brick and twopieces of cattle bone (289) were recovered from the hollow. A truncated ditch[279]=[282]=[286] was revealed beneath the hollow (see 5.2.2.5 below).

16

5.2.2.2 Cobbled surfaces

Figures 4, 5 and 7Three discrete cobbled surfaces were identified, constructed by the compaction ofsmall and occasional large pieces of rounded flint (rarely greater than 0.15m long)into the natural geological clay. Cobbled surfaces [54] (Fig. 5) and [56] (Fig. 4)might demarcate the north extent of activity and also delineate its west and eastlimits (see also Fig. 3). Cobbled surface [53] (Fig. 7) was located south of pit [31].5.2.2.3 Flint platforms

Figures 5, 6 and 7Characteristically distinct from the cobbled surfaces by the presence of large flintnodules and flint fragments, three areas were identified as flint platforms [50]=[51],[52]=[291] and [55] and interpreted as working areas. Flint platforms [50]=[51] (Fig.6) and [52]=[291] (Fig. 5) were situated above earlier occupation levels, which mayindicate a phase of re-modelling or perhaps alteration to the original on-siteprocesses or finished products. Excavation of flint platform [50]=[51] produced 81sherds of pottery (89)=(90) with a spot date of 11th-12th century. Platform[50]=[51] also produced 32 pieces of formless lava fragments, a large fragment ofMillstone Grit, and 24 pieces of animal bone (89)=(90).The locations, raw materials, levelled settings and stratigraphic relationships ofthese flint surfaces infer they served a specific function in the later phase ofactivity at the site. The northwest flint platform [52]=[291] shared the laterstratigraphic position of the platforms to the south. Subsequent removal of[52]=[291] revealed it concealed the southern terminus of a ditch (see 5.2.2.5).5.2.2.4 Ditch on east side of site

Figure 4Beneath the deposits of clay pit/hollow [298], ditch [279]=[282]=[286] was alignednorth–south, and was recorded in three of the four machine-excavated slots (see5.2.1) demonstrating that it terminated between the cobbled surface [56] and ditchsegment [286]. The limited dating evidence from the ditch suggests it wascontemporary with features on the west side of the site.Ditch [279]=[282]=[286] measured at least 17.00m long, with the excavatedsections establishing that the ditch exceeded 2.50m wide (its east edge laybeyond the limits of the excavation). The south terminus [279] of the ditch was0.55m deep and contained two distinctly separated deposits (280) and (281)(neither illustrated). The upper fill (280) was 0.20m deep and consisted of mixedmid-brown and orangey brown sandy clay. An iron sickle was recovered from thesurface of (280); similar examples of sickles from Norwich are usually dated to themedieval–early post-medieval period. Fill (281) measured 0.35m deep andconsisted of orange-grey mottled gley, usually a sign of impeded drainage andhigh water tables (Evans and O’Connor 1999). Pottery recovered from fill (281) isdated to the 11th–12th century.Deposits (280) and (281) in ditch segment [279] were comparable to thoserecorded in segments [282] (280)=(284)=(288) and [286] (281)=(283)=(287).

17

FIGURE 4

18

FIGURE 5

19

FIGURE 6

20

FIGURE 7

21

5.2.2.5 Ditch on west side of site (north end)

Figure 5A ditch-like feature ditch at the north end of the west side of the site measured c.15.00m long. The ditch may have terminated south of cobbled surface [54], at itssouthern end it was obscured by flint platform [52]=[291], but terminated north ofsub-circular depression [87].Nine separate investigations [119]=[122]=[134]=[142]=[218]=[221]=[225] of theditch and its termini [296] in the north and [293] in the south were made,demonstrating it was deeper and wider in the south and central parts, becomingshallower and narrower towards the north. The south terminus was possiblybifurcated. Pottery recovered from the excavated sections dates predominately tothe 11th–12th century. An iron knife of a similar date was recovered from (124).The knife is comparable to examples used for leather working (see 6.5.2). Deposit(124) also produced fragments of fired clay; although very abraded, they arepossibly from loom weights, or perhaps even kiln props or other kiln furniture.5.2.2.6 Features adjacent to the west-side ditch

A probable tree-throw [238] and a small undated pit [228] were recorded to thewest of the ditch described above.5.2.2.7 Elongate feature on west side of site (south end)

Figure 6, Plates 3 and 4The south element of the features on the west side of the site was a short ditch orlong pit, hereafter referred to as ‘elongate feature’ [35]=[102]=[108] whichmeasured c. 8.00m long x c. 2.00m wide x 0.90m deep. Located to the south of asub-circular depression (described in 5.2.2.9), initial excavation revealed thesoutheast side of the feature (Plate 3). As Plate 3 illustrates, only the east edge ofa dark grey charcoal-rich deposit was observed, as it was partially overlain byredeposited natural layers.An investigatory slot in the west part of the redeposited natural geologydemonstrated that this material (36)=(151) (not illustrated) obscured the extent ofthe dark grey charcoal-rich deposit.Subsequent excavation demonstrated that the redeposited natural deposit wasprobably deliberate infilling and levelling of the ground surface. It is plausible thatthe site was abandoned soon after this event, which might identify a change inland-use. The redeposited natural deposit was observed covering the entire lengthof the 8.00m-long feature, but did not extend over archaeological features anddeposits to the east.The context number for the redeposited material south of the mid-point of thefeature was (151), from which five fragments of Roman ceramic building material,five pieces of worked flint, three lava fragments, and 42 sherds of pottery includinga high proportion of medieval sandwich wares and two fragments of importedAndenne Ware, were recovered.

22

Plate 3. West side ditch and features in early stage of excavation, looking north

A series of post-holes [184], [186], [188], [190], [192], [194] and [196] and apossible beam-slot or bedding trench [106]=[17] were identified along the eastedge of the elongate feature. Many of the smaller features were ambiguousbecause of mixing of geological clay, redeposited geological clay and culturallyderived deposits. Three fragments of animal bone, two sherds of 11th–14th-century pottery and a scrap piece of lead were recovered from fill (107) of beam-slot or bedding trench [106].The southeast edge of the elongate feature also appeared to contain a series ofpost-holes [11], [13] and [15], possibly set within or associated with bedding trench[39]. To the west of this post-hole group there was a gradient change, whichappeared to contain post-holes [19], [21], [23] and [37] set into the probablebedding trench [39]. The outlines and fills of the second post-hole group were notwholly distinct from the surrounding deposits, and it was not until the features hadbeen excavated in their entirety that the full extent of the depressions of posts setinto the natural geological clay became apparent.The upper fill of the north terminus of the elongate feature [102]=[108]=[148]consisted of redeposited clayey geological material (103), presumably back-filled.It was similar in composition to redeposited geological clay (36)=(151) in the southof the feature, demonstrating the occurrence of this material along its entire length.Beneath deposit (36)=(151), feature [102]=[108]=[148] terminated to the north,showing that the blackish grey charcoal-rich deposit was contained by the ditchand did not extend much beyond its north terminus [163] (=[156]).A deposit (157) of dark greyish black sandy clay with frequent inclusions ofcharcoal and very small fragmentary pieces of baked or fired clay was recorded inthe feature terminus [156] and was observed continuing to the south.

23

Environmental sample <2> taken from fill (157) produced evidence of oats, barley,field bean, wheat grains, medick/clover/trefoil, heather, and Shepherd’s Needlealongside fragments of charred wood, charcoal, burnt/fired clay, burnt/mineralisedconcretions and black porous 'cokey' material.The west edge of the feature may have been flanked by an earth bank. Theevidence for a bank was detected in section where the lower fill (149) of cut [148]was overlain by what is interpreted as the in-filled remains of a bank (109) withincut [108]. The bank’s earth and clay (109) appeared to have no clearly defined tiplines, being laid down in a single episode. The stratigraphic sequence suggestedthe earth bank was emplaced before the elongate feature became filled-in, anevent illustrated by [104], a recut of [102]=[108]=[148]. The construction of anearth bank [108] illustrates phases of work that suggest intentional development ofthe functional features at the site.

Plate 4. Inter-connected features on the west side of the site during excavation, looking north

Excavation in the north part of the elongate feature showed that the materialcomprising bank (109) pre-dated the black charcoal-rich deposit (263) (notillustrated) contained in cut [262]. Pottery recovered from (263) dates

24

predominately to the 11th–12th century. It was noted that the deposits containedwithin this section of the feature differed from deposits recorded in other parts ofthe site, in that they contained very fine charcoal and a large amount of fired orbaked clay, perhaps comparable to fuller’s earth. From this evidence, it is possibleto speculate that this feature was involved in processing or cleaning wool or cloth.The north end of the feature terminated and almost abutted a narrow gully [167]that separated the north terminus of [102]=[108]=[148] and the southern extent ofa hollow or depression (see 5.2.2.8).5.2.2.8 Sub-circular dip, ‘dark deposit’, and post-holes

Figure 6Sub-circular dip

A sub-circular shallow dip [60], [75], [77], [87], [204] situated between the northand south elements on the west side of the site measured c. 6.20m long (north–south) by c. 5.50m wide (east–west). The dip was filled by a dark deposit. Thisfeature was sub-divided into four quadrants, and recorded in plan at 0.10m depthintervals. The ‘dark deposit’ filled the c. 0.20m-deep feature, which gently slopedon three sides.This feature may perhaps be associated with cloth production. A possiblealternative interpretation is that it may represent a threshing floor with associatedstructural elements formed from adjacent post-holes and post-pits.Similar charcoal-rich deposits were recorded as (168) (not illustrated) in narrowgully [167] to the south. It consisted of dark greyish black sandy clay, which wasrich in charcoal and contained probable fired clay. The finds recovered fromdeposits (76), (77), (88), (158), (159) and (205) included 151 sherds of potterydated predominantly to the 11th_12th century, with lava fragments, animal bone,fired clay and ceramic building materials.Environmental sample <1> taken from upper fill (61) of the southwest quadrant[60] produced evidence of oats, barley, wheat grains, bread wheat, heather andcharred root stems, as well as frequent charcoal, burnt/fired clay,burnt/mineralised concretions and black porous 'cokey' material.Post-holes and post-pits

Two distinct groups of post-holes and post-pits were located beneath the darkdeposits.Post-holes on the south and west fringes of the depression or hollow were visibleprior to the removal of the dark deposits However, it was not until the depositswere removed that the majority of post-holes were revealed as a parallel doubleline oriented east–west. A further four post-holes, or post-pits, were situated withinthe depression north of and at approximately 90° to the west end of the doublepost-hole line.Two parallel lines of post-holes and post-pits were located to the south of the sub-circular depression or hollow and almost perpendicular to feature [35]=[102]=[108].The group of post-holes and -pits measured 4.60m long and was arranged on aneast–west axis. The alignment to the south comprised post-holes [65], [67], [69],[71], [73], [79], [171], [173], and post-pit [265]. Two of the six post-holes ([69] and[71]) may have been replacement posts. The north-side alignment consisted of

25

post-holes [267], [175], [177], [202], and post-pit [62]. It is possible that thesefeatures represent a structure associated with the use of the depression or hollow.Alternatively, the linear arrangement of parallel post-holes may represent tenter-frames or racks used for stretching cloth after it had passed through a fullingprocess.Three iron objects—two nails and one probable medieval ‘fiddle-key’-typehorseshoe nail that may have been fitted to a working horse—were recoveredclose to the feature group. The latter find provides limited evidence for adomesticated animal in the vicinity of the structures and for open space activities.Other post-holes in the area of the hollow were [41], [43], [198], [200], [206], [208],[210], [212], [214], and [216].5.2.2.9 Rectangular pit

Figure 7A rectangular pit [31] was located perpendicular to the features on the west side ofthe site. The pit measured 6.00m long east–west x 2.00m wide north–south x1.20m deep, with steep sides. The pit was connected to the features on its westside by a narrow and shallow gully [09]=[57]. Flint platform [55], which measured3.50m long east–west x 0.80m wide north–south, was situated immediately to theeast of pit [31].There were close similarities between the in-filling of rectangular pit [31] and someof the features on the west side of the site. Moreover, dating evidence for pit [31]was provided by an assemblage of 11th_12th-century pottery, although pottery ofthe 12th–13th century was also present.The absence of associated structural evidence, such as post-holes, implies afeature without a roof or walls, so the rectangular pit cannot be considered as ashelter or store. Currently, there is no evidence to indicate a function for therectangular pit.5.2.2.10 ?Enclosed area

Figure 3The arrangement of features at the site suggests a planned layout. The sequenceof intercutting and interconnected features recorded along the west, south andeast sides of the excavation site describe an area that was effectively enclosed.The arrangement may be coincidental, and not all of the features may be relatedor contemporary. The survival of the archaeological features and depositssuggests that whilst little truncation had occurred elsewhere, the east side was cutaway by a (probable) post-medieval clay pit [298]. This truncation along with theirregular nature of some of the features precludes confident identification of anenclosed area.Situated in a relatively level area, the dimensions of the enclosed area were c.39.00m long on the west side, c. 22.00m long on the east side and c. 15.00m longon the south side. Spot heights inside the putative enclosed area were 40.26m OD(north), 40.81m OD (south), 40.52m OD (west) and 40.43m OD (east), illustratinga slight drop towards the northeast.

26

6.0 SUMMARIES AND STATEMENTS OF POTENTIALThe following Section presents descriptive summaries of the stratigraphic,artefactual and environmental data assembled during the archaeological work.This assessment considers the potential of each data set to address the project’sobjectives and research aims. It also seeks to identify aspects of the project thatare of wider significance or that can potentially address new research questions.The principal sources consulted for this work are those that apply most directly toarchaeological sites in Norfolk, namely Research and Archaeology: a Frameworkfor the Eastern Counties (Glazebrook 1997; Brown and Glazebrook 2000), andResearch and Archaeology Revisited: a revised framework for the East of England(Medlycott 2011). These papers summarise the archaeological resources of EastAnglia and present detailed research agendas for each historical period.

6.1 Stratigraphic data6.1.1 Site recordTable 3 summarises the components of the site record generated by theexcavation. A list of contexts is supplied in Appendix 1.

Archive No.Context records 294Drawn sections 50Drawn plans 36Black and white films 4Digital photographs 290

Table 3. Site record quantification

The archaeological data recovered by the project demonstrates that activity at thesite occurred primarily in the Saxo-Norman and medieval periods. Archaeologicalfeatures and deposits can be dated predominately on the evidence of the findsthat they contain and their stratigraphic relationships. This will aid grouping ofactivity areas and phasing events at the site.Through examination of the construction, use and disuse phases of features anddeposits, the stratigraphic information will help in understanding the spatialorganisation, land-use and development of the site from the prehistoric through tothe modern period. In conjunction with the archaeological finds data, thestratigraphic record will allow characterisation of the occupation and of thepossible economic and domestic activities on site.6.1.2 Statements of potentialThe following Sections discuss in chronological order the potential of thearchaeological data recovered by the work for additional study.6.1.2.1 Prehistoric

The only excavated evidence of prehistoric activity is a collection of nine fragmentsof flint, predominantly debitage, from south of the elongate feature. However careshould be taken as some of this small assemblage may be of a significantly later

27

date. The paucity of prehistoric data indicates very limited activity of this period atthe site. The prehistoric data has very limited potential for any further analysis.6.1.2.2 Roman

Evidence for Roman activity was limited to the recovery of typologically dated brickand tile fragments residual in 11th–14th-century contexts. It is suggested that suchartefacts might be derived from the post-Roman robbing of Roman ruins orbuildings in the environs of the Roman town at Venta Icenorum, Caistor StEdmund, or in the near vicinity.One area that could be explored in relation to this material is how it arrived at thesite and what were the benefits or attractions in re-using Roman ceramic buildingmaterial on Saxo-Norman or medieval sites. There is only limited potential forfurther analysis of the Roman data.6.1.2.3 Saxo-Norman

The site’s location is informative, lying to the west of a site (NHER 9769) ofprobable tofts, earthworks, boundaries, trackways and crop-marks of enclosures,all of which are seemingly medieval or post-medieval in date and much of whichare discernible in the present-day landscape.Sites NHER 60224 and 60225 are situated on the north side of Long Lane andalso comprise monument types such as earthworks, boundaries and trackwaysprobably associated with medieval settlement. The pattern and alignment of thethree sites bordering Long Lane may suggest linear roadside settlement asopposed to a dispersed or nucleated settlement around a church or commonedge.Incorporating the spatial information from sites NHER 9769, 60224 and 60225 withthe findings of the current site has some potential for studying settlement patternand land-use in the Saxo-Norman period. Demography, economy, environmentand social organisation during this period might also provide further useful topicsfor inquiry.If considered with site NHER 9769, the current site’s location may perhaps formthe west extent of the linear roadside settlement, the geophysical results notindicating any potential archaeological anomalies west of those recorded in thestrip, map and sample excavations. To the east of the site and aligned north–south, a sunken trackway, part of site NHER 9769, divides the east–west alignedsettlement pattern. Consideration might be given to the possibility of plannedsegregation in a rural community, perhaps reflected in property boundaries orareas of agricultural or manufacturing activity. The preliminary results from theenvironmental samples identify remains at the site of waste from a hearth, oven orsimilar structure. The processing and analysis of environmental samples will be ofparticular importance to the overall interpretation of the site.The dating evidence suggests meaningful activity at the site starts in the 11th–12thcentury, with the site appearing to have been abandoned by the late 13th–14thcentury. There is some archaeological evidence for the site's abandonment withthe deliberate infilling or levelling of features with redeposited natural geologicalclay. The evidence for the clearance or movement of Late Saxon settlementmirrors other sites in Norfolk and is often associated with the establishment of anew focus such as manorial landlords or expansion of agricultural holdings.

28

Perhaps an indication of change can be seen from the Domesday Survey, wherethe parish of Stoke Holy Cross (Stoke) was recorded in the Hundred ofHumbleyard, although the parish was later recorded in the Hundred of Henstead.Based on the quantity and nature of archaeological remains, there is moderatepotential for further analysis of data for the Saxo-Norman period.6.1.2.4 Medieval

Situated 1.00km southeast of the current site are earthworks and crop marksassociated with the medieval moated site of Blackford Hall (NHER 9908). The Hallwas known to be called Blackworth in the 14th century. It is pertinent to note thatoccupation of the excavated site was over or in decline by the early 14th century.The study of medieval moated sites in relation to Late Saxon settlements mayidentify reshaped landscapes resulting from changes in manorial landholdings andinfluence, as landlords took control or ceased land ownership in or around theirproperties.Parallels for dispersed settlement in the Late Saxon and medieval periods are arecurring theme on sites in Norfolk, often associated with encroachments bymanorial landlords, shifts in settlement or the remodelling of the landscape withthe creation of open field systems (Glazebrook 1997).The transition between the Late Saxon and medieval periods can certainly beexplored in relation to the current site and might usefully add to the corpus ofknowledge regarding Late Saxon and medieval activity in the county.Based on the quantity and nature of archaeological remains there is moderatepotential for further analysis of data relating to the medieval period.6.1.2.5 Post-medieval

Limited post-medieval finds were recovered from the site. Some evidence of post-medieval activity is indicated by a clay pit located to the east of the site. Furtherexamination of the cartographic evidence may be informative in relation tomedieval and post-medieval field arrangements: comparative study of existing fieldboundaries will facilitate this. There is limited potential for further analysis of thepost-medieval data6.1.2.6 Modern

The modern period is represented by a Second World War military installation thatmay have been in the vicinity of the site. A comparative study of present day fieldboundaries in relation to road alignments may perhaps assist in our understandingof the development of the parish. There is very limited potential for further analysisof data relating to this period.

6.2 Archaeological findsby Rebecca SillwoodThe archaeological finds were processed and recorded by count and weight, andentered onto a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, with broad dating identified where thiswas possible. Appendix 2a contains a list of all finds by context.

29

Each material type was considered separately and is presented below, organisedby material and chronology. Table 4 presents the artefacts that form the major partof the artefactual assemblage recovered during the excavation.

Artefact Type No. Wt.(g)Early Saxon pottery 1 6Medieval pottery 861 5971Post-medieval pottery 1 31Undated pottery 1 5Ceramic building material – Roman 35 4313Ceramic building material – post-medieval 13 1165Ceramic building material – undated 1 7Fired clay 13 84GlassMetal-working waste 1 67Flint – struck 9 56Stone 127 15313Copper alloy 2 1Iron 11 247Lead 2 42Animal bone 265 1842

Table 4. Quantification of artefacts

6.3 Potteryby Sue Anderson6.3.1 IntroductionA total of 860 sherds weighing 5,952g was recovered from 66 contexts. Table 5provides quantification by fabric and a spot date list by context is provided inAppendix 3.

Description Fabric Code No Wt(g) Eve MNVEarly Saxon medium sandy ESMS 2.22 1 6 1Total pre-medieval 1 6 1‘Early medieval' sandwich wares EMSW 2.58 141 990 0.39 29Early medieval ware EMW 3.10 141 669 0.74 90EMW micaceous EMWM 3.16 1 6 1Yarmouth-type ware YAR 3.17 3 4 1Yarmouth-type non-calcareous YARN 3.171 16 57 0.11 4Early medieval sparse shelly ware EMWSS 3.19 1 6 1Pingsdorf Ware PING 7.24 2 29 2Total early medieval 305 1761 1.24 128Medieval coarseware 1 MCW1 3.201 19 145 0.10 10Medieval coarseware 2 MCW2 3.202 13 84 0.11 11Medieval coarseware 3 MCW3 3.203 32 498 0.34 23Medieval coarseware 4 MCW4 3.204 8 48 0.05 6Medieval coarseware 5 MCW5 3.205 2 59 2Local medieval unglazed LMU 3.23 458 3051 4.88 325

30

Description Fabric Code No Wt(g) Eve MNVUnprovenanced glazed 1 UPG1 4.01 2 51 0.21 2Unprovenanced glazed 2 UPG2 4.02 3 13 1Grimston-type ware GRIM 4.10 1 4 1Andenne Ware(?) ANDN 7.62 12 192 1Total high medieval 550 4145 5.69 382Cologne/Frechen Stoneware GSW4 7.14 1 31 1Total post-medieval 1 31 1Unidentified UNID 0.001 3 9 2Totals 860 5952 6.93 514

Table 5. Pottery quantification by fabric

6.3.2 MethodologyQuantification was carried out using sherd count, weight and estimated vesselequivalent (eve). The minimum number of vessels (MNV) from each context wasalso recorded, but cross-fitting was not attempted unless particularly distinctivevessels were observed in more than one context. A full quantification by fabric,context and feature is available in the archive. All fabric codes were assigned fromthe author’s post-Roman fabric series, which includes East Anglian and Midlandsfabrics, as well as imported wares. Form terminology for medieval pottery is basedon MPRG (1998). Medieval and later wares were identified based on Jennings’Norwich work (Jennings 1981). Recording uses a system of letters for fabric codestogether with number codes for ease of sorting in database format. The resultswere entered into an Access database.6.3.3 Summary of the assemblageThe earliest pottery from the site is a single sherd of heavily abraded handmadepottery in a medium sandy fabric, probably of Early Anglo-Saxon date. It wasresidual in medieval ‘dark’ deposit (61).Early and high medieval wares form the bulk of the assemblage, and most of thefabrics are comparable with those found in Norwich (i.e. EMW and LMU), withsome variations that are likely to derive from other local producers. Early medievalwares are defined as handmade wares that were produced during, and followingthe decline of, the wheel-made Late Saxon Thetford Ware industry in the 11thcentury. They also overlapped with the beginnings of the medieval wheel-madetradition in the later 11th and 12th centuries, represented on this site by LMU andthe other medieval coarsewares. Most of the identifiable vessels in these fabricsare jars, with only a few dishes/bowls present. Rim forms are generally early types(i.e. 11th–12th/13th century) in all fabrics of this period, and many of the LMUbody sherds are thin and probably early.Unusually, there is a very high proportion of ‘early medieval’ sandwich ware in thisgroup. This appears to be a late variant of Thetford-type ware and its source isunknown. It occurs in Norwich in low numbers and is found occasionally on ruralsites in the region, although as it is a generic fabric group not all of these vesselswere necessarily from a single production site. The fabric in this assemblage isquite variable, ranging from sherds with grey surfaces to dark grey-black,sometimes with almost no small white calcareous inclusions and sometimes withan abundance. There is a possibility that some of the coarser sherds classified as

31

MCW3 may also be variants of this group. At least six examples of spoutedpitchers/jugs were identified in these fabrics.Six glazed ware sherds were recovered, only one of which is identifiable asGrimston Ware. Two are in a similar but coarser fabric (UPG1), which isoccasionally found in rural sites across the county. Three sherds are from a singlevessel that appears to have shallow combing and a thin, clear external glaze.Imported wares comprise two sherds of Pingsdorf ware, possibly from a singlevessel, and twelve sherds of a yellow-glazed vessel in a pink fabric similar toAndenne Ware.A single body sherd of Frechen stoneware of 16th/17th-century date is the onlyfind of post-medieval date; it was recovered from fill (153).6.3.4 Pottery by contextFinds were recovered from 36 features and 12 other contexts, of which 25contained ten or fewer sherds each. The largest groups of pottery from singlefeatures were recovered from rectangular pit [31] (138 sherds), flint platform[50]=[51] (86 sherds), and deposit (151) (68 sherds).A summary of the pottery by feature type is provided in Table 6. A summary of theassemblage by context and pottery periods is included in Appendix 3, togetherwith suggested spot dates.

Feature Type No Wt/g MNVBeam-slot or bedding trench 24 156 12Rectangular pit 138 571 98Other pits 6 20 5Pit/post-pit 2 3 1Post-pit 1 14 1Post-holes 12 31 7Ditch 73 533 41Ditch/gully 26 145 17Ditch terminus or pit 13 65 9Linear feature 37 533 21Curvilinear feature 54 410 38Elongated feature 98 1062 53Irregular feature 33 201 14Flint platform 86 411 55Layer (deposit) 123 1016 61‘Dark deposit’ 57 418 28Unstratified 77 363 54

Table 6. Pottery by feature type

6.3.5 Statement of potentialThis is a large assemblage of broadly 11th–12th-century date, with some elementsthat suggest it continued into the early 13th century. No developed rim forms arepresent in the LMU assemblage, and the range of glazed wares is limited with onlyone sherd from Grimston, probably indicating that the site ended before this warewas ubiquitous. It shows some unusual traits for a rural site, containing at least

32

two imported vessels of broadly 10th–13th-century date, several spouted pitchersand very few bowls. Most of the identifiable vessels are jars, however, as is typicalof this period, and most can be paralleled in the Norwich corpus.The presence of a number of spouted pitchers may indicate specialist activity onthe site in the 11th/12th centuries. Some of these vessels will require illustrating.Spatial distribution of the pottery may be of value in determining the use anddisposal of this material across the site, particularly as a number of vessels werescattered across several contexts.Study of the pottery by site phase may provide information on residuality, whichwill be of value for other specialist analyses. A high proportion of the assemblageis abraded, although this may be related to the softness of the fabrics or perhapsto the composition or acidity of the soil.The potential of this assemblage is to provide evidence for dating and phasing ofthe site; pottery use, consumption and possibly manufacture; trade links bothwithin and outside East Anglia; and possibly status of the occupants.

6.4 Ceramic building material and fired clayby Sue Anderson6.4.1 IntroductionFifty fragments (5483g) of ceramic building material (cbm) were recovered from 19contexts (Appendix 4). Thirteen fragments of fired clay (84g) were found in sevencontexts (Appendix 5). A high proportion of the assemblage was abraded andsurfaces were lost, making identification of forms difficult.6.4.2 MethodologyThe assemblage was quantified (count and weight) by fabric and form. Fabricswere identified on the basis of macroscopic appearance and main inclusions. Thewidth, length and thickness of bricks and floor tiles were measured, but roof tilethicknesses were only measured when another dimension was available. Romanforms were identified with the aid of Brodribb (1987). The presence of burning,combing, finger marks and other surface treatments was recorded. Roman tilethicknesses were measured and for flanged tegulae the form of flange was notedand its width and external height were measured. Post-Roman forms wereidentified from work in Norwich (Drury 1993), based on measurements; other formterminology follows Brunskill’s glossary (1990).6.4.3 Ceramic building materialTable 7 shows the quantification by type and form.

Type Form Code No Wt (g)Roman Roman tile RBT 19 2753

Roman tile? RBT? 2 287Roman tile or late brick RBT/LB 9 1745Flanged tegula FLT 4 283Flanged tegula? FLT? 1 16

Roofing Plain roof tile? RT? 1 12Plain roof tile: medieval? RTM? 2 56

33

Type Form Code No Wt (g)Plain roof tile: post-medieval RTP 3 75Plain roof tile: post-medieval? RTP? 2 35Pantile PAN 1 14

Walling Late brick LB 2 167Flooring Floor brick? FB? 1 30Unknown Unidentified UN 3 10Total 50 5483

Table 7. Ceramic building material by type and form

Most of the assemblage comprises material of Roman date or possible Romandate. This material was recovered from 17 contexts, some in association with latermaterial. Most pieces are unidentifiable to specific form (RBT), but there are atleast three flanged tegulae (FLT), one with a surviving flange and one with anupper cutaway; the third was possibly a flake from a flange. One fragment may bea piece of box flue tile as it appears to have the remains of a cut-out on the brokenedge.Thickness measurements were made for 20 of the tiles recorded as RBT orRBT/LB, and it may be possible to suggest functions for some of these at theanalysis stage. They vary between 19–57mm and probably include further flangedtegulae and some wall or floor bricks. Fabrics are generally moderately sandy in afine clay matrix with flint and clay pellets being the most common inclusions. Firingis variable, with both soft and hard examples present. Most East Anglian Romantile assemblages include fine and medium sandy fabrics which may be either softor hard, and most sites generally produce a range of these. Most of the uncertainfragments (RNT/LB) came from cobbled surface [56] and hollow [298] fill (289). Allare more than 50mm thick and one appears to have a width of 110mm, although itis not clear if the indentation on one broken edge is really the beginning of the sideor just a depression in the surface.Plain roofing tile makes up only a small proportion of the assemblage, and it ispossible that some fragments could be thin Roman tiles. No nibs or peg holes canbe identified. Two fragments may be medieval roof tiles in medium sandy fabrics.Two fragments from deposit (289) are certainly post-medieval. One fragment of apantile was also recovered, from ditch fill (139).Only two fragments can be positively identified as ‘late brick’, both from hollow[298] fill (289), in medium sandy fabrics with ferrous tempering. This type has abroad date range of 16th–19th centuries (Drury 1993). A small fragment in a white-firing fabric from the same context is probably a piece of floor brick.Three small abraded flakes are unidentifiable.6.4.3.1 Provenance

Table 8 shows the quantities of cbm recovered by feature/context type.Cut Type No Wt/gRectangular pit 7 554Ditch 6 532Elongate feature 7 992Flintwork 13 1751

34

Cut Type No Wt/gLayer 11 1397Dark deposits 4 222U/S finds 2 35

Table 8. Ceramic building material by context type

The site is well stratified and much of the material is derived from sealed contexts.Pottery and other dating evidence may prove useful in suggesting dates forparticular cbm fabrics and forms. No phasing or grouping information wasavailable at the time of assessment.6.4.4 Fired clayThe small assemblage of fired clay includes two much abraded pieces in a finesandy fabric, which could be cbm (unstratified finds (8)).There are five thick fragments in a fine sandy fabric with ferrous inclusions fromfills (61) and (88) of the sub-circular depression [87] and ditch [122] fill (124).These lumps are thinly oxidised on the surfaces with a black core, and are roughlysmoothed and flattish on two of the surfaces. They are too small and abraded todetermine a function, although they appear similar to fragments of large prehistoricloom weights and could be from similarly shaped objects. As they are more likelyto be medieval in date, given their context, they may be fragments of kiln furnitureor props used in an ‘industrial’ process.The other six fragments are in fine sandy orange fabrics with chalk inclusions andwere recovered from elongate feature [148] fill (149), cut [156] fill (157) and layer(154). Pieces like this are relatively common on medieval sites and are probablypieces of oven dome. All are abraded with no distinguishing features.6.4.5 Statement of potentialFurther work will be required to complete the cbm analysis once final phasing andgrouping information is available. However, the assemblage is small and it canprovide little information about nearby structures. Its main potential is to provideinformation on the range of fabrics and forms available in the various periods inthis parish, and to aid in site taphonomy and dating.This report provides an outline of the cbm and fired clay types present in theassemblage, but the material has not yet been placed in context, either within thesite itself or within the broader historic environment of the region.Three-dimensional spatial distribution of cbm fabrics and forms in features andstructures will be important in studying the taphonomy of the site, and in providinginformation relevant to the study of social status and land-use. Comparison of theassemblage with other large groups of cbm from the region will be possible.

6.5 Metalworkby Rebecca Sillwood6.5.1 Introduction

Feature Type Metal QtyRectangular pit Copper alloy 2

35

Feature Type Metal QtyIron 1

Ditch Iron 4Unstratified Iron 3Beam slot or bedding trench Iron 1Flint platform Iron 1Dark deposits Iron 1Elongated feature Lead 1Terminus of elongated feature Lead 1Total 15

Table 9. Metalwork by feature type

Fifteen metal objects and fragments were recovered from the excavations at StokeHoly Cross. These are quantified by feature type and material in Table 9.6.5.2 IronEleven objects of iron were recovered from the site. Five of the objects are nails,which cannot be dated closely, although it is possible that they may be of medievaldate as some were found in association with medieval pottery. In addition, twohorseshoe nails were found. These are small examples and are likely to be of‘fiddle-key’-type (Clark, 2004, 86, fig. 64). Both of the small nails measure 19mmacross the semi-circular head, and whilst one has a broken shank the secondmeasures 24mm long. There is a good possibility that the horseshoe nails aremedieval in date; they were recovered unstratified (3) and from a ditch [122] fill(124) of probable medieval date.

Object Type Context Qty

Nails Unstratified (3), beam slot (18), flint platform (90), darkdeposit (159)

5

Horseshoe nail Unstratified (3), ditch (124) 2

Sickle Ditch (280) 2

Knife Ditch (124) 1

Object/nail Rectangular pit (113) 1

Total 11

Table 10. Iron by object type and context

A large, incomplete sickle, in two pieces, was recovered from ditch [279] fill (280).The tip of the blade is missing, but the object measures c. 280mm long from theend of the tang to the broken edge of the blade. The tang is of rectangular sectionand the blade is at almost 90º to it, with the width of the blade (at widest) 42mm.Similar examples have been found in Norwich, usually dated to the medieval–earlypost-medieval periods (Margeson 1993, 194, fig.145, nos 1521–6).A whittle tang knife was found in ditch [122] fill (124). The piece is incomplete,missing its tip, but the surviving blade measures 132mm long by 20mm wide. Theblade is quite thin, and could be a leather-working knife (Margeson 1993, 190,fig.141), although this is difficult to substantiate given the missing blade tip and the

36

degree of corrosion present. Knives were a varied and ubiquitous form of tool, andcould have been used in many spheres of work, and domestically. Pottery from(124) has been spot dated to the 11th–12th century, and two knives illustrated byMargeson (1993, 190, fig.141), which date to this period (nos 1469 and 1471), arevery similar to the Stoke Holy Cross example.One iron object was an unidentified piece, which came from rectangular pit [31] fill(113). The object would benefit from x-ray as no distinctive features can be seenon it.6.5.3 Copper alloyA single object of copper alloy was recovered, a rough, simple strap end, in twopieces. It was recovered from the fill (98) of rectangular pit [31]. The objectconsists of a thin rectangular strip that would have been folded in two to form thestrap end, although this has now broken into two pieces at the weakened curvededge. One side retains four very roughly made holes to take the (now missing)rivets to secure the strap in place. The piece is likely to be medieval and wasfound in association with pottery of 12th–13th-century date.6.5.4 LeadTwo strips of lead were found. A probable offcut was recovered from beddingtrench [106] fill (107), and a rougher piece was recovered from feature [262] fill(277). Both of these fragments are undatable, but were found in features ofprobable medieval date.6.5.5 Statement of potentialThe metal assemblage from Stoke Holy Cross is small, consists mainly ofironwork, and is broadly medieval in character. The sickle represents agriculture orpossibly horticulture in the area. The knife displays similarities with 11th–12th-century leather-working tools. Knives served many purposes across manyhistorical periods and as it is incomplete, it is difficult to be certain what its exactpurpose was. Nails from horseshoes of medieval date may also imply agriculturelocally, and these may have come from a working horse.The metalwork derived largely from stratified contexts and can aid dating of thesite. Almost all of the metal was found alongside medieval pottery that can bedated relatively securely.Analysis at assessment stage has concluded all useful comparative and datingwork on the metalwork assemblage. It is largely unremarkable, and whilst it canhelp support interpretations of date and function at the excavation site, noadditional work is considered necessary.

6.6 Metal-working wasteby Rebecca Sillwood6.6.1 SlagA single piece of undiagnostic iron slag (67g) was recovered from ditch [122] fill(124). A single piece of slag cannot be taken as evidence for metal-working in thearea. It is assumed to be a stray find.

37

6.6.2 Statement of potentialThe one piece of slag from the excavation is of little value in assistinginterpretations of function or economy at the site and holds no potential for furtherstudy.

6.7 Stoneby Rebecca Sillwood6.7.1 IntroductionA total of 127 pieces of stone was recovered from the site, weighing 15,313g. Allbut seven pieces were fragments of lava, probably from quernstones. Six pieceswere of schist, and probably represent two honestones. One piece of Millstone Gritsandstone was also found.6.7.2 LavaFragments of lava were recovered from 18 contexts: fills of the rectangular pit (91)and of a second pit (242) beneath it, the hollow or depression (61), (88), a ditch(223), a post-pit (63), a post-hole (213), contexts associated with the flint features(52), (55), (90), (179), and with the elongate feature (36), (109), (159), as well asseveral other deposits (151), (155), (183).It is likely that the lava fragments were all pieces of quernstone, although most areabraded and formless with no grinding surfaces visible. One or two larger piecesare clearly shaped as querns, although these too are abraded and missing theirgrinding surfaces. No central holes are present (though these are not crucial toidentification), and no dimensions have been taken from these pieces.Lava was imported into England from the Rhineland region of Germany from thelater Iron Age through to c. AD 1500 (Buckley 2014), with a hiatus in the EarlySaxon period. After c. 1500, Millstone Grit became more commonly used forgrinding, as it became less expensive to use more local stone than to import lavafrom the continent.6.7.3 Millstone GritA single piece of Millstone Grit (544g) was recovered from unstratified context (90)in the area of flint platform [51]. The piece is irregularly shaped and missing anygrinding surfaces, although it was clearly intended as a quernstone.Millstone Grit was used from the later medieval period onwards, but also in thelater Iron Age and Roman periods. Here, it was found in association with lavafragments, and it is therefore taken that the two different stone types were beingused contemporaneously.6.7.4 SchistSix pieces of schist were recovered from the excavations. Three pieces of palegrey Norwegian ragstone schist (30g) were found in a deposit (264) sealing post-holes [265] and [267]. All of the pieces are worn and incomplete. Two smallerpieces may fit together, but do not appear to fit to the largest piece, which has onerough, but apparently complete end. It is likely that the pieces derive from ahonestone, which would have been roughly rectangular, but is too fragmentary tomeasure.

38

Three further elongated angular fragments of stone were found in rectangular pit[31] fill (91). These fragments are greenish grey brown and are probably a schist-type stone, although the source has not currently been determined. Two piecesare conjoining, and some smoothed surfaces are visible. The fragments are likelyto be from a honestone.6.7.5 Statement of potentialThe stone from the site at Stoke Holy Cross is informative, the quantity of lavaquernstone fragments inferring a level of agricultural processing or light industrialactivity at the site or close by. Smith and Margeson note that lava quernsrecovered from Norwich ‘were almost certainly not used for producing flour’ (1993,202) due to tight regulation of milling during the medieval period. It is suggested inthe case of the Norwich examples that they were associated with small-scalebrewing. At Alms Lane in Norwich (NHER 302), the brewing process included clay-lined pits and ovens. The evidence for brewing activity at Stoke Holy Cross issparse, and interpretations need further refining, with more soil samplesprocessed to provide additional information on the types of environmental materialcontained in the archaeological features.It is equally possible that the fragments of quern are from domestic contexts. Thenumber of fragments recovered does not necessarily correlate with the number ofindividual querns in use, as a single large quern, consisting of two halves, couldfragment into many pieces. The worn nature of the assemblage does imply acertain amount of use and fragmentation, but it seems peculiar that the fragmentsshould be spread over many different features.The lava querns are thus of significant interest to interpretations of activity at theexcavation site. Additional research work is appropriate to explore, in conjunctionwith results from environmental soil samples, whether brewing was taking place atthe site, or whether the querns were associated with other uses.The two honestones are both made from types of schist, and could have beenused in a domestic or light industrial setting to sharpen many different kinds ofedged tools. There is limited potential for further study of the hones.

6.8 Flintby Rebecca Sillwood6.8.1 Worked flintNine fragments of worked flint, weighing 56g, were recovered from five contexts:the elongate feature (36), (159), a ditch (281), one of the flint surfaces (56) and adeposit (155).The flint assemblage consists largely of debitage flakes, although some may berelated to the dressing of flint used in the platforms and surfaces recorded at thesite, and therefore not of prehistoric date.6.8.2 Statement of potentialThe assemblage of flint is small and possesses little relevance to the dating of thesite or in describing prehistoric activity in the locality: the excavations are notconsidered to contain a significant prehistoric component and the flint has limitedoverall potential. This aside, discussion by a flint specialist is required to confirm

39

the origin of the flint and for completeness of both the archive and publicationreports.

6.9 Animal boneby Julie Curl6.9.1 MethodologyThe bone in the assemblage consisted of hand-collected remains. All of the bonewas identified to species wherever possible using a variety of comparativereference material. Where a complete identification to species was not possible,bone was assigned to a group, such as ‘sheep/goat’ or ‘mammal’ wheneverpossible. The bones were recorded using a modified version of guidelinesdescribed in Davis (1992).Butchery marks were recorded, noting the type of butchering, such as cut,chopped or sawn and the location. A note was also made of burnt bone.Pathologies were recorded with the type of injury or disease, the element affectedand the location on the bone. Other modifications were also recorded, such as anypossible industrial or craft working waste or animal gnawing. Measurements werenot taken from material in this assemblage as there were no suitable elementsavailable.Weights and total number of pieces counts were recorded for each context, alongwith the number of pieces for each individual species present (NISP); these arelisted in the appendix. All of the information was entered into a Microsoft Excelcatalogue. A summary table of the faunal catalogue is in Appendix 6 and the fullcatalogue is available in the archive.6.9.2 Faunal assemblageA total of 1,842g of bone, consisting of 253 pieces, was found during theexcavations. Remains were recovered from 23 deposits, many of which containedartefacts of medieval date. Some of the bone was found in features with (residual)Roman-period finds, and some in post-medieval deposits; one group of bones wasrecorded amongst unstratified finds of uncertain date.The condition of the bone was generally quite poor. The assemblage was quiteheavily fragmented and showed a good deal of wear on many fragments anderosion of the bone surfaces. Some cracking and flaking of bone was seen, whichwould suggest that these remains had probably been exposed to weathering forsome time before burial. The mixed date of some features would suggest a degreeof disturbance from the original place of deposition and residual finds.Canid gnawing was noted on bone in deposits (151) and (155). The gnawing wasonly seen on good quality meat-bearing bones, which had been butchered,suggesting that bones from meat waste was given to domestic dogs as part oftheir diet.6.9.3 Species range, modifications and discussionSix species were seen in the assemblage. The most frequent were cattle, whichwere found in nine fills. Equids were seen in four fills, and sheep/goat in twodeposits. Single deposits produced small amounts of bone from pig/boar, smallmammal (small dog/fox) and fowl (chicken/pheasant).

40

The cattle elements were varied; most were butchered and suggest a range ofmeat waste. Similarly, the sheep/goat remains included scapula and limb bonesthat had been butchered. The pig/boar humerus had also been chopped and cut.For the equid, there were teeth, a metapodial and a tibia. The equid distal tibiafrom deposit (155) showed two parallel knife cuts close to the distal articular end ofthe bone, which suggests skinning or perhaps removal of meat. Normally, skinningcuts would be expected on the lower limb bones or foot bones, but it is possiblethat these cuts were from another method of skinning. It is quite possible that theequid had been utilised for meat, either for human consumption or for food fordogs, and these cuts may be from meat removal.Fowl bones were discovered in the medieval feature [262] fill (277), consisting of afemur and tibiotarsus from a fairly small (female?) individual; the tibiotarsus hadbeen cut, attesting to the use of this bird for meat.One small mammal bone was recovered with artefacts dating to the medievalperiod; this bone is a radius from either a fox or small dog. Interestingly, the boneshows a probable knife cut, which might suggest a skinned fox, although a smalldog cannot be ruled out.

Context

Species and NISP

Context Total

Bird

-Fo

wl

Cat

tle

Equi

d

Mam

mal

Pig/

boar

Shee

p/go

at SM

5 8 8

6 4 4

18 1 16 17

52 1 4 5

78 1 1

88 4 4

89 5 2 17 24

90 5 37 42

107 3 3

120 4 1 5

124 8 8

139 1 5 6

151 1 9 3 2 15

155 1 3 1 5

157 1 1

170 7 7

219 2 15 17

223 3 11 14

232 2 2

41

Context

Species and NISP

Context Total

277 3 3 6

278 1 5 51 57

289 2 2

Species Total 3 19 11 213 1 4 2 253

Table 11. Quantification of animal bone by context, species and NISP

6.9.4 Statement of potentialThis is a small assemblage of quite poor condition. The remains are of a varieddate range and there is the probability at least some represent residual finds. Theremains consist largely of a range of primary and secondary food and butcheringwaste from the main meat-producing mammals and a bird.It is interesting that the equid and small canid remains have also been butchered.It is conceivable that these animals were only butchered for skins, but it is equallypossible that they were used for meat. This was not necessarily for humanconsumption (although this cannot be ruled out), but perhaps for feeding domesticor working dogs, a practice seen at other medieval or later sites (Wilson andEdwards, 1993), particularly where hunting dogs were kept.Assessment of the animal bone assemblage has concluded all useful study of it.The faunal remains illustrate a level of ‘background’ or incidental activity at thesite, but have little further potential for study. An exception to this would be theretrieval of animal bone fragments from processing environmental soil samples,which would warrant brief assessment and inclusion in the archive and publicationreports.

6.10 Environmental evidenceby Val Fryer6.10.1 IntroductionThe excavations recorded a number of features of probable medieval date, someof which appeared to be associated with a working or processing area. As theprecise nature of these features was not clearly understood, two samples for theevaluation of the content and preservation of plant macrofossil assemblages weresubmitted for assessment with the aim that any remains recovered might providepertinent data.The samples were processed by manual water flotation/washover and the flotswere collected in a 300 micron mesh sieve. The dried flots were scanned under abinocular microscope at magnifications up to x16 and the plant macrofossils andother remains noted are tabulated in Appendix 7. Nomenclature in the tablefollows Stace (1997). All plant remains were charred. Modern roots and fungalsclerotia were also recorded.The non-floating residues were collected in a 1mm mesh sieve and will be sortedwhen dry. Any artefacts/ecofacts will be removed for further specialist analysis.

42

6.10.2 ResultsCereal grains and seeds were noted at a low to moderate density within bothassemblages. Preservation was generally quite poor, with many of the grainsbeing severely puffed and distorted, probably as a result of combustion at veryhigh temperatures.Oat (Avena sp.), barley (Hordeum sp.) and wheat (Triticum sp.) grains wererecorded, although most cereals were too poorly preserved for close identification.Chaff was exceedingly scarce, but bread wheat (T. aestivum/compactum) -typerachis nodes were noted in the assemblage from dark deposit (61) sample <1>.Sample <2>, from feature [152] fill (153), also included a large, angular cotyledonof probable field bean (Vicia faba) -type along with a fragment of a further largelegume (Fabaceae). Weed seeds were scarce, probably as a result of the hightemperatures at which the material was burnt. However, both assemblagescontained indeterminate small legumes, and sample <2> also included a possiblemedick/clover/trefoil (Medicago/Trifolium/Lotus sp.) -type seed and part of aShepherd’s Needle (Scandix pecten-veneris) seed. Charcoal/charred woodfragments were also present within both assemblages along with numerous piecesof charred root, rhizome or stem, including fragments of heather (Ericaceae) stem.Both assemblages contained numerous fragments of burnt or fired clay, withevidence for both oxidation and reduction during firing. Other remains occurredless frequently, although both samples included concretions of what appeared tobe either burnt or mineralised soil. These were very hard and gritty and, judging bythe light rusty orange colour, possibly had some ferrous content, although thelatter could be natural. Small coal fragments (coal ‘dust’) were also present withinboth assemblages, but it was thought most likely that these were intrusive withinthe feature fills.6.10.3 Statement of potentialIt would appear most likely that the recovered environmental remains are derivedfrom waste from a hearth, oven, or similar structure, which employed very hightemperatures of combustion. Heather was often used as kindling or fuel withinsuch contexts as it ignited easily and maintained an even, high temperaturethroughout combustion. It is currently unclear whether the cereals identified arealso derived from the use of processing waste as tinder/kindling, or whether theyare a residue of an activity occurring within the possible hearth or oven features(i.e. cereal drying or food preparation). It is possibly of note that medieval ovenswere generally multi-functional, being used for a range of both domestic and lightindustrial purposes.The samples from the site at Long Lane offer a rare opportunity to study the plantmacrofossil assemblages from what may be a single medieval toft. The results ofthe environmental assemblages have the potential to inform interpretations of themain features at the excavation site and to elucidate the key activities occurringthere. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that all remaining samples taken fromthe excavation are processed and assessed in order that the results can beassimilated into the site archive and publication report.

43

7.0 UPDATED PROJECT DESIGN

7.1 IntroductionThis Updated Project Design is based on the results of the assessment and setsout the general aims of the post-excavation programme with revised researchobjectives. It also presents a publication proposal that indicates how and wherethe project’s results should be published. This is followed by a breakdown of theindividual tasks required to bring this project to completion.

7.2 Original aimsThe original aims of the project were to:

establish the presence of archaeological remains within the proposed area

determine the extent, condition, nature, quality and date of anyarchaeological deposits

ensure that any archaeological features discovered were identified,sampled and recorded

establish, as far as possible, the extent, character, stratigraphic sequenceand date of archaeological features and deposits, and the nature of theactivities which occurred at the site during the various periods or phases ofits occupation

determine the spatial and temporal organisation within all periods of activity

explore evidence for social and economic activity

establish the palaeoenvironmental potential of subsurface deposits byensuring that any deposits with the potential to providepalaeoenvironmental data were sampled and submitted for assessment tothe appropriate specialist

define the position of the site within the local archaeological andtopographical environment

present the archaeological data recovered by the excavation in the form ofan archive report that will provide the basis for the synthetic summary of theresults to be published at an appropriate level.

7.3 Original objectivesThe original objectives of this project were to recover information relating to theextent, date, phasing, character, function, status and significance of the survivingarchaeological deposits within the development area.

7.4 Revised research objectivesFollowing assessment of the evidence assembled during the project, it is nowpossible to set out revised research objectives with an emphasis on agriculturaland pastoral settlements. These objectives are based on research aims for theEast of England set out in Research and Archaeology Revisited: a revised

44

framework for the East of England (Medlycott 2011). With reference to thisframework, the key research objectives will be shaped by:Saxo-Norman periodRural landscapes and settlementsMedlycott (2011, 58) presents the following research topics:The region would benefit from a detailed study of the changes in settlement types and forms overtime during the early, middle and late Anglo-Saxon periods, highlighting some of the distinctivechanges which take place. This also needs to be considered on a broader scale, particularly withreference to the way that Anglo-Saxon settlements and organisation of the landscape influencedthe medieval landscape. The extent and nature of late Anglo-Saxon landscape reorganisation,village nucleation, field systems etc., needs further exploration.

Are there regional or landscape-related variations in settlement location, density or type?

The development of Anglo- Saxon fieldscapes needs further investigation. How far can the sizeand shape of fields be related to the agricultural regimes identified? To what extent are Roman fieldsystems re-used? What is the evidence for open field systems in the region in the Anglo-Saxonperiod? (Medlycott 2011)

Medieval periodRural settlementMedlycott (2011, 70) presents the following research topics:The origins and development of the different rural settlement types need further research, also thedynamics of medieval settlement. Much of the region has primarily a dispersed pattern, notnucleated, and more small hamlets are being discovered all the time. More data will add to ourunderstanding of the way places appear, grow, shift and disappear. (Medlycott 2011)

It is proposed to explore the following specific themed research objectives:

characterise early medieval and medieval structures at the site and theactivities that were undertaken

determine the spatial and temporal organisation of the site throughout theearly medieval period

identify the economic and environmental life of the site through analysis ofplant macrofossils and charred remains

review documentary evidence to determine ownership and if possiblerecorded activities at the site at Domesday and later in the medieval period.

define common edge activity at Stoke Holy Cross with research in fieldpatterns such as parallel strips, fields perpendicular to roads, commons orheaths

determine the position and significance of the site within its local, regionaland if appropriate national environment

submit this research for publication in the Norfolk county journal NorfolkArchaeology.

7.5 Context and stratigraphic analysisProvisional stratigraphic matrices have been prepared for the site. During the post-excavation phase of the project, contexts will be grouped and phased using the

45

Harris Matrix composer program. This will allow integration and concordance withfurther analysis of finds assemblages, most notably the ceramics.All artefact and environmental data will be fully synthesised with the contextinformation and a detailed descriptive text produced for inclusion in the archivereport. The descriptive text will form the basis for a summary to be presented in apublished report.Thesaurus of monument typesThe definitions for the archaeological features observed and recorded during thestrip, map and sample excavations can be assigned with varying levels ofcertainty. Terminology is based on the Thesaurus of Monument Types A Standardfor Use in Archaeological and Architectural Records published by RoyalCommission on the Historical Monuments of England and English Heritage(RCHME, 1995).The classification of monument types lists all the preferred terms belonging to theclass. For the purpose of this report the class definition comes under theclassification of ‘DOMESTIC’.The Class Definition as stated by RCHME for ‘DOMESTIC’:Single dwellings or groups of dwellings for permanent, seasonal or temporary habitation togetherwith related ancillary buildings, structures or features associated with occupation. This groupingincludes commercial, military or religious sites. It includes housing associated with industrial andtransport workers. Where industrial activity may often be carried out in such premises the termsalso appear in the industrial class (RCHME, 1995).

The Class Definition for the site’s location in relation to known heritage assetscomes under the classification of ‘LINEAR SETTLEMENT’:A group of related buildings, primarily with a domestic function, which is arranged along a principleaxis such as a main road or routeway (RCHME, 1995).

7.6 Archaeological finds analysis7.6.1 PotteryThe assemblage has already been fully recorded and no further cataloguing isrequired. This report provides an outline of the pottery types present in theassemblage, but the material has not yet been placed in context, either within thesite itself or within the broader historic environment of the region. In addition, moredetailed descriptions of the fabrics of the medieval coarsewares and the EMSWfrom this site would be beneficial, and more work is needed to identify the cross-fits and distribution of individual vessels across the site.Completion of the following tasks will produce a report suitable for archive and/orpublication:

Spatial and temporal analysis

Comparison with contemporary pottery assemblages from other rural sites

Selection of up to five vessels for illustration

46

7.6.2 Ceramic building materialThe assemblage has been recorded in full and no further cataloguing is required.The cbm needs to be put into context with relation to site phasing and spatialdistribution.7.6.3 MetalworkThe metal finds from the site are fully recorded and require no further work.7.6.4 Metal-working wasteThe slag is of limited value, fully recorded, and requires no further work.7.6.5 StoneFurther work is required on the lava quern assemblage. Additional research isneeded, along with incorporation of data from other material elements from theexcavations, such as environmental samples. If the site is producing evidence foreither brewing or milling this is an important addition to the corpus of such knownsites in the county.The two honestones require no further work.7.6.6 FlintAlthough the assemblage is small, full recording and discussion by a relevantspecialist is required for the archive and publication reports.7.6.7 Animal boneThere is little additional information that could be retrieved from further study of thecurrent assemblage, and no further work is recommended. However, any materialrecovered from environmental samples might require further work and this isaccounted for in Table 14, Section 7.10.2 of this report.

7.7 Environmental analysisThe assessment of select samples identified the survival of plant macrofossils inthe archaeological record. It is considered imperative for any meaningfulunderstanding of activity at the site that a comprehensive regime of environmentalanalysis is undertaken based on the environmental bulk samples recovered duringthe fieldwork stage. The results of this work will form a key informative element offuture analysis.

7.8 Publication proposal7.8.1 Archive reportIt is proposed that an archive report will be prepared containing the followingsections:

IntroductionGeology and topography, archaeological and historical backgroundIntegrated evaluation and excavation resultsArchaeological findsEnvironmental evidence

47

DiscussionConclusionsAppendices

Illustrations will accompany the report including:Site location figuresInterpretative figure(s)Plans of key featuresSection drawingsPlates of key features

7.8.2 Publication reportIt is proposed that a report on the findings from the site be published in the journalNorfolk Archaeology.It is envisaged the published report will consist of c. 10,000 words and c. 8 pagesof illustrations and plates. It will contain the following:

SummaryIntroductionGeology, topography, archaeological and historical background, site locationSynthesis of evaluation and phased excavation resultsArchaeological finds, ecofacts and environmental evidenceDiscussionConclusion

It is proposed that the published report will contain the following illustrations:Site location figuresInterpretative figure(s)Plans of key featuresSection drawingsPlates of key features

7.9 Storage, curation and conservationThe intended recipient of the archaeological finds is Norfolk Museums Service(NMS), subject to agreement with the landowner. The artefacts and ecofacts willbe packaged according to NMS specifications, following guidelines in theChartered Institute for Archaeologists’ Standard and guidance for the creation,compilation, transfer and deposition of archaeological archives (2014).

48

7.10 Resources and programmingIt is proposed that a post-excavation programme will be undertaken by a projectteam led by a Project Officer responsible for implementation of the UpdatedProject Design.Elements of the programme will be delegated to nominated staff. The work of eachteam member will be scheduled and co-ordinated by the Project Officer. To ensurecompletion of the project to agreed performance targets, monitoring of the projectwill be carried out by a member of the NPS Archaeology senior management, whowill also provide advice and support to the Project Officer.7.10.1 StaffThe project team will consist of NPS Archaeology staff and external specialists.Staff Initials Role

David Adams DA Project Manager (Post-Excavation)

John Ames JA Project Officer

Sue Anderson SA External specialist (post-Roman pottery and ceramic)s

Sarah Bates SB External specialist (worked flint)

Jayne Bown JB Archaeology Manager

Andrew Crowson AC Editor

Julie Curl JC Faunal remains

David Dobson DD Senior Illustrator

Val Fryer VF Plant macrofossils

Norfolk MuseumsService NMS Conservation department (x-ray, cleaning and preservation of

finds)

Rebecca Sillwood RS Finds Officer

Table 12. Staff list

7.10.2 Analysis, archive, publication tasksTask Task Description Days Staff

Stratigraphic Analysis

1Final analysis and concordance of contexts, refining grouping of sitedata, integration of stratigraphic matrices and preparation of stratigraphicdescriptions

5 JA

Archive report2 Process monochrome 35mm films. Compilation of photographic archive 1 JA

3 Cross-checking and final preparation of archive 1 JA

4 Consultation of available cartographic and documentary sources 1 JA

5 Research to examine potential industrial activities at the site, includingfulling and brewing 1 JA

49

6 Research of historic land division in Stoke Holy Cross with regard tomedieval settlement, tenement and field patterns 2 JA

7 Research and reporting on medieval pottery in the context of the site 2 SA

8 Research and report to place the ceramic building material in the contextof the site 0.5 SA

9 Research and report to place the stone in the context of the site 1 RS

10 Research and report to place the flint in the context of the site 0.25 SB

11 Processing and reporting on bulk soil samples 3 VF

12 Analysis and report of faunal remains (and any other artefacts) fromenvironmental samples <1>-<7> 1 JC

13 Descriptive text and discussion; integration of research and specialistreports 1 JA

14 Digitising/scanning of site drawings 2 JA

15 Graphics: illustration, additional figures (to incorporate geophysics, trialtrenching, HER data and interpretive drawings); amendments 1 DD

16 Internal edit 1 AC

17 Review/sign off 0.5 DA

18 Report production 0.5 AC

19 Submission to NHES and client 1 JB

Publication report20 Tasks 4–18 will be incorporated into the publication report JA

21 Preparation of a report to be published in Norfolk Archaeology; thejournal of the local historical and archaeological society 5 JA

22 Adaptation of graphics already produced and any new drawings 1 DD

23 Internal edit 1 AC

24 Review/sign off 0.5 DA

25 Report production 1 DD

26 Submission to Norfolk Archaeology, NHES and client 0.5 JB

Archive27 Preparation and submission of archive to Norfolk Museums Service 1 RS

Table 13. Analysis tasks description

50

AcknowledgementsNPS Archaeology are grateful to Hopkins Homes Ltd for commissioning andfunding the archaeological project. The author wishes to thank Dan Watts ofHopkins Homes Ltd for his help and support during and after the archaeologicalexcavations and Mr Kidner for providing access to the land.Sam Harrison and field staff of West Yorkshire Archaeological Service undertookthe geophysical survey.Machining of the excavation area was undertaken by John Harris and Paddy Lakeof Anglian Plant Ltd. Thanks are given to the staff of NPS Archaeology, PaulBeers, Stuart Calow, Tom Baxter-Campbell and Holly Payne, for their relentlesswork in the field, often in extremely difficult conditions.Thanks are offered to James Albone of Norfolk Historic Environment Service forhis advice and support throughout the project.Thanks are given to Rebecca Sillwood and Louise Weetman of NPS Archaeologyfor cleaning and cataloguing the archaeological finds, reporting on the metalobjects and waste, and the stone and flint, for liaising with external specialists, andfor correlating the specialist reports. Jayne Bown and David Adams commentedon drafts of the text.Sue Anderson is thanked for assessing the post-Roman pottery, ceramic buildingmaterial and fired clay. Thanks to Julie Curl for reporting on the animal bone. RobFryer processed the environmental samples and Val Fryer analysed the plantmacrofossils and other charred remains.Digitising of the site plans was undertaken by the author, which were formatted byDavid Dobson.This report was illustrated by David Dobson and edited by Andrew Crowson.

51

Bibliography and SourcesAtkin, M. 1985 ‘Medieval and later industry’ in Atkin, M., Carter, A. and

Evans, D.H. Excavations in Norwich 1971–1978, Part II.East Anglian Archaeology 26

Barringer, J.C. 1989 Faden’s Map of Norfolk. Guist Bottom: Larks Press

Brodribb, G. 1987 Roman Brick and Tile. Gloucester: Alan Sutton

Brown, N. and Glazebrook,J. (eds)

2000 Research and Archaeology: a Framework for the EasternCounties, 2. Research Agenda and Strategy. East AnglianArchaeology Occasional Paper 8

Brunskill, R.W. 1990 Brick Building in Britain. London: Victor Gollancz

Buckley, D. 2014 ‘Quernstones and millstones’ in Ashwin, T. and Tester, A.A Romano-British Settlement in the Waveney Valley:Excavations at Scole, 1993–4. East Anglian Archaeology152, 383–6

Chartered Institute forArchaeologists

2014 Standard and guidance for the creation, compilation,transfer and deposition of archaeological archives. CIfAStandards document

Clark, J. (ed.) 2004 The Medieval Horse and its Equipment c. 1150–c. 1450.Martlesham: Boydell Press

Davis, S. 1992 A Rapid Method For Recording Information AboutMammal Bones From Archaeological Sites. EnglishHeritage AML Report 71/92

Department forCommunities and LocalGovernment

2010 Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the HistoricEnvironment

Drury, P. 1993 ‘Ceramic building materials’, in Margeson, S., NorwichHouseholds. East Anglian Archaeology 58, 163–8

English Heritage 2006 Management of Research Projects in the HistoricEnvironmental. English Heritage

Evans, J. and O’Connor, T. 1999 Environmental Archaeology. Principles and Methods

Glazebrook, J. 1997 Research and Archaeology: a Framework for the EasternCounties. 1. Resource Assessment. East AnglianArchaeology Occasional Paper 3

Harrison, S. 2013 Land at Long Lane, Stoke Holy Cross, Norfolk:Geophysical Survey Archaeological Services WYAS.Report 2450 (unpublished)

Hillson, S. 1992 Mammal bones and teeth. The Institute of Archaeology,University College, London

Margeson, S. 1993 Norwich Households: The Medieval and Post-MedievalFinds from Norwich Survey Excavations 1971–1978. EastAnglian Archaeology 58

Medlycott, M. 2011 Research and Archaeology Revisited: a revised frameworkfor the East of England. East Anglian ArchaeologyOccasional Paper 24

52

MPRG 1998 A Guide to the Classification of Medieval Ceramic Forms.Medieval Pottery Research Group Occasional Paper 1

Page, N. 2012 An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment, Long Lane,Stoke Holy Cross, Norfolk. NPS Archaeology report 3034(unpublished)

Page, N. 2013a Long Lane Stoke Holy Cross Norfolk Project Design forArchaeological Evaluation NPS Archaeology (unpublished)

Page, N. 2013b Long Lane Stoke Holy Cross Norfolk Project Design forArchaeological Strip, Map and Sample Excavation. NPSArchaeology (unpublished).

Royal Commission on theHistorical Monuments ofEngland and EnglishHeritage

1995 Thesaurus of Monument Types ‘A Standard For Use inArchaeological and Architectural Records

Smith, D. and Margeson,S.

1993 ‘Querns’ in Margeson, S. Norwich Households: TheMedieval and Post-Medieval Finds from Norwich SurveyExcavations 1971–1978. East Anglian Archaeology 58

Stace, C. 1997 New Flora of the British Isles. 2nd edition. CambridgeUniversity Press

Wilson, B. and Edwards, P. 1993 Butchery of horse and dog at Whitney Palace,Oxfordshire, and the knackering and feeding of meat tothe hounds during the post-medieval period. Post-Medieval Archaeology 27, 43–56

http://www.historic-maps.norfolk.gov.uk/Emap/EmapExplorer Accessed 16.09.14

http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html Accessed 16.09.14

http://www.springerreference.com Accessed 16.09.14

53

Appendix 1: Context Summary

Ctxt Category Cut Type FillOf Description

1 Deposit Topsoil2 Deposit Subsoil3 U/S Finds Unstratified finds from grid square 0E/15N

southwest corner4 U/S Finds Unstratified finds from grid square 0E/20N

southwest corner5 U/S Finds Unstratified finds recovered within flintwork from

0E/20N southwest corner6 U/S Finds Unstratified finds from grid square 0E/25N

southwest corner7 U/S Finds Unstratified finds cleaning of [31]8 U/S Finds Unstratified finds from grid square 15E/15N

southwest corner9 Cut Ditch Ditch terminus

10 Deposit 9 Fill of [9]11 Cut Post-hole Post-hole12 Deposit 11 Fill of [11]13 Cut Post-hole Post-hole14 Deposit 13 Fill of [13]15 Cut Post-hole Post-hole16 Deposit 15 Fill of [15]17 Cut ?Beam-slot ?Beam-slot or bedding trench18 Deposit 17 Fill of [17]19 Cut Post-hole Post-hole20 Deposit 19 Fill of [19]21 Cut Post-hole Post-hole22 Deposit 21 Fill of [21]23 Cut Post-hole Post-hole24 Deposit 23 Fill of [23]25 Cut Post-pit Post-pit containing post-holes [15 and 27]26 Deposit 25 Fill of [25]27 Cut Post-hole Post-hole28 Deposit 27 Fill of [27]29 Deposit Mid-brown clay with chalk flecks30 Deposit Light orangey brown clay31 Cut Rectangular pit Rectangular pit32 Deposit 31 Fill of [31]33 Cut Post-hole Post-hole34 Deposit 33 Fill of [33]35 Cut Ditch Ditch36 Deposit 35 Fill of [35]37 Cut Post-hole Post-hole38 Deposit 37 Fill of [37]39 Cut ?Bedding trench ?Bedding trench40 Deposit 39 Fill of [39]41 Cut Pit Pit42 Deposit 41 Fill of [41]43 Cut Pit Pit

54

Ctxt Category Cut Type FillOf Description

44 Deposit 43 Fill of [43]45 Deposit 43 Fill of [43] burnt material46 Deposit 43 Fill of [43] lime and mortar47 Cut Post-hole Post-hole48 Deposit 47 Primary fill of [47]49 Deposit 47 Secondary fill of [47]50 Deposit Flint platform = [51]51 Deposit Flint platform = [50]52 Deposit Flint platform = [291]53 Deposit Flint cobble surface54 Deposit Flint cobble surface55 Deposit Flint platform56 Deposit Flint cobble surface57 Cut Ditch/gully Ditch or gully58 Deposit 57 Fill of [57]59 Deposit 57 Fill of [57]60 Cut Quadrant of [87] Containing dark deposit (61)61 Deposit 60 Dark deposit62 Cut Post-pit Post-pit63 Deposit 62 Upper fill of [62]64 Deposit 62 Lower fill of [62]65 Cut ?Post-hole ?Post-hole66 Deposit 65 Fill of [65]67 Cut ?Post-hole ?Post-hole68 Deposit 67 Fill of [67]69 Cut ?Post-hole ?Post-hole70 Deposit 69 Fill of [69]71 Cut ?Post-hole ?Post-hole72 Deposit 71 Fill of [71]73 Cut ?Post-hole ?Post-hole74 Deposit 73 Fill of [73]75 Cut Quadrant of [87] Containing dark deposit (76)76 Deposit 75 Fill of [75]77 Cut Quadrant of [87] Containing dark deposit (77)78 Deposit 77 Fill of [77]79 Cut Post-hole Post-hole80 Deposit 79 Fill of [79]81 Cut Field drain Field drain82 Deposit 81 Fill of [81]83 Cut Curvilinear Containing dark deposit (84)84 Deposit 83 Fill of [83]85 Cut Quadrant of [87] Containing dark deposit (86)86 Deposit 85 Fill of [85]87 Cut Sub-circular

depressionNortheast–southwest aligned

88 Deposit 87 Fill of [87], spit 189 U/S Finds 50 Finds recovered from within flint surface [50]90 U/S Finds 51 Finds recovered from within flint surface [51]91 Deposit 31 Fill of [31]92 Deposit 31 Fill of [31]

55

Ctxt Category Cut Type FillOf Description

93 Deposit 31 Fill of [31]94 Deposit 31 Fill of [31]95 Deposit 96 Fill of [96]96 Cut Post-pit Post-pit97 Deposit 31 Fill of [31]98 Deposit 31 Fill of [31]99 Deposit 31 Fill of [31]

100 Cut Linear feature Linear feature101 Deposit 100 Fill of [100]102 Cut Recut Linear feature east re-cut103 Deposit 102 Fill of [102]104 Cut Recut Linear feature west re-cut105 Deposit 104 Fill of [102]106 Cut ?Bedding trench Fill of [106]107 Deposit 106 Fill of [106]108 Cut Earthwork bank Earth bank containing (109)109 Deposit 108 Fill of [108]110 Cut Post-hole Post-hole111 Deposit 110 Fill of [110]112 Deposit 31 Fill of [31]113 Deposit 31 Fill of [31]114 Deposit 31 Fill of [31]115 Deposit 31 Fill of [31]116 Deposit 31 Fill of [31]117 Deposit 118 Fill of [31]118 Cut 31 Feature at base of [31]119 Cut Ditch North–south aligned120 Deposit 119 Fill of [119]121 Deposit 119 Fill of [119]122 Cut Ditch North–south aligned123 Deposit 122 Fill of [122]124 Deposit 122 Fill of [122]125 Deposit 122 Fill of [122]126 Cut Ditch North–south aligned127 Deposit 126 Fill of [126]128 Cut Ditch North–south aligned129 Deposit 128 Fill of [128]130 Cut Ditch North–south aligned131 Deposit 130 Fill of [130]132 Cut Ditch North–south aligned133 Deposit 132 Fill of [132]134 Cut Ditch North–south aligned135 Deposit 134 Fill of [134]136 Deposit 134 Fill of [134]137 Deposit 134 Fill of [134]138 Cut Ditch North–south aligned139 Deposit 138 Fill of [138]140 Cut Ditch North–south aligned141 Deposit 140 Fill of [140]142 Cut Ditch North–south aligned

56

Ctxt Category Cut Type FillOf Description

143 Deposit 142 Fill of [142]144 Deposit 31 Fill of [31]145 Deposit 31 Fill of [31]146 Deposit 147 Fill of [147]147 Cut Post-hole Post-hole148 Cut Ditch Southern cut for ditch149 Deposit 148 Charcoal rich black silty clay150 Deposit Charcoal rich black silty clay151 Deposit Mixed redeposited natural and dark brown silty

clay overlying (153)152 Cut Irregular cut Between [57] and [106]153 Deposit 152 Charcoal rich black silty clay154 Deposit Charcoal rich black silty clay155 Deposit Charcoal rich black silty clay156 Cut Ditch Termini cut below (155)157 Deposit 156 Fill of [156]158 Deposit Dark deposit below (84)159 Deposit 148 Dark deposit below (86)160 Deposit 87 Mixed clay, chalk and charcoal within (88)161 Deposit 31 Fill of [31]162 Deposit 31 Fill of [31]163 Cut Ditch terminus Possible terminus of black silty clay deposit (155)164 Deposit 163 Fill of [163]165 Cut Post-hole Post-hole located below (155)166 Deposit 165 Fill of [165]167 Cut Ditch/gully North–south aligned168 Deposit 167 Fill of [167]169 Cut Ditch terminus or

pitSouthwest edge of curvilinear feature

170 Deposit 169 Fill of [169]171 Cut Post-hole Post-hole abutting cut [83] containing dark deposit

(84)172 Deposit 171 Fill of [171]173 Cut Post-hole Post-hole abutting cut [83] containing dark deposit

(84)174 Deposit 173 Fill of [173]175 Cut Post-hole Post-hole below dark deposit (84)176 Deposit 175 Fill of [175]177 Cut Post-hole Post-hole below dark deposit (84)178 Deposit 175 Fill of [177]179 Deposit 181 Back fill of [181]180 Deposit 181 Same as (179)181 Cut Linear feature Construction cut for flintwork [55]182 Deposit 31 Fill of [31]183 Deposit Black silty sand184 Cut Post-hole185 Deposit 184 Fill of [184]186 Cut Post-hole187 Deposit 186 Fill of [186]188 Cut Post-hole189 Deposit 188 Fill of [188]

57

Ctxt Category Cut Type FillOf Description

190 Cut Pit/post-pit191 Deposit 190 Fill of [190]192 Cut Post-hole193 Deposit 192 Fill of [192]194 Cut Pit/post-pit195 Deposit 194 Fill of [194]196 Cut Post-hole197 Deposit 196 Fill of [196]198 Cut Pit/post-pit199 Deposit 198 Fill of [198]200 Cut Post-hole201 Deposit 200 Fill of [200]202 Cut Post-hole203 Deposit 202 Fill of [202]204 Cut Shallow

depression205 Deposit 204 Dark deposit206 Cut Pit/elongated

post-hole207 Deposit 206 Fill of [206]208 Cut Post-hole209 Deposit 208 Fill of [208]210 Cut Post-hole211 Deposit 210 Fill of [210]212 Cut Post-hole213 Deposit 212 Fill of [212]214 Cut Post-hole215 Deposit 214 Fill of [214]216 Cut Pit/elongated

post-hole217 Deposit 216 Fill of [216]218 Cut Ditch North–south aligned219 Deposit 218 Fill of [218]220 Deposit 218 Fill of [218]221 Cut Ditch North–south aligned222 Deposit 221 Fill of [221]223 Deposit 221 Fill of [221]224 Deposit 221 Fill of [221]225 Cut Ditch North–south aligned226 Deposit 225 Fill of [225]227 Deposit 225 Fill of [225]228 Cut Pit Small circular pit229 Master

numberFlintwork Continuation of flintwork [55]

230 Deposit 31 Redeposited natural231 Deposit 31 Redeposited natural232 Deposit 233 Fill of [233]233 Cut Post-hole234 Deposit Natural235 Deposit 236 Fill of [236]236 Cut Pit Pit containing oyster shell

58

Ctxt Category Cut Type FillOf Description

237 Deposit 238 Fill of [238]238 Cut Tree throw Small circular tree throw239 Deposit 238 Fill of [238]240 Cut Sondage Sondage across flintwork [55]241 Deposit 240 Deposit within sondage [240]242 Deposit 243 Fill of [243]243 Cut Hollow Irregular hollow in pit244 Deposit 221 Fill of [221]245 -- VOID246 -- VOID247 -- VOID248 -- VOID249 -- VOID250 -- VOID251 -- VOID252 -- VOID253 -- VOID254 -- VOID255 Cut Sondage Sondage adjacent to flintwork [55]256 Deposit 255 Fill of [255]257 Cut Sondage Sondage adjacent to flintwork [55]258 Deposit 257 Fill of [257]259 Cut Post-hole260 Deposit 259 Fill of [259]261 Deposit 259 ? Rooting fill262 Cut Terminus of

elongated featureEast cut of elongated feature containing (262)

263 Deposit 262 Black silty clay264 Deposit Deposit sealing post-holes [265 and 267]265 Cut Pit/post-pit266 Deposit 265 Fill of [265]267 Cut Post-hole268 Deposit 267 Fill of [276]269 Cut ?Post-hole contained within [265]270 Deposit 269271 Deposit 31 Same as (97)272 Deposit 31 Redeposited natural273 Deposit 31 Primary fill of [31]274 Deposit 31 Same as (272)275 Deposit 31 Same as (273)276 Deposit 31 ?slump deposit277 Deposit 262 Grey clay fill below (263)278 Finds [50] Finds recovered from within [50] = same as (89)279 Cut Ditch ?east boundary ditch280 Deposit 279 Upper fill of [279]281 Deposit 279 Lower fill of [279]282 Cut Ditch Same ditch as [279]283 Deposit 282 Upper fill of [282]284 Deposit 282 Lower fill of [282]285 Deposit Deposit above [286]

59

Ctxt Category Cut Type FillOf Description

286 Cut Ditch Same ditch as [279 and 282]287 Deposit 286 Fill of [286]288 Deposit 286 Fill of [286]289 Deposit Same as (285)290 Deposit Overlying (282)291 Deposit Flint platform below [52] (= [52])292 Finds -- Number allocated to finds recovered from (291)293 Cut Ditch Ditch terminus294 Deposit 293295 U/S Finds Quern situated east of [134]296 Cut Ditch Ditch terminus297 Deposit 296298 Cut Hollow Hollow

60

Appendix 2a: Finds by ContextContext Material Qty Wt Period Notes3 Iron 2 8g Unknown Nails

3 Iron 1 3g Medieval Horseshoe nail; 'fiddle-key' type

3 Pottery 14 59g Medieval 11th–14th c.

4 Pottery 3 31g Medieval 11th–14th c.

5 Animal Bone 8 20g Unknown

5 Pottery 21 71g Medieval 11th–14th c.

6 Animal Bone 4 7g Unknown

6 Pottery 22 120g Medieval 11th–14th c.

7 Ceramic BuildingMaterial

2 35g Post-medieval

7 Pottery 5 28g Medieval 11th–14th c.

8 Fired Clay 2 4g Unknown

8 Pottery 11 54g Medieval 11th–14th c.

10 Pottery 9 21g Medieval 11th–14th c.

18 Animal Bone 17 84g Unknown

18 Iron 1 5g Unknown Nail

18 Pottery 29 156g Medieval 11th–14th c.

26 Pottery 1 14g Medieval 11th–14th c.

36 Ceramic BuildingMaterial

5 625g Roman

36 Flint – Struck 5 43g Prehistoric

36 Pottery 42 223g Medieval 11th–14th c.

36 Stone 3 245g Medieval Lava fragments; one with grindingsurface; two formless

52 Animal Bone 5 41g Unknown

52 Ceramic BuildingMaterial

1 101g Roman

52 Stone 5 1,362g Medieval Lava fragments; one larger flattishpiece, abraded, no surfaces; fourformless

55 Stone 4 1,495g Medieval Lava fragments; one larger flattishpiece, abraded, no surfaces; threeformless

56 Ceramic BuildingMaterial

8 1,312g Roman

56 Ceramic BuildingMaterial

1 287g Post-medieval

56 Flint – Struck 1 2g Unknown

59 Pottery 26 146g Medieval 11th–14th c.

61 Fired Clay 3 54g Unknown

61

Context Material Qty Wt Period Notes61 Pottery 1 6g Early Saxon

61 Pottery 21 164g Medieval 10th–14th c.

61 Stone 1 73g Medieval Lava fragment; formless

63 Stone 2 1,148g Medieval Lava fragments; conjoining; one flatsurface

76 Pottery 6 31g Medieval 11th–14th c.

78 Animal Bone 1 1g Unknown

78 Pottery 26 209g Medieval 11th–14th c.

88 Animal Bone 4 8g Unknown

88 Ceramic BuildingMaterial

4 222g Roman ??

88 Fired Clay 1 12g Unknown

88 Pottery 57 418g Medieval 11th–14th c.

88 Stone 22 996g Medieval Lava fragments; formless

89 Animal Bone 24 288g Unknown

90 Animal Bone 42 139g Unknown

90 Iron 1 5g Unknown Nail

90 Pottery 82 440g Medieval 11th–14th c.

90 Stone 32 661g Medieval Lava fragments; formless

90 Stone 1 544g Medieval Millstone grit fragment; no surfaces

91 Ceramic BuildingMaterial

3 134g Roman

91 Pottery 40 97g Medieval 11th–14th c.

91 Stone 3 71g Medieval Unidentified fragments

91 Stone 6 303g Medieval Lava fragments; formless

92 Ceramic BuildingMaterial

1 6g Post-medieval

??

92 Pottery 12 31g Medieval 11th–14th c.

93 Pottery 1 1g Medieval 11th–14th c.

94 Pottery 2 4g Medieval 11th–14th c.

97 Pottery 5 20g Medieval 11th–14th c.

98 Copper-Alloy 2 1g Medieval ?Strap end; in two pieces

98 Pottery 1 45g Medieval

99 Pottery 7 24g Medieval 11th–14th c.

107 Animal Bone 3 35g Unknown

107 Lead 1 6g Unknown Strip fragment

107 Pottery 2 21g Medieval 11th–14th c.

109 Pottery 1 132g Medieval 12th c.

109 Stone 1 649g Medieval Lava fragment; formless

62

Context Material Qty Wt Period Notes112 Pottery 10 55g Medieval 11th–14th c.

113 Iron 1 18g Unknown ?Object/Nail

113 Pottery 19 102g Medieval 11th–14th c.

115 Pottery 6 14g Medieval 11th–14th c.

120 Animal Bone 5 24g Unknown

120 Ceramic BuildingMaterial

1 7g Unknown

120 Pottery 26 127g Medieval 11th–14th c.

124 Animal Bone 8 30g Unknown

124 Fired Clay 1 5g Unknown

124 Iron 1 21g Medieval Knife

124 Iron 1 2g Medieval Horseshoe nail; 'fiddle-key' type

124 MetalworkingDebris

1 67g Unknown

124 Pottery 17 110g Medieval 11th–14th c.

139 Animal Bone 6 82g Unknown

139 Ceramic BuildingMaterial

1 125g Roman

139 Ceramic BuildingMaterial

1 14g Post-medieval

139 Pottery 3 22g Medieval 11th–14th c.

144 Pottery 23 73g Medieval 11th–14th c.

145 Ceramic BuildingMaterial

2 414g Roman

145 Pottery 3 19g Medieval 11th–14th c.

149 Ceramic BuildingMaterial

1 260g Roman

149 Fired Clay 1 1g Unknown

149 Pottery 13 266g Medieval 11th–14th c.

151 Animal Bone 15 197g Unknown

151 Ceramic BuildingMaterial

1 55g Roman

151 Pottery 68 431g Medieval 10th–14th c.

151 Stone 12 1,340g Medieval Lava fragments; no surfaces

153 Pottery 32 170g Medieval 11th–14th c.

153 Pottery 1 31g Post-medieval

16th–17th c.

154 Ceramic BuildingMaterial

1 395g Roman

154 Fired Clay 4 4g Unknown

154 Pottery 6 52g Medieval 11th–14th c.

155 Animal Bone 5 135g Unknown

63

Context Material Qty Wt Period Notes155 Ceramic Building

Material1 124g Roman

155 Flint – Struck 1 3g Prehistoric

155 Pottery 16 314g Medieval 11th–14th c.

155 Stone 3 749g Medieval Lava fragment

157 Animal Bone 1 6g Unknown

157 Fired Clay 1 4g Unknown

157 Pottery 27 478g Medieval 11th–14th c.

158 Pottery 15 110g Medieval 11th–14th c.

159 Animal Bone 2 1g Unknown

159 Ceramic BuildingMaterial

1 109g Roman

159 Flint – Struck 1 3g Prehistoric

159 Iron 1 7g Unknown Nail

159 Pottery 26 178g Medieval 11th–14th c.

159 Stone 1 35g Medieval Lava fragment; formless

161 Pottery 3 26g Medieval 11th–14th c.

162 Pottery 3 16g Medieval 11th–14th c.

164 Pottery 6 157g Medieval 11th–14th c.

170 Animal Bone 7 8g Unknown

170 Pottery 13 65g Medieval 11th–14th c.

172 Pottery 1 2g Medieval 11th–14th c.

174 Pottery 1 3g Medieval 11th–14th c.

176 Pottery 1 5g Medieval 11th–14th c.

179 Pottery 8 52g Medieval 11th–14th c.

179 Stone 12 112g Medieval Lava fragments; formless

180 Pottery 2 3g Medieval 11th–14th c.

183 Stone 1 281g Medieval Lava fragment; no surfaces

199 Pottery 2 3g Medieval 11th–14th c.

213 Pottery 1 3g Medieval 11th–14th c.

213 Stone 2 25g Medieval Lava fragments; formless

215 Pottery 5 13g Medieval 11th–14th c.

219 Animal Bone 17 53g Unknown

219 Ceramic BuildingMaterial

2 152g Roman

219 Pottery 2 10g Medieval 11th–14th c.

223 Animal Bone 14 90g Unknown

223 Ceramic BuildingMaterial

1 234g Roman

64

Context Material Qty Wt Period Notes223 Pottery 2 19g Medieval 11th–14th c.

223 Stone 7 349g Medieval Lava fragments; no surfaces

226 Pottery 6 59g Medieval 11th–14th c.

232 Animal Bone 2 1g Unknown

232 Pottery 3 5g Medieval 11th–14th c.

235 Pottery 5 18g Medieval 11th–14th c.

242 Pottery 1 2g Medieval 11th - 12th c.

242 Stone 2 62g Medieval Lava fragments; formless

244 Pottery 7 47g Medieval 11th–14th c.

264 Pottery 11 62g Medieval 11th–14th c.

264 Stone 3 30g Medieval Schist whetstone fragments

274 Pottery 1 5g Medieval 11th–12th c.

275 Pottery 2 39g Medieval 11th–14th c.

277 Animal Bone 6 73g Unknown

277 Lead 1 36g Unknown Strip fragment

277 Pottery 14 242g Medieval 11th–14th c.

278 Animal Bone 67 427g Unknown

278 Ceramic BuildingMaterial

3 51g Roman

278 Pottery 4 31g Medieval 11th–14th c.

280 Iron 2 178g Med./Post-Med.

Sickle; in two pieces

281 Flint – Struck 1 5g Unknown

281 Pottery 1 5g Unknown Rom/L Sax/E med

281 Pottery 1 3g Medieval 12th–14th c.

289 Animal Bone 2 92g Unknown

289 Ceramic BuildingMaterial

8 823g Post-medieval

295 Stone 4 4,783g Medieval Lava fragments; two conjoining

Appendix 2b: Finds SummaryPeriod Material TotalPrehistoric Flint – Struck 7Roman Ceramic Building Material 35Early Saxon Pottery 1Medieval Copper-Alloy 2

Iron 3Pottery 861Stone 127

Med./Post-Med. Iron 2

65

Period Material TotalPost-medieval Ceramic Building Material 13

Pottery 1Unknown Animal Bone 265

Ceramic Building Material 1Fired Clay 13Flint – Struck 2Iron 6Lead 2Metalworking Debris 1Pottery 1

Appendix 3: Pottery AssessmentContext Fabric Form name Rim No Wt/g MNV Fabric date range3 EMSW jar SEV2 5 13 1 11th-12th c.3 EMW 2 3 1 11th-12th c.3 LMU 6 37 2 11th-14th c.3 MCW1 1 6 1 12th-14th c.4 EMSW 1 11 1 11th-12th c.4 LMU 1 9 1 11th-14th c.4 MCW2 1 11 1 12th-14th c.5 EMW 1 4 1 11th-12th c.5 LMU 20 65 19 11th-14th c.5 MCW3 1 2 1 12th-14th c.6 EMW 2 8 2 11th-12th c.6 EMW jar SEV1 1 5 1 11th-12th c.6 LMU 10 35 7 11th-14th c.6 LMU jar SEV1 5 23 2 11th-14th c.6 LMU jar SEV2 1 20 1 11th-14th c.6 MCW2 2 8 1 12th-14th c.6 MCW3 1 21 1 12th-14th c.7 EMSW 1 3 1 11th-12th c.7 EMWM 1 6 1 11th-13th c.7 ANDN 1 4 1 12th-13th c.7 LMU jar SEV2 1 9 1 11th-14th c.7 UPG1 1 6 1 Med8 EMSW 4 8 11th-12th c.8 LMU 4 3 3 11th-14th c.8 LMU jar SEV2 1 30 1 11th-14th c.8 MCW1 2 13 1 12th-14th c.10 EMSW 1 2 11th-12th c.10 EMW 2 3 2 11th-12th c.

66

Context Fabric Form name Rim No Wt/g MNV Fabric date range10 LMU 5 13 5 11th-14th c.10 LMU jar SEV2 1 3 1 11th-14th c.18 EMSW 3 12 1 11th-12th c.18 EMW 6 26 2 11th-12th c.18 EMW jar SEV 2 13 2 11th-12th c.18 LMU 7 31 5 11th-14th c.18 MCW1 jar 5 68 1 12th-14th c.18 MCW2 1 6 1 12th-14th c.26 EMW 1 14 1 11th-12th c.36 EMSW 1 4 11th-12th c.36 EMSW 3 20 11th c.?36 EMW 12 47 6 11th-12th c.36 ANDN 2 2 1 12th-13th c.36 LMU 17 97 11 11th-14th c.36 LMU jar SEV1 1 9 1 11th-14th c.36 LMU jar SEV2 1 10 1 11th-14th c.36 MCW3 3 27 2 12th-14th c.36 UPG2 2 7 1 Med59 EMSW 1 1 1 11th-12th c.59 EMW jar SEV 1 4 1 11th-12th c.59 LMU 18 46 12 11th-14th c.59 LMU jar SEV1 3 64 1 11th-14th c.59 LMU jar SEV2 3 30 2 11th-14th c.61 ESMS 1 6 1 ESax61 EMW 8 37 4 11th-12th c.61 EMW jar SEV 3 31 11th-12th c.61 PING 1 7 1 10th-13th c.61 LMU 5 32 5 11th-14th c.61 LMU bowl INT 1 8 1 11th-14th c.61 LMU jar SEV1 3 49 3 11th-14th c.76 EMW 1 2 1 11th-12th c.76 YARN 1 10 1 11th-12th c.?76 LMU 3 6 3 11th-14th c.76 MCW3 1 13 1 12th-14th c.78 MCW5 1 23 178 EMSW 1 1 1 11th-12th c.78 EMW 8 72 2 11th-12th c.78 LMU 12 64 10 11th-14th c.78 LMU jar SEV2 1 8 1 11th-14th c.78 MCW3 1 13 1 12th-14th c.

67

Context Fabric Form name Rim No Wt/g MNV Fabric date range78 MCW3 jug? FLAR 2 28 1 12th-14th c.88 EMSW 8 15 11th-12th c.88 EMSW 5 33 11th c.?88 EMW 14 60 7 11th-12th c.88 LMU 12 42 12 11th-14th c.88 LMU jar SEV1 9 155 5 11th-14th c.88 LMU jar SEV2 5 87 1 11th-14th c.88 MCW2 2 4 2 12th-14th c.88 MCW3 2 22 1 12th-14th c.90 UNID 1 2 190 EMSW 4 14 1 11th-12th c.90 EMW 7 30 4 11th-12th c.90 YARN 7 14 1 11th-12th c.?90 YARN jar BD 4 12 1 11th-12th c.?90 ANDN 1 5 12th-13th c.90 LMU 46 180 33 11th-14th c.90 LMU jar SEV 2 7 2 11th-14th c.90 LMU jar SEV1 1 14 1 11th-14th c.90 LMU jar SEV2 5 59 4 11th-14th c.90 MCW1 1 3 1 12th-14th c.90 MCW3 2 10 1 12th-14th c.90 MCW3 spouted pitcher SEV 1 30 1 12th-14th c.91 EMSW 3 2 11th-12th c.91 EMW 3 5 3 11th-12th c.91 EMW jar SEV 1 1 1 11th-12th c.91 GRIM 1 4 1 L.12th-14th c.91 LMU 23 49 20 11th-14th c.91 LMU jar SEV1 1 3 1 11th-14th c.91 MCW1 2 4 1 12th-14th c.91 MCW3 2 5 1 12th-14th c.91 MCW4 4 24 4 12th-14th c.92 EMSW 5 10 1 11th-12th c.92 EMW jar SEV 1 2 1 11th-12th c.92 YARN 1 2 11th-12th c.?92 LMU 4 6 2 11th-14th c.92 LMU jar SEV1 1 11 1 11th-14th c.93 LMU 1 1 1 11th-14th c.94 EMW 1 2 1 11th-12th c.94 LMU 1 2 1 11th-14th c.97 LMU 3 2 3 11th-14th c.

68

Context Fabric Form name Rim No Wt/g MNV Fabric date range97 LMU jar SEV1 1 16 1 11th-14th c.97 MCW3 1 2 1 12th-14th c.98 UPG1 jug UPFT 1 45 1 Med99 UNID 1 299 EMW 2 13 2 11th-12th c.99 LMU 3 4 3 11th-14th c.99 LMU jar SEV1 1 5 1 11th-14th c.107 EMW 1 6 1 11th-12th c.107 LMU jar SEV2 1 15 1 11th-14th c.109 MCW3 spouted pitcher FLAR 1 132 1 12th c.?112 EMSW 2 1 11th-12th c.112 LMU 6 24 5 11th-14th c.112 LMU jar SEV1 1 16 1 11th-14th c.112 MCW3 1 14 1 12th-14th c.113 EMSW 3 11 1 11th-12th c.113 EMW 3 13 2 11th-12th c.113 LMU 8 28 6 11th-14th c.113 LMU jar SEV1 2 18 2 11th-14th c.113 LMU jar SEV2 1 11 1 11th-14th c.113 MCW4 1 15 12th-14th c.113 MCW4 jar WEDG 1 6 1 12th-14th c.115 EMSW 1 7 1 11th-12th c.115 EMW 3 4 2 11th-12th c.115 MCW4 2 3 1 12th-14th c.120 EMSW 13 63 11th-12th c.120 EMW 5 9 3 11th-12th c.120 EMW jar SEV 1 9 1 11th-12th c.120 YAR 3 4 1 11th-12th c.120 LMU 3 17 3 11th-14th c.120 LMU jar SEV1 1 25 1 11th-14th c.124 EMW 1 2 1 11th-12th c.124 EMW dish 2 37 1 11th-12th c.124 LMU 13 62 8 11th-14th c.124 LMU jar SEV1 1 9 1 11th-14th c.139 EMW 1 13 1 11th-12th c.139 LMU jar SEV1 1 7 1 11th-14th c.139 MCW2 1 2 1 12th-14th c.144 EMSW 10 16 11th-12th c.144 EMW 2 4 2 11th-12th c.144 LMU 8 26 7 11th-14th c.

69

Context Fabric Form name Rim No Wt/g MNV Fabric date range144 LMU jar SEV1 1 18 1 11th-14th c.144 MCW3 2 9 2 12th-14th c.145 EMW 1 6 1 11th-12th c.145 MCW1 jar TAP 1 6 1 12th-14th c.145 MCW3 1 7 1 12th-14th c.149 EMSW spouted pitcher UPPL 5 188 1 11th-12th c.149 EMW 3 7 2 11th-12th c.149 ANDN 4 63 12th-13th c.149 MCW3 1 8 1 12th-14th c.151 EMSW 12 56 3 11th-12th c.151 EMW 10 54 10 11th-12th c.151 PING 1 22 1 10th-13th c.151 LMU 32 179 9 11th-14th c.151 LMU jar SEV1 1 9 1 11th-14th c.151 LMU jar SEV2 5 71 1 11th-14th c.151 MCW1 3 11 1 12th-14th c.151 MCW3 3 23 1 12th-14th c.151 UPG2 1 6 Med153 EMSW 11 40 1 11th-12th c.153 EMW 1 5 1 11th-12th c.153 YARN 1 10 1 11th-12th c.?153 ANDN 2 3 12th-13th c.153 LMU 8 33 7 11th-14th c.153 LMU jar SEV1 7 55 2 11th-14th c.153 LMU jar SEV2 2 24 1 11th-14th c.153 GSW4 1 31 1 16th-17th c.154 EMSW 1 7 1 11th-12th c.154 EMW jar SEV 1 6 1 11th-12th c.154 LMU 3 12 3 11th-14th c.154 MCW3 1 27 1 12th-14th c.155 EMW 1 4 1 11th-12th c.155 LMU 6 86 5 11th-14th c.155 LMU jar SEV1 7 213 2 11th-14th c.155 MCW2 2 11 1 12th-14th c.157 EMSW 5 87 3 11th-12th c.157 EMSW spouted pitcher SEV 4 124 1 11th-12th c.157 EMW 6 45 2 11th-12th c.157 EMW jar SEV 1 29 1 11th-12th c.157 LMU 6 83 5 11th-14th c.157 LMU jar SEV1 2 24 1 11th-14th c.

70

Context Fabric Form name Rim No Wt/g MNV Fabric date range157 MCW3 3 86 1 12th-14th c.158 EMSW 1 10 1 11th-12th c.158 EMW 3 8 3 11th-12th c.158 LMU 9 68 5 11th-14th c.158 LMU jar? SEV1 1 12 1 11th-14th c.158 MCW2 jar SEV1 1 12 1 12th-14th c.159 MCW5 1 36 1159 EMSW 6 40 3 11th-12th c.159 EMWSS 1 6 1 11th-13th c.159 LMU 17 89 9 11th-14th c.159 LMU jar SEV1 1 7 1 11th-14th c.161 LMU 2 3 2 11th-14th c.161 LMU jar SEV2 1 23 1 11th-14th c.162 EMSW 1 4 11th-12th c.162 LMU 1 5 1 11th-14th c.162 LMU jar SEV1 1 7 1 11th-14th c.164 LMU jar SEV2 6 157 1 11th-14th c.170 EMSW 3 21 2 11th-12th c.170 EMW 3 2 1 11th-12th c.170 LMU 6 35 5 11th-14th c.170 MCW2 1 7 1 12th-14th c.172 LMU 1 2 1 11th-14th c.174 LMU 1 3 1 11th-14th c.176 EMSW 1 5 1 11th-12th c.179 EMW 2 5 1 11th-12th c.179 YARN jar BD 1 4 11th-12th c.?179 LMU 2 5 2 11th-14th c.179 LMU bowl THEV 1 19 1 11th-14th c.179 MCW3 1 2 1 12th-14th c.179 MCW3 jar WEDG 1 17 1 12th-14th c.180 LMU 2 3 1 11th-14th c.199 LMU 2 3 1 11th-14th c.213 LMU 1 3 1 11th-14th c.215 EMSW 4 7 11th-12th c.215 LMU 1 6 1 11th-14th c.219 LMU 2 10 2 11th-14th c.223 EMW 1 3 1 11th-12th c.223 MCW1 1 16 1 12th-14th c.226 EMSW dish EV 4 48 1 11th-12th c.226 LMU 1 1 1 11th-14th c.

71

Context Fabric Form name Rim No Wt/g MNV Fabric date range226 LMU jar SEV 1 10 1 11th-14th c.232 EMW 2 2 1 11th-12th c.232 LMU 1 3 1 11th-14th c.235 EMW 3 5 2 11th-12th c.235 LMU 2 13 2 11th-14th c.242 EMW 1 2 1 11th-12th c.244 EMSW dish EV 4 27 11th-12th c.244 EMW 1 2 1 11th-12th c.244 LMU 1 8 1 11th-14th c.244 LMU jar SEV 1 10 1 11th-14th c.264 EMW 3 5 1 11th-12th c.264 LMU 2 6 2 11th-14th c.264 LMU jar SEV1 4 36 1 11th-14th c.264 MCW1 jar EV 2 15 1 12th-14th c.274 YARN 1 5 11th-12th c.?275 LMU jar SEV1 2 39 2 11th-14th c.277 EMSW spouted pitcher FLAR 4 79 1 11th-12th c.277 ANDN 2 115 12th-13th c.277 LMU 7 34 6 11th-14th c.277 MCW2 1 14 1 12th-14th c.278 LMU 3 22 3 11th-14th c.278 MCW2 jar SEV1 1 9 1 12th-14th c.281 UNID 1 5 1 Rom/LSax/Emed281 MCW1 1 3 1 12th-14th c.

72

Appendix 4: Ceramic Building Material Assessmentcontext fabric form no wt/g abr length width height comments date7 mscp RTP? 1 24 + orange, occ streaks of cream pmed?7 fscp RTP? 1 11 + soft, could be Rom but thin pmed?36 msx UN 1 2 + flake ?36 fscp RBT 1 53 + 30+ Rom36 fscp RBT 1 128 + 33 Rom36 fsg RBT 1 123 + coarse rounded clay incl, like cg pot & bipedalis Rom36 msg RBT 1 317 + 28 corner, harder fabric, abundant coarse red grog in pinkish fabric with

rounded white clay & occ FeRom

52 msg RBT 1 101 + 33 orange, less sandy than 36 Rom56 msf RBT/L

B1 170 + 52+ Rom?

56 ms RTM? 1 12 + 10 Rom/med?

56 wfg RBT? 1 278 + 42 worn surface, poss LB used as FB, but surface irregular, not like 18th/19thc types

Rom?

56 ms RBT/LB

1 26 base frag ?

56 msg RBT 1 121 ++ no surfaces, rounded white clay incl Rom?56 msgfe RBT/L

B1 162 + 40? fingermarks at corner base Rom?

56 msf RBT/LB

1 204 ++ 52 Rom?

56 msf RBT/LB

1 339 + 56 Rom?

56 ms RBT/LB

1 287 + 110 56 not certain full width is present, poss just broken, and could be RBT pmed?

88 fscp FLT 3 206 + 16 =1 tile, FlH 37, FlW 30, rounded top, sloping int edge Rom

73

context fabric form no wt/g abr length width height comments date88 mscp FLT? 1 16 + flake of flange? Rom91 fscp RT? 1 12 + 11 line in upper surface, poss Rom but thin ?91 mscp FLT 1 77 + 15 corner with upper cutaway, brown with orange core (cf BLB 094) Rom91 ms RTM? 1 44 + 11 med?91 ms UN 1 1 + flake ?92 ms RTP 1 6 + pmed?120 fsx UN 1 7 + 1 flat surface - RBT or FT? ?139 fsfe PAN 1 14 pmed139 mscp RBT 1 125 + 32+ soft Rom145 mscp RBT 2 414 + 20 =1 tile, soft Rom149 mscp RBT 1 260 25 poss BOX, seems to have cutout 110mm from end (broken at this point) Rom151 mscp RBT 1 55 + could be LB Rom154 mscpf RBT 1 395 + 35 corner Rom155 mscp RBT 1 124 + 30+ Rom159 msf RBT 1 109 + 19 red-brown Rom219 mscp RBT? 1 9 ++ no surfaces Rom219 mscp RBT 1 143 + 38 reduced surfaces Rom223 fsfe RBT 1 234 + 41 Rom278 msf RBT 3 51 ++ Rom289 msf RBT/L

B1 247 57 purple pmed?

289 msf RBT/LB

1 265 52 purple, struck surface pmed?

289 msfe LB 1 47 purple pmed?289 msx LB 1 120 struck surface pmed?

74

context fabric form no wt/g abr length width height comments date289 msx RBT/L

B1 45 + no surfaces pmed?

289 wfx FB? 1 30 no surfaces pmed?289 mscq RTP 2 69 pmed

Appendix 5: Fired Clay Assessment

Context Fabric Type No Wt/g Colour Surface Impressions Abrasion Notes8 fs 2 4 orange + prob cbm but no surfaces61 fsfe 3 54 buff-black roughly smoothed + 3 lumps, black below thin oxid surface88 fsfe 1 12 buff-pink-black roughly smoothed, flattish + as 61124 fsfe 1 5 buff-black roughly smoothed, flattish + as 61149 fsc 1 1 buff-orange flattish +154 fsc 4 4 orange none +157 fsc 1 4 orange none +

75

Appendix 6: Animal Bone AssessmentKey:Sk = skull, ul = upper limb, ll = lower limb, r = ribs, mand = mandible, scap = scapula, t = teeth

Context CtxtQty

Wt (g) Species NISP Age Adult Juvenile Neonatal Elementrange

Chopped Cut Comments

5 8 20 Mammal 6 sk, r, frags6 4 7 Mammal 4 fragments18 17 84 Cattle 1 1 ul 1 tibia18 Mammal 16 fragments52 5 41 Cattle 1 ul femur fragment52 Mammal 478 1 1 Mammal 188 4 8 Mammal 489 24 288 Equid 2 2 t, ll upper molar 2, small metatarsal - small pony89 Cattle 5 5 mand, t 1 mandible, isolated lower molars89 Mammal 1790 42 139 Cattle 5 5 mand, t mandible condyle, lower molars 1, 2 and 3 and

P490 Mammal 37107 3 35 Mammal 3 1 large mammal, shaft fragments, one clearly

chopped120 5 24 Sheep/goat 1 ll metatarsal shaft, large and robust, ?goat120 Mammal 4124 8 30 Mammal 8139 6 82 Cattle 1 1 scap 1 1 articular end, cut and chopped, strong muscle

attachments suggest male139 Mammal 5 fragments inc probable scapula fragment151 15 197 Cattle 1 1 ul 1 1 distal humerus, some canid gnawing

76

Context CtxtQty

Wt (g) Species NISP Age Adult Juvenile Neonatal Elementrange

Chopped Cut Comments

151 Sheep/goat 3 1 scap, ul, t 2 2 tibia, scapula, upper molar 1151 SM 2 ll 1 one radius in two pieces, ?small dog/fox151 Mammal 9155 5 135 Equid 1 1 ul 1 distal tibia, larger pony/small horse sized, two

knife cuts close to distal end155 Pig/boar 1 ul 1 1 humerus, butchered and gnawed155 Mammal 3157 1 6 Mammal 1 shaft fragment170 7 8 Mammal 7219 17 53 Cattle 2 2 t upper molars 1 and 2, left219 Mammal 15223 14 90 Equid 3 3 t upper inscisors, well worn223 Mammal 11232 2 1 Mammal 2 small fragments277 6 73 Bird - Fowl 3 3 ll 1 proximal tibiotarsus, femur in two pieces, cut

tibiotarsus.277 Mammal 3 inc probable fragment of equid tibia278 67 427 Cattle 1 1 ul 1 humerus, distal half278 Equid 5 5 t upper molars, some in wear, some were not

fully eruptd and at TWS:a278 Mammal 51289 2 92 Cattle 2 2 ll 1 metatarsal, distal missing, split longitudinally -

probably from prox.end

77

Appendix 7: Environmental data

Sample no. 1 2Context no. 61 107Feature no. 60 106

Feature typeDark

deposit Elongate FeatureCereals and other food plantsAvena sp. (grains) xcf xHordeum sp. (grains) xcf xTriticum sp. (grains) x xT. aestivum/compactum type (rachis nodes) xCereal indet. (grains) xx xxVicia faba L. xcfcotyLarge Fabaceae indet. xcffgHerbsFabaceae indet. x xMedicago/Trifolium/Lotus sp. xcfScandix pecten-veneris L. xfgOther plant macrofossilsCharcoal <2mm xxx xxxCharcoal >2mm xx xxxCharcoal >5mm x xCharred root/stem xxx xxEricaceae indet. (stem) xx xxOther remainsBlack porous 'cokey' material x xBurnt/fired clay xxxx xxxBurnt/mineralised concretions x xSmall coal frags. x xSample volume (litres) 11 18Volume of flot (litres) <0.1 <0.1% flot sorted 100% 100%

Key to Table

x = 1 – 10 specimens xx = 11 – 50 specimens xxx = 51 – 100 specimens xxxx = 100+specimenscf = compare coty = cotyledon fg = fragment

78

Appendix 8: OASIS Report Summary