Kempsford Quarry Extension, Kempsford, Gloucestershire

Kempsford Quarry Extension, Kempsford,
Gloucestershire
An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment
for Aggregate Industries
by Heather Hopkins
Thames Valley Archaeological
Services Ltd
Site Code KEW07/152
January 2008
Summary
Site name: Kempsford Quarry Extension, Kempsford, Gloucestershire
Grid reference: SU 1767 9850
Site activity: Desk based assessment
Project manager: Steve Ford
Site supervisor: Heather Hopkins
Site code: KEG 07/152
Area of site: c. 87ha
Summary of results: The site lies in an general area of archaeological potential with a wide
range of sites, sometimes extensive and complex, of prehistoric and Roman date present in the
study area. Aerial photography, though, has not recorded any deposits for the proposal site
visible from the air. Recent and on-going fieldwork immediately to the south of the proposal
area has recorded the presence of a Roman field system and this is expected to extend
northwards into the proposal site. It is considered that it will be necessary to provide further
information about the potential of the site from field observations in order to draw up a
scheme to mitigate the impact of development on any below-ground archaeological deposits if
necessary.
This report may be copied for bona fide research or planning purposes without the explicit permission of the
copyright holder
Report edited/checked by:
Steve Ford9 21.12.07
Steve Preston9 19.12.07
1
Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd, 47–49 De Beauvoir Road, Reading RG1 5NR
Tel. (0118) 926 0552; Fax (0118) 926 0553; email [email protected]; website : www.tvas.co.uk
Kempsford Quarry Extension, Kempsford, Gloucestershire
An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment
by Heather Hopkins
Report 07/152
Introduction
This desk-based study is an assessment of the archaeological potential of the area of a proposed extension to
Kempsford Quarry, located at Kempsford, Gloucestershire, (SU 1767 9850) (Fig. 1). The project was
commissioned by Mr Robert Westell of Aggregate Industries, Callow Rock Quarry, Shipham Gorge, Cheddar,
Somerset, BS27 3DQ and comprises the first stage of a process to determine the presence/absence, extent,
character, quality and date of any archaeological remains which may be affected by mineral extraction from the
area.
Site description, location and geology
The site currently consists of farmland. The land is relatively flat and (in December 2007) waterlogged. The area
is a mixture of grass pasture and arable land. There is no obvious extant ridge and furrow present. The fields are
separated by hedgerows. The development area is located on both First and Second Thames terrace gravel, with
a band of alluvium overlying the first terrace to the north-east (BGS 1974) along the line of the Rive Coln The
site is at an average height of 75m above Ordnance Datum. The area of the site is approximately 87ha.
Planning background and development proposals
Planning permission is to be sought for the extension of the existing quarry at Kempsford. The extension lies to
the north and east of the current quarry on land bordering Whelford, surrounding Jenner’s Farm and west of the
River Coln. The site is designated as a preferred site for mineral extraction in the Gloucestershire Minerals Local
Plan (GMLP 2003).
Archaeology and Planning (PPG 16 1990) provides guidance relating to archaeology within the planning
process. It points out that where a desk-based assessment has shown that there is a strong possibility of
significant archaeological deposits in a development area it is reasonable to provide more detailed information
from a field evaluation so that an appropriate strategy to mitigate the effects of development on archaeology can
be devised:
Paragraph 21 states:
‘Where early discussions with local planning authorities or the developer’s own research indicate
that important archaeological remains may exist, it is reasonable for the planning authority to
1
request the prospective developer to arrange for an archaeological field evaluation to be carried
out...’
Should the presence of archaeological deposits be confirmed further guidance is provided. Archaeology and
Planning stresses preservation in situ of archaeological deposits as a first consideration as in paragraphs 8 and
18.
Paragraph 8 states:
‘...Where nationally important archaeological remains, whether scheduled or not, and their
settings, are affected by proposed development there should be a presumption in favour of their
physical preservation...’
Paragraph 18 states:
‘The desirability of preserving an ancient monument and its setting is a material consideration in
determining planning applications whether that monument is scheduled or unscheduled...’
However, for archaeological deposits that are not of such significance it is appropriate for them to be ‘preserved
by record’ (i.e., fully excavated and recorded by a competent archaeological contractor) prior to their destruction
or damage.
Paragraph 25 states:
‘Where planning authorities decide that the physical preservation in situ of archaeological remains
is not justified in the circumstances of the development and that development resulting in the
destruction of the archaeological remains should proceed, it would be entirely reasonable for the
planning authority to satisfy itself ... that the developer has made appropriate and satisfactory
provision for the excavation and recording of remains.’
Gloucestershire Minerals Local Plan (GMLP 2003) also contains relevant policies:
‘Policy E4
‘Proposed mineral development will not be permitted where it would involve significant alteration
or cause damage to nationally important archaeological remains (whether scheduled or not) or
would have a significant impact on the setting of visible remains; unless the effects can be
adequately mitigated.’
‘The Historic Environment
‘2.2.20 There are a range of historic sites, landscapes and other archaeological sites, parks and
gardens, which together contribute to the interest and cultural heritage of Gloucestershire. The
MPA will carefully consider the loss or damage of such areas, which may result from future
2
mineral development. In addition the MPA will favour mineral development which safeguards
and/or enhances the overall historic environment of particular areas of the County.’
‘The Historic Environment
‘2.2.22 It may not always be possible to preserve all nationally and locally significant
archaeological sites and their settings in situ. In the past, the extraction of minerals in
Gloucestershire has resulted in the loss of archaeological remains … Where it is not possible to
preserve remains in situ the MPA will ensure that adequate measures are taken to record
archaeological remains. PPG16 states that preservation by record may be an acceptable alternative
but the preservation in situ of important remains is always to be preferred.’
‘Policy E8
‘Proposals for minerals development which are likely to have a significant adverse effect on the following
locally and regionally important areas must, where appropriate, make provision to safeguard or
satisfactorily mitigate those impacts and, where possible, enhance their attributes in the long-term: …
1
7. Locally Important Archaeological Sites and Settings, and other features of the historic
environment’
Specific mention is made of the area around the proposal site:
‘Archaeology - Cropmarks in the area indicate an extensive landscape of Prehistoric and Roman
settlement with two areas of particular complexity. The whole is of high archaeological potential
with the two areas potentially of national importance in the vicinity of Kempsford which will be
considered for scheduling as ancient monuments by English Heritage. The range of periods
represented in this area suggests that further land in this area may also merit scheduling. Outside
areas of national importance [which are to be safeguarded from mineral working] applications for
mineral extraction must be accompanied by an archaeological evaluation to identify fully any
archaeological constraints present, and indicate how, either by in situ preservation, or by a
programme of archaeological investigation for remains of lesser significance, the impact of
mineral extraction on the archaeological remains will be mitigated. ‘
Methodology
The assessment of the site was carried out by the examination of pre-existing information from a number of
sources recommended by the Institute of Field Archaeologists paper ‘Standards in British Archaeology’
covering desk-based studies. These sources include historic and modern maps, the Gloucestershire Sites and
Monuments Record, geological maps and any relevant publications or reports.
Archaeological background
General background
The county of Gloucestershire and adjoining areas of Wiltshire, is regarded as archaeologically rich and the site
lies within a topographic zone (the valley floor of the river Thames) which is regarded as of great archaeological
interest in both prehistoric and historic times. Arising from both the suitability of the underlying geology for the
formation of cropmarks, and the scale of archaeologically-monitored mineral extraction, a great density of
archaeological deposits has been recorded, which provides a widespread view of settlement and land-use,
especially in Iron Age and Roman times (Benson and Miles 1974; Fulford 1992; Hingley and Miles 1984). The
3
perception of the Upper Thames gravels in these periods is that of a densely packed, highly organized,
subdivided landscape with sites spaced at roughly one every 0.5–1km in places. The environs of Kempsford is
typical of this overview with a complex of sites recorded from the air and extensive archaeological excavations
to the north in the Fairford - Lechlade area. Recent and on-going fieldwork work in advance of the current
Kempsford Quarry extraction has revealed extensive landscape development of Roman date. (Hammond et al.
forthcoming; Hammond et. al. in prep).
Gloucestershire Sites and Monuments Record
A search was made on the Gloucestershire Sites and Monuments Record (SMR) on 10th December 2007 for a
radius of 2.5km around the proposal site. This revealed 42 entries within the search radius. These are
summarized as Appendix 1 and their locations are plotted on Figure 1.
Mesolithic
Just a single entry is made for this period, that of a core from Manor Farm [1].
Neolithic
There are no certain examples within the SMR for this period though several of the stuck flint finds recorded on
many of the excavated sites [1, 15] could be of Neolithic date.
Bronze Age
Several entries are for this period. A small number of entries are for individual finds such as a barbed and tanged
arrowhead at Manor Farm [1] and a spearhead or rapier from the river Coln [4]. Several ring ditches have been
recorded from the air. These are usually the remains of levelled Bronze Age round barrows [2,3,34].
Iron Age
Many of the entries within the study area include an Iron Age component and some extensive deposits have
been excavated in advance of mineral extraction. The deposits recorded include for a wide range of occupation
and landscape features. Several of the cropmark complexes visible from the air, almost certainly contain Iron
Age components.
Extensive excavations have been carried out in advance of mineral extraction and construction work to the north
and north west of the proposal site as at RAF Fairford [15] Thornhill Farm (part of which is preserved as a
scheduled monument (Jennings, et al 2004) [6], and at various locations in the Fairford/Lechlade section of the
4
Cotswold Water Park at Claydon Pike (Miles et al, draft), namely Longdoles Lake [7] and Warren Cross Lake
[8].
Further cropmark complexes, as yet unexcavated, are likely to include for an Iron Age component and continue
into Roman times [5, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 20, 28, 31]. One of these complexes [13] has been destroyed without
record. A small number of other entries recorded isolated finds of Iron Age pottery [1,5, 11].
Roman
The excavated sites with Iron Age components (above) all contain further activity which extends into Roman
times and beyond [6, 7, 8,15]. The cropmark complexes within the study area, as yet unexcavated, are most
likely to include for a Roman component [5, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 20, 28, 31]. In addition, a probable villa site is
recorded from the air [18] and a settlement complex has been excavated at Whelford [19].
Extensive excavations to the south of the proposal site at Stubbs Farm [11] and Manor Farm, Kempsford
(Hammond et al. forthcoming; Hammond et. al. in prep) [1] have revealed landscape features comprising
extensive field systems but without any associated occupation deposits. The latter site at Manor Farm, shares a
common boundary with the proposal site and elements of the Roman field system recorded appear to continue
northwards and extend into the proposal site.
The excavations at Thornhill Farm [6] also revealed two late Roman cemeteries and an isolate inhumation
burial was recorded in a field ditch at Manor Farm, Kempsford [1].
Several stray finds of Roman date are record with Roman pottery a lead plaque, roll rivets and weights
discovered at Whelford [16] and pottery from the topsoil above a cropmark complex at Kempsford [31].
Saxon
By contrast, Saxon evidence from the area is sparse. The only entry is for two late Saxon coins found in a quarry
dug into a Roman building on the excavation site at Warrens Cross Lake[8].
Medieval
A small number of medieval entries are present within the study area though relatively few are a product of the
excavations in advance of gravel extraction.
Evidence of Medieval hay production and a 15th-century silver coin were discovered at Warrens Cross Lake [8]
and medieval pottery has been discovered during excavations at RAF Fairford[15]. Traces of ridge and furrow
fields systems are widespread within the study area.
5
Evidence of early medieval water meadow management, has been discovered in a former area of Roman
settlement and field systems north of Whelford [19]. An enclosure visible from the air is either of medieval or
post-medieval date [21].
Two mills, described as Whelford Mill, dating to 1258, were combined by 1532 [22].
Possible medieval or post medieval gravel pits have been identified on enclosure maps and aerial photographs
[2, 23].
St Anne’s Church, Whelford is a Grade II listed building [38]. The present day settlements of Kempsford and
Whelford have medieval and possibly late Saxon origins.
Post medieval
Deposits of this period revealed by excavation are few and comprise a small number of boundary ditches [1,15].
A sherd of 18th century pottery was also recorded during a watching brief [25]. Other sites include an 18th
century canal feeder linking the river Coln with the Thames and Severn Canal at Kempsford [14]. A 19th century
pound [24] and two windmills [26,27]. Possible medieval or post medieval gravel pits have been identified on
enclosure maps and aerial photographs [2, 23].
Modern, undated
The remaining entries, refer to cropmark sites which are not closely dated [29,30, 32,33,35,36].
Scheduled Ancient Monuments
There are no Scheduled Ancient Monuments on the site or in immediately adjacent areas.
Cartographic and documentary sources
Kempsford is named after the ford through the Thames whilst Whelford takes its name from the crossing of the
river Coln by the road from Lechlade to Kempsford (VCH 1981, 97). In AD800, the alderman of the Hwicce and
his men crossed at Kempsford and fought a battle with the men of Wiltshire (VCH 1981, 97). The name
Kempsford is first recorded during the 9th century as Cynemaeres forda, from the Old English meaning ‘ford of
a man called Cynemaer’ (Mills 1998). At the time of Domesday Book (1086) it was called Chenemeresforde.
Kempsford was held by Ernulf de Hesdin. It was assessed at 21 hides paying geld with land for 24 ploughs.
There were 38 villans, 9 bordars, 14 slaves and a radknight (a knight’s retainer) present. There were 4 mills,
6
rendering 40s and 40d and meadows worth 39s. There was pasture for oxen and a sheep-fold with 120 weys of
cheese.
The parish of Kempsford was drained by a network of ditches, some of which was probably in existence
by 1133 (VCH 1981, 96). A mill had been built at Whelford by the 12th century and a bridge by 1283 (VCH
1981, 97). There was a common myth of a castle being built at Kempsford. However, this is untrue and stems
from the moated manor house that was constructed by 1258, close to the river on the south side of the church.
The moat was still visible in 1976 (VCH 1981, 99). In 1258 Kempsford Manor had 832 acres of arable land, 156
acres meadow. At its largest it was more than 1000 acres. In 1327 74 inhabitants were assessed for subsidy. By
1381 this had risen to 157 inhabitants assessed for poll tax and by 1775 there were 493 people in 104 houses
(VCH 1981, 98–100).
The shape of Kempsford Village shows that the Cirencester – Highworth Road was a more significant
factor in its development than the ford (VCH 1981, 97) This road crossed the Thames 1.5 km downstream of
Kempsford. The bridge at Kempsford was built before 1439 (VCH 1981, 97). Besides farming, the only trades or
professions mentioned at this time are fishermen in 1327 (VCH 1981, 103). Of the four mills recorded at
Domesday, two were combined by 1532 and a third had disappeared by 1556 (VCH 1981, 102).
In 1608 farming still supported the majority of Kempsford, but there was a weaver, tailors and local
craftsmen listed (VCH 1981, 103). A new manor house was built between the church and the river at Kempsford
before 1639 but it was demolished before 1784 (VCH 1981, 99).
The ditch system used to drain farmland at Kempsford was also used to flood the meadow every winter
(VCH 1981, 96). From 1707 the meadows were ‘drowned’ in the winter, to warm them and bring on early grass
(VCH 1981, 101). The Thames and Severn Canal opened in 1789. The vast common meadow was subject to an
Act of Inclosure in 1801 (VCH 1981, 96). Following inclosure several large farms were formed. Two on the
manor estate were of 653 and 628 acres in 1815 (VCH 1981, 102). An 18th century house south of the village
street later became known as the Manor House, but in 1846 Sir Gilbert East built Manor Farm as the new manor
house adding to an older building present (VCH 1981, 99).
A range of Ordnance Survey and other historical maps of the area were consulted at Gloucestershire Record
Office in order to ascertain what activity had been taking place throughout the site’s later history and whether
this may have affected any possible archaeological deposits within the proposal area (see Appendix 2).
Kempsford, Whelford and Lechlade are all depicted on Saxton’s map of Gloucestershire, 1575 (Fig. 2).
Both Kempsford and Whelford are shown as relatively small settlements, but Lechlade is a much larger, more
important settlement. Following this date only a limited number of maps were available. The next map available
7
was the Enclosure Map of Kempsford and Driffield of 1802 (not illustrated). This map shows that the site had
been enclosed by this time with the field boundaries and water courses depicted along with the owners, The
pattern of land division visible on the later Ordnance Survey maps had more or less been established by that
time. The field pattern surrounding a farm towards the centre of site shown on the first edition of the Ordnance
Survey map (Fig. 3) has been established by 1802 but no structures are shown. No other locations of possible
archaeological interest are shown for the site. The Ordnance Survey first edition of 1876 (Fig. 3) shows that
the site continues to comprise enclosed farmland with the only distinctive features comprising a trackway to the
west, various drains, a small coppice and the farm (?) towards the centre of the site (excluded from the
development area). Compared to the earlier enclosure map there are one or two new field boundaries and a few
having been removed. There is in fact little change from this time until the present day as indicated by the
Ordnance Survey second edition of 1900 (not illustrated), the 1923 edition (Fig. 4) and 1960 edition (Fig. 5).
Listed buildings
There is just one listed building within the study are but is located at some distance from the site. The
development proposal will not impact this building.
Registered Parks and Gardens; Registered Battlefields
There are no registered parks and gardens or registered battlefields within close proximity of the site.
Historic Hedgerows
The hedgerows on the site appear to be relatively diverse, but do not have sufficient species within them or form
the historic boundaries necessary to qualify as ‘important’ as defined by Schedule 1 of the Hedgerows
Regulations 1997.
Aerial Photographs
The air photographic evidence from this part of the county was plotted as part of the National Mapping
Programme in the early 1990s (and is also on the SMR), and is therefore relatively well-known (Fig. 6). The
wider area contains several notably complex concentrations of such marks (as discussed above). Very little was
plotted in the vicinity of the site area and nothing on the site itself. No ridge and furrow was noted. However, it
was possible that new evidence could have come to light since this mapping programme was completed, so the
catalogue of the National Monuments Record was searched on 21st November 2007 for a radius of 2.5km
8
around the site. This revealed over 300 images from sorties flown from 1934 to 2006 (Appendix 3), a large
proportion of which were specialist oblique views, and 13 of the sorties would probably not have been available
to the plotting programme.
All of the new images and a large collection of the earlier photographs, including all of those showing the
site itself, were viewed in Swindon on 30th November 2007.
For all of the extension area, there were no new cropmarks suggesting the presence of archaeological
features. Only those marks already plotted were visible; this included none on the site itself.
Discussion
In considering the archaeological potential of the study area, various factors must be taken into account,
including previously recorded archaeological sites, previous land-use and disturbance and future land-use
including the proposed development. The proposal site occupies a large parcel or land (170ha) and on the basis
of chance alone it should be anticipated that archaeological deposits, perhaps even extensive and complex ones
will be present on the site. Indeed some deposits of archaeological interest are already guaranteed to be present,
with a ditched field system of Roman date already present to the south (Hammond et. al. forthcoming) and
extending northwards into the proposal site. This field system, though, is less extensive to its north east and its
limit in this direction may have, more or less, been reached at the boundary of the study area (Hammond et al in
prep).
Despite the extensive aerial photographic coverage of the study area and its acknowledged productiveness,
these aerial surveys have failed to reveal any deposits for the proposal site itself (Fig. 6) though the formation of
cropmarks is a complex matter relating to soil type water retention and the presence of overburden such as
alluvium (which is certainly present for small parts of the site) and absence of evidence cannot be taken as
evidence of absence.
It is considered that it will be necessary to provide further information about the potential of the site from
field observations in order to draw up a scheme to mitigate the impact of development on any below-ground
archaeological deposits if necessary. A scheme for such an evaluation would need to be drawn up and approved
by the archaeological officer of the county mineral authority and implemented by a competent archaeological
contractor, such as an organization registered with the Institute of Field Archaeologists.
References
Benson, D and Miles, D, 1974, The Upper Thames Valley: an archaeological survey of the river gravels,
Oxfordshire Archaeol Unit Survey 2, Oxford
BGS, 1974, British Geological Survey, Sheet 252, Drift/Solid Edition, Scale 1:50,000
9
Fulford, M, 1992, ‘Iron Age to Roman: a period of radical change on the gravels’, in (eds) M Fulford and E
Nicols, Developing landscapes of lowland Britain: the archaeology of the British gravels: a review, Soc
Antiq London Occas Pap 14, 23–38
GMLP 2003, Gloucestershire County Council Minerals Local Plan, adopted April 2003, Gloucester
Hammond, S, Havard, T, Hindmarch, E, Preston, S and Taylor, A, forthcoming, ‘Roman landscape features at
Manor Farm Quarry, Kempsford, Gloucestershire’, Thames Valley Archaeological Services, Reading
Hammond, S, Lewis, J and Preston, S, in prep, ‘Roman landscape features at Manor Farm Quarry Areas D, E
and F, Kempsford, Gloucestershire’, Thames Valley Archaeological Services, Reading
Hingley, R and Miles, D, 1984, ‘Aspects of Iron Age settlement in the Upper Thames Valley’, in B Cunliffe and
D Miles (eds), Aspects of the Iron Age in central southern Britain, Oxford Univ Comm Archaeol Monogr 2,
52–71
Jennings, D, Muir, J, Palmer, S and Smith, A, 2004, Thornhill Farm, Fairford, Gloucestershire; an Iron Age and
Roman pastoral site in the Upper Thames Valley, Oxford Archaeology Thames Valley Landscapes Monogr 23,
Oxford
Miles, D, Palmer, S, Smith, A and Edgeley-Long, G, (draft), ‘Iron Age and Roman settlement in the Upper
Thames Valley: excavations at Claydon Pike and other sites in the Cotswolds Water Park’, Oxford
Archaeology Thames Valley Landscapes Monogr
Mills, A D, 1998, Dictionary of English Place-Names, Oxford
Pine, J and Preston, S, 2004, Iron Age and Roman Settlement ad Landscape at Totterdown Lane, Horcott near
Fairford, Gloucestershire, Thames Valley Archaeological Services, Monograph 6
PPG16, 1990, Dept of the Environment Planning Policy Guidance 16, Archaeology and Planning, HMSO
VCH, 1981, Victoria History of the Counties of England: Gloucestershire, vii, Oxford
Williams, A and Martin, G H, 2002, Domesday Book, A complete Translation, London
10
APPENDIX 1: Sites and Monuments Records within a 2.5 km search radius of the development site
No
1
2
SMR Ref
AREA 14656
AREA 3182
Grid Ref (SU)
17000 97500
Type
Field system
Pottery,
Arrowhead
Flint core
Struck flint
AREA 26670
18210 97780
18270 97770
18120 97730
Ring ditch,
Enclosure
Gravel pit
3
4
5
AREA 3052
AREA 3140
AREA 2429
16030 97380
19000 98000
18300 97800
6
AREA 324
18314 99823
7
8
Area 4871
AREA 4872
19024 99823
19267 99712
9
10
11
AREA 20342
AREA 21065
AREA 29724
18500 99500
18000 99800
16700 97000
AREA 29725
16700 97000
12
AREA 3164
16370 97210
ring ditch
Spearhead or rapier
Enclosure complex,
pottery
Enclosure
complex
Settlement complex
Settlement
complex,
cemeteries,
Finds
Settlements
Settlement complex
Field system, and
enclosure, complex
Field system,
enclosure complex,
Pottery
Enclosure
13
AREA 3175
17450 99900
Enclsoure complex
14
AREA 21800
16240 99410
15
AREA 28237
16328 99291
Enclosure,
Fields
ditch
Canal feeder
Enclosure,
complex
16
17700 99100
17
AREA 3354
AREA 3273
AREA 14655
18
19
Period
Roman
Iron Age
Early Bronze Age
Mesolithic
Neolithic/Bronze
Age
Bronze Age
Undated
Medieval, Post
medieval
Bronze Age?
Middle Bronze Age
Undated
Iron Age
Iron Age, Roman
Iron Age, Roman
Iron Age, Roman,
Saxon, medieval
Iron Age, Roman
Iron Age, Roman
Iron Age, Roman
17000 97000
Finds
Enclosure complex
Field system
AREA 26680
AREA 3059
16390 97000
17180 99600
Villa?
Enclosure complex,
Roman
Roman, Medieval
20
21
AREA 2431
AREA 3004
18000 99300
17350 98900
Enclosure complex
Enclosures
22
AREA 3218
17100 99200
Mill
Roman, Undated
Medieval or postmedieval
Medieval, postmedieval
23
AREA 26685
16630 97110
Gravel pit?
24
AREA 2420
16710 98780
Pound
25
AREA 2424
16100 97400
Sherd
26
AREA 3132
17130 99130
Windmill
27
AREA 3222
19000 99000
Windmill
28
29
30
AREA 2425
AREA 2430
AREA 3036
16800 99500
19200 97150
18030 98040
31
32
33
34
35
36
AREA 3163
AREA 3375
AREA 3376
AREA 17058
AREA 26676
AREA 26677
16170
18680
19300
17690
17660
19280
Enclosure complex
Circular enclosure
Rectangular
enclosure
Enclosure complex
Enclsoures
Trackway
Ring ditch
Enclosure
Trackway?
field
boundary?
Church
37
16870 98890
Barbed and tanged arrowhead
Cropmark.
Cropmark
Cropmark
pre- 1799
Kempsford and Driffield)
(Enclosure
map
cropmarks
Thornhill Farm Part excavated
Part schedueld ancient monument (SAM459)
Longdoles Lake. Excavated
Warrens Cross Lake.
Extensive settlement complex. Excavated
Claydon Pike, Lechlade.
Coln River Gravel Quarry, Fairford
Stubbs Farm, Kempsford. Excavation. Roman
field system and enclosures.
Iron Age, Roman
Iron Age
Prehistoric or
Roman?
Prehistoric or
Roman
Prehistoric,
Roman,
Medieval
Post-medieval 18thC
Prehistoric, Roman,
Medieval, Postmedieval
Roman
Undated
Roman
97250
97090
97200
97660
97520
97240
Comment
Manor Farm, Kempsford. Excavated
Medieval, post
medieval
Post medieval 19th
C
Post medieval
18th C
Post medieval
19th C
Post medieval
16th C
Undated
Undated
Undated
Cropmarks
Cropmarks. Destroyed by mineral extraction
RAF Fairford. Excavation of settlement
Pottery and lead plaque roll, rivets and weights
Cropmarks
Stubbs Farm, Kempsford. Roman field system.
Excavated.
Cropmark
Cropmarks. Roman settlement,
Watching Brief
Cropmarks and Roman finds
Cropmark
Whelford Mill, Kempsford. Two Whelford Mills
on Kempsford manor estate 1258 and two under
one roof in 1532. Remodelled mid 20th century
Cropmarks. Before 1799 (Enclosure map
Kempsford and Driffield).
On OS 6" map of 1885
Watching Brief
Windmill, Whelford. On early 19th century print
West Mill, Lechlade, ruin 1527. Dwelling in
1627.
Cropmarks
Cropmark
Cropmark (source unknown, not on NMP plot)
Iron Age/ Roman?
Undated
Undated
Bronze Age?
Undated
Undated
Cropmarks and surface finds of Roman pottery
Cropmarks
Cropmark
Cropmark
Cropmark
Cropmarks
Medieval
St Anne's Church, Whelford, Listed grade II
1
APPENDIX 2: Historic and modern maps consulted
1575
Saxton’s map of Gloucestershire (fig 2)
1802
Kempsford and Driffield Enclosure
1875
Ordnance Survey, First Edition (fig 3)
1900
Ordnance Survey, Second Edition
1924
Ordnance Survey (fig 4)
1960
Ordnance Survey (fig 5)
2006
Ordnance Survey, Pathfinder 169, 1:25,000 (fig 1)
2
APPENDIX 3: Aerial Photographs consulted
A> Verticals
Sortie
US/7PH/GP/LOC93
US/7PH/GP/LOC95
US/7PH/GP/LOC219
US/7PH/GP/LOC234
RAF/106G/UK/1395
RAF/106G/UK/1395
RAF/106G/UK/1721
RAF/540/958
RAF/58/3612
RAF/58/8308
OS/70342
OS/70354
FSL/71223
FSL/71224
FSL/71227
OS/82102
OS/82103
OS/96126
Date Flown
02-Dec-1943
04-Dec-1943
13-Mar-1944
15-Mar-1944
10-Apr-1946
10-Apr-1946
06-Sep-1946
01-Dec-1952
20-Jun-1960
21-Sep-1967
16-Sep-1970
20-Sep-1970
06-Oct-1971
05-Oct-1971
26-Oct-1971
10-May-1982
11-May-1982
06-Jun-1996
Frame (s)
5013–15, 5019
5026–7
5016
5013–16
3168–74, 3261–6
4167–74
1264–70, 4061–8, 5063–8
3439–45
30–3, 88–92
106–7
32–3, 47–52, 68–73
90–5, 110–14, 137–8
223079
224150–1, 224165–8, 224271–3
227095–7
85–9
134–7
38–43, 87–90, 99–102, 146–51
NGR (SU)
140 975
153 986
178 976
181 975
145 977
139 962
182 977
179 980
167 964
180 947
156 987
146 965
151 985
188 956
171 965
176 981
159 979
179 956
B> Specialist obliques
Accession No.
CAP 8393
RCA 11405
ACA 7081
CCC 8485
RCA 11407
ACA 7199
HAW 9426
CAP 8121
WAB 11635
WAB 11655
NMR 129
NMR 131
NMR 1302
WAB 216
NMR 312
NMR 727
NMR 10835
NMR 823
NMR 883
NMR 973
NMR 11023
NMR 1302
NMR 2265
NMR 1764
NMR 2160
TCD 3979
TCD 3990
NMR 3117
NMR 4462
NMR 4512
NMR 4452
NMR 4522
NMR 4762
NMR 4761
NMR 15321
NMR 15328
NMR 15493
NMR 15452
NMR 15798
NMR 21347
NMR 21302
NMR 23132
NMR 23094
NMR 24272
NMR 24542
NMR 24248
NMR 24272
Date Flown
02-Sep-1934
19-Apr-1952
27-Jun-1953
01-Jan-1961
01-Jan-1964
18-Jul-1969
25-Jul-1969
11-Aug-1978
13-Jul-1970
26-Jul-1971
20-Jul-1974
20-Jul-1974
01-Jul-1975
27-Jul-1975
24-Jul-1976
24-Jul-1976
11-Aug-1978
10-Aug-1979
29-May-1980
20-Jun-1984
19-Jul-1986
19-Jul-1986
23-Jul-1986
04-Jul-1989
20-Jun-1989
20-Jun-1989
04-Jul-1989
17-Jul-1992
17-Jul-1992
13-Jul-1995
13-Jul-1995
15-Jul-1996
15-Jul-1996
04-Sep-1997
25-Jul-2001
25-Jul-2001
24-Jun-2003
24-Jun-2003
16-Jun-2006
04-Jul-2006
16-Jun-2006
16-Jun-2006
Frame (s)
10–12, 14
11–16
681–4
679
18–16
273
16–17
86–7
1875
3373–5, 3377–8
412–32
421–7
135-137
34–5
223-227
1–59
35
31–47
85–6, 98–119
137–45, 198–200, 204–7, 252–5
260–70
145–50
880–90
143–4
1030–44
2, 6–9
13–14
2251–6
57–79, 80–3, 85
19–21, 23–5
41–56, 59
12–16
25–6
2–15
25–31
11–24
14–15
5
8
12–16
6–9
12–17
9–12
29–31, 34
21–44
15–18
32–3
C> Military Obliques
Accession No.
RAF 30172
Date Flown
25-Jan-1967
Frame
PSFO-0015–24
NGR (SU)
141 976
3
NGR (SU)
148 954
149 955
178 965
161 969
183 977
150 956
152 965
183 977
149 955
184 967
157 963
148 955
184 964
166 956
183 966
152 955
149 955
145 970
140 957
142 965
143 961
157 956
162 958
179 967
179 965
148 954
159 949
148 954
148 965
147 954
148 961
145 962
147 953
142 959
178 959
168 970
184 967
183 967
153 983
148 955
148 954
148 955
147 954
147 954
147 954
150 955
150 955
01000
SITE
SP
00000
13
10
6
19
28
7
8
9
14
22
15
20
16
26
99000
27
21
24
37
4
30
98000
Site
2 5
1
25
3
31
SU16000
35
12
18
97000
34
23
11
36 33
17000
Kempsford Quarry Extension, Gloucestershire,
2007.
An archaeological desk-based assessment
Figure 1. Location of the site within Kempsford and
Gloucestershire
Reproduced from Ordnance Survey Explorer 169
at 1:25000
Ordnance Survey Licence 100025880
29
32
17
18000
19000
KEG 07/152
Approximate
location of Site
KEG 07/152
Kempsford Quarry Extension, Gloucestershire,
2007.
An archaeological desk-based assessment
Figure 2. Location of the site on Saxton’s map of
Gloucestershire, 1575
SITE
KEG07/152
Kempsford Quarry Extension, Gloucestershire, 2007.
An archaeological desk-based assessment
Figure 3. Ordnance Survey, 1876
SITE
KEG07/152
Kempsford Quarry Extension, Gloucestershire, 2007.
An archaeological desk-based assessment
Figure 4. Ordnance Survey, 1923
SITE
KEG07/152
Kempsford Quarry Extension, Gloucestershire, 2007.
An archaeological desk-based assessment
Figure 5. Ordnance Survey, 1960
SITE
KEG 07/152
Kempsford Quarry Extension,
Gloucestershire, 2007.
An archaeological desk-based assessment
Figure 6. Ordnance Survey Explorer 169 with NMP
cropmark plot overlaid at 1:12,500
Crown Copyright reserved.