OTTERY ST MARY TO AYLESBEARE AYLESBEARE TO KENN

Transcription

SOUTH-WEST REINFORCEMENT PROJECT
OTTERY ST MARY TO AYLESBEARE
AYLESBEARE TO KENN
FISHACRE TO CHOAKFORD
GAS PIPELINES
DEVON
POST-EXCAVATION ASSESSMENT
AND
UPDATED PROJECT DESIGN
ISSUE 2
Volume 1: Text
For
LAING O’ROURKE
on behalf of
NATIONAL GRID
CA PROJECT: 9070
CA REPORT: 09106
FEBRUARY 2010
SOUTH-WEST REINFORCEMENT PROJECT
OTTERY ST. MARY TO AYLESBEARE
AYLESBEARE TO KENN
FISHACRE TO CHOAKFORD
GAS PIPELINES
DEVON
POST-EXCAVATION ASSESSMENT
AND
UPDATED PROJECT DESIGN
VOLUME 1: TEXT
CA PROJECT: 9070
CA REPORT: 09106
Author:
Stuart Joyce, Andrew Mudd, Mark Collard
Approved:
Martin Watts
Signed:
…………………………………………………………….
Issue: 02
Date: February 2010
This report is confidential to the client. Cotswold Archaeology accepts no responsibility or liability to any third
party to whom this report, or any part of it, is made known. Any such party relies upon this report entirely at their
own risk. No part of this report may be reproduced by any means without permission.
© Cotswold Archaeology
Building 11, Kemble Enterprise Park, Kemble, Cirencester, Gloucestershire, GL7 6BQ
Tel. 01285 771022
Fax. 01285 771033
E-mail: [email protected]
SWRP Devon Gas Pipelines: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design
VOLUME 1
CONTENTS
SUMMARY........................................................................................................................ 11
1.
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 13
Location and topography ..................................................................................... 13
Archaeological background.................................................................................. 14
2.
OBJECTIVES AND METHODS ........................................................................... 16
Archive ................................................................................................................. 17
3.
SUMMARY OF FIELDWORK PROGRAMME ..................................................... 18
Ottery St Mary to Aylesbeare............................................................................... 18
Aylesbeare to Kenn.............................................................................................. 18
Fishacre to Choakford.......................................................................................... 19
4.
DATING AND PHASING...................................................................................... 20
5.
SUMMARY EXCAVATION RESULTS ................................................................. 21
Site OTA 1.03 ..................................................................................................... 21
Site OTA 2.03 ...................................................................................................... 21
Sites OTA 2.06, 3.01 ........................................................................................... 21
Site OTA 3.04 ...................................................................................................... 22
Site OTA 3.07 ...................................................................................................... 24
Site OTA 4.01 ...................................................................................................... 24
Site OTA 4.05 ...................................................................................................... 25
Site OTA 4.06 ...................................................................................................... 25
Site OTA 4.07 ...................................................................................................... 26
Site OTA 4.08 ...................................................................................................... 26
Site OTA 4.09 ...................................................................................................... 26
Site OTA 4.10 ...................................................................................................... 27
Site OTA 4.12 ...................................................................................................... 28
Site OTA 5.01 ...................................................................................................... 28
2
Site OTA 5.02 ...................................................................................................... 29
Site OTA 7A.04 .................................................................................................... 29
Site OTA 7A.06 .................................................................................................... 29
Site OTA 8A.01 .................................................................................................... 30
Site OTA 8A.06 .................................................................................................... 30
Site OTA 9.01 ...................................................................................................... 30
Site OTA 9.02 ...................................................................................................... 31
Site ATK 0.02....................................................................................................... 31
Site ATK 0.03....................................................................................................... 31
Site ATK 0.04....................................................................................................... 32
Site ATK 4.04....................................................................................................... 32
Site ATK 4a.01..................................................................................................... 32
Site ATK 6.06....................................................................................................... 33
Site ATK 7.01....................................................................................................... 33
Site ATK 9.01....................................................................................................... 33
Site ATK 11.04..................................................................................................... 34
Site ATK 12.01..................................................................................................... 34
Site ATK 12.10..................................................................................................... 36
Site ATK 12.12..................................................................................................... 36
Site ATK 12.13..................................................................................................... 36
Site ATK 13.01..................................................................................................... 37
Site ATK 13.02..................................................................................................... 37
Site ATK 14.01..................................................................................................... 42
Site ATK 14.02..................................................................................................... 42
Site ATK 14.03..................................................................................................... 42
Site ATK 14.08..................................................................................................... 43
Site ATK 14.09..................................................................................................... 43
Site ATK 15.02..................................................................................................... 44
Site ATK 15.03..................................................................................................... 44
Site FTC 1.01....................................................................................................... 45
Site FTC 2.02....................................................................................................... 45
Site FTC 4.01....................................................................................................... 46
Site FTC 7.01....................................................................................................... 46
Site FTC 8.01....................................................................................................... 47
Site FTC 8.02, 8.03.............................................................................................. 48
Site FTC 10.01 .................................................................................................... 48
Site FTC 12.05..................................................................................................... 49
3
Site FTC 12.05w ................................................................................................. 49
Site FTC 13.03 .................................................................................................... 50
Site FTC 14.01..................................................................................................... 51
Site FTC 15.01..................................................................................................... 52
Site FTC 15.02..................................................................................................... 52
Site FTC 16.01 .................................................................................................... 53
Site FTC 16.07..................................................................................................... 53
Site FTC 16.08..................................................................................................... 54
Site FTC 18.12/18.13........................................................................................... 55
Site FTC 18.14..................................................................................................... 56
Site FTC 19.05..................................................................................................... 56
Site FTC 19.07..................................................................................................... 56
Site FTC 19.08..................................................................................................... 57
Site FTC 20.02..................................................................................................... 57
Site FTC 21.02 .................................................................................................... 57
Site FTC 21.06 .................................................................................................... 58
Site FTC 24.02/24.03/24.04................................................................................. 58
Site FTC 24.05..................................................................................................... 60
Site FTC 26.01 .................................................................................................... 61
Site FTC 28.01..................................................................................................... 61
Site FTC 30.02..................................................................................................... 61
Site FTC 30.03..................................................................................................... 62
Site FTC 31.01..................................................................................................... 62
Site FTC 31.02..................................................................................................... 62
Site FTC 31.05..................................................................................................... 63
Site FTC 31.06/31.07/31.08................................................................................. 63
Site FTC 33.01..................................................................................................... 63
Site FTC 33.02..................................................................................................... 64
Site FTC 33.03..................................................................................................... 65
Site FTC 33.04..................................................................................................... 65
Site FTC 33.05/33.06/33.07................................................................................. 65
Site FTC 34.02..................................................................................................... 65
Site FTC 34.08..................................................................................................... 66
Site FTC 35.01..................................................................................................... 66
Site FTC 37.04..................................................................................................... 66
Site FTC 37.06..................................................................................................... 67
Site FTC 38.02..................................................................................................... 67
4
Site FTC 39.03..................................................................................................... 67
Site FTC 40.01..................................................................................................... 67
6.
STRATIGRAPHIC, ARTEFACTUAL AND BIOLOGICAL RECORDS.................. 69
Stratigraphic Record: factual data........................................................................ 69
Artefactual record: factual data ............................................................................ 70
Worked and utilised stone.................................................................................... 73
Biological record: factual data.............................................................................. 74
7.
SUMMARY STATEMENTS OF POTENTIAL ...................................................... 79
Stratigraphic record.............................................................................................. 79
Artefactual Record ............................................................................................... 81
Worked and Utilised stone ................................................................................... 84
Biological Record ................................................................................................. 85
8.
UPDATED OBJECTIVES .................................................................................... 89
Original fieldwork objectives ................................................................................ 89
Revised objectives ............................................................................................... 90
Earlier prehistoric features ................................................................................... 91
Iron Age and Roman sites ................................................................................... 94
Post-conquest medieval and later settlement and agriculture ............................. 96
Regional research aims ....................................................................................... 98
9.
PUBLICATION ..................................................................................................... 100
10.
PROJECT TEAM ................................................................................................. 103
11.
TASK LIST ........................................................................................................... 105
12.
TIMETABLE ......................................................................................................... 107
13.
BUDGET .............................................................................................................. 108
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 109
5
APPENDIX 1: THE WORKED FLINT AND CHERT ......................................................... 117
APPENDIX 2: PREHISTORIC POTTERY ........................................................................ 127
APPENDIX 3: ROMAN POTTERY ................................................................................... 135
APPENDIX 4: THE MEDIEVAL AND LATER POTTERY ................................................. 141
APPENDIX 5: FIRED CLAY AND CERAMIC BUILDING MATERIAL............................... 149
APPENDIX 6: CLAY TOBACCO PIPE ............................................................................. 152
APPENDIX 7: THE COINS ............................................................................................... 154
APPENDIX 8: OBJECTS OF METAL ............................................................................... 155
APPENDIX 9: GLASS....................................................................................................... 160
APPENDIX 10: METALWORKING RESIDUES ................................................................ 163
APPENDIX 11: WORKED AND UTILISED STONE ......................................................... 178
APPENDIX 12: CREMATED HUMAN REMAINS ............................................................. 183
APPENDIX 13: ANIMAL BONE ........................................................................................ 187
APPENDIX 14: CHARCOAL............................................................................................. 192
APPENDIX 15: THE CHARRED PLANT REMAINS ......................................................... 203
APPENDIX 16: MOLLUSCA ............................................................................................ 229
6
APPENDIX 17: GEOARCHAEOLOGICAL AND PALYNOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF
MONOLITH SAMPLES ..................................................................................................... 231
APPENDIX 18: RADIOCARBON DATING ....................................................................... 241
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
(Volume 2)
Fig. 1
Project Location Plan
Fig. 2
Location of Ottery St. Mary to Aylesbeare gas pipeline (1:50,000)
Fig. 3
Location of Aylesbeare to Kenn gas pipeline (1:50,000)
Fig. 4
Location of Fishacre to Choakford gas pipeline (1:50,000)
Fig. 5
Ottery St Mary to Aylesbeare pipeline Inset 1 Plots 1.03 – 4.10 (1:15,000)
Fig. 6
Ottery St Mary to Aylesbeare pipeline Inset 2 Plots 4.09 – 9.01 (1:15,000)
Fig. 7
Aylesbeare to Kenn pipeline Inset 1 Plots 0.02 – 7.01 (1:15,000)
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10 Fishacre to Choakford pipeline Inset 1 Plots 1.01 – 8.03 (1:15,000)
Fig. 16 Ottery St Mary to Aylesbeare Pipeline; Archaeological features in Plots 1.03 & 2.03
(1:50)
Fig. 17 Ottery St Mary to Aylesbeare Pipeline; Archaeological features in Plots 2.06 and
evaluation trenches 210 & 209 (1:250)
and evaluation trenches 208 & 207 (1:250)
(1:200)
Fig. 20 Ottery St Mary to Aylesbeare Pipeline; Archaeological features in Plot 4.01 and
evaluation trenches 204 & 205 (1:250)
(1:250)
7
Fig. 22 Ottery St Mary to Aylesbeare Pipeline; Archaeological features in Plots 4.07, 4.08 &
4.09 (1:250)
Fig. 23 Ottery St Mary to Aylesbeare Pipeline; Archaeological features in Plots 4.09, 4.10 &
4.12 (1:500/1:50)
Fig. 24 Ottery St Mary to Aylesbeare Pipeline; Archaeological features in Plot 5.01 (1:250)
(1:250)
Fig. 26 Ottery St Mary to Aylesbeare Pipeline; Archaeological features in Plots 7a.04 &
7a.06 (1:250)
Fig. 27 Ottery St Mary to Aylesbeare Pipeline; Archaeological features in Plots 8a.01 &
8a.06 (1:200)
(1:2000)
Fig. 29 Aylesbeare to Kenn Pipeline; Archaeological features in Plots 0.02 & 0.03 (1:100)
Fig. 30 Aylesbeare to Kenn Pipeline; Archaeological features in Plots 0.04, evaluation
trenches 308, 307 & 306 & 0.03 (1:100)
Fig. 31 Aylesbeare to Kenn Pipeline; Archaeological features in Plots 4.04 & 4a.01 (1:500)
Fig. 32 Aylesbeare to Kenn Pipeline; Archaeological features in Plots 6.06, 7.01 & 9.01
(1:100)
Fig. 33 Aylesbeare to Kenn Pipeline; Archaeological features in Plot 11.04 (1:200/1:50)
Fig. 34 Aylesbeare to Kenn Pipeline; Archaeological features in Plot 12.01 (Building
12.01.01) (1:100)
Fig. 37 Aylesbeare to Kenn Pipeline; Archaeological features in Plot 13.01 (1:250)
Fig. 43 Aylesbeare to Kenn Pipeline; Archaeological features in Plots 15.02 &15.03 (1:250)
Fig. 44 Fishacre to Choakford Pipeline; Archaeological features in Plot 1.01 (1:500)
Fig. 45 Fishacre to Choakford Pipeline; Archaeological features in Plots 2.02 & 4.01
(1:25/1:500)
Fig. 47 Fishacre to Choakford Pipeline; Archaeological features in Plots 8.01 & 8.02 (1:250)
Fig. 48 Fishacre to Choakford Pipeline; Magnetometer survey in Plot 10:01 (1:1000)
8
Fig. 50 Fishacre to Choakford Pipeline; Archaeological features in Plots 12.05 & 12.05w
(1:200)
Fig. 51 Fishacre to Choakford Pipeline; Archaeological features in Plot 13.03 and evaluation
trenches 9 & 10 (1:250)
Fig. 52 Fishacre to Choakford Pipeline; Magnetometer Survey in Plot 14.01 (1:1000)
Fig. 54 Fishacre to Choakford Pipeline; Archaeological features in Plots 15.01, 15.02 and
16.01 (1:250)
Fig. 58 Fishacre to Choakford Pipeline; Archaeological features in Plots 18.12, 18.13 &
18.14 (1:250)
19.08 (1:250)
Fig. 60 Fishacre to Choakford Pipeline; Archaeological features in Plots 20.02 and 21.02
(1:250)
24.05 (1:500)
(1:250)
31.01 (1:250)
(1:250)
31.08 (1:200)
(1:200)
33.06 (1:250)
34.08 (1:250)
9
37.06 (1:500)
(1:250)
SITE GAZETTEER
(Volume 3)
10
SUMMARY
Site Name:
Ottery St. Mary to Aylesbeare Gas Pipeline
Aylesbeare to Kenn Gas Pipeline
Fishacre to Choakford Gas Pipeline
Location:
Ottery St. Mary to Aylesbeare, Devon
Aylesbeare to Kenn, Devon
Fishacre to Choakford, Devon
NGR:
Ottery St. Mary to Aylesbeare SY 1198 9573 to SY 0456 9081
Aylesbeare to Kenn SY 0455 9083 to SX 9237 8643
Fishacre to Choakford SX 8176 6454 to SX 5892 5460
Type:
Programme of Archaeological Investigation
Date:
Fieldwork: 18 September 2006 to 11 October 2007
Location of archive:
Currently held by Cotswold Archaeology; Ottery St. Mary to
Aylesbeare and the Aylesbeare to Kenn archive to be
deposited with Royal Albert Memorial Museum in Exeter;
Fishacre to Choakford archive to be deposited with Plymouth
City Museum and Art Gallery
Accession Numbers:
Ottery St. Mary to Aylesbeare: RAMM 518/2006
Aylesbeare to Kenn: RAMM 172/2008
Fishacre to Choakford: AR 2007.2
Site Code:
Ottery St. Mary to Aylesbeare OTA 06
Aylesbeare to Kenn ATK 06
Fishacre to Choakford FTC 06
A programme of archaeological investigation was undertaken by Cotswold Archaeology from
April 2005 to October 2007 at the request of Laing O’Rourke on behalf of National Grid along
three sections of gas pipeline running from Ottery St Mary to Aylesbeare, from Aylesbeare to
Kenn and from Fishacre to Choakford, Devon which, together with the Ilchester to Barrington
gas pipeline in Somerset, form the South-West Reinforcement Project. The total length of
the three pipeline sections in Devon amounted to c 56km, and archaeological remains in
eighty-eight sites were examined by excavation. Of greatest archaeological significance
were: eleven earlier prehistoric sites (dating from the Early Neolithic to the Middle Bronze
Age), mainly comprising groups of pits and several ditches; ten Iron Age and Roman sites,
including parts of settlements and enclosures (five), iron smelting furnaces (one) and a
number of more disparate features; part of a medieval settlement; and a post-medieval cob
11
building. Most of the remaining sites are undated and generally comprise small groups or
individual pits and ditches. The material remains were for the most part sparse, although
they included significant assemblages of Neolithic and Bronze Age pottery (Grooved Ware,
Beaker and Trevisker Ware), and moderate, if not prolific Roman, medieval and postmedieval pottery. Worked flint and chert was widespread, although not dense and there
were occasional stone, metal and glass artefacts. The ironworking residues from prehistoric
furnaces are of particular interest. Charred plant remains and charcoal were sampled from a
number of deposits of all the periods represented, and may have the further potential to
provide radiocarbon dating where needed.
This document presents a quantification and assessment of the evidence recovered from the
excavation. It considers the evidence both by category and collectively in its local and
regional context, and presents an Updated Project Design for a programme of postexcavation analysis to bring the results to appropriate publication.
12
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Between April 2005 and October 2007 Cotswold Archaeology (CA), at the request of
Laing O’Rourke on behalf of National Grid, undertook a series of archaeological
works, including desk-based assessments, field reconnaissance surveys, evaluation
trenching and excavations, along three lengths of pipeline forming part of the
National Grid South-West Reinforcement Project in Devon (Fig. 1). These pipelines
ran between Ottery St Mary and Aylesbeare (10km), Ayesbeare and Kenn (16km),
and Fishacre and Choakford (30 km). All works were carried out in compliance with
a condition of consent for the scheme granted by the Department of Trade and
Industry requiring the implementation of a programme of archaeological works to the
satisfaction of the Devon County Council Archaeology Service.
Location and topography
1.2
The Ottery St Mary to Aylesbeare pipeline began approximately 1km east of Ottery
St Mary (SY 1210 9581), from where it ran south-west, crossing the River Otter
500m to the south of the town (Fig. 2). It continued in a south-westerly direction,
before turning to run west, then north-west, to pass between West Hill and Higher
Metcombe. Thereafter the route ran south-west terminating c. 500m south-east of
the village of Aylesbeare (SY 0458 9069).
1.3
The Aylesbeare to Kenn pipeline commenced approximately 500m south of
Aylesbeare (SY 0455 9086) and, after running west for just over 1km, ran in a
generally south-western direction until the Exe estuary, 1km north of Lympstone
(Fig. 3). The route crossed the Exe at Powderham Sand, recommencing on the
western side of the estuary just north of the village of Powderham. From there the
route ran north of the Powderham plantations, turned and ran west for two
kilometres, terminating approximately 1km north of Kenn (SX 9232 8645).
1.4
The Fishacre to Choakford pipeline began at Fishacre AGI (SX 2817 0645) and ran
westward to the north of Staverton (Fig. 4). It then turned to run south passing west
of Hood Barton and east of Westcombe and Lower and Higher Allerton. The route
then turned on a south-westerly alignment and ran to the River Avon, south of Avon
Wick village. The south-westerly alignment continued, running to the north of
Ugborough and south of Ivybridge. The westerly alignment continued to its
termination at Choakford AGI (SX 2589 0546).
13
1.5
The topography of these routes is characterised by the gently rolling countryside of
East Devon and the South Hams regions. In East Devon this is mainly formed on an
underlying geology of Triassic mudstones, sandstones and occasional pebble beds,
with alluvial silts and gravels in the valley of the River Otter. West of the River Exe
the geology is mainly Dawlish Sand of the Permian era.
From Fishacre to
Choakford the underlying geology largely comprises Mid Devonian slates and
shales.
Land use was overwhelmingly agricultural throughout with a mixture of
arable and pastoral uses.
.
Archaeological background
1.6
In April 2005 CA was commissioned by Laing O’Rourke, on behalf of National Grid,
to undertake Archaeology and Heritage Surveys of all three lengths of pipeline. The
Archaeology and Heritage Surveys formed part of the Archaeology and Cultural
Heritage chapters of the Environmental Statements, produced to meet the
requirements of The Public Gas Transporter Pipeline Works (Environmental Impact
Assessment) Regulations 1999. The surveys comprised Desk-Based Assessments
(DBAs) and Archaeological Field Reconnaissance Surveys (AFRSs), the results of
which were presented in three reports each of three volumes (CA 2005a, 2005b,
2006a).
1.7
In addition, during earlier consideration of the Fishacre-Choakford section of pipeline,
CA carried out preliminary field surveys, including fieldwalking on arable land (CA
2001) and two areas of trial geophysical survey (Stratascan 2001), the results of
which are incorporated in this Assessment.
1.8
The Archaeology and Heritage Surveys identified a number of locations with known
or suspected archaeological remains and estimated that there were about 45 sites
with the potential to suffer impacts (eleven regarded as being at high risk and 34 at
moderate risk). In addition, the ES recognised that, because of the lack of systematic
archaeological prospection, there was the potential for as yet unrecorded sites to lie
along the lengths of the pipelines.
Consequently, a staged approach to further
archaeological investigation was undertaken to determine the impact of construction
of the pipelines on archaeological sites and to devise appropriate mitigation for any
archaeological remains found.
These investigations comprised archaeological
14
geophysical surveys, earthwork surveys and trial trenching ahead of construction.
The geophysical surveys were targeted on cropmarks and other areas of
archaeological potential identified in the Archaeology and Heritage Surveys
(Archaeological Surveys 2006a, 2006b, 2006c, 2007). Subsequent trial trenching
investigated anomalies of archaeological potential found in the geophysical surveys
(CA 2006b, 2006c, 2007a).
1.9
Consent to construct the pipeline was granted in April 2006 by the Secretary of State
for Trade and Industry subject to the implementation of a programme of
archaeological work to be agreed in advance with the Devon County Council
Archaeology Service (DCCAS).
1.10
As a result of the staged assessment of the archaeological potential of the route, a
number of sites were identified as requiring archaeological excavation ahead of
construction as a mitigation of impact. These were carried out in accordance with
Written Schemes of Investigation approved by DCCAS (CA 2006f, CA 2007c).
Elsewhere topsoil removal as part of construction works was monitored by the
attending archaeologist as a watching brief governed by approved WSIs which also
covered cases where deeper soil removal was required to reach archaeological
levels (CA 2006d, 2006e, 2007b). The mitigation excavations were undertaken on
nine defined areas, while the scheme-wide watching briefs resulted in the discovery
and recording of a large number of other sites/features. In both instances,
archaeological excavation and recording was carried out to similar sampling levels
and standards. A summary of mitigation measures is presented in the fieldwork
summaries for each pipeline (Section 5, below).
1.11
The archaeological results from all three sections of pipeline have been drawn
together for this report. All the sites are identified by the pipeline section code; OTA
(Ottery St Mary to Aylesbeare), ATK (Aylesbeare to Kenn) and FTC (Fishacre to
Choakford). Within these sections each parcel of land was identified by a unique
code (Plot no.) allocated by Laing O’Rourke which has been retained as the site
designation.
The potentially archaeologically significant features identified in all
stages of work are presented in Volume 1 of this report. Site mapping is presented in
Volume 2 and a summary gazetteer of all findings is presented in Volume 3.
15
2.
2.1
OBJECTIVES AND METHODS
The WSIs for the excavations and watching briefs contained a series of objectives,
the fundamental one of which was to identify, investigate and record all
archaeological remains present. The further archaeological research objectives are
itemised and discussed in Section 8 of this Assessment.
2.2
The examination of the features concentrated on recovering the plan and structural
sequences, as well as consideration of the archaeological potential of the remains in
relation to research objectives. As a baseline sampling strategy, all discrete features
(post holes, pits) were sampled by hand excavation (normally 50% by volume) unless of
common/repetitious nature when the sampling level was to be lowered. Linear features
(ditches etc) were sectioned at least once, with each section typically being one metre
in length. Bulk horizontal deposits were 10% excavated by hand (as a minimum) with
provision for further excavation by machine. Priority was to be attached to features
yielding sealed assemblages which could be related to the chronological sequence of
the site.
2.3
The evaluations had the limited objectives of providing data on the date, character,
quality and extent of archaeological deposits in order to inform subsequent mitigation,
decisions about which were made in consultation with DCCAS and National Grid’s
Archaeological Adviser.
2.4
Features were recorded in accordance with Technical Manual 1 Fieldwork Recording
Manual (CA 2005). Each context was recorded on a pro-forma context sheet; principal
deposits were recorded by drawn plans (scale 1:20 or 1:50 as appropriate) and sections
(scale 1:10 or 1:20 as appropriate). Photographs (monochrome print; colour
transparencies; digital) were taken as appropriate. Artefacts were recovered and
retained for processing and analysis in accordance with Technical Manual 3 Treatment
of Finds Immediately after Excavation (CA 1995). Deposits were assessed for their
palaeo-environmental potential and sampled in accordance with CA Technical Manual
2: The taking of samples for palaeo-environmental and palaeo-economic analysis from
archaeological sites (CA 2003).
16
Archive
2.5
The archive and artefacts from all phases of work are currently held be CA at their
offices in Kemble. The archive and, subject to the agreement of the legal landowners
the artefacts, will be deposited with the Royal Albert Memorial Museum, Exeter and the
Plymouth City Museum and Art Gallery under the following accession numbers: OTA06
– RAMM 518/2006; ATK06 – RAMM 172/2008; FTC06 – AR 2007.2.
17
3.
SUMMARY OF FIELDWORK PROGRAMME
Ottery St Mary to Aylesbeare
3.1
A total of 57 plots (defined by existing field boundaries) were subject to
archaeological investigation; of these six were evaluated by trenching (table below),
Three of these, plots; 3.04, 4.01 and 5.01, were then subject to further excavation.
Plots targeted with Evaluation Trenches and Area Excavation
Plot No.
Evaluation Trench Nos.
Further Excavation
1.02
211
No
2.06
208, 209 and 210
No
3.01
207
No
3.04
206
Yes
4.01
204 and 205
Yes
5.01
201, 202 and 203
Yes
All plots were monitored in the Watching Brief. As a result of the combined phases
of fieldwork (evaluation, pre-emptive excavation and watching brief), features within
21 individual sites were the subject of archaeological excavation. These were
located in plots 1.03, 2.03, 2.06, 3.04, 3.07, 4.01, 4.05, 4.06, 4.07, 4.08, 4.09, 4.10,
4.12, 5.01, 5.02, 7a.04, 7a.06, 8a.01, 8a.06, 9.01, 9.02 (Figs.2, 5, 6, 16-28). The
results below (Section 5) include those from four evaluation trenches where
archaeological deposits or features were identified but which were not subject to
more extensive excavation.
Aylesbeare to Kenn
archaeological investigation; of these ten were evaluated by trenching (table below).
Two of these, plots; 12.01 and 13.02 were then subject to further excavation.
Plot No.
Further Excavation
0.04
306, 307 and 308
No
4A.02
309, 310 and311
No
5.02
312
No
7.01
313 and 314
No
10.03
304 and 305
No
12.01
301, 302, 303, 315*, 325*, 326*,327* Yes
12.10
316
and 328*
No
18
12.12
317, 318 and 319
No
12.13
320, 321 and 322
No
13.02
323 and 324
Yes
*Hand dug trenches
All plots were monitored in the Watching Brief. As a result of all phases of fieldwork,
features within 20 individual sites were the subject of archaeological excavation.
These were located in plots 0.02, 0.03, 4.04, 04a.01, 6.06, 7.01, 9.01, 11.04, 12.01,
12.10, 12.12, 12.13, 13.03, 14.01, 14.02, 14.03, 14.08, 14.09, 15.02 and 15.03
(Figs.1, 3, 7-9, 29-43).
Fishacre to Choakford
archaeological investigation, of these eight had evaluation trenches excavated within
them (table below). Three of these, plots; 13.03, 14.01 and 24.02 were then subject
to further excavation. Plot 24.03 went straight to excavation because of its proximity
to a known archaeological site (Bowl Barrow SAM No. 33756).
Plot No.
Area Excavation
10.01
112, 113, 114 and 115
No
12.05
111
No
13.03
109 and 110
Yes
14.01
106, 107 and 108
Yes
20.01
105
No
20.02
104
No
20.03
102 and 103
No
24.02
101
Yes
24.03
N/A
Yes
All plots were monitored in the Watching Brief. As a result of all phases of fieldwork,
features in 47 individual plots were the subject of archaeological excavation. These
were located in plots 1.01, 2.02, 4.01, 7.01, 8.01, 8.02/8.03, 10.01, 12.05, 12.05w,
13.03, 14.01, 15.01, 15.02, 16.01, 16.07, 16.08, 18.12/18.13, 18.14, 19.05, 19.07,
19.08, 20.02, 21.02, 21.06, 24.02/24.03/24.04, 24.05, 26.01, 28.01, 30.02, 30.03,
31.01, 31.02, 31.05, 31.06/07/08, 33.01, 33.02, 33.04, 33.05/06/07, 34.02, 34.08,
35.01, 37.04, 37.06, 38.02, 39.03, 40.01 (Figs.1, 4, 10-15, 44-73).
19
4.
DATING AND PHASING
4.1
The excavation areas contained a range of archaeological deposits, with contexts
falling broadly into eight provisional chronological periods:
Period 2: Neolithic (c 4000 – 2400 BC)
Period 3: Bronze Age (c 2400 – 700 BC)
Period 4: Iron Age (c 700 BC – AD 50)
Period 5: Roman (c AD 50 – 450)
Period 7: medieval (c 1000 – 1500)
Period 8: post-medieval (c 1500 – 1800)
Period 9: Modern (c 1800 – present)
Period 10: Undated
4.2
Survival of the archaeological deposits varied but generally modern truncation was
widespread. Except where it crossed roads or watercourses, the pipeline route
traversed an almost exclusively agricultural landscape, which consisted of both
pasture and arable land. It is, however, likely that most of the land had been
cultivated at one time (despite no clear indications of ridge-and-furrow cultivation)
and as a consequence, most archaeological features had been subject to varying
degrees of truncation. Unless otherwise noted in this report, archaeological features
were observed underlying modern topsoil and subsoil.
4.3
The initial allocation of features to periods is based on preliminary spot-dating,
including radiocarbon; a refinement of the provisional phasing may be required
following further analysis of the artefacts with further scientific dating as appropriate.
4.4
In addition to the provisionally-dated deposits, certain features contained no
artefactual material. However, it is possible to assign many of these to certain
periods due to their spatial relationship or similarity to other, dated deposits. Those
that remain undated have been assigned to Period 10 (undated). Based on
provisional interpretation and spot-dating, the main components of each period are
dealt with briefly below (Section 5) in chronological order, by pipeline section, and
site by site in plot order from east to west.
20
5.
SUMMARY EXCAVATION RESULTS
Site OTA 1.03 (NGR SY 1149 9519; Figs 5 & 16)
5.1
The site lies at approximately 113m AOD on a south-facing slope some 0.6km east
of the town of Ottery St. Mary. The underlying geology is mapped as Mercia
Mudstone of the Triassic era (BGS 1974). Fieldwork showed that this consisted of
silty clay with frequent angular stones.
Period 7 (Medieval)
5.2
At the western end of the site was pit 1.03.004 which measured 1.78m in width and
0.41m in depth. The fill, 1.03.005, contained nine sherds of 12th to 13th-century
pottery and significant amounts of charred oat and rye grains (sample 173).
5.3
The site lies at approximately 96m AOD on a west-facing slope some 0.4km south of
the town of Ottery St. Mary. The underlying geology is mapped as Mercia Mudstone
of the Triassic era (BGS 1974). Fieldwork showed that this consisted of silty sand
with angular stone inclusions.
Period 2 (Neolithic)
5.4
Located at the centre of the site was pit 2.03.004 which was 0.80m in width and
0.34m in depth. The fill, 2.03.005, contained seven sherds of Middle Neolithic pottery
of the Peterborough Ware tradition.
Sites OTA 2.06, 3.01 (NGR SY 1034 9450; Figs 5, 17 & 18)
5.5
The site lies between 56m AOD and 62m AOD on gently undulating land at the base
of a west facing slope some 0.6km south of the town of Ottery St. Mary on either side
of Sidmouth Road. The underlying geology is mapped as Upper Sandstone of the
Triassic era (BGS 1974). Fieldwork showed that this consisted of silty sand with
frequent angular stones.
5.6
The geophysical survey of Plot 2.06 showed the corner of a rectangular enclosure
with an adjacent ditch to the east, and less distinct linear features further east. Two
linear features on different alignments were found in Plot 3.01 (Archaeological
Surveys 2006, figs 16-18, areas 2c-3b). These features were targeted with a series
of four evaluation trenches (Trenches 207-210).
21
Trench 207 (Plot 3.01)
Period 8 (Post-medieval)
5.7
In the western part of the trench was north-east/south-west orientated ditch 207.08
which contained two sherds of 18th to 19th-century pottery.
Period 9 (Modern)
5.8
Located at the eastern end of the trench were north-east/south-west orientated
parallel ditches 207.04 and 207.06. The fill, 207.07 of ditch 207.06 contained modern
material. They probably represent a post-medieval hedgebank field boundary, but
may have had earlier origins.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.9
Trench 208 targeted on the rectangular enclosure. In the centre of the trench was
east/west orientated ditch 208.04. This feature was not fully revealed within the
trench due to the presence of live services.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.10
Located at the eastern end of the trench were north-east/south-west orientated
ditches 209.06 and 209.11 which would appear to represent a hedgebank field
boundary. At the western end of the trench was north-east/south-west orientated
ditch 209.04 corresponding to the linear feature adjacent to the rectangular
enclosure.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.11
Trench 210 intercepted two linear features. In the northern part of the trench were
east/west orientated ditches 210.04 and 210.07. These correspond to faint linear
anomalies on the geophysical survey plot.
5.12
The site lies at approximately 42m AOD, situated within the flat, low-lying floodplain
of the River Otter, which runs approximately 0.2km to the west, at the base of a south
facing slope. The field, named ‘Pixies’ Parlour’, lies some 0.5km south of the town of
Ottery St. Mary. The underlying geology is mapped as alluvium of the quaternary
22
period (BGS 1974). Fieldwork showed that this consisted of silty sand. Geophysical
survey indicated a curving ditch in this field (Archaeological Surveys 2006, fig. 20,
area 6).
5.13
Located in the east of the site was large pit 3.04.096, which measured 5m in length,
2m in width and 0.75m in depth. It was examined in evaluation trench 206. The
primary fill, 206.015, contained 45 sherds of Early Neolithic pottery in a variety of
fabrics and 54 pieces of worked flint of comparable date. The uppermost fill, 3.04.089
contained eight sherds of undiagnostic pottery and five pieces of worked flint. A soil
sample (sample 073) contained just a few cereal grains and some fragmentary wood
charcoal.
Period 3 (Bronze Age)
5.14
In the western part of the site was pit 3.04.026, which measured 0.75m in diameter
and 0.17m in depth. The secondary fill, 3.04.028, contained one sherd of grogtempered ?Middle Bronze Age pottery.
Period 5 (Roman)
5.15
In the western part of the site was ring-gully 3.04.045, which measured 0.85m in
width and 0.39m in depth and formed a circle 8m in diameter with a south-eastern
entrance gap. The fill, 2.06.007, contained a sherd of Roman pottery and one piece
of worked flint.
5.16
Running from east/west across the length of the site was curving ditch 3.04.004,
which measured between 1.75m and 2.25m in width, and had a maximum depth of
1.10m. The secondary fill, 3.04.014, contained one sherd of Roman pottery and one
piece of worked flint. The fourth fill, 3.04.021, contained one sherd of Roman pottery,
five pieces of worked flint and one piece of burnt stone. Secondary fill, 3.04.062,
contained a single piece of 12th to 14th-century pottery, which is believed to be
intrusive. The uppermost fill, 3.04.052, was cut by post-medieval ditch 3.04.044.
5.17
In the western part of the site was north-west/south-east orientated ditch 3.04.044.
The fill, 3.04.081, contained three sherds of 16th to 18th-century pottery.
23
Period 10 (Undated)
5.18
Pits 3.04.038, 3.04.054, 3.04.029 and 3.04.022 lay in the eastern end of the site. Pit
3.04.036 (within the enclosure delineated by ditch 3.04.004) contained a worked flint
(fill 3.04.037). Pits 3.04.024 and 3.04.031 were located in the western part of the site.
5.19
The site lies south of Salston at approximately 40m AOD within the flat, low-lying
floodplain of the River Otter, which runs approximately 60m to the east some 0.7km
south-west of Ottery St. Mary. The underlying geology is mapped as alluvium of the
Quaternary period (BGS 1974). Fieldwork showed that this consisted of alluvial silt
overlying sandy gravel.
5.20
At the eastern end of the site were deposits 3.07.003, 3.07.004 and 3.07.005 related
to a demolished brick kiln 3.07.009. Deposit 3.07.003 comprised the partial remains
of the kiln cut into the alluvium. Bricks associated with the brick kiln appear to be
hand-moulded and are un-frogged with a suggested date in the later 18th to mid 19th
centuries. Deposit 3.07.005 comprised heat affected natural under the brick kiln,
deposit 3.07.004 comprised demolition rubble related to the brick kiln filling a series
of linear depressions possibly related to a rack structure used for drying bricks. Brick
fragments recovered from the topsoil were under–fired, and possibly represent
wasters/rejects from this brick kiln. The site is located 0.5km to the east of a field
named Brick Plot (NA 2000a).
5.21
The site lies at approximately 50m AOD on gently undulating land at the base of an
east facing slope south of Salston and some 1km south-west of Ottery St. Mary. The
underlying geology is mapped as Upper Sandstone of the Triassic era (BGS 1974).
Fieldwork showed that this consisted of silty sand with frequent rounded or subangular pebbles.
5.22
Located in the north-east of the site was east/west orientated ditch 4.01.005. The
secondary fill, 4.01.025, contained one piece of clay pipe dated to the post-medieval
period and one piece of worked flint. The ditch corresponds with a field boundary on
the 1845 Tithe map (NA 2000a).
24
Period 10 (Undated)
5.23
At the north-western end of Trench 205 was pit 205.004, measuring approximately
0.50m in diameter and 0.22m in depth. An environmental sample recovered from fill
205.005/205.012, (sample 063), identified cremated human bone (Appendix 12). This
and sample 064 from the same fills also recovered wood charcoal but no other
charred plant remains (Appendices 14 & 15).
5.24
In the northern part of the site was east/west ditch 4.01.006 and in the southern part
of the site was north-east/south-west ditch 4.01.004, the fill, 4.01.010, of which was
cut by post hole 4.01.007 (n.i.). The ditches appear to correspond with features
depicted on the geophysical plot, although the survey does not aid their
interpretation. A section of ditch (204.004) was also recorded in Trench 204.
5.25
Scattered across the site were pits 4.01.047, 4.01.045, 4.01.32, 4.01.043 and
4.01.036 (cutting ditch 4.01.006), 4.01.020 and 4.01.011. The fill, 4.01.33, of pit
4.01.032 was cut by post-medieval ditch 4.01.005. Pits 4.01.020 and 4.01.011 were
very similar, being 1.3m in diameter with depths of 0.20-0.22m. No dating evidence
was recovered from the fills of these pits but they may contemporaneous based on
their proximity and similarity.
5.26
The site lies at approximately 69m AOD on an east-facing slope some 2km southwest of Ottery St. Mary. The underlying geology is mapped as valley gravel deposits
of the Quaternary period (BGS 1974). Fieldwork showed that this consisted of sand
with frequent rounded or sub-angular pebbles.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.27
Located at the centre of the site was north/south orientated ditch 4.05.004. It aligns
closely with the present field boundaries and may represent a former subdivision of
this large field.
5.28
The site lies at approximately 74m AOD on an east-facing slope some 1km east of
the village of Broad Oak. The underlying geology is mapped as valley gravel deposits
of the Quaternary period (BGS 1974). Fieldwork showed that this consisted of sand
with frequent rounded or sub-angular pebbles.
25
Period 10 (Undated)
5.29
Located at the centre of the site was north-west/south-east orientated ditch
terminus/pit 4.06.004 and north-east/south-west orientated ditch 4.06.006.
5.30
The site lies at approximately 75m AOD on a south-facing slope some 0.8km east of
Broad Oak. The underlying geology is mapped as valley gravel deposits of the
Quaternary period (BGS 1974). Fieldwork showed that this consisted of sand with
frequent rounded or sub-angular pebbles.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.31
In the centre of the site was a sinuous north/south orientated ditch 4.07.006, the fill,
4.07.007, of which was cut by posthole 4.07.008. The nearby features were pit
4.07.004 and postholes 4.07.010, 4.07.012 and 4.07.014.
5.32
The site lies between 50m AOD in the west and 70m AOD in the east on a southfacing slope some 0.8km east of the village of Broad Oak. The underlying geology is
mapped as Upper Sandstone of the Triassic era (BGS 1974). Fieldwork showed that
this consisted of sand with frequent rounded or sub-angular pebbles.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.33
Located in the southern part of the site were north-west/south-east orientated ditches
4.08.004, 4.08.011, 4.08.006 and 4.08.009. They were aligned approximately parallel
to the northern field boundary and may be agricultural features.
Site OTA 4.09 (NGR SY 0799 9295; Figs 5, 6, 22 & 23)
5.34
The site lies at approximately 55m AOD on a south facing slope some 0.7km east of
the village of Broad Oak. The underlying geology is mapped as Upper Sandstone of
the Triassic era (BGS 1974). Fieldwork showed that this consisted of silty sand with
Period 10 (Undated)
5.35
At the north-eastern end of the site was north-west/south-east orientated ditch
4.09.008 and pit 4.09.006.
26
5.36
Located in the centre of the site was east/west orientated ditch 4.09.004. In the
southern part of the site was north/south orientated ditch 4.09.010. These correspond
to field boundaries seen on the 1891 OS map (NA 2000a).
Site OTA 4.10 (NGR SY 0782 9279; Figs 5, 6 & 23)
5.37
The site lies at approximately 60m AOD at the base of a south-facing slope some
0.5km east of the village of Broad Oak. The underlying geology is mapped as Upper
Sandstone of the Triassic era (BGS 1974). Fieldwork showed that this consisted of
silty sand with rounded or sub-angular pebbles.
5.38
At the centre of the site was north-west/south-east orientated ditch 4.10.008, which
measured 1.9m in width and 0.75m in depth. The third fill, 4.10.011, contained 13
sherds of Middle Bronze Age pottery from a plain Trevisker vessel and small
quantities of charcoal. The fourth fill, 4.10.012, of this ditch contained six sherds of
Exeter Volcanic fabric Middle Bronze Age pottery.
5.39
Lying 50m to the south-west was pit 4.10.016, which measured 0.8m in diameter and
0.21m in depth. The primary fill, 4.10.017, of this pit contained six sherds of Bronze
Age pottery and one piece of worked flint. Sample 213 from this deposit contained
mainly oak charcoal.
Period 5 (Roman)
5.40
In the southern part of the site was north-west/south-east orientated ditch 4.10.018,
which measured 3.40m in width and 1.5m in depth. The fifth fill, 4.10.023, contained
one abraded sherd of possible Roman pottery.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.41
Located at the north-eastern end of the site was north/south orientated ditch
4.10.006. Nearby was pit 4.10.004 which yielded no remains although its fill,
4.10.005, was sampled (sample 212). In the centre of the site was north-west/south
east orientated ditch 4.10.013 which corresponds with a field boundary on the 1845
Tithe map (NA 2000a). In the south-western part of the site was north-west/southeast orientated ditch 4.10.025.
27
5.42
The site lies at approximately 58m AOD at the base of a south-facing slope some
0.4km south-east of the village of Broad Oak. The underlying geology is mapped as
Upper Sandstone of the Triassic era (BGS 1974). Fieldwork showed that this
consisted of sand with rounded or sub-angular pebbles. The geophysical survey in
this plot produced unclear results (Archaeological Surveys 2006, fig. 36, area 17b).
Period 10 (Undated)
5.43
Located in the southern part of the site at the base of a steep slope was ditch
4.12.004, which measured 6m in width and 2m in depth, with a symmetrical u-shaped
profile. The fills, 4.12.005 to 4.12.019, were laid down under waterlogged conditions.
Sediment analysis from a series of column samples (216-220) suggests that it may
have been a palaeochannel (Appendix 17).
Site OTA 5.01 (NGR SY 0754 9251; Figs 6, 24 & 25)
5.44
The site lies at approximately 67m AOD on an east-facing slope some 0.4km southeast of the village of Broad Oak. The underlying geology is mapped as Upper
sand with frequent rounded or sub-angular pebbles.
5.45
The geophysical survey had identified part of a ring-ditch with a projected diameter of
about 25m immediately adjacent to a former double-ditched field boundary
(Archaeological Surveys 2006, fig.38, areas 18a and 18b).
5.46
At the south-western end of the site was east/west orientated ditch terminus
5.01.079. This feature continues into site 5.02 and was recorded as ditch 5.02.004
and contained a probable sherd of Middle Bronze Age pottery.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.47
In the north-eastern part of the site was part of a ring-ditch 5.01.020, measuring
between 2.5m and 3.3m in width with a maximum depth of 1.65m. The excavation of
a substantial portion of it yielded no finds, and the three assessed soil samples (175,
179, 182) had a very low potential. Within the area delineated by ring-ditch 5.01.020
was mound material 5.01.025, 5.01.026 (n.i.), 5.01.038 (n.i.), 5.01.046 (n.i.), 5.01.069
(n.i.), 5.01.070 (n.i) and pit/posthole 5.01.047. To the north of ring-ditch were pit
5.01.015 and posthole 5.01.017, with diameters of 0.36m and 0.26m respectively.
28
5.48
Also in the north-eastern part of the site were north-east/south-west orientated
ditches 5.01.014 and 5.01.082, apparently former field boundary ditches, probably
dating to the post-medieval period but possibly slightly earlier.
5.49
Located in the centre of the site were north/south orientated ditches 5.01.073 and
202.004, the latter identified within trial trench 202, to the west of these were northwest/south-east orientated ditches 5.01.075 and 5.01.077.
5.50
The site lies at approximately 75m AOD on the flat summit of a hill some 0.4km south
of the village of Broad Oak. The underlying geology is mapped as Upper Sandstone
of the Triassic era (BGS 1974). Fieldwork showed that this consisted of sand.
5.51
At the eastern end of the site was east/west orientated ditch 5.02.004, which
measured 0.70m in width and 0.24m in depth. The fill, 5.02.005, contained one sherd
of probable Middle Bronze Age grogged fabric pottery. This feature was recorded in
site 5.01 as ditch terminus 5.01.079.
Site OTA 7A.04 (NGR SY 0614 9266; Figs 6 & 26)
5.52
The site lies at approximately 120m AOD on a south facing slope some 0.5km southwest of the village of Broad Oak. The underlying geology is mapped as Budleigh
Salterton Pebble Beds of the Triassic era (BGS 1995). Fieldwork showed that this
consisted of sandy silt with lenses of pebbles.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.53
At the north-western end of the site was north-west/south-east orientated ditch
7a.04.004, which measured 10.1m in width and 0.5m in depth and may represent a
former trackway/hollow way.
5.54
The site lies at approximately 140m AOD on an east-facing slope some 0.8km southwest of the village of Broad Oak. The underlying geology is mapped as Budleigh
Salterton Pebble Beds of the Triassic era (BGS 1995). Fieldwork showed that this
consisted of silt with cobble and pebble inclusions.
29
Period 10 (Undated)
5.55
At the north-east end of the site was north-west/south-east orientated ditch
7a.06.008. In the south-western part of the site was posthole 7a.06.009.
5.56
The site lies at approximately 143m AOD on gently undulating ground some 1.1km
east of the village of Aylesbeare. The underlying geology is mapped as Aylesbeare
silty clay with pebble and cobble inclusions.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.57
At the centre of the site were north-west/south-east orientated ditches 8a.01.004,
8a.01.006 and 8a.01.008. Located at the southern end of the site was pit 8a.01.010.
The ditches correspond with a field boundary seen on the tithe map of 1842 (NA
2000a).
5.58
The site lies at approximately 147m AOD on gently undulating ground some 0.6km
east of the village of Aylesbeare. The underlying geology is mapped as Aylesbeare
silty clay with pebble and cobble inclusions.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.59
Located in the west of the site was small pit 8a.06.004.
5.60
The site lies at approximately 150m AOD on a north facing-slope some 0.5km southeast of the village of Aylesbeare. The underlying geology is mapped as Aylesbeare
sand with frequent rounded or sub-angular pebbles.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.61
Located at the centre of the site were north-east/south-west orientated ditches
9.01.004 and 9.01.006. These ditches follow the same alignment as existing field
boundaries.
30
5.62
The site lies at approximately 159m AOD on a south-facing slope some 0.7km southeast of Aylesbeare. The underlying geology is mapped as Aylesbeare Mudstone of
the Triassic era (BGS 1995). Fieldwork showed that this consisted of silt with
Period 10 (Undated)
5.63
Located in the north east of the site were north-east/south-west orientated ditches
9.02.003 and 9.02.005. Located in the centre of the site were pits 9.02.015 and
9.02.007. North-east/south-west orientated ditches 9.02.011 and 9.02.013 appear to
be the continuation of ditches 9.01.007 and 9.01.005 respectively. These ditches
(9.02.003, 9.02.005, 9.02.011 and 9.02.013) follow the same alignment as existing
field boundaries and may represent former subdivisions of this field.
5.64
A residual sherd of Early Neolithic pottery was retrieved from ditch 9.02.11.
Site ATK 0.02 (NGR SY 043 908; Figs 7 & 29)
5.65
The site lies at approximately 135m AOD, on a west-facing slope some 0.5km south
of the village of Aylesbeare. The underlying geology is mapped as Aylesbeare
clay silt with pebble lenses.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.66
Located in the western part of the site was north/south orientated ditch 0.02.004.
5.67
The site lies at approximately 132m AOD on a west-facing slope some 0.5km south
of the village of Aylesbeare. The underlying geology is mapped as Aylesbeare
clay-silt with frequent pebble inclusions.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.68
Located in the eastern part of the site was curvilinear ditch 0.03.004. Located in the
western part of the site was north-east/south-west orientated ditch 0.03.006.
31
Site ATK 0.04 (NGR SY 041 908 Figs 7 & 30)
5.69
The site lies at approximately 132m AOD on a west-facing slope some 0.5km south
of Aylesbeare. The underlying geology is mapped as Aylesbeare Mudstone which
was shown to comprise clay-silt with pebbles. The Archaeology and Heritage Survey
had identified two circular undated, but possibly prehistoric cropmarks in this field
(CA 2005, site 16). Geophysical survey located just faint linear anomalies within the
pipeline easement (Archaeological Surveys 2006, Plot 0.04). These were targeted
with three trial trenches, 306, 307 and 308.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.70
In the middle and east of the site were three narrow north-west/south-east orientated
ditches, 308.04, 307.04 and 307.06, identified during trial trenching. In the west of the
field north-east/south-west orientated ditch 306.04 was identified.
5.71
The site lies between 75m AOD in the north and 85m AOD in the south, situated on a
north facing slope some 1km east of Woodbury Salterton. The underlying geology is
mapped as Aylesbeare Mudstone of the Triassic era (BGS 1995). Fieldwork showed
that this consisted of clay with bands of rounded cobbles.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.72
In the centre of the site was a group of four ditches, probably relating to the former
subdivision of this large field. Ditches 4.04.010, 4.04.008 and 4.04.006 were
orientated north-west/south-east, and ditch 4.04.004 curved more east/west.
Site ATK 4a.01 (NGR SY 021 890; Figs 7 & 31)
5.73
The site lies at approximately 75m AOD, situated on a west facing slope some 0.7km
east of Woodbury Salterton. The underlying geology is mapped as Aylesbeare
clay with stone inclusions. Linear and possible rectangular enclosure cropmarks
have been plotted in this field and the field to the south (CA 2005, sites 64, 66).
Period 10 (Undated)
5.74
Located in the southern part of the site were a group of three ditches, 4a.01.004,
4a.01.006 and 4a.01.008. All of these features were orientated north-east/south-
32
west. A sherd of probable Trevisker Ware (?Middle Bronze Age) pottery was
retrieved from the subsoil.
5.75
The site lies at approximately 85m AOD on a west-facing slope some 0.4km south of
Woodbury Salterton. The underlying geology is mapped as Aylesbeare Mudstone of
the Triassic era (BGS 1995). Fieldwork showed that this consisted of clay with
rounded pebble inclusions.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.76
Located in the centre of the site was north-west/south-east orientated ditch 6.06.004.
5.77
The site lies at approximately 70m AOD on a south-facing slope some 0.2km north of
the town of Woodbury. The underlying geology is mapped as Aylesbeare Mudstone
of the Triassic era (BGS 1995). Fieldwork showed that this consisted of sand
overlying clay containing rounded and sub-angular stones. A possible oval cropmark
of uncertain derivation was identified in the adjacent field (Plot 7.02) (CA 2005, site
92).
Period 10 (Undated)
5.78
Trench 314 was located in the eastern part of plot 7.01. At the eastern end of the
trench north-east/south-west orientated ditch 314.004 was identified.
5.79
Located at the centre of the site was pit 7.01.004, which measured 0.36m in diameter
and 0.26m deep, the fill of which was a mid brown sandy silt with very occasional
charcoal inclusions. A small soil sample (sample 289) yielded only modern remains,
although this may have resulted from contamination.
5.80
Nineteen worked flints were recovered from superficial deposits. These are generally
late Neolithic to Bronze Age in character.
5.81
The site lies at approximately 45m AOD on a west-facing slope some 0.3km west of
the town of Woodbury. The underlying geology is mapped as Exmouth Mudstone and
clay and sand bands.
33
Period 10 (Undated)
5.82
Located at the southern end of the site was north-west/south-east orientated ditch
9.01.004 which may represent a former field boundary.
Site ATK 11.04 (NGR SX 991 856; Figs 8 & 33)
5.83
The site lies at approximately 35m AOD on the flat, low-lying valley of the River Exe,
which runs approximately 0.8km to the west. It is situated some 0.3km south-east of
Exton. The underlying geology is mapped as Exmouth Mudstone and Sandstone of
the Triassic era (BGS 1976b). Fieldwork showed that this consisted of sandy silt with
rounded and sub-angular pebbles. A large, oval cropmark, recorded as a possible
enclosure, lies 150m to the north-east in the adjacent field (CA 2005a, site 149).
Period 10 (Undated)
5.84
At the centre of the site was north/south orientated ditch 11.04.004, which measured
4.5m wide and 2m deep. At the south-western end of the site was curvilinear ditch
11.04.034, which measured 2.85m wide and was in excess of 1.3m deep, the true
depth was not established due to the instability of the sides. Both these features
contained leached naturally derived fills, difficult to distinguish from the surrounding
natural substrate, and had steep, symmetrical profiles.
5.85
The site lies at approximately 26m AOD on a terrace of the River Exe, which runs
approximately 0.5km to the south-west. It is situated some 0.2km south of Exton. The
underlying geology is mapped as Pleistocene Alluvial River Deposits (BGS 1976b).
Fieldwork showed that this consisted of sandy clay with rounded and sub-angular
pebbles.
5.86
In the western part of the site was a partially upstanding building, 12.01.01,
constructed of cob (clay subsoil, stone and straw), which measured 13m in length
and 5.8m in width. It was constructed on a lime concrete plinth, with similar lime
concrete foundations built off a large rounded cobble hardcore layer. Within the
structure was a floor of rounded cobbles (0.10m to 0.15m in size). A central corridor
of rammed earth and handmade brick edging separated the two halves of the
building and led from a central doorway. To the west of the central doorway was a
large opening possibly for animals. In the opposite wall on the south-west side of the
34
building was a similar entranceway. These two large entranceways and the lack of a
hearth or fireplace suggest an agricultural rather than domestic use for the building. A
quantity of roof-tile and small amounts of slate (both Cornish Delabole and Devon
slates) were recovered from around the building, suggesting it was roofed with
different materials at different times.
5.87
The earliest activity identified was wall construction cut 12.01.013 (n.i), the primary
deposit (12.01.014) which consisted of a layer of large rounded cobbles onto which
foundation 12.01.015 (n.i), consisting of lime concrete and large rounded cobbles,
was built. The wall construction was continued with a plinth of lime concrete and
cobbles (12.01.016) and the cob wall itself (12.01.017).
5.88
Abutting wall 12.01.017 was bedding layer 12.01.018, onto which floor layer
12.01.019, consisting of rounded cobbles, was laid. Abutting these were edging
layers 12.01.023 and 12.01.027 (with second course 12.01.028), consisting of
handmade bricks which formed the edges of an un-surfaced corridor 12.01.011
running across the centre of the building. Also butted against floor layer 12.01.019
were steps 12.01.020, 12.01.021 and 12.01.022, also constructed of handmade
bricks. Deposited on layer 12.01.019 was a spread of un-mortared bricks 12.01.029
dating to the post-medieval period, which represented material deposited/stored
within the building during its usage phase.
5.89
Cut into cobble layer 12.01.019 was posthole 12.01.025 (n.i). At the north-eastern
end of the building were post-pad 12.01.024, which possibly related to a large
entrance way in the north-east corner of the building, and associated mud-andcobble entrance ramp 315.020. The disuse phase of the building was represented by
deposit 12.01.030 (n.i.), consisting of cob-silt and decomposed organic material,
which overlay all of the deposits within the building. It contained 29 sherds of
medieval and post-medieval pottery (with a terminus post quem of around the 16th
century) as well as six pieces of glass, 76 pieces of tile and pantile and 48 iron
objects. A similar disuse layer, 12.01.031 (n.i.), of silt, rubble and decomposed
organic material built up against the outside walls of the building, this was in turn
overlain by similar disuse layers 12.01.032 (n.i.) and 12.01.033 (n.i.), which
contained one fragment of clay pipe and 26 pieces of tile and pantile. All these layers
were subsequently overlain by wall collapse layer 12.01.034 (n.i.), which was sealed
by turf and topsoil layer 12.01.035 (n.i.).
35
5.90
The site lies at approximately 19m AOD on the valley side of the River Exe, which
runs approximately 0.5km to the east. Located some 1.2km north-east of the town of
Kenton. The underlying geology is mapped as Dawlish Sandstone of the Permian era
(BGS 1976b). Fieldwork showed that this consisted of bands of silt and sand.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.91
Located in the western part of the site were east/west orientated ditch 12.10.004 and
pit 12.10.006.
Site ATK 12.12 (NGR SX 960 849; Figs 9, 35 & 36)
5.92
The site lies at approximately 18m AOD some 1.2km north of Kenton, on the valley
side of the River Exe, which runs approximately 0.75km to the east. The underlying
geology is mapped as Dawlish Sandstone of the Permian era (BGS 1976b) which
fieldwork showed to consist of sandy silt. Cropmarks in this field show a complex of
rectangular enclosures thought possibly to represent medieval building plots (CA
2005, sites 190, 192). The geophysical survey showed the corner of an apparent
rectangular enclosure and other linear anomalies (Archaeological Surveys 2006, figs
35, 36). The scale of the cropmark plot does not allow a precise correlation with
geophysical survey, although the alignments of the features are very similar.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.93
At the centre of the site was an east/west orientated trackway 12.12.004, 2m wide,
which consisted of angular stones. Its alignment is close to that of the possible
enclosure on the geophysical survey, and it appears to correspond to a positive
anomaly depicted on the northern side of the enclosure. The trackway is thought to
represent a modern agricultural feature. Several worked flints came from superficial
deposits in this field.
5.94
In the western part of the site was curving ditch terminus 12.12.011, which measured
0.82m in width and 0.47m in depth, located to the west of this was pit 12.12.014,
which measured 0.80m in diameter and 0.21m in depth, the single fill 12.12.015, of
which consisted a dark brown sandy silt.
36
5.95
The site lies at approximately 23m AOD on flat land south of Exwell Barton and some
1.5km north of Kenton. The underlying geology is mapped as Dawlish Sandstone of
the Permian era (BGS 1976b). Fieldwork showed that this consisted of sand.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.96
In the western part of the site was north-east/south-west orientated ditch 12.13.004
cut by north-west/south-east orientated ditch 12.13.006.
Ditch 12.13.006 runs
parallel to the present field boundary and may be a former land division. Two sherds
of possible Middle Bronze Age pottery came from superficial deposits in this plot.
Site ATK 13.01 (NGR SX 955 849; Fig 9 & 37)
5.97
The site lies at approximately 16 m AOD south of Exwell Barton on Dawlish
Sandstone.
5.98
Four ditches, 13.01.004, 13.01.006, 13.01.008 and 13.01.010, orientated northeast/south-west were identified. These are likely to represent former subdivisions of
this large field.
Site ATK 13.02 (NGR SX 954 851; Figs 9, 38 & 39)
5.99
The site lies at approximately 16m AOD, situated on the flat land south-west of
Exwell Barton some 2km south-east of the town of Exminster. The underlying
geology is mapped as Dawlish Sandstone of the Permian era (BGS 1976b).
Fieldwork showed that this consisted of silty sand.
5.100 The site was recognised through undated cropmarks of an enclosure and other
ditches (CA 2005, Sites 193, 196). Geophysical survey could not be undertaken due
to crop cover (Archaeological Surveys 2006).
Period 4 (Iron Age)
5.101 In the centre of the site was north-west/south-east orientated ditch 13.02.123 (Fig.
39), which measured 1.48m in width and 0.47m in depth. The fill, 13.02.124,
contained eight sherds of possibly Iron Age pottery. It was cut by undated ditch
13.02.127 at its northern end. Parallel to ditch 13.02.123 was north-west/south-east
orientated ditch terminus 13.02.175, which measured 0.97m in width and 0.34m in
depth. The fill, 13.02.176, contained one sherd of possibly Middle Bronze Age
pottery. Both ditches were present in Trial Trench 324 to the south. The ditches are
37
likely to have been contemporary and it is likely that some of the pottery is either
residual, or has been mis-identified.
Period 7 (Medieval)
5.102 This site consists of a medieval longhouse without a surviving wall, but of possible
cob construction, with surrounding drainage gullies and a possible internal make up
layer into which a large circular hearth was cut. In association with this feature was a
sunken floored building with an internal hearth cut into the base of the feature, which
suggests that the natural base of the cut was utilised as the floor of the building.
Surrounding these features were a series of ditches, mostly dated to the postmedieval period, but others of medieval date.
Enclosure ditches
5.103 In the south-eastern part of the site was north-west/south-east orientated ditch
13.02.067, which contained seven sherds of 12th to 14th-century pottery within fill
13.02.102 and one sherd of 12th to 13th-century pottery within fill 13.02.072. Its
secondary fill, 13.02.106, was cut by north-east/south-west orientated ditches
13.02.271 and 13.02.270. The fill, 13.02.167, of ditch 13.02.271 contained one sherd
of 12th to 14th-century pottery. Fill, 13.02.112, of ditch 13.02.270 contained two
sherds of 13th to 14th-century pottery and was cut by north-east/south-west
orientated ditch 13.02.269, which in turn was cut by pit 13.02.161 (fill 13.02.162)
which contained four sherds of 12th to 14th-century pottery and a possible iron knife.
Ditch 13.02.269 also cut pit 13.02.156 (fill 13.02.157). The primary fill, 13.02.114, of
ditch 13.02.269 contained two sherds of 12th to 14th-century pottery.
Longhouse and associated features
5.104 Located in the south-eastern part of the site were the surrounding ditches, hearth and
possible floor surfaces of a longhouse with associated post holes, pits and ditches.
Early phase ditch 13.02.270 was cut by rectilinear ditch 13.02.073, which enclosed
an area in excess of 10m in length and up to 8m in width and was interpreted as a
drainage gully surrounding a possible cob-built long house. The primary fills of ditch
13.02.073, contained one sherd of 12th to 14th-century pottery in 13.02.060; later fills
13.02.062, 13.02.064, 13.02.070, 13.02.093 and 13.02.116, contained 23 sherds of
pottery generally in the 13th to14th century date range.
38
5.105 Lying within the area enclosed by ditch 13.02.073 were spreads of charcoal
13.02.221 (ni), 13.02.220 (ni), postholes 13.02.210 (n.i), 13.02.219 and pit 13.02.222
(ni). The fill, 13.02.223, of pit 13.02.222 contained two sherds of 12th to 14th-century
pottery. It was cut by pit 13.02.228 (ni) which contained a good assemblage of
charred crop waste (samples 163 and 164).
5.106 These features were cut by construction/levelling cut 13.02.236/13.02.195 (ni). This
was filled by make-up layer 13.02.194, which contained two sherds of 13th to 14thcentury pottery and one piece of worked flint. Onto this make-up were laid post pads
13.02.198 (n.i.) and 13.02.199 (n.i.). Make-up layer 13.02.194 was in turn partially
overlain
in
the
south-western
area
of
13.02.236
by
make
up
layer
13.02.237/13.02.227/ 13.02.094 which contained nine sherds of 13th to 14th-century
pottery. Cut into this layer was hearth 13.02.132, which measured 1.85m in diameter
and 0.19m in depth and consisted of a cut (13.02.177), filled by a circular quartz base
(13.02.169), which contained 21 sherds of 13th to 15th-century pottery. The hearth
base was overlain by outer ring of stones 13.02.168 and 13.02.190, which contained
193 sherds of 12th to 14th-century pottery within their make-up. The stones were
overlain by baked clay deposits 13.02.165 and 13.02.189 which contained 562
sherds of 13th to 14th-century pottery and 459 sherds of 13th to 14th-century pottery
respectively (weighing a total of 6.78kg) which may relate to the structure of the
hearth. This was covered by compact silty layer 13.02.158 (n.i).
5.107 Over this lay ring of stones 13.02.135 which may represent a repair or rebuild of the
hearth and contained 115 sherds of 13th to 15th-century pottery and one piece of
redeposited worked flint. Sealing these was baked clay layer 13.02.134/13.02.185
which formed the functional surface of the hearth and contained 78 sherds of 12th to
14th-century pottery between them. Overlying this was deposit 13.02.133 which
represents usage deposits and degradation of the hearth surface.
5.108 Deposit 13.02.193, which represents the former floor surface of the building overlay
make-up layer 13.02.194. Layer 13.02.194 was cut by pit 13.02.047 (fill 13.02.048)
which contained two sherds of 12th to 14th century pottery. Within the long house
was (undated) pit 13.02.045. Immediately north-west of this was pit 13.02.035
containing a sherd of 12th to 14th-century pottery (fill 13.02.036).
39
5.109 To the north-west of the long house was pit 13.02.025. No dating evidence was
recovered from these features, but they were attributed to the medieval period by
proximity and similarity with dateable features.
Sunken Floored Building
5.110 Within the south-eastern part of the site was north-east/south-west orientated ditch
13.02.244/13.02.230/13.02.240, which measured 0.48m in width and 0.19m in depth.
The secondary fill, 13.02.246, of which contained one sherd of medieval pottery and
was cut by Sunken Floored Building (SFB) 13.02.272.
5.111 Sunken Floored Building 13.02.272 measured 5.7m in length, 3.75m in width and
0.4m in depth. The base of the feature appeared to have been used as a floor.
Charcoal rich primary deposits 13.02.213 and 13.02.209 may represent industrial
activity during the usage phase of the building. The secondary fill, 13.02.202,
contained 14 sherds of 12th to 14th-century pottery, the fifth fill, 13.02.208/
13.02.212, five further sherds and one piece of redeposited worked flint. Located
within this feature was hearth 13.02.273, which measured 1.8m in diameter and 0.4m
in depth and consisted of circular base of stones, 13.02.235, surrounded by ring of
compact sandy silt, 13.02.206 to the west of this was the base of a second possibly
earlier hearth 13.02.203 .
Features to the south-east and north-west
5.112 In the south-eastern part of the site was linear ditch 13.02.251, the fill, 13.02.250, of
which contained two sherds of 12th to 14th-century pottery. Posthole 13.02.121
contained one sherd of medieval pottery within fill, 13.02.122, which was
subsequently cut by pit 13.02.267.
5.113 North-west of the SFB was pit 13.02.163 (Fig. 39), the primary fills 13.02.164 and
13.02.192, of which contained five sherds of 12th to 15th -century pottery.
5.114 Located at the south-eastern end of the site was north-west/south-east orientated
ditch 13.02.010, which measured 2.9m in width and 0.25m in depth. The primary fills
(13.02.012, 13.02.020, 13.02.110) contained several sherds of post-medieval pottery.
Also in the south-eastern part of the site was north-west/south-east orientated ditch
13.02.125, which measured 2.4m in width and 0.49m in depth and was on the same
alignment as ditch 13.02.010. The primary fills, (13.02.058, 13.02.077) contained
40
three sherds of 16th to 18th-century pottery, and a possible medieval sherd. Between
ditches 13.02.010 and 13.02.125 was spread of clay and stone 13.02.051,
interpreted as consolidation for a possible field entrance, and possibly including the
re-used cob material from the medieval long house. This spread (13.01.051) was
subsequently cut by pit 13.02.267, which measured in excess of 4.75m in length,
2.9m in width and 1.06m in depth. It contained 16th to 18th century pottery, clay pipe,
several iron objects and an object of lead (fills 13.02.140, 13.02.120). Immediately
north-west was similar pit 13.02.268, which measured 4.39m in length, 2.5m in width
and 0.99m in depth. Fills 13.02.152 and 13.02.033 contained 20 sherds of 16th to
18th-century pottery, three fragments of clay pipe and seven iron objects.
5.115 In the south-eastern part of the site was ditch 13.02.159, which measured 0.93m in
width and 0.21m in depth. The primary fill, 13.02.160, contained two sherds of 18thcentury pottery and one piece of coal. An environmental sample <105> recovered
from secondary fill 13.02.006 identified large quantities of bivalve shells and small
quantities of oyster shells, magnetic material, fish scale, small mammal bones, burnt
mammal bones and charcoal.
5.116 Cut into the fill, 13.02.044, of longhouse gully 13.02.073 was pit 13.02.174, the fill,
13.02.097, of which contained nine sherds of early post-medieval pottery.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.117 At the south-eastern end of the site was north-east/south-west orientated gully
13.02.252 which was traced for 5m. Within the longhouse was pit 13.02.068, which
cut make-up layer 13.02.227 and although smaller, is similar in shape to postmedieval pits 13.02.267 and 13.02.268. To the west of ditch 13.02.073 was pit
13.02.028.
5.118 In the centre of the site were a group of ditches (Fig. 39). The earliest was northeast/south-west orientated ditch 13.02.009, cut by north-east/south-west orientated
ditch 13.02.126 which in turn was cut by north-east/south-west orientated ditch
13.02.127. This was aligned with the present field boundaries and may be postmedieval. Also at the centre of the site were parallel north-east/south-west orientated
ditches 13.02.256 and 13.02.274, which follow the line of an existing field boundary.
5.119 Also in the centre of the site were pit/posthole 13.02.262 and posthole 13.02.017. To
the south-east of these features was north-east/south-west orientated ditch
41
13.02.254, which is likely to have been a post-medieval field boundary, as is ditch
13.02.264 to the north-west.
5.120 The site lies at approximately 14m AOD on a north-east facing slope at Blackheath
Farm, some 1.8km south-east of the town of Exminster. The underlying geology is
mapped as Dawlish Sandstone of the Permian era (BGS 1976b). Fieldwork showed
that this consisted of sand.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.121 Located in the south-eastern part of the site were north-east/south-west orientated
ditch 14.01.004, pit 14.01.008 and north-west/south-east orientated ditch 14.01.006.
5.122 The site lies at approximately 14m AOD on an east-facing slope at Blackheath Farm,
some 1.7km south-east of the town of Exminster. The underlying geology is mapped
as Dawlish Sandstone of the Permian era (BGS 1976b). Fieldwork showed that this
consisted of sand.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.123 At the southern end of the site were parallel north-east/south-west orientated field
boundary ditches 14.02.004 and 14.02.006. Ditch 14.02.011 intersected 14.02.006 at
right-angles, and was considered to be contemporary because of the similarity of the
ditch fills. The fill, 14.02.007, of ditch 14.02.006 was cut by pit 14.02.008, which
measured 5.5m in length, in excess of 2.8m in width and 0.33m in depth and possibly
represents small scale quarrying of the underlying sand. All these features are
thought to be relatively recent.
5.124 The site lies at approximately 30m AOD on a north-facing slope at Blackheath Farm,
some 1.6km south of the town of Exminster. The underlying geology is mapped as
Dawlish Sandstone, including Breccias deposits of the Permian era (BGS 1976b).
Fieldwork showed that this consisted of sandy silt with frequent stone inclusions.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.125 Located in the south-eastern part of the site were north-east/south-west orientated
ditches 14.03.004 and 14.03.006.
42
5.126 The site lies between 25m AOD in the south-east and 30m AOD in the north-west, on
an east-facing slope some 1km south of the town of Exminster. The underlying
geology is mapped as Dawlish Sandstone, including Breccias deposits of the
Permian era (BGS 1995). Fieldwork showed that this consisted of sand with angular
and sub-angular stones.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.127 Located in the southern part of the site were north-east/south-west orientated ditches
14.08.004 and 14.08.006. These features broadly correspond with ditches seen on
the 1825 tithe map (NA 2000b)
5.128 The site lies at approximately 38m AOD on an east-facing slope some 0.9km southwest of the town of Exminster. The underlying geology is mapped as Dawlish
Sandstone, including Breccias deposits of the Permian era (BGS 1995). Fieldwork
showed that this consisted of sand with angular and sub-angular stones.
5.129 A group of five pits was located in the eastern part of the site. They were initially
thought to be cremation pits, although soil samples yielded no cremated bone and
the purpose of the pits is not clear.
5.130 Pit 14.09.018, measured 0.23m in diameter and 60mm in depth. The fill (14.09.020)
contained 11 sherds of Early to Middle Bronze Age Trevisker style pottery. Pit
14.09.003,
measured
0.51m
in
width
and
0.24m
in
depth.
The
fill
(14.09.005/14.09.006) contained about a quarter of a complete Trevisker vessel
(14.09.004) which was lifted in a block comprising damaged rim and expansion,
suggesting a possible inverted deposition. Gorse/broom charcoal from this pit
(sample 207) returned a radiocarbon date of 367-201 cal. BC. This is a relatively late
date and it is possible that the charcoal was intrusive.
5.131 South of pit 14.09.003 was pit 14.09.016, which measured 0.7m in length, 0.4m in
width and 30mm in depth. The fill (14.09.008/14.09.009) contained 14 sherds of
Middle Bronze Age pottery, one piece of worked flint and small quantities of charcoal
43
and charred cereal grains. A sample of hazel charcoal (soil sample 203) returned a
radiocarbon date of 1627-1504 cal. BC.
5.132 To the south of this was elongated pit 14.09.019, which measured 2.83m in length,
0.98m in width and 0.15m in depth. The fill (14.09.013) contained two sherds of
Middle Bronze Age pottery. To the north of pit 14.09.016 was the severely truncated
base of pit 14.09.007, which contained a fragment of a copper alloy pin.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.133 In the eastern part of the site was curvilinear ditch 14.09.021, potentially the remains
of a ring-ditch. In the centre of the site were north-west/south-east orientated ditches
14.09.027 and 14.09.025 which are likely to represent a former field boundary as
depicted on the 1825 Tithe map (NA 2000b). In the western part of the site was
north-east/south-west orientated ditch 14.09.030.
5.134 The site lies between 40m AOD in the east to 55m AOD in the west on an east-facing
slope some 1.6km north-east of the town of Kenn. The underlying geology is mapped
as Dawlish Sandstone, including Breccias deposits of the Permian era (BGS 1995).
Fieldwork showed that this consisted of sand.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.135 In the eastern part of the site was rectilinear ditch 15.02.018, running from an eastern
terminal and curving at its western end. In the western part of the site was a group of
four post holes 15.02.010, 15.02.014, 15.02.016 and 15.02.012, with diameters of
0.22m and depths of between 0.10m and 0.14m. They may have formed an irregular
rectangular structure c 1.0 x 1.5m square.
5.136 The site lies at approximately 60m AOD on the summit of a hill some 1.5km northeast of the town of Kenn. The underlying geology is mapped as Dawlish Sandstone,
including Breccias deposits of the Permian era (BGS 1995). Fieldwork showed that
this consisted of sandstone and sand.
Period 10 (Undated)
44
5.137 At the eastern end of the site was north/south orientated ditch 15.03.004, which
measured 3.2m in width and 0.26m in depth. This feature runs parallel to the existing
field boundary and may represent a former field boundary ditch.
Site FTC 1.01 (NGR SX 8163 6444; Figs 10 & 44)
5.138 The site lies at approximately 18m AOD, on flat, low-lying land 2.2km north-east of
Staverton between the River Hems, which runs approximately 2km to the south-west,
and the Am Brook, which runs approximately 1.5km to the south-east. The underlying
geology is mapped as Limestone of the Middle Devonian era (BGS 1976a).
Fieldwork showed that this was, in fact, soft shale-schist in a clay-silt matrix.
Fieldwalking in 2001 yielded just four sherds of medieval and later pottery (CA 2001).
Period 10 (Undated)
5.139 At the north-eastern end of the site was north-west/south-east orientated ditch
1.01.004, and pit 1.01.006. In the centre of the site were ditch 1.01.008 and ditch
terminus 1.01.015. Both these features were orientated north-west/south-east.
5.140 The site lies at approximately 20m AOD, on the flat, low-lying valley of the River
Hems, which runs approximately 1km to the north and is located 1.6km north-east of
Staverton. The underlying geology is mapped as Slate of the Middle Devonian era
(BGS 1976a). Fieldwork showed that this consisted of shillet with clay lenses.
Fieldwalking in 2001 yielded eight worked flints of probable Late Neolithic and/or
Bronze Age date (Appendix 1).
5.141 At the centre of the site was a group of six pits 2.02.004, 2.02.006, 2.02.010,
2.02.013, 2.02.016 and 2.02.018. Pit 2.02.004 was 0.78m in diameter and 0.18m in
depth, and the fill, 2.02.005, contained 34 sherds of probable Grooved Ware (Late
Neolithic) pottery, eight pieces of worked flint and four pieces of burnt stone. Pit
2.02.010 was 1.20m in width and 0.50m in depth, and secondary fill, 2.02.011,
contained 27 sherds of similar Neolithic pottery and 21 pieces of worked flint, as well
as charcoal. A radiocarbon determination on hazel charcoal from this deposit
returned a date of 3339 cal BC – 3095 cal BC, which is early for Grooved Ware. Pit
2.02.006 measured 0.90m in width and 0.26m in depth, the secondary fill, 2.02.008,
of which contained ten sherds of similar Neolithic pottery.
45
5.142 It is likely that pits 2.02.013, 2.02.016 and 2.02.018 also date to the Neolithic period,
by association, although they are at present undated by artefactual material. Pit
2.02.013 measured 0.8m in width and 1.35m in depth, the secondary fill, 2.02.015, of
which contained fired clay and worked flint. Pit 2.02.016 measured 0.45m in width
and 0.15m in depth, the fill, 2.02.017, containing one piece of worked flint. Both pits
were cut by pit 2.02.018 which was 0.75m wide and 0.26m deep. Its secondary fill,
2.02.020, contained five pieces of worked flint.
5.143
The site lies between 77m AOD in the west and 63m AOD in the east, situated on
an east facing slope some 0.7km north-east of Staverton. The underlying geology is
mapped as Slate of the Middle Devonian era (BGS 1976a). Fieldwork showed that
this consisted of shale beds.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.144
Curvilinear ditch 4.01.015 was located at the eastern end of the site.
5.145
The site lies at approximately 140m AOD, situated on the flat summit of a hill near
Bartonhill Cross, some 1.2km north-west of Staverton. The underlying geology is
mapped as Slate of the Middle Devonian era (BGS 1976a). Fieldwork showed that
this consisted of shillet with clay lenses. Fieldwalking in 2001 yielded five worked
flints from this field.
5.146
Site 7.01 comprised a series of pits, postholes and ditches representing a probable
Romano-British settlement with Iron Age antecedents. Most of the features
(particularly the small ones) are undated artefactually, but their association with
dated features suggests they of the same date.
Period 4 (Iron Age)
5.147
A series of intercutting features was located in the centre of the site. Curvilinear
ditch 7.01.068, which measured 1.9m in width and 0.37m in depth, contained a
single sherd of pottery dating to the Iron Age within fill 7.01.071. This was in turn cut
by three (undated) curvilinear ditches 7.01.037, 7.01.043 and 7.01.048 which
measured 0.7m, 1.45m and 1.1m in width and 0.40m, 0.77m and 0.48m in depth
respectively. These may represent settlement features of later Iron Age/Roman
date.
46
5.148
There were numerous small pits and postholes to the east of ditch 7.01.068, only
two of which contained any pottery. These were pit 7.01.035, the fill, 7.01.036, of
which contained two burnished sherds of Iron Age pottery and pit 7.01.004, the fill,
7.01.005, of which contained 17 sherds of Iron Age pottery.
5.149
In this area was a group of nine more pits and postholes; 7.01.020, 7.01.022,
7.01.012, 7.01.025 and 7.01.016 had diameters of between 0.2m and 0.55m and
depths of between 0.23m and 0.57m, while larger features 7.01.018, 7.01.055,
7.01.031 and 7.01.033 had diameters of between 1.2m and 1.95m and depths of
between 0.15 and 0.40m. No dating evidence was recovered.
Period 5 (Roman)
5.150 In the eastern area of the site was north-west/south-east orientated ditch terminus
7.01.058. The fill, 7.01.059, contained two sherds of Roman pottery. Also in the
eastern half of the site was north/south orientated ditch 7.01.007, which measured
2.5m in width and 1.30m in depth. The fourth fill, 7.01.011, of this ditch contained 12
sherds of Roman pottery, two iron objects and one fragment of fired clay. Towards
the western end of the site was north/south orientated ditch 7.01.072 containing 13
sherds of Roman pottery in fill 7.01.073. It is possible that ditches 7.01.007 and
7.01.072 are two boundaries of an enclosure about 80m across.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.151
At the eastern end of the site was north-east/south-west orientated ditch 7.01.039,
which measured 1.8m in width and 0.34m in depth. The fill, 7.01.040, of this ditch
was cut by north-west/south-east orientated ditch 7.01.029, (parallel to Roman ditch
7.01.058) which was 1.23m in width and 0.60m in depth, and posthole 7.01.041
(n.i.), which measured 0.20m in diameter and 0.30m in depth.
5.152
Located in the western part of the site was posthole 7.01.082, which measured
0.22m in width and 0.15m in depth and north-west/south-east orientated ditch
terminus 7.01.084, which measured 0.43m in width and 0.25m in depth.
5.153
A large possible quarry feature 7.01.087 in excess of 8m wide was located in the
east of the site.
47
5.154 The site lies between 90m AOD in the east and 60m AOD in the west, on a north
facing slope north of Fursdon, some 1.4km north-west of Staverton. The underlying
geology is mapped as Slate of the Middle Devonian era (BGS 1976a). Fieldwork
showed that this consisted of shale with silt lenses.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.155 Located in the eastern part of the site were irregularly shaped north-east/south-west
orientated ditch termini 8.01.004 and 8.01.017. In the centre of the site were parallel
north-east/south-west orientated ditches 8.01.011 and 8.01.008, 27m apart, and
between them, on the same alignment, was possible trackway 8.01.013, which
consisted of a layer of quartz pebbles. This was considered likely to be relatively
recent. To the west was north-east/south-west orientated ditch 8.01.021.
Site FTC 8.02, 8.03 (NGR SX 7807 6491; Figs 10 & 47)
5.156 The site lies at approximately 53m AOD, situated on flat ground at the base of a west
facing slope some 200m north of the hamlet of Fursdon and 1.5km north-west of
Staverton. The underlying geology is mapped as Slate of the Middle Devonian era
(BGS 1976a). Fieldwork showed that this consisted of shale with silt lenses. The
division of the site into two parts reflects modern field divisions.
5.157 Located at the south-western end of site 8.02 was irregular shaped north/south
orientated ditch terminal 8.02.004, which measured 0.74m in width and 0.4m in
depth. The fill, 8.02.005, of this ditch contained six sherds of possible Early Neolithic
pottery.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.158 A group of three small pits (8.03.004, 8.03.006, 8.03.008) lay in the north-east of plot
8.03.
Site FTC 10.01 (NGR SX 7730 6441; Figs 11, 48 & 49)
5.159 The site lies at approximately 35m AOD, situated on gently undulating land some
2.1km north-west of Staverton and just west of Abham. The underlying geology is
mapped as Slate of the Middle Devonian era (BGS 1974). Fieldwork showed that this
consisted of shillet beds with clay silt lenses.
48
5.160 The site lies on the western margin of what appeared to be a double-ditched
enclosure identified from cropmarks (CA 2005, Site 31). Geophysical survey in 2001
had failed to identify the enclosure but found several other linear anomalies (Fig. 48;
Stratascan 2001). Some of these were tested by trial trench evaluation of the pipeline
route, but nothing of significance was identified.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.161 At the northern end of the site was north-west/south-east orientated ditch 10.01.004.
Pit 10.01.006 and posthole 10.01.009 were located in the southern part of the site.
5.162 The site lies at approximately 29m AOD, situated on gently sloping land at the base
of the south-east facing slope of Hood Ball, east of Hood Barton The site is located
off the route of the pipeline in an area used as a ‘pipe dump’. The underlying geology
is mapped as Slate of the Middle Devonian era (BGS 1974). Fieldwork showed that
this consisted of a light silt matrix with abundant stone.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.163 Located in the centre of the site was a group of seven pits; 12.05.004, 12.05.009,
12.05.011, 12.05.013, 12.05.017, 12.05.019 and 12.05.024, which measured
between 0.3m and 0.6m in width, with depths of between 0.12m and 0.38m. The
respective fills of which contained burnt material, including cereal grains and mixed
wood charcoal. They were initially thought to be cremation pits, but the soil samples
yielded no bone and their date and purpose remain unresolved.
Site FTC 12.05w (NGR SX 7642 6330; Figs 11 & 50)
5.164 The site lies at approximately 52m AOD, situated on gently sloping land at the base
of the south facing slope of Hood Ball near Velwell. The site is located off the route of
the pipeline in an area used as a ‘pipe dump’. The underlying geology is mapped as
Slate of the Upper Devonian era (BGS 1974). Fieldwork showed that this consisted
of shale.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.165 Located at the western end of the site were shallow pits/bowl furnaces 12.05w.004
and 12.05w.005, which measured 0.3m in diameter with scorching of the surrounding
natural indicative of in-situ burning . The fills contained burnt material, including wood
49
charcoal and iron slag which may indicate their use as smelting furnaces, although
there was no indication of furnace linings.
5.166 The site lies on a north facing slope between 100m AOD in the south of the site to
70m AOD in the north just south of Hood Quarry (disused), some 0.9km north-east of
the hamlet of Westcombe. The underlying geology is mapped as Slate of the Middle
Devonian era (BGS 1974). Fieldwork showed that this consisted of a sandy clay
matrix with layers of shale/mudstone.
Period 04 (Iron Age)
5.167 Located in the southern part of the site was east/west orientated ditch 13.03.004,
which measured 5m wide and 1.85m deep with a u-shaped asymmetrical profile. The
feature was identified through aerial photography and may indicate a substantial
enclosure, although no return feature was identified either through aerial
photography, geophysical survey or during the current investigation (CA 2005b). The
fill (09.05 in evaluation trench 9) contained one sherd of probable Iron Age pottery
and two pieces of worked flint. The soil samples yielded very little except fragmented
charcoal.
Period 05 (Romano-British)
5.168 At the centre of the site was east/west orientated ditch 13.03.011, which measured
2.36m wide and 1.25m deep. The fill 13.03.014 contained a single tiny sherd of
Roman ?Black-burnished ware pottery.
It is possible that, despite the apparent
differences in date, ditches 13.03.011 and 13.03.004 form two sides of a later
prehistoric/Roman enclosure about 40m across.
5.169
Cutting the Roman ditch was a series of north-east/south-west orientated ditches
13.03.005, 13.03.010 and 13.03.026. Ditch 13.03.026, which measured 3.80m wide
and 0.25m deep contained one sherd of post-medieval pottery within single fill
13.03.032. No dating evidence was recovered from ditches 13.03.005 and
13.03.010 but they follow the same alignment as ditch 13.03.026 precisely and are
considered to be contemporary. All these ditches correspond with anomalies seen
from geophysical survey.
Period 9 (Modern)
50
5.170 North-east/south-west orientated field drain 13.03.025 cuts through ditch 13.03.026.
5.171
The features described above corresponded to anomalies depicted on the
geophysical survey, including the remains of a field division (13.03.005, 13.03.010
and 13.03.026) and an enclosure/boundary ditch (13.03.004). Fieldwalking in 2001
yielded a relatively large quantity of material from this plot, particularly medieval
pottery (19 sherds) and also a sherd of possible Iron Age pottery (CA 2001).
Site FTC 14.01 (NGR SX 7712 6253; Figs 11, 52 & 53)
5.172 The site lies between 103m AOD in the north and 65m AOD in the south on a south
facing slope just west of Billany Farm some 0.8km north-east of Westcombe. The
underlying geology is mapped as Slate of the Middle Devonian era (BGS 1974).
Fieldwork showed that this consisted of soft shale bedrock with silty lenses.
5.173 The site of an enclosure had been known from cropmarks (CA 2005b, Site 37) and
was confirmed by geophysical survey and trial trenching (Stratascan 2001;
Archaeological Surveys 2006c).
Period 05 (Roman)
5.174 Located in the northern area of the site was north-east/south-west orientated ditch
14.01.105, which measured 3.5m wide and 1.45m deep. The secondary fill,
14.01.033, contained two sherds of Roman pottery, and the uppermost fill,
14.01.063, another two sherds. With ditch 14.01.106 to the south, this ditch forms
part of an enclosure measuring 45m north/south by about 60m east/west. Ditch
14.01.106 measured 2.9m wide and 2.35m deep and contained one sherd of mid 1st
to 2nd-century pottery within primary fill 14.01.099, one sherd of Roman pottery
within third fill 14.01.066 and 30 sherds within sixth fill 14.01.061.
5.175 Within the enclosure were pits 14.01.004, 14.01.034, 14.01.038, 14.01.081 and
postholes 14.01.036 and 14.01.087. Pit 14.01.034 (fill 14.01.035) contained six
sherds of late 1st to 2nd-century pottery, pit 14.01.038 contained 12 sherds of late
2nd to 4th-century pottery in secondary fills 14.01.039/14.01.80. Fill, 14.01.082 of pit
14.01.081, contained 26 sherds of Roman pottery, probable hearth/furnace lining and
a large fragment of quernstone of Cornish Greisen. Pit 14.01.004 (fill 14.01.008)
51
contained 29 sherds of Roman pottery. Pit 14.01.048 is considered potentially
Roman based on spatial association.
5.176 In the centre of the site was a terrace, 14.01.107, with a sequence of fills 14.01.046,
14.01.047, 14.01.077, 14.01.084 and 14.01.092, which contained abundant,
predominantly late, Roman pottery and some ironworking slag.
5.177 In the centre of the site was north-east/south-west orientated ditch 14.01.108. Fill,
14.01.074 contained two sherds of post-medieval pottery, 25 iron objects and 55
pieces of charcoal, and fill 14.01.011 contained four sherds of modern pottery. The
ditch corresponds with a former field boundary identified by aerial
photography.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.178
Located in the north of the site outside the enclosure were pits 14.01.014, 14.01.100
and 14.01.102.
Site FTC 15.01 (NGR SX 7719 6230; Figs 11& 54)
5.179 The site lies at approximately 45m AOD, situated on flat land west of Dartington and
some 0.9km east of the hamlet of Westcombe. The underlying geology is mapped as
Slate of the Middle Devonian era (BGS 1974). Fieldwork showed that this consisted
of yellow-brown clay with outcropping shale.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.180 Located in the northern part of the site was north-east/south-west orientated ditch
15.01.006. Located in the centre of the site was north/south orientated ditch
15.01.004, which shallowed and appeared to terminate where cut by a field drain.
5.181 The site lies at approximately 40m AOD, situated on the gently undulating valley of
Bidwell Brook, which runs south of the site, and north-west of Dun Cross. The
Fieldwork showed that this consisted of yellow-brown clay with outcropping shale.
Period 10 (Undated)
52
5.182 Located in the southern part of the site were parallel north-west/south-east orientated
ditches 15.02.004 and 15.02.006. Although undated artefactually, they may be postmedieval in date being about 1.5m apart and probably originally flanking an earthen
bank along a curving medieval plough strip.
5.183 The site lies at approximately 42m AOD, on flat land immediately south-west of Dun
Cross. The underlying geology is mapped as Slate of the Middle Devonian era (BGS
1974). Fieldwork showed that this consisted of shillet.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.184 Located in the centre of the site was a group of pits and burnt areas. Pit 16.01.007
and areas of burning, 16.01.006 and 16.01.005, were between 0.6m and 1m in
diameter with depths of 70-90mm, while pits 16.01.004 and 16.01.009 were 2.5m
and 3m in length and 20mm and 0.4m in depth respectively. Fragments of possible
smithing hearth bottom came from 16.01.005. They tended to have charcoal-rich fills
(predominantly oak) and would seem to have been fire-pits or hearths used for metal
working.
5.185 The site lies between 53m AOD (east) and 60m AOD (west) on a flat spur of land
some 0.9km east of the village of Tigley. The underlying geology is mapped as Slate
of the Middle Devonian era (BGS 1974). Fieldwork showed that this consisted of
yellow-brown clay with shale fragments.
5.186 The site consisted of clay-lined furnaces with abundant iron slag, and a number of
other pits.
No material dating evidence was present, although a radiocarbon
determination on charcoal from furnace 16.07.008 returned a date in the general
range 391-210 cal BC, and the complex therefore appears likely to be Iron Age.
Period 04 (Iron Age)
5.187 In the south-western part of the site were bowl furnace 16.07.008, postholes
16.07.004, 16.07.019, 16.07.063, and areas of burning 16.07.009 and 16.07.013.
Furnace 16.07.008 yielded ironworking residues, including smelting slag and
hammerscale. Alder charcoal from upper fill 16.07.016 returned a radiocarbon date in
the third/fourth centuries BC.
53
Period 09 (Modern)
5.188 North-east/south-west orientated field drain (not numbered) cuts the fills of possible
bowl furnaces 16.07.021, 16.07.052, 16.07.053 and 16.07.055.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.189 To the west of the Iron Age furnace 16.07.008 were a series of small ditches;
16.07.006 was orientated north-west/south-east, 16.07.076 was orientated east/west,
16.07.075 was orientated north/south.
5.190 At the western end of the site was a group of associated and intercutting features bowl furnaces 16.07.021, 16.07.024, 16.07.077, 16.07.040, 16.07.049, 16.07.052
and 16.07.055; and pits 16.07.017, 16.07.033, 16.07.035 and 16.07.037. The tight
group showed at least three phases of furnace construction and use. The earliest
features were pit 16.07.035 and furnace16.07.021, their respective fills 16.07.036
and 16.07.022 cut by furnace 16.07.024 (fills 16.07.025, 16.07.026 and 16.07.027).
Furnace 16.07.024 was in turn cut by pit 16.07.033 and furnace 16.07.077. Furnace
16.07.055 (fills 16.07.056, 16.07.057 and 16.07.058) was also cut by furnaces
16.07.077 and 16.07.040, the fill 16.07.041 and 16.07.042 of which were in turn cut
by elongated pit 16.07.037. Furnace 16.07.077 was one of the more complete
furnaces and consisted of clay lining 16.07.044, usage layers 16.07.045 and
16.07.046, and disuse layer 16.07.047.
5.191 Located in the eastern part of the site were north-east/south-west orientated ditches
16.07.069 and 16.07.073.
Site FTC 16.08 (NGR SX 7630 6076; Figs 11, 12, 56 & 57)
5.192 The site lies between 67m (west) and 74m AOD (east) on the flat land some 0.6km
east of the village of Tigley. The underlying geology is mapped as Slate of the Middle
Devonian era (BGS 1974). Fieldwork showed that this consisted of fine silt clay with
frequent shale fragments.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.193
Located at the north-eastern end of the site was east/west orientated ditch
16.08.008 which was approximately 5m wide and 0.5m deep. The feature was
irregular in plan with an irregular profile. The fill, 16.08.009, comprised naturally
silted yellow-grey silty clay. In the north-eastern part of the site were north54
west/south-east orientated ditches 16.08.004, 16.08.006, 16.08.015 and 16.08.013.
These ditches were parallel or at right-angles to the current field boundaries and
may be medieval or later in date. At the centre of the site was ditch terminus
16.08.018 and ditch 16.01.022. Both these features were orientated northwest/south-east.
5.194
Lozenge shaped pit 16.08.020, measured 0.87m in width, 0.48m in depth and 2.56m
in length with steep symmetrical sides. The single fill, 16.08.021, yielded significant
charred plant remains (sample 299) comprising mixed oats and barley, which may
relate to a medieval farming practice. Located in the south-western area of the site
was north-east/south-west orientated ditch 16.08.028.
Site FTC 18.12/18.13 (NGR SX 7469 5966; Figs 12 & 58)
5.195 The site lies at approximately 115m AOD, situated on an east facing slope south of
Harbourne River just north of Moore Farm, and some 1.5km south-west of the village
of Tigley. The underlying geology is mapped as Slate of the Middle Devonian era
(BGS 1974). Fieldwork showed that this consisted of shale beds. The division of the
site into two parts reflects modern field divisions.
5.196 The site consisted of a scatter of generally small pits and ditches, some containing
Late Neolithic Grooved Ware pottery.
5.197
Located at the centre of the site was pit 18.12.032, which measured 1.1m in length
and 0.45m in width, with a depth of 0.18m. The fill, 18.12.033, contained 37 sherds
of Grooved Ware pottery in gabbroic fabric. Next to this was pit 18.12.018, which
had a diameter of 1m and a depth of 0.25m, and contained 52 sherds of Grooved
Ware and three worked flints (fills 18.12.019, 18.12.020, 18.12.021). Nearby was pit
18.12.053 which contained abundant hazelnut shell (fill 18.12.054, sample 310) and
is likely to be of a similar date. Curvilinear ditch 18.12.049/18.12.055, measured
0.95m in width and 0.17m in depth with an irregular profile and cut pit 18.12.053.
The fill, 18.12.056, comprised compact clay silt contained 44 sherds of Grooved
Ware pottery.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.198
In the centre of the site were north-west/south-east orientated ditch 18.12.024 and
north-east/south-west orientated ditch 18.12.030. It is possible that ditch 18.12.030
55
was the same feature as 18.12.049 lying on an arc which would have formed a
circular feature c 25m across.
5.199
In the eastern part of the site were north-west/south-east orientated ditches
18.12.006 and 18.12.004, north-west/south-east orientated ditch termini 18.12.051
and 18.12.026, and north/south orientated ditch terminus 18.12.010.
5.200
Pits 18.12.043, 18.12.037, 18.12.008, 18.12.035, 18.12.041, 18.12.022, 18.12.013
and 18.12.015, with ?ditch terminal 18.12.039, lay in the western part of the site. In
the central and eastern parts of site 18.13 were pits 18.13.009, 18.13.004,
18.13.011 and 18.13.013 and postholes/small pits 18.13.017 and 18.13.015. Pit
18.13.004 contained frequent wood charcoal and hazelnut shells (samples 305 and
306) and may be prehistoric, as might some of the other pits.
5.201 The site lies at approximately 120m AOD on a south facing slope north-west of
Moore Farm and some 1.8km south-west of the village of Tigley. The underlying
geology is mapped as Slate of the Middle Devonian era (BGS 1974). Fieldwork
showed that this consisted of yellow-brown clay silt and shale.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.202
At the western end of the site, next to the recently removed hedgebank and ditch,
was pit 18.14.004, the fill, 18.14.005, of which was cut by modern field drain
18.14.006.
5.203 The site lies at approximately 122m AOD, situated on a south facing slope some
0.8km north-west of the hamlet of Kerswill. The underlying geology is mapped as
of yellow-brown clay silt and shale.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.204
Located at the south-western end of the site was north-west/south-east orientated
ditch 19.05.004.
56
of yellow-brown silty clay with occasional shale inclusions.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.206
Pit 19.07.004 was located at the centre of the site. While undated, it contained an
interesting assemblage of charred remains, including rye, oats and twine (sample
312) and may be medieval.
0.5km north of the hamlet of Kerswill. The underlying geology is mapped as Slate of
the Middle Devonian era (BGS 1974). Fieldwork showed that this consisted of yellowbrown silt with shale inclusions.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.208
Pit 19.08.005 was located at the north-eastern end of the site. Charred remains
included gorse and sloe/plum charcoal (sample 311).
5.209 The site lies at approximately 115m AOD, situated on a south facing slope some,
of orange-brown silt with stone fragments.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.210
Located at the centre of the site was north-east/south-west orientated ditch
20.02.004.
5.211 The site lies at approximately 154m AOD, situated on a steep south facing slope
some 0.9km east of the hamlet of Beneknowle. The underlying geology is mapped as
of shale beds.
Period 10 (Undated)
57
5.212
Located at the southern end of the site was a series of three parallel east/west
orientated ditches, 21.02.004, 21.02.006 and 21.02.008. At the centre of the site the
remains of dry stone wall 21.02.012 were cut through by modern trackway
21.02.013. These would appear to relate to recently removed field divisions.
5.213 The site lies at approximately 123m AOD, situated on gently sloping ground some
0.3km east of the hamlet of Beneknowle. The underlying geology is mapped as Slate
yellow-brown silty clay with shale fragments.
5.214 At the north-western end of the site was part of a possible sunken floored building
21.06.008. This feature was only partially exposed, but appeared to have a possible
entrance to the south-east with an unknown north-west/south-east dimension and a
width of 4.5m and a depth of 0.5m. A radiocarbon measurement on a charred barley
grain (sample 313) yielded a date of 1385 cal BC – 1194 cal BC. Although artefacts
were absent, the charred remains from this feature include possible animal dung and
appear to be of great significance because of the rarity of this kind of evidence in this
period.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.215
In the centre of the site was north-west/south-east orientated ditch 21.06.004 and at
the western end of the site was north/south orientated ditch 21.06.006.
Site FTC 24.02/24.03/24.04 (NGR SX 7011 5745; Figs 13, 62 & 63)
5.216
The site lies at approximately 140m AOD, situated just off the crest of a hill, on a
south facing slope some 0.6km north-east of the hamlet of Langford Barton. The
Fieldwork showed that this consisted of shale with occasional silt lenses. The
division of the site into three parts reflects modern field divisions. The route of the
pipeline was altered through sites 24.02 and 24.03 to avoid the southern edge of an
extant bowl barrow of probable Bronze Age date (SAM no.33756).
5.217
Most of the archaeological remains appear to relate to an extensive, although illdefined Romano-British settlement.
58
5.218
Pit 24.03.060, which measured 0.78m in width and 0.14m in depth, lay immediately
south of the barrow on the north-eastern side of site 24.03. The primary fill,
24.03.061, contained 40 sherds of All Over Cord (AOC) decorated Beaker pottery,
the secondary fill (24.03.062) contained eight sherds and the upper fill (24.03.063)
13 sherds, all from the same vessel. It is likely that only some sherds from the
vessel had been buried, a frequent practice in Devon (Quinnell 2003)
5.219
In the centre of site 24.03 was curvilinear ditch 24.03.152, interpreted as part of a
possible house ring-gully, which measured 0.5m in width and less than 0.10m in
depth, the single fill (24.03.057) of which contained one sherd of Roman pottery.
Also located in the centre of the site were post holes 24.03.068, 24.03.066,
24.03.064, which measured between 0.2m and 0.4m in diameter with depths of
90mm, 40mm and 0.17m respectively, and pits 24.03.036, 24.03.034 and 24.03.091
which measured between 0.6m and 1m in diameter with depths of between 0.17m
and 0.22m. No dating evidence was recovered from these latter pits which have
been assigned to the Roman period based on their proximity to dated features. Pit
24.03.036 contained substantial well-preserved charred plant remains indicative of
crop processing waste (samples 007-010 and 013-016). A stone slab surface,
24.03.095, at the centre of the site contained three sherds of late 3rd to 4th-century
AD pottery. It was interpreted as a possible metalworking surface, although there
were no metalworking residues from this feature. Nearby, pit 24.03.089 contained
iron smelting slag and a glass bead within charcoal-rich fill 24.03.090. This feature
measured 0.67m in diameter and 0.11m in depth and was only partially revealed, as
the full extent continued beyond the site limits.
5.220
Also near the centre of site 24.03 was curvilinear ditch 24.03.149 which measured
0.5m in width and 0.30m in depth and was interpreted as part of a house ring-gully.
The single fill, 24.03.110, contained one sherd of Roman pottery. The ditch enclosed
ten postholes (group number 24.03.150) which had an average diameter of 0.3m
and depths of between 0.1m and 0.3m. No dating evidence was recovered from
these features but they are likely to have formed a structure encircled by the gully.
5.221
At the western end of site 24.03 was pit 24.03.024, the fill of which (24.03.025)
contained 11 sherds of middle 3rd to 4th-century pottery as well as slag, vitrified
hearth lining and an iron blade or strip. To the east of this was pit 24.03.041, which
measured 1.28m in width and 0.29m in depth. Its secondary fill (24.03.071)
59
contained one sherd of Roman pottery, and the third fill (24.03.042) six sherds. The
pit contained ironworking residues, including hearth/furnace lining, smelting slag
(fayalitic run slag) and hammerscale.
5.222
Also within the western area of the site was a substantial curvilinear enclosure ditch
24.03.153, 2.6m wide and 2m deep, containing a large quantity of predominantly
late Roman pottery and two fragments of a stone (granite) mould for a pewter dish.
This ditch (24.03.153/24.04.004) corresponds with the outer ditch of a doubleditched enclosure depicted by the geophysical survey.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.223
Located in the east of the site within field 24.02 were 16 pits or postholes;
24.02.004, 24.02.006, 24.02.008, 24.02.014, 24.02.010, 24.02.042, 24.02.012,
24.02.022, 24.02.040, 24.02.020, 24.02.016, 24.02.034, 24.02.018, 24.02.032,
24.02.038 and 24.02.036 (Fig. 60).
5.224
In the centre of this field was a pair of parallel ditches 24.02.024 and 24.02.030
orientated north-west/south-east and possibly forming part of a track way, joining an
existing track at Baron’s Hill, c. 0.2km to the south-east and an unnamed track, c.
0.5km to the north-west. Located on the boundary between site 24.02 and 24.03
were north-west/south-east orientated ditches 24.02.049, 24.03.008 (ni) and
24.03.010 (ni) which formed part of the boundary of the current field system along
with a hedge bank (partially removed during current works).
5.225
Pits 24.03.093, 24.03.053 and 24.03.004 were located at the eastern end of site
24.03 in the vicinity of the Beaker pit. There is no indication that these were
prehistoric, and the recovery of ironworking slag from pit 24.03.093 indicates it is
likely to be Roman or later.
5.226
In the western part of site 24.03 were gully 24.03.028, postholes 24.03.030,
24.03.032, pit 24.03.026 and stake holes 24.03.048 and 24.03.046. While undated
these appear most likely to be Roman.
5.227 The site lies at approximately 144m AOD on gently sloping land some 0.5km north of
the hamlet of Langford Barton. The underlying geology is mapped as Slate of the
60
Middle Devonian era (BGS 1974). Fieldwork showed that this consisted of orangebrown silty clay with shale fragments.
Period 4 (Iron Age)
5.228
At the centre of the site was pit 24.05.004, which measured 0.90m in diameter and
0.26m in depth. The single fill, 24.05.005, contained two sherds of probable Iron Age
pottery.
5.229 The site lies at approximately 53m AOD on gently sloping land at the base of a south
facing slope near Hookmoor Cross, some 1.2km north-east of Ugborough. The
Fieldwork showed that this consisted of shale beds.
5.230
Located at the centre of the site was north-west/south-east orientated ditch
26.01.010, which measured 1.10m in width and 0.33m in depth. The fill, 26.01.005,
contained 41 sherds of post-medieval pottery.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.231
Located in the centre of the site were curvilinear ditch terminus 26.01.014, which
measured 2.5m in width and 0.20m in depth and pit 26.01.012. In the western part of
the site was pit 26.01.021 and north-east/south-west orientated ditch 26.01.016.
5.232 The site lies at approximately 154m AOD on the side of a north-facing hill near
Hillhead Cross, some 0.7km north-west of Ugborough. The underlying geology is
mapped as Slate of the Middle Devonian era (BGS 1974). Fieldwork showed that this
consisted of shale with silt lenses.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.233
Located at the centre of the site were pits 28.01.004 and 28.01.006. Also at the
centre of the site was north-west/south-east orientated ditch 28.01.008.
5.234 The site lies at approximately 155m AOD on relatively flat ground at the summit of a
hill some 0.7km north-west of Ugborough. The underlying geology is mapped as
61
of red-brown silt with shale inclusions.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.235
Located at the eastern end of the site were pit/ditch terminus 30.02.004 and pit
30.02.006. Located at the western end of the site was north-west/south-east
orientated ditch 30.02.009.
5.236 The site lies at approximately 153m AOD on relatively flat ground at the top of a hill
some 0.75km north-west of Ugborough. The underlying geology is mapped as Slate
shale.
5.237
At the western end of the site was north-west/south-east orientated ditch 30.03.005,
which measured 0.97m in width and 0.22m in depth. The fill, 30.03.006, contained
four sherds of 17th to 18th-century pottery. This feature follows the same alignment
as existing field boundaries. Located to the east was a spread of modern material,
30.03.007.
5.238 The site lies at approximately 145m AOD on a west-facing slope some 0.9km west of
Ugborough. The underlying geology is mapped as Slate of the Middle Devonian era
(BGS 1974). Fieldwork showed that this consisted of shale with silt lenses.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.239
Located at the north-eastern boundary of the site was pit 31.01.006, the fill
(31.01.007) of which was cut by pit 31.01.004.
5.240 The site lies at approximately 140m AOD, situated on a west facing slope south-east
of Wood Farm, some 1km west of Ugborough. The underlying geology is mapped as
of shale with silt lenses.
Period 10 (Undated)
62
5.241
Located at the south-western end of the site was north-west/south-east orientated
ditch 31.02.008. This feature corresponds with the line of the existing field boundary.
North-west/south-east orientated ditch 31.02.004 corresponds with the line of an
existing field boundary.
5.242 The site lies at approximately 124m AOD on a west facing slope some 1.4km southwest of Ugborough. The underlying geology is mapped as Slate of the Middle
Devonian era (BGS 1974). Fieldwork showed that this consisted of shale with clay silt
lenses.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.243
At the south-western end of the site was a north-west/south-east orientated ditch
31.05.004. No dating evidence was recovered from this feature, which was located
immediately north-east of the existing field boundary. It corresponded to a feature
depicted on the geophysical survey which runs north-west into Plot 31.06 and
therefore does not appear to be modern.
Site FTC 31.06/31.07/31.08 (NGR SX 6620 5543; Figs 14 & 67)
5.244 The site lies between 103m AOD in the west and 115m AOD in the east on a westfacing slope some 1.6 km south-west of the town of Ugborough. The underlying
geology is mapped as Slate of the Middle Devonian era (BGS 1974). Fieldwork
showed that this consisted of shale with clay lenses. The division of the site into three
parts reflects modern field divisions.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.245
At the centre of site 31.06 were pit 31.06.004 and ditch terminus 31.06.006. Located
in the north-eastern part of site 31.07 was north-east/south-west orientated ditch
31.07.004. This group of features appears to correspond to indistinct geophysical
anomalies at the boundary of these two plots (Archaeological Surveys 2005/6, fig.
40). At the eastern end of site 31.08 was north-west/south-east orientated ditch
31.08.004.
5.246 The site lies at approximately 66m AOD on flat land south-east of Filham House
some 1.5km south-east of Ivybridge. The underlying geology is mapped as Slate of
63
the Middle Devonian era (BGS 1974). Fieldwork showed that this consisted of silt
with frequent shale fragments.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.247
Located at the centre of the site were pit 33.01.006 and north-west/south-east
orientated ditch 33.01.004. The fills (33.01.007 and 33.01.008) of pit 33.01.006
contained frequent wood charcoal and charred hazelnut shells (samples 316 and
317), and 33 pieces of worked flint, which suggest an earlier prehistoric date.
5.248
Ditch 33.01.004 corresponded to an anomaly depicted by the geophysical survey
and may be a post-medieval field division. It was recorded as cutting the subsoil.
5.249 The site lies at approximately 53m AOD on flat land to the south Filham House some
1.3km south-east of Ivybridge. The underlying geology is mapped as Slate of the
Middle Devonian era (BGS 1974). Fieldwork showed that this consisted of silt with
Period 04 (Iron Age/Late prehistoric)
5.250
In the eastern part of the site were deliberately placed deposits of clay 33.02.006
and 33.02.007. The former was dated to the Iron Age by two sherds of pottery, but
soil samples (318 and 319) yielded sparse remains of charred plant remains and
charcoal. Associated with these features were a group of post-/stakeholes
33.02.008, 33.02.009, 33.02.010, 33.02.011, 33.02.013, 33.02.014 and 33.02.015.
The group of features were interpreted as a possible hearth/oven with associated
superstructure.
5.251
No dating evidence was recovered from the stakeholes, but they were attributed to
the late prehistoric period by proximity.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.252
Near the stakehole group were intercutting ditches 33.02.018 and 33.02.016,
located immediately west and north-west of potentially Iron Age features. The former
was orientated north-east/south-west and the latter was orientated north-west/southeast. The relationship between these features was not investigated. To the northeast, feature 33.02.004 was a shallow undated pit without finds.
64
Site FTC 33.03 (NGR SX 6480 5520; Fig. 14)
5.253
This site lies south of Filham House on flat land between Sites 33.02 and 33.04. No
archaeological features were present but superficial deposits yielded the largest
collection of flint from any of the sites in this section of the pipeline route (63 pieces).
They would appear to represent a mixed background scatter, including a few
possible Mesolithic or Early Neolithic pieces, but mostly of later date (probably
Bronze Age).
5.254 The site lies at approximately 43m AOD on flat land to the south-west of Filham
House, some 1km south-east of Ivybridge. The underlying geology is mapped as
Slate of the Middle Devonian era (BGS 1974). ). Fieldwork showed that this
consisted of silt with frequent shale fragments.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.255
In the eastern part of the site were parallel north-west/south-east orientated ditches
33.04.022 and 33.04.011, which measured 4m and 3m in width and 0.63m and
0.48m in depth respectively. Located in the western part of the site were parallel
north-east/south-west orientated ditches 33.04.004 and 33.04.006 which measured
1.95m and 1.40m in width and 0.42m and 0.40m in depth respectively. Both these
groups may be paired field boundary ditches flanking a former earthen bank.
Site FTC 33.05/33.06/33.07 (NGR SX 6420 5513; Figs 14, 69 & 70)
5.256 The site lies at approximately 40m AOD on relatively flat land some 0.7m south-east
of the town of Ivybridge. The underlying geology is mapped as River Gravel and
Head deposits of the Pleistocene era (BGS 1974). Fieldwork showed that this
consisted of silt with frequent shale fragments. The division of the site into three parts
reflect modern field divisions.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.257
In the eastern part of Site 33.05 was north/south orientated ditch 33.05.008. In the
eastern part of Site 33.06 was east/ west orientated ditch 33.06.004.
5.258
Located in the south-western part of Site 33.07 was north-east/south-west orientated
ditch 33.07.004. This ditch was aligned with existing field boundaries and appears
likely to be post-medieval.
65
5.259 The site lies at approximately 36m AOD on relatively flat land in the River Erme
valley some 0.7km south of Ivybridge. The underlying geology is mapped as River
Gravel and Head deposits of the Pleistocene era (BGS 1974). Fieldwork showed that
this consisted of silt with frequent shale fragments.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.260
Located at the south-eastern end of the site was pit 34.02.100.
5.261 The site lies at approximately 88m AOD, situated on an east facing slope near East
Worthele, some 1.1km south of Ivybridge. The underlying geology is mapped as
Igneous Shalstein Tuffs (BGS 1974). Fieldwork showed that this consisted of silt with
Period 10 (Undated)
5.262
Located in the south-western part of the site was north-west/south-east orientated
ditch 34.08.004.
5.263 The site lies at approximately 129m AOD on gently sloping ground east of West
Worthele (the site of a medieval manor), some 2km south-west of Ivybridge. The
underlying geology is mapped as Igneous Shalstein Tuffs (BGS 1974). Fieldwork
showed that this consisted of silt with frequent shale fragments.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.264
Located in the western part of the site was north-east/south-west orientated ditch
35.01.004, which measured 1.30m wide and 0.76m deep.
5.265 The site lies at approximately 142m AOD on a north facing slope 400m south-west of
West Worthele, some 2.5km south-west of Ivybridge. The underlying geology is
mapped as Igneous Shalstein Tuffs (BGS 1974). Fieldwork showed that this
consisted of silt with frequent shale fragments.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.266
Located in the centre of the site was north-west/south-east orientated ditch
37.04.004.
66
5.267 The site lies at approximately 135m AOD on a north-facing slope just south of
Fursdon, some 2.5km south-west of Ivybridge. The underlying geology is mapped as
Igneous Shalstein Tuffs (BGS 1974). Fieldwork showed that this consisted of silt with
Period 10 (Undated)
5.268
Located in the eastern part of the site was north-west/south-east orientated ditch
37.06.004. Located in the western part of the site was north-west/south-east
orientated ditch 37.06.006. Both run parallel to the existing east and west field
boundaries and may be medieval or later subdivisions of this field.
5.269 The site lies at approximately 130m AOD on a north-facing slope south of Fursdon,
some 2.5km south-east of Choakford. The underlying geology is mapped as Igneous
Shalstein Tuffs (BGS 1974). Fieldwork showed that this consisted of shale beds.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.270
Located in the south-eastern part of the site was north-east/south-west orientated
pit/ditch terminus 38.02.042.
5.271 The site lies at approximately 86m AOD on a west-facing slope of the Yealm Valley,
the river running approximately 0.6km to the west. The underlying geology is mapped
as Slate of the Middle Devonian era (BGS 1974). Fieldwork showed that this
consisted of shale beds.
Period 10 (Undated)
5.272
Located at the eastern end of the site was pit 39.03.004.
5.273 The site lies at approximately 50m AOD on a west-facing slope of the Yealm Valley
above its confluence a stream called with Brook Lake about 0.4km south-east of
Choakford. The underlying geology is mapped as Slate of the Middle Devonian era
(BGS 1974). Fieldwork showed that this consisted of shale beds.
67
Period 10 (Undated)
5.274
A north-west/south-east orientated ditch 40.01.004, about 1.3m wide, ran for about
70m along the pipe trench.
68
6.
STRATIGRAPHIC, ARTEFACTUAL AND BIOLOGICAL RECORDS
Stratigraphic Record: factual data
6.1
Following the completion of the excavations an ordered, indexed, and internally
consistent site archive was compiled in accordance with specifications presented in
the Management of Archaeological Projects (EH 1991). A database of all contextual
and artefactual evidence and site matrices (for the principal sites) were also compiled
and cross-referenced to spot-dating. The excavations and evaluations comprise the
following field records:
6.2
OTA
ATK
FTC
TOTAL
Context Record Sheets
425
555
1032
2012
Trench Recording Sheets
21
56
30
107
Field Recording Sheets
18
16
57
91
Field Boundary Sheets
21
30
95
146
Plans
101
185
174
460
Sections
121
144
292
557
Monochrome Photographs
142
252
600
994
Colour Slides
196
356
604
1156
Digital Photographs
94
123
135
352
A total of 1968 individual contexts were recorded and have been assigned the
following provisional dates:
69
OTA 06
ATK06
FTC 06
Phase
Period
Ex
Eval
WB
Ex
Eval
WB
Ex
Eval
WB
Total
0
Natural
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Mesolithic
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
Neolithic
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
21
23
3
Bronze
12
2
9
2
0
18
5
0
0
48
Age
4
Iron Age
11
2
3
2
6
0
25
2
13
64
5
Roman
55
4
0
0
0
0
173
4
23
259
6
Saxon
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
Medieval
0
2
8
145
0
0
0
0
0
155
8
Post-
22
5
5
52
45
0
15
0
15
159
medieval
9
Modern*
0
2
0
0
0
0
3
0
1
6
10
Undated
108
33
117
67
54
158
134
33
550
1254
208
50
144
268
105
176
355
39
623
1968
Totals
* excluding overburden
Artefactual record: factual data
6.3
All finds collected during the excavation have been cleaned, marked, quantified and
catalogued by context. All metalwork has been x-rayed and stabilised where
appropriate.
6.4
A quantification of finds is presented in the following table and summary
assessments of the finds by category in the text below. The detailed assessments of
all the artefactual finds are contained in Appendices 1 – 11.
Type
Worked flint
Pottery
Brick/tile
Fired Clay
Clay tobacco pipe
Coins/tokens
Metals
Glass
Metallurg. residues
Stone
Category
all
Prehistoric
Roman
Medieval and later
total
all
all
all
Cu. al.
Iron
Copper alloy
Lead
Vessel/window
Object (bead)
all
Worked/utilised
70
Count
638
436
554
2781
3771
201
265
22
3
220
4
13
62
4
64
Weight (kg)
5635
4.981
4.914
20.071
29.966
26.094
0.734
118
474
21.949
-
Worked flint (Appendix 1)
6.5
Worked flint or chert and a small quantity of heat-affected flint were recovered from
each of the three sections of the pipeline, with the largest quantities from the FTC
section. Much of the assemblage represents redeposited material recovered from
subsoil/topsoil type deposits, or in Roman or later features.
Probable stratified
groups were however recognised from OTA 03.04, for which Early Neolithic dating is
supported by associated pottery and from FTC sites 02.02 and 33.01, which probably
date later in the Neolithic (see Appendix 2). Among the remainder of the assemblage,
there are indications from diagnostic tool forms or technological traits for dating
spanning the Mesolithic to Early/Middle Bronze Age.
Pottery (Appendices 2, 3, 4)
6.6
Pottery comprising material of prehistoric, Roman and medieval and later dating, was
recovered from each of the pipeline sections (see Appendices 2–4). The prehistoric
material (Appendix 2) amounts to 436 sherds (c 5kg). The earliest material
encountered consists of Early Neolithic pottery from OTA sites 30.04 (including
Trench 206) and 9.02, and possible Middle Neolithic sherds from OTA 2.03. Further
(later) Neolithic material, including probable Grooved Ware, was recorded from FTC
sites 02.02, 08.02 and 18.12. Beaker pottery was recovered from FTC 24.03 and
Middle Bronze Age material (including Trevisker type) from OTA sites 3.04, 4.10 and
5.02; ATK sites 12.13 and 14.09. Late prehistoric pottery (late Bronze Age to Iron
Age) was poorly represented as smaller tentatively-scribed sherds from OTA sites
2.06 and 3.04; ATK site 13.02 and FTC sites 7.01 and 13.03 (trench 9 [=109]).
6.7
Roman pottery was also encountered across the pipeline sections (Appendix 3),
though was notably better represented from the westernmost, section FTC (4.8kg)
with the overwhelming majority of pottery from sites 14.01 and 24.03. Small
quantities were noted from OTA 03.04 and ATK sites 0.03 and 13.02. Only the larger
groups from FTC sites 14.01 and 24.03 were more closely dateable; these being
primarily of the later 3rd to 4th centuries AD. In all instances a narrow range of,
primarily locally made coarsewares is represented.
6.8
Pottery of medieval and later date was identified from all sections, although only
scarcely from OTA and FTC. Among the earliest material is a small group (9 sherds)
from OTA 01.03 which includes tripod pitcher sherds of the mid/late 12th century. By
far the largest group is associated with structures located in ATK 13.02 (Appendix 4).
Here the majority dates to the period c 1250 to 1350 and comprises mainly cooking
71
pot fabrics with a few glazed wares including continental types. Post-medieval
material is scattered across the length of the pipeline. The majority comprises
coarsewares from South Devon, North Devon and South Somerset dating mainly to
the 17th and 18th centuries. Of note are a number of continental imports which are
rarely recorded outside of the major towns, including material from southwest and
northern France, Germany, Spain and Portugal.
Ceramic Building Material (Appendix 5)
6.9
Ceramic building material amounted to 201 fragments of all classes. The large bulk
of material relates to Trench 315 (part of ATK 12.01) and comprises un-glazed ‘S’profile pantiles of later post-medieval/modern type. No material relates to section
FTC. Of the remainder a small number of brick fragments, probably of late 18th or
19th century date, relate to a brick kiln from OTA 03.07.
Fired clay (Appendix 5)
6.10
Quantities of fired clay (265 fragments, weighing 734g) were recovered from each of
the pipeline sections. The fired clay is typically very fragmentary; the pieces small
and rounded and providing few indications of original form or function.
Metal and glass objects (Appendices 8, 9)
6.11
A total of 230 items, mainly of iron, were recovered from all areas. The largest group
relates to section FTC, although a sizeable proportion from here consists of
unstratified material from topsoil and subsoil deposits and primarily made up of nails
and other items of relatively recent dating. Among the more significant metal items
recovered are a copper–alloy pin fragment from a Middle Bronze Age deposit (ATK
14.09 Period 4 deposit 4.09.007), an iron knife of probable medieval date with white
metal inlay from ATK 13.02/Period 7 pit fill 13.02.162. In addition there are glass
beads of Roman type from FTC sites 02.02 and 24.03 and an early post-medieval
North Italian glass chevron bead from FTC 16.08.
Metallurgical residues (Appendix 10)
6.12
A total of 22kg of bulk metalworking debris together with 7kg of magnetically
extracted sieve debris was examined. No significant amounts of metallurgical debris
were identified from the Ottery St Mary to Aylesbeare or Aylesbeare to Kenn
sections. The Fishacre to Choakford Gas Pipeline (FTC), however, provided a
significant amount of metalworking debris, particularly from Site 16.07. This material
is not entirely unambiguous, but on balance the majority is thought to confirm the
72
excavators’ interpretation for a number of features being iron smelting furnaces,
together with further evidence of iron smithing, but no indication of the extraction or
working of any other metals. A radiocarbon date places this site in the Iron Age
(Appendix 18). Another iron working hearth was identified at Site 12.05W, while
metalworking residues were identified at Roman sites 24.03 and 14.01.
Vessel and window glass (Appendix 9)
6.13
Small quantities of vessel and window glass were recovered from each of the
pipeline sections. Much of the assemblage is unstratified or from subsoil-type
deposits. The vessel glass consists for the most part of green bottle glass of postmedieval or modern dating. Among earliest pieces are from wine/spirits bottles with
wide-base diameter and high basal ‘kick’ (ATK sites 12.09; 13.02), and a small bottle
or phial from FTC 25.01 (subsoil), which probably date to the mid 17th to earlier 18th
centuries. A small chip of green window glass from Trench 315 (part of Site 12.01)
may also be of earlier post-medieval date and may relate to the cob structure
recorded from this location. The remainder of the window glass consists of thin, clear
glass of relatively recent age (late 18th to 19th century or later).
Clay tobacco pipes (Appendix 6)
6.14
Small quantities of clay pipe fragments were recovered from each of the pipeline
sections (Appendix 6). The assemblage comprises mainly stem fragments, few of
which are stratified. The few dateable pieces are mainly 19th century moulddecorated forms (OTA Site 3.04 Trench 206/subsoil; ATK Site 13.02 ditch fill
13.02.152).
Coins (Appendix 7)
6.15
A total of three Roman coins, all from FTC 14.01 were recovered. The condition of all
three is extremely poor and in their current state the coins are not fully identifiable. All
however appear to be later Roman radiates, of the mid to late 3rd century AD.
Worked and utilised stone (Appendix 11)
6.16
Forty-six pieces of worked and utilised stone together with eighteen unworked but
potentially utilised cobbles and pebbles were found during the excavations; one,
twenty-one and forty-two pieces from the Ottery St. Mary to Aylesbeare, Aylesbeare
to Kenn and Fishacre to Choakford pipelines respectively (Appendix 11).
Initial
petrological examination indicates that all the material is generally local to the southwest and with origins primarily in south Devon, Dartmoor and Cornwall. Notable
73
items include probable rubbing stones of Neolithic date from FTC 2.02, rotary quern
fragments of Roman type from FTC 4.01 and part of a stone mould for the production
of pewter vessels also of Roman date and from FTC 14.01.
Biological record: factual data
6.17
A summary of the biological remains recovered is presented in the table below and
summary assessments of individual categories follow. The detailed assessments of
the biological data are contained in Appendices 12 – 18.
Type
Category
Count
Animal Bone
Mollusca
Human Bone
Samples
Hand collected
Hand collected
Cremation
Bulk Environmental
Monolith
cremation
3121
12
1
274
5
2
Human remains (Appendix 12)
6.18
The cremated remains from Site OTA 4.01 (deposits 205.012 and 205.005, pit
205.004) represent and un-urned cremation burial, probably of an adult woman. The
cremated remains weighed 767g, with mainly skull and long bones present, and
there was no duplication of skeletal parts suggesting a single individual. The
cremation is undated at present but is viable for radiocarbon dating. The majority of
the cremated material reached a temperature of >c 600 degrees Celsius, which
equates to full oxidization.
There were no accompanying artefacts, although
identifiable wood charcoal was present which would also be suitable for radiocarbon
dating (Appendix 14).
Animal Bone (Appendix 13)
6.19
Animal bone was recovered from all three sections of the pipeline route (OTA, FTP
and ATK). The assemblage comprised 3121 fragments from 138 bones weighing
2kg. Of these 241 fragments were hand collected whilst 80 fragments were
recovered from processed samples. The preponderance of animal bone from later
periods and the condition of the bone suggests that the conditions for preservation of
bone at these sites were poor. From the Ottery St Mary section animal bone was
recovered from three sites; 3.01, 3.04 and 5.01, but it was mostly not identifiable to
species. From the Fishacre to Chockford section animal bone was recovered from
74
four sites; 18.12, 24.03, 25.01 and 26.01, but only one item was identified to species.
The Aylesbeare to Kenn section produced the larger part of the animal bone
assemblage - 247 fragments from 91 bones of which 23 were identified to species.
These were recovered from two medieval and post-medieval sites, 13.02 and 12.01.
The assemblage from Site 13.02 comprised horse, cattle, sheep/goat and frog/toad.
While that at Site 12.01 comprised, horse, cattle, rabbit, rabbit/hare and rat.
Charcoal (Appendix 14)
6.20
The charcoal from 247 contexts, comprising material from the flots and residues, was
submitted for assessment. An additional 17 bags of hand-collected material were
also examined. The bulk of the samples came from the Fishacre to Choakford
section of the pipeline from features ranging in date from the Neolithic period through
to the Romano-British, with a large quantity of, as yet, undated features. The
samples from the other two sections of pipeline (OTA and ATK) included material of
later date, including medieval and post-medieval features. A similar range of taxa
was noted in the samples from all three pipeline sections, including; Alnus/Corylus
(alder/hazel),
Fraxinus
(ash),
Maloideae
(hawthorn
group),
Prunus
(cherry/blackthorn), Quercus (oak), Salix/Populus (willow/poplar) and Ulex/Cytisus
(gorse/broom). A couple of fragments of Acer (maple) type and Betula (birch) type
were also noted. The samples from ATK exhibited better preservation of the
charcoal, than those from OTA, and the assemblages were more diverse.
Alnus/Corylus (alder/hazel) and Quercus (oak) were still frequent, but there was also
a large component of Ulex/Cytisus (gorse/broom). Section FTC provided 137
samples of which more than 70 produced assemblages with some potential. A high
number of these were dominated by Quercus (oak) or Alnus/Corylus (alder/hazel).
Charred Plant Remains (Appendix 15)
6.21
From Ottery St Mary to Aylesbeare (OTA) ten flots were assessed. Charred plant
assemblages were present at Site 1.03 Period 7 (12th – 14th century AD), Site 2.03
Period 2 (middle Neolithic) and Site 3.04 where both Period 2 (Early Neolithic) and
Period 5 (Romano-British) deposits yielded plant remains. The Roman deposits
produced poorly preserved cereal remains including emmer/spelt wheat grains. The
Neolithic deposits were more mixed yielding emmer/spelt and some hazelnut shell
(HNS). That from Site 2.03 was unusual in that some bread-type wheat was present
which would indicate a later date. The medieval Period 7 assemblage from Site 1.03
comprises oats and rye with some weed species.
75
6.22
From the Aylesbeare to Kenn (ATK) section 20 flots were assessed. These came
from medieval to post-medieval features in Site 13.02 and some Late Bronze
Age/Early Iron Age features in Site 14.09. From Site 13.02 the medieval (Period 7)
hearth fills produced bread-type wheat, rye and oats. The samples from the SFB
yielded frequent oats, rye grains and a range of weed seeds, and some rye chaff
was present; cultivated vetch may also be present. Pit 13.02.228 (samples 163 and
164) produced well-preserved, abundant evidence of rye, with some oats, barley,
bread-type wheat and a possible large legume such as Celtic bean (Vicia faba var.
minor). An early post-medieval (Period 8) pit contained poor, eroded cereal grains. A
16th-18th century pit produced fragments of possible walnut shell (cf. Juglans regia).
From site 14.09 pits of Middle Bronze Age date produced bread-type wheat and
barley grains in very poor condition. The undated ring ditch 14.09.021, produced an
interesting assemblage of crop processing waste, with chaff present in the form of a
spelt glume base (Triticum spelta), suggestive of a prehistoric date.
6.23
From the Fishacre to Choakford (FTC) section 141 samples were assessed. Site
02.02 deposits of Neolithic date did not produce cereal grains although they were rich
in charred HNS. Other Neolithic pits contained small numbers of poorly preserved
grain fragments and small HNS fragments. Site 12.05 samples from currently
undated deposits produced small quantity of cereal grains, a fragment of sloe/plum
(Prunus sp.) stone and a small HNS fragment. Site 14.01 Roman deposits produced
evidence for the extraction of oil from flax and also cereal grains (emmer/spelt and
oat), and Celtic bean (Vicia faba var. minor).
Site 16.07 included iron smelting
furnaces (one of which has been dated to the Iron Age). The charred plant
assemblage included black bindweed and emmer/spelt wheat grains. From Site
16.08 undated pit fills produced a mixture of oats and barley typical of medieval
mixed crop (dredge). Site 18.12 included pits of Neolithic date which produced HNS
and undated deposits likely to be of similar date, as well as undated deposits with
typical medieval assemblage composition. Site 18.13 comprised undated deposits
dominated by HNS likely to be of Neolithic date. Site 19.07 included possible
evidence for livestock fodder. Site 21.06 included samples from a sunken-floored
building which comprised charred grain and a wide range of weed seeds which is
somewhat at odds with the early radiocarbon date obtained from a barley grain. Site
24.03 yielded material of Roman date. Spelt wheat appears to have been the main
cereal grown, with some oats and barley, perhaps suggesting soil impoverishment.
Site 33.01 deposits were undated and produced quantities of charred HNS but lack
cereal grains.
76
Mollusca (Appendix 16)
6.24
Hand–collected material totaled 12 fragments weighing 19g. Species identifiable
include common oyster (Ostrea edulis), mussel (Mytilus edulis) and periwinkle
(Littorina Littorea). Shell fragments were recovered from the residues of six of the
processed bulk samples from ATK sites 13.02 and 14.09 and from the flots of sample
105 from site 13.02. The large majority of shells recovered were identifiable as
cockle (Cerastoderma edule). In addition to this, a small amount of oyster shell and
one land snail, unidentifiable to species, were also recovered.
Geoarchaeology and Palynology (Appendix 17)
6.25
Five monolith samples were taken from fills of feature OTA 04.12.004, a large ditch
or palaeochannel. The sequence sampled rests on weathered mudstone of the
Mercia Mudstone Group, present in the basal 20mm of monolith <220>. The lowest
fills of the feature (contexts 04.12.005, 04.12.006, 04.12.010) comprise c 0.30m of
thinly bedded and laminated peats, organic muds and mineral silt/clays (Table 17.1).
There is a trend in these strata for organic content to decrease upwards and for the
mineral deposits to become increasingly dominant. Peat containing recognisable
plant macro-remains is only a feature of the basal 0.10m of the sampled feature
(context 04.12.005). Twenty-five sub-samples were taken from the monoliths at 40150mm for palynological assessment. The concentration and preservation of pollen
varied. In the three sub-samples from the basal peat (context 4.12.05, monolith
<220>), the pollen concentration was high and preservation moderate. The main taxa
identified included Alnus (alder), Corylus type (e.g. hazel), Poaceae (grass family)
and mixed herbs such as Caryophyllaceae (daisy family). In the six samples from
overlying organic and mineral silt/clays (context 4.12.06, monoliths <220> and
<219>), pollen concentration was generally moderate to high and preservation
moderate. The main taxa identified included Alnus, Corylus type, Poaceae, Plantago
lanceolata (ribwort plantain) and Polypodium vulgare (polypody).
Radiocarbon Dating (Appendix 18)
6.26
Single AMS samples were submitted during the assessment, and additional material
is available which will permit the ‘pairing up’ of these dates in the future. From the
Fishacre to Chokeford section samples were dated from three deposits: pit
2.02.1010, a possible furnace 16.07.016 and sunken floored building 21.06.008.
From the Alyesbeare to Kenn Section two pits from Site 14.09 were sampled,
14.09.003 and 14.09.016. Pit 2.02.1010 from FTC 2.02 was believed to be of
Neolithic date based on the finds. The radiocarbon date of 3339-3095 cal BC is
77
earlier than date indicated by the pottery from this feature, identified as Grooved
Ware (Quinnell, Appendix 2). The possible furnace 16.07.008 at FTC 16.07 has a
radiocarbon date range of 391–210 cal BC (Middle Iron Age). The sample from the
potential sunken floored building from FTC 21.06 returned a date of 1385-1194 cal
BC (Middle Bronze Age). Dates were obtained from two pits from ATK 14.09. Pit
14.09.003 has a date of 1627–1504 cal BC (Early Bronze Age) thus confirming the
date suggested by the presence of partial Trevisker vessel of Early to Middle Bronze
Age date. Pit 14.09.016 had been described as Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age as it
contained 14 sherds of Middle Bronze Age pottery. The radiocarbon date obtained
was 367- 201 cal BC, a Middle rather than Early Iron Age date.
78
7.
SUMMARY STATEMENTS OF POTENTIAL
Stratigraphic record
7.1
A secure stratigraphic sequence is essential to elucidating the form, purpose, date,
organisation and development of the various phases of activity represented. This
can be achieved through detailed analysis of the sequence and further integration of
the artefactual and scientific dating evidence. The refined sequence will then serve
as the spatial and temporal framework within which other artefactual and biological
evidence can be understood.
7.2
Further analysis will be undertaken for contexts provisionally assigned to Periods 2,
3, 4, 5, 7 and undated features (Period 10). In addition post-medieval contexts
(Period 8) will be examined where they contribute to an understanding of the sites
excavated (cob building ATK 12.01, medieval longhouse ATK 13.02, brick kiln OTA
3.07).
7.3
The large number of presently undated features means that a relatively high
proportion of resources will be spent coming to an understanding of features which
may not contribute individually to great advances in knowledge, but which appear
typical of this transect of land, and warrant explanation where possible. It appears
likely that a number of these features are elements of significant archaeological sites
which are artefact poor and to some extent ‘invisible’.
7.4
The large majority of sites comprised simple discrete and linear features with
deposits surviving only below the surface of the sterile substrate. The stratigraphic
potential in most cases therefore relates only to the forms of the individual features
and the nature of their fills. Most fall in the generic categories of pits or ditches of
various sizes. The potential for interpreting their function and the formation processes
involved in their creation is therefore low, although greater in larger features with
more complex depositional histories, which might, for instance include several
phases of digging and deposition (structured or otherwise) or infilling. One of the
valuable aspects of this project lies in the cumulative gain in information from a great
deal of essentially poor quality evidence. The range and quality of information may
be typical of the county as a whole.
79
7.5
A small number of sites show greater complexity, particularly in the number of
features and range of date, with some features readily interpretable in terms of
specific function.
Site FTC 16.07: Iron Age iron smelting furnaces
7.6
Of the prehistoric sites this shows more stratigraphic potential than the others, with a
sequence of intercutting pits as well as discrete ones. The furnaces, however, are not
well preserved, surviving only as cut features without evidence of their original
above-ground forms. There is some indication of their below-ground forms and fill
sequences which, in conjunction with material remains of residues, will help
determine the types of ironworking processes (primary and secondary) being carried
out and the level of technology practised. The furnaces appear to have been apart
from identifiable settlement or other related features and questions concerning spatial
patterning and internal organisation of the industry would seem unanswerable.
Site FTC 24.03: Roman settlement with prehistoric pits
7.7
Of the Roman sites this was the most prolific of pottery and a range of other finds,
although 78% of the pottery came from a single feature (ditch 24.03.153). There is
little stratigraphy or evidence of spatial patterning of features, and no complete plans
of structures. The spatial distribution of finds may, however, give some indication of
functional zoning.
Site FTC 14.01: Roman enclosure
7.8
The site of an enclosure defined by geophysical survey (Fig. 52) had enclosure
ditches and a scatter of internal features including hearths, pits and a cut terrace
which appears likely to have been a house platform (although without clear structural
evidence). Both the ditches and terrace contained stratified deposits, with a fairly
large quantity of pottery from the terrace.
Site FTC 7.01: Iron Age and Roman settlement
7.9
The site had mostly discrete features and sparse material culture (the pottery
amounted to just 27 sherds Roman and 20 sherds Iron Age). There is little potential
to examine the sequence or structure of the site.
Site OTA 3.04: Roman settlement and prehistoric pits
7.10
The features are for the most part discrete and of different periods, although the
intercutting penannular ditch 3.04.045 and ‘boundary ditch’ 3.04.004 indicate a
80
chronological depth to the Roman occupation. Dating or other material evidence is
sparse (just three sherds of Roman pottery), and there is therefore no opportunity to
examine function or spatial patterning associated with the possible roundhouse.
Site ATK 13.02: Medieval longhouse and SFB
7.11
Although no features survived above the horizon of modern ploughing, the cut
features show sufficient complexity to enable a relatively long stratigraphic sequence
to be developed. This includes elements of land division dating to post-medieval
times. There is also reasonably abundant dating evidence and further work should be
capable of refining the date and nature of activities represented. However, the longlived nature of many of the ceramic types (normally not less than 200 years), and the
probability of significant redeposition, make it unclear how precise a sequence will be
achievable. The nature and range of features – including hearths, floor surfaces and
post-pads – will aid an understanding of the structures themselves.
Site ATK 12.01: Post-medieval cob building
7.12
There is the potential to examine post-medieval cob building 12.01.01 in terms of
sequence and construction technique. The deposits themselves are relatively easy to
interpret (walls, floors etc) and there is some stratigraphy, although not obviously
representing more than a single main phase of building. It is unclear whether the
limited finds are contextually useful enough to date the construction of the building, or
to fine tune any separate phases of use, since most come from deposits associated
with the abandonment phase.
Artefactual Record
Pottery
7.13
Generally the amount of prehistoric pottery found on sites in Devon is small
compared to areas further east and north. The potential of this group of material is
therefore high, both in terms of its relative quantity and its contextual associations. It
is thus important to study the assemblage in detail, aiming at publication which
includes even single sherds from individual contexts. There is little comparanda
available for the areas transversed by the pipeline, and ongoing research has been
able to demonstrate considerable complexities of fabric sourcing (e.g. Quinnell
1999). It is recommended here that examples of each separate fabric with sufficient
characteristics to indicate a broad date range be examined with a petrological
microscope, with a selection in addition thin-sectioned. Most pottery is present in
81
small amounts. All those pieces with distinctive form or decoration whose visual
publication would advance future study have been recommended for illustration. All
contexts with ceramics with distinctive form have been recommended for radiocarbon
determinations if sufficient dating material is available. There are regrettably few such
determinations currently available in Devon and the sequence of styles and forms is
only known in broad outline.
7.14
Although similarly small, the Roman groups from FTC sites 14.01 and 24.03, warrant
publication as relatively rare evidence for patterns of pottery supply and use in the
area to the south of Dartmoor. In advance of reporting, additional recording is
recommended to include an estimated minimum number of vessels (sherd families)
and systematic recording of carbonised or other residues. A full library search for
other Roman assemblages in the area should be conducted for the purposes of
comparison with the groups from FTC sites 14.01 and 24.03 and representative
sample of featured sherds should be drawn. The summary statements provided as
part of this assessment will be sufficient for the remaining groups.
7.15
The medieval and post-medieval assemblage also merits selective further analysis.
Most significant is the material from the longhouse identified from ATK 13.02.
Comparable collections have come from Dartmoor, where several examples of these
farmhouses have been excavated, but there are very few comparable assemblages
from peasant sites in lowland Devon. The collection from Site 13.02 is surprisingly
different from the finds from Exeter, with more variety of fabrics alongside familiar
chert-tempered wares from the Blackdown Hills. A full catalogue and report should
be produced for this material to be accompanied by approximately one page (25
vessels) of illustrations. It is also recommended that petrological analysis should be
undertaken for selected sherds to assist with characterisation of fabrics and possibly
to determine source. In addition to the collection from Site 13.02 there are small
groups and individual occurrences from other sites which warrant further
investigation to include summary reporting.
Ceramic Building Material
7.16
The ceramic building material provides some broad indications of dating, in particular
in respect to the cob structure identified from ATK 12.01. Similarly the few brick
samples recovered from the brick kiln noted from OTA 03.07 are evidence for the
‘products’ and dating of this structure. There is therefore some potential to contribute
82
to the interpretation of both these sites. It is recommended that a short report
describing the material from these two sites be included in the eventual publication.
Fired clay
7.17
The fired clay represents a small and fragmented group for which there is limited
interpretive value. The existing records and reporting are considered sufficient for
the purposes of the archive and no further work is recommended.
Metal and glass (objects)
7.18
A small number of items of interest merit publication, to include catalogue description
and illustration. These objects include the knife blade from Site ATK 13.02 and the
glass beads from Site ATK 13.02 and FTC sites 02.02, 24.03 and 16.08. Specialist
cleaning of two items: the copper-alloy pin fragment from Site ATK 14.09 and the
inlaid(?) iron knife blade from Site ATK 13.02, is recommended to clarify form and
facilitate accurate drawing. It is recommended that items from topsoil and subsoil
deposits be discarded as the recording in this assessment is considered sufficient. A
brief descriptive catalogue should be prepared for all other items for the archive.
Present packaging should be maintained to reduce the risk of deterioration
Metallurgical residues (and associated structures)
7.19
Although smelting had been identified at numerous Iron Age sites, this has generally
relied only on finds of slag, not furnaces. The multiple furnace clusters at Site FTC
16.07 are rare examples of early, relatively precisely dated structures. Closer scrutiny
of context records and the site photographs might help to clarify the function of
individual furnaces. Chemical charaterisation of the types of slag may more securely
distinguish smelting and smithing debris, identify the source of ore, and obtain a
‘signature’ which may be useful in provenancing iron artefacts found elsewhere in the
country. This aspect of the material is potentially of national importance.
7.20
There is also some potential for chemical characterisation of the residues from the
Roman site FTC 24.03 to establish whether there is any evidence for tin, lead or
pewter working.
Glass
7.21
The small glass assemblage is widely dispersed across the pipeline sections, is
commonly from topsoil or subsoil-type horizons and consists for the most part of
modern material. For such reasons, recording undertaken as part of this assessment
83
is regarded as sufficient for the purposes of the archive, and additional analysis is not
recommended.
Clay tobacco pipes
7.22
The clay pipe assemblage is fragmentary and contains few diagnostic elements.
Further analysis is not recommended.
Coins
7.23
The Roman coins from FTC 14.01 are of some, limited significance as dating
evidence, helping to refine the dating for this site provided by the pottery. Cleaning
by a specialist conservator is recommended in an attempt to fully identify the coins. A
coin list, noting what details as can be ascertained from cleaning, or at the least
those recorded as part of the assessment, should be included in any publication.
Worked and Utilised stone
7.24
Within the overall assemblage, three categories of worked stone – the stone mould,
querns and Neolithic rubbing stones – are considered particularly important in terms
of their regional and possibly national significance. It is recommended, therefore,
that full analysis, leading to the production of a report, be carried out on these
artefacts in order to provide details on their origin, manufacture, use and discard, and
enable them to be placed in their regional context. The other pieces worked or
utilised stones have been catalogued and reported on as part of this assessment and
further analysis is not thought to be of merit.
Worked Flint
7.25
The lithics assemblage is of some interest as a sample across a region not
commonly the subject of archaeological investigation. Of greatest significance are
probable stratified groups from OTA 03.04 and FTC sites 02.02 and 33.01. Those
relatively small groups merit additional recording to include process-related recording
for removals (degree of cortex present), assessment of hammer mode and
length/breadth measurement. A report characterising the assemblage and discussing
further indications of chronology, aspects of technology and the procurement of raw
materials should be prepared for the publication. Data relating to the unstratified
groups and the analysed stratified groups should be presented in the final report. A
number of tools (up to eleven) including the barbed and tanged arrowhead, should be
drawn for the publication.
84
Biological Record
Human Remains
7.26
No further work needs doing on the remains themselves. The cremation includes
material suitable for radiocarbon dating. Once the date of the cremation is
established its significance within the region can be considered in greater detail.
Animal Bone
7.27
The animal bone assemblages from all three sections of the pipeline offer little
potential in terms of interpreted past diet and economy due to their small and
fragmented nature. No further work on the assemblages is recommend but a brief
summary of species identified by site should be included in the publication.
Charcoal
7.28
From all three pipeline sections there is high potential for further analysis, though the
exact samples to be analysed will need to be selected from those with highest
potential when the full dating programme and context analysis have been completed.
The potential cremations, the furnaces, and a selection of the pits are to be analysed
and a selection of samples from each period or phase are to be examined to provide
a dataset for interpretation and comparison over a long timescale, which, on present
dating includes features of Neolithic, Bronze Age, later Iron Age, Roman and postconquest Medieval date. The samples offer the opportunity to examine the following
issues: the wood selected for the Iron Age furnaces (and potentially those of other
dates); how the choice of wood for hearths and general domestic use (crop
processing?) varied according to date and function of the sites; how the landscape
and/or selection of wood for fuel changed over time, and how these results fit in with
comparable sites in the region. In addition, material will be selected and identified
purely for assessing its suitability for radiocarbon dating (Table 14.4).
Charred Plant Remains
7.29
The large numbers of soil samples examined, with variable but often good quality
palaeobotanical remains from several periods, means that overall there is a good
potential for examining aspects of diet, farming practice and environment, and
changes over time. There is also the potential for dating currently undated sites
85
through suitable AMS radiocarbon samples and thereby characterising assemblages
lacking other datable material remains.
From the OTA section recommendations include; further processing and analysis of
samples from sites 1.03 (Period 7), 2.03 (Period 2) and 3.04 (Period 2 and Period 5).
From the ATK section recommendations include further processing and analysis of
samples from sites 13.02 (predominantly Period 7) 14.09 (mostly Periods 3 and 10).
From the FTC section recommendations include Site 2.02 (mostly Period 2), Site
12.05 (currently undated but probably prehistoric) Site 14.01 (Period 5) where
evidence of flax oil estraction was noted, Site 16.07 (Period 4 iron smelting), Site
16.08 (currently undated but probably medieval), Site 18.12 (Period 2 and undated),
Site 18.13 (currently undated but also potentially Period 2), Site 21.06 (currently with
a Period 3 radiocarbon date) and Site 33.01 (currently undated but perhaps
prehistoric). A number of useful samples have reserves of sediment to be processed
which will be used to augment the material already assessed. Further details of
specific samples for further processing can be found in Appendix 15, Table 15.4.
Mollusca
7.30
Only small quantities of marine molluscs, both hand-collected and from processed
samples, were retrieved. Most of the material has limited potential for further
analysis. No further work is recommended except on the large quantity of cockle
shell recovered from the midden ATK 13.02.006, which appears to have contributed
to the diet of people at this site. Further work will integrate this material into the site
analysis and examine comparanda.
Geoarchaeology
7.31
It is still unclear whether feature OTA 04.12.004 was a ditch or a palaeochannel.
However, given the nature of the deposits filling the cut, the balance of probability is
with the latter. All deposits infilling the feature – with the possible exception of the
uppermost sands – are the result of natural, mostly alluvial, processes and there is
very little indication from either the palynology or sediment morphology for human
action. The results of the pollen assessment suggest that the assemblage throughout
the entire sequence was relatively similar despite the variations in concentration and
preservation. There are a number of samples that have the potential for
reconstructing the environmental history of the site and its environs. Therefore, and
depending on the results of radicarbon dating of the basal organic deposits and age
86
similarity with surrounding archaeological sites, palynological analysis has been
recommended of these strata. No further sedimentological work is recommended.
Despite the intrinsic potential of the pollen samples, the lack of an absolute
chronology and the low potential for obtaining one (with the exception of dating the
basal fill), means they have limited archaeological or palaeoenvironmental value.
There would seem no likelihood of extrapolating the palynological information to
nearby archaeological sites, or establishing an absolute date for changes in
vegetation identified.
Radiocarbon Dating
7.32
The five dates obtained thus far require second dates to create paired dates as is
recommended for small items of charcoal and charred plant material. Further
features requiring dating from the OTA section include; the cremation from 4.01 has
been identified as that of an adult woman; Pit OTA 02.03.004 contains Peterborough
Ware, but the charred plant assemblage is more characteristic of a later prehistoric
date, and this ambiguity needs resolving. The ring-ditch feature at Site 5.01 is
assumed to be Bronze Age but is as yet undated, paired dates from primary fills are
recommended. At Site 14.12, the basal peat-rich deposits of the monolith sequence
are potentially dateable, but the lack of suitable material from the upper sandy
deposits means that the upper end of the pollen sequence cannot be tied in and the
proposed radiocarbon dating cannot be justified (Appendix 17).
7.33
From the ATK section features requiring radiocarbon dating options include; from
Site 13.02 two ditches of potential Bronze Age/Iron Age; the pits from Site 14.09
requiring second AMS samples to create pairs; and the potential ring-ditch at Site
15.02.
7.34
From the FTC section a greater number of features are recommended for
radiocarbon dating. Pit 2.02.010 requires a second to support the current single date.
Pits from Site 12.05, identified on site as cremations but which yielded only charcoal
and no human bone, require dating. Paired dates are recommended for the possible
iron smelting furnace at Site 12.05w. A second date for the furnace from Site 16.07 is
needed, along with dates from some of the other furnaces. A number of pits from
Site 18.12 contain Grooved Ware and confirmation of their date is required. Two pits
from Site 18.13 require dates to confirm suggestion that they are Neolithic based on
87
the composition of the charred plant assemblage. Sites 19.07 and 19.08 both include
pits with well preserved charred plant or charcoal, radiocarbon dates for these are
recommended. For the SFB at Site 21.06 a second date is required to confirm the
unexpectedly early initial date.
Pit 24.03.036 has a significant charred plant
assemblage, and the presumed Roman date requires confirmation. Pit 33.01.006 has
produced charred plant assemblage characteristic of the early prehistoric period as
well as a stratified flint group, and thus radiocarbon dating is recommended.
88
8.
UPDATED OBJECTIVES
Original fieldwork objectives
8.1
A series of WSIs were produced for the several stages of archaeological work
(evaluations, excavations and the scheme-wide watching brief) on each section of
pipeline. These WSIs included the objectives of each intervention which were
itemised in generic form for the detailed excavations as follows:
A
Identify, investigate and record any archaeological remains
B
Establish the dates, chronology and character of the identified activity
was it continuous or episodic?
how extensive was the activity over time?
when did it start and end?
what can be discovered about the nature of the structures on the site? how were they
built? what function did they perform?
C
Determine the nature of the patterning of the activity within the excavation area
is there intra-site variation in deposit, structure and feature type and function?
does artefact and ecofact distribution match that patterning?
is there significance in the deposition of artefactual/ecofactual material?
how are the secular, funerary and ritual elements of the landscape arranged in the
excavated site? how do these fit into the wider contemporary landscape?
D
Analyse the economic base and resource exploitation of the site
what, if any, technological and craft processes were carried out?
is there any evidence to allow environmental reconstruction and how reliable is that
evidence? what categories of material are present/absent and why?
what was the source of raw materials?
is there any evidence for trade relationships in the artefactual material or raw
materials? how local or extensive were any such links?
E
Test the model of prehistoric (and other period) activity and settlement in the region
does the site have a specialist function within that model?
how does it fit within the chronology of sites in the area?
is the settlement activity seasonal? episodic? marginal?
F
Provide information on the survival and quality of the archaeological resource to
assist in the management of the resource in similar physical locations
how truncated are features and deposits?
what types of material evidence may be expected and what has survived?
what is the best method of prospection for such sites?
G
Test feature sampling strategies
H
Disseminate the results of the work to the widest possible audience
89
I
Prepare an archaeological archive of the site including the treatment and
preservation of any finds, and the detailed analysis and publication of results to an
appropriate level
8.2
Objective A has been achieved by the fieldwork and I is part of the continuing postexcavation programme. There is scope for pursuing the other objectives, particularly
B, D, E and H, although the narrow corridor investigated means that most sites do
not show clear spatial patterning and C is less realistic. There is some scope for a
retrospective assessment of field methodologies (objectives F and G).
Revised objectives
8.3
The results of the archaeological work include significant new information on a range
of periods for each of the pipeline sections, and a large number of minor and undated
features which contribute to the picture of human activity, but whose potential is
lower or uncertain. Of particular significance are eleven Neolithic and Bronze Age
sites. The Neolithic sites are all new and unpredicted discoveries – pits and small
features at OTA 2.03, OTA 3.04, FTC 2.02, FTC 8.02 and FTC 18.12. Beaker/Bronze
Age pits were discovered at OTA 3.04, ATK 14.09 and FTC 24.03 (near an extant
round barrow), while ditches, largely dated to the Middle Bronze Age were
discovered at sites OTA 4.10, OTA 5.01 (probably associated with the undated ringditch) and OTA 5.02. In addition, a possible sunken floored building at FTC 21.06
was radiocarbon dated to the Middle Bronze Age.
8.4
There were ten sites with features of Iron Age or Roman date. These included parts
of settlements at OTA 3.04, FTC 7.01, FTC 14.01 and FTC 24.03 and a possible
enclosure at FTC 13.03. Other ditches at OTA 4.10 and ATK 13.02 may represent
more peripheral field boundaries. Confirmed Iron Age features were relatively rare,
but included possible settlement features at FTC 33.02 and an iron smelting furnace
at FTC 16.07, which was without diagnostic finds dated through radiocarbon.
8.5
Medieval sites were rare, but comprised part of a settlement at Powderham with a
longhouse and sunken floored building (ATK 13.02). This also had post-medieval
elements, and the remains of a post-medieval cob building were recorded at ATK
12.01, and those of a largely demolished brick kiln at OTA 3.07. A large proportion of
the 62 undated ditches are likely to be medieval and later agricultural features.
90
Earlier prehistoric features
8.6
The features initially dated to the earlier prehistoric period (including Middle Bronze
Age) form an important focus for further description and analysis. All the Neolithic
material is comparatively rare in the region, and there is only one other published
Grooved Ware site from Devon (Quinnell, Appendix 2). Because sites of this period
tend to be represented by individual or groups of pits containing diagnostic material,
it is possible that a number of the so-far undated pits are of this date.
Some
contained charred plant remains suggestive of an earlier prehistoric date. As well as
the sites with Neolithic pits, FTC 8.02 showed a possible ditch terminal and
FTC18.12 a curving ditch which may be part of a ring-ditch.
8.7
By the Middle Bronze Age sites (particularly settlements) tend to be more common in
the south-west, especially Dorset and Cornwall, although away from Dartmoor they
are not as frequent in Devon (Fitzpatrick 2008, 118). The nature of the remains on
the present project is often uncertain. Probable field boundaries are recorded at OTA
4.10 and OTA 5.02, and it is possible that a number of undated ditches are of this
date, although these need characterising and examining in their landscape setting.
Pits at ATK 14.09 were initially thought to be cremations, but bone is entirely lacking
and they may be settlement-related. The only positively identified cremation (from
OTA 4.01) is currently undated. The sunken-featured building (FTC 21.06) may be
part of Middle Bronze Age settlement. As with the Neolithic, a number of undated pits
may be settlement features or cremation pits without surviving bone (particularly FTC
12.05, FTC 18.12/13 and FTC 24.03).
8.8
The assessment of these sites and finds, in consideration with the broader regional
state of knowledge and research aims, has indicated the following updated
objectives.
Objective 1: Create a secure chronology for the identified material culture and
bioarchaeological remains
8.9
The identifications of prehistoric pottery wares, which in a number of cases are
uncertain and provisional, need to be verified and tied to an absolute chronology.
Dating of this material in Devon is generally less secure than in other parts of the
country, and radiocarbon determinations are recommended for all contexts where
distinctive ceramic forms have been identified (Appendix 2).
91
8.10
Initial radiocarbon determinations have produced some unexpected results
(Appendix 18).
There is ambiguous dating from FTC 2.02 where Late Neolithic
Grooved Ware has been identified, but associated with a radiocarbon date of 33393095 BC. At ATK 14.09 Trevisker Ware vessels are associated with dates of 16271504 BC and also 367-201 BC, while at FTC 21.06 a feature identified as a sunken
floored building, containing charred crop processing waste, returned a date in the
Middle Bronze Age. Paired samples will be sought to support this dating and the
radiocarbon programme will be extended to include features associated with other
finds, both artefacts and bioarchaeological assemblages. The proposals for further
radiocarbon dating are presented in Appendix 18.
8.11
The establishment of a chronological framework for the pottery groups will add
considerably to the corpus of this material from Devon, and may be applicable to
other sites where earlier prehistoric pottery is less securely dated. The dating of
features where ceramic evidence is absent may help characterise these types of site
and help fill apparent gaps in the regional prehistoric record – for instance in the
Middle Neolithic and Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age, where identified sites are
poorly represented (Appendix 2).
Objective 2: To examine the environment and economy of earlier prehistoric sites
8.12
In many cases features dated to the earlier prehistoric period contain reasonable
quantities of charred plant remains and charcoal which are to be analysed fully
(Appendices 14 & 15). There are pits containing crop-processing waste, including
grain, chaff and weeds, as well as hazelnut shells, associated with Middle Neolithic
Peterborough Ware at OTA 2.03. At FTC 2.02 a pit radiocarbon dated to the Middle
Neolithic contained mostly hazelnut shells and wood charcoal. Comparisons of the
charred remains from all the sites with useful quantities of material will allow some
assessment of the importance of cultivated as opposed to collected foodstuffs, the
nature of the local environment, the composition of the woodland, and changes over
time, and may perhaps also be related to local topography. Associated flintwork will
also be examined for the possible functional differences between sites.
8.13
The roles of collected and cultivated plant food is a topic of debate in the Neolithic.
There is evidence that emmer wheat and barley were introduced in to the region in
the early 4th millennium BC, but there is some evidence of reliance on collected
92
plants in the Late Neolithic. It is still uncertain whether variations in food plants relate
to different types of occupation, differences in environment, or differential
preservation due to different methods of crop-processing (Pollard and Healy 2008,
90).
8.14
There is more than regional interest in the date of the introduction of cereals such as
hulled barley, spelt wheat and bread-wheat, and it may be possible to contribute to
the picture of adoption of these specific types. There appears to be evidence of both
spelt and bread-wheat from OTA 2.03 (although the evidence is currently
ambiguous).
8.15
For the Bronze Age, there are also reasonable charred plant assemblages from
several sites, and in the absence of preserved bone, these may help determine
whether sites were domestic or funerary ones. Site ATK 14.09 was recorded in the
field as a possible cremation cemetery, although no bone was recovered. The
palaeobotanical remains, however, include bread-type wheat and barley, while a
nearby undated gully contained spelt wheat and weed seeds, so a Bronze Age
farming settlement would now appear more likely.
8.16
The lack of preservation of bone on any of these sites precludes any investigation of
the animal-based component of site economies.
Objective 3: to determine the nature of activities undertaken at the sites
8.17
The features and material remains will be examined individually and collectively for
each site in order to assess the likely function or functions of the site and the
individual features. Difficulties have been identified concerning whether some sites
were funerary in nature (with bones not surviving in the soil) – eg. FTC 12.05, FTC
18.12/13, FTC 24.03. The bioarchaeological remains may help determine whether
food preparation/consumption was being undertaken, or whether burnt material is
more characteristic of cremation pyres.
8.18
There is evidence that indicates that earlier prehistoric pits were sometimes dug for
the purpose of receiving deposits of selected materials (other than burials). These
deliberate (‘structured’) deposits often contain a limited number of objects or range of
selected material, in contrast with other pits containing secondary deposits of
fortuitously associated ‘rubbish’ that happened to be nearby and was used to infill the
pit (Garrow 2006). The collection of utilised and natural stones from four pits at FTC
93
2.02 would appear to be such a deliberate deposit. These and the other earlier
prehistoric pits will be examined together with the type, range and quality of their
contents in order to gain an understanding of the depositional context of the material
in each case. Comparisons will be made with other possibly structured pit deposits,
such as Tremough, Cornwall (Pollard and Healy 2008, 82).
Objective 4: to examine regional and wider production and exchange
8.19
The south-west has distinctive ceramic styles in the earlier prehistoric period,
frequently made with gabbroic clay (and also other types of clay) which can be linked
to specific sources (Pollard and Healy 2008, 86). Continuing research on pottery
fabrics has demonstrated some complexity to clay sourcing for different types of
vessels in different periods (Appendix 2) and the collection of material on the present
project offers the potential to further investigate vessel fabrics and their sources of
production. Cornish gabbroic clay and Exeter volcanic fabrics have been positively
identified in the collection, but there are a range of other fabrics present – in the case
of pit OTA 3.04.096, six vessel fabrics from one feature. It is proposed that 35
microscopic examinations and nine thin sections are undertaken on the material in
order to examine sources of production and the implications for contacts and
exchange.
Iron Age and Roman sites
8.20
There is as yet no material from the project that can be firmly ascribed to the earlier
Iron Age, and this is characteristic of Devon in general (Appendix 2). The later Iron
Age (from c 400 BC) in the south-west is characterised by a greater visible presence
of non-hillfort settlements, usually small and enclosed, although little is known about
settlement in Devon compared with the counties further east and west (Fitzpatrick
2008, 130). While there was Iron Age pottery from six sites, it was recovered in very
small quantities. None came from the ironworking site FTC 16.07, and it is possible
that other undated features (such as the iron smelting furnaces at 12.05w) are Iron
Age in date. In four cases (OTA 3.04, FTC 7.01, FTC 13.03 and FTC 24.05) the Iron
Age features were within Roman sites (probably settlements of one form or another)
which suggests either a continuity of occupation across the Roman conquest, or the
continuing use of later Iron Age ceramic types alongside Roman ones. The other
Roman settlement (FTC 14.01) was probably later in date. The focus of further work
will be on clarifying the form, nature and date range of these sites using the wider
picture provided by geophysics and cropmarks where possible.
94
Objective 5: to examine the dating and character of the Iron Age and Roman
occupations
8.21
Despite the incomplete picture of the sites revealed in the pipeline easement there
are suggestions of slightly different types and dates of occupation.
OTA 3.04
appears to be a Roman period settlement with native-style architecture, at least
initially; FTC 7.01 perhaps an Iron Age settlement that became enclosed; FTC 13.03
a probable enclosure, but without internal features; FTC 14.01 a Romano-British
enclosure with terraces; and FTC 24.03 an open or ‘agglomerated’ site (with
enclosures and open elements). There are reasonably large quantities of pottery and
other material from FTC 14.01 and FTC 24.03, but limited material from the others.
Other material culture includes quern stones and a stone mould for a pewter dish.
8.22
Archaeobotanical remains from OTA 3.04, FTC14.01 and FTC 24.03 will be
examined for information on the arable economies of these sites. The presence of
flax processing waste from FTC 14.01 suggests the production of flax oil at this site,
which is of more than regional interest (Appendix 14).
Charcoal will also be
examined from domestic sites OTA 3.04, FTC 7.01, FTC 14.01 and 24.03 to
determine the type of wood used for fuel. This will be compared with the type of fuel
used at the Iron Age iron smelting site FTC 16.07 and the as yet undated (potentially
Iron Age) site FTC12.05w.
8.23
The metalworking slag from FTC 24.03 will be examined by XRF to determine
whether any of it relates to the smelting of tin or the working of tin, lead or pewter.
The stone mould will be petrologically examined to determine the source of granite.
Objective 6: Examine the date and technology of iron-working and assess its
significance
8.24
The iron-smelting furnaces at FTC 16.07, which a preliminary radiocarbon date
indicates to be Iron Age, are of national interest, as very little is known about the
location, technology and wider importance of iron production in Devon at this time,
nor the source of the ore (Paynter 2006). The principal aims of further analyses will
be to examine slag morphologies and the records of the furnace structures in order to
assess the technology used; to obtain a mineralogical characterisation of the slags
(using SEM and XRF as appropriate) for comparison with published examples, with
95
the potential to contribute towards the provenancing of iron objects from other parts
of the country; and to examine slags for trapped ore fragments to determine the
source of the ore.
8.25
The metallurgical analysis is to be supported by up to eleven radiocarbon
determinations from the sequence of furnaces at pits at FTC 16.07, and from the
furnace at FTC 12.05w (Appendix 18).
Post-conquest medieval and later settlement and agriculture
8.26
There were few medieval sites identified overall, but part of a settlement or
farmstead, comprising what was interpreted as part of a longhouse, an ancillary
sunken floored building, and associated boundary ditches was examined at ATK
13.02 near Powderham. In addition, an apparently isolated medieval pit containing
charred crop waste was examined at OTA 1.03, and there are presently undated pits
at FTC 16.08, FTC 18.12 and FTC 19.07 containing comparable material. Further
work on the medieval remains will focus on elucidating the development and nature
of the Powderham site (from both archaeological and documentary sources) and
examining the agricultural practices undertaken. The dating evidence from this site
runs through into the 17th/18th centuries and further work will include the postmedieval phases.
8.27
A cob building, with some walls partly standing at the time of fieldwork, was
excavated at ATK 12.01 Lower Nutwell, south of Exton. The complete floor plan was
recovered and associated finds included roof tiles, roof slates, window glass and
small quantities of pottery dating to both the medieval and early post-medieval
periods.
While the building is likely to have been in use in the 19th/early 20th
centuries as a farm store or animal shelter, its original date and purpose is not yet
clear.
8.28
The later 18th/early19th-century brick kiln at OTA 3.07 was too badly damaged to
contribute significant new information on this type of structure, although comparable
examples will be sought in order to illustrate the type of industrial site and the
processes undertaken.
8.29
The project recorded a large number of ditches both as parts of occupation sites, and
as more isolated features. Most are currently undated and many have no prospect of
being dated by material remains.
Some may be prehistoric since there is an
96
expectation that Dartmoor’s Bronze Age field systems were not unique to the
uplands, and there is also the possibility of a Roman date, as these are commonly
found in other parts of the country. However, it is probable that a large number will be
medieval and later as Devon’s rural ‘historic character’ was largely defined by fields
created in the medieval and early post-medieval period, and it has been estimated
that over a quarter of hedgerows in existence in 1945 have since been removed
(Turner 2007).
The landscape context of undated ditches will be examined to
determine their origin and significance where possible.
Objective 7: Elucidate the nature and role of the Powderham settlement through an
examination of the structural and functional evidence from the site
8.30
Detailed work is needed to characterise the type and functions of the structures at
ATK 13.02. In the south-west, rural housing tends to be represented by two- or threeroomed cross passage houses, with longhouses common in Devon and Cornwall.
Comparative sites will be sought, although peasant house sites in Devon have been
examined rarely, except on marginal upland and these may not be typical (Rippon
and Croft 2008, 197).
8.31
The sequence of activity will be refined as much as possible, although the pottery
does not generally provide close dating for this period. The finds include a variety of
ceramic wares, and petrological work is required to help determine sources of
production and hence contacts. The presence of imported Saintonge jugs is notable
but of uncertain significance for the site’s status. The identification of charred walnut
in the post-medieval phases may suggest a relatively high status at this time
(Appendix 15).
8.32
Aspects of the diet of the inhabitants will be examined through the food crops. Breadtype wheat, oats and rye have been identified and it may be possible to identify
fodder crops such as vetch and barley. It is possible that functional differences
between the buildings will be manifested through different charred plant
assemblages.
8.33
The broader arable economy will be examined through the identification of crops and
weeds, both from this site and from OTA 1.03. It is possible that dredge (mixed
barley and oats) was grown for fodder.
Similar crop assemblages for presently
undated pits at FTC 16.08, 18.12 and 19.07 may amplify aspects of agricultural
97
practices at this time, which are thought to have been regionally distinctive, perhaps
as a response to generally acidic soils and high rainfall (Straker 2008, 192-3).
Objective 9: To examine the evidence for the structure and use of the cob building at
Lower Nutwell (ATK 12.01)
8.34
The site records and associated finds will be examined in order to present a
descriptive analysis of the building, its method of construction, evidence for its
function and any evidence for alteration. Historic maps will also be examined to help
establish its date and role. It will be compared with examples of the local vernacular
tradition to help arrive at an overall interpretation.
Objective 10: To examine the form and landscape setting of boundary and other
ditches in order to determine, as far as possible, their implications for the history of
land use and enclosure
8.35
Recorded boundary ditches will be examined according to their dimensions, plan
form (eg double, rectilinear, curving), and their orientation with respect to the present
pattern. They will be compared against the 1st edition OS mapping, and information
on the historic landscape setting (from HCL mapping). Information compiled as part
of the Archaeology and Heritage Surveys (CA 2005a-2005c) will be used as
appropriate. Current field boundaries breached and recorded during the pipeline
watching brief will be compared as appropriate.
Regional research aims
8.36
These site-specific research aims will address some of the wider regional research
aims identified in Archaeology of South West England (Webster 2008).
These
research aims include:
RA 16
increase the use and improve the targeting of scientific dating
RA 17
improve the quality and quantity of environmental data and our
understanding of what it represents
RA 20
improve our understanding of wild and cultivated plants in the past
RA 21
improve our understanding of environmental aspects of farming
RA 28
improve our understanding of Neolithic settlements and landscapes
RA 29
improve our understanding of non-villa Roman rural settlement
98
RA 39
understand better the relationship of Neolithic and Bronze Age people
to plants and animals, particularly with regard to (a) woodland
resources; (d) status of arable farming in the Neolithic and Bronze Age
RA 40
improve
our
understanding
of
agricultural
diversification in later prehistory
RA 41
improve our understanding of medieval farming
99
intensification
and
9.
PUBLICATION
9.1
The results from this excavation, merit publication and are of clear regional
significance, it is proposed that a full report be published in a monograph in the
Cotswold Archaeology series
Publication synopsis
Prehistoric and Roman settlement in south Devon: the archaeology of the
National Grid South-West Reinforcement Pipeline in Devon, 2005-2007
By Stuart Joyce, Andrew Mudd, Ed McSloy and others
Abstract
300 words
Introduction
2500 words
Site descriptions
11+ prehistoric sites
8000 words
10+ Iron Age/Roman sites
10000 words
2 Medieval/post-medieval sites
6000 words
Synthesis of undated sites
4000 words
Finds
Flint and chert by E. McSloy
2000 words
Prehistoric pottery by H. Quinnell
3500 words
Roman pottery by E. McSloy
2500 words
Medieval and later pottery by J. Allan
2500 words
Brick, tile, clay by V. Taylor
600 words
Glass objects by V. Taylor
400 words
Metal objects by E. McSloy
400 words
Metalworking debris by D. Starley
3500 words
Stone objects by S Watts
1500 words
Cremated human bone by H. Jacklin
500 words
Animal bones by S. Warman
400 words
Charred plant remains by W. Carruthers
6300 words
Wood charcoal by D. Challinor
2000 words
Molluscs by V. Taylor
400 words
Radiocarbon dating by S. Warman
2500 words
100
Synthesis and discussion
20000 words
Bibliography
2000 words
TOTAL
81800 words
126 pages @ 650 wpp
Tables
Flint
1 page
Prehistoric pottery
2 pages
Roman pottery
1 page
Medieval pottery
1 page
Brick, tile
1 page
Metalworking debris
2 pages
Stone
0.5 pages
Animal bones
0.5 pages
Charred plant remains
3 pages
Charcoal
2 pages
Radiocarbon
3 pages
TOTAL
17 pages
Illustrations
Introductory
10 pages
Site descriptions
25 pages
Flint
1 page
Prehistoric pottery
2 pages
Roman pottery
0.5 page
Medieval pottery
1 page
Metal finds
0.5 page
Stones
1 page
Radiocarbon diagram
1 page
Synthesis and discussion
6 pages
TOTAL
48 pages
Estimated overall total
191 pages
101
102
10.
PROJECT TEAM
The post-excavation and publication programme will be under the management of
Andrew Mudd MIfA (PX Manager), who will provide quality assurance and overview,
and will co-ordinate the work of the following personnel:
Stuart Joyce (Project Officer; PO)
Stratigraphic analysis, phasing, draft reporting, research and archive
Ed McSloy (Finds and Archives Officer, FAO)
Specialist artefact analysis and reporting, finds liaison, artefact dating, supervision of
internal finds and archives contributions.
Sylvia Warman (Environmental Officer; EO)
Animal bone analysis and reporting; human bone, palaeo-environmental and
scientific dating co-ordination and liaison.
Victoria Taylor (Finds and Archives Assistant; FA)
Specialist finds analysis and reporting (glass objects, molluscs)
Tim Heaven (Finds Processor; FP)
Additional finds and soil processing
Peter Moore (Archaeological Illustrator, AI)
Publication drawings; co-ordination of other illustrators
Contributions from the following external consultants will be managed by the FAO
and EO
Kelly Abbott
(Wiltshire Conservation Service)
Metalwork conservation
Alison Hopper Bishop
(Museums’ Conservation Officer, Exeter City Council)
conservation
103
Prehistoric
pottery
Wendy Carruthers
(Freelance archaeobotanist)
Archaeobotanical remains
Dana Challinor
(Freelance archaeobotanist)
Wood charcoal
Henrietta Quinnell
(Freelance ceramicist)
Prehistoric pottery
John Allan
(Ceramicist, Exeter Archaeology)
Medieval and later pottery
Susan Watts
(Freelance petrologist)
Stone artefacts
Roger Taylor
(Geologist, Royal Albert Memorial Museum, Exeter)
Petrological identifications
David Starley
10.3
(Freelance archaeo-metallurgist)
Metalworking residues
Rafter Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory (IGNS, NZ)
Radiocarbon dating
The final publication report will be edited and refereed internally by CA senior project
management, will be externally copy-edited and externally refereed by Dr Frances
Healy (Cardiff University) and Prof. Stephen Rippon (Exeter University).
104
11. TASK LIST
Task
Personnel
Time
Project Management
HP
4
PXM
20
SA
4
PO
25
FO
2
Stratigraphic Analysis
SA
3
PO
6
FO
4
Illustration
AI
2
Fired clay, CBM
FO
3
Prehistoric analysis & report
Hquinnell
FEE
Conservation of prehistoric pottery
FEE
Roman analysis and report
Exeter
RAMM
FO
Medieval pottery
Jallan
FEE
Illustration (all)
AI
12
Conservation & cleaning
Wilts CC
FEE
XRF
EH
FEE
Report preparation
FO
4
Illustration
AI
5
Coin report
FO
1
Dstarley
FEE
Research, comparanda, HER
Worked Flint, Fired Clay & Daub &
CBM
Flint for publication
Pottery
4
Metal artefacts
Transport
FEE
Metal residues
Metal residues
Glass beads
Report preparation
FO
1
Illustrations
AI
1
Soil processing
FP
45
CPR sorting
FA
25
Soils supervision & QA
EO
5
Charred plants
Wcarruthers
FEE
Biological remains
Charcoal
Dchallinor
FEE
Cockle shells
FA
1
Human bone
Hjacklin
FEE
EO
1
PO
4
AI
2
Animal Bone
Publication summary
Preparation of publication report
Abstract and introduction
105
Task
Personnel
Time
Excavation results
SA
8
PO
35
AI
20
PO
8
PO
10
Compilation of specialist reports, tables
etc.
Drawing briefs
Discussion, conclusions
Acknowledgements, bibliography
SA
20
PO
10
AI
15
SA
5
Submission to external referees
QA
HP
4
Editing
SA
10
Revisions
PO
10
Illustration revisions
AI
5
SUBMISSION OF PUBLICATION TEXT
Archive
Research archive completion
Microfilm
FA
6
PA
10
FA
3
Deposition
FEE
FA
4
Publication
Copy-editing and proofs
FEE
Indexing
FEE
Printing
FEE
TOTAL
Contingencies
Radiocarbon dating
Rafter
66
Radiocarbon supervision/QA
EO
5
106
12.
TIMETABLE
12.1
CA normally aim to have completed a publication draft within one year of approval of
the updated publication project design. (This may subject to the availability of
external consultants and external monitoring). A detailed programme will be
produced on approval of the updated publication project design.
107
13.
BUDGET
13.1
The following allocation of resources is proposed.
Staff Resource
CA Grade
Person
days
Head of Publications
Martin Watts
8
Post-Excavation Manager
Andy Mudd
20
Senior Author
Andy Mudd
50
Project Officer
Stuart Joyce
108
Finds Officer
Ed McSloy
19
Environmental Officer
Sylvia Warman
11
Finds Assistant
Victoria Taylor
39
Project Archaeologist
TBC
10
Finds Processor
Tim Heaven
45
Archaeological Illustrator
TBC
62
External Specialists
Specialism
Person
Prehistoric pottery
H Quinnell
Conservation
RAMM & Wilts CS
Metal finds XRF
EH
Medieval pottery
J Allan
Metal residues
D Starley
Charred plants
W Carruthers
Charcoal
D Challinor
Human bone
Harriet Jacklin
Radiocarbon dates
Rafter Radiocarbon Lab
Copy editing & proofs
C Heighway
Indexing
Indexer
Printing
Archive deposition charges
RAMM & Plymouth CMAG
108
REFERENCES
Allan, J.P. 1984 Medieval and Post-medieval finds from Exeter 1971–1980 Exeter Archaeol.
Rep. 3, Exeter City Council and University of Exeter
Archaeological Surveys 2006a Ottery St Mary to Aylesbeare, Devon, Gas Pipeline:
Magnetometer Survey, Ref. no. 137 (Apr/May 2006)
Archaeological Surveys 2006b Aylesbeare to Kenn. Devon, Gas Pipeline: Magnetometer
Survey Part 1, Ref. No. 147 ((July/August 2006)
Archaeological Surveys 2006c Fishacre to Choakford, Devon, Gas Pipeline: Magnetometer
Survey, Ref. No. 128 (Dec. 2005/Jan 2006)
Archaeological Surveys 2007 Sections 20.04 to 20.06, Fishacre to Choakford, Devon, Gas
Pipeline: Magnetometer Survey, Ref. No. 128 (Dec. 2005/Jan 2006)
Beacham, P. (ed.) 1995 Devon Building, Tiverton, Devon Books
Beagrie, N. 1989 ‘The Romano-British Pewter Industry’, Britannia 20, 169–191
BGS 1974a Geological Survey of Great Britain (England and Wales) Sheet 326 and 340:
Sidmouth 1:50,000 (British Geological Survey)
BGS 1974b Geological Survey of Great Britain (England and Wales) Sheet 349: Ivybridge
1:50,000 (British Geological Survey)
BGS 1976a Geological Survey of Great Britain (England and Wales) Sheet 350: Torquay
BGS 1976b Geological Survey of Great Britain (England and Wales) Sheet 339: Newton
Abbot 1:50,000 (British Geological Survey)
109
BGS 1995 Geological Survey of Great Britain (England and Wales) Sheet 325: Exeter
Brickley, M. and McKinley, J.I., 2004 Guidelines to the Standards for Recording Human
Remains, Southampton/Reading, BABAO/ IFA Paper No. 7
Brown, P.D.C. 1970 ‘A Roman Pewter Mould from St. Just in Penwith, Cornwall’, Cornish
Archaeol. 9, 107–110
Brugmann, B. 2004. Glass beads from early Anglo–Saxon graves; a study of the provenance
and chronology of glass beads from early Anglo-Saxon graves Oxford, Oxbow
Books.
Buikstra, J.E. and Ubelaker, D.H., 1994 Standards for Data Collection from Human Skeletal
Remains, Arkansas Archaeological Survey Research Series, Fayetteville, Arkansas
Archaeological Survey No. 44
CA 2001 Fishacre to Lyneham Natural Gas Pipeline: Archaeological Fieldwalking and Field
Reconnaissance Survey, Cotswold Archaeological Trust Job 1224, November 2001
CA 2005a Aylesbeare to Kenn, Devon, Gas Pipeline: Archaeology and Heritage Survey,
Cotswold Archaeology Report 05113, December 2005
CA 2005b Fishacre to Choakford, Devon, Gas Pipeline: Archaeology and Heritage Survey,
Cotswold Archaeology Report No. 05125, October 2005
CA 2006a Ottery St Mary to Aylesbeare, Devon, Gas Pipeline: Archaeology and Heritage
Survey, Cotswold Archaeology Report No. 05108, January 2006
CA 2006b Ottery St Mary to Aylesbeare, Devon, Gas Pipeline: Written Scheme of
Investigation for an Archaeological Evaluation, Cotswold Archaeology,12 December
2006
CA 2006c Aylesbeare to Kenn, Devon, Gas Pipeline: Written Scheme of Investigation for an
Archaeological Evaluation, Cotswold Archaeology, 12 December 2006
110
CA 2006d Ottery St Mary to Aylesbeare, Devon, Gas Pipeline: Written Scheme of
Investigation for an Archaeological Watching Brief, Cotswold Archaeology,12
December 2006
CA 2006e Aylesbeare to Kenn, Devon, Gas Pipeline: Written Scheme of Investigation for an
Archaeological Watching Brief, Cotswold Archaeology, 12 December 2006
CA 2006f
Ottery St Mary to Aylesbeare Gas Pipeline Devon: Written Scheme of
Investigation for an Archaeological Excavation at Pixies’ Parlour, Laing O’Rourke Plot
3.04, Cotswold Archaeology, 12 December 2006
CA 2007a Fishacre to Choakford, Devon, Gas Pipeline: Written Scheme of Investigation for
an Archaeological Evaluation, Cotswold Archaeology,17 January 2007
CA 2007b Fishacre to Choakford, Devon, Gas Pipeline: Written Scheme of Investigation for
an Archaeological Watching Brief, Cotswold Archaeology, 17 January 2007
CA 2007c Fishacre to Choakford Gas Pipeline Devon: Written Scheme of Investigation for a
Programme of Archaeological Excavation Works Prior to Construction, 17 January
2007
Clark, J (ed). 1995. The Medieval Horse and its Equipment c.1150–c.1450 Medieval Finds
from Excavations in London, 5. London, The Stationary Office.
Cowgill, J, de Neergaard, M and Griffiths, N. 2000 Knives and Scabbards Medieval Finds
from Excavations in London, 1. London, The Stationary Office
E.H. (English Heritage) 2002, Environmental Archaeology: A guide to the theory and practice
of methods, from sampling and recovery to post-excavation English Heritage Centre
for Archaeology Guidelines
Fitzpatrick A. (ed) 2008
‘Later Bronze Age and Iron Age’, in Webster C. J. (ed.) The
Archaeology of South West
England: South West Archaeological Research
Framework, Resource Assessment and Research Agenda, 117-144.
111
Fitzpatrick, A.P., Butterworth, C.A. and Grove, J. 1999 Prehistoric and Roman Sites in East
Devon: The A30 Honiton to Exeter Improvement DBFO Scheme, 1996–9: Vol. 2
Romano-British Sites Salisbury Wessex Archaeology Report No. 16
Fox, A. 1954, ‘Excavations at Kes Tor’, Trans. Devonshire Association 86, 21–62
Gale, A.W. 1992 The Building Stones of Devon The Devonshire Association
Garrow D. 2006 Pits, settlement and deposition during the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age in
East Anglia, Oxford: BAR Brit. Ser. 414.
Gent, T. and Quinnell, H. 999 ‘Excavation of a Causewayed Enclosure and Hillfort on
Raddon Hill, Stockleigh Pomeroy’, Proc. Devon Archaeol. Soc. 57, 38–53
Goodall, I.H. 1980 Ironwork in Medieval Britain: An Archaeological Study University College,
Cardiff: Unpublished PhD thesis
Green, H.S. 1980 The Flint Arrowheads of the British Isles BAR British Series 75, Oxford,
British Archaeological Reports
Halkon, P 2008 Archaeology and Environment in a Changing East Yorkshire Landscape.
British Archaeological Reports (British Series) 472 Oxford Archaeopress.
Hall, R. 2008 ‘Putting the iron into Iron Age’, British Archaeology, 98, 44-47
Hather, J G, 2000. The Identification of Northern European Woods; A Guide for
Archaeologists and Conservators, London, Archetype Publications
Holbrook, N. and Bidwell, P. 1991 Roman Finds from Exeter Exeter, Exeter Archaeological
Reports: 4, Exeter City Council and the University of Exeter
Hume, I.N. 1969 A guide to the artifacts of colonial America Philadelphia, University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Jacklin, H. A., 2005 A New, Fully Standardized Skeletal Recording Form Following BABAO
and IFA Guidelines, unpublished
112
Jones, A.M. and Quinnell, H. forthcoming ‘Cornish Beakers: new discoveries and
perspectives’, Cornish Archaeol. 45, 31–70
Jones, A.P., M. E. Tucker, & J. K. Hart. (1999) Guidelines and recommendations. In Jones,
et al. 1999, 27–76.
Jones, A.P., Tucker, M.E. and Hart, J.K. (Eds.) The description and analysis of Quaternary
stratigraphic field sections. Quaternary Research Association technical guide 7,
London, 27-76.
McKinley, J.L., and Roberts, C.A., 1993 Excavation and Post-Excavation Treatment of
Cremated and Inhumed Human Remains, IFA Technical Paper. No. 13
McKinley, J.L., 1994 ‘Bone Fragment Size in British Cremation Burials and its Implications
for Pyre Technology and Ritual’, Journal of Archaeological Science 21.3, 339-342
McKinley, J.L., 2000a ‘Putting Cremated Bone into Context’. In S. Roskams (Ed) Interpreting
Stratigraphy; Site Evaluation, Recording Procedures and Stratigraphic Analysis, BAR
(International Series). Oxford: Archaeopress No. 910, 135-140
McKinley, J.L., 2000b ‘The analysis of cremated bone’, In M. Cox and S. Mays (Eds.)
Human Osteology. Greenwich Medical Media: London, 403-421
McKinley, J.L. and Bond, J. M., 2001 ‘Cremated Bone’, In D.R. Brothwell and A.M. Pollard
(Eds) Handbook of Archaeological Sciences, Wiley: Chichester, 281-292
Moore, P.D., Webb, J.A. and Collinson, M.E. (1991) Pollen Analysis (2nd Ed.). Oxford:
Blackwell.
Munsell Color (2000) Munsell soil color charts. Munsell Color, New Windsor (NY).
NA 2000a Ottery St Mary to Aylesbeare, proposed High Pressure Natural Gas Supply
Pipeline: Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment. Network Archaeology Report 241
NA 2000b Aylesbeare to Kenn, proposed High Pressure Natural Gas Supply Pipeline:
Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment, Network Archaeology Report 274
113
Newberry, J. 2002 ‘Inland flint in prehistoric Devon: sources, tool-making quality and use’,
Proc. Devon Archaeol. Soc. 60, 1–36
Oswald, A. 1975 Clay pipes for the archaeologist British Archaeological Reports 14, Oxford
Oswald, A. 1984 ‘The Clay Pipes’, in Allan 1984, 279–293
Peacock, D.P.S. 1969 ‘A Contribution to the Study of Glastonbury Ware from SouthWestern Britain’, Antiq J. 49, 41–61
Paynter S 2006 ‘Regional variation in bloomery smelting slag of the Iron Age and RomanoBritish periods’, Archaeometry 48, 2, 271-292
Pollard, J. 2001 ‘The Aesthetics of Depositional Practice’, World Archaeology 33.2, 315–33
Pollard J. and Healy F. (eds) 2008 ‘Neolithic and early Bronze Age’, in Webster C. J. (ed.)
The Archaeology of South West
England: South West Archaeological Research
Framework, Resource Assessment and Research Agenda, 75-115.
Quinnell, H. 1991 ‘The Late Mrs EM Minter’s Excavation of Hut Circles at Heatree,
Manaton in 1968’, Proc Devon Archaeol Soc 49, 1–25
Quinnell, H. 1999 ‘Pottery’, in Gent and Quinnell 1999, 38–53
Quinnell, H. 2003 ‘Devon Beakers: New Finds, New Thoughts’, Proc. Devon Archaeol. Soc.
61, 1–20
Quinnell, H. 2007 ‘A Peterborough sherd from the Beach at Westward Ho!’, Proc. Devon
Archaeol. Soc. 65, 231–3
Rafter radiocarbon laboratory (http://www.gns.cri.nz/nic/rafterradiocarbon).
Reimer P.J., Baillie, M.G.L., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J.W., Bertrand, C., Blackwell, P.G.,
Buck, C.E., Burr, G., Cutler, K.B., Damon, P.E., Edwards, R.L., Fairbanks, R.G.,
Friedrich, M., Guilderson, T.P., Hughen, K.A., Kromer, B., McCormac, F.G., Manning,
S., Bronk Ramsey, C., Reimer, R.W., Remmele, S.M., Southon, J.R., Stuiver, M.,
114
Talamo, S., Taylor, F.W. van der Plicht, J. and Weyhenmeyer, C.E. 2004 ‘INTCAL04
Terrestrial radiocarbon age calibration, 0-26 CAL KYR BP’ Radiocarbon 46,1029–58
Reille, M. (1992) Pollen et Spores d’Europe et d’Afrique du Nord. Marseille : Laboratoire de
Botanique Historique et Palynologie
Rippon S. and Croft B. (eds) 2008 ‘Post-Conquest Medieval’, in Webster C. J. (ed.) The
Archaeology of South West England: South West Archaeological Research
Framework, Resource Assessment and Research Agenda, 195-207
Rosenfeld, A. 1964 ‘Excavations in the Torbryan Caves’, Proc. Devon Archaeol. Soc. 22, 326
Scheuer, L. and Black, S. 2000 Developmental Juvenile Osteology,
Academic Press,
London
Schweingruber, F H, 1990. Microscopic wood anatomy, 3rd Edition, Swiss Federal Institute
for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research
Seagar Smith, R. 1999 ‘Romano-British Pottery’, in Fitzpatrick et al. 1999, 286–326
Stace, C. (1997) New Flora of the British Isles (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Starley, D. 1995 Hammerscale, Historical Metallurgy Society Datasheet 10
Straker V. 2008 ‘Post-Conquest Medieval Environmental Background’, in Webster C. J.
(ed.) The Archaeology of South West England: South West Archaeological Research
Framework, Resource Assessment and Research Agenda, 189-194
Stratascan 2001 A Report for Cotswold Archaeological Trust on a Geophysical Survey
carried out at Fishacre-Lyneham Pipeline Trials, Devon, Ref. No. 1629, Dec. 2001
Stuiver, M. and Polach, H.A. 1977. Discussion: Reporting of 14C data. Radiocarbon 19:
355–63
Stuiver, M. and Reimer, P.J. 1993 ‘Extended 14C database and revised CALIB 3.0 14C Age
calibration program’, Radiocarbon 35(1) 215-30.
115
Stuiver, M., Reimer, P.J., Bard, E., Beck, J.W., Burr, G.S., Hughen, K.A., Kromer, B.,
McCormac, van der Plicht, J. and Spurk, M. 1998 ‘INTCAL98 Radiocarbon Age
Calibration, 24000-0 cal BP’, Radiocarbon 40(3) 1041-83.
Thomas, J. 1999 Understanding the Neolithic London, Routledge
Tomber, R. and Dore, J. 1998 The National Roman Fabric Reference Collection: A
Tucker, M.E. 1982 Sedimentary rocks in the field. Wiley, Chichester.
Turner S. 2007 Ancient Country: the Historic Character of Rural Devon, Devon Arch. Soc.
Occ. Paper 20
Watts, M. 2002 The Archaeology of Mills and Milling Stroud, Tempus Publishing Ltd
Webster C. J. (ed.) 2008
The Archaeology of South West England: South West
Archaeological Research Framework, Resource Assessment and Agenda, Somerset County
Council
Wedlake, W.J. 1958 Excavations at Camerton, Somerset Camerton Excavation Club
116
APPENDIX 1: THE WORKED FLINT AND CHERT BY ED MCSLOY
A total of 638 (5635g) pieces of worked flint/chert or unworked/heat-affected material were recovered in 2006 and
2007. The majority derived from the eastern (OTA) and western sections of the pipeline (FTC). A relatively small
proportion of the assemblage consists of probable stratified groups: from OTA site 03.04, for which Early
Neolithic dating is supported by associated pottery and from FTC sites 02.02 and 33.01, which probably date
later in the Neolithic. Among the remainder of the assemblage, there are indications from diagnostic tool forms or
technological traits for dating spanning the Mesolithic to Early/Middle Bronze Age.
The large bulk of the lithics was hand-recovered or represents unstratified/surface-collected material. A small
quantity from the ATK and FTC sections was retrieved following the processing of bulk soil samples. Recording
undertaken in advance of assessment consists of quantification (count) by raw material and class (Table 1), and
where appropriate, a note of cortex, burning, any patination and post-depositional damage. Hammer-mode was
not systematically assessed, although where there were clear instances of soft-hammer percussion, this was
noted. Material with significant levels of post-depositional damage, presenting as extensive edge damage and
abraded/rounded surfaces, has been described as ‘rolled’.
A summary by location and site is presented below for larger groups in excess of 10 pieces. A summary of the
small quantity of flintwork collected from fieldwalking on the Fishacre to Choakford section in 2001 is also
included.
Ottery St Mary to Aylesbeare (OTA)
Quantities of worked flint or chert were recovered from 25 sites (266 pieces: Table 1.2). Of these only five sites
were productive of moderately large groups (over 10) and these are described briefly below.
Raw material consists of primarily flint of unpatinated flint of variable quality. In addition there are five pieces of
coarser chert including two of Greensand chert (Site 03.04/Period 4 ditch fill 03.04.004). Also notable are ten
pieces of red-banded flint/fine chert noted from Sites 03.02 and 03.04. This distinctive material was selected for a
utilised flake/long blade from Site 03.04 deposit 206.007 and a scraper from the same site. The flint ranges in
colour between of mid grey/grey-brown and dark grey, more commonly with unworn, moderately-thick buff cortex
which may derive from a primary coastal chalk sources of east Devon such as those in the region of Beer Head,
or possibly from the inland sources among the Blackdown Hills described by Newberry (2002). A lesser quantity
of material with heavily-worn cortex was probably collected from eroded sources which might include beach
sources to the south and south east.
03.02
A small group of 11 pieces was recovered including two scrapers (Table 1.2). The recovered material derived
from topsoil (10 pieces) or subsoil type deposits and there were no further indications of early prehistoric activity.
Raw material comprises unpatinated grey flint.
03.04 including Trench 206
Site 03.04 and the associated evaluation trench 206 produced a moderately large group of worked lithics (163
pieces), a proportion of which is associated with earlier Prehistoric pottery including material of Early Neolithic
date from pit fill 206.015 and probable Middle Bronze Age date from pit fill 03.04.028 and ditch fill 03.04.061
117
(Quinnell, Appendix 2). Material from the Early Neolithic feature Pit 03.04.096 comprised a group of 56 pieces
including a crested blade, blades or blade-like flakes (18), flakes, core fragments and shatter-pieces. The sharp
condition and technological characteristics exhibited by this groups suggests it is stratified and of Early Neolithic
date. A large (90mm) utilised blade/long flake from ditch fill 206.007 may also be of this date. The remaining
material appears to be re-deposited, occurring with Romano-British or later material. A number of
blades/bladelets, a plunging rejuvenation flake, a possible core-tablet type rejuvenation flake and an obliquelyblunted bladelet (from subsoil 03.04.002) are indications of Mesolithic activity. The bulk of the remainder consists
of un-retouched flakes/chips, flake core fragments and shatter pieces and probably relates to later activity and a
proportion may be contemporary with the small quantities of probable Middle Bronze Age ceramics. A total of
seven pieces with secondary working include a discoidal scraper and a broken bi-facially-worked tool (?knife),
both of which probably relate to the Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age.
04.10
A small group of 19 pieces of worked flint was recovered mainly from subsoil deposit 04.10.002, Romano-British
ditch 018 (fill 04.10.023) and undated feature deposits. A single flake was recovered in association with pottery of
Middle Bronze Age type (pit fill 04.10.017). There are five pieces identified with secondary working comprising
three scrapers, a flake with knife-like retouch and an unusual tool from a flake with abrupt retouch forming a rightangle and described as a piercer/scriber. The remainder consists of flakes or broken flakes and the group as a
whole would be most consistent with Late Neolithic/Early or Middle Bronze Age flint working.
05.01
A total of 26 pieces were associated with this division. No pottery of earlier prehistoric date was recovered
although a small part of the recovered lithics (a flake and possible utilised blade) derived from deposits internal to
a ring-ditch feature and interpreted as mound material (deposit 05.01.025). The remainder of the worked flint
derives from subsoil or topsoil deposits and some pieces are described as ‘rolled’ (abraded). There are five
pieces with secondary working; three scrapers, a retouched flake and a broken fragment from a plano-convex
knife. The remainder consists of flake debitage and the group taken together would be consistent with Late
Neolithic/Early or Middle Bronze Age flint working.
Other (Table 1.2)
Smaller groups of lithics (between 1 and 9 pieces) were recovered along the length of the OTA section. The
majority consists of unutilised removals or other debitage, about which little meaningful can be said. Of individual
note is a single Mesolithic piece, a geometric microlith (scaline triangle) from division 09.01 subsoil deposit
09.01.002.
Aylesbeare to Kenn (ATK)
Quantities of flint or chert were recovered from 17 sites (74 pieces: Table 1.3). Of these only two sites were
productive of groups over 10 pieces (below). Five pieces, all from division 13.02, were recovered following
processing of bulk soil samples. The remainder, including a high proportion of material from subsoil or topsoil
type deposits, was hand-recovered.
Raw material consists primarily of flint for which the dominant colours are dark grey or greenish grey. A single
chert flake was recovered from topsoil deposit 316.001 (Site 12.10). A small proportion of the flint, notably
several flakes from Site 07.01, exhibits light mottled patination. The quality of the flint is good and there are a
118
number of bladelets and other finely worked pieces present (below). Cortex, where present is commonly
moderately thick (in range 2–5mm) and most often unworn – suggesting derivation from chalk or weathered chalk
deposits. In a small number of instances the cortex is worn as through fluvial action. Possible sources are the
east Devon coastal or inland sources or possibly the ‘Bovey and Decoy Basins’ to the south and described by
Newberry (2002, 17–19).
07.01
A group of 19 pieces of worked flint were recovered, all deriving from topsoil or subsoil deposits and mostly
described as ‘rolled’. Identifiable tools consist of three scrapers including a small ‘button’ scraper from subsoil
07.01.002. Similarly small scrapers are commonly ascribed Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age dating. The flake
removals are broad and squat, and this would be consistent with flintworking characterising the Late Neolithic
and later periods.
12.12
A small group of 7 pieces including flakes, a blade and a flake core fragment was recovered from topsoil or
subsoil deposits. No tools or other closely dateable pieces were noted.
13.02
A group of 28 pieces was recovered, the majority clearly residual from medieval deposits. Quantities of Middle
Bronze Age pottery were recovered from elsewhere on the site (Quinnell, Appendix 2), suggesting the presence
of earlier Prehistoric activity in the vicinity. Limited evidence for Mesolithic activity is in evidence in the form of an
obliquely-blunted bladelet from Period 7 make-up layer 13.02.197 and a broken bladelet from Period fill
13.02.200. The remainder consists of flakes/chips and, exceptionally, a very finely worked barbed and tanged
arrowhead (Registered Artefact 1) from subsoil deposit 13.02.002. This item has suffered damage to its tang and
one barb and for this reason is not classifiable according to Green’s typology (Green 1980). It is however of
‘fancy’ form with regular convex longer edges and shallow invasive retouch extending over both faces. It dates to
the Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age period and almost certainly early in this range (Beaker phase).
Other
The remaining portion of the recovered lithics represents topsoil/subsoil-derived material occurring as single flints
or up to 3 pieces from each division. There are few tools; a denticulate on a blade from Site 13.02, subsoil
324.002 is representative of implements most common from the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods and a small,
discoidal ‘button’ scraper from (division 13.01) topsoil deposit 13.01.001 may date to the Early Bronze Age. The
majority comprises flake debitage which is not dateable in isolation or otherwise of significance.
Quantities of flint or chert were recovered from 24 sites (301 pieces: Table 1.4). The large bulk of material was
hand-recovered, with 14 pieces recovered from bulk soil samples from sites 12.05 and 33.01. Larger groups from
five divisions, producing between 33 and 90 pieces, are described separately below.
This the largest group of material from any of the pipeline sections is the most variable in terms of flint colour,
‘quality’ and characteristics of the cortex. The seemingly stratified groups from Sites 02.02 and 33.01 comprised
grey/dark grey flint of good quality and with unworn buff-coloured cortex suggesting a primary or eroded chalk
flint source such as those previously described. This appearance material contrasts with the largely or wholly re-
119
deposited groups from Sites 24.04 and 33.03. Material from both of the latter divisions was typically pale grey to
mid grey, moderately coarse and opaque, and on the basis of the observable cortex which is most often well
worn/rounded, was obtained primarily from secondary (fluvial) flint deposits. Chert, including Greensand chert
probably from the Blackdown Hills, is occasionally seen, including a scraper from Site 13.03 (Evaluation Trench
9).
02.02
A total of 62 pieces was recovered, 51 of which from features also containing prehistoric pottery including Late
Neolithic Grooved ware (Quinnell, Appendix 2; features 02.02.010, 02.02.004, 02.02.006, 02.02.013 and
02.02.016). Most material, other than the element from subsoil or topsoil deposits, is in ‘sharp’ condition and
exhibits similar characteristics of colour and cortex. Such factors, together with the presence of small removals
or shatter spalls encourages this being a wholly or largely a stratified group. Pieces with secondary working
(tools) comprise a denticulate on a blade/long flake and a broken scraper or retouched flake from Period 2 pit fill
02.02.008; a combined denticulate/end scraper on a blade from Period 4 pit fill 02.02.015 and an end scraper
from Period 2 pit fill 02.02.011. The debitage component comprises flakes/chips, shatter pieces and core
fragments. The tools (or the debitage), whilst not specifically pointing to the Late Neolithic date suggested by the
pottery, do not contradict such dating.
24.03
A group of 50 pieces was recovered; for the most part re-deposited within Romano-British deposits or from
subsoil horizons. A distinctive aspect of the lithics from this site division is the raw material which is of indifferent
quality and seemingly obtained mainly from derived sources (above). There are a small number of
blades/bladelets with evidence for platform preparation, bladelet cores and one core tablet, which are indications
of some Mesolithic activity. The bulk of the flint comprises flake removals, a number of which are fully cortical and
which are commonly, broad, squat and irregular. The overall crudeness of the flake debitage, whilst in part an
effect of the raw material, are probably indications of relatively late dating (Bronze Age). Further indications of
this are among the tools which include two piercers, implements which are frequently recorded among the Early
to Middle Bronze Age toolkit and a number of miscellaneous retouched pieces.
33.01
Excepting four flakes recovered as unstratified material, the flint from division 33.01 (33 pieces) derived from the
fills of undated (Period 10) pit 33.01.006. Included are 13 pieces (mainly small chips) recovered from soil sample
residues. The sharp condition of the flint from this feature and common presence of small debitage suggests a
stratified (earlier prehistoric) group. A single piece, a long flake, features a small area of abrupt retouch. This and
other pieces exhibit signs of utilisation as cutting pieces. In the absence of definable tools indications of dating
are those based on technology: most removals are flakes in moderately good quality dark grey flint, struck with a
hard hammer – characteristics most consistent with Late Neolithic or earlier Bronze Age date.
33.02
Material from this division (48 pieces in total) was recovered primarily from subsoil or colluvial deposits, with
single flakes from ‘spread’ 33.02.007 and the fill of undated pit 33.02.004. The assemblage comprises entirely
flakes or other debitage with no secondary working or evidence for utilisation. Based on observations of
technology, the majority of material probably relates to the Late Neolithic/Bronze Age periods.
33.03
120
All material (67 pieces) from this area was unstratified or was recovered from subsoil horizons and was
commonly ‘rolled’ in appearance There occur a few possible Mesolithic or early Neolithic pieces in the form of
blades and worked-down bladelet cores. Among the blades are clearly soft-hammer struck examples in good
quality pale grey flint. The raw material is variable: most abundant is a paler or mid grey, commonly coarsetextured flint with very worn cortex suggesting a derived source. As with the group from division 24.03 the
properties of this raw material may have contributed to the thick, squat proportions of most removals. Tools are
restricted to scrapers and miscellaneous re-touched pieces and the ‘feel’ for this group is that most will be
relatively late, probably within the Bronze Age.
Other
Little among the worked lithics distributed across the remaining site divisions is worthy of comment and most
must be representative of background prehistoric activity. A broken section from a bladelet with one blunted edge
from Site 12.05 (soil sample 227), probably represents a geometric microlith of Mesolithic type. It was recovered
in association with a pit containing Middle Bronze Age Trevisker type pottery and must represent a residual find.
The worked flint from fieldwalking in 2001
The fieldwalking collection comprised a total of 32 worked pieces, 29 of which relate to the eventually constructed
route. They came from plots 2.02, 3.03, 3.04, 7.01, 27.02, 27.03 and 27.04. The bulk of the collection is made up
of flakes without secondary working and their condition is generally poor, with post-depositional damage evident
on many pieces. Most pieces are unpatinated or with light mottled patina. The quality of raw material is varied
with near equal proportions of poor quality grey flint and higher quality black and brown flint. Most flakes are
wholly or mostly free of cortex, suggesting that primary reduction was undertaken elsewhere. Where present,
cortex would seem to indicate that the raw material derived from both primary (Chalk) and secondary (gravel)
sources.
Diagnostic pieces consist of a single leaf-shaped arrowhead of earlier Neolithic date (Plot 3.03) and a broken
fabricator of Neolithic or early Bronze Age date (Plot 2.02). Two scrapers (end/side and side scrapers) from Plot
2.02 and a further two retouched flakes (both Plot 3.03) are not closely datable. Debitage comprises primarily
flake removals of squat proportions with length/breadth ratios close to 1:1. There is one multi-platform core (Plot
27.02). The flaking mode, particularly the absence of any blades or blade-like removals, is consistent with a later
Neolithic to Bronze Age date for most pieces.
Statement of Potential and Recommendations for Further Analysis
The flint collection is of some interest as a sample across a region not commonly subjected to archaeological
investigation. Of greatest significance are probable stratified groups from OTA site 03.04 and FTC sites 02.02
and 33.01, and the fieldwalking material from FTC 02.02. Those relatively small groups merit additional recording
to include process-related recording for removals (degree of cortex present) assessment of hammer mode and
length/breadth measurement. For the remainder of the assemblage the level of recording undertaken for the
assessment is considered appropriate and sufficient for the purposes of final reporting (below).
A report characterising the collection and discussing further indications of chronology, aspects of technology the
procurement of raw materials and the general distribution of material relative to topography, should be prepared
for the publication. Data relating to the unstratified groups and collected at the analysis stage for stratified groups
121
should be presented in tabular form in the final report. A number of tools (up to eleven) including the leaf-shaped
and barbed and tanged arrowheads, should be drawn for the publication.
122
Table 1.1: Worked flint and chert. Summary by material and class
Class1
Tools
(secondary
working)
Sub-total
Other
Sub-total
Total
Class2
arrowhead barbed and tanged
denticulate
flake retouched
flake retouched broken
scraper
scraper broken
scraper button
scraper discoidal
scraper double-ended
scraper end
scraper end side
scraper end side broken
scraper side
scraper/denticulate
knife broken
knife plano-convex
microlith
microlith broken
piercer
piercer/scriber
blade
blade broken
blade crested broken
blade obliquely blunted
blade utilised
blade utilised broken
bladelet
bladelet broken
bladelet obliquely-blunted
Burnt (not worked)
chip
core blade
core bladelet
core flake
core fragment
core rejuve
flake
flake broken
flake cortical
flake utilised
shatter
Total
Flint
1
2
9
4
1
1
3
1
0
11
9
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
54
16
21
1
1
4
1
7
21
2
3
40
7
3
9
25
3
211
127
44
5
24
575
629
123
Chert
1
1
1
1
1
6
9
10
Total
1
2
9
4
1
1
3
1
1
11
9
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
55
17
21
1
1
4
1
7
21
2
3
40
7
3
10
26
3
217
127
44
5
24
584
639
Table 1.2: summary by site (Ottery St Mary to Aylesbeare)
1
13
15
1
1
1
1
1
6
1
1
3
3
7
1
1
1
2
1
26
16
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
4
2
1
1
37
12
5
2
1
1
2
3
4
1
6
2
4
1
1
2
1
16
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
4
1
11
2
2
89
2
74
1
1
6
124
9
1
2
1
19
2
26
2
2
2
1
2
1
4
11
1
8
1
4
3
2
104
42
14
4
4
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
8
1
1
1
Total
9.02
9.01
7a.04
5.03
1
5.01
4.11
4.10
4.09
1
4.08
4.06
4.01
205 (4.01)
8
6
3.08
206 (3.04)
2
8
3.07
3.04
3.03
3.02
207 (3.01)
3.01
209 (2.06)
2.04
2.01
1.02
1.01
Class
blade
blade broken
blade
obliquely
blunted
blade utilised
blade utilised broken
bladelet
bladelet broken
burnt
chip
core blade
core flake
core fragment
core rejuve
flake
flake broken
flake cortical
flake retouched
flake
retouched
broken
flake utilised
knife broken
knife plano-convex
microlith
piercer/scriber
scraper
scraper button
scraper discoidal
scraper end
scraper end side
scraper end side
broken
scraper side
shatter
Total
1
1
2
4
263
Table 1.3: summary by site (Aylesbeare to Kenn)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
9
6
1
1
1
1
19
1
1
1
1
1
2
13
6
2
1
1
28
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
125
1
Total
14.09
14.04
14.01
324 (13.02)
13.02
13.01
12.12
12.09
10.03
08.02
07.02
07.01
05.01
316 (2.10)
02.03
01.03
0.02
Class
arrowhead B&T
blade
blade broken
bladelet broken
bladelet
obliquelyblunted
burnt
chip
core flake
core fragment
denticulate
flake
flake broken
flake cortical
scraper broken
scraper button
scraper end
Total
1
1
3
1
3
1
1
6
1
2
1
31
17
3
1
2
3
74
Table 1.4: summary by site (Fishacre to Choakford)
3
5
1
2
3
9
1
1
1
6
1
1
3
1
18
17
4
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
14
1
1
1
1
7
1
9
8
5
1
2
1
4
1
1
1
1
14
6
1
20
13
3
1
3
5
2
5
7
17
10
1
1
2
Total
2
2
1
42.01
1
37.01
1
35.01
33.03
1
2
2
1
1
1
4
1
2
34.08
33.02
33.01
32.01
26.01
24.11
24.10
24.03
23.04
20.07
18.12
13.03
12.05
09.05
09.03
09.02
08.01
07.01
04.02
03.01
02.02
Class
blade
blade broken
blade crested broken
blade utilised
bladelet
bladelet broken
bladelet
obliquelyblunted
burnt
chip
core blade
core bladelet
core flake
core fragment
core rejuve
denticulate
flake
flake broken
flake cortical
flake retouched
flake utilised
microlith
piercer
scraper
doubleended
scraper end
scraper end side
scraper side
scraper/denticulate
shatter
Total
1
1
1
1
1
1
16
6
3
5
21
1
1
78
67
27
5
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
7
62
2
2
6
1
1
1
1
1
3
4
2
4
2
6
50
1
126
2
1
2
1
37
4
48
63
3
1
2
1
1
4
1
1
1
20
301
APPENDIX 2: PREHISTORIC POTTERY BY HENRIETTA QUINNELL
Introduction/method statement
All pottery has been examined and weighed in fabric groups, with abrasion noted where helpful for relationships
to contexts. Generally the amount of prehistoric pottery found on sites in Devon in small compared to areas
further east and north. It is important to study the assemblage in detail, aiming at publication which includes even
single sherds from individual contexts.
In total there are 436 sherds weighing 4981 grammes: details are
provided in the accompanying tables which also specify where drawings, petrological work or radiocarbon
determinations are recommended.
There is little comparanda available for the areas traversed by the pipeline. In general throughout prehistory most
pottery appeared to have a source fairly local to the site at which it is found. The only substantive study, that on
the sites dug prior to the construction of the A30 Honiton to Exeter (Fitzpatrick et al 1999), makes this clear.
However, in this study only a small proportion of the fabrics identified were petrologically examined. Dr Roger
Taylor has been working with the author on a range of sites throughout Devon in the last few years and has been
able to demonstrate considerable complexities of fabric sourcing (eg in Quinnell 1999). The only fabrics present
on the pipeline so far recognised are gabbroic, from the Lizard in Cornwall, known in Devon from the Early
Neolithic to the end of the Iron Age, and Exeter volcanic (Peacock 1969 Group 6) known at present only in the
Middle Bronze Age (Quinnell 1991, 21) and the Middle Iron Age. It is recommended here that examples of each
separate fabric with sufficient characteristics to indicate a broad date range be examined by Dr Taylor with a
petrological microscope, with a selection in addition thin-sectioned.
Most pottery is present in small amounts. All those pieces with distinctive form or decoration whose visual
publication would advance future study have been recommended for illustration.
All contexts with ceramics with distinctive form have been recommended for radiocarbon determinations if
sufficient dating material is available. There are regrettably few such determinations currently available in Devon
and the sequence of styles and forms is only known in broad outline. Among these, those considered most
important for dating from their ceramics have been starred.
No action is indicated on sherds/fabrics where their form and context do not warrant additional work; eg where
sherds come from surface levels or are very small. However, wherever possible fabrics not petrologically
examined will be confirmed in their suggested dating by comparison with those from elsewhere on the pipeline
Distinctive features of the assemblage
The Early Neolithic is principally represented by the pit group OTA 3.04.96. An Early Neolithic pit group from the
broad vicinity has been published (Fitzpatrick et al 1999) and another four unpublished sites with pits with pottery
of this date are known to the author. Middle Neolithic pottery in Devon is sparse: the group from OTA 2.03.005 is
a useful addition to that already known (Quinnell 2007). The two Grooved Ware assemblages in the Fishacre to
Choake section, FTC 2.02 and 18.12 are of considerable regional importance as only three other sites with
Grooved Ware sherds are known from Devon with only one published (Rosenfeld 1964).
The AOC Beaker from FTC 24.02 is unique so far in Devon and Cornwall where Beaker finds on the whole are
sparse. AOC Beakers are generally considered to belong comparatively early within the use of Beaker pottery,
while the dates currently available for this part of the South West have suggested that Beakers were a
127
comparatively late introduction (Quinnell 2003: Jones & Quinnell 2006). The study of this pottery and its context
rd
will go some way to fill the current gap in our knowledge of the 3 millennium cal BC.
The next period represented is almost certainly the Middle Bronze Age. It is just possible that the pits with
Trevisker pottery from ATK 14.09 are Early Bronze Age but activity involving pits and ceramics appears much
more likely to belong to the Middle Bronze Age. Those sites such as OTA 4.10 with Trevisker ware in Exeter
volcanic fabric have parallels with Middle Bronze Age occurrences at Castle Hill, Honiton (Fitzpatrick et al. 1999)
and Heatree, Dartmoor (Quinnell 1991) and the fabric source has not so far been demonstrated to have been
used before the Middle Bronze Age. Sites such as OTA 5.02 with occasional Bronze Age sherds appear to
belong best to the extensive expansion of settlement which occurred in the Middle Bronze Age.
The data from the pipeline shows a long gap between the Middle Bronze Age and the Middle Iron Age. This is
consistent with the pattern of ceramic use in Devon, where pottery use seems to have been at a low level through
this period (Quinnell 1999). The scatter of Middle Iron Age sites reflects the general increase of pottery found in
the county from that date. The granitic derived material from FTC 7.01 in particular is of considerable interest in
providing a possible early start for the fabric source known as South Devon Ware which occurs in the Roman
period.
Details of pottery from sites in sequence along the pipeline route
Site 2.03 (isolated pit)
2.03.005 fill of pit 2.03.004 ?? Middle Neolithic: Six sherds of similar fabric, three with abraded traces of
impressed decoration on oxidised exterior; the other sherds are not oxidised, one of which has finger nail
decoration. These probably belong to the Peterborough tradition. The sherds are too abraded and scrappy for
illustration.
Site 2.06 Site with ditches: Scrap of probable Later Iron Age pottery
Site 3.04 site with prehistoric pits and ring ditch
03.04.002, subsoil: four burnished sherds probably Later Iron Age
03.04.028, secondary fill of pit 3.04.026: thick grogged sherd, almost certainly Middle Bronze Age
3.04.061, in 3.04.060 part of generic cut 03.04.004 east of ring gulley 3.04.045: two sherds grogged fabric,
probably Middle Bronze Age
3.04.096, pit: date uncertain. There appear to be six fabrics. One sherd in fabric (a) appears to come from an
Early Neolithic carinated bowl. The occurrence of such a wide range of fabrics at any date in prehistory in one
context is without parallel in Devon.
206.015, primary fill of pit 206.015 (Generic feature 3.04.096). Includes: a) granitic derived sherd from carinated
bowl; b) three sherds v fine temper; c) twenty sherds + scraps in vein quartz fabric; d) ten sherds in fabric with
voids; e) five sherds gabbroic; f) six sherds fine sandy fabric
30.04.089, upper fill 206.015 (Generic feature3.04.096). Includes: b) one sherd; c) two sherds; f) five sherds
Site 4.10 site with Middle Bronze Age features
128
04.10.11, third fill of ditch 4.10.008: thirteen sherds, some conjoining, of plain Trevisker vessel in Exeter volcanic
fabric
04.10.12, fourth fill of ditch 4.10.008: six sherds probably of a finer version of Exeter volcanic fabric
4.10.017, fill of pit 4.10. 16: six sherds probable Bronze Age fabric with grog and rock
Site 5.02 with ditch
5.02.005, fill of ditch 5.02.004: one abraded sherd of probable Middle Bronze Age grogged fabric
Site 9.02 with ditches
9.02.012, marked ‘surface find’ from 9.02.015: sherd probable Early Neolithic vein quartz fabric
Aylesbeare to Kenn ATK
Site 4a.01 site with ditches
4a.01.02, subsoil: base angle sherd Exeter volcanic fabric probably Middle Bronze Age; sherd from carination
fine-grained reduced granitic fabric, probably Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age. Presumably indicates activity in
vicinity from Middle Bronze to Early Iron Age.
Site 12.13 site with Post-Medieval building
12.13.001, cleaning topsoil: body sherd in rock, vein quartz and grog fabric, body sherd granitic fabric.
The thickness and general finish of the sherds suggests Middle Bronze Age activity.
Site 13.02 Later prehistoric ditches
13.02,124, ditch fill: two sherds and scraps in thin reduced rock tempered fabric. General character of sherds,
thinness and finess of temper suggests a date in the Early to Late Iron Ages.
13.02.176 ditch fill: single body sherd Exeter volcanic fabric, Middle Bronze Age fabric type. The data appear to
suggest a long range of activity.
Site 14.09 Middle Bronze Age pit group.
All the pits with ceramic finds are likely to date to the Middle Bronze Age. Recent work (author: in progress) is
demonstrating that pits of Middle Bronze Age date, so far found but not published on at least 10 sites in Devon,
may be the remnants of occupation activity. The simple rim from 14.09.013 (fill of elongated pit 14.09.019) is
described as of Middle Bronze Age Trevisker type; however little is known about the Late Bronze Age ceramics in
Devon and it is possible that such a rim could also occur at this date; this makes the radiocarbon dating
recommended from this context important.
14.9.20 fill of pit 14.09.018: five sherds and scraps conjoining Exeter volcanic fabric fabric variant, expanded rim
with cord-impressed zone beneath. Trevisker style. Very similar in form to that from pit 14.9.003.
14.9.004 fill of pit 14.09.003: excavated from block of soil lifted from site; apparently originally all conjoined.
46 sherds of rock tempered fabric from Trevisker vessel. Rim with expansion badly damaged; zone of cordimpressed decoration beneath. Probably about 1/4 of the vessel present.
14.09.008/9 fills of pit 14.09.016: fourteen sherds Exeter volcanic fabric; all body sherds.
129
14.09.013, fill of pit 14.09.12 (Generic feature 14.09.017): rim sherd Exeter volcanic fabric; rim of simple
expanded Trevisker type
Fishacre to Choakford FTC
Site 2.02 Late Neolithic pits with Grooved Ware.
A noticeable feature of the sherds is their high abrasion and small size. Details of fabrics are given in the
supporting Table. In addition to pits with pottery for which radiocarbon dating is recommended, aceramic pits in
the group could also be usefully included for determinations. There are currently no radiocarbon determinations
for Grooved ware in Devon.
2.02.005, fill of pit 2.02.004: twenty-two sherds, including a pointed rim and body sherds with incised zig-zag and
close-spaced parallel lines and comb impressed decoration too abraded for illustration.
20.02.08, fill of pit 2.02.06: ten sherds including a small rounded rim and a body sherd with an impression.
2.02.011, fill of pit 2.02.10: seventeen sherds including base angle with impressed decoration and body sherd
With pattern of very fine incised lines
Site 7.01 Ditches etc
7.01.005, Fill of pit 7.01.004, Middle Iron Age: seventeen sherds in a burnished granitic derived fabric. Rim and
upper part of plain South Western Decorated vessel. The ware appears similar to some granitic derived fabrics
found at Mount Folly, Bigbury (information E Wilkes) and its study may help in determining whether Roman
period South Devon Ware has Iron Age prototypes.
7.01.036, Fill of pit 7.01.035, Middle Iron Age: two burnished sherds those from 7.01.005
7.01.71, Fill of ditch 7.01.068: one sherd 7.01.005.
Site 8.02 Site with ditches
8.02.005, Fill of ditch terminal 8.02.004, of possible Neolithic date: six conjoining sherds. The closest parallels for
the fabric, with vein quartz inclusions in a micaceous matrix, are Early Neolithic. Note, John Allan has examined
the sherds and agreed they are not medieval. The sherd is not sufficiently distinctive to provide a date. However
if there are Neolithic lithics from the area the possibility of the ditch being Neolithic should be considered. If so, a
radiocarbon determination should be considered.
Site 13.03 Site with ditches
905, evaluation context number of fill of ditch 13.03.04: one sherd of granitic fabric, probably later prehistoric.
Site 18.12/13 Late Neolithic pits containing Grooved Ware. The sherds are in better condition than those in Site
2.02, except those in 18.12.32.
18.12.032, Fill of pit 18.12.32: 37 sherds, undecorated and very abraded, apparently of gabbroic fabric. These
come from lower wall and base of one vessel. The vessel may have been decorated on its upper part. Given the
130
propinquity of the pit to those with Grooved Ware described below, it is important to obtain a radiocarbon date as
there are currently no known examples gabbroic fabrics in Later Neolithic contexts in Devon.
18.12.019, primary fill of pit 18.12.018: eight sherds including base angles and body sherds with incised
decoration.
18.12.20, Middle fill of pit 18.12.018: twenty-seven sherds including body sherd with incised chevrons.
18.12.021, Upper fill of pit 18.12.018: twenty sherds including some with incised chevron decoration and some
from a complex design of incised lines and rows of finger nail.
18.12.55, ditch with Grooved Ware labelled on the plan as 18.12.049: forty-four sherds, all fresh with some
conjoins and probably from two vessels; one vessel has simple rim with grooves beneath and elaborate incised
decoration, second vessel includes base angle, and complex overall incised decoration.
Site 24.02./03/04 Pit near barrow with AOC Beaker sherds: The sherds from all three contexts in the one pit are
from the same vessel. No conjoins are immediately obvious and sherds are abraded. No rim present and most of
base missing; base (angle) sherds occur in two upper levels. It is likely that some sherds only from a vessel had
been buried, a frequent practice in Devon (Quinnell 2003).
24.03.002, subsoil: one plain of similar fabric to Beaker
24.03.61, primary fill 24.03.60: forty sherds
24.03.62, Second fill 24.03.60: eight sherds
24.03.63 Upper fill 24.03.60: Four sherds
Site 24.05 Site with pit
24.05.005, fill of pit 24.05.004: two sherds probably Iron Age from their fabric.
Site 33.02 Site with ‘dry smoker’
33.02.006, clay spread: two sherds probably Iron Age from their fabric.
131
Table 2.1: Prehistoric pottery summary (Ottery St Mary to Aylesbeare)
Site
Context
Deposit type*
Sherds/weight
Fabric & date
2.03.
03.04
2.03.005
2.06.007
03.04.002
03.04.028
03.04.061
03.04.089
03.04.089
03.04.089
206.015
206.015
206.015
206.015
206.015
206.015
04.10.11
04.10.12
04.10.017
05.02.005
09.02.012
Pit fill (2.03.004)
Ditch fill (3.04.045)
Subsoil
Pit fill (03.04.026)
Upper Pit fill (3.04.96)
Pit fill (3.04.096)
Pit fill (3.04.096)
Pit fill (3.04.096)
Pit fill (3.04.096)
Pit fill (3.04.096)
Pit fill (3.04.096)
Pit fill (04.10.16)
6
1
4
1
2
1
2
5
1
3
20
10
5
6
13
6
6
1
1
94
Fine grit, ?Peterborough, Middle Neolithic
Fine grit, ?Iron Age
Burnished fine inclusions, Later Iron Age
Grog, ?Middle Bronze Age
Grog, ?Middle Bronze Age
b)
c)
f)
a) Granitic, Early Neolithic
b) Very fine inclusions
c) Vein quartz, Early Neolithic
d) Fabric with voids
e) Gabbroic, Early Neolithic
f) Sand
Exeter volcanic, Trevisker, Middle Bronze Age
Fine Exeter volcanic Middle Bronze Age
Grog/rock, Middle Bronze Age
Grog Middle Bronze Age ?
Vein quartz Early Neolithic
04.10
05.02
09.02
Totals
* feature no. in parenthesis
35
1
12
25
38
9
3
23
4
12
102
33
14
22
228
14
20
10
2
607
132
Recommendations
Microscopic/thin-section
1 microscopic
Illus.
C14
1
1 microscopic
1 microscopic
1
1
1 microscopic
1 microscopic
1 microscopic
1 microscopic
1 microscopic
1 microscopic
1 microscopic
1 microscopic
1 microscopic
1 microscopic
1 microscopic
1*
1
1*
1
Table 2.2: Prehistoric pottery summary (Aylesbeare to Kenn)
Site
Context
Deposit type*
Sherds/weight
Fabric & date
4a.01
4a.01.02
4a.01.02
12.13.001
12.13.001
13.02.124
13.02.176
14.09.020
Subsoil
Subsoil
Subsoil
Subsoil
Pit fill (14.09.018)
1
1
1
1
2
1
5
26
1
14
5
7
13
117
14.09.004
Pit fill (14.09.003)
46
2980
14.09.008/9
Pit fill (14.09.016)
14
72
Pit fill (14.09.019)
14.09.013
Totals
1
73
19
3254
Exeter volcanic, probably Trevisker, Bronze Age
Granitic, probably Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age
Rock, vein quartz, grog prob Middle Bronze Age
Granitic, prob Middle Bronze Age
Fine rock, prob Middle-Late Iron Age
Exeter volcanic, Middle Bronze Age
Exeter volcanic, Trevisker decorated, Middle Bronze
Age
Rock temper, decorated Trevisker, Middle Bronze
Age (lifted in block) needs conservation
Exeter volcanic, Trevisker, plain sherds, Middle
Bronze Age
Exeter volcanic, plain Trevisker, Middle Bronze Age
12.13
13.02
14.09
133
Recommendations
Illus
C14
1 microscopic
1
1
1 microscopic +
thin section
1 microscopic
1
1*
1
1
1 microscopic
1
1
Table 2.3: Prehistoric pottery summary (Fishacre to Choakford)
Site
Context
Deposit type*
Sherds/weight
Fabric & date
2.02
2.02.005
2.02.005
2.02.008
2.02.011
2.02.011
7.01.005
7.01.036
7.01.071
8.02.005
9.05
18.12.033
18.12.019
18.12.020
18.12.020
18.12.020
18.12.021
18.12.021
18.12.021
18.12.55
24.03.002
24.03.61
24.03.62
24.03.63
24.05.005
33.02.006
Pit fill (2.02.004)
Pit fill (2.02.004)
Pit fill (2.02.006)
Pit fill (2.02.010)
Pit fill (2.02.010)
Pit fill (7.01.004)
Pit fill (7.01.035)
Pit fill (18.12.033 )
Pit fill (18.12.018)
Pit fill (18.12.018)
Pit fill (18.12.018)
Pit fill (18.12.018)
Pit fill (18.12.018)
Pit fill (18.12.018)
Pit fill (18.12.018)
Subsoil
Pit fill (24.03.60)
Pit fill (24.03.60)
Pit fill (24.03.60)
Pit fill (24.05.004)
Clay spread
16
6
10
12
5
17
2
1
6
1
37
8
5
2
20
13
1
6
44
1
40
8
4
2
2
269
Vein quartz, rock. Decorated Grooved Ware, Late Neo.
Rounded inclusions, Grooved Ware, Late Neo.
Rounded inclusions as 2.02.005 Grooved Ware, Late Neo.
Vein quartz etc as 2.0.02.005 Grooved Ware, Late Neo.
Rounded inclusions as 2.02.005 Grooved Ware, Late Neo.
Granitic derived fabric, Middle Iron Age
As above
As above
Vein quartz micaceous, probably Neolithic
Granitic probably later prehistoric
Gabbroic, Grooved Ware? Late Neo?
Micaceous with rock, Grooved Ware, Late Neo.
Hard rock tempered Grooved Ware, Late Neo.
Grog temperd Grooved Ware, Late Neo.
Micaceous as 18.012.19
Micaceous with rock as 18.12.019 Grooved W, Late Neo.
Hard rock temper as 18.12.020 Grooved W, Late Neo.
Open fabric, hard rock inclusions Grooved W, Late Neo.
Open fabric with rock as 18.12.21 Grooved W, Late Neo.
Granitic derived fabric as Beaker below
Granitic derived AOC Beaker
Granitic derived
Granitic derived
7.01
8.02
13.03
18.12
24.03
24.05
33.02
Totals
49
46
12
65
17
45
9
2
13
8
429
59
21
8
27
31
20
39
20
6
150
16
12
14
2
1120
134
Recommendations
1 microscopic
1 microscopic
1 microscopic
1 microscopic
1 microscopic
Illus
C14
1
1
1
1*
1*
1 microscopic
1
1 microscopic + thin-section
1 microscopic + thin section
1 microscopic
1 microscopic
1 microscopic+ thin-section
1
1
1*
1
1
(1)
1
2
1*
1
1*
APPENDIX 3: ROMAN POTTERY BY ED MCSLOY
Quantities of Roman pottery were recovered from each of the sections of the pipeline route (Ottery St Mary to
Aylesbeare; Aylesbeare to Kenn and Fishacre to Choakford sections). The large majority of material derived from
Sites 14.01 and 24.03, located within the westernmost section (Fishacre to Choakford).
The condition of the assemblage was mixed and comment in respect of the larger site groups is included below.
High levels of fragmentation were however a feature of most groups and this is reflected by the moderately low
mean sherd weight (below). The pottery is described in summary below according to location and ‘Site’.
Recording as part of the assessment has included basic quantification by fabric type by sherd count and weight;
and where identifiable, note of vessel form. The presence of carbonised or other residues was also noted.
Ottery St Mary to Aylesbeare (Tables 3.2–3.3)
Roman pottery from this section amounted to only 5 sherds (53g), of which 4 sherds were recovered from Site
3.04.
Site 3.04
Single bodysherds of Roman pottery (in total 51g) were recovered from ditch fills 03.04.014, 03.04.062 (Ditch
03.04.004), gully fill 03.04.042 (ring gully 03.04.045) and topsoil deposit 03.04.001. Broadly Roman dating this
material is indicated on the basis of the fabric alone (Table 3.1).
Site 4.10
A single, small and abraded sherd in a black-firing sandy fabric from ditch fill 04.10.023 (ditch 04.10.018), has
been identified as of probable Roman date.
Aylesbeare to Kenn
Site 0.03
Ditch fill 0.03.07 produced five sherds (16 grams) in a coarse sandy reduced fabric and representing a single
vessel. The vessel form is identifiable as a necked jar or bowl with out-curved rim and with a possible cordon at
the junction of neck and shoulder. The surfaces of this vessel are much degraded probably due to inhospitable
soils, and possibly also as the result of burning. There are traces of a carbonized deposit below the rim.
Site 13.02
Two abraded bodysherds of Roman pottery weighing 9 grams were recovered from subsoil deposit 13.02.002.
One sherd occurs in a hard sandy fabric with orange-firing outer surface and grey inner and core. The seconds
sherd is heavily weathered but proably is a sherd of Dorset Black-Burnished ware. Neither is closely dateable.
Fishacre to Choakford (Tables 3.2–3.3)
135
Material from this section of the pipeline amounted to 539 sherds weighing 4817 grams. The bulk of material
relates to features excavated within two sites 14.01 and 24.03.
Site 13.03 (Tables 3.2–3.3)
A single small chip (1 gram), probably of Black Burnished ware and of broad Roman date, was recovered from
ditch 13.03.011.
Site 14.01 (Tables 3.2–3.3)
A total of 132 sherds (2121 grams) relates to features excavated within Site 14.01. Largest quantities were
derived from Pit 14.01.004 (29 sherds); ditch 14.01.106, ‘natural depression’ 14.01.081 and terrace feature
14.01.107. Relatively small quantities of pottery were recovered from the ditch features 14.01.105 and 14.01.106
(Table 3.1).
The condition of this group is typically poor; heavily fragmented and with common surface loss, due probably to
the ‘aggressive’ soils. The mean sherd weight is moderately high at 16 grams, although this is certainly inflated
by the abundance of thick-walled storage jar sherds.
The range of material is consistent across the sampled deposits, although the more-closely dated deposits relate
to selected features and close contemporaneity across the site cannot be demonstrated. Most abundant by far
(102 sherds or 77% of the group) comprise South Devon reduced wares, which were recognised from all but one
excavated deposit. This distinctive type is believed to have been made throughout much of the Roman period
(Holbrook and Bidwell 1991, 177–81), with closer dating possible based on vessel form. The type’s probable
source, in the area south of Dartmoor (ibid. 177), accounts for its prominence here. The range of forms
represented is reflective of the type known from larger assemblages including those from Exeter and sites along
the Honiton to Exeter road improvement scheme (Seager Smith 1999, 309, fig. 155). The influence of Dorset
Black Burnished wares is much in evidence and suggests that the assemblage is predominantly later Roman in
date. Conical flanged bowls (from subsoil 14.01.002 and fill 14.01.080 of pit 14.01.038), plain rimmed dishes
(14.01.080) and everted-rim jars (fill 14.01.033 of ditch 14.01.105), follow from Black Burnished ware forms
common from the mid 3rd and 4th centuries AD. Large storage jars with distinctive raised cordons and curved
rims (from terrace 14.01.107: deposits 14.01.046 and 14.01.084) and everted-rim jars with grooved rim uppers
(terrace 14.01.107: deposits 14.01.046 and 14.01.077), show other influences, although similar later Roman can
be demonstrated on the basis of parallels from Exeter (ibid. 178–9).
The range of other represented fabrics is restricted. Black-Burnished ware (South-east Dorset BB1), a
coarseware type dominant in Exeter occurs as only 7 sherds; the availability of South Devon wares in
corresponding forms, probably accounting for this. Identifiable vessel forms are restricted to a conical flanged
bowl from deposit 14.01.047 (terrace 14.01.107), a class dateable to the mid 3rd to 4th centuries (ibid. 98–9). A
wheel-thrown black-firing and micaceous fabric (BSm: 7 sherds), may be equivalent to Exeter Micaceous grey
wares (ibid. 163–5), a type which appears to span the 2nd to 4th centuries. A carinated bowl with bead rim in this
fabric from fill 14.01.099 of ditch 14.01.106 is among the few earlier Roman forms identified and probably dates
no later than the 2nd century AD. Fine buff/orange-firing fabric OXIDf occurred as necked jar forms from ditch fills
14.01.061 and 14.01.0974. This type appears to be susceptible to surface weathering, very likely as the result of
soil conditions. A source for this type to the east (Exeter?) seems likely, although it cannot a present be equated
with any one ware type.
136
Two sherds of samian represent the only imported wares identified. A Central Gaulish bowl sherd from deposit
14.01.046 (terrace 14.01.107) dates to the 2nd century AD, although is very likely residual. The second sherd,
from deposit 14.01.077 (terrace 14.01.107), derives from a Drag. 33 cup and is East Gaulish. As such it dates to
the late 2nd or early 3rd centuries, although again this would appear to be residual within a later Roman deposit.
Evaluation deposit 605 (Plot 14.01)
One rim sherd in a fine oxidized fabric weighing 6 grams was recovered. The form is identifiable as a necked jar
or bowl with curved rim. Broad Roman dating is suggested.
Site 22.03 (Tables 3.2–3.3)
Two sherds of Black Burnished ware and one of South Devon type (13 grams total) were recovered from subsoil
deposit 22.03.002. The South Devon sherd is identifiable as from a flanged bowl of Late Roman type (mid 3rd to
4th centuries).
Site 24.02 (Tables 3.2–3.3)
A single small chip (<1 gram), of South Devon ware, broadly of Roman date, was recovered from subsoil deposit
24.02.001.
Site 24.03 (Tables 3.2–3.3)
A total of 376 sherds (2600 grams) relates to features excavated within Site 24.03. A small quantity (3 sherds
weighing 20 grams) was recovered following processing of bulk soil samples, with the remainder hand-recovered
on site. A large proportion (295 sherds) relates to Ditch 24.03.113 and the remainder to pits and gully features
located to the north-west (Table 3.3).
The condition of this group compares with that from Site 14.01, with much material heavily fragmented and
common surface loss. The levels of fragmentation (and infrequency of thicker-walled vessel forms) is reflected in
a low mean sherd weight of under 7 grams.
The range of fabrics and forms is broadly comparable with that from Site 14.01 and a similar chronological
emphasis towards the later 3rd to 4th centuries AD is apparent (Table 3.3). South Devon greywares are again
ubiquitous, and the overall representation higher than that from Site 14.01 (82% of total sherd count). The bulk of
the remainder comprises Dorset Black-Burnished ware (57 sherds or 15%) and this type is significantly better
represented compared to Site 14.01. Other coarseware fabrics occur as bodysherds from wheel-thrown
greywares from unknown sources. Fineware fabrics are present as two sherds of New Forest colour-coated
ware, including a funnel-necked beaker sherd of later 3rd/4th century type from ditch deposit 24.03.088.
Further indications of dating are provided from forms in South Devon ware and Black-Burnished ware. Both
groups are are dominated by late-occurring vessel forms including conical flanged bowls (from deposits
24.03.088; 24.03.119 and 24.03.147) plain-rim dishes (24.03.023; 24.03.088; 24.03.095; and 24.03.147) and (in
south Devon ware only) everted/grooved-rim jars (24.03.010; 24.03.119 and 24.03.147). In addition an evertedrim jar from posthole fill 24.03.025 exhibits obtuse-angled burnished lattice decoration of the type common from
the mid 3rd century.
Site 07.01 (Tables 3.2–3.3)
137
A small group of 27 (86 grams) sherds, entirely comprising heavily fragmented South Devon wares was
recovered from ditch features excavated from Site 07.01. A single vessel form, an everted-rim jar, was
identifiable from deposit 07.01.073.
Evaluation deposit 302 (Plot 20.03)
One abraded rim sherd of South Devon ware weighing 9 grams was recovered. The form is identifiable as a
conical flanged bowl and this suggests a later 3rd to 4th century date.
Although similarly small, the Roman groups from FTC sites 14.01 and 24.03, warrant publication as relatively rare
evidence for patterns of pottery supply and use in the area to the south of Dartmoor. In advance of reporting
additional recording is recommended to include an estimated minimum number of vessels (sherd families) and
systematic recording of carbonised or other residues. A full library search for other Roman assemblages in the
area should be conducted for the purposes of comparison with the groups from FTC sites 14.01 and 24.03 and
representative sample of featured sherds should be drawn (up to 12 vessels). The summary statements provided
as part of this assessment will be sufficient for the remaining groups.
138
Table 3.1: Roman pottery types summary
Fabric group
S. Devon
BB1
BS
Fabric Code
SDG
BB1
BS
BSm
GAB?
GWf
GW2
OXID
Description
South Devon greywares
South-East Dorset Black-Burnished
Wheel-thrown dark-grey firing
As above, micaceous
GAB?
?Gabroic type
Grey
Fine, wheel-thrown grey
Coarser grey
OXID
Misc. wheel-thrown oxidized wares
As above, fine, powdery
NFCC
NFCC
New Forest colour-coated ware
Samian
SAM CG
Central Gaulish
SAM EG
East Gaulish
*National Roman Fabric Reference Collection
NRRFC Reference*
Tomber and Dore 1998, 126
Tomber and Dore 1998, 27–8
Table 3.2: Pottery fabric groups occurrence by Area/site. Quantities as sherd count and weight in grams.
Area
OTA
ATK
FTC
Site
3.04
4.10
0.03
eval.
13.03
14.01
22.03
24.02
24.03
7.01
S. Devon
Ct.
Wt.
1
2
1
102
1
1
312
27
BB1
Ct.
2
1
Wt.
17
2
BS
Ct.
Wt.
5
16
Grey
Ct.
Wt.
NFCC
Ct.
Wt.
9
1714
2
1
1841
86
1
7
2
1
116
11
7
165
57
640
1
5
3
87
2
6
139
OXID
Ct.
Wt.
1
32
1
6
14
108
GAB?
Ct.
Wt.
Samian
Ct.
Wt.
2
1
21
18
Table 3.3: Roman pottery summary of dating (Fishacre to Choakford). Quantities as sherd count and weight in
grammes.
Site
13.04
14.01
Sub-tot.
20.03
22.03
24.02
24.03
Sub-tot.
07.01.
Sub-tot.
Context
13.03.014
14.01.002
14.01.008
14.01.033
14.01.035
14.01.039
14.01.046
14.01.047
14.01.061
14.01.063
14.01.066
14.01.074
14.01.077
14.01.080
14.01.082
14.01.084
14.01.092
14.01.099
605
302
22.03.002
24.02.001
24.03.002
24.03.057
24.03.079
24.03.110
24.03.119
24.03.120
24.03.147
24.03.148
24.03.010
24.03.020
24.03.021
24.03.023
24.03.025
24.03.037
24.03.042
24.03.071
24.03.076
24.03.088
24.03.095
24.03.110
07.01.011
07.01.059
07.01.073
Ct.
1
7
29
2
6
6
4
3
27
1
1
1
9
6
26
2
1
1
1
133
1
3
1
3
1
1
1
71
20
35
42
39
1
2
13
11
1
6
1
3
122
2
1
376
12
2
13
27
Wt.(g)
1
93
156
18
60
92
174
35
184
6
46
4
23
98
27
997
26
82
6
2127
9
13
1
24
1
8
5
725
110
178
366
233
4
2
63
171
13
35
13
7
619
20
3
2600
44
5
37
86
Feature
ditch 13.03.012
undefined
pit 14.01.004
ditch 14.01.030
hearth 14.01.034
pit 14.01.038
terrace 14.01.012
terrace 14.01.012
ditch 14.01.055
ditch 14.01.020
ditch 14.01.064
ditch 14.01.073
terrace 14.01.076
pit 14.01.038
natural depression 14.01.081
terrace
terrace 14.01.091
ditch 14.01.064
-
Generic feature
13.03.011
14.01.105
14.01.107
14.01.107
14.01.106
14.01.105
14.01.106
14.01.108
14.01.107
14.01.107
14.01.107
14.01.106
-
Spot-date
RB
LC3-C4
RB
RB
LC2-C4
LC2-C4
LC3-C4
LC3-C4
RB
RB
RB
RB
LC3-C4
LC3-C4
RB
LC2-C4
RB
MC1-C2
RB?
Undefined ?topsoil
topsoil?
undefined
gully 24.03.056
pit 24.03.036
gully 24.03.109
ditch 24.03.113
ditch 24.03.113
ditch 24.03.074
ditch 24.03.082
ditch 24.03.010
ditch 24.03.019 <27>
ditch 24.03.019
undefined
pit 24.03.024
pit 24.03.036 <8>
pit 24.03.041
pit 24.03.041
ditch 24.03.074
ditch 24.03.082
Undefined surface
gully 24.03.109 <19>
24.03.152
24.03.149
24.03.153
24.03.153
24.03.153
24.03.153
24.03.153
24.03.153
24.03.153
24.03.153
-
MC3-C4
LC3-C4
RB
C3-C4
RB
RB
RB
LC3-C4
RB
LC3-C4
RB
C3-C4
RB
RB
C3-C4
MC3-C4
RB
RB
RB
RB
LC3-C4
C3-C4
RB
ditch 07.01.007
ditch 07.01.058
ditch 07.01.072
-
RB
RB
RB
140
APPENDIX 4: THE MEDIEVAL AND LATER POTTERY BY JOHN ALLAN AND GRAHAM
LANGMAN (EXETER ARCHAEOLOGY)
Pottery of medieval and later date was identified from all sections (OTA, ATK and FTC), with the largest and most
significant group coming from the medieval longhouse identified from ATK 13.02. The assemblage is described in
summary below according to the section and listed (sherd count and types present) by context in tables 4.1–4.3.
Section OTA (Table 4.1)
This is a minor collection of 59 sherds weighing 628 grams, but it contains some surprises. The earliest group is
from Site 01.03 pit fill 01.03.005 with tripod pitcher and chert-tempered comb-decorated cooking pot sherds of the
mid to late 12th century. There are parallels in both Exeter and Somerset for this small assemblage, but this is an
unusual find in rural Devon. The remaining material, which is dispersed across ten site divisions spans the
14th/15th to 19th centuries. There are two unusual imports, the first being a probable 16th-century Martincamp
flask from Site 03.03 topsoil, the second, from Site 03.04 (ditch fill 03.04.21) a pale fawn bodysherd from a late
medieval stoneware, possibly from Siegburg. This is an interesting find because late medieval stonewares are
extremely rare in Devon and there are no close parallels in the region.
Section ATK (Table 4.2)
The collection consists of 1995 sherds from 74 contexts. The most significant component is the material from a
longhouse (Site 13.02). Various comparable collections have come from Dartmoor, where several examples of
these farmhouses have been excavated, but there are very few comparable assemblages from peasant sites in
lowland Devon.
There are no fewer than 52 sherds of imported green-glazed Saintonge pottery. It is impossible to recognize the
number of vessels present; there are perhaps only one or two. Nevertheless this clearly shows that Saintonge
jugs circulated in a rural peasant community that had access to the sea.
Glazed English jugs make up a small of the site but the proportion is appreciably higher than in the Dartmoor
material. The Exeter/South Somerset areas are represented, but there are other fabrics that deserve further
research.
In the late 13th/14th centuries coarseware cooking pots form a high proportion of the total. The collection is
surprisingly different from the finds from Exeter, with more variety of fabrics alongside familiar chert-tempered
wares from the Blackdown Hills. Some limestone-tempered wares resemble pottery from Haycroft Farm,
Membury; this point should be resolved by petrological work. A third class of coarse ware is represented by
cooking pots with tall rims turning inwardly; their source has yet to be established.
In general the collection falls within the range 1250–1350, although a scatter of earlier material would not be
distinguished from body sherds, given the long production range (11th to late 14th century) for chert-tempered
ware. Only the presence of cupped type cooking pot rim forms indicates a 13th- or 14th-century date.
The post-medieval assemblage is of less importance as it is not well dated and consists of a scatter of finds over
a considerable length of the pipeline (Table 4.2). It does however fill out the picture of the use of imported pottery
and other wares in south Devon. There are some scarce imports, notably Normandy stoneware, Spanish
Columbia plain tin-glazed earthenware and German Werra slipware (for example the last national survey of
141
Werra slipware listed only three examples at Bristol and three at Southampton). The most unusual and
interesting coarse ware is rich in granitic inclusions and is not a standard Merida-type red ware. Its source may
be either Brittany or Portugal.
Section FTC (Table 4.2)
This collection amounts to 185 sherds from 32 contexts, relating to 26 site divisions (Table 4.3). The earliest
material, from contexts (topsoil deposits 03.01.001 and 13.02), belongs to the 13th/14th centuries. It includes
sherds from a South Devon micaceous hand-made jug (03.01.001) and coarsewares imported from east Devon
and the Blackdown Hills (13.02). There is a scatter of late medieval South Devon wheel-thrown micaceous ware
in individual contexts.
The post-medieval collection is dominated by coarsewares whose inclusions are derived from a granite source.
Many of these match closely the finds from Totnes which were probably made in the kilns at Bridgetown
Pomeroy, but other centres making very similar material have recently been recognized at Plympton (where 17th
century wasters have been recovered) and Dodbrooke near Kingsbridge (where potters are documented in the
17th century). The vessels represented include some interesting forms – a chill, a candlestick and a skillet –
alongside the more commonplace bowls and handled jars. North Devon pottery makes a limited showing (nine
sherds from six vessels, including a single sgraffito-decorated sherd). Another coarseware which forms a minor
component in this assemblage (six sherds) is Cornish St Germans-type calcareous (probably shell-tempered)
ware. This fabric is well represented in 15th/16th-century groups from excavations at Plymouth. The imported
wares include the ubiquitous Frechen, Raeren and Westerwald stonewares. A single featureless body sherd with
a dense red fabric and glossy brown glaze is a candidate for a more unusual import; it resembles a Spanish
Melado coarseware, a distinctive ‘honey-coloured’ red earthenware, rarely recognized in this country.
Statement of Potential and recommendations for further Analysis
The medieval and post-medieval assemblage also merits selective further analysis. Most significant is the
material from the longhouse identified from ATK 13.02. Comparable collections have come from Dartmoor, where
several examples of these farmhouses have been excavated, but there are very few comparable assemblages
from peasant sites in lowland Devon. The collection from Site 13.02 is surprisingly different from the finds from
Exeter, with more variety of fabrics alongside familiar chert-tempered wares from the Blackdown Hills. A full
catalogue and report should be produced for this material to be accompanied by approximately one page (25
vessels) of illustrations. It is also recommended that petrological analysis should be undertaken for selected
sherds to assist with characterisation of fabrics and possibly to determine source. In addition to the collection
from Site 13.02 there are small groups and individual occurrences from other sites which warrant further
investigation to include summary reporting.
142
Table 4.1: Section OTA medieval and later pottery summary. Quantities as sherd count and weight in grammes.
Site/plot
01.03
Context*
01.03.002
Spot date
?14/15C+
Ct.
1
Wt. (g)
12
01.03
01.03.005
(01.03.004)
M-L12C
9
52
02.06
02.06.011
(u/s)
208.002
unstrat
15C
1
2
17C/18C
post 1800
1
16
54
146
03.01
03.02
207.007
03.02.001
1760+
1720L18C
2
12
56
114
03.03
03.03.001
18C
7
104
03.04
03.04.021
(03.04.004)
03.04.081
(03.04.044)
04.01.005
(04.01.005)
05.01.001
After 1300
1
6
PM
(?16C)
17C/18C
3
52
1
6
18C
4
20
04.01
05.01
Fabric/comments
unclassified unglazed jar rim (?LMed, oxidized sandy fabric
with iron oxide inclusions)
Exeter fabric 60 tripod pitcher (M12C-E13C, green-glazed
rim & body sherd with applied clay strip, comb decorated),
chert-tempered cw (11C/12C, 1 sherd comb decorated)
Med sandy ware jug sherd (?S. Somerset, 15C with
brushed white slip and green glaze)
S. Somerset cw (17C/18C)
English industrial white wares (post 1800), English
stoneware (19C), N. Devon plain yellow-glazed slipware
(L17C-L18C x 1), S. Somerset yellow-glazed slipware
scrap (?18C), S. Somerset combed sgraffito dish (L17CL18C), S. Somerset cw (16C x 1), S. Somerset cw
(17C/18C), 1 sherd unclassified cw (?LMed)
Creamware (1760-1820), S. Somerset cw (17C/18C)
English brown stoneware (18C), S. Somerset copper
mottled green-glazed slipware (18C pie crust dish rim), S.
Somerset trailed slipware scrolls (1720-E19C), S. Somerset
cw (18C). NB 12 sherds + 1 ridge tile frag in gritty fabric
Martincamp flask sherd (16C), S. Somerset cw (17C/18C, 1
sherd buff fabric 18C), 2 Med sandy ware jug sherds (?S.
Somerset, 15C, 1 rim sherd with broad strap handle)
unclassified stoneware import (LMed, ?Siegburg, pale fawn
fabric)
S. Somerset cw (16C, sooted bowl rim), S. Somerset cw
scraps (?16C)
Bristol/Staffs yellow-glazed slipware (18C), S. Somerset cw
(17C/18C)
05.01.002
17C/18C
1
4
Total
59
628
*feature no. in parenthesis. Deposits ending 001/002 are topsoil or subsoil layers
143
Table 4.2: Section ATK medieval and later pottery summary. Quantities as sherd count and weight in grams.
Site/plot
Context
Spot date
Ct.
Wt. (g)
Fabric/comments
00.03
00.03.002
18C
1
10
Bristol/Staffs marbled slipware (18C)
02.07
02.07.001
1500-E19C
1
15
N. Devon gravel-free ware (?16C/17C)
03.01
03.01.002
17C/18C
2
6
S. Somerset cw (17C/18C scraps, worn sherds from
same vessel)
05.01
05.01.001
17C/18C
2
19
07.02
07.02.002
17C/18C
1
12
07.05
07.05.001
17C
2
8
S. Somerset cw (17C)
11.04
11.04.001
L17C/18C
1
4
S. Somerset mottled copper green-glazed slipware
(L17C/18C)
12.01
315.009
?PM (?16C)
29
423
2 sherds S. Somerset cw (16C jug sherds from same
(12.01.030)
vessel, ,?intrusive), Med chert-tempered cw (11C-L14C,
27 sherds from same cooking pot)
12.09
12.09.000
16C-19C
103
1947
Range of ceramics from 16C-modern. Spanish Columbia
plain tin-glazed (16C,1 bowl sherd), Cologne stoneware
(1st ½ 16C, 1 jug sherd), Chinese porcelain (18C, 2 cup
sherds), Westerwald stoneware (18C, chamber pot, 1
sherd), S. Somerset cw (16C, 1 sooted bowl sherd), N.
Devon gravel-tempered ware (1 sherd), S. Somerset cw
(18C/E19C, ,10 sherds), Notts stoneware (18C, 1 sherd),
Creamware (1760-1820), English industrial white wares
& earthenwares (L18C+), English stoneware (19C), 1
pantile frag (19C, 1 brick frag (modern). NB discard the
majority but retain imports and 16C wares and
representative samples of later material
12.10
316.001
17C/18C
2
8
S. Somerset cw (17C/18C 1 sherd), S. Somerset cw
(?16C, 1 sherd)
12.12
12.12.000
Post 1800
8
88
English industrial white wares (post 1800), S. Somerset
cw 18C), Saintonge yellow-glazed chafing dish
(16C/17C, 1 sherd) unclassified unglazed PM sherd
12.12.002
18C
3
81
Notts stoneware (18C), Totnes-type cw (1500-L18C),
unclassified sherd (?Med jug)
13.02
13.02.001
Post 1000
2
15
Med chert-tempered cw (11C-L14C)
13.02.002
Post 1800
106
1327
Mixed group of Post-med (16C-19C) & Med material with
some interesting imports. Post-med Saintonge (1 chafing
dish sherd, 1 cup sherd 16C/17C), Normandy stoneware
sherd (16C/17C), Raeren stoneware sherd (16C), Werra
type slipware dish sherd (L16C/E17C, with grey core),
granitic derived micaceous cw (Breton/Portuguese, 16C),
Dorset Verwood-type cw (PM), Coarse Sandy ware
(1500-1650, 4 sherds), Totnes-type cw (16C-L18C), N.
Devon gravel-tempered ware (1500-E19C), S. Somerset
cw (16C, 2 sherds), S. Somerset cw (17C/18C), S
Somerset sgraffito (17C), English industrial white wares
& stonewares (post 1800). Med Saintonge (M13C-L15C,
3 sherds), Totnes-type Med cw (14C/15C jug), Med
sandy ware jugs (M13C-L15C), Med chert-tempered cw
(11C-L14C)
13.02.012
L17C/E18C
1
5
Westerwald stoneware jug (L17C/E18C)
(13.02.010)
13.02.020
Post 1500
1
15
N. Devon gravel-tempered ware (1500-E19C)
(13.02.010)
13.02.033
PM
11
207
S Somerset cw (16C/17C, 5 sherds), N. Devon gravel(13.02.268)
free ware (1500-E19C), Saintonge green-glazed (M13CL15C, 1 sherd), Med sandy ware jug sherd (15C), Med
chert-tempered cw (11C-L14C)
13.02.036
Post 1000
1
27
Med chert-tempered cw (11C-L14C, cooking pot rim)
(13.02.035)
13.02.046
Post 1000
1
3
Worn body sherd scrap (?chert-tempered)
(13.02.045)
13.02.054
M13C-L14C
16
155
Saintonge green-glazed (M13C-L15C, 3 sherds), Med
(u/s)
sandy ware jug sherd (M13C-L15C), unclassified Med cw
sherd, unclassified Med jug fabric, Med chert-tempered
cw (11C-L14C)
13.02.055
Post 1000
1
4
144
Site/plot
13.02
13.02
Context
(13.02.125)
13.02.058
(13.02.125)
13.02.060
(13.02.073)
13.02.062
(13.02.073)
Spot date
Ct.
Wt. (g)
Fabric/comments
17C/18C
3
58
13C/14C
1
16
1250-1350
9
150
13.02.064
(13.02.073)
13.02.070
(13.02.073)
13.02.072
(13.02.067)
13.02.077
(13.02.125)
13.02.091
(void)
13.02.093
(13.02.073)
13.02.094
(layer)
13C/14C
4
62
Post 1000
5
3
Med chert-tempered cw (13C/14C, cupped type cooking
pot rim)
5 sherds Exeter fabric 40 (1250-1350, 1 sherd with iron
stripe), Exeter fabric ?42 sherd (M13C-L15C), Med cherttempered cw (11C-L14C)
Dorset/Somerset sandy ware jug rod handle form
(13C/14C), Med chert-tempered cw (11C-L14C)
Med chert-tempered cw scraps (11C-L14C)
13C/14C
1
3
Bristol green-glazed sandy ware jug sherd (13C/14C)
Post 1000
1
3
Med chert-tempered cw scrap(11C-L14C)
Post 1000
2
5
Post 1000
2
1
Med chert-tempered cw scrap (11C-L14C)
1250-1350
9
22
13.02.097
(13.02.174)
13.02.102
(13.02.087)
13.02.104
(13.02.271)
13.02.107
(subsoil)
13.02.108
(13.02.100)
13.02.110
(13.02.010)
13.02.112
(13.02.270)
13.02.114
(13.02.269)
13.02.116
(13.02.073)
13.02.120
(13.02.267)
13.02.122
(13.02.121)
13.02.134
(13.02.132)
1st ½ 16C
9
103
13C/14C
7
22
Saintonge green-glazed (M13C-L15C, 3 sherds), Exeter
fabric 40 jug sherd (1250-1350, with iron stripe), Med
S Somerset gritty ware (1450-1550), S Somerset cw
(16C), Med chert-tempered cw (11C-L14C, 3 sherds)
Calcareous-tempered cw (13C/14C, vesicular surfaces)
13C/14C
11
107
PM (?16C)
8
40
Post 1000
1
9
Med chert-tempered cw (11C-L14C), 8 sherds
unclassified Med cw cooking pot base (all one vessel)
2 sherds S. Somerset cw (16C), 6 sherds Med cherttempered cw (11C-L14C)
Abraded Med cw sherd
PM (?16C)
2
48
2 sherds S Somerset cw (16C), 1 natural rock frag
M13C-L14C
2
12
Post 1000
2
7
Saintonge green-glazed jug rim sherd, Med cherttempered cw (11C-L14C)
Post 1000
3
8
18C
4
146
S. Somerset cw (1 sherd 18C type)
15C/16C
1
7
Unclassified cw (15C/16C)
M13C-L14C
66
255
13.02.135
(13.02.132)
13.02.140
(13.02.267)
13.02.152
(13.02.268)
13C/14C
115
396
16C
8
308
M-L17C
10
174
13.02.160
(13.02.159)
13.02.162
(13.02.161)
13.02.164
(13.02.163)
13.02.165
(13.02.132)
Post 1780
1
2
Saintonge green-glazed jug (M13C-L15C, 23 sherds all
one vessel, 1 sherd applied clay thumbed strip),
unclassified Med cw (13C/14C)
Med chert-tempered cw (13C/14C, 1 cupped type
cooking pot rim)
S. Somerset cw (16C, 1 sooted bowl), 3 sherds Med
N. Devon sgraffito sherd (2nd ½ 17C), S. Somerset single
line sgraffito sherd (17C), S. Somerset cw (17C, 4
sherds), Med Saintonge (1 sherd), Med chert-tempered
cw (11C-L14C, 2 sherds)
Transfer printed white ware (post 1780) + 1 rock frag
Post 1000
4
14
Post 1000
4
30
13C/14C
562
3764
Med chert-tempered cw (13C/14C, numerous cooking
pot rims), calcareous-tempered cw, unclassified Med cw.
145
Site/plot
Context
Spot date
Ct.
Wt. (g)
Fabric/comments
Fabrics and forms same as contexts 168, 169, 189 & 190
13.02.167
(13.02.271)
13.02.168
(13.02.132)
Post 1000
1
3
13C/14C
125
820
13.02.169
(13.02.132)
13.02.185
(13.02.132)
13.02.189
(13.02.132)
13.02.190
(13.02.132)
13.02.192
(13.02.163)
13.02.194
(layer)
13.02.202
(13.02.272)
13.02.208
(13.02.272)
13.02.212
(13.02.272)
13.02.223
(13.02.222)
13.02.242
(layer)
13C/14C
21
181
Med chert-tempered cw (13C/14C, cupped type cooking
pot rim), calcareous-tempered cw (cupped type cooking
pot rim), unclassified Med cw. Same as contexts 165,
168, 189 & 190
13C/14C
12
42
Med chert-tempered cw (13C/14C, reduced fabric)
13C/14C
459
3014
13C/14C
68
414
Post 1000
1
3
M13C-L14C
2
9
11C-L14C
14
103
Exeter fabric 40 (M13C-L15C), Med chert-tempered cw
(11C-L14C)
Med chert-tempered cw (11C-L14C, all one vessel)
13C/14C
2
7
13C/14C
3
15
?13C/14C
2
18
1250-1350
30
140
13.02.243
(13.02.132)
1250-1350
73
312
Post 1000
1
1
Post 1000
2
4
13.02
13.02.246
(13.02.244)
13.02.250
(13.02.251)
324.002
323.002
Med chert-tempered cw sherd (11C-L14C), ?calcareoustempered cw (?13C/14C)
Saintonge green-glazed jug with applied thumbed clay
strip (M13C-L15, 10 sherds all one vessel), Exeter fabric
42 (1250-1350, jug with white slip stripes), Med cherttempered cw
Saintonge green-glazed jug with applied thumbed clay
strip (M13C-L15, 29 sherds same vessel as context 242),
Exeter fabric 42 (1250-1350, jug with white slip stripes,
same vessel as context 242), Med chert-tempered cw
Med chert-tempered cw scrap (11C-L14C)
17C/18C
M13C-L14C
1
5
12
20
13.02
14.02
323.005
14.02.001
Post 1000
18C
1
3
6
12
14.04
14.04.000
19C
8
25
14.09
15.03
14.09.001
15.03.002
19C
Post 1700
5
1
9
2
RVX 001
unstrat
Post 1800
3
33
Saintonge (M13C-L15C, 1 sherd), Exe fabric 40/42
(M13C-L15C worn sherd), Med chert-tempered cw (11CL14C)
S. Somerset cw (17C/18C), unclassified unglazed
earthenware (post 1700 ?flowerpot)
English industrial white wares (19C), Chinese Porcelain
(18C, 1 sherd)
Transfer Printed white wares (19C)
unclassified
unglazed
earthenware
(post
1700
?flowerpot)
Transfer Printed white ware (post 1780), Creamware
(1760-1820), unglazed tile frag (post 1800)
Total
1995
15359
*feature no. in parenthesis. Deposits ending 001/002 are topsoil or subsoil layers
146
Table 4.3: Section FTC medieval and later pottery summary. Quantities as sherd count and weight in grams.
Site/plot
Context
Spot date
Ct.
Wt. (g)
Fabric/comments
03.01
03.01.001
13C/14C
8
62
S. Devon micaceous Med cw (13C/14C, handmade, 1
jug handle)
04.01
04.01.002
16C-18C
3
192
S. Somerset cw (16C/17C x 1), S. Devon micaceous
cw (16C-18C, 1 tripod vessel base, 1 unglazed sherd)
04.02
04.02
post 1780
3
67
Transfer Printed white ware (post 1780, English
Porcelain (L18C+), S. Devon micaceous cw (16C-18C)
08.01
08.01.001
17C/18C
2
16
S. Somerset cw (17C/18C), S. Devon micaceous cw
(16C-18C)
9.01
unstrat
post 1550
1
3
Frechen stoneware (post 1550, body sherd)
9.02
unstrat
post 1780
1
4
English industrial white ware (post 1780)
9.03
unstrat
post 1550
1
10
Frechen stoneware (post 1550, jug handle)
12.05
13.02
12.05W.001
13.02
16C-18C
13C/14C
1
13
7
91
13.03
13.03.002
16C-18C
5
82
?15C/16C
1
40
16C-18C
1
16
S. Devon micaceous cw (16C-18C)
16C-18C
16C-18C
1
2
42
124
L18C+
3
12
15.02
13.03.022
(13.03.026)
13.03.032
(13.03.026)
14.01.002
14.01.011
(14.01.108)
14.01.074
(14.01.108)
15.02.001
S. Devon micaceous cw (16C-18C)
Med chert-tempered cw (13C/14C, 1 cupped type
cooking pot rim), Med calcareous-tempered cw
(?Membury type, 13C/14C). NB similar to KennAylesbeare pipeline material.
S. Devon micaceous cw (16C-18C, x 1), S. Devon
micaceous cw (?15C/16C, unglazed wheel-thrown
same vessel, x 2), S. Devon Med micaceous cw
(14C/15C, unglazed wheel-thrown jug)
ridge tile fragment micaceous fabric (?15C/16C)
16C-18C
1
9
16.09
16.09.001
E18C
4
11
24.03
24.10
24.03.002
24.10.002
L18C+
1660-1700
1
1
2
6
25.01
25.01.002
25.01.006
(25.01.008)
25.01.007
(25.01.008)
16C-18C
16C-18C
11
2
138
132
S. Devon micaceous cw (16C-18C, bowl rim)
S. Devon micaceous cw (16C-18C, internal green
glaze)
English industrial yellow-glazed earthenware (L18C+),
unclassified cw (18C, x 1)
S. Devon micaceous cw (16C-18C, internal green
glaze)
London delft decorated tin-glazed (1670-90, ?dish
sherd ‘Chinamen among grasses’, x 1), English delft
decorated (E18C, dish sherd), delft tin-glazed
(earthenware body sherds only no tin glaze, x 2)
English industrial green-glazed white ware (L18C+)
N. Devon sgraffito (1660-1700, comb decorated dish,
no distinctive design)
S. Devon micaceous cw (16C-18C, 1 bowl, 1 jug/jar)
S. Devon micaceous cw (16C-18C, 1 skillet handle)
16C-18C
38
496
26.01.005
(26.01.004)
?Med/PM
41
73
14.01
26.01
147
S. Devon micaceous cw (16C-18C, 1 chill, 5 sherds in
total), N Devon gravel-free ware (PM, x 4 sherds), S.
Devon Med micaceous cw (14C/15C, wheel-thrown jug
all one vessel)
1 sherd S. Devon micaceous cw (16C-18C, internal
green glaze, ?intrusive), 40 sherds S. Devon Med
micaceous cw (14C/15C, same vessel as context
25.01.007)
Site/plot
30.03
Spot date
post 1760
17C/18C
Ct.
1
4
Wt. (g)
2
88
33.02
Context
30.03.004
30.03.006
(30.03.005)
33.02.002
post 1780
3
67
33.03
33.08
34.02
37.01
33.03.002
33.08.001
34.02.002
37.01.002
16C-18C
?LMed/PM
L18C+
L17C/E18C
1
1
3
25
40
16
70
493
Fabric/comments
Creamware (post 1760)
S. Somerset cw (17C/18C, x 1), S. Devon micaceous
cw (16C-18C, x 2), S. Devon micaceous cw (?LMed)
English industrial white ware (post 1780, x 2), S.
Devon micaceous cw (16C-18C, x 1)
S. Devon micaceous cw (16C-18C, bowl rim)
unclassified cw (?LMed/PM, unglazed base angle)
South West micaceous (L18C/19C, large bowl rim),
Westerwald stoneware (L17C/E18C, 1 jug sherd),
unclassified earthenware (?Spanish Melado, internal &
external glossy glaze, x 1), N. Devon calcareous cw
(PM), N. Devon gravel-free ware (PM), S. Somerset cw
(17C), S. Devon micaceous cw (16C-18C, bowls & 1
candle stick), St Germans-type cw (15C/16C, x 6
sherds)
Raeren stoneware (16C, mug body sherd)
Frechen stoneware jug base (17C, Bellarmine)
37.02
37.02.001
PM (?16C)
1
10
701
701
17C
1
64
Total
Total
85
2485
*feature no. in parentheses. Deposits ending 001/002 are topsoil or subsoil layers
148
APPENDIX 5: FIRED CLAY AND CERAMIC BUILDING MATERIAL BY VICTORIA TAYLOR
Quantities of fired clay (265 fragments, weighing 734g) and ceramic building material (CBM) (201 fragments,
weighing 26094g) were recovered. The fired clay is typically very fragmentary; the pieces small and rounded and
providing few indications of original form or function. The ceramic building material is generally in better condition,
with fragments large and identifiable to form. Material was recovered both by hand collection and by bulk
environmental samples.
The assemblage is summarised below according to the pipeline section (OTA, ATK and FTC) and is listed by site
and context in table 5.1.
ATK06 Aylesbeare to Kenn
A total of 16 fragments (39g) of burnt/fired clay were recovered from three deposits, 12 of which were recovered
from bulk samples taken from two Period 7 features from Site 13.02 (Table 5.1). All recovered material consists
of small amorphous fragments for which original function is unclear.
Quantities of ceramic building material (185 fragments, weighing 21906g) were recovered from 20 deposits.
Almost all of the material was recovered from Period 8 (post–medieval) and Period 10 (undated) building disuse
and collapse layers associated with the cob structure identified in Site 12.01. The large bulk of the Site 12.01
group consists of pantiles, suggesting a date for the re-roofing of the cob structure probably in the later 17th or
18th centuries. The pantiles are of the typical form, s-shaped in profile with a nib on the underside. The fabric is
hard, of orange firing, sandy and with evidence for coarse moulding sand.
Three brick fragments were recovered from Site 12.01 and might relate to the repair or alteration of the cob
structure. Of note is a probable Flemish brick with characteristic dimensions (c. 170 x 80 x 35mm) and pale
yellow/buff fabric. Bricks of this type were mainly imported during the 17th and 18th centuries (Allan 1984, 231–
2).
FTC06 Fishacre to Choakford
Quantities of fired clay (approximately 249 fragments, weighing 695g) were recovered from eleven deposits. The
largest quantities of material were recovered by bulk samples from pit fill 16.07.030 (23 fragments, weighing 89g)
and heat affected layer 16.07.009 (approximately 200 fragments, weighing 479g), part of an undated bowl
furnace.
Material from this section of the pipeline is restricted to quantities of fired clay from sites 16.07 and 16.01.
OTA06 Ottery St Mary to Aylesbeare
A total of 16 fragments (4188g) of ceramic building material were recovered from five deposits, four of which are
from Site 3.07 (Table 5.2). Vitrified brick fragments were recovered from the topsoil and from the remains of a
brick kiln (03.07.003). The remaining brick fragments are under–fired, possibly suggesting that these are
wasters/rejects from this brick kiln. The bricks associated with the brick kiln from Site 3.07 appear to be handmoulded and are un-frogged. The recordable dimensions (110 x 60mm header) would suggest a date in the later
18th to mid 19th centuries.
149
Statement of potential and requirements for further analysis
The fired clay represents a small and fragmented group for which there is limited interpretive value. The existing
records and reporting are considered sufficient for the purposes of the archive and no further work is
recommended.
The ceramic building material provides some broad indications of dating, in particular in respect to the cob
structure identified from ATK 12.01. Similarly the few brick samples recovered from the brick kiln noted from OTA
03.07, are evidence for the ‘products’ and dating of this structure. It is recommended that a short report
describing the material from these two sites be included in the eventual publication.
Table 5.1. Ceramic Building Material from Ottery St Mary to Aylesbeare
Site/Plot
03.01
03.07
Context
207.005
03.07.001
03.07.003
03.07.007
03.07.008
Description
Fill of ditch 207.004
Topsoil
Partial remains of
brick kiln 03.07.003
Fill of land drain
03.07.007
Fill of land drain
03.07.008
Artefact Type
tile
vitrified brick
brick,
vitrified
brick
Prov Period
8
10
Ct.
3
1
Wt. (g)
66
230
10
5
2080
brick
10
3
554
brick
10
4
1258
Table 5.2. Ceramic Building Material from Aylesbeare to Kenn
Site
12.01
Context
315.001
315.001
315.005
315.006
315.008
315.009
315.011
315.013
325.002
325.002
325.004
325.006
326.002
326.002
327.002
327.010
327.011
328.002
328.002
328.009
12.09.000
Wall collapse layer 328.002
Disuse/collapse
layer
328.005
(12.01.030)
Disuse/collapse
layer
328.005
(12.01.030)
Disuse layer 328.008
Disuse/collapse layer 328.009
(12.01.030)
Topsoil
12.09.000
Topsoil
12.09.000
Topsoil
328.005
328.005
328.008
12.09
Description*
Topsoil
Topsoil
Collapsed cob wall 315.005 part of
12.01.001
Collapsed cob wall 315.006 part of
12.01.001
Fill of 315.007
disuse
spread
within
structure
12.01.001 (12.01.030)
Wall collapse layer
Fill of gully 315.014
Disuse/collapse layer 325
Levelling/bedding layer for 327.001
Bedding layer for 327.001
Rubble/collapse layer
150
Type
tile
tile
Prov period
9
9
Ct.
1
6
Wt. (g)
36
114
tile, pantile
10
13
406
pantile
tile, pantile
10
8
2
17
90
827
tile, pantile
pantile
tile, pantile
drainpipe
tile, pantile
pantile
pantile
tile, pantile
misc frag
tile, brick
tile
pantile
tile
highly
vitrified
brick
Flemish
brick
8
10
8
10
10
8
10
10
10
8
8
10
10
60
9
5
4
15
12
1
10
1
4
1
6
2
3796
728
378
952
992
1354
68
558
5
68
31
2007
326
10
1
489
10
1
945
pantile
pantile
10
8
1
2
122
677
pantile
tile, pantile
brick with
mortar
modern
drain
10
2
3
595
343
2
2389
1
3408
13.02
13.02.033
Secondary fill of ditch 13.02.031
13.02.033
14.02
14.02.001
Topsoil
*generic feature number in bold
151
misc frag
from
sample 117
brick
tile
8
10
1
1
1
5
178
19
APPENDIX 6: CLAY TOBACCO PIPE BY ED MCSLOY
Small quantities of clay pipe fragments were recovered from each of the pipeline sections. The assemblage,
comprising almost in its entirety stem fragments, is described in summary below according to section and listed
by site in Table 6.1.
Section OTA
A small group of four fragments was recovered from four sites (Table 6.1). A bowl fragment from subsoil deposit
05.01.002 exhibits a line of rilling to its rim upper, a feature of bowl forms in the 17th and early 18th century
(Oswald 1975). A ribbed bowl fragment from subsoil 206.002 (Site 3.04) is probably a 19th century form. The
remainder, comprising stem fragments is broadly dateable, after c. 1550.
Section ATK
A total of 14 fragments (81 grams) were recovered, of which 10 relate to site 13.02. All of the recovered material
comprises stem fragments, which for the most part are unfeatured and not closely dateable. An exception is a
fragment from deposit 13.02.152 (the secondary fill of ditch 13.02.268) which features moulded foliate decoration.
The decoration suggests a late 18th or 19th century date and there is a similar example from Exeter dated c.
1800–1820 (Oswald 1984, 290, fig. 161.96).
Section FTC
A total of four fragments was recovered from three sites. All comprise unfeatured stem fragments.
Statement of Potential and Recommendations for further analysis
The clay pipe assemblage is fragmentary and contains few diagnostic elements. Those few fragments from
stratified deposits provide some broad indications of dating. This aside the assemblage can contribute nothing to
the analysis stage and further work is not recommended.
152
Table 6.1: Clay tobacco pipe summary.
Section
OTA
Sub-total
ATK
Sub-total
FTC
Sub-total
Total
Site
04.01
05.01
Context
04.01.025
05.01.002
Count
1
1
Weight (g)
4
4
3.04
3.01
206.002
207.009
12.01
12.01
12.09
13.02
13.02
13.02
13.02
13.02
13.02
13.02
13.02
12.01.000
315.008
12.09.000
13.02.002
13.02.033
13.02.054
13.02.094
13.02.107
13.02.120
13.02.140
13.02.152
04.02
13.02.075
13.03.018
04.02
13.02.075
13.03.018
1
1
4
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
14
1
2
1
4
22
4
8
20
6
6
11
5
10
2
3
18
6
4
10
81
2
10
5
17
118
153
Comments/date
stem
Bowl, small fragment - rilled C17–
eC18
rib-moulded bowl; C19
stem
stem
stem
stem
stem
stem
stem
stem
stem
stem
stem
stems. 1 x moulded foliate dec.
stem
stem
stem
APPENDIX 7: THE COINS BY ED MCSLOY
A total of three Roman coins, all from Site FTC 14.01 were recovered. The condition of all three is extremely poor
and in their current state the coins are not fully identifiable. The coins were x-rayed as part of this assessment
(Plate x10948), although these appeared to show little or no surviving detail beneath the corrosion.
Registered artefact no. 1 from Period 5 deposit 14.01.039 (fill of pit 14.01.038) actually comprises fragments from
two coins. Both are radiates, the reverse of each showing standing figures, although neither can be further
identified. Dating in the mid/later 3rd century is likely. The purplish corrosion products exhibited by one of these
coins suggests an appreciable silver content and this may indicate dating early in the given range.
The third coin, registered artefact 9, is from Period 5 deposit 14.01.046 (the primary fill of terrace 14.01.012). This
is also fragmentary and of the same general form as the others. The reverse figure in this instance is identifiable
as Pax and Ra. 9 is probably a radiate copy of the period c. AD 260–80.
The coins are of some, limited significance as dating evidence for Roman deposits recorded from FTC site 14.01;
the later 3rd century dating and absence of 4th century issues helping to refine the dating for the site prompted
by the pottery. Cleaning by a specialist conservator is recommended in an attempt to fully identify the coins. A
coin list, noting what details as can be ascertained from cleaning, or at the least those recorded here, should be
included in any publication.
Conservation
GBP 100
Identification/reporting
0.5 day
154
APPENDIX 8: OBJECTS OF METAL BY VICTORIA TAYLOR
Introduction
Items of metal were recovered from each of the pipeline sections (OTA, ATK and FTC). In total, 225 items,
comprising 210 of iron, four of copper alloy and 13 of lead were examined (Table 8.1). All items were recovered
by hand, excepting one iron nail from ditch fill 13.02.140, which was recovered following processing of bulk
environmental samples. A large proportion of the ironwork was recovered from topsoil and subsoil deposits. This
material is commonly fragmentary and unidentifiable to form or function and it is proposed that this material be
discarded following assessment.
Iron and copper-alloy items not identifiable as nails or modern objects were x-rayed for this assessment (Archive
Plates 10395, 10945-10949, 10950-10954). Preservation varies among objects with the majority, particularly
those made of iron, being heavily corroded. All items are stored as appropriate with dessicating silica gel and
humidity level scales.
The assemblage is described in summary below according to section of the pipeline and is listed by site and
context in tables 8.1–3.
ATK06 Aylesbeare to Kenn (Table 8.1)
A total of 167 items, including 150 of iron, four of copper-alloy and 13 of lead were recovered. The majority
consists of modern material or fragmentary, undateable objects from topsoil or subsoil type contexts (Table 8.1).
Little from this material merits further comment.
A single item, a copper-alloy fragment is associated with prehistoric activity in Site 14.09. This is a copper-alloy
object, possibly a pin shaft (Ra 2), recovered from the truncated fill of Period 3 pit 14.09.007. The condition of this
object is poor, with corrosion disrupting the entire surface. The x-ray shows no decoration or other details of form.
A whittle tang iron knife blade was recovered from Site 13.02 Period 7 pit fill 13.02.162. X-rays revealed the
presence of white metal, likely to be plating or inlay, around the shoulder of the blade. Cleaning of this item and
xrf analysis will assist with further investigation of this object. Horseshoe fragments, most of which are
unidentifiable to form, were recovered from six contexts from sites 10.02, 13.02, 14.03 and 315. Of note is a
complete horseshoe from topsoil 10.02.002 which is similar in style to examples of Clark type 4 shoes which
generally date to the later medieval period (Clark 1995, 96).
Lead strips, identifiable as window flashing of probable post-medieval date, were recovered from three contexts
from Site 12.01. An unidentifiable lead object was recovered from site 13.02 Period 8 ditch fill 13.02.120.
OTA06 Ottery St Mary to Aylesbeare
A total of 20 items, all of which were iron, were recovered from four deposits relating to three sites (Table 8.1).
Little among this material is noteworthy. Two horseshoe fragments were recovered from topsoil/subsoil deposits
from sites 1.01 and 3.02. That from Site 1.01 is identifiable as of Clark’s type 4 and thus probably of later
medieval date (Clark 1995, 96).
155
FTC06 Fishacre to Choakford
A total of 40 items, all of iron, were recovered. Iron finds from topsoil/subsoil deposits are modern and do not
merit further comment.
Six items were recovered from Roman deposits identified from Site 24.03, with additional, single items from
Roman dated deposits from sites 7.01 and 14.01. The only identifiable objects of possible Roman date other than
nails consist of blade fragments from fill 24.03.025 of pit 24.03.024 and fill 07.01.011 of ditch 7.01.007. Neither
blade demonstrates any evidence for inlay/plating or features enabling classification or dating.
Statement of Potential and Requirements for Further Analysis
Two items of interest (the knife blade from pit fill ATK 13.02.162 and the copper-alloy pin shaft from deposit ATK
14.09.007. merit publication to include catalogue description and illustration. Specialist cleaning of both items is
recommended to assist with their drawing and recording. In view of the possible Bronze Age dating for the
copper-alloy fragment, it is recommended that XRF analysis be undertaken (prior to conservation) to determine
the metal composition.
XRF analysis (to be undertaken by David Dungworth of English Heritage) is
recommended to the iron knife to determine the nature of the white metal ornamentation seen from the x-ray.
It is recommended that items from topsoil and subsoil deposits be discarded as the recording in this assessment
is considered sufficient for the purposes of the archive. A brief descriptive catalogue should be prepared for all
other items. Present packaging should be maintained to reduce the risk of deterioration
156
Table 8.1. Summary catalogue. ATK06 Items of metal
Site/plot
07.03
12.01
12.09
Context
07.03.002
07.03.002
315.001
Description
Subsoil
Subsoil
Topsoil
315.005
Collapsed cob wall 315.005
part of 12.01.001
315.006
part of 12.01.001
315.008
Period
9
type
CuA Obj
Fe Obj
Fe Obj
Ct.
1
2
6
Wt. (g)
28
16
32
Comments
Modern coil
Sheet, thin nail
8 x unident frag, 1 x nail shaft
X-ray
10953
10955
10
Fe nail
2
19
1 x long thin nail 1 x staple
-
10
Fe Obj
1
32
nail G2
10952
Fill of 315.007
8
Fe Obj
2
360
rear, modern(?) horseshoe, strip(hinge/bracket?)
-
315.009
Natural disuse spread within
structure 12.01.001
8
Fe nail
2
8
1 shaft, 1 G1
-
315.009
Natural disuse spread within
structure 12.01.001
8
Fe nail
6
134
1 x screw, 5 x nail= 2 x shaft, 1 x G7, 2 x nail
-
315.009
315.012
325.002
325.002
325.004
325.004
326.002
326.002
327.011
328.002
328.005
328.005
325.004
328.002
328.005
12.09.000
12.09.000
10.02.001
12.09.000
spread within 12.01.001
Wall collapse layer
Rubble/collapse layer
Topsoil
Topsoil
Topsoil
Topsoil
8
10
10
10
8
8
10
10
10
10
10
10
8
10
10
Fe Obj
Fe Obj
Fe Obj
Fe Obj
Fe Obj
Fe Obj
Fe Obj
Fe Obj
Fe Obj
Fe nail
Fe Obj
Fe Obj
Pb Obj
Pb Obj
Pb Obj
CuA Obj
CuA Obj
Fe Obj
Fe Obj
1
1
3
8
1
6
4
1
1
4
2
2
2
9
1
1
1
1
1
1114
6
328
70
30
442
294
515
660
38
512
65
20
73
13
70
30
191
400
modern chain
nail g7
2 x nail G2, 1 x obj (mod?)
2 x shaft, 1 x bent shaft poss obj, 1 x thin nail
unident obj
4 x unident, 2 x strip
cast iron, decorated - to discard
cast iron, decorated - to discard
modern agricultural object
1 x shaft, 2 x G2, 1 x G7
cast iron - modern
obj, nail
?window flashing, lead strips
lead strips
lead strip
pocket watch-modern
cua strip
horseshoe Clark type 4
bent strip
10953
10953
10952
10953
10950
10939
10951
-
157
Site/plot
Context
12.09.000
12.09.000
12.09.001
Description
Topsoil
Topsoil
Subsoil
12.12
13.02
12.12.000
13.02.002
Topsoil
Subsoil
13.02.002
13.02.002
14.03
14.04
14.09
14.09
Period
type
Fe Obj
Fe Obj
Fe Obj
Ct.
2
6
1
Wt. (g)
1686
294
200
Comments
subsoil, modern agric. Implement
I x mod? Obj. 3 x G2?, 1 x shaft, I x unident obj
peg
X-ray
-
8
Fe Obj
Fe Obj
13
8
312
77
6 x G2, 1 x obj wedge?, 2 x bent obj, 3 x un obj
I x G1, staple, blade frag, 3 x shaft, obj
-
Subsoil
Subsoil
8
8
Fe Obj
Fe Obj
18
8
553
23
2 x G2, 3 X horseshoe frag, 1 x hinge, nails x 11, 3 x ob
I x unident obj, broken in 2
10949
-
13.02.033
13.02.046
13.02.077
Secondary
fill
of
ditch
13.02.031
Fill of pit/post hole 13.02.045
Fill of ditch 13.02.076
8
10
7
Fe Obj
Fe Obj
Fe Obj
1
1
1
8
134
18
nail poss G1
unident. Obj/strip
nail
10951
10949
13.02.094
13.02.097
13.02.120
13.02.120
13.02.120
13.02.140
13.02.140
Medieval build-up horizon
Fill of pit 13.02.174
Third fill of ditch 13.02.117
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
Fe Obj
Fe Obj
Fe Obj
Fe Obj
Pb Obj
Fe Obj
Fe Obj
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
189
153
98
24
14
10
9
1 x G12, 1 x bent strip with joining strip
horseshoe frag, unident obj
1 x nail G1, 1 x unident obj
1 x nail shaft, 1 x nail poss G1
unident. Lead object
nail poss G1
nail g1 from sample 115
10951
10953
10953
10953
-
13.02.152
13.02.162
13.02.171
14.03.001
14.04.000
14.09.001
14.09.007
Secondary
fill
of
13.02.150
Topsoil
Topsoil
Topsoil layer 14.09.001
Truncated pit
8
7
10
10
Fe Obj
Fe Obj
Fe Obj
Fe Obj
Fe nail
Fe nail
CuA Obj
3
1
2
1
21
2
1
70
26
76
110
35
16
1
2 x nails G1/2, G2, obj
knife
horseshoe frag x 2
horseshoe frag
1 x nail shaft and lots of frags broken off it
Long thin nail bent at one end
pin shaft Ra. 2
10952
10952
10952
10951
10939
ditch
9
4
158
Table 8.2. Summary catalogue. OTA06 items of metal
Site/plot
01.01
3.01
Context
01.01.002
207.005
Description
Subsoil
Period
10
type
Fe Obj
Fe Obj
Ct.
1
12
Wt. (g)
142
18
Comments
horseshoe frag poss type 4
unident. Strips/nail shafts
X-ray
10946
10946
3.01
207.007
9
Fe Obj
1
6
nail shaft
-
03.02
03.02.001
Topsoil
-
Fe Obj
6
237
horseshoe frag. ring. nail head G2, unident obj
-
Table 8.3. Summary catalogue. FTC06 items of metal
Site/plot
02.02
04.02
07.01
12.05w
14.01
24.03
30.03
Context
02.02.001
04.02
07.01.011
12.05w.001
14.01.011
14.01.084
24.03.025
24.03.037
Description
Topsoil
Subsoil
Fourth fill of ditch 07.01.007
Topsoil
Fill of terrace 14.01.083
Primary fill of pit 24.03.036
Period
9
9
5
9
8
5
5
5
type
Fe Nail
Fe Obj
Fe Obj
Fe Nail
Fe Obj
Fe Obj
Fe Obj
Fe Obj
Ct.
1
1
2
3
25
1
3
1
Wt. (g)
7
22
28
7
14
8
16
39
Comments
nail, G type unident
Modern heel plate
blade
G2
fe wire (barbed)/thin nails?
nail shaft
possible blade or strip
nail G12
X-ray
10948
10948
10948
10946
24.03.071
24.03.075
30.03.006
Secondary fill of pit 24.03.041
(same as 043)
Primary fill of ditch 24.03.074
4
5
8
Fe Obj
Fe Obj
Fe Nail
1
1
1
2
62
56
nail shaft
lump
long nail with round section
10948
10948
10948
159
APPENDIX 9: GLASS BY VICTORIA TAYLOR AND ED MCSLOY
Glass objects comprising four beads and small quantities of vessel and window glass were recovered from each
of the pipeline sections. Small beads (two) from ATK Site 1302 and FTC Site 24.03 were recovered following
processing of bulk soil samples. The remainder of the assemblage was hand-recovered. The assemblage is
described in summary below according to section and listed by site in Table 9.1.
A single small chip of post-medieval or modern green bottle glass was recovered as an unstratified find from
evaluation trench 209 in Site 2.06.
Aylesbeare to Kenn
This section produced the largest quantity of material, relating to 10 ‘sites’ (table 9.1). The bulk of material which
includes vessel and window glass was recovered from topsoil or subsoil type deposits.
A small, black, annular glass bead was recovered from site 13.02 Period 7 sunken floored building 13.02.196
(soil sample 157). This bead is similar in form to the miniature dark type as described by Brugmann (2004) which
is often associated with Late Roman deposits. As such this is very likely a residual find.
Among the window glass is a small fragment of green glass with one grozed edge which probably represents part
of a diamond-shaped quarry from a leaded window and this probably dates to the 16th or 17th centuries. This
fragment, from Trench 315 (part of site 12.01) may relate to cob structure identified from this location or to
material stored within. The remainder of the window glass consists of thin, clear glass of relatively recent age
(late 18th to 19th century of later).
Quantities of thick-walled, blown green wine/spirits bottle glass include fragments with wide-base diameter and
high basal ‘kick’ (from deposits 12.09.000; 13.02.120). These fragments aside, which probably date to the
mid/later 17th or early 18th centuries, the vessel glass is modern.
Glass beads of Roman type were recorded from sites 24.03 and 2.02. A small yellow–brown, cylindrical bead
was from bulk sample 017 taken from pit 24.03.089, (24.03.090) is likely to be Late Roman in date (Guido 1978,
94). A large blue globular bead from Period 9 topsoil 02.02.001 is similar in form to Guido’s Group 7 undecorated
globular beads which mainly date to the Roman period, although a later date is suggested for some examples
(Guido 1978, 70).
A small globular bead with blue, white and red chevron decoration was recovered from site 16.08 Period 10 ditch
16.08.006 (fill 16.08.007). This is identified as a north Italian (Venetian) chevron bead, used in trade from the
15th century but probably most common in the 17th century (Hume 1969, 53). Further research into the origin of
this bead is recommended.
A total of 11 fragments of vessel and window was recovered from six sites (Table 9.1). The base of a small bottle
or pharmaceutical phial from site 25.01 subsoil deposit 25.01.002 probably dates to the mid 17th to earlier 18th
centuries. The remainder is probably modern (19th century or later). Of some interest is a green bottle glass
160
fragment (unstratified from site 09.03) which features a scratched script graffito, probably a personal name (table
9.1). This is thought unlikely to predate the 19th century.
Statement of Potential and Recommendations for further analysis
The glass beads provide some additional evidence for dating. Additionally the North Italian bead from FTC Site
16.08 is of interest as evidence for reasonably exotic trade items, rare outside of the major port towns of the area
in the post-medieval period. It is recommended that each of the beads should be drawn and a brief catalogue
prepared.
The beads aside, the assemblage includes nothing of intrinsic interest and represents a widely dispersed,
modern group. For such reasons, recording undertaken as part of this assessment is regarded as sufficient for
the purposes of the archive, and additional analysis of the window/vessel glass is not recommended.
161
Table 9.1: Vessel and window glass summary.
Section
OTA
Sub-total
ATK
Sub-total
FTC
Site
2.06
Context
Tr 209 u/s
Weight (g)
1
1
48
Type
bottle
Comments/date
u/s
Count
1
1
2
RVX
001
12.09
12.09
12.09
12.09
12.12
13.02
13.02
14.04
14.04
14.09
14.09
14.09
12.01
12.01
12.01
12.01
bottle
12.09.000
12.09.000
12.09.000
12.09.000
12.12.000
13.02.120
13.02.203
14.04.000
14.04.000
14.09.001
14.09.001
14.09.001
315.001
315.001
315.005
315.005
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
22
125
2
4
12
46
<1
4
4
3
7
7
2
4
2
1
bottle
bottle
molten
window
bottle
bottle
bead
vessel
bottle
window
bottle
bottle
window
window
window
window
12.01
12.01
12.01
12.01
12.01
12.01
12.01
12.01
12.01
315.009
315.009
315.011
325.002
325.004
326.002
327.010
328.002
328.005
02.02.001
09.03.000
7
7
20
2
8
7
2
11
2
359
4
20
window
bottle
bottle
window
window
window
window
window
window
02.02
09.03
5
1
1
3
3
6
2
5
1
51
1
3
mod.pale green with base legend
]& R[
pale green; modern
green; 2 x base with kick; pmed
clear
clear; modern
clear; small condiment bottle
green; 1 x with base kick; pmed
Miniature, black
clear, stemmed vessel base
green, unfeatured
clear, grozed; mod.
green, unfeatured
clear, moulded rim; mod.
green; pmed.
clear; mod.
clear, grozed; modern
green diamond light type grozed; pmed.
clear; mod.
green, base frag. Pmed/mod.
green, unfeatured. Pmed/mod.
clear; mod.
clear; mod.
mod.
clear; mod.
clear; mod.
modern
13.03
16.08
13.03.016
16.08.007
2
1
47
2
vessel
bead
24.03
25.01
30.03
24.03.090
25.01.002
30.03.004
30.03.006
33.02.002
34.08.00
1
1
1
1
1
2
14
66
1
10
3
23
8
3
121
481
bead
vessel
window
bottle
bottle
window
33.02
34.08
Sub-total
Total
bead
bottle
162
globular, blue
green; 1 x two line graffito:
?]ny[;]wton[. ?C19
clear ; paste bottle; mod.
blue, red and white chevron
bead
small cylindrical yellow/brown
green; phail - high kick
green: pmed?
green
pale green
clear; mod.
APPENDIX 10: METALWORKING RESIDUES BY DAVID STARLEY
Summary
Excavations and watching briefs along the three sections of gas pipeline in south Devon identified a number of
metalworking features, one of which has been shown to be of Iron Age date. Examination of 22kg of bulk debris
confirmed the major activity to be iron smelting together with some smithing. Most material (3 boxes, 22kg)) of
the industrial debris examined in this report was collected by hand during the excavation. The remaining material
(1 box, 7kg) consists of “magnetic residues” extracted from soil samples taken for environmental purposes.
Three boxes of metalworking debris, containing 22kg of bulk slag were visually examined. This material was
classified into the standard categories based on those used by the former English Heritage Ancient Monuments
Laboratory. Visual observation of the exterior was backed up by examination of fresh fracture surfaces, the use of
a geological streak plate and magnet. The detailed breakdown of debris, by context is attached as Appendix 1.
Table 1 presents a summary of these findings, based on the categories used and the metalworking or other
activities which are implied by the debris.
Assemblage Description
Some forms of slag are visually diagnostic, providing unambiguous evidence for a specific metallurgical process.
Surprisingly, very little of the debris from Devon Pipeline could be classified in this way. By far the majority of the
debris is less distinctive and it is not always possible to determine which metallurgical, or other high temperature
process, individual pieces derive from. When the assemblage as a whole is studied however a more balanced
picture might be gained. Despite this some categories such as “undiagnostic ironworking slag” might equally
derives from either smithing or smelting. There is no suggestion of non-ferrous metalworking, but some debris
may derive from other high temperature processes.
1. Diagnostic – iron smelting
For the majority of all, pre-industrial iron smelting furnaces, tap slag is the most commonly occurring smelting
debris. This is of fayalitic (iron silicate) composition. It is formed as a result of a reaction between some of the iron
and the silica-rich gangue materials in the ore. Because it has a melting range below that of the hotter regions of
the furnace, it is formed as a liquid and flows to the base of the furnace until released through the tapping arch.
Characteristically it is dense and solidifies with a rope-like flowed morphology on its upper surface and low
vesicularity at its fracture surfaces. For Devon Pipeline just one fragment of this material was found. However, a
material which is normally a far less common waste product from smelting furnaces: fayalitic run slag, was
present in substantial quantities. The implication from this is that iron smelting furnaces did not correspond to the
better known slag tapping form. A large piece of slag was classified as furnace bottom, though it is small in
comparison with those associated with (later) slag block furnace technology. Material classed as possible ore,
was iron-rich stoe, which judging by density and colour, might have provided a viable ore. Significantly, however,
the distribution of this on the Devon Pipeline excavations rules this out, as will be discussed below.
2. Diagnostic – iron smithing
Evidence for iron smithing comes in two forms; bulk slags and micro slags. Of the bulk slags, the most easily
recognisable are normally the smithing hearth bottoms which typically have a characteristic plano-convex section,
with a rough convex base and a vitrified upper surface which is flat or even slightly hollowed as a result of the
downward pressure of air from the tuyère. Compositionally, smithing hearth bottoms are predominantly fayalitic
(iron silicate) and form as a result of high temperature reactions between the iron, iron-scale and silica from either
163
the clay hearth lining or possibly sand used as a flux by the smith. The three examples from Devon Pipeline were
far from uniform or typical and it is possible that some or all of these are also waste products of a smelting
furnace.
In addition to bulk slags, iron smithing also produces micro slag of two types (Starley 1995): Flake hammerscale
consists of fish-scale like fragments of the oxide/silicate skin of the iron dislodged during working. Spheroidal
hammerscale results from the solidification of small droplets of liquid slag expelled during hot working, particularly
when two objects are being fire-welded together or when the slag-rich bloom of iron is first worked into a billet or
bar. Hammerscale is considered important in interpreting a site not only because is highly diagnostic of smithing
but, because it tends to build up in the immediate vicinity of the smithing hearth and anvil, it may give a more
precise location of the activity than the bulk slags which may be transported elsewhere for disposal.
3. Undiagnostic – ferrous metalworking
The largest category of material, found almost entirely at FTC, was that recorded as undiagnostic ironworking
slag. Such irregularly shaped fayalitic slags are produced by both iron smelting and iron smithing processes and
it is not possible to determine which process was involved. Dense iron working slag has the appearance of
fragments of a larger more massive block of material and is also considered to be undiagnostic. Iron-rich cinder
was distinguished by its significant content of iron not chemically combined as silicates, but visible as rust-orange
coloured hydrated iron oxides and iron hydroxides. It would also normally be considered undiagnostic, except
where other evidence points only to a single activity.
4. Undiagnostic – metalworking or other high temperature process
Several of the categories of material can be produced by a wide range of high temperature activities and are of
little help in distinguishing between these processes. Material listed as vitrified hearth/furnace lining may derive
from either iron working or, particularly if fragments showing brightly coloured glazes or copper alloy corrosion,
from non-ferrous metal working. This material forms as a result of a high temperature reaction between the clay
lining of the hearth/furnace and the alkali fuel ash or fayalitic slag. It may show a compositional gradient from
unmodified fired clay on one surface to an irregular cindery material on the other. A material associated with
vitrified lining was classed as cinder. This comprises only the lighter portion of this, a porous, hard and brittle slag
formed by the reaction between the alkali fuel ash and fragments of clay that had spalled away from the
heath/furnace lining, or another source of silica, such as the sand sometimes used as a flux during smithing. The
small amount of fired clay without any surface vitrification, found within the assemblage could have derived from
structures associated with metallurgical purposes, or from those used for other high temperature activities and
the burned stone may well derive from non-metallurgical processes.
5. Non slag
Certain pieces of ‘slag’ were shown by their cracked surfaces and testing with a magnet to contain significant
amounts of metallic iron. These iron lumps may well include waste fragments from the smithing process or
perhaps products of a local ironworker. A single piece of stone did not appear to be metallurgically significant...
6. Fuel
No individual pieces of coal, coke or charcoal were recorded. However, impressions of the latter were commonly
encountered in the undiagnostic ironworking debris, suggesting that this was the usual fuel for working iron.
The Evidence From Magnetic Residues
164
As discussed above, hammerscale provides an important indicator of the location and extent of iron smithing on
the site. Residues from environmental samples had a magnet passed through them and the material collected
and a total 0f 7.1kg was examined by the specialist. These often quite substantial samples were weighed and
visually examined for the presence of both spheroidal and flake hammerscale (Table 10.7).
On first examination many of these residues did appear to contain a high proportion of small flat platelets which
adhered strongly to a magnet and resembled flake hammerscale. However, close examination suggests that they
almost entirely consist of natural shale-like material which has been strongly heated together with some burned
clay. As a result the, naturally present, iron has been converted to magnetite and hence the material’s magnetic
qualities. It was considered whether this material might be a waste product of ore roasting, but its widespread
presence on site suggests more general burning processes. Occasional spheres within the samples are likely to
have similar origins
Amongst the burned natural material, however, a number of samples were found to contain a small proportion of
true hammerscale and the significance of this is discussed within the context of each pipeline stretch.
Breakdown Of Metalworking Activity By Pipeline Section
Table 10.3 shows the total mass of bulk debris grouped by activity and by phase for the Ottery St. Mary to
Aylesbeare section. In addition magnetic residue from 20 contexts totalling 259g were examined with no positive
identification of hammerscale.
There is almost nothing of metallurgical significance in the OTK assemblages. A couple of contexts (0207.07 and
03.04.02, both modern) produced stray fragments of undiagnostic ironworking debris. Some pieces of stone were
considered as possible ores, on the basis of an apparently high iron content, but no supporting evidence in the
form of structures or waste products was identified. Although magnetic residues were collected these are
considered to result from the heating of natural material, such as the mudstone recorded as underlying many of
the sites on this section of pipeline.
Aylesbeare to Kenn
In Table 10.4 the bulk debris for the Aylesbeare to Kenn section is grouped by activity and by phase. Magnetic
residues from 79 contexts, totalling 370g were also examined without the identification of any hammerscale.
The Aylesbury to Kenn assemblage produced only tiny fragments of bulk debris and it is likely that most of this,
and all of the magnetic residues derive from the heating the natural, iron-rich sedimentary stone, such as the
Aylesbeare mudstone, recorded as the underlying geology for many of the sites on this stretch.
In Table 10.5 the bulk debris for the Fishacre to Choakford section is grouped by activity and by phase. Magnetic
residue from 117 contexts, totalling 6484g were also examined of which only two, 24.03.044 and 24.03.090,
produced hammerscale (see Table 10.2).
The evidence for metalworking in the form of slag from the Fishacre to Choakford section of pipeline was far
more extensive than elsewhere on the pipeline and generally supports the interpretation of the excavated
structural remains.
165
Two undated features in the west end of field 12.05 were identified during the watching brief as possible either
cremation pits or bowl furnaces. Fill 12.05W.007 of pit 12.05W.004 in particular included over 2kg of
metalworking debris, suggesting that the function was indeed metalworking. The actual activity though was not
unambiguous. Most of the debris proved to be undiagnostic ironworking slag. A possible smithing hearth bottom
suggested smithing. However, no hammerscale was reported in the fill (although sample 239 appeared more
cindery than other magnetic residues). The presence of some fayalitic run slag probably provides the correct
identification of this feature as the base of a smelting furnace but the lack of any lining material is unusual.
Very small amounts of debris associated with the Romano-British ditch 14.01.106 (Site 14.01) were insufficient to
more than suggest ironworking in this area during that period.
Site 16.07 produced the most striking and important evidence of metalworking. The context sheet descriptions
provide sound case for the identification of feature 16.07.008 as the remains of an iron smelting furnace. A 0.22m
deep 0.8m by 0.53m wide pit contained a clay lining. The colouration of the lining is described as mid greyish
brown, which would indicate to reducing conditions, as are required in a smelting furnace. Discolouration of the
natural ground around the furnace also suggests prolonged high temperature running. Within the furnace the fills
were reported to contain charcoal and “brittle metal” which is presumably the slag supplied to the specialist.
Examination of the nearly 4kg of slag from these fills found more than 2kg to be classified as fayalitic run slag. In
the base of the furnace, in layer 16.07.010, one of the largest pieces of slag found during the project, a furnace
bottom remained in situ. The size of this is however modest in compared to slag block technology best known
from eastern counties in the Saxon period. In accordance with the date of 391-210 Cal BC from fill 16.07.016, the
surviving furnace remains closely parallel others of Iron Age date, although this structure and most others are
clearly heavily truncated compared with their original construction.
The purpose of a small pit 16.07.004 immediately north of the furnace was unclear, no debris having been
identified within it. A further small elongated pit, 16.07.019 also contained no slag, but the mid reddish brown
colouration of the fills with further reddish patches and charcoal flecks may suggest that this feature may have
been associated with the roasting or storage of previously prepared ore.
To the western end of site 16.07 a more extensive cluster of furnace bases was found, often intercutting each
other, together with a number of pits containing metalworking debris. These were analysed individually.
Features identified as bowl furnaces:
16.07.021 (0.86m x 0.42m x 0.28m deep). Of sub-rectangular form with dark orange brown lining and reported to
contain charcoal and slag. Fill 16.07.023 includes the only piece of slag classed as tap slag, together with
fayalitic run slag and undiagnostic ironworking slag totalling 433g.
16.07.024 (0.70m x 0.30m x 0.30m deep, but partly cut away by 16.07.028). Contains very small amount (4g) of
fayalitic run slag in fill 16.07.026.
16.07.040 ( 0.28m dia. x 0.07m deep) A shallow cut feature containing burned clay lining, largely in situ, of which
over 1.7kg was examined and classed as vitrified hearth/furnace lining. Smaller quantities of run slag and
undiagnostic ironworking slag were found within lining 16.07.041 and fill 16.07.042.
166
16.07.049 (0.53m wide x 0.15m deep). Burned natural showed that this feature had been used for heating. The
fill (16.07.051) contained 1190g of undiagnostic ironworking slag
16.07.052 (greater than 0.35m wide x 0.35m deep). It is not entirely clear whether the vitrified lining found within
this feature was only the result of heating the natural clay sub soil, or of an inserted lining. In either case the
feature was used for heating. The recorded dark-red purple colour of the lining suggests an oxidizing process,
such as ore roasting rather than smelting, despite the apparent depth of the feature. Debris examined from its
two fills consisted entirely of vitrified hearth lining, totalling 0.5kg, with no fayalitic slags.
16.07.055 (0.70m x 0.60m x 0.40m deep). Again there is uncertainty as to whether the heat affected material
lining the pit was deliberately applied clay or the natural clay-rich sub soil. Interestingly, the lower fill, 16.07.057,
contained a high proportion of clearly smelting debris, whilst the upper contained some possible smithing
evidence in the form of a possible smithing hearth bottom and hammerscale. This raises the possibility that, after
the initial removal of the bloom the same structure was used to reheat it for consolidation purposes.
16.07.077. This furnace base is reported to have been cleaned out and reused with a new lining (16.07.44.) Two
of the fills of this furnace proved very rich in slag. In the lower fill, 16.07.046, fayalitic run slag, diagnostic of
smelting dominated the nearly 1.4kg total. In the upper, 16.07.047, the 2.3kg total included less run slag but more
hearth/furnaces lining and more undiagnostic ironworking slag. Hoverer it also contained some hammerscale,
suggesting, as for furnace 16.07.055, that this smelting furnace was also used for smithing, perhaps to
consolidate the bloom immediately after its removal from the furnace.
Features identified as pits (due to lack of fired lining):
16.07.017: no metalworking debris.
16.07.033: a very small amount of undiagnostic ironworking slag and burned stone were found within fill
16.07.034.
16.07.035: no metalworking debris.
16.07.037: this elongated shallow feature, oriented north/south with heat affected (red oxidized) lining at north
end, might have functioned as an ore roasting pit but the 0.5kg of slag within it was classed as undiagnostic
ironworking slag, from either smelting or smithing.
Further to the west, Site 24.03 provided further metalworking evidence of a different kind. Two pit fills, 24.03.044
(pit 24.03.041) and 24.03.090 (pit 24.03.089) yielded the only two magnetic residues to contain unambiguous
evidence of smithing in the form of flake hammerscale. A further feature of this site, 24.03.095, was described as
a possible metal working surface although no slag or residues were available for study to confirm this. The pit fills
associated with the site, including those containing the hammerscale, produced a scattering of slag,
undiagnostic, but probably associated with smithing. Dating of this activity is less clear. The metalworking surface
was considered to be Roman on the basis of several ceramic sherds. Pits 24.03.041 and 24.03.089 are also
provisionally dated to this period.
Conclusions
Twenty-two kg of bulk metalworking debris together with seven kg of magnetically extracted sieve debris was
examined. No significant amounts of metallurgical debris were identified from the Ottery St Mary to Aylesbeare
(OTA06) or Aylesbeare to Kenn (ATK06) sections. The Fishacre to Choakford Gas Pipeline (FTC06), however,
167
provided a significant amount of metalworking debris. This material is not entirely unambiguous, but on balance
the majority is thought to confirm the excavators’ interpretation for a number of features being iron smelting
furnaces, together with further evidence of iron smithing, but no indication of the extraction or working of any
other metals. Early evidence for Iron Age iron smelting is rare and the site is therefore highly significant.
The main concentration of these furnaces was in Site 16.07. Prior to specialist examination eight of the negative
features were considered to be furnaces and seven to be pits, the features forming two groups. Whilst the
identification of most of the smelting furnaces was generally confirmed by the examination of slag within them,
the function of the features and the relationships between them were not absolutely clear. It would seem possible
that at least one of these furnaces, 16.07.052, and one pit, 16.07.037 were actually used for the pre-roasting of
iron ore – a process which reddened the lining but produced no fayalitic slags. However, it is of concern that no
surviving ore, or record of ore, was associated with either these putative roasting hearths or the furnaces
themselves. No purpose-built smithing hearths were identified, but there is some evidence that two furnaces,
16.07.055 and 16.07.057, contained a high proportion smelting debris in their bases but different, probably
smithing related debris in a stratigraphically later fill. As the spongy iron mass that is the product of the bloomery
process requires consolidation by repeated heating or hammering it is tempting to assume that the same furnace,
perhaps with superstructure compromised might be used for this reheating operation. Alternatively, the base of a
now disused furnace immediately nearby might have been brought back into use. A further two furnace bases
were identified on site 12.05W. There was also clear evidence for iron smithing in site 24.03, but the dating of this
appears uncertain.
The excavators refer to the smelting features as bowl furnaces. This terminology has to a large extent gone out of
favour, not least because experimental archaeology has demonstrated the difficulty of smelting iron ore in an
equiaxial space, compared to other metals such as lead, copper or tin. A vertical shaft provides greater
separation for the major chemical reactions required, including the conversion of ore to metal which requires a
high temperature, highly reducing region away from the combustion zone. Unfortunately, it is very rare indeed for
any of this superstructure to survive. Important exceptions were the late Iron Age and Roman furnaces at Priors
Hall, Corby, some of which remained intact up to a height of 70cm (Hall 2008). For these furnaces the term
“sunken shaft furnaces” was coined. However, the construction differs significantly from the Devon Pipeline
furnaces. At Priors Hall, the shaft occupied only one end of the construction pit and the front base was broken
away after smelting to allow bloom and slag to be dragged out into that part of the pit which remained open. In
the Devon furnaces, despite surviving depths of up to 35cm, there is no suggestion that any part of the surviving
furnace wall was ever unburied or pierced to allow air in or slag and iron bloom out. The type is reminiscent of
later British and continental variants where a below ground pit was dug to accumulate a large block of slag.
However, the Devon furnaces produced minimal quantities of slag. Given the early date (391-210 Cal BC) and
the small quantities of slag it is likely that the furnaces were relatively modest structures for which the above
ground superstructure and provision for inputting air have now been lost, that slag largely collected within the
furnace and that the metal was extracted, as a solid bloom, from above.
The Importance Of The Ironworking Evidence
Although smelting had been identified at numerous Iron Age sites, this has generally relied only on finds of slag,
not furnaces. The multiple furnace clusters of Devon pipeline are rare examples of early, relatively precisely
dated structures. A possible parallel in the region include a supposed bowl furnace at Kes Tor, Dartmoor (Fox,
1954), However the Iron Age date for this may be suspect (Peter Crew pers. comm.).
168
In terms of scale of activity the presence of nine or ten furnace clearly represents continuity of iron smelting on
the same site. Unfortunately the surviving quality of the evidence did not make clear whether each furnace had
been reused. The quantity of slag recovered , whilst not massive, is considerably greater than the 2kg found at
Kes Tor, which Halkon (2008, 169) notes was one thought of as typical, before the finding of 3 sites with more
than one tonne of slag; Crawcwellt West and Bryn y Castell both in North Wales and Moore’s Farm, E. Yorks. It
would also seem likely that further slag was distributed beyond the pipeline trench and contingency excavation
area, making this one of the larger known sites nationally.
Potential For Further Work
The south-west is mineralogically one of the most interesting and distinctive regions, and the slags are likely to
reflect this, providing as good an opportunity as anywhere to compare slag and ore. It is also a region with an
embarrassing paucity of data. The chemical characterisation of the slag from the Devon pipeline furnaces
(particularly those at Site FTC 16.07) would help fill a major gap in our knowledge, as well as supporting the
interpretation of a highly significant iron smelting site. Analysis will also help to discriminate between smelting and
smithing slag.
The absence of identified ore on the site is perhaps highly significant. There is, however, evidence from the
magnetic residues for material of high iron content having undergone a heating process. Analysis of some of this
material would indicate whether this could have provided a viable ore source. There may well be some ore
surviving entrapped in the less liquefied slag, which sectioning and examination in the SEM (in backscattered
mode) might well identify. If samples of ores could be identified, then a programme of physico-chemical analysis
could provide a more certain identification of the processes used.
In addition to SEM-based analysis, the material from FTC 24.03 and a selction of slags from the other furnaces
should be examined using XRF to see whether they show any evidence for the smelting of tin, or for the working
of tin, lead or pwewter. Closer scrutiny of context records and the site photographs might help to clarify the type
and function of individual furnaces. It would also move forward our understanding of what appears to be fairly
primitive iron smelting at this early date, important both regionally and nationally. Because of the distinctive
morphology of the slag, photographs of specific types should be included in the report.
169
Table 10.1: Summary of metallurgical debris from Devon Pipeline
Activity
Classification
Weight (g)
No. Contexts
Smelting
tap slag
furnace bottom
fayalitic run slag
179
972
3798
1
1
24
Probable smelting
Possible ore
377
3
Smithing
flake hammerscale
Not quantified
5
Possible smithing
spheroidal hammerscale
Poss. smithing hearth bottom
Not quantified
1568
6
3
Undiagnostic
ironworking
undiagnostic ironworking slag
iron-rich cinder
dense slag
11227
69
428
47
2
1
Metalworking or
other high-temp
process
vitrified hearth/furnace lining
cinder
fired clay
2975
126
203
16
6
4
burned stone
13
3
0
0
9
1
2
1
Fuel
Non-slag
ferruginous concretion
stone
Total
21945
Table 10.2: Deposits producing significant hammerscale (FTC)
Context
24.03.044
24.03.090
Sample
011
017
Wt.(g)
79
38
Sample size (l)
30
11
%Hf
10
20
%Hs
2
2
Period
5
5
Context interpretation
Table 10.3. OTA Quantification of bulk debris (mass in grams)
Activity
Smelting
Poss. smelting
Smithing
Poss. smithing
Non diag. Fe
Other
Non slag
material
tap slag
fayalitic run slag
furnace bottom
possible ore
flake h/s
poss. smithing hearth bottom
poss. spheroidal hammerscale
dense
iron-rich cinder
burned stone
cinder
fired clay
iron concretion
stone
Total
0
0
0
377
0
0
0
0
410
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
789
Total
170
Table 10.4: ATK Quantification of bulk debris (mass in g)
Activity
Smelting
Poss. smelting
Smithing
Poss. smithing
Non diag. Fe
Other
Non slag
material
tap slag
fayalitic run slag
furnace bottom
possible ore
flake h/s
dense
iron-rich cinder
burned stone
cinder
fired clay
iron concretion
stone
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
nq
0
nq
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
Total
Table 10.5: FTC Quantification of bulk debris (mass in g)
Activity
Smelting
Poss. smelting
Smithing
Poss. smithing
Non diag. Fe
Other
Non slag
material
tap slag
fayalitic run slag
furnace bottom
possible ore
flake h/s
Poss. spheroidal hammerscale
dense
iron-rich cinder
burned stone
cinder
fired clay
iron concretion
stone
total
179
3798
972
0
0
1568
0
428
10817
69
13
126
203
2974
9
0
21156
Total
171
Table 10.6: Listing of metalworking debris by Site/context
Site
Period
Context
03.01
207.07
03.04
03.04.002
03.04
05
03.04.013
Feature
type
Mass (g)
Comments
207.006
subsoil
3.04.004
possible ore
381
29
204
modern ditch
03.04.028
03.04.028
03.04.034
03.04.039
03.04.092
05.01.022
05.01.038
05.01.048
05.01.048
03.04.026
03.04.026
3.04.004
03.04.038
3.04.096
5.01.020
5.01.038
5.01.047
5.01.047
possible ore
possible ore
stone
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
13
160
1
1
13.02.008
13.02.050
13.02.050
13.02.070
13.02.097
13.02.104
13.02.114
13.02.149
13.02.152
13.02.207
13.02.207
13.02.212
13.02.239
13.02.246
13.02.248
15.03.002
13.02.007
13.02.127
13.02.127
13.02.073
13.02.174
13.02.271
13.02.269
13.02.127
13.02.268
13.02.273
13.02.273
13.02.272
13.02.068
13.02.244
13.02.251
-
cinder
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
3
12.05.022
12.05w.007
12.05.019
12.05w.004
fayalitic run slag
1
89
10
10
10
10
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
10
10
12.05W.007
12.05w.007
12.05w.007
12.05w.007
14.01.002
14.01.082
14.01.082
14.01.082
14.01.079
14.01.077
14.01.067
14.01.065
14.01.077
14.01.056
16.01.005
16.07.030
12.05w.004
12.05w.004
12.05w.004
12.05w.004
subsoil
14.01.081
14.01.081
14.01.081
14.01.038
14.01.107
14.01.106
14.01.106
14.01.107
14.01.106
16.07.028
fayalitic run slag
smithing hearth bottom
cinder
cinder
iron concretion
fayalitic run slag
1149
20
169
661
65
83
6
6
3
8
1
4
4
34
154
119
04
16.07.016
16.07.008
furnace bottom
972
04
10
16.07.016
16.07.022
16.07.008
16.07.021
fayalitic run slag
187
4
10
10
10
10
10
10
16.07.022
16.07.023
16.07.023
16.07.023
16.07.029
16.07.030
16.07.021
16.07.021
16.07.021
16.07.021
16.07.028
16.07.028
fayalitic run slag
tap slag
fayalitic run slag
<1
218
179
36
44
725
04
04
05
10
03
05.01
10
10
10
10
Aylesbeare to Kenn
13.02
10
10
10
07
08
07
07
10
08
07
07
07
10
07
07
15.03
12.05
10
12.05w
10
14.01
16.01
16.07
172
iron-rich
stone
poss. ore
single sphere only
iron-rich stone
single sphere
single sphere
single sphere
subsoil
dribbles
spheres
and
possible
probable
runs, dribbles and
spheres
large
charcoal
impressions
large
spheres,
?bloom smithing
Site
16.07
Period
10
10
04
04
Context
16.07.034
16.07.034
16.07.016
16.07.012
Feature
16.07.033
16.07.033
16.07.008
16.07.008
type
burnt stone
flake hammerscale
fayalitic run slag
Mass (g)
11
17
Comments
593
04
16.07.026
16.07.024
fayalitic run slag
4
04
16.07.016
16.07.008
fayalitic run slag
590
dribbles
spheres
dribbles
spheres bag
dribbles
spheres
04
04
16.07.015
16.07.015
16.07.008
16.07.008
fayalitic run slag
64
308
04
16.07.014
16.07.008
fayalitic run slag
46
04
16.07.013
16.07.008
fayalitic run slag
2
04
04
04
10
04
04
16.07.012
16.07.012
16.07.012
16.07.041
16.07.011
16.07.011
16.07.008
16.07.008
16.07.008
16.07.040
16.07.008
16.07.008
flake hammerscale
fayalitic run slag
498
100
91
33
323
04
04
16.07.010
16.07.010
16.07.008
16.07.008
fayalitic run slag
15
39
10
16.07.007
16.07.006
fayalitic run slag
28
04
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
16.07.012
16.07.039
16.07.047
16.07.050
16.07.050
16.07.051
16.07.053
16.07.047
16.07.008
16.07.037
16.07.043
16.07.049
16.07.049
16.07.049
16.07.052
16.07.043
fayalitic run slag
burnt stone
157
554
171
1
8
1190
66
1967
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
16.07.056
16.07.054
16.07.057
16.07.058
16.07.058
16.07.058
16.07.058
16.07.058
16.07.041
16.07.042
16.07.057
16.07.056
16.07.052
16.07.056
16.07.056
16.07.056
16.07.056
16.07.056
16.07.056
16.07.040
16.07.040
16.07.056
fired clay
flake hammerscale
fired clay
fayalitic run slag
407
470
1974
110
<1
1245
436
200
30
470
266
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
16.07.047
16.07.041
16.07.042
16.07.045
16.07.045
16.07.047
16.07.042
16.07.047
16.07.046
16.07.047
16.07.046
16.07.046
16.07.043
16.07.040
16.07.040
16.07.043
16.07.043
16.07.043
16.07.040
16.07.043
16.07.043
16.07.043
16.07.043
16.07.043
flake hammerscale
fired clay
fayalitic run slag
fayalitic run slag
fayalitic run slag
fired clay
fayalitic run slag
cinder
<1
1290
5
4
20
57
6
58
865
100
29
435
173
and
and
and
dribbles
spheres
dribbles
spheres
dribbles
spheres
and
dribbles
spheres
and
dribbles
spheres
dribbles
spheres
and
and
and
and
occasional
wood/charcoal
impressions. Inc. 2
poss. Shbs.
uncertain id
probable
high
proportion
runs and dribbles.
Plenty of charcoal
impressions
uncertain id
dribbles
Site
16.07
24.02
Period
10
10
Context
16.07.046
24.02.050
Feature
16.07.043
24.02.049
type
iron-rich cinder
dense slag
Mass (g)
55
428
24.03
10
05
10
05
24.03.002
24.03.070
24.03.110
24.03.093
24.03.090
subsoil
24.03.041
24.03.149
24.03.151
24.03.089
cinder
iron-rich cinder
burnt stone
fayalitic run slag
3
14
1
4
5
05
24.03.090
24.03.089
cinder
12
10
05
05
24.03.070
24.03.110
24.03.044
flake hammerscale
12
24.03.149
24.03.041
05
24.03.044
24.03.041
fayalitic run slag
11
05
05
05
05
05
05
24.03.042
24.03.040
24.03.040
24.03.025
24.03.148
24.03.025
24.03.041
24.03.036
24.03.036
24.03.024
24.03.082
24.03.024
iron concretion
99
3
1
38
15
159
174
Comments
poss. part furnace
bottom
NB also
mag. res.
NB also
mag. res.
HS
in
HS
in
NB also
mag. res
NB also
mag. res.
HS
in
HS
in
Table 10.7: Magnetic residues
Site no Period
sample
02.03
02
174
03.04
05
72
05
76
05
77
03
66
05
79
10
70
10
69
10
71
05
81
03
73
05
83
05
80
04.10
03
213
07
214
04.12
10
222
05.01
10
180
10
169
10
170
10
172
Aylesbeare to Kenn
07.01
10
289
12.10
10
284
13.02
08
115
08
111
07
94
08
116
08
95
04
143
07
97
07
100
07
104
07
124
10
140
08
123
10
144
10
145
08
118
07
101
08
106
07
96
08
120
10
137
08
105
10
138
08
113
08
114
08
117
08
98
07
109
10
141
08
93
08
119
07
91
08
121
07
90
07
92
08
122
07
108
10
88
07
159
07
166
Context
Fill of
Mass (g)
02.03.005
03.04.088
03.04.010
03.04.018
03.04.028
03.04.034
03.04.037
03.04.039
03.04.055
03.04.065
03.04.092
03.04.094
03.04.061
04.10.017
04.10.021
04.12.019
05.01.038
05.01.016
05.01.023
05.01.026
02.03.004
3.04.045
3.04.004
3.04.004
03.04.026
3.04.004
03.04.036
03.04.038
03.04.054
3.04.004
3.04.096
3.04.004
3.04.004
04.10.016
04.10.018
04.12.004
5.01.038
5.01.015
5.01.049
5.01.026
14
<1
<1
<1
1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
2
1
222
2
1
14
2
07.01.005
12.10.007
13.02.140
13.02.110
13.02.114
13.02.120
13.02.122
13.02.124
13.02.133
13.02.136
13.02.136
13.02.138
13.02.089
13.02.147
13.02.149
13.02.149
13.02.152
13.02.158
13.02.160
13.02.138
13.02.056
13.02.005
13.02.006
13.02.008
13.02.014
13.02.020
13.02.033
13.02.034
13.02.104
13.02.050
13.02.097
13.02.058
13.02.062
13.02.066
13.02.070
13.02.072
13.02.075
13.02.169
13.02.046
13.02.229
13.02.207
07.01.004
12.10.006
13.02.267
13.02.010
13.02.269
13.02.267
13.02.121
13.02.123
13.02.132
13.02.132
13.02.132
13.02.271
13.02.127
13.02.125
13.02.127
13.02.127
13.02.268
13.02.132
13.02.159
13.02.271
13.02.125
13.02.009
13.02.159
13.02.007
13.02.010
13.02.010
13.02.268
13.02.268
13.02.271
13.02.127
13.02.174
13.02.125
13.02.073
13.02.125
13.02.073
13.02.067
13.02.125
13.02.132
13.02.045
13.02.228
13.02.273
1
3
1
1
6
1
1
2
34
1
7
<1
<1
3
3
1
3
15
6
<1
5
1
<1
2
<1
2
3
1
1
3
4
2
2
2
1
2
<1
7
2
1
23
175
Comments
Site no Period
02.02
02
02
02
02
04
10
12.05
10
10
10
10
10
10
13.03
05
05
05
04
04
04
14.01
05
05
05
10
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
10
16.01
10
10
10
10
10
10
16.07
10
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
sample
Context
Fill of
Mass (g)
290
292
291
293
294
297
236
233
235
239
228
229
231
190
185
189
193
192
191
33
34
36
37
22
40
41
39
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
43
53
54
57
56
58
276
277
278
279
281
280
240
243
242
241
244
245
246
247
248
250
251
259
258
257
256
255
02.02.005
02.02.007
02.02.008
02.02.011
02.02.014
02.02.020
12.05.003
12.05.005
12.05.007
12.05.007
12.05.012
12.05.015
12.05.022
13.03.013
13.03.030
13.03.038
13.03.045
13.03.051
13.03.057
14.01.006
14.01.007
14.01.009
14.01.016
14.01.022
14.01.024
14.01.032
14.01.037
14.01.039
14.01.065
14.01.066
14.01.067
14.01.068
14.01.069
14.01.070
14.01.071
14.01.077
14.01.079
14.01.080
14.01.082
14.01.084
14.01.090
16.01.004
16.01.005
16.01.006
16.01.008
16.01.010
16.01.011
16.07.005
16.07.010
16.07.011
16.07.012
16.07.009
16.07.013
16.07.014
16.07.015
16.07.016
16.07.017
16.07.020
16.07.022
16.07.023
16.07.025
16.07.026
16.07.027
02.02.004
02.02.006
02.02.006
02.02.010
02.02.013
02.02.018
12.05.004
12.05.004
12.05.004
12.05.011
12.05.009
12.05.019
13.03.011
13.03.011
13.03.011
13.03.004
13.03.004
13.03.004
14.01.004
14.01.004
14.01.004
14.01.105
14.01.105
14.01.105
14.01.036
14.01.038
14.01.106
14.01.106
14.01.106
14.01.106
14.01.106
14.01.106
14.01.106
14.01.107
14.01.038
14.01.038
14.01.081
14.01.107
16.01.007
16.01.009
16.01.009
16.07.004
16.07.008
16.07.008
16.07.008
16.07.008
16.07.008
16.07.008
16.07.008
16.07.008
16.07.019
16.07.021
16.07.021
16.07.024
16.07.024
16.07.024
15
25
21
5
15
4
125
14
137
77
35
41
14
6
5
16
6
5
1
8
9
21
52
35
22
15
18
91
11
9
60
<1
20
50
12
55
9
59
106
169
25
31
19
41
45
106
80
9
34
40
49
110
148
50
105
144
9
12
81
204
87
305
7
176
Comments
2 bags
2 bags
Modern trench
2 bags
2 bags
2 bags
2 bags
layer
layer
layer
layer
16.08
18.12
18.13
19.08
21.06
24.03
33.01
33.02
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
254
253
268
260
261
262
263
264
266
267
16.07.029
16.07.030
16.07.032
16.07.034
16.07.038
16.07.039
16.07.041
16.07.042
16.07.045
16.07.046
16.07.028
16.07.028
16.07.028
16.07.033
16.07.037
16.07.037
16.07.040
16.07.040
16.07.043
16.07.043
23
150
31
12
11
72
39
146
80
184
10
10
10
10
10
10
268
269
270
271
272
273
16.07.047
16.07.050
16.07.051
16.07.053
16.07.054
16.07.056
16.07.043
16.07.049
16.07.049
16.07.052
16.07.052
16.07.056
137
100
34
70
98
425
10
10
10
10
02
02
10
10
10
10
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
274
275
299
303
301
304
305
306
311
313
27
29
8
7
10
9
11
16.07.057
16.07.058
16.08.021
18.12.017
18.12.020
18.12.033
18.13.006
18.13.007
19.08.005
21.06.010
24.03.020
24.03.022
24.03.037
24.03.038
24.03.039
24.03.040
24.03.044
16.07.056
16.07.056
16.08.020
18.12.015
18.12.018
18.12.032
18.13.004
18.13.004
19.08.004
21.06.008
24.03.153
24.03.153
24.03.036
24.03.036
24.03.036
24.03.036
24.03.041
101
91
52
44
31
30
18
28
31
388
51
11
39
56
14
19
79
03
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
12
24
25
26
13
14
15
16
23
22
21
17
24.03.063
24.03.075
24.03.076
24.03.077
24.03.078
24.03.079
24.03.080
24.03.081
24.03.086
24.03.087
24.03.088
24.03.090
24.03.060
24.03.153
24.03.153
24.03.153
24.03.036
24.03.036
24.03.036
24.03.036
24.03.153
24.03.153
24.03.153
24.03.089
3
102
29
50
31
21
35
35
6
17
12
38
05
05
05
05
03
10
10
04
10
18
19
20
32
30
316
317
318
319
24.03.108
24.03.110
24.03.112
24.03.126
24.03.146
33.01.007
33.01.008
33.02.006
33.02.007
24.03.149
24.03.149
24.03.149
24.03.150
24.03.060
33.01.006
33.01.006
33.02.006
70
46
58
15
10
23
15
24
10
177
2 bags
high
proportion(c2%)
spheres
2 bags
occasional
spheres
2 bags
10% flake HS,
2% spher.
20% flake HS,
2% spher.
layer
APPENDIX 11: WORKED AND UTILISED STONE BY SUSAN WATTS AND DR. ROGER TAYLOR
Introduction
This report assesses the worked and utilised stone recovered during the excavations. It comments on the
quantity, quality and information potential of the stone and assesses the significance of the assemblage in terms
of its regional setting. The report also gives recommendations for further analysis and provides timings and
costings for that analysis. All the material is currently stored cardboard boxes and, with the exception of the
larger quern fragments, in labelled plastic bags.
Description of the Assemblage
Forty six pieces of worked and utilised stone together with eighteen unworked but potentially utilised cobbles and
pebbles were found during the excavations; one, twenty-one and forty-two pieces from the Ottery St. Mary to
Aylesbeare, Aylesbeare to Kenn and Fishacre to Choakford pipelines respectively (Tables 11.1-3).
Initial
petrological examination indicates that all the material is generally local to the south-west and with origins
primarily in south Devon, Dartmoor and Cornwall.
Ottery St. Mary to Aylesbeare (Table 11.1)
Site 3.04
A cobble from the Budleigh Salterton Pebble Beds used as a polisher or whetstone recovered from the fill of an
undated ditch, 3.04.064/6. Probably imported from the west of the site.
Aylesbeare to Kenn (Table 11.2)
Site 12.01
A number of pieces of roofing slate were found in association with a partly collapsed post-medieval agricultural
building. The slate derives from quarries in both the South Hams in Devon and Cornwall, including Delabole.
The use of slate from different quarries not only suggests several phases of reconstruction or repair of the roof of
the building but is also indicative of the greater movement of Cornish slate following the development of the
railway network in the 19th century (Beacham 1995, 23).
A fragment from a small, neat whetstone of fine Carboniferous sandstone from mid Devon was found within a
collapsed wall (325.002). This is potentially residual from the prehistoric period.
Plot 12.09
A small piece of probable Beer stone with a sawn edge and, therefore, of 18th or 19th century date. The quarry
at Beer in east Devon supplied fine building stone primarily for churches and stately homes, the freshly quarried
stone being particularly well suited for carving (Gale 1992, 10).
Site 13.02
Pieces of roofing slate from the South Hams found in post-medieval contexts may have derived from the
medieval longhouse. South Devon was an important producer of slate from the 12th/13th until the 19th century
with Dartmouth and Totnes being the main centres for export (Beacham 1995, 23).
178
Fragments of local sandstone and Dartmoor granite formed part of the structure or repairs to a large 13th-14th
century hearth (13.02.132) within the medieval long house.
Fishacre to Choakford (Table 11.3)
Site 2.02
Nineteen cobbles and fragments of porphyritic lava, volcanic tuff, sandstone and siltstone were recovered from
four of a series of six Neolithic pits. Of these, three cobbles appear to have utilised as rubbing stones and
another, a long, narrow cobble is worn smooth along both long edges. A number of the other unworked cobbles
are likely to have been especially collected, perhaps for intended use, probably from the headwaters of the River
Hems. It is also noticeable that 5 fragments of local volcanic tuff also found in the pits have been burnt,
suggesting they derived from a hearth. Pits 2.02.006 and 2.02.010 are dated by pottery to the later Neolithic
period and it is likely that the other pits in the group are of similar date.
Site 14.01
One fragment of lower stone and two fragments from upper stones of rotary querns were recovered from
Romano-British contexts. Two of the stones (from 14.01.039 [SF2] and 14.01.061) of probable Dartmoor granite
and Cornish Greisen show little in the way of diagnostic features but the third (from 14.01.082[ SF6]), comprising
a little over a quarter of an upper stone with a collar around the central hole or eye, appears typical of querns of
the later Roman period (Watts 2008, 37). Although also of Greisen, it probably derives from a different source to
that above.
Half a quartzite beach cobble found in the fill of a terrace (14.01.076) dated to the 1st or 2nd century AD.
Although the cobble shows no evidence of wear or use it has been brought to the site from some distance away
and may perhaps have been part of a hammerstone that split.
A dolerite cobble retrieved from an undated ditch (14.01.020) may also have been intended for use, perhaps as a
rubbing stone.
Site 24.03
Three quern fragments were found. A fragment of Elvan, from the area to the north of Plymouth, came from the
fill of a Roman pit (24.03.034), a piece of upper stone of fine-grained granite probably from Dartmoor was
incorporated in the fill of a Middle-Late Iron Age pit (24.03.041) and another fragment of biotite granite, also from
Dartmoor, derived from the primary fill of Roman ditch (24.03.153).
Also found in ditch (24.03.082) was a whetstone from a local cobble of tourmalinised hornfels and a smooth
granite river pebble. Both probably derived from the River Avon.
A small fragment of granite with some haematite, possibly collected for its pigment, was found within the fill of a
Roman gully (24.03.056).
Two joining fragments of a stone mould for a pewter dish came from a ditch (24.03.113) dated to the mid 3rd-4th
century AD. This is a particularly important find and indicates the presence of a small scale pewter casting
industry in the vicinity (pieces of furnace lining were also found on the site). The mould is carved on both sides
suggesting it comes from a nest of moulds designed for producing two or three dishes at the time (Beagrie 1989,
179
186,187).
Pewter is thought to have been a cheap substitute for silver and the industry appears to have
flourished in the later Roman period, cAD250-410 (Wedlake 1958, 85; Beagrie 1989, 175). The stone mould
from Site 24.03 sits comfortably within these dates. The mould is of fine-grained granite, possibly from Dartmoor.
Four neat, smooth, oval granite river pebbles of varying coarseness came from the fill of a Roman ditch
(24.03.153). These appear to have been especially collected, possibly from the River Avon, perhaps for use as
slingstones.
Recommendations
Within the overall assemblage, three categories of worked stone – the stone mould, querns and Neolithic rubbing
stones – are considered particularly important in terms of their regional and possibly national significance. It is
recommended, therefore, that full analysis, leading to the production of a report, be carried out on these artefacts
in order to provide details on their manufacture, use and discard and enable them to be placed in their regional
context. The other pieces worked or utilised stones have been catalogued and reported on as part of this
assessment and further analysis is not thought to be of merit.
Stone mould
As potentially the first example of a Romano-British pewter stone mould to be found in Devon, the joining
fragments from Site FTC 24.03, must be considered highly important at both regional and national levels.
Although many pewter vessels have now been recorded from Romano-British sites, comparatively few moulds for
casting the pewter have been found. In his analysis of the Romano-British pewter industry, Beagrie (1989) lists
just 15 sites and initial research indicates that few have been found in more recent years. Comparison with other
mould stones, such as the two from St. Just, Cornwall, one of which appears similar in form, will enable that from
site 24.03 to be better placed in its regional and national context. Most of the other moulds found to date appear
to be of limestone, although Old Red Sandstone was also apparently used and those from St. Just, Cornwall are
of Greisen (Beagrie 1989, 182-188; Brown 1970). The choice of material may have been determined by the
location of the particular pewter working site. Further petrological analysis is also recommended, therefore, to
confirm the source of the mould. It is suggested that the mould stone be both drawn and photographed.
Querns
Querns were important tools during the prehistoric and Roman periods, used principally for grinding grain and
malted grain for baking and brewing. The six fragments of quern found on sites FTC 14.01 and FTC 24.03 are a
valuable addition to the corpus of knowledge on the forms of quern used in Devon during the Iron Age and
Roman periods and also on the types of stone that were utilised for their manufacture. It seems that particular
sources of stone were preferred and further analysis will provide insight into the trade/movement and distribution
of these tools and the areas over which they were sourced at different periods. To put the assemblage in its
regional context it will be useful to compare the fragments with those that have been found on other Iron Age and
Roman sites in the area. This will allow a fuller picture of changing styles and materials to be developed. The
contexts in which the quern fragments were found also potentially enables comment on depositional or disposal
practices. It is suggested that two fragments, SF2 and SF6, be drawn.
Neolithic rubbing stones
The possible rubbing stones found in the group of Neolithic pits on Site FTC 2.02 are considered important not
only in terms of their artefactual value but also in their potential use as structured deposits. Many Neolithic pits
180
are thought to have been dug specifically for the purpose of being infilled with a mixture of artefacts, soil and
other material. The various contents may have had particular symbolic or social significance and have been
chosen in response to local traditions and conditions (Thomas 1999, 64-74; Pollard 2001, 322-328). In this
respect the presence of unworked cobbles in the pits may also be significant as they too will have been collected,
possibly from the headwaters of the River Hems, and brought to site where they were perhaps intended for use.
It is also notable that several of the fragments of volcanic tuff are burnt implying they derived from a hearth(s).
Comparison of the contents of the pits from FTC 2.02 with those of other later Neolithic pit deposits in the region
such as at Tremough, Cornwall will potentially enable patterns of deposition to be ascertained and the relative
importance of the inclusion of non-worked stone. It is suggested that the contents of the pits be photographed.
Table 11.1: Worked and utilised stone from the Ottery St. Mary to Aylesbeare pipeline.
Site
3.04
Period
Undated
Context
03.04.066
Description of Context
Fill of ditch (03.04.004)
Stone Artefact
Polisher/whetstone. Budleigh
Salterton
Pebble
Beds
cobble
Comment
Probably imported
to site from west.
Table 11.2: Worked and Utilised Stone from the Aylesbeare to Kenn Pipeline
Site
12.09
Period
-
Context
12.09
Description of Context
Road crossing RDX (unstrat)
12.01
08
12.01.009
08
326.002
From agricultural building
12.01.01
Disuse/collapse layer (12.01.034)
08
325.002
Collapsed wall (12.01.034)
08
325.002
08
325.002
07
13.02.190
Part of hearth (13.02.132)
07
13.02.189
07
13.02.165
07
13.02.112
08
13.02.110
07
13.02.107
Make up layer over natural
13.02
181
Description
Piece of ?Beer stone with
sawn edge
6 pieces of Cornish slate
from Delabole
3 pieces of Devonian slate
from South Hams
Piece of Devonian slate
from South Hams
Piece of slate, possibly
Cornish
Piece of small whetstone,
fine
Carboniferous
sandstone from Mid Devon
Fragment
of
burnt
sandstone, possibly from
Permian Breccia
2 coarse granite fragments
from Dartmoor
Fragment coarse granite
from Dartmoor
Fragment of shale with
vitreous, slaggy coating
Piece of Devonian roofing
slate from South Hams
Piece of Devonian roofing
slate from South Hams
Comment
C18-C19
One with 2 small
holes at the edge
Cornish slate of
later date than the
Devon slate
Possibly residual
prehistoric
Table 11.3: Worked and utilised stone from the Fishacre to Choakford pipeline.
Site
02.02
14.01
24.03
Period
02
Context
02.02.005
Description
02
02.02.005
02
02
02.02.005
02.02.005
02
02.02.007
02
02.02.008
02
02.02.011
Secondary fill of pit
2.02.006
Third
fill
of
pit
2.02.006
Secondary fill of pit
2.02.010
02
02.02.011
02
02.02.011
02
02.02.011
02
02.02.012
02
02.02.017
Secondary fill of
2.02.010
Secondary fill of
2.02.010
Secondary fill of
2.02.010
Primary fill of
2.02.010
05
14.01.021
05
14.01.039
05
14.01.061
05
14.01.077
Fill
of
14.01.107
05
14.01.082
Fill
of
natural
depression 14.01.081
05
24.03.035
04
24.03.042
05
24.03.057
Fill of gully 24.03.152
-
24.03.084
05
24.03.086
05
24.03.086
05
24.03.119
05
24.03.148
Primary fill of
24.03.153
Primary fill of
24.03.153
Primary fill of
24.03.153
Secondary fill of
24.03.153
Third fill of
24.03.153
pit
pit
pit
pit
terrace
ditch
ditch
ditch
ditch
ditch
182
Description
4 fragments of local volcanic tuff,
burnt
Subangular fragment of local volcanic
tuff, possible rubbing stone
2 river cobbles of porphyritic lava
River cobble of vesicular and
porphyritic lava utilised as a rubbing
stone
Utilised elongated cobble of local
foliated volcanic tuff
Small fragment of local volcanic tuff,
burnt
3 cobbles of porphyritic lava, 1
fragment of local volcanic tuff, burnt,
and 1 cobble of vesicular lava
Fragment of lava
Comment
Possible structured
deposit
As above
As above
As above
Cobble of porphyritic lava possibly
used as a rubbing stone
Local elongated cobble of finegrained laminated sandstone
Fragment of local siltstone
As above
Elongated cobble of fine-grained local
sandstone
Dolerite cobble possibly intended for
use
Fragment of rotary quern. Finemedium grained granite
Quern fragment of Greisen with some
black tourmaline. Cornish
Half quartzite beach cobble
As above
Fragment of rotary quern. Quartzite
rich Greisen with tourmaline clots.
Probably
from
Cornwall.
?Carnmenellis
Probable quern fragment. Elvan from
area to north of Plymouth
Fragment of rotary quern of fine
grained granite with tourmaline clots
and quartz phenocrysts
Small fragment of granite with some
haematite.
Granite river pebble
Cobble of tourmalinised hornfels.
Whetstone
Quern fragment of medium grained
biotite granite, from Dartmoor
2 joining fragments of a stone mould
of fine grained granite
4 egg shaped granite river pebbles of
varying coarseness
As above
As above
Lower stone
Upper stone
Brought to site from
some
distance
away
Upper stone with
collar around the
eye
No features
Upper stone
Possibly collected
for pigment
Possibly from River
Avon
Possibly from River
Avon
Rather degraded
Carved on both
sides
Possibly from River
Avon
APPENDIX 12: CREMATED HUMAN REMAINS BY HARRIET JACKLIN
Introduction
The following report details the results of the skeletal analysis of the cremated human remains recovered from a
cremation burial at Site OTA 4.01.
Methodology
The analysis of the cremation burial included the assessment of age, sex and pathological analysis. The results
were recorded using a standardised recording form created by Jacklin (2005), in line with Brickley and McKinley
(2004). References used during cremation analysis included: McKinley (1994), McKinley (2000a), McKinley
(2000b), McKinley and Roberts (1993) and McKinley and Bond (2001). All fusion data is based on Scheuer and
Black (2000) and all sex data is based on Buikstra and Ubelaker (1994).
Results
The cremated remains (deposits 205.012 and 205.005), from cremation pit 205.004 in evaluation trench 205
represent and un-urned cremation burial (Figs 12.1-12.3). The cremation burial was excavated in two sections
and has no associated finds. The cremation is undated at present but is viable for radiocarbon dating.
The cremated remains weighed 767g and there was no duplication of skeletal parts. The surviving cremated
bone represents a possible female aged 18+ years. The age at death was based on the assessment of
epiphyseal fusion and the estimation of sex based on assessment of the cranial fragments and overall size and
robusticity. The majority of the identifiable skeletal elements represented within the cremation were the long
bones and the cranium, which take longer to burn than other skeletal elements. The small quantity of the smaller
skeletal elements such as the hands, feet and ribs is expected as these elements take a shorter amount time to
reduce effectively. The colour of the cremated remains reflects the degree of oxidization (temperature) to which
the bone was submitted. The majority of the cremated material within the cremation burial reached a temperature
of >c.600 deg. C (full oxidization).
Recommendations
The cremation includes material suitable for C14 dating. Once the date of the cremation is established its
significance within the region can be considered in greater detail. No further work is needed on the material
itself.
183
Figure 12.1: 10mm+ Epiphyses Fragments
Figure 12.2:10mm+ Cranial Fragments
184
Figure 12.3: 10mm+ Long Bone Fragments
185
Table 12.1 Cremation Burial, (205.012) and (205.005), [205.004] Total Weight = 767g
Context
Fragment Size (mm)
Weight (g)
Colour (%)
Additional Notes
0<2mm
42g
White 99%, white-grey 1%
Unidentifiable human bone fragments mixed with bone dust.
2<5mm
36g
5<10mm
314g
10mm+
375g
The majority of the fragments are unidentifiable consisting of long bone and trabacular bone. One
fragment of a dental root has also been identified.
The majority of fragments consist of long bone, trabacular bone and cranial fragments. The cranial
fragments are of adult width and size (although slender) and include partially closed suture lines
indicating a possible young adult. Three dental roots (fully formed), fragments of vertebral neural
arches, a diaphysis of an unsided metacarpal (5) and a fragment of an unsided fully fused
metacarpal (5) distal epiphysis (possibly the same), an unsided medial hand phalanx and fragments
of proximal-medial hand phalanx have also been identified.
The majority of fragments are identifiable consisting of fragments of epiphysis, cranium and long
bone. Also found are two fully fused hand medial-distal epiphysis, five fragments of vertebral neural
arches (including several cervical and thoracic facets) and one fragment of a lumbar body (including
the annular rim). No age related changes or pathology found, all fragments appear to be in good
condition.
The epiphysis fragments (20g): Fragments of epiphysis and metaphysis including fragments of a
distal femur (18+ years), proximal tibia (17+ years), femoral or humeral heads (16/17+ years), a
proximal ulna fragment (14+ years) and an un-sided metacarpal (1) proximal end. All of adult size
and fully fused indicating an age of 18+ years*. No age related changes or pathology found, all
fragments appear to be in good condition. See fig.1
The cranial fragments (80g): Fragments of frontal occipital, parital and temporal bone. Sutures
visible and partially closed. All adult in size and width. Fragments include a part of the nuchal crest
which scores ‘1’ ** indicating a female and the left and right supra orbital ridges which both score a
‘1’ ** , again indicating a female. Also identified are a fragment of the right mandible but with no
sockets or teeth available for study, the left zygomatic arch and two fragments of the left maxilla
consisting of dental sockets for pre molars and molars; no avolar bone reabsorbsion (indicating
ante-mortem loss) visible, loss of teeth due to post-mortem loss. No age related changes or
pathology found, all fragments appear to be in good condition. See fig.2
The long bone fragments (220g): Fragments of the humerus, ulna, radius, femur, tibia and fibula.
No age related changes or pathology found, all fragments appear to be in good condition. See fig. 3
*
**
After Scheuer and Black (2000)
After Buikstra and Ubelaker (1994)
186
APPENDIX 13: ANIMAL BONE BY SYLVIA WARMAN
Introduction
Animal bone was recovered from all three sections of the pipeline route (OTA, FTP and ATK). The assemblage
comprised 3121 fragments from 138 bones weighing 2kg. Of these, 241 fragments were hand collected whilst 80
fragments were recovered from processed samples.
Methods
The assessment conforms to the guidance on best practice as described by English Heritage (2002). The animal
bone was examined and recorded at context level using a Microsoft Access database. Information recorded
included; number of bones, number of fragments, weight of bones in grams, number of bones identifiable to
species, fragmentation and preservation, numbers of mandibles, epiphyses and whole bones, species and body
parts identified, age and state (including modifications such as butchery, burning, gnawing etc). This information
is presented by section of the pipeline, site, period, feature and deposit, in tables 13.1, 13.2 and 13.3.
Results
Ottery St Mary to Alyesbeare
Animal bone was recovered from three sites; 3.01, 3.04 and 5.01. The fill of ditch 207.006 (Site 3.01) was the
only deposit to produce identifiable animal bone; a cattle mandible fragment and an ankle bone. The remainder of
the animal bone was identified to size category where possible (sheep-sized and cow-sized) but some was too
fragmented and is recorded as unidentifiable mammal bone. The animal bone was in moderate to poor condition
with signs of weathering noted frequently. The animal bone was recovered from the fills of cut features; most of
these were assigned to later periods 8 and 9 as well as undated material. Deposit 03.04.020 (sample 78) was the
earliest deposit to produce animal bone (Period 5, Roman) the bone comprised tiny unidentified burnt fragments.
The preponderance of animal bone from later periods and the condition of the bone suggests that the conditions
for preservation of bone at these sites were poor. The fact that all of the animal bone from the Roman deposits is
burnt supports this suggestion; any unburnt animal bone of reasonable antiquity is likely to have been completely
destroyed.
Fishacre to Chockford
Animal bone was recovered from four sites along this section; 18.12, 24.03, 25.01 and 26.01. Only one item was
identified to species, a fragmented sheep/goat tooth from the third fill of ditch 24.03.082. The remainder of the
material was sheep-sized tooth and long bone fragments and completely unidentified. All of the deposits
producing animal bone from Site 24.03 were assigned to period 5 (Roman), most showed signs of burning. Sites
18.12, 25.01 and 26.01 included animal bone from more recent post-medieval deposits or undated deposits and
sub-soils.
Aylesbeare to Kenn section
This section produced the larger part of the animal bone assemblage, 247 fragments from 91 bones of which 23
were identified to species. These were recovered from two sites 12.01 and 13.02. The assemblage from Site
12.01 comprised, horse, cattle, rabbit, rabbit/hare and rat, with fragmented material of cow-sized sheep-sized and
cat-sized categories. The deposits that produced animal bone were post-medieval and undated. Animal bone
preservation was noticeably better on this section of the pipeline when compared to OTA and FTP. For example
the material from Site 12.01 included the remains of a hind limb from an infant calf. The animal bone from Site
187
13.02 included horse, cattle, sheep/goat and frog/toad. The remainder was identified as cow-sized, sheep-sized
and small mammal-sized. A large quantity of fragments could not be identified and burning weathering and
modern breakage were noted. The deposits producing animal bone were assigned to periods 7 (medieval) and 8
(post-medieval) whilst one deposit was undated. The animal bone recovered from sample 105 from the shell
midden may have survived due to a localized raised pH caused by the deposition of a large number of marine
shells.
Discussion
The animal bone assemblages from all three sections of the pipeline are small and fragmented those from OTA
and FTP particularly so. The assemblage from ATK is larger and included more identifiable specimens. The
species present are unremarkable and likely to represent domestic stock and small wild animals with a
commensal habit.
Recommendations
The animal bone assemblages offer little in terms of interpreted past diet and economy due to their small and
fragmented nature. No further work on the assemblages is recommend but a brief summary of species identified
by site should be included in the publication.
188
Table 13.1 Animal bone from OTA section by site, period and context
Site
no
03.01
period
context
9
03.01
sample
no
of
frags
13
no
of
bones
13
weight
207.007
Description
generic/feature no
10
207.005
7
03.04
5
03.04.020
03.04
8
03.04.053
Third
fill
of
ditch
03.04.017
03.04
8
03.04.079
05.01
10
05.01.016
78
169
species/part
state
age
65
No
of
bones id
2
B(H,LL) SSZ(LB)
WE MB
SA
1
2
0
CSZ(R)
MB
4
4
0.4
0
UNID(F)
BN
5
5
4
0
CSZ(LB) SSZ(LB)
WE MB
WE MB
21
1
18
0
CSZ(LB)
6
6
0.4
0
UNID(F)
56
30
89.8
2
Table 13.2 Animal bone from FTC section by site period and context
Site
no
18.12
24.03
24.03
24.03
24.03
25.01
26.01
period
context
sample
Description generic/feature no
10
5
5
5
18.12.017
24.03.038
24.03.080
24.03.076
303
7
15
25
secondary fill of pit 24.03.036
Same as 24.03.039
5
8
24.03.088
25.01.007
26.01.002
21
Subsoil
no of
frags
1
3
5
2
no
of
bones
1
3
5
2
weight
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.8
No
of
bones id
0
0
0
0
3
2
2
18
3
1
2
17
0.4
2
1
5.5
0
1
0
1
species/part
state
UNID(F)
SSZ(H) UNID(F)
UNID(F)
SSZ(LB,UNID)
BN
BN
UNID(F)
O/C(H)
UNID(F)
BN
MB WE
age
A
Key to codes used in table
Species; E = Equus caballus (Horse), B = Bos taurus (cow), O/C Ovis/Capra (sheep/goat) ORC = Oractalagus cuninculus (Rabbit) LEP = leporid (rabbit/hare), RTSP = rat not
identified to species F/T =frog/toad CSZ = cow-sized, SSZ = sheep-sized, CTSZ = cat-szied, SM small mammal (mouse-sized), CHSZ = chicken-sized, UNID = unidentified,
Parts; H = head, HC = horn core, V = vertebra, R = rib, UL = upper limb, LL = lower limb, MP metapodial, P = phalange, FB = flat bone, LB = long bone, F = fragment.
Ageing data; epiphyses = simple count, mandibles = simple count
State; WE = weathered, BT = butchery marks, BN = burnt, GN = gnawed, RT = root etching, MB = modern break, PA = pathology. Age; F/N = foetal/neonatal, I = infant, J =
juvenile, SA = sub-adult, A = adult, O = old adult.
189
Table 13.3 Animal bone from ATK section by site period and context
Site
period
Context
12.01
10
12.01
10
12.01
10
12.01
8
12.01
8
326.002
same as
12.01.034
328.002
same as
12.01.034
328.005
same as
12.01.030
315.008
same as
12.01.033
315.009
same as
12.01.030
12.01
8
13.02
10
328.008
same as
12.01.034
13.02.017
13.02
7
13.02
sample
Description
generic/feature
no
disuse/collapse
layer 325
no of
frags
no
of
bones
weight
3
3
12
No
of
bones
id
2
Wall
collapse
layer 328.002
1
1
3
1
Disuse/collapse
layer 328.005
2
2
5
0
Fill of 315.007
2
2
53
2
2
Natural
disuse
spread
within
structure
12.01.001
5
4
12
3
2
Disuse
328.008
4
3
14
3
Spread of animal
bone
14
12
152
2
13.02.056
fill
of
13.02.055
ditch
1
1
25
7
13.02.107
2
2
13.02
7
13.02.232
12
13.02
7
13.02.012
Make-up
layer
over natural
Fill
of
pit
13.02.228
Fill
of
ditch
13.02.011
13.02
7
13.02.110
Fill
of
13.02.109
13.02
7
13.02.112
Fill
of
13.02.111
163
layer
mandibles
epiphyses
species/part
state
age
ORC(UL)
RTSP(UL)
SSZ®
LEP(UL)
MB
A, SA
MB
A
O/C(UL,LL)
BT
A
E(H) ORC(LL)
CTSZ(UL)
LEP(LL)
MB
GN
A,
SA, J
RTSZ(U/L)
CHSZ(UL)
B(UL,LL,MP)
O/C(UL)
SSZ(V,R)
WE
0
CSZ(LB)
BT
11
0
CSZ(LB)
WE
12
0.4
0
UNID(F)
BN
23
1
162
1
E(UL)
A
ditch
12
1
36
0
WE
MB
BT
WE
MB
ditch
1
1
11
1
MB
SA
190
3
F/N
1
CSZ(LB)
1
B(UL)
A, SA
Site
period
Context
sample
no of
frags
no
of
bones
weight
1
1
0.4
No
of
bones
id
0
13.02
7
13.02.158
101
13.02
7
13.02.189
133
1
1
0.4
0
UNID(F)
13.02
7
13.02.192
136
Fill
of
13.02.163
pit
6
6
0.4
0
UNID(F)
BN
13.02
7
13.02.233
164
Third fill of pit
13.02.228
8
8
0.4
0
UNID(F)
BN
13.02
13.02
8
8
13.02.002
13.02.006
105
Subsoil
Shell midden
1
15
1
15
12
1.1
1
1
MB
BN
MB
13.02.033
Secondary fill of
ditch 13.02.031
1
1
24
0
B(H)
F/T(UL)
SSZ(LB)
SM(V)
UNID(F)
SSZ(LB)
UNID(F)
CSZ(UL)
13.02
8
13.02
8
13.02.141
Animal
bone
deposit
within
13.02.127
57
4
618
3
13.02
8
13.02.152
Secondary fill of
ditch 13.02.150
5
3
76
13.02
8
13.02.160
Fill
of
13.02.159
ditch
3
1
13.02
8
13.02.160
Fill
of
13.02.159
ditch
13
193
106
Description
generic/feature
no
Part of Hearth
13.02.132
Part of Hearth
13.02.132
mandibles
state
UNID(F)
MB
age
A
A, SA
BT
MB
WE
MB
AB
A
1
B(V) CSZ(LB)
MB
A
36
0
CSZ(LB)
WE
MB
2
12
0
CSZ®
MB
88
1277.1
21
1
1
species/part
E(H,UL)
CSZ(LB)
191
1
epiphyses
10
APPENDIX 14: CHARCOAL BY DANA CHALLINOR
INTRODUCTION
The charcoal from 247 contexts, comprising material from the flots and residues, was submitted for assessment.
An additional 17 bags of hand-collected material was also examined. The bulk of the samples came from the
Fishacre to Choakford section of the pipeline from features ranging in date from the Neolithic period through to
the Romano-British, with a large quantity of, as yet, undated features. The samples from the other two sections of
pipeline (OTA06 and ATK06) comprised material of later date, including medieval and post-medieval features.
METHODOLOGY
The charcoal was scanned under a binocular microscope at up to x45 magnification. Charcoal caught on a 2mm
sieve was considered identifiable and quantified; fragments were randomly extracted, fractured only if necessary
and examined in transverse section. This method is usually reliable for the identification of ring porous taxa (e.g.
Quercus and Fraxinus), but the diffuse-porous taxa should be considered as 'type' and require confirmation. The
maturity of the wood was recorded where possible or significant, i.e. samples with large quantities of whole
stems, and the potential for radiocarbon dating was noted (by a key denoting Y=yes, N=no and ?=possible but
would need further examination).
RESULTS AND IMPLICATIONS
The full results of the charcoal assessment are recorded in an MS Excel workbook and the results are discussed
by pipeline section below. A similar range of taxa was noted in the samples from all three pipeline sections,
including; Alnus/Corylus (alder/hazel), Fraxinus (ash), Maloideae (hawthorn group), Prunus (cherry/blackthorn),
Quercus (oak), Salix/Populus (willow/poplar) and Ulex/Cytisus (gorse/broom). A couple of fragments of Acer
(maple) type and Betula (birch) type were also noted, but these identifications are highly provisional as there are
great similarities between these genera and others. In general, the most common taxa were alder or hazel, both
of which were fully identified in the material sent for radiocarbon dating, and oak.
A key was used to assess the potential of the samples: A indicates samples which should be analysed in full; B
indicates samples with good potential from which a selection of samples for analysis should be chosen; C
indicates samples with limited taxonomic diversity or poor preservation which should only be analysed if the
context is significant; N indicates samples which are not recommended for analysis, although some might have
radiocarbon potential. Only samples with good to moderate potential are shown in Tables 14.1-14.3. Table 14.4
indicates the samples also identified for radiocarbon dating, subject to confirmation of the suitability of the
material.
Ottery St Mary to Aylesbeare (OTA06)
Of the 33 contexts assessed, 18 contained quantities of charcoal which were too small to provide useful data
except the occasional fragment of Quercus (oak) or, more rarely, a shorter-lived species suitable for dating. The
results for the samples with potential is presented in Table 14.1. The charcoal varied in preservation, with many
friable fragments or infused with sediment. Only two samples were considered exceptional for further analysis;
one is the cremation (site 4.01, context 205.12) and the other from Pit 2.03.004 with has produced Middle
Neolithic pottery. It is expected that some of the B and C samples will provide supporting data in the final
analysis. The single bag of hand-collected charcoal from OTA06 (context 04.10.011) produced a couple of
roundwood fragments of Alnus/Corylus (alder/hazel) which has no further potential except for dating.
192
Aylesbeare to Kenn (ATK06)
The samples from ATK06 exhibited better preservation of the charcoal, than those from OTA06, and the
assemblages were more diverse (Table 14.2). Alnus/Corylus (alder/hazel) and Quercus (oak) were still frequent,
but there was also a large component of Ulex/Cytisus (gorse/broom). This indicates increased exploitation of
heathland for fuel, and given the medieval date of some of the samples, might suggest some pressure on
woodland resources. At least it is an issue worth examining in future analysis. Fourteen samples produced good
charcoal assemblages with high potential for analysis, including a few medieval pits, and some cremation
samples with mixed taxa.
Fishacre to Choakford (FTC06)
This section provided 137 samples of which more than 70 produced assemblages with some potential (Table
14.3). A high number of these were dominated by Quercus (oak) or Alnus/Corylus (alder/hazel), and the
assemblages seemed generally to be quite limited in taxonomic character. The samples highlighted as potential
A are those with a more mixed range, as these will provide a fuller species list from which to interpret the
assessment results. The furnace samples, for instance, were dominated by oak, which is typical for
metalworking, and the samples require only limited further analysis to confirm the maturity. The preservation was
again quite variable, with many fragments covered with sediment or very small in size, if not in quantity. The
potential cremation samples appeared to be quite mixed, but without the Ulex/Cytisus which characterised those
from ATK06. It will be of interest to look at these samples in more detail when the dating is confirmed.
The sixteen samples of hand-collected charcoal were mostly composed of oak and alder/hazel, including one
with a large quantity of charcoal (14.01.2003). This assemblage appeared to be dominated by oak, so is unlikely
to be useful for analysis.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Across the three pipeline sections, there is high potential for further analysis, though the exact samples to be
analysed will need to be selected from those with highest potential at a later date, when the full dating
programme and context analysis have been completed. Certainly, the potential cremations, the furnaces and a
selection of the pits should be analysed and it is suggested a selection of samples from each phase are
examined to provide a dataset for interpretation and comparison. The samples offer the opportunity to examine
the following issues:

ritual; the nature of the wood selected for cremations

industrial; the nature of the wood used for the Romano-British furnaces

domestic; how the choice of wood for hearths and general domestic use (crop processing?) varies from
industrial and ritual uses

how the landscape and/or selection of wood for fuel changes over time

how these samples fit in with comparable sites in the region
Additional processing
It is recommended that any further soil from features identified as possible cremations is processed. Many of the
samples assessed were not deemed worthy of analysis because the quantities of charcoal were less than 20
fragments and the merit of further processing is difficult to judge on the basis of a few fragments. Further
processing is likely to increase the quantities to provide worthy assemblages, except in those instances where
193
only a single + is indicated. It is only worth doing if the context or date would add significantly to the dataset.
Samples with additional soil to process are listed in Table 14.4.
METHOD STATEMENT
The intention will be to adopt two approaches to the analysis. The first will provide a broad characterisation of the
sample assemblage by using the assessment data and selecting 20 charcoal fragments from two sieve sizes,
(2mm and 4mm) for full identification. The second aims to identify c100 fragments which are >2mm in size. The
charcoal is fractured and sorted into groups based on anatomical features observed in transverse section at low
magnification. Representative fragments from each group are then examined in all three planes at high
magnification (up to X400). Identifications would be made with reference to identification texts (e.g.
Schweingruber 1990, Hather 2000) and modern reference material. The assessment results would also be
referred to and included in the report.
Broad identifications and assessment of suitablility will also be undertaken of material needed for radiocarbon
dating. It is propsed that broad identifications will be made of c 70 samples, and full identifications from c 15
samples selcted from those listed in Table 4.4.
194
Table 14.1: Results of the charcoal assessment from OTA06 (showing only samples with potential)
Period
Generic/
of
2
Fill
Context
Sample
Context type
03.04.096
03.04.092
073
pit .090 fill
residue
taxa
notes
Analysis
+++
Alnus/Corylus, Fraxinus
v infused and crumbly
C
02.03.004
02.03.005
174
pit .004 fill
++++
Alnus/Corylus rw, Quercus rw,
Q mixed, lots rw, good size
Ulex/Cytisus rw
3
03.04.026
03.04.028
066
3
04.10.016
04.10.017
213
pit fill
++++
Quercus, Alnus/Corylus
predom oak, comm
C
pit fill
++++
predom oak, infused
C
5
04.10.018
04.10.021
214
ditch fill
+++
Prunus rw, Quercus
q small and not much
C
7
01.03.004
01.03.005
173
pit .004 fill
++
Ulex/Cytisus, Maloideae
10
205.004
205.012
063
cremation
+++
Alnus glutinosa C14
A
10
03.04.031
03.04.032
068
pit fill
++++
Quercus
predom oak, comm
C
10
03.04.038
03.04.039
069
pit fill
++++
Alnus/Corylus rw, Fraxinus
q small
B/C
10
03.04.004
03.04.055
071
pit fill
+++
Alnus/Corylus, Fraxinus
v infused and crumbly
C
03.04.004
03.04.020
078
ditch fill
+++
Quercus rw, Alnus/Corylus rw,
q mixed
Ulex/Cytisus
B
10
03.04.004
03.04.094
083
ditch .095 fill
+++
Prunus rw, Maloideae
q small
C
10
05.01.017
05.01.019
168
posthole fill
++++
Quercus hw
predom oak
C
10
05.01.015
05.01.016
169
pit fill
+++
Quercus
predom oak, comm
C
7
05.01.049
05.01.023
170
charcoal layer
++++
Quercus hw, Maloideae
predom oak, but some diffuse as well B
2
10
flot
++++
++
++++
++++
195
A
C
Table 14.2: Results of the charcoal assessment from ATK06 (showing only samples with potential)
Period
Generic/ Fill of
Context
Sample
Context type
3
14.09.016
14.09.009
203
3
14.09.016
14.09.010
3
14.09.016
3
residue taxa
notes
Analysis
pit
+++
Quercus, Alnus/Corylus, cf Ulex/Cytisus
Corylus avellana C14
A
204
pit
+++
Quercus, Alnus/Corylus, Prunus, Ulex/Cytisus
Ulex/Cytisus C14, mixed A
14.09.011
205
Pit
+++
Quercus
14.09.003
14.09.006
207
pit
++
Quercus, Ulex/Cytisus
7
13.02.163
13.02.192
136
pit
++
Ulex/Cytisus rw, Prunus rw
7
13.02.221
13.02.221
151
layer
+++
Ulex/Cytisus rw, Alnus/Corylus rw, Salix/Populus
v clean charcoal, mixed
B
13.02.272
13.02.212
152
fill of
.196
++
++
Ulex/Cytisus rw, Quercus
not a bad size
C
13.02.272
13.02.209
154
SFB build up
+++
+++
Ulex/Cytisus rw, Quercus, Salix/Populus, Maloideae
rw
13.02.228
13.02.229
159
pit fill
++++
+++
Mostly diffuse; massive
Ulex/Cytisus rw, Alnus/Corylus rw, Fraxinus rw,
frags, lots r-w, good A
Maloideae
pres
13.02.222
13.02.223
160
pit fill
+++
13.02.272
13.02.202
161
fill of
.196
+++
++++
Ulex/Cytisus, Quercus rw, Betula type, Alnus/Corylus
Q mixed
rw
A/B
13.02.228
13.02.232
163
pit .228 fill
++++
++++
Ulex/Cytisus rw, Prunus rw, Fraxinus rw
Q mixed
A/B
13.02.228
13.02.233
164
pit .228 fill
++++
++++
Predom
Ulex/Cytisus,
B
but some mixed
7
13.02.228
13.02.234
165
pit fill
++++
Ulex/Cytisus rw, Prunus rw, Maloideae rw
Q mixed, but small
B
8
13.02.174
13.02.097
093
pit .174 fill
+++
+++
Quercus rw, Ulex/Cytisus rw
mostly Ulex/Cytisus
C
8
13.02.244
13.02.246
285
ditch
++
++
Alnus/Corylus rw
10
07.01.004
07.01.005
289
pit fill
+++
Quercus
predom oak, comm
C
10
13.02.009
13.02.016
139
ditch fill
++++
Ulex/Cytisus rw, Prunus rw, Fraxinus rw, Maloideae
q mixed
A/B
10
12.10.006
12.10.007
284
pit fill
++++
Quercus hw
predom oak, good size
C
10
14.09.021
14.09.023
287
ditch fill
++
Alnus/Corylus rw
Predom Alnus/Corylus
C
7
7
SFB
flot
7
7
7
7
7
SFB
++
196
A
Ulex/Cytisus C14
B
C
B
mostly Prunus
B
C
Table 14.3: Results of the charcoal assessment from FTC06 (showing only samples with potential)
Period
Generic/ fill of
Context
Sample
Context type
flot
residue
taxa
notes
02.02.004
02.02.005
290
pit fill
++
+++
Alnus/Corylus, Quercus
mostly
Alnus/Corylus;
C
Corylus nutshell
02.02.006
02.02.008
291
pit fill
+++
+
Alnus/Corylus rw, Quercus
02.02.006
02.02.007
292
pit fill
+++
++
Alnus/Corylus
Quercus hw
02.02.010
02.02.011
293
pit fill
++
+++
2
02.02.018
02.02.019
296
fill
+
++
Fraxinus, Alnus/Corylus rw
2
02.02.016
02.02.017
298
fill
++
++
Alnus/Corylus, Quercus
2
18.12.032
18.12.033
304
pit fill
+++
Quercus
18.12.018
18.12.020
301
pit fill
++++
++++
18.12.053
18.12.054
310
feature fill
++++
++++
Alnus/Corylus
Fraxinus
3
21.06.008
21.06.010
313
deposit
++++
4
16.07.008
16.07.011
242
bowl furnace
+++
Quercus (hw)
4
16.07.008
16.07.016
248
bowl furnace
+++
Alnus glutinosa C14
C
4
16.07.019
16/07/20
251
pit fill
++
+++
Quercus, cf Maloideae rw
mostly oak
C
24.03.041
24.03.044
011
primary fill pit .041
++
+++
Alnus/Corylus, Quercus hw
predom Alnus/Corylus; q
B
small
5
24.03.89
24.03.090
017
pit .089 fill
+++
Alnus/Corylus rw, Quercus rw
5
24.03.153
24.03.075
024
primary fill of ditch .074
+++
Quercus rw, Maloideae
24.03.153
24.03.076
025
secondary fill of ditch
.074
+++
Quercus rw, Maloideae
5
24.03.153
24.03.020
027
ditch fill
+++
Quercus rw, Alnus/Corylus
5
24.03.150
24.03.126
032
pit fill
+++
Quercus hw, Alnus/Corylus rw
14.01.004
14.01.006
033
pit .004 fill
+++
Alnus/Corylus
Maloideae rw
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
+
197
B
Maloideae,
rw,
Analysis
Predom oak
Predom
(C14)
oak;
B
Corylus
B
C
v small
C
C
rw,
Quercus
lots
diffuse,
Alnus/Corylus
prob
hw,
A/B
A/B
Alnus glutinosa rw C14
B
C
rw,
C
not so much
C
C
Prunus
mostly <4mm
C
C
rw,
Mixed but q small
B
Period
Generic/ fill of
Context
Sample
Context type
flot
residue
taxa
14.01.004
14.01.008
035
deposit
+
+++
Alnus/Corylus rw, Salix/Populus,
A bit dusty
Maloideae, Ulex/Cytisus
A/B
14.01.107
14.01.046
037
primary fill of terrace
+++
.012
++++
Alnus/Corylus
rw,
Prunus
Maloideae rw, Quercus rw
Q mixed, good size
A/B
14.01.034
14.01.035
038
hearth .034 fill
+++
+++
q small
C
14.01.036
14.01.037
039
posthole fill
+++
+++
Alnus/Corylus
Maloideae rw
lots roundwood
B
14.01.038
14.01.039
044
pit .038 fill
+++
++++
Alnus/Corylus rw, Maloideae
Quercus rw, Prunus rw
Mixed, good pres
A
5
14.01.106
14.01.066
046
ditch .064 fill
+++
Quercus rw, Alnus/Corylus
v small
C
5
14.01.106
14.01.070
050
ditch fill
+++
14.01.038
14.01.079
053
pit .038 fill
+++
++++
Alnus/Corylus
Quercus rw
14.01.038
14.01.080
054
pit .038 fill
+++
++++
Alnus/Corylus
Quercus rw
14.01.107
14.01.084
056
fill of terrace .083
++
++++
14.01.081
14.01.082
057
fill
of
natural
+
depression .081
5
14.01.105
14.1.22
042
10
24.03.036
24.03.038
10
24.03.036
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
10
10
notes
rw,
Salix/Populus,
rw,
rw,
C
Maloideae
rw,
rw,
Analysis
Prunus
rw, mostly oak, some massive
B
frags
rw,
predom oak
B
Quercus hw
mostly oak
C
++++
mostly oak
C
Ditch fill
++
Ulex/Cytisus, Alnus/Corylus
007
second fill pit .036
+++
Quercus rw, Prunus rw
mostly <4mm
C
24.03.037
008
primary fill pit .036
++
mostly small
C
24.03.036
24.03.040
009
fifth fill of pit .036
++
Ulex/Cytisus rw, Quercus rw
24.03.036
24.03.078
013
same as 24.03.037
+++
Alnus/Corylus
Ulex/Cytisus
24.03.036
24.03.081
016
same as 24.03.040
+++
Alnus/Corylus
Ulex/Cytisus
14.01.090
058
charcoal layer
++++
q small
C
10
rw,
rw,
C
C
Quercus,
Quercus
predom oak
rw,
C
C
10
12.05.013
12.05.014
225
pit .013
+++
+++
Alnus/Corylus rw, Fraxinus
predom Alnus/Corylus
A
10
12.05.013
12.05.016
226
pit.013
+++
++++
Alnus/Corylus
A
10
12.05.009
12.05.010
227
pit
++
Fraxinus
198
A
Period
Generic/ fill of
Context
Sample
Context type
flot
residue
taxa
notes
Analysis
10
12.05.011
12.05.012
228
Pit
+++
+++
Alnus/Corylus, Quercus, Fraxinus
Q mixed but q small
A
12.05.009
12.05.015
229
Pit
++++
++++
Fraxinus
rw,
Alnus/Corylus
mostly ash
A
12.05.019
12.05.022
231
Pit
++
Quercus,
Maloideae
Maloideae C14
B
12.05.004
12.05.005
233
pit
++
+++
A
12.05.004
12.05.006
234
pit
+++
+++
Alnus/Corylus
Quercus
a bit small
A
10
12.05.004
12.05.007
235
pit
+++
++++
A
10
12.05.004
12.05.008
236
pit
+++
++++
A
16.07.017
16.07.018
250
pit fill, 16.07.017
++++
++++
Alnus/Corylus
Fraxinus
10
16.07.040
16.07.041
263
fill
+++
++
Quercus hw
predom oak
C
10
16.07.040
16.07.042
264
fill
+++
+++
Quercus hw
predom oak
C
10
16.07.056
16.07.057
274
feature fill
+++
++
Quercus hw, Fraxinus rw
predom ash
B
16.01.004
276
charcoal spread
++
++++
Alnus/Corylus,
Quercus
16.01.006
278
burnt natural
++
++
Quercus, Maloideae, Alnus/Corylus
16.01.007
16.01.008
279
charocal fill
++++
>1000
Quercus, Maloideae
16.01.009
16.01.011
280
fill
++++
++++
Quercus hw,
Betula type
predom oak
A/B
16.01.009
16.01.010
281
charcoal spread
+++
++++
Quercus rw, Alnus/Corylus, Betula
predom oak
type
A/B
16.08.020
16.08.021
299
pit fill
+++
++++
Alnus/Corylus rw,
Maloideae, Quercus
B/C
10
18.12.015
18.12.017
303
fill
++++
++++
10
18.13.004
18.13.006
305
fill
++
++
Alnus/Corylus rw
C
10
18.13.004
18.13.007
306
feature fill
++++
+++
B
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
hw,
Quercus,
Fraxinus,
Prunus,
Maloideae,
rw,
Maloideae, lots
diffuse,
Alnus/Corylus
rw,
Maloideae
10
10
199
rw,
B
rw, mostly oak, but diffuse as
B
well
10
10
prob
C
mostly oak,
massive
residue charcoal, good B
pres
Alnus/Corylus,
Fraxinus
rw,
Q mixed but infused
B
Period
Generic/ fill of
Context
Sample
Context type
flot
residue
taxa
notes
Analysis
10
18.12.043
18.12.044
307
pit fill
+++
+++
Quercus hw
predom oak
C
10
18.13.011
18.13.012
308
feature fill
++
++
?
19.08.004
19.08.005
311
pit fill
+++
+++
mostly Ulex/Cytisus
A/B
10
19.07.004
19.07.005
312
pit fill
++++
+++
Ulex/Cytisus rw, Quercus rw
mostly Ulex/Cytisus
A
10
33.01.006
33.01.007
316
pit
+++
++++
A
10
33.01.006
33.01.008
317
pit
++++
+++
Alnus/Corylus rw, Quercus hw
A
10
12.05.019
12.05.020
237
Pit fill
++++
Fraxinus rw, hw, Quercus
predom ash but q mixed
A
10
12.05.019
12.05.021
238
pit
+++
Alnus/Corylus, Maloideae, Quercus
q small
A
10
16.07.028
16.07.030
253
metalworking
+++
Quercus
small
B/C
10
16.07.043
16.07.046
267
fill
+++
Quercus hw, Alnus/Corylus
predom oak
C
10
16.07.043
16.07.047
268
fill
+++
Quercus hw, rw
predom oak
C
10
Site
24.02
trench 1 deposit 01.05
04
001
ditch .04 fill
++++
Quercus
predom oak; covered with
C
sediment
++
++++
200
C
Table 14.4 Charcoal with potential for further analysis and identification for radiocarbon
Period
Site
Sample
Context
Feature
10
10
10
10
10
2
10
7
2
10
10
10
10
10
3
10
3
4
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
3
3
3
3
3
3
10
10
10
2
2
2
2
2
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
OTA 4.01
OTA 4.01
OTA 3.04
OTA 3.04
OTA 3.04
OTA 3.04
OTA 3.04
OTA 05.01
OTA 02.03
OTA 5.01
OTA 5.01
OTA 5.01
OTA 5.01
OTA 4.10
OTA 4.10
OTA 4.10
ATK 13.02
ATK 13.02
ATK 13.02
ATK 13.02
ATK 13.02
ATK 13.02
ATK 13.02
ATK 13.02
ATK 13.02
ATK 13.02
ATK 14.09
ATK 14.09
ATK 14.09
ATK 14.09
ATK 14.09
ATK 14.09
ATK 12.10
ATK 14.09
ATK 15.02
FTC 02.02
FTC 02.02
FTC 02.02
FTC 02.02
FTC 02.02
FTC 12.05
FTC 12.05
FTC 12.05
FTC 12.05
FTC 12.05
FTC 12.05
FTC 12.05
FTC 12.05
FTC 12.05
FTC 12.05
FTC 12.05
FTC 12.05
FTC
12.05w
FTC 13.03
FTC 13.03
FTC 13.03
FTC 13.03
FTC 13.03
FTC 14.01
FTC 14.01
FTC 14.01
063
064
068
069
070
073
078
170
174
175
179
182
183
212
213
214
110
143
152
154
159
160
161
163
164
165
202
203
204
205
207
209
284
287
288
290
291
292
293
294
225
226
227
228
229
231
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
205.012
205.005
3.04.032
03.04.039
03.04.037
03.04.092
03.04.020
05.01.023
02.03.005
05.01.050
05.01.059
05.01.043
05.01.034
04.10.005
04.10.017
04.10.021
13.02.176
13.02.124
13.02.212
13.02.209
13.02.229
13.02.223
13.02.202
13.02.232
13.02.233
13.02.234
14.09.008
14.09.009
14.09.010
14.09.011
14.09.006
14.09.020
12.10.007
14.09.023
15.02.005
02.02.005
02.02.008
02.02.007
02.02.011
02.02.014
12.05.014
12.05.016
12.05.010
12.05.012
12.05.015
12.05.022
12.05.005
12.05.006
12.05.007
12.05.008
12.05.020
12.05.021
12.05w.007
Crem 205.004
Crem 205.004
Pit 03.04.031
Pit 03.04.038
Pit 03.04.036
Pit 03.04.096
02.04.004
05.01.049
02.03.004
Ditch 05.01.020
Ditch 05.01.020
Ditch 05.01.020
Ditch 05.01.020
Pit 04.10.004
Pit 04.10.016
Ditch 04.10.018
Ditch 13.02.175
Ditch 13.02.123
13.02.272
13.02.272
Pit 13.02.228
Pit 13.02.222
SFB 13.02.272
Pit 13.02.228
Pit 13.02.228
Pit 13.02.228
Pit 14.09.016
Pit 14.09.016
Pit 14.09.016
Pit 14.09.016
Pit 14.09.003
Pit 14.09.018
Pit 12.10.006
Ditch 14.09.021
Ditch 15.02.018
Pit 02.02.004
Pit 02.02.006
Pit 02.02.006
Pit 02.02.010
Pit 02.02.013
Pit 12.05.013
Pit 12.03.013
Pit 12.05.009
Pit 12.05.011
Pit 12.05.009
Pit 12.05.019
Pit 12.05.004
Pit 12.05.004
Pit 12.05.004
Pit 12.05.004
Pit 12.05.019
Pit 12.05.019
Furnace 12.05w.004
Soil
to
process?
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
003
185
191
192
193
33
35
37
10.09
13.03.030
13.03.057
13.03.051
13.03.045
14.01.006
14.01.008
14.01.046
Ditch 13.03.011
Ditch 13.03.011
Ditch 13.03.004
Ditch 13.03.004
Ditch 13.03.004
Pit 14.01.004
Pit 14.01.004
Terrace 14.01.107
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
4/5
4/5
4
4
4
5
5
5
201
Potential
sample?
Y
Y
Y
C14
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y (one date already)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Period
Site
Sample
Context
Feature
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
10
10
10
10
10
10
4
4
4
4
4
4
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
2
10
2
10
2
10
10
10
10
10
3
10
10
10
5
10
10
10
5
5
5
5
10
10
FTC 14.01
FTC 14.01
FTC 14.01
FTC 14.01
FTC 14.01
FTC 14.01
FTC 14.01
FTC 14.01
FTC 14.01
FTC 14.01
FTC 16.01
FTC 16.01
FTC 16.01
FTC 16.01
FTC 16.01
FTC 16.07
FTC 16.07
FTC 16.07
FTC 16.07
FTC 16.07
FTC 16.07
FTC 16.07
FTC 16.07
FTC 16.07
FTC 16.07
FTC 16.07
FTC 16.07
FTC 16.07
FTC 16.07
FTC 16.07
FTC 16.07
FTC 16.08
FTC 18.12
FTC 18.12
FTC 18.12
FTC 18.12
FTC 18.12
FTC 18.13
FTC 18.13
FTC 18.13
FTC 19.07
FTC 19.08
FTC 21.06
FTC 24.03
FTC 24.03
FTC 24.03
FTC 24.03
FTC 24.03
FTC 24.03
FTC 24.03
FTC 24.03
FTC 24.03
FTC 24.03
FTC 24.03
FTC 33.01
FTC 33.01
38
39
42
44
46
50
53
54
57
58
276
278
279
280
281
241
242
245
246
247
248
250
253
256
258
259
262
263
267
268
274
299
301
303
304
307
310
305
306
308
312
311
313
7
8
9
11
13
16
17
24
25
27
32
316
317
14.01.035
14.01.037
14.01.022
14.01.039
14.01.066
14.01.070
14.01.079
14.01.080
14.01.082
14.01.090
16.01.004
16.01.006
16.01.008
16.01.011
16.01.010
16.07.012
16.07.011
16.07.013
16.07.014
16.07.015
16.07.016
16.07.018
16.07.030
16.07.026
16.07.023
16.07.022
16.07.039
16.07.041
16.07.046
16.07.047
16.07.057
16.08.021
18.12.020
18.12.017
18.12.033
18.12.044
18.12.054
18.13.006
18.13.007
18.13.012
19.07.005
19.08.005
21.06.010
24.03.038
24.03.037
24.03.040
24.03.044
24.03.078
24.03.081
24.03.090
24.03.075
24.03.076
24.03.020
24.03.126
33.01.007
33.01.008
Hearth 14.01.034
PH 14.01.036
Ditch 14.01.105
Pit 14.01.038
Ditch 14.01.106
Ditch 14.01.106
Pit 14.01.038
Pit 14.01.038
Pit 14.01.081
Layer 14.01.090
Layer 16.01.004
Layer 16.01.006
Pit 16.01.007
Pit 16.01.009
Pit 16.01.009
Furnace 16.07.008
16.07.008
16.07.008
16.07.008
16.07.008
16.07.008
Pit 16.07.017
Furnace 16.07.077
Furnace 16.07.024
Furnace 16.07.021
16.07.021
Pit 16.07.037
Furnace 16.07.040
16.07.077
16.07.077
Furnace 16.07.055
Pit 16.08.020
Pit 18.12.018
Pit 18.12.015
Pit 18.12.032
Pit 18.12.043
Pit 18.12.053
Pit 18.13.004
Pit 18.13.004
Pit 18.13.011
Pit 19.07.004
19.08.004
SFB 21.06.008
Pit 24.03.036
Pit 24.03.036
Pit 24.03.036
Pit 24.03.041
Pit 24.03.036
Pit 24.03.036
Pit 24.03.089
Ditch 24.03.153
Ditch 24.03.153
Ditch 24.03.153
Pit 24.03.150
33.01.006
33.01.006
202
Soil
to
process?
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Potential
sample?
C14
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
(one date already)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
APPENDIX 15: THE CHARRED PLANT REMAINS BY WENDY CARRUTHERS
Methodology
The flots were gently dry-sieved to make rapid scanning of the charred plant remains easier and in order to
remove large charcoal (sieve meshes = 3mm, 1.3mm and 0.25mm). The term ‘Charred plant remains’ in this
report includes fruits and seeds, plus a few other identifiable items such as tubers. For an assessment of
charcoal (see Challinor, this volume). Identifiable-sized large charcoal was retained in the large meshed sieve
(sieve mesh 3 mm). It was roughly quantified (see Table 15.1: approximate volume in ml.), checked through for
large nutshell fragments and fruit stones etc., and then sent to the charcoal specialist for assessment. The
remaining fractions were rapidly scanned under an Olympus SZX7 stereoscopic microscope at x10 magnification
(increasing up to x50 where necessary). Charred plant remains were noted and were sometimes placed in glass
tubes for protection, but the tubes were left in their sample bags. Full quantifications and identifications were not
carried out, however, since assessment of the state of preservation, rough characterisation of the assemblages,
and assessment of the overall potential and were the main objectives of this report.
The potential of each sample has been coded as follows;
A and A* = very high potential on archaeobotanical grounds alone. Material may be very well preserved,
frequent, unusual, or present in an important archaeological context or period.
B = good potential. Identifiable remains are present in reasonable quantities. Value is usually increased if several
‘B’ samples are examined from a structure or period.
B/C = good remains but not very frequent. The sample can be upgraded to B if more soil is available for
processing. Value is also increased if several samples can be examined together as a group.
C = remains may be scarce or poorly preserved but some information can be recovered, particularly if more soil
is available for processing.
D = no further potential. No remains, or unidentifiable remains, or remains already fully sorted and identified.
The author recommends that A*, A, B and B/C samples are fully analysed in the post-excavation program, and
that, where possible, the remaining soil is processed. For a few samples, where charred remains are abundant,
processing of all of the remaining soil may not be necessary, but this information is given in Tables 1-3. Samples
graded ‘C’ can be selected for analysis by Project Managers if the context is particularly important, or specific
questions need answering, if more soil is available for processing.
The results of the assessment have been discussed in three sections below. To save repetition,
recommendations are given in each section. However, a final table summarises the list of samples recommended
for further analysis (Table 15.4).
SECTION I: OTTERY ST MARY TO AYLESBEARE (OTA 06)
Forty-nine environmental soil samples were taken from this section of the pipeline and out of these, ten flots were
assessed by the author. The results are presented in Table 14.1. Where charred plant macrofossils were
observed, the samples are briefly described site by site below and recommendations for further work are given.
203
Site 1.03
Period 7 (C12th – C14th AD)
Deposit 01.03.005, the fill of pit 01.03.004 produced a useful assemblage of oat (Avena sp.) and rye (Secale
cereale) grains in a reasonable state of preservation. A few weed seeds were present (corn marigold
(Chrysanthemum segetum) and wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum)), and these indicated that the cereals had
been grown on acidic, sandy soils. The assemblage appears to represent processed grain either from two crops
or from a mixed rye/oat maslin. Rye and oats are the most suitable crops for sandy, acidic soils and they were
commonly grown in south-west England and Wales in the medieval period.
Recommendation - If the remaining 10L soil is processed from this sample, further information about crop
husbandry will probably be recovered.
Site 2.03
Period 2 (Middle .Neolithic)
Pit 02.03.004 yielded Peterborough Ware dating it to the Middle Neolithic period. The charred grain assemblage,
however, was more characteristic of a later prehistoric date (at least MBA because of the presence of spelt
chaff). Fill 02.03.005, contained frequent large charcoal and a reasonably well preserved assemblage of
emmer/spelt grain (Triticum dicoccum/spelta), with a number of weed contaminants and some spelt chaff. Breadtype wheat (T. aestivum-type) and possible oats (Avena sp.) were also observed. The weeds noted during the
assessment were common weeds of cultivated ground such as black bindweed (Fallopia convolvulus), but weeds
with more specific habitat requirements may be recovered if the remaining soil is processed and the flot is fully
sorted. The assemblage appears to represent burnt processed grain mixed with other domestic waste, since
hazelnut shell ((HNS) Corylus avellana) was also present.
Recommendation – Because of the ambiguous nature of the evidence it is important to double float (if clayey)
the remaining 10L and date a well-preserved cereal grain.
Site 3.04
Four samples from this site produced charred plant remains, but the quantities and state of preservation were
poor, with erosion and silt encrustation causing identification problems. This is probably due to the silty, alluvial
soils in this area. In addition, two samples were incomplete (the coarse flots – where most cereal grains would be
found - were missing from samples 72 and 73). As described below, further soil processing and the examination
of residues is likely to be worthwhile.
Period 2 (E.Neo)
The fill of pit 03.04.096, context 03.02.092, produced only two eroded cf. emmer/spelt wheat grains recovered
from the residue. However, the coarse flot was not present, so processing the remaining 20L of soil may produce
a useful assemblage. Since early Neolithic pottery was present in this context, radiocarbon dating is a priority
(Andy Mudd, pers.comm.).
Recommendation – It would be worth processing the remaining soil from this sample as it is the earliest sample
to produce cereals from the three pipeline sites. If clayey, the sample should be double-floated and the residue
should be carefully checked by the author for encrusted chaff fragments. Any identifiable grain should
radiocarbon dated.
204
be
The fill of ditch 03.04.045, context 03.04.088, produced only a very poorly preserved cf. hazelnut shell fragment
from the residue (Sample 72). However, as the coarse flot was not seen, additional material may have been
missed. Roman pottery was found in this context.
Samples from two ditch fills were assessed (Ditches 03.04.064 and 03.04.095). The small flots produced no
remains but single emmer/spelt wheat grains were obtained from each of the residues. Information about the
Romano-British arable economy appears to be much more readily available from the Site FTC 06 samples.
Recommendation – Most material from this period comes from FTC 24.03 so further information from this site
would add to the picture. If the remaining 10L of soil from sample 72 were processed and the residue checked for
encrusted chaff fragments, useful information about Romano-British arable agriculture may be obtained.
SECTION II: AYLESBEARE TO KENN (ATK 06)
Ninety-three environmental soil samples were taken from this section. Twenty flots were assessed by the author.
These came from two sites – medieval to post medieval features in Site 13.02 and Middle Bronze Age to Iron
Age features in Site 14.09.
Site 13.02
Period 7 (Medieval)
Four samples from ditches (ditches 13.02.069, 13.02.113, 13.02.103 and 13.02.244) produced sparse, poorly
preserved, eroded and fragmented grains indicating that the burnt waste had probably been lying around the site
before being washed into the ditches, rather than being deposited as waste. These remains may represent
domestic waste and midden material that had been spread on the fields as fertiliser. Indeterminate wheat, oats
and rye were noted, though most of the grains were too poor to be identified.
Recommendation - It is probably not worth looking at more material from these features due to the damage
done during redeposition, unless particular questions need to be answered.
Two hearths were assessed; 13.02.132 and 13.02.204. Preservation was poor, probably because material had
been repeatedly cleaned out and re-burnt – it was notable that no large charcoal was present. However,
identification was possible for some remains and more soil is available for both samples (103 and 166). If these
were both domestic hearths it would be worth examining the remaining samples in detail, since in this way it can
be possible to differentiate between cereals that were being used for human food and cereals being grown
primarily for fodder. Comparisons can then be made with other burnt waste from around the site. Bread-type
wheat, rye and oats were identified from the two small subsamples. Crop processing waste can also be found in
hearths, since contaminants picked by hand during cooking were often thrown into the fire.
Recommendation – process the remaining 20 litres.
205
Layer 13.02.193 produced a small assemblage of rye, oats and weeds of acidic soils (corn marigold, corn spurrey
(Spergula arvensis)). Since this layer represents the former floor surface of the long house, its importance is
similar to that of the hearths.
Recommendation - Although material on floor surfaces can be poorly preserved, a large amount of soil was
taken (40 litres in total). It would be worth processing the remaining 30 litres of soil to recover information about
food processing and, possibly, floor coverings.
Five samples from the SFB were assessed, including a floor layer (context 13.02.203), three fills (contexts
13.02.212, 13.02.213 and 13.02.202) and a build up layer (context 13.02.209). Frequent oats and rye grains were
present in most samples and a range of weed seeds and some rye chaff was present. Cultivated vetch was
tentatively identified in one sample, providing possible evidence of an additional fodder crop. It is likely that this
structure had been used to house livestock or store crops, since cereal remains were much more frequent than in
other samples.
Recommendation – although cereal grains were frequent in some of the samples it would be worth processing
the remaining soil in most cases in order to recovered scarce evidence of crop weeds and chaff. Charred chaff is
rare on medieval sites because of the free-threshing nature of most of the crops. However, cereals such as
cultivated and bristle oats, or rivet wheat and bread wheat can only be positively identified where chaff is present.
The recovery of more arable weed seeds will help to provide information about crop husbandry. Definite evidence
for cultivated vetch, and evidence for leguminous crops such as peas and beans, or flax, fruits and nuts may also
be found. This is an interesting feature that requires full investigation.
Two samples from pit 13.02.228 (samples 163 and 164) produced well preserved, abundant evidence of rye, with
some oats, barley, bread-type wheat and a possible large legume such as Celtic bean (Vicia faba var. minor).
Charcoal from this pit was frequent and consisted of roundwood twigs. This may be gorse, since a gorse (Ulex
sp.) seed was present. A few arable weed seeds were present as contaminants.
Recommendation – this is an interesting feature with well-preserved charred material, i.e. differential
preservation will be less of a problem in these samples so the results will be less biased.
Period 8 (Post-Medieval)
Sample 093 from an early Post-Medieval pit 13.02.174 contained some large charcoal and several poor, eroded
cereal grains. These included rye and the arable weed, corn marigold, showing that the local acidic soils were
being cultivated and routine liming was not yet occurring.
A post-medieval ditch fill, context 13.02.110, (ditch 13.02.109 – sample 111) contained a similar poor, eroded
sparse assemblage to the Period 7 ditch samples, including an oat grain.
Recommendation – if economic information about this period is required to complete the sequence of ‘changes
through time’ (or ‘lack of changes’ in this case), the remaining soil (30 litres) from sample 093 should be
processed.
A C16th-C18th pit fill, context 13.02.152 (pit 13.02.268, part of a ditch alignment), produced a small flot with a few
fragments of possible walnut shell (cf. Juglans regia) in the residue. The flot only contained gorse spine
fragments and a corn marigold seed.
206
Recommendation – The walnut identification will be checked as it is of interest. If confirmed, it suggests a fairly
high status occupant.
Site 14.09
Period 3 (MBA)
Two samples from pit 14.09.016 were examined (contexts 14.09.009 and 14.09.011). MBA pottery has been
recovered from these contexts (Andy Mudd, pers.comm.) and a radiocarbon date of 1627-1504 cal BC was
obtained on hazel charcoal from context 14.09.009. Only small amounts of soil were available from these
deposits (4 litres each), so the fact that a few cereal grains were recovered is significant. The grain was poorly
preserved and difficult to identify, but deposit 14.09.011 produced bread-type wheat and barley grains.
Recommendation –It would be worth double-floating the residues from samples 203 and 205 to see whether the
sparse remains represent ritual deposition. The poorly preserved, eroded state of the grains could suggest the
material had been left exposed for some time or was damaged during redeposition.
Undated (Period 10)
Sample 287 from a ring-ditch fill, context 14.09.052, produced an interesting assemblage of crop processing
waste. As a spelt glume base (Triticum spelta) was present the assemblage appears to be prehistoric in date.
Although the cereal grains were vacuolated and poorly preserved (a sign of high-temperature charring), in
contrast stem bases (culm bases) were present and weed seeds such as black bindweed were frequent. These
remains would be destroyed in high temperatures, so mixed waste must be present. Culm bases suggest
uprooting of crops rather than cutting with sickles. This type of harvesting was recently found in Late Bronze Age
ditch deposits at Heathrow (Carruthers, 2006).
Recommendation – it is recommended that the remaining soil 10L left is gently processed to recover the
maximum information concerning crop husbandry and harvesting methods. N.B. delicate remains may survive in
this sample. The author would like to check the residue from this sample and see if a second floatation is
required. A C14 date is highly recommended.
SECTION III: FISHACRE TO CHOAKFORD (FTC 06)
One hundred and forty-one samples were taken from this section of the pipeline, all of which were assessed for
this report.
Site 02.02
Samples from four pit fills (contexts 02.02.005, 02.02.007, 02.02.008, 02.02.011) contained frequent to abundant
fragments of hazelnut shell, almost all of which was extracted from the sample residues. Large charcoal
fragments were common. The only other object was a possible tuber fragment. It is interesting that no cereal
remains have yet been recovered, since many Neolithic sites produce evidence of both arable agriculture and a
strong reliance on gathered foods. This could suggest a very early date, or temporary, perhaps seasonal nature
of the occupation. It could also indicate very small scale arable cultivation which would produce very low levels of
burnt waste. The presence of probable Late Neolithic pottery contradicts the first explanation, although an early
207
date of 3339-3095 cal BC was obtained from a fragment of HNS. Perhaps this feature was used for ritual
deposition over a period of time. More dates will be needed to resolve this anomaly.
Recommendation – process the remaining soil 80L in total to see whether scarce cereal remains can be found,
to clarify the nature of the economy and resolve the dating problem. Residues must be sorted carefully for small
cereal grains and weed seeds amongst the large HNS fragments.
Period 10 (undated)
Two samples (294 and 295) from fills of pit 02.02.013 were assessed. Although only small numbers of poor grain
fragments and small HNS fragments were observed, the subsamples were small. As this feature was within a
group of Late Neolithic (Grooved Ware) pits (Andy Mudd, pers. comm.) the remaining soil should be processed.
Recommendation – process the remaining 20 litres of soil and sort the residues carefully, since alluvial soils
often cause silt encrustation on seeds making them fail to float.
Three samples from the fills of two other undated pits in this group, pits 02.02.016 (contexts 02.02.017) and
02.02.018 (02.02.019, 02.02.020), produced frequent HNS fragments from the residues, supporting a possible
Neolithic date.
Recommendation – The remaining 30 litres of soil should be processed to help in the search for cereal remains
from Period 2 (assuming they date to this period). C14 dates should be obtained. If clayey, double floatation
should be used.
Site 12.05
Period 10 (undated) – Of the twelve samples from this site assessed by the author from pit fills, three produced
food remains consisting of a small amount number of cereal grains, a fragment of sloe/plum (Prunus sp.) stone
and a small HNS fragment. It is uncertain whether the pits are domestic or funerary features. If further soil were
processed this question may be answered. Clearly, some material would need to be dated to make this
information useful.
Recommendation – process the remaining 20 litres of soil from samples 228, 229 and 235 and obtain dates for
these features.
Site 14.01
The samples were notable in producing possible evidence for the extraction of oil from flax seeds.
The following features contained black melted slaggy fragments and some recognisable half-melted flax capsules
with traces of seeds still inside; pit 14.01.034 and two fills in pit 14.01.038 (contexts 14.01.039 and 14.01.080).
Pit 14.01.038 also contained a few cereal grains (emmer/spelt, oat) and a Celtic bean (Vicia faba var. minor).
Recommendation – It would be worthwhile processing all of the remaining soil from these three samples total of
40L in order to investigate this very unusual and important information about an industrial process. Although
known to have taken place, the extraction of oil from seeds has rarely been demonstrated in archaeological
deposits. Flax processing waste (consisting of small capsule fragments and seeds) is fairly common in
208
waterlogged deposits. During processing, flax capsules are broken into fragments by a process called ‘rippling’.
Because these capsules appear to have been burnt whole, oil extraction is much more likely. For this reason, full
analysis of these deposits is highly recommended.
Site 16.07
This site produced a number of bowl furnaces and areas of burning. Bowl furnace 16.07.008 has been C14 dated
to 3rd-4th century BC (Period 4, IA), so the other furnaces are likely to be the same date (Andy Mudd,
pers.comm.).
Only one sample from the furnaces contained economic evidence (sample 247), and this was bowl furnace
16.07.008. A black bindweed seed and three possible poor emmer/spelt wheat grains were recovered from the
sample. It may be worth processing more soil from the unproductive furnaces in the hope that more economic
and dating evidence is found. Cereal processing waste was often used as tinder and fuel for furnaces and ovens.
Recommendation – Process more soil from all furnaces (samples 241, 245, 250, 256, 258, 259, 274) and fully
sort the flot from sample 247.
Site 16.08
Period 10 (undated)
Pit 16.08.020 produced a well-preserved assemblage of mixed oats and barley in roughly equal proportions. This
appears to have been a mixed crop, dredge, which was fairly frequently grown from the Early Medieval period
onwards, with documentary records increasing from the C13th (Beavan, 1947, p.49). It would be worth
processing the remaining 20 litres to specifically examine weed/crop associations, so as to help determine why
this crop was being grown on the local silty clay soils.
Recommendation – process the remaining 20 litres of soil and date the assemblage.
Site 18.12
Period 2 (Early Neolithic)
The fills of two pits (18.12.018 and 18.12.032) were assessed (samples 301 & 304 respectively). The secondary
fill of pit 18.12.018 contained frequent HNS in the residue, but no other charred remains were observed. Pit
18.12.053 contained frequent HNS fragments in fill 18.12.054 (sample 310). From the plant assemblage, this
appears to be an early prehistoric feature (Neolithic or BA).
Recommendation – It would be worth processing the remaining 20 litres of soil from sample 301, fill 18.12.020,
in order to see whether cereals were being cultivated during this period. The remaining 30 litres of soil from
sample 310 should be processed to look for cereal remains and a C14 date sought.
Period 10 (undated)
The primary fill of pit 18.12.015 (sample 303) produced a barley-rich assemblage, which is unusual for sites in
Devon on acidic, sandy soils. A maslin with oats may have been grown (dredge or drage), although oats were
much less frequent in this sample. A more convincing assemblage of dredge was observed in a pit in Site 16.08,
but unfortunately this was also undated. Dredge was frequently grown in the Early and Later Medieval periods as
a way of ‘hedging a farmer’s bets’. It was often used for fodder and for brewing.
209
Recommendation – date some grains and analyse the deposit fully.
Site 18.13
Period 10 (undated)
Pit 18.13.004 produced HNS in the residues from two samples (305 and 306). A moderate number of small to
medium sized fragments was present. Since features containing Late Neolithic pottery were located nearby at
site 18.12 and very similar assemblages came from some of these features, it is likely that 18.13.004 was
associated with this period of activity. Therefore, it would be worth looking for cereal remains in the remaining
unprocessed soil, to see if the activities were of a transitory or more settled nature.
Recommendations – process the remaining 20 litres soil to look for cereal remains and date the assemblage.
Site 19.07
Period 10 (undated)
Pit 19.07.004 contained an interesting assemblage of vacuolated but not eroded oats and rye, together with
gorse spines, bracken fragments and some burnt twine. Was this a bundle of material that had been burnt,
perhaps being brought to livestock for fodder?
Recommendations – Is probably a medieval asembalge, but needs dating
Site 21.06
This deposit consisted of the fill of SFB 21.06.008. The sample was interesting in character in that it contained a
poor barley grain, but also a wide range of weed seeds (general weeds of disturbed and cultivated soils such as
black bindweed, cleavers). In addition, small charred pellets of dung were present (c. 8mm x 3mm cylinders).
Being charred, these are unlikely to be modern rabbit droppings unless stubble burning had been taking place.
They did not appear to be modern (i.e. half-charred) although more work needs to be done to try to identify them.
They could represent sheep/goat droppings from livestock that had been housed in the SFB and fed on crop
processing waste and weedy hedgerow clippings etc. An unexpectedly early date was obtained on the barley
grain (1385-1194 cal BC), and in view of its poor state of preservation it is possible that this represents residual
material. If the remaining soil is processed, more suitable cereal remains may be found to date (hopefully
something characteristic of later assemblages, such as a well-preserved rye grain).
Recommendation – If the provenance of this sample is considered secure and it is dateable, further work may
help to reveal the function of the SFB. (Twenty litres of soil remains to be processed).
Site 24.03
Period 5 (Roman)
Of the nineteen samples from this phase and Site assessed, seven produced good assemblages of emmer/spelt
grain and processing waste, with frequent chess caryopses being a very dominant contaminant or possible crop.
All of these samples were from pit 24.03.036. These samples will provide useful information about crop
husbandry during Period 5. Spelt wheat appears to have been the main cereal grown, with some oats and barley.
Spelt is a demanding crop for poor soils, so it will be important to see whether there is evidence of soil
impoverishment, manuring or the cultivation of leguminous crops to help maintain soil fertility.
210
Recommendation – although nine samples (samples 007-010, 012-016) have been taken from this feature and
plant remains are frequent, it would be worthwhile processing the remaining small amounts of soil (particularly
from the primary fill) in order to maximise the crop husbandry information recovered from these well-preserved
samples. This would not involve full analysis of all of the flots, but sub-sampling for chaff and cereals, then
scanning for rarer weed seeds and legumes in order to recover weed ecology information. Quantification of chess
may show whether it was grown as a crop or occurring as a pernicious weed.
Site 33.01
Period 10 (undated)
Samples 316 and 317 from the primary and secondary fills of possible cremation pit 33.01.006 produced frequent
HNS fragments from the residues. Because these may be ritual in character it would be worth processing the
remaining soil to be sure that no other types of foods were being burnt as offerings. Perhaps, rather than burning
the hazelnuts whole as an offering, they were being consumed at a funerary feast, so only food waste would be
found rather than whole cereal grains. This needs to be investigated further, particularly since similar deposits
can be compared from other parts of the pipeline. Clearly, the feature would need to be dated for the information
to be of any value.
Recommendation – the primary fill has been fully processed, at least half of the 50 litres of secondary fill should
be processed. The residues will need to be carefully and thoroughly sorted for cereal remains, particularly if the
HNS is abundant. Subsamples of the residues should be sent to the author for checking.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
The main sources of information for the assessment of samples from this pipeline are presented in the tables and
site-by-site descriptions, since the areas of human activity do not necessarily tie together in a coherent way at
this stage in the investigations. However, a few general points of interest can be noted which may be of value in
determining research priorities.
1.
The Neolithic and Bronze Age samples (Periods 2 and 3) from several of the Devon Pipeline sites
contained large quantities of hazelnut shell fragments (HNS) but very little evidence of arable cultivation
in comparison with other areas of southern England. The acidic soils in the region are not ideal for
arable cultivation, particularly where they are clayey in nature, so agriculture may have been
predominantly pastoral until suitable ploughs were developed to cope with the heavy soils and cereals
such as spelt were introduced in the Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age (Jones, 1981). The scarcity of
grain could also be because of the types of contexts being examined, as described by Campbell and
Straker (2003) in their review of crop plants in southern England. Although cereals are generally scarce
in Neolithic to Early Bronze Age deposits, a few Early Prehistoric houses with storage contexts have
produced large quantities of cereal remains (Jones, 2000; Monk, 2000). Therefore, perhaps the lack of
cereals in the Devon samples is due to the robust nature of HNS and fact that the preservation of
cereals by charring is rare in contexts other than storage contexts, where grain is concentrated. For this
to be demonstrated, sufficient soil must have been processed to be sure that small quantities of cereals
are not being missed. In addition, double-floatation and residue sorting must be carried out where clay
soils hamper floatation. An important advantage to this is that where sufficiently large soil samples have
been examined in detail, it will be possible to use both negative and positive evidence in the discussion.
As very few sites of this period have been investigated in Devon (Campbell & Straker, 2003), apart from
the Honiton to Exeter section of the A30 (Clapham, 1999), it is important that as much information as
211
possible is retrieved from these samples. It is interesting to see that of the 7 Neolithic samples examined
by Clapham (ibid.), only a few poor cereal fragments, one emmer spikelet fork (Castle Hill) and a large
number of lesser celandine tubers (Long Range) were found. HNS fragments were not abundant at
either site. It would be useful to compare dates from these sites with the Devon Pipeline samples, if they
are available.
2.
Radiocarbon dates have shown that activity dating to the MBA took place on sites in sections ATK and
FTC, possibly associated with cremation in the former case. Although charred plant remains are rare in
these samples, further soil processing may produce cereal grains and tubers that were burnt as
offerings.
3.
Of the Iron Age (Period 4) samples assessed, none contained cereal grains suggesting that the
economy was predominantly pastoral at this time and occupation was probably short-lived. Only one
poorly preserved hazelnut shell fragment was present (sample 072, ditch OTA 3.04.086). The Roman
samples were more productive, perhaps because of improvements in crop husbandry techniques. Full
analysis of large assemblages may provide sufficient weed seeds to demonstrate this using information
from weed ecology. It will also be interesting to see whether leguminous crops were being grown to help
improve soil fertility. The apparent cultivation of flax for oil during the Roman period is of great interest
and should be fully investigated.
4.
By the Medieval Period (Period 7) a range of crops were being grown in order to maximise yields on the
poor acidic soils. Oats and rye appear to have been the main crops, but the small amounts of breadtype wheat may be a great under-estimation of the amount being consumed. Cultivated vetch had been
introduced as a useful fodder crop that can help to maintain soil fertility. It would be interesting to date
the two possible samples containing dredge, and other deposits such as SFB fill FTC 21.06.010, in
order to see when and where these crops were grown. Full investigation of the Site ATK 13.02 samples
may help to demonstrate which crops were being used for human consumption and which were being
fed to livestock. They may also help to show how the different buildings were being used.
Following full analysis, comparisons will be made with the A30 sites (Clapham, 1999), Membury (Neolithic & RB;
Carruthers, unpublished) and Mothecombe (Dark Ages; Carruthers, unpublished assessment).
212
Table 15.1 Charred plant remains from OTA section
charcoal
charred plant remains
potential
Vol.
avail.
25ml flot, mainly
silt,
small
charcoal
10ml
lge
char sent to
Dana
0
D
0
B
0
10
20
10
Context
Sample
Tot
Vol.
Vol.
processed
Context type
205.004
205.012
063
20
20
cremation
205.004
208.004
209.004
01.03.004
205.005
208.005
209.005
01.03.005
064
004
005
173
10
20
30
20
10
10
10
10
cremation
ditch fill
ditch fill
pit fill
10
10
10
7 / C12C14th
02.03.004
02.03.005
174
40
40
pit fill
2/M.Neo
03.04.004
03.04.004
03.04.006
03.04.013
074
075
10
10
10
10
primary ditch fill
5
ditch 03.04.012 primary fill
0
0
03.04.004
03.04.010
076
10
10
5
0
03.04.004
03.04.018
077
10
10
5
0
03.04.004
03.04.020
078
5
10
5
0
03.04.004
03.04.034
079
10
10
5
0
03.04.004
03.04.061
080
10
10
5/MBA?
0
03.04.004
03.04.065
081
10
10
03.04.004
03.04.069
082
10
10
03.04.004
03.04.094
083
10
10
basal fill of ditch
03.04.009
primary fill of
ditch 03.04.017
third fill of ditch
03.04.017
basal fill of ditch
03.04.033
basal fill of ditch
03.04.061
ditch 03.04.064
fill
basal
fill
of
03.04.068
fill
of
ditch
03.04.095
03.04.026
03.04.031
03.04.036
03.04.038
03.04.045
03.04.028
03.04.032
03.04.037
03.04.039
03.04.088
066
068
070
069
072
10
10
14
10
20
10
10
6
10
10
secondary pit fill
pit fill
pit fill
pit fill
secondary fill of
ditch 03.04.086
period /
spot
date
10
flot description
Generic/
fill of
5
75ml freq silt,
0
175ml flot, freq
char & silt, freq
black
blobby
slag
50ml
char
5ml flot,
small char
silt,
0
lge
oats +++; rye +++; Raphanus
raphanistrum +; Chrysanthemum
segetum+
emmer/spelt grain +++; oats +;
Fallopia +; spelt glume base +;
Persicaria sp.+ ;8 medium frags HNS
1 spelt-type grain
A - C14
date
C
5
5
10
3
10
10
5
0
0
0
5ml coarse flot
only, occ lge
char
not
extracted
0
SORTED REMAINS ONLY
0
SORTED
REMAINS
&
FINE
FLOT
ONLY
213
1 emmer/spelt wheat grain; poor
Rumex sp.+
MODERN
1 very poor, encrusted ridged
?nutshell frag, ID not confirmed
C
0
B/C
0
0
8
0
10
Generic/
fill of
Context
Sample
Tot
Vol.
Vol.
processed
Context type
period /
spot
date
03.04.054
03.04.096
03.04.055
03.04.092
071
073
10
30
10
10
pit fill
pit 03.04.090 fill
04.10.004
04.10.016
04.10.018
04.12.004
04.12.004
04.12.004
04.12.004
05.01.015
05.01.017
04.10.005
04.10.017
04.10.021
04.12.005
04.12.018
04.12.019
04.12.005
05.01.016
05.01.019
212
213
214
215
221
222
223
169
168
10
10
40
40
20
20
10
10
10
10
10
10
1
10
10
1
10
10
10
3
5
10
10
10
10
10
10
05.01.020
05.01.050
175
20
10
pit fill
pit fill
third fill of ditch
primary ditch fill
13th ditch fill
14th ditch fill
primary ditch fill
pit fill
secondary
posthole fill
primary fill of
ditch 049
05.01.020
05.01.022
176
20
20
10
0
05.01.020
05.01.032
177
20
20
10
0
05.01.020
05.01.020
05.01.039
05.01.059
178
179
20
20
20
10
6th fill of ditch
05.01.021
primary fill of
ditch
05.01.031ditch
fill
cut?
primary fill of
ditch 05.01.058
05.01.020
05.01.043
182
20
10
ditch fill
10
05.01.020
05.01.034
183
20
10
10
10
05.01.047
05.01.049
05.01.048
05.01.023
181
170
5
40
5
10
10
10
0
30
05.01.025
05.01.026
05.01.038
171
172
180
40
30
20
10
10
10
third fill of ditch
05.01.031
pit/posthole fill
charcoal dump
within ditch
mound material
mound material
mound material
10
10
10
30
20
10
2/E.Neo
10
10
10
flot description
potential
SORTED REMAINS ONLY
0
SORTED
REMAINS
&
FINE
FLOT
ONLY
MODERN
2 poor eroded cf. emmer/spelt wheat
grains
B/C
0;
C14 date
SORTED REMAINS ONLY
MODERN
5ml flot,
small char
0
silt,
50ml silty flot,
trace small char
only
25ml silty flot,
trace small char
only
214
charcoal
2
small
frags sent
to Dana
2
small
frags sent
to Dana
0
Vol.
avail.
0
20
0
0
30
39
10
10
9
0
0
D
0
0
D
0
10
0
D
10
Table 15.2 Charred plant remains from ATK section
Generic/
fill of
Context
Sample
Tot
vol
Vol
processed
Context type
period
/
spot date
flot description
07.01.004
12.10.006
13.02.009
13.02.009
07.01.005
12.10.007
13.02.008
13.02.005
289
284
138
137
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
pit fill
pit fill
fill of ditch 13.02.007
10
10
10
10
SORTED REMAINS ONLY
MODERN
SORTED REMAINS ONLY
MODERN
13.02.009
13.02.016
139
10
10
10
13.02.009
13.02.081
144
10
10
10
SORTED REMAINS ONLY
MODERN
13.02.010
13.02.110
111
10
10
8 / P.Med
10ml silt & small
char
1 oat; 1 poor NFI cereal frag
13.02.010
13.02.014
113
10
10
fiil of ditch 13.02.113
7/C12-14
0
13.02.010
13.02.020
114
10
10
third fill
13.02.117
8/C16-18
0
13.02.045
13.02.067
13.02.073
13.02.046
13.02.072
13.02.070
088
092
090
30
20
20
10
10
10
posthole fill
ditch fill
7
7
7/C12-C14
20
10
10
13.02.073
13.02.073
13.02.062
13.02.183
091
127
20
10
10
10
ditch fill
7
7
10
0
13.02.121
13.02.123
13.02.125
13.02.122
13.02.124
13.02.058
095
143
119
10
10
10
10
10
10
posthole fill
ditch fill
7
4/M-LIA
8
0
0
0
13.02.125
13.02.056
120
10
10
8
0
13.02.125
13.02.066
121
10
10
8
0
13.02.125
13.02.075
122
10
10
8
0
13.02.125
13.02.147
123
10
10
fill of ditch terminus
13.02.146
8
0
13.02.126
13.02.127
13.02.128
13.02.089
124
140
10
10
10
10
ditch fill
10
10
0
0
of
ditch
charcoal
potential
Vol
avail
0
0
0
0
0
215
10ml silt & small
charcoal
0
0
SORTED REMAINS ONLY
poor vacuolated grain frags +
MODERN
0
C
C
0
Generic/
fill of
Context
Sample
Tot
vol
Vol
processed
Context type
period
/
spot date
flot description
13.02.127
13.02.050
141
10
10
10
SORTED REMAINS ONLY
13.02.127
13.02.079
142
10
10
10
0
13.02.127
13.02.149
145
10
10
10
0
13.02.132
13.02.132
13.02.132
13.02.132
13.02.133
13.02.134
13.02.135
13.02.136
097
098
099
100
10
110
30
10
10
10
10
10
hearth
hearth
deposit
hearth deposit
7
7/C13-14
7/C13-15
7
13.02.132
13.02.158
101
40
10
layer within hearth
7
13.02.132
13.02.134
103
20
10
hearth
13.02.132
13.02.132
13.02.132
13.02.132
13.02.132
13.02.165
13.02.168
13.02.169
13.02.184
13.02.185
104
107
108
128
129
20
20
10
10
90
10
10
10
10
10
layer
hearth rim
hearth
fill of hearth
hearth surface
7 / m C1314
7/C13-14
7/C13-14
7
7
7/C12-14
13.02.132
13.02.132
13.02.186
13.02.187
130
131
40
10
10
10
deposit
hearth deposit
7
7
30
0
13.02.132
13.02.188
132
30
10
clay surface
7
20
13.02.132
13.02.189
133
30
10
hearth layer
7/ C13-14
13.02.132
13.02.132
13.02.159
13.02.190
13.02.191
13.02.006
134
135
105
30
20
10
10
10
10
7/C12-14
7
8
13.02.159
13.02.163
13.02.174
13.02.160
13.02.192
13.02.097
106
136
093
10
40
40
10
10
10
hearth rim
hearth
shell dump
ditch
ditch fill
pit fill
pit fill
13.02.175
13.02.195
13.02.176
13.02.194
110
147
10
240
10
10
ditch fill
make up ground
4
7
13.02.195
13.02.194
149
20
10
layer
7/C13-14
within
charcoal
potential
MODERN
SORTED REMAINS ONLY
MODERN
SORTED REMAINS ONLY
MODERN
Vol
avail
0
0
100
20
0
30
8/C18
7/C12-14
8 / e P.Med
20ml freq silt,
occ small char
0
SORTED REMAINS ONLY
SORTED REMAINS ONLY
B/C
10
10
10
0
0
80
MODERN
MODERN
20
20
10
0
SORTED REMAINS ONLY
MODERN
25ml
silt
charcoal
rye +; very poor eroded grain
frags
+;
alder
seed
+;
Chrysanthemum segetum +
&
10ml lge
char
SORTED REMAINS ONLY
216
poor eroded grain frag; 1 breadtype wheat; 3 rye; 2 oats
MODERN
C-
0
30
30
0
230
10
Generic/
fill of
Context
Sample
Tot
vol
Vol
processed
Context type
period
/
spot date
flot description
13.02.210
13.02.222
13.02.228
13.02.228
13.02.211
13.02.223
13.02.229
13.02.232
148
160
159
163
5
10
10
5
5
10
10
5
postpad fill
pit fill
pit fill
pit fill
7
7
7
7
13.02.228
13.02.233
164
10
10
pit fill
7
13.02.228
13.02.244
13.02.234
13.02.246
165
285
5
20
5
10
pit fill
secondary fill of ditch
7
7
13.02.251
13.02.248
286
40
10
7
13.02.267
13.02.140
115
10
10
8/C16-18
13.02.267
13.02.268
13.02.268
13.02.120
13.02.033
13.02.152
116
117
118
10
10
10
10
10
10
pit fill
pit fill
pit fill
8/C16-18
8/C16-18
8 / C1618th
SORTED REMAINS ONLY
MODERN
5ml flot, occ sm
char
13.02.269
13.02.114
094
10
10
fill of ditch 13.02.113l
7 / C12C14th
10ml silt & small
char
sev small frags cf. walnut shell;
Chrysanthemum segetum +;
gorse spine+
poor vacuolated frags cf. wheat
+; poor oat/chess ++
13.02.269
13.02.181
126
10
10
7
13.02.270
13.02.012
112
10
10
8/pmed
13.02.270
13.02.271
13.02.271
13.02.179
13.02.138
13.02.104
125
096
109
10
10
10
10
10
10
ditch fill
ditch fill
7
7
7/C13-C14
SORTED REMAINS ONLY
MODERN
SORTED REMAINS ONLY
very poor frag cf. cereal +
C
0
0
0
13.02.272
13.02.212
152
20
10
fill of SFB 13.02.196
7 / C12C14th
10ml small & lge
char
1 cf. Agrostemma githago frag;
1 poor cereal frag.; rye, oats,
rye rachis ++
B/C
10
70ml char & silt
300ml flot with
frequent twiggy
charcoal
10ml flot, occ sm
char
charcoal
30ml
mainly
roundwo
od
200ml
mainly
roundwo
od
0
SORTED REMAINS ONLY
217
potential
Vol
avail
rye +++; barley ++; bread-type
wheat ++; Scleranthus anuus +.
Good preservation
A
0
0
0
0
Good preservation- rye +++;
bread-type wheat +; rye/wheat
+; oat ++; barley ++; cf. large
legume
+;
weeds
+++
(Chrysanthemum
segetum);
gorse +
A
0
occ poor grain rye & oat
C
0
10
MODERN
30
0
0
occasion
al
medium
char not
extracted
SORTED REMAINS ONLY
C
0
0
0
C
0
MODERN
0
0
10ml lge
char
Generic/
fill of
Context
Sample
Tot
vol
Vol
processed
Context type
period
/
spot date
flot description
charcoal
13.02.272
13.02.213
153
10
10
7
10ml charcoal,
mostly small
poor
rye
++;
oat
Chrysanthemum segetum
13.02.272
13.02.209
154
20
10
SFB13.02.196
up
7
18ml flot,
char freq
occ lge
char not
extracted
8ml lge
char
13.02.272
13.02.218
155
10
10
7
0
13.02.272
13.02.200
156
20
10
7
10
13.02.272
13.02.203
157
20
10
hearth within
13.02.196
7
10ml flot, occ sm
char
occ lge
char not
extracted
13.02.272
13.02.202
161
50
10
7 / C12C14th
40ml sm & lge
char
8ml
char
13.02.273
13.02.207
166
20
10
hearth 13.02.204 fill
7
15ml silt & small
char
0
13.02.273
13.02.206
167
10
10
fill of hearth 13.02.204
7
SORTED REMAINS ONLY
MODERN
13.02.193
146
50
10
floor layer
7
10ml flot, occ sm
char
poor frags cereal ++; rye, oat,
Chrysanthemum segetum +;
Spergula arvensis +
13.02.220
13.02.221
13.02.227
150
151
158
15
20
20
5
5
10
layer
dump
make up layer
7
7
7
14.09.003
14.09.006
207
10
10
pit
3
10ml silt & small
char
0
0
Gorse/broom
charcoal
returned a date of 367-201 cal
BC
D
0
14.09.016
14.09.008
202
5
5
pit
3
5ml rooty
small char
a
few
medium
frags
sent
to
Dana
0
D
0
build
SFB
lge
lge
0
++;
poor vacuolated cereal frags ++;
oats
+++;
Chrysanthemum
segetum ++
rye+; oats +++; Chrysanthemum
segetum +++; rye rachis+; 2
halves of 2-3mm Vicia/Lathyrus
sp.
oats +++; rye +++; bread wheat
+;
barley;
Chrysanthemum
segetum
+++;
chess
+;
Raphanus raphanistrum+; cf.
Vicia sativa +; 1 HNS
a few poor oats ++; rye rachis +
potential
Vol
avail
B/C
0
B
10
B
10
A
40
B/C
10
10
B/C
10
10
15
10
218
flot,
Generic/
fill of
Context
Sample
Tot
vol
Vol
processed
Context type
period
/
spot date
flot description
charcoal
potential
Vol
avail
14.09.016
14.09.009
203
5
5
pit
3/MBA
15ml flot, silty,
rootlets,
0
14.09.010
204
5
5
pit
3
10ml silty flot,
occ medium char
1 Galium aparine ; possible poor
cereal frags +. C14 on hazel
charcoal = 1627-1504 cal BC
0
B
14.09.016
D
0
14.09.016
14.09.011
205
5
5
pit
3/MBA
5ml med
char sent
to Dana
4
medium
frags
sent
to
Dana
0
0
14.09.013
14.09.015
14.09.019
14.09.020
200
201
208
209
20
40
5
5
10
10
5
5
tree throw
tree throw
pit
pit
3/MBA
3/MBA
3/MBA
3
1 poor eroded bread-type wheat
grain; 2 poor barley [1 sent for
C14]
MODERN
B/C
14.09.017
14.09.017
14.09.018
14.09.018
10ml silty flot,
moss,
several
small char
SORTED REMAINS ONLY
0
D
14.09.021
14.09.052
287
20
10
ring ditch fill
10
10ml silty flot,
occ small char
20ml silt & small
char
10
30
0
0
crop processing waste including
culm bases, weed seeds +++;
occ grain
A* C14
date
15.02.018
15.02.005
288
40
10
10
0
5ml
char
lge
10
30
Table 15.3 Charred plant remains from FTC section
Generic/
fill of
Context
Sample
Tot
vol.
Vol.
processed
type
period /
spot
date
Flot description
Charcoal
Potential
Vol.
Avail.
01.04
(site
24.02)
01.05
001
30
10
ditch fill
10
50ml salmon orange silt,
coating charcoal.
0
D
20
02.02.004
02.02.005
290
50
10
pit fill
2/LNEO?
50ml silt, char & HNS
40
02.02.007
292
20
10
2/Lneo
abundant (25ml) HNS, 1
poss tuber frag.
30ml lge HNS
B
02.02.006
B
10
02.02.006
02.02.008
291
10
10
third pit fill
2/LNEO
25ml HNS
B
0
02.02.010
02.02.011
293
40
10
second pit fill
2/NEO
40ml silt & char & HNS
25ml HNS, some > C14
[3339-3095cal BC]
B
30
02.02.013
02.02.014
294
20
10
primary pit fill
2
10ml silt, rootlets, freq char
20ml large
charcoal,
flat,
encrusted
5ml
lge
char
10ml
lge
char
10ml
lge
char
a few med
frags
extracted
a few med
char
extracted
1 grain frag; HNS +++
B/C
10
second pit fill
219
Generic/
fill of
Context
Sample
Tot
vol.
Vol.
processed
type
period /
spot
date
Flot description
Charcoal
Potential
Vol.
Avail.
02.02.013
02.02.015
295
20
10
second pit fill
2
10ml silt, rootlets, sm char
1 cf. cereal frag; small
HNS frags +
B/C
10
02.02.016
02.02.017
298
20
10
pit fill
2
30ml silt & char
10ml HNS; 1/2
Vicia/Lathyrus sp.
B/C
10
02.02.018
02.02.019
296
20
10
primary pit fill
2
10ml silt, char, shillet,
HNS ++
B/C
10
02.02.018
02.02.020
297
20
10
second pit fill
2
10ml roots, silt, char
5ml HNS
B/C
10
09.04
09.05
002
40
10
ditch fill
4
0
D
30
12.05.004
12.05.005
233
30
10
pit fill
10
15ml pale yellow silt &
shillet
15ml char & brown silt
sev
med
frags
extracted
occ
med
char
extracted
2 lge char
frags
occ lge char
extracted
occ medium
char only
5ml
lge
char
4 Fallopia convolvulus; 1
Persicaria sp.
C
20
12.05.004
12.05.006
234
40
10
pit fill
10
25ml silt & char
30
12.05.007
235
20
10
pit fill
10
20ml silt, moss, lge char
lge
Galium aparine 2 from
residue
1 HNS; 1 cf grain frag
C
12.05.004
B
10
12.05.004
12.05.008
236
20
10
pit fill
10
25ml charcoal & silt
lge
0
D
10
12.05.009
12.05.010
227
10
10
pit fill
10
0
D
0
12.05.009
12.05.015
229
25
10
pit fill
10
228
10
10
pit fill
10
B
0
12.05.013
12.05.014
225
45
10
pit fill
10
70ml pale brown silt & char
2 barley; 1 cf. emmer/spelt
grain
1 barley; 1 rye;1 small frag
cf. Prunus sp. stone
0
15
12.05.012
D
35
12.05.013
12.05.016
226
45
10
pit fill
10
40ml brown silt & charcoal
onion couch tuber 1
C
35
12.05.017
12.05.018
230
20
10
pit fill
10
0
D
10
12.05.019
12.05.021
238
20
10
pit fill
10
0
0
D
10
12.05.019
12.05.022
231
20
10
pit fill
10
10ml silt & shillet, occ
small char
15ml moss, shillet, small
char
10ml silt & sm char
100ml lge
char
10ml
lge
char
20ml
lge
char chunks
10ml
lge
char
0
B
12.05.011
40ml pale brown silt,
several small & lge char
not extracted
150ml freq char & brown
silt
50ml freq char, brown silt
5ml
char
10ml
char
8ml
char
0
0
D
10
12.05w.0
04
12.05w.007
239
20
5
pit/bowl furnace
fill
10
15ml moss, silt, med char,
slaggy & mineralised blobs
0
D
15
13.03.004
13.03.045
193
20
10
primary fill of
ditch 13.03.044
4
10ml shillet & silt
small char
> C14
a few lge
char
extracted
small char
sent
to
Dana
for
0
D
10
220
lge
3mm
Generic/
fill of
Context
Sample
Tot
vol.
Vol.
processed
type
period /
spot
date
Flot description
Charcoal
Potential
Vol.
Avail.
dating
13.03.004
13.03.051
192
20
10
primary fill of
ditch 13.03.050
primary fill of
ditch 13.03.056
ditch fill
4
8ml shillet & silt
trace char
0
D
10
13.03.004
13.03.057
191
20
10
4
25ml shillet & pale silt
trace char
0
D
10
10.08
10.09
003
40
10
5
5
1 cf. hawthorn stone frag.;
1/2 vetch/tare
0
30
primary fill of
ditch 13.03.012
D
10
20
10
ditch
5
10
20
10
ditch
5
D
10
14.01.006
033
5
5
pit fill
5
14.01.004
14.01.007
034
5
5
pit fill
5
25ml flot, frequent pale
yellow silt & shillet
25ml flot, uncharred wood
frags frequent, uncharred
seeds
25ml silt & shillet; bready
slag
5ml silt
C
189
fill
of
13.03.029
fill
of
13.03.037
occ medium
char only
10ml
medium
char
trace char
C
10
25ml pale yellow silt &
shillet
10ml shillet & silt
13.03.011
13.03.013
190
20
13.03.011
13.03.030
185
13.03.011
13.03.038
14.01.004
14.01.004
14.01.008
035
10
10
pit fill
5
25ml silt
14.01.004
14.01.009
036
10
10
pit fill
5
15ml orange silt & shillet
14.01.034
14.01.035
038
20
10
hearth fill
5/RB
LC2-C4
15ml small char & rootlets
14.01.036
14.01.037
039
10
10
posthole fill
5
40ml silt, shillet, small char
14.01.038
14.01.039
044
40
10
secondary fill of
pit
5/RB
LC2-C4
100ml blobby slag & small
char
14.01.038
14.01.079
053
30
10
primary pit fill
5
14.01.038
14.01.080
054
20
10
secondary pit fill
5
100ml lge blobby slag &
char
150ml blobby slag & char
14.01.081
14.01.082
057
10
10
5/RB
40ml ashy silt, blobby slag,
char
14.01.105
14.01.022
042
40
10
5
5ml shillet
14.01.105
14.01.024
040
40
10
fill of natural
depression
14.01.081
fill
of
ditch
14.01.020
fill
of
ditch
80ml
char
50ml
char
5ml
char
5
20ml shillet
221
1 very small nutshell frag
cf. Prunus sp.
uncharred
Fallopia,
Polygonum
aviculare;
waterlogged or modern?
oat+;
barley
rachis+;
HNS+;
0
C
0
D
0
cf. oat +; 1/2 barley; HNS +
C
0
0
D
0
2 concretions with melted
flax seeds
B
10
0
D
0
A* -
30
B
20
A* -
10
C
0
trace char
flax seeds fused in capsule
position, some loose, 1
emmer/spelt
grain;
1
extracted Vicia faba var
minor
v. poor e/s grain; flax
seeds++; oat+
flax+++; poor e/s grain, flax
fused in capsule; oat+
occ poor cereal; e/s grain+;
oat+;
cf.
bread-type
wheat+
0
D
30
1 lge char,
0
D
30
occ
char
small
8ml
lge
char
freq small
char
occ lge char
few
small
char
some
med/lge
char
10ml
lge
char
8ml
lge
char
lge
lge
lge
Generic/
fill of
Context
Sample
Tot
vol.
Vol.
processed
type
period /
spot
date
Flot description
Charcoal
14.01.023
14.01.105
14.01.032
041
40
10
14.01.106
14.01.044
060
40
10
14.01.106
14.01.065
045
10
10
14.01.106
14.01.066
046
10
10
14.01.106
14.01.067
047
10
10
14.01.106
14.01.068
048
10
10
14.01.106
14.01.069
049
10
10
14.01.106
14.01.070
050
10
10
14.01.106
14.01.071
051
10
10
14.01.106
14.07.072
052
10
10
14.01.107
14.01.046
037
40
10
14.01.107
14.01.046
059
40
10
14.01.107
14.01.077
043
10
10
14.01.107
14.01.084
056
40
10
14.01.090
058
15
16.01.007
16.01.008
279
16.01.009
16.01.010
16.01.009
16.07.004
fill
of
ditch
14.01.030l
fill
of
ditch
14.01.041
fill
of
ditch
14.01.064
fill
of
ditch
14.01.064
fill
of
ditch
14.01.064
fill
of
ditch
14.01.064
fill
of
ditch
14.01.064
ditch fillfill of
ditch 14.01.064
fill
of
ditch
14.01.064
fill
of
ditch
14.01.064
primary fill of
terrace
14.01.012
primary fill of
terrace
14.01.012 (see
<037>)
Fill of terrace
14.01.076
Potential
Vol.
Avail.
rest small
5
10ml shillet
rare char
0
D
30
5
trace char
1 oat frag.
C
30
5
10ml shillet & silt, occ
small char
5ml shillet
0
D
0
5
30ml silt & shillet
1 poor grain
C
0
5
25ml silt & shillet
3 poor frags grain
C
0
5
15ml silt & shillet
0
D
0
5
10ml silt & shillet
0
D
0
5
10ml silt & shillet
0
D
0
5
5ml silt & shillet
rare small
char
sev
small
char
occ
small
char
occ
small
char
occ
small
char
occ
small
char
trace char
0
D
0
5
10ml silt & shillet
trace char
0
D
0
5/RB
LC3-C4
15ml silt & small char,
blobby slag
8ml
char
3 HNS from residue
C
30
5 / RB
LC3-4
40ml blobby slag & med
char
med only
oat+;
culm
node+;
polygonum aviculare +; cf.
charred insect+
B/C
30
25ml silt,
small char
4 lge frags
1 poor barley frag; 1 culm
base
C
0
C
30
0
D
5
20
10
charocal fill of pit
10
130ml freq char all sizes
0
D
10
281
10
10
10
D sorted
0
280
10
10
10
80ml char, all sizes,
spherules
490ml abundant char
1 gorse seed (Ulex sp.)
16.01.011
charcoal spread
in pit
pit fill
occ bracken frond frag.
C
0
16.07.005
240
10
5
pit fill
10
10ml
lge
char
freq small
char
30ml
lge
char
30ml
lge
char
240ml lge
char
0
1 e/s glume base
10
fill of terrace
14.01.083
charcoal layer
5 / C1C2
+LC3-C4
5/RB
LC2-C4
10
0
D
5
blobby
slag,
100ml silt & char
30ml silt & shillet
10ml orange silt & shillet,
some sm char
222
lge
Generic/
fill of
Context
Sample
Tot
vol.
Vol.
processed
type
period /
spot
date
Flot description
Charcoal
Potential
Vol.
Avail.
16.07.006
16.07.007
244
10
10
ditch fill
10
0
0
D
0
16.07.008
16.07.008
16.07.010
16.07.011
243
242
10
10
5
5
bowl furnace .
bowl furnace
0
small char
> C14
0
0
D
D
5
5
16.07.008
16.07.012
241
20
5
bowl furnace
15ml silt & sm char
small char
> C14
0
D
15
16.07.008
16.07.013
245
20
10
fill of furnace
4
C14 3rd4th
century
BC
period 4
C14 3rd4th
century
BC
period 4
4
20ml orange silt, rootlets,
freq sm char
5ml freq sm char, silt
15ml silt & sm char
0
0
D
10
16.07.008
16.07.014
246
10
10
bowl
4
0
0
16.07.015
247
10
10
4
60ml freq sm char
B/C
0
16.07.008
16.07.016
248
10
10
bowl
4
25ml pale silt, occ sm char
D
0
16.07.017
16.07.018
250
20
10
fill
of
furnace
pit fill
1 charred Rubus sp. >
C14?
1 Fallopia convolvulus; 3
wheat cf. emmer/spelt
0
D
16.07.008
fill
of
furnace
furnace fill
10ml orange silt & occ sm
char
15ml fine silt & sm char
10
100ml freq char
lge
0
D
10
16.07.019
16.07.020
251
20
10
pit fill
10
15ml silt & flaky char
lge
0
D
10
16.07.021
16.07.022
259
20
10
bowl
10
D
10
16.07.023
258
20
10
bowl
10
0
0
D
10
16.07.024
16.07.025
257
20
10
bowl
10
25ml orange silt, rootlets,
shillet, occ sm char
20ml pale brown silt, occ
sm char
5ml silt, shillet, trace char
1 small Poaceae grass
16.07.021
0
0
D
10
16.07.024
16.07.026
256
10
10
bowl
10
20ml freq silt, occ sm char
0
0
D
0
16.07.024
16.07.027
255
10
10
bowl
10
<5ml silt, roots, trace char
0
0
D
0
16.07.037
16.07.038
261
5
5
fill
of
furnace
fill
of
furnace
fill
of
furnace
fill
of
furnace
fill
of
furnace
pit fill
10
0
0
D
0
16.07.037
16.07.039
262
10
10
pit fill
10
C
0
16.07.041
263
10
10
bowl furnace fill
10
0
D
0
16.07.040
16.07.042
264
10
10
bowl furnace fill
10
35ml freq lge char & silt
5ml
med
char
20ml
chunky char
10ml
lge
char
1 cf. wheat, poor encrusted
16.07.040
10ml silt, rootlets, trace
char
40ml rootlets, silt, freq med
char
40ml freq lge char, silt
0
D
0
223
occ medium
char only
0
30ml
char
8ml
char
0
Generic/
fill of
Context
Sample
Tot
vol.
Vol.
processed
type
period /
spot
date
Flot description
Charcoal
Potential
Vol.
Avail.
16.07.077
16.07.029
254
10
10
10
0
D
0
16.07.030
253
10
10
10ml silt, shillet, occ sm
char
50ml freq silt, sev sm char
0
16.07.077
0
0
D
0
16.07.077
16.07.032
252
10
10
Fill of furnace/pit
16.07.028
Fill of furnace/pit
16.07.028
Fill of furnace/pit
16.07.028
10
15ml silt & sm char, occ
lge char not extracted
0
D
0
16.07.077
16.07.045
266
5
5
10
15ml pale silt & sm char
0
D
0
16.07.077
16.07.046
267
10
10
10
25ml moss, silt, freq sm
char
5ml
char
lge
0
D
0
16.07.077
16.07.047
268
10
10
10
10ml
char
lge
1 oat grain
C
0
16.07.049
16.07.050
269
10
10
Fill
of
bowl
furnace
16.07.
43
Fill
of
bowl
furnace
16.07.
43
Fill
of
bowl
furnace
16.07.
43
bowl furnace fill
occ lge char
not
extracted
0
10
15ml shillet, silt, char
0
D
0
16.07.049
16.07.051
270
10
10
bowl furnace fill
10
10ml silt, roots, shillet, sm
char
0
D
0
16.07.052
16.07.053
271
5
5
bowl furnace fill
10
0
D
0
16.07.052
16.07.054
272
10
10
bowl furnace fill
10
0
0
D
0
16.07.055
16.07.056
273
10
10
furnace fill
10
15ml orange silt & shillet,
rare sm char
10ml orange silt, trace sm
char
5ml
flaky
char
occ
med
char
not
extracted
0
0
D
0
16.07.055
16.07.057
274
30
10
furnace fill
10
30ml silt & freq sm char
0
D
20
16.07.055
16.07.058
275
10
10
furnace fill
10
25ml silt & sm char, roots,
moss
C
0
16.08.020
16.08.021
299
30
10
pit fill
10
300ml freq silt & silt lumps,
some lge char
8ml
encrusted
lge char
5ml
lge
char
sm & med
char only,
not
extracted
5ml
lge
char
hulled barley +++; oats
+++; HNS+
A - worth
dating?
20
16.01.004
276
10
10
10
50ml freq char & silt
lge
0
D
0
16.01.005
277
10
10
charcoal spread
in pit 16.01.004
burnt natural in
pit 16.01.005
10
10ml silt
rootlets
char
0
D
0
10
224
&
sm
char,
5ml
char
sm
only
Generic/
fill of
Context
Sample
Tot
vol.
Vol.
processed
type
period /
spot
date
Flot description
Charcoal
Potential
Vol.
Avail.
16.01.006
278
10
10
10
50ml freq char & silt
C
0
16.07.034
260
5
5
10
0
D
0
18.12.015
18.12.017
303
10
10
primary pit fill
10
10ml silt, sm char, sev
modern seeds
75ml silt & char
8ml
char
0
1 gorse seed (Ulex sp.)
16.07.033
burnt natural in
pit 16.01.006
Post hole fill
0
18.12.020
301
30
10
secondary pit fill
2/L.Neo
250ml silt & char
poor encrusted barley +++
& oats +
HNS +++
B
18.12.018
B
20
18.12.032
18.12.033
304
10
10
pit fill
2/ E.Neo
50ml silt & sm/med char
0
D
0
18.12.043
18.12.044
307
10
10
pit fill
10
120ml silt & lge char
15ml
lge
char
100ml lge
char
med char >
C14
5ml
flaky
char,
encrusted
HNS +
0
18.12.053
18.12.054
310
40
10
fill of pit
2
110ml silt & lge char
HNS +++, some lge
30
18.13.004
18.13.006
305
20
10
primary fill of pit
10
15ml flot, freq sm char
24 sm/med frags HNS
B/C
10
18.13.004
18.13.007
306
20
10
third fill of pit
10
18 sm/med HNS
B/C
10
18.13.011
18.13.012
308
30
10
pit fill
10
160ml freq char, blobby
slag, silt
100ml freq silt, some shillet
occ sm HNS; cf. tuber+
C
20
19.08.004
19.08.005
311
5
5
pit fill
10
50ml freq sm char, v.
encrusted
0
D
0
19.07.004
19.07.005
312
10
10
pit fill
10
265ml freq sm char
60ml
lge
char
5ml
lge
char
50ml
lge
char
5ml
lge
char
25ml
freq
roundwood,
encrusted
40ml
freq
roundwood
C
probably
more
HNS,
difficult to
see
B
A*
Date?
21.06.008
21.06.010
313
30
10
fill of SFB
3
200ml freq silt, sm char
30ml
lge
char, some
>C14
24.03.004
24.03.016
006
40
10
primary pit fill
10
25ml orange silt, moss
24.03.036
24.03.037
008
10
10
primary fill of pit
5 / RB+
10ml orange silt
occ medium
char only
occ medium
char only
freq oats & rye, vacuolated
but not eroded; gorse
spine tips +++; bracken +;
burnt string
barley +; Range of weeds Galium aparine+; Plantago
lanceolata
+;Fallopia+;Vicia/Lathyrus
+;
Small
pellet-like
droppings. C14 date on
barley grain = 13851194cal BC
1 possible small chess
frag.
chess ++; glume bases ++;
HNS +
225
lge
-
0
A - More
work
needed
on
'dropping
s'.
20
C
30
B
0
Generic/
fill of
Context
Sample
Tot
vol.
Vol.
processed
type
period /
spot
date
Flot description
Charcoal
Potential
Vol.
Avail.
24.03.036
24.03.038
007
10
10
secondary fill of
pit
5
20ml orange v. silty, roots,
moss
occ medium
char only
A
0
24.03.036
24.03.039
010
10
10
fourth fill of pit
5
10ml orange silt
D
0
24.03.036
24.03.040
009
10
10
fifth fill of pit
5/RB
10ml orange silt
sev
small
char
occ medium
char only
chess +++; spelt glume
base +; emmer/spelt grain;
oat ++; Tripleurospermum
inodorum +; HNS +; cf.
gorse (Ulex sp.)
0
B
0
24.03.036
24.03.078
013
10
10
same
24.03.037
as
5
25ml orange silt, moss
occ medium
char only
B
0
24.03.036
24.03.079
014
10
10
as
5
10ml silt, moss
0
24.03.080
015
10
10
as
5
20ml orange silt
occ medium
char only
small char
only
B
24.03.036
same
24.03.038.
same
24.03.039
B
0
24.03.036
24.03.081
016
10
10
5/RB
25ml orange silt
B
0
24.03.041
24.03.044
011
30
10
same
as
24.03.040
primary fill of pit
chess ++; spelt glume
base; emmer/spelt graiin +;
HNS+
chess
++;
good
emmer/spelt grain +++;
chaff ++; spelt glume
base+
oat +; barley +; spelt glume
base +, HNS +
oat ++; emmer/spelt grain
++; chess ++; spelt glume
base +; HNS ++
chess ++;spelt gl base +
5
30ml orange silt
0
D
20
24.03.060
24.03.060
24.03.089
24.03.063
24.03.146
24.03.090
012
030
017
5
40
10
5
10
10
third fill of pit
secondary pit fill
pit fill
3 / ?EBA
3
10
5ml silt, moss
10ml orange silt
8ml silt
0
0
0
D
D
D
0
30
0
24.03.149
24.03.108
018
10
10
5
5ml orange silt
tuber +
C
0
24.03.149
24.03.110
019
10
10
5
20ml orange silt
tuber +
C
0
24.03.149
24.03.112
020
10
10
5
20ml orange silt
1 cf. pignut tuber
C
0
24.03.150
24.03.122
031
5
5
5
15ml orange silt
0
D
0
24.03.150
24.03.126
032
10
10
5
10ml orange silt
0
D
0
24.03.153
24.03.020
027
20
10
5/RB
10ml orange silt
24.03.153
24.03.021
028
20
10
5
24.03.153
24.03.022
029
20
10
fill
of
gully
24.03.107
fill
of
gully
24.03.109
fill
of
gully
24.03.111
fill of posthole
24.03.121
fill of posthole
24.03.125
third fill of ditch
24.03.019
second fill of
ditch 24.03.019
primary fill of
ditch 24.03.019
5
small char
only
5ml
lge
flaky char
trace char
trace char
small char
only
small char
only
rare char
0
D
10
10ml silt
1 lge char,
rest small
a few med
char
sev
small
char
small char
only
trace char
0
D
10
10ml orange silt
trace char
0
D
10
226
Generic/
fill of
Context
Sample
Tot
vol.
Vol.
processed
type
period /
spot
date
Flot description
Charcoal
Potential
Vol.
Avail.
24.03.153
24.03.075
024
20
10
C
10
025
20
10
10
24.03.077
026
20
10
5
5ml orange silt
1 poor eroded cf. breadtype wheat
0
C
24.03.153
D
10
24.03.153
24.03.086
023
20
10
5
trace chess frag
C
10
24.03.153
24.03.087
022
20
10
5
25ml silt, moss, modern
seeds
15ml orange silt
1 poor cf. barley grain
C
10
24.03.153
24.03.088
021
20
10
5
50ml silt, moss
C
10
33.01.006
33.01.007
316
60
10
10
165ml silt, sm char
50
33.01.008
317
5
5
pit fill
10
105ml large char & silt
freq HNS +++; 1 Galium
aparine
freq HNS+++
B
33.01.006
B
0
33.02.006
318
5
5
fired clay deposit
4 / pre
0
D
0
33.02.007
319
10
10
fired clay deposit
4
10ml silty flot, occ med
char not extracted
30ml silt, rare sm char
1 lge char,
rest small
rare small
char
small char
only
rare small
char
small char
only
rare small
char
25ml
lge
char
25ml
lge
char
0
HNS+; 1 cf. chess
24.03.076
5 / m C3C4th
5
50ml orange silt
24.03.153
primary fill of
ditch 24.03.74
secondary fill of
ditch 24.03.74
third fill of ditch
24.03.74
primary fill of
ditch 24.03.082
secondary fill of
ditch24.03.082
third fill of ditch
24.03.082
pit fill
1
frag
Raphanus
raphanistrum capsule
C
0
25ml orange silt
0
Key
A and A* = very high potential on archaeobotanical grounds alone. Material may be very well preserved, frequent, unusual, or present in an important archaeological context or
period.
B = good potential. Identifiable remains are present in reasonable quantities. Value is usually increased if several ‘B’ samples are examined from a structure or period.
B/C = good remains but not very frequent. The sample can be upgraded to B if more soil is available for processing. Value is also increased if several samples can be
examined together as a group.
C = remains may be scarce or poorly preserved but some information can be recovered, particularly if more soil is available for processing.
D = no further potential. No remains, or unidentifiable remains, or remains already fully sorted and identified.
The author recommends that A*, A, B and B/C samples are fully analysed in the post-excavation program, and that, where possible, the remaining soil is processed. Samples
graded ‘C’ can be selected for analysis if the context is particularly important, or specific questions need answering, if more soil is available for processing.
227
Table 15.4: summary of samples recommended for further analysis
Period
Site
Sample
Context
2
FTC 06
290
02.02.005
2
FTC 06
291
02.02.008
2
FTC 06
292
02.02.007
2
FTC 06
293
02.02.011
2
OTA 06
174
02.03.005
2
OTA 06
73
03.04.092
2
FTC 06
301
18.12.020
2
FTC 06
294
02.02.014
2
FTC 06
295
02.02.015
2
FTC 06
296
02.02.019
2
FTC 06
297
02.02.020
3
FTC 06
313
21.06.010
3
ATK 06
203
14.09.009
3
ATK 06
205
14.09.011
4
FTC 06
247
16.07.015
5
OTA 06
72
03.04.088
5
FTC 06
7
24.03.038
5
FTC 06
8
24.03.037
5
FTC 06
9
24.03.040
5
FTC 06
13
24.03.078
5
FTC 06
14
24.03.079
5
FTC 06
15
24.03.080
5
FTC 06
16
24.03.081
5
FTC 06
38
14.01.035
5
FTC 06
44
14.01.039
5
FTC 06
53
14.01.079
5
FTC 06
54
14.01.080
7
OTA 06
173
01.03.005
7
ATK 06
103
13.02.134
7
ATK 06
146
13.02.193
7
ATK 06
152
13.02.212
7
ATK 06
153
13.02.213
7
ATK 06
154
13.02.209
7
ATK 06
157
13.02.203
7
ATK 06
161
13.02.202
7
ATK 06
163
13.02.232
7
ATK 06
164
13.02.233
7
ATK 06
166
13.02.207
8
ATK 06
093
13.02.097
10
ATK 06
287
14.09.052
10
FTC 06
298
02.02.017
10
FTC 06
228
12.05.012
10
FTC 06
229
12.05.015
10
FTC 06
235
12.05.007
10
FTC 06
299
16.08.021
10
FTC 06
303
18.12.017
10
FTC 06
305
18.13.006
10
FTC 06
306
18.13.007
10
FTC 06
310
18.12.054
10
FTC 06
312
19.07.005
10
FTC 06
316
33.01.007
10
FTC 06
317
33.01.008
TOTAL NUMBER OF SAMPLES = 52
Feature
Pit 02.02.004
Pit .02.02006
Pit 02.02.006
Pit 02.02.010
Pit 02.03.004
Pit 03.04.090
Pit 18.12..018
Pit 02.02.013
Pit 02.02.013
Pit 02.02.018
Pit 02.02.018
SFB 21.06.008 fill
Cremation pit 14.09.016
Cremation pit 14.09.016
Furnace 16.07.008
Ditch 03.04.086
Pit 24.03.036
Pit 24.03.036
Pit 24.03.036
Same as sample.8
Same as sample.7
Same as sample. 10
Same as sample.9
Hearth .14.01.034
Pit 14.01.038
Pit 14.01.038
Pit 14.01.038
Pit 01.03.004
Hearth 13.02.132
Floor layer
SFB 13.02.196 fill
SFB 13.02.196 fill
SFB 13.02.196 build up
SFB 13.02.196 floor
SFB 13.02.196 fill
Pit 13.02.228
Pit 13.02.228
Hearth 13.02.204
Pit 13.02.174
Ring Ditch 14.09.021
Pit 02.02.016
Pit 12.05.011
Pit 12.05.009
Pit 12.05.004
Pit 16.08.020
Pit 18.12.015
Pit 18.13..004
Pit 18.13..004
Ditch 18.12.053
Ditch 19.07.004
pit 33.01.007
pit 33.01.007
228
Process more soil Y or N
check residue = R, *= c14
date suggested
Y/R
N/ R
Y/R
Y/R
Y*
Y / R*
Y/R
Y / R*
Y / R*
Y*
Y*
Y
N
N
N
Y/R
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y/R
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y care! *
Y*
N
Y
Y
Y*
N*
Y
Y
Y
N
Y/R
N/R
APPENDIX 16: MOLLUSCA BY VICTORIA TAYLOR
Methodology
Shell was hand-collected from five deposits, one from FTC06 Site 18.12 and four from ATK06 sites 13.02 and
12.01. Mollusca were also recovered from the processed samples. The material picked out of the residues was
examined under low power microscope to X40 magnification.
Results
Hand–collected Shell (Table 1)
Hand–collected material totaled 12 fragments weighing 19g. Species identifiable include common oyster (Ostrea
edulis), mussel (Mytilus edulis) and periwinkle (Littorina Littorea).
Shell Recovered from processed samples (Table 2)
Shell fragments were recovered from the residues of six of the processed bulk samples from ATK06 sites 13.02
and 14.09 (Table 2). The large majority of shells recovered were identifiable as cockle (Cerastoderma edule). In
addition to this a small amount of oyster shell and one land snail, unidentifiable to species, were also recovered.
Discussion
All the shell recovered appears to represent food waste excepting the land snail from deposit 13.02.188. Oyster,
cockle, periwinkle and mussel are all commonly occurring edible shoreline species. A large amount of cockles
were recovered from the ATK06 Site 13.02 suggesting that this species was either more readily available at the
time or was preferentially selected over other species. It is likely the land snail from hearth 13.02.132 was
brought to the site from elsewhere unintentionally, possibly with fuel for the hearth collected from the surrounding
area.
Recommendations
Most deposits yielded only small quantities of marine mollusc both hand-collected and from processed samples.
This material has limited potential for further analysis and therefore no further work is recommended. The large
quantity of cockle shell recovered from the midden fill 13.02.006 has greater potential. The contribution of this
species to diet at the site during the period in which the cob material from the long house was being reused
(post–medieval period) should be investigated further. The single unidentified land snail from hearth 13.02.204
has no palaeoenvironmental potential and therefore full identification is not recommended as it would not
contribute to the interpretation of the feature.
229
Table 16.1
Hand-collected Shell by RDX
Pipeline
Section
FTC06
Site Context no
18.12 18.12.033
ATK06
13.02 13.02.033
ATK06
315
315.005
ATK06
315
315.009
ATK06
327
327.002
Table 16.2
Spot
Date
EPRE
C16C18
PMED
Prov
Period Description
2
Secondary fill of ditch
8
13.02.031
10
part of 12.01.001
Natural
disuse
spread
8
within structure 12.01.001
Levelling/bedding layer for
8
327.001
Count
1
Weight
Comments
(g)
1
Oyster
1
2
Oyster
2
3
Oyster
1
3
Periwinkle
7
10
Mussel
Mollusca from the residues of processed samples
Pipeline
Section
Site
Sample
no
Context
no
ATK06
13.02
105
13.02.006
ATK06
13.02
106
13.02.160
ATK06
13.02
132
13.02.188
7
ATK06
13.02
166
13.02.207
ATK06
13.02
167
13.02.206
Spot
Date
Prov
Period
8
C18
8
Description
Shell
midden
13.02.006 fill of
13.02.159
Fill
of
ditch
13.02.159
A
Comments
Mainly
cockle,
some oyster
C
Cockle
E
Unidentified
land snail
7
Part of Hearth
13.02.132
Part of Hearth
13.02.204
D
Cockle
7
Part of Hearth
13.02.204
C
Cockle
E
Cockle
Secondary fill of
ATK06
14.09
287
14.09.023
10
ditch 14.09.021
Key to quantity codes E = 1-10, D =10-50, C = 50-100, B = 100-200, A = 200+
Table 16.3
Quantity
Codes
Mollusca from the flots of processed samples
Pipeline
Section
Site
Sample
no
Context
no
Prov
Period
ATK06
13.02
105
13.02.006
8
ATK06
13.02
106
13.02.160
8
Description
Shell
midden
13.02.006 fill of
13.02.159
Fill
of
ditch
13.02.159
230
Quantity
Codes
Comments
E
cockle
E
cockle
APPENDIX 17: GEOARCHAEOLOGICAL AND PALYNOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF
MONOLITH SAMPLES BY KEITH WILKINSON, C. ROBERT BATCHELOR AND DAN YOUNG
Introduction
Five monolith samples were taken from fills of negative feature 4.12.004 during excavations carried out by
Cotswold Archaeology in advance of the construction of a pipeline at Ottery St Mary, Devon in May 2007. The 2m
deep feature was interpreted as a palaeochannel rather than a humanly constructed ditch because of the
absence of artefacts from its fills. This report outlines the stratigraphy recovered in the monoliths, assesses the
palaeoenvironmental significance of the strata and reports upon the palynology of the sequence.
The objectives of the sedimentological description were to characterise the deposits, determine their mode of
genesis and assess the implications of the presence of the inferred depositional environments for past human
populations. The overarching aim of the palynological assessment was to evaluate the potential of the pollen
samples for reconstructing the environmental history of the site and its environs. In order to achieve this
palynological aim, the investigation examined the preservation and concentration of pollen grains and spores
(columns) to provide a preliminary reconstruction of the vegetation history, and to detect evidence for human
activities e.g. woodland clearance and cultivation.
The monoliths were collected by officers of Cotswold Archaeology from a single section. Four of the monoliths
(<216>, <217>, <218> and <220>) overlapped so as to sample the whole sequence, while one further sample
(<219>) duplicated stratigraphy sampled by <218> and <220> towards the edge of the feature. All monoliths
measured 500x100x100mm and typically overlapped their overlying and underlying neighbours by 50-100mm.
The monolith samples were transferred from Cotswold Archaeology to ARCA in May 2009 and descriptions were
made in that organisation’s laboratories in June 2009. Palynological sub-samples were taken to Quest’s Reading
laboratories in May 2009 and assessed in May and June 2009.
Methodology
The monolith samples were first cleaned by removing c. 1mm of weathered material from the sediment. The
stratigraphy was photographed and then described (Table 1). Descriptions were made according to standard
geological criteria and onto proforma ‘log sheets’ (Tucker 1982, Jones et al. 1999, Munsell Color 2000). Twentyfive sub-samples were taken from the monoliths at 40-150mm for palynological assessment.
Pollen was extracted from the sub-samples at the University of Reading as follows: (1) sampling a standard
volume of sediment (1ml); (2) deflocculation of the sample in 1% Sodium pyrophosphate; (3) sieving of the
sample to remove coarse mineral and organic fractions (>125μm); (4) acetolysis; (5) removal of finer minerogenic
3
fraction using Sodium polytungstate (specific gravity of 2.0g/cm ); (6) mounting of the sample in glycerol jelly.
Each stage of the procedure was preceded and followed by thorough sample cleaning in filtered distilled water.
Quality control is maintained by periodic checking of residues, and assembling sample batches from various
depths to test for systematic laboratory effects. Pollen grains and spores were identified using the Royal
Holloway (University of London) pollen type collection and the following sources of keys and photographs: Moore
et al (1991); Reille (1992). Plant nomenclature follows the Flora Europaea as summarised in Stace (1997). The
231
assessment procedure consisted of scanning the prepared slides, and recording the concentration and
preservation of pollen grains and spores, and the principle taxa on four transects (10% of the slide) (Table 2).
Results
Stratigraphy
The sequence sampled in the monolith tins rest on weathered mudstone of the Mercia Mudstone Group, and
present in the basal 20mm of monolith <220>. The lowest fills of the negative feature (contexts (4.12.005,
4.12.006, 4.12.010) comprise c 0.30m of thinly bedded and laminated peats, organic muds and mineral silt/clays
(Table 1). There is a trend in these strata for organic content to decrease upwards and for the mineral deposits to
become increasingly dominant. Peat containing recognisable plant macro-remains is only a feature of the basal
0.10m of the sampled feature (context (4.12.005)). These basal thinly bedded and laminated strata collectively
formed in a damp environment that has continued to be at least partially waterlogged from the time of first
deposition to the present day. Organic units represent periods of relative stability when plant growth was possible
associated with shallow water depths, whereas the mineral units indicate periods of sudden flooding when water
depths were greater. It is notable that the mineral silts/clays are entirely derived from the Mercia Mudstone
bedrock. The thinly bedded and laminated structure of these basal deposits suggests a regime of oscillating
depositional environment, perhaps switching from relatively long-lived periods of stability in which the organic
strata developed, followed by shorter episodes of intense flooding.
Above 56.91m AOD, strata within the negative feature change significantly and are from this point onwards
characterised only by mineral sediments (contexts (4.12.18, 4.12.011, 4.12.012, 4.12.014, 4.12.015, 4.12.017,
4.12.018)). There is an upwards trend for the sediments to become increasingly coarse and change from silt
clays to fine sands. As previously noted for the underlying units, the source of all particles is the Mercia Mudstone
bedrock. It is likely that the silts/clays towards the base of this sequence, i.e. from 56.91m to 58.02m AOD,
accreted as a result of a series of flood events as suggested for the underlying mineral deposits. However, the
absence of organic deposits suggest that shallow water was not constantly present within the feature either
because it was permanently inundated or because there was insufficient time between flood events for significant
plant growth. Iron stains noted within the fine-grained strata are indicative of fluctuating water tables following
deposition and their presence may argue for the second hypothesis. The sands at the top of the sequence
(context (4.12.020)) are mixed with grains of other size classes, are moderately or poorly sorted and probably
therefore accumulated as a result colluvial processes. Thus there may be a temporal discontinuity at 58.02m
AOD between the sands and the underlying alluvial silt/clays.
Palynology
The concentration and preservation of pollen varied throughout the contexts contained within negative feature
[4.12.004].
In the three sub-samples from the basal peat (context 4.12.05) (monolith <220>), the pollen concentration was
high and preservation moderate. The main taxa identified included Alnus (alder), Corylus type (e.g. hazel),
Poaceae and mixed herbs such as Caryophyllaceae (daisy family).
232
In the six samples from overlying organic and mineral silt/clays (context 4.12.06) (monoliths <220> and <219>),
pollen concentration was generally moderate to high (with the exception of sub-sample located at 56.76 to
56.75m OD), and preservation moderate. The main taxa identified included Alnus (alder), Corylus type (e.g.
hazel), Poaceae (grass family), Plantago lanceolata (ribwort plantain) and Polypodium vulgare (polypody).
Quercus (oak) and Fraxinus (ash) were also recorded in the sub-sample 56.80 to 56.79m OD, and mixed herbs
such as Lactuceae (daisy family), Cyperaceae (sedge) and possibly Ranunculus type (e.g. creeping buttercup)
were recorded in various samples.
In the single sample from mineral silt/clay unit at the edge of the negative feature (4.12.10) (monolith <219>) the
concentration of pollen is high, and the preservation low to moderate. The main taxa identified included Alnus
(alder), Corylus type (e.g. hazel), Poaceae (grass family), Dryopteris type (buckler fern) and Polypodium vulgare
(polypody).
In the two samples from further organic and mineral silt/clays from the base of the feature (4.12.11) (monoliths
<220> and <219>) the concentration of pollen is high, and preservation moderate to high. The main taxa
identified included Alnus (alder), Fraxinus (ash), Corylus type (e.g. hazel), Poaceae (grass family), Apiaceae
(carrot family), Plantago lanceolata (ribwort plantain), Cyperaceae (sedge family) and Sphagnum (moss).
In the three samples from the first overlying mineral silt/clay unit (4.12.14) (monoliths <219> and <218>) pollen
concentration and preservation was generally poor. The main taxa identified included Alnus (alder), Corylus type
(e.g. hazel), Poaceae (grass family), and Polypodium vulgare (polypody).
In the two samples from a further overlying mineral silt/clay (4.12.15) (monolith <218>) pollen concentration and
preservation was generally poor. The main taxa identified included Caryophyllaceae (campion family) and
Sphagnum (moss).
In the one sample from context (4.12.16) (monolith <218>) pollen concentration and preservation was moderate
to poor. The main taxa identified included Alnus (alder), Corylus type (e.g. hazel), Lactuceae (daisy family) and
Poaceae (grass family).
In the one sample from the humic silt context (4.12.17) (monolith <217>) pollen preservation and concentration
was moderate to high. The main taxa identified included Alnus (alder), Poaceae (grass family), Plantago
lanceolata (ribwort plantain) and Dryopteris type (buckler fern).
In the four samples from context (4.12.18) (monolith <217>) pollen concentration and preservation was moderate
to poor. The main taxa identified included Alnus (alder), Corylus type (e.g. hazel), Lactuceae (daisy family) and
Poaceae (grass family).
In the two samples from the fine sand contexts (4.12.19) (monolith <217>) no pollen was preserved.
The results of the pollen assessment suggest that the assemblage throughout the entire sequence was relatively
similar despite the variations in concentration and preservation. The results suggest a relatively open
environment around the site most likely supporting mixed grassland. In addition, there is evidence for wetland
woodland (e.g. alder) possibly growing alongside a nearby river or stream. The regular occurrence of hazel and
occasional presence of oak and ash may indicate the growth of mixed deciduous woodland, coppiced woodland
233
and/or hedgerows. The lack of Tilia or Ulmus pollen taxa is suggestive of a late prehistoric sequence (i.e. post
elm and lime decline). However, no definitive evidence of human activity was recorded during the pollen
assessment
Assessment
The geoarchaeological and palynological assessments carried out on samples taken from cut [4.12.004] cast little
further light on the genesis of the feature - it is still unclear whether the feature was a ditch or a palaeochannel.
However, given the nature of the deposits filling the cut, the balance of probability is with the latter. All deposits
infilling the feature – with the possible exception of the uppermost sands – are the result of natural, mostly
alluvial, processes and there is very little indication from either the palynology or sediment morphology for human
action (excepting occasional charcoal fragments at the interfaces of the sands and mineral silt/clays, and the
mineral silt/clays and organic strata). The sands at the top of the sequence may have indirectly resulted from
human action. They appear to have formed as a result of colluvial processes which may have been the result of
cultivation on the surrounding slopes.
The organic strata at the base of the sequence (56.57-56.91m AOD, contexts (4.12.005, 4.12.006, 4.12.010)) are
suggestive of the fluctuation of depositional environments, alternating from stable shallow water facies to
sediments indicative of flooding. Pollen preservation in these strata is good and the pollen assemblage
reasonably diverse. Depending on the results of
14
C dating and therefore the age of the deposits, the organic
sediments are assessed as having either a high or a moderate geoarchaeological and palaeoenvironmental
potential.
The overlying mineral silts/clays (contexts (4.12.18, 4.12.011, 4.12.012, 4.12.014, 4.12.015, 4.12.017, 4.12.018))
most probably formed as a result of a series of flood events resulting in reasonably deep water resting in negative
feature [4.12.004]. It is unclear on the basis of the present morphological data whether this water was permanent
or present on a periodic basis – although the latter seems more likely. Pollen preservation, except in one humic
rich layer (context (4.12.018)) in monolith <217> was generally poor. The lack of organic material in these
sediments means that they cannot easily be
14
C dated and therefore the chronology of these deposits is, and will
remain uncertain. For all these reasons the mineral silt/clays are classified as having a low geoarchaeological
and palaeoenvironmental potential.
The uppermost moderately sorted sands (context (4.12.020)) are likely to have formed as a result of colluvial
processes, and possibly much later than the underlying stratigraphy. There is no pollen preservation in these
deposits and no prospect of direct dating by
14
C measurement. The sands are therefore also categorised as
having low geoarchaeological and palaeoenvironmental potential.
Recommendations
The results of the pollen assessment indicate that there are a number of samples that have the potential for
reconstructing the environmental history of the site and its environs. Therefore, and depending on the results of
14
C dating of the basal organic deposits and age similarity with surrounding archaeological sites, palynological
analysis is recommended of these strata. Samples containing more than an estimated 150 grains per slide
should be considered for analysis. While a limited range of main taxa was recorded during the assessment,
analysis would allow quantification of the assemblage, and identification of the rarer types. In addition, analysis
234
will reveal any changes in pollen assemblage, and therefore vegetation history, during the duration of the infill of
the pit.
No further sedimentological work is recommended.
Table17.1 Monolith stratigraphy of the fills of [4.12.004]
OTA 06 <216>
Context
Description
(4.12.019)
Elevation
(AOD)
58.45–58.05
(4.12.018)
58.05-57.95
7.5 YR 3/1 very dark grey silt/clay with fine sand
and rare granular quartzite clasts in top 30mm.
Becoming increasingly humic with depth. Rare
subangular granule-sized charcoal fragments.
Context
Description
(4.12.018)
Elevation
(AOD)
58.01-57.66
(4.12.017)
57.66-57.59
7.5 YR 5/2 brown silt/clay with fine sand trace and
rare angular granule- and pebble-sized quartzite
clasts. Grading into:
7.5 YR 4/3 brown fine sand with silt trace and
occasional angular granule- to pebble-sized
quartzite clasts. Homogeneous, but with occasional
iron staining. Grading into:
OTA 06 <217>
7.5 YR 4/2 brown silt/clay with fine sand trace with
discrete patches of 10 YR 3/1 very dark grey silt
with clay and fine sand trace. The darker deposit
humic becomes dominant in the lower half of unit
and is progressively more humic. Rare subangular
quartzite granulars throughout granules. Grading
into:
235
(4.12.016)
(4.12.015)
57.59-57.51
10 YR 5/2 greyish brown clay with occasional
subrounded fine pebble-sized manganese and rare
10 YR 4/2 dark greyish brown clay in small pebblesized subangular pockets.
Context
Description
(4.12.017)
Elevation
(AOD)
57.61-57.56
(4.12.016)
57.56-57.51
(4.12.015)
57.51-57.36
7.5 YR 5/3 brown clay, reddening to 5 YR 5/3
reddish brown. Rare course pebble-sized
subangular mudstone clasts at 0.23m. Diffuse
boundary to:
(4.12.014)
57.36-57.11
7.5 YR 5/1 grey and 7.5 YR 5/2 brown clay in
alternating bands (between ca 50 and 100 Mm
wide), lightening towards base to 7.5 YR 6/1 grey.
Rare pebble-sized angular mudstone clasts 0.40m.
Context
Elevation
(AOD)
57.24-57.12
Description
Table 17.1 continued
OTA 06 <218>
10 YR 4/2 dark greyish brown silt/clay with fine
sand trace. Rare medium to coarse sand and
angular quartzite granules. Rare iron staining.
Grading into:
10 YR 5/2 greyish brown clay with silt trace and
occasional iron staining. Grading into:
OTA 06 <219>
(4.12.014)
(4.12.013)
(4.12.012)
57.12-57.10
(4.12.011)
57.10-57.04
(4.12.010)
57.04-57.01
(4.12.006)
57.01-56.77
7.5 YR 6/2 pinkish grey clay, darkening to 7.5 YR
6/3 light brown towards base of unit. Rare
subangular fine pebble-sized mudstone clasts and
rare subangular fine pebble-sized charcoal
inclusions. Diffuse boundary to:
7.5 YR 2.5/1 black humic clay, wavy and mostly at
ca 30 degree angle. Diffuse boundary to:
7.5 YR 6/2 pinkish grey clay with occasional 7.5 YR
2.5/1 black discontinuous, wavy, non-parallel and
granule-sized humic clay specks. Diffuse boundary
to:
7.5 YR 2.5/1 black humic clay band, wavy and
mostly at ca 30 degree angle. Diffuse boundary to:
7.5 YR 4/1 dark grey clay with frequent indistinct 10
YR 3/1 very dark grey and 7.5 YR 2.5/1 black fine,
wavy, non-parallel, discontinuous clay laminae
throughout. Rare plant macrofossils at 0.30 and
rare 7.5 YR 7/1 light grey clay laminae between
0.35 and 0.40 (fine, discontinuous, non-parallel,
wavy). Sharp boundary to:
236
(4.12.005)
56.77-56.74
10 YR 2/1 black peat with moderate pebble and
granular-sized wood macrofossils.
Context
Description
(4.12.014)
Elevation
(AOD)
57.19-57.06
(4.12.012)
57.06-57.02
(4.12.011)
57.02-57.00
(4.12.010)
57.00-56.995
(4.12.006)
(4.12.006)
56.995-56.98
56.98-56.87
(4.12.006)
56.87-56.85
(4.12.005)
(4.12.005)
56.85-56.84
56.84-56.82
(4.12.005)
56.82-56.79
(4.12.005)
56.79-56.71
N/A
56.71-56.69
OTA 06 <220>
10 YR 5/2 greyish brown clay with rare small
pebble-sized plant macrofossils and occasional
light grey/light brown and dark grey wavy clay
laminae (fine and coarse, discontinuous, nonparallel). Rare granule-sized inclusions of
underlying deposit. Diffuse (occasionally sharp)
boundary to:
10 YR 3/1 very dark grey humic clay with silt, wavy.
Diffuse boundary to:
10 YR 5/2 greyish brown clay (as at top of sample).
10 YR 3/1 very dark grey humic clay with silt, wavy.
10 YR 5/2 greyish brown clay. Sharp boundary to:
10 YR 4/2 dark greyish brown clay with wedgeshaped pocket of 10 YR 3/1 very dark grey clay at
the top of the unit, demarcated along the base by a
fine lamina of 10 YR 5/2 greyish brown clay (also
occurring in occasional wavy laminae, fine, nonparallel and discontinuous); 10 YR 3/1 very dark
humic grey clay also occurs in rare pebble-sized
angular pockets and as laminae throughout unit
(fine, wavy, discontinuous and continuous,
parallel). Sharp boundary to:
10 YR 5/4 yellowish brown fine/medium sand with
silt trace. Sharp boundary to:
10 YR 2/1 black peat. Sharp boundary to:
10 YR 4/2 dark greyish brown clay with indistinct 10
YR 3/1 dark grey humic laminae (as above). Sharp
boundary to:
10 YR 4/2 dark greyish brown clay and 10 YR 2/1
black peat as alternating coarse and discontinuous,
parallel laminae. Grading into:
10 YR 2/1 black peat with frequent pebble-size
wood macrofossils. Sharp boundary to:
10 YR 4/2 dark greyish brown fine sand/clay.
237
Table 17.2 Palynological assessment data for the fills of 04.12.004
Depth
(mOD)
Monolith
sample
Context
Concentration
Preservation
Microscopic
charcoal
Main taxa
Latin name
Common name
58.36
58.35
<216>
(4.12.019)
0
-
Low
-
-
58.18
58.17
<216>
(4.12.019)
0
-
None
-
-
58.00
57.99
<216>
(4.12.018)
1
2
Low
57.95
57.94
<217>
(4.12.018)
2
3
Low
57.83
57.82
<217>
(4.12.018)
1 (1 grain)
2
Low
Alnus
Corylus type
Poaceae
Alnus
Corylus type
Filipendula
Lactuceae
Lactuceae
alder
e.g. hazel
grass family
alder
e.g. hazel
meadowsweet
daisy family
daisy family
57.71
57.70
<217>
(4.12.018)
2
1-2
Low
57.59
57.58
<217>
(4.12.017)
3-4
4
Low
57.55
57.54
<218>
(4.12.016)
1
3
Low
57.43
57.42
<218>
(4.12.015)
1-2
3
Low
alder
e.g. hazel
grass family
alder
grass family
ribwort plantain
buckler fern
hazel
sphagnum moss
polypody
campion family
polypody
sphagnum moss
-
57.31
57.30
<218>
(4.12.015)
0
-
Low
Alnus
Corylus type
Poaceae
Alnus
Poaceae
Plantago lanceolata
Dryopteris type
Corylus type
Sphagnum
Polypodium vulgare
Caryophyllaceae
Unknown herb type
Polypodium vulgare
Sphagnum
-
57.19
57.18
<218>
(4.12.014)
1 (1 grain)
3
Low
Unknown herb type
-
57.17
57.16
<219>
(4.12.014)
2-3
3
Low
57.05
57.04
<219>
(4.12.011)
4
2-3
Moderate
Alnus
Corylus type
Poaceae
Polypodium vulgare
Alnus
Corylus type
Poaceae
Plantago lanceolata
Cyperaceae
Sphagnum
alder
e.g. hazel
grass family
polypody
alder
e.g. hazel
grass family
ribwort plantain
sedge family
sphagnum moss
238
Depth
(mOD)
Monolith
sample
Context
Concentration
Preservation
Microscopic
charcoal
57.00
56.99
<219>
(4.12.010)
4-5
2
Moderate
56.90
56.89
<219>
(4.12.006)
2-3
3
Low
56.80
56.79
<219>
(4.12.006)
5
3
Low
56.76
56.75
<219>
(4.12.006)
1
3-4
Low
57.13
57.12
<220>
(4.12.014)
1
2
Low
57.05
57.04
<220>
(4.12.011)
5
3-4
Moderate
56.97
57.96
<220>
(4.12.006)
3-4
3
Low
239
Main taxa
Latin name
Common name
Alnus
Corylus type
Poaceae
Dryopteris type
Polypodium vulgare
Alnus
Corylus type
Poaceae
Lactuceae
Rumex undiff.
Alnus
Quercus
cf Fraxinus
Corylus type
Poaceae
Cyperaceae
Polypodium vulgare
Poaceae
alder
e.g. hazel
grass family
buckler fern
polypody
alder
e.g. hazel
grass family
daisy family
dock/sorrel
alder
oak
ash
e.g. hazel
grass family
sedge family
polypody
grass family
Alnus
Corylus type
Poaceae
cf Plantago lanceolata
Alnus
Fraxinus
Corylus type
Poaceae
Apiaceae
Plantago lanceolata
Alnus
Corylus type
Poaceae
Polypodium vulgare
Sphagnum
alder
e.g. hazel
grass family
ribwort plantain
alder
ash
e.g. hazel
grass family
carrot family
ribwort plantain
alder
e.g. hazel
grass family
polypody
sphagnum moss
Depth
(mOD)
Monolith
sample
Context
Concentration
Preservation
Microscopic
charcoal
56.89
56.88
<220>
(4.12.006)
4
2-3
Low
56.82
56.81
<220>
(4.12.006)
2-3
2-3
Moderate
56.78
56.77
<220>
(4.12.005)
4-5
3
Low
56.74
56.73
<220>
(4.12.005)
3-4
4
None
56.71
56.70
<220>
(4.12.005)
3-4
3-4
Low
Main taxa
Latin name
Common name
Alnus
Quercus
Corylus type
Poaceae
Plantago lanceolata
cf Cyperaceae
cf Ranunculus type
Alnus
Corylus type
Poaceae
Plantago lanceolata
Dryopteris type
Alnus
Poaceae
Caryophyllaceae
Plantago lanceolata
Rumex undiff.
Alnus
Corylus type
Poaceae
Alnus
Poaceae
Obscured grains
alder
oak
e.g. hazel
grass family
ribwort plantain
sedge family
e.g. creeping buttercup
alder
e.g. hazel
grass family
ribwort plantain
buckler fern
alder
grass family
daisy famly
ribwort plantain
dock/sorrel
alder
e.g. hazel
grass family
alder
grass family
-
Key: 0 = 0 estimated grains per slide; 1 = 1 to 75; 2 = 76 to 150; 3 = 151 to 225; 4 = 226-300; 5 = 300+. Estimated number based on assessment of
10% of total number of slide transects (4 of 40 transects)
240
APPENDIX 18: RADIOCARBON DATING BY SYLVIA WARMAN
Introduction
The preservation and quantity of suitable dateable material (charcoal and charred plant remains) was variable. A
small selection of key deposits were identified for an initial tranche of dating in order to aid the post-excavation
assessment process. Charcoal and charred plant material were identified and assessed for suitability. This
provided five samples for AMS dating. In order to maximise the number of features/ deposits dated single
samples were submitted at this stage although additional material is available which will permit the ‘pairing up’ of
these dates in the future. From the Fishacre to Choakford section samples were dated from three deposits, pit
2.02.010, a possible furnace 16.07.016 and sunken floored building 21.06.008. On the Alyesbeare to Kenn
Section, two pits from site 14.09 were sampled (14.09.003 and 14.09.016). Contextual details and the materials
submitted are given in table 18.1.
Methodology
The samples were processed during 2009 at the Rafter Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory, Lower Hutt, New
Zealand. Details of the methods and equipment used can be found at (http://www.gns.cri.nz/nic/
rafterradiocarbon).
Results and Calibration
All the samples were successful and radiocarbon ages obtained. The results are conventional radiocarbon ages
(Stuiver and Polach 1977) see Table 18.1. All have been calculated using the calibration curve of Reimer et al.
(2004) and the computer program WINSCAL (awaiting further details on this from Rafter). Date ranges cited in
the text are those at 95% confidence level unless otherwise specified. Ranges are derived from the probability
method (Stuiver and Reimer 1993). Calibration plots are illustrated in figures 18.1–18.5.
Discussion
Pit 2.02.1010 from Site FTC 2.02 returned a radiocarbon date of 3339-3095 cal BC, which is earlier than the date
indicated by the pottery from this feature, identified as Grooved Ware (Quinnell, Appendix 2). At least one more
date for this deposit should be obtained in view of this discrepancy.
The possible furnace 16.07.008 from Site FTC 16.07 has a radiocarbon date range of 391–210 cal BC (Middle
Iron Age) which is consistent with the interpretation of the use feature as a bowl furnace.
The sample from the potential sunken floored building from Site FTC 21.06 returned a date of 1385-1194 cal BC
which is middle Bronze Age. A second date from the same deposit is recommended to confirm this as the
charred plant assemblage is not typical of this period (Appendix 15)..
Dates were obtained from two pits from Site ATK 14.09. Pit 14.09.003 has a date of 1627–1504 cal BC thus
confirming the date suggested by the presence of partial Trevisker vessel of Early to Middle Bronze Age date.
This feature was believed to be a cremation at the time of excavation; upon processing the sample did not yield
any bone and it seems more likely that the feature is a pit. Pit 14.09.016 was spot-dated to the Late Bronze
Age/Early Iron Age. The radiocarbon date obtained was 367- 201 cal BC. The dating of a second sample from
the same deposit is recommended for clarification of this discrepancy.
241
Objectives of further radiocarbon dating
The project as a whole can be characterised as ‘artefact poor’ in comparison with others undertaken in southern
England, and radiocarbon dating has an important role in filling this void, providing a chronological framework for
the archaeology to be investigated. This is particularly the case with prehistoric remains, and in Devon it is
acknowledged that settlements of the later Bronze and Iron Ages have been difficult to identify at all (Fitzpatrick
2008, 125-130). Scientific dating is needed in many cases simply to establish to what period the numerous
undated pits and ditches belong.
The principle of not relying on single radiocarbon dates should also be
emphasised. Three of the five radiocarbon dates already undertaken have yielded unexpected or ambiguous
results, and further dating from these, together with a range of other features, is needed to provide a solid basis
for the analysis of these sites and their material remains.
The range of sites includes isolated and undated features (some with charred remains suggestive of prehistoric
activity), and one objective of the dating programme is to clarify the true extent and character of prehistoric
occupation. One of the benefits of this type of project is its approximation to a random transect across the
country enabling a truer picture of inhabitation to be developed, and an assessment made of ‘off-site’ activities in
the landscape.
One specific focus of dating is on the iron smelting sites FTC 16.07 and FTC 12.05w. At the former site, it is
expected that two stratified sequences of features will be bracketed by paired dates, and the existing Iron Age
date for an isolated furnace confirmed by another date. Little is known about the date or nature of Iron Age iron
production in the county
Recommendations
The five dates obtained thus far would benefit from paired dates, as is recommended for small items of charcoal
and charred plant material. A large number of other features are currently undated, or have spot-dating which
would benefit from clarification from absolute dates. Details of these are given in Table 18.2 by pipeline section
site and feature. A total of up to 66 dates have been selected. The suitability of the samples for dating is to be
confirmed following any further soil processing, and further selection will be made in the light of this .
As indicated in Table 18.2, a first tranche 42 samples will be dated as a priority, where the material is suitable.
Other samples will be held in reserve, either as a replacement where suitable material is not available in the first
tranche, or where there remain ambiguities to be resolved. Samples from features thought to be of Roman date
will also be held in reserve in case there is material in the remaining unprocessed soils (artefactual or palaeoenvironmental) that provides a more precise indication of date than the radioncarbon sample would. All
radiocarbon dates refer to the AMS method.
Ottery St Mary to Alsebeare section.
The heavily burnt bone from Site 4.01 has been confirmed as human and a date for the cremation is
recommended. Rather than dating the associated charcoal the direct dating of the human bone is preferred.
Suitable human bone should be selected by the osteologist from either sample 63 or sample 64. Pit 02.03.004
(sample 174) would benefit from dating as it contains Neolithic Peterborough Ware, but the charred plant
assemblage is more characteristic of a later prehistoric date (Carruthers, Appendix 15). Pits from sites 3.04 and
4.10 would benefit from dating to clarify the absolute dating of the associated prehistoric pottery, or because they
242
are undated. The possible ring-ditch at site 5.01 is assumed to be Bronze Age but is as yet undated, and paired
dates from primary fills are recommended.
The fragments of plant material extracted from the basal peat-rich fills of the monolith sequence at site 14.12
would potentiallly be datable by AMS; however the lack of suitable material from the upper sandy deposits means
that the upper end of the pollen sequence cannot be tied in and the radiocarbon date would be of limited value.
Alyesbeare to Kenn section
From site 13.02 two parallel ditches one with Iron Age and the other with Bronze Age ceramic spot-dating should
be dated by radiocarbon if possible. Site 14.09 included the pits which currently have single and divergent AMS
dates – second AMS samples are recommended for each if these. These may be associated with a ring-ditch
which lacks dating. Also dating for the potential Iron Age or Roman enclosure ditch at site 15.02 is desirable.
Fishacre to Choakford section
Pit 2.02.010 requires a second determination to confirm the Early Neolithic date. Other pits within the group have
Neolithihc pottery or are undated. From Site 12.05 the group of potential cremation pits (without bone) require
dating. Paired dates are recommended for the possible iron smelting furnace at site 12.05w. At site 13.03
features identified as potential enclosure ditches require dates as the Roman and Iron Age spot-dates are based
on two single and unconfirmed potsherds. The undated pits from Site 16.01 may be further examples of earlier
prehistoric features. One iron smelting furnace from Site 16.07 has a single AMS date, which indicates an Iron
Age date. The furnaces include an intercutting group and a series of dates from these features has the potential
to bracket the metalworking activity at this important site. A single pit at Site 16.08 should be dated as it has an
important charred plant assemblage, the composition of which is suggestive of an early medieval date. A number
of pits from Site 18.12 contain Grooved Ware and confirmation of their date is required. Other associated [pits
which appear to be grouped with these should also be dated if possible. Two pits from Site 18.13 require dates to
confirm suggestion that they are Neolithic based on the composition of the charred plant assemblage. Site 19.07
and 19.08 both include pits with well-preserved charred plant or charcoal and dates for these are recommended.
A feature identified as an SFB at Site 21.06 has a single, unexpected Middle Bronze Age date, and a second
date is required to confirm this. Pit 24.03.036 has a significant charred plant assemblage and its presumed
Roman date requires confirmation. At Site 33.01 undated pit 33.01.006 yielded a charred plant assemblage and
flintwork characteristic of the early Prehistoric period, thus dating for this feature is recommended.
243
Figure18.1 C14 date from Pit 02.02.101
244
Figure
18.2
C14
date
21.06.0008
245
from
SFB
Figure 18.3 C14 date from pit 14.09,003
246
Figure 18.4 C14 date from pit 14.09.016
247
Figure 18.4 C14 date from Furnace 16.07.008
248
Table 18.1 Radiocarbon Dates
Section
Site
Feature
Fill
Sample
Our ID
Lab ID
Date
FTC06
2.02
Pit 2.02.010
2.02.011
293
FTC06202010293
R32207/1
Neo
material
charcoal
Corylus (hazel)
16.07
Furnace
16.07.008
16.07.016
248
FTC061607016248
R32207/2
NK
Alnus (alder)
21.06
SFB 21.06.008
21.06.010
313
FTC062106010313
R32207/3
NK
14.09
Pit 14.09.003
14.09.006
207
ATK061409006207
R32207/5
14.09
Pit 14.09.016
14.09.009
203
ATK061409009203
R32207/4
E/MBA
crem?
LBA/EIA
Hordeum
sp.
(barley)
Ulex/cytisus
(gorse/broom)
Corylus (hazel)
ATK06
Date
95%
confidence
4495+/-25 BP
3339-3095 BC
2257+/-20 BP
391 BC to 350 BC
293 BC to 227 BC
219 BC to 210 BC
3021+/-25 BP
1385-1194 BC
3295+/-25 BP
1627-1504 BC
2212+/-25 BP
367-201 BC
Table 18.2 Radiocarbon dating proposals
Site
Plot
Feature
Fill
Sample no
Date
FTC06
2.02
Pit 2.02.010
2.02.011
293
Neo
Priority
low-high
*, **, ***
**
2.02
Pit 2.02.004
2.02.005
290
Neo
**
2.02
2.02
12.05
12.05
12.05
12.05
Pit 2.02.006
Pit 2.02.013
Pit 12.05.019
Pit 12.05.011
Pit 12.05.009
Pit 12.05.004
2.02.007
2.02.014
12.05.022
12.05.012
12.05.015
12.05.005
12.05.006
12.05.007
292
294
231
228
229
233
234
235
Neo
?Neo
NK
NK
NK
NK
NK
NK
**
*
*
***
*
***
***
***
Rafter sample #1. Need paired date to confirm
ENeo
Assoc. with decorated pottery, and important
CPR
Another pit in this group
Undated pit in this group
Originally identified as a cremation
One in group of ?cremations
As pit 12.05.011
In group with pit 12.05.019
Date supporting above
Date supporting above (reserve)
12.05w
Furnace? 12.05w.004
12.05w.007
239
NK
***
Iron smelting furnace? Need x2 dates
2
13.03
Ditch 13.03.004
**
Possible enclosure ditch. Need x2 dates from
primary fills
2
Ditch
13.03.009
(=13.03.011)
193
191
192
003
IA
13.03
13.03.045
13.03.057
13.03.051
10.09 (ET)
IA/RB
**
Possible enclosure ditch (same as 13.03.004?)
1
249
Comment
No. of dates per feature
in first tranche
(Reserve)
1
1
1
(R)
(R)
1
(R)
2
Site
Plot
Feature
Fill
Sample no
Date
13.03
Ditch 13.03.029 (=
13.03.011)
Spread 16.01.006
Pit 16.01.007
Pit 16.01.009
Furnace 16.07.008
13.03.030
185
16.01.006
16.01.008
16.01.011
16.07.011
16.07.012
16.07.013
16.07.014
16.07.015
16.07.016
16.01
16.01
16.01
16.07
Comment
IA/RB
Priority
low-high
*, **, ***
**
As above, supporting date
in first tranche
(Reserve)
1
278
279
280
242
241
245
246
247
248
NK
NK
NK
IA
*
**
**
***
Burnt feature in group
As above
As above
(R)
1
1
1
259
258
256
253
267
268
263
274
262
IA?
***
Rafter sample #2. Need pair to confirm Iron
Age
Large furnace, earliest in stratified group
IA?
IA?
IA?
IA?
IA?
IA?
IA?
**
**
**
***
*
***
***
Furnace in stratified group (above 16.07.021)
Latest phase furnace in stratified group
Ditto, middle fill
Ditto, primary fill
Furnace in stratified group
Early phase furnace in stratified group
Late phase pit in group of furnaces (above
16.07.055)
Pit with exceptional CPR (?Medieval)
Possible Grooved Ware pit
Close to Neolithic group. Possibly medieval
CPR
Pit with Grooved Ware
Pit ?pre-dating Neolithic gully
Close to Neolithic group with HNS
In pit group with possible Neolithic CPR
Supporting above
In pit group with pit 18.13.004
Isolated pit with important CPR. Medieval?
Isolated pit with abundant charcoal
Rafter sample #3. Need pair
(R)
16.07
Furnace 16.07.021
16.07
16.07
Furnace 16.07.024
Furnace 16.07.077
16.07
16.07
16.07
Furnace 16.07.040
Furnace 16.07.055
Long pit 16.07.037
16.07.022
16.07.023
16.07.026
16.07.030
16.07.046
16.07.047
16.07.041
16.07.057
16.07.039
16.08
18.12
18.12
Pit 16.08.020
Pit 18.12.032
Pit 18.12.015
16.08.021
18.12.033
18.12.017
299
304
303
NK
Neo
NK
**
***
**
18.12
18.12
18.12
18.13
Pit 18.12.018
Pit 18.12.053
Pit 18.12.043
Pit 18.13.004
Pit 18.13.011
Pit 19.07.004
Pit 19.08.004
SFB 21.06.008
301
310
307
305
306
308
312
311
313
Neo
Neo?
NK
NK
18.13
19.07
19.08
21.06
18.12.020
18.12.054
18.12.044
18.13.006
18.13.007
18.13.012
19.07.005
19.08.005
21.06.010
24.03
Pit 24.03.036
24.03.038
007
NK
NK
NK
MBA
C14
date
Roman?
***
***
**
***
***
*
**
*
**
33.01
Pit 33.01.006
33.01.007
316
NK
**
***
250
Undated by pottery but assumed Roman by
association. Important CPR
?Early prehistoric CPR in isolated pit (with flint)
2
2
(R)
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
(R)
1
(R)
1
(R)
2
Site
Plot
Feature
OTA06
2.03
3.04
3.04
3.04
4.01
4.01
4.10
4.10
4.10
5.01
Pit 2.03.004
Pit 3.04.096
Pit 3.04.031
Pit 3.04.036
Cremation Pit 205.004
Cremation pit 205.004
Pit 4.10.004
Pit 4.10.016
Ditch 4.10.018
Ring Ditch 5.01.020
13.02
13.02
Ditch 13.02.123
Ditch 13.02.175
14.09
14.09
Pit 14.09.018
Pit 14.09.003
14.09
Pit 14.09.016
ATK06
14.09
15.02
Ring ditch? 14.09.021
Ditch 15.02.018
Fill
Sample no
Date
33.01.008
2.03.005
3.04.092
3.04.032
3.04.037
205.012
205.005
4.10.005
4.10.017
4.10.021
5.01.034
5.01.043
5.01.050
5.01.059
13.02.124
13.02.176
317
174
073
068
070
063
064
212
213
214
183
182
175
179
143
110
NK
Neo
Neo
NK
NK
NK
NK
NK
BA
?Roman
NK
/
?BA
IA?
MBA?
Priority
low-high
*, **, ***
***
***
***
*
**
***
***
**
***
**
***
***
***
***
**
**
14.09.020
14.09.004
14.09.006
14.09.008
14.09.009
14.09.010
14.09.011
14.09.023
15.02.005
209
?
207
202
203
204
205
287
288
E/MBA
E/MBA
**
***
LBA/EIA
***
Comment
As above
Need x3 dates? Due to ambivalent data
Early Neolithic pottery
Undated pit in Neolithic /Bronze Age group
Undated pit in Neolithic /Bronze Age group
Undated cremation
Support for above
In group with Bronze Age pit and ditch
Containing probable Trevisker pottery
Ditch not securely dated by single small sherd
Assumed Bronze Age but undated
Ditto
Ditto, primary fill
Ditto, primary fill
Possible Iron Age ditch parallel to 13.02.175
Possible Bronze Age ditch parallel to
13.02.123
One of a group of pits with Bronze Age pottery
in first tranche
(Reserve)
3
1
(R)
1
2
1
1
(R)
2
1
1
1
1
Rafter sample #5, paired date needed
1
Rafter sample #4, paired date needed
NK
NK
***
**
251
Near Bronze Age pit group. Need x2 dates
Curving ditch, may be Iron Age/Roman
2
(R)

OTTERY ST MARY TO AYLESBEARE AYLESBEARE TO KENN

Transcription

Similar documents

See more details

GRANDPARENTS` SPECIAL EDITION Features

View/Open - JEWLScholar@MTSU Home

Presentation - California Health Advocates

Fall 2002 - PDF - The Devon Nicole House

Land at Cuckold`s Pit, Chardstock, Devon

The Update

august 15 - 16, 2014 - Eddyville Raceway Park

Sam B heath week article