incubator building alconbury weald cambridgeshire

Incubator Building Alconbury Weald Cambridgeshire

Post-Excavation Assessment

June 2013

for

on behalf of

Buro Four

Urban & Civic

CA Project: 669006 CA Report: 13385

CHER Number: 3861

1

Incubator Building

Alconbury Weald

Cambridgeshire

Post-Excavation Assessment

CA Project: 669006

CA Report: 13385

CHER Number: 3861

Authors: Jeremy Mordue, Supervisor

Jonathan Hart, Publications Officer

Approved:

Signed:

Martin Watts, Head of Publications

…………………………………………………………….

Issue: 01 Date: 25 June 2013

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

Unit 4, Cromwell Business Centre, Howard Way, Newport Pagnell, Milton Keynes, MK16 9QS

t. 01908 218320 e. [email protected]

Incubator Building, Alconbury Weald, Cambridgeshire: Post-Excavation Assessment

2


CONTENTS

SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 4

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 5

2 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES ................................................................................... 6

3 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................... 6

4 RESULTS .......................................................................................................... 7

5 FACTUAL DATA AND STATEMENTS OF POTENTIAL ..................................... 10

6 SUMMARY STATEMENT OF POTENTIAL ........................................................ 15

7 STORAGE AND CURATION .............................................................................. 16

8 UPDATED AIMS AND OBJECTIVES ................................................................. 16

9 PUBLICATION ................................................................................................... 18

10 TASK LIST ......................................................................................................... 18

11 REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 20

APPENDIX 1: THE POTTERY BY E.R. MCSLOY ........................................................... 25

APPENDIX 2: FIRED CLAY AND DAUB BY E.R. MCSLOY ........................................... 27

APPENDIX 3: WORKED BONE AND ANTLER BY E.R. MCSLOY ................................. 27

APPENDIX 4: METALWORK BY E.R. MCSLOY ............................................................. 28

APPENDIX 5: LITHICS BY A. CRAWFORD AND E.R. MCSLOY ................................... 29

APPENDIX 6: GLASS BY E.R. MCSLOY ........................................................................ 29

APPENDIX 7: CERAMIC BUILDING MATERIAL (CBM) BY A. CRAWFORD AND E.R.

MCSLOY ............................................................................................................ 29

APPENDIX 8: ANIMAL BONE BY JONNY GEBER ......................................................... 30


3


APPENDIX 9: PLANT MACROFOSSIL AND CHARCOAL REMAINS BY SARAH COBAIN

........................................................................................................................... 33

APPENDIX 10: OASIS REPORT FORM ......................................................................... 42

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Fig. 1 Site location plan (1:25,000)

Fig. 2 Site location plan, showing archaeological features (1:500)

Fig. 3 Plan of the Iron Age features (1:250)

Fig. 4 Plan of the Roman features (1:250)

Fig. 5 Plan of the medieval, post-medieval and modern features (1:250)

Fig. 6 Photograph: pre-excavation view of the site, looking north

Fig. 7 Photograph: Iron Age ring-ditch 450, looking south-east

Fig. 8 Photograph: Iron Age boundary ditch 358, cut by Roman boundary ditch terminal

472, looking east

Fig. 9 Photograph: Iron Age cobbled surface 301, cut by Romano ditch 151, looking

south-west

Fig. 10 Photograph: Roman boundary ditch 472, partially excavated, looking south-west

Fig. 11 Photograph: Iron Age antler object (possible toggle)

Fig. 12 Photograph: Middle Bronze Age side-looped bronze spearhead fragment


4


SUMMARY

Site Name: Incubator Building, Alconbury Weald

Location: Cambridgeshire

NGR: TL 1985 7655

Type: Excavation

Date: February 2013

Location of archive: To be deposited with Cambridgeshire County Archaeological Store

Site Code: STUALZ13A

CHER Number: 3861

An archaeological excavation was undertaken by Cotswold Archaeology in February 2013 at

the request of Buro Four (on behalf of Urban & Civic) at the Incubator Building, Alconbury

Weald, Cambridgeshire. An area of 0.22ha was excavated.

Features dating to the Middle to Late Iron Age and Roman periods, up to the early 3rd

century AD, were identified, along with evidence of medieval and post-medieval agricultural

activity and a small number of modern remains. For the earlier periods, evidence for

settlement in the form of at least one roundhouse and a finds assemblage typical of rural

occupation was found. The survival of the features was good, probably due to their

preservation from ploughing resulting from their location within an airfield. The full extents of

the Iron Age and Roman sites were not revealed, but enough evidence was recovered to

indicate both that the site seems to have been occupied continuously during these periods

and that it was abandoned in the early 3rd century AD.

This document presents a quantification and assessment of the evidence recovered from the

excavation, and identifies its potential for further analysis and publication.


5


1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 During February 2013 Cotswold Archaeology (CA) carried out an archaeological

excavation of the footprint of the Incubator Building and adjacent roadway,

Alconbury Weald, Cambridgeshire, (centred on NGR: TL 1985 7655; Fig. 1). The

work was undertaken at the request of Buro Four on behalf of Urban & Civic.

CgMs Consulting provided archaeological consultancy advice to Buro Four

throughout the duration of the project which was undertaken to meet the

requirements of an archaeological condition attached to planning permission for

Enabling Works for the Alconbury Enterprise Zone (1102094FUL; Condition 8).

1.2 The archaeological work was undertaken with the approval of the Historic

Environment Team, Cambridgeshire County Council (HETCCC) on behalf of

Huntingdonshire District Council. The fieldwork followed best practice as set out in

the Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Excavation issued by the Institute

for Archaeologists (2008), Standards for Field Archaeology in the East of England

(Gurney 2003), Management of Archaeological Projects II (EH 1991) and

Management of Research Projects in the Historic Environment. The MoRPHE

Project Managers’ Guide (EH 2006). The fieldwork was monitored by Andy

Thomas (HETCCC).

Location, topography and geology

1.3 The excavation area, hereafter referred to as ‘the site’, comprised the footprint of

the Incubator Building and part of an adjacent new roadway, a broadly rectangular

area of 0.22ha within the Alconbury Enterprise Zone (Figs 1 and 2). The site was

formerly part of Alconbury Airfield and was partly occupied by a horseshoe-shaped

blast mound surrounding a concrete airfield building which lay to the immediate

west of the site. The building and mound had been removed prior to the

excavation, immediately prior to which the site was under turf.

1.4 The site and its environs are essentially flat at 49m AOD, and lie on Oxford Clay

overlain by superficial deposits of Boulder Clay (BGS 2013).

Archaeological background

1.5 Alconbury Airfield has been subject to a series of archaeological investigations

over the last 15 years. These have included archaeological desk-based

assessments (ULAS 1998; CgMs 2011a), an assessment of the airfield and its

historic buildings (CgMs 2011b), geophysical surveys (GSB 2000; ASUD 2006),


6


an aerial photographic assessment (APS 1998) and trial trench evaluations

(CCCAFU 2001; OAE 2012).

1.6 These investigations showed the site to lie within an area of archaeological

potential. A Roman building and associated remains were found near Hermitage

Wood, 0.6km north of the site, and a Roman coffin and quern stone were found at

Alconbury House, 200m to its south. Ermine Street, the Roman road from

Durovigutum (Godmanchester) and Durobrivae (Water Newton), follows the line of

the A1, B1043 and B1090 and thus ran close to the south-west of the site.

1.7 Evidence for Anglo-Saxon activity in the vicinity is sparse. A former medieval

moated manor was located near Hermitage Wood but, until the development of the

airfield in the 1930/40s, the site was largely in agricultural use and the aerial

photographic assessment identified ridge and furrow remains within it (APS 1998).

1.8 The 2012 trial trench evaluation included trenches within and around the footprint

of the Incubator Building (trenches 3–7). Trenches 6 and 7 contained Iron Age pits

and ditches whilst trench 5 contained a series of intercutting pits (or a single

complex ditch) associated with Early to Middle Roman pottery, along with small

quantities of residual Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age pottery. Trenches 3 and 4

contained no archaeological deposits.

2 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

2.1 The aim of the excavation, as detailed in the agreed Project Design, was to

establish the extent and nature of the archaeological deposits within the site and

then to excavate and record any areas of archaeological significance.

3 METHODOLOGY

3.1 The work commenced by cutting three new trial trenches (not illustrated as within

subsequent excavation area) within the site and the results of this investigation

were reviewed on site with CgMs and HETCCC, following which the extent of the

area of archaeological significance was agreed (Fig. 2).


7


3.2 The topsoil and subsoil were removed to the top of archaeological deposits under

archaeological supervision using a 360º excavator with a toothless bucket. All

features were planned and recorded in accordance with CA’s Technical Manual 1:

Excavation Recording Manual (CA 2007). Deposits were assessed for their

environmental potential and sampled appropriately in accordance with CA’s

Technical Manual 2: The taking of samples for paleoenvironmental and

palaeoeconomic analysis from archaeological sites (CA 2003). All artefacts

recovered from the excavation were retained in accordance with CA’s Technical

Manual 3: Treatment of finds immediately after excavation (CA 1995).

4 RESULTS

Fieldwork summary

4.1 A high density of archaeological features was recorded cut into the geological

substrate. The majority of these dated to the Middle Iron Age and Roman periods.

Some truncation of these deposits had resulted from ridge-and-furrow cultivation,

the remains of which were found across the site, and from the laying of airfield

services. The principal periods of activity are summarised below, along with

overviews of the finds and environmental data. More detailed assessments are

contained in Appendices 1–9. In addition to the periods detailed below, a fragment

from a Middle Bronze Age spearhead (Fig. 12) was recovered from a Roman ditch

but no cut features of this date were identified.

4.2 Based on the dating evidence provided by artefactual remains and through the

spatial and stratigraphical relationships between contexts, the features identified

have been assigned to the following periods:-

Period 1: Middle to Late Iron Age

Period 2: Roman

Period 3: medieval, post-medieval and modern

Period 1: Middle to Late Iron Age (Fig. 3)

4.3 Middle to Late Iron Age features were found across the north-eastern two thirds of

the site and were dated by the presence of pottery types which spanned the period

from the Middle Iron Age to the first half of the 1st century AD.


8


4.4 One of the southernmost Iron Age features was boundary ditch 358, which was

followed a north-east/south-west alignment. This survived only for a short length at

an entrance gap along a Roman ditch on the same alignment, which had

otherwise entirely truncated the Iron Age ditch (Fig. 8). Ditch 358 was 1.75m wide

and 0.7m deep, and contained a series of pale clay silt deposits that appear to

have been natural infills. The re-use of this ditch alignment during the Roman

period suggests that it was a significant boundary, possibly a property boundary,

during both periods.

4.5 Ring ditch 450 was found in the north-eastern corner of the site and comprised two

segments of a ditch enclosing an area 10m in diameter (Fig. 7). The ditch was

narrow and of variable depth with steep or vertical sides. A 1.75m-wide gap along

its south-western circuit was probably an entrance, but a similar gap to the north-

east seems to have been due to truncation as it coincided with a furrow. The fills

were generally brown clay silt deposits but those on its south-eastern side were

typically black and charcoal-rich, with abundant animal bone and pottery, and

included an object of worked antler, possibly a toggle (Fig. 11). These deposits are

suggestive of occupation debris, and the ring ditch probably surrounded a

roundhouse. Pit 216 was found immediately outside this possible roundhouse and

may have been associated with it.

4.6 To the south-east of ring ditch 450, Iron Age features comprised a series of small

curvilinear ditches (ditches 42, 81, 110, 122, 158 and 298). The function of these

is currently unknown.

4.7 Immediately north of boundary ditch 358 was a series of intercutting pits (473).

These varied in size and morphology, and were up to 3m in diameter and 0.9m

deep (although the deepest was not fully excavated due to water inundation).

These were probably clay quarries associated with the Iron Age site.

4.8 South of boundary ditch 358 were four fragments of a cobbled surface (301; Fig.

9). All comprised a single course of cobbles sealed by trample layers and were

perhaps the remnants of a trackway adjoining the boundary ditch. Also south of

boundary ditch 358 were several shallow ditches (ditches 124, 162, 318 and 394).

The function of these is currently not known.

4.9 A small number of pits and postholes were also found across the site. Further

analysis may determine the function of these, which is currently unclear.


9


Period 2: Roman (Fig. 4)

4.10 Roman features were found across the site, truncating the Iron Age deposits. The

recovered pottery included wares dateable to the 1st to 2nd centuries AD with

some possibly early 3rd-century AD material also present. The apparent re-

establishment of the Iron Age boundary tallies with the ceramic evidence which

indicates continuity from the Late Iron Age period. However, the stratigraphy

clearly shows that the internal site layout was redesigned during the Roman

period, although detailed phasing will require further analysis.

4.11 Iron Age boundary ditch 358 was re-cut on the same alignment as a wider and

more substantial ditch (ditch 472; Figs 8 and 10). It included a 2m-wide entrance

gap and was re-cut at least once in this period, perhaps a reflection of its

significance. A large assemblage of Roman pottery was recovered from the fills of

this boundary ditch.

4.12 North-west of ditch 472 was ring ditch 106, which comprised a ditch enclosing an

area 12.5m by 9m in extent. The south-eastern side of this ditch had been

truncated by a furrow but it probably included an entrance gap facing the entrance

along boundary ditch 472. The fills contained large quantities of animal bone. The

function of the ring ditch is not certain, although it might have been either an

enclosure or perhaps for another roundhouse. It contained a possible rectangular

six-post structure; the nature and function of these features may be clarified

through further analysis.

4.13 Ditch 99, in the centre of the site, ran up to boundary ditch 472 and cut its later

fills. It contained a lower fill of weathered clay and an upper dark, charcoal-rich fill.

Along with other ditches on a similar alignment, ditch 99 appeared to subdivide the

area north-east of ditch 472, with further subdivisions to the north formed by

ditches such as 198 and 240. Another ditch (6) to the south of ring ditch 106 may

have been another subdivision of this area.

Period 3: medieval, post-medieval and modern (Fig. 5)

4.14 Furrows were found across the site on a north-east/south-west alignment. A post-

medieval field boundary ditch, on a north-west/south-east alignment, was recorded

in the north-eastern corner of the site and corresponds to a field boundary on the

1791 Alconbury Enclosure Map (CgMs 2011a, fig. 4).


10


4.15 Remains associated with the airfield included modern ceramic drains and

electricity ducts/cables. Landscaping had impacted to the depth of the subsoil and

topsoil but had not penetrated to the depth of the natural substrate.

5 FACTUAL DATA AND STATEMENTS OF POTENTIAL

Stratigraphic Record: factual data and statement of potential

5.1 Following the completion of the fieldwork 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 a site matrix was also compiled and

cross-referenced to spot-dating. The fieldwork comprises the following records:

Context sheets 471

Drawings (1:10, 1:20, 1:100) 98

Sample sheets 16

Monochrome Films 6

Digital photographs 282

Matrices 1

5.2 The survival and intelligibility of the site stratigraphy was good, with archaeological

remains having survived as negative features. Secure stratigraphic relationships,

along with the pottery and other artefacts from excavated contexts, has enabled all

features to be assigned to a preliminary period. Further analysis of the

stratigraphic and artefactual data, especially the spatial distribution of materials

within and across features, has the potential to elucidate further the date, function,

development and significance of the remains.

Artefactual record: factual data

5.3 All finds have been cleaned, marked, quantified and catalogued by context. All

metalwork has been x-rayed and stabilised where appropriate. This section

summarises the assemblages by material category. Detailed descriptions of each

finds category are set out in Appendices 1–7.


11


Type Category Count Weight (g)

Pottery Iron Age 290 5,234

Iron Age/Roman 121 2,329

Roman 466 7,451

Total 877 15,014

Flint Worked/burnt 2 26

Fired Clay/Daub All 81 1,966

CBM All 58 7613

Glass Vessel 1 7

Metals Iron 13 -

Copper alloy 1 -

Residues 30 1,701

Worked bone All 3 -

Stone Quern (fragments) 4 482

Burnt 2 3855

Pottery

5.4 A total of 877 sherds of pottery (15.014kg) was recovered. The material can be

subdivided into 290 sherds (5234g) of Middle and Late Iron Age pottery, 121

sherds (2329g) of Later Iron Age and Early Roman pottery, and 466 sherds

(7451g) of Roman pottery dating up to the early 3rd century AD.

Worked flint

5.5 Two pieces of worked flint (26g) were recovered, both of which would seem to be

redeposited within Iron Age or Roman deposits. Both are ‘waste’ flakes with no

secondary working and the raw material is grey and yellow-grey coloured flint.

Fired clay and daub

5.6 A total of 81 fragments (1966g) of fired clay and daub was recovered. These

comprised loomweight fragments, possible loomweight fragments, and pieces of

burnt daub or amorphous, undiagnostic fragments.

Worked bone and antler

5.7 Three items of worked bone or antler were recovered. A spindlewhorl and an

antler tine were recovered from Roman contexts and an elaborately decorated

antler object, possibly a toggle (Fig. 11), was recovered from an Iron Age context.

Metalwork

5.8 Fourteen metalwork items were recovered; one of copper alloy and the remainder

of iron. The copper-alloy item is a fragment of a side-looped socketed spearhead

of Middle Bronze Age type (Fig. 12). The ironwork is mostly from Roman contexts

and is fragmentary. The identifiable items come from tools, including parts of a

reaping hook, blade and gouge. The remainder are nail fragments or are

unidentifiable.


12


Ceramic building material

5.9 A total of 58 (7613g) fragments of ceramic building material (cbm) was recorded,

all of Roman date. Most fragments are small and lack recordable features. The

remainder comprises mainly roofing material: flanged tegulae (3 fragments) and

curving imbreces (5 fragments). There are also two brick fragments.

Stone

5.10 Worked stone and unworked burnt stone fragments were recovered. The worked

stone comprised Mayen lava quern fragments, probably from a Roman rotary disc

quern. The burnt stone was found in small quantities.

Glass

5.11 Two fragments of Roman glass were recorded. Both are unfeatured vessel

fragments in natural green-coloured glass and are broadly dateable to the 1st to

3rd centuries AD.

Artefactual record: statements of potential

Pottery

5.12 Though moderately small, the pottery assemblage provides good and consistent

evidence for activity extending from the Middle Iron Age through to the ‘Middle’

Roman period. An absence of Roman fabrics or forms characteristic of the Late

Roman period indicates that activity may have ceased or shifted away from this

location by c. AD 225–50.

5.13 The Iron Age and ‘transitional’ elements are comparable in terms of fabrics, forms

and decoration to published groups from the wider region. The incidence of

handmade ‘Iron Age’ style pottery, including ‘scored wares’, together with the

grogged and other wheelthrown ‘transitional’ material, supports analyses with

evidence for late survival of such styles in the area (Rollo 1988). The occurrence

of Late La Téne decorated vessels, one of which is comparable to vessels made

close to modern-day Northampton, is of note as evidence for trade or exchange

over longer distances.

5.14 The Roman assemblage is modest in size and largely unexceptional in its

composition. Some aspects are noteworthy, in particular the whitewares known to

have been produced at the Roman small town of Godmanchester (Evans 2003).

The assemblage shares characteristics of those from smaller rural sites of the


13


period and is consistent with a lower-status community with restricted access to, or

requirement for, pottery produced for the table, for specialist use or for display.

5.15 Additional work is recommended with the pottery, aimed primarily at its

characterisation and the systematic cataloguing of variation relating to fabric and

form. The recording of attributes such as sooting and use wear will permit

investigation of vessel use and, when tied to form, inform wider aspects of site use

and relative status.

Worked flint

5.16 As re-deposited finds without diagnostic features, the worked flint is not closely

dateable and of minimal archaeological significance.

Fired clay and daub

5.17 The fired clay and daub is heavily fragmented and contributes little to the

understanding of the site or the periods represented. No further work is

recommended.

Worked bone and antler

5.18 The decorated antler object (Fig. 11) is of interest as an unusual, possibly unique,

form and should be described and drawn for publication. The two Roman objects

are typical but suggestive of craft activities.

Metalwork

5.19 Specialist cleaning and stabilisation treatment is recommended for the spearhead

to avoid deterioration and ensure its long-term survival. Although it was it was

redeposited within a Roman ditch, the spearhead (Fig. 12) is of intrinsic interest

and merits a short description and drawing to be included in any publication report.

The remaining items of iron are of less significance and require minimal further

work. Selected items (Appendix 4, Table 2) should be x-rayed and selectively

cleaned to help confirm identification, and the catalogue description updated as

necessary.

Ceramic building material (cbm)

5.20 The Roman cbm represents a small and fragmented group. It may have been

dispersed following the disuse of a substantial Romanised structure or structures

in the vicinity, or it may represent material brought to the site for use as hard

standing or other secondary uses. Recording and reporting undertaken as part of


14


this assessment are sufficient for the purposes of the archive and no further work

is recommended.

Worked and burnt stone

5.21 The range and quantity of stone finds is small and merits very little further work. A

short catalogue description of the lava quern fragments should be included in any

publication.

Glass

5.22 The Roman vessel glass fragments are of minimal significance and no merit

further work.

Biological record: factual data

5.23 All ecofacts recovered from the excavation have been cleaned, marked, quantified

and catalogued by context. A total of 16 bulk samples were taken for the recovery

of environmental remains. A summary of the animal bone and charred plant

remains is presented below. Detailed descriptions are set out in Appendices 8 and

9.

Type Category Count Weight (g)

Animal bone Fragments 1062 24,914

Samples Environmental 16 -

Animal bone

5.24 The animal bone amounted to a total of almost 25kg, recovered from primarily Iron

Age and Roman deposits. These included identified species of cattle, caprovine,

pig, dog, possibly fox and red deer. The assessment of the remains suggests a

chronological difference in terms of waste disposal on the site, where slaughter

and butchery waste may have been deposited along with food waste in the Roman

period, and separately in the Iron Age.

Plant macrofossil and charcoal

5.25 The plant remains from Iron Age features consisted of emmer/spelt wheat,

possible spelt wheat, barley and indeterminate cereal grains, a fragment of straw,

a fragment of hazelnut shell and a brome seed. Modern elder and goosefoots

seeds were also identified. Charcoal was identified as oak, hawthorn/rowan

sp./crab apple, cherry sp. and field maple.

5.26 Plant remains from Roman contexts were identified as emmer/spelt wheat,

possible spelt wheat, wheat sp, and indeterminate cereal grains, cereal chaff


15


including glume bases and straw, hazelnut shell and herbaceous taxa identified as

goosefoots, vetches/peas, bromes and docks. Small numbers of modern elder,

goosefoots and fool’s parsley were also present. Charcoal was identified as

alder/hazel, oak, ash, hawthorn/rowan/crab apple, viburnum and cherry sp.

Biological record: statements of potential

Animal bone

5.27 Few archaeological animal bone assemblages of this size are reported from

Cambridgeshire. Therefore, the bones have the potential to contribute to the wider

understanding of past husbandry practices and economic regimes in the region

during the Iron Age and Roman periods. Analysis, which would focus on species

representation, anatomical distribution and contextual and spatial distribution of

the bones, would provide insight into how the site was used, and any change in

husbandry practices with increasing Romanisation after the 1st century AD.

Plant macrofossils and charcoal

5.28 The carbonised plant macrofossils were recovered in small quantities and were

poorly preserved, and therefore no further work is recommended. The charcoal

was generally recovered in small to large quantities and was variably preserved.

Further work has been recommended on both the Iron Age and Roman charcoal

assemblages to provide evidence of local woodland composition, fuel usage and

woodland management. This material will also be available for incorporation into

future wider research reviews which intend to answer research aims outlined in

Research and Archaeology – A Framework for the Eastern Counties – 1) resource

assessment (Glazebrook 1997) and 2) research agenda and strategy (Brown and

Glazebrook 2000).

6 SUMMARY STATEMENT OF POTENTIAL

6.1 The site revealed significant remains spanning the period from the Middle Iron Age

to the early 3rd century AD. The deposits are reasonably well preserved and,

although some truncation has occurred, survival of deposits may be better than is

usually the case in the highly ploughed landscape of the local region, probably due

to the site’s location within an airfield which has precluded recent ploughing. The


16


quantity of finds and the good stratigraphy provide a reasonable framework to

phase deposits across the site.

6.2 The results represent parts of and Iron Age and Roman settlement. It is highly

likely that further (currently uninvestigated) elements of these lie beyond the site,

which restricts current interpretation of the activity. However, the evidence does

clearly indicate continuity of occupation from the Iron Age to the Roman periods,

until the early 3rd century AD, and this has good potential to inform our

understanding of both the Late Iron Age/Roman transition period and a possible

change in occupation patterns in the 3rd century AD (Bryant 2000, 16).

6.3 The range of finds, both in the Iron Age and Roman periods, is typical and

unexceptional for rural settlements of these periods in the region, the exceptions

being the unusual Iron Age decorated antler object and the Bronze Age spearhead

fragment.

6.4 The animal bone assemblage is well preserved in a region where preservation is

variable (Bryant 2000, 31). As the material spans the Iron Age and Roman

transition, it has the potential to contribute to regional research priorities for faunal

remains (Going and Plouviez 2000).

6.5 Surprisingly, charred plant remains were scarce and poorly preserved, which may

itself reflect on the nature of activities taking place on site. Charcoal survived to a

greater extent and may provide some landscape-wide environmental data.

7 STORAGE AND CURATION

7.1 The archive is currently held at CA’s offices in Kemble. Upon completion of the

project and with the agreement of the legal landowners, the artefacts will be

deposited with the Cambridgeshire County Archaeological Store, along with the

site archive, under accession number CHER 3861.

8 UPDATED AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

8.1 To fulfil the potential of the site data, the following updated objectives have been

set out to provide a framework for the proposed further analysis:-


17


Objective 1: refine the chronology of features and deposits on the site

Using the site stratigraphy and finds data, attempt to refine the chronology and

sequence of deposits and therefore identify any changing patterns of settlement and

related activities in the transition from the later Iron Age into the Roman period

(Bryant 2000, 16).

Objective 2: what is the history and purpose of the boundary ditch that

crosses the site? Can it add to our knowledge of adjacent activities?

The re-cut boundary ditch was the most significant feature recorded on the site as it

appears to have been in use throughout the history of the site. A large proportion of

the artefact assemblage was recovered from its fills and spatial analysis of this

material has the potential to aid understanding of the nature of the activities

occurring on the site.

Objective 3: what was the economic basis of the site in the Iron Age and

Roman periods?

Can the morphology and fills and the accompanying ecofactual and artefactual

assemblages enable us to determine what activities were being undertaken and

whether the site had a specialised economy (Bryant 2000, 14; Going and Plouviez

2000, 21)? Did this economy change between the Iron Age and Roman periods?

Objective 4: does the animal bone assemblage reflect any changes in animal

husbandry in the transition from the Iron Age to Roman periods?

Existing understanding of animal husbandry on rural Roman settlements in the

region is poor (Going and Plouviez 2000, 21). Whilst the assemblage from the site is

small, it is relatively well preserved and spans the transition from the later Iron Age

into the Roman period. As such, it has significant potential to contribute to the

regional research framework (Going and Plouviez 2000, 21).

Objective 5: further analysis and publication of the ceramic assemblage

Full analysis and publication of the pottery will contribute to the regional research

agenda for the Iron Age, since relatively few assemblages have yet been published

(Bryant 2000, 14). Such publications will eventually enable inter-site comparisons to

be made more effectively, as well as refining the ceramic chronological sequence for

the region.


18


Objective 6: further analysis and publication of the charcoal and charred plant

remains

Full analysis and publication of the charcoal and charred plant remains will

contribute to the regional research agenda (Bryant 2000, 16) and will both enable

future comparisons to be made of assemblages in different sites and may provide

information on the economy and environment of the current site.

9 PUBLICATION

9.1 The archaeological investigations at the site represent the first stage of

archaeological mitigation works in response to the development and construction

of Alconbury Enterprise Zone. At this stage, the timing, extent and nature of any

further archaeological mitigation, if required, is unknown. It has been agreed in

principle by CgMs Consulting and CA that, subject to the nature and extent of

future archaeological work, the overall objective should be for the results of all

archaeological investigations undertaken for the scheme to be collated, analysed,

reported and published as a single programme of work so that a coherent and

authoritative account of the archaeology of the Enterprise Zone can be produced.

9.2 Therefore, no publication is proposed at this stage, although the results to date

would merit publication in their own right. The following provisional task list

includes work currently recommended for further analysis (and related tasks) from

the results of this first stage of fieldwork. Further stages of fieldwork will help to

determine the nature of any future publication of these results, may well affect the

scope of works currently recommended, and may also offer efficiencies of scale in

their execution.

10 PROVISIONAL TASK LIST

TASK PERSONNEL DURATION Project Management

SPM 3.5 days Stratigraphic Analysis PO 3 days Research, comparanda PO 1 day Pottery

Analysis and report FO 2.5 days

Illustration SI 1 day Metal artefacts

Conservation Specialist FEE

Transport Report preparation FO 0.25 day

Illustration SI 0.25 day


19


Worked bone

Report FO 0.25 day Illustration SI 0.5 day Animal bone

Analysis and report FO 4 days Charcoal

Analysis and report EO 1.5 days Report Preparation

Introduction and Excavation results PO 3 days SI 2 days

Compilation of specialist reports, tables etc. PO 0.5 day Discussion, conclusions PO 1.5 days

SI 0.5 day

Acknowledgements, bibliography PO 1 day QA HoP 0.25 day All publication-related tasks are not included and can not be determined until the form of publication has been agreed (see para. 9.2).

Archive

Research archive completion PO 1 day

PA 3 days FO 0.5 day

Microfilm FEE Deposition FEE


20


11 REFERENCES

Anderberg A.-L. 1994 Atlas of seeds: Part 4. Uddevalla, Swedish Museum of Natural History

APS (Air Photo Services) 1998 Alconbury Airfield, Area Centred TL2176, Cambridgeshire.

Aerial Photographic Assessment Report 1998/12

ASUD (Archaeological Services University of Durham) 2006 Land at Alconbury Airfield,

Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire. Geophysical Surveys Report 1441

Baxter, I. L. 2008 ‘Appendix 14: Faunal remains’, in Kenney 2008

Berggren, G. 1981 Atlas of seeds: Part 3. Arlöv, Swedish Museum of Natural History

BGS (British Geological Survey) 2013 Geology of Britain Viewer

http://maps.bgs.ac.uk/geology viewer_google/googleviewer.html Accessed 7 June

2013

Brown, A, 1994 ‘A Romano-British shell-tempered pottery and tile manufacturing site at

Harrold, Bedfordshire’, Bedfordshire Archaeol. J. 21, 19–107

Brown, N., and Glazebrook, J. 2000 Research and Archaeology: a framework for the

Eastern counties, 2. research agenda and strategy. East Anglian Archaeology

Occasional Paper No 8

Bryant, S. 2000 ‘Iron Age’, in Brown and Glazebrook 2000, 14–18

Cappers, R. T. J., Bekker, R. M., and Jans, J. E. A. 2006 Digital seed atlas of the

Netherlands, Groningen Archaeological Studies 4. Eelde, Barkhuis Publishing. Online

version www.seedatlas.nl

CCCAFU (Cambridgeshire County Council Archaeological Field Unit) 2001 Alconbury

Airfield: An Archaeological Evaluation, Stage 2 Report A182

CgMs 2011a Archaeological Desk-based Assessment. Enabling Works-Alconbury Enterprise

Zone. Reference PRC/SD/12676


21


CgMs 2011b Heritage Statement. Enabling Works-Alconbury Enterprise Zone. Reference

LH/12676

Cooper, N. 1989 ‘A Study of Roman pottery from the Lower Nene Valley kiln site at Park

Farm, Stanground’, Journal of Roman Pottery Studies 2, 59-65

Cunliffe, B. 1984 Danebury: an Iron Age hillfort in Hampshire: Volume 2: The Excavations,

1969-1978: the finds. CBA Research Report 52

Denny, H. R. 1989 Treatment of equine fractures. London, Wright

EH (English Heritage) 2002 Environmental archaeology: A guide to the theory and practice

of methods, from sampling and recovery to post-excavation. London, English

Heritage

Elsdon, S. M. 1992 ‘East Midlands Scored Ware’, Trans Leics Archaeol Hist Soc 66, 83-91

Evans, C. J. 2003 ‘Romano-British Pottery’, in Jones 2003, 42-61

Gale, R. and Cutler, D. F. 2000 Plants in Archaeology. Identification Manual of Artefacts of

Plant Origin from Europe and the Mediterranean. Otley, Westbury and the Royal

Botanic Gardens Kew

Gibson, C. 2005 A Romano-British rural site at Eaton Socon, Cambridgeshire,

http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/files/49013_eaton-socon-animal-bones.pdf Salisbury,

Wessex Archaeology

Glazebrook, J. 1997 Research and Archaeology: a framework for the Eastern counties, 1.

resource assessment, East Anglian Archaeology Occasional Paper No 3

Going, C. and Plouviez, J. 2000 ‘Roman’, in Brown and Glazebrook 2000, 19-22

GSB (Geophysical Surveys of Bradford) 2000 Alconbury Airfield, Cambridgeshire.

Geophysical Survey Report 2000/86


22


Hambleton, E. 1999 Animal husbandry regimes from Iron Age Britain: A comparative study

of faunal assemblages from British Iron Age sites. BAR British Series 282. Oxford,

Archaeopress

Hamilton-Dyer, S. 2009 ‘Animal bones’, in Wright et al. 2009, 82–133 (CD-appendix)

Higbee, L. 2011 ‘Animal bones’, in Mudd and Webster 2011, 81–109

Jones, A. (ed) 2003 Settlement, Burial and Industry in Roman Godmanchester. Birmingham

Archaeology Monograph Series 1

Jones, R. D. and Fessler, J. F. 1977 ‘Observations on small metacarpal and metatarsal

fractures with or without associated suspensory desmitis in standardbred horses’,

Can. Vet. J. 18(2), 29–32

Kenney, S. 2008 Roman settlement at No. 31 Tunbridge Lane, Bottisham, Cambridgeshire:

An archaeological excavation, 97–109 Cambridge, Oxford Archaeology East

Knight, D. 2002 ‘A regional ceramic sequence: Pottery of the First Millennium BC between

the Humber and the Nene’ in Woodward and Hill (eds) 2002, 119–42

Mackreth, D. F. 1988 ‘Excavation of an Iron Age and Roman Enclosure at Werrington,

Cambridgeshire’ Britannia 19, 59–151

Manning, W. H. 1980 Catalogue of the Romano-British iron tools, fittings and weapons in

the British Museum. London, British Museum Publications Ltd.

MacGregor, A. 1985 Bone, antler, ivory and horn: the technology of skeletal materials since

the Roman period. Kent

Mudd, A. and Webster, M. Iron Age and middle Saxon settlements at West Fen Road, Ely,

Cambridgeshire: The Consortium site, BAR British Series 538, 81–109. Oxford,

Archaeopress

Murphy, P. 2000 ‘Food: consumption and production’, in Going and Plouviez 2000, 21


23


Needham, S., Ramsey, C. B., Coombs, D., Cartwright, C. and Pettit, P. 1997 'An

independent chronology for the British Bronze Age Metalwork: The results of the

Oxford Accelerator Radiocarbon Programme’, Archaeological Journal 154, 55–107

OAE (Oxford Archaeology East) 2012 An Archaeological Evaluation at Alconbury Airfield

Enterprise Zone, Alconbury, Cambridgeshire OAE report 1382

Payne, S. 1991 Assessment of animal bone collections from excavations. Ancient

Monuments Laboratory (AML) Technical Note, London, English Heritage

PCRG (Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group) 1997 The Study of Later Prehistoric Pottery:

General Policies and Guidelines for Analysis and Publication. PCRG Occasional

Papers 1 and 2

Rollo, L. 1988 ‘The Shell-gritted wares’, in Mackreth 1988, 107–20

Schoch, W., Heller, I., Schweingruber, F. H. and Kienast, F. 2004 Wood anatomy of Central

European species Online version: www.woodanatomy.ch

Sellwood, L. 1984 ‘Objects of bone and antler’ in Cunliffe, 1984, 371-395

Stace, C. 1997 New flora of the British Isles. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

Sykes, N. 2005 ‘Animal bone’, in Gibson 2005

Tomber, R. and Dore, J. 1998 The National Roman Fabric Reference Collection: a

handbook. Museum of London Archaeology Service

ULAS (University of Leicester Archaeological Services) 1998 An Archaeological Desk-based

Assessment for Land at Alconbury Airfield

Wheeler, E. A., Baas, P. and Gasson, P. E. 1989 ‘IAWA list of microscopic features for

hardwood identification’, IAWA Bulletin n.s. 10 (3), 219–332

Woodward, A. and Hill, J. D. 2002 Prehistoric Britain: The Ceramic Basis, Oxford, Oxbow

Books


24


Wright, J., Leivers, M., Seager Smith, R. and Stevens, C. J. 2009 Cambourne New

Settlement: Iron age and Romano-British settlement on the clay uplands of west

Cambridgeshire. Salisbury, Wessex Archaeology


25


APPENDIX 1: THE POTTERY BY E.R. MCSLOY

The pottery amounts to 877 sherds (15kg). For the purposes of the assessment the assemblage was scanned by

context, sorted by broad period type (below) and quantified by count and weight. Note was made of fabric type,

based on primary/secondary inclusion type and/or characteristics of firing, and of vessel/rim form. The pottery

records were entered to an Access database. The assemblage is described below according to period division.

Late Prehistoric (Iron Age)

This group formed the second largest period division; 290 sherds (5234g), with material recorded from 43

separate deposits. A proportion occurred residually within Roman deposits (Appendix B). The condition of the

Iron Age pottery is typically good, with little abrasion or loss of mineral inclusions and this is reflected in a mean

sherd weight (18g) which is high for a group of this period.

The Iron Age pottery is characterised by hand-built vessels, most commonly jars. The majority occur in coarser

fossil shell-tempered or other calcareous fabrics, which were probably locally-made utilising Jurassic clays

common to the region. Where vessel forms are identifiable, these comprise mainly jars of (neck-less) barrel-

shaped/ovoid or slack-shouldered forms with simple upright rims. Decoration is common, usually as deep vertical

or multi-directional scoring. This style of decoration is well known across the region, characterising a ‘Scored

ware’ tradition (Elsdon 1992) extending across the Middle and Late Iron Age (c. 4th to 1st centuries BC and in

some instances continuing into the 1st century AD). In addition there are a small number of vessels (from

deposits 263, 357, 362 and 423) with more elaborate ‘Earlier La Téne’ decoration utilising curvilinear scoring

and/or dimpled motifs. Vessels with such dating almost certainly date to the Late Iron Age, probably to the 1st

century BC (Knight 2002). One vessel of this type which exhibits decoration of ‘Hunsbury style’ may be a regional

import from the Northampton area.

‘Transitional’ (Later Iron Age to Early Roman)

A total of 121 sherds (2329g) characteristic of this period were recovered. The largest groups, all of which also

incorporate handmade Iron Age type pottery, are those from deposits 15, 418 and 423. The pottery consists of

vessels in wheelthrown grog-tempered (grog; grogq), sandy (ia qz) or shelly (ia sh) fabrics. Identifiable vessel

forms are necked, high-shouldered or carinated bowls and necked jars or bowls with raised cordons at the

junction of the neck and shoulder. In addition a pedestalled vessel of uncertain form was recorded from deposit

371. Decoration appears less common than for the handmade Iron Age groups; however there is some use of

vertical combing and ‘zoned’ decoration, consisting of repeated incised chevron decoration noted to some large,

necked storage jars in shell-tempered fabrics.

Roman

The Roman pottery represents the largest period group, amounting to 466 sherds (7451 g). The condition is

moderately good, with little abrasion apparent and mean sherd weight on the high side for a Roman group at 16g.

It is clear that most or all material belongs to the earlier Roman period, before or up to the early 3rd century AD.

The largest groups are those from ditch fills 15 (72 sherds), 449 (38 sherds) and 206 (36 sherds), each of which

would seem to date to the second half of the 2nd century or a little later.

The large bulk of the assemblage comprises coarsewares in reduced, shell-tempered or fumed whiteware

fabrics. The majority, including most of the reduced coarsewares and whitewares, can be expected to be local in


26


origin. The ‘fumed’ whitewares correspond to products known to be made at kilns close to Godmanchester,

Cambs, 7km to the southeast (Evans 2003). Products characteristic of the Lower Nene Valley industries located

c. 10–15km to the north include light-bodied greywares (lnvgw), colour-coated (lnv cc) and self-coloured

‘creamwares’. In addition, a small number of sherds (deposits 49 and 153) in a fine greyware with white calcitic

inclusions are provisionally identified as from kilns at Stanground, Cambs, (Cooper 1989). Shell-tempered wares

could originate from more than one local or regional source.

Material certainly non-local/regional in origin is restricted to the very limited incidence of Dorset Black-burnished

ware (a plain-rimmed dish) and quantities of Gaulish samian (12 sherds, weighing 109g). The samian occurs

from eight deposits and comprises mainly plain vessel forms from central (Lezoux) or central or east Gaulish

sources. Identifiable vessel forms include a single decorated (Dr 37) bowl from deposit 15; the remainder

comprising plain dishes/platters (Dr 18/31, Dr 79) or bowls. All material probably dates to the 2nd century, with

some bowl forms (Dr 31r, Dr 38), suggestive of dating after c. 160 AD.

Vessel forms among the coarse pottery are primarily utilitarian, comprising a mix of necked jars, carinated bowls

and dishes/bowls with moulded or plain rims, influenced by the Black-burnished ware series. Vessels among the

Godmanchester type whitewares consist primarily of distinctive jars with bifurcated rims and reeded-rim

(carinated) bowls. ‘Tableware’ forms are represented by a few beakers, fineware bowls and ‘castor boxes’

contributed by the Lower Nene valley colour-coated wares. Mortaria, flagons or amphoras were not noted from

the assemblage.

Table 1: Fabrics (grouped); incidence by context

Description Code Present in context nos.

Middle to Late Iron Age

IA shelly IASH 21, 46, 84, 101, 141, 147, 148, 150, 157, 159, 161, 171, 206, 209, 256, 263, 267, 271, 276, 283, 313, 320, 344, 357, 362, 364, 367, 375, 385, 401, 418, 429, 432

IA limestone IALI 147, 148, 263, 283, 418 IA quartz IAQ 101, 147, 263, 265, 267, 284, 451

IA quartz/organic IAQo 141, 263, 432, 435

‘Transitional’ LIA/Early RB

Belgic type grogged GROG 8, 12, 15, 27, 60, 67, 87, 92, 148, 153, 168, 171, 176, 199, 248, 319, 401, 423, 458, 460

Belgic type sandy/grogged GROGQ 102, 187, 362, 418, 423 Belgic/Romanising sandy BS 12, 15, 72, 78, 362, 423, 460

Roman

Misc. (mostly local ) greywares LOC GR 15, 18, 51, 63, 74, 78, 89, 100, 163, 166, 171, 178, 183, 192, 195, 196, 197, 199, 206, 223, 243, 251, 279, 291, 294, 300, 319, 329, 333, 364, 371, 401, 405, 444, 449, 466, 467, 468, 469.

Misc. (mostly local ) black, sandy

LOC BS 86, 346, 378, 405, 444

Misc. (mostly local) shell-tempered

LOC SH 18,58,74,86,93,102,113,150,171,178,181,196,197,201,231,234,243,253,257,258,265,275

,278,300,329,33,401,449,468,

Misc. oxidised LOC OX 15, 87, 183, 199, 211, 223, 257, 278, 291, 333

Godmanchester gritty white GOD WH 11, 15, 43, 63, 86, 126, 166, 171, 181, 183, 234, 265, 300, 401, 444, 468

Stanground grey STA GW 15, 49, 153, 165, 206

Lower Nene grey ware LNV RE 15, 58, 78, 176, 178, 183, 206, 246, 258, 275, 276, 371, 449

Lower Nene colour-coated ware LNV CC* 15, 101, 102, 126, 178, 201, 206, 258, 317, 319, 333, 449

Samian (most Central Gaulish) SA 11, 15, 153, 234, 300, 335, 246, 449 * NRFRC codes (Tomber and Dore 1998)


27


APPENDIX 2: FIRED CLAY AND DAUB BY E.R. MCSLOY

A total of 81 fragments was recovered (1966g). A proportion, 14 fragments (150g), consists of amorphous

fragments of uncertain function. Of the remainder, 49 fragments (1307g) are considered to derive from fired clay

objects and preserve one or more smoothed surfaces or other features. Material from deposits 8, 11, 258, 378

and 444 (10 fragments) are identified as loomweights, probably of triangular or pyramidal form dateable to the

Iron Age or earlier Roman periods. The objects and miscellaneous fragments occur mainly in a moderately soft,

orange or brown fabric containing common limestone or chalk fragments. Material identified as burnt daub (18

fragments, weighing 509g) occurs in a looser, more friable fabric. Most pieces preserve rounded (from deposits

209, 364 and 375) or squared (deposit 455) wattle impressions.

APPENDIX 3: WORKED BONE AND ANTLER BY E.R. MCSLOY

Three items of worked bone or antler were recovered. Two items, spindlewhorl Ra. 5 and antler tine fragment Ra.

9, were recovered in association with Roman pottery and can be considered of similar date. The third item,

decorated antler object Ra. 10 (Fig, 11), occurred with Iron Age pottery and probably dates to the Middle or Late

Iron Age (c. 4th to 1st centuries BC).

Fragmentary object Ra. 10 was been made from red deer antler (pers comm. J. Geber). Its original form is

unclear but may have been crescentic and with at least one semi-circular cut-out to its rounded edge. The one

surviving end has been partially hollowed out and there is a carefully formed square-sectioned slot cut through

the full depth of the object from its probable ‘apex’. Both faces of the object are highly decorated with a

combination of ring-and-dot and small and larger drilled holes. One face also features incised decoration as a

series of evenly-spaced cuts extending from the rounded upper edge approximately half way across the width of

the object. That the object was in some way functional is suggested by the square-cut perforation. The exact

function of Ra. 10 is not known, though use as an unusual form of toggle is perhaps most likely. There is some

similarity with bone toggles of Iron Age type, some of which feature rectangular slots and which may have a

horse harness-related function. The elaborate decoration is reminiscent of that seen with a variety Iron Age bone

objects, including weaving combs, handles, toggles and experimental or ‘test’ pieces (Sellwood 1984, 371–95). A

Middle Iron Age date consistent with that for much of the pottery from the site is thought probable.

Antler object Ra. 9, from deposit 333, consists of a portion of a red deer antler tine, which is sawn through at one

end. The tip is broken and the absence of other working suggests that Ra. 9 is was waste.

Spindlewhorl Ra. 5 (from deposit 113) has been adapted from the femoral head of a cow or horse. The naturally-

domed surface of the head is left unworked, although there appears to be some smoothing or wear to the flat

underside. Comparable objects are known from the Iron Age and continue into the post-Roman period

(MacGregor 1985, 187).


28


APPENDIX 4: METALWORK BY E.R. MCSLOY

A total of 14 items of metal, one of copper alloy and the remainder of iron, were recovered. The condition of the

metalwork group is mixed; the iron items are heavily corroded and brittle. All are stored in humidity-controlled,

sealable plastic containers and are currently stable.

Copper alloy

A single copper alloy object (Ra. 8) was recovered, from deposit 314. It consists of a fragment from a side-

looped, socketed spearhead of Middle Bronze Age type (Fig. 12) and associated with Needham’s Period 5 c.

1500-1150 BC (Needham et al. 1997). The larger part of the blade and a portion of the socket are missing,

though its overall proportions suggest that Ra. 8 is a small example of the class.

Iron

The ironwork is listed in summary in Table 1. Most items derive from Roman deposits, with the remainder from

deposits likely to belong to this period. The majority are fragmentary, making identification difficult. A socketed

object (Ra. 12), from deposit 418 retains only a short portion of a narrow curving blade and almost certainly

represents a reaping hook of common Late Iron Age or Roman form (Manning 1980). A second blade object is

Ra. 7, from undated deposit 297; it consists of a triangular (straight backed/edged) blade, 155mm in length, and

probably represents a shears blade. A group of seven objects from Roman deposit 15 includes five nails of

common Roman morphology (Manning’s class 1b; ibid.), a ring 60mm in diameter (Ra. 2) and typical of Roman

objects used for a variety of purposes, and a bar-like object with an expanding, spatulate terminal (Ra. 4). This

last object is tentatively identified as a gouge, a woodworkers tool used for rough-cutting work, preparatory to

finishing with a chisel (Manning 1980, 24). It is an object class seemingly widely used in the Iron Age and Roman

period. The remaining iron objects comprise nail shafts or items too fragmentary for identification purposes.

Table 1: metal finds summary

Context Material Description Ra.no Count Treatment/remarks

314 Copper alloy Spearhead 8 1 Clean, draw 15 Fe Nails - 5 15 Fe gouge? 4 1 x-ray, clean

15 Fe Ring 2 1 15 Fe? object/slag 3 1

243 Fe Bar/nail shaft 11 1 X-ray 277 Fe Bar/nail shaft - 1 X-ray

297 Fe Shears blade? 7 1 x-ray, clean

418 Fe Reaping hook 12 1 x-ray, clean 437 Fe Nail 0 1


29


APPENDIX 5: LITHICS BY A. CRAWFORD AND E.R. MCSLOY

Worked flint

Two pieces of worked flint (26g) were recovered, both of which would seem to be re-deposited, occurring from

Iron Age or Roman deposits. Both are ‘waste’ flakes, neither featuring secondary working. Raw material consists

of grey and yellow-grey coloured flint. As re-deposited finds without diagnostic features, the worked flint is not

closely dateable and of minimal archaeological significance.

Worked/burnt stone

Quantities of worked stone, consisting of four fragments of Mayen (Niedermendig) lava quern, and of un-worked,

burnt stone (3855g) were recorded from three deposits. The lava quern fragments, from deposit 203, are heavily

weathered although would appear to come from a rotary quern of Roman disc form, with thickened edge. The

burnt stone comprises a cobble-sized quartzite clast from Iron Age deposit 209 and a large irregular block of

mudstone from undated deposit 370.

APPENDIX 6: GLASS BY E.R. MCSLOY

Two fragments (22g) of Roman glass were recorded from deposits 15 and 192. In both instances the fragments

are unfeatured and occur in natural green coloured glass. The colouring and thickness of the glass (6-8mm)

together with each exhibiting one rough surface, suggest that both might derive from mould-made prismatic

(square or polygonal) bottles, container forms common in the 1st to 3rd centuries AD.

APPENDIX 7: CERAMIC BUILDING MATERIAL (CBM) BY A. CRAWFORD AND E.R. MCSLOY

A total of 58 (7613g) fragments of cbm was recorded, all of Roman date. The condition of the group is mixed; in

most instances fragments are small and pieces lack recordable features. For this reason material recorded as

indeterminate fragments is in the majority: 48 fragments. The remainder comprises mainly roofing classes:

flanged tegulae (3 fragments) and curving imbreces (5 fragments). There are in addition two brick fragments from

deposit 203, which are 40 and 45mm in thickness, though are insufficiently complete for full classification.

For the most part the cbm occurs in a similar red/orange-firing, sandy fabric. Some pieces, including a brick

fragment from deposit 203, exhibit a sanded surface (to limit adhesion to the former) made up of quartz sand and

burnt flint grits. Two fragments from deposit 468 occur in a shelly fabric and are almost certainly products from

the Late Roman tile kilns from Harrold, Bedfordshire (Brown 1994).


30


APPENDIX 8: ANIMAL BONE BY JONNY GEBER

The animal bone amounted to a total of 1062 fragments (25kg) and was in general moderately well preserved. By

date, these derived from four different periods of which the majority were found in Roman deposits (Table 1). For

the purpose of assessing the scientific potential for this material (EH 2002; Payne 1991), the bone was identified

to species and skeletal element, and will be discussed by period (Table 2).

Iron Age

The animal bones were dominated by caprovine (Ovis aries/Capra hircus) bones of almost exclusively long

bones such as humeri, radii, femora and tibia. A noteworthy underrepresentation of meat-poor elements such as

cranial and foot bones would suggest that the bones derive from kitchen waste of meat-cuts. Slaughter and

butchery refuse was likely deposited elsewhere, beyond the limit of the archaeological excavation, or slaughter of

caprovine may possibly not have been conducted on site at all. An infant caprovine metacarpal was found,

possibly indicating that animals were reared nearby.

Cattle (Bos taurus) was, based on fragment count, the second most represented species in the Iron Age material.

As with the caprovine bones, these remains were also dominated by meat-rich elements, and tend to suggest

that slaughter took place elsewhere. Infant bones were also present, and cattle are likely to have been reared in

the vicinity. The third most abundant species was pig (Sus scrofa dom.), which was represented by 19 fragments.

While only a small assemblage of bone, these remains included a higher proportion of cranial bones that the

aforementioned two species. Pigs, however, have a relatively high dressing weight and much of the head can be

utilized for food consumption.

Horse bones (Equus caballus) amounted to a total of 16 fragments. Six of these within deposit 53 derived from a

minimum of one skull and a femur. A front cannon bone, found in context 84, displayed a healed fracture of one

of the splint bones, which had fused onto the metacarpal. This type of injury is frequently reported upon in the

veterinary literature, and is usually caused by kicks (Denny 1989, 99–101; Jones and Fessler 1977). All the

equine bones derived from mature animals.

Two carnivore bone fragments, either from a dog (Canis familiaris) or a fox (Vulpes vulpes), were found in

deposit 451. These comprised a rib fragment and the distal half of a humerus, and would require further analysis

in detail to be able to identify to species. Both derived from an adult animal. An additional 82 mammal bones

could not be identified to species. About 77% of these were from large mammals such as cattle or horse, and

23% from medium sized mammals such as caprovine, pig or large dogs.

Roman

Bones from Roman deposits comprised 63% of the total animal bone assemblage by fragment count. Some of

these are likely to be re-deposited bones from Iron Age deposits. These remains were dominated by cattle

bones. In comparison with the Iron Age deposits, these included a much higher proportion of meat-poor elements

such as cranial bones, tarsals, metapodials and foot phalanges, suggesting that both food and slaughter waste

were deposited within the excavated portion of the site. Infant and juvenile animals were also present in these

remains.

Caprovine bones amounted to 39% of all identified fragments. The majority of these were of meat-rich elements,

particularly scapulae, radii and tibiae. Juvenile animals were represented by eleven bones, while the remainder


31


were from seemingly fully adult animals. Twenty-nine bones were identified as pig, and these were from both

meat-rich and meat-poor elements. Almost as many bones (N = 22) were identified as horse. These derived from

a minimum of two adult animals. Dog was represented by a virtually complete adult humerus found in context 92,

and a proximal metacarpal from a red deer was found in context 418. This latter bone was also the only evidence

of wild fauna in the whole of the assemblage.

Medieval

A fragment of a mandibular molar tooth of cattle was recovered from a furrow.

Post-medieval and modern

Six animal bones were recovered from post-medieval and modern contexts. These were a diaphyseal fragment

of a cattle femur (201), a middle foot phalanx of horse (201), and an unidentifiable long bone fragment from a

large sized mammal (265).

Summary discussion and conclusions

The animal bones derive from four main phases of activity on the site: Iron Age, Roman, medieval and post-

medieval/modern. The zooarchaeological record from Cambridgeshire is currently very limited, and this

assemblage therefore makes a contribution to the current understanding of Iron Age and Roman husbandry in

this area.

The relative distribution of the main meat producing domesticates from the Iron Age deposits reflects a relatively

high reliance on caprovine. This was also observed in the late Iron Age settlement of Edix Hill in Barrington,

which also saw a much higher prevalence of pig bones compared to the Alconbury site. A dominance of cattle

was however observed in the contemporaneous sites of West Fen Road and Cambourne New Settlement (Table

3). Due to the relatively few substantial animal bone assemblages from East Anglia, it is quite difficult to discern

any particular characteristics for animal husbandry regimes in this area during the Iron Age (see Hambleton

1999).

The relative distribution of cattle, caprovine and pig bones in the Roman material is more consistent with what

has been observed in contemporaneous assemblages (Table 2). Again, only a few analyses of animal bone

assemblages of substantial quantity from excavations around Cambridgeshire have been published, and further

regional research is required to be able to assess the Roman husbandry regimes and economy in this part of

England.

Only a tiny proportion of the material derived from medieval and post-medieval/modern deposits, and this

material is therefore not discussed further.

Table 1. Quantity of animal bone in fragment count (NISP) and weight, by period.

Period NISP Weight (g)

Iron Age 368 9,148.10

Romano-British 687 15,643.48

Medieval 1 18.61

Post-medieval/Modern 6 67.87

TOTAL 1,062 24,914.06


32


Table 2. Identified species by fragment count (NISP) and period. IA = Iron Age; RB = Roman; MED = medieval; PM = post-medieval

Species

Period

Total Weight (g) IA RB MED PM/Mod

Cattle (Bos taurus) 96 211 1 1 309 13,313.02

Caprovine (Ovis aries/Capra hircus) 153 167 - - 320 3115.98

Pig (Sus scrofa dom.) 19 29 - - 48 726.82

Horse (Equus caballus) 16 22 - 1 39 5129.96

Dog (Canis familiaris) - 1 - - 1 62.24

Dog/Fox (Canis familiaris/Vulpes vulpes) 2 - - - 2 9.24

Red deer (Cervus elaphus) - 1 - - 1 90.61

Large sized mammal 63 180 - 4 247 2245.79

Medium sized mammal 19 76 - - 95 220.40

Total: 368 687 1 6 1,062 24,914.06

Weight (g): 9,148.10 15,643.48 18.61 67.87 24,914.06 -

Table 3. Relative frequency of the main domesticates by fragment count (NISP) from comparable Iron Age

settlement sites in Cambridgeshire. BOS = cattle; O/C = caprovine; SUS = pig. Site BOS O/C SUS N

Alconbury (this study) 35.82% 57.09% 7.09% 268

West Fen Road, Ely (Higbee 2011) 52.44% 42.67% 4.89% 450

Cambourne New Settlement (Hamilton-Dyer 2009) 49.03% 40.50% 10.47% 1758

Edix Hill, Barrington (Davis in Hambleton 1999) 28.73% 54.71% 16.56% 616

Table 4. Relative frequency of the main domesticates by fragment count (NISP) from comparable Romano-British

settlement sites in Cambridgeshire. BOS = cattle; O/C = caprovine; SUS = pig. Site BOS O/C SUS N

Alconbury (this study) 51.84% 41.03% 7.13% 407

Eaton Socon (Sykes 2005) 43.84% 46.38% 9.78% 276

Cambourne New Settlement (Hamilton-Dyer 2009) 56.50% 39.44% 4.05% 1676

Tunbridge Lane, Bottisham (Baxter 2008) 63.20% 16.00% 20.80% 125


33


APPENDIX 9: PLANT MACROFOSSIL AND CHARCOAL REMAINS BY SARAH COBAIN

Introduction

A total of 16 bulk soil samples was retrieved for plant macrofossil and charcoal assessment Iron and Roman

features. The aim of this assessment is to determine the type, preservation and quantity of plant macrofossil and

charcoal remains; to assess the potential of these to provide evidence of the socio-economic activities being

undertaken (crop husbandry, diet, living conditions of communities, exploitation of woodlands for fuel and

woodland management) and to infer the composition of the local flora and woodlands.

Methodology

Following flotation (CA Technical Manual No. 2), the residue was dried and sorted by eye, the floated material

scanned and seeds identified using a low-power stereo-microscope (Brunel MX1) at magnifications of x10 to x40.

Identifications were carried out with reference to images and descriptions by Cappers et al. (2006), Berggren

(1981) and Anderberg (1994). Nomenclature follows Stace (1997). A selection of charcoal fragments were

fractured by hand to reveal the wood anatomy on radial, tangential and transverse planes. The pieces were then

supported in a sand bath and identified under an epi-illuminating microscope (Brunel SP400) at magnifications

from x40 to x400. Identifications were carried out with reference to images and descriptions by Gale and Cutler

(2000), Schoch et al. (2004) and Wheeler et al. (1989). Nomenclature of species follows Stace (1997).

Results

The results are presented in tabular form (Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4) and are discussed below. SS refers to the Soil

Sample number. All remains are carbonised unless highlighted as modern.

Iron Age

Four samples were taken from Iron Age ring-ditch 262 (SS 7) and 269 (SS 12), from tree-throw pit 339 (SS 8)

and from ditch terminus 420 (SS 11). The plant remains from these were recovered in small quantities and were

very poorly preserved. They included emmer/spelt wheat (Triticum dicoccum/Triticum spelta), possible spelt

wheat, barley (Hordeum vulgare) and indeterminate cereal grains, a fragment of straw, a fragment of hazelnut

shell (Corylus avellana) and a brome (Bromus) seed. Modern elder (Sambucus nigra) and goosefoots

(Chenopodium) seeds were also identified. The paucity and poor preservation of this material means that no

further work is recommended. Charcoal from these features was present in higher quantities, and was variably

preserved and identified as oak (Quercus sp.), hawthorn/rowan sp./crab apple (Crataegus

monogyna/Sorbus/Malus sylvestris), cherry sp. (Prunus) and field maple (Acer campestre). The exception to this

was ditch terminus 420 where the charcoal was too highly fragmented to identify. Further work is recommended

on samples 262 and 339 from ring-ditch 450.

Roman

A total of 12 samples was taken from Roman ditches 9 (SS 1), 76 (SS 2), 85 (SS 3), 90 (SS 4), 106 (SS 5), 448

(SS 13), 452 (SS 15) and 454 (SS 16), ditch terminuses 186 (SS 6) and 360 (SS 10) and pits 309 (SS 14) and

331 (SS 9). Similar to the Iron Age features, the plant remains were recovered in small quantities and were poorly

preserved. Plant macrofossils were identified as emmer/spelt wheat, possible spelt wheat, wheat sp (Triticum)

and indeterminate cereal grains, cereal chaff including glume bases and straw, hazelnut shell and herbaceous

taxa identified as goosefoots, vetches/peas (Vicia/Lathyrus), bromes and docks (Rumex). Small numbers of

modern elder, goosefoots, fool’s parsley were also present. Charcoal was present in moderate quantities with

moderate to poor preservation. Species present were identified as alder/hazel (Alnus glutinosa/Corylus avellana),


34


oak, ash (Fraxinus excelsior), hawthorn/rowan/crab apple, viburnum and cherry sp. The exception to this was

ditch terminuses 186 and 360 where there was no identifiable charcoal. Further work is recommended on ditch 9,

106, 452, 448 and 454.

Discussion, statement of potential and recommendations for further work

The carbonised plant macrofossils were recovered in small quantities and were poorly preserved. The charcoal

was recovered in small to large quantities and was variably preserved. A small number of modern plant

macrofossils was identified, most likely incorporated into the features by bioturbation. Since these were

recovered in small quantities, it is not thought that they represent a significant risk of contamination.

The plant macrofossil assemblages were graded based on potential for further work as highlighted in the table

below.

Potential Iron Age Roman Total

samples

A

B

C 1 1 2

D 3 11 14

Total

Samples

4 12 16

Key

A = High potential - Further work recommended – Diverse and/or abundant plant macrofossil assemblages, good to

moderate preservation

B = Medium potential - Further work recommended – Moderately diverse/rich plant macrofossil assemblage, good to

moderate preservation

C = Low potential - Low diversity/richness, no further work recommended

D = Low potential – No further work recommended – Small numbers of remains present, poor preservation

No plant macrofossil samples have been recommended for further work.

The table below highlights charcoal samples recommended for further work.

Potential Iron Age Roman Total

Full Analysis

Broad

characterisation

2 5 7

No further work 2 7 9

Total Samples 4 12 16

For the selected charcoal samples it is proposed that broad characterisation analysis is undertaken where 100

fragments each from Iron Age and Romano-British activity are fully identified. The aim of this is to incorporate

features which contain moderate charcoal assemblages, but where the source of the charcoal could not be


35


directly ascertained (pits, ditches) and to provide a broad understanding of fuel-use and woodland

characterisation from the different periods.

Iron Age

The assessment results for the Iron Age samples indicate a dominance of oak and hawthorn/rowan/crab apple

with smaller amounts of field maple, buckthorn and cherry sp. This information indicates that the local woodland

consisted of stands of oak with scrub areas/hedgerows including field maple, buckthorn, hawthorn/rowan/crab

apple. The aim of the broad characterisation analysis is to determine fuel-use on-site, record evidence of

woodland management and use and to characterise the local woodland resource. This analysis will provide

information that can inform and be incorporated into future research reviews which will help address research

aims within the Research and Archaeology – A Framework for the Eastern Counties – 1) resource assessment

(Glazebrook 1997) and 2) research agenda and strategy (Brown and Glazebrook 2000), such as the need for a

better understanding of woodland clearance (Bryant 2000, 14).

Roman

The charcoal, as in the Iron Age, is dominated by oak and hawthorn/rowan/crab apple with smaller amounts of

viburnum, alder/hazel, ash, buckthorn and cherry sp. Similar to the Iron Age, the woodland appears to have

consist of stands of oak and ash, with scrub/hedgerows consisting of alder/hazel, hawthorn/rowan sp./crab apple,

viburnum, buckthorn and cherry sp. Further work on these samples could provide further evidence of local

woodland composition, fuel usage and woodland management. The Research and Archaeology – A Framework

for the Eastern Counties – 1) resource assessment (Glazebrook 1997) and 2) research agenda and strategy

(Brown and Glazebrook 2000) outlines a need to document information regarding the extent of woodland in the

landscape and how it changed throughout the Roman period (Murphy 2000, 21). Whilst the charcoal from this

site will not answer these questions, it will provide information which can be incorporated into regional research

reviews which will help address these aims.


36


Plant macrofossil identification tables

Key

+ = 1-4 items

++ = 5-20 items

+++ = 21-40 items

++++ = >40 items

A = arable weed

D = weed/plant indicative of disturbance

P = weed/plant indicative of pasture/grassland

M = weed/plant indicative of marshland/wetland areas

HSW = hedgerow/shrub/woodland plant

E = economic plant

cf= seed likely to be (eg cf Trifolium/Medicago – seed likely to be clover/medick)

(s) = Charcoal, highly fragmented - fragments typically too small to identify

Recommendations for further work:

A = High potential - Further work recommended – Diverse and/or abundant plant macrofossil assemblages, good to moderate preservation

B = Medium potential - Further work recommended – Moderately diverse/rich plant macrofossil assemblage, good to moderate preservation

C = Medium potential - Further work recommended pending GIS spatial analysis of plant macrofossil remains – Moderate to low diversity/richness but may complement assemblages from other nearby features

D = Low potential – No further work recommended – Small number s of remains present, poor preservation


37


Table 1 Plant macrofossil identifications

Context number 263 271 340 423 15 78 86 92

Feature number 262 269 339 420 9 76 85 90

Sample number (SS) 7 12 8 11 1 2 3 4

Flot volume (ml) 24 96 1 60 17 10 33 8

Sample volume (l) 20 20 19 11 20 18 20 11

Soil remaining (l) 10 0 0 0 20 20 0 20

Period IA IA IA IA Roman Roman Roman Roman

Plant macrofossil preservation Poor Poor Poor Poor Moderate Moderate Poor Poor

Recommendations for further work D D D C C D D D

Habitat Code Family Species Common Name

HSW Adoxaceae Sambucus nigra L. Elder (modern) + +

D/A Amaranthaceae Chenopodium L. (Blitum L.) Goosefoots +

D/A Chenopodium L. (Blitum L.) Goosefoots (modern) + +

A/D Apiaceae Aethusa cynapium L. Fool's Parsley (modern) +

HSW Betulaceae Corylus avellana L. Hazelnut + + +

D/A/P Fabaceae Vicia L./Lathyrus L. Vetches/Peas (1-2mm half) +

D/A/P Vicia L./Lathyrus L. Vetches/Peas (3-4mm half) +

A/D Poaceae Bromus L. Bromes + + +

E Hordeum vulgare L. Barley grain +

E Triticum dicoccum/ Triticum spelta

Emmer/spelt wheat + + ++ cf +

E Triticum spelta Spelt wheat grain cf + +

E Triticum spelta Spelt wheat glume base +

E Poaceae Indeterminate cereal grain + + ++ + + ++

E Poaceae Glume base + +

E Poaceae Straw + +

Flot Inclusions

Charcoal ++++ ++++ +++ (s) ++++ (s) ++++ ++ ++++ (s0 +++ (s)

Bone +++ +

Burnt bone +

Molluscs +++ ++ + +++ +++ ++ + +++

Oyster shell +


38


Table 2: Plant macrofossil identifications

Context number 108 187 313 333 362 449 453 455

Feature number 106 186 309 331 360 448 452 454

Sample number (SS) 5 6 14 9 10 13 15 16

Flot volume (ml) 10 4 25 1 18 5 25 4

Sample volume (l) 17 17 19 18 18 20 19 20

Soil remaining (l) 20 20 0 20 20 0 0 0

Period Roman Roman Roman Roman Roman Roman Roman Roman

Plant macrofossil preservation Poor N/A Poor Good Moderate Poor Poor Poor

Recommendations for further work D D D D D D D D

Habitat Code Family Species Common Name

HSW Adoxaceae Sambucus nigra L. Elder (modern) + +

D/A Amaranthaceae Chenopodium L. (Blitum L.) Goosefoots +

D/A Chenopodium L. (Blitum L.) Goosefoots (modern) +

A/D Apiaceae Aethusa cynapium L. Fool's Parsley (modern)

HSW Betulaceae Corylus avellana L. Hazelnut + +

D/A/P Fabaceae Vicia L./Lathyrus L. Vetches/Peas (1-2mm half)

D/A/P Vicia L./Lathyrus L. Vetches/Peas (3-4mm half)

A/D Poaceae Bromus L. Bromes +

E Hordeum vulgare L. Barley grain

E Triticum Wheat sp. Grain +

E Triticum dicoccum/ Triticum spelta

Emmer/spelt wheat

E Triticum spelta Spelt wheat grain

E Triticum spelta Spelt wheat glume base +

E Poaceae Indeterminate cereal grain + + + + + +

E Poaceae Glume base + +

E Poaceae Straw

D/A/P/M/HSW Polygonaceae Rumex L. Docks + + +

Flot Inclusions

Charcoal ++++ (s) 0 ++++ (s) +++ (s) ++++ (s) ++++ ++++ ++++ (s)

Bone

Burnt bone

Molluscs +++ ++++ ++++ + ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++

Oyster shell


39


Charcoal identification tables

Key

+ = 1-4 items

++ = 5-20 items

+++ = 21-40 items

++++ = >40 items

(s) = Charcoal, highly fragmented - fragments typically too small to identify

h/w = heartwood (evidence of tyloses)

r/w = possible roundwood (evidence of curved growth rings)

Recommendations for further work:

FA = full analysis

BC = broad characterisation


40


Table 3: Charcoal identifications

Context number 263 271 340 423 15 78 86 92

Feature number 262 269 339 420 9 76 85 90

Sample number (SS) 7 12 8 11 1 2 3 4

Flot volume (ml) 24 96 1 60 17 10 33 8

Sample volume (l) 20 20 19 11 20 18 20 11

Soil remaining (l) 10 0 0 0 20 20 0 20

Period IA IA IA IA Roman Roman Roman Roman

Charcoal quantity ++++ ++++ +++ (s) ++++ (s) ++++ ++ ++++ (s) +++ (s)

Charcoal preservation Moderate Good Poor N/A Good Moderate Poor Poor

Recommendations for further work Yes - BC Yes - FA No No Yes - FA No No No

Family Species Common Name

Aceraceae Acer campestre Field maple 2

Betulaceae Alnus glutinosa (L.) Gaertn. / Corylus avellana L.

Alder/hazel 3

Fagaceae Quercus robur L./ Quercus petraea (Matt.) Liebl.

Pedunculate Oak/Sessile Oak 6 1 7 2 2 1

Quercus robur L./ Quercus petraea (Matt.) Liebl. r/w

Pedunculate Oak/Sessile Oak r/w 1

Oleaceae Fraxinus excelsior L. Ash 4 1

Rhamnaceae Rhamnus cathartica L. Buckthorn 1

Rosaceae Crataegus monogyna Jacq./ Sorbus L./Malus sylvestris (L.) Mill.

Hawthorn/rowan/ crab apple 6 1 1 1 5 2

Crataegus monogyna/ Sorbus spp/Malus sylvestris r/w

Hawthorn/rowan/ crab apple r/w 1 1

Prunus L. Cherries 1 2

Indeterminate 6 1 3 1

Number of Fragments: 10 10 2 0 10 6 10 4


41


Table 4: Charcoal identifications

Context number 108 187 313 333 362 453 449 455

Feature number 106 186 309 331 360 452 448 454

Sample number (SS) 5 6 14 9 10 15 13 16

Flot volume (ml) 10 4 25 1 18 25 5 4

Sample volume (l) 17 17 19 18 18 20 19 20

Soil remaining (l) 20 20 0 20 20 0 0 0

Period Roman Roman Roman Roman Roman Roman Roman Roman

Charcoal quantity ++++ 0 ++++ (s) +++ (s) ++++ (s) ++++ ++++ ++++ (s)

Charcoal preservation Moderate N/A Poor Poor N/A Moderate Moderate Moderate

Recommendations for further work Yes - BC No No No No Yes - BC Yes - BC Yes - BC

Family Species Common Name

Adoxaceae Viburnum L. r/w Viburnums r/w 2

Betulaceae Alnus glutinosa (L.) Gaertn.

/Corylus avellana L. Alder/hazel 1

Alnus glutinosa (L.) Gaertn.

/Corylus avellana L. r/w

Alder/hazel r/w 1

Fagaceae Quercus robur L./Quercus

petraea (Matt.) Liebl. Pedunculate Oak/Sessile Oak 6 2 2 2 1

Quercus robur L./Quercus

petraea (Matt.) Liebl. h/w

Pedunculate Oak/Sessile Oak h/w 1

Oleaceae Fraxinus excelsior L. Ash 1 1

Rhamnaceae Rhamnus cathartica L. Buckthorn 1

Rosaceae Crataegus monogyna Jacq./

Sorbus L./Malus sylvestris (L.) Mill.

Hawthorn/rowan/ crab apple 1 3 7 6

Prunus L. Cherries 3 1 4 1 1

Indeterminate 5 3 2

Number of Fragments: 10 0 6 2 0 10 10 10


42


APPENDIX 10: OASIS REPORT FORM

PROJECT DETAILS Project Name Incubator Building, Alconbury Weald, Cambridgeshire: Post-

Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design

Short description

A programme of archaeological investigation was undertaken by Cotswold Archaeology in February 2013at the request of Buro Four (on behalf of Urban & Civic) at the Incubator Building, Alconbury Weald, Cambridgeshire. In compliance with an approved Project Design (CA 2013), an area of 0.22 ha was excavated within the development.Features dating to the Middle to late Iron Age and the Roman period, until the early 3rd century AD were identified. These included evidence for settlement, in the form of at least one roundhouse and a finds assemblage typical of rural occupation. The survival of the features was good, probably due to their preservation from ploughing resulting from their location within an airfield. The full extents of the Iron Age and Roman sites were not revealed, but enough evidence was recovered to indicate both that the site seems to have been occupied continuously during these periods and that it was abandoned in the early 3rd century AD.

Project dates February 2013 Project type Excavation Previous work Evaluation (OAE 2012)

Future work Unknown PROJECT LOCATION

Site Location Incubator Building, Alconbury Weald, Cambridgeshire Study area 0.22ha

Site co-ordinates TL 1985 7655 PROJECT CREATORS

Name of organisation Cotswold Archaeology

Project Brief originator n/a Project Design originator Cotswold Archaeology

Project Manager Roland Smith Project Supervisor Jeremy Mordue MONUMENT TYPE Dwelling SIGNIFICANT FINDS Spearhead fragment PROJECT ARCHIVES Intended final location of archive Content

Physical Cambridgeshire County Archaeological Store

Ceramics, animal bone, metal, flint

Paper Cambridgeshire County Archaeological Store

Context sheets, matrices, photos, drawings, report copies

Digital Cambridgeshire County Archaeological Store

Database, digital photos, matrix, reports

BIBLIOGRAPHY CA (Cotswold Archaeology) 2013 Incubator Building, Alconbury Weald, Cambridgeshire: Post-Excavation

Assessment and Updated Project Design. CA typescript report 13385

Site

Cambridgeshire

CotswoldArchaeology

Cirencester 01285 771022

Milton Keynes 01908 218320

Andover 01264 326549

w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk

e [email protected]

PROJECT TITLE

FIGURE TITLE

FIGURE NO.DATEREVISIONSCALE@A4

PROJECT NO.DRAWN BYAPPROVED BY

N

0 1km

Site location plan

Incubator Building, Alconbury WealdCambridgeshire

29-05-2013001:25,000

669006DJBPJM 1

Reproduced from the 1999 Ordnance Survey Explorer map with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of The Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Crown copyright Cotswold Archaeology Ltd 100002109

c

Tr5

Tr2

Tr3 Tr1

1985

7665

TL

CotswoldArchaeology

N

PROJECT TITLE

FIGURE TITLE



Site location plan, showing archaeological features


04-06-2013001:500

669006DJBPJM 2

Reproduced from the 2002 Ordnance Survey Explorer map with the permissionof Ordnance Survey on behalf of The Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Crown copyright Cotswold Archaeology Ltd 100002109 c



Andover 01264 326549


e [email protected]

0 20m

evaluation trench

OAE 2012 trench

archaeological feature

129131

127

cobbled surface

301

cobbled surface

301

230

216

266

124

394

318

336 391

411

162

122

81

quarry pit473

42

158

94

110

116

238

298 219

ring ditch450

boundaryditch 358

1985

7665

TL

CotswoldArchaeology

N

PROJECT TITLE

FIGURE TITLE



Plan of the Iron Age features


29-05-2013001:250

669006DJBPJM 3




Andover 01264 326549


e [email protected]

0 10m

Iron Age features

Iron Age cobbled surface

other period features

ring ditch106

boundary ditch 472

boundary ditch 472

151

428198

204

327

309

240

99

76177

73

35

6

1985

7665

TL

CotswoldArchaeology

N

PROJECT TITLE

FIGURE TITLE



0 10m

Plan of the Roman features


29-05-2013001:250

669006DJBPJM 4




Andover 01264 326549


e [email protected]

Roman features


1985

7665

TL

CotswoldArchaeology

N

PROJECT TITLE

FIGURE TITLE



Plan of the medieval, post-medieval and modern features


29-05-2013001:250

669006DJBPJM 5




Andover 01264 326549


e [email protected]

ridge and furrow

medieval, post-medieval

and modern features


0 10m

CotswoldArchaeology



Andover 01264 326549


e [email protected]

PROJECT TITLE

FIGURE TITLE



7

6

6 Pre-excavation view of the site, looking north

7 Iron Age ring-ditch 450, looking south-east (scale 2m & 1m)

Photographs


29-05-201300N/A

669006DJBPJM 6 & 7

CotswoldArchaeology



Andover 01264 326549


e [email protected]

PROJECT TITLE

FIGURE TITLE



9

8

8 Iron Age boundary ditch 358, cut by Roman boundary ditch terminal 472, looking east (scale 2m)

9 Iron Age cobbled surface 301, cut by Roman ditch 151, looking south-west (scale 1m & 2m) Photographs


29-05-201300N/A

669006DJBPJM 8 & 9

CotswoldArchaeology



Andover 01264 326549


e [email protected]

PROJECT TITLE

FIGURE TITLE



10

10 Roman boundary ditch 472, partially excavated, looking south-west (scale 2m)

Photograph


29-05-201300N/A

669006DJBPJM 10

CotswoldArchaeology



Andover 01264 326549


e [email protected]

PROJECT TITLE

FIGURE TITLE



12

11

11 Iron Age antler object (possible toggle)

12 Middle Bronze Age side-looped bronze spearhead fragment

Photographs


06-06-201300N/A

669006DJBPJM 11 & 12

incubator building alconbury weald cambridgeshire

Documents