millets farm, frilford, oxfordshire

Millets Farm, Frilford, Oxfordshire

An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment

for Hills Quarry Products Ltd

by Heather Hopkins and Steve Ford

Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd

Site Code MFG07/116

October 2007 Updated January 2008

i

Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd, 47–49 De Beauvoir Road, Reading RG1 5NR Tel. (0118) 926 0552; Fax (0118) 926 0553; email [email protected]; website : www.tvas.co.uk

Summary

Site name: Millet’s Farm, Frilford, Oxfordshire Grid reference: SU 4360 9650 Site activity: Desk-based assessment Project manager: Steve Ford Site supervisor: Heather Hopkins Site code: MFG 07/116 Area of site: c. 30 ha Summary of results: The site lies in an area of considerable archaeological interest, with findspots and sites of many periods within the study area. Of particular note is the presence of a Roman temple and amphitheatre complex beyond the boundaries of the site to the east and which is a scheduled ancient monument. Saxon and Roman burial remains are possibly present within the eastern margins of the proposal site and a variety of prehistoric and Roman sites and finds have been recorded by field survey and from the air also for the proposal site itself. This report may be copied for bona fide research or planning purposes without the explicit permission of the copyright holder Report edited/checked by: Steve Ford 12.10.07 Steve Preston 28.09.07

1

Millets Farm, Frilford, Oxfordshire An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment

by Heather Hopkins and Steve Ford

Report 07/116

Introduction

This desk-based study is an assessment of the archaeological potential of a plot of land located at Millets Farm,

Frilford, Oxfordshire, centred on SU 4360 9650 (Fig. 1). The project was commissioned by John Salmon of

Land and Mineral Management Ltd of Roundhouse Cottages, Bridge Street, Frome, Somerset BA11 1BE on

behalf of Hills Quarry Products Ltd, Ailesbury Court, High Street, Marlborough, Wiltshire SN8 1AA and

comprises the first stage of a process to determine the presence/absence, extent, character, quality and date of

any archaeological remains which may be affected by redevelopment of the area.

Site description, location and geology

The site is located north-east of Garford and just south of the village of Frilford, some 5km west of Abingdon.

The site currently consists of open farmland to the west of the A338. The development area is roughly 30ha in

area. The site is located on the Corallian Beds (limestone and sand) (BGS 1971). It is at a height of

approximately 68 m above Ordnance Datum, sloping down towards the headwaters of the River Ock, which

flows east just beyond the southern margins of the site. Small areas of the southern part of the site have been

quarried.

Planning background and development proposals

Planning permission is to be sought to extract mineral from the site.

Archaeology and Planning (PPG 16 1990) provides guidance relating to archaeology within the planning

process. It points out that where a desk-based assessment has shown that there is a strong possibility of

significant archaeological deposits in a development area it is reasonable to provide more detailed information

from a field evaluation so that an appropriate strategy to mitigate the effects of development on archaeology can

be devised:

Paragraph 21 states:

‘Where early discussions with local planning authorities or the developer’s own research indicate

that important archaeological remains may exist, it is reasonable for the planning authority to

2

request the prospective developer to arrange for an archaeological field evaluation to be carried

out...’

Should the presence of archaeological deposits be confirmed further guidance is provided. Archaeology and

Planning stresses preservation in situ of archaeological deposits as a first consideration as in paragraphs 8 and

18.

Paragraph 8 states:

‘...Where nationally important archaeological remains, whether scheduled or not, and their

settings, are affected by proposed development there should be a presumption in favour of their

physical preservation...’


‘The desirability of preserving an ancient monument and its setting is a material consideration in

determining planning applications whether that monument is scheduled or unscheduled...’

However, for archaeological deposits that are not of such significance it is appropriate for them to be ‘preserved

by record’ (i.e., fully excavated and recorded by a competent archaeological contractor) prior to their destruction

or damage.


‘Where planning authorities decide that the physical preservation in situ of archaeological remains

is not justified in the circumstances of the development and that development resulting in the

destruction of the archaeological remains should proceed, it would be entirely reasonable for the

planning authority to satisfy itself ... that the developer has made appropriate and satisfactory

provision for the excavation and recording of remains.’

The Oxfordshire Structure Plan 2011, adopted August 1998, states:

‘EN10 There will be a presumption in favour of physically preserving nationally important

archaeological remains, whether scheduled or not, and their settings. Where development affecting

other archaeological remains is allowed it should include appropriate measures to secure their

3

preservation in situ or where this is not feasible, recording of archaeological features before

development.’

The Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan, adopted 1996, states:

PE 8 ‘Before determining an application for mineral extraction the County Council will normally

require the applicant to carry out a preliminary archaeological assessment to determine the nature

and significance of any archaeological remains. The County Council may, subject to the results of

the initial assessment, require an archaeological field evaluation of the site to determine the

appropriate means for mitigating the impact of extraction on the archaeological resource.’

PE 9 ‘Scheduled Ancient Monuments, other archaeological remains of national importance and

their settings should be preserved in-situ. For all other remains of importance preservation in-situ

will be preferred. Where this is not appropriate and for all other remains, adequate provision

should be made for their excavation and recording. This policy applies to all remains, including

those not revealed by policy PE 8’.

Methodology

The assessment of the site was carried out by the examination of pre-existing information from a number of

sources recommended by the Institute of Field Archaeologists paper ‘Standards in British Archaeology’ covering

desk-based studies. These sources include historic and modern maps, the Oxfordshire Sites and Monuments

Record, geological maps and any relevant publications or reports.

Archaeological background

General background

The site lies in an area of considerable archaeological interest. To the south-east beyond the proposal site

boundary is an important complex of temple, shrine and amphitheatre with associated settlement (so far a unique

association in Britain), of late Roman date, centred on a road junction (Hingley 1985). One certain and two or

perhaps three less certain Roman roads can be traced in the area. There is also an extensive late Roman and early

Saxon cemetery. It was originally considered that the site had an Iron Age predecessor but this opinion is no

longer generally accepted (Harding 1972; Hingley 1985). Similarly, an attempt to re-interpret the Iron Age

structure as a Neolithic henge has not met with universal support either (Collis 1977; Clare 1987).

4

The Roman remains in the area have been partly surveyed and summarized by Hingley (1985) with further

small scale investigations since (Henig and Booth, 2000). Excavations, salvage operations and survey of parts of

the Roman evidence have been undertaken since the 1860s (Bradford and Goodchild 1939).

An important aspect of this complex was the late Roman cemetery located towards the north-west, which

was discovered and recorded in the 19th century during quarrying. The site of this quarrying lies on the margins

of the proposal site. Many details are obscure, not least the exact relationship with an early Anglo-Saxon

cemetery in the same area, some burials of which appeared to cut Roman inhumations. Trial trenches cut by

Bradford and Goodchild revealed that both cemeteries are located on the margins of the proposal site itself

(Bradford and Goodchild, 1939; Henig and Booth, 2000, 70).

Oxfordshire Sites and Monuments Record

A search was made on the Oxfordshire Sites and Monuments Record (SMR) on 17th September 2007 for a

radius of 1km around the proposal site. This revealed 33 entries within the search radius. These are summarized

as Appendix 1 and their locations are plotted on Figure 1. There is a wealth of archaeological remains around

and on the site from a variety of periods. The majority date from the Roman and Anglo-Saxon eras. Several

entries lie within the site’s boundaries.

Prehistoric The earliest finds from the area include Mesolithic worked flint ‘bladelets’ from within the site [Fig. 1: 1], one

Neolithic polished flint axe from a location on the margins of the site [2], and one from within the site [4].

Further Neolithic/Bronze Age flintwork has been found on the site [6, 10], in adjacent fields [3, 5] just to the

south [7, 9] and to the east [8]. Iron Age finds include a copper-alloy coin of Cunobelin from just to the south of

the site [11], and two pottery scatters to the east [12, 13]. Several undated cropmarks (below) are almost

certainly of prehistoric date.

Roman There are many individual findspots of Roman artefacts [14–25], including many discovered during the early

Frilford excavations, reported in 1939 [14] and others from more recent excavation and fieldwalking. The earlier

excavation revealed a temple and complex of buildings to the east of the site, in the adjacent field, now a

Scheduled Ancient Monument. Further excavation and survey in the area have since produced more remains of

this period, summarized by Hingley (1985) (Fig. 9). During quarrying in the 19th century, a Roman cemetery

was discovered on the margins of the proposal site, from which the majority of bodies were removed at the time.

5

However, extended excavation to explore the site through trial trenches revealed that the Roman cemetery

continued and was overlain by an Anglo-Saxon cemetery, previously undiscovered. The quarrying was not

extensive and the burials discovered so far lie at the north quarry edge, continuing to the north. The Roman finds

include pottery, tile, coins, metalwork.

Not yet recorded in the SMR, excavations by Oxford University have been taking place in recent years in

the fields behind the former Noah’s Ark public house. Geophysical survey here revealed the presence of a

substantial building between the temple and the amphitheatre, and a number of trenches have essentially

confirmed Hingley’s work and added yet more Roman settlement features, and some Iron Age pits (Fitzpatrick

2003).

Saxon A Saxon cemetery occurs on the margins of the site coincident with or overlapping the Roman cemetery (above)

(Bradford and Goodchild 1939) [26]. The Saxon finds include metalwork associated with the cemetery [27] and

a very small amount of pottery elsewhere [28, 29].

Medieval There are no SMR entries relating to this period within the study area.

Post-medieval A number of entries for the Post-medieval period report the discovery, of pottery, tile, glass and stone [32], and

there are known sites and monuments of post-medieval date, including the site of a toll house [30], and a

milestone [31].

Modern, undated Cropmarks visible on aerial photographs occur densely over the site and surrounding area (see below). Not all of

the cropmarks can be dated on morphological grounds but one cluster of cropmarks, within the site has Roman

pottery scattered over the entire complex [25] while another shows a Roman road and further buildings in a

shape that indicates they are probably of Roman date [17]. A rectangular enclosure remains undated [33].

Scheduled Ancient Monuments

There are no Scheduled Ancient Monuments directly on the site, however the site of the Frilford temple

complex, to the east of the site, is a Scheduled Ancient Monument.

6

Cartographic and documentary sources

The site is located within Frilford parish. Frilford (Freiliford) means a ford belonging to a man named Frithela.

(Mills 1998). Frilford is first mentioned in Domesday in 1086 when it was in Berkshire (Williams and Martin

2002, 143). Frilford and nearby Garford were both listed as parts of the lands of Abingdon Abbey. Frilford was

assessed at 10 hides, and the portion held by the abbey itself had just 8 villagers. Sub-let parts of the manor add

another 16 villagers and 2 slaves. Most of the land appears to have been pasture rather than arable; it was valued

at £6 in total (Williams and Martin 2002, 143). After this early appearance, Frilford’s history has not troubled

later chroniclers.

A range of Ordnance Survey and other historical maps of the area were consulted at the Centre for

Oxfordshire Studies in order to ascertain what activity had been taking place throughout the site’s later history

and whether this may have affected any possible archaeological deposits within the proposal area (see Appendix

2). The location of the site at this time may be viewed in relation to Garford. Frilford is not depicted on Saxton’s

Map of 1575 but nearby Garford is (Fig. 2). It is not possible to discern land use from this map. John Rocque’s

map of Berkshire in 1761 shows the site in detail but there are cartographic discrepancies due to its junction on

the boundary of two map sheets. The site is depicted arable farmland. The only item of note for the site is that it

is shown as being traversed by a road, that is no longer extant nor present on the next latest map of 1825. The

Oxford University Colleges drew detailed estate maps showing the land in their possession. Garford is next

mentioned in the estate map of St John’s, drawn 1825 (Fig. 4), where the area of the site is shown to be open

farmland. Garford is later shown in the estate map of Magdalen College, drawn 1961 (Fig. 5). Again, the site is

undeveloped farmland. The site is shown in the Ordnance Survey of 1875 (Fig. 6), with the extent of old

quarrying clearly marked; this includes an area at the south-west and a small area at he south-east, the latter still

marked on modern maps. The maps of 1899 and 1913 show the site unchanged (Figs 7, 8) and the site does not

appear to have changed since (Fig. 1).

Listed buildings

There are no listed buildings on or in the vicinity of the site.

Registered Parks and Gardens; Registered Battlefields

There are no registered parks and gardens or registered battlefields within close proximity of the site.

7

Historic Hedgerows

There are no hedgerows on the site that would qualify as ‘important’ as defined by Schedule 1 of the Hedgerows

Regulations 1997.

Aerial Photographs

The air photograph collection of the National Monuments Record (NMR) lists over 200 photographs covering

the area within a 1km radius of the site (Appendix 3). These include 253 specialist (oblique), 1 military oblique

and 39 vertical views, taken from sorties flown between 1945 and 2004. Most of these were available to view on

21 September 2007. A large number were specifically taken for aerial views of the most recent excavations at

Noah’s Ark (2001–4). The large number of oblique views in relation to the more usual vertical cover presumably

results from the desire to expand on or fill in details for the spectacular results achieved in previous years.

Almost all of the photographs viewed for this area show archaeological cropmark features. Naturally, most are

the same features in different years, but many years do seem to have produced at least some marks not

previously visible.

In short, almost every field within 1km of the site, in which suitable crops have been present, has produced

cropmarks suggesting archaeological features (see Appendix 3). Not all of these are recorded in the SMR. Just

beyond the detailed study area they range from very clear ring ditches (probable remains of round barrows) in

the field centred on at SU 438 957 (at least two), a barrow cemetery (at least 6 ring ditches along with other

features) extending across two fields at SU 427 954 (in addition to the ‘tumulus’ shown here by the Ordnance

Survey), two or possibly three more at SU 443 964; ditched enclosures with other features, suggesting Iron Age

or Roman farms, at SU 443 962, SU 444 970, SU 436 954, any number of marks that most probably represent

pits, likely to be associated with these farms; and what is probably a Roman road at SU 436 960 (SMR 12140).

Obviously of most relevance to the present study are the cropmarks on the site itself (Figs 10 and 11).

These vary by year, but include circular marks of ring ditches and a complex of ditched enclosures probably of

Iron Age or Roman date. A number of other cropmarks are noted and many isolated marks could represent

individual pits. Finally, it is also worth noting that none of the photographs viewed provided any support for the

projected line of Roman road marked on Hingley’s interpretative plan (Fig. 9) as crossing the site.

8

Discussion

In considering the archaeological potential of the study area, various factors must be taken into account,

including previously recorded archaeological sites, previous land-use and disturbance, and future land-use

including the proposed development. Mineral extraction will necessarily be entirely destructive of any

archaeological remains encountered, and the only mitigation possible would be preservation by record, that is,

full excavation by a competent archaeological contractor.

A very small portion of the eastern side of the proposal site (and beyond) has been previously quarried, but

apart from ploughing, the remainder of the site is undisturbed by modern activity. The state of preservation of

archaeological deposits present will almost certainly be typical of farmed dryland locations in southern Britain.

However, this previous quarrying has led to the discovery of burial remains of both Roman and Saxon date in the

same location and which continue into the (provisional) proposal site boundary. The coincidence of Roman and

Saxon burials is potentially of particular importance in terms of the complex question of the transition from

Roman Britain to Saxon England in the 5th century AD.

The desktop study has highlighted a wealth of archaeological deposits in the study area. Nationally

important remains (a Scheduled Ancient Monument) are to be found beyond the eastern limit of the proposal site

boundary and have been studied on several occasions. These studies include the areas of the proposal site and in

addition to the cemetery evidence discussed above, have led to the discovery of scatters of artefacts by

fieldwalking (collection of artefacts from the surface of ploughed fields) of prehistoric and Roman date with

concentrations of the latter probably indicative of the presence of below ground archaeology.

It is, however, the favourable ground conditions for aerial photography which have provided some clear

views of the nature of (some of) the buried archaeology on the site. Some of the features observed are distinctive

and can be dated with a reasonable degree of confidence without field evidence, such as ring ditches of Bronze

Age date and the enclosure complex of Iron Age or Roman date. The latter complex is, moreover, coincident

with a scatter of Roman pottery from fieldwalking.

In the archaeological context of the upper Thames Valley the range of sites and finds already recorded for

the proposal site can be considered as fairly typical. The favourable soil conditions for aerial photography

particularly for the river gravels but also for adjacent geological outcrops has led to a wealth of data providing a

landscape perspective of archaeological deposits (Benson and Miles 1974; Cunliffe 1984; Darvill 1987;

9

Haselgrove et al. 2001). In this context, almost every sizeable portion of land is expected to contain some

archaeological deposits and their presence here is not necessarily of greater or lesser significance than elsewhere.

It is however, the proximity of the proposal site to the scheduled monument complex with the presence of

contemporary and successive remains on, and possibly just within the eastern boundary of the (provisional)

proposal site that merits further discussion of the significance of the proposal. This latter area almost certainly

contains additional archaeological deposits, though the integrity of these deposits is clearly compromised by the

19th-century quarrying in this area. It is considered therefore that if the (provisional) proposal site boundary is

altered by moving further to the west, leaving an intact area along the roadside, then objections to the effects of

the proposal on the integrity of the remaining deposits which plausibly relate to the monument complex to the

east are effectively removed.

It will be necessary to provide further information about the extent and preservation of the archaeological

remains on the site from field observations in order to draw up a scheme to mitigate the impact of development

on any below-ground archaeological deposits if necessary. The evaluation could also provide specific

information with regard to the positioning of the eastern margin of the extraction site and also to elucidate

whether the deposits known to be present on the site have any direct chronological, structural or functional

relationship with the complex of deposits forming the scheduled monument complex to the south east. A scheme

for this evaluation will need to be drawn up and approved by the archaeological advisers to the local planning

authority and implemented by a competent archaeological contractor, such as an organization registered with the

Institute of Field Archaeologists.

References

Benson, D and Miles, D, 1974, The Upper Thames Valley: an archaeological survey of the river gravels, Oxfordshire Archaeol Unit Survey 2, Oxford

BGS, 1971, British Geological Survey, Sheet 253, Drift/Solid Edition, 1:50,000 Blair, J, 1994, Anglo-Saxon Oxfordshire, Stroud Bradford, J, S, P, and Goodchild, R, G, 1939, ‘Excavations at Frilford, Berkshire, 1937-8’, Oxoniensia, 4, 1–72 Bradley, R J, Chambers, R A and Halpin, C, 1985, ‘Excavations at Barrow Hills, Radley, Oxfordshire, 1983–4’

Oxford Archaeol Unit rep Clare, T, 1987, ‘Towards a reappraisal of henge monuments: origins, evolution and hierarchies’, Proc Prehist

Soc 53, 457–77 Collis, J R, 1977, ‘Iron Age henges?’, Archaeol Atlantica 2, 55-64 Cunliffe, B, 1984, ‘Iron Age Wessex; continuity and change’, in B Cunliffe and D Miles, (eds) Aspects of the

Iron Age in Central Southern Britain, Oxford Univ Comm Archaeol Monogr 2, 12–45 Darvill, T, 1987, Prehistoric Gloucestershire, Gloucester Fitzpatrick, A P, 2003, ‘Roman Britain in 2003: 5. The Midlands: Marcham/Frilford’, Britannia, 34, 329 Harding, D W, 1972, The Iron Age in the Upper Thames Basin, Oxford

10

Haselgrove, C, Armit, I, Champion, T C, Creighton, J, Gwilt, A, Hill, J D, Hunter, F and Woodward, A, 2001, Understanding the British Iron Age: an Agenda for Action, Salisbury

Henig, M and Booth, P, 2000, Roman Oxfordshire, Stroud Hingley, R, 1985, ‘Location, function and status: a Roman-British ‘religious complex’ at the Noah’s Ark Inn,

Frilford (Oxfordshire)’, Oxford J Archaeol 4, 201–14 Mills, A D, 1998, Dictionary of English Place-Names, Oxford PPG16, 1990, Dept of the Environment Planning Policy Guidance 16, Archaeology and Planning, HMSO VCH, 1906, Victoria Country Histories, Berkshire, i, London VCH, 1924, Victoria Country Histories, Berkshire, iv, London Williams, A and Martin, G H, 2002, Domesday Book, A complete Translation, London

11

APPENDIX 1: Sites and Monuments Records within a 1km search radius of the development site

No SMR Ref Grid Ref (SU) Type Period Comment 1 9071 435 965 Find Mesolithic Four bladelets 2 7097 4337 9674 Find Neolithic Polished flint axe 3 12265 4391 9628 Find Early Neolithic Willowleaf arrowhead (leaf-shaped?) 4 15431 434 966 Find Neolithic Flaked and polished flint axe 5 12256 4395 9698 Find Neolithic - Bronze Age Flint scatter, including tools and waste 6 12139 4364 9677 Find Bronze Age Flint scatter including flakes and one scraper 7 12257 4355 9604 Find Bronze Age Flint flakes and scraper 8 12258 4392 9645 Find Bronze Age Flint tools and flakes 9 12259 4370 9630 Find Bronze Age White patinated flint barbed and tanged arrowhead 10 12260 4390 9653 Find Bronze Age Scraper 11 7865 436 960 Find Iron Age Copper coin of Cunobelin 12 12263 4400 9623 Find Iron Age Scatter of Middle Iron Age pottery 13 12264 4425 9630 Find Iron Age Pottery scatter and daub 14 7119 4388 9623 Site Iron Age - Roman Temple: Scheduled Ancient Monument 15 7117 4377 9648 Site Romano-British Cemetery 16 7958 440 963 Find Roman Five coins 17 12140 4360 9600 Site Roman Road and 3 or 4 ditched enclosures 18 12143 4421 9626 Find Roman Bronze iron bow brooch 19 12267 4402 9628 Find Roman Pottery/tile, coins, metalwork, buckle 20 12268 4395 9662 Find Roman c2ha pottery/tile scatter, couple of coins 21 12269 4330 9675 Find Roman c0.7ha pottery scatter, one coin 22 12271 4368 9630 Find Roman Pottery, coin, tile and foundations 23 12406 4341 9638 Find Roman Pottery scatter, Carausius coin 24 13319 4405 9632 Site, find Roman Amphitheatre, three coins 25 7603 4364 9677 Find

Cropmarks Roman Unknown

Roman pottery occurring over cropmark complex

26 7118 4372 9644 Site Saxon Cemetery. See 7117. Same site 27 12316 4368 9662 Find Saxon Bronze spearhead, assoc with Record 7117 28 12317 4375 9622 Find Saxon Three pottery sherds 29 12319 4352 9598 Find Saxon Four pottery sherds 30 10205 438 963 Site Post-Med Site of toll house 31 10267 436 964 Monument Post-Med Milestone, Wantage and Oxford 32 12947 442 962 Find Post Medieval Pot, tile, glass, stone, on terrace above River Ock 33 2805 4387 9615 Cropmark Unknown Rectangular enclosure

12

APPENDIX 2: Historic and modern maps consulted

1575 Christopher Saxton’s Map of Berkshire (Fig. 2)

1761 John Rocque’s Map of Berkshire (Fig. 3)

1825 St John’s Estate Map (Fig. 4)

1861 Magdalen College Estate Map (Fig. 5)

1875 Ordnance Survey, First Edition (Fig. 6)

1899 Ordnance Survey, Second Edition (Fig. 7)

1913 Ordnance Survey, third Edition (Fig. 8)

1980 Ordnance Survey, current. Pathfinder 1303 SU49/59, scale 1:12500

13

APPENDIX 3: Aerial Photographs consulted

A> Specialist (Oblique)

No Date flown NMR Accession no. Frame numbers Grid ref (SU) Comment 21-Jan-45 RAF30294 71 435 960 1 30-Jul-69 NMR 149 50-51 439 958 Field south of Noah’s Ark shows three or four

ring ditches, perhaps enclosures, pits. All views of this field in all subsequent years show at least this much, possibly more.

2 08-Aug-69 NMR 10423 3 439 958 Not viewed 3 15-Jul-70 NMR 211 178-80,188-197 435 959 On the site; complex cropmarks looking very

like an Iron Age/Roman farm site. Also on several later views.

4 19-May-71 NMR 299 322, 325 438 957 5 19-May-71 NMR 10439 45 439 957 Not viewed 6 22-Jun-71 NMR 301 374-378 439 958 7 30-Jul-72 NMR 409 81-90 439 956 Ring gully and irregular enclosure in field

directly east of site (north of Noah’s Ark). Shows in several crop conditions and in several later views, possibly a second ring ditch in some views; pit complexes too.

8 18-Jun-74 NMR 716 119-125,139-50,159-61 436 969 Enclosures, pits, ring gullies (barrow cemetery) in a field south of Garford (north of the ‘tumulus’). Also visible in several later views. This year shows what looks like a wide droveway (cursus? Roman road? Or not archaeological?) in the field south of Noah’s Ark heading directly at a barrow circle.

9 01-Jul-75 NMR 823 75-81 430 959 frame 75 not viewed. Cropmarks in south of the proposal site.

10 27-Jul-75 NMR 883 308-312 432 957 Extends the complex of cropmarks south of Noah’s Ark with even more in the next field south.

11 04-Jun-84 NMR 10868 2-10,14-15,21-5 438 957 Slides; not viewed 12 19-Jun-84 NMR 2159 1145-50 443 964 13 14-Jun-87 NMR 4566 22-3 438 956 Slides; not viewed 14 25-May-90 NMR 4576 13-16 437 966 Slides; not viewed 15 25-May-90 NMR 4373 26A,27A,28A, 29A 437 965 Slides; not viewed 16 03-Jul-90 NMR 4608 5-6 443 963 17 03-Jul-90 NMR 4694 73-4 442 961 18 17-Jul-92 NMR 4759 63-4 428 961 19 08-Jul-93 NMR 4839 1-6 435 969 Plenty going on in the field north-east of the

A338/A415 junction too. Extension of the marks on the site: farm, field system

20 20-Jun-96 NMR 15465 20-21 436 959 21 10-Apr-97 NMR 15665 6-9 441 958 22 10-Apr-97 NMR 15647 5-10 441 958 Slides; not viewed 23 04-Sep-97 NMR 15765 22-6 430 972 (catalogued as slides; viewed as prints) 24 04-Sep-97 NMR 15797 1-12 430 972 (catalogued as slides; viewed as prints) 25 17-Sep-98 NMR 18144 10-12 430 972 (catalogued as slides; viewed as prints) 26 07-Sep-99 NMR 18478 3 435 955 (catalogued as slides; viewed as prints) 27 07-Sep-99 NMR 18511 17-9 430 972 (catalogued as slides; viewed as prints) 28 07-Sep-99 NMR 18431 9-12 430 972 29 15-Aug-00 NMR 18910 16-19 429 971 30 15-Aug-00 NMR 18750 26-30 430 972 (catalogued as slides; viewed as prints) 31 21-Jun-01 NMR 21242 8-15 436 966 Spectacular view of the cropmark enclosure on

the east field; double-ring ditch and possible enclosure now on the east field too; possibly other ring gullies in the less clear geology in the west field?

32 21-Jun-01 NMR 21181 18-19 435 966 33 25-Jul-01 NMR 21347 5-9 438 957 34 25-Jul-01 NMR 21302 1-5 439 957 35 25-Jul-01 NMR 21270 2-12 439 962 36 18-Jun-02 NMR 21641 0-3,7-8 430 972 37 19-Jul-02 NMR 21705 6-9 439 963 38 19-Jul-02 NMR 21680 25-37 439 962 39 19-Jul-02 NMR 21712 1-12 441 963

14

40 11-Jul-03 NMR 23117 1-16 439 962 Clear trapezoid enclosure, east of the main Noah’s Ark complex

41 11-Jul-03 NMR 23146 5-8 440 962 42 22-Jul-03 NMR 23162 9-21 439 962 43 22-Jul-03 NMR 23122 18-20 438 968 Shows extension of the cropmarks to the sports

field beyond Manor Farm. 44 22-Jul-03 NMR 23159 1-12 439 962 45 20-Jul-04 NMR 23585 13,15-18,23,24,27 439 962 46 20-Jul-04 NMR 23637 8-12,14,16,19-26 440 963 47 unknown ACA 7090 66-7 438 963 B>Vertical (non-specialist)

No Date flown Sorite no. Frame numbers Grid ref (SU) Comment 1 04-Dec-43 US/7PH/GP/LOC95 5009 437992 2 08-Mar-44 US/7PH/GP/LOC208 5005-6 428964 The east field on the site appears to

have a (modern) internal enclosure. 3 12-Apr-46 RAF/106G/UK/1408 4100-2 428967 4 06-Sep-46 RAF/106G/UK/1721 4013-5,5014-16 445971 5 21-Sep-46 RAF/CPE/UK/1753 4072-3 442952 6 04-Feb-52 RAF/540/666 3055-6,4154-6 425967 7 21-Sep-67 RAF/58/8308 70 435978 8 15-Jun-68 RAF/58/8829 69-71,74-6 442968 Faint cropmarks on the site, possible

enclosure with antennae ditches? 9 11-Apr-71 OS/71068 49-51 443975 10 12-Apr-71 OS/71073 337-40 424964 Some possibly archaeological blobs on

the site 11 12-Apr-71 OS/71072 255-7 431954 Shows several ring ditches and other

features in the field south of Noah’s Ark

12 08-Apr-89 OS/89068 267-9 444969 Internal subdivision in the field again.

Millets Farm, Frilford, Oxfordshire, 2007. An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment

Figure 1. Location of site and Garford withinOxfordshire showing locations of SMR entries.

Reproduced from Ordnance Survey Pathfinder 1303 SU49/59 at 1:12500

Ordnance Survey Licence 100025880

SITE

MFG 07/116SU43000 44000

98000

96000

97000

Site

143

5

7 11,17

12, 16,18, 19, 24

13

20

29

32

2 6,25

23

14

9, 22

10

15

21

2628, 30

27

831

33

Millets Farm, Frilford, Oxfordshire 2007. An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment

Figure 2. Saxton’s map, c.1575

MFG 07/116

Approximatelocation of Site


Figure 3. John Rocque’s map of Berkshire, 1761

MFG 07/116

Approximatelocation of Site


Figure 4. Location of the site on St John’s EstateMap, 1825

MFG 07/116

Site


Figure 5. Location of the site on the Magdalen EstateMap, 1861

MFG 07/116

Site


Figure 6. Location of the site on First EditionOrdnance Survey, 1875

MFG 07/116

Site


Figure 7. Location of the site on Second EditionOrdnance Survey, 1899

MFG 07/116

Site


Figure 8. Location of the site on Third EditionOrdnance Survey, 1913

MFG 07/116

Site


Figure 9. Interpretation of Roman remains in thevicinity (Hingley 1985 fig. 3.) Not to scale.

MFG 07/116

Proposalsite (part)

MFG 07/116Figure 11. Site showing cropmarks and previous excavation with relation to previous quarrying

Millets Farm, Garford, Oxfordshire, 2007N

0 500m

SU43300 43400 43500 43600 43700 43800 43900

96200

96100

96300

96400

96500

96600

96700

96800

96900

SITE

Quarry

Quarry edge1920

1937 excavations

millets farm, frilford, oxfordshire

Documents