Plot A Bath Business Park Peasedown St John BaNES

Transcription

Plot A
Bath Business Park
Peasedown St John
BaNES
Archaeological Evaluation
for
Hartwell plc and Cubex Land (Wellow Vale) Ltd
CA Project: 3904
CA Report: 12350
November 2012
Plot A
Bath Business Park
Peasedown St John
BaNES
Archaeological Evaluation
CA Project: 3904
CA Report: 12350
prepared by
date
checked by
date
approved by
Steven Sheldon, Project Supervisor
19 November 2012
Simon Cox, Head of Fieldwork
27 November 2012
Simon Cox, Head of Fieldwork
signed
date
27 November 2012
issue
01
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
Cirencester
Building 11
Kemble Enterprise Park
Kemble, Cirencester
Gloucestershire, GL7 6BQ
t. 01285 771022
f. 01285 771033
Milton Keynes
Unit 4
Cromwell Business Centre
Howard Way, Newport Pagnell
MK16 9QS
t. 01908 218320
e. enquiries@cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk
Andover
Office 49
Basepoint Business Centre
Caxton Close, Andover
Hampshire, SP10 3FG
t. 01264 326549
Plot A, Bath Business Park, Peasedown St John, BaNES: Archaeological Evaluation
CONTENTS
SUMMARY........................................................................................................................ 2
1.
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 3
The site ................................................................................................................ 3
Archaeological background.................................................................................. 4
Archaeological objectives .................................................................................... 4
Methodology ........................................................................................................ 5
2.
RESULTS (FIGS 2-5) .......................................................................................... 6
3.
DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................... 8
4.
CA PROJECT TEAM ........................................................................................... 11
5.
REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 11
APPENDIX A: CONTEXT DESCRIPTIONS..................................................................... 13
APPENDIX B: GEOARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT.............................................. 15
APPENDIX C: LEVELS OF PRINCIPAL DEPOSITS ...................................................... 17
APPENDIX D: RADIOCARBON DATING........................................................................ 18
APPENDIX E: OASIS REPORT FORM ........................................................................... 20
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Fig. 1
Site location plan (1:25,000)
Fig. 2
Trench location plan showing archaeological features, previous archaeological
works and geophysical survey results (1:4000 & 1:500)
Fig. 3
Trenches 28 and 29, showing graves/probable graves (1:200)
Fig. 4
Sections and photographs
Fig. 5
Extract from 1843 tithe map showing current site (1:8000 approx.)
1
SUMMARY
Project Name:
Plot A, Bath Business Park
Location:
Peasedown St John, BaNES
NGR:
ST 71210 57215
Type:
Evaluation
Date:
6-9 November 2012
Location of Archive:
To be deposited with Roman Baths Museum, Bath
Accession Number:
BATRM 2012.43
Site Code:
PBA 12
An archaeological evaluation was undertaken by Cotswold Archaeology in November 2012
on land known as Plot A, Bath Business Park, Peasedown St John, BaNES. Three trenches
were excavated.
The evaluation has identified a number of archaeological features within the proposed
development area; these features were shown to survive at a depth of between 0.44m and
0.52m below the modern ground surface.
A total of 20 probable graves, forming part of a cemetery identified by an earlier
archaeological evaluation, were identified in the north-eastern half of Trench 28 and the
north-western half of Trench 29. A single leg bone was recovered from one of the identified
graves for the purposes of radiocarbon dating. Two undated ditches, previously thought to
form part of the cemetery boundary, were also identified during the evaluation. However, a
grave was shown to cut the northernmost of these ditches suggesting that they may relate to
a separate phase of activity on the site.
A small number of undated pits were revealed in the central and eastern parts of the site.
However, the exact function of these pits and their relationship to the other archaeological
features identified remains unclear.
2
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1
In November 2012 Cotswold Archaeology (CA) carried out an archaeological
evaluation for Hartwell plc and Cubex Land (Wellow Vale) Ltd on land known as Plot
A, Bath Business Park, Peasedown St John, BaNES (centred on NGR: 71210
57215; Fig. 1). The evaluation was undertaken to assist in the design of a proposed
car dealership that will form part of the ongoing development of Bath Business Park,
on land now known as Plot A. The business park development has been the subject
of numerous previous archaeological investigations, and is subject to a Section 106
Agreement with Bath and North East Somerset Council (BaNESC) which requires
the preservation in situ of sensitive archaeological remains over a large part of Plot
A. The evaluation was designed to provide further information with which to define
the extent, depth and nature of the sensitive archaeological remains, and to enable
the design of a development within Plot A which will preserve the most important
archaeological remains in situ. The evaluation ran concurrently with a geotechnical
trial pit investigation, which was monitored archaeologically to ensure test pit
locations were adjusted so as not impinge upon sensitive archaeological deposits,
and ultimately to ensure their preservation in situ.
1.2
The evaluation was carried out in accordance with a detailed Written Scheme of
Investigation (WSI) produced by CA (2012) and approved by Mr Richard Sermon,
Archaeological Officer BaNES Council. The fieldwork also followed the Standard
and Guidance for Archaeological Field Evaluation (IfA 2009), the Management of
Archaeological Projects 2 (English Heritage 1991) and the Management of Research
Projects in the Historic Environment (MORPHE): Project Manager’s Guide (English
Heritage 2006).
The site
1.3
The proposed development area encloses an area of approximately 0.5ha, and
comprises a single field of ungrazed rough pasture bounded to the north by the
A367, to the south and west by Bath Business Park and to the east by arable fields.
The site lies on a gentle south-easterly facing slope and lies at approximately 142m
AOD.
1.4
The underlying bedrock geology of the area is mapped as Ooidal Limestone from
the Inferior Oolite Group of the Jurassic era (BGS 2012). The overlying soils are
from the Sherborne association consisting of a Brown Redzina (Soil Survey of
3
England and Wales, 1983). The natural substrate, comprising light yellow grey clay
with occasional limestone outcrops, was identified in Trenches 27 and 28 and
across the north-western half of Trench 29. Limestone bedrock was identified across
the south-eastern half of Trench 29.
Archaeological background
1.5
An archaeological evaluation was undertaken by Cotswold Archaeological Trust
between April and June 2000 at the Bath Business Park site (CAT 2000a). Twentysix trenches were excavated, of which four (Trenches 1, 6, 7 and 11) were within the
current proposed area of development. The evaluation revealed a number of
undated pits of likely prehistoric date, a possible colluvial deposit measuring up to
0.29m thick present across the whole of the current area of investigation, a cemetery
of possible Roman or later date containing a minimum of sixteen graves and a ditch
conceivably forming part of the cemetery boundary. However, the nature of the
relationship between the colluvial deposit and the grave cuts remained unclear.
1.6
Subsequent excavations were undertaken over the rest of the Bath Business Park
site (excluding Plot A) by Cotswold Archaeology between 2004-5, revealing Middle
Bronze Age burials, a possible Middle Iron Age ditch, a late Roman enclosure and a
Middle Saxon D-shaped enclosure, as well as 11th to 13th-century activity. Further
burials to the south of Plot A were undated, but thought likely to represent a
continuation of the cemetery revealed in the 2000 evaluation, and likely to relate to
Late Saxon and early medieval settlement to the north at Eckweek (Rowe and
Alexander 2010).
1.7
A geophysical and metal detecting survey of the Plot A site undertaken in 2012 (AS
2012) as part of the current phase of evaluation revealed two parallel linear
anomalies that may relate to former ditches and several discrete anomalies that may
indicate pit–like features, a number of which appear to correlate with unexcavated
grave cuts revealed during the previous evaluation.
Archaeological objectives
1.8
The objectives of the evaluation are to provide additional information about the
archaeological resource within the site, in particular the extent and date of the
cemetery, its stratigraphic relationship with the colluvial layer previously identified,
and to ascertain whether the ditches revealed in the former evaluation and
subsequent geophysical survey are related to the cemetery limits, or represent a
4
separate phase of land use. In accordance with the Standard and Guidance for
Archaeological Field Evaluation (IfA 2009), the evaluation has been designed to be
minimally intrusive and minimally destructive to archaeological remains. The
information gathered will enable Bath and North-East Somerset Council to identify
and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset, consider the impact of
the proposed development upon it, and to avoid or minimise conflict between the
heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the development proposal, in line
with the National Planning Policy Framework (DCLG 2012).
Methodology
1.9
The fieldwork comprised the excavation of three archaeological evaluation trenches
and the monitoring of six geotechnical trial pits, in the locations shown on the
attached plan (Fig. 2). Trenches 27 and 29 measured 50m in length and 1.8m in
width, Trench 28 measured 40m in length and 1.8m in width, trial pits 1-6 measured
2m in length and 0.6m in width. Trial Pit 4 was moved from its original position to
avoid archaeological features identified in Trench 28. The trenches and trial pits
were set out on OS National Grid (NGR) co-ordinates using Leica GPS and
surveyed in accordance with CA Technical Manual 4 Survey Manual (2012).
1.10
All trenches were excavated by mechanical excavator equipped with a toothless
grading
bucket.
All
machine
excavation
was
undertaken
under
constant
archaeological supervision to the top of the first significant archaeological horizon or
the natural substrate, whichever was encountered first. Where archaeological
deposits were encountered they were excavated by hand in accordance with CA
Technical Manual 1: Fieldwork Recording Manual (2007).
1.11
Following machining, grave 2927 (previously identified during the 2000 evaluation as
grave 110) was partially re-opened and one leg bone was recovered for radiocarbon
dating in order to assist in understanding the date of the cemetery. This was
conducted under the appropriate burial licence, following the provisions of the
Coroners Unit in the Ministry of Justice.
1.12
Deposits were assessed for their palaeoenvironmental potential in accordance with
CA Technical Manual 2: The Taking and Processing of Environmental and Other
Samples from Archaeological Sites (2003) and, a single monolith sample was
recovered from Trench 29 by Keith Wilkinson of ARCA. All artefacts recovered were
5
processed in accordance with Technical Manual 3 Treatment of Finds Immediately
after Excavation (1995).
1.13
The archive from the evaluation is currently held by CA at their offices in Kemble. It
will be deposited with Roman Baths Museum, Bath under accession number
BATRM 2012.43. A summary of information from this project, set out within
Appendix E, will be entered onto the OASIS online database of archaeological
projects in Britain.
2.
RESULTS (FIGS 2-5)
2.1
This section provides an overview of the evaluation results; detailed summaries of
the recorded contexts are to be found in Appendix A. A Geoarchaeological
Assessment can be found in Appendix B, and details of the relative heights of the
principal deposits and features expressed as metres Above Ordnance Datum (m
AOD) appear in Appendix C.
2.2
The natural geological substrate, comprising light yellow-grey clay with occasional
limestone outcrops, was identified in Trenches 27 and 28 and across the northwestern half of Trench 29; limestone bedrock was identified across the southeastern half of Trench 29. The natural substrate was overlain by silt clay subsoil,
ranging from c. 0.21m to c. 0.28m in thickness, which was in turn overlain by
modern topsoil, ranging from c. 0.2m to c. 0.3m in thickness. All identified
archaeological features were sealed by subsoil and cut the natural substrate.
2.3
Trench 27 (Figs 2 & 4)
Narrow, shallow ditch 2704 was identified towards the south-eastern end of the
trench. It was aligned north-east/south-west, had an irregular profile and contained a
single undated fill, 2703, which was similar to the overlying subsoil. It was not
identified by the geophysical survey. However, it is possible that it represents a
continuation of ditches 2825 and 2934 identified in Trenches 28 and 29 respectively,
and may be a continuation of the linear north-east/south-west aligned anomaly
depicted by the geophysics.
2.4
Trench 28 (Figs 2, 3 & 4)
Narrow, north-east/south-west aligned, ditch 2825 was identified towards the southwestern end of the trench. It was not identified by the geophysical survey however; it
6
is possible that it represents a continuation of ditches 2704 and 2934 identified in
Trenches 27 and 29 respectively and may be a continuation of the linear northeast/south-west aligned anomaly depicted by the geophysics . It was not excavated
within Trench 28 and no finds were recovered from the surface of the feature within
this trench.
2.5
Towards the centre of the trench, pit/ditch terminal 2821 and irregular pit 2819 were
partially exposed. Both features contained single undated fills which were similar to
the overlying subsoil. Neither feature was identified by the geophysical survey.
2.6
At the north-western end of the trench a group of seven probable graves were
identified. These features contained a light yellow grey clay fill which appeared to
represent redeposited natural substrate. All, with exception of possible grave 2817,
appeared to be aligned approximately north-east/south-west. Possible grave 2805
was partially excavated and found to contain poorly preserved human bone. The
remaining features remained unexcavated and no human bone was recovered from
the surface of these features within this trench. The graves were sealed by between
0.21m and 0.28m of subsoil, which was in turn overlain by between 0.2m and 0.3m
of topsoil.
2.7
Trench 29 (Figs 2, 3 & 4)
Pit 2936 was partially exposed towards the centre of the trench. It had an irregular
profile and contained a single undated fill, 2937, which was similar to the overlying
subsoil. To the north-west, north-east/south-west aligned ditch 2934 was identified.
It had a shallow U-shaped profile and contained a single undated fill. It corresponds
closely to a linear anomaly depicted by the geophysical survey, possibly forming part
of the cemetery boundary, and may represent a continuation of ditches 2704 and
2825 seen in Trenches 27 and 28 respectively.
2.8
Immediately to the north-west, irregular pit 2932 was identified. It had an irregular
profile and contained a single, undated fill, 2933, which was similar to the overlying
subsoil. It corresponds with a pit-like anomaly depicted by the geophysical survey.
2.9
In the north-western third of the trench a group of thirteen probable graves were
identified. These features were aligned approximately north-east/south-west and
contained a light yellow grey clay fill which appeared to represent redeposited
natural substrate. Grave 2927, previously identified in the 2000 evaluation as Grave
7
110, was excavated to a depth of approximately 0.08m partially revealing in situ and
articulated skeletal remains 2928. A single leg bone was recovered from this grave
and submitted for radiocarbon dating, the results revealing a mid 7th to mid 8thcentury date (Appendix D). No further potential graves were excavated within the
trench however; probable human bone was observed on the surface of possible
graves 2917 and 2903.
2.10
North-east/south-west aligned ditch 2930 was identified towards the north-western
end of the trench. It was partially excavated and found to contain a single undated
fill, 2931, which was cut by probable grave 2919. Ditch 2930 correlated closely with
a linear anomaly identified by the preceding geophysical survey and may represent
part of the postulated cemetery boundary.
2.11
Archaeological features were identified at a depth of between 0.44m and 0.52m
below the present ground surface during the current evaluation. The possible
colluvial deposit, identified by the previous archaeological evaluation in 2000 (CAT
2000a), was investigated on site and is considered to be more likely a ploughsoil. A
monolith sample was taken from an exposed section above grave 2917 in Trench 29
and this suggests that the grave cuts do not survive within this ploughsoil (Appendix
B).
3.
DISCUSSION
General
3.1
The evaluation has identified a number of archaeological features, comprising pits,
ditches and graves, within the proposed development area. The stratigraphic
sequence identified during the course of the evaluation indicated that these features
survive at a depth of between 0.44m and 0.52m below the modern ground surface.
3.2
The majority of archaeological features identified were located in the north-eastern
half of Trench 28 and the north-western half of Trench 29. Where linear
archaeological features were encountered there was a good correlation with the
results of the preceding geophysical survey. A more variable correlation between the
geophysics and the graves identified by the current evaluation is apparent. However,
the similarity of the grave fill to the underlying natural substrate may account for this
discrepancy. The geophysical survey also identified the location of Trench 1 and
8
showed it to be slightly further south than previously suggested by the 2000
evaluation report. The position of Trench 1 on Figs 2 and 3 has therefore been
adjusted to a ‘best fit’ based on the findings of the 2012 evaluation trenching and
geophysical results.
Middle Saxon
3.3
A total of 20 probable graves were identified during the current evaluation. These
were located in two distinct groups; at the north-eastern end of Trench 28 and at the
north-western end of Trench 29. All were aligned approximately north-east/southwest, with the exception of probable grave 2817, identified in Trench 28, which was
aligned north-west/south-east. After their exposure, no further excavation of the
graves ensued, with the exceptions of grave 2805, located in Trench 28, which was
investigated to confirm the presence of human remains and grave 2927 (grave 110
of the 2000 evaluation), located in Trench 29, where parts of the lower legs were
exposed to enable the recovery of a single leg bone for radiocarbon dating. The
results of the radiocarbon dating, detailed within Appendix D suggest a Middle
Saxon date, broadly contemporary with the D-shaped enclosure revealed during
earlier excavations at the business park to the west of the cemetery, and a couple
of centuries earlier than the Late Saxon/early medieval settlement at Eckweek
further to the north (Rowe and Alexander 2010).
3.4
The previous archaeological evaluation suggested that the cemetery may have been
organised in two rows of graves on an approximately north-south alignment (CAT
2000a). It further suggested that, because none of the identified graves intercut, they
may have been marked on the ground surface by a grave marker or mound of earth.
However, the current evaluation suggests that the graves are more densely packed
than previously thought and may be organised into small groups or clusters. Equally,
some evidence of the graves intercutting was identified in both Trench 28 and
Trench 29 suggesting that graves may not have been marked as formerly
suggested.
Undated
3.5
The evaluation revealed a small number of undated pits in Trenches 28 and 29.
Similar features were identified by the previous archaeological evaluation (CAT
2000a) and it was suggested that they may have been prehistoric in date. The
evaluation also demonstrated that at least one pit had been cut by a later grave, and
therefore likely pre-dates the Middle Saxon period. Despite this, the exact date and
9
function of the pits identified during the current evaluation, and the nature of their
relationship to the other archaeological features identified remains unclear.
3.6
Undated ditches 2704, 2825, 2930 and 2934 (located in Trenches 27, 28 and 29
respectively) confirm the presence of two parallel linear anomalies identified by the
preceding geophysical survey (AS 2012). It has been previously suggested that
these ditches may have formed part of the cemetery boundary. However, whilst the
vast majority of the graves identified during the evaluation appeared to be located
between these two ditches, the fill of ditch 2930 identified in Trench 29 was clearly
cut by a probable grave, suggesting that the northernmost of these two ditches
either pre-dates, or is certainly no later than, the Middle Saxon period.
Depth and state of preservation
3.7
The evaluation has demonstrated that the depth of overburden above the exposed
archaeological features ranges between 0.44m below the current ground level in
Trench 29 to 0.52m below the current ground level in Trench 27 (see Appendix C).
This is considerably deeper than suggested by the preceding archaeological
evaluation (CAT 2000a) which indicated that archaeological features survived at a
depth of c. 0.28m below the current ground level. On-site assessment, in
conjunction with Keith Wilkinson of ARCA (Appendix B), suggests that the possible
‘colluvial deposit’ identified across Plot A by the previous archaeological evaluation
in 2000 (CAT 2000a) is more likely a ploughsoil. This interpretation is supported by
evidence from the 1843 Tithe Map for the area (Fig. 5) the apportionment for which
indicates that the site was under arable cultivation by this date (CAT 2000b, 13). All
features identified during the current evaluation, including the probable graves
identified in Trenches 28 and 29, appear to be sealed by this ploughsoil. The
presence of human bone recorded within the ploughsoil in the 2000 evaluation,
combined with results of the Geoarchaeological assessment (Appendix B), strongly
suggests that all archaeological features revealed have been subject to a degree of
truncation by past ploughing of the site, although the extent of such truncation
cannot be ascertained at this stage. Nevertheless, the presence of articulated
human skeletal remains, with sufficient collagen survival to obtain a radiocarbon
date, suggests a comparable or better state of preservation than found during earlier
archaeological excavations within the business park (Rowe and Alexander 2010). In
the earlier works the depth of topsoil was generally very shallow, and there was little
or no ploughsoil present. In addition, attempts to obtain radiocarbon dates from
human remains failed due to a lack of sufficient collagen survival. However, the
10
moderate depth of ploughsoil identified on the Plot A site, whether or not derived
originally from colluvial build-up, may have afforded archaeological features
additional protection here.
4.
CA PROJECT TEAM
Fieldwork was undertaken by Steven Sheldon, assisted by Anthony Beechey and
Hazel O’Neill. The report was written by Steven Sheldon. The illustrations were
prepared by Jon Bennett. The archive has been compiled by Steven Sheldon, and
prepared for deposition by James Johnson. The project was managed for CA by
Simon Cox.
5.
REFERENCES
AS (Archaeological Surveys) 2012 Plot A, Bath Business Park, Peasedown St John, Bath
and North East Somerset: Magnetometer Survey Report. AS ref. 437
BGS
(British
Geological
Survey)
http://maps.bgs.ac.uk/geology
2012a
Geology
of
viewer_google/googleviewer.html
Britain
Viewer
Accessed
16
November 2012
BGS (British Geological Survey) 2012b The BGS Lexicon of named rock units.
http://www.bgs.ac.uk/lexicon/ (accessed 7 November 2012)
CA (Cotswold Archaeology) 2012 Plot A, Bath Business Park, Peasedown St John, BaNES:
Written Scheme of Investigation for an Archaeological Evaluation
CAT (Cotswold Archaeological Trust) 2000a Land at Peasedown St. John, Bath and NorthEast Somerset: Archaeological Assessment. CAT Report 001141
CAT (Cotswold Archaeological Trust) 2000b Land at Peasedown St. John, Bath and NorthEast Somerset: Archaeological Evaluation. CAT Report 001184
DCLG (Department of Communities and Local Government) 2012 National Planning Policy
Framework
11
Jones, A.P., Tucker, M.E. and Hart, J.K. 1999 Guidelines and recommendations. In Jones,
A.P., Tucker, M.E. and Hart, J.K. (Eds.) The description and analysis of Quaternary
stratigraphic field sections. Quaternary Research Association technical guide 7,
London, 27-76.
Munsell Color 2000 Munsell soil color charts. Munsell Color, New Windsor (NY).
Rockware 2005 RockWorks v2004. http://www.rockware.com (Accessed 7 February 2006).
Rowe, M. and Alexander, M. 2010 ‘Multi-Period Activity at Peasedown St John, North-East
Somerset: Excavations at Bath Business Park, Wellow Lane, 2004–5’, Proc.
Somerset Archaeol. Natur. Hist. Soc. 154, 51-68
Soil Survey of England and Wales, 1983, Soils of England and Wales, Sheet 5, South West
England
Tucker, M.E. 1982 Sedimentary rocks in the field. Wiley, Chichester.
12
APPENDIX A: CONTEXT DESCRIPTIONS
Trench
No.
Context
No.
Type
27
27
27
2700
2701
2702
layer
layer
layer
Fill of
Context
interpretation
Description
L
(m)
W
(m)
Topsoil
Subsoil
Natural
Mid grey brown silt clay
Mid orange brown silt clay
Light yellow grey clay with frequent
limestone patches
>50
>50
>50
>1.8
>1.8
>1.8
Depth/
thickness
(m)
0.2
0.28
>0.5
Single fill of 2704
NE/SW ditch
limestone patches
>1.8
>1.8
>50
>50
>50
0.71
0.71
>1.8
>1.8
>1.8
0.18
0.18
0.3
0.21
>0.3
Fill of grave 2805
Skeleton in grave 2805
Grave
Fill of probable grave 2807
>1.3
N/A
>1.3
>0.3
0.45
N/A
0.45
>0.1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Probable grave
>0.3
>0.1
N/A
>0.6
>0.3
N/A
Probable grave
>0.6
>0.3
N/A
Probable grave
>0.2
>0.2
>0.3
>0.3
N/A
N/A
>0.2
>0.4
N/A
Probable grave
>0.2
>0.4
N/A
Fill
>0.8
0.35
N/A
Probable
Probable grave
>0.8
0.35
N/A
>0.3
0.28
N/A
Probable grave
>0.3
0.28
N/A
Fill
Single fill of 2819
>0.9
0.99
0.12
Pit
Irregular pit
>0.9
0.99
0.12
Fill
Pit/ditch
Single fill of 2821
Pit/ditch terminal
1.01
1.01
0.21
0.21
sub
str
ate
27
27
28
28
28
2703
2704
2800
2801
2802
Fill
Cut
layer
layer
layer
2704
Fill
Ditch
Topsoil
Subsoil
Natural
sub
str
ate
28
28
28
28
2803
2804
2805
2806
Fill
Fill
Cut
Fill
28
2807
Cut
2805
2805
2807
Fill
Fill
Grave
Fill
Probable
gra
ve
28
2808
Fill
28
2809
Cut
2809
Fill
Probable
gra
ve
28
28
2810
2811
Fill
Cut
2811
Fill
Probable
gra
ve
28
2812
Fill
28
2813
Cut
2813
Fill
Probable
gra
ve
28
2814
Fill
28
2815
Cut
2815
gra
ve
28
2816
Fill
28
2817
Cut
2817
Fill
Probable
gra
ve
28
2818
Fill
28
2819
Cut
28
28
2820
2821
Fill
Cut
2819
2821
ter
min
al
28
28
2822
2823
Fill
Cut
2823
Fill
Geological
Single fill of 2823
Shallow, irregular geological feature
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.01
0.01
Single fill of 2825
NE/SW ditch
>1.6
>1.6
>50
>50
0.68
0.68
>1.8
>1.8
N/A
N/A
0.3
0.21
fea
tur
e
28
28
29
29
2824
2825
2900
2901
Fill
Cut
layer
layer
2825
Fill
Ditch
Topsoil
Subsoil
13
29
2902
layer
limestone patches
>50
>1.8
>0.8
Probable grave
>0.7
0.38
N/A
Probable grave
>0.7
>0.3
0.38
0.34
N/A
N/A
Probable grave
>0.3
>0.4
0.34
0.37
N/A
N/A
>0.4
0.37
N/A
Probable grave
>0.3
0.31
N/A
Probable grave
>0.3
>0.1
0.31
0.2
N/A
N/A
Probable grave
>0.1
>0.5
0.2
0.4
N/A
N/A
>0.5
0.4
N/A
Probable grave
>0.8
0.42
N/A
Probable grave
>0.8
>1.5
0.42
0.65
N/A
N/A
Probable grave
>1.5
>0.4
0.65
0.32
N/A
N/A
>0.4
0.32
N/A
Probable grave
>0.4
0.3
N/A
>0.4
0.3
N/A
Probable grave
>0.8
0.45
N/A
Probable grave
>0.8
>0.3
0.45
0.32
N/A
N/A
Fill
Fill of probable garve 2925
>0.3
0.32
N/A
Grave
Skeleton
Fill
Ditch
Fill
Pit
Fill
Ditch
Fill
Pit
Grave
Partially expoosed skeleton in 2927
Fill of grave 2927
NE/SW ditch
Single fill of 2930
Irregular pit
Single fill of 2932
NE/SW ditch
Single fill of ditch 2934
Irregular pit
>0.8
N/A
>0.8
>1.8
>1.8
>0.4
>0.4
>1.8
>1.8
>0.3
0.78
N/A
0.78
1.45
1.45
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.46
>0.08
N/A
>0.08
>0.1
>0.1
0.38
0.38
0.36
0.36
0.22
Fill
Single fill of 2936
>0.3
1.46
0.22
Natural
sub
str
ate
29
2903
Cut
Probable
gra
ve
29
29
2904
2905
Fill
Cut
2903
Fill
Probable
gra
ve
29
29
2906
2907
Fill
Cut
2905
Fill
Probable
gra
ve
29
2908
Fill
29
2909
Cut
2907
Fill
Probable
gra
ve
29
29
2910
2911
Fill
Cut
2909
Fill
Probable
gra
ve
29
29
2912
2913
Fill
Cut
2911
Fill
Probable
gra
ve
29
2914
Fill
29
2915
Cut
2913
Fill
Probable
gra
ve
29
29
2916
2917
Fill
Cut
2915
Fill
Probable
gra
ve
29
29
2918
2919
Fill
Cut
2917
Fill
Probable
gra
ve
29
2920
Fill
29
2921
Cut
2919
Fill
Probable
gra
ve
29
2922
Fill
29
2923
Cut
2921
Fill
Probable
gra
ve
29
29
2924
2925
Fill
Cut
2923
Fill
Probable
gra
ve
29
2926
Fill
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
2927
2928
2929
2930
2931
2932
2933
2934
2935
2936
Cut
Fill
Fill
Cut
Fill
Cut
Fill
Cut
Fill
Cut
29
2937
Fill
2925
2827
2827
2930
2933
2934
2936
14
APPENDIX B: GEOARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Keith Wilkinson, ARCA
Introduction
A visit was made to an evaluation being conducted by Cotswold Archaeology at Plot A, Bath Business Park,
Peasedown St. John, BANES on 8 November 2012. The Cotswold Archaeology archaeological evaluation was
being carried out in the northwest corner of the Business Park to determine the stratigraphy overlying and depth
of burials found during a previous evaluation in 2000. The purpose of the author's visit was to examine strata
lying between the uppermost fill of the graves and beneath the present topsoil, and by so doing to assess its
mode of genesis.
Geographic and geological setting
The site lies to the south of both the village of Peasedown St John and the A367 Radstock-Bath road. It is
positioned on the upper reaches of a gentle (<1o) south-facing slope with an elevation of +143m OD. The British
Geological Survey (BGS 2012) map the site as lying at the transition between mudstones of the Lower Fuller's
Earth Member (Mid Jurassic) to the north and limestones of the Inferior Oolite Group (Mid Jurassic) in the south.
Indeed the transition between the two rock units was also noted in the field within Trench 29 – the northern part
of the trench resting on Fuller's Earth and the south on Inferior Oolite.
Methodology
Although there were three evaluation trenches open at the time of the visit, attention was focussed on Trench 29
where >10 grave cuts had been identified (two containing visible human bone). A detailed description was made
using standard geological conventions (Tucker 1982, Jones et al. 1999, Munsell Color 2000), of strata in the
eastern section of the trench at the point where it was cut by grave [2917] (Figs 3 & 4). The trench was then
inspected to see if there was any variation in the sequence (there was none), after which a single monolith
sample was collected from the previously logged location. The latter was taken in a 500x100x100mm stainless
steel tin that was inserted into strata comprising the Fuller's Earth geology (2902), the upper fill (2918) of grave
cut [2917], an overlying stratum previously interpreted as subsoil and/or colluvium (2901) and the basal part of
the modern topsoil (2900).
Results
The field descriptions of the strata are reproduced in the table below:
Context
2900
Depth
0.00-0.20m
2901
0.20-0.55m
2918
0.55m+
2902
0.55m+
Description
10 YR 4/3 Brown humic silt in medium pebble, fining to fine
pebble sized aggregate. Fine roots occur
throughout, while rare cobble-sized sub-rounded
oolitic limestone clasts also occur. Diffuse
boundary to
10 YR 6/4 Light yellowish brown clay in fine pebble-granular
-sized aggregates at top, but rapidly disappearing
and
becoming
homogeneous
downwards.
Occasional pebble-sized patches of 10 YR 7/6
Yellow clay as granular-medium sand sized
aggregates appear in the middle and towards the
base of the stratum [derived from the underlying
Fuller's Earth (2902)]. Diffuse boundary marked
by an increase in concentration of derived Fuller's
Earth particles, to:
10 YR 5/6 Yellowish brown compact clay with frequent
pebble-sized patches of 10 YR 7/6 Yellow clay in
granular-medium
sand
sized
aggregates.
Occasional cobble-sized human bone fragments
appear towards the base of the exposed section
10 YR 7/6 Yellow compact Yellow clay in granular-medium
sand sized aggregates.
Interpretation
Modern soil O/A
horizons
Ploughed subsoil (B
horizon)
Grave fill
Fuller's Earth
As previously noted this same broad sequence was noted throughout Trench 29, the only variations being:
a. A slight thickening of (2901) from 0.35 at the point of sampling to c. 0.50m by the southernmost point of the
trench.
b. The replacement of Fuller's Earth (2902) with limestones of the Inferior Oolite Group as the geological
substrate about half way along the trench.
15
Interpretation
The strata in Trench 29 are most logically explained as a soil profile that has been truncated by ploughing. The
parent material for the soil is a combination of Fuller's Earth (mudstone, i.e. a mixture of calcareous silts and
clays) and Interior Oolite (limestone). When rocks of these types weather the calcareous element enters into
solution and is washed into adjacent watercourses, leaving an insoluble residue. The latter is composed of ironrich clays of a distinct reddish hue. Such weathering both precedes, but is also part of the soil forming process
and is likely to have been initiated following the cessation of periglacial conditions at the end of the Devensian
(last cold stage) Late Glacial. Over time and as the soil continued to develop within the Fuller's Earth and Inferior
Oolite, the weathered horizon will have increased in thickness. At the same time fermentation and elluviation
processes taking place within the biologically active A horizon will have caused the migration of clay particles
down profile to form a Bt horizon. It is in this soil profile that the graves are most likely to have been cut. The cuts
will therefore have extended through the then A and B horizons and into the underlying parent material (the
Fuller's Earth and Inferior Oolite). Further pedogenesis is likely to have later taken place following the infilling of
the graves, during which time additional weathering of the underlying rocks will have resulted in the thickening of
the B horizon, while bioturbation will have blurred the grave cuts within the A and B horizons. Two lines of
evidence suggest that the soil profile has been subsequently truncated following. Firstly the present B horizon
(2901) is comprised of only a poorly developed aggregate structure while it lacks any obvious illuvial horizon.
Both observations suggest that the soil is relatively immature and certainly too young to have been constantly
developing since the Early Medieval period. Secondly context (2901) contains particles of >2mm size that have
clearly been derived (i.e. moved upwards) from the underlying Fuller's Earth. While worms regularly surface cast
and thereby move particles <1.4mm upwards through a soil profile, they cannot ingest and redistribute coarser
particles. The Fuller's Earth particles therefore are most likely to have been moved by mechanical rather than
biological means. In all probability both the truncation event and the disturbance/re-working of the Fuller's Earth
is a result of ploughing. Such cultivation will have acted to homogenise the A and B horizons and the upper fills of
the graves, while it is also highly likely to have extended downwards to erode the top of the underlying bedrock.
Such a process would also explain why human bone was found in the lateral equivalents of (2901) during the
2000 evaluation. The pedogenic evidence do not enable the dating of the truncation event, but it is notable that
the 1843 Tithe Map apportionment for the area shows the site as being under arable cultivation.
Recommendations
ARCA have retained the single monolith sample taken from Trench 29. However, no laboratory works are
recommended, and it is proposed that this sample will be discarded.
Acknowledgements
ARCA would like to thank Sarah Cobain, Simon Cox and Steve Sheldon for their help prior to and during the field
visit.
16
APPENDIX C: LEVELS OF PRINCIPAL DEPOSITS
Levels are expressed as metres below current ground level and as metres Above Ordnance Datum (AOD).
Current ground level
Top of archaeological
deposits
Top of probable grave
fill
Trench 27
0.00m
(142.68m)
0.52m
(142.16m)
N/A
Trench 28
0.00m
(142.66m)
0.49m
(142.17m)
0.49m
(142.17m)
Trench 29
0.00m
(142.89m)
0.44m
(142.45m)
0.44m
(142.45m)
Upper figures are depth below modern ground level; lower figures in parentheses are metres AOD.
17
APPENDIX D: RADIOCARBON DATING
Scottish Universities Environmental Research
Centre
Director: Professor R M Ellam
Rankine Avenue, Scottish Enterprise Technology Park,
East Kilbride, Glasgow G75 0QF, Scotland, UK
Tel:
+44
(0)1355
223332
Fax:
+44
www.glasgow.ac.uk/suerc
(0)1355
229898
RADIOCARBON DATING CERTIFICATE
30 November 2012
Laboratory Code
SUERC-43201 (GU29075)
Submitter
Sarah Cobain
Cotswold Archaeology
Building 11
Kemble Enterprise Park
Cirencester GL7 6BL
Site Reference
Context Reference
Sample Reference
Peasedown St John
2928
PBA122928
Material
Bone : Human, right tibia, adolescent
13
δ C relative to VPDB
δ15N relative to air
C/N ratio (Molar)
-21.4 ‰
7.9 ‰
3.5
Radiocarbon Age BP
1311 ± 29
N.B.
The above 14C age is quoted in conventional years BP (before 1950 AD). The error, which is expressed
at the one sigma level of confidence, includes components from the counting statistics on the sample,
modern reference standards, background standards and the random machine error.
The calibrated age ranges are determined using the University of Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit
calibration program OxCal 4.1 (Bronk Ramsey 2009). Terrestrial samples are calibrated using the
IntCal09 curve while marine samples are calibrated using the Marine09 curve.
Samples with a SUERC coding are measured at the Scottish Universities Environmental Research
Centre AMS Facility and should be quoted as such in any reports within the scientific literature. Any
questions directed to the Radiocarbon Laboratory should also quote the GU coding given in
parentheses after the SUERC code. The contact details for the laboratory are email
g.cook@suerc.gla.ac.uk or Telephone 01355 270136 direct line.
18
Conventional age and calibration age ranges calculated by :-
Date :-
Checked and signed off by :-
Date :-
The
University
of
Glasgow,
charity
number
SC004401
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body,
registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336
Calibration Plot
19
APPENDIX E: OASIS REPORT FORM
PROJECT DETAILS
Project Name
Plot A, Bath Business Park, Peasedown St John, BaNES
Short description
An archaeological evaluation was undertaken by Cotswold
Archaeology in November 2012 on land known as Plot A, Bath
Business Park, Peasedown St John, BaNES. Three trenches were
excavated.
The evaluation has identified a number of archaeological features
within the proposed development area; these features were shown to
survive at a depth of between 0.44m and 0.52m below the modern
ground surface. A total of 20 probable graves, forming part of a
cemetery identified by an earlier archaeological evaluation, were
identified in the north-eastern half of Trench 28 and the north-western
half of Trench 29. A single leg bone was recovered from one of the
identified graves for the purposes of radiocarbon dating. Two undated
ditches, previously thought to form part of the cemetery boundary were
also identified during the evaluation. However, a grave was shown to
cut the northernmost of these ditches suggesting that they may relate
to a separate phase of activity on the site.
A small number of undated pits were revealed in the central and
eastern parts of the site however, the exact function of these pits and
their relationship to the other archaeological features identified remains
unclear.
6-9 November 2012
Field Evaluation
Project dates
Project type
Previous work
Field Evaluation CAT (Cotswold Archaeological Trust) 2000
DBA CAT (Cotswold Archaeological Trust) 2000
Geophysics, Statascan 2000 and AS (Archaeological Surveys) 2012
Future work
Unknown
PROJECT LOCATION
Site Location
Study area (M2/ha)
Site
co-ordinates
(8
Fig
Reference)
PROJECT CREATORS
Name of organisation
Project Design (WSI) originator
Project Manager
Project Supervisor
MONUMENT TYPE
SIGNIFICANT FINDS
PROJECT ARCHIVES
Physical
Paper
Digital
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Grid
Plot A, Bath Business Park, Peasedown St John, BaNES
0.5ha
ST 71210 57215
Simon Cox
Steven Sheldon
None
Human remains
Intended final location of
archive (museum/Accession
no.)
Roman
Baths
Museum/BATRM 2012.43
Roman
Baths
Content
Human bone
Context sheets, trench recording
forms, section drawings, photographic
registers, skeleton recording sheets
Digital photographs
Roman
Baths
CA (Cotswold Archaeology) 2012 Plot A, Bath Business Park,
Peasedown St John, BaNES: Archaeological Evaluation. CA typescript
report 12350
20
N
Cirencester 01285 771022
Cotswold
Archaeology
Milton Keynes 01908 218320
Andover 01264 326549
w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk
e enquiries@cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk
PROJECT TITLE
Plot A, Bath Business Park, Peasedown
St. John, Bath and North East Somerset
FIGURE TITLE
Site location plan
Bath and
North East
Somerset
0
1km
Reproduced from the 1997 Ordnance Survey Explorer map with
the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of The Controller
of Her Majesty's Stationery Office c Crown copyright
Cotswold Archaeology Ltd 100002109
PROJECT NO. 3904
JB
DRAWN BY
APPROVED BY PJM
DATE
16-11-2012
00
REVISION
SCALE@A4 1:25,000
FIGURE NO.
1
Trench 27, section AA
Trench 28, section BB
topsoil 2700
W
142.5m
AOD
topsoil 2800
WSW
142.5m
AOD
E
ENE SW
NE
ploughsoil 2801
ploughsoil 2701
2818
2703
ditch
2704
pit
2819
0
0
1m
1m
Trench 28, section CC
NE
142.5m
AOD
Skeleton 2928, showing preservation of bone
SW
topsoil 2800
ploughsoil 2801
probable grave
2809
probable grave
2805
probable grave
2810
Trench 29, looking south-west (scales 1m)
probable grave
2813
probable grave
2817
3m
0
Trench 29, section DD
NE
142m
AOD
topsoil 2900
ploughsoil 2901
ditch
2934
monolith 1 sample
location
topsoil 2900
previous evaluation
trench 1
probable grave
2924
probable grave
2925
grave
2927/110
SW
ploughsoil 2901
2918
probable grave
2917
probable grave
2915
probable grave
2911
probable grave
2907
probable grave
2903
ditch
2930
probable grave
2919
3m
0
Trench 29, section EE
Cotswold
Archaeology
Andover 01264 326549
topsoil 2900
grave or probable
ploughsoil 2901
NW
142m
AOD
PROJECT TITLE
SE
Plot A, Bath Business Park, Peasedown
St. John, Bath and North East Somerset
FIGURE TITLE
2933
2935
pit
2932
previous evaluation
trench
2937
pit
2934
Sections and photographs
pit
2936
0
1m
PROJECT NO. 3904
DRAWN BY
JB
APPROVED BY PJM
DATE
16-11-2012
REVISION
00
SCALE@A3 1:20 and 1:50
FIGURE NO.
4
N
Cotswold
Archaeology
Andover 01264 326549
PROJECT TITLE
site
area of current evaluation
Plot A, Bath Buisness park, Peasedown
Bath and North East Somerset
FIGURE TITLE
Extract from 1843 tithe map showing
current site
PROJECT NO. 3904
JB
DRAWN BY
APPROVED BY PJM
DATE
16-11-2012
REVISION
00
SCALE@A4 1:8,000 (approx.)
FIGURE NO.
5

Plot A Bath Business Park Peasedown St John BaNES

Transcription

Similar documents

RESEA R C H UNC O VERED

Jean-Pierre Brun - Department of Modern Foreign Languages

Cabellsville Archaeological Symposium

Saving Endangered Cultural Heritage for Our Common Future Call

Invitation to seminar and workshop

The European archaeological heritage prize 2015: Call for

here - Devon Archaeological Society

Milham Ford School, Harberton Mead, Oxford

prehistory. PrehistoricTunu, we meaningful Carmel Schrire`s