1. science
2. social science
3. history
4. archaeology

Field House Farm
Ladwell, Winchester
Hampshire
Archaeological Evaluation Report
for
ORTA Solar Farms Ltd
CA Project: 770092
CA Report: 14291
WINCM: AY550
June 2014
© Cotswold Archaeology
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Winchester, Hampshire – Archaeological Evaluation Report
Field House Farm
Ladwell, Winchester
Hampshire
Archaeological Evaluation Report
CA Project: 770092
CA Report: 14291
prepared by
date
checked by
date
approved by
Matt Nichol. Project Officer
27/06/14
Damian De Rosa, Project Manager
30/06/14
Richard Greatorex (Principal Fieldwork Manager)
signed
date
30/06/14
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. [email protected]
Andover
Stanley House
Walworth Road
Andover, Hampshire
SP10 5LH
t. 01264 347630
© Cotswold Archaeology
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Winchester, Hampshire – Archaeological Evaluation Report
CONTENTS
SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 5
1.
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 7
The site .............................................................................................................. 7
Archaeological background ................................................................................ 8
Archaeological objectives ................................................................................... 9
Methodology....................................................................................................... 9
2.
RESULTS (FIGS 2 - 28) ..................................................................................... 11
3.
DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................... 25
4
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... 28
5.
CA PROJECT TEAM.......................................................................................... 28
6.
REFERENCES................................................................................................... 29
APPENDIX A: CONTEXT DESCRIPTIONS ................................................................... 31
APPENDIX B: THE FINDS ............................................................................................. 36
APPENDIX C: THE PALAEOENVIRONMENTAL EVIDENCE ....................................... 38
APPENDIX E: OASIS REPORT FORM .......................................................................... 43
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Fig. 1
Site location plan (1:25,000)
Fig. 2
Trench location plan showing archaeological features, geophysical survey results
and services (1:2000)
Fig. 3
Trench location plan showing archaeological features, geophysical survey results
and projected line of possible boundary ditch and enclosure
Fig. 4
Trench 3: plan and photograph
Fig. 5
Trench 3: section and photographs. (Ditch 303)
Fig. 6
Trench 3: Monolith sample from ditch 303
Fig. 7
Trench 4: plan and photograph
Fig. 8
Trench 4: photographs, view south of Wall 1 (403) & 2 (404). Unexcavated ditch 406
& 408 view north. Unexcavated pit 405 view east
Fig. 9
Trench 5: plan and photograph
Fig. 10 Trench 5: section and photographs
3
© Cotswold Archaeology
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Winchester, Hampshire – Archaeological Evaluation Report
Fig. 11 Trench 6: plan, section and photographs
Fig .12 Trench 7: plan and photograph (pre-ex)
Fig. 13 Trench 7: section and photographs, ditch 705
Fig. 14 Trench 7: section and photograph, ditch 707
Fig .15 Trench 8: plan and photograph (pre-ex)
Fig. 16 Trench 8: section and photographs, ditch 805 & 810
Fig. 17 Trench 9: plan and photograph (pre-ex & post-ex)
Fig. 18 Trench 9: section and photographs, ditch 917
Fig. 19 Trench 10: plan and photograph
Fig. 20 General view west across Field 1
Fig. 21 General view east across Field 1
Fig. 22 General view south from Trench 8 towards Field 2
Fig. 23 General views west of CP1
Fig. 24 General views west of CP2
4
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Winchester, Hampshire – Archaeological Evaluation Report
© Cotswold Archaeology
SUMMARY
Project Name:
Field House Farm
Location:
Ladwell, Winchester
NGR:
SU 42770 23412
Type:
Trial Trench Evaluation
Date:
28 May – 06 June 2014
Location of Archive:
Winchester Museum Services
Accession Number:
WINCM: AY550
Site Code:
FFW14
An archaeological evaluation was undertaken by Cotswold Archaeology in May/June 2014
on behalf of ORTA Solar Farms Ltd at Field House Farm, Ladwell, Winchester, Hampshire.
Ten trenches were excavated.
The evaluation revealed correlation between the linear anomalies identified in the
geophysical survey and the archaeological features identified within Trench 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
and 10. Archaeological features were revealed within Trenches 7, 8 and 9 that were not
identified during the geophysical survey. A potential Late Prehistoric or Romano-British
period enclosure, observed on aerial photographs in the location of Trench 1 and 2 was not
identified. A large amorphous anomaly identified during the geophysical survey and visible
on historic mapping within the location of Trench 4 corresponded to the foundations and
destruction debris of a 19th century AD building.
The evaluation identified a prehistoric linear ditch within Trench 3, 6, 7 and 9 within Field 1
and 2. No datable finds were recovered from the primary fills but the morphology of the
linear feature suggests a significant land division possibly pre-dating the Iron Age period. A
possible Iron Age enclosure comprising a substantial V-shaped ditch was also identified
within Trench 6, 7, 8 and 9, which appeared to re-use the earlier land division.
Late Iron Age activity was also identified within Trench 5 and 8. A good assemblage of early
Roman domestic pottery was recovered from Trench 6, 7, 8 and 9 with a concentration of 1st
century AD activity identified within Trench 9. This suggests a continuation of Late Iron
Age/Romano-British activity within a “transitional (conquest) period” at the Site.
5
© Cotswold Archaeology
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Winchester, Hampshire – Archaeological Evaluation Report
An assemblage of Roman ceramic building material consisting of brick, tegula and box-flue
tile fragments was recovered from the upper final fill of the Iron Age ditch within Trench 6, 7,
8 and 9 with a good assemblage of Roman Pottery dating to the 1st century AD being
recovered from Trench 9. The evidence for Roman building material and pottery at the Site
possibly confirms a continuation of activity from the late Iron Age into the Romano-British
period, although this material could also be debitage being deposited into the top of the Iron
Age ditch representing its disuse into the Roman period.
Following a site meeting held with ORTA Solar Farms Ltd, Tracy Matthews the Winchester
City Council Planning Archaeologist acting on behalf of the LPA and Cotswold Archaeology
in regard of the revealed archaeology and planned development, the planned positions of
the inverters for the Solar Farm are located outside of the areas of the archaeological
findings.
6
© Cotswold Archaeology
1.
1.1
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Winchester, Hampshire – Archaeological Evaluation Report
INTRODUCTION
In May/June 2014 Cotswold Archaeology (CA) carried out an archaeological
evaluation on behalf of ORTA Solar Farms Ltd on land at Field House Farm,
Ladwell, Winchester, Hampshire, centred at (NGR) SU 42770 23412 hereafter
referred to as the site (see Figure. 1).
1.2
The evaluation was undertaken to support a planning application for the
development of the Site. The outline planning application is in the process of being
prepared for Winchester City Council (WCC) for the installation of a solar array at
the Site. In order to inform the archaeological potential of the site a desk-based
assessment (DBA) (CA 2013) and geophysical survey (WYAS 2014) of the site were
undertaken. The archaeological works were requested by Tracey Matthews,
archaeological advisor to WCC, and were undertaken in line with a detailed Written
Scheme of Investigation (WSI) produced by CA (2014) and approved by WCC. 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
archaeological evaluation was informed by the geophysical survey (WYAS 2014).
The site
1.3
The proposed development is located within the hamlet of Ladwell, approximately
1.2km to the south of the village of Hursley and approximately 240m to the north of
the northern outskirts of Chandler’s Ford. The Site comprises an irregular parcel of
land of approximately 15.31ha and occupies two large pasture fields (see Figure 1).
1.4
The site is located to the east of the B3043. Its southern boundary is demarcated by
Hocombe Plantation, with farmland and large tree copses, Barn Copse and Ryder’s
Row, to the east. An east to west aligned power line, beyond which further pasture
fields are situated, marks the northern limits of the site. The majority of the
boundaries of the site are demarcated by dense trees or hedges, with the exception
of the northern boundary.
1.5
The Site occupies gentle, generally south and south-east facing slopes of a hill
separating two valleys of small watercourses feeding into the Monks Brook, located
7
© Cotswold Archaeology
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Winchester, Hampshire – Archaeological Evaluation Report
c. 1.4km to the south. The land falls from approximately 80m above Ordnance
Datum in the north to c. 55m above Ordnance Datum in the south-east
1.6
The underlying geology within the proposed development comprises sand and
gravelly sand of the Whitecliff Sand Member, with clay, silt and sand of the Nursling
Sand Member to the east, formed approximately 23 to 66 million years ago in the
Palaeogene Period (BGS online). During the evaluation colluvial deposits were
identified throughout Trench 1 and 2, within the southern half of Trench 5, the
eastern half of Trench 6 and 7, the southern half of Trench 8 and the south-eastern
half of Trench 9, with greater depth of colluvium of between 1m and 1.3m within
Trench 5 and Trench 8. A natural substrate of gravel was identified throughout
Trench 4 and part of Trench 10 (see Figures 2 - 5).
Archaeological background
1.7
A desk-based assessment (DBA) was undertaken (CA 2013), which set out the
archaeological and historical background of the site. A brief summary of this is
presented below:
1.8
No designated assets were recorded within the Site prior to the evaluation. Nondesignated assets consisted of a potential late prehistoric or Roman period
settlement enclosure, identified on aerial photographs. No trace of this enclosure
could be found during the evaluation within Trench 1 and 2 (see Figures 3 & 5). The
remains of a modern reservoir and associated wind pump were also noted. Below
ground remains associated with a barn and field system were observed on the 1839
Tithe map and identified during the evaluation within Trench 4.
1.9
The desk-based assessment (DBA), (CA 2013) indicated Bronze Age activity within
the vicinity of the Site associated with funerary remains. No evidence for this was
identified during the evaluation. A potential for the presence of further Bronze Age
remains within the site, including features associated with possible settlement or
farming was recognised and it is possible a north/south orientated linear boundary
identified during the evaluation may date to this period but was not confirmed.
Additional Iron Age or Romano-British remains, such as features related to
agricultural and possible settlement activity indicated in the (DBA), (CA 2013) were
present within the site and recorded within the wider environs.
8
© Cotswold Archaeology
1.10
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Winchester, Hampshire – Archaeological Evaluation Report
Following the woodland clearance, which commenced in the Hursley parish in the
medieval period, the site is considered to have been in agricultural use. Buried
remains associated with agricultural features of medieval or later date, such as land
drainage and field boundaries were identified during the evaluation within Trench 10
(CA 2013).
Archaeological objectives
1.11
The objectives of the evaluation were to provide information about the
archaeological resource within the site, including its presence/absence, character,
extent, date, integrity, state of preservation and quality. 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 however be sufficient to
enable the archaeological advisor to Winchester City 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
1.12
Ten trenches were machine excavated in May/June 2014, Trenches 1 - 5 in Field 2
and Trenches 6 - 10 in Field 1 (see Figures 2 and 3).
1.13
Within Field 2 (see Figures 2 and 3), Trenches 1, 2, 4 and 5, measured 50m x 1.8m,
Trench 3 measured 20m x 1.8m and was extended several metres north-east/southwest within the central area of the trench in order to safely excavate and fully
investigate a wide ditch found within.
1.14
Within Field 1 (see Figures 2 and 3), Trenches 6 and 8, measured 50m x 1.8m,
Trench 7, 9 and 10 measured 40m x 1.8m. Trench 7 was extended several metres
north and south, Trench 8 was extended several metres east and west and southwest and Trench 9 was extended several metres north-east/south-west within the
central area in order to safely excavate and fully investigate features found within
each trench.
9
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Winchester, Hampshire – Archaeological Evaluation Report
© Cotswold Archaeology
1.15
All excavated trenches were set out on OS National Grid (NGR) co-ordinates using
Leica GPS. The final completed trench survey was recorded using Leica GP in
accordance with CA Technical Manual 4 Survey Manual (2012).
1.16
Due regard for known services was undertaken prior to, during excavation and upon
completion of the work at the Site. All work was undertaken in accordance with Safe
Systems of Work for – Avoiding Overhead Services & Underground Services and
Southern Gas Networks (SGN) regulations. The services consisted of an
intermediate pressure gas main, 11kv overhead cables, 132kv overhead cables and
water pipes (abandoned). Crossing Points were adhered to, however CP1 and CP2
were relocated in line with CP3 and CP4 to allow for direct access under overhead
cables and across the intermediate pressure gas main within Field 1 & 2 (see Figure
2). The work was undertaken in line with a detailed Written Scheme of Investigation
(WSI) produced by CA (2014) and approved by WCC.
1.17
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 (2013).
1.18
Deposits were assessed by Cotswold Archaeology for their palaeo-environmental
potential in accordance with CA Technical Manual 2: The Taking and Processing of
Environmental and Other Samples from Archaeological Sites (2003) and were
sampled and processed. Metal detecting was undertaken of all trenches, Trench 1 –
10, and spoil heaps during the evaluation. All artefacts recovered during the
evaluation were processed in accordance with Technical Manual 3 Treatment of
Finds Immediately after Excavation (1995).
1.19
A monolith sample was taken by Cotswold Archaeology during the evaluation at the
request of Tracey Matthews, archaeological advisor to Winchester City Council
(WCC), and later assessed by ARCA, University of Winchester, Hampshire
(Appendix D).
1.20
The aims of the monolith sample taken during the evaluation were as follows:
10
© Cotswold Archaeology
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Winchester, Hampshire – Archaeological Evaluation Report
• To determine the manner in which stratigraphic units exposed in the monolith
sample;
•
To assess the archaeological and palaeo-environmental potential of the units
encountered in the monolith sample;
1.21
The monolith sample 1102 was delivered to the ARCA laboratory at the University of
Winchester on 4 June 2014 by Jennie Hughes of Cotswold Archaeology. It was
described according to standard geological criteria (Tucker 1982, Jones et al. 1999,
Munsell Color 2000) and then stored pending decisions on analytical works that
might be carried out.
1.22
The archive and artefacts from the evaluation are currently held by CA at their
offices in Andover and Kemble respectively. Subject to the agreement of the legal
landowner all artefacts will be deposited with Winchester Museum Services along
with the site archive. 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 - 26)
2.1
This section provides an overview of the evaluation results; detailed summaries of
the recorded contexts and the finds are contained within Appendices A, B, C & D
respectively.
2.2
Archaeological features were identified during the trial trench evaluation within
Trench 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. No archaeological features or deposits were found
within Trench 1 and 2. Artefact evidence was recovered from Trenches 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 (see Figure 3 - 5).
Trench 1 (Figs 2 and 3)
2.3
Trench 1 was targeted on a potential late prehistoric or Roman period enclosure,
identified on aerial photographs within the central area of the trench but was not
identified during the evaluation. No archaeological features or deposits were found.
Worked and burnt flint, post-medieval ceramic building material fragments of brick
and tile and modern glass were recovered from topsoil 100.
11
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Winchester, Hampshire – Archaeological Evaluation Report
© Cotswold Archaeology
Trench 2 (Figs 2 - 5)
2.4
Trench 2 was targeted on a potential late prehistoric or Roman period enclosure,
identified on aerial photographs within the north and south of the trench but was not
identified during the evaluation. No archaeological features or deposits were found.
Burnt flint, a clay tobacco pipe stem and post-medieval ceramic building material
fragments of brick, tile and a finial were recovered from topsoil 200.
Trench 3 (Figs 2 and 3 & 4 - 6)
2.5
Ditch 303 corresponded to a north-east/south-west orientated geophysical anomaly
and was linear in plan with a U-shaped profile, gradually sloping sides and a flat
base. The feature contained a primary fill 310, a secondary fill 309 and tertiary fills
308, 307, 304, 305 and a final upper fill 306 respectively. The characteristic of the
fills within Ditch 303, showed a composition of almost natural infilling suggesting a
potential Neolithic or Bronze Age date for the feature similar to Ditch 917 in Trench
9. For this reason a monolith sample, 1102, was taken which identified cultural
material of flint flakes, possibly debitage, and fragments of charcoal from ditch fills
309, 308, 305 and 306 (see Figure 8 & Appendix D). Burnt flint was recovered from
fill 306 and worked flint and a post-medieval ceramic building material tile fragment
were recovered from topsoil 300.
2.6
A soil sample was taken from fill 309 from Ditch 303. Charcoal was moderately
abundant and was identified as well-preserved alder/hazel (Alnus glutinosa/Corylus
avellana)
fragments.
The
absence
of
any
dating
evidence
or
other
ecofactual/artefactual material means no further interpretative information can be
gained from this sample other than suggesting the use of alder/hazel wood as fuel.
Trench 4 (Figs 2 and 3 & 7& 8)
2.7
Trench 4 was targeted on a large amorphous geophysical anomaly identified within
the central area of the trench. Archaeological features found within the trench
corresponded to the location of a building visible on 19th century historic mapping
(CA 2013).
2.8
Wall 1 (403), was orientated east/west and located to the north of the trench. Wall 2
(404), was also orientated east/west and located 6m south of Wall 1, comprising
12
© Cotswold Archaeology
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Winchester, Hampshire – Archaeological Evaluation Report
several elements; two walls on a same alignment as Wall 1 and a concrete hard
standing within. The location of Wall 2 (404) corresponded with the location of the
19th century building footprint. Deposit 411, consisting of re-deposited natural gravel
with brick, tile and charcoal fragments, was located between Wall 1 and 2. The
composition of this deposit is typical of a destruction phase and, or levelling deposit,
perhaps for an external yard surface rather than an interior floor matrix.
2.9
Located directly south of Wall 2, a compact unexcavated deposit 412, consisting of
re-deposited natural gravel and clay was identified. The composition of this deposit
suggested a metalled surface possibly for an east/west orientated trackway. To the
south of the trench, two parallel east/west orientated ditches were identified, Ditch
406 and 408. These corresponded to an east/west orientated field boundary visible
on historic mapping. A small charcoal rich pit, Pit 405, was located between deposit
412 and Ditch 406. Post-medieval brick fragments were found but not retained from
the pit and the two parallel ditches and these features were not excavated. It was
determined during the evaluation that the large amorphous geophysical anomaly
(see Figure 5) corresponded to destruction debris after the demise of the building
shown by the presence of post-medieval brick, tile and slate fragments recovered
from topsoil 400.
Trench 5 (Figs 2 & 3 & 9 -10)
2.10
Ditch 515 was located to the north of Trench 5 and corresponded to a northeast/south-west orientated geophysical anomaly. This feature was linear in plan with
a U-shaped profile, gradually sloping sides and contained a primary fill 516, a
secondary fill 518, and tertiary fills 519 and 520 respectively. Burnt flint was
recovered from fill 518 and late prehistoric pottery of flint-tempered fabric and fine,
quartz sand-and-flint tempered fabric of possible Iron Age date and worked and
burnt flint were recovered from fill 520.
2.11
Ditch 505 was located to the north of Trench 5 and was not identified during the
geophysical survey. This feature was linear in plan with a U-shaped profile,
gradually sloping sides and contained a single fill 506. A burnt flint fragment,
possibly residual and an iron nail of possible post-medieval date were recovered
from fill 506. Ditch 505 is considered to be a post-medieval land drain.
13
© Cotswold Archaeology
2.12
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Winchester, Hampshire – Archaeological Evaluation Report
Three tree-throws were also identified to the north of Trench 5. These natural
features appear to correspond with anomalies identified during the geophysical
survey within the general vicinity of the trench (see Figure 5). However, anomalies
identified within the central area of the trench were not identified during the
geophysical survey. Two layers of colluvium were identified to the south of the
trench which corresponded to the south-facing sloping terrain. The depth of the
trench in this location measured up to 1.03m below ground level (BGL).
.
Trench 6 (Figs 2 & 3 & 11)
2.13
Ditch 605 was located in the west of Trench 6 and corresponded to a north/south
orientated geophysical anomaly. This feature was linear in plan and contained an
unexcavated upper fill 606. An assemblage of late prehistoric potsherds consisting
of flint-tempered fabric and Roman potsherds of greyware and black-fired, sandtempered fabric and a box flue tile fragment were recovered from ditch fill 606.
2.14
An east/west orientated sub-oval Pit 607 was located west of Ditch 605 within
Trench 6. This feature comprised a U-shaped profile, gradually sloping sides and a
flat base and contained a single fill 608. A single iron nail and worked flint were
recovered from fill 608. Fill 608 was re-cut by Pit 610 which comprised a similar
profile and also contained a single fill 611 from which an iron nail was recovered.
2.15
Two layers of colluvium were identified to the east of Trench 6 which corresponded
to the east-facing sloping terrain. The depth of the trench in this location measured
up to 0.98m BGL. Ditch 605 cut colluvial layer 609, but was also covered by a
secondary colluvial deposit 602, from the east. A late prehistoric potsherd consisting
of quartz sand-and-flint tempered fabric was recovered from colluvium 609. A single
Roman potsherd of greyware and two iron nails were recovered from topsoil 600.
Trench 7 (Figs 2 & 3 & 12 - 14)
2.16
Ditch 705 was located to the west of Trench 7 and corresponded to a north/south
orientated geophysical anomaly. This feature was linear in plan and comprised a Ushaped profile, gradually sloping sides and a flat base and contained a primary fill
718, a secondary fill 717, and tertiary fills 716, 715, 714, 713, 712, 711, 706 and an
upper colluvial deposit 702 respectively.
14
© Cotswold Archaeology
2.17
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Winchester, Hampshire – Archaeological Evaluation Report
A large assemblage of datable material was recovered from Ditch 705 within
Trench 7. Late prehistoric/early Roman potsherds consisting of quartz sand-and-flint
tempered fabric and quartz sand-tempered fabric were recovered from ditch fill 713.
Late prehistoric pottery consisting of flint-tempered fabric and Roman pottery
consisting of greyware, grog-tempered fabric and black-fired, sand-tempered fabric
and a large assemblage of Roman ceramic building material consisting of tegula,
box flue tile as well as fired clay and worked and burnt flint were also recovered from
an upper tertiary ditch fill 706. A Roman ceramic building material brick fragment
was recovered from the final upper fill 702.
2.18
A soil sample was taken from fill 716 from Ditch 705 which identified moderately
abundant well preserved charcoal consisting of maple (Acer campestre),
alder/hazel, oak, ash (Fraxinus excelsior) and hawthorn/rowan/crab apple
(Crataegus monogyna/Sorbus/Malus sylvestris) fragments indicating possible waste
material from a domestic hearth.
2.19
Ditch 707 was located close to and parallel with the west side of Ditch 705. The
ditch was not identified during the geophysical survey. This feature was linear in
plan and comprised a U-shaped profile with gradually sloping sides and contained a
primary fill 710, a secondary fill 708, and a final upper fill 709. A small assemblage
of worked and burnt flint and Roman potsherds, consisting of coarse greyware and
fine whiteware were recovered from fill 708.
2.20
A post-medieval ceramic building material tile fragment, a clay tobacco pipe stem, a
Roman copper alloy brooch recovered during metal detecting, and an iron nail
fragment were recovered from topsoil 700.
Trench 8 (Figs 2 & 3, 15 – 16 & 22)
2.21
Ditch 810 was located centrally within Trench 8 and corresponded to a northwest/south-east orientated geophysical anomaly. This feature was linear in plan and
comprised a V-shaped profile with gradually sloping sides and contained a primary
fill 811, a secondary fill 812, and tertiary fills 813, 814, 815, 816, 817, 818, 819, 820,
821 and a final upper fill 822 respectively. Two potsherds of late prehistoric pottery
consisting of quartz sand-and-flint tempered fabric were recovered from upper
tertiary fill 820. Burnt flint and a large assemblage of Roman potsherds consisting of
a North Gaulish mortarium and greyware, coarse, grog-tempered fabric, black-fired
15
© Cotswold Archaeology
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Winchester, Hampshire – Archaeological Evaluation Report
and sand-tempered fabric, Roman ceramic building material consisting of tegula,
box flue, tile and brick fragments and an iron nail were recovered from upper fill 822.
2.22
Two soil samples were recovered from tertiary fills 813 and 820 within Ditch 810. Fill
813 contained a small assemblage of moderately well-preserved oak (Quercus)
charcoal. Oak has a high calorific value so burns efficiently and at high
temperatures. Its sole presence within a context is often associated with activities
that require high temperatures such as metal working or cremating human remains.
The absence of metal working residues or cremated remains means that it is
unlikely these activities were taking place and the charcoal may simply represent a
single oak branch that had been burnt.
2.23
Ditch 805 was located to the south of Trench 8 and was parallel with Ditch 810.
The ditch was not identified during the geophysical survey. This feature was linear in
plan and comprised a V-shaped profile with gradually sloping sides and contained a
primary fill 806 and a single upper fill 807. It is likely to be contemporary with Ditch
823. Burnt flint was recovered from fill 806 and fired clay and burnt flint were
recovered from fill 807.
2.24
Ditch 823 was located centrally within Trench 8 and perpendicular to Ditch 810 on
the south side. The ditch was not identified during the geophysical survey. This
feature was linear in plan and contained an upper unexcavated fill 824. The physical
relationship between Ditch 823 and 810 was not established and no artefactual
evidence was recovered from this feature. It is likely to be contemporary with Ditch
805 which cuts a late prehistoric colluvial deposit 803.
2.25
A small sub-oval pit was located to the south between Ditch 810 and Ditch 805 and
contained an unexcavated fill 809. The pit was not identified during the geophysical
survey and no artefactual evidence was identified.
2.26
Two layers of colluvium were identified to the south of Trench 8 which corresponded
to the south-facing sloping terrain. The depth of the trench in this location measured
up to 1.3m BGL. Ditch 805 cut the earliest colluvial deposit 803 located directly
south. Ditch 805 and Pit 809 were covered by a later colluvial deposit 802. Worked
and burnt flint and late prehistoric potsherds consisting of fine and flint-tempered
fabric and fired clay were recovered from colluvial deposit 803.
16
© Cotswold Archaeology
2.27
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Winchester, Hampshire – Archaeological Evaluation Report
Worked and burnt flint, a Bronze Age copper alloy spearhead recovered during
metal detecting, and Roman potsherds consisting of greyware, grog-tempered fabric
and fine oxidised fabric along with Post-medieval ceramic building material tile and
brick fragments, and iron nails were recovered from topsoil 800.
Trench 9 (Figs 2 & 3, 17 - 18)
2.28
Trench 9 contained three phases of activity located centrally within the trench,
Phases 1, 2 and 3.
Prehistoric - Phase 1
2.29
The earliest phase of activity within Trench 9 consisted of a north-east/south-west
orientated anomaly, Ditch 917. This feature was linear in plan and comprised a Ushaped profile with gradually sloping sides and a flat base and contained a primary
fill 919 and an upper fill 918. The characteristic of the fills within Ditch 917, showed
a composition of almost natural quality suggesting a potential Neolithic or Bronze
Age date for the feature similar to Ditch 303 in Trench 3. It is possible that Ditch
917 and Ditch 303 are contemporary. A single worked flint was recovered from fill
918. Ditch 915 was located to the north of Ditch 917 and positioned perpendicular
to the alignment of Ditch 917. Ditch 915 was orientated north-west/south-east and
an upper fill 916 was unexcavated. No artefactual evidence was identified from fill
916 but the composition of the ditch fills and width of Ditch 915 and 917 was
remarkably similar.
Iron Age/Romano-British - Phase 2
2.30
The second phase of activity was identified within Trench 9, which consisted of an
east/west orientated anomaly, Ditch 911. This feature was curvilinear in plan and
comprised an unexcavated final upper fill 912. 1st to possibly 2nd century AD
Roman potsherds consisting of amphora, coarse greyware and Roman ceramic
building material consisting of tegula and brick fragments were recovered from fill
912. Ditch 911 and Ditch 909 are likely to be contemporary based on the similarity
of the charcoal rich composition of their upper unexcavated fills, 910 and 912. No
artefactual evidence was recovered from Ditch 909 which was identified to be on
the same alignment with Ditch 917 and may suggest a re-cutting of Ditch 917 and
re-use of a former boundary. Ditch 909 and 911 are most likely to be the same as
defended enclosure Ditch 810 which can be dated to the Iron Age period.
17
© Cotswold Archaeology
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Winchester, Hampshire – Archaeological Evaluation Report
Romano-British - Phase 3
2.31
A third phase of activity was identified within Trench 9, which consisted of a
north/south orientated anomaly, Ditch 904. This feature was linear in plan with
gradually sloping sides and a V-shaped profile, and comprised a primary fill 906 and
an upper fill 905. Fragments of Roman ceramic building material consisting of brick
were recovered from fill 905. Ditch 913 contained an unexcavated fill 914 and
extended north-west from Ditch 904. The physical relationship between Ditch 904
and 913 was not established. Mid to late 1st century AD Roman potsherds
consisting of grog-and-flint tempered fabric were recovered in fill 914 from Ditch
913. This ditch was heavily truncated during machining and it is likely that this
deposit was a primary fill. Ditch 907 contained an unexcavated fill 908 and extended
south-east from Ditch 904. The physical relationship between Ditch 904 and 907
was not established and no artefactual evidence was recovered from fill 908.
2.32
Burnt and worked flint, late medieval/post-medieval ceramic building material
consisting of peg tile, flat roof tile fragments and post-medieval potsherds of refined
whiteware were recovered from topsoil 900.
Trench 10 (Fig 2 & 3 & 19)
2.33
Ditch 1002 was located centrally within Trench 10 and corresponded to a northwest/south-east orientated geophysical anomaly. This feature was linear in plan and
was not excavated. The feature contained an upper fill 1003. Several fragments of
burnt flint and a single potsherd of Roman pottery consisting of grog-tempered fabric
were recovered from fill 1003.
2.34
A series of plough scars and a land drain of possible post-medieval/modern date
were located within Trench 10.
2.35
Worked and burnt flint, iron nails, a single fragment of Roman ceramic building
material and fragments of post-medieval ceramic building material tile were
recovered from topsoil 1000.
18
© Cotswold Archaeology
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Winchester, Hampshire – Archaeological Evaluation Report
The finds and palaeoenvironmental evidence
Finds
2.36
Finds recovered from the evaluation included pottery, ceramic building material,
glass, clay tobacco pipe, metal objects and worked flint.
Pottery: Late Prehistoric
2.37
A total of 21 unfeatured bodysherds of pottery, recovered from seven deposits
(Table 1), was identified as broadly late prehistoric (the period spanning the Late
Bronze Age and Iron Age) in date. The fabrics represented were flint-tempered and
quartz sand-and-flint tempered. Of these, nine from ditch fill 520 and colluvium 803
were considered likely to date to the Iron Age on the basis of inclusion coarseness.
Iron Age/Early Roman transition
2.38
Ditch fill 713 produced three unfeatured bodysherds of pottery in quartz sandtempered and quartz sand-and-flint tempered fabrics in ‘transitional’ (Late Iron Age
to Early Roman) types, which span the early to middle 1st century AD.
Roman
2.39
A rimsherd from a North Gaul mortarium, manufactured from the mid to late 1st
century AD (Rigby 1982, 159), was recorded in ditch fill 822.
2.40
Ditch fill 912 produced a single bodysherd from an amphora of uncertain
classification. This is likely to date to the 1st to 3rd centuries.
2.41
A total of 20 sherds of greyware was recorded in seven deposits. Identifiable forms
included: neckless, everted rim jars from ditch fills 706 and 822; a reeded-rim bowl
or dish from fill 822; and a necked, lid-seated jar from ditch fill 912. The latter form
probably dates to the late 1st to 2nd centuries AD and the reeded-rim vessel to the
late 1st to 3rd centuries AD.
2.42
A total of 19 sherds of pottery in a grog-tempered fabric, which typically dates to the
1st century AD, were recovered from four deposits.
2.43
Pottery broadly dateable to the Romano-British period includes: six unfeatured
bodysherds in a black-firing, sand-tempered fabric recovered from three deposits; 11
19
© Cotswold Archaeology
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Winchester, Hampshire – Archaeological Evaluation Report
unfeatured bodysherds in a fine, whiteware fabric from ditch fill 708; and an
unfeatured bodysherd in a fine, oxidised fabric from subsoil 800.
2.44
Ditch fill 914 produced three sherds of pottery in a grog-and-flint tempered fabric,
including a rimsherd from a neckless jar with everted rim. This pottery type is mid to
late 1st century AD in date.
Post-medieval
2.45
A single bodysherd of refined whiteware, dating to the late 18th to 19th centuries,
was recorded in topsoil 900.
Ceramic building material
2.46
A total of 54 fragments of Roman ceramic building material was recorded in seven
deposits. Identifiable fragments included: brick from subsoil 702, and ditch fills 822,
905 and 912; box flue tile from ditch fills 606, 706 and 822; and tegulae and other
tile, both from fills 706 and 822.
2.47
Fragments of ceramic building material of late medieval or post-medieval date,
totalling 46 fragments, were recovered from eight deposits. These included: brick
from topsoil 100, 200, 400 and 800; peg tile from topsoil 900; flat roof tile from
topsoil 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 700, 800, 900 and 1000; and a fragment of roof
furniture (a finial or louvre fragment) from topsoil 200.
Glass
2.48
Subsoil 100 produced a single fragment of blue-coloured, modern vessel glass.
Clay tobacco pipe
2.49
Single fragments of clay tobacco pipe stem were recovered from subsoil 200 and
700. These were in use from the late 16th to late 19th centuries.
Metal objects
2.50
Topsoil 700 produced a fragment from a copper-alloy bow brooch, of uncertain type,
but for which a late 1st to 2nd century AD date is probable. Only the bow portion
remained and it could not be determined whether the mechanism was sprung or
hinged.
20
© Cotswold Archaeology
2.51
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Winchester, Hampshire – Archaeological Evaluation Report
A fragmentary, pegged, leaf-shaped copper-alloy spearhead, missing a large portion
of the blade, was recovered from topsoil deposit 800. A portion of the wooden shaft
has been preserved within the socket. The presence of the wooden shaft and the
good surface condition of the spearhead suggest that it may have been recently
disturbed from a sealed deposit. Pegged spearheads were manufactured during the
Late Bronze Age and a similar (but complete) find from Brockenhurst, Hampshire
has been dated to 1150-800 BC
(http://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/604655).
2.52
A total of 22 iron objects was recorded in nine deposits. The majority were nails, but
also included were a disc from topsoil 800 and several unclassifiable fragments.
Worked flint
2.53
A total of 29 worked flint items was recovered from 13 deposits, in addition to a total
of 56 pieces of burnt, unworked flint, which weighed a total of 2.229kg, from 18
deposits.
2.54
The worked flints comprised 22 flakes and 7 cores/core fragments. There were no
retouched tools, although several flakes displayed evidence of utilisation. Almost all
were residual items, recovered from topsoil or from deposits containing Iron Age or
Roman dated material. All of the cores featured multiple working platforms and had
been used to produce flakes. The unsystematic working of these cores, along with
the chunky proportions of many of the flakes, suggests that a Bronze Age date is
most likely for the bulk of the worked flints recovered.
`
Palaeoenvironmental evidence
2.55
Four environmental samples (65 litres of soil) were retrieved from four deposits with
the intention of recovering evidence of industrial or domestic activity and material for
radiocarbon dating. The samples were processed by standard flotation procedures
(CA Technical Manual No. 2).
Late Prehistoric
2.56
Two samples were recovered from tertiary fills 813 (sample 1105) and 820 (sample
1106) within Ditch 810. Fill 820 contained no plant macrofossil or charcoal material.
Fill 813 did not contain any plant remains, however did contain a small assemblage
of moderately well-preserved oak (Quercus) charcoal. Oak has a high calorific value
21
© Cotswold Archaeology
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Winchester, Hampshire – Archaeological Evaluation Report
so burns efficiently and at high temperatures. Its sole presence within a context is
often associated with activities that require high temperatures such as metal working
or cremating human remains. The absence of metal working residues or cremated
remains means that it is unlikely these activities were taking place and the charcoal
may simply represent a single oak branch that had been burnt.
Undated
2.57
Secondary fill 309 was recovered from undated Ditch 303 (potential Neolithic or
Bronze Age). No plant macrofossil material was recovered however the charcoal
was moderately abundant and was identified as well-preserved alder/hazel (Alnus
glutinosa/Corylus avellana) fragments. The absence of any dating evidence or other
ecofactual/artefactual material means no further interpretative information can be
gained from this sample other than the use of alder/hazel wood as fuel.
2.58
Tertiary fill 716 within Ditch 705 contained no plant macrofossil material. Charcoal
was however moderately abundant and well preserved consisting of maple (Acer
campestre), alder/hazel, oak, ash (Fraxinus excelsior) and hawthorn/rowan/crab
apple (Crataegus monogyna/Sorbus/Malus sylvestris) fragments. Where a mixture
of species are identified, this often relates to waste from a domestic hearth although
the absence of any ecofactual or artefactual material means this assertion cannot be
confirmed.
2,59
Upper fill 807 of undated Ditch 805 contained no plant macrofossil or charcoal
material.
2.60
Any of the identifiable charcoal (except oak) would be suitable for radiocarbon
dating.
The geoarchaeological assessment of the monolith sample
2.61
A single monolith sample measuring 0.90 x 0.06 x 0.06m was taken from the base of
a 4m wide by 2m deep ditch, Ditch 303, from Trench 3 which possibly dates to the
Late Neolithic period. The geoarchaeological work outlined here was commissioned
by Cotswold Archaeology at the request of Tracey Matthews, archaeological advisor
to Winchester City Council and undertaken and written by ARCA, University of
Winchester, Hampshire (Appendix D).
22
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Winchester, Hampshire – Archaeological Evaluation Report
© Cotswold Archaeology
Geology
2.62
The British Geological Survey (BGS) maps the site as lying on the junction between
the Nursling Sand Member and the Whitecliff Sand Member of the London Clay
Formation which dates to the Ypresian Age of the Palaeogene 49.5-54.8 million
years ago. The London Clay comprises poorly laminated, blue-grey or grey-brown,
silty clay with some sand. Thin beds of carbonate concretions, pyrite, shell and sand
can occur and occasionally gravel beds of black rounded flint. Neither the lithology
of the Nursling Sand Member nor the Whitecliff Sand Member are described by the
BGS, but as their names indicate they will be mappable sandy facies of the London
Clay Formation (BGS, 2014).
Monolith Stratigraphy
2.63
Figure 8 reports the stratigraphy recorded in the monolith sample:
The relationship of the depths of the monolith sample to context numbers is as
follows:
2.64
Depth (m)
Context
0.00-0.23
(306)
4th fill
(Uppermost)
0.23-0.42
(305)
3rd fill
(Tertiary)
0.42-0.52
(308)
2nd fill
(Secondary)
0.52-0.60
(309)
1st fill
(Primary)
0.60-0.90
(302)
Natural
Bedrock
The basal Unit 3, 302 of the monolith sample is composed of alternating beds of
yellowish brown to grey, fine to medium sand. The interbedding is only
distinguishable on the basis of colour and not particle size, and the unit is a well
sorted homogenous sand stratum. The yellowish brown colour is the result of iron
oxide staining and is probably post depositional in origin although the bedrock
source of the sand (the local Nursling and Whitecliff Sand Members) is rich in iron
oxide. There is no evidence of human input into the unlithified sediment. Unit 1, 302
would appear to be the solid geology and the Ditch 303 is recorded as “overcut”
(see Figure 8, Appendix D).
2.65
A diffuse boundary separates Unit 3 from Unit 2 (308 and 309). The unlithified
nature of the bedrock means that it may mix with the lowest ditch fill under in the
presence of water or through bioturbation and the overlying Unit 2 is distinguished
by a change in colour to 2.5 YR 4/3 Olive brown that denotes a small silt/clay
23
© Cotswold Archaeology
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Winchester, Hampshire – Archaeological Evaluation Report
component to the sand. Angular flint flakes - possibly debitage - and rare coarse
sand-sized fragments of charcoal are present in the deposit both of which are
indicative of human action that suggest an encroachment towards the source of the
sand and/or the banks of the ditch which are, in fact, one and the same (see Figure
8, Appendix D).
2.66
The uppermost unit in the monolith sample, Unit 1, 306 and part of 305 is also a well
sorted fine to medium sand, light greyish brown in colour, and shows evidence of
bioturbation by plant roots. Cultural material (flint and charcoal) continues to be
present in low frequency. There is only occasional iron oxide staining in this unit
(although it reappears in topmost 0.05m as possibly an incursive sand lens derived
from the bank) and Unit 2. The reason for this is not clear although post depositional
iron oxide mottling is unlikely to occur because standing water/a fluctuating water
table are unlikely due to the porous nature of the deposits and the bedrock. One
would expect iron oxide stained sands to colour the Unit yellowish brown though.
There must be subtleties in the hydrology and chemistry of the ditch-the mechanics
of transport and deposition and redox reactions – that result in less iron oxide
retained/redeposited in the deposit than is present in the bedrock source (see Figure
8, Appendix D).
2.67
The ditch deposit is a well sorted fine to medium sand which shows a cultural input
at 0.59m and above (Units 1 and 2). There is no evidence of a prolonged period of
stabilization within the deposits which suggests they accumulated fairly rapidly. The
ditch would not have held standing water due to the porous nature of the underlying
Nursling and Whitecliff Sand Members. This implies that hydrology was not a factor
in its construction. Under ordinary circumstances, the sorting and homogeneity of
the sand would imply a continuous deposition under a relatively high energy fluvial
regime. In this case though, the source of the sand is the banks and environs and it
need not have travelled far. The sorting of the sand, too, may well reflect a
lithological characteristic of the Nursling and Whitecliff Sand Members rather than a
product of fluvial transport during the Holocene. Nor does it seem necessary to
invoke the need for a significant body of moving water to entrain the sand particles,
sheet wash from storms would be sufficient. The finest sand fraction may also
contain an aeolian component (see Figure 8, Appendix D).
2.68
The coarse grained nature of the ditch deposits - it is sand-sized rather than claysized- precludes the presence of microscopic plant remains (pollen) even though the
24
© Cotswold Archaeology
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Winchester, Hampshire – Archaeological Evaluation Report
sediments are siliceous and compatible with their preservation. Bioturbation in the
upper fraction and the porosity of the sediments auger against the presence of
waterlogged macroscopic plant remains, none of which were identified to be present
in any case. Charcoal is the only ecofact recorded and then in only a very small
amount. There is evidence of human activity in the form of granular to fine pebblesized flint fragments. These are very angular and are too large to have been
transported with the sediments which implies that their source is the immediate
locality of the ditch, however, they occur only infrequently (see Figure 8, Appendix
D).
2.69
For the reasons given above the palaeoenvironmental potential of the sediments
sampled from the ditch (Units 1 and 2) is low and the archaeological potential is
considered moderate to low. Unit 1 which is the bedrock 302 into which the ditch is
cut is of Palaeogene age and has no palaeoenvironmental nor archaeological
potential (see Figure 8, Appendix D).
3.
DISCUSSION
3.1
The trial trench evaluation has revealed correlation between the linear anomalies
identified in the geophysical survey and the archaeological features identified within
Trench 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 (see Figure 5). Further archaeological features were
revealed during the evaluation within Trench 7, 8 and 9 that were not identified
during the geophysical survey. The depth of colluvial deposits found in these
locations measured up to 1.3m in depth. A potential Late Prehistoric or RomanoBritish enclosure, observed on aerial photographs in the location of Trench 1 and 2
was not identified. A large amorphous anomaly identified during the geophysical
survey and visible on historic mapping within the location of Trench 4 corresponded
to the foundations and destruction debris of a 19th century AD building.
3.2
Excavation of the north/south orientated anomaly identified during the geophysical
survey within Trench 3 and 7 established a ditch to comprise similar U-shaped
profiles, with gradually sloping sides and a flat base, with a width of between 3.1m
and 3.5m metres wide and a depth of between 0.95m and 1.3m. Extension
southwards of Trench 9 by machine identified a ditch on a similar north-south
alignment to the ditch identified within Trench 3 and 7. Further evidence for this
ditch alignment was identified within Trench 6. Although Ditch 605 was not
25
© Cotswold Archaeology
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Winchester, Hampshire – Archaeological Evaluation Report
excavated it comprised a width of 3.6m. Excavation of Ditch 917 revealed a similar
U-shaped ditch profile and it is likely that Ditch 303, 605, 705 and 917 may be
contemporary, defining a linear ditch system of prehistoric date.
3.3
No datable evidence was identified from the primary fills from the linear ditch
excavated within Trench 3, 7 and 9 although a Neolithic or Bronze Age date is a
possibility. The primary ditch fills showed a composition of almost natural ‘ancient’
quality suggesting a potential Neolithic or Bronze Age date. It is worth noting that a
Late Bronze Age spearhead was recovered from the topsoil within Trench 8 further
west during metal detector survey. However the upper tertiary fills of Ditch 605 and
705 can be dated to the late prehistoric and 1st century AD respectively. A soil
sample was taken from Ditch 303 and charcoal fragments identified may have been
used as a fuel to suggest activity close to Trench 3. A monolith sample also taken
from Ditch 303 identified cultural material of flint flakes, possibly debitage, and
fragments of charcoal from ditch fills 309, 308, 305 and 306.
3.4
The morphology of the linear feature (see paragraph 3.3), its setting within the
landscape, following the crest of an east facing slope is similar to Neolithic linear
earthworks dated to 3600BC at Hambleton Hills, North Yorkshire (English Heritage,
2011a). Ditch 915 located within Trench 9 is orientated east/west and it is likely that
this feature is contemporary with the north/south orientated linear boundary Ditch
917, their fills consisting of a similar colour and composition. Ditch 915 may define
an earlier boundary or enclosure (Bradley et al, 1994), (see Figure 4). Evidence for a
continuation of this ditch further north-west was not identified but the discovery of
the Pegged spearhead (1150-800BC) within topsoil 800, Trench 8 is intriguing.
3.5
Between Trench 3 and 9 the ground drops gradually eastwards into an area of
woodland located to the east of the Site between Field 1 and 2. Substantial colluvial
deposits were identified within Trench 5, 6, 7 and 9 and these appear to continue
eastwards towards a spring located at the west end of the wooded copse known as
‘Ryder’s Row’. It is likely that the colluvial deposits have masked the line of the linear
ditch between Trench 3 and 9.
3.6
The
north-west/south-east
orientated
linear
anomaly
identified
during
the
geophysical survey within Trench 8 was confirmed as a substantial ditch during the
evaluation. Excavation revealed Ditch 810 to comprise a well-defined V-ditch profile
measuring 3.8m wide and 1.7m in depth with evidence for possible bank erosion
26
© Cotswold Archaeology
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Winchester, Hampshire – Archaeological Evaluation Report
from the north. No datable material was identified within the primary fills and can
only be dated to the Late Prehistoric period, with evidence for Late Iron Age pottery
within the tertiary fills and 1st century AD Romano-British material accumulating
within the upper ditch fill during the ditches final infilling. Evidence was also identified
for a continuation of Ditch 810 south-east within Trench 9. This was shown by the
location of Ditch 911 and Ditch 909. However their physical relationship was only
identified in plan. Although these ditches were truncated by a later feature they
appear to follow, truncate and incorporate the earlier linear boundary ditch system
identified within Trench 9.
3.7
The morphology of the ditch located within Trenches 8 and 9, the location within its
landscape setting, enclosing an area of high ground to the north within Field 1, and
the possible re-use of an earlier linear boundary is considered to be suggestive of a
late prehistoric defended enclosure typical throughout the British Isles (Cunliffe,
2005), (see Figure 4). Ditch 1002 identified within Trench 10 was not excavated but
measured 3.2m wide and may be associated with the possible defended enclosure
adding an internal element. A single 1st century AD potsherd was recovered from
the upper fill. Very little evidence for internal features was identified within the
projected area of the enclosure, such as hearths, pits or post-holes, except for a
narrow linear ditch located west of Ditch 705, which is dated to the 1st century AD,
and an undated Pit 607 located west of Ditch 605. This lack of evidence is probably
due to extensive agricultural activity upon the high ground during the historic period,
shown by the presence of plough scars and a land drain identified within Trench 10.
Equally it could be that these features do not exist and the possible enclosure
indicated by the ditches and their possible interpretation and function remains open
to question.
3.8
Artefacts associated with activity dating to the Late Iron Age and 1st to 2nd centuries
AD were recovered from the upper fills of Ditch 605, 705, 822, 911 and 1002. This
included a good assemblage of Roman ceramic building material consisting of brick,
tegula and box-flue tile fragments and a copper-alloy bow brooch, of uncertain type
recovered from topsoil 700, but for which a later 1st to 2nd century AD date is
probable. Two soil samples were recovered from Ditch 810 which contained a small
assemblage well-preserved oak charcoal. A soil sample was also taken from Ditch
705 which identified charcoal indicating possible waste material from a hearth.
27
© Cotswold Archaeology
3.9
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Winchester, Hampshire – Archaeological Evaluation Report
Further Iron Age activity can be found within Trench 5, 7 and 8. Ditch 515
corresponded to a north-east/south-west orientated geophysical anomaly. Ditch 805
appears to run parallel with Ditch 810. Ditch 823 was located centrally within
Trench 8 and perpendicular to Ditch 810 on the south side. An undated small suboval pit was located between Ditch 810 and Ditch 805. No datable artefactual
evidence was recovered from these features. Ditch 805 and 823 are likely to be
contemporary with each other, forming an enclosure with perhaps an internal
element. Ditch 805 post-dates a Late Iron Age colluvial deposit 803 and may fit
within a Late Iron Age/Romano-British “transitional period”.
4
CONCLUSION
4.1
The evaluation identified a prehistoric linear ditch within Trench 3, 6, 7 and 9 within
Field 1 and 2. No datable finds were recovered from the primary fills but the
morphology of the linear feature suggests a significant land division possibly predating the Iron Age period (English Heritage, 2011a). A possible Iron Age enclosure
comprising a substantial V-ditch was also identified within Trench 6, 7, 8 and 9,
which appears to re-use the earlier land division possibly for defensive purposes. A
linear feature was identified within the identified line of the ditches within Trench 10
but its function and relationship to the other ditches remains unclear.
4.2
Late Iron Age activity was also identified within Trench 5 and 8. A large assemblage
of early Roman domestic pottery was recovered from Trench 6, 7, 8 and 9 with a
concentration of Mid to Late 1st/2nd century AD domestic activity identified within
Trench 9. This suggests a continuation of Late Iron Age/Romano-British activity
within a “transitional period” at the Site.
4.3
A good assemblage of Roman ceramic building material consisting of brick, tegula
and box-flue tile fragments was recovered from the upper final fill of the Iron Age
defended enclosure within Trench 6, 7, 8 and 9 with a concentration of 1st century
AD activity identified within Trench 9. The evidence for Roman building material at
the Site, indicates a continuation of activity form the Late Iron Age into the RomanoBritish period.
5.
CA PROJECT TEAM
Fieldwork was undertaken by CA Project Leader Matt Nichol, assisted by CA site
personnel, Chris Ellis, Colin Forrestal and Jon Kaines. The report was written by
Matt Nichol. The illustrations were prepared by Lucy Martin. The archive has been
28
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Winchester, Hampshire – Archaeological Evaluation Report
© Cotswold Archaeology
compiled and prepared for deposition by Jennie Hughes. The project was managed
for CA by CA Project Manager, Damian De Rosa, who also edited this report.
6.
REFERENCES
Bradley. R., Entwistle. R., & Raymond. F 1994 Prehistoric land divisions on Salisbury Plain:
the work of the Wessex Linear Ditches Project. London: English Heritage
BGS
(British
Geological
Survey)
2011
Geology
of
Britain
Viewer
http://maps.bgs.ac.uk/geology viewer_google/googleviewer.html Accessed 20 June
2014
BGS
2012
British
Geological
Survey
lexicon
of
named
rock
units.
http://www.bgs.ac.uk/lexicon/ Accessed 9 June 2014
CA
(Cotswold Archaeology) 2003 The taking and processing of environmental and other
samples from archaeological sites, CA Technical Manual No. 2
CA
(Cotswold Archaeology) 2013 Field House Farm, Ladwell, Winchester: Heritage
Desk-Based Assessment. CA Report Ref. 13695
CA
(Cotswold Archaeology) 2014 Field House Farm, Ladwell, Winchester, Hampshire:
Written Scheme of Investigation for an Archaeological Evaluation
Cunliffe, B. W. 2005 Iron Age Communities in Britain, Fourth Edition: An Account of England,
Scotland and Wales from the Seventh Century BC until the Roman Conquest.
London: Routledge
De la Bédoyère, G. 1993 Book of Roman villas and the countryside. London: English
Heritage
DCLG (Department of Communities and Local Government) 2012 National Planning Policy
Framework
English Heritage 2011a Introduction to Heritage Assets: Prehistoric Linear Boundary
Earthworks. London
29
© Cotswold Archaeology
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Winchester, Hampshire – Archaeological Evaluation Report
English Heritage 2011b Introduction to Heritage Assets: Hillforts. London
Hattatt, R. 1989 A Visual Catalogue of Richard Hattatt’s Ancient Brooches. Oxford. Oxbow
Books
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)
PAS (Portable Antiquities Scheme) http://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/604655
accessed 20 June 2014
Rigby, V. 1982 ‘The Coarse Pottery’, in Wacher and McWhirr 1982, 153-200
Tucker, M.E. 1982 Sedimentary rocks in the field. Wiley, Chichester.
Wacher, J. and McWhirr. A. 1982
Early Roman Ocupation at Cirencester. Cirencester
Excavations I. Cirencester. Cirencester Excavation Committee
WYAS 2014 Land at Field House Farm, Ladwell, City of Winchester: Geophysical Survey.
Report
30
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Winchester, Hampshire – Archaeological Evaluation Report
© Cotswold Archaeology
APPENDIX A: CONTEXT DESCRIPTIONS
Trial Trench Evaluation - Archaeology within Trench 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10
Trench
No.
Context
No.
Type
Fill
of
Context
interpretation
Description
L (m)
W
(m)
Depth/
thickness
(m)
>50
>1.8
>0.2
.50
>1.8
>0.5
>50
>1.8
>0.7
>50
>1.8
>0.2
>50
>1.8
>0.7
>50
.1.8
>0.9
>20
1.8+
>0.3
>20
1.8+
>0.65
>20
1.8+
>1.85
6+
3.54
>0.95
Spot-date
1
100
Layer
Topsoil
1
101
Layer
1
102
Layer
Subsoil/
Colluvium
Natural
2
200
Layer
Topsoil
2
201
Layer
2
202
Layer
Subsoil/
Colluvium
Natural
3
300
Layer
Topsoil
3
301
Layer
Subsoil
3
302
Layer
Natural
3
303
Cut
Cut of ditch
3
304
Fill
303
4th fill of ditch
Mid greyish brown silty
clay
Mid yellowish brown
sandy/silty clay
Mid yellowish orange
sand
Mid greyish brown silty
clay
Mid yellowish brown
sandy/silty clay
Mid yellowish orange
sand
Dark greyish brown silty
clay
Light brownish grey silty
clay
Mid yellowish brown
sand
U-Shaped ditch with
gradual to steep sides
and flat base
Light greyish sand
6+
>0.6
>0.3
3
305
Fill
303
5th fill of ditch
Dark grey silty sand
6+
>0.8
>0.35
3
306
Fill
303
6th fill of ditch
6+
>1.6
>0.50
3
307
Fill
303
4th fill of ditch
6+
>2.2
>0.5
3
308
Fill
303
3rd fill of ditch
6+
>3
>0.2
3
309
Fill
303
2nd fill of ditch
Light greyish yellow silty
sand
Mid yellowish brown silty
sand
Light grey yellowish
sand
Dark grey silty sand
6+
>2.7
>0.45
3
310
Fill
303
1st fill of ditch
6+
>0.65
0.3
1
400
Layer
Topsoil
>50
1.8
>0.15
1
401
Layer
Subsoil
>50
1.8
>0.39
2
402
Layer
Natural
Mid yellowish brown silty
sand
Dark greyish brown silty
clay
Mid greyish brown silty
clay
Mid grey sand/gravel
50
1.8
>0.54
2
403
WALL 1
Brick wall –
external yard
wall
1.8+
>0.33
>0.28
Postmedieval
4
404
WALL 2
1.8+
>4
>0.54
Postmedieval
4
405
Cut
Brick wall
located north
and south with
modern
concrete infill –
main building
Cut of pit
East/west orientated
frogged and unfrogged
red brick wall
construction bonded
with yellowish sand
mortar
East/west orientated
frogged and unfrogged
red brick wall
construction bonded
with yellowish sand
mortar
Unexcavated circular pit
4
406
Cut
Cut of ditch
1.8+
>1.4
4
407
Fill
Unexcavated linear field
boundary ditch,
east/west orientated
Mid brown silty clay
1.8+
>1.4
4
408
Cut
1.8+
>1.1
4
409
Fill
408
Fill of ditch
Unexcavated linear field
boundary ditch,
east/west orientated
Mid brown silty clay
1.8+
>1.1
4
410
Fill
405
Fill of pit
Unexcavated pit fill, dark
406
Fill of ditch
Cut of ditch
>0.8
>0.8
Modern
Modern
Modern
Neolithic/
BA?
Modern
Postmedieval
Postmedieval
Postmedieval
Postmedieval
Post-
31
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Winchester, Hampshire – Archaeological Evaluation Report
© Cotswold Archaeology
4
411
Deposit
4
412
Deposit
5
500
Layer
Yard surface/
destruction
deposit, located
between WALL
1&2
Trackway metalled surface
butting south
side of WALL 2
Topsoil
5
501
Layer
Subsoil
5
502
Layer
5
503
Layer
5
504
5
greyish black silty clay
containing a red brick
fragment of similar
composition to WALL 1
&2
Mid to dark blackish
brown silty clay with redeposited natural gravel,
post-medieval CBM
fragments and charcoal
Unexcavated compact
light brown clay with redeposited gravel
medieval
1.8+
>6
>0.2
Postmedieval
1.8+
>2.5
>0.2
Postmedieval
>50
>1.8
>0.26
Modern
>50
>1.8
Colluvium
Mid greyish brown silty
sand
Light brownish brown
sandy clay
Mid brown silty sand
14+
>1.8
Colluvium
Mid brown silty sand
14+
>1.8
Layer
Natural
>50
>1.8
505
Cut
Cut of ditch
1.8+
0.78
>0.22
PostMedieval?
5
506
Fill
1.8+
0.78
>0.22
PostMedieval?
5
507
Cut
Light orangey brown
silty sand
U-Shaped ditch with
gradual sides and flat
base
Light yellowish brown
silty sand
Bowl shaped tree throw
1.44
>1.15
>0.49
5
508
Fill
507
>1.15
>0.2
5
509
Fill
507
Light yellowish brown
sandy silt
Yellowish white sand
>1.1
>0.2
5
510
Fill
507
>0.8
>0.09
5
511
Cut
>0.96
>0.3
5
512
Fill
511
Light orangey brown
clayey silt
Curvilinear with irregular
sides and base
Mid brown silty sand
>0.6
>0.3
5
513
Fill
511
Light brown sandy silt
>0.96
>0.3
5
514
Fill
511
>0.52
>0.22
5
515
Cut
Light orangey brown
sandy silt
U-Shaped ditch
>1.7
>0.73
Prehistoric?
5
516
Fill
515
1st fill of ditch
>1.3
>0.3
Prehistoric?
5
517
Fill
515
1st fill of ditch
Light yellowish brown
silty sand
Light brown sandy clay
>0.4
>0.25
Prehistoric?
5
518
Fill
515
2nd fill of ditch
Mid brown sandy clay
>1.3
>0.25
Prehistoric?
5
519
Fill
515
2nd fill of ditch
>1
>0.3
Prehistoric?
5
520
Fill
515
3rd fill of ditch
Light yellowish brown
silty sandy clay
Mid brown sandy clay
>1.5
>0.25
IA?
5
521
Fill
515
3rd fill of ditch
Mid brown silty sand
>1.3
>0.28
Prehistoric?
6
600
Layer
Topsoil
>50
>1.8
>0.22
Modern
6
601
Layer
Subsoil
>50
>1.8
>0.16
6
602
Layer
Colluvium
1.8+
>3.6
>0.22
6
603
Layer
Natural
>50
>1.8
>0.12
6
604
Layer
Natural
>50
>1.8
>0.12
6
605
Cut
Cut of ditch
Mid brown silty sandy
clay
Mid yellowish brown
sandy silt
Light greyish brown silty
sand
Mid orangey brown
sandy silt
Light yellowish brown
sandy silt
Unexcavated ditch
1.8+
3.6
>0.22
Prehistoric/
RB
6
606
Fill
1.8+
>7.5
>0.22
RB
6
607
Cut
>2.27
>1.13
>0.62
Prehistoric?
505
Fill of ditch
Tree-throw
605
3rd fill of treethrow
2nd fill of treethrow
1st fill of treethrow
Tree-throw
3rd fill of treethrow
2nd fill of treethrow
1st fill of treethrow
Cut of ditch
Unexcavated
upper fill of ditch
Cut of pit
Light greyish brown silty
sandy clay
East/west orientated
sub-oval pit with ushaped profile, gradual
sides and a flat base
>2.6
2.7+
32
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Winchester, Hampshire – Archaeological Evaluation Report
© Cotswold Archaeology
6
608
Fill
607
6
609
Layer
Colluvium
6
610
Cut
Re-cut of pit
6
611
Fill
7
700
Layer
Topsoil
7
701
Layer
Subsoil
7
702
Layer
Colluvium
7
703
Layer
Colluvium
7
704
Layer
Natural
7
705
Cut
U-Shaped ditch
7
706
Fill
7
707
Cut
7
708
Fill
707
2nd fill of ditch
7
709
Fill
707
3rd fill of ditch
7
710
Fill
707
1st fill of ditch
7
711
Fill
705
8th fill of ditch
7
712
Fill
705
7th fill of ditch
7
713
Fill
705
6th fill of ditch
7
714
Fill
705
5th fill of ditch
7
715
Fill
705
4th fill of ditch
7
716
Fill
705
3rd fill of ditch
7
717
Fill
705
2nd fill of ditch
7
718
Fill
705
1st fill of ditch
8
800
Layer
Topsoil
8
801
Layer
Subsoil
8
802
Layer
Colluvium
8
803
Layer
Colluvium
8
804
Layer
Natural
8
805
Cut
Cut of v-ditch
8
806
Fill
805
1st fill of ditch
8
807
Fill
805
2nd fill of ditch
8
808
Cut
8
809
Fill
8
810
Cut
610
705
Fill of pit
Fill of pit
9th fill of ditch
U-Shaped ditch
Cut of pit
808
Fill of pit
Cut of v-ditch
Light yellowish brown
silty sand
Light orangey brown
silty clay
East/west orientated
sub-oval re-cut of pit
with u-shaped profile,
steep sides and a flat
base
Mid yellowish brown silty
sand
Mid brown silty sandy
clay
Mid yellowish brown
sandy silt
Light greyish brown silty
sand
Light orangey brown
silty clay
Light yellowish brown
sandy silt
North/south orientated
ditch with u-shaped
profile with gradual sides
and flat base
Mid greyish brown silty
sand
North/south orientated
ditch with gradual sides
and concave base
Light greyish brown
sandy clay
Light yellowish brown
silty clay
Light orangey brown
sandy silt
Mid yellowish brown
sandy silt
Dark blueish grey sandy
clay
Light yellowish brown
sandy silt
Light brown sandy silt
>2.27
>1.13
>0.62
Prehistoric?
1.8+
30+
>0.36
>1.3
>0.7
>0.33
Prehistoric?
>1.3
>0.7
>0.33
Prehistoric?
>40
>1.8
>40
>1.8
>40
>1.8
>40
>1.8
>40
>1.8
1.8+
>3.1
>1.3
1.8+
>2.5
>0.2
1.8+
>0.9
>0.4
1.8+
>0.75
>0.25
1.8+
>0.3
>0.15
1.8+
>0.68
>0.12
1.8+
>1
>0.15
1.8+
>0.5
>0.06
1.8+
>0.8
>0.15
1.8+
>0.9
>0.1
Light brown silty sandy
clay
Light brown silty sand
1.8+
>1.25
>0.1
1.8+
>0.9
>0.05
Light blueish grey silty
sand
Light yellowish brown
sandy silt
Dark greyish brown clay
1.8+
>0.3
>0.15
1.8+
>0.7
>0.1
>50
1.8+
>0.28
Mid yellowish brown silty
clay
Dark greyish brown silty
clay
Dark greyish brown silty
clay
Mid brownish yellow silty
clay and sand
North-west/south-east
orientated ditch, v-ditch
with gradual sides
Mid yellowish brown silty
clay
Mid greyish brown silty
clay
Unexcavated subcircular pit
Mid yellowish brown silty
clay
North-west/south-east
>50
1.8+
>0.61
>20
>1.8
>0.94
>10
>1.8
>1.2
>50
1.8+
>1.3
>2.7
>1.4
>0.6
Prehistoric?
>2.7
>1.15
>0.3
Prehistoric?
>2.7
>1.25
>0.3
Prehistoric?
>0.4
>0.25
Prehistoric?
>0.4
>0.25
Prehistoric?
7+
>3.8
Modern
>1.7
RB
RB
IA/RB
Modern
IA?
Prehistoric/
33
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Winchester, Hampshire – Archaeological Evaluation Report
© Cotswold Archaeology
8
811
Fill
810
1st fill of ditch
8
812
Fill
810
2nd fill of ditch
8
813
Fill
810
3rd fill of ditch
8
814
Fill
810
4th fill of ditch
8
815
Fill
810
5th fill of ditch
8
816
Fill
810
6th fill of ditch
8
817
Fill
810
7th fill of ditch
8
818
Fill
810
8th fill of ditch
8
819
Fill
810
9th fill of ditch
8
820
Fill
810
10th fill of ditch
8
821
Fill
810
11th fill of ditch
8
822
Fill
810
12th fill of ditch
8
823
Cut
8
824
Fill
9
900
Layer
Topsoil
9
901
Layer
Colluvium
9
902
Layer
Colluvium
9
903
Layer
Natural
9
904
Cut
Cut of v-ditch
PHASE 3
9
905
Fill
2nd fill of ditch
9
906
Fill
1st fill of ditch
9
907
Cut
Cut of ditch
PHASE 3
9
908
Fill
9
909
Cut
9
910
Fill
9
911
Cut
9
912
Fill
Cut of ditch
823
907
Fill of ditch
Unexcavated fill
Cut of ditch
PHASE 2
909
Unexcavated fill
Cut of ditch
PHASE 2
911
Unexcavated fill
orientated v-ditch with
gradual sides
Light orangey brown
sand
Light orangey brown
sand
Light orangey grey
sandy silt
Light orangey brown
silty sand
Light orangey grey silty
sand
Light brownish grey silty
silty sandy clay
Light orangey brown
silty sandy clay
Light greyish brown silty
sandy clay
Light greyish brown silty
sandy clay
Mid greyish brown silty
sandy clay
RB
2+
>0.5
>0.25
Prehistoric
2+
>3.8
>0.4
Prehistoric
2+
>1.1
>0.3
Prehistoric
2+
>2
>0.5
Prehistoric
2+
>1.1
>0.15
Prehistoric
2+
>0.9
>0.3
Prehistoric
2+
>1.7
>0.2
Prehistoric
2+
>0.9
>0.15
Prehistoric
2+
>1.4
>0.18
Prehistoric
2+
>1.2
>0.15
Light orangey brown
silty sandy clay
2+
>2.2
>0.3
Mid greyish brown silty
sandy clay
Unexcavated southwest/north-east
orientated ditch butting
south side of V-Ditch
810. Relationship
unknown
Mid greyish brown silty
clay
Dark brown sandy silty
clay
Light orangey brown
sandy silty clay
Light orangey brown
silty sandy clay
Light orangey yellow
sand with light brown
clay
North/south orientated vditch, with gradual sides,
same as Ditch 907, 913
Mid yellowish brown silty
and
Mid yellowish greyish
brown silty sand
Unexcavated northwest/south-east
orientated ditch,
same as Ditch 904, 913
Same as 905
7+
>1.9
>0.1
Late
Prehistoric
Late
Prehistoric
MC1-LC1
>2.1
>1.3
Prehistoric?
>2.1
>1.3
Prehistoric?
>40
1.8+
>0.21
15+
>1.8
>0.22
15+
>1.8
>0.19
>40
1.8+
>0.72
10+
>0.78
>0.45
RB
10+
>0.78
>0.2
RB
10+
>0.5
>0.28
RB
3+
>0.5
RB
3+
>0.5
2+
>0.75
RB
RB
2+
>0.75
RB
4+
>2.3
RB
4+
>2.3
C1-C2
Unexcavated northeast/south-west
orientated ditch,
same as Ditch 911.
Possibly re-cut of earlier
PHASE 1 Ditch 917
Unexcavated dark
greyish brown silty
sandy clay with
charcoal, same as fill
912
Unexcavated east/west
orientated ditch,
same as Ditch 909
Unexcavated dark
greyish brown silty
sandy clay with
Modern
34
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Winchester, Hampshire – Archaeological Evaluation Report
© Cotswold Archaeology
9
913
Cut
Cut of ditch
PHASE 3
9
914
Fill
9
915
Cut
9
916
Fill
9
917
Cut
9
918
Fill
917
2nd fill of ditch
9
919
Fill
917
1st fill of ditch
10
1000
Layer
Topsoil
10
1001
Layer
Natural
10
1002
Cut
Cut of ditch
10
1003
Fill
913
Unexcavated fill
Cut of ditch
PHASE 1
915
Unexcavated fill
Cut of ditch
PHASE 1
100
Unexcavated
upper fill
charcoal, same as fill
910
Unexcavated northwest/south-east
orientated ditch,
same as Ditch 904, 907
Same as 905
Unexcavated northwest/south-east
orientated ditch,
same as 917
Mid brownish yellow silty
sand
North-east/south-west
orientated ditch with ushaped profile, gradual
sides and flat base,
same as 915
Mid brownish yellow silty
sand
Mid yellowish grey silty
sand
Dark greyish brown silty
sandy clay
Mid orangey brown sand
with gravel
Unexcavated northwest/south-east
orientated ditch
Mid greyish brown silty
sandy clay
4+
>0.5
RB
4+
>0.5
MC1-LC1
5+
>1.5
Prehistoric
5+
>1.5
Prehistoric
7+
>1.9
>0.62
Prehistoric
7+
>1.9
>0.4
Prehistoric
7+
>1.7
>0.22
Prehistoric
>40
>1.8
>0.27
Modern
>40
>1.8
>0.27
1.8+
>3.2
Prehistoric/
RB
1.8+
>3.2
MC1-LC1
35
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Winchester, Hampshire – Archaeological Evaluation Report
© Cotswold Archaeology
APPENDIX B: THE FINDS
Finds concordance
Context
100
Type
Topsoil
Description
Post-medieval ceramic building material: tile, brick
Modern glass: vessel
Worked flint: flakes
Burnt flint
Count
3
1
3
2
Weight(g)
139
<1
19
109
Spot-date
Modern
200
Topsoil
Post-medieval ceramic building material: tile, brick,
finial
Clay tobacco pipe: stem
Burnt flint
9
217
1
1
3
24
Late
medieval/
postmedieval
Post-medieval ceramic building material: tile
1
34
Worked flint: flakes, core
Burnt flint
3
2
91
554
Post-medieval ceramic building material: tile, brick
7
8928
Slate: roof tile
Post-medieval ceramic building material: tile
2
6
103
134
Iron object
Worked flint: flakes
Burnt flint
Iron object: nail
1
2
1
1
28
135
25
16
-
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
1
1
13
7
-
Burnt flint
1
7
-
Late prehistoric pottery: flint-tempered fabric; fine,
quartz
sand-and-flint tempered fabric
Worked flint: flakes
Burnt flint
Roman pottery: greyware
Iron objects: nail, fragment
Late prehistoric pottery: flint-tempered fabric
7
26
IA?
3
5
1
2
2
78
125
6
21
25
RB
4
24
5
1
1
1
224
22
12
3
4
1
50
27
1
1
2
1
1
4
2
4
89
80
141
21
300
Topsoil
306
400
Ditch
303
Topsoil
500
Topsoil
506
Ditch
505
513
Tree
Throw
511
Ditch
515
Ditch
515
518
520
600
Topsoil
606
Ditch
605
608
Pit 607
609
Colluvium
611
700
Pit 607
Topsoil
Roman pottery: greyware; black-firing, sandtempered
fabric
Roman ceramic building material: box flue tile
Iron object: nail
Worked flint: flake
Late prehistoric pottery: quartz sand-and-flint
tempered
fabric
Iron object: nail
Post-medieval ceramic building material: tile
Colluvium
Ditch
Clay tobacco pipe: stem
Copper alloy object: brooch
Iron object: nail, fragment
Worked flint: core
Roman ceramic building material: brick
Late Prehistoric pottery: flint-tempered fabric
702
706
Postmedieval
Postmedieval
Postmedieval
RB
Late
Prehistoric
Postmedieval
RB
RB
36
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Winchester, Hampshire – Archaeological Evaluation Report
© Cotswold Archaeology
705
708
Ditch
707
713
Ditch
705
800
Topsoil
803
Colluvium
806
Ditch
805
Ditch
805
807
820
822
900
905
912
914
918
1000
1003
Ditch
810
Ditch
810
Topsoil
Ditch
904
Ditch
911
Ditch
913
Ditch
917
Topsoil
Ditch
1002
Roman pottery: greyware; grog-tempered fabric;
black-firing, sand-tempered fabric
Roman ceramic building material: tegula, box flue,
tile
Fired clay
Worked flint: core
Burnt flint
Roman pottery: coarse greyware; fine whiteware
5
34
19
1804
2
1
11
12
17
222
336
14
RB
Worked flint: flakes
Burnt flint
Late Prehistoric/Early Roman pottery: quartz sandand-flint
tempered fabric; quartz sand-tempered fabric
Roman pottery: greyware; grog-tempered fabric;
fine,
oxidised fabric
Post-medieval ceramic building material: tile, brick
Copper alloy object: spearhead
Iron object: nails, disc
Worked flint: core fragments
Burnt flint
Late prehistoric pottery: fine, flint-tempered fabric
Fired clay
Worked flint: flake, core
Burnt flint
Burnt flint
2
1
3
21
14
11
IA/RB
6
133
10
1
6
2
1
2
1
2
2
4
567
42
124
317
77
7
8
95
18
105
Fired clay
2
18
Burnt flint
Late prehistoric pottery: quartz sand-and-flint
tempered fabric
Roman pottery: North Gaulish mortarium;
greyware;
coarse, grog-tempered fabric; black-firing, sandtempered fabric
Roman ceramic building material: tegula, box flue,
tile, brick
Iron object: nail
Burnt flint
Post-medieval pottery: refined whiteware
Late medieval/post-medieval ceramic building
material:
peg tile, flat roof tile
Worked flint: flakes, tested nodule
Burnt flint
Roman ceramic building material: brick
6
2
90
6
26
450
18
1434
1
1
1
2
24
70
5
66
6
3
5
449
38
280
RB
Roman pottery: amphora; coarse greyware
3
163
C1-C2
Roman ceramic building material: tegula, brick
Roman pottery: grog-and-flint tempered fabric
5
3
586
36
MC1-LC1
Worked flint: flake
1
42
-
Roman ceramic building material
Post-medieval ceramic building material: tile
Iron object: nails, fragment
Worked flint: flake, core
Burnt flint
Roman pottery: grog-tempered fabric
1
8
4
2
5
1
24
160
129
247
488
12
Postmedieval
Burnt flint
4
129
Postmedieval
IA?
-
Late
Prehistoric
MC1-LC1
LC18-C19
MC1-LC1
37
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Winchester, Hampshire – Archaeological Evaluation Report
© Cotswold Archaeology
APPENDIX C: THE PALAEOENVIRONMENTAL EVIDENCE
Charcoal Identifications
Context number
309
807
716
813
820
Feature number
303
805
705
810
810
Sample number (SS)
1101
1103
1104
1105
1106
Flot volume (ml)
26
1
32
6.5
1.1
Sample volume processed (l)
18
17
15
9
6
Soil remaining (l)
0
0
0
0
0
Period
U/D
U/D
U/D
U/D
LPRE
Charcoal quantity (<2mm)
++++
0
+++++
+++
0
Charcoal preservation
Good
N/A
Good
Moderate N/A
Family
Species
Common Name
Aceraceae Acer campestre L.
Alnus
glutinosa
(L.)
Betulaceae
Gaertn./Corylus
avellana L.
Corylus avellana L.
Quercus petraea (Matt.)
Fagaceae
Liebl./Quercus
robur L.
Oleaceae Fraxinus excelsior L.
Crataegus
monogyna
Jacq./Sorbus
L./Malus
Rosaceae
sylvestris
(L.)
Mill.
Field maple
1
Alder/Hazel
8
Hazel
2
3
Sessile Oak/
Pedunculate Oak
4
Ash
1
Hawthorn/Rowans/
Crab apple
1
Number of Fragments: 10
0
10
10
10
0
Key
U/D = undated
LPRE = late Prehistoric
+ = 1-4 items’ ++ = 5-20 items; +++ = 21-49 items; ++++ = 50-99 items; ++++++ = 100-500 items
38
© Cotswold Archaeology
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Winchester, Hampshire – Archaeological Evaluation Report
APPENDIX D: GEOARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
University of Winchester
West Hill
Winchester
SO22 4NR
Tel: +44 1962 827554
Web: http://www.ARCAUK.com
FIELD HOUSE FARM, LADWELL, HAMPSHIRE:
GEOARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF MONOLITH SAMPLE
Nick Watson
June 2014
Introduction
This document reports on the stratigraphy of a monolith collected from an archaeological excavation carried out
by Cotswold Archaeology at Field House Farm, Ladwell, Hampshire NGR: SU 42770 23412. A single monolith
sample measuring 0.90x0.06x0.06m was taken from the base of a 4m wide by 2m deep ditch possibly dated to
the Late Neolithic period. The geoarchaeological work outlined here was commissioned by Cotswold
Archaeology. The report is intended to address the following aims:
1.
To determine the manner in which stratigraphic units exposed in the monolith sample;
2.
To assess the archaeological and palaeoenvironmental potential of the units encountered in the monolith
sample;
3.
To provide recommendations for analytical work that could usefully be undertaken to better understand the
archaeological stratigraphy and palaeoenvironments on the site.
Geology
The British Geological Survey (BGS) map the site as lying on the junction between the Nursling Sand Member
and the Whitecliff Sand Member of the London Clay Formation which dates to the Ypresian Age of the
Palaeogene 49.5-54.8 million years ago. The London Clay comprises poorly laminated, blue-grey or grey-brown,
silty clay with some sand. Thin beds of carbonate concretions, pyrite, shell and sand can occur and occasionally
gravel beds of black rounded flint. Neither the lithology of the Nursling Sand Member nor the Whitecliff Sand
Member are described by the BGS, but as their names indicate they will be mappable sandy facies of the London
Clay Formation (BGS, 2014).
Methodology
The monolith sample 1102 was delivered to the ARCA laboratory at the University of Winchester on 4 June 2014
by Jennie Hughes of Cotswold Archaeology. It was described according to standard geological criteria (Tucker
1982, Jones et al. 1999, Munsell Color 2000) and then stored pending decisions on analytical works that might
be carried out.
39
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Winchester, Hampshire – Archaeological Evaluation Report
© Cotswold Archaeology
APPENDIX D: GEOARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Monolith stratigraphy
The sample details were as follows:
Code:
FFW14
Sample
<1102>
Context
Cut [303]
Interpretation:
Late Neolithic Ditch
PN 770092
Table 1 reports the stratigraphy recorded in the monolith sample:
The relationship of the depths of the monolith sample to context numbers is as follows:
Depth (m)
Context
0.00-0.23
(306)
0.23-0.42
(305)
0.42-0.52
(308)
0.52-0.60
(309)
0.60-0.90
(302)
Discussion:
The basal Unit [3, context (302)] of the monolith sample is composed of alternating beds of yellowish brown to
grey, fine to medium sand. The interbedding is only distinguishable on the basis of colour and not particle size,
and the unit is a well sorted homogenous sand stratum. The yellowish brown colour is the result of iron oxide
staining and is probably post depositional in origin although the bedrock source of the sand (the local Nursling
and Whitecliff Sand Members) is rich in iron oxide. There is no evidence of human input into the unlithified
sediment. With reference to a photograph of the site and the Trench 3 Section Drawing. Unit 1 [context (302)]
would appear to be the solid geology and the ditch is recorded as “overcut”.
A diffuse boundary separates Unit 3 from Unit 2 [approximately contexts (308) and (309)]. The unlithified nature
of the bedrock means that it may mix with the lowest ditch fill under in the presence of water or through
bioturbation and the overlying deposit (2) is distinguished by a change in colour to 2.5 YR 4/3 Olive brown that
denotes a small silt/clay component to the sand. Angular flint flakes - possibly debitage - and rare coarse sandsized fragments of charcoal are present in the deposit both of which are indicative of human action that suggest
an encroachment towards the source of the sand and/or the banks of the ditch which are, in fact, be one and the
same.
The uppermost Unit in the monolith sample [1, context (306) and part of (305)] is also a well sorted fine to
medium sand, light greyish brown in colour, and shows evidence of bioturbation by plant roots. Cultural material
(flint and charcoal) continues to be present in low frequency. There is only occasional iron oxide staining in this
Unit (although it reappears in topmost 0.05m as possibly an incursive sand lens derived from the bank) and Unit
2. The reason for this is not clear although post depositional iron oxide mottling is unlikely to occur because
standing water/a fluctuating water table are unlikely due to the porous nature of the deposits and the bedrock.
One would expect iron oxide stained sands to colour the Unit yellowish brown though. There must be subtleties
40
© Cotswold Archaeology
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Winchester, Hampshire – Archaeological Evaluation Report
in the hydrology and chemistry of the ditch-the mechanics of transport and deposition and redox reactions – that
result in less iron oxide retained/redeposited in the deposit than is present in the bedrock source.
In conclusion, the ditch deposit is a well sorted fine to medium sand which shows a cultural input at 0.59m and
above (Units 1 and 2). There is no evidence of a prolonged period of stabilization within the deposits which
suggests they accumulated fairly rapidly. The ditch would not have held standing water due to the porous nature
of the underlying Nursling and Whitecliff Sand Members. This implies that hydrology was not a factor in its
construction. Under ordinary circumstances, the sorting and homogeneity of the sand would imply a continuous
deposition under a relatively high energy fluvial regime. In this case though, the source of the sand is the banks
and environs and it need not have travelled far. The sorting of the sand, too, may well reflect a lithological
characteristic of the Nursling and Whitecliff Sand Members rather than a product of fluvial transport during the
Holocene. Nor does it seem necessary to invoke the need for a significant body of moving water to entrain the
sand particles, sheet wash from storms would be sufficient. The finest sand fraction may also contain an aeolian
component.
Assessment
The coarse grained nature of the ditch deposits - it is sand-sized rather than clay-sized- precludes the presence
of microscopic plant remains (pollen) even though the sediments are siliceous and compatible with their
preservation. Bioturbation in the upper fraction and the porosity of the sediments auger against the presence of
waterlogged macroscopic plant remains, none of which were identified to be present in any case. Charcoal is the
only ecofact recorded and then in only a very small amount. There is evidence of human activity in the form of
granular to fine pebble-sized flint fragments. These are very angular and are too large to have been transported
with the sediments which implies that their source is the immediate locality of the ditch, however, they occur only
infrequently.
For the reasons given above the palaeoenvironmental potential of the sediments sampled in from the ditch (Units
1 and 2) is low and the archaeological potential is considered moderate to low. Unit 1 which is the bedrock into
which the ditch is cut is of Palaeogene age and has no palaeoenvironmental nor archaeological potential.
Bibliography
BGS (2012) British Geological Survey lexicon of named rock units. http://www.bgs.ac.uk/lexicon/ (Accessed 9
June 2014).
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).
Tucker, M.E. (1982) Sedimentary rocks in the field. Wiley, Chichester.
41
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Winchester, Hampshire – Archaeological Evaluation Report
© Cotswold Archaeology
TRENCH 3, DITCH 303, MONLITH SAMPLE <1102>
0.00-0.36
Unit 1
10 YR 6/2 Light greyish brown well sorted fine to
medium sand with rare, very angular,
granular to fine pebble-sized white flint
(debitage) and rare medium sand-sized
charcoal fragments. Occasional 10 YR 4/3
Brown vertical granular-sized mottling
(root hole). Diffuse boundary to:
0.36-0.59
Unit 2
2.5 YR 4/3 Olive brown fine to medium sand with
rare to occasional silt/clay. Rare, very
angular, granular to fine pebble-sized,
white flint (debitage) and rare coarse
sand-sized charcoal fragments. Gradual
boundary to:
0.59-0.90
Unit 3
10 YR 5/8 Yellowish brown and 2.5 Y 6/2 Light
brownish grey, horizontal and well sorted
fine to medium sand: iron staining in
horizontal beds on a 10mm scale
(Bedrock)
The relationship of the depths of the monolith
sample to context numbers is as follows:
Depth (m)
Context
0.00-0.23
(306)
4th fill
0.23-0.42
(305)
3rd fill
0.42-0.52
(308)
2nd fill
0.52-0.60
(309)
1st fill
0.60-0.90
(302)
Natural
42
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Winchester, Hampshire – Archaeological Evaluation Report
© Cotswold Archaeology
APPENDIX E: OASIS REPORT FORM
PROJECT DETAILS
Project Name
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Hampshire
Short description (250 words maximum)
An archaeological evaluation was undertaken by Cotswold
Archaeology in May/June 2014 at Field House Farm, Ladwell,
Winchester, Hampshire. Ten trenches were excavated.
The evaluation revealed correlation between the linear anomalies
identified in the geophysical survey and the archaeological features
identified within Trench 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. Archaeological
features were revealed within Trenches 7, 8 and 9 that were not
identified during the geophysical survey. A potential Late
Prehistoric or Roman period enclosure, observed on aerial
photographs in the location of Trench 1 and 2 was not identified. A
large amorphous anomaly identified during the geophysical survey
and visible on historic mapping within the location of Trench 4
corresponded to the foundations and destruction debris of a 19th
century AD building.
The evaluation identified a prehistoric linear ditch within Trench 3,
6, 7 and 9 within Field 1 and 2. No datable finds were recovered
from the primary fills but the morphology of the linear feature
suggests a significant land division possibly pre-dating the Iron Age
period. An Iron Age defended enclosure comprising a substantial
V-ditch was also identified within Trench 6, 7, 8 and 9, which
appeared to re-use the earlier land division for defensive purposes.
A linear feature was identified within the interior of the defended
enclosure within Trench 10 but its function remains uncertain.
Late Iron Age activity was also identified within Trench 5 and 8. A
large assemblage of early Roman domestic pottery was recovered
from Trench 6, 7, 8 and 9 with a concentration of 1st century AD
activity identified within Trench 9. This suggests a continuation of
Late Iron Age/Romano-British activity within a “transitional period”
at the Site.
The location for a potential Roman Villa of unknown status at the
Site is highly likely. A large assemblage of Roman ceramic building
material consisting of brick, tegula and box-flue tile fragments was
recovered from the upper final fill of the Iron Age defended
enclosure within Trench 6, 7, 8 and 9. The evidence for Roman
building material at the Site confirms a continuation of activity and
the possible location for a Roman-British building somewhere
within the vicinity of the site.
Project dates
Project type
(e.g. desk-based, field evaluation etc)
Previous work
(reference to
numbers etc)
28 May – 06 June 2014
Trial Trench Evaluation
Not Known
organisation
or
SMR
Future work
Unknown
PROJECT LOCATION
Site Location
2
Study area (M /ha)
Site co-ordinates (8 Fig Grid Reference)
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Hampshire
15.31ha
SU 42770 23412
PROJECT CREATORS
43
© Cotswold Archaeology
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Winchester, Hampshire – Archaeological Evaluation Report
Name of organisation
Project Brief originator
Project Design (WSI) originator
Cotswold Archaeology
Winchester City Council
Cotswold Archaeology
Project Manager
Project Supervisor
MONUMENT TYPE
Damian De Rosa
Matt Nichol
Prehistoric linear boundary ditch, Late Iron Age/Early Roman
enclosure and ditches, pits and a large assemblage of Roman
building material to include box-flue tile, as well as 19th century
foundations for a building
See above
Winchester Museum Service
Content
SIGNIFICANT FINDS
PROJECT ARCHIVES
Physical
(e.g. burnt flint worked
flint, ceramics, Roman
CBM, Iron and Bronze
artefacts)
Paper
Context sheets, matrices
etc
Database, digital photos
etc
Digital
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bradley. R., Entwistle. R., & Raymond. F 1994 Prehistoric land divisions on Salisbury Plain: the work of the
Wessex Linear Ditches Project. London: English Heritage
BGS
(British Geological Survey) 2011 Geology of Britain
viewer_google/googleviewer.html Accessed 20 June 2014
Viewer
http://maps.bgs.ac.uk/geology
BGS 2012 British Geological Survey lexicon of named rock units. http://www.bgs.ac.uk/lexicon/ Accessed 9 June
2014
CA
(Cotswold Archaeology) 2003 The taking and processing of environmental and other samples from
archaeological sites, CA Technical Manual No. 2
CA
(Cotswold Archaeology) 2013 Field House Farm, Ladwell, Winchester: Heritage Desk-Based
Assessment. CA Report Ref. 13695
CA
(Cotswold Archaeology) 2014 Field House Farm, Ladwell, Winchester, Hampshire: Written Scheme of
Investigation for an Archaeological Evaluation
Cunliffe, B. W. 2005 Iron Age Communities in Britain, Fourth Edition: An Account of England, Scotland and
Wales from the Seventh Century BC until the Roman Conquest. London: Routledge
De la Bédoyère, G. 1993 Book of Roman villas and the countryside. London: English Heritage
English Heritage 2011a Introduction to Heritage Assets: Prehistoric Linear Boundary Earthworks. London
English Heritage 2011b Introduction to Heritage Assets: Hillforts. London
DCLG (Department of Communities and Local Government) 2012 National Planning Policy Framework
Hattatt, R. 1989 A Visual Catalogue of Richard Hattatt’s Ancient Brooches. Oxford. Oxbow Books
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)
PAS (Portable Antiquities Scheme) http://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/604655 accessed 20 June
2014
Rigby, V. 1982 ‘The Coarse Pottery’, in Wacher and McWhirr 1982, 153-200
44
© Cotswold Archaeology
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Winchester, Hampshire – Archaeological Evaluation Report
Tucker, M.E. 1982 Sedimentary rocks in the field. Wiley, Chichester.
Wacher, J. and McWhirr. A. 1982 Early Roman Ocupation at Cirencester. Cirencester Excavations I.
Cirencester. Cirencester Excavation Committee
WYAS 2014 Land at Field House Farm, Ladwell, City of Winchester: Geophysical Survey. Report No. 2597.
45
N
Cirencester 01285 771022
Cotswold
Archaeology
Milton Keynes 01908 218320
Andover 01264 347630
w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk
e [email protected]
PROJECT TITLE
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Hampshire
Hampshire
FIGURE TITLE
Site location plan
0
1km
Reproduced from the 2011 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. 770092
AO
DRAWN BY
APPROVED BY LM
DATE
01/07/2014
00
REVISION
SCALE@A4 1:25,000
FIGURE NO.
1
430
425
N
SITE OF
FORMER SAND PIT
68.0m
site
evaluation trench
T10
T7
Field 1
gas pipe buffer zone
water pipe buffer zone
ETL
Field
overhead cable buffer zone
House
cropmark
Barn Copse
crossing point
T6
archaeological feature
treethrow
235
T8
modern
CP 1
CP 4
colluvium
T9
Track
YR
LE
RS
HU
TYPE OF ANOMALY
INTERPRETATION
D
OA
T5
CP 3
DIPOLAR ISOLATED
FERROUS MATERIAL
DIPOLAR ISOLATED
TELEGRAPH POLE
DIPOLAR LINEAR
SERVICE PIPE
MAGNETIC
DISTURBANCE
FERROUS MATERIAL
LINEAR TREND
AGRICULTURAL
LINEAR TREND
GEOLOGY
Copse
MAGNETIC
ENHANCEMENT
GEOLOGY
MAGNETIC
ENHANCEMENT
ARCHAEOLOGY?
CP 2
Ryder's Row
T4
Greenclose
T3
Field 2
0
T2
100m
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Digital mapping with the permission
of Ordnance Survey on behalf of The Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office
c Crown copyright Cotswold Archaeology Ltd 100002109
T1
Cirencester 01285 771022
Cotswold
Archaeology
Milton Keynes 01908 218320
Andover 01264 347630
w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk
e [email protected]
PROJECT TITLE
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Hampshire
67.7m
FIGURE TITLE
Trench location plan showing
archaeological features, geophysical
results and services
SU
PROJECT NO. 770092
AO
DRAWN BY
APPROVED BY LM
30/06/2014
DATE
00
REVISION
SCALE@A3 1:2,000
FIGURE NO.
2
430
425
N
SITE OF
FORMER SAND PIT
68.0m
site
ditch 705
evaluation trench
ditch 1002
T10
ditch 707
archaeological feature
T7
colluvium
modern
ETL
Field
treethrow
Field 1
Barn Copse
projected line of ditch
ditch 605
T6
pit 808
colluvium 803
projected line of enclosure
pit 607
ditch 810
ditch 805
235
House
ditch 913
colluvium 609
ditch 915
T8
ditch 909
ditch 904
ditch 911
ditch 907
ditch 917
Track
TYPE OF ANOMALY
INTERPRETATION
T9
YR
LE
RS
HU
ditch 505
DIPOLAR ISOLATED
FERROUS MATERIAL
DIPOLAR ISOLATED
TELEGRAPH POLE
DIPOLAR LINEAR
SERVICE PIPE
MAGNETIC
DISTURBANCE
FERROUS MATERIAL
LINEAR TREND
AGRICULTURAL
LINEAR TREND
GEOLOGY
MAGNETIC
ENHANCEMENT
GEOLOGY
MAGNETIC
ENHANCEMENT
ARCHAEOLOGY?
ditch 515
D
OA
T5
Wall 1 (403)
Wall 2 (404)
metalled surface 412
pit 405
Ryder's Row
ditch 406
ditch 408
T4
Greenclose
Field 2
Copse
ditch 303
T3
0
T2
100m
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Digital mapping with the permission
of Ordnance Survey on behalf of The Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office
c Crown copyright Cotswold Archaeology Ltd 100002109
T1
Cirencester 01285 771022
Cotswold
Archaeology
Milton Keynes 01908 218320
Andover 01264 347630
w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk
e [email protected]
PROJECT TITLE
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Hampshire
FIGURE TITLE
67.7m
SU
Trench locations showing
archaeological features, geophysical
survey results and projected line of
possible boundary ditch and enclosure
PROJECT NO. 770092
AO
DRAWN BY
APPROVED BY LM
30/06/2014
DATE
00
REVISION
SCALE@A3 1:2,000
FIGURE NO.
3
ditch 303
A
A
Trench 3, looking north-west (1m scales)
N
Cirencester 01285 771022
Cotswold
Archaeology
Milton Keynes 01908 218320
Andover 01264 347630
w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk
e [email protected]
PROJECT TITLE
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Hampshire
FIGURE TITLE
Trench 3: plan and photograph
0
10m
PROJECT NO. 770092
AO
DRAWN BY
APPROVED BY LM
DATE
01/07/2014
00
REVISION
SCALE@A4 1:200
FIGURE NO.
4
Section AA
300
301
SE
NW
70.7m
AOD
304
305
306
307
310
308
column
sample
1102
309
ditch 303
0
1m
Cirencester 01285 771022
Cotswold
Archaeology
Milton Keynes 01908 218320
Andover 01264 347630
w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk
e [email protected]
Ditch 303, looking south-west (1m scales)
Ditch 303, looking south (1m scales)
PROJECT TITLE
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Hampshire
FIGURE TITLE
Trench 3: section and photographs
PROJECT NO. 770092
AO
DRAWN BY
APPROVED BY LM
DATE
01/07/2014
00
REVISION
SCALE@A3 1:20
FIGURE NO.
5
Ditch 303, section
306
300
Unit 1
0m - 0.36m
301
304
305
306
307
310
308
column
sample
1102
305
309
ditch 303
d
Unit 2
0.36m - 0.59m
308
Unit 1:
10 YR 6/2 Light greyish brown well sorted fine to medium sand with
rare, very angular, granular to fine pebble-sized white flint
(debitage) and rare medium sand-sized charcoal fragments.
Occasional 10 YR 4/3 Brown vertical granular-sized mottling (root
hole). Diffuse boundary to:
Unit 2:
2.5 YR 4/3 Olive brown fine to medium sand with rare to occasional
silt/clay. Rare, very angular, granular to fine pebble-sized, white flint
(debitage) and rare coarse sand-sized charcoal fragments. Gradual
boundary to:
309
Unit 3
0.59m - 0.90m
Unit 3:
10 YR 5/8 Yellowish brown and 2.5 Y 6/2 Light brownish grey,
horizontal and well sorted fine to medium sand: iron staining in
horizontal beds on a 10mm scale (Bedrock)
ditch 303
N
Cirencester 01285 771022
Cotswold
Archaeology
Milton Keynes 01908 218320
Andover 01264 347630
w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk
e [email protected]
PROJECT TITLE
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Hampshire
FIGURE TITLE
Monolithic sample from ditch 303
PROJECT NO. 770092
LM
DRAWN BY
APPROVED BY LM
DATE
01/07/2014
00
REVISION
SCALE@A4 1:40 (section)
FIGURE NO.
6
Wall 1 (403)
hard surface 411
natural
402
Trench 4 , looking south-east (1m scales)
Wall 2 (404)
concrete
metaled surface 412
pit 405
ditch 406
ditch 408
N
Cirencester 01285 771022
Cotswold
Archaeology
Milton Keynes 01908 218320
Andover 01264 347630
w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk
e [email protected]
PROJECT TITLE
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Hampshire
FIGURE TITLE
Trench 4: plan and photograph
0
10m
PROJECT NO. 770092
AO
DRAWN BY
APPROVED BY LM
DATE
01/07/2014
00
REVISION
SCALE@A4 1:200
FIGURE NO.
7
Wall 1 (403) and Wall 2 (404) view south
Unexcavated pit 405, view east (1m scale)
Cirencester 01285 771022
Cotswold
Archaeology
Unexcavated ditch 406 and 408 view north (1m scales)
Milton Keynes 01908 218320
Andover 01264 347630
w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk
e [email protected]
PROJECT TITLE
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Hampshire
FIGURE TITLE
Trench 4: photographs
PROJECT NO. 770092
AO
DRAWN BY
APPROVED BY LM
DATE
01/07/2014
00
REVISION
SCALE@A3 N/A
FIGURE NO.
8
B
ditch 505
B
C
ditch 515
C
Trench 5 , looking south
N
Cirencester 01285 771022
Cotswold
Archaeology
Milton Keynes 01908 218320
Andover 01264 347630
w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk
e [email protected]
archaeological feature
PROJECT TITLE
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Hampshire
treethrow
FIGURE TITLE
Trench 5: plan and photograph
0
10m
PROJECT NO. 770092
AO
DRAWN BY
APPROVED BY LM
DATE
01/07/2014
00
REVISION
SCALE@A4 1:200
FIGURE NO.
9
Section BB
Section CC
S
N
74.6m
AOD
SE
NW
73.9m
AOD
520
506
519
518
ditch 505
516
ditch 515
0
1m
Cirencester 01285 771022
Ditch 505, view east (0.4m scale)
Cotswold
Archaeology
Ditch 515, veiw south-west (1m scale)
Milton Keynes 01908 218320
Andover 01264 347630
w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk
e [email protected]
PROJECT TITLE
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Hampshire
FIGURE TITLE
Trench 5: sections and photographs
PROJECT NO. 770092
AO
DRAWN BY
APPROVED BY LM
DATE
01/07/2014
00
REVISION
SCALE@A3 1:20
FIGURE NO.
10
N
pit 607
D
ditch 605
D
colluvium 609
Section DD
N
74.7m
AOD
S
0
608
611
10m
610
pit 607
0
1m
Cirencester 01285 771022
Cotswold
Archaeology
Milton Keynes 01908 218320
Andover 01264 347630
w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk
e [email protected]
PROJECT TITLE
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Hampshire
FIGURE TITLE
Pit 607, view east (1m scale)
Trench 6, view east (1m scales)
Trench 6: plan, section and
photographs
PROJECT NO. 770092
AO
DRAWN BY
APPROVED BY LM
DATE
01/07/2014
00
REVISION
SCALE@A3 1:20 and 1:200
FIGURE NO.
11
ditch 705
E
E
F
F
ditch 707
Trench 7, view west (1m scales)
N
Cirencester 01285 771022
Cotswold
Archaeology
Milton Keynes 01908 218320
Andover 01264 347630
w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk
e [email protected]
PROJECT TITLE
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Hampshire
FIGURE TITLE
Trench 7: plan and photograph
0
10m
PROJECT NO. 770092
AO
DRAWN BY
APPROVED BY LM
DATE
01/07/2014
00
REVISION
SCALE@A4 1:200
FIGURE NO.
12
Section EE
W
E
700
77.1m
AOD
701
step in sondage
702
706
706
713
704
711
715
716
712
714
718
717
ditch 705
0
1m
Cirencester 01285 771022
Cotswold
Archaeology
Milton Keynes 01908 218320
Andover 01264 347630
w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk
e [email protected]
PROJECT TITLE
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Hampshire
Ditch 705, view north (1m scales)
Ditch 705, view north-east (1m scales)
FIGURE TITLE
Trench 7: section and photographs
PROJECT NO. 770092
AO
DRAWN BY
APPROVED BY LM
DATE
01/07/2014
00
REVISION
SCALE@A3 1:20
FIGURE NO.
13
Section FF
700
W
E
701
77.35m
AOD
710
708
710
ditch 707
Ditch 707, view north-east (1m scale)
Cirencester 01285 771022
Cotswold
Archaeology
Milton Keynes 01908 218320
Andover 01264 347630
w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk
e [email protected]
PROJECT TITLE
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Hampshire
FIGURE TITLE
Trench 7: section and photograph
0
1m
PROJECT NO. 770092
AO
DRAWN BY
APPROVED BY LM
DATE
01/07/2014
00
REVISION
SCALE@A4 1:20
FIGURE NO.
14
N
H
H
ditch 823
ditch 810
ditch 805
pit 808
G
G
colluvium 803
Trench 8, view north-east (1m scales)
Cirencester 01285 771022
Cotswold
Archaeology
Milton Keynes 01908 218320
Andover 01264 347630
w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk
e [email protected]
PROJECT TITLE
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Hampshire
FIGURE TITLE
Trench 8: plan and photograph
0
1m
PROJECT NO. 770092
AO
DRAWN BY
APPROVED BY LM
DATE
01/07/2014
00
REVISION
SCALE@A4 1:200
FIGURE NO.
15
Section GG
Section HH
SW
NE
NE
74.35m
AOD
SW
74.43m
AOD
822
807
821
820
819
806
ditch 805
817
818
816
815
814
813
812
811
ditch 810
Ditch 805, view south-east (1m scale)
0
1m
Cirencester 01285 771022
Cotswold
Archaeology
Milton Keynes 01908 218320
Andover 01264 347630
w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk
e [email protected]
PROJECT TITLE
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Hampshire
Ditch 805, view south-east (1m scale)
Ditch 810, view south (1m scale)
Ditch 810, view south-east (1m scale)
FIGURE TITLE
Trench 8: sections and photographs
PROJECT NO. 770092
AO
DRAWN BY
APPROVED BY LM
DATE
01/07/2014
00
REVISION
SCALE@A3 1:20
FIGURE NO.
16
N
ditch 913
ditch 915
ditch 909
ditch 911
Trench 9, view east, pre-ex (1m scales)
J
I
I
ditch 904
J
ditch 907
ditch 917
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
0
10m
Cirencester 01285 771022
Cotswold
Archaeology
Milton Keynes 01908 218320
Andover 01264 347630
w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk
e [email protected]
Trench 9, view north, post-ex (1m scale)
PROJECT TITLE
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Hampshire
FIGURE TITLE
Trench 9: plan and photographs
PROJECT NO. 770092
AO
DRAWN BY
APPROVED BY LM
DATE
01/07/2014
00
REVISION
SCALE@A3 1:200
FIGURE NO.
17
Section JJ
Section II
NW
W
70.6m
AOD
SE
70.63m
AOD
E
905
918
906
919
ditch 904
ditch 917
0
Ditch 904, view north (0.4m scale)
Ditch 917, view north-east (1m scale)
1m
Ditch 917, view north(1m scale)
Cirencester 01285 771022
Cotswold
Archaeology
Milton Keynes 01908 218320
Andover 01264 347630
w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk
e [email protected]
PROJECT TITLE
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Hampshire
FIGURE TITLE
Trench 9: sections and photographs
PROJECT NO. 770092
AO
DRAWN BY
APPROVED BY LM
DATE
01/07/2014
00
REVISION
SCALE@A3 1:20
FIGURE NO.
18
land drain
plough scar
ditch 1002
plough scar
Trench 10, view north-east (1m scales)
N
Cirencester 01285 771022
Cotswold
Archaeology
Milton Keynes 01908 218320
Andover 01264 347630
w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk
e [email protected]
archaeological feature
PROJECT TITLE
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Hampshire
modern feature
FIGURE TITLE
Trench 8: plan and photograph
0
1m
PROJECT NO. 770092
AO
DRAWN BY
APPROVED BY LM
DATE
01/07/2014
00
REVISION
SCALE@A4 1:200
FIGURE NO.
19
20
21
Cirencester 01285 771022
20
General view west across Field 1
21
General view east from Field 1
Cotswold
Archaeology
Milton Keynes 01908 218320
Andover 01264 347630
w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk
e [email protected]
PROJECT TITLE
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Hampshire
FIGURE TITLE
Photographs
PROJECT NO. 770092
LM
DRAWN BY
APPROVED BY LM
DATE
01/07/2014
00
REVISION
SCALE@A4 N/A
FIGURE NO.
20 & 21
22
Cirencester 01285 771022
22
Cotswold
Archaeology
General view south from Trench 8 towards Field 2
Milton Keynes 01908 218320
Andover 01264 347630
w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk
e [email protected]
PROJECT TITLE
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Hampshire
FIGURE TITLE
Photograph
PROJECT NO. 770092
LM
DRAWN BY
APPROVED BY LM
DATE
01/07/2014
00
REVISION
SCALE@A4 N/A
FIGURE NO.
22
23
24
Cirencester 01285 771022
23
General view west of CP1
24
General view west of CP2
Cotswold
Archaeology
Milton Keynes 01908 218320
Andover 01264 347630
w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk
e [email protected]
PROJECT TITLE
Field House Farm, Ladwell, Hampshire
FIGURE TITLE
Photographs
PROJECT NO. 770092
LM
DRAWN BY
APPROVED BY LM
DATE
01/07/2014
00
REVISION
SCALE@A4 N/A
FIGURE NO.
23 & 24