File name,Title,Abstract ,Author/editor (each individual should be added on a new row),,,,Page Count,Date Published,Publisher,Place Published ,Volume/ Issue/Report Number,ISBN,DOI,URL,Language,Software,Software Version
,,,Type,First Name,Last Name,Organisation,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
7083_BRG076_Survey_Statement_pre2017.docx,Survey_Statement,EXPLANATION OF SURVEY METHOD,AUTHOR,,,Archaeology South East,,2022,Archaeology South East,,,,,,English,Word,Office 2016
7083_BRG076_Archive_Box_Contents.docx,BRG076_Archive_Box_Contents,FINDS BOX CONTENTS,AUTHOR,,,Archaeology South East,,2022,Archaeology South East,,,,,,English,Word,Office 2016
7083_WSI_draft_3.pdf,"Land North-East of Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk NGR TL 8796 6566 Archaeological Evaluation and Magnetometer Survey Written Scheme of Investigation",Written Scheme of Investigation,AUTHOR,,,Archaeology South East,,2014,Archaeology South East,,,,,,English,Adobe,Acrobat DC
ASE_2015132_7083_LandNE_of_BSE_rev1.pdf,Land North-East of Bury St Edmunds Great Barton Suffolk Archaeological Evaluation Report,"Archaeology South-East (ASE), the contracting division of the Centre for Applied Archaeology (CAA), Institute of Archaeology (IoA), University College London (UCL) was commissioned by Berkeley Strategic Land Limited to conduct an archaeological evaluation by trial trenching on Land North-East of Bury St Edmunds, Great Barton, Suffolk. The evaluation was carried out in advance of a proposed housing-led development. Ninety-nine evaluation trenches were excavated, covering an area of 6000m2 and representing approximately 0.8% of the total area of the 75ha site. There had been no previous excavation on the site, although several sites have been investigated nearby (mainly in the Moreton Hall area), revealing evidence for prehistoric, Roman and Anglo-Saxon occupation. A Late Iron Age/Roman ?midden? (the Cattishall Tumulus) was excavated immediately east of the site in 1957, and the hamlet of Cattishall is known to have been a focus of medieval settlement and the site of a medieval circuit court. Prehistoric and Roman artefacts have been found in the course of fieldwalking and metal detecting at the east end of the site and in adjacent fields. A geophysical survey was carried out prior to the evaluation, with positive archaeological results. Archaeological features and deposits were recorded in thirty-seven of the evaluation trenches these were concentrated on the higher ground in the northern part of the site and were principally of Iron Age and Roman date. Some post-medieval features (field ditches, a possible track and at least one quarry) were recorded also. Low levels of activity during earlier prehistoric periods were represented by a small assemblage of worked flints, broadly dated to the Neolithic/Bronze Age although two pieces might have been of Mesolithic or Early Neolithic date. The flints were mostly found residually in later (Iron Age and Roman) features or in topsoil/subsoil deposits. There was some activity on the site during the earlier Iron Age, demonstrated principally by a single pit and a possibly associated ditch. Activity increased in the Late Iron Age/early Roman period, as shown by pits and other cut features containing significant amounts of unabraded pottery and other domestic refuse. This phase of occupation might have been associated with an extensive enclosure ditch and two or three smaller ditched enclosures recorded elsewhere on the site. During the Roman period an extensive, rectilinear enclosure system developed in the northern part of the site it is not clear if this replaced or extended the existing Late Iron Age/Roman enclosure(s). Significant amounts of unabraded pottery (mainly of mid/late Roman date) demonstrate nearby occupation, and this is supported by the presence of pits, at least one inhumation and a horse burial. Given the positive results of the evaluation it is clear that the proposed development has the potential to adversely affect heritage assets on this site. It is likely therefore that a mitigation strategy for the preservation of the resource (which might include further archaeological fieldwork) will be required by the local planning authority.",AUTHOR,KEIRON,HEARD,Archaeology South East,,2015,Archaeology South East,,,,,,English,Adobe,Acrobat DC
,,,CONTRIBUTOR,Luke ,Barber,Archaeology South East,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,CONTRIBUTOR,Anna,DOHERTY,Archaeology South East,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,CONTRIBUTOR,ANGELA,VITOLO,Archaeology South East,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,CONTRIBUTOR,ELISSA,MENZEL,Archaeology South East,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,CONTRIBUTOR,Lucy ,Allott,Archaeology South East,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,CONTRIBUTOR,Elke ,Raemen,Archaeology South East,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,CONTRIBUTOR,Karine,Le H?garat,Archaeology South East,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,CONTRIBUTOR,Hayley,FORSYTH,Archaeology South East,,,,,,,,,,,