| Abstract: |
Mechanical excavation of eleven trenches. Two trenches were 30m long (Trenches 10 & 11), six 20m (Trenches 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 & 9) and three were 10m long (Trenches 3, 5 & 7). All trenches were 1.6m wide and were excavated by a JCB fitted with a toothless ditching bucket. The resultant surfaces were cleaned by hand prior to limited hand excavation of any identified archaeological features. During excavation the decision was made to extend Trench 4 for 8 metres to the west (to a total of 27m), and to extend Trench 11 for 7 metres to the north (to a total of 37m). In both cases this was intended to better locate features identified by geophysics, and, in the case of Trench 11, the extension was successful. Due to the quantity of colluvial material present across the site the majority of trenches were excavated beyond the actual surface of the natural, to ensure its correct identification. In all cases where colluvium could be suspected of concealing archaeological features it was removed. Excavation was carefully monitored to make certain that no archaeological material was removed without adequate recording. The excavated spoil from a 1m length at the each end of each trench was hand sorted to recover artefacts. Following recording of the excavated sections of ditches the remaining lengths within the trenches were quickly excavated by mattock in an attempt to retrieve artefacts. Across the 11 trenches archaeological features were encountered in a total of 11 instances. It is likely that some of these instances represent multiple samples of the same feature, and in one case; that of ditch [8/06]/[11/06], this is almost certain. This is discussed further below. Four trenches were devoid of archaeological features, most notably those at the very top of the landform (Trenches 9 & 10).The excavation of the evaluation trenches seems to have confirmed the projection of the geophysical survey in a number of cases. It should though be noted that while both surveys were based on the OS National grid the locating of the geophysics transects and evaluation trenches are likely to have been carried out with slightly differing degrees of accuracy; with a hand-held GPS unit having been used in the case of the geophysical survey and the trenches being positioned with the aid of differential GPS from a base-station. This may explain the slight difference between the projected location of features and their actual position in relation to the evaluation trenches. Trench 1 at the SE extreme of the site revealed no archaeological features. Moving NW up the slope to Trench 2, feature [2/07] can be discounted as a likely animal burrow and possibly assume a similar origin for feature [2/05] which, while appearing more regular than [2/07], does not appear in Trench 4 further up the slope. In contrast, ditch [2/09] appears to correlate with cut [4/05], which shares a similar fill, and together these would seem to represent the linear feature identified by the gradiometer survey as running NW with the slope on this line. The likelihood is that this is a field boundary although further consultation of the results of the geophysical survey indicates that this feature extends up the slope and appears to dog-leg to the SW before resuming its original course, perhaps with respect to the enclosure towards the top of the landform, and it may therefore be of a contemporary date. Ditch [3/04] runs across the slope and, according to the gradiometer survey, crosses ditch [2/09]/[4/05] between Trenches 2 and 4. This relatively substantial ditch may represent an earlier field boundary and the relatively thick topsoil and subsoil throughout Trench 4 may be indicative of terracing along the landform. However, given that ditch [3/04] runs roughly parallel to Old Rydon Lane (itself the modern parish boundary between Topsham and Heavitree), approximately 150m to the southeast, a more significant role cannot be discounted. |
