| Abstract: |
A single evaluation trench 9.62m long by 1.92m wide was excavated running north to south across the proposed site of the footprint of the extension. The trench was excavated with an 8-tonne digger with a toothless ditching bucket. Due to the possibility of encountering 18th century field boundaries and a pond, the trench was dug from the south to the north. The spoil from the excavation was separated, with the grass and topsoil kept apart from the subsoil. All spoil was visually scanned for artefacts and checked with a metal detector. The machine excavation was supervised by an experienced archaeologist. Subsequently, archaeological monitoring of all groundworks for the proposed single-storey side extension was carried out. The monitored area comprised of an area of ground reduction that measured roughly 15.6m by 11.5m. This ground reduction took place over four separate days of ground works, and the final depth varied between 1m and 1.2m below ground level. Archaeological deposits and featurres were hand-sampled. The natural geology encountered in the evaluation trench was a compact mudstone (01/04), overlain by a clay layer (01/02), and then covered by a dark brown loamy clay topsoil (01/01). Although medieval features are known from elsewhere on the site, none were encountered during the evaluation. Instead, all encountered archaeological contexts dated to the 18th century or later. The mudstone and clay layers were cut for the brick-made structures 01/03 and 01/05, which were encountered in the northern half of the trench. Structure 01/05 was most likely a retaining wall for an 18th century pond, the general location of which is known from contemporary maps. The date of the structure could not be confirmed, however, because the very wet ground conditions in the trench prevented safe excavation and obscuring by the filling deposit (01/06). The exposed face of structure 01/03 was roughly perpendicular to structure 01/05. Although only a segment of structure 01/03 was encountered, it is possible that it functioned as part of the water management of the area, perhaps related to the retaining wall 01/05 seen in the trench or to nearby brick-made subterranean water tanks located somewhere to the west of the evaluation trench. It should be noted that despite the presence of visible access holes at ground surface around the site, the extent of the water tank system was unknown. Based on orientation, it is possible that the structures 01/03 and 01/05 would have met physically in some way, but this was not observed in the evaluation trench. Similarly, it is not possible to determine the chronological relationship of the structures. Nevertheless, the two structures should be considered distinct building episodes based on the difference of their construction materials, primarily in the dimension of the brickwork. There are many chronological possibilities, but two are most likely based on the available evidence. It is possible that the retaining wall 01/05 and structure 01/03 were both part of the construction for the 18th century pond, and the variation in construction material could be due to availability of material or perhaps function of the structures. Alternatively, structure 01/03 may postdate the retaining wall and the construction of the pond, perhaps as part of a later re-landscaping that included a different system of water management, or even the filling of the pond itself at the end of the 19th or start of the 20th century. A deposit of 20th century back fill (01/06) covered both structures. It is probably that the deposit represents a deliberate filling event of the pond and artificial levelling of the ground level. The intact glass bottle does not necessarily suggest intentional deposition of the artefact, but rather that the deposit did not accumulate through natural silting processes. |
