Excavations at Saxon's Lode Farm, Ripple, 2001–2: Iron Age, Romano-British and Anglo-Saxon ...

90 Pages·2008·3.7 MB·English

01_ripple_001-090 2/5/08 08:42 Page 1
Excavations at Saxon’s Lode Farm,
Ripple, 2001–2: Iron Age,
Romano-British and Anglo-Saxon rural
settlement in the Severn Valley
By ALISTAIR BARBER and MARTIN WATTS
with contributions by MARYALEXANDER, PAUL BLINKHORN,
CHRISTOPHER BRONK RAMSEY, GORDON COOK, G.B. DANNELL,
DEREK HAMILTON, MICHAEL HARE, LORRAIN HIGBEE, ROWENA GALE,
A.T.O. LANG, E.R. MCSLOY, ELIZABETH PEARSON, FIONA ROE,
SYLVIAWARMAN and PETER WEBSTER
Summary
This report describes the results of evaluation and excavation relating to the expansion of Ryall
Quarry over land at Saxon’s Lode Farm, Ripple. Excavation was undertaken by Cotswold
Archaeology during 2001 and 2002 of two separate areas of archaeological potential identified
from evaluation, which produced two very different densities and types of multiperiod remains,
despite significant levels of truncation. In Area 1, the few features exposed appeared to mostly
relatetoeitherBronzeAgeritualactivityorMiddleIronAgesettlement.InArea2,amuchhigher
density of remains was recorded. One group of features may also have represented Bronze Age
ritual activity, but the majority of features related to Later Iron Age activity, an Early Roman-
BritishsettlementandanEarlytoMiddleAnglo-Saxonsettlement.TheLaterIronAgeactivitywas
representedentirelybygrainstoragepits.Thesewereprobablytheremainsofanareaofspecial
activitywithinalargersettlement,althoughnootherdirectsettlementevidencewasidentified,and
itispossiblethatthesitewasaspecialisedgrainstoragefacility.TheRomano-Britishsettlement
comprised the most complete rural farmstead yet excavated in Worcestershire, with evidence for
its organisation and development apparent. The Anglo-Saxon settlement comprised a small
collection of sunken-featured buildings, unremarkable in many ways but significant as the most
westerly example of this type of settlement yet identified in Britain. The continuity of one
field/settlementboundaryfromatleasttheEarlyRomanperiodtothetwenty-firstcenturywasalso
demonstrated.
Introduction
In September 2001, and between September and December 2002, CotswoldArchaeology (CA)
carriedoutarchaeologicalexcavationsonbehalfofRMC(Western)AggregatesLtd(nowCEMEX)
atSaxon’sLodeFarm,Ripple,Worcestershire(centredatNGR:S086503920).Theexcavations
weretheresultofaprogrammeofarchaeologicalinvestigationrelatingtoanextensionofgravel
extraction at Ryall Quarry, which lies immediately to the east of the River Severn (Fig. 1).The
quarryextensioncomprisedfourfieldsandmeasuredc.18ha;followingarchaeologicalevaluation
ofallfourfields,excavationwasundertakenacrosstwoareasinthesouth-westernfield,together
totallingc.1.5ha,priortothecommencementofmineralextraction(Fig.2).
1
01_ripple_001-090 2/5/08 08:43 Page 2
Fig.1 Sitelocation(1:25,000)
2
01_ripple_001-090 2/5/08 08:43 Page 3
Fig.2 Localtopography,locationofevaluationtrenchesandexcavationareas(1:5000)
3
01_ripple_001-090 2/5/08 08:43 Page 4
Site location
Saxon’s Lode Farm, in the parish of Ripple in south Worcestershire, is located in the Severn
Valley on the eastern bank of the River Severn (Fig. 1). The excavation site lies less than 3km
downstreamofUptonuponSevern,about7kmnorthofconfluenceoftheRiversSevernandAvon
atTewkesbury,and7kmduewestofBredonHill.Locatedatapproximately17maboveODonthe
sandandgraveloftheThird(Main)TerraceoftheRiverSevern,itstandsseveralmetresabovethe
riveranditsassociatedfloodplain.TheunderlyingsolidgeologyismappedasMerciaMudstone
(BGS1988).
Although essentially rural in character, the immediate environs of the quarry extension area
containedanumberofrelativelymodernfeatures(Fig.2).Mostobviousweretheexistingquarry’s
extractionactivitiesimmediatelytothenorth.Tothesouth,thelineofadismantledrailwayfrom
TewkesburytoGreatMalvernranclosetothesiteboundary.Closerstill,thequarryextensionarea
was bounded to the east, west and south by oil storage tanks and associated installations dating
from the Second World War and located conveniently close to both river and railway. Prior to
archaeologicalinvestigations,thefourfieldsthatcomprisedthequarryextensionareawereunder
pastureandarablecultivation.
Project Background
FollowingthesubmissionofanapplicationbyRMCin1997foraquarryextension,thePlanning
Authority(thenHerefordandWorcesterCountyCouncil)requestedaprogrammeoffieldevaluation
toassessthearchaeologicalimplicationsoftheproposeddevelopment.Thiscommencedwiththe
plottingofcropmarksnotedpreviouslyfromaerialphotographsofthesite(seebelow),followedby
ageophysicalsurveyofselectedcropmarksundertakenbyStratascan(Barker1997),theresultsof
whichwereinconclusive.TwophasesoffieldevaluationwerethencarriedoutbyCA(asCotswold
ArchaeologicalTrust:CAT)in1998(Fig.2):inJanuary,14trialtrencheswereexcavatedwithinthe
twonorthernfieldsoftheextensionarea(Kenyon1998a),followedinSeptemberbyafurther14
trencheswithinthetwosouthernfields(ibid.1998b).Thesecondevaluationidentifiedsignificant
Romano-Britishremainssurvivinginthesouth-westernfield,withtheresultsfromelsewherebeing
largely negative. A planning condition was subsequently imposed requiring archaeological
excavationofthesouth-westernfieldpriortothecommencementofextractioninthisarea.
Aprojectdesignforastagedapproachtoexcavationinthesouth-westernfieldwasproducedby
CATandapprovedbyWorcestershireCountyCouncilinJuly2000.Archaeologicalmonitoringof
themachineexcavationofgeotechnicalpitswithinthesouth-westernfieldfollowedinMarch2001.
Thesubsequentgeotechnicalreporthighlightedanareainthecentreofthefieldthatappearedto
containfewmineraldeposits,andthereforewasconsideredunsuitableformineralextraction.Asa
result,archaeologicalexcavationofthesouth-westernfieldwascarriedoutacrossitswestern(Area
1)andeastern(Area2)parts,butnoexcavationwasundertakeninthecentralareainbetween.
ExcavationofArea1wasundertakeninSeptember2001,andveryfewremainsofarchaeological
significance were uncovered. Excavation of Area 2 was undertaken between September and
December2002,whenextensivearchaeologicalremainswereexposed,includingaRomano-British
farmstead and sixAnglo-Saxon sunken-featured buildings. The discovery of theAnglo-Saxon
remains presented the team with a level of archaeological work that was clearly over and above
whatcouldhavebeenpredictedfromtheresultsoftheevaluation.Asaresult,applicationwasmade
by MalcolmAtkin, CountyArchaeologist forWorcestershire, supported by Ian George, English
HeritageInspectorofAncientMonumentsfortheWestMidlands,toEnglishHeritageArchaeology
Commissions (now Historic Environment Enabling Programme) for additional project funding
throughthePPG16Assistanceprogramme,whichwasgrantedinFebruary2003.
4
01_ripple_001-090 2/5/08 08:43 Page 5
Archaeological background
Thearchaeologicalpotentialofthesitewasfirstidentifiedfromcropmarkslocatedwithinthequarry
extension area, recorded on the Worcestershire Historic Environment Record (HER) as WSM
01433,WSM05498,WSM05735andWSM05499(Figs1and2).Thetwoevaluationsundertaken
aspartofthisprojectconcludedthatmanyofthesecropmarksweregeologicalinorigin(Kenyon
1998a; 1998b).To the north of the quarry extension area, a scatter of worked flint and Romano-
British pottery had been identified during evaluation of the original quarry area in 1990, but no
features had been located (Hughes 1990).To the south, further HER records showed a possible
Romanroad(WSM07628)andmorecropmarks,includingasuspectedringditch(WSM01320)
andalargecropmarkcomplex,possiblyindicatingprehistoricorRomano-Britishsettlement(WSM
01437).
The place-name ‘Saxon’s Lode’may also be significant as it suggests that there was a former
crossingoftheRiverSevernatthispoint.Thesecondelementoftheplace-nameisprobablyderived
from‘gelād’,meaning‘difficultrivercrossing’,althoughthisinterpretationiscomplicatedbythe
use of the early English word lode for ferries across the river Severn in the counties of
Gloucestershire,Worcestershire and Shropshire (Gelling and Cole 2000, 81–2). Several of these
are known, including Lower and Upper Lode nearby at Tewkesbury, although these alternative
etymologiesarenotnecessarilymutuallyexclusive.Confusingly,anotherpossibleinterpretationis
thatthismaybeacorruptionofanamethatoriginallycontainedslaed,‘smallvalley’;someearly
spellingsareconsistentwiththis,andtheredoesappeartobealittlevalleyatpreciselythispoint
(Gelling1984,73–6).
TheSecondWorldWaroilstorageinstallationisalsoofarchaeologicalsignificanceandhasbeen
recordedontheWorcestershireHER(WSM24673).
Aims and objectives
Theaimsoftheexcavationweretoensurethatafullanddetailedarchaeologicalrecordofthesite
wascompiledpriortogravelextraction;wherepossible,toelucidatetheform,functionandstatus
ofanyactivityrepresentedonsite,andtoestablishitschronologyandphasing;todeterminethedate,
characterandsignificanceofthearchaeologicalremains;andtobringtheresultsoftheexcavation
toanappropriatelevelofpublication.
Withinthisbroadframework,anumberofobjectivesrelatingtothesuspectedRomano-British
settlement were set out. These were: to establish the date, chronology and character of the
settlement; to determine the nature of any related spatial patterning; to investigate its economic
base and resource exploitation; and to relate the results to the model of Romano-British
settlementinthispartoftheSevernValley.Additionalobjectiveswereidentifiedduringthecourse
of the excavations, as the multiperiod nature of the site became apparent. These included: to
establish the date and character of the late prehistoric activity that preceded the Romano-British
settlement; to establish the date and character of theAnglo-Saxon settlement that followed it; to
investigatethesignificanceoftheAnglo-Saxonremainsinthecontextoflocalsettlementhistory;
andtorelatetheresultstothemodelofAnglo-SaxonsettlementinthispartoftheSevernValleyand
beyond.
Excavation methodology
Excavation of both areas commenced with the careful and supervised stripping of topsoil by
machinewithatoothlessgradingbuckettoexposearchaeologicalfeaturescutintothenaturalsand
andgravels(Fig.3).Thedepthoftopsoilandsubsoilthusremovedwasbetween0.3mto0.5m;this
representsaconsiderabledegreeoftruncation,undoubtedlycausedinpartbymodernploughingand
theconstructionofearthbanksaroundtheoilstoragetanksmayalsohavehadasignificantimpact.
5
01_ripple_001-090 2/5/08 08:43 Page 6
Fig.3 Areas1and2,andtrenches9and25:allfeatureplan(1:2000)
Asaresult,nohorizontalstratigraphysurvivedineitheroftheexcavationareas.Onlyafewfeatures
were identified inArea 1, mainly towards the south-western corner. Many more features were
identifiedinArea2,althoughrelativelyfewdirectrelationshipsexistedbetweenfeatures.Several
features,andinparticulartheremainsoftheAnglo-Saxonsunken-featuredbuildings,onlybecame
apparentafterseveralweeksofweathering.
Handexcavationoffeaturesfollowedinaccordancewithanagreedsamplingstrategy:ingeneral,
50% of pits and postholes were sampled with an appropriate proportion of linear features
concentratingonterminalsand,wheretheyexisted,intersectionsandoverlaps.Structuralremains
werefullyexcavated,includingthesunken-featuredbuildings,whichwereexcavatedinquartersto
record any surviving lithostratigraphy within the cross sections and to capture basic data on any
artefactdistributions.Somepitsandpostholeswereleftunexcavatedduetotimeconstraintsand
theirrepetitivenature.Theacidicconditionsofthegravelsubsoilmeantthatverylittleanimalbone
survived,andnohumanbonewasrecognised.
6
01_ripple_001-090 2/5/08 08:43 Page 7
Approach to publication and location of the archive
Followingcompletionoftheexcavations,apost-excavationassessmentandupdatedprojectdesign
was produced (CA 2004) following standard guidance within Management of Archaeological
Projects II (English Heritage 1991).The assessment identified those parts of the site archive of
sufficientsignificancetowarrantfurtheranalysis,andtheupdatedprojectdesignidentifiedhowthe
results of the excavations and further analysis would be brought to appropriate publication (this
report).Forexpediency,muchoftheprojectdatareportedonhereinisinsummaryformonly;full
specialistreportsareavailablefromCotswoldArchaeology([email protected])and
for consultation in the project archive, which will be deposited with Worcestershire County
Museum.
The allocation of individual features and groups of features to phases and periods has been
achievedthroughthecombinedanalysisofphysicalrelationships,ceramicdatingevidence,spatial
patterning, fill characteristics, and analysis of a number of further categories of artefactual and
ecofactualmaterial.Theconservativenatureofmuchoftheceramicdatingevidencemeansithas
beenoflimiteduseindeterminingchronologyandascribingfeaturestospecificperiods,although
aprogrammeofradiocarbondatingofsomekeyfeatureshascompensatedforthissomewhat.Unless
otherwisestated,thecalibrateddaterangescitedinthetextarethosefor95%confidence(forfull
detailsseeRadiocarbondating,below).Resultsfromevaluationtrencheshaveonlybeenincluded
wheresignificant;thosewithinexcavationareasweresubsumedentirelybylaterrecordingduring
open-areaexcavation.Itisacceptedthattherearealternativesequencestoexplainthedevelopment
ofsettlement,buttheaccountgivenbelowisconsideredtobethemostsustainableinterpretation
withinthelimitationsoftheevidence.
Toavoidconfusionwithothersiteswithintheparish,themulti-periodsiteexcavatedintheearly
1970satBeckford(Britnell1974),withwhichmanyusefulcomparisonsaredrawn,isreferredto
hereinasBeckfordQuarry.
MichaelHarekindlyagreedtoprovideanoverviewofthehistoricalevidenceforAnglo-Saxon
RippleoncethepresenceofAnglo-Saxonremainsbecameapparent.Althoughthishistoricaldata
cannotberelateddirectlytoexcavatedremains,itisincludedasanappendixtothisreport.
Excavation Results
SituatedonagravelterracenexttotheSevern,itislikelythatthesiteareawasutilisedinsomeway
oranotherfromatleasttheBronzeAgeonwards;however,theexcavatedfeaturesrepresentedfive
episodesofarchaeologicallysignificantactivity:
Period1: c.2400BCtoc.1100BC(EarlytoMiddleBronzeAge)
Period2: FourthtothirdcenturyBC(MiddleIronAge)
Period3: SecondcenturyBCtofirstcenturyAD(LaterIronAge)
Period4: SecondtoearlythirdcenturyAD(Roman)
Period5: midSixthtomidseventhcenturyAD(EarlytoMiddleAnglo-Saxon)
The majority of features have been assigned to Periods 3 and 4, dating to the Later IronAge or
Romanperiods.Therewasasignificantnumberofundatedfeaturesthatcouldnotbeascribedto
anyperiodwithconfidencealthough,asthemajoritywerepitsinArea2,mostwereprobablyof
LaterIronAgedate(seebelow).TherewasalsoasmallnumberofpitsinArea1whichdatedto
themedievalperiodorlater,andafewmodernfeaturesinArea2(includingthegeotechnicalpits
excavatedin2001)thathadtruncatedarchaeologicalremains.
ThedatingevidenceforPeriods2and3,andforPeriods3and4,hassomedegreeofoverlapbut,
inisolation,doesnotindicatecontinuityofsettlementbetweentheseperiods.
7
01_ripple_001-090 2/5/08 08:43 Page 8
Fig.4 Area1:planofallPeriods(1:750)
8
01_ripple_001-090 2/5/08 08:43 Page 9
Period 1: c. 2400 to c. 1100 BC (Early to Middle Bronze Age)
TheearliestfeaturesidentifiedduringexcavationappearedtodatetotheEarlytoMiddleBronze
Age.TheycomprisedapenannularditchandtwopitsinArea1(Fig.4)andagroupofsmallpits
andpostholesinArea2(Fig.7).
The penannular ditch, situated towards the eastern edge ofArea 1 (Fig. 5), had an external
diameterof7.5mwithac.1m-widegaptothesouth.ItsU-shapedditchsurvivedupto1.15min
width and 0.5m in depth (Fig. 6, sections 1 and 2). No internal features (if ever present) had
survived.Therewasnoevidenceofrecuttingoftheditchandnodatingevidencewasrecovered,
however,thisfeatureisinterpretedasbeingofBronzeAgedatebyvirtueofitsform(seeDiscussion,
below)andthesimilarityofitsfilltothoseofnearbypits038and052.Subcircularpit038measured
0.73mby0.63m,andsurvivedtoadepthof0.23m.Pit052continuedbeyondthelimitofexcavation
butwasatleast1.2mby0.92m,andwas0.36mdeep.Bothpitsweresteep-sidedwithconcavebases
and,likethepenannularditch,containedabundantcharcoalflecksandsmallfragmentsofcharcoal
andfiredclay.SevensherdsofEarlytoMiddleBronzeAgepotterywererecoveredfrompit038,
oneofwhichisdecorated(Fig.25,no.1),withafurtherthreesherdsfrompit052.Bothpitsalso
containedworkedflintconsistentwithaBronzeAgedate,withtenpiecesrecoveredfrompit038
andfourfrompit052.Pit038alsocontainedfire-crackedpebbles.
InArea2,BronzeAgeactivitywasrepresentedbyadiscreetgroupofpitsandpostholeslocated
withinthelater(Period4)Enclosure3(Fig.7).Thelargestofthesewaspit2267,measuring2.5m
by 2m and 0.3m deep with gently sloping sides and an off-centred oval base (Fig. 8).Asecond,
smallerpit(2274)layimmediatelytotheeastofpit2267.Threepostholes,2327,2329and2332,
eachsurvivingtoupto0.3mindepth,werelocatedwithinthenorthernhalfofpit2267.Noartefacts
were recovered from any of these features, however, fragments of charred cereal grain from fill
Fig.5 Area1,Period1:recordingthepenannularditch.Viewtosouth-west
9
01_ripple_001-090 2/5/08 08:43 Page 10
Fig.6 Area1,Period1:penannularditch,plan(1:100)andsections(1:50)
2269 within pit 2267 provided three radiocarbon determinations of between 2470–2200 cal. BC
(OxA-13997; SUERC-4102; SUERC-4103), indicating an Early Bronze Age date. The other
featuresofthisgroupareassumedtobebroadlycontemporaryfromtheircloseassociationwithpit
2267.ElsewhereinArea2,11piecesofworkedflintwererecovered,mostlyasresidualfindsfrom
laterfeatures,includinganunstratifieddiscoidal‘button’-typescraperoftenassociatedwithEarly
BronzeAge/Beakersites.
ThescarcityofBronzeAgeremainsandartefactslimitsinterpretationofPeriod1,althoughthis
lackofevidenceindicatesthatthiswasprobablynotanareaofBronzeAgesettlement.Thepresence
ofapenannularditch(despitethelackofevidenceforanassociatedburial),andoffragmentsof
potteryvesselsoftenassociatedwithfuneraryusefrompits038and052,ismoreindicativeofnon-
domestic, perhaps funerary or ritual, activity. It is possible that pit 2267 may also have been for
burialbutthatnohumanbonehadsurvived.
Period 2: Fourth to third century BC (Middle Iron Age)
Middle IronAge remains were restricted to the south-western part ofArea 1, and comprised a
numberofpits,mostofwhichweresubcircular,andacurvilinearditch(Ditch1),allofwhichwere
heavily truncated (Fig. 4). Most of the pits were around 1.3m in diameter and few exceeded a
survivingdepthof0.1m,althoughpit023was0.6mdeep.MiddleIronAgepotterywasrecovered
frommostofthepits,includingtwosherdsofstamp-decoratedMalvernianwarefrompit019(Fig.
25, nos 2–3). Pits 011, 017 and 035 yielded no datingevidencebutareincludedby virtueof the
similarity of their fills to the other, dated pits. Ditch 1, which was 0.6m wide and survived to a
depthof0.15m,yieldedsixIronAgeMalvernianrock-temperedpotsherdsandfourfragmentsof
firedclay.Pit019alsoproducedsomefuelash,whichmaybeindicativeofuseasastoragepit(see
Period3,below).
10