Archaeological evaluation reveals Iron Age and post-medieval features in Rugby, indicating historical land use.
In July and August 2024, Cotswold Archaeology carried out an archaeological evaluation of land at Alwyn Road, Rugby, Warwickshire. A total of 144 trenches were excavated across the 30.5ha site. Trenches were positioned to ground-truth the results of a preceding geophysical survey and as a means of prospection for remains of a type or period that may not have been identified by the geophysics and to provide a representative sample of the remainder of the site. Overall, the correlation between the results of the geophysical survey and sub-surface features was variable. In July and August 2024, Cotswold Archaeology carried out an archaeological evaluation of land at Alwyn Road, Rugby, Warwickshire. A total of 144 trenches were excavated across the 30.5ha site. Trenches were positioned to ground-truth the results of a preceding geophysical survey and as a means of prospection for remains of a type or period that may not have been identified by the geophysics and to provide a representative sample of the remainder of the site. The earliest features recorded were encountered near the centre of the site. Two small pits in Trench 82 contained Iron Age pottery and prehistoric worked flint including a scraper, although the pottery was noted to be very worn and abraded. A larger pit partially exposed within Trench 80 also produced a sherd of Late Iron Age pottery as well as a shard of possible Roman glass. Two small ditch termini and a third small possible pit in Trench 83 produced no dating evidence but may be contemporary. A possible alignment of four pits was investigated in Trenches 140, 141 and 143, located away from the main site area and to the east of Alwyn Road. However, no dating evidence was recovered from any of these features. The majority of the features exposed during the evaluation comprised field boundary ditches, many of which corresponded with boundaries depicted on historic Ordnance Survey mapping or produced artefactual material of post-medieval date. Post-medieval gravel/sand extraction pits were encountered in Trenches 132 and 133 in the west of the site, Trench 47 in the south and Trench 132 in the east of the site. Three ditches exposed in Trench 36 appeared to form part of an enclosure depicted on the 1886 six-inch Ordnance Survey map. This map also depicts a building in the south of this enclosure, which is likely to be the source of the quantity of post-medieval/ early modern building material observed within the ditch fills. The enclosure and the building appear to have been removed before the publication of the 1905 25-inch Ordnance Survey map. A small number of isolated features could not be clearly assigned to any period. Trench 83 contained a possible small pit and two shallow possible ditch termini. No dating evidence was recovered from these three features but their location in close proximity to the other probable Iron Age/ Roman features in Trench 80 and 82 may suggest they also relate to this phase of activity. With the exception of a ditch in Trench 33 that did not share any similarity of alignment with the proven post-medieval boundary ditches and existing hedgerows, then the remaining undated ditches encountered across the site are thought likely to be post-medieval in date due to their similar alignment and fills. Overall, the correlation between the results of the geophysical survey and sub-surface features was variable. While some features did correlate with geophysical anomalies others did not, examples including ditch 3702 in Trench 37, ditch 4602 in Trench 46 and ditches 7902 and 7904 in Trench 79. In the case of these features, all interpreted as post-medieval field boundary ditches, it is considered that the similarity of the fill material to the geology into which the ditches were cut meant that the magnetic signature of the fill was not sufficiently different to be differentiated by the geophysical survey.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
R Brown (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: