The evaluation comprised the excavation of 34 trenches in the locations shown on the attached plans. This included the excavation of: " 19no. 50m x 1.8m trenches in Parcel A (Trenches 275-293; Fig. 3). " 9no. 50m x 1.8 trenches in Parcel B1 (Trenches 294-302; Fig. 4). " 6no. 50m x 1.8 trenches in Parcel B2 (Trenches 303-308; Fig. 5). During the course of the evaluation, an extension of Trench 278 was requested by Mr Smyth, to further investigate a curving linear anomaly identified by the preceding geophysical survey, which was also encountered in T14 of the preceding phase of evaluation trenching. The trenches were located to further test geophysical anomalies and the results of the preceding phase of evaluation trenching, in order to better define areas of archaeological potential. In June 2025, Cotswold Archaeology carried out a second phase of archaeological evaluation at Chapel Hill Solar Farm, Bastonford, Malvern, Worcestershire. A total of 34 trenches were excavated during this phase of evaluation, which followed an earlier phase of trenching in which 259 trenches were excavated. Five flint chips, of broad prehistoric date, were recovered from a pit identified in the northwestern part of Parcel B1. Given the absence of further definitively contemporary features within both the current, and preceding, phases of evaluation trenching in the north-western part of Parcel B1, it would appear likely that prehistoric activity in this part of the site was of a limited, and potentially transient, nature. A pit identified in a trench excavated in the north-eastern part of Parcel A contained 11 sherds of pottery of a broad Roman date and a single sherd of Malvernian rock tempered ware of Middle Iron Age to 2nd-century AD date. A concentration of pottery of 2nd-century AD date, seemingly indicating a deliberate dumping of material, along with three fragments of imbrex (Roman roof tile), was recovered from the fill of a ditch identified in a trench excavated to the north-east during the preceding phase of evaluation trenching. A number of pits and ditches containing relatively low status artefactual material of a broad Roman date were identified in Trenches 294, 296 and 298, excavated in the north-western part of Parcel B1, along with a number of artefactually undated ditches which may be broadly contemporary. Further features of a Roman date were identified in the north-western part of Parcel B1 during the preceding phase of evaluation trenching and cumulatively the presence of these features, along with the quantities of artefactual material within their respective fills, suggests the presence of possible Roman settlement activity in the vicinity, although the focus of this activity does not appear to be present within the site itself. The ploughed out remains of medieval/post-medieval furrows were identified in the northwestern parts of Parcel B1. The presence of these features suggests that at least some of the site formed part of the agricultural hinterland of nearby settlements during the medieval and/or post-medieval periods. Two fragments of CBM of a broad post-medieval date were recovered from the fill of a ditch identified in a trench excavated in the north-western part of Parcel B1. This ditch also correlates closely to the location of part of a former field boundary shown on the 1885 First Edition OS map. A ditch recorded in the north-eastern part of Parcel A contained material of 18th to 19th-century date, but does not correspond to any mapped boundary on historic cartographic sources. Two further, albeit artefactually undated, ditches located in the central part of Parcel A, also appear to broadly correlate to a former field boundary depicted on the 1885 First Edition OS map.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
J Nowlan
Amt für Archäologie
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
J Nowlan (Wed,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/69b25b4996eeacc4fcec9c9a — DOI: https://doi.org/10.5284/1139849
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: