Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
The planned trenching programme comprised 60 trenches, but in practise only 35 were excavated as one of the tenant farmers did not permit access. Trenches 1 - 5 and 7 - 36 were excavated as planned. The total development area is c. 120 Ha in extent. The total area of excavated trenches is 2800m2. The trenches were located on a judgemental basis to investigate various magnetic anomalies detected by gradiometer survey, surface artefact scatters and cropmarks which have been interpreted as archaeological features. All trenches were 40m x 2m in plan and were set out with GPS equipment to ensure accurate positioning over the geophysical anomalies. OA's general approach to excavation and recording are detailed in the WSI (OA August 2013). Area 1 (trenches 1-5 and 7-17): Extensive traces of Iron Age and Roman settlement were encountered in the north-western field, on a slight rise next to the River Thame: Mid-late Iron Age pottery was found predominantly in trenches 1, 4, 5 and 8, in association with two small circular enclosures (possible roundhouses) and a series of sub-rectangular enclosures or field boundaries. The prehistoric pottery assemblage as a whole appears generally characteristic of the middle Iron Age, although some contexts could date from as late as the 1st century BC. There is a notable absence of typical late Iron Age pottery in the 'Belgic' tradition, which suggests a possible settlement hiatus during the late 1st century BC and early 1st century AD. A complete middle Iron Age vessel appeared to have been deliberately placed in a pit in trench 2 but there was no sign of any cremated bone in the pot or surrounding fill. An articulated piglet skeleton from an Iron Age ditch in trench 1 is of particular interest as a potential ritual deposit. Roman artefacts were predominantly associated with a roughly sub-rectangular enclosure investigated in trenches 10, 11, 12, 14 and 16. The largest Roman pottery assemblage came from trench 11, within a series of small rectilinear enclosures, which perhaps represents the core of the Roman settlement. The date range of the Roman pottery appears to be focussed predominantly in the 2nd century AD, possibly extending into the early 3rd century AD. The Roman pottery assemblage appears to be a typical rural domestic assemblage of relatively low status. Oven or kiln fragments suggest that small scale pottery manufacture was carried out on or near the site. Rich assemblages of charred plant remains and animal bone point to a mixed pastoral/ arable economy with evidence for both grain processing and butchery on site. An earthwork enclosure was identified from aerial photographs and Lidar data, overlying the Roman settlement. This is interpreted in the Buckinghamshire Heritage Environment Record as a possible medieval moated manor (HER0234400000). The enclosure is certainly post-Roman in date, as it was recorded directly overlying the Roman features in trenches 8, 10 and 11, but otherwise the evaluation did not find any evidence for its date. It is perhaps most likely to be of medieval or post-medieval date but there is certainly no evidence that the enclosure was a moated manor. As there are no associated artefacts or contemporary below-ground archaeological features the earthwork is interpreted as a livestock enclosure rather than a settlement site. Area 2 (trenches 19-23, 25-33, 35-36): Located in the central part of the development area, this group of trenches was located to investigate traces of ridge and furrow and various other magnetic anomalies tentatively identified by the geophysical survey, none of which proved to be significant archaeological features. The only potentially significant feature found in this area was a shallow, plough-eroded pit in trench 33 which contained the surviving parts of an articulated cattle skeleton but no artefacts.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Steve Leech
Stuart Foreman
Oxford Archaeology
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Leech et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/6a0ff42fd674f7c03778d60f — DOI: https://doi.org/10.5284/1142202