Archaeological Monitoring and Excavation
Prepared for Maldon District Council
OAK TREE MEADOW HEYBRIDGE
ESSEX
ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING AND EXCAVATION
Field Archaeology Unit
OCTOBER 2005
Archaeological Monitoring and Excavation
Prepared for Maldon District Council
Archaeological Monitoring and Excavation
Prepared for Maldon District Council
OAK TREE MEADOW HEYBRIDGE
ESSEX
ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING AND EXCAVATION
Prepared By: Ben Barker Signature:
Position: Project Officer Date:
Approved By: Mark Atkinson Signature:
Position: Unit Manager Date:
Document Ref. 1233Rep.doc
Report Issue Date October 2005
Circulation Oak Tree Meadow Steering Group
ECC Historic Environment Management team
As part of our desire to provide a quality service, we would welcome any comments you may have on the content or the presentation of this report.
Please contact the Archaeological Fieldwork Manager, at the Field Archaeology Unit,
Fairfield Court, Fairfield Road, Braintree, Essex CM7 3YQ Tel: 01376 331470
Fax: 01376 331428
� Field Archaeology Unit , Essex County Council, c/o County Hall, Chelmsford
Essex CM1 1LF
Archaeological Monitoring and Excavation
Prepared for Maldon District Council
CONTENTS
SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 1
1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 2
2 BACKGROUND ......................................................................................... 2
3 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES .......................................................................... 4
4 METHOD ................................................................................................... 4
5 RESULTS .................................................................................................. 5
6 FINDS ..����������������������������. 7
7 CONCLUSIONS & ASSESSMENT OF RESULTS ......................................
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................. 17
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................ 17
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1: TRENCH DATA ...................................................................... 19
APPENDIX 2: CONTEXT DATA .................................................................... 20
APPENDIX 3: FINDS DATA ......................................................................... 21
APPENDIX 4: ARCHIVE INDEX .................................................................... 27
APPENDIX 5: HER SUMMARY SHEET ........................................................ 27
FIGURES
Figure 1: Site location Figure 2: Trench location plan
Figure 3: Trench 6,15, 21 and 22 plans Figure 4: Trench 1-6 sections
Figure 5: Trench 7-14 sections Figure 6: Trench 16-23 sections
Figure 7: Excavation areas and 1997 geophysical survey
Archaeological Monitoring and Excavation
Prepared for Maldon District Council
OAK TREE MEADOW HEYBRIDGE, ESSEX
ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING AND EXCAVATION
Client: Oak Tree Meadow Steering Group NGR: TL 849077
Planning Application No: n/a Site Code: HYOM 05
Project No: 1233
Date of Fieldwork: 1/6/2006 � 8/6/2005
SUMMARY
The Essex County Council Field Archaeology Unit (FAU) carried out archaeological excavation and monitoring works on groundworks associated with the construction of a playground on land known as Oak Tree Meadow, Heybridge. This site occupies a location of Heybridge known to contain below-ground archaeological remains, as established by a geophysical survey undertaken in 1997 and previous landscaping works in 2004.
Archaeological excavation of anchor pits for playground apparatus, the recording of deposits exposed in a larger area stripped ahead of the laying of surfacing and observation of construction works, confirms that significant remains are widespread across the meadow site. Although of a restricted nature, this investigation has identified the presence of pits, ditches and apparent buildup deposits containing large quantities of domestic rubbish. Established to be of Iron Age and Roman date, these remains are interpreted as a southwards continuation of the important settlement excavated to the north, at Elms Farm, in 1993-5. It is likely that the recorded remains represent past occupation and other land-use of the lowest river terrace, and demonstrates that late Iron Age and Roman period activity extended down to the saltmarsh alongside the river Chelmer.
The shallow nature of groundworks for the surfaced play area and restricted extent of the foundation/anchor pits for apparatus will have only a minor adverse impact upon the below-ground remains present within Oak Tree Meadow. However, this work clearly indicates the significant archaeological implications should other, more intrusive, construction works be planned for this site or the surrounding vicinity in the future.
Archaeological Monitoring and Excavation
Prepared for Maldon District Council
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1.1 This report contains the results of archaeological monitoring and excavation prior to the
construction of a playground on land known as Oak Tree Meadow, Heybridge. The work was designed to determine the presence, nature, date and survival of archaeological remains in the proposed development area.
1.1.2 Essex County Council Field Archaeology Unit (ECC FAU) carried out the excavation on behalf of Maldon District Council (MDC). The project was carried out in accordance with a brief prepared by Pat Connell of the ECC Historic Environment Management team (ECC HEM), who also monitored the work.
1.1.3 Following completion of the project, the site archive will be deposited with Colchester Museum, while copies of the report will be supplied to the client, ECC HEM, and the Essex Historic Environment Record (EHER). An OASIS online form will be completed for submission to HEM, including an uploaded PDF version of the report.
2 BACKGROUND 2.1 Planning
2.1.1 Aware that the site was one of established archaeological potential, Maldon District Council consulted the ECC Historic Environment Management team regarding their plans to construct a play area.
2.1.2 A brief was subsequently produced, on behalf of Maldon District Council, by ECC HEM, for detailed archaeological monitoring and excavation in advance of, and during, construction (Connell 2005). All archaeological works were undertaken in accordance with this brief.
2.1.3 Previously, a phase of landscaping work in advance of playground apparatus construction, primarily the creation of a shallow pond, was subject to an archaeological monitoring brief in 2004.
2.2 Location and Topography
2.2.1 Oak Tree Meadow is an elliptical-shaped, c.3ha, area of land on the southern edge of Heybridge (TL 849077), bounded by the bypass embankment to its north and by the Blackwater Navigation to its south (Fig.1). Until recently the site has been low-lying
Archaeological Monitoring and Excavation
Prepared for Maldon District Council
pasture, prone to seasonal flooding in parts. Within the general extents of the playground works, the ground surface is c.3.2m above OD in the southwest, rising to 3.65m above OD in the east.
2.3 Geology
2.3.1 The underlying surface geology of this area is mixed river terrace Gravels, which often produces poor definition of archaeological features.
2.3.2 The overlying topsoil is a sandy silt approximately 0.3m thick. No significant traces of alluvium over archaeological remains were encountered within the area of investigation, although post-Roman (modern?) truncation and levelling is possibly suggested in some of the trench sequences (see Section 5.3).
2.4 History and Archaeology
2.4.1 The site sits within a highly significant archaeological/historical landscape with a range of findspots and investigations being recorded from the 1880s to the 1980s. Known remains span the prehistoric to Saxon periods. This general background has been well-documented by Wickenden (1986) and is not further described here.
2.4.2 Most pertinent to Oak Tree Meadow is the nationally important Late Iron Age and Roman settlement site, excavated prior to housing development at Elms Farm in 1993-5 (Atkinson and Preston 1998 and forthcoming). Located immediately to the north, on the other side of the bypass, a large area of this settlement was exposed over 20ha. This included a road network, temple complex, occupation plots, processing and rubbish disposal areas and communal open spaces. Field systems and funerary areas, the latter featuring both cremation burials and pyre sites, were also encountered on the settlement peripheries.
2.4.3 Casual observation of the machine-excavation of a mains service trench across the eastern
part of Oak Tree Meadow in 1995 revealed the presence of archaeological deposits and artefacts of likely Roman date. The trench shows clearly on the geophysical plot (Fig.7). Occasional pottery sherds were also collected from deposits exposed in the sides of many of the field ditches that define Oak Tree Meadow and from ditches further south towards the river Chelmer. Further pottery sherds were retrieved from the northern foundation groundworks of the �Tesco footbridge� across the Chelmer and Blackwater Navigation in
Archaeological Monitoring and Excavation
Prepared for Maldon District Council
1996. The material collected from these observations and a note about their locations has been incorporated into the Oak Tree Meadow archive.
2.4.4 A geophysical survey of the development area, carried out in 1997 by the ECC Field Archaeology Unit, established that a similar density/range of below-ground archaeological remains were also present on the Oak Tree Meadow site, extending into the field to its north-west (Wardill 1998). This survey tentatively identified the remains of boundary ditches, trackways, pits and possible structural features that extended across the whole area of the meadow (Fig.7).
2.4.5 More recently, an initial phase of landscaping works for the recreation area, involving the excavation of a shallow pond, tree planting and construction of a boardwalk, was subject to monitoring in 2004 (Archaeological Solutions Ltd, in prep). Roman period remains are understood to have been identified during these works.
3 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
3.1.1 The archaeological work was undertaken to locate, identify, record and assess the quality and extent of any surviving archaeological remains within the development area.
3.1.2 Particular objectives involved:
� Retrieving information pertaining to Late Iron Age and Roman landscape use � Relating this information to the results of the 1997 geophysical survey
4 METHOD
4.1.1 A mechanical excavator with a flat bladed bucket, under archaeological supervision, was used to remove the topsoil from fourteen play equipment anchor pits (Trenches 1-14, Fig.2). These were then dug manually, by archaeologists, to the specified construction depth (either c.0.6m or 1.m), unless undisturbed geology was reached before this.
4.1.2 A large open area (Trench 15, Fig.2) was also machine-stripped under archaeological supervision, prior to the construction of the principal surfaced playground area. All recent overburden and topsoil deposits were removed by mechanical excavator fitted with a toothless bucket down to the contractor�s specified depth of 300mm. As this barely reached the top of the archaeological interface, two machine-dug sample areas were machined
Archaeological Monitoring and Excavation
Prepared for Maldon District Council
within this, to approximately 400mm, to ascertain the presence, survival and depth of significant buried remains.
4.1.3 The open area was planned and any archaeological remains within it recorded, following standard FAU methodologies. Due to the majority of this area being overlain by playground surfacing and therefore not being further impacted upon by construction works, no further intrusive investigation of the exposed remains was undertaken.
4.1.4 Archaeological monitoring was also undertaken on additional foundation pits for other play equipment (Trenches 16-23, Fig.2). These were machine-excavated by the playground construction contractor, generally to a depth of c.0.6m and subsequently observed and recorded by an archaeologist.
4.1.5 Standard ECC FAU methodologies were employed with regard to any excavation and recording of remains within the foundation pits and open area. All stratigraphy was recorded using the FAU�s context recording system. Photographic, drawn and written records were made. Planning and surveying was tied to the Ordnance Survey National Grid.
4.1.5 Finds were collected from all excavated deposits within the anchor pits and from the surfaces of those exposed but not investigated in the open area. The individual spoil heaps were also scanned to extract significant remains from the machined topsoil and below- ground deposits.
5 RESULTS 5.1 General
5.1.1 The results of the archaeological works are described in three sub-sections, following the differing approaches of investigations of the anchor pits, the open area and monitoring of contractors groundworks. Individual trench plans are reproduced where informative and representative sections of all except Trench 15 are provided (Figs.4-6). Further �trench� and context data is presented in Appendices 1 and 2, and information relating to collected finds in Appendix 3. In essence, these results confirm the widespread and, in places, significantly stratified, presence of archaeological remains within Oak Tree Meadow. The significance of
Archaeological Monitoring and Excavation
Prepared for Maldon District Council
these results in relation to the 1997 geophysical survey and to the Elms Farm excavations is alluded to where pertinent, though discussed more fully in Sections 7 and 8.
5.1.2 In overview, the monitoring and excavation works have established that an approximately 0.2m to 0.3m-thick layer of sandy silt topsoil extends across the site, below which are deposits that contain archaeological artefacts and that appear to be undisturbed by post- medieval/modern land-use. The height of natural gravels, where reached within trenches and not obviously reduced by intrusive archaeological features, generally seem to vary between 0.5-1.0m below present ground surface (c.2.60 to an estimated 2.9m above OD), while the water table was noted to have been encountered at a depth of c.0.9m (c.2.5m above OD).
5.1.3 Archaeological deposits are predominantly grey-brown and gravel-rich, comprising varying proportions of silt, sand, and occasionally clay. The incidence of artefactual remains within these deposits is variable. However, typically Late Iron Age to late Roman pottery, Roman tile, metalwork, baked clay and small quantities of animal bone are present. A small quantity of prehistoric pottery and flint was collected but, along with much of the Iron Age material, is residual in later deposits.
5.2 Anchor Pits (trenches 1-14) (Figs. 3-6)
5.2.1 Excavation within the fourteen anchor pits recorded the presence of significant archaeological deposits in all instances, though the varying horizontal and vertical extent and legibility of these was dictated by the varying constraints of area/depth of each anchor pit.
5.2.2 Archaeological deposits were predominantly in the form of grey-brown, gravel-rich, silty layers, the colour and consistency of which was dependent upon the degree of depth/waterlogging and gravel content. A certain amount of horizontal constancy can be discerned across these layers; on average there appear to be only two or three significant layers although it is extremely difficult to identify directly equating deposits with any degree of reliability or meaning.
5.2.3 A cut feature [3] and its single fill were tentatively identified in Trench 4, apparently truncating an underlying further layer (Figs.3 and 4). No edges to this feature were located and the restricted size of the trench makes further interpretation of its nature impossible. The fill (2) contained a range of domestic rubbish, including a brooch, animal bone, tile and
Archaeological Monitoring and Excavation
Prepared for Maldon District Council
latest Roman pottery. Both overlying and underlying �layers� (1 and 14) contained similarly dated pottery, which suggests they could all be fills within one large feature.
5.2.4 A second cut feature was recorded in Trench 6 (Fig.3). Here, part of an apparent large pit- like feature [8] was evident in plan. Its fill (9) contained 34 sherds of grog-tempered late Iron Age pottery. However, the layers into which the pit was evidently cut contained Roman artefacts as well as Iron Age and so its contents would appear to be wholly residual. The position of this pit correlates closely with that of an anomaly recorded by the geophysical survey and interpreted then also as a pit (Fig.7).
5.2.5 It is possible that some of the other deposits, nominally recorded as �layers� due to the lack
of tip-lines and absence of containing features, could in fact be fills of cut features. However, the small size of the anchor pits was not conducive to determining this. What is apparent from consideration of pottery dating alongside the recorded deposits, where quantity and quality of pottery assemblages allow, is that the deposits constitute undisturbed stratigraphic sequences. While Trench 1 contains consistently late 4th century+ deposits, Trenches 2 and 4 display late Roman layers over early Roman, and Trenches 12 and 13 latest Roman over mid Roman. As might be expected for a site on the edge of the Elms Farm excavations, Trench 5 displays late Roman layers over late Iron Age. The only discordant sequence may be that in Trench 6 (see 5.2.4, above), although even here ancient, rather than recent, mixing of remains is the cause.
5.2.6 Artefacts were retrieved in varying quantities and ranges of material. Pottery was retrieved from most deposits, often in relatively substantial quantities (Section 6). Where recognised, fills of cut features tended to contain more artefacts than apparent layers. Oddly, the topsoil tended to be relatively barren of finds.
5.3 Playground Strip (trench 15) (Fig. 3)
5.3.1 It is apparent that the restricted depth of the initial machine strip of the principal playground area, of 300mm, did not fully remove topsoil/subsoil onto the archaeological interface. Particularly at the eastern and western ends, feature clarity was poor. The two north-south slots machined an extra 100mm helped increase definition and understanding of remains that were evident in the middle part of the trench. A variety of cut features were identified; all filled with grey brown silty sand, in contrast to the surrounding silty gravels. The results
Archaeological Monitoring and Excavation
Prepared for Maldon District Council
illustrate that larger open-areas are required to reliably differentiate and interpret feature fills from layers.
5.3.2 Recorded remains principally comprise three, parallel, north-south aligned gullies or ditches denoted by fills 45, 47 and 51. Although two were observed to possibly terminate within the trench, these ditches correlate with features detected by the geophysical survey which shows them continuing across the whole field (Fig.7). Although left unexcavated, small quantities of Roman period artefacts were collected from their surfaces, including a late Roman coin from ditch fill 45.
5.3.3 Underlying the three parallel ditches was a similarly proportioned, east-west aligned, gulley/ditch denoted by fill 48. This feature is not apparent on the geophysical survey plot. The pottery collected from its surface indicates a late Roman, probably 4th century, date for this feature. By inference, it is likely that the three post-dating ditches above are of similar date, although a post-Roman date cannot be discounted.
5.3.4 Elsewhere in Trench 15, despite poor feature clarity, the presence of other remains are suggested by traces of cuts and changes in soil colour and composition. Possible pit-like features are indicated by deposits 50 and 52, while deposits 53, 55 and 56 may be post- holes. All contained Roman material, the pottery from pit 50 being of possible 3rd century date. Apparent feature fill 49, to the northeast of, and cut by, ditch fill 47, yielded sherds of late Iron Age pottery and demonstrates that, like the Anchor Pits, this vicinity of the site contains a stratified sequence that spans the early 1st to late 4th centuries AD.
5.3.5 The mixed subsoil and silty gravel deposits 46 and 54, into which these features were observed to cut, also yielded Roman period finds from their surfaces. The collected pottery and coins span the early to late Roman periods (late 1st - late 4th century+) which again suggests that any underlying layers and features masked by these mixed deposits may be of a similar date span.
5.4 Monitoring of construction works (trenches 16-23) (Figs.3 and 6)
5.4.1 The monitoring of the construction contractor�s foundation pits/trenches for other stand- alone items of play equipment further revealed the presence of deposits and cut features across the site.
Archaeological Monitoring and Excavation
Prepared for Maldon District Council
5.4.2 The predominantly grey brown sandy silt deposits were noted to contain more gravel than in other trenches observed. This may, in part, be due to the underlying natural gravel being generally higher in this vicinity, at c. 0.5m below ground surface (c.2.90m above OD). In Trench 21, natural gravel was apparently encountered at only 0.2m (estimated 3.10m above OD) below ground surface. This would suggest that the underlying natural deposits undulate significantly across this low-lying site on the lowest river terrace (see appendix 1).
5.4.3 The majority of trenches revealed either one or two archaeological deposits between topsoil and natural gravel, although this may be a little simplistic due to the fact that these had been machined-out by the contractor rather than hand-dug archaeologically.
5.4.4 As a further consequence of mechanical excavation, fewer artefacts were also retrieved from the deposits in these trenches; the majority being collected from the individual spoil heaps left alongside the holes by the groundworks contractor (contexts 71-73, 77 and 81).
5.4.5 The majority of deposits appear to be simple layers of gravel-rich sandy silt. Small quantities of artefacts were retrieved from some of these and, by inference from the finds in spoil heaps that surely derive from the same deposits, all are likely to be of Roman, or perhaps late Iron Age, date. This can be extended with reasonable certainty to those trenches from which no artefacts were collected at all (Trenches 17 and 23).
5.4.6 Parts of a cut feature [76] were identified in Trenches 21 and 22, clearly intruding into the relatively high gravel natural at these locations (Fig.6). In Trench 21, the western edge of an apparent NW-SE aligned ditch was observed. Its apparent parallel eastern edge was recorded within adjacent Trench 22, indicating a feature c.2.0m wide. The feature was not investigated further and no artefacts retrieved from its fill 75, although the small quantity of material in the side-cast spoil suggests a tentative Roman date. However, positioned to the north of Trench 15, it is equally possible that this ditch was in fact a continuation of those in Trench 15. This is perhaps substantiated by the lack of an alternative linear anomaly on the 1997 geophysical survey plot (Fig.7).
5.4.7 An edge of a further cut feature was identified in the section of Trench 23. However, the restricted size of the trench and presence of standing water made further deductions as to its type and function impossible. No artefacts were retrieved from this trench or its spoil heap and the feature is therefore undated.
Archaeological Monitoring and Excavation
Prepared for Maldon District Council
5.4.8 The recorded sections in Trenches 21-23 display a gravel-rich layer (74) directly below topsoil. The contrasting nature, uniformity and apparent absence of archaeological artefacts within this deposit, compared to other deposits in this field, would appear to suggest a degree of truncation and levelling has taken place over parts of the field surface. It is possible that this relates to the former presence of a 19th century tramway that ran south from the Langford Junction, presumably to the Chelmer. A linear parchmark, roughly on this same alignment, is visible on aerial photographs of Oak Tree Meadow taken in 1994.
6 FINDS AND ENVIRONMENTAL REMAINS by Joyce Compton 6.1 General
6.1.1 Finds were recovered from fifty-five contexts. All of the material has been recorded by count and weight, in grams, by context. Full details can be found by trench in Appendix 3. A large variety of finds types was recovered, and the range and proportions are similar to the excavated material from the nearby Elms Farm excavations. As expected, the largest components are Late Iron Age and Roman pottery, found in almost all of the contexts with finds, and Roman brick and tile. Unfortunately, due to the limited nature of the excavation, the finds are of little use for dating evidence, even for the features identified in Trench 15. Although artefact dates are provided in the table in Appendix 3, these should be taken as a guide for the material overall, rather than as precise dates for each context.
6.1.2 Finds were recovered from all of the excavated trenches except for Trenches 17 and 23. Amounts from individual trenches vary, with Trenches 3, 7 and 18-22 producing the least amounts and Trenches 1, 4, 12 and 13 producing the greatest. Although a number of features were identified in Trench 15, the quantities of finds recovered are small, with few contexts containing sufficient material for dating purposes. It is apparent that the quantities of artefacts retrieved were in part dependent on the nature and extent of the archaeological works carried out; the monitoring of the contractors groundworks producing the least. Apart from the variable amounts retrieved, there is little apparent difference in the nature or type of finds from any of the trenches. All of the finds are described by category below.
Archaeological Monitoring and Excavation
Prepared for Maldon District Council
6.2 Late Iron Age and Roman pottery
6.2.1 The pottery amounts to 1088 sherds, weighing 19570g, recovered from a total of fifty-one contexts. The pottery has been scanned in order to characterise the assemblage and the range of forms and fabrics present in each context is listed in the table in Appendix 3. The fabrics were identified using the ECC Field Archaeology Unit fabric series. Vessel forms of Roman date were recorded using the type series devised for Chelmsford (Going 1987, 13- 54) and those for the Late Iron Age using that for Camulodunum (Hawkes and Hull 1947, 215-75). The assemblage is mixed in date, but mainly mid to late Roman in character. The later Roman pottery is the most fragmentary, although the average sherd weight for the whole assemblage is relatively high at 18g. There is a high degree of abrasion throughout and, where the abrasion was particularly obvious, this has been noted in the table.
6.2.2 Fifteen contexts could only be broadly dated to the Roman period by the presence of undiagnostic local coarse wares. Thirty-eight contexts contained Late Iron Age grog- tempered pottery, but nearly all of this is residual. Just nine contexts could be dated to the Late Iron Age or early Roman period and the pottery in these contexts could be residual too. More than half of the contexts date to the mid to late Roman period, with eleven containing pottery of exclusively late 4th century+ date. The range of fabrics and forms is very similar to those from Elms Farm, with local coarse wares of all periods predominating. Imported samian and amphoras are uncommon, appearing in sixteen and six contexts respectively. This serves to emphasise the mid to late Roman character of the assemblage. Apart from sherds of North Gaulish white ware in layer 29 and terra nigra in deposit 50, Late Iron Age imported wares are absent.
6.3 Brick and Tile
6.3.1 Thirty-five contexts produced brick and tile, amounting to a total of 343 fragments, weighing 28513g, and most of this was discarded following recording. Selected diagnostic items from nine contexts were retained (20 pieces, weighing 4432g). Details of the tile from each context are contained in the archive. A full range of brick and tile types is represented, with tegula and brick fragments predominating. Combed flue tiles were noted in several contexts. Many brick fragments had mortar adhering, demonstrating the structural use to which most of the assemblage is likely to have been put, and two examples of pierced tegulae were recorded.
6.4 Baked clay and Briquetage
Archaeological Monitoring and Excavation
Prepared for Maldon District Council
6.4.1 Small quantities of baked clay were recovered from a total of seven contexts and briquetage fragments were identified in three. The entire assemblage amounts to just 780g, and there are no large or diagnostic pieces. The presence of such material is typical for this vicinity and period, but such small quantities do not provide meaningful information.
6.5 Metalwork
6.5.1 A variety of metal items, ranging from iron nails to copper alloy coins, was recovered, many
with the aid of a metal-detector. A total of sixteen contexts contained metalwork, and a number of items, mainly lead, were recovered from the spoil tips. Four copper alloy coins, mostly in poor condition, were recovered. Two have been certainly identified, one is an as of Vespasian (AD69-79) and the second is a siliqua of Honorius (AD407). The remainder are probably a second as and a dupondius, both of likely 1st or 2nd century date. The bow from a copper alloy brooch was recovered from Trench 1, and fragments from a copper alloy hairpin came from Trench 12. The brooch fragment may be from a knee-brooch of 2nd- century date. The hairpin, which is in three pieces, appears to have several collars beneath a plain head. This may be a Crummy (1983) Type 2 hairpin, although the fragmentary nature of the pin has made identification difficult.
6.5.2 Iron objects and nails came from nine contexts. Five contexts produced nails and possible nails. The iron objects are covered in corrosion products and it is difficult to determine whether some may also be unidentifiable nail shafts. At least three items are flat-sectioned, however, and may be fragments of blades or horseshoes. There is a large square-headed bolt from layer 35 in Trench 12.
6.5.3 Lead items appeared to be fairly frequent, and should be noted that a large number of unidentifiable lead pieces were recovered from the Elms Farm excavations, especially from the upper levels. These were mostly interpreted as offcuts and working-waste, and the same might be said for much of the lead from Oak Tree Meadow. Several items can be tentatively identified, however. There is a tube, SF3, length 55mm, which may be a fishing-line/net weight or sinker. Several such objects were recovered at Elms Farm and there is a published example from the Crescent Road excavations (Wickenden 1986, fig.12, no.44). The oblong block, SF10, is damaged at one end and weighs just under 1lb, but is an unlikely shape to be a weight. A number of lead pieces were collected from the spoil tip, and include a second, shorter tube, a vessel repair patch and a rove with the remains of an iron rivet.
Archaeological Monitoring and Excavation
Prepared for Maldon District Council
6.6 Animal bone
6.6.1 Small amounts of animal bone, a total of 113 pieces weighing 1674g, were recovered from twelve contexts. The bone is fragmentary and some is in poor condition, hampering identification and masking any signs of butchery or other surface detail. Two contexts, deposit 2 in Trench 1 and layer 35 in Trench 12, produced more substantial quantities, however, and the bone from deposit 2 was the most easily identifiable. The small size of the whole assemblage precludes any detailed discussion, but cattle and sheep/goat were the main food animals identified, and many chop marks, resulting from butchery, were noted on the bone from layer 35. An antler tine, probably from a red deer, was recovered from deposit 2. Antler-working debris is common in late Roman contexts, although, in this case, there was no indication that the tine had been sawn from the beam.
6.7 Minor finds categories
6.7.1 These are few, comprising eight septaria stone fragments, weighing 678g, from three contexts, slag, totalling 264g, from two contexts, and flint flakes from two contexts. A tabular pebble, probably naturally-shaped, was found in Trench 15.
6.8 Environmental remains
6.8.1 A single bulk soil sample was collected from deposit (02) in Trench 1, no other deposits displaying obvious potential for the preservation of such materials as plant macrofossils. The soil sample was processed by wet-sieving with flotation, using a 0.5mm mesh and collecting the flotation fraction (flot) on a 0.5mm sieve. The residue was then dried and separated using 2mm and 4mm sieves. All material larger than 2mm (the coarse fraction) was sorted by eye and both artefacts and ecofacts extracted. The material smaller than 2mm (the fine fraction) and the flot were also dried and sorted.
6.8.2 Other than rare small fragments of pottery and animal bone, only occasional charcoal fragments and flecks, and modern root material, were collected from the processed fractions of the soil sample. No charred plant macrofossil remains were present. The artefacts have been retained, but all remaining material discarded.
7 CONCLUSIONS
7.1 Despite the varying nature of the archaeological works undertaken on the anchor pits, open area and contractors groundworks, the investigation has confirmed the presence of
Archaeological Monitoring and Excavation
Prepared for Maldon District Council
widespread stratified archaeological remains across Oak Tree meadow. In places these deposits are in excess of 1m in depth and comprise a mixture of cut features and layers that predominantly span the Roman period (mid 1st century AD to end 5th century AD).
7.2 While all of the features and layers recorded within the 23 trenches are thought to be most probably Roman in date, it should be noted that there is a very significant element of residual Late Iron Age material (late 1st century BC to mid 1st century AD) that suggests undisturbed remains of this date probably exist elsewhere within Oak Tree Meadow. The retrieval of residual prehistoric pottery suggests that it is also possible that remains of this date occur on the site, though perhaps heavily disturbed by later activity. In addition, it should be borne in mind that the very broken and abraded nature of some of the late Roman assemblages are reminiscent of material collected from early Saxon deposits at the Elms Farm excavation site. Despite the absence of Saxon artefacts per se, the presence of remains of such date should not be discounted.
7.3 The results of excavation and monitoring substantiate the results of the 1997 geophysical survey. Although most trenches were not generally extensive enough to further clarify and expand upon the geophysical interpretation, Trenches 6 and 15 show that a high degree of confidence can be put upon it; the features that they contained correlating closely to the grey-scale and interpretive survey plots. Additionally, it can now be assumed that the geophysical survey reliably demonstrates that archaeological remains extend across the whole of the meadow and beyond.
7.4 The range of artefacts collected, although of lesser quantity, is very similar to that from the Elms Farm excavations. Given that this earlier investigated settlement lies immediately north of Oak Tree Meadow, on the other side of the Heybridge/Maldon bypass, it is clear that the remains are a southern continuation of what should be regarded as a single site that continues perhaps as far south as the river Chelmer.
7.5 While it is relatively easy to discuss the archaeological content of the site in broad terms, it is less so when considering specific questions as to the nature, meaning and significance of the recorded features and deposits and of the ancient land-use. It is likely that the nature of deposition on this site is relatively complex. The meadow is low-lying and has a relatively high watertable, some 0.9m below the present ground surface. It is probable that at least
Archaeological Monitoring and Excavation
Prepared for Maldon District Council
some of the lower deposits could be the product of accumulating sediments in seasonally- flooded conditions, perhaps akin to that of a water meadow. The variable height of the top of natural gravel deposits is evident within the trenches, giving the impression of a once undulating river terrace landscape. Depressions within this terrain may have become infilled with water-borne silts through natural processes though, given the incidence of archaeological material throughout the majority of the deposits inspected it is tentatively suggested that this vicinity may have been levelled with dumped rubbish deposits derived from the adjacent settlement � whether deliberately or incidentally. The periodic relocation of midden waste would perhaps help explain the intermixed nature of the recovered artefact assemblages.
7.6 Although large quantities of finds were recovered from the suspected dump deposits, very
few can be meaningfully related to cut features. Further work would not produce clearer results for the site, and, due to the mixed nature of the assemblage, none of the finds categories is worth further work in its own right. Some of the copper alloy was in poor condition and the four coins, brooch bow and hairpin fragments have been submitted for conservation prior to archive storage. X-ray of the iron items might clarify identifications and functions, although dating and provenance information is sketchy and this work may not be warranted. As noted above, most of the brick and tile was discarded following recording. The slag, the baked clay from layer 35, and the animal bone fragments from layers 41 and 81, have also been discarded. All of the remainder should be retained, except perhaps for the septaria fragments and the tabular pebble.
7.7 While the single bulk soil sample analysed from Trench 1 did not produce any significant
plant macrofossil evidence and the deposits recorded in the remainder of the trenches were judged to have low potential for productive sampling and analysis, the low-lying and wet nature of the ground and the presence of apparent domestic rubbish in pits and possible dump layers does not preclude the presence and survival of environmental remains elsewhere on the site. This said, on the higher gravel terrace of the Elms Farm site, such preservation was found to be generally poor.
Archaeological Monitoring and Excavation
Prepared for Maldon District Council
8 ASSESSMENT OF RESULTS
8.1 In isolation, the results of the investigation are of relatively local significance. However, combined with the results of the Elms Farm excavations and with the cumulative results of a preceding centuries-worth of archaeological discoveries, Oak Tree Meadow adds significantly to our understanding of the extent of the Late Iron Age and Roman settlement and of the nature of land-use on its peripheries.
8.3 The impact of the playground construction has been minimal upon the archaeological resource of Oak Tree Meadow. Along with the field to the northwest, also investigated by the 1997 geophysical survey, it represents what is probably the last undeveloped part of the Iron Age to early Saxon settlement at Heybridge. The southern peripheries of this settlement are probably the least understood and may be key to appreciating its relationship with the Chelmer and the Blackwater estuary � both thought to have been essential to its existence and emergence as a place of importance in the Iron Age and Roman periods. As such, Oak Tree Meadow is of considerable importance for future study.
8.2 In many ways, the results amount to an archaeological resource assessment of Oak Tree Meadow. The widespread presence and broad nature of its archaeological remains have been investigated and confirmed, and the implication for further development in this vicinity of Heybridge is firmly established should it be proposed in the future.
Archaeological Monitoring and Excavation
Prepared for Maldon District Council
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project was commissioned and funded by Maldon District Council. Particular thanks are due
to Rosemary Turp and Jackie Longman of MDC for their assistance and interest throughout the project. The co-operation and assistance of Playsafe Playgrounds is also acknowledged. The project was managed by Mark Atkinson of ECC FAU. Pat Connell of ECC HEM monitored the excavation. The excavation was supervised by Ben Barker, with the assistance of Chris Down, Dave Smith and Adrian Turner. Additional monitoring of playground groundworks was undertaken by Trevor Ennis. Digital illustrations were produced by Andrew Lewsey and coin identifications by Phil McMichael. This report was drafted by Ben Barker and completed by Mark Atkinson.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Atkinson, M. & Preston, S.J. 1998 �The Late Iron Age and Roman Settlement at Elms Farm, Heybridge, Essex, Excavations 1993-5:An Interim Report�, Britannia XXIX, 85- 110
Atkinson, M. & Preston, S.J. Forthcoming Elms Farm: excavations at the late Iron Age and Roman settlement at Heybridge, Essex, 1993-5, E. Anglian Arch. Mono.
Brown, N. and Glazebrook, J. 2000 Research and archaeology: a framework for the eastern counties 2. Research agenda and strategy E. Anglian Arch, occ. pap. 8
Connell, P. 2005 Archaeological monitoring and excavation at Oak Tree Meadow, Heybridge. ECC HEM brief, April 2005
Gurney, D. 2003 Standards for Field Archaeology in the East of England, ALGAO, E. Anglian Arch, occ. pap.14
Wardill, R. 1998 Land to the south west of the excavations at Elms Farm, Heybridge, Essex: Geophysical survey report. ECC FAU rep 299, Feb 1998
Wickenden, N.P. 1986 �Prehistoric Settlement and the Romano-British Small Town at Heybridge, Essex�.Essex Archaeol. Hist . 17, 7-68
Archaeological Monitoring and Excavation
Prepared for Maldon District Council
APPENDIX 1: TRENCH DATA
Trench
Length x width
Depth
Natural depth
Co-ordinate 1
Co-ordinate 2
1
2.5m x 1.5m
1.1m
-
584913, 207741
584915, 207738
2
2.2m x 1.6m
1.0m
-
584900, 207730
584903, 207729
3
2.0m x 1.6m
0.9m
0.8m
584889, 207742
584891, 207740
4
1.2m x 1.0m
1.0m
-
584901, 207754
584905, 207752
5
2.0m x 1.55m
1.0m
0.9m
584900, 207741
584903, 207741
6
2.2m x 1.6m
0.95m
0.8-0.9m
584900, 207727
584902, 207725
7
0.7m x 0.7m
0.6m
-
584887, 207742
584889, 207740
8
0.7m x 0.7m
0.65m
-
584882, 207738
584883, 207735
9
0.7m x 0.7m
0.6m
-
584881, 207745
584881, 207743
10
0.7m x 0.7m
0.6m
-
584882, 207741
584884, 207740
11
2.0m x 1.6m
0.65m
-
584901, 207723
584903, 207722
12
1.8m x 1.6m
0.65m
-
584906, 207718
584908,207716
13
0.8m x 0.7m
0.6m
-
584898, 207716
584900, 207715
14
0.7m x 0.7m
0.6m
-
584901, 207718
584903, 207717
15
35m x 15m (open area)
0.3m
-
584859, 207711
584889, 207724
16
0.8m 0.75m
0.6m
0.55m
584899, 207764
584901, 207763
17
0.8m x 0.5m
0.65m
0.6m
584902, 207766
584903, 207765
18
0.8m x 0.8m
0.65m
-
584900, 207761
584901, 207760
19
0.8m x 1.0m
0.7m
-
584907, 207762
584908, 207759
20
1.0m x 0.8m
0.6m
0.5-0.55m
584907, 207768
584907, 207766
21
3.4m x 1.1m
0.35m
0.2m
584864, 207742
584868, 207740
22
1.0m X 1.0m
0.8m
0.5m
584866, 207745
584868, 207745
23
1.2m x 1.1m
0.8m
0.5m
584869, 207742
584870, 207742
Archaeological Monitoring and Excavation
Prepared for Maldon District Council
APPENDIX 2: CONTEXT DATA
Context
Type
Trench
Description
Date
1
layer
1
Dark brown sandy silt, 0.1m thick
Late 4th C+
2
fill
1
Dark brown clayey silt, 0.2-0.4m thick, fill of cut 3
Late 4th C+
3
cut
1
Sloping side of undefined cut feature
Late 4th C+
4
topsoil
6
Greyish brown sandy silt, 0.18m thick
-
5
layer
6
Greyish brown silty sand, 0.30m thick
Roman
6
layer
6
Brownish grey sandy clay/silt, 0.44m thick
Late Iron Age
7
layer
6
Dark yellowy brown silty gravel, 0.08m thick. No finds, natural?
-
8
cut
6
Undefined cut feature, possible pit
Late Iron Age
9
fill
6
Greyish brown sandy silt, frequent finds , fill of 8
Late Iron Age
10
finds
6
Finds from cleaning of anchor pit
-
11
topsoil
3
Grey brown sandy silt , 0.16m thick
-
12
layer
3
Dark grey brown sandy silt, 0.23m thick
Roman
13
layer
3
Dark grey sandy silt, 0.24m thick, no finds
Undated
14
layer
1
Dark brown clay silt, 0.30m+, not bottomed
Late 4th C+
15
layer
4
Greyish brown silty gravel, 0.2m thick
Late 4th C+
16
layer
4
Brownish grey sandy silt, 0.2m thick
Roman
17
layer
4
Orangey dark brown sand, 0.20m thick, rare finds
Roman
18
layer
4
Greyish brown silty gravel, 0.15m+ thick, not bottomed
Early Roman
19
layer
7
Dark brown silt, 0.60m+ deep, not bottomed
Mid Roman
20
layer
7
Dark brown sandy silt, 0.30m thick, rare finds
Undated
21
topsoil
5
Dark brown sandy silt, 0.24m thick
-
22
layer
5
Grey brown sandy silt, 0.36m thick
Late 4th C+
23
lens
5
Yellow brown clayey sand band within layer 24, 0.8m thick,
Late Iron Age
24
layer
5
Greyish brown sandy silt, 0.19m thick, above natural gravel
Late Iron Age
25
topsoil
2
Greyish brown sandy silt, 0.18m thick, no finds
-
26
layer
2
Greyish brown silty sand, 0.46m thick, freq finds
Late Roman
27
layer
2
Greyish brown silty sandy gravel, 0.22m thick, no finds
Late Roman
28
layer
2
Yellowy dark brown silty clayey sand, 0.18m thick, deposit slopes down to south
Late Roman
29
layer
2
Brownish grey clay/silt, 0.18m+ thick, not bottomed, freq finds
Early Roman
30
layer
9
Dark brown silt, 0.10m thick.
Roman
31
layer
9
Dark brown sandy silt, 0.30m+ thick, not bottomed
Roman
32
layer
8
Greyish brown silty gravel, 0.40m+, not bottomed?
Mid Roman
33
topsoil
12
Greyish brown sandy silt, 0.20m thick
-
34
layer
12
Grey brown sandy silt, 0.13m thick
Late 4th C+
35
layer
12
Black sandy silt, 0.20m+, not bottomed, freq finds
Mid-late 3rd C
36
topsoil
11
Greyish brown sandy silt, 0.20m thick, no finds
-
37
layer
11
Greyish brown silty sand, 0.12m thick
Roman
38
layer
11
Greyish brown silty sand, 0.12m thick
Mid Roman
39
layer
11
Greyish brown clayey sandy silt, 0.22m+ thick, not bottomed
Roman?
40
layer
10
Brown/black sandy silt, 0.45m thick
Early Roman
41
layer
14
Dark brown gritty silt, 0.60m+ thick, not bottomed
Mid Roman
42
topsoil
13
Grey brown sandy silt, 0.23m thick, no finds
-
43
layer
13
Grey brown sandy silt, 0.36m thick
Late 4th C+
44
layer
13
Grey /black sandy silt, 0.15m+ thick, not bottomed
3rd C+
45
fill
15
Greyish brown silty sand, unexc.
Late Roman?
46
layer
15
Greyish brown silty sand, unexc. Mixed deposit? Same as 54?
Roman
47
fill
15
Greyish brown silty sand, unexc.
Roman
48
fill
15
Dark greyish brown silty sand, unexc.
Late 4th C+
49
fill
15
Dark grey brown sandy silt, unexc.
Late Iron Age
50
fill
15
Dark greyish brown silty sand, unexc.
3rd C?
51
fill
15
Dark greyish brown silty sand, unexc NE-SW ditch
Roman
52
fill
15
Brownish grey silty sand, unexc. pit fill?
Roman
53
fill
15
Dark greyish brown sandy silt, unexc. pit fill
?
Archaeological Monitoring and Excavation
Prepared for Maldon District Council
54
layer
15
Greyish brown silty sand, unexc. Mixed deposit? Same as 46?
Roman
55
fill
15
Grey silty sand, unexc. pit fill?
Late Iron Age
56
fill
15
Brownish grey silty sand, unexc. pit fill
Roman
57
topsoil
16-20
Dark greyish brown sandy silt, 0.30m thick
-
58
layer
16
Grey brown sandy silty gravel, 0.30m thick
Late Roman
59
layer
16
Grey brown sandy gravel, 0.05m+ thick, natural?
-
60
layer
17
Grey brown sandy silty gravel, 0.16m thick
Undated
61
layer
17
Grey brown sandy silty gravel, 0.24m thick
Undated
62
layer
17
Light brown sandy gravel, 0.05 + thick, natural?
-
63
layer
18
Grey brown sandy silty gravel, 0.26m thick
Mid Roman +
64
layer
18
Dark grey sandy silt, 0.15m+ thick, poss fill?
Mid Roman
65
layer
19
Grey brown sandy silty gravel, 0.36m thick
Mid Roman
66
layer
19
Grey brown sandy silty gravel, 0.08m thick
Undated
67
layer
19
Dark grey sandy silt, 0.09m+ thick, not bottomed
Undated
68
layer
20
Greyish brown sandy silty gravel, 0.32m thick
Roman
69
layer
20
Greyish brown sandy gravel, 0.1m+ thick, natural?
-
70
layer
20
Dark grey sandy silt, 0.1m+ thick
Undated
71
finds
19
Unstratified finds from spoil heap
-
72
finds
20
Unstratified finds from spoil heap
-
73
finds
16
Unstratified finds from spoil heap
-
74
layer
21-23
Brownish grey sandy silt, 0.2m thick
Undated
75
fill
21,22
Greyish brown sandy clay, 0.3m thick, fill of 76
Undated
76
ditch
21,22
NW-SE ditch, unexc.
Undated
77
finds
21
Unstratified finds from spoil heap
-
78
fill
23
Brownish grey sandy clay, 0.4m thick, no finds, fill of 79
Undated
79
cut
23
Sloping side of undefined cut feature
Undated
80
layer
22,23
Grey/yellow brown silty sand, 0.3m+ thick, natural
-
81
finds
22
Unstratified finds from spoil heap
-
Archaeological Monitoring and Excavation
Prepared for Maldon District Council
APPENDIX 3 : FINDS DATA (in trench order)
Context Count Weight Description Date
u/s 1 6 Copper alloy lump, crumbly -
Soil tip 10 146 Lead pieces, inc tube and repair plugs -
1 84 Pottery; body sherd AMPH Roman
Trench 1
1 1 12 Iron nail shaft -
12 515 Tile fragments, including tegulae (Discarded) Roman
10 88 Pottery; dish B6.2 rim sherd GRF; mortarium body sherds OXRCM; body sherd OXRC; jar and lid rim sherds and body sherds GRS (abraded) Late 4th C+
2 1 10 Copper alloy brooch SF5 Roman
1
112
Lead waste piece
-
24
624
Animal bone; cattle metatarsals, proximal end x 2; cattle metacarpus distal end; cattle molars, astragalus and phalanx; tibia, distal end, sheep/goat; long bone and rib fragments, large mammal; shed antler tine;fragments
-
5
270
Septaria fragments, and a slice of ?siltstone
-
69
13710
Brick and tile fragments, mostly brick (All discarded exc 3/1750g)
Roman
32
972
Pottery; body sherds STOR, one burnt; dish base sherd TSG, with corner of makers stamp; mortarium body sherd OXWM; mortarium rim and body sherds OXSWM; ?mortarium rim sherd HAXM; body sherds GRF; jar rim and body sherds GRS; B6-type dish rim, base and body sherds NVC; body sherd which may be post-med; plus three sherds (8g) from sample 1
Late 4th C+
14 1 48 Animal bone; radius, proximal end, cattle -
6 672 Brick and tile fragments (Discarded) Roman
4 144 Pottery; mortarium base sherd OXSWM; body sherd OXRC; B1 dish rim and pedestal-type base NVC Late 4th C+
Trench 2
26 1 10 Melted copper alloy piece -
6 1225 Brick and tile fragments (Most discarded) Roman
30 564 Pottery; dish rim sherd TSG; small rim sherds GRS and GROG; folded body sherd GRS; body sherds AMPH, GRS, GRF, BSW, GROGC and STOR Late Roman
28 3 192 Tile fragments (Discarded) Roman
19 200 Pottery; f37 bowl decorated body sherd TSG; small rim sherds GROG and GRS: body sherds GROG, BSW, GRS, STOR and NVC Late Roman
29 1 10 Copper alloy coin SF6 (Vespasian) AD69-79
2 28 Iron nails -
1 8 Animal bone; long bone shaft, medium-sized mammal -
5 326 Baked clay fragments -
67 922 Pottery; G5.2 jar rim sherd GROGC; A2 platter rim sherd GROG; lid rim sherds BSW; jar rim sherds GROG and GRS; ?cup footring sherd GROG; body sherds GROG, GROGC, GRS, GRF, BSW, STOR and NGWF Early Roman
Trench 3
12 6 184 Tile fragments (Discarded) Roman
36 296 Pottery; body sherds NVC; small rim sherds and body sherds GRS and GROG Roman
Trench 4
15 1 28 Iron object -
Archaeological Monitoring and Excavation
Prepared for Maldon District Council
1 74 Tile fragment (Discarded) Roman
55 1761 Pottery; body sherds AMPH; dish base with makers stamp TSG; body sherds STOR; flange OXRC; dish base sherd and barbotine- decorated body sherd NVC; G9 and G24 jar rim sherds GRS and BSW; base and body sherds GRS, GROG, GRF and BSW Late 4th C+
16 1 24 Iron nail -
7 34 Animal bone; long bone shafts and fragments, medium-sized mammal -
1 20 Baked clay fragment -
2 128 Tile fragments (Discarded) Roman
50 926 Pottery; beaker rim sherds and joining shoulder sherd BUF, with white paint decoration on the body; lower wall sherd COLB; A2 platter rim sherd and jar rim sherds BSW; base and body sherds, BSW, GRS, STOR and GROG Roman
17 1 2 Animal bone; rib fragment, medium-sized mammal -
1 8 Baked clay fragment -
6 154 Pottery; body sherds GROG, BSW, GRS and HAWO Roman
18 6 24 Animal bone; fragments, inc rib and two burnt -
2 264 Septaria fragments -
10 1302 Pottery; large storage jar rim sherd with stabbed decoration GROGC; body sherds AMPH, STOR and GROG Early Roman
Trench 5
21 1 20 Iron object, flat -
6 444 Tile fragments (Discarded) Roman
15 150 Pottery; f33 cup rim sherd TSG; jar rim sherd GRS; body sherds STOR, HAX and GRS Roman
22 1 6 Iron object SF7 -
15 466 Tile fragments (Discarded except for poss tessera) Roman
63 344 Pottery; f33 cup rim sherd TSG; C2 bowl rim sherd GRS; bowl rim sherd with rilling on flange, poss Oxford; mortarium body sherd OXRCM; small rim sherds and body sherds GRS, GRF, HAX, RED, GROG, BSW, ?NVC and LSH (abraded) Late 4th C+
23 1 12 Pottery; body sherd, Cam 210-type bowl GROG LIA
24 11 176 Pottery; body sherds GROG and GROGC LIA
Trench 6
5 6 398 Tile fragments (Discarded) Roman
35 308 Pottery; B6 dish rim and body sherds GRS; body sherds GROG (mainly these) Late Roman
6 22 166 Pottery; platter rim and body sherds GROG; jar rim, base and body sherds GRS; body sherds BSW Roman
9 34 362 Pottery; butt beaker and jar rim sherds and body sherds GROG; body sherds GROGC (abraded) LIA
10 4 308 Brick and tile fragments (Discarded) Roman
13 104 Pottery; jar rim sherds and body sherds GRS; body sherds GROG and BSW; base sherd HAX (all abraded) Roman
Trench 7
19 3 32 Tile fragments (Discarded) Roman
5 58 Pottery; B3 dish rim sherd GRF; body sherds GROG Mid 2nd-mid 3rd C
20 1 36 Baked clay fragment -
Archaeological Monitoring and Excavation
Prepared for Maldon District Council
Trench 8
32 3 126 Tile fragments (Discarded) Roman
44 776 Pottery; G5.2 jar rim sherds GROGC, as 29; f31 dish rim sherd TSG; jar rim sherds GROGC, GRS and BSW; Cam 212-type bowl rim sherd GROG; body sherds STOR, GROGC, GRS, GRF, BSW, GROG and BUF, one has G9-type burnished line decoration Mid Roman
Trench 9
30 3 186 Tile fragments (Discarded) Roman
16 144 Pottery; jar rim sherd Cam 249 GROG; body sherds GROG, GRS, BSW, STOR and RED Roman
31 1 44 Tile fragment (Discarded) Roman
6 68 Pottery; body sherds GROG, GROGC and GRS Roman
Trench 10
40 3 16 Flint flakes -
4 62 Tile fragments (Discarded) Roman
25 158 Pottery; jar rim sherds GRS, BSW and GROG; footring sherds COLB; body sherds GRS, GROG, GROGC and BSW (abraded) Early Roman
4 34 Pottery; body sherds, flint-tempered Prehistoric
Trench 11
37 2 92 Brick and tile fragments (Discarded) Roman
21 238 Pottery; jar rim sherds GRS and STOR; body sherds COLB, GRS, BSW, STOR and GROGC Roman
38 2 10 Animal bone; long bone shaft and fragment, very abraded -
9 30 Pottery; jar rim sherd BSW and GRS; body sherds GROG, GRF, BSW, GRS and EGRHN Mid Roman
39 1 10 Flint flake -
Trench 12
33 1 444 Lead� block� SF10 -
34 14 620 Tile fragments (one retained) Roman
19 178 Pottery; mortarium rim sherd OXRCM; flange ?B6 dish rim BSW; body sherds GRS, OXRC, BSW and RET Late 4th C+
35 3 4 Copper alloy hairpin fragments SF8 Roman
1
4
Copper alloy object SF9
-
1
54
Iron object, SF11
-
2
96
Iron bolt and ?nail shaft
-
1
26
Lead piece
-
-
116
Slag fragments (Discarded)
-
52
760
Animal bone; cattle molars and maxilla fragment, phalanges, atlas vertebra, metatarsus and metacarpus, distal ends, metacarpus, proximal end, mandible hinge with chop marks; rib and long bone fragments, many with chop marks, large mammal; tibia, distal end, sheep/goat; fragments, three burnt
-
1
54
Briquetage fragment
-
5
66
Baked clay fragments (4/26g Discarded)
-
82
4770
Brick and tile fragments (All Discarded, exc for 8/1465g)
Roman
109
4530
Pottery; f36 bowl rim and body sherds TSG; B1 B4 B5.1 B6.2 dish rim sherds GRF, BSW and HAB, dish base sherds BSW and NVC; D11 mortarium rim sherd COLBM; mortarium body sherds BUFM and NVM; E2 bowl-jar rims, one large, one small, GRS and GRF; G23 G24 G5.5 G9 jar rim sherds BSW, GRS and GRF; G26 jar rim and joining shoulder sherds with stabbing MWSGS; storage jar rim sherds STOR and GROGC, G9 jar base with burnished vertical line decoration, GRF; H33 beaker rim sherd and folded body sherds BSW; beaker bases BSW and GRS; lid rim sherds BSW; body
Mid to late 3rd C
Archaeological Monitoring and Excavation
Prepared for Maldon District Council
sherds TSG, EGRHN, NVC, one with rouletting, BUF, HAX, one with stabbing, STOR, GROGC and RET
Trench 13
43 1 40 Iron nail -
1
18
Lead piece
-
4
54
Animal bone; cattle horn core fragment; fragments
-
32
1615
Brick and tile fragments (All Discarded, exc for 1/148g)
Roman
101
945
Pottery; Dressel 20 handle section AMPH; B1 dish rim sherds GRS and BSW; dish base sherds BSW and GRF; G5.5 G24 jar rim sherds GRS and BSW; H32 beaker rim and body sherd with scale decoration NVC; folded beaker body sherds BSW; lid rim sherd GRS; body sherds TSG, OXRC, PORD, NVC, GRS, GRF, BSW, BUF, GROG and ?HAX (abraded)
Late 4th C+
44 8 76 Animal bone; mandible fragment, large mammal; fragments, one is burnt -
- 76 Baked clay/briquetage fragments -
6 126 Brick and tile fragments (All Discarded, exc for 1/30g) Roman
27 346 Pottery; dish body sherd TSG; body sherds NVC, one rouletted; storage jar rim and body sherds GROGC; jar rim sherds and body sherds GRS, BSW and GROG 3rd C+
Trench 14
41 1 20 Iron object, possibly a nail -
1
6
Lead piece/offcut
-
6
8
Animal bone; fragments (Discarded)
-
1
160
Briquetage fragment
-
1
144
Septaria fragment
-
15
504
Brick and tile fragments (All Discarded, exc for 3/262g)
Roman
48
628
Pottery; B4 dish rim sherd GRS; bowl-jar rim sherd GRF; jar rim sherds GRS and BSW; jar base GRS; mortarium body sherd COLBM; lid rim sherd BSW, as 35; body sherds TSG, GRF, BSW, GROG, GROGC, GRS, STOR, COLB and BUF
Mid Roman
Trench 15
45 1 - Copper alloy coin, SF2 (Honorius) AD407?
46 1 16 Copper alloy coin SF1 (Dupondius) Early Roman
1 48 Stone; fractured tabular pebble -
2 40 Tile fragment and spall (Discarded) Roman
20 236 Pottery; G5.6 jar rim sherd BSW; ?beaker rim and footring sherds HAX; mortarium body sherd GRSM; body sherds GRS, BSW, GROG, STOR and NVC (abraded) Late Roman
47 10 66 Pottery; B1 dish rim sherd GRS; body sherds GROG, GRS, RED and BSW (abraded) Roman
48 2 142 Brick and tile fragments (Discarded) Roman
5 68 Pottery; E2 bowl-jar rim sherd GRS; mortarium body sherd OXRCM; body sherds GRS, STOR and BSW (abraded) Late 4th C+
49 7 140 Pottery; storage jar rim sherds GROGC; body sherds GROG LIA
50 1 12 Lead tube SF3, ?fishing weight -
1 84 Tile fragment (Discarded) Roman
18 140 Pottery; bowl rim sherd GROG; ?dish rim sherd, flange broken off GRS; dish base sherd, with notch on chamfer, BSW; body sherds GROG, TN, GRF, GROGC, BSW and GRS ?3rd C
51 8 428 Brick and tile fragments (Discarded) Roman
10 108 Pottery; jar rim sherds GROG and GRS; body sherds UWW, GROGC and GRS (abraded) Roman
Archaeological Monitoring and Excavation
Prepared for Maldon District Council
52 2 22 Pottery; body sherds GRS Roman
54 1 4 Copper alloy coin SF4 Roman
9 172 Pottery; jar rim sherds GRS and BSW; body sherds STOR, HAX, GRS and GRF Late Roman
55 3 46 Pottery; jar rim sherd and body sherds GROG LIA
56 1 34 Baked clay fragment -
6 64 Pottery; jar rim sherds GROG; ?lid rim sherd BSW; body sherds GROG, GRS and RED (abraded) Roman
Trench 16
58 4 486 Brick and tile fragments (Discarded) Roman
11 336 Pottery; f31 dish rim sherd TSG; bowl rim sherd with lattice decoration GROG; G25 jar rim GRS; joining jar base and body sherds BSW; mortarium body sherd, burnt, ?OXSWM; body sherds GROG Late Roman
73 4 190 Brick and tile fragments (Discarded) Roman
12 372 Pottery; ?G25 jar rim sherd GRS; rim sherds and body sherds GRS, STOR, ALH, GROG and NVC Late 4th C+
Trench 18
64 1 32 Tile fragment (Discarded) Roman
2 24 Pottery; dish base sherd, part stamp and scratches underneath TSG; small rim sherd BSW Mid Roman
Trench 19
65 7 244 Brick and tile fragments (Discarded) Roman
6 60 Pottery; dish rim sherd TSG; dish base sherds, burnt, BSW Mid 2nd-mid 3rd C
71 - 148 Slag (Discarded) -
5 170 Pottery; jar rim sherd BSW; mortarium body sherd OXSWM; body sherds GROG, GRS and STOR Late 4th C+
Trench 20
68 7 76 Tile fragments (Discarded) Roman
1 4 Pottery; body sherd BSW Roman
72 4 156 Tile fragments (Discarded) Roman
4 44 Pottery; flange fragment ?OXSWM; dish base sherd GRS; body sherds LSH and burnt GRS Late 4th C+
Trench 21
77 1 20 Tile fragment (Discarded) Roman
4 98 Pottery; body sherds STOR, GRS and GROG (one is a lower wall sherd with trace of footring) Roman
Trench 22
81 1 26 Animal bone; fragment, very worn and abraded, probably humerus condyle, distal end, large mammal (Discarded) -
1 122 Tegula fragment, with flange Roman
5 232 Pottery; decorated body sherd TSG; base and body sherds STOR, GRS and GROG Roman
Archaeological Monitoring and Excavation
Prepared for Maldon District Council
APPENDIX 4: ARCHIVE INDEX
Index to the Archive:
File containing:
1. Introduction
1.1 Brief for Evaluation
1.2 Specification for Evaluation
2. Research Archive
2.1 Excavation Report
Analytical Reports 2.2.1 Find Report 2.2
3. Site Archive
3.1 Context Record Register
3.2 Original Context Records 1 to 80
3.3 Plans Register
3.4 12 plan sheets
3.5 Sections Register
3.6 15 Section sheets
3.7 Levels Register
3.8 Photographic Registers
3.9 1 set of 35mm colour slides, 1 set of colour prints & negs, 1 set of B&W prints & negs
3.10 Miscellaneous maps, plans and notes
Not in Files:
3 Boxes of Finds
Site Drawings (2 large plan sheets � Trench 15)
Archaeological Monitoring and Excavation
Prepared for Maldon District Council
APPENDIX 5:
HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT RECORD/ESSEX ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORY SUMMARY SHEET
Site name/Address: Oak Tree Meadow, Heybridge, Essex
Parish: Heybridge
District: Maldon
NGR: TL 849077
Site Code: HYOM 05
Type of Work: Monitoring
Site Director/Group: Ben Barker, ECC FAU
Date of Work: 1/6/2006 � 8/6/2005
Size of Area Investigated: c.550sq m of 3ha
Location of Finds/Curating Museum:
Funding source: Maldon DC
Further Seasons Anticipated?: no
Related HER Nos:
Final Report: EAH summary
Periods Represented: Iron Age, Roman
SUMMARY OF FIELDWORK RESULTS:
The Essex County Council Field Archaeology Unit (FAU) carried out archaeological excavation and monitoring works on groundworks associated with the construction of a playground on land known as Oak Tree Meadow, Heybridge. This site occupies was known to contain below-ground archaeological remains, as established by a geophysical survey undertaken in 1997 and previous landscaping works by Archaeological Solutions Ltd in 2004.
Hand-excavation of anchor pits for playground apparatus, the recording of deposits exposed in a 525sq m area stripped ahead of the laying of surfacing, and observation of other groundworks, confirm that significant archaeological remains are widespread across the meadow site. Although of a restricted nature, investigation has identified the presence of pits, ditches and apparent buildup deposits containing large quantities of domestic rubbish. Established to be of Iron Age and Roman date, these remains are interpreted as a southwards continuation of the important settlement excavated to the north, at Elms Farm, in 1993-5. It is likely that the recorded remains represent past occupation and other land-use of the lowest river terrace, and demonstrates that late Iron Age and Roman period activity extended down to the saltmarsh alongside the river Chelmer.
While the surfaced play area and restricted extent of the foundation/anchor pits for apparatus will have only a minor adverse impact upon the below-ground remains, this work clearly indicates the significant archaeological implications should other, more intrusive, construction works be planned for this site or the surrounding vicinity.
Previous Summaries/Reports:
Wardill, R. 1998 Land to the south west of the excavations at Elms Farm, Heybridge, Essex: Geophysical survey report. ECC FAU rep 299, Feb 1998
Author of Summary: M. Atkinson Date of Summary: September 2005
Archaeological Monitoring and Excavation
Prepared for Maldon District Council
Heybridge
Essex Site
#
SITE
Chelmsford
#
Maldon
N
Elms Farm
1997 Geophysics area (NW)
Langford junction
4
1
4
A
Ch e Excavation areas
lm
er
an d
B
la c
k w
at
er
n a
vi
ga t i
o n
0 100m Tesco footbridge Tesco
Reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the controller of HMSO. Crown copyright. Licence no.LA100019602.
Archaeological Monitoring and Excavation
Prepared for Maldon District Council
N �
20
17
�
�
16 �
�
�
� 19
18 �
�
�
4
�
�
22
� � � 9
23
� � � � 10 7 5
� � � 1
� � 3 � �
21 � � �
� 8 �
�
2
�
�
�
15 � 6
�
� 11
�
14
� � � 12
� 13 �
�
�
� Key
Trench co-ordinate point (see appendix 1) 0 25m
Fig.2. Trench location
Archaeological Monitoring and Excavation
Prepared for Maldon District Council
Archaeological Monitoring and Excavation
Prepared for Maldon District Council
Archaeological Monitoring and Excavation
Prepared for Maldon District Council
Archaeological Monitoring and Excavation
Prepared for Maldon District Council
Archaeological Monitoring and Excavation
Prepared for Maldon District Council