ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVALUATION REPORT
______________________________________
RESERVOIR ADJACENT TO BENACRE PARK FARM, BENACRE
BNC 048
A REPORT ON THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVALUATION, 2004
(Planning app. no. W/18680)
Rhodri Gardner Field Team
Suffolk C.C. Archaeological Service
� July 2004
Lucy Robinson, County Director of Environment and Transport St Edmund House, County Hall, Ipswich, IP4 1LZ.
______________________________________
SCCAS Report No. 2004/95
Contents
List of Figures i
List of Tables i
List of Contributors ii
Acknowledgements ii
Summary ii
SMR information ii
1. Introduction 1
2. Methodology 2
3. Results 3
4. Finds evidence 8
5. Discussion and conclusions 9
6. Recommendations for further work 9
Appendix 1: Brief and Specification 11
Appendix 2: Context list 16
List of Figures
1. Site location 1
2. Trench locations 2
3. Trench plans 6
4. Section drawings 7
List of Tables
1. Trial trench summary 3
2. Finds quantities 8
List of Contributors
All Suffolk County Council Archaeological Service (SCCAS hereafter) unless otherwise stated.
Rhodri Gardner Project Officer
Sue Anderson Finds Manager
Kelly Powell Finds Assistant
Acknowledgements
This project was funded by the Benacre Estate Company and was monitored by Robert Carr of the SCCAS Conservation Division.
The project was directed by Rhodri Gardner and managed by John Newman, who also provided advice during the production of the report. The evaluation was carried out by Rhodri Gardner and Roy Damant, both from the Suffolk County Council Archaeological Service Field Team.
Finds processing was carried out by Sue Anderson and Kelly Powell, who both contributed to the specialist finds report.
Thanks are due to Graham Hall of Prime Irrigation for his co-operation throughout.
Summary
Benacre, Reservoir Adjacent to Benacre Park Farm (TM 5048 8334; BNC 048). A trial trench evaluation was carried out in advance of the construction of an agricultural irrigation reservoir. Thirty-three trenches and a small open area were excavated (with a total excavated area of 2540m2). Archaeological evidence was very sparse. Ephemeral activity of general prehistoric date, in the form of a number of cooking/boiling pits containing burnt flint, was encountered in the central northern part of the site. This was somewhat isolated and the lack of associated features did not suggest that actual occupation was likely. In the eastern part of the site there was scattered evidence of post-medieval activity in the form of a single isolated burnt pit (undated), three boundary or drainage ditches, a shallow gully/trackway and a pond that most likely originated as a clay/brick pit. None of these features suggested any coherent pattern of occupation worthy of further investigation. Consequently, no further work could be recommended.
(Rhodri Gardner, SCCAS, for the Benacre Esates Company, report no: 2004/95)
SMR information
Planning application no. W/18680
Date of fieldwork: 18th � 21st May 2004
Grid Reference: TM 5048 8334
Funding body: Benacre Water Company
Introduction
An application (W/18680) has been made for the phased construction of three irrigation reservoirs on the Benacre Estate. This report covers the second reservoir, situated just to the north of Park Farm. The site is centred approximately on NGR TM 5048 8334 and encompasses an area of c. 5.5 ha and lies on level ground at c. 15m AOD within the Suffolk Coast and Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. It is bounded to the north by an area of woodland known as Lincoln�s Fir, and to the south, east and west by arable land (with the buildings of Park Farm directly to the south). The site is bisected by a large parish boundary ditch running north to south across the site, which divides the parishes of Benacre to the east and Wrentham to the west.
Figure 1. Site location
(� Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Suffolk County Council Licence No. 100023395 2004)
The area of the reservoir has not been subject to any previous systematic archaeological work
and no known sites lie within its boundaries. However, the size of the site is such that this was sufficient to trigger the criteria for �archaeological potential�. A number of sites are known in the wider area, the following notable examples occurring within a 1km radius of the site:
� A scatter of high medieval (13th to 14th century) pottery along with a number of Neolithic flint implements have been recorded c. 580m to the south (BNC 009).
� A Neolithic flint borer and a fragment of medieval quern stone have been found c. 700m to the south-east (BNC Misc.).
� A system of linear cropmarks of a pattern usually associated with prehistoric enclosures is known some 830m to the south-east (BNC 012).
� Cropmarks suggestive of a deserted village, possibly enclosed during the establishment of Benacre Park are known approximately 900m to the north (BNC 001).
� A large (more than 900) hoard of Roman silver coins are recorded as having been found in the 18th century, 930m to the north-west during the construction of the turnpike that was the forerunner of the A12 (BNC 004).
� Two ring ditches have been identified on 1977 aerial photographs at 980m and 990m to the south (WRE 005 and COV 007).
Given the site�s size and the intrusive nature of the proposals an archaeological trial trench evaluation was recommended in the first instance by Robert Carr of the SCCAS Conservation Team. This was recommended in order to identify any potential archaeological sites and to inform any decisions on the need for further work. The SCCAS Field Team was subsequently commissioned by the client, the Benacre Water Company, to carry out the work.
Methodology
The evaluation was carried out between the 18th and 21st of May 2004. Thirty-three trial trenches were excavated using a 3600 tracked mechanical excavator (hymac) fitted with a 2m wide flat-bladed ditching bucket. The trench positions were recorded using a hand-held GPS locator. All mechanical excavation of topsoil and overburden was carried out under archaeological supervision until the top of the first appropriate archaeological horizon or undisturbed natural drift deposits were encountered. The surface of each trench and any relevant upstanding sections were then cleaned by hand where necessary to further define any archaeological feature. A metal detector search was carried out throughout excavation of the trial trenches.
The specification (Appendix 1) stipulated a minimum 3% sample of the area (1620m2 in this case), with trenches positioned to sample the whole of the site. The trench layout finally employed is shown in Figure 2, with a total trenched area of 1940m2. A contingency to increase the sample to 5% (2700m2) was also allowed, for use where demonstrated archaeological features required further definition or understanding. It was decided that this should be employed to further extend a 20m by 30m area around Trench 17. This, designated Area A, covered an additional 600m2, for a total evaluated area of 2540m2.
Figure 2. Trench locations
(� Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Suffolk County Council Licence No. 100023395 2004)
The SMR reference number BNC 048 was allocated to the site and all the stratigraphic elements of the deposits were allocated context numbers within a continuous numbering system. This context information is shown in Appendix 2. All features were excavated and recorded in a series of 1:50 scale plans and 1:20 scale section drawings. Context records were entered onto an Access97 database, and inked copies of the drawings were prepared on archive quality drafting film.
All finds were processed and quantified by in-house staff, with the data then input onto a Microsoft Access97 database. Subsequently the different finds were examined by the relevant specialists and their findings are presented on pages 8-9 of this report.
Results
Basic details of each trench are given below in Table 1. A narrative account of the findings of each trench containing recorded archaeological features then follows. Plans and sections are shown in Figures 3 and 4 respectively.
Trench Length (m) Area (m2) Archaeological Features Depth of Topsoil (m)
1 31.9 63.8 None 0.25
2 29.1 58.2 None 0.25 (W end), 0.15 (E end)
3 26.1 52.2 None 0.15
4 30 60 None 0.2
5 30.6 61.2 None 0.25
6 28 56 None 0.25
7 29.1 58.2 None 0.25
8 30 60 None 0.25
9 30.3 60.6 None 0.25
10 30 60 None 0.25
11 29 58 None 0.3
12 27.5 55 None 0.3
13 29.6 59.2 None 0.25
14 30.2 60.4 None 0.25
15 28 56 Pits: 0004, 0006 and 0009 0.3
16 26.5 53 None 0.3
17 30 60 Pit: 0027 0.3
18 27 54 None 0.25
19 30 60 None 0.25
20 31 62 None 0.25
21 29.4 58.8 None 0.25
22 30.5 61 None 0.25
23 29.6 59.2 Ditch: 0011 0.3
24 29.8 59.6 Ditch: 0013, Gully: 0015 0.3
25 29.9 59.8 None 0.3
26 29.8 59.6 Pond: 0023 0.4
27 29.8 59.6 Ditch: 0021 0.3
28 29 58 None 0.3
29 29.5 59 Ditch: 0011 0.3
30 30.1 60.2 None 0.3
31 29.9 59.8 None 0.3
32 29 58 Pit: 0017 0.3
33 30 60 None 0.3
Total 970.2 1940.4
Table 1. Evaluation trench summary
A single context number (0002) has been allocated to the topsoil, a soft mid greyish brown clayey loam, that was encountered across the whole site.
Similarly, the natural Boulder Till deposits (see Appendix 2 for description) have also been allocated a single context number (0003).
Trench 15
Three features, all pits, were encountered in this trench.
Pit 0006 was recorded 3m from the northern end of the trench. It was oval (aligned north-north
east to south-south-west) and was c. 1.3m long, 0.9m wide and 0.24m deep, with moderately sloping concave sides that broke gradually to a slightly undulating base. It contained two fills. The primary fill, 0007, was a firm dark grey slightly silty clay with frequent charcoal flecks/small fragments and frequent heat crazed flints. The latter did not enable accurate dating, and can only be used to suggest a broad �prehistoric� date for this feature. The upper fill, 0008, was a firm mottled olive brown/light grey slightly silty clay with occasional flint pebbles.
Cutting the southern edge of pit 0006 was pit 0004. This was circular, with a diameter of 0.75m and was 0.28m deep with steep concave sides that broke gradually to a flat base. Its single fill, 0005, was a firm mid grey slightly silty clay with frequent charcoal flecks (concentrated toward the base) and occasional small flint pebbles. It contained no dateable finds.
Pit 0009 was partially revealed against the eastern side of the trench 6.5m from its northern end. Oval in shape, it was 1.2m long (north to south), at least 0.65m wide and 0.3m deep with steep smooth sides that broke sharply to a flat base. Its single fill, 0010, was a firm mottled mid grey/olive brown clay with frequent charcoal flecks and heat crazed flints toward base, again suggesting a general prehistoric date.
All three have been interpreted as cooking/boiling pits of prehistoric date.
Trench 17/Area A
Oval pit 0027 was recorded 5.5m from the western end of the trench. It was 2.1m long (northwest to south-east), 1.85m wide and 0.65m deep with moderately sloping sides that broke gradually to an irregular undulating base. It contained two fills. The primary fill, 0029, was a firm mid to dark grey slightly silty clay with occasional burnt flint fragments, rare chalk flecks and three struck flints of indeterminate prehistoric date (see Finds Evidence, below). The upper fill, 0028, was a firm light slightly greyish brown clay with rare small angular flint pebbles. This has also been interpreted as a prehistoric cooking/boiling pit.
Area A was opened in an attempt to examine the area between Trenches 15 and 17 where it was thought that further prehistoric features might be revealed. However, once stripped it was clear that no further archaeological features were present.
Trench 23
Some 2m from the southern end of the trench ditch 0011 was recorded. This appeared straight
and parallel sided on a broadly east to west alignment and was at least 46m long (also see Trench 29), 1.4m wide and 0.64m deep. It had moderately sloping slightly irregular stepped sides with a sharp break to a flat base. Its single fill, 0012, was a soft to firm greyish brown slightly silty clay with occasional charcoal flecks and small flint pebbles. It contained a single iron object of probable post-medieval date.
Trench 24
Approximately 2.5m from the southern end of the trench feature 0015 was recorded. This was a broad shallow gully or hollow. It was on a broadly east to west alignment and was at least 2m long, 2.5m wide and 0.2m deep with very gently sloping sides that broke imperceptibly to a gently rounded base. The single fill, 0016, was a firm mid brown slightly silty clay with occasional charcoal flecks and frequent small to medium flint pebbles, particularly concentrated toward the base along the southern side. It contained a number pottery fragments of 16th/17th
century date. Interpretation of this feature is difficult, given the limited nature of its exposure, but it may represent an area of trample or trackway of post-medieval date.
Ditch 0013 was also recorded in this trench, some 22m from its southern end. This was also aligned east to west and was straight and parallel sided. At least 2m long, 0.85m wide and 0.45m deep it had moderately sloping sides with a gradual break to a narrow U-shaped base. Its single fill, 0014, was a firm mid brown slightly silty clay with occasional small flint pebbles and a band of charcoal flecks toward base. It contained no dateable finds.
Trench 26
A large sub-rounded feature (0023) was partially revealed 3m from the western end of this trench. This was approximately oval in plan and was some 6m long, at least 2m wide and c. 1.4m deep. It had moderately sloping eastern and western sides that broke very gradually to a rounded base. It contained three fills, although the lower two were difficult to examine in detail due to the ingress of water caused by the disturbance of the waterlogged upper fill. The primary silting, 0026, comprised a soft dark grey humic clayey silt layer up to 0.2m thick with rare well rotted small wood/root fragments. It contained no dateable finds. The secondary fill, 0025, was a layer up to 0.4m thick of soft mid grey slightly silty clay with no notable inclusions which yielded a small number of abraded (and most likely residual) late Medieval potsherds. The uppermost fill, 0024, was a layer of very soft and waterlogged light yellowish brown coarse sand up to 0.8m thick with occasional redeposited lumps of chalk-flecked clay (up to 0.2m diameter) and occasional flint pebbles. This contained no dateable finds and probably represents a deliberate attempt to infill/consolidate the feature. The most likely interpretation of this feature is that of a pond, most likely dug initially to serve as a clay or brick pit. The fact that it is not recorded on any early Ordnance Survey maps suggests that either it predates them (the First Edition dates to the 1880s) or was too small to merit recording.
Trench 27
Just 1m from the eastern end of the trench ditch 0021 was observed. This appeared straight and parallel sided and was aligned north to south. It was at least 2m long, 1.6m wide and 0.7m deep with slightly stepped sides that broke sharply to a flat base. Its single fill, 0022, was a soft to firm mid brown slightly silty clay with occasional charcoal flecks and rare small chalk pieces. It contained no dateable finds.
Trench 29
A single ditch was recorded in this trench. Judging by its alignment and width this was a further part of ditch 0011 (see Trench 23). This was found 1.5m from the southern end of the trench, making 0011 at least 46m long. It was not excavated here.
Trench 32
Some 1.25m from the southern end of the trench pit 0017 was recorded. This was oval, 1.15m long (north-west to south-east), 1m wide and 0.2m deep with smooth moderately sloping sides that broke imperceptibly to a flat base. It contained three fills. The primary fill/lining, 0020, was a compact/firm reddish white burnt clay matrix just 0.03m thick with very abundant small chalk pieces. The secondary fill, 0019, was a soft very dark grey/black clayey silt layer up to 0.05m thick with frequent charcoal flecks/small pieces. The uppermost fill, 0018, was a soft mid olive brown silty clay layer up to 0.12m thick with occasional charcoal flecks. No dateable finds could be recovered from any of these fills. The lack of finds makes not only dating, but also interpretation of this feature difficult. However, it most likely represents a cooking/fire pit, although perhaps not of prehistoric date given the lack of burnt flints which are so commonly associated with such features.
Figure 3. Trench Plans (Note: different scale for Trench 17/Area A)
Figure 4. Section drawings
Finds Evidence
Sue Anderson, July 2004.
Introduction
Finds were collected from seven contexts, as shown in the table below.
OP Pottery Lava quern Flint Burnt flint/stone Miscellaneous Spotdate
No. Wt/g No. Wt/g No. Wt/g No. Wt/g
0001 2 3048 U/S
0007 44 1061 Preh?
0010 12 223 Preh?
0012 1 Fe (41g) Pmed?
0016 8 143 1 fired clay (8g) 16-17 c.
0025 2 8 1 10 1 brick (16g) Lmed+
0029 3 123 28 234 Preh
Total 10 151 2 3048 3 123 85 1528
Table 2. Finds quantities
Pottery
Eight sherds of pottery from ditch fill 0016 were fragments of a glazed red earthenware dripping dish of 16th/17th century date. Two abraded sherds from pond fill 0025 were a medieval coarseware body sherd and a base fragment from a ?glazed jug with sooting at the base, possibly Hollesley-type ware (13th/14th c.).
Ceramic building material
One fragment of grog-tempered red brick was recovered from pond fill 0025. It is probably of
late or post-medieval date. A fragment of fired clay from 0016 was undiagnostic but may be daub, or possibly part of an object.
Metalwork
An incomplete iron object from ditch fill 0012 is probably a large nail or spike and likely to be post-medieval.
Flint and burnt stone
Three worked flints were recovered from pit fill 0029. These consisted of a flake, a blade-like flake and an unidentified object which may be an axe-shaped core of later prehistoric date, or possibly a rough-out for a Mesolithic tranchet axe (C. Pendleton, pers. comm.). The latter was heat-damaged.
Burnt flints, sandstone pebbles and chalk were found in four contexts. The largest groups, and those most likely to be prehistoric, were from pits in trenches 16 and 17.
Lava
by Cathy Tester
Fragments of two unstratified lava stone querns were collected.
The first is an upper stone with an internal diameter of c.70mm (20%). The external diameter is
not present but it must be at least 480mm which suggests that this may be a mechanically- operated quern. The piece is 70mm thick at the centre tapering to 40mm at the outer edge. The non-grinding surface is irregular and roughly finished with large elongated pecks. The grinding surface is grooved and on this piece they are radial, but there is a slight suggestion that it may be
�harp-dressed� since there are the possible beginnings of another set of oblique grooves on one side. None of the features of this fragment are diagnostic enough to date it as Roman or post- Roman, however, its size and condition suggest that it may be of later date - medieval or post- medieval.
The second piece is smaller and most likely from an upper stone. Its thickness is 45mm towards the centre and c.30mm towards the edge. The external edge is missing or too damaged to recognise, but its diameter is possibly less than 400mm. The grinding surface is worn smooth and concave from use. The non-grinding surface is finished with long (40mm) pecked grooves. This piece is also probably medieval or later.
Finds Discussion
Finds from the evaluation suggest prehistoric activity of uncertain date centred around trenches 16 and 17. Medieval and later finds seem to be a background scatter and may have reached the site through manuring.
Discussion and Conclusions
Archaeological features were very scarce in the western part of the site. Four cooking/boiling pits of general �prehistoric� date were recorded around Trenches 16 and 17. These are relatively common late prehistoric features and, in isolation, do not suggest occupation per se. The lack of other features such as ditches, rubbish pits or post-holes suggests that prehistoric activity on the site was more transient.
Features were similarly sparse in the eastern part of the site. The three drainage or boundary ditches recorded in Trenches 23, 24, 27 and 29 all appear to be of post-medieval date. The infilled pond partially revealed in Trench 26 is also most likely of post-medieval date, as the two small sherds of late medieval pottery it contained were almost certainly residual, probably derived from manuring activity. The pit in Trench 32, which showed evidence of in situ burning, is more difficult to interpret. It is unlikely to be prehistoric, given the nature of its chalk �lining� and the lack of burnt flint in its fill. It is most likely post-medieval and associated with estate activity either at Park Farm itself or �Marsden Cottage�, which once stood c. 120 to the east. The east to west aligned trackway/shallow gully identified in Trench 24 is also of post-medieval date but little further can be suggested of its purpose.
Although two periods are represented archaeologically, there is no suggestion of significant occupation of the site during either.
Recommendations for Further Work
In terms of evaluated area the trial trenching satisfied the requirements of the brief, including the contingency that raised the sample area to 5%. Despite this widespread coverage of the site the archaeological remains encountered were not sufficiently coherent to merit any further work.
Report No. 2004/95
Rhodri Gardner, for SCCAS, July 2004.
Disclaimer
Any opinions expressed in this report about the need for further archaeological work are those of the Field Projects Division alone. The need for further work will be determined by the Local Planning Authority and its archaeological advisors when a planning application is registered. Suffolk County archaeological contracting service cannot
Council�s accept responsibility for inconvenience caused to clients should the Planning Authority take a different view to that expressed in the report.
APPENDIX 1
SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICE - CONSERVATION TEAM
Brief and Specification for an Archaeological Evaluation
RESERVOIR ADJACENT BENACRE PARK FARM, BENACRE
1. Background
1.1 An application [W/18680] has been made to construct three agricultural irrigation reservoirs. They will be constructed in phases, this brief covers the second.
1.2 The Planning Authority has been advised that any consent should be conditional upon an agreed programme of work taking place before development begins (PPG 16, paragraph 30 condition). An archaeological evaluation of the application area will be required as the first part of such a programme of archaeological work; decisions on the need for, and scope of, any further work will be based upon the evaluation.
1.3 The reservoir area has not been the subject of any systematic archaeological survey and
there are no known sites on the land. The site area triggers �archaeological potential� criteria on the basis of size alone. The area lies on a low ridge south of the �Park�, with a slow slope towards the �Hundred River� valley. Within a 3 km circle Neolithic, Roman and medieval sites are known; c.600m to the S is a known scatter of Medieval pottery (BNC009) which probably represents settlement; c.800m to the SE an area of cropmarks which appear to represent a prehistoric enclosure. The scale of the intended works is very large with extensive reduction of levels and will result in the total removal of any archaeological deposit which exists.
The mitigation strategy is to identify archaeological sites by trenched evaluation identified in this brief (using a lower sample area than usual but allowing some flexibility to increase trench frequency should archaeological deposit be identified). Experience with the first reservoir suggests that controlled soil stripping by the main contractor coupled with archaeological recording is not practical because of the method of working.
1.4 All arrangements for the field evaluation of the site, the timing of the work, access to the site, the definition of the precise area of landholding and area for proposed development are to be defined and negotiated with the commissioning body.
1.5 In accordance with the standards and guidance produced by the Institute of Field Archaeologists this brief should not be considered sufficient to enable the total execution of the project. A Project Design or Written Scheme of Investigation (PD/WSI) based upon this brief and the accompanying outline specification of minimum requirements, is an essential requirement. This must be submitted by the developers, or their agent, to the Conservation Team of the Archaeological Service of Suffolk County Council (Shire Hall, Bury St Edmunds IP33 2AR; telephone/fax: 01284 352443) for approval. The work must not commence until this office has approved both the archaeological contractor as suitable to undertake the work, and the PD/WSI as satisfactory. The PD/WSI will provide the basis for measurable standards and will be used to establish whether the requirements of the planning condition will be adequately met.
2. Brief for the Archaeological Evaluation
2.1 Identify the date, approximate form and purpose of any archaeological deposit within the application area, together with its likely extent, localised depth and quality of preservation.
2.2 Evaluate the likely impact of past land uses, and the possible presence of masking colluvial/alluvial deposits.
2.3 Provide sufficient information to construct an archaeological conservation strategy, dealing with preservation, the recording of archaeological deposits, working practices, timetables and orders of cost.
2.4 Undertake a basic map search to identify aspects of the historic landscape. Use available documentary sources to supplement this.
2.5 This project will be carried through in a manner broadly consistent with English Heritage'sManagement of Archaeological Projects, 1991 (MAP2), all stages will follow a process of assessment and justification before proceeding to the next phase of the project. Field evaluation is to be followed by the preparation of a full archive, and an assessment of potential. Any further excavation required as mitigation is to be followed by the preparation of a full archive, and an assessment of potential, analysis and final report preparation may follow. Each stage will be the subject of a further brief and updated project design, this document covers only the evaluation stage.
2.6 The developer or his archaeologist will give the Conservation Team of the Archaeological Service of Suffolk County Council (address as above) five working days notice of the commencement of ground works on the site, in order that the work of the archaeological contractor may be monitored.
2.7 An outline specification, which defines certain minimum criteria, is set out below.
3. Specification: Field Evaluation
3.1 Trial trenches are to be excavated to cover a minimum 3% by area of the entire site and shall be positioned to sample all parts of the site. A contingency to increase the evaluation sample to 5% shall be allowed, conditional upon demonstrated archaeological discovery and agreed on site with the Archaeological Conservation Team.
3.2 The topsoil may be mechanically removed using an appropriate machine fitted with toothless bucket and other equipment. All machine excavation is to be under the direct control and supervision of an archaeologist. The topsoil should be examined for archaeological material.
3.3 The top of the first archaeological deposit may be cleared by machine, but must then be cleaned off by hand. There is a presumption that excavation of all archaeological deposits will be done by hand unless it can be shown there will not be a loss of evidence by using a machine. The decision as to the proper method of further excavation will be made by the senior project archaeologist with regard to the nature of the deposit.
3.4 In all evaluation excavation there is a presumption of the need to cause the minimum disturbance to the site consistent with adequate evaluation; that significant
archaeological features, e.g. solid or bonded structural remains, building slots or post- holes, should be preserved intact even if fills are sampled.
3.5 There must be sufficient excavation to give clear evidence for the period, depth and nature of any archaeological deposit. The depth and nature of colluvial or other masking deposits must be established across the site.
3.6 The contractor shall provide details of the sampling strategies for retrieving artefacts, biological remains (for palaeoenvironmental and palaeoeconomic investigations), and samples of sediments and/or soils (for micromorphological and other pedological/sedimentological analyses. Advice on the appropriateness of the proposed strategies will be sought from P Murphy, English Heritage Regional Adviser for Archaeological Science (East of England). A guide to sampling archaeological deposits (Murphy and Wiltshire 1994) is available.
3.7 Any natural subsoil surface revealed should be hand cleaned and examined for archaeological deposits and artefacts. Sample excavation of any archaeological features revealed may be necessary in order to gauge their date and character.
3.8 All finds will be collected and processed (unless variations in this principle are agreed with the Conservation Team of SCC Archaeological Service during the course of the evaluation).
3.9 Human remains must be left in situ except in those cases where damage or desecration are to be expected, or in the event that analysis of the remains is shown to be a requirement of satisfactory evaluation of the site. However, the excavator should be aware of, and comply with, the provisions of Section 25 of the Burial Act 1857.
3.10 Plans of any archaeological features on the site are to be drawn at 1:20 or 1:50, depending on the complexity of the data to be recorded. Sections should be drawn at 1:10 or 1:20 again depending on the complexity to be recorded. Any variations from this must be agreed with the Conservation Team.
3.11 A photographic record of the work is to be made, consisting of both monochrome photographs and colour transparencies.
3.12 Topsoil, subsoil and archaeological deposit to be kept separate during excavation to allow sequential backfilling of excavations.
4. General Management
4.1 A timetable for all stages of the project must be agreed before the first stage of work commences, including monitoring by the Conservation Team of SCC Archaeological Service.
4.2 The composition of the project staff must be detailed and agreed (this is to include any subcontractors).
4.3 A general Health and Safety Policy must be provided, with detailed risk assessment and management strategy for this particular site.
4.4 No initial survey to detect public utility or other services has taken place. The responsibility for this rests with the archaeological contractor.
4.5 The Institute of Field Archaeologists� Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Desk- based Assessments and for Field Evaluations should be used for additional guidance in the execution of the project and in drawing up the report.
5. Report Requirements
5.1 An archive of all records and finds must be prepared consistent with the principles of English Heritage'sManagement of Archaeological Projects, 1991 (particularly Appendix 3.1 and Appendix 4.1).
5.2 The data recording methods and conventions used must be consistent with, and approved by, the County Sites and Monuments Record.
5.3 The objective account of the archaeological evidence must be clearly distinguished from its archaeological interpretation.
5.4 An opinion as to the necessity for further evaluation and its scope may be given. No further site work should be embarked upon until the primary fieldwork results are assessed and the need for further work is established
5.5 Reports on specific areas of specialist study must include sufficient detail to permit assessment of potential for analysis, including tabulation of data by context, and must include non-technical summaries.
5.6 The Report must include a discussion and an assessment of the archaeological evidence. Its conclusions must include a clear statement of the archaeological potential of the site, and the significance of that potential in the context of the Regional Research Framework (East Anglian Archaeology, Occasional Papers 3 & 8, 1997 and 2000).
5.7 Finds must be appropriately conserved and stored in accordance with UK Institute of Conservators Guidelines. The finds, as an indissoluble part of the site archive, should be deposited with the County SMR if the landowner can be persuaded to agree to this. If this is not possible for all or any part of the finds archive, then provision must be made for additional recording (e.g. photography, illustration, analysis) as appropriate.
5.8 The site archive is to be deposited with the County SMR within three months of the completion of fieldwork. It will then become publicly accessible.
5. 9 Where positive conclusions are drawn from a project (whether it be evaluation or excavation) a summary report, in the established format, suitable for inclusion in the annual �Archaeology in Suffolk� section of the Proceedings of the Suffolk Institute for Archaeology, must be prepared. It should be included in the project report, or submitted to the Conservation Team, by the end of the calendar year in which the evaluation work takes place, whichever is the sooner.
5.10 County SMR sheets must be completed, as per the county SMR manual, for all sites where archaeological finds and/or features are located.
Specification by: R D Carr
Suffolk County Council
Archaeological Service Conservation Team Environment and Transport Department
Shire Hall
Bury St Edmunds Suffolk IP33 2AR Tel: 01284 352441
Date: 19 April 2004 Reference: /BenacreParkFarm2004
This brief and specification remains valid for 12 months from the above date. If work is not carried out in full within that time this document will lapse; the authority should be notified and a revised brief and specification may be issued.
If the work defined by this brief forms a part of a programme of archaeological work required by a Planning Condition, the results must be considered by the Conservation Team of the Archaeological Service of Suffolk County Council, who have the responsibility for advising the appropriate Planning Authority.
APPENDIX 2 Context List
Context No Feature Type Identifier Description Dimensions (LxWxD) meters Under Over Cut by Cuts Location Section No Dating
0001 Finds Unstratified finds from whole site
0002 Deposit Topsoil Topsoil encountered in all trenches. Soft mid greyish brown clayey loam with no notable inclusions. x x <0.3 + All Whole site
0003 Deposit Natural Natural drift deposits (Boulder Till) encountered in all trenches. Stiff mid orange-brown (occasional blue mottling) clay with occasional angular to sub- All Whole site
angular flint pebbles and rare chalk flecks/small to medium nodules.
0004 0004 Cut Pit Circular pit with steep concave sides breaking gradually to a flat base. 0.75 x 0.75 x 0.28 0005 0008 0008 Trench 15 1
0005 0004 Fill Pit Single fill of pit 0004. Firm mid grey slightly silty clay with frequent charcoal flecks (concentrated toward base) and occasional small flint pebbles. 0002 0004 Trench 15 1
0006 0006 Cut Pit Elongated oval pit with moderately sloping concave sides breaking gradually to a slightly undulating base. Long axis aligned NE-SW. >1.3 x 0.9 x 0.24 0007 NFE Trench 15 1
0007 0006 Fill Pit Primary fill of pit 0006. Firm dark grey slightly silty clay with frequent charcoal flecks/small fragments. Frequent heat crazed flints. 0008 0006 Trench 15 1 Preh?
0008 0006 Fill Pit Secondary fill of pit 0006. Firm mottled olive brown/light grey slightly silty clay with occasional flint pebbles. 0004 0007 0004 Trench 15 1
0009 0009 Cut Pit Partially revealed ?oval pit with steep straight sides breaking sharply to a flat base. 1.2 x >0.65 x 0.3 0010 NFE Trench 15 2
0010 0009 Fill Pit Single fill of pit 0009. Firm mottled mid grey/olive brown clay with frequent charcoal flecks and heat crazed flints toward base. 0002 0009 Trench 15 2 Preh?
0011 0011 Cut Ditch Straight parallel sided ditch recorded in T29 and T23. Moderately sloping slight irregular sides breaking sharply to a flat base. Aligned ESE-WNW. >46 x 1.4 x 0.64 0012 NFE Trenches 23 and 29 3
0012 0011 Fill Ditch Single fill of ditch 0011 (as excavated in T23). Soft to firm greyish brown slightly silty clay with occasional charcoal flecks and small flint pebbles. 0002 0011 Trenches 23 and 29 3 PMed?
0013 0013 Cut Ditch Straight parallel sided ditch with moderately sloping smooth sides breaking gradually to a narrow u-shaped base. >2 x 0.85 x 0.45 0014 NFE Trench 24 4
0014 0013 Fill Ditch Single fill of ditch 0013. Firm mid brown slightly silty clay with occasional small flint pebbles and a band of rare charcoal flecks toward base. 0002 0013 Trench 24 4
0015 0015 Cut ?Ditch Broad shallow ditch or hollow. Very gently sloping sides with imperceptible break to a gently rounded base. >2 x 2.5 x 0.2 0016 NFE Trench 24 5
0016 0015 Fill ?Ditch Single fill of ditch/hollow 0015. Firm mid brown slightly silty clay with occasional charcoal flecks and frequent small to medium flint pebbles, 0002 0015 Trench 24 5 17- 17th C
particularly concentrated in base along southern side.
0017
0017
Cut
Pit
Circular cooking pit/hearth. Smooth moderately sloping sides with imperceptible break to a flat base.
1.14 x 1 x 0.2
0020
NFE
Trench 32
6
0018
0017
Fill
Pit
Uppermost fill of pit 0017. Soft mid olive brown silty clay with occasional charcoal flecks.
x x 0.12
0002
0019
Trench 32
6
0019
0017
Fill
Pit
Secondary fill of pit 0017. Soft very dark grey/black clayey silt with frequent charcoal flecks/small pieces.
x x 0.05
0018
0020
Trench 32
6
0020
0017
Fill
Pit
Primary fill/lining of pit 0017. Compact/firm reddish white burnt clay matrix with very abundant small chalk pieces.
x x 0.03
0019
0017
Trench 32
6
0021
0021
Cut
Ditch
Straight parallel sided ditch with slightly stepped sides with sharp break to
>2 x 1.6 x 0.7
0022
NFE
Trench
7
flat base. 27
0022 0021 Fill Ditch Single fill of ditch 0021. Soft to firm mid brown slightly silty clay with occasional charcoal flecks and rare small chalk pieces. 0002 0021 Trench 27 7
0023 0023 Cut Pond Probable pond. Possible origins as a quarry/brick pit (not visible on any OS edition). Only partially revealed, a hollow if faintly visible on the ground as a 6 x >2 x 1.4 0026 NFE Trench 26 8
landscape feature. Moderately sloping W and E sides with a gently rounded base.
0024 0023 Fill Pond Uppermost fill of pond 0023. Very soft and waterlogged light yellowish brown coarse sand with occasional redeposited lumps of chalk-flecked clay (up to x x 0.8 0002 0025 Trench 26 8
0.2m diameter) and occasional flint pebbles. Probable deliberate infill/consolidation.
0025 0023 Fill Pond Secondary fill/silting of pond 0023. Soft mid grey slightly silty clay with no notable inclusions. x x 0.4 0024 0026 Trench 26 8 Lmed+
0026 0023 Fill Pond Primary fill/silting of pond 0023. Soft dark grey humic clayey silt with rare well rotted small wood/root fragments. x x 0.2 0025 0023 Trench 26 8
0027 0027 Cut Pit Cooking/burning pit. Sub-rounded and orientated NW-SE. Smooth moderately sloping sides with a gradual break to an undulating/irregular 2.1 x 1.85 x 0.65 0029 NFE Trench 17/Area A 9
base.
0028 0027 Fill Pit Secondary fill of pit 0027. Firm light slightly greyish brown clay with rare small angular flint pebbles. x x <0.4 0002 0029 Trench 17/Area A 9
0029 0027 Fill Pit Primary fill of pit 0027. Firm mid to dark grey slightly silty clay with occasional burnt flint fragments and rare chalk flecks. x x 2.5 0028 0027 Trench 17/Area A 9