Mab’s Orchard Community Excavation Trotshill, Worcester · 2018. 11. 29. · 2.1.1 This report...

Mab’s Orchard Community Excavation

Trotshill, Worcester

Archaeological Excavation

Date: 26 October 2018 By: Mark Collard Client: Worcester City Council Project Code: MOCE17

RUBICON HERITAGE SERVICES LTD. MAB’S ORCHARD COMMUNITY EXCAVATION, TROTSHILL, WORCESTER

i

Mab’s Orchard Community Excavation

Trotshill, Worcester

Archaeological Excavation

Client Worcester City Council

Project Code MOCE17

Prepared By Mark Collard

Illustrated By Hannah Sims

Rev Number Description Undertaken Approved Date

1.0 Draft

MC MC 30/1/18

2.0 Revised draft; detailed pottery report included

MC MC 12/10/18

3.0 Specialist report on mortaria added

MC MC 17/10/18

4.0

Revised after client review

MC MC 26/10/18


ii

CONTENTS

1. Summary of results ....................................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................... 2

3. Aims and Methodology ................................................................................................................................................ 3

4. The Excavation Results ................................................................................................................................................. 4

5. The Finds ........................................................................................................................................................................ 6

6. Discussion ...................................................................................................................................................................... 7

7. References....................................................................................................................................................................... 8

Archive Statement................................................................................................................................................................. 10

Appendix 1 Context Register

Appendix 1 Site Matrix

Appendix 3 The Finds

Appendix 4 Oasis report form

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Site location

Figure 2 Trench location plan

Figure 3 Feature plan

Figure 4 Sections of Ditches A and B

Figure 5 Section of Ditch A

Figure 6 Section of Ditch C

Figure 7 Section of pit [142]

Figure 8 Section of feature [132]

Figure 9 Excavation feature plan overlaid with 2006 evaluation features LIST OF PLATES

Plate 1 Ditches A and B (contexts 105 and 138), looking S

Plate 2 Ditches A and B (contexts 112 and 114), looking E

Plate 3 Ditches A and B (contexts 116 and 117), looking E

Plate 4 Ditch C (context 110), looking N


1

1. SUMMARY OF RESULTS Project Name: Mab’s Orchard Community Excavation Location: Trotshill, Worcester NGR: SO 88564 55750 Type: Excavation Date: 14 November to 2 December 2017 Location of Archive: To be deposited with Museums Worcestershire Site Code: MOCE17

An archaeological excavation was undertaken at land at Mab’s Orchard, Trotshill by Rubicon Heritage Services for Worcester City Council, supported by the Heritage Lottery Fund. An area of 0.10 ha was stripped under archaeological supervision. Part of a small Roman period rectilinear enclosure was excavated, probably originating in the later 1st/2nd century AD; the ditch was recut in the 2nd century. A further field ditch of 2nd century date was excavated. A single undated pit was also recorded. The site had been truncated by landscaping in the early 21st century.


2

2. INTRODUCTION

2.1 Project background

2.1.1 This report details the results of archaeological excavation on land known as Mab’s Orchard,

Trotshill, Worcester (centred at NGR SO 88564 55750 (Figure 1). The work was undertaken by

Rubicon Heritage Services Ltd for Worcester City Council, and was grant-aided by the Heritage

Lottery Fund and Worcestershire County Council.

2.1.2 The archaeological work was required prior to the change of use of the site to allotments.

Worcester City Council secured a Heritage Lottery Fund grant to undertake a community

archaeological project including geophysical survey and excavation. Other elements of the

project comprise geophysical survey, and provision of a KS2 education pack for schools, based

on the site and other Roman rural settlements (potential focus on agriculture, trade/economy,

settlement, town/country).

2.1.3 A Written Scheme of Investigation for Archaeological Excavation to govern the conduct of the

archaeological works was prepared by Rubicon Heritage and approved in advance of the

fieldwork by James Dinn, City Archaeologist, Worcester City Council (Rubicon Heritage 2017).

2.1.4 The fieldwork followed the Guidelines for archaeological work in Worcester (Worcester City

Council 2016), Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Excavation (CIfA 2014), the Management

of Archaeological Projects 2 (English Heritage 1991) and the Management of Research Projects in the

Historic Environment (MORPHE): Project Manager’s Guide (Historic England 2015).

2.2 Site Location and Description

2.2.1 The site lies currently within public open space lying east of the A4440 Trotshill Way and south

of Trotshill Lane East. Its western boundary is formed by a public footpath from Trotshill Lane

to Mabb’s Close and Dugdale Drive. The underlying Solid geology of the excavation area

comprises Sidmouth Mudstone Formation (BGS) Online Viewer, 10 November 2017) and no

Superficial deposits are recorded.

2.3 Archaeological Background

2.3.1 Previous works on the site include a trial trench evaluation carried out by Worcestershire

Historic Environment and Archaeology Service in 2006 (WHEAS 2006). The evaluation covered

a wider area but trenches within this part of the site (Figure 2) contained ditches and pits of

Roman date. The ditches appeared to form rectilinear enclosures; no structural remains were

identified but the quantity and type of artefacts recovered were interpreted as suggesting a

settlement activity, probably of 1st-2nd century AD date.


3

2.3.2 A geophysical survey of the site was carried out in 2017 by Magnitude Surveys, but it appeared

from this that recent dumping of material on the site has apparently obscured any

archaeological features which may have been present (Magnitude Surveys 2017).

3. AIMS AND METHODOLOGY

3.1 The aims and objectives of the evaluation

3.1.1 The aims of the archaeological fieldwork were to:

• record the nature of the main stratigraphic units encountered;

• assess the overall presence, survival and potential of structural and industrial remains;

• assess the overall presence, survival, condition, and potential of artefactual and ecofactual

remains; and

• establish the relationship of the excavated remains with previous archaeological evidence

within the village and examine this is the context of wider local and regional evidence.

3.1.2 These aims were to be achieved through pursuit of the following specific objectives:

• to define and identify the nature of archaeological deposits on site, and date these where

possible; with particular regard to features identified in the evaluation.

• to attempt to characterise the nature and preservation of the archaeological sequence and

recover as much information as possible about the spatial patterning and extent of features

present on the site.

• to recover a well-dated stratigraphic sequence which will attempt to determine the

complexity of the horizontal and vertical stratigraphy present, and to recover coherent

artefact, ecofact and environmental samples.

• to determine the potential of the site to provide palaeoenvironmental and/or economic

evidence and the forms in which such evidence may be present.

3.2 Methodology

3.2.1 The archaeological fieldwork was undertaken by Rubicon Heritage Ltd between 14 November

and 2 December 2017. An area measuring c. 41m x 24m was excavated at the location shown

on Figure. 1. This was a variation from the original proposal in the WSI and was agreed with

James Dinn, City Archaeologist.

3.2.2 The excavation area was set out on OS National Grid (NGR) co-ordinates using a Trimble R6

GPS unit. All information identified in the course of the site works was recorded

stratigraphically, with sufficient pictorial record (plans, sections and photographs) to identify

and illustrate individual features.


4

3.2.3 The area of investigation was excavated by a mechanical excavator equipped with a flat-bladed

grading bucket, and was excavated under constant archaeological supervision. Non-significant

overburden was removed in shallow spits until the first archaeological horizon or undisturbed

geological substrate were exposed. Thereafter any identified deposits were cleaned and

investigated by hand to define their extent, nature, form and, where possible, date.

3.2.4 All archaeological deposits and features were subjected to appropriate levels of investigation.

All identified deposits were assessed for their palaeoenvironmental potential in accordance

with: Environmental Archaeology: a guide to the theory and practice of methods from sampling and

recording to post-excavation. 2nd Edition (English Heritage 2011). One bulk sample was taken from

the single archaeological feature identified in the excavation (pit 1005)

3.2.5 The artefact collection policy was concerned with the provision of material for meeting the

objectives of the work. Rubicon Heritage treats all retained finds in accordance with the English

Heritage guidance document: A Strategy for the Care and Investigation of Finds (English Heritage,

1995) and the UKIC’s document Guidelines for the Preparation of Excavation Archives for Long Term

Storage (UKIC, 1990).

3.2.6 The archive from the excavation is currently held by Rubicon Heritage Services UK Ltd at their

offices in Cardiff and will be deposited with Museums Worcestershire. A summary of

information from this project, set out within Appendix 3, will be entered onto the OASIS online

database of archaeological projects in Britain.

4. THE EXCAVATION RESULTS

4.1 Geology

4.1.1 The underlying geology of the site is described by the British Geological Survey (BGS) as

Kellaways Clay Member: Mudstone, a sedimentary bedrock formed approximately 161 to 165

million years BP. No superficial geological deposits are recorded. The excavation of the site

exposed yellow and mottled grey clay with bands of sandy clay across the entire excavation

area.

4.2 Excavation results

4.2.1 The geophysical survey report had suggested that dumping of material may have occurred on

the site and this was confirmed by the excavation. Topsoil 100 was c. 0.50m deep. Beneath this

was 101 consisting of redeposited natural reddish brown clay, representing redeposited subsoil

and natural clay, containing modern finds as well as a good quantity of residual Roman

artefacts, particularly in its lower levels. Residual patches of this material remained after

machine stripping and these were removed by hand excavation (107/135/136). This clay overlay

the natural very firm reddish brown clay 102 and the presence of ruts from tracked machinery


5

in the upper surface of the underlying natural clay confirmed that the site had been

comprehensively stripped to this level before the deposition of 101 and the replacement of the

topsoil. This must have occurred during the construction of the adjacent housing estate and

was certainly carried out after the 2006 evaluation. The archaeological features described below

had survived these landscaping works, cut into the natural clay, but they were truncated. It is

likely that any less substantial features such as postholes or shallow pits and gullies would

have been removed if they had existed on the site prior to the landscaping.

4.2.2 A limited number of features were found and all were sampled to characterise them; for ease

of reference where multiple sections were cut across a ditch, the ditch has been given a single

identifying letter (Fig. 3, Ditches A to C).

4.2.3 The southern ditch of a small sub-rectangular enclosure (Fig. 3, Ditch A) lay along the northern

side of the excavation area. Five sections were excavated along its length (Fig. 3, 128; 114; 116;

129; 105). The internal distance between the surviving ditch lengths was c. 13m but must have

been less at the original level from which they had been cut. It varied in its surviving depth

from 0.11m at the west end in section 128, to 0.42 - 0.48m at its eastern end in 129 and 105. At

its widest it measured c. 1.15m (105) but generally survived to 0.7 to 0. 95m wide in other

sections, although along its southern and eastern sides it had been truncated by a recut (Ditch

B). The fills of the primary ditch (115, 119, 127, 130 and 139) were all homogenous reddish

brown silty clays derived from the natural. Roman pottery was recovered from four of the

sections (115, 119, 127 and 130, with more than 100 sherds from the latter). Only the shallow

part of the ditch 128 produced no finds. All the pottery was dated to the late 1st/2nd centuries.

One sherd of earlier mid to late 1st century pottery was found in fill 119 alongside later material.

4.2.4 The ditch was then subsequently recut (Ditch B) along its southern and eastern outer sides (Fig.

3, Ditch B; 112; 117; 140; 138); this did not continue round the full enclosure and what appeared

to a butt end 112 was excavated although it may be that as Ditch A was clearly shallower and

truncated further west it simply had not survived as it was generally not as deep as Ditch A;

its width was consistent at c. 1m along its length. The fills 106/113/118/133) were again

homogenous reddish-brown clay silts. No finds were recovered from fill 113 in section 112 but

considerable concentrations were found in the other three sections, particularly 133 (section

140, 197 sherds) and 106 (section 138, 383 sherds). The pottery from Ditch B was apparently of

later date than Ditch A, belonging to the period from AD120 to AD 200. Small fragments of

fired clay were also recovered from 106 and 109, and a small group of unidentifiable animal

bone fragments from 106.

4.2.5 Ditch 907 in the 2006 evaluation trench corresponded to the line of the eastern return of the

enclosure along the alignment of Ditches A and B in this area (Fig. 9).


6

4.2.6 A further ditch (Fig. 3, Ditch C) was recorded running north-south along the eastern side of the

trench. It was very shallow (0.11m and 0.17m in the two excavated sections 110 and 123), and

was flat-bottomed. At its north end, in section 110, it was 1.40m wide. To the north of this

section the base sloped up and it did not survive further north and had presumably been

truncated by the landscaping although was not apparently present in the 2006 evaluation

trench as a linear feature; only a small rectangular feature was recorded on its projected line in

that trench (Fig. 9, 911). The base of the feature was very rough and apparently root-disturbed.

The fills 111 and 122 were identical, being loose brown silty clays and both contained small

quantities of Roman pottery, with that from 112 dated to the late 1st/2nd centuries.

4.2.7 A possible pit 142 was cut on its north side by Ditch B. It was sub-circular, 0.46m in diameter,

with near vertical edges. Again it was apparently truncated as it was only 0.17m deep, with a

light grey brown silty clay fill 141 from which no finds were recovered.

4.2.8 The only other features recorded were two tree throw pits (125/132 and 121). Irregular feature

909 found in the 2006 evaluation trench would appear to have originally formed part of 125/132

(Fig. 9).

5. THE FINDS by C Jane Evans, Worcestershire Archaeology

5.1 A detailed finds report is contained within Appendix 3. The finds recovered from the

excavation were all ceramic, mostly Roman pottery (968 sherds, 8.04kg) with a single sherd of

medieval pottery, four sherds of post-medieval pottery and a very small amount of ceramic

building material (two possibly of Roman date, the others being late medieval/post-medieval).

No artefacts made of other materials were recovered despite a metal detector survey of the site

being carried out as part of the works.

5.2 The pottery fabrics and forms, in particular the samian and mortaria, indicate a 2nd century

date for Roman activity on the site, with a floruit of c AD 120–160. Although the site appears to

have been occupied over a relatively short period of time, some distinctions could be made

between the assemblages from the primary ditch A and the subsequent recut B. The earliest

ditch fills contained higher proportions of the earlier handmaade Malvernian ware, as well as

an emphasis on tankards and cokking pots. The recut was more biased towards narrow-

mouthed jars and mortaria (all the latter came from the recut). While based on a small sample

of material, these hint at changes in the character of the site over this time. The closely dated

assemblage, therefore, adds to the growing body of data from rural sites in the environs of

Roman Worcester.


7

6. DISCUSSION

6.1 The excavation provided evidence for Roman period occupation on the site to augment that

found during the earlier evaluation trenching. While the features were limited in number and

type, probably accentuated because of the truncation by modern landscaping, the quantity of

pottery recovered indicates a focus of settlement nearby, within a clear timeframe of the late 1st

into 2nd century AD. The date range of the pottery fabrics found within Ditch A was broadly

late 1st to 2nd century; the absence of black-burnished ware (BB1) might suggest an earlier date.

The assemblage from the recut, Ditch B, suggest a date post AD 120 and more towards the mid

2nd century and the assemblage from Ditch C belongs in this period also. It should be noted that

the finds recovered came from the primary fills of both Ditch A and Ditch B due to removal the

upper parts of the ditches and their fills – it may be that occupation continued later into the

Roman period but there is no clear evidence for this within the finds recovered from the

redeposited material disturbed during the landscaping, all of which is either of similar 2nd

century date or medieval or later.

6.2 While the physical evidence at Mab’s Orchard from both the evaluation trenches and the

excavation is limited and it is difficult to determine the nature of the settlement activity in

detail, the date range of the site seems to fit within the emerging chronological patterns of

Roman rural settlement in Worcestershire which suggest periods of considerable change in the

rural landscape when many settlement areas occupied during the late Iron Age and the early

Roman period appear to have been abandoned in the early to mid-second century while many

new settlement sites were established suggesting that this was a period of settlement

dislocation and re-ordering of the landscape (Griffin et al. 2005). To the north of the site

excavations at Hindlip revealed a small group of rectangular Roman enclosures (Wainwright

2014b). An evaluation in 2017 to the north-west of the site, on the east side of Trotshill Way

identified a Roman ditch aligned roughly north-east to south-west which appeared to have

been recut at least once, indicating either a long period of use, or re-use (Worcestershire

Archaeology 2017). The low density of general Roman material associated with it was

interpreted as indicating it was an agricultural enclosure. Elsewhere, within 2km of Worcester,

settlement sites have been excavated at Bath Road and in St John's, both originating in the Iron

Age (Rogers 2014a; 2014b; Wainwright 2014a; 2014c) and continuing into the Roman period.

The Mab’s Orchard site has produced only one sherd of possible later Iron Age pottery residual

in a later context and there is therefore uncertainty as to whether the settlement here had a pre-

conquest origin.

6.3 As noted above, the pottery assemblage is a relatively closed group, with little residual material

and offers only a hint of the character of the settlement activity. The changing characteristics of


8

the forms of vessels in the pottery assemblage from the earlier tankards and cooking vessels in

Ditch A to the later jars and mortaria of Ditch B hints at possible changes over time. The

assemblage does give indications of the supply networks at play in pottery supply to the area

in the late 1st and early 2nd centuries. Other classes of artefact and ecofacts were very rare; only

very small quantities of fragmented bone were recovered from the site and it is likely that soil

conditions are not conducive to its preservation. The single piece of Roman tile/brick from 133

in Ditch B is notable as being possibly indicative of structures on the site. The small amount of

medieval and post-medieval ceramic material on the site is presumed to derive from

agricultural activities in these periods.

7. REFERENCES

Griffin, S., Griffin, L. and Jackson, R. (2005) Salvage Recording and Evaluation at Throckmorton Airfield, Throckmorton, Worcestershire, Worcestershire County Council Historic Environment and Archaeology Service, Report 917.

Magnitude Surveys 2017 Geophysical Survey Report of Land South of Trotshill Lane East, Worcester, Worcestershire. Magnitude Surveys Ref: MSSO201

Rogers, T. (2014a) ‘From the Mesolithic to the Second World War; archaeological investigations at the former petrol storage facility, Bath Road, Worcester.’ Transactions of the Worcestershire Archaeological Society, 3rd series, 24, 95-106.

Rogers, T. (2014b) Excavation at Bath Road, Worcester, 2006. Iron Age and Romano-British settlement at the former petrol storage facility. Worcestershire Archaeology Research Reports 1 http://worcestershirearchaeology.org/SWR22712.pdf

Rubicon Heritage 2017 Mab’s Orchard Community Excavation, Trotshill, Worcester, Written Scheme of Investigation for Archaeological Excavation

Wainwright, J. (2014a) ‘Roman conquest period finds and other highlights from archaeological investigations in St John's, Worcester.’ Transactions of the Worcestershire Archaeological Society, 3rd series, 24, 107-120.

Wainwright, J. (2014b) ‘Iron Age and Roman settlement at West Mercia Police HQ, Hindlip, Worcester: excavations 2009.’ Transactions of the Worcestershire Archaeological Society, 3rd series, 24, 85-94.

Wainwright, J. (2014c) Archaeological investigations in St John’s, Worcester, Worcestershire Archaeology Research Reports 4 http://worcestershirearchaeology.org/SWR22710.pdf

WHEAS (Worcestershire Historic Environment and Archaeology Service) 2006 Archaeological Evaluation at Dugdale Drive, Trotshill, Warndon, Worcester. Report 1546

Worcestershire Archaeology 2017 An archaeological evaluation of land off Parsonage Way/Trotshill Way, Worcester Report 2457

http://worcestershirearchaeology.org/SWR22712.pdf

http://worcestershirearchaeology.org/SWR22710.pdf


10

ARCHIVE STATEMENT

The site archive is comprised of the following materials:

Item Quantity

Trenching and field recording sheets 43

GPS Plans 1 Digital

Field Drawings 4 sheets

Digital Photographs 60

Registers (Context, finds, drawing,

photo) 4

The archive material is contained within one box.

The archive is currently stored in the offices of Rubicon Heritage Services Ltd and will be deposited

with Museums Worcestershire.


Appendices

APPENDIX 1 CONTEXT REGISTER

context typepart of Ditch fill of filled by width (m) depth (m) description

100 deposit - topsoil 0.5 topsoil101 redeposited natural 0.31 redeposited natural/subsoil102 natural natural – reddish brown clay103 ditch cut A 104 same as 116104 ditch fill A 103 same as 119105 ditch cut A 139 1.15 0.42 N-S primary enclosure ditch106 ditch fill B 138 1.05 0.42 dark grey silty clay, fill of recut107 redeposited natural 0.05 deposited by previous landscaping108 ditch cut 108 void - see 112 and 114109 ditch fill 108 void - see 113 and 115110 ditch cut C 111 1.4 0.16 N-S ditch111 ditch fill C 110 1.4 0.16 grey brown clayey silt112 recut of ditch 114 B 113 0.5 0.28 western terminus of recut of 114 113 ditch fill B 112 0.5 0.28 reddish grey sandy clay114 ditch cut A 115 0.5 0.28 primary ditch, recut as 112115 ditch fill A 114 0.93 0.38 reddish brown sandy clay116 recut of 117 B 118 0.7 0.3 E-W recut enclosure ditch117 ditch cut A 119 0.7 0.15 E-W primary enclosure ditch118 ditch fill B 116 1 0.3 light grey silty clay 119 ditch fill A 117 0.7 0.15 light grey silty clay 120 tree throw fill 121 1.6 0.03 light brown silty clay121 tree throw pit 120 1.6 0.03 irregular cut feature122 ditch fill C 123 1.75 0.17 grey brown silty clay123 ditch cut C 122 1.75 0.17 N-S ditch124 tree throw fill 125 0.34 light reddish brown silty clay125 tree throw pit 124 0.34 circular cut126 ditch cut B 0.7 0.3 same as 116127 ditch fill A 128 0.83 0.81 grey brown clay silt128 ditch cut A 127 0.83 0.81 E-W primary enclosure ditch129 ditch cut A 130, 133 1.22 0.48 E-W primary enclosure ditch130 ditch fill A 129 1.22 0.48 reddish brown silty clay131 tree throw fill 132 1.18 0.34 greyish brown silty clay132 tree throw pit 131 1.18 0.34 circualr cut133 ditch fill B 140 1.06 0.48 light grey brown silty clay134 ditch fill B 140 1.06 0.48 same as 133135 redeposited natural 0.05 reddish brown clay136 redeposited natural 0.05 reddish brown clay137 evaluation trench cut linear cut in natural138 recut of ditch 105 B 106 1.05 0.42 recut of N-S enclosure ditch 105139 ditch fill A 105 1.15 0.42 reddish brown silty clay140 recut of ditch 129 B 133 1.06 0.48 E-W enclusre ditch recut141 pit fill 142 0.46 0.17 light grey brown silty clay142 pit cut 141 0.46 0.17 circular cut, steep sides


Appendices

APPENDIX 2 SITE MATRIX

MOCE 17: MAB'S ORCHARD EXCAVATION 2017 SITE MATRIX

TOPSOIL

ENCLOSURE DITCH

FILLN‐S DITCH C

RECUT OF ENCLOSURE (DITCH B)

FILL

ENCLOSURE DITCH A

keyxx cut NATURALxx fillxx deposit

129

2006 EVALUATION TRENCH BACKFILL

118

116

110

122

123

133

140

130104/119

113

112

115

106

138

109

128

111141

142

PIT?

129114 105103/117

TREE THROWS?

100

101=136=135=107REDEPOSITED (MODERN LANDSCAPING)

132

137

102

121

124

125

131 120


Appendices

APPENDIX 3: FINDS REPORT

C Jane Evans with contributions by J M Mills and Kay Hartley

1 Introduction and archaeological background

An analysis of ceramic artefacts from a community excavation at Mab's Orchard, Trotshill, Worcester (NGR SO 88564 55750; HER WCM 102275) was undertaken on behalf of Rubicon Heritage.

2 Project parameters

The finds work reported here conforms with the following guidance: for finds work by CIfA (2014), for pottery analysis by PCRG/SGRP/MPRG (2016), for archive creation by AAF (2011), and for museum deposition by SMA (1993).

3 Aims

The aims of the project were to:

• To identify, sort, spot date, and quantify all artefacts;

• To describe the range of artefacts present;

4 Methods

Personnel

The project was undertaken by C Jane Evans (BA, MA, MCIfA); who joined Worcestershire Archaeology in 2007 and has been practicing archaeology since 1980. The project manager responsible for the quality of the project was Derek Hurst (BA (hons.); Dip post-exc).

Methods

Sampling policy

Details of the artefact recovery policy can be found in the WSI (Rubicon Heritage 2017, section 2.5).

Method of analysis

All ceramic finds submitted were examined. They were identified, quantified and dated to period. A terminus post quem date was produced for each stratified context. The date was used for determining the broad date of phases defined for the site. All information was recorded on a Microsoft Access database.

Pottery fabrics were examined using x20 binocular microscope and are referenced to the fabric reference series maintained by Worcestershire Archaeology (www.worcestershireceramics.org), cross-referenced to the National Roman Fabric Reference Collection (Tomber and Dore 1998) where possible. Pottery forms are referenced to published corpora or illustrated examples from other Worcester assemblages. The pottery was quantified by count, weight and rim EVE (estimated vessel equivalent); diameters and percentage extant were recorded for rims but not for bases. Any evidence for decoration, manufacture, use or repair was also noted. The samian was identified by J M Mills and the mortaria by Kay Hartley.

http://www.worcestershireceramics.org/


Appendices

5 Results

Artefactual analysis

The assemblage comprised predominantly Roman pottery (Table 1), though a handful of medieval and post-medieval sherds were was also recovered. Other finds present included a Roman brick, and small quantities of fired clay, and late medieval to post-medieval ceramic building material.

The majority of finds came from the ditches, in particular the primary enclosure ditch A and its recut B. The remaining finds were incorporated within re-deposited natural or found in tree-throws. Most of the ceramic building material was associated with re-deposited natural.

peri

od

mat

eria

l cla

ss

obje

ct

spec

ific

ty

pe

coun

t

wei

ght(g

)

Roman ceramic pot 968 8038.5

?Roman ceramic brick 2 969

medieval ceramic pot 1 72

?medieval ceramic brick 1 224

late med/early post-med ceramic tile 10 1311

?late med/early post-med ceramic tile 1 31

post-medieval

ceramic

pot 4 39

brick 1 256

roof tile 3 115

tile 4 69

?post-medieval

ceramic

brick/tile 2 9

tile 1 26

undated ceramic fired clay 23 76

Table 1 Quantification of ceramic assemblage by period and object type

Roman pottery

The bulk of the Roman pottery came from the enclosure ditch, predominantly from fills associated with the ditch recut B rather than the primary ditch A (Table 2). Smaller quantities of pottery came from layers of redeposited natural, ditch 110/123, and tree-throws.

The assemblage dates to the 2nd century, perhaps pre-dating c AD 160. The assemblage dates to the 2nd century, perhaps pre-dating c AD 160. The best dating evidence came from the Central Gaulish


Appendices

samian, and two mortaria: one stamped Decanius, produced at Wroxeter (see Mills and Hartley respectively below), and dated to c AD 90–120; the other a more local product dated to the 2nd century, before c AD 160 (Hartley 2014, 47). A range of coarseware fabrics was represented (Table 3) but Severn Valley wares dominated the assemblage, representing around 80% by count, weight and rim EVE overall. A number of fabric variants were recorded, amongst which plain Severn Valley ware (Fabric 12) was the most common type. All the variants are typical of 1st to 2nd century assemblages (cf Bryant and Evans 2004, 250–7). Some of the organic-tempered ware (Fabric 12.2) also contained clay pellets, a characteristic noted in other early Roman assemblages from Worcester (eg Evans 2014, Table 5). This was noted, where present, but not quantified separately. Other typical early Roman coarsewares included handmade Malvernian ware, oxidised and reduced sandy wares, white ware and white-slipped ware. The 'local' mortarium was probably made in the Worcester/Droitwich area (Fabric 37.5).

The pottery assemblages from the two main features, the primary enclosure ditch A and the ditch recut B, are analysed and discussed separately below, to explore any chronological distinctions.

interpretation

coun

t

% c

ount

wei

ght(g

)

% w

eigh

t

rim

EV

E

% ri

m E

VE

aver

age

wei

ght

ditch C 110/123 37 4% 254.5 3% 0.29 3% 7

primary enclosure ditch A 210 22% 1186 15% 1.29 13% 6

recut of enclosure ditch B 613 63% 5492 68% 7.4 77% 9

natural (layer) 91 9% 1049 13% 0.59 6% 12

tree-throw 17 2% 57 1% 0.09 1% 3

total 968 100% 8038.5 100% 9.66 100% 8

Table 2 Summary of the Roman pottery by feature type


Appendices

fabr

ic c

ode Fabric common name

(NRFRC code; Tomber & Dore 1998)

coun

t

% c

ount

wei

ght(g

)

% w

eigh

t

rim

EV

E

% ri

m E

VE

aver

age

wei

ght

3 Malvernian ware (MAL RE A) 104 11% 662 8% 0.84 9% 6

12 Severn Valley ware (SVW OX 2) 528 55% 3712.5 46% 4.46 46% 7

12.1 Reduced Severn Valley ware (variant of SVW OX)

55 6% 356 4% 0.97 10% 6

12.2 Oxidised organic tempered Severn Valley ware (variant of SVW OX)

119 12% 1249 16% 1.61 17% 10

12.3 Reduced organic tempered Severn Valley ware (variant of SVW OX)

1 0% 31 0% 0 0% 31

12.4 Severn Valley ware (variant of SVW OX with voids, from ?limestone)

33 3% 434 5% 0.26 3% 13

12.5 Severn Valley ware (sandy, micaceous variant of SVW OX)

4 0% 50 1% 0 0% 13

12.6 Severn Valley ware (variant of SVW OX with soft white inclusions)

52 5% 457 6% 0.98 10% 9

13 Sandy oxidized ware 14 1% 61 1% 0 0% 4

14 Fine sandy grey ware 6 1% 15 0% 0 0% 3

15 Coarse sandy grey ware 1 0% 19 0% 0 0% 19

19 Wheel-thrown Malvernian ware (variant of MAL RE A)

5 1% 29 0% 0 0% 6

20 White-slipped ware 12 1% 67 1% 0 0% 6

22 Black-burnished ware, type 1 (DOR BB 1)

12 1% 58 1% 0.08 1% 5

34 West Midland (Wroxeter) mortarium (WRX WH)

4 0% 537 7% 0.46 5% 134

37.5 ?Worcester/Droitwich mortaria 2 0% 154 2% 0 0% 77


Appendices

41 Unprovenanced white ware 4 0% 6 0% 0 0% 2

43.21 Central Gaulish Samian, Les Martres-de-Veyre (LMV SA)

1 0% 7 0% 0 0% 7

43.22 Central Gaulish Samian, Lezoux (LEZ SA 2)

7 1% 61 1% 0 0% 9

98.1 Caerleon ware (CAR OX) 3 0% 57 1% 0 0% 19

158 ?Mancetter/Hartshill white ware (MAH WH)

1 0% 16 0% 0 0% 16

total 968 8038.5 9.66 8

Table 3 Summary of the Roman pottery by period and fabric-type

Five fills (109/115, 119, 127 and 130) associated with the primary enclosure ditch A produced pottery. The closest dating evidence came from fragments of Drag 18/31 samian dishes found in fills 109 and 119 (Mills below). These were produced at Lezoux in Central Gaul between c AD 120–160. Forms in other fabrics are consistent with this date range. These included Malvernian tubby cooking pots with upright and in-turned rims (cf Bryant and Evans 2004, fig 153.6 and Darlington and Evans 1992, fig 24.1 respectively); a Malvernian copy of a BB1 dish; Severn Valley ware tankards with slightly splayed walls (Webster 1976, fig 7.40, 41) and a bead-rimmed bowl (cf Evans 2014, 35, fig 18.18), and a handle from a flagon in a white-slipped ware (Fabric 20). The range of fabrics (Fig JE1a and b) is typical of a broadly late 1st to 2nd century assemblage. The absence of BB1 (Fabric 22) might suggest an earlier date within the range.

Three fills of the recut enclosure ditch B produced pottery (106, 118 and 133), the majority coming from fill 106 (Table 4). The best dating evidence came from the samian (Mills below) and the mortaria (see Hartley below). The samian included a Drag 37 bowl, produced at Les-Martres-de-Veyre and dated to c AD 100–125, and a probable 18/31 dish produced at Lezoux between c AD 120-160 (both fill 106). The other samian forms, a Drag 35 or 36 cup/dish and a decorated sherd from a Drag 29/30 or Déchelette 64 jar (both also fill 106) could only be dated more broadly to c AD 120–200, though the latter might potentially have been produced in the earlier 2nd century. Fill 106 also produced the stamped mortarium, dating to c AD 90–120 and made at Wroxeter by Decanius. The presence of BB1 (Fabric 22) supports a general post c AD 120 date, with one particular bowl rim suggesting a mid-2nd century date (cf Gillam 1976, fig 3. 36, 37). A wider range of form types and fabrics was included in this larger assemblage, all consistent with the date range indicated by the samian and mortaria. The most common Severn Valley ware forms included narrow-mouthed jars with simple out-curving, triangular or slightly overhanging rims (cf Webster 1976, fig 1.1, 3–5, fig 2.7 respectively), and wide-mouthed jars with similar rims (cf Webster 1976, fig 4.22, fig 5.23).

Some distinctions can be made between the fills of the primary and recut ditches A and B. Handmade Malvernian ware (Fabric 3), a characteristically early Roman fabric, is proportionately more common in the primary ditch A than the later recut B (Fig JE1a and b). The pattern for early Severn Valley ware variants is less clear; they appear more common in the primary ditch when quantified by weight (Fig JE1a) but actually less common when quantified by rim EVE (Fig JE1b). This reflects the biases that can be introduced when analysing relatively small assemblages. The functional composition of the two assemblages, based on vessel class, is more distinct. The fills of the primary ditch A have an emphasis


Appendices

on tankards and Malvernian tubby cooking pots (Fig JE2), while fills of the later recut B produced a much higher proportion of narrow-mouthed jars and all the mortaria. This may reflect a change in the range of activities undertaken in the vicinity, although the small assemblage sizes should again be borne in mind as potentially misleading.

The assemblages from ditch C 110/123 and the tree throw were too small for detailed analysis, but are broadly 2nd century AD in date. Data for the re-deposited layers (101, 107, 134, 135) was scanned but is not presented here in detail. This is likely to be a mixed group and is derived from an unknown source in the vicinity. The presence of some characteristically early forms, for example Severn Valley ware tankards (cf Webster 1976, fig 7.38, 39) and Malvernian tubby cooking pots, together with a high proportion of organic-tempered Severn Valley ware (49% by weight, 39% by rim EVE) suggest the assemblage may derive from activity associated with the primary enclosure ditch. These layers produced the base of a samian cup that had been reworked to form a counter/lid, and the only sherds of wheel-made Malvernian ware from the site (Fabric 19). Indeed the latter suggests that this deposit has a high level of residuality.

Fig JE1a Roman pottery from the enclosure ditch: fabrics representing 1% or more by % weight. Fabrics not included: primary enclosure ditch Fabrics 13, 20; recut enclosure ditch Fabrics 13, 14, 15, 20, 41, 43.21, 158

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

3 12 12.1 12.2 12.4 12.5 12.6 22 34 43.22 98.1 110

primary enclosure ditch

recut of enclosure ditch


Appendices

Fig JE1b Roman pottery from the enclosure ditch: fabrics representing 1% or more by % rim EVE (total number of rims: primary enclosure ditch 25, recut of enclosure ditch 75). Fabrics not included: primary enclosure ditch Fabrics 13, 20; recut enclosure ditch Fabrics 13, 14, 15, 20, 41, 43.21, 158

Fig JE2 Roman pottery vessel classes from the enclosure ditch (% rim EVE)

Samian (by J M Mills)

A small group of samian (8 sherds; 68g) was submitted for specialist identification. All derive from vessels made in Central Gaul in the 2nd century AD; one from Les-Martres-de-Veyre and seven from Lezoux. The sherds are in good condition, with the exception of the cup base from layer 101. Six of the sherds weigh less then 10g and are not large enough to identify the form with any certainty or date closely with a high degree of confidence.

The earliest sherd, from a fill of the recut enclosure ditch B (cut 138, fill 106), is from a Trajanic-early Hadrianic, Drag 37 bowl made at Les Martres-de-Veyre. The surviving moulded decoration, possibly depicting a human head and a small section of drapery, is insufficient for the potter to be identified.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

3 12 12.1 12.2 12.4 12.5 12.6 22 34 43.22 98.1 110


recut of enclosure ditch

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


recut enclosure ditch


Appendices

Of the Lezoux sherds, one, from the primary enclosure ditch A (114, fill 109), is certainty from a Drag 18/31 dish, a form produced at Lezoux between AD120 and 160. A further three sherds are probably also from Drag 18/31 dishes: two from the primary enclosure ditch A (cut 114, fill 109, and cut 117, fill 119), and one from a recut of the ditch B (cut 138, fill 106). The latter fill also produced a tiny scrap of wall/rim junction from a Drag 35 cup or Drag 36 dish, but this cannot be closely dated. The only cup is represented by a flat, stamped base, which appears to have had the wall sherds deliberately trimmed off (layer 101). The interior has lost most of the slipped surface, perhaps by chemical attack rather than physical abrasion. This has damaged the potter’s stamp so badly that it is barely visible and identification is impossible. The form is likely to be a Drag 33 cup, but it cannot be dated any more closely within the production period at Lezoux than c AD120–200. The final sherd, from the recut ditch (fill 106), is from a second mould-decorated vessel. The surviving decoration is entirely leaf/arrowhead tips. The vessel wall is quite thin, but insufficient survives to identify the form; it could be either a Drag 29 or Drag 30 bowl or a Déchelette 64 jar. If a Drag 29 or Déchelette 64 then this vessel would have been produced early in the 2nd century.

In conclusion, this small group of Central Gaulish samian dates to the 2nd century AD. It is possible that most, if not all, of the group pre-dates AD 160, a date suggested by the Drag 18/31 dishes. However, the group is too small to draw any further conclusions.

Post-Roman pottery

One sherd of medieval pottery and four sherds of post-medieval pottery were recovered, most incorporated in the material redeposited during landscaping (layer 101). The medieval sherd was from the base of a vessel in Worcester-type sandy glazed ware (Fabric 64.1) dating broadly to c 1200-1400. The post-medieval wares comprised: a post-medieval buff ware (Fabric 91) sherd from a slip-decorated plate dating to the 17th century; a sherd of post-medieval red ware (Fabric 78) dating to c AD 1600–1800; and a post-medieval orange ware (Fabric 90) dating to c AD 1700–1800. A small fragment of biscuit-fired Worcester porcelain (Fabric 83.1) came from recut ditch (106) – waste from the Royal Worcester porcelain works is a common find on rural sites around the city.

Other ceramic finds

Most of the ceramic building material was mixed in with the redeposited landscaping material (layer 101). One brick and a small fragment of brick/tile in a finer, softer fabric that might possibly be Roman. If they are Roman they indicate a structure somewhere in the vicinity but cannot be directly associated with Roman activity on the site. The remainder comprised undiagnostic fragments of late medieval to post-medieval brick and tile. Two small fragments of probable post-medieval brick/tile came from the enclosure ditch, one from the primary ditch (fill 127) and one from the recut ditch (fill 118) – these are likely to be intrusive.

cont

ext

obje

ct

spec

ific

ty

pe

peri

od

coun

t

wei

ght(g

)

star

t dat

e

end

date

cont

ext

term

inus

po

st q

uem

da

te

101

pot Roman 27 281 120 200 1680-1899

pot medieval 1 72 1200 1400

pot post-medieval 3 38 1680 1800

brick/tile ?Roman 1 10 43 400


Appendices

brick ?medieval 1 224 1066 1539

tile late med/early post-med

10 1311 1500 1899

brick post-medieval 1 256 1540 1899

roof tile post-medieval 3 115 1540 1899

tile post-medieval 4 69 1540 1899

106

pot Roman 388 3314 90-120 160/200 1750-2000

pot post-medieval 1 1 1750 2000

fired clay

undated 8 34

107

pot Roman 15 323 2nd 2nd 1540-1899

tile late med/early post-med?

1 31 1500 1899

tile ?post-medieval 1 26 1540 1899

109

pot Roman 57 511 120 160/200 120-160/200

fired clay

undated 8 12

111 pot Roman 33 248 120 200 120-200

115 pot Roman 12 106 2nd 2nd 100-200

118

pot Roman 38 438 120 200 1540-1899

brick/tile ?post-medieval 1 6 1540 1899

119 pot Roman 26 72 120 200 120-200

120 pot Roman 1 1 120 200 120-200

122 pot Roman 4 6.5 2nd 2nd 100-200

124 pot Roman 14 51 2nd 2nd 100-200

127

pot Roman 12 63 2nd 2nd 1540-1899

brick/tile ?post-medieval 1 3 1540 1899


Appendices

130 pot Roman 103 434 2nd 2nd 100-200

132

pot Roman 2 5 ?2nd ?2nd 100-200

fired clay

undated 3 3

133

pot Roman 187 1740 120 200 120-200

fired clay

undated 4 27

134

pot Roman 27 102 2nd 2nd 100-200

brick Roman? 1 959 43 400

135 pot Roman 18 332 2nd 2nd 100-200

136 pot Roman 4 11 2nd 2nd 100-200

Table 4 Summary of context dating based on artefacts

6 Synthesis

The pottery fabrics and forms, in particular the samian and mortaria, indicate a 2nd century date for Roman activity on the site, with a floruit of c AD 120–160. Although the site appears to have been occupied over a relatively short period of time, some distinctions could be made between the assemblages from the primary ditch and the subsequent recut. While based on a small sample of material, these hint at changes in the character of the site over this time. The closely dated assemblage, therefore, adds to the growing body of data from rural sites in the environs of Roman Worcester.

7 Bibliography

AAF 2011 Archaeological archives: a guide to the best practice in the creation, compilation, transfer and curation. Available at http://www.archaeologyuk.org/archives/

Bryant, V, and Evans, C J, 2004 The Roman pottery, in H Dalwood and R Edwards, Excavations at Deansway, Worcester, 1988-89, Romano-British small town to late medieval city, CBA Research Report 139, York, 235–280

CIfA 2014 Standard and guidance for the collection, documentation, conservation and research of archaeological materials. Available at http://www.archaeologists.net/codes/ifa

Darlington, J, and Evans, C J, 1992 Roman Sidbury, Worcester: excavations 1959-1989, Transactions of Worcestershire Archaeological Society 3 ser, 13, 5–104

Evans, C J, 2014 The pottery, in J Wainwright, Archaeological investigations in St John's, Worcester, Worcestershire Archaeology Research Report 4, 17–45

Gillam, J P, 1976 Coarse fumed ware in north Britain and beyond, Glasgow Archaeol J, 4, 57–90

PCRG/SGRP/MPRG, 2016 A standard for pottery studies in archaeology

http://www.archaeologyuk.org/archives/

http://www.archaeologists.net/codes/ifa


Appendices

Rubicon Heritage 2017 Mab's Orchard Community Excavation Trotshill, Worcester. Written Scheme of Investigation for archaeological excavation.

SMA 1993 Selection, retention and dispersal of archaeological collections. Available at http://www.swfed.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/selectionretentiondispersalofcollections1-SMA.pdf

Tomber, R, and Dore, J, 1998 The national Roman fabric reference collection: a handbook, MoLAS Monograph 2

Webster, P V, 1976 Severn Valley Ware: a preliminary study, Trans Bristol Gloucestershire Archaeol Soc 94, 18–46

Appendix 1

Stamped mortaria (by Kay Hartley)

1. Fabric 34. Wt 360g, diam 310mm (27%) MOCE 17 (106). Ditch 138, fill 106.

One large rim and spout fragment in fine-textured, brownish-cream fabric with a cream slip. The slip is fired to a pale orange-brown above the spout where the slip is often fired darker than elsewhere, probably because of how they were stacked in the kiln. The fairly frequent, but random, tiny to medium-sized inclusions include quartz, orange-brown and rare black material; there are occasional voids in the fabric. The trituration grit consists of rounded quartz, quartz sandstone, red-brown sandstone, rare black material and flecks of galena. The fairly frequent, ill-sorted trituration grit extends up to the top of the bead with an occasional grit on the flange.

The plan of the spout and especially its near diagonal undercarriage are typical of many white-ware mortaria made in the West Midlands – for examples, see Brennan and Hartley 2003, fig. 7.12, nos. 7–9, where the shading under the spout emphasizes this profile. This particular spout profile does not appear to have been produced elsewhere.

The left-facing, partially impressed potter’s stamp is from one of eight dies used by Decanius. The upper and lower borders are reasonably clear, but only parts of ]CA[ survive, with ghosts of the preceding E and the following N. The beginning of the name was not impressed and at first sight the end of the stamp appears to be damaged, but all stamps from the same die exhibit the same messiness in the letter panel, in the second part of the name. It seems clear that the letters in the second half of the name were poorly incised when the die was made. The borders and the surviving letters do, however, allow the stamp to be identified with certainty. Eight stamps from the same die (Die 5) are now known from:

Brecon (Wheeler 1926, 246, no.7); Corbridge; Worcester (3): Marks & Spencers site; H Sandon BW/M2; Mabs Orchard P5240; Wroxeter (3): (WB 98 52; Hartley 2000, 203, no.16, not illustrated); (WP.D 21.5 Kenyon, not published); (Bushe-Fox 1914, fig.17, no.32 can be attributed to this die though the stamp itself is missing).

Mortaria of Decanius are known stamped with other dies. Two from Wroxeter were mentioned in Barker et al 1997. There could be a total of more than one hundred unrecorded stamps from Wroxeter which would certainly include more stamps of Decanius.

Decanius was one of the major potters in the West Midland potteries. The location of these potteries is unknown, but distribution of their mortaria leaves no doubt that their prime market was Wroxeter, though their products reached many other sites in the West Midlands, Wales and north-west England. Despite the numbers found, the dating of this industry has always been dependent on rim-

http://www.swfed.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/selectionretentiondispersalofcollections1-SMA.pdf

http://www.swfed.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/selectionretentiondispersalofcollections1-SMA.pdf


Appendices

profile and has wavered between AD 90–150 and AD 100–160. A mortarium with a stamp attributable to Decanius, but from another die was found at Carlisle, and this provided a surprising breakthrough (Hartley 2009, 586, no.2). In profile, it differs from all other West Midland mortaria which have been recorded so far. It is typical of mortaria made in the Verulamium region in the Flavian period and must indicate that the potter who made it, learnt his craft in the Verulamium region. The vessel is also worn. It is from a supremely well-dated context in a construction trench of the rebuilt principia of the first fort, Period 3B, which is dated to AD 83–84 by dendrochronology. It must surely have reached Carlisle in the baggage of a soldier coming from Wroxeter in the Flavian period and it provides a date of c AD 80 for the beginning of mortarium production in the West Midlands. No other West Midland example so far examined is comparable in profile or can be regarded as so early, but it means that all the published mortaria of Decanius and his contemporary Docilis 1 are earlier than was once suggested. This mortarium from Mab’s Orchard would best fit a date within the period of AD 90–120/130.

Another small fragment from the same context is possibly also a West Midland type, but is not from the stamped vessel described above.

2. Fabric 37.5. Wt 155g, diam c 280mm (13%) Ditch 138, fill 106.

Two rim sherds (not joining) from one mortarium in fine-textured, slightly micaceous orange-brown fabric fired to brownish-buff near the surface; self-coloured. The surface is powdery and the mortarium has had some use before being broken. The moderate inclusions are sand-sized with a few random larger quartz, red-brown sandstone and black particles. The few surviving trituration grits include translucent and white quartz together with quartz sandstone. A tiny fragment of the left-facing potter’s stamp is visible, but it is much too small for identification. Except for having no slip, the fabric is reminiscent of ‘?ASILA’ who probably worked in the Worcester/Droitwich area. This mortarium could fit an early 2nd-century date.

Mortaria attributed to ]ΛЅILΛ[ have identified elsewhere in Worcester, from St John's (Hartley 2014, 47.1, fig 26) and from Droitwich, Hanbury Street (Hartley 2006, CD110506, 17–18, catalogue 171) (C J Evans, pers comm).

Bibliography

Barker, P, White, R, Pretty, K, Bird, H and Corbishley, M, 1997 The Baths Basilica, Wroxeter Excavations 1966-90. English Heritage Arch Report 8

Brennan, D and Hartley, K F, 2003 Mortaria, in H James, Roman Carmarthen: excavations 1978-1993. Brit Mon Ser No. 20, 242–254

Bushe-Fox, J P, 1914 Excavations on the site of the Roman town at Wroxeter, Shropshire, 1913. Rep. Res. Comm. Antiq. London no. 2. Oxford

Hartley, K, 2000 Stamped mortaria, in P Ellis (ed), The Roman baths and macellum at Wroxeter: excavations by Graham Webster 1955-85, English Heritage Arch Rep 9

Hartley, K, 2006, Mortaria, in D Hurst (ed) Roman Droitwich: Dodderhill fort, Bays Meadow villa, and roadside settlement, CBA Res Rep 146, 61

Hartley, K F, 2009 The stamps, in C Howard-Davis, The Carlisle Millennium Project: Excavations in Carlisle 1998-2001, volume 2, The Finds. 586–9


Appendices

Hartley, K, 2014 The stamped mortaria, in J Wainwright, Archaeological investigations in St John's, Worcester, Worcestershire Archaeology Research Report No 4, 46–7 http://worcestershirearchaeology.org/swr22710.pdf

Wheeler, R E M, 1926, The Roman fort near Brecon. Y Cymmrodor The Magazine of the Honourable Society of Y Cymmrodorion vol xxxvii.


Appendices

Summary of data for Worcestershire HER

object specific type

Date (note 1) count weight(g) Specialist report? (note 2)

Key assemblage? (note 3)

pot medieval 1 72 yes no

pot post-medieval 4 39 yes no

pot Roman 968 8038.5 yes yes

brick ?medieval 1 224 no no

brick post-medieval 1 256 no no

brick ?Roman 1 959 no no

brick/tile ?post-medieval 2 9 no no

brick/tile ?Roman 1 10 no no

roof tile post-medieval 3 115 no no

tile late med/early post-med 10 1311 no no

tile ?late med/early post-med 1 31 no no

tile post-medieval 4 69 no no

tile ?post-medieval 1 26 no no

fired clay undated 23 76 no no

Period From To Palaeolithic 500000 BC 10001 BC Mesolithic 10000 BC 4001 BC Neolithic 4000 BC 2351 BC Bronze Age 2350 BC 801 BC Iron Age 800 BC 42 AD Roman 43 409 Post-Roman 410 1065 Medieval 1066 1539

Post-medieval

1540 1900

Modern 1901 2050


Appendices

Period Specific From To Lower Paleolithic 500000 BC 150001 Middle Palaeolithic 150000 40001 Upper Palaeolithic 40000 10001 Early Mesolithic 10000 7001 Late Mesolithic 7000 4001 Early Neolithic 4000 3501 Middle Neolithic 3500 2701 Late Neolithic 2700 2351 Early Bronze Age 2350 1601 Middle Bronze Age 1600 1001 Late Bronze Age 1000 801 Early Iron Age 800 401 Middle Iron Age 400 101 Late Iron Age 100 BC 42 AD Roman 1st century AD

43 100

2nd century 101 200 3rd century 201 300 4th century 301 400 Roman 5th century 401 410 Post roman 411 849 Pre conquest 850 1065 Late 11th century 1066 1100 12th century 1101 1200 13th century 1201 1300 14th century 1301 1400 15th century 1401 1500 16th century 1501 1600 17th century 1601 1700 18th century 1701 1800 19th century 1801 1900 20th century 1901 2000 21st century 2001

2 Not all evaluations of small excavation assemblages have specialist reports on all classes of objects. An identification (eg clay pipe) and a quantification is not a specialist report. A short discussion or a more detailed record identifying types and dates is a specialist report. This field is designed to point researchers to reports where they will find out more than merely the presence or absence of material of a particular type and date.


Appendices

APPENDIX 4 OASIS REPORT FORM

PROJECT DETAILS Project Name Mab’s Orchard Community Excavation, Trotshill, Worcester Short description An archaeological excavation was undertaken at land at Mab’s Orchard,

Trotshill by Rubicon Heritage Services for Worcester City Council, supported by the Heritage Lottery Fund. An area of 0.10 ha was stripped under archaeological supervision. Part of a small Roman period rectilinear enclosure was excavated, probably originating in the later 1st/2nd century AD; the ditch was recut in the 2nd century. A further field ditch of 2nd century date was excavated. A single undated pit was also recorded. The site had been truncated by landscaping in the early 21st century.

Project dates 14 November to 2 December 2017 Project type Excavation Previous work Evalaution; geophysical survey Future work None PROJECT LOCATION

Site Location Mab’s Orchard, Trotshill, Worcester

Study area (M2/ha) 0.10ha Site co-ordinates SO 88564 55750 PROJECT CREATORS Name of organisation Rubicon Heritage Services Project Brief originator Worcetser City Council Project Design (WSI) Originator Rubicon Heritage Services Project Manager Mark Collard Project Officer Nick Wells MONUMENT TYPE None SIGNIFICANT FINDS None PROJECT ARCHIVES Intended final location of archive

Content

Physical Museums Worcestershire Pottery; fired clay, CBM, animal bone

Paper Museums Worcestershire Registers, trench recording sheets, context sheets, survey sheets. Plans and sections

Digital Archaeological Data Service Digital photographs; survey data

BIBLIOGRAPHY Rubicon Heritage 2017 Mab’s Orchard Community Excavation, Trotshill, Worcester. Archaeological Excavation. Typescript report

0 500m

Figure 1 - Mab's Orchard, Trotshill, Worcester: Site location.

SITE

SITE

Contains Ordnance Survey Data C Crown copyright and database right 2017

Contains Ordnance Survey Data C Crown copyright and database right 2017

Worcester

Figure 2 - Trench location plan.

T2

T9

T3

T10

T4

0 100 m

N

Excavation area

KEY

2006 trial trenches

Figure 3 - Feature plan.

0 10 m

N

135

128116

129

105138

140121

110

Fig. 4aFig. 5

Fig. 6

Fig. 4b

Fig. 4c

Fig. 7

Fig. 8

123

125/132

142

117

112

Edge of 2006evaluation Trench 9

Ditch C

Ditch B

Ditch A

114

Excavation area

KEY

2006 trial trench

Top of feature

Base of feature

Section line

Slot

Figure 4 - Sections of ditches A and B.

Figure 4c

Figure 4a

Figure 4b

0 1 m

50.86 mODN

50.80 mODNWSE

115

50.85 mODWE

113

112

105

138

139106

129

114

140

133

102

130

Stone

KEY

Charcoal

Figure 6 - Section of ditch C.

0 1 m

Figure 5 - Section of ditch A.

0 0.5 m

51.12 mODE W

127

128

50.49 mODEW

123

122

Stone

KEY

Stone

KEY

Figure 8 - Section of feature [132].

0 1 m

Figure 7 - Section of pit [142].

0 1 m

50.76 mODEW

50.71 mODSWNE

132

142

141

124 131131

125

Figure 9 - Excavation feature plan overlaid with 2006 evaluation features.

0 10 m

N

135

128

905

EvaluationTrench 9

903

903

903

116

129

105138

140 121110

123

125/132

142

117

112

Ditch C

Ditch B

Ditch A

114

909

907

911

Excavation area

KEY

2006 trial trench

Top of feature

Base of feature

Slot

Plate 1 - Ditches A and B (contexts 105 and 138), looking S

Plate 2 - Ditches A and B (contexts 112 and 114), looking E

Plate 3 - Ditches A and B (contexts 116 and 117), looking E

Plate 4 - Ditch C (context 110), looking N

Date post:	02-Jan-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Mab’s Orchard Community Excavation Trotshill, Worcester · 2018. 11. 29. · 2.1.1 This report...

Documents