A Late Iron Age Farmstead and Romano-British Site at Haddon, Peterborough 9781841713472, 9781407319995

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Copyright
Table of Contents
List of Illustrations
List of Tables
Acknowledgements
Summary
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: The Excavation
Chapter 3: Site synthesis and contemporary context
Chapter 4: The Later Iron Age and Roman Pottery
Chapter 5: Other Artefacts
Chapter 6: Fauna and Flora
The Appendices
List of Appendix Figures
Appendix 1: The Pottery
Appendix 2: The Animal Bone
Appendix 3: Context List
Appendix 4: Small Find Locations
Appendix 5: The Coins
Bibliography

Citation preview

A Late Iron Age Farmstead and Romano-British Site at Haddon, Peterborough Mark Hinman With contributions by Ian Baxter, Barry John Bishop, Nina Crummy, Corinne Duhig, Jerry Evans, Carole Fletcher, Val Fryer, Pete Guest, Kay Hartley, Paul Middleton, Daryl Stump, Alan Vince, Steven Willis and Patricia Wiltshire Cambridgeshire CountyCouncil

Archaeological Field Unit Monograph Number Two BAR British Series 358 2003

Published in 2019 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR British Series 358 Cambridge Archaeological Field Unit Monograph 2 A Late Iron Age Farmstead and Romano-British Site at Haddon, Peterborough © The author and contributors individually and the Publisher 2003 The authors’ moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher. ISBN 9781841713472 paperback ISBN 9781407319995 e-book DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841713472 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library This book is available at www.barpublishing.com BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by John and Erica Hedges in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2003. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2019.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

Contents Summary Chapter 1

Chapter 2

1

Introduction

3

Geology and Topography Archaeological and Historical Background Survey Methodology

3 3 7 7

The Excavation

11 14 19

Period Period Period Period Period Period Period Period

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 7: 8:

Late Iron Age to early Roman transition , 50BC to 50AD Mid -late first century AD Late first-mid second century AD Mid second century AD-mid third century AD Mid third century AD-mid fourth century AD Mid-late fourth century AD Fifth-sixth centuries AD Medieval -post medieval periods

28 42 47 56 56 56

Site synthesis and contemporary context

58

The Dating of the Periods The Site Economy and Status The Site in Context Conclusions

58 58 58

The Later Iron Age and Roman Pottery

62 67

Kiln Products Petrological and Chemical Analysis

69 74 74

Other Artefacts

108

The Metalwork The Coins Objects of Fired Clay Lithic Assessment The Worked Stone

108

Fauna and Flora The Mammal and Bird Bones Charred Plant Macrofossils and Other Remains Palynological Analysis Human Remains Phosphate Analysis

114

115 115 118 119 119

133 135 137 137

Appendix 1

The Pottery

A-3

Appendix 2

The Animal Bone

A-9

Appendix 3

Context List

A-31

Appendix 4

Small Find Locations

A-36

Appendix 5

The Coins

A-38

Bibliography Index

List of Illustrations Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

Site location The site in its archaeological context Results of fieldwalking superimposed on a plan of all features Evaluation trenches and geophysical survey in the development area All recorded features Period 1 50BC-50AD Matrix representing Period 1 ditch sequence Period 1 selected sections Period 2 50-1 00AD Interpretation of Period 2 features Period 2 selected sections Period 3 100-150AD Interpretation of Period 3 features Structures 2 and 3 Period 3 selected sections Period 4 150-250AD Interpretation of Period 4 Period 4 Selected sections Period 5 250-350AD and Period 6 350-400AD Interpretation of Period 5 features Period 5 selected sections Period 1: A reconstruction looking north Period 3: A reconstruction of the site looking northeast towards Ermine Street Detail of building and malting oven in Period 5 Timeline showing comparative characteristics of contemporary sites in the region Percentage occurence of rim diameters of class C fabrics in phases 1 and 2 Percentage occurence of rim diameters of class C fabrics in phases 3 and 4 Kiln plan Kiln bars KB 04, 07-13 Kiln bars KB 14-17 and Kiln furniture FC 01-03 Distribution of kiln bars by fabric and weight Pottery from Haddon (1 :4) Pottery from Haddon ( 1:4) Pottery from Haddon ( 1:4) Pottery from Haddon ( 1:4) Pottery from Haddon (1 :4) Pottery from Haddon ( 1:4) Pottery from Haddon (1 :4) Pottery from Haddon (1 :4) Pottery from Haddon (1 :4) Pottery from Haddon ( 1:4) Frequency of rim diameter intervals amongst all Haddon class E ware vessels Copper alloy objects Iron objects Haddon coin assemblage minus the British mean Spindle whorl Plot of phosphate concentrations across the site Plot of phosphate concentrations across Structures 2 and 3

4 5 8 9 12 15 16 18

20 21 25 29

30 33

40 44 45

46 49

50 51

59 60 62 64 73 73 76

n

78 80 82 83 84 85

86 87

88 99 90 91 95 110 111 115 115 138 139

List of Tables Table 2.1

Showing original phasing and revised periods at the southern end of the M95 ditch line

11

Table 3.1 Table 3.2

Relative dimensions of a selection of aisled buildings Comparison of the frequency of domestic mammals by period

59 61

Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table

4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18 4.19 4.20 4.21 4.22 4.23

Haddon 1999; approximate fabric proportions by ware class from all stratified features Quantities of pottery by period Quantities of pottery by feature type (chiefly phases 1-4) Percentages of shell-gritted wares in the assemblage by phase (by count) Functional analysis of recorded shell-gritted wares from Haddon Samples of ceramic material taken for petrological and chemical analysis Incidence of inclusions and other features in thin-section The occurrence of kiln bars by phase and fabric Dimensions and weights of complete shell-tempered kiln bars Principal temper types in class E fabrics at various Cambridgeshire sites Late Iron Age pottery from Swavesey; rim sherds by function Quantified occurrence of class E form types in Cambridgeshire Functional analysis of recorded Nene Valley colour-coated wares from Haddon Functional analysis of greywares from Haddon The chronology of the samian from Phases 3 and 4 at Haddon Lodge The chronology of the samian from Haddon Lodge The composition of the La Graufesenque samian groups The composition of the Central Gaulish samian groups Functional analysis of Haddon 1999 pottery by phase (by minimum numbers of rims) Functional analysis of Haddon 1999 pottery by phase by RE) Functional analysis of other Fen edge sites (by minimum numbers of rims) Haddon 1999 fineware levels by phase (by count , excluding intrusive material) Fineware levels (by sherd count) for comparative local rural sites

68 68 69 71 71 74 74 79 79 92 93 94 96 98 101 101 102 103 105 106 106 106 106

Table Table Table Table

5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4

The brooches from the 1994 and 1999 excavations Quantification of lithic assemblage by context Maximum , average , and standard deviation of metrical characteristics of all complete flakes Description of retouched implements

108 116 116 117

Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table

6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.10 6.11 6.12 6.13 6.14 6.15 6.16 6.17

Number of collected mammal and bird bones Comparison of the frequency by NISP of domestic mammals Frequencies of the three most frequent domestic mammals Phases 1-6: Number of identified species Phases 5-6: Main body parts by number of fragments Frequency by MN I of main body parts of the main domestic animals Mandibular wear stages Phase 1-6: Cattle wear stages of individual teeth Number and percentage of fused epiphyses for the main domestic animals Means, coefficients of variation and sample sizes for cattle measurements Phases 1-6: Sheep/goat wear of individual teeth Means , coefficients of variation and sample sizes for sheep/goat measurements Haddon Lodge (A605/H and MSA 99) . Age and sex of the domestic animals . Haddon Lodge (A605/H and MSA 99). Withers heights (cm) of the domestic animals Charred plant macrofossils and other material Palynological assessment data Human remains from cremation

120 120 121 122 123 126 126 127 127 128 128 129 130 131 134 135 137

Acknowledgements The author would like to thank Swayfields Ltd who funded the archaeological work and Gifford and Partners who commi ioned the work and monitored the proj ct on behalf of Swayfields Ltd. Particular thank go to Darr n Hird of Swayfields Ltd for his support and assistance and to Lucy Rowley-William of Gifford and Partners. The project was managed by Tim Malim, the AFU Unit Manager, and Mark Hinman. The brief for archaeological works was written by Simon Kaner, of the County Archaeology Office, who visited the site and monitored the fieldwork stages of the project. Thank are also due to th members of the field team who experienced a wid range of working conditions including an ar-total eclip of the sun during the poor ummer of 1999. Th s member induded GI n Bailey, Tony Baker, Owen Cambridge, Spencer Coop r, R becca Casa-Hatton, Bob Hatton, Christopher Montague, Ricky Patten, Emma Twigger and volunteer including Brian Baker, Aly Bowk tt, Dave Curry, David Crawford-White, Peter Hinman and Steve Critchley who provided the compreh nsive metal-d t ctor survey of the site. Daryl Stump provided excellent upport in hi role a site supervisor and also mad a

significant contribution to the structure and phasing of the final report. Site surv y was provided by Scott Kenny and Steve Kemp. The artefact and environmental processing was undertaken by Rachel Fosberry and finds processing over een by Carole Fletcher who also provided a report on the guernstones from this project. The team of specialists made significant contributions to our understanding of the ite despite the tight deadlines imposed on the post excavation stages of the project and I would like to thank Ian Baxter, Barry Bishop, Nina Crummy, Corinne Duhig, Jerry Evans, (Kay Hartley, Steven Willi , Alan Vince), Val Fryer, Pete Guest, Paul Middleton, and Patricia Wiltshire. Illu trations were provided throughout the project by Jon Cane who also produced the main i11ustrations for th bod y of thi s r port. Additional and ignificant contributors include Sue Hold n for th ceramics illustration s, Joanne Richards for th smal1 find and Caroline Malim for her liai on role and compilation of the work of the illustration team. Finally I would lik to thank Dr Gerry Wait and Rob Perrin for their comments and suggestions on the form and content of the final report and Anne Chippindale for copy editing the final result

Summary Excavations during 1999 revealed the remains of a small farmstead first investigated in 1989 by C. French prior to the construction of the A605 Elton by-pass. The site was first established at some time prior to 20AD, during the late Iron Age, and consisted of a single dwelling (excavated by French) housing a small but relatively wealthy population, perhaps a family group. The house and associated structures were set within a pair of sub rectangular ditched enclosures. The field systems expanded during the first century AD and for a brief period following the Roman invasion pottery was produced on the site. The 1999 excavation revealed a kiln which had been constructed directly over the infilling of the largest of the Iron Age ditches. This important feature produced a complete and exceptionally well preserved set of 'furniture' from the kiln 's internal structure. In addition to the kiln furniture a number of near-complete pottery vessels were recovered. The abandonment of the building during the latter half of the fir t century AD was marked by the deliberate burial of a range of elected objects including two cattle skulls, a puddingstone quern and a number of complete or semi-complete but poorly fired pott ry vessels, all of which had been placed in the terminal end of the house gully. The firing area of the kiln had b en pack d with a range of kiln bars and stands following the relining of the base of the chamber with clay which had not been exposed to heat. The burial of the kiln furniture appears to have been a contemporary act and may also have been intended as a symbolic statement, perhap of closure and/or change, rather than the more pragmatic interpretation for storage. The single cremation recovered from the site was probably datable to thi period. Towards the end of the first century AD the site was comprehensively re-organi ed. Both the layout of the site and the findings of French et al s em to indicate that this reorganisation was intended to permit animal husbandry, in particu Jar cattle and sheep rearing for the purposes of meat production. At least two aisled barns were incorporated into the newly laid out field systems, as were two large cisterns for water storage.

Following this reorganisation, until the late third century, evidence for human occupation became increasingly ephemeral, perhaps indicating that the site was primarily utilised as a working farmyard within the broader context of a villa estate. Further extensive re-ordering of the field sy terns took place during the mid third-mid 4th centuries AD. This re-organisation was associated with the reestablishment of human occupation on the site, highlighted by the construction of a house and adjacent malting oven and the presenc of a number of pits containing crop processing wa te that had been burnt as fuel. The malting oven had been constructed over a small votive pit containing a pair of sheep shears and a follis of Domitian issued between 298-299. The dating of this small pit not only coincides with the return of clear evidence for a residential population, but the placement of the shears and the close proximity of thi f ature to the malting oven seem to ncapsulate the changes occurring in terms of the economy of the site at this tim . The Iron Age pastoral conomy is accompanied by a peak in coin loss. The frequency of horse remain was ignificantly higher at Haddon than on many contemporary sites in th area throughout it history, and increased from 8% to a maximum 10% of the faunal assemblage during the later third to fourth centuries AD. Two inhumations (a child of eight year excavated by French and an adult, found in the 1999 work) were probably buried during thi period. The remaining field systems and drainage ditches on the site wer either capped with lime tone to create field drains or simply ceased to b maintain d during the later fourth century. The whole site was abandoned, probably between 360 and 370AD. The occasional sherds of Saxon pottery recov red from the top fill of earlier ditches highlight a pre ence in th area, the site possibly b ing utilised a pasture. The presence of traces of ridge and furrow cultivation indicated utilisation of this land for agriculture in the later medieval/post medieval p riod. Th site remain d in use for agriculture throughout the modem period until the construction of the new Motorway Service Area on the A1/A605 junction for Swayfi ld Ltd in 2000AD.

2

3

Chapter 1

Introduction

This project was commissioned by Gifford and Partners on behalf of Darren Hird of Swayfields Ltd in advance of the construction of a proposed new Motorway Service Area (MSA). This study has been carried out in accordance with a specification drawn up by Mark Hinman and Tim Malim of the Archaeological Field Unit (AFU) in response to a design brief for archaeological investigation issued by Simon Kaner of Cambridgeshire County Council (CCC) County Archaeology Office (CAO.). This project has been monitored throughout by Gerry Wait and Lucy Rowley-Williams of Gifford and Partners acting on behalf of Swayfields Ltd. The fieldwork element of the project was monitored by Simon Kaner on behalf of Cambridgeshire County Council. This report will address the nature, economy and development of the site based on the r suits of the 1999 excavations and sub equent analysis (HADMSA99). This report wi11al o incorporate element of and where appropriate, reappraisal of the results of the 1989 xcavation, undertaken in advance of th con truction of the A605 El ton-Haddon bypass (French, 1994), located adjacent to and immediately north of the current development area. Th work of French et al will be referred to by the abbreviation A605/H (A605 Haddon Junction), and the 1999 excavations as MSA99 (Motorway Service Area 1999).

Geology and Topography The site is located 1.2 km north-east of Haddon adjacent to the Al (Junction 10) immediately outhwest of the junction with the A605, centred on TL 1374/9390. The proposed development area was roughly triangular and covered approximately 9.4 hectares. The site is situated on the Oxford Clay and lies on an east facing slope, rising from circa18m OD adjacent to the Al (formerly the line of Roman Ermine Street) to over 38m OD at the western limit of the area. Th core of the Iron Age and Romano-British site was located above the 23m contour and below the 28m contour. This position has been observed on other sites of the period within the area and is thought to have been the optimal location for the exploitation of the range of local agricultural environments including pasture on the flood prone land below the 23m line and arable land on the hills. Both the local topography and the underlying geology were undoubtedly fundamental factors influencing the layout, function and development of the MSA99 site. The focus of settlement during the first century AD wa centred on a naturally formed and relatively well drained depression within the area of the A605/H

investigations. The aisled barn and associated enclosures of later period were located 'upslope' (cf French) immediately to the south-west on a relatively flat outcrop of exposed boulder clay within the area of the MSA99 investigations. The alignment of all ditches had been determined with reference to the underlying contours of the hill, allowing for contro11ed drainage, and it was perhaps only during the second century AD (Period 3) that other consid rations such as livestock managem nt had an overriding influence on th layout of the site to any degree. The drainage function of ditches became increasingly more refined during the latest periods within the development of the RomanoBritish ite illustrating th changing land u and a detailed knowledge of the immediate microtopography of the area, a knowledge perhaps accrued and applied by successive generations of th am ~amily or teams of farm workers.

Archaeological and Historical Background The pre ent site was the subj ct of an initial archaeological evaluation conducted by the F nland Archaeological Trust (FAT) in 1988. This indicated the presence of a substantial part of a Romano-British farmstead within the development area approximately one-third of which (those remain threatened by the construction of the A605 Elton-Haddon bypa s) wer investigated through excavation in 1989 (French et al 1994). In 1994 Gifford and Partner commissioned a geophy ical survey of the MSA99 development area in order to establish the limit of the Romano-Briti h settlement and to highlight th presence of any other archaeological features. Also during 1994 monitoring of construction of a pipeline through the east rn part of the site was undertaken by the Archa ological Field Unit, Cambridgeshire County Council (Kemp 1995). The historical and archaeological background of the area has previously been the subject of a study by S. Upex arising from the 1989 xcavations of French et al (Upex in French 1994: 3-10). A brief ummary of this information is outlined below which incorporates more recent work in the immediate area. Prehistoric

Evidence of a Neolithic and/or Bronze Ag pre ence within the subject area is Hmited. However, a total of 234 worked flint artefacts wer recover d from the bypass site. Of these 141 were recovered from pre-excavation fieldwalking (Middleton in French 1994: 85-88). Of key interest here is the fact that the material appeared to fall into two distinct categories. Fir tly ther was an abraded compon nt (185 pieces), including a relatively large number of denticulates, with some notched flakes, borers and points consider d by Middleton to be characteristic

4

AFU Monograph No.2

A Late Iron Age Farmstead and Romano -British Site at Haddon , Peterborough

area

....'1i addon The Fen,

0 == =--- 1km

A

1989 :xcavat1 re

~

"

Development area

I

I

MSA99

936

Figure 1 Site location

\

Introduction

5

West D eepi ng

•

• Maxey

• Werrington

000 Peterborough River Nene

Orton • Longueville Mon.97 • 950

•

Orton Hall Fm

•

Haddon bath hou ·e

900

Tort Hill East Tort Hill West

850

TL

1km

0 0 tn

0 1

i== ====== =----0 0

0 tn

0 0 N

Figure2 Thesite in its archaeological context of an early Bronz Age date. The second category, represented by 'fresher' un-abraded material (49 pieces) displaying a crude techno1og y based on ad hoc flake removal, was r covered from Romano-Briti sh contexts and cou]d be een tentatively as evidence for flint working during the period (see Romano-British below).

Iron Age Evidence for the period within the A605/H area appeared limited to a range of late pre-Roman Iron Ag e (LPRIA) feature s excavated in 1989 (French, 1994). Th e apparent absence, loca11y, of an Iron Age pre senc was lik e ly to be due to the limited number of excavations in

6

AFU Monograph No.2

A Late Iron Age Farmstead and Romano-British Site at Haddon, Peterborough

the immediate area. Due to th relatively fragil natur of ceramics from th period and difficulties in identifying a characteristic lithics t chnology, fieldwalking consistently fails to identify sites of the period within the county. Romano-British The Roman town of Durobrivae lay three kilometres northwest of the site (Mackreth, 1995), around which were located a variety of contemporary villas, burial grounds, industrial areas and other sites, including the famous Water Newton treasure found during 1975-6. A possible Roman signal station (S.A.M. 116) lay c.lk m north-west of the subject site in Chesterton parish and a Roman sto ne building is also recorded 1.5km to the west. Prior to the MSA99 xcavations current knowledge suggested that at the A605/H bypass site (French, 1994) and at the Roman bath hous and Saxon settlement 600m to the south (Upex, 1992-3) evidence for occupation was limited prior to the seco nd century AD, after which time se ttl m nts within the Elton/ Haddon area appeared to develop as relatively low status farm teads with mixed agrarian conomies. The notable exception in terms of status to date were at Haddon (Up x, 1992-3), wh re evidence for a bath house and possible aisled buildings with tessellated floors are known, and at Orton Longueville (Dakin, 1961). The prosperity of these sites was undoubtedly du , in part at least, to the proximity of Ermine Street and perhaps Durobri vae, although the social and economic relationships between farmstead, villa and town are still not clearly understood in this area. This is due in part to a virtual ab ence of xcavation within the Roman town of Durobrivaeitself and also the limited information available on the r lativ ly wealthy villa ites. The natur and status of th Haddon bath hou site was not addre ed directly within the original excavation reports produced by Up x et al during 19913, and within recent years the ite has b n increasingly referred to as the sit of a villa. Fieldwalking and geophysical survey result s indicate that the sit con isted of the bath hou s lat er converted into an early Saxon dwelling and two oth r buildings, one of which, a possible aisled tructure, was known to posse s te sellated floors. These buildings were set within a rectangular ditched enclosure and although excavation of the site remains limited to an examination of the bath house, the site could be classified as a compound or family farm or possibly a small villa. A detailed study of such enclo ed compounds has been presented elsewhere (Hingley, 1989, ch.4) and will not be expand d upon here other than to add that the Haddon compound was probably of sufficient size to hou e an extended family unit or group of farm workers. The conomy and developm nt of 'rural' sites within the local area e pecially during th Romano-British period has been th focus of a relatively high level of interest both in terms of excavation and also comparative study. Of particular relevance to the

Haddon xcavations was th work of Don Mackreth et al on a number of local site including Orton Hall Farm, Werrington and Monument 97. A number of sites from the period have been identified within the local area as a result of extensive surveys undertaken prior to the development of Peterborough New Town (RCHME 1969) including the Lynch Farm complex (Figure 2). Other sites of relevance to this study include Maxey (excavations 1962-63, Pryor et al 1985a+b), Catswater (Pryor, 1984), Longthorpe (Dannell & Wild, 1987), Lynch Farm (Jones, 1973, 1975), Norman Cross and Tort Hi11 (Welsh, 1994, Kemp & Reynolds, 1995, Ellis et al, 1998). The intensive occupation and utilisation of the local landscap e has been further illustrated as a result of a detailed survey conducted by Network Archaeology on behalf of Transco along the Peterborough to Lutton pipeline corridor (Network Archaeology, 1996, 1997 & 1999). The number of previous excavation relative to the intensity of activity within the area remains small, however, and the results of the MSA99 project mark a significant addition to the emerging picture of the environs of Durobrivae. Saxon Pottery clearly indicated a presence during the period from the subject site although the findings of French et al were somewhat inconclusive. Clear evidence for the re-furbishment and utilisation of Romano-British structures, including the bath house has b en illustrated through excavation at Haddon (Upex, 19913). Continuity of occupation into the 6th century AD was not d at Orton Hall Farm (Mackreth, 1996). Medieval Upex notes that by th 10th century AD the pari h boundarie in th area had b en e tablish d. Open field systems app ar to predominat within th parish until the late 17th century although, a Upex highlights, th m dieval landscap of th Parish remains poorly understood. Ridge and furrow yst ms identifi d at th A605/H bypass site wer es tablished at an angl of 45° to the natural slope, following the orientation of earlier Romano-British field sys tems. This was consid red by French (1994:74) to be a necessary response to the topography of th area, required to minimise the effect of soil/water erosion on this slope, and was supported by the findings of the MSA99 excavations. The presence of a ridge and furrow ystem, imposed on the earlier archaeological sequence, has undoubtedly served to protect the e remains from the worst effects of modern ploughing. Post-Medieval Enclosure of the earlier field syste m within the parish had been completed by 1809 (Upex in French, 1994:9). Elements of the post-enclosure field boundari s are still present within the local land cape, re-aligned, in respect to the earlier ridge and furrow system. The 1926 OS map (Huntingdonshire V 5/V 6) shows elements of two separate fields within the developm nt

Introduction

area. The divi ion between these fields corresponded to an anomaly picked up by th Stratascan survey of the site in 1994, interpreted a a removed hedgeline.

Survey The results of fieldwalking and magnetometer surveys during 1988 and 1994 and of the 1989 excavation suggested that the main area of the farmstead site was probably located within the limits of the current development. A full account of these findings was presented within French (1994). Rather than repeat that work here, a eries of new illu trations have been collated utilising sources within the original report and the Stratascan geophysica l report of 1994 (Figures3-4). These illustrations combine the results of fieldwalking and geophysical phasing data collected during 1988-1994. Fieldwalking Fieldwalking during 1988 recovered a total of 3549 sherds of pottery from an area of approximate ly 15000 sq m (Figure 3). Excavation showed that the greatest densities of ceramics appeared to correspond to infield areas. These areas were interpreted as arable plots, regularly utilised for the disposal of dome tic waste from habitation areas thought to lie to the west of the greatest artefact catters. Greater den ities of mortaria and Saxon pottery were recorded within the MSA99 area than previously inve tigated during the 1989 A605/H excavations. Geophysical Survey The results of the 1988 magnetometer survey (Figure 4) undertaken by Gater and Gaffney correlated well with the 1994 survey, undertaken by Stratascan. Th aim of the latt er survey, commi ioned by Gifford and Partners, wa to attempt to define th limits of the Romano-British site and to establish the presence of any other archaeolog ic al feature within the development area.

Methodology Prior to the production of this report five stages of the MSA99 project were completed. These consisted of de kbased assessment/eva lu ation/excavation / post excavation ass ssment and analysis. All stages were conducted in compJiance with the recommendations of MAP 2, within the terms of PPG16, the conditions outlined within the planning con ent and time restrictions (maximum 2-year project duration indusive of fieldwork) placed on the post excavation programme by the CAO prior to assessment.

7

Aerial Photographic Assessment

Discussions with Air Photo Services suggested that aerial photographic survey work offered littl e likelihood of useful results as the depth of colluvium and the base geology would not be receptive to such techniques. In addition there is littl e that air photographs cou ld add to geophysical survey work previously undertaken on the subject site. Sites and Monuments Record The known archaeological resource was investigated through Peterborough City Council Sites and Monuments Record (SMR), Cambridgeshire County Council's SMR and resources, including past pubhcations held at the AFU's headquarters in Fulbourn. Past Excavators The AFU contacted the director of the A605/H excavation, Dr Charley French. Our aim was to discuss pa t findings in r lation to the r cent excavation, and to establish the current whereabouts of the various elements of the site archives for the bypass excavations.

Stage 2: Evaluation Between 24th May and 3rd June 1999 Mark Hinman of the AFU undertook the eva luati on of an ar a of approximate ly 9.4 hectares adjacent to the Al southwest of the junction with the A605. Th work was commissioned by Gifford and Partners on behalf of Swayfield Ltd in advance of the propo ed development of the site as a new motorway servic area. The eva luati on was undertaken in accordanc with a CAO brief and subsequent AFU specification dated 17/02/99 and approved by S. Kaner of th County Council Archa ology Section. Eva .luation demonstrated the pres nee of activity within the development area, primarily a ociat d with the Romano-British farm t ad partial.ly excavated by French. Initially a total of fifteen trenches (nos. 1-15), 1.60m wid and totalling 844m in length, 1350m square (c. 1.5% sample) were opened using a tracked xcavator. Eva luation defined two areas requiring additional archaeo logical investigation. Area 1 (the area of the farmstead core) covered circa 2ha (initially estimated at 2.Sha prior to machine stripping) and required preservation by record through open area excavation. Area 2 (the area of outlying field systems to the east of Area 1) required further trenching (nos. 16-18) in order to establish the layout, and if possible date, of the agricultural features present.

Stage 3: Excavation Stage 1: Desk Based Assessment Provided a brief review of available information and potential non-intru techniques including:

sources of ive survey

Excavation commenced on Monday, 5 July 1999 and was completed on schedule on Friday, 22 October. Our first priority was to investigate further the layout of field ystems pr s nt towards the astern side of the

A

N V grey ware/Samian/mortaria grogged/Saxon

Shell-gritted

ene Valley Colou r-coat

00

)> 'T1

C

.

L__.l

Om

.1

• • .

. .. • • •

•

•

,

• .

..

~

.

L__l

•

.

•

/

.

• •

•

.

. .

••. • •

• • • •

.

•

.I •

.

•

...

(C

•., •"

•

,

•

,

-

• • • • • • • . • •

.

• • • • •• •• • •• . -·• • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • •• . . • • • . • • • •• • . • • ••• • • • • • • • . • . •••• • . . • •• • . • • •• • • . . .•••• . •

Om

s::

0 ::, 0

• . •

, ,

.

... . .. . • ·• ... .... .

=~--

20111

0

.

•

.

.

• •

•

;~

0

•

:I'

✓• •

■A

):,,

rill CD

/ ~

! •.

. ...

/

•

. ••. /

'?•

•

.... ..

'

.

.

. .. .

..

.

0

o••

, . .

0

•

.

a ::J ):,,

(Q (1)

0

A

•· . •. . •,. •... . . ..... ,. ·•· ·•· A

.,.

~

3

.o

(I)

CD Q)

0

.

O• · •

~

•

O•

o•

z

0

~

o•

•

11)

"O

•·

0

Q_ Q)

..

::J

Q_

:::0

0

:3

Q)

::J 0

OJ ~

(I)

:::r-

0.5

2 .0

0

570 202

5.1

OHF 2 175-225/S0AD 11

~

en 0

26.5 26.7

N

/beakers 1.6

0.4

lateC3-C4A D

Cups 8.4

24.7

THE 2b C3-earlyC4AD

Mortar ia 1.2

2.8

OHF 4 300/25-375AD

Dishes 21.4

3.0 #

Bowls 11.8

OHF 1 C1-C2A D " OHF 3 225/50-300/25AD

Jar/bowl

0.9

221

C

s:: ::I

0

(0

~

"C

J

)::,.

rCD Q)

a :::i )::,.

cc (I)

~ ~ (/) CD

Q)

Q. Q)

:::i Q.

Table 4.21 Functionalanalysis of other Fen edgesites(by minimum numbersof rims) # - The samian

ware has been included in this tab ulation for Orton Hall Farm periods 1-3, where it is not clearly residual. After Jones (1975) OHF - Orton Hall Farm (Perrin , 1996, Table 76) THE - Tort Hill East (Hancocks et al, 1998) @ -

THW - Tort Hill West (Hancocks et al, 1998) NC - Normans

Cross

VH - Vinegar Hill

(Hancocks et al, 1998)

(Hancocks et al, 1998)

0

;:7

2

cy,i

""t

•

::q,

:; ~ s:::

s....,.

l.:) ""' ...._ w

C Cf)

en

~

..,,

::::.: ("1:)

en

-. ~

'"I

~ro

Z O OOOO< ' I\J

75 76 72 82 70 73 73

75 74

77

81 67 69

77 66 69 73 69

76 83 70 76

75 80 78 75 84 82 79 70 92

)> I .......

(.,J

Taxon

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

s s s s s s s s

Site MSA99 A605 /H A605 /H A605 /H A605 /H A605 /H A605 /H A605 /H A605 /H A605 /H A605 / H A605 /H A605 /H A605 /H A605 /H A605 /H A605 /H A605 /H A605 /H A605 / H A605 /H A605 /H A605 /H A605 /H A605 /H A605 /H A605 /H A605 /H A605 /H MSA99 MSA99 MSA99 A605 / H A605 / H A605/H A605 /H A605 /H

Period 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 1 2 2 2 3 6 6 6

dP4L

dP4W

dP4WP

M1W 66 65

M1WA

M1WP

M2W 72 71 70

M2WA

M3L

M3W M3WA 76

M3WC

)> I

...II,,

~

83

.,,

76

)>

71 80

63 81 69

C

3:

73

0 :::, 0

79

74 77

cc ~

Q)

-0

78 78 82

":1'

z

0 ~

84 70 80 69 72

~

rQ)

71 78 76

115

88 115

111 133

m

a

122 142 392

108 102 105 96

109 108 100 88 102

134 132 106 122

138 144 113 123

::i

87 85 80 89 83 89 75 130

124

Q

162

153

::i Q

163

~

Q

E :l

z

1

-

0 __.,.._.._..,.....,. __ ..,.._.....,....... _,.._. _ __,.__ ..,.......,......,. ____ .,.._..,.......,.,,~-- ..........,......... .,..........i.......,.,, ............. ..,u ..... .-.,..i..a. ..... i.-..1-.....--- ........... .-.. N

0\

N 00

MWS

FigureA-3 Haddon Lodge (A605/H and MSA 99) Cattle mandible wear stages compared with Greenhouse Farm, Fen Ditton. (after

Grant, 1982. Greenhouse Farmbased on Baxter, (1999). ■

Haddon Lodge LIA/RB n= 65

9-..---------------------------------------------8

1

0 .4,1..1,__._.-_....._ .................. ___ .__ ____

......,_

_._.___

__,...,_ __ ..._......_..__ ..... .,.._,...... .-.,...-

........___....... ___ ..__..,.... .....

.-,.i-'-

.....

MWS

Figure A-4 Sheep/GoatMandible wear stages (after Grant, 1982). Greenhouse Farm based on Baxter, (1999).

..i..l .....

.-.....-

.....

L.-1-...i.--..

A-22

AFU Monograph No.2

A Late Iron Age Farmstead and Romano -British Site at Haddon , Peterborough

I■

~

Sheep/Goat I

Figure A-5 HaddonLodge (MSA 99) Pha es 2-6. Percentage offu sed/fusing epiphysesfor the main domestic mammals

Tibia

Astragalus 510

750

480 -

700

eE 450

eE 650

0 1/)

.J:.

0

420

1/)

.J:.

C:

6 00

C:

QI

::::.,3 90 "O

m 360

-

QI

-

::::..550 "O

m 500

3 30

-

I

-

I

450 Fordham LR EIA

Fen Ditton GHF MIA

Haddon Lodge LIA/RB

Fordham LR EIA

Fen Ditton GHF MIA

Haddon Lodge LIA/RB

FigureA-6. Range and mean of cattle measurements at HaddonLodge(A605/H and MSA 99) and IronAgesites in Cambridgeshire. LR =LandwadeRoad;GHF = GreenhouseFarm. Sample sizes areasfollows:Astragalus 4, 13, 16; Tibia5, 12, 16

Appendix 2

A-23

Metacarpals o Fordham

800

--

700 650 ~ 600

0

-• -

550 500

• Fen Ditton

■

750

0

•

■

0

■

"

.

•

□□ ■

□ ■ □

-

--

--.

■

Haddon Lodge

□

Orton Hall Farm

□ ■ □

□

•

□

■

□

~

--

450 400 1650

1750

1850

1950

2050

2150

2250

GL

Metatarsals 650 □

□

600 ~

■

■

-

550

■

0

500

450

400 1800

• 0

0

1900

.

□

0

• • 2000

-

-- --

--

□ □

o Fordham

jj

• Fen Dtt on ■

■ □

-

□

Haddon Lodge

I □ Orton Hall Farm

■

2100

2200

2300

2400

2500

GL

Figure A- 7 Size of cattlemetapodials at HaddonLodge(A605/H and MSA 99), Landwade Road,Fordham(EJA), Greenhouse Farm, Fen

Ditton (MIA) and Orton Hall Farm(RB). Measurements in tenths of mm

AFU Monograph No.2

A-24

A Late Iron Age Farmstead and Romano-British Site at Haddon , Peterborough

Metaca rpals 20

•

a 18

a

)(

0

0

•

• • a• a • •• •

a

0 0

•

•

a

•

a

a

0

o Fordham

0

:::; 16

Q

•

0

~

•

a

• Fen Ditton 0

a

■

Haddon Lodge

a Orton Hall Farm

Ill 0

14

•

a 12

27

25

31

29

33

37

35

41

39

(Bd/Gl..)x100

Metatarsals 15

a

--

14

a

0 0

13

a

• •

)(

:::; Q ~ 12

a

11

•

•

a

-

• a

o• o Fordham • Fen Ditton

•

a

•

a a

0

a

a

-

--

•

■

0

a

Haddon Lodge

a Orton Hall Farm

0

0

a 10

22 .0

2 4 .0

26 .0

28 .0

(Bd/GL)x1 00

Figure A -8 Shapeof cattle metapodials at Haddon Lodge(A605/H and MSA 99), LandwadeRoad,Fordham(EIA), GreenhouseFarm,

Fen Ditton (MIA) and Orton Hall Farm (RB)

Appendix 2

A-25

500

A

•

480 460 440 "C

--

□

420

0

m 400 □□

380 □

-

c510

□

340

o Fordham

-

-•

■

=--. ••

0 □

360

•□

-

•

□

Fen Ditton

■

Haddo n Lodge

0

320 400

430 460

490

520

550

580

610

640

670

700

730

760

GLI

440

B

■

420 400 380

o

■

360

-- - -• -

-~

340

o Fordham

■

□

Fen Ditton

■

Haddon Lodge

□-- ■-

0

300

□ ■

COE}

--0

320

■

■

280 540

500

580

660

620

700

740

780

GLI

59

i:P

58 □

9::i

57

0

0 0

.... 56

□

■

.?!. :J 55 Q 54

··~ • -

□-

■

□

□-

□ ■

e.

53

■

52

-

■

C

•

=

□

c□ 0

IoFordham

0

•

□

Fen Ditton

■

Haddon Lodge

51 58

60

62

64

66 68 (Bd/GLl)x100

70

72

74

FigureA- 9 Size (A and B) and shape(C)of cattleastragaliat HaddonLodge(A605/H and MSA 99), LandwadeRoad, Fordham(ETA) and GreenhouseFarm,Fen Ditton (MIA). Measurementsin tenthsof mm.

A Late Iron Age Farmstead and Romano-British Site at Haddon, Peterborough

AFU Monograph No .2

A-26

600

A

-

500

-rJ D

0

·e400 C:

0 ■ D D 0

IIJ n•

300

•

•

ti

:i:

D

■

o

Fordham

□

Fen Ditton

■

Haddon Lodg e

lf:i

■ D D

200 300

400

500

600

700

800

Wma x

700

B

D

600

e :i:

o

D

•

>