Archaeology and Environment in a Changing East Yorkshire Landscape: The Foulness Valley c. 800 BC to c. AD 400 9781407303642, 9781407321332

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Dedication
PREFACE
Table of Contents
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ABBREVIATIONS
FIGURE CREDITS
CHAPTER 1 Introduction
CHAPTER 2 The environmental background
CHAPTER 3 Archaeological Methods
CHAPTER 4 The results of the aerial survey
CHAPTER 5 The results of field walking
CHAPTER 6 Archaeology in the wider landscape of the Foulness Valley
CHAPTER 7 Archaeology and Environment in the Iron Age Foulness Valley - a discussion
CHAPTER 8 Roman Archaeology and Environment in the Foulness Valley - a discussion
CHAPTER 9 Conclusion
REFERENCES
APPENDIX

Citation preview

BAR 472 2008 HALKON ARCHAEOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT IN A CHANGING EAST YORKSHIRE LANDSCAPE

B A R

Archaeology and Environment in a Changing East Yorkshire Landscape The Foulness Valley c. 800 BC to c. AD 400

Peter Halkon

BAR British Series 472 2008

Archaeology and Environment in a Changing East Yorkshire Landscape The Foulness Valley c. 800 BC to c. AD 400

Peter Halkon

BAR British Series 472 2008

ISBN 9781407303642 paperback ISBN 9781407321332 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407303642 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

In memory of my father Bill Halkon, and Alan Johnson, who sowed the seeds of this project.

PREFACE This volume largely comprises a PhD thesis undertaken at the University of Hull, awarded in 2006. It examines Iron Age and Roman human activity in a 30 x 20km landscape block containing the whole catchment of the River Foulness, East Yorkshire, extending from the Yorkshire Wolds to the Humber. The development of settlement and economy in these periods is considered against a changing landscape, including factors such as topography, soils and drainage. The research presented here largely confirms the relationship between past activities and environment demonstrated in the writer’s earlier research around Holme-on-Spalding Moor. An examination of both landscape and archaeology allowed the region to be divided into three landscape zones, each with a different trajectory of development. Features such as Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age linear earthworks and curvilinear enclosures related closely to watercourses and topography. The central southern area around Holme-onSpalding Moor was dominated by woodland and wetland - here an extensive Iron Age iron industry, possibly relating to the East Yorkshire Arras culture, with its chariot burials, developed. The Arras cemetery itself is situated at the head of a dry valley, overlooking the Foulness lowlands. Recent comparison of slags from northern France with those in the study area, suggest continental influence in iron smelting technology. The importance of the Walling Fen tidal inlet for trade and communication is confirmed by a concentration of Corieltauvian coins and Late Iron Age wheel-thrown pottery around it. The inlet also dictated the route of the Roman roads. A regionally important Roman pottery industry exploited managed woodland and watercourses. By contrast Iron Age and Roman activity on the flat clay soils of the southern zone was sparse. Iron Age settlement patterns generally ran with the “grain” of the landscape, continuing uninterrupted through the Roman period in some places. Landscape realignment is, however, clearly demonstrated elsewhere at Hayton, for example, with the construction of the Brough-York Roman road. The densest distributions of coins and samian pottery were in the Roman road corridors, contrasting with the countryside beyond, where in some places the Roman arrival appeared to have little effect. Elsewhere the landscape was transformed, including a newly discovered group of villas around Pocklington benefitting from the best soils in the region. Whilst remaining sceptical about some theoretical and post-processual explanations for “ritual” behaviour, it seems deposition did occur at key points within the landscape throughout the study period, however there does seem to be a close relationship between the situation of certain monument types and the landscape.

i

CONTENTS Abbreviations Acknowledgements List of figures List of tables

x ix v viii

Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Aims 1.2 The study area 1.3 Present and previous archaeological research in the Foulness Valley 1.3.1 Introduction and wider context 1.3.2 Investigation of the Iron Age and Roman periods in the Foulness Valley 1580-1980 1.4 Investigation of the Foulness Valley from 1980 to the present 1.5 Structure of book 1.6 Summary

1 1 1 3 3 4 9 11 11

Chapter 2 The environmental background 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Topography 2.3 Soils in the Foulness Valley 2.3.1 Introduction 2.3.2 The workability and drainage qualities of soils 2.4 Drainage and water supply 2.4.1 Introduction 2.4.2 Mapping the watercourses 2.4.3 The Rivers 2.4.4 Springs wells and ponds 2.5 Climate and sea-level change 2.5.1 Introduction 2.5.2 Climate 2.6 The changing Humber coastline 2.7 Reconstructing past vegetation 2.7.1 Introduction 2.7.2 Insect and molluscs as indicators of past environments 2.7.3 Plant remains 2.8 Palaeo-environmental results 2.8.1 Introduction 2.9 A summary of the changing environment in the Foulness Valley 2.10 A summary of the environmental background

12 12 14 14 17 24 24 24 24 28 29 29 29 33 36 36 36 36 37 37 40 41

Chapter 3 Archaeological methods 3.1 Introduction – selection of study area 3.2 Desk-based methods - Sites and Monuments Register 3.3 Aerial photographic survey methods 3.3.1 Background 3.3.2 Aerial photographic data in the Foulness Valley 3.3.3 Classifying crop marks in the Foulness Valley 3.4 Field walking 3.4.1 Introduction 3.4.2 Methods of field walking 3.4.3 Summary of field walking methods 3.5 Geophysical survey 3.6 Metal detector finds 3.6.1 Introduction 3.6.2 Metal detecting in the Foulness Valley 3.7 Methods of excavation in the Foulness Valley 3.8 Summary of archaeological methods

43 43 43 45 45 46 46 46 49 52 52 53 53 53 53 54

Chapter 4 The results of the aerial survey 4.1 Introduction

55 ii

4.2 Long linear features 4.2.1 Introduction 4.2.2 Multiple linear features 4.2.3 Double linear features 4.2.4 Single linear features 4.2.5 Discussion of linear features 4.3 Ovoid/curvilinear enclosures 4.4 Single rectilinear enclosures 4.5 Enclosure complexes 4.6 Field systems 4.7 Square barrows 4.8 Ring ditches 4.9 Pits 4.10 Discussion of results of aerial survey 4.11 Summary of aerial survey

55 55 55 62 62 71 72 75 76 80 83 85 86 87 90

Chapter 5 The Results of field walking 5.1 Introduction to the results of field walking 5.2 The results of the HOSM field walking survey 5.3 The line of the Market Weighton By-pass 5.4 Field walking and pottery analysis at Shiptonthorpe 5.5 Survey of a selection of crop mark sites from the Yorkshire Wolds National Mapping Programme (Stoertz 1997) 5.6 Field walking in a 3x3 km landscape block around Hayton 5.7 Field walking at Cocoa Beck 5.8 Survey of the supposed temple site at Milllington 5.9 Discussion of the results of field walking and crop mark evidence 5.10 Summary of the field walking results

106 128 129 131 133

Chapter 6 Archaeology in the wider Landscape of the Foulness Valley 6.1 Introduction 6.2 Iron Age sites 6.3 The Roman period 6.4 Summary of the archaeological evidence from the wider landscape of the Foulness Valley

135 135 137 146

Chapter 7 Archaeology and Environment in the Foulness Valley - a discussion 7.1 Introduction - Landscape zones 7.2 Crop mark distribution and topography 7.3 Crop mark distribution and soils 7.4 Summary of gross crop mark distribution the environment 7.5 Landscape development in the Foulness Valley 7.5.1 Introduction 7.5.2 Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age 7.5.3 Early and Middle Iron Age settlement and economy in the changing landscape 7.5.4 Later Iron Age 7.5.5 A summary of the Iron Age archaeology and environment in the Foulness Valley

148 148 150 154 154 154 154 164 177 179

91 92 92 93 94

Chapter 8 Landscape settlement and economy in the Roman Foulness Valley 8.1 The Early Roman period 8.2 The development of the Roman landscape 8.3 A summary of the early Roman landscape 8.4 The Later Roman period 8.5 A summary of the Later Roman Foulness Valley

181 187 192 193 206

Chapter 9 Conclusion 9.1 Introduction 9.2 The environment 9.3 The archaeological results 9.4 Iron Age archaeology and environment in the Foulness Valley 9.5 Roman archaeology and environment in the Foulness Valley 9.6 The Foulness valley in a wider perspective iii

207 207 207 208 209 210

9.7 Epilogue 9.8 Recommendations for future research

210 211 212 233

References Appendix

iv

LIST OF FIGURES 1.1 The location of the study area 1.2 Map showing the main places referred to in section 1.3.2 2.1 The topography of the Foulness Valley 2.2 The soils of the Foulness Valley 2.3 A generalised map of the soils of the Foulness Valley 2.4 Soil workability 2.5 Drainage capabilities of Foulness Valley soils 2.6 Watercourses water supply and drainage 2.7 Relict bed of a gravel stream at Hayton Beck 2.8 Aerial view of TSEP pipeline under excavation at Hayton 2.9 The Sikes 2.10 Relict courses of the Foulness at Stray Farm 2.11 Springs, wells and ponds 2.12 Cross section across the irrigation pond at Hasholme Grange 2.13 Aerial photograph showing the Hasholme Grange pond 2.14 Location map of cores taken by Innes 2.15 Location of environmental sampling 2.16 The Landscape Zones (a) drainage and watercourses 2.16(b) soils (c) topography 3.1 Civil parishes in the Foulness Valley 4.1 The crop mark areas of the Foulness Valley 4.2 Linear features including boundaries 4.3 Huggate Dykes from the air 4.4 A section of multiple linear features and three round barrows at Etton 4.5 Evidence for landscape re-planning and development around Middleton 4.6 Curvilinear and ovoid enclosures against total crop mark distribution 4.7 Ovoid/curvilinear enclosures 4.8 Single rectilinear enclosures at Bursea and Hasholme 4.9 The Bursea Grange rectilinear enclosure 4.10 Linear enclosure complexes 4.11 The Arras linear enclosures complex 4.12 North Dalton area showing how a linear enclosure cuts a Cowlam type square barrow 4.13 Enclosure complex at Throlam 4.14 Co-axial type field systems at Hayton 4.15 The Arras barrow cemetery 4.16 The distribution of pits and types of field. Field systems and pits 5.1 The area field walked in the Foulness Valley 5.2 Interpretive plan of the Shiptonthorpe Roman roadside settlement 5.3 Plot of Roman metal-detected coins 5.4 Field walked areas and crop marks 5.5 Aerial photograph of crop marks at Beechwood House Farm 5.6 Beechwood House Farm field walking Roman pottery and iron slag 5.7 Beechwood House Farm field walking burnt cobble 5.8 Field walking at Arras 5.9 Field walking at Beechwood Ho. Farm and Holme Road, Weighton 5.10 Field walking at Holme Road Mkt Weighton 5.11 Crop marks and field walking in the South Cliffe area 5.12 Field walking at Warren Hill Farm - Iron Age and Roman pottery 5.13 Field walking at Warren Hill Farm samian, Lincolnshire Flavian greywares iron slag and burnt cobble 5.14 Crop marks in linseed at the South Cliffe Common site 5.15 Field walking results South Cliffe Common - Roman and Iron Age pottery 5.16 Field walking results, South Cliffe Common - Roman Fine ware and grey ware pottery 5.17 Field walking results from South Cliffe Common Huntcliff type and iron slag 5.18 Crop marks and field walking at Hayton 5.19 Results of field walking at Hayton Roman fort 5.20 Field walked Roman tile from Hayton Roman Fort 5.21 All field walked pottery from Bridge Farm 5.22 Comparison of samian and Huntcliff from the road-side settlement 5.23 Comparison of samian and box-flue tile

v

2 3 13 18 19 20 21 25 26 26 27 27 29 30 30 35 39 41 42 42 42 44 56 57 58 62 72 74 75 77 78 78 79 80 84 87 91 94 94 95 96 96 97 98 99 99 100 101 101 102 103 104 105 109 110 111 111 112 113

5.24 Comparison of mortaria and amphora distribution 5.25 Comparison of Huntcliff types and animal bone 5.26 Comparison of Roman ceramic and stone tile from roadside settlement 5.27 The distribution of all Roman pottery on the Burnby Lane site 5.28 Burnby Lane Hayton 5m gridded survey - all Roman tile 5.29 Burnby Lane Roman bath house under excavation 5.30 Field next to the Old Station, Burnby aerial photograph, gradiometer survey and field walking results 5.31 Triangle Wood: the field walking results. 5.32 Field walking and gradiometer survey at Triangle wood 5.33 Comparison of Hayton Field walked pottery 5.34 Comparison of amphora at Hayton with Evans (2001) 5.35 Comparison of finewares at Hayton with Evans (2001) 5.36 The relative chronology of the Hayton sites from field walking 5.37 CBM from Hayton sites 5.38 Cocoa Beck field walked material against gradiometer survey 5.39 Cocoa beck field walked Roman tile 5.40 Field walked pottery from Millington Roman temple site 5.41 Relative chronology of selected Foulness Valley sites from field walked Roman pot 5.42 The proportion of Roman pottery types on sites in the Foulness Valley 5.43 The proportion of Roman pottery types on field walked sites in HOSM 6.1 The distribution of all Iron Age sites in the Foulness Valley against the modern parishes 6.2 The distribution of all Iron Age sites from field walking and excavation in the Foulness Valley 6.3 Comparison of crop mark data and finds made through excavation etc 6.4 The Roman Foulness Valley 6.5 The distribution of Roman coins and places where the Roman roads have been positively identified 6.6 The distribution of Roman pottery and places where the Roman roads have been positively identified 6.7 Roman roads and forts within the Foulness Valley 6.8 First Century Roman coins and samian 6.9 Distribution of later Roman coins 6.10 Roman roads and burials 6.11 Comparison of Iron Age and Roman burials 6.12 Roman pottery kilns and the Roman roads 6.13 Distribution of Roman villas and the Roman roads 6.14 Enclosure complexes, Roman finds and crop marks 6.15 Roman pottery and Roman coins and crop marks 6.16 Comparison of Iron Age coin distribution and Roman villas 7.1 Topography and crop marks 7.2 The soils of the Foulness Valley and crop mark data 7.3 Soil drainage and crop marks in the Foulness Valley 7.4 The workability of soils in the Foulness Valley and crop marks 7.5 Watercourses and crop marks in the Foulness Valley 7.6 Linear earthworks and curvilinear enclosures 7.7 Huggate Dykes looking north from the head of Frendal Dale 7.8 The distribution of the main late Bronze Age features and artefacts 7.9 The double linear feature near Shiptonthorpe 7.10 Photo of Shiptonthorpe double linear feature 7.11 The Thornton multiple linear feature 7.12 The distribution of curvilinear enclosures in East Yorkshire 7.13 The area round Grimthorpe and Huggate Dykes 7.14 The landscape setting of the Mount Airy defended enclosure 7.15 Crop mark features around Market Weighton Common 7.16 The curvilinear enclosure at Londesborough Moor 7.17 Crop mark sites around Arglam 7.18 Single rectilinear enclosures and soils 7.19 Single rectilinear enclosures and drainage 7.20 Drainage watercourses and single rectilinear enclosures 7.21 Crop mark of a rectilinear enclosure at Hasholme Hall 7.22 Crop mark of a rectilinear enclosure at Bursea Grange 7.23 Linear enclosure complexes and soils 7.24 Linear enclosure complexes and watercourses 7.25 The Moore’s Farm slag heap 7.26 Detail of slag block from Moore’s Farm vi

114 115 117 117 118 118 121 122 122 124 124 125 126 127 129 130 130 133 134 134 136 136 137 138 138 139 140 140 141 142 143 143 144 144 146 147 149 150 151 152 153 156 156 157 158 158 159 160 161 161 162 162 164 165 166 167 168 168 168 170 171 171

7.27 The watercourses of the Foulness Valley and the iron smelting sites 7.28 Lynch pin and bit from the Arras cemetery 7.29 The Middle Iron Age landscape in the Foulness Valley 7.30 Sancton Dale looking southwest towards the lowlands 7.31 Square barrows and natural features between Arras and Pocklington 7.32 The Hasholme logboat 7.33 Enclosure complexes and linear enclosure complexes and soils 7.34 Late Iron Age coins and Dragonby type pottery against soil quality 7.35 Iron Age coins and Dragonby style pottery watercourses and topography 7.36 The area around Brantingham 8.1 The South Cave weapons cache 8.2 Hayton Roman Fort 8.3 Plan of the Roman fort at Brough 8.4 Brough from the air looking towards the River Humber 8.5 Roman forts of the Foulness Valley against drainage and topography 8.6 The Roman roads (after OS) and forts (squares) against the soils of the Foulness Valley 8.7 The landscape around the Roman roads 8.8 Evidence for first and second century AD activity against the soils of the Foulness Valley 8.9 Metal detected finds and crop marks around Hayton 8.10 The Roman face pot from Holme-on-Spalding Moor 8.11 The theatre inscription from Brough 8.12 Enclosure complexes Roman pottery and coins against the soils 8.13 Kilns and sites with Roman pottery against the soils 8.14 RB pottery kilns and the main product users 8.15 Villas against soil quality 8.16 Ousethorpe from the air 8.17 The copper alloy sheep/goat from Ousethorpe 8.18 The setting of the Millington Temple (Burton and Drake) 8.19 The wider landscape setting of the Millington Temple 8.20 Gradiometer and topographical survey of the Millington Temple 8.21 Field walking on the site of the temple at Millington 8.22 Pottery and building material distribution against gradiometer survey 8.23 The Middleton hillfort with the possible Roman Celtic temple 8.24 “Vulcan” face pot from Shiptonthorpe 8.25 Map of Face pots in East Yorkshire 8.26 Roman Brough. The extent of the known occupation 8.27 The walled enclosure at Brough 8.28 Part of the Roman decorated cupboard door from the well at Hayton 8.29 The Goodmanham plane

vii

172 173 174 175 175 176 176 178 178 179 181 182 183 184 184 185 185 186 187 188 191 192 193 194 195 197 198 198 199 199 200 200 201 201 202 203 203 205 205

LIST OF TABLES 2.1 Soil types in the Foulness Valley 2.2 Soils, drainage and workability in the Foulness Valley 2.3 Vegetation history of the Foulness 3.1 Civil parishes in the Foulness Valley 3.2 Stoertz’s morphological typology of crop mark sites 3.3 Morphological classification of the Foulness Valley crop marks 3.4 Excavations carried out on Iron Age and Roman sites as part of the Foulness Valley project 4.1 Multiple linear features 4.2 Double linear features - boundaries 4.3 Double linear features - droveways 4.4 Double linear features - possible Roman roads 4.5 Single linear features 4.6 Curvilinear/ovoid enclosures 4.7 Crop mark areas and site densities 4.8 A crop mark chronology of the Foulness Valley study area 5.1 Crop mark sites and field walked pottery 5.2 Field walked pottery from Shiptonthorpe 5.3 Field walking results from Hayton Fort 5.4 Field walked pottery from Bridge Farm, Hayton 5.5 Non-local pottery from Hayton 5.6 Field walking finds from Grove Farm 5.7 Burnby Lane field walking results 5.8 Field walking results from west of Old Station at Burnby 5.9 Field walking results from Triangle Wood 5.10 Field walked pottery Hayton Fort East - Pond Wood 5.11 Summary of field walked pottery from Hayton 5.12 Hayton CBM 5.13 Summary of stone flag on field walked sites in Hayton 5.14 Field walked bone from Hayton 5.15 Millington Temple field walking results 5.16 Crop mark sites and field walked material 6.1 Crop mark areas, finds and enclosure complexes 6.2 Villas and Iron Age coins in the crop mark areas 7.1 Major iron smelting sites in England and Wales

viii

15 22 37 44 47 48 54 58 63 65 69 73 88 89 92 93 107 108 108 116 118 120 120 121 122 127 127 130 130 132 145 146 169

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thanks are due to over a hundred farmers and landowners who allowed access to their land; without their interest this work would have been impossible. I would like to thank Dr Stephen Ellis for the supervision of the thesis and Professor Lynne Frostick, Dr Jane Bunting, the other members of my supervisory panel. The Department of Geography funded the purchase of the aerial photographic plots from the NMR, English Heritage. Particular thanks go to Dick Middleton for his assistance with the preparation of the soil maps, and the use of his Fieldwalker program, which has made the plotting of grid walked field walking finds much easier. At various stages Dr Malcolm Lillie, Professor Robert Van De Noort and Dr Henry Chapman have also provided advice and assistance, the latter particularly with the Millington Temple site. Many thanks to Dr Helen Fenwick for her help with GIS. Her appointment as a Lecturer in Archaeology in the History Department made the completion of the thesis behind this volume possible. I am most grateful to Professor Martin Millett for his friendship and collaboration since 1983 in the field work project behind this study, to Dr Jeremy Taylor for his help with geophysics and field walking in particular and to Helen Woodhouse who has made a great contribution with her geophysical survey and many other aspects of the project. Most of the illustrations have been improved greatly by her work. Dr Jim Innes provided information and advice on palaeoenvironmental aspects as did Pat Wagner, Anne Marie Heath and Ben Gearey. There is not room here, as there are several hundred of them, to mention all the members of the East Riding Archaeological Society, school, college and university students and other volunteers who helped with the field work, but particular thanks must go to my students from the Universities of Hull and Leeds and Wyke College, Hull: Gillian Ainsworth, Dean Bolton, Michael Carr, Chris Dyer, Chris Fenn, Peter Freeman, Frances Hanson, Bryan Hawe, Jayne Law, Tracy Marsters, Chris Martins, Lindsey and Rick Monkman, Ken Oliver, Matthew Phillpott, Sandra Stratton, Fiona Wilson, and Darren Williamson who all shared the results of their various projects and dissertations which arose from or were related to the Foulness Valley. As part of the survey of Yorkshire Wolds crop marks sites Lisa O’Neil and Michael Would used surveys at Hayton and Market Weighton, and South Cliffe respectively, as a basis for Advanced Level Archaeology Projects for the University of Cambridge Local Examination Syndicate whilst at Wilberforce College Hull. Other field walking at South Cliffe was carried out by part-time students from the Universities of Leeds and Hull and WEA classes under the writer’s direction. Grateful thanks to Dave Evans, Ruth Atkinson, Elizabeth Chamberlin, and Gail Falkingham for all their help at the Humber SMR; to Trevor Brigham, Ken Steedman, and Lisa Wastling at Humber Archaeology, and Andrew Foxon, Bryan Sitch, Gail Forman, Martin Foreman, Craig Barclay and Paula Gentil at Hull Museums and Andrew Morrison of the Yorkshire Museum. The NMR Swindon, Peter Horne, Dave Mcleod and Yvonne Boutwood and the team at English Heritage in York kindly supplied crop mark plots and other information and Steve King and Dr R. Bradley information about soils from their work for the Soil Survey of England, which has also proved indispensable in this research and for allowing its use here. Richard Green constructed the VFIM database as part of the “Valley of the First Iron Masters” web site project, which was adapted for use in the thesis from which this volume originates. Sam Embleton, and Warren Viant, Paul Chapman, Emma Smith-Howe and James Ward in the Department of Computer Science and Staff at the Computer Centre, University of Hull provided assistance at various stages, for which I am grateful. This work has benefited from my discussion with many colleagues, as well as those mentioned above and I would like to acknowledge particularly Peter and Susan Crew, John Collis, John Dent, Peter Didsbury, Jerry Evans, Kevin Leahy, Rod Mackey, Terry Manby, Steve Moorhouse, Patrick Ottaway, Steve Roskams, Steve Willis and Pete Wilson. The Roman Antiquities Section of the YAS, provided a sounding board for some of the more recent work at Millington and Hayton. Grateful thanks to Dr Malcolm Lillie and Professors Jenny Price and Paul Buckland who examined the thesis, and for their helpful suggestions. I would like to thank the History Department at Hull University for their support, especially John Bernasconi and Glenn Burgess, my past and present HODs and to Professor Mike Turner and Dr David Starkey, who with the Faculty of Arts, University of Hull funded aspects of my research. Thanks also to office staff Louise Macfarlane, Dianne Brockhurst and Frances Hanson. Finally grateful thanks to my wife Helen and Ruth and Sarah, who have had to live with the project with so much patience for so long. Funding was generously provided by the Aurelius Charitable Trust towards re-drawing figures for this publication and the Roman Research Trust for enabling the inclusion of colour illustration.

ix

ABBREVIATIONS BAR

British Archaeological Reports

CBA

Council for British Archaeology

CIL

Corpus Inscriptiones Latinarum Vol. XVI: Diplomata militaria ex constitutionibus imperatorum de civitate et conubio militum veteranorumque expressa Nos. 1-157

ERAS

East Riding Archaeological Society

GIS

Geographical Information Systems

HOSM

Holme-on-Spalding Moor

NMR

National Monuments Record

RIB

The Roman Inscriptions of Britain edited by R.G. Collingwood and R. P. Wright 1965, Clarendon Press, Oxford Volume 1

RCHM (E)

Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (England)

VFIM

Valley of the First Iron Masters database and website http\\:WWW.ironmasters.hull.ac.uk

YAJ

Yorkshire Archaeological Journal

FIGURE CREDITS The illustrations for this book have been redrawn by Helen Woodhouse, Woodhouse Consultancy Limited Asset and Environmental Management & Archaeological Consultancy Services Stratford upon Avon & Cambridge: [email protected] Soil map Figure 2.2 upon which other soil maps are based is reproduced by permission of Cranfield University, through Dr R. Bradley Aerial photograph transcripts used in Figures 4.4,4.5,4.6,4.7,4.8,4.11,4.12,5.6,5.7,5.8,5.9,5.10,5.11,5.12,5.13,5.15,5.16,5.17,6.11,6.15,7.1,7.2,7.3,7.4,7.5,7.8,7.9,7.11, 7.13,7.14,7.15,7.17,8.7,8.23, Copyright NMR reproduced by permission of English Heritage, 8.28 Durham University Conservation Laboratory, 8.29 Bill Marsden (Courtesy Humber Field Archaeology) Photographs for Figures: 4.4 Paul Chapman, 7.28 Andrew Morrison, Yorkshire Museum, York, 7.32 Martin Millett, 8.1 Conservation Laboratory, York Archaeological Trust

x

CHAPTER 1 Introduction tributary streams or becks, now named after the villages through which they run. The main stream of the river then flows in an arc, through terrain, which can be divided broadly into three sectors: the Chalk uplands of the Yorkshire Wolds, the aeolian sands and glacio-lacustrine clays and gravels of the south eastern Vale of York, which rarely rise above 10m OD, and finally the lowlying Walling Fen. The latter two low-lying areas have been artificially drained since the Middle Ages, the main schemes being the Market Weighton and Pocklington canals, but despite this, some areas are still prone to seasonal flooding. The Ordnance Survey 1:50,000 Market Weighton Sheet shows a density of more modern drainage schemes relating to agricultural improvements, especially in the southern sector of this survey area.

1.1 Aims The main aims of this study are: x

To examine the development of Iron Age and Roman landscape of the Foulness Valley, East Yorkshire, from around 800 BC to the end of the Roman period.

x

To test the validity of the results arising from earlier work discussed below in section 1.3, in the 8 x 8km Holme-on-Spalding Moor study area (Halkon 1987; Halkon and Millett 1999) concerning the location and character of Iron Age and Roman settlement and industry in a context of the whole catchment of the Foulness Valley.

x

The extent of the Foulness and its associated watercourses, both past and present, is perhaps best appreciated from the alluvial soils (Figure 1.1) which are mainly of the Fladbury and Sulham/Fladbury soil series (King and Bradley 1987) and it is the block of land through which this system runs that forms the focus for this study.

To place the Iron Age and Roman archaeology and environment of the Foulness Valley in the wider context of Britain and beyond.

1.2 The study area

Off the Wolds, to the west of the Lias bench the landscape is relatively flat, only interrupted by Church Hill, Holme-on-Spalding Moor which forms a dominant landmark (Figure 2.1).

The valley of the River Foulness, which falls largely in a landscape block with its corners at NGR SE950250, SE950540, SE730540, SE730250, (Figure 1.1), is situated in the East Riding of Yorkshire, to the north of the River Humber, in the eastern Vale of York that is part of the central lowlands of Yorkshire (Ellis 1999).

The main modern townships (Figure 1.1) include, in order of scale, Brough/Elloughton, Pocklington, Market Weighton, South Cave, North and South Newbald, which are all situated on higher land, close to the margins of the Yorkshire Wolds. Holme-on-Spalding Moor (HOSM) and Gilberdyke are the largest settlements in the lower lying areas. What little industry exists is mainly located on former airfields at Holme-on-Spalding Moor, Barmby Moor and Pocklington and along the A63/M62 corridor The bulk of the area is farmland, of which the major part is now tilled, though some pasture remains, largely to the west of the study area (Middleton 1999). The large amount of arable cultivation, though potentially damaging to sub-surface archaeology, does provide a suitable medium for large-scale archaeological survey, especially via aerial photography and fieldwalking. The varied nature of soils, and topography in a relatively compact area, provide an interesting background against which to analyse the archaeological evidence.

On the northern and eastern edges of the study area, are the Chalk uplands of the Yorkshire Wolds, running southeast to northwest. The southern Yorkshire Wolds form a ridge of exposed upland, 8-10km wide, that falls eastwards to disappear under the mantle of Devensian till in western Holderness. This ridge, which runs northsouth, is distinct from the mass of the northern and eastern Yorkshire Wolds, where most of the archaeological attention in the region has been concentrated in the past (Powlesland et al 1986). To the west of the Wolds is the narrow Lias bench, which gives its name to the villages of North and South Cliffe. The major natural drainage system of the area of study is the River Foulness itself (Figure 1.1), which is fed by springs at Nunburnholme Wold, Warter Wold and Londesborough. These in turn provide the source of

1

ARCHAEOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT IN A CHANGING EAST YORKSHIRE LANDSCAPE

Figure 1.1 Location of the study area. 2

INTRODUCTION archaeology projects one in the Foulness Valley and the other at West Heslerton. However, although they now seem to define the archaeology of this region, it is worth remembering that such projects often develop from very small beginnings.”

1.3 Present and previous archaeological research in the Foulness valley 1.3.1. Introduction and wider context This study represents the first systematic attempt to define the entire Foulness valley in terms of its Iron Age and Roman archaeology and past environment, and one of the largest in this detail in the North of England, bringing together 25 years of research initiated by the writer in 1980. In the recently published survey of Yorkshire archaeology (Manby et al 2003a), Ottaway (2003, 4) after considering earlier research projects in the county states that:

The origins of the Foulness Valley project (Halkon 1983; Halkon and Millett 1999) will be outlined below, but it must be borne in mind that unlike many of its counterparts, it had its origins with a local archaeological society and remained a part-time survey reliant on relatively small grants. Comparable surveys have been carried out largely under the aegis of English Heritage in the Somerset Levels, (Coles 1975, Coles and Orme 1980), the Fenlands of East Anglia (Hall 1987, 1992, 1996), the Northwest Wetlands

“They have been followed by field projects initiated in the last two decades including two great landscape

Figure 1.2 Map showing the main places referred to in section 1.3.2.

3

$5&+$(2/2*