Excavations at Whitemoor Haye Quarry, Staffordshire, 2000-2004: A prehistoric and Romano-British landscape 9781407300054, 9781407320823

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Contents
Summary
CHAPTER ONE. Summary and Introduction
CHAPTER TWO. The Site
CHAPTER THREE. The Finds
CHAPTER FOUR. People and Plants
CHAPTER FIVE. Discussion
Bibliography
APPENDIX 1. Calibration of Radiocarbon Age to Calendar Years
APPENDIX 2. Neolithic/Early Bronze Age Pottery Summary
APPENDIX 3. Petrographic Descriptions
APPENDIX 4. Roman Pottery Fabric Descriptions
APPENDIX 5. Catalogue - Cremated Human Bone
APPENDIX 6. Erratum - First Volume of Excavation Reports

Citation preview

BAR 428

Birmingham Archaeology Monograph Series 2

2006 HEWSON

Excavations at Whitemoor Haye Quarry, Staffordshire, 2000-2004

EXCAVATIONS AT WHITEMOOR HAYE QUARRY, STAFFORDSHIRE

A prehistoric and Romano-British landscape

Mark Hewson

BAR British Series 428 B A R

2006

Birmingham Archaeology Monograph Series 2

Excavations at Whitemoor Haye Quarry, Staffordshire, 2000-2004 A prehistoric and Romano-British landscape

Mark Hewson with contributions by

Lawrence Barfield, Megan Brickley, Louise Bush, Marina Ciaraldi, C. Jane Evans, Val Fryer, Andrew Howard, Rowena Gale, Kay Hartley, Rob Ixer, Steven Litherland, Erica Macey-Bracken, Wendy Smith, Roger White, Felicity Wild, and Ann Woodward illustrations by

Mark Breedon, Nigel Dodds, John Halsted, and Bryony Ryder

BAR British Series 428 2006

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR British Series 428 Birmingham Archaeology Monograph Series 2 Excavations at Whitemoor Haye Quarry, Staffordshire, 2000-2004

© Birmingham Archaeology and the Publisher 2006 The author's 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 9781407300054 paperback ISBN 9781407320823 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407300054 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

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 Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2006. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

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 FIGURES .................................................................................................................................................................... iv TABLES....................................................................................................................................................................... v PLATES ....................................................................................................................................................................... v SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................................... vii Chapter One

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1

Archaeological background.......................................................................................................................................... 1 Location and geology .....................................................................................................................................................................1 Archaeology of the Region (Fig. 2)................................................................................................................................................1 Geophysical survey ........................................................................................................................................................................7 Aims and objectives .......................................................................................................................................................................7 Methodology ..................................................................................................................................................................................7 Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................................................................7

Chapter Two

The Site ............................................................................................................................................... 9

Phasing by period ......................................................................................................................................................... 9 Period 1 Late Neolithic/ Early Bronze Age ................................................................................................................. 9 Summary ........................................................................................................................................................................................9 Area I (Fig. 4).................................................................................................................................................................................9 Area P (Fig. 6)..............................................................................................................................................................................14 Watching brief..............................................................................................................................................................................15

Period 2 Iron Age ...................................................................................................................................................... 22 Summary ......................................................................................................................................................................................22 The droveways .............................................................................................................................................................................22 Area D (Fig. 14) ...........................................................................................................................................................................22 Area E (Fig. 15)............................................................................................................................................................................26 Area G (Fig. 16) ...........................................................................................................................................................................26 Watching brief..............................................................................................................................................................................28 Enclosures and structures .............................................................................................................................................................28 Area J (Fig. 19; Plate 12)..............................................................................................................................................................28 Area K (Fig. 23; Plate 14) ............................................................................................................................................................32 Area M (Fig. 25; Plate 16)............................................................................................................................................................35 Watching brief..............................................................................................................................................................................40

Period 3 Romano-British ........................................................................................................................................... 43 Summary ......................................................................................................................................................................................43 Droveway .....................................................................................................................................................................................43 Area G (Fig. 16) ...........................................................................................................................................................................43 Area K (Fig. 23) ...........................................................................................................................................................................43 Area M (Fig. 25) ..........................................................................................................................................................................45 Area P (Fig. 6)..............................................................................................................................................................................45 Watching brief..............................................................................................................................................................................45 Enclosures and boundaries ...........................................................................................................................................................47 Area H (Fig. 38; Plate 18) ............................................................................................................................................................47 Area M (Fig. 25) ..........................................................................................................................................................................50 Area P (Fig. 6)..............................................................................................................................................................................51 Watching brief..............................................................................................................................................................................51 Pits and other features ..................................................................................................................................................................51 Area M .........................................................................................................................................................................................51 Other areas ...................................................................................................................................................................................52

Period 4 Post-Medieval ............................................................................................................................................. 52 Plough furrows .............................................................................................................................................................................52 Boundaries ...................................................................................................................................................................................53

i

Undated ...................................................................................................................................................................... 53 Chapter Three

The Finds....................................................................................................................................... 56

Worked flint by Lawrence Barfield ............................................................................................................................ 56 Pit F122W ....................................................................................................................................................................................56 Remaining industry ......................................................................................................................................................................58 Discussion ....................................................................................................................................................................................58 General conclusions .....................................................................................................................................................................58 Catalogue of illustrated items from pit F122W (Fig. 46) .............................................................................................................58

Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Pottery by Ann Woodward, with contributions by Rob Ixer ................................... 60 Introduction..................................................................................................................................................................................60 Fabric ...........................................................................................................................................................................................60 Form and decoration.....................................................................................................................................................................60 Illustrated items............................................................................................................................................................................62 Fragmentation ..............................................................................................................................................................................68 Abrasion .......................................................................................................................................................................................68 Discussion ....................................................................................................................................................................................69 The Beaker assemblage from pit F122W: interpretation..............................................................................................................69

Iron Age pottery by Louise Bush, with contributions by Ann Woodward................................................................... 70 Context ........................................................................................................................................................................................70 Fabric ..........................................................................................................................................................................................70 Catalogue of illustrated sherds .....................................................................................................................................................72 Form and decoration.....................................................................................................................................................................78 Deposition ....................................................................................................................................................................................78 Vessel function.............................................................................................................................................................................78 Discussion by Ann Woodward......................................................................................................................................................79

Petrographical analysis of prehistoric pottery by Rob Ixer ......................................................................................... 80 Discussion ....................................................................................................................................................................................80

The Romano-British pottery by C. Jane Evans .......................................................................................................... 81 Summary ......................................................................................................................................................................................81 Introduction..................................................................................................................................................................................81 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................................................81 Fabrics..........................................................................................................................................................................................82 Forms (Fig. 54).............................................................................................................................................................................83 Catalogue of illustrated vessels ....................................................................................................................................................83 Treatment and decoration.............................................................................................................................................................85 Dating...........................................................................................................................................................................................85 Discussion by area........................................................................................................................................................................85 Conclusions..................................................................................................................................................................................86

Mortaria by Kay Hartley............................................................................................................................................. 87 Catalogue (Fig. 58).......................................................................................................................................................................87

Samian by Felicity Wild.............................................................................................................................................. 90 Worked stone by Rob Ixer and Erica Macey-Bracken ............................................................................................... 90 Other finds by Erica Macey-Bracken, with contributions by Roger White................................................................. 90 Tile ...............................................................................................................................................................................................90 Copper alloy by Roger White .......................................................................................................................................................91

Chapter Four

People and Plants ............................................................................................................................ 92

Cremated human bone by Megan Brickley ................................................................................................................. 92 The cremated bone .......................................................................................................................................................................92 Pyre deposits and funerary activity ..............................................................................................................................................92 Weight of bone.............................................................................................................................................................................93 Demography and palaeopathology ...............................................................................................................................................93 Cremation burials from the Midlands...........................................................................................................................................93

Charcoal by Rowena Gale .......................................................................................................................................... 93 ii

Introduction..................................................................................................................................................................................93 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................................................93 Results..........................................................................................................................................................................................94 Discussion ....................................................................................................................................................................................94 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................................................................95

Charred plants............................................................................................................................................................. 95 Summary by Mark Hewson ..........................................................................................................................................................95 Plant macro-remains from a Late Neolithic/ Early Bronze Age cremation deposit by Wendy Smith ...........................................96 Laboratory method .......................................................................................................................................................................96 Results..........................................................................................................................................................................................96 Discussion ....................................................................................................................................................................................97 Conclusions..................................................................................................................................................................................98

Chapter Five

Discussion................................................................................................................................... 100

Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................. 100 Period 1 - Neolithic and Early Bronze Age .............................................................................................................. 101 The ring-ditches and other funerary features..............................................................................................................................104 Cremation pits F126W and F300W............................................................................................................................................107 Beaker pit F122W ......................................................................................................................................................................108

Period 2 - Iron Age ................................................................................................................................................... 109 The Iron Age droveways and pit alignment (Fig. 63).................................................................................................................109 The Iron Age enclosures and their structures (Fig. 63) ..............................................................................................................113

Period 3 – Romano-British period............................................................................................................................ 114 The Romano-British enclosures and droveway ..........................................................................................................................114

Conclusions .............................................................................................................................................................. 118 BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................................................................... 119 APPENDIX 1 APPENDIX 2 APPENDIX 3 APPENDIX 4 APPENDIX 5 APPENDIX 6

Calibration of radiocarbon age to calendar years............................................................................ 127 Neolithic/ Early Bronze Age Pottery Summary.............................................................................. 128 Petrographic Descriptions ............................................................................................................... 130 Roman Pottery Fabric Descriptions ................................................................................................ 137 Catalogue - cremated human bone.................................................................................................. 139 Erratum - First volume of excavation reports ................................................................................. 142

iii

FIGURES Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 5 Fig. 6 Fig. 7 Fig. 8 Fig. 9 Fig. 10 Fig. 11 Fig. 12 Fig. 13 Fig. 14 Fig. 15 Fig. 16 Fig. 17 Fig. 18 Fig. 19 Fig. 20 Fig. 21 Fig. 22 Fig. 23 Fig. 24 Fig. 25 Fig. 26 Fig. 27 Fig. 28 Fig. 29 Fig. 30 Fig. 31 Fig. 32 Fig. 33 Fig. 34 Fig. 35 Fig. 36 Fig. 37 Fig. 38 Fig. 39 Fig. 40 Fig. 41 Fig. 42 Fig. 43 Fig. 44 Fig. 45 Fig. 46 Fig. 47 Fig. 48 Fig. 49 Fig. 50 Fig. 51 Fig. 52 Fig. 53 Fig. 54 Fig. 55 Fig. 56 Fig. 57

Whitemoor Haye Quarry: location.................................................................................................................... vi ii Local geology and associated sites .................................................................................................................... 2 Location of excavation areas and watching briefs by year ................................................................................ 5 Area I: Plan of all excavated features .............................................................................................................. 10 Area I: Period 1 sections.................................................................................................................................. 11 Area P: Plan of all excavated features ............................................................................................................. 12 Period 1: Plan of Ring-ditch 2 (F200P) ........................................................................................................... 13 Area P: Period 1 sections ................................................................................................................................. 15 Watching Brief (2001) south of Area P .......................................................................................................... 16 Period 1: Plan of Ring-ditch 3 (F127W).......................................................................................................... 16 Period 1: Sections - Ring-ditch 3 (F127W) and Ring-ditch 4 (F133W) .......................................................... 17 Watching brief (2001): Period 1 cremation/ ritual deposits............................................................................. 19 Watching brief (2004): Period 1 pit sections ................................................................................................... 13 Area D: Plan of all excavated features............................................................................................................. 23 Area E: Plan of all excavated features ............................................................................................................. 24 Area G: Plan of all excavated features............................................................................................................. 25 Period 2: Droveway sections ........................................................................................................................... 26 Period 2: Droveway sections ........................................................................................................................... 27 Area J: Plan of all excavated features .............................................................................................................. 29 Area J: Period 2 enclosure sections ................................................................................................................. 30 Area J: Period 2 structure 1 and interior features............................................................................................. 31 Area J: Period 2 pit sections ............................................................................................................................ 32 Area K: Plan of all excavated features............................................................................................................. 33 Area K: Period 2 structure 2 and interior features ........................................................................................... 34 Area M: Plan of all excavated features ............................................................................................................ 36 Area M: Period 2 enclosure (F400M) sections ................................................................................................ 37 Area M: Period 2 enclosure (F402M) sections ................................................................................................ 37 Area M: Period 2 enclosure (F405M) sections ................................................................................................ 38 Area M: Period 2 enclosure (F405M and F406M) sections............................................................................. 38 Area M: Period 2 structure 3 and associated features ...................................................................................... 39 Area M: Period 2 structure 4 and associated features ...................................................................................... 39 Watching brief (2001): Period 2 plan of Structure 5 (F113W) and associated sections .................................. 40 Watching brief (2002): Period 2 plan of Structure 6 (F213W) and associated section.................................... 41 Watching brief (2001): Period 2 pit sections ................................................................................................... 42 Watching brief (2001): Period 2 pit alignment sections .................................................................................. 43 Period 3: Droveway sections ........................................................................................................................... 44 Watching brief (2001 and 2002): Period 3 droveway sections ........................................................................ 46 Area H: Plan of all excavated features............................................................................................................. 48 Area H: Period 3 triple-ditched enclosure sections.......................................................................................... 49 Area H: Period 3 single-ditched enclosure sections......................................................................................... 50 Period 3 ditch and enclosure sections .............................................................................................................. 51 Watching brief (2002): Period 3 enclosure sections ........................................................................................ 52 Area M: Period 3 hearths ................................................................................................................................. 53 Area L: Plan of all excavated features ............................................................................................................. 54 Area N: Plan of all excavated features............................................................................................................. 55 Worked flint..................................................................................................................................................... 59 Peterborough ware - pit F205W (No.1) and Beaker pottery - pit F122W(Nos. 2-4) ....................................... 63 Beaker pottery - pit F122W (Nos. 5-17) .......................................................................................................... 65 Beaker and Early Bronze Age pottery (Nos. 18-29) ........................................................................................ 67 Late Bronze Age/ Iron Age pottery (Nos. 1-7; scale 1:3) ................................................................................ 73 Late Bronze Age/ Iron Age pottery (Nos. 8-10; scale 1:3) .............................................................................. 75 Late Bronze Age/ Iron Age pottery (Nos. 12-15; scale 1:3) ............................................................................ 77 Romano-British pottery: Fabric Groups by % weight ..................................................................................... 82 Romano-British pottery: illustrated forms (scale 1:4) ..................................................................................... 84 Romano-British pottery: vessel classes (% rim EVE) ..................................................................................... 85 Romano-British pottery: form occurrence by fabric........................................................................................ 85 Romano-British pottery: Summary of area assemblages by fabric, excluding Area E (% weight) ................. 86 iv

Fig. 58 Fig. 59 Fig. 60 Fig. 61 Fig. 62 Fig. 63 Fig. 64 Fig. 65

Mortaria and stamps (mortaria scale 1:3, stamps 1:1) ..................................................................................... 89 Proportion of plant remains in sample 1048 (F128W – Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age cremation) ........... 96 Composite plan of all Late Neolithic/ Early Bronze Age features – North.................................................... 102 Composite plan of all Late Neolithic/ Early Bronze Age features – South.................................................... 103 Composite plan of all Iron Age features – North........................................................................................... 110 Composite plan of all Iron Age features – South........................................................................................... 111 Composite plan of all Romano-British features – North................................................................................ 115 Composite plan of all Romano-British features – South................................................................................ 116

TABLES Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Table 12 Table 13 Table 14 Table 15 Table 16 Table 17 Table 18 Table 19 Table 20 Table 21 Table 22 Table 23 Table 24 Table 25 Table 26 Table 27 Table 28

Area I: Dimensions of features associated with Ring-ditch 1 ................................................................... 11 Area P: Dimensions of features associated with Ring-ditch 2 .................................................................. 15 Watching brief (2001): Dimensions of features associated with Ring-ditch 3.......................................... 17 Watching brief (2001): Dimensions of cremation/ ritual pits.................................................................... 21 Watching brief (2004): Pit and post-hole group 1..................................................................................... 21 Area J: Features interior of Structure 1 ..................................................................................................... 31 Area J: Pits and post-holes within the enclosure ........................................................................................ 31 Area K: Features interior of Structure 2.................................................................................................... 32 Watching brief (2001): Pit group to the south of Area P........................................................................... 41 Contexts with worked flint......................................................................................................................... 56 Pit F122W – flint tools............................................................................................................................... 56 Flakes from other features.......................................................................................................................... 58 The occurrence of early prehistoric pottery by period ............................................................................... 60 F122W: Beaker material by context........................................................................................................... 61 F122W: Details of the major Beaker vessels represented .......................................................................... 68 The occurrence of Iron Age pottery by feature and area............................................................................ 71 Iron Age pottery: Variation in sherd thickness........................................................................................... 79 Iron Age pottery: Diagnostic groups .......................................................................................................... 79 Thin sections by feature and period ........................................................................................................... 80 Romano-British pottery: Summary by area................................................................................................ 81 Summary of the Romano-British pottery by Fabric/ Source ...................................................................... 82 List of Roman Vessel Classes Represented................................................................................................ 85 Charcoal from Neolithic/ Early Bronze Age deposits. Watching brief south of Area P ............................ 94 Charred plant remains from a Neolithic/ Early Bronze Age Cremation..................................................... 97 Comparison of charred plant remains from Neolithic/ Early Bronze Age cremation at Hognaston, Longstone Edge and Whitemoor Haye ...................................................................................................... 99 Known dimensions of all four ring-ditches .............................................................................................. 105 Radiocarbon dating results ....................................................................................................................... 119 Neolithic/ Early Bronze Age Pottery Summary ....................................................................................... 120

PLATES Plate 1 Plate 2 Plate 3 Plate 4 Plate 5 Plate 6 Plate 7 Plate 8 Plate 9 Plate 10 Plate 11 Plate 12

Woolly Rhino (G. Coates)............................................................................................................................ 3 Area I post-excavation – Ring-ditch 1 (R. Burrows).................................................................................... 9 Area P post-excavation – Ring-ditch 2 (C. Neil) ....................................................................................... 13 F217P – Human Burial 2 (C. Hewitson) .................................................................................................... 14 Beads associated with cremation F217P (G. Norrie) ................................................................................. 14 F127W – Ring-ditch 3 (C. Patrick) ............................................................................................................ 18 F128W – Human Burial 4 (C. Patrick)....................................................................................................... 18 F129W – Human Burial 5 (C. Patrick)....................................................................................................... 19 F126W – Human Burial 6 (C. Patrick)....................................................................................................... 20 F300W – Human Burial 7 (C. Neil) ........................................................................................................... 20 Beaker pit F122W (G. Coates)................................................................................................................... 21 Area J post-excavation (R. Burrows) ......................................................................................................... 28

v

Plate 13 Plate 14 Plate 15 Plate 16 Plate 17 Plate 18

Area J – Structure 1 (R. Burrows).............................................................................................................. 30 Area K post-excavation (R. Burrows)........................................................................................................ 34 Area K – Structure 2 (R. Burrows)............................................................................................................. 35 Area M post-excavation (R. Burrows) ....................................................................................................... 35 Iron Age pit F135W (C. Patrick)................................................................................................................ 42 Area H post-excavation (G. Coates)........................................................................................................... 50

vi

Summary Over the course of the years 2000 to 2004, a series of archaeological investigations were undertaken by Birmingham University Field Archaeology Unit, BUFAU (now Birmingham Archaeology) in advance of quarrying at Whitemoor Haye Quarry, Alrewas, Staffordshire. Investigations followed earlier work at the quarry also undertaken by BUFAU, between 1997 and 1999. The most recent campaign of excavation provided evidence of the Late Neolithic/ Early Bronze Age funerary landscape toward the north of the concession, alongside a predominantly Iron Age and Romano-British agrarian landscape towards the south. In several ways, the archaeological findings reiterate those recorded previously, however, key discoveries have also greatly expanded our knowledge and understanding of this significant landscape. Similarly to the first volume, these investigations have provided a picture of predominantly agrarian life in the Iron Age and Romano-British period. The landscape had been divided up, probably for both practical and symbolic reasons, at least from the Iron Age period and perhaps earlier. These divisions first took the form of pit alignments, most probably in the Early Iron Age, dividing the wider landscape with a more symbolic than utilitarian management of the area. During the later Iron Age and beyond, enclosures, field boundaries and drainage ditches were utilised in the management of the primarily pastoral resource. These were served by a north-south aligned droveway, linking them to the River Tame at its southern end. Significantly, during this series of excavations, discoveries were made of Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age funerary monuments and cremations. These have reinforced the contention that the northernmost region of what is now the quarry concession, situated nearer the confluence of the Rivers Tame, Trent and Mease, was a focus of great symbolic and cultural importance during these periods. Whilst the recovered archaeobotanical material from the site proved to be limited, the assemblage remains one of the earliest recovered in Staffordshire and provides valuable information on possible funerary practices associated with the cremations. Just a few kilometres to the north, the site of the Catholme Ceremonial Complex may well have acted as a central place in this ritual landscape, with the henge monument in the vicinity of the National Memorial Arboretum at Alrewas located between the two areas. It is possible that the northernmost part of Whitemoor Haye provided the southern boundary of the ritual landscape at this significant river confluence.

vii

Fig. 1 Whitemoor Haye Quarry: location

viii

CHAPTER ONE

Summary and Introduction SUMMARY This volume describes the results of excavations at Whitemoor Haye Quarry, Alrewas, Staffordshire (NGR SK180130, centre, Fig. 1). Excavations were undertaken by Birmingham University Field Archaeology Unit (hereafter BUFAU) now Birmingham Archaeology, in eleven areas between 2000 and 2003. The report also includes a description of the results of a watching brief carried out during the process of topsoil stripping over the same period and until October 2004. The work was commissioned by Lafarge Aggregates Limited in advance of gravel extraction, in accordance with specifications prepared by Phoenix Consulting Archaeology Limited (Richmond 1997), and is essentially a continuation of the archaeological investigation under the same constraints as in 1997 – 1999.

Over the course of the years 2000 to 2004, a series of archaeological investigations were undertaken by Birmingham University Field Archaeology Unit, BUFAU (now Birmingham Archaeology) in advance of quarrying at Whitemoor Haye Quarry, Alrewas, Staffordshire. Investigations followed earlier work at the quarry also undertaken by BUFAU, between 1997 and 1999. The most recent campaign of excavation provided evidence of the Late Neolithic/ Early Bronze Age funerary landscape toward the north of the concession, alongside a predominantly Iron Age and Romano-British agrarian landscape towards the south. In several ways, the archaeological findings reiterate those recorded previously, however, key discoveries have also greatly expanded our knowledge and understanding of this significant landscape.

The first volume (Coates 2002) presented a detailed description of the location of the site and set it in its local and regional context. It also presented a detailed background to the archaeology. This is now augmented and updated with a summary of results presented previously and with an overview of relevant work that has taken place since its publication.

Similarly to the first volume, these investigations have provided a picture of predominantly agrarian life in the Iron Age and Romano-British period. The landscape had been divided up, probably for both practical and symbolic reasons, at least from the Iron Age period and perhaps earlier. These divisions first took the form of pit alignments, most probably in the Early Iron Age, dividing the wider landscape with a more symbolic than utilitarian management of the area. During the later Iron Age and beyond, enclosures, field boundaries and drainage ditches were utilised in the management of the primarily pastoral resource. These were served by a north-south aligned droveway, linking them to the River Tame at its southern end.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND Location and geology For a detailed account of the location and geology of the site, see Coates (2002). In summary, the site is located in southeast Staffordshire, c.1.5km southeast of the village of Alrewas on the western bank of the River Tame and c.1.0km south of its confluence with the River Trent (see Fig. 1 and 2). Along with the recent alluvial deposits, the slightly stony, sandy terrace soils are generally well suited to arable agriculture.

Significantly, during this series of excavations, discoveries were made of Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age funerary monuments and cremations. These have reinforced the contention that the northernmost region of what is now the quarry concession, situated nearer the confluence of the Rivers Tame, Trent and Mease, was a focus of great symbolic and cultural importance during these periods. Whilst the recovered archaeobotanical material from the site proved to be limited, the assemblage remains one of the earliest recovered in Staffordshire and provides valuable information on possible funerary practices associated with the cremations.

Archaeology of the region (Fig. 2) In the previous volume Hughes (2002) described the regional archaeology in detail and there follows a summary of that synthesis, which has also been updated to include recent work in the region. Palaeolithic by A. Howard The earliest finds recorded within the wider area (Fig. 2) are quartz and flint artefacts from fluvial deposits of Lower and Middle Palaeolithic age, notably from the lower terrace of the River Tame and from Shenstone (Shotton 1973; Cane and Cane 1986) and the Dove Valley around Hilton and Etwall (Armstrong 1942).

Just a few kilometres to the north, the site of the Catholme Ceremonial Complex may well have acted as a central place in this ritual landscape, with the henge monument in the vicinity of the National Memorial Arboretum at Alrewas located between the two areas. It is possible that the northernmost part of Whitemoor Haye provided the southern boundary of the ritual landscape at this significant river confluence.

At Whitemoor Haye Quarry, the basal sands and gravels have yielded the partial remains of a woolly rhino, which 1

EXCAVATIONS AT WHITEMOOR HAYE QUARRY, STAFFORDSHIRE 2000-2004

Fig. 2 Local geology and associated sites

was identified by chance during gravel extraction (Plate 1). Subsequent detailed archaeological investigations led to the recovery of the partial remains of a further three woolly rhinos. On the basis of current biostratigraphic frameworks (Currant and Jacobi 2001), this faunal assemblage, which also includes the remains of mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius), horse (Equus ferus), bison (Bison priscus), reindeer (Rangifer tarandus) and wolf (Canis lupus) and the associated sedimentary deposits was attributed, essentially, to the British Mousterian (specifically Marine Isotope Stage 3 of the deep ocean record c 60-25 ka BP), a period when humans are suggested to have been absent from Britain (Ashton and Lewis 2002). This age assignment is supported by a single AMS radiocarbon date of 38390 + 660/ -610 BP (KIA 23491) from a sample of ultrafiltrated collagen taken from a fragment of left third metacarpal bone of the first discovered (and most complete) beast. Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) dating of the mammalian-rich basal deposits to between 23-26 ka BP (P. Toms, pers. comm.) further corroborated this date. Palaeoenvironmental analysis of insect, pollen and plant macroscopic remains recovered from organic clasts and more laterally extensive drape units around the ‘find-spot’ implied tundra conditions similar to present day northern Norway with July mean

temperatures of 10°C and January mean temperatures as low as -15°C inferred from the Coleoptera (Buteux et al 2002). Sedimentological analysis demonstrated that the deposits were typical of a periglacial, braided river environment (Bryant 1983a; 1983b). The excellent preservation of the remains has been used to support the hypothesis that beasts were buried as frozen carcasses within the river system. Mesolithic by A. Howard Climatic amelioration during the early Mesolithic was accompanied by vegetation colonisation and the development of mixed woodland or ‘wildwoods’ (Rackham 1996, 27). In lowland river landscapes, particularly those of midland and southern Britain, a number of studies indicate that the combination of low channel gradients and the predominance of fine-grained sediment and vegetated channel banks resulted in the development of stable, multi-channelled (anastomosed) river systems (Rose et al 1980; Brown 1987; Brown et al 1994). Such environments would have provided rich resources for Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, but around Whitemoor Haye evidence for human activity is sparse and restricted to chance finds. For example a scatter of over 250 struck flint flakes and tools was discovered in a

2

SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION

Plate 1 Woolly Rhino (G. Coates)

cave/rock shelter near Rugeley and has been interpreted as indicative of a seasonal hunting camp (Cane and Cane 1986). Further downstream, in the Trent Valley north of Newark, evidence for Mesolithic environments and human activity has been more forthcoming. Palaeobiological analysis of Mesolithic palaeochannel fills at Staythorpe, Girton and Bole Ings suggests a forested, valley floor wetland drained by an anastomosing channel system (Dinnin and Brayshay 1999; Knight and Howard 2004). At Staythorpe, stable isotope analysis of a late Mesolithic human femur recovered from a palaeochannel suggests a diet rich in animal protein (Davis 2001; Knight and Howard 2004).

BUFAU undertook an evaluation at Whitemoor Haye Quarry in 2000 in advance of the building of a recycling unit (Coates 2000). Trenches were located in order to test cropmarks, which indicated a possible cursus monument (SAM ST 220b), amongst other potential features. No evidence of the cursus or other archaeological features was recorded. To date, it has not been investigated by any method, with the exception of the original aerial photographic survey, and may no longer survive. Late Neolithic/ Early Bronze Age In previous fieldwork, Late Neolithic pottery and a few flints were recovered from features at Fisherwick, a short distance south of Whitemoor Haye. Peterborough ware, also dated to the Late Neolithic, was recovered in the northern part of Whitemoor Haye Quarry during evaluation trenching (Hughes 2002, 2).

Earlier Neolithic by A. Howard Similarly, there is currently little direct evidence of settlement in the earlier Neolithic period in the region. Again, only occasional finds occur. Cropmark evidence does, however, indicate that the region focusing on the Trent-Tame confluence was becoming a focus of cultural significance.

During the later Neolithic and Early Bronze Age there is a significant increase of evidence for monumental building in the landscape. The cultural landscape, which was beginning to take shape during the earlier Neolithic, focused on the confluence of the Tame and Trent and becomes more tangible archaeologically. The focal point appears to lie around the area of Catholme Farm, immediately to the north of the confluence. Whitemoor Haye Quarry itself lies in an area some 2km to the south of this notional centre.

Two possible causewayed enclosures – the largest examples in the Trent Valley - have been identified from aerial photography, one close to Whitemoor Haye at Alrewas, and one c 10km further to the northwest at Mavesyn Ridware. Neither has been excavated to date and no artefacts have been recovered. As a result, doubt must remain regarding their date and function, although comparisons with others of similar morphology elsewhere do suggest that a date in the earlier Neolithic is likely (Knight and Howard 2004).

The term ‘Catholme Ceremonial Complex’ (Fig. 2) was coined essentially on the basis of this closely spaced arrangement of monuments, which were first identified as cropmarks by aerial photographic survey (Whimster 3

EXCAVATIONS AT WHITEMOOR HAYE QUARRY, STAFFORDSHIRE 2000-2004 1989). During 2003 Birmingham Archaeology undertook a programme of intensive geophysical survey at Catholme Farm to investigate these and other cropmarks as part of the Where Rivers Meet project. This is an Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund (ALSF) project, funded by English Heritage. The first stage was followed up in 2004 with selective ground truthing, which comprised a second geophysical survey, undertaken using a range of techniques and followed up with selective excavation of significant portions of each monument (Bain et al 2005).

in 1997 yielded an incomplete Beaker vessel (Hovey et al. 1998, Coates 2002, 13 and fig. 8). In addition, to the north of the focal monuments of the Catholme Ceremonial Complex, at the site of Barton Business Park, the heavily truncated remains of a cremation deposit were recovered during the excavation of a ring-ditch (Neilson 2002). Interestingly, this was associated with an east-west alignment of bowl-shaped pits, which pre-dated the ringditch. These were probably part of a former boundary of the sort more commonly associated with later Bronze Age and Iron Age landscapes.

The easternmost of these cropmarks was a large postbuilt henge – in the Woodhenge tradition. It comprised a series of five concentric rings c 47m in diameter and made up of some 225 circular post-pits of varying depths. The remains of posts were recorded in three of these. In one example the degraded and burnt remains of a wooden post survived whilst in the other two evidence survived in the form of staining (Bain et al 2005). With the exception of radiocarbon samples from the post-pits (yet to be processed), no dateable evidence was recovered.

As noted, the Catholme monuments appear to form the focus of a wider ‘ritual landscape’ extending to the northeast and west along the valley of the River Trent, and to the south along the valley of the Tame. The most easily recognised component of this landscape is the large number of ring-ditches, generally interpreted as the ploughed out remains of Bronze Age round barrows (Buteux 2004, 6). On a regional scale, the number and distribution of ring-ditches forms the most significant lowland concentration of known and probable barrows in the middle and upper Trent basin (Vine 1982, 289: map AF). Whilst an interpretation of these monuments as barrows tends to be a reasoned understanding of their function there is the need for caution. Variation within the ring-ditch class of site suggests they may have had a variety of forms and functions (Hughes 2002, 2).

About 200m to the west of the henge was a ring-ditch with six lines of pits or large postholes radiating from it, in the form of what has been described as a ‘sunburst’ pattern (Buteux 2004, 5). The radiating pits were clearly oriented with the ring-ditch/ barrow as their focal point. However, no stratigraphic relationship was evident to indicate whether the pits were contemporary with the barrow or later. An ovoid pit excavated at the centre of the ring-ditch contained fragments of incised Beaker pottery and worked flint. Although no surviving elements of a body were recovered, there was notable staining which strongly suggested the feature was an inhumation.

In contrast to the widespread evidence in the landscape of funerary monuments and the practices associated with them, there is little to inform us of domestic settlement and the more mundane aspects of daily life. The excavations at Fisherwick in the 1970s have provided us with almost the only evidence for Bronze Age domestic settlement to date (Smith 1976). Here archaeological features interpreted as part of a house were dated to 1170 ± 140 and 850 ± 140 uncal BC.

Some 500m to the south, a second possible ring-ditch was excavated which was significant both for its size (50m in diameter) and for two unusual antennae-like ditches which appeared to converge on the ditch, but which do in fact pre-date it. With the exception of the stratigraphic relationship, however, no dateable evidence survived.

Iron Age The scheduled monument at Borough Hill, overlooking the Catholme landscape from the eastern bank of the Trent, is protected on the basis of its interpretation as a hillfort, though doubts have been raised regarding this interpretation (Guilbert 2004, 252). Prior to the excavations at Whitemoor Haye from the 1990s onwards, the evidence for Iron Age settlement rested primarily with the extensive excavation of three Middle and Late Iron Age enclosures and associated field systems at Fisherwick in the 1970s, and at Catholme where thirteen pits of an Iron Age pit alignment were excavated in the 1980s (Smith 1979, Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002). Further pits were excavated at Catholme in 1999 by BUFAU and whilst these were also interpreted as elements of the Iron Age pit alignments, no artefacts were recovered (Hughes and Coates 1999).

During the 1998 excavation at Whitemoor Haye, part of a Beaker vessel was recovered from a pit. This was located in Area R, where aerial photographic survey had previously indicated a possible ring-ditch (Fig. 3). No ring-ditch or morphologically similar feature was exposed either during preliminary trial trenching in 1992 (BUFAU 1992) or subsequently during the open excavation of the area (Coates 2002). There was no evidence of staining to indicate the former presence of a body, however, the shape of the pit and the position of the pottery were considered indicative of an inhumation (Coates 2002, 9). Evidence for later Neolithic/ Early Bronze Age activity has also been recovered elsewhere in the locality. A salvage excavation at the site of the National Memorial Arboretum, just to the north of Whitemoor Haye Quarry

The excavations at Whitemoor Haye have provided further clues to the nature of settlement during this 4

SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION

Fig. 3 Location of excavation areas and watching briefs by year

5

EXCAVATIONS AT WHITEMOOR HAYE QUARRY, STAFFORDSHIRE 2000-2004 broadly north-south, parallel to the river to the east and Ryknield Street to the west, and presumably serviced a number of farmsteads (Buteux 2004). The cropmark plot shows the droveway running to the south until it meets the River Tame at which point there may have been a crossing point. It is probable that the Romano-British droveway lay along much the same line as a former undefined example dating into the Iron Age. This interpretation is based primarily on the evidence of one Iron Age double pit alignment, in which a wide gap or interruption of the arrangement of pits may well have respected the line of the droveway. The layout of the Iron Age enclosures also seems to attest to this interpretation (Coates 2002, 81-82). A similar droveway was excavated at Fisherwick where construction was dated to the early 2nd century AD (Miles 1969, 7).

period. Some of the most intriguing features in the landscape, seen clearly in cropmark plans, are the rows of pit alignments running roughly east-west and perpendicular to the course of the Tame. These represent linear boundaries comprising several rows of double pits and single pits and also a triple ditch system, which may well be an associated droveway. In Areas S and T of the BUFAU excavations, two of the double pit alignments were excavated (Coates 2002, 13-21). Iron Age sherds were recovered in the fills of the primary cut in one pit and also in the fills of recuts of two further pits in Area S. No artefacts were recovered from the pits of the alignment excavated in Area T. The three parallel ditches did not produce any datable artefacts though may have served to delineate the southern boundary of a series of Iron Age enclosures. A further length of a single row of pits was recorded during excavations at Catholme in 2004 (Bain et al 2005, 6). However, none of the five pits excavated produced any datable artefacts and with the exception of charcoal flecking, charred plant and other environmental remains were also absent.

Saxon and medieval periods For the post-Roman period as a whole, the most significant and extensively excavated site is the AngloSaxon settlement at Catholme, c 2km northwest of Whitemoor Haye. This 7th to 9th century settlement contained 15 structures in its earliest phase. The settlement had initially been located on the basis of three hut-shaped cropmarks of which only one proved to be of archaeological origin. This demonstrates that whilst such cropmarks may provide a starting point to excavation, in this case there had been no clue to the real extent of the site. This highlights the potential for further as yet unidentified settlement sites of the period in Staffordshire (Losco-Bradley and Wheeler 1984, 104; Losco-Bradley and Kinsley 2002).

Four enclosures were excavated during the 1997-1998 seasons at Whitemoor Haye. These enclosures are perhaps best interpreted as farmsteads. Three of the four enclosures, in Areas A, B and C, contained the remains of roundhouses, defined by their eaves drip gullies. Several of the structures or their associated features produced Iron Age sherds and evidence of crop processing and animal husbandry in the form of charred straw, cereal and weed seeds. Taken together the excavations of Iron Age settlements at Fisherwick and Whitemoor Haye especially, have provided substantial insight into the Iron Age landscape, and suggest a pattern of small farmsteads though with little indication of settlement hierarchy.

Two Anglo-Saxon cemeteries, situated less then 5km away at Wychnor and Tucklesholme, date to the 6th century and were discovered in the 19th century as a consequence of quarrying. In addition, at Tucklesholme, a possible cremation deposit dated to the early 5th century AD, was excavated in proximity to a probable Bronze Age ring-ditch (Hughes 1991). Dating slightly later, Catholme is one of the very few Anglo-Saxon rural settlements in England to be excavated on a large scale and is exceptional for a number of reasons, including its long-lived stability, layout and organisation around a system of enclosures and trackways. In total, 65 buildings were excavated accounting for around half the total settlement area.

Romano-British period The nearest Roman urban centre, Letocetum (Wall), lies c 10km to the southwest of Whitemoor Haye. It was occupied during the Claudian period, possibly by the XIVth Legion prior to their move to Wroxeter (Webster 1975). In addition, the modern A38 runs along the line of the former Ryknield Street Roman road to the immediate west of the quarry. As noted above, excavation at the Romano-British settlement at Fisherwick (Miles 1969), as well as possible Romano-British field systems at Tucklesholme Farm in 1995 (Wait 1995), suggests a significant degree of continuity in occupation sites, from the Late Iron Age into the Romano-British period (Hughes 2002, 3). This seems to have been the case at Whitemoor Haye also, where during the excavation seasons of 1997-1998 (Areas A, B, S, and T) evidence for Romano-British activity across the site followed a similar pattern to the previous Iron Age activity. Two rectilinear enclosures were excavated, one appended to a droveway. The evidence points to the enclosures primarily being designed to manage stock, although there is evidence for crop processing too. The droveway, from which sherds of mid 2nd to late 3rd century AD were recovered ran

Excavation of rural medieval sites in the region has been rare and whilst Smith’s (1979b) analysis of the landscape around Fisherwick indicated the progress of enclosure, broadly laying the foundations for the modern agricultural landscape, there is little current evidence to augment the framework he presented. During the first series of excavation at Whitemoor Haye, there was little evidence of post-Roman activity at all. In fact, field boundaries and furrows, where present, were generally of post-medieval origin (Coates 2002, 40).

6

SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION photographs were taken. All artefacts and ecofacts were stored and processed at the offices of Birmingham Archaeology.

Geophysical survey Geophysical survey results from Whitemoor Haye have been documented already in the previous volume and there is no reason to repeat the information at this stage (Coates 2002, 3-4). One further survey was carried out in 1998 in advance of the excavations discussed in this volume. Three areas were surveyed by gradiometer. The site of the survey was on the west bank of the River Tame, near Sittles Farm. Known cropmark enclosures were surveyed in two areas; G7 and G8. These appeared to be well preserved and were detected in the survey (Bartlett 1998).

As was the case previously, set piece excavation areas were examined in detail. They were located to investigate areas a) where linear features intersect, b) containing enclosures and possible settlement remains and c) containing circular features, particularly in the northern part of the gravel terrace. Also, throughout the seasons 2000-2004, a watching brief was carried out on a frequent basis during the stripping of topsoil and subsoil prior to sand and gravel extraction. Features were selected for sampling on the basis of their apparent uniqueness in comparison to features already excavated within the designated areas. Plans were generated using a total station FastMap surveying system to plot features in relation to those already excavated. The archive was collated along with the main body of the excavation archive for deposition with the City Museum and Art Gallery, Stoke-on-Trent. The results of the watching brief are incorporated into the results of the set piece excavations.

Aims and objectives The aims and objectives of the programme of excavation discussed here remain as detailed in the Specifications document (Richmond 1997, 11-15, especially section 3.4.1). The relevant areas of national priority, as defined by English Heritage (1990) where the excavations were thought to offer a contribution, are described below: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

The clarification of the typology and date of ritual monuments and their possible relation with other contemporary sites. The date and possible function of enclosure sites and their relationship with field features (field boundaries and trackways). The origin and evolution of field systems over time. The determination of water-management structures. The relationship between the natural landscape and its human transformation over time.

Acknowledgements The project was managed at various times by Simon Buteux, Gary Coates and Mark Hewson. The excavations were directed in the field by Gary Coates, and assisted variously by Bob Burrows, Helen Martin, Charlotte Neilson, Chris Patrick, and Howell Roberts. The fieldwork was undertaken by Kate Bain, Richard Cherrington, Dharminder Chuhan, Alison Dingle, Mary Duncan, Malcolm Hislop, Victoria Hudson, Roy Krakowicz, John La Niece, Philip Mann, Edward Newton, Eleanor Ramsey, Andy Rudge, Dan Slater and Josh Williams. The illustrations were prepared and drawn by Nigel Dodds and Bryony Ryder. Annette Hancocks was the Post-Excavation Manager for the project, followed in 2004 by Amanda Forster. All specialists are thanked for their contributions to this report. Jane Evans would like to thank Ruth Leary for her advice and helpful discussions on the Roman ceramics from Staffordshire. Wendy Smith would like to thank Lisa Moffett for previously providing access to her modern pignut comparative material, as well as more generally discussing identification of tuberous archaeobotanical material when working on the cremations from Longstone Edge, Derbyshire, which has also aided this work at Whitemoor Haye. Andrew Howard and Alex Jones edited the volume, with further editorial comments from Ann Woodward.

Methodology The most recent season of excavation at the quarry, described in this report, adhered to the methodology provided in the Specifications document (Richmond 1997), previously described in relation to the first seasons of work in 1997-1999 (Coates 2002, 6). This entailed that the excavation areas were surveyed using a total station EDM prior to the removal of overburden. Initial plans were established using the EDM in association with hand cleaning to clarify the presence and nature of potential features. Subsequent excavation adhered to the sampling strategy laid down in Appendix 1 of the Specifications document (Richmond 1997). The hand excavation of features was undertaken by professional archaeologists. All recording was undertaken using pro-forma record cards supplemented by section and plan drawings at appropriate scales and a photographic record of all archaeological features was made using monochrome and colour slide film. Samples for palaeo-environmental and radiocarbon dating were taken where appropriate. In each area a final postexcavation plan of all features was drawn and

Dr Andrew Richmond and subsequently Gary Coates of Phoenix Consulting Archaeology Limited monitored the project on behalf of the sponsors Lafarge Aggregates Limited, who were represented by Ross Halley. The quarry manager, Len Mudd was always on hand to ensure the project was able to run smoothly on site, and that day 7

EXCAVATIONS AT WHITEMOOR HAYE QUARRY, STAFFORDSHIRE 2000-2004 to day difficulties were kept to a minimum. Jimmy Docherty, the owner of the plant contractors on the quarry, along with his staff, were similarly helpful. The excavations were monitored for English Heritage by Dr. Paul Stamper and by Bill Klemperer, Chris Welch, and Chris Wardle for Staffordshire County Council. In 2004 Bill Klemperer took responsibility for monitoring on behalf of English Heritage and Ian Wykes for Staffordshire County Council.

8

CHAPTER TWO

The Site PHASING BY PERIOD PERIOD 1 LATE NEOLITHIC/ EARLY BRONZE AGE

As in the previous volume, four main periods of activity were identified during excavation and post-excavation analysis. All excavation areas and stripping operations of the watching brief revealed features which were impossible to ascribe to any of these phases, and where it was not possible to allocate them typologically or by a general association with neighbouring features these remained undated. The four periods are as follows:

Summary This period was represented by the remains of four ringditches, eight potential cremation deposits and a number of associated pits and post-holes. These features were exposed in Areas I and P and during the watching brief in 2001.

Period 1 Late Neolithic/ Early Bronze Age Period 2 Iron Age Period 3 Romano-British Period 4 Post-medieval

Area I (Fig. 4) The area was located where the cropmark plot had indicated a circular feature. This was exposed successfully following removal of the topsoil by mechanical excavator. The excavation of Area I revealed the southern half of a large ring-ditch (Ring-ditch 1). It measured approximately 21.0m in diameter externally (Plate 2). The ditch had been recut once. The original cut (F309I) measured 1.30-1.55m wide and was 0.45-0.70m deep (Fig. 5, S1, S2 and S3). It was U-shaped with a sand-silt fill. One probably intrusive Early Iron Age sherd was recovered from the original ditch fill (F309.04I, 3020; Fig. 5, S2). Evidence of a ditch terminal was uncovered towards the eastern edge of the feature suggesting a possible entrance.

In order to differentiate between features from one area of excavation and another it has been necessary to append suffixes to each of those discussed. Within the following text the suffix denotes the area of excavation (see Fig. 3). That is either D, E, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N or P. In addition, the suffix W indicates features which were excavated in one or other of the watching brief phases which were undertaken during the course of the years 2000-2004. To avoid congestion in the illustrations it was considered unnecessary to add the suffixes to individual features on the area plans, the title of each being sufficient. For each of the section illustrations the suffix has been added since in not every case do the figures relate to specific areas alone.

Plate 2

Area I post-excavation – Ring-ditch 1 (R. Burrows)

9

EXCAVATIONS AT WHITEMOOR HAYE QUARRY, STAFFORDSHIRE 2000-2004

Fig. 4 Area I: Plan of all excavated features

The recut ditch (F300I) had a shallower, though still Ushaped profile between 0.25-0.35m in depth and approximately 0.40m wide. It had been infilled with a very dark-grey organic deposit containing frequent charcoal flecks (Fig. 5, S1). An ovoid flint scraper (see Barfield, below), and 20 sherds of a possible Early Bronze Age urn were recovered, plus four sherds of Late Neolithic Grooved ware and two large sherds of an Early Bronze Age Collared Urn (F300.03I, 3011). Interestingly

eight abraded sherds of Middle to Late Iron Age pottery were recovered from the same section and as such were likely to be intrusive. A number of internal features were excavated, which were probably associated with the ring-ditch (see Table 1 for dimensions of features). An ovoid pit (F305I) aligned east-west was exposed, situated in the eastern part of the ring-ditch toward the entrance. This pit had been 10

THE SITE

Fig. 5 Area I: Period 1 sections

the ring-ditch. Most notable amongst those were two shallow ovoid pits (F301I and F302I), the latter cutting the former (Fig. 5, S5). These contained sand-silt fills (3005, 3006 respectively). The latter deposit exhibited mid-brown flecking, which could possibly have been very fragmented burnt bone inclusions. Although this could suggest that pit F302I may once have contained the remains of a second cremation deposit, it has not been ascribed as such here on the basis of such tentative evidence. The third pit (F303I) was similarly filled (Fig. 5, S6) and the irregularly shaped feature (F307I), aligned northwest-southeast contained a charcoal rich sand-silt (Fig. 5, S7).

truncated by a smaller, circular pit (F308I), which had been infilled with a very dark-grey charcoal flecked siltclay-sand (3015). This deposit also contained the remains of a cremation deposit (HB1) and one piece of worked flint, possibly an awl (Fig. 5, S4; see Barfield below). Table 1: Area I: Dimensions of features associated with Ring Ditch 1 Feature F301I F302I F303I F305I F307I F308I

Length 1.30m 0.60m 0.95m 1.00m c.2.10m

Width 0.50m 0.30m 0.65m 0.50m c.1.20m

Diameter

c.0.50m

Depth 0.20m 0.10m 0.15m 0.23m 0.40m 0.25m

Ten abraded sherds from a possible Early Bronze Age Beaker vessel were found in pit F303I (3007) and two very abraded Early Bronze Age sherds were recovered from F307I (3013).

Three other pits and one irregular curvilinear feature comprised the remaining features within the interior of

11

Fig. 6 Area P: Plan of all excavated features

EXCAVATIONS AT WHITEMOOR HAYE QUARRY, STAFFORDSHIRE 2000-2004

12

THE SITE

Fig. 7 Period 1: Plan of Ring-ditch 2 (F200P)

Plate 3

Area P post-excavation – Ring-ditch 2 (C. Neil)

13

EXCAVATIONS AT WHITEMOOR HAYE QUARRY, STAFFORDSHIRE 2000-2004

Plate 4 F217P – Human Burial 2 (C. Hewitson)

Plate 5 Beads associated with cremation F217P (G. Norrie)

Area P (Fig. 6)

Dating evidence

The earliest feature in Area P (Ring-ditch 2, Fig. 7) was dated on the basis of its typology and its association with other features. No artefacts were recovered during its excavation. The ring-ditch (F200P) was 10.0m in diameter externally and was likely to have been the remains of a former barrow (Plate 3). It was U-shaped in profile with a width of c 1.0m and a depth of c 0.33m and was filled with a gravelly silt-sand (Fig. 8, S8 to S10).A small ovoid pit (F217P) cut the southeastern arc of the ditch on its internal edge (Fig. 8, S11). The silt-sand fill (2028) contained human bone fragments suggesting it represented the remains of a cremation deposit (HB2), perhaps an unurned example (Plate 4). In addition, three complete bone beads and four fragments of additional bone beads were also recovered from amongst the human bone fragments (see Brickley below; Plate 5).

A fragment of cremated bone from HB2 produced a radiocarbon date range of 1930-1740 cal BC (2σ Wk16865; 3510 ± 34BP), which places the cremation deposit within the Early Bronze Age, as expected. The likelihood is that this deposit was a satellite burial placed in the edge of the barrow mound on the inner side of the ditch. It provides a terminus ante quem for the barrow and for the primary central cremation deposit F223P. Interior features Two pits encompassed by ring-ditch F200P were excavated (Fig. 8, S12). These comprised a flat-based ovoid pit (F223P) toward the centre, which was cut by a small charcoal rich feature (F211P) in which there was a small concentration of human bone fragments (HB3). As 14

THE SITE

Fig. 8 Area P: Period 1 sections

in pit F217P the charcoal flecked silt-sand fill of F211P (2021) was interpreted as either a cremation deposit or surviving bone fragments from a burial. Whilst F211P was excavated as if it were a discrete feature cut into F223P, the interface was very poorly defined and it may therefore have originally existed as part of F223P. Its location toward the centre of the ring-ditch and its association with HB2, taken in context with the radiocarbon determination, suggests an Early Bronze Age date. The second feature, a shallow ovoid pit (F207P), similar to F223P, may have been broadly contemporary, but must remain undated (Fig. 7).

with the exception of F210P the fills were fairly clean silt-sands. There is a possibility that pit F210P may have been the remnant of a further cremation cut, though since no evidence of bone was recovered, this has to remain a tentative supposition.

Exterior features

Ring-ditch (F132W) lay to the south of Area P and a Transco gas pipeline ring-ditch. It had been recut by ditch (F127W, Ring-ditch 3) which proved to be the most intact example (Fig. 10). The recut was evident mainly on the inner edge of the original ditch. The original ditch had a broadly U-shaped, rounded profile with a surviving depth of c 0.35m, infilled with a stony silt-sand with some evidence of charcoal flecking (Fig. 11, S13 and S14). This ditch only survived in three excavated sections on the southwestern side, but corresponded closely to the orientation of the recut ditch, which evidently superseded it. The original ditch had terminals, which delineated an access or causeway to the northeast (F132.07W). The recut ditch also had terminals that corresponded roughly with the position of the northeastern terminals of the original ditch. In this case southwestern terminals survived too, demonstrating that the ring-ditch had initially had two accesses or causeways, a conclusion which may also be inferred of the original ditch. It is possible that these causeways acted as entrances to a barrow mound, rather than to some other structure

Watching brief During topsoil stripping operations, mainly in 2001, further archaeological features dating to Period 1 were exposed which included two ring-ditches and associated cremation deposits (Fig. 9).

Outside of Ring-ditch 2, to its northeast, were a series of small sub-circular pits or post-holes (Fig. 6; see Table 2 for dimensions of features). There were five in total and their close proximity to the ring-ditch could perhaps suggest an association, though whether this was directly with cremation practices or other activities remains open to debate. Table 2: Area P: Dimensions of features associated with Ring Ditch 2 Feature F207P F211P F217P F223P

Length 1.5m

Width 0.68m

Diameter 0.65m 0.45m

1.00m

1.42m

Depth 0.32m 0.15m 0.13m 0.33m

Pit (F210P) was larger than the others and its fill contained charcoal flecking and burnt clay (2019). No artefacts were recovered from any of the five pits and

15

EXCAVATIONS AT WHITEMOOR HAYE QUARRY, STAFFORDSHIRE 2000-2004

Fig. 9 Watching Brief (2001) south of Area P

Fig. 10 Period 1: Plan of Ring-ditch 3 (F127W)

16

THE SITE

Fig. 11 Period 1: Sections - Ring-ditch 3 (F127W) and Ring-ditch 4 (F133W)

encompassed by the ditch. In either case, they certainly point to the maintenance of access, whether for the insertion of burials or for some form of ritual activity. F127W corresponded with an exposure recorded in Trench B of an evaluation undertaken by Tempvs Reparatvm in 1995 (Lupton 1995). In that trench the southwestern terminal and a length of ditch (061) were exposed, though no artefacts were recovered.

ring-ditch, post dating both ditch cuts, but since no artefacts were recovered, nor evidence of burnt deposits, no assessment of its use or date may be given (Fig. 11, S13). Table 3: Watching brief (2001): associated with Ring Ditch 3 Feature F128W F129W F140W

The recut ring-ditch measured c 13.5m in diameter externally (Fig. 10 and Plate 6). The western side of the ditch had a quite pronounced V-shaped profile (F127.03W) whilst the northeastern side had a more rounded or U-shaped profile (Fig. 11, S13 to S15). It measured 0.55-1.40m wide and was 0.35-0.40m deep and had been infilled with a charcoal flecked silt-sand, which contained many pebbles. Two pieces of flint were recovered from one of the excavated sections (F127.05W, 1074); one flake and one pièce esquillée (see Barfield below). In addition, ten sherds were recovered from the recut ditch (F127.03W, 1047). These comprised one very abraded sherd of (Middle Neolithic) Peterborough ware, three Beaker sherds and six very abraded Early Bronze Age sherds.

Length

Width

Dimensions of features

Diameter 0.44m 0.35m 1.00m

Depth 0.14m 0.06m 0.34m

Two small pits were located toward the centre of the ringditch and these proved to be the remains of two cremation deposits (F129W and F128W). The latter was located c 2.75m from the ditch’s southwestern entrance and was shallow and sub-circular with a bowl-shaped profile (Fig. 11, S16, Plate 7). It was infilled with a dark-brown sandsilt (1048) with patches of black silty material, charcoal and small stones. Fragments of human bone, including the remains of very brittle long bone fragments (HB4), were retrieved. The darker burnt material was concentrated around the edges of the pit and the bone fragments were gathered in an apparent circular cluster c 0.10m in diameter and close to the pit’s southern edge.

A small sub-circular pit with a rounded profile (F140W; see Table 3 for dimensions) cut into the west side of the 17

EXCAVATIONS AT WHITEMOOR HAYE QUARRY, STAFFORDSHIRE 2000-2004

Plate 6

Plate 7

F127W – Ring-ditch 3 (C. Patrick)

F128W – Human Burial 4 (C. Patrick)

Thirteen, mostly unabraded, though very small Beaker sherds were recovered from this deposit indicating it may well have been associated with an urn.

prone to seasonal flooding. In addition, a number of pignut tubers and probable onion couch grass tubers may have arrived in turves as cremation fuel, similarly the fragmentary remains of hazel nutshells, if not collected for food may have originally arrived with kindling (see Smith below).

Analysis of the charred plant remains (1048) indicated that the surrounding landscape was likely to have been primarily grassland, which was either poorly drained or 18

THE SITE

Plate 8

F129W – Human Burial 5 (C. Patrick)

Immediately to the east of this cremation deposit, a second pit F129W was excavated (Plate 8). This was slightly smaller with a similar sand-silt fill (1050; Fig. 11, S17). It contained the in situ remains of a vessel, comprising 39 sherds placed in an upright position, inside which were fragments of burnt human bone (HB5). Interestingly, the sherds recovered from HB4 came from the same Beaker vessel, though in the latter case, all 39 were abraded. It was not possible to determine whether or not the two cremations were contemporary with the original cut of the ditch or the recutting.

Close to the northern edge of the watching brief area and to the northwest of Ring-ditch 3 a further possible ringditch (F133W) (Ring-ditch 4, not illustrated in detail here) was exposed. The stripping operation only partially exposed the southeastern half of the ditch, which proved to have a U-shaped profile and measured 0.60m wide by 0.25m deep with a brown charcoal flecked silt-sand fill, from which one very abraded sherd of an Early Bronze Age urn was recovered (Fig. 12, S18).

Fig. 12 Watching brief (2001): Period 1 cremation/ ritual deposits

19

EXCAVATIONS AT WHITEMOOR HAYE QUARRY, STAFFORDSHIRE 2000-2004 side. A quite large deposit of cremated human bone (HB6) was recovered amongst and within the remains of the pot, which also contained a large concentration of charcoal, in all likelihood the residue from a funerary pyre. In addition, numerous fragments of an Early Bronze Age Food Vessel and two other Collared Urns were also recovered from the fills (1044, 1045). The Food Vessel sherds were all freshly broken. The sherds of both Collared Urns were also predominantly fresh, although a few were very abraded. Dating evidence A fragment of cremated bone from HB6, F126W, 1045 produced a radiocarbon date range of 1930-1730 cal BC (2σ Wk16866; 3502 ± 35 BP). This provides a useful date range for the pots associated with the cremation deposit and is closely comparable with the dates provided by cremation deposit HB2. Whilst the pit was not found to be in direct association with the nearby ring-ditches, it can be supposed that these monuments at least acted as a focus for cremation deposits and that the area as a whole was of significant ceremonial status in the Late Neolithic/ Early Bronze Age.

Plate 9

One final cremation deposit (HB7), within an inverted Early Bronze Age Collared Urn was recovered from a small pit (F300W) just to the north of Area P (Fig. 12, S20 and Plate 10). The pit measured 0.45m in diameter and 0.12m deep with a stony dark-brown silt-sand fill (3000). Although smaller than pit F126W this feature had morphological and depositional elements in common and is likely to be of similar date.

F126W – Human Burial 6 (C. Patrick)

To the north of Ring-ditch 3 an ovoid pit (F126W) measuring 1.0m wide by 1.8m long and 0.4m deep was excavated (Fig. 12, S19 and Plate 9). An incomplete Early Bronze Age Collared Urn was placed in an inverted position, situated at the base of the pit, against the eastern

Plate 10 F300W – Human Burial 7 (C. Neil)

20

THE SITE

Plate 11 Beaker pit F122W (G. Coates)

dimensions. The first of the pits (F201W; see Table 5 for dimensions) contained a concentration of black ashy silt with charcoal and a number of heat-fractured stones (2002; Fig. 13, S22). Pit (F207W) to its south contained a similar fill (2008) and also contained the remains of a possible post-hole, filled with a yellow-grey silt-sand (2009), within its western half (Fig. 13, S23). A third pit (F200W) had a V-shaped concentration of black mottled sand-silt in its western side (2001), which probably represented the remains of a stakehole (Fig. 13, S24). Immediately to its south, pit (F205W) was filled with pebbly silt-sand (2005), which contained a small amount of charcoal and ten, mostly fresh sherds from the rim and shoulder of a carinated bowl (Fig. 13, S25). This was a large vessel belonging to the Mortlake Style of the Peterborough ware tradition and dates from the Middle Neolithic period. Immediately to its east, pit (F206W, 2006), revealed the presence of another possible posthole within its western half (Fig. 13, S26). The last of the group (F209W) lay approximately 2.00m to the east (Fig. 13, S27).

West of Ring-ditch 4, pit (F123W) had been cut by another similarly shaped pit (F122W), which had concave sides and a flat base (Fig. 12, S21 and Plate 11; see Table 4 for dimensions). The earlier feature produced no artefacts. F122W, however, produced a significant assemblage (a total of 349 sherds) of Beaker pottery. In addition, a number of flints were recovered including a barbed and tanged flint arrowhead of Green’s Sutton type and heated-cracked stone. The assemblage derived from all three distinct silt-sand fills (1033, 1034 and 1035). It was characterised by some unusual and potentially interesting features. For instance there was a distinct lack of both small and plain sherds, a small number of conjoins were apparent both within and across the three fills, and there was a discernibly variable distribution of levels of abrasion. Table 4: Watching brief (2001): Dimensions of cremation/ ritual pits Feature F122W F126W F300W

Length 2.00m 1.80m 0.45m

Width 1.20m 1.00m 0.40m

Diameter

Depth 0.50m 0.40m 0.12m

Table 5: Watching brief (2004): Pit and post-hole group 1 Feature F200W F201W F205W F206W F207W F209W

During the watching brief in 2004 a number of pits, postholes and ditch terminals were excavated. Whilst only one of these contained readily datable artefacts they may have represented two somewhat irregular pit/ post-hole groups and associated ditches of probable Neolithic date. Pits and post-holes

Length

Width

Diameter 0.60m 0.60m 0.60m 0.50m 0.60m 0.40m

Depth 0.30m 0.20m 0.25m 0.15m 0.20m 0.25m

A second group of similar U-shaped pits and post-holes was excavated some 12.0m further to the south. This group included two small post-holes (F211W and F214W) and four pits none of which yielded artefacts.

The southern half of the excavated area contained a group of U-shaped pits and post-holes of various depths and 21

EXCAVATIONS AT WHITEMOOR HAYE QUARRY, STAFFORDSHIRE 2000-2004

Fig. 13 Watching brief (2004): Period 1 pit sections

and a number of associated pits and post-holes in Areas J, K, M and during the watching brief, and lengths of a triple-ditched droveway and a double-ditched droveway, which were excavated in Areas D, E, G and during the watching brief, the latter both aligned east-west.

In addition to the numerous pits and post-holes three ditch lengths (F210W, F216W and F220W) projected from beneath the southern edge of the exposed area. Ditch F210W was wide and shallow, aligned roughly north-south and ending in an ovoid terminal. The second ditch F216W, U-shaped in profile was aligned southeastnorthwest and ended in a semi-circular terminal. The third ditch F220W, whilst removed spatially from the cluster of features was morphologically similar. A fourth V-shaped ditch (F221W) aligned northeast-southwest, on the grounds of its location and morphology, may well not have been associated with this cluster of features.

The droveways Area D (Fig. 14) The western terminal of an east-west aligned U-shaped ditch (F206D) (Fig. 17, S28) was exposed, which corresponded with a cropmark investigated previously in an evaluation (BUFAU 1992) and in the first phase of excavation (Coates 2002). During the 1992 evaluation three trenches (4, 18 and 20) were placed across the cropmark location to investigate a triple-ditched feature. No datable evidence was recovered; however, it was clear from the evidence of Trench 18 that the triple-ditched droveway pre-dated the north-south aligned doubleditched droveway. The latter had been ascribed a 1st or early 2nd century AD date, though there was evidence that the Romano-British droveway followed a route, which had a precedent in the Iron Age. The evaluation identified the ditches as part of a triple-ditched droveway, which is considered to be Iron Age in origin. However, when sampled a second time during the excavation of Area F, it failed to produce datable artefacts (Coates 2002, 18). In addition, F202D whilst similarly devoid of artefacts could well be an associated droveway ditch on the basis of location and orientation.

The post-holes could be indicative of the presence of structures, and in context with the pits and ditch terminals may indicate the remains of occupation and related activities. Whilst only one pit contained pottery, two others contained black ashy material with heat-fractured stones, perhaps hearth remains. A silt-sand spread (F125W) c 5.0m by 4.0m was also located. This was charcoal flecked and yielded one sherd of Early Bronze Age pottery and a small, ragged edged U-shaped strip of copper alloy 35mm long by 3mm wide. PERIOD 2 IRON AGE Summary This period was represented by the remains of ditched enclosures in Areas J and M, plus associated hut circles

22

THE SITE

Fig. 14 Area D: Plan of all excavated features

23

EXCAVATIONS AT WHITEMOOR HAYE QUARRY, STAFFORDSHIRE 2000-2004

Fig. 15 Area E: Plan of all excavated features

24

THE SITE

Fig. 16 Area G: Plan of all excavated features

25

EXCAVATIONS AT WHITEMOOR HAYE QUARRY, STAFFORDSHIRE 2000-2004 to the variation in its fills, which ranged from black silt clay (1079) toward the base and light-grey silt sands (1081) at the upper horizon.

Area E (Fig. 15) An arrangement of east-west aligned ditches was investigated here which corresponded with a cropmark indicating the existence of a double-ditched droveway. This appeared to run parallel with the triple-ditched droveway exposed in Area D. An east-west aligned, Ushaped ditch (F405E) filled with a sand-silt deposit, appeared to correspond with the cropmark evidence (Fig. 17, S29). This was recut by a morphologically less regular L-shaped ditch (F404E). Neither of these ditches provided dateable artefacts. However, the north-south aligned arm of F404E provided three sherds of Late Neolithic/ Early Bronze Age pottery, which were likely to be residual. In the 1992 evaluation, one trench (Trench 23) was located in order to test this cropmark. No dateable artefacts were recovered, though the V-shaped morphology of the ditches is more in line with the Romano-British droveway aligned north-south (BUFAU 1992, Appendix 3).

Curvilinear U-shaped ditch (F100G), to the south of the excavated area was cut by the southernmost droveway ditch and on that basis predated it (Fig. 18, S34). No artefacts were recovered from its grey clay-silt fill or from the slightly more pebbly fills of the recut (F101G). Whilst there is no cropmark evidence to indicate the nature of this feature there is the possibility that it may have been part of an enclosure ditch. The southernmost droveway ditch (F109G) had a more V-shaped profile and was filled with a grey-black silt at its base (1021) giving way to an upper deposit of sand and grey silt (1022; Fig. 18, S30 and S31). Two further ditches (F130G and F132G), running centrally between these may well have been associated with the droveway (Fig. 18, S32). These had been recut, on two occasions, in the case of the eastern length (Fig. 18, S33). The gap between F130G and F132G may well have acted as an offset access point for the droveway prior to a widening of it with the addition of either ditch F117G or F109G. The impact of seasonal flooding, and therefore silting might be inferred from the series of recuts evident in these centrally located ditches, leading eventually to a wholesale widening of the droveway in order to alleviate the problem. A small stakehole (F127G) may have been associated with droveway ditch F109G, on the northern edge though did not have a direct stratigraphic relationship with the ditch.

Area G (Fig. 16) Lengths of the double-ditched droveway, which was exposed in Area E, were also exposed in Area G to the west. As in Area E, no artefacts were recovered which securely date these features but, taken in the context of the cropmark evidence and a broad association with the triple-ditched droveway to its north, an Iron Age date is probable. The northernmost ditch length (F117G) was Ushaped in profile and appeared to have been waterfilled, probably on a seasonal basis. This must have contributed

Fig. 17 Period 2: Droveway sections

26

THE SITE

Fig. 18 Period 2: Droveway sections

27

EXCAVATIONS AT WHITEMOOR HAYE QUARRY, STAFFORDSHIRE 2000-2004 Watching brief

Enclosures and structures

A series of three ditches were excavated to the east of Area F during the watching brief in 2004 (Fig. 63). The northernmost of these was probably part of the tripleditched droveway, which had also been identified in Area D, Area F, and in three of four evaluation trenches in 1992 (BUFAU 1992). The three ditches were aligned east-west (F227W, F229W and F230W) with the northernmost F227W, measuring up to 1.8m wide by 0.5m deep. It was U-shaped and contained two fills, the uppermost of which (2034) yielded a substantial amount of Middle to Late Iron Age pottery from at least four vessels (Fig. 18, S35). The other two ditches were Vshaped and lay at a considerable distance from F227W. The first, F229W was located approximately 30m to the south and the other F230W a further 30m.

Area J (Fig. 19; Plate 12) The northeastern corner of a large enclosure ditch was partially exposed, which related to cropmark evidence depicting an enclosure of c 70m by 40m in area. There appeared to be three stages to the development of the excavated part of the enclosure, which contained the remains of a structure. Ditch (F202J = F215J, herefafter F215J), aligned broadly east-west and ditch (F238J) aligned north-south, survived to define the earliest enclosure. Both these ditches were U-shaped in profile and c 2.10m wide and 0.25m deep (Fig. 20, S37). The silt-sand upper fill (2039) from one of the excavated sections of F215J contained sherds from at least five vessels, possibly dating as early as the Middle Iron Age. One of these was an ovoid jar of a type, which was current in the Late Bronze Age and into the Iron Age.

In addition, the watching brief undertaken in 2001 included an area where a part of the triple-ditched droveway was also exposed (F408W, F409W and F410W). A sample section through the ditch at a point where it met what appeared to be the north-south droveway (F403W) demonstrated that U-shaped ditch F408W was cut by F403W, similarly U-shaped in profile, though only partly excavated (Fig. 18, S36). No artefacts were recovered from either element, but the stratigraphic evidence contributes to the conclusion that the tripleditched droveway pre-dates the north-south aligned double-ditched droveway.

Ditch F238J appeared to terminate in order to provide for an entrance, though no evidence of a northern terminal was exposed. The proximity of the break in the ditch with the structure immediately to its west is difficult to interpret since no stratigraphic relationship survived. The second stage in the development of this enclosure was illustrated by the cutting of the northern and eastern

Plate 12 Area J post-excavation (R. Burrows)

28

THE SITE

Fig. 19 Area J: Plan of all excavated features

29

EXCAVATIONS AT WHITEMOOR HAYE QUARRY, STAFFORDSHIRE 2000-2004

Fig. 20 Area J: Period 2 enclosure sections

Plate 13 Area J – Structure 1 (R. Burrows)

30

THE SITE ditches (F209J = F201J, hereafter F201J) creating a slightly larger enclosed area. The ditch measured c 2.90m to 3.5m wide and was 1.3m deep. The sections served to demonstrate that ditches F215J and F238J were cut by ditch F201J. In addition the northern arm of the ditch had been truncated by a later pit (F203J). A number of sections were excavated across the later ditch which provided evidence that the ditch had been recut once (F204J = F212J, hereafter F212J), the third stage of the enclosure’s development (Fig. 20, S37 and S38). The recut ditch measured from 1.5m-2.5m wide and was up to 0.65m deep. Both the primary ditch and the recut had Ushaped profiles, the latter more rounded than the former. The silt-sand fill of the original cut of ditch F201J (2055) yielded one large Iron Age sherd, and two far smaller sherds from a similar fill in a separate section (2016). The recut yielded ten large Middle Iron Age sherds, recovered from both fills in one section (2007, 2008) plus two smaller sherds from another (2078). These included elements of a globular jar dating to the Middle to Late Iron Age. A further six undiagnostic Iron Age sherds were recovered from section (F221J, 2028), also equated with ditch F212J. Structure 1 (Plate 13) The semi-circular remains of a ring gully (F208J/F216J) were exposed interior to the eastern arm of the enclosure ditch. The gully represents the probable remains of the western half of a roundhouse eaves drip gully, which would have measured c12m in diameter. The ring gully was V-shaped in profile where the cut was well defined and approximately 0.40m deep by 0.30m wide (F208.03J, 2038). Its sand-silt fill yielded three sherds of Iron Age pottery (Fig. 21, S39). The surviving elements of the structure were located immediately to the west of the possible entrance to the earliest enclosure, but had no clear association with it. Somewhat unusually, the structure had a west facing entrance, measuring 1.00m in width. The location, along with artefactual evidence, would point toward a Middle Iron Age date for its use.

Fig. 21 Area J: Period 2 structure 1 and interior features

Other external features The internal area of the enclosure was characterised by a number of possible post-holes and pits. Several of these proved to be shallow depressions, the irregular shape and sterile nature of the deposits being indicative of geological rather than human activity. However, a number of the remaining examples (F200J, F207J, F210J, F211J and F214J; see Table 7) were typified by charcoalrich, silt-clay-sand fills. Table 7: Area J: Pits and post-holes within the enclosure

A number of possible features (F213J, F228J - F231J and F236J; see Table 6) were excavated inside the structure. Two of these (F213J and F236J) were comparable ovoid pits with steeply sloping sides and rounded bases. All these features had similar fills. No artefacts were retrieved from any of the features inside the structure.

Feature F200J F207J F210J F211J F214J F232J F233J F234J F235J

Table 6: Area J: Features interior of Structure 1 Feature F213J F228J F229J F230J F231J F236J

Length

Width

Diameter 0.70m 0.45m 0.60m 0.25m 0.20m 0.70m

Depth 0.32m 0.12m 0.06m 0.06m 0.05m 0.40m

Length 0.77m

Width 0.45m

Diameter 1.10m 0.35m 0.80m 0.55m 0.24m 0.34m 0.36m 0.35m

Depth 0.15m 0.31m 0.27m 0.25m 0.15m 0.12m 0.30m 0.30m 0.20m

One of these pits was particularly interesting. F200J had gradually sloping sides and a rounded base with a distinctive fill (Fig. 22, S42), which comprised many heat-fractured stones and a concentrated area of charcoal at the base (2002), indicative of the remains of a post which had been burnt in situ. Two sherds of a Late Bronze Age/ Early Iron Age cup were recovered from it. 31

EXCAVATIONS AT WHITEMOOR HAYE QUARRY, STAFFORDSHIRE 2000-2004 Area K (Fig. 23; Plate 14) This Area was located in order to identify the western extent of the enclosure that was partially exposed in Area J. However, no clear evidence of its western ditches was identified. Structure 2 Although no pottery was recovered during the excavation of this area it was possible to ascribe an Iron Age date to the ring gully (F103K; see Table 8) exposed toward the centre of the area on the basis of morphology. The ring gully probably represented the remains of the eaves drip gully of a roundhouse and measured 9.5m in diameter (Plate 15). It varied in profile from U-shaped to almost Vshaped and was 0.40-0.50m wide by 0.25m deep (Fig. 24, S47 and S48). It had been truncated by a ditch (F100K) on its eastern side (Fig. 24, S49) so it was not possible to determine whether an entrance had existed originally, though it may be the case that an entrance on the eastern side was cut away as a result of digging ditch F100K. Table 8: Area K: Features interior of Structure 2 Feature F119K F125K F126K F127K F128K Fig. 22 Area J: Period 2 pit sections

Length

Width

1.20m 1.00m 0.70m 0.70m

0.50m 0.50m 0.40m 0.40m

Diameter 0.25m

Depth 0.20m 0.35m 0.40m 0.45m 0.45m

The ring gully encircled a number of potential archaeological features, each with similar charcoal flecked, sand-silt fills. Two ovoid pits (F125K and F126K) were excavated (Fig. 24, S50 and S51), aligned approximately north-south and situated towards the centre of the area inside the ring gully. Each contained a high percentage of heat-fractured stones. Two possible post-pits were also excavated (F127K and F128K), perhaps marking the entrance to the ring gully (Fig. 24, S52 and S53). The fills of both also contained a significant number of heat-fractured stones. In addition to the above, a single post-hole (F119K) was excavated.

These proved to be the earliest diagnostic examples from Period 2. Interestingly, pit F214J also contained heatfractured stones and in common with F200J, yielded (five) sherds of Iron Age pottery, in this case very abraded (2034; Fig. 22, S43). Another similar pit (F211J) also contained heat-fractured stone and charcoal inclusions (2023) but no artefacts. Pit F210J did not yield heat-fractured stones, however, a moderate quantity of charcoal was evident (2017; Fig. 22, S44). The northeastsouthwest orientation of a number of these pits is also suggestive of a possible fenceline.

Evidence of previous excavation

A series of post-holes (F232J to F235J), all of which contained quite charcoal-rich fills, were spaced widely apart around the area of the enclosure (Fig. 22, S45 and S46). Whilst it was difficult to define a recognisable pattern, either in part or together, it is probable they were associated with the occupation or the use of the enclosure. It is possible that several of them may also represent the partial remains of elements of a fenced structure, associated with the possible fenceline.

In 1992 a trench was located to test the enclosure ditch here based on the cropmark evidence (BUFAU 1992, Trench 28). It is likely, though was not proven during excavation, that the north-south ditch F100K which cut Structure 2 on its eastern side could be equated with ditch F94 of Trench 28 from which ‘several fragments of Early Bronze Age type pottery’ were recovered (BUFAU 1992, Appendix 3). On this basis it could indicate that Structure 2 is of Early Bronze Age origin and that the enclosure associated with the ditch recorded as F94 in Trench 28 of the earlier evaluation was of earlier date than is presented here. It is clear, however, from the evidence of Area J 32

THE SITE

Fig. 23 Area K: Plan of all excavated features

33

EXCAVATIONS AT WHITEMOOR HAYE QUARRY, STAFFORDSHIRE 2000-2004

Fig. 24 Area K: Period 2 structure 2 and interior features

Plate 14 Area K post-excavation (R. Burrows)

34

THE SITE

Plate 15 Area K – Structure 2 (R. Burrows)

(discussed above), that the enclosure is of Iron Age origin and that Structure 2, within the main body of the enclosure is also Iron Age. Alternatively, ditch F100K seemed more likely to equate with the north-south droveway which has been identified running through much of the quarry concession and was identified in Area B where a reasonable assemblage of Romano-British pottery was recovered. This conclusion is more robust in light of the extensive excavation which has taken place since 1992 and it is suggested that the Early Bronze Age sherds are in fact residual within a Romano-British feature. Neither of the above alternatives provides a firm date for Structure 2 but taken in association with other local Iron Age features it is a reasonable conclusion. Area M (Fig. 25; Plate 16) This area was characterised by three partially exposed enclosure ditches, reflected broadly by cropmark evidence. The earliest of these ditches were associated with two partially surviving ring gullies, associated pits and post-holes. Evidence of subsequent phases of activity revealed that one enclosure was modified in the Iron Age and later recut in the Romano-British period. Two rectilinear enclosures represented the earliest evidence of occupation in this area. In the southern part of the area the northwest angle of enclosure F400M was excavated. Its ditches proved to be shallow and roughly U-shaped, filled with a gravelly silt-sand and varied in width between 0.6m and 1.46m wide with an average depth of 0.35m. Only c 9.0m of the east-west aligned length survived, the remainder completely truncated by a later phase of the enclosure (see below). Only one sherd

Plate 16 Area M post-excavation (R. Burrows)

of Iron Age pottery was recovered from the excavated sections (F270M, 2105; Fig. 26, S54).

35

Fig. 25 Area M: Plan of all excavated features

EXCAVATIONS AT WHITEMOOR HAYE QUARRY, STAFFORDSHIRE 2000-2004

36

THE SITE

Fig. 27 Area M: Period 2 enclosure (F402M) sections

heat-fractured stones and charcoal and could indicate a dump of hearth debris along with the broken vessel. The latter section in contrast, with a cleaner silt-sand fill yielded only three undiagnostic Iron Age sherds (Fig. 28, S59). Half of a saddle quern or rubbing stone quern fragment was also recovered from section (F275M, 2114; Fig. 28, S60).

Fig. 26 Area M: Period 2 enclosure (F400M) sections

A second focus of activity was located to the north of enclosure F400M. Parts of the southwest angle of enclosure ditch (F402M) were identified. This silt-sand filled ditch was approximately 1.00m wide and 0.25m to 0.40m deep, with a predominantly V-shaped profile, which varied somewhat along its length (Fig. 26, S55). Nineteen sherds of Iron Age pottery recovered from two sections (F220.04M, 2104 and F219M, 2023; Fig. 27, S56 and S57). In the latter section eighteen sherds from a single Iron Age vessel were recovered. A short northsouth aligned ditch (F246M) c.5.50m in length was cut by both enclosure ditch F402M, ditch F231M and to the south, enclosure ditch F405M. No artefacts were recovered from either of two sections, but it is likely to have been broadly contemporary with the enclosure development associated with ditches F400M and F402M. To its west and outside the enclosure, a hearth (F210M), 0.55m in diameter and 0.15m deep, with a charcoal rich fill (2012) yielded a large (40g) Iron Age base sherd.

The most recent use of enclosure ditch F405M was evident as a single recut (F406M). The recut ditch was narrower and shallower and was broadly U-shaped. It was identified in the same sections that had been excavated through the earlier ditch, with pottery recovered from four of these. With the exception of one section (F271M), which yielded eight Middle Iron Age sherds (Fig. 28, S60), all other recovered sherds (in total only six) were of Romano-British date and included one stamped fragment of mortaria from the kilns of Similis 2 (see Hartley below). Several features internal to the Iron Age enclosures were identified, though there is need for caution in ascribing them to either Period 2 or Period 3 due to the later Romano-British recut and re-use of the area.

A second phase of enclosure development (F405M) encompassed a broadly similar area to enclosure F400M, though slightly offset to the east, and may well have been a subsequent refinement of the former enclosure. The northwest angle of enclosure F405M completely truncated the east-west aligned length of the earlier enclosure, but respected its position. The later ditch was much more substantial, on average 2.5m to 3.5m wide and approximately 1.0m deep with a V-shaped profile, which was uniform through out its length. Pottery was recovered from two sections (F234M, 2045 and F242M, 2060). In the former, twelve large sherds were recovered which comprised the full profile of an Early to Middle Iron Age ovoid jar (Fig. 28, S58). The fill also contained

Structure 3 Part of a curvilinear ring gully (F200M) was identified within the interior of enclosure ditch F400M. It measured 0.65m wide and up to 0.1m and 0.3m deep (Fig. 30, S63). No datable evidence was recovered from its grey silt fill although it could represent either the remnant of an Iron Age roundhouse or perhaps some form of division associated with the enclosure of stock. A gully (F201M) was identified immediately to its north, which may originally have been an internal feature. One large Iron 37

EXCAVATIONS AT WHITEMOOR HAYE QUARRY, STAFFORDSHIRE 2000-2004

Fig. 28 Area M: Period 2 enclosure (F405M) sections

Fig. 29 Area M: Period 2 enclosure (F405M and F406M) sections

38

THE SITE

Fig. 31 Area M: Period 2 structure 4 and associated features Fig. 30 Area M: Period 2 structure 3 and associated features

F223M and F281M (Fig. 31, S67 and S68) contained heat-fractured stones, whilst F286M appeared to have been partially truncated by the building of the roundhouse and the cutting of the eaves drip gully. Post-hole F281M may have been associated with an entrance to the roundhouse orientated to the northwest. There also appeared to be a second possible entrance slightly further to the south. This short length of ditch also cut an eastwest aligned ditch (F231M), which ran parallel to the main east-west aligned enclosure ditch, though was probably broadly contemporary with it.

Age sherd was recovered from its silt fill (F201.01M, 2003; Fig. 30, S64). One small east-west aligned ditch (F216M) proved to be of Early to Middle Iron Age date. Its charcoal flecked silt-sand fill (2017) yielded 42 sherds, which included the rim and shoulder of at least one ovoid jar and two globular jars, as well as a fragment of a beehive quern which had a 24mm diameter ‘stick-hole’ visible in the side (Fig. 30, S65). There were a number of small, shallow sub-circular pits within the area of enclosure F400M. None, however, could safely be ascribed to the Iron Age.

Possible structure Part of an apparently curvilinear ditch (F238M) was exposed at the southern boundary of the area, its northeastern terminal appearing to respect the line of Iron Age enclosure F400M. This ditch yielded no artefacts and can only be tentatively placed in Period 2.

Structure 4 The remains of a second partial ring gully (F226M) were excavated within the interior of enclosure ditch F402M (Fig. 31, S66). It was very narrow and shallow and no datable artefacts were recovered from it, although one Iron Age sherd was recovered from a silty spread identified adjacent to this feature (2115). Three subcircular post-holes were located in close proximity to the ring gully (F223M, F286M and F281M). These were on 0.25m. The silt-sand fills of two of these post-holes average 0.5m in diameter with a maximum depth of

Relationship of the structures and the enclosures Again, no direct stratigraphic relationship was evident between the enclosure ditches and structures and whilst the enclosures can safely be ascribed to the Iron Age on the basis of the pottery, the structures can only be ascribed to that period on typological grounds.

39

EXCAVATIONS AT WHITEMOOR HAYE QUARRY, STAFFORDSHIRE 2000-2004

Fig. 32 Watching brief (2001): Period 2 plan of Structure 5 (F113W) and associated sections

recovered from its silt-sand fill (1023). A circular, bowlshaped hearth (F114W) c 0.6m diameter and 0.2m deep was excavated toward the centre of the interior, the fill of which (1024) contained a number of heat-fractured stones and a significant amount of charcoal (Fig. 32, S70).

Watching brief Evidence of Iron Age activity was excavated during several phases of the watching brief. Specifically, to the south of Area P in 2001, to the north of Area I in 2002 and to the east of Area F in 2004, the latter mentioned above.

Structure 6 (Fig. 63) During the watching brief in 2002 a well-defined ring gully was excavated which measured approximately 17.0m in diameter (Fig. 33, S71). It had a U-shaped profile up to 0.5m wide and 0.3m deep (F213W), which contained two fills packed with a substantial number of small stones, though no datable evidence. The structure had an east-facing entrance, the southeastern terminal of which had been truncated by a large ovoid pit.

Structure 5 (Fig. 9) A 9.5m diameter (F113W) Iron Age roundhouse eaves drip gully was excavated, which lay to the south of Area P (Figs. 9 and 32, S69 and S70). It was truncated somewhat during the topsoil stripping process and although complete in plan, was poorly preserved in places, surviving to a depth of up to 0.2m by 0.35m wide. There were two entrances; one, which was east-facing and measured 1.8m, may have been the primary entrance. Two short protruding lengths of gully at each terminal of the eastern entrance may have been associated with structures built to provide a degree of additional shelter or drainage at the entrance. The other opening faced west and was 1.0m in width. Interestingly, this is the second example on the site of an entrance with a westerly orientation (see also Structure 1 above). Four sherds of Iron Age pottery from one short-necked vessel were

Enclosure (Fig. 63) At the easternmost extent of the season 2004 watching brief area were two parallel north-south aligned U-shaped ditches (F233W and F232W). Ditch F233W was visible over much of the stripped area whilst ditch F232W became progressively more ill-defined towards the south. The better preserved example, F233W was 1.6m wide and 0.5m deep, whilst F232W was 0.6m wide and 0.2m 40

THE SITE

Fig. 33 Watching brief (2002): Period 2 plan of Structure 6 (F213W) and associated section

Table 9: Watching brief (2001): Pit group to the south of Area P

deep. The former yielded 99 small and abraded sherds of Iron Age pottery from its sand-silt upper fill (1051). On the basis of the cropmark evidence these ditches could be interpreted as the partial remains of Iron Age enclosures and although their lengths were ill-defined, this seems a reasonable conclusion. A solitary pit (F225W) was excavated at the same time which, whilst impossible to associate stratigraphically, yielded four Iron Age sherds.

Feature F130W F131W F134W F135W F139W F142W F143W F144W F145W F146W

Pit groups South of Area P and to the west of the Romano-British droveway ditch F137W (see below) a group of ten pits in an area of approximately 6.0m by 7.0m were excavated which proved to be of Iron Age origin (Fig. 9; see Table 9). Four of these were intercutting, and although the earliest (F145W) did not yield datable artefacts, two of the pits which cut it did contain several Iron Age sherds. Pit (F144W), which yielded 41 sherds, dated at least to the Early to Middle Iron Age and F143W, which contained three sherds of a globular jar, dated to the Middle to Late Iron Age (Fig. 34, S72 and S73). All pits had similar silt-sand fills with charcoal flecking throughout and in two examples a number of fragments of burnt clay were also recorded. The remaining pits were not directly related in stratigraphic terms but by morphology, similarity of fills and artefacts. All five

Length

Width

1.70m

0.95m

Diameter 1.00m 1.00m 1.30m 1.00m 1.20m 1.10m

2.60m

1.30m --0.90

Depth 0.17m 0.10m 0.20m 0.25m 0.20m 0.30m 0.08m 0.17m 0.17m 0.06m

contained charcoal flecking throughout and fragments of burnt clay. In two examples, sherds of Iron Age pottery were recovered and in the case F135W particularly an almost complete Middle to Late Iron Age scored ware jar (Fig. 34, S74 and Plate 17). This latter vessel is of slightly later form than others dating to this part of the Iron Age, in contrast to sherds from pit (F144W) which included the earliest diagnostic Iron Age pieces from the excavations covered in this volume. Fragments of a cup rim, which might date to the Late Bronze Age / Early Iron Age, were recovered, and sherds decorated with triangular stabs, a typical Early Iron Age technique (see Woodward below). A broken flint blade (see Barfield 41

EXCAVATIONS AT WHITEMOOR HAYE QUARRY, STAFFORDSHIRE 2000-2004

Fig. 34 Watching brief (2001): Period 2 pit sections

Plate 17 Iron Age pit F135W (C. Patrick)

42

THE SITE below) was the only artefact to be recovered from pit (F134W).

addition, a probable field boundary or hedge line, a particularly large pit and a number of other pits and ditches were excavated. Period 3 was characterised by features similar to those described in the previous volume (Coates 2002, 34-40).

Pit alignment (Fig. 63) To the east of Area D and some 75.0m to the south of the triple-ditched Iron Age droveway a series of pits were exposed, which appeared to form part of a double alignment. These measured between 0.70m-1.40m in diameter and were up to 0.40m in depth. Two of these were excavated during the watching brief in 2001. A circular example (F405W) proved to be very shallow with a flat base and was probably truncated (Fig. 35, S77). The other (F406W) was more ovoid in plan and reached a depth of 0.40m (Fig. 35, S78). The latter appeared to have been located at a point where it cut an earlier pit or post-hole (F407W) almost wholly truncating it. It may also be interpreted as an almost total recut of the original feature. Neither feature yielded datable artefacts, which is not unexpected from such pits.

Droveway As noted previously, the cropmark evidence suggested the existence of a north-south droveway. Whilst datable artefacts were not recovered during the evaluations of 1992 (BUFAU) and 1995 (Tempvs Reparatvm), the artefacts recovered during the excavations of 1997 and 1998 (Coates 2002) provided samian sherds dating to AD100-125/ 130 and others dating to the mid 2nd/ late 3rd century AD. Area G (Fig. 16) Two U-shaped ditches (F106G and F123G) were exposed in part in the eastern side of the area. Neither yielded datable artefacts but based on the cropmark evidence, although quite limited at this point, both were probably related to the north-south droveway. F106G, the westernmost of the two ditches appeared to be cut by one of the east-west aligned Iron Age droveway ditches F109G (Fig. 36, S79). This may indicate that the northsouth droveway was in use in the Iron Age, as suggested previously, perhaps both being modified and upgraded throughout their lifetimes. Area K (Fig. 23) U-shaped ditch (F100K) probably equated with the droveway, which was also exposed in Area G; in this case, one fragment of a Romano-British tegula and one fragment of imbrex were recovered from its sand-silt fill (1009; Fig. 24, S49). It was similarly aligned north-south and extended across the entire excavated area. It measured 1.75m wide and 0.85m deep and had been heavily truncated during the laying of a modern field drain (F101K). The cropmark evidence shows clearly that elements of the droveway continue through Area K towards the River Tame to the south. This evidence also shows that there appeared to have been a relationship between the droveway and the large rectilinear enclosure on its eastern side, though no evidence was recovered here to demonstrate this clearly. As discussed above, the enclosure where exposed in Area J is of Iron Age origin and this, whilst not being evident in Area K, indicates that the droveway was likely to have also been in use in the Iron Age. A second north-south aligned ditch (F102K) ran parallel to F100K, 2.0m to the east until converging with it towards the southern edge of Area K. It may have served as a drainage ditch associated with the droveway, but was heavily truncated at the point of convergence by ploughing and by field drain F101K. It did not appear substantial enough to represent the western ditch of the cropmark enclosure partially excavated in Area J. In the north of the area, ditch (F117K) is likely to

Fig. 35 Watching brief (2001): Period 2 pit alignment sections

A solitary bowl-shaped pit (110W) was excavated during the watching brief in 2000 and its primary fill (1019) yielded a fragment of a beehive quern and part of another quern or rubbing stone. This is similar to the upper stone of another beehive quern recovered previously from a solitary bowl-shaped pit (Coates 2002, 34 and fig. 44). PERIOD 3 ROMANO-BRITISH Summary Elements of the north-south droveway were excavated, which were probably associated with four single-ditched enclosures and a possible triple-ditched enclosure. In 43

EXCAVATIONS AT WHITEMOOR HAYE QUARRY, STAFFORDSHIRE 2000-2004

Fig. 36 Period 3: Droveway sections

44

THE SITE The westernmost ditch (F235P and F213P) survived as a narrower and discontinuous feature. It was only 0.19m deep and 0.40m wide and appeared to have a terminal, which was likely to have been the result of truncation. Running interior to the droveway ditches, a narrow gully (F218P) was situated close to the western edge of F202P. It may have provided some associated drainage facility.

have been the contemporary of ditch F102K, the gap between perhaps acting as an access point to the droveway. Area M (Fig. 25) At the eastern edge of the area, a roughly north-south aligned ditch (F217M) was excavated (Fig. 36, S80). The majority of its length had been truncated by a later shallow U-shaped ditch (F413M) filled with a silt-sand deposit, which measured c1.2m-1.9m wide. At its northern extent it appeared to return to the west and although it best ties in with the location of the droveway as it passes through this area, it may represent the northeastern angle of a contemporary enclosure. Four Derbyshire ware sherds were recovered from one excavated section and one residual Iron Age sherd was recovered from a further section (214M, 2054), which was located at a point where the ditch cut Iron Age enclosure F405M.

Three more ditches (F236P, F239P and F249P) were located toward the northeast boundary of Area P and into the watching brief area. These may equate with ditches F202P, F235P and F213P. They each contained similar shallow fills and were predominantly U-shaped with widths varying from 0.43-1.00m and depths of 0.110.21m (Fig. 37, S86). In addition, a short length of ditch (F215P) aligned east-west produced small fragments of burnt clay and a fragment of Romano-British tile (imbrex), the latter recovered during surface cleaning. Although the function of the ditch remained uncertain, it appears reasonable to date it to Period 3. Orientated broadly northwest-southeast across the length of the area, a shallow U-shaped ditch (F208P), with a 20.0m gap (entrance?) in it cut Ring-ditch 2, F200P. The entrance region appeared to respect the line of the droveway resuming c 5.0m to its west where it was recorded as ditch (F214P). It also appears to be situated where the droveway changes alignment slightly. Both discrete lengths were filled with a similar silt-sand deposit; a section through ditch F214P yielded one residual and very abraded sherd of Early Bronze Age pottery. Regularly spaced post-holes along the length of the ditch, which were cut into the fills of F208P, indicate that it served initially as a field boundary ditch, which was subsequently modified as a fenced boundary. Several of the post-holes were excavated including (F216P, F224P, F228P and F229P). These were all very similar morphologically, roughly circular in plan, with an average depth of c.0.2m and an average width of c 0.4m. No artefacts were recovered from any of them with the exception of a small unidentifiable fragment of burnt bone from the fill of F228P (see Brickley below). Two post-holes were also recorded along the same alignment in places where ditch F208P was absent. These features, (F225P and F226P) were of similar morphology and contained similar fills to the other four post-holes.

A c 55m long north-south aligned ditch (F412M) was recorded which may have been associated with the Romano-British droveway and associated enclosure development, though this was difficult to assess either within the area itself or on the basis of the cropmark evidence. The sand-silt filled ditch varied in width measuring between 0.8m-1.3m and was 0.3m-0.55m deep; its profile was predominantly U-shaped, though some sections were more strongly V-shaped (Fig. 36, S81). It cut both Iron Age enclosures, F400M and F405M and the Romano-British recut enclosure F406M (Fig. 36, S82). It also cut ditch F205M, which may have also been the corner of the Romano-British enclosure system at this point (Fig. 36, S83). F412M yielded a selection of sherds of Derbyshire ware; reduced ware and oxidised ware, as well as three fragments of mortaria. The latter included one from the Mancetter-Hartshill potteries in Warwickshire on which was a left-facing stamp of Bruscius dating after AD 130/ 140. Two further fragments of mortaria were recovered from two sections of ditch F205M too (F205.03, 2047 and F213, 2015). These again came from the Mancetter-Hartshill potteries and may have derived from the same vessel. Area P (Fig. 6) Three features aligned northeast-southwest matched known cropmarks well and are likely to be surviving elements of the droveway. The predominantly silt-sand filled U-shaped ditches in the south of the area (F202P, F218P, F235P and F213P) can reasonably be associated with those elements of the droveway excavated in other areas, although no artefacts were recovered. The easternmost ditch F202P was c 0.42m to 0.49m deep, up to 1.18m wide and was cut by (F201P), possibly a surviving element of an enclosure, which branched off eastwards (Fig. 37, S84 and S85).

Watching brief North of Area P a 14.0m long U-shaped ditch 0.85m wide and 0.28m deep (F305W) proved likely to have been a further length of the north-south droveway, though on a slightly altered alignment. On a similar alignment, c.9.0m to its east, a second U-shaped ditch (F304W) was excavated which had similar dimensions (Fig. 37, S87S88). To the south of Area P a further exposure of the droveway was recorded (Fig. 9). The westernmost ditch (F137W) was V-shaped, whilst the eastern ditch (F138W) 45

EXCAVATIONS AT WHITEMOOR HAYE QUARRY, STAFFORDSHIRE 2000-2004

Fig. 37 Watching brief (2001 and 2002): Period 3 droveway sections

46

THE SITE was far more U-shaped with a more apparent wide, flat base (Fig. 37, S89-S90). Both were filled with homogenous deposits of brown silt-sand from which no artefacts were recovered.

Enclosures and boundaries Area H (Fig. 38; Plate 18) One possible triple-ditched enclosure and a single-ditched enclosure, both clearly visible as a complex of cropmarks, proved to be Romano-British in date. The possible triple-ditched example had previously been identified during trial trenching (BUFAU 1992, Trench 27). That evaluation demonstrated that at least two Ushaped ditches survived; one of which yielded a fragment of late 1st to mid 2nd century mortarium. One pit also yielded a number of iron hobnails and there was some indication of two possible intercutting graves, though bone preservation was very poor (BUFAU 1992, Appendix 3).

Further south again, between Areas G and K, another length of the droveway was excavated. In this case it was more clearly associated with an enclosure (F250W discussed below). A north-south aligned, V-shaped ditch (F120W), which measured 0.7m wide by 0.45m deep, lay just to the west of this enclosure (Fig. 37, S91). Several metres to the south, the droveway ditch and the northsouth length of the enclosure ditch merged into one for c 25.0m, terminating in a large pit (F106W, see below). South of this pit, two U-shaped ditches (F107W and F108W) continued the droveway. At the point where they converged, ditch F107W cut ditch F108W. This may again be some reflection of ongoing maintenance and modification of the droveway through time, in tandem with the use and re-use of the enclosures along its length.

Possible triple-ditched enclosure A visual assessment of the cropmark plot does not make it clear whether or not a discrete multiple ditched enclosure can be identified (Fig. 3). It is possible that a series of ditches were dug at once to form an enclosure, but is also possible there were several phases of construction and perhaps overlapping of enclosures. The masking of the ditches on the eastern side by fine-grained alluvium has also hindered interpretation.

Ditch F117W, an element of the western length of the enclosure, was the earliest of the ditches along that length and may well originally have been part of the droveway at this point (Fig. 37, S92). It was a more pronounced Vshaped ditch than the other enclosure ditches and there was a marked difference between its grey-brown sand-silt fill (1032) and the multiple, more clay rich sand-silt fills of the enclosure ditches. This could well indicate different periods of use. It appears that the design of the enclosure took advantage of the droveway. Two abraded sherds dated to the later Iron Age were recovered from ditch F118W, which provided a possible terminus ante quem for the main enclosure ditch and (droveway) ditch F117W.

The northwest angle of a series of concentric enclosure ditches was exposed, sealed by alluvium at their eastern extent as noted. The inner ditch (F300H) was U-shaped on its north-south alignment and V-shaped on its eastwest alignment. It was 1.25m-1.45m wide and 0.40m deep, though appeared probably to have been truncated at the eastern end. Its silt-sand fill (3007) yielded 16 sherds of 2nd century pottery (Fig. 39, S93-S94 and S95). The east-west segment of this ditch had been recut once to create a shallow U-shaped ditch, filled with a stony sandsilt (F320H, 3014); it was of similar width, but only 0.20m deep (Fig. 39, S95). Over 700 sherds of mid 2nd century date were recovered from one excavated section in this ditch (F320.02, 3024; Fig. 39, S93), providing a significant assemblage, primarily of cooking vessels of regional and locally made greywares. Two sherds of samian, one unidentifiable and the other a base fragment (of form Drag. 31) were amongst these artefacts.

In addition, as noted above, a short length of one Ushaped ditch (F403W) cut a length of the Iron Age tripleditched droveway, just to the northeast of Area D at a location shown clearly from the cropmark evidence. It had been recut once (F402W). This ditch appeared to be the easternmost of the two ditches which made up the north-south droveway and is tentatively ascribed to the Romano-British period. Overall, it has been the case that the majority of sampled stretches of this droveway, throughout the quarry concession have yielded few artefacts. However, excavations in Area B for example (Coates 2002), tied it firmly to the Romano-British period, albeit with an acknowledgement based on its spatial relationship with a number of Iron Age enclosures and occasional sherds of Iron Age pottery, that it was long lived by that time. It is on this basis, the stretches exposed during the excavation of Areas G, K and P, and during the watching brief phases are reasonably securely placed within our Period 3.

The middle example of the three ditches (F302H) had a slightly irregular, though predominantly U-shaped profile, measuring 1.16m-2.28m wide by 0.26m-0.69m deep. Traces of it proved to survive beneath the alluvium following its removal in the eastern part of the area. The homogenous silt-sand fills yielded a total of two fragments of amphora, ten fragments of mortaria, 14 sherds of a samian cup (of form Drag. 33) and 140 other sherds of mid to late 2nd century pottery (Fig. 39, S96).

47

Fig. 38 Area H: Plan of all excavated features

EXCAVATIONS AT WHITEMOOR HAYE QUARRY, STAFFORDSHIRE 2000-2004

48

THE SITE

Fig. 39 Area H: Period 3 triple-ditched enclosure sections

49

EXCAVATIONS AT WHITEMOOR HAYE QUARRY, STAFFORDSHIRE 2000-2004

Plate 18 Area H post-excavation (G. Coates)

The outer ditch (F301H) could represent a slightly later extension to the enclosure since it encompassed a far greater area than the two inner ditches. Initially it was Vshaped in profile and measured 1.70m-2.30m wide and between 0.55m-1.10m deep (Fig. 39, S97-99). Whilst no datable artefacts were recovered from the primary fill its single U-shaped recut (F303H, 3030) yielded five Romano-British sherds. Single-ditched enclosure This enclosure was only partially exposed at its southwest angle and on the basis of the exposure and the cropmark evidence proved most likely to be a single-ditched Romano-British enclosure. It was located immediately to the north of the possible triple-ditched example, and notably the southwest angle of this enclosure corresponds well in alignment and location with the northwest angle of the middle ditches of the concentric arrangement. This U-shaped ditch was better preserved on its north-south aligned length (F325H), which predated the east-west aligned length (F324H), though probably not significantly. Both had very similar fills, gravelly sandsilt primary deposits and pebbly brown silt-sand secondary deposits. The uppermost fill of F324H (3051) yielded six sherds of mid 2nd century pottery (Fig. 40, S100 and S101).

Fig. 40 Area H: Period 3 single-ditched enclosure sections

Area M (Fig. 25)

Despite the indications that there may have been further human burials, based on the findings of the evaluation in 1992, no significant internal features were exposed in either of these enclosures.

As noted above there appear to be good reasons for understanding the recut of Iron Age enclosure F405M as a Romano-British development. Enclosure F406M was identified as a recut or reworking of F405M. This charcoal flecked, sand-silt filled ditch was narrower and 50

THE SITE Area P (Fig. 6) In the northernmost exposure of the excavation area the remains of a quite irregular enclosure (F222P) were excavated. It survived intact on its western and northern sides and partially on its eastern and southern sides. The U-shaped ditch was 0.7m-1.5m wide and 0.18m-0.63m deep (Fig. 41, S103 and S104). It was not clear whether its apparent terminals were the result of later truncation or intact elements of the enclosure. No artefacts were recovered, though its location in proximity to the western side of the north-south droveway probably could indicate that it was functional during the Romano-British period, though this does not preclude an earlier date for its use in the Iron Age. Watching brief In the northwestern sector of the watching brief area in 2002, a large rectilinear enclosure (F250W) was excavated, which measured c 53.0m long by 42.0m wide (Fig. 65). Its ditches had predominantly V-shaped profiles measuring up to 1.60m wide by 0.90m deep. The primary fill (1048) was a very dark-grey to black waterlogged sand-silt-clay, and in fact, even the uppermost of the five fills (1042) appeared to have been waterlogged to some extent. The primary enclosure ditches (F117W, F123W, F124W and F128W) had been recut once, on their inner edges by a more U-shaped ditch measuring up to 1.00m wide and 0.35m deep (Fig. 42, S105 and S106). The primary ditch yielded two abraded Late Iron Age sherds from section F117W, as noted above. This evidence and the association of the enclosure with the north-south droveway suggest a Period 3 date. As noted above, ditch F117W may have been part of the initial droveway, but subsequently may have been incorporated into the plan of the enclosure.

Fig. 41 Period 3 ditch and enclosure sections

shallower than the earlier ditch, and was roughly Ushaped with a maximum depth of 0.55m (Fig. 28 and 29, S58 to S62). Along with a number of heat-fractured stones, recovered artefacts included one stamped fragment of mortarium from the kilns of Similis 2, which was found in shallow section (F267M, 2099; see Hartley below). It is possible that the Middle Iron Age sherds recovered from section F271M were residual and derived from the former enclosure F405M.

Pits and other features Area M In Area M four pits were excavated within the boundary of Iron Age enclosure ditch F402M. Only one of these, pit (F244M) yielded four sherds of Romano-British pottery and heat-fractured stones from its charcoal rich silt fill (2063; Fig. 43, S107). Its burnt clay lining (2064) indicates it was likely to have been a hearth and one large Iron Age sherd, possibly derived from kiln debris, was found pressed into it. By association, it could tentatively be suggested that at least three others (F203M, F245M and F249M) may also be of Romano-British origin (Fig. 43, S108-S109). The first had evidence of a burnt surface, whilst the second and third were clay-lined and had similar fills to F244M. In the southeast of Area M, a (perhaps) unrelated but none-the-less similar pit (F236M) may also have served as a hearth; it yielded three sherds of Derbyshire ware and heat-fractured stones from a similarly charcoal-rich, silt-sand fill (2049).

Two features of Romano-British origin were located within the enclosure. One 12.0m long exposure of a Ushaped ditch aligned east-west (F212M) and measuring 0.90m wide and 0.30m deep, yielded three reduced ware sherds from its fill (2014), which contained occasional flecks of charcoal and heat-fractured stones (Fig. 41, S102). It postdated Structure 3, which it cut, prior to terminating at the eastern edge of a shallow circular pit, 0.80m in diameter (F236M, 2049), which also contained abundant charcoal, heat-fractured stones and three sherds of Derbyshire ware.

51

EXCAVATIONS AT WHITEMOOR HAYE QUARRY, STAFFORDSHIRE 2000-2004

Fig. 42 Watching brief (2002): Period 3 enclosure sections

feature was interrupted by intermittent gaps that could have served as access points. A pair of north-south aligned ditches in Area M, one V-shaped (F269M) and the other broadly U-shaped in profile (F221M), may well have dated to this period too. The eastern example F221M, yielded two reduced ware sherds from its fill (2085; Fig. 43, S110). It is not clear from the cropmark evidence what function these ditches served, but it is possible they may have been related to droveway activity.

Other areas In Area J the east-west aligned length of the Iron Age enclosure had been cut by a large sub-circular pit (F203J) measuring c 8.0m wide by 6.0m deep. It had six discrete fills, the earliest of which, a dark-grey clay-silt (2077) contained organic material and appeared to have been subjected to episodes of waterlogging. The uppermost fill (2005) yielded one sherd of 2nd to 3rd century pottery. Similar large pits have been exposed on previous excavations and this one, almost devoid of artefacts, may similarly have served an agricultural function perhaps as a water hole or a cistern. Additionally, a smaller but possibly comparable pit (F106W) 2.10m in diameter cut droveway ditches F108W and F107W.

PERIOD 4 POST-MEDIEVAL Plough furrows Evidence of ploughing was observed in a number of the excavation and watching brief areas. Most were also crossed with field drains. Predominantly furrows were aligned east-west and tended to survive as shallow features. This could indicate that the impact on the archaeological resource may have been relatively

Other features associated with the Romano-British period included several lengths of a north-south aligned ditch in Area G (F105G, F111G and F102/ F103G), which was likely to have been a field boundary or hedgeline. This 52

THE SITE Boundaries A number of areas revealed north - south aligned linear features, which could not readily be associated with earlier activity but yielded post-medieval artefacts. Area D contained a number of these, one of which (F214D) aligned parallel to a post-medieval trackway, yielded a fragment of Romano-British tile (imbrex), probably residual. UNDATED A number of excavation areas contained features which proved undatable. The majority of these features comprised pits, postholes and ditches and were excavated in Areas E, J, K, M, L, N, P and in during the watching brief. In particular, Areas L and N proved to contain nothing of archaeological significance (Figs. 44 and 45). In Area J a small circular hearth (F205J) lay just to the east of the north-south aligned enclosure ditch F201J. It is possible on the basis of proximity that ditch (F225M) and gully (F252M) may have been associated with the enclosure systems in Area M, either during Period 2 or in Period 3. Similarly four pits (F224M, F251M, F253M and F265M), each exhibiting various degrees of evidence for burning, may perhaps have been associated with the two north-south Romano-British ditches in the west of the area. During the watching brief in 2001 a small rectangular enclosure was exposed (F400W). Measuring only c 5.0m by 5.0m, it was located between the ditches of the northsouth Romano-British droveway, just to the northeast of Area D. Its ditches were 0.7m wide and 0.35m deep. It may be that it was contemporary with the droveway, but the absence of artefacts and of a direct stratigraphic relationship, taken with its unusually small size, means it is difficult to place it in Period 3. It may for instance, have provided some corralling function associated with droveway activity, but parallels are required before that hypothesis can be proposed with any confidence.

Fig. 43 Area M: Period 3 hearths

minimal in these areas. In Area K, there was some evidence for more substantial truncation of archaeological features, notably of several ditches, one of which may well have been associated with a possible length of Romano-British droveway F102K.

During the watching brief in 2004 part of a brushwood platform or trackway was exposed on a gravel rise between two palaeochannels. The feature was c 4.50m long and c 2.50m wide. No artefacts were associated with it, but tentative evidence of wooden stake uprights at the western end was observed, enough to indicate it was a structure rather than a loose collection of naturally deposited debris.

53

EXCAVATIONS AT WHITEMOOR HAYE QUARRY, STAFFORDSHIRE 2000-2004

Fig. 44 Area L: Plan of all excavated features

54

Fig. 45 Area N: Plan of all excavated features

THE SITE

55

CHAPTER THREE

The Finds probably caused by burning since crazing and some thermal pitting is visible on the surface.

WORKED FLINT by Lawrence Barfield

Scrapers A total of 32 worked flints were recovered from Whitemoor Haye (Table 10). Of these, twenty were recovered from pit F122W where they were associated with Beaker pottery (see Woodward below). The remainder were recovered from a number of different features in the excavation and watching brief areas. The flint from pit F122W is considered first, as a discrete assemblage, with the remainder following. All worked flint was examined for wear traces under a low power microscope.

There were four scrapers, all of small size; three are typical thumb-nail scrapers. The latter measured 17mm, 20mm, 40mm and 30mm in diameter, respectively. One was made on a thin broken flake (1034, Fig. 46.2); the other two (1033, 1034, Fig. 46.3-4), were on thick bulbous flakes in which the ventral side consisted entirely of the prominent bulb. These last two pieces would appear to be typical Beaker products on deliberately produced bulbous flakes. The flake blanks were also both struck using a hard hammer leaving a wide striking platform of more than 10mm across in each case. The fourth scraper (1034, Fig. 46.5), while typologically an end-scraper, is atypical in being very small and made on a very thick flake with a wide (10mm) platform. It can thus be associated with the thumb-nail scrapers. The example from fill 1033 (Fig. 46.3) showed a slight diffuse polish along the underside edge.

Table 10: Contexts with worked flint Feature F122W F109.02W F124W F127.05W F134W F221J F234M F271M F300.03I F304I F308I

context 1033 1034 1035 1031 1037 1057 1066 2028 2045 2106 3011 3008 3009

Number 4 15 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1

The thumb-nail scrapers are typically Beaker in date in Britain, although not well represented on some Beaker sites. At Hockwold cum Wilton, while scrapers represented 67% of the tools, there was only one thumbnail scraper (Bamford 1982). Pièces esquillées The three pièces esquillées (Fig. 46.6 to 46.8) are flakes which typically show bipolar flaking from opposite sides of the flake (the application of force from both ends at the same time). There are, however, problems in deciding whether they represent just a technique for obtaining small flakes by using an anvil technique (eg Ballin 1999) or whether they were tools in their own right, used perhaps as wedges for splitting material such as bone. Both interpretations are probably correct in the appropriate circumstances (Furestier 2004; Hayden 1980) but an interpretation as wedges is probably the right one in this case, according to the criteria suggested by Furestier and Hayden, in that they are very small and would not have produced usable flakes. An examination of all three pieces under a low power microscope shows evidence of hammer-like abrasion along one edge only in each case. This also points to the wedge interpretation.

Pit F122W The twenty examples recovered from this pit included a high proportion of finished tools (Table 11). This is an interesting group as it is a closed assemblage of Beaker flint work and includes many features which are typical of Beaker lithics. The latter include the pièces esquillées, thumb-nail scrapers, irregular retouched flakes and the barbed and tanged arrowhead. Table 11: Pit F122W – flint tools Barbed and tanged arrowhead Scrapers pièces esquillées Retouched flakes and blade-like flakes Large regular blade Debitage

1 4 3 5 1 6

The pièce esquillée is a type or technique regarded as typical of Beaker lithics in France (Furestier 2004), where it appeared for the first time in some regions (though was already present in others). In Britain it is generally associated with the alternative interpretation of the technique; the anvil working of poor quality intractable

Arrowhead (Fig. 46.1) A barbed and tanged form of Green’s Sutton type 1034 (Green 1980). Its present opaque beige colour was

56

THE FINDS technology in France (Furestier 2004). Two large flakes from fills 1034 and 1035 respectively showed traces of bilateral flaking and a third had a unilateral invasively flaked edge. These may all be debitage from the production of large tools such as unifacial knives. Several flakes had been struck from cortex or a natural break surface, reflecting the typical ad hoc nature of local Beaker lithics. As mentioned above the ‘debitage’ could well have been used as tools in their own right.

materials such as quartz in northern Britain or beach pebbles in south Wales (David 1990). Regular blade A fragment of a large parallel-sided blade, 20mm wide, with a trapezoidal cross-section (Fig. 46.9). The blade had been burnt. The large parallel-sided blade is unusual since such accurate large blade technology is rare in Britain, especially in the Beaker period. It suggests a specialist product imported from some distance. The distinction between true blades and blade-like flakes, is regarded as important in certain circumstances, despite objections made by certain authors (cf. Ballin 2000; Inizan et al. 1992), as they can suggest the contemporary existence of very different degrees of technical competence in blade production.

Raw material The assemblage comprised a number of different varieties of flint mostly derived from a pebble flint source. The colours include uniform black-brown and grey-brown speckled and brown mottled flint. The assemblage thus came from a number of different cores and nodules. Two pieces of a grey flint from fill 1034 with large white mottles may, however, have been struck from the same block. The two pieces which may have had a more distant provenance, the arrowhead and the wide blade, are unfortunately burnt and thus retain no original, identifiable colour.

Retouched flakes Two blade-like flakes and two irregular flakes showed signs of use and summary retouch. This ranged from limited areas of invasive retouch to fine nibbling along the edge in order to create an irregular serration. In the case of the flakes from fills 1034 (Fig. 46.10 and 46.11), the pieces had clearly been broken after retouching, suggesting the tools had been discarded on, or after breakage. A thick flake also from fill 1034 had evidence of micro-serration along its edge, which could have been deliberate.

Pit stratigraphy Within the stratigraphy of pit F122W the upper fill 1033 contained four flints, including a thumb-nail scraper (Fig. 46.3), and the pièce esquillée, (Fig. 46.6 and 46.7; see Table 11). Fill 1034 contained fifteen pieces, including scrapers (Fig. 46.2, 46.4 and 46.5), the large blade (Fig. 46.9), and the arrowhead (Fig. 46.1); primary fill 1035 contained only one piece, probably debitage from a unifacial tool.

It is not always possible to be certain whether or not such ‘retouch’ is intentional or accidental and identical retouch can be produced by trampling under foot (Prost 1988). However, there are two reasons that these pieces should be taken seriously as possible tools. Firstly, we should note that crude flakes with utilisation and summary retouch such as the pieces described here are a feature of Beaker grave goods on the continent, sometimes with traces of use wear. Thus flakes similar to ours have been found in Bell Beaker graves in Holland (Butler and J. D. van der Waals 1966, fig. 4a), Moravia (Kopacz et al. 2003) and southern Poland (Budziszewski 2003). Secondly, given the absence of evidence for the processing of flint in areas such as the West Midlands it is highly likely that even irregular unretouched flakes would have been put to some use (cf. Barfield 2001). On this evidence we should consider that even waste flakes without ‘retouch’ are potential cutting tools. Examination under a low power microscope, however, revealed no evidence of wear traces on any of the pieces.

Interpretation Two of the most significant pieces, the arrowhead and the fine blade (both from fill 1034) are burnt but whether this is illustrative of a connection between the two is unclear. The other pieces comprised the four scrapers, the three pièces esquillées and five utilised/ marginally retouched flakes and blade-like flakes, besides the residue from the manufacture and modification of large tools and other flakes. They do not appear to represent a coherent assemblage and how far we may see some of these pieces as part of a structured deposition remains unclear. This is in contrast to the assemblage of Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age pottery, which is considered more firmly to represent an example of structured deposition (see Woodward below).

Debitage

The assemblage, although small in quantity, shows a high proportion of tools to debitage such as found on some other Beaker sites as at Hockwold cum Wilton where the assemblage was dominated by tools (61%) (Bamford 1982).

The main technology applied to the unworked flakes was hard hammer flaking. Some flakes were chunks, perhaps core trimming, while one large flake from fill 1034, which may also have fine retouch along one edge, showed flake removals which suggested an attempt to use it as a core. Flakes used as cores are a feature of Beaker

We can also note the high concentration of flint in this pit in contrast to the paucity of flint from other features. 57

EXCAVATIONS AT WHITEMOOR HAYE QUARRY, STAFFORDSHIRE 2000-2004 associated with Early Bronze Age pottery but is culturally undiagnostic. Whilst the single blade stands out with its soft hammer technology as a type most characteristic of the earlier Neolithic, a later date cannot, however, be ruled out.

Remaining industry The other features excavated on the site produced only a total of 13 flakes. Of these only two features F127.05W (1057) and F271M (2106) contained two pieces while the rest contained one each (see Table 12).

General conclusions Table 12: Flakes from other features Scraper Awl (?) Pièce esquillée Blade Debitage

The relatively abundant quantity of flint from Beaker pit F122W contrasts with the sparse total recovered from the remaining features. The explanations for this could be various: either there was a more concentrated settlement activity in the Beaker period than in the other periods, or perhaps there was a decline in the use of flint in these (probably) later periods, or lastly, it is possible that an intentional concentrated deposition took place in pit F122W.

1 1 1 1 9

Scraper This is an ovoid scraper on a hard-hammer struck cortex flake of black flint, from ring-ditch section F300.03I (3011; see Fig. 46.12).

The Whitemoor Haye assemblage represents an important collection of material including as it does a rare closed Beaker assemblage from the West Midlands. The only contemporary, but very different assemblage comes from the Beaker burial at Wellington, Marden, Herefordshire (Harrison, Jackson and Napthan 1999).

Awl (?) The ‘awl’, from pit F308I (3015) is a small ad hoc tool on a small, hard-hammer, cortex flake. This could be an accidental piece.

Catalogue of illustrated items from pit F122W (Fig. 46)

Blade A single broken blade from pit F134W (1066) struck with a soft hammer with a very thin platform. Light buff grey flint with a black streak.

1. Barbed and tanged arrowhead, burnt flint (1034). 2 Discoidal scraper on broken flake, dark grey flint, 17mm. diameter (1034). 3. Thumb-nail scraper on hard-hammer struck bulbar flake, grey-brown mottled flint, diameter 24mm; striking platform thickness 10mm, slight diffuse polish on ventral surface (1033). 4. Thumb-nail scraper on bulbous, hard-hammer struck, cortex flake, grey-brown flint with lighter mottle, 30mm diameter, platform thickness 10mm (1034). 5. Short scraper on hard-hammer struck, thick flake, grey mottled black-brown flint, platform thickness, 10mm (1034). 6. Pièce esquillée, on hard-hammer struck cortex flake, black brown pebble flint, bipolar flaking, upper edge shows flaking prior to hammer abrasion; hammer abrasion only on one edge (1033). 7. Pièce esquillée, on flake, grey-brown flint, bipolar working, hammer abrasion only on one edge (1033). 8. Pièce esquillée, on flake, grey-brown flint, bipolar working, one end shows signs of hammering (1034). 9. Accurate blade with trapezoidal cross-section, broken, on burnt flint (1034). 10. Blade-like flake, grey and dark brown mottled flint, fine irregular marginal retouch (1034). 11. Flake, black and buff mottle flint, retouched (?) edge, but no evidence of wear use, flake broken after retouch (1034).

Pièce esquillée One pièce esquillée recovered from ring-ditch section F127.05W (1057). Debitage The discarded products comprised predominantly irregular chunky flakes which had used a hard hammer technology. Some were fragments of smashed nodules without signs of percussion working. Two nodule fragments, from F271M and F304I, each without signs of percussion working, looked as if they were derived from the same rolled nodule. A fragment of a blade core in black flint was found at unstratified surface levels. Discussion The remaining flint is perhaps no more than ‘background noise’ on scattered material. Several features, however, such as the pièce esquillée from ring-ditch section F127W, 1057 and the predominating crude hard-hammer technology, are comparable with the Beaker assemblage from pit F122W and thus may mostly be of similar date. The ovoid scraper from ring-ditch section F300.03I was

F300I 12. Ovoid scraper, on hard-hammer struck flake, black flint (F300.03I, 3011)

58

THE FINDS

Fig. 46 Worked flint

59

EXCAVATIONS AT WHITEMOOR HAYE QUARRY, STAFFORDSHIRE 2000-2004 Fabric

NEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE POTTERY

The pottery fabrics were recorded by standard code and these data, along with a record of colour (exterior, core and interior) and surface texture, are included in the archive. As most of the sherds derived from specific vessels, the formulation of a set of standard fabric types has not been attempted. Instead the fabric of each main vessel illustrated is described individually below. To aid analysis, samples from 13 identifiable vessels were selected for petrographic analysis by thin section. The results of these analyses appear in a separate report (see Ixer below) and the sample codes are cross-referenced to the illustrated pottery descriptions below. As is usual for these periods, the Middle Neolithic vessel contains large, angular inclusions of white quartzite, and the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age fabrics are dominated by grog inclusions, occasionally accompanied by sand. Of particular interest is the occurrence of bone fragments in several of the Beaker vessels, the recognition of instances of ‘grog-in-grog’, and the incidences of the use of grog derived from more than one earlier pot in a single fabric.

by Ann Woodward, with contributions by Rob Ixer Introduction A total of 864 sherds of early prehistoric pottery was recovered from predominantly Period 1 features and structures in Areas I, J and P and from the watching brief areas (see Table 13). The assemblage provides a very important addition to the groups of early prehistoric ceramics found previously at Whitemoor Haye (Woodward 2002). The pottery weighed a total of 8254g, giving an overall average sherd weight of 10g. Pottery from all periods between the Middle Neolithic and Early Bronze Age periods was represented, as summarised in Table 13. Most sherds derived from Beakers and Collared Urns. Whilst most of the Beaker material derived from a single deposit within pit F122W in the watching brief area to the southwest of Area P, a single Beaker vessel, three Collared Urns, and a Food Vessel were associated with human cremation deposits, also from the area of the watching brief in the vicinity of Area P (Fig. 9). Most of the Collared Urn sherds, and all of the Food Vessel fragments, came from these funerary vessels. Average sherd weights for most of the material were relatively high and much of the pottery was fresh when deposited (see Table 13). The Middle Neolithic bowl and Early Bronze Age funerary vessels (Collared Urns and Food Vessel) were particularly fresh. On the other hand the condition of the Beaker material was much more varied.

Form and decoration Most of the diagnostic material is illustrated below, and details of profile, rim form and decoration are provided for each individual vessel. Descriptions of the remaining decorated sherds are included in the archive. Amongst this material the most important pieces are four sherds of possible Late Neolithic Grooved ware from Ring-ditch 1, F300.03I in Area I. These comprised one abraded base angle and three wall sherds from a large buff-coloured thin-walled vessel. The fabric contained sparse angular and ill-sorted large quartz inclusions together with rare sand.

The pottery was recorded in accord with the guidelines provided by the Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group (PCRG 1997), using the standard Birmingham Archaeology pro forma. A summary of the full record, which will be housed with the site archive, is provided in Appendix 2.

Table 13: The occurrence of Neolithic and Early Bronze Age by period Period

Quantity

Middle Neolithic Late Neolithic Beaker Collared Urn EBA Food Vessel Late Neolithic/ EBA Totals

10 4 399 353 30 52 16 864

Weight (g) 107 30 5080 2324 146 525 42 8254g

Average sherd weight (g) 11 7.5 13 7 5 10 3 10g

60

Fresh

Abraded

Very abraded

8 180 343 52 583

4 197 2 26 3 232

2 15 8 4 13 42

Table 14 F122W: Beaker material by context

THE FINDS

61

EXCAVATIONS AT WHITEMOOR HAYE QUARRY, STAFFORDSHIRE 2000-2004 Illustrated items Fig. 47: Peterborough ware from the watching brief in 2004 (No.1) and Beaker pottery from the watching brief in 2001 southwest of Area P, pit F122W (Nos. 2-4). 1.

Joining fragments from the upper portion of a shouldered bowl with externally bevelled rim and sharp shoulder with raised ridge. Decoration comprised whipped cord maggot impressions forming a herringbone design above and below the shoulder. There are also close set diagonal maggot impressions on the rim; inside the rim and neck there are further rows of maggot impressions arranged in a herringbone pattern. Peterborough ware, Mortlake style. Fabric: quartzite inclusions (thin section A). F205W, 2005.

2.

Joining rim and neck sherds, and sherd with carination from a very large Beaker vessel. Rim surviving: 19%. The rounded rim, with two plain cordons below, is everted and thickened. Below the neck the upper wall and area immediately below the sharply angled carination are decorated with horizontal rows of elongated stabs arranged in a rough herringbone design. Fabric: grog inclusions (thin section B). Vessel 1, contexts 1033, 1034 and 1035.

3.

Rim, belly and base sherds from a tall, S-profiled Beaker with simple everted rim. Rim surviving: 41%; base: 62%. Decoration comprised horizontal rows of stab impressions. Below the rim these are triangular in shape but below the belly they are more oval in outline. Fabric: grog and ?quartz inclusions (thin section R). Vessel 6, contexts 1034 and 1035.

4.

Rim, neck and carinated sherds from a large Beaker vessel with everted rounded rim and a single cordon below the rim. Rim surviving: 40%. Decoration comprised rows of short stabs, some arranged horizontally and some, in the neck area, arranged alternately horizontally and vertically in rough panels. Fabric: grog and bone inclusions (thin section D). Vessel 2, contexts 1033, 1034 and 1035.

62

THE FINDS

Fig. 47 Peterborough ware - pit F205W (No.1) and Beaker pottery - pit F122W(Nos. 2-4)

63

EXCAVATIONS AT WHITEMOOR HAYE QUARRY, STAFFORDSHIRE 2000-2004 Fig. 48: Beaker pottery from the watching brief in 2001 southwest of Area P. Pit F122W. 5.

Rim, and upper wall sherds from a large Beaker vessel with strongly everted rim and a rim cordon. Rim surviving: 18%. The cordon and upper wall are decorated with horizontal rows of diagonal whipped cord maggot impressions. Fabric: grog and bone inclusions (thin section S). Vessel 3, contexts 1034 and 1035.

6.

Rim to neck and carinated sherds from a large, tall Beaker vessel with a slightly everted and cordoned plain rim. Rim surviving: 81%. Decoration comprised spaced zones of horizontal rows of individual comb impressions: 5 rows below the rim, 4 rows above the carination and 5 rows below the carination, plus a zone of diagonal comb impressions at the carination. Fabric: grog inclusions (thin section C). Vessel 5, contexts 1033, 1034 and 1035.

7.

Sherds from the lower neck and rounded carination of a large Beaker vessel, decorated with irregular roughly horizontal rows of circular stabs. Fabric: grog inclusions (thin section sample T). Vessel 4, context 1034.

8.

Carinated sherds from a large Beaker. There is a row of comb-impressed hatched triangles pendant below at least two rows of comb impressions, and part of a separate zone of horizontal comb-impressed rows below. Fabric: grog inclusions, plus bone and quartz (thin section G). Vessel 9, contexts 1033, 1034 and 1035.

9.

Neck fragments from a large Beaker decorated with an incised design comprising, from the top, three horizontal lines, herringbone pattern arranged in blocks and two opposed and joining rows of horizontally filled triangles. Fabric: grog inclusions (thin section E). Vessel 7, contexts 1033, 1034 and 1035.

10. Plain simple rim sherd from a large Beaker. Fabric: moderate medium to large grog inclusions. Context 1034. 11. Two joining belly sherds decorated with point tooth comb impressions arranged in irregular horizontal lines. Fabric: moderate small to medium grog inclusions. Context 1034. 12. Wall sherd decorated comb-impressed horizontal lines and strokes, forming ‘ermine’ pattern. Fabric: moderate small to medium grog inclusions. Context 1034. 13. Two joining belly sherds decorated with a comb-impressed ‘ermine’ design. Fabric: moderate small to medium grog inclusions. Context 1034. 14. Belly sherd decorated with point tooth comb impressions in irregular spaced horizontal rows. Fabric: moderate medium to large grog inclusions. Context 1033. 15. Carinated sherd with incised herringbone decoration. Fabric: moderate medium grog inclusions. Context 1034. 16. Everted rim fragment decorated with rows of diagonal incised strokes, and a zone of six horizontal incised lines between. Fabric: rare grog inclusions, sand and voids. Context 1034. 17. Belly sherd decorated with ‘stab and drag’ impressions forming almost continuous horizontal lines. Fabric: moderate medium to large grog inclusions. Context 1034.

64

THE FINDS

Fig. 48 Beaker pottery - pit F122W (Nos. 5-17)

65

EXCAVATIONS AT WHITEMOOR HAYE QUARRY, STAFFORDSHIRE 2000-2004 Fig. 49: Beaker pottery from the watching brief in 2001 southwest of Area P. Pit F122W (Nos. 18 to 22). Beaker pottery from the watching brief in 2001 south of Area P, Ring-ditch 3, F127W (No. 23) and from Area I (No. 24); Early Bronze Age pottery from cremations both to the north and south of Area P and from Ring-ditch 1 in Area I (Nos. 25 to 29). 18. Wall sherd decorated with widely spaced rows of circular stab impressions, probably made with stick or a bone tool. Fabric: moderate medium to large grog inclusions. Context 1034. 19. Everted rim sherd decorated with closely set rows of spaced slightly triangular stabs, made with a bone tool or stick. Fabric: moderate medium grog inclusions and rare sand. Context 1033. 20. Belly sherd with a row of shallow circular bosses. Fabric: moderate medium to large grog inclusions. Fabric: moderate medium to large grog inclusions. Context 1034. 21. Simple base angle (46%). Fabric: moderate medium grog inclusions, with sparse small to medium shell. Context 1034. 22. Base angle with slight foot (35%). Fabric: rare micaceous sand and voids. Context 1034. 23. Two joining sherds from carination and base and lower wall from a large Beaker. The base (82% surviving) is slightly raised towards the centre, there is a fairly sharp carination and traces of two rows of lentoid stabs immediately above the carination. Fabric: moderate medium grog inclusions. Watching brief 2001. F128W, context 1048, cremation deposit HB4 (decorated sherds) and F129W, context 1051, cremation deposit HB5 (the base). 24. Sherd from carination, with diagonal incised lines above and below the carination. Beaker. Fabric: sparse medium grog and rock inclusions. Ring-ditch 1, Area I, F303I, 3007. 25. Rim, collar and neck from a Collared Urn. Rim surviving: 82%. Decoration comprised a herringbone design executed in whipped cord maggot impressions on the collar and a row of almost vertical maggot impressions on the internal rim bevel. Fabric: grog and quartz inclusions (thin section H). Watching brief 2001 south of Area P. F126W, 1045, cremation deposit HB6. 26. Shoulder sherd from a different Collared Urn, decorated with spaced lentoid stabs at the base of the collar and a row of diagonal maggot impressions above. Fabric: moderate large grog inclusions. Watching brief 2001 south of Area P. F126W, 1045, cremation deposit HB6. 27. Complete profile of Food Vessel with thick, narrow base and internal rim bevel. Rim: 62% surviving; base: 100%. Decoration comprises a row of stabs below the rim and three rows of abraded whipped cord maggot impressions on and between two low raised ridges. Further spaced maggot impressions are arranged horizontally around the internal rim bevel. Fabric: grog inclusions (thin section J). Watching brief 2001 south of Area P. F126W, 1044, cremation deposit HB6. 28. Rim, collar and neck from a Collared Urn with upright collar and deep internal rim moulding. Rim surviving: 88%. Decoration comprises, on the collar: three irregular rows of oval stabs, arranged in rough herringbone pattern; on the neck: zones of two rows of herringbone, in similar technique, alternating between wide finger grooves. The internal rim moulding carries three irregular rows of twisted cord impressions. Fabric: grog inclusions (thin section I). Watching brief 2001 north of Area P. F300W, 3000, cremation deposit HB7. 29. Rim (8% surviving) and collar from a plain Collared Urn with deep internal rim moulding. Fabric: moderate medium to large grog inclusions and rare sand. Ring-ditch 1, Area I, F300.03I, 3011.

66

THE FINDS

Fig. 49 Beaker and Early Bronze Age pottery (Nos. 18-29)

67

EXCAVATIONS AT WHITEMOOR HAYE QUARRY, STAFFORDSHIRE 2000-2004 that average sherd weight per vessel was highly variable, and that some vessels (especially Vessels 1, 2, 5 and 6) were much better represented than others (by weight). To summarise, the pit deposit contained fragments from a minimum of about 30 vessels. Eight of these, most of them large, were represented by between 6 and 80 sherds, while many more were represented by one or two sherds only. Many vessels were represented in either two or all three of the successive deposits within the pit, and several conjoins of sherds from different layers were recognised.

Fragmentation Much of the material derived from a series of individual vessels, the forms of which have been reconstructed to varying extents, and illustrated above. This applies to all of the Food Vessel sherds (associated with cremation deposit HB6), most of the Collared Urn fragments (associated with cremation deposits HB6 and HB7), and also to many of the Beaker sherds from pit F122W. The Beaker base from Ring-ditch 3, F127W (with cremation deposit HB5) and the carinated sherds from the same vessel (with cremation deposit HB4) were much more fragmentary. It would seem that this Beaker had originally been deposited in an upright position, while the two main Collared Urns had been laid rim down. In all cases it would appear that the parts of the vessels nearest the modern ground surface had been removed by subsequent land-use.

Abrasion The apparent degree of abrasion was assessed for all sherds using a threefold classification: fresh, abraded and very abraded, and this information is included in the archive. Most of the sherds relating to the vessels from burial contexts: the Food Vessel, the two main Collared Urns and the lower portion of the Beaker from ring-ditch F127W, were fresh, albeit fragmented by the plough or quarry machinery. The same applies to the joining Middle Neolithic Peterborough ware bowl fragments found during the 2004 watching brief. In contrast, most of the varied early prehistoric pottery from contexts relating to Ring-ditch 1 in Area I were abraded or very abraded. These were probably residual, but may well have derived from features originally associated with the ring-ditch, or cut by it.

The detailed nature of fragmentation patterns amongst the Beaker pottery from pit F122W is of particular interest. A summary of the material present, according to the three contexts defined (upper fill 1033, mid fill 1034 and lower fill 1035) is shown in Table 14. It was possible to recognise a series of ten major vessels (Vessels 1 to 10), a further series of decorated and feature sherds (sherds (a) to (k) in archive) along with small groups of other various unillustrated wall sherds with decoration (described in the archive) and some plain wall sherds. Very interestingly, there were only ten base sherds within the pit assemblage and, of the total number of wall sherds, a large proportion (64%) were decorated. The individual vessels were represented by between one and 80 sherds (see Table 15). However, conjoins were few. At first it was thought that the sherds from individual vessels would join to form large chunks that may have been deposited in one piece. But this proved not to be the case. A few large conjoining chunks were identified, but most of the sherds did not join, a factor which strongly impeded the process of reconstructing the probable vessel profiles. Figures for the eight vessels best represented are shown, in illustration order, in Table 15. From this it can be seen

Within the filling of pit F122W abraded and unabraded sherds occurred in roughly equal quantities (see Table 14). In the upper fill (context 1033) fresh sherds slightly outnumbered abraded material but in the two lower fills (1034 and 1035) abraded sherds were slightly better represented. Such a mixture of abraded and fresh material is unusual. Even more interesting is the fact that amongst the better represented vessels, individual vessels comprise sherds which are variously fresh, abraded, very abraded and even burnt (see Table 15). This applies to Vessels 1, 2, 3, 5 and 9. In the case of two vessels (1 and 5) a few sherds were heavily burnt, and in the case of Vessel 1 it appeared that three joining rim and neck sherds were

Table 15: Pit F122W: Details of the major Beaker vessels represented Figure Vessel

quantity %quantity weight (g) av sh wt rim base dec wall fresh abraded v abraded notes 2 burnt; 3 wasters

Petrology

47.2

Vessel 1 80

35

2111

26g

4

0

60

49

30

1

B

47.3

Vessel 6 26

11

368

14g

8

5

7

26

0

0

R

47.4

Vessel 2 45

19

497

11g

7

0

34

36

7

1

D

48.5

Vessel 3 35

14

282

8g

4

0

31

28

4

2

S

48.6

Vessel 5 28

12

693

25g

3

0

24

4

21

2

1 lightly burnt C

48.7

Vessel 4 6

3

164

27g

0

0

6

6

0

0

T

48.8

Vessel 9 6

3

97

16g

0

0

2

2

3

1

48.9

Vessel 7 6

3

80

13g

0

0

5

5

0

0

100

4292

18.5g

26

5

169

156

65

7

Totals

232

68

E

THE FINDS 210). Fine incised designs of the type represented on Figs. 48.15 to 48.17 usually occur on vessels belonging to the S3 and S4 groups.

wasters: the result of a failed pottery firing. Of the diagnostic vessels represented by only one or a few sherds, again some were fresh, some abraded, and some very abraded (see Table 14: sherds (a) to (k)).

The Early Bronze Age Collared Urn from watching brief 2001 just to the north of Area P, F300W (Fig. 49.28) belongs to the Primary Series as defined by Longworth (1984). Primary traits represented include the internal moulding, simple rim, herringbone decoration, slightly convex exterior collar surface and internal decoration. It can be compared to vessels from Glaston, Leicestershire (Longworth 1984, pl.6(d), no.854) and, for the profile, Avebury, Wiltshire (Longworth 1984, pl.25(b), no. 1649). The Collared Urn from watching brief 2001 to the south of Area P, cremation deposit F126W (Fig. 49.25) is also of the Primary Series, with primary traits of herringbone decoration and straight external collar surface. It can be compared with the vessel from Chillesford, Suffolk (Longworth 1984, pl. 48(a), no. 1441). The plain example from Area I, F300.03W (Fig. 49.29), with internal moulding and simple rim may also be of the Primary Series, with a parallel from Slapton, Devon (Longworth 1984, pl.77(a), no.355). The Food Vessel from cremation deposit F126W is a basic bipartite vase, similar to one found at Cossington Site 2, Leicestershire (Vine 1982, 175 and 358, no.571). This was found in a barrow along with three Collared Urns.

Discussion The single vessel of Peterborough ware can be compared with those recovered from Evaluation Trench B which have been published previously (Woodward 2002, 44-5). In particular the shape of the Mortlake style bowl is similar to the single bowl from Trench B (Woodward 2002, fig. 33.3) which was found with fragments from three further vessels in Fengate style. However the maggot decoration is much better paralleled on the rim and shoulder fragments from Fisherwick, which come from a Mortlake bowl with a more vertical rim (Miles 1969, fig. 12.1). A discussion of local parallels and the dating for Peterborough ware was provided by Barclay (Woodward 2002, 46). The tradition probably was current during the Middle Neolithic, between c 3350 and 2800 cal BC. The Beaker vessels from pit F122W belong mainly to Clarke’s Wessex/ Middle Rhine tradition (as defined in Clarke 1970), although a few sherds bearing traits, which would fall within later traditions are also represented. The Wessex/ Middle Rhine tradition mainly falls within Case’s Group D, dating between c 2500 and 2000 cal BC (Case 1993, figs. 16-18). According to the new typological scheme devised by Needham (forthcoming), the main F122W vessels belong to his Low-Carinated (LC) and Tall Mid-Carinated (TMC) forms, both dating between c 2500 and 2000 cal BC, but with No.3 probably belonging to his category with ‘S’ profiles (SP) which may have continued later, to c 1800 cal BC. Many of the vessels show close affinity with the group of domestic Wessex/ Middle Rhine Beakers excavated at Dean Bottom, Wiltshire (Gingell 1992). Vessel 1 (Fig. 47.2) is similar to Gingell 1992, figs. 46.7 and 47.1, and also, in shape, to a vessel from Fengate, Northamptonshire (Clarke 1970, 309, fig. 230) and Vessel 6 (Fig. 47.3) is similar in shape to Gingell 1992, fig. 46.6 and to a Beaker from Eynsham, Oxfordshire (Clarke 1970, 308, fig. 220). Vessel 2 (Fig. 47.4) compares with Gingell 1992, fig. 46.1 and 47.1 (rim) and fig. 46.1 (profile), and the rims of Vessels 3 (Fig. 48.5) and 5 (Fig. 48.6) match Gingell 1992, figs. 47.1 and 46.2 respectively.

The radiocarbon date obtained for cremated bone from HB6 in F126W relates to one of the Primary Series Collared Urns and the Food Vessel. The span of Collared Urns falls between c 2100 and 1300 cal BC, and the date of 1930 to 1730 cal BC (Wk-16866; 95.4% probability) falls within the first half of this currency. This provides a useful date for a vessel of the Primary Series, and also for the associated Food Vessel. Food Vessels are roughly contemporary with middle to late Beakers, c 2200 to 1650 cal BC, so the Whitemoor Haye date also complies with the expected absolute chronology. The Beaker interpretation

assemblage

from

pit

F122W:

The assemblage of Beaker pottery from pit F122W is of exceptional interest and is of national importance. It comprised fragments from a minimum of c 30 vessels, with sherds from various individual vessels being recorded throughout the three fills. Several conjoins between sherds from different layers were also located. This means that the filling of the pit was a single and specific event. Much of the ceramic material derived from a series of eight large Beaker vessels. These had not been deposited as major chunks as relatively few joining sherds were present. The occurrence of very few base fragments and a high incidence of decorated sherds suggest that the sherds had been deliberately selected for deposition. Overall there was a mixture of fresh, abraded and very abraded fragments, and sherd size was highly variable. Furthermore different sherds from the same vessel often were variously fresh, abraded, very abraded

Vessel 7 (Fig. 48.9), however, belongs to a later style, with reserved diamonds which have parallels on Beakers belonging to the Developed Southern (S2) series eg Fengate (Clarke 1970, 383, fig. 856), and incised herringbone motif which can be paralleled on a Final Southern (S4) Beaker from Staxton, Yorkshire (Clarke 1970, 402, fig. 983). Amongst the sherd material, Figs. 48.12 and 48.13 bear the ermine motif; although a Basic European motif, which occurs commonly on vessels of the Wessex/ Middle Rhine group (Clarke 1970, 103), this also occurs on S1 and S2 Beakers (Clarke 1970, 198 and 69

EXCAVATIONS AT WHITEMOOR HAYE QUARRY, STAFFORDSHIRE 2000-2004 approximately 1.8m wide and 0.5m deep, U-shaped and contained two fills. The 88 (large) pottery sherds were recovered from the uppermost of two fills 2034.

or burnt. Most of the vessels belonged to the Wessex/ Middle Rhine tradition, but a few later vessels were also represented. As the material was all deposited at the same time, this indicates either that Wessex/ Middle Rhine vessels survived later than previously thought, or that the sherds had been deposited over a long period of time at a location away from the pit. The sherds with later motifs were no more or less abraded than the earlier vessels, and both fresh and abraded pieces of late style vessels were represented. This suggests that both early and late ceramic material had been deposited, and eventually covered by soil, in one or more contexts, perhaps in the vicinity of the pit. The most likely form for such primary deposits would have been middens. The occurrence of Beaker middens elsewhere, and the re-use of midden material in secondary, ritual deposits has been reviewed and discussed in detail elsewhere (Woodward 2002). The deposit from pit F122W at Whitemoor Haye provides a fine example of such activity, and can be added to the growing number of instances of the ritual use of heirloom ceramics in or around Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age sites of ritual and funerary importance.

The amount of pottery recovered throughout the seasons of excavation varied extensively. It can be seen in Table 16 that the number of sherds recovered from features ranges from one sherd up to 99 sherds. However, only three features contained more than 50 sherds each. It is feasible that these particular assemblages may have been ritually deposited vessels, whereas the smaller groups are most probably the result of breakage during use and subsequent discard as rubbish. Fabric The fabric codes used for the pottery analysis relate to, and continue on from, those stated in the first volume of the Whitemoor Haye excavations (Woodward 2002, 478). From the pottery sherds recovered and studied in the 1997-1999 report, seven different fabrics were defined. The pottery sherds recovered during the years 2000-2004 overlap with some of these previously discovered fabrics (Fabrics 2 and 5), yet a further six fabrics were identified in this collection of pottery. These sherds were analysed using a microscope, and the relative fabrics were characterised. The pottery fabric sheets can be located in the archive. Two samples were selected for petrographic analysis (see Ixer below).

IRON AGE POTTERY by Louise Bush, with contributions by Ann Woodward This report analyses and describes the pottery assemblages recovered during the excavations between the years 2000 and 2004. There are a total of 512 sherds, weighing 9608g. All of this assemblage is attributed to the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age periods. The material was recovered from excavations in Areas I, J and M and from watching briefs carried out in 2001 to the south of Area P, and in 2004 to the northeast of Area F. A summary of the occurrence of pottery by feature and area is given in Table 16.

Fabric 2 Soft, yet coarse matrix containing well mixed sand and clay pellet inclusions. The colour of the pottery is of a grey/ buff throughout, and fractures with an uneven (hackly) break. Fabric 5 A soft and dark, fine sandy fabric with no large inclusions. The external surface colour is largely dark grey/ black with patches of oxidised orange.

The pottery was recorded according to the guidelines of the Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group, using standard Birmingham Archaeology recording forms. Form codings are based on those devised for the East Midlands by Knight (1998).

Fabric 8 Extremely coarse matrix containing large and angular quartzite inclusions (varying from 810mm in size), as well as sand and clay pellets. Due to the size of the quartzite, it is poorly sorted throughout the pottery, thus the high sphericity pieces of quartzite extrude from both the external and internal surfaces of the pottery. The most frequent inclusion is the clay pellets, which, along with the sand, is well sorted throughout the matrix of the pottery. Due to the varying size and make-up of the inclusions, this fabric breaks with a hackly fracture.

Context The largest amount of pottery came from droveway ditch section F227.03W and possible enclosure ditch section F233.01W during the 2004 watching brief in an area located to the northeast of Area F. These were two discrete ditches, which may be broadly contemporary. Ditch F233W was one of two parallel ditches along with F232W, which were aligned north-south at the easternmost extent of the stripped area. The 99 very abraded sherds were recovered from primary fill 2051.

Fabric 9 Similar to Fabric 8, but with smaller quartzite inclusions, ranging from 2-4mm in diameter, which is well sorted within the matrix of the pottery. It has a very soft and sandy texture. The external and internal surface colour is of an orange/ buff, whilst the core is dark grey.

F227W was the northernmost of three parallel ditches aligned east to west, and located to the west of ditches F232W and F233W. Ditch section F227.03W was 70

THE FINDS Table 16: The occurrence of pottery by feature and area Area I I I Total W01 W01 W01 W01 W01 W01 W01 W01 W01 W01 Total J J J J J J J J J J Total M M M M M M M M M M M M M Total W04 W04 W04 W04 W04 Total Grand Total

Feature Type F300.03 Ring Ditch F309.04 Ring Ditch F124 F125 F144 F144 F144 F130 F135 F143 F113

Layer Layer Pit Pit Pit Pit Pit Pit

F200 Pit F201.05 Ditch F204 Ditch F208.03 Ring Gully F209 Ditch F212 Ditch F214 Pit F215 Ditch F221 Ditch F201.01 F210 F216 F216.01 F217 F219 F220.04 F234 F242 F244 F270 F271

Gully Pit Ditch Ditch Ditch Ditch Ditch Ditch Ditch Pit Ditch Ditch

F225 F227.03 F233.01 F233.02

Pit Ditch Ditch Ditch

Quantity 8 1 9 1 10 24 2 15 1 97 3 4 157 2 1 10 3 2 2 5 31 6 62 1 1 41 1 1 18 1 12 3 1 1 8 89 4 89 99 3 195 512

Weight (g) 35 7 42 1 57 67 6 71 2 900 19 24 1147 1 28 111 3 7 10 17 181 24 382 23 40 506 19 12 55 1 253 16 90 1 61 1077 14 6362 578 6 6960 9608

Av sh wt 4 7 5 1 6 3 3 5 2 9 6 6 7 0.5 28 11 1 3.5 5 3 6 4 7 23 40 12 19 12 3 1 21 5 90 1 8 12 3.5 71 6 2 36 19

Date M-LIA EIA IA ?M/ LIA E-MIA EIA IA IA M-LIA M-LIA IA LBA/ EIA IA MIA IA IA IA IA MIA IA IA IA E-MIA IA IA IA ?IA E-MIA IA IA ?IA MIA IA M-LIA IA IA

Figure -

Notes abraded red coating

50.3 50.4 -

2 rims decorated flat rim

50.1 50.2 cup 50.5

50.6

50.7; 51.8-9

51.10 kiln debris 51.11

52.12-15

Fabric 12 A well-mixed, dark matrix containing feldspar granules, along side the quartzite and clay pellets. The entire fabric is very even, in that all the inclusions are of moderate frequency and well sorted. The overall colour of the pottery is of a dark grey, both on the internal and external surfaces and throughout the core. Fabric 13 Sandy grey matrix containing moderate quartzite measuring 1-2mm and sand. Both inclusions are well sorted and of a rounded-sub-rounded shape. The general pottery colour is of grey/ buff throughout. The interior surface is vesicular.

Fabric 10 Similar again to Fabric 8, but with medium sized quartzite with a diameter of 3-6mm. These angular inclusions are sparse within the matrix of the pottery. The clay pellets, as with Fabric 8, are the most frequent and well-sorted inclusion. Fabric 11 Fine, sandy fabric enclosing well mixed sand, clay pellet and quartzite inclusions. The quartzite measures less than 1mm in size, and as a result is rounded in shape with a low sphericity. Due to the moderate frequency of the sand, the pottery fractures in a hackly style.

71

EXCAVATIONS AT WHITEMOOR HAYE QUARRY, STAFFORDSHIRE 2000-2004 Catalogue of illustrated sherds Almost all diagnostic material, uncluding profiles, rim fragments and decorated material, is illustrated in Figs. 50 to 52. Fig. 50. Pottery from the watching brief in 2001 to south of Area P (Nos. 1-4) and from Areas J (Nos. 5-6) and M (No. 7). 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Virtually complete profile, 29%, OV with vertical neck, LSC EX, fabric 13. F135W, 1067. Rim and shoulder, 6%, short neck, flat rim, fabric 5. F113W, 1023. Simple everted rim from cup, fabric 11. F144W, 1064. One of two wall sherds decorated with triangular stab impressions, fabric 11. F144W, 1078. Rims and shoulder, 3%, GLOB with BEAD, fabric 5. F204J, 2008. Rim with TAP (tapered) and HKR (hooked rim), 4%, fabric 2. F215J, 2039. Rim and shoulder, 10%, OV with IRB/ HKR, base FLT, 7%, fabric 2. F216M, 2017.

72

THE FINDS

Fig. 50 Late Bronze Age/ Iron Age pottery (Nos. 1-7; scale 1:3)

73

EXCAVATIONS AT WHITEMOOR HAYE QUARRY, STAFFORDSHIRE 2000-2004 Fig. 51. Pottery from Area M (Nos. 8-11). 8. Rim and shoulder, 23%, GLOB with IRB (internal bevel), fabric 2. F216M, 2017 9. Rim and shoulder, 7%, GLOB with EVT/ IRB, fabric 5. F216M, 2017. 10. Complete profile, 12% OV with IRB, base FLT, 10%, FSM LIN/ V EX, fabric 2. Thin section sample U. F234M, 2045. 11. Rim and shoulder, 11% GLOB with IRB, LIN SC IN/ EX, fabric 5. F271M, 2106.

74

THE FINDS

Fig. 51 Late Bronze Age/ Iron Age pottery (Nos. 8-10; scale 1:3)

75

EXCAVATIONS AT WHITEMOOR HAYE QUARRY, STAFFORDSHIRE 2000-2004 Fig. 52. Pottery from the watching brief in 2004 (Nos. 12-15). 12. Rim and shoulder, 21%, OV with IRB, base FLT, 23%, LSC EX, fabric 8. Thin section sample V. F227.03W, 2034. 13. Rim and shoulder, 11%, OV with IRB, fabric 8. F227.03W, 2034. 14. Rim and shoulder, 7%, GLOB with TAP, fabric 9. F227.03W, 2034. 15. Rim and shoulder, 9%, GLOB with TAP/ IRB, fabric 9. F227.03W, 2034.

76

THE FINDS

Fig. 52 Late Bronze Age/ Iron Age pottery (Nos. 12-15; scale 1:3)

77

EXCAVATIONS AT WHITEMOOR HAYE QUARRY, STAFFORDSHIRE 2000-2004 four vessels were identified (Fig. 52.12 to 52.15), of which No. 12 proved the most complete, with 23% of the rim and 21% of the base present. The surviving sherds were substantial having an average sherd weight of 103g. Consequently, it is very likely that it was not a discarded vessel; rather it was probably deposited intentionally.

Form and decoration The main profile forms, which were present in the assemblage were globular and ovoid, (there was also one cup). With the exception of one Early Iron Age piece (Fig. 50.4) there was a complete absence of formal decoration on these vessels; although there was evidence of certain surface treatments. Four vessels (Fig. 50.1; Fig. 51.9; Fig. 51.11; Fig. 52.12) displayed evidence of scoring, whilst one vessel (Fig. 51.10) had vertical and linear finger smearing over the exterior. There was a total absence of any deeply grooved, scored ware.

The assemblage retrieved from ditch section F233.01W was in an extremely abraded state (abrasion level 2), and ten of the sherds had soil residue accreted around them. A total of 99 sherds from a single vessel were present in the primary fill (2051). This could perhaps imply deliberate deposition for ritual purposes. Although, within the assemblage there was only one tiny rim fragment (4%), and little of the vessel was reconstructable (only five sherds joined). The average sherd weight was 6g, small considering the chunkiness of the vessel (the average sherd thickness was 13mm). Whilst one may consider the possibility of ritual deposition, the state of the sherds, derived from quite a poor quality vessel, and the lack of diagnostic pieces, makes this likelihood rather more uncertain.

Four of the vessels displayed possible fingernail marks below the rim (Fig. 50.7; Fig. 51.8; Fig. 52.13-14). These fingernail marks are not formal decoration because each vessel only displayed one or two of these marks. It is more reasonable to conclude that that the marks were made during formation and shaping of the rim during production. One vessel, F234M, 2045 (Fig. 51.10) displayed evidence of spalling on the exterior wall. Spalling occurs when discs of clay blow off the vessel wall during firing. It is a sign that the water content of the clay has escaped violently (Gibson 2002). Spalling does not mean, however, that the vessel is rendered useless, simply that it is not a finely formed piece of pottery. There are possible signs of spalling on a vessel from pit F135W 1067 too (Fig. 50.1). Also on the vessel from pit F135W there is a potential area of dunting on the exterior wall. Dunting occurs when a vessel cracks if it has cooled to quickly after firing (Gibson 2002). Such features could be evidence of on-site pottery production. Patches of black cloud are a common occurrence on pottery, resulting from sooting during the process of firing. One vessel (Fig. 52.12) displayed such evidence.

A vessel recovered from pit F135W (1067) during the watching brief of 2001, south of Area P, is also likely to have been the result of deliberate deposit. The assemblage from this feature comprised 97 sherds, the average weight of which is 9g. This is relatively small for such a deposit. Nevertheless, the vessel has been reconstructed, and around half of the vessel is present, including 29% of the rim (Fig. 50.1 and Plate 17). The photograph shows quite clearly that the vessel survived in situ predominantly intact. It was a substantial vessel, and the fact that it was recovered from a pit, suggests it was highly likely to have been the result of some ritual deposition. Vessel function

Deposition No residues were preserved in the assemblage. As noted above there was some slight sooting on the interior base angle and exterior shoulder of one vessel in ditch F227.03W (Fig. 52.12), but not to the extent that one could ascribe it to the vessel’s function. In addition, no use-wear was observed amongst the assemblage.

The mean sherd weight for the whole assemblage was 19g (see Table 16). The average sherd weight is important in helping to ascertain the processes of deposition of the pottery. The largest sherds were recovered from the watching brief in 2004, northeast of Area F, from ditch section F227.03W (average weight 36g), and from Area M (average weight 12g). The assemblages from Areas I and J, and from the watching brief in 2001, to the south of Area P contained much smaller sherds.

Fourteen rims were recovered, the smallest diameter measuring 140mm (two vessels were recorded of this size Fig. 50.6 and Fig. 51.11), and the largest measuring 320mm (Fig. 52.12). The most common vessel diameter was 180mm, with five out of the fourteen rims having this span (36%).

The majority of the pottery (92%) recovered from ditch section F227.03W was fresh and unabraded (abrasion level 1), with only 8% being very abraded (abrasion level 2). These factors indicate that most of the pottery was probably intentionally deposited, and that several of the vessels are likely to have been deliberate depositions. Large portions of vessels were recovered from ditch section F227.03W. The ditch contained two fills with the upper fill yielding the assemblage. From this assemblage,

The assemblage contained four measurable base angles. The smallest diameter was 80mm (from pit F210M (2012), and the largest diameter was 220mm, from a vessel (Fig. 52.12) in ditch section F227.03W. The average thickness of the sherds (see Table 17) shows that the vessels would have been of a consistent thickness 78

THE FINDS This material would be roughly of the same date as the group of pottery found in F903, and published previously (Woodward 2002, fig. 37, 1-3, and this volume Appendix 6, addendum to Coates 2002).

throughout. A 10-12mm thickness is chunky for a vessel, therefore it can be said that for the majority of this assemblage, the pottery is coarse ware. The extended average thickness of the base angle is due to the fact that this is where the interior of the vessel curved up from the base to meet the wall, and so is naturally broader here.

The groups of ovoid jars with internally bevelled or hooked rims from features F216M, F234M, F271M and F215J are very similar to the pottery found in structured deposits in the earlier excavation seasons (Woodward 2002, figs. 35 and 36, and erratum this volume fig. 37, 5 and 8). These vessel forms were current from the Late Bronze Age and lasted well into the Iron Age period. At Whitemoor Haye they were radiocarbon dated to the 4th to 3rd centuries BC (at 1σ). The vessel with short neck, from the eaves drip gully of Structure 5, F113W is more typical of the Middle Iron Age period and compares well with others from the previous excavations (Woodward 2002, fig. 37, 6-7 and Appendix 6 this volume). Of slightly later form are the scored ware jar with a tall straight neck, from pit F135W, and the group of four vessels from F227.03W. Here there were two vessels with internally bevelled rims, one with a high shoulder, and two further high-shouldered jars. The globular jar with a beaded rim from enclosure ditch F204J might also fall into this later Middle to Late Iron Age bracket.

Table 17: Iron Age pottery: Variation in sherd thickness Sherd type Base Base angle Rim Wall

Number measured 73 37 151 388

Mean thickness (mm) 12 19 11 10

From looking at the measurable rim and base diameters, as well as the average thicknesses, it can be seen that the assemblage consists mainly of medium sized vessels, with two large vessels represented. The large vessels are from pit F135W (Fig. 50.1) and from ditch section F227.03W (Fig. 52.12). Discussion by Ann Woodward

A discussion of the regional parallels for the vessel forms was provided in the previous report. The main new form recognised in the more recent assemblages is the bead rim. This occurs at Willington, Derbyshire (Assemblage II), Enderby, Leicestershire and Gamston, Nottinghamshire (Woodward 2002, 50; table 14). It is probable that the assemblages date overall from about the 7th to the 1st centuries BC, and perhaps beyond into the 1st century AD.

The assemblages of Iron Age pottery from the various areas excavated have provided important dating evidence for some of the features and structures examined. The dates listed in Table 16 are based on the assessments of pottery from the 2001 to 2003 seasons and a rapid scan of the material from 2004. The most diagnostic groups are summarised in Table 18. The earliest diagnostic pieces include fragments of cups of Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age type from the watching brief (F144W) and Area J (F200J). Also from F144W came sherds decorated with triangular stabs, a typical Early Iron Age technique; and one wall sherd with a red coating of Early Iron Age type was residual in the ring-ditch in Area I.

NB. One page of prehistoric pottery drawings was omitted in error from the first published monograph (Coates 2002, fig 37). This figure is therefore published here, along with the descriptions of the illustrated Iron Age sherds concerned (Appendix 6. Erratum).

Table 18: Iron Age pottery: Diagnostic groups Area J I Watching Brief Watching Brief M M Watching Brief J M I J Watching Brief Watching Brief Watching Brief

Feature F200J F309.04I F144W F144W F216M F234M F113W F215J F271M F300.03I F204J F135W F143W F227.03W

Date LBA/ EIA EIA EIA E-MIA E-MIA E-MIA MIA MIA MIA M-LIA M-LIA M-LIA M-LIA M-LIA

Fig. numbers 50.4 50.3 50.7; 51.8-9 51.10 50.2 50.6 51.11 50.5 50.1 52.12-15

79

Notes Cup Red coating Decorated Cup rim

EXCAVATIONS AT WHITEMOOR HAYE QUARRY, STAFFORDSHIRE 2000-2004 There are few differences between the fabrics of the domestic and fine Beakers or Collared Urns and all the Bronze Age pots could have been of local manufacture using local clays. All the pots carry grog and with the exception of sample F the amount of grog suggests the intentional addition of crushed, powdered pot to the clay. In addition, most sherds carry lesser amounts of coarsegrained quartz but with the exception of sample H where the amount of quartz is significant, it is not possible to determine if the quartz is added temper or a natural, minor component of a silty clay.

PETROGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS OF PREHISTORIC POTTERY by Rob Ixer A total of fifteen sherds, representing the different styles of pottery recovered, were selected for petrographical analysis: one sherd of Middle Neolithic Peterborough ware (thin section sample A); nine from Beaker pots comprising six domestic Beakers (B,C,D,R,S and T) and three fine Beakers (E,F and G); three from Early Bronze Age vessels comprising two Collared Urns (H and I) and one Food vessel (J); and two from Iron Age jars (U and V). In addition the Peterborough ware sherd STALWH 95/ 3, described in the previous volume, was resampled and re-examined (see Table 19).

Most of the grog has a similar fabric to the enclosing fabric of its host pot and is mainly distinguished by differences in firing colour and orientation. In most pots one grog-type/ grog-colour predominates but in sample G and the two Collared Urns samples H and I approximately equal amounts of different grogs suggest that more than one pot had been crushed to form the temper. In four pots (samples B, R, T and G) some of the grog appears to have grog in it (grog-in-grog). The size of the grog suggests that it would have been a fine powder rather than sand size and this is similar throughout the sherds.

Each sherd was sliced and a single standard thin section made. The sherd, sliced surface and thin section were investigated using a x10 hand lens. The thin section was petrographically described using standard transmitted light microscopy methods. Multiple (four) polished thin sections were prepared from sherd STALWH 95/ 3 and investigated in both transmitted and reflected light.

Four pots (samples B, D, G and S) carry bone in addition to grog and although in sample B the amount of bone is very small, in sample D and perhaps S the amount of crushed bone suggests it is added temper.

Discussion Both Peterborough ware sherd A (watching brief 2004) and STALWH 95/ 3 have much in common and both were probably made from local clay and stone temper. The fabric in both comprises sparse, large >3mm in diameter, coarse-grained, polycrystalline quartz/ quartzite clasts set in a fine clay. Both pots are essentially monolithic, this is perhaps a little more pronounced in sherd A (2004) and hence they are likely to have been tempered. Both have much post-depositional gypsum and more than the Beaker sherds carry.

The present assemblage petrographically is very similar to the previously described Beaker sherd (Ixer 2002, 94) and very like the larger sample of Beaker material from Crick, Northamptonshire (Ixer in prep.). All the petrographically described pots from Crick are grogged and are either bone-grog- or grog-quartz-tempered wares. Some have grog-in-grog and show a number of different

Table 19: Thin sections by feature and period Sample A B C D E F G H I J R S T U V

Feature Number F205W F122W F122W F122W F122W F122W F122W F126W F300W F126W F122W F122W F122W F234M F227.03W

Feature Type Pit Pit Pit Pit Pit Pit Pit Cremation Pit Cremation Pit Cremation Pit Pit Pit Pit Ditch Ditch

Pottery Style Peterborough Ware Beaker – Vessel 1 Beaker – Vessel 5 Beaker – Vessel 2 Beaker – Vessel 7 Beaker – Vessel 8 Beaker – Vessel 9 Collared Urn Collared Urn Food Vessel Beaker – Vessel 6 Beaker – Vessel 3 Beaker – Vessel 4 Scored Ware Jar Ovoid Jar

80

Date Middle Neolithic Late Neolithic/ EBA Late Neolithic/ EBA Late Neolithic/ EBA Late Neolithic/ EBA Late Neolithic/ EBA Late Neolithic/ EBA Early Bronze Age Early Bronze Age Early Bronze Age Late Neolithic/ EBA Late Neolithic/ EBA Late Neolithic/ EBA Iron Age Iron Age

THE FINDS grog types in the same pot. In most of the sherds the grog is similar to the main fabric of the enclosing pot (suggesting that petrographically ‘exotic’ pots were not being used). Essentially all these characteristics are present in the Early Bronze Age assemblage from Whitemore Haye and it would be difficult to distinguish between the Crick and Whitemore Haye samples other than the by the fact that the Crick material lacks any postdepositional gypsum.

Introduction The pottery derived from 34 contexts, though only seven of these produced more than ten sherds. The majority was excavated from ditches, in particular Area H (Table 20). The largest groups came from recut ditch F320.02H (context 3024: 770 sherds, 3807g) and ditch F302.04H (context 3027: 172 sherds, 1616g). The pottery was abraded and more fragmentary than the groups previously published from the site (Hancocks 2002, 53); with an overall average sherd weight of 7g compared to the 20g noted by Hancocks. This may reflect different depositional processes in these areas.

Both the Iron Age jars carry rounded to angular siliceous rock clasts plus brown limonite-rich areas associated with magnetite and are probably of local manufacture. Jar U is similar to fabric 7, and jar V to fabrics 1 and 3 as defined by Woodward (2002, 47-8). Post-depositional gypsum was not recognised in either section but has been previously reported from Iron Age pots from Whitemore Haye (Ixer 2002, 96).

Methodology The pottery from the Areas D, E and H, the bulk of that discussed in this report, was recorded by Annette Hancocks. The smaller assemblage from Area M was recorded by Jane Evans. All sherds were analysed. Both specialists used the Birmingham Archaeology Roman pottery recording system, described in the archive. Fabrics were classified using the site-specific series published in the previous volume (Hancocks 2002, appendix 3, 98-100). This had been integrated into the Birmingham Archaeology Roman type fabric series (Hancocks 2002, 53) and cross-referenced to the National Roman Fabric Reference Collection (NRFRC, Tomber and Dore 1998). All sherds were analysed with a hand lens (x10), or with a microscope (x20) where felt necessary. Where possible, precise form types and broad vessel classes (for example bowl, flagon, mortarium) were both recorded. Fabrics and forms are listed and described below (Table 21, 22; Figure 54, Appendix 4). Evidence for manufacture (eg. wasters), use (eg. sooting, limescale) and repair (rivets and rivet holes) was sought. Relatively few diagnostic forms were included; rims representing only 9%, handles and bases 2% and undiagnostic body sherds 89% of the assemblage. The few rims were also fragmentary. Where possible, forms have been illustrated, by fabric. Published parallels are cited for more fragmentary rims. The assemblage was quantified by sherd count, weight and rim EVE. Minimum number of vessels was not recorded. Data for base EVEs are not published here, but are recorded in the archive. The pottery data were analysed using an Access 2000 database provided by Birmingham Archaeology.

It is worthy of note that the amount of post-depositional gypsum appears to increase with time in the ground with none or only trace amounts present in Iron Age sherds, minor to significant amounts in Bronze Age sherds but significant to abundant amounts in the Peterborough ware. This suggests that at Whitemore Haye (and perhaps elsewhere in the New Red Sandstone areas of the English Midlands) the presence of gypsum could be used as a temporal as well as a spatial indicator. THE ROMANO-BRITISH POTTERY by C. Jane Evans Summary The excavations at Whitemoor Haye yielded 1102 sherds of Romano-British pottery (7.3kg) dating broadly to the mid/ late 2nd to early 3rd centuries AD. The pottery adds to the evidence from previous excavations at the site (Hancocks 2002) and other Staffordshire sites, such as Rocester (Leary 1996), Wall (Leary 1998) and Fisherwick (Miles 1969; Smith 1979). The Whitemoor Haye assemblage, coming from a Roman rural site in an area where two ceramic traditions seem to meet, also contributes significant new data for wider, regional studies.

Table 20: Romano-British pottery: Summary by area Area D E H M Total

Qty 46 2 1015 39 1102

% Qty 4