Haughley Bends Improvements

Wessex Archaeology
A14 Haughley Bends Improvements

Archaeological Evaluation and Watching Brief Report
Ref: 60951.02 September 2007

A14 HAUGHLEY BENDS IMPROVEMENTS
Archaeological Evaluation and Watching Brief
Prepared on behalf of:
Birse Civils Ltd

500 Pavilion Drive
Northampton Business Park
Northampton
NN4 7YJ
by
Wessex Archaeology (London)

Unit 113
The Chandlery
50 Westminster Bridge Road
London
SE1 7QY
Report reference: 60951.02
September 2007
© Wessex Archaeology Limited 2007 all rights reserved
Wessex Archaeology Limited is a Registered Charity No. 287786


Contents
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................1
1.1 Scheme Background ..................................................................................1
1.2 Scheme Description ...................................................................................1
2 Archaeological background..............................................................................2
3 Mitigation strategy .............................................................................................3
3.1 Introduction.................................................................................................3
3.2 Research Framework .................................................................................3
4 Methodology ......................................................................................................4
4.1 Archaeological Trial Trenching ...................................................................4
4.2 Machine Excavation ...................................................................................4
4.3 Hand Excavation Strategy ..........................................................................5
4.4 Finds Collection ..........................................................................................5
4.5 Finds Treatment .........................................................................................5
4.6 Environmental Sampling.............................................................................5
4.7 Watching Brief ............................................................................................6
5 Results ................................................................................................................6
5.1 Introduction.................................................................................................6
5.2 Prehistoric...................................................................................................7
5.3 Late Iron Age and Romano-British .............................................................7
5.4 Saxon .........................................................................................................8
5.5 Post-Medieval and Modern.........................................................................8
5.5 Undated ......................................................................................................9
6 THE FINDS ..........................................................................................................9

7 PALAEO-ENVIRONMENTAL EVIDENCE ........................................................10
8 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................11
9 RECOMMENDATIONS .....................................................................................12
10 REFERENCE.....................................................................................................13
i
Figures
Figure 1: Site Location Plan
Figure 2: Plan of Scheme with trench locations and watching brief finds
Figure 3 Detail of Evaluation trenches 6, 7 and 8, showing pit 604 and ditch
804
Plates
Plate 1 Excavating late iron age/romano-british ditch 804
Plate 2 Watching brief working shot, note recent field boundary in foreground
Front Cover East end of route, note possible palaeochannel in foreground
Back Cover General shot of evaluation area 1
Appendix
Appendix 1 Catalogue of Trench Descriptions
Appendix 2 Catalogue of Context Descriptions (Watching Brief)
ii
Summary
In 2005 Wessex Archaeology was commissioned by Mouchel Parkman, on behalf of

the Highways Agency to undertake a review of the heritage constraints of the
Preferred Route of the A14 Improvement Proposals between Haughley New Street
and Stowmarket. The Scheme involved the closure of the present stretch of the A14
known as `the ‘Haughley Bends’, a notorious accident black spot, and the
construction of a new 4km length of dual two-lane carriageway, situated to the south
and west of the existing road, running from NGR 601284, 261759 to NGR 604287,
259825.
The review was based on a desk-based assessment of the scheme route, followed
by a geophysical survey and fieldwalking. The review identified areas for field
evaluation involving trial trenching prior to construction and proposed an
archaeological watching brief on all remaining sections of the route.
Subsequently Wessex Archaeology undertook an evaluation of two areas between

25th and 29th June 2007 and maintained a watching brief on all topsoil stripping and
intrusive groundworks between 25th June and 9th August 2007.
The natural soil sequence along the whole route comprised glacial till substrata, a
reddish brown clay that became a more bluish grey with depth, with common chalk
and flint inclusions. This was overlain by a slightly variable yellowish brown sandy
clay subsoil that varied between 0.05m and 0.50m in thickness. The subsoil sealed
two Late Iron Age or Romano-British features and one probable post-medieval
feature identified during the evaluation trenching, but was cut by several fairly
recently filled former field boundaries, suggesting that this is probably the product of
modern ploughing activity. The subsoil was in turn overlain by brownish grey silty
clay loam topsoil, between 0.30 and 0.45m thick.
Only a very low level of archaeologically significant features and deposits were
encountered during both the watching brief and the evaluation. The most significant
evidence of past land use comprises two Late Iron Age or early Romano-British
features found in the western side of Gallows Field at NGR 602450 261300. Although
only examined during the evaluation, it appears that these features possibly relate to
a small farmstead or settlement in the general area. As these features and deposits
were sealed below the sandy clay subsoil, in an area of proposed embankment, it
was possible to construct the embankment above the remains without any further
disturbance, thus preserving them in situ. The deposits relating to a possible
palaeochannel to the east of Tot Hill were also in an area of proposed embankment
and were also preserved in situ. No significant archaeological features or deposits
were encountered during the watching brief and the scheme has therefore had a
negligible impact upon the archaeology of the area.
A small assemblage of prehistoric flintwork and pottery was recovered from the
topsoil during the watching brief and residual Early Neolithic and Beaker pottery was
recovered from a Late Iron Age or Romano-British feature during the evaluation,
whilst not associated with any settlement remains, these finds attest to the prehistoric
occupation and exploitation of the area. The presence of two sherds of Saxon pottery
iii
in a probable Late Iron Age or Romano-British ditch, whilst probably intrusive,
suggests Saxon activity in the immediate area. Other remains recorded during the
evaluation and watching brief appear to represent the post-medieval and later
occupation and exploitation of the area, in the form of field boundaries, ponds and
trackways. It is uncertain whether the deposits in the base of the valley to the east of
Tot Hill represents the course of a braded channel, marshy land along the margins of
the now culverted stream or episodes of overbank flooding.
iv
Acknowledgements
Wessex Archaeology would like to thank Mouchel Parkman for commissioning the
work. The assistance given by Karlton Taylor, John Price, John Carey and Colin
Dunn, all of Birse Civils Ltd. is gratefully acknowledged. Thanks are also due to the
staff of Lancaster Earthmoving Ltd who undertook both the evaluation trenching and
topsoil stripping. The work was monitored by Jude Pluviez of Suffolk County Council
and Wessex Archaeology would like to thank her for her extremely helpful assistance
and advice.
The project was managed for Wessex Archaeology by Peter Reeves and directed in
the field by Vaughan Birbeck, assisted by Steve George, Darren Baker, Owen
Batchelor, Dorothee Facquez, Piotr Orczewski and Daniel Tarrant. This report was
compiled by Vaughan Birbeck with Lorraine Mepham (finds) and Dr Chris J. Stevens
(palaeo-environmental) and the illustrations were prepared by Will Foster.
v
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Scheme Background
1.1.1 In 2005 Wessex Archaeology was commissioned by Mouchel Parkman, on

behalf of the Highways Agency to undertake a review of the baseline data
for heritage constraints of the Preferred Route of the A14 Improvement
Proposals between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket.
1.1.2 An archaeological desk based assessment of the proposed route was

undertaken (Wessex Archaeology 2002a) and included an examination of
archaeological and historical sources including the Suffolk Sites and
Monuments Record and historical maps and documents. A geophysical
survey (WYAS 2002) and a field walking survey (Wessex Archaeology
2002b) were subsequently undertaken in autumn 2002.
1.1.3 The archaeological review of the Scheme was completed in spring 2006
and was incorporated into the Environmental Statement. The archaeological
assessment concluded that the route had a moderate potential for the
presence of archaeological deposits but a low likelihood that those
deposists would be of significant extent or importance.
1.1.4 Prior to the commencement of construction of the Scheme, Wessex

Archaeology produced an Archaeological Project Design (Wessex
Archaeology 2007) to meet the requirements of the mitigation proposals set
out in the Environmental Statement. The Design included a description of
the known archaeological resource, a research framework and detailed
proposals and methodologies for the fieldwork and post-fieldwork elements
of the archaeological mitigation strategy.
1.1.5 Subsequently Wessex Archaeology undertook a field evaluation of two

areas of archaeological potential on the route between 25th and 29th June
2007 and maintained a watching brief on all topsoil stripping and intrusive
groundworks between 25th June and 9th August 2007. This document
presents the detailed results of the evaluation and the watching brief.
1.2 Scheme Description
1.2.1 The Scheme involves the closure of the present stretch of the A14 known
as `the ‘Haughley Bends’, a notorious accident black spot, and the
construction of a new 4km length of dual two-lane carriageway, situated to
the south and west of the existing road, running from NGR 601284, 261759
to NGR 6042871, 259825 (Figure 1).
1.2.2 The route passes through arable farmland, but encroaches close to patches
of Ancient Woodland at the northern or Haughley end.
1.2.3 The topography consists of a gently rolling landscape draped along the
northern flank of an east west orientated ridge. The ridge crest is at c.50 m
1
above Ordnance Datum (aOD) dropping down to c. 35-40 m aOD to the
east of the present A14.
1.2.4 The geology of the route crosses mainly glacial till, this is overlain to the
north of the present road by calcareous clayey soils of the Hanslope
association and to the south by fine loamy over clayey soils of the Beccles 1
association. The Lowestoft till is bluish grey sandy silt clay derived largely
from Jurassic clays with erratics mainly of chalk and flint. To the north of the
area, and possibly underlying the north west limit of the proposed
improvements, the geology comprises Corton Sands, fine-medium grained
sands with sandy gravels including Scandinavian erratics.
2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND
2.1 The Scheme route has previously been subject to a staged process of
assessment and evaluation comprising desk-based assessment (Wessex
Archaeology 2002), geophysical survey (WYAS 2002) and field walking
survey (Wessex Archaeology 2002).
2.2 The geophysical survey comprised a magnetic scan of 93% of the route
followed by detailed magnetometry of approximately 20% of the route.
2.3 Field walking comprised artefact collection on a line walking basis of

approximately 75% of the route.
2.4 Collectively these assessment techniques identified a number of known and

potential archaeological resources that were impacted by the construction of
the Scheme. These comprise:
2.5 In Gallows Field a concentration of prehistoric worked flint was recovered

from field walking. A number of previous findspots of Roman material has
also been recovered from Gallows Field and the vicinity. Geophysical
survey in Gallows Field identified weak linear anomalies that may be of
modern or archaeological origin and two areas of magnetic enhancement
that were considered most likely of geological origin, although an
archaeological origin was not discounted. The field name suggests potential
for medieval or post-medieval features associated with a gallows.
2.6 Tot Hill House is Grade II Listed. Tot Hill is a name of Saxon derivation and
may indicate the location of a Saxon settlement.
2.7 The sites of two milestones are recorded along the Scheme, one of which
no longer exists and the second of which is recorded on current OS plans
but has not been located in the field.
2.8 Desk-based assessment sources identified no other previously recorded

archaeological sites within the Scheme route.
2.9 Geophysical survey in other sections of the route recorded no anomalies of

probable archaeological origin. Areas of magnetic disturbance and linear
trends were recorded but all were considered to be of modern origin. Areas
of magnetic enhancement were also present but an archaeological origin
was considered unlikely.
2
2.10 The results of field walking of other sections of the route recovered only rare
pieces of worked flint and occasional post-medieval finds.
2.11 The Environmental Statement concluded that there was a low probability
that the Scheme contained unproven features of significant extent or
importance.
3 MITIGATION STRATEGY
3.1 Introduction
3.1.1 In view of the of the known and potential archaeological resource along the
Scheme, the following mitigation strategy was designed to ensure the
appropriate investigation and recording of the archaeological resource along
the route that would unavoidably be disturbed or damaged by its
construction.
3.1.2 Two areas within Gallows Fields were proposed for field evaluation through
trial trenching in advance of construction. The two areas correspond to the
location of concentrations of prehistoric worked flint recovered during the
field walking, the location of geophysical anomalies possibly of
archaeological origin and the proximity of findspots of Roman material.
3.1.3 An area close to Tot Hill was also to be subject to field evaluation through
trial trenching in advance of construction. The area proposed for evaluation
was that closest to the existing settlement at Tot Hill. However this area was
not subsequently evaluated due to access issues relating to nesting birds
and this area was subsequently subject to a watching brief during
construction.
3.1.4 In view of the low potential in the remaining sections of the route, a
watching brief was to be undertaken during those elements of the
construction programme throughout the Scheme, including all associated
off-site works, that had the potential to uncover unexpected archaeological
discoveries.
3.1.5 Subject to the findings of the field evaluation and watching brief, provision
was made for further mitigation which may have comprised preservation in
situ where the Scheme proposals allow, or preservation by record through
excavation, a strip, map and record exercise, or other mitigation as
considered appropriate.
3.1.6 A milestone, whose presence is unverified, was proposed for recovery and
relocation but does not form part of this scheme of works and was dealt with
separately by Birse Civils.
3.2 Research Framework
3.2.1 The basis of the mitigation strategy was to identify and mitigate potential
impacts on the archaeological and historic environment. On the basis of the
known archaeological and historic potential of the Scheme, three principal
research themes were identified:
- the changing environment of the area as revealed by the analysis of palaeo-

environmental remains,
3
- the prehistoric settlement pattern and usage of the area, and
- the establishment and development of field systems from the medieval period
onwards.
4 METHODOLOGY
4.1 Archaeological Trial Trenching
4.1.1 Archaeological trial trenching was used to establish the extent and nature of
archaeological remains within areas of archaeological potential, to
determine the character, date, integrity and state of preservation.
4.1.2 A total of 22 trenches, each 20m in length and 1.8m in width were originally
proposed, comprising a 5% sample of 3 areas, two in Gallows Field and one
at Tot Hill. This was reduced to 15 trenches in two areas in Gallows Field.
The proposed evaluation at Tot Hill could not be undertaken due to nesting
skylarks in the area. This area was subsequently examined, once access
was available, as a watching brief.
4.1.3 Trial trenches were laid out in advance using GPS, to an accuracy of within
r 100mm. The final locations of some of the trial trenches were adjusted in
the field to take account of any site hazards or obstructions; for example to
avoid excavation beneath overhead cables, close to known services, or to
preserve known land drains.
4.1.4 Where geophysical survey has been carried out, approximately half of the
trial trenches were targeted on features identified by the geophysical survey
as showing potential for archaeological remains. The remaining trenches
were located within areas identified by the geophysical survey as having low
or no archaeological potential, to test the reliability of the geophysical
survey.
4.1.5 The general trial trenching objectives were:
x To identify the presence/ absence of buried archaeological remains;
x To determine (where possible) the nature, depth, extent, character and date
of any archaeological deposits or features encountered;
x To determine the condition or state of preservation of any archaeological

deposits or features encountered;
x To determine the likely range, quality and quantity of artefactual and

environmental evidence present;
x To test the interpretations of anomalies identified by geophysical survey;
x To determine the significance of any archaeological remains present.

4.2 Machine Excavation
4.2.1 All machine excavation (by 360 excavator) was carried out under constant
archaeological supervision. All machining was carried out using a toothless
ditching bucket in discrete level spits of approximately 0.2m maximum
depth, with topsoil and subsoil stored separately adjacent to each trench. All
trial trenches were machine-excavated to the upper surface of significant
4
archaeological features and/or deposits or the surface of in situ solid or drift
geology, whichever was encountered first. Potential archaeological features
or deposits were cleaned by hand to ensure the confident identification and
extent of archaeological remains.
4.3 Hand Excavation Strategy
4.3.1 All features encountered within the trial trenching were cleaned by hand and
a sufficient sample, in line with minimum requirements from Suffolk County
Council, were excavated from identified archaeological features (e.g.
ditches, pits, post-holes etc.) to fulfil the aims and objectives of that stage of
fieldwork.
4.3.2 Where significant archaeological remains were encountered, the

requirements were reviewed following on-site discussions with the
archaeological monitoring team, to ensure that the project aims and
objectives were met.
4.3.3 Metal detectors were used to scan archaeological features prior to and
during excavation, and to scan spoil heaps. All archaeological remains were
recorded in plan using electronic survey equipment and tied in to the
national grid. Full written, drawn and photographic records were made of all
archaeological features. Plans, sections and elevations of archaeological
features and deposits were drawn as necessary at an appropriate scale
(normally 1:10 or 1:20). Drawings were made in pencil on permanent
drafting film. Written records were made using pro-forma record sheets,
following the Wessex Archaeology recording system.
4.3.4 Photographs were taken as necessary to produce a photographic record

consisting of monochrome prints and colour transparencies. Digital images
were also taken to support report preparation but did not replace archive
standard material.
4.4 Finds Collection
4.4.1 All objects relating to human exploitation of the area that were exposed in
the course of the fieldwork were recovered. All recovered objects were
retained unless they were undoubtedly of modern or recent origin. The
presence of modern objects was, however, noted on context records.
4.5 Finds Treatment
4.5.1 All finds were processed in accordance with the Institute of Field
Archaeologists’ Standard and Guidance for the collection, documentation,
conservation and research of archaeological materials. All artefacts were,
as a minimum, washed, marked, counted, weighed and identified.
4.6 Environmental Sampling
4.6.1 Provision was made for the bulk sampling of appropriate archaeological
deposits recorded during the fieldwork investigation for artefactual,
economic and environmental data.
4.6.2 The environmental sampling strategy followed the guidance set out in
Environmental Archaeology: a guide to the theory and practice of methods,
5
from sampling and recovery to post-excavation (English Heritage 2002), the
minimum environmental requirements from Suffolk County Council and the
advice of the English Heritage advisor for archaeological science.
4.6.3 Bulk samples were processed by standard flotation methods. Flots were
retained on a 0.25mm mesh and the residues fractionated into 4mm, 2mm,
1mm and 0.5mm fractions, as advised by the appropriate environmental
specialist, and dried. The coarse fractions (>4mm) were sorted, weighed
and discarded; any artefacts or animal bone were extracted and retained.
The flots were scanned under a x10 - x30 stereo-binocular microscope and
the presence of charred remains quantified, to record the preservation and
nature of the charred plant and charcoal remains.
4.7 Watching Brief
4.7.1 A watching brief is an archaeological attendance before or during

construction. It is intended to provide the opportunity to record
archaeological features or deposits or areas deemed to contain a low
potential for archaeological remains and which were not covered by
mitigation in the form of excavation. All recording, survey and sampling
followed the same methodology as that used during machine excavation.
4.7.2 The general watching brief objectives were to allow the preservation by
record of archaeological deposits or features.
5 RESULTS
5.1 Introduction
5.1.1 Trench descriptions, giving brief soil and feature descriptions are presented
in Appendix 1; context numbers used during the watching brief, along with
brief descriptions are presented in Appendix 2. More detailed records are
available in the site archive. In general there was a very low level of
archaeology along the route with only a few archaeological features located
by evaluation trenching and very few archaeologically significant finds
recovered during the watching brief (Figure 2). During the evaluation
weather conditions and feature visibility was good (Plate 1); although
conditions during the watching brief were more variable, as work continued
in all but the heaviest rain and the constant movement of vehicles could
damage and obscure features (Plate 2), however, as all work was
monitored by suitably experienced archaeologists it is unlikely that any
significant archaeological features or deposits were overlooked.
5.1.2 The natural soil sequence along the whole route comprised glacial till
substrata, a reddish brown clay that became a more bluish grey with depth,
with common chalk and flint inclusions. This was overlain by a slightly
variable yellowish brown sandy clay subsoil that varied between 0.05m and
0.50m in thickness. The subsoil sealed the two Late Iron Age or Romano-
British features and one probable post-medieval feature identified during the
evaluation trenching, but was cut by several fairly recently filled former field
boundaries, suggesting that this is probably the product of modern
ploughing activity. The subsoil was in turn overlain by brownish grey silty
clay loam topsoil, between 0.30 and 0.45m thick.
6
5.2 Prehistoric
5.2.1 A small assemblage of worked flint, comprising four flakes and one scraper,
was recovered from the topsoil during the watching brief towards the north-
west of the route in a localised area around NGR 602050 261625 (Figure 2,
(100)). Despite careful hand cleaning of the exposed surface in the vicinity
of the findspot no features or deposits of archaeological significance were
located. Although not closely datable and not associated with any
subsurface features, this small assemblage attests to prehistoric activity in
the general area. All of the flintwork displayed some edge damage
consistent with its topsoil provenance.
5.2.2 Of the 60 sherds of pottery recovered from pit 604 during the evaluation
(Figure 3), a group of 14 sherds, all in relatively fine flint-tempered fabrics,
differed significantly from the rest of the assemblage. Although the fabrics
were not chronologically distinctive, two rim sherds and a decorated body
sherd were; the two rim sherds were identified as Early Neolithic, within the
range of decorated types with a date range of c.3600-3300 BC (Gibson
2002, 70). On the basis of similarity of fabric type, the plain body sherds
within this group have also been dated as Early Neolithic, but the single
decorated body sherd, which is fully oxidised, in contrast to the other
sherds, is from an early Bronze Age Beaker vessel. Although clearly
residual within the pit fill, the relative absence of abrasion suggests little
post-depositional movement.
5.2.3 A very small assemblage of later prehistoric pottery, probably of Late

Bronze Age date, was recovered from the topsoil in the north-western part
of the route in a localised area around NGR 602250 261450, along with a
single sherd of Romano-British pottery (Figure 2, (101)). Although the area
around the findspot was carefully hand cleaned following topsoil removal,
no archaeologically significant features or deposits were identified.
5.3 Late Iron Age and Romano-British
5.3.1 Two features, a broad, shallow ditch and a small pit, both of Late Iron Age
or early Romano-British date were encountered in evaluation trenches 6
and 8, in the western side of Gallows Field (Figure 3). The small pit (604)
encountered in trench 6 was sub-circular in shape, approximately 1m in
diameter and 0.23m deep with moderately steep, irregular sides and an
irregular base. The single dark greyish brown silty clay fill of this feature
(605), which was clearly sealed below the 0.30m thick subsoil in this area,
produced a fairly large assemblage of Late Iron Age or early Romano-
British pottery in grog-tempered and sandy fabrics, including rim sherds
from a necked and cordoned jar, which have a broad date range of 1st
century BC to 1st century AD.. The same feature also produced a small
assemblage of Early Neolithic date (flint-tempered fabrics, including two rim
sherds), and one Beaker sherd.
5.3.2 A broad, shallow ditch (804), aligned approximately north-west to south-

east, was recorded in trench 8. This was 2.80m wide and 0.35m deep with
irregular sides and base and was filled with a single dark greyish brown silty
clay fill (805). As with pit 604, the ditch was also sealed below the 0.30m
thick subsoil in this area. This feature also produced a moderate
assemblage of Late Iron Age or Early Romano-British pottery, along with
two sherds of probable Saxon date, which are assumed to be intrusive here.
7
5.3.3 Bulk environmental samples were taken from the pit fill (sample 1) and the
ditch fill (sample 2) in order to address questions relating to their possible
function and the wider environment in which they were used. Analysis of the
environmental remains recovered from these samples indicated that these
features were unlikely to have been within a settlement and were more
probably peripheral to settlement or even remote from it.
5.3.4 Both of the Late Iron Age or Early Romano-British features were sealed
below at least 0.30m of subsoil and as they were in an area where the
proposed road would be on an embankment a decision was made to
preserve these remains in situ. The topsoil was removed under constant
archaeological supervision, to the upper surface of the subsoil, using a large
mechanical excavator fitted with a toothless bucket. As no significant
archaeological features were visible, the level in this area was then raised to
form the embankment, ensuring that no damage was done to the known
remains.
5.4 Saxon
5.4.1 No features or deposits of clearly Saxon date were encountered during

either the evaluation or the watching brief; however, two pottery sherds from
ditch 804 were in an organic-tempered fabric characteristic of the Early/Mid
Saxon period. It is uncertain whether ditch 804 was of Saxon date, with a
moderate assemblage of residual Romano-British material (9 sherds), or
was of Romano-British date with two sherds of intrusive Saxon pottery.
Given the Romano-British activity in the near vicinity, represented by the pit
in trench 6, it is assumed that ditch 804 is more likely to be of Romano-
British date, although the intrusive Saxon material attests to the utilisation of
this area during that period.
5.5 Post-Medieval and Modern
5.5.1 Although undated, two ditches encountered during the evaluation in

trenches 4 and 10 (404 and 1004) were presumed to be of post-medieval or
modern date; the ditch in trench 4 probably represents a recently filled
former field boundary depicted on recent OS mapping and was sealed
below the sandy clay subsoil. The ditch in trench 10 (Figure 2), which was
also recorded during the watching brief, along with a second parallel ditch,
approximately 5m to the east, almost certainly represents a flanking ditch to
a small trackway, depicted on OS mapping in 1889 (1st edition), but not on
any subsequent OS maps. These trackway ditches were at least partially
sealed below the sandy clay subsoil, suggesting that this deposit has
developed fairly recently.
5.5.2 Several other recently filled former field boundaries, all depicted on recent
OS mapping, were recorded during the watching brief. The majority of these
contained modern glass, brick and tile fragments and, in one case, plastic
fertiliser sacks.
5.5.3 A large, clearly modern, feature was recorded in evaluation trench 14;
during the watching brief this was seen to comprise a sub-circular feature,
approximately 25m in diameter, filled with redeposited natural clay with
common modern inclusions, such as beer cans, plastic sheeting and
frogged bricks. Discussion with the farmer revealed that this was a former
8
pond, depicted on recent OS mapping, that had been deliberately backfilled
in the 1970s.
5.5.4 At Tot Hill, a very substantial deposit of redeposited natural clay with
occasional modern brick and tile inclusions was found to cover the majority
of the broad ridge crossed by the route at this point. Excavation showed that
this was up to 1.50m thick and overlay an original topsoil deposit. It is
probable that this deposit represents dumping associated with the
construction of the present A14, which lies in a cutting approximately 50m to
the north-east, in the 1960s.
5.6 Undated
5.6.1 In the base of a small valley, immediately to the south-east of Tot Hill, the
watching brief recorded the presence of a broad linear deposit,
approximately 40m wide, of dark brownish grey silty clay subsoil with sparse
charcoal inclusions across the base of the approximately east-west valley
(Figure 2). Where this deposit was cut by a small, culverted stream it was
seen to be 0.40m thick, overlay the natural substrata and was overlain by a
narrower (c. 5m wide) deposit of pale grey sandy clay, 0.20m thick. As this
area of the route was to be built on an embankment, no further excavation
was undertaken and the deposits were preserved in situ.
5.6.2 It seems likely that these deposits represent the former course of the now
culverted stream. Early OS mapping (1889) depicts the area in the base of
the valley as a series of small enclosures aligned along the base of the
valley, possibly indicating that, prior to culverting, the stream was far wider,
or perhaps merely prone to flooding; the land in the base of the valley being
more marginal was enclosed in the series of small fields, away from the
more productive, or more easily farmed land of the valley sides.
6 THE FINDS
6.1 Finds were recovered from two contexts during the evaluation – from the fill
of pit 604 (fill 605), and the fill of ditch 804 (fill 805) – and from two topsoil
contexts during the watching brief. The quantification for these finds is
presented by material type in Table 1. The assemblage includes material of
prehistoric, Romano-British and Saxon date.
Prehistoric
6.2 Of particular interest is the group of sherds from pit 604. This included 14
sherds, all in relatively fine flint-tempered fabrics. The fabrics themselves are
not particularly chronologically distinctive, but there are three diagnostic
sherds - two rim sherds and one decorated body sherd. The larger of the
two rim sherds is thickened and everted, with a slightly flattened top; the
form is open, and there is a vestigial carination below the rim, carrying
impressed dot decoration. The smaller rim sherd is of similar form but
probably derives from a second vessel; slight transverse ‘fluting’ is visible on
the rim. The form of these two sherds serves to identify them as Early
Neolithic, within the range of decorated types with a date range of c.3600-
3300 (Gibson 2002, 70). On the basis of similarity of fabric type, the plain
body sherds within this group have also been dated as Early Neolithic, but
the single decorated body sherd, which is full oxidised, in contrast to the
other sherds, is from an early Bronze Age Beaker vessel. These early
prehistoric sherds occurred residually in this context, accompanied by early
9
Romano-British wares, although the relative absence of abrasion, on the
Early Neolithic sherds at least, suggests little post-depositional movement.
6.3 Three flint-tempered sherds recovered during the watching brief (101) are
coarser, and are more characteristic of the later prehistoric period, probably
the Late Bronze Age.
6.4 Other prehistoric finds comprise five pieces of worked flint, recovered from
the topsoil during the watching brief. These comprise four flakes and one
scraper, all showing some edge damage commensurate with their topsoil
provenance. These pieces cannot be closely dated within the prehistoric
period, and have been assigned to a broad date range of Neolithic/Bronze
Age.
Romano-British
6.5 The remaining 46 sherds from pit 604 are of Late Iron Age or early Romano-
British date (1st to early 2nd century AD), comprising sherds from necked and
cordoned jars in grog-tempered and sandy fabrics. Further grog-tempered
and greyware sherds from the watching brief (topsoil) and from pit 804 are
not diagnostic, and are broadly dated as Late Iron Age/Romano-British.
Saxon
6.6 Two sherds from ditch 804 are in an organic-tempered fabric characteristic
of the early/mid Saxon period.
6.7 Other finds, all from pit 604, are of uncertain date; these comprise a few
small fragments of burnt animal bone, an unidentified iron object, and three
small, abraded fragments of fired clay.
Table 1: All finds by context (number / weight in grammes)

Animal Prehist. LIA/RB Saxon Worked Other
Context Description Bone Pottery Pottery Pottery Flint Finds
W/brief Unstratified -
100 finds - - - - 5/63
W/brief Unstratified -
101 finds - 3/12 1/4 -
Evaluation 1 iron;
Fill of pit 3 fired
605 604 15/3 14/87 46/171 - - clay
Evaluation Fill of ditch -
805 804 - - 9/24 2/16 -
TOTALS 15/3 17/99 56/199 2/16 5/63
7 PALAEO-ENVIRONMENTAL EVIDENCE
7.1 Two bulk samples were taken during the project, one from pit 604 and one
from ditch 804. The samples were processed by standard flotation methods
and assessed for charred plant remains and other environmental material.
The results are presented in Table 2.
7.2 The flots were generally small, with high numbers of roots and modern
seeds. As such there is some possibility of contamination of the samples by
both younger and older material through stratigraphic movement.
7.3 Only a single charred seed of clover (Trifolium sp.) was recovered from the
sample from ditch 604. No remains of cereals were recovered. Remains of
10
chaff and grains of hulled wheats are common finds within Iron Age and
Roman settlements in England, usually associated with domestic activities
and settlement. The absence of such material from these features may then
indicate either that settlement activity is generally short-lived or absent from
the area, and/or that the features are only peripheral to such areas.
7.4 Charcoal was noted from the flots of the bulk samples and is recorded in
Table 2. As with the charred plant remains, charcoal was generally poorly
represented within the samples. While the samples looked relatively dark
and charcoal rich in the field, under the reasonable amount of root action
noted above, wood charcoal will readily fragment into finer fractions that
pass through the 0.5mm sieve.
Table 2. Assessment of the charred plant remains and charcoal

Flot Residue
Feature Context Samp size flot Grain Chaff Charre Seeds Charcoal Other Charcoal
type/no le litre size other >4/2mm >5.6mm
s ml
Trench 6 Late Iron Age/Early Romano-British
70
Pit 604 605 1 10 20 - - C 1x Trifolium 3/2ml - -
Trench 8 Late Iron Age/Early Romano-British (intrusive? E-M Saxon)
Ditch 804 805 2 10 20 80 - - - - 0/0.2ml - -
KEY: A** = exceptional, A* = 30+ items, A = t10 items, B = 9 - 5 items, C = < 5 items, (h) = hazelnuts, smb = small
mammal bones; Moll-t = terrestrial molluscs Moll-f = freshwater molluscs; Analysis: C = charcoal, P = plant, M =
molluscs, C14 = radiocarbon suggestions
NOTE: 1flot is total, but flot in superscript = % of rooty material. 2Unburnt seed is in lower case to distinguish it from
charred remains
8 CONCLUSIONS
8.1 Only a very low level of archaeologically significant features and deposits
were encountered during both the watching brief and the evaluation. The
most significant evidence of past land use comprises the two Late Iron Age
or Early Romano-British features found in the western side of Gallows Field.
Although only examined during the evaluation, it appears that these
features possibly relate to a small farmstead or settlement in the general
area. As these features and deposits were sealed below the sandy clay
subsoil, in an area of proposed embankment, it was possible to construct
the embankment above the remains without any disturbance, thus
preserving them in situ. The deposits relating to a possible palaeochannel to
the east of Tot Hill were also in an area of proposed embankment and were
also preserved in situ. No significant archaeological features or deposits
were encountered during the watching brief and the scheme has therefore
had a negligible impact upon the archaeology of the area.
8.2 The small assemblage of prehistoric flintwork and pottery recovered from
the topsoil during the watching brief, and the residual Early Neolithic and
Beaker pottery recovered from a later feature during the evaluation, whilst
not associated with any settlement remains, attests to the prehistoric
occupation and exploitation of the area. The relatively unabraded condition
of these sherds suggests very little movement prior to their redeposition
within the Late Iron Age or Romano-British pit. The presence of two sherds
of Saxon pottery in ditch 804, whilst probably intrusive, suggests Saxon
activity in the immediate area. Although the majority of the pottery
recovered from ditch 804 was of Late Iron Age or Romano-British date, it is
11
possible that these may have derived from the possible nearby settlement
and the ditch is actually Saxon in date.
8.3 Other remains recorded during the evaluation and watching brief appear to
represent the post-medieval and later occupation and exploitation of the
area. It is uncertain whether the deposits in the base of the valley to the
east of Tot Hill represents the course of a braded channel, marshy land
along the margins of the now culverted stream or episodes of overbank
flooding.
9 RECOMMENDATIONS
9.1 In view of the limited results of the archaeological project for the A14
Haughley Bends Improvement, no further analysis of the results is
proposed. A copy of this report will be submitted for inclusion in the Suffolk
Sites and Monuments Record. A note on the results will be published in an
appropriate local archaeological journal and the project archive, including
the finds, will be deposited with the Colchester and Ipswich Museum
Service in due course.
12
10 REFERENCES
Gibson, A., 2002, Prehistoric Pottery in Britain and Ireland, Stroud: Tempus
Wessex Archaeology 2002a. A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement:

Archaeological Desk-based Assessment. Unpublished Client Report,
reference 50722.1
Wessex Archaeology 2002b, A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement:

Archaeological Fieldwalking Survey. Unpublished Client Report, reference
51611.1
Wessex Archaeology 2007. A14 Haughley Bends Improvements: Archaeological

Project Design. Unpublished Client Report, reference 60951.01
WYAS 2002, A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvements, Suffolk:

Geophysical Survey. West Yorkshire Archaeological Services Unpublished
Client Report.
13
APPENDIX 1: Catalogue of Trench Descriptions
TRENCH - 1 NGR: 60235 261385

Dimensions – 20m x 2.2m Ground Level – 52.40m OD
Context Description Depth
No.
101 Mid-dark brownish grey silty clay loam topsoil with abundant sub- 0-0.29m
rounded pebble inclusions.
102 Mid yellowish brown sandy clay subsoil with sparse pebble 0.29-0.39m
inclusions.
103 Mid reddish brown clay with abundant stone inclusions. Natural 0.39m+
glacial till substrata.
TRENCH – 2 NGR: 602345 261380

No.
inclusions.
TRENCH - 3 NGR: 602360 261360

Dimensions – 18m x 2.2m Ground Level –49.80m OD
No.
inclusions.
TRENCH - 4 NGR: 602385 261345

No.
inclusions.
404 Approximately north-south orientated ditch, 1.10m wide and 0.65m 0.70-1.35m
deep with moderately steep, concave sides and a concave base.
Filled with 405, cuts natural substrata. Probable field boundary
shown on recent OS mapping.
405 Dark reddish brown silty clay fill of ditch 404. Sealed below subsoil 0.70-1.35m
402. No finds recovered.
14
TRENCH - 5 NGR: 602400 261330
No.
inclusions.
TRENCH - 6 NGR: 602420 261320

No.
inclusions.
604 Small, sub-circular pit, approximately 1m in diameter and 0.23m 0.62-0.85m
deep with moderately steep, irregular sides and an irregular base.
Cuts natural substrata 603, filled with 605
605 Dark greyish brown silty clay with abundant angular flint inclusions; 0.62-0.85m
fill of pit 604. Sealed below subsoil 602. Late Iron Age and early
Romano-British pottery recovered. Bulk environmental sample
(sample 1) taken for plant macrofossils and charcoal.
TRENCH - 7 NGR: 602445 261290

No.
inclusions.
TRENCH - 8 NGR: 602460 261270

Dimensions –20m x 2.2m Ground Level – 49.10m OD
No.
inclusions.
804 Approximately north-west to south-east orientated ditch, 1.0m wide 0.55-0.90m
and 0.35m deep with irregular sides and base. Cuts natural
substrata 803, filled with 805.
805 Dark greyish brown silty clay with abundant angular flint inclusions; 0.55-0.90m
fill of ditch 804. Sealed below subsoil 802. Late Iron Age and early
Romano-British pottery recovered. Bulk environmental sample
(sample 2) taken for plant macrofossils and charcoal.
15
TRENCH – 9 NGR: 602580 261175
No.
inclusions.
TRENCH - 10 NGR: 602600 261165

Dimensions – 20m x 2.2mm Ground Level –51.40m OD
No.
inclusions.
1004 Approximately north-east to south-west orientated ditch, 1.40m wide 0.67-1.02m
and 0.35m deep with moderately steep concave sides and a
concave base. Cuts natural substrata, filled with 1005. Probable
flanking ditch of trackway/green lane, which is still extant to the
south-west.
1005 Mid reddish brown silty clay fill of ditch 1004, probably derived from 0.67-1.02m
gradual silting. Sealed below subsoil 1002.
TRENCH - 11 NGR: 602615 261150

No.
inclusions.
TRENCH - 12 NGR: 602635 261135

No.
inclusions.
16
TRENCH - 13 NGR: 602650 261125
No.
inclusions.
TRENCH - 14 NGR: 602665 261110

No.
1401 Mid-dark brownish grey silty clay loam topsoil with abundant sub- 0-0.28
inclusions.
1404 Very large modern feature, probably a backfilled pond depicted on 0.28m+
recent OS mapping, fills almost entire trench. Not excavated, cuts
subsoil 1402, filled with 1405.
1405 Very mixed dark greyish brown-pale grey silty clay fill of feature 0.28m+
1404. Contained modern bottles, plastics and bricks. Not excavated.
TRENCH - 15 NGR: 602685 261095

Dimensions –20m x 2.2m Ground Level – 51.40m OD
No.
inclusions.
1504 Shallow, irregular feature, 1m+ long, 0.5m+ wide and 0.18m deep 0.63-0.81m
with irregular sides and base, probable recent tree root disturbance.
Cuts natural substrata 1503, filled with 1505.
1505 Mid reddish brown silty clay fill of probable root disturbance 1504. 0.63-0.81m
Contained probable in-situ root remains, but no datable finds.
Sealed below subsoil 1502.
17
APPENDIX 2: Catalogue of Context Descriptions (Watching Brief)
Context Description
No.
100 No. allocated to topsoil finds around NGR 602050 261625
101 No. allocated to topsoil finds around NGR 602250 261450
102 Dark brownish grey silty clay. Possible fill of palaeochannel at NGR 603650 260350
103 Pale grey sandy clay. Possible fill of palaeochannel at NGR 603650 260350
104 Cut of modern field boundary depicted on recent OS mapping.
105 Dark greyish brown silty clay fill of 104. Modern brick and plastics noted, but not
recovered. Not excavated.
106 Probable ditch flanking trackway; encountered in trench 10 of evaluation (60951/1004).
Not excavated.
107 Fill of 106. Not excavated.
108 Probable ditch flanking trackway; parallel to 106, some 5m to the north-west. Not
excavated.
109 Fill of ditch 108.
110 Cut of modern field boundary aligned approximately east-west depicted on recent OS
mapping.
111 Mid brownish grey silty clay fill of 110. Modern brick and plastic noted, but not
112 Cut of modern field boundary aligned approximately north-south depicted on recent OS
mapping. Appears contemporary with ditch 110. Not excavated.
113 Mid brownish grey silty clay fill of 110. Modern bottles and brick noted, but not
114 Cut of poss. Palaeochannel, c. 40m wide running approximately N-S across easement
in base of valley. Filled with 102 and 103.
18
BASE TR05
BASE TR06
Tr5
Pit 604
Tr6
BASE TR07
Tr7
Ditch 804
Tr8
BASE TR08
Evaluation Areas
0 10 20m
Date: 24/09/07 Revision Number: 0
Digital data supplied by client Scale: 1:500 Illustrator: WAF

Wessex This material is for client report only © Wessex Archaeology.
Archaeology No unauthorised reproduction. Path: Y:\PROJECTS\60952\DO\Report Figures (y-m)\Evaluation\07_09_21\60952_Eval_Fig02.dwg
Detail of Evaluation trenches 6, 7 and 8 showing pit 604 and ditch 804 Figure 3
Plate 1: Excavating Late Iron Age or Romano-British Ditch
Plate 2: Watching Brief working shot; note recent field ditch in foreground
Date: 26/09/07 Revision Number:
Scale: Illustrator: WAF

Wessex
Archaeology Path: Y:\PROJECTS\60952\Drawing Office\Report Figures (y-m)\Evaluation\07_09_21\Plates.ai
Plates 1 and 2
WESSEX ARCHAEOLOGY LTD.
Head Office: Portway House, Old Sarum Park, Salisbury, Wiltshire SP4 6EB.
Tel: 01722 326867 Fax: 01722 337562 info@wessexarch.co.uk www.wessexarch.co.uk
London Office: Unit 701, The Chandlery, 50 Westminster Bridge Road, London SE1 7QY.
Tel:020 7953 7494 Fax: 020 7953 7499 london-info@wessexarch.co.uk www.wessexarch.co.uk
Registered Charity No. 287786. A company with limited liability registered in England No. 1712772

Haughley Bends Improvements

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Haughley Bends Improvements

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Haughley Bends Improvements

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wessex Archaeology

A14 Haughley Bends Improvements

Ref: 60951.02 September 2007

Archaeological Evaluation and Watching Brief

Prepared on behalf of:

Birse Civils Ltd

Wessex Archaeology (London)

Report reference: 60951.02

© Wessex Archaeology Limited 2007 all rights reserved

Wessex Archaeology Limited is a Registered Charity No. 287786

Archaeological Evaluation and Watching Brief

6 THE FINDS ..........................................................................................................9

Archaeological Evaluation and Watching Brief

Archaeological Evaluation and Watching Brief

In 2005 Wessex Archaeology was commissioned by Mouchel Parkman, on behalf of

Subsequently Wessex Archaeology undertook an evaluation of two areas between

Archaeological Evaluation and Watching Brief

Archaeological Evaluation and Watching Brief

1.1 Scheme Background

1.1.1 In 2005 Wessex Archaeology was commissioned by Mouchel Parkman, on

1.1.2 An archaeological desk based assessment of the proposed route was

1.1.4 Prior to the commencement of construction of the Scheme, Wessex

1.1.5 Subsequently Wessex Archaeology undertook a field evaluation of two

1.2 Scheme Description

2.3 Field walking comprised artefact collection on a line walking basis of

2.4 Collectively these assessment techniques identified a number of known and

2.5 In Gallows Field a concentration of prehistoric worked flint was recovered

2.8 Desk-based assessment sources identified no other previously recorded

2.9 Geophysical survey in other sections of the route recorded no anomalies of

3.2 Research Framework

- the changing environment of the area as revealed by the analysis of palaeo-

4.1 Archaeological Trial Trenching

4.1.5 The general trial trenching objectives were:

x To identify the presence/ absence of buried archaeological remains;

x To determine the condition or state of preservation of any archaeological

x To determine the likely range, quality and quantity of artefactual and

x To test the interpretations of anomalies identified by geophysical survey;

x To determine the significance of any archaeological remains present.

4.3 Hand Excavation Strategy

4.3.2 Where significant archaeological remains were encountered, the

4.3.4 Photographs were taken as necessary to produce a photographic record

4.4 Finds Collection

4.5 Finds Treatment

4.6 Environmental Sampling

4.7 Watching Brief

4.7.1 A watching brief is an archaeological attendance before or during

5.2.3 A very small assemblage of later prehistoric pottery, probably of Late

5.3 Late Iron Age and Romano-British

5.3.2 A broad, shallow ditch (804), aligned approximately north-west to south-

5.4.1 No features or deposits of clearly Saxon date were encountered during

5.5 Post-Medieval and Modern

5.5.1 Although undated, two ditches encountered during the evaluation in

Table 1: All finds by context (number / weight in grammes)

Table 2. Assessment of the charred plant remains and charcoal

Wessex Archaeology 2002a. A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement:

Wessex Archaeology 2002b, A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement:

Wessex Archaeology 2007. A14 Haughley Bends Improvements: Archaeological

WYAS 2002, A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvements, Suffolk:

TRENCH - 1 NGR: 60235 261385

TRENCH – 2 NGR: 602345 261380